Les dessous de l’information mondiale-Downside World News

Crise systémique globale

- Fin 2008: Déroute des fonds de pension

Selon LEAP/E2020, d’ici la fin de 2008, nous allons assister à une formidable déroute de l’ensemble des fonds de pension de la planète, mettant en péril tout le système des retraites par capitalisation. Ce cataclysme financier aura une dimension humaine dramatique puisqu’il correspond à l’arrivée à la retraite de la première vague des baby-boomers aux Etats-Unis, en Europe et au Japon : les revenus des fonds de pension s’effondrent au moment même où ils doivent commencer à effectuer leur première grande série de versements aux retraités. Dans ce numéro 23 du GEAB, notre équipe anticipe l’évolution de cette prochaine crise des fonds de pension, précise les pays les plus touchés (notamment en Europe) et présente des recommandations opérationnelles et stratégiques pour y faire face.Parallèlement, dans ce GEAB N°23  LEAP/E2020 anticipe les prochains mois de cette crise systémique globale qui est désormais une évidence pour tous, s’attachant à anticiper les effets pervers des prêts de la Réserve fédérale américaine qui sont en train de fragiliser encore plus l’ensemble du système financier américain, et analysant les risques à venir qui pèsent sur les établissements bancaires aux Etats-Unis et dans certains pays européens particulièrement exposés. Parallèlement notre équipe analyse l’impact de la crise économique et financière US actuelle sur les probabilités et les conséquences d’une attaque de l’Iran par Israël et les Etats-Unis avant les prochaines élections présidentielles américaines.

En tout état de cause, avec l’annonce d’un plan de sauvetage d’urgence de la cinquième banque d’affaires US, Bear Stearns (1) (prélude à sa vente ou à sa mise en liquidation dans les prochaines semaines), on assiste bien à la faillite d’un grand établissement financier dès le premier trimestre 2008, comme anticipé par notre équipe dans le GEAB N°19 (2).

Simultanément, le Dollar US a repris sa chute libre par rapport à l’Euro, au Yen, au Yuan; l’or est à plus de 1.000 USD/once, le pétrole à plus de 110 USD/baril, les bourses mondiales en baisse de 20% en un trimestre, et la dernière tentative de stopper la crise financière avec le prêt de 200 Milliards USD aux banques par la Réserve fédérale américaine a déjà montré qu’il avait échoué … tous les fondements de l’ordre économico-financier de ces dernières décennies s’écroulent sous nos yeux, à un rythme de plus en plus rapide. Ce sont bien tous les signes d’une crise systémique (3).

La prise de conscience désormais généralisée que le monde fait face à une crise d’une ampleur et d’une nature nouvelles permet déjà à nos chercheurs d’affiner certaines de leurs anticipations. Ainsi, en ce qui concerne les devises, notre équipe a entrepris de revoir ses estimations sur la valeur du Dollar US par rapport aux trois autres monnaies mondiales stratégiques, à savoir l’Euro, le Yen et le Yuan. Ainsi, LEAP/E2020 estime désormais que le taux EURUSD atteindra 1,75 à la fin 2008 (au lieu de 1,70 comme l’avait anticipé notre équipe dès 2006) ; le taux USDYEN tombera à 90 et le taux USDYUAN à 6 (4).

Evolution du Dollar Index (panier de monnaies références (5)) au 14/03/2008 / Source FxStreet

Devant l’ampleur de la Très Grande Dépression US désormais en plein développement (6), LEAP/E2020 se félicite de constater que les autorités américaines, suite aux nombreuses protestations (7), ont finalement décidé de maintenir la parution synthétique des indicateurs économiques US sur le site EconomicIndicators.Gov. Dans une période aussi troublée, il est en effet important que l’information statistique sur l’économie des Etats-Unis reste aisément et largement disponible. Les finances d’une multitude d’acteurs privés et publics, individuels et collectifs en dépendent.Dans cette même logique, la Réserve fédérale d’Atlanta fait oeuvre utile en diffusant gratuitement un DVD intitulé « Se préparer à la crise : reconnecter son flux financier vital » (« Crisis Preparedness: Reconnecting the Financial Lifeline »), qui permet aux opérateurs de toute nature d’anticiper la crise, et donc de mieux s’y préparer (8). Dans la perspective de la phase d’effondrement de l’économie réelle aux Etats-Unis, prévue pour Septembre 2008 par LEAP/E2020 (9), ces conseils officiels prennent tout leur sens. Notamment, comme nous le soulignons depuis des mois, en cas de crise grave, « le liquide est roi » (« Cash becomes king » comme le répète ce DVD), et ce que la crise soit liée à un désastre naturel ou provoqué par les hommes comme l’illustre parfaitement le fait que les assureurs américains ont désormais perdus plus d’argent à cause de la crise des subprimes qu’à cause du cyclone Katrina, pourtant le pire désastre naturel de l’histoire des Etats-Unis (10).

les ressources pétrolières de l’Afrique

USA, Europe, Chine

 ________________

La démission de l’amiral Fallon relance les hostilités en Irak
 

par Thierry Meyssan*

Contrairement à ce qui a été écrit dans la presse dominante, l’amiral William Fallon n’a pas été limogé par ce qu’il s’opposait au président Bush à propos d’une attaque contre l’Iran. Il a démissionné de sa propre initiative après que l’accord qu’il avait négocié et conclu avec Téhéran, Moscou et Pékin ait été saboté par la Maison-Blanche. Le choix de l’administration Bush relance la guerre en Irak et expose gravement les GI’s face à une Résistance désormais soutenue de l’extérieur sans retenue.

