International-Files: Francesco Rossi's blog

L'ILLINOIS COME LA GRECIA. (Illinois like Greece)

2012-01-23T11:41:00.003+01:00

As the Greek default (and it is a default no matter what they end up calling it) is finalized this week, the consensus seems to be that failure to reach a deal would cause a global financial apocalypse.

That may be true. And if it is, why aren’t we more worried about Illinois? It’s more or less the same size as Greece, its finances are in the same generally catastrophic shape, and its leaders are just as feckless and dishonest. It owes tens of billions of dollars to various investors and stakeholders and will clearly have to stiff many of them at some point. The following article captures the “failed state” dilemma perfectly:

Dripping with red ink: Will anyone fix Illinois’ budget mess?

The question isn’t whether Illinois’ finances are in dreadful shape, it’s how to fix the problem. Or perhaps more accurately, will legislators have the political will to fix it when they return to Springfield for their spring session?

Even though the legislature and Gov. Pat Quinn last year imposed a temporary 67 percent state income tax increase, Quinn’s office expects to have a $500 million budget deficit this year.

Quinn is calling for a 9 percent cut in most areas of state government, except education and health care. But even with cuts at that level, the state would have a projected $800 million budget deficit for fiscal 2015, the year when most of the tax hike expires.

Quinn’s budget spokesman, Kelly Kraft, said the state’s fiscal situation is not pretty.

“These projections clearly demonstrate that action must be taken to control not only Medicaid costs but also (pension) costs, or all other areas of government will continue to be squeezed,” Kraft said.

Looking at the bigger picture, the state has a backlog of about $8.5 billion in unpaid bills and owes about $27 billion in outstanding bonds. And then there’s the roughly $80 billion owed to the state’s public employee pension funds.

Now, legislative leaders and Quinn are floating ideas to cut the two areas that account for the biggest chunks of the state budget — pension contributions and Medicaid.

In the proposed $33.7 billion budget for fiscal 2013, the state’s pension payment will be $5.3 billion, and Medicaid will cost taxpayers about $7 billion.

Proposals include reducing the benefits or the eligibility for Medicaid. On pensions, ideas include decreasing the benefits and increasing the contributions for current employees. A new pension system was approved last year, but it’s only for new employees, and there’s debate on whether the benefits for existing employees can legally be changed.

One of Quinn’s ideas for reducing the state’s pension costs is to shift the burden somewhere else: to local school districts.

“About 21 percent of what the state puts in … is for state employees,” Quinn told reporters earlier this month. “More than half of the money we contribute every year is for teachers who are outside of the city of Chicago — suburban and downstate teachers.”

Supporters of the idea say it would make school districts think twice about giving employees big raises at the end of their careers to boost their pensions. School districts would have some skin in the game if they had to pay for those pension boosts, rather than the state, the supporters say.

Opponents argue that shifting costs to local school districts isn’t real reform, and would just force them to increase local property taxes.

Improving the picture won’t be easy when the legislature reconvenes Jan. 31, particularly in an election year, when politicians might find it difficult to cut services for constituents or hurt the feelings of unions that represent state workers.

To summarize, even after a massive tax increase Illinois is looking at a half a billion dollar deficit. That actually sounds manageable in the scheme of things — not even a billion dollars, chump change in this inflation-ravaged world. But the annual deficit is less of a threat than all those accumulated liabilities: “Looking at the bigger picture, the state has a backlog of about $8.5 billion in unpaid bills and owes about $27 billion in outstanding bonds. And then there’s the roughly $80 billion owed to the state’s public employee pension funds.”

The reported deficit, in other words, doesn’t include all the stuff that should have appeared in past budgets but was hidden in order to get through the next election. How a state with a constitutional mandate to balance its budget can do this in the first place — and how an “unpaid bill” can be excluded from the annual budget — is a question for future prosecutors. But for investors it’s a clear sign that some sort of default is coming.

Why then would anyone buy an Illinois municipal bond, or accept a state contract that requires future payments, or move a business to the state, or keep a business in the state, or do anything else that required faith in the willingness or ability of the state to pay its bills? The only possible answer is that Illinois isn’t Greece; it’s Spain or Italy, an entity so big and important that its failure is inconceivable. When it hits the wall, Washington will have no choice but to step in and cover its unfunded pensions and teacher salaries and muni bond interest. In the same way that a Spanish bond is really a German bond because Germany has no choice but to make good on it, the big insolvent US states are wards of the central government.

The bottom line effect of all this stepping up and bailing out is to exchange a solvency/debt crisis for a currency crisis in which the markets at some point figure out that failed states are so numerous and their needs so great that the printing presses will never stop.
(DollarCollapse.com)

LA LIBIA IMPOVERITA (CON L'URANIO). Lybia impoverished (because of uranium)

2011-12-20T12:22:00.003+01:00

Abbiamo sentito Cameron e Hague dichiarare con fermezza che l'azione che aveva avuto luogo e le ragioni dietro quell'azione avevano principalmente motivi umanitari!

Quello che non abbiamo capito in Gran Bretagna è il fatto che il risultato finale non aveva nulla a che fare con il salvataggio di vite umane, ma piuttosto col mettere le mani sulle vaste proficue risorse naturali della Libia. L'intera campagna è diventata un bagno di sangue totale che avrebbe provocato più di 50.000 morti e molte molte migliaia di civili libici innocenti contaminati da radiazioni derivanti dalle armi usate dalle forze della coalizione. L'uso attivo di armi di distruzione di massa (ADM) ha praticamente ucciso la genetica della Libia, dei paesi limitrofi e oltre a causa dell'uso eccessivo di armi all'uranio impoverito.

Ho perso il conto di quanti missili da crociera hanno lanciato fino ad oggi ma so che nelle fasi iniziali della guerra superavano i 300. Ad un certo punto, mentre osservavo questo atto malvagio di aggressione, ho contato 18 missili cruise lanciati in una sola notte. L'obiettivo era una base militare che guarda caso si trovava proprio accanto ad un quartiere densamente popolato di Tripoli. Per me fu ovvio in quel momento che sarebbero state contaminate molte migliaia di persone durante questo specifico attacco. Il fallout radioattivo di nanoparticelle potrebbe poi essere trasportato, non solo su questa zona, ma anche su tutta la città e oltre. Dal mio punto di vista, ho considerato l'utilizzo di numerosi missili Cruise all'interno di questo quartiere residenziale di Tripoli densamente popolato, come l'ultima goccia!

La mia domanda a Obama, Cameron e Sarkozy ora sarebbe: quante vite pensate di aver salvato effettivamente? Posso assicurare a voi tutti che come risultato diretto delle loro azioni in Libia, hanno commesso un atto di genocidio e quindi dovrebbero essere tutti accusati di crimini di guerra.

E' chiaro che attraverso i media britannici, che sono totalmente censurati, non riusciremo mai a comprendere appieno le conseguenze di questa guerra deplorevole che le Nazioni Unite aveva approvato e del conseguente utilizzo delle Armi di Distruzione di Massa sulla popolazione innocente della Libia, particolarmente sulla città di Tripoli. Questa non era una guerra per imporre una "No Fly Zone", era una guerra per forzare un "cambiamento di regime", cosa che viola la risoluzione UN1973 e che in tal modo viola anche almeno cinque articoli della Convenzione di Ginevra.

Sparare più di 18 missili Cruise (WMD ) nel cuore di Tripoli è stato certamente un atto contro l'umanità per il quale la NATO e la sua struttura di comando devono essere portate davanti alla Corte internazionale di giustizia. E' stato anche un crimine realizzato proprio sotto il naso delle Nazioni Unite che sono restate a guardare e non hanno fatto nulla per fermare questo genocidio!

Come sappiamo tutti, non si sono limitati solo all'uso di missili da crociera, ma hanno utilizzato anche bombe bunker buster, bombe JDAM e missili Hellfire (lanciati dagli aerei senza pilota Predator e anche da elicotteri Apache) tutti in violazione della Convenzione di Ginevra in base ai seguenti criteri.

Le armi all'uranio impoverito sono riconosciute come armi sviluppate illegalmente nell'ambito del Progetto Manhattan, nella seconda guerra mondiale, dal Governo degli Stati Uniti. Già illegali e in violazione del Protocollo di Ginevra sui Gas Velenosi del 1925, nel 1943 le armi all'uranio impoverito sono state descritte come un "killer indiscriminato altamente mobile e contaminante permanente del terreno", consigliato per lo sviluppo in un promemoria del declassificato Progetto Manhattan datato 30 ottobre 1943.

Era solo una questione di tempo perchè lo scienziato realizzasse la portata militare dell'uranio impoverito (UI) quando affermò: "Ha proprietà piroforiche e può incendiarsi spontaneamente a temperatura ambiente, in aria ossigeno e acqua. Queste caratteristiche uniche lo rendono interessante per l'utilizzo in molte applicazioni civili e militari. "

La propaganda messa in circolazione da UNEP, OMS, ICRP, IAEA, Governi, DOD e molte altre autorità (senza dimenticare l'industria farmaceutica) mostra che, a loro avviso, l'UI emette Radiazioni a Basso Livello ed è quindi innocuo cosa che, in realtà, è bel lontana dalla verità che si cela dietro il suo utilizzo. Nessuno è riuscito a capire le implicazioni per la salute quando l'UI/LLR viene inalato nel corpo. Insieme hanno escogitato una scia di inganni e hanno fallito nel loro obbligo di diligenza per proteggere le popolazioni del mondo.

A causa di questa cattiva gestione, ora stiamo osservando un aumento drammatico di molte forme di cancro, diabete e infertilità. Poichè l'UI/LLR attacca direttamente la genetica del nostro corpo attraverso il nostro DNA, siamo testimoni di terribili difetti di nascita nei bambini.

La cosa più grave di tutte è l'inalazione di aerosol di nanoparticelle di uranio impoverito/LLR. Particelle di UI insolubile depositate nei bronchioli respiratori e negli alveoli saranno eliminate molto più lentamente, e, di conseguenza, ci si aspetta che trasmettano ai polmoni una dose superiore di radiazioni alfa. Una volta che l'UI/LLR è entrato nel sangue inizia un ciclo irreversibile. I tessuti del nostro corpo filtrano dal sangue le particelle di uranio impoverito e causano una serie di patologie chiamate "Sindrome della Guerra del Golfo."

Era ovvio che, quando le forze della coalizione hanno colpito la Libia con le loro Armi di Distruzione di Massa, le conseguenze per il popolo della Libia sarebbero state catastrofiche. A lungo termine, ci aspettiamo qui un lento progressivo genocidio, che va oltre ogni immaginazione.

L'uranio impoverito ha un tempo di dimezzamento di 4,5 miliardi di anni e praticamente non potrà mai essere eliminato. E' un fatto che ben più di 500 missili (contenenti ognuno circa 350 kg di UI), in qualche modo o forma, ammontano almeno a 175.000 kg. Ci vogliono circa 50 tonnellate (45.359 kg) di polvere contaminata di uranio impoverito per uccidere 500.000 persone per cui si può vedere che, quando a questo si aggiunge il fatto che l'UI è stato utilizzato anche da Stati Uniti, Gran Bretagna e Francia in altre forme di munizioni, come Bunker Busters, bombe JDAM, altri missili più piccoli e proiettili sparati da elicotteri d'attacco, ecc, un incredibile volume di uranio impoverito si sta diffondendo intorno alla Libia, in altri paesi e oltre nel mondo.

Non si puo solo dire che le forze della coalizione hanno semplicemente violato una Convenzione di Ginevra, cioè il Protocollo di Ginevra sui Gas Velenosi del 1925 (gas tossico radioattivo) ... in realtà ne hanno violato almeno altre quattro, come ho osservato in molti dei miei articoli precedenti.

Quello che trovo assolutamente inaccettabile è il fatto che si suppone che le Nazioni Unite offrano una garanzia contro ogni violazione della Convenzione di Ginevra e lo fanno con molti colpevoli. Tuttavia, queste palesi violazioni che sono state commesse da membri di alto profilo delle Nazioni Unite non solo vengono del tutto ignorate, ma anche respinte.

Basti solo guardare i piani militari previsti attualmente da Stati Uniti, Israele e Regno Unito con la volontà di agire contro l'Iran (e la Siria se riescono a farla franca) che mostrano non solo l'uso continuato di uranio impoverito, ma anche di altre armi high tech che, se utilizzate, avranno conseguenze catastrofiche.

Dovremmo anche notare che gli Stati Uniti hanno usato "armi nucleari tattiche" totalmente illegali, durante la guerra in Iraq e anche durante la guerra in Afghanistan ... E' chiaro che abbiamo molte persistenti violazioni della Convenzione di Ginevra, così come crimini di guerra, con la messa in atto di un genocidio di persone innocenti.
(I lupi di Einstein)

MARIO SACHS

2011-11-13T23:23:00.005+01:00

Nei giorni scorsi Le Monde ha scritto che la Goldman Sachs rappresenta il lato ombra di Mario Draghi, ex governatore della Banca d’Italia e attuale presidente della Bce. Alla lista va aggiunto anche Mario Monti. Vediamo perché.

La Goldman Sachs è la più potente banca d’affari americana, che condiziona mercati e governi. Ha detto la veritàil trader indipendente Alessio Rastani, prendendosi gioco della BBC e rilasciando un’intervista in cui dichiarava che “i governi non governano il mondo, Goldman Sachs governa il mondo”. Nel film Inside Job, del regista Charles Ferguson, la banca d’affari risulta tra le protagoniste della crisi economica innescata nel 2008 negli Stati Uniti. In questo lungo post sul mio blog trovate la storia completa. Ma è interessante notare come gli uomini della Goldman hanno ricoperto incarichi importanti nell’amministrazione Usa, arrivando a ruoli di primo piano. Durante l’amministrazione Clinton l’ex direttore generale della Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, divenne sottosegretario al Tesoro. Nel 2004, Henry Paulson, amminstratore delegato dalla Goldman fece approvare alla Commissione dei Titoli e Scambi un aumento dei limiti sul rapporto di indebitamento, permettendo alle banche d’investimento di avere ulteriori prestiti da utilizzare per manovre di speculazione. Nel 2005 Raghuram Rajan, capo economista del Fondo Monetario Internazionale (2003-2007) pubblicò un rapporto in cui annunciava il rischio che le società finanziarie, assumendo grandi rischi per realizzare enormi profitti a breve termine, avrebbero potuto far collassare il sistema economico. Nella prima metà del 2006 la Goldman Sachs vendette 3,1 miliardi di dollari di Cdo e in quel periodo l’amministratore delegato era proprio Henry Paulson. Il 30 maggio 2006 George Bush lo nomina segretario del Tesoro e fu costretto a vendere le sue azioni della Goldman, intascando 485 milioni di dollari (e grazie a una legge di Bush padre non pagò nessuna tassa).

Nell’aprile del 2010 i dirigenti della Goldman Sachs furono costretti a testimoniare al Congresso americano: Daniel Sparks, ex capo reparto mutui della Goldman (2006-2008) dovette riferire su alcune email in cui definiva certe transazioni “affari di merda”. Fabrice Tourre, direttore esecutivo prodotti strutturati della Goldman Sachs vendeva azioni che definiva “cacca”. Llyod Blankfein, presidente di Goldman, e David Viniar, vicepresidente esecutivo, sotto le pressanti domande del senatore Carl Levin furono costretti ad ammettere che sapevano di vendere spazzatura.

Purtroppo anche Barack Obama ha confermato il potere della banca d’affari. Il nuovo presidente della Federal Reserve Bank di New York (principale azionista della Fed) è William Dudley, ex capo economista della Goldman (che nel 2004 lodava i derivati). Capo del personale del dipartimento del Tesoro è Mark Patterson, ex lobbista della Goldman Sachs. A capo della CFCT si è insediato Gary Gensler, ex dirigente della Goldman Sachs che aiutò ad abolire la regolarizazione dei derivati.

Anche in Europa la Goldman manovra da tempo. Nel 1999 la Grecia non aveva i numeri per entrare nell’euro. Quindi truccò i bilanci. Su Presseurope Gabriele Crescente scrive: “Nel 2000 Goldman Sachs International, la filiale britannica della banca d’affari americana, vende al governo socialista di Costas Simitis uno “swap” in valuta che permette alla Grecia di proteggersi dagli effetti di cambio, trasformando in euro il debito inizialmente emesso in dollari. Lo stratagemma consente ad Atene di iscrivere il ‘nuovo’ debito in euro ed escluderlo dal bilancio facendolo momentaneamente sparire. E così Goldman Sachs intasca la sua sostanziosa commissione e alimenta una volta di più la sua reputazione di ottimo amministratore del debito sovrano.”

Ora torniamo a Mario Draghi. Dal 2002 al 2005 è stato vicepresidente e membro del management Committee Worldwide della Goldman Sachs. Insomma: proprio nel periodo in cui in America le banche d’affari erano scatenate in manovre speculative e scavavano il baratro finanziario che si è materializzato nel 2008, trascinando il resto del mondo. Non sapeva nulla di queste tendenze l’economista italiano?

Anche Mario Monti lavora per la banca d’affari: dal 2005 è International Advisor per Goldman Sachs e precisamente membro del Research Advisory Council del “Goldman Sachs Global Market Institute”, cioè dall’anno in cui si stava progettando la crisi economica mondiale.

Queste informazioni, purtroppo, la stampa italiana le ha ignorate. Ma la Rete no. Durante la seconda puntata di Servizio Pubblico il blogger Claudio Messora ha spiegato il rapporto tra Mario Monti e la Goldman. E ha citato un articolo di Milano Finanza che – unica eccezione – ha rivelato il ruolo della Goldman Sachs nel rialzo dello spread dei titoli italiani in questi giorni. In pochi minuti su Facebook è cambiata l’opinione degli utenti all’interno di un sondaggio: prima volevano Monti presidente del Consiglio, dopo le rivelazioni hanno cambiato idea. E’ la prova che se l’informazione facesse il suo dovere avremmo meno lobby al potere e più democrazia.

(EnzoDiFrennaBlog)

ISLANDA: BASTA FMI, GRAZIE. (Iceland: no more Fmi, thanks)

2011-10-20T17:08:00.003+02:00

La Nazione-isola del Nord Europa si sta riprendendo dalla crisi economica indotta dal monetarismo usuraio internazionale e lo sta facendo in modo del tutto opposto a quello che viene generalmente propagandato come inevitabile. Niente salvataggi da parte di Bce, Fmi o Banca Mondiale, niente cessione della propria sovranità a nazioni straniere, ma piuttosto un percorso di riappropriazione dei diritti e della partecipazione, e un coinvolgimento dell’opinione pubblica nazionale tra le più alte d’Occidente.

Anzi, dopo circa tre anni di aut aut rigettati dal popolo islandese attraverso un referendum e una Assemblea Costituente, il Fondo Monetario Internazionale e l’Islanda hanno preso strade diverse.
In tempi di presunti salvataggi nazionali portati avanti con ricette neoliberiste, di annullamenti di sovranità monetarie nazionali e di politiche di tagli violenti alle strutture amministrative, sociali ed economiche dei singoli Stati, lo stato islandese ha deciso di proseguire fermamente nella strada intrapresa oltre un anno fa, attraverso un imponente consenso dell’opinione pubblica nazionale, generalmente formata ed informata su temi così delicati e importanti.

Come riportato da diversi servizi della tv pubblica islandese Ruv, l’Fmi, portato a termine la sua sesta revisione dell’economia nazionale islandese a Washington, non proseguirà con altri “rapporti” o “consigli” pertinenti l’isola dell’Atlantico. L’Fmi conclude quindi le operazioni in Islanda, e la lascia.
Il Primo Ministro islandese Johanna Siguroardottir ha annunciato la partenza dei funzionari in una conferenza stampa nella cittadina di Iono nei giorni scorsi, aggiungendo che la ricostruzione economica islandese è sulla retta via, con miglioramenti in corso e risultati ottenuti prima del previsto. Ha inoltre detto che la ricostruzione islandese dopo il collasso bancario del 2008 “è andata oltre ogni aspettativa” ...

Il ministro delle Finanze Steingrimur J. Sigfusson ha preso parte alla conferenza sostenendo che la stabilità finanziaria islandese sarebbe nuovamente solida.
Il ministro dell’Economia e del Commercio Arni Pall Arnason ha ricordato come molte persone fossero preoccupate e avverse alla cosiddetta cooperazione tra Fmi e Islanda, proprio per il timore che il loro “benessere” – altro elemento di vanto e di efficienza - sarebbe stato tagliato duramente e che sarebbero state prese misure drastiche, basate sui diktat classici utilizzati dal Fondo Monetario nei suoi interventi in Europa, Estremo Oriente e in Sudamerica.

L’arrivo del FMI in Islanda fu accolto in maniera estremamente fredda da gran parte della popolazione, convinta che il Fmi avrebbe affogato la nazione in uno stato di permanente debito, come ormai troppi paesi hanno già sperimentato in passato. La partenza dei funzionari del Fmi è stata quindi vista con soddisfazione da gran parte dei cittadini.

L’Islanda ha seguito un particolare percorso per questo sganciamento dal sistema monetario occidentale. Anche chiedendo un aiuto alla Russia (4 miliardi di euro) nel 2008. E di fatto duplicando quanto a suo tempo operato sia dalla stessa Russia (caduta nel baratro monetarista ai tempi di Eltsin) che dall’Argentina, la cui economia - fermato il debito pubblico sotto la presidenza Kirchner - è tornata a volare a tassi del’’8% annuo.
(Voci dalla Strada)

A SAD EVENING WITH AMY WINEHOUSE. (Una triste serata con Amy Winehouse)

2011-08-16T10:57:00.002+02:00

Fans in Poland, Turkey, Greece, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Hungary and Romania won’t be seeing this lady perform the rest of her 2011 comeback tour after three years away. It was really painful to watch how Amy Winehouse was out there in Kalemegdan Park during Belgrade’s Tuborg Festival, humiliating herself. I don’t regret the money I paid because I wouldn’t have believed without my own eyes how wasted she was. I thought it was all just an act and kept waiting for the 27-year-old to grab the mike and say Gotcha.

For the two songs she actually did know the lyrics to (Back to Black, You Know I’m No Good), she mostly mumbled them totally out of rhythm. Half of the time that she actually stood in front of a microphone, she had her face covered by her hand, as though she felt ashamed. At some points she looked as she was going to cry and kept holding her stomach like she was in pain.

‘I don’t regret the money I paid because I wouldn’t have believed without my own eyes how wasted she was’

Winehouse went offstage on two occasions for couple of minutes. The first time she came back on stage, the 20, 000-strong crowd applauded her because it seemed that she had got a grip on it. But, when she started mumbling again, they booed her and started to call for Moby (who was scheduled to perform after her). Some started to throw things at her, paper and plastic cups. One guy threw his Amy cowboy hat (sold before the show outside of the venue), but hit a security guard instead. She didn’t seem aware of any of that. It seemed that most of the booing was coming from behind, from the people with cheaper tickets, while the people in front rows were just shocked. The band remained professional, especially the two backing singers Zalon Thompson and Ade Omotayo, both singing two cover songs. Days later it’s still being discussed. Some call it the worst concert in the history of Belgrade, wanting their £35 or 40 euros back. Less just feel sorry for her whilst the third line - people who didn’t go to the concert - feel self-content by posting ‘could you really not see this coming’ comments.

Seeing the condition Winehouse is in, her management has to take the blame. They did a really good PR before the concert, launching stories on alcohol ban in hotels where Amy is staying and surprise concerts at London’s 100 Club on 12 June (how come there are no videos of that?). My guess is that Ray Cosbert and co. are not really keeping that good an eye on her (or maybe she doesn’t allow them to), but are well in exploiting her while she’s still able to walk. Her contract stated that she has to arrive to Belgrade on time and spend seventy minutes on stage. Although she was ready to leave the stage twice, they got her back, in spite of her condition, so she could fulfill those terms. Of course, the performance fees go to her, but they also get their piece of the deal.
(CaféBabel)

RIGHT DOWN (La destra scende)

2011-06-03T14:11:00.004+02:00

Municipal and provincial elections were held in Italy on May 15-16 and 29-30. Roughly 135 major municipalities and eleven provinces were up, most notably the second and third largest cities in Italy – Milan and Naples. Given how personalized Italian politics is (around Silvio Berlusconi, of course) since 1994, these elections were yet another referendum on Berlusconi. Berlusconi, of course, has been taking hates with ‘Rubygate’, ‘bunga-bunga’, his judicial ‘reforms’ and various other things.

Milan and Naples were the most symbolic contests. Milan has been the symbol of Berlusconi’s Italy, having been ruled by centre-right mayors since 1993, and is widely considered to be the centre of Berlusconi’s electoral machinery and his home base. Naples was counted on by the right as the certain pickup, to complete the right’s recent clean sweep of Naples province and the region of Campania. Naples has been ruled by the centre-left’s Rosa Russo Iervolino since 2001. Other major cities up for re-election in the runoffs included Trieste (PdL incumbent) and Cagliari (PdL incumbent). The left held Turin and Bologna easily in the first round two weeks ago.

The contest in Milan pitted the left’s Giuliano Pisapia against incumbent mayor PdL Letizia Moratti, in office since 2006. Giuliano Pisapia is a lawyer and former parliamentarian for Proletarian Democracy and the Communist Refoundation, and surprisingly won the PD primary despite not being a PD member thanks to strong support from Nichi Vendola’s Left-Ecology and Freedom (SEL) party. Berlusconi, himself the top candidate on the PdL list in Milan, rambled on about how Milan would be overrun by Muslims, Roms and gays if Pisapia won and derided Pisapia as a communist. Moratti, in a debate, falsely accussed Pisapia of having a conviction for a car theft. That accusation, later proven to be false, may have served to turn the table against her. In the first round, Pisapia won 48% against 41.6% for Moratti, with the UDC’s Manfredi Palmeri taking 5.5% and Mattia Calise from Beppe Grillo’s grouping taking 3.2%. Turnout was 67.6%, a number which declined only slightly to 67.4% during the runoff.

In Naples, the centre-right’s Giovanni Lettieri came out ahead two weeks ago, but with a disappointing 38.5% against a divided left. The PD’s Mario Morcone placed third with 19.15% against 27.5% for Luigi de Magistris, a former prosecutor and candidate of the Italy of Values (IdV) party. Raimondo Pasquino, the UDC/FLI candidate won 9.7% and Clemente Mastella of UDEUR won 2.2%. The results of the first round, in which turnout was 60.3%, placed Lettieri in a surprisingly feeble position if the left could unite its forces.

Here are the main runoff results:

Milan
Giuliano Pisapia (SEL-PD) 55.1%
Letizia Moratti (PdL) 44.89%
turnout 67.38%

Naples
Luigi De Magistris (IdV) 65.37%
Giovanni Lettieri (PdL) 34.62%
turnout 50.57%

Trieste
Roberto Cosolini (PD) 57.51%
Roberto Antonione (PdL) 42.49%
turnout 51.55%

Cagliari
Massimo Zedda (PD) 59.42%
Massimo Fantola (PdL) 40.57%
turnout 62.23%

The first round saw major left-wing gains, but the runoffs saw a left-wing landslide in most of the towns and provinces up for election. In Milan, Pisapia was able to win the bulk of the UDC and Beppe Grillo’s voters, while Moratti increased her showing by only 3% from the first round. The fearmongering campaign of the PdL, accusing Pisapia of all sorts of things and talking about the gays and Muslims taking over the place backfired badly. The first round results made a left-wing victory likely in Milan, but the crushing margin was not expected and, at any rate, it remains a major symbolic blow to Berlusconi in the city which has been the symbol of right-wing Berlusconian Italy since 1993. In Naples, turnout dropped roughly 10% (turnout also dropped a lot in Trieste and Cagliari), and judging from the results there was a major enthusiasm GOTV gap between left and right. The narrative of the media between the two rounds talked extensively about how the first round had been a blow to the right, a narrative which probably motivated left-wingers to deal a blow-out blow in the runoff but demotivated right-wing voters. Lettieri won less in the runoff than in the first round, which means that not only did he fail to pickup any new voters from the centre-right UDC/FLI or UDEUR, but he also failed to hold on to a few of his first round voters. De Magistris won a landslide, all the more impressive and disastrous for the right considering how Naples was the right-wing target. The left also picked up Trieste and Cagliari, two right-wing cities, the latter of which has apparently been held by the right since World War II. La Repubblica‘s graphic tells me that the left-right balance, 73-54 in the left’s favour before these elections, turned 83-36 in the left’s favour this year.
(World Elections)

THE S&P FILES

2011-04-20T15:15:00.003+02:00

Ammettiamolo: il taglio di Outlook sul debito degli USA da parte di S&P ha sorpreso un po' tutti, anche gli "informati" che già sapevano ma non avevavo capito del tutto....

Sia ben chiaro: non è la fine del mondo ma è un segnale da interpretare e di cui tenere conto.
Infatti è pur vero che le sorelle zoccole del rating sono le sorelle zoccole del rating ;)
o che i CDS sono in buona parte solo dei missili teleguidati dalla speculazione....
Ma se anche non condividiamo ontologicamente queste "realtà", dobbiamo comunque tenerne conto se vogliamo analizzare l'economia e la finanza.
Infatti Società di Rating, CDS etc continuano ad avere un forte impatto, che ci piaccia o no.

Tutti hanno iniziato a dare un sacco d'interpretazioni all'Evento Misterioso del Taglio X-Files: in effetti è un po' come se lo IOR tagliasse il rating al Vaticano...;)

Io invece mi permetto di suggerirvi QUESTA Interpretazione che in fondo è la più semplice e la più sana...
anche se a molti potrebbe apparire come una spiegazione da utopisti rivoluzionari...
E ci voleva un moderno George Washington Blogger per darcela....;)
Inoltre, se anche questa Interpretazione non spiegasse le intenzioni remote e meno remote di S&P,
funzionerebbe lo stesso come Interpretazione Generale degli USA post-Grande-Crisi (post??...mah?...)
E volendo potrebbe funzionare benissimo anche come EPITAFFIO.....

Standard & Poors ha tagliato l'Outlook degli USA a Negativo perchè entrambe le parti politiche (Democratici&Repubblicani) continuano a buttare un'enorme quantità di denaro in Guerre senza fine, in Bailout senza fine ed in un Sistema Finanziario a schema Ponzi...
Standard & Poors Cuts U.S. Outlook to Negative Because Both Parties Keep Throwing Money at Endless Wars, Endless Bailouts and a Ponzi Financial System

...The war between liberals and conservatives is a false divide-and-conquer dog-and-pony show created by the powers that be to keep the American people divided and distracted....
The real problem is that both Democrats and Republicans want to fund endless wars, give endless bailouts to the too big to fail banks and corporations, and perpetuate the expensive Ponzi scheme of printing money out of thin air.
Imperial wars reduce our national security. Indeed, our top military and intelligence officials say that debt is the main threat to our national security, and have said that the Pentagon must cut spending
...Moreover, endless bailouts harm the economy.
Ponzi finance costs trillions of dollars (and leads to a decrease in loans to Main Street)....
To the extent that both the Republican and Democratic parties slavishly follow these meta-policies - which supersede the stated "conservative" and "liberal" goals - they will ensure that we lose our AAA credit, and they will destroy our economy....

Insomma la colpa è tutta della Politica USA nel suo insieme, che ormai sarebbe totalmente equivalente alla Finanza ed all'Economia,
senza alcuna progettualità
che vada OLTRE, basandosi su "santi princìpi" ormai caduti in disuso...
o semplicemente che stia ENTRO i dettami della Costituzione Americana.
Naturalmente tale Interpretazione è applicabile anche ALTROVE, con piccoli adattamenti...
(Il grande bluff)

WIKILEAKS vs TEPCO

2011-03-17T15:18:00.002+01:00

Eighteen months before Japan’s radiation crisis, U.S. diplomats had lambasted the safety chief of the world’s atomic watchdog for incompetence, especially when it came to the nuclear power industry in his homeland, Japan.

Cables sent from the U.S. embassy in Vienna to Washington, which were obtained by WikiLeaks and reviewed by Reuters, singled out Tomihiro Taniuchi, until last year head of safety and security at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“For the past 10 years, the department has suffered tremendously because of (deputy director general) Taniguchi’s weak management and leadership skills,” said one dispatch on Dec. 1, 2009.

“Taniguchi has been a weak manager and advocate, particularly with respect to confronting Japan’s own safety practices, and he is a particular disappointment to the United States for his unloved-step-child treatment of the Office of Nuclear Security,” said another, which was sent on July 7, 2009.

The IAEA does not comment on the contents of leaked cables.

The evidence of concern about the Japanese national surfaced as his country scrambled to avert a lethal spread of radiation from earthquake-damaged nuclear reactors north of Tokyo.

Japan’s crisis has brought scrutiny of its nuclear authorities and, in particular, the operator of the stricken reactors, which has a history of falsifying data at its plants.

Separate cables quoted a Japanese lawmaker as telling visiting U.S. officials in October 2008 that power companies in Japan were hiding nuclear safety problems and being given an easy ride on commitments to renewable energy by the government.

Taro Kono, a supporter of renewable energy who in 2009 bid unsuccessfully for leadership of his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), also said Japan had no solution for nuclear waste storage. He asked if there was anywhere appropriate to store waste given that Japan was the “land of volcanoes.”

Kono was not immediately available for comment.

The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi plant now at the centre of the crisis – the Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) – has had a rocky past in an industry plagued by scandal.

Five TEPCO executives resigned in 2002 over suspected falsification of nuclear plant safety records and five reactors were forced to stop operations.

In 2006, the government ordered TEPCO to check past data after it reported finding falsification of coolant water temperatures at its Fukushima Daiichi plant in 1985 and 1988, and that the tweaked data was used in mandatory inspections at the plant, which were completed in October 2005.

The risk of earthquakes and tsunamis was already well known before last Friday’s massive earthquake, but many of Japan’s nuclear power plants, including the now-crippled Fukushima complex, were built before the most modern safety standards.

An unnamed IAEA official told the G8 Nuclear Safety and Security Group in December 2008 that guidelines for seismic safety had only been revised three times in the past 35 years and that the IAEA was re-examining them, another WikiLeaks cable showed.

“Also, the presenter noted recent earthquakes in some cases have exceeded the design basis for some nuclear plants, and that this is a serious problem that is now driving seismic safety work,” the cable said.

Leaks of radioactive steam and workers contaminated with radiation are just part of the disturbing catalogue of accidents that have occurred over the years and been belatedly reported to the public, if at all, the Associated Press reports.

In one case, workers hand-mixed uranium in stainless steel buckets, instead of processing by machine, so the fuel could be reused, exposing hundreds of workers to radiation. Two later died.

“Everything is a secret,” said Kei Sugaoka, a former nuclear power plant engineer in Japan who now lives in California. “There's not enough transparency in the industry.”

Sugaoka worked at the same utility that runs the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant where workers are racing to prevent a full meltdown following Friday's 9.0 magnitude quake and tsunami.

In 1989 Sugaoka received an order that horrified him: edit out footage showing cracks in plant steam pipes in video being submitted to regulators. Sugaoka alerted his superiors in the Tokyo Electric Power Co., but nothing happened. He decided to go public in 2000. Three Tepco executives lost their jobs.

Competence and transparency issues aside, some say it's just too dangerous to build nuclear plants in an earthquake-prone nation like Japan, where land can liquefy during a major temblor.

“You're building on a heap of tofu,” said Philip White of Tokyo-based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, a group of scientists and activists who have opposed nuclear power since 1975.

“There is absolutely no reason to trust them,” he said of those that run Japan's nuclear power plants.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said on Wednesday before leaving for Japan that the agency had been trying continuously to help improve the safety of nuclear plants against earthquakes.

A draft IAEA report on safety standards, published in October 2009, recommended that nuclear power plants be located more than 10 kilometres from the sea or ocean shoreline, or more than one km from a lake or fjord shoreline; or at an elevation of more than 50 metres from the mean water level.

“To my knowledge, all of the nuclear power plants in Japan are located quite close to the ocean,” said Daniel Aldrich, author of Site fights, a book about how decisions were taken on where to build nuclear power plants in Japan and elsewhere.

