Monday, July 15, 2013

Snowden and Gore: Inconvenient Inconveniences

Edward Snowden is a Show-Off and Al Gore is Fat!

by Peter Lee - China Matters

There are interesting parallels between the liberal disgruntlement with Edward Snowden (typified by Melissa Harris-Perry’s anti-Snowden screed on MSNBC) and the right’s beatdown of Al Gore’s physique and carbon footprint on the global warming issue.

The argument seems to be, unless the bearer of unwelcome tidings can demonstrate 100% plaster sainthood to his or her most dyspeptic critics, the message is not worth heeding.

Or, in a somewhat more generous framing, if somebody is trying to tell us about behavior that is immoral and short-sighted, the messenger must meet our personal standards of rectitude in order to be taken seriously.

Maybe, if someone threatens to discredit a worldview, they have to offer—and exemplify—something better. More pointedly, if you are going to discredit my worldview, you are going to have to prove to me that you are better than me.

I can see how global warming presented a challenge to the conservative worldview that had to be beaten back by any means necessary, including disparaging Al Gore.

After all, if it was accepted that unrestrained human activity could ruin the planet, that was a pretty striking indictment of god and the free market and made a pretty good case for running the global show through science and government intervention instead.

As for Edward Snowden, I don’t quite get it.

Maybe if it was accepted that unrestrained US government activity could ruin the planet, that was a pretty striking indictment of neo-liberalism and globalization and made a pretty good case for running the global show through a class-based adversarial critique of global and national elites instead.

Or maybe Edward Snowden simply revealed some whacked-out surveillance shit that everybody should be happy to know about.

I’ll leave that question for the philosophers.

While I’m going Andy Rooney on the blogosphere, I am also struck that I have not seen any discussions of the interesting parallels between the collusion of the Egyptian military, deep state, and business and popular opponents of Morsi to foment a coup through a manufactured economic and political crisis…

…and the infamous Venezuelan toilet paper shortage.

The Venezuelan TP shortage always had a whiff of opposition/US psyops to me: an economic/market glitch that would humiliate and discredit the Madero regime in its relationship with the people of Venezuela in the most fundamental (yes, I said, fundamental), intimate, and potentially infuriating issue of all: the pressing, inescapable need to get crap off one’s ass.

How about it, American media. Care to expose some neoliberal skullduggery against a disliked regime before the coup happens?...or is it too difficult to confront (cue fiendish laugh)………..an inconvenient truth?

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Ireland's Annual Carnivals of Pride and Hate

In Northern Ireland - A Grotesque Carnivals of Vilification

by Finian Cunningham

To many people around the world, the violence in Northern Ireland this weekend may seem incomprehensible. After all, it is nearly 15 years since the political conflict in the British province of Ireland was officially declared over, with the signing of the.

That agreement was meant to signal the peaceful end of a nearly 30-year conflict that cost the lives of more than 3,000 people, which proportionate to the population of Northern Ireland represented a huge number of deaths.

Now it appears that street violence has once again returned with scenes over the weekend from the main city Belfast looking like a war zone. Dozens of policemen were injured in riots, properties and vehicles were set ablaze, family homes were targeted by petrol bombs and hundreds of police reserves had to be flown in from England, Scotland and Wales to back up the overstretched security forces.

Adding to the bewilderment of observers is that the rioting crowds are supporters of a seemingly arcane institution called the Orange Order. Their members dress with strange-looking orange-coloured sashes, wear quaint black bowler hats and carry swords and flags to commemorate a battle that occurred more than 320 years ago between rival Protestant and Catholic English kings on Irish soil.

The commemoration of the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, in which Protestant King William of Orange defeated the Catholic King James, is held every year on the 12th July. The annual Orange marches are held by Protestant descendants of British settlers who invaded the North of Ireland as part of Britain’s colonial conquest and demographic engineering against the native, mainly Catholic Irish.

The truth is that every year these marches are accompanied by violence, even in recent years of so-called peace. Why? Because the Orange Order was from its inception nearly 200 years ago set up deliberately as a sectarian instrument of British colonial domination in Ireland. The Order was exclusively Protestant, pro-British and rabidly anti-Catholic. The British colonial authorities fomented the Order and its vicious sectarianism as a way of driving a wedge between the communities and in particular to subjugate the rebellious Irish.

British partition of Ireland in 1921 into a nominally independent southern state and a British-run northern province has always been a bone of contention for the northern pro-independence Irish. They have felt alienated within a British gerrymandered northern state, denied of their national rights and dominated by a false pro-British Protestant majority. For the maintenance of this injustice, successive British governments have relied on the sectarianism of the Orange Order to enforce their unlawful imperialist presence in Ireland.

Every year, the pro-British Orangemen would march through the mainly Catholic nationalist villages, towns and areas of Belfast in a demonstration of the second-class status that the native Irish were assigned by the British authorities. The Orange Order and its triumphal boorish marches were aimed at denigrating the Irish Catholics, to remind them that the British state bestowed its favor on the Protestant, pro-Unionist community. The marchers would be draped with British Union flags and the foulest insults would be chanted or sung while the processions passed by Catholic homes and churches.

One of the popular songs of hatred sung by the Orangemen is ‘The Sash’. With drums banging out the rhythm, the marchers would sing: “We’re up to our knees in Fenian blood.” Can you imagine the humiliation and terror that Catholic households must have felt during these grotesque carnivals of vilification conducted right outside their homes?

Here is another example of the depraved mentality of these Orange marches. In one mainly Catholic area of Belfast called the Lower Ormeau a group of five unarmed men in a sporting office was slaughtered by a British paramilitary death squad in 1992. In subsequent years when the Orange marchers would parade past the Catholic residents, the Orangemen would in unison raise their arms with five fingers pointed at the households and neighbors of the murdered men. That was meant as a sickening degradation of that community aimed to demonstrate British-state-sanctioned superiority of the Orangemen.

Typically, the 12th July marches - thousands of them all across the British territory of Northern Ireland - would proceed in the morning through the Catholic areas on the way to a designated gathering point for dozens of Orange lodges emanating from different directions. All day in the field, the Orangemen and their paramilitary supporters would listen to bloodcurdling speeches denouncing Catholics as “enemies of the British state”. Copious amounts of alcohol would be consumed to fire up the hatred.

Then in the evening, the Orange marchers would make their return procession through the same Catholic areas that they had debased earlier that day. That is when the violence would often ignite, mostly provoked by the Orange side. To compare the Orange Order to the Ku Klux Klan is a fair assessment. Can you imagine the KKK being allowed to march through an African-American district of New York, Los Angeles or Georgia? Maybe a few centuries ago such a supremacist provocation could have happened against African-Americans. But only a few years ago, in the heyday of the British Orange state of Northern Ireland with its state-sanctioned discrimination against Catholics, the Orange Order would be fully facilitated in its provocative marches by the mainly Protestant-manned police force; and all with British government tacit approval from London.

Today, such outrageous state backing of sectarian provocation and humiliation is no longer acceptable or countenanced. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 stipulated “equality” for all cultural traditions in Northern Ireland. The Police Service of Northern Ireland replaced the hated sectarian and death-squad-colluding Royal Ulster Constabulary, and a Parades Commission was set up to restrain the worst excesses of the Orange Order.

Nevertheless, it is still reprehensible that any Catholic community in Northern Ireland should have to endure any level of sectarian menace from the Orange Order and its paramilitary supporters. The latest violence in Northern Ireland has flared because the Parades Commission ruled that the Orangemen could not make their “traditional” return march through the Catholic North Belfast area of Ardoyne. During the decades of conflict, the community in Ardoyne saw hundreds of its people killed by British-state-sanctioned Protestant death squads. Yet, the same like-minded bigots in the Orange Order are aggrieved because their days of coat-trailing triumphalism through Catholic areas like the Ardoyne are now on the wane.

The Orange Order and its supporters make the absurd claim that such restrictions amount to “an erosion” of Pro-British Protestant culture. Of course, British media and politicians in London are wringing their hands over the latest upsurge in Orange violence.

London-appointed Northern Ireland minister Theresa Villiers said of the mayhem this weekend: “This sort of behavior does nothing to promote ‘Britishness’ or the pro-Union cause.”

