Thursday, June 30, 2011

Fresh clashes in Cairo's Tahrir Square

More than 1,000 injured as police fire tear gas at thousands frustrated by slow pace of change since Egypt's revolution.
Last Modified: 29 Jun 2011 20:10

The Egyptian cabinet says nine people have been arrested and face questioning by the military [Reuters]
Clashes between Egyptian security forces and more than 5,000 protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square have left more than 1,036 people injured, according to witnesses and medical officials.
Tahrir Square, the epicentre of protests that toppled Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's former president, was sealed off early on Wednesday as lines of security forces in riot gear strived to regain control from demonstrators.

Witnesses said the clashes started on Tuesday when police tried to clear a sit-in at the state-TV building, which included families of those killed during the country's revolution earlier this year, known as the "martyrs", according to the Daily News, an Egyptian news website.
Witnesses said police attacked the families outside the Balloon Theatre in Agouza, where a planned memorial service for them was taking place.
The interior ministry said in a statement on Tuesday that "people who claimed to be families of martyrs, tried to break into the theatre" in which the service was held.
The Egyptian cabinet on Wednesday announced on its Facebook page that nine people had been arrested and will face questioning from military prosecutors. Later in the day, the newspaper al-Masri al-Youm reported that 44 people had been taken away for questioning, with Reuters reporting that an American and Briton were among them.
Violent clashes
Ayman Mohyeldin, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Cairo, reported: "The original dispute happened between families of the martyrs of the revolution as they were trying to attend an event [and were denied access].

Click here to follow Al Jazeera's Egypt Live Blog
"At that point there were clashes between police and some of those family members that ultimately spilled over to other parts of the city.
"The protest gained momentum and made its way into Tahrir Square, and ultimately to the interior ministry," he said.
Rocks and shattered glass littered the streets around Tahrir, as protesters chanted: "Down with the military junta."
As protests at the ministry died down, the army replaced riot police in guarding the building.
According to the Egyptian health ministry, 1,036 people had been hurt in the clashes, with 40 members of the security forces among them.
Egyptian Prime Minister Essam Sharaf has said that he ordered the police to withdraw from Tahrir Square to reduce tension.
Ahmed al-Samman, the prime minister's media advisor, told Egypt's official news agency that "extensive investigations" were underway.
"The government won't rush into judging the events or accuse anyone or any party, but will wait for results of the investigations, and will announce them in all transparency," he said.
PM Sharaf stressed that the performance of the police had been improving, though some people may not be happy with the gradual return of police and security. He "urged the youth to protect their revolution".

Our correspondent in Cairo said that police had been aggressive in pushing the crowd back.
He also added that they [police] had not withdrawn completely: "They have moved back from the centre, but they remain in the square."

'Undermined stability'
The ruling military council issued a statement on its Facebook page early on Wednesday.
It said the Tahrir events aimed at disturbing the security and the stability of the country in an organised plan.
Hisham Safie Eldin, a former Egyptian police officer, described the police action as not 'excessive'.
"The regrettable events that have been taking place at Tahrir Square since last night and till dawn today have no justification except to undermine stability and security in Egypt according to a calculated and coordinated plan in which the blood of the revolution's martyrs is used to cause a wedge between the revolutionaries and the security apparatus in Egypt to achieve these goals.
"We urge the great Egyptian people and the youth who launched the revolution not to be carried dragged by such claims, work on resisting and aborting them to maintain Egypt's security and safety in such difficult circumstances."
Families of those killed during the revolution have repeatedly voiced frustration with the slow pace of the trials of the policemen and officials accused of killing and ordering the killing of their relatives during the protests. They have also called for Hussein Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), to stand down.
Our correspondent said:"The standoff between the police and the protesters has intensified given the last few months and the pace of the process towards a democratic and civilian government.
"Many Egyptians have been extremely frustrated by the wheels of justice not spinning fast enough."
"One of the consistent demands of people across Egypt is that justice for many of the former elements of the regime has been extremely slow," he said, adding that there concerns about the lack of transparency at the trials as well.
US official meets Tantawi
After a meeting with Field Marshall Tantawi, the head of the SCAF, on Wednesday William Burns, the US under-secretary of state for political affairs, said a "fair and thorough" inquiry into the violence must take place.
"I emphasised throughout those discussions [with Egyptian leaders] American support for open and inclusive political process in Egypt, the importance of following through on the commitment to lift the emergency law before the elections. The importance of protecting freedom of expression and freedom of assembly," he said.
By 3:30pm local time (1:30pm GMT) on Wednesday afternoon, Mohyeldin reported that traffic was once again flowing at Tahrir Square, and things were returning to a sense of normalcy.
In the first ruling of its kind, however, a Cairo court on Wednesday ordered the interior ministry to pay 50,000 Egyptian pounds ($8,389) to Samir Abdel Mageed, a protester who had been shot in the eye by police on January 28.
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies
Fresh clashes in Cairo's Tahrir Square - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

When bankers manage the commons

The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

24 June 2011

Hands support a miniature globe (Thinkstock: Getty Images) Chris Andrew John Crawford
Chris Andrew and John Crawford

Human consumption has reached the point where there is no part of the Earth system where our impact cannot be felt.

We are now essentially managing a "global commons" in the sense used in the controversial paper by Garrett Hardin in 1968. In other words nationally-driven trends in consumption of commodities that are essential to life, such as energy, food and water, are so clearly beyond the global capacity to provide that unless levels of international cooperation change dramatically in the next 20 years, we are heading for unprecedented levels of suffering. Many analysts agree that the latter is inevitable.

It is hard to understand why we are not doing more to head off this predictable disaster. Or maybe it isn't. Humanity has had an uncanny capacity to innovate its way around crises in the past. When things start to run out, prices increase and create new market incentives to innovate, thus moving our dependencies away from scarce commodities or reducing demand. This creates an illusion, referred to by Adam Smith as the "invisible hand" of the market, that economies are guided towards optimal outcomes. In other words, we are not doing more to avert disaster because we assume everything will sort itself out on its own. This is obviously true if global markets are rational, but unfortunately markets have never been rational. Furthermore, the complexity and level of sophistication in global markets has reached a point where internal feedback may be driving the system towards increasing levels of instability. These instabilities, such as the current financial meltdown, mitigate against investment in the kinds of innovation that are required to see us through the next 20 years.

