Algérie : l’Etat reprend le contrôle de l’économie, les idées de LaRouche trouvent un écho

Après plus d’une décennie de soumission aux politiques destructrices du FMI, sous lesquelles l’état algérien a complètement perdu le contrôle de son économie, ce dernier vient d’opérer un changement stratégique dans la conduite des affaires du pays en optant pour une politique « protectionniste ».

Le président de la république Abdelaziz Bouteflika avait vivement critiqué l’attitude des investisseurs étrangers qui ont pu s’enrichir au détriment du pays grâce à de larges facilitations permettant de sortir d’énormes capitaux résultant de l’exemption des taxes et d’une fiscalité avantageuse.

En effet, la dernière note de conjoncture de la Banque d’Algérie datée de juillet indique que les banques étrangères en Algérie ont enregistré en 2007 un taux de rentabilité exceptionnellement élevé de 28,01%. Ce taux est en forte hausse par rapport à 2006 où il n’était que de 23,40%. Le document affirme également que les sociétés étrangères établies en Algérie ont transféré, durant la période allant de 2005 à 2007, 15,7 milliards de dollars, qui, ajoutés aux 6,5 milliards de dollars de 2001 et 2004, font un total de 22,2 milliards de dollars de 2001 à 2007.

Dans le même temps, l’Algérie a reçu des « intentions d’investissements » (des promesses) directs étrangers atteignant seulement 13,53 milliards de dollars de 2001 à 2007, dont 60% émanaient d’investisseurs arabes. Ce niveau est donc bien en deçà des gains transférés à l’étranger !

Mais c’est peut-être la cession des cimenteries de Mascara et de M’sila, dans une opération purement financière, au géant français Lafarge, puis l’annonce de la vente de la société de télecom Djezzy à France Télécom, qui ont provoqué la prise de conscience de l’état algérien qui a décidé le rachat des actifs de Djezzy. Car dans les deux cas, c’est le consortium égyptien Orascom qui s’est enrichi en vendant ses deux filiales sans aucun bénéfice pour la nation algérienne.

« La cession de ces cimenteries par le groupe égyptien à une autre entreprise étrangère a suscité le mécontentement des pouvoirs publics, qui ont décidé de mettre de l’ordre dans le domaine et de revoir la stratégie de privatisation et de partenariat », a lâché le porte-parole du gouvernement Abderrachid Boukerzaza au sortir du Conseil de gouvernement.

En réponse, le Premier ministre récemment nommé, Ahmed Ouyahia, a décidé début août un changement de cap. D’abord, il compte bloquer la vente de Djezzy à France Télecom, et il fait tout pour éviter d’autres « épisodes Lafarge et Djezzy ».

L’Etat algérien exige un droit de regard destiné à empêcher les ventes de filiales de groupes étrangers sans l’aval du gouvernement. Quant à la seconde mesure lourde, stratégique celle-là, elle consiste à tourner définitivement la page des privatisations sauvages par

1. L’arrêt définitif des privatisations des banques et des compagnies d’assurances.
2. L’Algérie entend à l’avenir détenir la majorité du capital dans les structures chargées de réaliser les projets, et cela « en concordance avec ses moyens et ses intérêts nationaux et en conformité avec les usages internationaux qui ne prohibent pas un tel choix ».

C’est donc dans le contexte d’une bataille plus vaste pour la survie des états-nations qu’il est intéressant de constater que la presse algérienne donne un écho aux écrits, tant sur le plan stratégique que sur le plan de l’analyse économique et financière, à l’économiste américain Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Le 14 août, le quotidien financier Le Maghreb, le quotidien de l’économie a repris des longs passages du commentaire de LaRouche sur le déni de réalité qui frappe nos élites. Le même jour, le professeur Chems Eddine Chitour de l’Ecole Polytechnique d’Algers, dans un article conséquent dans le quotidien algérien l’Expression, sous le titre « La troisième guerre mondiale a commencé » reprend les dénonciations particulièrement pointues de LaRouche sur le rôle des britanniques dans le conflit russo-géorgien : « Ce n’est pas juste une provocation pour tirer les moustaches des Russes ou les conduire dans un piège, c’est une tentative de démembrement de la Russie. En réalité, c’est une troisième guerre mondiale qui démarre. C’est la même chose que l’attaque sur l’Iran ! Exactement la même opération. Londres attise une troisième guerre mondiale, dénonçons-le ! »

—————————–

—————————–

’Algérie : ces attentats qui cachent la guerre des matières premières

par Eduardo Garcia

Dans le cadre de la visite d’état de Nicolas Sarkozy en Algérie nous avons décidé de reprendre ici cet article publié dans Nouvelle Solidarité N° 17, XIIIième annéé, du 28 septembre 2007.

Une série d’attentats de plus en plus rapprochés a ensanglanté l’Algérie ces derniers mois, révélant un réveil virulent de la guerre des clans au pouvoir au fur et à mesure que la prochaine élection présidentielle approche, sur fond de lutte entre grandes puissances pour le contrôle des matières premières algériennes, notamment gaz et pétrole. C’est la seule hypothèse possible pour expliquer l’activisme de l’Organisation d’Al-Qaida au Maghreb, née de la fusion, annoncée le 11 septembre 2006, entre l’ancien GSPC (Groupe salafiste de prédication et du combat) et Al-Qaida, revendication reçue avec le plus grand scepticisme par la plupart des experts et politiciens, vu le contexte dans lequel ces attentats sont intervenus.

Le 11 avril 2007, deux attentats suicides avaient visé le Palais du gouvernement à Alger et le Quartier général oriental de la Police à Bab Ezzouar, faisant 30 morts et plus de 200 blessés. Le 6 septembre dernier, c’est le président Bouteflika qui a échappé de peu à un attentat suicide alors qu’il se rendait en visite à Batna, dans l’est de l’Algérie, attentat qui a fait 22 morts et 107 blessés. Un nouvel attentat suicide a été commis le samedi 8 septembre à Dellys, faisant 30 morts et 47 blessés. Plus récemment, le jeudi 19 septembre, dans une vidéo de 80 minutes, le numéro deux d’Al-Qaida, Ayman al Zaouahri, a invité les musulmans à « nettoyer » le Maghreb des Français et des Espagnols, afin d’y rétablir le règne de l’islam. Dès le lendemain, ces menaces étaient mises à exécution : une bombe à faible puissance explosait devant une voiture transportant deux Français et un Italien entre Alger et le barrage de Koudiat Acerdoune, au sud-est de la capitale, pendant que deux employés d’Aéroports de Paris travaillant à Alger ont dû être évacués après avoir reçu des menaces.

Mais les autorités algériennes ainsi que la plupart des experts mettent en doute la véritable identité d’Al-Qaida au Maghreb et dénoncent plutôt des puissances étrangères comme étant à l’origine de ces attentats. Suite à l’attentat qui l’a visé, le président Bouteflika a dénoncé « des capitales étrangères et des dirigeants étrangers », pendant que son ministre de l’Intérieur, Noureddine Yazid Zerhouni, précisait que c’est « le retour de l’Algérie sur la scène internationale qui, visiblement, gêne certains intérêts étrangers ».

Le retour de l’Algérie sur la scène internationale

Une analyse de ce que M. Zerhouni appelle le retour de l’Algérie sur la scène internationale révèle en effet un revirement quasi total d’alliances de l’Algérie sur le plan international. Si l’on avait pu parler d’une véritable « lune de miel » entre l’Algérie et les Etats Unis, entre 2003 et 2006, avec les visites de Donald Rumsfeld en février 2006 et de Dick Cheney en avril de la même année, dont l’un des principaux centres d’intérêt avait été la collaboration dans la « Global war on terror », cette alliance privilégiée a été clairement remise en cause par la faction au pouvoir autour du président Bouteflika.

Divers facteurs seraient à l’origine de ce changement. D’abord, l’augmentation considérable de la manne pétrolière, suite à la hausse des prix, qui donne des ailes aux ambitions des uns et des autres. Surtout, on parle de l’affaiblissement relatif des Etats-Unis à cause de ses difficultés en Irak, et a contrario, du renforcement d’autres puissances, notamment la Russie, la Chine, mais aussi le Venezuela ou l’Iran. Et comme pour le Niger, qui a récemment remis en cause le monopole de la France dans l’exploitation de l’uranium sur son territoire, la concurrence entre ces puissances a permis aux factions algériennes de s’affranchir de la toute puissante tutelle américaine.

Rappelons que les enjeux dans ce domaine sont considérables et concernent, au delà de l’Algérie, toute l’Afrique du nord et le Sahel. Selon l’expert pétrolier algérien Hocine Malti, les réserves avérées de pétrole de ces pays sont conséquentes : 39 milliards de barils pour la Libye, 31,5 milliards pour le Nigeria, 11,8 milliards pour l’Algérie, 1 milliard pour le Tchad, 700 millions pour le Sénégal, 563 millions pour le Soudan, 308 millions pour la Tunisie, 300 millions pour le Niger, 200 millions pour la Mauritanie, tandis que le Sahara Occidental aurait un sous-sol très prometteur.