Ms Villiers and her London government are woefully ignorant of history or are feigning ignorance. For it is precisely British colonial policy in Northern Ireland that instigated and fomented the sectarian psychosis of the Orange Order and its followers over many centuries and until recently. Every year, Irish people, both Catholic as well as many decent Protestants, have to endure the hate-filled legacy of British misrule in Ireland. The only viable long-term solution to Ireland’s ongoing political problem is for the British government to remove its unlawful imperialist presence in Northern Ireland, give way to long-denied Irish self-determination, and for the British misrulers to take their poisonous sectarianism with them.

Finian Cunningham, originally from Belfast, Ireland, was born in 1963. He is a prominent expert in international affairs. The author and media commentator was expelled from Bahrain in June 2011 for his critical journalism in which he highlighted human rights violations by the Western-backed regime. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For many years, he worked as an editor and writer in the mainstream news media, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. He is now based in East Africa where he is writing a book on Bahrain and the Arab Spring.He co-hosts a weekly current affairs programme, Sunday at 3pm GMT on Bandung Radio.

Taseko Mines 'New Prosperity' Zombie Still Walking Towards Fish Lake

Taseko letter shows Harper government support for mine at Fish Lake 

by Council of Canadians

The Canadian Press reports that Taseko Mines - the company behind the proposed 'New Prosperity' mine at Fish Lake - met with federal Natural Resources minister Joe Oliver on Monday January 23, 2012 in Vancouver. After the meeting, John McManus, the company's senior vice-president of operations, wrote to Oliver,
"I believe that yourself and the government of Canada are showing great leadership by taking an unapologetic approach to the responsible development of this country's natural resources. ...As I said at the meeting on Monday, we applaud your courage in calling it the way you see it and in moving strongly not just to get the job done well, but also to get the job done period."

In response, Chief Joe Alphonse, tribal chairman of the Tsilhqot'in National Government, says a court challenge is already in the works. 
"We have a majority Conservative government that is more concerned about revenue than anything else. ...When you have corrupt government and companies that feel like they own the process, and we as First Nations are nothing but a hindrance, the courts are there to protect us."

The Vancouver Sun has described the plan for the New Prosperity mine as follows:
"Waste rock and dirt will now be trucked and stored north of Fish Lake. A tailings pond, which will store potentially acid-producing mill waste, will be moved upstream two kilometres from Fish Lake. The new plan will alter the watershed’s natural drainage. The tailings pond will limit water flow into Fish Lake, and the outflow of the lake will be cut off by the open mine pit downstream."

Key dates to keep in mind:
  • July 22 - public hearings on the mine begin
  • August 23 - the public hearings conclude
  • October - the federal review panel will submit their recommendation to the Harper government
  • March 2014 - the Harper government is expected to decide about the mine

The full article is at http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/taseko-mines-praises-ottawa-ahead-of-envi.... For Council of Canadians blogs critical of the proposed mine at Fish Lake, please see http://canadians.org/search/node/%22fish%20lake%22%20type%3Ablog.

"Modernizing" British Columbia's Water Resources


Water Act Modernization

by Government of British Columbia

Background on Water Act Modernization

The Water Act is the principal law for managing the diversion and use of provincial water resources. Established in 1909, B.C.’s Water Act is the primary piece of water management legislation and plays a key role in the sustainability of B.C.’s water.

With changes in climate, population, and water use, it is now time to review the Act to address new pressures on water. Modernizing the Water Act is not about fixing something that is broken. Instead it is about recognizing that the context and foundation upon which the Water Act was built was very different 100 years ago. Our ways of doing business have, and will continue to change to reflect today’s context and play a key role in the future sustainability of B.C.’s water resources.

Living Water Smart: B.C.’s Water Plan commits to change the way water is governed and managed in B.C. Through Living Water Smart, government committed that by 2012:
  • Water laws will improve the protection of ecological values, provide for more community involvement, and provide incentives to be water efficient;
  • Legislation will recognize water flow requirements for ecosystems and species;
  • New approaches to water management will address the impacts from a changing water cycle, increased drought risk and other impacts on water caused by climate change; and,
  • Government will regulate groundwater use in priority areas and large groundwater withdrawals.

Modernization of the Water Act is seen by government, and others, as an essential part of delivering the Living Water Smart vision. It is about making our water laws simpler to understand, communicate, administer and enforce as we respond to current and future challenges.

The four goals of Water Act Modernization are to:

For information about the evolution of our water laws, see B.C.’s Water Law Framework.

To learn more about the proposed new Water Sustainability Act including the key policy areas, read our Policy Proposal [PDF 2.89MB] or watch these short YouTube videos.

To read what others have been saying about BC’s proposed new Water Sustainability Act, refer to our Submissions page and visit the Living Water Smart Blog.

The Water Act Modernization Process

There are four key phases of Water Act Modernization:


Phase 1 – Scoping, jurisdictional review and background research (complete). In this stage wide input on water management issues was gained through a review of science and monitoring information regarding B.C.’s watersheds, a review of literature, and Canadian and international best practices.

Phase 2 – Engagement and policy development (Winter 2009 – February 2011). This phase began with the launch of the Living Water Smart Blog in December 2009, and was soon followed by the release of the Water Act Modernization Discussion Paper and a Technical Background Report in early 2010. Regional workshops were held in the spring of 2010, and public submissions were gathered, analyzed and summarized in the Report on Engagement, released in September 2010.

Responding to British Columbians requests for more opportunities to be involved. Government released a Policy Proposal for a new Water Sustainability Act in December 2010 and accepted comments until March 2011. Over the summer, Ministry of Environment staff reviewed the public input and continue to refine the proposed policies and assess their implications.

Phase 3 – Request for legislation and legislative drafting (2012). Final recommendations will be submitted to Government for consideration and final policy options will be drafted. Government will be further engaging with British Columbians on draft legislation in 2012.

Phase 4 – Bill introduction and approval. Once final decisions are made through the B.C. Government’s parliamentary and law-making process the bill obtains Royal Assent and becomes law.

We are currently in Phase 2 – Engagement and policy development.


Water Act Modernization – Home
Water Law Framework
Climate Change
Stream Health and Aquatic Environments
Governance Arrangements


Flexible and Efficient Allocation
Groundwater Use
Policy Development and Engagement
Discussion Paper


Beginning of the End for Long War in Central Asia

Failure Foretold: The Sunset of the US Adventure in Afghanistan and the Rise of Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan

by Peter Lee - China Matters


The United States, for the most part, regards Pakistan as little more than a sordid stage on which the West is forced to act out one of the central dramas of its epic War on Terror.

However, Pakistan, a nation of 180 million people, is a lot more than that. It is a fragile aggregation of ethnicities trapped—and split—between India and Afghanistan. In 2008, I predicted that the Afghan surge would not work:
American planners originally hoped that Musharraf’s armies would be the anvil upon which Western forces crushed the Taliban in eastern Afghanistan.

Pakistan is more like a rotten melon that will fly apart under the hammer blows of a U.S. counter-insurgency campaign in west Pakistan.

Case proven, I would say.

Below is the full argument, from a post I wrote in August 2008 titled: America Drinks the COIN Kool-Aid.

The piece also anticipates the rise of Nawaz Sharif, who has recently taken the post of Prime Minister upon the victory of his PML-N party in the May parliamentary elections. Sharif was a proponent of a non-US-centric strategy of conciliation with the various Talibans. A lot of blood has flown under the bridge since 2008, and it is now an open question as to whether Sharif will be able to execute his disengagement strategy in a Pakistan that has become an economic and security omnishambles under the shadow of an emboldened and aggressive Pakistan Taliban.

Nevertheless, Sharif is doing his best to find a way out of Pakistan's economic and political crises, starting with outreach to China, which he sees as the keystone of his strategy to orient Pakistan toward economic development and integration, and away from counter-terrorism piñata.

I address Sharif’s recent trip to China—and regional developments that might encourage the PRC to place a big bet on Pakistan—in my most recent piece for Asia Times Online, China Takes Another Look at Gwadar and Pakistan, which can be read below the 2008 excerpt.

America Drinks the COIN Kool-Aid
August 24, 2008 (excerpt)


American ignorance concerning Pakistani politics and society is profound. And, in the matter of the “surge” scheduled for Afghanistan for year-end 2008, it may be fatal.