The global challenges that we face are extraordinarily difficult because they interact with one another. The security of food, water and energy in particular are all highly interrelated through, for example, biofuel production, rising costs of fertilisers, and the fact that 70 per cent of the fresh water we use is in food production. This means we are not in a position of being able to solve one problem at a time. We have to solve most of them simultaneously.

Finding a solution where there are multiple simultaneous goals (food production, water conservation, energy efficiency) is hard, and almost inevitably involves a compromise. We do not yet have good methods for determining these compromises and what methods we have involve a considerable degree of human judgement. In practise, however, economics is the driving factor in deciding the trade-off and there is every reason to expect that the increasing diversity of financial products is leaving human judgement out of the equation.

As an example, consider the Snowy Hydro Scheme. According to its own website:

Snowy Hydro Limited is a business providing a complex array of financial hedge and insurance products to participants in the National Electricity Market.

When did Snowy shift from iconic national infrastructure to a provider of hedging products? So much for an engineering masterpiece, the Snowy Hydro has become an investment bank. It appears the prime purpose for the scheme is to longer to regulate flows to the Hume dam, but rather provide financial derivative instruments like options to the power markets.

To do this, in simple terms Snowy Hydro sells options to banks who wish to trade in the electricity market. With electricity pricing able to go from $25MW to $10,000MW almost instantaneously, these options can be a very valuable income source to Snowy Hydro. So valuable in fact, Snowy Hydro may actually profit more by choosing not to generate as much power through water flows. It may also profit more by releasing water to generate power, at a time when downstream catchments are already in flood.

So it would appear the focus of the Snowy Hydro has shifted and the NSW, Victorian and Commonwealth Governments have allowed this national asset to become a financial instrument. This begs the question, which members of state and federal Governments, as shareholders, actually understand how the Snowy Hydro operates? Are they able to measure and report the balance between economic, environmental and social returns from the Snowy Hydro? With the financial returns from power hedging undoubtedly strong and very likely to grow, the concern must be raised that the shareholders, the Governments of NSW, Victoria, and Commonwealth, have accepted a financial dividend over and above any environmental or social dividend possible from this asset. Moreover, if power hedging has detracted from a greater utilisation of Australia's largest renewable energy generator, how has this decision impacted investment in less efficient and more costly schemes to achieve far less carbon emission savings?

The change from national infrastructure to private bank has occurred under the watch of all major and minor political parties. Somewhere along the line Snowy Hydro ceased to be governed along economic, environment and social parameters in the best interest of all Australians. For those thinking this is a one-off in the electricity market, they need look no further than to Hydro Tasmania, built almost exclusively for power generation. The cable connecting Victoria and Tasmania has allowed the Apple Isle to go from low-carbon to a high-carbon financial derivative house.

If the Government is willing to allow infrastructure to be operated for the exclusive benefit of those in the financial markets, what are the downstream implications for Australia's Food Security? What would happen if agricultural assets are allowed to be managed as financial hedging products and not sources of food? This is a serious concern as growing numbers of large foreign investment groups are buying up Australia's agricultural land. The rising prices of food, together with seasonality of production means that financial derivative market instruments that provide incentive for food to be stored rather than consumed in the hope that future prices will be higher are becoming increasingly used. Conventional economic wisdom states that the proliferation of these instruments should result in more stable and hence predictable markets. However conventional wisdom is based on unsound assumptions, and more recent research suggests that proliferation leads to greater market volatility. In the example of Snowy Hydro, greater volatility leads to higher prices for consumers. In the case of Australian food production, where 60 per cent is exported on the global market, greater price volatility leads to hunger and social unrest.

Is it reasonable for access to commodities that provide for the basic needs of life; energy, water and food, to be controlled by an economic system we do not understand? Ecosystem resilience emerges from underlying natural laws that have been shaped by millions of years of natural selection. We may not understand them completely, but we do know that they have given rise to a certain level of global stability and predictability that has allowed the evolution of complex living systems to play out. In contrast, economic systems are run by purely man-made laws that are based on assumptions that we know to be false. The behaviour that emerges is not predictable and subject to catastrophic crashes of an increasingly global nature. Which system of laws would you rather trust the provision of our basic needs to?

Chris Andrew is the CEO of Greenlight Technology Group and Principal of Sustainable Forward Consulting Group. John W Crawford holds the Judith and David Coffey Chair in Sustainable Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at the University of Sydney.

When bankers manage the commons - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

America's 'Shah' in Egypt

 This essay is adapted from Kai Bird's recent memoir, Crossing Mandelbaum Gate: Coming of Age Between the Arabs and Israelis, a finalist for the 2011 National Book Critics Circle Award.

How did a bland, uncharismatic army general like Hosni Mubarak manage to stay in power for three decades? I think that what we are witnessing in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria is the final unraveling of the military autocracy created by Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s. Unlike Mubarak, Nasser was a genuinely populist army colonel who fired the imaginations of a generation of postwar Arabs with his vision of a modernizing, progressive nationalism. Nasser persuaded Egyptians that they were part of one Arabic-speaking nation. This Pan-Arab nationalist vision had wide appeal in the early postcolonial era. But it was Nasser’s avowedly secular stance that seemed to hold the promise of Arab modernity.

Suave and articulate, Nasser had read a great many books in English, including works by Dickens, Carlyle and Gandhi, and biographies of famous world leaders. He was a secular, modern Arab who had an abiding admiration for American films and magazines. He came to power in an army coup in 1952 but was elected to the presidency in 1956 with a popular mandate. He gradually became a dictator. He had a deep distrust of both the Communists and the Muslim Brotherhood. Over the years, his closest political enemies became the Brothers. He threw tens of thousands of them in jail because he could not tolerate their religious xenophobia. He believed that those Arabs who mixed Islam with politics stood in the way of progress.