“This is for two reasons: 1) normally, cooling pipes carry in seawater through the reactor unit and cool it off, and then dump the warmer water back in the ocean (these pipes are not functioning normally at this point), and 2) these areas are remote, far from high population density areas, and they have the least resistance from civil society,” he said in emailed comments.

The latest IAEA recommendations are far more stringent than the original standards set for Japanese plants. The six reactors at the Daiichi facility were commissioned between 1971 and 1979, while two other Japanese nuclear reactors date back to 1970.

“An anomalous magnitude 9.0 scale is far beyond the assumed safety standard when Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station started up forty years ago,” Yu Shibutani, director of Energy Geopolitics Ltd of Japan, said in an email to Reuters.

“The tsunami walls either should have been built higher, or the generators should have been placed on higher ground to withstand potential flooding, but it has failed.

“The accident exposes shortcomings in risk analysis as well as in engineering, and also the plant didn’t meet safety standards in both quake and tsunami wall.”
(TheStar.com)

A TRAVEL TO ASCONA. (Viaggio ad Ascona)

2011-02-09T14:48:00.003+01:00

Ieri la vetrina di una conosciutissima agenzia di viaggi a Madrid annunciava un fine settimana natalizio in un magico paesino svizzero, Ascona, sulle rive nord del Lago Maggiore. Ascona, diceva l’annuncio. Un comune ed una città storica che ha sperimentato un periodo straordinario all’inizio del XX secolo, quando una colonia di filosofi, scrittori, vegetariani, poeti, ballerini e pittori di tutto il mondo si riunivano sul Monte Verità, predicando i benefici della natura- “Questo insediamento- diceva l’annuncio- è diventato in un campo di prova per stili di vita alternativa”.

Ma, Ascona è molto più di un’ex colonia di artisti “geek” dell’inizio del secolo scorso.
Una quantità incredibile della filosofia e degli artefatti della contro cultura americana degli anni 60, oltre alle idiozie della New Age di oggi, derivano da un’esperimento sociale su larga scala messo attuato ad Ascona e che comprende gli anni dal 1910 fino all'anno 1935.

Ad esempio, Ascona è stato il rifugio per ogni sorta di occultisti e sette del movimento originale della New Age dell’inizio secolo sotto l'egida della Società Teosofica di Helena Blavatsky. La Blavatsky, è stata un’occultista russa con un’influenza enorme nella maggior parte delle sette sataniche del XX secolo. L’Ordo Templis Orientis, la fraternità occulta creata dal satanista Aleister Crowley ha avuto la sua unica loggia femminile ad Ascona.

Crowley, uno degli uomini più malvagi che mai sia esistito, era un prodotto del cerchio satanico che si è sviluppato in Gran Bretagna dal 1860 sotto la guida di Edward Bulwer-Lytton, il ministro coloniale durante la seconda guerra dell'oppio. Nel 1886, Crowley, William Butler Yeats- poeta e drammaturgo irlandese- e Premio Nobel per la Letteratura, tra gli altri vari individui di idee affini, formarono il Tempio Iside - Urania dell’Ordine Ermetica dell’Alba Dorata.
Il sovversivo Iside Urania Ordine dell’Alba Dorata è oggi una rete di narcotraffico internazionale controllata dal multimilionario canadese Maurice Strong, ex sottosegretario generale dell’ONU e un doppio agente dell’intelligence britannica.

L’influenza dominante ad Ascona arrivò dalla mano del Dottor Otto Gross, discepolo di Freud e amico di Carl Jung. I suoi seguaci più famosi furono Frieda e D.H Lawrence e Franz Kafka.

Furono i progetti originali per quello che più tardi sarebbe diventato un progetto super segreto del Programma Monarch della CIA. Cioè, la “guerra psicologica subcoscia” che trasformò milioni di cittadini innocenti in zombi programmati dalla CIA, creato in parte dalla mente di Gross.

Inoltre, è agghiacciante vedere il numero di intellettuali oggi venerati come eroi culturali che furono influenzati dalla follia della New Age di Ascona- inclusi tra essi quasi tutti gli autori che hanno goduto di riconoscimento negli USA durante gli anni 60 e 70. Ad esempio, Ascona e la sua filosofia appaiono nelle opere non solo di Lawrence e di Kafka, ma anche dei Premi Nobel Gerhardt Hauptmann e Hermann Hesse, H.G. Wells, Max Brod, Stefan George, e dei poeti Rainer Maria Rilke e Gustav Landauer. Nel 1935, Ascona divenne la sede delle conferenze annuali di Carl Jung con l’obiettivo di divulgare lo gnosticismo.

Ascona è stato anche il luogo della creazione della maggior parte di quella che oggi chiamiamo danza moderna. Fu Rudolf von Laban, creatore della Labanotazione, il suo metodo di annotazione matematica, che ha documentato tutte le pose del movimento umano e coreografie che hanno permesso di registrare i passi dei ballerini. Làban cercò di sostituire le geometrie formali della danza classica con ricostruzioni di danze di culto che sono state in grado di ripetere le memorie razziali primordiali del pubblico. Quando i nazisti arrivarono al potere, Laban diventò l’ufficiale del più alto rango della danza nel Reich.

Inoltre, anche il movimento dadaista nonostante abbia avuto la sue origini nelle vicinanze di Zurigo tutte le sue prime figure furono di Ascona fisicamente o filosoficamente.
E per concludere. Conosci la famosa canzone dei Beatles? It was twenty years ago today/ Sergeant Pepper taught the band to play, dall’album “Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”.
Sapete a chi si riferivano i Beatles con quella frase?
Al loro satanista preferito, Aleister Crowley. L’album fu pubblicato esattamente 20 anni dopo la morte della persona più malvagia della storia umana: Crowley.

Quindi, quando parliamo di Ascona- la pubblicità dovrebbe dire- Benvenuti all’inferno o forse: Al Mondo di Fumo e di Specchi.
(Voci dalla strada)

THE FUTURE OF CHILE IS MADE OF LITHIUM. (Il futuro del CIle è fatto di litio)

2010-12-16T00:37:00.005+01:00

La demanda de litio está creciendo a nivel global porque es el material más eficiente para el desarrollo de las baterías y, en especial, es la mejor alternativa de almacenamiento de energía para la expansión de los autos híbridos y eléctricos. La reducción de las reservas de petróleo, el aumento de su precio y los efectos que generan los hidrocarburos en el calentamiento global van a desplazar la prioridad a estas nuevas tecnologías. Y, por otro lado, además de sus múltiples usos industriales y aplicaciones metálicas, el litio también es muy eficiente en la producción de tritio para la fusión nuclear, que se espera pueda reemplazar a las actuales centrales de fisión nuclear. La gran diferencia medioambiental entre ellas es que la fusión no genera desechos radiactivos. La primera central experimental de fusión nuclear, del proyecto multinacional ITER emplazado en Francia, podría entrar en funciones el año 2017 y se prevé que a fines de siglo podría transformarse en una de las fuentes de energía dominantes a nivel mundial.

Actualmente, Chile tiene el 40% de las reservas probadas de litio y tiene ventajas competitivas para su explotación respecto de otros países. Pero eso está cambiando. Viene una ola de inversiones que va a reestructurar este mercado y el mapa de sus actores. Se han descubierto nuevos yacimientos, se están probando las reservas probables y está comenzando su explotación más intensiva.

Este cambio tiene efectos geopolíticos, en tres planos distintos.

El primero es si se trata de un producto estratégico y qué entendemos por eso.

El uso del litio en las armas nucleares llevó a que Chile lo considerara un mineral no objeto de concesión, porque era una reserva militar “estratégica”. De hecho, esta medida proviene de un Decreto Ley dictado con anterioridad al Código de Minería y a la Ley de Concesiones Mineras. Junto con la retención de Codelco en manos del Estado, éste fue de los pocos triunfos del sector nacionalista del gobierno militar versus las posiciones liberales de entonces. En los años ’70 la carrera nuclear estaba en su apogeo y la bomba de hidrógeno era el estándar del futuro. Sólo los tratados que limitaron su proliferación y los sucesivos acuerdos para desmantelar arsenales atómicos redujo la importancia del litio. No es que una nueva tecnología lo haya dejado en desuso, sino que una decisión política limitó su expansión.

Ahora bien, esa concepción de que lo “estratégico” de un producto está ligado a su potencial militar también está obsoleta. La mirada hoy es distinta.

Esto es, el tratamiento del litio como un mineral estratégico estuvo asociado directa y esencialmente a ese potencial militar. La apreciación de ese potencial nuclear hoy es distinta, pero sobre todo esa concepción sobre lo “estratégico” de un producto también está obsoleta.

La regla general de los productos es que son un commoditie cuando hay una pluralidad de vendedores y compradores, que amortiguan cualquier alteración de su disponibilidad y, por lo tanto, de su precio. En cambio, un producto o un mercado es estratégico cuando son esenciales en la economía, como el petróleo o el acero; son indispensables para las necesidades inmediatas de la población, como lo vimos en la crisis alimentaria del año 2008; o el acceso a esos productos está condicionado a factores geopolíticos, ya sea porque existen barreras de entrada que deciden los países según sus alianzas (por ejemplo, la objeción de vender gas boliviano a Chile), porque hay problemas de disponibilidad de un recurso en el mercado (como ocurre con la caída de los inventarios del cobre o el impacto de una huelga en su precio) o son vitales para la economía de un país (como son los requerimientos industriales de China).

El alza en el precio de muchos commodities está vinculada a estos factores. En el caso de los minerales, por ejemplo, lo estratégico está cada vez más asociado a la seguridad de su suministro. Las fusiones de empresas globales, los estímulos y restricciones que están aplicando varios países a las empresas y las fuertes inversiones mineras están orientadas a garantizar el acceso a estos insumos básicos. Eso les otorga importancia geopolítica y la capacidad de influencia en esos mercados es una fuente de poder para sus países.

El litio está en esta categoría, porque es un combustible del futuro, como lo ha sido el petróleo. Su valoración estratégica sigue vigente, pero bajo este otro concepto.

Esto no significa, linealmente, que el Estado sea el único que pueda explotarlo, sino que no es razonable que se quiera someterlo a la misma lógica liberal impulsada en los años ’80, como algunos promueven. Eso no es viable ni conveniente para Chile. En todo caso, mi opinión es que Codelco, que debe transformarse en una empresa minera global, no sólo de cobre, debería entrar agresivamente a desarrollar proyectos de litio a partir de las reservas disponibles en Chile.

El segundo es que estamos ad portas de un ciclo más intensivo en el uso del litio, en parte por la necesidad global de un cambio en la matriz energética.

La industria automotriz va a multiplicar su demanda por la necesidad de vehículos más económicos y más “verdes”. El año pasado el Presidente Obama inyectó recursos a las moribundas empresas de Detroit para desarrollar más eficientes motores y baterías en sus modelos. Japón está financiando el proyecto de Toyota con Oroncobre en el salar de Jujuy. La Mitsubishi materializó un acuerdo con la empresa australiana Galaxy Resources para ser su proveedor de litio y tiene una alianza con GS Yuasa para el desarrollo de su tecnología. Nissan, BMW y Volkswagen anuncian modelos para el próximo año en base a baterías recargables. La emergente industria China, además de competir en estos modelos, busca bajar la dependencia de un petróleo menos accesible para ellos por la influencia política y militar que todavía ejerce Estados Unidos en los países productores. En todos estos casos los estados están involucrados en la reconfiguración de la industria.

A su vez, el proyecto ITER, que busca crear un reactor de fusión nuclear, comenzó como un pacto de colaboración entre Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea, Japón y Rusia, al que después se sumaron Corea del Sur, India y China. Todos ellos trabajan en un modelo experimental, Tokamak, que se instaló en Francia el año 2006. De hecho, esa decisión fue objeto de una dura disputa que estuvo cerca de dividirlos, porque Estados Unidos objetaba que el reactor se emplazara en Francia luego de su rechazo a la invasión de Irak. Y, por último, cabe destacar que Brasil quiere ingresar al ITER aportando fondos y minerales.

Esta energía va a ser una fuente de poder mundial y, desde luego, sus actores tomarán una posición de liderazgo global. Una de sus contrapartes van a ser los proveedores de litio, entre los cuales puede estar Chile.

El tercero es el mapa de las reservas de litio y qué ventajas competitivas va a tener cada país.

No hay una información acabada de cuántas reservas existen, pero la tendencia es a su expansión por las nuevas exploraciones y descubrimientos. Chile tiene grandes yacimientos, pero se sabe que Bolivia podría duplicar nuestras reservas, Argentina tendría niveles similares y se especula con grandes depósitos de litio en China, Rusia, Afganistán y Estados Unidos.

El triángulo entre Chile, Bolivia y Argentina ya adquirió relevancia mundial. Es considerado un poder emergente en un mercado estratégico. El desarrollo de su producción, infraestructura y comercialización puede tener sinergias entre los tres países y, por lo mismo, tiene el desafío de evitar tensiones políticas o militares por la pretensión de ganar ventajas limitando a uno u otro. La cuestión de la salida al mar de Bolivia volverá a tener la solidaridad de los países interesados en sus exportaciones de litio, como a principios del 2000 la tuvo en torno al gas natural. Chile tiene ventajas competitivas naturales que no requieren de una estrategia beligerante para preservar sus oportunidades.

Ninguno de nuestros países, sin embargo, está invirtiendo en el desarrollo de las tecnologías del litio: aleaciones, baterías o usos nucleares. De nuevo su lugar es básicamente la explotación primaria del mineral.

Chile tiene que salir de su parálisis actual, acelerar su explotación y construir alianzas para participar de la investigación y desarrollo de los usos del litio. En esta etapa esas son inversiones a una escala en las que Chile puede participar. Incluso, al igual que Brasil, Chile podría ser parte del proyecto ITER. Las reservas internacionales del país le permitirían considerar esa inversión y otras contribuciones minerales a la iniciativa.

El debate sobre su carácter estratégico tiene que ser práctico, no ideológico.

Y, por cierto, asumir que no hay espacio como para repetir en el litio el modelo de concesiones de los años ’80. Se requiere un nuevo consenso que cuide la posición geopolítica de Chile en este mercado emergente.
(ElMostrador)

CHOLERA SPREADERS. (Untori)

2010-11-30T17:10:00.009+01:00

L'epidemia di colera che ad Haiti ha ucciso più di 1600 persone non è una conseguenza del terremoto, perché il ceppo del batterio non ha origine locale, ma è stato portato da fuori. È quanto sostiene oggi l'epidemiologo francese Renaud Perraux, rientrato in Francia da una missione nell'isola.

Perraux ha detto oggi all'agenzia France Presse che l'epidemia "ha avuto inizio nel centro del paese, non sul mare, non nei campi profughi". "È proprio per questo - aggiunge - che non può essere di origine locale, ma è stata importata".

Secondo responsabili haitiani, i primi casi di colera sono apparsi a metà ottobre nei pressi del campo delle forze di pace dell'ONU (Minustah), di cui molti soldati erano di origine nepalese. Questi ultimi sono stati accusati da una parte della popolazione di essere all'origine della diffusione del virus.

Una versione ritenuta possibile anche dal medico francese Gerard Chevallier, che ha lavorato con il professor Perraux. L'ONU ha sempre sostenuto che non vi fossero prove del fatto che la diffusione del colera fosse stata provocata dalla presenza delle sue truppe.
(SwissInfo)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In questi giorni i media di tutto il mondo si scandalizzano per quella che viene definita “caccia all’untore”. Ad Haiti, soprattutto nelle città del nord dell’isola, sono iniziate infatti pesanti contestazioni ai danni dei soldati dell’Onu. La missione, di cui parlammo qualche post fa, si chiama Minustah (Missions des Nationes Unies pour Stabilitation en Haiti ) ed è ad Haiti dal 2004, quando fu spedita qui per evitare una guerra civile. Il presidente Aristide infatti, scottato da essere stato detronizzato dai militari e temendo un nuovo colpo di stato, sciolse da un giorno all’altro l’esercito.

I caschi blu in questi anni hanno stabilizzato la situazione politica (anche se a Port-au-Prince le sparatorie sono una assoluta costante del panorama cittadino). I soldati brasiliani in particolare hanno attaccato qualche anno fa il fortino delle bande armate (Cité Soleil) e ristabilito un minimo di ordine nella vita cittadina.

Dal terremoto però la missione (che è civile e militare, ma prettamente civile) non si è riconvertita per aiutare la popolazione di fronte a questa ennesima sciagura. E così, a differenza di quanto avvenne in Bosnia, il genio militare dell’Onu non si è dato da fare, ad esempio, per sistemare le infrastrutture. Anche i blindati bianchi con scritto UN transitano lungo strade devastate e guadano i fiumi dove i ponti sono crollati.

L’impressione dunque è che non ci sia molta fiducia tra gli haitiani verso i caschi blu. E forse gli stessi soldati che provengono dal resto del mondo avrebbero voglia di fare qualcosa di più per aiutare chi ha bisogno, senza girare armati di tutto punto in mezzo a baracche e tende.

Ora si sospetta che siano stati i caschi blu nepalesi a portare il colera ad Haiti. Il vibrione sull’isola mancava da sessant’anni e non si è sviluppato malgrado le drammatiche condizioni igieniche, peggiorate dal terremoto. In un libro che ho letto prima di partire (Haiti, il silenzio infranto, di Lucia Capuzzi) gli esperti delle Ong si dicevano stupiti che non fosse scoppiata un’epidemia di colera. Che invece ha preso il là non lontano da dove i caschi blu nepalesi hanno il loro quartier generale. In Nepal il colera è endemico. Il sospetto che siano stati i nepalesi a portare questa malattia sull’isola non è stata diffusa da qualche blog locale ma dal portavoce dell’Onu ad Haiti (smentito, a stretto giro di comunicati stampa, dalla Minustah: ma ormai il danno era fatto).

Secondo elemento che molti osservatori stranieri sembrano dimenticare di fronte all’escalation di violenza anti-Onu sull’isola sono le elezioni. Il 28 novembre ci sarà il primo turno delle presidenziali e si rinnoverà il parlamento. I candidati sono 19 e al ballottaggio andranno solo in due. Molti hanno quindi interesse a destabilizzare la situazione, a sobillare gli animi per ottenere voti o quantomeno posti di potere.

Da qui a quando si apriranno le urne, la situazione non potrò che peggiorare. Soprattutto se il numero dei morti per colera continuerà a crescere ogni giorno.

Ad maiora
(Andrea Riscassi's blog)

DIPLOMACY OF THE ABSURD. (Diplomazia dell'assurdo)

2010-11-15T13:39:00.002+01:00

Il 14 febbraio del 2005 nelle strade di Beirut, grazie a 100 kg di tritolo, venne assassinato Rafiq Hariri, ex primo ministro dimissionario del governo libanese.

L'omicidio, oltre a ricordare quello di Falcone nelle modalità (in quel caso si trattò di 350 chili di dinamite, molto più potente del tritolo), lo ricorda anche per le conseguenze: la conflagrazione infatti catalizzò le forze politiche che giostravano (e giostrano) intorno all'area cardine del medio oriente facendole venire allo scontro aperto. Scontro che ha raggiunto il suo apice con la tentata invasione israeliana del libano nel luglio 2006.

Ancora oggi in occidente ci si chiede ipocritamente chi abbia assassinato il leader politico libanese, mentre sui giornali è già stato deciso che il colpevole doveva essere la Siria. Il fatto che Hariri stesso avesse più volte dichiarato pubblicamente che proprio la Siria era assolutamente necessaria alla protezione del suo paese contro Israele ed avesse allo stesso tempo rifiutato di implementare la legislazione anti-terrorismo caldeggiata dagli USA (come ricorda la wikipedia inglese, ma invece censura quella italiana) non viene minimamente ricordato.

Fallito il tentativo di rompere l'impasse con la violenza della ricordata invasione del 2006, il fronte occidentale ha cominciato a circuire Bashar al-Assad, il presidente siriano, con la promessa di aprire il mondo al suo paese, da tempo sotto embargo internazionale. Diversi articoli sui mezzi da guerra mediatica anglosassoni (The Economist, Financial Times, National Geographic) cominciavano subito a riabilitare l'immagine di quello che fino a poche ore prima era un stato canaglia tra i neuroni facilmente impressionabili di buona parte dei propri lettori.

Il processo di normalizzazione nelle relazioni USA-Siria lo scorso mese di ottobre (il 4 per l'esattezza) portava ad un contrattacco nel caso “Hariri”, con la Siria che all'improvviso spiccava dei mandati di arresto internazionali contro 33 rappresentanti governativi libanesi con la stessa accusa che questi gli avevano rivolto precedentemente (la responsabilità dell'assassinio di Hariri). I mandati ovviamente non hanno alcuna speranza di essere eseguiti, perché l'Interpol difficilmente li avallerebbe. Ma dal punto di vista politico rappresentano uno stravolgimento sia nei rapporti di forza interni libanesi, che in quelli più vasti dell'area.

Il momento in cui tutto questo avveniva, lo scorso ottobre, ha anche altri risvolti, poiché la richiesta emessa dai giudici siriani preludeva, facendone da supporto, alla visita ufficiale del presidente iraniano Ahmadinejad in Libano che sarebbe iniziata il 13 seguente e che poi si sarebbe rivelata un immenso successo diplomatico iraniano.

La Siria si sarebbe dunque presa gioco di Washington? Forse sì, forse no, perché se da un lato il segretario di Stato USA, Hillary Clinton, continua ad esprimersi con toni aggressivi (“Il comportamento della Siria non ha soddisfatto le nostre aspettative degli ultimi 20 mesi, e le azioni siriane non hanno soddisfatto li suoi obblighi internazionali”, AFP 12 Novembre 2010), dall'altro il senatore democratico Kerry, in visita a Damasco, “ha sottolineato il ruolo della Siria nel raggiungimento della sicurezza e della stabilità nell'area” (9 novembre 2010), in effetti mostrandosi ansioso di trovare un punto d'incontro.

Quello che però sembra di poter leggere tra le righe è che il rinnovato feeling tra Teheran e Damasco, teatralmente messo in mostra nell'occasione ricordata sopra, non abbia inciso sul riavvicinamento tra Damasco e Washington. La qual cosa dovrebbe stupire non poco, visto che non facciamo altro che leggere peste e corna sui “fondamentalisti” persiani.

Se però includiamo nel quadro l'improvviso calo nei rapporti tra Teheran e Mosca, che recentemente insieme a Pechino ha appoggiato nuove sanzioni dell'ONU contro l'Iran ed è tornata indietro sulla vendita di armamenti (vedi dichiarazioni Ahmedinejad del 4 novemnbre) possiamo cominciare ad intravedere qualcos'altro prendere forma, e cioè un incredibile riavvicinamento tra gli Stati Uniti e l'Iran in chiave anti-russa ed anti-cinese.

Ecco perché la Siria non è stato “punita” dopo la sua spavalda dimostrazione di supporto nei confronti dell' “amico” Ahmendinejad: Damasco rappresenta la principale leva che Obama sta utilizzando per centrare un impensabile colpo politico.

Un colpo che qualora fosse messo a segno, potrebbe riaprire una immensa ferita che dopo oltre 150 anni stenta a cicatrizzarsi, una ferita che nella Mosca ortodossa chiamano la “Questione orientale”, sfociata nel 1856 nella tremenda Guerra di Crimea, l'evento politico che più di ogni altri ha determinato il destino della Sicilia nel XIX e nel XX secolo, quando la sconfitta delle “terza Roma” ad opera di musulmani ed anglosassoni (questi ultimi sostenuti anche dalla cattolicissima Austria) aprì le porte all'avventura Garibaldina.

(Il Consiglio)

UP THE IMMIGRANTS! (W gli immigrati!)

2010-10-14T21:10:00.004+02:00

L’uomo nella fotografia è René Obermann. Ha 47 anni. E’ nato a Düsseldorf e presiede dal 2006 una delle più importanti società di telecomunicazioni in Europa, Deutsche Telekom. René Obermann Il suo compito è gravoso. Deve fare i conti con un mercato molto competitivo, la concorrenza di internet e della telefonia mobile, e con un’azienda, ex monopolista pubblico, dove molti dipendenti sono abituati ad avere i privilegi di un funzionario dello stato. Tra le altre cose, la bolla high-tech dell’inizio del decennio ha lasciato in eredità al gruppo tedesco un debito che alla fine di giugno era pari a 46 miliardi di euro. Questa settimana Obermann ha pubblicato un interessante commento su Handelsblatt, il giornale economico tedesco, in cui fa le lodi dell’immigrazione. Il tutto mentre in Germania il leader bavarese Horst Seehofer ha proposto di bloccare l'arrivo di stranieri musulmani; la Spagna ha lanciato un programma di rimpatrio dolce, offrendo pacchetti finanziari agli immigrati che tornano nel loro paese; la Francia espelle i Rom; l'Italia oscilla, senza strategia, tra accoglienza e rigetto; e l'Olanda si è appena dotata di un governo che ha l'appoggio esterno di un partito anti-islamico.

Prima di tutto, Obermann fa notare che tra il 2005 e il 2050 il numero di giovani tra i 16 e i 20 anni si dimezzerà in Germania. Ve ne saranno tra 40 anni appena due milioni. Secondo Obermann questa tendenza è particolarmente grave perché è tra i più giovani che si trovano e si troveranno i talenti del futuro. “Talenti e lavoratori bravi sono vitali per le imprese”, spiega il presidente di Deutsche Telekom. In questo contesto, afferma Obermann, gli immigrati in Germania sono un tesoro di cui approfittare. Coltivare i giovani stranieri, magari poco integrati nel sistema scolastico, è essenziale per permettere alle imprese di trovare nuovi ingegni. “Promuovere, favorire e impegnare questi giovani è per le imprese una chance molto importante, poiché queste giovane persone portano con sé varietà culturali che possono sostenere il potere d’innovazione e la creatività”. E aggiunge: “La varietà culturale è uno dei principali fattori di successo per affrontare la concorrenza globale, in particolare nell’economia di internet”. Troppo spesso quando si parla (bene) dell’immigrazione uomini politici e capitani d’industria si concentrano sulla presenza di nuove braccia e di nuovi consumatori. Nel suo articolo Obermann sottolinea un aspetto troppo spesso dimenticato, soprattutto nei paesi più protezionisti e conservatori. C’è da chiedersi a questo punto quanto del successo tedesco sui grandi mercati internazionali dipenda dalla capacità delle imprese di approfittare della creatività o più semplicemente della ricchezza culturale dei suoi immigrati.
(GermaniE)

AND KLAUS FOUND HIMSELF PRO-RUSSIAN... (E Klaus si scoprì pro-russo...)

2010-09-25T16:48:00.003+02:00

One man's signature was all it would take to end eight years of tortuous negotiations and contentious national referenda. That effort had finally yielded the Lisbon Treaty, a new agreement among members of the European Union that would provide the community with its first constitution and president. The final hurdle was securing that one politician's signature, but European leaders were growing frantic last October because he wasn't answering his telephone.

Instead Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president, had embarked on an international tour to promote his new book, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles," an anti-global-warming manifesto in which Klaus -- who has denounced Al Gore as an "apostle of arrogance" -- dismisses manmade climate change as a myth.

Klaus's main destination was Moscow, where LUKoil, the giant Russian oil company, was paying for the book's translation. Speaking in the Kremlin, the Czech leader, his white hair closely cropped and mustache fastidiously trimmed, condemned the EU -- which he once compared to the Soviet Union -- as elitist and undemocratic.

It was an extraordinary state of affairs: a tiny new EU member impeding, if not quite derailing, a historic community development. Klaus eventually signed the Lisbon Treaty, but only after his protracted opposition had frayed the EU's already fragile unity. Critics of Europe's rudest politician, as he's been described, accused him of hijacking the treaty in order to steal the limelight.

Although most Czechs say their president genuinely believes in his anti-European tirades, many were dismayed. But Klaus's trip to Moscow raised eyebrows for another reason: to many observers, he appeared to be acting in the interests of the Kremlin, and not for the first time.

In the 1990s, Klaus promoted Czech oil and gas agreements with Russia before opposing a deal to buy gas from Norway as "economically unviable." (When Moscow cut off supplies flowing through Ukraine in 2006 and 2009, the deal helped enable the Czech Republic to avoid major energy crises.) In 1999, he joined the Kremlin's angry condemnation of NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia over Kosovo. A decade later as president, he appeared to back Russia's invasion of Georgia by declaring that the responsibility of Moscow's former Soviet neighbor was "unexceptionable and fatal."

Czech President Vaclav Klaus (right) is seen as moving ever closer to Russia and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
A trained economist, Klaus has served as prime minister or president during most of the Czech Republic's postcommunist history. The staunch free-marketeer -- who keeps a photograph of Margaret Thatcher prominently displayed in his office -- oversaw the transition of a centrally planned economy into one of the former Soviet bloc's most successful markets before emerging as a leading voice of the country's right wing. So you'd be forgiven for thinking it somewhat of a paradox that he's come out on Moscow's side on almost every major issue.

Klaus's resistance to signing the Lisbon Treaty, despite being obligated to do so by Czech law, put him in step with the Kremlin yet again, this time over one of Moscow's biggest foreign-policy goals: splitting European unity. Klaus has backed Moscow so consistently over the years that jokes in Prague about his being a Russian agent prompt chuckles tinged with more than a little nervousness.

Journalist Jaroslav Plesl, who has investigated Russian influence in the Czech Republic, believes it doesn't matter whether the gossip contains any truth. "You don't need to see any documents, even if they exist," he says. "The Russians want the European Union to be as weak as possible, and for that purpose, Klaus serves their interests well."

But there are worries that Klaus, who refused requests for an interview, is just the tip of the iceberg. A growing number of Czech politicians across the spectrum appear to have ties to Russia in one or another form, and it's setting off alarm bells. Twenty years after the end of communism -- and four decades after the Red Army crushed the Prague Spring in 1968 -- a few lonely voices are warning that the Czech Republic and its neighbors are in danger of falling under Moscow's influence once again. This time, they say, the threat isn't from Russia's tanks but the one business in which Russia leads the world: energy.

That was the message from a group of prominent Central and Eastern European politicians led by former President Vaclav Havel, Klaus's predecessor and nemesis, who published an open letter to President Barack Obama last summer. The West, they wrote, should abandon its mistaken belief that the end of the Cold War and the expansion of the EU and NATO into the former Soviet bloc guaranteed their countries were "safe."

Criticism that Washington may be abandoning allies in Central and Eastern Europe in favor of "resetting" relations with Moscow is growing ever louder. But some believe it's distracting from the real threat in this part of the world. A handful of politicians, journalists, and former intelligence officers say rampant corruption is making Czechs vulnerable to exploitation by a resurgent Russia with ready cash to help fulfill its burning desire to reestablish its influence over former Soviet bloc countries.

Unlike Western firms, which lobby largely in their own interests, Russian state-controlled and private enterprises play an integral role in Kremlin foreign policy, and they're "undoubtedly influencing the behavior of various Czech political parties and politicians," Havel said in an interview. "I've seen several cases where the influence started quietly and slowly began projecting onto our foreign policy. I can only advise serious discretion and great caution."

As one objective in a grand strategy, the Czech Republic sheds light on just how Moscow works. It's no secret Russia is the world's biggest exporter of oil and gas, especially to Central and Eastern European countries, some of which depend on Russia for around 90 percent of their supplies. But in the Czech Republic, Moscow is playing for an industry that's been promoted as central to securing the country's energy independence: nuclear power. A Russian company is bidding for the biggest nuclear energy deal in history, and many believe it will win.

Klaus's offices are in Prague's storied castle, a dark medieval hulk that looms over a Baroque city of spires. Despite its architectural charms, however, outside the center, much of Prague remains gritty, a city still emerging from its communist past. But some neighborhoods stand out. Near the castle hill above the curving Vltava River, a collection of villas lines the leafy streets of one of Prague's toniest quarters. It's here that many of the city's wealthy Russians have settled.

To those Russians, Prague is a more affordable version of London: an urban asylum that's safer and more civilized than teeming, lawless Moscow, and a convenient few hours' flight away. Russian law firms, food stores and hairdressers serve not only the rich, but a growing number of their middle-class compatriots. The neighborhood is also home to the Russian Embassy, which occupies a sprawling palace and includes a Russian Orthodox church, and, according to Czech intelligence, provides a place for at least 60 Russian intelligence officers and agents, or a third of the Russian diplomatic community, from which to operate.

Last year, the government expelled two Russian diplomats suspected of spying. Many Czechs believe they'd taken part in a large-scale Russian effort to rally public opinion against the construction of a radar base that was to be part of the U.S. missile defense shield. But Czech media later reported the Russians were probably conducting industrial espionage. In a report issued in June, the Czech counterintelligence service warned that Russian espionage was "aggressive" and escalating, especially in the energy business.

That development worries Karel Randak, the soft-spoken former head of the Czech intelligence service whose close-cropped salt-and-pepper hair gives him the appearance more of a scholar than spy. But espionage is only part of the way Moscow is seeking to expand its influence here. Although Randak insists most Russian businessmen behave no differently from their Western counterparts, he says some of the biggest Russian companies operate by stealth, through a dizzying web of shell companies nominally owned and operated by Czechs but actually controlled by Moscow.

Among them, a gas-trading company named Vemex has taken 12 percent of the Czech domestic market since its establishment in 2001 to sell Russian natural gas. Although there's nothing on Vemex's website to indicate it, the company is Czech in name only. It's actually controlled by Gazprom through a series of companies based in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria, including Centrex Europe Energy and Gas, which has helped spearhead the Russian drive to buy energy assets across Europe.

Centrex is registered in Austria, and, according to Gazprom's website, founded by its own Gazprombank. But the company's real ownership is impossible to trace. According to the European Commission, Centrex is owned by Centrex Group Holding Ltd., registered in Cyprus, a company controlled by Gazprom's German subsidiary, and RN Privatsiftung, a Vienna foundation whose stockholders are unknown.

Why go to the trouble of hiding the real owners of companies either already known or believed to be controlled by Gazprom? Vemex is just one of a large number of enterprises Gazprom has set up in countries across Central and Eastern Europe to muscle into the European energy-utilities business. By disguising the real owners, Gazprom makes its actions more palatable to Europeans wary of expanding Russian influence.

Randak, who began his intelligence career tracking Russian criminal groups in the 1990s, says the Russians first gained control over organized crime in the Czech Republic from the Italian Mafia around 1992. Beginning with "normal criminal activities," mainly racketeering, they branched into white-collar crime in the mid-1990s. "They hired lawyers and established local companies with Czech board members," Randak says. "Now they're involved in 'real business' because they have real money." And they're controlled by, or work with, the Russian government. "This is the real danger coming from Russia."

The character Victor Laszlo, the fugitive Czech resistance leader in the film "Casablanca," may represent the most common image of the country in the West: rigid, pure, and dedicated, fighting against the victimization of a foreign oppressor. As always, the reality is more complicated. Journalist Jaroslav Plesl, who's one of the country's leading political commentators, blames his own countrymen for their scant concern about the danger from Moscow. "They're willing to sell anything," he says. "If you want to influence politics here, you need to do business with only a very few people, and you can pretty much control the country."

"That's something the Russians have been able to exploit," Plesl says. "Just look at Karlovy Vary."

Nowhere is the Russian presence more visible than in the storied spa town in the hilly west of the country that's a popular vacation destination for Russians. Many of the town's buildings belong to Russians, including the grand Imperial Hotel, owned by a Russian-born businessman who got his start in the region overseeing Soviet uranium mining in the 1970s and where Klaus often stays. "Russians can do whatever they want without permission," Plesl says, "and if they do need approval for something, they'll bribe city hall to get it." During a low ebb in relations, Czechs joked the Kremlin once warned it would bomb Prague if the government wasn't careful. "If you're not careful," the Czech prime minister replied, "we'll bomb Karlovy Vary."

With some 50 of its filling stations dotting the countryside, LUKoil is Russia's most public face in the Czech Republic. Last year, the company also secured a contract to supply 20 percent of the jet fuel used at Prague's International Airport. No other companies bid for the deal, despite a pledge by then-Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek -- a bitter opponent of Klaus's who's raised serious concerns about the danger of Russian control over Czech strategic companies -- to diversify his country's energy supplies.