U.S. observers, both on the left and right, view Pakistan primarily through the lens of the war on terror, in terms of Pakistan’s role in pumping military forces into its western frontier in order to help George W. Bush burnish his meager presidential legacy by getting Osama bin Laden’s head on a pike before he leaves office in January 2009; and to assist the West in rescuing its tottering political project in Afghanistan, the Karzai government.

As any responsible observer of Pakistan politics would tell you—all the Pakistani media majors all have English-language outlets—the Pakistanis view things completely differently.

They believe that unremitting American pressure on Pakistan is turning a serious but manageable problem—ethnic and Islamist extremism in the border regions—into an existential crisis that is ripping Pakistan apart.

In the days since Musharraf’s departure, Pakistan has been torn by a series of terrorist attacks, including a coordinated assault on Pakistan’s main armory near Islamabad, which left nearly 100 dead.

The attacks represent a highly persuasive demonstration by Taliban extremists that peace inside Pakistan’s central, urbanized core requires accommodation with the Taliban, and not participation in America’s escalating counter-inurgency campaign in Afghanistan’s east and Pakistan’s frontier provinces.

It is a message that Pakistan’s civilian, military, and intelligence leadership are ready to heed.

But it is a warning that America—including both its political and defense establishment and its two presidential candidates—are determined to disregard in the search for geopolitical advantage, multi-national military support, and votes.

Fatally, the supposed success of the troop surge in Iraq –and the desperate optimism and opportunism an apparent military panacea excites in American politics—is fueling calls for applying the same formula to the intractable Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

However, Afghanistan isn’t Iraq. And, more importantly, Pakistan ain’t Iran.

For Americans infatuated with the apparent success of the surge in Iraq—and its implied vindication of the comforting notion that the scientific application of American military might, brains, and money can succeed in even the most profoundly hostile environment—it is anathema to consider that the relative quiet in Iraq is not attributable to our astounding subtlety in paying off Sunni tribal leaders and malcontents who otherwise would be engaged in a doomed insurgency against U.S. rule and Shi’a domination.

Nope.

What’s probably standing between us and the continuation of our bloody debacle in Iraq is the fact that Iran has eschewed a strategy of political violence through its Iraqi proxies. Instead, it has decided to outwait the United State and secure its gains through the political ascendancy of the Shi’a.
…
American politicians look at the Iraqi surge and, by a flawed analogy, expect that an escalation of three or so brigades into Afghanistan by years’ end will tip the scales in our favor.

Barack Obama, eager to burnish his CINC qualifications by boosting our “good war” in Afghanistan, talks about pouring in troops. John McCain explictly links a troop increase in Afghanistan with the apparent success of the surge.

The analogies, however, founder, when it comes to the issue of the key western neighbor.

Compare and contrast Pakistan’s attitudes toward Afghanistan with Iran’s desire to stabilize Iraq on its currently favorable terms.

According to the U.S. think tank Terror Free Tomorrow (TFT), favorable opinions of Afghanistan are at an anemic 48% level.

Hamid Karzai and his U.S. backed regime simply aren’t very popular in Pakistan. Pakistani distaste for Karzai is eagerly reciprocated by the Afghan government and relations are pretty much in a deep freeze. The Karzai government will always be closer the United States and India, not Pakistan. The route to increased Pakistani influence in Kabul lies through the violent overthrow of the Afghani government by the Taliban, not by ensuring the Karzai regime’s continued survival and success.

The U.S. is responding to Pakistan’s lack of enthusiasm for saving Karzai’s bacon by unilateral military incursions into western Pakistan in order to root out the Taliban havens (and possible bin Laden hidey-holes) that Pakistan’s army and intelligence services have pursued so unenthusiastically.

However, escalating the violence in Pakistan’s border regions looks like a recipe for disaster.

…
American planners originally hoped that Musharraf’s armies would be the anvil upon which Western forces crushed the Taliban in eastern Afghanistan.

Pakistan is more like a rotten melon that will fly apart under the hammer blows of a U.S. counter-insurgency campaign in west Pakistan.

The political will inside Pakistan to support the U.S. adventure in Afghanistan is virtually non-existent. According to TFT, opposition to the GWOT clocked in at a thumping 72% in June, with “strongly opposed” at 60.4%. At that time, admittedly before the recent wave of Taliban attacks, over 50% of Pakistanis blamed the US for violence inside Pakistan; the Pakistani Taliban were blamed by only 4.2%--behind India and Pakistan’s own ISI!

The salient development in Pakistani politics in the last three months has not been the democratization of Pakistan and an increased or even sustained determination to combat terrorism; it has been the collapse of the political fortunes of two would-be American clients--Pervez Musharraf and the leader of Benazir Bhutto’s PPP, her widower Asif Zardari—and the political ascendancy of Nawaz Sharif of the opposition PML-N, whose conservative, non-aligned policies have resonated with Pakistani voters since his return from exile last November.

China Looks Again at Gwadar and Pakistan


[This piece originally appeared at Asia Times Online on July 12, 2013. It can be reposted if ATOl is credited and a link provided.]


In physics, every action has its equal and opposite reaction. In geo-diplomacy, "equal" isn't a given. China has responded to India's cozying up to Japan and Myanmar's slide into the Western camp by tilting toward Pakistan and Afghanistan.

With all due respects to the strivers of Islamabad and Kabul, China is getting the worst of the bargain in trading nascent global power India and South Asian resource and agriculture powerhouse Myanmar for "failing state" Pakistan (the characterization recently offered by Ahmad Shuja Pasha, head of Pakistan's own ISI security service) and landlocked and miserable Afghanistan, whose main domestic product and export are both violence.

And then there is the contrast between the soon to be completed but politically vulnerable twin pipelines from Rakhine State in Myanmar to Yunnan in China and the "Gwadar-Kashgar corridor", an US$18 billion road, rail, and energy corridor fantasy that involves tunneling through the Himalayan mountains and also requires passage through Balochistan, a Pakistan province filled with resentful Balochis ripe for anti-Chinese violence even without the encouragement of the United States and India.
Nevertheless, China has no alternative but to secure a set of costly contingencies in case hostility from India and Myanmar becomes overt.

The Chinese predicament is eased by certain South Asian elements that make engaging with Pakistan and Afghanistan marginally less costly and dangerous, and may even offer some genuine and valuable strategic advantages.

Pakistan ended its adventure with the haplessly pro-American and allegedly hopelessly corrupt Asif Zardari and his PPP party, which attempted to carry out Benazir Bhutto's bargain with Washington and turn Pakistan into an anti-terrorist bastion, and gave a parliamentary majority and prime ministership to the PML-N, headed by the Islamist-friendly, China-friendly, and not particularly US-friendly Nawaz Sharif.

Afghanistan's failed 10-year experiment in democracy and development through US-led counter-insurgency is winding down, and the local players are cautiously interested in what China has to offer and may be prepared to demand.

Sharif made his first overseas visit as prime minister to China for five days in early July. At his reception at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Sharif exulted: "Our friendship is higher than the Himalayas and deeper than the deepest sea in the world, and sweeter than honey."

Sharif is in dire need of Chinese friendship to address the Pakistan crises that doomed Zardari and shadow his own political future. Pakistan's economic, political, and social dysfunction are embodied in its extraordinary electricity crisis. Pakistan is generating only about 70% of the power it needs, with the result that every corner of Pakistan is experiencing "load shedding" (the euphemism of choice for blackouts), with poorer and politically powerless rural areas experiencing blackouts of up to 20 hours per day.

This state of affairs was a major political issue in May, when Sharif triumphed in the parliamentary elections; it continues to occupy the center of Pakistani consciousness as citizens swelter through the 40-degree Celsius summer, are unable to sleep at night and, when they get to their shops and factories, struggle with intermittent power through the days.

Pakistan's notoriously intrusive Supreme Court has demanded data on whether load shedding is being implemented evenly and equitably throughout Pakistan, given the evidence that central government offices, foreign embassies, and prosperous neighborhoods in Islamabad are enjoying better than average access to electricity and air conditioning.

