Japan's rising sun pierces the global gloom
By Tom Stevenson (Filed: 17/05/2006)
Shares regained their poise yesterday as inflationary pressures eased on both sides of the Atlantic. Rising consumer confidence in Japan and a defiantly bullish report from Goldman Sachs restored faith in the "Goldilocks" argument that the world economy can sustain high growth without triggering rising prices.
Japanese consumers were more confident in April, a government survey said, than at any time since 1990, when the implosion of the country's property and stock-market bubble kicked off more than a decade of economic stagnation and falling prices.
The Japanese Cabinet Office survey of consumer sentiment rose above 50, the first time in 16 years that optimists had outnumbered pessimists.
But although Japan is now in its second-longest growth cycle since the Second World War, the government said conditions remained mildly deflationary, with employees still reluctant to push for higher wages.
UK inflation, meanwhile, increased to the Bank of England's 2pc target in April, on the back of higher air fares and energy bills. But economists said the underlying rate of growth was lower than expected.
Howard Archer, an economist at Global Insight, said: "Core inflation remained at just 1.3pc, suggesting that, for the time being at least, strong competitive pressures on the high street and through the supply chain are largely containing any second-round inflationary effects from higher oil and energy prices."
In the US, industrial production rose to its highest level since July 2000, pushing American factories closer to capacity.
But lower-than-expected housing figures and weak producer price inflation suggested the Federal Reserve could take a breather from its two-year tightening programme. The Fed has raised rates by a quarter point at each of its last 16 policy meetings.
Wholesale prices rose by 0.9pc between March and April, fuelled by the higher cost of petrol. But stripping out energy costs, underlying prices were just 0.1pc higher month on month, half the expected rise.
The tempering of inflationary fears came as Goldman Sachs strategist Peter Oppenheimer published a report in which he compared current changes in the global economy to the Industrial Revolution.
He said the "Globology Revolution", a combination of globalisation, rapid technological advancement and the industrialisation of developing markets such as India and China, would allow growth and profits to remain high without the usual rising prices.
Fund managers surveyed by Merrill Lynch just before last week's market wobble were less confident.
A majority of institutional investors now believe that inflation will be higher a year from now, according to Merrill's monthly poll of money managers.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Metals chaos sends trade cost soaring
By Grant Ringshaw (Filed: 17/05/2006)
The cost of trading base metals in London is to be increased to record levels in a bid to calm the turbulence which has swept the copper, zinc and nickel markets in the past week.
LCH.Clearnet, the clearing house for the London Metals Exchange, is to raise the margin call per lot, effectively a deposit to cover a trading position and risk of default, on copper, zinc, nickel and aluminium.
The move, which came as key metals prices edged up yesterday after sharp falls on Monday, is the second major rise in margin calls in two weeks.
As a result, the combined cost of margin calls for trading copper has soared by 293pc and is now higher than the margin calls at the height of the Sumitomo scandal in 1996 which plunged the copper market into chaos.
An LCH.Clearnet spokesman confirmed margin calls had hit highs in a bid to cut volatility: "The volatility and pricing in contracts had gone out of the standard margin ranges and we are seeking to squeeze out the risk."
The margin call on copper will now increase by 71pc to $25,000 from $14,575 per 25- tonne lot. The new margin calls will be introduced tomorrow and follow an earlier 129pc rise from $6,350 in the cost of trading copper on May 5.
The costs of trading in each lot of zinc will jump by 35pc from $9,200 to $12,500, and the margin call for nickel will rise by 24pc to $11,400.
Margin calls act as a security to cover potential losses and mitigate the risk borne by the clearing house which executes trades between its members.
The huge rise in margin calls reflects the volatility in key metals which helped to drag down stock markets in Europe and Asia. On Friday and Monday, the FTSE 100 suffered its worst two-day fall in three-and-a-half years, slumping by 3.3pc. Yesterday the FTSE 100 edged up 4.9 to 5846.2.
Last week, the price of copper for delivery in three months, which has been driven by demand from the booming eastern economies, reached a record of nearly $8,800 per tonne. However, on Monday, commodity prices dived with copper falling by almost 9pc to $7,700 before recovering later to $8,190.
Yesterday, copper fell sharply in early LME trading before rising by 1.6pc to $8,325 as analysts claimed investors were prepared to buy on weakness.
While LCH.Clearnet is hoping the margin call rises will calm the turbulent metals markets, some analysts believe prices could become even more volatile.
Ingrid Sternby, a base metals analyst at Barclays Capital, said the higher costs for traders could prompt some to stay out of the market, leading to a fall in volumes and liquidity and so drive up volatility.
William Adams, of BaseMetals.com, added: "I would have thought that more volatility is the one thing you can be certain of. We still have very high prices which are difficult to justify on fundamentals. I think we will see some more hefty sell-offs."
By Grant Ringshaw (Filed: 17/05/2006)
The cost of trading base metals in London is to be increased to record levels in a bid to calm the turbulence which has swept the copper, zinc and nickel markets in the past week.
LCH.Clearnet, the clearing house for the London Metals Exchange, is to raise the margin call per lot, effectively a deposit to cover a trading position and risk of default, on copper, zinc, nickel and aluminium.
The move, which came as key metals prices edged up yesterday after sharp falls on Monday, is the second major rise in margin calls in two weeks.
As a result, the combined cost of margin calls for trading copper has soared by 293pc and is now higher than the margin calls at the height of the Sumitomo scandal in 1996 which plunged the copper market into chaos.
An LCH.Clearnet spokesman confirmed margin calls had hit highs in a bid to cut volatility: "The volatility and pricing in contracts had gone out of the standard margin ranges and we are seeking to squeeze out the risk."
The margin call on copper will now increase by 71pc to $25,000 from $14,575 per 25- tonne lot. The new margin calls will be introduced tomorrow and follow an earlier 129pc rise from $6,350 in the cost of trading copper on May 5.
The costs of trading in each lot of zinc will jump by 35pc from $9,200 to $12,500, and the margin call for nickel will rise by 24pc to $11,400.
Margin calls act as a security to cover potential losses and mitigate the risk borne by the clearing house which executes trades between its members.
The huge rise in margin calls reflects the volatility in key metals which helped to drag down stock markets in Europe and Asia. On Friday and Monday, the FTSE 100 suffered its worst two-day fall in three-and-a-half years, slumping by 3.3pc. Yesterday the FTSE 100 edged up 4.9 to 5846.2.
Last week, the price of copper for delivery in three months, which has been driven by demand from the booming eastern economies, reached a record of nearly $8,800 per tonne. However, on Monday, commodity prices dived with copper falling by almost 9pc to $7,700 before recovering later to $8,190.
Yesterday, copper fell sharply in early LME trading before rising by 1.6pc to $8,325 as analysts claimed investors were prepared to buy on weakness.
While LCH.Clearnet is hoping the margin call rises will calm the turbulent metals markets, some analysts believe prices could become even more volatile.
Ingrid Sternby, a base metals analyst at Barclays Capital, said the higher costs for traders could prompt some to stay out of the market, leading to a fall in volumes and liquidity and so drive up volatility.
William Adams, of BaseMetals.com, added: "I would have thought that more volatility is the one thing you can be certain of. We still have very high prices which are difficult to justify on fundamentals. I think we will see some more hefty sell-offs."
U.S. Aims to Improve Military Ties With China
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A14
SHENYANG, China, May 15 -- Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, flashed what aides described as a broad grin as he sat in the cockpit of a twin-engine FB-7 fighter-bomber, China's most advanced domestically produced warplane.
"They had to drag me out of there," recalled Fallon, a veteran carrier pilot, as he described the first such close look by a U.S. official of the modern two-seater, which is scheduled to become a key part of China's air defenses.
Fallon's visit to China's 28th Air Division, based near the eastern city of Hangzhou, and his pilot's inspection of the newly deployed FB-7 were high points in a week-long tour of Chinese military installations and meetings with senior officers, including Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan. At a windup briefing here Monday, Fallon said the visits marked a significant step forward in his drive to increase contacts between the U.S. and Chinese militaries as a way to dissolve suspicions and reduce chances that the two Pacific powers will go to war.
"They really went out of their way to accommodate nearly everything I wanted to do," he said. The goal, he added, is to push for more contacts, "to see more things and different things, and to be more open and transparent in military matters."
Seeking to accelerate the movement, Fallon said, he invited senior Chinese officers to observe U.S.-led joint military exercises next summer near the Pacific island of Guam, promising them the opportunity to review U.S. bases and board U.S. warships during air-sea drills. Implicit in the invitation, he added, was the idea that, if the Chinese attend, they would reciprocate by inviting U.S. officers to observe future Chinese exercises "in a manner we would like to make a standard for both countries."
"That's what this is all about," he said, adding: "There are extensive contacts in every area. The one lag, the one exception, is in military-to-military contacts. We set out last year to right that."
U.S. officers and diplomats, for instance, were not invited to observe large-scale exercises by Chinese and Russian forces last August in the East China Sea and the Russian Far East. Partly as a result, the exercises were interpreted as a gesture by Moscow and Beijing to show they have the means to protect their regional interests without reference to the United States, even though it is the overwhelming power in the Pacific.
More broadly, transparency has been a key U.S. demand in recent years as China modernizes its 2.3 million-strong military and increasingly takes its place as a major power in the Asia-Pacific region. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has asked publicly several times why, in the absence of direct threats, China would need the military establishment it seems to be building if, as its leaders proclaim, its intentions are peaceful.
China has vowed to use force, as a last resort, to prevent Taiwan from gaining formal independence, raising the danger of conflict -- a threat that influences every military calculation here. Taiwan, 100 miles from China's southern coast, has ruled itself since Chiang Kai-shek's defeated Nationalist forces fled there in 1949, but Beijing has continued to regard it as a province that must eventually return to the Chinese fold.
Partly to back up that threat, the Chinese defense budget has increased by more than 10 percent annually in recent years, reaching $35.4 billion in 2006. Pentagon specialists estimate that if unreported equipment purchases are taken into account, the real expenditures could be several times that.
Fallon said this subject came up in his 90-minute discussions with Cao, a general who is vice chairman of the Communist Party's policymaking Central Military Commission. The response was that, with such a large military, even a little expenditure on each soldier adds up fast, Fallon reported.
In the exchange, Cao also asked Fallon why the Pentagon, in its recent Quadrennial Defense Report, suggested China is the country with the greatest potential to pose a challenge to the U.S. military in the future.
"As we discussed these items, it struck me that we have a long way to go," Fallon said.
The United States and China cut off military contacts in 2001 after a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter collided over the South China Sea, killing a Chinese pilot and forcing the U.S. aircraft to make an emergency landing on China's Hainan Island. The 24-member crew was allowed to leave only after prolonged negotiations and a U.S. statement that China interpreted as an apology.
Since taking over as head of the Honolulu-based U.S. Pacific Command in February 2005, Fallon has campaigned to restore and strengthen the ties, seeking to multiply contacts at all levels of the two countries' military hierarchies.
In his initial visit late last year, Fallon saw little and was disappointed with the lack of openness. But Rumsfeld visited China in October, touring the strategic command headquarters. Fallon said Chinese and U.S. officers will meet in June to discuss exchanges of lower-level officers in the two strategic commands.
Cao also endorsed restoring and expanding military-to-military relations, telling the official New China News Agency that they are "an important part of bilateral relations." But he did not immediately respond to Fallon's invitation for Chinese officers to observe next summer's Valiant Shield exercises around Guam.
Fallon said that, in addition to the air base near Hangzhou where he sat in the FB-7, he visited an air force training academy near Xi'An, home of the celebrated terra cotta warriors -- which he also viewed -- and the 39th Infantry Regiment south of Shenyang, in Liaoning province 400 miles northeast of Beijing and a short distance from the North Korean border.
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A14
SHENYANG, China, May 15 -- Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, flashed what aides described as a broad grin as he sat in the cockpit of a twin-engine FB-7 fighter-bomber, China's most advanced domestically produced warplane.
"They had to drag me out of there," recalled Fallon, a veteran carrier pilot, as he described the first such close look by a U.S. official of the modern two-seater, which is scheduled to become a key part of China's air defenses.
Fallon's visit to China's 28th Air Division, based near the eastern city of Hangzhou, and his pilot's inspection of the newly deployed FB-7 were high points in a week-long tour of Chinese military installations and meetings with senior officers, including Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan. At a windup briefing here Monday, Fallon said the visits marked a significant step forward in his drive to increase contacts between the U.S. and Chinese militaries as a way to dissolve suspicions and reduce chances that the two Pacific powers will go to war.
"They really went out of their way to accommodate nearly everything I wanted to do," he said. The goal, he added, is to push for more contacts, "to see more things and different things, and to be more open and transparent in military matters."
Seeking to accelerate the movement, Fallon said, he invited senior Chinese officers to observe U.S.-led joint military exercises next summer near the Pacific island of Guam, promising them the opportunity to review U.S. bases and board U.S. warships during air-sea drills. Implicit in the invitation, he added, was the idea that, if the Chinese attend, they would reciprocate by inviting U.S. officers to observe future Chinese exercises "in a manner we would like to make a standard for both countries."
"That's what this is all about," he said, adding: "There are extensive contacts in every area. The one lag, the one exception, is in military-to-military contacts. We set out last year to right that."
U.S. officers and diplomats, for instance, were not invited to observe large-scale exercises by Chinese and Russian forces last August in the East China Sea and the Russian Far East. Partly as a result, the exercises were interpreted as a gesture by Moscow and Beijing to show they have the means to protect their regional interests without reference to the United States, even though it is the overwhelming power in the Pacific.
More broadly, transparency has been a key U.S. demand in recent years as China modernizes its 2.3 million-strong military and increasingly takes its place as a major power in the Asia-Pacific region. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has asked publicly several times why, in the absence of direct threats, China would need the military establishment it seems to be building if, as its leaders proclaim, its intentions are peaceful.
China has vowed to use force, as a last resort, to prevent Taiwan from gaining formal independence, raising the danger of conflict -- a threat that influences every military calculation here. Taiwan, 100 miles from China's southern coast, has ruled itself since Chiang Kai-shek's defeated Nationalist forces fled there in 1949, but Beijing has continued to regard it as a province that must eventually return to the Chinese fold.
Partly to back up that threat, the Chinese defense budget has increased by more than 10 percent annually in recent years, reaching $35.4 billion in 2006. Pentagon specialists estimate that if unreported equipment purchases are taken into account, the real expenditures could be several times that.
Fallon said this subject came up in his 90-minute discussions with Cao, a general who is vice chairman of the Communist Party's policymaking Central Military Commission. The response was that, with such a large military, even a little expenditure on each soldier adds up fast, Fallon reported.
In the exchange, Cao also asked Fallon why the Pentagon, in its recent Quadrennial Defense Report, suggested China is the country with the greatest potential to pose a challenge to the U.S. military in the future.
"As we discussed these items, it struck me that we have a long way to go," Fallon said.
The United States and China cut off military contacts in 2001 after a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter collided over the South China Sea, killing a Chinese pilot and forcing the U.S. aircraft to make an emergency landing on China's Hainan Island. The 24-member crew was allowed to leave only after prolonged negotiations and a U.S. statement that China interpreted as an apology.
Since taking over as head of the Honolulu-based U.S. Pacific Command in February 2005, Fallon has campaigned to restore and strengthen the ties, seeking to multiply contacts at all levels of the two countries' military hierarchies.
In his initial visit late last year, Fallon saw little and was disappointed with the lack of openness. But Rumsfeld visited China in October, touring the strategic command headquarters. Fallon said Chinese and U.S. officers will meet in June to discuss exchanges of lower-level officers in the two strategic commands.
Cao also endorsed restoring and expanding military-to-military relations, telling the official New China News Agency that they are "an important part of bilateral relations." But he did not immediately respond to Fallon's invitation for Chinese officers to observe next summer's Valiant Shield exercises around Guam.
Fallon said that, in addition to the air base near Hangzhou where he sat in the FB-7, he visited an air force training academy near Xi'An, home of the celebrated terra cotta warriors -- which he also viewed -- and the 39th Infantry Regiment south of Shenyang, in Liaoning province 400 miles northeast of Beijing and a short distance from the North Korean border.
Justices to Hear Environmental Appeal on EPA Emissions Rule
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A04
The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will review a controversial federal court ruling that environmentalists had said would weaken pollution-control requirements for aging power stations across the country.
In a one-line order, the justices said they will hear Environmental Defense's appeal of a June 2005 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, which said that Duke Energy Corp., a North Carolina utility, could operate refurbished power plants even though their total annual emissions would go up.
The court's decision injects the justices into a half-decade-old battle between environmentalists and the Bush administration, which has sought to ease what it says is an excessive regulatory burden on the nation's utilities.
Lightening the industry's environmental load was a key component of the administration policy adopted by Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001.
In the case the court agreed to hear yesterday, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. , No. 05-848, the specific question is how to measure utilities' compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's "new source review" rules, which govern emissions from plants that have been modernized or expanded.
Environmental Defense says that about 17,000 facilities are covered by the rules, and it cites studies that show 20,000 premature deaths per year traceable to pollution from coal-fired plants.
The EPA's position traditionally has been that the Clean Air Act requires modified plants to reduce their total annual emissions, and Environmental Defense says that interpretation is correct.
But the 4th Circuit disagreed and said that plants should only have to show a reduction in their hourly rate of emissions. This was a victory for utilities because they could run their updated plants for many more hours than previously.
The case against Duke Energy was one of many initiated by the EPA across the country in the waning days of the Clinton administration.
The Clinton crackdown was bitterly opposed by utilities, and the Bush administration promised to change EPA enforcement policy.
But the EPA continued to press cases that were already pending when the administration took office in 2001, so the Bush EPA and Environmental Defense had been on the same side of the Duke Energy case until the 4th Circuit's ruling.
After the 4th Circuit ruled, the administration proposed new clean air regulations that incorporated the 4th Circuit's decision and would have applied it across the country.
Then the administration asked the Supreme Court not to intervene in the case. The court's decision to take the case over the administration's objection was a surprise; since the adoption of modern environmental legislation in 1970, the court had agreed to hear just two previous cases in which an environmental group was the petitioner.
"The court's decision to grant review despite the administration's request that review be denied constitutes a significant rebuff and places the administration in an awkward position before the court," said Richard Lazarus, professor of environmental law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Environmental Defense, backed by a friend-of-the-court brief from the District, Maryland and 13 other states, argued that the 4th Circuit had acted outside its jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act, and that its ruling clashed with a 2005 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said that emissions had to be measured on an annual basis.
Though the high court's decision to grant review yesterday was a defeat for Duke Energy, which had urged it to let the 4th Circuit ruling stand, Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said in a statement that industry was looking forward to the case.
"Clarity regarding these concepts is essential to improved efficiency, reduced emissions, enhanced workplace safety, and electric reliability," he said. "This Supreme Court has a good track record in support of a reasoned approach to administrative law. We believe the makeup of the court is well positioned to render judgment in a sensible and fair way."
Oral argument will take place in the fall, and a decision is expected by July 2007.
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A04
The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will review a controversial federal court ruling that environmentalists had said would weaken pollution-control requirements for aging power stations across the country.
In a one-line order, the justices said they will hear Environmental Defense's appeal of a June 2005 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, which said that Duke Energy Corp., a North Carolina utility, could operate refurbished power plants even though their total annual emissions would go up.
The court's decision injects the justices into a half-decade-old battle between environmentalists and the Bush administration, which has sought to ease what it says is an excessive regulatory burden on the nation's utilities.
Lightening the industry's environmental load was a key component of the administration policy adopted by Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001.
In the case the court agreed to hear yesterday, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. , No. 05-848, the specific question is how to measure utilities' compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's "new source review" rules, which govern emissions from plants that have been modernized or expanded.
Environmental Defense says that about 17,000 facilities are covered by the rules, and it cites studies that show 20,000 premature deaths per year traceable to pollution from coal-fired plants.
The EPA's position traditionally has been that the Clean Air Act requires modified plants to reduce their total annual emissions, and Environmental Defense says that interpretation is correct.
But the 4th Circuit disagreed and said that plants should only have to show a reduction in their hourly rate of emissions. This was a victory for utilities because they could run their updated plants for many more hours than previously.
The case against Duke Energy was one of many initiated by the EPA across the country in the waning days of the Clinton administration.
The Clinton crackdown was bitterly opposed by utilities, and the Bush administration promised to change EPA enforcement policy.
But the EPA continued to press cases that were already pending when the administration took office in 2001, so the Bush EPA and Environmental Defense had been on the same side of the Duke Energy case until the 4th Circuit's ruling.
After the 4th Circuit ruled, the administration proposed new clean air regulations that incorporated the 4th Circuit's decision and would have applied it across the country.
Then the administration asked the Supreme Court not to intervene in the case. The court's decision to take the case over the administration's objection was a surprise; since the adoption of modern environmental legislation in 1970, the court had agreed to hear just two previous cases in which an environmental group was the petitioner.
"The court's decision to grant review despite the administration's request that review be denied constitutes a significant rebuff and places the administration in an awkward position before the court," said Richard Lazarus, professor of environmental law at Georgetown University Law Center.
Environmental Defense, backed by a friend-of-the-court brief from the District, Maryland and 13 other states, argued that the 4th Circuit had acted outside its jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act, and that its ruling clashed with a 2005 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said that emissions had to be measured on an annual basis.
Though the high court's decision to grant review yesterday was a defeat for Duke Energy, which had urged it to let the 4th Circuit ruling stand, Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said in a statement that industry was looking forward to the case.
"Clarity regarding these concepts is essential to improved efficiency, reduced emissions, enhanced workplace safety, and electric reliability," he said. "This Supreme Court has a good track record in support of a reasoned approach to administrative law. We believe the makeup of the court is well positioned to render judgment in a sensible and fair way."
Oral argument will take place in the fall, and a decision is expected by July 2007.
Canadians Fear Fallout From Mexico Rules
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A09
TORONTO, May 15 -- Every 4.7 seconds, on average, a cargo truck rumbles across the border from Canada to the United States. More than 6,000 passenger cars cross to the United States every hour. Inspectors on both sides wave through nearly 70 million visitors a year.
Officials in both countries fear that President Bush's tough new measures on the Mexican border will increase calls for tighter restrictions on movement over the bridges and highways leading in and out of Canada. Canadian officials already are trying to fight a U.S. plan to require a passport or a new identity card for travelers at the land border by Jan. 1, 2008.
"We all recognize the border is important, and security is the number one issue. But we don't want the border to become an obstacle to trade and mobility," Jean Charest, the premier of Quebec, said Monday in an interview from Montreal. (IS QUEBEC STILL PART OF CANADA? IF SO, WHY DID YOU HAVE A VOTE TO SEPERATE?)
Charest met with New England governors and the officials of four other Canadian provinces Friday to propose a delay in the U.S. rules. U.S. and Canadian citizens do not now need a passport, and most of the vehicles that pass through the 130 entry points along the border go through with a wave or cursory stop.
"The daily story of our respective countries is the hockey teams that cross the borders every day, trade that goes on, people who shop on the other side," Charest said. "This is going to affect a lot of people."
While illegal immigration is the focus at the Mexican border, U.S. Homeland Security officials have complained that the largely unguarded Canadian border, stretching more than 5,000 miles across land and water, provides easy entry for terrorists and drug dealers. Canadians say guns and criminals flow north. (REALLY?)
As calls for increased security on the Mexican border have increased, the Bush administration has talked about increasing electronic surveillance, adding border guards and toughening entry requirements at the Canadian border.
"We are concerned that you don't have a one-size-fits-all policy. The challenges on the southern border are completely different than the northern border," said Scotty Greenwood, executive director of the Canadian American Business Council in Washington. (WHY WOULD WE HAVE A ONE-SIZE FIS ALL POLICY? BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR)
In Niagara Falls, Ontario, Doreen Wilson, director of sales for White Glove Tour and Reception, said she already has received cancellations from tourists worried about the new passport requirements, even though the rules do not take effect until next January for air travelers and Jan. 1, 2008, for travelers by land. (WOW, ONE STORY AGAIN HOLDS UP THE WHOLE ARTICLE. I WISH WE HAD REALITY INCLUDED IN THESE STORIES)
"This sort of thing just wreaks havoc with tourism," she said Monday. "Our clients are people taking driving vacations because they can't afford flying vacations. We are not talking about frequent fliers or world travelers. It's basically families, and if you add another $100 a person to get a passport, it won't happen. They will say, 'I can use that money to go to a theme park instead of going to Canada.' " (THEN THAT IS THEIR DECISION. NATIONAL SECUROTY SHOULD NOT, AND WILL NOT, DEPEND ON THE COST OF PASSPORTS)
U.S. passports cost $97, and surveys estimate that only about 20 percent of U.S. citizens have one.
In Parliament on Monday, critics of Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused him of failing to pressure Bush enough on the issue when the two men met in Cancun, Mexico, in March.
The passport plan "will be terribly costly and useless in terms of security," said Serge Menard, a member of Bloc Quebecois. He said Harper is "blindly following the American administration." (THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS QUEBEC, BUT GO **** YOURSELVES)
Stockwell Day, the Conservative public safety minister, said the Harper government is trying to lessen the impact of the border restrictions. U.S. officials have proposed an identity document for American citizens that would be cheaper than a U.S. passport for use at the border, but have not yet worked out details.
Critics say no matter what document is required, stopping every car and truck to examine papers will create huge traffic jams. (OOOOO, TRAFFIC JAMS, WHATEVER WILL WE DO)
"If you are stopped at a busy crossing, then everyone backed up behind you is stopped, too," Greenwood said. (NO ****, THAT IS A TRAFFIC JAM. GLAD WE HAVE A QUOTE ON THIS)
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A09
TORONTO, May 15 -- Every 4.7 seconds, on average, a cargo truck rumbles across the border from Canada to the United States. More than 6,000 passenger cars cross to the United States every hour. Inspectors on both sides wave through nearly 70 million visitors a year.
Officials in both countries fear that President Bush's tough new measures on the Mexican border will increase calls for tighter restrictions on movement over the bridges and highways leading in and out of Canada. Canadian officials already are trying to fight a U.S. plan to require a passport or a new identity card for travelers at the land border by Jan. 1, 2008.
"We all recognize the border is important, and security is the number one issue. But we don't want the border to become an obstacle to trade and mobility," Jean Charest, the premier of Quebec, said Monday in an interview from Montreal. (IS QUEBEC STILL PART OF CANADA? IF SO, WHY DID YOU HAVE A VOTE TO SEPERATE?)
Charest met with New England governors and the officials of four other Canadian provinces Friday to propose a delay in the U.S. rules. U.S. and Canadian citizens do not now need a passport, and most of the vehicles that pass through the 130 entry points along the border go through with a wave or cursory stop.
"The daily story of our respective countries is the hockey teams that cross the borders every day, trade that goes on, people who shop on the other side," Charest said. "This is going to affect a lot of people."
While illegal immigration is the focus at the Mexican border, U.S. Homeland Security officials have complained that the largely unguarded Canadian border, stretching more than 5,000 miles across land and water, provides easy entry for terrorists and drug dealers. Canadians say guns and criminals flow north. (REALLY?)
As calls for increased security on the Mexican border have increased, the Bush administration has talked about increasing electronic surveillance, adding border guards and toughening entry requirements at the Canadian border.
"We are concerned that you don't have a one-size-fits-all policy. The challenges on the southern border are completely different than the northern border," said Scotty Greenwood, executive director of the Canadian American Business Council in Washington. (WHY WOULD WE HAVE A ONE-SIZE FIS ALL POLICY? BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR)
In Niagara Falls, Ontario, Doreen Wilson, director of sales for White Glove Tour and Reception, said she already has received cancellations from tourists worried about the new passport requirements, even though the rules do not take effect until next January for air travelers and Jan. 1, 2008, for travelers by land. (WOW, ONE STORY AGAIN HOLDS UP THE WHOLE ARTICLE. I WISH WE HAD REALITY INCLUDED IN THESE STORIES)
"This sort of thing just wreaks havoc with tourism," she said Monday. "Our clients are people taking driving vacations because they can't afford flying vacations. We are not talking about frequent fliers or world travelers. It's basically families, and if you add another $100 a person to get a passport, it won't happen. They will say, 'I can use that money to go to a theme park instead of going to Canada.' " (THEN THAT IS THEIR DECISION. NATIONAL SECUROTY SHOULD NOT, AND WILL NOT, DEPEND ON THE COST OF PASSPORTS)
U.S. passports cost $97, and surveys estimate that only about 20 percent of U.S. citizens have one.
In Parliament on Monday, critics of Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused him of failing to pressure Bush enough on the issue when the two men met in Cancun, Mexico, in March.
The passport plan "will be terribly costly and useless in terms of security," said Serge Menard, a member of Bloc Quebecois. He said Harper is "blindly following the American administration." (THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS QUEBEC, BUT GO **** YOURSELVES)
Stockwell Day, the Conservative public safety minister, said the Harper government is trying to lessen the impact of the border restrictions. U.S. officials have proposed an identity document for American citizens that would be cheaper than a U.S. passport for use at the border, but have not yet worked out details.
Critics say no matter what document is required, stopping every car and truck to examine papers will create huge traffic jams. (OOOOO, TRAFFIC JAMS, WHATEVER WILL WE DO)
"If you are stopped at a busy crossing, then everyone backed up behind you is stopped, too," Greenwood said. (NO ****, THAT IS A TRAFFIC JAM. GLAD WE HAVE A QUOTE ON THIS)
Lack of Surprise Greets Word of U.S.-Libya Ties
Democracy No Longer Seen as Top Priority
By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A12
CAIRO, May 15 -- The normalization of U.S.-Libya relations is a natural marriage of an American administration desperate for friends and oil in the Middle East and a government that needs to open its economy to the outside world, Arab and exiled Libyan observers said Monday.
The announcement was called proof that promotion of democracy is no longer a top priority of the Bush administration, which is grappling to hold Iraq together and has turned attention toward building alliances against a hostile Iran over its nuclear program. Libya has been ruled by Moammar Gaddafi since he seized power in 1969. (BY WHO? A NAMELESS SLUR?)
"The timing can be explained by a need for the United States to have a positive breakthrough in the Middle East," said Mohamed Sayed Said, a political analyst at the Egyptian government-run Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. "With Libya, Washington gets a regime that has converted itself from radicalism to accommodation." (OH, AN EGYPTIAN, WHO RECIEVES HOW MANY BILLIONS, HAS A COMMENT? I GUESS THAT ONE COMMENT CAN CARRY THE WHOLE ARTICLE)
"It's self-evident," Said went on, "that there is a retreat from democracy and that in the current atmosphere, the United States is aligning itself with nondemocratic regimes. Democracy is not going to be the point of departure for relations between the United States and governments in the region." (HOW THE **** WOULD SAID KNOW DEMOCRACY?)
Analysts expressed a lack of surprise over the U.S.-Libya rapprochement, saying it had been inevitable since Gaddafi gave up Libya's nuclear weapons program three years ago. Restoring full diplomatic relations was merely icing on the cake, observers said.
The United States lifted its economic embargo against Libya in 2004, and since then, at least six U.S. oil companies have resumed drilling and exploration that had been suspended in 1986. Libya possesses the world's eighth-largest oil reserves, but the U.S. embargo had driven down production by keeping new equipment and technology out of the country.
On Monday, a top Libyan official said that relations would benefit not just Libya but also the United States. "It is a result of mutual interests, agreements and understandings. In politics there is no such thing as a reward, but there are interests," Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalqam told the Associated Press. "This will certainly open a new chapter in the relations of the two countries."
Libya is still regularly listed by human rights groups as having one of the world's most repressive governments. A recent survey by Freedom House, a U.S.-based organization that promotes democracy worldwide, placed Libya in the bottom five countries in terms of the free flow of information.
Libyan exiles reacted with ambivalence to the U.S. outreach to their homeland. "It might be good for the Libyan people. It might be easier to get rid of Gaddafi in a Libya that is more open," said Mohammed Zayan, a democracy activist exiled in London. In any case, Libyans did not put much stock in U.S. pressure for democracy, he said: "No one was gambling on it."
Suleiman Bouchuiguir, general secretary of the Geneva-based Libyan League for Human Rights, said with resignation: "It's not pertinent as regards human rights. Opening relations is strictly an issue of U.S. interests. The democracy drive is being undermined by the problems in Iraq."
How far Libya might go in aligning itself with the United States could become clear on Tuesday, when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is scheduled to visit Tripoli, the Libyan capital.
Chavez has set himself up as South America's leading anti-American politician and has spearheaded a drive on the continent to reduce the influence of foreign companies. Gaddafi, in contrast, is trying to attract U.S. and European petroleum companies to explore Libya's reserves and increase production.
(SO THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS BASED ON ONE EGYPTIAN INTELLECTUAL? ARE YOU SERIOUS ARE THE POST???)
Democracy No Longer Seen as Top Priority
By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A12
CAIRO, May 15 -- The normalization of U.S.-Libya relations is a natural marriage of an American administration desperate for friends and oil in the Middle East and a government that needs to open its economy to the outside world, Arab and exiled Libyan observers said Monday.
The announcement was called proof that promotion of democracy is no longer a top priority of the Bush administration, which is grappling to hold Iraq together and has turned attention toward building alliances against a hostile Iran over its nuclear program. Libya has been ruled by Moammar Gaddafi since he seized power in 1969. (BY WHO? A NAMELESS SLUR?)
"The timing can be explained by a need for the United States to have a positive breakthrough in the Middle East," said Mohamed Sayed Said, a political analyst at the Egyptian government-run Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. "With Libya, Washington gets a regime that has converted itself from radicalism to accommodation." (OH, AN EGYPTIAN, WHO RECIEVES HOW MANY BILLIONS, HAS A COMMENT? I GUESS THAT ONE COMMENT CAN CARRY THE WHOLE ARTICLE)
"It's self-evident," Said went on, "that there is a retreat from democracy and that in the current atmosphere, the United States is aligning itself with nondemocratic regimes. Democracy is not going to be the point of departure for relations between the United States and governments in the region." (HOW THE **** WOULD SAID KNOW DEMOCRACY?)
Analysts expressed a lack of surprise over the U.S.-Libya rapprochement, saying it had been inevitable since Gaddafi gave up Libya's nuclear weapons program three years ago. Restoring full diplomatic relations was merely icing on the cake, observers said.
The United States lifted its economic embargo against Libya in 2004, and since then, at least six U.S. oil companies have resumed drilling and exploration that had been suspended in 1986. Libya possesses the world's eighth-largest oil reserves, but the U.S. embargo had driven down production by keeping new equipment and technology out of the country.
On Monday, a top Libyan official said that relations would benefit not just Libya but also the United States. "It is a result of mutual interests, agreements and understandings. In politics there is no such thing as a reward, but there are interests," Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalqam told the Associated Press. "This will certainly open a new chapter in the relations of the two countries."
Libya is still regularly listed by human rights groups as having one of the world's most repressive governments. A recent survey by Freedom House, a U.S.-based organization that promotes democracy worldwide, placed Libya in the bottom five countries in terms of the free flow of information.
Libyan exiles reacted with ambivalence to the U.S. outreach to their homeland. "It might be good for the Libyan people. It might be easier to get rid of Gaddafi in a Libya that is more open," said Mohammed Zayan, a democracy activist exiled in London. In any case, Libyans did not put much stock in U.S. pressure for democracy, he said: "No one was gambling on it."
Suleiman Bouchuiguir, general secretary of the Geneva-based Libyan League for Human Rights, said with resignation: "It's not pertinent as regards human rights. Opening relations is strictly an issue of U.S. interests. The democracy drive is being undermined by the problems in Iraq."
How far Libya might go in aligning itself with the United States could become clear on Tuesday, when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is scheduled to visit Tripoli, the Libyan capital.
Chavez has set himself up as South America's leading anti-American politician and has spearheaded a drive on the continent to reduce the influence of foreign companies. Gaddafi, in contrast, is trying to attract U.S. and European petroleum companies to explore Libya's reserves and increase production.
(SO THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS BASED ON ONE EGYPTIAN INTELLECTUAL? ARE YOU SERIOUS ARE THE POST???)
Goldman puts price on table for AB Ports
By Alistair Osborne, Business Editor (Filed: 24/05/2006)
Associated British Ports has agreed to open its books to a bid consortium advised by Goldman Sachs after persuading it to increase its mooted takeover proposal to 810p per share.
The proposed cash offer, which is subject to a board recommendation as well as due diligence, values Britain's biggest ports operator at £2.44bn. AB Ports, whose 13,000-acre estate includes cargo terminals at Southampton, Hull, Immingham and Port Talbot also has £561m debts, making the proposed deal worth £3bn.
Equity in the bid consortium is equally split between Goldman Sachs, Canada's Borealis Infrastructure Management and Singapore's GIC.
Any deal would mark the first success by Goldman Sachs since the bank's boss Hank Paulson intervened to warn against using its own funds to launch hostile bids. Goldman Sachs has recently suffered a number of bid failures, including ITV, BAA and Mitchells & Butlers.
AB Ports shares rose 100 to 770p, with the discount to the potential offer price suggesting the market did not expect a counter bidder. Forth Ports, the sole remaining large quoted ports group, also shot higher, up 61 to £16.61.
Analysts would not rule out a counter bidder. Mark McVicar at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, said: "It's not a knock-out price, so it's not inconceivable that someone else could come in." Potential rival bidders would include private equity companies, such as Cinven CVC and Carlyle, Australia's Macquarie and other infrastructure funds, such as Challenger, that was outbid for PD Ports.
Putting a price on the table could flush out other bidders, though AB Ports has not received any interest from rivals to the Goldman consortium since it made its first 730p-a-share approach in March.
That proposal was rejected but, as The Daily Telegraph revealed, the Goldman consortium returned in mid-April with an indicative proposal pitched at 775p per share. Since then AB Ports' adviser Deutsche Bank has been in regular contact with Goldman.
It is unclear whether the consortium, should it be successful, would put in its own management team or whether there would be a role for Bo Lerenius, AB Ports' well-regarded chief executive. At 810p per share, Mr Lerenius would make around £5m from share options and bonuses.
In a brief statement, AB Ports said that it had "agreed to grant the consortium a limited period to undertake confirmatory due diligence. A further announcement will be made when appropriate."
The proposed bid price values AB Ports at almost 26 times earnings, not far short of what DP World paid for P&O.
One analyst said: "Given they're offering cash, shareholders would expect AB Ports to open its books at that price."
By Alistair Osborne, Business Editor (Filed: 24/05/2006)
Associated British Ports has agreed to open its books to a bid consortium advised by Goldman Sachs after persuading it to increase its mooted takeover proposal to 810p per share.
The proposed cash offer, which is subject to a board recommendation as well as due diligence, values Britain's biggest ports operator at £2.44bn. AB Ports, whose 13,000-acre estate includes cargo terminals at Southampton, Hull, Immingham and Port Talbot also has £561m debts, making the proposed deal worth £3bn.
Equity in the bid consortium is equally split between Goldman Sachs, Canada's Borealis Infrastructure Management and Singapore's GIC.
Any deal would mark the first success by Goldman Sachs since the bank's boss Hank Paulson intervened to warn against using its own funds to launch hostile bids. Goldman Sachs has recently suffered a number of bid failures, including ITV, BAA and Mitchells & Butlers.
AB Ports shares rose 100 to 770p, with the discount to the potential offer price suggesting the market did not expect a counter bidder. Forth Ports, the sole remaining large quoted ports group, also shot higher, up 61 to £16.61.
Analysts would not rule out a counter bidder. Mark McVicar at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, said: "It's not a knock-out price, so it's not inconceivable that someone else could come in." Potential rival bidders would include private equity companies, such as Cinven CVC and Carlyle, Australia's Macquarie and other infrastructure funds, such as Challenger, that was outbid for PD Ports.
Putting a price on the table could flush out other bidders, though AB Ports has not received any interest from rivals to the Goldman consortium since it made its first 730p-a-share approach in March.
That proposal was rejected but, as The Daily Telegraph revealed, the Goldman consortium returned in mid-April with an indicative proposal pitched at 775p per share. Since then AB Ports' adviser Deutsche Bank has been in regular contact with Goldman.
It is unclear whether the consortium, should it be successful, would put in its own management team or whether there would be a role for Bo Lerenius, AB Ports' well-regarded chief executive. At 810p per share, Mr Lerenius would make around £5m from share options and bonuses.
In a brief statement, AB Ports said that it had "agreed to grant the consortium a limited period to undertake confirmatory due diligence. A further announcement will be made when appropriate."
The proposed bid price values AB Ports at almost 26 times earnings, not far short of what DP World paid for P&O.
One analyst said: "Given they're offering cash, shareholders would expect AB Ports to open its books at that price."
Bush: Troops cracking down on Zarqawi followers
Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:45 AM ET
By Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S.-led troops and Iraqi forces will capitalize on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death by cracking down on insurgents trying to regroup after losing their leader, President George W. Bush said on Saturday.
Bush's vow was another signal that the United States was not ready to start scaling back its military presence despite the killing of al Qaeda's chief in Iraq, mastermind of the bloodiest bombings since the American-led invasion in 2003.
"Coalition and Iraqi forces are seizing this moment to strike the enemies of freedom in Iraq at this time of uncertainty for their cause," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
Bush hailed Zarqawi's killing in a U.S. air strike on Wednesday as "an important victory in the global war on terror," but he maintained the sober tone that has marked the administration's reaction.
Despite pressure from some Democrats to start bringing troops home, Bush -- struggling with growing anti-war sentiment and low approval ratings -- set no timetable for withdrawal and repeated his warning to Americans to expect further sacrifice. (LOW BUT RISING)
He said on Friday that the death of Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant leader, would not end the war but would "help a lot."
Violence persisted in Iraq on Saturday. A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol killed three civilians and wounded 28 people in a crowded Baghdad market, police sources said. (WOW, A CAR FULL OF EXPLOSIVES, WHAT A TACTIC)
Analysts said any hope that Zarqawi's death would take the sting out of Iraq's insurgency may prove premature because al Qaeda militants are only one of several groups fighting the U.S.-backed, Shi'ite-led government.
Zarqawi's followers vow to fight on and al Qaeda watchers say his successor may be a local figure, with close ties to Osama bin Laden, who focuses attacks more on U.S. and Iraqi forces and less on brutal beheadings and suicide bombings.
"Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues," Bush said. "In the weeks ahead, violence in Iraq may escalate. The terrorists and insurgents will seek to prove that they can carry on without Zarqawi."
Bush reiterated that two days of talks next week at the presidential retreat at Camp David would "determine how to best deploy America's resources in Iraq and achieve our shared goal of an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself."
He planned to meet his national security team on Monday and hold a video conference with Iraqi leaders on Tuesday.
Bush has tempered any expectations that the talks would deal with a schedule of reducing the 131,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, sticking to his insistence that Iraqis must first be able to secure their own country.
Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:45 AM ET
By Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S.-led troops and Iraqi forces will capitalize on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death by cracking down on insurgents trying to regroup after losing their leader, President George W. Bush said on Saturday.
Bush's vow was another signal that the United States was not ready to start scaling back its military presence despite the killing of al Qaeda's chief in Iraq, mastermind of the bloodiest bombings since the American-led invasion in 2003.
"Coalition and Iraqi forces are seizing this moment to strike the enemies of freedom in Iraq at this time of uncertainty for their cause," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
Bush hailed Zarqawi's killing in a U.S. air strike on Wednesday as "an important victory in the global war on terror," but he maintained the sober tone that has marked the administration's reaction.
Despite pressure from some Democrats to start bringing troops home, Bush -- struggling with growing anti-war sentiment and low approval ratings -- set no timetable for withdrawal and repeated his warning to Americans to expect further sacrifice. (LOW BUT RISING)
He said on Friday that the death of Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant leader, would not end the war but would "help a lot."
Violence persisted in Iraq on Saturday. A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol killed three civilians and wounded 28 people in a crowded Baghdad market, police sources said. (WOW, A CAR FULL OF EXPLOSIVES, WHAT A TACTIC)
Analysts said any hope that Zarqawi's death would take the sting out of Iraq's insurgency may prove premature because al Qaeda militants are only one of several groups fighting the U.S.-backed, Shi'ite-led government.
Zarqawi's followers vow to fight on and al Qaeda watchers say his successor may be a local figure, with close ties to Osama bin Laden, who focuses attacks more on U.S. and Iraqi forces and less on brutal beheadings and suicide bombings.
"Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues," Bush said. "In the weeks ahead, violence in Iraq may escalate. The terrorists and insurgents will seek to prove that they can carry on without Zarqawi."
Bush reiterated that two days of talks next week at the presidential retreat at Camp David would "determine how to best deploy America's resources in Iraq and achieve our shared goal of an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself."
He planned to meet his national security team on Monday and hold a video conference with Iraqi leaders on Tuesday.
Bush has tempered any expectations that the talks would deal with a schedule of reducing the 131,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, sticking to his insistence that Iraqis must first be able to secure their own country.
Markets perform historic fight-back
By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor (Filed: 24/05/2006)
London's markets have staged an extraordinary bounce-back, retrieving much of the ground lost in the past few days.
The FTSE 250 had its best-ever day, climbing 4.6pc, while the benchmark FTSE 100 achieved its biggest percentage rise for three years. However, the rebound followed almost a fortnight of stock-market misery, in which fears about rising inflation and the prospects for the US economy sent equities around the world tumbling.
Markets nevertheless summoned up a historic jump yesterday, despite a fresh warning about global inflation from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Western world's chief economic overseer.
A leap in commodity prices helped push the FTSE 100 up 146 points to 5678.7. The jump more than turned around Monday's 124-point plunge, but the index is still far below its recent heights.
The FTSE 250 jumped 405.7 to 9234.3, achieving its biggest one-day percentage rise since it was established in 1986. However, this came after the second-tier index's largest-ever points fall on Monday.
The FTSE's biggest gainers were mining stocks, including Antofagasta and Xstrata, after oil and metal prices recovered strongly from recent falls. Copper was up 10.2pc on the day to $8,370 in late trading, while nickel hit record highs. But analysts warned that metal prices remained overvalued.
London's performance was mirrored around the world. Traders started optimistically after a resilient display from Wall Street on Monday night and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 59 points at 11184 in late trading. Germany's DAX rose 2.4pc to 5678.49, the French CAC 40 index rose 2.5pc to 4931.53, and South African equities leapt by more than 4pc.
The OECD warned that globalisation was likely to result in higher inflation. It said that although cheap imports from China and India meant goods inflation had fallen in the developed world, the developing world's increased demand for energy was likely to push up oil prices permanently.
The OECD, however, raised its global growth forecast from 2.9pc to 3.1pc. Chief economist Jean-Philippe Cotis said the UK economy would grow by 2.4pc this year and 2.9pc in 2007, but warned unemployment was set to rise. He said Chancellor Gordon Brown will have to cut spending or raise taxes to bring the budget deficit into line.
He also warned of record current account deficits in the US and elsewhere. "It seems unlikely that these imbalances would continue indefinitely without prompting market-driven adjustment, which could turn unpleasant," he said.
However, Alan Brown, head of investments at Schroders, said: "This is not the start of a bear-market run. The world economy is on track for respectable growth."
By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor (Filed: 24/05/2006)
London's markets have staged an extraordinary bounce-back, retrieving much of the ground lost in the past few days.
The FTSE 250 had its best-ever day, climbing 4.6pc, while the benchmark FTSE 100 achieved its biggest percentage rise for three years. However, the rebound followed almost a fortnight of stock-market misery, in which fears about rising inflation and the prospects for the US economy sent equities around the world tumbling.
Markets nevertheless summoned up a historic jump yesterday, despite a fresh warning about global inflation from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Western world's chief economic overseer.
A leap in commodity prices helped push the FTSE 100 up 146 points to 5678.7. The jump more than turned around Monday's 124-point plunge, but the index is still far below its recent heights.
The FTSE 250 jumped 405.7 to 9234.3, achieving its biggest one-day percentage rise since it was established in 1986. However, this came after the second-tier index's largest-ever points fall on Monday.
The FTSE's biggest gainers were mining stocks, including Antofagasta and Xstrata, after oil and metal prices recovered strongly from recent falls. Copper was up 10.2pc on the day to $8,370 in late trading, while nickel hit record highs. But analysts warned that metal prices remained overvalued.
London's performance was mirrored around the world. Traders started optimistically after a resilient display from Wall Street on Monday night and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 59 points at 11184 in late trading. Germany's DAX rose 2.4pc to 5678.49, the French CAC 40 index rose 2.5pc to 4931.53, and South African equities leapt by more than 4pc.
The OECD warned that globalisation was likely to result in higher inflation. It said that although cheap imports from China and India meant goods inflation had fallen in the developed world, the developing world's increased demand for energy was likely to push up oil prices permanently.
The OECD, however, raised its global growth forecast from 2.9pc to 3.1pc. Chief economist Jean-Philippe Cotis said the UK economy would grow by 2.4pc this year and 2.9pc in 2007, but warned unemployment was set to rise. He said Chancellor Gordon Brown will have to cut spending or raise taxes to bring the budget deficit into line.
He also warned of record current account deficits in the US and elsewhere. "It seems unlikely that these imbalances would continue indefinitely without prompting market-driven adjustment, which could turn unpleasant," he said.
However, Alan Brown, head of investments at Schroders, said: "This is not the start of a bear-market run. The world economy is on track for respectable growth."
Iran Must Halt Enrichment Effort, China Official Says
Tang Jiaxuan also counsels Washington to stop pressuring Tehran in the nuclear dispute.
By Mark Magnier
Times Staff Writer
May 16, 2006
BEIJING — Iran should halt its uranium enrichment activities and all related research and development, a senior Chinese official said Monday, even as he advised the United States to drop its push for sanctions in order to ease the nuclear dispute.
Tang Jiaxuan, a member of the Communist Party's Central Committee, called in an interview in Zhongnanhai, the country's seat of power, for Iran to take a more accommodating line in United Nations discussions of its nuclear program.
"Iran should listen to the call of all of the international community," Tang said. "Iran should exercise a moratorium on uranium enrichment activities and all related activities, including research and development."
Iran broke a moratorium on such research in February and resumed activity on a program it insists is aimed at making fuel for civilian power plants, but the United States and European countries suspect it is a cover for a nuclear weapons program.
The U.S. is seeking sanctions against Iran at the U.N. Security Council.
Tang, who also serves on the State Council, the top executive organ, suggested that Washington consider participating in direct talks with Tehran, a prospect the Bush administration has rejected.
In the cases of Iran and North Korea, U.S. pressure, economic sanctions and other blunt tools don't work, Tang said, adding that Washington should pursue diplomatic and political solutions.
"Sanctions can only complicate matters and don't resolve the issue," he said. "And people, the innocent public, will be victimized."
Tang said that Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, should honor its obligations by limiting its use of atomic energy to peaceful purposes.
China, which as a permanent member of the Security Council holds veto power over any sanctions resolution, is a reluctant player in the Iran dispute. The Asian giant's economic interests in Iran, including oil and gas contracts, trade ties and construction work, make it wary of offending Tehran.
Yet Beijing also opposes nuclear proliferation that might further destabilize the Middle East, given its growing thirst for oil. And China remains wary of angering the United States, a major customer for its exports.
"Ultimately, China is appealing strongly for international cooperation to cool down the situation," said Dong Manyuan, a research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies. "They think a call for direct talks [between Washington and Tehran] would be conducive to greater stability."
Turning to the North Korean nuclear standoff, Tang said Washington's focus on Iran had drained momentum from talks aimed at stemming Pyongyang's weapons program. Tang said the so-called six-party talks had stalled in part because Washington had taken a tough line on the isolated Stalinist state, prompting its leaders to dig in their heels.
On Taiwan issues, the former foreign minister denied that China was waiting until Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian left office to try to improve cross-strait relations, as some have charged. Taiwanese opposition leader Ma Ying-jeou, who favors a more accommodating line with Beijing, is a strong contender in the next presidential election in 2008.
"We don't have to wait for anyone to step into office," Tang said. Beijing is willing to talk to any party or segment from Taiwan as long as they adhere to the one-China principle, he said. China and Taiwan split in 1949 after a civil war. Beijing considers the island part of its territory.
At the same time, Tang suggested that Chen was not someone Beijing could work with. "Chen Shui-bian, the current leader of the Taiwan authority, is absolutely not a reliable person," he said. "He is a dangerous element."
Tang Jiaxuan also counsels Washington to stop pressuring Tehran in the nuclear dispute.
By Mark Magnier
Times Staff Writer
May 16, 2006
BEIJING — Iran should halt its uranium enrichment activities and all related research and development, a senior Chinese official said Monday, even as he advised the United States to drop its push for sanctions in order to ease the nuclear dispute.
Tang Jiaxuan, a member of the Communist Party's Central Committee, called in an interview in Zhongnanhai, the country's seat of power, for Iran to take a more accommodating line in United Nations discussions of its nuclear program.
"Iran should listen to the call of all of the international community," Tang said. "Iran should exercise a moratorium on uranium enrichment activities and all related activities, including research and development."
