Whos is really behind MUMBAI, India terror…

 Update 4 :

The Mumbai based group alleged that Al-Qaeda is a front organization of CIA and MOSSAD. “There is enough evidence that the Al-Qaeda is a front organization of the CIA and MOSSAD. The Bush junta has used the bogey of terror and of Al Qaeda to justify his unending and ever expanding Global War on Terror, which is only a means of capturing the resources of the world and of establishing the sole hegemony of Israel in West Asia,” said the group of activists and intellectuals. The group is holding a press conference in Mumbai on Wednesday to “expose the links between Al-Qaeda and the CIA-MOSSAD”.

 

Holding American-Israeli operation accomplices of the 9/11 attack on the WTC, the spokesman of the group said that this has been widely written about in USA and Europe itself and more than 50% of the American people and far more Europeans, now believe and are convinced about this fact. He said that sections of the Indian ruling political and military elite are importing the same Bush-Olmert formula into India. “The increasing terror attacks only serve the cause of the Indian elite and divide the masses along communal lines. It is only the ordinary Indians who are the victims of terror either in temples, mosques, buses or trains,” he said adding that practically no political leader suffers a similar fate, where the terrorists are apprehended and killed in “encounters”.

 

“Every terror attack is meant to push and drag the Indian masses further into the waiting arms of Uncle Sam and the Israeli Goliath. Every terror attack spreads further hatred for Muslims and Islam and weakens the Indian Muslim community,” he said.

 

 

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/17121.asp

 

 

 

 

——————————————————–

——————————————————— 

Crisis in UK or trouble in India ? The solution for Zion-west to always go total control of the economical world is to split China, India and Russia, that’s the plot, the solution is to rise up ethnical an religious hate every where, now it’s India…

The West want to split India in a civil war, the first steps was the “good”(or infiltration mossad of India) relatons with Israel, the second is the nuclear deal between USA and Inda (that’s what India think), but the plot in eyes of the financial crisis is more bigger.

On the one hand, it’s an international monetary-financial crisis, in which the collapse of the entire world international monetary system could be completed within a time as early as this year, and even sometime earlier in this year, because that’s the way human events are

The British monarchy is not the controlling force inside the British Empire. The controlling force is a slime-mold, called the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financial establishment.

They run the empire. They are not necessarily British citizens; they’re often Dutch, they are French, they’re Venetian, they’re New York bankers.

George Shultz, for example, the guy who sank the Roosevelt monetary system, is part of this. He’s a fascist.

So’s Rohatyn. Rohatyn’s a fascist. It’s not a term, it’s a species designation.

The issue has always been, in European civilization, in particular, that the tendency has been by oligarchs, to degrade the lower 80% or more of the family-income brackets of a population to virtual animals, by denying them access to the process of developing creativity and new discoveries.

A similar operation was run in Indonesia. There was a very effective liberation movement in Indonesia against the Dutch imperialism. The British backed that, with armed forces, a war that went on for some time, and created the mess which we suffer still today.

Similar things were done in the split-up of India, in the Pakistan-India split—and it was a horrible scene to see, the way it occurred. This was done, by the British.

Africa was given liberation, but not liberation: They were given the title to liberation, but no power to run their countries. Similar kind of thing.

————————–

While discussing bomb blasts at different places in Maharashtra, Muslim leaders, writers and political analysts have repeatedly pointed fingers to Bajrang Dal and other Hindutva extremists who are working under the guidance of Israeli secret agency Mossad, now operating in Maharashtra. They also write that Maharashtra police and A.T.S. is trying to shield Hindutva extremists.Senior Muslim leader and Member of Parliament Ilyas Azmi, in an UNI news item published in the Sahara of September 14, alleged that everyone including Maharashtra police knows for certain that all the incidents that happened in Nanded, Mumbai, Malegaon and Nasik are being perpetrated under the guidance of Mossad. But, out of enmity with Islam, those who have seated Mossad in Mumbai and Worli will not crackdown on Mossad until and unless the country falls prey to slavery once again, he said.

In April this year two persons were killed when they were busy making bombs in the house of a Bajrang Dal office bearer. In the light of police investigations (now shelved) the people belonging to the same group were found in the bomb attack on a mosque in Parbhani in 2003 and blasts in Purna and Jalna in August 2004. Experts opine that the influence of Massad has been gaining roots in India now, he wrote.

In another edit-page article entitled After Nanded, Jalna, Parbhani and Mumbai, It is Now Malegaon: Who are the terrorists? in the Sahara (September 14) Farman Chaudhary opines that if ground realities are taken into consideration without any bias and prejudice then it is easily understandable that these blasts were perpetrated by only those who want to harm Muslims and can go to any extent to seek their goal.

In the house of Bajrang Dal activist in Nanded where a bomb went off on April 6 this year the police had seized the names, addresses, maps indicating location of those mosques, as well as Muslim clothing and fake beards. But under the mounting pressure of terrorist organisations like R.S.S. and Bajrang Dal the police did not pay attention to it.

www.indianmuslims.info/articles/special_reports/urdu_press_roundup/2006_september/

articles/muslim_mps_meet_maharashtra_cm_as_police_tries_to_wipe_out_p

Statement issued by David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, as printed in the Jewish Chronicle, 9 August 1967:

“The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological State is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs.

This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan.

Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work therefrom against Pakistan.

It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans.”

“Iran and India could develop relations not only in the field of energy but also in new industries, mineral products and banking activities,” Indian Ambassador to Iran, Manbir Singh said Sunday . . .

www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=76360&sectionid=351020102

Mind Control: America’s Secret War

Project MKULTRA (also known as MK-ULTRA) was the code name for a CIA mind-control research program that began in the 1950s.

The testimony of an MKULTRA test subject who was subjected to electo-shock, LSD, radiation, rape, dislocation of joints, chemical and drug experimentation as a child. Sent to a special school with many other children and taught how to sexually please men and entrap them in order for Richard Helms, Sidney Gottlieb, Martin Orne, L. Wilson Green, and others to use sexual blackmail operations (children) to secure permanent funding for MKULTRA, experiments and operations that continue to this day.

 Who is behind Human Rights Watch?

Under President Clinton, Human Rights Watch was the most influential pro-intervention lobby: its ‘anti-atrocity crusade’ helped drive the wars in ex-Yugoslavia. Under George W. Bush it lost influence to the neoconservatives, who have their own crusades. But the ‘two interventionisms’ are not so different anyway: Human Rights Watch is founded on belief in the superiority of American values. It has close links to the US foreign policy elite, and to other interventionist and expansionist lobbies.

No US citizen, and no US organisation, has any right to impose US values on Europe. No concentration camps or mass graves can justify that imposition. But Human Rights Watch finds it self-evident, that the United States may legitimately restructure any society, where a mass grave is found. That is a dangerous belief for a superpower: European colonialism shows how easily a ‘civilising mission’ produces its own atrocities. The Belgian ‘civilising mission’ in the Congo, at the time promoted as a noble and unselfish enterprise, killed half the population. Sooner or later, more people will die in crusades to prevent a new Holocaust, than died in the Holocaust itself. And American soldiers will continue to kill, torture and rape, in order to prevent killings, torture and rape.

For a century there has been a strong interventionist belief in the United States – although it competes with widespread isolationism. In recent years attitudes hardened: human-rights interventionism became a consensus among the ‘foreign policy elite’ even before September 11. Human Rights Watch itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGO’s and academics. It is certainly not an association of ‘concerned private citizens’. HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US. Cynically summarised, Human Rights Watch arose as a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department. Nevertheless, it represents some fundamental characteristics of US-American culture.

The September 11 attacks confirmed the interventionism of the entire foreign policy elite – not just the highly visible neoconservatives. More important, the public response illustrated the almost absolute identification of Americans with their own value system. Without any apparent embarrassment, President Bush declared that a war between good and evil was in progress. Ironically, that mirrors the language of the Islamic fundamentalists. It implies a Crusader mentality, rather than the usual pseudo-neutrality of liberal-democratic political philosophy. A society which believes in its own absolute goodness, and the absolute and universal nature of its own values, is a fertile ground for interventionism.

Human rights are part of the American value system, but they are also especially useful as an ‘ideology of justification’ in wartime. Such an ideology should ideally meet some criteria. First, it should not be a simple appeal to self-interest. Simply stating “We own the world!” or “We are the master race, submit to us!” is not good propaganda. As a slogan, ‘war on terrorism’ is also inadequate, since it is too clearly an American war, against the enemies of America. For propaganda purposes, an appeal to higher values is preferable.

Second, these higher values should be universal. This is why Islamism would probably fail as an interventionist ideology: it is specific to Islam. A geopolitical claim to intervene in support of Islamic values can be answered simply by saying: “We are not Muslims here”. The doctrine of universal human rights is, by definition, universal and cross-cultural.

Third, the ideology should appeal to the population of the super-power. In the United States, for historical reasons, ‘rights doctrines’ have become part of its political culture. It would be pointless for a US President to justify a war by appealing to Islam, or royal legitimacy, because very few Americans hold these beliefs. Most Americans do believe in rights theories – and very few know that these theories are disputed.

Fourth, if possible, the ideology should appeal to the ‘enemy’ population. It should ideally be part of their values. That is difficult, but the doctrine of human rights has succeeded in acquiring cross-cultural legitimacy. This does not mean it is inherently right – but simply that no non-western cultures have an answer to the doctrine. The government of China, for instance, fully accepts the concept of human rights, and claims to uphold them. So when it is accused of human rights violations, it can do nothing but deny, on this issue it is perpetually on the defensive. Acceptance of your values by the enemy population could be seen as the Holy Grail of war propaganda: if the enemy leadership is incapable of presenting an alternative value system, it will ultimately collapse.