Sharif's brother, Shahbaz, chief executive of Punjab province, the family power base, has taken to holding his meetings in a sweltering tent to deflect potential criticism of elite privilege.

Pakistan's other heavyweight province, Sindh - stronghold of the Bhutto family and the PPP - complains that it is getting jobbed out of its fair share of electricity by the vengeful Sharif administration. Pakhtunkhwa, the mountainous frontier province, complains that it suffers load shedding even though it is a net supplier of electricity to the grid thanks to its hydroelectric capacity.

As for Balochistan, the miserable and impoverished home of both Gwadar port and the Quetta shura that directs the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan, it has been receiving only one-third of its electricity needs.

The main culprit does not appear to be generating capacity, a rickety distribution network, or extensive theft of electricity.

The fundamental problem appears to be revenue, $5 billion worth of missing payments and subsidies that, for reasons of direct theft, dishonest billing, and/or simple nonpayment are not making it back to the power companies, so the power companies can't buy the imported fuel oil needed to run the generators.

Sharif's plan is apparently to throw money at the power companies ($2 billion was disbursed to this purpose in late June) so they can import fuel and give the government some breathing space as it tries to impose the tariff, structural, and enforcement reforms that will prevent the crisis from recurring. A recent report on the debt crisis prepared by Pakistan's Planning Commission in co-operation with USAID identified "complete disarray between all entities at the policy level", "authoritarian attitude at the regulatory level", and "complete breakdown of governance at the [operating] entities level" as problems confronting reform.

Thoroughgoing reform of Pakistan's energy sector, economic policy, and business and consumer culture is perhaps beyond the ability of any mortal, even Sharif, the "Lion of Punjab" as he is styled. However, he is doing his best to nibble around the problem, and the People's Republic of China is doing its best to help.

Although Sharif's patron is Saudi Arabia - which sheltered him after Pervez Musharraf deposed him in a coup during his first stint as prime minister, in 1999, and sponsored his political comeback this time around, and Sharif has supported Riyadh's Sunni project, including an attempt to impose sharia law in his first term and an ongoing engagement with Islamist militants - it looks like Pakistan will have to look to itself for energy, and look to Central Asia - and China - instead of the Gulf for economic integration.

Energy was very much on the Sharif China agenda, as this report makes clear:

[Sharif] also mentioned a 969MW Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Project, three power projects Karot, Kohala and Taunsa to add 2,000MW being executed by Chinese companies.

Nawaz Sharif said his government looked forward to Chinese investment in renewable energy sector particularly wind and solar with the country having accumulated potential of 60,000MW.

He said Pakistan was also rich of coal reservoirs of 185 billion tons having capacity to generate 100,000MW for 300 years.

During meeting with President of China Southern Power Grid (CSG) Zhao Jianguo in Guangzhou, the Prime Minister sought suggestions and assistance in curbing power line losses, theft and pilferage in Pakistan and got affirmative response from the company. [1] Significantly, coal (Pakistan's energy planning now revolves around the idea of switching from gas and oil to coal-fired plants and exploiting a large domestic reserve of lignite, the Thar deposit), solar, and hydro are all domestic energy resources, indicating that Sharif has despaired of the difficulty of converting Pakistan into a high-productivity/high consumption economy that could expend billions in foreign exchange to sustain large imports of crude oil from Saudi Arabia, LNG from Qatar, or pipelined natural gas from Iran to meet its electricity needs.

The Sharif administration's reorientation of its diplomatic and economic focus also provides a welcome boost to China's heavy industry and contracting companies. The domestic infrastructure market is languishing as China attempts to restructure its economy and wean its financial system off the stimulus drug, and the opportunity to support China's infrastructure enterprises by supplying credits for offshore projects is undoubtedly welcome to Premier Li Keqiang's economic team.

One of Sharif's items of business on his China trip was to clear up the bewildering two-year delay in the construction of the Nandipur power project, which was to have been supplied, constructed, and partially financed by entities from China. The Zardari government had held up the sovereign guarantees required to release the financing without explanation, leaving the government open to the accusation that it was maneuvering for additional squeeze as a price for its action.

The Chinese contractor terminated the project and 1,700 tonnes of Chinese equipment "sat-rusting!" according to the indignant PML-N, for whose Punjab base the equipment was destined - and incurring expensive demurrage charges for over a year while the Law Ministry sat on the application.

As soon as he became prime minister, Sharif arranged the guarantees and, after his visit to China, the Chinese contractor, Dongfang Electric Corporation, made the handsome gesture of immediately dispatching engineers to Karachi to inspect the equipment and restart the project.

The public relations boost Sharif perhaps hoped to enjoy was quickly dissipated by a letter by a former managing director of the government electricity utility, PEPCO, advising the Supreme Court that somehow the cost of the restarted project had increased by almost $200 million while Dongfang was only asking for a contract adjustment of $40 million, implying, in the words of the aggrieved director, there existed "a well thought out, well-conceived and white collar scam to cheat the public exchequer of $149 million, the benefit of which will go to a select private sector party". Since the government had already stated its intention of privatizing Nandipur, perhaps the extra cash was arranged as some sort of dowry payment to the new owner. [2]

Nandipur also labors under the disadvantage of being gas-fired at a time when Pakistan has significantly depleted its own gas reserves and has no immediate source of imported natural gas, either by ship from Qatar or from Iran via the much-contested Friendship pipeline.

Hopefully, if privatized, it will also not be subject to the ruinous cost-plus guaranteed return provision for foreign-funded power stations that has saddled Pakistan with 50% of its generating capacity in plants that a) require imported oil that Pakistan can no longer afford to finance given its dismal foreign trade deficit and foreign exchange reserves situations and b) have no incentive to switch to cheaper sources of fuel, such as coal.

In addition to keeping Sharif's and China's heads above water in the matter of electricity generating equipment, China also generously offered support for the "Gwadar-Kashgar" corridor. In its most extravagant conception, the corridor will take the form of a high-quality road and rail link carrying goods and Gulf petroleum from the Gwadar port on the Indian Ocean through the Kunjerab Pass in the Himalayans over to the classical Silk Road entrepot of Kashgar in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region in western China. Prime Minister Sharif referred to the corridor as "a game changer".

In an interesting example of the Internet's ability to amplify and propagate misinformation, it was widely reported that this project would involve the construction of a 200 kilometer tunnel; actually, as ILF, the European company that performed the feasibility study tells us, the entire project would include 100 tunnels with an aggregate length of 200 km; the longest would be 24 km. [3]

The corridor, though it also reeks of export promotion boondoggle, also has a significant and positive strategic component beyond the opportunity to tweak India (Gwadar port was financed and constructed by China, much to India's dismay; when the port - with no local manufacturing facilities and no inland links - failed to attract any cargo, the Singapore Port Authority terminated its management contract and China's China Overseas Port Holdings Limited picked it up, to India's vocal "string of pearls" horror).

Theoretically, Gwadar could serve as a transshipment point for Gulf oil destined for China if the Rakhine State pipeline project in Myanmar falls victim to anti-Chinese political populism - although the technical, economic, and security issues involved in trying to send trainloads of crude oil over the Himalayas to western China are, to say the least, non-trivial.

However, there are more immediate and practical advantages relating to the corridor.

The Chinese government has a Uyghur problem in the western region of Xinjiang, which manifests itself as discontent and resentment, with an alarming potential for separatism and terrorism as illustrated by the recent bloody eruption that claimed 35 lives. It appears that China would like to recapitulate its Tibet policy - stern repression and erosion of local identity under a Han economic onslaught - in Xinjiang.

A meaningful economic corridor between Kashgar and an invigorated Pakistan might mean that the Karakorum Highway would transport a steady two-way stream of goods and sober, avaricious businesspeople in addition to the destabilizing flow of militants, drugs, and HIV it allegedly brings into Xinjiang. A prosperous chain of towns and factories along the corridor would also give Pakistan greater resources and capabilities to crack down on Uyghur separatists training and operating in Pakistan (whom Sharif denounced in Beijing as the ETIM, the purportedly mythical - according to Xinjiang political activists - but quite possibly genuine East Turkestan Independence Movement).

As for Pakistan, it is anything but a favored investment destination at the moment and, under Sharif, would welcome the opportunity to receive investment from China, be it for strategic, security, or economic motives.