Iran broke a moratorium on such research in February and resumed activity on a program it insists is aimed at making fuel for civilian power plants, but the United States and European countries suspect it is a cover for a nuclear weapons program.
The U.S. is seeking sanctions against Iran at the U.N. Security Council.
Tang, who also serves on the State Council, the top executive organ, suggested that Washington consider participating in direct talks with Tehran, a prospect the Bush administration has rejected.
In the cases of Iran and North Korea, U.S. pressure, economic sanctions and other blunt tools don't work, Tang said, adding that Washington should pursue diplomatic and political solutions.
"Sanctions can only complicate matters and don't resolve the issue," he said. "And people, the innocent public, will be victimized."
Tang said that Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, should honor its obligations by limiting its use of atomic energy to peaceful purposes.
China, which as a permanent member of the Security Council holds veto power over any sanctions resolution, is a reluctant player in the Iran dispute. The Asian giant's economic interests in Iran, including oil and gas contracts, trade ties and construction work, make it wary of offending Tehran.
Yet Beijing also opposes nuclear proliferation that might further destabilize the Middle East, given its growing thirst for oil. And China remains wary of angering the United States, a major customer for its exports.
"Ultimately, China is appealing strongly for international cooperation to cool down the situation," said Dong Manyuan, a research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies. "They think a call for direct talks [between Washington and Tehran] would be conducive to greater stability."
Turning to the North Korean nuclear standoff, Tang said Washington's focus on Iran had drained momentum from talks aimed at stemming Pyongyang's weapons program. Tang said the so-called six-party talks had stalled in part because Washington had taken a tough line on the isolated Stalinist state, prompting its leaders to dig in their heels.
On Taiwan issues, the former foreign minister denied that China was waiting until Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian left office to try to improve cross-strait relations, as some have charged. Taiwanese opposition leader Ma Ying-jeou, who favors a more accommodating line with Beijing, is a strong contender in the next presidential election in 2008.
"We don't have to wait for anyone to step into office," Tang said. Beijing is willing to talk to any party or segment from Taiwan as long as they adhere to the one-China principle, he said. China and Taiwan split in 1949 after a civil war. Beijing considers the island part of its territory.
At the same time, Tang suggested that Chen was not someone Beijing could work with. "Chen Shui-bian, the current leader of the Taiwan authority, is absolutely not a reliable person," he said. "He is a dangerous element."
U.S. Ties With Libya Restored
By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer
May 16, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration restored full diplomatic ties with Libya on Monday, rewarding a longtime foe for giving up terrorism and unconventional weapons, and tacitly encouraging Iran and other countries to follow suit.
Completing a reversal that began three years ago, administration officials said they would open an embassy in Tripoli and drop Libya from their list of nations that sponsor terrorism. David Welch, assistant secretary of State for the Middle East, said the announcement demonstrated that when countries "follow international norms, they will reap concrete benefits."
"Libya serves as an important model as we push for changes in policy by other countries, such as Iran and North Korea," Welch said.
U.S. officials hope the move will encourage Libya to further open its economy, including its underdeveloped oil industry, which is potentially one of the world's largest. Libya's oil reserves rank in the top 10 worldwide, but its production lags. After the administration lifted U.S. economic sanctions in 2004, American oil companies joined others doing business in Libya, and Libyan oil began arriving at U.S. refineries that year.
At a morning news conference, Welch denied that the move was driven by an interest in oil, but acknowledged that Libya's economy has not opened to Americans as much as hoped for since economic sanctions were lifted. (NO INTEREST - THAT'S WRONG. BUT ALL FOR OIL, NOT WAY)
Libya "remains a problematic place to do business," he said. "We would appreciate greater openness, as would any number of potential foreign partners."
U.S. officials said the Libyan economy has many traditional rules — common to the region — that make it hard for foreigners to trade and invest. State Department travel warnings note that credit cards and checks tied to U.S. banks are usually not accepted in Libya, which remains mostly a cash economy. Officials said they hoped that better ties would give momentum to modernization and lead to an opening of the economy.
After Monday's announcement, analysts speculated that the Bush administration was eager to publicize the restoration of relations with Libya as a success story that showed, at a time of foreign policy frustrations in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere, that the United States can carry off diplomacy in the Middle East.
"The Bush administration has been looking for ways to show they can walk and chew gum, and solve problems in a sophisticated way, without resorting to bombing," said David Mack, a former senior State Department official who is now a vice president at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
The United States closed its embassy in Libya in 1980, at a time when U.S. officials viewed Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi as one of the most dangerous men in the Middle East. The U.S. held Libya responsible for a series of deadly terrorist attacks in the 1980s, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, in which 270 people died, mostly Americans.
President Reagan bombed Libya in 1986. The United Nations and the United States each imposed sanctions on Libya, and the U.S. sought to isolate it diplomatically.
In 1999, Libya began to give ground, surrendering two suspects for trial in the Lockerbie bombing. In December 2003, it took its biggest step, moving to dismantle its incipient unconventional weapons program and long-range ballistic missiles, leading to the breakthrough on sanctions in 2004.
Since then, the United States has held Libya out as a model of how countries with nuclear or chemical weapons programs should act. U.S. officials have also praised Libya for its cooperation in battling Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, a message they repeated Monday.
The Bush administration, trying to build international pressure on Tehran to halt its nuclear program, is eager to show Iranians that they would be better off abandoning nuclear ambitions than defying other countries to build a nuclear arsenal, as North Korea has done.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commended Libya in a statement for its "excellent cooperation" in fighting terrorism.
Yet U.S. officials moved slowly to restore diplomatic relations and end Libya's inclusion on the terrorist list. Mack, the former senior State Department official, speculated that the administration wanted to be sure that the unpredictable Kadafi would not change course in a way that could be deeply embarrassing to the White House.
Welch, in an interview, said U.S. officials wanted to be "very, very careful" before normalizing relations. He said they wanted Libya to fully own up to past behavior and promise not to repeat it.
"Given the long and difficult nature of this relationship, we wanted to be very scrupulous in asserting that they met those standards," he said.
The administration's move brought praise from some in Congress, which has 45 days to review the decision before it takes full effect.
Rep. Tom Lantos, (D-Burlingame), the senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, said that through Monday's actions, "the United States dramatically demonstrates to the remaining rogue states — and particularly to Iran — that our country takes note of positive changes in behavior and is more than willing to reciprocate."
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, welcomed the move "as a means to expand U.S.-Libyan collaboration against humanity's common enemy, terrorism."
But some of the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie crash voiced outrage, while others were concerned about the fate of a complex legal agreement. Under a settlement with relatives of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Libya has paid each family $8 million and is scheduled to pay $2 million more once it has been removed from the U.S. terrorism list.
Skeptics of the administration's latest steps include human rights activists, who said the United States was making a mistake by striking a deal with Kadafi.
"It is unfortunate that the restoration of full diplomatic relations occurred while my brother, Fathi … remained in jail," Mohamed Eljahmi said in a statement.
Fathi Eljahmi is a former provincial governor and democracy activist who was imprisoned in 2002 for slandering Kadafi. (WHERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS AGENCIES???)
Welch, the assistant secretary of State, said the Eljahmi case was "troubling." He said the U.S. government continued to have concerns about Libya's human rights records, but hoped that closer ties would give the United States more leverage.
One issue that stood in the way of Monday's normalization was an allegation that Libya was involved in an assassination attempt against Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in 2003, when he was crown prince. But last September, the two countries announced that they had resolved the issue and restored diplomatic ties.
Another issue is Libya's seven-year imprisonment of Palestinian and Bulgarian medical personnel on charges that they infected Libyan children with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. U.S. officials believe that there is no merit to the charges and that Libya may drop them.
By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer
May 16, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration restored full diplomatic ties with Libya on Monday, rewarding a longtime foe for giving up terrorism and unconventional weapons, and tacitly encouraging Iran and other countries to follow suit.
Completing a reversal that began three years ago, administration officials said they would open an embassy in Tripoli and drop Libya from their list of nations that sponsor terrorism. David Welch, assistant secretary of State for the Middle East, said the announcement demonstrated that when countries "follow international norms, they will reap concrete benefits."
"Libya serves as an important model as we push for changes in policy by other countries, such as Iran and North Korea," Welch said.
U.S. officials hope the move will encourage Libya to further open its economy, including its underdeveloped oil industry, which is potentially one of the world's largest. Libya's oil reserves rank in the top 10 worldwide, but its production lags. After the administration lifted U.S. economic sanctions in 2004, American oil companies joined others doing business in Libya, and Libyan oil began arriving at U.S. refineries that year.
At a morning news conference, Welch denied that the move was driven by an interest in oil, but acknowledged that Libya's economy has not opened to Americans as much as hoped for since economic sanctions were lifted. (NO INTEREST - THAT'S WRONG. BUT ALL FOR OIL, NOT WAY)
Libya "remains a problematic place to do business," he said. "We would appreciate greater openness, as would any number of potential foreign partners."
U.S. officials said the Libyan economy has many traditional rules — common to the region — that make it hard for foreigners to trade and invest. State Department travel warnings note that credit cards and checks tied to U.S. banks are usually not accepted in Libya, which remains mostly a cash economy. Officials said they hoped that better ties would give momentum to modernization and lead to an opening of the economy.
After Monday's announcement, analysts speculated that the Bush administration was eager to publicize the restoration of relations with Libya as a success story that showed, at a time of foreign policy frustrations in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere, that the United States can carry off diplomacy in the Middle East.
"The Bush administration has been looking for ways to show they can walk and chew gum, and solve problems in a sophisticated way, without resorting to bombing," said David Mack, a former senior State Department official who is now a vice president at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
The United States closed its embassy in Libya in 1980, at a time when U.S. officials viewed Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi as one of the most dangerous men in the Middle East. The U.S. held Libya responsible for a series of deadly terrorist attacks in the 1980s, including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, in which 270 people died, mostly Americans.
President Reagan bombed Libya in 1986. The United Nations and the United States each imposed sanctions on Libya, and the U.S. sought to isolate it diplomatically.
In 1999, Libya began to give ground, surrendering two suspects for trial in the Lockerbie bombing. In December 2003, it took its biggest step, moving to dismantle its incipient unconventional weapons program and long-range ballistic missiles, leading to the breakthrough on sanctions in 2004.
Since then, the United States has held Libya out as a model of how countries with nuclear or chemical weapons programs should act. U.S. officials have also praised Libya for its cooperation in battling Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, a message they repeated Monday.
The Bush administration, trying to build international pressure on Tehran to halt its nuclear program, is eager to show Iranians that they would be better off abandoning nuclear ambitions than defying other countries to build a nuclear arsenal, as North Korea has done.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commended Libya in a statement for its "excellent cooperation" in fighting terrorism.
Yet U.S. officials moved slowly to restore diplomatic relations and end Libya's inclusion on the terrorist list. Mack, the former senior State Department official, speculated that the administration wanted to be sure that the unpredictable Kadafi would not change course in a way that could be deeply embarrassing to the White House.
Welch, in an interview, said U.S. officials wanted to be "very, very careful" before normalizing relations. He said they wanted Libya to fully own up to past behavior and promise not to repeat it.
"Given the long and difficult nature of this relationship, we wanted to be very scrupulous in asserting that they met those standards," he said.
The administration's move brought praise from some in Congress, which has 45 days to review the decision before it takes full effect.
Rep. Tom Lantos, (D-Burlingame), the senior Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, said that through Monday's actions, "the United States dramatically demonstrates to the remaining rogue states — and particularly to Iran — that our country takes note of positive changes in behavior and is more than willing to reciprocate."
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, welcomed the move "as a means to expand U.S.-Libyan collaboration against humanity's common enemy, terrorism."
But some of the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie crash voiced outrage, while others were concerned about the fate of a complex legal agreement. Under a settlement with relatives of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Libya has paid each family $8 million and is scheduled to pay $2 million more once it has been removed from the U.S. terrorism list.
Skeptics of the administration's latest steps include human rights activists, who said the United States was making a mistake by striking a deal with Kadafi.
"It is unfortunate that the restoration of full diplomatic relations occurred while my brother, Fathi … remained in jail," Mohamed Eljahmi said in a statement.
Fathi Eljahmi is a former provincial governor and democracy activist who was imprisoned in 2002 for slandering Kadafi. (WHERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS AGENCIES???)
Welch, the assistant secretary of State, said the Eljahmi case was "troubling." He said the U.S. government continued to have concerns about Libya's human rights records, but hoped that closer ties would give the United States more leverage.
One issue that stood in the way of Monday's normalization was an allegation that Libya was involved in an assassination attempt against Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in 2003, when he was crown prince. But last September, the two countries announced that they had resolved the issue and restored diplomatic ties.
Another issue is Libya's seven-year imprisonment of Palestinian and Bulgarian medical personnel on charges that they infected Libyan children with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. U.S. officials believe that there is no merit to the charges and that Libya may drop them.
Chavez offers cheap oil to Britain's poor
By Tom Burgis
(Filed: 16/05/2006)
Hugo Chavez leaves Britain today after a controversial visit that saw him enhance his status as a ringmaster of international oil politics.
The Venezuelan president, who sits astride the world's fifth largest oil reserves, used a press conference with Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, to make an extraordinary offer to supply cheap fuel direct to poor Britons who face soaring energy bills.
"We have two refineries here, one in the north, one in the south," said Mr Chavez, who also met trade unionists, Labour MPs and supporters of his socialist project - though notably not Tony Blair - during his two-day visit.
"These refineries would be used to help the most needy people in London, in Great Britain, especially in the winter. If prices continue to rise, people will not be able to afford them. People will die." (REALLY? HOW ARE THINGS IN YOUR COUNTRY?)
Mr Chavez has used similar schemes to supply bargain fuel to neighbouring countries and even to poor communities in the United States - much to the ire of those in Washington who regard him as a dangerous populist. (HOW DID THAT WORK IN THE US? AN OFFER IS ONE THING, BT WAS IT ACCPETED?)
Mr Livingstone - who later hosted a lunch for Mr Chavez and 100 luminaries of the British Left, as well as Peter Voser, the chief financial officer of Shell International - said his officials were discussing the logistics of the scheme.
"Anything that could be done by the president to ease the oil-cost burden of a world city would be welcome," said the mayor. In exchange, London would offer Caracas the benefit of its expertise in "traffic management schemes". (YEAH, I'LL RADE YOU DOALLR BILLS FOR THE MEMORY OF MY DREAMS)
Mr Chavez, foremost in a new generation of Left-wing radicals in Latin America, also took the opportunity to return to his favourite subject: the policies of the American president.
Describing George W Bush as "the worst criminal in the human race", he counselled Britain and Europe to prevent the "madness" of escalating tension with Iran, warning that military action would send oil prices through the roof, crippling London. (WORST IN HISTORY? WORSE THAN MAO, HITLER AND STALIN? THAT'S REALLY AMAZING?)
Though his proclamations were greeted with applause in the Greater London Assembly's council chamber, others were displeased. Bob Niell, the leader of the Conservatives in the assembly, said Mr Chavez's cheap-oil ruse was no more than a "political bribe". (WOW, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO CLAP)
He claimed that he and six Venezuelan dissidents were denied access to the GLA building yesterday morning on "security grounds".
He added: "Any questions of relations between Venezuela and Britain should be negotiated through the Government. Mr Livingstone is not some sort of alternative foreign secretary." (YEAH, ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEONE TOUCHED ON THAT - A MAYOR DEALINGIWTH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES
Ann Robinson, the director of consumer policy at the energy price comparison company uSwitch, said Britons faced with energy bills that topped £1,000 a year for the first time in February might be glad of some assistance from overseas.
Mr Chavez also sought to court investment from British business in a speech at the Banqueting Hall in Whitehall last night, a task made more difficult by his decision last month to double taxes imposed on foreign oil companies operating in Venezuela, including BP.
He also attended a meeting of the Friends of Venezuela group of MPs at Parliament. The group is chaired by Colin Burgon, the Labour MP for Elmet, who claimed that Mr Chavez's popularity stemmed from his frequent attacks on Mr Bush.
"We in Britain are in danger of subcontracting out most of our foreign policy to Washington. Chavez is the antidote to that," he said.
By Tom Burgis
(Filed: 16/05/2006)
Hugo Chavez leaves Britain today after a controversial visit that saw him enhance his status as a ringmaster of international oil politics.
The Venezuelan president, who sits astride the world's fifth largest oil reserves, used a press conference with Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, to make an extraordinary offer to supply cheap fuel direct to poor Britons who face soaring energy bills.
"We have two refineries here, one in the north, one in the south," said Mr Chavez, who also met trade unionists, Labour MPs and supporters of his socialist project - though notably not Tony Blair - during his two-day visit.
"These refineries would be used to help the most needy people in London, in Great Britain, especially in the winter. If prices continue to rise, people will not be able to afford them. People will die." (REALLY? HOW ARE THINGS IN YOUR COUNTRY?)
Mr Chavez has used similar schemes to supply bargain fuel to neighbouring countries and even to poor communities in the United States - much to the ire of those in Washington who regard him as a dangerous populist. (HOW DID THAT WORK IN THE US? AN OFFER IS ONE THING, BT WAS IT ACCPETED?)
Mr Livingstone - who later hosted a lunch for Mr Chavez and 100 luminaries of the British Left, as well as Peter Voser, the chief financial officer of Shell International - said his officials were discussing the logistics of the scheme.
"Anything that could be done by the president to ease the oil-cost burden of a world city would be welcome," said the mayor. In exchange, London would offer Caracas the benefit of its expertise in "traffic management schemes". (YEAH, I'LL RADE YOU DOALLR BILLS FOR THE MEMORY OF MY DREAMS)
Mr Chavez, foremost in a new generation of Left-wing radicals in Latin America, also took the opportunity to return to his favourite subject: the policies of the American president.
Describing George W Bush as "the worst criminal in the human race", he counselled Britain and Europe to prevent the "madness" of escalating tension with Iran, warning that military action would send oil prices through the roof, crippling London. (WORST IN HISTORY? WORSE THAN MAO, HITLER AND STALIN? THAT'S REALLY AMAZING?)
Though his proclamations were greeted with applause in the Greater London Assembly's council chamber, others were displeased. Bob Niell, the leader of the Conservatives in the assembly, said Mr Chavez's cheap-oil ruse was no more than a "political bribe". (WOW, HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO CLAP)
He claimed that he and six Venezuelan dissidents were denied access to the GLA building yesterday morning on "security grounds".
He added: "Any questions of relations between Venezuela and Britain should be negotiated through the Government. Mr Livingstone is not some sort of alternative foreign secretary." (YEAH, ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEONE TOUCHED ON THAT - A MAYOR DEALINGIWTH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES
Ann Robinson, the director of consumer policy at the energy price comparison company uSwitch, said Britons faced with energy bills that topped £1,000 a year for the first time in February might be glad of some assistance from overseas.
Mr Chavez also sought to court investment from British business in a speech at the Banqueting Hall in Whitehall last night, a task made more difficult by his decision last month to double taxes imposed on foreign oil companies operating in Venezuela, including BP.
He also attended a meeting of the Friends of Venezuela group of MPs at Parliament. The group is chaired by Colin Burgon, the Labour MP for Elmet, who claimed that Mr Chavez's popularity stemmed from his frequent attacks on Mr Bush.
"We in Britain are in danger of subcontracting out most of our foreign policy to Washington. Chavez is the antidote to that," he said.
Worst drought for 30 years brings threat of standpipes in the streets
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
(Filed: 16/05/2006)
Water supplies may be reduced to standpipes in the streets in London and the South East this summer, the Environment Agency said yesterday, as ministers granted the first drought order in England and Wales for 10 years.
Sutton and East Surrey Water company was granted the order allowing it to ban a variety of non-essential uses of water including the watering of gardens, the filling of swimming pools and the washing of vehicles or aircraft for any reason other than safety. (IT ALWAYS STARTS SMALL)
The order, the step after a hosepipe ban, was granted by ministers in line with a recommendation by an inspector who investigated the application made by the company on March 17.
The drought, which has left underground water levels at historic lows in some areas, is predicted to be the worst since 1976, when standpipes were last used. If there is a hot, dry summer, it has the potential to be the worst in 100 years, said the agency.
Ian Pearson, the new environment minister, said he expected Sutton and East Surrey to use its powers "sensitively" to maximise water savings and to minimise the effects on peoples' lives and on small businesses.
Two other companies, Southern and Mid Kent, are waiting to hear the results of their applications for drought orders.
Eight companies have already introduced a hosepipe and sprinkler ban. They affect 13 million people in Kent, Sussex, London, the Isle of Wight and the Thames Valley.
The agency called on Thames Water to apply for a drought order immediately, as any further delay would increase the risk of standpipes appearing in London later in the year.
It urged Essex and Suffolk Water to introduce a hosepipe ban by the end of the month to reduce the risk of supply problems later.
The agency published a new report that said that Norfolk and Suffolk were now beginning to be affected.
It called for all water companies in the South East to provide clear information on how people and businesses could save water, urged them to apply for orders banning non-essential uses, and called for them to put more effort into finding and fixing leaks.
David King, the director of water management at the agency, said: "This is not just a problem for water companies - people and businesses must take this warning seriously and act to save more water."
Despite some reservoirs being nearly full, more than 70 per cent of the public water supply in the South East comes from ground water - where in some areas, levels are the lowest on record.
Over the last 18 months rainfall has been much lower than during the 1974-76 drought and has been very similar to the serious drought of 1932-34.
"But we're concerned the message may not be sinking in," said Dr King.
"Even if we are aware of the seriousness of this drought we can all be doing more to minimise the impact of water shortages on people, the economy and the environment."
Dr King said most water companies had taken the action the agency has been calling for since February but that reservoir and ground water levels were now starting to drop.
Water companies that had not introduced hosepipe bans or otherwise reduced the demand for water were putting water supplies at even greater risk, he said.
Dr King said that, as a result of two dry winters, this summer there would be more environmental problems, such as fish deaths and algal blooms because of low river levels and possibly restrictions on spray irrigation.
Since October 2005 south-east England has received about 390mm of rain, or 85 per cent of the average. The long-term average for this period is 450mm. Heavy rainfall last week increased river flows for a few days but made little difference to the long-term position.
With hot, dry weather the drought will spread into other areas, according to the agency. The east of England and the south Midlands are most vulnerable, but reservoir levels in Wales and the South West could also drop quickly.
The Consumer Council for Water warned that the new powers given to Sutton and East Surrey Water could have a real impact on people and their livelihoods.
Among the non-essential uses that could be banned are the cleaning of building exteriors, other than windows; the cleaning of windows by hosepipes and sprinklers; the cleaning of industrial premises for any reason other than safety or hygiene; the operation of ornamental fountains; and the operation of any cistern that flushes automatically when the building is unoccupied.
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
(Filed: 16/05/2006)
Water supplies may be reduced to standpipes in the streets in London and the South East this summer, the Environment Agency said yesterday, as ministers granted the first drought order in England and Wales for 10 years.
Sutton and East Surrey Water company was granted the order allowing it to ban a variety of non-essential uses of water including the watering of gardens, the filling of swimming pools and the washing of vehicles or aircraft for any reason other than safety. (IT ALWAYS STARTS SMALL)
The order, the step after a hosepipe ban, was granted by ministers in line with a recommendation by an inspector who investigated the application made by the company on March 17.
The drought, which has left underground water levels at historic lows in some areas, is predicted to be the worst since 1976, when standpipes were last used. If there is a hot, dry summer, it has the potential to be the worst in 100 years, said the agency.
Ian Pearson, the new environment minister, said he expected Sutton and East Surrey to use its powers "sensitively" to maximise water savings and to minimise the effects on peoples' lives and on small businesses.
Two other companies, Southern and Mid Kent, are waiting to hear the results of their applications for drought orders.
Eight companies have already introduced a hosepipe and sprinkler ban. They affect 13 million people in Kent, Sussex, London, the Isle of Wight and the Thames Valley.
The agency called on Thames Water to apply for a drought order immediately, as any further delay would increase the risk of standpipes appearing in London later in the year.
It urged Essex and Suffolk Water to introduce a hosepipe ban by the end of the month to reduce the risk of supply problems later.
The agency published a new report that said that Norfolk and Suffolk were now beginning to be affected.
It called for all water companies in the South East to provide clear information on how people and businesses could save water, urged them to apply for orders banning non-essential uses, and called for them to put more effort into finding and fixing leaks.
David King, the director of water management at the agency, said: "This is not just a problem for water companies - people and businesses must take this warning seriously and act to save more water."
Despite some reservoirs being nearly full, more than 70 per cent of the public water supply in the South East comes from ground water - where in some areas, levels are the lowest on record.
Over the last 18 months rainfall has been much lower than during the 1974-76 drought and has been very similar to the serious drought of 1932-34.
"But we're concerned the message may not be sinking in," said Dr King.
"Even if we are aware of the seriousness of this drought we can all be doing more to minimise the impact of water shortages on people, the economy and the environment."
Dr King said most water companies had taken the action the agency has been calling for since February but that reservoir and ground water levels were now starting to drop.
Water companies that had not introduced hosepipe bans or otherwise reduced the demand for water were putting water supplies at even greater risk, he said.
Dr King said that, as a result of two dry winters, this summer there would be more environmental problems, such as fish deaths and algal blooms because of low river levels and possibly restrictions on spray irrigation.
Since October 2005 south-east England has received about 390mm of rain, or 85 per cent of the average. The long-term average for this period is 450mm. Heavy rainfall last week increased river flows for a few days but made little difference to the long-term position.
With hot, dry weather the drought will spread into other areas, according to the agency. The east of England and the south Midlands are most vulnerable, but reservoir levels in Wales and the South West could also drop quickly.
The Consumer Council for Water warned that the new powers given to Sutton and East Surrey Water could have a real impact on people and their livelihoods.
Among the non-essential uses that could be banned are the cleaning of building exteriors, other than windows; the cleaning of windows by hosepipes and sprinklers; the cleaning of industrial premises for any reason other than safety or hygiene; the operation of ornamental fountains; and the operation of any cistern that flushes automatically when the building is unoccupied.
Mining shares bear the brunt
By Grant Ringshaw (Filed: 16/05/2006)
Key commodity prices dived yesterday, dragging down the FTSE 100 and creating its largest two-day loss in three years.
The index slumped by 70.8, or 1.2pc, to close at 5841.3 as mining shares were hit hard by investor concerns about a speculative bubble in commodity prices.
The FTSE 100 fell 3.3pc in two trading days - the largest two-day fall since March 2003. In early-morning trading it dropped by as much as 2.6pc to 5755.4, the lowest intra-day trading level since February 9.
The sharp fall had been widely predicted after a slide in US dollar, equity and bond prices late last week. Mining shares led the decline, with BHP Billiton down by 5.65pc to 1102p, while Anglo American fell by 5.9pc to 2282p, Rio Tinto 4.8pc and Kazakhmys 8pc.
The all-share index closed down 1.48pc at 2979.62 as the DAX in Frankfurt fell by 1pc and the French CAC 40 slipped 1.66pc. However, in New York the Dow Jones industrial index fared better, falling only 33.9 or 0.3pc by the early afternoon.
The commodities sell-off led to the largest fall in the price of copper since October 2004. At one stage the price of copper for delivery in three months fell by 8.9pc to $7,700 per tonne on the London Metals Exchange (LME), before recovering last night to $8,190, an overall decline of 3.2pc. The price of copper has soared in recent months, driven by demand from the booming Chinese economy. Even after yesterday's fall it is up by 86pc this year.
Other metals to suffer sharp falls in price included zinc, which dived 11.5pc to $3449.5 - its biggest loss in 16 years. Gold slipped 3.7pc to $690.6 an ounce in London.
The commodity prices' dive and investor jitters led to rumours that some trading firms had suffered heavy losses in recent weeks and forced LCH.Clearnet , which clears contracts on the LME, to issue a statement stressing that there had been no margin defaults and that "margin calls had been met".
At the same time, LCH.Clearnet announced that its chairman, Gérard de la Martinière, was stepping down. Simon Heale, the LME's chief executive, said last week that he would himself step down at the end of 2006.
Some analysts are forecasting further falls in commodity prices, as many short-sellers have unwound their positions.
William Adams of BaseMetals.com said: "There has been a realisation that all the short covering that fuelled the rally has run out. The driver has evaporated."
Michael Lewis, head of commodities research at Deutsche Bank, added: "This may well be a durable correction in base metals. A lot of this has been triggered by black boxes operated by momentum funds."
By Grant Ringshaw (Filed: 16/05/2006)
Key commodity prices dived yesterday, dragging down the FTSE 100 and creating its largest two-day loss in three years.
The index slumped by 70.8, or 1.2pc, to close at 5841.3 as mining shares were hit hard by investor concerns about a speculative bubble in commodity prices.
The FTSE 100 fell 3.3pc in two trading days - the largest two-day fall since March 2003. In early-morning trading it dropped by as much as 2.6pc to 5755.4, the lowest intra-day trading level since February 9.
The sharp fall had been widely predicted after a slide in US dollar, equity and bond prices late last week. Mining shares led the decline, with BHP Billiton down by 5.65pc to 1102p, while Anglo American fell by 5.9pc to 2282p, Rio Tinto 4.8pc and Kazakhmys 8pc.
The all-share index closed down 1.48pc at 2979.62 as the DAX in Frankfurt fell by 1pc and the French CAC 40 slipped 1.66pc. However, in New York the Dow Jones industrial index fared better, falling only 33.9 or 0.3pc by the early afternoon.
The commodities sell-off led to the largest fall in the price of copper since October 2004. At one stage the price of copper for delivery in three months fell by 8.9pc to $7,700 per tonne on the London Metals Exchange (LME), before recovering last night to $8,190, an overall decline of 3.2pc. The price of copper has soared in recent months, driven by demand from the booming Chinese economy. Even after yesterday's fall it is up by 86pc this year.
Other metals to suffer sharp falls in price included zinc, which dived 11.5pc to $3449.5 - its biggest loss in 16 years. Gold slipped 3.7pc to $690.6 an ounce in London.
The commodity prices' dive and investor jitters led to rumours that some trading firms had suffered heavy losses in recent weeks and forced LCH.Clearnet , which clears contracts on the LME, to issue a statement stressing that there had been no margin defaults and that "margin calls had been met".
At the same time, LCH.Clearnet announced that its chairman, Gérard de la Martinière, was stepping down. Simon Heale, the LME's chief executive, said last week that he would himself step down at the end of 2006.
Some analysts are forecasting further falls in commodity prices, as many short-sellers have unwound their positions.
William Adams of BaseMetals.com said: "There has been a realisation that all the short covering that fuelled the rally has run out. The driver has evaporated."
Michael Lewis, head of commodities research at Deutsche Bank, added: "This may well be a durable correction in base metals. A lot of this has been triggered by black boxes operated by momentum funds."
US grabs its cash to make a run for it
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 16/05/2006)
US investors are rushing for exits in risky markets across the world, accelerating an ugly sell-off in Turkey, Indonesia, India, Russia, and Brazil.
The sudden repatriation of funds back to America triggered a rebound in the dollar yesterday, halting the sharp slide that has transfixed financial markets over the past week.
"Risk aversion is taking over the show," said David Bloom, a currency expert at HSBC.
"Americans are pulling their money off the table and bringing it back home to mama. We saw the same repatriation after the 1987 crash, causing the dollar to rally for two or three days."
Mr Bloom said fears of a dollar collapse had been the chief source of contagion spreading worldwide, compounded by an inflation scare hitting bonds. After rallying 1.03pc against the euro to $1.2807, the slide is likely to resume soon.
"I expect the dollar to fall fast and furious against everything because the point of inflexion has been reached in US interest rates," he said. "If the Fed is not going to keep rewarding me with higher rates for the risk of holding dollar assets, why should I hold them?
"The US is importing $750bn more than it is exporting every year and now has $2,500bn in external liabilities. This is a big call on world savings and it can't go on forever," he added. HSBC is advising buying Swiss francs, yen, and Scandinavian currencies until the storm has passed.
The dollar recovery helped settle Wall Street yesterday after two sessions of heavy losses, but the rout across riskier markets appeared to be gathering speed.
The Istanbul stock market has crashed 9pc over the past two trading days, touching a one-year low. The lira is down 15pc in a week. Indonesia's central bank stepped in yesterday to support the crumbling rupiah as panic swept the country. The Jakarta stock exchange was down 6.3pc.
"There's a wipe-out across many Asian currencies. People are taking their money out," said Shahab Jalinoos, a strategist at ABN Amro.
The epidemic even spread to Russia - now flush with oil - where the bourse tumbled 5pc yesterday.
Analysts said the global sell-off was a repeat of the "carry-trade" unwinding that hit Iceland, New Zealand, and Hungary in April, but now seems to be spreading far wider.
Under the carry-trade, funds can borrow at near zero-rates in Japan to re-lend to double-digit hot-spots such as Brazil. The lucrative bet can turn sour in a heart-beat.
Emerging stock markets now account for $2,400bn or 8pc of the world's equity wealth, much more than in past cycles.
Stephen Lewis, an economist at Insinger de Beaufort, said the easy money policies of global central banks had fuelled the emerging market boom.
"The money had to go somewhere, so we've seen the spread on Brazilian bonds dropping as low as 180 basis points (1.8pc) which is very low for a country with Brazil's debt history," he said.
Mr Lewis said the monetary tightening across the world was now bringing the party to an abrupt end.
"Those looking to squeeze the last juice from the lax monetary policies of the 2001-2005 era shifted to the commodity markets, but after a climactic surge even commodities are now taking a beating," he said.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 16/05/2006)
US investors are rushing for exits in risky markets across the world, accelerating an ugly sell-off in Turkey, Indonesia, India, Russia, and Brazil.
The sudden repatriation of funds back to America triggered a rebound in the dollar yesterday, halting the sharp slide that has transfixed financial markets over the past week.
"Risk aversion is taking over the show," said David Bloom, a currency expert at HSBC.
"Americans are pulling their money off the table and bringing it back home to mama. We saw the same repatriation after the 1987 crash, causing the dollar to rally for two or three days."
Mr Bloom said fears of a dollar collapse had been the chief source of contagion spreading worldwide, compounded by an inflation scare hitting bonds. After rallying 1.03pc against the euro to $1.2807, the slide is likely to resume soon.
"I expect the dollar to fall fast and furious against everything because the point of inflexion has been reached in US interest rates," he said. "If the Fed is not going to keep rewarding me with higher rates for the risk of holding dollar assets, why should I hold them?
"The US is importing $750bn more than it is exporting every year and now has $2,500bn in external liabilities. This is a big call on world savings and it can't go on forever," he added. HSBC is advising buying Swiss francs, yen, and Scandinavian currencies until the storm has passed.
The dollar recovery helped settle Wall Street yesterday after two sessions of heavy losses, but the rout across riskier markets appeared to be gathering speed.
The Istanbul stock market has crashed 9pc over the past two trading days, touching a one-year low. The lira is down 15pc in a week. Indonesia's central bank stepped in yesterday to support the crumbling rupiah as panic swept the country. The Jakarta stock exchange was down 6.3pc.
"There's a wipe-out across many Asian currencies. People are taking their money out," said Shahab Jalinoos, a strategist at ABN Amro.
The epidemic even spread to Russia - now flush with oil - where the bourse tumbled 5pc yesterday.
Analysts said the global sell-off was a repeat of the "carry-trade" unwinding that hit Iceland, New Zealand, and Hungary in April, but now seems to be spreading far wider.
Under the carry-trade, funds can borrow at near zero-rates in Japan to re-lend to double-digit hot-spots such as Brazil. The lucrative bet can turn sour in a heart-beat.
Emerging stock markets now account for $2,400bn or 8pc of the world's equity wealth, much more than in past cycles.
Stephen Lewis, an economist at Insinger de Beaufort, said the easy money policies of global central banks had fuelled the emerging market boom.
"The money had to go somewhere, so we've seen the spread on Brazilian bonds dropping as low as 180 basis points (1.8pc) which is very low for a country with Brazil's debt history," he said.
Mr Lewis said the monetary tightening across the world was now bringing the party to an abrupt end.
"Those looking to squeeze the last juice from the lax monetary policies of the 2001-2005 era shifted to the commodity markets, but after a climactic surge even commodities are now taking a beating," he said.
Vodafone eyes Tiscali as it seeks a broadband foothold
By Andrew Murray-Watson (Filed: 23/04/2006)
Vodafone, the giant mobile phone group, is considering buying a major UK internet service provider.
The company, which is set to announce the conclusions of a far-reaching strategic review next month, is understood to have identified Tiscali's UK operation, which has 1m broadband customers, as one possible acquisition target. Any take-over would be in response to an expected move by Orange to offer "free" residential broadband to its mobile customers through Wanadoo, its sister company.
An executive with knowledge of Vodafone's plans said: "The company knows it will only be able to prosper by offering a suite of products. "
Other rivals to Vodafone also plan to offer a converged package. NTL, the cable group that earlier this month bought Virgin Mobile, will soon be able to offer consumers mobile and fixed-line telephony, broadband and pay TV. Earlier this month Carphone Warehouse, through its TalkTalk telecoms division, launched a bundled package of broadband, fixed line and mobile services. BT already offers broadband, fixed line telephony and a mobile service which runs on Vodafone's network.
Vodafone declined to comment on any plan to buy an ISP. Tiscali is listed on the Italian stock market in Milan and its UK arm is seen in the industry as one of the best-run businesses of its type.
The internet company is investing more than £60m to put its own equipment in BT's local telephone exchanges, which will enable it to offer a wider range of services at a lower cost. If Vodafone were to buy Tiscali UK, it could offer broadband to its existing mobile customers at a negligible price.
Another potential target would be Bulldog, the beleaguered broadband operator owned by Cable & Wireless. Bulldog has suffered from poor customer service but already has its equipment in local exchanges in most of the UK's major cities.
Last month, after a bitter and public boardroom row, chief executive Arun Sarin announced that Vodafone would be reorganised into three units, including a new division that would focus on innovation and new converged services.
Separately, analysts believe that US-based Verizon will make a $50bn bid for Vodafone's 45 per cent stake in Verizon Wireless by the end of next month.
Such a deal would give Vodafone the financial firepower to return billions of pounds to shareholders as well as pursue a converged fixed line and mobile strategy in its core European markets.
The Sunday Telegraph revealed last month that Vodafone would hand back more than £5bn to shareholders following the sale of its misfiring Japanese unit.
But that figure could rise significantly if Vodafone makes a successful exit from the US.
By Andrew Murray-Watson (Filed: 23/04/2006)
Vodafone, the giant mobile phone group, is considering buying a major UK internet service provider.
The company, which is set to announce the conclusions of a far-reaching strategic review next month, is understood to have identified Tiscali's UK operation, which has 1m broadband customers, as one possible acquisition target. Any take-over would be in response to an expected move by Orange to offer "free" residential broadband to its mobile customers through Wanadoo, its sister company.
An executive with knowledge of Vodafone's plans said: "The company knows it will only be able to prosper by offering a suite of products. "
Other rivals to Vodafone also plan to offer a converged package. NTL, the cable group that earlier this month bought Virgin Mobile, will soon be able to offer consumers mobile and fixed-line telephony, broadband and pay TV. Earlier this month Carphone Warehouse, through its TalkTalk telecoms division, launched a bundled package of broadband, fixed line and mobile services. BT already offers broadband, fixed line telephony and a mobile service which runs on Vodafone's network.
Vodafone declined to comment on any plan to buy an ISP. Tiscali is listed on the Italian stock market in Milan and its UK arm is seen in the industry as one of the best-run businesses of its type.
The internet company is investing more than £60m to put its own equipment in BT's local telephone exchanges, which will enable it to offer a wider range of services at a lower cost. If Vodafone were to buy Tiscali UK, it could offer broadband to its existing mobile customers at a negligible price.
Another potential target would be Bulldog, the beleaguered broadband operator owned by Cable & Wireless. Bulldog has suffered from poor customer service but already has its equipment in local exchanges in most of the UK's major cities.
Last month, after a bitter and public boardroom row, chief executive Arun Sarin announced that Vodafone would be reorganised into three units, including a new division that would focus on innovation and new converged services.
Separately, analysts believe that US-based Verizon will make a $50bn bid for Vodafone's 45 per cent stake in Verizon Wireless by the end of next month.
Such a deal would give Vodafone the financial firepower to return billions of pounds to shareholders as well as pursue a converged fixed line and mobile strategy in its core European markets.
The Sunday Telegraph revealed last month that Vodafone would hand back more than £5bn to shareholders following the sale of its misfiring Japanese unit.
But that figure could rise significantly if Vodafone makes a successful exit from the US.
NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews. (MORE SMOKE THAN FIRE)
"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added. (CALL REOCRDS? OOOO)
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others. (YEAH, PHONE COMPANIES HAVE HAD THAT FOR YEARS)
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program. (CALL TRACKING IS WAY DIFFERENT FROM LISTENING IN ON CALLS)
The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database. (WHY WOULD YOU NEED A WARRANT? ASK THE USSC IF THERE IS PRIVACY IN PLACING PHONE CALLS)
In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information. (SO ONLY PHONE NUMBERS ARE BEING COLLECTED IN DATABASE; WHO CARES?)
Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."
The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping. (YEH, THAT IS THE CONCERN - ACTUAL EAVESDROPPING)
She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."
The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for "social network analysis," the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together. (WOW, THIS GETS MORE LAME AS I READ ON)
Carriers uniquely positioned
AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.
The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans. (CALLING HABITS IS NOT LISTENING IN ON PHONE CALLS; THANKS)
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services — primarily long-distance and wireless — to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.
Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for "No Such Agency."
In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named "Shamrock," led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping. (WHICH IS NOT TAKING PLACE NOW, SO WHAT AGAIN IS THE ISSUE?)
Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA.
Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of "data mining" — sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.
Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.
The caveat, he said, is that "personal identifiers" — such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses — can't be included as part of the search. "That requires an additional level of probable cause," he said.
The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.
The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.
Ma Bell's bedrock principle — protection of the customer — guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information — period. That's how it was for decades," he said.
The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.
The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million.
In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree. (SO NOW THEY ARE EAVESDROPPING? WHICH IS IT?)
Companies approached
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.
The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits. (WHERE IS THE EAVESDROPPING HERE?)
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law."
In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."
Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy."
Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: "We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation." (IT'S WEIRD; ITS CLASSIFIED FOR THE PHONE COMPANIES, BU THE PAPERS AND JOURNALIST HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT)
In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers. (THEY MAY HAVE HELPED, BIT SPYING WOULD BE QUITE A JUMP)
Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: "I wouldn't rule it out." His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority.
Similarities in programs
The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA's procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation's citizens.
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, "I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ... I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks."
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment.
One company differs
One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.
According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.
The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as "product" in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.
The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.
Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.
Contributing: John Diamond
Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews. (MORE SMOKE THAN FIRE)
"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added. (CALL REOCRDS? OOOO)
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others. (YEAH, PHONE COMPANIES HAVE HAD THAT FOR YEARS)
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program. (CALL TRACKING IS WAY DIFFERENT FROM LISTENING IN ON CALLS)
The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database. (WHY WOULD YOU NEED A WARRANT? ASK THE USSC IF THERE IS PRIVACY IN PLACING PHONE CALLS)
In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information. (SO ONLY PHONE NUMBERS ARE BEING COLLECTED IN DATABASE; WHO CARES?)
Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."
The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping. (YEH, THAT IS THE CONCERN - ACTUAL EAVESDROPPING)
She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."
The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for "social network analysis," the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together. (WOW, THIS GETS MORE LAME AS I READ ON)
Carriers uniquely positioned
AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.
The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans. (CALLING HABITS IS NOT LISTENING IN ON PHONE CALLS; THANKS)
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services — primarily long-distance and wireless — to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.
Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for "No Such Agency."
In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named "Shamrock," led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping. (WHICH IS NOT TAKING PLACE NOW, SO WHAT AGAIN IS THE ISSUE?)
Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA.
Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of "data mining" — sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.
Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.
The caveat, he said, is that "personal identifiers" — such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses — can't be included as part of the search. "That requires an additional level of probable cause," he said.
The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.
The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.
Ma Bell's bedrock principle — protection of the customer — guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information — period. That's how it was for decades," he said.
The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.
The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million.
In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree. (SO NOW THEY ARE EAVESDROPPING? WHICH IS IT?)
Companies approached
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.
The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits. (WHERE IS THE EAVESDROPPING HERE?)
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law."
In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."
Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy."
Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: "We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation." (IT'S WEIRD; ITS CLASSIFIED FOR THE PHONE COMPANIES, BU THE PAPERS AND JOURNALIST HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT)
In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers. (THEY MAY HAVE HELPED, BIT SPYING WOULD BE QUITE A JUMP)
Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: "I wouldn't rule it out." His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority.
Similarities in programs
The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA's procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation's citizens.
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, "I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ... I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks."
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment.
One company differs
One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.
According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.
The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as "product" in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.
The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.
Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.
Contributing: John Diamond
Zimbabweans Pay Dearly For Cost of Health Care
Hyperinflation Pushes Medical Treatment Beyond Means of Most
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 11, 2006; A20
HARARE, Zimbabwe Faris Kungara knows the pain is coming when the top of her head grows warm. The heat stretches downward, past her ears, and becomes an unbearable ache, she said. From the claustrophobic confines of the gloomy, waist-high shelter that serves as her home, Kungara prays for relief.
But none comes, she said, because she is poor in a country where inflation approaching 1,000 percent has pushed the cost of health care beyond the means of all but the most affluent.
"There's nothing you can do," said Kungara, a round-faced mother of three with a gap-toothed smile, "just because you don't have money."
Last month, a physician told Kungara, 41, that she probably had meningitis -- a potentially fatal infection. He slipped a syringe into her spine, withdrew a clear fluid and deposited it into a plastic vial. He said the hospital would test it and begin treatment as soon as she paid the bill.
When Kungara protested that she did not have any money, she said the physician replied, "You go and find it."
Then he handed her the red-topped vial and an invoice for $6.1 million Zimbabwean dollars -- equal to a little more than $60 U.S. dollars. It was an impossible sum to Kungara, who is lucky to earn that much from several months of selling vegetables in the dusty, impoverished township where she lives, she said.
Doctors, patients and human rights activists say such experiences have become increasingly common as Zimbabwe's beleaguered, cash-starved health system refuses treatment to those who cannot pay skyrocketing medical bills up front.
Government hospitals last week raised consultation fees by more than 300,000 percent, from a third of a cent to about $10. The cost of medicine has doubled or tripled every few months. And officials recently announced that they have only a few weeks left of lifesaving antiretroviral drugs for the 20,000 AIDS patients who receive them as part of a government health program.
Health workers say many other AIDS patients have already stopped taking the medicine because of high costs, causing risks not only for those patients but creating ideal conditions for the emergence of drug-resistant strains of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Elopy Sibanda, a physician, says that nearly every day he receives test results labeled "withheld until payment is made."
Most of his poor patients have stopped coming for appointments. For those who do come, Sibanda said he must ask bluntly about their means before embarking on long-term treatments. The result, he said, is a two-tiered medical system reminiscent of the days of white rule before Zimbabwe's independence in 1980.
"They're creating a health care apartheid," Sibanda said. "We're no longer looking at the color of the people. We're looking at the fatness of the wallets."
Combined with rampant HIV, the failing health system has contributed to a falling life expectancy that has become the shortest in the world. The World Health Organization reported in April that the average Zimbabwean man will die by 37 and the average woman by 34. (OOOOH WHAT PROGRESS BY THE BALCK PRESIDENT)
Information Minister Tichaona Jokonya, speaking by phone from his farm south of Harare, acknowledged the exploding cost of health care in Zimbabwe and blamed it on Britain, the United States and other Western countries that oppose President Robert Mugabe, who has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980. Jokonya said those countries have caused the hyperinflation through sanctions and withheld vital health aid for political reasons. (OUR FAULT? PLEASE REPORT TO PLANET EARTH ASAP)
"What we don't have is the funds," he said. "The economy has been under siege for the last four years."
For Zimbabweans, the economic crunch is affecting every phase of life. School fees, rent, electricity rates and grocery bills are rising far faster than wages. A recently announced increase of salaries for teachers and soldiers still leaves them below the country's official poverty line, and the gains will be eroded in six weeks if inflation is not curbed.
A decade ago, three Zimbabwean dollars were worth one U.S. dollar. The government now puts the rate at more than 100,000 Zimbabwean dollars to the U.S. dollar, and the black-market rate is roughly double that.
Severe shortages of food and fuel along with government mismanagement of the economy have contributed to the high rate of inflation, analysts say. (NICE WORK ROBERT)
Benigna Gonyora, 45, whose husband died three years ago, has seen the value of his pension plummet in the face of hyperinflation. It now is worth about 13 cents a month in U.S. currency, and her entire family must survive on the $90 a month they earn by sharing their home with renters. That leaves little to care for her mentally ill son, Leon, 19. (KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK ROBERT)
Gonyora finally attempted to get Leon admitted to a psychiatric hospital in December, she said, but officials there first demanded $250 as a deposit.
A doctor instead arranged for some medication that dramatically calmed Leon's episodes, she said, but those pills ran out in February. They have not even tried to buy more, nor has she asked a doctor to examine the pus oozing from his right ear.
But the most seriously ill person in the house is Benigna Gonyora's brother, Zacharia Mutuma, 48, who was brain-damaged at birth and is prone to violent fits. He spends much of his day babbling and wandering around the house naked.
Sedatives calm him, but, because the cost is prohibitive, the family uses them only when they are donated. When the medication runs out and the violent attacks return, family members say they have no option but to return to a more primitive solution: They shackle Mutuma by his ankles to a rusty post in their yard.
"We can't afford to take him to the doctor," Gonyora said. (HOW GLORIOUS)
The soaring cost of medical care is compounding years of trouble that had already pushed many poor and middle-class Zimbabweans to the brink. The economy has shrunk by 40 percent. Unemployment is estimated at 80 percent. Hunger is chronic in many areas.
Bernard Gidesi, 42, a home builder who has HIV, lost his job during the government's "clean-up campaign last year," when police destroyed supposedly illegal slums and informal markets. The housing construction business has not recovered, and to make matters worse, the room where Gidesi slept -- a former veranda enclosed by walls -- was destroyed, leaving only the roof.
About the same time, a nongovernmental organization that was providing Gidesi with antiretroviral drugs abruptly closed. Without a job, he could not afford them on his own. As AIDS symptoms gradually weakened Gidesi, he took to spending most of his time in bed.
At night, he said, men returning from local bars would taunt him as he slept on a rusty cot on the exposed veranda. In the morning, dogs roaming the neighborhood would enter the yard and roust him from sleep.
Gidesi gained a measure of privacy by hanging cloth and plastic sheets from the roof, but chronic coughing has returned and his body has begun wasting away.
"If I don't get help," he said, "I think I am going to die."
Thoughts of death have begun to preoccupy Kungara as well. She, too, lost her home in the government "clean-up campaign" last year. She also lost the company of her two youngest sons, aged 10 and 15.
After the house where she was renting a room was destroyed, Kungara built a shelter out of the building scraps left behind, but it was large enough only for her rusty metal cot, a few clothes and a small plastic box of medicine. She sent her sons to a remote village to live with relatives.
Kungara attempts to see her sons once every two months. But her headaches have made even selling vegetables too difficult on most days; she has no money for bus fare to visit. Her last visit was three months ago.
"I hope I feel better," Kungara said last week, her head aching and her forehead warm to the touch, "because I want my children to see me while I'm alive."
Hyperinflation Pushes Medical Treatment Beyond Means of Most
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 11, 2006; A20
HARARE, Zimbabwe Faris Kungara knows the pain is coming when the top of her head grows warm. The heat stretches downward, past her ears, and becomes an unbearable ache, she said. From the claustrophobic confines of the gloomy, waist-high shelter that serves as her home, Kungara prays for relief.
But none comes, she said, because she is poor in a country where inflation approaching 1,000 percent has pushed the cost of health care beyond the means of all but the most affluent.
"There's nothing you can do," said Kungara, a round-faced mother of three with a gap-toothed smile, "just because you don't have money."
Last month, a physician told Kungara, 41, that she probably had meningitis -- a potentially fatal infection. He slipped a syringe into her spine, withdrew a clear fluid and deposited it into a plastic vial. He said the hospital would test it and begin treatment as soon as she paid the bill.
When Kungara protested that she did not have any money, she said the physician replied, "You go and find it."
Then he handed her the red-topped vial and an invoice for $6.1 million Zimbabwean dollars -- equal to a little more than $60 U.S. dollars. It was an impossible sum to Kungara, who is lucky to earn that much from several months of selling vegetables in the dusty, impoverished township where she lives, she said.
Doctors, patients and human rights activists say such experiences have become increasingly common as Zimbabwe's beleaguered, cash-starved health system refuses treatment to those who cannot pay skyrocketing medical bills up front.
