Ethiopia in chaos as police kill 22 during protests

You can add Ethopia to the list of countries in Africa that have managed to fall into societal collapse.

Apparently from what I've been reading about Ethiopia, what happened was that on May 20th of this year, Ethiopia's national electoral board investigated widespread allegations of fraud in the recent general election. Both the main opposition coalition and the ruling party lodged complaints, which covered more than one third of the 547 constituencies. The first official results showed opposition landslides in the capital. Though the ruling party, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) claimed victory they did grudgingly accept that the opposition had made huge gain, winning at least a third of all seats.

However, in various parts of Ethiopia there were reports of rampant voter fraud, I believe especially so in rural areas. Following the oppositions allegation of fraud, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, whom has been accused of clinging to power by said voter fraud, ordered a month-long ban on demonstrations. Mr Zenawi also took control of the security forces in the capital Addis Ababa, in moves he said were meant to ensure post-election stability. This move has led us to where we are now where protesters are violating the ban and being mowed down for it.

Further complicating matters is a statement made by election observer and history's greatest monster (editors note, that's a Simpsons reference)...I mean former President Jimmy Carter who stated the following on his website in reference to the elections:

"The May 2005 elections, the third to be held under the current constitution, showed great promise in the deepening of Ethiopian democracy. For the first time in history the majority of Ethiopian voters were presented with choices when they went to the polls. We believe that Ethiopia has made tremendous strides toward democracy in the last several months, including more open debate, greater political participation, large rallies, and enormously high voter turnout on election day."

Mmm not so much Jimmy, not so much.

I don't know what you would call democracy but this;

"Addis Ababa is in a state of emergency after Ethiopian police killed 22 and arrested 600 anti-government demonstrators in clashes that threaten to destroy one of Africa's most stable countries. Gunfire echoed across the city yesterday when protesters clashed with security forces who had been ordered to disband all protests and demonstrations."

...is not my idea of Democracy.

You can read more about the terrible developments in Ethiopia by clicking here.

The First Step on the Ladder

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

Africa has been many different shades of basket case since the end of the Age of Empires. After Africa became free of it’s colonial yoke, many African nations took notice of the rapid industrializations going on both the Soviet Union and China under the rising tide of communism. Said African nations began looking at communism as a model for their own budding nations and this led to command economies and major investment in heavy industries such as coal and steel production to stimulate growth. However, this approach had little success. Only a handful of states formally adopted socialism and even fewer turned to outright Marxism. Many economists who study the post World War II time period in Africa regard their closed economies as major stumbling blocks toward modern development.

Often the approach of governments in Africa was to borrow heavily from abroad and use this aid to grow the economy to a level that the loans could be paid off. Sporadic growth during the years after independence continued. The countries focused on exports to pay for these development efforts. The 1973 energy crisis hit sub-Saharan Africa as hard as anywhere in the world. While some nations were net exporters, most were heavily reliant on imported fuels. Economies quickly began to falter and events such as famines hit Africa in the 1980s. The collapse of the Soviet Union, which had supported socialist and collectivist projects throughout the continent, undermined the legitimacy of such an approach, while it also meant that there were no longer any sources of international aid to help pursue this approach. (Biography.ms)

Between civil wars, famine, government corruption and the occasional worldwide market crash, Africa has had a devil of a time getting itself right and moving up the development ladder. It has been ravaged by malaria and AIDS and countries such as Rwanda and Sudan have or are currently experiencing countrywide genocide. I’ve contended that the world was willing to let Africa fall off the map as nobody seemed to be willing to make the sacrifices needed to do real work in saving the continent. It would appear the old mentality toward Africa is changing for the better, one would hope.

The first glimmer of hope is coming from bosom buddies George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. MSM Money reports that, “President George W. Bush on Tuesday paved the way for an agreement on multilateral debt relief for Africa when in a change of tack he promised "additional resources" would be made available to the World Bank.

Speaking at the White House, flanked by Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, Mr. Bush presented a show of unity on reform and development in Africa, which will be the centerpiece of next month's Group of Eight summit at Gleneagles in Scotland.

"We agree that highly indebted developing countries that are on the path to reform should not be burdened by mountains of debt," he said.”

This came as a great relief to me as just yesterday Bush had regarded debt relief as a loser, stating that, “It doesn’t fit our budgetary process.” I nearly hit the roof when I read this in an article from the BBC. However, it looks as if Bush has changed his mind and decided to do the right thing in Africa.

In addition to the extremely important debt cancellation, Bush has also called on Congress to triple aid to Africa. Bush also pledged an additional $674 million in aid for humanitarian relief that would help save millions of Africans from famine.

The reason why debt relief in Africa is so important for their move up the development ladder is that it could increase net aid to Africa by up to $1billion a year, compared with the $25 billion increase the commission said was necessary to reduce poverty substantially.

World Bank President and HNIC (head neo-con in charge) Paul Wolfowitz is also taking his pledge to bring Africa out of the dark ages quite seriously. Reuters reports that, “The World Bank plans to increase its efforts in Africa to help countries mired in poverty achieve growth rates similar to the continent's economic stars, the bank's top official for Africa said on Tuesday.

To show the bank's commitment to Africa, new World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz will travel there next week on his first foreign trip since taking over on June 1.

The former U.S. deputy defense secretary will visit Africa's two major powers - Nigeria and South Africa - and also stop in Rwanda and Burkina Faso.

Gobind Nankani, the bank's vice president for Africa, told Reuters in an interview that policies under Wolfowitz would seek an overall growth for African countries that would benefit both the poor and the more successful nations.”

In the shadow of the Downing Street Memo and the aftermath of the Iraq war, Blair is seeking to rehab his legacy and his image by using his position as head of the G8 to really push Africa up the development ladder. There’s more to be done obviously but this is a good first step.

Freedom's Just Another Word For...yawn

Props to John for alerting me to this article on Iranian Youth.

American consumer culture is stronger than gravity. Much like death, it's unstoppable. It is a great truth in the world that if you present enough stuff to people and the means to own said stuff they will chase it with abandon. The French elite hate it. The Muslim clerics hate it. The post-modern collegiate followers of Derrida hate it too. That's fine, American consumer culture isn't going away and it's only getting stronger each day.

Apparently the latest victim of American consumer culture is Iran. The above article cites that the youth of Iran have pretty much given up on real reform (as will be evidenced by the low turnout on the June 17th elections). However, it is not from the bottle of despair that they drink, but rather the shot glass of consumerism instead. Iran has become, like America itself, the living embodiment of an Eddie Izzard joke:

Santa Claus: And what do you want for Christmas little boy?

Boy: Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men...

Santa Claus: (digging into his sack) Well how about a cardboard train?

Boy: Yes that's much better (playing with the train) You can keep the peace, I don't care.

It's a great strategy; keep the masses distracted with enough crap and they won't remember that they aren't free.

Eventually something is going to give. Once the monster of American consumerism is out of the bag it eats up everything in sight. Eventually it will eat the Mullah regime too but in the meantime those same Mullahs can continue to use it as an opiate for the masses, just like here in the US.

Anyway, gotta turn off the news, The Shield is on!

Ending unfair trade is key to helping Africa

Here's another article I found concerning the right way to help Africa move up the development ladder. The most important part is:

"These unfair trade practices are of two main types. First, producers in the rich countries - especially our farmers - receive huge production and export subsidies. These enable us to dump our surpluses on poor country markets at far below production costs and make it difficult for poor country farmers to export certain crops to us. When I lived in Ghana in the early 1980s, farmers there were producing cotton, rice and sugar, largely for the local market. Today, little of any of these crops is grown locally and the Ghanaian farmers have been driven into the slums or on to more marginal and ecologically fragile land. In each case, they have been displaced by subsidised, rich country exports.

Second, the rich countries design their tariff regimes in a way that value-adding, processing activities - turning cotton into shirts, etc - are undertaken here rather than in the countries where the products are grown. Some 70 per cent of the crops grown in the US are processed domestically while only 1 per cent of India's crops are processed in India. This is not because Indians are incapable of making tea-bags, roasted coffee, etc, but because we distort markets to make it more profitable for processors to import raw materials into Europe and the US and to do the processing here.

This is the reason we are not seeing the emergence of an entrepreneurial middle class in Africa..."

You can read the rest of the article here.