C’est au niveau de la politique énergétique qu’on voit le plus clairement le changement en cours. En mai 2006, l’Algérie décidait brutalement d’abandonner la loi de privatisation des hydrocarbures qu’elle venait d’adopter un mois plus tôt. C’est vrai qu’entre-temps, M. Bouteflika avait reçu la visite d’Etat du président Hugo Chavez, du Venezuela, qui l’en avait dissuadé ! En effet cette loi préconisait le retour à l’ancien système de concession, qui aurait permis aux compagnies pétrolières internationales de disposer presque totalement du sous-sol Algérien.

Mais c’est le réchauffement considérable des relations avec la Russie depuis janvier 2007 qui confirme cette tendance. Avec un contrat d’achat d’armes d’un montant de 15 milliards de dollars signé à cette date, l’Algérie est, en effet, le premier partenaire de la Russie dans le domaine de l’armement, devançant même la Chine. Si ce contrat ne provoque pas d’inquiétude chez les principales puissances, ce n’est pas le cas pour ce qui est de l’idée de la création d’une OPEP du gaz autour d’une alliance algéro-russo-iranienne.

Cette démarche inquiète les Européens, en particulier, qui dépendent de la Russie pour 23 % de leur consommation de gaz, et de l’Algérie pour 13 %. Dans une conférence de presse donnée à Alger le 11 septembre, Christof Ruehl, l’économiste en chef de British Petroleum, déclarait que « la création d’une OPEP du gaz relève davantage de la manœuvre politique que d’une démarche à objectifs économiques », avant de la qualifier de « stupide ». La visite à Alger du président iranien Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, au cours de laquelle des accords bilatéraux ont été signés notamment dans le domaine énergétique, est venue confirmer que cette option est bel et bien sur la table. La question d’une coopération dans le domaine du nucléaire civil a aussi été soulevée.

A l’arrivée de plus en plus encombrante des sociétés pétrolières et gazières russes (Gazprom, Lukoil, Rosneft, Stroytransgaz…), il faut ajouter celle, plus discrète, des chinoises et indiennes, en revanche très présentes dans les autres pays du Sahel.

Comme au Soudan ou au Niger, la Chine, n’en déplaise à la France qui se voit contrainte d’améliorer les conditions commerciales qu’elle propose à ses anciennes colonies, est de plus en plus présente en Algérie, où elle vient de rafler quelques contrats majeurs pour la construction d’autoroutes et d’un million de logements. Autre enjeu principal où la France avance elle aussi sa propre candidature, la volonté algérienne de faire de l’année 2008 l’année de l’investissement dans le nucléaire civil, un choix appuyé par un important contrat de coopération, signé juin dernier avec les Etats-Unis. L’Algérie possède déjà deux réacteurs nucléaires et la France devra, si elle veut être compétitive, proposer mieux que les Chinois et les Russes, principaux partenaires de l’Algérie dans ce domaine.

Le prétexte pour le déploiement de l’AFRICOM

Dans le domaine sécuritaire et militaire, le renversement des alliances de l’Algérie est là aussi frappant, car de principal allié des Etats-Unis dans la lutte contre le terrorisme dans la région (notamment après la prise d’otages de touristes européens par le GSPC, en janvier 2003), elle serait aujourd’hui la cible d’un terrorisme déployé par l’administration Bush/Cheney et ses contrôleurs en Angleterre. Les questions fusent à nouveau sur la véritable identité du GPSC/Al-Qaida, car l’augmentation des attentats depuis fin 2006 coïncide étrangement avec cette réorientation de la politique étrangère algérienne, et des médias tels qu’Al Watan ou les auteurs d’Algerie Watch n’hésitent pas à établir un lien entre ces actes de « terrorisme » et les pressions faites par l’administration Bush/Cheney pour obliger les pays du Maghreb à s’aligner et à accueillir des bases militaires américaines.

Pour bon nombre de spécialistes du terrorisme algérien, le GSPC a toujours représenté la faction « dure » du pouvoir – la Direction des renseignements militaires – qui est un relais en Algérie des politiques des Anglo-Américains. Lors de la prise d’otages de 2003, par exemple, le GSPC était dirigé par Abderrezak El Para, un ancien des forces spéciales algériennes et garde de corps du général Khaled Nezzar, ancien ministre de la Défense et membre du Haut Comité d’Etat.

De plus, l’action du GSPC/Al-Qaida à travers tout le Sahel bénéficie d’une aide importante du prince Bandar, ex-ambassadeur d’Arabie saoudite aux Etats-Unis et actuel patron de la sécurité dans son pays, dont le Sahel serait la chasse gardée. Le prince Bandar a récemment été attrapé la main dans le sac à financer des groupes rebelles au Darfour et au Tchad. Actuellement, des actions en justice au Royaume Uni et aux Etats-Unis mettent en cause son rôle dans un méga contrat d’armes et de pétrole, conclu entre la monarchie britannique et le régime saoudien à l’époque de Thatcher, impliquant la compagnie anglaise d’aéronautique BAE, contrat qui permet de générer des fonds abondants pour le financement d’attentats et autres sales coups.

L’activisme du GSPC/Al-Qaida à travers tout le Maghreb joue un rôle très utile pour les Américains, leur servant de prétexte pour tenter d’imposer le déploiement de bases militaires américaines à travers toute la région dans le contexte de leur nouveau commandement africain, l’Africom. C’est dans cette visée que les Américains ont conçu leur initiative « Pan-Sahel », devenue début 2005 « Initiative transsaharienne de lutte contre le terrorisme (TSCTI) », destinée à inclure dans une stratégie militaire américaine des pays comme l’Algérie, le Tchad, le Mali, la Mauritanie, le Maroc, le Niger, le Sénégal, le Nigeria et la Tunisie. Très important pour comprendre la nouvelle série d’attentats qui frappe l’Algérie, ce pays a refusé, tout comme la Libye et le Maroc, d’accueillir sur son sol des bases américaines sous couvert de lutte contre le terrorisme et de participer au projet américain de réorganisation du grand Moyen-Orient.

L’Algérie s’attaque directement à Dick Cheney

Notons que dans la même période, Bouteflika a lancé également une attaque frontale contre Dick Cheney, en démantelant Brown, Root and Condor (BRC), une joint venture créée en 1994 par la Sonatrach (Société nationale des hydrocarbures) (41 %), le CRND (Centre de recherche nucléaire de Draria) (10 %) et KBR (Kellogg Brown & Root) (49 %), filiale d’Halliburton dont le vice-président américain est toujours actionnaire.

C’est en octobre 2006 que le gouvernement algérien a lancé une enquête pour corruption à l’encontre de cette société, gérant des contrats pétroliers et d’armement. Riche en rebondissements, l’enquête a révélé, entre autres, que BRC avait sous-traité un contrat sur le gisement de Rhourde-Nouss à une société israélienne, Bateman Litwin, propriété du milliardaire israélien Benny Steinmetz, proche de la droite israélienne. Révélatrice aussi de la guerre d’influence que se livrent différentes puissances en Algérie, ce sont les services russes qui ont révélé au gouvernement algérien que des équipements de communication sophistiqués, commandés par BRC aux Etats-Unis pour le compte de l’Etat-major général algérien, étaient connectés en permanence aux systèmes d’intelligence électronique américains et israéliens ! En septembre dernier, KBR a été contraint de céder à la Sonatrach ses parts dans BRC.

Nous avons essayé, en rassemblant tous les éléments ci-dessus, de dépeindre l’environnement international complexe dans lequel est intervenue la récente vague d’attentats en Algérie. Que certaines factions au pouvoir en Algérie soient sorties des griffes de l’administration Bush/Cheney est une bonne chose.

Cependant, le tout n’est pas de jouer les uns contre les autres, mais de rétablir une politique orientée vers le bien commun, où les ressources seront développées pour le plus grand bien de l’Algérie et de ses générations futures. Avec ses quelque 100 milliards d’euros de réserves et en travaillant de concert avec la Russie, la Chine, l’Inde et les grands pays d’Amérique du Sud pour refonder l’actuel système économique et monétaire international, l’Algérie aura une chance de sortir de la crise dans laquelle elle est plongée depuis de trop longues années.

Bibliographie :

---

• Al-Qaida au Maghreb et les attentats du 11 avril 2007 à Alger, par François Gèze et Salima Mellah, dans Algeria Watch (21 avril 2007).
• Madjid Laribi, « Brown & Root Condor : une holding “militaro-énergétique”« , Le Maghrébin, 13 novembre 2006.
• « Le P-DG de BRC sous mandat de dépôt », Le Jour d’Algérie, 1er avril 2007.
• Madjid Laribi, « Que cache le dossier Brown Root & Condor », Le Maghrébin, 9 octobre 2006.
• « L’un des kamikazes était un compagnon d’El Para », Le Jour d’Algérie, 14 avril 2007.
• Hocine Malti, « De la stratégie pétrolière américaine et de la loi algérienne sur les hydrocarbures », Le Quotidien d’Oran , 9-10-11 juillet 2005.

Pour creuser le sujet : focus

Al-Qaïda au Maghreb islamique, la violence instrumentalisée par l’Europe ?

Russian troops invade Georgia and take the city of Gori

Tony Halpin in Gori, and Kevin O’Flynn in Moscow
Russian forces overran the strategic Georgian city of Gori today as troops prepared to defend the capital Tbilisi from what one official called a “total onslaught”.

