|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 22nd, 2010 We feel that if the data here is accurate, Arab business is rather looking for new talent in the new world. We believe that most young recruits to businesses in North Africa and the Middle East are returning young talent and that this positions well these business companies for the changing global atmosphere. It is rather that then looking to hire on the cheap. The business slow down has just helped refresh the human capital of MENA (The Middle East – North Africa Arab region). ————— MENA firms hire new graduates to cut costs – pollby Elsa Baxter, Sunday, 22 August 2010. 
GRADUATES: 37.6 percent of people said their employers preferred to hire fresh graduates post recession. (Getty Images)
Almost 40 percent of Middle East and North African (MENA) employees said their company was more interested in hiring new university graduates since the global recession, according to the latest poll by Bayt.com. The survey, which consulted 13,197 respondents from across the region, found that 37.6 percent of people said their employers preferred to hire fresh graduates, while 26.4 percent said they were less inclined to do so. A further 19.2 percent of respondents said things were unchanged. More than half (51.7 percent) of participants said the number one motivation behind the hiring was financial because new graduates command lower salaries and fewer benefits, while 12.7 percent said it was because they would have more passion for the job. A further 10.4 percent it was because new graduates would have more creativity, 8.4 percent said it was due to their fresh analytical thinking, and 5.1 percent cited better communication skills. {our math says this is 37.6% or that one out of 2,9 respondents was honest about the motives. The others belong to the commonly held idea that age makes people wiser while we rather think that today ag makes most people more obsolete} Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 22nd, 2010 The US is pulling out its combat forces from Iraq, but the Sunday TV main topic was THE MOSQUE. As always – the best conversation was on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN/GPS program. His guest were Bret Stephens from The Wall Street Journal and Peter Beinart – Senior Political Writer at the blog The Daily Beast, Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York, and a Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation – till 2006 he was with The New Republic and still lives in Washington DC. Stephens said that the legalities are clear but the issue is if this Mosque at that location advances interface dialogue and the answer is NO! Beinart said you cannot divorce the right for building a Mosque from the right to decide where to build it. What about military bases? Will you next say that because there is sensitivity to Americans killed in wars in Muslim countries you cannot have a Mosque on a military base? Stephens asked – wait – what if the German Government decides to build a tolerance center across the street from a concentration camp – this is much more like the present case. Zakaria said – that is about irrational sensitivity – do you call this bigotry? Stephens answered that the rights are indisputable and Bret said that you cannot ask people in the right not to use the right – this is equal to taking away the right. Zakaria concluded that we talk past each other so the discussion is over. And that is the true state of these matters today. We hope that Zakaria realizes now that his returning a prize to the ADL of the Bnei Brith was – well – premature. Also, as he said that the discussion is really not ended – we suggest he invites next time also Anne Barnard whose article in today’s New York Times he did mention. Anne Barnard is now on the city desk of the paper, but she is not a newcomer to these issues as sh worked in the Middle East – in Israel, Palestine, Iraq and Egypt. She has seen sensitivities from very close – not your regular city desk person. We know Anne for many years – actually since she was a kid – and have met her in different locations as well. We continue here with her material and hope she continues to keep her sights on the developments we expect when Imam Raouf returns from his Middle East tour. ———- Further comments about Beinart. His parents immigrated to the US from South Africa and work in Cambridge where he was born. His mother remarried theater personality Robert Brustein. Beinart is Jewish and belongs to a liberal synagogue in Washington. Peter Beinart has written: “The Icarus Syndrome – A History of American Hubris,” HarperCollins, June 1, 2010, and Beinart was a supporter of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.[7] and in a recent essay, he has argued that the tensions between liberalism and Zionism in the U.S. may tear the two historically-linked concepts apart.[8] After leaving The New Republic, in 2007-2009, Beinart was a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ———- Further comments about Bret Stephens: He was born in 1973 and grew up in Mexico City. Stephens went to the University of Chicago and the London School of Economics.[2] Stephens began his career at the Journal as an op-ed editor in New York and later worked as an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal Europe in Brussels. In 2006 he took over the “Global View” column from George Melloan, who has retired. Between 2002 and 2004 Stephens was editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, a position he assumed at age 28 – the youngest person ever to hold that position. He is the winner of the 2008 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism. ——— Fareed Zakaria promised that on his program this emotional discussion will be rational – what he did not say was that he is in effect pitting against each other two well qualified Jews. We do not believe that THE MOSQUE – that is that particular Mosque – is only an issue for Jews. We indeed believe that his next panel will pull in other “suffering souls” as well. ————————————————– Feisal Abdul Rauf’s Balancing Act in Mosque Furor – NYTimes.comThe full article by our friend Anne Barnard, as above, but as published front page The New York Times had the title: It includes The Imam’s history and his father’s history – both of them highly interesting people. While the father was an employee of the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and eventually led to the construction of the New York Islamic Center cum Mosque at the corner of East 96th Street and 3rd Avenue in Manhattan, Feisal became the Imam of the Sufi congregation downtown. Then he attempted also the building of a large Center cum Mosque. Mr. Abdul Rauf’s father, Muhammad, in 1968. He ran the Islamic Center of New York. ————————- Far away from New York, in Bend Oregon (by Western Communications, Inc.) retained the New York Times in print – name of the article – but our friend’s article was reshaped as follows: Complicated balancing act for imam in mosque furor.By Anne Barnard / New York Times News Service Published: August 22. 2010 4:00AM PST Michael Appleton / New York Times News Service
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf inside his mosque, housed in a building near the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan, in November. “We want to push back against the extremists,” the cleric says. Others worry about an anti-Muslim backlash. For years, Feisal Abdul Rauf has encountered distrust as he tries to reconcile Islam with the West. Muslims need to understand and soothe Americans who fear them; they should be conciliatory, not judgmental, toward the West. That was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s message, but not everyone in the Cairo lecture hall last February was buying it. As he talked of reconciliation between America and Middle Eastern Muslims — his voice soft, almost New Agey — some questions were so hostile that he felt the need to declare that he was not an American agent. But one young Egyptian asked: Wasn’t the United States financing the speaking tour that had brought the imam to Cairo because his message conveniently echoed U.S. interests? “I’m not an agent from any government, even if some of you may not believe it,” the imam replied. “I’m not. I’m a peacemaker.” That talk, recorded on video six months ago, was part of what now might be called Abdul Rauf’s prior life, before he became the center of an uproar over his proposal for a Muslim community center two blocks from the World Trade Center site. He watched his father, an Egyptian Muslim scholar, pioneer interfaith dialogue in 1960s New York; led a mystical Sufi mosque in Lower Manhattan; and, after the Sept. 11 attacks, became a spokesman for the notion that being American and Muslim is no contradiction — and that a truly American brand of Islam could modernize and moderate the faith worldwide. In recent weeks, Abdul Rauf has barely been heard from as a national political debate explodes over his dream project, including somewhere in its planned 15 stories near ground zero, a mosque. Opponents have called his project an act of insensitivity, even a monument to terror. In his absence — he is now on another Middle East speaking tour sponsored by the U.S. State Department — a host of allegations have been floated: that he supports terrorism; that his father, who worked at the behest of the Egyptian government, was a militant; that his publicly expressed views mask stealth extremism. Some charges, the available record suggests, are unsupported. Some are simplifications of his ideas. In any case, calling him a jihadist appears even less credible than calling him a U.S. agent. Growing up in America Abdul Rauf, 61, grew up in multiple worlds. He was raised in a conservative religious home but arrived in America as a teenager in the turbulent 1960s; his father came to New York and later Washington to run growing Islamic centers. His parents were taken hostage not once, but twice, by American Muslim splinter groups. He attended Columbia University, where, during the Six-Day War between Israel and Arab states like Egypt, he talked daily with a Jewish classmate, each seeking to understand the other’s perspective. He consistently denounces violence. Some of his views on the interplay between terrorism and American foreign policy — or his search for commonalities between Islamic law and this country’s Constitution — have proved jarring to some American ears, but still place him as pro-American within the Muslim world. He devotes himself to befriending Christians and Jews — so much, some Muslim Americans say, that he has lost touch with their own concerns. “To stereotype him as an extremist is just nuts,” said the Very Rev. James Morton, the longtime dean of the Church of St. John the Divine, in Manhattan, who has known the family for decades. Since 9/11, Abdul Rauf, like almost any Muslim leader with a public profile, has had to navigate the fraught path between those suspicious of Muslims and eager to brand them violent or disloyal and a Muslim constituency that believes itself more than ever in need of forceful leaders. One critique of the imam, said Omid Safi, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, is that he has not been outspoken enough on issues “near and dear to many Muslims,” from Israel policy to treatment of Muslims after 9/11, “because of the need that he has had — whether taken upon himself or thrust upon him — to be the ‘American imam,’ to be the ‘New York imam,’ to be the ‘accommodationist imam.’ “ Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University, said Abdul Rauf’s holistic Sufi practices could make more-orthodox Muslims uncomfortable, and his focus on like-minded interfaith leaders made him underestimate the uproar over his plans. “He hurtles in, to the dead-center eye of the storm simmering around Muslims in America, expecting it to be like at his mosque — we all love each other, we all think happy thoughts,” said Ahmed. “Now he has set up, unwittingly, a symbol of this growing tension between America and Muslims: this mosque that Muslims see as a symbol of Islam under attack and the opponents as an insult to America,” he added. “So this mild-mannered guy is in the eye of a storm for which he’s not suited at all. He’s not a political leader of Muslims, yet he now somehow represents the Muslim community.” Andrew Sinanoglou, who was married by Abdul Rauf last fall, said he was surprised the imam had become a contentious figure. His greatest knack, he said, was making disparate groups comfortable, as at the wedding bringing together Sinanoglou’s family, descended from Greek Christians thrown out of Asia Minor by Muslims, with his wife’s conservative Muslim father. “He’s an excellent schmoozer,” Sinanoglou said of the imam. Many different Islamic influences Abdul Rauf was born in Kuwait. His father, Muhammad Abdul Rauf, was one of many graduates of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the foremost center of mainstream Sunni Muslim learning, whom Egypt sent abroad to staff universities and mosques, a government-approved effort unlikely to have tolerated a militant. He moved his family to England, studying at Cambridge and the University of London; then to Malaysia, where he eventually became the first rector of the International Islamic University of Malaysia. As a boy, Abdul Rauf absorbed his father’s talks with religious scholars from around the world, learning to respect theological debate, said his wife, Daisy Khan. He is also steeped in Malaysian culture, whose ethnic diversity has influenced an Islam different from that of his parents’ homeland. In 1965, he came to New York. His father ran the Islamic Center of New York; the family lived over its small mosque in a brownstone on West 72nd Street, which served mainly Arabs and African-American converts. Like his son, the older imam announced plans for a community center for a growing Muslim population — the mosque eventually built on East 96th Street. It was paid for by Muslim countries and controlled by Muslim U.N. diplomats — at the time a fairly noncontroversial proposition. Like his son, he joined interfaith groups, invited by James of St. John the Divine. Hostage crisis Unlike his son, he was conservative in gender relations; he asked his wife to not drive. But in 1977, he was heading the Islamic Center in Washington when they were taken hostage by a Muslim faction; it was his wife who challenged the gunmen on their lack of knowledge of Islam. “My husband didn’t open his mouth, but I really gave it to them,” she told The New York Times then. Meanwhile, Abdul Rauf studied physics at Columbia. In his 20s, Abdul Rauf dabbled in teaching and real estate, married an American-born woman and had three children. Studying Islam and searching for his place in it, he was asked to lead a Sufi mosque, Masjid al-Farah. It was one of few with a female prayer leader, where women and men sit together at some rituals and some women do not cover their hair. And it was 12 blocks from the World Trade Center. Divorced, he met his second wife, Khan, when she came to the mosque looking for a gentler Islam than the politicized version she rejected after Iran’s revolution. Theirs is an equal partnership, whether Abdul Rauf is shopping and cooking a hearty soup, she said, or running organizations that promote an American-influenced Islam. A similar idea comes up in the Cairo video. Abdul Rauf, with Khan, unveiled as usual, beside him, tells a questioner not to worry so much about one issue of the moment — Switzerland’s ban on minarets — saying Islam has always adapted to and been influenced by places it spreads to. “Why not have a mosque that looks Swiss?” he joked. “Make a mosque that looks like Swiss cheese. Make a mosque that looks like a Rolex.” In the 1990s, the couple became fixtures of the interfaith scene, even taking a cruise to Spain and Morocco with prominent rabbis and pastors. Abdul Rauf also founded the Shariah Index Project — an effort to formally rate which governments best follow Islamic law. Critics see in it support for Taliban-style Shariah or imposing Islamic law in America. Shariah, though, like Jewish law, has a spectrum of interpretations. The ratings, Kahn said, measure how well states uphold Shariah’s core principles like rights to life, dignity and education, not Taliban strong points. The imam has written that some Western states unwittingly apply Shariah better than self-styled Islamic states that kill wantonly, stone women and deny education — to him, violations of Shariah. After 9/11, Abdul Rauf was all over the airwaves denouncing terrorism, urging Muslims to confront its presence among them, and saying that killing civilians violated Islam. He wrote a book, “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America,” asserting the congruence of American democracy and Islam. That ample public record — interviews, writings, sermons — is now being examined by opponents of the downtown center. Those opponents repeat often that Abdul Rauf, in one radio interview, refused to describe the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings against Israel, Hamas, as terrorist. In the lengthy interview, Abdul Rauf clumsily tries to say that people around the globe define terrorism differently and labeling any group would sap his ability to build bridges. He also says: “Targeting civilians is wrong. It is a sin in our religion,” and, “I am a supporter of the state of Israel.” “If I were an imam today I would be saying, ‘What am I supposed to do?’” said John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. “‘Can an imam be critical of any aspect of U.S. foreign policy? Can I weigh in on things that others could weigh in on?’ Or is someone going to say, ‘He’s got to be a radical!’” ——————————————————————– Could it be that the solution leads to a true CORDOBA HOUSE OF CULTURE AND INTER-RELIGIOUS UNDERSTANDING with all Cordoba three religions having footholds at the center – not a Mosque. In this case what if Rabbi Marc Schneier who started together with the East 96 Street Islamic Center’s Imams his good-will exchanges gets a foothold and offices there? The Battery Park Holocaust Museum could be linked, and the Archbishop of the Trinity Church of the neighborhood as well – that is with offices in the building. This would call for a joint board and joint ownership in the name of good intentions. It would be considered a step towards healing within the possible of the memory of 9/11/o1 within reach of the 10th memorial of the event. Clearly – this does not answer the call for a larger Mosque, neither will this be a place with Synagogue and church – we know that the institutions must be separate. If separation is preferred, then a gesture of exchange of real estate for a different location would be appreciated. —————————————————————— President Obama also went on TV today – breaking his vacation because of the media attacks on him branding him a Muslim. Obama blamed this crazzy media culture when the main issue is the pulling out from Iraq but the focus is on “THE MOSQUE” – is this just an August diversion? By whom? Michel Martin (an Emmy Award winning American journalist and correspondent for ABC News and National Public Radio. After ten years in print journalism, Martin has for the last 15 years become best known for her news broadcasting on national topics.), asks whom are we talking about as media? It is just the Conservative Pundits that keep on drumming? Or is there by now a symbiotic relationship between the right wing bloggers and the main-stream media? It does not make sense to pretend that there is not a concern with Islam. We heard on TV that Glen Beck said Lincoln Day has no meaning for him – so he calls for a rally at the mall on that day. Aha I said – if that is so – why do you expect more consideration from adherents of Islam – Americans or otherwise? Are Americans so dam by now that they cannot see that insensitivity breeds more insensitivity? Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 21st, 2010 It is easy to sum up the situation in regard to Muslims being believed that they intend to lead a healing attempt while creating a furor that can only result in a new heating up of deep sentiments. If the intent was by some to build a Mosque at the place of victory over the infidel, but the Muslim majority was – or was not – part of that intent – is now irrelevant. The way out can be by moving the new Islamic Center to some place – “in eye contact” – across the water – Brooklyn, Staten Island, New Jersey – and dedicate it as originally stated to a CORDOBA HOUSE – rather then the limping Park 51 Project. We want also to point at the clearly sluggish pace of donations to Pakistan as another outcome from this last stand taken by Muslims in America – and the threat hanging over America’s head that 100 million young Pakistani Muslims, helped by extremists at their moment of physical constraints, rather then by their own government, nor by the Western cultures, as nothing less then the evolution of Bin Laden because of his fight against the America propped up Saudi regime. The reality is that internal disagreements in the Islamic world are being projected against US Administrations that support out of convenience the existing regimes in these Islamic countries, and the extremists stood up in efforts to oppose their own leaders, and only secondly, took upon themselves to fight the protectors of the hated regimes. The US people are not supposed to understand all of that when faced with a 9/11 and are not to be stepped upon even in a case where the superficial right as well as the deep meaning of American Democracy is on their side. Clever Arab States will try – like the Obama Administration is trying – to build bridges rather then burrowing in the trenches of the small print. Go ahead and show magnanimity. By the way, could little Kuwait that offered $5 million to Pakistan, without ever having been involved in the dismantling of that country, or the UAE at $1.5 million, tell the much larger Saudi Arabia, that shipped its own Jihadists to Pakistan being part of the internal fracas there, that according to UN listings offered now peanuts to Pakistan – could they do some more when compared with the US offer of $150 million. Actually – just remember those two planes of Bin Laden family being shipped out from a US under air embargo by the Bush family, those days immediately following 9/11. There are very good reasons for Americans to be mad and for Arabs to take the low road that we suggest can be in this case the real high road. ——————— From all that sea of articles in the press of today – I pick the following as it is the easiest – it is from aol: NATION by Hugh Collins, Contributor to aol News. NEW YORK (Aug. 20) — The proposed Islamic center near ground zero is facing stiff opposition from a group that will be vital if the plan is to be realized: the New York City building industry. Construction worker Andy Sullivan has set up a “Hard Hat Pledge” on his website, calling on construction workers to vow not to do work on the Park51 community center and mosque, the New York Daily News said. Diane Bondareff, MCT Sullivan is not alone. Several New York construction workers interviewed by AOL News declared their opposition to the project. “It doesn’t make any sense to be there,” said Eduard Nika, a marble worker. “The mentality these people have, it’s not anything to do with religion.” The planned mosque and community center two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 people has spiraled from a local zoning issue into a national political debate. Public figures such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have blasted the plan, saying it is an insult to the families of the victims. The Anti-Defamation League, whose mission statement says it exists to fight “all forms of bigotry,” has said the center should be built at another location. Others, such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Barack Obama, have said that while they understand the strong resentment the project arouses, any effort to block the Islamic center would infringe on American values of freedom. Handyman Frank Rivera, who said three of his relatives were in the World Trade Center at the time of the attack but survived, believes the project would be bad for New York City and an insult to the families of victims. “It shouldn’t be there. It’s a slap in the face,” Rivera said. Like Nika, he said he would sooner quit his job than work on the project. But not everyone is opposed to the Islamic center. Mike Bakovic, who works in interior construction and painting, said he’d work on the project — even if he didn’t get paid. “Muslim people have the freedom or religion, same as everyone else, the Jew, the Catholic, everyone else,” Bakovic said. “Islam is peaceable, like every other religion. “ Louis Coletti, president of the Building Trades Employers Association, told the Daily News that labor unions had not taken a “formal position” on the plan. Still, he said it was ” a very difficult dilemma for the contractors and organized labor force.” Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 20th, 2010 Aid only trickles to Pakistan’s monsoon disaster.By Reza Sayah, CNN
August 18, 2010 Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) — Pakistan is reeling from a natural disaster affecting 20 million people but relief groups say donors have been painfully slow in helping. When a magnitude 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti in January, donors responded with $13 billion in aid. Within 24 hours Hollywood mega-stars like George Clooney, Madonna, Tom Cruise and Beyonce had signed up for a telethon to raise money for Haiti’s quake victims. By contrast nearly three weeks after flood waters inundated one-fifth of Pakistan, the United Nations has collected roughly half of the $460 million it has called for to meet the immediate needs of 20 million flood victims. This week Oscar winner and U.N. goodwill ambassador Angelina Jolie made a high-profile plea to ask the international community to give more aid to Pakistan.