But then the cause of a secular Arab modernity was shockingly defeated during the June 1967 war, a war Nasser had stumbled into and was not prepared for. It was a debacle for the Arab world. But at the time few understood that it would also be a calamity for the West and Israel—precisely because it discredited secularism and opened the door to Islamists. Young Arab men like Egypt’s Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri later wrote that the naksa—the June “setback”—“influenced the awakening of the jihadist movement.”

Nasser remained in power, but he was disheartened and embittered. He blamed America for his defeat and suspected that the CIA had been plotting to unseat him. This was true. Washington’s foreign policy establishment had always viewed Nasser’s nationalism as inimical to US interests, and the CIA had funneled millions of dollars to his Muslim Brotherhood enemies.

When he died of a massive heart attack on September 28, 1970, millions of Egyptians poured into the streets of Cairo weeping and crying out his name, “Gamal! Gamal!” Sherrif Hatatta, an Egyptian doctor and novelist once imprisoned by Nasser, later remarked, “Nasser’s greatest achievement was his funeral. The world will never again see 5 million people crying together.” Nasser was the last Arab leader who could plausibly claim to reflect the broad popular will. He was not a democrat but neither was he a tyrant. Personally, he was incorruptible. He died with a modest bank account. With him died the dream of secular Arab nationalism. His ideas were defeated by a confluence of forces—best described by Syrian philosopher Sadik al-Azm as those “values of ignorance, myth-making, backwardness, dependency and fatalism.” But Americans would be remiss to deny our contributions to his defeat. Our government worked hard to ensure that Nasser would fail. The irony is that decades after his death the vacuum is being filled in part by the Muslim Brotherhood—whose theocratic, antimodernist ideas Nasser had tried to repress.

Nasser’s successor, Anwar el-Sadat, initially had little in the way of a popular mandate. Early in his tenure he pandered to the religious right wing. After the October 1973 war, Sadat briefly acquired a measure of popularity—but he ruled as a dictator. He demonstrated great political courage in November 1977 when he flew to Jerusalem and addressed the Israeli Knesset. And the Camp David Accords he signed in 1978 with Prime Minister Menachem Begin might have opened the door to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement. But Israel continued to build settlements in the occupied territories and came to no peace agreement with its Palestinian, Lebanese or Syrian neighbors.

Sadat was assassinated on October 6, 1981—at which point his vice president, Gen. Hosni Mubarak, succeeded him. Mubarak was then a nonentity. It soon became apparent that he was simply an apparatchik of the Egyptian military establishment. He never attempted to create for himself the kind of popular legitimacy that came naturally to Nasser. His one talent was that of a Machiavellian survivor. He marshaled all the usual tools of repression—and more than $60 billion of American aid stemming from the Camp David Accords—to sustain his power. He was America’s “shah”—and that has also been his undoing. Washington blindly regarded him as a voice for “moderation” when his own long-suffering people saw him as a plain old-fashioned dictator. But for thirty years he sustained the Camp David regime—which gave Israel only a cold peace on its Egyptian border.

Now his seemingly impregnable reign is crumbling. His pathetic offer not to run for re-election was greeted with jeers. The Egyptian people seem virtually united in their demand for his immediate departure, even as Mubarak’s paid thugs desperately try to turn Tahrir Square into another Tiananmen.

The strategic consequences for America and Israel are momentous. Any post-Mubarak regime, for instance, will not have itself seen as complicit in the Israeli blockade of Gaza. This does not mean that a post-Mubarak popular government will seek a war with Israel. There is no constituency for war. But any new Egyptian government will insist that the promises President Carter extracted from Israel at Camp David in 1978 be realized. That means Israel will face additional pressures to end the occupation and negotiate the formation of a Palestinian state based largely on its 1967 borders.

Nasser’s dismal dictatorial political descendants are finally exiting. We can hope that what percolates up from the Arab street in Cairo (and maybe Tunis, Amman and Damascus) will reflect a younger generation’s aspirations for a semblance of democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood is certainly the single largest organized opposition force today—but it may turn out that it will be forced to share power with Egyptians nostalgic for Nasser’s secular legacy.

Kai Bird

February 3, 2011 | This article appeared in the February 21, 2011 edition of The Nation

America's 'Shah' in Egypt | The Nation

Related Content

Washington Wonders What to Say About Arab Freedom

After Mubarak, Fighting For Press Freedom in Egypt

The Fatah-Hamas Accord

BOOK REVIEW: Tamara Chalabi's 'Late for Tea at the Deer Palace'

Why Washington's Tepid Response to Egypt Protests Betrays "A Lack of Faith in... America's Democratic Creed"

About the Author

Kai Bird

Kai Bird is a Nation contributing editor, a Pulitzer Prize–winning historian and the author, most recently, of Crossing Mandelbaum Gate: Coming of Age Between the Arabs and Israelis, 1956–1978.

Also by The Author [ Click for More ]

Next Week in Jerusalem? (Foreign Policy)

To break through the impasse in the Middle East, Obama must go to Jerusalem.

Kai Bird

The Hebrew Republic (Race and Religion, History)

Ongoing conflict in the Middle East continually reinforces tribalism, religiosity and messianic Zionism.

Kai Bird

Related Topics

Entertainment Religion Social Issues War

Nine War Words That Define Our World

The article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com.

Now that Washington has at least six wars cooking (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and more generally, the global war on terror), Americans find themselves in a new world of war. If, however, you haven't joined the all-volunteer military, any of our 17 intelligence outfits, the Pentagon, the weapons companies and hire-a-gun corporations associated with it, or some other part of the National Security Complex, America’s distant wars go on largely without you (at least until the bills come due).

In terms of what used to be called “foreign policy,” and more recently “national security,” the United States is now a post-legal society.

War has a way of turning almost anything upside down, including language.  But with lost jobs, foreclosed homes, crumbling infrastructure, and weird weather, who even notices?  This undoubtedly means that you’re using a set of antediluvian war words or definitions from your father’s day.  It’s time to catch up.