Human rights are not the only ideology of intervention. The ‘civilising mission’, which justified 19-th century colonisation, is another example.The point is that human rights can serve a geopolitical purpose, which is unrelated to their moral content. It is not possible to show that ‘human rights’ exist, and most moral philosophers would not even try. It might not be a very important issue in ethics anyway – but it is important in politics and geopolitics. And geopolitics is what Human Rights Watch is about – not about ethics. HRW itself is an almost exclusively US-American organisation. Its version of human rights is the Anglo-American tradition. It is ‘mono-ethical’ – recognising no legitimate ethical values outside its own. However, the human-rights tradition is not, and can never be, a substitute for a general morality. Major ethical issues such as equality, distributive justice, and innovation, simply don’t fit into rights-based ethics.

Ethical values are not, in themselves, culturally specific. However, this ethical tradition has become associated with the United States. It is dominant in the political culture, it has become associated with the flag and other national symbols, and it is capable of generating intense national emotion. It emphasises the universal rights set out in the American Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. In a sense the US was ‘pre-programmed’ as an interventionist power. Universal human rights, by their nature, tend to justify military intervention to enforce those rights. Expansionists, rather than isolationists, are closest to the spirit of the American Constitution, with its inherently interventionist values. In fact, most US-Americans believe in the universality and superiority of their ethical tradition. Interventionist human-rights organisations are, like the neoconservative warmongers, a logical result. Human Rights Watch is not formally an ‘association for the promotion of the American Way of Life’ – but it tends to behave like one.

Human Rights Watch operates a number of discriminatory exclusions, to maintain its American character, and that in turn reduces internal criticism of its limited perspective. Although it publishes material in foreign languages to promote its views, the organisation itself is English-only. More seriously, HRW discriminates on grounds of nationality. Non-Americans are systematically excluded at board level – unless they have emigrated to the United States. HRW also recruits its employees in the United States, in English. The backgrounds of the Committee members (below) indicate that HRW recruits it decision-makers from the upper class, and upper-middle class. Look at their professions: there are none from middle-income occupations, let alone any poor illegal immigrants, or Somali peasants.

Human Rights Watch can therefore claim no ethical superiority. It is itself involved in practices it condemns elsewhere, such as discrimination in employment, and exclusion from social structures. It can also claim no neutrality. An organisation which will not allow a Serb or Somali to be a board member, can give no neutral assessment of a Serbian or Somali state. It would probably be impossible for this all-American, English-only, elite organisation, to be anything else but paternalistic and arrogant. To the people who run HRW, the non-western world consists of a list of atrocities, and via the media they communicate that attitude to the American public. It can only dehumanise African, Asians, Arabs and eastern Europeans. Combined with a tendency to see the rest of the world as an enemy, that will contribute to new abuses and continuing civilian deaths, during America’s crusades.

Who runs the HRW Europe Committee?

HRW Donors

Taken from an older version of the HRW website, this 1995 list is apparently the only information available. In the United States, HRW is not legally obliged to disclose who donates money. About half its funds come from foundations, and half from individual donors, in total about $20 million.

 

In its Annual Reports, HRW always claims that it “accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly.” However, that was a lie according to the 1995 list, and it is still a lie. The Dutch Novib – now part of the Oxfam group – is a government-funded aid organisation, and in turn it funded the activities of Human Rights Watch Africa in the Great Lakes region and Angola. Oxfam itself is primarily funded by the British government and the European Union, see their annual report. It is also funded by the United States Agency for International Development, USAID. Oxfam in turn partly funds Novib, so some of that money finds it way to HRW. Both Oxfam and Novib funded the HRW report on the Rwanda genocide. So, if it is as accurate as HRW’s claim not to accept any indirect government funding, look elsewhere for the truth.

 

DONORS OF $100,000 OR MORE

Dorothy and Lewis Cullman
The Aaron Diamond Foundation
Irene Diamond
The Ford Foundation
The Lillian Hellman and Dashiell Hammett Fund
Estate of Anne Johnson
The J. M. Kaplan Fund
The Fanny and Leo Koerner Charitable Trust
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
The John Merck Fund
The Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation
Novib, The Dutch Organization for Development Corporation,
The Overbrook Foundation
Oxfam
Donald Pels
The Ruben and Elisabeth Rausing Trust
The Rockefeller Foundation
Marion and Herbert Sandler, The Sandler Family Supporting Foundation
Susan and George Soros
Shelby White and Leon Levy

DONORS OF $25,000 – $99,999

The Arca Foundation
Helen and Robert Bernstein
Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Bronfman, Jr.
Nikki and David Brown
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Compton Foundation, Inc.
Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Davis
The Dr. Seuss Foundation
Fiona and Stanley Druckenmiller
Jack Edelman
Epstein Philanthropies
Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de L’Homme
Barbara Finberg
General Service Foundation
Abby Gilmore and Arthur Freierman
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund
Katherine Graham, The Washington Post Company
Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation
Hudson News
Independence Foundation
The Isenberg Family Charitable Trust
The Henry M. Jackson Foundation
Robert and Ardis James
Jesuit Refugee Service
Nancy and Jerome Kohlberg
Lyn and Norman Lear
Joshua Mailman
Medico International
Moriah Fund, Inc.
Ruth Mott Fund
Kathleen Peratis and Richard Frank
Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation
Ploughshares Fund
Public Welfare Foundation, Inc.
Anita and Gordon Roddick
Edna and Richard Salomon
Lorraine and Sid Sheinberg
Margaret R. Spanel
Time Warner Inc.
U.S. Jesuit Conference
Warner Brothers, Inc.
Edie and Lew Wasserman
Maureen White and Steven Rattner
Malcolm Wiener and Carolyn Seely Wiener
The Winston Foundation for World Peace

  

__________________________________________________________________________

 

 

---

 

 

Why human rights are wrong

 

 

Human rights conflict with the principle of moral autonomy, and form an excuse for oppression. Any harm to others can be justified by claiming that it is intended to respect certain ‘rights’, even if the victim does not know of their existence. Revised June 2004.

 

---

A Serbian or Iraqi child who is shot to enforce human rights, suffers just as much pain, as an American or British child. Yet the US and British governments do not kill or injure their own citizens, to protect their human rights. That fate is reserved for Eastern Europeans, Arabs, Africans, and Asians. The western human rights lobby claims, that it is wrong to deny people human rights. They claim opposition to human rights is based on ‘ethical relativism’, and that their own ‘moral universalism’ is superior. Yet they would not bomb their own cities like they bombed Belgrade or Falluja or remote Afghan villages. Clearly, the ‘moral universalism’ of the human rights lobby is itself relative: it is turned on and off to conform to geopolitical interests. It was never much more than a propaganda slogan anyway.

Increasingly, the doctrine of human rights is itself a cause of suffering, oppression and injustice. Increasingly, the argument that superpowers have a ‘moral duty’ to enforce human rights, is used in the same way as the doctrine of the ‘civilising mission’ once was used to justify colonialism. Since this was first written, it appears that the civilising mission – or at least crusades in defence of western civilisation – are not quite dead yet. American reactions to the attacks of 11 September 2001 have re-emphasised the so-called “Clash of Civilizations”. In that vision of history and geopolitics, democracy, freedom, and human rights are seen as universally valid, and yet historically specific to western civilisation. They are seen as a gift, which the West must bring to the rest of the world, or at least defend against the rest of the world. The position presented below is a rejection of human rights, without any appeal to cultural relativism or ethical relativism.

Human rights, sovereignty and military intervention

Universal human rights and sovereignty are two separate issues. It is possible to believe in universal human rights, but also in national sovereignty. In fact, until recently, this was the standard view among foreign policy elites.

A justification of intervention does not logically follow from human rights, even if those rights are violated. Interventionists try to suggest that it does, but they never explain the logic on this assertion. The assertion that military intervention is necessary in the face of clear human rights violations, is emotional propaganda. It is often successful, but it is not ethics. If, for instance, children are being tortured to death in Eritrea, then this is wrong. It is not necessary to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to know it is wrong. But whatever grounds you have for finding it wrong, it does not follow that the US Marines can legitimately invade Eritrea. The tactic of interventionists is usually to massively publicise the violations, and to imply that opponents of the intervention are accomplices.

The torture does not automatically produce a moral entitlement to intervention (breach of sovereignty). Even if the torture did create such an entitlement, it does not automatically follow that it must be a military intervention. And even if the torture creates an entitlement to military intervention, it does not automatically follow that the United States ‘owns’ that entitlement. All of these are separate steps, separate events, which need separate moral justification. With or without human rights, universal or not.

Human-right interventionism is in any case historically recent. For centuries great powers justified their wars, with speaking of human rights. The atrocity story is a traditional part of wartime propaganda, but it is only since the 1950’s that it is called a ‘human rights violation’ – And not every legitimation of intervention is formulated in human-rights terms – the Genocide Convention, for instance, simply prohibits genocide. But in the media and political rhetoric, these formal distinctions are often ignored. (Genocide is referred to as a ‘human rights violation’, although it is more accurate to call it a crime in international law). Since the emergence of the mass media in 19th-century western states, it is the emotional impact of the atrocity story which counts.