Government hospitals last week raised consultation fees by more than 300,000 percent, from a third of a cent to about $10. The cost of medicine has doubled or tripled every few months. And officials recently announced that they have only a few weeks left of lifesaving antiretroviral drugs for the 20,000 AIDS patients who receive them as part of a government health program.
Health workers say many other AIDS patients have already stopped taking the medicine because of high costs, causing risks not only for those patients but creating ideal conditions for the emergence of drug-resistant strains of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Elopy Sibanda, a physician, says that nearly every day he receives test results labeled "withheld until payment is made."
Most of his poor patients have stopped coming for appointments. For those who do come, Sibanda said he must ask bluntly about their means before embarking on long-term treatments. The result, he said, is a two-tiered medical system reminiscent of the days of white rule before Zimbabwe's independence in 1980.
"They're creating a health care apartheid," Sibanda said. "We're no longer looking at the color of the people. We're looking at the fatness of the wallets."
Combined with rampant HIV, the failing health system has contributed to a falling life expectancy that has become the shortest in the world. The World Health Organization reported in April that the average Zimbabwean man will die by 37 and the average woman by 34. (OOOOH WHAT PROGRESS BY THE BALCK PRESIDENT)
Information Minister Tichaona Jokonya, speaking by phone from his farm south of Harare, acknowledged the exploding cost of health care in Zimbabwe and blamed it on Britain, the United States and other Western countries that oppose President Robert Mugabe, who has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980. Jokonya said those countries have caused the hyperinflation through sanctions and withheld vital health aid for political reasons. (OUR FAULT? PLEASE REPORT TO PLANET EARTH ASAP)
"What we don't have is the funds," he said. "The economy has been under siege for the last four years."
For Zimbabweans, the economic crunch is affecting every phase of life. School fees, rent, electricity rates and grocery bills are rising far faster than wages. A recently announced increase of salaries for teachers and soldiers still leaves them below the country's official poverty line, and the gains will be eroded in six weeks if inflation is not curbed.
A decade ago, three Zimbabwean dollars were worth one U.S. dollar. The government now puts the rate at more than 100,000 Zimbabwean dollars to the U.S. dollar, and the black-market rate is roughly double that.
Severe shortages of food and fuel along with government mismanagement of the economy have contributed to the high rate of inflation, analysts say. (NICE WORK ROBERT)
Benigna Gonyora, 45, whose husband died three years ago, has seen the value of his pension plummet in the face of hyperinflation. It now is worth about 13 cents a month in U.S. currency, and her entire family must survive on the $90 a month they earn by sharing their home with renters. That leaves little to care for her mentally ill son, Leon, 19. (KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK ROBERT)
Gonyora finally attempted to get Leon admitted to a psychiatric hospital in December, she said, but officials there first demanded $250 as a deposit.
A doctor instead arranged for some medication that dramatically calmed Leon's episodes, she said, but those pills ran out in February. They have not even tried to buy more, nor has she asked a doctor to examine the pus oozing from his right ear.
But the most seriously ill person in the house is Benigna Gonyora's brother, Zacharia Mutuma, 48, who was brain-damaged at birth and is prone to violent fits. He spends much of his day babbling and wandering around the house naked.
Sedatives calm him, but, because the cost is prohibitive, the family uses them only when they are donated. When the medication runs out and the violent attacks return, family members say they have no option but to return to a more primitive solution: They shackle Mutuma by his ankles to a rusty post in their yard.
"We can't afford to take him to the doctor," Gonyora said. (HOW GLORIOUS)
The soaring cost of medical care is compounding years of trouble that had already pushed many poor and middle-class Zimbabweans to the brink. The economy has shrunk by 40 percent. Unemployment is estimated at 80 percent. Hunger is chronic in many areas.
Bernard Gidesi, 42, a home builder who has HIV, lost his job during the government's "clean-up campaign last year," when police destroyed supposedly illegal slums and informal markets. The housing construction business has not recovered, and to make matters worse, the room where Gidesi slept -- a former veranda enclosed by walls -- was destroyed, leaving only the roof.
About the same time, a nongovernmental organization that was providing Gidesi with antiretroviral drugs abruptly closed. Without a job, he could not afford them on his own. As AIDS symptoms gradually weakened Gidesi, he took to spending most of his time in bed.
At night, he said, men returning from local bars would taunt him as he slept on a rusty cot on the exposed veranda. In the morning, dogs roaming the neighborhood would enter the yard and roust him from sleep.
Gidesi gained a measure of privacy by hanging cloth and plastic sheets from the roof, but chronic coughing has returned and his body has begun wasting away.
"If I don't get help," he said, "I think I am going to die."
Thoughts of death have begun to preoccupy Kungara as well. She, too, lost her home in the government "clean-up campaign" last year. She also lost the company of her two youngest sons, aged 10 and 15.
After the house where she was renting a room was destroyed, Kungara built a shelter out of the building scraps left behind, but it was large enough only for her rusty metal cot, a few clothes and a small plastic box of medicine. She sent her sons to a remote village to live with relatives.
Kungara attempts to see her sons once every two months. But her headaches have made even selling vegetables too difficult on most days; she has no money for bus fare to visit. Her last visit was three months ago.
"I hope I feel better," Kungara said last week, her head aching and her forehead warm to the touch, "because I want my children to see me while I'm alive."
On Baghdad Patrol, a Vigilant Eye on Iraqi Police
U.S.-Trained Allies Are Often Suspects
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 15, 2006; A01
BAGHDAD -- Second Lt. Will Shields started night patrol for his 2nd Platoon Delta Company with the Baghdad basics: a reminder to speed up instead of slow down if a bomb hits the convoy, and a heads-up on where to stash any victims of killings, sectarian and otherwise.
"We find any dead bodies, we've got three or four body bags," the 23-year-old Shields said. "Hopefully, that'll be enough."
The young troops in his platoon briefly grumbled good-naturedly about whose Humvee always gets stuck hauling the corpses they find of equally young Iraqi men -- stiffened, blood-streaked and open-mouthed. Pretty much every day, U.S. and Iraqi troops are picking up apparent victims of Sunni-Shiite violence on the streets of Baghdad.
Since Feb. 22, when the bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra pushed sectarian tensions in Iraq to a new plateau, the U.S. Army units have quietly moved back into some neighborhoods that U.S. commanders had just turned over, with fanfare, to Iraqi security forces. Iraqi leaders asked for the return of the American troops into parts of central Baghdad in March, fearing that efforts to build a stable government would fall apart if they were unable to rein in the Shiite-Sunni killings, said Col. Jeffrey Snow, commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division.
After fighting for nearly three years to put down an insurgency waged by Sunni Arabs, the Americans now are also dealing with a bloody Shiite-Sunni power struggle fought largely through intimidation and murder. Part civil war, with open battles in Baghdad's mixed southern neighborhood of Dora and the northern Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiyah, and part mob-style violence, with bodies being dumped out of cars that then speed away, the struggle plays out mostly beyond the view of U.S. soldiers. (DOES THIS SUNNI INSURGENCY INCLUDE ZARQAWI?)
Mystified Americans often are reduced to helping clear away the unidentified Iraqis left sprawled -- their tortured hands clutching the air or wired together behind their backs -- on curbs, sidewalks and garbage-strewn lots.
"It may be making a statement, and it may work for the Iraqi people, but we have a hell of a time figuring out what the statement is," Snow said.
The Americans' problems are compounded by the fact that the same Shiite-led Interior Ministry police forces they are training to protect Iraqis are widely suspected in the killings -- if not as the executioners, then as allies to the Shiite militias blamed for much of the bloodshed.
"No police allowed," a hand-painted banner declares in Adhamiyah, a middle-class quarter of homes and gardens behind high brick walls that is one of the largest Sunni districts in Baghdad. In clashes last month, Adhamiyah homeowners took up guns to fight off what they took to be Iraqi police, possibly backed by Shiite militias, trying to enter the barricaded neighborhood. (POOSIBILY? I THINK YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT)
In one of the regular meetings that 10th Mountain Division troops have with local leaders in another embattled Sunni neighborhood, Amiriyah, a Sunni businessman told Capt. Ethan Allan: "No one detained by Iraqi police is ever brought back alive."
The man cited widely circulated rumors of killings of men with traditionally Sunni names. At police checkpoints, the businessman told Allan, "they check his ID, they know he is a Sunni, and they take him away and they shoot him." (AGAIN, PAY BACK IS A *****. YOU DID NOTHING WHILE SADDAM FILLED UP HOLES. DO THINK PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO TUEN THE OTHER CHEEK?))
Fighting Distrust
For the Americans, reform of the police is urgent. Credible Iraqi security forces are essential to Washington's plans to scale back the U.S. military presence here, as political pressure for drawdowns increases back home. "We're trying to work ourselves out of a job," Snow said.
More than a month after moving back into parts of central Baghdad, the 10th Mountain Division in recent weeks has put the mainly Shiite national police force in charge of all or part of two restive Sunni neighborhoods, Khadra and Ghazaliyah. Although there were predictions of disaster, Snow and some residents said the neighborhoods have become more peaceful. More neighborhoods are due to come under national police authority in coming weeks.
Iraqi and American authorities say they would like to see Iraqi police put in charge of much of central Baghdad within months and eventually pull U.S. forces largely outside the capital. To make that possible, each battalion of national police has an American adviser team, steering the Iraqis and keeping an eye on them, U.S. officials said.
The continued U.S. presence, more than anything, appears to reassure wary Sunnis about the Shiite-controlled police forces. In Dora last week, local leaders reached a pact that allows Iraqi security forces to raid places of worship only if U.S. troops are with them. The same deal was later extended to all of Baghdad, Sunni leaders said.
In Amiriyah, Snow's forces are pushing what he called a campaign of building trust by association.
The first weekend in May, about 400 of Snow's soldiers and more than 1,400 Iraqi soldiers, national and local police sealed off the Sunni neighborhood for what one 10th Mountain Division spokesman called a "cordon-and-survey" operation. Nominally about searching some suspected insurgent houses, Operation United Front was more about giving Amiriyah's residents an opportunity see Iraqi police working with U.S. forces, Snow said, and allowing U.S. forces to monitor how the largely Shiite police worked with the Sunni residents.
The Americans also used the operation to gauge the mood among residents and provide a chance for them to talk without fear of betrayal.
"We prefer to be detained by Americans instead of Iraqis," Ali Hassan, a white-haired homeowner, told Col. Bill Burleson in the driveway of Hassan's house after Iraqi police had wordlessly carried out a cursory two-minute search of the villa. "Second choice would be the Iraqi army. Last choice, Iraqi police."
"Why does the U.S. want to decrease the coalition force?" asked Hassan, who wore a white cotton robe with his eyeglasses tucked in the breast pocket. "They should increase it there are people pounding on these sectarian issues."
American soldiers took on the role of poll-takers for the operation, surveying Sunni households. "In terms of security, it's mixed," Shields told Burleson later in front of another white-fronted, high-walled Sunni house.
"Two or three were positive," Shields said, studying the house-to-house polling results he had jotted down on forms strapped to his clipboard.
Shields put his clipboard down. "All the rest pretty much said they're really scared and they never go outside."
A Roadside Bombing
Shields's patrol the next night started the old-fashioned way: with the sudden snap of a roadside bomb.
Getting out of his Humvee, Shields found one Iraqi dead in a passing open-sided truck, his head flipped onto his back. Four Humvees back from Shields's vehicle, the soldier in the driver's seat nursed a mangled, bleeding foot.
One passenger in the targeted Humvee, 1st Sgt. Larry Philpot, lay sprawled on the ground, eyes closed. At first glance, Shields took him for dead. Another passenger, Staff Sgt. Robert Cortez, limped by, a spear of steel wire jutting out of the flesh of his foot. A brown line rimmed the teeth of the stunned men from the battered Humvee, trademark of the smoke that filled the vehicle.
Shields's men doused the flames, put the pieces of the Iraqi bystander in a body bag, held their fire against another anguished Iraqi rushing to the dead man, called for the Iraqi army, and treated the wounded.
The convoy inched back to its base near Baghdad's airport a little more than an hour after heading out. The 2nd Platoon dropped off their wounded and grabbed a quick meal in the dining hall, frowning in annoyance at the fellow troops around them cheering a boxing match on TV. Then they went back out on patrol, a lightly concussed Philpot among them.
Retrieving the Dead
Hours later, his night of patrols and house searches nearing an end, Shields received a message from the base: Local police had been told of four corpses dumped in the streets and needed help picking them up.
The 2nd Platoon drove to the police station, where the Iraqis, most of them Shiite, were holed up behind watchtowers and blast walls in a heavily Sunni neighborhood. Inside, the policemen milled about in baggy T-shirts and untucked uniforms. They offered Shields bites of a falafel sandwich, and excuses.
They were tired, they were nervous, their cars were broken down, their friends had been killed lately and they were in mourning, the policemen told Shields, shaking their heads and expressing regrets over the impossibility of going out into the Sunni neighborhood at night to retrieve the bodies.
When Shields located the commander, Maj. Ahmed Mohammed, it gradually became clear that the police were scared and wanted the Americans to get the four corpses.
Emotion rippled across Shields's face in a wave of clenching and unclenching muscles.
"You do realize," Shields said, unclamping his mouth and leaning forward over the slight Iraqi police major, "that this is your job?"
"How do you expect Americans to help you when you won't do anything?" Shields asked, before reaching a parking-lot accord that U.S. soldiers would escort a single pickup truck of police to fetch the bodies and come back.
Trolling the streets slowly, following a tip whose source they did not specify, the police found the first man lying face up on the sidewalk, his face covered by a splayed cardboard box, his right hand still clutching a length of thin wire. The police loaded his rigid body into the back of the pickup like a coffee table.
Three more bodies lay under blankets and plastic sheeting by a generator and by one of the felled palm trees that people in neighborhoods across Baghdad now use to barricade streets. Much of the internal organs of one bullet-riddled man stayed behind when police lifted him into the truck. Another had been shot in the right eye. All had been killed where they fell. They lay in pools of blood -- in the case of the man shot in the eye, a copious pothole of blood -- dotted with bullet cartridges.
Murmuring Iraqi policemen surrounded the pickup truck when the convoy returned after midnight to the parking lot, illuminated only by light spilling out of the police station. The Iraqis pointed out signs of torture on the bodies. "Let's go," Shields said.
U.S.-Trained Allies Are Often Suspects
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 15, 2006; A01
BAGHDAD -- Second Lt. Will Shields started night patrol for his 2nd Platoon Delta Company with the Baghdad basics: a reminder to speed up instead of slow down if a bomb hits the convoy, and a heads-up on where to stash any victims of killings, sectarian and otherwise.
"We find any dead bodies, we've got three or four body bags," the 23-year-old Shields said. "Hopefully, that'll be enough."
The young troops in his platoon briefly grumbled good-naturedly about whose Humvee always gets stuck hauling the corpses they find of equally young Iraqi men -- stiffened, blood-streaked and open-mouthed. Pretty much every day, U.S. and Iraqi troops are picking up apparent victims of Sunni-Shiite violence on the streets of Baghdad.
Since Feb. 22, when the bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra pushed sectarian tensions in Iraq to a new plateau, the U.S. Army units have quietly moved back into some neighborhoods that U.S. commanders had just turned over, with fanfare, to Iraqi security forces. Iraqi leaders asked for the return of the American troops into parts of central Baghdad in March, fearing that efforts to build a stable government would fall apart if they were unable to rein in the Shiite-Sunni killings, said Col. Jeffrey Snow, commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division.
After fighting for nearly three years to put down an insurgency waged by Sunni Arabs, the Americans now are also dealing with a bloody Shiite-Sunni power struggle fought largely through intimidation and murder. Part civil war, with open battles in Baghdad's mixed southern neighborhood of Dora and the northern Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiyah, and part mob-style violence, with bodies being dumped out of cars that then speed away, the struggle plays out mostly beyond the view of U.S. soldiers. (DOES THIS SUNNI INSURGENCY INCLUDE ZARQAWI?)
Mystified Americans often are reduced to helping clear away the unidentified Iraqis left sprawled -- their tortured hands clutching the air or wired together behind their backs -- on curbs, sidewalks and garbage-strewn lots.
"It may be making a statement, and it may work for the Iraqi people, but we have a hell of a time figuring out what the statement is," Snow said.
The Americans' problems are compounded by the fact that the same Shiite-led Interior Ministry police forces they are training to protect Iraqis are widely suspected in the killings -- if not as the executioners, then as allies to the Shiite militias blamed for much of the bloodshed.
"No police allowed," a hand-painted banner declares in Adhamiyah, a middle-class quarter of homes and gardens behind high brick walls that is one of the largest Sunni districts in Baghdad. In clashes last month, Adhamiyah homeowners took up guns to fight off what they took to be Iraqi police, possibly backed by Shiite militias, trying to enter the barricaded neighborhood. (POOSIBILY? I THINK YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT)
In one of the regular meetings that 10th Mountain Division troops have with local leaders in another embattled Sunni neighborhood, Amiriyah, a Sunni businessman told Capt. Ethan Allan: "No one detained by Iraqi police is ever brought back alive."
The man cited widely circulated rumors of killings of men with traditionally Sunni names. At police checkpoints, the businessman told Allan, "they check his ID, they know he is a Sunni, and they take him away and they shoot him." (AGAIN, PAY BACK IS A *****. YOU DID NOTHING WHILE SADDAM FILLED UP HOLES. DO THINK PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO TUEN THE OTHER CHEEK?))
Fighting Distrust
For the Americans, reform of the police is urgent. Credible Iraqi security forces are essential to Washington's plans to scale back the U.S. military presence here, as political pressure for drawdowns increases back home. "We're trying to work ourselves out of a job," Snow said.
More than a month after moving back into parts of central Baghdad, the 10th Mountain Division in recent weeks has put the mainly Shiite national police force in charge of all or part of two restive Sunni neighborhoods, Khadra and Ghazaliyah. Although there were predictions of disaster, Snow and some residents said the neighborhoods have become more peaceful. More neighborhoods are due to come under national police authority in coming weeks.
Iraqi and American authorities say they would like to see Iraqi police put in charge of much of central Baghdad within months and eventually pull U.S. forces largely outside the capital. To make that possible, each battalion of national police has an American adviser team, steering the Iraqis and keeping an eye on them, U.S. officials said.
The continued U.S. presence, more than anything, appears to reassure wary Sunnis about the Shiite-controlled police forces. In Dora last week, local leaders reached a pact that allows Iraqi security forces to raid places of worship only if U.S. troops are with them. The same deal was later extended to all of Baghdad, Sunni leaders said.
In Amiriyah, Snow's forces are pushing what he called a campaign of building trust by association.
The first weekend in May, about 400 of Snow's soldiers and more than 1,400 Iraqi soldiers, national and local police sealed off the Sunni neighborhood for what one 10th Mountain Division spokesman called a "cordon-and-survey" operation. Nominally about searching some suspected insurgent houses, Operation United Front was more about giving Amiriyah's residents an opportunity see Iraqi police working with U.S. forces, Snow said, and allowing U.S. forces to monitor how the largely Shiite police worked with the Sunni residents.
The Americans also used the operation to gauge the mood among residents and provide a chance for them to talk without fear of betrayal.
"We prefer to be detained by Americans instead of Iraqis," Ali Hassan, a white-haired homeowner, told Col. Bill Burleson in the driveway of Hassan's house after Iraqi police had wordlessly carried out a cursory two-minute search of the villa. "Second choice would be the Iraqi army. Last choice, Iraqi police."
"Why does the U.S. want to decrease the coalition force?" asked Hassan, who wore a white cotton robe with his eyeglasses tucked in the breast pocket. "They should increase it there are people pounding on these sectarian issues."
American soldiers took on the role of poll-takers for the operation, surveying Sunni households. "In terms of security, it's mixed," Shields told Burleson later in front of another white-fronted, high-walled Sunni house.
"Two or three were positive," Shields said, studying the house-to-house polling results he had jotted down on forms strapped to his clipboard.
Shields put his clipboard down. "All the rest pretty much said they're really scared and they never go outside."
A Roadside Bombing
Shields's patrol the next night started the old-fashioned way: with the sudden snap of a roadside bomb.
Getting out of his Humvee, Shields found one Iraqi dead in a passing open-sided truck, his head flipped onto his back. Four Humvees back from Shields's vehicle, the soldier in the driver's seat nursed a mangled, bleeding foot.
One passenger in the targeted Humvee, 1st Sgt. Larry Philpot, lay sprawled on the ground, eyes closed. At first glance, Shields took him for dead. Another passenger, Staff Sgt. Robert Cortez, limped by, a spear of steel wire jutting out of the flesh of his foot. A brown line rimmed the teeth of the stunned men from the battered Humvee, trademark of the smoke that filled the vehicle.
Shields's men doused the flames, put the pieces of the Iraqi bystander in a body bag, held their fire against another anguished Iraqi rushing to the dead man, called for the Iraqi army, and treated the wounded.
The convoy inched back to its base near Baghdad's airport a little more than an hour after heading out. The 2nd Platoon dropped off their wounded and grabbed a quick meal in the dining hall, frowning in annoyance at the fellow troops around them cheering a boxing match on TV. Then they went back out on patrol, a lightly concussed Philpot among them.
Retrieving the Dead
Hours later, his night of patrols and house searches nearing an end, Shields received a message from the base: Local police had been told of four corpses dumped in the streets and needed help picking them up.
The 2nd Platoon drove to the police station, where the Iraqis, most of them Shiite, were holed up behind watchtowers and blast walls in a heavily Sunni neighborhood. Inside, the policemen milled about in baggy T-shirts and untucked uniforms. They offered Shields bites of a falafel sandwich, and excuses.
They were tired, they were nervous, their cars were broken down, their friends had been killed lately and they were in mourning, the policemen told Shields, shaking their heads and expressing regrets over the impossibility of going out into the Sunni neighborhood at night to retrieve the bodies.
When Shields located the commander, Maj. Ahmed Mohammed, it gradually became clear that the police were scared and wanted the Americans to get the four corpses.
Emotion rippled across Shields's face in a wave of clenching and unclenching muscles.
"You do realize," Shields said, unclamping his mouth and leaning forward over the slight Iraqi police major, "that this is your job?"
"How do you expect Americans to help you when you won't do anything?" Shields asked, before reaching a parking-lot accord that U.S. soldiers would escort a single pickup truck of police to fetch the bodies and come back.
Trolling the streets slowly, following a tip whose source they did not specify, the police found the first man lying face up on the sidewalk, his face covered by a splayed cardboard box, his right hand still clutching a length of thin wire. The police loaded his rigid body into the back of the pickup like a coffee table.
Three more bodies lay under blankets and plastic sheeting by a generator and by one of the felled palm trees that people in neighborhoods across Baghdad now use to barricade streets. Much of the internal organs of one bullet-riddled man stayed behind when police lifted him into the truck. Another had been shot in the right eye. All had been killed where they fell. They lay in pools of blood -- in the case of the man shot in the eye, a copious pothole of blood -- dotted with bullet cartridges.
Murmuring Iraqi policemen surrounded the pickup truck when the convoy returned after midnight to the parking lot, illuminated only by light spilling out of the police station. The Iraqis pointed out signs of torture on the bodies. "Let's go," Shields said.
Desperate Zimbabwe Moves to Lure Back White Ex-Farmers
Plan Would Let Some Evictees Lease Land
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 15, 2006; A10
KWEKWE, Zimbabwe -- The end of a century of farming for the van der Berghs came in December, family members said, when a man brandishing an official-looking letter and voicing threats of violence demanded they abandon their 1,300 acres of land, the final remnants of what had been vast holdings more than a dozen times larger.
But rather than flee the country, as thousands of other white farmers have done, the van der Berghs moved to the nearest major town, the pleasant, tree-lined community of Kwekwe, in central Zimbabwe, and tried to resume their lives.
Taking advantage of a new government initiative that offers the possibility of returning land to some white farmers, the van der Berghs submitted an application for a long-term lease. At least 200 other farmers have done the same, according to the Commercial Farmers Union, and each day dozens of others call or visit the group's headquarters in Harare, the capital, to inquire about the program.
"We can't just sit here," said Nicholas van der Bergh, 59, a large, muscular man with a crushing handshake hinting at a lifetime of clearing brush, tilling soil and harvesting crops. "We are farmers, really. We need to make a living. We are Zimbabweans. We think we belong here."
Other former farmers have treated the government's offer with suspicion bordering on contempt. President Robert Mugabe encouraged landless black peasants to invade commercial farms beginning in February 2000. He portrayed the longtime white owners -- about 4,500 farmers who owned most of the country's best agricultural land -- as thieves who had deprived the 12 million black Zimbabweans of their birthrights.
The white farmers, whose families were encouraged to settle here by British colonial rulers and later a white-supremacist government, had for decades enjoyed large profits, low labor costs and little interference.
Now only a few hundred white-owned farms remain. (SO THINGS MUST BE GREAT! GETTING RID OF THE RACIST FARMERS ETC, THINGS MUST BE BOOMING)
Tens of thousands of black Zimbabweans have been given the land, but most received no support, such as supplies of fertilizer and seeds, much less training in how to manage what had been sophisticated, export-oriented agribusinesses. (WAIT. THERE IS MORE TO FARMING THAN KICKING OFF THE WHITE RACISTS?)
Many of the farms turned brown and weedy. Giant irrigation machinery sat idle as poor rains combined with chaos in the agricultural industry to turn Zimbabwe into one of Africa's neediest recipients of international food aid. Inflation has reached 1,000 percent, and a catastrophic shortage of hard currency has severely limited the availability of clean water and electricity and access to health care.
Government officials blamed bad weather and sanctions by Western countries such as Britain and the United States, which have opposed Mugabe's increasingly ruthless authoritarian regime. But this year, with rain plentiful and agricultural production still paltry, Zimbabwean officials have begun speaking publicly of reclaiming underutilized land and leasing it to qualified commercial farmers without regard to race. (OOPS. THE RAIN BECOMES THE ENEMY)
Information Minister Tichaona Jokonya said in a recent telephone interview that land policy had moved into a new phase and that significant numbers of long-term leases would be issued before summer planting begins in August. No new farms, he said, would be given to poor blacks. (SOUNDS LIKE POLICY RETREAT. WHY DOES THE POST HIDE THIS FACT?)
"What the government is saying is: Those who genuinely want land, whether white or black, let them come forward," Jokonya said, speaking from his own farm, south of Harare. Referring to the government's land redistribution program, he said, "The resettlement is complete."
The Commercial Farmers Union, meanwhile, has been meeting regularly with the government and is telling its almost entirely white membership that the offer of land is sincere.
"I have no doubt that in the near future our sector of society will have access to land," said Trevor Gifford, the group's vice president.
Yet many farmers appear to regard the government's recent initiative as yet another trick by a government attempting to improve its economy and international standing by means of a public relations campaign rather than real reform.
The day after Jokonya said that underutilized land was being redistributed, the minister of lands and land resettlement, Didymus Mutasa, was quoted in the Zimbabwe Independent newspaper as saying, "No white farmer is being invited back."
And even if some land is returned, many white former farmers say the equipment and capital needed to resume farming were lost years ago. Besides, they say, they are interested in reoccupying only their own farms -- to which most still hold titles -- not those seized from other farmers.
"It's a smokescreen," said Paul Nel, 65, a friend of van der Bergh's, adding that he lost his farm, his home and nearly his life in attacks related to the land redistribution. "I've got more to do than waste my time. There's no sincerity to it."
A series of farm invasions over the past several weeks has also fueled farmers' skepticism even as the government speaks of returning some land to white farmers.
Van der Bergh does have reservations. His family once pastured cattle and grew corn, soybeans, wheat, barley and tobacco on 22,000 acres of land while employing 110 workers. Over the past six years, that farmland has been lost piece by piece. Veterans of Zimbabwe's guerrilla war of liberation, who have been blamed for murders and other violence during the land redistribution, also burned down the family's house in 2002, van der Bergh said. (WAIT, THEY ARE BLACK. THEY ARE VICTIMS)
But more recently, he said, the situation has shifted both for the farmers, who want to work, and the government, which needs to revive its economy. He also said he was prepared to operate on a smaller scale, leasing the land rather than holding title to it, if that is the price of returning to farming. Mugabe last year passed a constitutional amendment nationalizing all land, rendering individual titles worthless. (WHAT A SMART MOVE BY THE BLACK LEADER. ANY OTHER WONDERFUL IDEAS, YOU WONDERFUL LEADER OF THE BLACKS?)
There is something else behind van der Bergh's thinking: His two sons want to farm in Zimbabwe.
David van der Bergh, 25, and Nicholas Jr., 22, had largely taken over the planting and harvesting in recent years as their father shifted into semi-retirement.
Until the final piece of land was seized in December, the younger van der Berghs were among the fortunate few.
Of the 34 students who graduated from a Zimbabwean agricultural college with him, David van der Bergh said, all but three have left, mostly for Australia, New Zealand and Britain. Other popular destinations for Zimbabwean farmers include Zambia, Mozambique and Nigeria, where governments have offered them land in hopes of stimulating their own agricultural production.
David van der Bergh, who has a round face, curly brown hair and a smaller version of his father's muscular build, said he plans to join the exodus but is eager to return.
Yet even if the government gives his family a long-term lease, he said, he expects to farm differently than did people of his father's generation. Among the lessons of the past six years, he said, is that large homes, vast holdings and lavish living can attract powerful enemies.
"Guys who are going to farm in the future are going to have to adjust," he said. "I'll never build a little kingdom for myself."
Plan Would Let Some Evictees Lease Land
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 15, 2006; A10
KWEKWE, Zimbabwe -- The end of a century of farming for the van der Berghs came in December, family members said, when a man brandishing an official-looking letter and voicing threats of violence demanded they abandon their 1,300 acres of land, the final remnants of what had been vast holdings more than a dozen times larger.
But rather than flee the country, as thousands of other white farmers have done, the van der Berghs moved to the nearest major town, the pleasant, tree-lined community of Kwekwe, in central Zimbabwe, and tried to resume their lives.
Taking advantage of a new government initiative that offers the possibility of returning land to some white farmers, the van der Berghs submitted an application for a long-term lease. At least 200 other farmers have done the same, according to the Commercial Farmers Union, and each day dozens of others call or visit the group's headquarters in Harare, the capital, to inquire about the program.
"We can't just sit here," said Nicholas van der Bergh, 59, a large, muscular man with a crushing handshake hinting at a lifetime of clearing brush, tilling soil and harvesting crops. "We are farmers, really. We need to make a living. We are Zimbabweans. We think we belong here."
Other former farmers have treated the government's offer with suspicion bordering on contempt. President Robert Mugabe encouraged landless black peasants to invade commercial farms beginning in February 2000. He portrayed the longtime white owners -- about 4,500 farmers who owned most of the country's best agricultural land -- as thieves who had deprived the 12 million black Zimbabweans of their birthrights.
The white farmers, whose families were encouraged to settle here by British colonial rulers and later a white-supremacist government, had for decades enjoyed large profits, low labor costs and little interference.
Now only a few hundred white-owned farms remain. (SO THINGS MUST BE GREAT! GETTING RID OF THE RACIST FARMERS ETC, THINGS MUST BE BOOMING)
Tens of thousands of black Zimbabweans have been given the land, but most received no support, such as supplies of fertilizer and seeds, much less training in how to manage what had been sophisticated, export-oriented agribusinesses. (WAIT. THERE IS MORE TO FARMING THAN KICKING OFF THE WHITE RACISTS?)
Many of the farms turned brown and weedy. Giant irrigation machinery sat idle as poor rains combined with chaos in the agricultural industry to turn Zimbabwe into one of Africa's neediest recipients of international food aid. Inflation has reached 1,000 percent, and a catastrophic shortage of hard currency has severely limited the availability of clean water and electricity and access to health care.
Government officials blamed bad weather and sanctions by Western countries such as Britain and the United States, which have opposed Mugabe's increasingly ruthless authoritarian regime. But this year, with rain plentiful and agricultural production still paltry, Zimbabwean officials have begun speaking publicly of reclaiming underutilized land and leasing it to qualified commercial farmers without regard to race. (OOPS. THE RAIN BECOMES THE ENEMY)
Information Minister Tichaona Jokonya said in a recent telephone interview that land policy had moved into a new phase and that significant numbers of long-term leases would be issued before summer planting begins in August. No new farms, he said, would be given to poor blacks. (SOUNDS LIKE POLICY RETREAT. WHY DOES THE POST HIDE THIS FACT?)
"What the government is saying is: Those who genuinely want land, whether white or black, let them come forward," Jokonya said, speaking from his own farm, south of Harare. Referring to the government's land redistribution program, he said, "The resettlement is complete."
The Commercial Farmers Union, meanwhile, has been meeting regularly with the government and is telling its almost entirely white membership that the offer of land is sincere.
"I have no doubt that in the near future our sector of society will have access to land," said Trevor Gifford, the group's vice president.
Yet many farmers appear to regard the government's recent initiative as yet another trick by a government attempting to improve its economy and international standing by means of a public relations campaign rather than real reform.
The day after Jokonya said that underutilized land was being redistributed, the minister of lands and land resettlement, Didymus Mutasa, was quoted in the Zimbabwe Independent newspaper as saying, "No white farmer is being invited back."
And even if some land is returned, many white former farmers say the equipment and capital needed to resume farming were lost years ago. Besides, they say, they are interested in reoccupying only their own farms -- to which most still hold titles -- not those seized from other farmers.
"It's a smokescreen," said Paul Nel, 65, a friend of van der Bergh's, adding that he lost his farm, his home and nearly his life in attacks related to the land redistribution. "I've got more to do than waste my time. There's no sincerity to it."
A series of farm invasions over the past several weeks has also fueled farmers' skepticism even as the government speaks of returning some land to white farmers.
Van der Bergh does have reservations. His family once pastured cattle and grew corn, soybeans, wheat, barley and tobacco on 22,000 acres of land while employing 110 workers. Over the past six years, that farmland has been lost piece by piece. Veterans of Zimbabwe's guerrilla war of liberation, who have been blamed for murders and other violence during the land redistribution, also burned down the family's house in 2002, van der Bergh said. (WAIT, THEY ARE BLACK. THEY ARE VICTIMS)
But more recently, he said, the situation has shifted both for the farmers, who want to work, and the government, which needs to revive its economy. He also said he was prepared to operate on a smaller scale, leasing the land rather than holding title to it, if that is the price of returning to farming. Mugabe last year passed a constitutional amendment nationalizing all land, rendering individual titles worthless. (WHAT A SMART MOVE BY THE BLACK LEADER. ANY OTHER WONDERFUL IDEAS, YOU WONDERFUL LEADER OF THE BLACKS?)
There is something else behind van der Bergh's thinking: His two sons want to farm in Zimbabwe.
David van der Bergh, 25, and Nicholas Jr., 22, had largely taken over the planting and harvesting in recent years as their father shifted into semi-retirement.
Until the final piece of land was seized in December, the younger van der Berghs were among the fortunate few.
Of the 34 students who graduated from a Zimbabwean agricultural college with him, David van der Bergh said, all but three have left, mostly for Australia, New Zealand and Britain. Other popular destinations for Zimbabwean farmers include Zambia, Mozambique and Nigeria, where governments have offered them land in hopes of stimulating their own agricultural production.
David van der Bergh, who has a round face, curly brown hair and a smaller version of his father's muscular build, said he plans to join the exodus but is eager to return.
Yet even if the government gives his family a long-term lease, he said, he expects to farm differently than did people of his father's generation. Among the lessons of the past six years, he said, is that large homes, vast holdings and lavish living can attract powerful enemies.
"Guys who are going to farm in the future are going to have to adjust," he said. "I'll never build a little kingdom for myself."
Union Leader Presides Over Painful Changes
United Auto Workers' Gettelfinger Navigates Job Cuts, Concessions
By Dale Russakoff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 15, 2006; A01
At a time of maximum uncertainty over their future, the United Auto Workers union will gather next month to re-elect its president. Oddly enough, some of his most enthusiastic supporters are the top executives of the U.S. auto industry.
An ardent, lifelong trade unionist, Ron Gettelfinger, 61, has presided over an era of unprecedented concessions to the Detroit automakers, telling his members that the alternative is for the companies and the union to go down together.
"The companies know that whatever lies before them is vastly worse if something happens to Gettelfinger," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), the industry's champion in Congress. "They're all teetering at the precipice together."
The man trying to negotiate a future for the imperiled union emerges from experiences vastly different from those of his predecessors. He was raised as one of 12 children on a farm in rural Indiana and is the first UAW president to rise from a plant outside Michigan, the industry headquarters. He is also the first with a college degree (a bachelor's in accounting from Indiana University).
Gettelfinger has a farmer's work ethic and expects the same of his colleagues. As president of his Louisville local in the 1980s, he called surprise staff meetings at 6 a.m. and took roll call. Those who were late got "the speech," which fellow union officer Bob Hatfield still can recite verbatim, in Gettelfinger's country twang: "Your people are here every morning at 6. You don't work for me and I don't work for Ford. We work for those people out there. When you ran for that office you didn't tell those people you'd only represent them half the time."
Gettelfinger is outspoken at auto and union conferences about his view that job losses from globalization are the "result of conscious choices by government and corporate policymakers." But unlike other big-union leaders, he rarely comes to Washington to press his policy agenda, which includes national health insurance, tougher trade laws, government support for domestic production of energy-saving vehicles and protections for workers in corporate bankruptcies. He is not likely to get much of that from the Bush White House.
Sometimes called the "chaplain of the UAW," he is a devout Catholic who does not drink, smoke, gamble or kiss women, even on the cheek, other than his wife Judy. He tried but failed to have the UAW convention moved from the gambling mecca of Las Vegas, and is expected to be elected to a second four-year term there next month.
Changing Mission
Gettelfinger was chosen for the presidency in 2002 by the same administrative caucus that has controlled the union since the days of its legendary president, Walter Reuther. But if Reuther's UAW ushered blue-collar workers into the middle class by forcing Detroit to share the wealth, the Gettelfinger UAW is fighting to keep them from being unceremoniously ushered out.
Under Gettelfinger, the UAW has negotiated generous buyouts and retirement packages for senior employees of Ford and General Motors. Gettelfinger has also steered major concessions through an often angry and demoralized membership. It was he who made the case last fall that Ford and GM had to cut previously sacrosanct retiree health benefits and cancel a pay raise. It is his UAW that agreed to relax work rules and shorten break times in the name of keeping certain plants open. And, in the face of increasingly vocal dissidents who say he is selling out the union legacy, it will be his job to hold the rank and file together next year when the Big Three contracts expire and even bigger concessions are on the table.
"My generation put our bodies on the line and our jobs on the line, but this is different," said Douglas Fraser, UAW president from 1977 to 1983 and a former administrative assistant to Reuther. "This is more difficult than any of the times we went through."
To those who say the UAW is becoming irrelevant, Gettelfinger says the grim outlook only magnifies the union's importance.
"Look at WorldCom or Tyco or Enron," he said recently on Paul W. Smith's radio show in Detroit. "Don't you think those people wish they had a check and balance with their employer? That's really what a union is. Look at the people at Delphi," the troubled auto-parts supplier trying to void union contracts and slash pay in bankruptcy court. "Without a union, they would be helpless. They wouldn't have any voice at all."
Gettelfinger uses his own voice sparingly. A relative unknown who likes it that way, he declined to be interviewed for this report. A union media guide, with multi-page biographies of all vice presidents, has only three short paragraphs on Gettelfinger, with one personal detail: He "is proud to be called a chassis line repairman," his last job on the factory line. A fuller biography was written for Gettelfinger, but he rejected it, according to an aide.
Born to Bad Times
Gettelfinger is the first UAW president whose formative experiences almost all came during the decline of the U.S. auto industry. He took his place on an assembly line in Ford's Louisville plant in 1964, when the seeds of the Big Three's downfall had already been planted.
The American auto industry had the U.S. market to itself, with practically no foreign competition. The UAW leader, Reuther, was a confidant of presidents. Its contracts moved the U.S. economy. Its political clout helped shape the national agenda, from civil rights to Medicare to presidential elections.
Gettelfinger rose to prominence in the 1970s telling disbelieving brethren that the party was over. The 1973 Arab oil embargo had struck, and the Louisville plant was making the gas-guzzling Crown Victoria, which got about 12 miles a gallon. But gas mileage was not the half of it. The quality of the plant's work was disastrous because, according to retired workers and managers, the two sides were virtually at war. Ford insiders called the plant "Lousyville."
"They treated us like dogs, said Ed Hardesty, a retired contemporary of Gettelfinger's. "And you would think: How could I get back at them?"
Absenteeism was off the charts, said Tom Ryan, a retired Ford executive who then oversaw human resources in Louisville. "Those were the days when they said, 'Never buy a car made on Monday or Friday because that's when most people were out of work,' " Ryan said.
Ford didn't pay a price for poor quality in the 1960s, said Rodney Thompson, a retired supervisor in Louisville, because there were no foreign competitors for customers to bolt to. And the union didn't mind because if cars came back for repairs, that created more jobs -- and repair jobs were more desirable than line jobs.
"Looking back 50 years, throughout the industry, both the management and the union colluded in greed," said John Casesa, the dean of Wall Street auto industry analysts until his retirement this year.
As Ryan recalled, The reward process was all backward. The punishment came when plants started closing. It was a question now of survival."
Louisville was high on Ford's hit list, and Hardesty said he and many others in the union deemed it a scare tactic. But Gettelfinger -- newly elected as bargaining chairman in 1978 -- took it seriously, joining UAW and plant officials to persuade Ford to give them six months to turn the situation around.
"Ron saw down the road before most of us," said Hardesty, who was initially a skeptic. "We both had to change or we wouldn't have a future."
Gettelfinger opened an era of cooperation with new managers, convincing fellow workers that their jobs were riding on it.
He let it be known that workers no longer could count on him to intercede in their defense if they were routinely absent or doing sloppy work. He also presented plant managers with lists of workers' complaints, which, to their surprise, were rectified. Absenteeism plunged and quality improved to the point where Louisville got the nod to make the new Ford Ranger in the early 1980s.
"He was receptive to doing things much differently than was done in the past and encouraging people to participate, stop the fighting, the distrust," Ryan said. "It was a huge political risk."
Hardesty remembered thinking at first that Gettelfinger was insufficiently "hard core," but he said he changed his mind when he watched him negotiate contracts with management. "I've seen him turn so angry his ears were almost bleeding," Hardesty said. "He was hard on the company and hard on the people who served under him, too. He told it like it was."
Gettelfinger rose in 1992 to become UAW regional director in Indiana, just in time to confront the beginning of the collapse of the U.S. auto parts industry, which now is playing out in the bankruptcy cases of Delphi Corp. and five other major U.S. parts makers. Battered by competition from low-wage suppliers overseas, the Big Three were spinning off their parts divisions, which had been notorious for waste.
John Messer, then an aide to Gettelfinger, said GM spinoff Magnequench Inc., a magnet manufacturer, was paying workers $57,000 a year. In China, the work cost $3,000.
In rapid succession, the companies closed their Indiana plants and moved overseas. "Delco Remy, Magnequench, Oxford Automotive, Wellman Therman, Noblesville Casting -- I closed five plants and it was a heartbreak," Messer said. "Ron was with me, with men and women 55 to 60 years old, just looking at you saying, 'What am I going to do?' Those folks couldn't draw any retirement until they were 65 years old."
Messer said he and Gettelfinger worked 16- to 20-hour days negotiating settlements and buyouts for workers in the plants. "It was a market game, a money game, a global game, and our workers lost," he said.
Messer said the lessons of Indiana influenced Gettelfinger as UAW vice president when Ford executives found him strikingly hard-line in 1999 contract negotiations. Now Ford wanted to spin off its parts division, but Gettelfinger insisted, under threat of a strike, that the workers remain on Ford's payroll. The new parts company, Visteon Corp., would have to lease them from Ford. If Visteon failed, as its union plants later did, their jobs and wages would be safe.
"He was more adversarial than I'd ever known him," said Ryan, the Ford executive who knew Gettelfinger from Louisville.
The protections bought Visteon workers security that their Delphi counterparts are struggling to win back in bankruptcy court. But the high-price contract is one of many contributors to the financial crisis at Ford that Gettelfinger, as UAW president, will have to confront in next year's contract talks.
'System Failure'
It is conventional wisdom that Gettelfinger has the hardest job in Detroit. Ford and GM are in the process of eliminating 60,000 union jobs. When the 2007 contracts come up, and the companies seek more concessions, analysts say he will have to turn back to retirees, whose costs amount to about $1,500 per car made in the United States. But retirees outnumber active workers about 2-to-1 in the UAW, so asking them to take cuts is the equivalent of voting to cut Social Security in a congressional district where everyone is over 65.
And while the union has cushioned the blow of job loss for senior workers, their younger counterparts have no expectation of a soft landing. Unable to organize booming Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai plants, the union remains locked in the shrinking, American sector of the U.S. market; its membership has plunged from a peak of 1.5 million in the 1970s to 557,000 last year, according to its annual report to the Labor Department.
A rising dissident movement says Gettelfinger is responsible. "Every concession by UAW drives the race to the bottom and gives less reason for workers at Nissan and Toyota to join the union," said Mike Parker, a Chrysler Group electrician elected as a delegate to next month's convention. "To organize them, the UAW has to stand for something. If we're partners with the company, we'd be like another boss, another person controlling their lives."
"There will be a widely held view in the short-term that Ron is responsible for the decline of the union, but that clearly isn't true," said Peter J. Pestillo, a former Ford vice chairman and Visteon chairman who negotiated often opposite Gettelfinger. "The real story is that the Americans couldn't succeed in the marketplace. It was a systemic failure that we couldn't conceal any longer."
Clarification to This Article
A May 15 article about United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger omitted the name of the radio station that broadcasts "The Paul W. Smith Show" in Detroit. The station is WJR (760 AM).
United Auto Workers' Gettelfinger Navigates Job Cuts, Concessions
By Dale Russakoff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 15, 2006; A01
At a time of maximum uncertainty over their future, the United Auto Workers union will gather next month to re-elect its president. Oddly enough, some of his most enthusiastic supporters are the top executives of the U.S. auto industry.
An ardent, lifelong trade unionist, Ron Gettelfinger, 61, has presided over an era of unprecedented concessions to the Detroit automakers, telling his members that the alternative is for the companies and the union to go down together.
"The companies know that whatever lies before them is vastly worse if something happens to Gettelfinger," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), the industry's champion in Congress. "They're all teetering at the precipice together."
The man trying to negotiate a future for the imperiled union emerges from experiences vastly different from those of his predecessors. He was raised as one of 12 children on a farm in rural Indiana and is the first UAW president to rise from a plant outside Michigan, the industry headquarters. He is also the first with a college degree (a bachelor's in accounting from Indiana University).
Gettelfinger has a farmer's work ethic and expects the same of his colleagues. As president of his Louisville local in the 1980s, he called surprise staff meetings at 6 a.m. and took roll call. Those who were late got "the speech," which fellow union officer Bob Hatfield still can recite verbatim, in Gettelfinger's country twang: "Your people are here every morning at 6. You don't work for me and I don't work for Ford. We work for those people out there. When you ran for that office you didn't tell those people you'd only represent them half the time."
Gettelfinger is outspoken at auto and union conferences about his view that job losses from globalization are the "result of conscious choices by government and corporate policymakers." But unlike other big-union leaders, he rarely comes to Washington to press his policy agenda, which includes national health insurance, tougher trade laws, government support for domestic production of energy-saving vehicles and protections for workers in corporate bankruptcies. He is not likely to get much of that from the Bush White House.
Sometimes called the "chaplain of the UAW," he is a devout Catholic who does not drink, smoke, gamble or kiss women, even on the cheek, other than his wife Judy. He tried but failed to have the UAW convention moved from the gambling mecca of Las Vegas, and is expected to be elected to a second four-year term there next month.
Changing Mission
Gettelfinger was chosen for the presidency in 2002 by the same administrative caucus that has controlled the union since the days of its legendary president, Walter Reuther. But if Reuther's UAW ushered blue-collar workers into the middle class by forcing Detroit to share the wealth, the Gettelfinger UAW is fighting to keep them from being unceremoniously ushered out.
Under Gettelfinger, the UAW has negotiated generous buyouts and retirement packages for senior employees of Ford and General Motors. Gettelfinger has also steered major concessions through an often angry and demoralized membership. It was he who made the case last fall that Ford and GM had to cut previously sacrosanct retiree health benefits and cancel a pay raise. It is his UAW that agreed to relax work rules and shorten break times in the name of keeping certain plants open. And, in the face of increasingly vocal dissidents who say he is selling out the union legacy, it will be his job to hold the rank and file together next year when the Big Three contracts expire and even bigger concessions are on the table.
"My generation put our bodies on the line and our jobs on the line, but this is different," said Douglas Fraser, UAW president from 1977 to 1983 and a former administrative assistant to Reuther. "This is more difficult than any of the times we went through."
To those who say the UAW is becoming irrelevant, Gettelfinger says the grim outlook only magnifies the union's importance.
"Look at WorldCom or Tyco or Enron," he said recently on Paul W. Smith's radio show in Detroit. "Don't you think those people wish they had a check and balance with their employer? That's really what a union is. Look at the people at Delphi," the troubled auto-parts supplier trying to void union contracts and slash pay in bankruptcy court. "Without a union, they would be helpless. They wouldn't have any voice at all."
Gettelfinger uses his own voice sparingly. A relative unknown who likes it that way, he declined to be interviewed for this report. A union media guide, with multi-page biographies of all vice presidents, has only three short paragraphs on Gettelfinger, with one personal detail: He "is proud to be called a chassis line repairman," his last job on the factory line. A fuller biography was written for Gettelfinger, but he rejected it, according to an aide.
Born to Bad Times
Gettelfinger is the first UAW president whose formative experiences almost all came during the decline of the U.S. auto industry. He took his place on an assembly line in Ford's Louisville plant in 1964, when the seeds of the Big Three's downfall had already been planted.
The American auto industry had the U.S. market to itself, with practically no foreign competition. The UAW leader, Reuther, was a confidant of presidents. Its contracts moved the U.S. economy. Its political clout helped shape the national agenda, from civil rights to Medicare to presidential elections.
Gettelfinger rose to prominence in the 1970s telling disbelieving brethren that the party was over. The 1973 Arab oil embargo had struck, and the Louisville plant was making the gas-guzzling Crown Victoria, which got about 12 miles a gallon. But gas mileage was not the half of it. The quality of the plant's work was disastrous because, according to retired workers and managers, the two sides were virtually at war. Ford insiders called the plant "Lousyville."
"They treated us like dogs, said Ed Hardesty, a retired contemporary of Gettelfinger's. "And you would think: How could I get back at them?"
Absenteeism was off the charts, said Tom Ryan, a retired Ford executive who then oversaw human resources in Louisville. "Those were the days when they said, 'Never buy a car made on Monday or Friday because that's when most people were out of work,' " Ryan said.
Ford didn't pay a price for poor quality in the 1960s, said Rodney Thompson, a retired supervisor in Louisville, because there were no foreign competitors for customers to bolt to. And the union didn't mind because if cars came back for repairs, that created more jobs -- and repair jobs were more desirable than line jobs.
"Looking back 50 years, throughout the industry, both the management and the union colluded in greed," said John Casesa, the dean of Wall Street auto industry analysts until his retirement this year.
As Ryan recalled, The reward process was all backward. The punishment came when plants started closing. It was a question now of survival."
Louisville was high on Ford's hit list, and Hardesty said he and many others in the union deemed it a scare tactic. But Gettelfinger -- newly elected as bargaining chairman in 1978 -- took it seriously, joining UAW and plant officials to persuade Ford to give them six months to turn the situation around.
"Ron saw down the road before most of us," said Hardesty, who was initially a skeptic. "We both had to change or we wouldn't have a future."
Gettelfinger opened an era of cooperation with new managers, convincing fellow workers that their jobs were riding on it.
He let it be known that workers no longer could count on him to intercede in their defense if they were routinely absent or doing sloppy work. He also presented plant managers with lists of workers' complaints, which, to their surprise, were rectified. Absenteeism plunged and quality improved to the point where Louisville got the nod to make the new Ford Ranger in the early 1980s.
"He was receptive to doing things much differently than was done in the past and encouraging people to participate, stop the fighting, the distrust," Ryan said. "It was a huge political risk."
Hardesty remembered thinking at first that Gettelfinger was insufficiently "hard core," but he said he changed his mind when he watched him negotiate contracts with management. "I've seen him turn so angry his ears were almost bleeding," Hardesty said. "He was hard on the company and hard on the people who served under him, too. He told it like it was."
Gettelfinger rose in 1992 to become UAW regional director in Indiana, just in time to confront the beginning of the collapse of the U.S. auto parts industry, which now is playing out in the bankruptcy cases of Delphi Corp. and five other major U.S. parts makers. Battered by competition from low-wage suppliers overseas, the Big Three were spinning off their parts divisions, which had been notorious for waste.
