|
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. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 14th, 2010 With a Skiing Centre near the Grand Mosque of Makkah, like the skiing facility in Dubai, take a guess what Osama Bin Laden’s reaction could be to such displays of opulence. New Makkah mall set to include skiing centre. A new shopping mall will be built in Makkah by the end of 2011 and will include its own skiing facility similar to Ski Dubai at Mall of the Emirates, it was reported on Sunday. Khalid Al-Harbi, CEO of Aqari Investment Holding which will market the new mall, told the paper that efforts would be made to bring in as many international stores as possible. He added that the third floor would be a food court featuring well-known brands as Al-Baik, Al-Tazaj and McDonald’s. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010 from: HRW Press <hrwpress@hrw.org> Sawsan Salim was sentenced on charges of making “spurious complaints” against government officials and for “appearing … without a male guardian” in court. The verdict reflects the discriminatory system of male guardianship in Saudi Arabia, in which women are prohibited from many acts without the presence of a male guardian. “In Saudi Arabia, being a woman going about her legitimate business without a man’s protection is apparently a crime,” said Nadya Khalife, women’s rights researcher for the Middle East at Human Rights Watch. “The government needs to free Sawsan Salim and keep its promise to end this discriminatory system.” In June 2009, during a review of the country’s human rights record, Saudi Arabia accepted a recommendation by the United Nations Human Rights Council to abolish the legal guardianship system. However, the government has taken no steps to carry out its promise. Under the system, those designated as “male guardians” conduct business on behalf of their female charges regardless of whether the female is an adult or a minor. Women who wish to travel, seek certain types of medical care, work, and conduct everyday business, for example, must still obtain the consent of their male guardians – who could be a husband, father, brother, or even a son who is a minor. The case stems from 2004 when a court in Rass, in Saudi Arabia’s northern Qasim region, jailed Salim’s husband, Salih al-Thawwab, in January for failing to pay debts arising from a disputed inheritance. International human rights law prohibits the imprisonment of persons solely for their failure to fulfill contractual obligations, such as paying debts. The Rass court later released al-Thawwab after he claimed bankruptcy. While her husband was in prison in 2004, Salim sought the help of a local judge, Habib Abdullah al-Asqa of the Buraida court, to gain her husband’s release. In a letter Salim addressed to King Abdullah bin Abd al-‘Aziz Al Sa’ud, she said that al-Asqa told her: “I’m better than [your husband]. He has nothing,” and offered to divorce her from al-Thawwab. Salim also said that after al-Thawwab’s release, al-Asqa told her “I will give [your husband] three months to pay his debt and if he doesn’t, I will return him to jail because you refused my offer to divorce him.” Salim’s lawyer, Mikhlif Dahham al-Shammari, said that al-Asqa continued to harass her and to give her a difficult time with her business affairs. She complained in writing to the interior minister, Prince Nayef bin Abd al-‘Aziz Al Sa’ud, about what she saw as the judge’s inappropriate behavior. Al-Shammari said that Salim was also harassed by other Rass officials. He said that on numerous occasions prior to February 2008, the Rass police manager, Salih Sulaiman al-Khalifa; the Rass passport office manager, Abd al-‘Aziz Abdullah al-Khalifa; and Governor Khalid al-‘Assaf, chided Salim for not being accompanied by a male guardian during her visits to their offices. At the time, she had disagreements with her husband and did not wish for him to act as her guardian. Al-Shammari said the Rass officials disregarded her explanation that as a naturalized Saudi citizen of Sudanese origin, she had no male family members in the kingdom who could act as her guardian. On February 14, 2008, Salim again wrote to Prince Nayef about the way public officials had allegedly mistreated her on the grounds that she addressed them without a male guardian. Sulaiman al-Mahwis, a retired judge at the Rass court, helped her prepare and submit her complaint. In response, on February 25, Salim received a summons to meet with the court investigator, Judge Salman Muhammad al-Nushwan. She went to court, but asked if she could come back the next day because she did not have all of her documents with her. Al-Nushwan refused this request, taking notes. When Salim asked to see what he was writing, al-Nushwan also refused, and when she tried to take the paper, it tore. Al-Nushwan then angrily ordered her to leave the courthouse, Salim said in the letter to King Abdullah. On April 8, 2008, she wrote a letter to King Abdullah bin Abd al-‘Aziz Al Sa’ud, complaining about her encounter with al-Asqa in 2004, her subsequent harassment at the hands of local officials, and her encounter with al-Nushwan. Judges al-Nushwan and al-Asqa then filed a criminal complaint against Salim, accusing her of making 118 spurious complaints during 2007 (1428 hijri, the Islamic calendar) against government officials and of appearing before government offices without a male guardian. They also filed a complaint against the retired judge who “she went to for help in writing these complaints,” according to the charge sheet. The complaint went to the president of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, Salih Muhammad al-Luhaidan. The Supreme Council of the Judiciary appointed two Buraida court judges, al-Asqa and Ibrahim Abdullah, to try the case in the Rass court, despite the fact that al-Asqa was one of the plaintiffs. The trial opened on December 27, 2009. Retired Judge al-Mahwis was listed as a co-defendant. The prosecutor claimed he “incited” against the “shaikhs [judges] of Rass court” because he had been fired as a judge there, although he is listed as a “retired” judge. Al-Mahwis was found guilty of charges of helping to write “spurious complaints” and sentenced to 120 lashes and ten months in prison, al-Shammari said. Al-Sahmmari has written to King Abdullah to seek a pardon for Salim and al-Mahwis. “Seeking justice is a risky business in Saudi Arabia,” said Christoph Wilcke, senior researcher with Human Rights Watch. “Even retired judges can be sentenced to lashes for helping others access the courts.” Saudi Arabia has no penal code that sets out a catalogue of actions deemed criminal and that defines them. Judges have wide discretion to treat any act they deem inappropriate as a crime and to sentence the perpetrator to any punishment they see fit. Human Rights Watch said that the verdict against Salim is based on the discriminatory system of guardianship, the verdict against al-Mahwis is on the basis of his assistance to her, and that both verdicts should be quashed. The sentences of prison time and lashes should be cancelled, and both prisoners should immediately be freed, Human Rights Watch said. Human Rights Watch opposes corporal punishment in all circumstances as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Saudi Arabia, please visit: For more information, please contact: ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 2nd, 2010 The United Arab Emirates, led by Abu Dhabi, is the first member of OPEC to associate itself with the so called Copenhagen Note by a Valentine’s day Association message to the World Community – we are with you – we take responsibility for action. This from Mari Luomi’s blog for the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. From: Jones Andrew <Andrew.Jones@upi-fiia.fi> We are pleased to announce the release of a new publication by the International Politics of Natural Resources and the Environment Research Programme at The Finnish Institute of International Affairs (UPI-FIIA): ** – The EU and the global climate regime: Getting back in the game The Finnish Institute of International Affairs. ** – and the Latest blog: The Opec state that clears its own, greener pat. The Opec state that clears its own, greener path. ResearcherInternational Politics of Natural Resources and the Environment research programme. Published 26.2.2010 The United Arab Emirates, led by its wealthiest emirate Abu Dhabi, is finally taking the steps necessary to align its domestic and international policies in the field of climate change. Who would have thought just three years ago that the UAE would stand out as the only Opec state to associate itself to a controversial climate change accord, have a Climate Change Envoy, dub nuclear as clean energy, and, most importantly, set international climate change mitigation ahead of oil industry interests. ————– The UAE’s association letter, sent to the UN Climate Convention (UNFCCC) on Valentine’s day, was designed to be a clear message to the international community that the UAE is concerned about the negative impacts of climate change and is willing to do its fair share in mitigating climate change. This comes despite the fact that the UNFCCC places no commitments on the country to cut its emissions. The UAE is exempt from emission cuts because, despite its GDP per capita rank placing it in the global top-15, it is classified under the Convention as a developing country. Three issues are highlighted in the letter: What is significant, however, is that no other Opec state has so far associated itself with the Accord. Kuwait has explicitly rejected it. Saudi Arabia, which took part in the group of 25-30 countries that drafted the Copenhagen Accord, informally representing the voice and interests of the OPEC group, has not associated itself so far. Rather, in a submission to the UNFCCC in mid-February, the country states that the Accord ‘has no legal status within the UNFCCC, and thus can’t be used as basis or reference for further negotiations’. If any Opec country should back the document, it is Saudi Arabia, given that it participated in negotiating the text, especially since the issue of the impacts of the so-called response measures (policies and measures taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions) and the need to assist countries vulnerable to them, which is one of the key demands of Saudi Arabia and the OPEC group, is included in the Accord.