Of course, there are atrocities which exercise a powerful emotional appeal. If a future Eritrean dictator personally tortures children on a live CNN broadcast, the interventionist pressure would be intense. No doubt President Bush would think about sending in the US Marines. But what if Osama bin Ladin offers to rescue the children? Would they get American weapons to do so? When I first wrote that rhetorical question, before the September 11 attacks, my answer was: No: I think President Bush would suddenly feel that the rescue of the children had less priority. So would the majority of the US population. My assessment was, that the national interests of the USA would override any concern for human rights, any revulsion at atrocities. After September 11, that assessment was proved right. Countries such as Pakistan and Tadzikistan were suddenly promoted from ‘human-rights abusers’ to allies. And conversely the US gives no more aid to Osama bin Ladin – but the US had no problems with him, when he was fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Until September 2001, western powers sought to justify foreign wars by reference to human rights abuses, and other atrocities. That is no longer necessary, at least not for the American public. If the President convinces them than Osama bin Ladin is hiding in Antarctica, they will support a war on Antarctica. No foreign incident, however horrific, could match the impact of a spectacular attack of an American city. In retrospect, this undermines the pretensions of previous western military interventions, which where justified from abuses and atrocities – as in Bosnia. Western public outrage at the siege of Sarajevo was perhaps the most important factor behind that intervention. It is now clear, that such emotions are false and hypocritical. The outrage at atrocities is turned on and off, according to the political and geopolitical reality of the day. It is these realities which determine the interventionist human rights rhetoric: interventionists are insincere.

So where is the moral or cultural relativism? In the example described above, it is President Bush who is the relativist. His desire to rescue the child victims would be strong, if the US Marines do the rescuing – but not if the rescue is a propaganda victory for his worst enemies (Saddam or Osama bin Ladin, for example). I think this is a realistic assessment of how Bush thinks – it’s not the atrocities that count, it’s the war. The American public appears to share that kind of relativism.

The idea, that any human rights violation automatically legitimises any western military action, obviously has no moral basis. This short-cut is an evasion of the moral and political issues. However, interventionists are often successful in this evasion, partly because of the semi-sacred status of human rights. I will now consider the legitimacy of that status.

 

Definition and ethics of human rights

A human right is an ethical construction used to justify a harmful act against another person, by claiming that undergoing the harmful act is an absolute moral entitlement, and that accordingly the harmful action can not be judged morally wrong. For instance, a man who wants to rape a woman would say, that women have a ‘right to sex’, and that his action was beyond moral judgment, because in raping the woman he was respecting a universal right. Rights are not intended to improve the conditions of the person who gets the rights, but to legitimise the actions of the person who declares them. In practice, it is not individuals but states which declare rights, and they are used to justify state policy.

Some people in history have indeed claimed rights – but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They are not allowed to renounce these ‘declared rights’. The idea that a person must accept all rights declared for them, clearly contradicts the idea of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of consent. It is these aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for oppression. Generally, rights have the following characteristics…

• a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another person
• usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all human beings
• the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the right to be declared
• there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which constitute ‘respect’ of the right
• these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
• there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or restrain from certain action)
• the person with the ‘right’ has no moral grounds to oppose this action of respecting – even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
• therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a right, and these actions do not constitute a harm
• since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not wrong, even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person affected considers them a harm

Those are far-reaching claims by the rights theorists, and the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this summary, that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral autonomy.

Formally, what happens when a right is declared? The standard answer is: it creates a moral duty to respect it. But that is not all that happens. A right, once its existence is recognised, effectively divides all possible human actions into three categories: actions which respect that right, violations of the right, and actions which are neutral with respect to that right. Declaring a right is a declaration of a desired course of action, not necessarily action by the holders of the right. Implicitly, the declaration of a right promotes and legitimises actions to enforce that right. The ‘right not to be tortured’ is at first sight a classic claim right of torture victims. It appears to create en entitlement for the victim, the entitlement that the torture stops. But the present political reality is that it is interpreted as an entitlement to prevent torture. This entitlement is claimed to legitimise a wide variety of acts, usually hostile acts by one state against another state. In other words, although the ‘right not to be tortured’ appears to be a concession by states to individuals, in reality it is a power claim by states. It is the creation of an entitlement to make war and impose sanctions. The formal declaration may say “right not to be tortured”, but the Pentagon reads this as ‘”right to bomb torturers” – including a right to cause collateral damage.

Within states, the declaration of a right is an act comparable to law-giving, in the way that kings gave law. It is essentially a command or decree: do this, don’t do that. Implicitly, the law is intended for enforcement, and is assumed to create an entitlement to enforce it. So declarations of rights are ‘rule’, in the political science sense. If a king does write the laws for a territory, without any other legislature, then normally the king would be described as the ‘ruler’ of that territory. If the king has the means to generally enforce those laws, then the king exercises political power, again in the political science sense. A political scientist who arrives in an unknown territory, asks: “Who writes the laws here?”, “Who raises taxes here?”, “Who commands the army here?” The answers to these questions indicate who rules the territory, and who controls the State (if there is a state). But it is equally possible to ask: “Who declares the rights here?”

Declarations of rights are therefore fundamentally political acts, acts of policy. Anyone who issues and enforces declarations of rights is exercising political power. As you would expect, it is normally governments, and inter-governmental organisations, which issue the declarations. It is not an activity of oppressed individuals, as suggested by the propaganda of claim rights.

As such, human rights are the modern equivalent of the divine right of kings: as long as the populace believed that God appointed the king to rule, his rule was considered legitimate. In the last 200 years ‘popular sovereignty’ replaced ‘divine right’ – all nation states now claim to derive their legitimacy from the people. But unnoticed by political scientists, the proliferation of rights has created a parallel system of political legitimacy. Governments can appeal to human rights to justify their actions – without necessarily claiming to act in the name of the people. Rights doctrines have not yet displaced popular sovereignty as political legitimation, but over a generation or more, they might.

 

Human rights: opposing principles

Another way to illustrate the logic of rights, is to look at how rights could be ethically acceptable. The table below compares the standard view of human rights with a fictional ethic of rights, which would be more acceptable.

THE STANDARD CLAIMS ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS	AN ETHICALLY IMPROVED TYPE OF RIGHTS
Rights are declared without consultation, let alone consent.	Rights are voluntary. They can not be imposed on a person without consent.
Declarations of rights impose the same set of rights on everyone.	Every person is free to chose their own rights, if any.
International bodies, usually associations of nation states, declare most rights.	Specifically, the state or international organisations may not declare rights for persons, unless those persons participated in the formulation of those rights, and expressed their consent.
Every right must be respected, all the time, in all cases.	It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself subject to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a right, even a right that has been consented to.
Respecting a right is always good: it is never a harm or an injustice. Therefore it is not necessary to ask permission for any action done to a person, if that action constitutes respect of a right.	An action done to a person, to respect the rights of that person, can be a harm to that person. Each person is morally autonomous in deciding what constitutes a harm to themselves.
Rights are eternal, and involve no choice for the individual.	Rights may be renounced at any time.
No formal procedure to amend rights exists, certainly not for the individual.	There should be an impartial procedure of appeal against rights. Obviously this function can not be exercised by pro-rights organisations, such as the United Nations.
My enemies can agree to declare that I have a “right”, which in reality is a disadvantage for me.	An agreement on rights can not bind persons, who have not entered into the agreement.
Rights, once declared, must simply be accepted without question.	Objections of conscience to any right are valid.

This table shows how far the present human rights are from the fictional concept. No supporter of human rights would ever accept anything like these suggested limits, and that illustrates their arrogance toward those affected by their policies.

The UN-declared human rights

The present debate on human rights and sovereignty is largely concerned with a specific set of rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Declaration was approved by the United Nations in December 1948. In this case, the failure of ethical legitimacy is clear. The human rights lobby claims, that this document is morally binding on the whole world, forever. But what basis does that claim have?

The Declaration was certainly not approved by the whole world in any real sense. The text was decided by the diplomatic representatives of UN member states. No other persons or organisations participated in the negotiations on the text. These states were the victorious allied powers of 1945, and their allies, with a few others. They did not even approximate the present membership of the United Nations…

• In many cases, the government and political system in these states had been installed in 1944 and 1945 by Allied military action. (In Europe especially, the Soviet Union and the US manipulated the political process to obtain the desired government, inside their new spheres of influence). Even by the limited standards of parliamentary elections, those governments did not ‘represent’ their inhabitants. In some countries, such as Greece and China, a civil war was in progress.
• Some of the signatory states were, at the time, de facto protectorates of Allied powers – such as Persia, Egypt and Iraq. Others were self-ruled colonies, but with a whites-only government, such as Australia and South Africa.
• Several of the states excluded large sections of the population from any political influence – such as the remains of the German minorities in Eastern Europe at the time. Germany and Japan themselves were under military occupation, and not represented.
• Some of the States – Afghanistan, for instance – had no modern political system of any kind. Afghanistan in 1948 was no more a western democracy than it was under the Taliban.
• Most notably, Africa was ‘represented’ by colonial powers. At the time, most held no elections of any kind, in colonial territory. Often, all political activity by ‘natives’ was forbidden.

Probably only five governments decided, without outside pressure, their position on the Declaration: the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, Sweden, and Mexico. All others were, to a greater or lesser extent, dependent on their protecting power (or colonial power). The text was ultimately a compromise, between the United States and the Soviet Union. The USA was the initiator in this process, and the Soviet Union was on the defensive. The Declaration is, without doubt, a primary historical text of the Cold War.

Far from ‘claiming’ the rights in the Declaration, most of the world population never even saw the text before it was approved. Probably the majority could not even understand the few official languages, in which it was available. The text is still not available in the majority of the languages spoken on earth.

No political process of any kind was available to the population of even the signatory states, concerning the text of the Declaration. It was purely an intergovernmental affair. No election was held in any country, with the text as an election issue. No referendum, or any other form of test, was held to approve the text, in any country. There was no ratification procedure of any kind, since the Universal Declaration is not a Treaty. Despite the rhetoric about individual and inalienable human rights, no individual ever formally consented to the document, as an individual. The United Nations never organised any consent procedure. For the majority of the world population, consent in 1948 was not an option anyway: they were not born yet. I am obliged to accept the contents, even though it was approved before I was born, and any influence on its contents was therefore impossible.