John Messer, then an aide to Gettelfinger, said GM spinoff Magnequench Inc., a magnet manufacturer, was paying workers $57,000 a year. In China, the work cost $3,000.
In rapid succession, the companies closed their Indiana plants and moved overseas. "Delco Remy, Magnequench, Oxford Automotive, Wellman Therman, Noblesville Casting -- I closed five plants and it was a heartbreak," Messer said. "Ron was with me, with men and women 55 to 60 years old, just looking at you saying, 'What am I going to do?' Those folks couldn't draw any retirement until they were 65 years old."
Messer said he and Gettelfinger worked 16- to 20-hour days negotiating settlements and buyouts for workers in the plants. "It was a market game, a money game, a global game, and our workers lost," he said.
Messer said the lessons of Indiana influenced Gettelfinger as UAW vice president when Ford executives found him strikingly hard-line in 1999 contract negotiations. Now Ford wanted to spin off its parts division, but Gettelfinger insisted, under threat of a strike, that the workers remain on Ford's payroll. The new parts company, Visteon Corp., would have to lease them from Ford. If Visteon failed, as its union plants later did, their jobs and wages would be safe.
"He was more adversarial than I'd ever known him," said Ryan, the Ford executive who knew Gettelfinger from Louisville.
The protections bought Visteon workers security that their Delphi counterparts are struggling to win back in bankruptcy court. But the high-price contract is one of many contributors to the financial crisis at Ford that Gettelfinger, as UAW president, will have to confront in next year's contract talks.
'System Failure'
It is conventional wisdom that Gettelfinger has the hardest job in Detroit. Ford and GM are in the process of eliminating 60,000 union jobs. When the 2007 contracts come up, and the companies seek more concessions, analysts say he will have to turn back to retirees, whose costs amount to about $1,500 per car made in the United States. But retirees outnumber active workers about 2-to-1 in the UAW, so asking them to take cuts is the equivalent of voting to cut Social Security in a congressional district where everyone is over 65.
And while the union has cushioned the blow of job loss for senior workers, their younger counterparts have no expectation of a soft landing. Unable to organize booming Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai plants, the union remains locked in the shrinking, American sector of the U.S. market; its membership has plunged from a peak of 1.5 million in the 1970s to 557,000 last year, according to its annual report to the Labor Department.
A rising dissident movement says Gettelfinger is responsible. "Every concession by UAW drives the race to the bottom and gives less reason for workers at Nissan and Toyota to join the union," said Mike Parker, a Chrysler Group electrician elected as a delegate to next month's convention. "To organize them, the UAW has to stand for something. If we're partners with the company, we'd be like another boss, another person controlling their lives."
"There will be a widely held view in the short-term that Ron is responsible for the decline of the union, but that clearly isn't true," said Peter J. Pestillo, a former Ford vice chairman and Visteon chairman who negotiated often opposite Gettelfinger. "The real story is that the Americans couldn't succeed in the marketplace. It was a systemic failure that we couldn't conceal any longer."
Clarification to This Article
A May 15 article about United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger omitted the name of the radio station that broadcasts "The Paul W. Smith Show" in Detroit. The station is WJR (760 AM).
Uniformed Killers Difficult to Identify
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 15, 2006; A13
BAGHDAD -- In a row of grimy market stalls off Thieves Market, a shopper's hand passes over a display of steel handcuffs, police batons and jumbled wool balaclava masks with oval slots gouged out for the eyes.
The hand pauses over a dark circular patch, embroidered in white with the letters "IP." "Five hundred dinar," the bored vendor grunts, about 35 cents for a badge marking the wearer as a bona fide member of the Iraqi police.
A set of Iraqi police officer's insignia: "Five hundred." A full army uniform, one of a dozen or so dangling on hangers from the tin roofs of the stalls, above the mud puddles and browsers in the grimy market: "Twenty thousand" -- about $13.50.
In Iraq, anyone can be anyone for the price of a uniform. And no one can be sure who that anyone is when armed men come knocking at the door at midnight or wave traffic to a stop. Iraq is awash in foreign and domestic security companies; insurgent movements; religious militias of tens of thousands of men representing themselves as "people's armies" or as bodyguard details; armed wings of political parties; army, police and paramilitary groups; and criminal gangs posing as all of them.
The criminal gangs kidnap, rob and kill, but so do many of the others.
The inability to tell who the real police are is such that in March, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr mocked the gullibility of a group of Iraqi private security workers who believed they were under arrest by legitimate policemen when men wearing police uniforms, driving police vehicles and carrying standard-issue police pistols led them away from their office in broad daylight. The Interior Ministry, which oversees the police, adamantly denied taking the men. Most of them have not been seen since.
"People in camouflage uniforms took them like sheep," Jabr said contemptuously. "If they cannot defend themselves, who can?"
The confusion led to a ministry initiative this spring to put all its forces in a single, hard-to-copy uniform. Ministry officials said recently that uniforms would now be issued in June.
The ministry also changed the name of its paramilitary and police forces, grouping commando and public order brigades under the single designation of national police.
The police forces are dominated by the Shiite parties that lead Iraq's government and are widely believed to be infiltrated by the parties' militias. To the Sunni Arab minority, units with such names as the Wolf Brigade have become synonymous with roundups, detention, torture and killing. Jabr recently confirmed that there were death squads operating within the Interior Ministry police forces but insisted that their numbers were few.
Interior Ministry officials have insisted that impostors in purloined uniforms are carrying out many of the crimes.
"It's a lot of lies that ruin the reputation of the commandos," said Gen. Rashid Flaih Mohammed, commander of an elite force trained with U.S. backing to take a lead role in fighting the insurgency.
"This uniform, anyone can buy it and wear it," the general said in an interview in his office earlier this year. "We are going to choose a uniform that is special to us and number our badges. No one can wear our uniform or have our vehicles. We will not allow it."
Iraqis say it will take more than a change of name and costume to clean up the police.
"It was the Iraqi police," one Iraqi man said, quoting an 11-year-old boy's description of highway robbers who shot the boy six times and killed his father and a family friend in front of him.
The gunmen had flagged down the family's car, forced the men and boy to lie on the ground, shot them, then ransacked the vehicle for cash, the boy said.
The killers, the boy said, wore blue police uniforms, drove a white-and-blue police pickup truck and shot them with police pistols. The Washington Post agreed not to further identify the people involved to protect them.
Similar descriptions are given regularly by witnesses to crimes, including the checkpoint abduction this month of two Iraqi journalists whose corpses were found shortly after.
Whether the killers are police or impostors, the government is responsible, a Sunni political leader said.
"We are concerned about the state of lawlessness," said Tarik al-Hashemi, a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group. "This whole phenomenon is a result of chaos and confusion inside the government."
Special correspondents Naseer Nouri and K.I. Ibrahim contributed to this report.
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, May 15, 2006; A13
BAGHDAD -- In a row of grimy market stalls off Thieves Market, a shopper's hand passes over a display of steel handcuffs, police batons and jumbled wool balaclava masks with oval slots gouged out for the eyes.
The hand pauses over a dark circular patch, embroidered in white with the letters "IP." "Five hundred dinar," the bored vendor grunts, about 35 cents for a badge marking the wearer as a bona fide member of the Iraqi police.
A set of Iraqi police officer's insignia: "Five hundred." A full army uniform, one of a dozen or so dangling on hangers from the tin roofs of the stalls, above the mud puddles and browsers in the grimy market: "Twenty thousand" -- about $13.50.
In Iraq, anyone can be anyone for the price of a uniform. And no one can be sure who that anyone is when armed men come knocking at the door at midnight or wave traffic to a stop. Iraq is awash in foreign and domestic security companies; insurgent movements; religious militias of tens of thousands of men representing themselves as "people's armies" or as bodyguard details; armed wings of political parties; army, police and paramilitary groups; and criminal gangs posing as all of them.
The criminal gangs kidnap, rob and kill, but so do many of the others.
The inability to tell who the real police are is such that in March, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr mocked the gullibility of a group of Iraqi private security workers who believed they were under arrest by legitimate policemen when men wearing police uniforms, driving police vehicles and carrying standard-issue police pistols led them away from their office in broad daylight. The Interior Ministry, which oversees the police, adamantly denied taking the men. Most of them have not been seen since.
"People in camouflage uniforms took them like sheep," Jabr said contemptuously. "If they cannot defend themselves, who can?"
The confusion led to a ministry initiative this spring to put all its forces in a single, hard-to-copy uniform. Ministry officials said recently that uniforms would now be issued in June.
The ministry also changed the name of its paramilitary and police forces, grouping commando and public order brigades under the single designation of national police.
The police forces are dominated by the Shiite parties that lead Iraq's government and are widely believed to be infiltrated by the parties' militias. To the Sunni Arab minority, units with such names as the Wolf Brigade have become synonymous with roundups, detention, torture and killing. Jabr recently confirmed that there were death squads operating within the Interior Ministry police forces but insisted that their numbers were few.
Interior Ministry officials have insisted that impostors in purloined uniforms are carrying out many of the crimes.
"It's a lot of lies that ruin the reputation of the commandos," said Gen. Rashid Flaih Mohammed, commander of an elite force trained with U.S. backing to take a lead role in fighting the insurgency.
"This uniform, anyone can buy it and wear it," the general said in an interview in his office earlier this year. "We are going to choose a uniform that is special to us and number our badges. No one can wear our uniform or have our vehicles. We will not allow it."
Iraqis say it will take more than a change of name and costume to clean up the police.
"It was the Iraqi police," one Iraqi man said, quoting an 11-year-old boy's description of highway robbers who shot the boy six times and killed his father and a family friend in front of him.
The gunmen had flagged down the family's car, forced the men and boy to lie on the ground, shot them, then ransacked the vehicle for cash, the boy said.
The killers, the boy said, wore blue police uniforms, drove a white-and-blue police pickup truck and shot them with police pistols. The Washington Post agreed not to further identify the people involved to protect them.
Similar descriptions are given regularly by witnesses to crimes, including the checkpoint abduction this month of two Iraqi journalists whose corpses were found shortly after.
Whether the killers are police or impostors, the government is responsible, a Sunni political leader said.
"We are concerned about the state of lawlessness," said Tarik al-Hashemi, a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group. "This whole phenomenon is a result of chaos and confusion inside the government."
Special correspondents Naseer Nouri and K.I. Ibrahim contributed to this report.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Questions on NSA Abound
How -- or whether -- former director and CIA nominee Michael Hayden answers them will help determine his future, lawmakers say.
By Josh Meyer
Times Staff Writer
May 15, 2006
WASHINGTON — Top lawmakers from both parties said Sunday that the nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden as CIA director would hinge on his explanations of a controversial domestic spying program he oversaw as head of the National Security Agency. (HINGE. NO OTHER QUALIFICATIONS MATTER? GET ****ING REAL)
Hayden is scheduled to testify Thursday publicly and privately before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The lawmakers indicated that they would pull no punches.
"There's no question that his confirmation is going to depend upon the answers he gives regarding activities of NSA," Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a member of the intelligence panel, said on ABC's "This Week." (OOOO CHUCK, YOU'RE AN ANIMAL)
Hayden led the NSA from 1999 until he was tapped in April 2005 to be principal deputy director of national intelligence. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence opened last year to oversee the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
The White House has acknowledged that after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush instructed the NSA to intercept some e-mails and telephone calls — those into and out of the U.S. involving suspected terrorist affiliates — without warrants from a special intelligence court. (SOUNDS LIKE A BIG PROBLEM)
Several lawmakers said Sunday that their concerns about the legality of that program heightened significantly when USA Today reported last week that the NSA had built a database of millions of people's domestic calling records handed over by AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. (WAIT, I THOUGHT THEY WERE LISTENING INTO CALLS. BUT ITS JUST GENERIC PHONE RECORDS?)
The NSA and the White House have refused to discuss the specifics of that report, but President Bush's national security advisor, Stephen J. Hadley, appeared to confirm the broad outlines of such an NSA database.
He told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the USA Today report "does not claim that the government was listening to domestic phone calls. It does not claim that names were passed, that addresses were passed, that content was passed. It's really about calling records … who was called when, and how long did they talk?"
Hadley said appropriate members of Congress had been fully briefed, and he described such programs as lawful and necessary to protect the United States from terrorism. He repeatedly refused to discuss details of NSA actions. (YOU MEAN THE CLASSIFIED DETAILS? WELL WHAT A BIG SURPRISE)
"What I can say is that the intelligence activities we have conducted against Al Qaeda — lawfully briefed to the Congress, narrowly focused on the war on terror — has prevented attacks and saved lives," Hadley told CNN's "Late Edition."
Hayden has privately briefed "designated" members of the Senate and House intelligence committees about what the White House calls the terrorist surveillance program, Hadley said.
But several lawmakers — including one briefed by Hayden — took issue with Hadley's remarks, saying that the program appeared to be illegal and that not enough members of Congress were consulted. (APPEARED. NOT ENOUGH WHICH MEANS I WAS NOT BRIEFED. GET A ****ING CLUE)
"I didn't like the claims of Stephen Hadley," said Rep. Jane Harman of Venice, who as top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was briefed by Hayden. (THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS JANE. GOOD BYE)
"I think the administration is breaking the law. Its legal rationale that it offers I think is extremely shaky….
"This is a lawless White House, out of control with respect to a program like this," she told CBS. (LAWLESS? WHICH LAW DID THEY BREAK JANE?)
As for the NSA's reported collection of telephone companies' records, "I think it probably does" violate telecommunications and privacy statutes, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told ABC.
"We just don't know what they're doing," Biden said.
Biden also confirmed a report in Sunday's New York Times that Vice President Dick Cheney had wanted the NSA to conduct more domestic spying after Sept. 11 — including warrantless eavesdropping on purely domestic phone calls — and that Hayden successfully resisted. (THAT DOESN'T FIT WITH THE OUT OF CONTROL WHITE HOUSE DOES IT ? JANE?? JANE??)
"So, with [Hayden] personally, it appears as though the stories I've heard is he has pushed back. That is positive," Biden said. "Now, what he's pushing forward, that's another question. We have to know that." (STORIES YOU HAVE HEARD? WHAT IS THIS RUMOR DECIDING POLICY?)
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told CBS he would sharply question the telephone executives in hearings on the records-gathering program. "They can't claim executive privilege, so we may get some answers from the telephone companies," he said. "It would be a pleasant change." (OOOOO)
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, recently had back surgery and could not be reached for comment Sunday. Spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Rockefeller would be monitoring Hayden's confirmation hearings closely, paying particular attention to questions about the emerging role of the military in U.S. intelligence efforts, Hayden's plans to get the CIA back on track, and the general's response to ongoing concerns of "insufficient congressional oversight of NSA programs."
*
Times staff writer Tom Hamburger contributed to this report.
How -- or whether -- former director and CIA nominee Michael Hayden answers them will help determine his future, lawmakers say.
By Josh Meyer
Times Staff Writer
May 15, 2006
WASHINGTON — Top lawmakers from both parties said Sunday that the nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden as CIA director would hinge on his explanations of a controversial domestic spying program he oversaw as head of the National Security Agency. (HINGE. NO OTHER QUALIFICATIONS MATTER? GET ****ING REAL)
Hayden is scheduled to testify Thursday publicly and privately before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The lawmakers indicated that they would pull no punches.
"There's no question that his confirmation is going to depend upon the answers he gives regarding activities of NSA," Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a member of the intelligence panel, said on ABC's "This Week." (OOOO CHUCK, YOU'RE AN ANIMAL)
Hayden led the NSA from 1999 until he was tapped in April 2005 to be principal deputy director of national intelligence. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence opened last year to oversee the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
The White House has acknowledged that after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush instructed the NSA to intercept some e-mails and telephone calls — those into and out of the U.S. involving suspected terrorist affiliates — without warrants from a special intelligence court. (SOUNDS LIKE A BIG PROBLEM)
Several lawmakers said Sunday that their concerns about the legality of that program heightened significantly when USA Today reported last week that the NSA had built a database of millions of people's domestic calling records handed over by AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. (WAIT, I THOUGHT THEY WERE LISTENING INTO CALLS. BUT ITS JUST GENERIC PHONE RECORDS?)
The NSA and the White House have refused to discuss the specifics of that report, but President Bush's national security advisor, Stephen J. Hadley, appeared to confirm the broad outlines of such an NSA database.
He told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the USA Today report "does not claim that the government was listening to domestic phone calls. It does not claim that names were passed, that addresses were passed, that content was passed. It's really about calling records … who was called when, and how long did they talk?"
Hadley said appropriate members of Congress had been fully briefed, and he described such programs as lawful and necessary to protect the United States from terrorism. He repeatedly refused to discuss details of NSA actions. (YOU MEAN THE CLASSIFIED DETAILS? WELL WHAT A BIG SURPRISE)
"What I can say is that the intelligence activities we have conducted against Al Qaeda — lawfully briefed to the Congress, narrowly focused on the war on terror — has prevented attacks and saved lives," Hadley told CNN's "Late Edition."
Hayden has privately briefed "designated" members of the Senate and House intelligence committees about what the White House calls the terrorist surveillance program, Hadley said.
But several lawmakers — including one briefed by Hayden — took issue with Hadley's remarks, saying that the program appeared to be illegal and that not enough members of Congress were consulted. (APPEARED. NOT ENOUGH WHICH MEANS I WAS NOT BRIEFED. GET A ****ING CLUE)
"I didn't like the claims of Stephen Hadley," said Rep. Jane Harman of Venice, who as top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee was briefed by Hayden. (THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS JANE. GOOD BYE)
"I think the administration is breaking the law. Its legal rationale that it offers I think is extremely shaky….
"This is a lawless White House, out of control with respect to a program like this," she told CBS. (LAWLESS? WHICH LAW DID THEY BREAK JANE?)
As for the NSA's reported collection of telephone companies' records, "I think it probably does" violate telecommunications and privacy statutes, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told ABC.
"We just don't know what they're doing," Biden said.
Biden also confirmed a report in Sunday's New York Times that Vice President Dick Cheney had wanted the NSA to conduct more domestic spying after Sept. 11 — including warrantless eavesdropping on purely domestic phone calls — and that Hayden successfully resisted. (THAT DOESN'T FIT WITH THE OUT OF CONTROL WHITE HOUSE DOES IT ? JANE?? JANE??)
"So, with [Hayden] personally, it appears as though the stories I've heard is he has pushed back. That is positive," Biden said. "Now, what he's pushing forward, that's another question. We have to know that." (STORIES YOU HAVE HEARD? WHAT IS THIS RUMOR DECIDING POLICY?)
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told CBS he would sharply question the telephone executives in hearings on the records-gathering program. "They can't claim executive privilege, so we may get some answers from the telephone companies," he said. "It would be a pleasant change." (OOOOO)
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, recently had back surgery and could not be reached for comment Sunday. Spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Rockefeller would be monitoring Hayden's confirmation hearings closely, paying particular attention to questions about the emerging role of the military in U.S. intelligence efforts, Hayden's plans to get the CIA back on track, and the general's response to ongoing concerns of "insufficient congressional oversight of NSA programs."
*
Times staff writer Tom Hamburger contributed to this report.
Iraqi Lawmakers Appear to Be Mired in Minutiae
By James Rainey
Times Staff Writer
May 15, 2006
BAGHDAD — One lawmaker found the syntax of the new bylaws somehow wanting. He looked vainly around Iraq's assembly chambers for a grammarian. Another insisted Sunday that the ground rules being written for Iraq's elected officials must dub them "representatives," not merely "members" of parliament. Why, asked a third fledgling legislator, didn't their proposed bylaws make it clear they held supreme authority over government spending, as well?
A half-hour debate sputtered along without a vote or much clear direction. One article completed, almost. One hundred fifty-one to go. At this pace, groaned one lawmaker, it would take two months for the new parliament just to write the rules for its own internal operations.
That might be viewed as official dithering even in a stable nation, much less a tormented state like Iraq, where violence surged again Sunday with the deaths of at least 25 Iraqis and four soldiers from the U.S.-led forces, and where political observers are growing increasingly restive about the slow progress toward forming a coalition government.
"I feel defeated," said Ismael Zayer, editor of the daily newspaper Al Sabah al Jadid, after watching on TV as the legislators made no apparent progress. "I lost 25 years of my life fighting for democracy and being in prison and being away from my kids. And everything was for nothing." (EASY ON THE HYPERBOLE)
Prime Minister-designate Nouri Maliki has a May 22 deadline to pick a Cabinet. He had hoped that task would be over by now, with the parliament members spending Sunday beginning to review his choices.
Instead, a settlement has been elusive because of bickering among now-dominant Shiite Muslims, Sunni Arabs and ethnic Kurds, as well as fighting within each of those groups. Maliki is reported to be considering the possibility of naming his government without including choices for the crucial ministries that control the army, police and foreign service. Those posts would be filled later.
The Bush administration and some leaders here have high hopes that they can begin to reduce the bloodshed once a permanent government is in place. But, on a sweltering Sunday, lawmakers were left to argue over rules of order and how to conduct their debate, as speaker Mahmoud Mashadani urged them to move more quickly.
"You're killing us. You're killing us," Mashadani quipped at one point. "Do you know how many times you have asked to talk today?"
Although the target of the remark was unclear, a young Shiite cleric insisted in a soprano voice: "We have the right to object!"
Abbas Bayati of the main Shiite coalition said that even the "mechanism for holding the discussions is unclear," as Iraqis learn to govern themselves after more than three decades of totalitarian rule by Saddam Hussein, who was ousted in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. "It's unclear what we are supposed to do," Bayati said.
Fuad Masoom of the Kurdish alliance said the halting progress should not be surprising.
"Members of the assembly are so limited in experience, with no previous parliamentary work, that they tend to discuss every little thing," Masoom said. "They need more time to practice working as a legislature."
Several lawmakers said they were trying only to be meticulous about rules they and future assemblies would have to live with. They agreed to take two more days to consider the bylaws and to deliver suggested improvements to a committee assigned to draw up the rules.
As he strolled out of the convention hall in Baghdad's Green Zone where the parliament meets, Sheik Jamal Batikh of former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's secular slate said, "We'll just take two more days to work it out."
Many Iraqis, however, have grown impatient.
"Every Iraqi who was watching this would realize that it had nothing to do with what was happening outside" the parliament, said Hazem Shammari, a political science professor at University of Baghdad. "We're realizing that the political powers from the left wing to the right wing are in one valley and the Iraqis are in another valley."
A cartoon in the independent Addustour newspaper reflected the resentment toward an isolated political elite. It showed a citizen chasing after a politician and asking, "Why don't they expand the Green Zone so people can live safely?" (THAT'S GREAT; A FREE PRESS)
Another cartoon, in the pan-Arab Asharq al Awsat, depicted a life preserver as a symbol of the new Iraqi government. But the buoy was being delivered to drowning Iraq by a snail.
When the session began Sunday, the entire set of parliament's rules was to be read to the legislators.
But an hour into the reading, one lawmaker objected that the tradition of reading legislation came from old English practices. "And most of them were not very educated back then, so it had to be read to them," he said. "But here, we have college degrees and even postgraduate degrees."
A quick show of hands indicated that most in the room agreed and wanted to stop the laborious reading.
Taking the articles one by one wasn't exactly a time saver, though. Rule No. 1 states that the parliament is Iraq's highest legislative authority. But the assembly members found reason to discuss the simple statement for 30 minutes. (WHAT IS WRONG WITH DEBATE INSTEAD OF A GUN FIGHT?)
Some urged the group to move quickly, while others argued the rules would be the important framework for all future debates.
Sheik Jalaluddin Saghir, the Shiite cleric who heads the giant Bratha Mosque in Baghdad, urged his fellow legislators to "discuss each word very carefully, word by word, because the next assembly will have to live with what we decide."
After a break, the group agreed that the debate was not helping and decided to send recommended amendments for the bylaws to a committee.
"If there is a major discussion let's have it, but let's not discuss every little thought that pops into someone's head," said secular Shiite Hussein Shahristani, a nuclear scientist. "We have other major duties besides the bylaws, like the constitution and considering a government."
The assembly's business is viewed as urgent from the White House to the streets of Baghdad, where observers are hoping a new government can begin to stabilize security. For now, though, sectarian killings and attacks on foreign forces continue unabated. (IF ONE KILLING MEANS IT CONTINUES UNABATED, OK. BUT TRY AND GET SOME PERSPECTIVE.)
At least two Iraqis died when a pair of suicide bombers drove into a parking lot near the Baghdad airport, where civilians and a convoy of Iraqi police had gathered. (2 DIED AFTER 2 SUICIDE BOMBINGS? BIG INSURGENT VICTORY HUH TIMES?)
At least 16 others were injured in the attack, at a spot where many travelers leave airport transportation and hop rides into the city. The U.S. military initially reported that 14 had died in the area, also an entrance to the base where the Americans are headquartered.
An additional 10 Iraqis, including three policemen, died and several more were wounded in two other bomb attacks in the capital.
Two American soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in east Baghdad on Sunday night, and two British soldiers died earlier in the day in a similar attack in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. Another roadside bomb targeted a convoy in Adhaim, 70 miles north of Baghdad, killing two bodyguards of Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who was not present when the attack occurred. And in Mosul, a car bomb targeting an American patrol instead killed two Iraqis and injured nine others, authorities said.
Bodies also continued to turn up. In the capital's Sadr City neighborhood, four corpses were found near a hospital. Authorities in the southern city of Karbala discovered five bodies blindfolded and dead of gunshot wounds, like many recent victims here.
Authorities said they were concerned that bombings late Saturday at five Shiite shrines east of Baqubah could further inflame the sectarian strife driving much of the violence. No one was killed in the attacks, but damage was heavy.
Editor Zayer weighed the violence against the lethargic pace of political progress, five months after Iraqis voted for their representatives.
"Who will care for the orphans and widows?" he asked. "I was shocked and angry [watching the parliament]. We expect them to speed up and catch up with the times."
*
Times staff writer Borzou Daragahi in Baghdad contributed to this report.
By James Rainey
Times Staff Writer
May 15, 2006
BAGHDAD — One lawmaker found the syntax of the new bylaws somehow wanting. He looked vainly around Iraq's assembly chambers for a grammarian. Another insisted Sunday that the ground rules being written for Iraq's elected officials must dub them "representatives," not merely "members" of parliament. Why, asked a third fledgling legislator, didn't their proposed bylaws make it clear they held supreme authority over government spending, as well?
A half-hour debate sputtered along without a vote or much clear direction. One article completed, almost. One hundred fifty-one to go. At this pace, groaned one lawmaker, it would take two months for the new parliament just to write the rules for its own internal operations.
That might be viewed as official dithering even in a stable nation, much less a tormented state like Iraq, where violence surged again Sunday with the deaths of at least 25 Iraqis and four soldiers from the U.S.-led forces, and where political observers are growing increasingly restive about the slow progress toward forming a coalition government.
"I feel defeated," said Ismael Zayer, editor of the daily newspaper Al Sabah al Jadid, after watching on TV as the legislators made no apparent progress. "I lost 25 years of my life fighting for democracy and being in prison and being away from my kids. And everything was for nothing." (EASY ON THE HYPERBOLE)
Prime Minister-designate Nouri Maliki has a May 22 deadline to pick a Cabinet. He had hoped that task would be over by now, with the parliament members spending Sunday beginning to review his choices.
Instead, a settlement has been elusive because of bickering among now-dominant Shiite Muslims, Sunni Arabs and ethnic Kurds, as well as fighting within each of those groups. Maliki is reported to be considering the possibility of naming his government without including choices for the crucial ministries that control the army, police and foreign service. Those posts would be filled later.
The Bush administration and some leaders here have high hopes that they can begin to reduce the bloodshed once a permanent government is in place. But, on a sweltering Sunday, lawmakers were left to argue over rules of order and how to conduct their debate, as speaker Mahmoud Mashadani urged them to move more quickly.
"You're killing us. You're killing us," Mashadani quipped at one point. "Do you know how many times you have asked to talk today?"
Although the target of the remark was unclear, a young Shiite cleric insisted in a soprano voice: "We have the right to object!"
Abbas Bayati of the main Shiite coalition said that even the "mechanism for holding the discussions is unclear," as Iraqis learn to govern themselves after more than three decades of totalitarian rule by Saddam Hussein, who was ousted in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. "It's unclear what we are supposed to do," Bayati said.
Fuad Masoom of the Kurdish alliance said the halting progress should not be surprising.
"Members of the assembly are so limited in experience, with no previous parliamentary work, that they tend to discuss every little thing," Masoom said. "They need more time to practice working as a legislature."
Several lawmakers said they were trying only to be meticulous about rules they and future assemblies would have to live with. They agreed to take two more days to consider the bylaws and to deliver suggested improvements to a committee assigned to draw up the rules.
As he strolled out of the convention hall in Baghdad's Green Zone where the parliament meets, Sheik Jamal Batikh of former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's secular slate said, "We'll just take two more days to work it out."
Many Iraqis, however, have grown impatient.
"Every Iraqi who was watching this would realize that it had nothing to do with what was happening outside" the parliament, said Hazem Shammari, a political science professor at University of Baghdad. "We're realizing that the political powers from the left wing to the right wing are in one valley and the Iraqis are in another valley."
A cartoon in the independent Addustour newspaper reflected the resentment toward an isolated political elite. It showed a citizen chasing after a politician and asking, "Why don't they expand the Green Zone so people can live safely?" (THAT'S GREAT; A FREE PRESS)
Another cartoon, in the pan-Arab Asharq al Awsat, depicted a life preserver as a symbol of the new Iraqi government. But the buoy was being delivered to drowning Iraq by a snail.
When the session began Sunday, the entire set of parliament's rules was to be read to the legislators.
But an hour into the reading, one lawmaker objected that the tradition of reading legislation came from old English practices. "And most of them were not very educated back then, so it had to be read to them," he said. "But here, we have college degrees and even postgraduate degrees."
A quick show of hands indicated that most in the room agreed and wanted to stop the laborious reading.
Taking the articles one by one wasn't exactly a time saver, though. Rule No. 1 states that the parliament is Iraq's highest legislative authority. But the assembly members found reason to discuss the simple statement for 30 minutes. (WHAT IS WRONG WITH DEBATE INSTEAD OF A GUN FIGHT?)
Some urged the group to move quickly, while others argued the rules would be the important framework for all future debates.
Sheik Jalaluddin Saghir, the Shiite cleric who heads the giant Bratha Mosque in Baghdad, urged his fellow legislators to "discuss each word very carefully, word by word, because the next assembly will have to live with what we decide."
After a break, the group agreed that the debate was not helping and decided to send recommended amendments for the bylaws to a committee.
"If there is a major discussion let's have it, but let's not discuss every little thought that pops into someone's head," said secular Shiite Hussein Shahristani, a nuclear scientist. "We have other major duties besides the bylaws, like the constitution and considering a government."
The assembly's business is viewed as urgent from the White House to the streets of Baghdad, where observers are hoping a new government can begin to stabilize security. For now, though, sectarian killings and attacks on foreign forces continue unabated. (IF ONE KILLING MEANS IT CONTINUES UNABATED, OK. BUT TRY AND GET SOME PERSPECTIVE.)
At least two Iraqis died when a pair of suicide bombers drove into a parking lot near the Baghdad airport, where civilians and a convoy of Iraqi police had gathered. (2 DIED AFTER 2 SUICIDE BOMBINGS? BIG INSURGENT VICTORY HUH TIMES?)
At least 16 others were injured in the attack, at a spot where many travelers leave airport transportation and hop rides into the city. The U.S. military initially reported that 14 had died in the area, also an entrance to the base where the Americans are headquartered.
An additional 10 Iraqis, including three policemen, died and several more were wounded in two other bomb attacks in the capital.
Two American soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in east Baghdad on Sunday night, and two British soldiers died earlier in the day in a similar attack in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. Another roadside bomb targeted a convoy in Adhaim, 70 miles north of Baghdad, killing two bodyguards of Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who was not present when the attack occurred. And in Mosul, a car bomb targeting an American patrol instead killed two Iraqis and injured nine others, authorities said.
Bodies also continued to turn up. In the capital's Sadr City neighborhood, four corpses were found near a hospital. Authorities in the southern city of Karbala discovered five bodies blindfolded and dead of gunshot wounds, like many recent victims here.
Authorities said they were concerned that bombings late Saturday at five Shiite shrines east of Baqubah could further inflame the sectarian strife driving much of the violence. No one was killed in the attacks, but damage was heavy.
Editor Zayer weighed the violence against the lethargic pace of political progress, five months after Iraqis voted for their representatives.
"Who will care for the orphans and widows?" he asked. "I was shocked and angry [watching the parliament]. We expect them to speed up and catch up with the times."
*
Times staff writer Borzou Daragahi in Baghdad contributed to this report.
Concern for the criminal has hijacked the justice system
By Janet Daley
(Filed: 15/05/2006)
So we get rid of the Human Rights Act and all our problems are solved.
Foreign criminals will be deported, probation officers will actually supervise the offenders under their "supervision", hijackers who terrorise plane-loads of passengers will be refused asylum, the police will turn up when you call them, and conscientious volunteer constables will not be murdered on their doorsteps.
In short, the criminal justice system - which exists to protect the law-abiding from the criminal - will be instantly restored to its proper function.
Why do I not believe this? Infuriating as it is to hear this pestilential, platitudinous, ambiguous piece of legislation being cited as grounds for one outrage after another, I am at one with the human rights lobbyists who claim that the Act is being used by politicians as a "target for tough talk".
Absolutely right. The problem is far, far bigger than this one law, which is, in fact, not so much a law as a statement of principle intended to govern the enforcement of all other laws: a way of introducing a written constitution by the backdoor.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, gave the game away when he said that he might institute a programme of "education and training" to ensure that officials and courts did not interpret the Act in ways that put public safety at risk.
In other words, to stop them interpreting it in ways that were perverse, bizarrely officious and quite unlike anything that other European countries would regard as appropriate.
What all the politicians who are banging on about abolishing, or reforming, or amending, or clarifying the Act know is that what has actually gone wrong with law enforcement in Britain is of almost ungraspable proportions: a cosmic shift of philosophical perspective in which the prevailing wisdom turns the logic of criminal justice on its head.
When Lord Falconer hints that it is the "human rights culture" in which the Act is applied that is the problem, this is what he means: that somehow, we have reached a point where the secondary function of the system - to have regard for the welfare of the offender - has displaced the primary one to protect the blameless citizen.
Public opinion may be roused to fury over what seem to be the consequences of one Act (especially as its assumptions are imported and apparently alien to our traditions), but ordinary people know in their hearts that there was something deeply awry long before 1998, when the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into British law.
The set of moral certainties that used to underpin the common-sense notion of justice about criminal guilt and individual responsibility has been subtly but pervasively replaced by the notion of the criminal as the true victim of social forces beyond his control.
Criminality - and especially the delinquency of the young - has been turned into a form of class war in which the deprived flail about in desperate, nihilistic retaliation against the smug, property-owning, "respectable" society from which they are excluded.
What law-abiding people sense when they complain that the rights of criminals are taking precedence over their own is that compassion for the offender, and the determination to protect him from a fate that would confirm him in his alienation, has ceased to be a subsidiary aim of the justice system; it has become the whole point.
And, of course, it is true that the histories of many (but not all) serious offenders are pitiable: drug-addicted mothers, abusive stepfathers, abandonment to a succession of "care" institutions.
Certainly any conscientious society needs to mitigate the popular demand for simple vengeance against the unfortunate. But what we are seeing now goes way beyond that.
Concern about the causes of criminality has become a vast, systemic excuse for scarcely bothering to protect the public at all. So deeply confused has debate about moral priorities become that any voice crying out for what used to be considered common sense is attacked for being benighted.
The Government, deeply implicated in the human rights culture, blames the probation service and immigration officials for incompetence and (that egregious contemporary sin) failure to communicate, and hangs its Home Secretary out to dry.
The Opposition, frantically determined to ally itself with "humane" opinion, blames the Government for mismanagement and maladministration - and it joins the chorus demanding the repeal of that bit of rhetorical flim-flam, the Human Rights Act.
None of them dares to take on the orthodoxy. No mainstream party will say what the public needs to hear to restore its trust in the system: that if the words "guilt" and "responsibility" are to mean anything - and in a democracy under law, they must have real meaning and force - then criminals, whatever their life stories may be, have to be assumed to have acted in free will.
Out of human decency, we must do what we can to redeem them, but that is a separate matter from the enforcement of law, and should be dealt with by quite separate agencies.
Above all, we must decide when an individual has forfeited some of his rights: seizing an aeroplane at gunpoint could, surely, be construed as absolving the host nation from fastidious attention to your civil liberties.
And, in the meantime, the mythology of class war between what might be called the complacent and the disruptive elements in society goes on unchallenged - even though it is really the poor who are the most likely to be victims of crime, and the residents of the most deprived inner city ghettos whose lives are made unbearable by epidemic anti-social behaviour.
This is the political pitch (forgive the cynicism, this is how we have all learnt to think now) that the Conservatives are missing. There is a perfectly compassionate, concerned message that David Cameron could be offering on criminal justice.
He could be saying that the people who are really being let down by the failures of the system are the least well-off, the most helpless and vulnerable, in our society.
It is the elderly who are imprisoned in their homes by roving armies of barely-pubescent thugs, the council tenants who are routinely burgled by their neighbours, and those (once known as the respectable working class) who try, against the odds, to live decent lives.
When I met William Bratton, the legendary police commissioner who transformed New York's urban badlands, he told me that his proudest achievement was to have restored ordinary nightlife to Harlem.
Where residents had once hidden behind barricaded doors after dark, there were now restaurants and nightclubs, and a vibrant community culture that dared to surface in the evening. I found that extraordinarily moving.
By Janet Daley
(Filed: 15/05/2006)
So we get rid of the Human Rights Act and all our problems are solved.
Foreign criminals will be deported, probation officers will actually supervise the offenders under their "supervision", hijackers who terrorise plane-loads of passengers will be refused asylum, the police will turn up when you call them, and conscientious volunteer constables will not be murdered on their doorsteps.
In short, the criminal justice system - which exists to protect the law-abiding from the criminal - will be instantly restored to its proper function.
Why do I not believe this? Infuriating as it is to hear this pestilential, platitudinous, ambiguous piece of legislation being cited as grounds for one outrage after another, I am at one with the human rights lobbyists who claim that the Act is being used by politicians as a "target for tough talk".
Absolutely right. The problem is far, far bigger than this one law, which is, in fact, not so much a law as a statement of principle intended to govern the enforcement of all other laws: a way of introducing a written constitution by the backdoor.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, gave the game away when he said that he might institute a programme of "education and training" to ensure that officials and courts did not interpret the Act in ways that put public safety at risk.
In other words, to stop them interpreting it in ways that were perverse, bizarrely officious and quite unlike anything that other European countries would regard as appropriate.
What all the politicians who are banging on about abolishing, or reforming, or amending, or clarifying the Act know is that what has actually gone wrong with law enforcement in Britain is of almost ungraspable proportions: a cosmic shift of philosophical perspective in which the prevailing wisdom turns the logic of criminal justice on its head.
When Lord Falconer hints that it is the "human rights culture" in which the Act is applied that is the problem, this is what he means: that somehow, we have reached a point where the secondary function of the system - to have regard for the welfare of the offender - has displaced the primary one to protect the blameless citizen.
Public opinion may be roused to fury over what seem to be the consequences of one Act (especially as its assumptions are imported and apparently alien to our traditions), but ordinary people know in their hearts that there was something deeply awry long before 1998, when the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into British law.
The set of moral certainties that used to underpin the common-sense notion of justice about criminal guilt and individual responsibility has been subtly but pervasively replaced by the notion of the criminal as the true victim of social forces beyond his control.
Criminality - and especially the delinquency of the young - has been turned into a form of class war in which the deprived flail about in desperate, nihilistic retaliation against the smug, property-owning, "respectable" society from which they are excluded.
What law-abiding people sense when they complain that the rights of criminals are taking precedence over their own is that compassion for the offender, and the determination to protect him from a fate that would confirm him in his alienation, has ceased to be a subsidiary aim of the justice system; it has become the whole point.
And, of course, it is true that the histories of many (but not all) serious offenders are pitiable: drug-addicted mothers, abusive stepfathers, abandonment to a succession of "care" institutions.
Certainly any conscientious society needs to mitigate the popular demand for simple vengeance against the unfortunate. But what we are seeing now goes way beyond that.
Concern about the causes of criminality has become a vast, systemic excuse for scarcely bothering to protect the public at all. So deeply confused has debate about moral priorities become that any voice crying out for what used to be considered common sense is attacked for being benighted.
The Government, deeply implicated in the human rights culture, blames the probation service and immigration officials for incompetence and (that egregious contemporary sin) failure to communicate, and hangs its Home Secretary out to dry.
The Opposition, frantically determined to ally itself with "humane" opinion, blames the Government for mismanagement and maladministration - and it joins the chorus demanding the repeal of that bit of rhetorical flim-flam, the Human Rights Act.
None of them dares to take on the orthodoxy. No mainstream party will say what the public needs to hear to restore its trust in the system: that if the words "guilt" and "responsibility" are to mean anything - and in a democracy under law, they must have real meaning and force - then criminals, whatever their life stories may be, have to be assumed to have acted in free will.
Out of human decency, we must do what we can to redeem them, but that is a separate matter from the enforcement of law, and should be dealt with by quite separate agencies.
Above all, we must decide when an individual has forfeited some of his rights: seizing an aeroplane at gunpoint could, surely, be construed as absolving the host nation from fastidious attention to your civil liberties.
And, in the meantime, the mythology of class war between what might be called the complacent and the disruptive elements in society goes on unchallenged - even though it is really the poor who are the most likely to be victims of crime, and the residents of the most deprived inner city ghettos whose lives are made unbearable by epidemic anti-social behaviour.
This is the political pitch (forgive the cynicism, this is how we have all learnt to think now) that the Conservatives are missing. There is a perfectly compassionate, concerned message that David Cameron could be offering on criminal justice.
He could be saying that the people who are really being let down by the failures of the system are the least well-off, the most helpless and vulnerable, in our society.
It is the elderly who are imprisoned in their homes by roving armies of barely-pubescent thugs, the council tenants who are routinely burgled by their neighbours, and those (once known as the respectable working class) who try, against the odds, to live decent lives.
When I met William Bratton, the legendary police commissioner who transformed New York's urban badlands, he told me that his proudest achievement was to have restored ordinary nightlife to Harlem.
Where residents had once hidden behind barricaded doors after dark, there were now restaurants and nightclubs, and a vibrant community culture that dared to surface in the evening. I found that extraordinarily moving.
Markets braced for the worst
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 15/05/2006)
Global markets are bracing for turmoil today after an ominous slide in the US dollar and a slump in equity and bond prices late last week sent tremors through the global financial system, evoking memories of the 1987 crash.
Emerging economies have led the sell-off as investors recoil from risky assets, pummelling stocks and bonds in Turkey, Hungary, Iceland and much of Latin America.
The currencies of Brazil, Mexico and South Africa all suffered their sharpest falls in two years as foreign funds rushed for the exits.
In New York, the Dow Jones industrial index fell 262 points over Thursday and Friday to 11381, setting off contagion in Japan and Europe. The FTSE 100 had its worst drop in three years on Friday, falling 129.9 points, or 2.2pc, to 5912.1.
Analysts said there were now clear signs that monetary tightening by the world's central banks was starting to crimp growth. Lombard Street Research warned the US was now heading into outright recession, with China also facing a hard landing.
"Stock markets in the middle of 2006 are confronting a tight Federal Reserve and European Central Bank, sharply higher bond yields, and a downswing in potential profits," it said.
It raised the risk of "an impending financial crisis" caused by excess credit and leverage across the global economy. The group advised investors to liquidate stocks and move into cash yen until the storm has blown over.
The dollar has slumped 6pc against the euro and 8pc against the yen this year as the markets anticipate an end to interest-rate rises by the US Federal Reserve, switching attention back to America's debt mountain and current account deficit of 7pc of GDP.
Volkmar Hable, chairman of Samarium Technology, said the world was now on the brink of a dollar crisis.
"The crash in the autumn of 1987 started with a massive dollar and bond decline in the spring. We are experiencing exactly the same now," he said.
Ominously, bonds are no longer viewed as a safe haven, a sign of fear that inflation is gaining a foothold in the major economies.
Interest rates on 10-year Treasury bonds have jumped from 4.36pc to 5.19pc since February, in part because Asian investors are demanding a higher premium for holding risky dollar investments. The 10-year bond is the benchmark for economic activity in the US, setting corporate borrowing rates and the cost of most mortgages.
The bond slide is exacting a toll on the US property market, where the price of new homes has fallen for five consecutive months. A half-year inventory of unsold houses now hangs over the market.
Goldman Sachs, however, is sticking to its optimistic forecast, banking on a seamless "hand-over" from a slowing US economy to a re-awakening Europe and Japan, while China will continue to be an engine of global growth. The IMF is also bullish, forecasting roaring growth of 4.9pc in 2006, one of the highest rates in half a century.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 15/05/2006)
Global markets are bracing for turmoil today after an ominous slide in the US dollar and a slump in equity and bond prices late last week sent tremors through the global financial system, evoking memories of the 1987 crash.
Emerging economies have led the sell-off as investors recoil from risky assets, pummelling stocks and bonds in Turkey, Hungary, Iceland and much of Latin America.
The currencies of Brazil, Mexico and South Africa all suffered their sharpest falls in two years as foreign funds rushed for the exits.
In New York, the Dow Jones industrial index fell 262 points over Thursday and Friday to 11381, setting off contagion in Japan and Europe. The FTSE 100 had its worst drop in three years on Friday, falling 129.9 points, or 2.2pc, to 5912.1.
Analysts said there were now clear signs that monetary tightening by the world's central banks was starting to crimp growth. Lombard Street Research warned the US was now heading into outright recession, with China also facing a hard landing.
"Stock markets in the middle of 2006 are confronting a tight Federal Reserve and European Central Bank, sharply higher bond yields, and a downswing in potential profits," it said.
It raised the risk of "an impending financial crisis" caused by excess credit and leverage across the global economy. The group advised investors to liquidate stocks and move into cash yen until the storm has blown over.
The dollar has slumped 6pc against the euro and 8pc against the yen this year as the markets anticipate an end to interest-rate rises by the US Federal Reserve, switching attention back to America's debt mountain and current account deficit of 7pc of GDP.
Volkmar Hable, chairman of Samarium Technology, said the world was now on the brink of a dollar crisis.
"The crash in the autumn of 1987 started with a massive dollar and bond decline in the spring. We are experiencing exactly the same now," he said.
Ominously, bonds are no longer viewed as a safe haven, a sign of fear that inflation is gaining a foothold in the major economies.
Interest rates on 10-year Treasury bonds have jumped from 4.36pc to 5.19pc since February, in part because Asian investors are demanding a higher premium for holding risky dollar investments. The 10-year bond is the benchmark for economic activity in the US, setting corporate borrowing rates and the cost of most mortgages.
The bond slide is exacting a toll on the US property market, where the price of new homes has fallen for five consecutive months. A half-year inventory of unsold houses now hangs over the market.
Goldman Sachs, however, is sticking to its optimistic forecast, banking on a seamless "hand-over" from a slowing US economy to a re-awakening Europe and Japan, while China will continue to be an engine of global growth. The IMF is also bullish, forecasting roaring growth of 4.9pc in 2006, one of the highest rates in half a century.
Captured Zarqawi Aide Spilled the Beans
June 09, 2006 11:08 AM
Alexis Debat Reports:
An Iraqi customs agent secretly working with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror cell spilled the beans on the group after he was arrested, Jordanian officials tell ABC News.
Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly was arrested by Jordanian intelligence forces last spring.
Officials say Karbouly confessed to his role in the terror cell and provided crucial information on the names of Zarqawi commanders and locations of their safe houses.
Karbouly also admitted to his role in the kidnappings of two Moroccan embassy employees, four Iraqi National Guards and an Iraqi finance ministry official.
In a videotaped confession, Karbouly said he acted on direct orders from Zarqawi.
Officials say he will not be eligible for any of the $25 million reward money.
As Brian Ross reported this morning, the super-secret Task Force 145 does deserve the recognition for Wednesday's capture.
By the time two American jet fighters were called in to drop their 500 pound bombs, General George Casey was certain Zarqawi was in the house, and there was no thought of trying to capture him alive.
"Because the only means that could be applied in a timely fashion was the attack by air power and that was decided by General Casey as the right thing to do," U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told ABC News.
The FBI on-line reward poster, offering a $25 million dollar bounty, today lists Zarqawi as deceased.
While Zarqawi's al Qaeda group has been decimated, it is only one of 14 major insurgent groups operating in Iraq.
"Different groups that operate independently and are not controlled by al Zarqawi, they don't need him, and they will continue their attacks in the long term," said Sajjan Gohel, an International Security Expert at the Asia-Pacific Foundation.
Authorities this morning are bracing for retaliatory attacks, and all vehicular traffic is banned in Baghdad and Baqubah, near the place where Zarqawi was finally tracked down.
June 09, 2006 11:08 AM
Alexis Debat Reports:
An Iraqi customs agent secretly working with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror cell spilled the beans on the group after he was arrested, Jordanian officials tell ABC News.
Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly was arrested by Jordanian intelligence forces last spring.
Officials say Karbouly confessed to his role in the terror cell and provided crucial information on the names of Zarqawi commanders and locations of their safe houses.
Karbouly also admitted to his role in the kidnappings of two Moroccan embassy employees, four Iraqi National Guards and an Iraqi finance ministry official.
In a videotaped confession, Karbouly said he acted on direct orders from Zarqawi.
Officials say he will not be eligible for any of the $25 million reward money.
As Brian Ross reported this morning, the super-secret Task Force 145 does deserve the recognition for Wednesday's capture.
By the time two American jet fighters were called in to drop their 500 pound bombs, General George Casey was certain Zarqawi was in the house, and there was no thought of trying to capture him alive.
"Because the only means that could be applied in a timely fashion was the attack by air power and that was decided by General Casey as the right thing to do," U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told ABC News.
The FBI on-line reward poster, offering a $25 million dollar bounty, today lists Zarqawi as deceased.
While Zarqawi's al Qaeda group has been decimated, it is only one of 14 major insurgent groups operating in Iraq.
"Different groups that operate independently and are not controlled by al Zarqawi, they don't need him, and they will continue their attacks in the long term," said Sajjan Gohel, an International Security Expert at the Asia-Pacific Foundation.
Authorities this morning are bracing for retaliatory attacks, and all vehicular traffic is banned in Baghdad and Baqubah, near the place where Zarqawi was finally tracked down.
Chinese Villagers Trade Plowshares for Film Scripts
By Don Lee
Times Staff Writer
May 15, 2006
HENGDIAN, China — Since farmer Wen Jide gave up his hoe, he has been a chancellor, a governor, even an emperor.
In the movies, that is.
When the 62-year-old lost his small plot to a developer a few years ago, he harnessed a nothing-to-lose attitude to win a role as an extra in a Ming Dynasty television drama being filmed near his home here. Wen had never acted before but drew on his experience in a singing and dance troupe in his village. He earned 50 yuan (about $6) for five hours' work.
He now works 20 days a month in minor roles. Wen made $700 last year, several times more than he earned farming rice and corn.
In Hengdian these days, it pays more to play a farmer than to be one. Like Wen, other villagers are trading in their plowshares for TV scripts or careers in the movies. They are among the thousands of starry-eyed people who have flocked here to chase dreams of emulating Jet Li, Jackie Chan and Ziyi Zhang.
Once-impoverished Hengdian is now hailed as the new Hollywood of the East. It has also become a top tourist destination. For $5, visitors — a la Universal Studios — can walk around some sets such as an ancient town with raging floodwaters.
Hengdian now boasts 13 movie lots — the largest film base in Asia — including a full-size replica of Beijing's Forbidden City, plus numerous shops and restaurants catering to the country's budding film industry. Many newcomers here are hoping to replicate the success of "Hero," the action-packed hit that was shot here and went to the top of North American box office charts.
The rise of Hengdian, a five-hour drive south from Shanghai, reflects China's emergence as both an important location and market for movies.
Some Chinese films have proved to have powerful commercial appeal in Asia and the West, thanks in part to new interest in China because of its economic and political ascent. The success of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," which grossed $213 million worldwide, is often cited as an example of the money-making potential of Chinese movies.
Such talk is spawning dreams of stardom here, enough probably to cause some Communist Party cadres to wonder: How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?
Wen's village, called Hengshan, is among several in Hengdian known as extra villages, because so many residents have quit plowing the land to take bit parts. Wen said about 40 people from Hengshan's 380 homes are working as full-time extras. Five people are making props and doing other carpentry work.
"Their income is better than ours, $7.50 a day including free lunch," Wen said. "Now there are more than 25 cars in our village."
*
Lower Costs
Set against lush mountains that surround this city of 100,000, Hengdian's lots have lured scores of domestic producers. They have recently begun to attract foreign filmmakers as well.