Il était presque 22h GMT, mardi 11 mars 2008, lorsque le commandant en chef du Central Command, l’amiral William Fallon, annonça depuis l’Irak qu’il présentait sa démission. Immédiatement à Washington, le secrétaire à la Défense, son ami Robert Gates, dans une conférence de presse improvisée indiquait qu’il acceptait cette décision à regret. Dans les minutes qui suivirent, la rumeur d’une possible attaque états-unienne contre l’Iran se répandit partout dans le monde. En effet, la démission de l’amiral aurait été exigée par la Maison-Blanche à la suite de la publication d’un reportage par le mensuel Esquire [1] rapportant des propos « francs » de l’officier à propos du président Bush. Or, dans le même article, on pouvait lire qu’un renvoi de l’amiral marquerait le signal ultime de la guerre.

Pourtant, cette interprétation est erronée. Elle ignore l’évolution du rapport de forces à Washington. Pour comprendre ce qui est en jeu, revenons un instant en arrière. Nos lecteurs, qui ont été régulièrement informés dans nos colonnes des débats en cours à Washington, se souviendront des menaces de démission de Fallon [2], de la mutinerie des officiers supérieurs [3], des dessous d’Annapolis [4], et de l’infiltration de l’OTAN au Liban [5] que nous avons rapportés dans ces colonnes avant tout le monde ; des révélations qui ont été contestées lors de leur publication et qui sont aujourd’hui largement attestées. Nous ajouterons ici des informations inédites sur les négociations conduites par Fallon.

Le Plan Fallon

Alors que l’establishment états-unien avait approuvé l’entrée en guerre contre l’Irak dans l’espoir d’en tirer de substantiels profits économiques, il a progressivement déchanté. Cette opération génère des coûts directs et indirects démesurés, mais ne rapporte qu’à quelques uns. Dès 2006, la classe dirigeante s’est inquiétée de mettre fin à cette aventure. Elle contestait à la fois le surdéploiement des troupes, l’isolement diplomatique grandissant, et l’hémoragie financière. Elle trouva son expression à travers le rapport Baker-Hamilton qui condamnait le projet de remodelage du Grand Moyen-Orient, et préconisait un retrait militaire d’Irak coordonné avec un rapprochement diplomatique avec Téhéran et Damas.

Sous cette amicale pression, le président Bush fut contraint de limoger Donald Rumsfeld et de le remplacer par Robert Gates (lui-même membre de Commission Baker-Hamilton). Un groupe de travail bipartisan —la Commission Armitage-Nye— fut mis en place pour définir de manière consensuelle une nouvelle politique. Mais il s’avéra que le tandem Bush-Cheney n’avait pas renoncé à ses projets et utilisait ce groupe de travail pour endormir ses rivaux tout en continuant à fourbir ses armes contre l’Iran. Coupant court à ces manœuvres, Gates donna carte blanche à un groupe d’officiers supérieurs qu’il avait fréquenté à l’époque de Bush père. Ceux-ci publièrent, le 3 décembre 2007, un rapport des agences de renseignement discréditant le discours mensonger de la Maison-Blanche sur le prétendue menace iranienne. En outre, ils tentèrent d’imposer au président Bush un rééquilibrage de sa politique proche-orientale au détriment d’Israël.

L’amiral William Fallon exerce une autorité morale sur ce groupe —incluant l’amiral Mike McConnell (directeur national du renseignement), le général Michael Hyden (directeur de la CIA), le général George Casey (chef d’état-major de l’armée de terre), et plus tard l’amiral Mike Mullen (chef-d’état-major inter-armes)—. Homme de sang froid, doué d’une brillante intelligence, il est l’un des derniers grands patrons des forces armées à avoir servi au Vietnam. Préoccupé par la multiplication des théâtres d’opération, par la dispersion des forces et l’épuisement des troupes, il a ouvertement contesté un leadership civil dont la politique ne peut conduire les États-Unis qu’à la défaite.