 Pakistan’s flood-affected areas
  Pakistan flood: Before and after RELATED TOPICS
“Hopefully there are a lot of people ready to give money,” Jolie told British television network ITN. Aid workers and analysts say there are several possibilities why governments, individual donors and celebrities are not giving to Pakistan the way they’ve done with other disasters. None, they add, is a good excuse. The relatively low death toll — roughly 1,500 killed — may have created the impression that Pakistan’s floods are not as severe as the Haiti quake and the Indian Ocean Tsunami where tens of thousands were instantly killed. U.N. officials say the death toll in Pakistan’s floods belies the desperate and often life-threatening conditions of the 20 million victims. Many of them have lost their homes, their belongings and their sources of income. Analysts say governments may also be suffering from “donor fatigue” with Pakistan. For years now Pakistan has been on a seemingly constant round of donor needs — money to revive its feeble economy, fight the Taliban, recover from the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, the 2009 refugee crisis and now these floods. “A donor never gets fatigued,” Islamabad-based political analyst Mosharraf Zaidi told CNN. “A donor, just as an idea, is not about ‘I’m fresh so I’ll give.’ You don’t give because you’re fresh. You give because of humanity.” There’s also the perception that Pakistan is run by corrupt politicians and the aid won’t get to those who need it. This week Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani insisted all aid would be transparent. Aid professionals say if you don’t trust the Pakistani government, then give to an international aid group you do trust. “There are so many ways people can give that doesn’t have to be rooted in the government if that was a concern,” said OXFAM’s country director in Pakistan, Neva Khan. Aid groups and analysts say the worst excuse not to give is the perception among many in the west that Pakistan is just not a good place, a country full of militants. It’s an image reinforced by the media’s obsession with extremism in Pakistan, says Mosharraf Zaidi. “I think that coverage is fundamentally one of great reasons why it’s been hard for people to reach into their wallet.” The cooling global economy may also have governments and individuals reluctant to give but analysts say the consequences of not giving to Pakistan could be costly. In the short run people will go hungry, suffer from disease, and lose their fight to survive. In the long run a nation that’s critical in the fight against extremism may face a political crisis that could further destabilize the region. ———————— Except for Kuwait and the UAE – the Islamic States are not on the donor list – Why? Is this not Ramadan time – if nothing else? Seemingly, it is all coming from the US, UK, EU, Japan, Australia, Denmark, Switzerland. We find China at less the $2 million – and we learned that Pakistan refused $5 million from India. At the pledging we learned that Georgia is contributing $1oo,ooo and there are small amounts from around the world. All of the above seems strange but clear to us. It is the US that fights to keep Pakistan in one piece as it did in Iraq. Can Pakistan hold when the real enemy is climate change? Permalink |
| ### |
Video: Photographer focuses on Pakistan flood
Video: Aid trickles into flood ravaged Pakistan|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 27th, 2010 www.arabianbusiness.com suggests that modern advanced thinking about energy might someday find its way to the oil countries – that is when they run out of gas, but we wonder why they needed the regional grid anyway and why they do not think of the sun and the wind in their energy planning. ———————- Gulf power grid to meet demand for extra 55,000MWSaturday, 26 June 2010. 
POWER DEMAND: The first phase of the grid, which was launched during the second half of 2009, has already been completed. (Getty Images)
The regional electricity network currently servicing the four GCC countries of Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, will play a key role in meeting demand for an additional 55,000 MW of power through 2015, according to a report on Friday. The first phase of the grid, which was launched during the second half of 2009, has already been completed, Oman Daily Observer said. The UAE could be added to the network within 2010, it added.  “The transnational system might still not be enough to keep pace with the Gulf’s rapidly growing power consumption. Although ongoing regional capacity is at around 75,000 MW, a projected 9.5 percent growth in annual demand will require more electricity and energy projects,” the Oman Daily Observer report noted. GCC Power 2010, the 8th Regional Conference for National Committees of CIGRE (the International Council on Large Electric Systems) in the Arab Countries to be held from October 18 to 20, 2010 in Doha, Qatar, will reveal business and partnership opportunities driven by the region’s huge power demand, it said. George Ayache, General Manager, IFP Qatar, organiser of GCC Power 2010 said, “GCC Power 2010 is the only event capable of providing a comprehensive view of the latest developments in electricity and energy affecting the Gulf region.” The event will combine panel and technical sessions with international exhibitions to offer a full range of information and options to industry and government decision makers. The event will also share valuable insights on Qatar’s thriving energy business, which has emerged as one of the country’s primary growth sectors, George Ayache said. The GCC Power 2010 Conference will discuss development, technologies and techniques in system operation and control, system planning, development and technical studies, substations, power transformers and reactors, switchgear and hv equipment, transmission lines and cables, hvdc and power electronics, and emerging technologies, according to the Oman Daily Observer. Last year’s edition gathered around 500 international delegates to discuss more than 50 papers on electricity and energy. GCC Power 2010 is owned by CIGRE, the GCC regional committee for large electricity systems, it added. ————————– READERS’ COMMENTSDisclaimer: The views expressed here by our readers are not necessarily shared by ArabianBusiness.com or its employees. —- —- —- Waste to Energy There are other options for creating power as well. My own company are trying to establish an excellent ‘waste to energy’ facility in the UAE and other Gulf States. Such a facility can produce power by converting all kinds of waste into usable energy and with almost zero emissions and no harmful waste product at all. In fact, any waste by product is all usable in either the steel industry of the building industry. This is a truly green project and we hope to win support for this very soon. – — – Energy is saved is equal to energy produced. One important thing that I noticed during my 3 months in stay in Dubai is the misuse of electricity. Almost all the buildings there are power hungry, especially the malls,exhibition halls,flats etc… The excessive height, over usage of glass,lack of ceiling fans in some flats,some types of light fittings, etc… are some reasons for the huge conception of electricity. It is already been to late to enter the green electricity concept like solar power at least to some areas like public parks,traffic lights,etc.. Nuclear power is also a option if it is built and operated safely. Let us not forget nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and the after effects of a accident. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 17th, 2010 http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowP…
| Privacy Policy | Site Map | Home | Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 15th, 2010 The six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreed in 2001 to create a shared currency to help them integrate economies and pursue a monetary policy more independently of the US. All of the council’s members except Kuwait peg their currencies to the dollar. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar on December 15 announced the creation of a Monetary Council, a step toward establishing a shared currency. The board of the council, which will set a timetable for establishing a joint central bank and choose a currency regime, will meet for the first time on March 30. Oman opted out in 2007. The UAE, the second-biggest Arab economy, withdrew from the currency project in May 2009 after the Saudi capital, Riyadh was selected as the location for the Monetary Council, the future central bank. The UAE has no plans to rejoin the union project, said January 6, 2010 central bank Governor Sultan bin Nasser al-Suwaidi.Today, in Abu Dhabi, he said that the UAE remains committed to the concept of a single currency, though free trade in the region must come first. That is the reason for a Bloomberg new report on the topic.