Climate Change Directorate: Abu Dhabi’s major English newspaper The National reported today on the setting up of a new Directorate of Energy and Climate Change under the UAE’s Foreign Ministry. To understand the significance of this move, one must take a quick dive into the national context. The reality is of course not so green and rosy. The United Arab Emirates still ranks near bottom in several international rankings of environmental sustainability: world’s largest ecological footprint and high per capita CO2 emissions, to mention just two examples. When it comes to development, economic sustainability still trumps environmental sustainability. However, there are a number of important individuals in Abu Dhabi and elsewhere, who would like to see this change, at least to some extent. As a sign of this, Abu Dhabi announced in January last year a 7% renewables target for 2020. Interestingly, it is Masdar’s CEO, Sultan Al Jaber, who has become the main voice in Abu Dhabi in promoting climate change mitigation during the past couple of years, that will be leading the Directorate with the titles of Assistant Foreign Minister and Special Envoy on Energy and Climate Change, according to The National. With potentially wide implications for the UAE’s international climate policy positioning, the establishment of the Climate Change Directorate is a tour de force from those elite members in Abu Dhabi who have been pushing for the emirate (and with it the federation) to promote development that takes account of environmental sustainability in addition to the usual economic sustainability. These two moves – the association with the Accord and the new Envoy – might mainly have been taken for branding purposes, but what is important is that they will potentially have far-reaching implications for Opec’s negotiating dynamics that have so far been dominated by a very different tone. They are also finally bringing the ambitious national projects of Abu Dhabi and the UAE’s international climate policy closer to each other. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 27th, 2010 http://www.arabianbusiness.com/582471-sa… Saudi Alwaleed reiterates support to Citi’s Pandit —————– What is there to lose for the US had the Saudis bought even a larger stake of Citi? Citi has a long history of working anyway for Saudi interests – directly or via US big oil companies. Our experience taught us that the $4.8 billion financing of the “Gas-to-Gas” New Zealand boondoggle that took good Natural Gas of Motunui and funded its transformation into unneeded synthetic gasoline via methanol – a loss of energy independence for New Zealand that eventually led further to the full give-away of the New Zealand gas resources to Mobil Oil in lieu of paying technology fees before Mobil joined EXXON. Without the backing from Citi – this mess might not have occurred. We did document this at the time and it was brought into the open via a presentation at a Petroleum Science conference in Houston. Why did Washington have to bail out Citi rather then let its shareholder lose some money? Did this serve US interests? If I do not make myself clear, why do you not read Professor Joseph Stiglitz’s article we posted yesterday? —————- Further: Saudi to build $13bn ‘tourist city’ on east coast Those are very logical remarks we found in the UAE posting – why indeed do people want to go to Saudi Arabia and infuriate people there by imposing mores that are strange to them? This is really not so different then selling parts of Citi to the Prince while reassuring him that if the bank flops Washington will bail it out? The real stink is here – not there! ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 20th, 2010 Saudi starts work on first solar water desalination plant. WATER PLANS: Saudi Arabia produces today 18 percent of the world’s desalinated water. Saudi Arabia has started building the first solar-powered water desalination plant, the first step in a three-part program to introduce solar energy into the Kingdom. The programme, launched by the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) aims to help stabilise future power and water supplies inside Saudi Arabia through the creation of solar-powered desalination facilities, it said in a media release on Friday. By building water desalination plants that run on solar energy, the Kingdom can reduce operational costs and in turn, reduce consumer costs, the statement added. Dr Turki bin Saud Bin Mohammad, Vice President for Research Institutes said, “The solar energy program will reduce the cost of producing desalinated water and of generating power for use in the Kingdom, an oil-dependent nation, which has launched a national energy efficiency program.” Saudi Arabia is a prime location to harness solar energy because of its year-round sunshine. The sun in Saudi Arabia emits about 7,000 watts of energy per square meter over an average of 12 hours every day. KACST and IBM have developed a research centre to determine how best to harness and repurpose this solar energy and is preparing to implement this state-of-the-art technology, KACST said. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 16th, 2010 We believe that America was not created by God and that Theocrats have no place among its bureaucrats. America was incorporated by groups of free people – not Peoples – but men and women. We believe that the EU should take the America as intended – as its example; and we believe that the UN will eventually also be replaced by this sort of incorporation that is based on the concept that all people were created with the intention to live as equals. ——————– The New York Society for Ethical Culture Believes in Secular Humanism as the driving Force In The American Constitution. Sunday Meeting, February 21, 2010 “One Nation Under the Constitution: Moral Values through Humanistic Government” Faircloth served for 10 years in the Maine legislature, and was elected to the post of Majority Whip of the Maine House of Representatives by his colleagues. An attorney whose duties include lobbying in Washington on behalf of the Secular Coalition’s 10 member organizations, he will show how injustices in American law based on religion are not a historical artifact but a stark current reality. He argues that all Americans have a moral obligation to address these injustices through rejuvenation of our government’s secular heritage and legal system. Faircloth is a strong advocate of the separation of church and state and has received many awards for his work, including the 2006 Legislator of the Year Award from the Maine People’s Alliance. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 16th, 2010 This website participates in Inter-religious dialogue as a way to mutual understanding by religions that agree beforehand to live in peace with one-another. This includes Imams in the US and wherever else – that are ready to enter this larger tent. The following new leaders in Islam are welcome to the above tent – but as a new breed – not as apologists for the “is” – the problem is not the “Misperception” but the hurt from the effect of on-going actions. The a-priory perception is that Muslims that come to live in the west have done so in order to avoid oppression in their lands of origin – this like all those that moved to the West before them and came from other religious backgrounds. Some came because they were oppressed, others because they did not agree with the oppression – both groups created new harmonies here – that is the melting pot that has to be understood and cherished. We wish all the best to those interviewed in the following article, and those that go to meetings like the one in Doha, Qatar, mentioned in the article. We hope they change the leadership of Islam, the relationship to their women, the material learned in the madrassas, the perception of the infidel, etc. That does not mean a castration of their culture, but the bringing out to the forefront of the postive in their culture that we can easily admire also. The venom is what has to be removed internally before an attempt to claim misperception. Westerners are ready to accept the idea that the venom is not the juice of the pure religion it claims to be the guardian thereoff. ————- NEW YORK, Feb 15 (IPS) – Islamophobia is rising in the West, and sectarian clashes have undermined unity in the Muslim world, but there is hope from “within”, says a group of young Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow (MLTs) working to address these problems. “There is a lot of misinformation out there about our face, and there are many obstacles to getting the right information out,” Asim Rehman, a member of MLT in the United States, told IPS. Rehman is also president of the Muslim Bar Association of New York, a professional grouping of Muslim lawyers, law students, and legal professionals. “When you see a 10-second clip of an angry young Muslim but there is no context to it, it disheartens and saddens me that this particular part of the faith has been given priority,” added member Rusha Majeed. Majeed, also based in New York City, is dedicated to bridging the gap between the wider public and the Muslim community through dialogue, culture, arts, academia and current affairs. Muslims are currently living in a pivotal period of enormous challenge and transformation, they said, and Muslims seeking positive Islamic solutions must directly tackle this situation. The MLT programme brings together diverse young Muslims from around the world who are committed to fostering healthy Muslim identities, and working as agents of change in their communities. In only six years, the network has expanded from 25 countries in Western Europe to about 75 countries all over the world, ranging from Somalia to Iraq to Kosovo, and coming from diverse schools of thought and myriad ethnic, cultural, socio-economic and professional backgrounds. Rehman says the group’s biggest challenge in the U.S. is undoing the negative perception of Islam. The diverse Muslim community here is an asset in this effort, he said, since “Americans see greater potential for intra- and inter-religious harmony in the U.S. than we do in other countries, because of the melting pot model.” MLT’s focus for the Muslim community in the U.S. is on interfaith work, building coalitions with different religious communities, and a balanced portrayal of Islam in the media, which is “crucial and critical and a big challenge to keep the conversation going”, according to Majeed. At the MLT convention in Doha, Qatar, last January, the MLT global network was launched to tackle thorny issues such as violent extremism, competing values, and strained relations with the West. One of the outcomes was that 86 percent of participants said Muslims face a crisis in religious authority. “There are competing voices for that space and traditionally there is the Ulema – the educated class of Muslim legal scholars – where people go to,” Majeed explained. However, many young Muslims don’t know who to turn to if they have questions about Islam, she said, and there is confusion about who is the “right” authority to consult – ranging from the local imam to the popular search engine Google. “I truly feel that if non-Muslims just knew a little bit more about their Muslim neighbours, and if Muslims themselves were to be a little more open to embrace both non-Muslims and the diversity within Islam, we’d all be in a much better place,” Rehman said. There are a lot of unqualified Muslim imams in the world, and others blindly follow them, he added. The MLT programme is the largest of its kind, with 300 young civic-minded Muslim leaders from diverse backgrounds stepping up around the globe as spokespersons, journalists, religious leaders, activists for peace and tolerance, leaders of NGOs, writers and academics. One Dutch MLT works to affect change by playing music. An Italian MLT and a local imam are working to promote interfaith harmony. And an MLT from Pakistan is involved in reform of the madrasah, the schools of Islamic theology and religious law. Although the MLT programme does not have an explicit focus on women, the number of female MLTs is remarkable, since many interpretations of Islam oppose women taking leadership roles. “We aim to keep the group diverse and representative, which includes encouraging women to participate,” said Majeed. Majeed joined the network two years ago, and says it has provided her with the opportunity to meet a fascinating group of people. “The MLT programme has done an amazing job in connecting young Muslim leaders around the world,” agreed Rehman. “These are people I can reach out to in participation. It is very inspiring to see people doing the work that they are doing.” “The MLT network helps building a tremendous confidence for people in their own work. You need a level of pride in order to really make a change for communities,” he concluded. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 15th, 2010 Daniel Levy to PJ Hope this note finds you well. I am writing to share with you a couple of my recent Ha’aretz op-eds. From this weekend, a piece that explores the current debate inside Israel and in particular the disconnect between the urgency expressed by those advocating for the two-state solution and the steps that are being proposed to achieve it. The second Ha’aretz op-ed, from a couple of weeks ago, takes stock of current efforts to re-launch Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and what’s at stake for regional players. Both pieces are pasted below. In addition,there was a recent event that was jointly hosted as the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force with the Brookings Institution’s Wolfensohn Center for Development that featured James Wolfensohn and Strobe Talbott in conversation, followed by a panel that included Congressman Keith Ellison, Amjad Atallah, and myself. — A Retractionist-Retentionist Discourse. In his keynote address at last week’s Herzliya Conference, Ehud Barak summoned up the most dramatic case for changing the status quo: “If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic… If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don’t, it is an apartheid state.” This quote is particularly remarkable for the specific wording chosen by Israel’s defense minister: He (perhaps unintentionally) suggested that the existing situation could already be described as apartheid. Considering the Labor Party’s collapse, one may dismiss its leader’s comments, but Barak’s speech does matter, not because of its author, but because it articulates the core narrative of the centrist-pragmatic trend in Israeli-Jewish politics – from Likud realists like ministers Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan, to Kadima and the remnants of Labor and Meretz. Let’s call it the “retractionist camp” – ready to support a withdrawal from the occupied territories that meets the minimum necessary requirement for the creation of a dignified and viable sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel, and therefore a sustainable two-state solution. If the situation is so dire, then bolder steps are surely called for. There are any number of game-changing options to consider. Maybe it is possible to engage Hamas (as is happening in the ongoing Shalit negotiations), to lift the Gaza siege, and to accept Palestinian unity instead of vetoing it, so as to facilitate an empowered negotiating and implementing address. After all, Israel spoke to the PLO before its charter was amended, and the United States engaged Sunni ex-insurgents in Iraq and is encouraging dialogue with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Alternatively, Israel could encourage internationalization of the conflict, handing the territories over to an international protectorate and international forces, or could embrace Salam Fayyad’s two-year plan for statehood and scale back its Area C presence, or even withdraw to the 1967 lines while negotiating over a way settlers could reside under Palestinian sovereignty. Perhaps a Quartet-driven or imposed plan could be encouraged. Anything but business as usual. Yet most of those in the camp that favors retracting Israel’s occupation – let’s call them “soft retractionists” – eschew such bold positions. Their opponents, the “retentionists,” support retaining all, most or at least enough control of the territories to render impossible a real two-state outcome (indeed, a commitment to retain all of Jerusalem under exclusive Israeli sovereignty is enough to negate a workable two-state option). Again, most retentionists belong in the “soft” category – they are ready to use the language of two states, and support negotiations, economic peace, even a partial easing of the West Bank internal closure. At the heart of both the retractionist and retentionist camps, in their “soft” manifestations, is a basic element of denial. Soft retentionists pretend that ongoing occupation can coexist with preservation of Israel’s democratic character, its security, international acceptance, and a consensus about it in the Jewish world. Making noise about peace and throwing money at public relations will do the trick. Soft retractionists pretend that the occupation can be undone without a fundamental change in approach, and in particular while maintaining existing incentive and disincentive structures (which produced and preserve the current realities). But while the respective “soft” narratives are more pleasant to the ear, and easier to market, both are not only wrong but also increasingly irrelevant to Israel’s future. The real struggle for the country is between what are commonly labeled as the extremes. Hard retentionists know they will have to rewrite the rules of democracy, and plead a special exemption clause for “Jewish democracy” and for the elevation of Jewish-only rights. Palestinians are to be dehumanized, human and civil rights groups and international humanitarian law excoriated and a vocabulary created for laundering and justifying an apartheid reality. Hard retractionists will need to stand up for (long-ridiculed) Jewish values, ethics and morality, for the unloved “other” in society, hold up a mirror to the nations’ warts, and ultimately support international campaigns that distinguish between Israel proper and the occupied territories. Both camps have a vision for the country’s future: the Jewish Republic of Israel – equal parts ethnocracy, theocracy and garrison state on the retentionist side, while for the retractionists, well, something that lives up to the words of Israel’s Declaration of Independence. Retentionist cooperation with racist European Islamophobes and American dispensationalist evangelists (for whom Jews have a particularly unenticing role to play during the anticipated Rapture and Second Coming) is considered legitimate and necessary and is embraced by the mainstream. But when retractionists make common cause with the global civil and human rights community, they are vilified as traitors by the mainstream. The dominant discourse in Israel massively stacks the odds against the hard retractionists. The soft retractionists continue to feed that discourse even though it undermines the very outcome they know is necessary. Their frequent silence, no less than the settlers’ noise, is drowning out Israeli democracy. The hard retentionists are very well represented in the Knesset, while the hard retractionists can barely rely on a tiny and shrinking number of Jewish MKs. It is the human and civil rights community, the New Israel Fund, the demonstrators at Sheikh Jarrah and the few brave public figures who have joined them – including David Grossman, Moshe Halbertal and Ron Pundak – who are now the standard-bearers and source of hope in this decisive phase of the struggle for Israel’s future. *** Failure to Re-launch. Ha’aretz, Jan. 15, 2010 A peculiar if familiar ritual is currently playing itself out in Middle East diplomacy. A concerted push is under way to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, though none of the chief protagonists show any signs of believing they will change anything. We have all been here before, many times over. If this is the case, then why the great hubbub of activity around such a redundant endeavor? The intentions and strategies behind the activity – in Israel, Egypt, the PLO and the United States – are not entirely on public display. So here is a brief guide to deciphering what they might be. On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands that absent the cloak of legitimacy bestowed by participation in an internationally endorsed peace process, all kinds of undesirable scenarios may start to play out. There may be more questions and recriminations abroad surrounding efforts to maintain, let alone entrench, the occupation, and various third-party actors may start to develop their own independent initiatives. There is one caveat: The history of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is not preordained to repeat itself. The immediate future will largely depend on the Obama administration’s approach. For now at least, Netanyahu seems confident that the combination of Obama’s political clock (midterms, then reelection), more pressing American priorities, American timidity and internal Palestinian divisions will shield him from having to make hard political choices. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is a fervent advocate of resuming negotiations, an unpopular position at home and in the region. The Mubarak regime never gave much weight to its popular, democratic mandate, deploying variations on crude Egyptian nationalism as a legitimizing vehicle as and when necessary – most recently in its World Cup altercation with Algeria and the showdown with Hamas over protecting “national sovereignty” on Egypt’s Gaza border. Increasingly, though, Egypt appears to be entering a new phase of regime-succession obsession. For Mubarak, playing the game of peace broker buys him cover against U.S. pressure for political reforms and freedoms, as well as American support in a future leadership transition. His embrace of Netanyahu’s Israel is a necessary part of this, and as a bonus, it buys Mubarak certain security and intelligence protections, which Israel is good at providing. Such is life for a sclerotic regime driven more by familial than national or even political self-interest. Other regional states are watching or even assenting to Egypt’s efforts to pressure the PLO-Fatah leadership to restart talks, without themselves going out on a limb. The more grounded in democracy those states are, the weaker their enthusiasm for the Netanyahu-Mubarak negotiation groundhog day (Exhibit A: democratic Turkey). The PLO-Fatah leadership, so far at least, has cast itself in the role of skeptical party pooper. Its members know the consequences of another meaningless negotiation process for their national – not to mention party-political – cause. Many outsiders have been surprised, and some impressed, by the determination displayed over the last several months by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in refusing unconditionally to resume talks. Yet that same leadership has not offered an alternative strategy to replace negotiations, nor has it reunified the Palestinian national movement. The PLO-Fatah leaders are viewed by all sides as the weakest link, hence the full-court press currently