Dans le prolongement de cette mutinerie, ce groupe d’officiers supérieurs fut autorisé à négocier une sortie de crise honorable avec l’Iran et à préparer un retrait d’Irak. Selon nos sources, ils imaginèrent un accord en trois volets :
 1. Les États-Unis feraient adopter par le Conseil de sécurité une dernière résolution contre l’Iran pour ne pas perdre la face. Mais cette résolution serait vide et Téhéran s’en accommoderait.
 2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad se rendrait en Irak où il affirmerait les intérêts régionaux de l’Iran. Mais ce voyage serait purement symbolique et Washington s’en accommoderait.
 3. Téhéran pèserait de toute son influence pour normaliser la situation en Irak, et faire passer les groupes qu’il soutient de la résistance armée à l’intégration politique. Cette stabilisation permettrait au Pentagone de retirer ses troupes sans défaite. En contrepartie, Washington cesserait son soutien aux groupes armés de l’opposition iranienne, notamment aux Moujahidines du peuple.

Toujours selon nos sources, Robert Gates et ce groupe d’officiers, encadrés par le général Brent Scowcroft (ancien conseiller national de sécurité), sollicitèrent l’aide de la Russie et de la Chine pour appuyer ce processus. D’abord perplexes, Moscou et Pékin s’assurèrent de l’assentiment forcé de la Maison-Blanche avant de répondre positivement, soulagés d’éviter un conflit incontrôlable.

Vladimir Poutine prit l’engagement de ne pas profiter militairement du retrait US, mais exigea qu’on en tire les conséquences politiques. Il fut donc convenu que la conférence d’Annapolis accoucherait d’une souris, tandis qu’une conférence globale sur le Proche-Orient serait organisée à Moscou pour débloquer les dossiers que l’administration Bush n’avait cessé d’envenimer.
De même Poutine accepta de faciliter le compromis irano-US, mais s’inquiéta d’un Iran trop fort à la frontière méridionale de la Russie. À titre de garantie, il fut convenu que l’Iran accepterait ce qu’il avait toujours refusé : de ne pas fabriquer seul son combustible nucléaire.

Les négociations avec Hu Jintao furent plus complexes, car les dirigeants chinois étaient choqués de découvrir à quel point l’administration Bush leur avait menti à propos de la prétendue menace iranienne. Il fallait donc d’abord rétablir la confiance bilatérale. Heureusement, l’amiral Fallon, qui il y a peu encore commandait le PacCom (zone Pacifique), entretenait des relations de courtoisie avec les Chinois.
Il fut convenu que Pékin laisserait passer une résolution anti-iranienne formelle au Conseil de sécurité, mais que la formulation de ce texte n’entraverait aucunement le commerce sino-iranien.

Le sabotage

Au premier abord, tout sembla fonctionner. Moscou et Pékin acceptèrent de jouer les figurants à Annapolis et de voter la résolution 1803 contre l’Iran. Tandis que le président Ahmadinejad savoura sa visite officielle à Bagadad où il rencontra en secret le chef d’état-major interarmes US, Mike Mullen, pour planifier la baisse de la tension en Irak. Mais le tandem Bush-Cheney ne s’avouait pas vaincu. Il sabota dès qu’il le put cette mécanique bien huilée.

Premièrement, la conférence de Moscou disparut dans les sables mouvants des mirages orientaux avant même d’avoir existé. Deuxièmement, Israël se lança à l’assaut de Gaza et l’OTAN déploya sa flotte au large du Liban de manière à relancer l’embrasement général du Grand Moyen-Orient, alors que Fallon s’efforçait d’éteindre les foyers d’incendie un à un. Troisièmement, la Maison-Blanche, habituellement si prompte à sacrifier ses employés, refusa de lâcher les Moujahidines du peuple.
Exaspérés les Russes massaient leur flotte au sud de Chypre pour surveiller les bâtiments de l’OTAN et envoyaient Sergeï Lavrov en tournée au Proche-Orient avec mission d’armer la Syrie, le Hamas et le Hezbollah pour rééquilibrer le Levant. Tandis que les Iraniens, furieux d’avoir été abusés, encourageaient la Résistance irakienne à casser du GI’s.

Voyant ses efforts réduits à néant, l’amiral Fallon démissionnait, seul moyen pour lui de conserver à terme son honneur et sa crédibilité face à ses interlocuteurs. L’interview d’Esquire, publié deux semaines plus tôt, n’est ici qu’un prétexte.

L’heure de vérité

Dans les trois prochaines semaines, le tandem Bush-Cheney va jouer son va-tout en Irak en faisant parler les armes. Le général David Petraeus, poussera à l’extrême son programme de contre-insurrection de manière à se présenter victorieux devant le Congrès, début avril. Simultanément, la Résistance irakienne, désormais soutenue à la fois par Téhéran, Moscou et Pékin, va multiplier les embuscades et chercher à tuer le maximum d’occupants.

Il appartiendra alors à l’establishment états-unien de tirer les conclusions du champ de bataille. Soit il jugera les résultats de Petraeus sur le terrain acceptables et le tandem Bush-Cheney terminera son mandat sans encombres. Soit, pour éviter le spectre de la défaite, il lui faudra sanctionner la Maison-Blanche et reprendre d’une manière ou d’une autre les négociations que l’amiral Fallon avait conduites.