There is no procedure for revision of the Declaration. There is no procedure for periodic review, let alone periodic re-approval. The Declaration is therefore considered to apply indefinitely, beyond the lifetime of those who drafted it, and without any possibility of amending it or annulling it. Their descendants will, apparently, forever be bound by the Declaration. There is no independent appeal against its contents, or against the rights imposed, or against the application of the Declaration by the United Nations. Specifically, there is no independent appeal procedure, against military action to enforce it. If the UN decides tomorrow, that it is necessary to destroy Beijing with a nuclear weapon, to enforce human rights, then no-one can take any legal steps against this decision. Neither the individual residents, nor the Chinese government, nor any organisation, can appeal – certainly not to the International Court. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered beyond appeal, in fact beyond all legal procedure.

The mythology says that I, and other humans, demanded human rights – and the UN graciously consented. The reality is that a geopolitical coalition of great powers drafted a decree, and enforced it militarily and politically.

This is a very weak ethical basis, for what is now regarded as the basic document of the United Nations, overriding the UN Charter (which guarantees national sovereignty). If the United States colonises Africa in 2020, then it will probably refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the legal basis for its actions. And since the United States is now the only superpower capable of doing this, and no other power can successfully oppose it, the temptation will be great. Because of its claimed universal and absolute force, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an emergent license for global conquest, in a unipolar world.

Human rights are clearly political

There is no doubt, that the doctrine of human rights belongs within a specific political tradition: the broad European liberal tradition. Human rights have also become a central element, in recent Anglo-American democratic liberalism (the type of political philosophy represented by John Rawls). But the liberal tradition is only one section of European political thought. Not only are human rights not universal, they are not even ‘western’ or ‘European’. I have completely rejected human rights, but my background is as European as liberalism. My rejection is certainly not African or Asian, in cultural or philosophical terms. Human rights are not culturally specific, they are politically specific. The human rights doctrine is a classic political ideology.

The imposition of human rights on the world, is the imposition of that political ideology. And with it comes the rest of the liberal package. The supporters of human rights are also the supporters of free trade, democracy, an open society and the free market. Two recent military interventions to protect rights, in Timor and Kosovo, have also brought open free-market economies to these regions. In organisations like the NATO or the OSCE, the free market and human rights are always referred to together, as if they were the same thing. And because of that, in practice, they are. The long-term geopolitical reality is of an ideological war of global conquest, by a small number of market-democratic states: human rights form part of the ideology of this conquest.

 

 http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/

 

 

 

 

 

Action Alert! Artists censored by Google -

 Web sites censored by Blogger & Google:

• Artist – Benjamin Heine
• Artist – Carlos Latuff
• A Mother From Gaza
• An Arab Woman Blues
• Axis of Logic
• Crimes and Corruptions of the New World Order News
• DesertPeace
• DictatorshipWatch.com
• PeacePalestine
• Uruknet
• Wake-up From Your Slumber
• We are wide awake
• What Really Happened

Action Alert! Uruknet, one of the most important sources of un-censored news about the occupied Palestinian territories and the Iraq war was removed from Google News on April 24, 2008. Your voice is needed. Please send a speedy form letter to google.news. Ask that these web sites and artists be reinstated. The above web sites and artists do not agree with the repression and killing of the Palestinian people, which is being carried out by Israel.

A small, but very vocal group known as Zionists wants to silence political cartoons- artwork and political speech that is critical of Israel and which draws public attention to Israel’s crimes. If you feel that this is patently unfair and such censorship of opinion shouldn’t be allowed, then let your voice be heard.

Imagine what power the vast majority of us have versus the tiny loud minority which “hates our freedom”, and hates our freedom of speech. They have taken the time to complain to Google and silence those they disagree with. Do you have the time to write to Google and tell them that you want these web sites and artists to be part of Google again? Do you have a minute to stand up for freedom of speech?

LINK

Sydney man faces “terrorist” trial for compiling book

——————–

———-

Toute forme de mépris, si elle intervient en politique, prépare ou instaure le fascisme.

[ L'Homme révolté (1951) ]
Citations de Albert Camus

By Mike Head
21 August 2008

Yet another major terrorist trial opened in Australia last week, bringing the number of cases currently underway to five, with a total of 27 Islamic or Tamil men facing lengthy imprisonment. The wave of trials highlights the fact that despite last year’s defeat of the Howard government, and the collapse of the police frame-ups against Mohamed Haneef and Izhar ul-Haq, nothing has changed in the domestic “war on terror”.

The trial that commenced in Sydney last Wednesday of Belal Khazaal, a former Qantas baggage-handler, makes clear that the nine-month-old Rudd government is proceeding with all the most anti-democratic features of the anti-terrorism legislation introduced by the Howard government between 2002 and 2006.

The two charges against Khazaal constitute a direct attack on the right to free speech. Essentially, he is on trial in the New South Wales Supreme Court for advocating and writing about terrorism, not for being involved in terrorist acts, even in the most indirect manner. He is charged with “knowingly collecting or making a document connected with terrorism” and “inciting a person to commit a terrorist act”. If found guilty, he could be jailed for 25 years.

Since Khazaal was arrested in mid-2004—just months before a federal election in which the so-called war on terror was used as a distraction from mounting discontent with the Howard government—his prosecution has been riddled with far-reaching violations of basic legal and civil rights. These have included denial of access to key documents and other evidence against him, closed hearings, secret and anonymous witnesses, confidential court rulings and an attempt to remove his lawyers from the case.

If Khazaal is convicted it will set a dangerous precedent that can be used against anyone who writes, compiles or publishes anything that could be construed as encouraging terrorism. The threat to basic democratic rights is even greater because the counter-terrorism laws define “a terrorist act” in ways that can include traditional forms of political protest or industrial action directed at pressuring a government to change its policy. And because of the wording of the terrorism laws, the prosecution does not have to prove any specific time, place or method, only that “an” attack was intended.

The “document” that Khazaal is accused of compiling has not been linked to any terrorist activity or planning. Nor was it published surreptitiously, an essential requirement of any terrorist plot. He posted on a publicly-available Jihadist web site an Arab-language book composed of material gathered from other identified sources already in the public domain.

From the evidence tendered, it appears that the manuscript, whose title has been translated as Provisions on the Rules of Jihad—Short judicial rulings and organisational instructions for fighters and Mujahideen against infidels, offered inflammatory support and advice for an Islamic fundamentalist “holy war”. It praised the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, hailing Al Qaeda’s “impressive success of the conquest of New York”.

The media has played up the prosecution’s assertions that the book listed “targets that should be assassinated,” including US President George Bush and members of his cabinet, such as Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, US generals and intelligence officials, along with “infidels” in Arab countries. Other texts apparently provided a checklist for assassins, from organising budgeting and transport to checking wiring before using a time-bomb.

However, no specific terrorist act was outlined, and no evidence has been produced in court suggesting that any assassination or other terrorist activity was committed or attempted as a result of someone reading the material, which was posted on-line in September 2003. Once the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the police raised objections to the book with Khazaal in May 2004, he removed it from the Internet. Two months later, however, he was arrested and charged.

There is no doubt that the perspective advanced by Khazaal was thoroughly reactionary and repugnant. The September 11 atrocities, which involved the indiscriminate killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people, embodied Al Qaeda’s contempt for ordinary working people. They also gave the Bush administration and its allies a convenient pretext to institute police-state measures at home, and military aggression abroad, in the name of combatting terrorism.

Nevertheless, Khazaal was exercising a basic democratic right when he expressed his views. The struggle for freedom of expression and other democratic rights has spanned centuries, precisely to protect the voicing of political, ideological and religious opinions, no matter how unpopular, dissenting or abhorrent. Once a government is allowed to outlaw a particular point of view, the precedent can be used against any other.

Both sections of the federal Criminal Code under which Khazaal has been charged are sweeping in their terms, as are all the provisions in the terror laws. Section 101.5 creates an offence, punishable by 15 years imprisonment, to “collect or make a document” that is knowingly “connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act” even if “the terrorist act does not occur”.

If Khazaal is acquitted of “knowing” of the “connection,” he can be found guilty of an alternative charge of being “reckless” as to the connection, which can mean imprisonment for 10 years. There is a defence that he did not intend to facilitate a terrorist act, but he bears “an evidential burden” in proving his lack of intention. In that way, the section also reverses the centuries-old principle that the prosecution must prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Section 11.4 of the Code, which covers incitement, goes even further in criminalising opinion. Incitement is defined to outlaw “urging” the commission of an offence, which could mean merely advocating or encouraging support for terrorism. Although the accused must intend that the offence be committed, he can be found guilty “even if committing the offence incited is impossible”.

Opening Khazaal’s defence, his counsel George Thomas told the jury that his client had written only a few paragraphs of the 102-page document. Thomas said that if Khazaal had written the material, certain inferences could flow. “But if he is taking something written by somebody else and putting it together as some sort of compilation to create the book, then some different inferences might flow.”

Many unanswered questions remain about the decision to prosecute Khazaal, who has remained free on bail since 2004 because a court accepted that he posed no actual threat to the community. ASIO is known to have interviewed him many times since 1994, and to have kept him under surveillance because of his known Islamic fundamentalist views. His book was posted on the internet in September 2003, but he was not charged until mid-2004, in the lead-up to a federal election, when the Howard government was anxious to claim some successes in the domestic “war” and to stir fresh insecurities in the minds of voters.

During the pre-trial hearings in the NSW Supreme Court proceedings, Khazaal and his lawyers were refused access to key documents, including the Warrant Affidavit that was sworn to search his home in May 2004. Justice Anthony Whealy ruled in October 2006 that the affidavit should not be disclosed because of “the real possibility of a threat to national security”. The judge said it was essential to protect confidential sources and ongoing counter-terrorism activities, and that this “public interest” overrode Khazaal’s right to procedural fairness.