being applied to them. Should they succumb, they will no doubt have to justify such a move by clinging to whatever political fig leaf they are offered, but that will not shield them from what are likely to be harsh domestic political consequences. The main wild card in this equation is the Obama administration. Year One combined early engagement and a strong declarative commitment to Israeli-Palestinian peace with a frustrating lack of new thinking or political daring from the George Mitchell team, while the president was not personally involved and did not take ownership of the issue. The United States may be satisfied with a convenient and showy re-launch of negotiations, followed by the plodding predictability of process over substance. President Obama may, however, take seriously his own admonition that this issue matters to American strategic interests. That would translate into U.S. leadership in shaping a breakthrough, preferably with EU and Quartet support, creating real choices and deploying new incentives and disincentives with the parties, notably Israel. Ultimately, for all the noise and speculation regarding their resumption, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are likely to prove rather inconsequential. Success or failure in achieving de-occupation and two states will depend primarily on the conversation between Obama and Netanyahu, their political calculations, priorities and persistence. And that conversation has barely begun. ================ George Mitchell – THE KANGAROO Uri Avnery 30.1.10 The Kangaroo GEORGE MITCHELL looks like a kangaroo hopping around with an empty pouch. He hops here and he hops there. Hops to Jerusalem and hops to So why does he do it? After all, he could stay at home, raise roses or This compulsive traveling reveals a grain of chutzpah. If he has THE DECLARED aim of Mitchell is to “get the peace process going Decades of experience indicate that negotiations are useless if one of (In an interview with Haaretz published yesterday, Ehud Barak accused THE OTHER day, Obama himself made a rare gesture: the President of the To which I would add: And such chutzpah! Here comes the most powerful leader in the world and says: I was That is chutzpah. That is chutzpah, because a whole year was lost due So, with all due respect, Mr. President, the word “mistake” hardly suffices. The Bible says: “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but It is chutzpah for another reason, too: You say that you have failed Sorry, sorry, but what about your own “coalition”, which does not THE TERRIBLE blow dealt to Obama in the Massachusetts by-election has How did the inspiring campaigner turn into a so-so president, one who The trouble is that these two tasks are very different. Indeed, they The candidate must make speeches, excite the imagination, make The most inspiring candidates often turn out to be disastrous heads of I have the impression that Obama’s numerous speeches are starting to IT IS much too early to announce Obama’s political death. Contrary to A year has passed since he entered the White House. A year wasted to a One of the roads there leads through Jerusalem. Obama must keep his ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 10th, 2010 Robert Borosage urges facing up to reality with China as a rogue nation when it comes to trade:“…the US will have to have an aggressive trade policy to challenge Chinese mercantilism and a smart industrial policy to revive advanced US manufacturing. We know how to do it – to target a key industry with public supported R and D, smart procurement, planning to build supply chains, subsidies for investment here.” OurFuture.org’s Natasa Chart says the US should treat job creation the way China does: “…even though I’m glad the US government isn’t being called out as a global hacker menace, I wish they gave as much of a damn about making sure there was an abundance of good jobs for Americans. The Chinese government is at least trying to keep food on the table. I can respect that.” OurFuture.org’s Dave Johnson begins exploring how we can double exports: “Paul Krugman recently calculated the job loss just from the currency imbalance to be 1.4 million American jobs, but [C. Fred Bergsten's] statement that 1 percent [increase in the US dollar's value] = 150K jobs [lost] indicates the job loss could be much higher than that.” 888888888888888888888888888888888888888 ———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Campaign for America’s Future Date: Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM Subject: Your Progressive Breakfast: Jobs Forecast Calls For Snow
### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 10th, 2010 Israel’s top ten water technology companies that help keep the world liquid. By Karin Kloosterman A serious lack of potable water has forced Israel to create a flourishing water technology industry. ISRAEL21c brings you the country’s top 10 water companies. It makes you think of the famous line from Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, “Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink.” – Israel is bordered by the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea; is home to the freshwater Sea of Galilee and the saltiest sea on earth, the Dead Sea. Rivers and springs run through the country. And yet, despite all this water, Israel has been battling a severe shortage of potable water since its inception in 1948. To survive, policy and government incentives have contributed to the creation of a new and flourishing industry of water technologies. From drip irrigation, to water recycling, reclamation, wastewater reuse and desalination, Israel has become a pioneering force worldwide, nicknamed by some as the ‘Silicon Valley’ of water technologies. As more and more countries around the world face similar water shortages, Israel’s expertise and industry are growing fast. While young companies like Aqwise, which treats wastewater, and Atlantium, which uses ultraviolet to clean water, enhance Israel’s impressive water reputation and are on investors’ hit lists, ISRAEL21c brings you a list of the companies that form the backbone of the country’s water industry – tried, tested and true, these companies are the source of the local water technology industry’s claim to fame and were responsible for a large chunk of the country’s $1.4 billion in exports in 2008. 1. Mekorot Group Mekorot, Israel’s national water company, is responsible for today’s thriving water export market. It is wholly owned by the government and for the past 70 years has managed the country’s environmental and security challenges in the area of water. A powerhouse in desalination, water reclamation, water project engineering, cloud seeding, water safety and water quality, Mekorot supplies 90 percent of Israel’s drinking water and manages about 80% of its water supplies. Its subsidiary EMS Mekorot Projects supplies solutions in water works planning, installation, testing, sewage treatment, desalination, rain enhancement and more. Mekorot’s second subsidiary Mekorot Development and Enterprise offers water solutions in design, feasibility studies, project management, and construction, operation and maintenance of treatment facilities. It recently signed an MOU agreement with a company in California and plans to provide desalination solutions for southern California. 2. Netafim When every drop counts, why not deliver water straight to the roots where the water is needed; nothing more and nothing less? Israeli company Netafim invented drip irrigation – possibly one of the most significant developments in agrotechnology today – when an engineer discovered that an abnormally large tree growing in the desert was fed by a drip in a water pipe. The company is a global leader in drip irrigation, supplying both low and high tech solutions in developed and developing nations. The company is also looking to new sustainable solutions to help to grow biofuel crops more efficiently. 3. Arad Group If you live in the US or Canada, there’s a good chance that your water meter was made by Arad Group. The kibbutz-owned company specializes in the design, development and manufacture of precision water meters for domestic use, waterworks, irrigation and water management companies around the world. The company just purchased a Spanish water meter company for about $10 million, and it recently developed a new drone plane aims to pinpoint water leaks on the ground from up in the sky. 4. IDE Technologies IDE is the company that makes Israel a world leader in desalination technology, having built some 400 desalination plants around the world. It runs one of the world’s largest desalination facilities off Israel’s coast in the town of Ashkelon, and also at Hadera. Recently, the company also won a tender to build and operate a new desalination plant in Soreq, which will be the largest of its kind in the world. The industrial company has been in business since 1965 when it was founded by the government. Today it specializes in more than desalination, also working with wastewater treatment, heat pumps and in producing ice and snow machines. IDE is now privately owned by Israel Chemical and the Delek Group. 5. Tahal Consulting Engineers Israel’s largest firm of water engineering consultants, Tahal Consulting Engineers is ranked as the top of its kind in the world. In the business since 1961, Tahal runs projects with private and municipal clients both locally and abroad. The company maintains close ties with leading international institutions including the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and United Nations agencies. Tahal specializes in water resource management, agricultural development, sewage and sanitation, environmental protection, roads and highways, marine engineering, industrial parks and more. 6. Amiad Filtration Systems A company that specializes in drinking water filtration, Amiad Filtration Systems prides itself on using no chemicals and no polymers in an efficient process. Founded in 1962, the company maintains a North American office in California and provides environmentally sound water filtration technologies on every continent from Antarctica to Australia. It also provides special solutions for offshore installations and the automotive industry. 7. Bermad Bermad specializes in pipes, valves and how to control them. Serving its customers globally, the company offers a number of solutions for the control and management of water supplies anywhere, based on its control-valve technology. Working in high-rise buildings, water works plants in municipalities, at power stations and in the private sector, Bermad’s impressive range of activity includes drip irrigation technology, sprinklers, micro-jets and greenhouse irrigation, as well as tools for commercial and residential gardening irrigation needs. The company also applies itself to fire protection and water metering and was instrumental in creating snow for the 2006 Winter Olympics. 8. Arkal Efficient cleaning and filtering of water is the name of the game in water management and Arkal is fast becoming a world leader in the field, working with countries like Argentina, Turkey and Spain. The company is active in plastics plants and in aquaculture and fisheries industries, and is providing sprinkler solutions to increase the effectiveness of irrigation. 9. Global Environmental Solutions (GES) GES designs water and wastewater plants and can also build and operate them in industrial areas, in cities and for agriculture. The super-company GES offers a full repertoire of water solutions for chemical companies, factories and municipalities and specializes in the food, beverage and hospitality industries. 