So here’s the latest word in war words: what’s in, what’s out, what’s inside out.  What follows are nine common terms associated with our present wars that probably don’t mean what you think they mean.  Since you live in a twenty-first-century war state, you might consider making them your own.

Victory: Like defeat, it’s a “loaded” word and rather than define it, Americans should simply avoid it.

In his last press conference before retirement, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was asked whether the U.S. was “winning in Afghanistan.”  He replied, “I have learned a few things in four and a half years, and one of them is to try and stay away from loaded words like ‘winning’ and ‘losing.’  What I will say is that I believe we are being successful in implementing the president's strategy, and I believe that our military operations are being successful in denying the Taliban control of populated areas, degrading their capabilities, and improving the capabilities of the Afghan national security forces.”

In 2005, George W. Bush, whom Gates also served, used the word “victory” 15 times in a single speech (“National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”).  Keep in mind, though, that our previous president learned about war in the movie theaters of his childhood where the Marines always advanced and Americans actually won.  Think of his victory obsession as the equivalent of a mid-twentieth-century hangover.

In 2011, despite the complaints of a few leftover neocons dreaming of past glory, you can search Washington high and low for “victory.”  You won’t find it.  It’s the verbal equivalent of a Yeti.  Being “successful in implementing the president’s strategy,” what more could you ask?  Keeping the enemy on his “back foot”: hey, at $10 billion a month, if that isn’t “success,” tell me what is?

Admittedly, the assassination of Osama bin Laden was treated as if it were VJ Day ending World War II, but actually win a war?  Don’t make Secretary of Defense Gates laugh!

Maybe, if everything comes up roses, in some year soon we’ll be celebrating DE (Degrade the Enemy) Day.\

Enemy: Any super-evil pipsqueak on whose back you can raise at least $1.2 trillion a year for the National Security Complex.

“I actually consider al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula with Al-Awlaki as a leader within that organization probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland.”  So said Michael Leiter, presidential adviser and the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, last February, months before Osama bin Laden was killed (and Leiter himself resigned).  Since bin Laden’s death, Leiter’s assessment has been heartily seconded in word and deed in Washington.  For example, New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti recently wrote: “Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen is believed by the C.I.A. to pose the greatest immediate threat to the United States, more so than even Qaeda’s senior leadership believed to be hiding in Pakistan.”

Now, here’s the odd thing.  Once upon a time, statements like these might have been tantamount to announcements of victory: That’s all they’ve got left?

Of course, once upon a time, if you asked an American who was the most dangerous man on the planet, you might have been told Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin, or Mao Zedong.  These days, don’t think enemy at all; think comic-book-style arch-villain Lex Luthor or Doctor Doom -- anyone, in fact, capable of standing in for globe-encompassing Evil.

Right now, post-bin-Laden, America’s super-villain of choice is  Anwar al-Awlaki, an enemy with seemingly near superhuman powers to disturb Washington, but no army, no state, and no significant finances.  The U.S.-born “radical cleric” lives as a semi-fugitive in Yemen, a poverty-stricken land of which, until recently, few Americans had heard.  Al-Awlaki is considered at least partially responsible for two high-profile plots against the U.S.: the underwear bomber and package bombs sent by plane to Chicago synagogues.  Both failed dismally, even though neither Superman nor the Fantastic Four rushed to the rescue.

As an Evil One, al-Awlaki is a voodoo enemy, a YouTube warrior (“the bin Laden of the Internet”) with little but his wits and whatever superpowers he can muster to help him.  He was reputedly responsible for helping to poison the mind of Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan before he  blew away 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas.  There’s no question of one thing: he’s gotten inside Washington’s war-on-terror head in a big way.  As a result, the Obama administration is significantly intensifying its war against him and the ragtag crew of tribesmen he hangs out with who go by the name of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Covert War: It used to mean secret war, a war “in the shadows” and so beyond the public’s gaze.  Now, it means a conflict in the full glare of publicity that everybody knows about, but no one can do anything about.  Think: in the news, but off the books.

Go figure: today, our “covert” wars are front-page news.  The top-secret operation to assassinate Osama bin Laden garnered an unprecedented 69% of the U.S. media “newshole” the week after it happened, and 90% of cable TV coverage.  And America’s most secretive covert warriors, elite SEAL Team 6, caused “SEAL-mania” to break out nationwide.

Moreover, no minor drone strike in the “covert” CIA-run air war in the Pakistani tribal borderlands goes unreported.  In fact, as with Yemen today, future plans for the launching orintensification of Pakistani-style covert wars are now openly discussed, debated, and praised in Washington, as well as widely reported on.  At one point, CIA Director Leon Panetta even bragged that, when it came to al-Qaeda, the Agency’s covert air war in Pakistan was “the only game in town.”

Think of covert war today as the equivalent of a heat-seeking missile aimed directly at that mainstream media newshole.  The “shadows” that once covered whole operations now only cover accountability for them.

Permanent bases: In the American way of war, military bases built on foreign soil are the equivalent of heroin.  The Pentagon can’t help building them and can’t live without them, but “permanent bases” don’t exist, not for Americans. Never.

That’s simple enough, but let me be absolutely clear anyway: Americans may have at least 865 bases around the world (not including those in war zones), but we have no desire to occupy other countries.  And wherever we garrison (and where aren’t we garrisoning?), we don’t want to stay, not permanently anyway.

In the grand scheme of things, for a planet more than four billion years old, our 90 bases in Japan, a mere 60-odd years in existence, or our 227 bases in Germany, some also around for 60-odd years, or those in Korea, 50-odd years, count as little.  Moreover, we have it on good word that permanent bases are un-American.  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said as much in 2003 when the first of the Pentagon's planned Iraqi mega-bases were already on the drawing boards.  Hillary Clinton said so again just the other day, about Afghanistan, and an anonymous American official added for clarification: "There are U.S. troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently."  Koreaanyone?  So get it straight, Americans don’t want permanent bases. Period.