Georgian soldiers fled Gori, 17 miles from the border with rebel South Ossetia, in panic and disarray, clinging to the sides of cars and vehicles as they sped out of town. A Georgian armoured personnel carrier was in flames on the street, a victim of the sudden rout.

Alexander Lomaia, secretary of the Georgian security council, said that the Georgian army had been told instead to concentrate its efforts on holding Mtskheta, 15 miles from the capital.

“Russian forces are occupying Gori. Georgian armed forces received an order to leave Gori and to fortify positions near Mtskheta to defend the capital. This is a total onslaught,” Mr Lomaia said.

Analysis: roots of the Georgia-Russia conflict
Central cause of the conflict is that Southern Ossetes want to unite with their counterparts in the North, part of Russia

Just hours before Russian forces entered the town Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and France’s foreign minister Bernard Kouchner had been forced to dive for cover when an unidentified helicopter flew overhead.

Georgia was facing a Russian push on two fronts as as the Kremlin continued to ignore international pressure for a ceasefire five days into the conflict.

In the west, Russian troops entered Georgia from the breakaway region of Abkhazia on the Black Sea, while in the north, intense shelling continued in and around South Ossetia.

Moscow confirmed that its soldiers had swept from Abkhazia into the town of Senaki, 40 km inside Georgia. The Defence Ministry in Moscow claimed that the raid on Senaki was intended to prevent Georgian troops from regrouping for “new attacks on South Ossetia”.

The admission marked a dangerous new phase in the conflict as Russia advanced into Georgian territory with no indication of when its offensive might cease, despite a claim from President Medvedev that much of the operation was complete.

President Saakashvili told Georgians in a televised address that Russia was attempting to occupy the whole country. He said: “This provocation was aimed at occupying South Ossetia, Abkhazia and then all of Georgia.”

He claimed that Russian tanks were rampaging through the countryside while Russian troops were carrying out summary killings and human rights abuses.

In the hours before the fall of Gori, The Times witnessed Russian MiG fighter jets bombing Georgian positions about 9 km from the border with South Ossetia, and there were sustained exchanges of artillery fire.

Soldiers on the ground claimed that Russian and South Ossetian forces had established artillery positions inside the border on the Georgian side. Georgian tanks and heavy weaponry ringed the outskirts of Gori in anticipation of a Russian advance, which was not long coming.

The prospects for a negotiated ceasefire were dealt a blow when Russia’s ambassador to Nato declared that Mr Saakashvili “is no longer a man that we can deal with”. Dmitri Rogozin said: “He must be punished for breaching international law. He is responsible for many war crimes.”

President Sarkozy of France is preparing to fly to Georgia and Russia tomorrow on a peace mission, following a round of shuttle diplomacy by his foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who is due in Moscow tonight carrying a draft ceasefire proposal signed by Mr Saakashvili.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, said that Russia would continue its military operation until “its logical end”.

He hit out at the United States in particular for transporting 800 Georgian soldiers from Iraq, some of whom have been deployed in Gori on the border of South Ossetia.

Russia warned the West that “the Georgian side was preparing aggression,” said Mr Putin. “Nobody was listening. And this is the result. We have finally come to it. However, Russia will of course carry out its peacekeeping mission to its logical end.”

Russia’s incursion into Georgian territory follows a rapid troop build up, as thousands of Russian troops have poured into Georgia’s breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Nato’s Secretary-General today criticised Russia over its “disproportionate” use of force. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was “seriously concerned” about Russia’s response and its “lack of respect for the territorial integrity of Georgia,” a spokesperson said.

The statement followed President Bush’s comments in Beijing, where he was watching the Olympics. He said he had spoken “firmly” to Mr Putin, who was directing the Kremlin’s actions in Georgia.

Gordon Brown today made his first direct comments on the crisis, saying there was “no justification” for Russia’s military action in Georgia, and that there was a “clear responsibility” on Moscow to agree a ceasefire and bring a swift end to the conflict which threatened a “humanitarian catastrophe”.

Link

———————————————–

———————————-

Fear of Russia ends Israeli support for Georgia

A top Georgian envoy in Israel on Sunday urged the Jewish state to use whatever leverage it has to put pressure on Russia to pull its forces out of the small Caucasus nation. But while voicing support for Georgian territorial integrity, Israel decided instead to appease Russia by halting all arms sales to Tbilisi.

Israel has sold some $500 million worth of military equipment to Georgia over the past few years, and top Israeli military experts have been involved in training Georgian armed forces.

Israeli soldiers who participated in training Georgian forces as recently as four months ago told Ha’aretz that they were not surprised when hostilities broke out. “There was an atmosphere of war about to break out. …From my point of view, the battles of the past few days were to be expected,” said one soldier.

As Russian forces invaded Georgia late last week and the two nations engaged in what is increasingly being called a full-scale war, Israel’s leadership expressed concerns that Moscow could retaliate for continued Israeli military support of Georgia by selling advanced arms to Iran and Syria.

Defense officials cited by The Jerusalem Post later said that arms sales to Georgia had ceased several months back, after Israeli authorities became alarmed by urgent requests for large supplies of weapons by Georgian authorities apparently aware that they were about to go to war with Russia…

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=16875

Georgian troops burn South Ossetian refugees alive

Israeli mass media published several articles August 10 dedicated to the war in South Ossetia. Newspapers paid special attention to arms shipments to Georgia, which Israel had made in the past. A former defense ministry official said that the Georgian army had no chances in the opposition to the Russian army.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused Ukraine of encouraging Georgia to interventions and ethnic cleansings in South Ossetia. Russia also claimed that Ukraine had armed Georgia to the teeth. Georgia’s ground forces possess weapons, ammunition, unmanned aircraft, night vision goggles and other equipment made in Israel.

Israel’s Defense Ministry recommended to cease arms shipments to Georgia after the start of military actions in South Ossetia, not to provoke Russia.

Battles in South Ossetia continued throughout the night. Russian sources said that about 2,000 people had been killed in South Ossetia.

Ukrainian Foreign Ministry stated that the country reserved the right to forbid vessels of the Russian Black Sea Navy to return to their base in Ukraine’s Sevastopol.

Ukrainian official said that Ukraine was not willing to become involved in the conflict.

In the meantime, the armed forces of another unrecognized republic, Abkhazia, moved closer to its borderline with Georgia, Interfax reports with reference to Abkhazia’s defense ministry.

“Georgia does not stop its treacherous actions on Abkhazia’s border and continues to intensify its military presence. The armed forces of the republic were forced to enter the security zone and advance towards the Georgian border,” an official spokesman for the defense ministry of Abkhazia said.

It was reported that Georgia delivered a note to the Consul of the Russian Federation to Georgia which said that Georgia intended to end military actions in South Ossetia on August 10.

The note also said that Georgia was ready to immediately start cease-fire negotiations with the Russian Federation, Interfax reports.

However, fierce battles in South Ossetia continued on August 10 despite the official note. In addition, Georgia’s Defense Minister, Timur Yakobashvili, stated Sunday that the retreat of the Georgian troops from South Ossetia was out of the question.

“We decided to redeploy our troops to be able to resist the Russian armed forces, which outnumber our troops,” Yakobasvili said.

Russia’s General Staff of Armed Forces said that Russia had lost only two fighter jets in the conflict zone, but not 12 jets, as Georgian officials previously claimed.

This number has nothing to do with the real state of affairs. We lost two aircraft – Su-25 and Tu-22 – and the situation has not changed since then,” Russia’s senior defense official, Anatoly Nogovitsin said.

Ossetian journalists wrote on their website that Georgian troops had captured a group of refugees from one of the regions of S. Ossetia. The Georgian military men locked them in a house and set the house on fire, burning all the people inside alive. An Ossetian woman informed Russian Prime Minister Putin of the hideous crime during his visit to a refugee camp. Another woman told Putin that she had seen a Georgian tank running over an elderly Ossetian woman who was trying to save two children. The woman was running out of the village, occupied the by the Georgian troops.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called the hostilities in South Ossetia “massacres” and also said Sunday he would press Georgia and Russia for an immediate end to the violence in the breakaway Georgian province.

Kouchner said the EU cannot allow such a “Middle Age battle” to continue. He spoke in an interview with The Associated Press hours before he and Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb left Paris for a meeting with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in Tbilisi.

The EU “cannot accept such a war, a terribly devastating and … unacceptable war, at our doors,” Kouchner said. France has held the EU’s six-month rotating presidency since July 1.

French President Sarkozy, who spoke by telephone with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Georgian Mikhail Saakashvili, said an agreement between the two neighbors not to use force against one another would be the best way of making sure any future accord would stick.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, however, disputed Georgia’s claim that its troops have pulled out of South Ossetia. He said there were still Georgian troops in certain neighborhoods of provincial capital Tskhinvali, the AP reports.

Russia, which has outgunned the Georgian army and showcased its military might during the conflict, must be treated as “a great partner” in order for a political solution to be found, Kouchner said.

“There is not at all a military solution in this area, absolutely not, and we all know that,” he said.

The EU, the United Nations and the U.S. could be among participants in any future political solution, Kouchner said. He did not say in what role they could contribute.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski urged the EU to send a peacekeeping mission, telling Poland’s TVN24 that Europe “could be a good partner because it’s credible to both sides.”