“For the time being of course we are out because the remaining members of the Gulf monetary union, they want to go at a very high speed and they want to go for a single currency regardless of the status of completion of the common market,” al-Suwaidi said. “If we establish a common currency before a common market then a common currency won’t help us, it will not create for us new growth engines,” al-Suwaidi said. “You need to fix the borders, entry and exit through the borders, you need to fix company laws to implement similar company laws, commercial laws, labor laws.” Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed Sabah al-Salem al- Sabah said on December 8, 2010 that a single currency may take 10 years to establish. The original target was this year. The regime of the future currency will be decided by the Monetary Council, which will set a “road-map” for the project, Mohammed al-Mazrooei, assistant secretary general for economic affairs at the GCC, said on January 14, 2010. The Gulf states must work to maintain the political will for the union, agree on the design for the new currency and establish measures to protect it from counterfeiting, al-Mazrooei said. The chairman of the future central bank also needs to be chosen, he said. We post this because it seems to us that the States of the Arab Peninsula seem reluctant to learn from the experience of the EU, that you cannot come up with an effective common policy if you are not ready to cede of your sovereignty to the common market. Also, you do not succeed if you try to set the seat of the new body in the capital of the largest economy of the group you try to unite. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 15th, 2010 Reuters from Berlin, where President Mubarak, 81 years of age, had a gallbladder operation, reports that his health is improving. The problem is that 30 years in office and having made sure there is no number 2 to him, the fact that he went for an operation plunged the Egyptian economic benchmark by 2.4%. We posted the information about Japanese and Kuwait funds made available to the stagnant economy of Egypt, for purpose of green, and perhaps nuclear energy. With this new information we wonder about the meaning of that that previous posting. Is investment in Egypt these days indeed a safe idea or do the foreign banks believe that Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the IAEA, will be the winner in the upcoming elections in Egypt? ———————- Egypt To Secure $430 Mln Loan For Wind Farm: Agency by Alexander Dziadosz, Reuters from Egypt.
The loan, inked this week, will be used to build a wind farm in Gebel el Zeit on the Gulf of Suez, the report said. Officials say Egypt’s combined oil and gas reserves will last it roughly three decades, pushing it to develop alternative energy sources, including nuclear and solar. Last week Egypt said it would receive a $100 million loan from the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development to fund a 1,300 megawatt power plant in the Red Sea coastal town of Ain Sokhna, east of Cairo. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 6th, 2009 Exclusive report by Robert Fisk for The Independent of London. In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading By Robert Fisk
Iran announced late last month that its foreign currency reserves would henceforth be held in euros rather than dollars. China Threatens Dollar In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar. Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars. The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 22nd, 2009 It’s hard to create a democracy: From The Economist print edition – Kuwait’s mould-breaking election. Via Roberto Savio’s IPS “Other News,” May 21st 2009 – Cairo- A recent general election in Kuwait may not make the government more effective. THE economy of Kuwait is exceedingly well oiled. With just 3.4m residents, only a third of them indigenous citizens, the emirate sits on a claimed 8% of the world’s petroleum reserves. Yet for all this wealth, Kuwait’s political system remains creaky and crash-prone. Rather than inspiring the Persian Gulf’s more authoritarian monarchies to reform, its 46-year-old experiment with limited democracy has often seemed a model to be avoided. Just since 2006, batterings from the 50-member parliament, which has tended lately to be dominated by Islamists and conservative tribal leaders, have sent five successive governments tumbling like ninepins. Growing frustration with this game prompted a lower turnout in a general election on May 16th, but the results have raised hopes of change for the better. Overall, 21 incumbents lost their seats, among them several prominent Sunni Islamists. Parties are officially outlawed in Kuwait, meaning that candidates run as independents. But the affiliations of many are widely known, making some trends clear. Representation of the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, has shrunk from three seats to one in the incoming parliament; an arch-traditionalist Salafist Islamist group has dipped from five to two. At the same time, the number of Shia MPs has risen from five to nine, closer to the minority sect’s 20%-plus share of the population. Four women, all with doctorates from American universities, and only two of whom cover their hair as a sign of piety, won seats, and by convincing margins. Masouma Mubarak, a dean at Kuwait University, who had faced stiff Islamist opposition when holding ministerial rank in three cabinets, easily outpolled all rival candidates in her district. This is a first for the Gulf monarchies-bar a woman in the nearby kingdom of Bahrain who stood unopposed in a tiny constituency; a female has also been elected to the United Arab Emirates’ federal council, but the voters are themselves handpicked by the authorities. With the emir having again reappointed Sheikh Nasser, and with the returning parliament sure to include some of his loudest critics, the stage looks set for a resumption of clashes. Ordinary Kuwaitis are wary not only of further dithering over such things as a planned bail-out package for financial institutions hit by the global recession and an oft-delayed mega-project to develop new oilfields. Rumours also hint at tensions in the Sabah family, with princely rivals to Sheikh Nasser said to be quietly egging on his parliamentary foes. Given their huge stockpile of national savings from the oil boom years, plus plenty of continued income despite the drop in oil prices, Kuwaitis can probably afford to go on bickering anyway. Some incoming MPs, including Ms Mubarak, promise to push for procedural reforms to make the parliament’s relations with the cabinet less confrontational. And still, for all its hiccups, Kuwait’s hybrid system of government looks downright racy next to the crusty paternalism of the states nearby. Saudi Arabia’s rulers, for instance, have just scorned another of the numerous petitions from their people demanding democratising reforms, showing disdain by abruptly postponing the only elections the country runs, to half the seats on town councils that do not do much anyway. In the kingdom, Ms Mubarak would not only be denied the right to vote or run for public office. She could not drive to such an office in her own car, or even sit in it if that might mean mingling with the opposite sex. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 28th, 2009 WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2009 MIDEAST: A Tale of Two Summits. Analysis by Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani for IPS. CAIRO, Jan 27, 2009 – Despite declarations of Arab unity at a recent economic summit, Egyptian commentators say that fundamental differences between rival Arab camps – especially over the issue of Palestine – are far from over. “The deep divisions currently plaguing the Arab world cannot be solved over the course of an official state luncheon,” Mohamed Abu Al-Hadid, political analyst and chairman of the board of the state-owned Dar Al-Tahrir publishing house wrote in official daily Al-Gomhouriya Thursday (Jan. 22). Regional heavyweights Egypt and Saudi Arabia, however, declined to attend. Instead, they announced their intention to discuss the crisis at a scheduled Arab economic summit in Kuwait three days later. The move highlighted the longstanding divide among AL members, which pits Washington’s “moderate” Arab allies – including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan – against those opposed to U.S. policy in the region.
Abbas recognises Israel and insists on holding U.S.-sponsored negotiations with Israeli counterparts, despite the abject failure of talks to realise even modest Palestinian demands. By contrast, Hamas – democratically elected in 2006 – rejects Israel’s legitimacy, cleaving instead to a strategy of armed resistance. Israel’s 2006 war on southern Lebanon fostered similar divisions, with Washington’s Arab allies supporting the U.S.-backed Beirut government against Lebanese resistance faction Hizbullah. Israel’s recent war on the Gaza Strip – which lasted from Dec. 27 to Jan. 17 and resulted in more than 1,300 Palestinian deaths – aggravated the longstanding rift. According to Nabil Abdel Fattah, assistant director at the semi-official Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, the decision by Egypt and Saudi Arabia to avoid Doha reflected “conflicts over how to deal with the crisis” then playing out in Gaza. “Qatar wanted to take a very tough stand against Israel,” Abdel Fattah told IPS. “The moderate states, meanwhile, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, wanted to adopt a more nuanced approach in hope of persuading Israel to halt hostilities.” In the absence of leading “moderate” representatives, the Doha meeting took a relatively strong stand against the Israeli aggression in Gaza, with both Qatar and Mauritania announcing the suspension of official relations with Israel. In a joint declaration, participants urged Arab countries to cut all ties and break off all peace talks with Israel, which they charged with committing war crimes. The statement also demanded that Israel “cease its assault on Gaza and leave unconditionally,” and called for the immediate reopening of the embattled enclave’s borders. Speaking at the meeting, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad described the 2002 Arab peace initiative – which offers full Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for key Palestinian demands – as “dead”. He went on to say that Syria had called off indirect talks with Israel, launched last year through Turkish mediators.