In Beijing, a fiber optic link following the Karakorum Highway out of China to Rawalpindi for $40 million will probably be built quickly, as will probably a significant improvement of the highway itself. The $18 billion rail link over the roof of the world (actually, through the roof of the world with those 200 km of tunnels) will probably come later, if at all; the time window in the Memorandum of Understanding is five years.

As for the extension of the corridor from central Pakistan down to the white elephant port of Gwadar, that will presumably depend on whether the Sharif administration can bring an end to the brutal, death-squad driven central government reign over Balochistan.

Sharif is anxious for reconciliation with Pakistan's many antagonists - the Balochis, the Pakistan Taliban, even India and Afghanistan - on terms that armchair Churchills inside and outside Pakistan will probably condemn as appeasement. However, if there is to be any hope that the complete corridor from Gwadar to Kashgar will become a reality, Pakistan will probably have to move beyond the detested suppression of local dissent in Balochistan by Pashtun's military and security services to an economically driven policy of engagement, economic development, and generous royalty payments and profit sharing with Balochi interests.

That is a tall order for an impoverished and incompetent civilian government whose control of its security and military apparatus is more notional and aspirational than actual. However, China - which has already experienced kidnappings and assassinations of its Gwadar personnel by Balochi militants - is unlikely to be party to an Afghan ISAF style counterinsurgency action in Balochistan, especially if conducted under the auspices of the Pakistani military. If Sharif is able to advance an accommodating policy in Balochistan, China can help by investing in economic activity in and around Gwadar that Balochis may come to regard as opportunities for employment and investment, rather than attack and/or extortion.

Similar flexibility - and Chinese support and buy-in - will probably be necessary to solve Pakistan's Pashtun problem. Historically, Pakistan would like to see its Pashtun problem become its Afghan opportunity, by encouraging militant Pashtuns - especially the irritating and aggressive Pakistani Taliban - to seek suitable arenas for their ambitions on the other side of the Durand Line, in the plains of Kandahar rather than in the mountains of Pakhtunkhwa.

Sharif - and China - are no exceptions. Recently the Sharif government elicited howls of indignation from Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul for allegedly raising the possibility of Afghan "federalism" - actually ceding the government apparatus in certain ethnically-Pashtun provinces of Afghanistan to the Taliban. Karzai's anger was probably accentuated by the suspicion that the United States - which is preparing to depart Afghanistan in 2014 and appeared quite happy to bypass Karzai's government and negotiate directly with a newly established Taliban office in Qatar - shares Pakistan's feelings.

The sense that Afghanistan is in play and Karzai's government is on the sidelines was reinforced by the appearance of Afghanistan's other bloody-minded Pashtun warlord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who enjoys the distinction of being the first non-9/11 related troublemaker to be targeted (unsuccessfully) for assassination by a US Predator drone back in 2002 - in a video interview with Britain's The Telegraph newspaper.

Hekmatyar called Britain's Prince Harry, currently serving in Afghanistan, a drunken "jackal" and sternly insisted that the US and UK leave his country, but threw the West the obligatory bone by declaring his support for female education (in separate facilities of course) to distinguish himself from the school-destroying and schoolgirl-shooting brutality of the Taliban.

Considering that back in the 1980s Hekmatyar reportedly carried a vial of acid around Kabul University to throw into the faces of co-eds he considered to be immodestly dressed, his commitment to women's education may be less than his desire to garner covert Western (and Chinese and Pakistani) support in the Pashtun civil war between his forces and the Taliban that will probably erupt after NATO draws down. [4]

China has allegedly remained in continual communication with Hekmatyar (whom it supplied with massive amounts of ammunition and weapons on behalf of the CIA when he was the leading figure in the anti-Soviet mujihadeen resistance), and is also apparently in communication with the Quetta Shura and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. [5]

Now that the pro-US/War on Terror policies of Asif Zardari have been sidelined, both Sharif and China would welcome a deal with the Taliban that would stop the politically polarizing (and retaliation-provoking) drone strikes on Taliban leaders inside Pakistan.

If the People's Republic of China, through Pakistan, can come to an understanding with both Hekmatyar and the Afghan Taliban to respect Chinese interests, including investments in copper and energy exploitation in Afghanistan, there may be beneficial knock-on effects - like peace and prosperity - in Afghanistan, Xinjiang, and western Pakistan.

Peace and prosperity don't come cheap, but neither is the alternative.

It is an interesting comment on the competing Chinese and American attitudes toward regional development and security that China is talking about spending $18 billion to create a zone of trade and prosperity linking Pakistan and China and that is, understandably, regarded as an enormous investment.

However, the total cost to the United States of the Afghan war is expected to exceed $2 trillion - for 10 years of invasion, counterinsurgency, and nation-building that will arguably leave Afghanistan little better than it was in 2001. Maybe Sharif and Li Keqiang can do better.

 
Notes:

1. PM's China visit: Bright hopes to end Pakistan's energy crisis, Business Recorder, July 11, 2013.
2. Wrongdoing allegations: Nandipur power project cost to be reviewed, The Express Tribune, July 11, 2013.
3. See here.
4. Meet Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Counterpunch, March 9, 2013.
5. Why is China Talking to the Taliban, foreignpolicy.com, June 21, 2013. 

Forbidden Powers: Obama Administration Defies Constitution


Coup d’etat


by Paul Craig Roberts -  Information Clearing House 

The American people have suffered a coup d’etat, but they are hesitant to acknowledge it. The regime ruling in Washington today lacks constitutional and legal legitimacy. Americans are ruled by usurpers who claim that the executive branch is above the law and that the US Constitution is a mere “scrap of paper.”

An unconstitutional government is an illegitimate government. The oath of allegiance requires defense of the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” As the Founding Fathers made clear, the main enemy of the Constitution is the government itself. Power does not like to be bound and tied down and constantly works to free itself from constraints.

The basis of the regime in Washington is nothing but usurped power. The Obama Regime, like the Bush/Cheney Regime, has no legitimacy. Americans are oppressed by an illegitimate government ruling, not by law and the Constitution, but by lies and naked force. Those in government see the US Constitution as a “chain that binds our hands.”

The South African apartheid regime was more legitimate than the regime in Washington. The apartheid Israeli regime in Palestine is more legitimate. The Taliban are more legitimate. Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were more legitimate.

The only constitutional protection that the Bush/Obama regime has left standing is the Second Amendment, a meaningless amendment considering the disparity in arms between Washington and what is permitted to the citizenry. No citizen standing with a rifle can protect himself and his family from one of the Department of Homeland Security’s 2,700 tanks, or from a drone, or from a heavily armed SWAT force in body armor.

Like serfs in the dark ages, American citizens can be picked up on the authority of some unknown person in the executive branch and thrown in a dungeon, subject to torture, without any evidence ever being presented to a court or any information to the person’s relatives of his/her whereabouts. Or they can be placed on a list without explanation that curtails their right to travel by air. Every communication of every American, except face-to-face conversation in non-bugged environments, is intercepted and recorded by the National Stasi Agency from which phrases can be strung together to produce a “domestic extremist.”

If throwing an American citizen in a dungeon is too much trouble, the citizen can simply be blown up with a hellfire missile launched from a drone. No explanation is necessary.
For the Obama tyrant, the exterminated human being was just a name on a list.

The president of the united states has declared that he possesses these constitutionally forbidden rights, and his regime has used them to oppress and murder US citizens. The president’s claim that his will is higher than law and the Constitution is public knowledge. Yet, there is no demand for the usurper’s impeachment. Congress is supine. The serfs are obedient.

The people who helped transform a democratically accountable president into a Caesar include John Yoo, who was rewarded for his treason by being accepted as a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt school of law. Yoo’s colleague in treason, Jay Scott Bybee was rewarded by being appointed a federal judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We now have a Berkeley law professor teaching, and a federal circuit judge ruling, that the executive branch is above the law.

The executive branch coup against America has succeeded. The question is: will it stand? Today, the executive branch consists of liars, criminals, and traitors. The evil on earth seems concentrated in Washington.

Washington’s response to Edward Snowden’s evidence that Washington, in total contravention of law both domestic and international, is spying on the entire world has demonstrated to every country that Washington places the pleasure of revenge above law and human rights.