That may be because LUKoil has serious pull. According to the Czech media, the company's CEO Vagit Alekperov -- who enjoys close ties to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin -- twice secretly met Klaus in the Prague Castle. One of the meetings is reported to have taken place in November 2008, around the time LUKoil announced it would expand its business in the Czech Republic, prompting rumors of a backroom deal. When asked by journalists about the meetings, Klaus reacted angrily, but didn't deny they took place.

The government's decision to award the contract to LUKoil helped reverse a drive to free the country from dependence on Russian oil, the only source until a pipeline from Germany began delivering supplies in 1995 -- against Klaus's wishes. That channel now provides some 20 percent of the country's oil, but according to Jaroslav Spurny -- one of the country's most prominent investigative journalists, who writes for the magazine "Respekt" -- LUKoil now wants to take control of the pipeline and reverse the flow so that Russian supplies would be sent west through the Czech Republic. "That would make us fully dependent on Russian oil again," Spurny says, "which would mean a kind of dictatorship."

LUKoil and other Russian companies contacted for this article declined to provide interviews. But Russian Chamber of Commerce representative Sergei Mikoyan says LUKoil, like any company, is naturally seeking to expand its business for its own interests. "Why should Russia excuse itself for having enough money to buy property abroad?" he asks, adding that charges of a grand Kremlin plan to snap up European energy assets can be made only by people who "simply don't like Russia. No matter what Russia does, they'll always find skeletons in the closet."

Mikoyan says the Czech government can easily rule any company operating in the country off-limits on the grounds of strategic importance, otherwise "say openly they're for sale, but not to the Russians, which would be unfair and not part of free enterprise."

Whatever its motives, LUKoil is cultivating ties with a number of politicians in addition to Klaus. Among them is a popular former prime minister named Milos Zeman, who recently left the Social Democratic Party to start his own left-wing Citizens' Rights Party. While denying allegations that it is financed by LUKoil, the party admits taking money from Russian-connected lobbyists. Chief among them is Miroslav Slouf, a former communist youth leader whose Slavia Consulting company brokered the LUKoil deal to supply Prague's airport. Slouf, who is known to be LUKoil's main promoter in the Czech Republic, also happens to be Zeman's right-hand man.

Zeman denies he benefits from Russian money. At his party headquarters in central Prague, the blunt, hard-drinking, old-school pol -- who many believe hopes to succeed Klaus as president in 2013 -- bridled in response to a question about the influence of lobbyists such as Slouf. "Let me give you a lesson in political science," he says. "They're engaged in a respectable job." Besides, "we haven't received a single penny from LUKoil."

Members of the country's small circle of pro-American politicians disagree, among them Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, a pipe-smoking Hapsburg prince. "There are very strong lobbying groups here, very strong," he said in an interview shortly before he joined the cabinet in July. "A lot of Russian firms are under the influence of the state, especially in the energy sector. And Russia is increasingly turning into an authoritarian state. There's always a danger that economic influence turns into political influence."

Former Green Party leader Martin Bursik, who also served as environment minister, is one of the loudest critics of the central role lobbyists play in Czech politics. He says it's opened the door for Moscow to reassert its influence by reactivating a network of communist-era officials. "The kind of transparent, legal lobbying conducted by the U.S. president or secretary of state can hardly compete," he says.

That's being made clear by jockeying over the nuclear energy deal some believe is so important it will influence the country's future development.

In the region of South Bohemia, an hour south of Prague by car, picturesque but rundown villages dot miles of flat, bucolic farmland. Until you approach the village of Temelin, where four surreal-looking cooling towers loom over the land. They're part of a nuclear power plant soon to become the focus of the biggest business deal in Czech history. The state power conglomerate that owns the plant, CEZ (pronounced "chess"), plans to build two new reactors, and possibly more elsewhere.

Started in the 1980s, construction on the Temelin plant was interrupted by the fall of communism. Westinghouse later completed the project, but last year CEZ discharged the U.S.-based company as supplier of nuclear fuel in favor of a Russian state-controlled firm.

Temelin and a second, larger nuclear power plant currently produce a third of Czech electricity. Although coal provides the biggest share of Czech energy, about 60 percent, the government plans to shut down the oldest, most polluting plants over the next decade. Temelin's new reactors are expected to make up the difference, about 10 percent of the country's energy.

Critics are worried about how the expansion plans will be handled, partly because CEZ isn't just any power company. It's the largest utility and biggest public company in Central and Eastern Europe, with a net profit last year five times that of the four biggest Czech banks combined. CEZ finances the two largest political parties and is so central to politics and business, one observer calls the Czech Republic an "electrostate." Others have dubbed it the "CEZ Republic."

CEZ, which is 70 percent state-owned, also illustrates the deep murkiness of Czech politics. In May, the Green Party publicly called on the company to reveal its ownership structure, alleging the firm stands at the center of "a network of loyalties and linkages in a nontransparent environment. That network includes courts, police, prosecutors, regional governments, and political parties." The Greens are concerned that internal CEZ corruption will affect the outcome of the Temelin tender.

A spokesman for the Temelin plant says the new reactors will be key to maintaining the country's "energy independence." But given that rationale, it may come as a surprise that a Russian state-controlled company, Atomstroieksport, is not only among just three bidders, but by many accounts ranks at the top of the list. Competing against Atomstroieksport are Westinghouse (the U.S. company was bought by Japan's Toshiba in 2007) and France's Areva. The firms will submit their offers this fall. The contract, worth between $15 billion and $30 billion, will be awarded next year, and the new reactors are expected to begin operation by 2020.

CEZ says all three bidders are well qualified, and that the main consideration should be price. Others say the deal isn't about money. "It's a civilization choice," says Vaclav Bartuska, the Czech Republic's foreign envoy for energy-security issues. "I want my country to be tied to France or the U.S.," he explains. "I'm not lobbying for Areva or Westinghouse, just against the Russians."

When CEZ announced the Temelin tender last year, the government said it was up to the company to decide who wins. But Bartuska succeeded in a single-handed campaign to make the choice political: now the government will have the final say. It's been a lonely battle. Bartuska, a dissident student leader under communism, is the only high-ranking government official to warn about the threat from Russian influence, for which he was criticized by even his own government for being "too pro-Western."

The smiling former journalist -- who spoke in his airy office in a sprawling 17th-century palace that houses the Foreign Ministry -- says the difference between Russian and Western companies is the code by which they function. "Russian companies export corruption," he says.

Bartuska points to a deal last year to build a new storage facility at Temelin for spent nuclear fuel. The sole bid submitted for the $80 million contract was from a company so shady that it's under investigation by the government. CEEI is believed to be Russian-controlled, but its ownership remains unknown. The trail stops at a Liechtenstein-based firm called U.B.I.E., where former Liechtenstein Prime Minister Markus Buechel is a director. He's also Russia's honorary consul to Liechtenstein.

Buechel has said even he doesn't know who ultimately owns CEEI. According to a Prague-based business newsletter called the "Fleet Sheet," however, he's asked what would be wrong if the owner did turn out to be Russian. The newsletter also reported CEEI board member Vladimir Hlavinka, a CEZ executive, as dismissing concerns over CEEI. The country's public-procurement law bars investigating bidders' ownership, he said, because that would amount to "discrimination."

Critics of the CEEI deal say Germany recently built an almost identical storage facility for half the price. "Fleet Sheet's" American publisher, Erik Best, characterizes CEZ's actions as evidence of what he calls the "privatization of state authority," when state companies make decisions in the interests of their own executives instead of the state. Best says public projects in the Czech Republic are usually overpriced, undertaken less for the sake of improving infrastructure than the sums officials are able to skim from the contracts. He questions why Temelin's new storage facility was commissioned.

"Was the real reason simply that they could build it, because that's 1.5 or 2 billion crowns [$70 million or $100 million]? That means someone got 1.5 or 2 billion crowns, and of course there are the rumors [CEEI] is ultimately owned by Russians," Best says.

Temelin's spokesman has denied allegations of wrongdoing, saying the storage facility was necessary and long-planned. But energy envoy Bartuska agrees the questions surrounding CEEI are cause for serious concern about how CEZ will handle the upcoming reactor tender. Not least because one of CEEI's directors is in jail for trying to kidnap another, who happens to be Klaus's former chief of staff, in an alleged extortion attempt. Bartuska says that reminds him of incidents in countries such as Nigeria and "not how I want to see my own country."

Bartuska believes the decision over the Temelin tender will affect much more than the nuclear industry alone. "Putin will be bidding not just for two reactors," he says, "but for [influence over] the entire Czech Republic." Jiri Kominek, an analyst who writes for the Jamestown Foundation, says Moscow is already putting "unprecedented" lobbying pressure on the Czech government, and expects it to be successful.

Some opinion makers, including the editorial board of the "Hospodarske noviny" business newspaper -- where Plesl is a columnist -- are calling for banning Atomstroieksport from even participating in the tender. But that proposal is facing an uphill battle not least because the Russian company is expected to submit the lowest offer by far.

Sergei Mikoyan of the Russian Chamber of Commerce dismisses the criticism that the state-controlled company would pose a threat to Czech national security. "On the contrary," he says, "the state's backing of Atomstroieksport is good because the Russian government can guarantee the project's security."

For its part, Atomstroieksport has played down its connection to the Russian state, publicizing its bid by promising to subcontract up to 70 percent of the construction work on Temelin to Czech companies. The main beneficiary would be a nuclear-engineering firm called Skoda JS (separate from the eponymous car company, which is owned by Volkswagen). Last year, Atomstroieksport and Skoda JS formed a consortium to enter a joint bid, something Skoda JS director Miroslav Fiala says shows it's "not really a Russian offer, but from a consortium led by Skoda JS."

But there's a catch. Although Skoda JS's Czech managers may represent its public face, the company is really Russian-owned, after its recent sale to the state-controlled industrial conglomerate OMZ. Pressed on that point, Fiala admits the Skoda JS-Atomstroieksport bid actually "represents Russian national capital." But he adds, "we're simply offering CEZ a competitive and safe project that will open great opportunities for Czech industry."

"Fleet Sheet" publisher Best isn't convinced. "Skoda JS's sale to OMZ is a much bigger matter than anyone is willing to admit," he says. For one thing, the Czech company's ownership of the plant's designs "gives the Russians access to Westinghouse's commercial secrets."

"They've just been simply better prepared than the French or the Americans," Best says of the Russians. "They've been more active coming in and setting up agreements with local suppliers. In that sense, they've done a better job than the Americans."

Vice President Joe Biden lobbied for Westinghouse's bid when he visited Prague last winter. But Defense Minister Alexandr Vondra, who's among the most pro-American members of the political establishment, criticizes Washington for doing too little. In an interview before his recent appointment to the government, he rejected concerns the Temelin bid would automatically go the Russians, but "a more energetic approach [from Westinghouse] would certainly be appreciated."

When Gazprom cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in 2006 in what looked very much like punishment for Kyiv's pro-Western policies, there was little doubt Moscow was using energy as a foreign-policy tool. European countries, whose supplies were also disrupted, vowed to diversify their supplies by looking to other sources and developing renewable energy. But Europe still depends on Russia for a quarter of its gas, and that figure is only set to grow.

Those who believe Russian companies act differently than their Western counterparts see patterns in the Kremlin's drive to broaden control over Europe's energy infrastructure. Moscow's success in the past several years has been dramatic. Germany, Italy, and Hungary are among the countries to have joined projects to build two major new gas pipelines from Russia that would deepen Europe's dependence on Moscow. Earlier this year, Austria became the seventh country to sign on to Moscow's South Stream pipeline, which is planned to deliver supplies from Central Asia.

Some believe Washington has fallen asleep at the wheel. "The U.S. never expected the Russian offensive would be so strong," Plesl says. But he sees signs the United States has started mapping the "damage" caused by the Russians, and "I think they're horrified."

The U.S. Embassy in Prague and officials in Washington turned down requests for interviews. Some say it's ironic that a U.S. administration undertaking a historic drive to institute regulations at home isn't doing more to criticize the breakdown of rule of law among allies like the Czech Republic. "I don't think they care a bloody damn about us," Schwarzenberg, now foreign minister, said last spring. "We're just a very small country somewhere in Central Europe. Why should they care?"

Following parliamentary elections in May, Schwarzenberg's TOP 09 party joined a new center-right coalition government that will decide the Temelin tender next year. The new government is led by the Civic Democratic Party (ODS), which has called for lessening dependence on Russia and fighting corruption, a top issue for many who support the new government. But Karel Randak, the former intelligence chief, says he's not optimistic because the previous center-right government -- also led by the ODS until it collapsed last year -- oversaw a rise in corruption.

Questioned about the advantages corruption gives Moscow, Czech politicians routinely say EU membership guarantees their country independence. "I don't think ordinary investments from Russia, the United States, Italy, China, Japan, Brazil, Germany, France, or anywhere else are a threat to our national independence," says Jiri Paroubek, a former prime minister and Social Democrat leader who was seen as especially sympathetic to Moscow.

But critics such as former Green Party leader Bursik warn that Moscow's activities in the Czech Republic have shown that any belief that membership in international organizations such as the EU is enough to ensure the rule of law is naive. Moreover, the actions of Klaus -- who founded the ODS -- like those of other Czech leaders, have contributed decisively to the EU's failure to mount a unified defense of its collective interests. That's essentially enabled Russia to dictate the rules of the energy game by making deals with individual countries' energy companies. "It's still a power game over who has influence within the Czech Republic," Bursik says. "It's still a battle between NATO and Russia."

Although President Klaus has no formal say over Temelin's future, he's endorsed Atomstroieksport's bid. Klaus's critics contend that's part and parcel of his support for Moscow's position on virtually every foreign-policy issue. But energy envoy Bartuska doesn't believe Klaus is actually working for the Russians. "He loves to be alone against the flow, on climate change and many other things," he says. It's no secret that Klaus's recalcitrance is something Moscow has exploited.

Bartuska, who's met Putin and Medvedev in the Kremlin, also says he knows how seductive a grand Kremlin reception can be. "When they give you the treatment, oh my! Suddenly you feel you're someone. Klaus can't even get a meeting in Washington. Where would you go?" Still, the real threat to Czechs, Bartuska says, doesn't come from Moscow "but from ourselves." The Czech Republic made a "huge leap" toward the West after 1989, he says, but "suddenly became dissatisfied, started looking around and saying, 'So this is it?'"

Still, Bartuska says the game isn't up yet. Although he lost the fight to exclude Atomstroieksport from the Temelin tender, last June the government appointed him to oversee the process, a sign he says "speaks for itself."

"Now we're on a threshold. Either we can go the way of Ukraine, a phony democracy with a few people who are rich. Or we can go back and try to be a normal boring European country in which law is law."

"But it's not a done deal," he adds. "We have to decide for ourselves what kind of country we want to live in."
(Rferl)

ALTERNATIVE AFGHAN HISTORICAL LESSONS. (Lezioni storiche alternative sull'Afghanistan)

2010-08-20T19:36:00.004+02:00

As the United States and its partners enter ten years of operations in Afghanistan this fall, there is a growing interest in the Soviet experience there during the 1980s. Unfortunately, the Soviet-Afghan war is remembered for US, Pakistani, and Saudi support of the mujahedeen, the importance of US stinger missiles, Soviet Retreat, and subsequent civil war giving rise to the Taliban. This ahistorical narrative neglects the efforts the Soviets made in building Afghan security forces, which sustained a socialist government in Kabul for two years after the Soviets withdrew.

Lester Grau has been one of the few who fought the oversimplification of the Soviet-Afghan war and his work is important to understand operations from a Soviet perspective. Adding to this literature is a new article in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies. In an effort to review the Soviet experience without a Reaganesque lens, Anton Minkov and Gregory Smolynec have been researching and writing about Soviet state-building efforts in Afghanistan. Their latest article is "4-D Soviet Style: Defense, Development, Diplomacy and Disengagement in Afghanistan During the Soviet Period Part I: State Building." They review the various efforts the Soviets made to build an Afghan state through political, economic, and military means. The effort was at great cost to the Afghan people; by some estimates, over a million were killed and the legacy of landmines in Afghanistan persists today.

Minkov and Smolynec make a good case that the Soviets did not expect the resistance they encountered and had hoped for a repeat of quick operations reminiscent of Prague 1968 or Budapest 1956. While they quickly achieved their military objectives and installed their preferred leader, the Soviets realized there were no quick solutions. Ultimately, they embarked on a state-building strategy that "envisioned establishing a strong communist party and affiliated mass organizations, which would control all state institutions, including the Afghan army, the police and the security services. The Afghan security forces, together with the Red Army, would apply pressure on the insurgency and expand government control in the countryside...[A crucial part] was working with the youth, educating a new generation..." The approach the Soviets pursued (minus the mass killings) seems familiar.

When the Soviet left in 1989, they trained and equipped about 310,000 personnel from the army, border guards, police, and intelligence services. After 1985, the Red Army gradually ceded operational responsibility to the Afghan Army. Minkov and Smolynec concluded "by 1989 the Soviet leadership believed that Afghan forces could ensure continuity of the pro-Moscow regime on their own...[the Afghan Army] was able to hold its ground, and even achieved important victories, defeating mujahidin offensives against Jelalabad and Kabul during 1989 and 1990."

The willingness to review Soviet lessons not only makes good historical sense, but also represents a good opportunity to reconsider one of the last chapters of the Cold War. In general, most analysts viewed the Soviet experience through Western eyes only concerned with Soviet defeat. By examining Soviet efforts in the context of supporting the Kabul government, building an Afghan state, there are important lessons to be learned. Unfortunately, the Soviet experience in Afghanistan was left to the dustbin of history; it is good to see analysts like Minkov and Smolynec are resurrecting this discussion to inform current thinking on Afghanistan.
(GlobalSecurity)

AN ARABIC WAR OF DISINFORMATION? (Una guerra araba di disinformazione?)

2010-08-10T01:32:00.006+02:00

Did King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia narrowly avoid being overthrown by a close member of his own royal family? That seems to be a rumor circulating around some political and intelligence circles in Washington as well as in the Middle East. A Saudi official however denied the allegations saying it was most likely Iranian disinformation.

Indeed, there have been reports ¬- all unconfirmed -¬ that Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdel Aziz, a nephew of the king and former Saudi ambassador to Washington had attempted a coup and has since been under house arrest. Other sources said Bandar was detained in a Saudi prison. A Saudi official however told this reporter that the whole story was part of an Iranian disinformation campaign.

“Utter nonsense” was how the official described the whole affair, adding that this was an ongoing struggle by Iran to discredit the Saudis and perturb efforts to reconcile Saudi Arabia and Syria, a move that would undoubtedly be to the detriment of the Iranian-Syrian love affair.

Of course no one will go on the record to confirm or deny any of the allegations brought forward in this new Middle East muddle. Yet a number of tidbits are beginning to emerge allowing one to piece together a large jigsaw puzzle with many pieces still missing.

One of the main components is the whereabouts of Prince Bandar. The former ambassador and head of the Saudi National Security Council has not been seen in public for many months. According to a Saudi official, however, Bandar is spending time on his ranch in Colorado.

Yet what makes this story interesting are a number of strangely timed coincidences. In the dark world of espionage and intelligence gathering there is no such thing as a coincidence. Things usually happen for a good reason.

The first item that deserves special attention is the sudden rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Syria. Why is that unusual? Because the two countries are as far apart as one can possibly imagine from every aspect of the political and social-economic field; and not too long ago it looked as though they were about to come to blows.

This past week King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia made an official visit to Lebanon. This could have never happened had there not been a thawing between Syria and Saudi. Prior to his visit to Beirut the Saudi king was in Morocco where he conferred with the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Last year the mood changed between Damascus and Riyadh quite suddenly. The Lebanese press dubbed this change in Syrian-Saudi relations as the “Seen-Seen” agreement for the way the letter “S” is pronounced in Arabic.

What followed was a summit meeting between King Abdullah and President Bashar Assad of Syria. Sources in Beirut say the move came at the initiative of the Saudis who wanted better relations with the Syrians and wanted to defuse some of the tension that persisted in the region.

The Syrian and the Lebanese press were filled with reports of all the positive steps the two Arab leaders had agreed to take but neither the Syrian nor the Saudi press alluded to the real deal that was reached by the two leaders at this meeting, according to reliable sources in Lebanon. In essence that was Syria’s “soft return to Lebanon” as one Lebanese official put it. A direct outcome of the Syrian-Saudi deal was the visit to Damascus by Saad Hariri, Lebanon’s prime minister and son of the assassinated leader.

Acting in the spirit of this rapprochement Syria passed on to Saudi Arabia information that a member of the royal family was planning a coup d’état. The intelligence, it seems according to Middle East intelligence sources, came from Russian intelligence. And now, as they say, the plot thickens.

In his new role as head of the National Security Council Prince Bandar had made a number of visits to Moscow to negotiate arms deals for Riyadh. Is that the Russian connection, if there is indeed one?

Furthermore, as a sign of goodwill Syria told the Saudis that they would intervene in Yemen with the Houthi rebels fighting along the Saudi border. In return Syria asked the Saudis who have great influence with Hariri to use this influence to convince the Lebanese prime minister that it was in his interest to recognize the importance of Damascus. In return Syria needed to distance itself from accusations that it was responsible for the killing of Rafik Hariri.

Before that could happen, another suspect had to be found: Enter Israel onto the scene.

As was reported July 26, some 70 people in Lebanon were arrested for spying for Israel in recent months, including three officials of Alpha, a state-owned cellular phone company. Cellular communications transmitted through Alpha played a vital role in the investigation of Hariri’s murder. The three men admitted to have spied for Israel.

In short, Saudi-Syrian relations are amended; Beirut is made to understand that there can be no circumventing Damascus; Syria is absolved of any implications in the killing of the former Lebanese prime minster with the blame now resting on the traditional enemy, Israel.

Very convenient, but is that the truth? We may never know.

Yet in this great muddle of spies, lies and broken alliances there may be a glitter of hope if the Seen-Seen deal (the Syrian-Saudi rapprochement) gives way to distancing Tehran from Damascus and lays the groundwork to allow Syria to move closer to the West.

Could this be the reason why Iran might be trying to discredit the Saudis? This is one more unanswered question in the parallel war of disinformation.
(Oilprice.com)

THAI CRISIS BACKGROUND. (Il background della crisi tailandese)

2010-05-24T14:43:00.004+02:00

La Thailandia è stata per secoli il ponte economico e culturale tra India e Cina, l’aristocrazia ha nomi di origine sanscrita, la gente mangia curry indiano, ma usa i bastoncini e i suoi imprenditori sono di origine cinese. La sua politica è un concentrato delle due civiltà e forse anche per questo è tortuosa, estremamente complicata, contorta come forse nessuna politica da altre parti del mondo.

La crisi politica thailandese attuale affonda le sue radici in questa tradizione e in questo terreno ed ha certo più strati di una cipolla, per spiegarla semplicemente bisogna cominciare con i personaggi principali e poi le azioni.

Ru Bhumibhol, classe 1928, al trono dal 1946. Il sovrano è il regnante più ricco del mondo, secondo Forbes, con una fortuna di 35 miliardi di dollari, per decenni lui e la sua corte sono stati l'ago della bilancia della politica thailandese ma lo sono stati in maniera defilata rispetto a una partecipazione politica diretta. In altre parole per decenni, in ultima istanza, ha tirato le fila della politica thailandese, attraverso la sua corte guardando passare decine di primi ministri, capi di coalizioni governo molto fragili e raccogliticce, e ben 18 colpi di stato. Il potere del re è controllato dalla costituzione, ma la corona è anche protetta da una legge molto severa sulla “lesa maestà”, che tutela il re in sostanza da ogni critica.

L’equilibrio politico intorno al re si rompe nel 2005 quando Thaksin Shinawatra, per la prima volta nella storia del Siam, ha vinto un secondo mandato elettorale e per di più a maggioranza assoluta. In queste condizioni Thaksin poteva fare a meno del re.

Thaksin Shinawatra, classe 1949. Ex colonnello della polizia, ha lasciato la divisa e si è messo in affari, prima nei computer e poi nella telefonia mobile. A metà degli anni ’90 aveva una fortuna di circa 4 miliardi di dollari ed era padrone della maggiore rete telefonica del Sudest asiatico. Ha però ambizioni politiche e dopo la crisi finanziaria del 1997 fonda il partito “Thai rak Thai” (Thailandesi per la Thailandia) che vince le elezioni del 2001 e del 2005. Per la prima volta attua una serie di politiche a favore della maggioranza rurale del paese: nasce una piccola borghesia dei villaggi che gli rimane fedele. Thaksin però decide anche di tagliare linee di credito a grandi aziende malridotte per la crisi del 1997: la grande borghesia di Bangkok e la gente che sta loro attorno gli diventa ostile.

Thaksin è accerchiato da accuse di corruzione e conflitto di interessi. Dopo la vittoria del 2005 vende la maggioranza delle azioni della sua società telefonica, Shin corp., all’azienda singaporeana Tamasek. Per non pagare tasse effettua la vendita attraverso società all’estero. Questa vendita e le mancate tasse danno origine di una serie di proteste di “camicie gialle”, persone che indossano quel colore in rispetto al re. Sono ultra-monarchici che accusano Thaksin di corruzione (perché non ha pagato le tasse), di tradimento (perché ha venduta la sua azienda a Singapore) e di “lesa maestà”, perché irrispettoso con il sovrano. I gialli chiedono le dimissioni di Thaksin e il ritorno alle urne. Thaksin scioglie le camere va alle elezioni e vince di nuovo. I gialli a questo punto riprendono le dimostrazioni e chiedono semplicemente le dimissioni di Thaksin, che
non recede.

Nel settembre del 2006 i militari organizzano un colpo di stato, il primo dopo 15 anni, durante un viaggio a New York di Thaksin. Thaksin rimane all’estero. I militari fanno una riforma costituzionale, sciolgono il partito Thai rak Thai e bandiscono dalle elezioni oltre cento massimi dirigenti del partito. I due miliardi di dollari della vendita della Shin corp sono congelati. Quindi a dicembre del 2007 indicono nuove elezioni. Fedeli di Thaksin organizzano rapidamente un nuovo partito e vincono le elezioni contro il partito democratico, ben visto dalla corte.

Nel 2008 riprendono le dimostrazioni dei gialli e si aprono dei casi giudiziari contro il premier in carica che viene costretto alle dimissioni. I filo thaksiniani ne nominano un altro ma anche questo subisce lo stesso destino. Intanto Thaksin ritorna in Thailandia, viene però presto chiamato in giudizio per corruzione, ma prima della condanna, ritorna all’estero. La tensione sale, fin quando, alla fine del 2008, alcuni thaksiniani si alleano ai democratici e va al potere il premier Abhisit.

Due questioni rimangono però aperte, la minore, cosa fare della fortuna di Thaksin congelata, e poi una maggiore, come gestire la successione al trono. La corte infatti non vorrebbe come successore il principe ereditario Maha Vajiralonkorn, e preferirebbe invece una delle principesse. Il principe ha infatti una fama pessima di debosciato inaffidabile, mentre le principesse sono virtuose. Ma per cambiare la linea di successione bisogna cambiare la costituzione, cosa non semplicissima. Inoltre Maha è amico di Thaksin. La morte del re potrebbe significare quindi non solo il ritorno di Thaksin ma anche la fine di tanti cortigiani che per anni hanno lavorato per cambiare la legge di successione al trono.

Dall’esilio però Thaksin organizza le camicie rosse, la risposta di movimento alle camicie gialle. Le camicie rosse, guidate da un ex generale, Khattiya, chiedono il ritorno alle urne e elezioni. Le camicie rosse fanno paura al governo composte da contadini militanti delle campagne del bellicoso Nordest, e per il loro leader. Khattiya è il generale con più esperienza di guerra dell’esercito Thai, ufficiale con la Cia degli insorti anti comunisti Hmong durante la guerra del Vietnam. Inoltre la richiesta di nuove elezioni è difficile da rinviare in eterno, e cambiamenti costituzionali, per la successione o per elezioni, sono complicati da portare avanti con una crescente protesta di piazza.

Alla fine del 2009 il governo decide di “punire” Thaksin intentando una causa di confisca della sua fortuna come compensazione per l’accusa di corruzione. Il 26 febbraio del 2010 arriva la condanna: 1,4 miliardi circa sono confiscati, ma anche il resto perde di valore poiché le azioni della Shin corp crollano. Da quel punto in poi le proteste dei rossi si intensificano. In qualche modo Thaksin crede di non avere più nulla da perdere, e suoi luogotenenti pensano di dovere agire prima di essere completamente schiacciati dal governo. Incombe ancora una minaccia infatti: a settembre devono essere rinnovati i vertici militari, il governo che li rinnoverà, al di là del risultato delle elezioni, sarà il vero padrone del paese.

I rossi a marzo intensificano le dimostrazioni chiedendo di andare subito alle urne, il governo resiste ma ad aprile risponde schierando l’esercito. L’esercito in effetti non ha voglia di reprimere le proteste. Sa che scorrerebbe del sangue e i generali sarebbero presto sacrificati dal governo che vorrebbe rifarsi una verginità con ufficiali “innocenti”. Manca poi una fiducia ampia nel sistema. Il re ha 82 anni, è in ospedale da settembre del 2009, potrebbe morire fra poco, tra sei mesi o un anno, ma di certo non durerà moltissimo, del principe si sa, quindi i generali attuali non vogliono sacrificarsi per una corte il cui equilibrio potrebbe presto mutare. D’altro canto proprio la prospettiva della successione mette urgenza agli anti Thaksin: devono eliminare rapidamente i rossi, consolidare la loro guida sull’esercito come premesse poi per eliminare il principe ereditario e sostituirlo con una principessa.

L’esercito si prepara a reprimere e l’8 aprile c’è un primo avvitamento dello scontro. Qualcuno spara granate contro la folla, ci sono decine di morti e 800 feriti, ma il sangue non spaventa i rossi i quali anzi si fanno più determinati, guidati da Khattiya che promette di resistere e sostiene anzi di potere sconfiggere i soldati mandati contro di lui con tattiche di guerriglia urbana.

Dopo la prima prova di forza fallita la situazione traccheggia per oltre un mese con tentativi di colloqui tra rossi e governo e nuovi scontri di piazza, allerte di repressioni ma senza confronti violentissimi come l’8 aprile. Il 12 maggio però un cecchino spara Khattiya alla testa mentre sta parlando con dei giornalisti. Khahttiya morirà poi il 16 senza riprendere conoscenza. Per molti dei rossi significa che non ci può essere più fiducia perché il governo assassina i suoi capi mentre colloqui sono in corso. Abhisit pensa che senza Khattiya la resistenza dei rossi si scioglierà, ma non è così. La situazione però continua a essere confusa perché il 16 maggio Abhisit proclama la legge marziale in alcune parti di Bangkok ma subito il capo dell’esercito generale Paochinda afferma che non c’è bisogno di legge marziale e quindi non la applica.

Le prospettive di evoluzione sono confusissime ma di massima sono le seguenti. Se il governo si “arrende”, richiama l’esercito e proclama subito le elezioni i thaksiniani vincono a grande maggioranza, il potere della corte viene drasticamente ridotto, il principe ha assicurato il suo futuro al trono e di fatto la forma di governo della Thailandia cambierebbe in maniera radicale. Se il governo cerca la soluzione di forza e non si arrende i rossi sono pronti alla guerriglia, il Nord est potrebbe spaccarsi e molti soldati e ufficiali, originari di quella zona, potrebbero disertare. Il paese andrebbe alla guerra civile. Soluzioni intermedie sono possibili, ma tali possibilità si assottigliano con il passare dei giorni perché il governo pensa che se si arrende ha tutto da perdere, mentre i rossi, dopo l’assassinio di Khattiya, pensano che se cedono loro, saranno fatti fuori ad uno ad uno. Si tratterebbe di trovare un’alchimia che salvi qualcuno, ma tale alchimia è difficilissima da trovare.

Le prospettive sono gravi per la regione. La Thailandia era il paese più ricco e democratico del sudest asiatico, se democrazia e benessere saltano qui è possibile che altri paesi, meno stabili e con una tradizione democratica più fragile, possano essere tentati a seguirne l’esempio. Ciò comporterebbe una involuzione politica ed economica in tutta la regione.

Per la Birmania, governata dai generali, sarebbe una benedizione: sarebbero stati dei precursori non un’eccezione nella regione. Per l’America e l’occidente, ansiosi da 20 anni di esportare diritti umani in ogni angolo del pianeta, sarebbe una sconfitta di proporzioni incalcolabili. Avrebbero perso la democrazia e il benessere economico in un paese dove democrazia e benessere sarebbero stati difendibili, la Thailandia, e invece hanno tentato di esportare la democrazia sulla punta dei fucili in Iraq o Afghanistan, con risultati meno che insoddisfacenti. Il soft power americano subirebbe un colpo dolorosissimo. Ma anche il soft power cinese, grande potenza emergente globale, non avrebbe da festeggiare. Pechino da 30 anni ha promosso una politica di stabilità politica, e la Thailandia oggi è tutto fuorché stabile, e anzi rischia di infiammare la regione diminuendo prospettive di scambi economici con la dinamo commerciale e industriale cinese.
(Limes)

DENTAL DIPLOMACY. (Diplomazia dentistica)

2010-05-11T16:10:00.003+02:00

Despite the glacial political relations between Athens and Skopje, residents of northern Greece are flocking across the border to find less expensive dental care, as well as other goods and services.

The two Balkan neighbours remain at loggerheads over the name "Macedonia", but that has not stopped ordinary citizens from practicing their brand of economic diplomacy.

According to Greek dental associations, private practices have seen as much as a 50% drop in business due to "dental excursions" to Bitola, Gevgelija or Strumica.

The influence of the ongoing economic crisis is hard to gauge, though it is a growing factor. Nor is inexpensive dentistry the only draw. Many also come in search of cheaper petrol, or for recreation and entertainment.

A customs officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, told SETimes that an average of 1,000 Greek citizens pass through the Evzoni border crossing on any given weekday, with the number doubling at the weekend.

"It is the casino in Gevgelija," he said, referring to one of the many gambling establishments north of the border. He added that 500 Greek citizens, per day on average, cross the Niki border post, further west.

Georgios Xanthopoulos, president of Florina's dentist association, has practiced dentistry for 27 years. He says the phenomenon of local residents making the 24km drive to Bitola for dental care began after 2000.

"With the economic crisis in Greece, and especially with the situation in state-run dentistry here, people often sacrifice convenience for lower prices," Xanthopoulos told SETimes.

He said many residents of the prefecture of Florina are insured by the civil servant's health fund, including the Public Power Corporation's large workforce. But the fund has frozen dental care reimbursements at 1994 prices.

Although it costs around 50 euros to fill a tooth cavity, the state-run fund only pays beneficiaries 7 euros, Xanthopoulos said.

In Bitola, he noted, the same procedure costs around 15 euros.

Similarly, a fitted denture costs between 1,000 to 1,200 euros in Florina and Kilkis, but runs as low as 300 euros in Bitola. A routine root canal procedure is only reimbursed to the tune of 20 euros by the public sector health fund, whereas a Greek dentist charges a minimum of 150 euros.

Among Florina residents who are not insured by the fund, there are "few to zero" instances of medical tourism, Xanthopoulos said. Foreign physicians can't prescribe medications, treatments or further diagnostic/clinical tests that local funds will approve or reimburse.

The president of the Kilkis prefecture's dentist association, Charalambos Iakovidis, echoes his colleague's assessment. Iakovidis said he has already given three television interviews on the subject, and agrees business is definitely down because of lower prices available elsewhere.

"People are heading across the border even on foot, as well as in organised coach tours. The impact on our prefecture is 50% or more," he told SETimes.

Both dental association presidents insisted, however, that facilities are better in Greece and that Greek practitioners are more experienced.

"CE certification exists here for equipment, something that is not required in the neighbouring country because dentists are not obliged to follow EU regulations and bylaws," Xanthopoulos said.