10. Miya While it has yet to prove itself, Miya is an ambitious business venture founded by Israeli billionaire Shari Arison. The $100 million initiative, which was set up in 2006, aims to tackle the problem of urban water loss around the world. Miya is acquiring a base of companies and consultants to offer turnkey solutions, services and consulting to manage and fix leaky pipes and save billions of dollars annually. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 10th, 2010 Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish OIC Secretary General : The Donors Conference for the Development and Reconstruction of Darfur on 21 March. But the OIC Calendar posted in the same posting says: “March 23: OIC Conference for the Development and Reconstruction of Darfur – Cairo, Egypt.” (??) OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu also expressed his great satisfaction on the visit of H.E. Idriss Deby, the President of Chad, to Sudan and the agreement reached between the two countries to normalize their bilateral relations. Also – OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his deep disappointment over the announced decision of the appeals chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to direct the pre-trial chamber to decide anew on the charge of genocide against the President of Sudan Omer Hassan Ahmed Al-Bashir. All the above seems to show that the Islamic countries are ready to step into a problem solving mode in Sudan – but will the UN keep its Darfur and South Sudan watchdog positions? White washing Al-Bashir should not be allowed. What was done in Sudan was a series of Government sanctioned crimes. We also said that some of the motivation to those crimes had to do with impacts of climate change – will the oil rich Islamic countries – those countries that got financial advantage by selling the oil to the rest of the world, will they indeed pay their dues in the form of real help to the black people of Darfur – be they Islamic or not? ———– The Secretary General of the OIC Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu discussed with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt Ahmad Aboul Gheit the current arrangements for the organization of the ‘International Donors Conference for the Development and Reconstruction of Darfur’, due to be held in the Egyptian Capital, Cairo, in March 21, 2010. The meeting was at Aboul Gheit’s office in Cairo on 6 February 2010. During the meeting, the two sides discussed the facets of joint cooperation between the OIC and Cairo, and their bilateral relations. The meeting also addressed the ongoing arrangements for the next Islamic Summit Conference, which will be held in Egypt in March 2011, as well as various other issues of mutual interest. The Secretary General had arrived in Cairo on 5 February. During his visit he also met with the Egyptian Minister of Islamic Affairs Mahmoud Himdi Zaqzouq and discussed the existing cooperation between the two parties in many fields. Ihsanoglu said that the Conference, which will be held at the ministerial level, will submit to the donors a number of vital projects in Darfur with the aim of completing the development process, which will strengthen stability in the province. On another level, the Secretary General delivered on February 7, 2010 a lecture on ‘The Future of the Muslim World’ at the International Book Exhibition in Cairo. ————– Turkish Minister of Trade and Industry visits the OIC General Secretariat in Jeddah. A ninety-member Turkish delegation led by the Minister of Trade and Industry of Turkey Dr. Nihat Ergun visited the headquarters of the General Secretariat of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Jeddah on 8 February 2010. The Minister, whose delegation comprised industrialists and businessmen from the private and public sectors in Turkey, was received by the Assistant Secretary General for Economic Affairs Ambassador Hameed A. Opeloyeru, and the Director General of the Cabinet and Chief Advisor to the Secretary General Ambassador Sukru Tufan, on behalf of the OIC Secretary General Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. They exchanged views on how to expand cooperation between the OIC and Turkey in economic sector. The Minister and his accompanying delegation attended a briefing session on expanding intra-OIC cooperation in the fields of trade and industry delivered by Ambassador Opeloyeru. The presentation covered a range of vital issues which included Intra-OIC Trade, Trade Preferential System of OIC, Cotton Rehabilitation Program, Agro-Food Development, Development of OIC Halal Food Standards, Cooperation in Tourism, Banking and Financial Sectors, Transportation and Private Sector initiatives. Minister Ergun for his part stressed that his country will continue to take an active role in the OIC initiatives. He also noted that Turkey will soon finalize the ratification process of the Statute of the Standards and Meteorology Institute for Islamic Countries (SMIIC) which will function under the umbrella of the OIC. ——————– The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations which has membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensuring to safeguard and protect the nterests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world. The Organization was established upon a decision of the historical summit which took place in Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco on 12th Rajab 1389 Hijra (25 September 1969). The Headquarters of OIC are in Jeddah - http://www.oosterhuis.nl/quickstart/inde… ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 7th, 2010 In Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh – the news were the record snow. So, that keeps them busy – the need to dig out from under that snow. So far as governing goes, the Village Voice – that is Greenwich Village in new York City – wrote that the Republicans won a 41-59 majority as a result from the Massachusetts avalanche. The new weather predictions are that the President will set now the agenda and expect the Democrats to follow – AMEN! That is leadership – for God’s sake with 59 still standing – what do they wait for? Further – he – that is Obama – will try to brow-beat the Republicans to cooperate first. The American people say Washington is too partisan ? If that were true the 59 would be good enough – but really? Who are the Obstructionists? If Obama invites the Republicans to come on board that would be very clever – it would tell the Democrats to stop being obstructionists. But, politics might be such that the Republicans feel comfortable to project that they are THE PARTY OF NO! How do you pull out a rabbit from your top-hat? How do you change unemployment rates with nothing happening in the economy? The Republicans might be happy to see the Administration collapse – the country collapse – so who cares about OSAMA! Obama tells the Democrats – we will be losers together if you do not shape up and they returned – SHOW US THE WAY! —————— Next topic: How long can the World’s biggest borrower continue to be the World’s biggest power? If we get to the point that we have a difficulty to sell our treasuries in the world we will cease to be a big power – that came from Greenspan – the former head of the Federal Reserve. Henry Paulson, the present holder of that job seemed less convincing. David Walker, former US Controller General – head of the GAO – now head of te Peterson Foundation – wrote a book on the US deficit that has reached now $1.56 trillion and this is untenable. —————– Fareed Zakharia on China-US relations – a US – China economic war is MAD – that is Mutual Assured Destruction – he thinks that the two are symbiotically bound now. I think he is wrong. China has such a huge internal market that it can continue well by producing just for their own people without exports to the US. They may not want to do that because it would mean a too soon push at increasing China’s middle class and risking folks ask for a mellowing down of the political regime. But nevertheless, this does not assure an immediate rebellion. In the US rather – a rebellion is possible – or a call for some real war – internally or externally. To the latest two skirmishes – the US sending $6.4 billion worth of weapons to Taiwan, and Obama hosting The Dalai Lama at the White House. Both topics are not new. The military hardware agreement with Taiwan was agreed in 2001, and the Dalai Lama has visited every single US previous President since he landed in India. Why did the Chinese get excited right now? That is before the April visit they will be making themselves to the White House? What about the Iran sanctions and the fact that Obama was left to wait outside that China conference room in Copenhagen? Are we going to see some muscle show here? Christiane Amanpour, on her program had as guest Victor Gao, of the China National Association of International Studies. He pointed out that the US sells weapons to Taiwan that it does not allow for sale to China. China is now the largest credit maker to the US. What if China buys less for several months? Is 2010 going to be the year that Obama gets tough and China gets nasty? Neither of them can afford a real trade war. David Rothkopf affirmed that “we are interconnected” so we have to develop a different approach. Victor Cha – he was on China desk at the National Security Council. He said – This is a MUTUAL HOSTAGE GAME – both sides lose. —————- Fareed Zakharia in Davos, had in front of an audience a half hour interview with King Abdullah II of Jordan. It started out with Fareed pointing out the two main problems he thinks are facing Jordan: Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the Islamic fighting movement, but he was brushed aside by the King who continued coming back to the Israeli – Palestinian problem. Fareed said that no-one has yet lost money by betting against Peace in the Middle East, but the King countered that the credibility of the US is at stake. We desperately need the undivided attention of the US – he said. If God forbid we cross the line of the viability of the 2 State Solution, what are we left with – continuing warfare – or even worse – the One State solution that many Israelis dread? Fareed wanted to know if there is a Jordan option and was told flatly by the King that it will not work – Jordan absolutely does not want the West Bank. Are we talking of a viable entity? A third of the UN do not recognize Israel now. The building of the wall has made Israel safer Fareed said and he spoke with President Peres who believes in a two States solution for the future of Israel but because of the security threats they think only of today and not the future. The King disagreed – the injustice felt towards the Palestinian people pushes all other issues. He thinks that if you solved the problem of the Palestinians why should Iran then want the nuclear power. It does not make any sense for them to continue on that path. For now, it is the Palestinian issue that propels Iran’s efforts. When asked if he thinks that if not for the Israeli – Palestinian issue, there would be no Islamic terrorism? The King retreated by saying that – for evil to succeed – is for good men to do nothing. Evil will always exist – the evil always will be evil. On November 9, 2005 we had our own 9/11 and proportionately we lost twice as many people as the US casualties. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is is incendiary that it drives everything else. Fareed suggested that Professor Bernard Lewis explained that it was rather because of the lack of openness in the Muslim world that created the Al Qaeda – it was against Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We have 400 million young people in the Islamic world that need a direction. My role is to create a viable political Middle Class. If you want to move your country it is education – education – education. Bahrain speaks our language – so is a list of young countries that agree. ————- Christiane Amanpour had a panel on security issues and wanted to know what are the real security problems today. Surely it was not what you would have expected to hear. She was told: - Outer Space - The Open Sea - The Cyber Space - The Polar Ice Caps. So far as the conventional thinking she was told that Washington and Beijing have less to fear from each other then from failed States like Somalia. When satellites become more crucial they become targets. Where are the National borders in cyber-space? Most governments cannot even define a cyber attack. Zbigniew Brzezinski said that we have to define the nature of the threat. Today it is not as lethal as it was when within 6 hours we could have had 80 million casualties in the cold war. But today attacks are less predictable even though less lethal. The US still has a higher sophisticated technology capability. The Google issue is a cyberthreat. Are the hackers from China government? Do they really come from China? We may have to retaliatete selectively and we must have a foreign policy that does not object to this. The way the domestic policy goes now, will Obama continue the international engagement that he started out with so well? Now we have gridlock. Brzezinski called for Presidential leadership. Also – the President should persevere with the Iran effort. The other topic is the Israeli -Palestinian conflict. Rhetorically Obama gets an A, For Performance a B or B- On space – we must avoid a nuclear race in space – we must have the capacity to shoot down satellites and space vehicles. ——————— From the Kathie Crowley show – her interview with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, I picked up one fleting issue – the names of the countries the Secretary mentioned as friends to work with in the present world. She clearly mentioned the big two China and India, but then she spoke also of other major economies – Brazil, South Africa and Turkey. I mention this here because it vindicates our recent decision to move Turkey to the Home-page of www.SustainabiliTank.info and it seems that we were right. Clearly, there were no Europeans mentioned in that segment, neither Mexico nor Canada or Japan. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 6th, 2010 from: http://twitter.com/AfghanNews?utm_source… ————— Militarism in Afghanistan is not enough: The U.S. Afghanistan policy needs a revision, given realities on the ground. President Barack Obama’s announcement in December 2009 of the deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan has received mixed reactions at home and abroad. Military compulsion on the ground and political expediency at home are apparently in collision; frustration and anger are growing. Allies in the Afghan war such as France, Germany and Australia have reportedly opposed Obama’s announcement. However, the United Kingdom, Poland and Italy promised to send a small number of additional troops. By June 2010, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is expected to be 98,000. There were 29,950 U.S. troops in the International Security Assistance Force under NATO command, which has 64,500 troops, most supplied by the NATO member countries. Though Obama had promised “change you can believe in” following his landslide victory in the 2008 presidential election, in the meantime he’s faced criticism for his decision to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan. The president announced that he will begin to withdraw troops in Afghanistan by July 2011 to bring an end to the decade-long war; however, the timeline has not convinced the American people, especially those on the left of the president’s own Democratic Party, who are increasingly demonstrating in front of the White House against the war. Analysts and media in the region of South Asia are also critical of Obama’s new plan. The influential Indian daily The Hindu observes that sending additional troops to Afghanistan may provide “tactical relief to American commanders on the ground;” however, there is no guarantee that this new deployment would bring any “victory against terrorism and extremism.” For this, innovative strategies must be devised. In a Dec. 3, 2009 editorial, The Hindu identified four deficits in America’s war against the Taliban and al-Qaida: the political consideration or attention, military doctrine, Afghan capability and a commitment from Pakistan where both the Taliban and al-Qaida allegedly have bases. Flurries of questions will continue to surround the comprehensiveness of U.S. policy and military actions in Afghanistan in the Asian media. Given the reality on the ground, Pakistan is now in a crisis of sectarian conflict and a rising religious militancy. There is also reported presence of al-Qaida members in its territory; thus, Pakistan’s stability, politics, economy and military power are under great threat, as observes the Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Ittefaq. Analysts comment that it is likely impossible for the United States to win the war in Afghanistan by merely raising the number of troops. On the contrary, it may prolong the war with serious casualties on both sides. Analysts recommend improving the conditions of the Afghan people by investing in poverty reduction, education and health. But the country has been further devastated by a war that has brought insufferable civilian casualties. Any investment in social sectors would facilitate to decrease the anger of the Afghan people toward the United States. Without this infrastructure, the poverty- and illiteracy-ridden country will not be able to get on its feet. The U.S. policy should also engage resources to other countries in the region where al-Qaida is reportedly trying to spread its “ideology.” The presence of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, natural challenges and displacements all contribute to the people’s vulnerability, which catalyses the spread of ideological organizations like al-Qaida. Reportedly, a swath of religious schools in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh — allegedly beyond the reach of government monitors — are working as bases for the spread of the militaristic, ideological challenge to the West, especially the United States. To offset this trend, governments need to engage civic institutions, but this deserves investment. In the latest development, a London conference on Afghanistan has drafted a recommendation to initiate dialogues between the Afghan government and the Taliban, with an aim to dislodge al-Qaida from the country. The Taliban extremist Islamic group is essentially ideologically distinct from the terrorist al-Qaida and seized power in Afghanistan in 1996. However, the international community must monitor such dialogues to ensure they are strategic and to guard against the Taliban using it as a legitimization and recruitment tool. These dimensions in the Afghanistan conflict make a challenging situation all the more difficult, but for now, the deployment of more troops to the region seems only to increase our dependence on military strategy. What is needed most desperately in the region, however, is stability, investment and infrastructure. ——————— Robert NaimanPolicy Director of Just Foreign Policy Eat Your Spinach: Time for Peace Talks in Afghanistan – What’s Your Reaction: In the last week the New York Times and Inter Press Service have reported that the Obama Administration is having an internal debate on whether to supports talks with senior Afghan Taliban leaders, including Mullah Muhammad Omar, as a means of ending the war in Afghanistan. Senior officials like Vice President Biden are said to be more open to reaching out because they believe it will help shorten the war. Wouldn’t it be remarkable if this remained merely an “internal debate” within the Obama Administration? Wouldn’t you expect that the part of public opinion that wants the war to end would try to intervene in this debate on behalf of talks in order to end the war? As an administration official told the New York Times, “Today, people agree that part of the solution for Afghanistan is going to include an accommodation with the Taliban, even above low- and middle-level fighters.” Now, suppose you tell Mom that you want to have ice cream. And Mom says, you can have ice cream when you’ve eaten your spinach. Wouldn’t you eat your spinach? If you don’t eat your spinach now, you didn’t want ice cream very badly. So if U.S. and British officials say the endgame includes a negotiated political settlement with the Afghan Taliban, and you figure, extrapolating from the last five thousand years of human history, that a negotiated political settlement typically does not just drop down from the sky, but in fact is generally preceded by political negotiations, and you want to end the war as soon as possible, wouldn’t you be clamoring for political negotiations to start as soon as possible? Because the longer political negotiations are delayed, the longer the war will last. If you don’t support political negotiations now, you don’t want to end the war very badly. If you consider peace negotiations with the Afghan Taliban “distasteful,” consider this: every month that the war continues, every month that U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, is another month in which U.S. soldiers will die horrible deaths, be horribly maimed, and be horribly scarred psychologically, perhaps for life. It’s also another month in which the U.S. military is likely to “accidentally” kill Afghan government soldiers (such episodes “are not uncommon,” the New York Times notes) and kill Afghan civilians, as they have done at least twice in the last week, according to the reporting in the New York Times and the Washington Post. I put the word “accidentally” in quotation marks, not of course because I believe that the U.S. military is killing Afghan soldiers and Afghan civilians “on purpose,” but because when you repeatedly take an action (continuing the war) that leads to a predictable result (killing Afghan government soldiers and civilians) you lose the exoneration otherwise conferred by the word “accidentally.” Is this not also “distasteful”? Is killing innocent people not more “distasteful” than peace talks? Gareth Porter, writing for Inter Press Service, reports that an official of the Western military coalition says there has been a debate among U.S. officials about “the terms on which the Taliban will become part of the political fabric.” The debate is not on whether the Taliban movement will be participating in the Afghan political system, Porter reports, but on whether or not the administration could accept the participation of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar in the political future of Afghanistan. The Afghan Taliban has insisted in published statements that it will not participate in peace talks that would not result in the withdrawal of foreign troops, Porter notes. That raises the question of whether the administration would be willing to discuss the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan as part of a negotiated settlement to the conflict. The Obama Administration has stated publicly that it has no long-term interest in maintaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Therefore, should not the U.S. be willing to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of a negotiated settlement? We’re leaving anyway, according to U.S. officials – what’s holding us back from agreeing, as part of a negotiation, to do what we plan to do anyway? U.S. officials have said that the war is all about the relationship between the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda. When the Afghan Taliban breaks with al Qaeda the war is over, say these officials. Some say that Mullah Omar is ready to break with al Qaeda, including the Pakistani intelligence officer who trained him; while Osama bin Laden’s son Omar says Al Qaeda and the Taliban are only “allies of convenience.” Why wouldn’t we put these propositions to the test through negotiations? If you think, for the sake of peace, the United States should be willing to agree to do on a timetable that which it claims it intends to do anyway, tell President Obama. Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com —————– Lesson from Somalia echoes in Afghanistan |Published: Thursday, February 4, 2010 Last Thursday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hosted a conference in London regarding NATO’s plans in Afghanistan. In attendance were U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, commander of NATO operations in Afghanistan, and Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special emissary to Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to CTV News, both officials expressed plans to advocate peace and negotiations with Taliban forces. Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s plan of “reconciliation and reintegration” of potential Taliban defectors complements McChrystal and Holbrooke’s strategies. These plans represent a growing trend in emphasizing political action over the use of force to suppress the militant insurgency plaguing Afghanistan. This switch comes nearly nine years after the beginning of the United States’ Operation Enduring Freedom, though it is better late than never. The Taliban was the power in Afghanistan prior to 2001, and their ranks draw from various Pashtun clans. The Pashtun people represent the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and have dominated Afghan politics for centuries. It is therefore the appropriate move to include Taliban members in negotiations and going the step further in allowing their involvement in the new Afghan government. This was one of many lessons taken from U.S. involvement in the United Nations’ intervention in Somalia. The fall of Said Barre’s regime in 1991 created a power vacuum in Somalia that resulted in vicious inter-clan fighting. The collateral damage was devastating to the Somali people, who suffered the conflict and widespread famine. For the U.N., what began as an international effort to deliver humanitarian aid evolved into a struggle to stabilize and democratize Somalia. General Mohamed Farrah Aidid, with the support of members of his clan – the Habr Gidr – and other militant factions, repeatedly assaulted U.S. and U.N. forces to drive them out of Somalia. Many U.S. and U.N. officials wanted Aidid and his supporters marginalized in the new government. Rather than work with the local power, the U.S. wished to create a more ‘ideal’ system that had little focus on clannism. The attempts to remove Aidid’s influence served to unite Somalis against the U.S., culminating in a humiliating retreat from Somalia. The parallels with the situation in Afghanistan are clear. Local power structures, such as clannism in Somalia and Afghanistan, must be considered when creating a functional government. If powerful players are not given incentive to play the game, they won’t have to. Further Recommended Articles: Canada and Germany’s mission in Afghanistan (The Concordian) ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 6th, 2010 With President Karzai going to Saudi Arabia to plead for an intervention with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces that endanger his regime in Afghanistan, in Washington DC a report was released to the press that A U.S. military investigation into a battle last October in eastern Afghanistan, that cost eight American soldiers their lives, has concluded that the small outpost was worthless, the troops there didn’t understand their mission, and intelligence and air support were tied up elsewhere in the province. According to an unclassified executive summary of the report that was released to McClatchy and other news organizations Friday, “There were inadequate measures taken by the chain of command, resulting in an attractive target for enemy fighters.” A statement accompanying the summary said that the report, called an AR 15-6, suggests sanctions on higher-ranking officers and “also recommended administrative actions for some members of the chain of command to improve command oversight.” But really – is this serious? The whole mess came into existence when the US told the Saudis to finance and organize the rebellion of the Afghan warlords against Soviet occupation of their land. It was the Al-Qaeda forces backed by Saudi money that backed the Taliban fight the Soviets – all of it the brain-product of US CIA in its Washington headquarters where non-Afghan speakers manned the desk that promoted Islamic unity against the Soviet infidel, and inherited now the fight of the same people against the US infidel. Karzai showed now for the first time in his reign that he understands the situation by going to the source of direct backing of his opponents and by-passed the bungling Americans with whom he developed a mutual mistrust. Yes. lots of people in Washington should be demoted – that is retoactively – for having cost American lives in battles that were started by American lack of understanding of consequences while digging for oil at the outskirsts of an incendiary Middle East. ——– From BASHAR ASSAD, President of Syria, being interviewed by Seymour M. Hersh, of the New Yorker. On Pakistan’s government: They supported [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai and realized he cannot deliver. I do not know why they supported him and why—nobody knows why. On American power: Now the problem is that the United States is weaker, and the whole influential world is weak as well…. You always need power to do politics. Now nobody is doing politics…. So what you need is strong United States with good politics, not weaker United States. If you have weaker United States, it is not good for the balance of the world. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 29th, 2010 News Alert: Bin Laden blasts U.S. for climate change Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has called in a new audiotape for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming. In the tape, aired in part on Al-Jazeera television Friday, bin Laden warns of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring “the wheels of the American economy” to a halt This information we picked up on a page of The Washington Post that includes a large advertisement from CHEVRON Oil Company: “HUMAN ENERGY” “Every day Chevron invests $59 million in People. In ideas. In progress – Learn more” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901463.html?hpid=topnews Bin Laden blasts US for climate change. Includes also a photo from the FILE – “This is an undated photo of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. Bin The Associated Press In the tape, aired in part on Al-Jazeera television Friday, bin Laden He says the world should “stop consuming American products” and The new message, whose authenticity could not immediately be —————- UNFCCC should take notice of this when next time Saudi Arabia will claim to be paid US Dollars for the losses that it will incur when the world will finally decide to use less oil – their hidden treasure under the desert sand. Whatever we think of Bin Laden – we know that it is the US dollars paid for oil that fuelled both – the monarchy of The House of Saud and the Bin Laden family complaints that these dollars corrupted the purity of the faith as they see it. Now – that is why we post the piece also on our “cartoons” column – not really because of our disbelief in the Chevron statement or the actual content of what is attributed to Osama. We are afraid that some narrow minded people might actually say that because Osama says that the US is to be blamed for Global Warming – it is obvious that Global Warming is a non-issue – and US CATO will thus bless on Bin Laden – so The Heartland Institute can put him up im its Gallery of Fame. Crazy – I told you so. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 26th, 2010 IDF Haiti Mission: After two weeks, Israel team winds down Haiti mission. By Amos Harel, HAARETZ, January 26, 2010 The Israel Defense Forces team in Haiti is finishing up its mission and will return home on Thursday. The decision was based on the recommendation of the Home Front Command, whose senior officers feel hey have fulfilled their role in helping the earthquake victims. In view of the large number of personnel and resources the command is deploying in Haiti and the U.S., it is believed the time has come to wrap up the mission. The command and the IDF Medical Corps are now preparing for the next stages of their mission: closing up shop and leaving behind a large part of the equipment brought there as a final goodwill gesture to the people of Haiti. On the professional level, the IDF learned much about running a field hospital under such difficult conditions and operating rescue teams; and about dealing with a mass disaster that thankfully Israel has never experienced. The up close experience of dealing with an earthquake and its aftermath – a number of aftershocks occurred while the Israel mission was there – increased awareness of the enormous danger of such a natural event, but the upper echelons of the Home Front Command believe the situation in Israel is very different. While the earthquake in Haiti reached a magnitude of 7 on the Richter scale, it seems the incredible destruction resulted more from the poor-quality construction there. Two similar strength earthquakes in California in recent decades resulted in only a few dozen killed in each quake. Members of the rescue team who toured the area were surprised to discover there are almost no buildings built with reinforced concrete in Haiti. “You wander through the ruins and see no iron bars. Everything is made out of simple concrete, which turns into a brittle material in an earthquake of this magnitude. Everything collapses,” said one member of the Israeli mission. The main conclusion of the Haiti mission from an Israeli perspective, said one senior officer, concerns the “awareness of the citizens and local authorities of the possibility of an earthquake. It is possible that more exercises are needed, but if you prepare properly for a missile attack on the home front, then you have 95% of the tools [needed] at your disposal for dealing with an earthquake,” said the officer. An analysis of the decision making process on sending the team once again shows that time is the critical factor. Israel moved quickly, in terms of making its decision and making the necessary preparations. For Israel, this is further proof of the importance of field hospitals; the IDF closed the last one five years ago and only reopened them as part of the lessons learned from the Second Lebanon War. Next week the Home Front Command and the Medical Corps will hold a two-day seminar, with the help of psychologists, for those returning from Haiti to prepare them for returning to their routine. The IDF has praised the cooperation with the Foreign Ministry and El Al during the mission to Haiti. The good public relations is seen as being of only secondary importance: “Our people went to Haiti to save lives, to provide the best medical care they can