Roland San Juan

Jim Willie CB: Inflation: The Only Tool Left

2012-01-28T21:15:00.000-08:00

https://goldsilver.com/new/jim-willie-cb-inflation-the-only-tool-left/

Jim Willie CB: Inflation: The Only Tool Left
by Cameron H. (News), Gold & Silver Staff

Jim Willie CB, GoldenJackass.com

-- Posted Friday, 20 January 2012 | Share this article | Source: GoldSeek.com

Any perusal around the world these days features Southern Europe crippled, preparing for the inevitable Greek Govt Bond default. It features a crippled US housing market, a mockery of statistical accounting in the US Gross Domestic Product, the plight of the COMEX with established veterans clearing out desks (not trading), the extreme physical demand reported by the London Trader, and the indictment of the SLV iTrust Silver Fund tool used by the cartel. The survey does not look favorable toward stability. The banking, economic, and political leaders have not pursued reform and remedy in any remote sense. Their only tool left is hyper inflation. The central banks of the Western nations have coordinated Global Quantitative Easing, as the USFed concealed its own QE3. Operation Twist was an enormous ruse, to cover the grand disposal sale (dump) by USGovt creditors and maintain a semblance of stability in the USTreasury market. The global financial crisis continues for a simple reason. No financial reform or remedy has been attempted, only bank-owned bond redemption and colossal aid to the financial sector that controls government ministries and law enforcement. Therefore, the crisis hurtles toward a series of climax events. The Chinese are accumulating physical Gold still in a big way. US finance minister, the diminutive Geithner admitted to the Chinese officials that the USGovt has no more tools left with which to stimulate or lift the USEconomy and its fumbling financial sector. An honest admission, except that hyper monetary inflation remains the all-in-one tool.

The Greek default could trigger some grand unintended consequences. Despite all the planning in the controlled event, likening it to the demolition of a 50-story hotel in an urban center, the better image might be to attempt to hold within a corral 500 cats released from a large truck. In no way can the technocrats, central banks, and bank officials contain the animal spirits coming. The only solution in the end will be the most massive hyper inflation project in history. They must recapitalize the broken banks of Europe, where fallout will surely extend in non-trivial manner to London and New York. Two major pressures will work to lift the Gold & Silver prices. The Commitment of Traders report on commercials points to a significant sequence where they covered their Gold shorts and Silver shorts since the summer months. The road is prepared for a big rise in price after some closing notes are played on the Dollar Death Dance. Details are seen in the January Hat Trick Letter. Also, the acute financial crisis in Europe and the West in general demands some important decisions to manage the Greek default. Look for talk of a monetary solution but action perhaps in a vast recapitalization program for the big banks. A footnote, the Citigroup earnings included a $1.5 billion release from their Loan Loss Reserves. The funds will be needed to cover bond impairment and mortgage related lawsuits. They also had a nice bump in the Credit Value Adjustment, a blatant accounting fraud that exploits gradual impairment to their own corporate bond value. Accounting for banks is a farce.

SOUTHERN EUROPE PERMANENTLY CRIPPLED

Although the entire southern rim is deeply affected, a look at Italy is telling as a microcosm of continental illness. Italy has imposed capital controls on the banks.Movement of funds is being closely monitored. Money cannot be withdrawn in volume at the bank windows. Borders have cameras and registries at the customs checkpoints.Italy has gone fascist with blazing speed, the most blatant indication is the installation of Monti as prime minister. Its banks are ready to capsize, like the cruise liner. The effects of the Fascist Business Model are being acutely felt in Italy. Nothing goes without monitor. The credit card companies must report to the fiscal authorities all transactions carried out by Italians, in the country and abroad. Limits have been imposed on bank withdrawals of 10,000 Euros, equal to US$13,000. Cameras have been installed by finance police at the border checkpoints with Switzerland to register all license plates. In addition, currency sniffing dogs have been deployed at the border. The Monti regime can be seen imposing Fascism, plain and simple. Their opening salvo was to attack private capital by raising the capital gains tax. The situation is degrading rapidly. The wealthy of Italy have a new game in removing money from Italy and to escape themselves.

The irony is thick, the tragedy stirring. The Italian cruise liner Costa Concordia went aground, a fitting symbol of the nation of Italy succumbing, a toppled elected regime in a sea of liquidity. Individual decks named after nations went underwater, liquidity of a different type. Parallels between the financial structure and ship structure, along with perceptions and reactions, are interesting. People believing such an accident as incredible in the 21st century need to awaken to reality on the mainland. Italians will make the same comments when their banking system collapses, in the wake of their elected political leadership being dismissed from the helm. The cruise liner was badly off course, as the captain changed paths to salute friends on the nearby island (mistress?). So is the Italian banking sector, hardly alone as the Spanish fleet of banks is also off course, taking on water, the banks derelicts at sea.

The ship crew was not trained for such accident, having advised passengers to return to their cabins incredibly. Neither is the Italian system prepared to handle rough waters, given the most egregious nepotism in all of Europe. Half of million gallons of fuel are being retrieved before salvage operations begin, in an effort to avoid an environmental disaster of contaminated beaches. Contrast to the toxic paper running through the Italian banking system. The ship's insurers may be liable for total costs of about EUR 405 million (=US$500 mn) as a resuilt of standing policies. Unlike the ship liability, the Credit Default Swap contracts, the debt insurance flagships, are forbidden to kick in for awards at docks. The ship's problem might be more low hull draft and high center of gravity ship design, much like the inefficient stream in Italian business practices and the high bank leverage.

\"\"

THE BIG EVENT IN GREEK DEFAULT

Any bank or credit analyst worth his or her salt expects a Greek Govt Bond default. The event is inevitable, unavoidable, and a certainty. All solutions to date have been patchwork applications of tourniquets and needlepoint stitching, with full acquiescence to the banker class. The concept of a new Euro Bond to supplant the toxic bond is ludicrous, which exhibits the ignorance of the central bankers on conceptual constructs pertaining to monetary matters. The concept of a leaning upon the Intl Monetary Fund for a grand issuance of Special Drawing Rights is again ludicrous. A basket of water-logged debt-soaked currencies does not make for a viable raft to float any bodies in any seas. The contagion from a forced accord on Greek bonds will have a notable fallout value effect to Italian bonds, even to Spanish bonds. If the accord ignores the effect traveling with light speed to Italy, the plan is doomed from the outset. The default in Greece should trigger a Credit Default Swap event and award payments. But decisions might follow the trend seen to date, where contract law is trampled upon. The supposed redefinitions of debt securities were a travesty, not yet sufficiently challenged by the legal warriors and the court system. Then consider that the biggest creditor to Italy lies within the major French banks. A likely collapse of French banks in the wake seems the path that nature will take.

The contagion would spread to the London and New York bank centers, where insolvent hollow banks have stood for three years. They have long lost their credit engine role, thus the economic stalls in reverse gear. Lastly, any solution, apart from a new monetary system, must address the dire need for recapitalization of the Western banking system. The accord must begin with Europe. The accord must begin with $2 trillion or more to rebuild banks. A figure of $5 trillion is floated. The accord must dispose of the entire sovereign debt and its toxic paper from Southern Europe. Expect the greatest event in modern financial history before too many more weeks or months, the sovereign bond default and bank recapitalization. The impact on the USDollar could be profound and life altering for the planet. Expect unfortunately for half measures that sidestep any new monetary system and proper role for Gold. The half measures in the accord will bring great new attention on Gold, which should be at the core of the solution, both in the currency and banking system.

U.S. HOUSING PERMANENTLY CRIPPLED

The US-based shadow home inventory is vastly larger than estimated. The bank owned inventory is enormous, but so is the variation in those estimates. What is certain is the vast overhang of home inventory held by banks, and the steady flow to replenish the hidden inventory tumor, prevent any bottoming process to prepare for any recovery. Accurate housing data is hard to come by. The housing crisis is arguably a national emergency, which crushed both the banking system and the USEconomy. The USGovt-owned Fannie Mae still prevents the public from gaining access to loan data in detail, probably because multi-$trillion fraud is buried. It is far too difficult to obtain data from Freddie Mac also, and the MERS title database remains a black hole. My Jackass loose estimate has been tossed around frequently of one million bank owned homes in inventory, unsold, hanging over the market, rendering clearance and stability an absolute impossibility, with more home seizures always in the pipeline. The market cannot digest such an overhang, and cannot stop the price decline, especially since new foreclosures keep the flow into REO bank inventory. Banks refuse to clear their inventory, and are encouraged to hold that inventory since 0% financing is offered by the USGovt. If the shadow inventory is much larger than one million homes, then housing prices have much farther to go before they hit bottom, which has dire consequences for communities, homeowners, and the broader economy. It also means the US banking system is deader than dead.

On December 21st, less than one month ago, HousingWire reported that CoreLogic projected shadow inventory to be 1.6 million homes throughout the entire United States. Definition of a shadow inventory property varies widely. For example, the Wall Street Journal published an article last November, in which inventory size varied from the CoreLogic higher estimate to about 3 million by Barclays Capital. Other estimates are approximately 4 million by LPS Applied Analytic, roughly 4.3 million by Capital Economics. But the highest calculation comes from the source of most impressive methodology. Laurie Goodman of Amherst Securities offers the estimate of between 8.2 million and 10.3 million homes. Hers is regarded by many experts as having the most carefully crafted model, despite being the most dire of estimates. Michael Olenick of Naked Capitalism has his own large reliable database. He has been on the job in analyzing liability to taxpayers, investors, and banks. He submits his assumptions in calculations, an honorable practice based in integrity. The Olenick analysis arrives at a total close to the Goodman range. Using a more narrow definition of what constitutes shadow inventory, he estimates 9.8 million homes are in bank inventory, or suspended animation within the system, waiting for liquidation, suppressing price further. Long past critical mass, only radical out-of-the-box solutions will work. Massive loan forgiveness is the only solution, but it will never be done. USGovt ownership of one quarter of American homes is more likely. Conclude as inevitable that the nation will soon face widespread bank failures and even more staggering loss in home values, since the overhang of home inventory will force home prices down another 20%, my ongoing estimate that has been repeated and repeated ad nauseum. The problem is so great that the mortgage bond market can no longer be described as having viable parties and counter-parties. Too much bond counterfeit. Too much duplicate income streams used in mortgage bond securitization. Therefore, the principal parties do not want liquidations or scrutiny. See the Naked Capitalism articles (HERE & HERE).

U.S. GDP CALCULATION A TRAVESTY

Grossly Distorted Procedures on GDP calculations must be explained. Both hedonics and imputations contribute to one third of the entire reported Gross Domestic Product. The Chinese have long complained that half of the US GDP is mythical, due to interchange of debt paper across desks. The USEconomy is a fraction of its stated size, and it is stuck in chronic recession. A big hat tip to Michael Shedlock, whose analysis is excellent in focused economic sector topics. He provides an excellent overview on Hedonics and Imputations, to reveal their corruption of thought, whose concoctions he labels Grossly Distorted Procedures. Shedlock wrote, "Hedonics is a way of accounting for the changing quality of products when calculating price movements. For example, today's computers are 2 to 3 times faster and have more memory than models produced just a few years ago. If someone can buy a better computer today than last year for the same price, have not prices really fallen? Here is another example. Is it realistic to compare the price of a 1955 Chevy with the price of a 2005 Toyota with air conditioning, DVD player, anti-lock brakes, seat belts, air bags, side air bags, power steering, power brakes, etc? To say that cars have gone from 1955 prices to 2005 prices and calling the ENTIRE rise inflation is obviously wrong although many inflation alarmists do just that. Sorry folks, but that is not a straight up valid comparison. Would you be willing to drive to work a Model T ford today? If not, then comparisons of car prices today versus 1920 or 1950 or whenever are pretty absurd."

The USGovt makes unilateral decisions on value, in order to offset the rise in production costs from energy and materials, even labor. They justify their methods by pointing to manufacturing efficiency and economies of scale in production. They use the falling technology prices as justification for other abusive methods to reduce prices from inherent value on features which actually are subjected to strong price pressures.Shedlock rightfully points out how the potential greater hedonic abuse has entered into methods applied to the Gross Domestic Product, a mainstay not to be cut out. The accounted size of the USEconomy is subjected to vast distortions in the calculations. As the measured price inflation is kept low by force, the estimated GDP result is lifted higher by the same force. The lie in the CPI has been 6% to 8% for the last few years. That means the GDP has been running consistently negative in the most profound and harmful economic recession in American history. My analysis relies upon the indefatigable work of the Shadow Govt Statistics group. They measure the GDP as one quarter versus the same quarter a year ago to demonstrate a clear downward trend, a chronic recession. Conclude that the US GDP has been in decline by 4% to 6% for consecutive years. Shedlock has reported by means of Bureau of Economic Analysis data, that the US GDP is artificially lifted by a whopping $2.257 trillion in hedonic adjustments, equal to 22% of the entire GDP. That portion of the US GDP is pure myth. The United States is the only major country that hedonically adjusts its GDP, or needs to. The USEconomy is among the weakest in the entire industrialized world from industrial gutting and chronic consumption and pursuit of asset inflation.

The other major abuse is Imputations, a part of GDP calculation that the USGovt fabricates in estimated value where no cash changes hands. The imputation derives from homeowner self-paid rent and checking account services. These are pure fairy tale absurdities. For example, homeowners are assigned an imputed rent, that they pay to themselves as though renters. The BEA treats homeowners as businesses, which pay rent to themselves for the service of shelter. Be sure to know that mortgage payments and property taxes are also accounted for, a double counting process steeped in corrupt accounting. Self-paid homeowner rent tallies a ripe $153.8 billion in imputed rent as part of the GDP calculations. There is more. Free checking account services from banks are not to go without abuse. Self-paid check account services tallies a ripe $335.2 billion in imputed bank services. The beneficiary is in Personal Income data reported by the clownish USGovt stat labs.

Shedlock has reported by means of Bureau of Economic Analysis data, that the GDP is artificially lifted by a whopping $1.635 trillion in hedonic adjustments, equal to 13% of the entire GDP. Shedlock cites the total fabrication folly was a staggering 35% of the reported US GDP in 2003!! See the Global Economic Analysis article (CLICK HERE).

SIMPLE EVIDENCE OF RECESSION

US-based railway traffic is down hard, contradicting the vacant claims of an economic recovery in the United States. The slowdown is across North America, the worst brunt felt in Mexico. The Assn of American Railroads reported intermodal volume for the second week of January totaled 193,812 trailers and containers, down 9.3% versus the same week last year. The Eastern half of the nation was notably slower. The slowdown is across all North America. Canadian railroads reported cumulative volume of 40,281 trailers and containers for 2012, down 9.8% from last year. Cumulative volume on Mexican railroads for 2012 into only January is 10,857 carloads, down 15.2% compared to last year. Conclude that North American is in a severe deep recession, with the worst brunt felt in Mexico. Talk of recovery is Orwellian in its deception. My favorite data series to demonstrate recession is the USGovt payroll tax withholdings. They continue in decline. It is a pure series without adjustment. The USEconomic recession is the New Normal, Mr El-Erian.

\"\"

CORROSIVE COMEX DRYING UP

Ann Barnhardt confirmed the COMEX is going into obscurity and irrelevance. Players are exiting. Risk of theft is perceived. Trust has gone. Metal inventory will vanish next from honest players in retreat, seeking more legitimate arenas. The normal methods of risk hedging are going away, turning to private means, or quitting altogether. Ann Barnhardt made a huge splash last month in her decision to shut down BCM Capital brokerage firm, for fear that client funds were at great risk of theft. She outlines many carefully laid points. Here are some of her main points with fortified evidence. Notice the point about high frequency trading, which indirectly indicts the GLD & SLV (gold and silver) funds, whose inventory is likely connected to futures arbitrage schemes, as their bullion metal is drained. Notice the perceived spread of futures hedge exposure at the market peripheries. Barnhardt compared events of MFGlobal and JPMorgan to economic treason and betrayal of the American system. Here are some of her main points.

The futures markets are withering and dying on the vine, as business is totally evaporating. Many explicitly state that they are done trading and hedging with futures, both speculators and hedgers.
The volume increases in recent months were due to the veritable fungal infection of the market that is the high frequency algorithm trading systems.
Nobody in the trading pits believes the statistics that come out of the USGovt or the Federal Reserve. Anyone who believes them must be mentally disabled (her words).
Exposure to futures is itself contagious. If producers enter into a private treaty forward delivery contract with a grain elevator or a feedlot, they would still be exposed to the futures market, and to the risk of a futures market collapse, or even just another wealth confiscation. If any contract participant utilizes futures contracts in risk hedge, all parties are exposed. Even private treaty forward contracting is exposed, since someone along the line laid risk off on the futures market.

INDICTMENT OF SLV i-TRUST SILVER FUND

The SLV exchange traded fund is drained of silver bars from the back door. Numerous blemishes can be identified. The fund cannot stand scrutiny. It is one of the most effective criminal fraud vehicles ever designed. Thousands of investors have been duped, buying what they believed was physical gold & silver, when they have aided the cartel in suppressing their prices. Their inventory is routinely raided from custodial shorting practices that have become glaringly clear in recent months from simple tracking of inventory and short interest. The SLV fund, formally called the iShares Silver Trust, contains much slippery language in its prospectus. The SLV provides funds for itself and custodian costs (managed by JPMorgan) by selling bullion, from the same fund. They actually achieve a benchmark price target for silver based upon their own sales. Their prospectus carefully states that the SLV share price reflects the value of the trust's silver holdings, NOT the spot silver price. It is a circular practice of self-fulfilling price achievement in suppression efforts.

BrotherJohn gives the excellent analysis in clear understandable terms, with focus on SLV fund shenanigans. A big hat tip goes to him. The SLV fund does not hold sufficient silver bars to correspond to all shares outstanding, but that fraud is carefully permitted under its prospectus and current legal structure. Track the shenanigans in a fine classroom style forensic analysis in YouTube video form by BrotherJohn (CLICK HERE). He covers a wide range of topics. Here are some of his main points. Adam Hamilton, are you paying attention?

The SLV fund has 300 million shares, each worth one ounce of silver, valued at almost $9.0 billion. But it has over 25 million shorted shares, or 8% of the float.
The practice of shorting SLV shares keeps the Silver price suppressed, enabling inventory raids from the fund. Around 25 million shares are short on SLV. Any suspicion that JPMorgan is the predominant party holding short shares would probably be correct, the shares provided by Bank of America, which owns a surprising 22 million shares, always a willing player to help push down the silver price.
The SLV fund rigs their own market, pushing silver to a desired lower price. In fact, the number of silver ounces per share is falling consistently, just over 0.97 oz in recent weeks. Check out September 30th, when the silver price fell hard from 40 to 30 per oz. The SLV fund had numerous big sellers that day in their listing.
A smoking gun is revealed on May 5th, when the silver price was busy falling from 48 to 34 per oz. The SLV fund had a single day volume of 300 million shares on that day in May, equal to its entire float. Conclude that naked shorting was taking place in coordinated fashion with a leveraged arbitrage between the fund and the COMEX using futures contracts. Leverage must be involved. Many fingers point to such arbitrage since the volumes are so great.

The lessons and signals are vividly clear. Purchase and invest in Gold & Silver bars and coins, the mainstay for financial survival and avoidance of debt serfdom. The crisis is working toward a series of climax events stretched over the next year. The outcome will be shocking. The events will awaken the masses finally, who are all too often perplexed and dismayed while many place their heads in the sand. The Gold & Silver prices are heading multiples higher. Efforts to confiscate by government will in all likelihood backfire, raising attention, pointing out value.

\"\"THE HAT TRICK LETTER PROFITS IN THE CURRENT CRISIS.

home: Golden Jackass website

subscribe: Hat Trick Letter

Jim Willie CB, editor of the “HAT TRICK LETTER”

Soros Warns of Violent Riots In America, Financial Collapse, Government Clampdown

2012-01-27T21:11:00.001-08:00

Bob Chapman's Future Warning For USA - "Its Over" - Understand?

2012-01-27T21:04:00.000-08:00

Indonesia’s Naval Modernisation: A Sea Change?

2012-01-27T21:02:00.001-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary Indonesia’s Naval Modernisation: A Sea Change? by Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 020/2012 dated 27 January 2012
Indonesia’s Naval Modernisation:
A Sea Change?
By Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto

Synopsis
To meet its maritime security needs, Indonesia is slowly modernising its naval capabilities. With a better fiscal climate, hopes abound that Indonesia can purchase or build more warships. Some obstacles, though, still prevent the Navy from hoisting its sail even higher.
Commentary
A JAVANESE proverb alon-alon asal kelakon - slowly but surely - seems to reflect Indonesia’s naval modernisation bid. Since 2004, Jakarta has begun to beef up its naval muscles at a modest pace. Indonesia aims to have a “Green-Water Navy” by 2024 – a navy second to none in Southeast Asia - an expectation that some may find too far-fetched. But recent increases in military spending might prove the sceptics wrong.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reports that Indonesia’s military expenditure has risen 28% in 2010, the largest relative increase in Asia. Furthermore, IHS Jane’s forecasts that Indonesia’s military spending to rise by 46% to US$9.29 billion from 2011 to 2015, with 71% increase on procurement alone. This bulkier purse could embark Indonesia on the largest naval shopping spree in 40 years.

Why modernise?
As the world’s largest archipelagic state sitting astride major global shipping lanes, Indonesia puts a high premium on its maritime security. One of the main responsibilities of the Indonesian Navy (TNI-AL) is to patrol vast swathes of Indonesian waters despite Indonesia having a Sea and Coast Guard (KPLP). However, lack of resources made monitoring of Indonesian seas difficult and resulted in rampant maritime crimes, such as piracy, illegal fishing and smuggling, which annually could cost Indonesia more than US$1 billion.

Furthermore, natural disasters have stressed the versatility of naval power. Following the 2004 Aceh tsunami, TNI-AL played a major role in transporting relief workers and humanitarian aid using its amphibious assets; considering that land infrastructures, such as roads and airfields, were too severely damaged for military transport trucks and aircraft to use.

Maritime boundary disputes too have prompted urgent calls for the government to revamp Indonesia’s naval defences. Indonesia still has over ten unresolved maritime boundary disputes with neighbouring states; some of them, like in Ambalat and Natuna Sea, often resulted in naval skirmishes among the disputants. Indonesia and Malaysia are currently in dispute over Ambalat waters off East Kalimantan and Sabah, known to contain huge hydrocarbon reserves. In May 2009, naval skirmishes almost led a TNI-AL vessel to fire upon a Malaysian patrol boat.

Similarly, China’s “cow’s tongue” claim in the South China Sea which overlapped with Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Natuna Sea is a brewing storm. In 2010, a Chinese armed vessel threatened to fire on a TNI-AL patrol boat after the latter had earlier detained a Chinese trawler suspected of fishing illegally in Indonesian EEZ. Therefore, a robust navy is a strategic imperative.

A government report states that Indonesia’s naval operational readiness in 2008 was less than 50% on average. Maintenance cycles and repair works are also grossly impaired by the US arms embargo imposed in 1991 and 1999. Spare parts were scarce and some platforms were “cannibalised” in order to keep the others in service.

Green Water Navy
Hence, in 2005, TNI-AL announced its “Green-Water Navy” blueprint to achieve a 274-ship force structure by 2024, divided into a Striking Force (110 ships), Patrolling Force (66 ships), and Supporting Force (98 ships). In addition, it is also upgrading existing assets with new systems and armaments. This is Indonesia’s largest naval modernisation plan in over 40 years. The last major modernisation was during 1959-1961 when Indonesia purchased a substantial number of Soviet-made naval vessels.

The blueprint has since been gradually realised with some new platforms joining the fleet. All four Sigma-class corvettes built in the Netherlands have been in service with TNI-AL since 2009. In 2011, Indonesia’s amphibious capabilities were also boosted with the commissioning of the fourth Makassar-class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) vessel. One of them even participated in a hostage rescue operation in the Gulf of Aden in March 2010.

For its patrol muscle, Indonesia’s naval shipyard, PT PAL, has been able to manufacture fast attack craft and arm them with Chinese C-802 anti-ship missiles. PT PAL is also keen to integrate various naval weapon systems into different platforms. In April 2011, a Russian Yakhont missile mounted aboard an ex-Dutch Van Speijk frigate was successfully test-fired. Such integration of “hybrid” systems would most likely characterise Indonesia’s naval shipbuilding capacity in the near term, rather than the more ambitious whole-platform construction of submarines or frigates.

Regardless, TNI-AL also has plans for a major procurement for this decade. PT PAL is about to jointly construct frigates and submarines with foreign naval shipbuilding companies. In August 2010, a project was agreed to locally construct four to 16 guided missile escorts (Perusak Kawal Rudal, PKR) in cooperation with Dutch Damen Schelde. This 2,400 tonne 105m multi-purpose frigate will be fitted with an array of anti-submarine, anti-surface, anti-air, and electronic warfare systems. TNI-AL’s two Cakra-class (Type-209/1300) submarines will also be complemented with three Type-209 Chang Bogo procured from South Korea. With the procurement budget recently increased from Rp.47.5 trillion (US$5.28 billion) in 2011 to Rp.64.4 trillion (US$ 7.15 billion) in 2012, TNI-AL’s future fleet might be one step closer to fruition.

Obstacle Course

Nevertheless, Indonesia still has to face several obstacles. Corruption, a hodgepodge of platforms and systems, and a continental-based defence strategy have often plagued Indonesia’s naval modernisation schemes and warfighting effectiveness. Former Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono acknowledged corruption practices, in that up to 40 percent of procurement proposals could be mark-ups. Standardisation is also a significant challenge as the Indonesian Defence Forces (TNI) operates 173 main weapon systems from seventeen different countries. Lastly, Indonesia still retains its “Total Defence” strategy which puts heavy emphasis on manpower and land operations.

For the Navy to be effective, an overarching maritime defence strategy is required. This means that the sea, rather than the land, should become TNI’s main operational environment. As the Senior Service, the Army would be strenuously opposed to such a shift. Given that these obstacles remain unaddressed, Indonesia’s naval modernisation is not something for other countries to get nervous about. Though not a sea change yet, it is still quite a change to be reckoned with.

Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto is a research analyst in the Maritime Security Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University and a former researcher at the Center for East Asian Cooperation Studies (CEACoS), University of Indonesia.

We must become adult, as a human mankind

2012-01-27T21:01:00.001-08:00

The following is the transcript of an address to a private meeting of diplomats in Washington DC on Wednesday, January 25, by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the head of the political movement in Europe associated with her husband, Lyndon LaRouche, and the founder of the International Schiller Institute. Mrs. LaRouche presents the stark danger facing mankind of global economic collapse and the threat of near-term global thermonuclear warfare, but also presents the pathway out of the crisis and the potential for both a new economic paradigm for the world, and a new Renaissance. The discussion following this address was off the record.
Mike Billington

We must become adult, as a human mankind
Helga Zepp LaRouche

The problem is that mankind is presently confronted with two
existential crises, which we have to solve if there is supposed
to be continued existence of civilization in the form as we have
known it so far. One of these existential crises is the fact that
we are in the absolute last phase of a financial disintegration
of the global monetary system. Now the second related crisis is
the fact that we are right now maybe millimeters away from the
danger of a global thermonuclear Third World War, which could be
triggered by a whole number of problems, but obviously, right
now, it's focusing on Syria and Iran.
But let me first speak on the financial crisis.
The problem is that when the secondary mortgage crisis
erupted in the July 2007, my husband, Mr. LaRouche, had a
proposal which would have stopped that crisis right there. It was
the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. It was a kind of
introduction of Glass-Steagall by eliminating the usurious
element of the casino economy, the so-called derivatives
speculation and the entire bubble. Now, unfortunately, this
proposal, even if it had a lot of traction in the United States
Congress, among hundreds of city councils, and state legislators,
it was defeated because of massive pressure from financial
interests.
And what the G20 did instead is to have, for four and a half
years, one bailout project, one bailout package, after the other.
Altogether, even though these figures are somewhat blurred, we
are probably talking about anywhere between $30 and $40 trillion
of bailouts of bankrupt banks.
In these four and a half years, the G20 countries have
failed completely to re-regulate an out-of-control financial
system, and what they have done, the only thing they have
accomplished, is to tranform private speculator debt, gambling
debt, into state debt, through the mechanism of these bailout
packages.
If you talk to some financiers, they would say, "Oh,
no, there is no problem with the financial system. It's a state
debt crisis."
Now, the state debt crisis has been the result of these
bailout packages, entirely.
This has reached a situation where the euro is collapsing. I
think it could collapse, actually while we are sitting here
eating lunch, or it could collapse in February, March, April, but
even renowned economists like the chief economist of Deutsche
Bank, Thomas Mayer, recently said that he would be surprised if
the euro still exists on the first of May.
This situation has reached the situation where the
effort to maintain the euro, through vicious austerity policies,
is alienating the European nations, the populations of the
European countries, against their governments, and against the
EU, in such a way that we are truly talking about a mass strike
process; we're talking about a revolutionary situation; and we're
talking about potential civil war.
Now, the country where the brutality of the present EU
policy is most obvious is Greece. Greece has been imposed with
austerity packages one after the other, and the country is in
despair. The people of Greece are right now really looking at no
future: All the young people and the academically trained people
are leaving the country; you have parents who are giving away
their children because they cannot any longer nourish them; and
people are dying as a result, because the pharmaceutical concerns
are no longer delivering certain medicines to hospitals, because
there is no money to pay. Now, you can draw your own conclusion
what that does for the life-expectancy of the people who don't
get these medicines, because obviously they're not in the
hospital for luxury purposes.
This thing is coming to an explosion. The negotiations
with Greece are not moving forward. They cannot move forward,
because you cannot squeeze a lemon which has been squeezed to the
last drop.
A similar situation exists in Italy, where you have a mass
strike, involving taxi drivers, truck drivers, all kinds of
pharmacists, doctors, lawyers, so that basically what is called
the "pitchfork strike," which first started in Sicily, has now
spread to the entire country of Italy, and this was all triggered
by a decree of the Monti government -- which is, after all, a
technocratic government imposed by the EU, and not elected -- by
basically refusing to respond to all of this protest, by simply
making a decree of these brutal cuts in all areas. And the
population is not accepting it.
Now one member of our organization is a leader of this
strike movement. He was repeatedly covered on national TV as a
leader. He has had meetings with the Monti government, and this
thing is heading toward a complete confrontation. Because you
cannot deprive populations of their life earnings in the way the
present policies are doing this.
After the downgrading of nine EU members, through the
Standard & Poor's rating agency last week, you have practically a
situation where you have a deleveraging of all the major banks in
France, but also in many other countries, so there is a frantic
effort right now by IMF Managing Director Mrs. Lagarde, to
increase the money for the EFSF, the European Financial Stability
Fund, by another EU500 billion. They are pulling up the ESM, the
European Stability Mechanism, which is supposed to be the
permanent bailout fund, to July of this year. Mrs. Lagarde
demanded another several hundred million contribution from
Germany. Zoellick from the World Bank also demanded that Germany
must pay more, to which Mrs. Merkel responded that the German
capacity to pay all of that is not limitless.
So, this thing will not function, and the financial press in
Europe is already using a language which I prided myself to have
been the only one using these words, but now the headlines of the
popular press are saying, "The ECB Has Become a Money-Printing
Machine," "We Are Looking at Hyperinflation like 1923 in
Germany," and this is, if you think a couple of years back, the
"H word," meaning hyperinflation, was one of the absolute taboo
words which were not allowed to ever be mentioned.
My best inclination is to say, the euro will collapse,
simply because some of the countries have no other choice than to
leave it. And this is a good thing. The euro was a
misconstruction from the beginning. It's a failed experiment. I
predicted that before it came into being. If you go into the
archives of our newspapers, I have written about it immediately
after '89, '90, when it was decided, because it {could} not
function.
The EU zone, the Eurozone, was never a so-called optimal
currency space, because it united completely agrarian countries,
like Greece, Portugal, and others, with highly industrialized
countries like Germany, and for ten years, you had the illusion
that this would somehow function, but all it did was to develop
bubbles in the so-called secondary, moving-up countries, like
Greece and Portugal, Spain, while the domestic market in Germany
has shrunk. Real wages in Germany in these 10 years have gone
down. They're being eaten up right now, already, by that
inflation, so you have a de facto reduction in the living
standard. So this thing is not functioning.
You all remember, or some of us remember, and have
written about it, that the euro had never had an economic sound
basis, but it was purely political. It had a geopolitical
intention, to keep Germany contained after the German
reunification, to prevent Germany from playing an important
economic role -- for example, in the cooperation with Russia --
by forcing Germany in the straitjacket of the EU.
At that time, Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterrand, and
President Bush Sr. decided to impose the introduction of the euro
as the price for the German unification.
If you have a political intention, which is not
economically sound, you should not be surprised that such an
experiment fails, and that is what is happening right now.
If the euro collapses in an uncontrolled way, obviously this
brings immediately into danger the entire global financial
system: first, the trans-Atlantic system, because of the
entanglement of the banking system. If the euro collapses in a
disorderly way, then naturally all the U.S. banks will go
bankrupt also, and the collapse of the trans-Atlantic system will
immediately spread into Asia, and other areas of the world.
So, this is the situation.
The irony is that, right now you have the Davos meeting
going on in Switzerland, where a large part of the world economic
elite is meeting -- 40 heads of state are there -- and they are
discussing the collapse of the capitalist system. They're
discussing about, where is the way out. They are clueless, and
it's not a surprise. Because all of these people are guided by
axioms which contributed to the emergence of this crisis.
There is a solution. The solution is very simple: to go
back to the Glass-Steagall standard, which Franklin D. Roosevelt
introduced in the 1930s, and with which he brought the United
States out of the Depression. We are campaigning in Germany, and
France, in all European countries, for a Glass-Steagall. The
French Socialist candidate, Mr. Hollande, just came out for a
Glass-Steagall solution for France. We have very important people
in Switzerland, Italy -- Mr. Tremonti, the former economic
minister, just published a book that Glass-Steagall is the only
way. We have important parliamentarians in Denmark, in Sweden, in
Belgium, in Holland, we have important people in Germany -- all
fighting for Glass-Steagall.
So, it is an option. If the United States would put the
Glass-Steagall law back on the table, which they already did
repeatedly, this could immediately lead to a reorganization of
the financial system.
However, that is not enough. We need to draw the lesson out
of the fact that the euro has failed. We need to go back to the
national currencies. This may be a short shock for some
countries, or actually, all countries, but if you go back to
sovereignty over your own currency, and are in charge of your
economic policy, your currency, and you can, especially then,
issue credits for industrial investment, after a short shock, all
of these countries would do much better.
So, that is part of the solution.
Now, let me briefly touch on the war danger. Now, the war
danger comes from the fact that, when the Soviet Union and the
Comecon collapsed in 1989-91, we -- that is, the LaRouche
movement -- we had the proposal for an international peace order,
which was first called the Productive Triangle. And then, when
the Soviet Union had disappeared in '91, we enlarged it to the
Eurasian Land-Bridge, which was the idea to integrate the entire
Eurasian continent through large infrastructure projects,
transport corridors, an integrated system of fast trains, maglev
trains, waterways, highways, building so-called development
corridors with energy production and distribution, with
communications, so that you would have uplifted the land-locked
areas of Eurasia to an infrastructure situation like, for
example, you find in Germany.
We proposed this in really hundreds of conferences. We
had such meetings in Moscow, Beijing, New Delhi -- just all over
the world. And as you can see, Russia and China and many other
Asian countries are moving in this direction, but naturally, it
was not accepted by the Atlantic countries.
Now, instead of going with a peace order for the 21st
Century, which would have been very easy, because there was no
more enemy -- you could have said, we now have the chance to make
a peace order for the 21st Century, which allows the living for
all nations on this planet -- unfortunately the reaction of
Anglo-American elite was different. They decided to go for a
policy of empire, to basically get rid of every government which
would be in their way.
This policy was called regime change, and this had been
lingering even in the period where President Clinton was there.
It was called Clean Break; it was pushed by such people as
Richard Perle, Netanyahu. It was a counter to the Oslo Accord.
And naturally, we saw it in the form of the war against Iraq,
Saddam Hussein. You look at Iraq today, which is in much worse
shape than with Saddam Hussein.
It was later continued with the war against Libya. You look
at Libya today, it's eaten up in civil war and chaos, in much
worse shape. And now, regime change is on the agenda for Syria
and for Iran.
We have made interviews with very influential
representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency, like
the former head of it, Hans Blix, and others, who have
maintained, Iran does not have the bomb in the near future. I
cannot say this one way or another, but in any case, there are
always possibilities to negotiate something. There were Russian
offers to Iran, to assist them in the development of peaceful
nuclear energy. In any case, there is no reason -- and there must
be no reason -- to go for a military strike against Iran.
Because many European experts and others know, that once you
start a military strike against Iran, in this situation, where
the world is already disintegrating, this could very well be --
and probably will be -- the beginning of World War III.
Now, this is just one picture. You have to see also the fact
that what was started with the Bush Administration, the European
Missile Defense program in Poland and the Czech Republic, which
Russia always looked at as part of the encirclement policy of
NATO against Russia, and unfortunately, contrary to his election
promises, President Obama has continued this policy. And more
recently, both President Medvedev and the Russian Chief of Staff,
General Makarov, basically said that this policy could trigger a
regional war in Europe, in which nuclear weapons could be used.
Now, if you then take, in addition, the expansion of the
British and U.S. policy into Asia, which China has also already
said that they are not going to accept a violation of their vital
interests there, you can see that we are looking at a potential
World War III deployment.
And if you then look at the incredible amount of military
forces being massed right now in the Indian Ocean, in the Gulf,
in the Eastern Mediterranean, this is a very, very hot situation.
We have basically said: Look. If this war would ever
erupt, a nuclear war, especially with the use of thermonuclear
weapons, could make the human species extinct in any form worth
talking about.
Obviously, this comes all at the end of an era, at the end
of a system, and I think what we have to do, is to basically call
upon people to come up with ideas for a new order of mankind
which fits the interests of all nations on this planet.
The obvious thing would be to respond, as a collective
assembly of nations, to the existential threats we all face. One
of the threats is the collapse of the financial system. The other
threat is the danger of war.
But we also have larger threats, namely, threats coming from
the galactic cycles, which have caused tremendous weather
changes, which have caused earthquakes, tsunamis. In the case of
Japan, we had the events from Fukushima, which had much more
effects in Germany than in Japan, because of ideological problems
in that country. But there is no question, there is heightened
solar activity; there is right now, today and tomorrow, huge
solar storms, with warnings that satellite systems may be put out
of communication. Flight routes, routes of airline companies over
the North Pole, have been shifted because of that. So, there are
real questions, where obviously, our point of view is that the
answer to that, is that we should do what mankind always did when
confronted with existential dangers: namely, to use the human
ingenuity and creativity, and define the next step of human
development.
And, for a whole variety of reasons, that has to be manned
space travel, because as one friend of ours, the great
German-born scientist Krafft Ehricke, once termed it, that
mankind will only become adult when we respond to the
extraterrestrial imperative, i.e., when we start talking about
industrialization of the Moon, of Mars, and from there, to other
planets. Because it will force civilization to act rationally,
and to become truly human.
We have since a long time, proposed a reconstruction
program for the world. We call it the World Land-Bridge. It's the
idea to not only have Eurasia connected through infrastructure
corridors, but to take these corridors, through great
infrastructure projects like NAWAPA, all the way down to Chile.
To take the Eurasian Land-Bridge all the way through Egypt,
through a bridge or tunnel from Sicily to Tunisia, and through
the Strait of Gilbraltar, into Africa. And I've said many times
that the great moral test, especially for people in Europe, is to
develop Africa. Because if we cannot manage to save a continent
which right now is threatened by hunger and starvation, then we
are morally not fit to survive ourselves.
All of these polices are eminently feasible. Nothing of
what I have said is an insurmountable problem, except you need to
mobilize the political will to do it. And I think that the
decision, if we are able to solve these problems, and work
together for the common aims of mankind -- for example, the
former Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, just had an article
yesterday where he criticized the American Ambassador McFaul, the
new ambassador in Moscow, who is meeting with the opposition,
extraparliamentary opposition, people who are financed by the
same people who have done the Orange Revolution, or the Rose
Revolution in Georgia. And Mr. Ivanov said, why not have Russia
and the United States working together in the development of the
Arctic; and other proposals, where we have to work together, in
the joint development of space, manned space travel.
And I think that that is the task. Can we at this point,
where we are threatened with extinction as a species, get our act
together, and say, this old paradigm, which led to this crisis,
must be finished, and we must become adult as a human mankind,
and work together for the common aims of mankind.