He acknowledged, though, that the cost of living in general is dramatically lower in Bitola compared to Florina. "That's one reason that you'll even see wedding parties now being organised over there, as there are a lot of people here with relatives in the Bitola region, he said.
(SETimes.com)

POST-WAR IS NOT POST-CONFLICT. (La fine della guerra non è la fine del conflitto)

2010-05-06T13:59:00.004+02:00

President Mahinda Rajapakse [of Sri Lanka, ndr] claimed the victory was a success of his government’s national mission within the broader global ‘war against terrorism’ and claimed its strategy was a model other governments should follow in their fight against non-state armed groups.

As security circles and governments around the globe consider whether military action with the aim of a ‘victorious peace’, the decisive defeat of one party, might not be a better option than investing in costly and fragile peace initiatives, opponents argue that a victorious peace can only be achieved at unacceptable costs. They also seriously doubt that such a costly victory can lead to lasting, or indeed just, peace.

Sri Lanka is an exemplary case of a protracted ethno-political conflict according to Edward Azar, a prominent academic and former head of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management. Although the political representatives of the Singhalese majority grant the Tamil-speaking minority groups, the Sri Lankan Tamils, Muslims and Tamils of Indian origin, a status as “co-habiting” communities, they do not grant them the equal right to cooperate in the forming of a multi-ethnic state.

After independence in 1948, a practically unitary Singhalese state was founded, establishing Buddhism as a constitutionally privileged religion. Tamil minorities were disadvantaged in the public sphere, the educational system and the economy. They also felt threatened by major irrigation and settling projects in areas where they traditionally lived.

Challenges associated with demographics and access to power affected the Sri Lankan Tamils dramatically, particularly because of the privileged position they had held under British colonial rule. For the Singhalese, the post-colonial era represented an opportunity to finally claim their rights as the country’s majority. Singhalese and Tamil nationalism thus developed in parallel, and although initially tensions between the two parties were dealt with in parliament, lasting compromises became increasingly difficult to work out, allowing violent conflict to erupt.

In both majority and minority politics, patterns of behavior, structures and attitudes developed which continually fired the confrontation. On the Singhalese side, one of those patterns can be described as “ethnic outbidding;” a process in which the Singhalese party in opposition undermined the governing party’s attempts at ethnic reconciliation.

On the Tamil side similar patterns developed over the attractiveness of political options for their community. The core issue was whether Tamils should seek reforms within the existing political system, or strive for autonomy, federalism or even secession. In the 1970s and 80s radicalism increased, leading to the foundation of several militant Tamil organizations. The LTTE became the strongest force, mostly due to its decisiveness and the brutality with which it not only attacked the Sri Lankan military and state, but also parts of the Tamil movement that voiced differing opinions. Furthermore, they profited from secret support by the Indian government; a decision that Indian politicians would come to bitterly regret when in 1991 Premier Rajiv Gandhi was killed by an LTTE assassin.

Parallel to the policy of “ethnic outbidding,” the LTTE strategy in Tamil politics could be described as “violence outbidding.” Confronted with the overwhelming dominance of Singhalese parties, and after a series of fruitless attempts to compromise politically, a large section of the Tamil community saw no other choice than to opt for violent resistance. The LTTE went one step further and claimed to be the “sole representative of the Tamil people,” a claim for which the community later had to pay a high price.

“Ethnic outbidding” and “violence outbidding” are two sides of the same coin- both escalated the conflict. The representatives of both the majority and the minority in their fight for power acted according to a parallel rationale, giving rise to a conflict that could only lead to either mutual exhaustion or a victorious, costly peace.

Like previous failed attempts at peace, those from 2002 to 2005 ended in deep disappointment. In the 2005 presidential election, the candidate of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) Mahinda Rajapakse revoked the ceasefire agreement of 2002. He demanded that the LTTE abandon their claims to territorial control in large parts of the northern and eastern provinces and renegotiate the vital parameters of earlier understandings. Although Ranil Wickramsinghe, the United National Party (UNP) candidate, had promised to continue the peace process, he lost partly because of an LTTE call to boycott the elections.

The war that has been called 'Tamil Eelam War IV' began to develop in the first half of 2006 with Rajapakse’s failed attempt to convince the LTTE that the practical conditions of the peace process had changed. Instead, the LTTE supplied the government with a good pretext for a major offensive by disrupting a large irrigation project in the Eastern Province. The government, however, had already decided to continue the war until the LTTE was completely extinguished; an aim that experts in Sri Lanka and abroad had thought impossible.

The unexpected success of Rajapakse’s campaign is due to several factors, primarily divisions within the LTTE, massive increases in the military budget of the government and the increasing ruthlessness of their tactics, as well as considerable support from abroad in the shadow of the ‘war on terror.’

The victory of the Sri Lankan military, however, has come at a high price. Between 20,000 and 40,000 combatants and as many as 25,0000 civilians, mainly Tamils, lost their lives in this war, according to UN sources. The government disputes these numbers. In the last months of the war, moreover, a dramatic crisis saw the LTTE taking more than 300,000 Tamil civilians hostage as it was retreating, preventing them from fleeing while government troops bombarded the areas, including self-declared no-fire zones. Over a quarter of a million survivors were subsequently interned in camps, cut off for from international aid organizations. Some 11,000 presumed LTTE cadres were interned separately without monitoring by the International Red Cross and without access to families or legal support.

The government dismissed critical voices from abroad as typical of the double standard of western countries, which in their own fight against terrorism had resorted to drastic means as well. Demands for accountability in the face of grave human rights violations, moreover, were refused outright, sometimes with the argument that the reconciliation process within Sri Lanka would be disturbed by this. Admonitions to create a political solution now that the military solution had ended, e.g. to make the Tamils a generous offer of integration within a multi-ethnic Sri Lanka, were only accepted half-heartedly.

The government’s top priority was to extend its own claim to power based on the victory of the LTTE. In the January presidential election and the general election in April, the government succeeded in this aim. Rajapakse gained a clear majority of votes and his party and their allies came close to a two-thirds majority in parliament. The election results also seemed to have cemented the deep separation of the country: While 60 percent of the Singhalese voted for Rajapakse, 65 percent of the minorities voted for the opposition candidate, former army commander Sarath Fonseka who was subsequently arrested and detained.

After his election, Rajapakse declared that his government would continue the policy of reconciliation and development. To all questions regarding concrete plans for a political solution of the conflict, however, he simply referred to his election manifesto from January 2010, clearly rejecting a division of power on grounds of ethnicity.

The current Sri Lankan government seems convinced that the rules and actions by which they have won the war can also effectively shape the post-war society. One of the rules they act by is "Whoever is not for us, is against us." It is doubtful whether this concept will be sufficient in the long run to unify Sri Lankan society with its ethnic, religious, social and political diversity and to make the country an “Exemplary 21st Century Asian State”, as described in the president’s January manifesto.

According to most observers, the post-war situation is by no means a post-conflict situation. Quite the opposite, the wounds from the war have not healed, and the memory of it may be long lasting if there is no progress in the re-integration of the refugees and ex-combatants, or in dealing with the question of a political solution.

Tamils, after nearly three decades of civil war with a huge number of victims, still considers themselves as second-class citizens. Nevertheless, during the next few years, after all the hardship of the past, their priority will be to live a ‘normal’ life. It is most unlikely though that they will accept their secondary status in the long run, the clearest indication of which is the continued support of a (Pan)-Tamil nationalism by Tamil Nadu, the neighboring Indian state. Tamil Nadu itself is an example of how federal concessions can successfully be demanded from a central government. What form the new resistance will take and whether there will be a new militant movement is unclear, however. It depends on what personal and political alternatives young Tamil men and women will see. At present they carry the burden of the victorious peace and its victims as the main parameters of their lives.

The answer to the question of whether the victorious peace has resulted in either a successful victory against terrorism or just the prolongation of the conflict will therefore very much depend on the future of the Sri Lankan polity and its capacity to integrate the Tamil speaking communities as equal partners into the constitution and the political life of the country.
(ISN)

SUGGESTIONS FOR A FUTURE PAKISTAN. (Suggerimenti per un Pakistan futuro)

2010-04-23T12:39:00.005+02:00

The idea of a single nation-State based exclusively on religion doesn’t work. It is not enough to define Pakistan as the opposite of India. Institutions and wealth belong to the military. The slavery of women. Five proposals to save ourselves.

More than six decades after Partition, Pakistanis still struggle with the elemental question: who are we? Arabs or South Asians? Muslims first or Pakistanis first? Is there such a thing as Pakistani culture? Can Hindus, Christians, Parsis, Ahmadis, and other non-Muslims be equal Pakistanis? Or is Pakistan only for Muslims?

These questions beg the most fundamental one: is Pakistan the land and people inside a certain geographical boundary or, instead, is it a nation? By nation I mean a form of cultural or social community whose members share an identity, mental makeup, sense of history or common ancestry, parentage or descent.

By this definition, Pakistan is not a nation – at least as yet. Its peoples are too disparate and divided, have too little trust in those whom they perceive as outsiders, and identities of tribe and ethnicity are strong. This is painfully apparent in Karachi – Pakistan’s megacity of nearly 17 million – which is frequented by violent ethnic and religious clashes. And, while the flag is saluted with great fervor in Punjab, it does not fly at all on schools in Baluchistan where the national anthem is also not sung.

The lack of nationhood can be traced to the genesis of Pakistan and the single factor that drove it – religious identity. Carved out of Hindu-majority India, Pakistan resulted from the competition and conflict between natives who had converted to Islam and those who had not. Converts often identified with Arab invaders of the last millennium. Shah Waliullah (1703-1762), a “purifier” of Islam on the subcontinent who despised local traditions, famously declared “We [Hindustanis] are an Arab people whose fathers have fallen in exile in the country of Hindustan, and Arabic genealogy and the Arabic language are our pride”.

The founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, also echoed the separateness of Muslims and Hindus, basing the struggle for Pakistan on the premise that the two peoples could never live together peacefully within one nation state. But Jinnah was unrecognizably different from Waliullah, a bearded religious scholar. An impeccably dressed Westernized man with Victorian manners, secular outlook, and a connoisseur of fine foods and wines, Jinnah nevertheless eloquently articulated the fears and aspirations of an influential section of his co-religionists. Interestingly, he was opposed by a large section of the conservative ulema, such as Maulana Maudoodi of the Jamaat-e-Islami, who said that Islam cannot be confined to national borders. But Jinnah and his Muslim League won the day by insisting that Muslims constituted a distinct nation which would be overwhelmed in post-British India by a larger and better educated Hindu majority.

Thus Pakistan, in essence, was created as the Boolean negative of India – it was NOT India. But what was it beyond being a homeland for Muslims? Decades after the horrific bloodbath of partition, the idea of Pakistan remains hotly debated. It did not help that Mr. Jinnah died in 1948 – just a year after Pakistan was born – with his plans ambiguously stated. He left behind no substantive writings. Thus his speeches, which were often driven by political expediency, are freely cherry-picked. Some find in them a liberal and secular voice, others an embodiment of Islamic values. The confusion is irresolvable.

The basis in religious identity led to painful paradoxes. Jinnah’s Two-Nation theory was left in tatters after the separation of East Pakistan in 1971, and the defeat of the Pakistani military. An overbearing West Pakistan had run roughshod on East Pakistan and was despised as an external imperial power. The enthusiasm of Muslim Bengalis for Bangladesh – and their failure to repent even long after the separation – was a deadly blow against the very basis of Pakistan. Nevertheless, contrary to dire predictions, the Pakistani state survived. Its powerful military easily crushed emerging separatist movements in the provinces of Baluchistan and Sind.

For a while after 1971 the question of national ideology fell in limbo. Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto attempted to create a Pakistani identity around the notion of revenge for the loss of the East Wing. He promised “war of a thousand years” against India and started Pakistan’s quest for the atomic bomb in 1974. While this served temporarily as a rallying cry, the military coup of 1977 that removed him was to revive the identity issue.

Soon after he seized power, General Zia-ul-Haq sent Bhutto off to the gallows. Seeking a final resolution of Pakistan’s purpose and identity, he wanted to emulate Napoleon’s achievement of creating a nation from a nation-state. Indeed, Eric Hobsbawm, the influential Marxist British historian, has persuasively argued that the French state preceded the formation of the French people. In other words, the state of France made the French nation, not some pre-existing nationalism. Zia wanted the same for Pakistan.

To be sure, Zia’s goal was religious nationalism and not Napoleon’s secular nationalism. The word soon went out that henceforth Pakistan was not to be described as a Muslim state but, instead, as an Islamic state where Islamic law would reign supreme. To achieve this re-conceptualization, Zia knew that future generations of Pakistanis would have to be purged of liberal and secular values.

Thus began a massive decade-long state-sponsored project: democracy was demonized and declared un-Islamic, culture was purified of Hindu contamination, the Urdu language was cleansed of Hindi words to the extent possible, and religion was introduced into every aspect of public and private life.

Education was the key weapon for Zia’s strategy. In 1981, he ordered the education authorities to rewrite the history of Pakistan. All new school textbooks must now “induce pride for the nation’s past, enthusiasm for the present, and unshakeable faith in the stability and longevity of Pakistan”. Jinnah and other icons of the Pakistan Movement had to be portrayed as pious fundamentalists whether or not they had beards. Their lifestyles had to be hidden from public view. To eliminate possible ambiguities of approach, a presidential order was issued to the University Grants Commission that henceforth all Pakistan Studies textbooks must:

Demonstrate that the basis of Pakistan is not to be founded in racial, linguistic, or geographical factors, but, rather, in the shared experience of a common religion. To get students to know and appreciate the Ideology of Pakistan, and to popularize it with slogans. To guide students towards the ultimate goal of Pakistan - the creation of a completely Islamised State.

In a matter of years, Pakistani school children grew up learning a catchy but linguistically nonsensical jingle about the “ideology of Pakistan”: Pakistan ka matlab kya? La illaha illala! [What is the meaning of Pakistan? There is no god but Allah!]. Although the purported answer has nothing to do with the question, Zia’s strategy was showing signs of working well.

Barely a generation was needed for Pakistan’s transformation from a moderate Muslim majority country into one where the majority of citizens wanted Islam to play a key role in politics. The effect is clearly visible today. Even as the sharia-seeking Taliban were busy blowing up schools in Swat and elsewhere, a survey by the World Public Opinion.Org in 2008 found that 54% of Pakistanis wanted strict application of sharia while 25% wanted it in some more dilute form. Totaling 79%, this was the largest percentage in the four countries surveyed (Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia).

A more recent survey of 2000 young Pakistanis between 18-27 years of age was carried out across Pakistan by the British Council in 2009. It found that “three-quarters of all young people identify themselves primarily as Muslims. Just 14% chose to define themselves primarily as a citizen of Pakistan”. The youth are deeply worried by lack of employment, economic inflation, corruption, and violence. In this turbulent sea, it is not surprising that most see religion as their anchor. The common refrain of the post-Zia generation is that “every issue will be solved if we go back to the fundamentals of Islam.” But, while the “fundamentals of Islam” slogan has enormous rallying power, it is ambiguous and of ten carries diametrically opposite meaning. The interpretation depends hugely upon social class, education, ethnicity, and personal disposition.

For some, violent change is the answer to the country’s problems. This is precisely what Zaid Hamid, Pakistan’s emerging Hitler-clone, advocates. A fiery demagogue who claims to have fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, he builds on the insecurity of the youth. Enthralled college students throng to packed auditoriums to listen to this self-proclaimed jihadist. Millions watch him on various TV channels, as he lashes out against Pakistan’s corrupt rulers and other “traitors”. Hamid promises that those who betrayed the nation’s honor by joining America’s war on terror will hang from lampposts in Islamabad. In his promised Islamic utopia, speedy Taliban-style justice will replace the clumsy and corrupt courts established by the British.

Just as Hitler dwelt on Germany’s “wounded honour” in his famous beer hall oratory in Munich – where he promised that Germany would conquer the world – Hamid calls for the Pakistan Army to go to war against India and liberate Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya and Afghanistan. One day, he says, Pakistan’s flag shall fly from Delhi’s Red Fort. Inshallah, of course! The students applaud.

Notwithstanding the enormous impetus given by Zia-ul-Haq, final success still eludes Pakistan’s Islamists. In spite of an explosion of religiosity, the goal of producing a new Pakistani identity and a sharia state has not been reached. Why?

Ethno-nationalism is part of the answer. This natural resistance against melding into some larger entity is the reflexive response of historically constituted groups that seek to preserve their distinctiveness, expressed in terms of dress, food, folklore, and shared history. Assimilation of Pakistan’s diverse people into a homogenized national culture is opposed by this force which, like gravity, always acts in one direction.

Ethno-nationalism is, of course, vulnerable. It can be overcome by integrative forces, which arise from the natural advantage of being part of a larger economy with correspondingly greater opportunities. But for these forces to be effective it is essential that the state machinery provide effective governance, demonstrate fairness, and be indifferent to ethnic origins.

Here lies the problem: Pakistan’s ruling elite is widely perceived as ethnically biased as well as incompetent. Historically, the Pakistani state had quickly aligned with the powerful landed class. The army leadership and the economic elite joined forces to claim authority, but they were transparently self-serving and therefore lacked legitimacy.

Weak integration resulted. Today only a Punjabi – from Pakistan’s politically and economically dominant region – is likely to think of himself as Pakistani first and Punjabi second. Not so for Baluchis and Sindhis, whose principal identities are first Baluchis or Sindhis and then Pakistanis; the group identity dominates. So, for example, the physical fights between students in my university, as in other places, mostly occur between ethnic groups.

At a recent lecture that I gave to senior Pakistan civil service officers in Peshawar, I was taken back at the intensity of those from Baluchistan who said that wounds were too deep and the time for reconciliation had passed. A decade ago one would have expected this language from student radicals only; now it is the mainstream Baluch who articulates this.

Dangling the utopia of an Islamic state raised expectations but did little else. To the chagrin of the establishment, it backfired and became the cause of infinite division. This should have been easily predictable: religious groups are bitterly divided by sect. There is no way of avoiding the fundamentally unanswerable questions: which interpretation of Islam is the right Islam? Of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafii, Maaliki, Hanbali), whose version of the sharia should be adopted? Will all, or most, Pakistanis accept any non-elected amir-ul-momineen (leader of the pious) or a caliph? And what about the Shia?

Religion cannot be the basis of Pakistan or move it towards integration. I say this categorically, although it was the reason for Pakistan’s formation. Indeed, any serious move in the direction of a sharia state could lead to civil war. Today, even those who loudly call for sharia are frightened by the emergence of the Pakistani Taliban, whose primary demand is the imposition of sharia. Their Wahabi-Deobandi-Salafi understanding of sharia calls for forbidding females to leave their houses, be educated, or to hold jobs. Men must have beards, wear shalwars rather than trousers, and never miss prayers. Taliban-inflicted decapitations, amputation of limbs, and floggings are defended only by fanatics. These constitute no more than perhaps ten percent of Pakistan’s population.

There is excellent reason for Pakistan to be: it must be because it is! The cost of disappearance or destruction of this nuclear weapon state, is too awful to contemplate. I contend that Pakistan can become a nation, and that it will almost certainly become one in the decades ahead. But this will require that it seeks new roots lying within its social reality rather than religion. One must also assume that some foolish adventurism of its leaders does not lead to a further breakup.

Look at it this way: rain inevitably grinds down stony mountains over centuries and ultimately creates fertile soil. Similarly, nations are inevitably formed when people experience a common environment and live together for long enough. How long is long? In Pakistan’s case the time scale could be fairly short. Its people are diverse but almost all understand Urdu. They watch the same television programs, hear the same radio stations, deal with the same irritating and inefficient bureaucracy, use the same badly written textbooks, buy similar products, and despise the same set of rulers.

The metamorphosis of Pakistan into a nation can be catalyzed by a suitable manifesto of change. What should that be?

First, Pakistan needs peace. This means that it must turn inwards and fix its own problems rather than attempt solving those around it such as Kashmir, Afghanistan, or Palestine. In particular, the Kashmir dispute must be shelved. Kashmiris must learn how to deal with India, an occupying power that has mistreated them. Attempts by Pakistan to liberate Kashmir have achieved nothing beyond creating a militarized Pakistani security state that is incapable of serving the interests of its people.

Second, Pakistan needs economic justice and the working machinery of a welfare state. Economic justice is not the same as flinging coins at a beggar. Rather, it requires an organizational infrastructure that, at the very least, provides employment but also rewards appropriately according to ability and hard work. Incomes should be neither exorbitantly high nor miserably low. To be sure, “high” and “low” are not easily quantifiable, but an inner moral sense tells us that something is desperately wrong when rich Pakistanis fly off to vacation in Dubai while a mother commits suicide because she cannot feed her children.

Pakistan must learn from the fact that India abolished feudalism upon attaining independence. But the enormous pre-partition land holdings of Pakistan’s feudal lords remained safe and sound, protected by the authority of the state. The land reforms announced by Ayub Khan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto were eyewash. In later years, with the consolidation of military rule in national politics, the army turned itself into a landlord and capitalist class.

The military owns assets that have no relation to national defense. Today, the private property of military officers includes vast amounts of farm lands and valuable urban real estate, commercial assets in manufacturing, transportation, banking, insurance, advertising companies, cement and sugar industries, banking and insurance, airlines and ground transportation, factories for making corn flakes and even bottled water. Most countries have armies but, as some have noted, only in Pakistan does an army have a country.

Third, Pakistan needs a federation agreement that gives its different peoples equal participation and the feeling that they are part of the same nation. Different historically constituted peoples must want to live together, not be forced. So this means Pakistan’s rulers must respect diversity and hand important powers over to the provinces, re- conceiving itself as a federation of autonomous states with defense and foreign affairs held in common. India serves as model. Above all, Islamabad’s conflict with Baluchistan urgently needs resolution using political sagacity and persuasion rather than military force.

Fourth, Pakistan needs freedom for its women. In much of rural Pakistan a woman is likely to be spat upon, beaten, or killed for being friendly to a man or even showing to him her face. Newspaper readers expect – and get – a steady daily diet of stories about women raped, mutilated, or strangled to death by their fathers, husbands, and brothers. Energetic proselytizers, like Farhat Hashmi, have made deep inroads even into the urban middle and upper classes, and the culture of female suppression spread without bound. Pakistan’s cities are becoming culturally backward villages. As the pious multiply their numbers, the horrific daily crimes against women become still less worthy of comment or discussion.

Fifth, and finally, Pakistan needs the rule of law and renewal of the social contract. Nearly three centuries earlier, philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau observed that each citizen of a state voluntarily places his person under the supreme direction of the “general will”. An unwritten compact between the individual and society requires that a citizen accept the rule of law and acknowledge certain basic responsibilities. In return the citizen receives certain rights from the larger entity. Without this voluntary submission by individuals, said Rousseau, humans would be no better than beasts.

The social contract is being ruthlessly violated. Citizens do not exhibit responsible social behavior. Most do not pay their fair share of income tax, respect basic environmental rules, heed traffic laws, and dispose off garbage as they should. Law-breaking occurs because ordinary people see the nation’s leaders openly flouting the very rules they were empowered to protect, and because they can see that enforcement of the law is no more than a perfunctory gesture. The problem is compounded by Pakistan’s fundamental confusion: is the citizen obligated to obey secular (or common) law or one of the many interpretations of Islamic law, or even the tribal law of jirgas? Surely a modern state has to set uniform rules for its citizens or else risk losing its legitimacy.

The path to creating a Pakistani nation is doubtlessly difficult. As the population explodes, oceans of poverty and misery deepen, limbless beggars in the streets multiply, water and clean air become scarce, education is stalemated, true democracy remains elusive, and the distance from a rapidly developing world increases. There is a strong temptation for one to step aside, give up, and admit helplessness. But no, surely that is wrong, for what we fear will then actually come to pass. I go along with Antonio Gramsci, the great Italian philosopher, who spoke of “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”. With the pessimism of the intellect we must calmly contemplate the yawning abyss up ahead. But then, after a period of reflection, one should move to prevent falling into it.
(Heartland)

VOLCANOES AND CLIMATE CHANGE. WHERE ARE THE ENVIROMENTALISTS? (Vulcani e cambiamento climatico. Dove sono gli ambientalisti?)

2010-04-17T12:07:00.011+02:00

Radical greens – who long ago picked on flying as the ultimate green sin – may be raising a glass of organic elderberry wine to Eyjafjallajökull, if they can pronounce the Icelandic volcano's name on so heady a brew [by the way, the real name of the volcano is Fimmvorduhals, not Eyjafjallajökull, which is the name of the glacier above it: please, journalists, inform yourselves! ndr.] . But even if it has realised their dreams by grounding thousands of flights, they would be unwise to celebrate.

Let's leave aside how counter-productive it has been to demonise air travel; most measures to save energy and combat global warming, such as insulating homes, greatly benefit people – and cut pollution more – but the greens puritanically prioritised something popular and useful. The real danger is that the blast may distract from combating climate change.

Volcanic eruptions can briefly cool the climate by emitting dust, sulphur and ash particles that reflect sunlight. A much bigger bang at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 cut world temperatures by an average of half a degree centigrade over the next year and temporarily took much of the heat out of concerns over global warming. Of course, carbon dioxide levels were still increasing, so the thermometer rose later to compensate.

The new eruption is much smaller, and is unlikely to have a global effect, but might cool Northern Europe – something that, if last winter is anything to go by, would be exploited by sceptics. New figures show that, worldwide, we have just been through the fourth warmest January to March ever, but the snows in Europe and the US were wrongly used to "prove" the Earth is cooling

(The Telegraph)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Laki volcanic fissure in southern Iceland erupted over an eight-month period from 8 June 1783 to February 1784, spewing lava and poisonous gases that devastated the island's agriculture, killing much of the livestock. It is estimated that perhapsa quarter of Iceland's population died through the ensuing famine.

Then, as now, there were more wide-ranging impacts. In Norway, the Netherlands, the British Isles, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, in North America and even Egypt, the Laki eruption had its consequences, as the haze of dust and sulphur particles thrown up by the volcano was carried over much of the northern hemisphere.

Ships moored up in many ports, effectively fogbound. Crops were affected as the fall-out from the continuing eruption coincided with an abnormally hot summer. A clergyman, the Rev Sir John Cullum, wrote to the Royal Society that barley crops "became brown and withered … as did the leaves of the oats; the rye had the appearance of being mildewed".

The British naturalist Gilbert White described that summer in his classic Natural History of Selborne as "an amazing and portentous one … the peculiar haze, or smokey fog, that prevailed for many weeks in this island, and in every part of Europe, and even beyond its limits, was a most extraordinary appearance, unlike anything known within the memory of man.

"The sun, at noon, looked as blank as a clouded moon, and shed a rust-coloured ferruginous light on the ground, and floors of rooms; but was particularly lurid and blood-coloured at rising and setting. At the same time the heat was so intense that butchers' meat could hardly be eaten on the day after it was killed; and the flies swarmed so in the lanes and hedges that they rendered the horses half frantic … the country people began to look with a superstitious awe, at the red, louring aspect of the sun."

Across the Atlantic, Benjamin Franklin wrote of "a constant fog over all Europe, and a great part of North America".

The disruption to weather patterns meant the ensuing winter was unusually harsh, with consequent spring flooding claiming more lives. In America the Mississippi reportedly froze at New Orleans.

The eruption is now thought to have disrupted the Asian monsoon cycle, prompting famine in Egypt. Environmental historians have also pointed to the disruption caused to the economies of northern Europe, where food poverty was a major factor in the build-up to the French revolution of 1789.

Volcanologists at the Open University's department of earth sciences say the impact of the Laki eruptions had profound consequences.

Dr John Murray said: "Volcanic eruptions can have significant effects on weather patterns for from two to four years, which in turn have social and economic consequences. We shouldn't discount their possible political impacts."

(The Guardian)

KABUL REVENGE. (La vendetta di Kabul)

2010-04-15T14:11:00.003+02:00

Il Generale Fabio Mini, già Capo di Stato maggiore del Comando Nato delle forze alleate Sud Europa e al vertice della Kfor in Kosovo, è intervenuto ieri per commentare l’arresto, da parte delle autorità afghane e del contingente Isaf della Nato, di tre attivisti italiani dell’ospedale di Lashkar Gah.

“Siccome non sono pacifista, – ha scritto Mini in un lungo articolo – siccome cerco di stare con i piedi per terra e non ho ancora trovato alcuna pace interiore che mi lasci inebetito trovo molti aspetti della vicenda, perfino i più imbarazzanti, plausibili e comprensibili. Specie alla luce di qualche esperienza. [...] Non ci sarebbe nulla di strano che un medico di Emergency si facesse dare mezzo milione di dollari per aiutare dei terroristi. Con quello che li paga l’organizzazione, il compenso varrebbe il rischio della pelle. I dubbi aumentano se si considera che una tale fortuna viene offerta al medico per portare un paio di scatoloni nel suo ospedale e lasciarli in bella vista in modo che vengano subito trovati: sembra più una operazione da “governatori” e servizi segreti che da terroristi”.

“Semmai è strano – continua, analizzando il comportamento tenuto dal ministro degli Esteri Franco Frattini – che la prima dichiarazione venuta in mente al nostro Ministro degli Esteri sulla vicenda sia la condanna contro tutti i terrorismi: in pratica è l’ammissione che Emergency è una organizzazione terroristica.

O almeno una di cui è lecito sospettare.
E infine non sarebbe affatto strano che i prigionieri in Afghanistan confessassero. Da quelle parti gli stranieri si salvano solo se confessano, qualsiasi cosa e alla svelta. Salvano la faccia dei loro aguzzini e così salvano la pelle. Se c’è da fare dell’eroismo o del martirio bisogna aspettare di essere tornati a casa“.

Ma perché il governo afghano e le forze militari della Nato avrebbero dovuto orchestrare una simile operazione proprio contro Emergency e il suo ospedale, oggetto di un corteo di protesta di abitanti aizzati dalle autorità locali?
“Ho già detto chiaramente in tempi non sospetti – ha risposto Mini nel prosieguo del pezzo – che Emergency avrebbe pagato caro il suo intervento “politico” nella vicenda Mastrogiacomo. Ora ci siamo.
Un altro fatto concreto è il fastidio arrecato da Emergency alle forze internazionali e ai governanti afgani ogni volta che ne ha denunciato le nefandezze.
Un fatto è che Emergency è un punto di riferimento per chiunque abbia bisogno e quindi anche per i cosiddetti talebani. Un fatto è che Helmand è ancora una roccaforte dei ribelli pashtun e che il loro smantellamento deve necessariamente passare per quello di qualsiasi organizzazione che li aiuta, anche se per i soli aspetti umanitari. [...] Dal punto di vista militare Emergency deve cessare di essere un testimone e un punto di riferimento per i ribelli. Tutti devono sapere che farsi ricoverare può essere l’anticamera dell’arresto che per gli afgani è sempre l’anticamera del cimitero“.

Un’ipotesi, quella del collegamento con il ruolo di mediazione svolto da Emergency nel 2007 per ottenere la liberazione del giornalista di “Repubblica” rapito da gruppi talebani, preso in considerazione anche dalla Procura di Roma che ha aperto un fascicolo sull’arresto dei tre attivisti dell’associazione di Gino Strada, raccogliendo proprio i materiali dei Ros.
(NewNotizie.it)

ENGDAHL: "US WON'T RECOVER FOR AT LAST 15 YEARS". (Engdahl: “All’economia USA non basteranno 15 anni per riprendersi”)

2010-04-14T23:46:00.004+02:00

Prendendo spunto da una celebre affermazione dell’allora segretario di Stato nordamericano Henry Kissinger, secondo il quale “chi controlla il petrolio controlla le nazioni, chi controlla il cibo controlla le popolazioni, chi controlla il denaro controlla il mondo intero”, William Engdahl introduce il suo ultimo libro, Gods of Money (“Gli dei del denaro”), un’opera frutto di una trentennale ricerca dell’autore sugli sviluppi del sistema economico e finanziario internazionale basato sul dollaro. Già dall’emergere dell’attuale crisi nell’agosto 2007, sostiene Engdahl, è apparso evidente come la Federal Reserve, il Tesoro americano ed il Congresso siano stati pronti a salvare e sostenere (con trilioni di dollari dei contribuenti) le banche di Wall Street responsabili, con i loro comportamenti fraudolenti ed ingannevoli, della crisi stessa. In una recente intervista ad un quotidiano londinese, il CEO di Goldman Sachs avrebbe addirittura affermato “noi siamo semplicemente banchieri che svolgono il lavoro di Dio”, espressione significativa che rivela il modo di porsi dell’élite finanziaria nei confronti della società e del mondo: in un’espressione, al di sopra della morale.

Circa la crisi che sta investendo l’area euro, continua Engdahl, occorre inserirla nella giusta prospettiva e nelle corretta proporzione, anche quando ci si riferisce ai cosiddetti PIGS (Portogallo, Irlanda/Italia, Grecia e Spagna). Il centro di gravità dell’attuale crisi è e rimarrà New York, in particolare Wall Street ed il sistema basato sul dollaro. Subito dopo, per importanza, vengono la City di Londra e la sterlina. In confronto a questi due centri economico/finanziari, quello che accade in Grecia assomiglia a nulla più di una “tempesta in una teiera”. L’attivazione di tale tempesta è certamente “politica” ed è stata opera di quegli stessi “gods of money”, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, che influenzano fortemente agenzie di rating quali Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s e Fitch. In un momento di enorme pressione sul dollaro, nel novembre 2009, queste agenzie abbassarono la loro valutazione sul credito ellenico, esponendo il fatto che la Grecia avesse manipolato i propri conti per riuscire ad entrare nella zona euro nel 2002. Ironia della sorte, proprio JP Morgan e Goldman Sachs (il principale consigliere finanziario del governo Papandreou, salito al potere nell’ottobre 2009) avevano aiutato Atene a porre in essere queste operazioni di cosmesi finanziaria.

Più in generale, considerando l’area della moneta unica, vi sarebbero attualmente, secondo Engdahl, enormi problemi politici dovuti alla natura stessa del processo top-down che ha caratterizzato l’adozione dell’euro. Francia e Germania sembrerebbe stiano cercando, insieme ai partner europei, di porre le basi affinché quanto successo in Grecia non possa più accadere nell’UE. Tuttavia, al di là delle belle parole, la realtà è che diversi hedge funds stanno già preparando attacchi speculativi concertati per trarre profitto dagli eventi ellenici.

Riguardo invece al Fondo Monetario Internazionale ed al suo ruolo nella risoluzione di questa tipologia di crisi, occorrerebbe tenere sempre a mente che esso fu creato nel 1944 da Wall Street e Washington, col fine di essere uno strumento di mantenimento del potere finanziario statunitense a livello globale. Basti pensare che, ad oggi, gli USA detengono (unico paese) il diritto di veto su qualsiasi decisione del Consiglio di Amministrazione del Fondo. Vi è dunque un acceso dibattito nell’UE circa l’opportunità di coinvolgere il FMI per affrontare crisi come quella scoppiata in Grecia. Nonostante la contrarietà della maggioranza dei paesi comunitari, alla fine Bruxelles ha lasciato spazio al FMI: un classico caso, secondo Engdahl, di “operazione di guerra economica sotto copertura”, condotta dal sistema-dollaro contro l’euro. Il primo, attualmente molto debole ed oggetto di fortissime pressioni, non parrebbe proprio essere sulla strada della ripresa, contrariamente a quanto sostenuto dall’amministrazione americana. E probabilmente non lo sarà per almeno 15 anni.

L’ingresso del FMI nell’eurozona, fortemente voluto da Berlino, “equivale a far entrare una volpe in un pollaio”, minando l’idea stessa di Unione Europea. Esso rappresenta inoltre un segnale per l’intera comunità economica e finanziaria internazionale: al giorno d’oggi il potenziale del Fondo Monetario Internazionale non è assolutamente esaurito. Anzi, il FMI ha il potere di attuare misure capaci di annullare le scelte economiche e finanziarie comunitarie.