Whealy decided that even Khazaal’s lawyers should be barred from reading the affidavit. The judge’s reasons could be used against virtually anyone accused by ASIO and the Australian Federal Police of an offence. He claimed that lawyers could make “inadvertent disclosures” of national security information to other people, and foreign spies could be interested in acquiring the information. Finally, he argued that Khazaal should take “considerable comfort” from the fact that Whealy, as the presiding judge, would know and understand the nature of the confidential information. This proposition leaves the accused completely in the hands of a judge, with no way of independently testing or contesting key evidence.

At several points in the preliminary hearings, the judge closed the court, took testimony from unidentified ASIO witnesses, heard confidential submissions and issued confidential judgments. All of these procedures smack of the Star Chamber under the old British monarchy—trampling over the right to a fair trial and preventing public scrutiny of the prosecution case. “National security proceedings” amendments passed to the terror laws in 2004 create wide-ranging powers for courts to take such measures, at the request of the federal attorney-general, and also require defence lawyers to obtain an ASIO security clearance if they wish to view confidential evidence.

During 2006, the federal government made an extraordinary bid to bar two of Khazaal’s lawyers, Peter Lange and Adam Houda, from representing him, claiming that the pair had wrongly seen copies of secret documents. After five days of legal argument, the judge rejected the application, but only because he was not convinced that Lange and Houda had acted deliberately or recklessly. Whealy left the door open to lawyers being removed in the future, saying the right of an accused to counsel of his choice was “important” but not “absolute”.

If Khazaal is found guilty, he will become the second person in Australia to be jailed essentially for expressing views regarded as pro-terrorist. In 2006, Sydney architect Faheem Khalid Lodhi was convicted on circumstantial evidence of preparing to commit an unspecified terrorist act. Lodhi was found guilty of collecting maps and other information—all readily publicly available. The prosecution case relied heavily on his political and religious views—particularly his opposition to the invasion of Iraq—as proof that he was intent on terrorist retaliation.

Four other terrorist cases are proceeding, all of which began under the Howard government but are being pursued vigorously under Rudd. One is the re-trial of Melbourne worker Jack Thomas, who this month lost a High Court bid to prevent him from being put on trial again. In 2006, the Victorian Court of Appeal overturned his initial conviction, for receiving funds from a terrorist organisation in Pakistan, because his police interviews had been coerced. Thomas remains on bail because a court accepted that he posed no terrorist threat, yet the Rudd government has kept him under a control order, a form of house arrest.

In another prosecution, three alleged supporters of the Sri Lankan Tamil separatist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), were arrested in mid-2007 and charged with LTTE membership, support or links, even though the LTTE has not been listed in Australia as a terrorist organisation. All three men were also later released on bail, but face a lengthy wait for their trial in Melbourne.

The two largest trials, one in Melbourne and one in Sydney, involve 22 Islamic men accused of conspiring to prepare terrorism, or being members or supporters of an unnamed terrorist organisation. The twin trials arose from a terrorism alert declared by Howard in 2005 to justify a new barrage of police-state laws on the pretext of preventing an imminent terrorist attack within Australia.

All the measures being applied in these trials were introduced by the Howard government, voted for by the then Labor opposition, and enthusiastically matched at the state and territory level by Labor governments. The Rudd government has sought to placate the growing public distrust of the “war on terror” by convening a judicial inquiry into the Haneef debacle, for the express purpose of “restoring public confidence” in the terrorism laws. The current trials are another warning that Labor is intent on preserving extremely draconian laws and a powerful police and intelligence apparatus for use against rising political discontent and social unrest in the coming period.

The Role of Israel in the Georgian War

Two airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli military aircraft, intended to launch an attack on identified targets relating to Iranian atomic energy projects. This attack was approved by President Bush in an undertaking with the government of Israel signed in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 2006 it is now believed that the Russian special forces have captured, intact, a number of the Israeli drones and, far more important, their radio controlling equipment… , units of the Russian air force bombed the Israeli bases in central Georgia and in the area of the capital, Tbilisi. They also severely damaged the runways and service areas of the two Georgian airbases designed to launch Israeli sir force units in a sudden attack on Iran.

By this manner, Israel could claim that it had a very small number of IDF people in Georgia “mainly connected with our Embassy in Tiblisi.” The Russians, however, were not fooled by this and their own intelligence had pinpointed Israeli surveillance bases and when they went after the Georgians who invaded South Ossetia, units of the Russian air force bombed the Israeli bases in central Georgia and in the area of the capital, Tbilisi. They also severely damaged the runways and service areas of the two Georgian airbases designed to launch Israeli sir force units in a sudden attack on Iran.

Israel is currently a part of the Anglo-American military axis, which cooperates with the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Israel is a partner in the Baku-Tblisi- Ceyhan pipeline which brings oil and gas to the Eastern Mediterranean. More than 20 percent of Israeli oil is imported from Azerbaijan, of which a large share transits through the BTC pipeline. Controlled by British Petroleum, the BTC pipeline has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Caucusus:

“[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region’s countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel, ” (Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006)

While the official reports state that the BTC pipeline will “channel oil to Western markets”, what is rarely acknowledged is that part of the oil from the Caspian sea would be directly channeled towards Israel, via Georgia. In this regard, an Israeli-Turkish pipeline project has also been envisaged which would link Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon and from there through Israel’s main pipeline system, to the Red Sea.

The objective of Israel is not only to acquire Caspian sea oil for its own consumption needs but also to play a key role in re-exporting Caspian sea oil back to the Asian markets through the Red Sea port of Eilat. The strategic implications of this re-routing of Caspian sea oil are far-reaching

What has been planned, is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline, from Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon.

The Isreali unmanned surveillance drones

The unmanned Israeli clandestine surveillance drones are a favorite of intelligence agencies world-wide. Their most popular drone is the Hermes 450 drone aircraft.

The Hermes 450 is a large, capable 450 kg spy drone manufactured by Elbit Systems of Israel. Able to stay airborne for a maximum of 20 hours, it has a 10.5 metre wingspan and is 6.1 metres long. It can carry a variety of different surveillance packages, including the CoMPASS (Compact Multi-Purpose Advanced Stabilised System), which is a combined laser marker and infrared scanner.

Elbit also offers Hermes with the AN/ZPQ-1 TESAR (Tactical Endurance Synthetic Aperture Radar) from Northrop Grumman of the US, a ground-sweeping radar which can detect objects as small as one foot in size and pick out those which are moving from those which aren’t. Radars of this type are essential for full bad weather capability, and help a lot with scanning large areas of terrain. Electro-optical scanners such as CoMPASS tend to offer a “drink-straw” view of only small areas in detail. The TESAR is the same radar used in the hugely successful “Predator” drone, in service for several years now with the US forces.

The U.S. Army has a drone trainng school located at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, an intelligence center located 10 miles from the Mexican border and the home of massive telephonic intelligence intercept units, aimed at Central and South America. At present there are 225 soldiers, reservists, and National Guardsmen training at this school. And on the faculty are three Israeli specialists. This unit is not destined for the middle east or even Pakistan; it has been set up to conduct surveillance of northern Mexico. There are two reasons for wanting to watch our southern neighbor. The first is to watch for great treks of illegal aliens but the second, and most important, is to conduct reconnaissance of territory over which American military units might be traversing in any punitive actions that could very, very well be triggered by the growing political instability in Mexico, caused by a growing struggle between the central government and the very powerful Mexican-based drug lords, who are wreaking havoc in that very corrupt country.

If a highly irate CIA employee, complaining of “excessive Israeli influence” in his agency, had not passed on files of information to the Russians late last year in Miami, in all probability, we would be reading about a stunning Israeli attack on Tehran. Now, the Iranian anti-aircraft missile batteries, supplied and manned by Russian “technicians,” have the probable coordinates of such an Israeli surprise attack, from the north, which would give the defenses of Tehran a vital heads-up.

———————————————–

This is a tale of US expansion not Russian aggression

War in the Caucasus is as much the product of an American imperial drive as local conflicts. It’s likely to be a taste of things to come

The Guardian

A couple of hours to the west, in the town of Senaki, it’s the same picture. A flagship military base, home to the Second Infantry Brigade, is in Russian hands. And down on the Black Sea coast, the radars and installations for Georgia’s sole naval base at Poti have been scrupulously pinpointed by the Russians and destroyed.

Gori and Senaki are not ramshackle relics of the old Red Army of the type that litter the landscape of eastern Europe. “These bases have only recently been upgraded to NATO standard,” said Matthew Clements, Eurasia analyst at Jane’s Information Group. “They have been operationally targeted to seriously degrade the Georgian military.”

“There is a presence of our armed forces near Gori and Senaki. We make no secret of it,” said the general staff in Moscow. “They are there to defuse an enormous arsenal of weapons and military hardware which have been discovered in the vicinity of Gori and Senaki without any guard whatsoever.”

The “enormous arsenals” are American-made or American-supplied. American money, know-how, planning, and equipment built these bases as part of Washington’s drive to bring NATO membership to a small country that is Russia’s underbelly.

The American “train and equip” mission for the Georgian military is six years old. It has been destroyed in as many days. And with it, Georgia’s NATO ambitions. “There are a few countries that will say ‘told you so’” about the need to get Georgia into NATO,” said Andrew Wilson, Russia expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “But many more will want to walk away from the problem. And for the next few years, Georgia will be far too busy trying to pick itself up.”