Simultanément, Ehud Olmert interrompra les négociations initiées avec le Hamas via l’Égypte. Il chauffera la région jusqu’à la visite du président Bush en mai. Et les frères Janah et Hani Hammoud (respectivement coordinateur média de la Force multinationale en Irak et conseiller média de Saad Hariri), qui assurent la liaison des loyalistes libanais avec le général Petraeus et l’amiral Fitzgerald (OTAN), feront monter la tension au Liban.

Cette fièvre régionale devrait redynamiser le dispositif Bush, qu’il s’agisse des investissements dans le domaine militaro-industriel du fonds Carlyle, au bord de la faillite, ou de la campagne électorale de John McCain.

Vu de Washington, faut-il continuer à sacrifier la vie des GI’s pour une guerre qui a déjà coûté 3 trilliards de dollars et faire haïr les États-Unis même par leurs plus fidèles partenaires alors qu’elle n’a rapporté qu’à quelques sociétés détenues par le clan Bush et ses amis ?

http://www.voltairenet.org/article155917.html

Thierry Meyssan
Analyste politique, fondateur du Réseau Voltaire. Dernier ouvrage paru : L’Effroyable imposture 2 (le remodelage du Proche-Orient et la guerre israélienne contre le Liban).
 

______________________________________________________________

[1] « The Man Between War and Peace » par Thomas P.M. Barnett, Esquire, mars 2008.

[2] « La Maison-Blanche sacrifiera-t-elle la Ve flotte pour justifier la destruction nucléaire de l’Iran ? », par Michael Salla, Réseau Voltaire, 18 novembre 2007.

[3] « Washington décrète un an de trêve globale », par Thierry Meyssan, et « Pourquoi McConnell a-t-il publié le rapport sur l’Iran ? », Réseau Voltaire, 3 et 17 décembre 2007

[4] « La ‘solution à deux États’ sera bien celle de l’apartheid », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 13 janvier 2008.

[5] « La discrète arrivée de l’OTAN au Liban », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 10 mars 2008.

___________________________________________________________

Afghanistan mission close to failing – US
 

Injection of troops and aid has not brought stability says intelligence chief

Declan Walsh in Islamabad and Richard Norton Taylor
The Guardian, Friday February 29 2008

After six years of US-led military support and billions of pounds in aid, security in Afghanistan is “deteriorating” and President Hamid Karzai’s government controls less than a third of the country, America’s top intelligence official has admitted.

Mike McConnell testified in Washington that Karzai controls about 30% of Afghanistan and the Taliban 10%, and the remainder is under tribal control.

The Afghan government angrily denied the US director of national intelligence’s assessment yesterday, insisting it controlled “over 360″ of the country’s 365 districts. “This is far from the facts and we completely deny it,” said the defence ministry.

But the gloomy comments echoed even more strongly worded recent reports by thinktanks, including one headed by the former Nato commander General James Jones, which concluded that “urgent changes” were required now to “prevent Afghanistan becoming a failed state”.

Although Nato forces have killed thousands of insurgents, including several commanders, an unrelenting drip of violence has eroded Karzai’s grip in the provinces, providing fuel to critics who deride him as “the mayor of Kabul”.

A suicide bomb at a dog fight near Kandahar last week killed more than 80 people. Yesterday fighting erupted in neighbouring Helmand when the Taliban ambushed a police patrol. The interior ministry said 25 militants were killed; a Taliban spokesman said they lost one.

A day earlier, the Asian Rural Life Development Foundation aid agency said it feared that Cyd Mizell, an American employee kidnapped in Kandahar last month, had been killed in captivity.

A big injection of foreign troops has failed to bring stability. The US has almost 50,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and – twice as many as in 2004 – while the UK has 7,700, mostly in Helmand. Another 2,200 US marines are due to arrive next month to combat an expected Taliban surge.

Nato commanders paint the suicide bombs and ambushes as signs of a disheartened enemy. Yesterday, Brigadier Andrew Mackay, commander of the British contingent in southern Afghanistan, said the Taliban were “worn down”, running low on fighters, and being ostracised by local communities. “Logistically they are also challenged. The cumulative effect of all of this is that they are having to change their modus operandi, and that is why we are seeing more asymmetric attacks and suicide bombings in places such as Kandahar,” he said.

But analysts believe the Taliban is successfully adapting the brutal guerrilla tactics that have served Iraqi insurgents so well. The six British soldiers killed in Helmand over the past three months were victims of roadside bombs. The drugs trade is swelling the Taliban coffers – according to the highest estimates, 40% of profits, or tens of millions of pounds, go to the insurgency. Attacks have made the main road from Kandahar to Kabul too dangerous for foreigners. Afghan truck drivers travel with armed escort.

The insecurity has penetrated the capital. Since an assault on Kabul’s Serena Hotel last January, westerners have disappeared from the streets of Kabul. This week Taliban commanders threatened to step up the campaign with more bombs.