Con un occhio al futuro ed al lungo periodo, Engdahl rileva infine come nelle relazioni internazionali l’Unione Europea tenga un atteggiamento fondamentalmente schizofrenico. Dal 1945 le relazioni transatlantiche furono il principale fattore di stabilizzazione per il Vecchio Continente durante la Guerra Fredda. Con il crollo dell’Unione Sovietica anche il Patto di Varsavia venne dissolto. Lo stesso non avvenne per l’Alleanza Atlantica. Washington decise di estendere la NATO fino alle porte della Federazione russa, attraverso l’appoggio alle cosiddette “Rivoluzioni Colorate” e la promozione di governi fantoccio filo-occidentali intorno alla Russia. Tuttavia questa strategia si è rivelata fallimentare. Facendo di necessità virtù, Mosca e Pechino, insieme ad altre repubbliche centro-asiatiche, si sono così ritrovate nella nuova Organizzazione per la Cooperazione di Shanghai (OCS) a collaborare strettamente sui temi della difesa e della sicurezza, nonché su temi economici. Ad emergere, dunque, è stata una nuova dinamica; una dinamica euroasiatica, l’unica potenzialmente in grado di scalzare il predominio economico nordamericano. Il quesito fondamentale per il Vecchio Continente è allora il seguente: rivolgersi verso l’Eurasia, con un occhio di riguardo al commercio ed alle risorse energetiche, oppure “salire” sul sistema-dollaro, ogni giorno più simile ad un Titanic? Una domanda complessa, che pretende una risposta articolata, capace di tenere in debita considerazione l’attuale scenario geopolitico globale. L’Unione Europea non ha ancora deciso in che direzione andare e per questo, attualmente, la sua politica appare schizofrenica. Dirigersi verso l’Eurasia significherebbe subire immediate ed enormi ritorsioni statunitensi. Dirigersi verso gli USA significherebbe salire su di una barca che sta affondando.
(Pubblicato su Eurasia)

THE ESSENTIAL ABOUT THAI CRISIS. (L'abc sulla crisi tailandese)

2010-04-12T23:39:00.006+02:00

Thailand is locked in a political conflict that took a deadly turn Saturday when government efforts to evict protesters from city streets turned into a savage nighttime battle between soldiers and demonstrators. Twenty-one people were killed and hundreds wounded. The demonstrators are standing fast and support for the government is fading quickly.

Some questions and answers about the crisis that has threatened political anarchy in the country:

Q. What are anti-government protesters in Thailand demanding?

A. The so-called ''Red Shirt'' protesters want Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to dissolve Parliament immediately and call new elections. They say he came to power illegitimately because his Democrat Party was not the top vote-getter in the last election in 2007. Military pressure on lawmakers of other parties allowed him to cobble together a coalition government in December 2008.

Q. What is the government's response?

A. Abhisit says he came to power through legal Parliamentary processes. In two inconclusive rounds of talks with protest leaders late last month, he offered to dissolve Parliament by the end of the year. The timing would allow his government to pass a new budget and oversee the annual military reshuffle, which includes the appointment of a new army commander, one of the most powerful posts in Thailand, with a history of intervention in politics.

Q. Who are the major players in the conflict?

A. The Red Shirts, formally known as the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, consist largely of supporters of ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and pro-democracy activists who opposed the 2006 military coup that ousted him after months of demonstrations. The anti-Thaksin protesters -- led by the People's Alliance for Democracy, or so-called ''Yellow Shirts'' -- demanded he step down for alleged corruption and disrespecting the country's constitutional monarch, 82-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

Q. What are the roots of the problem?

A. The 2006 protests against Thaksin polarized the country. His party easily won two elections amid popularity among the country's rural majority for initiating social and economic welfare programs. Those who voted for Thaksin felt their votes were ignored after he was ousted from power.

Thaksin's political allies came to power in a December 2007 election, but courts forced two successive pro-Thaksin prime ministers out of office on grounds their supporters found dubious.

Thaksin's foes insist he was a corrupt megalomaniac who abused his power and tried to quash all opposition. They say he sought to usurp the prestige and influence of the respected monarchy.

The fault lines between rich and poor, city and countryside have led many to paint the conflict as a class war.

Q. How can the crisis be resolved?

A. It is likely some sort of compromise will ease tensions. Army Commander Gen. Anupong Paochinda indicated Monday he did not want to send soldiers in to try again to disperse demonstrators. The coalition partners in Abhisit's government could withdraw their support, or use that threat to have him call a new election soon.

The country's Election Commission has recommended that Abhisit's Democrat Party be disbanded for a 2005 electoral law violation, a move that would have to be upheld by the Constitutional Court. If that happens, Abhisit would be removed from office immediately.

Abhisit could undercut the Red Shirts' demands by calling an election on his own schedule, but earlier than the end of the year.

The standoff between Abhisit and the Red Shirts could also continue as a test of wills. That could lead third parties to intervene in the form of a coup by military officers unhappy with Anupong's noninterventionist stance.
(International Herald Tribune)

THE BEGINNING OF THE END: A LIBERTARIAN POINT OF VIEW ON OBAMACARE.(L'inizio della fine: un punto di vista libertario sulla riforma Obama)

2010-04-01T11:27:00.003+02:00

Following months of heated public debate and aggressive closed-door negotiations, Congress finally cast a historic vote on healthcare late Sunday evening. It was truly a sad weekend on the House floor as we witnessed further dismantling of the Constitution, disregard of the will of the people, explosive expansion of the reach of government, unprecedented corporate favoritism, and the impending end of quality healthcare as we know it.

Those in favor of this bill touted their good intentions of ensuring quality healthcare for all Americans, as if those of us against the bill are against good medical care. They cite fanciful statistics of deficit reduction, while simultaneously planning to expand the already struggling medical welfare programs we currently have. They somehow think that healthcare in this country will be improved by swelling our welfare rolls and cutting reimbursement payments to doctors who are already losing money. It is estimated that thousands of doctors will be economically forced out of the profession should this government fuzzy math actually try to become healthcare reality. No one has thought to ask what good mandatory health insurance will be if people can't find a doctor.

Legislative hopes and dreams don't always stand up well against economic realities.

Frustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many — the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn't be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place. If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product! Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs.

Of course, the most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is so blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals of liberty. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this. The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. 38 states are said to already be preparing legal and constitutional challenges to this legislation, and if the courts stand by their oaths, they will win. Protecting the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, should be the court's responsibility. Citizens have a responsibility over their own life, but they also have the liberty to choose how they will live and protect their lives. Healthcare choices are a part of liberty, another part that is being stripped away. Government interference in healthcare has already infringed on choices available to people, but rather than getting out of the way, it is entrenching itself, and its corporatist cronies, even more deeply.
(CampaignForLiberty)

FOR WHAT? (Per quale motivo?)

2010-04-01T11:16:00.003+02:00

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.

Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.

Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.

Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.

A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.

Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.

The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.

“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.

For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”

The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.

About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.

The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.
(HeraldScotland)

THE REAL SCANDAL. (Il vero scandalo)

2010-03-26T14:17:00.004+01:00

Mentre l'attenzione dei media nazionali ed internazionali è completamente rivolta verso lo scandalo dei preti cattolici pedofili (o presunti tali), un altro scandalo, che come il primo ha il proprio epicentro in Germania, viene completamente taciuto dagli stessi mezzi d'informazione. Anche navigando in internet, difficilmente v'imbatterete in questa notizia. Leggete con attenzione.

Ecolog works for ISAF troops in Afghanistan A German waste management firm employed by the NATO mission in Afghanistan has been accused of involvement in drug smuggling. Allegations against Ecolog and the Macedonian family behind it date back to the war in Kosovo.

Allegations have surfaced that a German-based company contracted by NATO’s ISAF troops in Afghanistan may have been involved in smuggling drugs out of the country.

“There is a chance that drugs or other such things have been smuggled,” NATO General Egon Ramms, chief at ISAF headquarters in the Netherlands told German public broadcaster NDR.

The German general confirmed that an investigation was underway into allegations that Dusseldorf-based Ecolog used contracts with NATO or ISAF for illegal activities. The firm had been working for NATO in Afghanistan since 2003, Ramms said.

Ecolog dismissed the allegations as “absurd,” telling Deutsche Welle in an e-mail message that none of the accusations made against it were true.

“Since 2002, the company has been a reliable partner to both NATO and the German military Bundeswehr in crisis regions,” Ecolog said.

Ecolog is employed by ISAF to handle laundry services at various locations in Kabul as well as garbage disposal at the military airport and ISAF headquarters in the Afghan capital. The company had been in charge of fuel deliveries to NATO troops in the past.

According to NDR, initial allegations against Ecolog and the Macedonian-Albanian family behind the company date back to the war in Kosovo. Then NATO-led KFOR troops had already suggested there may have been links between the Destani family and organized crime.

NDR quoted a current confidential KFOR report as saying that “the Destani family from Tetovo controls crime and smuggling activities at the Kosovar-Macedonian border.”

This has only now come to my attention,” said ISAF General Ramms. “Of course this will automatically trigger an investigation to see whether Ecolog is still a respectable business partner for us.”

NDR reported that information regarding the suspicions about the company was readily available in NATO’s databases.

Ecolog’s two contracts with NATO could be cancelled, should the allegations turn out to be justified. The German government has confirmed that it is aware of the investigations into the company and is reviewing its contracts with Ecolog.

The Defense Ministry’s 2010 budget includes contracts worth around 50 million euros ($68 million) with the firm.
(Ms.Sparky.com)

A SHORT COMMENT ON ICELANDIC REFERENDUM. (Breve commento sul referendum islandese)

2010-03-10T16:12:00.014+01:00

Dal sito di Eurasia, Rivista di Studi Geopolitici.

Il risultato del cosiddetto referendum “Icesave” non lascia adito a dubbi interpretativi. Il 92.3% dell’elettorato islandese ha sonoramente bocciato il nuovo disegno di legge, approvato dal parlamento il 30 Dicembre 2009, che prevedeva una restituzione dei “prestiti” britannici ed olandesi slegata dall’andamento economico del paese nei prossimi anni. Londra e l’Aia avevano unilateralmente risarcito i propri cittadini rimasti vittime del fallimento di Landsbanki e della sua banca online Icesave. Da allora, negoziati triangolari tra Islanda, Gran Bretagna ed Olanda si sono succeduti senza sosta: il Tesoro di Reykjavik ha sempre confermato la sua disponibilità a garantire le somme già versate da Londra e l’Aia. Il problema, piuttosto, ha riguardato il “quanto”, il “quando” ed il “come”.

Nel mio articolo sulla vicenda, preannunciavo una bocciatura per l’Icesave II con un voto contrario pari al 53%. L’approccio elettorale utilizzato per elaborare la previsione, pur non essendo “statico” (venivano considerati, per esempio, i trend di consenso per ogni partito), si basava su diversi presupposti, diciamo così, “non-dinamici”. Due di questi, in particolare il fatto che l’affluenza alle urne fosse in linea con l’affluenza media delle consultazioni legislative ed il fatto che non succedessero eventi politici rilevanti nei giorni precedenti alla consultazione, non hanno trovato conferma.

A poche ore dal voto, la dichiarazione del Primo Ministro Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, secondo la quale il referendum sarebbe stato inutile poiché un nuovo accordo era già “sul tavolo”, ha avuto un effetto dirompente sull’elettorato. Molti elettori di centro-sinistra (e della sinistra estrema), teoricamente i più propensi a votare in favore dell’Icesave II, hanno disertato le urne (come, tra l’altro, lo stesso Primo Ministro): rispetto alle ultime elezioni politiche, l’affluenza è scesa dall’85% al 63%. Gli altri elettori di sinistra, preferendo seguire il Presidente socialdemocratico Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson (piuttosto che un premier che prima aveva voluto il nuovo disegno di legge, per poi rinnegarlo) e desiderando mandare un segnale forte all’intera comunità internazionale, hanno votato contro la nuova normativa Icesave.

Occorre ora rispondere a due domande: che tipo di segnale ha voluto mandare il popolo islandese? E perché Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, il primo capo dell’esecutivo nella storia islandese ad essere filo-europeo, ha lasciato mettere a rischio l’ingresso dell’Islanda nell’UE?

Partiamo dalla seconda domanda. Non c’è dubbio, nonostante le rassicurazioni di Bruxelles, che il referendum di ieri abbia fortemente compromesso il cammino di Reykjavik verso l’Unione Europea. Altrettanto evidente è il fatto che di accordi sicuri “sul tavolo”, come li ha definiti Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, non ve n’è traccia. Inoltre, quello ch’è certo, è che il Primo Ministro, ormai conscio di difendere una causa perdente (o, come ha testimoniato il mio articolo, a forte rischio di sconfitta), ha deciso di distanziarsi sempre più da quello stesso provvedimento votato poco prima in parlamento. Non è un caso che Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir abbia dichiarato, a qualche ora dal voto, che un eventuale esito negativo del referendum non avrebbe in alcun modo minato la stabilità del governo. Dunque, perdere una battaglia oggi per non perdere una guerra, la guerra per il controllo dell’esecutivo islandese. È da vedere se tale ragionamento sia corretto: le conseguenze politiche del referendum, in realtà, sono tutt’altro che prevedibili.

Per quanto concerne invece il primo quesito, emerge chiaramente come il popolo islandese, oltre ad aver perso quasi totalmente la fiducia nei confronti della propria classe politica, abbia voluto mandare un chiaro segnale alla comunità internazionale: “non pagheremo noi gli errori delle nostre banche”, è stato lo slogan che ha accompagnato i cortei e le manifestazioni contro il nuovo disegno di legge Icesave. Certo, questo non è precisamente il messaggio che i politici islandesi hanno rivolto a Londra e l’Aia negli ultimi mesi: nella loro opinione, come già ricordato, in ballo non vi sarebbe il “se” pagare, ma il “quanto”, il “quando” ed il “come” pagare. In altre parole, l’Icesave II ha ricevuto una chiara bocciatura, ma non è detto che a futuri accordi, magari più favorevoli di questo, il popolo islandese non riservi (se consultato) lo stesso trattamento. Alcuni commentatori parlano d’irresponsabilità degli islandesi; in fondo, si dice, anche loro avevano beneficiato di questo capitalismo di carta, anche loro si erano comprati auto di grossa cilindrata e beni di lusso che mai erano stati visti prima nel paese. Può essere, ma questa è la democrazia. Ed è quantomeno curioso che nel giorno in cui i principali media nostrani celebrano le votazioni in Iraq e s’interrogano sullo stato della democrazia italiana, gli stessi media facciano passare uno storico pronunciamento di una democrazia come l’Islanda in secondo o, sempre se va bene, terzo piano. Esistono forse momenti nei quali è lecito parlare di democrazia e momenti nei quali non lo è?
(Pubblicato su Eurasia)

WILL THE ICE BE SAFE? PART II

2010-03-04T15:19:00.002+01:00

ATTENZIONE !

Potete trovare la versione italiana del mio ultimo paper "L'Islanda ed il referendum Icesave" sul sito della rivista di studi geopolitici Eurasia, al seguente link.

WILL THE ICE BE SAFE?

2010-03-02T21:54:00.009+01:00

AVVISO

SUL SITO "ELECTORAL GEOGRAPHY 2.0 ", NELLA SEZIONE "ARTICOLI", TROVERETE IL MIO ULTIMO PAPER. IN ESSO VIENE TRATTATA, IN CHIAVE POLITOLOGICA, LA QUESTIONE DEL REFERENDUM ISLANDESE "ICESAVE", UNA CONTESA FINANZIARIA CHE COINVOLGE, OLTRE ALLA STESSA ISLANDA, ANCHE IL REGNO UNITO E L'OLANDA.

PAY ATTENTION.

ON THE WEBSITE "ELECTORAL GEOGRAPHY 2.0", IN SECTION "ARTICLES", YOU WILL FIND MY BRAND NEW PAPER. THE WORK IS A POLITOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ABOUT ICELAND'S "ICESAVE" REFERNDUM, A FINANCIAL DISPUTE THAT INVOLVES, BESIDES ICELAND ITSELF, ALSO UNITED KINGDOM AND NETHERLANDS.

THE DEBT MAKE-UP ARTIST. (I truccatori del debito)

2010-02-11T11:02:00.004+01:00

Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government to mask the true extent of its deficit with the help of a derivatives deal that legally circumvented the EU Maastricht deficit rules. At some point the so-called cross currency swaps will mature, and swell the country's already bloated deficit.

Greeks aren't very welcome in the Rue Alphones Weicker in Luxembourg. It's home to Eurostat, the European Union's statistical office. The number crunchers there are deeply annoyed with Athens. Investigative reports state that important data "cannot be confirmed" or has been requested but "not received."

Creative accounting took priority when it came to totting up government debt.Since 1999, the Maastricht rules threaten to slap hefty fines on euro member countries that exceed the budget deficit limit of three percent of gross domestic product. Total government debt mustn't exceed 60 percent.

The Greeks have never managed to stick to the 60 percent debt limit, and they only adhered to the three percent deficit ceiling with the help of blatant balance sheet cosmetics. One time, gigantic military expenditures were left out, and another time billions in hospital debt. After recalculating the figures, the experts at Eurostat consistently came up with the same results: In truth, the deficit each year has been far greater than the three percent limit. In 2009, it exploded to over 12 percent.

Now, though, it looks like the Greek figure jugglers have been even more brazen than was previously thought. "Around 2002 in particular, various investment banks offered complex financial products with which governments could push part of their liabilities into the future," one insider recalled, adding that Mediterranean countries had snapped up such products.

Greece's debt managers agreed a huge deal with the savvy bankers of US investment bank Goldman Sachs at the start of 2002. The deal involved so-called cross-currency swaps in which government debt issued in dollars and yen was swapped for euro debt for a certain period -- to be exchanged back into the original currencies at a later date.

Such transactions are part of normal government refinancing. Europe's governments obtain funds from investors around the world by issuing bonds in yen, dollar or Swiss francs. But they need euros to pay their daily bills. Years later the bonds are repaid in the original foreign denominations.

But in the Greek case the US bankers devised a special kind of swap with fictional exchange rates. That enabled Greece to receive a far higher sum than the actual euro market value of 10 billion dollars or yen. In that way Goldman Sachs secretly arranged additional credit of up to $1 billion for the Greeks.

This credit disguised as a swap didn't show up in the Greek debt statistics. Eurostat's reporting rules don't comprehensively record transactions involving financial derivatives. "The Maastricht rules can be circumvented quite legally through swaps," says a German derivatives dealer.

In previous years, Italy used a similar trick to mask its true debt with the help of a different US bank. In 2002 the Greek deficit amounted to 1.2 percent of GDP. After Eurostat reviewed the data in September 2004, the ratio had to be revised up to 3.7 percent. According to today's records, it stands at 5.2 percent.

At some point Greece will have to pay up for its swap transactions, and that will impact its deficit. The bond maturities range between 10 and 15 years. Goldman Sachs charged a hefty commission for the deal and sold the swaps on to a Greek bank in 2005.

The bank declined to comment on the controversial deal. The Greek Finance Ministry did not respond to a written request for comment.
(Der Spiegel Online)

BIN LADEN IS SPANISH. (bin Laden è spagnolo)

2010-01-20T12:23:00.004+01:00

Gaspar Llamazares se ha tomado "muy en serio" la utilización que ha hecho el FBI de una fotografía suya para realizar un retrato robot del probable aspecto de Osama bin Laden en la actualidad. "Sería cómica, si no afectara a la seguridad y la libertad de los ciudadanos", ha declarado a un grupo de periodistas en la sede de Izquierda Unida.

El diputado y ex coordinador general de IU ha afirmado que hasta ahora tenía reticencias para viajar a EEUU, pero que a partir de este momento no irá a ese país, porque si lo hace "tendría dificultades". "La seguridad de Bin Laden no peligra, pero la mía sí", ha comentado. Lo más preocupante de este asunto, según ha dicho, es que esta manera de utilizar fotografías afecta "a personas que no están incursas en ningún proceso judicial ni han cometido delito".

"Demuestra el escaso nivel y las manos en las que está la seguridad", ha indicado. La pregunta clave, en su opinión, es ésta: "¿Qué hace la foto de un dirigente político en los archivos del FBI?". "Espero que sea el fruto de una casualidad, que demuestre incompetencia", ha añadido, "porque, si no fuese así, demostraría mala fe y sería mucho más grave".

Una vez que un portavoz del FBI ha admitido a ELMUNDO.es que han utilizado la fotografía de Llamazares para confeccionar el retrato robot del terrorista más buscado del mundo –porque al especialista encargado de realizarlo no le gustaban los rostros y pelo que tenían en su base de datos–, el diputado de IU va a pedir al Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores español que exija explicaciones al Gobierno de EEUU.

Y espera que también intervenga el Ministerio del Interior con la policía europea, para comprobar si la fotografía ha sido extraída de Google o se encontraba en los archivos del FBI.
El Gobierno pedirá explicaciones a EEUU

Esta mañana, después de conocer la noticia que ayer desveló elmundo.es, el presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, y los ministrso de Asuntos Exteriores, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, y del Interior, Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, han telefoneado a Gaspar Llamazares para mostrarle su solidaridad.

Los tres expresaron al diputado y ex coordinador general de Izquierda Unida (IU) la sorpresa que les ha producido saber que el FBI ha utilizado una fotografía de Llamazares para elaborar un retrato robot del aspecto actual que podría tener el terrorista saudí Osama bin Laden.

También le dijeron que el Gobierno va a solicitar explicaciones a las autoridades de Estados Unidos, para saber cómo es posible que se haya podido producir este hecho. Llamazares no ha recibido ninguna explicación ni una llamada del embajador de EEUU en Madrid, y cree que "es lo mínimo que podía hacer". Los servicios jurídicos de Izquierda Unida van a estudiar lo ocurrido para decidir si llevan a cabo alguna denuncia judicial en defensa del derecho al honor y la imagen del diputado.

El dirigente del PP Esteban González Pons ha afirmado a ELMUNDO.es que se trata de un asunto "serio" que merece "un gesto de protesta" por parte del Gobierno ante las autoridades estadounidenses, informa Carmen Remírez de Ganuza. "Si no fuera tan serio, sonaría a broma", ha dicho en la Interparlamentaria del PP en Palma.
(El Mundo)

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING IN ADEN

2010-01-11T22:14:00.008+01:00

A year ago, Yemeni President Ali Abdallah Saleh made the startling revelation that his country's security forces apprehended a group of Islamists linked to the Israeli intelligence forces. "A terrorist cell was apprehended and will be referred to the courts for its links with the Israeli intelligence services," he promised.

Saleh added, "You will hear about the trial proceedings." Nothing was ever heard and the trail went cold. Welcome to the magical land of Yemen, where in the womb of time the Arabian Nights were played out.

Combine Yemen with the mystique of Islam, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Israeli intelligence and you get a heady mix. The head of the US Central Command, General David Petraeus, dropped in at the capital, Sana'a, on Saturday and vowed to Saleh increased American aid to fight al-Qaeda. United States President Barack Obama promptly echoed Petraeus' promise, assuring that the US would step up intelligence-sharing and training of Yemeni forces and perhaps carry out joint attacks against militants in the region.

Many accounts say that Obama, who is widely regarded as a gifted and intelligent politician, is blundering into a catastrophic mistake by starting another war that could turn out to be as bloody and chaotic and unwinnable as Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, on the face of it, Obama does seem erratic. The parallels with Afghanistan are striking. There has been an attempt to destroy a US plane by a Nigerian student who says he received training in Yemen. And America wants to go to war.

Yemen, too, is a land of wonderfully beautiful rugged mountains that could be a guerilla paradise. Yemenis are a hospitable lot, like Afghan tribesmen, but as Irish journalist Patrick Cockurn recollects, while they are generous to passing strangers, they "deem the laws of hospitality to lapse when the stranger leaves their tribal territory, at which time he becomes 'a good back to shoot at'." Surely, there is romance in the air - almost like in the Hindu Kush. Fiercely nationalistic, almost every Yemeni has a gun. Yemen is also, like Afghanistan, a land of conflicting authorities, and with foreign intervention, a little civil war is waiting to flare up.

Is Obama so incredibly forgetful of his own December 1 speech outlining his Afghan strategy that he violated his own canons? Certainly not. Obama is a smart man. The intervention in Yemen will go down as one of the smartest moves that he ever made for perpetuating the US's global hegemony. It is America's answer to China's surge.

A cursory look at the map of region will show that Yemen is one of the most strategic lands adjoining waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. It flanks Saudi Arabia and Oman, which are vital American protectorates. In effect, Uncle Sam is "marking territory" - like a dog on a lamppost. Russia has been toying with the idea of reopening its Soviet-era base in Aden. Well, the US has pipped Moscow in the race.

The US has signaled that the odyssey doesn't end with Yemen. It is also moving into Somalia and Kenya. With that, the US establishes its military presence in an entire unbroken stretch of real estate all along the Indian Ocean's western rim. Chinese officials have of late spoken of their need to establish a naval base in the region. The US has now foreclosed China's options. The only country with a coastline that is available for China to set up a naval base in the region will be Iran. All other countries have a Western military presence.

The American intervention in Yemen is not going to be on the pattern of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama will ensure he doesn't receive any body bags of American servicemen serving in Yemen. That is what the American public expects from him. He will only deploy drone aircraft and special forces and "focus on providing intelligence and training to help Yemen counter al-Qaeda militants", according to the US military. Obama's main core objective will be to establish an enduring military presence in Yemen. This serves many purposes.

First, the US move has to be viewed against the historic backdrop of the Shi'ite awakening in the region. The Shi'ites (mostly of the Zaidi group) have been traditionally suppressed in Yemen. Shi'ite uprisings have been a recurring theme in Yemen's history. There has been a deliberate attempt to minimize the percentage of Shi'ites in Yemen, but they could be anywhere up to 45%.

More importantly, in the northern part of the country, they constitute the majority. What bothers the US and moderate Sunni Arab states - and Israel - is that the Believing Youth Organization led by Hussein Badr al-Houthi, which is entrenched in northern Yemen, is modeled after Hezbollah in Lebanon in all respects - politically, economically, socially and culturally.

Yemenis are an intelligent people and are famous in the Arabian Peninsula for their democratic temperament. The Yemeni Shi'ite empowerment on a Hezbollah-model would have far-reaching regional implications. Next-door Oman, which is a key American base, is predominantly Shi'ite. Even more sensitive is the likelihood of the dangerous idea of Shi'ite empowerment spreading to Saudi Arabia's highly restive Shi'ite regions adjoining Yemen, which on top of it all, also happen to be the reservoir of the country's fabulous oil wealth.

Saudi Arabia is entering a highly sensitive phase of political transition as a new generation is set to take over the leadership in Riyadh, and the palace intrigues and fault lines within the royal family are likely to get exacerbated. To put it mildly, given the vast scale of institutionalized Shi'ite persecution in Saudi Arabia by the Wahhabi establishment, Shi'ite empowerment is a veritable minefield that Riyadh is petrified about at this juncture. Its threshold of patience is wearing thin, as the recent uncharacteristic resort to military power against the north Yemeni Shi'ite communities bordering Saudi Arabia testifies.

The US faces a classic dilemma. It is all right for Obama to highlight the need of reform in Muslim societies - as he did eloquently in his Cairo speech last June. But democratization in the Yemeni context - ironically, in the Arab context - would involve Shi'ite empowerment. After the searing experience in Iraq, Washington is literally perched like a cat on a hot tin roof. It would much rather be aligned with the repressive, autocratic government of Saleh than let the genie of reform out of the bottle in the oil rich-region in which it has profound interests.

Obama has an erudite mind and he is not unaware that what Yemen desperately needs is reform, but he simply doesn't want to think about it. The paradox he faces is that with all its imperfections, Iran happens to be the only "democratic" system operating in that entire region.

Iran's shadow over the Yemeni Shi'ite consciousness worries the US to no end. Simply put, in the ideological struggle going on in the region, Obama finds himself with the ultra-conservative and brutally autocratic oligarchies that constitute the ruling class in the region. Conceivably, he isn't finding it easy. If his own memoirs are to be believed, there could be times when the vague recollections of his childhood in Indonesia and his precious memories of his own mother, who from all accounts was a free-wheeling intellectual and humanist, must be stalking him in the White House corridors.

But Obama is first and foremost a realist. Emotions and personal beliefs drain away and strategic considerations weigh uppermost when he works in the Oval Office. With the military presence in Yemen, the US has tightened the cordon around Iran. In the event of a military attack on Iran, Yemen could be put to use as a springboard by the Israelis. These are weighty considerations for Obama.

The fact is that no one is in control as a Yemeni authority. It is a cakewalk for the formidable Israeli intelligence to carve out a niche in Yemen - just as it did in northern Iraq under somewhat comparable circumstances.

Islamism doesn't deter Israel at all. Saleh couldn't have been far off the mark when he alleged last year that Israeli intelligence had been exposed as having kept links with Yemeni Islamists. The point is, Yemeni Islamists are a highly fragmented lot and no one is sure who owes what sort of allegiance to whom. Israeli intelligence operates marvelously in such twilight zones when the horizon is lacerated with the blood of the vanishing sun.

Israel will find a toehold in Yemen to be a god-sent gift insofar as it registers its presence in the Arabian Peninsula. This is a dream come true for Israel, whose effectiveness as a regional power has always been seriously handicapped by its lack of access to the Persian Gulf region. The overarching US military presence helps.

Israel politically to consolidate its Yemeni chapter. Without doubt, Petraeus is moving on Yemen in tandem with Israel (and Britain). But the "pro-West" Arab states with their rentier mentality have no choice except to remain as mute spectators on the sidelines.

Some among them may actually acquiesce with the Israeli security presence in the region as a safer bet than the spread of the dangerous ideas of Shi'ite empowerment emanating out of Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah. Also, at some stage, Israeli intelligence will begin to infiltrate the extremist Sunni outfits in Yemen, which are commonly known as affiliates of al-Qaeda. That is, if it hasn't done that already. Any such link makes Israel an invaluable ally for the US in its fight against al-Qaeda. In sum, infinite possibilities exist in the paradigm that is taking shape in the Muslim world abutting into the strategic Persian Gulf.

Most important, however, for US global strategies will be the massive gain of control of the port of Aden in Yemen. Britain can vouchsafe that Aden is the gateway to Asia. Control of Aden and the Malacca Strait will put the US in an unassailable position in the "great game" of the Indian Ocean. The sea lanes of the Indian Ocean are literally the jugular veins of China's economy. By controlling them, Washington sends a strong message to Beijing that any notions by the latter that the US is a declining power in Asia would be nothing more than an extravagant indulgence in fantasy.

In the Indian Ocean region, China is increasingly coming under pressure. India is a natural ally of the US in the Indian Ocean region. Both disfavor any significant Chinese naval presence. India is mediating a rapprochement between Washington and Colombo that would help roll back Chinese influence in Sri Lanka. The US has taken a u-turn in its Myanmar policy and is engaging the regime there with the primary intent of eroding China's influence with the military rulers. The Chinese strategy aimed at strengthening influence in Sri Lanka and Myanmar so as to open a new transportation route towards the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Africa, where it has begun contesting traditional Western economic dominance.

China is keen to whittle down its dependence on the Malacca Strait for its commerce with Europe and West Asia. The US, on the contrary, is determined that China remains vulnerable to the choke point between Indonesia and Malaysia.

An engrossing struggle is breaking out. The US is unhappy with China's efforts to reach the warm waters of the Persian Gulf through the Central Asian region and Pakistan. Slowly but steadily, Washington is tightening the noose around the neck of the Pakistani elites - civilian and military - and forcing them to make a strategic choice between the US and China. This will put those elites in an unenviable dilemma. Like their Indian counterparts, they are inherently "pro-Western" (even when they are "anti-American") and if the Chinese connection is important for Islamabad, that is primarily because it balances perceived Indian hegemony.

The existential questions with which the Pakistani elites are grappling are apparent. They are seeking answers from Obama. Can Obama maintain a balanced relationship vis-a-vis Pakistan and India? Or, will Obama lapse back to the George W Bush era strategy of building up India as the pre-eminent power in the Indian Ocean under whose shadow Pakistan will have to learn to live?

On the other hand, the Indian elites are in no compromising mood. Delhi was on a roll during the Bush days. Now, after the initial misgivings about Obama's political philosophy, Delhi is concluding that he is all but a clone of his illustrious predecessor as regards the broad contours of the US's global strategy - of which containment of China is a core template.

The comfort level is palpably rising in Delhi with regard to the Obama presidency. Delhi takes the surge of the Israeli lobby in Washington as the litmus test for the Obama presidency. The surge suits Delhi, since the Jewish lobby was always a helpful ally in cultivating influence in the US Congress, media and the rabble-rousing think-tankers as well as successive administrations. And all this is happening at a time when the India-Israel security relationship is gaining greater momentum.

United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates is due to visit Delhi in the coming days. The Obama administration is reportedly adopting an increasingly accommodative attitude toward India's longstanding quest for "dual-use" technology from the US. If so, a massive avenue of military cooperation is about to open between the two countries, which will make India a serious challenger to China's growing military prowess. It is a win-win situation as the great Indian arms bazaar offers highly lucrative business for American companies.

Clearly, a cozy three-way US-Israel-India alliance provides the underpinning for all the maneuvering that is going on. It will have significance for the security of the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. Last year, India formalized a naval presence in Oman.

All-in-all, terrorism experts are counting the trees and missing the wood when they analyze the US foray into Yemen in the limited terms of hunting down al-Qaeda. The hard reality is that Obama, whose main plank used to be "change", has careened away and increasingly defaults to the global strategies of the Bush era. The freshness of the Obama magic is dissipating. Traces of the "revisionism" in his foreign policy orientation are beginning to surface. We can see them already with regard to Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East and the Israel-Palestine problem, Central Asia and towards China and Russia.

Arguably, this sort of "return of the native" by Obama was inevitable. For one thing, he is but a creature of his circumstances. As someone put it brilliantly, Obama's presidency is like driving a train rather than a car: a train cannot be "steered", the driver can at best set its speed, but ultimately, it must run on its tracks.

Besides, history has no instances of a declining world power meekly accepting its destiny and walking into the sunset. The US cannot give up on its global dominance without putting up a real fight. And the reality of all such momentous struggles is that they cannot be fought piece-meal. You cannot fight China without occupying Yemen.
(Asia Times Online)

ANGOLA'S FORGOTTEN WAR. (La guerra dimenticata dell'Angola)

2010-01-10T19:27:00.006+01:00

Togo's national football (soccer) team decided 09 January 2010 to withdraw from the African Cup of Nations in Angola after its team was attacked by gunmen. At least two people were killed and at least six others were wounded in the attack. The attack occurred a few minutes after Togo's team bus, under Angolan military escort, crossed into the Angolan enclave of Cabinda.

As of 2009 the Angolan government claimed that the war in Cabinda is over. However, sporadic attacks on government forces and expatriate workers have continued. A peace deal was signed in 2006 between Angola's government and the rebels under Bento Bembe's leadership, but another FLEC faction has refused to sign on. Illegal detention and torture against suspected separatists continued as of late 2009, when FLEC [Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda] claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of a Chinese worker and the killing of several Angolan soldiers. Antonio Bento Bembe, who once led FLEC, is now a minister without portfolio tasked with human rights.

Human Rights Watch said in a report released 22 Jun 2009 that there was a disturbing pattern of human rights violations by the Angolan armed forces and state intelligence officials. Between September 2007 and March 2009, at least 38 people were arbitrarily arrested by the military in Cabinda and accused of state security crimes. Most were subjected to lengthy incommunicado detention, torture, and cruel or inhumane treatment in military custody and were denied due process rights. Many of those detained were residents of villages in the interior of Cabinda who were arrested during military raids that followed armed attacks attributed to the Liberation Front of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC).

Successive attempts over a quarter of a century to end a "secessionist" conflict in Angola's Cabinda enclave have yet to bear fruit. Political tensions were high in some areas of Cabinda as separatist groups demand a greater share of oil revenue for the province's population. The separatist groups often kidnapped foreign nationals in an attempt to draw attention to their independence claims. The ongoing low-level insurgency group, Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC), active in Cabinda province has a history of threatening foreign nationals with kidnapping.