Bush Opposes UK Africa Debt Plan

It seems pretty obvious that the Bush administration serves the banking and the business class and nobody else. I'm not economist but everything I've read up to this point says that countries struggling to get on the development ladder need debt relief or they become mired in paying back money to the banks and then their people suffer for it. Instead of investing in more infrastructure or job creation, the money pays the interest ad infinitum. It's like someone making 5 dollars an hour and having to pay off a credit card with %10.9 financining and only being able to afford the minimum balance each month. That person will never get out of debt nor will said person ever be able to invest in his livelyhood. It's like a comic once said, he'd be working for VISA.

This chauvanistic protectionism in this country has got to stop. It is rediculous to think that other countries should open up their markets for our products and in return we shut our markets to them. I understand that we have a tremendous trade defiicit and I further understand that we've given plenty of aid to Africa in the past. So what? The author of the Commission for Africa (CFA) report, Sir Nicholas Stern was stated that , as he saw it, one reason to continue to give aid and debt relief to Africa is how far Africa has come in the last ten years. Africa has been growing more rapidly, economic policies have been getting better, there’s been more democracy. And that’s starting to be understood outside according to Stern.

According the article, part of the plan is to create an International Finance Facility (IFF) to help pay for immunisation programmes in Africa. Disease is one of the major sources of poverty cited by developmental economists and other experts who do work there. It has been proposed that if Africa were to stem the tide of overwhelming disease then it would be easier for the continent to climb out of abject destitution.

You'd think Bush and company would be all for stemming the tide of disease in Africa but you'd be wrong. Instead President Bush said that that the IFF for Africa "doesn't fit our budgetary process". Right, the budget only has room for cutting the income tax and dismantling Social Security, I can see that <----insert sarcasm here.

Blair appears to be going forward with this plan without the US and to that I say good. The next time Mr. Bush wants Blair to partner up with him on a war in the Middle East, PM Blair should recall this rebuff and tell Bush to stick it in his nose.

Here's the article from

All Africa.com

US accuses 14 nations of slavery

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

I personally believe that a sexual assault on a child is worse than murder. That may sound wild to most of you but it's honestly how I feel. I've seen the damage sexual assaults against children have caused and it's horrific. Depending on the age of the child, the severity of the assault and the amount of times it happens, any number of psychological and physical illnesses can take hold. Schizophrenia may be the result of pro-longed sexual abuse. Drug addiction certainly has been cited as a symptom of childhood sexual abuse. The youngest victim of sexual assault reported in the State of Florida was 2 months old. (Florida Department of Law Enforcement.)

For years deplorable and disgusting human beings (and I use that term ever so lightly) have been traveling to the Third World to have their way with boys and girls of all ages. I remember in college I wrote my first senior thesis on child prostitution in Thailand. When I went to the library to conduct research, the library assistant (an old man) pulled me to the side and said, "You want to know about Thailand? You can have anything you want there. Girls. Boys. Cats. Dogs. You name it, you can have sex with it." I hurriedly thanked him for that alarming editorial and promptly got the hell away way from him. Mind you, when I wrote my thesis child prostitution in SE Asia had been going on for many years. This event occured in 1997.

It appears to be rather plain to me that a certain segment of adults in this world simply hate children. I can't think of another reason why any government would allow such a large portion of their population to be victimized on an on-going basis. It's unthinkable that said governments would factor in child rape as a source of tourism revenue, such as Thailand does.

This recent citation by the US against Saudi Arabia as well as other nations is a nice gesture but it isn't enough and most likely enough will never be done to protect children in any country. Right now Saudi law states that sex is illegal without marraige however, said law sets no minimum age for marriage. I've read that girls as young as 9 are married off to men whom are considerably older and who knows how long they wait, if they wait at all to consumate the marraige. Again, it's not enough to point at Saudi Arabia and say, "bad Arabs!" You actually have to do something about it. But how do you change another countries entire culture? Some liberals will you tell you that you shouldn't even attempt to change another culture under the guise of multi-culturalism and cultural relativism.

Nuts to that. Child rape is child rape whether you're a white girl in Florida or an Arab girl in the Middle East. The behavior is unspeakably evil. More needs to be done about it. This is a start and any start is a good one but it may also be too little too late. To the children across the world being preyed on by cloistered pigs, I pray for you.

Here's the story from the Taipei Times:

The US accused 14 nations of failing to do enough to stop the modern-day trade in prostitutes, child sex slaves and forced laborers. The countries include Saudi Arabia, Washington's closest Arab ally in the war on terror.

Three other US allies in the Middle East -- Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar -- were newly listed this year as nations failing to deal adequately with the illegal trafficking of people. The State Department said Friday that the 14 countries could be subject to sanctions if they do not crack down.

As many as 800,000 people are bought and sold across national borders annually or lured to other countries with false promises of work or other benefits, the State Department said in its annual survey of international human trafficking. Most are women and children.

"Trafficking in human beings is nothing less than a modern form of slavery," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "The US has a particular duty to fight this scourge because trafficking in persons is an affront to the principles of human dignity and liberty upon which this nation was founded."

The other countries listed as poor performers in stopping trafficking are Bolivia, Cambodia, Cuba, Ecuador, Jamaica, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan, Togo and Venezuela.

`politicizing rights'

Venezuela, which has had a tense relationship with the US in recent months, denied that it was ignoring the trafficking problem. A written statement from the Venezuelan Embassy called the country's inclusion in the list "a sad demonstration of how the administration has politicized its work on human rights."

The State Department report placed China, South Africa and 25 other countries on a watch list. Those nations have trafficking problems, but their governments are making what the State Department calls significant efforts to combat them.

Saudi Arabia has turned a blind eye to the problem of poor or low-skilled workers brought into the country and exploited or who go there voluntarily but find themselves in "involuntary servitude," the report said.

Saudi employers physically and sexually abuse migrants from South Asia, Africa and other places, withhold pay and travel documents or use migrant children as forced beggars, the report said. Some migrants work as domestics in the homes of wealthy Saudis.

"The government of Saudi Arabia does not comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so," the 2005 Trafficking in Persons report said.

The report said the Saudis apparently prosecuted only one employer during the period covered by the report, from March last year to March of this year.

Despite periodic differences, Saudi Arabia and the US have a tight alliance built on economic and military cooperation. Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, the kingdom's de facto ruler since his half brother King Fahd suffered a stroke in 1995, visited President George W. Bush at his Texas ranch in April.

The US spends US$96 million to help other countries combat trafficking, Rice said. The US is not included on the list, although Miller said the country is far from immune.

"Modern-day slavery plagues every country, including the US," Miller said.

The Justice Department is due to issue a separate report this month on trafficking in the US.

Congress began requiring the international ranking reports in 2000. This is the fifth report, and it covers trafficking to and from 150 countries. Miller said the goal "is not to punish but to stimulate government action to eliminate" human trafficking. Countries that fail to crack down can be subject to a variety of sanctions, including the withholding of some kinds of US foreign aid. The US will not cut off trade and humanitarian aid, the report said.

Countries that receive no such assistance can be declared ineligible to take part in cultural and educational exchange programs.

Two countries have been sanctioned since the reports began, Equatorial Guinea and Venezuela.

John Kerry to call for impeachment of George Bush

I got this from Al-Jazeera so take it for what it's worth. However, Air America, Newsmax.com and Rush Limbaugh have all been talking about the same story. In addition, John Conyers, D-Mich., is leading the charge calling on President Bush to answer questions about a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq arranged around 2002. The scuttlebutt is that if Congress begins the impeachment process against Bush and Cheney now and the Democrats barnstorm back into their former congressional seats of power in the mid-term elections, then we could see Bush and Cheney impeached close enough to the 2008 presidential election that it would handily deliver a Presidential victory to whomever (Hillary Clinton) is on the ticket.

My opinion is this, I supported the war in Iraq based on it's strategic importance in the Middle East. I believe that a large, on-going American presence smack dab in the middle of the Middle East puts pressure on the regional leadership to pick a side between us and the terrorists whom they've been financing while two-facedly courting a strategic and trade partnership with the US (Saudi Arabia). I believe our mere heavy handed prescence there is a catalyst for change toward liberal democracy and free trade that would be severely retarded or not happening at all if we were not there to put pressure on the regional governments. However, if it is the right of Congress to enact an impeachment trial and subsequently it is found in a fair trial that Bush and Cheney did indeed break the law by fixing intelligence and leading America into an "illegal" war, then my higher alliegance is to the exact letter of the law and not to any political party nor certainly to any single politician. If said events occur then I say throw the bum out.

