FOR WHAT? (Per quale motivo?)

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)

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)

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

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?

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)

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)