Often dubbed "Angola's forgotten war", the decades-long conflict in the oil-rich province of 250,000 people took a new turn with a government offensive in October 2002 in the Buco-Zau military region, in northern Cabinda. The armed secessionist movements, with a combined estimated force of no more than 2,000 troops, are no match for the battle-hardened Angolan Armed Forces (FAA - a Portuguese acronym), who in 2002 had finally forced Angola's UNITA rebel movement to sue for peace after three decades of war in the country.

The Angolan economy is highly dependent on its oil sector, which accounts for about half of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and over 90% of export revenues. Cabinda faces a situation similar to the Niger Delta states in Nigeria. Cabinda produces more than half of Angola's oil and accounts for nearly all of its foreign exchange earnings. The province receives about 10% of the taxes paid by ChevronTexaco and its partners operating offshore Cabinda.

Situated in Central Africa between Zaire and Congo, Cabinda stretches along the Atlantic coast and covers an area of about 10,000 square kilometers. A strip of Zairian territory 60 km in width divides Angola from Cabinda. The population of Cabinda, which stands at around 300,000 indigenous people, is comparable in numbers to that of the Seychelles (60,000), of Luxemburg (300,000), of the Gambia and of Equatorial Guinea. Although out of this number only one third live in the actual territory of Cabinda. The other two thirds inhabit the surroundings in a generally stable state on Congolese and Zairian territory. Cabindês is the National Language of Cabinda. However, a large number of Cabinda Citizens speak French. The Cabindans at least for the literate among them, are 90% French speaking and only 10% speak Portuguese. The approved commercial languages are German and French. Unlike most African countries where the majority are Animists, the majority of Cabinda People are Christians.

First visited by the portuguese in the late XV century, Cabinda was composed of 3 Kingdoms : Loango, Kakongo and N'Goyo, at the North of the Congo river, and Ndongo, at the South of the Congo river. When the portuguese arrived to the estuary of the Congo in 1482, they found themselves in contact with one of the largest States in Africa south of the Sahara, and with one of the very few large States situated anywhere near the coastline. This was the Kingdom of the Bakongo, a Bantu People whose King, the Man-i-kongo, had his capital at Mbanzakongo, the modern Sao Salvador. The Kongo Kingdom was a typical 'Sudanic' state, the nucleus of which had been founded, in the late fourteenth or early, fifteenth century, by a conquering group from the small State of Bungu on the north bank of the lower Congo.

Cabinda became a Portuguese Protectorate with the signing of the Treaty of Simulambuco in 1885, and became known as the Portuguese Congo from the earliest 1900 onward. The Cabindansbase their independence claim on the fact that Cabinda was never part of Angola and on the Treaty of Simulambuco of 1885 with the Portuguese as a Portuguese protectorate state. The treaty was part of Portugal's attempt to consolidate its empire during the European powers' scramble for Africa in the late 19th century. In the 1933 Constitution defining the Estado Novo, Cabinda and Angola were considered distinct and separate parts of Portugal. In 1956 Portugal joined the administration of its Protectorate of Cabinda to that of its Colony of Angola.

The year 1960 witnessed the creation of the Freedom Movement for the State of Cabinda (MLEC) followed in 1963 by the forming of two other groups (National Action Committee of the Cabindan People – CAUNC and the Mayombé Alliance – ALLIAMA) supporting the same cause. In 1963 the merger of the three main Independence movements (M.L.E.C., ALIAMA, and C.A.U.N.C.) brought about the creation of FLEC in Pointe-Noire (Loango) Congo. In 1974 the Portugese government authorized FLEC to establish itself on Cabinda territory.

The invasion of Cabinda happened on the 11 of November 1975, when MPLA troops entered Cabinda via Point Noire. They where financially supported by the Oil Giant Chevron, Chevron paid the MPLA to take over the Cabindan oil fields. MPLA troops are still occupying Cabinda. The American Oil Company Chevron is participating along side the MPLA occupying force. Presently, Sonangol daily production is more than 980 000 barrels bringing in more than $8.000.000 a day, providing 90% of angola's GNP. As a result, Cabinda is compared to "Kuwait" in Africa. Since the occupation of the Country of Cabinda by the Communist Armed Forces of angola in 1975, one third of the population has fled to other countries, notably Zaire and the Congo where the number is estimated at 950,000 refugees.

Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) had for years used territory in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Congo-Brazzaville as rear bases from which to launch attacks into Cabinda.

Since the early 1990s, the government of Angola has implemented various measures in order to appease the groups, such as encouraging FLEC members to lay down their arms and join the administration, a move that has met with at least partial success.

The Angolan government has taken heed of complaints from Cabinda’s population about the lack of infrastructure and development in the region and now reinvests 10% of the province’s oil revenues back into the enclave. This is beginning to improve living standards, a crucial element in defusing the conflict.

On 22 May 1996 the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda - Armed Forces of Cabinda (FLEC-FAC) rebels fought with Angolan government troops only a week after FLEC-FAC signed a cease-fire agreement with the government. Since 1975, FLEC-FAC's 3,000-man army had fought the Angolan government for the 2,880-square mile Cabinda province. By late December 1996 clashes between the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) and Angolan government troops continued as the respective forces attempt to capture territory previously held by the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). According to a FLEC spokesman, a succession of recent clashes had resulted in more than five dozen deaths and has injured more than 100 combatants.

Throughout the year 2000 members of the separatist group the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) took hostage several foreigners in Cabinda Province.

In March 2001 FLEC-Renovada, an offshoot of the original FLEC group that is not usually violent, kidnaped five Portuguese employees of a construction company; they were released after 3 months. In May 2000, members of FLEC-FAC kidnaped three foreign and one local employee of a Portuguese company in Cabinda; by July FLEC-FAC had released one of the kidnaped persons for medical reasons. In July it released the remaining abductees.

In 2002 it was widely believed that Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC-FAC), a splinter group of the original FLEC movement, posed the most serious military threat to the government. The government reportedly stationed some 30,000 soldiers in the province for a planned counter-insurgency campaign. In September 2002, the Angolan government announced that it was prepared to open talks with Cabindan separatist groups and offer the province some measure of autonomy, but ruled out the prospect of complete independence. According to Congo, the Angolan Armed Forces advanced into the heart of rebel-held territory and by the end of October 2002 had destroyed Kungo-Shonzo, FLEC-FAC's main base since 1979, in the municipality of Buco-Zau, 110 km from the provincial capital, Cabinda town. The situation deteriorated in October 2002.

Just months later, FAA General Nundo Sachipengo announced that a FLEC-FAC "command post" in the area had been closed down. At the end of December 2002, FAA claimed it had captured the base of another separatist faction, FLEC-Renovada (FLEC-R).

But the apparent containment of Cabinda's separatists has come at a high price. In December 2002, civil rights activists in Angola released details of widespread allegations of human rights abuses by the FAA following the October military campaign against the rebels in the Cabinda enclave. The report, "Terror in Cabinda", contained 20 pages of testimony on alleged abuses, including summary executions, murders, disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture, rape and looting. In one incident reported in November 2002, 30 villagers were said to have died during an attack by a helicopter gunship. In the same month, a 16-year-old girl was allegedly gang-raped by 14 soldiers. Although the report cited abuses by both the Angolan security forces and FLEC, the overwhelming number of accusations were made against the FAA.

By the end of February 2003, General Armando da Cruz Neto, the FAA chief of staff, confidently announced: "We are in a position to state that there have been significant changes in Cabinda's military situation as a result of operations carried out by our armed forces. FLEC-Renovada has ceased to operate since late 2002. We could say that the operation launched to restore peace in Cabinda has reached a positive phase. The next phase entails the development of border control mechanisms, so as to prevent FLEC forces from regrouping and returning."

On 8 June 2003, the Angola Press Agency reported that the FLEC-FAC chief of staff, Francisco Luemba, and six other high-ranking officers had surrendered to government authorities.

A recent visit to the Angolan capital, Luanda, by the founder of the main rebel group has been seen as evidence that peace may finally reach the troubled province. Although details surrounding the meeting of Ranque Franque, leader of the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC), with Angolan authorities in July 2003 remained vague, some observers saw it as the latest attempt by the government to move towards a negotiated settlement with separatists, who have battled the central government and each other since Angola achieved independence in 1975.

FAA personnel were responsible for torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment, including rape, in Cabinda during the year. The Human Rights Report of Cabinda, published by the Cabinda civic association Mpalabanda, reported 50 cases of torture or cruel and degrading treatment during the year. Police were frequently accused of using torture and coerced confessions during investigations and often beat and released suspects in lieu of trials. Persons suspected of ties to FLEC were allegedly subjected to brutal forms of interrogation. During the year, a visit by the U.N. Special Representative for Human Rights Defenders, Hina Jilani, and a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) brought further attention to the problems in Cabinda. The large number of FAA troops deployed within the Cabindan population was identified as a major contributor to the human rights abuses.

In August 2006, FLEC signed a ceasefire and general amnesty agreement with the government. Fighting persisted, however, as some Cabindans regard the ceasefire as a mockery. The Angolan military, in September 2006, admitted that fighting continues in Cabind and blamed "certain armed groups." In response to increased fighting, FLEC appealed to the African Union's Commission on Human Rights for an intervention.
(GlobalSecurity)

SURPRISES? (Sorprese?)

2010-01-02T11:33:00.008+01:00

The presidential election campaign in Ukraine has two main intrigues, if anything extraordinary does not happen in the New Year and Christmas holidays. The first one is a very wide gap between approval ratings of the leaders of the presidential race, Viktor Yanukovych and Yuliya Tymoshenko. When the campaign started, many people said that in the first round Viktor Yanukovych would take 2-5% votes more than Yuliya Tymoshenko would. But according to the recent public opinion polls, the gap has become twice as wide as it was, and now it is about 10%.

Why did this occur? The main reason is a failure of the Cabinet’s budget policy. Ms Tymoshenko hoped to take foreign credits from, in the main, the International

Monetary Fund for a year. The IMF divided the credit up into four tranches. It has issued three tranches, but all of them, in spite of the original agreements, were used for social spending, in other words, “to bribe the voters”. The IMF turned a blind eye to that, but it did not give the fourth tranche suspecting the government not only of spending the money on the social payments but also

of corruption.

Now Yuliya Tymoshenko can indemnify for the budget neither through the domestic incomes nor through the credits. Like in corrida, the moment of truth came, the viewers, the bull and the toreador understand everything. In the case of Yuliya Tymoshenko, the situation is understandable to the political elite, international organizations and Ukraine’s people.

For the first time, there are no Christmas trees in many towns and villages, and the people have too little money to give presents to their children. This did not happen in Ukraine even in hard times. Earlier the government was not ready to fight against the flu, even gauze face-bandages and the cheapest drugs were not sold in the drugstores.

Given the current situation, it is unclear how Yuliya Tymoshenko is going to bridge the gap between herself and Viktor Yanukovych. She has only three weeks (as a matter of fact, only one week because of the holidays) to do that. So, I believe that in the main she will dig up the dirt on her rival even if the dirt is not true at all.

At the beginning of the campaign everybody was sure that Arseniy Yatsenuk would rank third, which would allow him to claim to become Prime Minister. And the second intrigue is that today Serhyi Tigipko ranks third, which I am glad to hear. Probably I am the only person who said that this presidential candidate was very up-and-coming politician. Then his approval rating was about 2% and has reached 9% by now. Serhyi Tigipko has created a good basis to fill a high position after the elections, or to take part in early parliamentary elections with forming his own faction.

Why did Serhyi Tigipko come to rank third? The Ukrainian people do not trust the authorities. Only 3% of the population trust the Parliament. Many presidential candidates are the MPs including Arseniy Yatsenuk. For the recent five years Serhyi Tigipko has been neither MP nor held any high posts. Unlike the other second echelon candidates he is not associated with the current authorities, who have discredited themselves.

(Eurasian Home)

HE'S NOT NAIVE. (Non è ingenuo)

2009-12-29T16:55:00.005+01:00

The two largest nuclear powers say they are close to agreeing on a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), although U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have yet to clinch a deal.

Asked by a reporter what the biggest problem was in the talks, Putin said: "What is the problem? The problem is that our American partners are building an anti-missile shield and we are not building one."

Speaking to reporters in the Far Eastern Russian city of Vladivostok, Putin said the U.S. plans would fundamentally disrupt the Cold War balance of power and Russia would thus be forced to develop new offensive weapons.

The comments, from Russia's most powerful politician, showed the seriousness of the problems hampering talks on a replacement for START I and illustrated the deep unease still felt in Moscow over Washington's missile defense plans.

In September, Obama said the United States would scrap parts of George W. Bush's missile defense plans, a step seen as an attempt to allay Kremlin fears that the system was a direct threat to Russia.

Cutting the thousands of nuclear weapons accumulated during the Cold War is the centerpiece of Obama's efforts to "reset" relations with Russia, which the United States is pressing to offer more help on Afghanistan and Iran.
Russia's leaders have remained wary about Obama's revised missile defense plans, which are based on sea- and land-based missile interceptors in Europe.

"If we are not developing an anti-missile shield, then there is a danger that our partners, by creating such 'an umbrella', will feel completely secure and thus can allow themselves to do what they want, disrupting the balance, and aggressiveness will rise immediately," Putin said.

"In order to preserve balance ... we need to develop offensive weapons systems," Putin said, echoing a pledge by Medvedev last week to develop a new generation of strategic nuclear weapons.

Putin said Moscow wanted more information about the U.S. plans in exchange for details about Russia's deployed nuclear offensive missiles.

"The problems of anti-missile defense and offensive weapons are very tightly linked to each other," he said, adding that talks on a new treaty were moving in a generally positive direction.

Russia and the United States failed to agree on a successor to START I by December 5, when the treaty was due to expire, and have extended it as they try to work out a new agreement.

Obama and Medvedev failed to clinch a deal when they met on the sidelines of the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen earlier this month. No reason was given, although they said they were close to an agreement.
(Reuters)

STILLE BOMBARDIERUNG AND SIDE-EFFECTS

2009-12-29T16:06:00.007+01:00

Last week U.S. president Barack Obama authorized the bombing of northwest Yemen, resulting in the killing of at least 120 people including children.

The U.S. military support included warplanes and intelligence. However the White House stated that its mission was to fight al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen.
The attacks occurred last Thursday November 17, 2009 and it follows four months of continuing combats in the region, between Yemen and Saudi Arabia -U.S. strong ally- against the Houthi rebels, a religious-based group of mostly Shiite [Shia] Muslims.
The internal conflict in Yemen started in 2004 but the military conflict has restarted in August 2009, after peace talks failed. This has caused the displacement of over 175,000 civilians in the border region between both countries. A humanitarian crisis is increasing in the region, with children being the most affected.
Videos released by the rebels show the violent attacks.
The Obama administration has said the U.S. responded to requests from the government of Yemen. The U.S. says they are fighting against al-Qaeda, as the pro Israel newspaper The New York Times reports:

[U.S.] support was approved by president Obama and came at the request of the Yemeni government. The American contributions were intended to help Yemen to prevent Al Qaeda from mounting attacks against American and other foreign targets inside its borders.

While most U.S. media ignored the attack for two days, the Iran government's international news website Press TV posted this last Saturday November 19:

Upon the orders of Obama, the military warplanes on Thursday blanketed two camps in the North of the Yemeni capital, Sana'a, claiming there were "an imminent attack against a US asset was being planned," ABC News quoted anonymous administration officials as saying on Friday.
The US air raids were then followed by a Yemeni ground forces attack. The operation led to the death of around 120 people of whom many were civilians, including children, the report quoted Yemeni opposition as saying.
Obama also contacted Yemen's President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, after the blitz in order to "congratulate" him on his efforts against 'al-Qaeda,' the US news outlet quoted White House officials as telling reporters earlier.
The latest development comes in the wake of recently intensified attacks on the country's Shia Houthi fighters which has brought about a dire humanitarian situation in northern Yemen.
So far, the US officials have categorically denied any direct involvement in the air strikes on Houthi fighters, alleging they have only targeted growing al-Qaeda training camps, mostly located in southern parts of the Persian Gulf state. Yemen's Houthi fighters however insist US fighter jets have been bombing their region, claiming the lives of civilians in their air raids.

To understand the Yemen conflict, we also must understand of the centuries old Sunni-Shiite rivalry which is wisely used by the U.S., Europe, and especially Israel to maintain and increase its influence in the Middle East region.
Yemen population of 23 million people with an average age of 16 years old, is mostly of Arab origin, about 50-55% are Shaf'i Sunni Muslim religion and 40-45% are Zaydi Shiite [Shia] Muslims, but the country is ruled by the Shiite mostly with close ties to Iran, a Shiite majority country. Yemen is located in the southern tip of the Arabian peninsula and it borders with mostly-Sunni Oman and Saudi Arabia.
Yemen, says it's fighting the al-Qaeda influence in its territory. Al-Qaeda is a Sunni pan-Islamic movement that rejects Jewish-Christian influence in the Muslim countries, and it took credit for the 9/11 attacks in the United States. About 40% of the Guantanamo detainees are from Yemen, and the U.S. embassy in Sanaa has been a target of violent attacks.
Yemen is ruled by president Ali Abdullah Saleh, is a Shia leader who has helped with the unification of the country in the 1960s' after the British colonial rule led to a division of the country. Salh is in power for the last 30 years, and he has accused Shia-ruled Iran of supporting the Houthi rebels.
North Yemen -historically pro western- is dominated by the Shiites, and the southern Yemen is mostly Sunni with a strong Marxist influence remaining from the previous government, which united with the north in 1990.
Yemen military offensive is also being supported by the Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia, whose military latest attack in northern Yemen killed about 54 people, according to Al Jazeera. In that attack, the leader of the Houthis was reportedly killed reports the BBC:

The Houthis, named after their leader's family, say the Saudis are helping the Yemeni government suppress their demand for greater local autonomy. The Houthis say they are trying to reverse the political, economic and religious marginalisation of the Zaydi [Shiite] community in Yemen.
The Zaydi community are a minority in Yemen, but make up the majority in the north of the country. The insurgents have been fighting the government since 2004. The government launched a fresh offensive in August 2009, which precipitated a new wave of intense fighting. It accuses the Houthis of wanting to re-establish Zaydi clerical rule, which ended in 1962.

The United States military is using al-Qaeda as a excuse to support Yemen in this war, but mostly is obvious that it wants to increase its military presence in the Middle East. Pentagon officials declared to the UK's The Daily Telegraph newspaper:

American officials told The Daily Telegraph the country is becoming a "reserve" base for the terrorist network, which considers it a safe haven. "Yemen is becoming a reserve base for al-Qaeda's activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan," said a US military official. [...]
Yemen is the ancestral home of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the local arm of the network, has provided many of the group's leaders. One of al-Qaeda's worst attacks on [the U.S.], the bombing of the USS Cole, took place in Aden in 2000, killing 17 [U.S.] sailors.

In the other extreme, The Jawa Report, a U.S. based anti-Muslim and conservative news blog -that calls Arabs as "Jawas" I suppose in reference to Indonesia the most populated Muslim nation in the world- is even criticizing the attacks, perhaps in order to attack Obama:

When a counter-terror air strike kills more civilians than an average suicide bombing, can it be called a success? Discounting the dead kids for just a minute and using even the coldest pragmatic standards, the US air strikes in Yemen did much more harm than good to the US on multiple levels and will negatively impact security for a decade.

The Atlantic Wire a well known pro Israel publication founded in 1857 in Boston and now based in Washington, DC, says that Yemen could become "the Next Afghanistan". In other words, another excuse for a U.S. military intervention overseas:

How worried should we be about Yemen? The small Arab state sits south of prosperous Saudia Arabia and just across the Gulf of Aden from Somalia, the world's most failed state. Long plagued by separatist insurgencies and terrorism, many analysts fear that Yemen is on the edge of becoming an international crisis point on the scale of Afghanistan.
Yemenis make up 40% of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Yemen, along with Somalia and of course Afghanistan, is frequently cited as a safe haven for terrorism. Because al-Qaeda is a predominantly Arab organization, and Yemen is an Arab state unlike Somalia or Afghanistan, some fear it could be more susceptible to al-Qaeda infiltration. Yemen's dilapidated economy, expected to decline over the next year and disintegrate as oil runs out by 2017, could plunge the nation into chaos.
The U.S. is already engaging Yemen's problems, if lightly. On Thursday, a series of bombings hit suspected terrorist sites in Yemen, with apparent American support. The extent of U.S. involvement remains unclear, however, with news reporting ranging from mere intelligence assistance to Yemeni officials to launching cruise missiles against the targets.

One day after the U.S. attacks in Yemen, the pro Israel newspaper The Washington Post announced that the Obama administration is planning to repatriate dozens of Yemeni prisoners from Guantanamo, but the current crisis in Yemen may delay the plans:

The Obama administration is planning to repatriate six Yemenis held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a transfer that could be a prelude to the release of dozens more detainees to Yemen, according to sources with independent knowledge of the matter.
The release is a significant first step toward dealing with the largest group of detainees at the prison -- there are currently 97 Yemenis there -- and toward meeting President Obama's goal of closing the facility.
But Yemen's security problems and lack of resources have spawned fears about its ability to monitor and rehabilitate returnees.

That same day, the U.S. Senate approved the scandalous 2010 Defense Budget of $636 billion dollars, including $128 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This represents an increase of $11 billion from the 2009 budget. The budget was passed in the Senate by a wow 88-10 majority vote, three days after the House approved it with a whooping 395-34 vote.
The U.S. 2010 Budget for Health Care is about $821.7 billion, but a big chuck of it goes to the same Insurance corporations that boycotted the U.S. Health Care reform bill, that now excludes Public Option. In times of recession, U.S. citizens health will continue under the control of private corporations.
With a poverty rate of 46% and growing, Yemen has an external debts of $6 billion dollars and the nation is now facing a worsening humanitarian crisis, with over 175 thousands people being displaced from their homes by the current civil war. The most affected are children, with half of them showing signs of chronic nutrition deprivation.
(Carlos in DC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It now appears that air travelers from all across the world are going to be facing tougher security measures and delays. This news comes after a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist came within moments of blowing up a transatlantic jet that was carrying 254 people on board.

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, came back from Christmas holiday to order two anti terrorism reviews as aviation leaders attempt to close loopholes that failed to stop Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. This is a man that is a Nigerian extremist that smuggled explosive materials onto a Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day.

This attack came just four days after a video was posted on an extremist website that showed an al-Qaeda militant in Yemen saying that they are carrying a bomb to hit the enemies of God. Abdulmutallab, a former student of Britain, was restrained by passengers and crew as he attempted to detonate a bomb that was sewn into his underpants.

As the man emerged from the toilet, he put a blanket over his lap and complained about an upset stomach. It was during this time that he tried to operate the bomb. However, passengers and cabin crew restrained him as flames came from his clothing.

Flights are now being delayed as much as four hours as passengers have to face extra screenings and are limited to one item of hand luggage. Under this new measure, in the final hours before landing in the United States, passengers are now banned from standing up, using toilets and holding blankets.
(Comparecarrentals.co.uk)

HOW CHILE WILL OVERCOME GLOBAL CRISIS: FROM PINERA TO PINERA. (Come il Cile supererà la crisi globale: da Pinera a Pinera)

2009-12-14T15:49:00.009+01:00

Chilean billionaire Sebastian Pinera may emerge as the leader in the first round of the country’s presidential election today without garnering enough votes to avoid a second-round run-off in January, polls show.

The former investment banker leads the ruling coalition’s Eduardo Frei and 36-year-old lawmaker Marco Enriquez-Ominami by more than 10 percentage points. The top two finishers in today’s ballot will take part in a runoff election Jan. 17.

“All the polls are very clear: Pinera will come first and Frei will probably come second,” said Robert Funk, director of the public affairs institute at the University of Chile in Santiago. “On Monday we start again from zero. It will become a new campaign.”

Today’s poll results may make it easier to predict whether Pinera, 60, will win the runoff election and end 20 years of rule by the coalition that unseated dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1988. Should he win more than 45 percent of the vote, Pinera will be the likely winner in January, while anything less than 43 percent means he may struggle in the second round, Funk said.

Pinera will probably win 44 percent of votes cast, while Frei will get 31 percent and Enriquez-Ominami will get 18 percent, according to a December poll by the Santiago-based Center for the Study of Contemporary Reality. The survey of 1,200 people has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

As president, Pinera would seek to steer Latin America’s most stable economy toward more of the free-market policies favored by the regime that overthrew socialist Salvador Allende in 1973. The coalition of Socialists and Christian Democrats known as the Concertacion has run Chile since democracy was restored in 1990, longer than any democratic movement currently governing in Latin America.

“Concertacion supporters will obviously be disappointed but they can also rationalize it by saying it’s time for a change after 20 years,” said Susan Purcell, director of the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami.

Frei, 67, is campaigning on a pledge for “continuity and change,” he said in a July 24 speech in southern Chile. He’s promised to keep the country on the Concertacion’s well-worn path and extend social security programs to the middle class.

Enriquez-Ominami is the biological son of a leftist guerrilla leader who died in a gunfight with Pinochet’s security forces. He quit the Socialist Party to protest Frei’s nomination and has sapped supporters from both Frei and Pinera, calling for constitutional reform, legalizing abortion and gay marriage.

The coalition has held on to power by preserving Pinochet’s economic legacy of balanced budgets, privatized pensions [the reform introduced by then-Secretary of Labor and Social Security, José Piñera; entry of mine] and low tariffs, while slashing poverty to 14 percent from 39 percent between 1990 and 2006, according to government data.

“We’re choosing between economically prudent policies from the Concertacion and economically prudent, but slightly more liberal, pro-market policies from Pinera,” said Benito Berber, an economist at RBS Securities Inc. in Stamford, Connecticut.

Chileans will also be voting to fill 18 of 38 places in the Senate and all 120 seats in the lower house of Chile’s Congress.

Pinera, who Forbes magazine says has $1 billion, has promised to sell his stake in Santiago-based Lan Airlines SA and put other holdings in blind trusts if he is elected.

President Michelle Bachelet is the Concertacion’s most popular leader ever with an 83 percent approval rating in October, according a poll by the Center for Public Studies in Santiago, a business-sponsored research group. The poll of 1,505 people has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Bachelet sustained her popularity amid the world’s worst economic crisis since the Great Depression because she was able to tap about $20 billion of savings she had refused to spend during the preceding copper boom. She used the money to pay for tax cuts, cash handouts and investment in infrastructure during the 2009 recession.

Frei, president from 1994 to 2000, left office with an approval rating of 28 percent, the lowest of any Concertacion president, according to the Center for Public Studies.

“This election is about Chile trying to change from post- dictatorship politics to a Chile of normal politics,” Funk said. “It is the end of an era.”

(Bloomberg)

VIETNAM RELOADED

2009-12-03T12:55:00.005+01:00

Gli Stati Uniti si trovano nel mezzo della più grave crisi dell'impiego dai tempi della Grande Depressione, e il Presidente Barack Obama sta seguendo le orme di George W. Bush dispensando trilioni di dollari a poche grandi banche. I contribuenti americani non hanno avuto nulla. E adesso si prendono la ciliegina sulla torta, con Obama che intensifica la sua guerra in Afghanistan. Un Vietnam in versione “lite” con una provvisoria data di scadenza, luglio 2011, per l'inizio di un ritiro.

Il tanto pubblicizzato discorso tenuto da Obama martedì sera a West Point – ritoccato fino all'ultimo dal presidente in persona – era una scaltra rimasticatura del fardello dell'uomo bianco, con la sicurezza nazionale americana avvolta nel glorioso manto della “nobile lotta per la libertà”.

A un livello più pedestre è vero che la storia si ripete, ma come farsa. Con il surge “lite” di Obama, le truppe di occupazione USA e NATO raggiungeranno nella prima metà del 2010 il livello dell'occupazione sovietica al suo punto più alto, nella prima metà degli anni Ottanta. E tutta questa formidabile potenza di fuoco per combattere non più di 25.000 taliban afgani, solo 3000 dei quali armati di tutto punto.

Ciascun soldato del nuovo surge di Obama (parola che non ha mai pronunciato nel suo discorso, tranne quando si è riferito a un “surge di civili”) costerà un milione di dollari – benché il Pentagono insista nel dire che è solo mezzo milione.

Obama continua a ripetere che l'Afghanistan è una “guerra di necessità”, per via dell'11 settembre. Sbagliato. L'amministrazione Bush aveva pianificato l'attacco all'Afghanistan già prima dell'11 settembre. (Si veda Get Osama! Now! Or else ..., Asia Times Online, 30 agosto 2001.)“Guerra di necessità” è un educato remix della vecchia “guerra al terrore” dei neocon: date la colpa ai tizi con l'asciugamano in testa e sfruttate l'ignoranza e la paura dell'opinione pubblica. Fu così che al-Qaeda fu equiparata ai taliban e che il leader iracheno Saddam Hussein venne coinvolto nell'11 settembre dalla cricca dei neoconservatori.

Al di là della sua nobile retorica Obama continua a comportarsi come Bush, non facendo distinzione tra al-Qaeda – un'organizzazione araba che pratica il jihad e il cui obiettivo è un califfato globale – e i taliban, afghani autoctoni che vogliono un emirato islamico in Afghanistan ma non avrebbero scrupoli a far affari con gli Stati Uniti, come fecero all'epoca dell'amministrazione Clinton quando gli Stati Uniti volevano a tutti i costi costruire un gasdotto trans-afghano. E inoltre Obama non può ammettere che i neo-taliban “Pak” adesso esistono a causa dell'occupazione statunitense dell'“Af”.

Mettendocela tutta per distanziare la sua nuova strategia dal trauma del Vietnam, Obama ha sottolineato che “Diversamente dal Vietnam, il popolo americano è stato malignamente attaccato dall'Afghanistan”. Sbagliato. Se la ricostruzione ufficiale dell'11 settembre regge, i dirottatori furono addestrati in Europa Occidentale e perfezionarono le loro tecniche negli Stati Uniti.

E quando sottolinea gli sforzi per “disgregare, smantellare e sconfiggere” al-Qaeda e per negarle un “rifugio sicuro”, Obama contraddice in tutto e per tutto il suo consigliere per la sicurezza nazionale, il General James Jones, il quale ha ammesso che in Afghanistan ci sono meno di 100 jihadisti di al-Qaeda.

Il mito di al-Qaeda va smascherato. Come ha potuto al-Qaeda mettere in atto l'11 settembre e tuttavia essere incapace di organizzare un solo significativo attentato in Arabia Saudita? Perché al-Qaeda è essenzialmente una brigata mal camuffata dei servizi segreti sauditi. Gli Stati Uniti vogliono vincere “la guerra al terrore”? Perché non mandare dei corpi speciali in Arabia Saudita anziché in Afghanistan e far fuori i wahhabiti, che stanno alla base di tutto?

Obama avrebbe perlomeno potuto far caso a quello che ha detto ad al-Jazeera Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, il famigerato guerrigliero afghano, ex protetto dell'Arabia Saudita, ex beniamino della CIA e attuale nemico degli Stati Uniti. “Il governo taliban in Afghanistan è caduto a causa della strategia sbagliata di al-Qaeda”, ha sottolineato Hekmatyar.

È una vivida descrizione dell'attuale completa frattura tra al-Qaeda e i taliban, entrambi “Af” e “Pak”. I taliban afghani, a cominciare dal loro leader storico, il Mullah Omar, hanno imparato dal loro grave errore, e non permettono agli arabi di al-Qaeda di avvelenare l'Afghanistan. Analogamente, l'ascesa del neo-talibanismo di qua e di là del confine non si traduce necessariamente in un “rifugio sicuro” per al-Qaeda. I jihadisti di al-Qaeda si nascondono presso pochi selezionati e prezzolati elementi tribali che i servizi segreti pakistani potrebbero localizzare all'istante, se solo lo volessero.Obama ha anche accettato la premessa del Pentagono secondo cui l'America può ricolonizzare l'Afghanistan con la contro-insurrezione.

Secondo la dottrina del Generale David “Mi sto sempre posizionando in vista delle elezioni del 2012” Petraeus, la proporzione soldati/autoctoni dev'essere 20 o 25 su 1000 afghani. Adesso Petraeus e il Generale Stanley McChrystal ne hanno ottenuti altri 30.000. Inevitabilmente i generali – proprio come nel Vietnam, che a Obama piaccia o no – chiederanno molto di più, fino a ottenere quello che vogliono; almeno 660.000 soldati, più tutti gli extra. Al momento gli Stati Uniti hanno circa 70.000 soldati in Afghanistan.

Questo significherebbe ripristinare la coscrizione negli Stati Uniti. E sono altri trilioni che gli Stati Uniti non hanno e che dovranno prendere in prestito... dalla Cina.

E a cosa porterebbe? Negli anni Ottanta la potente armata rossa sovietica ha usato tutti gli espedienti della contro-insurrezione a sua disposizione. I sovietici hanno ucciso un milione di afghani. Hanno fatto cinque milioni di profughi. Hanno perso 15.000 soldati. Hanno praticamente mandato l'Unione Sovietica in bancarotta. Ci hanno rinunciato. E se ne sono andati.

Ma allora perché gli Stati Uniti sono ancora in Afghanistan? Con uno sguardo in macchina, come rivolgendosi al “popolo afghano”, il presidente ha detto: “non abbiamo interesse a occupare il vostro paese”. Ma non poteva dire le cose come stanno agli spettatori americani.

Per l'America delle corporazioni l'Afghanistan non significa nulla; è il quinto paese più povero del mondo, una società tribale e decisamente non consumistica. Ma per le grandi compagnie petrolifere statunitensi e per il Pentagono l'Afghanistan ha un gran fascino.

Per il Big Oil, il sacro graal è l'accesso al gas naturale del Turkmenistan proveniente dal Mar Caspio, cioè il Pipelineistan nel cuore del nuovo grande gioco in Eurasia, evitando sia la Russia che l'Iran. Ma non c'è modo di costruire un gasdotto enormemente strategico come il TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) – attraverso la provincia di Helman e il Balochistan pakistano – con un Afghanistan che si trova nel caos grazie alle misere imprese dell'occupazione USA/NATO.

C'è interesse a sorvegliare/controllare un traffico di droga da 4 miliardi di dollaro l'anno, direttamente e indirettamente. Fin dall'inizio dell'occupazione USA/NATO l'Afghanistan è diventato un narco-Stato de facto, producendo il 92% dell'eroina mondiale per una serie di cartelli narco-terroristici internazionali.

E c'è la dottrina del dominio ad ampio spettro del Pentagono per cui l'Afghanistan fa parte dell'impero mondiale delle basi statunitensi, che controllano da vicino competitori strategici come la Cina e la Russia.

Obama ha semplicemente ignorato che in Eurasia si sta svolgendo un nuovo grande gioco dalla posta vertiginosamente alta. E così, a causa di tutto quello che Obama non ha detto a West Point, gli americani si sorbiscono una “guerra di necessità” che sta prosciugando trilioni di dollari che potrebbero essere impiegati per ridurre la disoccupazione e aiutare davvero l'economia statunitense.

Inevitabilmente i taliban metteranno in atto a loro volta un ben coordinato contro-surge. Già adesso, senza surge e nonostante tutti i piani di contro-insurrezione di Petraeus, hanno catturato la provincia del Nuristan. E ve lo ricordate il surge estivo di Obama nella provincia di Helmand? Be', Helmand è ancora la capitale mondiale dell'oppio.

Nel suo discorso Obama ha cercato con tutti i mezzi di dare l'impressione che la guerra afghana possa essere controllata da Washington. È impossibile.

Con tutte le sue promesse di “cooperazione con il Pakistan” (menzionato 21 volte nel discorso) Obama non ha potuto in alcun modo ammettere che il suo surge versione “lite” destabilizzerà il Pakistan ancor di più. Invece potrebbe affidare la guerra al Pakistan. Invece di fissare, come ha fatto Obama, il luglio 2011 come data per il possibile inizio di un ritiro, comunque subordinato alle “condizioni sul terreno”, questa vera strategia d'uscita dovrebbe fissare una tempistica per un ritiro completo. Islamabad sarebbe così libera di fare quello che non è stato possibile né ai sovietici né agli americani: sedersi con i capi tribù e negoziare attraverso una serie di jirga (concilî tribali).