Considering a U.S.-Iranian Deal

2012-01-26T01:50:00.001-08:00

from STRATFOR

Considering a U.S.-Iranian Deal
January 24, 2012 | 1211 GMT

By George Friedman

Last week, I wrote on the strategic challenge Iran faces in its bid to shape a sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to Beirut on the eastern Mediterranean coast. I also pointed out the limited options available to the United States and other Western powers to counter Iran.

One was increased efforts to block Iranian influence in Syria. The other was to consider a strategy of negotiation with Iran. In the past few days, we have seen hints of both.

Rebel Gains in Syria

The city of Zabadani in southwestern Syria reportedly has fallen into the hands of anti-regime forces. Though the city does not have much tactical value for the rebels, and the regime could well retake it, the event could have real significance. Up to this point, apart from media attention, the resistance to the regime of President Bashar al Assad has not proven particularly effective. It was certainly not able to take and hold territory, which is critical for any insurgency to have significance.

Now that the rebels have taken Zabadani amid much fanfare -- even though it is not clear to what extent the city was ceded to their control, much less whether they will be able to hold it against Syrian military action -- a small bit of Syria now appears to be under rebel control. The longer they can hold it, the weaker al Assad will look and the more likely it becomes that regime opponents can create a provisional government on Syrian soil to rally around.

Zabadani also gives outside powers something to help defend, should they choose to do so. Intervening in a civil war against weak and diffused rebels is one thing. Attacking Syrian tanks moving to retake Zabadani is quite another. There are no indications that this is under consideration, but for the first time, there is the potential for a militarily viable target set for outside players acting on behalf of the rebels. The existence of that possibility might change the dynamic in Syria. When we take into account the atmospherics of the Arab League demands for a provisional government, some meaningful pressure might actually emerge.

From the Iranian point of view, this raises the risk that the sphere of influence Tehran is pursuing will be blocked by the fall of the al Assad regime. This would not pose a fundamental challenge to Iran, so long as its influence in Iraq remains intact, but it would represent a potential high-water mark in Iranian ambitions. It could open the door to recalculations in Tehran as to the limits of Iranian influence and the threat to their national security. I must not overstate this: Events in Syria have not gone that far, and Iran is hardly backed into a corner. Still, it is a reminder to Tehran that all might not go the Iranians' way.

A Possibility of Negotiations

It is in this context that the possibility of negotiations has arisen. The Iranians have claimed that the letter the U.S. administration sent to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that defined Iran's threats to Strait of Hormuz as a red line contained a second paragraph offering direct talks with Iran. After hesitation, the United States denied the offer of talks, but it did not deny it had sent a message to the Iranian leadership. The Iranians then claimed such an offer was made verbally to Tehran and not in the letter. Washington again was not categorical in its denial. On Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a meeting with the German foreign minister, "We do not seek conflict. We strongly believe the people of Iran deserve a better future. They can have that future, the country can be reintegrated into the global community ... when their government definitively turns away from pursuing nuclear weapons."

From our perspective, this is a critical idea. As we have said for several years, we do not see Iran as close to having a nuclear weapon. They may be close to being able to test a crude nuclear device under controlled circumstances (and we don't know this either), but the development of a deliverable nuclear weapon poses major challenges for Iran.

Moreover, while the Iranians may aspire to a deterrent via a viable nuclear weapons capability, we do not believe the Iranians see nuclear weapons as militarily useful. A few such weapons could devastate Israel, but Iran would be annihilated in retaliation. While the Iranians talk aggressively, historically they have acted cautiously. For Iran, nuclear weapons are far more valuable as a notional threat and bargaining chip than as something to be deployed. Indeed, the ideal situation is not quite having a weapon, and therefore not forcing anyone to act against them, but seeming close enough to be taken seriously. They certainly have achieved that.

The important question, therefore, is this: What would the United States offer if Iran made meaningful concessions on its nuclear program, and what would Iran want in return? In other words, forgetting the nuclear part of the equation, what did Hillary Clinton mean when she said that Iran can be reintegrated into the international community, and what would Iran actually want?

Recall that in our view, nuclear weapons never have been the issue. Instead, the issue has been the development of an Iranian sphere of influence following the withdrawal of the United States from Iraq, and the pressure Iran could place on oil-producing states on the Arabian Peninsula. Iran has long felt that its natural role as leader in the Persian Gulf has been thwarted, first by the Ottomans, then the British and now by the Americans, and they have wanted to create what they regard as the natural state of things.

The United States and its allies do not want Iran to get nuclear weapons. But more than that, they do not want to see Iran as the dominant conventional force in the area able to use its influence to undermine the Saudis. With or without nuclear weapons, the United States must contain the Iranians to protect their Saudi allies. But the problem is that Iran is not contained in Syria yet, and even were it contained in Syria, it is not contained in Iraq. Iran has broken out of its containment in a decisive fashion, and its ability to exert pressure in Arabia is substantial.

Assume for the moment that Iran was willing to abandon its nuclear program. What would the United States give in return? Obviously, Clinton would like to offer an end to the sanctions. But the sanctions on Iran are simply not that onerous with the Russians and Chinese not cooperating and the United States being forced to allow the Japanese and others not to participate fully. But it goes deeper.

Iran's Historic Opportunity

This is a historic opportunity for Iran. It is the first moment in which no outside power is in a direct position to block Iran militarily or politically. Whatever the pain of sanctions, trading that moment for lifting the sanctions would not be rational. The threat of Iranian influence is the problem, and Iran would not trade that influence for an end to sanctions. So assuming the nuclear issue was to go away, what exactly is the United States prepared to offer?

The United States has assured access to oil from the Persian Gulf -- not only for itself, but also for the global industrial world -- since World War II. It does not want to face a potential interruption of oil for any reason, like the one that occurred in 1973. Certainly, as Iran expands its influence, the possibility of conflict increases, along with the possibility that the United States would intervene to protect its allies in Arabia from Iranian-sponsored subversion or even direct attack. The United States does not want to intervene in the region. It does not want an interruption of oil. It also does not want an extension of Iranian power. It is not clear that Washington can have all three.

Iran wants three things, too.

First, it wants the United States to reduce its presence in the Persian Gulf dramatically. Having seen two U.S. interventions against Iraq and one against Afghanistan, Iran is aware of U.S. power and the way American political sentiment can shift. It experienced the shift from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, so it knows how fast things can change. Tehran sees the United States in the Persian Gulf coupled with U.S. and Israeli covert operations and destabilization campaigns as an unpredictable danger to Iranian national security.

Second, the Iranians want to be recognized as the leading power in the region. This does not mean they intend to occupy any nation directly. It does mean that Iran doesn't want Saudi Arabia, for example, to pose a military threat against it.

Third, Iran wants a restructuring of oil revenue in the region. How this is formally achieved -- whether by allowing Iranian investment in Arabian oil companies (possibly financed by the host country) or some other means -- is unimportant. What does matter is that the Iranians want a bigger share of the region's vast financial resources.

The United States doesn't want a conflict with Iran. Iran doesn't want one with the United States. Neither can be sure how such a conflict would play out. The Iranians want to sell oil. The Americans want the West to be able to buy oil. The issue really comes down to whether the United States wants to guarantee the flow of oil militarily or via a political accommodation with the country that could disrupt the flow of oil -- namely, Iran. That in turn raises two questions. First, could the United States trust Iran? And second, could it live with withdrawing the American protectorate on the Arabian Peninsula, casting old allies adrift?

When we listen to the rhetoric of American and Iranian politicians, it is difficult to imagine trust between them. But when we recall the U.S. alliance with Stalin and Mao or the Islamic republic's collaboration with the Soviet Union, we find rhetoric is a very poor guide. Nations pursue their national interest, and while those interests are never eternal, they can be substantial. From a purely rhetorical point of view it is not always easy to tell which sides' politicians are more colorful. It will be difficult to sell an alliance between the Great Satan and a founding member of the Axis of Evil to the respective public of each country, but harder things have been managed.

Iran's ultimate interest is security against the United States and the ability to sell oil at a more substantial profit. (This would entail an easing of sanctions and a redefinition of how oil revenues in the region are distributed.) The United States' ultimate interest is access to oil and manageable prices that do not require American military intervention. On that basis, Iranian and American interests are not that far apart.

The Arabian Factor and a Possible Accommodation

The key point in this scenario is the future of U.S. relations with the countries of the Arabian Peninsula. Any deal between Iran and the United States affects them two ways. First, the reduction of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf requires them to reach an accommodation with the Iranians, something difficult and potentially destabilizing for them. Second, the shift in the financial flow will hurt them and probably will not be the final deal. Over time, the Iranians will use their strengthened position in the region to continue pushing for additional concessions from them.

There is always danger in abandoning allies. Other allies might be made uncomfortable, for example. But these things have happened before. Abandoning old allies for the national interest is not something the United States invented. The idea that the United States should find money flowing to the Saudis inherently more attractive than money flowing to the Iranians is not obvious.

The main question for the United States is how Iran might be contained. The flow of money will strengthen Iran, and it might seek to extend its power beyond what is tolerable to the United States. There are potential answers. First, the United States can always return to the region. The Iranians do not see the Americans as weak, but rather as unpredictable. Challenging the United States after Iran has achieved its historic goal is not likely. Second, no matter how Iran grows, it is far behind Turkey by every measure. Turkey is not ready to play an active role balancing Iran now, but in the time it takes Iran to consolidate its position, Turkey will be a force that will balance and eventually contain Iran. In the end, a deal will come down to one that profits both sides and clearly defines the limits of Iranian power -- limits that it is in Iran's interest to respect given that it is profiting mightily from the deal.

Geopolitics leads in one direction. Ideology leads in another direction. The ability to trust one another is yet a third. At the same time, the Iranians cannot be sure of what the United States is prepared to do. The Americans do not want to go to war with Iran. Both want oil flowing, and neither cares about nuclear weapons as much as they pretend. Finally, no one else really matters in this deal. The Israelis are not as hardline on Iran as they appear, nor will the United States listen to Israel on a matter fundamental to the global economy. In the end, absent nuclear weapons, Israel does not have that much of a problem with Iran.

It would not surprise me to find out that the United States offered direct talks, nor to discover that Clinton's comments could not be extended to a more extensive accommodation. Nor do I think that Iran would miss a chance for an historic transformation of its strategic and financial position in favor of ideology. They are much too cynical for that. The great losers would be the Saudis, but even they could come around to a deal that, while less satisfactory than they have now, is still quite satisfactory.

There are many blocks in the way of such a deal, from ideology to distrust to domestic politics. But given the knot that is being tied in the region, rumors that negotiations are being floated come as no surprise. Syria might not go the way Iran wants, and Iraq is certainly not going the way the United States wants. Marriages have been built on less.

London's Hand Behind Drive for World War III Exposed

2012-01-26T01:45:00.000-08:00

If the on-rushing war on Iran is to be stopped, and the global war which is the intended result, then the role of the UK, using their controlled assets Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama, must be exposed, and Obama removed from office. This article appears in the January 20, 2012 issueof Executive Intelligence Review. Mike Billington

London's Hand Behind Drive
for World War III Exposed
by Nancy Spannaus and Jeffrey Steinberg

[PDF version of this article]
Jan. 16—Two dramatic developments in recent days have served to further expose the direct British hand behind the drive for thermonuclear World War III, principally targeted against Russia, China, and the United States.
As has been the case with imperial wars since the time of the Roman Empire, the objective is always to pit one nation or people against another, while the imperial power sits on the sidelines to reap the benefits of the slaughter. In this case, London's goal is the destruction of Russia, China, India, and the United States, and the mass extermination of billions of people in a thermonuclear holocaust, centered in the heart of Eurasia, that they somehow delude themselves into believing they will survive.
Assassination a War Provocation
On Jan. 11, a 32-year-old Iranian nuclear physicist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was assassinated when a bomb was attached to his car as he was being driven to the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility. Roshan was the director of the facility. He was the fifth Iranian nuclear scientist to be targeted for assassination in the past two years (four were successful). Thousands of Iranians turned out for his funeral several days later, and the government accused Israel, Britain, and the United States of being involved in the murder.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a strenuous denial on behalf of the U.S. after Iran released a formal letter to the Obama Administration, claiming to have evidence of CIA involvement in training of the assassins.
Four days after the cold-blooded murder, Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times of London printed a blood-curdling account of the assassination, purportedly from a confidential Israeli intelligence source. While claiming that it was agents of the Israeli Mossad who conducted the carefully planned assassination, the Times story implied that the Mossad's string of assassinations and sabotage bombings inside Iran have been fully blessed by both London and Washington.
While London's hand in the asymmetric warfare cannot be doubted, Clinton's strong statement that the U.S. was not involved rings true. On Jan. 15, the Pentagon announced that the United States had indefinitely postponed scheduled joint missile defense manuevers with Israel. "Austere Challenge 12" was to be the largest such joint maneuvers ever, and had been scheduled to take place in April, with the participation of thousands of American military personnel.
While the official announcement of the delay attributed it to logistical constraints, and claimed it was a mutual decision by the U.S. European Command (Eurcom) and the Israeli Defense Forces, high-ranking U.S. intelligence sources have told EIR that the cancellation was in direct response to the Roshan assassination, which was not cleared by or coordinated with Washington.
American officials in the Pentagon and the intelligence community, who have been involved in non-stop war avoidance efforts since the time of the Libyan regime-change operation, were furious at the assassination, which came at a moment when efforts are underway to resume UN Security Council Permanent Five plus Germany (P5+1) talks with Iran over its nuclear program.
In one of the clearest statements from this patriotic American intelligence faction, Paul Pillar, the former Middle East director of the National Intelligence Council, wrote just hours after the Roshan assassination in The National Interest of Jan. 11: "The killing of an individual foreigner overseas, if carried out for a political or policy purpose by either a nonstate actor or clandestine agents of a state, is an act of international terrorism." That is the criterion that the U.S. State Department has used for decades in placing foreign nations on its list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Pillar condemned the Roshan assassination and challenged:

"Imagine the response if even just one scientist (let alone four or five) who was employed, say, at one of the U.S. national laboratories, had been similarly assassinated and a foreign hand was suspected. There would be screams of 'act of war' and the U.S. president would be hard-pressed to hold back impulses to strike back forcefully."

Pillar indicated that he agreed with other experts, like Dr. Trita Parsi, who accused Israel of carrying out the assassination, because they "prefer a military confrontation with Iran over a compromise that would permit Iran to retain nuclear enrichment capabilities, even if it doesn't build a bomb." Pillar warned that such actions, combined with other hostile threats and acts against Iran, will only drive the Islamic Republic to conclude that it needs a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to fend off its enemies.
"The proper U.S. response to all this," he concluded, "is to pursue—vigorously—negotiations with Iran, with the starting point being the most recent Iranian proposal for a new round of talks with the P5+1. That is the only way out of the larger spiral of mutually reinforcing hostility of which the assassinations are only a part.... To do otherwise would be, to use a hackneyed phrase, a victory for the terrorists."
Israeli False Flag Operation
While London exposed itself in terms of the Roshan assassination, U.S. military historian and Middle East peace activist Mark Perry laid bare another of their dirty operations as well. In an act of defiance against the Anglo-Israeli war schemes, on Jan. 13, the online magazine Foreign Policy published an article by Perry exposing an Israeli "false flag" operation that targeted Iran for terrorist attacks, while passing itself off as a CIA program.
Perry obtained details of a string of CIA memos from the latter years of the George W. Bush Administration, which revealed that Israeli intelligence operatives, using American passports and presenting themselves as CIA agents, were recruiting terrorists from the Balochistan, Pakistan-based Jundallah group, to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran. Jundallah, a Sunni fundamentalist group operating along the border between Iran and Pakistan, have been responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks, some against innocent women and children, as well as Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) outposts along the border.
In November 2010, the U.S. State Department placed Jundallah on its list of international terrorist organizations.
Perry reported that the CIA station in London became aware of the Mossad false flag operations, which were run out in the open. He quoted one U.S. intelligence officer who was privy to the probe of the Israeli program: "It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the officer said.

"Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn't give a damn what we thought."

What Perry did not draw out, was the fact that London was the perfect place for the Mossad to recruit Jundallah members, because the British government and MI6 were giving sanctuary to the group, as part of Britain's longstanding policy of promoting an independent "Greater Balochistan" to maintain permanent conflicts along the borders of the entire Southwest, South, and Central Asian region.[1] For identical reasons, the British have provided safe haven in London for the separatist terrorists of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), Uighur terrorists from the Xinjiang Province of Western China ("Eastern Turkistan"), Chechen separatists from the Russian Northern Caucasus, and many similar brutal terrorist groups. Even the British media frequently refer to the presence of all of these terrorist networks, all enjoying British intelligence protection, as "Londonistan."
Will the U.S. Go Along?
In short, a combined British-Israeli apparatus is driving the world to the very edge of thermonuclear confrontation, and is hell-bent on drawing the United States in, taking advantage of the London levers of control over President Barack Obama.
The question is: Will the British Empire, with its control over President Obama and brainwashing of the American population into monetarist madness, succeed in leading humanity into genocidal devastation in the weeks ahead, either by thermonuclear war, or mass chaos, starvation, and disease? The answer to that question will depend upon whether leading policy-makers, particularly in the United States, recognize and respond appropriately to reality.
That reality, as Lyndon LaRouche and this publication have repeatedly emphasized, is that, in the midst of an obvious general breakdown crisis of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system, the British Empire is pursuing a thermonuclear confrontation with Russia, China, and other nations of Asia. And despite notable war avoidance measures being taken by the Russian government and leading military-intelligence circles in the United States, the danger of triggering such a war, through confrontation with Iran or one of many other British-manipulated "hotspots," has notably advanced over the last week.
LaRouche has outlined the unique solutions, both in terms of the immediate action of removing Obama from the Presidency, and the necessary mindset, which are required to defuse this existential crisis. Here, we review the recent major developments in the strategic arena.
The Target Is Asia
During the last week, Russian and Chinese high-level spokesmen have spoken out boldly, to emphasize that NATO policy toward the Middle Eastern cockpit, especially Syria and Iran, represents a direct threat to their own security, and will be responded to as such.
On Jan. 12, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev warned that military escalation is likely in Iran, with "real danger" of a U.S. strike, in an interview published by the daily Kommersant. Also, Syria, which has refused to break its ties with Tehran, could be a target for Western intervention, he said.
"There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, and Israel is pushing the Americans towards it," Patrushev said. "At present, the U.S. sees Iran as its main problem. They are trying to turn Tehran from an enemy into a supportive partner, and to achieve this, to change the current regime by whatever means."
"They use both economic embargo and massive help to the opposition forces," Patrushev said, adding that "for years we have been hearing that practically by next week the Iranians are going to create an atomic bomb; still nobody has proved the existence of a military component of Iran's nuclear program."
Patrushev said the current tension over Syria is linked to the Iran issue. "They want to punish Damascus not so much for the repression of the opposition, but rather for its refusal to break off relations with Tehran," he insisted. "There is information that NATO members and some Arab Persian Gulf states, acting in line with the scenario seen in Libya, intend to turn the current interference with Syrian affairs into a direct military intervention."
LaRouche responded to Patrushev's warning by pointing to the danger of a possible thermonuclear confrontation between the British-controlled U.S., and Russia and China. This represents "a danger to humanity as a whole," he said.
On Jan. 13, the Russians escalated, choosing an international forum to underscore Patrushev's message. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin, the former ambassador to NATO, returned to Brussels to give his final press conference at NATO headquarters. Rogozin's message is provided here in EIR's translation. Asked about Iran, he said:

"For the Americans, that is very far away, on completely the opposite side of the Earth, the planet, the globe. But for us, it is just south of our Caucasus. And therefore, if something happens with Iran, if it becomes involved in some kind of military action, then this is a direct threat to our security" (emphasis added).

After stressing that Russia "will conduct a very tough policy, designed to prevent countries, while we are helping them to develop modern sources of energy, from acquiring technologies for using the atom for military purposes," he added that it is the right of every country

"to have everything they need, to feel comfortable and secure. Iran has this type of right, as well. Therefore we would like to say to all the participants in this agitated game around Iran: 'Calm down. Tone down your discussions and public statements. Bear in mind that every public statement has material consequences.'... We hope that the current crisis around Iran will be cooled out jointly by us all. If tension continues to grow around Iran, and then multiply that by the situation in Syria, the aftermath of the civil war in Libya, and the oncoming 'Arab Summer' in North Africa, nobody is going to say that that's something insignificant. So we repeat, 'Take a drink of cold mineral water and calm down.' "

Rogozin's criticism of the sanctions against Iran was reiterated the same day by Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov, who said,

"Additional sanctions against Iran, or a possible military strike against the Islamic Republic of Iran, will unquestionably be perceived by the international community as pursuing the goal of 'regime change' in Tehran."

While less direct, the Chinese government is utilizing various outlets to make clear that it sees the policy against Iran, in particular, as aimed at its security. China get 13% of its oil from Iran, and would suffer significantly from the cut-off of supplies being pressed by the Obama Administration and others. In an editorial in Global Times Jan. 14, the writer gave the view of many in the Chinese leadership:

"China should not bend to U.S. pressure... Iran's oil resources and geopolitcal value are crucial to China."

War on Iran Has Begun
But the Empire and its tools, notably including Barack Obama, and British agent Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have shown absolutely no signs of backing down from their belligerence. Indeed, through both tightening of sanctions against Iran's vital oil trade, and a policy of assassinations and terrorism within Iran, the British-Israeli-U.S. nexus has already launched that war. This is the context for seeing the strategic significance of the Roshan killing.
Within two days of his assassination, the Iranian government had sent off letters to Great Britain and the United States, charging that they are behind the assassinations, and lodging official protests. The government has also sent an official demand for investigation of the incident to the United Nations.
While some Iranian leaders clearly are keeping their wits about them, and refusing to be provoked into a "tit-for-tat" response against Israel for the hits, despite statements from some Israelis almost taking credit for the mayhem, it is not clear that they can necessarily maintain that control within the factionalized Iranian political class. As some statements from the Iranians threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 60% of the world's crude oil flows, indicate, there are those in Iran who are threatening to respond with rage, not strategy.
Thus, on Jan. 14, LaRouche issued a sharp warning that any kind of provocations at this point, particularly in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, would be insane. LaRouche was responding, in part, to reports from a senior U.S. intelligence source that a "pro-war" faction within the Revolutionary Guard was contemplating a "limited" military incident in the Strait, to allow them to consolidate power on the eve of the March parliamentary elections.
"The only people who would benefit from such an irresponsible provocation at this moment would be the worst enemies of Iran," LaRouche warned. "If some element within the Revolutionary Guard were to consciously provoke even a minor incident in the Strait of Hormuz, I would have to ask: Whose side are you on? Are you an Israeli agent?"
War-Avoidance Efforts
Meanwhile, efforts to defuse the tensions, combat the lies about Iran's nuclear program, and get diplomacy between Iran and the West back on track, have gone into high gear. The Pentagon's cancellation of "Austere Challenge 12" has been the most direct action to date.
Simultaneously, there is a broad outpouring of war-avoidance efforts coming from American political and military-intelligence professionals, who are pulling no punches on their assessment that the current trajectory is leading straight to World War III.
Over Jan. 13-14, a number of public calls were issued for the activation of a war-avoidance back-channel between Washington and Tehran, modeled on the Robert Kennedy-Anatoly Dobrynin channel during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which successfully averted a thermonuclear world war between the United States and the Soviet Union. On Jan. 13, David Ignatius published an explicit call for such a back-channel in the Washington Post, and Jan. 14, former Carter Administration National Security Council staffer Gary Sick called, on CNN, called for the U.S. and Iran to reach an agreement based on Iran turning over its 20% enriched uranium, in exchange for 20% enriched nuclear fuel rods, needed for its isotope reactor which is part of Iran's medical system.
LaRouche gave his full endorsement to Sick's proposal.
Meanwhile, several well-known analysts raised the alarm that the U.S. strategic posture on Iran, including its heavy military deployments in the Persian Gulf, portend a thermonuclear confrontation.
In a Jan. 13 piece, "The Next War on Washington's Agenda," former Reagan Administration official Paul Craig Roberts reviewed the U.S. pre-war provocations, concluding that the United States would only be willing to risk the Fifth Fleet to create justification for a nuclear strike versus Iran, which would then target Russia and China.
"The consequences," he wrote, "would be that the world would face a higher risk of nuclear armageddon than existed in the mutually assured destruction of the US-Soviet standoff." Roberts calls this a "silly pointless provocation of Washington's largest creditor," referring to the targeting of China. The article ends with a pointed warning, based on U.S. provocations against Russia and China: "Where do we go from here? If not to nuclear destruction, Americans must wake up. Football games, porn and shopping malls are one thing. Survival of human life is another...."
On Jan. 11, former CIA analyst Phil Giraldi published a column on antiwar.com, "What War with Iran Might Look Like," in which he referenced a previous piece he wrote in September 2007, titled "What World War III Might Look Like," and updated it based on some changed circumstances. Iran remains the target, and the U.S. is already conducting economic war against Iran as Obama shuns all opportunities to negotiate in good faith, Giraldi charged.
Under his scenario, a minor skirmish between a local Iran Revolutionary Guard naval commander and a U.S. frigate leads to limited exchanges of fire, a standing-order U.S. bombing of the site from which the IRGC boats were launched, and a temporary standdown and emergency session of the UN Security Council demanding American restraint. Israel uses the occasion to bomb Bushehr and Natanz, killing 13 Russian scientists and technicians working at the two facilities. The Congress votes overwhelmingly to demand that the President support Israel militarily, leading to full-scale American bombing campaign. The scenario escalates to thermonuclear World War III.
Want to avoid it? Break from London now.

Egypt One Year On: Stark Message for Arab Revolutionaries

2012-01-26T01:41:00.000-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary Egypt One Year On: Stark Message for Arab Revolutionaries by James M. Dorsey. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 018/2012 dated 25 January 2012
Egypt One Year On:
Stark Message for Arab Revolutionaries
By James M. Dorsey

Synopsis
This month's first anniversary of the uprising that toppled Mubarak contains a stark message for Egypt’s revolutionaries. They are being marginalised as vested interests and traditional political forces experienced in political horse trading fill the vacuum of leadership. This message may well also be meant for other revolutionaries in the Arab world.
Commentary
EGYPT’S MILITARY council, backed by Islamist and secular political parties, has upstaged the 25 January celebrations of the anniversary of the protests that ousted President Hosni Mubarak even before the party gets underway. The military pre-empted plans by the revolutionary youth and militant soccer fan groups whose mass protests early last year forced Mubarak from office by announcing that they would organise their own celebration together with the Muslim Brotherhood on Cairo’s Tahrir Square.

The military’s co-opting of the celebrations is certain to dash hopes of the protesters to exploit the anniversary to launch what they call a second revolution that would force the armed forces to immediately relinquish power. Instead, it is likely to seal their defeat in a country that has grown tired of demonstrations, still largely reveres the military despite its brutal response to anti-government protests late last year and wants to see tangible results of its revolt.

A stark message
The military’s move also signals the primacy of electoral over contentious politics in post-autocratic transition societies with the backing of the Brotherhood, which emerged as Egypt’s foremost political grouping with some 40 per cent of the vote in the first post-Mubarak elections. The Brotherhood’s backing of the military celebration is significant given its demonstrated ability to fill Tahrir Square and mobilise opposition against the military if it wanted to.

The military is sending a stark message not only to Egyptian youth and soccer fan groups that established political organisations with well-oiled party machines rather than newly emerging political forces will shape the country’s future. The message is also to protesters elsewhere in the region that unless they can match their mobilisation and street skills with the art of electoral politics and backroom horse trading they too will be relegated to the sidelines of history.

Much of the youth and soccer groups’ criticism of the post-Mubarak transition rings true even if does not resonate with a majority of the population. They accuse the military of subverting a promised transition to real democracy in a bid to preserve its political and economic perks and interests and employing to do so the same if not worse repressive measures than the Mubarak regime. Scores have been killed in protests since Mubarak’s downfall, thousands injured and some 12,000 people, including activists, bloggers and soccer fans dragged in front of military courts.

The one joker in the military’s plans to upstage the youth and soccer fan groups and give them the death knell is the spectre of violent confrontation during the celebrations. Fear of a repeat of the bitter street battles that took place between security forces and soccer fans in November and December last year could persuade many Egyptians to steer clear of Tahrir Square on 25 January. Egypt’s military ruler, Field Marshall Mohamed Hussein Tantawi issued a thinly veiled warning to the youth and soccer fan groups days before the 25 January celebrations that Egypt faced unprecedented “grave dangers” but that the military would protect it. The statement, echoing Mubarak’s tactic of distracting attention from domestic issues by invoking an alleged foreign threat, was contrived to rally public opinion against the protesters.

Treacherous ground
A failure to rally the masses would dent the military’s efforts to maintain the high ground and would boost revolutionary moves to thwart its plans. Nonetheless, the youth and soccer fan groups are on treacherous ground. They have lost much of the popular support they enjoyed in the run-up to and immediate aftermath of Mubarak’s ousting. Their refusal to surrender Tahrir Square in favour of traditional politics has won them few brownie points with the public. Their marginalisation is compounded by the fact that men and women perceived to be honest and of faith have emerged victorious in the election, raising hopes that government will be free of nepotism and corruption.

Revolutionaries in other Middle Eastern and North African societies in transition may well conclude from the Egyptian experience that it is a fatal mistake to simply topple an autocratic leader and not to push for the ultimate uprooting of a failed system. It promises to make transitions even more contentious and could inspire the kind of resilience and determination displayed by protesters in Syria who have refused to give ground to a ten-month old brutal government crackdown that has already cost some 5,000 lives.

Protesters across the Middle East and North Africa like their counterparts in other parts of the world have mastered the art of seemingly leaderless revolt and exploitation of new technology. However, the lesson of Egypt is that they will also increasingly have to harness the skills of traditional politics and face up to the reality of realpolitik to ensure that they not only win a battle but also the war.

James M. Dorsey is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He has been a journalist covering the Middle East for over 30 years.

RSIS presents the following commentary Targeted Assassinations: Implications for National Security by Damien D. Cheong. It is also available online a

2012-01-20T23:20:00.001-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary Targeted Assassinations: Implications for National Security by Damien D. Cheong. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 017/2012 dated 20 January 2012

Targeted Assassinations:
Implications for National Security

By Damien D. Cheong

Synopsis

The latest targeted assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist sets a dangerous precedent. Although the use of this tactic is intended to reduce national security threats, the various reprisals and actions that states could adopt could actually increase threats to national security.

Commentary

MOSTAFA AHMADI Roshan is the latest Iranian scientist associated with the country’s nuclear programme to be assassinated in the past two years. Roshan, a deputy director of the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, died when a car bomb strapped to his vehicle exploded on 11 January 2012. Last year, Dariush Rezaei-Nejad, a senior scientist with links to the defence ministry, was shot dead by gunmen outside a kindergarten in Tehran. In 2010, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, a nuclear physics professor at Tehran University was killed when a motorcycle exploded outside his home. Majid Shahriari, who had ties with Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, was also killed the same year when a bomb attached to his car exploded.

Iran has blamed Israel and the United States for the recent killing, and has vowed revenge that could involve cross-border bombing attacks. While the US has vehemently denied responsibility and condemned the attack, Israel has remained ambiguously silent.

The ‘state’ of targeted assassinations

Targeted assassination or extra-judicial killing as it is sometimes called, is a highly controversial tactic that several states have employed to defend themselves against contemporary national security threats, and in particular, transnational terrorism. Pre-emptive self-defence is often cited by the perpetrating state as the basis for carrying out such attacks. However, such justification often contravenes and/or conflicts with international legal, ethical, moral and human rights standards.

The increasing use of drones or unmanned combat aerial vehicles to carry out target assassinations has contributed to the increased use of this tactic as the risks associated with carrying out such attacks on the perpetrating state (e.g. the apprehension of assassins), are significantly minimised.

While there is evidence to suggest that target assassinations are effective in managing national security threats in certain contexts, the perpetrating state must still evaluate if the targeted state or terrorist group is capable of carrying out reprisals, and more importantly, if those reprisals actually increase rather than decrease national security threats.

Destabilising the enemy

Apart from the elimination of a target or targets involved in terrorist acts and/or in the process of carrying out a terrorist attack, the use of targeted assassination is designed to create high levels of stress on surviving decision-makers of the state or group. This is done to deter the state or group from carrying out more attacks, or to re-evaluate and possibly stop a specific policy (e.g. Iran’s nuclear programme).

Despite its intended effects, targeted assassinations do not always guarantee a favourable change in behaviour on the part of the state or terrorist group. Apart from provoking possible reprisals/revenge on the perpetrators, targeted assassinations can increase recalcitrance or defiance on the part of the targeted state or group. For instance Iran has vowed to continue developing its controversial nuclear programme despite the assassinations.

Traditional and non-traditional reprisals

Contemporary War of the Spooks

Assuming that the targeted state or group has the capability of carrying out their own targeted assassination campaigns (no matter how unsophisticated), a contemporary ‘War of the Spooks’ could occur. This is a situation where operatives from the state or group engage in a tit-for-tat assassination of high profile individuals from the opposing side. Civilian casualties and fatalities are often high as they can be targeted as well or accidentally killed in the attack (collateral damage). Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) were engaged in a ‘War of the Spooks’ for several years following the killing of Israeli Athletes at the 1974 Olympics by the Black September Organisation (BSO).

Cyberattacks

If the targeted state or group does not possess the capabilities to carry out its own targeted assassination campaign, it might utilise other retaliatory tactics that could be non-violent in nature. A cyberattack would be the most likely response as the overall risks to the attacker are low. Moreover, as hackers seem to be increasingly collaborating for social causes and aligning themselves with social movements, hackers from the targeted state could enlist the assistance of or learn from hackers from the global community on how to carry out an effective cyberattack on the perpetrator state. For instance, Anonymous, in solidarity with Syrian protesters, hacked into several Syrian government websites in September 2011 and tampered with their homepages.

Emboldening other states

That the assassinated Iranian scientists were all civilians, and that they were killed in their own country by either foreign and/or local operatives, is particularly worrisome. This is because the targeting of civilians implies that state terrorism is justifiable, and if so, can be used by other states as well.

There is also the issue of sovereignty, which the perpetrator state invariably breaches when it carries out targeted assassinations in another country. Relations between allies could be soured or damaged as a result, leaving the perpetrator state isolated in the international community. For instance, US-Pakistan relations have continued to deteriorate as a result of the US’ resumption of drone strikes in Pakistan.

A rush by states to acquire drone technology for attack purposes is another likely outcome. At present, it is reported that over 50 countries have begun acquiring, developing and utilising Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)/drone technology for reconnaissance purposes. It would not take long for them to develop and deploy attack drones.

In light of the reprisals and possible consequences of employing targeted assassinations as statecraft, states must carefully evaluate if their use actually minimises national security threats. From a military viewpoint, targeted assassinations are highly effective in reducing national security threats. However, when a broader view of national security is taken, the answer is not as apparent.

Damien D. Cheong is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

A Hezbollah Threat in Thailand?

2012-01-19T19:48:00.000-08:00

from STRATFOR

A Hezbollah Threat in Thailand?
January 19, 2012 | 1213 GMT

By Ben West

On Jan. 12, Thai authorities arrested a man they say was a member of the Lebanon-based Shiite militant group Hezbollah who was plotting an attack in Bangkok. In uncovering the plot, Thai police cite cooperation with the United States and Israel going back to December 2011. Bangkok is indeed a target-rich environment with a history of terrorist attacks, but today Hezbollah and other militant and criminal groups rely on the city as more of a business hub than anything else. If Hezbollah or some other transnational militant group were to carry out an attack in the city, it would have to be for a compelling reason that outweighed the costs.

The suspect was identified as Hussein Atris, who was born in Lebanon but acquired Swedish citizenship and a passport after marrying a Swedish woman in 1996. Atris was arrested on immigration charges as he was trying to board a plane at Suvarnabhumi airport, Bangkok's main international airport. Police said another suspect is still at large and possibly already out of the country. Atris's arrest on Jan. 12 was followed by a statement the next day from the U.S. Embassy warning U.S. citizens in Bangkok of the potential foreign terrorist threat in the country and encouraging them to avoid tourist areas. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Israel, issued similar warnings. Thai police have responded by increasing security in tourist areas like Bangkok's Khao San Road and the island of Phuket.

Then, on Jan. 16, some 200 Thai police officers searched a three-story commercial building in a town along the coast 32 kilometers (about 20 miles) southwest of Bangkok. Information on the location and contents of the building was said to have been provided by Atris after two days in custody. On the second floor of the building, officers found 4,380 kilograms (about 10,000 pounds) of urea-based fertilizer and 38 liters (about 10 gallons) of liquid ammonium nitrate -- enough materials to construct several truck bombs comparable to the one detonated at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad in 2008. Urea fertilizer can be used to manufacture the improvised explosive mixture urea nitrate, which was the main charge used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The compound is also frequently used in improvised explosive devices in Iraq and to some extent in Afghanistan. On the ground floor of the same building, police found reams of printing paper and 400 electric table fans in cardboard boxes.

The following day, a Bangkok court charged Atris with illegal possession of explosive materials. As in many other countries, a permit is required for handling such large amounts of fertilizer in Thailand.

Since Atris' arrest and the police raid, a flurry of statements from Thai authorities have given contradictory accounts of what happened. Gen. Yuthasak Sasiprapha, Thailand's defense minister, seemed comfortable connecting the U.S. and Israeli warnings to the arrest and seizure, stating that Atris and other conspirators were linked to Hezbollah and had chosen Bangkok as part of a plan to retaliate against Israel. The general speculated that the Israeli Embassy, synagogues, tour companies and kosher restaurants could be targeted.

The defense minister's speculations are logical. In 2010, Thailand received 120,000 Jewish tourists, and Bangkok itself has a large Jewish community, complete with a Chabad house (a Jewish cultural center and one of the targets in the 2008 Mumbai attacks). According to its website, the Israeli Embassy is located in a commercial office building with (from what we can tell from photographs) relatively little perimeter security. Hundreds of thousands of Americans also visit Thailand each year. At the same time, the United States and Israel are engaged in a covert war with Iran that has most recently seen the assassination of an Iranian scientist allegedly involved in the country's nuclear program. Since Hezbollah has been considered a proxy of Iran, the United States and Israel have long anticipated reprisal attacks from Iran via Hezbollah against U.S. or Israeli targets around the world.