However Bush has Wall Street on his side as do most Republicans and if he's impeached it's almost assured that the markets will suffer and lots of folks who make large donations to the GOP will lose gobs of money. That being said I highly doubt a full impeachment trial will ensue. Somebody somewhere will be shown enough green by the right CEO or CEO's and this whole affair will slowly fall off the tracks...much to the chagrin of Randy Rhodes and the cast of muckrakers at Air America.

Here's the story from Al-Jazeera:

John Kerry announced Thursday that he intends to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported last month by the London Times. The memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair allegedly said that President Bush's administration "fixed" intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war.

The Downing Street Memo is the leaked secret British document that details the minutes of a 2002 meeting between top-level British and American government officials. The memo states that George Bush "was determined" to attack Iraq long before going to Congress with the matter, and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

So far neither government has disputed the accuracy of the memo.

The memo caused an uproar in Britain and made a significant impact in the British national elections, but has recieved little attention in American news.

The Boston Globe published an article by Ralph Nader, Tuesday, in which Nader also called for President Bush's impeachment. The story is being carried on Michael Moore's website and the Democratic Underground.

Failed presidential candidate Kerry advised that he will begin the presentation of his case for President Bush's impeachment to Congress, on Monday.

Kerry said of the memo: "When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue. I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

He questioned Americans' understanding of the war and the idea that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, "Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?"

House Representative John Conyers has written to the President regarding the memo:

"...a debate has raged in the United States over the last year and one half about whether the obviously flawed intelligence that falsely stated that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was a mere 'failure' or the result of intentional manipulation to reach foreordained conclusions supporting the case for war. The memo appears to close the case on that issue stating that in the United States the intelligence and facts were being 'fixed' around the decision to go to war."

There is a growing movement on the internet and in Congress for a "Resolution of Inquiry" into issues surrounding the planning and execution of the Iraq war, especially in regard to the Administration's handling of intelligence.

John Dean, a key Watergate figure, wrote in a June 2003 column for a legal website, that, "To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked... Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be a 'high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause."

However, in practical terms impeachment in the U.S. Senate requires a 2/3 majority for conviction, which is unlikely given that 55 out of 100 Senators are Republican.

When asked about the Downing Street Memo on May 23, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "If anyone wants to know how the intelligence was used by the administration, all they have to do is go back and look at all the public comments over the course of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and that's all very public information. Everybody who was there could see how we used that intelligence.

"And in terms of the intelligence, it was wrong, and we are taking steps to correct that and make sure that in the future we have the best possible intelligence, because it's critical in this post-September 11th age, that the executive branch has the best intelligence possible."

Hmong Tribespeople Surrender in Laos

About a year ago I was given a book about the Hmong people of Laos entitled, "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down," which is about an infant Hmong immigrant with a seizure disorder. It's a true story told from the perspectives of the family who fled Laos after the US abandoned it to the Communists, the medical professionals who tried to treat the sick girl despite massive cultural and language gaps and the social worker who tried to broker understanding between the opposite camps. While the book mainly deals with how this girls family tried to overcome the cultural issues of being American Immigrants so they could properly treat their daughter, the author does take some time to explain what happened in Laos and how thousands of Hmong people came to live in the US. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and since then I've done some scant research on that war and the people we betrayed therein. Having said that, I was a bit stunned when I read the following story from the AP. It would appear that the Hmong people are being allowed to re-enter Laotian society and the 21st Century at large. This story is in conjunction with another story I posted on here about Prime Minister Phan Van Khai's visit to America and our subsequent support for Vietnam to enter the World Trade Organization. It would seem that the Cold War, which caused genocide in Cambodia and countless other atrocities across South East Asia is finally coming to an end. An end that appears to bringing about better trade relations between said nations and the United States.

Now if we can only get our POW's back from 'Nam then we'd really be in business. Here's the story about the Hmong surrender from the AP:

After decades on the run, 170 women, children and old men of the Hmong ethnic minority - once part of a U.S.-backed secret army fighting communists in Laos - emerged from their jungle hideouts on Saturday to surrender to the government. Thousands of their fellow hilltribe people are expected to follow their move, the first step in closing the book on one of the most tragic episodes of the Vietnam War.

U.S. sympathizers who rendezvoused with the tribespeople said the first batch turning themselves in to the communist government were received warmly when they arrived shortly after first light at a Hmong village in central Laos.

The group, after several days' hard travel, began trekking at about 5 a.m. from a mountainside spot where they had encamped overnight to emerge at Chong Thuang village on Highway 7, a major road in Xieng Khouang province, said Ed Szendrey, a pro-Hmong activist from the United States who met up with them to help ensure their safety.

The Hmong were recruited by the CIA to fight on behalf of a pro-American government during the Vietnam War, only to find themselves all but abandoned after their communist enemies, the Pathet Lao, won a long civil war in 1975. Fearing for their lives, many fled to Thailand, later resettling in the United States and elsewhere. But thousands stayed behind, some adjusting to the new hardline regime and others staying in the jungle, where they faced continuing attacks.

But those animosities seemed to be forgotten on Saturday, as the local police chief greeted them and villagers, also Hmong, prepared rice and other food for the tribespeople, Szendrey told The Associated Press in Bangkok.

If all goes peacefully, they will be followed by several thousand others from various Hmong bands hiding throughout Laos, Szendrey said in earlier interviews in Bangkok. The U.S.-based organization he helped found, the Fact-Finding Commission, has stayed in touch with the far-flung remnants of the Hmong - 20 or so groups scattered around the mountainous country - through satellite telephones.

Little reliable information about their fate was available until late 2002, when two journalists working for Time magazine made contact with one of the Hmong groups, and came out with startling photographs and stories of their desperate existence. Their reports helped highlight the plight of the Hmong, and were followed by more publicity, including several highly critical reports by Amnesty International, which accused the Lao government of gross human rights violations in persecuting the Hmong.

The 170 who surrendered Saturday were apparently part of the group visited by the Time magazine journalists.

Szendrey, of Oroville, Calif., said that although the plan to surrender was voluntary, it was made in desperation as several pockets of the Hmong, pursued by government troops, believed they would starve if they didn't turn themselves in.

He said no soldiers or armed militia were present when they were received on Saturday.

The local police chief, Wa Neng Lor - himself a Hmong - said he had been told to expect the surrender and that the military had been ordered to stand down. Some villagers, however, expressed concern about what might happen if Lao soldiers showed up, Szendrey said.

The surrender had been planned for weeks and was debated by many in the Hmong community in the United States, some segments of which opposed any reconciliation with the communists. Vang Pao, the group's wartime commander and the de facto leader of the Hmong community in the U.S., supported the decision to surrender.

"It looks like the government is prepared to handle it on the local level and not get the military involved," said Szendrey speaking to AP via satellite phone.

About 20 Hmong communities around Laos are believed to have been involved in low-level fighting against the government, which has been reluctant to acknowledge any insurgency, instead usually labeling the armed Hmong groups as "bandits."

U.N agencies had been contacted about the surrender plans, and Szendrey said the U.N. World Food Program had expressed a willingness to aid those who surrendered.

Szendrey and his associates, who planned to leave the group later Saturday when U.N. officials and foreign diplomats were expected to turn up, described a happy scene in sharp contrast to the daily lives of brutal desperation the Hmong had been leading for years in the jungle.

The Hmong had been in such remote areas that most of the children had never seen a motor vehicle, he said. When a big truck pulled up to the village, they were astonished at the sight.

Regime Change in Iran: Interview with Gary Metz

This site supports regime change in Iran but does not necessarily support American military intervention therein. I'm for supporting the pro-democracy movement in Iran and assisting them in their overthrow of the Mullah regime. I've been writing for some time about the speculation that we would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities under the auspices of WMD eradication and my opinion is that such a tactic would unleash the whirlwind in the form of retaliation by Russia, China, Venezuela and a few other choice countries. Support for a democratic revolution is what's called for here and in the following intereview from Global Politician.com conducted by Ryan Mauro, Gary Metz offers the same analysis with a lot more clarity:

Gary Metz operates the Regime Change Iran web site (http://www.regimechangeiran.com), one of the top-notch blogs keeping readers up-to-date on developments inside Iran.

RM: Given the fact that there were such large intelligence failures when we went into Iraq, and such a large portion of the American population feels the war is a mistake, how can we trust the intelligence coming out of Iran?