Obama scommette su quella che definisce “transizione delle responsabilità agli afghani”. È un miraggio. I servizi di sicurezza pakistani – che vedono ancora l'Afghanistan in termini di “profondità strategica” e di spazio di manovra nel contesto più ampio di un conflitto con l'India – non permetterà mai che ciò avvenga rigorosamente alle condizioni afghane. Non sarà corretto nei confronti degli afghani, ma così stanno le cose.

In Afghanistan praticamente tutti ritengono – giustamente – che Hamid Karzai sia il Presidente dell'occupazione. Karzai, che a malapena riesce a restare aggrappato al suo trono a Kabul, è stato imposto nel dicembre 2001 al re Zahir Shah dal proconsole di Bush Zalmay Khalilzad dopo una rovente discussione, ed è stato di recente confermato in un'elezione alla americana, palesemente truccata. Lo stile americano non è lo stile afghano. Il collaudato stile afghano si è basato per secoli sulla loya jirga – un grande concilio tribale in cui tutti partecipano, discutono e infine raggiungono un consenso.

Dunque il finale di partita in Afghanistan non può essere molto diverso da una spartizione del potere all'interno di una coalizione, con i taliban nel ruolo di partito più forte. Perché? Basta esaminare la storia della guerriglia dall'Ottocento in poi, o ripensare al Vietnam. I guerriglieri che combattono più strenuamente contro gli stranieri l'hanno sempre vita. E perfino con una fetta del potere ai taliban a Kabul, i potenti vicini dell'Afghanistan – il Pakistan, l'Iran, la Cina, la Russia, l'India – si assicureranno che il caos non superi i loro confini. È un affare asiatico, questo, che deve essere risolto dagli asiatici; è una buona ragione per trovare una soluzione nell'ambito della Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO, Organizzazione di Shanghai per la Cooperazione).

Nel frattempo, c'è la realtà. Il dominio ad ampio spettro del Pentagono ha ottenuto quello che cercava, per ora. Chiamatela vendetta dei generali. Chi vince, a parte loro? Il guerriero da salotto australiano David Kilcullen, consigliere e ghostwriter di Petraeus e McChrystal considerato un semidio dai guerrafondai di Washington. Alcuni neocon moderati; di certo non l'ex vice presidente Dick Cheney, che ha condannato la “debolezza” di Obama. E complessivamente tutti coloro che hanno sottoscritto il concetto di “guerra lunga” del Pentagono.

Due settimane prima di andare a Oslo per accettare il Premio Nobel per la Pace, Obama vende al mondo il suo nuovo Vietnam versione “lite” tenendo un discorso in un'accademia militare. Onore a George Orwell. È proprio vero che la guerra è pace.
(mirumir)

(English version)

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION: WHO CHOSE VAN ROMPUY? (Chi ha scelto Van Rompuy?)

2009-11-20T18:11:00.007+01:00

Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy has to date been careful when it comes to stating overly explicit visions with regard to the European presidency. His low-key profile is, after all, his biggest asset when it comes to scooping the post. But Thursday night behind the closed doors of a Bilderberg Group gathering at the Castle of the Valley of the Duchess, he finally showed his hand, says De Tijd newspaper. The Bilderberg Group is a circle of elite figures from the international political, finance and corporate worlds that hold annual invitation-only meetings. Van Rompuy told the elite club that the European government leaders are increasingly becoming proponents of Europe tapping off green income, so that the contributions of member states to the EU can be decreased. The economic revival will not suffice, said Van Rompuy, when it comes to eliminating the massive budgetary deficits in numerous member states. His assertion did not go unchallenged, and an Italian guest even put some tricky questions to him. De Tijd says that his pronouncement on a European green tax is already doing the rounds in the European capitals. It might rapidly become a weapon with which to attack his candidacy, the newspaper suggests. Van Rompuy accepted the invitation of Etienne Davignon to address the gathering because the discretion of the Bilderberg Group has attained legendary status, and what is said at its meetings has never leaked out. Van Rompuy was also asked what role the first president of Europe should play. He responded that Europe needs a guiding president rather than a leading one.

(Flanders Today)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The man tipped to be Europe’s first president is already considering new EU taxes to fund the rising cost of Brussels and the welfare state.

Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian Prime Minister, broke his silence before Thursday’s summit to choose the president — but only at a meeting of the secretive Bilderberg group of top politicians, bankers and businessmen.

Mr Van Rompuy’s contentious remarks were aired privately amid the grand surroundings of the Castle of the Valley of the Duchess near Brussels. The château hosted the talks on the Treaty of Rome in 1957 that launched the European Union.

His office released parts of his speech in which he talked of funding social welfare from new green taxes and went on to discuss “financing levies at European level”, which his spokesman said later was similar to Gordon Brown’s call for an international tax on financial transactions.

The funding of the EU was discussed further after his speech, according to Flemish newspapers, but his office refused to give more details. Mr Van Rompuy remains the favourite for the position of president of the European Council — other contenders include Tony Blair — to be chosen when the 27 EU leaders meet in Brussels in two days’ time.

Mr Van Rompuy’s Bilderberg intervention will alarm non-federalist countries such as Britain and Denmark, which have long opposed giving the EU tax-raising powers and breaking the link with national funding.

Newer member states, already angry at the opaque process of choosing a president, are unlikely to be impressed at the secretive forum used by Mr Van Rompuy to talk about his European vision.

“The financing of the welfare state, irrespective of the social reform we implement, will require new resources,” Mr Van Rompuy told European and American guests, who included Henry Kissinger. The former US Secretary of State is cited as the inspiration for an EU president following his reported remark: “Who do I call when I want to call Europe?”

Mr Van Rompuy added: “The green fiscal instrument is one possibility although an ambiguous one: this type of regulatory tax should eventually become redundant. But the possibility of financial levies at European level needs to be seriously reviewed and for the first time ever, the big countries in the Union are open to this.”

EU federalists were delighted to hear Mr Van Rompuy talk of European taxes.

Andrew Duff, the Liberal Democrat MEP and president of the Union of European Federalists, said: “He is a federalist and federalists believe in that approach. We have got to have a reform of the financial system. We have also got to grow the size of the EU budget to reflect the growth of competences that are in the Lisbon treaty, such as foreign and security policy, a common energy policy and climate change measures.” Britain is traditionally opposed to EU-wide tax proposals, despite Mr Brown’s recently proposed “Tobin tax” – an international levy on financial transactions as proposed by James Tobin.

William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: “Britain would not be the only EU country that would find a proposal to give the EU tax-raising powers totally unacceptable. Advocacy of such a policy is not a fruitful use of anyone’s time."
(TimesOnline)
Passo e chiudo.
FRA

TO BLAIR OR NOT TO BLAIR?

2009-10-07T12:24:00.009+02:00

Of the eight former heads of state or government whose names have been bandied about on and off since the European Union decided to create the post (of EU President), Tony Blair has always been considered one of the strongest candidates. He has the support of his native Britain, Ireland, France and Italy.

But not everyone is lining up behind him, as a letter released by the Benelux countries on Tuesday goes to show. In their missive, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg outlined what they would be looking for in a president.
They said the successful candidate ought to "demonstrate his European engagement and a developed vision on all the Union's policies."

One diplomat interpreted the statement as a polite way of telling Blair that they don't think he is "best placed" to get the job.

And while Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has said he favors the former British prime minister, he told Corriere della Sera newspaper that he can also understand why other countries have reservations about him.

If that trend continues, come the middle of next year, David Cameron's Conservatives will be running the country. And if there is one issue upon which he has been vocal above all others, it is the European Union and the legal document meant to reform it, the Lisbon Treaty.
Cameron has always maintained that if he got into Downing Street before the treaty had been ratified by all member states, he would invite the public to have their say at the ballot box. But a recent survey of 2,205 Conservative party members conducted for the Independent newspaper revealed that some 80 percent would want their leader to call a referendum even if the treaty were ratified by all 27 EU nations.
And it is precisely such anti-European sentiment from across the Channel that damages Blair's chances in Brussels.

Other contenders include the former Spanish leader Felipe Gonzalez, one-time prime minister of Luxembourg Jean-Claude Juncker, past Irish president Mary Robinson and ex-leaders of Finland, the Netherlands and Belgium.

The appointment will not be made until the ratification process is complete, and that depends upon Poland and the Czech Republic signing up. Although Poland has said it is planning to become a signatory, Czech President Vaclav Klaus has vowed not to put his name to it until the Supreme Court has confirmed it conforms with the country's constitution.
(Deutsche Welle)

Passo e chiudo.

FRA

IL "GRANDE GIOCO" OGGI. (The "Great Game" today)

2009-07-28T12:32:00.012+02:00

Traduzione italiana, dal blog "mirumir", della prima parte di un bell'articolo di Pepe Escobar, apparso di recente su Asia Times Online. Potete consultare interamente tale articolo ai seguenti link:
English version part.1
English version part.2

Nel paese delle meraviglie iraniano le cose si fanno sempre più curiose. Pensate a quello che è successo la scorsa settimana durante le preghiere del venerdì a Teheran, condotte personalmente dall'ex presidente Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, anche detto “Lo Squalo”, l'uomo più ricco dell'Iran che deve parte delle sue fortune all'Irangate, cioè ai contratti segreti degli anni Ottanta con Israele e gli Stati Uniti per l'acquisto di armamenti.

Com'è noto, Rafsanjani sta dietro al raggruppamento conservatore pragmatico Mir-Hossein Mousavi-Mohammad Khatami che ha perso la recente battaglia per il potere – più che le elezioni presidenziali – contro la fazione ultra-conservatrice Ayatollah Khamenei-Mahmud Ahmadinejad-Guardie della Rivoluzione. Durante le preghiere, i sostenitori della fazione egemonica urlavano il solito “Morte all'America”, mentre i conservatori pragmatici se ne sono usciti, per la prima volta, con “Morte alla Russia!” e “Morte alla Cina!”

Ops. Diversamente dagli Stati Uniti e dall'Europa Occidentale, sia la Russia che la Cina hanno accettato quasi istantaneamente la contestata rielezione di Ahmadinejad. È questo a renderli nemici dell'Iran? Oppure i conservatori pragmatici non sono stati informati che l'“eurasiomane” Zbig Brzezinksi – che gode dell'attenzione incondizionata del Presidente degli Stati Uniti Barack Obama – va predicando dagli anni Novanta che è essenziale spezzare l'asse Teheran-Mosca-Pechino e silurare l'Organizzazione di Shanghai per la Cooperazione (Shanghai Cooperation Organization, SCO)?

E non sanno, poi, che i russi e i cinesi – come gli iraniani – sono decisi propugnatori della fine del dollaro come valuta di riserva globale a vantaggio di un paniere (multipolare) di valute, una divisa comune della quale il Presidente russo Dmitrij Medvedev ha avuto l'ardire di presentare un prototipo durante il summit del G-8 svoltosi all'Aquila, in Italia? A proposito, bella monetina. Battuta in Belgio, sfoggia i volti dei capi del G-8 e un motto: “Unità nella diversità”.

“Unità nella diversità” non era esattamente quello che ha in mente l'amministrazione Obama quando si parla di Iran e Russia, indipendentemente dai miliardi e miliardi di byte di retorica. Ma partiamo subito dall'energia.

L'Iran è il numero due al mondo in termini di riserve dimostrate di petrolio (11,2%) e di gas (15,7%), secondo la Rassegna Statistica dell'Energia Mondiale per il 2008 stilata dalla BP.

Se l'Iran optasse per rapporti più distesi con Washington, il Big Oil statunitense si godrebbe la ricchezza energetica del Caspio iraniano. Questo significa che a prescindere dai toni retorici nessuna amministrazione statunitense vorrà mai avere a che fare con un regime iraniano ultra-nazionalista come l'attuale dittatura militare dei mullah.

Quello che spaventa concretamente Washington – da George W. Bush a Obama – è la prospettiva di un asse Russia-Iran-Venezuela. Insieme, l'Iran e la Russia possiedono il 17,6% delle riserve petrolifere mondiali dimostrate. Le petro-monarchie del Golfo Persico – controllate de facto da Washington – ne possiedono il 45%. L'asse Mosca-Teheran-Caracas ne controlla il 25%. Se aggiungiamo il 3% del Kazakistan e il 9,5%, dell'Africa, questo nuovo asse è in grado di contrastare più che efficacemente l'egemonia americana nel Medio Oriente arabo. Lo stesso vale per il gas. Aggiungendo l'“asse” agli “stan” dell'Asia Centrale raggiungiamo il 30% della produzione mondiale di gas. Tanto per fare un confronto, l'intero Medio Oriente – Iran compreso – attualmente soddisfa solo il 12,1% della domanda mondiale di gas.

Un Iran nucleare metterebbe inevitabilmente il turbo al nuovo emergente mondo multipolare. L'Iran e la Russia stanno di fatto mostrando alla Cine e all'India che non è saggio fare affidamento sulla potenza degli Stati Uniti per controllare il petrolio del Medio Oriente arabo. Tutti questi attori sono ben consapevoli del fatto che l'Iraq è ancora occupato, e che che l'ossessione di Washington è ancora quella di privatizzare le enormi riserve petrolifere dell'Iraq.

Come amano sottolineare gli analisti cinesi, quattro potenze emergenti o rinascenti – la Russia, la Cina, l'Iran e l'India – costituiscono dei poli in termini strategici e di civiltà. E tre di esse sono potenze nucleari. Un Iran più sicuro di sé e più assertivo – in grado di gestire l'intero ciclo della tecnologia nucleare – potrebbe tradursi in una maggiore influenza di Iran e Russia in Europa e Asia a scapito di Washington, non solo nella sfera energetica ma anche in quanto promotori di un sistema monetario multipolare.

L'intesa è già in corso. Dal 2008 le autorità iraniane sottolineano che prima o poi l'Iran e la Russia avvieranno gli scambi commerciali in rubli. Gazprom è disposta a farsi pagare il petrolio e il gas in rubli anziché in dollari. E il segretariato dell'Organizzazione dei Paesi Esportatori di Petrolio (OPEC) ha già capito come andranno le cose ammettendo ormai da un anno che entro il 2020 l'OPEC adotterà l'euro.

Non solo l'“asse” Mosca-Teheran-Caracas, ma anche il Qatar e la Norvegia, per esempio, e prima o poi anche gli Emirati Arabi, sono pronti a rompere con il petrodollaro. Non c'è bisogno di dire che la fine del petrodollaro – che sicuramente non avverrà domani – significa la fine del dollaro come valuta di riserva mondiale; la fine di una situazione in cui il mondo paga per gli enormi deficit di bilancio dell'America; e la fine della morsa finanziaria anglo-americana che stringe il mondo dalla seconda metà del XIX secolo.

I rapporti energetici tra l'Iran e la Russia sono invece più complessi: li configura infatti come due scorpioni in una bottiglia. Teheran, isolata dall'Occidente, manca degli investimenti stranieri che servono ad ammodernare le sue strutture energetiche risalenti agli anni Settanta. Ecco perché l'Iran non può trarre pienamente vantaggio dallo sfruttamento delle sue ricchezze energetiche del Caspio.

Qui vediamo all'opera il Pipelineistan in tutto il suo splendore: gli Stati Uniti, già negli anni Novanta, hanno deciso di buttarsi sul Caspio con tutte le loro forze promuovendo l'oleodotto Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) e il gasdotto Baku-Tblisi-Supsa (BTS).

Per Gazprom, l'Iran è letteralmente una miniera d'oro. Nel settembre del 2008 il colosso energetico russo ha annunciato che avrebbe esplorato l'enorme giacimento petrolifero di Azadegan-Nord e altri tre giacimenti. La russa Lukoil ha aumentato le prospezioni e Tatneft ha annunciato la propria partecipazione nel Nord. L'amministrazione George W. Bush pensava di indebolire la Russia e di isolare l'Iran in Asia Centrale. Sbagliato: non ha fatto che accelerare la loro cooperazione strategica nel settore energetico.

Nel febbraio del 1995 Mosca si impegnò a terminare la costruzione di un reattore nucleare a Bushehr. Si trattava di un progetto avviato dallo scià iraniano, colui che si era proclamato “gendarme del Golfo” per conto degli Stati Uniti. Lo scià nel 1974 aveva incaricato la tedesca KWU, ma il progetto era stato bloccato dalla rivoluzione islamica del 1979 e poi colpito gravemente dalle bombe di Saddam Hussein tra il 1984 e il 1988. Così erano entrati in gioco i russi, offrendosi di portare a termine il progetto per 800 milioni di dollari. Nel dicembre del 2001 Mosca cominciò anche a vendere missili a Teheran, un sistema tranquillo per fare un po' di soldi extra offrendo protezione per installazioni strategiche come Bushehr.

In Iran Bushehr è una questione immensamente controversa. Avrebbe dovuto essere ultimato entro il 2000. Secondo le autorità iraniane, però, i russi sembrano non aver mai avuto fretta di terminarlo. Ci sono motivi tecnici – il reattore russo è troppo grande per entrare nella struttura già costruita dalla KWU – cui si aggiunge un deficit di tecnologia degli ingegneri nucleari iraniani.

Ma le ragioni sono soprattutto geopolitiche. L'ex presidente Vladimir Putin ha usato Bushehr come cruciale pedina diplomatica nella sua doppia partita a scacchi con l'Occidente e con gli iraniani. Fu Putin a lanciare l'idea di arricchire l'uranio per conto dell'Iran in Russia; e sulle mosse strategiche per gestire una crisi nucleare globale abbiamo detto tutto. Ahmadinejad – e soprattutto il Leader Supremo – gli opposero un netto rifiuto. La risposta russa fu quella di temporeggiare, e addirittura di sostenere blandamente altre sanzioni contro Teheran volute dagli Stati Uniti.

Teheran capì l'antifona: Putin non era un alleato incondizionato. Dunque nell'agosto del 2006 i russi riuscirono a ottenere un accordo per la costruzione e la supervisione di due nuovi impianti nucleari. Tutto questo significa che la questione nucleare iraniana non può essere risolta senza la Russia. Nello stesso tempo la Russia di Putin sapeva benissimo che un possibile attacco israeliano avrebbe provocato la perdita di un vantaggioso cliente nucleare e una disfatta diplomatica. Medvedev sta attuando la stessa doppia strategia: ripetere ad americani ed europei che la Russia non vuole la proliferazione nucleare in Medio Oriente e ricordare a Teheran che ha più bisogno che mai della Russia.

Un'altra caratteristica della strategia scacchistica russa – mai esposta pubblicamente – è mantenere la cooperazione con Teheran per impedire alla Cina di assumere il comando del progetto senza però far infuriare gli americani. Finché il programma nucleare iraniano resterà incompiuto, la Russia potrà sempre svolgere il saggio ruolo di moderatore tra l'Iran e l'Occidente.

Lo sviluppo di un programma nucleare civile in Iran è un ottimo affare sia per l'Iran che per la Russia per tutta una serie di ragioni.

Innanzitutto sono entrambi militarmente accerchiati. L'Iran è accerchiato strategicamente dagli Stati Uniti in Turchia, Iraq, Arabia Saudita, Bahrein, Pakistan e Afghanistan e dalla potenza navale statunitense nel Golfo Persico e nell'Oceano Indiano. La Russia ha visto la NATO fagocitare i paesi baltici e minacciare di “annettersi” la Georgia e l'Ucraina; la NATO è impegnata in Afghanistan; e gli Stati Uniti sono ancora presenti, in un modo o nell'altro, nell'Asia Centrale.

L'Iran e la Russia hanno la stessa strategia nel Mar Caspio. Di fatto si oppongono ai nuovi stati del Caspio: il Kazakistan, il Turkmenistan e l'Azerbaigian.

L'Iran e la Russia devono anche affrontare la minaccia dell'Islam fondamentalista sunnita. Qui hanno un tacito accordo: per esempio, Teheran non ha mai fatto nulla per aiutare i ceceni. E poi c'è la questione armena. Un asse de facto Mosca-Teheran-Erevan irrita profondamente gli americani.

In questo decennio, infine, l'Iran è diventato il terzo maggiore importatore di armamenti russi dopo la Cina e l'India. Gli armamenti comprendono il sistema anti-missile Tor M-1, che difende le installazioni nucleari iraniane.

Grazie a Putin, dunque, l'alleanza Iran-Russia si spiega su tre fronti: nucleare, energia e armamenti.
Ci sono delle crepe, in tutto questo? Certo.
Primo, Mosca non vuole assolutamente un programma nucleare militare iraniano. Significherebbe “destabilizzazione regionale”. Mosca vede l'Asia Centrale come propria area di influenza, dunque un'influenza dell'Iran nella ragione è considerata alquanto problematica. Per quanto riguarda il Caspio, l'Iran ha bisogno della Russia per una soluzione giuridica soddisfacente (è un mare o un lago? Come ripartirlo tra ciascun paese confinante?)

Inoltre la nuova dittatura militare iraniana dei mullah reagirà selvaggiamente se si ritroverà contro la Russia al Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite. Significherebbe una rottura delle relazioni economiche – molto negativa per entrambe le parti – ma anche la possibilità che Teheran si metta ad appoggiare l'Islam radicale ovunque, dal Caucaso Meridionale all'Asia Centrale.

Nella complessità di queste circostanze, non è poi così impensabile immaginare una sorta di educata Guerra Fredda tra Teheran e Mosca.

Dal punto di vista della Russia è ancora una questione di “asse” - che sarebbe costituito da Mosca-Teheran-Erevan-Nuova Delhi e contrasterebbe l'asse spalleggiato dagli Stati Uniti Ankara-Tbilisi-Tel Aviv-Baku. Ma questo è ancora oggetto di accese discussioni, e l'ampio dibattito coinvolge perfino la dirigenza russa. La vecchia guarda, come l'ex primo ministro Evgenij Primakov, pensa che la Russia stia nuovamente diventando una grande potenza e debba coltivare gli ex clienti arabi e l'Iran; ma i cosiddetti “occidentalisti” sono convinti che l'Iran sia soprattutto un peso morto.

Potrebbero non aver tutti i torti. Il punto cruciale di quest'asse Mosca-Teheran è l'opportunismo: la necessità di contrastare i piani egemonici degli Stati Uniti. Con la sua politica del “pugno dischiuso” Obama sarà abbastanza scaltro da cercare di ribaltare la situazione oppure sarà costretto dalla lobby israeliana e dal complesso industriale-militare a colpire infine un regime ora universalmente disprezzato in tutto l'Occidente?

La Russia – e l'Iran – vogliono assolutamente un mondo multipolare. La nuova dittatura militare dei mullah a Teheran sa che di non potersi permettere l'isolamento. Il cammino verso la ribalta potrebbe dover passare per Mosca. Questo spiega perché l'Iran sta compiendo tanti sforzi diplomatici per entrare nella SCO.

Per quanto a Occidente i progressisti possano appoggiare i conservatori pragmatici iraniani – ben lungi dall'essere riformisti – la questione cruciale è sempre che l'Iran è una pedina cruciale per la Russia nella gestione delle sue relazioni con gli Stati Uniti e l'Europa. Indipendentemente dalla sgradevolezza dei toni, tutto indica una tendenza alla “stabilità” in questa arteria vitale nel cuore del Nuovo Grande Gioco.
(mirumir)
Passo e chiudo.
FRA

IL TERZO BLOG. (The third blog)

2009-07-26T14:02:00.003+02:00

E' nato il mio terzo blog: "Ostpolitik. Guardando verso l'Europa centro-orientale e lo spazio post-sovietico".

Passo e chiudo.
FRA

COMUNICAZIONE DI SERVIZIO. (Service information)

2009-07-08T16:11:00.005+02:00

A partire dal prossimo post, nel sito "International-files" troverete articoli originali, scritti esclusivamente da me (e, talvolta, da qualche collaboratore). I temi affrontati saranno, solitamente, quelli propri delle relazioni internazionali, con l'aggiunta di qualche articolo di musica, cinema, etc. Un nuovo blog sarà appositamente dedicato alle questioni riguardanti l'Europa centro-orientale e lo spazio post-sovietico. Anche qui troverete post originali, scritti interamente da me. Al contrario, su "Pipelineistan" vi saranno esclusivemente articoli provenienti da altre fonti (indicate, di volta in volta, nei rispettivi link).

Tutto ciò, insieme all'eliminazione di vecchi articoli non ritenuti in linea con il nuovo approccio adottato, avrà lo scopo di rendere più coerente e precisa l'informazione fornita dai miei blog.

Passo e chiudo.

FRA

NUOVO BLOG!!! (A new blog)

2009-06-21T00:11:00.005+02:00

E' nato un nuovo blog di Francesco Rossi: "Pipelineistan. Petrolio, gas e geopolitica nello spazio post-sovietico".

A new blog by Francesco Rossi is born: "Pipelineistan. Oil, gas and geopolitics in the post-soviet space".

Link.

Potete trovare il link anche in fondo alla prima pagina di questo blog.

You can also find the link at the bottom of the home page of this blog.

Passo e chiudo.
FRA

BYE BYE MISHA

2009-04-10T18:25:00.011+02:00

Mikheil Saakashvili ha ricevuto oggi un invito a dimettersi forte di 50.000 manifestanti scesi in piazza a Tbilisi e altre migliaia in località minori della Georgia. Al presidente l'opposizione ha dato 24 ore per pensarci su, poi, avverte, sarà deciso il da farsi. "Questa è l'ultima occasione per il governo di agire nel giusto modo", intima un comunicato letto alla folla a conclusione della protesta che il fronte anti-Saakashvili annuncia ad oltranza, "se necessario". E se per il giovane presidente arrivato al potere nel 2003 con la 'Rivoluzione delle Rose' non è certo la prima contestazione, per la Georgia è un segnale forte dopo la guerra di agosto con la Russia e nel bel mezzo di una crisi che sta mettendo a dura prova una popolazione composta da pochi molto ricchi e molti poveri. Un segnale, per giunta, che trova una cauta sponda dall'altra parte dell'Atlantico, dove 'Misha' non può più contare sull'asse di ferro con George W. Bush e dove Barack Obama sembra tentato da un 'cambio di cavallo' nello strategico Paese del Caucaso. Senza fretta. Come hanno lasciato intendere oggi i leader dell'opposizione, uniti in un inedito fronte compatto. Sul palco allestito davanti al parlamento si sono succeduti gli anti-Saakashvili di lungo corso e figure più nuove sulla scena politica di Tbilisi. "Siamo qui per dire a Saakashvili di andarsene", ha esordito l'ex candidato presidenziale Levan Gacheciladze, come riporta Novosti Gruzij, "non abbiamo altra scelta se non restare qua sino a quando le nostre rivendicazioni troveranno soddisfazione". Una sfida lanciata mentre i manifestanti scandivano "dimettiti, dimettiti". Gacheciladze è stato sconfitto da Saakashvili alle elezioni dello scorso gennaio, quando, tra molte proteste, il presidente ha ottenuto un nuovo mandato con il 53% dei voti. Ma dopo il conflitto di agosto il capo di Stato - appena 40enne dopo cinque anni al potere - ha perso alcuni importanti alleati. In particolare due, che vengono considerati potenziali successori, anche perchè graditi a Washington: l'ex capo del parlamento ed ex compagna della Rivoluzione delle Rose Nino Burzhanadze e l'ex ambasciatore presso l'Onu Irakli Alasania, Entrambi sono a capo di un partito, rispettivamente il Movimento democratico-Georgia Unita e Alleanza per la Georgia. Entrambi sintetizzano le loro ragioni con una drastica formula: "Saakahsvili è diventato il vero problema". Il 9 aprile non è una data casuale. In Georgia si ricorda l'anniversario della violenta repressione di una manifestazione nel 1989, quando le truppe antisommossa sovietiche aprirono il fuoco sulla folla, uccidendo 20 persone. In mattinata, il presidente si è recato ad una cerimonia di commemorazione, dove si è ritrovato fianco a fianco di Burzhanadze, di Gacheciladze e del leader Movimento Uniti per la Georgia Eka Beselia. Saakahsvili ne ha approfittato per lanciare un appello all'unità nazionale: "qualunque siano le nostre divergenze, abbiamo un'unica e sola patria e dobbiamo lavorare assieme per difendere la libertà e l'unità del Paese". Dopodichè, gli oppositori si sono spostati verso il parlamento per la protesta. E' praticamente la prima volta che il fronte antigovernativo - 17 partiti - trova un denominatore comune sufficiente a convocare una manifestazione delle dimensioni mai più viste dopo lo spodestamento di Eduard Shevardnadze. Solo i social-democratici, scrive Interfax, hanno rifiutato l'invito a scendere in piazza. L'ex presidente ed ex ministro degli Esteri sovietico, intanto, si toglie la soddisfazione di consigliare al suo successore di dimettersi. Tanto, dice alle agenzie russe, "è impossibile un accordo".

In un'intervista al sito Euobserver, Saakashvili si dichiara sicuro che le proteste non sfoceranno in un colpo di Stato. "Un golpe richiede una spaccatura nell'esercito e nella polizia e una crisi politica in Parlamento. In questo momento queste condizioni non esistono qui. Ci sono delle persone scontente soprattutto a Tbilisi, ma il loro consenso nelle campagne è praticamente pari a zero", ha spiegato Saakashvili. Il leader georgiano è sotto accusa del mondo politico per la disastrosa campagna militare in Ossezia del sud lo scorso agosto, che ha portato alla guerra con la Russia, e il crescente piglio autoritario degli ultimi due anni. Lui stesso 5 mesi fa aveva deciso di anticipare il voto, alla ricerca di un nuovo mandato dopo le proteste represse con la violenza nel novembre 2007. Secondo un sondaggio condotto a marzo dall'International Republican Institute, solo il 28% dei georgiano sostiene la richiesta di dimissioni di Saakashvili, mentre il 51% è d'accordo con il presidente sul fatto che la Georgia ha bisogno di "unità e pazienza" per affrontare la crisi. E su questa 'pazienza' conta Sakashvili per restare in sella, malgrado la crescente debolezza anche sulla scena internazionale. Oggi moderato e conciliante nei toni, il presidente ha comunque inviato le truppe antisommossa a presidiare il parlamento e la sede della televisione. E secondo l'opposizione oltre 50 attivisti sono finiti in manette nell'imminenza della manifestazione. "Una sessantina dei nostri militanti sono stati arrestati, sono andati a cercarli al loro domicilio" nella notte a Rustavi, nei pressi della capitale, ha denunciato Kathouna Ivanishvili, portavoce del Movimento democratico - Georgia unita, la compagine di cui fa parte l'ex presidente del Parlamento Nino Burjanadze, passata all'opposizione. "E' chiaro che è stato fatto - ha aggiunto - per impedire loro di manifestare". Il ministero dell'Interno ha smentito. La protesta odierna assomiglia molto all'inizio di una nuova fase della politica georgiana. Il giovane Alasania e la più navigata Burzhanadze non hanno fretta. Tra l'altro non vi è condivisa opinione su come procedere. C'è chi chiede un referendum e chi vuole a tutti i costi elezioni anticipate. Un segnale veramente preoccupante per Saakashvili arriva dall'Adzharia, la regione secessionista 'cancellata' dal presidente, dove oggi si è manifestato, come pure nella città portuale di Batumi. A Tbilisi molti pensano che la scintilla per la vera esplosione può venire proprio dall'Adzharia, che è appoggiata dalla Russia e che di Saakashvili non voleva saperne neppure nel 2004. Una ribellione in questa piccola provincia secessionista potrebbe scatenare la vicina Samtskhe-Javakheti, sempre a Sud. Secondo il sito di intelligence americano Stratfor, considerato vicino al Dipartimento di stato, Mosca ha convogliato molti fondi per le proteste al via oggi. Stratfor sostiene che l'ora di Saakashvili potrebbe suonare presto. Uno statement diffuso nella notte dalla diplomazia statunitense suona effettivamente come un monito al presidente e quasi un incoraggiamento all'opposizione, sempre che si resti in territorio pacifico. Esortando le parti a limitarsi al confronto politico, anche duro, ed evitare ogni forma di violenza durante la protesta in agenda oggi a Tbilisi, il Dipartimento di Stato sottolineare che "come amico della Georgia, gli Stati Uniti sostengono il popolo georgiano nel loro continuo sforzo per costruire la democrazia". La nota ribadisce il sostegno alle riforme democratiche "incluso il codice elettorale, la giustizia e i media indipendenti": una sottolineatura in odore di critica al presidente Saakashvili e alla sua personale battaglia contro alcune testate dell'opposizione.

(wallstreetitalia.com 9 Aprile 2009)

Passo e chiudo.
FRA

UNA NUOVA RIVOLUZIONE COLORATA? (A new colour revolution?)

2009-04-08T19:42:00.010+02:00

Una 'rivoluzione' così veloce da non trovare il tempo di darsi un nome: in meno di una giornata l'opposizione moldava è scesa in piazza, si è scontrata con la polizia, ha preso d'assalto il parlamento, la presidenza, la sede del governo e avrebbe già ottenuto che si proceda a un nuovo conteggio dei voti delle legislative di domenica scorsa. Dopo la rivoluzione delle rose in Georgia, quella dei tulipani in Kirghizistan, quella arancione a Kiev, nell'ex spazio sovietico scoppia un'altra protesta, con diverse dinamiche, ma un tratto comune: la richiesta di cambiamento. "Ci vogliono rubare il futuro", continuava a ripetere alle tv russe Gennady Brega, giovane leader della piazza in fermento. Al centro del nuovo sisma, di intensità ancora tutta da verificare, le accuse di brogli nel voto che avrebbe dato al partito comunista la maggioranza assoluta dei seggi in parlamento. Il partito Liberal-democratico e i Liberali, motori della marcia sui palazzi del potere, hanno cambiato i giochi in corsa. Con due piani del Parlamento in fiamme, una donna morta per asfissia e molti poliziotti tra gli oltre 20 feriti negli scontri, Vladimir Voronin - presidente 'ancora' comunista, pur dichiarandosi filoeuropeo - ha concordato il nuovo computo delle schede. Tra l'altro l'Osce ha sostanzialmente promosso il voto di domenica e il Consiglio d'Europa oggi fa notare che "accettare la sconfitta fa parte del processo democratico". "Vogliamo essere liberi", "abbasso il comunismo", "Vogliamo un nuovo conteggio", gli slogan più gridati in piazza e scritti su striscioni scomparsi presto tra getti di idranti e colonne di fumo. Ma anche "siamo romeni", a ricordare che la Moldova fino al 1940 faceva parte della Romania, oggi Paese miraggio per molti giovani della repubblica ex sovietica, più che radice nazionale veramente sentita. Quando la polizia e i 500 agenti antisommossa hanno cercato di bloccare l'avanzata verso la sede della presidenza, la folla ha cominciato a lanciare sassi e sono scoppiati scontri piuttosto violenti. Fonti ospedaliere hanno detto che i feriti sono "oltre 20", altre fonti hanno parlato di "più di trenta". Comunque il caos, che il presidente Voronin - giunto al termine del secondo e ultimo mandato, con il pensiero volto ora alla poltrona di capo del parlamento - ha definito "tentativo di destabilizzazione". I comunisti hanno gridato al "tentativo di golpe". Voronin, noto equilibrista e politico molto navigato, ha annunciato un accordo per il nuovo computo delle schede. L'opposizione ha fatto poi sapere che "non è stato raggiunto alcun accordo". La posta politica in gioco è alta. Ieri il Comitato elettorale centrale di Chisinau ha annunciato che il Partito comunista, con l'86% delle schede scrutinate, aveva superato il 50% dei voti. I tre partiti pro-europei - Liberali, Liberal-Democratici e Nostra Moldova - tutti assieme avrebbero raccolto circa il 34% dei consensi. Un risultato che, una volta ufficializzato, avrebbe dato 61 seggi in parlamento su 101 seggi, quindi la possibilità di eleggere il nuovo presidente senza consultare nessuno. Ieri sera un 'ritocchino' al ribasso (49,9% ai comunisti) non ha placato i sospetti e la crescente ira dell'opposizione, che ha indetto per oggi la manifestazione per chiedere l'annullamento del voto. L'opposizione filoeuropea non vuole lasciare il Paese nelle mani di Voronin, al potere da otto anni, grande manovratore che ha prima dichiarato l'eterno regno del socialismo poi ha deciso di guardare verso l'Ue, senza convincere troppo. Non ha convinto certo la folla scesa in piazza oggi, in gran parte giovani che sognano un futuro in Europa, ma sanno che a fare i giochi elettorali ancora oggi sono l'esercito della pubblica amministrazione, gli elettori più anziani e nostalgici dell'Urss. Oltre ai votanti convogliati dalla diffusissima corruzione. Voronin - o il suo successore, da eleggere entro l'8 giugno - è atteso tra l'altro al vertice europeo di Praga che a inizio maggio vedrà il battesimo ufficiale del Partenariato per l'Est. La nuova iniziativa di cooperazione Ue con Ucraina, Georgia, Bielorussia, Armenia, Azerbaigian e Moldova è importante per Chisinau come ponte verso l'Occidente. Ma d'altronde la Moldova è legata a doppio filo a Mosca, non tanto per l'ideologia, che nelle mani di Voronin vira spesso e volentieri, quanto per la totale dipendenza dal gas russo e dagli umori del governo moscovita. Oltre all'aumento delle tariffe del metano, l'embargo sulle esportazioni di vino moldavo nel 2006 ha definitivamente messo in ginocchio la Moldova, che ora vive di rimesse degli emigrati (36% del Pil) e di aiuti internazionali, Ue in prima fila. Insomma, la crescita dell'inizio del decennio 'liberista' (al massimo nel 2005: Pil + 7,5%), malgrado anche i comunisti abbiano varato alcune riforme stabilizzanti, è un ricordo lontano. E' sempre viva, invece, la ferita della guerra civile del 1992 in Transdnistria, la prima delle guerre postsovietiche: 1.400 morti almeno negli scontri tra truppe separatiste ed esercito moldavo. Prima che intervenissero i russi a imporre una tregua e vegliare sulla proclamazione di indipendenza della regione.