While there are certainly plenty of U.S., Jewish and Israeli targets in Thailand in general and Bangkok in particular, other officials have given different accounts of the alleged plot that add more nuance. According to National Police Chief Priewpan Damapong, Atris insisted that the materials seized were not intended for attacks in Thailand but were going to be transported to a yet-to-be-named third country (a Stratfor source has cited the Philippines as a logical destination). He also allegedly told authorities that, although he was a member of Hezbollah, he was not a member of the group's militant arm. A Hezbollah official in Beirut, Ghaleb Abu Zainab, told the Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. that Atris was not a Hezbollah member, while Stratfor sources have told us that he was. Our sources also have confirmed Atris' reported confession to police that he was on the business side of things -- likely involved in procurement and logistics -- rather than the militant side, which involves such things as bombmaking or operational planning. As a Swedish passport holder, Atris would have much more access to business connections, so it makes sense that Hezbollah would want to compartmentalize his skills.

Most other official statements since Gen. Sasiprapha's have focused on softening the threat and mitigating the damage done to Thailand's tourism industry. Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has called on the United States to revoke its warning, saying it will damage the country if it is prolonged. Hence, it is not surprising that tidbits released from Atris' purported interrogation have moved the spotlight away from the domestic threat and focused more on targets abroad.

The historical record shows ample precedent for attacks by foreign extremists in Bangkok. In 1972, members of Black September took over the Israeli Embassy in Bangkok and held diplomats hostage there for 18 hours. In 1988, Hezbollah gunmen hijacked Kuwait Airways Flight 422, which was departing Bangkok for Kuwait City, in an effort to coerce the Kuwaiti government to release the "al-Dawa 17," a group of Shiite militants being held in Kuwait. And in 1994, a truck laden with explosives was en route to attack either the U.S. or Israeli Embassy (the investigation did not yield conclusive results) when a traffic accident disrupted the plot. Bangkok has long been on the map for terrorist operational planners.

During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, Hezbollah and other groups conducted dozens of attacks targeting Jews, Israel and Israel's allies around the world. However, over the past decade, Hezbollah has become a more serious political party in Lebanon, and while its international network is still in place, its activities are increasingly focusing on illicit business ventures rather than terrorist attacks. The shell corporations and drug-smuggling networks that for years provided the means to fund ideological terrorist operations have, in many ways, themselves become the end. Hezbollah members who have grown rich off the international network are more interested in spending the cash from the network and building up political patronage at home than in provoking powerful enemies abroad. For example, Bangkok is a hub for acquiring counterfeit documents, which are a lucrative commodity around the world and part of Hezbollah's criminal enterprise. Conducting an attack in Bangkok would likely disrupt a node in the network and ultimately affect the group's bottom line.

Thus, Hezbollah's profile and set of interests support Atris' reported claims that the bombmaking materials that police found were being moved out of the country and were not intended for use in Bangkok or other tourist locations in Thailand.

Other details from the case support this scenario. The fertilizer was to be hidden in the 400 table fan boxes found in the same building, a move conducive to smuggling the fertilizer, not constructing explosive devices. The sheer amount of fertilizer (nearly 5 tons) is a wholesale amount. The largest vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) in recent history have contained about a ton of fertilizer. The device used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing consisted of about 1,300 pounds of urea nitrate. Constructing and delivering bombs larger than that tends to create technical and logistical hitches. It is much more likely that such a large amount of fertilizer would be meant for multiple smaller or medium-sized devices.

While urea-based fertilizer and ammonium nitrate are key ingredients for the main charge of a VBIED, many more materials are required to make it a viable device, including nitric acid, which must be mixed with urea-based fertilizer to make urea nitrate. (Urea nitrate is highly corrosive and has typically been mixed and held in plastic industrial chemical drums. While cardboard boxes would be fine for holding the urea-based fertilizer, they certainly would not be heavy-duty enough to contain the urea nitrate mixture.) In the Bangkok case, there has been no mention of other important bombmaking components such as fuses, timing mechanisms or detonating charges or of a competent bombmaker to put it all together.

In other words, while some of the materials to make a bomb were present in the commercial building that police raided, there was no viable device there. Nor has there been any mention of weapons such as rifles, handguns or grenades, which are often (although certainly not always) involved in terrorist attacks. Some media sources alleged that Atris was plotting a "Mumbai-like" attack, which would have required a stash of automatic rifles, ordnance, communication devices and other tactical tools that have yet to surface.

Just as Bangkok is an attractive business hub in Southeast Asia for legitimate businessmen, it is also an attractive hub for illicit businessmen. In 2008, Thai police arrested Russian arms smuggler Viktor Bout after agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, posing as members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia guerrilla group trying to negotiate a deal to buy weapons, incriminated Bout during a meeting in Bangkok. It appears that Atris' role in this case would have been an administrative one similar to Bout's: sourcing the fertilizer, finding a place to stockpile it and concealing it in innocent-looking fan boxes. This would not make him any less guilty of assisting a militant group, but it would deflate the theory that Hezbollah was plotting to use this material in an immediate attack in Bangkok.

This is not to say that Hezbollah or some other militant group will not conduct an attack in Bangkok in the future. But it would take a lot to convince group leaders that the financial pain of an attack in the city would be worth the ideological gain. And the recent alleged plot should remind investigators and policymakers to remember the financial bottom line as well as the ideological bottom line when assessing future terrorist threats.

War or Development in Korea? Sanity Takes the Lead

2012-01-18T19:05:00.000-08:00

International EIR January 13, 2012

War or Development in Korea? Sanity Takes the Lead, from the January 13 issue of EIR, presents the recent surge in cooperation between North and South Korea, Russia, China and elements in the US State Department, to solve the Korea problem through the process of development, even while the British, the Obama White House, and the neoconservative war hawks who guide Obama's foreign policy, try to use the death of Kim Jung-il as an opportunity for "regime change," adding Korea to the list of regional wars currently in the works.
The opening paragraphs are included below, while the full articles is attached.
Mike Billington

War or Development in Korea?
Sanity Takes the Lead
by Mike Billington

Jan. 7—Korea is once again a target for regional warfare—
not because of instability in North Korea, due to
the death of its supreme leader Kim Jong-il, but because
the financial oligarchy in the West, suffering from a terminal
financial breakdown crisis, is attempting once
again to use Korea as a possible trigger for global conflict.
As the trans-Atlantic financial empire collapses into
chaos, the chosen strategy for the British Empire is to
provoke global warfare, targeting Asia, both because
the Empire cannot tolerate continued economic development
in East, as the West disintegrates, but also because
Asia is where a majority of the world’s population
lives, and a nuclear war in Asia would satisfy
Prince Philip’s maniacal dream of reducing the world’s
population to about 1 billion people.
War against Syria and Iran is the Empire’s current
first choice for provoking such a war with Russia and
China, but the North-South Korea divide—the last remnant
of the Cold War in Asia—has long served the
Empire as a point of divisiveness and contention, especially
by keeping the United States in a state of conflict
with Russia and China.
Much to the dismay of these British warmongers
and their puppets in the United States (both President
Obama and his neo-con cohorts left over from the Bush-
Cheney regime), a combination of Russian, Chinese,
South Korean, and U.S. State Department officials has
joined forces against the warhawks, posing joint economic
development in North Korea as a basis for “peace
through development.”
The death of Kim Jong-il on Dec. 17 intersected a
period of dramatic transformation in the troubled relations
between the two Koreas. Russia, which had played
only a minor role in the Six-Party Talks launched in
2003 (with Russia, China, Japan, the U.S., and North
and South Korea), largely because of the internal crisis
in Russia, shifted gears in 2011, under the leadership of
both President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin. Moscow re-engaged in the region by
renewing its earlier proposals for gas and oil pipelines
to connect Russia with South Korea through North
Korea, and integrating the Korean Peninsula into plans
for development of the vast Russian Far East—a classic
example of the “peace through development” concept,
which is in fact the only means to successfully counter
London’s imperial “divide-and-conquer” techniques.
But crucial to this effort was support not only from
China, but also from South Korea itself, and from the
United States. Support was not to be expected from
President Obama, whose tour of Asia in November was
recognized across the region as an attempt to force a
confrontation with China, both militarily and economically.
1 But other factions within the U.S. government,
1. See Mike Billington, “Obama’s Asia Trip Had Only One Purpose:
War on China,” EIR, Nov. 25, 2011.
U.S. State Department/Michael Gross
The Clinton State Department, unlike the White House, has
consistently posed the urgency of cooperation among Russia,
China, and South Korea in solving the long-festering problem
on the Korean Peninsula. Shown: Hillary Clinton and South
Korean President Lee Myung-bak, in Washington Oct. 13,
2011.

January 13, 2012 EIR International

39 centered on Hillary Clinton’s State Department,
and among senior military and intelligence circles,
recognize the insanity of provoking a confrontation
with China, and have attempted to give backing to
the “peace through development”
approach promoted
by Russia and China.
Hopeful Transition
With Kim’s death, and
the rapid transition to the
leadership of his 28-yearold
third son Kim Jong-un,
the warmongers were quick
to pronounce that now was
the time to push for regime
change. Michael Green,
who served on George W.
Bush’s National Security
Council, claimed, in a
Japan Times op-ed on Dec.
26, that the new North Korean leader was responsible
for the sinking of a South Korean naval ship,
and the shelling of a South Korean island in 2010.
That line was echoed by the Heritage Foundation’s
Balbina Hwang on a PBS News Hour interview.
Green ranted that the danger of not preparing
for Libya-style “regime change” in North Korea at
this moment of transition would “outweigh any risk
that intensified preparations might pose to our diplomatic
outreach to the North.” Hwang described
the incoming North Korean leader as a “great
danger to the world.”
On the same News Hour interview, Donald Gregg, a
former career CIA official and Ambassador to South
Korea, who now directs the Korea Society in New York,
called Hwang’s claims “absolute nonsense,” and expressed
optimism that the recent appointment as Undersecretary
of State for Political Affairs of Wendy
Sherman, who was President Bill Clinton’s North
Korea Policy Coordinator, working together with her
Chinese counterpart Fu Ying, also a Korea expert,
would facilitate using the transition as a moment of opportunity
for dramatic progress on the Korean Peninsula.
‘Big Change Is Expected’
South Korean President Lee Myung-bac, who had
carefully collaborated with the Russian government
and the Russian energy firm Gazprom to bring North
Korea into cooperation on the pipeline project before
Kim Jong-il’s death, has looked at the transition of
North Korean leadership to Kim Jong-un as an opportunity
to move the project forward even more rapidly. The
South Korean President visited Russia in November to
discuss the broader implications of the pipeline deal
(just three months after Kim Jong-il met with Russian
President Medvedev in Siberia on the same subject).
Lee will visit Beijing on Jan. 9.
A source in the Korean government told EIR that
it is their government’s view that the shift toward
cooperation and development with Moscow and
Seoul under Kim Jong-il over the past year is “institutional”—
that there is no significant faction in
North Korea which does not wish to continue the
Korea Overseas Information Service
Optimism in the Koreas today is, in part, based on a commitment to
building the Pyongyang-Seoul rail connection (shown on the map), as
part of the “New Silk Road” Eurasian Land-Bridge. The photo shows
a June 2003 ceremony for linking the North-South rail line.
40 International EIR January 13, 2012
process—including a willingness to give up nuclear
weapons, over time, in exchange for aid and development.
President Lee, in a New Year’s statement, went so
far as to say, “I have expectations that this year will set
a milestone for resolving the North Korean nuclear
issue. We are ready to provide the necessary support
to ease North Korea’s security concerns and resuscitate
its economy based on what will be agreed upon at
the Six-Party Talks.” He said the situation on the
Korean Peninsula “is now entering a new turning
point . . . a new opportunity amid changes and uncertainty.”
Kurt Campbell, U.S. Assistant Secretary for East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, has visited China, Japan, and
South Korea over the past week, focused largely on the
North Korean situation. The Clinton State Department,
unlike the White House, has consistently posed the urgency
of cooperation among Russia, China, and South
Korea in solving the long-festering problem on the
Korean Peninsula. President Lee’s cooperation with
Russia has been coordinated at every step with his
American ally, working through the State Department
rather than the White House.
Russia and China
Alexander Vorontsov, head of the Institute of Oriental
Studies and of the Department for Korean and Mongolian
Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Russia’s foremost expert on Korea, published an article
in 38 North, the publication of the U.S.-Korea Institute
in Washington’s School of Advanced International
Studies (SAIS), warning against careless warmongering
by U.S. politicians.
“US conservatives,” wrote Vorontsov, “such as
Mitt Romney, are urging greater pressure on North
Korea in connection with the inexperienced Kim Jongun’s
taking charge, with regime change as the end
goal.” He counters that the reality is that “now is an
opportune time to turn the page on past conflicts and to
start cultivating contacts with the young North Korean
leader.” He argues that while Kim is young, he has
learned quickly, and that, in any case, “combining the
leader’s singular status with collectivism in top-level
decision-making is a long-standing tradition in North
Korea, though the balance between the two elements
fluctuates.” The hysterical warnings of chaos and infighting
(coming from the neo-con crowd advising
Obama on foreign policy) is “completely groundless,”
says Vorontsov—similar to the view of the South
Korean government.
Importantly, Vorontsov notes that Hillary Clinton
“has engaged in intense consultations with representatives
of the countries neighboring North Korea. In particular,
she had several phone conversations with the
foreign ministers of Russia and China.” He suggests
that there may be a “bold initiative” in the works, like
that of Clinton’s recent visit to the once-demonized
Myanmar, adding that “an analogous breakthrough in
dealing with North Korea may yet be brewing.”
Creating a Pretext
Just as President Obama’s secret advisory team on
Syria has proposed finding a “pretext” for an invasion
of that country (as explicitly stated by the Londonsponsored
“opposition” in their recent document “Safe
Area for Syria”), so the imperial forces are working to
create a pretext for a war on North Korea. The Japanese
newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun recently quoted “diplomatic
observers” claiming that the UN is about to
launch an investigation into supposed North Korean
exports of chemical weapon inputs to Syria, calling it a
case of a “close relationship between North Korea and
Syria in the development and production of weapons of
mass destruction.” The suspect shipment goes back to
November 2009!
Another “informed Western diplomatic source” told
Kyodo News that an Iranian defense delegation that
visited North Korea was pursuing “advanced centrifuge
technologies related to uranium enrichment”—not
that such arrangements would be illegal under any sane
international regulations, but the intention of such undocumented
leaks is abundantly clear.
The real target of this disinformation from British
sources is their hatred of the growing cooperation between
the East Asian nations, and especially the
“danger” that the U.S., with Obama removed from
office, would join ranks in great development projects
across Asia, as Franklin Roosevelt would have done.
Lyndon LaRouche noted in this regard that the optimism
in the Koreas today stems from the fact that all
the regional parties are involved in the process of connecting
the two Koreas with China and Russia, completing
the historic “New Silk Road” rail connection
from Pusan to Amsterdam, and cooperating on the development
of the Eurasian Far East.
mobeir@aol.com

New Great Game - ASEAN’s role and risk

2012-01-17T15:43:00.000-08:00

RSIS Commentaries are intended to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy relevant background and analysis of contemporary developments. The views of the authors are their own and do not represent the official position of the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies, NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced electronically or in print with prior permission from RSIS. Due recognition must be given to the author or authors and RSIS. Please email: RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg or call (+65) 6790 6982 to speak to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, Yang Razali Kassim.
RSIS COMMENTARIES

New Great Game - ASEAN’s role and risk

This response and counter response is giving an East Asian twist to what the commentariat is increasingly referring to as the “new Great Game”. As it unfolds further ASEAN will find its diplomatic skills increasingly tested. The latest exchanges between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea is illustrative. When the Philippines Foreign Ministry protested earlier in January to the Chinese embassy over the December 2011 intrusion by a Chinese vessel into Philippines waters, Beijing’s foreign ministry spokesman responded by reiterating that “outside forces” - indirectly alluding to the US – should not meddle in regional disputes. During the Cold War, the protagonists in the old great game were the US and the Soviet Union. In the new great game, while the US is the established power, China is the new emerging giant. There is one difference, though: In the new great game, ASEAN has emerged as a significant facilitator - hedging and balancing between the two powers.
The US return to Asia through the EAS lends importance to ASEAN as a central player in the East Asian region. Indeed, the formation of the EAS is yet another manifestation of ASEAN’s role as shaper and builder of the regional strategic architecture. In so doing, ASEAN has generated for itself influence far beyond what each member state could wield individually. Yet it is a delicate game not without risks. The biggest risk of balancing and hedging is the loss of balance and of being trampled underfoot as the elephants jostle for their turf. How China reacts to ASEAN’s hedging depends on how Beijing perceives ASEAN in the context of the larger US pivot to East Asia. Is ASEAN seen as the extended arm of the US to contain China? ASEAN is highly sensitive to how it is viewed by a rising China. It does not want to be dragged into China's rivalry with the US - and ASEAN has a long historical memory.
As prominent Singapore strategic thinker Tommy Koh speculated, which dynasty from old China would surface in modern form to confront a future ASEAN: Would it be a Ming China, a Tang China or a Qing China? A Tang China, he said, would be benign. A Ming China would, on the contrary, be imperialistic. A Qing China would not be much different from a Ming China.
China a benign power?
Given the contrasting historical precedents, Prof Koh told a regional conference co-organised by RSIS in December, there is today in Southeast Asia some latent uncertainty about China: “Will China become a power that would expect others in the region to be subservient to it, as the Mings did? We want China to be like the Tang Dynasty – open, respectful of others, not like the Mings. We need to hedge our bets in case the China of the future is not China of the Tang dynasty, but China of the Qing dynasty or the Ming Dynasty. Our hope is that China will continue to be a benign power.”
Prof Koh said in as much as ASEAN sees China as more benign than threatening, China should not see the US re-engagement in Asia as an attempt to contain it. ASEAN’s fundamental desire is to be friends of both and adversary to neither. It is this desire that has given birth to “ASEAN centrality” – a doctrine and mantra that was absent in the past but which is in essence a balancing and hedging strategy.
The regional strategic architecture that ASEAN is constructing brick-by-brick is, however, still fragile. If it is seen as evolving, it is precisely because the region is in a state of flux, though it is clear which powers will influence its final shape.

Yang Razali Kassim is a Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University and the school’s Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS).

China’s Economic Engagement in Africa: Changing approach in Mozambique

2012-01-16T20:22:00.000-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary China’s Economic Engagement in Africa: Changing approach in Mozambique by Loro Horta. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 013/2012 dated 16 January 2012

China’s Economic Engagement in Africa:
Changing approach in Mozambique

By Loro Horta

Synopsis

China has changed its approach to local governments and societies while increasing its investments in Africa. As the West is mired in economic crises, Africa looks to Asian countries for alternatives.

Commentary

CHINA’S ECONOMIC engagement with Africa has undergone a significant change in recent years, following criticism of its policies and protests against its projects in some countries. For instance, in Mozambique, both domestic and international criticism contributed in positive ways to change both the local government’s attitude and Beijing’s approach towards their relationship.

China’s US$2 billion loan to the Mozambique government to build a mega dam on the Zambezi River was met by protests from local and international organisations while Chinese businessmen were accused of illegally buying up thousands of tonnes of timber, leading to the destruction of large forest areas. Chinese companies were accused of not hiring local people or of ill-treatment of workers, in violation of labour laws, for which several had their licences suspended.

Greater sensitivity

However in the past three years the Mozambique government has become more insistent that Chinese companies employ more locals while fines and suspensions of licences for timber companies have significantly curtailed abuses and reduced serious environmental damage. The Chinese government has begun to change its policy of not engaging locals and dealing only with the government. China has taken steps to address the main bone of contention – jobs. Mozambique government data confirm that in 2010 Chinese companies had increased the hiring of local workers significantly.

To stimulate trade China has exempted over 400 Mozambican agricultural and other products from export tariffs to China, thus helping the mainly agriculture-based economy. In an investment seminar hosted by the Mozambican government in Shanghai in 2010, Chinese business interests were reported to have pledged up to $13 billion in investments for the next 10 years in areas ranging from industry, infrastructure, tourism and agriculture. If these investments materialise China will become the country’s main economic partner.

Indeed the potential for Chinese investment and job generation is great. In an interview with Macau Magazine last August, this author argued that China was likely to invest heavily in industry and other sectors in Africa as a result of increasing labour costs in China. This could see thousands of jobs created in Mozambique and other African countries. Mozambican government data confirmed that most Chinese investment in Mozambique was now going to the industrial sector. Perhaps in this century Chinese and Asian investment, taking advantage of a huge and cheap labour force, will bring billions to Africa to generate an African economic boom.

Changing mindsets

Despite significant improvements, some controversial issues still persist in Sino-Mozambican relations and China’s relations with Africa in general. For instance according to the Financial Times, China’s largest investment in Mozambique is a $1 billion project in the mining sector by Wuhan Iron and Steel. However, several observers have noted that not much information about this and many other deals were made available. Transparency remains an issue.

Years of imposed policies by Western international monetary institutions have brought little result to Mozambique and Africa in general. African leaders including those of democracies have grown tired of Western patronising and sometimes hypocritical sermons on transparency. China’s and Asia’s economic prosperity and the resilience of their economies despite the current economic crisis in the West have made African leaders look to Asia for alternatives.

In a time of recession in the West, trade between China and several African states grew at an average of over 30 percent a year. It is not only China that is investing heavily in Mozambique; India and Vietnam have also increased their presence. Several Vietnamese agricultural and defence advisors are currently in Mozambique assisting the country, while a Singaporean has been an economic advisor to the Mozambican government for several years. Former senior officials from several Asian countries are now advisors to governments in Africa and Latin America.

The case of Mozambique demonstrates that China is able to adapt to new realities and address some of most controversial aspects of its presence in Africa. Chinese and Asian investment in Mozambique and Africa in general has the potential to create thousands of jobs and lay the foundation for prosperity just as decades ago Western investment planted the seeds of the Asian miracle. As noted by the Cape Verdian National Security advisor: “The rise of Asia provides us above all with more strategic choices. The Western powers who had dominated the continent are now forced to be more sensitive to our interests.”

Whether Africa will be able to take advantage of this new strategic landscape remains to be seen.

Loro Horta, of Timor Leste, is a post-graduate student at the US Naval Graduate School. He is a graduate of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), as well as the People’s Liberation Army National Defence University (PLANDU) senior officers’ course and the Chinese Ministry of Commerce Central School. He lived in Africa for 23 years.

Armed UAV Operations 10 Years On

2012-01-13T20:50:00.001-08:00

from STRATFOR

Armed UAV Operations 10 Years On
January 12, 2012 | 1417 GMT

One of the most iconic images of the American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- as well as global U.S. counterterrorism efforts -- has been the armed unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), specifically the MQ-1 "Predator" and the MQ-9 "Reaper." Unarmed RQ-1 Predators (which first flew in 1994) were flying over Afghanistan well before the 9/11 attacks. Less than a month after the attacks, an armed variant already in development was deployed for the first time.

In the decade since, the Predator has clocked more than a million flight hours. And while U.S. Air Force procurement ceased in early 2011 -- with more than 250 airframes purchased -- the follow-on MQ-9 Reaper has already been procured in numbers and production continues. Predators and Reapers continue to be employed in a broad spectrum of roles, including close air support (CAS), when forward air controllers communicate with UAV operators to release ordnance with friendly troops in the vicinity (CAS is one of the more challenging missions even for manned aircraft because of the heightened risk of friendly casualties). Officially designated "armed, multi-mission, medium-altitude, long endurance, remotely piloted aircraft," the second to last distinction is the Predator and Reaper's principal value: the ability to loiter for extended periods, in some cases for more than 24 hours.

This ability affords unprecedented situational awareness and physical presence over the battlefield. The implications of this are still being understood, but it is clear that it allows, for example, the sustained and constant monitoring of main supply routes for attempts to emplace improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or the ability to establish a more sophisticated understanding of high-value targets' living patterns. In addition, live, full-motion video for ground controllers is available to lower and lower echelons to an unprecedented degree.

As the procurement of Predators and Reapers and the training of operators accelerated -- particularly under the tenure of former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, beginning in 2006 -- the number of UAV "orbits" skyrocketed (an orbit is a single, continuous presence requiring more than one UAV airframe per orbit). There are now more than 50 such orbits in the U.S. Central Command area of operations alone (counting several maintained by the larger, unarmed RQ-4 "Global Hawk"). The U.S. Air Force expects to be capable of maintaining 65 orbits globally by 2013, with the combined total of flight hours for Predator and Reaper operations reaching about 2 million around the same time. In 2005, UAVs made up about 5 percent of the military aircraft fleet. They have since grown to 30 percent, though most are small, hand-launched and unarmed tactical UAVs.
The Counterterrorism Value

One of the most notable uses of the Predator and Reaper has been in the counterterrorism role, both as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platform and as an on-call strike platform. These armed UAVs are operated both by the U.S. Air Force and, in some cases (as with operations conducted over Pakistan), the CIA. Even before the 9/11 attacks, the armed Predator then in development was being considered as a means not only of keeping tabs on Osama bin Laden but also of killing him. Since then, armed UAVs have proved their worth both in the offensive strike role against specific targets and as a means of maintaining a constant level of threat.

The value of the counterterrorism ISR that can be collected by large UAVs alone is limited since so much depends on how and where they are deployed and what they are looking for. This mission requires not only sophisticated signals but also actionable human intelligence. But as a front-line element of a larger, integrated collection strategy, the armed UAV has proved to be a viable and enduring element of the U.S. counterterrorism strategy worldwide.

The ability to loiter is central and has a value far beyond the physical capabilities of a single airframe in a specific orbit. Operating higher than helicopters and with a lower signature than manned, jet-powered fighter aircraft, the UAV is neither visibly or audibly obvious (though the degree of inconspicuousness depends on, among other things, weather and altitude). Because UAVs are so discreet, potential targets must work under the assumption that an armed UAV is orbiting within striking distance at all times.

Such a constant threat can place considerable psychological pressure on the prey, even when the predator is large and loud. During the two battles of Fallujah, Iraq, in April and November of 2004, AC-130 gunships proved particularly devastating for insurgents pinned in certain quadrants of the city, but AC-130s were limited in number and availability. When it was not possible to keep an AC-130 on station at night (in order to keep the insurgents' heads down), unarmed C-130 transports were flown in the same orbits at altitudes where the distinctive sound of a C-130 could be clearly discerned on the ground, thus maintaining the perception of a possible AC-130 reprisal against any insurgent offensive.

Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the psychological and operational impact of this tactic on a group that experiences successful strikes on its members, even if the strikes are conducted only rarely. Counterterrorism targets in areas where UAVs are known to operate must work under tight communications discipline and constraints, since having their cellular or satellite phone conversations tapped risks not only penetration of communications but immediate and potentially lethal attacks.

The UAV threat was hardly the only factor, but consider how Osama bin Laden's communiques declined from comparatively regular and timely videos to rare audiotapes. In 2001, bin Laden was operating with immense freedom of maneuver and impunity despite the manhunt already under way for him. That situation changed even as he fled to Pakistan, and the combination of aggressive signals as well as UAV- and space-based ISR efforts further constrained his operational bandwidth and relevance as he was forced to focus more and more on his own personal survival.

The UAV threat affects not only the targeted individuals themselves but also their entire organizations. When the failure to adhere to security protocols can immediately yield lethal results, the natural response is to constrict communications and cease contact with untrusted allies, affiliates and subordinates. When the minutiae of security protocols start to matter, the standard for having full faith, trust and confidence among those belonging to or connected with a terrorist organization become much higher. And the more that organization's survival is at stake, the more it must focus on survival, thereby reducing its capacity to engage in ambitious operations. On a deeper level, there is also the value of sowing distrust and paranoia within an organization. This has the same ultimate effect of increasing internal distrust and thereby undermining the spare capacity for the pursuit of larger, external objectives.
The Evolving Geography

While armed Predators first operated in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater, it was the darkest days of the Iraq War, at the height of the violence there from 2005 to 2007, that saw the strongest demand for them. As the main effort shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan, UAV operations began to shift with them. While UAVs will remain in high demand in Afghanistan even as the drawdown of forces continues there in 2012, the end of armed UAV operations in Iraq and the continued expansion of the U.S. Air Force's Reaper fleet mean that considerable bandwidth is being freed up for operations in other parts of the world. (In Iraq, some UAVs may continue to be operated over northern Kurdish areas in coordination with Turkey, and some private security contractors are operating a small fleet of unarmed UAVs as part of protection efforts in coordination with the U.S. State Department's Diplomatic Security Service.)

There are obvious diplomatic and operational limitations to the employment of armed UAVs. Diplomatically, however, they also have demonstrated some value as an intermediate step between purely clandestine operations run by the CIA and the overt deployment of uniformed personnel and manned aircraft. Operationally, while Predators and Reapers lack the sort of low-observability profile of the RQ-170 (one of which was lost over Iran in 2011), UAVs lack pilots and pose no risk of human personnel being taken captive. A UAV that crashes in Iran has far fewer political ramifications than a piloted aircraft, making its deployment an easier decision for political leaders.

Indeed, the last decade has seen the maturation of the armed UAV, including its underlying architecture and doctrines. And while more than 50 Predators and Reapers have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan and in training over the past decade, the aircraft are now essentially as safe and reliable as a manned F-16C/D but far cheaper to procure, maintain and operate. And over the next 10 years, the Pentagon plans to grow its UAV fleet about 35 percent. The U.S. Air Force plans to buy 288 more Reapers -- 48 per year from now through 2016 -- and money for UAVs has remained largely untouched even as budget cuts intensify at the Pentagon.

So while armed UAVs are merely one tool of a much broader and more sophisticated counterterrorism strategy, they can be expected to be valuable for the foreseeable future, and employed in areas of the world beyond Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen (even along the U.S.-Mexico border in an unarmed role for border patrol and counternarcotics missions). And despite an enormous breach in U.S.-Pakistani relations following the deaths of two dozen Pakistani military personnel in a cross-border incident in November and the consequent ejection of the CIA from Shamsi airfield in Pakistan (from which it had operated armed UAVs since October 2001), existing UAV orbits have been largely maintained. On Jan. 10, the first strike on Pakistani territory since November took place in North Waziristan agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Saudi Arabia embraces Salafism: Countering the Arab uprising?

2012-01-11T19:13:00.002-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary Saudi Arabia embraces Salafism: Countering the Arab uprising? by James M. Dorsey. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 009/2012 dated 11 January 2012

Saudi Arabia embraces Salafism:
Countering the Arab uprising?

By James M. Dorsey

Synopsis

Saudi Arabia has openly embraced Salafism as its official ideology to shield itself and its fellow conservative Gulf monarchies from the wave of anti-government revolts sweeping the Middle East and North Africa. This counter-revolutionary strategy is a gamble with wider repercussions beyond the kingdom.

Commentary

SAUDI ARABIA has long been seen as the main backer of Salafis across the globe. It has always, however, shied away from officially endorsing the Muslim trend that until recently preached a politically quietist return to the way of life at the time of Islam’s first 7th century Caliphs.

If Saudi support and funding of Salafi communities in the past constituted a key but discreet element of its soft power strategy aimed at countering Iran’s perceived revolutionary Islamic appeal, today it serves to counter Islamist forces who trace their roots to the Muslim Brotherhood. It also seeks to curtail the revolutionary zeal of protesters that are clamouring for true democracy rather than cosmetic change. At the same time, it counters idiosyncratic foreign and domestic policies of forward-looking and long-time Saudi rival Qatar - the only other Arab-Muslim nation whose theological origins hark back to the Wahhabi founders of Saudi Arabia.

Qatar is home to Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, an influential Egyptian Muslim brother, and one of the world’s most respected yet controversial Islamic thinkers critical of Saudi Arabia’s puritanic concepts. The Gulf state has further emerged as a champion of revolts in several Arab countries with Bahrain as the notable exception, a media powerhouse thanks to Al Jazeera, and a key US interlocutor in the region.

Turning on the Brotherhood

The change in Saudi tactics highlights the rupture in relations between the kingdom and the Brotherhood more than a decade ago when Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz denounced his erstwhile allies in the wake of the September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington.

Saudi Arabia welcomed the Muslim Brothers in the 1950s and 1960s as they fled a crackdown in Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt. Many became teachers in their newly found refuge where their political interpretation of Islam cross-fertilised with the ideas of the 18th century cleric-warrior Mohammed Abdul Wahhab whose puritanic views shaped modern Saudi Arabia and inspired Salafism.

It took Prince Nayef, widely viewed as a hard line conservative, months to acknowledge in 2001 that 15 of the 19 perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks had hailed from Saudi Arabia. But once he did, he turned his wrath on the Brotherhood, which decades ago had abandoned violence except in the case of the Palestinian struggle against Israel, but has been the starting point of numerous first generation jihadists.

In an interview with a Kuwaiti newspaper, Prince Nayef charged at the time that the Brotherhood was responsible “for most of the problems in the Arab world” and had “done great damage to Saudi Arabia”. The prince acknowledged that whenever they got into difficulty or found their freedom restricted in their own countries, Brotherhood activists found refuge in Saudi Arabia, “which protected their lives” but said that they had “later turned against the kingdom”.

A full-fledged school of thought

Ten years later, Crown Prince Nayef is leading the kingdom’s embrace of Salafism when it has discarded its non-involvement in politics and has emerged in Egypt’s first post-revolt elections as the country’s second largest political force with a quarter of the votes. Egyptian state-controlled media, citing unnamed Justice Ministry sources, reported that Saudi Arabia had financed the Salafis to the tune of $63 million last year.

Last month Prince Nayef and the kingdom’s mufti and advisor on religious affairs, Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Shaikh, a descendant of Mohammed Abdul Wahhab, gave keynote speeches at a conference convened under the title, Salafism: Legal Path, National Demand. The conference constituted a rare occasion on which the kingdom acknowledged Salafism as a full-fledged school of thought within Sunni Islam, though Saudi political and religious discourse had often referred to al-salaf-al-saleh, Prophet Mohammed’s immediate successors who are revered for their piety.

“My brothers, you know that true Salafism is the path whose rules derive from the book of God and the path of the Prophet…This blessed state (Saudi Arabia) has been established along correct Salafi lines since its inception by Imam Mohammed bin Saud and his pact with Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab. Saudi Arabia will continue on the upright Salafi path and not flinch from it or back down,” Prince Nayef told the conference participants.

In an apparent response to criticism of Wahhabi and Salafi discrimination of Shiite Muslims, intolerance towards non-Muslims and harsh restrictions of women’s rights, the prince described Salafism as “authentic and contemporary” and an ideology that promotes progress and “peaceful coexistence with others and respect for their rights”.

In a similar vein, Sheikh Abdulaziz said Salafism was “a comprehensive godly path based on moderation and the middle way; it is based on unitarianism and forsakes innovation, superstitions and erroneous things”.

A shot across the bow

The kingdom’s embracing of Salafism follows the sentencing of Mokhtar al-Hashemi to 30 years in prison on charges of funding terrorism and plotting a coup in cooperation with Al Qaeda in seeking to create an Islamist political party in the kingdom based on Brotherhood thinking.

The question is not whether the Arab revolt will reach the kingdom but how it will progress in Saudi Arabia, which last year witnessed several protests in the predominantly Shiite, oil-rich Eastern Province. In fact in November 2010, a month before the eruption in Tunisia, it had been the scene of anti-corruption demonstrations. The vote for Salafists in Egypt was more a vote against established politics than opting for a Saudi-style system.

Demonstrations last month by groups of activists not only in Shiite Qatif but also in the capital, Riyadh and the Wahhabi stronghold of Buraida, constitute a shot across the bow of the House of Saud. Saudi rulers, by embracing Salafism and adopting the ways and mores of the righteous Caliphs, hope to shield themselves from the regional and global uprising against repressive and failed regimes. It is a gamble whose outcome could have repercussions far beyond the kingdom.

James M. Dorsey is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He has been a journalist covering the Middle East for over 30 years.

The Arab People’s Uprising: The Jihadist Perspective

2012-01-11T19:13:00.001-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary The Arab People’s Uprising: The Jihadist Perspective by Zulkifli Mohamed Sultan and Muhammad Haniff Hassan. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 008/2012 dated 11 January 2012

The Arab People’s Uprising:
The Jihadist Perspective

By Zulkifli Mohamed Sultan and Muhammad Haniff Hassan

Synopsis

The Arab uprisings, particularly in Egypt, have divided online jihadists. While a majority support the demonstrations, the minority of jihadists say the revolts are not jihad.

Commentary

SINCE THE beginning of the popular uprisings in Egypt and other Arab states, jihadists have been divided in their reactions to the “unarmed people’s revolution”. They have expressed conflicting opinions on whether protests and demonstrations are defensible in Islam. Nevertheless they have issued statements and commentaries giving their views and analyses for the guidance of their followers. Their objective was to show their concern for the state of Muslims and influence the events by impressing their audiences that they had a hand in them.

The most significant of these was a seven-part commentary by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, leader of Al-Qaeda, entitled Message of Hope and Glad Tidings to Our People in Egypt.

Pro-Uprising

Jihadists who support the uprising in Egypt and endorse unarmed protests and demonstrations represent the majority strand. In his Message of Hope, Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda’s successor to Osama bin Laden, praised the people of Egypt and urged his audience to join the protesters. He even claimed that Al-Qaeda’s attacks on the United States were a key factor in the agitations that culminated in the eruption of the Arab uprisings. Although he did not issue a clear fatwa on the permissibility of protests and demonstrations in Islam, his statements suggest a positive endorsement of them. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) also expressed similar support in an audio statement by Ibrahim bin Sulayman Al-Rubaysh entitled Hisad Al-Thawrat (Harvest of Revolutions),

Abu Al-Mundhir Al-Shinqiti, an important jihadist thinker and prolific writer, issued his personal fatwa that participation in the demonstrations in Egypt is permissible in Islam and does not contradict the jihadist stand that armed jihad is the key for their mission. In addition, he wrote a lengthy treatise entitled Al-Taqrirat Fi Mashru`iyat Al-Muzaharat (Standpoints on the Permissibility of Demonstration) to refute Muslims (jihadist and non-jihadist) who maintain that demonstrations are unlawful in Islam.

Another jihadist thinker, Abu Basir Al-Turtusi, agreed with Al-Shinqity. He compiled his facebook posts in a 300-page document entitled Daftar Al-Thawrah Wa Al-Thuwwar (Book of Revolution and Revolutionaries) where he argued the permissibility of demonstrations and states: “Demonstration and civil disobedience is a form collective protest against evil that is manifested in the form of a tyrant, government and ruling party.”

In Inspire (no. 5), the AQAP online magazine, its editor Yahya Ibrahim writes: “Al- Qaeda is not against regime changes through protests but it is against the idea that the change should be only through peaceful means to the exclusion of the use of force.” Ibrahim then asserted that the accuracy of this view is proven by the turn of events in Libya: “If the protesters in Libya did not have the flexibility to use force when needed, the uprising would have been crushed.”