The key to the Taliban’s success, McConnell said, “is the opportunity for safe haven in Pakistan”. Meanwhile the surge in violence has placed a big strain on Nato. The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has agreed to deploy a battalion near Kabul after America has criticised European states for refusing to join the fight in the south and Canada threatened to withdraw its troops from Kandahar next year if reinforcements do not arrive.

An Oxfam report yesterday said international and national security forces, as well as warlords, criminals and the Taliban, were perceived by ordinary Afghans as posing security threats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/afghanistan.terrorism

The Arab President US Media Doesn’t Want You to See

By Ali Baghdadi

(arabjournl@aol.com, arabjournl@hotmail.com, Chicago )

Most Americans are familiar with President Mubarak of Egypt , King Abdallah II of Jordan, King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia , President Assad of Syria , and a few other Arab leaders.  They are frequently seen in print media and on TV.  They have one thing in common.  Their skin is white.  As a matter of fact, the Syrian leader is blond with blue eyes.

Though the Sudan is the largest country on the African continent (2.5 million square kilometers), and its population exceeds forty million, have you ever seen its President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on TV?  Though the news of the Sudan and its western region, Darfur, appear almost daily in the U.S. media, have you at any time seen his picture in a newspaper or a magazine?

I doubt you did!  It is not your fault.  The U.S. media hides him from your sight.

The question is: Why do our media keep him away from public view?

Mr. al-Bashir is known to be gentle, kind, and pleasant.  His smile is genuine.  One can easily connect with al-Bashir for his humility, warmth, and frankness.  He doesn’t play dirty games.  He doesn’t speak in double tongues.  He is a man of high principles.

Near the end of last February, Mr. al-Bashir spoke live to thousands of African-Americans via satellite at the Nation of Islam’s Savior’s Day convention in Detroit for almost an hour and a half.  Without any form of censorship, he was prepared to respond to questions from the American media regarding any subject of concern, particularly Darfur .

Although the event had been highly publicized and the media had been informed long in advance, only a couple of major media outfits showed any interest.  Their questions were outright stupid.  They didn’t take advantage of this golden opportunity to relay to their viewers the other side of the story coming directly from its source.  The only thing that concerned them was whether or not the Sudanese President was going to allow the so-called U.N. peace-keeping forces into Darfur .  A reporter, who had not been to the Sudan and had earlier written about the imaginary “crimes” the central government carries out in Darfur , was urged by Akbar Muhammad, the coordinator of the press conference, to talk directly to the Sudanese President.  The man declined.  The extent, history, or the roots of the Darfur tragedy, the forces that ignite it, and why, were not of any importance.  Again, no pictures!

Children were not terrified when they saw al-Bashir, who is accused of being “an ugly terrorist, mass murderer, and war criminal”, addressing the convention.  Men and women didn’t walk out to protest a speech delivered by a man described by the American media as “the world’s worse dictator” who is waging a war of “genocide and ethnic cleansing” against Blacks.  On the contrary, the President of Sudan was met with warm applause.  African-Americans of all faiths gave him a standing ovation.

Again!  Why do the U.S. executives of the corporate media insist on keeping al-Bashir and members of his government away from American viewers?  Not a single western newsperson has ever been hurt in the Sudan .

The reason is simple; a picture is worth a thousand words.  The Sudanese President and his entire cabinet, though they are Arabs, are Blacks.  All are Africans.  Arabism is not a race or a blood relationship.  It is a culture, a sense of belonging, history, geography, and a strong desire to unite to survive in a cruel and savage world.  The lie that Arabs are carrying out massacres against Africans would immediately collapse.  The propaganda machine greased by over one hundred and sixty Zionist organizations, in addition to constant falsehoods coming from the White House and Christian Right groups, to convince the world, particularly African-Americans that Arabs murder and discriminate against Blacks, will no longer function.  The millions of dollars spent weekly by the vicious “Save Darfur” campaign on advertisements to vilify and dehumanize Arabs would become meaningless and a waste.

President al-Bashir is not popular here in the United States .  Sudanese rebels, who are trained, financed and equipped, by the U.S. government, hope to soon enter into Sudan far behind U.S. tanks and marines, are occasionally invited to Washington to meet with the U.S. President and Congress.  The legitimate leader of Sudan , who is determined to preserve the unity and sovereignty of his country, and protect its resources for the welfare of his people, is not entitled to receive this “honor”. 

However, Mr. al-Bashir is popular, not only at home, but across Africa , and the Arab and Muslim Worlds.  Africans, Muslims, and Arabs strongly reject the falsehoods, lies, and smear tactics colonial governments manufacture to justify a regime change.  His popularity stems from the fact that he refuses to recognize Israel , an illegitimate foreign identity established on stolen Palestinian land.  He has showed the courage to stand firmly against the crimes committed daily by the U.S. and Israel in Iraq , Palestine , Afghanistan , and Somalia .  He managed to establish excellent relations between the Iraq of Saddam Hussein and Iran , despite the eight year war fueled by the United States .  He protected Sudan ’s wealth and resources from U.S. corporate robbery.