"Labor is cheaper, all across the board. There's no union. It's a free hand for the director," Canadian producer Shan Tam said during a break outside a dynastic palace set where she was shooting "Son of the Dragon," a Hallmark Channel miniseries starring David Carradine.
Extras here typically cost $2.50 for an eight-hour day, compared with $100 or more in Canada and Hollywood. "When you talk about using 3,000 extras, that's a big savings," Tam said.
But $2.50 is a tidy daily rate here. He Gaiqiang, 25, was happy to play an extra in a television drama last May just five days after arriving in Hengdian.
He is among the hengpiao, or "Hengdian drifters," as locals call those who flock here to try their hand in show business. He came fresh out of acting school in Xian in central China, with $900 in his pocket.
He remembered the excitement when he saw some 30 camera crews filming in Hengdian. To boost his chances for a prominent role, He wined and dined producers and their assistants. He plied them with gifts: boxes of bottled tea to quench their thirst in the hot summer sets.
A month later, He had spent his entire life savings with nothing to show for it. He fell behind on his rent and began to doubt himself. "I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think about giving up," he said.
He never got the big part that he had hoped for but has since managed to obtain steady work, though he said he still lives paycheck to paycheck.
On a recent afternoon, he sat at an actors' hiring hall in Hengdian, hair spiked and wearing shades, talking about his latest role as a student in a martial arts drama.
"When you don't have the skills or the energy to realize large dreams," He said, "you put your hope in small dreams of everyday life … to meet an assistant producer, to get any role, large or small."
In deciding to come to Hengdian, He passed up the bright lights of Beijing, the cultural and artistic center of China, and Shanghai, which had its heyday in film during the roaring 1920s and '30s.
*
Global Ambitions
Behind Hengdian's rise is Xu Wenrong, a fiery 72-year-old multimillionaire who made a fortune manufacturing textiles, electronics, chemicals and pharmaceuticals.
Since building his first set here a decade ago for a director friend making a film about the opium wars, Xu has plowed tens of millions of dollars from his Hengdian Group empire to remake this farming enclave into "Chinawood." Xu said he picked Hengdian because it was his hometown. Like Hollywood, it has a mild climate and hills around it.
From a single lot, Hengdian World Studios has spread to a 10-square-mile area, almost twice the size of Beverly Hills. The local government has given him permission to expand the area tenfold.
Now, Xu speaks with the arrogance of a Hollywood mogul.
"Beijing can't compete with me," said Xu, who was himself a poor farmer.
He scoffed at Beijing's chronic water shortage. And who can afford Shanghai? he asked.
"The economics of filmmaking are very difficult," Xu said. "People are happy to save even one penny."
Xu hopes to turn his Hengdian studio into a global production base that can rival Hollywood. He's pursuing his goal by taking advantage of cheap labor and offering great incentives, the two things that other entrepreneurs in Zhejiang province have used to create the world's biggest sock, pen and hardware centers nearby.
Besides making his lots available free, Xu is planning to build an airport, a golf course and several new sets, including replicas of European streets.
Xu declined to say how much, but he rakes in profits from his hotels and restaurants that cater to the 3 million people who visit Hengdian each year.
His efforts have caught the attention of Asia's cinematic elite.
"Location was good, the set was good, the accommodation was good," rattled off Hong Kong producer Bill Kong, commenting on his Hengdian experience shooting the movie "Hero." "We had a great experience."
Kong, whose movie credits include hits such as "Crouching Tiger" and "Kung Fu Hustle," doubts that Hengdian will provide a challenge to Hollywood anytime soon. Hengdian doesn't yet have a top-notch lab or postproduction facilities, he said. "You have to have management and know-how."
But Xu isn't daunted. He envisions his studio as a one-stop filming center.
"Our slogan is, 'You come here with a script and leave with a finished story,' " he said.
Hengdian Group has teamed up with Warner Bros. and another Chinese company to create Warner China Films HG, which will produce Chinese-language movies for the big screen and television. Xu said he expected at least five foreign productions at Hengdian this year, three more than last year, in addition to some 100 domestic films and TV shows.
Nabi Pictures, a South Korean company, spent five months in Hengdian shooting a love story that relies heavily on computer graphics and Chinese martial arts.
Shin Gang-uk, Nabi's production manager, said his crew struggled to bring in special-effects equipment thanks to China's notorious bureaucracy. Like every film produced in mainland China, Nabi's script was subjected to scrutiny by Chinese censors.
Still, Shin said his crew would return to Hengdian. "You can't find or build those kinds of sets in Korea."
*
His Name in Lights?
Xu Xiaoming couldn't resist Hengdian's allure either.
The husky 30-year-old had his 15 minutes of fame in the southern province of Fujian in 1996, when a local TV station recruited students for a historical drama. Xu played the part of a eunuch, but the show went bankrupt and never made it on air. Xu ditched ideas of acting and learned martial arts.
Restless in Fujian, he came to Hengdian a year ago. In town just two days, Xu got his big break. He was among dozens of extras playing hungry peasants in ancient China. Xu shouted and rioted more dramatically than the others, catching the eye of the show's executive producer.
Some nights later, Xu was reading a script for a role as a diplomat in a Qing Dynasty television drama. When performance day came, he froze on stage. Xu recalled the director instructing him to take a deep breath. After a few minutes, Xu regained his composure: His new career was underway.
"Finally," Xu said he told himself, "I won't have to be an extra. My face would be on TV."
Though work has been sporadic, he made $7,500 last year.
On a recent evening, Xu was walking along Hengdian Studios' sprawling industrial park, past an acting training school and huge posters of famous Chinese stars such as Ziyi Zhang and Jet Li.
The sun was setting over the mountains. Xu was wearing sunglasses and a baseball cap turned backward. His round face was brimming with confidence.
"My mother said I was born to be an actor," he said. "I want the whole world to recognize me."
*
Cao Jun in The Times' Shanghai Bureau contributed to this report.
By Don Lee
Times Staff Writer
May 15, 2006
HENGDIAN, China — Since farmer Wen Jide gave up his hoe, he has been a chancellor, a governor, even an emperor.
In the movies, that is.
When the 62-year-old lost his small plot to a developer a few years ago, he harnessed a nothing-to-lose attitude to win a role as an extra in a Ming Dynasty television drama being filmed near his home here. Wen had never acted before but drew on his experience in a singing and dance troupe in his village. He earned 50 yuan (about $6) for five hours' work.
He now works 20 days a month in minor roles. Wen made $700 last year, several times more than he earned farming rice and corn.
In Hengdian these days, it pays more to play a farmer than to be one. Like Wen, other villagers are trading in their plowshares for TV scripts or careers in the movies. They are among the thousands of starry-eyed people who have flocked here to chase dreams of emulating Jet Li, Jackie Chan and Ziyi Zhang.
Once-impoverished Hengdian is now hailed as the new Hollywood of the East. It has also become a top tourist destination. For $5, visitors — a la Universal Studios — can walk around some sets such as an ancient town with raging floodwaters.
Hengdian now boasts 13 movie lots — the largest film base in Asia — including a full-size replica of Beijing's Forbidden City, plus numerous shops and restaurants catering to the country's budding film industry. Many newcomers here are hoping to replicate the success of "Hero," the action-packed hit that was shot here and went to the top of North American box office charts.
The rise of Hengdian, a five-hour drive south from Shanghai, reflects China's emergence as both an important location and market for movies.
Some Chinese films have proved to have powerful commercial appeal in Asia and the West, thanks in part to new interest in China because of its economic and political ascent. The success of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," which grossed $213 million worldwide, is often cited as an example of the money-making potential of Chinese movies.
Such talk is spawning dreams of stardom here, enough probably to cause some Communist Party cadres to wonder: How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?
Wen's village, called Hengshan, is among several in Hengdian known as extra villages, because so many residents have quit plowing the land to take bit parts. Wen said about 40 people from Hengshan's 380 homes are working as full-time extras. Five people are making props and doing other carpentry work.
"Their income is better than ours, $7.50 a day including free lunch," Wen said. "Now there are more than 25 cars in our village."
*
Lower Costs
Set against lush mountains that surround this city of 100,000, Hengdian's lots have lured scores of domestic producers. They have recently begun to attract foreign filmmakers as well.
"Labor is cheaper, all across the board. There's no union. It's a free hand for the director," Canadian producer Shan Tam said during a break outside a dynastic palace set where she was shooting "Son of the Dragon," a Hallmark Channel miniseries starring David Carradine.
Extras here typically cost $2.50 for an eight-hour day, compared with $100 or more in Canada and Hollywood. "When you talk about using 3,000 extras, that's a big savings," Tam said.
But $2.50 is a tidy daily rate here. He Gaiqiang, 25, was happy to play an extra in a television drama last May just five days after arriving in Hengdian.
He is among the hengpiao, or "Hengdian drifters," as locals call those who flock here to try their hand in show business. He came fresh out of acting school in Xian in central China, with $900 in his pocket.
He remembered the excitement when he saw some 30 camera crews filming in Hengdian. To boost his chances for a prominent role, He wined and dined producers and their assistants. He plied them with gifts: boxes of bottled tea to quench their thirst in the hot summer sets.
A month later, He had spent his entire life savings with nothing to show for it. He fell behind on his rent and began to doubt himself. "I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think about giving up," he said.
He never got the big part that he had hoped for but has since managed to obtain steady work, though he said he still lives paycheck to paycheck.
On a recent afternoon, he sat at an actors' hiring hall in Hengdian, hair spiked and wearing shades, talking about his latest role as a student in a martial arts drama.
"When you don't have the skills or the energy to realize large dreams," He said, "you put your hope in small dreams of everyday life … to meet an assistant producer, to get any role, large or small."
In deciding to come to Hengdian, He passed up the bright lights of Beijing, the cultural and artistic center of China, and Shanghai, which had its heyday in film during the roaring 1920s and '30s.
*
Global Ambitions
Behind Hengdian's rise is Xu Wenrong, a fiery 72-year-old multimillionaire who made a fortune manufacturing textiles, electronics, chemicals and pharmaceuticals.
Since building his first set here a decade ago for a director friend making a film about the opium wars, Xu has plowed tens of millions of dollars from his Hengdian Group empire to remake this farming enclave into "Chinawood." Xu said he picked Hengdian because it was his hometown. Like Hollywood, it has a mild climate and hills around it.
From a single lot, Hengdian World Studios has spread to a 10-square-mile area, almost twice the size of Beverly Hills. The local government has given him permission to expand the area tenfold.
Now, Xu speaks with the arrogance of a Hollywood mogul.
"Beijing can't compete with me," said Xu, who was himself a poor farmer.
He scoffed at Beijing's chronic water shortage. And who can afford Shanghai? he asked.
"The economics of filmmaking are very difficult," Xu said. "People are happy to save even one penny."
Xu hopes to turn his Hengdian studio into a global production base that can rival Hollywood. He's pursuing his goal by taking advantage of cheap labor and offering great incentives, the two things that other entrepreneurs in Zhejiang province have used to create the world's biggest sock, pen and hardware centers nearby.
Besides making his lots available free, Xu is planning to build an airport, a golf course and several new sets, including replicas of European streets.
Xu declined to say how much, but he rakes in profits from his hotels and restaurants that cater to the 3 million people who visit Hengdian each year.
His efforts have caught the attention of Asia's cinematic elite.
"Location was good, the set was good, the accommodation was good," rattled off Hong Kong producer Bill Kong, commenting on his Hengdian experience shooting the movie "Hero." "We had a great experience."
Kong, whose movie credits include hits such as "Crouching Tiger" and "Kung Fu Hustle," doubts that Hengdian will provide a challenge to Hollywood anytime soon. Hengdian doesn't yet have a top-notch lab or postproduction facilities, he said. "You have to have management and know-how."
But Xu isn't daunted. He envisions his studio as a one-stop filming center.
"Our slogan is, 'You come here with a script and leave with a finished story,' " he said.
Hengdian Group has teamed up with Warner Bros. and another Chinese company to create Warner China Films HG, which will produce Chinese-language movies for the big screen and television. Xu said he expected at least five foreign productions at Hengdian this year, three more than last year, in addition to some 100 domestic films and TV shows.
Nabi Pictures, a South Korean company, spent five months in Hengdian shooting a love story that relies heavily on computer graphics and Chinese martial arts.
Shin Gang-uk, Nabi's production manager, said his crew struggled to bring in special-effects equipment thanks to China's notorious bureaucracy. Like every film produced in mainland China, Nabi's script was subjected to scrutiny by Chinese censors.
Still, Shin said his crew would return to Hengdian. "You can't find or build those kinds of sets in Korea."
*
His Name in Lights?
Xu Xiaoming couldn't resist Hengdian's allure either.
The husky 30-year-old had his 15 minutes of fame in the southern province of Fujian in 1996, when a local TV station recruited students for a historical drama. Xu played the part of a eunuch, but the show went bankrupt and never made it on air. Xu ditched ideas of acting and learned martial arts.
Restless in Fujian, he came to Hengdian a year ago. In town just two days, Xu got his big break. He was among dozens of extras playing hungry peasants in ancient China. Xu shouted and rioted more dramatically than the others, catching the eye of the show's executive producer.
Some nights later, Xu was reading a script for a role as a diplomat in a Qing Dynasty television drama. When performance day came, he froze on stage. Xu recalled the director instructing him to take a deep breath. After a few minutes, Xu regained his composure: His new career was underway.
"Finally," Xu said he told himself, "I won't have to be an extra. My face would be on TV."
Though work has been sporadic, he made $7,500 last year.
On a recent evening, Xu was walking along Hengdian Studios' sprawling industrial park, past an acting training school and huge posters of famous Chinese stars such as Ziyi Zhang and Jet Li.
The sun was setting over the mountains. Xu was wearing sunglasses and a baseball cap turned backward. His round face was brimming with confidence.
"My mother said I was born to be an actor," he said. "I want the whole world to recognize me."
*
Cao Jun in The Times' Shanghai Bureau contributed to this report.
Iran Amenable to Limited Nuclear Talks
By Zakki Hakim
Associated Press
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A19
BALI, Indonesia, May 13 -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said Saturday that he was willing to hold talks over his country's disputed nuclear agenda but not with Israel or nations that hold "bombs over our head." (WHO GETS TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS?)
Ahmadinejad said he has cooperated fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, and the world has nothing to fear from his program to enrich uranium.
The United States and its allies fear that Iran is trying to develop atomic weapons. But Ahmadinejad insists his nuclear program is only for generating electricity and accuses the West of trying to monopolize nuclear technology.
Ahmadinejad spoke Saturday after meeting with heads of state and prime ministers from Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey and Malaysia and government ministers from Egypt and Bangladesh.
Although the officials were on the Indonesian resort island of Bali to discuss ways to boost economic and political cooperation, alleviate poverty and restructure debt, Iran's intensifying nuclear stalemate with the West dominated a key portion of the discussions. (I WONDER WHAT ALL THESE LEADERS HAVE IN COMMON?)
Ahmadinejad received a boost Saturday from the assembled Islamic leaders, who after their summit released a statement supporting the rights of countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
"Our people need to do more to help one another," Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said, adding that "proud" Islamic countries should work together to develop renewable and alternative energy sources. (HOW IS NUCLEAR ENERGY RENEWABLE?)
Later, Indonesian Energy Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro said his country plans to build its first major nuclear power plant by 2015 and has been offered assistance by companies from South Korea, Japan, France and an unspecified fourth country.
Much of Ahmadinejad's work was done on the sidelines of the talks, and he met privately with Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Ahmadinejad said that while he was willing to talk to just about anyone about the dispute he would not do so with "countries that hang planes with bombs over our heads."
The Bush administration had been pressing for U.N. Security Council action against Iran but recently agreed to put such efforts on hold and give new European-led attempts to find a negotiated solution a chance.
Russia and China have balked at efforts to put a Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if the country refuses to suspend uranium enrichment. Those measures could include economic sanctions and military action.
By Zakki Hakim
Associated Press
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A19
BALI, Indonesia, May 13 -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said Saturday that he was willing to hold talks over his country's disputed nuclear agenda but not with Israel or nations that hold "bombs over our head." (WHO GETS TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS?)
Ahmadinejad said he has cooperated fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, and the world has nothing to fear from his program to enrich uranium.
The United States and its allies fear that Iran is trying to develop atomic weapons. But Ahmadinejad insists his nuclear program is only for generating electricity and accuses the West of trying to monopolize nuclear technology.
Ahmadinejad spoke Saturday after meeting with heads of state and prime ministers from Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey and Malaysia and government ministers from Egypt and Bangladesh.
Although the officials were on the Indonesian resort island of Bali to discuss ways to boost economic and political cooperation, alleviate poverty and restructure debt, Iran's intensifying nuclear stalemate with the West dominated a key portion of the discussions. (I WONDER WHAT ALL THESE LEADERS HAVE IN COMMON?)
Ahmadinejad received a boost Saturday from the assembled Islamic leaders, who after their summit released a statement supporting the rights of countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
"Our people need to do more to help one another," Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said, adding that "proud" Islamic countries should work together to develop renewable and alternative energy sources. (HOW IS NUCLEAR ENERGY RENEWABLE?)
Later, Indonesian Energy Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro said his country plans to build its first major nuclear power plant by 2015 and has been offered assistance by companies from South Korea, Japan, France and an unspecified fourth country.
Much of Ahmadinejad's work was done on the sidelines of the talks, and he met privately with Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Ahmadinejad said that while he was willing to talk to just about anyone about the dispute he would not do so with "countries that hang planes with bombs over our heads."
The Bush administration had been pressing for U.N. Security Council action against Iran but recently agreed to put such efforts on hold and give new European-led attempts to find a negotiated solution a chance.
Russia and China have balked at efforts to put a Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if the country refuses to suspend uranium enrichment. Those measures could include economic sanctions and military action.
Oil Wealth Colors the U.S. Push for Democracy
The White House Makes Overtures In Asia and Africa
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A18
The photographs posted on the White House Web site tell the story. On April 28, President Bush had a busy day of meetings. There's a photograph of the president looking eye to eye with little Kim Han Mee, the daughter of North Korean defectors. There's a snapshot of the president greeting Sakie Yokata, representing Japanese abducted by North Korea. There's another photo of the president sitting in the Roosevelt Room meeting with Darfur advocates, including former slave Simon Deng.
And then there's a picture of Bush welcoming President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan to the Oval Office.
Bush said he talked about the "wave of democracy" with a leader who had recently overseen parliamentary elections that human rights advocates had criticized as deeply flawed. But Bush also lauded "the vision of the president in helping this world achieve what we all want, which is energy security."
With energy prices soaring, the administration's campaign to spread democracy has taken a detour in some countries. Azerbaijan and neighboring Kazakhstan have the kinds of human rights records that usually would deny them high-level U.S. attention. But they also have vast oil and gas reserves -- and are key players in a global scramble for energy against the Russians. (CAN YOU BE SURE THAT IT IS HYRDOCARBONS AND NOT GEOGRAPHY?)
Vice President Cheney, for instance, blasted Russian commitment to democracy internally and on its borders when he made a swing through Europe and Central Asia this month. But one day later he was in Astana, the Kazakh capital, where he praised the country for the progress it has made since the fall of the Soviet Union -- even though by all accounts its human rights record is worse than Russia's. (SO UNLESS THERE IS HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRESS, THERE CAN BE NO PROGRESS?)
Asked about Kazakhstan's human rights record, Cheney expressed "admiration for all that's been accomplished here in Kazakhstan." The State Department's annual human rights report has decried the rule of the longtime president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, saying dissent is suppressed, journalists harassed and power concentrated in the presidency.
Similarly, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last month warmly greeted Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, as a "good friend" in Washington, even though he was reelected with 97 percent of the vote in 2002 and a Senate investigation two years later found that he and his wife had accounts worth $13 million in the Riggs National Bank while most of his fellow citizens live on less than a dollar a day. Since offshore oil reserves were discovered in 1995, the country has become the third-largest oil exporter in sub-Saharan Africa and a major player in oil exploration.
"It was pretty surprising he got such a warm welcome in Washington," said Jennifer G. Cooke, co-director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She said there is "zero space for political dissent" in the country, but that if the United States did not pursue the oil, "there are plenty of others who would jump into our spot." (SO IS IT GOOD TO BE THERE OR NOT?)
Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said the administration risks adding to worldwide cynicism about its democracy push by carving out such exceptions for energy-rich nations. (EXCEPTIONS? WHO ELSE DOES ANYTHING LIKE THIS? AT LEAST THE US MAKES SOME EFFORT. WHERE IS GERMANY? WHERE ISFRANCE? WHERE IS RUSSIA? WHERE IS CHINA? WHERE IS INDIA?)
"The administration's big problem is that even when they are sincere in promoting human rights and freedom, much of the world does not believe them," he said. "When the vice president appropriately criticizes Russia one day and praises Kazakhstan the next, it contributes to that cynical view of U.S. policy." (WELL, WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE. MAYBE IF CBS NEWS WAS CLOSER TO BALANCED, THAT WOULD BE OK)
Administration officials concede that democratic progress has been uneven, at best, in these countries, but they say even haphazard attempts must be encouraged. "We have no litmus test on democracy," said one senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak more freely. "Why would we freeze out these guys forever?" he asked, when U.S. officials believe that engagement holds out the possibility of encouraging democratic progress.
The official noted that Azerbaijan is suspended "between an authoritarian past and greater democracy" and that the elections, while "not good enough," included some elements that were unprecedented. "We want to maintain positive movement, as modest as that may be," he said. As for Cheney's remarks on Kazakhstan, he said the "tone is different than Russia because Kazakhstan is not behaving externally like Russia."
In Central Asia, the official argued, the United States has three sets of interests -- energy, regional security and internal reform -- and they must be viewed together. "You could hammer on democracy," he said, but he asserted that would make it more difficult to build up energy investment and revenue, which in turn would make it hard to keep up the push for reform.
U.S. officials are pressing the case for a natural gas pipeline being built from Baku, the Azerbaijani capital, to Turkey. U.S. officials, who became alarmed when Russia earlier this year shut off gas to Ukraine in a pricing dispute, believe it is the last chance to give European countries an alternative route for energy. U.S. officials also are encouraging Kazakhstan, which is across the Caspian Sea from Baku, to link to the pipeline.
Another U.S. official made the case that building a gas pipeline that weakens Russia's monopoly will also help struggling democracies, especially Ukraine -- which has been economically hurt by that monopoly -- and Georgia, which the pipeline crosses.
Some analysts were sympathetic to the administration's arguments but questioned whether the administration, having opted to emphasize energy, will really see much performance on democracy.
"Officials have convinced themselves that through engagement they will encourage these countries to open up," said Cory Welt, deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The governments in question know they have considerable leverage. If they don't respond, they know there is not much the U.S. can do about it."
Zeyno Baran, director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute, said, "This is a new approach; this has not been tried before." But she said Russia and China are not going to emphasize democratic issues and will simply lock up markets now if the United States does not act first.
"The bottom line is that only the United States and, to a degree, Europeans are going to push these countries in a reform direction," Baran said. "Russia, through its energy deals and buying off people, is creating no conditions for reform."
Malinowski of Human Rights Watch agreed there is "a strong case to be made" that helping to develop the energy sectors of the Central Asia countries would be good for their internal political development. But he said that did not mean democracy should be deemphasized. "The Azerbaijanis are not going to turn their backs on a lucrative pipeline deal because President Bush has asked them to hold clean elections," he said. (BUT, SHOULD, MAYBE, MIGHT . . .)
The White House Makes Overtures In Asia and Africa
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A18
The photographs posted on the White House Web site tell the story. On April 28, President Bush had a busy day of meetings. There's a photograph of the president looking eye to eye with little Kim Han Mee, the daughter of North Korean defectors. There's a snapshot of the president greeting Sakie Yokata, representing Japanese abducted by North Korea. There's another photo of the president sitting in the Roosevelt Room meeting with Darfur advocates, including former slave Simon Deng.
And then there's a picture of Bush welcoming President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan to the Oval Office.
Bush said he talked about the "wave of democracy" with a leader who had recently overseen parliamentary elections that human rights advocates had criticized as deeply flawed. But Bush also lauded "the vision of the president in helping this world achieve what we all want, which is energy security."
With energy prices soaring, the administration's campaign to spread democracy has taken a detour in some countries. Azerbaijan and neighboring Kazakhstan have the kinds of human rights records that usually would deny them high-level U.S. attention. But they also have vast oil and gas reserves -- and are key players in a global scramble for energy against the Russians. (CAN YOU BE SURE THAT IT IS HYRDOCARBONS AND NOT GEOGRAPHY?)
Vice President Cheney, for instance, blasted Russian commitment to democracy internally and on its borders when he made a swing through Europe and Central Asia this month. But one day later he was in Astana, the Kazakh capital, where he praised the country for the progress it has made since the fall of the Soviet Union -- even though by all accounts its human rights record is worse than Russia's. (SO UNLESS THERE IS HUMAN RIGHTS PROGRESS, THERE CAN BE NO PROGRESS?)
Asked about Kazakhstan's human rights record, Cheney expressed "admiration for all that's been accomplished here in Kazakhstan." The State Department's annual human rights report has decried the rule of the longtime president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, saying dissent is suppressed, journalists harassed and power concentrated in the presidency.
Similarly, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last month warmly greeted Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, as a "good friend" in Washington, even though he was reelected with 97 percent of the vote in 2002 and a Senate investigation two years later found that he and his wife had accounts worth $13 million in the Riggs National Bank while most of his fellow citizens live on less than a dollar a day. Since offshore oil reserves were discovered in 1995, the country has become the third-largest oil exporter in sub-Saharan Africa and a major player in oil exploration.
"It was pretty surprising he got such a warm welcome in Washington," said Jennifer G. Cooke, co-director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She said there is "zero space for political dissent" in the country, but that if the United States did not pursue the oil, "there are plenty of others who would jump into our spot." (SO IS IT GOOD TO BE THERE OR NOT?)
Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said the administration risks adding to worldwide cynicism about its democracy push by carving out such exceptions for energy-rich nations. (EXCEPTIONS? WHO ELSE DOES ANYTHING LIKE THIS? AT LEAST THE US MAKES SOME EFFORT. WHERE IS GERMANY? WHERE ISFRANCE? WHERE IS RUSSIA? WHERE IS CHINA? WHERE IS INDIA?)
"The administration's big problem is that even when they are sincere in promoting human rights and freedom, much of the world does not believe them," he said. "When the vice president appropriately criticizes Russia one day and praises Kazakhstan the next, it contributes to that cynical view of U.S. policy." (WELL, WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE. MAYBE IF CBS NEWS WAS CLOSER TO BALANCED, THAT WOULD BE OK)
Administration officials concede that democratic progress has been uneven, at best, in these countries, but they say even haphazard attempts must be encouraged. "We have no litmus test on democracy," said one senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak more freely. "Why would we freeze out these guys forever?" he asked, when U.S. officials believe that engagement holds out the possibility of encouraging democratic progress.
The official noted that Azerbaijan is suspended "between an authoritarian past and greater democracy" and that the elections, while "not good enough," included some elements that were unprecedented. "We want to maintain positive movement, as modest as that may be," he said. As for Cheney's remarks on Kazakhstan, he said the "tone is different than Russia because Kazakhstan is not behaving externally like Russia."
In Central Asia, the official argued, the United States has three sets of interests -- energy, regional security and internal reform -- and they must be viewed together. "You could hammer on democracy," he said, but he asserted that would make it more difficult to build up energy investment and revenue, which in turn would make it hard to keep up the push for reform.
U.S. officials are pressing the case for a natural gas pipeline being built from Baku, the Azerbaijani capital, to Turkey. U.S. officials, who became alarmed when Russia earlier this year shut off gas to Ukraine in a pricing dispute, believe it is the last chance to give European countries an alternative route for energy. U.S. officials also are encouraging Kazakhstan, which is across the Caspian Sea from Baku, to link to the pipeline.
Another U.S. official made the case that building a gas pipeline that weakens Russia's monopoly will also help struggling democracies, especially Ukraine -- which has been economically hurt by that monopoly -- and Georgia, which the pipeline crosses.
Some analysts were sympathetic to the administration's arguments but questioned whether the administration, having opted to emphasize energy, will really see much performance on democracy.
"Officials have convinced themselves that through engagement they will encourage these countries to open up," said Cory Welt, deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The governments in question know they have considerable leverage. If they don't respond, they know there is not much the U.S. can do about it."
Zeyno Baran, director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute, said, "This is a new approach; this has not been tried before." But she said Russia and China are not going to emphasize democratic issues and will simply lock up markets now if the United States does not act first.
"The bottom line is that only the United States and, to a degree, Europeans are going to push these countries in a reform direction," Baran said. "Russia, through its energy deals and buying off people, is creating no conditions for reform."
Malinowski of Human Rights Watch agreed there is "a strong case to be made" that helping to develop the energy sectors of the Central Asia countries would be good for their internal political development. But he said that did not mean democracy should be deemphasized. "The Azerbaijanis are not going to turn their backs on a lucrative pipeline deal because President Bush has asked them to hold clean elections," he said. (BUT, SHOULD, MAYBE, MIGHT . . .)
Money Earned in U.S. Pushes Up Prices in El Salvador
Subsidies Help Keep Many From Extreme Poverty
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A17
LA UNION, El Salvador -- It is hard to overstate how much this tiny Central American nation has benefited from the estimated $2.8 billion that Salvadoran immigrants in the United States send back to their relatives each year.
Without it, the portion of families who live in extreme poverty would jump from 6 percent to 37 percent, according to a recent study by the United Nations Development Program.
Yet economists have become increasingly concerned that the flood of U.S. dollars may also be driving up the cost of living in El Salvador, forcing ever-larger numbers of Salvadorans to leave for the United States -- where their presence, along with that of other illegal immigrants, has already triggered a fierce debate.
"You've basically got this vicious circle going on, and it's only going to get worse," said Katharine Andrade-Eekhoff, one of the El Salvador-based authors of the U.N. study. (VICIOUS SYCLEY? REMOVING PEOPLE FROM POVERTY? C'MON)
Estimates of the overall Salvadoran population in the United States, including legal immigrants, vary from 1 million to more than double that. Salvadorans are the largest immigrant group in the Washington area.
Part of the problem driving the migration wave, noted Andrade-Eekhoff, is the fact that most families need the money they get from their relatives in the United States for necessities such as food, clothing and housing. That leaves little for long-term investments that could improve El Salvador's economy.
With more dollars chasing limited commodities such as land and housing, prices are rising. And because El Salvador imports most of its goods from nations that can make them less expensively, the consumption boom isn't creating an increase in jobs. Meanwhile, the ready supply of desperate workers from the even poorer Central American countries of Nicaragua and Honduras keeps down wages for existing low-skill jobs -- making it difficult for the Salvadorans who hold them to make ends meet.
The impact of this dynamic is visible across this eastern stretch of the country, from which much of the Salvadoran migration to the United States has originated.
On small, family-run dairy farms that have dotted the area for generations, most ranch hands tending the cows these days are Hondurans and Nicaraguans.
So are the laborers who scrape salt crystals from the bottom of pools hugging the Pacific coastline, and the construction workers building pricey housing developments on the reddish earth a few miles inland.
"You can't find Salvadorans to do this kind of work anymore," said Jose Acosta, the supervisor at a construction site where almost all of the 35 men toiling under a harsh sun on a recent morning were from Nicaragua.
At best, the workers earn $250 a month, often far less, he said. "And these days, you need at least $300 to $400 just to survive."
To buy one of the pastel townhouses the crew was building, you would need far more.
The prices, ranging from $30,900 to $93,300, were as groundbreaking for this area as the American-style amenities: glass-paned windows, breakfast nooks and elaborate lighting fixtures.
Yet a map in the sales office indicated that there was no shortage of buyers. It was studded with the red pushpins that salesman Jose Miguel Hernandez uses to mark sold units. Hernandez said he had sold even more than the map indicated. "It's just that I ran out of red pins," he said with a grin.
Outside the office, the "For Rent" signs in the windows of several houses hinted at the nature of Hernandez's clientele. About 75 percent of the buyers, he estimated, are Salvadorans based in the United States -- divided more or less evenly among the New York, Boston and Washington areas.
Eventually they hope to return. For now, many are renting their new houses to professionals from Spain, Belgium and Japan who are working on a multimillion-dollar aid project to upgrade the seaport in nearby Cutuco.
In one of the development's few houses occupied by a Salvadoran, Gloria Alvarez sat amid the gleaming white tiles of her living room, looking oddly disconsolate for a woman who had just moved into a home fancier than any she had known as a child.
The reason she was able to afford the place is that her husband lives in Los Angeles, where he mans the front desk at a storage facility, Alvarez said. She was desperate to join him, but also loath to leave their two young children behind. And if she somehow managed to smuggle them into the United States, Alvarez, a 37-year-old teacher, figured she would have to take a menial job that pays less than the cost of child care. Also, given housing prices in Los Angeles, the family would almost certainly have to settle in cramped, unattractive quarters.
"Last week, my husband came for a visit to see the new house, and he said to me, 'My love, we are living our dream!' " Alvarez recounted, dabbing tears from her eyes. "But this is not my dream. My dream was to live my life with my husband."
It may be a long time coming. Already, her husband had tried moving back to El Salvador and starting a business -- first a restaurant, then a small shrimp processing plant. Both failed.
"Finally he said, 'I have to go back to the United States, honey. There is no work for me here,' " Alvarez said.
A few feet from Alvarez's house, workers laying the foundations for the next block of homes gave similar reasons for leaving Nicaragua.
Back in his home town city of Ocotal, said Harbin Gomez, he was earning $3 a day as a bricklayer's assistant, and the work was less steady. Here in El Salvador he earns $5.72 -- almost double.
With his wife and 9-year-old daughter still living in Nicaragua and paying Nicaraguan prices for food and clothing, Gomez, 45, said the extra money goes even further.
But he also feels the pinch of higher living costs in El Salvador. Even after splitting the concrete-block hut he rents with three other workers, his bill comes to $15 a month, he noted. By the time he has covered the rest of his expenses, he is able to send his family only $35 to $50.
"That's a little better than in Nicaragua," he said with a sigh. "But frankly, not much."
Subsidies Help Keep Many From Extreme Poverty
By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A17
LA UNION, El Salvador -- It is hard to overstate how much this tiny Central American nation has benefited from the estimated $2.8 billion that Salvadoran immigrants in the United States send back to their relatives each year.
Without it, the portion of families who live in extreme poverty would jump from 6 percent to 37 percent, according to a recent study by the United Nations Development Program.
Yet economists have become increasingly concerned that the flood of U.S. dollars may also be driving up the cost of living in El Salvador, forcing ever-larger numbers of Salvadorans to leave for the United States -- where their presence, along with that of other illegal immigrants, has already triggered a fierce debate.
"You've basically got this vicious circle going on, and it's only going to get worse," said Katharine Andrade-Eekhoff, one of the El Salvador-based authors of the U.N. study. (VICIOUS SYCLEY? REMOVING PEOPLE FROM POVERTY? C'MON)
Estimates of the overall Salvadoran population in the United States, including legal immigrants, vary from 1 million to more than double that. Salvadorans are the largest immigrant group in the Washington area.
Part of the problem driving the migration wave, noted Andrade-Eekhoff, is the fact that most families need the money they get from their relatives in the United States for necessities such as food, clothing and housing. That leaves little for long-term investments that could improve El Salvador's economy.
With more dollars chasing limited commodities such as land and housing, prices are rising. And because El Salvador imports most of its goods from nations that can make them less expensively, the consumption boom isn't creating an increase in jobs. Meanwhile, the ready supply of desperate workers from the even poorer Central American countries of Nicaragua and Honduras keeps down wages for existing low-skill jobs -- making it difficult for the Salvadorans who hold them to make ends meet.
The impact of this dynamic is visible across this eastern stretch of the country, from which much of the Salvadoran migration to the United States has originated.
On small, family-run dairy farms that have dotted the area for generations, most ranch hands tending the cows these days are Hondurans and Nicaraguans.
So are the laborers who scrape salt crystals from the bottom of pools hugging the Pacific coastline, and the construction workers building pricey housing developments on the reddish earth a few miles inland.
"You can't find Salvadorans to do this kind of work anymore," said Jose Acosta, the supervisor at a construction site where almost all of the 35 men toiling under a harsh sun on a recent morning were from Nicaragua.
At best, the workers earn $250 a month, often far less, he said. "And these days, you need at least $300 to $400 just to survive."
To buy one of the pastel townhouses the crew was building, you would need far more.
The prices, ranging from $30,900 to $93,300, were as groundbreaking for this area as the American-style amenities: glass-paned windows, breakfast nooks and elaborate lighting fixtures.
Yet a map in the sales office indicated that there was no shortage of buyers. It was studded with the red pushpins that salesman Jose Miguel Hernandez uses to mark sold units. Hernandez said he had sold even more than the map indicated. "It's just that I ran out of red pins," he said with a grin.
Outside the office, the "For Rent" signs in the windows of several houses hinted at the nature of Hernandez's clientele. About 75 percent of the buyers, he estimated, are Salvadorans based in the United States -- divided more or less evenly among the New York, Boston and Washington areas.
Eventually they hope to return. For now, many are renting their new houses to professionals from Spain, Belgium and Japan who are working on a multimillion-dollar aid project to upgrade the seaport in nearby Cutuco.
In one of the development's few houses occupied by a Salvadoran, Gloria Alvarez sat amid the gleaming white tiles of her living room, looking oddly disconsolate for a woman who had just moved into a home fancier than any she had known as a child.
The reason she was able to afford the place is that her husband lives in Los Angeles, where he mans the front desk at a storage facility, Alvarez said. She was desperate to join him, but also loath to leave their two young children behind. And if she somehow managed to smuggle them into the United States, Alvarez, a 37-year-old teacher, figured she would have to take a menial job that pays less than the cost of child care. Also, given housing prices in Los Angeles, the family would almost certainly have to settle in cramped, unattractive quarters.
"Last week, my husband came for a visit to see the new house, and he said to me, 'My love, we are living our dream!' " Alvarez recounted, dabbing tears from her eyes. "But this is not my dream. My dream was to live my life with my husband."
It may be a long time coming. Already, her husband had tried moving back to El Salvador and starting a business -- first a restaurant, then a small shrimp processing plant. Both failed.
"Finally he said, 'I have to go back to the United States, honey. There is no work for me here,' " Alvarez said.
A few feet from Alvarez's house, workers laying the foundations for the next block of homes gave similar reasons for leaving Nicaragua.
Back in his home town city of Ocotal, said Harbin Gomez, he was earning $3 a day as a bricklayer's assistant, and the work was less steady. Here in El Salvador he earns $5.72 -- almost double.
With his wife and 9-year-old daughter still living in Nicaragua and paying Nicaraguan prices for food and clothing, Gomez, 45, said the extra money goes even further.
But he also feels the pinch of higher living costs in El Salvador. Even after splitting the concrete-block hut he rents with three other workers, his bill comes to $15 a month, he noted. By the time he has covered the rest of his expenses, he is able to send his family only $35 to $50.
"That's a little better than in Nicaragua," he said with a sigh. "But frankly, not much."
A Rebel Prince's Vision for Reform
Saudi's Long-held Ideals Gaining an Audience with Royal Family
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A16
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- The coffee was served, then the dates. And at that, Prince Talal, the son of Saudi Arabia's founder and long the ruling family's bete noire, smiled wryly. "This is what we used to live on," he said, "dates and camel's milk."
It was his way of saying: To look ahead, sometimes we need to look back.
Talal is 75 now, still tall and formidable, with a glimmer of defiance as he smoked a cigarette, cautiously doled out by an aide. But humbled by back pain, he is a shadow of the man once known as Saudi Arabia's "Red Prince." The color represented his politics, a leftist bent that as a young man turned him against the ruling Saud family, shook the kingdom and led him into exile in Lebanon and Egypt.
His voice is softer these days, mellowed perhaps by failure, but the words about his family remain remarkably the same.
"Here, the family is the master and the ruler," he said of his brothers and cousins, as he sat at Fakhariya Palace. "This style can't continue the same way. There has to be change in the nature of authority, if things are going to change in the kingdom itself."
Talal is many things: for 50 years, the most liberal figure in a family that remains the most conservative and traditional of the Persian Gulf's monarchies and tribal dynasties; a philanthropist who brings a ruthlessness to business that he once saved for politics; a glimmer of light for the kingdom's liberals, many of whom acknowledge that change here will probably only come under the auspices of religion and its modernization, not through the secular talk of civil society and individual rights.
Perhaps most compelling, though, is that Talal takes a debate about democratic reform in the Arab world, defined lately by the Bush administration, and illustrates a broader, more enduring context, one that speaks to experience rather than promise. His calls for change are little different than in the 1950s and '60s, when he was dismissed as a communist sympathizer; he remains a critic of U.S. policy, citing Iraq's trauma as the latest example. To Talal, the battle itself is not new, only the players. And in his words are a sense of vindication for ideas he believes are no less crucial today.
"The world has changed, not me," he said. "History has proved the rightness of what I was talking about."
"Some of the members of the family were against those ideas," he added. "Now they're talking about them."
These days, Talal advocates a constitution that would bind an absolute monarchy by law, "a social contract between the ruler and those who are ruled." The parliament, now an appointed, relatively toothless body known as the Consultative Council, would be at least partially elected, with the right to oversee the budget, monitor the government and question ministers, he said.
Women? "Right now, we have more than 2 million female students," he said, shaking his head. "When they graduate, where are they going to go? Either you close the schools and leave them to illiteracy or you grant them an opportunity to work."
He laughed. "Can you imagine, can anyone imagine, that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia?" he said.
His list went on: Progress is impeded by "the opposition of religious extremists." The religious establishment, long the allies of his family, should stand aside as the country forges a division of power -- judicial, executive and legislative. Along the way, the kingdom, he said, must determine the mechanism of passing the monarchy from the aging sons of the country's founder to their grandsons before simmering rivalries between the branches of the House of Saud flare into the open.
"The goal remains the same," he said, "the participation of people in forming opinions and making decisions."
The same words, a different era: "Now we're freed from the notion of the Red Prince, the name the Americans gave me."
Talal was reputed to be the favorite son of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the desert warrior who fielded a puritanical army in his conquest of much of the Arabian Peninsula between 1902 and 1925. He became in king in 1932, eventually siring Talal and 35 other recognized heirs, the descendants of an array of marriages that cemented his connections with the country's fractious tribes. Talal's mother was a servant -- some say of Circassian origins, others say Armenian -- who, it is said, eventually became his favorite wife.
Talal was among the savvier of the children, spending time in Beirut, where he married Mona al-Solh, the daughter of Lebanon's first post-independence prime minister. (One of their children, Walid bin Talal, is a billionaire Saudi investor.) For Talal, Lebanon was an introduction to pan-Arab aspirations, espoused by the leading Solh family, and was a taste of the emerging cosmopolitanism of Beirut.
The years after the king's death in 1953 were unsettled. Power was inherited by his eldest son, Saud ibn Abdul Aziz, a spendthrift more adept at showering largesse on the tribes than administering the country. His brothers soon contested his rule, and Talal navigated the rivalries for influence. Early on, the present Saudi king, Abdullah, was an ally, and in time as a minister, Talal began pushing for reform -- a constitution, elections, a parliament and free press. Together, he and his allies became known as the "Free Princes," a name taken from the Free Officers that overthrew Egypt's monarchy in 1952 and were eventually led by Gamal Abdel-Nasser.
He admits now to moving too fast.
"We were too young," he said. "We wanted 100 percent, but if we took 50, even 60 percent, we would have been blessed."
King Saud rejected the idea of a constitution, and Talal bitterly criticized the decision in statements to Egyptian and Lebanese newspapers. When Talal went for vacation in Beirut in 1961, the king moved against him, declaring him persona non grata.
He recalled the confrontation at the Saudi Embassy in Beirut as the ambassador asked him and his brothers to turn over their travel documents: "I said, 'Why?' He said, 'I don't have reasons, it's the order of King Saud.' I said, 'If the passport is the property of Saud, go ahead. If the passport is the property of the kingdom, then I have every right to keep it.' And I gave him the passport."
Against his better judgment, Talal and four brothers sought help in 1962 from Nasser, who had electrified a generation with promises of Arab unity, the liberation of Palestine and denunciations of regimes he deemed regressive, Saudi Arabia among them. Unlike most of the Saudi royal family, Talal was enamored with the Egyptian president -- he feels the same today, he said -- but he feared being exploited.
"I said to Nasser, we came here just for the passports because we want to go to Lebanon. I didn't want to stay with him. I knew his policy. I knew his way of thinking," Talal said. "He told me, 'I'll give you 500 passports.' "
The passports didn't come for two months. In the meantime, Talal spoke on the Voice of the Arabs, a Cairo-based radio station that often carried Nasser's stentorian voice. The speeches -- denouncing Saudi Arabia's rulers and calling for democratic reform -- solidified his reputation as the Red Prince. It would be another two years before he returned to Saudi Arabia.
For years, Talal remained silent, amassing a fortune and running a philanthropy. But in past years, he has begun pressing the issue of reform again, often from Fakhariya Palace. To him, the family can bring about change by redefining its role.
"In the 21st century, the king should be the guardian of the law, but the laws and legislation should come from the people, and the people should elect the members of the parliament," Talal said, sitting next to a rendering of the family tree.
He retains his suspicion of U.S. intentions. He traveled last week to Egypt, speaking at the American University of Cairo. He was relaxed, in a crisp, dark suit and maroon tie. At one point, he urged women in the audience to ask questions. As he did 45 years ago, he tried to distance his country's needs for reform from U.S. policy in the region.
"Does America want direct and transparent elections that allow the people to make their own decisions in choosing who will be in power?" Talal said, in reference to the success of Islamic activists in recent elections in Egypt and the Palestinian territories. "Or are we tailoring elections to the United States that serve American interests?"
In the mercurial politics of the House of Saud, Talal's role is debated. He is a member of the family council, a body of 18 influential members drawn from Abdul Aziz's sons and grandsons and other branches of the family. Some say he has the ear of Abdullah, and his son, Prince Turki, says he talks to the king weekly. That gives the country's small coterie of liberals hope.
"It's going in his direction. He was just 40 years too early," said Beshr Bekheet, an economist and candidate in last year's municipal elections.
Others discount any special influence, and in private, some princes are especially venomous about Talal's past. As a liberal in a country where the monarchy claims authority through religious legitimization, Talal remains a maverick.
"Even a cleric -- an outspoken but a minor one -- would command more attention from the government than he would," said Adel al-Toraifi, a Saudi writer and newspaper columnist.
Talal, a little hard of hearing, doesn't claim influence. To describe the king these days, he quoted a description of a U.S. president before and after he took power. "He was simple before he was president. But as president, he's become a peacock."
At the end of his story, Talal posed for a picture. He decided to don his traditional white headdress, reluctantly. Tradition still doesn't sit well.
"I hate to wear this," he said.
Special correspondent Lindsay Wise in Cairo contributed to this report.
Saudi's Long-held Ideals Gaining an Audience with Royal Family
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A16
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- The coffee was served, then the dates. And at that, Prince Talal, the son of Saudi Arabia's founder and long the ruling family's bete noire, smiled wryly. "This is what we used to live on," he said, "dates and camel's milk."
It was his way of saying: To look ahead, sometimes we need to look back.
Talal is 75 now, still tall and formidable, with a glimmer of defiance as he smoked a cigarette, cautiously doled out by an aide. But humbled by back pain, he is a shadow of the man once known as Saudi Arabia's "Red Prince." The color represented his politics, a leftist bent that as a young man turned him against the ruling Saud family, shook the kingdom and led him into exile in Lebanon and Egypt.
His voice is softer these days, mellowed perhaps by failure, but the words about his family remain remarkably the same.
"Here, the family is the master and the ruler," he said of his brothers and cousins, as he sat at Fakhariya Palace. "This style can't continue the same way. There has to be change in the nature of authority, if things are going to change in the kingdom itself."
Talal is many things: for 50 years, the most liberal figure in a family that remains the most conservative and traditional of the Persian Gulf's monarchies and tribal dynasties; a philanthropist who brings a ruthlessness to business that he once saved for politics; a glimmer of light for the kingdom's liberals, many of whom acknowledge that change here will probably only come under the auspices of religion and its modernization, not through the secular talk of civil society and individual rights.
Perhaps most compelling, though, is that Talal takes a debate about democratic reform in the Arab world, defined lately by the Bush administration, and illustrates a broader, more enduring context, one that speaks to experience rather than promise. His calls for change are little different than in the 1950s and '60s, when he was dismissed as a communist sympathizer; he remains a critic of U.S. policy, citing Iraq's trauma as the latest example. To Talal, the battle itself is not new, only the players. And in his words are a sense of vindication for ideas he believes are no less crucial today.
"The world has changed, not me," he said. "History has proved the rightness of what I was talking about."
"Some of the members of the family were against those ideas," he added. "Now they're talking about them."
These days, Talal advocates a constitution that would bind an absolute monarchy by law, "a social contract between the ruler and those who are ruled." The parliament, now an appointed, relatively toothless body known as the Consultative Council, would be at least partially elected, with the right to oversee the budget, monitor the government and question ministers, he said.
Women? "Right now, we have more than 2 million female students," he said, shaking his head. "When they graduate, where are they going to go? Either you close the schools and leave them to illiteracy or you grant them an opportunity to work."
He laughed. "Can you imagine, can anyone imagine, that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia?" he said.
His list went on: Progress is impeded by "the opposition of religious extremists." The religious establishment, long the allies of his family, should stand aside as the country forges a division of power -- judicial, executive and legislative. Along the way, the kingdom, he said, must determine the mechanism of passing the monarchy from the aging sons of the country's founder to their grandsons before simmering rivalries between the branches of the House of Saud flare into the open.
"The goal remains the same," he said, "the participation of people in forming opinions and making decisions."
The same words, a different era: "Now we're freed from the notion of the Red Prince, the name the Americans gave me."
Talal was reputed to be the favorite son of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the desert warrior who fielded a puritanical army in his conquest of much of the Arabian Peninsula between 1902 and 1925. He became in king in 1932, eventually siring Talal and 35 other recognized heirs, the descendants of an array of marriages that cemented his connections with the country's fractious tribes. Talal's mother was a servant -- some say of Circassian origins, others say Armenian -- who, it is said, eventually became his favorite wife.
Talal was among the savvier of the children, spending time in Beirut, where he married Mona al-Solh, the daughter of Lebanon's first post-independence prime minister. (One of their children, Walid bin Talal, is a billionaire Saudi investor.) For Talal, Lebanon was an introduction to pan-Arab aspirations, espoused by the leading Solh family, and was a taste of the emerging cosmopolitanism of Beirut.
The years after the king's death in 1953 were unsettled. Power was inherited by his eldest son, Saud ibn Abdul Aziz, a spendthrift more adept at showering largesse on the tribes than administering the country. His brothers soon contested his rule, and Talal navigated the rivalries for influence. Early on, the present Saudi king, Abdullah, was an ally, and in time as a minister, Talal began pushing for reform -- a constitution, elections, a parliament and free press. Together, he and his allies became known as the "Free Princes," a name taken from the Free Officers that overthrew Egypt's monarchy in 1952 and were eventually led by Gamal Abdel-Nasser.
He admits now to moving too fast.
"We were too young," he said. "We wanted 100 percent, but if we took 50, even 60 percent, we would have been blessed."
King Saud rejected the idea of a constitution, and Talal bitterly criticized the decision in statements to Egyptian and Lebanese newspapers. When Talal went for vacation in Beirut in 1961, the king moved against him, declaring him persona non grata.
He recalled the confrontation at the Saudi Embassy in Beirut as the ambassador asked him and his brothers to turn over their travel documents: "I said, 'Why?' He said, 'I don't have reasons, it's the order of King Saud.' I said, 'If the passport is the property of Saud, go ahead. If the passport is the property of the kingdom, then I have every right to keep it.' And I gave him the passport."
Against his better judgment, Talal and four brothers sought help in 1962 from Nasser, who had electrified a generation with promises of Arab unity, the liberation of Palestine and denunciations of regimes he deemed regressive, Saudi Arabia among them. Unlike most of the Saudi royal family, Talal was enamored with the Egyptian president -- he feels the same today, he said -- but he feared being exploited.
"I said to Nasser, we came here just for the passports because we want to go to Lebanon. I didn't want to stay with him. I knew his policy. I knew his way of thinking," Talal said. "He told me, 'I'll give you 500 passports.' "
The passports didn't come for two months. In the meantime, Talal spoke on the Voice of the Arabs, a Cairo-based radio station that often carried Nasser's stentorian voice. The speeches -- denouncing Saudi Arabia's rulers and calling for democratic reform -- solidified his reputation as the Red Prince. It would be another two years before he returned to Saudi Arabia.
For years, Talal remained silent, amassing a fortune and running a philanthropy. But in past years, he has begun pressing the issue of reform again, often from Fakhariya Palace. To him, the family can bring about change by redefining its role.