and to represent Israel. That is the proper order of priorities. They did not think constantly about the blue and white flag flying overhead,” said the senior officer. —————– Alan Dershowitz – Lawyer and author As most objective observers throughout the world marvel at Israel’s efficiency and generosity in leading the medical aid efforts in Haiti, some bigots insist on using these efforts as an occasion to continue their attack on the Jewish state. Both the neo-Nazi hard right and the neo-Stalinist hard left cannot help but to demonize Israel, regardless of what Israel does. The hard left, even in Israel, complains that Israel should not be sending medical assistance to such a faraway place. Instead it should be sending it to nearby Gaza. Even the New York Times, in an otherwise thoughtful analysis of the controversiality of the aid among some Israelis, failed to note the difference between Israel sending its limited resources to faraway Haiti and to nearby Gaza. Haiti is not at war with Israel. Haiti has not pledged itself to Israel’s destruction. Haiti has not fired 8,000 rockets at Israeli civilians. Gaza, on the other hand, has a popularly elected government that has done and continues to do all of the above. Moreover, there is no comparison between the tens of thousands of Haitians who have died from a natural disaster, and the people of Gaza who suffer far less from what is, essentially, a self-inflicted wound. Nor do the perennial enemies of Israel emphasize the comparison between tiny and resource-poor Israel, on the one hand, and the enormous and resource-rich Arab and Muslim nations, on the other hand. While Israel digs deeply into its treasury and manpower to send medical assistance a quarter of the way around the world, Arab and Muslim nations are generally missing in action when it comes to relief efforts. This is true not only in Haiti, which is a Catholic nation, but it was equally true when tsunamis and other natural disasters have devastated Muslim nations. So continue to criticize Israel when it fails to live up to generally applicable international standards, but praise it when it exceeds those standards in rendering aid that has saved and will continue to save many lives. Israel will continue to send disaster relief regardless of how the world reacts to it because Israelis understand how it feels to be subject to disasters. But fairness requires that Israel not be condemned for its humanitarian efforts, and that its rendering of aid to Haiti not be used as yet another occasion for applying a double standard to its actions. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 11th, 2010 Saudi Arabia and China to boost ties by 50% by 2015 BOOSTING TRADE: Saudi Arabia and China plan to increase trade volumes by 50 percent by 2015. The title of the article says: Saudi Arabia and China to boost ties by 50% by 2015. Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia and key customer China want to boost trade volumes by 50 percent by 2015 and solve disputes over issues such as dumping amicably, officials said on Sunday. While speaking to reporters, China’s commerce minister, Chen Deming, said: “We want to increase the trade volume to $60 billion by 2015 after the target of $40 billion (for 2010) was surpassed early in 2008.” Saudi Arabia is China’s biggest oil supplier, with Chinese crude imports rising more than 12 percent last year to just over 800,000 barrels per day. About half of the OPEC member’s crude exports go to Asia, a share set to rise this year, according to analysts. Saudi finance minister Ibrahim al Assaf said the Gulf Arab state wanted to increase exports of oil and nonoil products to China and boost bilateral investments. Speaking to Saudi and Chinese officials and business leaders, Assaf said: “The number of joint projects between the two countries is small with only 19 joint projects, which does not reflect the depth of our relations and economic possibilities.” He said both countries hoped to end a conflict over anti dumping measures imposed by China on some petrochemicals products from the kingdom and other countries. Speaking to reporters, Assaf said: “We want to solve all conflicts amicably without going to courts.” On June 24, China said it had begun an investigation into methanol imported from Saudi Arabia and three other countries to assess whether the material had been dumped on the Chinese market at below-production prices. Deming said China would take a decision after the investigation was completed, adding both sides wanted to end disputes amicably. Saudi Arabia is among the world’s top suppliers of petrochemical products, with manufacturers benefiting from access to cheap feedstocks and proximity to major markets in China and India. State owned Saudi Basic Industries Corp has said it has government approval to build a $3 billion joint venture plant with China’s Sinopec in the region of Tianjin and is considering more investment in China. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 6th, 2010 The Arab Peninsula and the Horn of Africa -too narrow straights for the West. POLITICS: Russia, China Sustain Military Toehold in Yemen. UNITED NATIONS, Jan 5 (IPS) – Russia has stolen a march over the United States in the multi-million-dollar arms market in cash-strapped Yemen, whose weapons purchases are being funded mostly by neighbouring Saudi Arabia. The Yemeni armed forces, currently undergoing an ambitious military modernisation programme worth an estimated four billion dollars, are armed with weapons largely from Russia, China, Ukraine and the former Eastern Europe and Soviet republics. With the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day by a Nigerian student, reportedly trained by al Qaeda in Yemen, the administration of President Barack Obama has pledged to double its military and counterterrorism aid, to nearly 150 million dollars, to strengthen the besieged government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Currently, Yemen receives assistance under several U.S.-funded programmes, including Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military Education and Training (IMET), Non-Proliferation, Anti-terrorism and De-mining, and Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction. But the proposed military aid to Yemen – all of it gratis – along with U.S. arms supplies, is negligible compared with weapons, military training and technical expertise from non-U.S. sources. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), one of the world’s best known think tanks researching arms control and disarmament, Russia accounted for nearly 59 percent of all major weapons deliveries to Yemen during 2004-2008, followed by Ukraine at 25 percent, Italy at 10 percent, Australia’s five percent, and the United States at less than one percent. Dr. Paul Holtom, director of SIPRI’s Arms Transfers Programme, told IPS that at the beginning of this year, the Russian media reported that Yemen had signed a deal to buy an estimated one billion dollars worth of arms from Moscow (with some reports giving figures as high as 2.5 billion dollars). These weapons, he said, included additional MiG-29 combat aircraft, helicopters, tanks and armoured vehicles. Holtom said there were also published reports suggesting these purchases were part of a proposed four-billion-dollar military modernisation programme. But he said he does not have an update on the degree of progress made on these arms deals. Dan Darling, Europe & Middle East Military Markets analyst at the Connecticut-based Forecast International Inc., a leading provider of market intelligence on the military, told IPS that in terms of primary arms suppliers to Yemen, “almost everything revolves around Russia”. The core of the Yemeni Air Force is of Russian-legacy, including MiG-21s and MiG-29s and Su-22s, he pointed out. From 2001 through 2008, Yemen received 1.4 billion dollars worth of arms, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), with 600 million dollars in weapons from Russia. China provided 200 million dollars worth of armaments, while about 400 million dollars in arms were from a mix of former Soviet republics and East European nations (mainly Ukraine, but also Belarus, Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and others). A resource-starved Middle Eastern nation, Yemen has negligible quantities of oil and is categorised as one of the world’s poorest nations. The U.S. State Department has described Yemen as “desperately poor” but a “vital counterterrorism partner”. The New York Times reported Tuesday that Saudi Arabia had provided about two billion dollars in aid to Yemen last year – “an amount that dwarfs the 150 million dollars in security assistance that the United States will ask Congress to approve for the 2010 fiscal year”. With the new terrorist threat from insurgents in Yemen, the United States is gearing itself for a virtual new battle front against al Qaeda – besides Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. Darling of Forecast International Inc told IPS: “My take is that Washington understands how crucial Yemen is to regional security and stability.” He said Yemen’s proximity to Saudi Arabia – from which many al Qaeda operatives are believed to have crossed into Yemen – and its importance in terms of shipping lanes at the mouth of the Red Sea and in terms of combating piracy in the area make ignoring Yemen a risk the U.S. is unwilling to take. The recent spate of fighting with rebels in the north, combined with the pressures facing President Saleh and the belief that al Qaeda may have found a sort of sanctuary in Yemen, means that the country will garner more and more attention within U.S. government circles, he added. “The State Department realises the looming potential for disaster in Yemen, where a combination of civil strife, an exploding population, negligible oil reserves, a structurally weak economy, high rates of poverty and unemployment, and deteriorating water supplies all threaten to turn the country into the proverbial failed state,” Darling said. “How they intend to combat this possibility is beyond my purview, but I’m guessing that you will see greater degrees of development assistance and oversight as to how the money is allocated,” he added. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 6th, 2010 From the latest news coming from Washington – “Under the new airport There may be a Jamaican convert to Islam who preached terrorism in the UK But what about Cuba? Fidel Castro is more atheist then Catholic, surely Mr. President, I watched Bolivia and Venezuela leaders speak in Copenhagen, Please start by taking him of that list! Having said the above – let us get now to the point – MR PRESIDENT - * * * * Please look – I am posting here four reference – links to news New Air Security Checks From 14 Nations to U.S. Draw Criticism In Yemen, U.S. Faces Leader Who Puts Family First Behind Afghan Bombing, an Agent With Many Loyalties Kenya Seeks to Deport Muslim Cleric to Jamaica ———————— THE UPDATE: We have received a comment on this post and it presents a very valid point supposedly made at the UN General Assembly by the Foreign Minister of Cuba: “I mean if they were going to include us, then they should have at least thrown in North Korea.” Even if the e-mail we received from ajay - akazif at gmail.com as presented by www. eggplantpost.com in http://eggplantpost.com/2010/01/05/cuba-… were a made up story, the argument holds water nevertheless. DID THE US INCLUDE CUBA ON THAT LIST BECAUSE IT WANTED TO AVOID BEING SEEN AS GOING AFTER A RAG-TAG OF ISLANIC COUNTRIES? Now, we believe that US security should be spoken here – not again US appeasement-for-oil please! ### |

