“Qatar has tried to take a leading role in the region, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia see this as an infringement on their own diplomatic roles,” he said. “Egypt also fears that Qatar might be acting as a mask for Iranian and Syrian influence.” On the summit’s first day, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdelaziz hosted a formal luncheon for the leaders of Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Qatar. At the conclusion of the closed-door event, attendees announced they had turned a “new page” of Arab reconciliation, declaring an end of traditional rivalries, particularly those between Egypt and Qatar and between Syria and Saudi Arabia. “We turned a new page for the good of the Arab world,” Qatari PM Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem told satellite news channel Al-Jazeera shortly afterwards. The following day, Arab leaders announced the establishment of a sizable financial trust for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, along with a number of other joint economic projects. In a final statement, longstanding political differences between participants were downplayed or avoided. Most local commentators, meanwhile, doubted the sincerity of the abrupt expressions of unity heard at the conference. “These declarations don’t amount to real reconciliation,” said Abdel Fattah. “The same old divisions remain – over Israel, the role of the Palestinian resistance and the role of non-Arab neighbours in the region.” According to Abdelhalim Kandil, editor-in-chief of independent weekly Sout Al-Umma, the issue of Arab division is largely illusory, “since both camps appear to be on the U.S.-Israeli doorstep, albeit to differing degrees.” “All these regimes are fully aware that there is no difference between Israel and the U.S.,” Kandil wrote Jan. 19. “Yet despite the massacres taking place in Gaza, none of them ever considered cutting relations with Washington or expelling the U.S. military presence from their respective countries.” He added: “This, of course, is because the U.S. is in the region expressly to protect these regimes.” Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 14th, 2008 A UN Diplomatic solution? You put the fighting cocks into the same room but you do not! Interesting -King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia can say that he did not brake any rules the Kingdom established years ago when they decided not to be in the presence of an Israeli. See, the gentleman in the room was PEREZ and this is not the Israeli President whose name is PERES. And What Was The Real Reason For This Hooplah? Was this so that Retiring President Bush comes one more time to the UN? —————- SPEECH BY HE MR GORDON BROWN, UK PRIME MINISTER FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, TO THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY PLENARY MEETING ON “A CULTURE OF PEACE”, 13 NOVEMBER 2008 Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen – I am delighted that so many leaders who have served the world with such distinction and whom I admire for their statesmanship have assembled from every faith and every continent for this very special Conference on the Culture of Peace and the Power of Dialogue. And I am grateful that this Conference is being held under the auspices of the United Nations and in this great Hall where so many declarations and decisions that have changed history have been pronounced. But if we believe that our future peace and security lies together rather than apart, lies in understanding not isolation, lies in the differences that we acknowledge and enrich us, not the differences that divide us, then we must speak to people’s values and speak to their beliefs. More than two-thirds of our fellow citizens are followers of the major faiths, so we can be in no doubt about the power of faith to shape our world. And while it is not for politicians to lead that bringing together of faiths, that can ultimately only be done by the leaders of faith communities themselves, we cannot successfully lead nations without it. History tells us that the greatest of social movements have been built on the strongest of ethical foundations. Two hundred years ago was it not men and women of faith and religious conviction who successfully campaigned for the abolition of the slave trade? They said that we could not be one world until slavery was ended. Fifty years ago was it not men and women of conscience and religious faith who inspired the civil rights movement here in this country by saying that we could not be one world until every single citizen, whatever their colour, their race or background, enjoyed equal rights? And is it not men and women of conscience and religious conviction who say today, as we said here at this General Assembly only a few weeks ago, that we cannot be one world when 30,000 children die unnecessarily every day from diseases we know how to cure and that we must together respond to this poverty emergency by redoubling our efforts to meet the Millennium Development Goals? This is the power of faith to forge the greatest possible coalition for the common good, not one which seeks to impose uniformity of doctrine or culture, but one that is enriched by diversity, united by shared values, empowered by a common commitment to make our world a better place. Now too often throughout history, people have seen the foreigner as at best a stranger and sometimes at worse an enemy and too often cultures and faiths appear to change at national borders as dramatically as fashion and language. But today we know we are not and never can be moral strangers to each other because we find that through each of our heritages, our traditions and faiths, runs a single powerful moral sense – a sense that we all share the pain of others, a sense that we believe in something bigger than ourselves. When Christians say, “do to others what you would have them do to you”. When Judaism says, “love your neighbour as yourself”. When Muslims say, “no one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself”. When Buddhists say, “hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful”. When Sikhs say, “treat others as you would be treated yourself”. When Hindus say, “the sum of duty is do not unto others which would cause pain if done to you”. Now call this the best angels of our nature, call it the light in man, call it the moral sense, call it as Adam Smith the philosopher did, the moral sentiment. Call it conscience of fostering compassion, call it the global ethic, the irrevocable unconditional norm for all areas of life, for families, communities, for races, nations and religions that most of us accept that what you do not wish done to yourself you do not do to others. It’s the same sacred ideal at the ethical heart of all true religions, our duty to others, our concern for the outsider, the sense that each of us is our brother and sister’s keeper. And so to those who say that religion, and especially that the misunderstanding and intolerance that has often existed between religions, is responsible for many of the problems we face today, I say we will address these problems if we act upon that moral sense that is shared at the heart of all the great faiths of the world. Now we have a unique opportunity in this new global age in what is an inter-dependent world, to act upon that inter-dependence and make a partnership by working together for the common good. And what is new in this global age is our enhanced ability to communicate with each other, to speak to each other across continents. It wasn’t so long ago that we used to say, “if only people could communicate across borders. If only people could hear what their opponents have to say. If only they could speak with each other and find that they have so much in common, then the world would be different. But today most of these barriers, these old barriers to communication are being removed. We can now communicate with each other across frontiers. Almost instantaneously, through the internet, through texting and through e-mailing, there are hundreds of thousands of social networks crossing the world, there are millions of people who may not inhabit the same street, but now inhabit the same internet and site. And it is in the encounter of listening, at being listened to, that we discover that the beliefs we have in common are so much greater than what has in the past driven us apart. We discover what Britain’s Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs calls the dignity of difference. People, he said, all made in the divine image who find that they are possessed of a dignity and sanctity that transcends our differences. And we must act upon our interdependence. Recently in Abuja in Nigeria, I visited a run-down and dilapidated school where children either were sitting on the floor without a desk or were sitting three to the desk that had been built for one. And their parents told me that a few miles away, a far better school, a far better equipped school offered free education. But the great facilities and teachers came at a high price because they were funded by an extremist group poisoning the children’s minds and attracting them to a life of terrorism. I believe it falls upon us to ensure the right to a decent education, free of extremism, for every child in the world. And think of it if the achievement of this generation could be that every child was able to go to school to gain an education to recognise what they had in common with other children, and I believe we could do this, coming together by spending ten billion dollars a year, a hundred dollars for each child. But let us agree that the first thing we should do is that we do everything to fight extremism wherever it exists so that people understand the central tenants of their faiths and the rich association that these faiths enjoy with each other. And we in Britain will continue to step up our campaign, working with other countries, to separate decent-minded young people from the pressures of divisive and extremist advocates of terrorism. Secondly, the values of different faiths are already expressed in joint projects and common service. We in Britain have Muslim aid, collaborating with the United Methodist Committee in America, to respond to the needs of disaster victims in Asia. British Muslims working with American Christians to support Asian neighbours of all faith traditions gives us a glimpse of the potential of faith across our world. And as we celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so we should also see shared values through a shared commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. And I have one other proposal about how shared values can bring us together. 40 years ago the United States created the Peace School for young people from America to help the world. And around the world many countries, including Britain, have their own Voluntary Service Overseas Organisations. But in this new global age, should we not celebrate the shared moral sense that is common to all cultures, all religions and all faiths, by bringing young people together in a global corps, perhaps a global environmental corps and a global community service corps and a global peace corps, a global medical aid corps, bringing young people of all nationalities and faiths together with each other in a global effort that will show the strength that comes when the world’s young people acting together? And let me say thirdly, that we should repeat the importance that everyone who has spoken here attaches to peace in the Middle East, the creation of a Palestinian state side by side with an Israeli state that has its security guaranteed. And we in Britain with other countries will continue to work for that objective that I believe can be achieved by goodwill in the Middle East. Now at this unique point in our history, when the world is facing the first financial crisis and the first resources’ crisis of the new global age, so that ability to come together and build shared solutions is never, has never been more important. And let me send out the strongest message that the road to economic ruin in the past has been following the path of protectionism. The way forward is not countries working in isolation from or against each other, but countries cooperating together. And I believe that as world leaders gathered in Washington this weekend, we must and we will see enhanced cooperation by Governments to deal with economic problems that are now hitting every continent in the world. But I also believe that what matters is a clear statement that is coming from this Conference in New York, that far more than the cooperation of Governments, the cooperation of peoples, whatever their faith, in each continent of the world, will determine whether we can build a truly global society. I believe that through our continuing dialogue, we can come to recognise our common ground, the common ground on which we stand, whatever our faith traditions, a common commitment to peace, to freedom, to prosperity, to tolerance and respect. And if we can mobilise a global movement around these shared goals, then the achievements can be momentous. We can become the first generation to abolish illiteracy and give every child the chance of education together. We can become the first generation to solve the climate change together. We can become the first generation, and we need to be that, to eradicate tuberculosis, polio, diphtheria, malaria and HIV/AIDS from the face of the earth. We can become the first generation to consign extreme poverty to the history books for all time. We can become the first generation to do so by demonstrating by our actions what this Conference has been all about today, that the greatest of social changes are built from the strongest of ethical foundations. Thank you very much. Hazel Foster (Miss) Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 3rd, 2008 His Excellency Manouchehr Mottaki, Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 2005, has come now for the third time to The Asia Society during the September – October period of the UN General Assembly In New York City. Last year I had the opportunity to ask him about about Climate Change and why Iran, with its great scientists, and