"In the 21st century, the king should be the guardian of the law, but the laws and legislation should come from the people, and the people should elect the members of the parliament," Talal said, sitting next to a rendering of the family tree.
He retains his suspicion of U.S. intentions. He traveled last week to Egypt, speaking at the American University of Cairo. He was relaxed, in a crisp, dark suit and maroon tie. At one point, he urged women in the audience to ask questions. As he did 45 years ago, he tried to distance his country's needs for reform from U.S. policy in the region.
"Does America want direct and transparent elections that allow the people to make their own decisions in choosing who will be in power?" Talal said, in reference to the success of Islamic activists in recent elections in Egypt and the Palestinian territories. "Or are we tailoring elections to the United States that serve American interests?"
In the mercurial politics of the House of Saud, Talal's role is debated. He is a member of the family council, a body of 18 influential members drawn from Abdul Aziz's sons and grandsons and other branches of the family. Some say he has the ear of Abdullah, and his son, Prince Turki, says he talks to the king weekly. That gives the country's small coterie of liberals hope.
"It's going in his direction. He was just 40 years too early," said Beshr Bekheet, an economist and candidate in last year's municipal elections.
Others discount any special influence, and in private, some princes are especially venomous about Talal's past. As a liberal in a country where the monarchy claims authority through religious legitimization, Talal remains a maverick.
"Even a cleric -- an outspoken but a minor one -- would command more attention from the government than he would," said Adel al-Toraifi, a Saudi writer and newspaper columnist.
Talal, a little hard of hearing, doesn't claim influence. To describe the king these days, he quoted a description of a U.S. president before and after he took power. "He was simple before he was president. But as president, he's become a peacock."
At the end of his story, Talal posed for a picture. He decided to don his traditional white headdress, reluctantly. Tradition still doesn't sit well.
"I hate to wear this," he said.
Special correspondent Lindsay Wise in Cairo contributed to this report.
Iraq Begins to Rein In Paramilitary Force
'Out of Control' Guard Unit Established by U.S. Suspected in Death Squad-Style Executions
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A16
BAGHDAD, May 13 -- Iraq's Interior Ministry has taken its first steps to rein in the Facilities Protection Service, a unit of 4,000 building guards that U.S. officials say has quietly burgeoned into the government's largest paramilitary force, with 145,000 armed men and no central command, oversight or paymaster.
Last month, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr accused the Facilities Protection Service, known as the FPS, of carrying out some of the killings widely attributed to death squads operating inside his ministry's police forces. A senior U.S. military official, speaking on condition that he not be identified further, said Saturday he believed that members of the FPS, along with private militias, were the chief culprits behind Iraq's death squads.
L. Paul Bremer, then U.S. administrator of Iraq, signed an order establishing the Facilities Protection Service in 2003, aiming to free American troops from guarding Iraqi government property and preventing the kind of looting that erupted with the entry of U.S. forces and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Initially given only three days of training, the guards were assigned to protect Iraq's ministries and other sites under government control. Bremer's September 2003 order put the guards under the command and pay of the ministries they protected, not of the interior or defense ministries, which handle the rest of Iraq's security forces. The order also allowed private security firms to handle the contracting of FPS guards for the ministries.
Although the FPS guards are not police officers, they were allowed to wear variations of the blue uniform of Iraqi police. Many witnesses and survivors of death squad-style attacks have said the assailants were dressed in police uniforms.
FPS guards often are seen roaming Baghdad's streets, holding Kalashnikov assault rifles and crowded into the backs of pickup trucks, some marked with insignia of the FPS or of the various government ministries they serve.
Increasingly, U.S. and Interior Ministry officials describe the FPS units as militias, each answering only to the ministry or private security firm that employs it. Ministries were carved out along largely sectarian lines, with many under the control of Shiite religious parties that lead Iraq's government.
When Jabr last month acknowledged death squads were at work within the Interior Ministry, he pointed his finger as well at the FPS, telling the BBC and Newsweek that the service was "out of control."
U.S. officials training Iraq's security forces say they have no more control over the FPS than the Interior Ministry does. "Negative. None. Zero," said Lt. Col. Michael J. Negard, a spokesman for the U.S. training of Iraqi forces.
In an e-mail, the senior U.S. military official said: "Our sense is that we have pretty good situational awareness of the activities of the National Police units (i.e. the former Commandos and Public Order units)." The official pointed out that there are American military advisers with each battalion of the national police, as well as in brigade and division headquarters.
"It could be that some members of the units are sneaking out at night and undertaking extracurricular activities," the official wrote. "However, that is generally unlikely, and the suspicion is that the elements carrying out the killings are either from various militia elements or security units working for other ministries," referring to ministry-level units of the FPS.
However, one former adviser in Iraq said he believes that at least some of the death squads come from the special police commando squads that the United States helped establish.
The Interior Ministry, which is trying to clean up its own reputation for harboring death squads, in recent weeks has acted to try to bring the FPS under some measure of oversight. On May 6, the private security companies that pay the salaries of FPS members agreed to several Interior Ministry proposals meant to bring some central order to the paramilitary unit, said Gen. Raad al-Tamimi of the Interior Ministry.
The Interior Ministry is to issue badges and distinctive seals for the vehicles of the FPS and supervise the kinds of weapons it uses, Tamimi said. Agents of the security companies and the ministry also made clear that FPS members were liable for prosecution for any crimes, the official said.
The security companies also agreed to bring the FPS under ministry supervision, Tamimi said, but he gave no details. Ongoing negotiations would bring the FPS under the same Interior Ministry command as the national police but with slightly different uniforms, Tamimi said.
"There is a desire to standardize the whole issue," Negard, the U.S. spokesman, said. "You want to be able to know who everybody is. You kind of can't tell now."
In violence Saturday, gunmen killed the son of Iraq's top judge along with two of his bodyguards and dumped their bodies in Baghdad, officials told news agencies.
Victims of other reported attacks included five Iraqis, a U.S. soldier and an Iranian Shiite pilgrim beheaded in Najaf. The soldier was killed when a roadside bomb hit his vehicle before dawn in south Baghdad, according to a U.S. military statement that gave no further details.
In Basra, the country's second-largest city, Gov. Mohammed Mosabbah Mohammed al-Weily issued a fiery statement blaming the local police chief, army commander and others for failing to curb or investigate killings and political assassinations. Weily suspended the police chief pending what he said would be a local council vote on the man's dismissal.
Staff writer Thomas E. Ricks in Washington, special correspondents Saad Sarhan in Najaf and Saad al-Izzi and K.I. Ibrahim in Baghdad, and other Washington Post staff members in Iraq contributed to this report.
'Out of Control' Guard Unit Established by U.S. Suspected in Death Squad-Style Executions
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A16
BAGHDAD, May 13 -- Iraq's Interior Ministry has taken its first steps to rein in the Facilities Protection Service, a unit of 4,000 building guards that U.S. officials say has quietly burgeoned into the government's largest paramilitary force, with 145,000 armed men and no central command, oversight or paymaster.
Last month, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr accused the Facilities Protection Service, known as the FPS, of carrying out some of the killings widely attributed to death squads operating inside his ministry's police forces. A senior U.S. military official, speaking on condition that he not be identified further, said Saturday he believed that members of the FPS, along with private militias, were the chief culprits behind Iraq's death squads.
L. Paul Bremer, then U.S. administrator of Iraq, signed an order establishing the Facilities Protection Service in 2003, aiming to free American troops from guarding Iraqi government property and preventing the kind of looting that erupted with the entry of U.S. forces and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Initially given only three days of training, the guards were assigned to protect Iraq's ministries and other sites under government control. Bremer's September 2003 order put the guards under the command and pay of the ministries they protected, not of the interior or defense ministries, which handle the rest of Iraq's security forces. The order also allowed private security firms to handle the contracting of FPS guards for the ministries.
Although the FPS guards are not police officers, they were allowed to wear variations of the blue uniform of Iraqi police. Many witnesses and survivors of death squad-style attacks have said the assailants were dressed in police uniforms.
FPS guards often are seen roaming Baghdad's streets, holding Kalashnikov assault rifles and crowded into the backs of pickup trucks, some marked with insignia of the FPS or of the various government ministries they serve.
Increasingly, U.S. and Interior Ministry officials describe the FPS units as militias, each answering only to the ministry or private security firm that employs it. Ministries were carved out along largely sectarian lines, with many under the control of Shiite religious parties that lead Iraq's government.
When Jabr last month acknowledged death squads were at work within the Interior Ministry, he pointed his finger as well at the FPS, telling the BBC and Newsweek that the service was "out of control."
U.S. officials training Iraq's security forces say they have no more control over the FPS than the Interior Ministry does. "Negative. None. Zero," said Lt. Col. Michael J. Negard, a spokesman for the U.S. training of Iraqi forces.
In an e-mail, the senior U.S. military official said: "Our sense is that we have pretty good situational awareness of the activities of the National Police units (i.e. the former Commandos and Public Order units)." The official pointed out that there are American military advisers with each battalion of the national police, as well as in brigade and division headquarters.
"It could be that some members of the units are sneaking out at night and undertaking extracurricular activities," the official wrote. "However, that is generally unlikely, and the suspicion is that the elements carrying out the killings are either from various militia elements or security units working for other ministries," referring to ministry-level units of the FPS.
However, one former adviser in Iraq said he believes that at least some of the death squads come from the special police commando squads that the United States helped establish.
The Interior Ministry, which is trying to clean up its own reputation for harboring death squads, in recent weeks has acted to try to bring the FPS under some measure of oversight. On May 6, the private security companies that pay the salaries of FPS members agreed to several Interior Ministry proposals meant to bring some central order to the paramilitary unit, said Gen. Raad al-Tamimi of the Interior Ministry.
The Interior Ministry is to issue badges and distinctive seals for the vehicles of the FPS and supervise the kinds of weapons it uses, Tamimi said. Agents of the security companies and the ministry also made clear that FPS members were liable for prosecution for any crimes, the official said.
The security companies also agreed to bring the FPS under ministry supervision, Tamimi said, but he gave no details. Ongoing negotiations would bring the FPS under the same Interior Ministry command as the national police but with slightly different uniforms, Tamimi said.
"There is a desire to standardize the whole issue," Negard, the U.S. spokesman, said. "You want to be able to know who everybody is. You kind of can't tell now."
In violence Saturday, gunmen killed the son of Iraq's top judge along with two of his bodyguards and dumped their bodies in Baghdad, officials told news agencies.
Victims of other reported attacks included five Iraqis, a U.S. soldier and an Iranian Shiite pilgrim beheaded in Najaf. The soldier was killed when a roadside bomb hit his vehicle before dawn in south Baghdad, according to a U.S. military statement that gave no further details.
In Basra, the country's second-largest city, Gov. Mohammed Mosabbah Mohammed al-Weily issued a fiery statement blaming the local police chief, army commander and others for failing to curb or investigate killings and political assassinations. Weily suspended the police chief pending what he said would be a local council vote on the man's dismissal.
Staff writer Thomas E. Ricks in Washington, special correspondents Saad Sarhan in Najaf and Saad al-Izzi and K.I. Ibrahim in Baghdad, and other Washington Post staff members in Iraq contributed to this report.
Emerging Nations Powering Global Economic Boom
The expansion is the strongest since the 1970s, with China, India and Russia setting the pace. But many U.S. workers are left behind.
By Tom Petruno
Times Staff Writer
May 14, 2006
The global economy is on a growth streak that is shaping up to be the broadest and strongest expansion in more than three decades.
Rising spending and investment by consumers and businesses worldwide are boosting national economies on every continent, pushing down unemployment rates in many countries and lifting business earnings and confidence.
Of 60 nations tracked by investment firm Bridgewater Associates, not one is in recession — the first time that has been true since 1969.
Yet this is a different kind of boom from any other in the post-World War II era, analysts say. The soaring economies of China, India, Russia, Brazil and other emerging nations increasingly are setting the pace, overshadowing the slower growth of the United States, Europe and Japan, where the benefits of the expansion have eluded many workers. (HOW CAN THE US BE IN THE SAME BREATH AS JAPAN AND EUROPE IN TERMS OF 'GROWTH'?)
"This is the first recovery where developing economies are playing a dominant role," said James Paulsen, chief strategist at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis, which manages money for big investors such as pension funds.
The trend is being driven by free trade, which has created millions of jobs in emerging nations in recent years, fueling stunning new wealth in those countries.
China's meteoric rise has been well-documented, but the boom has spread far and wide to include much of the rest of Asia, as well as Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa.
With commodity exports and tourism surging, the South African economy grew about 5% last year, adjusted for inflation. That was nearly four times the average growth rate of the major European countries.
The township of Soweto in South Africa, once on the front line in the anti-apartheid struggle, today is the scene of a more subtle revolution: the transformation into an upwardly mobile, black middle-class neighborhood where wine tastings and car shows are regular events and where a 700,000-square-foot mall is under construction.
"Business is good," says retired teacher Lolo Mabitsela, 69, who runs a thriving Soweto bed-and-breakfast. Foreign tourists and white South Africans who once avoided Soweto now book rooms at her inn, she says.
In India, economic deregulation and a fast-growing technology service sector are powering consumer demand.
College teacher Rakhi Maral notes that local stores in her city of New Delhi now stock expensive imported perfumes that in years past could be found only at duty-free shops.
"People are being paid better, hence the buying capacity is more," she says.
For Russia, the global hunger for energy and other raw materials has created a financial windfall. The country has become the world's largest exporter of natural gas and second-largest exporter of oil, as well as a major supplier of metals, timber and other resources.
Wealth from those exports now is filtering down to drive growth in the country's retail and consumer goods sectors, said Al Breach, chief economist at investment bank Brunswick UBS in Moscow.
"Culturally, you always had a middle class here, but it was extremely poor," Breach said. "Now, increasingly, that class is getting money, especially the younger generation."
The simplest yardstick of economic success is a country's growth in real gross domestic product, or how fast its total output of goods and services is rising after inflation. For the developing world, that growth is expected to be 6.9% this year — more than double the 3% pace of the developed world, according to the International Monetary Fund.
By contrast, in 1999, emerging economies grew 3.8%, relatively close to the 3.2% rate of developed nations.
The breakaway growth of the developing world is why the global economy overall is on track to post its fourth straight year of 4%-plus expansion, the IMF estimates. The last such streak was in the early 1970s.
With the developed world's growth lagging well behind that of emerging economies, however, workers in industrialized nations may not feel like they are part of the global boom. Wages in the United States, for example, have been slow to rise in recent years. In Western Europe, unemployment rates remain stubbornly high.
The U.S. and other countries in the developed world have lost jobs to emerging nations as a result of free trade, triggering protectionist sentiment here and in Europe.
Also, zooming prices for oil and other commodities, which have enriched the developing nations that export them, have come largely at the expense of the West.
"We can't really see an improvement in living standards for a large segment of the population" in industrialized nations, said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington.
There is no question that some of the developing world's gains are, in effect, a transfer of wealth from the industrialized world, but experts say emerging countries' success also is flowing back to the U.S., Europe and Japan — which combined still account for about two-thirds of the global economy.
The strength of the emerging economies could mean that this global expansion cycle will last longer than normal, as more people join the ranks of the consumer society. That could be good news for aging industrialized nations as well.
U.S. corporations, for example, are selling more abroad than ever before. American exports hit a record $115 billion in March. Companies in the blue-chip Standard & Poor's 500 index derived 32% of their sales from outside the U.S. last year, brokerage Lehman Bros. calculates.
"A new 'Mall of America' is being created in these smaller, younger-demographic, emerging economies," Wells Capital's Paulsen said.
Average Americans also have profited from the global expansion by investing heavily in foreign stock markets, many of which have dramatically outperformed the U.S. market the last three years. Americans bought a net $105 billion of foreign stock funds last year, compared with $31 billion of U.S. funds.
What's more, low-cost goods from developing nations have helped keep inflation pressures muted despite the jump in oil prices, economists say.
"A lot of people are benefiting from globalization and they don't know it," said Paul Kasriel, economist at Northern Trust Co. in Chicago. "If you're buying things at lower prices and you still have your job, you're benefiting."
Global demand for Japanese exports has helped pull that nation out of a 15-year funk. Cheered by reviving domestic spending, the Bank of Japan has said it expects to begin slowly raising short-term interest rates from the current near-zero levels.
Global growth also has kept Germany at the top of the list of world exporters. The nation last year exported goods worth nearly $1 trillion, a record for any country. That kept German economic growth positive by offsetting weak domestic consumption.
Last month, a regular survey of 7,000 German businesses indicated that their confidence level in the economy was the highest since the poll began in 1991. The German stock market last week hit a five-year high.
But many German workers may have a hard time identifying with the global boom. The nation's unemployment rate is 11.5%, compared with 4.7% in the U.S. Germany and the rest of Western Europe have seen jobs migrate to lower-cost labor in Eastern Europe.
Even in developing countries where the boom is centered, prosperity isn't evenly distributed.
In South America, many economists have criticized the lack of chorrea, or trickle-down, from the wealth explosion fueled by the continent's exports of oil, soybeans, copper and other raw materials.
The poverty level in Peru, for example, still tops 50%, and popular dissatisfaction has boosted the upstart presidential candidacy of Ollanta Humala, a nationalist ex-army officer who has pledged to renegotiate contracts with mining firms and other multinational companies in Peru.
Bolivian President Evo Morales, an ally of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, shocked the world this month by nationalizing Bolivia's energy businesses in the name of halting what he said was the pillaging of South American resources by foreigners.
The potential for a mounting backlash against globalization, in both the developing and developed worlds, is one big risk to the economic boom. In the U.S., protectionist voices are rising in Congress, where some want to slap new tariffs on Chinese goods.
As U.S. consumers have continued to spend on imports, driving the U.S. trade deficit to unprecedented levels, some analysts have warned of a false prosperity. The deficit means the nation is going deeper into debt to sustain consumption.
"This trade deficit is financing a standard of living we really can't afford," said Byron Wien, investment strategist at Pequot Capital Management in New York.
Yet some analysts say the greater risk to the boom is that it will sow the seeds of its own demise by fostering rising inflation and interest rates.
Emerging nations have benefited from the low interest rates that prevailed in the developed world in recent years, as policymakers in the U.S., Europe and Japan sought to keep their economies out of recession. Those low rates kept the cost of money down worldwide and served as a "steroid injection" for the developing world, said Michael Darda, economist at investment firm MKM Partners in Greenwich, Conn.
But growing inflation pressures, stemming in part from higher energy costs, are putting upward pressure on interest rates. And that is raising questions about how long the global economic boom can last.
Stock markets worldwide tumbled late last week on those fears after the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark short-term rate for the 16th time since mid-2004 and left open the possibility of more increases. Rates also have been rising in Europe, Canada and China this year.
Typically, policymakers seek to push up rates when they want to cool the economy and inflation. The perennial risk is that they will go too far and turn a boom into a bust — a recession that could trigger collapses of commodity prices and stock markets.
Kasriel, the Northern Trust economist, believes that the U.S. will fall into recession by year's end if the Fed continues to tighten credit.
"If the global economy is going to weaken, it's going to be because of the U.S. consumer," he said.
That would pose a major challenge for China and other export-dependent developing nations: Could they cope with a temporary drop in demand from U.S. consumers by encouraging more consumption at home or among other emerging-market trading partners?
The future of the global boom increasingly may depend on consumers like Huang Qingqi, a 43-year-old taxi driver for a five-star hotel in the Xiangtan area of Hunan province, where Mao Tse-tung was born.
"These days people are visiting hotels, karaoke bars and having dinner out," says the mustachioed Huang. "More are taking taxis. Before they preferred buses."
Huang's income has tripled in two years to about $375 a month, he says. For his family, that has meant more consumption — wooden floors for their 850-square-foot apartment, two new TV sets and a new refrigerator.
Also, Huang said, "These days if guests come to our house, we don't bother to cook. We take them out."
Among Huang's customers are some of the thousands of workers at Xiangtan Steel, which has been thundering with activity to supply materials for China's new cars, railroad lines and countless products that are churning out of the nation's factories.
Wells Capital's Paulsen says the underlying strength of emerging economies makes him optimistic about the global boom. He views the massive U.S. trade deficit that has built up over the last decade as a modern "Marshall Plan" for developing economies.
Like the post-World War II Marshall Plan in Europe, by which the U.S. jump-started the rebuilding of the continent's economy, the U.S. trade deficit has gotten the developing world on its feet and able to take on sustained leadership in supporting global economic growth, Paulsen says.
"I think we're just starting to reap the benefits of that investment," he says.
Contributing to this report were Times staff writers Shankhadeep Choudhury in New Delhi; Robyn Dixon in Johannesburg, South Africa; Chris Kraul in Bogota, Colombia; Don Lee in Xiangtan, China; Patrick McDonnell and Andrés D'Alessandro in Buenos Aires; Christian Retzlaff in Berlin; and Natasha Yefimova in Moscow. Special correspondent Elizabeth Love in Johannesburg also contributed.
The expansion is the strongest since the 1970s, with China, India and Russia setting the pace. But many U.S. workers are left behind.
By Tom Petruno
Times Staff Writer
May 14, 2006
The global economy is on a growth streak that is shaping up to be the broadest and strongest expansion in more than three decades.
Rising spending and investment by consumers and businesses worldwide are boosting national economies on every continent, pushing down unemployment rates in many countries and lifting business earnings and confidence.
Of 60 nations tracked by investment firm Bridgewater Associates, not one is in recession — the first time that has been true since 1969.
Yet this is a different kind of boom from any other in the post-World War II era, analysts say. The soaring economies of China, India, Russia, Brazil and other emerging nations increasingly are setting the pace, overshadowing the slower growth of the United States, Europe and Japan, where the benefits of the expansion have eluded many workers. (HOW CAN THE US BE IN THE SAME BREATH AS JAPAN AND EUROPE IN TERMS OF 'GROWTH'?)
"This is the first recovery where developing economies are playing a dominant role," said James Paulsen, chief strategist at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis, which manages money for big investors such as pension funds.
The trend is being driven by free trade, which has created millions of jobs in emerging nations in recent years, fueling stunning new wealth in those countries.
China's meteoric rise has been well-documented, but the boom has spread far and wide to include much of the rest of Asia, as well as Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa.
With commodity exports and tourism surging, the South African economy grew about 5% last year, adjusted for inflation. That was nearly four times the average growth rate of the major European countries.
The township of Soweto in South Africa, once on the front line in the anti-apartheid struggle, today is the scene of a more subtle revolution: the transformation into an upwardly mobile, black middle-class neighborhood where wine tastings and car shows are regular events and where a 700,000-square-foot mall is under construction.
"Business is good," says retired teacher Lolo Mabitsela, 69, who runs a thriving Soweto bed-and-breakfast. Foreign tourists and white South Africans who once avoided Soweto now book rooms at her inn, she says.
In India, economic deregulation and a fast-growing technology service sector are powering consumer demand.
College teacher Rakhi Maral notes that local stores in her city of New Delhi now stock expensive imported perfumes that in years past could be found only at duty-free shops.
"People are being paid better, hence the buying capacity is more," she says.
For Russia, the global hunger for energy and other raw materials has created a financial windfall. The country has become the world's largest exporter of natural gas and second-largest exporter of oil, as well as a major supplier of metals, timber and other resources.
Wealth from those exports now is filtering down to drive growth in the country's retail and consumer goods sectors, said Al Breach, chief economist at investment bank Brunswick UBS in Moscow.
"Culturally, you always had a middle class here, but it was extremely poor," Breach said. "Now, increasingly, that class is getting money, especially the younger generation."
The simplest yardstick of economic success is a country's growth in real gross domestic product, or how fast its total output of goods and services is rising after inflation. For the developing world, that growth is expected to be 6.9% this year — more than double the 3% pace of the developed world, according to the International Monetary Fund.
By contrast, in 1999, emerging economies grew 3.8%, relatively close to the 3.2% rate of developed nations.
The breakaway growth of the developing world is why the global economy overall is on track to post its fourth straight year of 4%-plus expansion, the IMF estimates. The last such streak was in the early 1970s.
With the developed world's growth lagging well behind that of emerging economies, however, workers in industrialized nations may not feel like they are part of the global boom. Wages in the United States, for example, have been slow to rise in recent years. In Western Europe, unemployment rates remain stubbornly high.
The U.S. and other countries in the developed world have lost jobs to emerging nations as a result of free trade, triggering protectionist sentiment here and in Europe.
Also, zooming prices for oil and other commodities, which have enriched the developing nations that export them, have come largely at the expense of the West.
"We can't really see an improvement in living standards for a large segment of the population" in industrialized nations, said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington.
There is no question that some of the developing world's gains are, in effect, a transfer of wealth from the industrialized world, but experts say emerging countries' success also is flowing back to the U.S., Europe and Japan — which combined still account for about two-thirds of the global economy.
The strength of the emerging economies could mean that this global expansion cycle will last longer than normal, as more people join the ranks of the consumer society. That could be good news for aging industrialized nations as well.
U.S. corporations, for example, are selling more abroad than ever before. American exports hit a record $115 billion in March. Companies in the blue-chip Standard & Poor's 500 index derived 32% of their sales from outside the U.S. last year, brokerage Lehman Bros. calculates.
"A new 'Mall of America' is being created in these smaller, younger-demographic, emerging economies," Wells Capital's Paulsen said.
Average Americans also have profited from the global expansion by investing heavily in foreign stock markets, many of which have dramatically outperformed the U.S. market the last three years. Americans bought a net $105 billion of foreign stock funds last year, compared with $31 billion of U.S. funds.
What's more, low-cost goods from developing nations have helped keep inflation pressures muted despite the jump in oil prices, economists say.
"A lot of people are benefiting from globalization and they don't know it," said Paul Kasriel, economist at Northern Trust Co. in Chicago. "If you're buying things at lower prices and you still have your job, you're benefiting."
Global demand for Japanese exports has helped pull that nation out of a 15-year funk. Cheered by reviving domestic spending, the Bank of Japan has said it expects to begin slowly raising short-term interest rates from the current near-zero levels.
Global growth also has kept Germany at the top of the list of world exporters. The nation last year exported goods worth nearly $1 trillion, a record for any country. That kept German economic growth positive by offsetting weak domestic consumption.
Last month, a regular survey of 7,000 German businesses indicated that their confidence level in the economy was the highest since the poll began in 1991. The German stock market last week hit a five-year high.
But many German workers may have a hard time identifying with the global boom. The nation's unemployment rate is 11.5%, compared with 4.7% in the U.S. Germany and the rest of Western Europe have seen jobs migrate to lower-cost labor in Eastern Europe.
Even in developing countries where the boom is centered, prosperity isn't evenly distributed.
In South America, many economists have criticized the lack of chorrea, or trickle-down, from the wealth explosion fueled by the continent's exports of oil, soybeans, copper and other raw materials.
The poverty level in Peru, for example, still tops 50%, and popular dissatisfaction has boosted the upstart presidential candidacy of Ollanta Humala, a nationalist ex-army officer who has pledged to renegotiate contracts with mining firms and other multinational companies in Peru.
Bolivian President Evo Morales, an ally of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, shocked the world this month by nationalizing Bolivia's energy businesses in the name of halting what he said was the pillaging of South American resources by foreigners.
The potential for a mounting backlash against globalization, in both the developing and developed worlds, is one big risk to the economic boom. In the U.S., protectionist voices are rising in Congress, where some want to slap new tariffs on Chinese goods.
As U.S. consumers have continued to spend on imports, driving the U.S. trade deficit to unprecedented levels, some analysts have warned of a false prosperity. The deficit means the nation is going deeper into debt to sustain consumption.
"This trade deficit is financing a standard of living we really can't afford," said Byron Wien, investment strategist at Pequot Capital Management in New York.
Yet some analysts say the greater risk to the boom is that it will sow the seeds of its own demise by fostering rising inflation and interest rates.
Emerging nations have benefited from the low interest rates that prevailed in the developed world in recent years, as policymakers in the U.S., Europe and Japan sought to keep their economies out of recession. Those low rates kept the cost of money down worldwide and served as a "steroid injection" for the developing world, said Michael Darda, economist at investment firm MKM Partners in Greenwich, Conn.
But growing inflation pressures, stemming in part from higher energy costs, are putting upward pressure on interest rates. And that is raising questions about how long the global economic boom can last.
Stock markets worldwide tumbled late last week on those fears after the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark short-term rate for the 16th time since mid-2004 and left open the possibility of more increases. Rates also have been rising in Europe, Canada and China this year.
Typically, policymakers seek to push up rates when they want to cool the economy and inflation. The perennial risk is that they will go too far and turn a boom into a bust — a recession that could trigger collapses of commodity prices and stock markets.
Kasriel, the Northern Trust economist, believes that the U.S. will fall into recession by year's end if the Fed continues to tighten credit.
"If the global economy is going to weaken, it's going to be because of the U.S. consumer," he said.
That would pose a major challenge for China and other export-dependent developing nations: Could they cope with a temporary drop in demand from U.S. consumers by encouraging more consumption at home or among other emerging-market trading partners?
The future of the global boom increasingly may depend on consumers like Huang Qingqi, a 43-year-old taxi driver for a five-star hotel in the Xiangtan area of Hunan province, where Mao Tse-tung was born.
"These days people are visiting hotels, karaoke bars and having dinner out," says the mustachioed Huang. "More are taking taxis. Before they preferred buses."
Huang's income has tripled in two years to about $375 a month, he says. For his family, that has meant more consumption — wooden floors for their 850-square-foot apartment, two new TV sets and a new refrigerator.
Also, Huang said, "These days if guests come to our house, we don't bother to cook. We take them out."
Among Huang's customers are some of the thousands of workers at Xiangtan Steel, which has been thundering with activity to supply materials for China's new cars, railroad lines and countless products that are churning out of the nation's factories.
Wells Capital's Paulsen says the underlying strength of emerging economies makes him optimistic about the global boom. He views the massive U.S. trade deficit that has built up over the last decade as a modern "Marshall Plan" for developing economies.
Like the post-World War II Marshall Plan in Europe, by which the U.S. jump-started the rebuilding of the continent's economy, the U.S. trade deficit has gotten the developing world on its feet and able to take on sustained leadership in supporting global economic growth, Paulsen says.
"I think we're just starting to reap the benefits of that investment," he says.
Contributing to this report were Times staff writers Shankhadeep Choudhury in New Delhi; Robyn Dixon in Johannesburg, South Africa; Chris Kraul in Bogota, Colombia; Don Lee in Xiangtan, China; Patrick McDonnell and Andrés D'Alessandro in Buenos Aires; Christian Retzlaff in Berlin; and Natasha Yefimova in Moscow. Special correspondent Elizabeth Love in Johannesburg also contributed.
Fast forward 10 years… and there are cold wars everywhere
By Niall Ferguson
(Filed: 14/05/2006)
Ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, pessimists have been asking themselves when the next cold war will begin, and who the new enemy will be. But what if it's cold wars, plural, and enemies, plural, we should be worrying about?
A world with one potential nuclear conflict was scary enough. It would be a whole lot scarier if in future there were multiple nuclear rivalries - four or more regional cold wars, each with the potential to end in devastating missile exchanges. Unfortunately, that is precisely what the future may hold if the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) becomes a dead letter, and nuclear weapons are acquired by powers indifferent to both the post-Nagasaki taboo against their use and the cold war logic of deterrence based on "mutually assured destruction".
Why does it suddenly seem so hard to stop Iran from going nuclear? The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is behaving with such recklessness that it ought to be easy. Last October, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". It was, he told cheering Indonesian students last week, a "tyrannical regime that one day will be destroyed". Simultaneously, Ahmadinejad has trumpeted Iran's "right" to pursue its nuclear ambitions, barely disguising his country's intention to move from energy into weaponry.
Iran is the world's biggest sponsor of terrorist organisations. It openly aspires to exploit the instability of Iraq to establish hegemony - if not a new Persian empire - in the Gulf region and beyond. If you need an illustration of the term "rogue regime", then look no further. Yet the West - what's left of it - seems paralysed, watching Ahmadinejad with the same appalled fascination that a large and docile cow might regard a rearing cobra.
It is, of course, always dangerous to draw analogies with the 1930s. Too many bad decisions have been made over the years on the basis of facile parallels - between Hitler and Nasser, between Hitler and Saddam Hussein. As a friend's father wittily observed during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq: "It's the 1930s all over again, all over again."
Still, in one respect, Ahmadinejad really has taken a leaf out of the Führer's book. He has discovered the counter-intuitive truth that it works to talk aggressively before you have acquired weapons of mass destruction.
Hitler did this. He made recklessly belligerent speeches in 1938, threatening war if he was not handed the German-speaking regions of Czechoslovakia; he took much the same view of the legitimacy of the Czech state as Ahmadinejad does of Israel's right to exist. It was all the most tremendous bluff; we now know how unprepared Germany was for war at that time. In particular, Hitler talked up the capability of the Luftwaffe, curdling the blood of British politicians with visions of London flattened by German bombing raids. This was fantasy in 1938.
Yet sabre-rattling threats can work even if they are bluff. The key, as Ahmadinejad has seen, is that weak opponents are unnerved when they fear they are dealing with a madman. In this respect, the long and nutty letter sent by Ahmadinejad to President Bush last week was exemplary. (Was it, I wonder, written in green ink?) I particularly admired the many references to "the prophet Jesus Christ (PBUH)" (Peace Be Upon Him).
Four years ago, George W. Bush would have binned such drivel with a snort of "WBUH" (War Be Upon Him) and told his generals to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, to activate special forces already in Iran and to put Iranian opposition leaders on stand-by for regime change. In those days, as Saddam Hussein found to his cost, talking tough when the WMD weren't ready was a suicidal strategy.
But those days are gone. President Bush is now almost as unpopular a president as Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter at the nadirs of their political fortunes. The gaggle of retired generals who recently denounced Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sounded more like mouthpieces for the Joint Chiefs of Staff than yesterday's men grumbling from the sidelines.
Not only is domestic and military support lacking for any pre-emptive action against Teheran. Inter-national support is close to non-existent. The Europeans, predictably, favour the United Nations route and the seldom-effective stick of sanctions. But the Chinese and Russians will ensure that any such stick is made of bamboo, if not balsa wood. And the last dismal days of Tony Blair portend the end of the special relationship.
As if these weaknesses were not sufficient, Mr Bush has added one of his own. By agreeing to help India with its nuclear energy programme, despite India's not being a signatory of the NPT, the President has undermined the very principle of the treaty. It is precisely the prospect of assistance with the development of nuclear energy that is supposed to encourage countries to sign the NPT. If India can get help anyway, why bother signing?
In short, it seems highly probable that nothing will be done this year, next year or the year after to stop Iran's nuclear programme. Sure, maybe a miracle will happen and the Iranian people will get rid of the madman and the mullahs. But I'm not holding my breath.
Fast forward to 2016. What does the world look like? One plausible scenario is that it will be a world of multiple mini cold wars, with pairs of nuclear powers eyeball to eyeball in nearly every region. In Asia, there is already a cold war between India and Pakistan, though they seem to have entered a period of détente. Ten years from now, there could be several more such potentially deadly double-acts.
Japan could quite quickly acquire nuclear weapons if it felt insufficiently protected by the United States against China. South Korea might do the same to meet the threat from North Korea. And might a decoupled Europe start to build up the Anglo-French nuclear capability as a response to energy-blackmail from Russia? The key cold war of the future, however, would be the one in the Middle East, with Israel on one side and Iran on the other.
There are those who say that such a world could still be peaceful. The acquisition of nuclear weapons can make a rogue regime reasonable, they argue, since - that old line from Spiderman - "With great power comes great responsibility".
In a recent lecture at Harvard, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and nuclear theorist Thomas Schelling argued that three things had prevented nuclear weapons from being used in anger over the past 60 years: the Non-Proliferation Treaty; the informal taboo on their use; and the fear of retaliation. That was why the Bomb was not dropped during the Korean War, and that was why both superpowers invested heavily in European conventional forces, which would have been redundant in a nuclear exchange. Nuclear weapons give their possessors influence, Schelling concluded, precisely through not being used.
Yet there is no guarantee that this logic will continue to apply in a world of multiple cold wars. For one thing, the world enjoyed 60 years without nuclear war partly out of sheer good luck, as any student of the Cuban Missile Crisis knows. In a world of multiple cold wars, the risks of miscalculation are proportionally multiplied.
For another, Mr Ahmadinejad does not look to me like the kind of man who bothers about (Western) taboos or fears (Israeli) retaliation. On the contrary, he is a devotee of the Hidden Twelfth Imam, who Shi'ites believe will return to earth as the Mahdi (Messiah) for a final decisive showdown with the Forces of Evil. Among the members of the Mahdi's entourage will be none other than Jesus Christ (PBUH). After that, it will be the End of Days.
When Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations last September, this is how he concluded: "O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."
To a millenarian, mutually assured destruction is just another word for the long-awaited Apocalypse. And that, in essence, is why we don't want Iran to have the Bomb. But are we doomed to grasp this only when the mushroom clouds are rising over Tel Aviv and Teheran?
• Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University www.niallferguson.org
By Niall Ferguson
(Filed: 14/05/2006)
Ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, pessimists have been asking themselves when the next cold war will begin, and who the new enemy will be. But what if it's cold wars, plural, and enemies, plural, we should be worrying about?
A world with one potential nuclear conflict was scary enough. It would be a whole lot scarier if in future there were multiple nuclear rivalries - four or more regional cold wars, each with the potential to end in devastating missile exchanges. Unfortunately, that is precisely what the future may hold if the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) becomes a dead letter, and nuclear weapons are acquired by powers indifferent to both the post-Nagasaki taboo against their use and the cold war logic of deterrence based on "mutually assured destruction".
Why does it suddenly seem so hard to stop Iran from going nuclear? The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is behaving with such recklessness that it ought to be easy. Last October, he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". It was, he told cheering Indonesian students last week, a "tyrannical regime that one day will be destroyed". Simultaneously, Ahmadinejad has trumpeted Iran's "right" to pursue its nuclear ambitions, barely disguising his country's intention to move from energy into weaponry.
Iran is the world's biggest sponsor of terrorist organisations. It openly aspires to exploit the instability of Iraq to establish hegemony - if not a new Persian empire - in the Gulf region and beyond. If you need an illustration of the term "rogue regime", then look no further. Yet the West - what's left of it - seems paralysed, watching Ahmadinejad with the same appalled fascination that a large and docile cow might regard a rearing cobra.
It is, of course, always dangerous to draw analogies with the 1930s. Too many bad decisions have been made over the years on the basis of facile parallels - between Hitler and Nasser, between Hitler and Saddam Hussein. As a friend's father wittily observed during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq: "It's the 1930s all over again, all over again."
Still, in one respect, Ahmadinejad really has taken a leaf out of the Führer's book. He has discovered the counter-intuitive truth that it works to talk aggressively before you have acquired weapons of mass destruction.
Hitler did this. He made recklessly belligerent speeches in 1938, threatening war if he was not handed the German-speaking regions of Czechoslovakia; he took much the same view of the legitimacy of the Czech state as Ahmadinejad does of Israel's right to exist. It was all the most tremendous bluff; we now know how unprepared Germany was for war at that time. In particular, Hitler talked up the capability of the Luftwaffe, curdling the blood of British politicians with visions of London flattened by German bombing raids. This was fantasy in 1938.
Yet sabre-rattling threats can work even if they are bluff. The key, as Ahmadinejad has seen, is that weak opponents are unnerved when they fear they are dealing with a madman. In this respect, the long and nutty letter sent by Ahmadinejad to President Bush last week was exemplary. (Was it, I wonder, written in green ink?) I particularly admired the many references to "the prophet Jesus Christ (PBUH)" (Peace Be Upon Him).
Four years ago, George W. Bush would have binned such drivel with a snort of "WBUH" (War Be Upon Him) and told his generals to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, to activate special forces already in Iran and to put Iranian opposition leaders on stand-by for regime change. In those days, as Saddam Hussein found to his cost, talking tough when the WMD weren't ready was a suicidal strategy.
But those days are gone. President Bush is now almost as unpopular a president as Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter at the nadirs of their political fortunes. The gaggle of retired generals who recently denounced Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sounded more like mouthpieces for the Joint Chiefs of Staff than yesterday's men grumbling from the sidelines.
Not only is domestic and military support lacking for any pre-emptive action against Teheran. Inter-national support is close to non-existent. The Europeans, predictably, favour the United Nations route and the seldom-effective stick of sanctions. But the Chinese and Russians will ensure that any such stick is made of bamboo, if not balsa wood. And the last dismal days of Tony Blair portend the end of the special relationship.
As if these weaknesses were not sufficient, Mr Bush has added one of his own. By agreeing to help India with its nuclear energy programme, despite India's not being a signatory of the NPT, the President has undermined the very principle of the treaty. It is precisely the prospect of assistance with the development of nuclear energy that is supposed to encourage countries to sign the NPT. If India can get help anyway, why bother signing?
In short, it seems highly probable that nothing will be done this year, next year or the year after to stop Iran's nuclear programme. Sure, maybe a miracle will happen and the Iranian people will get rid of the madman and the mullahs. But I'm not holding my breath.
Fast forward to 2016. What does the world look like? One plausible scenario is that it will be a world of multiple mini cold wars, with pairs of nuclear powers eyeball to eyeball in nearly every region. In Asia, there is already a cold war between India and Pakistan, though they seem to have entered a period of détente. Ten years from now, there could be several more such potentially deadly double-acts.
Japan could quite quickly acquire nuclear weapons if it felt insufficiently protected by the United States against China. South Korea might do the same to meet the threat from North Korea. And might a decoupled Europe start to build up the Anglo-French nuclear capability as a response to energy-blackmail from Russia? The key cold war of the future, however, would be the one in the Middle East, with Israel on one side and Iran on the other.
There are those who say that such a world could still be peaceful. The acquisition of nuclear weapons can make a rogue regime reasonable, they argue, since - that old line from Spiderman - "With great power comes great responsibility".
In a recent lecture at Harvard, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and nuclear theorist Thomas Schelling argued that three things had prevented nuclear weapons from being used in anger over the past 60 years: the Non-Proliferation Treaty; the informal taboo on their use; and the fear of retaliation. That was why the Bomb was not dropped during the Korean War, and that was why both superpowers invested heavily in European conventional forces, which would have been redundant in a nuclear exchange. Nuclear weapons give their possessors influence, Schelling concluded, precisely through not being used.
Yet there is no guarantee that this logic will continue to apply in a world of multiple cold wars. For one thing, the world enjoyed 60 years without nuclear war partly out of sheer good luck, as any student of the Cuban Missile Crisis knows. In a world of multiple cold wars, the risks of miscalculation are proportionally multiplied.
For another, Mr Ahmadinejad does not look to me like the kind of man who bothers about (Western) taboos or fears (Israeli) retaliation. On the contrary, he is a devotee of the Hidden Twelfth Imam, who Shi'ites believe will return to earth as the Mahdi (Messiah) for a final decisive showdown with the Forces of Evil. Among the members of the Mahdi's entourage will be none other than Jesus Christ (PBUH). After that, it will be the End of Days.
When Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations last September, this is how he concluded: "O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace."
To a millenarian, mutually assured destruction is just another word for the long-awaited Apocalypse. And that, in essence, is why we don't want Iran to have the Bomb. But are we doomed to grasp this only when the mushroom clouds are rising over Tel Aviv and Teheran?
• Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University www.niallferguson.org
Russia and US trade angry words over Iran at UN dinner
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 14/05/2006)
The American secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, traded barbs during bad-tempered talks at a foreign ministers' summit in New York on Iran's nuclear programme.
The exchanges provided a candid introduction to diplomacy for Margaret Beckett, the new Foreign Secretary, who attended the tetchy session at the end of her first full day in the job. The row, which further undermines hopes of a diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis, reflects deepening rifts between the United States and Russia.
Tension surfaced at a private meeting hosted by Ms Rice in the Waldorf Hotel for the Russian, British, French, German and Chinese foreign ministers, and spilt over into a much-delayed dinner.
One official in Washington said: "It was a pretty extraordinary session and everyone's been talking about it in private since. It was certainly quite an introduction to the rough and tumble of the new job for Mrs Beckett."
Mr Lavrov arrived at the Waldorf for the meeting seething about a speech on Kremlin policies delivered by Dick Cheney, the vice-president, the previous week in Lithuania. The Russian repeatedly complained about the comments and then threatened to veto a Security Council resolution, drafted by Britain and France and backed by the US, that would force Iran to abandon enrichment of uranium.
Although Moscow has made clear that it opposes any use of mandatory powers, the other ministers were left in no doubt that Mr Lavrov's approach reflected fury over the Cheney speech. As the mood worsened, Mr Lavrov accused the Americans of seeking to undermine efforts by Britain, France and Germany to solve the crisis.
He singled out Nicholas Burns, the State Department's number three, for particular flak, complaining about his criticism of Russian involvement in Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant. Already frustrated, Ms Rice, a Russia expert, took exception to his remarks about Mr Burns and curtly told her guest: "This meeting isn't going anywhere." The gathering in Ms Rice's suite had been intended as a 30-minute chat before dinner but turned into a two-hour session. By the time the foreign ministers sat down to eat at 10.30pm, their sea bass was shrivelled and, to Mrs Beckett's surprise, the bickering continued in front of senior officials.
The next day, John Sawers, the Foreign Office political director, and colleagues from the other five nations worked to smooth over the row. They came up with a new proposal for incentives on trade deals, security guarantees and civilian nuclear technology for Iran if it halts enrichment.
The offer represented a significant tactical shift by the US, as Washington had previously refused to back rewards for Iran. Privately, American and European officials doubt it will alter Iran's behaviour but believe that it may be the only hope of securing Russian and Chinese backing for tougher diplomatic measures, including UN sanctions.
Last week's developments also underscore tensions between Ms Rice and the men who effectively ran US foreign policy during George W Bush's first term - Mr Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. Ms Rice was annoyed that talks on Iran with Mr Lavrov were complicated by the vice president's remarks but Mr Cheney and other hardliners want to send a tough message to Russia and also oppose US overtures to Iran and North Korea.
Indeed, they believe that it is better for the US to make clear that it is willing to pursue a solution with its allies, than to become bogged in negotiation with unco-operative partners. Ms Rice's friendship with Mr Bush has strengthened her position, but Mr Cheney's intervention signals that his voice will be crucial as the administration decides whether to attack sites where it believes Iran is developing a nuclear bomb.
Meanwhile, it was revealed on Friday that UN inspectors had found traces of near bomb-grade enriched uranium on equipment at an Iranian research centre.
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 14/05/2006)
The American secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, traded barbs during bad-tempered talks at a foreign ministers' summit in New York on Iran's nuclear programme.
The exchanges provided a candid introduction to diplomacy for Margaret Beckett, the new Foreign Secretary, who attended the tetchy session at the end of her first full day in the job. The row, which further undermines hopes of a diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis, reflects deepening rifts between the United States and Russia.
Tension surfaced at a private meeting hosted by Ms Rice in the Waldorf Hotel for the Russian, British, French, German and Chinese foreign ministers, and spilt over into a much-delayed dinner.
One official in Washington said: "It was a pretty extraordinary session and everyone's been talking about it in private since. It was certainly quite an introduction to the rough and tumble of the new job for Mrs Beckett."
Mr Lavrov arrived at the Waldorf for the meeting seething about a speech on Kremlin policies delivered by Dick Cheney, the vice-president, the previous week in Lithuania. The Russian repeatedly complained about the comments and then threatened to veto a Security Council resolution, drafted by Britain and France and backed by the US, that would force Iran to abandon enrichment of uranium.
Although Moscow has made clear that it opposes any use of mandatory powers, the other ministers were left in no doubt that Mr Lavrov's approach reflected fury over the Cheney speech. As the mood worsened, Mr Lavrov accused the Americans of seeking to undermine efforts by Britain, France and Germany to solve the crisis.
He singled out Nicholas Burns, the State Department's number three, for particular flak, complaining about his criticism of Russian involvement in Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant. Already frustrated, Ms Rice, a Russia expert, took exception to his remarks about Mr Burns and curtly told her guest: "This meeting isn't going anywhere." The gathering in Ms Rice's suite had been intended as a 30-minute chat before dinner but turned into a two-hour session. By the time the foreign ministers sat down to eat at 10.30pm, their sea bass was shrivelled and, to Mrs Beckett's surprise, the bickering continued in front of senior officials.
The next day, John Sawers, the Foreign Office political director, and colleagues from the other five nations worked to smooth over the row. They came up with a new proposal for incentives on trade deals, security guarantees and civilian nuclear technology for Iran if it halts enrichment.
The offer represented a significant tactical shift by the US, as Washington had previously refused to back rewards for Iran. Privately, American and European officials doubt it will alter Iran's behaviour but believe that it may be the only hope of securing Russian and Chinese backing for tougher diplomatic measures, including UN sanctions.
Last week's developments also underscore tensions between Ms Rice and the men who effectively ran US foreign policy during George W Bush's first term - Mr Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. Ms Rice was annoyed that talks on Iran with Mr Lavrov were complicated by the vice president's remarks but Mr Cheney and other hardliners want to send a tough message to Russia and also oppose US overtures to Iran and North Korea.
Indeed, they believe that it is better for the US to make clear that it is willing to pursue a solution with its allies, than to become bogged in negotiation with unco-operative partners. Ms Rice's friendship with Mr Bush has strengthened her position, but Mr Cheney's intervention signals that his voice will be crucial as the administration decides whether to attack sites where it believes Iran is developing a nuclear bomb.
Meanwhile, it was revealed on Friday that UN inspectors had found traces of near bomb-grade enriched uranium on equipment at an Iranian research centre.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
June 8, 2006
U.S. Strike Hits Insurgent at Safehouse
By JOHN F. BURNS
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 8 — Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in an American airstrike on an isolated safe house north of Baghdad at 6:15 p.m. local time on Wednesday, top American and Iraqi officials said today. Islamic militant Web sites linked to Al Qaeda quickly confirmed the death, saying Mr. Zarqawi had been rewarded with "martyrdom" for his role in the war here.
At a joint news conference with Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the top American military commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., said Mr. Zarqawi's body had been positively identified by fingerprints, "facial recognition" and "known scars."
Six people were killed in the strike: Mr. Zarqawi, his spiritual adviser and four other people including a woman and a child, the military said. The strike had been accompanied by a ground assault involving American and Iraqi troops.
The announcement of Mr. Zarqawi's death, shortly before noon today in Baghdad, 4 a.m. Eastern time, marked a major watershed in the war. With a $25 million American bounty on his head, the Jordanian-born Mr. Zarqawi has been the most-wanted man in Iraq for his leadership of Islamic terrorist groups that have carried out many of the most brutal attacks of the war, including scores of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings. In his late 30's, he had been named "Prince of Al Qaeda" in Iraq by Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda's fugitive leader.
"Today, we have managed to put an end to Zarqawi," said Mr. Maliki, who took office three weeks ago at the head of Iraq's first full-term government since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He said the death should be a warning to other insurgent leaders.
"They should stop now," he said. "They should review their situation and resort to logic while there is still time."
Mr. Maliki, the prime minister, said the raid that killed the Al Qaeda leader had taken place in an area known as Hibhib in Diyala province, which stretches north and east of Baghdad to the Iranian border. The area, 55 miles north of Baghdad, has drawn intensified American military activity in recent weeks in response to a new wave of sectarian killings, including one on Sunday in which Sunni Arab gunmen pulled 20 people, including 7 high school students, off minibuses near Baquba, and killed them.
General Casey said an American airstrike had targeted "a single dwelling in a wooded area surrounded by very dense palm forest" five miles west of Baquba, and that "precision munitions" had been used, a phrase that usually refers to laser-guided bombs or missiles. Scenes shown on BBC's World Service television showed a large pile of rubble, apparently from a concrete-framed building of at least two stories, set in an area bounded by palm trees.
The BBC footage showed Iraqi villagers clambering over the rubble, with no sign of American or Iraqi troops. The villagers pulled an array of belongings from the 10-foot-high pile of cinder blocks, twisted concrete pillars and steel reinforcing words, and laid them out on the bare earth beside the obliterated building. Cooking utensils, torn carpets and a child's green T-shirt were visible, as was the wreck of a white, Japanese-made pickup truck.
A CNN broadcast showed youths picking up a child's sandal and a stuffed toy after the airstrikes, which took place in a neighborhood of about 50 buildings, all in close proximity.
The senior American military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, speaking at a news conference in Baghdad, said the identities of the woman and child killed in the strike had yet to be confirmed.
A framed image of Mr. Zarqawi's face after he was killed was displayed at the briefing, as was an aerial video of the two air strikes by F-16 jets, which dropped 500-pound bombs. General Caldwell said dirt and rubble had been cleaned off Mr. Zarqawi's face before the photograph was taken. He also said that Iraqi security forces had been the first to arrive at the scene and that Mr. Zarqawi's body had been removed.