Georgia began an offensive to regain control over South Ossetia overnight Friday, launching heavy rocket and artillery fire and air strikes, killing hundreds of innocent people. In response, Russia, which has granted passports to most South Ossetians, launched overwhelming artillery shelling and air attacks on Georgian troops.

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/106050-1/

________________________________________________

     __________________________________

It’s America’s fault – US citizen in the conflict zone (video)

An American man living in South Ossetia says U.S. and Georgian leaders are responsible for the violence that has killed 2,000 people in the region. Joe Mestas, who witnessed days of shelling, told RT that Washington will have to answer for the violence.

http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/28788/video

Iran Isolation Attempts Backfire

by Hannes Artens

Iran’s provocative missile tests 10 days ago again fueled the debate on the likelihood of aerial strikes against Iran. Since last week’s thaw, however, an attack on Iran by the end of President Bush’s tenure no longer appears in the offing. Moreover, the narrow, exclusively military focus of the debate misses the broader picture. The overall U.S. strategy of containing Iran has failed in principle. And the attempt to impose a sanctions regime on Iran has led to an erosion of U.S. strategic influence in Asia and the Middle East. Over the long term, Washington’s shortsighted containment policy will only hurt Western business in the region. It will also play into the hands of China, drive crucial allies away, and render Iran untouchable.

At the eleventh hour, even the Bush administration seems to have realized, albeit in a limited way, the inherent failure of the containment approach. In an important about-face, the White House not only agreed to direct talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in Geneva this weekend but also held out the prospect of soon opening an American interest section in Tehran. This sea change suggests that the realists around Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have finally gained the upper hand over the faction around Vice President Dick Cheney in the intra-administration feud. The reversal also acknowledges that the dual approach of sanctions and military threats has produced nothing but America’s own isolation. The far-reaching repercussions of these counterproductive sanctions against Iran and America’s increasing isolation in Asia are best illustrated by this month’s breakthrough on the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline.

The Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (IPI) is a $7.5 billion project designed to supply Indian mega-cities with natural gas from Iran’s Persian Gulf fields via a 1,700-mile-long pipeline across Pakistan. The project has been repudiated and boycotted by one project partner or the other uncounted times since its conceptualization. But on July 3, Indian Oil Minister Murli Deora affirmed on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid that India expects to finally sign the deal next month. This long-time-in-coming breakthrough constitutes a crucial step toward energy security for India.

For the United States, on the other hand, it deals a resounding blow to the fragile international sanctions front the Bush administration has crafted to contain Iran. What is more, with China keen on joining the project, a new geo-strategic axis – Tehran-Islamabad-New Delhi-Beijing – is about to emerge. This axis will radically reshuffle the power structure in Asia and, with it, the global balance of power.

Despite the Cheney faction’s saber-rattling, the Bush administration has banked on economic sanctions strangling investment and beating a technology-dependent Tehran into submission. This strategy of tightening the economic corset choking Iran and thus forcing it to renounce its nuclear ambitions, however, has isolated the United States and its allies more than Iran. For the time being, Washington has succeeded in cajoling French Total SA, Anglo-Dutch Shell, and Spanish Repsol to withdraw their bids to exploit the Iranian South Pars field, the world’s largest gas field, and the EU approved freezing the assets of a major state-owned Iranian retail bank, Bank Melli, last month.

But Iran’s countermeasures have been in the works for quite a while. After all, the country has long suffered from the effects of sanctions and the reluctance of Western companies to invest in its energy sector. So it has increasingly looked eastward for new financiers and partners. The most striking example is Iran’s March 24 bid for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Central Asian security group dominated by Russia and China.

This new “looking east” – negahe be shargh – policy concept is the brainchild of Bangalore-educated Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. While an Iranian SCO membership is still in the future, Asian dominance over the Iranian market is a current reality. China already ranks as the number-one foreign investor in Iran. Malaysian Petronas and LG Korea feature prominently in the exploitation of South Pars. The new IPI would be a final nail in the coffin of the sanctions regime.

The United States has fought hard against the new pipeline linking Iran, India, and Pakistan. As recently as July 15, Senators Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) threatened to strengthen the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 that allows for the litigation of foreign firms investing in sanctionable business in Iran – a clear warning signal to India. Meanwhile, since the three countries could not bear the projected costs of $7.5 billion on their own, Washington has also used its considerable influence at the World Bank in the person of former president Paul Wolfowitz. He bluntly informed Pakistan that the bank would not allow any international institution to finance the project.

In its attempts to destabilize Iran and disrupt the possible route of the pipeline, the United States is allegedly supporting Jundallah. This militant insurgency in the Iranian Sistan and Balochistan province has suspected links to the Taliban and the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), which has been fighting a guerilla war against the Pakistani army since 2000. This clandestine Baloch connection – recently exposed by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker – undermines America’s fragile, always-on-the-brink-of-a-coup ally Pakistan. Washington is also pushing for the alternative of a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI), the construction bids for which, as a side benefit, would go to U.S. companies. This alternative scheme is strikingly similar to the pipeline deal Unocal struck with the Taliban in 1996.

U.S. obstruction is not the only problem facing the IPI project. Iran is asking for a lot of money; India and Pakistan have notorious difficulty cooperating. But this cluster of American threats and coercion proved until recently to be pivotal in preventing the project from getting off the ground. Former Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns cited preventing IPI as one of his greatest accomplishments at a conference at Harvard University in March.

India, however, desperately needs energy for its growing economy. And it will risk its relationship with the United States to get this energy. Moreover, its heavily subsidized low gas prices are no longer sustainable, especially now before an election year. After all, with oil around $140 per barrel and a global recession looming on the horizon, the United States no longer has the ability to pressure countries to sever energy ties with Iran, as it did when a fire-breathing John Bolton forced Japan to withdraw its bid to exploit the Iranian Azadegan oil field. It is now every country for itself in the new energy environment.

Despite U.S. opposition, then, the IPI pipeline is back on line. The last commercial difficulties between Pakistan and India concerning transit fees have been cleared away, and only minor technical details remain for a trilateral meeting in Tehran scheduled for the coming weeks. If an agreement is reached this summer, construction could commence in 2009 and be completed by 2012. Pakistan is eager to expand its new role as the energy corridor of the future. It expects an annual $600 million in transportation fees from IPI and is vigorously politicking for China to join the project in order to increase those revenues. Until Indian consent was secured, Pakistan used the Chinese wild card as a bargaining tool to force a wavering India’s hand. But now it seems that Islamabad and Tehran can have it both ways. If World Bank financing is off the table, China can step in to foot the bill.

Finalization of IPI in the coming weeks would be more than a slap in the face for President Bush. After all, in 2006 he personally fought for a nuclear cooperation pact with India designed to meet India’s energy needs while tying it closer to the United States as a counterweight against a rising China. Now however, not only has the Indian government so far failed to get the pact ratified in the Indian parliament, but India is about to collaborate with China in undermining America’s sanctions on Iran. Pakistan, beefed up with more than $10 billion in military aid by the Bush administration, is also giving the cold shoulder to Washington. And Iran, soon to be the number-one energy supplier for East Asia, becomes more untouchable by the day.

The Bush administration’s lofty design to keep Iran in the box and use the Indian tiger to tame the Chinese dragon runs the risk of collapsing in the last months of his presidency. In fact, the American sanctions regime is driving Iran into China’s arms and facilitating a Sino-Indian rapprochement. Even worse, America is facing the rise of a new strategic axis in Asia that stretches from Tehran to New Delhi to Beijing, with Islamabad as a central hub, and is financed by petrodollars. Then again, the Bush policy, by giving a lift to this new strategic energy alliance, may ultimately strengthen support in Washington for a military strike against Iran, to accomplish what containment failed to do.

Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/artens.php?articleid=13182

Oil trading company files for bankruptcy

By Javier Blas in London

SemGroup, the US physical oil trader, yesterday filed for bankruptcy as it acknowledged losses of more than $3.2bn in different energy markets after betting this year that crude oil prices would fall. Its collapse came as oil prices plunged to their lowest levels since early June. West Texas Intermediate crude oil fell to an intraday low of $125.63 a barrel, down $5 on the day.

Traders sold oil futures as news emerged that tropical storm Dolly was set to miss oil and natural gas installations in the US Gulf of Mexico. Signs of slower oil demand in the US during the summer season also contributed to the sell-off, analysts said. Nauman Barakat, of Macquarie in New York, said: “Overall my bias remains to the downside and I still would like to sell rallies rather than buy dips.”

Traders said SemGroup could have exacerbated the spike in oil prices this month, when the market experienced unprecedented swings of more than $10 in a day, as the company was buying back its previous bets on lower prices.

The bankruptcy of SemGroup, which describes itself as the 14th-largest US private held company, affects approximately $3.1bn of debt, according to court filings. BP, the oil company, is the largest creditor, with almost $160m.

SemGroup bet in the futures market that prices would fall as a way to hedge its positions in the physical market. But as oil prices jumped this month to a record of $147.27 a barrel from less than $100 a barrel at the beginning of the year, the mounting losses triggered large margin calls from banks – a request to put up more collateral – draining the company’s cash reserves.

The company said in a court filing that it had lost $2.4bn in oil hedges at the New York Mercantile Exchange and another $850m in over-the-counter energy markets.