people involved at the UN level, does not embark in a leadership position in the area of renewable energy rather then striving for nuclear energy incurring only indignities. Others asked him about Iran’s stand on Israel. This year – none of the above. One question from the floor asked about Israel – but was answered in the general line of the presentation – without the question been tackled at all. The Moderator was illustrious US Career Ambassador Frank G. Wisner, who served as impeccable host, presenting lots of compliments to his guest and making sure he is very comfortable. Further, The Asia Society simply managed to put the press away in a back room, and without the Q & A period reaching out to them – that is except the literally last question which asked about the possibility for regional negotiations in the crucial Middle East problem. And the answer to that question was then submerged under the previous line of presentation that exposed beautifully the way Iran wants to be seen. No mention was made of the name Israel also in this answer by the Minister. The reality is that many in Iran like actually some of the cocoons created via the 1980 revolution that came as a reaction to some real injustices its people incurred from the hand of the US CIA when it undid the Mohammad Mosaddeq April 28, 1951 – August 19, 1953 regime for its nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and reinstated the Shah who returned on 22 August 1953, from the brief self-imposed exile in Rome. Also, some in the US Administration feared that Mossadeq was, or would become, dependent on the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party, at a time of returning Soviet influence, and too close for comfort to have the cold War Tectonic Plates reach towards the Saudi and Iraqi oilfields. The extent of the US role in Mossadeq’s overthrow was not formally acknowledged for many years, although the Eisenhower administration was quite vocal in its opposition to the policies of the ousted Iranian Prime Minister. In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes angrily about Mossadeq, and describes him as impractical and naive, though he stops short of admitting any overt involvement in the coup. Eventually the CIA’s role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. CIA supporters maintain that the plot against Mosaddeq was strategically necessary, and praise the efficiency of agents in carrying out the plan. Critics say the scheme was paranoid and colonial, as well as immoral. In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mosaddeq was ousted: “The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.” In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on alleged CIA documents. For his sudden rise in popularity inside and outside of Iran, and for his defiance of the British, Mosaddeq was named as Time Magazine’s 1951 Man of the Year. Other notables considered for the title that year included Dean Acheson, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur. In early 2004, the Egyptian government changed a street name in Cairo from Pahlavi to Mosaddeq, to facilitate closer relations with Iran. Now, these last few paragraphs, obviously, do not come from the monologue of Minister Mottaki, but I thought to bring this up because otherwise the show at the Asia Society cannot be understood, and the Ministers personality grasped. *** The literally last question mentioned above, that came from the back-room filled with people from media was added when the announced “last question” that came from a lady sitting at the front-right table, clearly laudatory asked, “for those of us interested in the understanding of the history of the Middle East, when did Iran invade last one of its neighbors?” The clear short answer was – “not in our lifetime.” *** Had be given to me the opportunity to ask a question – what I had in mind was something like this: “In light of what your excellency has said in regard to regional solutions for regional problems, and in light of justifiable aspirations by Iran to become an Asian powerhouse, what is your reaction to the Bahrain proposal at this year’s High-Level Meeting of the UN General Assembly, when Bahrain suggested the creation of a new UN organization comprising ALL STATES OF THE REGION – that wasinterpreted as meaning a Middle East organization that includes Israel?” This is exactly the most wanting direct question that was not put before our guest. *** From The Speakers Profile and The Internet: Manouchehr Mottaki was born May 12, 1953 in Bandar Gaz, in the northern Iranian Province of Golestan, and went to school there. Bandar-Gaz, during the Reza Shah Pahlavi rule, was an important city in the north with a national railroad and “several infrastructures.” It was considered a transit bridge to the Soviet Union. After graduation, he joined the army and as per national plan joined the public education program by which was conducted by the government. He went to Khorasan province and established a school in a poor village around Mashhad, and taught there. After his service in the army, since he was interested in social and political issues, he decided to travel abroad both for experience and study. At that time India was a popular academic destination for young Iranians. So he traveled and studied for a few years in India, before the revolution in Iran. He holds a bachelor’s degree in social sciences from Bangalore University in India (1976). Mottaki also holds a master’s degree (MA) in international relations from the University of Tehran (1996). After the 1980 revolution, he was elected by the people of his home town and the neighboring cities as the first parliament representative and assigned by the other representatives as the head of the national security and foreign policy committee due to his politic and diplomatic talents. During his years in Majlis (Congress) and effective collaboration with the foreign ministry, he was employed then by the ministry after parliament. Or, he made thus his career within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during 24 years of continuous presence in different positions through the Majlis (Parliament).. He served thus as member of parliament in the first Majlis, head of seventh political bureau of Foreign Ministry (1984), Iran’s ambassador to Turkey (1985), Foreign Ministry’s secretary general for Western European affairs (1989), Deputy Foreign Minister – first for international affairs (1989) and then for legal, consular and parliamentary affairs (1992). Iran’s ambassador to Japan (1994), Advisor to foreign minister (1999), Deputy head of Culture and Islamic Communications Organization (2001) Chief of the Foreign Relations Committee of the 7th Majlis National Security and Foreign Relations Commission (2004). During the 2005 presidential election, he was the campaign manager of Ali Larijani, the right-conservative candidate. President Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad, in 2005, appointed him to the position of Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2005.
Mottaki quotations: “Referring the case to the Security Council would be a lose-lose game, and we would prefer that this game does not happen. We see a win-win situation, that is where the EU and international community have confidence and the Islamic Republic of Iran reaches its legitimate right.” “The Islamic Republic pays great cost to control and prevent transfer of narcotics to West. “We do not accept global nuclear ‘apartheid’ and scientific ‘apartheid’. “All voluntary measures taken over the past two-and-a-half or three years have been halted and we have no further commitment to the additional protocol and other voluntary commitments.” “We should try to cool down the situation. We do not support any violence.” “Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned.” “The time for using language of threats is over, it’s time for negotiation. We express our readiness for negotiations based on justice and a comprehensive compromise. We want to peacefully solve the problem. “Nuclear weapons are not in Iran’s defense doctrine.” “The issue is quite simple. We would like to enjoy our membership as well as the other members of the [Nuclear] Nonproliferation Treaty. The country has followed the rules and regulations of the [International Atomic Energy Agency] and wants to keep its rights.” *** The Foreign Minister’s Introductory Presentation Before The Asia Society, Thursday, October 2, 2008: Mottaki started by saying that since our last meeting here (2007), we had three events: (1) The enjoyable visit of members of this Society in Tehran – he hopes this is a start for more such exchanges. This as a better way for mutual understanding – Scholars, Tourists, Students in such exchanges create the possibility to have more realistic picture of each other.
(2) LEBANON: A solution of more then 30 months of crisis was achieved after being initiated by different parties. Foreign Minister Mottaki wants to talk about how it was achieved – because the process is as important as the results. It was a regional-based solution for the Lebanon crisis. The decision was that it has to be a solution based on votes by a 50+ plurality of all groups in the country – all groups in the country come to the table and a consensus is built – that was the tone of the Lebanon Policy agreement. On the second day of the negotiations in Doha, at 2:30 AM, the feeling was that it all collapsed the negotiations were locked. Amr Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League said go ahead, but others opposed. Mottaki was in contact with Doha and Beirut and at 9 AM they took up the issue again, and it was settled after a day of negotiations by 9 PM. One learned that use of force should expect a reaction from the other side. Then also that territorial integrity is an integral part of any solution. These lessons apply whenever you have conflict – this clearly also in the Georgia – Russia case.
(3) GEORGIA: The areas are already affected by crisis – energy, transportation, security. The crisis started by use of force based on wrong information and miscalculation. The latter by not expecting reaction. The second point is territorial integrity. Its the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia now, before it was Kosovo, Does it result from the same policies? If so, are there other areas where action led to reaction? If Yes – What are these? On the second day of the Georgia case there was an agreement signed with Poland. If this signing of the agreement with Poland has become another step, should we look for reaction in Syria? in Venezuela? What is NATO going to do? Iran is a neighbor of Azerbaijan and Armenia – so there is a regional concern and Iran has to take part in the initiatives – parallel with Europe. So he went to the region and to Berlin. Is NATO moving to accept Georgia as a member? The interesting question is then the borders. ***
Now it was the turn for Ambassador Frank G. Wisner to take his position as moderator and conversation partner. He has retired from the US Foreign Service in 1997 with the highest rank – that of a Career Ambassador, but continued to be involved in special positions like the Special US envoy for the Kosovo Final Status (December 2005 – March 2008). Now he is in the private sector. In his career postings he was Ambassador to India, the Philippines, Egypt, Zambia… among other appointments, he was also Under Secretary of Defence for Policy. He started by saying that Iran is a great nation that commands and deserves respect – yet for many of us it is difficult to see how Iran chooses to challenge the international community. How do you square your requirement for respect with a confrontation attitude he then asked the Minister. Mottaki, who made his introductory presentation in English, but now used a translator for the conversation part of the event, started to smile. His answer was: A very nice gathering and behavior – my response – What we see is selective dealing and approach – and double standards. Back in the 80s we extensively talked up issues. I suggest how the first Iraq war was dealt with and the second war – the war of Saddam against Kuwait. In all these the underlying issue is the occupation of foreign lands. {I assume he means the Iraq war against Iran as the first war and the war of Iraq on Kuwait as the second war} Back then the heated discussion was having a cease-fire not a settlement. So the first step is a cease-fire, another first step is withdrawal. We wanted to have the an “a” inserted so that it is clear that a withdrawal comes after the cease-fire. See, using “oil-for-food” money – even now a percentage goes to Kuwait, this while for 4 years we were engaged in lengthy negotiations that were ordered by the UN. Two Assistant Secretary-Generals that dealt with this are present here – they remember those negotiations. Sometimes just to keep things going we had to put proposals on the table. We felt these were in Iraq’s favor and Iraq asked – what do you pay us to accept? On the nuclear issue – at the end of the day – it is officials of one country … But Islamic and Sharia teachings say that atomic bombs have no place in our defense.we also contend that nuclear weapons are nomore effective. Also military powr has lost effectiveness. I outlined new agreements for the IAEA last year. 1,5 years ago, in Madrid, we said to the Agency we will give the right answers to the IAEA questions. Then the US turned over questions to the IAEA and they posed them to us. The agency said they have other questions and we started answering them one by one. For each set of questions they sent us a written letter that they accepted the answer as adequate. What expectations should Iran have? We expect the 5+1 to thank us for these efforts to answer all questions. We expected that at the September meeting to be told by the Agency that they put aside all questions, but they provided a second US set of contentions. They were supposed to bring up questions in one set of timetable. These questions went beyond the timetable. but we accepted. These questions, like the previous are baseless, we will not agre to the US directed routes. I believe if we continue the negotiations we will reach a point of agreement that will lead to action.