Armed jihad only

Ahmad Bawadi, a Jordanian jihadist ideologue and regular contributor of jihadist online forums, wrote an article entitled Revolutions Are No Substitute for Jihad, which was published by the Taliban English website. Commenting on the Arab Spring, Bawadi argued that “a revolution for a loaf of bread is not a jihad” and revolutions carried out in the name of economic or political reforms are insufficient to promote the communal and moral makeover required by the true jihad.

He further said: “No one should think that a revolution over unemployment will close the wine shops and nightclubs. They will not prevent women from going outside wearing make-up and unveiled and will not prevent them from showing their nakedness at pools and on the beaches. The networks of singing, dancing, prostitution and shamelessness will not be shut down by these revolutions” as long as democracy becomes the religion of the people and an alternative to jihad.

Umar Mahdi Zaydan, a prominent sheikh among jihadists, wrote in his Advice to Muslim Demonstrators and Protesters that the religion cannot be established except by the sword. When armed jihad is not conducive, one should make necessary preparations for it. Resorting to other means is not permissible except with clear injunction from scriptures, he declared.

He reiterated that democracy is anathema to Islam. Since demonstrations and protests are democratic means of change, they should be equally rejected. Furthermore, allowing them will contribute to the dissemination of democratic ideas among Muslims.

Zaydan’s view, however, was criticised by Al-Shinqiti. The latter argued that both jihad and demonstrations are only the means for the ultimate end - the Islamic state. There is no problem in using less harmful ways such as demonstrations and protests as long as they lead to the same objective. He mentioned that the guiding principle in this issue is “permissibility until there is proof otherwise”. Thus, to him, the onus is upon those who argue its impermissibility to provide evidence from the scriptures, not the opposite.

Vision of Islamic State

Recent developments in Egypt attest to the relevance of the above two jihadist positions. The majority of Egyptians participated in democratic parliamentary elections which indicates their support. This is a clear departure from the jihadist position that democratic elections and participation in them are clearly against Islam. .

Secondly, the majority of the votes were given to Islamists of the Muslim Brothers and Salafist strands who oppose jihadism. Al-Qaeda’s negative attitude towards the Muslim Brothers is well recorded in Al-Zawahiri’s book Bitter Harvest. Al-Shinqiti ruled that it is impermissible to vote for the Tunisian Islamist En-Nahda Party, an affiliate to the Muslim Brothers, and considered them as secular.

To date, developments in Egypt point to the fact that jihadists have little influence on the course of the revolution and it is unlikely that their vision of a pure Islamic state will be realised. Consequently, Al-Zawahiri and his friends will be disappointed - just as they had been with the Tunisian revolution.

Zulkifli Mohamed Sultan is a Research Analyst and Muhammad Haniff Hassan is an Associate Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

The Hack on Stratfor

2012-01-11T19:05:00.000-08:00

from STRATFOR

The Hack on Stratfor

By George Friedman | January 11, 2012

In early December I received a call from Fred Burton, Stratfor's Vice President of Intelligence. He told me he had received information indicating our website had been hacked and our customer credit card and other information had been stolen. The following morning I met with an FBI special agent, who made clear that there was an ongoing investigation and asked for our cooperation. We, of course, agreed to cooperate. The matter remains under active investigation.

From the beginning I faced a dilemma. I felt bound to protect our customers, who quickly had to be informed about the compromise of their privacy. I also felt bound to protect the investigation. That immediate problem was solved when the FBI told us it had informed the various credit card companies and had provided those companies with a list of compromised cards while omitting that it had come from us. Our customers were therefore protected, as the credit card companies knew the credit cards and other information had been stolen and could act to protect the customers. We were not compelled to undermine the investigation.

The FBI made it clear that it expected the theft to be exposed by the hackers. We were under no illusion that this was going to be kept secret. We knew our reputation would be damaged by the revelation, all the more so because we had not encrypted the credit card files. This was a failure on our part. As the founder and CEO of Stratfor, I take responsibility for this failure, which has created hardship for customers and friends, and I deeply regret that it took place. The failure originated in the rapid growth of the company. As it grew, the management team and administrative processes didn't grow with it. Again, I regret that this occurred and want to assure everyone that Stratfor is taking aggressive steps to deal with the problem and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

From the beginning, it was not clear who the attackers were. The term "Anonymous" is the same as the term "unknown." The popular vision of Anonymous is that its members are young and committed to an ideology. I have no idea if this is true. As in most affairs like this, those who know don't talk; those who talk don't know. I have my theories, which are just that and aren't worth sharing.

I was prepared for the revelation of the theft and the inevitable criticism and negative publicity. We worked to improve our security infrastructure within the confines of time and the desire to protect the investigation by not letting the attackers know that we knew of their intrusion. With the credit card information stolen, I assumed that the worst was done. I was wrong.

Early in the afternoon of Dec. 24, I was informed that our website had been hacked again. The hackers published a triumphant note on our homepage saying that credit card information had been stolen, that a large amount of email had been taken, and that four of our servers had been effectively destroyed along with data and backups. We had expected they would announce the credit card theft. We were dismayed that emails had been taken. But our shock was at the destruction of our servers. This attack was clearly designed to silence us by destroying our records and the website, unlike most attacks by such groups.

Attacks against credit cards are common, our own failures notwithstanding. So are the thefts of emails. But the deliberate attack on our digital existence was a different order of magnitude. As the global media marveled at our failure to encrypt credit card information, my attention was focused on trying to understand why anyone would want to try to silence us.

In the days that followed, a narrative evolved among people claiming to speak for Anonymous and related groups. It started with looking at our subscriber list and extracting corporate subscribers who were now designated as clients. The difference between clients and subscribers is important here. A client is someone you do customized work for. A subscriber is simply someone who purchases a publication, unchanged from what others read. A subscriber of The New York Times is not its client. Nevertheless, some of the media started referring to these subscribers as clients, reflecting the narrative of those claiming to speak with knowledge of our business.

From there, the storyline grew to argue that these "clients," corporate and government, provided Stratfor with classified intelligence that we reviewed. We were no longer an organization that analyzed the world for the interested public, but rather a group of incompetents and, conversely, the hub of a global conspiracy. The media focused on the first while the hacking community focused on the second.

This was why they stole our email, according to some of them. As one person said, the credit cards were extra, something they took when they realized they could. It was our email they were after. Obviously, we were not happy to see our emails taken. God knows what a hundred employees writing endless emails might say that is embarrassing, stupid or subject to misinterpretation. What will not appear is classified intelligence from corporations or governments. They may find, depending on what they took, that we have sources around the world, as you might expect. It is interesting that the hacker community is split, with someone claiming to speak for the official Anonymous condemning the hack as an attack on the media, which they don't sanction, and another faction defending it as an attack on the rich and powerful.

The interpretation of the hackers as to who we are -- if indeed that was their interpretation -- was so wildly off base as to stretch credulity. Of course, we know who we are. As they search our emails for signs of a vast conspiracy, they will be disappointed. Of course we have relationships with people in the U.S. and other governments and obviously we know people in corporations, and that will be discovered in the emails. But that's our job. We are what we said we were: an organization that generates its revenues through geopolitical analysis. At the core of our business, we objectively acquire, organize, analyze and distribute information.

I don't know if the hackers who did this feel remorse as they discover that we aren't who they said we were. First, I don't know who they actually are, and second, I don't know what their motives were. I know only what people claiming to be them say. So I don't know if there is remorse or if their real purpose was to humiliate and silence us, in which case I don't know why they wanted that.

And this points to the real problem, the one that goes beyond Stratfor's own problem. The Internet has become an indispensible part of our lives. We shop, communicate, publish and read on it. It has become the village commons of the planet. But in the village commons of old, neighbors who knew and recognized each other met and lived together. Others knew what they did in the commons, and they were accountable.

In the global commons, anonymity is an option. This is one of the great virtues of the Internet. It is also a terrible weakness. It is possible to commit crimes on the Internet anonymously. The technology that enables the Internet also undermines accountability. Given the profusion of technical knowledge, the integrity of the commons is in the hands of people whose identities we don't know, whose motives we don't understand, and whose ability to cause harm is substantial. The consequence of this will not be a glorious anarchy in the spirit of Guy Fawkes, but rather a massive repression. I think this is a pity. That's why I wonder who the hackers actually are and what cause they serve. I am curious as to whether they realize the whirlwind they are sowing, and whether they, in fact, are trying to generate the repression they say they oppose.

The attempt to silence us failed. Our website is back, though we are waiting for all archives to be restored, and our email is working again. Our failures have been reviewed and are being rectified. We deliberately shut down while we brought in outside consultants to rebuild our system from the ground up. The work isn't finished yet, but we can start delivering our analyses. The handling of credit cards is being handed off to a third party with appropriate capability to protect privacy. We have acted to help our customers by providing an identity theft prevention service. As always, we welcome feedback from our supporters as well as our critics.

We are fortunate that we have the financial resources and staff commitment to survive the attack. Others might not. We are now in a world in which anonymous judges, jurors and executioners can silence whom they want. Take a look at the list of organizations attacked. If the crushing attack on Stratfor is the new model, we will not be the last. No security system is without flaws even if it is much better than Stratfor's was.

We certainly expect to be attacked again, as we were last week when emails were sent out to members from a fake Stratfor address including absurd messages and videos. Our attackers seem peculiarly intent on doing us harm beyond what they have already done. This is a new censorship that doesn't come openly from governments but from people hiding behind masks. Do not think we will be the last or that we have been the first.

We will continue to publish analysis and sell it to those who believe it has value. To our subscribers who have expressed such strong support, we express our deepest gratitude. To our critics, we assure you that nothing you have said about us represents a fraction of what we have said about ourselves. While there is much not to be proud of in this affair, I am proud beyond words of all my dedicated colleagues at Stratfor and am delighted to return our focus to analyzing critical international affairs.

To all, I dedicate myself to denying our attackers the prize they wanted. We are returning to the work we love, dedicated to correcting our mistakes and becoming better than ever in analyzing and forecasting how the world works.

Malaysia-Singapore Energy Cooperation: Prospects and Challenges

2012-01-10T21:13:00.001-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary Malaysia-Singapore Energy Cooperation: Prospects and Challenges by Alvin Chew. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 007/2012 dated 10 January 2012

Malaysia-Singapore Energy Cooperation:
Prospects and Challenges

By Alvin Chew

Synopsis

Singapore and Malaysia are considering sharing electricity. Will this pave the way for an ASEAN-wide electricity grid, or even cooperation in the supply of nuclear energy?

Commentary

MALAYSIA and Singapore have raised the prospect of sharing electricity. The Prime Ministers of the two countries discussed the possibility of Malaysia selling electricity to Singapore when they met in Putrajaya on 5 January 2012.

While the plan would be a private-sector initiative, PM Lee Hsien Loong said Singapore was open to importing a portion of its electricity from Malaysia if the terms were right. “We’re in the process of working out a proper framework for managing these imports of electricity…Once this framework is ready, Malaysian companies will be welcomed to participate and bid to supply electricity to Singapore,” he said. However, PM Lee added that the offer has to conform with proper safeguards. Singapore will also need to study the environmental impact of power-generating companies.

Promising, though there are challenges

Though promising mutual benefits, the energy-sharing deal will also entail challenges. While Malaysia is keen to export electricity to Singapore, it also needs to meet its own increasing demand for domestic consumption. Currently, gas and coal form respectively about 60% and 20% of its electricity production. In addition, its gas reserves are running low with supply estimated to last for the next 30 years. Its investment in hydropower will offset future land developments and renewable energy will hardly be sufficient to meet baseload requirements.

Hence, in the longer term, nuclear energy will likely be a strategic option for the country to ease its reliance on fossil fuels and enhance its export capacities in the oil and gas sectors. At the same time, there are multiple technical challenges in bringing conventional large scale nuclear power plants to land-scarce Singapore. Amid intensive efforts to adopt energy efficiency and conservation, the Republic still requires considerable amount of electricity to sustain its economy. Already reliant on total import of gas for its electricity generation, Singapore needs to divest its portfolio of energy mixes and deliver strategic partnerships that will enhance its security in the energy realm.

Nuclear energy option

Malaysia has been making inroads in embarking on nuclear energy, shortly after Vietnam decided to proceed with this option and sealed the deal with Russia in 2010. At the regional level, there are no proliferation concerns as ASEAN members that are considering the nuclear option have announced their commitment to adhere to strict IAEA regulatory frameworks. While Malaysia has already developed expertise and talent pool in nuclear technology, its proposal to bring in its first nuclear power plant has been met with resistance on the ground level. Hence, exporting electricity to Singapore can serve as a justifiable platform to cast nuclear power as economically viable.

At the buyer’s end, Singapore’s energy demands, if met by the import of electricity from Malaysia, will free up valuable land for the construction of power generators. Therefore, it will benefit both countries to forge an energy partnership to address the issue of security in terms of supply and demand, apart from boosting bilateral relations.

There are good reasons why Singapore will want to ensure that the Malaysian supply will be in accordance with proper safeguards and that the environmental impact of power generating companies will not be unfavourable. If they burn fossil fuel, particularly coal, they have to make sure that there are environmental controls put in place to regulate sulphur dioxide or ash to be released into the environment. As PM Lee noted, it will not only affect the immediate neighbours of the power station because there could be cross-border implications as well.

However, if nuclear energy is considered in this trading equation, it will eliminate the debate of carbon emissions surrounding the agreement. Power generation via fossil fuels may also attract carbon taxes. Hence, the nuclear option will likely see a transaction of stable prices of electricity to be traded between the two countries, which will also trickle down as reliable electricity prices in the non-subsidised Singapore market.

Electricity trading

Electricity trading has not been adopted on a large scale in Southeast Asia. Traditionally, electricity consumption is relatively low in the region and most countries are able to meet their domestic demands with their present power-generating capacities. As economic growth accelerates in Southeast Asia, the potential consumption of electricity by 2020 is expected to triple, especially for countries like Vietnam. Hence, the establishment of an ASEAN common grid lays down the framework for countries with energy surplus to sell electricity to their neighbours. It also sets the technical foundation for electricity to be transported in the outbreak of a crisis.

Although Singapore may still need an independent energy source as a strategic reserve, in the larger context, Singapore’s participation in this energy-generating process will strengthen regional energy security.

Alvin Chew PhD is an Adjunct Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University and was previously a Visiting Fellow at the Gulf Research Centre in the UAE.

China’s Global Role: Need for Soft Power?

2012-01-09T17:54:00.000-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary China’s Global Role: Need for Soft Power? by Benjamin Ho. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 006/2012 dated 9 January 2012

China’s Global Role:
Need for Soft Power?

By Benjamin Ho

Synopsis

With the West struggling with economic problems, China is expected to assume an increased role in global leadership. To do so, it needs to improve its “soft power”.

Commentary

THE ROLE of China in global politics is one of the most highly-discussed topics among academics and policy makers these days. No big international conference goes by without some mention of China’s political-economic situation and regional or global role. Likewise, “China-talk” often feature in private discussions among top government leaders and academic circles – an indication of the country’s growing stature and influence in international affairs.

As the global economic crisis shows little signs of abating, calls for increased Asian intervention have also gained momentum. In particular, struggling European economies are looking to cash-rich China as their key rescuer, a fact that was clearly not lost on China’s Premier Wen Jiabao while attending the World Economic Forum last September. In his speech, Premier Wen emphasised that while Beijing was willing to offer assistance, countries must also “first put their house in order” – a clear reference to the sovereign debt crisis in Europe.

Peaceful Rise?

The question concerning Beijing’s leadership is: Can China lead the world, and if so, what is the direction – and destination – China’s leadership is heading towards? On current evidence, it is hard to say. Over the years, the phrase heping jueqi or peaceful rise (sometimes referred to as peaceful development), has become a staple in the vocabulary of Chinese leaders. What this means, according to Premier Wen, is that China would threaten no nation, even as it becomes a global power. Global events since then have altered the dynamic of this strategy.

The United States’ preoccupation with Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the financial turmoil of recent years, has somewhat diluted the expectations of the West as a force for shaping the international political landscape. Terms such as “post-American world”, “Asian century” and “multi-polar world order” are being mentioned with increasing regularity -- an indication of the paradigm shifts of global politics.

In a recent Foreign Policy article, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted the importance of the Asia-Pacific region as a key driver of global politics while emphasising the importance of maintaining ongoing American leadership role within the region. Noting that the open and rules-based system established by the US had allowed China to prosper, Mrs Clinton added that greater transparency and reform – political, economically and legal – was needed for China, not only to achieve its own goals, but in contributing to global objectives.

While Chinese leaders have generally eschewed explicit mention of China’s global leadership role, they have nonetheless asserted Beijing’s right to influence matters of global concerns. From protests in the Middle East to issues of nuclear energy, China has not shied away from articulating its preferences – if not prescriptions – where its national interests are concerned. This active posturing is a double-edged sword in Beijing’s foreign policy: while it enables China to speak its mind, it also imposes certain responsibilities that China has to undertake.

Soft Power

In recent years, the notion of soft power has gained rhetorical traction among Beijing’s policy makers. A 2009 study by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies mentioned that China’s use of soft power was largely for “defensive and reactive purposes…intended to allay fears in other states of a China threat”. Noting China’s growing economy as a major driver of its increasing appeal in the developing world, the report added that “wealth and the potential to be wealthy are attractive and money confers normative power and provides the means to disseminate culture and ideas”.

Indeed a Beijing Review article showed that between 2008 and 2010, Beijing’s cultural industries recorded a growth rate of 24.2 per cent per annum, with a value of 1.1 trillion yuan (US$172 billion) added in 2010 alone. Since July 2009, China’s cultural industries have also been accorded the same strategic status as other key industries such as steelmaking, petrochemicals and textiles. In October 2011, the Chinese Communist Party also convened a plenum in which guidelines for cultural industries were set down by the top party leaders.

Moving forward, Beijing is expected to go on the “charm offensive” in attempting to widen and deepen its relationships with all regions of the world, particularly those who possess the natural resources on which Beijing’s burgeoning economic might is dependent. What is less clear however is to what extent this Chinese charm will succeed in winning the trust of its neighbours.

China would need to first remedy its approach to the projection of soft power. In Chinese policy circles, there is a tacit view that “keeping a low profile” (taoguangyanghui) is necessary for China to retain the autonomy to act under terms favorable to its own national interests. Such a posture may be interpreted by Western observers as an expression of Chinese power in which China’s true intentions are hidden from view (yincangzhenshimudi) This would run counter to Beijing’s promise of peaceful development.

Need to forge greater trust

To forge greater trust between China and the rest of the world, Chinese leaders would have to step out of their existing policy-making paradigm, one which is heavily predisposed towards economic growth and maintaining social stability at all costs. More would have to be done, especially in the area of personal freedoms and the right to voice one’s conscience – even if it runs against the ideology of the Communist party. As David Pilling argued in a recent Financial Times essay, the Chinese Communist Party’s suppression of dissent imposes limits on Beijing’s promotion of its brand of soft power.

In view of the rapid diffusion of ideas - as a result of globalisation – a centralised state-based approach to governance may be untenable and potentially very expensive – in the long run. The recent entry of the United States and Russia into the East Asia Summit suggests that the future configuration of the Asia-Pacific regional architecture would see the preponderance of big power relations at play. With the West still floundering from its economic problems, this will be a good opportunity for China to demonstrate a different face of its leadership potential. How will Beijing respond?

Benjamin Ho Tze Ern is an Associate Research Fellow with the Centre for Multilateralism Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

Until Obama Is Removed, We Are on the Edge of War

2012-01-09T17:49:00.000-08:00

As the following article shows, the Russians and the Chinese have a very clear understanding that Obama and his British sponsors are fully committed to war against Asia. Many top ranking US military and intelligence officials are also aware, and taking steps to stop it. Without removing Obama from office by Constitutional means immediately, that global war is virtually certain. Mike Billington

This article appears in the January 6, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Until Obama Is Removed, We Are on the Edge of War

by Jeffrey Steinberg

Jan. 3—Lyndon LaRouche has again warned that the world is hovering on the brink of thermonuclear extinction, and that the sole source of that danger is the British Empire, with its control over the U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons via their White House pawn, President Barack Obama.

The source of the war danger does not stem from Iran's quest for a nuclear bomb, or Syria's alleged crackdown on peaceful dissenters, or even Israel's obsession to remain the sole nuclear weapons state in the Middle East.

The British oligarchy is committed to preventing the Eurasian region, led by China, Russia, India, and other nations of the Asia-Pacific, from emerging from the collapse of the entire trans-Atlantic financial and economic system, as the new center of gravity of world political and economic power. To prevent this from happening, London is committed to starting a thermonuclear conflict pitting the United States against Russia and China. From the standpoint of the British oligarchy, a world of vastly reduced population—under 1 billion inhabitants—is preferrable to a prospering world, in which the power of the private financier oligarchy is wiped out.

While the overwhelming majority of American citizens and even leading politicians are absolutely clueless about this reality, the same is not true of leading circles in Russia and China, who have made their voices heard, loudly, in recent weeks, in a war-avoidance effort that has been joined by some leading American military and diplomatic circles.

But as LaRouche has repeatedly emphasized, dating back to his April 11, 2009 international webcast, the only true war-avoidance option that is sure to avert thermonuclear Armageddon is the immediate removal of President Obama from office—using the provisions of the U.S. Constitution to secure a stable transfer of power, and the launching of an unprecedented global economic recovery.

With Obama in office, unfettered by the threat of impeachment or removal under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, London maintains a precarious finger on the U.S. nuclear trigger. Furthermore, as LaRouche emphasized in a New Year's Day emergency message, if nuclear Armageddon is avoided, the world still faces a plunge into a New Dark Age of famine, disease, and perpetual war—unless the United States leads a fundamental revolution in policy, returning to the American System tradition of a credit system under national banking, and a science-driver program for global economic recovery.
Strategic Warnings

Both Russian and Chinese leaders are keenly aware of the danger of a thermonuclear war, triggered by an Israeli attack on Iran, or other provocations aimed at pitting the United States against the Eurasian superpowers. While Russian-Chinese relations have their own long history of friction, the two nations have reached a consensus that the war danger must be defeated, and have signaled, in a series of public statements and actions, that they are aware of the threats, and will work towards a common war-avoidance effort.

On Dec. 26, in one indicative action, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin held a televised meeting with Dmitri Rogozin, until recently the Russian Ambassador to NATO. Rogozin was recently named deputy prime minister in charge of the defense sector, the nuclear power sector, and the space program. In the meeting, Rogozin pledged to lead a rapid "rebirth of the defense industry," with "one of the most important aspects being, in effect, a new industrialization of the defense industry, which should function as a locomotive to pull the entire Russian economy."

A month before his promotion to deputy prime minister, Rogozin had visited the restricted city of Krasnoznamensk to deliver an address before the Aerospace Forces, in which he clearly spelled out the war danger emanating from NATO's pursuit of a missile defense shield in Europe, minus the earlier cooperation with Moscow on a joint defense shield.

Rogozin warned that

"NATO continues to live by the principles set down by NATO Secretary-General Lord Ismay [1952-57]: 'To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'.... They understand that the Germans may always develop into a force that will consolidate Europe around itself."

Zeroing in on the recent agreement reached between the U.S. and Romania, where an important component of the anti-missile system will be installed on Russia's southeastern tier, Rogozin told the Aerospace Forces assembled, "We have scrutinized the agreement the Americans have signed with the Romanians. The Romanians may think they are important interception missile operators, but even the base commander, a Romanian serviceman, has the right to enter only the lobby." Rogozin warned that the Europeans have become "hostages and targets of a retaliatory attack."

On Dec. 27, the Chinese also issued a clear warning that they understood the new threats coming from a London-controlled Obama Administration in Washington. In a lengthy article in People's Daily, Lin Zhiyuan, an expert on U.S. policy, from the Department of World Military Research of the Academy of Military Sciences, warned that the Obama Administration has adopted a new "return to Asia" strategy, based on the British geopolitical doctrines of Halford Mackinder.

"Some thinkers of the U.S. Navy are quite interested in the English geographer Halford Mackinder's 'Heartland theory,' and believe that controlling the South China Sea will make the U.S. Air Force and Navy command East Asia, and consequently command the 'World Island.' Currently, the situation in Europe is under the American control, and the situation in the Middle East is beneficial to the United States. The world's geographic center is transferring from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the Asia-Pacific region has become the world's political and economic center. The United States is eager to find a new way to consolidate its dominant position in this region."

Lin concluded that, with President Obama facing a challenging reelection campaign, under conditions of serious economic crisis at home, "the Obama administration needs to be more aggressive in military and diplomacy in order to create favorable conditions to win the presidency election. Therefore, the American global strategy shows a layout of stabilizing Europe, 'shrinking' appropriately in the Middle East, and 'expanding' in the Asia-Pacific region." As the Chinese are well aware, it was Mackinder's geopolitical doctrine of war between the Heartland and the Rimland that was the basis for Britain launching two world wars in the 20th Century.
Pre-War Deployments

Already on Dec. 15, the Russian government, in a clear recognition of the war danger coming from the Anglo-Americans, published a detailed report on the bolstering of Russian defenses along the southern tier. The article, by Sergei Konovalov, based on Defense Ministry briefings, was published both in the Russian-language daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta and in the English-language Russia Today. Konovalov began by bluntly stating that, "The geopolitical situation unfolding around Syria and Iran is prompting Russia to make its military structures in the South Caucasus and the Caspian, Mediterranean and Black Sea regions more efficient. Nezavisimaya Gazeta's Defense Ministry sources are saying that the Kremlin has been informed about an upcoming U.S.-supported Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The strike will be sudden and take place on 'day X' in the near future. One could assume Iran's reaction will not be delayed. A full-scale war is possible, and its consequences could be unpredictable."

The article, not coincidentally, appeared the day that the Russia-European Union summit was underway in Brussels, and just one week after the NATO-Russia summit in the same city. Konovalov recounted a Russian warning delivered to the Europeans the day before the EU summit: "A day before the event, Russia's envoy to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, relayed a message from the Kremlin, saying that an Israeli, or U.S. strike on Iran will lead to a 'catastrophic development of events.' The diplomat stressed that the negative consequences will not only be felt by the region, 'but also in a much broader context.' "

The article went on to detail all of the war-alert deployments of the Russian southern command, which has been on a heightened alert status since Dec. 1, particularly Russian forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who are aware of potential provocations from Georgia, in the event of an attack on Iran by Israel, the U.S., and NATO. The alert status includes coastal guided-missile batallions in Dagestan, and in the Caspian Flotilla.

The report also noted the deployment of the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov into the eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Syria, noting that Ministry of Defense officials would neither confirm nor deny that the carrier was accompanied by Russian nuclear submarines from the Northern Fleet.

The Konovalov article concluded with a report on an assessment by Russian Col. Vladimir Popov (ret.), an expert on the Caspian Sea region, who told the paper that he "does not exclude the possibility of Russia's military involvement in the Iranian conflict. 'In the worst-case scenario, if Tehran is facing complete military defeat after a land invasion of the U.S. and NATO troops, Russia will provide it military support, at least on a military-technical level,' predicts Vladimir Popov."
At the United Nations

Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin brought the issue of the war danger before the UN Security Council during one of his final comments as Council president (he was replaced on Jan. 1, by the South African ambassador). In a year-end interview with reporters, Churkin warned that Russia would not support any further sanctions against Iran, and also reported that his government was engaged in talks with both the Syrian government and opposition leaders to bring a peaceful end to the crisis there, which was being fueled by "violent extremists" who refused to negotiate. Churkin warned that the "greatest danger" in 2012 was a war between Iran and Western nations, and that his government would take measures to prevent such a war.

The most in-depth Western media coverage of Churkin's warnings appeared in the Dec. 31 Daily Telegraph. He asserted that

"Moscow believes that there are no further sanctions at the UN Security Council against Iran regarding its nuclear program. The sanctions track at the Security Council has been exhausted."

In an interview on Dec. 30 with Russia Today, Churkin had reiterated that the standoff between Iran and the West represents "a very dangerous scenario" for war, "but we do believe that a peaceful solution is possible.... Our consistent stand, our effort, is going to be targeted at doing whatever we can in order to prevent this scenario of regional catastrophe being carried out in 2012." And while Russia is also concerned about Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons, Moscow does not "accept the proposition that the best way to prevent a war is to start a war."

Churkin closed by restating the Russian government position that the Syrian situation can and must be resolved without resorting to outside force, as had been the case with Libya. He demanded the same degree of patience from the international community for Syria that has been shown in the case of Yemen.

"I think there was more bloodshed over the past few months [in Yemen] than in Syria. We do not accept the premise that somehow the Assad regime cannot change, that there cannot be progress [through dialogue] under this regime."

Indeed, Russia's intervention has apparently temporarily pushed back the London-led war drive for regime change in Damascus. In the final days of 2011, leaders of the major Syrian opposition parties met in Cairo, and signed a formal decree, vowing to seek reform without outside military intervention, the use of violence, or the promotion of sectarian conflict. One of the signers of that document, National Coordinating Committee for Democratic Change (NCC) head Haitham Manna, publicly praised the Russian role in mediating a solution to the Syrian crisis, noting that it was more worthwhile to look to Russia, China, and Iran for assistance than to rely on traditional Western allies like France and Great Britain and the United States.
American Voices

The war-avoidance campaign has not been restricted to Russia and China. In addition to LaRouche's warnings, a number of leading American military and diplomatic voices have been sounded against the Iran trigger.

On Dec. 29, Paul Pillar, until recently the Middle East director of the National Intelligence Council at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, published a sharp attack on U.S. failed diplomacy towards Iran. In The National Interest journal, Pillar warned, "The United States has made it almost impossible for Iran to say 'yes' to whatever it is the United States is supposedly demanding of Iran." Pillar noted that

"Any feasible change in Iranian policies that could be the basis of a new understanding with the United States and the West would include a continuing Iranian nuclear program, very likely including the enrichment of uranium by Iran. Feasible arrangements that would provide the minimum assurances to both sides could be negotiated, but they are unexplored. They remain unexplored because the United States has abandoned negotiations and has made its policy toward Iran solely one of pressure and sanctions."

Pillar went one step further, charging that many in the U.S. government do not want those sanctions to work.

"They instead see them as a necessary preliminary to war that they really want. This is a tragedy in the making. It is being made largely because too many people in this country have lost sight both of U.S. interests and of the fundamental bargaining principle that if we want to solve a problem that involves someone else with whom we have differences, we should make it easier, not harder, for the other side to say yes."

The next day, a similar chord was struck by former Amb. Thomas Pickering and William Luers, writing in the Washington Post. The authors warned that "Military action is becoming the seemingly fail-safe solution for the United States to deal with real and imagined security problems. The uncertain and intellectually demanding ways of diplomacy are seen as 'unmanly' and tedious, likely to involve compromise or even 'appeasement.'

U.S. policy, they lament, has become one of "an unprecedented series of sanctions and ostracization. History teaches that engagement and diplomacy pay dividends that military threats do not. Deployment of military force can bring the immediate illusion of 'success' but always results in unforeseen consequences and collateral damage that complicate further the achievement of America's main objectives. Deploying diplomats with a strategy while maintaining some pressure on Iran will lower Tehran's urgency to build a bomb and reduce the danger of conflict." Instead, the U.S. must set out on a "relentless search" for different ways to deal with Iran, without which "Washington will be stuck with a policy that will not change Iran's practices or its regime and could lead to a catastrophic war."

These U.S. institutional voices opposing a catastrophic war must themselves face the reality that it is only with the removal of President Obama from office, by legitimate Constitutional means already available, that war avoidance can be assured. Only by removing British control over the American nuclear arsenal can war be averted at this late moment.

That is the harsh reality that the world is facing, as the New Year begins.

The South China Sea Disputes: Is the Aquino Way the “ASEAN Way”?

2012-01-04T23:41:00.001-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary The South China Sea Disputes: Is the Aquino Way the “ASEAN Way”? by Aileen San Pablo-Baviera. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 004/2012 dated 5 January 2012

The South China Sea Disputes:
Is the Aquino Way the “ASEAN Way”?

By Aileen San Pablo-Baviera

Synopsis

Growing Chinese assertiveness and military capability have led the Aquino government to adopt tougher rhetoric towards China over the South China Sea disputes. Will the Aquino way bring more results than the “ASEAN Way”?

Commentary

THE AQUINO government’s tougher posture towards China with regard to the South China Sea disputes is changing the atmospherics of this long-standing regional security issue. While this shift has presented a new approach to tackling the regional tensions, observers are watching whether the “Aquino way” will bring more results than the “ASEAN Way” of non-confrontation. Not all ASEAN members are, however, comfortable with the Aquino approach.

Manila’s core interest

The Philippines, an archipelago entirely surrounded by water, pursues certain core interests in its territorial claims in the South China Sea just like other claimant countries. These include promoting respect for its territorial integrity and sovereignty, security against external threats, access to ocean resources to serve development needs, and maintaining good order at sea.

Manila has demonstrated sovereignty over its claimed Kalayaan Islands through continuous occupation of certain features, prevention of illegal entry or illegal fishing, legislation of baselines, and other measures. In seeking peaceful and norms-based approaches to the disputes, it initiated ASEAN’s 1992 Manila Declaration on the South China Sea, which called on claimants to exercise self-restraint and settle disputes peacefully.

Following the 1995 Chinese occupation of Mischief Reef, Manila proposed to China a bilateral agreement on principles for a code of conduct, setting up working groups to explore confidence-building measures and functional cooperation. A similar agreement was initiated with Vietnam in 1997, after which Manila and Hanoi undertook joint marine scientific expeditions. Manila also played an active role in promoting a code of conduct for ASEAN and China, resulting in the 2002 Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).

In 2004, the Arroyo government paved the way for state-owned oil companies of the Philippines and China – later joined by Vietnam – to conduct joint seismic research in the disputed areas, a possible precursor to joint development.

The Philippines’ policy posture has, however, been criticised as inconsistent, shifting in emphasis from multilateral dialogue (i.e. ASEAN-China) to bilateral cooperation (between Manila and Beijing), and then back, on the South China Sea question. Such shifts may have been partly due to leadership change and regime interests, but also due to the perceived ineffectiveness of either track.

Ultimately, however, Manila’s preference has been to rely on regional diplomacy rather than to undertake any major military build-up or engage in outright balancing strategies against China. Growing economic and people-to-people ties also show that Filipinos continue to value their friendship and links with China. Is there reason to believe that this is changing under the government of Benigno Aquino III?

Aquino’s ZoPFFC proposal

Among regional states, there is increasing concern over China’s growing military capabilities and its new assertiveness in its territorial claims. At the same time, there is palpable fear that Southeast Asia may become a theatre in which a possible US-China conflict might occur in the forseeable future.

Against this backdrop, the Aquino government has been openly critical of China’s assertiveness and is advocating a multilateral, rules-based approach to the disputes, in contrast to China’s oft-stated preference for bilateral talks. Manila has proposed that ASEAN lead a regional initiative in transforming the South China Sea into what it calls a “Zone of Peace, Freedom, Friendship and Cooperation” (ZoPFFC).

The concept calls for determining which maritime areas are disputed and which are not, as a starting point in negotiating a joint cooperation zone. It has also expressed readiness to bring the issues before international adjudication, which China opposes.

Manila appears convinced that it is time to move beyond mere confidence building to a resolution of the conflict, but the response from other ASEAN countries has been tepid. When Manila hosted an ASEAN maritime legal experts meeting last September to present ZoPFFC, two member states Laos and Myanmar did not even attend. During the ASEAN summit in Bali in November 2011, Philippine Foreign Secretary Alberto del Rosario challenged ASEAN to “play a decisive role…if it desires to realise its aspirations for global leadership”. However ASEAN Chair and Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natalegawa made it clear that the priority remains concluding a regional code of conduct with China.

A US role?

Chinese media reports, meanwhile, expressed suspicion that the Philippine proposal aims to provide the United States an opportunity to become involved in the disputes. Aquino clearly would welcome a strong US presence in the region, as do some other governments in ASEAN, although not necessarily in the dispute settlement process. During US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Manila on 16 November, Manila and Washington marked the 60th anniversary of their 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty with statements of US commitment to improving the Philippines’ maritime domain awareness and external defence, including its maritime boundaries.

Some observers may find that the recent rhetoric and confrontational approach by Philippine officials deviate from the path of constructive diplomacy that ASEAN seeks to pursue with China. Moreover, the strong US presence that the Philippines envisions for the region’s maritime security may not be welcomed by all ASEAN states.

Looking for approach that works

While the slow and non-confrontational “ASEAN Way” may not be how the Aquino government wants to play at the moment, some ASEAN countries may in turn not be comfortable with the “Aquino Way”. The question is which approach can bring better results and move the process of conflict management in the South China Sea forward, particularly to prevent the more worrying scenario of great power conflict in Southeast Asia? Or should there be parallel efforts moving toward a common goal?

The immediate challenge for the Philippines is persuading both ASEAN neighbours and China that the solidarity and support it seeks is not for promoting Philippine claims or for ganging up on China. The larger aim is to institute cooperative solutions addressing the roots of the conflict based on international law.

Concluding an ASEAN-China regional code of conduct on the South China Sea is important for the same reason, with claimant states having a greater responsibility than others to work together. Absent rules-based cooperative solutions, there is a high risk that military power will, in the end, become the final arbiter of the disputes.

Aileen Baviera is a Professor at the Asian Centre, University of the Philippines and, from April-June 2011, a Visiting Senior Fellow of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

Engaging Former JI Detainees in Countering Extremism: Can it Work?

2012-01-04T17:43:00.001-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary Engaging Former JI Detainees in Countering Extremism: Can it Work? by Kumar Ramakrishna. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 003/2012 dated 4 January 2012

Engaging Former JI Detainees in Countering Extremism:
Can it Work?

By Kumar Ramakrishna

Synopsis

Singapore’s counter-radicalisation programme has been effective in rehabilitating many Jemaah Islamiyah detainees as well as immunising the wider community against violent extremism. Can there be an enhanced role for specially selected former detainees to complement the overall counter-ideological efforts of Singapore’s Muslim scholars?

Commentary

TEN YEARS ago Singapore came close to being struck by a major terrorist attack - a mere three months after the September 11 attacks in the United States by Al Qaeda. To many Singaporeans, the news that a cell of the Al Qaeda-affiliated Jemaah Islamiyah lurked within their own borders seemed too surreal to be true.

But it was: the local JI cell - with the direct support of Al Qaeda itself - had plotted to mount truck bomb attacks against Western diplomatic and commercial interests in Singapore. Had the plot succeeded, the physical, economic, social and psychological repercussions for Singapore would have been catastrophic.

Success of RRG

Over the past decade, it has become clear that dealing with the threat of transnational terrorism crucially requires the capacity to deal with the real-time, physical threat posed by terrorists and their access to explosive materials and funding. However, it is equally important to address the threat posed by the virulent ideology driving JI, Al Qaeda and a continuously evolving network of like-minded counterparts.

In this connection, Singaporeans can be proud that local Muslim community leaders have since 2002 devised and refined a highly sophisticated counter-ideological programme targeted at Singapore JI detainees at first, but expanded since then to encompass their families and the wider public. As more than two-thirds of all detainees since 2001 have been successfully rehabilitated, Singapore’s counter-ideological programme, spearheaded by the all-volunteer Islamic scholars of the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG), has been internationally acclaimed to have been effective.