GM: Our intelligence inside of Iran is not what it should be. It will take years to build the kind of intelligence this country needs inside of Iran.

But there is no question that Iran hid aspects of its nuclear program for nearly 20 years. That is an established fact. The Administration's approach does not require a new intelligence find. They are seeking a dismantling of the Iranian uranium enrichment program. On this it appears the EU3 and the U.S. are in agreement. So intelligence is not likely to become a major issue.

But speaking of intelligence, geostrategy-direct.com recently reported that Iran has purchased all the technology and plutonium necessary to construct a bomb. This is something I have long feared.

Your question also implies that the U.S. is preparing for a war with Iran. This is in my opinion very unlikely. If you listen carefully to the words of the President and Condi Rice they seem committed to a regime change policy in Iran, but they won't call it that. By that I believe they intend to support an internal regime change similar to what we have witnesses in Georgia, the Ukraine, Lebanon, etc. This is what we support at regimechangeiran.com. To that end, we have just launched a blogosphere campaign to support the people of Iran to do just that.

RM: How sure can we be that the Iranian opposition is capable of overthrowing the mullahs? I think it is safe to say that when we went into Iraq, we had similar expectations.

GM: Unlike Iraq, the people of Iran have long been considered the most pro-American in the Middle East. Recent polls have indicated that a mere five to ten percent support for the mullahs and eighty-five percent support for a secular democratic government.

So the pro-democracy forces have the numbers. If the people of Iran could have real elections and could choose their own leaders, they would produce a new Iran. Since the people of Iran are tired of participating in illegitimate elections, the people of Iran are planning on boycotting the
upcoming elections, June 17. But unlike past elections, the world will be watching, closely.

The pro-democracy forces there hope that when the world witness the people boycotting Iran's illegitimate elections it will put serious pressure on democratic nations to support real democracy in Iran. This is a similar situation that began the uproar in the Ukraine.

The issue is, are they willing to risk their lives to force a change. It is unclear how far the people of Iran are willing to go. But this summer promises to be the most volatile in the regime's history.

I just published a discussion with Gene Sharp had with the Boston Globe about his book, From Dictatorship to Democracy. His book has served as a training manual around the world for successful non-violent regime change. The people in Georgia, the Ukraine and Lebanon have received training in these methods, but the Iranians have had little assistance of this kind. Fortunately, Gene Sharp's book is now available in Farsi for free on the internet. I can only hope the pro-democracy leaders there can make use of these methods and exhibit the discipline necessary for it to work. We will know soon.

RM: Some people I speak to say we can't rely on the opposition for regime change because of two reasons: 1) The Revolutionary Guards, Hizbollah, and other regime-loyal forces will cut them down despite their popularity and 2) The opposition is incapable of regime change before Iran gets a nuclear weapon. How do you respond?

GM: Even totalitarian regimes must exhibit judicious use of violence against its own people. Too heavy a hand is likely to create dissention among those in charge of security. This can cause security forces fighting security forces. But it also increases the size, anger and willingness of those opposing the regime to make sacrifices they might not otherwise make. This if used properly can permit pro-democracy forces to galvanize the public towards their efforts.

Those in control in Iran understand this. Recently, the people of Iran chose to disobey the regime's ban on an ancient festival that involves making small fires and jumping over it, leaving the past problems behind. In Iran the sight of huge numbers of Iranians disobeying the ban, caused the regime to quickly shift its position and even permitted state TV broadcasters to cover the event and praised it.

It is also important to note that the regime has been forced to bring into the country non-Persian security forces because it does not trust its own security forces to carry out its orders. The sight of non-Persian security forces throughout Iran has caused the masses of Iranians to view the regime with disgust.

It might also be of interest that in some communities the Basji's (the religious militia) have been disarmed because some religious leaders in Iran have spoken out against the regime as corrupt and that the regime is causing Iranians to leave Islam.

Iran may already have the nuclear bomb and the best way to locate and put under the control of those friendly to the U.S. is to support the efforts of the pro-democracy forces there. A military attack may make things worse.

RM: If the opposition is incapable of defeating the Revolutionary Guards and other loyal forces, should the US military assist them? Are we too stretched-out to do so?

GM: The pro-democracy forces can defeat the revolutionary guards by the methods I outlined and therefore there is at this time no need for U.S. military action. U.S. military action is likely to have the opposite effect we would want. It could cause the people of Iran to rally around a government they dislike, just as the 9/11 attack brought Americans throughout the political spectrum together for time.

RM: If we support the opposition, isn't Iran capable of retaliating by causing a great amount of trouble in Afghanistan, Iraq, or even at home?

The regime has already been doing everything imaginable to cause problems in Afghanistan and Iraq. The only thing they haven't done is use direct military action and this would provide the U.S. the justification to retaliate against Iran's military. Iran cannot re-supply its military fast
enough. It would lose in a traditional military conflict. It could only hope to win a war of attrition as they are attempting to do in Iraq.

RM: Won't there be internal Iranian conflicts and guerilla war as a result of the overthrow of the mullahs? Won't the instability lead to the dispersal of WMDs and military arms?

GM: This depends on largely on how the regime is brought down. WMD's are generally under the control of the military. If the pro-democracy forces can turn the loyalties of the military and security forces it can keep them under control. This has happened in other nations. But it is likely that their will be bloodshed and regime change opens the possibilities for WMD's to change hands before complete control is in place. It is possible.

RM: Why is the Mujahideen-e-Khalq labeled a terrorist organization by the State Department and should it/will it remain that way?

GM: The Clinton Administration designated them a terrorist organization based on its murder of Americans and loyalties to at one time Khomeini, then later to Saddam. During the Iran/Iraq war the MEK fought and killed Iranians. As a result, inside of Iran they are almost universally considered traitors. I am not an expert in the MEK but I know that the Iranian people overwhelmingly hate the MEK and if the U.S. were to change their designation it would cause them to believe that the U.S. has made peace with their enemy. This would be a huge mistake.

RM: Is it a possibility to form an exile government outside Iran? Is such leadership available?

GM: It is possible, there have been several groups seeking to do this. One such group calling itself the Iranian Opposition Council is working on this. It is too early to know what they will be able to accomplish.

RM: Wouldn't assisting regime change in Iran cause further anti-Americanism around the world and perhaps provoke terrorist attacks?

GM: Just the opposite. While the people of the Middle East generally distrust the U.S., the free elections in Afghanistan and then in Iraq are causing a tide wave of change in the Middle East. People who never thought democracy was possible in the Middle East are now asking, why not us? The more likely targets of terrorists are the new leaders of these new democracies, not the U.S. But these nations are likely to do a much better job of securing their nations than the U.S. could ever hope to do.

RM: Is it possible to form a real coalition to support the opposition or even support military assistance?

GM: There are many groups seeking to support the Iranian opposition inside of Iran, but no coalition that I am aware of. We should discuss this further. As I mentioned earlier I have launched a blogosphere campaign in support of the pro-democracy forces inside of Iran. We may be able to organize something larger as a result.

Ryan Mauro is a geopolitical analyst. He began working for Tactical Defense Concepts (www.tdconcepts.com), a maritime-associated security company in 2002. In 2003, Mr. Mauro joined the Northeast Intelligence Network (www.homelandsecurityus.com), which specializes in tracking and assessing terrorist threats. He has appeared on over 20 radio shows and had articles published in over a dozen publications. His book "Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq" is scheduled to be published in the coming months. He publishes his own web site called World Threats.
tdcanalyst@optonline.net

New Review: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

I try not to read crap. I really do. I am a very particular and meticulous consumer of books and generally don’t waste time reading nonsense from either the far right or the far left. I’ve dabbled here and there with a Sean Hannity book (and in my youth, Rush Limbaugh’s two books), but generally I try to read books with a higher pedigree of authorship. In the case of Michael Savage’s third and newest book, “Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder,” I am reminded of why I don’t read this sort of tripe anymore.
If you were to walk into any large chain bookstore right now, you would be able to find a bevy of books written by experts on a litany of subjects from the war on terror to illegal immigration. They’ll have their own slant for certain, but in most cases the reader should come away with a better understanding of the subject material they just read about.

The opposite is true with these “pundit manifestoes,” as I like to call them. Folks like Savage and Hannity, or Michael Moore and Al Franken on the other side, write these broad and schizophrenic books with nothing holding them together except that they have an unreasonable hatred for the other side of the political debate. Their collective lack of scholarship and generally terrible ability to compose a thorough narrative make reading their books an exercise in masochism. This newest pile of venom by crotchety old man extraordinaire Michael Savage is no different.