If Georgia and NATO are the principal casualties of this week’s ruthless display of brute power by Vladimir Putin, the consequences are bigger still, the fallout immense, if uncertain. The regional and the global balance of power looks to have tilted, against the west and in favour of the rising or resurgent players of the east.

In a seminal speech in Munich last year, Putin confidently warned the west that he would not tolerate the age of American hyperpower. Seven years in office at the time and at the height of his powers, he delivered his most anti-western tirade

As the Russian officers sat on the American stockpiles of machine guns, ammunition, and equipment in Gori, they were savouring a highly unusual scenario. Not since the Afghan war had the Russians seized vast caches of US weaponry. “People are sick to the stomach in Washington,” said a former Pentagon official. And the Russians are giddy with success.

Celebrating the biggest victory in eight years of what might be termed Putinism, the dogged pursuit by whatever means to avenge a long period of Russian humiliation and to deploy his limited range of levers – oil, gas, or brute force – to make the world listen to Moscow, the Russian prime minister has redrawn the geopolitical map.

In less than a week, Putin has invaded another country, effectively partitioned Georgia in a lightning campaign, weakened his arch-enemy, President Mikheil Saakashvili, divided the west, and presented a fait accompli. The impact – locally, regionally, and globally – is huge.

“The war in Georgia has put the European order in question,” said Alexander Rahr, one of Germany’s leading Russia experts and a Putin biographer. “The times are past when you can punish Russia.”

That seems to be the view among leading European policymakers who have been scrambling all week to arrange and shore up a fragile ceasefire, risking charges of appeasing the Kremlin.

“Don’t ask us who’s good and who’s bad here,” said Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, after shuttling between Tbilisi and Moscow to try to halt the violence. “We shouldn’t make any moral judgments on this war. Stopping the war, that’s what we’re interested in.”

His boss, President Nicolas Sarkozy, went to the Kremlin to negotiate a ceasefire and parade as a peacemaker. Critics said he acted as Moscow’s messenger, noting Putin’s terms then taking them to Tbilisi to persuade Saakashvili to capitulate. Germany also refused to take sides while Italy warned against building an “anti-Moscow coalition”.

That contrasted with Gordon Brown’s and David Milliband’s talk of Russian “aggression” and Condoleezza Rice’s arrival in Tbilisi yesterday to rally “the free world behind a free Georgia”.

The effects of Putin’s coup are first felt locally and around Russia’s rim. “My view is that the Russians, and I would say principally prime minister Putin, is interested in reasserting Russia’s, not only Russia’s great power or superpower status, but in reasserting Russia’s traditional spheres of influence,” said Gates. “My guess is that everyone is going to be looking at Russia through a different set of lenses as we look ahead.”

In Kiev certainly. Ukraine’s pro-western prime minister, Viktor Yushchenko, Saaksahvili’s fellow colour-revolutionary, is chastened and wary. His firebrand anti-Russian prime minister, Yuliya Tymoshenko, has gone uncharacteristically quiet.

Invasion of the Ukraine?

“An invasion of Ukraine by ‘peacekeeping tanks’ is just a question of time,” wrote Aleksandr Sushko, director of Kiev’s Institute of Euro-Atlantic Cooperation. “Weimar Russia is completing its transformation into something else. If Russia wins this war, a new order will take shape in Europe which will have no place for Ukraine as a sovereign state.”

All around Russia’s rim, the former Soviet “captive states” are trembling. Even Belarus, the slavishly loyal “last dictatorship in Europe”, went strangely silent, taking days before the regime offered Moscow its support. “Everybody’s nervous,” said Wilson.

The EU states of the Baltic and Poland are drumming up support for Georgia, with the Polish president Lech Kaczynski declaring that Russia has revealed “its true face”. That divides the EU since the French and the Germans refuse to take sides and are scornful of east European “hysteria” towards Russia. Rahr in Berlin says the German and French governments are striving to keep the Poles and the Baltic states well away from any EU-led peace negotiations. It was the Germans and the French who, in April, blunted George Bush’s drive to get Georgia into NATO. They will also resist potential US moves to kick Russia out of the G8 or other international bodies.

There are many who argue that Putin’s gamble will backfire, that he has bitten off more than he can chew, that Russia remains weak, a “Saudi Arabia with trees” in the words of Robert Hunter, the former US ambassador to NATO.

Compared to the other rising powers of China, India or even Brazil – the companions referred to as the BRIC – Russia does indeed appear weak. Its economy struggles to develop goods or services, depends on raw material exports and on European consumption and the price of oil for its current wealth.

Resources

But Putin’s talent is for playing a weak hand well, maximising and concentrating his limited resources, and creating facts on the ground while the west dithers.

“There is a lack of a clear and unified European policy towards Russia,” said Clements. In the crucial contest over energy “the Russian strategy of keeping control of exports and supply is outpacing any European response”.

Putin may now calculate he can call off the dogs of war, having achieved his aims and able to pocket his gains very cheaply. The Georgia campaign becomes the triumphant climax of Putinism.

“In politics, it is very important to know one’s measure,” wrote Aleksey Arbatov, director of Moscow’s International Security Centre. “If Russia continues to inflict strikes on Georgian territory, on facilities, on population centres, we may lose the moral supremacy we have today.”

But Wilson and many in eastern Europe worry that rather than being the climax of Putinism, the Russians in Georgia signal the start of something else. “This may not be a culmination, but only step one,” said Wilson. “If you don’t stop this kind of behaviour, it escalates.”

Foreign ministers have concluded there can be “no business as usual” with Russia so long as Moscow keeps its forces in Georgia

Foreign ministers have concluded there can be “no business as usual” with Russia so long as Moscow keeps its forces in Georgia.

Nato made the statement following a meeting in Brussels to discuss the situation in Georgia, where Russia has been slow to honour a peace agreement brokered last week.

US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice called for a “neutral peacekeeping force in Georgia… because Russia is clearly party to this conflict.

“Russian peacekeepers>’Russian peacekeepers’ have engaged in wanton destruction and this has isolated Russia; the US has not isolated Russia.”

Meanwhile foreign secretary David Miliband said there was unity among his peers that Russia should abide by the ceasefire and said Britain would be supporting Georgia “starting on the road to Nato membership”.

“The use of force is not a basis to redraw the map of countries around Russia,” he added.

Russia was due to begin its pullout of troops in Georgia proper yesterday, but reports on the ground claim tanks and soldiers remain in place around South Ossetia.

Nato secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said after today’s meeting in Brussels on the issue that there are no plans for the Nato-Russia council to meet while Russian forces continue to occupy a “large part” of Georgia.

“There can be no business as usual with Russia under the present circumstances,” he said.

“The future of our relations will depend on the concrete actions Russia will take to honour the words of Russian president Dmitry Medvedev to abide by the peace plan – which is not happening at the moment.

“It is now in the hands of Russia to take action. Russia should adhere to the six-point plan and Russians should go back to their positions on August 6th.

“I should add we will certainly not have the intention to close all doors in our communication with Russia. The future will depend on concrete actions on the Russian side.”

While shunning cooperation with Russia on the one hand Nato has opted to strengthen its links with Georgia on the other. Most importantly, Mr de Hoop Scheffer said, a Nato-Georgia commission is being set up “which can be seen as the same kind of consultation mechanism we have with our other partner Ukraine”.

The alliance will also attempt to prop up Georgia’s ability to resist further attacks. The state of the Georgian armed forces will be assessed, Nato will help re-establish Georgia’s air traffic system and efforts will be made to help Tbilisi improve its cyberdefence capability.

And Nato’s special representative is being dispatched to Tbilisi, while 15 civil emergency planning experts are being sent to assist the Georgian government.

“Georgia is a sovereign country with a democratically elected government. At the moment that principle is not accepted by some,” Mr de Hoop Scheffer added.

US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said Nato would not allow Russia to achieve its “strategic objective” of undermining democracy in Georgia.

She said: “There was very strong language around the table of the need for Russia to honour the ceasefire commitment that its president has undertaken.

“It is time for the Russian president to keep his word – to withdraw Russian forces from Georgia back to the August 6th/7th status quo ante.”

Georgian shelling of the breakaway province earlier this month sparked a ten-day conflict that saw the Russian army advance on Tbilisi and both sides accuse the other of genocide.

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/international-affairs/nato-puts-freeze-on-russian-relations-$1237002.htm

U.S. presses Turkey to allow NATO forces’

deployment to Black Sea

The United States is expected to pile pressure on Turkey to deploy permanent NATO navy forces for patrol missions in the organization’s summit which would start in Brussels. Turkey is concerned that such move would open a debate on the 1936 Montreux Convention and eventually harm its sovereign rights on the straits.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan attended the meeting of 26 NATO foreign ministers that met in Brussels on Tuesday. The members are expected to reaffirm their support for Georgia and send a strong message to Russia without freezing out Moscow diplomatically.

Turkey has long opposed to the deployment of NATO navy forces on the Black Sea, saying the region is safe and the Blackseafor’s, which was formed by the contribution of the surrounding countries, patrol mission is sufficient.

Diplomatic sources, however, told hurriyet.com.tr that the clashes between Georgia and Russia had weakened Turkey’s thesis, prompting the U.S. to relaunch its bid for deployment of NATO forces on the Black Sea.

The deployment of NATO forces in the Black Sea would breach the Montreux Agreement, which limits the total weight of the warships that a country who does not have border with the Black Sea can deploy to 45,000 tons.

The Turkish Straits are considered as one of the most strategic waterways of the world and located within Turkey’s territorial waters. The Montreux Convention, reinstating its sovereignty over the strategic Turkish Straits, and regulating navigation through them, was signed in 1936.

Link

———————————————————

———————————————————

US left isolated over Nato plans to maintain relations with Russia

The United States has been left diplomatically isolated after European members of NATO moved to reject an American proposal to scale back ties with Moscow following Russia’s invasion of Georgia.