In Singapore it has been rightly recognised that moderate-minded scholars remain best placed to lead the overall counter-ideological effort. They are the most qualified to present widely accepted understandings of Islamic theology and to challenge the glaring flaws within JI and Al Qaeda ideology. They are also strategically positioned to offer authoritative opinions on a wide spectrum of issues ranging from the deeper meaning of the concept of jihad to how Muslims should conduct their daily affairs in a secular, multi-cultural polity like Singapore.

What more can be done?

Nevertheless, ten years on, it is worth asking if the overall potency of the counter-ideological programme can be further enhanced - via the engagement of rehabilitated former JI detainees in the counter-ideological effort as well. Supporters argue for a measured employment of carefully selected ex-detainees as such individuals possess a certain "street cred" by virtue of actually having been within the movement. They have witnessed at close range the problems and real-world contradictions within JI ideology.

Hence they are uniquely positioned to craft authentic "inside scoop" narratives aimed at cautioning vulnerable people against falling for JI ideological blandishments. In this way, former radicals could complement moderate scholars in counter-ideological work.

Such use of former radicals is nothing new. During the Malayan Emergency of the 1950s, disillusioned former communists were effectively employed in what was known then as counter-propaganda work. The former senior Communist Party of Malaya leader Lam Swee, for instance, had been well known amongst the ordinary rural Chinese folk that made up the mass base of CPM support. He had played a major role in the resistance during the Japanese Occupation and in the post-war labour movement. Hence when he defected to the government side and wrote a short booklet called My Accusation - an expose of the contradictions and blatant power plays within the CPM - it sent shock waves throughout the Malayan communist movement.

The panicked response of CPM ideologues in hastily publishing frenzied rebuttals of the points in My Accusation prompted the government psychological warfare expert C.C. Too to remark that the CPM themselves should be thanked for indirectly generating publicity for Lam Swee.

Our own historical record suggests that former “insiders” have potentially something to bring to the counter-ideological table today. Engaging former detainees in counter ideological work actually represents a form of continuous rehabilitation for them as well. Employing former radicals may well represent a win-win proposition for the three main stakeholders in the counter-ideological process: first, the former detainee; second, his audience - be it other detained individuals, detainee families, or the wider community - and finally; the relevant religious and secular authorities.

Challenges

Employing former detainees in counter-ideological work is not without its challenges. In Indonesia, it has been found that a number of released JI militants promptly rejoined their comrades in plotting violence against the government and Western interests. The problem of recidivism lies in the sheer difficulty of actually changing the mindset of Indonesian JI militants. This has prompted observers to call for the minimal aim of simple detainee “disengagement” from violence as opposed to more ambitious ideological “de-radicalisation” - in which detainees ultimately give up their commitment to establishing the Islamic State and settle for practising their faith in Indonesia’s secular and plural milieu.

Even in Singapore, the remaining unrepentant detainees - such as the former operational leader of the Singapore JI cell Mas Selamat Kastari - represent hard core elements that are likely to remain impervious to counter-ideological efforts. Again, this is not new: many hardcore Malayan communists refused to recant their commitment to setting up a Communist Republic in Malaya and Singapore well after unsustainable losses through eliminations and surrenders had forced Secretary-General Chin Peng to demobilise his fighting units at the end of 1958.

This however does not imply that there is ergo no role for former JI detainees in counter-ideological work. It does suggest that great care must be exercised in selecting former detainees for such efforts. While moderate scholars must continue to exercise overall strategic control and direction of the counter-ideological programme, the judicious use of carefully selected willing former detainees could potentially further enhance the overall effectiveness of the programme.

As Singapore enters the second decade of the ongoing struggle against a resilient violent extremism, it is imperative to ensure that it uses all available measures in this fight.

Kumar Ramakrishna is an Associate Professor and Head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

Mossad Spy Chief: Iran Nuke Not “Existential Threat”

2012-01-04T17:42:00.000-08:00

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-33/10412-mossad-spy-chief-iran-nuke-not-existential-threat

Mossad Spy Chief: Iran Nuke Not “Existential Threat”

| Print |
Written by Alex Newman
Monday, 02 January 2012 22:00

Tamir PardoHysteria over Iran’s alleged nuclear-weapons program has been steadily rising among some U.S. and Israeli officials. But Tamir Pardo (left), the chief of Israel’s intelligence service known as the Mossad, said last week that a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian government would not necessarily pose an “existential threat” to the Jewish state.

“What is the significance of the term ‘existential’?” Pardo was quoted as saying in an article by the Washington Times. Citing Israeli diplomats who met with the spy chief last week in a closed-door session, the paper reported that, according to Pardo, the danger posed by a hypothetical nuclear weapon in Iranian hands was being overblown.

“If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an ‘existential’ threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop,” the Mossad boss told the gathering of about 100 Israeli ambassadors. “That’s not the situation. The term is used too freely.”

Speaking to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, several diplomats said Pardo had stated that a nuclear-armed Iran would “absolutely” pose a threat to the nation. But even if the Iranian regime were to acquire a bomb, the intelligence chief was quoted as saying, it would not mean the destruction of Israel.

Still, Israeli officials are already working to disrupt Iran’s supposed nuclear-arms program using various measures, Pardo reportedly told the ambassadors. And they will continue to do so indefinitely.

The head of Israel’s powerful spy agency did not comment on the much-discussed possibility of a military attack on Iran, according to ambassadors cited in press reports. But other U.S. and Israeli officials have become increasingly vocal in promoting a preemptive strike, with some lawmakers and leaders openly proposing an armed confrontation to prevent Iran from acquiring the hypothetical bomb.

Tough international sanctions have already been imposed on Iran, and many experts view such measures as akin to an act of war. In mid-December, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak also said his government and U.S. officials were determined to stop the Iranian regime from developing the nuclear weapon it is allegedly seeking.

President Obama, meanwhile, has refused to rule out military intervention against Iran even as the U.S. government turns up the heat on the Syrian government and fights multiple unconstitutional wars at home and abroad. And prominent advocates for a new war on Iran — “war mongers,” neo-cons, and “war hawks,” as critics refer to them — can be found on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

But despite the heated rhetoric, more than a few respected voices in Israel and the United States have publicly opposed an attack on Iran. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who was succeeded by Pardo last year, has very publicly opposed a military strike. He also criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for banging the war drums, saying an attack on Iran would have devastating consequences.

Ex-Israeli military chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi is also against attacking Iran, according to news reports. And U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned about the consequences of such a strike, too, though he later insisted that the Iranian regime would not be “allowed” to develop a bomb.

The Iranian dictatorship, of course, insists its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful purposes — medicine and energy. And so far, no concrete evidence has been publicized to the contrary.

However, many analysts believe the Islamic government — which maintains friendly relations with the communist dictatorship ruling mainland China and the government of Russia — is indeed pursuing a nuclear weapon. Still, most experts do not believe a hypothetical bomb would be used offensively against Israel or any other nation.

Israel’s former military-intelligence chief Zeevi Farkash has been quoted as saying that the Iranian regime is pursuing a nuclear weapon to deter American intervention, not to attack the Jewish state. Countless other analysts agree — especially in the aftermath of several recent U.S.-led “regime change” operations against governments in the region that did not posses weapons of mass destruction.

Most GOP presidential contenders have been engaged in something of a rhetorical competition to see who could be the most belligerent toward Iran, with some candidates even proposing a preemptive, unilateral American attack on the Islamic Republic. Former Senator Rick Santorum, for example, recently vowed to unconstitutionally attack Iran if elected — unless the Iranian government bowed to his demands.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who promotes a non-interventionist foreign policy, has urged a more cautious approach. Pointing out that no solid evidence has yet emerged proving that the Iranian government is even developing a bomb, Paul frequently stresses his opposition to ongoing and potential future wars based on several constitutional and pragmatic arguments.

"To me, the greatest danger is that we would overreact," the Texas Congressman and top-tier Republican presidential contender said about the Iranian nuclear issue in a recent debate, comparing the pro-war propaganda on Iran with the inaccurate arguments used to launch the war on Iraq almost a decade ago. Paul also regularly emphasizes the constitutional requirement of a congressional declaration of war.

Some proponents of preemptively attacking Iran have said the fanatical regime in Tehran should not be trusted to make rational decisions. Others have claimed the Iranian government might offer nuclear-weapons technology to terrorist groups which might be more inclined to use it.

However, it is well known that the Israeli government possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons — not to mention the thousands of warheads maintained by the U.S. government. Given such a reality, even if Iran were to acquire nuclear missiles, it would almost certainly be suicide to launch them.

Photo of Mossad chief Tamir Pardo: AP Images

RSIS Commentary 002/2012 India's Internal Security Outlook: Progress but Still Areas of Concern by Bibhu Prasad Routray

2012-01-03T19:32:00.001-08:00

Subject: RSIS Commentary 002/2012 India's Internal Security Outlook: Progress but Still Areas of Concern by Bibhu Prasad Routray
Sent: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 8:05:57 AM

RSIS presents the following commentary India's Internal Security Outlook: Progress but Still Areas of Concern by Bibhu Prasad Routray. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 002/2012 dated 3 January 2012

India's Internal Security Outlook:
Progress but Still Areas of Concern

By Bibhu Prasad Routray

Synopsis

In spite of some improvements, internal security remains a critical area of concern for India in the new year. The government's ability to end extremist violence and craft a counter-terror architecture continues to be hampered by bureaucratic inertia, inter-ministerial and inter-departmental rivalry and political division.

Commentary

THE INDIAN government can derive some satisfaction from the fact that in 2011 several areas of chronic conflict have registered significant improvements, noticeable by the declining fatalities and shrinking areas of extremist violence. However, these do not portend durable peace. In the new year, gains made in the country thus far remain fragile and reversible.

Left-Wing Extremism

For the past several years, the Indian Prime Minister has habitually referred to left-wing extremism (also referred to as the Maoist problem) as the "biggest internal security challenge". The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), however, chose to play down the extremism by referring to it as "one of the biggest threats to internal security". The MHA can point to the significant improvements achieved in 2011 over the previous year. According to official data till 30 November, 415 civilians, 127 security forces and 98 extremists were killed in 2011, a sharp decline from the 720 civilians, 285 security forces and 172 extremists who died in 2010.

The geographical area under extremist violence also appears to have shrunk. Also, with 12 top leaders belonging to the Central Committee and Politburo behind bars, the movement might be undergoing some level of operational weakness. Since the second half of 2011, the Home Minister has spoken of a strategy of targeting the Maoist leadership. Success was achieved when security forces on 24 November killed the 3rd ranking leader of the movement Kishenji in the eastern state of West Bengal.

The government has further emphasised a new 'clear, hold and develop' strategy--using the security forces to protect development initiatives, once regions are cleared of extremist presence. The first area to undergo such a strategy is the Saranda forest in the eastern state of Jharkhand, which was cleared of Maoist presence following a month-long security force operation in August 2011. Several short and long-term projects have been unveiled in the area by the Rural Development Ministry.

To what extent the strategy of carrying out development under a security cover will succeed is a matter of debate in the policy circles. Notwithstanding these achievements, the anti-Maoist operations continue to be hampered by the absence of a national consensus on how to solve the problem. While some states focus on operations by the security forces, others feel that negotiation holds the key.

Jammu & Kashmir and the Northeast

The government’s ability to focus on the Maoist problem has been helped by the decline of violence in the chronic militancy-affected Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) and the North-eastern states.

Three factors are identified as the reasons behind the decline in militancy in J&K: The occupation of the Pakistani facilitators behind the cross-border militancy along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; the strengthening of the counter-insurgency grid in J&K which has neutralised much of the local militancy; and the unveiling of a range of confidence building measures between India and Pakistan. However, Indian authorities maintain that the terrorist training camps are still active across the border.

Most parts of India's Northeast, home to a myriad mutinies since India's independence, are returning to normalcy, following a policy of cooperation from neighbouring Bangladesh. Since 2010, the government in Dhaka has periodically arrested and handed over insurgent leaders who had settled in that country and ran militancy and extortion activities in Northeast India. Insurgent violence has sharply declined as a result.

The United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), several top leaders of which had been arrested and handed over by Dhaka in 2010, began a process of peace talks with the government in the latter half of 2011. While negotiations hold the key to peace in the region it is noted that none of the negotiations currently ongoing with several outfits in the region have progressed well.

Terrorist attacks on the hinterland

Three terrorists attacks took place on the Indian hinterland in 2011. These include the explosion outside the New Delhi High Court on 25 May; the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai on 13 July; and the second bomb blast near High Court in New Delhi on 7 September. In spite of the claims of augmented capacities of the intelligence agencies, all the three cases remain unsolved and the identity of the real perpetrators unknown. Authorities have arrested some persons in connection with the 7 September blasts, but have not been able to pinpoint the involvement of specific terrorist organisations.

India's attempts at putting together an effective counter-terror architecture since the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks have been hampered by bureaucratic inertia, inter-ministerial and inter-departmental rivalry and political division. The National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) and the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), pet projects of Home Minister P Chidambaram, remain unimplemented. Though he secured the approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) to set up the NATGRID in June 2011, little progress has been achieved since then, with the domestic intelligence agency, Intelligence Bureau (IB) objecting to the formation of the new body.

Prognosis

2011 was a year of mixed achievements for the Indian government in the domain of internal security. Whereas the Northeast and J&K appear to have been somewhat stabilised, courtesy favourable systemic conditions, the Maoist theatre and the Indian hinterland terrorist attacks remain issues of grave concern.

These continue to flag the country's inability to put behind a divided domestic approach on how to respond to terror. Unless the government finds a way to address these issues, much of India will continue to remain in the grip of insecurity in 2012.

Bibhu Prasad Routray is a Visiting Research Fellow in the South Asia programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He formerly served as a Deputy Director in India’s National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS).

RSIS Commentary 001/2012 Indonesia’s Counter Radicalisation Programme: Challenges from the Radicals by V. Arianti and Nur Irfani Saripi

2012-01-03T19:30:00.001-08:00

Subject: RSIS Commentary 001/2012 Indonesia’s Counter Radicalisation Programme: Challenges from the Radicals by V. Arianti and Nur Irfani Saripi
Sent: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 7:28:09 AM

RSIS presents the following commentary Indonesia’s Counter Radicalisation Programme: Challenges from the Radicals by V. Arianti and Nur Irfani Saripi. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 001/2012 dated 3 January 2012

Indonesia’s Counter Radicalisation Programme:
Challenges from the Radicals

By V. Arianti and Nur Irfani Saripi

Synopsis

Indonesia is hailed as a country which has effectively used a hard approach to counter terrorism. But while terrorist organisations can be dismantled, eradicating terrorism is a different matter altogether.

Commentary

THE INDONESIAN government has realised the importance of winning hearts and minds of the public and educating them on the dangers of extremist ideology. This awareness is evident in the establishment of the National Counter Terrorism Agency, better known by its Indonesian acronym: BNPT (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terorisme) whose responsibility includes organising public education programmes. However, BNPT's programme is facing strong counter-campaigns from radicals; BNPT may need to revise its approach to achieve its objectives.

Since November 2010, BNPT has organised at least a dozen seminars on deradicalisation within the Muslim community in Indonesia. BNPT cooperated with the Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI) – a semi-government body that comprises representatives of various Muslim organisations in Indonesia – at the national level and with other Muslim organisations and non-governmental organisations.

Radicals’ Responses

The radicals have responded cleverly to the government's campaign against them. Within a week of BNPT’s deradicalistion seminar, Islamic Ummah Forum (Forum Umat Islam/FUI) swiftly organised a counter seminar. MUI’s branch in Solo, which does not share the stance of MUI at the national level, even published a book on countering BNPT's deradicalisation programme and has pledged to organise a series of counter seminars in every city where BNPT had previously held seminars. The series of seminars held by MUI Solo invited speakers from different backgrounds including BNPT, academicians and also prominent Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) figures such as Abu Rusydan.

These seminars were held in university campuses, thus giving credibility to its programmes. Furthermore, BNPT’s deradicalisation seminars are also heavily criticised in various radical study groups, websites, banners, and even JI-linked magazine, An-Najah (The Success), which carried a special edition on Indonesia’s deradicalisation programme.

Since BNPT deradicalisation seminars highlight the Chairman of BNPT Ansyaad Mbai, a retired top police officer, while not resorting much to the presence of Muslim clerics, the radicals question his credential to speak on Islamic concepts such as al-wala’ wal bara’ (loyalty and enmity), jihad (struggle) and bai’ah (oath of allegiance). BNPT is also portrayed as an anti-Islam institution. Such attacks could eventually further undermine BNPT’s credibility in carrying out the counter radicalisation programmes. The concerted response from the radicals should not be underestimated as they had garnered up to 5,000 participants in one of its seminars, outnumbering the participants in BNPT’s seminar.

Recommendations for BNPT

BNPT has, however, claimed success through the dozens of public engagement programmes it organised since its inception in July 2010. A recent radicalism index survey conducted by Lazuardi Birru, an NGO specialised in countering radicalisation, found a slight decline in radicalism in Indonesia. Ansyaad Mbai claimed that this decline was due to the deradicalisation efforts of BNPT. Nevertheless BNPT is not immune to challenges and criticism. It needs to consider the following for a more effective approach:

Firstly, BNPT needs to differentiate between deradicalisation programmes for radicals and convicted terrorists, and a programme for public awareness on the dangers of extremism and terrorism. Since the target audience for its seminars is the larger segment of the Muslim community, the term “deradicalisation” should be avoided. Labelling the seminars “deradicalisation” gives an impression that the government is implying that the participants are radicals to begin with.

Secondly, while public education programmes in Indonesia have included Islamic terms misused by the radicals – such as 'al-wala wal bara', 'jihad' and 'bai’ah' – these concepts should be explained by those who are qualified to do so. Rather than having security and intelligence officers speak on religion, mainstream Muslim scholars should be the ones to address the Muslim audience to clarify those concepts in accordance with Islamic teachings.

Muslim scholars who engage in public seminars should also be intellectually equipped to counter radical ideology and should be prepared to calmly address issues posed by radicals among the participants. This would help the counter radicalism efforts gain more credibility among Muslim audiences.

BNPT is aware of the importance of cooperating with the mainstream Muslim organisations and has signed Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) with at least eight Islamic institutions to implement the educational counter terrorism programmes. It is best to let those Islamic institutions do the counter radicalisation work in the community while the BNPT continues with public engagement in security or non-religious topics. If necessary, seminars related to counter radicalisation efforts should not have BNPT officers as speakers or publicised as organisers.

Awareness Raising

Radicals and extremists will never cease their efforts to spread their ideology to the community both in the cyber domain and in the 'real world'. Thus, in counter terrorism, raising community awareness on the danger of terrorism is as crucial as dismantling a terrorist network. While BNPT’s educational approach deserves commendation, its strategies can still be further refined. Prudence in counter radicalisation efforts is crucial.

The main aim of BNPT’s engagement programme is winning the support of the larger community and inoculating it against extremism. Winning public support is what the radicals seek as well.

V. Arianti is an Associate Research Fellow and Nur Irfani Saripi is a Senior Analyst at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

Carmichael: A Call for Peace: Say NO to America's Military Adventure

2012-01-02T22:12:00.001-08:00

A Call for Peace: Say NO to America's Military Adventure
With the pace of war against Iran now thundering in all its fury, it is time to mobilize once again to demand peace

By Michael Carmichael

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28375

Global Research, December 29, 2011
Planetarymovement.org - 2011-12-20

Michael Carmichael's Talk to the Elders for Peace, Chapel Hill, N.C. on December 19th, 2011.

Good afternoon.

I am delighted to be here amongst all of you lovely people working together for peace. In fact, since we are the Elders for Peace, we are all veterans of the perpetual war against peace. Our side never wins, but we still keep working just the same. Never winning, because peace versus war is not a game. We are working for the survival of not only the human race, or even our tiny planet. In our time, when technology has finally led mankind to weapons of mass destruction of literally infinite power – the power to destroy in virtual simultaneity every form of life on earth, we are among the relatively few humans who have embarked on the mission in search of the key to survival of life as we know it.

Today, we find ourselves inside the vortex of a gigantic conundrum – the United States of America. Our nation is the strongest military force in the history of the known universe. For the past century, we have been waging wars all over our tiny planet.

The Great War, WWI was followed by WWII, a war that many believe was even greater. Both world wars catapulted our nation into the leading role of all the nations on earth. We are the richest, the most respected, the most reviled, the most envied, the most powerful nation among nations.

We are the most warlike nation. We must, therefore, be the most warlike people ever to have populated this planet.

Over the past decade, our nation has prosecuted wars in the Middle East. A war of vengeance against Afghanistan. A war of cupidity against Iraq. Both wars have gone badly for America. While the final combat forces departed Iraq last week, more than 100,000 of our troops are still waging a twilight war in Afghanistan.

But it is really worse than that, for our press, television and mainstream media do not reveal the truth to our people. We are already engaged in a third major land war in the Middle East, a war against Iran.

Before we examine the onrushing Iran War, let us review a few of the latest developments.

Good news

1 – The United States is Pulling out of Iraq. The last combat forces departed from Iraq last week.

2 – The United States is winding down our military operations in Afghanistan.

3 – The United States is preparing to cut the military budget, and for the time being both principal parties appear to be engaged with this important idea.

4 – Former President George W. Bush has been constrained to the confines of the USA by legal maneuvers that would swiftly lead to his indictment for violations of the Geneva Convention on Torture if he were to travel abroad. In recent months, Former President Bush was troubled by attempts to place him under arrest when he visited Canada very briefly, and he was forced to cancel his trip to Switzerland for fear of arrest for war crimes and torture.

5 -- Certain Key Elements of our government, the White House, the Obama Administration and the Department of State, are resisting increasingly shrill demands for war against Iran, and at the same time they are fighting for the right to conduct diplomatic contacts with Iran against an ominous array of forces recently unleashed in Congress and beyond.

Bad News

1 - The War on Drugs is a multinational disaster with over 35,000 civilians killed in Mexico over the past five years. The War on Drugs is our most costly war and the most counterproductive. Little is being done to control it. Virtually nothing is being done to bring it to an end.

2 - The Military-Industrial-Complex (MIC) is moving inexorably toward war with Iran.

3 - Technology is totally autonomous – it cannot be controlled. It cannot be managed. It cannot be suppressed. Technology in the hands of the MIC is advancing rapidly toward the robotification of war via drones for surveillance and targeted assassinations. This ominous trend in the technology of death will continue to gain momentum, and this dreadful development of technology is now unstoppable. Soon, we will be witnessing battlefields with many forms of robotic and cybernetic warriors – cyborgs – organisms with biological and cybernetic components. Cyborg assassins. Robotic assassins. The world of Terminator is racing rapidly toward us right now, and nothing whatsoever is being done to restrain it.

4 - Mind Control, Mental Programming, Brainwashing and Perception Management have reached or exceeded Orwellian levels, and we are now moving confidently toward Huxleyian levels of totalitarian enslavement as vividly portrayed in Brave New World – a far more advanced dystopia than George Orwell’s Oceania, where torture was still applied to recalcitrant subjects. Brave New World programmed masses via propaganda, brainwashing and sensuality. Here are direct quotations from Aldous Huxley about the evolution of totalitarianism:

It is possible to make people contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the past, and it can be done even more effectively now because you can distract them with bread and circuses and you can provide them with endless amounts of distractions and propaganda. . .

The nightmare of 1984 is destined to modulate into the nightmare of Brave New World – the change will be brought about as a result of a self-need for increased efficiency . . .

Totalitarian regimes of the future will not be based upon terror, because they will have other means – brainwashing and propaganda – which will be much more efficient and much more economical than terrorism and torture.

5 - As evidence of point 3 above, Congress is almost totally enthralled (literally in moral and intellectual bondage) to the Military Industrial Complex. We now live in a Military Dictatorship dressed up in the political refinement of democracy, but that is only a myth. The reality is Military Dictatorship.

6 - Three days ago by a margin of 410 to 11, Congress has just passed one of the most potentially dangerous pieces of legislation in world history, The Iran Threat Reduction Act. Every member of the North Carolina delegation voted in favor except for two who were absent – both rock-ribbed Republicans (Myrick and Coble). While other nations and international organizations are attempting to criminalize war, the US congress is attempting to criminalize diplomatic contact and potential peace negotiations. This astonishing piece of legislation symbolizes the dangers Americans face from their elected representatives in government and those from the Military Industrial Complex who are actually in control of our government.

The Iran War

The buildup of the Iran War has been long and arduous. Over the past eight years, our military intelligence establishment working hand-in-glove with other shadow agencies of other nations has been building up the notion of a casus belli against Iran predicated upon their allegedly clandestine nuclear arms program.

We all know that Iran is an Islamist state. In 1979, the populist uprising long incubated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini finally ejected the hated regime of the Shah, one of America’s most cherished allies in the oil-rich region.

It must be said that the Shah was a great burden unto his people. While he lived in unparalleled luxury seated on a jewel-encrusted throne shaped like a peacock, the Shah entertained more lavishly than any other potentate on earth, even though his people suffered under the cruel heel of the Savak, one of the most brutal, repressive and predatory secret police forces ever devised.

The United States was on intimate terms with Savak. We trained them. We armed them, and they served our purposes in their region.

Richard Nixon loved the Shah, and the Shah loved Richard Nixon. The Shah granted Nixon the power and privilege of oil-riches, and Nixon tacitly granted the Shah immunity from the crime of heroin production, one of the largest and most profitable industries on earth, a fact known by Interpol for decades.

We all know, the Shah fell, and Khomeini rose to power.

What we often forget is that soon after the Iranian Revolution, our honorable ally, Saddam Hussein, at our beckoning and with our blessing, attacked Iran with arms we provided unto him. The Iran-Iraq War lasted 8 years. We do not know the exact number of casualties, but the figure of one million is probably far too small. We do know that Saddam Hussein did our bidding, and we do know that under the administration of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, we secretly armed Iran in order to permit the Reagan White House to wage an illegal war by arming the Nicaraguan Contras, a political movement that was nothing more than a death squad of gigantic proportions that murdered nuns, priests, women, children and poets in their campaign of carnage against a democratically elected government that sought to create economic justice within their own finite economy.

Today, the Republican presidential candidates sing from the same songbook on Iran – with one notable exception, Ron Paul. The official Republican line is: war with Iran to purge them of their Islamist regime and destroy their nuclear program. Rank and file Republicans bitterly criticize President Obama for being too soft on Iran. It is ironic that rank and file Democrats are beginning to believe the same thing.

Last week, by a margin of 410 to 11 - the House of Representatives just passed a bill that would criminalize diplomatic contact between the USA and Iran. The bill barring diplomacy with Iran is the work of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, (R-FL) backed by Howard Berman, (D-CA). The White House, the Department of State and key members of the Senate are working to ensure the failure of this egregious piece of legislation.

Our nation is suffering deeply in the throes of Islamophobia, and now we have developed an even more virulent phobia, Iranophobia, a fear of the nation and people of Iran. America is not the only nation afflicted with Iranophobia, the small and vulnerable nation of Israel is obsessed with the threat of imminent nuclear annihilation by an Iranian nuclear bomb, a weapon whose existence at this point in time is totally imaginary, the hypothetical component of a conspiracy theory. If America and Israel were psychiatric patients, their condition would be described as delusional. Instead, our government and our obeisant media are doing everything in their power to brainwash the American people to inculcate into their psyches the fear of every molecule of Iranian origin.

The Iran War is the brainchild of the neocons of the Bush-Cheney administration. In top secret meetings of the national security council, Dick Cheney argued for war against Iran as early as 2002 and 2003. Cheney’s daughter, Elizabeth Cheney served in the State Department as the conduit for $85 million per year in funds to “pro-democracy” organizations inside Iran – groups like the Mujaheddin e-Khalq, a Marxist Islamist paramilitary cult of celibate terrorists, commandos, assassins and agents who sublimate their sexual desires for the practice of assassination, bomb manufacture, espionage, torture and terrorism. Today, 3000 members of the MEK are stranded in Camp Ashraf, an encampment inside Iraq that is now scheduled for demolition by the government of Prime Minister Maliki. Astonishingly, Governor Howard Dean has combined forces with Republican neoconservatives to remove the MEK from the US listing of terrorist organizations, so we can continue to provide them with more aid for their cult of terror.

While the tempo and pace of the buildup of the Iran War has been long, complicated and terrifying for those of us who monitor it, we must report that in the last few months, the pace is definitely quickening.

• Iran has arrested an untold number of Americans who languish in their prison system classified as “spies.” Apparently, Americans are crossing the border between Afghanistan and Iran as if they were embarking on “hikes” – and we the people of the United States know very little about these cases, their number, the individuals, the circumstances.

• Just over a year ago, a cyber attack by the Stuxnet Worm was unleashed against the Iranian nuclear industry. This anonymous cyber attack made international headlines in most of the advanced nations on earth, but only a slight smear on the inner pages of our newspapers in the USA.

• In July of this year, an Iranian nuclear scientist was shot dead by an assassin on a motorcycle in Tehran.

• In America, ABC ran a story headlined: "Who is Killing Iran’s Nuclear Scientists?"

• In Britain, the BBC ran a story headlined: "Is Iran Already Under Covert Attack?"

• In London, the coverage read: "Iranian Scientist’s Death Probably the Work of Western Security Agencies: Analysts Suggest Mossad or CIA Behind the Murder."

• Recently, the Obama administration announced the interception of a disturbing terrorist plot allegedly masterminded by the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guards or the Quds Force. The US Drug Enforcement Administration intercepted intelligence about an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador in Washington by outsourcing the murder to contract killers connected to a Mexican drug cartel. While this story was shocking, we have been advised by our government to take it seriously, even though it is considered to be risible, laughable and incredible in almost all other parts of the world. It may be worth reminding ourselves that propagandists have long operated with the principle of the big lie: the bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it. After the exposure of this fantastic plot, the United States elevated the level of monitoring and surveillance of the nation of Iran.

• In November, working under their new Director Yukiya Amano, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report on the Iranian nuclear program. The first Amano-Era IAEA report cited evidence that Iran was "studying nuclear weapons." Iranian officials immediately denied the report of nuclear weapons research. In America the most authoritative source on US-Iranian tension, Seymour Hersh described the Amano report on Iran as: "The shift in tone at the I.A.E.A. seems linked to a change at the top." and, "The new report, therefore, leaves us where we’ve been since 2002, when George Bush declared Iran to be a member of the Axis of Evil—with lots of belligerent talk but no definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons program." Thus, the IAEA report created more tension, but little more. Seymour Hersh appeared on Democracy Now in a lengthy interview explaining his reservations about the objectivity of the IAEA report. The Seymour Hersh story on Democracy Now was headlined: "Propaganda used ahead of Iraq War Now Being Reused Over Iran's Nuke Program."

• As you will know, a US drone spy plane was recently shot down over Iran.

• You may not know that only three weeks ago there was a mysterious series of explosions at a nuclear facility located in close proximity to the historic city of Isfahan in Iran.

• Shortly after these explosions, Iran ordered the closure of the British embassy.

Throughout it all, we are being assured by our government that Iran is culpable of violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but we are given no conclusive evidence that this casus belli is any more credible than the risible case Colin Powell presented to the United Nations in February 2002 stating that Saddam Hussein posed a threat because of his vast and powerful arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

While Powell’s presentation impressed the domestic news media and its obedient audience – the American public, I was in Europe at the time – and nobody accepted Powell’s presentation as true. From the outset, Powell’s presentation was deemed to be a total fabrication. That lack of American credibility is why the global demonstrations of February 15th 2003 were so enormous. One million Romans marched in protest; one million Japanese marched to protest; in London, I was with Tony Benn in a vast throng estimated at one million in Hyde Park to protest the US-led march into the folly we now know as the Iraq War.

War....

To read full article go to:

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28375

......As elders for peace, we have seen wars come and go and come again.

We have seen the brutality of man against man.

We have seen the brutality of man against animals, the deer of Orange County, the Tigers of China, the whales of the seven seas – all slain for sport, for gold, for pleasure.

We have seen men and women executed for crimes they did or did not commit.

We have seen the relentless assault on the black and tan races by the white master-race.

Perhaps, these visions of violence, torture, destruction and death are what unites us in our movement to protest, to oppose and to abolish war.

With the pace of war against Iran now thundering in all its fury, it is time to mobilize once again to demand peace.

Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.

THE INAUGURATION OF POLICE STATE USA 2012. Obama Signs the “National Defense Authorization Act "

2012-01-02T21:47:00.000-08:00

THE INAUGURATION OF POLICE STATE USA 2012. Obama Signs the “National Defense Authorization Act "

By Michel Chossudovsky

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28441

Global Research, January 1, 2012

With minimal media debate, at a time when Americans were celebrating the New Year with their loved ones, the “National Defense Authorization Act " H.R. 1540 was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The actual signing took place in Hawaii on the 31st of December.

According to Obama's "signing statement", the threat of Al Qaeda to the Security of the Homeland constitutes a justification for repealing fundamental rights and freedoms, with a stroke of the pen.

The controversial signing statement (see transcript below) is a smokscreen. Obama says he disagrees with the NDAA but he signs it into law.

"[I have] serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

Obama implements "Police State USA", while acknowledging that certain provisions of the NDAA are unacceptable. If such is the case, he could have either vetoed the NDAA (H.R. 1540) or sent it back to Congress with his objections.

The “National Defense Authorization Act " (H.R. 1540) is Obama's New Year's "Gift" to the American People.

He justifies the signing of the NDAA as a means to combating terrorism, as part of a counter-terrorism agenda. But in substance, any American opposed to the policies of the US government can --under the provisions of the NDAA-- be labelled a "suspected terrorist" and arrested under military detention.

"Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

Barack Obama is a lawyer (a graduate from Harvard Law School). He knows fair well that his signing statement --which parrots his commitment to democracy-- is purely cosmetic. It has no force of law.

The signing statement does not in any way invalidate or modify the actual signing by President Obama of NDAA (H.R. 1540) into law.

"Democratic Dictatorship" in America

The “National Defense Authorization Act " (H.R. 1540) repeals the US Constitution. While the facade of democracy prevails, supported by media propaganda, the American republic is fractured. The tendency is towards the establishment of a totalitarian State, a military government dressed in civilian clothes.

The passage of NDAA is intimately related to Washington's global military agenda. The military pursuit of Worldwide hegemony also requires the "Militarization of the Homeland", namely the demise of the American Republic.

In substance, the signing statement is intended to mislead Americans and provide a "democratic face" to the President as well as to the unfolding post-911 Military Police State apparatus.

The "most important traditions and values" in derogation of the US Constitution have indeed been repealed, effective on New Year's Day, January 1st 2012.

The NDAA authorises the arbitrary and indefinite military detention of American citizens.

The Lessons of History

This New Year's Eve December 31, 2011 signing of the NDAA will indelibly go down as a landmark in American history.

If we are to put this in a comparative historical context, the relevant provisions of the NDAA HR 1540 are, in many regards, comparable to those contained in the "Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State", commonly known as the "Reichstag Fire Decree" (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) enacted in Germany under the Weimar Republic on 27 February 1933 by President (Field Marshal) Paul von Hindenburg.

Implemented in the immediate wake of the Reichstag Fire (which served as a pretext), this February 1933 decree was used to repeal civil liberties including the right of Habeas Corpus.

Article 1 of the February 1933 "Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State" suspended civil liberties under the pretext of "protecting" democracy: "Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of association and assembly, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations, as well as restrictions on property rights are permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." (Art. 1, emphasis added)

Constitutional democracy was nullified in Germany through the signing of a presidential decree.

The Reichstag Fire decree was followed in March 1933 by "The Enabling Act" ( Ermächtigungsgesetz) which allowed (or enabled) the Nazi government of Chancellor Adolf Hitler to invoke de facto dictatorial powers. These two decrees enabled the Nazi regime to introduce legislation which was in overt contradiction with the 1919 Weimar Constitution.

The following year, upon the death of president Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler "declared the office of President vacant" and took over as Fuerer, the combined function's of Chancellor and Head of State.

The Reichstag Fire, Berlin, February 1933

Germany's President (Field Marshal) Paul von Hindenburg

Obama's New Year's Gift to the American People

To say that January 1st 2012 is "A Sad Day for America" is a gross understatement.

The signing of NDAA (HR 1540) into law is tantamount to the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Inauguration in 2012 of Police State USA.

As in Weimar Germany, fundamental rights and freedoms are repealed under the pretext that democracy is threatened and must be protected.

The NDAA is "Obama's New Year's Gift" to the American People. ...

Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, Canada, January, 1st 2012

Today, January 1st, 2012, our thoughts are with the American people.

Bribery Scandal Almost Nabbed Newt

2012-01-02T21:30:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich is just another establishment pig feeding at the public trough all his adult life. Everything about him is pretentious and fraudulent.

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1992

Bribery Scandal Almost Nabbed Newt

December 31, 2011 dave

Newt's Big Bribe

By Michael Collins Piper

In 1997, hardworking FBI agents in Miami were on the verge (they thought) of snaring then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his second wife, Marianne, in a $10 million bribery scandal involving multiple ties to key elements of the Israeli lobby in Washington. However, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh stepped in, and the impending sting was called off.

This revelation appeared on page A-2 of The Washington Post on Dec. 15, but it has not been mentioned in The New York Times or been given any play in the major broadcast media.

While the Post downplayed the Israeli connection, a limited rendition of the story in one brief UPI report—published in only a few newspapers—never mentioned the underlying pivotal, in-depth role of Israeli-linked intermediaries in the matter.

Instead, the reports focused on international arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian’s ties to the affair, leading many readers to think Gingrich was involved in arms trafficking. In reality, it was the arms dealer, a longtime FBI informant, who was acting on behalf of the FBI in the effort to nab Gingrich.

The Post story was based on a far more detailed and revealing exposition of some 6,400 words by veteran intelligence correspondent Joe Trento, published on his website at dcbureau.org.

The entire scenario is complex, reflecting events taking place over several years time. But the bottom line is that Gingrich and his wife were allegedly attempting to shake down Soghanalian for a $10 million bribe and that, from the beginning, operatives for Israel were on the scene, acting as middlemen for the Gingrich duo.

Mrs. Gingrich first made a connection to Soghanalian through her position as a former paid pitchwoman for the Israel Export Development Corporation (IEDC)—a front for a group of Jewish billionaires eager to promote Israeli exports into the United States. Behind IEDC were such big names as Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Center at the time of the 9-11 attacks; Sy Syms of the SYMS clothing chain; and Lawrence Tisch, who controls the CBS media empire.

Soghanalian said he was first approached by Morty Bennett of Miami, who told the arms dealer he had a business associate who had an “in” with Mrs. Gingrich and that it might be possible to use that connection on Soghanalian’s behalf.

Knowing U.S. sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were preventing the arms dealer from collecting a legal debt of $54 million owed to him by Iraq, Bennett told Soghanalian that Mrs. Gingrich could help arrange—through her husband, then the speaker of the House—the lifting of the U.S. embargo so the arms dealer could secure his debt.

Bennett’s associate, Howard Ash—who had worked with Mrs. Gingrich at IEDC—was a major fundraiser for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a Jerusalem-based think tank headed by Robert Loewenberg, who Mrs. Gingrich has described as a “friend.” IASPS also included another close Gingrich friend, former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), among its “trustees”—a relationship Weber now formally denies.

Following the contact from Bennett, Soghanalian—a longtime FBI informant who had worked closely with Richard Gregorie, the assistant U.S. attorney in Miami—reported the overtures from Mrs. Gingrich’s IEDC-IASPS associates to the FBI. The FBI expressed interest, urging Soghanalian to maintain contact with the group.

Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Gingrich visited Paris—under the auspices of IEDC and at the urging of Loewenberg—in the company of Bennett and Ash, where she met Soghanalian.

Mrs. Gingrich now claims she was soliciting a donation to IEDC from Soghanalian. However, Soghanalian told the FBI that Mrs. Gingrich told him in Paris that she could use her husband’s influence to get the Iraqi embargo lifted in return for “an understanding.”

Sometime later, Bennett came back to the arms dealer, saying Mrs. Gingrich wanted $10 million to get the job done.

Soghanalian was told $5 million was for Mrs. Gingrich; another $1 million was for Bennett. The recipients of the remaining $4 million were not named, but those who know how Capitol Hill bribery works presume this money would be used to help “grease the wheels” among other members of Congress who would help Gingrich expedite the operation.

Soghanalian told the FBI he was instructed the bribe was to be paid to the Washington office of IASPS, which would, in turn, launder the money to the Gingriches.

The IEDC-IASPS connection recurs throughout the scenario. Not only did another IEDC associate of Mrs. Gingrich, attorney David Yerushalmi, serve as counsel for both IEDC and IASPS, but both organizations also shared a number of employees and mutual funding sources.*

The FBI insisted it was vital that Soghanalian seal the deal directly with Mrs. Gingrich or her husband. This would clinch the criminal case against them.

As directed by the FBI, Soghanalian insisted he would not make the “donation” to the IASPS—the bribe intended for Gingrich—until he could meet Gingrich and his wife in private.

Pressured by Soghanalian, Ash told the arms dealer the House speaker would send “his own man” to Miami to meet with Soghanalian to facilitate arrangements for the meeting.

Gingrich’s “own man” was Ben Waldman. Closely tied to Netanyahu circles in Israel, Waldman—an associate of both televangelist Pat Robertson and the infamously corrupt pro-Israel Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff—had been Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the Jewish community. But at the time of the bribery conspiracy, Waldman was chief fundraiser for the IASPS.

Finally, with everything in place, the FBI set the trap for Gingrich. A lavish reception was scheduled for June 8, 1997 in Miami at a luxury home, which had actually been rented by the FBI for the sting. Soghanalian was supposed to meet Gingrich there and solidify the deal under FBI electronic surveillance.

However, at the last minute, FBI Director Louis Freeh sent down the order that Soghanalian was not to attend the event—which Gingrich did attend—and the two-year-long investigation was brought to an abrupt end just when the FBI might have caught Gingrich agreeing to accept the payoff.

Journalist Trento quoted one FBI agent, who said: “We got so close, and when the target was in sight, we were stopped by Washington.”

In fact, both assistant U.S. attorney in Miami Richard Gregorie and the FBI’s Miami attorney, Martin King, had wanted to pursue the investigation to the end, only to be frustrated by the FBI director.

Soghanalian has since died. Bennett, Ash and Waldman—and Mrs. Gingrich—all dismiss the reported events as a tissue of lies. Gingrich has yet to comment. FBI officials now assert there was never any evidence Gingrich was aware a bribery conspiracy was under way.
——
* Considering the revelations from the Gingrich bribery allegations, it does not seem a coincidence that longtime Gingrich associate Yerushalmi is today the driving force behind the ongoing, well-financed national Muslim-bashing campaign focusing on the danger Islamic law—sharia— supposedly poses to America. In fact, The New York Times reported on Dec. 21 that “long before he announced his presidential run . . . Newt Gingrich had become the most prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that sharia, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave [as], or graver than, terrorism.” The Times, however, did not mention the bribery scandal, its links to IEDC and IASPS, or even Yerushalmi, although it did point out that Gingrich and his ex-mistress—now his third wife—have produced a Muslim-bashing film.--END

The American-Iranian Cold War in the Middle East and the Threat of A Broader War

2012-01-02T21:27:00.001-08:00

The American-Iranian Cold War in the Middle East and the Threat of A Broader War

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28439

Global Research, January 1, 2012
Strategic Culture Foundation - 2011-12-30

A cold war has been ongoing between Tehran and Washington. U.S. spies, drones, assassinations, and accusations against Tehran have all been a part of this package. Washington and its minions have been using every means possible, including international organizations, like the United Nations, as a battleground against Tehran in this cold war. The destabilization campaign being waged against Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are also a critical front in this cold war...

The Obama Administration has used 2011 to unleash Washington’s so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” against the Resistance Bloc, which pins together all the countries and forces united by their opposition to U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region. The two camps that are becoming more and more visible in the MENA region are falling along the lines of what Washington, Tel Aviv, and NATO planned on forming after the 2006 Israeli defeat in Lebanon as a means of tackling Iran and its allies. In 2007, the United States of America, represented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, held a meeting in Cairo under the “GCC + 2” formula with the Gulf Cooperation Council – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Oman, and Qatar – plus Egypt and Jordan to form a strategic and all encompassing front against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies. This “Coalition of the Moderate” formed by Washington was a direct extension of NATO that also included Israel and Turkey as important and central participants.

The Balance of Power is being played out in Syria and Iraq

While Syria is being targeted for regime change as a means of re-orienting the balance of power in the Middle East, Iraq is also being destabilized as a means of catalyzing a sectarian civil war between Muslim Shia Arabs and Muslim Sunni Arabs. The bombings in both Iraq and Syria carry all the trademarks of Washington and its network of allies, as do the murder of civilians by Salvador-style death squads. For years Iraqi refugees have been reporting that U.S. and British forces were leading the death squads in Iraq and that they were the main perpetrators behind the explosions targeting civilians in Iraq. In regards to Syria, even the press in North America and Western Europe has been forced to admit that there are “mysterious death squads” killing Syrian civilians. One example is the National Post in Canada, which admitted on December 7, 2011 that unknown death squads were causing havoc in Syria by killing civilians.

The massive waves of explosions in Iraq targeting civilians are a means of not only destabilizing Iraq, but igniting sectarianism as the U.S. pulls out. It is no coincidence that the neighbourhoods in Baghdad and its galaxy cities were quickly turned into sectarian enclaves under U.S. administration. It is also worth noting that the current Vice-President of the United States, Joseph Biden, was the man that in 2006 authored a plan – or more correctly stamped his name on the plan – called the “Biden Plan” to divide or balkanize Iraq into three sectarian entities. It is in this context that the political tensions between Prime Minister Nouri Al-Malaki and Vice-President Tariq Al-Hashimi are being played out and utilized. If a genuine sectarian civil war occurs in Iraq it could galvanize the region along the lines of Sunnites and Shiites as Washington, Tel Aviv, NATO, and the Arab dictatorial families wish. Regional chaos is their goal. Such chaos and divisions would preoccupy and distract the peoples of the region with internal fighting and allow the U.S. and Israel to maintain advantageous positions while the petro-sheikhdom rulers would be able to maintain their illegitimate hold on power.

Turkey’s Central Role in Syria and the Middle East Spy War

In Libya, while Qatar was designated as the main Arab country, Britain and France were the NATO members that were outsourced the handling of the war by Washington (at least publicly). In Syria, the campaign was outsourced to France, Germany, and Turkey by Washington, while Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to follow in the future, were designated as the principle Arab players. Berlin was initially pushing for foreign intervention in the Syrian Arab Republic, but its role has seemed to have subsided as has the possibility of direct NATO military intervention in Syria. Focusing back on Turkey, Ankara is nonetheless the central player in besieging Syria and without Turkey’s participation the operations against Syria have a slim chance of success.

From the end of November to the start of December, the Syrian Army begun to setup positions near the Syrian-Turkish borders, including Hatay Province where Alexandretta (Iskenderun) is located. As Syrian troops positioned themselves near the Turkish border a little after mid-December, U.S. or NATO aircraft violated Syrian airspace. The aircraft entered Syria’s airspace via Incirlik Air Base from the nearby Adana Province of Turkey and dropped off electronic spy devices near the predominately Kurdish-inhabited vicinity of the town of Afrin in the Governate of Aleppo.

This is part of the broader electronic monitoring and spy war that has also gripped Lebanon and Iran. Recently in Lebanon large numbers of Israeli and U.S. spies were apprehended with direct ties to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. In parallel, U.S. spies and spy networks have also been ensnared in Iran by the Iranian intelligence apparatus. This spy war is tied to the stepped up efforts by Washington to infiltrate Iran. With this view, Washington has also augmented its Iranian special interest office in the United Arab Emirates with a virtual embassy for Iran.

Playing the Turks; Ankara May Back Down in its Syrian Gambit

Public in-fighting is not new to NATO states and in this respect Paris and Ankara have begun to squabble over the Armenian Genocide. For years Nicolas Sarkozy and legislators in Paris have talked about passing legislature that would outlaw the denial of the Armenian Genocide in the dying Ottoman Empire. This legislature was recently passed in France and has been widely analyzed as an elections stunt by Sarkozy to win Armenian support and votes in France. Nevertheless, it has to also be noted that Paris has also predicted that the situation in Iraq after the U.S. military evacuation could radically modify the stance of the Turkish government towards Syria. This is a key point.

If Iraq becomes an assertive single entity that aligns itself completely with Tehran and Damascus, then Turkey will be forced to change its position. Turkish trade could heavily be decelerated and a contour would be formed around Turkey going from Iran to Iraq to Syria that could cut Turkey’s land routes to North Africa, Jordan, the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, Pakistan, India, and East Asia. Along with the Republic of Armenia, Tehran, Baghdad, and Damascus could form a wall around Turkey. The only open borders to Turkey would be Greece, Bulgaria, and Georgia. The latter of which, Georgia, could be cutoff too by the Russian Federation.

Hence, the course of events in Iraq will be pivotal to Turkish foreign policy and to the shape of the balance of power in the Middle East. It is in this context that creating internal tensions in Iraq is being used to keep Iraq from asserting itself as a staunch Iranian and Syrian ally. Should the regime in Syria manage to holdout and should Iraq manage to maintain stability, Washington’s time in the Middle East will be over; followed by Israel’s capabilities to launch anymore wars.

Moreover, the Turks are slated for relatively short-term use. It is not in the interest of Washington or Israel to allow Turkey to become a major power. The U.S. and Israel have been working behind Ankara’s back to also weaken Turkey after it serves it purpose in their regional strategy. This is one of the reasons they have been supporting Kurdish separatist movements opposed to Turkey. Turkey itself is slated to erupt into internal fighting and divisions. Turkish involvement in Syria or a war with Syria involving the Turks will ultimately weaken Turkey itself and have disastrous side effects like Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran did for Iraq. If a war does erupt between Ankara and Damascus, the war itself will be damaging to Turkish national unity and could led to a civil war; such a war will also erupt into a conflict with Syria’s Iranian and Russian allies.

The Demonization of Iran in the International Commons

The international system that was setup after the Second World War is in increasing decline. The United Nations and other international bodies have become the scenes of struggles between two emerging global camps – on the one hand is the U.S. and what has become, since the end of the Cold War, the expanded Western Bloc and on the other hand are all those countries that are independent of Washington or that resist U.S. hegemony. These two camps are increasingly becoming visible on the basis of their positions in the international arena and how they vote in global forums. For example, albeit there were key abstentions, at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva there were two diametrically opposed positions on Syria that saw countries like Ecuador, Cuba, Russia, and China siding with Syria against the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Poland.

Much earlier, the International Atomic Energy Association (I.A.E.A.) in the same context of a battle ground also released a grossly manipulated report. The report took information from the intelligence services of the U.S. and its allies and old information that was discarded earlier for being false by the I.A.E.A. and reinvented the very same information as “potentially” meaning that the Iranian nuclear energy program had military applications. Director-General Yukiya Amano, a former Japanese diplomat, even violated the regulations of the I.A.E.A. in composing the report and its clandestine release to a few I.A.E.A. members. Amano’s report also knowingly released a list of Iranian scientists working on the nuclear energy program, knowing that it would place their lives in danger with assassinations attempts.

Washington with the collaboration of the Al-Sauds also tried to rally international support in October 2011 by claiming that Iran wanted to assassinate the Saudi envoy to Washington. After changing the outlandish narrative of the Iranian assassination attempt several times, the issue was brought to a vote at the U.N. General Assembly by Saudi Arabia and the U.S. in mid-November. One hundred and six countries voted in favour of the resolution calling for Iranian cooperation and condemning the plot. Forty countries abstained and nine voted against the resolution. The U.S. also took the opportunity to renew sanctions against Iran and present it as a threat to world peace.

A month later, a cyber warfare unit of the Iranian Armed Forces overrode U.S. controls over a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel spy drone. It was a reenactment of the 1960 U-2 spy plane incident with the Soviet Union. The Pentagon originally denied that the U.S. had violated Iranian airspace or that a drone was captured and gave several conflicting stories, but was faced to admit the truth once the Iranians unveiled the U.S. spy drone in perfect condition under Iranian custody. In the process of taking over the controls of the spy drone when it violated Iranian airspace, U.S. satellites and command and control facilities were electronically manipulated by the Iranian military. In the same month a U.S. court in New York declared that Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah aided Al-Qaeda in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 (9/11) and found Iran liable for a hundred billion dollars worth of damages.

The American-Iranian Cold War could lead to a Global Hot War

Now, close to the end of 2011, General Martin Dempsey, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said several times that the U.S. Armed Forces are prepared to attack Iran. The Iranians have dismissed the ability of the U.S. to wage a war, but have not ruled out U.S. or Israeli attempts to launch strikes. It is in this context that Iranian naval forces have conducted naval drills in and around the Straits of Hormuz and in the waters of the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, and Arabian Sea.

The term cold war can be very misleading, because many hot events can take place in the context of such rivalries, as is the case of the events in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq in regard to the cold war between Washington and Tehran. The actual Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States was actually played out via many hot wars in different parts of the world like Angola, Vietnam, and the Korean Peninsula. With this consideration in mind, the cold war in the Middle East between Tehran and Washington could erupt into a real and dangerous hot war with global ramifications.

On December 14, 2011, Nezavisimaya Gazeta reported that Russia is paying special attention to its military infrastructure in Armenia, which has greater geo-political importance now in regards to Russian involvement in the Middle East in the case of a U.S. or NATO war. On November 28, 2011 it was declared that Dmitry Rogozin, Mowcows’s envoy to NATO and now one of Russia’s deputy prime ministers (vice-prime ministers), would visit both Beijing and Tehran in mid-January 2012 to discuss collectively countering Washington’s missile shield project. This was after Rogozin speaking in late-September 2011 to the Rossiya-24 Television Network denied Iranian media reports that Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing were planning on jointly spearheading a response to Washington’s global missile project.

In the scenario of a U.S. war with Iran, the frozen conflicts in the Caucasus between Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, and the Republic of Azerbaijan would also all be ignited. The Armenians, which are the allies of both Moscow and Tehran, have also made it clear that Yerevan would be forced to pick sides. From Central Asia and the Caucasus to Pakistan and the Middle East there would be major upheavals.

Neither Russia nor China will be able to stand idly in the case that a war is launched against Iran. In one way or another, if Russia enters a war against the U.S. and NATO then countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Moldova would all be dragged into the conflict as it broadens. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (S.C.O.) would be collectively involved. Rear-Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong, a Chinese military official and a director at the National Defence University of the People’s Republic of China has also acknowledged this and stated that China would not hesitate in entering a war against the United States should Washington attack Iran. Rear-Admiral Zhazhong has also addressed the importance of Pakistan as a bridge to Iran for Beijing during a possible war and the instability in Pakistan should also be examined in the context of its value to China. It is in this respect that the cold war in the Middle East has the dangerous potential of igniting into a broader war involving the core of Eurasia that would envelop the globe in disaster.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal, Quebec. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous programs and international networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV and Russia Today. Nazemroaya was also a witness to the "Arab Spring" in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several media outlets. He sent key field dispatches from Libya for Global Research and was Special Correspondent for Pacifica's syndicated investigative program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages. He also writes for the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow.

Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.

Your endorsement is greatly appreciated

Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Strategic Culture Foundation, 2011

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28439

30 Signs That The United States Of America Is Being Turned Into A Giant Prison

2012-01-02T21:10:00.000-08:00

30 Signs That The United States Of America Is Being Turned Into A Giant Prison

If you live in the United States of America, you live in a giant prison where liberty and freedom are slowly being strangled to death. In this country, the control freaks that run things are obsessed with watching, tracking, monitoring and recording virtually everything that we do. Nothing is private anymore. Everything that you do on the Internet is being monitored. All of your phone calls are being monitored. In fact, if law enforcement authorities suspect that you have done something wrong, they will use your cell phone microphone to listen to you even when you think your cell phone is turned off. In many areas of the country, when you get into your car automated license plate readers track you wherever you go, and in many major cities when you are walking on the streets a vast network of security cameras and "smart street lights" are constantly watching you and listening to whatever you say. The TSA is setting up "internal checkpoints" all over the nation, Homeland Security is encouraging all of us to report any "suspicious activity" that our neighbors are involved in and the federal government is rapidly developing "pre-crime" technology that will flag us as "potential terrorists" if we display any signs of nervousness. If you are flagged as a "potential terrorist", the U.S. military can arrest you and detain you for the rest of your life without ever having to charge you with anything. Yes, the United States of America is rapidly being turned into a "Big Brother" prison grid, and most Americans are happily going along with it.

The sad thing is that this used to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave".

So what in the world happened?

A fundamental shift in our culture has taken place. The American people have eagerly given up huge chunks of liberty and freedom in exchange for vague promises of increased security.

Our country is now run by total control freaks and paranoia has become standard operating procedure.

We were told that the terrorists hate our liberties and our freedoms, and that we needed to fight the terrorists so that we could keep our liberties and our freedoms.

But instead, the government keeps taking away all of our liberties and our freedoms.

How in the world does that make any sense?

Have the terrorists won?

As a country, we have moved so far in the direction of communist China, the USSR and Nazi Germany that it is almost impossible to believe.

Yes, turning the United States of America into a giant prison may make us all slightly safer, but what kind of life is this?

Do we want to be dead while we are still alive?

Is this the price that we want to pay in order to feel slightly safer?

Where are the millions of Americans that still yearn to breathe free air?

America is supposed to be a land teeming with people thirsting for independence. For example, "Live Free or Die" is supposedly the official motto of the state of New Hampshire.

But instead, the motto of most Americans seems to be "live scared and die cowering".

We don't have to live like this.

Yes, bad things are always going to happen. No amount of security is ever going to be able to keep us 100% safe.

We need to remember that a very high price was paid for our liberty and we should not give it up so easily.

As one very famous American once said, when we give up liberty for security we deserve neither.

The following are 30 signs that the United States of America is being turned into a giant prison....

#1 A new bill that is going through the U.S. Senate would allow the U.S. military to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial. This new law was recently discussed in an article posted on the website of the New American....

In what may be a tale too bizarre to be believed by millions of Americans, the U.S. Senate appears ready to pass a bill that will designate the entire earth, including the United States and its territories, one all-encompassing “battlefield” in the global “war on terror” and authorize the detention of Americans suspected of terrorist ties indefinitely and without trial or even charges being filed that would necessitate a trial.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham is a big supporter of the bill, and he says that it would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield".

According to the PPJ Gazette, the following are three things that this new law would do....

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

#2 U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman is asking Google to install a "terrorist button" on all Blogger.com blogs so that readers can easily flag "terrorist content" for authorities.

#3 Most Americans have no idea how sophisticated the "Big Brother" prison grid has become. For example, in Washington D.C. the movements of every single car are tracked using automated license plate readers (ALPRs). The following comes from a recent Washington Post article....

More than 250 cameras in the District and its suburbs scan license plates in real time, helping police pinpoint stolen cars and fleeing killers. But the program quietly has expanded beyond what anyone had imagined even a few years ago.

With virtually no public debate, police agencies have begun storing the information from the cameras, building databases that document the travels of millions of vehicles.

Nowhere is that more prevalent than in the District, which has more than one plate-reader per square mile, the highest concentration in the nation. Police in the Washington suburbs have dozens of them as well, and local agencies plan to add many more in coming months, creating a comprehensive dragnet that will include all the approaches into the District.

#4 In some American schools, RFID chips are now being used to monitor the attendance and movements of children while they are at school. The following is how one article recently described a program that has just been instituted at a preschool in California....

Upon arriving in the morning, according to the Associated Press, each student at the CCC-George Miller preschool will don a jersey with a stitched in RFID chip. As the kids go about the business of learning, sensors in the school will record their movements, collecting attendance for both classes and meals. Officials from the school have claimed they're only recording information they're required to provide while receiving federal funds for their Headstart program.

#5 Increasingly, incidents of misbehavior at many U.S. schools are being treated as very serious crimes. For example, when a little girl kissed a little boy at one Florida elementary school recently, it was considered to be a "possible sex crime" and the police were called out.

#6 But what happened to one very young student in Stockton, California earlier this year was even worse....

Earlier this year, a Stockton student was handcuffed with zip ties on his hands and feet, forced to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation and was charged with battery on a police officer. That student was 5 years old.

#7 In the United States today, police are trained to respond to even the smallest crimes with extreme physical force. For example, one grandfather in Arizona was recently filmed laying unconscious in a pool of his own blood after police rammed his head into the flood inside a Wal-Mart on Black Friday night. It was thought that he was shoplifting, but it turns out that he says that he was just trying to tuck a video game away so other crazed shoppers would not grab it out of his hands.

#8 Did you know that the government actually sets up fake cell phone towers that can intercept your cell phone calls? The following is how a recent Wired article described these "stingrays"....

You make a call on your cellphone thinking the only thing standing between you and the recipient of your call is your carrier’s cellphone tower. In fact, that tower your phone is connecting to just might be a boobytrap set up by law enforcement to ensnare your phone signals and maybe even the content of your calls.

So-called stingrays are one of the new high-tech tools that authorities are using to track and identify you. The devices, about the size of a suitcase, spoof a legitimate cellphone tower in order to trick nearby cellphones and other wireless communication devices into connecting to the tower, as they would to a real cellphone tower.

The government maintains that the stingrays don’t violate Fourth Amendment rights, since Americans don’t have a legitimate expectation of privacy for data sent from their mobile phones and other wireless devices to a cell tower.

#9 U.S. border agents are allowed by law to search any laptop being brought into the United States without even needing any reason to do so.

#10 In the United States of America, everyone is a "potential terrorist". According to FBI Director Robert Mueller, "homegrown terrorists" represent as big a threat to American national security as al-Qaeda does.

#11 Most Americans are not that concerned about the Patriot Act, but that might change if they understood that the federal government has a "secret interpretation" of what the Patriot Act really means. U.S. Senator Ron Wyden says that the U.S. government interprets the Patriot Act much more "broadly" than the general public does....

"We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says."

#12 The FBI is now admittedly recording Internet talk radio programs all over the United States. The following comes from a recent article by Mark Weaver of WMAL.com....

If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.

The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.

The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.

#13 The federal government has decided that what you and I share with one another on Facebook and on Twitter could be a threat to national security. According to a recent Associated Press article, the Department of Homeland Security will soon be "gleaning information from sites such as Twitter and Facebook for law enforcement purposes".

#14 What you say on your cell phone is never private. The truth is that that the FBI can demand to see your cell phone data whenever it wants. In addition, according to CNET News the FBI can remotely activate the microphone on your cell phone and listen to whatever you are saying....

The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.

The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him.

#15 In some areas of the country, law enforcement authorities are pulling data out of cell phones for no reason whatsoever. According to the ACLU, state police in Michigan are now using "extraction devices" to download data from the cell phones of motorists that they pull over. This is taking place even if the motorists that are pulled over are not accused of doing anything wrong.

The following is how a recent article on CNET News described the capabilities of these "extraction devices"....

The devices, sold by a company called Cellebrite, can download text messages, photos, video, and even GPS data from most brands of cell phones. The handheld machines have various interfaces to work with different models and can even bypass security passwords and access some information.

#16 The federal government has become so paranoid that they have been putting GPS tracking devices on the vehicles of thousands of people that have not even been charged with committing any crimes. The following is a short excerpt from a recent Wired magazine article about this issue....

The 25-year-old resident of San Jose, California, says he found the first one about three weeks ago on his Volvo SUV while visiting his mother in Modesto, about 80 miles northeast of San Jose. After contacting Wired and allowing a photographer to snap pictures of the device, it was swapped out and replaced with a second tracking device. A witness also reported seeing a strange man looking beneath the vehicle of the young man’s girlfriend while her car was parked at work, suggesting that a tracking device may have been retrieved from her car.

Then things got really weird when police showed up during a Wired interview with the man.

The young man, who asked to be identified only as Greg, is one among an increasing number of U.S. citizens who are finding themselves tracked with the high-tech devices.

The Justice Department has said that law enforcement agents employ GPS as a crime-fighting tool with “great frequency,” and GPS retailers have told Wired that they’ve sold thousands of the devices to the feds.

#17 New high-tech street lights that are being funded by the federal government and that are being installed all over the nation can also be used as surveillance cameras, can be used by the DHS to make "security announcements" and can even be used to record personal conversations. The following is from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson for Infowars.com....

Federally-funded high-tech street lights now being installed in American cities are not only set to aid the DHS in making “security announcements” and acting as talking surveillance cameras, they are also capable of “recording conversations,” bringing the potential privacy threat posed by ‘Intellistreets’ to a whole new level.

#18 If you choose to protest in the streets of America today, there is a good chance that you will be brutalized. All over the United States law enforcement authorities have been spraying pepper spray directly into the faces of unarmed protesters in recent weeks.

#19 In many areas of the United States today, you will be arrested if you do not produce proper identification for the police. In the old days, "your papers please" was a phrase that was used to use to mock the tyranny of Nazi Germany. But now all of us are being required to be able to produce "our papers" for law enforcement authorities at any time. For example, a 21-year-old college student named Samantha Zucker was recently arrested and put in a New York City jail for 36 hours just because she could not produce any identification for police.

#20 According to blogger Alexander Higgins, students in kindergarten and the 1st grade in the state of New Jersey are now required by law to participate "in monthly anti-terrorism drills". The following is an excerpt from a letter that he recently received from the school where his child attends....

Each month a school must conduct one fire drill and one security drill which may be a lockdown, bomb threat, evacuation, active shooter, or shelter-in place drill. All schools are now required by law to implement this procedure.

So who in the world ever decided that it would be a good idea for 1st grade students to endure "lockdown" and "active shooter" drills?

To get an idea of what these kinds of drills are like, just check out this video.

#21 With all of the other problems that we are having all over the nation, you would think that authorities would not be too concerned about little kids that are trying to sell cups of lemonade. But sadly, over the past year police have been sent in to shut down lemonade stands run by children all over the United States.

#22 The federal government has decided to invest a significant amount of time, money and energy raiding organic farms. The following example comes from Natural News....

It is the latest case of extreme government food tyranny, and one that is sure to have you reeling in anger and disgust. Health department officials recently conducted a raid of Quail Hollow Farm, an organic community supported agriculture (CSA) farm in southern Nevada, during its special "farm to fork" picnic dinner put on for guests -- and the agent who arrived on the scene ordered that all the fresh, local produce and pasture-based meat that was intended for the meal be destroyed with bleach.

#23 It is an absolute disgrace that all of us (including grandmothers and young children) must either go through body scanners that reveal the intimate details of our naked bodies or endure "enhanced pat-downs" during which our genitals will be touched before we are allowed to get on an airplane.

It is also an absolute disgrace that the American people are putting up with this.

#24 Invasive TSA security techniques are not just for airports anymore. Now, TSA "VIPR teams" are actively conducting random inspections at bus stations and on interstate highways all over the United States. For example, the following comes from a local news report down in Tennessee....

You're probably used to seeing TSA's signature blue uniforms at the airport, but now agents are hitting the interstates to fight terrorism with Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR).

"Where is a terrorist more apt to be found? Not these days on an airplane more likely on the interstate," said Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons.

Tuesday Tennessee was first to deploy VIPR simultaneously at five weigh stations and two bus stations across the state.

TSA "VIPR teams" now conduct approximately 8,000 "unannounced security screenings" a year at subway stations, bus terminals, ports and highway rest stops.

#25 More than a million hotel television sets all over America are now broadcasting propaganda messages from the Department of Homeland Security promoting the "See Something, Say Something" campaign. In essence, the federal government wants all of us to become "informants" and to start spying on one another constantly. The following comes from an article posted by USA Today....

Starting today, the welcome screens on 1.2 million hotel television sets in Marriott, Hilton, Sheraton, Holiday Inn and other hotels in the USA will show a short public service announcement from DHS. The 15-second spot encourages viewers to be vigilant and call law enforcement if they witness something suspicious during their travels.

#26 Certain "types" of American citizens are being labeled as potential threats in official U.S. government documents. An unclassified Department of Homeland Security report published a couple years ago entitled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" claims that a belief in Bible prophecy "could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons." The report goes on to state that such people are potentially dangerous.

#27 Back on February 20, 2009, the State of Missouri issued a report entitled "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement". That report warned that the following types of people may be potential terrorists....

*anti-abortion activists

*those that are against illegal immigration

*those that consider "the New World Order" to be a threat

*those that have a negative view of the United Nations

#28 As I have written about previously, a very disturbing document that Oath Keepers has obtained shows that the FBI is now instructing store owners to report many new forms of "suspicious activity" to them. According to the document, "suspicious activity" now includes the following....

*paying with cash

*missing a hand or fingers

*"strange odors"

*making "extreme religious statements"

*"radical theology"

*purchasing weatherproofed ammunition or match containers

*purchasing meals ready to eat

*purchasing night vision devices, night flashlights or gas masks

Do any of those "signs of suspicious activity" apply to you?

#29 Soon you may get labeled as a "potential terrorist" if you are just feeling a little nervous. A new "pre-crime" technology system that is currently being tested by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will soon be in use all over the nation. It is called "Future Attribute Screening Technology" (FAST), and it is very frightening. The following description of this new program comes from an article in the London Telegraph....

Using cameras and sensors the "pre-crime" system measures and tracks changes in a person's body movements, the pitch of their voice and the rhythm of their speech.

It also monitors breathing patterns, eye movements, blink rate and alterations in body heat, which are used to assess an individual's likelihood to commit a crime.

The Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) programme is already being tested on a group of government employees who volunteered to act as guinea pigs.

#30 The truth is that nobody puts more people into prison than America does. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and the largest total prison population on the entire globe.

To read about some of the crazy things that the control freaks running things have planned for the future, just check out this article by Natural News: "10 outlandish things the 'scientific' controllers have in mind for you in the near future".

Once again, despite all of this outrageous "security", it is inevitable that a lot of really bad things are going to happen in the United States in the years ahead.

When there are incidents of violence, it is also inevitable that there will be calls for even more "Big Brother" security measures.

We are going to be caught in a never ending spiral of tyranny where the "solution" is always even tighter security.

Eventually, we will have lost all of our liberties and freedoms, and we will probably be even less safe than we are today.

Do not be deceived. We could put a soldier on every corner, a video camera in every room of every home and an RFID chip in every citizen but that would not make us "safe".

Every single lawmaker that is backing these laws which strip our liberties and freedoms away deserves to be voted out of office.

If you love the United States of America, please stand up and say something while you still can.

Please use this article and other articles like it as tools. Share them with your friends and your family. If we can get enough people to wake up, perhaps there is still enough time to turn the direction of this country around.

Will the final chapters of the history of the United States of America be mentioned in the same breath as communist China, the USSR and Nazi Germany, or will the final chapters of the history of the United States of America be the greatest chapters of all?

The choice, America, is up to you.

US Military against war on Iran

2011-12-30T23:54:00.000-08:00

The following is another example of leading U.S. military officers who are warning that Obama's intention to launch London's war on Iran, using Israel as a trigger, is insane and threatens global hell. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson was chief of staff to Colin Powell both when Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and as Secretary of State. Col. Wilkerson granted this interview to EIR's Jeff Steinberg last week - it will be published in the next issue of EIR.
To listen to the audio of the interview, go to http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2011/111223wilkerson_pr.html
Mike Billington

EIR INTERVIEWS COLONEL WILKERSON:

Our Nation Needs an 'Alert and Knowledgeable Citizenry' To Avoid Imperial Wars and
Keep a Future-Looking Economy