Wolfowitz takes World Bank helm

It's official, Wolfowitz is the head of the World Bank. Now some (like Scott Ritter) say he's only there to tank the place. However, Wolfowitz says he wants to use the WB to focus on pushing the greater African continent up the development ladder. Maybe I'm naive but Africa sounds like a weird place to start if ones sole job is to destroy the World Bank. But then I try to give people the benefit of the doubt so what do I know.

Jeffrey Sachs, author of "The End of Poverty" on the other hand thinks Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank is just bollocks. In a BBC article from March 17th of this year he said that, "It's a very surprising and in many ways inappropriate nomination.

The position of president of the World Bank is one of the most important in the world.

Hundreds of millions of people depend for their lives and their livelihood on World Bank efforts to fight extreme poverty - we need an individual with a demonstrated track record and relevant professional expertise.

Mr Wolfowitz does not fit those criteria at all. He is a man without international development experience, without professional qualifications.

He has not demonstrated an interest in the Millennium Development Goals, the shared international commitments to the fight against extreme poverty.

Development challenges are not amateur-hour issues, nor are they issues to be addressed by hunch.

Mr Wolfowitz is not a banker, an economist, a public health specialist, a water management specialist, an agronomist, a climate change specialist - any of the professional specialisations that stand at the core of the poverty challenge.

He is, of course, a defence specialist. If this were the "World Defence Council", his nomination might make sense.

But this is the World Bank. You wouldn't choose Mr Wolfowitz to be surgeon-general, a position for a doctor. You wouldn't choose Mr Wolfowitz to be solicitor-general, a position for a lawyer. And for the same reason, you shouldn't choose Mr Wolfowitz to be head of the World Bank.

There are many people around the world of great distinction and demonstrated capacity who can effectively lead the World Bank.

I hope that there will be other candidates, people of international experience and professional qualifications to hold this position. "

Needless to say Scott Ritter isn't alone in thinking the HNIC (Head Neo-Con In Charge) is a bad person to be leading the World Bank. Here's teh story from Reuters:

WASHINGTON, June 1 (Reuters) - Paul Wolfowitz became World Bank president on Wednesday and said his agenda would focus on Africa, tackling corruption and making poor countries feel less sidelined in the bank's decisions.

In his first briefing with reporters since he was confirmed unanimously in March, the former U.S. deputy defense secretary said he did not plan an organizational makeover.

The development bank was in "great shape," he declared, with a mission clearly trained on tackling global poverty.

Wolfowitz takes the reins of the globe's premier lender to impoverished countries despite widespread criticism of his role as the architect of the U.S. war in Iraq.

He quieted his critics by inviting them to meet with him and even handed out his e-mail to staff members still uneasy about their new boss.

Wolfowitz told reporters his immediate priority would be Africa, while not forgetting the development needs in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia.

"Africa has a dependence and need for the bank that stands out among all the many people who need what this bank has to offer" said Wolfowitz, acknowledging he still had lots to learn.

He said the bank's role in Africa was especially important given that a dozen or so countries were growing at unprecedented rates of 5 percent annually.

Adding he was "cautiously hopeful," Wolfowitz said, "There is a long, long way to go but I would find nothing more satisfying than, at the end of my tenure at this institution, to feel that we have played a part in what hopefully could be a period when Africa went from a continent of despair, to a continent of hope."

He said he wanted to ensure that developing countries that had complained to him about feeling alienated were brought into the decision-making of the bank.

Without saying outright he would give them a bigger role through management changes, Wolfowitz said, "I would like to work very hard at changing that feeling so that at the very least their views are brought in a serious way."

CONFRONTING CORRUPTION

He said he would carry on with the campaign of departing bank President James Wolfensohn to clean up corruption in World Bank projects and push to reduce corruption in borrowing countries.

Such messages should bode well in the U.S. Congress where lawmakers led by Indiana Republican Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are fighting to stamp out corruption in multilateral development bank projects.

Lugar has presented legislation that would encourage independent auditing and transparency and would set up a trust fund to help poor countries combat corruption on their own.

The former No. 2 Pentagon official said the bank also had a role in rebuilding conflict-ridden countries, including in Iraq.

Wolfowitz drew parallels between Iraq and African countries like Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo where the bank has projects despite political instability.

He said he had surprisingly encountered very little skepticism about his ability to distance himself from the U.S. foreign policy agenda.

"You deal with it by being objective and credible," he said of the critics, adding, "If anything I have encountered 'Geez, maybe you can get us some useful access to the White House and to Congress."'

Bombs or Dollars?

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

The US and Iran appear to traveling along two different paths. There’s the one favored by AIPAC and certain Republicans that has us bombing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and sending us directly into World War III (or IV depending on your definition of the Cold War). The other one has Iran moderating itself politically and furthering its integration into the greater world stage by joining the WTO.

Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's leading presidential candidate and a former president of Iran, promised recently to liberalize his country, which is a goal in stark contrast to the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As a matter of fact, Khamenei is calling on all good Iranians to elect an anti-Western president, but Rafsanjani countered his call by stating that Iran needs "to think global, since globalization is a reality and not a foreign-made (concept)."

He added, “Iran needs a new form of communication with the world. We have to take the international climate into account and take advantage of it.” My sentiments exactly Mr. Rafsanjani.

Another player whom is trying to usher Iran toward moderation is Mostafa Moin. He is a reformist and close ally of outgoing reform President Mohammad Khatami. He’s promising freedom and democratic reforms to a generation of Iranians who have lived under the boot of the Ayatollah but never knew the treachery of the Shah. Moin has the benefit of enjoying popularity among Iran's predominantly young population.

For those in Washington with their crosshairs on Iran, this can only throw a monkey wrench into their plans. The US government doesn’t now, now will they most likely ever have enough support for military intervention in Iran. The only way enough folks in this country would support another military adventure is if we suffer a “terrorist” attack. There are rumors as we speak that Israeli intelligence is cooking up something as we speak that would spark such an endeavor. I have no idea if that’s a crock or not but all things being equal, it wouldn’t surprise me. Obviously when Baby wants a war, Baby gets a war. However, if Iran can get some new leadership and democratic reforms going, no amount of lobbying by AIPAC will get us to undermine that. Even to an unread and unwashed populace as those living in the United States, you’d be hard-pressed to tell people you were trying to spread democracy and then summarily bomb a country going through a democratic revolution.

The other side of the equation that may result in the staying of hawkish claws is Iran’s possibly entry into the WTO. Bloomberg.com reports that, “Iran was given the go-ahead to start talks on joining the World Trade Organization after the U.S. dropped its opposition, following an Iranian commitment to resolve a standoff over its nuclear enrichment program.

The U.S, which accuses Iran of supporting terrorism and has applied a two-decade long trade ban to the country, has blocked 22 previous Iranian requests to begin talks to join the Geneva-based WTO since 2001. Iran rejects U.S. accusations that its nuclear power program will be used to make weapons in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran, which has the world's second-largest oil and gas reserves, yesterday reaffirmed a commitment not to seek nuclear weapons at a meeting with the foreign ministers of the U.K., France and Germany. The U.S. will support Iranian WTO membership and consider sales of commercial aircraft parts if Iran stops uranium enrichment permanently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said March 11.”

I said yesterday that money changes everything and I wasn’t lying. If the Iranians end up truly liberalizing their economy and there’s money to be made you can bet that Wall Street will lobby harder than AIPAC against any intervention that would mess with potential trade. There may be some nuts (I believe the cool kids call them neo-cons) that see our interests in the Middle East as both a new crusade and an opportunity to take a final stab at Russia but those same folks obey a higher power, the almighty American dollar. If Wall Street says, “hold those bombs,” you can bet, as C-3PO once said, they’ll be, “…no more adventures!”

President Bush stated that a decision to allow Iran to apply for membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) "seemed like a reasonable decision to make in order to advance the negotiations between Iran and the European trio (France, Germany and Britain). Now some would suggest that if Bush says one thing he means the opposite but aside from Jesus, he too must listen to the whims of Wall Street.