By Adrian Blomfield in Tbilisi

The Telegraph’s Group Foreign Editor explains that it’s not just Georgia who have been alarmed by Russia’s actions. ; http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1488655367/bctid1738801465

http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=1139053637

US diplomats attending an emergency NATO summit in Brussels had called on the alliance to suspend ministerial meetings with Russia, held twice a year, as a way of demonstrating the West’s disapproval of the war.

But other members of the alliance, including Britain, rejected the plan, saying that it would be foolish to isolate Russia. Instead diplomats released their strongly-worded statement, stopping short of concrete action, at least for now.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, implicitly criticized Washington’s proposal to suspend the Nato-Russia council, established six-years ago to improve dialogue between Moscow and the West, as short-sighted.

“I am not one that believes that isolating Russia is the right answer to its misdemeanours,” he said. “I think the right answer is hard-headed dialogue.” A French diplomat, however, signaled that Nato was getting fed up with Russia’s failure to carry out repeated pledges to withdraw its troops from Georgian territory and warned that the time could come for a re-examination of the West’s ties with Moscow.

“We are at risk of entering, if there is not a very rapid evolution on the ground, into a relationship which will be of a different nature to what it was until now,” he said.

Russia, however, seemed unfazed by the mounting criticism. Its troops smashed their way into the Black Sea port of Poti, blockaded it and then took 22 Georgian servicemen prisoner.

Russian forces last week used explosives to sink Georgian naval ships and coastguard vessels in the port as part of what appears to be a plan to damage the country’s civilian and military infrastructure.

Russia has brought transport and the passage of goods, including oil bound for the West, to a halt by blowing up an important railway bridge, closing down the country’s main highway and attempting to bomb a crucial BP pipeline.

There was also little sign of a Russian military withdrawal from other towns in undisputed Georgian territory where, far from pulling out, troops have been digging trenches and building concrete barricades.

Russia yesterday warned that its withdrawal was being hampered by Georgia’s refusal to abide by the terms of a French-brokered ceasefire to pull back its own forces to positions held before the fighting erupted.

“Such actions seriously complicate the general situation and impede the withdrawal process,” Gen Anatoly Nogovitsyn said.

With Russia in control of much of the country, there has been little sign of Georgian forces attempting to return to the positions they fled after suffering a crushing victory on the battlefield.

Russian troops, on the other hand, have taken advantage of the truce to advance within 25 miles of the Georgian capital Tbilisi.

Link

Grippe aviaire: une nouvelle souche hautement pathogène décelée au Nigeria

La FAO a annoncé mardi l’apparition au Nigeria d’une souche de la grippe aviaire “hautement pathogène” qui n’avait jamais été signalée auparavant en Afrique et qui suscite donc “de graves préoccupations” quant à son introduction sur le continent.

“Une souche de la grippe aviaire hautement pathogène, inconnue auparavant en Afrique, vient d’être décelée pour la première fois au Nigeria, où deux nouveaux cas de grippe aviaire ont été récemment signalés dans les Etats de Katsina et Kano”, a indiqué dans un communiqué l’organisation de l’ONU pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture basée à Rome.

Les résultats de laboratoire du Nigeria et d’un laboratoire de référence de la FAO situé en Italie montrent que la nouvelle souche du virus est “génétiquement différente des souches qui avaient circulé au Nigeria lors des flambées précédentes en 2006 et 2007″.

“Cette nouvelle souche n’avait jamais été signalée auparavant en Afrique et elle est plutôt similaire à des souches précédemment identifiées en Europe (Italie), en Asie (Afghanistan) et au Moyen-Orient (Iran) en 2007″, a précisé l’agence.

Cette détection “suscite de graves préoccupations, car on ne sait pas encore comment elle a été introduite sur le continent”, a indiqué Scott Newman, chargé de la coordination internationale de la faune au Service de santé animale de la FAO.

“Il semble improbable que les oiseaux sauvages aient transporté cette souche”, mais “d’autres canaux seraient responsables de l’introduction du virus, comme le commerce international ou les mouvements illégaux ou non signalés de volailles, selon M. Newman.

Depuis l’apparition en Asie il y a cinq ans de l’épidémie de grippe aviaire provoquée par la souche H5N1, la maladie a touché plus de 60 pays. La grande majorité de ces pays a réussi à éliminer le virus chez les volailles.

Au Nigeria, la présence du virus avait d’abord été confirmée en février 2006 et la maladie avait attaqué les volailles dans 25 Etats avant d’être circonscrite.

Une équipe d’experts en santé animale et de vétérinaires épidémiologistes de la FAO collabore actuellement avec le gouvernement et ses services vétérinaires, l’aide de la FAO portant notamment sur le contrôle et la constitution de stocks de produits pharmaceutiques vétérinaires.

“Plusieurs pays ont réussi à placer le virus sous contrôle. Mais tant que la grippe aviaire restera endémique dans certains pays, la communauté internationale devra faire preuve de la plus grande vigilance et maintenir un niveau élevé de contrôle”, a averti Joseph Domenech, vétérinaire en chef de la FAO.

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080812/thl-onu-fao-sante-grippe-elevage-nigeria-96993ab.html

Virus: Arme de Guerre 

LaRouche : Poutine a infligé une défaite décisive à l’Empire britannique

En agissant pour défendre les citoyens russes contre l’attaque de type terroriste menée par le gouvernement Soros de Géorgie, le Premier ministre russe Vladimir Poutine a infligé une défaite décisive à l’Empire britannique, a déclaré Lyndon LaRouche. Toute capitulation russe face à cette agression criminelle du gouvernement fantoche de Mikhail Saakashvili aurait été dramatique pour le monde. 

Ce qu’a fait Poutine était objectivement nécessaire, a-t-il poursuivi. Il a eu absolument raison. Lui et le Président Medvedev ont compris que l’Empire britannique, avec son appendice américain et son agent George Soros, cherchait à consolider son empire mondial. Les Britanniques, et Poutine, savaient que la Russie, avec sa capacité thermonucléaire, était le seul obstacle à leur plan. Si la Russie s’était soumise aux termes dictés par les britanniques, le monde serait parti pour une 3e Guerre mondiale.

Poutine a donc décidé qu’il devait mettre une limite. Il a agit de manière décisive et a fait reculer les Britanniques et les Etats-Unis. En conséquence, le gouvernement fantoche de Géorgie a été détruit et un message a été envoyé au monde.

Certains intellectuels britanniques ont bien reçu le message, a t-il dit, évoquant l’article de David Blair dans le Daily Telegraph de Londres du 12 août. « En saisissant l’occasion d’infliger à la Géorgie des frappes aériennes et des incursions militaires, le Premier ministre russe Vladimir Poutine envoie un message catégorique, de portée mondiale. Le rideau est tombé sur l’ère où l’OTAN s’étendait continuellement en Europe de l’Est jusqu’à englober les anciennes républiques soviétiques, et où la Russie ne pouvait répondre que par des postures (…) l’équilibre des puissances en Europe a fondamentalement changé (…) », écrit le rédacteur diplomatique du Telegraph.

La Russie faisait face à une attaque sournoise à la Pearl Harbor, menée par les pions de Soros, et avec l’idée d’un nettoyage ethnique à la Hitler, a dit LaRouche. Poutine a vu cette menace existentielle pour la Russie et où elle pouvait mener, et il a agit comme Roosevelt l’a fait après Pearl Harbor. Il savait que s’il ne le faisait pas, l’Empire britannique, qui fait face à la dissolution de son système financier mondial, aurait poussé jusqu’à l’affrontement mondial.

Les gesticulations stupides de l’administration Bush ne font que témoigner de l’efficacité de l’action de Poutine, a-t-il dit. En ce qui concerne les candidats présidentiels, rien ne sert d’espérer que Barack Obama revienne à la réalité puisqu’il est un laquais acheté et payé par George Soros. Quant à McCain, LaRouche a expliqué qu’il ferait mieux de s’asseoir, réfléchir et arrêter d’être bête, plutôt que de la ramener.

La réponse russe à la provocation géorgienne est un point tournant, a-t-il conclut. Elle met un terme à près de 20 années d’assaut par l’Empire britannique, via Soros et d’autres organismes, pour tirer profit de l’effondrement soviétique et consolider son empire mondial. Pendant ce temps là, les Américains, seul autre point de résistance réelle, ont capitulé tragiquement en négociant leur propre destruction, alors qu’ils refusaient de prendre en compte sérieusement la menace contre leur propre nation et le monde. Comment les américains peuvent-ils être aussi bête au point de tolérer George Bush ? Comment peuvent-ils laisser Soros choisir le candidat présidentiel démocrate ?

La clé de la victoire sur l’ennemi de l’humanité, l’Empire britannique, c’est de refuser la compromission sur les fondamentaux et de retourner les règles du jeu, a-t-il dit. C’est ce qu’a fait le Premier ministre Poutine, pour l’avantage du monde entier.

Certaines personnes en Grande-Bretagne ont reçu le message, a-t-il dit. Il est temps que les Américains fassent de même. Il est temps de détruire tout ce qui est associé avec l’Empire britannique, et particulièrement ses principaux agents, Al Gore et George Soros. Si ce n’est pas fait d’ici à l’élection de novembre, les Etats-Unis cesseront d’être.

http://www.solidariteetprogres.org

_________________________________________________

___________________________________

Soutien américain à la Géorgie 

Georges Bush, président américain a appelé au retrait des ‎troupes russes de la Géorgie et a déclaré avoir dépêché la ‎secrétaire d’Etat Condoleeza Rice à Tbilissi, comme signe de ‎ferme soutien de Washington à ce pays. La secrétaire d’Etat Rice ‎est partie jeudi pour Paris pour discuter ave Nicolas Sarkozy, ‎président français, pour prendre ensuite le chemin de Tbilissi afin ‎de s’entretenir avec le président Mikhaïl Saakachvili et le ‎ministre géorgien des Affaires étrangères.