Dec. 22, 2011 (EIRNS)—Col. Lawrence Wilkerson spent 31 years in the U.S. Army, serving in Vietnam, in the Pacific Command, on the faculty of the Navy War College, and at the Marine Corps University. In 1989 he became of Chief of Staff to Gen. Colin Powell in the final months of Powell's serving as National Security Advisor. He was Chief of Staff to General Powell at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and when General Powell was Secretary of State. He was an outspoken critic of the Iraq War, and continues to speak out against the ongoing war in Afghanistan and the abuses of the U.S. Constitution, in both the Bush and the Obama Administrations.
Colonel Wilkerson gave the following interview today to EIR Counterintelligence Editor Jeffrey Steinberg. Audio of the interview.
Jeffrey Steinberg: Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, I want to thank you very much for joining me today. I've got some questions about the strategic situation, that I'm sure you've got a great deal to comment on.
First of all, Israel is threatening, as you know, to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Two questions: Number one, is this an appropriate moment for another war in the Middle East? And what would be the consequences if the Israelis do launch such an attack?
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: First, I think this is a highly inappropriate time for another war in Western Asia, or the Middle East as we call it. We've already got one just wrapped up, which is falling apart, even as I speak; we've got another one going, with no end in sight, that one in Afghanistan; and the global war on terror, which ranges from the Horn of Africa, to Somalia, all around the Maghreb and elsewhere in Africa, and as far as I know, all over the world. We don't need a fourth war.
Israel is another imponderable in this entire issue. One, Israel does not have the military capacity to inflict much damage on Iran. It could fly long-range strikes at the very end of its operational tether, if you will, and it could drop a few bombs, but it would do very little damage. It would probably be a pinprick, in terms of damage. But what would Iran do in reaction to that? Would it send some of its missiles towards Tel Aviv, Haifa, or some other place in Israel? And then, what would we do in reaction to that?
The real fear here, is that Israel will administer this pinprick with complete knowledge that we're going to follow her and make it more than a pinprick; that's what I worry about. So the answer to your question is, Israel could not do much, but we would probably follow and do a lot.
And second, we certainly don't need another war in Western Asia.
Steinberg: Do you see the possibility of such an Israeli-initiated conflict, drawing the United States in, being the trigger for an even larger, perhaps even global conflagration? The Russians and the Chinese, of course, at the UN, recently vetoed a resolution against what might have led to no-fly zones and that kind of a "Libya action, Take 2" against Syria.
So there's frictions that have developed on a larger, global scale. Do you see the danger that this could really get out of control, at a moment when there's a lot of fragility in the world economy?
Wilkerson: Well, I do see that, but I don't see it in the way you just described. The way I see it, that it continues to go the way it's been going for the past ten years. And that is, that China, and to a lesser extent other countries, like Russia, Brazil, Turkey, India, steal not one or two, but multiple marches on the United States, and for that matter on Europe, too, because we're so mired in conflict that we can't see the bottom of our feet!
This is a situation, where we're transferring enormous wealth to Asia, right now. We're transferring wealth to the near part of Asia, in the form of petroleum dollars. We're transferring immense sums of wealth to the western parts of Asia, to China, to Southeast Asia, Korea and so forth, through their productive capacity and our buying that productive capacity. This is one of the greatest wealth transfers in human history that's taking place right now.
So what China, and India, and Russia, and others like them are going to do, is sit back and steal even more marches on us, as we mire ourselves even further in warfare! This is tantamount to the "end of empire" for us, if you will, if we don't wake up and realize that we are
frittering away our power on the fringes of our empire;
possessed of an utterly unsound economic and financial base, and do something about it; and
figure out that the war instrument, and military in general, is not the answer to every problem in the world!
Of course, those things are complementary; they all go along with one another, as it were. And at the same time, you have to realize that you don't have a very powerful military, if you don't have a very solid economic foundation. So, even that element of our hard power, that seems to be the only thing that we can use these days, is going to atrophy and fall apart, if we don't fix our economic base. The number-one problem for this country, right now, is fixing our economic base, and in that regard, another war in Western Asia is not about to fix that economic base, it's just going to cause further deterioration.
Steinberg: I'm going to move on to another related subject and then come back to this in a little while. Recently, we heard from Sen. Carl Levin [D-Mich.] that the Obama Administration insisted on the inclusion within the just-passed National Defense Authorization Act, of basically provisions that would actually mandate that the military engage in indefinite detentions, including of American citizens on American soil. Do you see in this, and some other recent actions—the al-Awlaki killing—an erosion of some of the most fundamental constitutional principles of our republic?
Wilkerson: I certainly do. I think it started with the Patriot Act, which I think was a draconian piece of legislation, that demonstrated, as is so often the case with us, particularly in our post-World War II history, that we overreact to almost everything, particularly when it presents a threat to us that we think is existential, when it isn't.
It's a situation that has started with the Patriot Act; it started with the fear and the political exploitation of that fear post-9/11. And now, it's some years later, we're doing this, which is really perplexing! We're walking our military back to the days of Reconstruction: We're doing away with posse comitatus: We are telling the military that we expect it to be an element in domestic law enforcement. This is nonsense!
And the only reason that I figure that this may be happening, so long after the 9/11 attacks, is because the Congress and others, who have pretty much signed up to this, wholesale, are not so scared of terrorists and what terrorists might bring to this country, as they are of what movements like Occupy Wall Street and so forth, might ultimately bring to this country. That's the only way I can see it: They're worried about what Americans, what the domestic situation might be like, given their inability to do anything about the wealthiest people in this country, running this country.
And so, they're taking measures right now, to make sure they can protect themselves in the future. And who are "they"? "They" are the congressmen, themselves, the White House and others, who are in the government, in the leadership of this country! And ultimately, those in the oligarchy who are running this country: the corporations, big food, big oil, big pharmacy, and so forth, that really have the intrinsic power in this country to make it go one way or another.
That's the only way I can explain it! Otherwise, it's utterly perplexing to me, why we would be going back to Reconstruction days, to martial law, if you will, to handle law enforcement in this country.
Steinberg: We've seen kind of a pattern of erosion, as you say, starting with the Bush Administration, with the Patriot Act, and now you've got a President, who presumably has a law degree from Harvard in constitutional law, who brought us into the Libya War, without going to Congress, flagrantly; who apparently has some team at the White House that decides on executions of American citizens overseas; and now we have this new development, as you say, creating a situation where the military can be deployed on the streets of the country, or in detention facilities, to prevent the population from revolting against this problem.
Are these, in your view, impeachable crimes? And where's Congress in all of this?
Wilkerson: Well, you didn't mention another one, that's as insidious as all the rest, if not more so, and that's this incredible increase in the use of the "national security" argument in the Article 3 courts. The administration can get away with almost anything, or any of its acolytes, like the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency—they can get away with anything now! They can do it against American citizens, they can do it against anyone they want to do it against, and have almost total immunity, because the government's going to haul this "national security" argument into the Article 3 court, and the case is going to be dismissed! This is nonsense! This is not the way a democratic federal republic operates!
And you're right: These ought to be offenses that the Congress stands up on its hind legs, and looks at the administration and says, "Hey! We're a separate and equal branch of government, and we object to what you're doing!" Instead, the Congress is saying, "Send it over, and we'll rubber stamp it for you!" It's disgraceful.
Steinberg: The recent extrajudicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, and a second American citizen in that incident, and then a few weeks later, the murder of his son in a follow-on drone attack in Yemen—we're dealing here with three American citizens. We certainly don't know the total number of American citizens who might have been subject to this extrajudicial execution, but I wonder if you could comment further on this?
Wilkerson: I think, this is—doing this sort of thing, taking American citizens' lives, no matter how heinous they might be, or how criminal their acts might be, without due process of law, is an outright, clear, unmistakable violation of the Constitution of the United States. There are people in this government, and I know there are people in the previous government—I served in it—who don't believe the first ten Amendments to the Constitution should have been passed in the first place, because they're impediments to their power!
And this is—I don't know what we do about this! This is clearly unconstitutional! But the Congress, who is supposed to be sort of a check on the Executive, when this sort of thing happens, and the court, which is supposed to be the legal determinant of whether an act is constitutional or not, seems to be the lackey of the administration! So where do you go? I'll tell you where you go: You go to the people.
Steinberg: And now, you've got this included element within the National Defense Authorization Act, which seems to be directly targetted at the American people, at a point when you're seeing a variety of manifestations of demands for a radical overhaul of government.
Wilkerson: But, you know, when we broke away from Britain, we stated it quite succinctly: "Governments derive their power and their authority from the consent of the governed": That's us, the people! If we don't stand up, and get noticed: If we don't make our congressmen, and our President, and all else that serves us, ultimately, aware of the fact, that we're not happy, that we don't like the way they're doing things, then it's just going to go on. And it's going to get worse!
Dwight Eisenhower said in 1961, when he was giving his famous farewell address, where he mentioned the "military industrial complex," and this is a part of it we often forget, that the only thing that could save the republic from such immense power being abused or used not in accordance with the people's wishes, was "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry." And I ask you: Do we have "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" today?
Steinberg: It's a media-dumbed-down, dangerously disconnected population. But I think we've reached a point in the last several years, particularly in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 blowing of the bubble, where more and more people figured out—whether they act on it is another story—but they figured out that we are at a real breakpoint as a republic.
Wilkerson: I think you're right. I'm going to watch the 2012 elections, both in the legislature and in the White House, and the run-up thereto, very, very closely, because I think we may see some things happen, that, say a year or two ago, any political pundit surveying the scene would have laughed at. We may see some real unique things happen.
And as far as I'm concerned, if they're positive, that's great! I mean, the last time we did this, in a really almost successful way, was when Teddy Roosevelt came out and the Bull Moose party, the Progressive Party, more or less handed the election to Woodrow Wilson. The time before that, of course, the most seminal political moment, probably, in that century, before the Civil War, we invented the Republican Party!
We've destroyed political parties in our past, before. And morphed old ones into new ones. I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen again, and not too far off.
Steinberg: One of the issues that, you know, we've been promoting very aggressively, and which has interestingly gotten support from some Tea Party elements in Congress, as well as the Occupy Wall Street people, is the urgent need to return to Glass-Steagall, in order to begin to dismantle and bankrupt the power of this financial oligarchy that's been asserting its control, increasingly, with more and more power in the last several years.
Wilkerson: I couldn't agree with you more. I think the basic, clear, simple answer, and I know it's a complex situation, but I do think the answer in this regard, as you just suggested, is simple: To move banks over to where they do what banks should do. They talk to me and you about mortgages, about starting small businesses and so forth, and then they monitor us during the entire life of our mortgage or small business effort, or whatever. And we let those people like Goldman Sachs, and the rest of that crew, go off and play their gambling games, enter their casino, play their mess—but not with taxpayer money. They do it with their own money. And not with the expectation that when they fail, which they inevitably will, they're bailed out.
Steinberg: It's a dramatic shift in power in the political domain, as well as a necessary, unavoidable first step toward economic recovery.
Wilkerson: Absolutely! You're right on both counts! That's the first thing we need to do, to start towards the real economy being repaired, and making middle class Americans successful again, and it's also the step we need to take, to shift this political power away from the oligarchy.
Steinberg: You had mentioned briefly, at the outset, the Iraq situation as one of the areas where we've withdrawn the last American fighting forces, and where the situation has not exactly moved in a healthy direction. Could you give a bit of a picture of how you see this Iraq situation devolving?
Wilkerson: Well, in 2004 and 2005, there were those of us in the State Department, who were listening to experts from all across the government spectrum and all across academia, who were saying things like—and I remember this vividly—they were saying things like, "It doesn't matter whether we stay in Iraq another year or two, or another 20 years or another century, the moment we leave, civil war's going to break out," or something approximating it.
And for all intents and purposes, it looks like there's real high possibility that civil war's going to break out in Iraq. [Prime Minister] Maliki did not even have the decency to wait an interval before he started consolidating power, and of course, the Sunnis don't like that; the Sunnis are still powerful. The Awakening Movement alone proved that. And so, you had huge casualties in Baghdad today, as I understand it, from bombings and so forth, mostly perpetrated by Sunnis against the Shi'a government.
So this is by no means guaranteed. It should stand out as a vivid example to all Americans, who forgot Vietnam, that Americans do not do state-building very well. That, when Americans go abroad to fight monsters, they generally become a monster themselves, just as John Quincy Adams said, and that we probably should refrain from doing this in the future, for monetary reasons, as well as reasons that we don't do it very well—in fact, we do it abysmally.
Steinberg: Maybe it's in the deep character of the United States and the memory that we came into being as a nation by fighting for independence from a British Empire; that's one of the reasons that we don't do imperial wars very well: We've never done it well, and it's always had disastrous consequences that have blown up in our faces for a long time.
Wilkerson: Actually, history says, no one does it well.
Steinberg: Right.
Wilkerson: If you read something like David Kilcullen's work, where he studies some 300 insurgencies, he points out that in, I think, 80% of those insurgencies, the insurgents won—[laughs]—that is to say, the government lost!
Steinberg: Right!
Wilkerson: And in all, almost all of this, where the government was not fighting alone, or assisted from abroad only in an indirect way, in almost every case, when a foreign power comes in, and literally takes over the counter-insurgency for the incumbent government, a loss will occur. I mean, the odds are just phenomenally against a foreign power entering another country and fighting an insurgency in that country successfully. Aha: Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan... how many examples do we need before we learn our lesson?
Steinberg: I know that you're in touch with many other retired military officers, retired intelligence people, and how would you characterize the view of this present moment of crisis? How do you see where we need to go at this point, to begin to get back to our actual republican heritage?
Wilkerson: I think the thing that concerns most of my former colleagues, some of whom are still active, in almost every walk of life, whether it be actually in the government, or advising the government, or in some way studying the government, or whatever, the real concern, at bottom, is the economy: Because everyone, from soldier to academic, understands that without a strong, functioning, with-a-future economy, you don't have anything else! You don't have the well-being of whole numbers of your population that you need, as Eisenhower constantly talked about the middle class, which is why he kept the tax on the wealthiest in America at over 90%, for his entire eight years—a good Republican, he! [laughter]
You don't have that sense, as Eisenhower kept saying, in NSC meeting after NSC meeting, you don't have that sense of psychological well-being, of even, he said, spiritual well-being, if you don't have the bulk of your people employed, gainfully employed, and looking ahead to the future, thinking that their children are going to have a higher standard of living than they have, a better life than they have, working for that life, working for that future: If you don't have that, and you don't have the fundamentally sound economy wrapped around that, you're lost!
So that's the problem I think that's concerning most of my colleagues, right now.
Steinberg: Well, on that note, I want to thank you very much for taking the time. I know you're extremely busy and very actively involved in what I would characterize as a very critical war-avoidance mobilization on the part of the our most well-informed, and preciously few, leading citizens. And I hope we can continue this discussion in the very near future.
Wilkerson: Thanks for having me.

2011: the year in business

2011-12-30T04:03:00.000-08:00

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111228/business/712289950/

[JR:]
2011: the year in business

On Nov. 4, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, right, and Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos react at the parliament in Athens. Greece's ruling Socialists were in open revolt against their own prime minister ahead of a confidence vote, in a political free-for-all over a new European plan to keep the deeply indebted country afloat. [REPUBLICANS BLAME OBAMA]

Associated Press
By Jonathan Fahey, AP - DAILY HERALD, 12/28/2011
NEW YORK — Europe took the financial world on a stomach-churning ride in 2011.
The rising threat of default by heavily indebted European countries spread fear across financial markets and weighed on economies worldwide. As the year came to a close, banks and investors nervously watched Europe's political and financial leaders scramble to prevent the 17-nation eurozone from breaking apart. [REPUBLICANS BLAME OBAMA]
Several of the other biggest business stories of the year highlighted the global economy's linkages: A British phone-hacking scandal shook the foundations of Rupert Murdoch's U.S.-based media empire; a nuclear disaster in Japan stymied auto plants in the U.S. and beyond; and the price of gasoline surged because of unrest in the Middle East and growing demand in Asia and Latin America. [REPUBLICANS BLAME OBAMA]
In the U.S., political squabbling led to the first credit downgrade for government debt, the economy suffered its fourth straight disappointing year and Apple founder Steve Jobs died. [REPUBLICANS BLAME OBAMA]
The European financial crisis was chosen as the top business story of the year by business editors at The Associated Press. The sluggish U.S. economy came in second, followed by the death of Jobs.[REPUBLICANS BLAME OBAMA]
1. EUROPEAN FINANCIAL CRISIS. The government-debt crunch rattled Europe's financial system and weighed on the global economy. Portugal became the third European country, after Greece and Ireland the year before, to require a bailout as its borrowing costs soared. And investors grew worried that countries with much larger debts, such as Spain and Italy, would also need help. [REPUBLICANS BLAME OBAMA]
Financial markets were volatile all year as hopes rose and then were dashed that forceful steps would be taken to prevent the financial crisis from becoming Europe's version of the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers, which triggered a global financial panic and deepened the Great Recession. [REPUBLICANS BLAME OBAMA]
Banks worried that they or their partners wouldn't be able to cover losses if governments defaulted, so they cut back on lending. European governments, facing ever higher borrowing costs, reined in spending — a policy response that is expected to stunt much-needed economic growth. Analysts estimate the slowdown in Europe, America's No. 1 trading partner, will cut U.S. economic growth next year. [REPUBLICANS REFUSE CREDIT FOR THIS AND BLAME OBAMA]
2. BAD U.S. ECONOMY: YEAR FOUR. The Great Recession may have ended, but the economic recovery continued to disappoint. For the first six months of the year, the economy grew at an annual rate of just 0.9 percent. Growth improved to a 2 percent rate in the third quarter and a 3 percent growth rate is forecast for the fourth quarter. [REPUBLICANS REFUSE CREDIT FOR THIS AND BLAME OBAMA]
Still, 2 ½ years after economists say the recession ended, 25 million people remain unemployed or unable to find full-time work. The unemployment rate fell from 9 percent in October to 8.6 percent in November, providing a hopeful sign. Yet the housing market remained burdened by foreclosures and falling prices in many metropolitan areas. How to fix the economy became the top campaign issue for Republican presidential contenders. [REPUBLICANS REFUSE CREDIT FOR THIS AND BLAME OBAMA]
3. STEVE JOBS DIES: The college dropout who helped popularize the personal computer and created the iPod, iPhone and iPad, died on October 5. That was two months after Apple Inc., which Jobs started in a Silicon Valley garage in 1976, briefly surpassed Exxon Mobil Corp. as the most valuable publicly traded company in the world. [REPUBLICANS BLAME OBAMA]
Jobs cultivated a countercultural sensibility and a minimalist design ethic. He rolled out one sensational product after another, even during the recession and as his health was failing. He first helped change computers from a geeky hobbyist's obsession to a necessity of modern life. In recent years, he upended the music business with the iPod and iTunes, transformed the smart phone market with the iPhone and created the tablet market with the iPad. [REPUBLICANS CLAIM CREDIT]
4. THE U.S. CREDIT DOWNGRADE: The inability of political leaders to come up with a long-term plan to reduce the federal budget deficit led the credit rating agency Standard & Poor's to take away Uncle Sam's sterling AAA credit rating for the first time. The political bickering enraged voters, spooked investors and led to the lowest consumer confidence level of the year. But the nation's long-term borrowing costs fell after the crisis. The reason: U.S. debt still looks safer to investors than almost everything else, especially European debt. [REPUBLICANS REFUSE CREDIT FOR THIS AND BLAME OBAMA]
5. RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE HACKING SCANDAL: The man whose worldwide media empire thrives on covering scandal became the center of a dramatic one. A British tabloid newspaper owned by Murdoch's News Corp., which also owns Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, hacked the phone of a murdered schoolgirl. Murdoch was not charged with a crime, but an investigation by British authorities raised questions about Murdoch's ability to run his worldwide media empire. News Corp. fired several executives and closed the newspaper at the center of the scandal, the News of the World. [REPUBLICANS BLAME OBAMA]
6. JAPAN EARTHQUAKE: An earthquake and tsunami that crippled the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor, owned by Tokyo Electric Power Co., cut off supplies of crucial Japanese parts and idled factories thousands of miles away. Auto companies, especially Toyota and Honda, were hit hardest. Inventory of certain models, especially hybrids, fell short at dealerships, reducing sales and sending retail prices higher. The worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl led countries around the world to reconsider nuclear power. Germany decided to abandon nuclear by 2022. [REPUBLICANS BLAME OBAMA]
7. GASOLINE PRICES HIT ANNUAL RECORD: The retail price of gasoline averaged $3.53 per gallon for the year, eclipsing the 2008 record of $3.24 per gallon. Americans drove less and switched to more fuel efficient cars, but it wasn't enough to offset the higher prices. A bigger percentage of household income went into the gas tank in 2011 than any year since 1981. Economists say the high prices shaved half a percentage point off U.S. economic growth. [REPUBLICANS REFUSE CREDIT FOR THIS AND BLAME OBAMA]
8. SOCIAL MEDIA IPOs TAKE OFF: Shares of the business social networking site LinkedIn more than doubled when it went public in May, recalling the froth of the dot-com boom. LinkedIn was followed by large IPOs from online radio company Pandora Media, online discount site Groupon and social gaming site Zynga. But the market is treacherous: shares of Pandora, Groupon and Zynga all traded below their offering prices soon after they were listed. Market anticipation is high for a Facebook IPO in 2012. [REPUBLICANS CLAIM CREDIT]
9. OCCUPY WALL STREET: On Sept. 17, several hundred protesters gathered at a small plaza about a block from the New York Stock Exchange. They slept in tents, ate donated meals and protested income inequality and the influence of money in politics. The movement inspired protesters around the world who camped in city centers and business hubs to complain about unemployment, CEO pay and a decline in upward social mobility. [REPUBLICANS CLAIM CREDIT]
10. THE DOWNFALL OF MF GLOBAL AND JON CORZINE: The former governor, senator and co-chairman of Goldman Sachs lost control of a small brokerage firm he agreed to run in 2010. Saddled with huge debt and risky bets on European bonds, MF Global was forced to file for bankruptcy protection on Halloween after trading partners and investors got spooked. It was soon discovered that $1.2 billion in customer money was missing. Corzine told Congress he had no idea where the money went. [REPUBLICANS REFUSE CREDIT FOR THIS AND BLAME OBAMA]

Ensuring Safety at Sea: The Southern Ocean and the South China Sea

2011-12-30T04:01:00.001-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary Ensuring Safety at Sea: The Southern Ocean and the South China Sea by Sam Bateman. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 189/2011 dated 30 December 2011
Ensuring Safety at Sea:
The Southern Ocean and the South China Sea
By Sam Bateman

Synopsis
The Southern Ocean and the South China Sea are very different marine environments but both face high risks of incidents at sea that endanger safety and damage international relations. Restraint is required for good order and amicable relations between parties involved.
Commentary
THE GOVERNMENTS of Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United States recently issued a joint statement calling for responsible behaviour in the Southern Ocean – the sea that completely surrounds the Antarctica and designated as such in 2000 by the International Hydrographic Organisation. It was issued in anticipation of the likelihood of clashes at sea between the Japanese whaling fleet and protest vessels, particularly those of the Sea Shepherd organisation, demonstrating against the activities of the whaling fleet.

The statement called on the masters of all vessels to ensure the safety of life at sea as the highest priority and for strict observance of the international collision avoidance regulations. It expressed both disappointment at the deployment of the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean and opposition to commercial whaling, including so-called ‘scientific’ whaling, particularly in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary.

Incidents in the Southern Ocean
Though they are very different marine environments, similar clashes involving vessels harassing each other have occurred in both the Southern Ocean and South China Sea. Whereas the incidents in the Southern Ocean have involved protest vessels and whale chasers, those in the South China Sea have involved patrol vessels, fishing boats or scientific research vessels of the littoral countries. The situations in the two areas are similar in that they invariably involve the flouting of international collision regulations when the vessels clash with each other, and entail high risk of the loss of life and the escalation of tension between the countries involved.

There was a serious incident in the Southern Ocean in January 2010 when the Japanese whale chaser Shonan Maru No. 2 ran down and sank the Sea Shepherd protest vessel Ady Gil. Although there was sympathy for the Japanese vessel owing to the aggressive tactics used by Sea Shepherd, the subsequent inquiry by New Zealand authorities found both vessels to be in disregard of international collision avoidance regulations. In particular, the inquiry found that the whale chaser had ample opportunity to avoid collision and should have kept clear of the other vessel. New Zealand authorities conducted the inquiry because the Ady Gil was registered in New Zealand. Unfortunately Japanese interests did not cooperate in the investigation.

Following incidents in the Southern Ocean in 2010 and 2011, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) issued a resolution calling upon governments to urge persons and entities under their jurisdiction to refrain from actions that intentionally imperil human life, the marine environment, or property during demonstrations, protests or confrontations on the high seas. It also called on all vessels to comply with the applicable instruments adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) directed at the safety of navigation, security and safety of life at sea.

Sea Shepherd has recently deployed three vessels to the Southern Ocean to protest during the forthcoming whaling season. The Japanese whaling fleet will include Coast Guard personnel and will be escorted by a fisheries protection vessel. The risk of clashes at sea is high unless all parties act responsibly. Australia, New Zealand and the United States have a common interest in avoiding these clashes because these countries, due to their search and rescue capabilities and responsibilities in the Southern Ocean, are the ones most likely to be involved in “picking up the pieces” should a serious accident occur.

Two of the Sea Shepherd vessels are registered in the Netherlands and the third in Australia. Japan has taken the unusual step of calling on these two countries to expel these vessels from their flag, but both countries rejected this demand.

South China Sea
Incidents at sea involving clashes between vessels of the different bordering countries have become regular occurrences in the South China Sea. In a recent incident depicted by video on YouTube, a patrol vessel of the Vietnamese Marine Police appeared to collide with and then attempt to “shoulder” away a Chinese research vessel.

A trend towards increased incidents in the South China Sea is likely to continue unless measures are put in place to prevent and manage such incidents. While serious escalation of tensions as a consequence of these incidents has not occurred so far, the risks are high of a situation getting out of hand leading to the possible loss of life or the sinking of a vessel. This would lead to a serious deterioration in the relations between the countries involved.

Possible measures to avert this include the development of guidelines for preventing and managing incidents at sea in the South China Sea. Such guidelines might include recognition of the principle that the International Convention for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) should always apply, and that actions that might endanger human life should not be used. The measures to avoid incidents in the Southern Ocean are a possible model for what is required in the South China Sea.

Outlook
As the IWC resolution on safety at sea noted, the safety of vessels and crew, the order of maritime navigation, and environmental protection, are, and have long been, the common interests of all nations. Excessive actions to demonstrate purpose or intent involving the harassment of other vessels can easily get out of hand leading to a process of reaction and counter-reaction as tempers fray, and normal rules of the road are ignored.

There are potentially serious consequences for good order at sea and for amicable relations between the countries involved. Restraint over such incidents is an important requirement for both the Southern Ocean and the South China Sea.

Sam Bateman is an adviser to the Maritime Security Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He is a former Australian naval commodore with a keen interest in good order at sea.

Little benefit from WTO

2011-12-28T15:23:00.001-08:00

Malaya
December 28, 2011
Little benefit from WTO
BY AMADO P. MACASAET

The Philippine economy did not benefit much from membership with the World Trade Organization, but accession was unavoidable.
This is the consensus given to Malaya Business Insight by three top bankers who all requested anonymity.
One said the globalization made mandatory by the WTO is a game for the giant economies. "It is the imperialists’ turf," he said.
The three said the most serious, in fact damaging effect, was the hauling down of tariff walls mostly on consumption goods. They pointed out that the intention is good in the sense that low tariff rates are supposed to move the producers of consumption goods to higher levels of efficiency.
It did not. Instead, the reliance on imported goods became even heavier largely because the government failed to provide incentives or create a climate that would encourage higher productivity.
In not too few cases, the Philippine government is to blame.
Jake, this was the position of our late friend, Tony Tupaz. He talked about it, upon my invitation on behalf of the Rotary Club of Pasig on February 22 ,2007. You were the club's guest on May 3, 2007 and you talk about the libel case that was filed against you and other journalists by the former FG.

The bankers pointed out that a huge fund for the modernization of agriculture, as envisioned by Edgardo J. Angara when he was agriculture secretary, was supposed to be created from tariff on imported rice.
The safety net for agriculture provides that beyond a predetermined volume, imported rice is supposed to be slapped a tariff of 50 per cent. The volume has been breached but there have been no collection at all.
They said that manufacturing is also a big victim of globalization, not only because of lowering of tariff but largely because many manufacturers chose to be importers instead of staying in the business they started with.
"All you need is a warehousing complex and a fleet of delivery trucks to make money from imports," the bankers said.
Importers do not directly create that much employment, they said.
Therefore, they explained, the importers avoid troubles with labor and the necessity of buying dollars to import raw materials.
However, they pointed out in one voice, "We would have been isolated from the world if we did not join the globalization effort."
They explained that the evil of seeing business prosper through tariff protection "was killed" by low common tariff on many products as demanded by the WTO.
That would have resulted in intense competition for survival. It did not. Importing was a better and easier alternative.
They explained that globalization is a battle between a giant and a pygmy. In the case of David and Goliath, David, the pygmy, won. A pygmy of an economy cannot "kill" Goliath with a slingshot, they said, pointing out that the Philippines does not even have the slingshot – meaning the determination which would have resulted in raising efficiency to put up a good fight.
Nevertheless, they said, membership with the WTO opened the eyes of the economy to what it is good at.
Thus, they said, the outsourcing business (BPO) and tourism-cum-gaming were born and matured rather fast.
Business process outsourcing has become so successful its leaders are now suggesting to the Department of Education that heavier emphasis be placed on English grammar.
The banking system is slowly turning to heavy lending to medium and small borrowers. That, too, they said, may have been a direct result of the inability of the Philippines to compete with the giants.
They pointed out that "small is good." They explained that the situation at present is such that the big borrowers with excellent credit records are able to raise enough funds from their own operations.
Loans are sought by borrowers the banks are indifferent to, the bankers said. Since the financial system is too liquid, depositors’ money must be invested elsewhere.
Financial institutions find lending to small-scale business a bit messy but safer. The default rate among small business people is below 3 percent.
One of the bankers explained that owners of small – sometimes backyard projects – know they would need more money to expand their business.
They cannot go back to the banks if they are discovered to be habitual defaulters. In fact, banks are slowly getting involved in micro-finance which is even more administratively messy as they have to comply with rigid requirements of the Bangko Sentral.
They pointed out that the property boom will continue because the developers have come to realize that the bulk of housing demand comes from the middle and low-middle strata of the economy.
However, they said, the developers may not be expected to take over social housing which, in the first place, is the basic function of government agencies like Pag-Ibig.
The slowdown of manufacturing, if it is a result of WTO membership, may have raised the unemployment rate. But the bankers said that is also a function of high birth rate.

North Korea’s Power Transition: Rising Instability or Regime Resilience?

2011-12-28T03:27:00.001-08:00

RSIS presents the following commentary North Korea’s Power Transition: Rising Instability or Regime Resilience? by Lee Dongmin. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward any comments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, at RSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 188/2011 dated 28 December 2011

North Korea’s Power Transition:
Rising Instability or Regime Resilience?

By Lee Dongmin

Synopsis

Kim Jong-Il’s death adds a new dimension to security challenges on the Korean peninsula and in the region. In this critical period of power transition, it is pertinent not to underestimate the regime’s political resilience amid possible instability.

Commentary

THE DEATH of North Korean supremo Kim Jong-Il has, not surprisingly, triggered renewed debate about the regime's potential collapse. While there could well be political disruptions, it may be simplistic to expect the regime to implode following the death of its leader. It is also critical that we make conceptual distinctions between the notions of regime instability and the total breakdown of a state. While one cannot overlook the potential power-struggle that may break out, it may be premature to anticipate the regime to cave in under the weight of possible infighting..Indeed, the regime may prove to be politically resilient and here are a few variables that may explain this.

Political cartels and symbiotic relations

Kim Jong Il’s illness in 2008 unquestionably served as the “first shock wave” for the regime’s inner circle. As a result the political elites have been psychologically prepared to calculate the regime’s security dynamics. Prior to the appointment of Kim’s third son, Kim Jong-Un, as successor during the Party Representatives Convention on 28 September 2010, there might have been conflict between the "royalists" supporting Kim’s family and the orthodox, restorationist group that backs the traditional state-oriented system.

Nonetheless, the regime successfully brought the Kim family’s most trusted members into their power base. The addition of Kim’s sister, Kim Kyung-Hui, to the Politburo and the appointment of his brother-in-law, Jang Song Taek, to the position of Vice-Chairman of the National Defence Commission (NDC) were part of this strategic planning.

There has been a significant infusion of the descendents of the “Kimilsungist” group into the reshuffled power structure since the crisis in Kim Jong-Il’s health in 2008. A large number of Kim family loyalists have been promoted or recently appeared in North Korea’s strengthened party institutions – Politburo, Secretariat and the Central Military Commission (CMC). One notable appointment is that of General Rhee Yongho to the Workers Party’s Politburo and to the position of a Vice Chairman of the CMC – the other CMC Vice-Chairman being Kim Jong Un himself.

During this phase of power transfer, Rhee will also likely take on the role of a guardian, overseeing the succession process and keeping the military under control. Like many Kim "royalists", General Rhee represents the children of the revolutionary cadres, somewhat comparable to the "princelings" in Chinese politics. They are the most powerful political cartel, who share the same faith with Kim’s dynasty. In this context, it seems to be the rational choice for them to support Kim Jong-Un for their symbiotic survival.

Institutionalisation of Party- Army relations

One of the most notable political adjustments made in the period between Chairman Kim’s health crisis in 2008 and his death in December 2011 has been the regime’s strategic institutionalisation of mechanisms to control the armed forces. During his tenure, Kim Jong-Il effectively tightened his grip on the military by utilising an intricate web of personal loyalists. Although such personalised mechanism may well be serving the interest of particular leaders and perhaps help them to maintain supremacy, the sudden death of the figurehead could result in political instability.

In the critical period of power transition, a firmer grip over the military might therefore be sought because Kim the successor lacks the charisma and experience of his father, who relied exclusively on his direct control of the armed forces.

The recent addition of a number of active-duty military officers to the restored Korean Workers’ Party apparatus reflects the regime’s efforts to recalibrate party-Army relations for the sake of smoothing the power-transition. Accordingly, for the past few years the regime has been strengthening the party structure. Hence, the strategic move of appointing Kim Jong-Un as Vice-Chairman of the CMC.

The North Korean leadership seems to reckon that the major reason behind the collapse of the Eastern European states at the end of the Cold War had been the lack of military loyalty. The pronouncement by the party media referring to Kim Jong Un as “supreme commander” of the armed forces appears aimed at cementing the successor’s hold on the military. His latest elevation as head of the party Central Committee appears to consolidate his rise as “Supreme Leader” even before the official funeral of his father.

Central Military Commission – successor’s new power base?

In addition to the major changes in the Party politburo, the structural recalibration of the CMC is a significant event. In North Korea's traditional political structure, the head of the CMC usually has the prerogative of controlling the armed forces. During the political reshuffle, Kim Jong-Un’s resort to old school-ties from the Kim Il-Sung Military Academy has seen some members from his cohort taking the top positions in the strengthened CMC. Beside Vice-Chairman Kim Jong-Un, it is interesting to note that the top-level members of the CMC - Rhee Yong Ho, Kim Young Chun and Kim Jong Gak - are graduates of the Kim Il Sung Military Academy who have their respective expertise in military affairs.

In addition many technocrats affiliated with the defence-industrial complex are positioned to strengthen the CMC's political apparatus. Such arrangement says much about the regime’s intentions to reshape the CMC. The main purpose of restructuring the CMC is to build institutional power for Kim Jong-Un.

The North Korean political structure requires that the General Secretary of the Korean Workers’ Party head the CMC. Under the revised structure, the Vice-Chairman of the CMC, Kim Jong-Un, is likely to assume the position of General Secretary of the Korean Workers’ Party and so also head of the CMC. However, due to the peculiar nature of the regime’s succession process, the successor may further consolidate his grip during the national period of mourning.

Kim Jong-Il also assumed his position as the General Secretary of the Korean Workers’ Party in 1997 after observing a three-year period of mourning for his father, which in turn put to an end the widespread speculation about regime collapse at the time.

Shifting epicentre of power

In light of these circumstances, the purpose of streamlining the Party structure may not be merely to design a collective-leadership system for the military, but rather to reinforce the party structure to foster political capital for Kim Jong-Un. From this development, it can be inferred that the epicentre of power is shifting from the NDC to the traditional party apparatus, in particular to the CMC as a power base for the new leader.

Likewise, it is likely that the regime will continue to pursue the military-first policy and attempt to increase its defence-related economic activities to gain credit for the new leader. Until the regime firmly transfers power to the successor, the denuclearisation talks are likely to remain on hold.

Lee Dongmin is an Assistant Professor at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. An earlier article was presented at a meeting of the American Political Science Association in September 2011.

Breaking: Patriot Missiles Seized, Sold To China by Israel

2011-12-27T21:14:00.001-08:00

Breaking: Patriot Missiles Seized, Sold To China by Israel (Updates)
304

Iron Dome Defense Missiles Seized by Finland, Labeled “Fireworks”
69 Newest Patriot Missiles Bound For Reds

“…Thorco Shipping representative, Thomas Mikkelsen said he was unaware any such cargo was on board his vessel”…a statement that categorically “debunks” attempts at denial – Editor)
…by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

Latest update from today’s Washington Post:
Finland says cargo ship can sail again, but without its 69 missiles, explosives or it’s Ukrainian captain

HELSINKI — “A British-registered ship (editor’s correction, ship is not “British-registered”) that was held in a Finnish port after authorities discovered 69 surface-to-air [Anti-ballistic] missiles and 160 tons of explosives onboard has permission to travel again, but without those materials or its captain, a port official said Monday.
The M/S Thor Liberty was headed to China and had docked in the southern Finnish port of Kotka to pick up anchor chains when police last week discovered and seized the missiles and explosive piric acid on board.”

Finnish authorities have confirmed the seizure of 69 Patriot missiles manufactured by Raytheon Corporation today.

During a routine search of the MS Thor Liberty, a ship flagged by the Isle of Man, at the Finnish port of Kotka, authorities found 69 Patriot missiles of a type capable of intercepting ICBMs, the most modern available and America’s most sensitive military technology.

Update: Germany officials have offered to take responsibility for the shipment to China though there is no record of Germany ever having received the missiles in the first place. There had been a shipment of PAC 2 missiles, 64, several months ago, which had been completed. No further shipment had been scheduled.

Germany is responding to a request from Netanyahu to Merkel to save Israel from a potential spy scandal.Similarly, a South Korean paper has published a story about the missiles but at no time has the South Korean embassy in Helsinki, made a statement or made contact with authorities as would be expected. This one gets more interesting every day.

Germany has a long history of working with Israel, call it “war guilt” or profiteering. The centrifuges used to develop nuclear weapons that were distributed by Israel, first to South Africa then by Israeli Johann Meyer to Libya were of Germany origin. Saddam Hussein received his biological and chemical warfare equipment from Germany, but through Bush family sources, not Israel.

We are told the missiles heading to China were to be “cloned” for sale along with radar and launch units, already there. They would be sold worldwide under Israeli branding in competition with the US. Israel is free to sell to clients the US would be likely to refuse.

The JA 20 Stealth fighter, built from plans stolen by Bush era White House Israeli “dual-citizens” is only one of dozens of defense projects stolen by Israeli spies and sent to China. China has every current nuclear weapons design and plans to upgrade its submarine fleet and will be building aircraft carriers eventually. All will be done with American technology.

Here is the photo of the ship's 'very special' explosives in shrink wrapped cardboard boxes. Do you really think this is how western Allied/NATO countries transport munitions, or would allow hugely expensive anti-ballistic missiles to be put on a ship like this? If there was a detonation device in one of these boxes that could set it off (like with a satellite phone call), it would go up like an A-bomb. No one would have been looking for the 69 Patriot ABM's listed as rockets or firecrackers. There is one rouge country's Intelligence service, an American ally, that could do this in it's sleep because it had extensive practice while building it's WMD programs, the details of which our America government still holds secret from Americans.

Attempts to represent this as a sale of “second hand” PAC 2 missiles, stories filling the blogosphere, fail to address that these are PAC 3 advanced missiles and labeled for shipment to China, not Korea.

Patriot ICBM Interceptor - PAC3

The next stop for this cargo, valued at over $4 billion even without the associated radar, which may well have been shipped via some other method, was Shanghai, China.

Yet the Chinese government has given an official denial of any knowledge of this transaction.They went even further, they claimed the missiles were heading to South Korea.

However, were China to have given the issue a second’s thought, it would have been advisable to have failed to acknowledge any familiarity with the issue whatsoever.

China walked into a trap, one that uncovered their espionage cooperation agreements that involved, not the receipt of advanced Patriot missile systems but the full plans for the F22 stealth fighter.

Initial stories from 2009 indicating China has received plans for the F35 though espionage with Israel were false.

The F22 is a far more advanced aircraft.

On April 21, 2009, the Department of Defense announced the theft of 1.5 terabytes of data on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the platform meant give the United States and her allies air superiority for the next 40 years.

In a flash, all that was gone, $300 billion dollars of funding down the drain, every system, defense, offense, stealth, everything needed to build one or shoot it down, all gone. Day one, China was accused but it wasn’t China, it wasn’t Iran, it wasn’t Pakistan.

The theft left a clear signature, one identical to the data Wikileaks has been receiving, sources inside the Pentagon repeating the actions of Israeli-Soviet spy, Jonathan Pollard. As vital as the F-35 is to America’s defense, Pollard’s triumph on behalf of Soviet Russia and Israel dwarfs the current espionage coup.

Since the 2009 announcement, there has been nothing but silence.

Now we learn the Pentagon story was “cover” and it was the F22 Raptor, not the F35, an “export plane,” that was compromised:

F-22A Raptors - America Top Fighter

The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is a single-seat, twin-engine fifth-generation super maneuverable fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology.

It was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles.[6]

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and is responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems and final assembly of the F-22.

Program partnerBoeing Defense, Space & Security provides the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 during the years prior to formally entering USAF service in December 2005 as the F-22A.

Despite a protracted and costly development period, the United States Air Force considers the F-22 a critical component of US tactical air power, and claims that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected fighter.[7]

While Lockheed Martin claims that the Raptor’s combination of stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, combined with air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities, makes it the best overall fighter in the world today.[8]

Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, said in 2004 that the “F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built.”[9]

Raptor Formation

The high cost of the aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air combat missions because of delays in the Russian and Chinese fifth-generation fighter programs, a US ban on Raptor exports, and the ongoing development of the planned cheaper and more versatile F-35 resulted in calls to end F-22 production.[N 1]

In April 2009 the US Department of Defense proposed to cease placing new orders, subject to Congressional approval, for a final procurement tally of 187 Raptors.[11] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 lacked funding for further F-22 production.

The final F-22 Raptor fighter jet rolled off the assembly line on 13 December 2011 during a ceremony at the Lockheed Martin aircraft plant at Dobbins Air Reserve Base.[2]

China is testing a 5th generation fighter, 20 years earlier than estimated, the JA 20. It is based on systems from the Raptor and is considered a far superior plane to the F 35.From a January, 2011 Guardianstory suppressed in the United States:

Chinese F22 Raptor Clone, 20 Years Early

A photograph of what is reported to be a new Chinese stealth fighter and “carrier-killer” missile has prompted concerns that a tilt in the balance of military power in the western Pacific towards China may come sooner than expected.

The emergence of the hi-tech weaponry – which would make it more difficult for the US navy and air force to project power close to Taiwan and elsewhere on China’s coastline – comes at a politically sensitive time.

Later this month, President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, will hold a summit in Washington aimed at patching up their differences after a niggling year in bilateral relations.

he photograph, of what appears to be a prototype J-20 jet undergoing initial tests, has been circulating on the internet since last week, fueling speculation that China’s fifth-generation fighter may fly ahead of forecast.(Attempts have been made to alter photos of the plane and misrepresent its “lineage.” The only alterations from the F22 seem to be the rear control surfaces. What has been most telling is the attempt to misconstrue the JA 20 as a “large bodied” interceptor with a weapons bay for anti-ship missiles instead of the air superiority fighter it actually is. )

The defence ministry has yet to comment on the image, which seems to have been shot from long-distance near the Chengdu aircraft design institute. The photographer is also unknown, which has added to the mystery about its origins and authenticity as well as the motive of the distributor.

But defence analysts believe this is the first glimpse of the twin-engined, chiseled-nosed plane that mixes Russian engine technology with a fuselage design similar to that of the US air force’s F-22 “stealth” fighter, which can avoid detection by radar.

If confirmed, it would be an impressive step forward for the Chinese air force, which until now has largely depended on foreign-made or designed planes. “I’d say these are, indeed, genuine photos of a prototype that will make its maiden flight very soon,” said Peter Felstead, the editor of Jane’s Defence Weekly.

The J20 is likely to be many years from deployment, but the US defence secretary, Robert Gates – who visits Beijing next week – may have to revise an earlier prediction that China will not have a fifth generation aircraft by 2020.

It is not the only challenge to US superiority in the region. China has refurbished a Ukrainian aircraft carrier and wants to build its own by 2020.

Photo corrected from "stretch" version issued to mislead public

The US and Israel had scheduled an air defense exercise this week but no Patriot missiles were to be shipped to Israel as part of their mission, DOD sources indicate.

This week’s exercise was to use Patriot missiles deployed from American ships in the eastern Mediterranean to test Israeli missile defenses. Reports indicate that all missiles for this exercise have been accounted for.

" Patriots Away "

These units, the most advanced Patriot system had only been supplied to one nation, Israel.

The 69 Patriot ICBM interceptors are believed to be a highly secret consignment demanded by Israel as protection from any retaliatory strike by Iran were war to break out in the region.

Instead of deploying them, the missiles were apparently sold to China labeled as “fireworks” according to Interior Minister Paivi Rasanen.

Though the missiles themselves were worth only $4 billion, the technology transfer itself would be worth over $125 billion, and represent a significant loss of defense capability for the United States.

Sources termed it, “An absolute disaster, even if they only received the radar systems alone, much less the missiles.That this would go unreported though the story was broken in Europe 48 hours ago is astounding.

Nobody in Washington has this although even the BBC report contains more than enough information to bring Washington to a halt.