General Caldwell said it took many weeks of painstaking exploitation of intelligence, until Wednesday night they had "definitive, unquestionable" knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi's location for the first time. He said after Mr. Zarqawi was killed forces went after other targets in 17 simultaneous raids in Baghdad and on the outskirts, obtaining a "treasure trove" of information. (OH BOY, PARTYTIME WILL KEEP GOING ON)
Mr. Maliki said the attack that killed Mr. Zarqawi had resulted from a tip that came from Iraqi civilians in the area, which lies in a province, Diyala, that has an evenly balanced population of Shiite and Sunni Arabs, as well as Kurds. (SOUNDS LIKE HE HAS LOCAL SUPPORT)
The British prime minister, Tony Blair, at a news conference in London, paid tribute to the role played in the attack by coalition intelligence agencies.
"There has been very close cooperation, of course, between everyone — I mean, the Iraqis, the coalition intelligence services and so on," Mr. Blair said..
President Bush, speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House, gave another hint of what happened by thanking American special forces for their role. "Special operation forces, acting on tips and intelligence from Iraqis, confirmed Mr. Zarqawi's location, and delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq," Mr. Bush said.
Mr. Zarqawi, whose adopted name was taken from the town of Zarqa in Jordan where the insurgent leader was raised, had assumed an almost mythic status for his long run of terrorist attacks and statements issued on Islamic militant Web sites that declared his goal to be the establishment of a new "caliphate" in Iraq. The term is taken from the term given to the vast areas of the Arab world that came under strict Islamic rule within 100 years of the death of the Prophet Mohammed in the 7th century A.D.
After twice narrowly escaping capture by American troops in the past 18 months, Mr. Zarqawi became increasingly bold in recent months, issuing videotaped speeches on Islamic militant Web sites, vowing victory against the "crusaders" who had invaded Iraq, meaning American, British and other Western forces. The speeches also called on Sunni Arabs to kill "converters," meaning Iraqi Shiites, effectively inciting civil war here.
American military commanders have said that Mr. Zarqawi personally beheaded some of those kidnapped by his followers, and identified him as the mastermind of one of the first major suicide bombing attacks, a strike in August 2003 that destroyed the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad and killed 22 people, including Sergio Viera de Mello, the head of the United Nations Mission here.
A message posted by Al Qaeda on one of its Web sites, confirming Mr. Zarqawi's death, vowed to continue what it called "the holy war" in Iraq. "We want to give you the joyous news of the martyrdom of the mujahid sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," the message said. It was signed by a man calling himself Abu Abdel-Rahman al-Iraqi," who was identified as the deputy "emir," or leader, of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
The atmosphere at the news conference announcing the killing of Mr. Zarqawi was reminiscent of a similar occasion on Dec. 13, 2003, when L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the American occupation then ruling Iraq, announced the capture of Saddam Hussein in a stifling underground bunker near Mr. Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, 100 miles north of Baghdad.
The mood then was one of triumph, with Mr. Bremer declaring "Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him!" and American military commanders describing the capture as a major turning point in the war. Those hopes were quickly disappointed as the insurgency rapidly worsened, and Mr. Hussein, now on trial in Baghdad, has used the courtroom dock as a platform to encourage the insurgents to intensify their attacks on American and Iraqi targets.
This time, the mood of the American and Iraqi leaders was more cautious, though Mr. Maliki, opening the news conference with the formal announcement of the Zarqawi killing, was greeted by celebratory shouts and cries of "Peace Be Upon Him," the traditional Islamic obeisance to the Prophet Mohammed that Muslims make at moments of joy or special significance.
General Casey, nearing the end of his second year as the American commander here, confined his remarks to a spare summary of the raid that killed Mr. Zarqawi. Unsmiling in his rimless spectacles, the 57-year-old general shook Mr. Maliki's hand vigorously after the Iraqi leader made the formal announcement of Mr. Zarqawi's death, but otherwise seemed at pains not to overstate the significance of the moment.
Mr. Zarqawi, he said, "is known to be responsible for the deaths of thousands" with his terror attacks, and his death would be a major blow to Al Qaeda.
But he added a sober note, saying that "although the designated leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq is now dead," hard fighting in the war lay ahead. "This is just a step in the process," he said.
The American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, took a similar approach. Smiling broadly, the 55-year-old envoy described Mr. Zarqawi's death as "a great success for Iraq" in its war with terrorists, and congratulated General Casey, "whose forces carried out this very vital mission." In a personal nod to General Casey, he noted that the American commander "has been here now for more than 700 days" — an oblique way, perhaps, of saying that Mr. Zarqawi's death marked a rare upturn in the war for the force of 135,000 American troops General Casey leads, who have lost more than 2,400 soldiers dead and more than 17,000 wounded, with no end to the war in sight.
"Zarqawi was the godfather of sectarian killing in Iraq," Mr. Khalilzad said. "He led a civil war within Islam and a global war of civilizations."
To this, the ambassador added a note of caution. "Zarqawi's death will not end the violence in Iraq," he said, "but it is an important step in the right direction." He said it was also an important step for the Maliki government, new in power and facing an uphill struggle to bolster the flagging confidence of Iraqis in the ability of the Baghdad leadership to bring an end to killing that human rights groups say has cost at least 30,000 civilian lives, and possibly many more.
But "there will be difficult days ahead," Mr. Khalilzad said. He added, "I call on Iraq's various communities to take responsibility for bringing sectarian violence to an end, and for all Iraqis to unite" behind the Maliki government, which, though dominated by figures from Shiite religious groups, has a cabinet composed of representatives from all three of Iraq's principal ethnic and religious groups, Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds.
For Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, the killing of Mr. Zarqawi brought immediate political results in the form of parliamentary approval, immediately after the news conference, of Mr. Maliki's nominees for the vacant security posts in the cabinet, the ministers of defense, interior and national security. After the prime minister's repeated failures to win agreement of contending groups within the government on earlier nominees, he stood at the lectern in the Parliament chamber and presented the three men who emerged from weeks of overlapping vetoes by the main Sunni and Shiite political groups.
Named as ministers were Gen. Abdul Qadr Mohammed Jassim, a former general under Saddam Hussein who was jailed in 1994 and sentenced to seven years imprisonment, as minister of defense; Jawad Kadem al-Bolani, a 46-year-old Shiite engineer who was a member of Saddam Hussein's armed forces and became a member of the Iraqi Governing Council in 2003, as minister of the interior, responsible for the police; and Shirwan al-Waili, a 49-year-old Shiite with a background in military engineering who was arrested in the Shiite uprising after the first Persian Gulf war, as minister of national security.
In line with an agreement reached several weeks ago between Sunni and Shiites groups, General Jassim, who has until recently been commander of land forces in the new American-trained Iraqi army, is a Sunni Arab, and Mr. Polani, the interior minister, is a Shiite. Both men stressed in remarks to the Parliament that they had no ties to any of the rival political parties in the government, a qualification that American officials had insisted on after the former government of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari was virtually immobilized over allegations that the interior ministry was sheltering Shiite death squads targeting Sunnis.
Christine Hauser contributed reporting from New York for this article.
U.S. Strike Hits Insurgent at Safehouse
By JOHN F. BURNS
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 8 — Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed in an American airstrike on an isolated safe house north of Baghdad at 6:15 p.m. local time on Wednesday, top American and Iraqi officials said today. Islamic militant Web sites linked to Al Qaeda quickly confirmed the death, saying Mr. Zarqawi had been rewarded with "martyrdom" for his role in the war here.
At a joint news conference with Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the top American military commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., said Mr. Zarqawi's body had been positively identified by fingerprints, "facial recognition" and "known scars."
Six people were killed in the strike: Mr. Zarqawi, his spiritual adviser and four other people including a woman and a child, the military said. The strike had been accompanied by a ground assault involving American and Iraqi troops.
The announcement of Mr. Zarqawi's death, shortly before noon today in Baghdad, 4 a.m. Eastern time, marked a major watershed in the war. With a $25 million American bounty on his head, the Jordanian-born Mr. Zarqawi has been the most-wanted man in Iraq for his leadership of Islamic terrorist groups that have carried out many of the most brutal attacks of the war, including scores of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings. In his late 30's, he had been named "Prince of Al Qaeda" in Iraq by Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda's fugitive leader.
"Today, we have managed to put an end to Zarqawi," said Mr. Maliki, who took office three weeks ago at the head of Iraq's first full-term government since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He said the death should be a warning to other insurgent leaders.
"They should stop now," he said. "They should review their situation and resort to logic while there is still time."
Mr. Maliki, the prime minister, said the raid that killed the Al Qaeda leader had taken place in an area known as Hibhib in Diyala province, which stretches north and east of Baghdad to the Iranian border. The area, 55 miles north of Baghdad, has drawn intensified American military activity in recent weeks in response to a new wave of sectarian killings, including one on Sunday in which Sunni Arab gunmen pulled 20 people, including 7 high school students, off minibuses near Baquba, and killed them.
General Casey said an American airstrike had targeted "a single dwelling in a wooded area surrounded by very dense palm forest" five miles west of Baquba, and that "precision munitions" had been used, a phrase that usually refers to laser-guided bombs or missiles. Scenes shown on BBC's World Service television showed a large pile of rubble, apparently from a concrete-framed building of at least two stories, set in an area bounded by palm trees.
The BBC footage showed Iraqi villagers clambering over the rubble, with no sign of American or Iraqi troops. The villagers pulled an array of belongings from the 10-foot-high pile of cinder blocks, twisted concrete pillars and steel reinforcing words, and laid them out on the bare earth beside the obliterated building. Cooking utensils, torn carpets and a child's green T-shirt were visible, as was the wreck of a white, Japanese-made pickup truck.
A CNN broadcast showed youths picking up a child's sandal and a stuffed toy after the airstrikes, which took place in a neighborhood of about 50 buildings, all in close proximity.
The senior American military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, speaking at a news conference in Baghdad, said the identities of the woman and child killed in the strike had yet to be confirmed.
A framed image of Mr. Zarqawi's face after he was killed was displayed at the briefing, as was an aerial video of the two air strikes by F-16 jets, which dropped 500-pound bombs. General Caldwell said dirt and rubble had been cleaned off Mr. Zarqawi's face before the photograph was taken. He also said that Iraqi security forces had been the first to arrive at the scene and that Mr. Zarqawi's body had been removed.
General Caldwell said it took many weeks of painstaking exploitation of intelligence, until Wednesday night they had "definitive, unquestionable" knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi's location for the first time. He said after Mr. Zarqawi was killed forces went after other targets in 17 simultaneous raids in Baghdad and on the outskirts, obtaining a "treasure trove" of information. (OH BOY, PARTYTIME WILL KEEP GOING ON)
Mr. Maliki said the attack that killed Mr. Zarqawi had resulted from a tip that came from Iraqi civilians in the area, which lies in a province, Diyala, that has an evenly balanced population of Shiite and Sunni Arabs, as well as Kurds. (SOUNDS LIKE HE HAS LOCAL SUPPORT)
The British prime minister, Tony Blair, at a news conference in London, paid tribute to the role played in the attack by coalition intelligence agencies.
"There has been very close cooperation, of course, between everyone — I mean, the Iraqis, the coalition intelligence services and so on," Mr. Blair said..
President Bush, speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House, gave another hint of what happened by thanking American special forces for their role. "Special operation forces, acting on tips and intelligence from Iraqis, confirmed Mr. Zarqawi's location, and delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq," Mr. Bush said.
Mr. Zarqawi, whose adopted name was taken from the town of Zarqa in Jordan where the insurgent leader was raised, had assumed an almost mythic status for his long run of terrorist attacks and statements issued on Islamic militant Web sites that declared his goal to be the establishment of a new "caliphate" in Iraq. The term is taken from the term given to the vast areas of the Arab world that came under strict Islamic rule within 100 years of the death of the Prophet Mohammed in the 7th century A.D.
After twice narrowly escaping capture by American troops in the past 18 months, Mr. Zarqawi became increasingly bold in recent months, issuing videotaped speeches on Islamic militant Web sites, vowing victory against the "crusaders" who had invaded Iraq, meaning American, British and other Western forces. The speeches also called on Sunni Arabs to kill "converters," meaning Iraqi Shiites, effectively inciting civil war here.
American military commanders have said that Mr. Zarqawi personally beheaded some of those kidnapped by his followers, and identified him as the mastermind of one of the first major suicide bombing attacks, a strike in August 2003 that destroyed the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad and killed 22 people, including Sergio Viera de Mello, the head of the United Nations Mission here.
A message posted by Al Qaeda on one of its Web sites, confirming Mr. Zarqawi's death, vowed to continue what it called "the holy war" in Iraq. "We want to give you the joyous news of the martyrdom of the mujahid sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," the message said. It was signed by a man calling himself Abu Abdel-Rahman al-Iraqi," who was identified as the deputy "emir," or leader, of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
The atmosphere at the news conference announcing the killing of Mr. Zarqawi was reminiscent of a similar occasion on Dec. 13, 2003, when L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the American occupation then ruling Iraq, announced the capture of Saddam Hussein in a stifling underground bunker near Mr. Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, 100 miles north of Baghdad.
The mood then was one of triumph, with Mr. Bremer declaring "Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him!" and American military commanders describing the capture as a major turning point in the war. Those hopes were quickly disappointed as the insurgency rapidly worsened, and Mr. Hussein, now on trial in Baghdad, has used the courtroom dock as a platform to encourage the insurgents to intensify their attacks on American and Iraqi targets.
This time, the mood of the American and Iraqi leaders was more cautious, though Mr. Maliki, opening the news conference with the formal announcement of the Zarqawi killing, was greeted by celebratory shouts and cries of "Peace Be Upon Him," the traditional Islamic obeisance to the Prophet Mohammed that Muslims make at moments of joy or special significance.
General Casey, nearing the end of his second year as the American commander here, confined his remarks to a spare summary of the raid that killed Mr. Zarqawi. Unsmiling in his rimless spectacles, the 57-year-old general shook Mr. Maliki's hand vigorously after the Iraqi leader made the formal announcement of Mr. Zarqawi's death, but otherwise seemed at pains not to overstate the significance of the moment.
Mr. Zarqawi, he said, "is known to be responsible for the deaths of thousands" with his terror attacks, and his death would be a major blow to Al Qaeda.
But he added a sober note, saying that "although the designated leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq is now dead," hard fighting in the war lay ahead. "This is just a step in the process," he said.
The American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, took a similar approach. Smiling broadly, the 55-year-old envoy described Mr. Zarqawi's death as "a great success for Iraq" in its war with terrorists, and congratulated General Casey, "whose forces carried out this very vital mission." In a personal nod to General Casey, he noted that the American commander "has been here now for more than 700 days" — an oblique way, perhaps, of saying that Mr. Zarqawi's death marked a rare upturn in the war for the force of 135,000 American troops General Casey leads, who have lost more than 2,400 soldiers dead and more than 17,000 wounded, with no end to the war in sight.
"Zarqawi was the godfather of sectarian killing in Iraq," Mr. Khalilzad said. "He led a civil war within Islam and a global war of civilizations."
To this, the ambassador added a note of caution. "Zarqawi's death will not end the violence in Iraq," he said, "but it is an important step in the right direction." He said it was also an important step for the Maliki government, new in power and facing an uphill struggle to bolster the flagging confidence of Iraqis in the ability of the Baghdad leadership to bring an end to killing that human rights groups say has cost at least 30,000 civilian lives, and possibly many more.
But "there will be difficult days ahead," Mr. Khalilzad said. He added, "I call on Iraq's various communities to take responsibility for bringing sectarian violence to an end, and for all Iraqis to unite" behind the Maliki government, which, though dominated by figures from Shiite religious groups, has a cabinet composed of representatives from all three of Iraq's principal ethnic and religious groups, Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds.
For Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, the killing of Mr. Zarqawi brought immediate political results in the form of parliamentary approval, immediately after the news conference, of Mr. Maliki's nominees for the vacant security posts in the cabinet, the ministers of defense, interior and national security. After the prime minister's repeated failures to win agreement of contending groups within the government on earlier nominees, he stood at the lectern in the Parliament chamber and presented the three men who emerged from weeks of overlapping vetoes by the main Sunni and Shiite political groups.
Named as ministers were Gen. Abdul Qadr Mohammed Jassim, a former general under Saddam Hussein who was jailed in 1994 and sentenced to seven years imprisonment, as minister of defense; Jawad Kadem al-Bolani, a 46-year-old Shiite engineer who was a member of Saddam Hussein's armed forces and became a member of the Iraqi Governing Council in 2003, as minister of the interior, responsible for the police; and Shirwan al-Waili, a 49-year-old Shiite with a background in military engineering who was arrested in the Shiite uprising after the first Persian Gulf war, as minister of national security.
In line with an agreement reached several weeks ago between Sunni and Shiites groups, General Jassim, who has until recently been commander of land forces in the new American-trained Iraqi army, is a Sunni Arab, and Mr. Polani, the interior minister, is a Shiite. Both men stressed in remarks to the Parliament that they had no ties to any of the rival political parties in the government, a qualification that American officials had insisted on after the former government of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari was virtually immobilized over allegations that the interior ministry was sheltering Shiite death squads targeting Sunnis.
Christine Hauser contributed reporting from New York for this article.
Hunt Ends With Pair of 500-Lb. Bombs
June 8, 2006
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and MARK MAZZETTI
BAGHDAD, June 8 — The American military finally hunted down and killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by homing in on the activities of the terrorist leader's "spiritual adviser" and tracking the adviser to a safe house sheltered amid tall palm trees near the restive insurgent-heavy city of Baquba, military officials said today. (THE TIMES IS SAD ABOUT THE SPEED AT WHICH THIS HAPPENED)
Several weeks ago, someone inside the Zarqawi network turned the military's attention to the spiritual adviser, identified as Sheikh Abd al-Rahman, said Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the senior military spokesman in Iraq. It was not clear whether the provider of the information was a voluntary informer or someone in custody who revealed it during interrogation.
The military tracked Sheikh Rahman with an unmanned aerial vehicle, according to one Pentagon official. And human intelligence and "electronic signal intelligence" — eavesdropping or other forms of intercepting communications — were also used to pinpoint him, General Caldwell said.
The result was that "last night was the first time that we have had definitive, unquestionable information" where Mr. Zarqawi was, the general said. "Therefore, the decision was made to strike." (AKA: PARTY TIME)
General Caldwell did not elaborate on how the military could have been so certain that the terrorist leader was in the house before it was destroyed Wednesday evening by a pair of 500-pound bombs dropped from Air Force F-16's. But he emphasized that the linchpin was targeting Sheikh Rahman, who in a picture supplied by the military appeared to be a young man in his 20's or early 30's, round-faced with stubble and a slight mustache.
"This gentlemen was key to our success in finding Zarqawi," General Caldwell said. "He was identified several weeks ago through military sources from somebody inside Zarqawi's network. Through painstaking intelligence effort, they were able to start tracking him, monitoring his movements and establishing when he was doing his link-ups with Zarqawi."
Yet elements of the military's timeline describing the bombing raid conflicted with at least one eyewitness account and appeared to underplay the role of American-led special operations forces. (CAN THERE BE AN ARTICLE WITHOUT SOME PROBLEM WITH THE US FORCES? DID THE IRAQI FORCES FLY THE JETS? HOW ARE SO CERTAIN THAT YOU ARE NOT BEING USED AS DUPES, NYTIMES? IT WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TIME)
Hunting down Zarqawi and his close associates has been the mission of the military's Task Force 145, comprising commandos from the Army's Delta Force and Navy SEALs, and members of the British special operations forces. The task force is based in Balad, 25 miles from where Wednesday's raid took place.
After the F-16's destroyed the home, the military said Iraqi police were the first to arrive on the scene, followed later by American troops from the Fourth Infantry Division who are attached to the 101st Airborne Air Assault Division.
But a nearby resident said that before the bombs were dropped, American troops had swarmed the area near the home and appeared to have exchanged gunfire with the people inside.
Mohammed Ismael, who lives near the bombing scene, said that at about 5:30 p.m. three vehicles drove toward the house. An hour later, he said, "the entire village was seized" by American humvees and Iraqi police and soldiers, while a helicopter and jets flew overhead.
Mr. Ismael said some kind of fire appeared to have been exchanged with those inside the house. Soon after, the two warplanes dropped their payload. (WHY DOES THAT MATTER AGAIN?)
"The entire village was shaking underneath our feet," he said. Immediately, he added, Americans and Iraqi police began raiding other homes nearby.
For several years, the home had been a mystery: Its owner had sold it after the war, and in the following three years it was often vacant, Mr. Ismael said. He said guards would occasionally show up but would only offer hazy explanations about whom the house now belonged to or why people were only rarely there.
"When we would go to ask the guards where the owner of the house was, they'd say the man who bought it lives in Baghdad," Mr. Ismael said.
The military did not confirm Mr. Ismael's account. At the news briefing this afternoon in Baghdad, a reporter sought to clarify with General Caldwell whether any firefight had taken place. The general would only say in response that after the bombs were dropped there was no "further" direct-fire engagement.
The decision to bomb Zarqawi, who had had some narrow escapes in the past, was made because the military feared he could make a run for it again if United States and Iraqi forces moved in on him over ground, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said during an appearance at NATO headquarters in Brussels.
"They came to the conclusion that they could not really go in on the ground without running the risk of letting him escape," he said. "So they used airpower and attacked a dwelling he was in."
Video taken by an aircraft or drone showed the first strike as a massive explosion that sent plumes of smoke, dust and debris skyward and sideways. The "pilot in charge up there" then decided to drop a second 500-pound bomb, General Caldwell said. (WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL CONCERN ABOUT THE LIFE OF AMZ)
The terrorist leader, he said, was dead by the time "we arrived there." Five others perished: Sheikh Rahman, one woman, one child, and two other men, he said, adding that identities for four of them had not been established.
The corpse was taken away to another place, where an examination found "more scars and tattoos consistent with what had been reported and which we knew about him," the general said. A fingerprint test came back at 3:30 a.m. positively identifying Mr. Zarqawi, and DNA tests should also be returned within two days, he said.
It was not clear whether Mr. Zarqawi was crushed to death, whether shrapnel or other projectiles tore into his body, or whether he could have died from other wounds. (OH, I HOPE IT WAS BECAUSE OF WOUNDS I INFLICTED. BUT, SADLY, I WAS NOT THERE)
Pictures of his corpse released by the military showed that the top of his shoulders, his neck and his face were intact, with heavy contusions on his left cheek, left eyelid and the left side of his forehead.
"We had wiped off a lot of the blood and other debris because there was not a need to portray it in any kind of dehumanizing his body," General Caldwell said.
"The intent was to show you that he, in fact, had died in that explosion," he said. But he added that "there are far worse, graphic pictures that are very inappropriate, we felt, to share with anybody that were the result of the immediate strike."
Richard A. Oppel Jr. reported from Baghdad for this article and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.
June 8, 2006
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and MARK MAZZETTI
BAGHDAD, June 8 — The American military finally hunted down and killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by homing in on the activities of the terrorist leader's "spiritual adviser" and tracking the adviser to a safe house sheltered amid tall palm trees near the restive insurgent-heavy city of Baquba, military officials said today. (THE TIMES IS SAD ABOUT THE SPEED AT WHICH THIS HAPPENED)
Several weeks ago, someone inside the Zarqawi network turned the military's attention to the spiritual adviser, identified as Sheikh Abd al-Rahman, said Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the senior military spokesman in Iraq. It was not clear whether the provider of the information was a voluntary informer or someone in custody who revealed it during interrogation.
The military tracked Sheikh Rahman with an unmanned aerial vehicle, according to one Pentagon official. And human intelligence and "electronic signal intelligence" — eavesdropping or other forms of intercepting communications — were also used to pinpoint him, General Caldwell said.
The result was that "last night was the first time that we have had definitive, unquestionable information" where Mr. Zarqawi was, the general said. "Therefore, the decision was made to strike." (AKA: PARTY TIME)
General Caldwell did not elaborate on how the military could have been so certain that the terrorist leader was in the house before it was destroyed Wednesday evening by a pair of 500-pound bombs dropped from Air Force F-16's. But he emphasized that the linchpin was targeting Sheikh Rahman, who in a picture supplied by the military appeared to be a young man in his 20's or early 30's, round-faced with stubble and a slight mustache.
"This gentlemen was key to our success in finding Zarqawi," General Caldwell said. "He was identified several weeks ago through military sources from somebody inside Zarqawi's network. Through painstaking intelligence effort, they were able to start tracking him, monitoring his movements and establishing when he was doing his link-ups with Zarqawi."
Yet elements of the military's timeline describing the bombing raid conflicted with at least one eyewitness account and appeared to underplay the role of American-led special operations forces. (CAN THERE BE AN ARTICLE WITHOUT SOME PROBLEM WITH THE US FORCES? DID THE IRAQI FORCES FLY THE JETS? HOW ARE SO CERTAIN THAT YOU ARE NOT BEING USED AS DUPES, NYTIMES? IT WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TIME)
Hunting down Zarqawi and his close associates has been the mission of the military's Task Force 145, comprising commandos from the Army's Delta Force and Navy SEALs, and members of the British special operations forces. The task force is based in Balad, 25 miles from where Wednesday's raid took place.
After the F-16's destroyed the home, the military said Iraqi police were the first to arrive on the scene, followed later by American troops from the Fourth Infantry Division who are attached to the 101st Airborne Air Assault Division.
But a nearby resident said that before the bombs were dropped, American troops had swarmed the area near the home and appeared to have exchanged gunfire with the people inside.
Mohammed Ismael, who lives near the bombing scene, said that at about 5:30 p.m. three vehicles drove toward the house. An hour later, he said, "the entire village was seized" by American humvees and Iraqi police and soldiers, while a helicopter and jets flew overhead.
Mr. Ismael said some kind of fire appeared to have been exchanged with those inside the house. Soon after, the two warplanes dropped their payload. (WHY DOES THAT MATTER AGAIN?)
"The entire village was shaking underneath our feet," he said. Immediately, he added, Americans and Iraqi police began raiding other homes nearby.
For several years, the home had been a mystery: Its owner had sold it after the war, and in the following three years it was often vacant, Mr. Ismael said. He said guards would occasionally show up but would only offer hazy explanations about whom the house now belonged to or why people were only rarely there.
"When we would go to ask the guards where the owner of the house was, they'd say the man who bought it lives in Baghdad," Mr. Ismael said.
The military did not confirm Mr. Ismael's account. At the news briefing this afternoon in Baghdad, a reporter sought to clarify with General Caldwell whether any firefight had taken place. The general would only say in response that after the bombs were dropped there was no "further" direct-fire engagement.
The decision to bomb Zarqawi, who had had some narrow escapes in the past, was made because the military feared he could make a run for it again if United States and Iraqi forces moved in on him over ground, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said during an appearance at NATO headquarters in Brussels.
"They came to the conclusion that they could not really go in on the ground without running the risk of letting him escape," he said. "So they used airpower and attacked a dwelling he was in."
Video taken by an aircraft or drone showed the first strike as a massive explosion that sent plumes of smoke, dust and debris skyward and sideways. The "pilot in charge up there" then decided to drop a second 500-pound bomb, General Caldwell said. (WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL CONCERN ABOUT THE LIFE OF AMZ)
The terrorist leader, he said, was dead by the time "we arrived there." Five others perished: Sheikh Rahman, one woman, one child, and two other men, he said, adding that identities for four of them had not been established.
The corpse was taken away to another place, where an examination found "more scars and tattoos consistent with what had been reported and which we knew about him," the general said. A fingerprint test came back at 3:30 a.m. positively identifying Mr. Zarqawi, and DNA tests should also be returned within two days, he said.
It was not clear whether Mr. Zarqawi was crushed to death, whether shrapnel or other projectiles tore into his body, or whether he could have died from other wounds. (OH, I HOPE IT WAS BECAUSE OF WOUNDS I INFLICTED. BUT, SADLY, I WAS NOT THERE)
Pictures of his corpse released by the military showed that the top of his shoulders, his neck and his face were intact, with heavy contusions on his left cheek, left eyelid and the left side of his forehead.
"We had wiped off a lot of the blood and other debris because there was not a need to portray it in any kind of dehumanizing his body," General Caldwell said.
"The intent was to show you that he, in fact, had died in that explosion," he said. But he added that "there are far worse, graphic pictures that are very inappropriate, we felt, to share with anybody that were the result of the immediate strike."
Richard A. Oppel Jr. reported from Baghdad for this article and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.
US air strike kills al Qaeda's Zarqawi (YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE BOARD...YES!!!!)
Thu Jun 8, 2006 1:40 PM ET
By Mariam Karouny
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. warplanes killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq blamed for bombings, beheadings and assassinations, in a strike which President George W. Bush said on Thursday had delivered justice.
In one of the most significant developments in Iraq since the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Jordanian-born Zarqawi was killed on Wednesday in a joint U-S.-Iraqi operation helped by tip-offs from Iraqis and Jordanian intelligence.
Vowing to fight on, al Qaeda in Iraq confirmed the death of Zarqawi, who beheaded several hostages himself and appeared in a recent video firing a machinegun in the desert.
U.S. forces displayed pictures to reporters of the corpse of the bearded Zarqawi with facial abrasions and his eyes closed. The air strike was carried out by two F-16 planes with two 500 lb (227 kg) bombs hitting Zarqawi's "safe house".
Zarqawi, in his late 30s and whom Osama bin Laden called the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq, had symbolized the radical Islamist insurgency against U.S. occupation.
U.S. special forces were involved in the trailing of Sheikh Abdul-Rahman, Zarqawi's spiritual adviser, that helped uncover Zarqawi's presence in a small house in a palm grove area. Abdul-Rahman was also killed in the air strike.
BOUNTY
Bush said the death of Zarqawi, who had a $25 million bounty on his head, was "a severe blow to al Qaeda", a victory in the war against terrorism, and "an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide in this struggle".
"(The U.S. air strike) delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq," Bush told a news conference in Washington.
But a somber-looking Bush signaled he did not expect the killing of Zarqawi to bring about any early end to the violence.
"We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continued patience of the American people," said Bush, battling low poll ratings, partly over Iraq, as his Republican Party faces mid-term congressional elections in November. (HOW DID CALIFORNIA GO? OOPS)
Two car bombs exploded in Baghdad just hours after Zarqawi's death was announced. One attack killed seven people and police said the other bomb had caused casualties but had no details.
In a political breakthrough, Iraq's parliament approved Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's candidates for new defense and interior ministers after intense wrangling among his coalition government partners.
Maliki, who was desperately in need of success to bolster his authority, announced Zarqawi's death near the city of Baquba 65 km (40 miles) north of the capital.
PLEDGE
Followers of Zarqawi, a Sunni Muslim who had declared war on Iraq's majority Shi'ites reinforcing fears he was out to ignite civil war, pledged to carry on their fight.
"We tell our prince, Sheikh bin Laden, your soldiers in al Qaeda in Iraq will continue along the same path that you set out for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," said a statement on an Islamist Web site. (GO FOR IT, STUPID)
U.S. Major General William Caldwell said an Egyptian militant trained in Afghanistan called Abu al-Masari, who established the first al Qaeda cell in Baghdad, may succeed Zarqawi as head of the group in Iraq.
Caldwell told reporters the operation to track down Zarqawi took many weeks. "It truly was a very long, painstaking, deliberate exploitation of intelligence, information gathering, human sources, electronics, signal intelligence," he said.
Six people, including a woman and a child, were killed in the house but only Zarqawi and Abdul-Rahman have been identified. Zarqawi was identified by his fingerprints and tattoos. A further DNA test was being carried out on Zarqawi.
Seventeen raids were launched on suspected hideouts for Zarqawi associates in the Baghdad area after he was killed. They produced a "treasure trove" of information, officials said. (JUST WONDERFUL. THE ROLL-UP BEGINS TODAY. AQ IN IRAQ; THE PARTY IS OVER)
OIL
The killing of Zarqawi had an impact on oil prices. Crude futures were down more than one dollar to $68.17 a barrel.
Zarqawi, who faced four death sentences in Jordan, one for his role in killing a U.S. diplomat, had inspired a flood of militants from across the Arab world to blow themselves up in suicide missions in Iraq.
Taunting Bush during the video taped killing of a sobbing, blindfolded U.S. hostage, Zarqawi once boasted his al Qaeda fighters "love death just like you love life". (THAT WAS BIN LADEN. ANYWAY...NOW YOU CAN LOVE DEATH)
"Killing for the sake of God is their best wish," the insurgent leader said, drawing a knife to hack off the head of his kneeling victim. (DID YOU HEAR THE BOMB AMZ?)
Zarqawi's reputation for personal savagery stood out even in a country where brutal killings were routine, and sparked reports bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri were worried his homicidal zeal would undermine support for their network.
"I think arguably over the last several years no single person on this planet has had the blood of more innocent men, women and children on his hands than has Zarqawi," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters.
"He personified (a) dark, sadistic medieval vision."
Some Arab citizens hailed Zarqawi as a hero for his role in the insurgency but others welcomed his death as a form of justice for a militant whose attacks killed far more Iraqi civilians than foreign troops. (WHAT COUNTRIES HAILED HIM? CAN YOU NAME ONE?)
Thu Jun 8, 2006 1:40 PM ET
By Mariam Karouny
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. warplanes killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq blamed for bombings, beheadings and assassinations, in a strike which President George W. Bush said on Thursday had delivered justice.
In one of the most significant developments in Iraq since the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Jordanian-born Zarqawi was killed on Wednesday in a joint U-S.-Iraqi operation helped by tip-offs from Iraqis and Jordanian intelligence.
Vowing to fight on, al Qaeda in Iraq confirmed the death of Zarqawi, who beheaded several hostages himself and appeared in a recent video firing a machinegun in the desert.
U.S. forces displayed pictures to reporters of the corpse of the bearded Zarqawi with facial abrasions and his eyes closed. The air strike was carried out by two F-16 planes with two 500 lb (227 kg) bombs hitting Zarqawi's "safe house".
Zarqawi, in his late 30s and whom Osama bin Laden called the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq, had symbolized the radical Islamist insurgency against U.S. occupation.
U.S. special forces were involved in the trailing of Sheikh Abdul-Rahman, Zarqawi's spiritual adviser, that helped uncover Zarqawi's presence in a small house in a palm grove area. Abdul-Rahman was also killed in the air strike.
BOUNTY
Bush said the death of Zarqawi, who had a $25 million bounty on his head, was "a severe blow to al Qaeda", a victory in the war against terrorism, and "an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide in this struggle".
"(The U.S. air strike) delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq," Bush told a news conference in Washington.
But a somber-looking Bush signaled he did not expect the killing of Zarqawi to bring about any early end to the violence.
"We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continued patience of the American people," said Bush, battling low poll ratings, partly over Iraq, as his Republican Party faces mid-term congressional elections in November. (HOW DID CALIFORNIA GO? OOPS)
Two car bombs exploded in Baghdad just hours after Zarqawi's death was announced. One attack killed seven people and police said the other bomb had caused casualties but had no details.
In a political breakthrough, Iraq's parliament approved Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's candidates for new defense and interior ministers after intense wrangling among his coalition government partners.
Maliki, who was desperately in need of success to bolster his authority, announced Zarqawi's death near the city of Baquba 65 km (40 miles) north of the capital.
PLEDGE
Followers of Zarqawi, a Sunni Muslim who had declared war on Iraq's majority Shi'ites reinforcing fears he was out to ignite civil war, pledged to carry on their fight.
"We tell our prince, Sheikh bin Laden, your soldiers in al Qaeda in Iraq will continue along the same path that you set out for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," said a statement on an Islamist Web site. (GO FOR IT, STUPID)
U.S. Major General William Caldwell said an Egyptian militant trained in Afghanistan called Abu al-Masari, who established the first al Qaeda cell in Baghdad, may succeed Zarqawi as head of the group in Iraq.
Caldwell told reporters the operation to track down Zarqawi took many weeks. "It truly was a very long, painstaking, deliberate exploitation of intelligence, information gathering, human sources, electronics, signal intelligence," he said.
Six people, including a woman and a child, were killed in the house but only Zarqawi and Abdul-Rahman have been identified. Zarqawi was identified by his fingerprints and tattoos. A further DNA test was being carried out on Zarqawi.
Seventeen raids were launched on suspected hideouts for Zarqawi associates in the Baghdad area after he was killed. They produced a "treasure trove" of information, officials said. (JUST WONDERFUL. THE ROLL-UP BEGINS TODAY. AQ IN IRAQ; THE PARTY IS OVER)
OIL
The killing of Zarqawi had an impact on oil prices. Crude futures were down more than one dollar to $68.17 a barrel.
Zarqawi, who faced four death sentences in Jordan, one for his role in killing a U.S. diplomat, had inspired a flood of militants from across the Arab world to blow themselves up in suicide missions in Iraq.
Taunting Bush during the video taped killing of a sobbing, blindfolded U.S. hostage, Zarqawi once boasted his al Qaeda fighters "love death just like you love life". (THAT WAS BIN LADEN. ANYWAY...NOW YOU CAN LOVE DEATH)
"Killing for the sake of God is their best wish," the insurgent leader said, drawing a knife to hack off the head of his kneeling victim. (DID YOU HEAR THE BOMB AMZ?)
Zarqawi's reputation for personal savagery stood out even in a country where brutal killings were routine, and sparked reports bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri were worried his homicidal zeal would undermine support for their network.
"I think arguably over the last several years no single person on this planet has had the blood of more innocent men, women and children on his hands than has Zarqawi," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters.
"He personified (a) dark, sadistic medieval vision."
Some Arab citizens hailed Zarqawi as a hero for his role in the insurgency but others welcomed his death as a form of justice for a militant whose attacks killed far more Iraqi civilians than foreign troops. (WHAT COUNTRIES HAILED HIM? CAN YOU NAME ONE?)
Al-Qaeda's Zarqawi killed in Iraq (WE ARE FINALLY RID OF THIS THING)
Thu Jun 8, 2006 7:22 AM ET
By Mariam Karouny
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, blamed for the beheading of foreign captives and the death of hundreds in suicide bombings, has been killed in a raid north of Baghdad, Iraq's prime minister said on Thursday.
Al Qaeda in Iraq confirmed his death and vowed to fight on.
Jordanian-born Zarqawi, who had sworn loyalty to Osama bin Laden, had come to symbolize the radical Islamic insurgency against U.S. occupation in which thousands had been killed. His campaign is also believed to have played a major role in inflaming Sunni-Shi'ite tensions in the country.
U.S. officials in Iraq hailed his killing, but warned that Zarqawi's followers still posed a security threat to the Iraq government.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Zarqawi's death was a blow against al Qaeda everywhere.
"Today Zarqawi has been terminated," Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced at a televised news conference attended by the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General George Casey, and other senior officials.
"Every time a Zarqawi appears we will kill him," Maliki said. "We will continue confronting whoever follows his path. It is an open war between us."
Casey said the body of Zarqawi, who had a $25 million U.S. bounty on his head, had been identified and that details of his death would be revealed later on Thursday.
Maliki, who had been desperately in need of a success to bolster his authority, said seven Zarqawi aides were also killed in the raid in the city of Baquba 65 km (40 miles) north of the capital.
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Zarqawi's death marked a "great success". But the ambassador and Casey cautioned that it will not end violence in the country.
The announcement of Zarqawi's death had an impact on oil prices. Crude futures were down more than one dollar to $69.82.
Zarqawi, believed to be in his late 30s, has inspired an apparently endless supply of militants from across the Arab world to blow themselves up in suicide missions in Iraq. (ENDLESS SUPPLY? C'MON. PLEASE REPORT BACK TO PLANET EARTH)
Iraqi and U.S. officials say he has formed a loose alliance with Saddam Hussein's former agents, benefiting from their money, weapons and intelligence assets to press his campaign.
Al Qaeda in Iraq pledged to continue fighting.
"We tell our prince, Sheikh bin Laden, your soldiers in al Qaeda in Iraq will continue along the same path that you set out for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," said a statement on an Islamist Web site.
Some posters of the most wanted man in Iraq show him in glasses, looking like an accountant, others as a tough-looking man in a black skullcap.
Zarqawi's killing could be seen as one of the most significant developments for the United States forces and the Iraqi government it backs since the capture of Saddam.
Zarqawi appeared on a video in April unmasked for the first time, meeting his followers, firing a machinegun in the desert and condemning the entire Iraqi political process. (IS THAT ALL?)
"Zarqawi didn't have a number two. I can't think of any single person who would succeed Zarqawi...In terms of effectiveness, there was no single leader in Iraq who could match his ruthlessness and his determination," said Rohan Gumaratna from the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore.
NEW MINISTERS (JUST A COINCIDENCE I'M SURE)
The killing of Zarqawi could give a political boost to Maliki, who has pledged to crush the Sunni Arab insurgency against the U.S.-backed government.
Iraq's parliament approved on Thursday Maliki's candidates for new defense and interior ministers.
By a clear majority, it approved Jawad al-Bolani, a Shi'ite, as interior minister and General Abdel Qader Jassim, a Sunni and until now Iraqi ground forces commander, as defense minister.
Out of 198 deputies present in the 275-seat assembly, 182 voted for Bolani while 142 supported Jassim, the speaker said.
The two key security jobs were left temporarily vacant when Maliki's government of national unity took office on May 20 because of intense wrangling among his coalition partners.
Parliamentary approval for any candidates Maliki offers could help pull him out of a political crisis that has hurt efforts to impose a security crackdown against a Sunni Arab insurgency and sectarian violence raising fears of civil war.
Thu Jun 8, 2006 7:22 AM ET
By Mariam Karouny
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Al Qaeda leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, blamed for the beheading of foreign captives and the death of hundreds in suicide bombings, has been killed in a raid north of Baghdad, Iraq's prime minister said on Thursday.
Al Qaeda in Iraq confirmed his death and vowed to fight on.
Jordanian-born Zarqawi, who had sworn loyalty to Osama bin Laden, had come to symbolize the radical Islamic insurgency against U.S. occupation in which thousands had been killed. His campaign is also believed to have played a major role in inflaming Sunni-Shi'ite tensions in the country.
U.S. officials in Iraq hailed his killing, but warned that Zarqawi's followers still posed a security threat to the Iraq government.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Zarqawi's death was a blow against al Qaeda everywhere.
"Today Zarqawi has been terminated," Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced at a televised news conference attended by the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General George Casey, and other senior officials.
"Every time a Zarqawi appears we will kill him," Maliki said. "We will continue confronting whoever follows his path. It is an open war between us."
Casey said the body of Zarqawi, who had a $25 million U.S. bounty on his head, had been identified and that details of his death would be revealed later on Thursday.
Maliki, who had been desperately in need of a success to bolster his authority, said seven Zarqawi aides were also killed in the raid in the city of Baquba 65 km (40 miles) north of the capital.
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Zarqawi's death marked a "great success". But the ambassador and Casey cautioned that it will not end violence in the country.
The announcement of Zarqawi's death had an impact on oil prices. Crude futures were down more than one dollar to $69.82.
Zarqawi, believed to be in his late 30s, has inspired an apparently endless supply of militants from across the Arab world to blow themselves up in suicide missions in Iraq. (ENDLESS SUPPLY? C'MON. PLEASE REPORT BACK TO PLANET EARTH)
Iraqi and U.S. officials say he has formed a loose alliance with Saddam Hussein's former agents, benefiting from their money, weapons and intelligence assets to press his campaign.
Al Qaeda in Iraq pledged to continue fighting.
"We tell our prince, Sheikh bin Laden, your soldiers in al Qaeda in Iraq will continue along the same path that you set out for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," said a statement on an Islamist Web site.
Some posters of the most wanted man in Iraq show him in glasses, looking like an accountant, others as a tough-looking man in a black skullcap.
Zarqawi's killing could be seen as one of the most significant developments for the United States forces and the Iraqi government it backs since the capture of Saddam.
Zarqawi appeared on a video in April unmasked for the first time, meeting his followers, firing a machinegun in the desert and condemning the entire Iraqi political process. (IS THAT ALL?)
"Zarqawi didn't have a number two. I can't think of any single person who would succeed Zarqawi...In terms of effectiveness, there was no single leader in Iraq who could match his ruthlessness and his determination," said Rohan Gumaratna from the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore.
NEW MINISTERS (JUST A COINCIDENCE I'M SURE)
The killing of Zarqawi could give a political boost to Maliki, who has pledged to crush the Sunni Arab insurgency against the U.S.-backed government.
Iraq's parliament approved on Thursday Maliki's candidates for new defense and interior ministers.
By a clear majority, it approved Jawad al-Bolani, a Shi'ite, as interior minister and General Abdel Qader Jassim, a Sunni and until now Iraqi ground forces commander, as defense minister.
Out of 198 deputies present in the 275-seat assembly, 182 voted for Bolani while 142 supported Jassim, the speaker said.
The two key security jobs were left temporarily vacant when Maliki's government of national unity took office on May 20 because of intense wrangling among his coalition partners.
Parliamentary approval for any candidates Maliki offers could help pull him out of a political crisis that has hurt efforts to impose a security crackdown against a Sunni Arab insurgency and sectarian violence raising fears of civil war.
Bid to Allow Nigerian a Third Term Hits Snag (BYE BYE)
Lawmakers Lining Up Against Amendment
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, May 13, 2006; A10
JOHANNESBURG, May 12 -- A measure that would allow President Olusegun Obasanjo to seek a third term suffered a serious setback this week as opponents appeared to muster commitments from enough lawmakers to block it.
Nigerian newspapers reported Friday that the plan to revise the constitution was dead or nearly so after 42 senators announced their opposition, five more than necessary to defeat it.
Obasanjo reportedly convened an emergency meeting of his top advisers and legislative allies Thursday. Supporters of the bill said they might be able to regain momentum before voting begins next week.
"I'm so happy," said Wunmi Bewaji, an opposition lawmaker, speaking from Abuja, the Nigerian capital. "Once we are able to do this, we will have succeeded in laying a solid foundation for our democracy."
Since winning independence from Britain in 1960, Nigeria has experienced assassinations, military juntas and, when elections have taken place, allegations of extensive rigging. The country, which is Africa's most populous and a major supplier of oil to the United States, has never had a peaceful transfer of power between two civilian governments.
The issue has dominated political discussions in Nigeria and is being followed across the continent. Uganda and Chad recently changed their constitutions, allowing President Yoweri Museveni and President Idriss Deby to seek third terms, despite international concerns about democracy in Africa. Both leaders were reelected.
Obasanjo, 70, a military ruler in the 1970s, was embraced by many Nigerians and Western powers including the United States when he was elected in 1999, ending years of repressive military rule. He was reelected in 2003 and has indicated that he might be interested in running again in 2007, despite a constitutional limit of two four-year terms.
In an April interview with The Washington Post, Obasanjo said that he had not decided whether to run again but that a third term would allow him to complete initiatives he started in his previous seven years in office.
"The reforms that we are putting in place have to be anchored, anchored in legislation, anchored in institutions," he said.
Obasanjo's special assistant, Femi Fani-Kayode, said Friday that it was not appropriate to comment on the bill before the debate was concluded but that the president was committed to working within the democratic process.
"Rest assured," Fani-Kayode said, "we would not do anything outside the constitution."
Despite Obasanjo's attempts to distance himself publicly from the effort, it has widely been seen in Nigeria as emanating from his office. Opposition lawmakers have alleged that millions of dollars in bribes were offered to those who agreed to support a third term. Obasanjo has denied the charge.
Opposition to the effort has grown steadily, and in recent weeks, leading Nigerian political figures, U.S. officials and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan have criticized the effort.
"We need to play by the rules," Annan said, according to the Guardian newspaper of Nigeria. "We should not tamper with the constitution to perpetuate our rule."
The intensity of the debate grew this month as bills to revise the constitution were discussed in the Nigerian House and Senate. The amendment requires two-thirds approval in each chamber and the support of two-thirds, or 24, of the 36 state legislatures.
Opposition to the effort was clearest in the Senate, where it would take 37 no votes to block it. By the end of debate Thursday, 42 of the 109 senators had announced their opposition, and 37 had spoken in support.
"The issue of elongation of tenure is a cancer," Mohammed Ibrahim, a senator, said to applause, according to news reports. "It is a disease that can kill everybody."
In the House, 57 of 360 members had spoken in favor of scrapping the two-term limit and 69 against. Debate is set to resume in both chambers Tuesday, with votes likely next week as well.
Lawmakers Lining Up Against Amendment
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, May 13, 2006; A10
JOHANNESBURG, May 12 -- A measure that would allow President Olusegun Obasanjo to seek a third term suffered a serious setback this week as opponents appeared to muster commitments from enough lawmakers to block it.
Nigerian newspapers reported Friday that the plan to revise the constitution was dead or nearly so after 42 senators announced their opposition, five more than necessary to defeat it.
Obasanjo reportedly convened an emergency meeting of his top advisers and legislative allies Thursday. Supporters of the bill said they might be able to regain momentum before voting begins next week.
"I'm so happy," said Wunmi Bewaji, an opposition lawmaker, speaking from Abuja, the Nigerian capital. "Once we are able to do this, we will have succeeded in laying a solid foundation for our democracy."
Since winning independence from Britain in 1960, Nigeria has experienced assassinations, military juntas and, when elections have taken place, allegations of extensive rigging. The country, which is Africa's most populous and a major supplier of oil to the United States, has never had a peaceful transfer of power between two civilian governments.
The issue has dominated political discussions in Nigeria and is being followed across the continent. Uganda and Chad recently changed their constitutions, allowing President Yoweri Museveni and President Idriss Deby to seek third terms, despite international concerns about democracy in Africa. Both leaders were reelected.
Obasanjo, 70, a military ruler in the 1970s, was embraced by many Nigerians and Western powers including the United States when he was elected in 1999, ending years of repressive military rule. He was reelected in 2003 and has indicated that he might be interested in running again in 2007, despite a constitutional limit of two four-year terms.
In an April interview with The Washington Post, Obasanjo said that he had not decided whether to run again but that a third term would allow him to complete initiatives he started in his previous seven years in office.
"The reforms that we are putting in place have to be anchored, anchored in legislation, anchored in institutions," he said.
Obasanjo's special assistant, Femi Fani-Kayode, said Friday that it was not appropriate to comment on the bill before the debate was concluded but that the president was committed to working within the democratic process.
"Rest assured," Fani-Kayode said, "we would not do anything outside the constitution."
Despite Obasanjo's attempts to distance himself publicly from the effort, it has widely been seen in Nigeria as emanating from his office. Opposition lawmakers have alleged that millions of dollars in bribes were offered to those who agreed to support a third term. Obasanjo has denied the charge.
Opposition to the effort has grown steadily, and in recent weeks, leading Nigerian political figures, U.S. officials and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan have criticized the effort.
"We need to play by the rules," Annan said, according to the Guardian newspaper of Nigeria. "We should not tamper with the constitution to perpetuate our rule."
The intensity of the debate grew this month as bills to revise the constitution were discussed in the Nigerian House and Senate. The amendment requires two-thirds approval in each chamber and the support of two-thirds, or 24, of the 36 state legislatures.
Opposition to the effort was clearest in the Senate, where it would take 37 no votes to block it. By the end of debate Thursday, 42 of the 109 senators had announced their opposition, and 37 had spoken in support.
"The issue of elongation of tenure is a cancer," Mohammed Ibrahim, a senator, said to applause, according to news reports. "It is a disease that can kill everybody."
In the House, 57 of 360 members had spoken in favor of scrapping the two-term limit and 69 against. Debate is set to resume in both chambers Tuesday, with votes likely next week as well.
Annan Urges U.S. to Take Part in Talks With Iran (THANKS KOFI; SHOULD WE TALK WITH RWANDA IN 1994, TOO?)
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 13, 2006; A12
UNITED NATIONS, May 12 -- U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said Friday that the Bush administration should participate in possible talks to be held by France, Britain, Germany and Iran to resolve a standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, suggesting that Europe's three major powers may not be able to conclude a deal on their own.
The appeal comes three days after the Europeans, known as the EU-3, announced that they would offer new incentives in an effort to restart negotiations with Tehran aimed at ending the nuclear crisis. It also coincides with calls for greater U.S. engagement with Iran from Democratic and some Republican critics of the administration's Iran policy, including former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright. (MADELEINE, THE SAME ONE WHO HAD DRINKS WITH KIM OF NORTH KOREA WHILE THE GULAGS ARE UP AND RUNNING?)
"I think it is important that the United States comes to the table and that it should join the European countries and Iran to find a solution," Annan said.
Annan said it is unlikely that Tehran will make significant concessions in negotiations with the Europeans if they have to subsequently turn to the United States to gain final approval for any deal to halt Iran's enrichment of uranium. (KOFI PREDICTS THE FUTURE!!!)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice endorsed the European effort to resume negotiations, but she has opposed face-to-face U.S. talks with Iran. She also contended that a recent letter to President Bush from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not constitute a serious attempt to improve relations.