The credit crunch has exacerbated energy traders’ battle with margin calls as commercial and investment banks are reluctant to extend their credit lines to cover margins calls amid volatile markets.

SemGroup’s publicly traded subsidiary, SemGroup Energy Partners, which is not part of the bankruptcy, yesterday rose 10.9 per cent on Nasdaq as it said it would be able to carry on its business in spite of the collapse of its parent.

SemGroup Energy Partners shares had lost more than 70 per cent in the three previous trading days.

Kevin Foxx, chief executive of SemGroup Energy Partners, told investors and bankers in a conference call that the company had “a strong future as an independent energy transportation” business.

SemGroup did not return calls seeking comment.

Link

A war waiting to happen

By F William Engdahl

The Caucasus Republic of Georgia, as nations go, is not apparently a major global player. Yet Washington has invested huge sums and organized to put its own despot, Mikhail Saakashvili, in the presidency in order to close a nuclear North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) iron ring around Russia.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited the capital Tbilisi and made sharp statements against Moscow for supporting the separatist Georgian states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in essence blaming Moscow for an imminent war Washington has incited in order to bring Georgia into NATO by the December NATO summit.

Western media have either tended to ignore the growing tensions in the strategic Caucasus region or to suggest, as Rice does, that

the entire conflict is being caused by Moscow’s support of the “breakaway” republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In reality, a quite different chess game is being played in the region, one which has the potential to detonate a major escalation of tensions between Moscow and NATO.

The underlying issue is the fact that since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, one after the other former members as well as former states of the USSR have been coaxed and in many cases bribed with false promises by Washington into joining the counter organization, NATO.

Rather than initiate discussions after the 1991 dissolution of the Warsaw Pact about a systematic dissolution of NATO, Washington has systematically converted NATO into what can only be called the military vehicle of an American global imperial rule, linked by a network of military bases from Kosovo to Poland to Turkey to Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 1999, former Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia followed in March 2004. Now Washington is putting immense pressure on the European Union members of NATO, especially Germany and France, that they vote in December to admit Georgia and Ukraine.

The Georgia-Abkhazia military picture
The present escalation of tensions in the region began in May when Abkhazia said it had shot down two Georgian drones over its airspace. The announcement came two weeks after Georgia accused Russia of shooting down an unmanned drone over Abkhazia, which Tbilisi considers its sovereign territory. Moscow has denied involvement.

Russia has administered a peacekeeping contingent in Abkhazia and South Ossetia since bloody conflicts in the 1990s, and sent additional troops to Abkhazia recently to deter what it calls a planned Georgian military offensive. The two sides, Georgia and Abkhazia, have been in a state of suspended conflict since 1993, when Abkhaz separatists, backed by Russian forces, succeeded in driving the Georgians out of the province.

Tbilisi claims sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia and refers to both as “breakaway republics”. In 2001, Georgian troops joined with anti-Moscow mujahideen-trained Chechyn soldiers from neighboring Russian Muslim province of Chechnya to mount a military attack, unsuccessfully, against Abkhazia.

In an analysis of what a possible military clash, short of nuclear war between Russia and NATO might look like, the Russian government’s RIA Novosti military commentator, Ilya Kramnik, laid out the array of forces on both sides. In late 2007, the Georgian armed forces had about 33,000 officers and men, including a 22,000-strong army that comprised five brigades and eight detached battalions. These units had over 200 tanks, including 40 T-55 and 165 T-72 main battle tanks that are currently being overhauled.

Kramnik says that the Georgian military faces a 10,000-strong Abkhazian Self Defense Force with 60 tanks, including 40 T-72s, and 85 artillery pieces and mortars, including several dozen with a 122-152mm caliber and 116 armored vehicles of different types, numerous anti-tank weapons ranging from RPG-7 rocket launchers to Konkurs-M anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). The Abkhazian navy has over 20 motor boats armed with machine-guns and small-caliber cannons.

But most decisive, as was shown in the experience of the 1992-1993 Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, even small units can resist superior enemy forces in mountainous areas for a long time. Consequently, the outcome of any hypothetical conflict would depend on the aggressors’ level of military training and the influence of third parties, primarily Russian units from the Collective Commonwealth of Independent States Peacekeeping Force. Georgia’s armed forces are notoriously corrupt and poorly trained.

Although the United States has trained several crack Georgian units in the past few years, the fighting effectiveness of all other elements is uncertain. There are no trained sergeants, and troop morale is running low. Only about 50% of the military equipment is operational, and coordinated operations in adverse conditions are impossible.

The Abkhazian armed forces pack a more devastating punch because they would resist an aggressor that has already tried to deprive the republic of its independence. And Abkhazian units are commanded by officers trained at Russian military schools. Many of them fought in the early 1990s. Most analysts agree that the combat-ready Abkhazian army does not suffer from corruption. Moscow has recently beefed up the local peace-keeping contingent. Neighboring Caucasus states including North Ossetia side with Abkhazia and are ready to take on Georgia.

Moscow’s possible strategy
Moscow has stepped up ties with the two small republics against the backdrop of Georgia’s NATO bid and Western recognition of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia. Russia, however, has not formally recognized Abkhazia or South Ossetia.

Moscow has long backed Abkhazia’s de facto independence however. It has granted Russian citizenship to many of its residents and recently legalized economic ties with the separatist republic. For Russia, the conflict provides a source of leverage on both Abkhazia and Georgia. The more Georgia seeks to distance itself from Russia, the more Russia throws its weight behind Abkhazia.

However, Georgia under Washington’s man, strongman President Mikhail Saakashvili – a pretty ruthless dictator as he recently showed against domestic opposition – refuses to back off its provocative NATO bid.

Georgia is also a strategic transit country for the Anglo-American Caspian oil pipeline from Baku in Azerbaijan through Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. As well, the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline has been key to Azerbaijan as an alternative to the control of the Russian state monopoly Transneft in order to convey its oil and gas resources toward the West. The entire Caucasus is part of what can be described as a new Great Game for control of Eurasia between Washington and Russia.

As the Moscow Times sees it, “One way to disrupt Georgia’s NATO aspirations would be to heat up the conflict in Abkhazia to a level that would make it unacceptable for the Western alliance, which acts by the consensus of all members, to offer membership. Georgia’s leadership could be escalating tensions in hope of prompting Abkhazia and Russia to make a move that would leave the West with no chance but to intervene.

“Regardless of the motivation, whoever is stoking the conflict must realize that they are playing with fire. This brinkmanship can lead to a full-fledged war. Georgia would probably lose a war if Russia backed Abkhazia, while Russia would lose its hope of becoming a benign global player and would risk seriously straining its ties with the European Union and the United States.”

Rice adds gasoline to the fire
The George W Bush administration is adding gasoline to the fire in the Caucasus. In Tbilisi on July 10, Rice told the press, “Russia needs to be a part of resolving the problem and solving the problem and not contributing to it. I have said it to the Russians publicly. I have said it privately.”

The effect of her comments, blaming Moscow for the escalating tensions, is to signal US support for the Georgia side in their efforts to force Russian troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

In May, Abkhaz President Sergei Bagapsh said he was willing to conclude a military treaty with Moscow similar to that between the US and Taiwan. “Abkhazia will propose to Russia the signing of a military treaty that would guarantee security to our republic,” Bagapsh stated. “We are also prepared to host Russian military bases on our territory within the framework of this treaty. I would like to emphasize that this would not go against the precedents already existing in international practice. For instance, this treaty could be analogous to the treaty between the US and Taiwan.”

Just as Moscow refuses to recognize the sovereignty of Kosovo, so Washington refuses to admit the sovereignty of Abkhazia. In May, a senior US State Department delegation was in Abkhazia, meeting with local non-governmental organizations (NGOs)there as well as the president. In the past, from Serbia to Georgia to Ukraine, Washington intelligence agencies have used NGOs, including the George Soros-financed Open Society foundations, the US Congress-financed National Endowment for Democracy, the Central Intelligence Agency-linked Freedom House and Gene Sharp’s misleadingly-named Albert Einstein Institution to steer a wave of regime changes which became known as “color revolutions”.

In each case, the new regime was pro-Washington and anti-Moscow, as in the case of Saakashvili in Georgia and Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine. Both countries began seeking NATO entry after the success of the US-financed color revolutions.

In all this, Washington is definitely playing with potential nuclear fire by escalating pressure to push Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Czech Foreign Minister Karl Schwarzenberg on July 8 signed an agreement allowing US deployment of special radar facilities on Czech soil as part of the top-secret US “missile defense” it alleges is aimed at rogue missile threats from Iran.

As even former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger recently pointed out, the Bush administration’s categorical refusal to pursue the 2007 counter-offer of then-president Vladimir Putin to station US radar at the Russian-leased reconnaissance facility in Azerbaijan instead, was a provocative mistake.

It makes abundantly clear that Washington is aiming its military strategy at the dismantling of Russia as a potential adversary. That is a recipe for a possible nuclear war by miscalculation. Rice’s latest Caucasus and Czech visit only added to that growing danger.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JG16Ag01.html

The Big Secret about Peak Oil and the US Military

By: Mike_Stathis

Those of you who do not believe Peak Oil Theory should first make sure you fully understand it. According to this theory, after a reservoir has been depleted by half of its total volume, the output begins to plateau or remain constant for some unknown period. At some later time (which is unpredictable) the output begins a permanent decline of variable duration (which is also unpredictable) until the remaining quantity of oil is no longer economically feasible to extract with current technology. Therefore, Peak Oil Theory does not state that the earth is running out of oil per say. It states that the earth is running out of inexpensive oil, otherwise known as conventional oil – the high-grade oil that comes out by drilling on land and requires minimal refinement costs.