DOD sources indicate that it would be unusual for these missiles to be moved without radar and launch facilities to have been moved in advance. It was also indicated that the Department of Defense denies shipping any such missiles to Germany or anywhere else in Europe, labeled as “fireworks” or anything else.

The owner of the ship of record is Thorco Shipping. Their representative, Thomas Mikkelsen said he was unaware any such cargo was on board his vessel.

Patriot Command Control Center

Claims were made that the missiles were destined for South Korea but an examination of documentation indicated that there were no South Korean ports scheduled.

Additionally, the likelihood that the US government would ship its most valuable and secret missile technology through Germany mislabeled as “fireworks” rather than on a C 17 under military security supports the Finnish claim.

Finnish police say they opened all 69 units, are recording serial numbers and have been unable to find any documentation indicating the real ownership of the seized cargo.

And they certainly have found nothing involving the any of the claimed “cover stories” involving Germany or Korea, otherwise, of course, the cargo would never have been seized nor would there have been arrests made.

Detective Superintendent Timo Virtanen of the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation is in charge of the case. He has stated:

”Actually, in our investigation at the moment, we have got the information that we found 69 Patriot missiles on the ship and around 160 tonnes of explosives.”

The explosives are identified as nitroguandine, a low sensitivity explosive with a very high detonation speed. These explosives have several uses, among them launching shipboard or submarine launched missiles or in the development and testing of nuclear weapons design.

Finnish authorities indicate the explosives were packed in an “informal” and highly dangerous manner and that the Thor Liberty’s captain and chief officer are under arrest on suspicion of arms trafficking. Both are citizens of the Ukraine.The government of China has denied all knowledge of the incident although the cargo was destined for their ports.

The head of Finnish Customs CID, Petri Louatmaa said this was not the first such incident but by far the most serious he has ever heard of.Finland has requested “information” from several countries.

The US Department of Defense has assured all involved that these missiles were not being sent to South Korea and that their presence on a civilian ship either being loaded in Germany or in port in Finland was in now way a part of any exercise nor any accepted methodology for the handling of this type of ultra-high technology weaponry.

American sources further indicated confusion at the odd number of missiles:

“There are two missiles per launch container. The containers can’t be easily opened and the missiles can’t be removed for examination without damage to the launch mechanism.They are delivered for mounting to ships or land based mobile launchers. Thus, the packaging indicated either demonstrates confusion or serious unprofessional tampering.”

Israeli officials have failed to respond to questions about the consignment.Air Force transport command personnel indicate that high tech transfers to Israel are routinely offloaded at Schipol Airport in the Netherlands where Israel maintains secure facilities.

Editing: Jim W. Dean

Patriot PAC3s Are Shipped in Pairs - Ground to Air Patriots are Shipped With Lauchers

Jim Willie CB, COMEX: The March to Irrelevance

2011-12-23T21:07:00.000-08:00

http://goldsilver.com/new/jim-willie-cb-comex-the-march-to-irrelevance/

Jim Willie CB, COMEX: The March to Irrelevance

goldseek.com
DECEMBER 21, 2011

Jim Willie CB, Posted Wednesday, 21 December 2011

Divergence between paper gold and physical gold price is happening, the process begun. Actual physical shortages have kept the price up. The naked shorting of futures has kept the paper price down. The fraud cases and lawsuits, with no hint of prosecution, provide the levered force to create much wider divergence, as traders and entire firms depart the tainted crime scene that is the COMEX. Trust has vanished along with private accounts. At the center of the backdrop for the divergence, apart from the criminal events, is the economic deterioration and asset market downdraft. It leads to margin calls, loan payment obligations, fading investor confidence, negative sentiment, and a desire to avoid loss. Hence the huge liquidity concerns, selling of good assets that command a strong price, and central bank encouragement of gold sales even with lease. These forces conspire to push down the gold futures price from the discovery process, called the paper gold price. These forces, although real, are exaggerated by the Syndicate to explain all. On the other side is the desperation among central bankers to cover debt securities up for sale or rollover funding. They resort to utter hyper inflation by monetizing the many types of government bonds. They are obligated to aid their banker cohorts, and thus purchase truckloads of badly impaired sovereign bonds and other collateralized bonds. Over time these sovereign bonds have proved toxic. The compelling need to stimulate economies, to redeem toxic bonds, and to recapitalize and nationalize the big banks adds to the monetary inflation outcome. Therefore, two sides are in opposition in a battle to the death of one or the other. No middle ground can be achieved, not any longer. It is the quintessential battle between monetary hyper inflation and restoring bank system integrity to avert collapse. The insolvency has recently met illiquidity. The battle features strong forces on each side. The divergence between physical and paper gold price is widening.

The incurable speculator junkies committed to the addictive leveraged game rigged by the Forces of Evil seem stuck at the casino tables, where fingers are lost, finally entire hands and arms. If their practice was to purchase physical, they could benefit from the paper price swoon, and join the Forces of Good team, rather than fighting the evil side on their dominated turf. To be sure, many aware analysts in the news maintain a small gold position in COMEX that is rolled over constantly. Many have physical positions but keep with the paper trades as a hobby, better described as an addition to the juice. Leverage cuts both ways. Their continued activity has left them exposed to theft, while knowing the criminality was widespread within the arena. So many players and firms are departing the arena altogether like Ann Barnhardt of BCM Capital. The divergence between physical and paper gold price is widening.

The desperation of the bad team is growing. The gold cartel has benefited significantly from the fresh Libyan gold supply (144 metric tons) and Greek gold supply (111 metric tons), not to mention the ample Dollar Swap Facility. It is the bankers New Gold, as reported by intrepid Jeff Neilson. In a fresh sign of bankster desperation, the lease rates for gold have been pushed down to net negative levels. The fresh supply from the two broken nations has greatly aided the COMEX, providing new cannon fodder. Perhaps more wars to liberate the oppressed can be conjured up, to release more tyrant wealth. It is not a coincidence that negative gold lease rates came when Libyan gold was made available (heisted) and when Italian sovereign bonds went into critical DEFCON mode. The gold supply helped to aid the lack of bond demand. The gold lease story is analyzed more fully in the December Hat Trick Letter.

INELASTICITY BLEMISH

A preface is warranted. The paper Gold market is very different in its internal dynamics from the physical. The paper Gold market shows signs of inelasticity that borders on comical. Witness the low demand in 2001 and 2002 when Gold had a paper price tag at $300 or less per ounce. Witness nowadays the amplified selling when the paper price declines. The leverage from the corrupted paper mechanisms forces margin pressures and sales. The leveraged game goes opposite to the real world of price mechanisms. On the upside, global demand rises with a rising physical price, called the gold fever. The inelasticity on the supply side is prevalent in the paper market, while the inelasticity on the demand side is prevalent on the physical market. To confuse the mix, mining firms realize some inelasticity as price falls, they are stuck with a liquidity crunch on their forward sales ruin. A huge amount of money is required to cover their losses, urged on by Wall Street advisors. Their mining operations suffer from lack of funds, and projects are curtailed. The paradoxical differences in dynamics help to push the gap between the paper and physical Gold price. The incompatible forces work to rip apart the COMEX. The divergence between physical and paper gold price is widening.

ILLICIT USAGE OF CLIENT FUNDS AS COLLATERAL

The hypothecation battle will bring sufficient publicity to help the divergence along. As more assets are seen as committed, involved, and tainted in the process of grabbing, snatching, and securing collateral, even by illegal means, the physical assets will be removed from the system. Parties will remove accounts and metal from the COMEX in response from basic self-preservation. On the investment and speculation side, harm has been rendered to managed risk. The client funds have begun to flee. The protection and security of money in private accounts has been under siege in recent weeks since the MF Global crime scene was established and the yellow tape cordon has been put in place. Investors are pulling money out of hedge funds at a rapid rate. The COMEX will be increasingly isolated. Clients funds were redeemed to the tune of $9 billion in October, almost four times as much as they pulled in September, according to Barclay Hedge and TrimTabs Investment Research. Investors in October yanked more from hedge funds, setting a single month high over the last two years.

The redemptions are the largest for the hedge fund industry since July 2009, when $17.8 billion was returned. The Barclay Hedge office put lipstick on the corrupt pig by commenting on how investors have lost patience with lackluster investor returns. To be sure, the average hedge fund is down by about 4% this year. The global hedge fund industry size has been reduced to $1.66 trillion, still sizeable. It is always interesting, if not amusing, to read the spin from the isolated corners. Hedge funds are seeing capital depart for the simple reason of moving away from crime centers. In the process the COMEX is being isolated. With increased isolation comes the easily recognized fraud. Look for some major stories soon about the raids to the GLD and SLV inventories by their custodians engaged in naked shorting. The Exchange Traded Fund fraud story is analyzed more fully in the December Hat Trick Letter. The divergence between physical and paper gold price is widening.

DYNAMICS OF PAPER VERSUS PHYSICAL BASIS

Grand divergence dynamics are becoming clear. Ann Barnhardt explained in detail how the COMEX will go away. It will not default, but rather fall into irrelevance. He laid it out in credible detailed form with numerous factors coming to play. The COMEX might still suffer the shame and spotlight of criminal prosecution. It will more certainly suffer from being ignored and shunned. The physical basis market will not respond to the declines in the paper futures market. The current dominant market will go away due to lost integrity and eroded trust. The consequences and implications of the recent major scandal and coverup are enormous, staggering, and sweeping. The changes from the MF Global failure and theft of private segregated accounts will come in time, perhaps accelerated by another similar event to slam the message home. The Syndicate has turned desperate, resorting to theft in the open daylight, which has resulted in direct consequences. Hundreds of COMEX clients waited in line for delivery of gold, and had their wallets stolen by JPMorgan. Their Gold & Silver set for delivery found its way into JPMorgan accounts at the COMEX. The details of the missing silver then reappearing silver is discussed in the December Hat Trick Letter. The slow mentally overlook this fact. The alert who point to fraud consider it a smoking gun. On its face, evidence mounts that JPMorgan simply converted 614k ounces of MF Global client silver into JPM licensed vaults. Big hats off to the Silver Doctors for excellent financial fraud forensic analysis. Do not expect prosecution over the crime, for MF Global, for JPMorgan, or for the accomplices in London, not even Jon Corzine. The Fascist Business Model in the Untied States does not permit prosecution. The bigger the crime, the more likely the perpetrator is in control of the government high offices, the financial ministry, the printing press, or the regulators.

Ann Barnhardt explained how the COMEX will fade away into oblivion. Its final chapter will be marred by a grand price divergence, where the futures market price declines from shunned avoidance, while the cash physical market price holds steady then rises. Many including the Jackass had thought that a slew of delivery demands would force a drain in their gold & silver inventory, eventually leading to a slew of lawsuits, together to shut them down as a corrupt enterprise arena. The MF Global theft reveals the alternative route that seems more clear. The gold cartel led by JPMorgan and secretly by the USFed will not go quietly. They have resorted to theft of private accounts on the open stage. The money is not missing. That is the lie. It is held in JPMorgan accounts in London, where fraud laws are more relaxed. We have seen this Madoff movie before, but it will be shown on the silver screen again. The divergence between physical and paper gold price is widening.

The backlash has begun and will gain strength. Barnhardt offered many cogent arguments with detail on how the COMEX will be ignored from distrust and suspicion of further thefts, as clients remove funds and close accounts. Here are her main points. They apply to Gold & Silver. She has the Barnhardt weblog: http://barnhardt.biz/

Arbitrage is set to kick in. Players will buy at the cheaper corrupt paper market in COMEX and sell in the higher honest physical market, wherever brokers can match to make deals. (It is the same phenomenon that ripped the Euro sovereign bond market apart, as the German Govt Bond yields remained much lower than the Spanish and Greek.) They will take advantage of a strong basis, buy at the discount offered by COMEX, and sell into the cash spot physical market.
A linchpin holds the market together. Keeping the futures markets tied to the underlying cash physical market is the fact that the futures contracts permit taking delivery. That delivery mechanism just broke as linchpin in full view. The futures market has lost viability and trustworthiness because of the MFG collapse and theft.
The entire delivery mechanism has been corrupted and undermined. Taking delivery has meant a holding of physical metal bars is stored in a certified vault with your name attached. No longer are such holdings considered safe. Thefts occurred, and lawsuits have occurred to decided upon ownership of bars in dispute.
The de-coupling process comes when arbitrageurs finally lose all confidence in market interaction dynamics, as the cash market will lose connection on price from the futures market. Players will not be willing to take the risk of having their money, positions, and physical metals stolen or confiscated.
As players flee the futures market, the paper futures prices will decline. The cash physical market will hold steady. The divergence will come and be noticed, then be widely publicized. The players will realize that the physical market is the only remaining game to be played with honest rules in effect. The cash dealers will ignore the futures prices, no longer a valid price discovery, seeing that market demand for their physical inventory is robust, and maintain their prices steady. Later, they will even raise the physical prices. Then later still, the parabolic spike comes for physical Gold & Silver.

THE GREAT SHUN BY MINERS

Asset management funds are appealing to mining firms for direct metal supply. They are bypassing the COMEX in a new trend. It is a natural development, as miners seek a fair price and the funds seek a reliable supply. The COMEX is cut out of the process. The Sprott Funds have revealed how they sourced their precious metal from mining firms last year. The official exchanges are being cut off, a form of isolation as a result. The divergence between physical and paper gold price is widening.

See the Ashanti story as typical. The COMEX is seeing reduced supply lines, reduced operations, more criminal implications, horrible publicity, and fewer clients. Criminal fraud does that, as lawsuits will follow like cold rain. The trend shapes up well for higher gold & silver prices. Mark Cutifani is CEO of AngloGold Ashanti, a $16 billion mining firm. He said, "Major [asset management fund] buyers are finding it is hard to get physical gold.People are coming directly to us [for large gold purchases,] people who want tonnes of physical gold, people with serious financial muscle, because they are finding it is very difficult to secure the volume of gold they want. That is something we have noticed over the last 18 months, and it has been increasing in the last six months. People are finding its hard to get physical gold." The clear message is that the COMEX has no spare available metal at all. Cutifani has good insights into the commodities and precious metals markets, and describes a fascination new trend regarding the global picture. He pointed out that major gold buyers are emerging from the Middle East and Asia. See the Bull Market Thinking article (CLICK HERE).

NEW MARKETS FLOWERING

New gold centers are forming, where the safety is most assured. Hong kong and Dubai have emerged as reliable honest brokers, and will continue to provide valid safe haven. Switzerland, London, and other locations are fading fast. They are the corrupt centers where fascism has become prevalent, laced through the financial system.Takahiro Morita, the Japan director of the World Gold Council, reported that Japan's gold exports in the 10 months ended October totaled 95.6 metric tonnes, their highest level since 2008, when it registered at 95.5 metric tonnes. People who bought gold and jewelry in the 1980 and 1990 decades are selling back what they purchased, according to precious metals traders. Japan has turned into a big exporter. Contrast to the official side. Central bank purchases have risen by 114% over the previous quarter. Purchases by central banks could hit 450 metric tonnes this year, concludes the investment research at the council. The volume represents the highest level of central bank buying since at least 1970, perhaps the greatest in recent history. A veteran gold trader with actual experience in these locations pitched in to explain. He said, "These are not sales in Japan. They are exports, an important distinction. Many investors are busily relocating their precious metal bullion to Hong Kong and Dubai UAE. Look for Dubai to be the HK of the Middle East. The Chinese have made that decision, and it is being implemented with lightning speed." Most of the relocation from Japan shows up as exports, which require payments.

October imports into China from Hong Kong rose 50% over September, and up 40-fold from last year. The more attractive fair price paid in Shanghai reached $50 above the corrupt controlled London price. The arbitrage has been very active. Chinese gold imports from Hong Kong hit a record. The Financial Times reported Chinese gold imports from Hong Kong hit a record high in October and astoundingly, they accounted for more than one quarter of the entire global demand. Data showed that China imported 85.7 tonnes of gold from Hong Kong in October, up 50% from the previous month and up more than 40 times from October of last year. It marks the fourth consecutive month that China's gold flows from Hong Kong have hit new highs. The article noted that the price arbitrage between London and Shanghai was favorable for Chinese imports during late September and early October, giving astute clever traders an edge. Gold on the Shanghai Exchange traded up to $50 per ounce above the main global market based in London, a record price difference. Purchases from China have fallen since October, as the recent strength in the USDollar has made gold more expensive. Also, considerable new strain has been felt inside China in recent weeks. Conclude that price arbitrage has begun to show itself across international boundaries. The divergence between physical and paper gold price is widening.

ONE GOLD EVENT, THE BIG SQUEEZE

No gold chart will be shown in this article, out of disrespect deserved for the COMEX criminal activity. A story was recounted in recent days from my best source of solid reliable gold information. The aware gold community has overlooked a phenomenon that might be more profound in action here and now. A major squeeze is on that capitalizes on the artificially low COMEX price and the higher honest physical price. The Barnhardt effect can be seen, or at least recounted. A gold trader informed that some multi-$billion purchase Gold orders have been in the process of filling at or near the $1600 price per ounce. The price must remain near $1600 to complete the orders and permit them to clear. Call it Agent2000 who seeks the massive amount of Gold, one of the Good Guyz. The name fits since their goal is to force the Gold price back over $2000/oz after the sale transaction clears. Since so large, the orders take time to fill completely. The low-ball buy orders have been filling for over two weeks. At the same time, the Agent2000 buyer has enlisted the aid of numerous assistants to push down the paper Gold price by putting extreme pressure on some bad players, some nasty types from the usual list of suspects in the Western banking sector. These bankers are being squeezed out of their gold, as they contend with deep insolvency, reserves requirements, falling sovereign bond values, depositors exiting, and more. They are players in what has been widely called the Gold Cartel. The Jackass term has been applied in a wider sense, as they have been part of the Syndicate that reaches into the Wall Street banks, the defense contractors, news media, and big pharma.

The other side of Agent2000 is where additional intrigue lies. He (they) have buyers lined up on the physical side some deals ready to close at $1900 per ounce. Later the price will push over the $2000 mark. The buyers are ready. One must infer that the buyers have a great deal of money ready to devote to the battle. Maybe some is piled up to escape the clutches of the cartel, removed from the system. Maybe some is piled up at a major new slush fund to do battle with the cartel at their own game. Maybe some is piled up and kept out of sight from greedy hands in government officials, like off-shore in the Caribbean or sequestered in the Persian Gulf. This story might be perplexing to many in the gold community since the Good Guyz are pushing down the Gold price in order to facilitate a gigantic order that will work toward crushing the cartel by draining their gold. Their gold cannot be drained without the completion of a great many orders. It is only natural to attempt to achieve the lowest possible price. If the gold cartel insists on pushing the price down, then they open the door for major volume sales at the artificially low and very much bargain price. It is happening, but the gold community does not enjoy the symptoms of the process.

So a huge huge huge buyer of gold is busy, and a multi-$billion order is working through. The buyer demands a $1600 price, while on the other side of the table Agent2000 has a sale lined up for the same metal at a $1900 price on physical. The trade will take gold bullion from the Bad Boyz hands and put it into the Good Guyz hands. In the process, the COMEX supply lines will be drained more. This is consistent with mining firms removing supply lines to the COMEX. The Agent2000 buyer is pushing price down, squeezing some evil parties hard, crushing testicalia along the way. He (they) describe to the distressed seller at $1600 that pressures will continue until the deal is closed. The seller is in tremendous pain with open distress showing. So many assume the Bad Powerz are pushing down the Gold price. Not so!! This event and transaction displays how some pain comes in many isolated cases of Good Guyz pushing the Gold price down to empty the Bad Powerz vaults. My source would not reveal the identity of Agent2000 or the location of the squeeze. It seemed like London. The money is not exclusively coming from China. Word has it that Russia is also applying the pressure, with some Chinese teamwork. The Competing Currency War has a new major flank. The divergence between physical and paper gold price is widening.

THE HAT TRICK LETTER PROFITS IN THE CURRENT CRISIS.

home: Golden Jackass website

subscribe: Hat Trick Letter

Jim Willie CB, editor of the “HAT TRICK LETTER”

Original source

Some Asian Leaders Back Obama’s ‘War on China’

2011-12-22T21:56:00.000-08:00

Some Asian Leaders Back
Obama’s ‘War on China’
by Michael Billington

Dec. 17—Although the majority of the Asian nations
have clearly rejected President Obama’s insane
demand for military confrontation with China, which
he pushed during his November trip to Asia, the wouldbe
dictator has won a few adherents to his war policy.
On Dec. 12, Philippine President Benigno “Noynoy”
Aquino, took steps to prepare the nation’s paltry armed
forces for a military engagement with China over contested
islands in the South China Sea—a move which
is militarily absurd, but openly positions the Philippines
as a U.S. asset (and target) in Obama’s planned
war with China.
Meanwhile, the secretary general of Japan’s opposition
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Nobuteru Ishihara,
speaking at the right-wing Hoover Institution in
Washington, called for Japan to build military bases on
the Senkaku Islands, contested by Japan and China, in
the East China Sea, threatening to rekindle tensions between
the two Asian powerhouses.
This follows Obama’s announcement during his
stop in Australia last month, that extensive U.S. Air
Force and Naval capacities are being introduced into a
new U.S. military facility in Darwin, out of range of
Chinese ballistic missiles. In addition, Singapore has
agreed to allow the U.S. to “station several of our
newest littoral combat ships at Singapore’s naval facility,”
according to the chief of U.S. Naval Operations,
Adm. Jonathan Greenert. Greenert said that
the ships would focus on the South China Sea, the
site of conflict between China and several other nations,
regarding sovereignty over various islands
and raw material rights. Greenert added: “Similarly,
2025 may see P-8A Poseidon aircraft or unmanned
broad area maritime surveillance aerial vehicles periodically
deploy to the Philippines or Thailand to
help those nations with maritime domain awareness.”
The “Ring around China” policy, long the dream of
the neo-conservative China-hawks in the Bush/Cheney
Administration, is being implemented by British puppet
Obama as part of his global war plan.
The Japan That Says Yes to Obama
The call by the LDP’s Ishihara for Japan to build
military bases on the Senkaku Islands (called the
Diaoyu Islands by China) is very much in keeping with
the racist anti-China sentiment of famous father, Shintaro
Ishihara, the Governor of Tokyo since 1999.
Known as the spokesman for the right-wing resurgence
in Japan, the governor was the co-author with Sony
chairman Akio Morita of The Japan That Can Say No,
promoting Japanese cultural superiority, and calling for
a break from U.S. domination of Japan. Now, with a
British asset in power in Washington, Ishihara is ready
to say “yes.”
Son Nobuteru, whose LDP governed Japan for half
a century, until its defeat in the 2009 election, has called
for building Japanese military bases on the contested
islands in the East China Sea. In the Nov. 14 Hoover
Institution speech, Ishihara said, “I further believe that
we must seriously begin contemplating the establishment
of a permanent post for the Self-Defense Force”
in the Senkaku Islands. He said China has become “assertive,
one may even say aggressive. Emboldened by
its new economic weight and growing military might,
China’s proclamations of its ‘peaceful rise’ appear more
and more at odds with the emerging reality.”
Nobuteru also announced during his visit to Washington
that he is preparing to run for the presidency of
the LDP. He met with many senior Administration and
Congressional figures while in Washington, parading
his belligerence towards China as a credential for U.S.
support for his bid to run the LDP, and potentially the
Japanese government.
Aquino: NerObama’s Clone
Philippine President Aquino played front-man for
Obama during the U.S. President’s Asia tour, by insist-
ing that China be denounced as an aggressor with respect
to the territorial issues in the South China Sea, in
the various Asian conferences which Obama attended.
On Dec. 12, at the inauguration of a newly appointed
chief of staff of the Philippine Armed Forces, Aquino
announced a military mobilization against China. “We
need to prepare for external challenges,” Aquino blustered.
“There are claimants to territories that are clearly
ours. If before, the focus of the Armed Forces was on
internal threats such as the MILF [Moro Islamic Liberation
Front] and the New People’s Army [communist
insurgents], now we have to prepare for external challenges.”
This is in keeping with Obama’s pronouncement
during his Asia tour that the “counter-insurgency
wars” of Iraq and Afghanistan were being superceded
by the large-scale war plans needed for confrontation
with China. This is known as the “Air-Sea Battle”
strategy, recently adopted by Obama to prepare for his
war (on behalf of the British Empire) against Russia
and China.
Noynoy Aquino is the son of former puppet President
Cory Aquino (1986-92), who was placed in office
by U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and his Deputy
Paul Wolfowitz, after running the so-called “People’s
Power” coup against Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. Cory
Aquinto obediently shut down the industrial and agricultural
policies implemented under Marcos, including
the first nuclear power plant in Southeast
Asia; her polices caused the collapse
of the nation which continues
today.
In addition to declaring the Philippines
to be a launching pad for the
U.S. military campaign against
China, Noynoy also demonstrated
that he is trying to beat Obama to the
punch in creating dictatorships in
their respective nations.
On the same day as his declaration
against China, Aquino (1) declared
war against the Catholic
Church, perhaps the most influential
institution in the largely Catholic
nation; and (2) initiated impeachment
proceedings against the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, to
finish off the “separation of powers”
in the (American-modelled) Philippine
Constitution.
While announcing his war mobilization against
China, Aquino simultaneously boycotted the installation
of Bishop Luis Antonio Tagle as the new Archbishop
of Manila. Another influential Archbishop,
Ramon Arquelles, said of the boycott: “The absence of
the President for the very first time in the history of the
Philippines was very conspicious. He snubbed the most
important religious group in the country.”
It is of crucial importance that the Church has mobilized
massive opposition to a population-reduction bill
known as the “Reproductive Health Bill,” which is virtually
the only issue Aquino sponsored during his years
in the Senate, before following his mother into the Presidency
on behalf of the same foreign financial interests
who ran her administration, and virtually all subsequent
Philippine governments.
Assault on the Court
Even more blatant is Aquino’s assault on the Supreme
Court. Chief Justice Renato Corona, a former
top aide to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
(2001-10), is accused of being overly partial to his
former boss in judicial proceedings against her by the
Aquino Administration. In particular, when Aquino attempted
to prevent Arroyo from leaving the country to
receive medical care, the Supreme Court ruled against
him. Aquino disregarded the Court’s ruling, and depolitekon.
blogspot.com
Philippines President Aquino (right) is one of the few Asian leaders to join Obama’s
“Ring around China” policy; he is also mimicking the U.S. President’s dictatorial
ambitions. The two are shown here at the ASEAN-U.S. summit in New York,
September 2010.
40 International EIR December 23, 2011
tained the former President when she tried to leave,
spitting in the face of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional
powers.
The Philippine House of Representatives, controlled
by Aquino’s party, impeached Chief Justice
Corona on Dec. 12, and the Senate was sworn in to try
the impeachment over the coming weeks. Corona,
speaking on the steps of the Supreme Court, called
Aquino a would-be dictator: “If this impeachment
succeeds, what will happen? Mr. Aquino already has
his cabinet, he controls the Congress, and he will
have the Supreme Court in his hands. What he is
sowing will surely yield a dictatorship—a dictatorship
that results from deception and the poisoning of
the minds of the people. I will resist the emerging
dictatorship of President Benigno Simeon Aquino
III.”
Corona added, “The real objective is to destroy the
judiciary, destroy democracy and impose the will of the
‘beloved king.’ ” Several Filipino commentators have
compared Aquino’s actions to those of Adolf Hitler in
destroying the only checks and balances to his personal
absolute power. The Philippine LaRouche Society has
prepared a poster of Aquino modelled on the now
world-famous LaRouchePAC poster of Obama sporting
a Hitler mustache.
Aquino’s Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, asked
how she could order the detention of Arroyo, in violation
of the Court’s ruling, responded that the Constitution
must be considered “fluid”—as in Alice in Wonderland,
words and institutions can mean whatever they
want them to mean.
De Lima went even further following the impeachment
of Corona, declaring that any Justice who defended
the Chief Justice would face the possibility of
impeachment.
While it is true that former President Arroyo was
wildly corrupt, fixed elections, and packed the Supreme
Court with faithful allies, Aquino is lying when he
claims that his actions against her are based solely on
considerations of justice. As Philippine LaRouche
Movement chairman Butch Valdes has suggested,
Aquino may have made a deal with Arroyo before the
elections to prevent or delay criminal prosecutions
against her and her family in exchange for her control
of the electoral process to allow his victory in the Presidential
elections of 2010.
Aquino protected Arroyo for over a year, but when
the Supreme Court ruled that the massive feudal estate
known as Hacienda Lucita, owned by the Aquino
family (including Noynoy and his mother Cory), must
finally live up to the land-reform laws requiring them to
make the land available for sale to the peasants who
worked on it, this was too much for the Aquino feudal
blood. The assault on the Supreme Court was then unleashed.
It is ironic, if not surprising, that the Ishihara family,
which favors restoring feudal relations in Japan, and
joining Obama in precipitating a nuclear confrontation
with China, is famously close to the Aquino family in
the Philippines.
Impeach Obama—and Aquino?
Lyndon LaRouche has insisted that the current
total collapse of the Western financial system in
Europe and the U.S., and Obama’s mad dash for war
against Russia and China, can only be stopped with the
removal of Barack Obama from office through impeachment
or other Constitutional means. There are
those in the Philippines who recognize that the potential
for the nation to contribute to the Great Pacific Alliance—
the alliance of Russia, China, and the U.S.
under post-Obama leadership, to join forces in replacing
the bankrupt global financial system with a credit
system to facilitate great infrastructure development
as joint endeavors of the Pacific nations—will require
removing Aquino from office through Constitutional
means.
The bishops who have battled Aquino over his population
control bill are also speaking out in regard to his
effort to assert a dictatorship in the Philippines. A
member of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the
Philippines, Deogracias Iniguez, has warned that the
next high official to face impeachment could be President
Aquino, once it is proven that he is employing a
dictatorial style in running the government.
Biship Arguelles said that Aquino’s impeachment of
the Chief Justice will fail, because many sectors of society
will oppose dictatorial rule, and he doubts if the
military would throw its support to him.
It is crucial for those opposing the dictatorial policies
of Aquino that they also identify the most drastic
aspect of this policy as Aquino’s subservience to President
Obama’s insane push for global war, and work
with those internationally who are fighting this threat to
the survival of civilization.

North Korea's Uncertain Transistion

2011-12-22T21:53:00.001-08:00

The East-West Wire is a news, commentary, and analysis service provided by the East-West Center in Honolulu. Any part or all of the Wire content may be used by media with attribution to the East-West Center or the person quoted. Subscribe here to receive Wire releases via email.

North Korea's Uncertain Transistion

HONOLULU (Dec. 21, 2011) – In the wake of dictator Kim Jong-Il’s death and the succession of his young son Kim Jong-Un, a panel of experts said yesterday that North Korea is unlikely to either collapse immediately or take any provocative actions right away, but that this coming spring may mark a more dangerous time, when the regime might even conduct further demonstrations of its nuclear capability.

(Click here to watch a video of the discussion.)

While cautioning that no outsider truly understands what goes on inside one of the world’s most secretive and repressive regimes, the East-West Center panel agreed that the situation is likely to be quiet for a few months while the country is in official mourning and its new power structure solidifies.

The first preliminary sign of how the succession is proceeding may come with Kim Jong-Il’s state funeral on Dec. 28, said Pacific Forum CSIS President Ralph Cossa, when “all of the old ‘Kremlinologists’ will be brought back to try to get a sense of who is really in charge by photographs of who is sitting next to whom.”

The danger, the panelists said, may escalate around the time the country marks the 100th birth anniversary of its revolutionary founder and “eternal president,” Kim Il-Sung, on April 15. North Korean propaganda has for several years touted 2012 as the year the country will emerge as a “powerful and prosperous” nuclear state.

“The North Koreans have a game plan to demonstrate then to the world and their people their full nuclear weapons capability,” said Michael Green, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University and Japan Chair at CSIS, who was formerly a top National Security Council advisor on Asia. “What we know about their program suggests pretty strongly that they’re preparing for a third nuclear weapons test and maybe missile tests … and Kim Jong-Un will be under pressure next year to visibly move the nuclear weapons program forward. How he handles it, and the inevitable backlash … that’s when we may start getting a better sense of how dangerous the situation really is.”

Many commentators have noted that prior to Kim Jong-Il’s own succession, he was said to have orchestrated a number of risky provocations to establish his hard-line revolutionary credentials. Many wonder if Kim Jong-Un may do the same thing – and indeed whether North Korean attacks last year on a South Korean warship and offshore island might have been a similar effort on his behalf.

But Green said he thinks the scenario of a military provocation because of internal strife is probably unlikely, and that the real danger lies more in the pressure on Kim Jong-Un to move ahead with nuclear weapons. “I think both Pyongyang and Beijing concluded that if there were another provocation, that the South would shoot back,” he said. “That’s why I think a nuclear demonstration is more likely than some kind of commando attack.”

The most immediate question, the panelists agreed, is whether Kim Jong-Un will actually be able to hold power. They noted that while Kim Jong-Il had been groomed as his father’s successor for more than a decade, Kim Jong-Un has had less than two years of preparation and propaganda campaigns.

By the time Kim Jong-Il became leader, Green said, he had already held operational command and knew how to work the system in a way that his son probably does not. “Many people are nervous about whether Kim Jong-Un has the legitimacy, experience and skill, if you can call it that, to play the very dangerous game of provocation and confrontation that his father and grandfather did, which was to drive up to the brink and then back off before there’s a war,” he said.

The panelists also noted that at the same time Kim Jong-Un was promoted to heir apparent, Kim Jong-Il also promoted his sister Kim Kyong-Hui and brother-in-law Jang Song-Thaek to leading positions, along with senior general Ri Yong-Ho, suggesting some sort of regency or power-sharing arrangement.

“Kim Jong-Un doesn’t have experience, but everyone around him has experience in playing different countries against each other, so we have to have to assume that will trickle down,” Cossa said. “We just have to take everything we know with a grain of salt and just make sure we can distinguish between real opportunities and the other guy just playing us.”

Green noted that Kim Jong-Il’s “military first” policy helped keep him in power, but also meant that top military brass had significant say over his actions, and that scenario would likely continue with Kim Jong-Un.

East-West Center President Charles E. Morrison, who moderated the panel, raised the question of how the U.S. should best react to Kim Jong-Il’s death. The panelists agreed that the Obama administration seems to be taking the wisest course so far by avoiding provocation, keeping its options open and working closely with U.S. allies in the region.

Green said the U.S. should step up coordination with South Korea and Japan on scenarios in case of a North Korean collapse. Such planning has been “fairly advanced with South Korea, but that is not true with Japan, and China doesn’t want to talk about it at all,” he said. “We need to push harder with these discussions – there’s a lot we haven’t talked about in terms of what to do if this place unravels.”

Ambassador Ray Burghardt, director of the EWC’s East-West Seminars program and a former senior diplomat in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere, said that a topic of constant debate in U.S. policy toward North Korea has been whether to try to force change, or whether maintaining stability in Northeast Asia is the main priority.

“Some are saying that this is a great opportunity to promote regime change, but we also have to listen to North Korea’s neighbors, who are worried about stability and wouldn’t want to do something provocative in the immediate future,” Burghardt said. “So the policy dilemma then becomes, if you’re preserving stability, does it mean you’re giving up long-term opportunities?”

Morrison asked what Kim Jong-Il’s death might mean for negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear program and the possible resumption of the so-called Six-Party Talks, which North Korea quit in 2009 amid the international backlash over its test of an intercontinental missile and a second nuclear device.

The panelists agreed that even if North Korea returns to negotiations over its nuclear weapons program, it is unlikely to actually give up its nukes anytime soon.

“North Korea already has a game plan in place, and my guess is it will continue along that plan – Kim Jong-Il did not put his brother-in-law and son in place to bring about change,” Cossa said. He said he expects that North Korea will put a portion of its uranium enrichment program up for negotiations but will cheat on any agreement “so it can have its cake and eat it too.”

At any rate, the panelists said, the objective of the talks has diminished to the point where they would not be aimed at making the situation better, but merely to keep it from getting worse.

“If we do go back to talks,” Cossa said, “I don’t think anyone really expects that it will really to lead to denuclearization, but probably provide the appearance of progress, which is what is important to China and others. And we’ve lowered the bar so much that things that are essentially meaningless will be hailed as progress.”

“So while everyone seems to be predicting doom, gloom and disaster as a result of this leadership change, I think it’s much more likely that we’re going to have more of the same,” he said. “At some time we’ll come back to the Six-Party Talks and pretend to be denuclearizing, while we’re really bargaining over how much it will cost us to get the North Koreans to at least pretend to behave.”

Green said that North Korea “is clearly interested in getting food aid from the U.S. and the South, but it’s also pretty clear that that they intend to continue moving ahead with their nuclear weapons program. The worry in South Korea is that they’ll pocket the aid and then sometime next year do a nuclear test anyway.”

The regime has followed a pretty clear cycle of provocation and negotiation, Cossa said, “and they’re now in the phase of behaving to see what they can get for not misbehaving, and that cycle usually lasts about six months or a year.”

An important variable, the panelists agreed, is the presidential elections coming up in both the U.S. and South Korea next year.

The Obama administration has so far gone along closely with the policies of conservative South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak, Burghardt said, but that could change if another party comes to power in either country.

Cossa said North Korea will likely try to influence the South Korean election as it has in the past, “but that has invariably backfired on them, so the question is whether they’ve become smart enough to do something that works.”

A key question, the panelists agreed, is how China will react to North Korea’s leadership change, as the isolated country’s primary trading partner and protector.

Cossa said his Chinese sources tell him that China’s leadership believes Jang Song-Thaek will lead Kim Jong-Un in the direction of Beijing-style economic reforms. “But we’ll see in six months from now if Jang Song-Thaek is even still sitting next to Kim Jong-Un,” he said.

He added, however, that he has seen surprisingly open debate in China over North Korea policy. “It’s very clear that China supports Kim Jong-Un’s succession, and I suspect they will put all their eggs in that basket for a while,” he said. “…But if North Korea doesn’t deliver on the promises it’s made to China, that support may change.”

“North Korea’s provocations have been costly for China,” Burghardt observed. “They strengthened alliances between the U.S. and Japan, the U.S. and South Korea, and even to an extent Japan and South Korea. … And with elections coming up in South Korea, further North Korean provocations could increase the chances of Lee Myung-Bak being replaced by another government that the Chinese and North Koreans don’t like. So keeping North Korea’s finger off the trigger long enough to get a more so-called ‘progressive’ government in South Korea would certainly be desirable from China’s point of view.”

Ultimately, all the panelists believe that change is bound to come to North Korea sometime – the question is when and how.

Burghardt said it doesn’t look to him like Kim Jong-Un’s succession “is really a sustainable plan.” There is much more outside communication getting into North Korea than when Kim Jong-Il took power in 1994, he said, “and a lot more North Koreans are aware of how bad their situation is. … But the bad news is that there is no civil society at all [to support change.]”

“I would not underestimate the value of fear,” Cossa said, “but I have a hard time believing the North Korean state will survive as long as Kim Jong-Un’s lifetime. I believe it will dissolve and be absorbed into the South, but nobody knows how or when that will occur.”

###

The EAST-WEST CENTER promotes better relations and understanding among the people and nations of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific through cooperative study, research, and dialogue. Established by the U.S. Congress in 1960, the Center serves as a resource for information and analysis on critical issues of common concern, bringing people together to exchange views, build expertise, and develop policy options.