Dans une courte ‎allocution à la Maison blanche, Bush a indiqué que les Etats-Unis ‎étaient aux côtés du gouvernement géorgien et que l’intégrité ‎territoriale de la Géorgie devait être respectée.

En critiquant ‎virulemment Moscou pour avoir attaqué la Géorgie, le président ‎américain a averti que cette action russe mettrait en danger les ‎relations de la Russie avec l’Occident après la guerre froide.

Selon ‎Bush, la Russie pour améliorer ses rapports détériorés avec les ‎Etats-Unis, l’Europe et d’autres pays doit mettre verbalement et ‎pratiquement fin à cette crise. Bush a ajouté que certains rapports ‎contredisaient les affirmations russes sur l’arrêt des opérations ‎militaires et la cessation des hostilités, et que Washington ‎s’attendait à ce que la Russie respecte ses engagements et retire ‎toutes ses troupes présentes sur le sol géorgien.

Bush a fait ‎également état de ses conversations téléphoniques avec les ‎présidents français et géorgien Sarkozy et Saakachvili. Par ailleurs, ‎Condoleeza Rice a pour sa part menacé que si la Russie ne ‎respectait pas le cessez-le feu, elle risquerait l’isolement ‎international. Elle a ajouté que certains rapports sur la violation du ‎cessez-le feu ne feraient qu’aggraver l’isolement de Moscou et ‎donneraient l’impression que la Russie n’en faisait qu’à sa tête et ‎n’agissait pas comme un partenaire international.

Les Etats-Unis, ‎en plus de leur soutien politique, ont envoyé des aides à la ‎Géorgie. Bush a annoncé l’envoi des aides humanitaires ‎américaines, transportées par des avions C-17 à Tbilissi. Par ‎Ailleurs, le Pentagone, est en train d’étudier les besoins en ‎munitions de l’armée géorgienne, fortement atteinte dans la guerre ‎de 4 jours. Moscou a réagi avec indignation à ces positions de ‎Washington sur la Géorgie. Sergueï Lavrov, chef de la diplomatie ‎russe a affirmé à ce sujet : il semble que les dirigeants de la ‎Géorgie soient les facteurs de la réalisation un projet spécial ‎américain, ajoutant que les Etats-Unis devaient choisir entre ce ‎projet et une coopération réelle avec la Russie.

Selon un autre ‎rapport, Condoleezza Rice a dit à Lavrov que les Etats-Unis ‎soutenaient fermement la Géorgie, et que si Washington devait ‎choisir, il choisira indubitablement de rester aux côtés de la ‎Géorgie. Dana Perino, porte-parole de la Maison Blanche en ‎rejetant toute tension dans les relations Moscou-Washington a ‎déclaré que ces relations étaient devenues trop compliquées.‎

IRIB

WAG THE DOG:
HOW TO CONCEAL MASSIVE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

Ellen Brown, August 14^th, 2008

“I’m in show business, why come to me?”
“War is show business, that’s why we’re here.”
                            – “Wag the Dog” (1997 film)

Last week, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had just announced record losses, and so had most reporting corporations. Unemployment was mounting, the foreclosure crisis was deepening, state budgets were in shambles, and massive bailouts were everywhere. Investors had every reason to expect the dollar and the stock market to plummet, and gold and oil to shoot up. Strangely, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 300 points, the dollar strengthened, and gold and oil were crushed. What happened?

It hardly took psychic powers to see that the Plunge Protection Team had come to the rescue. Formally known as the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, the PPT was once concealed and its very existence denied as if it were a matter of strict national security. But the PPT has now come out of the closet. What was once a legally questionable “manipulator” of markets has become a sanctioned stabilizer and protector of markets. The new tone was set in January 2008, when global markets took their worst tumble since September 11, 2001. Senator Hillary Clinton said in a statement reported by the State News Service:

“I think it’s imperative that the following step be taken. The President should have already and should do so very quickly, convene the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. That’s something that he can ask the Secretary of the Treasury to do. . . . This has to be coordinated across markets with the regulators here and obviously with regulators and central banks around the world.” ¹

The mystery over what was going on with the dollar the first week in August was solved by James Turk, founder of GoldMoney, who wrote on August 7:

“[T]he banking problems in the United States continue to mount, while the federal government’s deficit continues to soar out of control. . . . So what happened to cause the dollar to rally over the past three weeks? In a word, intervention. Central banks have propped up the dollar, and here’s the proof.

“When central banks intervene in the currency markets, they exchange their currency for dollars. Central banks then use the dollars they acquire to buy US government debt instruments so that they can earn interest on their money. The debt instruments central banks acquire are held in custody for them at the Federal Reserve, which reports this amount weekly.

“On July 16, 2008 . . . , the Federal Reserve reported holding $2,349 billion of US government paper in custody for central banks. In its report released today, this amount had grown over the past three weeks to $2,401 billion, a 38.4% annual rate of growth. . . . So central banks were accumulating dollars over the past three weeks at a rate far above what one would expect as a result of the US trade deficit. The logical conclusion is that they were intervening in currency markets. They were buying dollars for the purpose of propping it up, to keep the dollar from falling off the edge of the cliff and doing so ignited a short covering rally, which is not too difficult to do given the leverage employed in the markets these days by hedge funds and others.”²

Just as central banks manipulate currencies in concert, so gold can be manipulated by massive selling of central bank reserves. Oil and any other market can be manipulated as well. But markets can be manipulated by only so much and for only so long without fixing the underlying problem. There is more bad news coming down the pike, news of such magnitude that no amount of ordinary manipulation is liable to conceal it.

For one thing, roughly $400 billion in ARMs (adjustable rate mortgages) have or will reset between March and October of this year. Assuming 3 to 6 months for strapped debtors to actually hit the wall with their payments, a huge wave of defaults is about to strike, continuing through March 2009 – just in time for the next huge wave of resets, in option ARMs.³ Option ARMs are loans with the option to pay even less than just the interest on the loan monthly, increasing the loan balance until the loan reaches a certain amount (typically 110% to 125% of the original loan balance), when it resets. The $800 billion credit line recently opened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may be not only tapped but tapped out, at taxpayer expense. The underlying problem is little discussed but impossible to repair – a one quadrillion dollar derivatives scheme that is now imploding. Banks everywhere are facing massive writeoffs, putting the whole banking system on the brink of collapse. Only public bailouts will save it, but they could bankrupt the nation.

What to do? War and threats of war have been used historically to distract the population and deflect public scrutiny from economic calamity. As the scheme was summed up in the trailer to the 1997 movie “Wag the Dog” —

“There’s a crisis in the White House, and to save the election, they’d have to fake a war.”

Perhaps that explains the sudden breakout of war in the Eurasian country of Georgia on August 8, just 3 months before the November elections. August 8 was the day the Olympic Games began in Beijing, a distraction that may have been timed to keep China from intervening on Russia’s behalf. The mainstream media version of events is that Russia, the bully on the block, invaded its tiny neighbor Georgia; but not all commentators agree. Mikhail Gorbachev, writing in The Washington Post on August 12, observed:

“What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against ‘small, defenseless Georgia’ is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity. . . . The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force.” ⁴

Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power, commented in OpEdNews on August 11:

“The U.S. has long been involved in supporting ‘freedom movements’ throughout this region that have been attempting to replace Russian influence with U.S. corporate control. The CIA, National Endowment for Democracy . . . , and Freedom House (includes Zbigniew Brzezinski, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Obama foreign policy adviser Anthony Lake) have been key funders and supporters of placing politicians in power throughout Central Asia that would play ball with ‘our side’. . . . None of this is about the good guys versus the bad guys. It is power bloc politics . . . . Big money is at stake . . . . [B]oth parties (Republican and Democrat) share a bi-partisan history and agenda of advancing corporate interests in this part of the world. Obama’s advisers, just like McCain’s (one of his top advisers was recently a lobbyist for the current government in Georgia) are thick in this stew.”⁵

Brzezinski, who is now Obama’s adviser, was Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy adviser in the 1970s. He also served in the 1970s as director of the Trilateral Commission, which he co-founded with David Rockefeller Sr., considered by some to be the “master spider” of the Wall Street banking network.⁶ Brzezinski, who wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard, later boasted of drawing Russia into war with Afghanistan in 1979, “giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.”⁷ Is the Georgia affair an attempted repeat of that coup? Mike Whitney, a popular Internet commentator, observed on August 11:

“Washington’s bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili would never dream of launching a massive military attack unless he got explicit orders from his bosses at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. After all, Saakashvili owes his entire political career to American power-brokers and US intelligence agencies. If he disobeyed them, he’d be gone in a fortnight. Besides an operation like this takes months of planning and logistical support; especially if it’s perfectly timed to coincide with the beginning of the Olympic games. (another petty neocon touch) That means Pentagon planners must have been working hand in hand with Georgian generals for months in advance. Nothing was left to chance.”⁸

Part of that careful planning may have been the unprecedented propping up of the dollar and bombing of gold and oil the week before the curtain opened on the scene. Gold and oil had to be pushed down hard to give them room to rise before anyone shouted “hyperinflation!” As we watch the curtain rise on war in Eurasia, it is well to remember that things are not always as they seem. Markets are manipulated and wars are staged by Grand Chessmen behind the scenes.

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles.  In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.”  She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves and how we the people can get it back.  Her websites are webofdebt.com and ellenbrown.com.

___________________

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/wag_the_dog.php

Post your comments here