(wallstreetitalia.com 8 Aprile 2009).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin has expanded his accusation of an attempted "coup d'etat" by opposition forces to charge that "certain forces" in neighboring Romania had masterminded the violence that has hit the country in recent days.

Several thousand protesters returned to the streets of the Moldovan capital on April 8 less than 24 hours after demonstrations gave way to bloody clashes and the ransacking of government offices.

But there were no reports of violence as police and security forces guarded key government buildings to avoid a repeat of the chaos of a day earlier. President Voronin told a meeting of regional government officials that118 people were arrested after the April 7 riots.

The street protests followed the announcement that Voronin's ruling Communist Party had won more than half the votes in weekend parliamentary elections, a result that would allow it unilaterally to pick a president to succeed Voronin as well as a prime minister.

Authorities regained control of the parliament and presidential offices overnight after mobs overran those buildings, which lie next to a main Chisinau square.

Hundreds of young people who were gathered near the steps of the presidential building around midday were subdued, with no signs of violence.

There were no police visible at the entrance to the parliament building across the road.

Accusations Of Romanian Interference

Voronin announced that Romania's ambassador to Chisinau had been declared persona non grata and that Moldova would institute a summary visa regime with Romania, which is an EU member state. The Moldovan ambassador to Romania was summoned to Chisinau for consultations.

EU and other European representatives have urged protesters to refrain from violence but also called on the government to allow peaceful protests.

Romanian media reported that Moldovan authorities have closed several border crossings between the two countries in an apparent attempt to prevent hundreds of young Moldovans studying in Romania from returning home and possibly joining the protests. At least 20 journalists were also reportedly prevented from crossing from Romania into Moldova.

Some reports say noncitizens are being denied entry to the country.

Voronin, speaking to regional government officials, said 118 people were arrested after the April 7 riots. He accused the leaders of the protest movement of fleeing abroad.

Voronin's accusations of Romanian involvement underscores the close cultural and language links the two countries share. Moldova was part of Romania before World War II, and two-thirds of the country's 4.5 million people are ethnic Romanians.

The televised mayhem on April 7 included scenes of Romanian flags, nearly identical to the Moldovan national flag, being waved from the rooftop of the besieged presidential building.

The opposition has not commented on Voronin's claims about Romanian involvement.

But opposition leaders deny being behind the violence and have accused the government of sending its own provocateurs into the crowds of demonstrators to steer what began as peaceful protests in a more destructive direction.

Vlad Filat, a leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats, told Reuters that authorities had "broken off the agreement we reached with Voronin," reportedly over allowing opposition access to voter lists.

Filat said he would not rule out "arrests, both of political leaders and participants, to maintain the pressure, to give an example of how they can treat those who decide to protest."

View From The Street

Protesters' numbers were dwindling on April 8, with crowds in the late afternoon estimated at 3,000. The April 7 violent confrontations gave way to a more relaxed mood.

Some banners indicated a sense of anger in the crowd, with messages like "Voronin, leader of the dead." Still, some of the mainly young demonstrators told RFE/RL they disapproved of the destruction caused by violent protesters. A young man expressed suspicion that the attacks had been staged:

"[It was] the provocateurs who were calling on people to crush and destroy things, to set things on fire. I believe it was some Communist idea. We'll find out in the following days," he said.

Another participant, a young girl, told RFE/RL she strongly rejected the violence and the destruction: "I was there for a while. We stood there quietly with my colleagues. I clearly disagree with what they did, the damage they caused to the presidency and parliament buildings. No one expected the Communists to win again."

Call For 'Deescalation'

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) -- whose election monitors offered lukewarm praise for the voting that sparked the protests -- has reiterated its condemnation of the violent incidents and called for restraint.

The OSCE on April 6 expressed concerns about "undue administrative interference" in the vote, but said the election overall met many international standards and commitments.

"We condemn, of course, any violence, any outbreak of violence that took place in the Moldovan capital following [the April 5] parliamentary elections," OSCE spokesman in Chisinau, Matti Sidoroff, told RFE/RL. "We urge every political side to do their utmost to deescalate the situation."

The street protests began after the three main opposition parties -- which together garnered 30 percent of the vote, according to preliminary figures -- called for a recount. They complained that Communist authorities had manipulated the vote, in some cases casting false ballots with the names of Moldovans living abroad.

Independent observers also spoke of widespread intimidation of voters, especially outside the capital.

Asked if the OSCE would review its findings, Sidoroff declined to comment. But he said the opposition's complaints must be analyzed without delay.

"Indeed, we know that many opposition parties have filed complaints and say also that they have proof that they have presented which has to be studied in due time by the Central Election Commission, and this process is going on," Sidoroff said.

Deadlines Passed

Opposition leaders met late on April 7 with Voronin and government representatives to call for a recount.

But election commission head Iurie Ciocan has rejected that demand, arguing that the law only provides for individual complaints filed with local courts where the alleged fraud was noted.

The commission was due to announce the official results of the vote on April 8, but that deadline has passed with no formal announcement.

Serafim Urechean, the leader of the Our Moldova Alliance, one of the three pro-western liberal opposition parties which managed to get into parliament, told RFE/RL that they all insist on being allowed to check the voters' lists against the actual number of votes to establish whether identities of people who have been abroad and couldn't vote had been stolen.

"We want to have the voters' lists put at our disposal. [When we get the lists] we, [the Our Moldova Aliiance] together with the other two[ opposition] parties [the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democratic Party] will initiate through investigations and afterthat we can talk," Urechean said.

Voronin, whose second and final presidential term formally ends on April 8, remains in the role of caretaker president until a new parliament elects a new head of state. There is speculation that Voronin might seek the post of parliamentary speaker or head the Communists' parliamentary faction.

The events in Moldova have been watched carefully by Moscow, which has some 1,000 troops stationed in Moldova’s breakaway region of Transdniester, and has sought to boost its influence in the former Soviet republic.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said Moldova opposition calls for a recount or repeat of the parliamentary vote are "absolutely groundless," while the State Duma passed a statement backing the Moldovan authorities and urging the European Union and Romania to clearly condemn the protesters' actions.

By Eugen Tomiuc, Valeria Vitu
(rferl.org 8 Aprile 2009).

Passo e chiudo.
FRA

I LEGAMI USA-RUSSIA SU UNA NUOVA TRAIETTORIA. (US-Russia ties on a new trajectory)

2009-04-08T15:08:00.011+02:00

Articolo di M.K. Bhadrakumar che potete trovare su atimes.com (4 Aprile 2009). La traduzione in italiano è di Manuela Vittorelli (mirumir.altervista.org 7 Aprile 2009).

I faccia a faccia tra i presidenti degli Stati Uniti e della Russia hanno alle spalle una storia di ottimismo carico di promesse che poi si rivela illusorio e fugace. L'incontro a Soči sul Mar Nero, un anno fa, ne è stato un perfetto esempio. Il summit di Soči produsse una dichiarazione magniloquente che tracciava i contorni della cooperazione strategica tra le due grandi potenze.

Ma subito dopo la conclusione del vertice le relazioni si inasprirono e i legami tra Stati Uniti e Russia precipitarono. I rapporti peggiorarono sempre più. Il conflitto nel Caucaso meridionale dello scorso agosto condusse a una deriva pericolosa nelle relazioni tra la Russia e l'Organizzazione del Trattato Nord Atlantico (NATO), aggiungendosi alla lista di contenziosi che già complicavano la relazione USA-Russia: il posizionamento di componenti del sistema di difesa antimissile statunitense in Europa Centrale, l'allargamento a est della NATO, la rivalità per le risorse energetiche del Caspio, discordie non sopite nella regione del Mar Nero e via dicendo. Un'atmosfera di sfiducia, dovuta a tutti questi contrasti, scese sui legami USA-Russia.

Inoltre continuava a saltar fuori una questione fondamentale: quanto è centrale la Russia per gli interessi globali degli Stati Uniti? È dunque facile comprendere perché l'intensità retorica dell'incontro tra il Presidente degli Stati Uniti Barack Obama e il Presidente russo Dmitrij Medvedev svoltasi in margine al summit del G20 di Londra, il 1° aprile, venga valutata con prudenza dalla maggior parte dei commentatori. È vero disgelo? Il “riavvio” delle relazioni USA-Russia è destinato a prendere velocità? Sono queste le domande all'ordine del giorno.

Una cosa è certa: le relazioni USA-Russia hanno toccato il punto più basso dalla fine della Guerra Fredda e potrebbero solo migliorare. Di certo, a giudicare dal disagio evidente nelle valutazioni dell'incontro di Londra da parte dei fautori della Guerra Fredda, potrebbe apparire un nuovo tono nelle relazioni tra gli Stati Uniti e la Russia. Il Ministro degli Esteri russo Sergej Lavrov ha detto che il rapporto ha acquisito una “qualità nuova”.

Lavrov, eccellente diplomatico non portato per l'iperbole, ha detto che ai colloqui di Londra si è creato un “nuovo clima nelle relazioni”. “C'è interesse reciproco, e soprattutto disponibilità ad ascoltarsi a vicenda, cosa che mancava da molti anni. Ciò significa una nuova qualità delle relazioni”. Motivo più che sufficiente per prevedere che l'incontro di Londra può in fin dei conti portare da qualche parte, invece di finire in un vicolo cieco nelle prossime settimane.

Chiaramente, l'incontro è stato ben più di quello che Lavrov ha modestamente riassunto. Le due parti evidentemente hanno fatto un grande lavoro preparatorio per far sì che il colloquio fosse produttivo.

Prima del faccia a faccia Obama-Medvedev, oltre alle consultazioni di Lavrov con la sua controparte statunitense Hillary Clinton a Ginevra il 6 marzo, varie delegazioni ad alto livello si erano recate a Mosca per risuscitare le relazioni USA-Russia prima dell'incontro tra i due presidenti. C'erano dunque state le visite del Sottosegretario di Stato William Burns, degli ex segretari di Stato Henry Kissinger, George Schultz e James Baker, dell'ex segretario della difesa William Perry, dell'ex consigliere per la sicurezza nazionale Brent Scowcroft, degli ex senatori Sam Nunn, Gary Hart e Chuck Hagel.

Nel frattempo nell'ambito dei colloqui USA-Russia era entrato anche il rapporto della Commissione Hart-Hagel su “La giusta direzione per la politica statunitense verso la Russia”, diffuso il 16 marzo. La commissione faceva tre fondamentali osservazioni: Uno, negli ultimi anni le relazioni tra Stati Uniti e Russia avevano toccato il punto più basso dalla fine della Guerra Fredda. Due, un impegno americano volto a migliorare le relazioni USA-Russia non è né un premio da offrire in cambio della buona condotta di Mosca in campo internazionale né un sostegno alla politica interna del governo russo. Tre, è un riconoscimento dell'importanza della cooperazione russa nel raggiungimento di obiettivi americani essenziali: dall'impedire l'acquisizione di armi nucleari da parte dell'Iran a smantellare al-Qaeda e stabilizzare l'Afghanistan e a garantire la sicurezza e la prosperità europee.

Le principali raccomandazioni della Commissione comprendevano: primo, cercare la cooperazione della Russia con l'Iran; secondo, lavorare congiuntamente per rafforzare il regime internazionale di non-proliferazione; terzo, rivedere i posizionamenti della difesa antimissile in Polonia e nella Repubblica Ceca e compiere un autentico sforzo per sviluppare un approccio collaborativo alla minaccia comune rappresentata dai missili iraniani; quarto, accettare il fatto che né l'Ucraina né la Georgia sono pronte a entrare nella NATO e avviare una stretta collaborazione con gli alleati degli Stati Uniti per individuare opzioni che non siano l'ingresso di questi paesi nella NATO per dimostrare l'impegno a difendere la loro sovranità; e quinto, lanciare un serio dialogo sul controllo degli armamenti che comprenda l'estensione del Trattato per la Riduzione delle Armi Strategiche (START) e un'ulteriore riduzione delle armi nucleari tattiche e strategiche.

Il proposito della Commissione, nelle parole di Hart, è stato quello di “costruire nel nostro paese una base limitata che offrirà sostegno alla nuova amministrazione [Obama] nei suoi sforzi per migliorare le relazioni [USA-Russia]”. Prima di andare a Mosca, Hart e Hagel hanno incontrato il consigliere per la Sicurezza Nazionale Jim Jones e altri rappresentanti dell'amministrazione Obama. È un fatto che, ricevendoli al Cremlino il 10 marzo, Medvedev ha sottolineato che i segnali provenienti da Washington erano incoraggianti. “Purtroppo le nostre relazioni sono deteriorate in misura significativa negli ultimi anni. Questo fatto ci rattrista”, ha detto Medvedev. “Crediamo di avere ogni opportunità per aprire una pagina nuova nelle relazioni tra Russia e Stati Uniti. I segnali che riceviamo oggi dagli Stati Uniti – mi riferisco ai segnali che sto ricevendo dal Presidente Obama – mi sembrano assolutamente positivi”.

E di fatto le dichiarazioni (e le azioni) di Washington e Mosca nelle ultime settimane indicano che i due governi si stanno muovendo nelle direzioni suggerite dalla Commissione Hart-Hagel. La Commissione affermava:
Assicurare gli interessi nazionali vitali dell'America nel mondo complesso, interconnesso e interdipendente del XXI secolo richiede una profonda e significativa cooperazione con altri governi... E poche nazioni potrebbero fare la differenza per il nostro successo più della Russia, con il suo vasto arsenale di armi nucleari, la sua posizione strategica tra Europa e Asia, le sue considerevoli risorse energetiche e il suo status di membro permanente del Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite. Un'azione rapida ed efficace per rafforzare le relazioni USA-Russia ha un'importanza critica nella promozione degli interessi degli Stati Uniti.

Mentre gli Stati Uniti stanno affrontando una profonda crisi economica, le sfide in materia di politica estera che si pongono al nostro paese sono sempre più complicate e difficili – e i nostri interessi nel gestire particolari situazioni possono essere in competizione o perfino contraddittori. È per questa ragione che dobbiamo fare scelte difficili nel plasmare la nostra politica estera, concentrandoci soprattutto su ciò che è realmente vitale in senso stretto: innanzitutto la non-proliferazione nucleare, il controllo degli armamenti, il terrorismo e la ripresa economica globale.
Con straordinario candore la Commissione proponeva: “Dobbiamo anche significativamente migliorare la nostra comprensione degli interessi russi come i russi li definiscono”. Con il senno di poi, la commissione praticamente delineava i punti all'ordine del giorno dell'incontro di Londra. Dunque, se i risultati concreti di Londra possono sembrare scarsi, ciò che conta è che è stato avviato uno sforzo sostenuto e coerente per creare una massa critica nelle relazioni USA-Russia, che potrebbe benissimo sostanziarsi nei prossimi due o tre mesi.

Chiaramente la decisione dell'incontro Obama-Medvedev di perseguire un nuovo accordo per la riduzione delle armi nucleari segnala già di per sé un drammatico ribaltamento dell'ostinata posizione dell'amministrazione George W. Bush. Per citare Obama, la decisione ha segnato l'“inizio di una nuova fase di progresso nelle relazioni USA-Russia” dopo anni di stallo. La prevista visita di Obama a Mosca entro i prossimi tre mesi – prima del summit del G8 in Italia, l'8-10 luglio – incoraggerà i negoziatori ad “avviare subito i colloqui” su un accordo che sostituisca lo START, che scade a dicembre.

Le due parti non si sono ancora accordate su un nuovo limite, ma è ovvio che l'accordo andrà oltre il Trattato per la Riduzione delle Offese Strategiche del 2002, che impegnava entrambe le parti a mantenere i rispettivi arsenali nucleari sotto il limite delle 2200 testate entro il 2012.

I fautori della Guerra Fredda potranno dire che i colloqui sulla riduzione delle armi costituiscono un'importante concessione da parte di Obama, giacché “eleva” lo status della Russia nella comunità internazionale a quello di pari degli Stati Uniti. Del resto Obama sa che senza una profonda cooperazione da parte della Russia tutti i suoi piani in materia di non-proliferazione non riuscirebbero a decollare. Per citare Obama, “Sia gli Stati Uniti che la Russia e altre potenze nucleari si troveranno in una posizione molto più forte nel dare vigore a quello che è diventato un trattato di proliferazione alquanto fragile e logoro, se daremo l'esempio e sapremo compiere dei seri passi per ridurre l'arsenale nucleare”.

È vero che i due presidenti hanno ammesso che permangono divergenze sulla dibattuta questione del dispiegamento di elementi del sistema anti-missile statunitense in Europa. Ma presumibilmente si rendono anche conto che non è più una questione pressante, e che la cooperazione USA-Russia è fattibile. In ogni caso, Mosca sa che Obama non ha l'entusiasmo di Bush nel promuovere la cosa imponendo le condizioni americane, e inoltre l'opinione pubblica ceca è sempre più contraria al dispiegamento statunitense.

Anche le tensioni per l'allargamento della NATO si sono alleggerite, mentre trapela che l'ingresso dell'Ucraina o della Georgia nell'alleanza è semplicemente escluso per almeno 15-20 anni. Le divergenze permangono su altre questioni, come il conflitto del 2008 nel Caucaso e i successivi cambiamenti nella regione, o l'indipendenza del Kosovo, ma adesso non si tratta esattamente di “punti caldi” nelle relazioni USA-Russia.

Invece ciò che ha dato uno slancio sostanziale all'incontro di Londra tra Obama e Medvedev aveva a che fare con la cooperazione USA-Russia in Afghanistan. La dichiarazione congiunta dei due presidenti dice che hanno concordato la necessità di collaborare sull'Afghanistan in quanto “al-Qaeda e altri gruppi terroristici e rivoltosi in Afghanistan e Pakistan rappresentano una comune minaccia per molti paesi, Stati Uniti e Russia compresi”. La dichiarazione aggiungeva che Mosca e Washington avrebbero “lavorato e fornito appoggio a una risposta internazionale coordinata con le Nazioni Unite in un ruolo chiave”.

È molto significativo che i russi abbiano deciso di calare l'asso offrendo agli americani alla vigilia dell'incontro di Londra il transito aereo e ferroviario completo e senza ostacoli sul territorio russo per il trasporto dei rifornimenti militari degli Stati Uniti (e della NATO) diretti in Afghanistan. Essenzialmente i russi hanno offerto agli Stati Uniti l'opportunità di non dipendere più da altre rotte di transito come il problematico Pakistan.

Ciò che emerge è che Mosca ha capito che la maggiore preoccupazione della politica estera dell'amministrazione Obama sarà la stabilizzazione dell'Afghanistan. E che non c'è niente di meglio, per stabilizzare le relazioni USA-Russia, che offrire piena cooperazione agli Stati Uniti nell'Hindu Kush. (A proposito, questo approccio è in linea con la prognosi della Commissione Hart-Hagel)

Bella pensata da parte di Mosca. Si basa sull'attenta analisi del fatto che non esiste alcun reale conflitto di interessi tra la Russia e gli Stati Uniti in Afghanistan finché la relazione USA-Russia si basa sulla sensibilità verso i reciproci interessi vitali.

Ciò risulta evidente se passiamo in rassegna i postulati fondamentali della nuova strategia afghana di Obama. Questa nuova strategia tanto reclamizzata – “più forte, più intelligente e completa” - si basa essenzialmente su nove principi.

Uno, c'è un collegamento fondamentale tra il futuro dell'Afghanistan e quello del Pakistan. Due, al-Qaeda rappresenta una minaccia per l'esistenza del Pakistan. Tre, la capacità del Pakistan di affrontare la minaccia di al-Qaeda è legata alla sua forza e alla sua sicurezza. Quattro, il Pakistan ha bisogno dell'aiuto degli Stati Uniti, ma dev'essere responsabilizzato. Cinque, le conquiste dei taliban in Afghanistan devono essere azzerate e bisogna promuovere un governo afghano più capace e responsabile. Sei, il “surge” dovrebbe avere componenti sia militari che civili, e queste dovrebbero essere integrate. Sette, la precondizione di una pace duratura è che deve esserci riconciliazione tra gli ex nemici. Otto, al-Qaeda può essere isolata e colpita seguendo lo schema del Risveglio Sunnita intrapreso con successo in Iraq. Nove, è necessaria la partecipazione internazionale, soprattutto quella della NATO.

Mosca non ha problemi con nessuno di questi parametri. Dunque il Cremlino valuta acutamente che gli interessi in termini di sicurezza della Russia non vengono in alcun modo danneggiati se la Russia aiuta gli Stati Uniti a stabilizzare l'Afghanistan. La strategia afghana di Obama ha scarse probabilità di successo, ma questo non è un problema della Russia. Aiutare un amico nel momento del bisogno potrebbe far sì che la Russia diventi davvero amica dell'amministrazione Obama. La logica è semplice, diretta e forse anche praticabile, visto che gli Stati Uniti rischiano seriamente di impantanarsi politicamente e militarmente in Afghanistan e hanno estremo bisogno dell'aiuto di chiunque.

Se la Russia riesce a capitalizzare sul conseguente favore degli Stati Uniti per creare un positivo clima di collaborazione nelle relazioni USA-Russia, questo avrà un impatto profondo sul sistema internazionale. Le potenze regionali osserveranno con molta attenzione, e forse hanno già cominciato a pensare come calibrare le loro mosse in Afghanistan. La posta è alta soprattutto per l'Iran e per il Pakistan.

Passo e chiudo.
FRA

TERREMOTO IN ABRUZZO: UN MODO PER AIUTARLI. (Earthquake in Abruzzo, Italy: a way to help them)

2009-04-07T12:24:00.005+02:00

Per chi volesse aiutare le popolazioni colpite dal sisma, il seguente link (Caritas italiana) offre alcune informazioni al riguardo.
Passo e chiudo.
FRA

IL COMPLICATO ATTACCO AL DOLLARO... E NAZARBAYEV. (The complicated attack against the dollar... and Nazarbayev)

2009-04-03T10:51:00.011+02:00

Il presidente russo Dmitrij Medvedev non è pienamente soddisfatto delle discussioni tenutesi al G20 di Londra. Uno dei temi più rilevanti, secondo il capo del Cremlino, non sarebbe stato discusso a fondo: lo sviluppo di un sistema monetario mondiale. L'approccio di Mosca si basa sulla necessità di sostenere forti valute regionali, in modo da utilizzarle successivamente come base per la creazione di una nuova valuta di riserva mondiale, eventualmente "ancorata" all'oro. Le reazioni di Obama e Gordon Brown sono state piuttosto fredde, almeno ufficialmente. Già, perchè pochi giorni prima, il titolare del Tesoro americano Geithner si era detto disponibile ad un più ampio ruolo dei diritti speciali di prelievo (SDRs) del Fondo Monetario Internazionale, facendo apparire così gli USA piuttosto vicini alle posizioni russe, dal momento che gli SDRs potrebbero svolgere il ruolo di superreserve currency. Tuttavia, alla vigilia del G20, lo stesso Arkady Dvorkovich, consigliere economico di Medvedev, aveva ammesso che "non tutti sono ancora pronti a sostituire il dollaro" ma che la Russia continuerà ad insistere su questa proposta "a tutti i livelli". La Cina, dal canto suo, si accoda a Mosca ed alle sue proposte di ristrutturazione dell'ordine economico mondiale. Pochi giorni prima, il governatore della Banca centrale cinese, Zhou Xiaochuan, aveva affermato che una nuova valuta internazionale ''non dovrebbe essere collegata a nazioni individuali''. Secondo l'autorità monetaria cinese, gli attori economici mondiali sarebbero troppo dipendenti dalle condizioni economiche e dalle decisioni del Paese di riferimento della valuta utilizzata (cioè dagli USA). Le condizioni di bilancio e le decisioni di politica economica di tale Paese, continua Pechino, potrebbero facilmente far sì (più o meno volutamente) che tale valuta si deprezzi, con conseguenze non piacevoli per chi, come la Cina, detiene quasi duemila miliardi di dollari di riserve.

Esiste un "dietro le quinte" che occorre tener in considerazione per comprendere il background della posizione russa, un "retroscena" che ci porta all'EurAsEC, la Comunità Economica Eurasiatica che raccoglie al suo interno Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus e Russia. I tentativi di Mosca di ri-creare una sorta di area rublo (dopo la sua venuta meno nel '93) nello spazio post-sovietico, hanno determinato una reazione diplomatico/economica da parte dell'altro Paese più rilevante della Comunità: il Kazakhstan. Cogliendo l'occasione della crisi, l'astuto presidente kazako Nazarbayev ha risposto alle offensive russe proponendo, per l'EurAsEC, un'unica nuova valuta, lo yevraz. L'iniziativa ha ovviamente suscitato fredde reazioni in Russia. Nazarbayev, da sempre in ottimi rapporti con Mosca, si è guardato bene, anche in questa circostanza, dall'entrare in "rotta di collisione" col Cremlino. La proposta dello yevraz è stata così accompagnata dalla proposta kazaka di una nuova valuta globale: l'acmetal. Appare evidente il tentativo di Nazarabayev di allinearsi alle posizioni monetarie internazionali di Mosca. Altrettanto evidente appare la volontà, da parte del Kazakhstan, di contrastare le tendenze espansionistiche del rublo in Asia Centrale. Sono due "lati" della stessa "medaglia": ambito regionale ed ambito mondiale s'intrecciano, in un gioco d'interessi diversi ma convergenti.

Ecco come Roman Muzalevsky ha spiegato le iniziative di Nazarbayev.

Dal Central Asia Caucasus Institute, 03/26/2009 issue of the CACI Analyst.

Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbaev is neither shy about his vision of turning Kazakhstan into one of the world’s 50 most competitive countries, nor reserved in his ambitions ranging from the integration of Central Asia to the recent call for a single global currency to deal with the financial crisis. As the leaders of the G-20 countries prepare for a financial summit on April 2 in London, Nazarbaev has been advancing his proposal to deal with the global recession, and with it, his domestic and international clout.

“We must switch to a new global currency system, which will be based on a single global monetary unit,”- Nazarbayev underlined on March 10 at the congress of the Eurasian Universities Association, adding that Kazakhstan presented to the world with view of the solution. Claiming that a dollar currency is an undemocratic and unregulated world currency, the president proposes the creation of a single global currency under the UN auspices. Previously on his trip to India, Nazarbaev stated that “the future measures should ensure that we have a completely just global currency, and not with only one issuer as is the case today.” According to him, "the existing global financial monetary system does not meet current requirements and does not correspond to any criteria of a stable monetary system...”

The IMF reacted by saying the idea was “interesting, but poorly explored” as of now. Nobel Prize winner and economist Edmund Phelps partially supported the project, arguing that “there is no sense in having more than 90 currencies in the world,” while disagreeing that a single global currency alone will solve the problem. Another Nobel Prize winner, and the architect of the Euro currency, Robert Mundell, however, explicitly sided with the initiative: “…I agree with President Nazarbayev on his statement and many of the things he said in his plan...” Kazakhstan’s proposal for what Nazarbaev terms “acmetal” global currency might “look kind of funny” but in reality is a step in the right direction. The “acmetal” is a combination of two words: acme, the Greek word for “best,” and “capital.” Modern capitalism represents what Nazarbaev calls “defectalism.” Hence the need for a new financial-monetary system of “acmetalizm”, built on a more perfect capital.

Kazakhstan is not alone in proposing reforms of the financial order left over after a blow to the Bretton Woods system in 1971. German Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed the creation of a UN economic council that would work out anti-crisis solutions, while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner called for a centrally coordinated financial system. Ewald Nowotny, the European Central Bank member, stressed that a “tri-polar” currency system is already developing among the US, Europe, and Asia to replace the U.S. dollar-based financial order. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in his turn, stated that “the dollar cannot claim to be the only currency in the world,” arguing that “in the capitalism of the 21st century, there is room for the state.” Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, however, was cautious about the need to reengineer the volatile financial system: “We don't need to recreate the world right now. What people expect of us, quite frankly, in our countries is to get our own houses in order.'' Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, stressing the dangers of depending on a single uncontrolled global currency, has lobbied for a number of regional reserve currencies, including the Russian ruble. Sergei Perminov with the Rye, Man & Gor Securities brokerage firm in Russia, however, is pessimistic on the issue: "This is all in the realm of fantasy. Alternatives to the dollar are still hard to find."

In his “Keys to Crisis Resolution” article, Nazarbaev actually agreed to the idea of a single central bank, albeit without the Russian ruble being the regional legal tender. Deputy Chairman of “Ak Zhol” party Burihan Nurmuhamedov considers Nazarbaev’s proposals, including the one for a regional currency voiced at the Economic Forum on March 11, as a way to avert Russia’s plans to create Ruble-based regional currency within the EEC while welcoming a single regional currency along non-Russian lines.

Many, however, have voiced objections to the proposals requiring international centralization of the financial system, putting forward national sovereignty considerations and conspiracy-like propositions. “The control of money and credit strikes at the very heart of national sovereignty,” said A. Clausen, president of Bank of America.

The character of the many proposals is indeed controversial. Nazarbaev’s idea of a global currency, while shared by distinguished policy-makers and experts, may backfire at the upcoming financial summit. The complexity of the international system, functioning of different economies, time constrains and difficulties of common policy coordination, will stand in the way of Nazarbaev’s vision, providing less ambitious projects with more chances of being implemented, at least in the immediate future.

Passo e chiudo.
FRA

INCOMPRENSIONI? (Misuderstandings?)

2009-03-17T12:33:00.011+01:00

Un simpatico articolo sul famoso episodio del pulsante "reset" regalato dal Segretario di Stato Hillary Clinton al Ministro degli Esteri russo Sergey Lavrov lo scorso 7 Marzo a Ginevra.

Dal sito pajamasmedia.com
Di Oleg Atbashian (8 Marzo 2009)

Did you know that if you translate “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” into Russian, it becomes “the vodka is agreeable but the meat has gone bad”? Literal translations can be tricky that way.

It seems that no translators were harmed in the manufacturing of Hillary Clinton’s “reset” button, which she presented to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva on Friday.

“We worked hard to get the right Russian word,” Clinton addressed Lavrov in a deliberately slow voice, as if talking to a special-needs child. “Do you think we got it?”

“You got it wrong,” Lavrov answered in fluent English. “This says ‘peregruzka,’ which means overcharged.”

Well, it looks like somebody used a cheap electronic translation program. But it could be worse. I once came across a website that advertised its automated translation service with an example of a label from a jar of pickles, informing Russian consumers that it contained condoms.

Talk about food safety! That’s what you get when you translate “preservatives” without as much as a human touch.

Incidentally, Hillary Clinton’s linguistic episode in Geneva also clarified the translation of the Obama administration’s term “worked hard,” which in plain English means “did half-assed job.”

News reports would make us believe that Hillary’s philological mishaps ended right there. Not so. After the two top diplomats stopped laughing, Clinton quipped: “We won’t let you do that to us, I promise.”

That may have sounded sharp in English, but in Russian it came out even goofier than the wrong label on the red button.

Mrs. Clinton’s clever comeback implied that she understood “overcharge” in terms of charging too much money. We may even credit her with referring to the difference between an observed market price and a price that would have been observed in the absence of collusion, which was what many suspected the oil-producing nations were doing last year. In that sense, and only in that sense, was Hillary’s comment meaningful and amusing.

The problem is that the word “peregruzka” has nothing to do with economics. As students of foreign languages well know, most words have multiple meanings, and their combinations almost never coincide in different languages. Thus, the English word “overcharge” may mean many things to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but they are all translated into Russian by completely different words that are not interchangeable. In economic terms, “overcharge” becomes “obschitat’” or “zavysit’ tsenu” — but never “peregruzka.”

Perhaps, the embarrassment could be avoided if Lavrov had translated it literally, as “overload.” But in the context of a red button, he chose a more specific electrical term “overcharge,” meaning “too much amperage in the circuit.”

As a result, to the Russian-speaking audience, Hillary’s retort “We won’t let you do that to us” could only mean one thing: “Americans won’t let Sergey Lavrov give them too much amperage.”

The confusion could also be avoided if, instead of Hillary Clinton, the job of Secretary of State was performed by a professional — like Condoleezza Rice, who speaks fluent Russian, and who wouldn’t have opted for the lame plastic button because this joke doesn’t work in Russian to begin with.

Russian is a rich and flexible language with versatile descriptive means, but it just doesn’t have a short universal word that embraces all the meanings of the allusive English “reset.” The word “perezagruzka” (”reload”), which later was claimed to be the right term, comes off just as awkward and uninspiring as any other possible translation. Anyone with a sense of the Russian language could’ve told Clinton that the gag was a dud.

Other reports indicate that “Hillary Clinton raised eyebrows on her first visit to Europe as secretary of state when she mispronounced her EU counterparts’ names and claimed U.S. democracy was older than Europe’s.” In one particular case, she kept referring to European Commission External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner as “Benito,” invoking the memories of Mussolini.

This looks rather ironic, considering that the current leaders in Washington had come to power by accusing their conservative predecessors of being pig-headed and deaf to other cultures and nuances. Turns out, they were merely projecting their own image on their opponents, given that they themselves can’t even distribute party favors to foreigners without a screw-up.

But let’s not be too hard on Hillary — according to her, the button was also a gift of friendship from President Obama and Vice President Biden. All things considered, the gaffe was the result either A or B:

A) The Obama administration is made of pig-headed, tone-deaf people, who don’t expect other cultures to have nuances — and so they don’t bother to consult with experts.

B) Experts chosen by the Obama administration are incompetent sycophants who got hired because they were political hacks, or as a result of favoritism, nepotism, or affirmative action — and they will uncritically ramrod their bosses’ ideas even if it’s contrary to reality and common sense.

Either way we’re screwed.

Why couldn’t have Hillary consulted with someone competent — like me, for example? Without overcharging, I would’ve advised her to give Lavrov the People's Cube [si tratta di una sorta di cubo di Rubik comunista inventato dall'autore; vedere immagine sotto] instead of the button.

It requires no tricky translation and is easy to understand in any language or culture. Remember Hillary’s campaign speech about “invisible Americans?” Well, if you translate “out of sight, out of mind” into Russian, you will get “invisible lunatics.”

Which accurately describes what competent people in this country have become since the last election

Passo e chiudo.
FRA