To serve certain political agendas, Mr. al-Bashir is falsely labeled by the Zionist and US corporate media as “a monster, the world’s number one dictator and a war criminal”.  Washington lists Sudan as a terrorist and rogue nation that violates the basic principles of human and civil rights.

I met President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, years ago, twice, in his office in Khartoum .  I was impressed.  I felt most comfortable.  He is one of the few leaders whom I respect and admire.

My late April 2007 visit to the Sudan , in a fact finding mission as a part of an African-American journalists’ delegation, is one of my most memorable experiences. I was moved by the president’s down-to-earth humility.  It gave me the opportunity to meet and visit with him and his family at his private home in his village for several hours, and as a result has enabled me to learn more about him as a family man and as a leader.  The visit also enabled me to closely observe the life style the Arab-African President chose for himself and his family.  It has emphasized and strengthened the notions I had earlier of President al-Bashir and his administration.  I was struck by his overwhelming temperate disposition and manners.  Though he is obviously saddened and concerned about the wars imposed on the Sudan , I was captured by his smile that reflects the inner peace and tranquility he enjoys.

In the last eighteen years, I have visited more than eighty countries throughout the world, and met with many Arab, Muslim, and Third World leaders on three continents.  I must confess, in terms of simplicity and disdain for materialistic lavish life, the leaders of the Sudan , Libya , Iran , and Cuba struck me the most.

Omar Hassan al-Bashir is so attached to his roots and place of his birth and upbringing.  He frequently visits his village where he grew up.  His old small one-storey house in which he stays in and meets some of his local and foreign guests is indistinguishable from any quarters occupied by ordinary citizens.  The house and wall around it are made of mud.  The tiny living room contains two old chairs and an old iron bed used as a sofa.  The narrow passageway that leads to his entry door is nothing but sand.  The food we shared with the President was a piece of chicken, a small roll of bread, an apple and a bottle of water.  Our laps served as the dining room table.  I don’t recall to ever eating something tastier.

I couldn’t believe my eyes.

President al-Bashir came out of his home to a nearby tent, addressed our delegation of 31 African-American journalists, and mingled freely with the men, women and children from the village who flocked to greet him.  He also held his cane up high, and joined them in their traditional dance.

Surprisingly, no bulletproof!  No electronic security check!  No one among the delegates or the crowd was searched.  No villager was pushed away or turned back.

There were no tanks, no armored cars, no Humvees, no Blackhawks, no Apache gunships, and not a single man with a military uniform.

BET (Black Entertainment TV) conducted a one hour exclusive interview with Mr. al-Bashir in his village.  He was thorough, honest, open, and frank.  The question remains: Will BET executives allow this rare interview to be aired in the United States ?  Will they let the truth be heard and their viewers see the facts?  Another question: Will the TV crew who were able to produce a great piece of journalistic work have the courage and determination to stick to their guns, and convince BET to release the documentary they produced to the public?  One would hope and pray that the crew will be true to high journalistic principles and not cave in to intimidation and pressure. 

When the time of al-Asr (before sunset) prayer came, some raggedy rugs were laid on the floor.  President al-Bashir stood shoulder to shoulder, in a straight line, with the other worshippers, irrespective of their position or rank, and solemnly prayed.  He didn’t lead.  A young man in his late twenties did.

The relationship between al-Bashir and God seems to be different from that of Bush and his Lord, who ordered the U.S. President to invade Iraq , and wage a “Crusade” of war against Muslims.  Bush says, “May God Bless America .”  As we see from Bush’s actions, the rest of the world may go to hell.

When the prayer ended, President al-Bashir, with his eyes closed, raised his hands towards the sky, and with a gentle voice, asked God, the creator of the universe, to bless the earth that gives us life.  He called upon the “Merciful and the Beneficent” to bring peace, and may prosperity prevail for the entire world, and to have that His blessings encompass all mankind

http://sundaymag.ca/index.php?id=936

Navy scores pinpoint hit on wayward satellite

China expresses concern about fallout after spacecraft struck over Pacific

U.S. Navy via AP - Feb. 21, 2008

WASHINGTON – A U.S. Navy cruiser blasted a disabled spy satellite with a pinpoint missile strike that achieved the main mission of exploding a tank of toxic fuel 130 miles above the Pacific Ocean, defense officials said.Destroying the satellite’s onboard tank of about 1,000 pounds of hydrazine fuel was the primary goal, and a U.S. official told NBC News that it “looks like the tank was hit.”

“It is still going to take some more analysis” to determine what happened to the fuel, but early indications were positive, the official said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered the shootdown, which came late Wednesday as he began an eight-day, around-the-world trip on which he likely will face questions about the mission.

The elaborate intercept may trigger worries from some international leaders, who could see it as a thinly disguised attempt to test an anti-satellite weapon — one that could take out other nation’s orbiting communications and spy spacecraft.