On Washington’s orders, its European puppet states refused overflight permission to the Bolivian presidential airliner carrying President Morales and forced the airliner to land in Austria and be searched. Washington thought that Edward Snowden might be aboard the airliner. Capturing Snowden was more important to Washington than respect for international law and diplomatic immunity.

How long before Washington orders its UK puppet to send in a SWAT team to drag Julian Assange from the Ecuadoran embassy in London and hand him over to the CIA for waterboarding?

On July 12 Snowden met in the Moscow airport with human rights organizations from around the world. He stated that the illegal exercise of power by Washington prevents him from traveling to any of the three Latin American countries who have offered him asylum. Therefore, Snowden said that he accepted Russian President Putin’s conditions and requested asylum in Russia.

Insouciant americans and the young unaware of the past don’t know what this means. During my professional life it was Soviet Russia that persecuted truth tellers, while America gave them asylum and tried to protect them. Today it is Washington that persecutes those who speak the truth, and it is Russia that protects them.

The American public has not, this time, fallen for Washington’s lie that Snowden is a traitor. The polls show that a majority of Americans see Snowden as a whistleblower.

It is not the US that is damaged by Snowden’s revelations. It is the criminal elements in the US government that have pulled off a coup against democracy, the Constitution, and the American people who are damaged. It is the criminals who have seized power, not the American people, who are demanding Snowden’s scalp.

The Obama Regime, like the Bush/Cheney Regime, has no legitimacy. Americans are
oppressed by an illegitimate government ruling, not by law and the Constitution, but by lies and naked force.

Under the Obama tyranny, it is not merely Snowden who is targeted for extermination, but every truth-telling American in the country. It was Department of Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, recently rewarded for her service to tyranny by being appointed Chancellor of the of the University of California system, who said that Homeland Security had shifted its focus from Muslim terrorists to “domestic extremists,” an elastic and undefined term that easily includes truth-tellers like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden who embarrass the government by revealing its crimes. The criminals who have seized illegitimate power in Washington cannot survive unless truth can be suppressed or redefined as treason.

If Americans acquiesce to the coup d’etat, they will have placed themselves firmly in the grip of tyranny.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

Blinding the Cyclops: Can America's All-Seeing Eye Be Shut?

Surveillance Blowback: The Making of the U.S. Surveillance State, 1898-2020

by Alfred W. McCoy  - TomDispatch

The American surveillance state is now an omnipresent reality, but its deep history is little known and its future little grasped. Edward Snowden’s leaked documents reveal that, in a post-9/11 state of war, the National Security Agency (NSA) was able to create a surveillance system that could secretly monitor the private communications of almost every American in the name of fighting foreign terrorists.

The technology used is state of the art; the impulse, it turns out, is nothing new. For well over a century, what might be called “surveillance blowback” from America’s wars has ensured the creation of an ever more massive and omnipresent internal security and surveillance apparatus. Its future (though not ours) looks bright indeed.

In 1898, Washington occupied the Philippines and in the years that followed pacified its rebellious people, in part by fashioning the world’s first full-scale “surveillance state” in a colonial land. The illiberal lessons learned there then migrated homeward, providing the basis for constructing America’s earliest internal security and surveillance apparatus during World War I. A half-century later, as protests mounted during the Vietnam War, the FBI, building on the foundations of that old security structure, launched large-scale illegal counterintelligence operations to harass antiwar activists, while President Richard Nixon’s White House created its own surveillance apparatus to target its domestic enemies.

In the aftermath of those wars, however, reformers pushed back against secret surveillance. Republican privacy advocates abolished much of President Woodrow Wilson’s security apparatus during the 1920s, and Democratic liberals in Congress created the FISA courts in the 1970s in an attempt to prevent any recurrence of President Nixon’s illegal domestic wiretapping.
 
Tomgram: Alfred W. McCoy, Obama's Expanding Surveillance Universe

On the website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services there is a list of rights belonging to all Americans. Chief among them: Freedom to express yourself. Abdiwali Warsame must have taken them literally. Two days after he became a U.S. citizen, he created a rollicking news and opinion website covering his native Somalia. It became popular with many Somalis and Somali-Americans, but also attracted attention from other quarters. As Craig Whitlock recently revealed in the Washington Post, Warsame was, according to public records and interviews, soon "caught up in a shadowy Defense Department counterpropaganda operation."

Warsame’s website became a clearinghouse for articles from various points of view (including his own fundamentalist Muslim beliefs), but with emphasis on strong opposition to U.S.-backed military interventions in Somalia, and the contention that al-Shabab militants are freedom fighters, not terrorists. This, in turn, attracted the attention of the U.S.-based Navanti Group, which was “working as a subcontractor for the Special Operations Command to help conduct ‘information operations to engage local populations and counter nefarious influences’ in Africa and Europe.” As part of a sophisticated military effort aimed at manipulating news stories and social media around the world, Navanti compiled a dossier on Warsame, even though the military is legally barred from carrying out psychological operations at home. (Navanti claimed it believed Warsame was based overseas; Whitlock’s reporting indicates otherwise.) The military contractor eventually sent a copy of its files to the FBI, whose agents soon showed up on Warsame's doorstep.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website says Americans are bound by “the shared values of freedom [and] liberty” and that “naturalized citizens are... an important part of our democracy.” Today, this rings about as true as a thump on the side of an empty dumpster. Abdiwali Warsame is just one of millions of people -- Americans and foreigners -- who have found themselves monitored in some way by the U.S. military over the years.
No one knows this long history of shadowy military surveillance better than TomDispatch regular Alfred McCoy, author of Policing America’s Empire, among other works. For decades, McCoy has been shedding light on some of the darkest aspects of government malfeasance from drug trafficking to spying to torture. Today, he offers a chilling tour of military surveillance efforts from the turn of the twentieth century to a near future even more dystopian than our present -- a world in which we’re all liable to end up like Abdiwali Warsame. Nick Turse

 

Surveillance Blowback: The Making of the 

U.S. Surveillance State, 1898-2020

by Alfred W. McCoy


Today, as Washington withdraws troops from the Greater Middle East, a sophisticated intelligence apparatus built for the pacification of Afghanistan and Iraq has come home to help create a twenty-first century surveillance state of unprecedented scope. But the past pattern that once checked the rise of a U.S. surveillance state seems to be breaking down. Despite talk about ending the war on terror one day, President Obama has left the historic pattern of partisan reforms far behind. In what has become a permanent state of “wartime” at home, the Obama administration is building upon the surveillance systems created in the Bush years to maintain U.S. global dominion in peace or war through a strategic, ever-widening edge in information control. The White House shows no sign -- nor does Congress -- of cutting back on construction of a powerful, global Panopticon that can surveil domestic dissidents, track terrorists, manipulate allied nations, monitor rival powers, counter hostile cyber strikes, launch preemptive cyberattacks, and protect domestic communications.

Writing for TomDispatch four years ago during Obama’s first months in office, I suggested that the War on Terror has “proven remarkably effective in building a technological template that could be just a few tweaks away from creating a domestic surveillance state -- with omnipresent cameras, deep data-mining, nano-second biometric identification, and drone aircraft patrolling ‘the homeland.’"

That prediction has become our present reality -- and with stunning speed. Americans now live under the Argus-eyed gaze of a digital surveillance state, while increasing numbers of surveillance drones fill American skies. In addition, the NSA’s net now reaches far beyond our borders, sweeping up the personal messages of many millions of people worldwide and penetrating the confidential official communications of at least 30 allied nations. The past has indeed proven prologue. The future is now.

The Coming of the Information Revolution


The origins of this emerging global surveillance state date back over a century to “America’s first information revolution” for the management of textual, statistical, and analytical data -- a set of innovations whose synergy created the technological capacity for mass surveillance.

Here’s a little litany of “progress” to ponder while on the road to today’s every-email-all-the-time version of surveillance.

Within just a few years, the union of Thomas A. Edison’s quadruplex telegraph with Philo Remington’s commercial typewriter, both inventions of 1874, allowed for the accurate transmission of textual data at the unequalled speed of 40 words per minute across America and around the world.