What this means is that we could have enough total oil (conventional plus non-conventional) say for the next 100 years, but that does not matter. What really matters is how much conventional oil reservoirs remain because this is the lowest cost oil to produce. In other words, Peak Oil is concerned with how much crude we can produce and refine per given day per dollar.

The United States reached its peak oil period in the early 1970s. Ever since that time, we have relied more and more on foreign oil imports. Interestingly, since that time we have also relied more and more on imported goods, while both consumer and federal debt have ballooned. According to many independent (and unbiased) oil experts, the world will soon have reached this peak oil period, causing even more dependence on exploration for non-convention oil.

Over the past two decades, new conventional oil finds around the world have been far and few. And what was once thought as large finds have turned out to yield much less than first thought. Throughout this period oil demand has continued to increase. It has especially strengthened over the past few years due to the rapid expansion of Asia .

As demand has increased and new finds have diminished, OPEC has fudged oil reserves data for many years, causing concerns about Peak Oil to remain hidden up until recently. As a result, oil prices have soared. And this has made exploration for non-conventional oil not only more feasible, but mandatory. Consequently, over the past few years, we have become increasingly reliant on more non-conventional oil sources, such as tar and oil sands and deep water drilling. These are considered non-conventional sources because they require large expenditures of money to produce finished petroleum products. These two variables – increased demand and decreased supplies of conventional oil have been the main forces responsible for record oil prices. Over the past year, oil has also risen due to the inflationary effects from the Federal Reserve, which has weakened the dollar. The dollar-oil link explains many things which you were probably unaware of.

Oil industry giants such as Exxon continue to insist that we have plenty of oil for decades, but then add that more investments are needed for offshore exploration. What they are really saying is that higher oil prices are due to Peak Oil – the decline in conventional oil reservoirs, which is forcing companies to focus on non-conventional oil. They use word games to hide the truth because they realize any possibility of Peak Oil will cause a push for alternative energy, which would threaten their monopoly. OPEC plays the same game. Washington goes along with these fantasies as well for a much bigger reason – the preserve the dollar-oil link.

You see folks, as long as the world is dependent on oil, the dollar remains backed by crude since you can only buy it with the dollar (with one rare exception to be mentioned shortly). This dollar-oil link helps keep the dollar as the universal currency. And because the entire world must use the dollar, you can imagine how that dilutes the inflationary effects seen in America due to the Fed’s printing presses. Thus, the dollar-oil link ensures the Fed’s inflation machine is spread throughout the globe. Without the dollar’s link to oil, the inflation seen in America would be much more severe.

This is the secret that virtually no one realizes. It is not a conspiracy. It is a fact. And the few in Washington who realize it are never going to admit it. But consider why it is that America has such good relations with the Saudis. After all, it was President Nixon who negotiated with the Saudi Royal family to demand dollar payments for oil shortly after severing the finally link to the gold standard. Soon after all of OPEC followed suit. In exchange for the dollar-oil link, the Saudi Royal family receives the protection of the U.S. military. This is why the Saudis are rarely criticized by Washington . They have earned a blanket exception for virtually anything they do, including involvement in terrorism and yes, even including holding down oil output.

The Saudis know well that they have a good deal of control over the fate of the U.S. economy. Given the fact that Iran has now created an oil exchange (Iranian Oil Bourse, March 2006) that accepts only the Euro, you should understand why they want nuclear weapons – for protection against a U.S. attack. As Iran realizes, severing the dollar-oil link is the easiest way to destroy the U.S. And any nation that tries to do this will be dealt with accordingly. Saddam Hussein tried to sell oil accepting only the Euro in 2000 and we know what happened to him. As well, any committed push to transition the U.S. into alternative energy threatens to destroy the global enslavement by the dollar-oil link. Alternative energy will come. But it will come slowly and Washington will make sure of this. Incidentally, I discuss this as one of many critical topics in my book “ America ’s Financial Apocalypse.”

By Mike Stathis

http://www.apexvc.com

Mike Stathis is the Managing Principal of Apex Venture Advisors , a business and investment intelligence firm serving the needs of venture firms, corporations and hedge funds on a variety of projects. Mike’s work in the private markets includes valuation analysis, deal structuring, and business strategy. In the public markets he has assisted funds and corporations with investment strategy, valuation analysis, market forecasting, risk management, and distressed securities analysis. Recently, Mike has been particularly active helping clients navigate the real estate and banking crisis.

The accuracy of his predictions and insights detailed in the 2006 release of “America’s Financial Apocalypse” and “Cashing in on the Real Estate Bubble” have positioned him as one of America ’s most insightful and creative financial minds. These publications serve as proof that he remains well ahead of the curve, as he continues to position his clients with a unique competitive advantage.

Link

US Turns ‘War Sights’ Towards South American

As Saudi Arabia-Mexican Oil Output Plummets

By: Sorcha Faal,

South American Leaders are reported in turmoil today over the United States reactivation this past week of the US Navy’s Forth Fleet tasked to begin encircling the Southern Hemispheres, and perhaps the World’s, greatest new oil region.

Of particular concern to South America is the makeup in leadership of this new, and threatening, US force, and as we can read as reported by the United States Navy News Service:

“The commander of Naval Special Warfare Command (NSW) turned over command of 8,400 Navy SEALs, special warfare combatant-craft crewmen and supporting staff during a ceremony today at the Naval Amphibious Base in Coronado, Calif.

Rear Admiral Joseph D. Kernan relinquished command to his deputy commander, Rear Adm. Garry J. Bonelli. Kernan had served at the helm of the Navy’s special operations forces since last June.

Kernan will go on to serve as both commander, U.S. 4th Fleet, and commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command in Mayport, Fla. U.S. 4th Fleet is responsible for U.S. Navy ships, aircraft and submarines operating in the Caribbean Sea and Central and South America and the surrounding waters. The command was originally operational from 1943-1950 before it was disestablished. The Chief of Naval Operations announced its re-establishment April 24.”

Russian Military Analysts, also, concur with South America’s assessment of the choice of leadership for this ‘reactivated’ US military force now off their coasts by openly wondering why the choice of an experienced special warfare commander has been chosen over a more traditional open water one.

Reaction to this latest provocative move by the US against South America has generated great concern, with Argentina’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Victorio Taccetti, stating to reporters “We are concerned by the subject of the Fourth Fleet. We are concerned because we don’t know why it is being reactivated.”, and Venezuela’s President Chavez stating, “What reason could the United States have for dispatching such a powerful naval force to a peaceful region? They will never admit that it is for natural resources.”

But, perhaps, the greatest slam against the neocon warmongers in the United States was leveled by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and who during his visit to Vietnam praised the Vietnamese war victory over the US by stating that it was a “victory of the oppressed”.

Russian oil analysts, however, state in their reports that the United States has ‘nowhere else to turn’ but South America for their vital energy needs as two of their largest importers of oil, Saudi Arabia and Mexico, are both reported to be running out.

So drastic has the situation in Mexico become that they have reported that production at their Cantarell oil complex, one of the World’s largest, has plummeted by a third in the past year and they may lose fuel self-sufficiency for their own Nation.

The situation with Saudi Arabian oil fields is even more desperate, and as we can read as reported by the Business Week News Service:

“The detailed document, obtained from a person with access to Saudi oil officials, suggests that Saudi Aramco will be limited to sustained production of just 12 million barrels a day in 2010, and will be able to maintain that volume only for short, temporary periods such as emergencies. Then it will scale back to a sustainable production level of about 10.4 million barrels a day, according to the data. Business Week obtained a field-by-field breakdown of estimated Saudi oil production from 2009 through 2013.”

These reports further point out that United States is unable to obtain oil supplies from its traditional sources as Britain’s North Sea oil output had peaked in 1999 and has been declining ever since, and the vast Norwegian oil fields are also reported to be in ‘sharp decline’.

Even Russia, these reports warn, has reached its peak in oil production with the Economist News Service warning, “The discovery that Russia can no longer be relied upon to cater to the world’s ever-increasing appetite for oil is naturally helping to propel prices to record levels.”

Of the dire situation facing the United States, billionaire oil investor T. Boone Pickens, perhaps the most knowledgeable person in the World on oil, has stated that the current energy crisis is ‘very close to war’.

Mr. Pickens further pointed out that though Americans are led to blame their oil companies for the catastrophic rise in oil prices, nothing could be further from the truth as over 70 percent of the oil in the World is owned by state-owned companies, none by the US oil giants who only pump out, and sell, what belongs to other Nations.

Going unnoticed by the American people too, Mr. Pickens continues, is that the United States appetite for oil is costing their Nation over $700 billion a year in what has become during the past decade the largest transfer of wealth in World history.

The energy crisis facing the World, however, does not apply to South America, as Venezuela now has the largest proven oil reserves in the World, and gasoline is selling for 12 US cents a gallon, and Brazil has discovered new oil in what is being reported as the “World’s third-largest known oil reserve”.