Going forward the question for Iran remains, will it be bombs or dollars? We keep hearing about how countries such as Iran and N. Korea need nuclear weapons because they’re scared we’re going to invade them. Granted, in light of everything that’s happened in Iraq it’s obviously not improbably and certainly the more I read about AIPAC the more leery of that organization I become. However, it would seem to me that the real way to stop US aggression is not to arm yourselves to the teeth with weapons that can hurt us; it’s to trade with us instead. Buy our guns, movies and computers and then sell us cheap oil and natural gas. That’s a far better solution to “US imperialism” than provoking the Cold Warriors in the pentagon itching to use the new armaments they bought.

We’ll see how things turn out June 17th when the Iranians go to the polls. Hopefully we’ll see something like the Iraqi elections. Something that will give those of us whom are not too enthusiastic about more wars a glimmer of hope that a semblance of peace can be maintained.

When Bear Comes to Town

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

If Russia continues on it’s path to become a pro-democracy/pro-capitalism nation, many US officials who made their bones as experts of how to run Russia in to ground may end up without a cause. There are quite a number of stories that seem to indicate that while they aren’t perfect by any means, Russia is trying very hard to reintegrate itself into the global economy without being perceived as what Ronald Reagan called, “The Evil Empire.”

First off and probably the most important in terms of rehabbing their collective image, Russia agreed on Monday to shut its military bases in the former Soviet state of Georgia by 2008. This seems somewhat like a mea culpa toward the increasingly West-leaning Caucasus region after the frightful events of the Ukrainian election. It would appear that Russia is willing to loosen it’s grip on and influence on the former Soviet states, which can only help it’s image in the face of US accusations that it does not favor democracy. It should also be of note that Georgia has allied itself with both the US and the EU so Russia probably made the most diplomatically sound choice here.

While Russia may be having difficulties keeping close ties with it’s former states, the Bear is having no problems making friends in other regions. Russia is reforming close ties with Syria and has recently decided to write-off 73 percent - $9.8 million - of Syria's debt. Russia has approached the debt write-off as part of a new strategy to return its influence to the Middle East and Central Asia. According to the terms of the deal (as reported by the Daily Star), Syria must reimburse $1.5 billion of the remaining $3.6 billion debt over 10 years, and the remaining $2.1 billion will be converted to Syrian pounds and made available to Russian businesses that want to invest in Syria or in joint projects. Syria will start repayments in July.

Syria has been on the Bush administrations target list since before we invaded Iraq. With Russia now looking over Syria’s shoulder and then having such a great economic stake and their development, the administration will have to think twice (thinking at all would help) before deciding on a Syrian adventure.

Russia is also courting another familiar friendship in the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia. According to Novosti, “The Russian-Saudi inter-government commission on trade and economic cooperation, which concluded its meeting in Riyadh yesterday, decided to intensify cooperation, above all in the oil and gas industry, the peaceful exploration of outer space, and in the scientific and technological sphere in general.

Specific decisions were set out in a memorandum of the intentions members of Rosaviakosmos, Russia's aerospace agency, and of Saudi Arabia's King Abdel Aziz Science and Technology Center exchanged, Andrei Baklanov, the Russian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said on the telephone.

The members of the commission agreed to create, with time, a Russian-Saudi bank to facilitate mutual trade and promote economic cooperation.

Baklanov said opening a direct air service between Moscow and Riyadh was also discussed in that context.

A forum of the two countries' businessmen and experts took place in Riyadh simultaneously with the commission's meeting. Around 50 Russian business leaders took part in the forum. Women attended the forum for the first time in the history of Russian-Saudi business meetings.

"Contacts between Russian and Saudi business ladies proved very successful. They discussed issues of cooperation in the banking and insurance sectors, medicine, the perfume, and confectionary industries," said the ambassador.”

Russia has also been busy helping China and India mend fences and is vowing to continue to promote further trilateral relations with those two burgeoning economic powerhouses. The purpose of these talks is to strengthen their cooperation in energy and other issues and should help maintain stability and promote further economic growth and prosperity in the region.

There are many in the administration and our military that believe that the real looming threat to the US is China. I contend that if Russia continues to form these strong bonds with China, India, the Saudi’s, etc. it won’t matter how much a threat China is, there won’t be much we can logically do about it.

That being said, the most important news item featuring the Russians is their possible entry into the World Trade Organization. The plan on paper is for Russia to possibly join the WTO in 2006 if relevant talks are completed in 2005, Russian Economic Development and Trade Minister German Gref said recently. In addition, according to some analysts, Russia’s energy exporters have their sights set on American markets. That would make sense as those same analysts have cited Russia as being the leader in potential oil and natural gas exports if they can ever maximize their output.

Like Cyndi Lauper once said, “Money changes everything,” and now that Russia is making a staunch effort to rehab herself in the eyes of the world, we may have to face the hard reality that we will have to actively compete in the marketplace with a viable and friendly Russia. The Bear has come to town bearing gifts instead of bombs. It’ll be interesting to see how the old Cold Warriors in Washington deal with life in a world where Russia isn’t building an empire with guns but rather with money.

Old World Blues

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

We may be slouching toward a mutli-polar world but it won’t be the European Union that acts as a counterweight to US hegemony. Certainly the US has its fair share of conflicts and deep divisions. We’ve had one civil war and have come close revolution on more than one occasion. Even our last presidential election was an exercise in mass internal strife. But through it all we remain a republic, unified in both name and deed. Half of the country may hate the other half and wish they’d leave yet the republic still stands. The same cannot be said for the European Union whom even in infancy cannot get off the ground.

The latest setback in the affairs of the slowly blossoming and ever-dysfunctional EU is the resound “non” vote against the EU constitution. Reuters reports that, “France overwhelmingly rejected the European Union constitution on Sunday, pitching the EU deep into crisis and dealing a potentially fatal blow to a charter designed to make the enlarged bloc run smoothly.

EU leaders said after a referendum "no" vote that the treaty was not dead and member states should continue the ratification process. But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the rejection raised profound questions about the future of the EU.

The heavy defeat dreaded by EU leaders could weaken France in the 25-member bloc, stall European integration and unsettle some financial markets. It also wounds President Jacques Chirac two years before presidential and parliamentary elections.”

There are many reasons why the French opted against the constitution. The one that stands out to me the most is their sense of distinct nationalism. It would appear that the French see the hierarchy of the universe as France below Heaven, the rest of the world below France and the US just above Hell. Many of the books that I have read show France to be extremely chauvinistic where their culture and society are concerned and often make grievous errors just to hold on to some semblance of distinct cultural identity.

Not that this behavior is entirely the sole province of the French. Most European countries want to guard their national sovereignty, their national culture, their national prerogatives and their protected national labor markets. We’re just as bad and just as schizophrenic. One moment we’re talking about free trade and globalization and in the next minute we’re all a bunch of protectionists screaming about outsourcing jobs and the plight of the poor American farmer. Everybody wants equality, we just want to be more equal than the next guy, and that’s probably why most of the French voted against the EU constitution.

It’s not all bad though and nor is the dream of a singularly unified Europe totally dead. I think what happened is that the politicians sold a radical idea to the people of Europe and when said people had questions their collective answers seems to have been, “mmm just trust us OK.” That never goes over very well with even a moderately informed public. Instead what this latest setback actually demonstrates is that there is a great desire among ordinary voters to have real input on the future of the EU. Ordinary voting Europeans were not sold on the nuts and bolts of the EU for far too long. Going forward the EU leaders should not retreat once more behind closed doors or call off the political process but instead make more of an effort to lobby the people behind what could be the future of global politics. They should be like President Bush and his campaign to dismantle Social Security only with less deception and the promise of abject poverty for the middle class.

Once again, all is not lost for the EU. All 25 members have signed the treaty, and all are committed to debating and ratifying it by November 2006. Nine states have already said, “Yes,” including two of the largest, Germany and Spain. Their views should not simply be dismissed because France has voted No. Nor should those of the countries yet to decide. If anything this would be an opportunity for other countries to take more of a lead in both domestic and global affairs rather than deferring to the leadership of a chauvinistic and opportunistic France.

In the immediate future, this does radically set back any real impact Europe has on Middle Eastern or Asian affairs. A unified Europe could have pushed aside an increasingly aggressive America and diplomatically resolved a number of international hot spots thus placing themselves in a very important role in global affairs. However, I contend that countries such as Iran and North Korea can hardly take the EU seriously when the will of the majority is not behind them. The US executive branch may be cynical and apt to mislead the public into war but at least when they do it results in having the will of the majority at your back…at least for a short time.