{All the above sounded to me like a reprise of the 1001 Nights stories – this time from Tehran. I wonder how many people in the room accepted these, though, as I remarked at the beginning of this article, I am probably one of the most inclined to allow some slack to the Iranians because of past US behavior – but this story contained really too much rope. It did not inspire safety at all.}
Now Ambassador Wisner had one more short question he said. The elections in the US. “Do you see from Iran’s point of view an opportunity for dialogue? What will be the modalities for negotiation? A. A US President will have to reach out including the Middle East. If there are changes in the White House we will intently consider them. We take note of comments made by previous Presidents, who are not in power anymore, also candidates not yet elected. Comments made, promises given by them cannot yet be seriously considered. We have to wait and see. As for an interest section, there is only stories in news media.
*** Q&A from the floor: Answer On Israel of sorts: Iran US relations are dependent on a number of issues. Unilateral Vs. Policies in the Middle East have complicated the situation. NO MENTION OF ISRAEL IN THE ANSWER.
Answer on Nuclear In The Middle East: Atomic weapons cannot provide security. We all heard that the US had enough to destroy Russia. It helped in the balance of fear. Six years have passed from the day your troops have entered Iraq – they have not succeeded. Why could not atomic weapons help in Afghanistan and Iraq? This year the 13th anniversary since the Islamic revolution in Iran. if I were to list our grievances against the US it will be a long long list. Had we a nuclear bomb, could that have changed your actions in Iraq? In tandem with development on hardware side, the software side. The US is not lacking in modern weapons, also in its economic might (except for the present problems). No serious changes will occur in the US. The problem is – insufficient reasoning to convince the international public opinion.
Answer to the last question on the Middle East: We go about our business about our nuclear problems. We provided the answers. if a person is asleep- how hard you knock, it will not help. The US cannot accept Iran’s peaceful proposals because once they accept they will not be able to stay in this position. US intelligence agencies announced that Iran does not work on nuclear bomb, but the uS did not accept. I know of five different reports. I think it is high time for them to accept this. The 15 years they were against my country. What is wrong about changing policies – and see what was wrong for their country?
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 7th, 2008 From: liasieghart at hotmail.com
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 19th, 2008 The title of the following article by Roula Khalaf, written for the Financial Times, is: “WHY ARAB STATES MUST EMBRACE IRAQ.” King Abdullah of jordan, the most West-oriented ruler of an Arab State, has broken the ice by going to Baghdad. OK – he did this because of the revealed great financial reserves of the new Iraqi State – and Jordan, as a non-Petroleum Arab State, needs money. But as Roula Khalaf says – there was more to it then simple monetary calculations. With the US disengagement from Iraq in the cards – do the Arab want to see the country move completely to Iran’s sphere of influence? It is clear now that the US will not continue to do the deterrent work for them. Roula Khalaf is an excellent Arab journalist that we met once at a WWF event in Amman, Jordan. She is now the Middle East Editor for the Financial Times, and, as we picked up on the internet, she announced the launch of the the UK newspaper’s ME edition. Khalaf states that twice a week the paper will publish dedicated regional news. http://www.zawya.com/radio/default.cfm/sidDE080428061709359685
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 29th, 2008 WTO Talks Collapse: Was There Ever a Future for Bananas? This latest round of trade talks was launched in the Qatar capital in November 2001, but has long been stalemated over issues of farm subsidies called for by the U.S., Japan and the EU, as well as tariffs on industrial goods imposed by the developing economies of Latin America and Asia. Proposed changes included EU and U.S. farm subsidy reductions of up to 80 percent. The compromise was that developing countries would open their markets to imports of manufactured goods, removing so-called “import shields.” In the deal last weekend, Latin American banana producers and EU officials appeared to begin the process of putting to rest a quarter-century banana “war.” Many Latin American banana exporters had contended for years that the EU routinely gave preferential treatment to their former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), and had kept import tariffs artificially high on the fruit that originates on mainland Latin America. The complaint was originally filed by the U.S. because three of the largest banana producers in Latin America are U.S. multinational corporations. COHA repeatedly has argued in the past that U.S. banana companies, and not Latin American economies, are likely to benefit from the removal of the tariffs (see “Banana Wars Continue – Chiquita Once Again Tries to Work Its Omnipotent Will, Now Under New Management: Likely Big Losers Will Be CARICOM’s Windward Islands”). In addition to this contention, many view the present Doha round as an inappropriate forum for banana talk to occur in the first place, as any new arrangement could anger some of the ACP nations and thus would endanger the future of the round. Nonetheless, it is important for the banana conflict to be resolved so that Latin America, as well as U.S. corporations and English-speaking Caribbean exporters (who in most cases depend upon such exports for their economic survival), can see the benefits from the sale of their largest cash crop. Throughout the negotiations, it can be said that the U.S. was less than sensitive to the importance of a favorable outcome to such islands as Dominica, Grenada, and St. Lucia- a matter of sheer survival.
It now should be clearer than ever as to why WTO talks have been at a stand still for so many years. It is not an enigma why it has been so difficult to achieve consensus with a myriad of players in the field with a lot to gain, but even more to lose. Lucrative deals for some nations can be devastating to others: WTO negotiations certainly have not proven to be a win-win game. This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associates Revaz Ardesher and Jessica Wayne ———————- WTO Talks Collapse Amidst Developing Countries’ Reluctance to Sacrifice Food Security. Opinion from – The Center for Economic and Policy Research. {The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people’s lives. CEPR’s Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, professor of economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, professor and director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University. } Indian women farm laborers plant rice. India and other developing nations are reluctant to sacrifice food security measures during World Trade Organization negotiations. Last-minute attempt to push through a WTO expansion “deal” fails.