And that’s amazing when you think about it, since globally Americans are constantly building and upgrading military bases. The Pentagon is hooked.  In Afghanistan, it’s gone totally wild -- more than 400 of them and still building!  Not only that, Washington is now deep into negotiations with the Afghan government to transform some of them into “joint bases” and stay on them if not until hell freezes over, then at least until Afghan soldiers can be whipped into an American-style army.  Latest best guesstimate for that? 2017without even getting close.

Fortunately, we plan to turn those many bases we built to the tune of billions of dollars, including the gigantic establishments at Bagramand Kandahar, over to the Afghans and just hang around, possibly“for decades,” as -- and the word couldn’t be more delicate or thoughtful -- “tenants.”

And by the way, accompanying the recent reports that the CIA is preparing to lend the U.S. military a major covert hand, drone-style, in its Yemen campaign, was news that the Agency isbuilding a base of its own on a rushed schedule in an unnamed Persian Gulf country. Just one base.  But don’t expect that to be the end of it.  After all, that’s like eating one potato chip.

Withdrawal: We’re going, we’re going... Just not quite yet and stop pushing!

If our bases are shots of heroin, then for the U.S. military leaving anyplace represents a form of “withdrawal,” which means the shakes.  Like drugs, it’s just so darn easy to go in that Washington keeps doing it again and again.  Getting out’s the bear.  Who can blame them, if they don’t want to leave?

In Iraq, for instance, Washington has been in the grips of withdrawal fever since 2008 when the Bush administration  agreed that all U.S. troops would leave by the end of this year.  You can still hear those combat boots dragging in the sand.  At this point, top administration and military officials are almost begging the Iraqis to let us remain on a few of our monster bases, like the ill-named Camp Victory or Balad Air Base, which in its heyday had air traffic that reputedly rivaled Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.  But here’s the thing: even if the U.S. military officially departs, lock, stock, and (gun) barrel, Washington’s still not really planning on leaving.

In recent years, the U.S. has built near-billion-dollar “embassies” that are actually citadels-cum-regional-command-posts in the Greater Middle East.  Just last week, four former U.S. ambassadors to Iraq made a plea to Congress to pony up the $5.2 billion requested by the Obama administration so that that the State Department can turn its Baghdad embassy into amassive militarized mission with 5,100 hire-a-guns and a small mercenary air force.

In sum, “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh” is not a song that Washington likes to sing.

Drone War (see also Covert War): A permanent air campaign using missile-armed pilotless planes that banishes both withdrawal and victory to the slagheap of history.

Is it even a “war” if only one side ever appears in person and only one side ever suffers damage?  America’s drones are often flown from thousands of miles away by “pilots” who, on leaving their U.S. bases after a work shift “in” a war zone, see signs warning them to drive carefully because this may be “the most dangerous part of your day.”  This is something new in the history of warfare.

Drones are the covert weaponry of choice in our covert wars, which means, of course, that the military just can’t wait to usher chosen reporters into its secret labs and experimental testing grounds to reveal dazzling visions of future destruction.

To make sense of drones, we probably have to stop thinking about “war” and start envisaging other models -- for example, that of the executioner who carries out a death sentence on another human being at no danger to himself.  If a pilotless drone is actually an executioner’s weapon, a modern airborne version of the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or the electric chair, the death sentence it carries with it is not decreed by a judge and certainly not by a jury of peers.

It’s assembled by intelligence agents based on fragmentary (and often self-interested) evidence, organized by targeteers, and given the thumbs-up sign by military or CIA lawyers.  All of them are scores, hundreds, thousands of miles away from their victims, people they don’t know, and may not faintly understand or share a culture with.  In addition, the capital offenses are often not established, still to be carried out, never to be carried out, or nonexistent. The fact that drones, despite their “precision” weaponry, regularly take out innocent civilians as well as prospective or actual terrorists reminds us that, if this is our model, Washington is a drunken executioner.

In a sense, Bush’s global war on terror called drones up from the depths of its unconscious to fulfill its most basic urges: to be endless and to reach anywhere on Earth with an Old Testament-style sense of vengeance.  The drone makes mincemeat of victory (which involves an endpoint), withdrawal (for which you have to be there in the first place), and national sovereignty (see below).

Corruption: Something inherent in the nature of war-torn Iraqis and Afghans from which only Americans, in and out of uniform, can save them.

Don’t be distracted by the $6.6 billion that, in the form of shrink-wrapped $100 bills, the Bush administration loaded onto C-130 transport planes, flew to liberated Iraq in 2003 for “reconstruction” purposes, and somehow mislaid.  The U.S. special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction did recently suggest that it might prove to be "the largest theft of funds in national history"; on the other hand, maybe it was just misplaced... forever.

Iraq’s parliamentary speaker now claims that up to $18.7 billion in Iraqi oil funds have gone missing-in-action, but Iraqis, as you know, are corrupt and unreliable.  So pay no attention.  Anyway, not to worry, it wasn’t our money.  All those crisp Benjamins came from Iraqi oil revenues that just happened to be held in U.S. banks.  And in war zones, what can you do?  Sometimes bad things happen to good $100 bills!

In any case, corruption is endemic to the societies of the Greater Middle East, which lack the institutional foundations of democratic societies.  Not surprisingly then, in impoverished,narcotized Afghanistan, it’s run wild.  Fortunately, Washington has fought nobly against its ravages for years.  Time and again, top American officials have cajoled, threatened, evenbrowbeat Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his compatriots to get them to crack down oncorrupt practices and hold honest elections to build support for the American-backed government in Kabul.

Here’s the funny thing though: a report on Afghan reconstruction recently released by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democratic majority staff suggests that the military and foreign “developmental” funds that have poured into the country, and which account for 97% of its gross domestic product, have played a major role in encouraging corruption.  To find a peacetime equivalent, imagine firemen rushing to a blaze only to pour gasoline on it and then lash out at the building’s dwellers as arsonists.