The old world is at a crucial juncture. As the Middle East and Asia slowly but methodically climb the ladder of development and the world’s economies become ever more entwined with one another, it may come to pass that Europe will continue to sink in importance. Markets have limits and if Europe is not careful the world may see that they do not need Europe’s markets, products or influence. If this happens the French will have more to worry about then their own petty nationalism.

I Wish I Was Dead : )

Star Wars Horoscope for Gemini

Like most Geminis, you are a playful little creature. You tend to be extremely curious, craving knowledge but sometimes having a short attention span. For the most part, you are charming and loveable. But at times, you can seem scattered and high-strung. Star wars character you are most like: Ewoks

What is Your Star Wars Horoscope?

Europeans Frustrated by State of Affairs

Ever since George W. Bush took office in 2001 and exponentially so since 9/11 much has been made of the perceived anti-Americanism in Europe. While I'm sure much of it was amplified by the war in Iraq, I believe what underlined said anit-Americanism was plain old envy. People are bitter in Europe...well people are bitter everywhere including America, but I think there's a level of impotence felt by the average European citizen that mutates into invective aimed at a conveinent target, America. Americans do it too. It's very easy for the average American to blame all the woes of our country on Muslims when only a fraction of the total population are murderous extremists. It's very easy to blame all of our unemployment woes on Mexicans rather that understand the complexities of our economy. I remember not too long that Japan was the target of our ire. I remember angry white dudes with bats smashing Japanese cars. It's a part of human nature to want to shift blame for your own problems to a safer target than actually make needed changes.

European-style socialism has made it uncompetitive. More and more countries are quickly scaling the development ladder and more and more will eventually start making their way up the ladder. If you read "The End of Poverty" by Jeffery Sachs, the part of the prescription for success is always the same; liberal economies as opposed to fixed economies. The collective psyche of Europe has definitely suffered due to back to back world wars followed up by 50 years of possible invasion by the Soviets. Fear, victimhood and exhaustion can make liberals of us all and I don't mean that as an insult. Every collective decision that Europe has made has seemingly been done as to prevent the condition for yet another war or to elevate yet another hostile superpower (ie the Soviet Union). Such gun-shyness has stifled that continent both economically and politically as well as psychologically, in my opinion. The following article from the AP seems to allude to the same idea:

What's eating Europe? In theory, these should be the continent's glory days. Already united by a common currency, flag, legislature and more, the European Union's 450 million citizens now are looking at a landmark constitution that many leaders insist will translate to a greater voice in world affairs and the means to achieve even greater prosperity. In practice, there's an overwhelming sense of doubt, disillusionment and just plain disgruntlement - epitomized by polls that show France probably heading toward a rejection of the charter in a weekend referendum.

From Berlin to Brussels, a funk born of frustration with high unemployment, lackluster economies and perceived political paralysis is feeding a nagging feeling that Europe's moment may irretrievably have passed it by.

At the heart of the anxiety is an identity crisis: Many Europeans desperately want to preserve their generous social welfare systems, but realize that doing so puts them in danger of being left behind by the more cutthroat market economies of the United States and, increasingly, China and India.

"We are not equipped to deal with the challenges that are coming up," said Angelo Foriglio, a 27-year-old art student in Rome. "We need to enter into the American and Asian mentality. We have created the European Union and should think as one entity, as a whole, which is what America does."

For now, a bloc that's less a United States of Europe than an uneasy hodgepodge of 25 nations is united more in gloom than anything else.

The malaise is laid bare in widespread confusion and ambivalence over the constitution, which must be ratified by the people or parliaments of all 25 EU countries for it to take effect. Polls suggest the historic charter is likely to face a humiliating defeat Sunday in France - one of the architects of the European project - and another "no" three days later in the Netherlands.

Italy's top financial daily, Il Sole-24 Ore, captured the despondency with a front-page editorial this week bemoaning the end of a "model of society that was believed to last forever."

Even Britain's left-leaning Guardian newspaper published a commentary warning that Europeans must awaken to the realities of the new global era.

"The great challenge for our part of the world is to make the transition from the national and European protectionism of the 20th century to achieve competitiveness in the Asian and American-dominated global economy of the 21st," it said. "No nation will succeed by opting out."

With joblessness running at 12 percent in Germany and 10 percent in France, and the strong euro currency making goods and services expensive both for export and domestic consumption, the EU's top two economic engines are sputtering.
French President Jacques Chirac, waging an all-out campaign to persuade his divided countrymen to ratify the constitution, has promised it will help preserve the European economic model.

He spoke of dire consequences of a no vote to the treaty - planned as the next big step in a 50-year process of European integration.

"It would open a period of divisions, of doubts, of uncertainties," Chirac warned in the address from the presidential Elysee Palace, his last of a tumultuous campaign. "What a responsibility if France, a founder nation of Europe, took the risk of breaking the union of our continent."

Chirac's assurances aside, others suspect that the EU has been drifting toward a more free-market outlook - and that the treaty, with its provisions for streamlining the decision-making process, would continue that trend.

In a gamble to stay in power, embattled Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for early elections after alienating many Germans by chipping away at social protections to revive Germany's economy. Germany, the left-leaning Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily said in a withering assessment, is "sinking into a morass of self-doubt."

Chirac is also reaping a whirlwind of recriminations - a new poll showed his popularity ratings have plummeted to 39 percent.

Many in the "no" camp reflect the so-called "French paradox": a desire to be a global economic player, yet still retain a cultural and political identity distinct from the Anglo-Saxon approach rejected in France as domineering.

They may not be able to have it both ways, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier warned this week. "If we don't get this constitution," he said, "this would lead to a European political breakdown."

Anders Hellner, an analyst with the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, offers a bleak assessment. Much of Western Europe, he contends, is too overburdened with entrenched social costs and aging infrastructure to compete with the Asian tiger economies and the cheaper goods and outsourced services they can offer.

"This is a giant problem," he said. "Europe has not yet found replacements for the old industries. Some say that there won't be any car industry at all in Europe in the future. Europe has not yet given enough thought to how we are going to earn our living."

Not all Europeans, of course, are pessimists.

"The United States of Europe is the future," Daniela Oliveira, a 39-year-old Portuguese, said in London. "I think people forget that the EU is still a baby. We need to invest in it and give it time."

But Vaclav Havel, the former president of the Czech Republic, an EU newcomer, believes many Europeans no longer feel they're in control - a sentiment espoused by those who fear the constitution will mute the voices of individual member states.

"Many people still believe that they are not true masters of their destiny," he said.

Public Campaign Action Fund: Texas Judge Finds DeLay's Political Committee Guilty of Violating Campaign Finance Law

To my fellow conservatives, being in the majority gives no man the right to run roughshod over our laws and principles. Tom DeLay may be one of many politicians whom have abuse their power and the issues his PAC have been found guilty may be no different than what others routinely do. That doesn't mean we the people should just let it stand. It means when we're done with DeLay we should go about the business of throwing the rest of the bums out on both sides of the aisle. Here's the latest from the US Newswire:

The watchdog group Public Campaign Action Fund released the following statement from its National Campaigns Director, David Donnelly, regarding today's ruling against Tom DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC):

"In a court of law DeLay's TRMPAC was found to have concealed from the public record more than half a million dollars in corporate campaign donations, in violation of state law.

"This decision, with an impartial judge and all the evidence laid out, further underscores the need for the House Ethics Committee to appoint an outside counsel. The public will not trust Tom DeLay's cronies in Congress to do what Judge Hart did today; specifically, he ruled on the facts, not the politics, of the case.

"Americans from across the nation need to ask themselves yet again whether they want a Congress led by a man with countless ethical violations, scandals, donors to repay, and, now, a guilty verdict against his own political committee.

"Most importantly, this finding of guilt should give all of Tom DeLay's Republican colleagues in Congress pause in considering the political future of their chosen Majority Leader."

Public Campaign Action Fund is a national nonprofit watchdog organization dedicated to working to advance comprehensive reform of the campaign finance system to level the playing field for all Americans, and to holding elected officials accountable for the favors they do for their political contributors.