China expresses concern
Within hours of the reported success, China said it was on the alert for possible harmful fallout from the shootdown and urged Washington to promptly release data on the action.

“China is continuously following closely the possible harm caused by the U.S. action to outer space security and relevant countries,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a news conference in Beijing. “China requests the U.S. to fulfill its international obligations in real earnest and provide to the international community necessary information and relevant data in a timely and prompt way so that relevant countries can take precautions.”

While Pentagon officials stressed that the satellite strike was a one-time incident, it certainly will spin off massive amounts of data and research that can be studied by the military as it works to improve its missile defense technologies.

The USS Lake Erie, armed with an SM-3 missile designed to knock down incoming missiles — not orbiting satellites — launched the attack at 10:26 p.m. ET (0326 GMT Thursday), according to the Pentagon. It hit the satellite as the spacecraft traveled at more than 17,000 mph (27,000 kilometers per hour).

The shootdown, which was approved by President Bush, is seen by some as blurring the lines between defending against a hostile long-range missile and targeting satellites in orbit.

Because the satellite was orbiting at a relatively low altitude at the time it was hit by the missile, debris will begin to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere immediately, a Pentagon statement said.

Burn before re-entry?
“Nearly all of the debris will burn up on re-entry within 24-48 hours and the remaining debris should re-enter within 40 days,” it said.

The use of the Navy missile amounted to an unprecedented use of components of the Pentagon’s missile defense system, designed to shoot down hostile ballistic missiles in flight — not kill satellites.

The goal in this first-of-its-kind mission for the Navy was not just to hit the satellite but to obliterate the fuel tank.

U.S. officials have said the fuel would pose a potential health hazard to humans if it landed in a populated area. Although the odds of that were small even if the Pentagon had chosen not to try to shoot down the satellite, it was determined that it was worth trying to eliminate even that small chance.

Officials said it might take a day or longer to know for sure if the toxic fuel was blown up.

The government has organized hazardous materials teams to be flown to the site of any dangerous or otherwise sensitive debris that might land in the United States or elsewhere. The operation was so extraordinary, with such intense international publicity and political ramifications, that Gates — not a military commander — made the final decision to pull the trigger.

Gates had arrived in Hawaii less than two hours before the missile was launched. His press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said Gates had a conference call during his flight with Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of Strategic Command, and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They told him that “the conditions were ripe for an attempt, and that is when the secretary gave the go-ahead to take the shot, and wished them good luck,” Morrell said.

At 10:35 p.m. EST, Gates spoke to both generals again and “was informed that the mission was a success, that the missile had intercepted the decaying satellite, and the secretary was obviously very pleased to learn that,” said Morrell.

Adm. Timothy J. Keating, chief of U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters shortly before the strike that he made calls to a number of international leaders to alert them to the mission. He said none said they had concerns, but he acknowledged he did not speak to the Chinese.

China and Russia both expressed concerns about the shootdown in advance, saying it could harm security in outer space.

Delicate operation
The U.S. government organized hazardous materials teams, under the code name “Burnt Frost,” to be flown to the site of any dangerous or otherwise sensitive debris that might land in the United States or elsewhere.

High seas in the north Pacific had threatened to postpone the launch as the USS Lake Erie prepared a three-stage missile. Beyond a certain point, rough seas can interfere with the cruiser’s launch procedures.

Early in the day, a senior military officer said it did not look as if the weather would be good enough. That was shortly after the space shuttle Atlantis landed, removing the last safety issue for the military to begin determining the best moment for launch.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a health bulletin saying that the health risk from satellite debris was considered to be low. “However, CDC is encouraging health officials and clinicians to review information about the health effects related to hydrazine to prepare in case their communities are affected by satellite debris.”

The government issued notices to aviators and mariners to remain clear of a section of the Pacific Ocean beginning at 10:30 p.m. EST Wednesday

U.S. loses control of spy satellite

Jan. 28: A U.S. intelligence agency loses control of a spy satellite after it loses power.Much of the equipment used in the satellite shootdown was part of the Pentagon’s missile defense system, a far-flung network of interceptors, radars and communications systems designed primarily to hit an incoming hostile ballistic missile fired at the United States by North Korea. The equipment, including the Navy missile, has never been used against a satellite or other such target.

The three-stage Navy missile has chalked up a high rate of success in tests since 2002 — in each case targeting a short- or medium-range missile. A hurry-up program to adapt the missile for this anti-satellite mission was completed in a matter of weeks; Navy officials say the changes will be reversed once this satellite is down.

Left alone, the satellite would have been expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613/page/2/

Kyrgyzstan will demand U.S. close airbase – eventually

21/ 02/ 2008

MOSCOW, (RIA Novosti) -

Kyrgyzstan is to eventually demand that the United States close down its airbase in the country, the Central Asian republic’s president said on Wednesday, without giving a firm date.