Not just to Venezuela and Brazil, either, are the Americans coveting South America, as Bolivia has one of the largest natural gas reserves in the World, and the World’s largest concentration of iron ore, and Chile has one of the World’s largest concentrations of metals, including silver, gold and over 35 percent of World’s known copper.

Unfortunately, however, for the United States, their staunchest allies in South America, Peru and Colombia have as their largest exports to the US cocaine, heroin and marijuana.

Many in the World today, like Cuba’s aging leader Fidel Castro, are now openly wondering if the American’s are returning to the era of ‘gunboat diplomacy,’ and which saw the US backing of brutal South American dictatorships throughout the 20th Century, including the assassinations of Presidents, mass murders of civilians and the rape of resources from all of Latin America.

To the likelihood, though, of South American Nations submitting to these new US provocations with fear there appears to be evidence to the contrary as Brazil has put out an order for 120 additional fighter aircraft, Venezuela’s President Chavez is expanding his Nations arsenal of weapons with new purchases from Russia, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa has ordered the removal of all US troops from his country, and Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has “told her defence chiefs that Argentina must be prepared to assert its sovereignty and protect its natural resources, as nations compete to claim areas of the region believed to be rich in oil”.

There appears to be no evidence that the American people themselves are aware of these grave new war moves being made by their Leaders as more of their sons, daughters, fathers and mothers prepare to die upon yet another foreign battlefield these peoples know virtually nothing about.

But, to their warning, and as their fears grow over Iranian nuclear weapons, they should turn their eyes more south as South American Leaders have vowed ‘never again’, and even worse, they now have the means to back up the protection of their homeland, and as we had previously reported on in our May 23rd report “Brazil Prepares Nuclear Bomb Test To Protect Amazon Rights”.

© July 11, 2008 EU and US all rights reserved.

Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.

[http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1116.htm

——————————————————————————–

Saudi Oil: A Crude Awakening on Supply? The Saudis say they can ramp up production to 12.5 million barrels a day. But a field-by-field breakdown obtained by BusinessWeek shows that’s not likely linkedin connections Saudi Arabia’s ability to calm panicky oil markets has been waning for years. With oil prices doubling since last summer, to more than $140 a barrel, Saudi King Abdullah on June 22 convened an extraordinary meeting (BusinessWeek.com, 6/22/08) of OPEC members, international oil industry CEOs, and foreign leaders in an effort to calm the markets. The kingdom’s message was clear: Saudi fields can pump oil to market quickly, if demand warrants.

However, it appears that for at least the next five years, and possibly longer, the Saudis are likely to produce less crude than promised, according to fresh data on the kingdom’s oil fields obtained July 9 by BusinessWeek. Saudi officials have said they would increase production capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day next year, from the current 10 million barrels a day, and could even ramp up to as much as 15 million barrels a day if the market demanded it. As proof to a skeptical audience, the normally highly secretive Saudis were a bit more more open, escorting journalists on a visit to their new Al Khurais field (BusinessWeek.com, 6/23/08), east of Riyadh, and disclosing some field data.

Oil companies want in
But the detailed document, obtained from a person with access to Saudi oil officials, suggests that Saudi Aramco will be limited to sustained production of just 12 million barrels a day in 2010, and will be able to maintain that volume only for short, temporary periods such as emergencies. Then it will scale back to a sustainable production level of about 10.4 million barrels a day, according to the data. BusinessWeek obtained a field-by-field breakdown of estimated Saudi oil production from 2009 through 2013. It was provided by an oil industry executive who said he had confirmed it with a ranking Saudi energy official who has access to the field data. The executive, who has proven reliable over several years of reporting interaction, provided the data on condition of anonymity to protect his access to the kingdom and the identity of the inside contact who confirmed the information.

Saudi Aramco officials in the kingdom could not be reached for comment.

Three industry analysts in the U.S. said the document’s overall conclusion—that the Saudis cannot sustain higher than 12 million barrels a day maximum production for the next few years—appeared to be reasonable. “My view is that when they finish their expansion program they are unlikely to be above 12″ million barrels per day, says Roger Diwan, a Middle East energy expert with PFC Energy, a consultancy in Washington, D.C. Lawrence Goldstein, an analyst with the Energy Policy Research Foundation, an industry-funded research group, said that uncertainty about Saudi production remains a problem for the market. “The only ones who know could be the Saudis,” Goldstein says, “and they might not know because they haven’t tested the deliverability system in as much as a decade.”

A principal reason for the dramatic surge in world oil prices has been a tight balance of global supply and demand, combined with a lack of spare capacity to produce more crude in a pinch. So that what previously might be considered a barely consequential guerrilla attack in oil-rich Nigeria, or an empty Iranian threat to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, results in a far more dramatic oil market reaction than ever before.

Once again Saudi Arabia has emerged as the central energy player, the only oil producer on the planet seen as having the spare capacity to rapidly boost crude exports. The kingdom also has close ties to the West, and until 1980 the precursors of Exxon (XOM), Chevron (CVX), and Mobil were partners with the Saudi state oil company. Now most of the major oil giants are hoping to get back in, and one way they have suggested is by helping the Saudis maintain the fields, an overture that has been rejected.

“A Bunch of Empty Boasts”
On oil matters, the kingdom’s credibility has been clouded by intense secrecy. The Saudis, for instance, refuse, unlike Russia, Venezuela, and Norway, to release detailed assessments of their oil reserves, which has made many skeptical. “They are just a bunch of empty boasts,” Matthew Simmons, chairman of Houston investment bank Simmons & Co. International, says of the kingdom’s recent promises of 12.5 million barrels a day. He is also skeptical of Saudi reserve estimates.

One dramatic part of the data concerns a site called Ghawar, which has been the kingdom’s workhorse field for decades. It shows the field producing 5.4 million barrels a day next year, but the volume then falling off rapidly, to 4.475 million daily barrels in 2013. “That’s why Khurais is so important—to make up for that decrease,” said the oil industry executive who released the data. He was referring to a supergiant field that is to come online later this year and produce an estimated 500,000 barrels a day of crude. In last month’s gathering in Saudi Arabia, officials of the kingdom told journalists that Ghawar had produced just under 5 million barrels a day from 1993 through 2007.

Mainly the data show flat production; apart from the addition of Khurais and a heavy oil field called Manifa, no increases appear in any of the fields during the next five years. Production at Manifa is to begin in 2011 with 125,000 barrels a day, according to the data, and rise rapidly to 900,000 barrels a day two years later. Though 2014 is not included in the data, one of the fields listed—Shaybah—is to have a volume increase to 1 million barrels a day that year, from 750,000 barrels a day from 2009 to 2013, according to the oil executive.

Still, despite its enormous reserves and bullish statements, Saudi Arabia appears likely to fall well short of the daily production it has targeted in the near term.

Link

At last, some truth about Iraq and Afghanistan

By Eric S. Margolis, Tehran Times

PARIS — After a sea of lies and a tsunami of propaganda, the ugly truth behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars finally emerged into full view this week.

Four major western oil companies, Exxon, Mobil, Shell, BP and Total, are about to sign U.S.-brokered no-bid contracts with Baghdad to begin exploiting Iraq’s oil fields. Saddam Hussein had kicked these firms out three decades ago when he nationalized Iraq’s foreign-owned oil industry for the benefit of Iraq’s national development. The Baghdad regime is turning back the clock.

This agreement comes as talks are continuing between the Washington and Baghdad over future U.S basing rights in Iraq. After some face-saving Iraqi objections, it is expected that Baghdad will sign a compact with Washington giving U.S. forces control of Iraq and its air space in a manner very similar to Great Britain’s colonial arrangement with Iraq.

Interestingly, the same oil companies that used to exploit Iraq when it was a British colony are now returning. As former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was all about oil. VP Dick Cheney stated in 2003 that the invasion of Iraq was about oil, and for the sake of Israel.

Meanwhile, according to Pakistani and Indian sources, Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1680 km long pipeline project expected to cost $8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west.

The Caspian Basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100-200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world’s last remaining known energy Eldorado is strategic priority for the western powers. China can only look on with envy.

But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Iran will not cooperate. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and Kandahar.

In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the U.S. firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and also hired an Afghan official, one Hamid Karzai.

Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the U.S. deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium, Bridas. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened Taliban with war.

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it ‘on side’ for possible use … against Iran.

The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial U.S. operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the U.S. stayed on, built bases — which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route — and installed former Unocal ‘consultant’ as leader.

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight ‘terrorism,’ liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The cover story for Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11, and promoting democracy.

Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by U.S., Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the U.S. military and its allies have become an ‘energy protection force.’

From Washington’s viewpoint, the TAPI deal has the added benefit of scuttling another proposed pipeline project that would have delivered Iranian gas and oil to Pakistan and India.

India’s energy needs are expected to triple over the next decade to 8 billion barrels of oil and 80 million cubic meters of gas daily. Delhi, which has its own designs on Afghanistan and has been stirring the pot there, is cock-a-hoop over the new pipeline plan. Russia, by contrast, is grumpy, having hoped to monopolize Central Asian energy exports.

Energy is more important than blood in our modern world. The U.S. is a great power with massive energy needs. Domination of oil is a pillar of America’s world power. Afghanistan and Iraq are all about control of oil.