National Sovereignty: 1. Something Americans cherish and wouldn’t let any other country violate; 2. Something foreigners irrationally cling to, a sign of unreliability or mental instability.

Here’s the twenty-first-century credo of the American war state.  Please memorize it:  The world is our oyster.  We shall not weep.  We may missile [bomb, assassinate, night raid, invade] whom we please, when we please, where we please.  This is to be called “American safety.”

Those elsewhere, with a misplaced reverence for their own safety or security, or an overblown sense of pride and self-worth, who put themselves in harm’s way -- watch out.   After all, in a phrase: Sovereignty ‘R’ Us.

Note: As we still live on a one-way imperial planet, don’t try reversing any of the above, not even as a thought experiment.  Don’t imagine Iranian drones hunting terrorists over Southern California or Pakistani special operations forces launching night raids on small midwestern towns.  Not if you know what’s good for you.

War:  A totally malleable concept that is purely in the eye of the beholder.

Which is undoubtedly why the Obama administration recently decided not to return to Congress for approval of its Libyan intervention as required by the War Powers Resolution of 1973.  The administration instead issued a report essentially declaring Libya not to be a “war” at all, and so not to fall under the provisions of that resolution.  As that report explained: "U.S. operations [in Libya] do not involve [1] sustained fighting or [2] active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve [3] the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties, or a serious threat thereof, or [4] any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors."

This, of course, opens up the possibility of quite a new and sunny American future on planet Earth, one in which it will no longer be wildly utopian to imagine war becoming extinct. After all, the Obama administration is already moving to intensify and expand its [fill in the blank] in Yemen, which will meet all of the above criteria, as its [fill in the blank] in the Pakistani tribal borderlands already does. Someday, Washington could be making America safe all over the globe in what would, miraculously, be a thoroughly war-less world.

Tom Engelhardt

June 23, 2011

Related Content

America Is Detached From the War

How the Obama Administration Can End the War on Terror

Pakistan, the Taliban and the US

Bush and bin Laden

Welcome Home, War!

About the Author

Tom Engelhardt

Tom Engelhardt created and runs the Tomdispatch.com website, a project of The Nation Institute of which he is a Fellow...

Also by The Author  [ Click for More ]

100% Scared: How the National Security Complex Grows on Terrorism Fears (Society, World)

When it comes to terrorism, Americans are officially considered 100 percent scared, and so 100 percent in need of protection.

Tom Engelhardt

Post-Legal America and the National Security Complex (Government, Law, Society)

Tom Engelhardt

Related Topics

Social Issues Technology War

Monday, June 27, 2011

Ghost city appears above Xin'an River

By staff writers From: news.com.au June 27, 2011 7:00AM

Image1

Tall buildings miraculously appeared on the normally clear Xin'an River. Picture: ITN Source: Supplied

Image2

The mirage appeared after heavy rainfall. Picture: ITN Source: Supplied

  • City appears over Chinese river
  • Residents think it's a "vortex"
  • Scientists say it's a great mirage

IT looks like any other city skyline with skyscrapers, a few mountains and trees - except it isn't real.

The giant mirage appeared across the skyline near in East China earlier this month after heavy rainfall and humid conditions along the Xin’an River.

As mist settled over the river at dusk, tall buildings appeared to rise from nowhere, leading residents in nearby Huanshan City to speculate that the vision may be a "vortex" to a lost civilisation.

Scroll down to see amazing footage of the ghost city

"It's really amazing, it looks like a scene in a movie, in a fairlyland," one resident told UK news channel ITN.

The mysterious city had vanished just as quickly as it had come.

Scientists have quashed the vortex theory and, as per usual, have a simple explanation for the incredible sight.

They believe it may have been a mirage, caused when moisture in the air becomes warmer than the temperature of the water below.

When rays of sunlight cross from the colder air into the warmer air they are refracted or bent – creating a reflection in the air that looks similar to a reflection in water.

It's a common sight for many travellers on Australian roads. But we Australians tend to see puddles of water that disappear when you get close, not entire cities floating on rivers.

Don’t get it? Here’s a scientist to explain

 

Ghost city appears above Xin'an River | Space, Military and Medicine | News.com.au

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Vague agenda fuels doubts over Egypt's Brotherhood

(L-R) Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood representatives Essam El-Arian, Saad Al-Katatni and Mohamed Morsi hold a press conference in Cairo in this file photo. (AFP Photo/Amr Ahmad)

By   Yasmine Saleh / Reuters
June 24, 2011, 6:09 pm

CAIRO: Few things better sum up Egypt's uncharted future than the vague policy platform of the Muslim Brotherhood, a long-repressed Islamist movement poised to become a decisive force in mainstream politics.

With the country's military rulers reluctant to push through major reforms without a popular mandate, all eyes are on the emerging political class set free by the overthrow in February of veteran leader Hosni Mubarak.

None is likely to mobilize as much grassroots support as the Brotherhood, which has won the sympathy of millions of poor Egyptians by railing against venal politicians and campaigning for an Islamic state free of corruption.

But with parliamentary elections looming, the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party has sketched only the broadest outline of a manifesto. A pledge to do nothing that might harm Egypt's floundering economy has barely reassured nervous investors.

"The Brotherhood has always been unclear on all its policies ... It makes people wonder what is its real goal, and what to believe," said Nabil Abdel Fattah, a researcher in the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.

The Brotherhood's secular liberal enemies say the policy vacuum is understandable because telling the truth would betray an extremism that would make it unelectable.

They say it would quickly ban alcohol consumption, sending an already troubled tourism sector into a tailspin, reverse women's rights and deepen tension with Egypt's Christian minority by enforcing a strict Islamic code, the first step towards a Muslim theocracy.

Brotherhood leaders, mindful of a deep-rooted fear of social chaos, insist they would never force major change upon a country already struggling with the instability that followed Mubarak's overthrow.

"Investors should not worry. We want to participate with other groups to achieve the best outcome for our country," said Osama Gado, a former parliamentarian and founding member of Freedom and Justice.