The U.S. Ganci airbase at Manas airport, located 30 kilometers (17 miles) east of Bishkek, accommodates 1,000 U.S. troops along with nine refueling and cargo planes supporting antiterrorism operations in Afghanistan.

“We will eventually raise the issue of its closure. That’s for certain,” Kurmanbek Bakiyev said in an interview with RIA Novosti and Russia Today.

Kyrgyz Finance Minister Tazhikan Kalimbetova disclosed earlier this month that Washington pays $17.5 million each year in rent.

Although Russia has encouraged Bishkek to demand the withdrawal of American troops, the impoverished nation of five million needs U.S. support and the military base has generated jobs and is a strong contributor to the Kyrgyz economy.

Russia established in October 2003 its own airbase in Kant, about 20 miles west of the Kyrgyz capital. The Russian base currently deploys about 400 troops, as well as 20 combat and transport planes, helicopters, and L-39 trainers.

Kalimbetova said Kyrgyzstan has not charged Russia, and has no plans to impose charges for the use of the Kant airbase, because the Russian troops are stationed at Kant under an agreement in the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) – a regional security bloc in Central Asia, which also includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Furthermore, Kyrgyzstan’s debt to Russia totals $184 million, and in these circumstances, it would be rather “inappropriate” to demand rent, the minister said.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080220/99718840.html
 

Navy Research Paper:

‘Disrupt Economies’

with Man-Made ‘Floods,’

‘Droughts’

21-02-08

A recently-unearthed U.S. Navy research project calls for creating mad-made floods and droughts to “disrupt [the] economy” of an enemy state. 

“Weather modification was used successfully in Viet Nam to (among other things) hinder and impede the movement of personnel and material from North Viet Nam to South Viet Nam,” notes a Naval Air Warfare Weapons Division – China Lake research proposal, released last month through the Freedom of Information Act.  But “since that time military research on Weather Modification has dwindled in the United States.”

The proposal suggests a study of the latest weather manipulation techniques, to “give the U.S. military a viable, state-of-the-art weather modification capability again.”  With that in hand, American forces would be able…

To impede or deny the movement of personnel and material because of rains-floods, snow-blizzards, etc.(2) To disrupt economy due to the effect of floods, droughts, etc.

Today, Chinese officials are trying to figure out ways to keep it from raining over Beiing, during this summer’s Olympics.

_____________________________________________________________ 

Related link :

The U.S. government routinely conducts experiments on weather modification

Chemtrails-Chemtrails-Chemtrails-Chemtrails

China “deeply concerned” over Kosovo independence

Beijing (PTI): China on Monday said it was “deeply concerned” over unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, saying it could lead to a “negative influence” on the peace and stability in the Balkan region.

China, a veto-wielding member of the United Nations, said the best way to resolve the Kosovo issue was that Serbia and Kosovo reach a plan acceptable to both sides through negotiations.

“Kosovo’s unilateral act can produce a series of results that will lead to a seriously negative influence on peace and stability in the Balkan region and on realization of building a multi-ethnic society in Kosovo, which China is deeply concerned about,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said.

The settlement of the Kosovo issue concerned the peace and stability in the Balkan region, the basic norms governing international relations and the authority and role of the UN Security Council, he said.

Liu said Serbia and Kosovo should continue to seek a “proper solution” through negotiation with the framework of international law for which the international community should create favourable conditions.

The US and European powers have welcomed the declaration of independence by Kosovo whose parliament yesterday voted in favour of the proposal breaking away from Serbia.

Serbia has said it would not recognise the independence of Kosovo, while Russia has reacted furiously, calling for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the issue.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200802181059.htm

Moscow To Present Sino-Russian Space Arms Race Control Initiative

-
by Staff Writers
Moscow (RIA Novosti) Feb 12, 2008

Russia will submit to a UN disarmament conference a joint Sino-Russian proposal for an international treaty to ban the deployment of weapons in outer space.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will present the draft treaty to the UN-sponsored annual Geneva Disarmament Conference on February 12.

The United States has been critical of the Russian-Chinese initiative, especially following China’s anti-satellite missile tests last year.

Donald Mahley, acting U.S. deputy assistant secretary for threat reduction, export controls and negotiations, said: “We see nothing in the new proposal to change the current U.S. position.” He said additional binding arms control agreements, “are simply not a viable tool for enhancing the long-term space security interests of the United States or its allies.”Washington said that after China tested an anti-satellite missile in January 2007, the U.S. administration had intensified work on a program called Space Situational Awareness (SSA).

The program has been defined as “knowing the location and potential function of every object orbiting the earth active or inactive regardless of its size, its purposes, its mission and its status.”Russian President Vladimir Putin said last Friday that a new arms race had begun, but that Russia would not allow itself to be drawn into it.

Russia has also been unnerved by NATO’s ongoing expansion and Washington’s plans to deploy missile defense bases in Central Europe, which it says are needed to deter possible strikes from Iran and other “rogue states.”

http://www.spacewar.com