In the mid-1870s as well, librarian Melvil Dewey developed the “Dewey decimal system” to catalog the Amherst College Library, thereby inventing the “smart number” for the reliable encoding and rapid retrieval of limitless information.

The year after engineer Herman Hollerith patented the punch card (1889), the U.S. Census Bureau adopted his Electrical Tabulating machine to count 62,622,250 Americans within weeks -- a triumph that later led to the founding of International Business Machines, better known by its acronym IBM.

By 1900, all American cities were wired via the Gamewell Corporation’s innovative telegraphic communications, with over 900 municipal police and fire systems sending 41 million messages in a single year.

A Colonial Laboratory for the Surveillance State

On the eve of empire in 1898, however, the U.S. government was still what scholar Stephen Skowronek has termed a “patchwork” state with a near-zero capacity for domestic security. That, of course, left ample room for the surveillance version of modernization, and it came with surprising speed after Washington conquered and colonized the Philippines.

Facing a decade of determined Filipino resistance, the U.S. Army applied all those American information innovations -- rapid telegraphy, photographic files, alpha-numeric coding, and Gamewell police communications -- to the creation of a formidable, three-tier colonial security apparatus including the Manila Police, the Philippines Constabulary, and above all the Army’s Division of Military Information.

In early 1901, Captain Ralph Van Deman, later dubbed “the father of U.S. Military Intelligence,” assumed command of this still embryonic division, the Army’s first field intelligence unit in its 100-year history. With a voracious appetite for raw data, Van Deman’s division compiled phenomenally detailed information on thousands of Filipino leaders, including their physical appearance, personal finances, landed property, political loyalties, and kinship networks.

Starting in 1901, the first U.S. governor-general (and future president) William Howard Taft drafted draconian sedition legislation for the islands and established a 5,000-man strong Philippines Constabulary. In the process, he created a colonial surveillance state that ruled, in part, thanks to the agile control of information, releasing damning data about enemies while suppressing scandals about allies.

When the Associated Press’s Manila bureau chief reported critically on these policies, Taft’s allies dug up dirt on this would-be critic and dished it out to the New York press. On the other hand, the Division of Military Information compiled a scandalous report about the rising Filipino politician Manuel Quezon, alleging a premarital abortion by his future first lady. Quezon, however, served the Constabulary as a spy, so this document remained buried in U.S. files, assuring his unchecked ascent to become the first president of the Philippines in 1935.

American Blueprint

During the U.S. conquest of the Philippines, Mark Twain wrote an imagined history of twentieth-century America. In it, he predicted that a “lust for conquest” had already destroyed “the Great [American] Republic,” because “trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home.” Indeed, just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words, colonial police methods came home to serve as a template for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime.

After the U.S. entered World War I in 1917 without an intelligence service of any sort, Colonel Van Deman brought his Philippine experience to bear, creating the U.S. Army’s Military Intelligence Division (MID) and so laying the institutional foundations for a future internal security state.

In collaboration with the FBI, he also expanded the MID’s reach through a civilian auxiliary organization, the American Protective League, whose 350,000 citizen-operatives amassed more than a million pages of surveillance reports on German-Americans in just 14 months, arguably the world’s most intensive feat of domestic surveillance ever.

After the Armistice in 1918, Military Intelligence joined the FBI in two years of violent repression of the American left marked by the notorious Luster raids in New York City, J. Edgar Hoover’s “Palmer Raids” in cities across the northeast and the suppression of union strikes from New York City to Seattle.

When President Wilson left office in 1921, incoming Republican privacy advocates condemned his internal security regime as intrusive and abusive, forcing the Army and the FBI to cut their ties to patriotic vigilantes. In 1924, Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone, worrying that “a secret police may become a menace to free government,” announced “the Bureau of Investigation is not concerned with political or other opinions of individuals.” Epitomizing the nation’s retreat from surveillance, Secretary of War Henry Stimson closed the Military Intelligence cipher section in 1929, saying famously, "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."

After retiring at the rank of major general that same year, Van Deman and his wife continued from their home in San Diego to coordinate an informal intelligence exchange system, compiling files on 250,000 suspected “subversives.” They also took reports from classified government files and slipped them to citizen anti-communist groups for blacklisting. In the 1950 elections, for instance, Representative Richard Nixon reportedly used Van Deman’s files to circulate “pink sheets” at rallies denouncing California Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas, his opponent in a campaign for a Senate seat, launching a victorious Nixon on the path to the presidency.

From retirement, Van Deman, in league with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, also proved crucial at a 1940 closed-door conference that awarded the FBI control over domestic counterintelligence. The Army’s Military Intelligence, and its successors, the CIA and NSA, were restricted to foreign espionage, a division of tasks that would hold, at least in principle, until the post-9/11 years. So armed, during World War II the FBI used warrantless wiretaps, “black bag” break-ins, and surreptitious mail opening to track suspects, while mobilizing more than 300,000 informers to secure defense plants against wartime threats that ultimately proved “negligible.”

The Vietnam Years

In response to the civil rights and anti-Vietnam protests of the 1960s, the FBI deployed its COINTELPRO operation, using what Senator Frank Church’s famous investigative committee later called "unsavory and vicious tactics... including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths."

In assessing COINTELPRO’s 2,370 actions from 1960 to 1974, the Church Committee branded them a "sophisticated vigilante operation" that "would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity." Significantly, even this aggressive Senate investigation did not probe Director Hoover’s notorious “private files” on the peccadilloes of leading politicians that had insulated his Bureau from any oversight for more than 30 years.

After New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh exposed illegal CIA surveillance of American antiwar activists in 1974, Senator Church’s committee and a presidential commission under Nelson Rockefeller investigated the Agency’s “Operation Chaos,” a program to conduct massive illegal surveillance of the antiwar protest movement, discovering a database with 300,000 names. These investigations also exposed the excesses of the FBI’s COINTELPRO, forcing the Bureau to reform.

To prevent future abuses, President Jimmy Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978, creating a special court to approve all national security wiretaps. In a bitter irony, Carter’s supposed reform ended up plunging the judiciary into the secret world of the surveillance managers where, after 9/11, it became a rubberstamp institution for every kind of state intrusion on domestic privacy.

How the Global War on Terror Came Home

As its pacification wars in Afghanistan and Iraq sank into bloody quagmires, Washington brought electronic surveillance, biometric identification, and unmanned aerial vehicles to the battlefields. This trio, which failed to decisively turn the tide in those lands, nonetheless now undergirds a global U.S. surveillance apparatus of unequalled scope and unprecedented power.

After confining the populations of Baghdad and the rebellious Sunni city of Falluja behind blast-wall cordons, the U.S. Army attempted to bring the Iraqi resistance under control in part by collecting, as of 2011, three million Iraqi fingerprints,iris, and retinal scans. These were deposited in a biometric database in West Virginia that American soldiers at checkpoints and elsewhere on distant battlefields could at any moment access by satellite link. Simultaneously, the Joint Special Operations Command under General Stanley McChrystal centralized all electronic and satellite surveillance in the Greater Middle East to identify possible al-Qaeda operatives for assassination by Predator drones or hunter-killer raids by Special Operations commandos from Somalia to Pakistan.

Domestically, post-9/11, the White House tried to create a modern version of the old state-citizen alliance for domestic surveillance. In May 2002, President Bush’s Justice Department launched Operation TIPS with "millions of American truckers, letter carriers, train conductors, ship captains, utility employees, and others" spying on fellow citizens. But there was vocal opposition from members of Congress, civil libertarians, and the media, which soon forced Justice to quietly kill the program.

In a digital iteration of the same effort, retired admiral John Poindexter began to set up an ominously titled Pentagon program called Total Information Awareness to amass a "detailed electronic dossier on millions of Americans." Again the nation recoiled, Congress banned the program, and the admiral was forced to resign.

Defeated in the public arena, the Bush administration retreated into the shadows, where it launched secret FBI and NSA domestic surveillance programs. Here, Congress proved far more amenable and pliable. In 2002, Congress erased the bright line that had long barred the CIA from domestic spying, granting the agency the power to access U.S. financial records and audit electronic communications routed through the country.