Gado refused to be drawn on whether the party, if elected, would try to ban the consumption of alcohol, which is illegal in Islam but a requirement for many foreign holidaymakers.

"This is an example of the minor details that are not up to the Brotherhood alone to decide on. It is something that will be decided upon by the parliament that is elected by the people and if the people want it," Gado said.

Policy vacuum

The Brotherhood is not the only group to be thin on concrete policy commitments.

Mubarak's success in draining support for all but his National Democracy Party (NDP) weakened opponents to the point of irrelevance, sapped their maturity and left them with little incentive to present viable alternative governments.

"The Brotherhood and the other political parties are all depending on vague populist symbols that appeal to the people," said Abdel Fattah at the Al-Ahram Centre.

As if to show it takes image seriously, the Brotherhood has moved its headquarters from a pokey, crowded apartment in central Cairo to bright new offices in the suburbs.

The new offices are decorated in a French salon style, replacing the mock-Islamic arches of their former base.

The Brotherhood has slowly ratcheted up its political ambitions since it was freed to take part in politics, targeting half the seats in Parliament, up from a third previously.

It denies coveting the powerful presidency, but one of its number, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, considered a reformist, has been mooted to run as an independent.

With Mubarak gone, the Brotherhood has avoided challenging the military-backed interim government over its handling of Egypt's economic crisis and opposed a wave of strikes during the uprising as bad for the economy.

The Brotherhood's official message is that the key to Egypt's future prosperity is not major policy change but making existing policy more effective by fighting corruption.

It backs a minimum wage and would not change state subsidies that help the poor, but wants improved government regulation of markets and an end to monopolies, said Gado.

He said the government needed to boost job creation by promoting labor intensive industries and agriculture in deprived regions of the mostly desert country.

"The impression I get is that they don't have radical economic views," said Egyptian economist Mohamed Abu Basha. "I still need to know their tax policies or how they plan to raise the state's growth rate or decrease the deficit."

For that, investors must probably wait until after the elections.

"The group sets general policies about everything in its programs but does not talk about small details as it does not seek to impose its opinions on the people," said Gado.

The Brotherhood's non-committal official approach to policy contrasts with the more strident views of its most conservative members who demand the government follow a strict interpretation of Islamic sharia law.

Abdel Hafez El-Sawy, an independent researcher and a Brotherhood veteran of 30 years, but not one of its senior officials, is calling for the introduction of zakat, a tax on the wealth of Muslims to help the needy.

The Quran states that all Muslims must pay part of their savings accumulated over a year to the poor.

He said that Christians and non-Muslims would be exempted from paying zakat but could be asked to pay a similar amount of money if their religions require it.

"This is what I think as an Islamist economist. I don't know what the Brotherhood group would do in parliament," Sawy told Reuters. "I am suggesting this ... to put an end to poverty, which affects 40 percent of Egypt's population."

The Brotherhood has been torn over whether Egypt should scrap its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, precursor to economic ties that have included lucrative Egyptian gas exports.

Many rank and file members sympathize with Hamas, the Palestinian faction that rules the Gaza Strip and has vowed Israel's destruction.

For now the Brotherhood's officials are taking a more moderate line.

"We believe that all political and economic deals Egypt signed with other states should be kept as long as it benefits Egypt," Gado said.

Vague agenda fuels doubts over Egypt's Brotherhood

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Video proves kiss is real, say riot couple Alex Thomas and Aussie boyfriend Scott Jones | News.com.au

news.com.au  June 24, 2011 10:59AM

Moments before 'that' kiss: See the moments leading up to the infamous Vancouver riot kiss in explosive new vision. Perth Now24 June 2011

YouTube clip proves riot kiss was real

A VIDEO of the Vancouver kiss couple has emerged on YouTube showing the pair in a passionate embrace, proving the now famous moment in the midst of a riot was real.

The video reveals that the kiss between the pair was not staged, as some media have suggested. since a picture of the moment went viral earlier this month.
Lying in the middle of a downtown street in Vancouver amid the fracas, fires and looting was Canadian Alex Thomas and her Australian boyfriend Scott Jones who were flanked by police with shields and batons battling a riot following
Vancouver's hockey championship loss last week.

The footage shows police in riot gear storm over the top of the couple after they became caught up in the fracas.

Related Coverage

In the video Mr Jones comforts a clearly distressed Ms Thomas after she is knocked to the ground by the police, before kissing her in the moment that is now being compared to that of the sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square at the end of World War Two that was captured in a photo.
The striking image of the couple's kiss, taken by Getty photographer Rich Lam, has been splashed around the world and sparked debate as to whether it was real or staged.
But Mr Jones' father Brett Jones told Canadian broadcaster CBC the pictures were real and that he recognised his son in the picture circulated around the world over the Internet, and in newspapers.
In an interview from his home in Perth, he said Scott, an aspiring stand-up comedian, was attempting to console Alex after she had been knocked down by police officers.
They were caught in the violence after leaving the hockey arena where the NHL's Boston Bruins beat the Vancouver Canucks 4-0 to win the Stanley Cup.
"They were between the riot police and the rioters, and the riot police were actually charging forward, and Alex got knocked by a (police) shield and fell to the ground," he told CBC.
The loved-up pair has turned down several offers for interviews since the kiss made them worldwide celebrities.