Link

SPECIAL REPORT. Another 9/11 waiting to happen

Roland “Tony” Carnaby, the one-time CIA station chief for the Southeast Region slain by Houston police on April 29, was an advocate of increasing “HUMINT” resources in and around the sprawling Houston port complex, from Houston to Galveston. Houston is the largest port in the United States for foreign tonnage.

Carnaby had in his possession the morning of April 29 information that someone wanted and wanted badly enough to order the Houston police to treat the well-known former CIA clandestine agent and president of the local chapter of the Association for Intelligence Officers (AFIO) as a dangerous armed criminal. After an extensive investigation, WMR has learned that those who ordered the “hit” on Carnaby were part of a team, including smugglers tied to the Russian-Israeli mob, who were involved in terrorist planning activities in the greater Houston area.

Carnaby and his intelligence and federal and county law enforcement associates were concerned about the potential for a “9/11-like” false flag attack on either Houston’s port facility, airports, or all of them in and around the Memorial Day and Independence Day weekends.

WMR has learned that at a meeting of tugboat captains last week in Houston, the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack on the Houston port was discussed.

Carnaby’s belief in HUMINT as a determinant of terrorist plans likely caused him to believe that Houston was in imminent danger for an attack. WMR spoke to Carnaby’s intelligence and law enforcement colleagues who share his concerns.

Suspiciously, the Houston police, in violation of US Judge Keith Ellison’s order to preserve all evidence related to Carnaby’s shooting by the Houston police, admitted that it disposed of the evidence. Moreover, after having secured Carnaby’s Blackberry, which is known to contain contact numbers for CIA and other federal agents, as well as their informants, was returned to the custody of the Houston police by Secret Service Special Agent R. Jennings, the reported SAC (Special Agent in Charge) of the Houston office.

Jennings has been accused by Carnaby’s colleagues of cooperating with the very same elements, including individuals connected to Israeli intelligence activities in the Houston area and their well-placed moles inside the Houston Police Department, who wanted access to Carnaby’s contacts and other information. The compromise of Carnaby’s information represents a potentially devastating compromise of national security and are in direct violation of the National Security Act of 1947, according to Carnaby’s colleagues.

It still remains unknown what happened to Carnaby’s Mac laptop computer as well as a number of other cell phones, including an I-Phone and a Bang and Olufsen mobile phone in Carnaby’s possession at the time of his shooting. Carnaby’s colleagues revealed that Carnaby possessed a number of cell phones because some were dedicated to activating video and camera systems placed in strategic locations in and around Houston’s ports and airports and downloading images to his phones and eventually to his laptop. At least three phones in Carnaby’s possession on the morning of April 29 were used to activate cameras and download photos and videos from sites in and around Houston. One mobile phone number was reportedly used for this surveillance activity — 713 208-0000.

The spot on Houston’s West Loop where CIA agent Roland “Tony” Carnaby was gunned down by Houston police in a pre-planned “hit” on April 29. The shooting of Carnaby took place close to former President George H. W. Bush’s Tanglewood residence.

On May 16, 2008, WMR reported: “The CIA was concerned that details of Carnaby’s classified and covert work for the CIA in the Port of Houston, as well as his non-official cover Carnaby Shipping Company Ltd. and American Global Enterprise contacts in the United States and Lebanon may have been compromised to Israeli Mossad agents who have infiltrated the Houston Police Department primarily through blackmail techniques. The Israeli Consulate General in Houston is reportedly at the center of the Israeli influence and intelligence ring in the fourth largest city in America and the home to the largest port for imports in the United States.”

The evening before Carnaby was shot, a man approached Carnaby and two friends at Houston’s Capital Grille, a favorite meeting spot for Houston’s business elite. A man, pretending to be inebriated, went up to Carnaby and acted as though he was an old friend. He was carrying an open bag, the type in which “to go” food orders are usually placed. Carnaby reportedly reached for his concealed handgun and told the man he had never seen him or met him before. The man apologized, quickly left the restaurant, and drove off in a car with diplomatic license plates. Carnaby’s associates now believe the man was assigned to the Israeli Consulate General in Houston.

The I-Phone and Mac in Carnaby’s possession were officially owned by American Global Enterprise. Carnaby’s American Global cover firm operated a warehouse in the Houston port area, a reported center from which traffic from the port into Mexico and outbound via the ship channel was monitored. The actual security for the Port of Houston is maintained not by the Houston Police Department but by the Harris County Sheriff. The jurisdictional problems affected Carnaby’s relationship with both agencies. Whereas the Harris County Sheriff’s office was usually cooperative, the Houston Police was generally not as willing to work on increasing the security of the port.

Pasadena, Texas liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal along the Houston ship channel, where LNG tankers are loaded and off-loaded. This area is one of the most vulnerable targets in the Houston port complex and is located next to San Jacinto Battlefield Monument and Park, also the location of the battleship USS Texas.

Carnaby’s fear about lax port security was borne out when this editor easily gained access through the main gate into the Port of Houston in a rental car. Although containers in bound and out bound from the port are x-rayed and checked for radioactive materials, the overall security is poor and that prompted Carnaby into calling for a better HUMINT program. However, better HUMINT would also result in the arms, drugs, and auto theft activities of the Russian-Israeli mob, Israeli intelligence assets, and their allies in the pro-Mojahedin e Khalq (MEK) Iranian expatriate community in Houston being identified by federal authorities.

For example, WMR learned from US intelligence and customs agents that the 1998 terrorist bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania had a Houston connections. The terrorist attacks were blamed on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The two trucks used in the two East Africa bombings were stolen vehicles that were shipped from Houston via Guatemala. In addition, the bombs used passed though the same Guatemalan smuggling route. In 1998, Israel’s Mossad and Guatemala’s intelligence services continued to enjoy a close relationship and the Central American nation’s successive military juntas could count on the support of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other Israeli lobbying organizations in Washington.

Carnaby also had under surveillance a widespread vehicle smuggling ring that operated out of Houston, location of one of the largest vehicle import port facilities in the United States. One of Carnaby’s law enforcement colleagues revealed that a network of body shops in Houston have been used to strip and smuggle stolen vehicles out of the United States, mostly to Mexico. Some of the theft operations operate under cover of “import-export” businesses and one operation has laundered $250 million in proceeds from the vehicle thefts. These illegal enterprises have been linked to Middle East expatriates linked to Israeli intelligence operations, including the Iranian MEK terrorist group and far right Lebanese Phalangists allied with Israel who are supported by the Israeli Lobby in Washington.

Houston’s vulnerable ship channel. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is opposed to increasing HUMINT collection in this area lest the operations of his Israeli friends become exposed. In one Emergency Rapid Deployment exercise carried out by the US Coast Guard, an unmarked Zodiac raft with an outmoded machine gun with two US Coast Guardsmen on board, sailed up the ship channel from Galveston to Houston without anyone challenging them. Chertoff wold prefer to keep “security” for Houston this way, but for what purpose?

One of WMR’s colleagues, German journalist Jurgen Cain Kulbel, has been imprisoned in Berlin for reporting that the UN chief investigator of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Detlev Mehlis, was once employed by the Israeli intelligence front organization, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Mehlis steered UN investigators away from the real assassins of Hariri, Israeli intelligence who hired a number of rogue agents from Syrian intelligence, Lebanon’s Druze and Christian Phalangist communities, and Palestinian refugees. Kulbel’s imprisonment is a direct result of pressure from Washington and Jerusalem on the German government.

Some of Carnaby’s associates were also critical of the security contract for the Houston that involved ex-British commando Tim Spicer, whose Aegis Defense Services, the recipient of a number of private military contracts from the Defense Department and the former U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Spicer, in 2002, managed to convince Per Christiansen, a retired Norwegian naval officer whose Hudson Maritime won a Homeland Security Department to secure various American ports, including Houston, to bring him on as a partner. Thus was born Hudson Trident (the Trident being Spicer’s interest in the firm). However, Spicer’s work on Houston’s port security was soon criticized by the government, including Carnaby and his associates. Spicer, who had previously received a port security contract in Haiti around the time of the U.S.-sponsored coup against democratically-elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a coup that saw a number of weapons enter Haiti’s ports illegally. Spicer’s lack of performance on the Houston port security contract soon saw him lose out on similar port contracts for Morocco and Chittagong, Bangladesh, according to sources with whom WMR spoke in Houston. A U.S. intelligence source in Houston said, “Spicer fucked up the ship channel contract,” adding, “this guy merely did plausible deniability work for MI6 and MI5,” Britain’s foreign and domestic intelligence services, respectively.

A closer view of Pasadena’s LNG terminal. An attack here would have devastating and deadly results and bottle up the ship channel, affecting the entire United States.

It is clear that a number of Carnaby and his intelligence colleagues are skeptical about the “official version” of 9/11 and fear another such attack, possibly during the upcoming Fourth of July holiday. WMR can also report that a close friend of former President George H. W. Bush has taken a keen and supportive interest in our reports on the Carnaby shooting. Bush is the honorary president of the Houston William Buckley Chapter of AFIO, for which Carnaby served as president at the time of his death. Carnaby was also close to the former President, who has reportedly been outraged at the wanton killing of his friend. Carnaby was also reportedly close to Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has made no public comment on the death of Carnaby.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=126397