China warns North Korea over nuclear tests

You want a mutli-polar world? Well this may be the first step in actually getting there. It looks as if the Chinese and the South Koreans are getting off their duffs and backing the slightly saner side of the North Korea nuclear debate. There are many ways to look at this. It could be a wonderful thing that China is asserting itself as a regional superpower and it could evolve to become a true counterweight to the US. It could also be the beginning of a slow head on collision between China and the United States (as some commentors on this blog have suggested). My philosophy is that if enough people in a country have plenty of money and distractions they are less likely to want to go to war anywhere in the world. China is on the fast track to economic development success. It would be foolhardy to risk what can easily be gotten through peace and trade on trying to sieze the US (which would be next to impossible). What does China have to gain by launching a missile at Washington or NY or Los Angeles etc? Only madmen think the taking the US headon is a winning gamble and while China's human rights record is deplorable, I don't see their leadership as particularly insane. I think the following story illustrates that point (in my opinion). Here's the story from the Australian IT:

CHINA has reportedly warned its ally North Korea of the "grave consequences" of conducting a nuclear weapons test.

Quoting sources from the stalled six-party negotiations, Japan's Kyodo news agency reported the Chinese had delivered the Pyongyang regime its sharpest warning against exploding a nuclear device.

"The Chinese Government has strongly warned and urged against the carrying out of a nuclear test," according to a source quoted by Kyodo, who also said the diplomatically menacing phrase "grave consequences" had been used.

That report follows a meeting in Beijing between South Korean opposition leader Park Geun-hye and two key Chinese officials - Wang Jiarui, head of the Communist Party of China's international department and Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan - where Ms Park said they described a North Korean nuclear test as a red line.

Neither account suggests what action Beijing would take if the red line were crossed, though dropping Chinese opposition to UN Security Council sanctions against the North is generally assumed to be an immediate consequence.

It now appears both South Korea and China have privately but clearly warned Pyongyang against a test explosion, though both governments publicly downplay the risk.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun confirmed yesterday he would make a special trip to Washington on June 10 to discuss with President George W. Bush a strategy for bringing North Korea back into the six-party talks it has boycotted since September.

"President Roh's visit to the United States is expected to be an important opportunity for the two leaders to discuss and seek a peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue, as close consultations among related countries continue," a South Korean presidential spokesman said.

The visit also appears to be part of an attempt at South Korean bridge-mending after months of tension between the Bush and Roh administrations.

The South Koreans have persistently criticised US refusals to make concessions to Pyongyang to get the six-party talks back on track and rejected proposals for direct economic or Security Council sanctions agains Pyongyang.

US and Japanese officials have privately criticised South Korean "appeasement" which they say has complicated efforts to confront Pyongyang with a credible ultimatum to return to talks over its nuclear weapons programs.

South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, who is also Mr Roh's top national security official, will visit Tokyo tomorrow to discuss nuclear developments in North Korea.

Meanwhile the Americans are awaiting the Pyongyang regime's promised response to a proposal for resuming the six-party talks put by US special envoy Joseph DeTrani at a New York meeting with the North's UN ambassador, Pak Kil-yon.

The meeting on May 13 was the first direct contact between US and North Korean officials in more than six months.

US officials said they had made no concessions but repeated assurances by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Bush administration recognised North Korea's sovereignty and had no intention to invade.

Suicidal Ideations

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

I’ve been yelling and screaming about Iran for so long now I’m starting to go hoarse. It’s pretty obvious that the strategy for US protection is to have a controlling interest in Middle Eastern affairs. I’ve been echoing the sentiments of many top officials for months that have said that the next target is Iran, possibly Syria. Most of the time I don’t even register North Korea on my radar because their threats against America to me have always been the temper tantrum of a dying country. One might say they have kept the world hostage by waiving potential nuclear missiles around and demanding that said world allow them to go on as they have been.

According to the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, “North Korea's missile development programs are primarily motivated by a desire on the part of the military factions in control of this program to earn foreign exchange through exports for their own profit and for the perpetuation of their power internally. Thus, in order to curb these programs, the United States would have to buy off the factions involved as part of a larger strategy of economic engagement, including the gradual phasing out of Korean War economic sanctions on non-strategic trade and investment. Negotiating meaningful restraints on missile development would require direct U.S. military contacts with the North Korean armed forces, which were proposed to me (Selig S. Harrison) in Pyongyang in September, 1995; to Kenneth Quinones of the State Department in July, 1996; to former Senator Sam Nunn and former Ambassador James Laney in their August, 1997 visit; and to Senator Carl Levin in his December, 1997 visit.

We’ve coddled and cajoled them, presumably under the notion that North Korea will be restrained by China and Russia and for the reasons stated above. You can imagine my shock when as I’m Google searching news items I come across this number from the AP:

North Korea on Tuesday refused to rule out a pre-emptive attack, even amid signs it may be willing to return to the nuclear bargaining table.

The North poured out anti-American rhetoric - a tactic it has used in the past before entering negotiations - by claiming that Washington's "hostile policies" led it to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent and warning against any attack to dislodge its leadership.

"The United States should be aware that the choice of a pre-emptive attack is not only theirs," the North's official news agency quoted the state-run newspaper Minju Joson as saying. "To stand against force with force is our unswerving method of response."

Most assuredly there are folks whom were vehemently against the Iraq war saying in reference to North Korea, “Well you reap what you sow!” Many people believe that because of the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emption, we have spooked N. Korea into high paranoia and they are blanketing themselves in nuclear arms as a deterrent against our mad regime. The question then becomes, “At what point does mutually assured destruction end and suicide begin?”

When I read the above article I began to research what has been written about N. Korea’s potential to launch an ICBM at American continental targets. According to a Reuters article written on April 28th of this year, “North Korea has the ability to mount a nuclear missile on a long-range missile and the communist state could hit U.S. territory, including Hawaii, Alaska and the U.S. Pacific Northwest, the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said on Thursday.”

Some reports have North Korea’s nuclear potential as being quite high. “N Korea has deployed over 300 Nodong-x (medium range - Japan and Okinawa) and close to a thousand Scud-B/C missiles (short range - S Korea) all of which can carry nuclear or chemical warheads. NoDong-1's have a range of 1,300km and NoDong-2's have a range of 1,500-2,000km. N Korea is believed to have a limited number of Taepodong-x ICBMs (long range - America) hidden in underground tunnels.

The Taepo Dong-2 ICBM has a maximum range of 6,200 miles. The US DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) estimates that the missile has a range of about 4,650 miles with large nuclear warheads and 6,200 miles with smaller warheads. At the extreme of 6,200 miles, the missile could reach all major West Coast cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego,) and reach as Far East as Chicago.” (Kimsoft.com)

If there is more than a real hint that North Korea plans to lob a ballistic missile then the Korean Peninsula will cease to exist. According to latest issue of Executive Intelligence Review, “So as to remove any ambiguity from the Bush-Cheney nuclear madness, on March 15, 2005, the Pentagon placed on its public website a draft version of Joint Publication 3-12, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations." This 69-page report made clear that the Bush Administration has fully integrated nuclear weapons into the conventional war fighting. The Executive Summary stated: "For many contingencies, existing and emerging conventional capabilities will meet anticipated requirements; however, some contingencies will remain where the most appropriate response may include the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide U.S. leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy."”

The situation is a bit schizophrenic. In the same story you have the North Koreans threatening a pre-emptive strike while a paragraph later they are willing to return to talks. Are they stalling? What is the real intent here? I would like to believe as I have since Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech that Kim Jong-Il’s threats of nuclear war are nothing more than empty rhetoric. However, for him to think he can attack the US and survive is simply madness. It is suicide and surely he must know that. If he doesn’t then we’re in more trouble than I think we realize. There’s nothing more dangerous than a crazy person with suicidal ideations and nothing left to lose. Just ask the nearest Islamofacist.

New Review: Disneywar

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

“Disneywar” is more than just a story about corporate malfeasance or executive financial abuse. Stewart writes about Eisner in such a way that he becomes a character in a Shakespearean tragedy and in the end when he finally falls from grace you cannot help but feel somewhat sorry for the guy. This isn’t Enron or WorldCom but rather, this is “Macbeth.” And along the way is a treasure trove of executives, animators, producers, Disney family members, and other assorted talent who are every bit as a dramatic and entertaining as anything a Disney fan might see on the silver screen.

Through Stewart’s narrative we are given an almost day by day accounting of the 20-year rise and fall of Eisner as head mouse. In the beginning, Michael Eisner was a guy who wanted to tell stories, an entertainer. He made his bones at ABC and then had a good deal of success at Paramount. He had built himself a tidy enough resume that when Disney needed a facelift and new leadership they openly courted him for the top position.