www.SustainabiliTank.info does not accept that this was just about bananas – we just posted the case of the airline industry that would have come under the services end of the World Trade Agreement. A WTO was supposed to balance global trade so that everyone has to get something out of this, but when those that have neither the money, nor the fuel, have to do something to benefit interests that are placed in position to hurt them even more – so better put up barriers to harming trade. For some this means close in your agriculture, but we just pointed at some that would be better off if they closed in their airtransport -this just as an example. So let us be blunt here – the US would be completely in its right now to put an extra “oil-cost-tax” on the National airlines of the oil-states. With an end to the running-around-Doha exercize there is no reason why the US should not do this to help its airlines. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 29th, 2008 Today’s News are full with the woes of private airlines. “Fuel Prices hurt Ryanair and Shares Tumble 25%;” “Airport Lounges are the latest casualty of the current crisis in the airline industry;” “Delta will charge for the second suitcase;” but Emirates is introducing showers to its first class passengers. The point is that Emirates and other government owned oil-state airlines benefit from clear subsidy of their fuel costs thus undermining air-transport competition. DOHA happens to be in such a State and DOHA is the keyword for ongoing trade negotiations that include also services – and air transport is these days a main service. We know that when you are dependent on the power that has the cash, and also happens to have the fuel that your country is addicted to – you may not have the stomach for true negotiations. The DOHA round, supposedly is stuck on agriculture – but what about transport – be it air transport loke in the case of “Emirates” or maritime transport like in the case of Norway – will the negotiators on world trade step up now to an honest witness stand? That is the Question in our present posting. As Most Airlines Struggle, Middle East Carriers Are Expanding. HAMBURG — As carriers from American Airlines to Thai Airway International respond to high oil prices by shedding jobs, culling routes and grounding aircraft, Middle Eastern carriers are expanding as fast as they can in hopes of redefining their region as the aviation crossroads of the globe. Emirates, which in 2000 became the first customer to sign a firm commitment to buy A380s, has since increased its order more than eightfold to 58 planes. At Monday’s ceremonial delivery, Sheik Ahmed signed a letter of intent for an additional 60 Airbus jets with a total price tag of $13.3 billion: 30 wide-bodied A330 planes and 30 of the A350s that are still under development. The Middle East is pouring $54 billion into airport expansion over the next decade, according to the International Air Transport Association, and airlines in the region have ordered 700 planes at a cost of $140 billion over the last three years. “The size of our order mirrors the rising prominence of the Middle East and its increasing emergence as a new focal point of global aviation,” said James Hogan, the chief executive of Etihad, an airline based in the region that ordered 100 aircraft in July, including 10 Airbus A380s. The big Emirates order for the superjumbos — which would be able to compete with low-cost carriers if configured for 750 passengers in economy class — might sound like a recipe for overcapacity. But so far, airlines in the gulf have done well in matching demand, which grew 11 percent in the first five months of this year, with capacity that rose 11.1 percent, according to the transport association. Furthermore, the gulf airlines are mining fast-growing routes. Passenger traffic between the Middle East and Africa rose 19.8 percent in the five months to June this year, and 14 percent between the Middle East and Far East, though from a low base, the association said. That compares with average growth of 4.5 percent for all international routes. The Middle Eastern carriers are also running a tight ship. During the five months to May, the load factor, or percentage of available seats sold, on the region’s airlines was 74.6, according to association figures, in line with a “high” global average of 75.2. The level means that Middle Eastern airlines are flying as full as their rivals and suggests that they are not emptying their competitors’ planes. But over the longer run, aviation experts said, airlines like Emirates, which compete on price for the mass market and on service for business travelers, should make some inroads against competitors. The A380 that Sheik Ahmed received Monday represents a crucial element of a business strategy that makes the Middle Eastern airlines “a competitive threat to any European-based carrier,” according to Daniel Solon, an independent aviation consultant based in Barcelona. The technological advances of the A380 mean that it can fly more passengers farther and for less money than their competitors. In eight capitals on the Indian subcontinent, Emirates already offers travelers to the United States a chance to change planes in Dubai as an alternative to congested European airports. “The capability of airlines has changed the reach of the gulf region,” said Chris Tarry, an analyst at Ctaira, a British aviation consulting firm. “If you’ve got planes that can fly farther, you change the structure of the market.” Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 27th, 2008 Fareed Zakaria, on his GPS, the new bright star of CNN TV, had two guests from Europe on his program on Sunday, July 27, 2008 – the writers Bernard Henry Levy, known in France simply as BHL, and Josef Joffe, the editor of Die Zeit. GHL said flatly, were Obama to run for President of the EU he would get at least 85% of the vote. The Europeans see in him the joint embodiment of the two best figures in recent American history – MLK and JFK – and propelled by a very reasonable mix of realism and idealism. Bringing his impressions to a closer set of images – he sees in Obama someone who has the potential of leading from a mix of the Neocons with Kissinger. Joe Joffe thought that this week showed Obama as a canvas on which the Europeans projected what they want for America – that is how they want to see it. He also said that McCain, known to the Europeans, has vanished nevertheless from the media in Europe, as he thinks happened also in the US. “He has lost the battle of storytelling’ – he said. GHL added that in France “we would not elect a President from a minority – so we dream of America.” —————–
OBAMA’S SECRET RESCUE MISSION By GINGER ADAMS OTIS, New York Post, July 27, 2008 Barack Obama carried out a secret assignment during his global tour last week. Obama detailed the plight of Colleen Bargouthi, 36. She says that for the last year, her four daughters have been held in the Palestinian territories, made to wear headdresses and schooled in Islam by their Muslim father, Yasser Shibli. ————————— OPINION in The New York Times, Sunday July 27, 2008. Frank Rich writes about how Barack Obama has become “acting president,” and raises questions about John McCain’s “fitness to be president.” It almost seems like a gag worthy of “Borat”: A smooth-talking rookie senator with an exotic name passes himself off as the incumbent American president to credulous foreigners. But to dismiss Barack Obama’s magical mystery tour through old Europe and two war zones as a media-made fairy tale would be to underestimate the ingenious politics of the moment. History was on the march well before Mr. Obama boarded his plane, and his trip was perfectly timed to reap the whirlwind. ————————- OPINION In The New York Times, Friday July 25, 2008. Bush’s Puppets. { or Quo Vadis Stephen Johnson? Did You Forget Your Federal Oath To Have a Non-Partisan EPA? }
According to Bill Becker of the Presidential Climate Action Project, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has neglected his federal oath to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of his office by repeatedly allowing the Bush White House to manipulate environmental decisions and undermine action necessary to address climate change. (Photo: Getty Images)
* Bill Becker is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, an initiative to help the next President of the United States take decisive action on global warming and energy security in his or her first 100 days in office. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 21st, 2008 Obama Arrives in Baghdad to Discuss Iraq Strategy. By Sudarsan Raghavan and Debbi Wilgoren, Washington Post Foreign Service. BAGHDAD, July 21 — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama arrived in Iraq Monday morning to discuss U.S.-Iraq strategy and American troop levels, issues that have become a cornerstone of debate in the U.S. presidential campaign. But after meeting for nearly an hour with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other top U.S. and Iraqi officials, Obama declined to say what they had talked about. “We had a very constructive discussion,” the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic nominee said before ducking back into a heavily guarded Chevrolet Suburban to head to his next meeting, with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. “I’ll be providing details later during my visit.” Obama is traveling as part of a congressional delegation that includes Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), both critics of the war. But in many ways — from the red carpet rolled out for the group at Maliki’s residence to his seat of honor next to Maliki during a brief photo opportunity — he is being treated like a visiting head of state. The delegation began its trip with two days in Afghanistan, then flew to Kuwait, where the three senators met with Kuwait’s emir, Sabah Ahmed al-Sabah, and other senior officials, according to the official Kuwait News Agency. In Iraq, they will meet with top U.S. and Iraqi officials and military commanders, including Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 28th, 2008 It was an amazing C-Span session, this Saturday, June 28, 2008 – but it was recorded actually seemingly already on March 17, 2008. The Middle East Institute, Washington DC, is was founded in 1946 by George Camp Keiser and former Secretary of State Christian Herter and since then “has been an important conduit of information between Middle Eastern nations and American policymakers, organizations and the public.” Their website goes on to note that they “publish quarterly one of the most prestigious journals on the Middle East, The Middle East Journal. The PRESIDENT’S CIRCLE is made up of Chevron Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Raytheon, Saudi Aramco, and Shell. Ambassador Wendy J. Chamberlin is currently MEI’s President and she chaired the meeting with Mr. Screuer. She is a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan – in effect she is the lady that was charged by President Bush to ask General Musharaf if he is with the US or against it – then she was blamed for the outcome. She also seems not to be thankful to the Administration for how she was treated. Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA employee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sch… In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka “Alec Station”), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counter-terrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004. Scheuer is now known to be the anonymous author of both Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and the earlier anonymous work, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America. Osama bin Laden stated in his September 7, 2007 message: “If you want to understand what’s going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer.” Scheuer’s latest book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq was released on February 12, 2008. In the 9/11 Commission Report, Scheuer is featured in Chapter 4, where his name is given only as “Mike”. He is portrayed as being occasionally frustrated with his superiors’ failure to aggressively target bin Laden. He seems to be on the right and unhappy for the fact how the US and his geographical area of experteze was dealt with. The Jamestown Foundation is a Conservative think tank claiming to report about events and nations strategically important to the United States. www.jamestown.org We went to the length to understand this source because we were quite astonished with what we heard on C-Span as follows: In the Sunni world the Al-Qaeda liberation is in fashion, and in their eyes we are on the right side of history. Bin Laden is extremely talented and he has identified issues in US politics. In the US – no politician will come out and say that we are supporting dictators in the Arab World because we needed the oil. So he knows our weakness and knows we serve his cause that is the cause of Arab liberation. As an example, Scheuer brings up how the extraordinary problem that we pushed Obama to go on TV and say – I will never be a Muslim. Scheuer says flatly – “I would better be inclined to kill Bin Laden then talk to him.” Scheuer advocates a US disengagement from the Middle East, and says “if it was not for the oil, why should we care what they do when we leave?”… “Iran is in effect more of a participatory democracy then any of our allies in the Middle East.” Scheuer’s main point is that if we did not care for their oil we really have no reason to care about them, and the US Republic has no business in spreading democracy. The US is in business to do what is good for its people – fighting for oil, and being dependent on oil, is not good for the American people. We pay with blood for this dependence. The Administration could have saved as a lot of problems in the last years with one bullet to Saddam’s head. “EXTRICATE OURSELVES FROM THE MIDDLE EAST AND PUT OUR RESOURCES IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY” he said. Scheuer wants the Restoration of our ability to decide when to fight and when not to fight. In that case we would not invest ourselves in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. So, let us say bravo Michael Scheuer – we always thought that real conservatives will want to see US independence of oil. And here is very important to note that Scheuer does not send us to drill in the Arctic or in the off-shore waters. The realist he is he knows that all that talk is hog-wash. He kept repeating INVEST IN ALTERNATIVES TO OIL. he never said just Middle East oil because he knows oil is fungible and as long as we remain dependent on oil we will remain dependent on Middle East oil. Further, mind please that he said this at an institute that is frequented by the oil industry – that in Washington is part of the overpowering oil lobby. Ambassador Chamberlin was obviously compelled to note that any idea expressed at the meeting is personal and not institutional. But then let us note that the Jamestown Foundation has also political power when it comes to US Presidential preferences. We know where Obama stands on the issue, but what will McCains final stand be on the issue? If he does not express clear – No Oil – Thank You – ideas, these Conservatives might find former Congressman Barr much more to the point. So, was this the thank you note from Ralph Nader to the 2008 elections? This Nader spells Barr. Permalink |
| ### |