Reconsidering millions in offers

However, after reportedly tuning down multi-million dollar offers the couple are now reportedly reconsidering the decision to kiss goodbye the financial benefits of their newfound global stardom.
Mr Jones previously said that he did not want the "extra stress" of media appointments after he and his Canadian girlfriend, Ms Thomas, were inundated with offers to describe the events that led to their public clinch.
But leading Australian celebrity agent Max Markson confirmed that the pair subsequently hired his Markson Sparks PR firm to explore the potential for earnings, with Mr Jones keen on a career in entertainment.
"I think for Scott, it's a tremendous opportunity for him to springboard his acting and standup comedy," Mr Markson told the Toronto Star. "Overseas people know more about that photo than the Stanley Cup."
Mr Markson said he was handling requests for interviews, endorsements and job opportunities while the couple concentrated on "unwinding" on holiday in California before heading to Melbourne, Australia.
The agent said that he would "love to get them on Jay Leno or Ellen and confirmed that he arranged for them to attend a lunch with former British prime minister Tony Blair in Australia at the end of July.
Mr Markson also recently said that the couple's global exposure could be worth a potential $10 million.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/video-proves-kiss-is-real-say-riot-couple-alex-thomas-aussie-boyfriend-scott-jones/story-e6frfkyi-1226081237840#ixzz1QEtYBqfu

Friday, June 24, 2011

Europe's democracy itself is at stake

Amartya Sen

Greece illustrates the danger of allowing rating agencies, despite their abysmal record, to lord it over the political terrain.

PHOTO: AFP,AP
2011062455141301 EURO MESS: In addition to a bigger political vision, there is a need for clearer economic thinking. The vote of confidence in Parliament in Athens recently.

Europe has led the world in the practice of democracy. It is therefore worrying that the dangers to democratic governance today, coming through the back door of financial priority, are not receiving the attention they should. There are profound issues to be faced about how Europe's democratic governance could be undermined by the hugely heightened role of financial institutions and rating agencies, which now lord it freely over parts of Europe's political terrain.

Two distinct issues need to be separated. The first concerns the place of democratic priorities, including what Walter Bagehot and John Stuart Mill saw as the need for “governance by discussion.” Suppose we accept that the powerful financial bosses have a realistic understanding of what needs to be done. This would strengthen the case for paying attention to their voices in a democratic dialogue. But that is not the same thing as allowing the international financial institutions and rating agencies the unilateral power to command democratically elected governments.

Second, it is quite hard to see that the sacrifices that the financial commanders have been demanding from precarious countries would deliver the ultimate viability of these countries and guarantee the continuation of the euro within an unreformed pattern of financial amalgamation and an unchanged membership of the euro club. The diagnosis of economic problems by rating agencies is not the voice of verity that they pretend. It is worth remembering that the record of rating agencies in certifying financial and business institutions preceding the 2008 economic crisis was so abysmal that the U.S. Congress seriously debated whether they should be prosecuted.

Since much of Europe is now engaged in achieving quick reduction of public deficits through drastic reduction of public expenditure, it is crucial to scrutinise realistically what the likely impact of the chosen policies may be, both on people and the generating of public revenue through economic growth. The high morals of “sacrifice” do, of course, have an intoxicating effect. This is the philosophy of the “right” corset: “If madam is at all comfortable in it, then madam certainly needs a smaller size.” However, if the demands of financial appropriateness are linked too mechanically to immediate cuts, the result could be the killing of the goose that lays the golden egg of economic growth.

This concern applies to a number of countries, from Britain to Greece. The commonality of the “blood, sweat and tears” strategy of deficit reduction gives some apparent plausibility to what is being imposed on more precarious countries like Greece or Portugal. It also makes it harder to have a united political voice in Europe that can stand up to the panic generated in the financial markets.

2011062455141302
Greek protesters during a peaceful rally before Parliament against plans for new austerity measures.

In addition to a bigger political vision, there is a need for clearer economic thinking. The tendency to ignore the importance of economic growth in generating public revenue should be a major item for scrutiny. The strong connection between growth and public revenue has been observed in many countries, from China and India to the U.S. and Brazil.

There are lessons from history here, too. The big public debts of many countries when the Second World War ended caused huge anxieties, but the burden diminished rapidly thanks to fast economic growth. Similarly, the huge deficits that President Clinton faced when he came to office in 1992 melted away during his presidency, greatly aided by speedy economic growth.

The fear of a threat to democracy does not, of course, apply to Britain, since these policies have been chosen by a government empowered by democratic elections. Even though the unfolding of a strategy that was not revealed at the time of election can be a reason for some pause, this is the kind of freedom that a democratic system does allow the electorally victorious. But that does not eliminate the need for more public discussion, even in Britain. There is also a need to recognise how the self-chosen restrictive policies in Britain seem to give plausibility to the even more drastic policies being imposed on Greece.

How did some of the Euro countries get into this mess? The oddity of going for a united currency without more political and economic integration has certainly played a part, even after taking note of financial transgressions that have undoubtedly been committed in the past by countries such as Greece or Portugal (and even after noting Mario Monti's important point that a culture of “excessive deference” in the EU has allowed these transgressions to go unchecked). It is to the huge credit of the Greek government — George Papandreou, the Prime Minister, in particular — that it is doing what it can despite political resistance, but the pained willingness of Athens to comply does not eliminate the European need to examine the wisdom of the requirements — and the timing — being imposed on Greece.

Worry about the euro

It is no consolation for me to recollect that I was firmly opposed to the euro, despite being very strongly in favour of European unity. My worry about the euro was partly connected with each country giving up the freedom of monetary policy and of exchange rate adjustments, which have greatly helped countries in difficulty in the past, and prevented the necessity of massive destabilisation of human lives in frantic efforts to stabilise the financial markets. That monetary freedom could be given up when there is also political and fiscal integration (as the states in the U.S. have), but the halfway house of the eurozone has been a recipe for disaster. The wonderful political idea of a united democratic Europe has been made to incorporate a precarious programme of incoherent financial amalgamation. Rearranging the eurozone now would have many problems, but difficult issues have to be intelligently discussed, rather than allowing Europe to drift in financial winds fed by narrow-minded thinking with a terrible track record. The process has to begin with some immediate restraining of the unopposed power of rating agencies to issue unilateral commands. These agencies are hard to discipline despite their abysmal record, but a well-reflected voice of legitimate governments can make a big difference to financial confidence while solutions are worked out, especially if the international financial institutions lend their support. Stopping the marginalisation of the democratic tradition of Europe has an urgency that is hard to exaggerate. European democracy is important for Europe — and for the world. ( Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, is professor of economics and philosophy at Harvard University.) — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2011

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail

The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Europe's democracy itself is at stake