Defying the FISA law, in October 2001 President Bush ordered the NSA to commence covert monitoring of private communications through the nation's telephone companies without the requisite warrants. According to the Associated Press, he also “secretly authorized the NSA to plug into the fiber optic cables that enter and leave the United States” carrying the world’s “emails, telephone calls, video chats, websites, bank transactions, and more.” Since his administration had already conveniently decided that “metadata was not constitutionally protected,” the NSA began an open-ended program, Operation Stellar Wind, “to collect bulk telephony and Internet metadata.”

By 2004, the Bush White House was so wedded to Internet metadata collection that top aides barged into Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room to extract a reauthorization signature for the program. They were blocked by Justice Department officials led by Deputy Attorney General James Comey, forcing a two-month suspension until that FISA court, brought into existence in the Carter years, put its first rubber-stamp on this mass surveillance regime.

Armed with expansive FISA court orders allowing the collection of data sets rather than information from specific targets, the FBI’s “Investigative Data Warehouse” acquired more than a billion documents within five years, including intelligence reports, social security files, drivers’ licenses, and private financial information. All of this was accessible to 13,000 analysts making a million queries monthly. In 2006, as the flood of data surging through fiber optic cables strained NSA computers, the Bush administration launched the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity to develop supercomputing searches powerful enough to process this torrent of Internet information.

In 2005, a New York Times investigative report exposed the administration’s illegal surveillance for the first time. A year later, USA Today reported that the NSA was “secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South.” One expert called it "the largest database ever assembled in the world," adding presciently that the Agency's goal was "to create a database of every call ever made."

In August 2007, in response to these revelations, Congress capitulated. It passed a new law, the Protect America Act, which retrospectively legalized this illegal White House-inspired set of programs by requiring greater oversight by the FISA court. This secret tribunal -- acting almost as a “parallel Supreme Court” that rules on fundamental constitutional rights without adversarial proceedings or higher review -- has removed any real restraint on the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Internet metadata and regularly rubberstamps almost 100% of the government’s thousands of surveillance requests. Armed with expanded powers, the National Security Agency promptly launched its PRISM program (recently revealed by Edward Snowden). To feed its hungry search engines, the NSA has compelled nine Internet giants, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, and Skype, to transfer what became billions of emails to its massive data farms.

Obama’s Expanding Surveillance Universe 

Instead of curtailing his predecessor’s wartime surveillance, as Republicans did in the 1920s and Democrats in the 1970s, President Obama has overseen the expansion of the NSA’s wartime digital operations into a permanent weapon for the exercise of U.S. global power.

The Obama administration continued a Bush-era NSA program of “bulk email records collection” until 2011 when two senators protested that the agency’s “statements to both Congress and the Court... significantly exaggerated this program’s effectiveness.” Eventually, the administration was forced to curtail this particular operation. Nonetheless, the NSA has continued to collect the personal communications of Americans by the billions under its PRISM and other programs.

In the Obama years as well, the NSA began cooperating with its long-time British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), to tap into the dense cluster of Trans-Atlantic Telecommunication fiber optic cables that transit the United Kingdom. During a visit to a GCHQ facility for high-altitude intercepts at Menwith Hill in June 2008, NSA Director General Keith Alexander asked, “Why can’t we collect all the signals all the time? Sounds like a good summer project for Menwith.”

In the process, GCHQ’s Operation Tempora achieved the “biggest Internet access” of any partner in a “Five Eyes” signals-intercept coalition that, in addition to Great Britain and the U.S., includes Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. When the project went online in 2011, the GCHQ sank probes into 200 Internet cables and was soon collecting 600 million telephone messages daily, which were, in turn, made accessible to 850,000 NSA employees.

The historic alliance between the NSA and GCHQ dates back to the dawn of the Cold War. In deference to it, the NSA has, since 2007, exempted its “2nd party” Five Eyes allies from surveillance under its “Boundless Informant” operation. According to another recently leaked NSA document, however, “we can, and often do, target the signals of most 3rd party foreign partners.” This is clearly a reference to close allies like Germany, France, and Italy.

On a busy day in January 2013, for instance, the NSA collected 60 million phone calls and emails from Germany -- some 500 million German messages are reportedly collected annually -- with lesser but still hefty numbers from France, Italy, and non-European allies like Brazil. To gain operational intelligence on such allies, the NSA taps phones at the European Council headquarters in Brussels, bugs the European Union (EU) delegation at the U.N., has planted a “Dropmire” monitor “on the Cryptofax at the EU embassy DC,” and eavesdrops on 38 allied embassies worldwide.

Such secret intelligence about its allies gives Washington an immense diplomatic advantage, says NSA expert James Bamford. “It’s the equivalent of going to a poker game and wanting to know what everyone’s hand is before you place your bet.” And who knows what scurrilous bits of scandal about world leaders American surveillance systems might scoop up to strengthen Washington’s hand in that global poker game called diplomacy.

This sort of digital surveillance was soon supplemented by actual Internet warfare. Between 2006 and 2010, Washington launched the planet’s first cyberwar, with Obama ordering devastating cyberattacks against Iran's nuclear facilities. In 2009, the Pentagon formed the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), with a cybercombat center at Lackland Air Base initially staffed by 7,000 Air Force employees. Over the next two years, by appointing NSA chief Alexander as CYBERCOM’s concurrent commander, it created an enormous concentration of power in the digital shadows. The Pentagon has also declared cyberspace an “operational domain” for both offensive and defensive warfare.

Controlling the Future

By leaking a handful of NSA documents, Edward Snowden has given us a glimpse of future U.S. global policy and the changing architecture of power on this planet. At the broadest level, this digital shift complements Obama’s new defense strategy, announced in 2012, of reducing costs (cutting, for example, infantry troops by 14%), while conserving Washington’s overall power by developing a capacity for “a combined arms campaign across all domains -- land, air, maritime, space, and cyberspace.”

While cutting conventional armaments, Obama is investing billions in constructing a new architecture for global information control. To store and process the billions of messages sucked up by its worldwide surveillance network (totaling 97 billion items for March alone), the NSA is employing 11,000 workers to build a $1.6 billion data center in Bluffdale, Utah, whose storage capacity is measured in “yottabytes,” each the equivalent of a trillion terabytes. That’s almost unimaginable once you realize that just 15 terabytes could store every publication in the Library of Congress.

From its new $1.8 billion headquarters, the third-biggest building in the Washington area, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency deploys 16,000 employees and a $5 billion budget to coordinate a rising torrent of surveillance data from Predators, Reapers, U-2 spy planes, Global Hawks, X-37B space drones, Google Earth, Space Surveillance Telescopes, and orbiting satellites.

To protect those critical orbiting satellites, which transmit most U.S. military communications, the Pentagon is building an aerospace shield of pilotless drones. In the exosphere, the Air Force has since April 2010 been successfully testing the X-37B space drone that can carry missiles to strike rival satellite networks such as the one the Chinese are currently creating.

For more extensive and precise surveillance from space, the Pentagon has been replacing its costly, school-bus-sized spy satellites with a new generation of light, low cost models such as the ATK-A200. Successfully launched in May 2011, this module is orbiting 250 miles above the Earth with remote-controlled, U-2 quality cameras that now provide the “U.S. Central Command an assured ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) capability.”

In the stratosphere, close enough to Earth for audiovisual surveillance, the Pentagon is planning to launch an armada of 99 Global Hawk drones -- each equipped with high-resolution cameras to surveil all terrain within a 100-mile radius, electronic sensors to intercept communications, and efficient engines for continuous 24-hour flight.

Within a decade, the U.S. will likely deploy this aerospace shield, advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, and even vaster, more omnipresent digital surveillance networks that will envelop the Earth in an electronic grid capable of blinding entire armies on the battlefield, atomizing a single suspected terrorist, or monitoring millions of private lives at home and abroad.

Sadly, Mark Twain was right when he warned us just over 100 years ago that America could not have both empire abroad and democracy at home. To paraphrase his prescient words, by “trampling upon the helpless abroad” with unchecked surveillance, Americans have learned, “by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home.”

Alfred W. McCoy is the J.R.W. Smail Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State (University of Wisconsin), which is the source for much of the material in this essay.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook or Tumblr. Check out the newest Dispatch book, Nick Turse’s The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare.

Copyright 2013 Alfred W. McCoy