"We see no point in direct negotiations," U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said in a statement. "This is not a bilateral issue between the United States and Iran. It is an issue between Iran and the world." (READ: NO UNILATERAL MOVES PER THE WORLD)
Iranian officials have complained that previous talks faltered because the European negotiators were constrained by the need to ensure American approval. "We are waiting to see what the Europeans have to offer," Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, said Friday. "We have certainly been ready from the very beginning to engage in negotiations . . . with anybody who may be interested in resolving this issue." (SURE YOU WERE)
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said U.S. involvement in contentious international talks traditionally fuels expectations that the United States will pay to resolve the dispute. He added: "The dynamic very quickly becomes one of which 'Well, what is the U.S. going to do in terms of making concessions to satisfy the needs and desires of the other party across the table?' " (HOW IS THIS A US ISSUE? WHO IS MAKING THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?)
Also Friday, diplomats in Vienna told the Associated Press that U.N. inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium on equipment from an Iranian research center linked to the military. The diplomats, speaking on the condition of anonymity, cautioned that confirmation still has to come from other laboratory tests and said it is unclear whether the level of enrichment detected approached weapons-grade level or whether the traces had already been on the equipment when it was imported by Iran.
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 13, 2006; A12
UNITED NATIONS, May 12 -- U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said Friday that the Bush administration should participate in possible talks to be held by France, Britain, Germany and Iran to resolve a standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, suggesting that Europe's three major powers may not be able to conclude a deal on their own.
The appeal comes three days after the Europeans, known as the EU-3, announced that they would offer new incentives in an effort to restart negotiations with Tehran aimed at ending the nuclear crisis. It also coincides with calls for greater U.S. engagement with Iran from Democratic and some Republican critics of the administration's Iran policy, including former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright. (MADELEINE, THE SAME ONE WHO HAD DRINKS WITH KIM OF NORTH KOREA WHILE THE GULAGS ARE UP AND RUNNING?)
"I think it is important that the United States comes to the table and that it should join the European countries and Iran to find a solution," Annan said.
Annan said it is unlikely that Tehran will make significant concessions in negotiations with the Europeans if they have to subsequently turn to the United States to gain final approval for any deal to halt Iran's enrichment of uranium. (KOFI PREDICTS THE FUTURE!!!)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice endorsed the European effort to resume negotiations, but she has opposed face-to-face U.S. talks with Iran. She also contended that a recent letter to President Bush from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not constitute a serious attempt to improve relations.
"We see no point in direct negotiations," U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said in a statement. "This is not a bilateral issue between the United States and Iran. It is an issue between Iran and the world." (READ: NO UNILATERAL MOVES PER THE WORLD)
Iranian officials have complained that previous talks faltered because the European negotiators were constrained by the need to ensure American approval. "We are waiting to see what the Europeans have to offer," Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, said Friday. "We have certainly been ready from the very beginning to engage in negotiations . . . with anybody who may be interested in resolving this issue." (SURE YOU WERE)
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said U.S. involvement in contentious international talks traditionally fuels expectations that the United States will pay to resolve the dispute. He added: "The dynamic very quickly becomes one of which 'Well, what is the U.S. going to do in terms of making concessions to satisfy the needs and desires of the other party across the table?' " (HOW IS THIS A US ISSUE? WHO IS MAKING THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?)
Also Friday, diplomats in Vienna told the Associated Press that U.N. inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium on equipment from an Iranian research center linked to the military. The diplomats, speaking on the condition of anonymity, cautioned that confirmation still has to come from other laboratory tests and said it is unclear whether the level of enrichment detected approached weapons-grade level or whether the traces had already been on the equipment when it was imported by Iran.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
India's Ragtag Band of Maoists Takes Root Among Rural Poor
By John Lancaster
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, May 13, 2006; A01
BASTAR FOREST, India -- He's 30 years old, speaks English and is conversant in the language of e-mail and the Internet. Friendly and self-confident, he could be a manager in a call center, or perhaps a software engineer on one of India's gleaming high-tech campuses. But "Comrade M," as he asks to be called, prefers a different line of work: waging war on the Indian state.
Armed with a battered Lee-Enfield rifle that he laughingly describes as "senior to me," the university graduate in an olive-drab uniform with a red star on the breast was one of about 30 Maoist guerrillas encountered recently in this remote forest in east-central India.
Drawing recruits and support from indigenous tribespeople known as adivasis , the ragtag band of young men and women is part of a larger revolutionary movement whose audacious, if anachronistic, goal is to replace India's parliamentary democracy with a communist system straight out of Chairman Mao Zedong's Little Red Book. (WELL, THAT HAS A HISTORY OF WORKING. ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD?)
Once dismissed as little more than an irritant, the Maoist movement is gaining ground in this country of more than 1 billion people, feeding off anti-government hostility in some rural areas and highlighting the uneven nature of India's unprecedented economic boom. Analysts say the movement consists of about 10,000 regular fighters, with several hundred thousand supporters. The rebels are known as Naxalites, after the eastern town of Naxalbari where the movement began in 1967.
During the recent encounter with the rebels in the state of Chhattisgarh, a visitor witnessed a rally of at least 2,000 tribal supporters, many armed with axes and bows and arrows, gathered next to a concrete plinth topped with a hammer and sickle. The rally took place in a stand of tall trees about six hours' walk from the nearest paved road.
The Maoist commander in the area, who goes by the name Kosa, said the movement had not been deterred by the triumph of capitalism in China and other formerly communist countries. (IGNORE EVIDENCE, THAT WORKS)
"When a scientist doesn't get the desired results from an experiment, he doesn't just abandon the experiment," he said. "Every movement has its ups and downs. There are defeats as well as victories. We should learn from the failure of Maoism in China and move ahead." (YEAH, HE MAY CHANGE HIS THEORY THOUGH)
Following a long period of relative quiet, the Naxalites in the past several years have expanded their presence to 13 of India's 28 states, according to official estimates, spurring talk of a "red corridor" extending from Nepal, which is battling a Maoist insurgency of its own, down through the wooded heartland of central and southern India. The Maoist rebels in India and Nepal have acknowledged ideological ties, and security officials suspect logistical collaboration as well.
Equipped with homemade bombs and rifles looted from police stations, the Indian rebels have staged increasingly bold attacks, such as seizing a passenger train for 12 hours in the eastern state of Jharkhand in March. They function in some remote districts as a parallel government, complete with makeshift courts and police. Their violent tactics have turned parts of Chhattisgarh, among other states, into virtual no-go areas for the government, thwarting plans for corporate mining operations in forests that many adivasis regard as their own.
(THEN DEVELOP THEM ON YOUR OWN STUPID)
Last month, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the Naxalite movement as "the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country" -- no small claim in a nation with many insurgencies, including the long-running Islamic rebellion in Kashmir.
Singh said the rebels draw strength from "deprived and alienated sections of the population" and "are trying to establish 'liberation zones' in core areas where they are dispensing, or claiming to be dispensing, basic state functions." He called for redoubled efforts to promote development and better governance, as well as better intelligence-sharing among Naxalite-afflicted states and improved training and equipment for police and paramilitary forces.
The Naxalites are proliferating despite the rapid growth of affluence in the country. Driven by industries such as software and outsourcing, the boom has helped expand the middle class, its aspirations reflected in such entertainment fare as "Who Wants to Be a Crorepati ?" -- India's version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" The streets of major cities are clogged with new cars, and developers are gobbling up surrounding fields for shopping malls and housing developments.
But the boom has bypassed much of rural India, where more than 70 percent of the country's 1.1 billion people live. Though some rural areas, such as the fertile agricultural states of Punjab and Haryana, are doing reasonably well, others -- especially in the central and eastern parts of the country -- are beset by water shortages, poverty and caste discrimination. (WHAT DOES CASTE DISCRIMINATION HAVE TO DO WITH CAPITALISM?)
Against that backdrop, the death toll from Naxalite violence has jumped from 483 in 2002 to 669 last year, according to the Home Affairs Ministry. (NICE WORK, JOIN OR DIE. JUST LIKE MAO SAID RIGHT?)
In Chhattisgarh, the Naxalite movement has found abundant recruits among adivasis angered by police harassment, dismal or nonexistent government services and collusion between corrupt officials and criminals engaged in illegal logging. According to government data, 165 people died in Naxalite-related violence last year, and the bloodletting has continued: Last month, Naxalite rebels abducted 50 members of a pro-government militia called the Salwa Judum, then murdered 13 of them by slitting their throats, police said.
"They're absolutely ruthless killers," a senior Chhattisgarh security official, B.K.S. Roy, said by telephone from the state capital, Raipur. "I've never seen this kind of brutality in my life before, the way they strike and kill Salwa Judum members. They're hacked to death, heads severed from bodies." (SOUNDS LIKE MORE EMOTION INVOLVED THAN SIMPLE KILLING)
Roy said the Naxalite movement's numbers were growing in Chhattisgarh, where the state last year set up a school to train police in jungle warfare and counterinsurgency tactics. "A thousand commandos are already ready for operations," Roy said. "We want a big striking force."
Human rights monitors have also criticized the Naxalites' methods, accusing them of forcible recruitment, extortion and the abduction and killing of "class enemies" and villagers suspected of colluding with the state. At the same time, they have denounced members of the Salwa Judum, which means "Peace Initiative," as vigilantes who rape, torture and kill villagers thought to be sympathetic to the rebels.
Contacted through intermediaries, the Naxalites agreed to meet with a foreign reporter and several Indian journalists in the heavily forested Bastar district, where the rebels maintain a large presence. Youthful Naxalite supporters met the visitors at a prearranged point and guided them into the woods.
Winding through dry, scraggly forests, the route occasionally passed clusters of grass-roofed huts, many with crude animal pens fashioned from tree branches. The hike eventually ended in the rebels' camp, which was littered with weapons, sleeping rolls and solar panels for charging batteries. Fighters greeted their guests with a handshake and a "red salute" -- a clenched fist raised to the temple.
They were under the command of Comrade Kosa, a swashbuckling figure with a warm, if wary, manner and a folding-stock Kalashnikov assault rifle. Members of the group asked to be identified only by first names.
Kosa, 48, was the only fighter in civilian dress, which he accented with a Calvin Klein baseball cap adorned with a red metal star. He said he had been with the movement since 1977, when he dropped out of a technical institute where he had been studying in the neighboring state of Andhra Pradesh. He has been fighting in Chhattisgarh for 26 years, he said, and now commands a force of about 700 guerrillas, nearly half of them women, supported by several thousand tribal militiamen.
Kosa holds a political title, secretary of the Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee, a state-level body that answers to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), the Naxalites' banned political affiliate.
In honor of their guests, the rebels had erected a small bamboo enclosure decorated with hand-painted slogans such as "Down With Salwa Judum" and "Stop Corrupting Adivasi Culture to Make it Market Culture Under the Guise of Tourism." Uniformed cadres sang a song that included the line "America and Japan are big exploiters of this country."
Despite their isolation in the woods, Kosa and his aides keep abreast of current events by listening to shortwave radio broadcasts. Sanjeev, 35, a university dropout who has been with the movement since 1987, asked reporters for advice on how to "upload" Naxalite propaganda onto the Internet, to which he said he had occasional access. The visitors were provided with CDs purporting to contain evidence of Salwa Judum atrocities.
The rank and file was made up mostly of adivasis, several of whom said they joined the movement out of anger toward local authorities.
"I've never seen a hospital in any of these villages," said Nirmala, a slender, short-haired woman in her twenties who joined the movement four years ago and now serves as one of Kosa's bodyguards. "There are schools, but there are no teachers. The government says the adivasis, my people, have no rights over the forests."
Another adivasi rebel, Neela, said she was radicalized at the age of 12, when police arrested her father for illegally clearing a small patch of land and imprisoned him for three years.
A broad-faced woman with a ready smile, the 25-year-old Naxalite said she spoke only her local tribal dialect when she joined the movement a decade ago. Fellow cadres taught her how to read and speak Hindi, she said, and eventually she joined the movement's military wing. A member of a nine-person squad who carries a walkie-talkie and a single-shot rifle, Neela said proudly that she had taken part in 10 military operations, including one in which a mine was detonated beneath a vehicle carrying paramilitary troops. Four of them died, she said.
"They come into villages, beat up men, rape women," she said of the paramilitaries. "I don't feel bad at all about killing them." (WHO STARTED THAT STUPID?)
Comrade M, the university graduate and a squad leader, said the rebels typically laid ambushes for "our friends in khaki uniform" using mines triggered by camera-flash devices.
Military operations aside, the Naxalite rebels also engage in small-scale development projects, such as digging wells and small reservoirs and training villagers in rudimentary health care, according to Kosa and his aides. They maintain an active political and propaganda wing, publishing a newsletter and holding rallies.
At the massive forest gathering, women from a Naxalite cultural troupe swayed and sang. Then Kosa and several other speakers addressed the crowd over a makeshift public address system powered by car batteries. Watching from the sidelines, Neela, the Naxalite foot soldier, said she had "complete confidence" that the revolution would one day succeed.
"I don't know about a guaranteed time frame," she said, "but I know it will happen."
Special correspondent Muneeza Naqvi contributed to this report.
By John Lancaster
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, May 13, 2006; A01
BASTAR FOREST, India -- He's 30 years old, speaks English and is conversant in the language of e-mail and the Internet. Friendly and self-confident, he could be a manager in a call center, or perhaps a software engineer on one of India's gleaming high-tech campuses. But "Comrade M," as he asks to be called, prefers a different line of work: waging war on the Indian state.
Armed with a battered Lee-Enfield rifle that he laughingly describes as "senior to me," the university graduate in an olive-drab uniform with a red star on the breast was one of about 30 Maoist guerrillas encountered recently in this remote forest in east-central India.
Drawing recruits and support from indigenous tribespeople known as adivasis , the ragtag band of young men and women is part of a larger revolutionary movement whose audacious, if anachronistic, goal is to replace India's parliamentary democracy with a communist system straight out of Chairman Mao Zedong's Little Red Book. (WELL, THAT HAS A HISTORY OF WORKING. ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD?)
Once dismissed as little more than an irritant, the Maoist movement is gaining ground in this country of more than 1 billion people, feeding off anti-government hostility in some rural areas and highlighting the uneven nature of India's unprecedented economic boom. Analysts say the movement consists of about 10,000 regular fighters, with several hundred thousand supporters. The rebels are known as Naxalites, after the eastern town of Naxalbari where the movement began in 1967.
During the recent encounter with the rebels in the state of Chhattisgarh, a visitor witnessed a rally of at least 2,000 tribal supporters, many armed with axes and bows and arrows, gathered next to a concrete plinth topped with a hammer and sickle. The rally took place in a stand of tall trees about six hours' walk from the nearest paved road.
The Maoist commander in the area, who goes by the name Kosa, said the movement had not been deterred by the triumph of capitalism in China and other formerly communist countries. (IGNORE EVIDENCE, THAT WORKS)
"When a scientist doesn't get the desired results from an experiment, he doesn't just abandon the experiment," he said. "Every movement has its ups and downs. There are defeats as well as victories. We should learn from the failure of Maoism in China and move ahead." (YEAH, HE MAY CHANGE HIS THEORY THOUGH)
Following a long period of relative quiet, the Naxalites in the past several years have expanded their presence to 13 of India's 28 states, according to official estimates, spurring talk of a "red corridor" extending from Nepal, which is battling a Maoist insurgency of its own, down through the wooded heartland of central and southern India. The Maoist rebels in India and Nepal have acknowledged ideological ties, and security officials suspect logistical collaboration as well.
Equipped with homemade bombs and rifles looted from police stations, the Indian rebels have staged increasingly bold attacks, such as seizing a passenger train for 12 hours in the eastern state of Jharkhand in March. They function in some remote districts as a parallel government, complete with makeshift courts and police. Their violent tactics have turned parts of Chhattisgarh, among other states, into virtual no-go areas for the government, thwarting plans for corporate mining operations in forests that many adivasis regard as their own.
(THEN DEVELOP THEM ON YOUR OWN STUPID)
Last month, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the Naxalite movement as "the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country" -- no small claim in a nation with many insurgencies, including the long-running Islamic rebellion in Kashmir.
Singh said the rebels draw strength from "deprived and alienated sections of the population" and "are trying to establish 'liberation zones' in core areas where they are dispensing, or claiming to be dispensing, basic state functions." He called for redoubled efforts to promote development and better governance, as well as better intelligence-sharing among Naxalite-afflicted states and improved training and equipment for police and paramilitary forces.
The Naxalites are proliferating despite the rapid growth of affluence in the country. Driven by industries such as software and outsourcing, the boom has helped expand the middle class, its aspirations reflected in such entertainment fare as "Who Wants to Be a Crorepati ?" -- India's version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" The streets of major cities are clogged with new cars, and developers are gobbling up surrounding fields for shopping malls and housing developments.
But the boom has bypassed much of rural India, where more than 70 percent of the country's 1.1 billion people live. Though some rural areas, such as the fertile agricultural states of Punjab and Haryana, are doing reasonably well, others -- especially in the central and eastern parts of the country -- are beset by water shortages, poverty and caste discrimination. (WHAT DOES CASTE DISCRIMINATION HAVE TO DO WITH CAPITALISM?)
Against that backdrop, the death toll from Naxalite violence has jumped from 483 in 2002 to 669 last year, according to the Home Affairs Ministry. (NICE WORK, JOIN OR DIE. JUST LIKE MAO SAID RIGHT?)
In Chhattisgarh, the Naxalite movement has found abundant recruits among adivasis angered by police harassment, dismal or nonexistent government services and collusion between corrupt officials and criminals engaged in illegal logging. According to government data, 165 people died in Naxalite-related violence last year, and the bloodletting has continued: Last month, Naxalite rebels abducted 50 members of a pro-government militia called the Salwa Judum, then murdered 13 of them by slitting their throats, police said.
"They're absolutely ruthless killers," a senior Chhattisgarh security official, B.K.S. Roy, said by telephone from the state capital, Raipur. "I've never seen this kind of brutality in my life before, the way they strike and kill Salwa Judum members. They're hacked to death, heads severed from bodies." (SOUNDS LIKE MORE EMOTION INVOLVED THAN SIMPLE KILLING)
Roy said the Naxalite movement's numbers were growing in Chhattisgarh, where the state last year set up a school to train police in jungle warfare and counterinsurgency tactics. "A thousand commandos are already ready for operations," Roy said. "We want a big striking force."
Human rights monitors have also criticized the Naxalites' methods, accusing them of forcible recruitment, extortion and the abduction and killing of "class enemies" and villagers suspected of colluding with the state. At the same time, they have denounced members of the Salwa Judum, which means "Peace Initiative," as vigilantes who rape, torture and kill villagers thought to be sympathetic to the rebels.
Contacted through intermediaries, the Naxalites agreed to meet with a foreign reporter and several Indian journalists in the heavily forested Bastar district, where the rebels maintain a large presence. Youthful Naxalite supporters met the visitors at a prearranged point and guided them into the woods.
Winding through dry, scraggly forests, the route occasionally passed clusters of grass-roofed huts, many with crude animal pens fashioned from tree branches. The hike eventually ended in the rebels' camp, which was littered with weapons, sleeping rolls and solar panels for charging batteries. Fighters greeted their guests with a handshake and a "red salute" -- a clenched fist raised to the temple.
They were under the command of Comrade Kosa, a swashbuckling figure with a warm, if wary, manner and a folding-stock Kalashnikov assault rifle. Members of the group asked to be identified only by first names.
Kosa, 48, was the only fighter in civilian dress, which he accented with a Calvin Klein baseball cap adorned with a red metal star. He said he had been with the movement since 1977, when he dropped out of a technical institute where he had been studying in the neighboring state of Andhra Pradesh. He has been fighting in Chhattisgarh for 26 years, he said, and now commands a force of about 700 guerrillas, nearly half of them women, supported by several thousand tribal militiamen.
Kosa holds a political title, secretary of the Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee, a state-level body that answers to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), the Naxalites' banned political affiliate.
In honor of their guests, the rebels had erected a small bamboo enclosure decorated with hand-painted slogans such as "Down With Salwa Judum" and "Stop Corrupting Adivasi Culture to Make it Market Culture Under the Guise of Tourism." Uniformed cadres sang a song that included the line "America and Japan are big exploiters of this country."
Despite their isolation in the woods, Kosa and his aides keep abreast of current events by listening to shortwave radio broadcasts. Sanjeev, 35, a university dropout who has been with the movement since 1987, asked reporters for advice on how to "upload" Naxalite propaganda onto the Internet, to which he said he had occasional access. The visitors were provided with CDs purporting to contain evidence of Salwa Judum atrocities.
The rank and file was made up mostly of adivasis, several of whom said they joined the movement out of anger toward local authorities.
"I've never seen a hospital in any of these villages," said Nirmala, a slender, short-haired woman in her twenties who joined the movement four years ago and now serves as one of Kosa's bodyguards. "There are schools, but there are no teachers. The government says the adivasis, my people, have no rights over the forests."
Another adivasi rebel, Neela, said she was radicalized at the age of 12, when police arrested her father for illegally clearing a small patch of land and imprisoned him for three years.
A broad-faced woman with a ready smile, the 25-year-old Naxalite said she spoke only her local tribal dialect when she joined the movement a decade ago. Fellow cadres taught her how to read and speak Hindi, she said, and eventually she joined the movement's military wing. A member of a nine-person squad who carries a walkie-talkie and a single-shot rifle, Neela said proudly that she had taken part in 10 military operations, including one in which a mine was detonated beneath a vehicle carrying paramilitary troops. Four of them died, she said.
"They come into villages, beat up men, rape women," she said of the paramilitaries. "I don't feel bad at all about killing them." (WHO STARTED THAT STUPID?)
Comrade M, the university graduate and a squad leader, said the rebels typically laid ambushes for "our friends in khaki uniform" using mines triggered by camera-flash devices.
Military operations aside, the Naxalite rebels also engage in small-scale development projects, such as digging wells and small reservoirs and training villagers in rudimentary health care, according to Kosa and his aides. They maintain an active political and propaganda wing, publishing a newsletter and holding rallies.
At the massive forest gathering, women from a Naxalite cultural troupe swayed and sang. Then Kosa and several other speakers addressed the crowd over a makeshift public address system powered by car batteries. Watching from the sidelines, Neela, the Naxalite foot soldier, said she had "complete confidence" that the revolution would one day succeed.
"I don't know about a guaranteed time frame," she said, "but I know it will happen."
Special correspondent Muneeza Naqvi contributed to this report.
Oil Tax Is Likely to Appear on Ballot (THIS LOOKS SMART)
Organizers turn in 1.2 million signatures in support of an extraction levy on California crude.
By Marc Lifsher
Times Staff Writer
May 13, 2006
Supporters of a ballot initiative that would slap a $400-million-a-year extraction tax on California oil producers submitted almost 1.2 million signatures to state election officials Friday, virtually assuring that the measure would go before voters in November.
Winning a place on the ballot for the proposed tax — which is designed to raise money for research and development of alternative fuels — could set the stage for one of the more costly initiative campaigns in state history. The initiative needs 598,105 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.
The California Clean Air Campaign, bankrolled by Hollywood producer Steve Bing, Silicon Valley venture capitalists and pro-environment corporate executives, has collected $4.2 million and is likely to spend tens of millions of dollars campaigning for the initiative, spokeswoman Julie Buckner said.
Oil companies and their allies in the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups are expected to spend at least that much to fight the proposal.
"This is worth a lot of money to us," said Jack Coffey, government affairs manager for San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron Corp., which last week abandoned its effort to get an initiative on the ballot that would have limited oil company liability in some water pollution lawsuits.
The coalition-backed initiative would impose a tax on every barrel of oil produced within California or pumped from wells on state lands offshore. The tax rate would increase as oil prices rise, topping out at 6%. California produces about 773,000 barrels of oil a day, and backers estimate that the tax would raise at least $4 billion over 10 years if oil prices stay above $60 a barrel.
Proceeds from the tax would be earmarked for research, development and production of alternative vehicle fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and hydrogen. (RIGHT, I'M SURE THAT IS WHERE IT WILL END UP. I HOPE THEY ALL LEAVE THE STATE)
Opponents contend that a wellhead tax on California crude would discourage domestic oil production and make the state more dependent on foreign imports. They say the tax probably would be passed on to consumers as higher prices at the pump. (AREN'T THESE CRITICS? WHY ARE THEY JUST CALLED OPPONENTS?)
Proponents counter that the initiative's wording specifically prohibits producers from adding the tax to retail prices. (SO THEY CALL IT A FEE? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?)
Oil prices, they say, are set on an international market that consumes 85 million barrels a day and shouldn't be affected by a tax collected only in California.
The measure has attracted support from Silicon Valley venture capitalists interested in financing research into commercially viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Three partners at the Menlo Park, Calif., firm of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers have contributed $2.2 million to put the initiative on the ballot. (FINANCE YOUR OWN RESEARCH. WHY LET CONSUMERS AND OIL COMPANIES FUND YOUR RESEARCH THAT YOU MAKE PROFITS ON? BEYOND DISGUSTING)
The measure is attracting other wealthy backers such as Robert Fisher, chairman of Gap Inc., and Wendy Schmidt, wife of Google Inc. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt.
The opposition campaign committee, Californians Against Higher Taxes, fears that the venture capitalists and other business executives could gain control of the new state agency that would distribute the money raised by the new tax.
"There are no checks and balances about where the money goes," spokesman Al Lundeen said.
The drive to boost alternative-fuel research by taxing oil companies is likely to be popular with California motorists upset over paying the highest gas prices of any state except Hawaii. The statewide average is $3.374 a gallon, according to the latest AAA survey.
"Based on the polling that we've been doing, people seem to be willing to pay, to make sacrifices if they know it means a cleaner environment," said Mark Baldassare, director of research at the Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco.
"At this point in time, having the oil companies pay is not going to be something that concerns people." (IT WILL WHEN GAS GOES HIGHER, STUPID)
Organizers turn in 1.2 million signatures in support of an extraction levy on California crude.
By Marc Lifsher
Times Staff Writer
May 13, 2006
Supporters of a ballot initiative that would slap a $400-million-a-year extraction tax on California oil producers submitted almost 1.2 million signatures to state election officials Friday, virtually assuring that the measure would go before voters in November.
Winning a place on the ballot for the proposed tax — which is designed to raise money for research and development of alternative fuels — could set the stage for one of the more costly initiative campaigns in state history. The initiative needs 598,105 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.
The California Clean Air Campaign, bankrolled by Hollywood producer Steve Bing, Silicon Valley venture capitalists and pro-environment corporate executives, has collected $4.2 million and is likely to spend tens of millions of dollars campaigning for the initiative, spokeswoman Julie Buckner said.
Oil companies and their allies in the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups are expected to spend at least that much to fight the proposal.
"This is worth a lot of money to us," said Jack Coffey, government affairs manager for San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron Corp., which last week abandoned its effort to get an initiative on the ballot that would have limited oil company liability in some water pollution lawsuits.
The coalition-backed initiative would impose a tax on every barrel of oil produced within California or pumped from wells on state lands offshore. The tax rate would increase as oil prices rise, topping out at 6%. California produces about 773,000 barrels of oil a day, and backers estimate that the tax would raise at least $4 billion over 10 years if oil prices stay above $60 a barrel.
Proceeds from the tax would be earmarked for research, development and production of alternative vehicle fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and hydrogen. (RIGHT, I'M SURE THAT IS WHERE IT WILL END UP. I HOPE THEY ALL LEAVE THE STATE)
Opponents contend that a wellhead tax on California crude would discourage domestic oil production and make the state more dependent on foreign imports. They say the tax probably would be passed on to consumers as higher prices at the pump. (AREN'T THESE CRITICS? WHY ARE THEY JUST CALLED OPPONENTS?)
Proponents counter that the initiative's wording specifically prohibits producers from adding the tax to retail prices. (SO THEY CALL IT A FEE? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?)
Oil prices, they say, are set on an international market that consumes 85 million barrels a day and shouldn't be affected by a tax collected only in California.
The measure has attracted support from Silicon Valley venture capitalists interested in financing research into commercially viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Three partners at the Menlo Park, Calif., firm of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers have contributed $2.2 million to put the initiative on the ballot. (FINANCE YOUR OWN RESEARCH. WHY LET CONSUMERS AND OIL COMPANIES FUND YOUR RESEARCH THAT YOU MAKE PROFITS ON? BEYOND DISGUSTING)
The measure is attracting other wealthy backers such as Robert Fisher, chairman of Gap Inc., and Wendy Schmidt, wife of Google Inc. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt.
The opposition campaign committee, Californians Against Higher Taxes, fears that the venture capitalists and other business executives could gain control of the new state agency that would distribute the money raised by the new tax.
"There are no checks and balances about where the money goes," spokesman Al Lundeen said.
The drive to boost alternative-fuel research by taxing oil companies is likely to be popular with California motorists upset over paying the highest gas prices of any state except Hawaii. The statewide average is $3.374 a gallon, according to the latest AAA survey.
"Based on the polling that we've been doing, people seem to be willing to pay, to make sacrifices if they know it means a cleaner environment," said Mark Baldassare, director of research at the Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco.
"At this point in time, having the oil companies pay is not going to be something that concerns people." (IT WILL WHEN GAS GOES HIGHER, STUPID)
U.S. Military Is Split on Insurgency Strategy
The divergence is over how best to use troops: spread out at small camps among residents or concentrated at big bases away from cities.
By Solomon Moore and Peter Spiegel
Times Staff Writers
May 13, 2006
HADITHA, Iraq — In the region around Qaim, a northwestern Iraqi town near the Syrian border, Marines are fanning out from their main base and moving into villages as part of a new strategy to root out insurgents who enter the country here.
The troops have set up 19 small base camps throughout the area and begun routinely patrolling insurgent hot spots north of the Euphrates River. The deployment follows a strategy favored by a new generation of counterinsurgency experts: disperse, mingle with the population and stay put.
But the shift comes as the Pentagon appears to be moving the overall U.S. military effort in the opposite direction across much of the country. Army units are being concentrated in "super bases" that line the spine of central Iraq, away from the urban centers where counterinsurgency operations take place.
The two approaches underscore an increasingly high-profile divergence — some say contradiction — on how best to use U.S. forces in Iraq, and are evidence of a growing debate in the upper ranks about the wisest course of action. (ONE SIZE HAS TO FIT ALL?)
The contrast also reflects the complicated mix of military goals and concerns as U.S. troops begin their fourth summer in Iraq. Top commanders are eager to begin shrinking the U.S. footprint, an implicit step toward a gradual withdrawal of American forces. At the same time, some field commanders are determined to break an endless cycle that allows insurgents to move back into key areas as soon as U.S. forces move on. That requires large investments of manpower.
Some military officials insist that the two strategies can coexist, particularly given that Iraqis are being trained in counterinsurgency and are expected to assume a larger role, with help from American advisors. But critics consider it a choice between a smaller force and an effective one.
On one side of the strategy debate is a growing cadre of military intellectuals and counterinsurgency experts who advocate an on-the-ground effort to deal with the insurgency, military analysts say. This group includes, along with Marine units such as those in western Iraq, mid-level officers such as Col. H.R. McMaster, commander of Army forces in Tall Afar, where a counterinsurgency campaign has been cited by President Bush as a model for the country. (GO WITH MCMASTER)
On the other side are senior officers, including those at the U.S. Central Command, who believe a reduced American presence will force Iraqis to take up the burden of fighting the insurgency. Some have also argued that a high-profile U.S. presence in cities stokes resentment.
The debate mirrors a discussion over the general posture of U.S. troops in Iraq. Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, in charge of day-to-day military operations, said in an interview with The Times this week that "heavy-handed" treatment of Iraqis by U.S. forces fueled anti-American attitudes.
In the counterinsurgency debate, experts both inside and outside the Pentagon have begun to question the move to big bases and the push to reduce troop numbers, particularly when Iraqi forces — especially the Iraqi police, which have in some cases been accused of being branches of sectarian militia — have yet to prove themselves.
"What we know works is presence; that was most visible in Tall Afar," said Kalev Sepp, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School who helped write a critique of counterinsurgency strategy for Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
"The key to counterinsurgency is presence among the population," Sepp said. "What do mass concentrations of American forces on a large base do? If we put all our troops there and they're out of sight, what has that accomplished?"
Marines in Al Anbar province, the west-central region that is home to some of the most war-torn cities in the Sunni Arab heartland, appear to have taken that question to heart. Here, as elsewhere, field commanders are given wide latitude to make decisions on the ground, although commanders in the region and in Washington set overall policy, in keeping with U.S. and NATO military tradition.
Marine field commanders said the Qaim model would soon be repeated at bases across Al Anbar, with more Marines scheduled to leave heavily garrisoned encampments in Al Asad, Haditha and Hit to spread forces more evenly throughout the province's towns and villages.
"We'll have a continuing presence in these areas," said Col. W. Blake Crowe, commander of Marine forces in the western part of Al Anbar. "We won't populate every village — we don't have enough force for that. But we'll continue to contest every town and village. We just need to contest them."
The idea behind the new campaign is to repeat the military's success last year in Tall Afar, where Army units cleared out insurgents and flooded the town with patrols and small-unit interactions with residents. Bush and others have touted the approach.
But not all military officials agree with the praise. Some senior Central Command officials have been dismissive of Tall Afar, telling military analysts and scholars recently that too much has been made of the success there. Duplication of that effort across Iraq would require many more U.S. troops than are available, they said.
In Washington, the push for troop reductions has largely been attributed to the Bush administration's desire to show progress before the November congressional elections. (REALLY? NOTHING TO DO WITH ALL THE DEMOCRATIC CALLS FOR WITHDRAWAL? THE CLAIM OF INFLAMING THE POPULATION? HOW CAN IT BE BOTH?)
But current and former military leaders said it was misleading to attribute the push solely to politics. Central Command officers, including Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the Centcom commander, have argued that the large presence fosters a "dependency syndrome" within the Iraqi military, which continues to rely on Americans to do the heavy lifting.
Abizaid, who has specialized in the Middle East in both his military and academic career, has long been doubtful of Americans' ability to integrate into Iraqi cities. Increasing the number of U.S. troops would simply mean more armed soldiers with little understanding of local culture, he has told colleagues.
In Al Anbar, evidence of a "dependency syndrome" is apparent. In a recent operation with American advisors in the Haditha area, an Iraqi company of 70 soldiers found four men listed by the U.S. military as suspected insurgents and turned them over to the Marines. The operation followed several failed attempts by U.S. troops to find the same suspects.
But some U.S. trainers said the Iraqi soldiers' success was an exception.
"There's a lot of lip service being given about letting the Iraqis do independent ops, but nothing much is happening," said Capt. James Beal, one of the trainers who live alongside Iraqi troops at Haditha Dam. "A lot of our guys just don't believe in letting Iraqis get out and do things."
A new and increasingly vocal group of counterinsurgency experts prefers U.S. troops for such roles, even if it slows the learning curve for Iraqi forces. A new joint counterinsurgency field manual, expected to be completed by late summer, recommends that troops move off large bases and into towns for counterinsurgency campaigns, the strategy used in Tall Afar.
"You've got to get out among the population," said Conrad Crane, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who is the lead author of the manual. "You can't lock yourself away in compounds."
A preview of the manual, which will be published this month in the journal Military Review, calls on U.S. forces to "immerse [themselves] in the lives of the people" and says successful counterinsurgency efforts require long-term commitments.
"Insurgents are strengthened by the belief that a few casualties or a few years will cause adversaries to abandon the conflict," the Military Review article says. "Only constant reaffirmations of commitment backed by deeds will bolster public faith in government survivability."
There is also concern that U.S. commanders are pushing Iraqi forces into counterinsurgency roles too soon.
"Abizaid has a wrong notion about prioritization of problems," said Fredrick Kagan, a former instructor at West Point who is now a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "It's not that the things he's worried about are not problems, but he's trading off providing security to the Iraqi people to solve those problems. We have been pushing the Iraqi security forces out in the fight to do things before they're ready."
In Al Anbar, results in the Iraqi police training effort have been decidedly mixed. The Marines see their ability to recruit local Sunnis to police forces as a sign of progress. But as in Shiite regions in the south, where many police forces have been infiltrated by a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr or the Iranian-linked Badr Brigade, they have been forced into an uneasy alliance with nascent Sunni militias that have sprung up in the province. (WHICH IS GOOD)
Four months ago, for example, in a suburb of Haditha, a band of Sunni Arab tribesmen formed a militia to battle the insurgency and stage security checkpoints around the town. The militia turned over dozens of suspected insurgents to the Marines, who were initially reluctant to endorse yet another paramilitary force in a nation of private armies.
Recently, however, Marine commanders have decided to support the militia with money and training, a risk they believe has paid off.
For Marine Capt. Quintin Jones, the uneasiness of working with an acknowledged militia is outweighed by advantages of being on the ground with locals.
"When they tell us that something is happening or that we can find insurgents in a certain spot, they usually are right. They give us great intelligence," Jones said. "A lot of times they can just spot the bad guys better than we can." (NUFF SAID)
Moore reported from Haditha and Spiegel from Washington.
The divergence is over how best to use troops: spread out at small camps among residents or concentrated at big bases away from cities.
By Solomon Moore and Peter Spiegel
Times Staff Writers
May 13, 2006
HADITHA, Iraq — In the region around Qaim, a northwestern Iraqi town near the Syrian border, Marines are fanning out from their main base and moving into villages as part of a new strategy to root out insurgents who enter the country here.
The troops have set up 19 small base camps throughout the area and begun routinely patrolling insurgent hot spots north of the Euphrates River. The deployment follows a strategy favored by a new generation of counterinsurgency experts: disperse, mingle with the population and stay put.
But the shift comes as the Pentagon appears to be moving the overall U.S. military effort in the opposite direction across much of the country. Army units are being concentrated in "super bases" that line the spine of central Iraq, away from the urban centers where counterinsurgency operations take place.
The two approaches underscore an increasingly high-profile divergence — some say contradiction — on how best to use U.S. forces in Iraq, and are evidence of a growing debate in the upper ranks about the wisest course of action. (ONE SIZE HAS TO FIT ALL?)
The contrast also reflects the complicated mix of military goals and concerns as U.S. troops begin their fourth summer in Iraq. Top commanders are eager to begin shrinking the U.S. footprint, an implicit step toward a gradual withdrawal of American forces. At the same time, some field commanders are determined to break an endless cycle that allows insurgents to move back into key areas as soon as U.S. forces move on. That requires large investments of manpower.
Some military officials insist that the two strategies can coexist, particularly given that Iraqis are being trained in counterinsurgency and are expected to assume a larger role, with help from American advisors. But critics consider it a choice between a smaller force and an effective one.
On one side of the strategy debate is a growing cadre of military intellectuals and counterinsurgency experts who advocate an on-the-ground effort to deal with the insurgency, military analysts say. This group includes, along with Marine units such as those in western Iraq, mid-level officers such as Col. H.R. McMaster, commander of Army forces in Tall Afar, where a counterinsurgency campaign has been cited by President Bush as a model for the country. (GO WITH MCMASTER)
On the other side are senior officers, including those at the U.S. Central Command, who believe a reduced American presence will force Iraqis to take up the burden of fighting the insurgency. Some have also argued that a high-profile U.S. presence in cities stokes resentment.
The debate mirrors a discussion over the general posture of U.S. troops in Iraq. Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, in charge of day-to-day military operations, said in an interview with The Times this week that "heavy-handed" treatment of Iraqis by U.S. forces fueled anti-American attitudes.
In the counterinsurgency debate, experts both inside and outside the Pentagon have begun to question the move to big bases and the push to reduce troop numbers, particularly when Iraqi forces — especially the Iraqi police, which have in some cases been accused of being branches of sectarian militia — have yet to prove themselves.
"What we know works is presence; that was most visible in Tall Afar," said Kalev Sepp, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School who helped write a critique of counterinsurgency strategy for Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
"The key to counterinsurgency is presence among the population," Sepp said. "What do mass concentrations of American forces on a large base do? If we put all our troops there and they're out of sight, what has that accomplished?"
Marines in Al Anbar province, the west-central region that is home to some of the most war-torn cities in the Sunni Arab heartland, appear to have taken that question to heart. Here, as elsewhere, field commanders are given wide latitude to make decisions on the ground, although commanders in the region and in Washington set overall policy, in keeping with U.S. and NATO military tradition.
Marine field commanders said the Qaim model would soon be repeated at bases across Al Anbar, with more Marines scheduled to leave heavily garrisoned encampments in Al Asad, Haditha and Hit to spread forces more evenly throughout the province's towns and villages.
"We'll have a continuing presence in these areas," said Col. W. Blake Crowe, commander of Marine forces in the western part of Al Anbar. "We won't populate every village — we don't have enough force for that. But we'll continue to contest every town and village. We just need to contest them."
The idea behind the new campaign is to repeat the military's success last year in Tall Afar, where Army units cleared out insurgents and flooded the town with patrols and small-unit interactions with residents. Bush and others have touted the approach.
But not all military officials agree with the praise. Some senior Central Command officials have been dismissive of Tall Afar, telling military analysts and scholars recently that too much has been made of the success there. Duplication of that effort across Iraq would require many more U.S. troops than are available, they said.
In Washington, the push for troop reductions has largely been attributed to the Bush administration's desire to show progress before the November congressional elections. (REALLY? NOTHING TO DO WITH ALL THE DEMOCRATIC CALLS FOR WITHDRAWAL? THE CLAIM OF INFLAMING THE POPULATION? HOW CAN IT BE BOTH?)
But current and former military leaders said it was misleading to attribute the push solely to politics. Central Command officers, including Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the Centcom commander, have argued that the large presence fosters a "dependency syndrome" within the Iraqi military, which continues to rely on Americans to do the heavy lifting.
Abizaid, who has specialized in the Middle East in both his military and academic career, has long been doubtful of Americans' ability to integrate into Iraqi cities. Increasing the number of U.S. troops would simply mean more armed soldiers with little understanding of local culture, he has told colleagues.
In Al Anbar, evidence of a "dependency syndrome" is apparent. In a recent operation with American advisors in the Haditha area, an Iraqi company of 70 soldiers found four men listed by the U.S. military as suspected insurgents and turned them over to the Marines. The operation followed several failed attempts by U.S. troops to find the same suspects.
But some U.S. trainers said the Iraqi soldiers' success was an exception.
"There's a lot of lip service being given about letting the Iraqis do independent ops, but nothing much is happening," said Capt. James Beal, one of the trainers who live alongside Iraqi troops at Haditha Dam. "A lot of our guys just don't believe in letting Iraqis get out and do things."
A new and increasingly vocal group of counterinsurgency experts prefers U.S. troops for such roles, even if it slows the learning curve for Iraqi forces. A new joint counterinsurgency field manual, expected to be completed by late summer, recommends that troops move off large bases and into towns for counterinsurgency campaigns, the strategy used in Tall Afar.
"You've got to get out among the population," said Conrad Crane, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who is the lead author of the manual. "You can't lock yourself away in compounds."
A preview of the manual, which will be published this month in the journal Military Review, calls on U.S. forces to "immerse [themselves] in the lives of the people" and says successful counterinsurgency efforts require long-term commitments.
"Insurgents are strengthened by the belief that a few casualties or a few years will cause adversaries to abandon the conflict," the Military Review article says. "Only constant reaffirmations of commitment backed by deeds will bolster public faith in government survivability."
There is also concern that U.S. commanders are pushing Iraqi forces into counterinsurgency roles too soon.
"Abizaid has a wrong notion about prioritization of problems," said Fredrick Kagan, a former instructor at West Point who is now a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "It's not that the things he's worried about are not problems, but he's trading off providing security to the Iraqi people to solve those problems. We have been pushing the Iraqi security forces out in the fight to do things before they're ready."
In Al Anbar, results in the Iraqi police training effort have been decidedly mixed. The Marines see their ability to recruit local Sunnis to police forces as a sign of progress. But as in Shiite regions in the south, where many police forces have been infiltrated by a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr or the Iranian-linked Badr Brigade, they have been forced into an uneasy alliance with nascent Sunni militias that have sprung up in the province. (WHICH IS GOOD)
Four months ago, for example, in a suburb of Haditha, a band of Sunni Arab tribesmen formed a militia to battle the insurgency and stage security checkpoints around the town. The militia turned over dozens of suspected insurgents to the Marines, who were initially reluctant to endorse yet another paramilitary force in a nation of private armies.
Recently, however, Marine commanders have decided to support the militia with money and training, a risk they believe has paid off.
For Marine Capt. Quintin Jones, the uneasiness of working with an acknowledged militia is outweighed by advantages of being on the ground with locals.
"When they tell us that something is happening or that we can find insurgents in a certain spot, they usually are right. They give us great intelligence," Jones said. "A lot of times they can just spot the bad guys better than we can." (NUFF SAID)
Moore reported from Haditha and Spiegel from Washington.
Share prices drop amid inflation fear
By James Quinn, Business Correspondent
(Filed: 13/05/2006)
Financial stock markets across the globe were shaken by fears yesterday that rising inflation would force up interest rates.
In London, the FTSE100 index suffered its worst day since the start of the war in Iraq as investors decided to sell stocks amid fears that the market had peaked.
The index tumbled 129.9 points to close at 5912.1, the biggest points fall since March 12, 2003.
Kevin Gardiner, HSBC's head of global equity strategy, said: "It's a bit of a reality check. Inevitably if people think there will be a hard landing for the global economy, then they are going to sell off."
All 17 European stock markets ended the day sharply down, while in New York, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 83 points lower at 11,415 by midday, after falling 144 points on Thursday.
The markets were also affected by the weakening dollar and a halt in the rally in metal prices.
The dollar slid to a one-year low against the euro and dropped below 110 yen for the first time since September, despite a US government report showing a surprise narrowing in the trade deficit in March to $62 billion. The dollar fell to $1.8902 against the pound.
Government reports from France and Germany showed inflation was on the rise, following a surge in oil prices.
In Britain, where inflation is at 2 per cent, experts believe it will rise to 2.5 per cent within six months, also due to the high cost of oil. The market expects a quarter-point rise in interest rates by the end of the year.
By James Quinn, Business Correspondent
(Filed: 13/05/2006)
Financial stock markets across the globe were shaken by fears yesterday that rising inflation would force up interest rates.
In London, the FTSE100 index suffered its worst day since the start of the war in Iraq as investors decided to sell stocks amid fears that the market had peaked.
The index tumbled 129.9 points to close at 5912.1, the biggest points fall since March 12, 2003.
Kevin Gardiner, HSBC's head of global equity strategy, said: "It's a bit of a reality check. Inevitably if people think there will be a hard landing for the global economy, then they are going to sell off."
All 17 European stock markets ended the day sharply down, while in New York, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 83 points lower at 11,415 by midday, after falling 144 points on Thursday.
The markets were also affected by the weakening dollar and a halt in the rally in metal prices.
The dollar slid to a one-year low against the euro and dropped below 110 yen for the first time since September, despite a US government report showing a surprise narrowing in the trade deficit in March to $62 billion. The dollar fell to $1.8902 against the pound.
Government reports from France and Germany showed inflation was on the rise, following a surge in oil prices.
In Britain, where inflation is at 2 per cent, experts believe it will rise to 2.5 per cent within six months, also due to the high cost of oil. The market expects a quarter-point rise in interest rates by the end of the year.
Shrinking Opportunity on China's Campuses
Government Seeks to Limit Glut of Students Produced By a Booming Economy
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 12, 2006; A14
BEIJING, May 11 -- The Chinese government has decided to slow down an explosive increase in the number of college students in recent years, saying the growth has produced bulging campuses, overworked professors and graduates unable to find suitable jobs.
Overpopulation at Chinese universities has emerged as the latest in a string of problems brought on by the country's swift economic growth -- the downside of progress. Prosperity has enabled more people to buy cars, for instance, but at the price of heavy pollution. Similarly, the number of teenagers whose parents can afford to put them through secondary school has climbed quickly, creating pressure on college slots once reserved for the privileged few.
"The social expectation for going on to higher education has become very high," Li Zhiren, a specialist at the Education Ministry's Higher Education Research Center, said in a recent study.
Although beneficial to millions of families, more-flexible admissions policies adopted at government urging -- to take account of the changes -- have produced an enrollment increase of nearly 500 percent since 1998, bringing to more than 23 million the number of students at colleges and universities across the country.
The promise of a more educated population serves China well as it seeks to modernize and reform its economy to better compete in the world. But as the economy matures and higher education becomes more common, college graduates are now more likely to face unemployment than were their predecessors, whose diplomas nearly guaranteed them a job in business or government.
The official National Development and Reform Commission estimated last week that 60 percent of this summer's college graduates will have trouble finding jobs, sobering news for Premier Wen Jiabao's government. About 4.1 million are expected to graduate, an increase of 22 percent over 2005, the commission said. The current job market can absorb only 1.6 million of them.
"It is hard to create new jobs in large numbers due to surplus production capacity, more trade frictions and the revaluation of the yuan," China's currency, Zhang Xiaojian, vice minister of labor and social security, told the official New China News Agency. "As a result, it will be less easy to tackle employment pressures."
Chinese students have not shown much interest in opposing the government in recent years, content to enjoy their new opportunities. Large numbers of well-educated but jobless youth, however, could become a political problem for the Communist Party and its monopoly on power, some analysts have said. In effect, the government would not be honoring its end of a tacit compact in which the party justifies its political control by providing a steady increase in prosperity for China's 1.3 billion people, particularly educated urbanites and their children.
The last major challenge to the party, the 1989 democracy movement centered in Tiananmen Square, was mounted mainly by students on campuses in Beijing and elsewhere. In more recent years, farmers enraged by land confiscations have risen up in thousands of protests and riots. But so far they have lacked the intellectual framework and leadership to become more than sporadic local movements.
Wen's office announced after a cabinet meeting Wednesday that the government will seek to lower the rate of university enrollments by revaluing vocational training and high school diplomas, making the need to go on for university studies seem less pressing. The government will also police university administrations more closely to make sure they do not lower standards to bring in additional students as a way to collect more fees and expand budgets, the announcement said.
Different universities in different areas would have to react according to their own circumstances, the cabinet said in a statement posted on the government Web site. But it emphasized that, overall, scaling back enrollment would improve conditions at universities.
"It is also good for gradually solving conflicts and problems in universities, especially to relieve the pressure on graduates in finding jobs," it added.
Earlier attempts to slow the growth in university enrollments have proved largely ineffective, raising questions about whether Wen's latest orders will be enough to alleviate the problems. Bai Youdi, a retired Beijing secondary school history teacher, noted that in the late 1990s her school's graduating class had four sections and now has 13. But she predicted the pressure was likely to taper off in coming years as the children of China's current one-child families reach college age.
Government Seeks to Limit Glut of Students Produced By a Booming Economy
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 12, 2006; A14
BEIJING, May 11 -- The Chinese government has decided to slow down an explosive increase in the number of college students in recent years, saying the growth has produced bulging campuses, overworked professors and graduates unable to find suitable jobs.
Overpopulation at Chinese universities has emerged as the latest in a string of problems brought on by the country's swift economic growth -- the downside of progress. Prosperity has enabled more people to buy cars, for instance, but at the price of heavy pollution. Similarly, the number of teenagers whose parents can afford to put them through secondary school has climbed quickly, creating pressure on college slots once reserved for the privileged few.
"The social expectation for going on to higher education has become very high," Li Zhiren, a specialist at the Education Ministry's Higher Education Research Center, said in a recent study.
Although beneficial to millions of families, more-flexible admissions policies adopted at government urging -- to take account of the changes -- have produced an enrollment increase of nearly 500 percent since 1998, bringing to more than 23 million the number of students at colleges and universities across the country.
The promise of a more educated population serves China well as it seeks to modernize and reform its economy to better compete in the world. But as the economy matures and higher education becomes more common, college graduates are now more likely to face unemployment than were their predecessors, whose diplomas nearly guaranteed them a job in business or government.
The official National Development and Reform Commission estimated last week that 60 percent of this summer's college graduates will have trouble finding jobs, sobering news for Premier Wen Jiabao's government. About 4.1 million are expected to graduate, an increase of 22 percent over 2005, the commission said. The current job market can absorb only 1.6 million of them.
"It is hard to create new jobs in large numbers due to surplus production capacity, more trade frictions and the revaluation of the yuan," China's currency, Zhang Xiaojian, vice minister of labor and social security, told the official New China News Agency. "As a result, it will be less easy to tackle employment pressures."
Chinese students have not shown much interest in opposing the government in recent years, content to enjoy their new opportunities. Large numbers of well-educated but jobless youth, however, could become a political problem for the Communist Party and its monopoly on power, some analysts have said. In effect, the government would not be honoring its end of a tacit compact in which the party justifies its political control by providing a steady increase in prosperity for China's 1.3 billion people, particularly educated urbanites and their children.
The last major challenge to the party, the 1989 democracy movement centered in Tiananmen Square, was mounted mainly by students on campuses in Beijing and elsewhere. In more recent years, farmers enraged by land confiscations have risen up in thousands of protests and riots. But so far they have lacked the intellectual framework and leadership to become more than sporadic local movements.
Wen's office announced after a cabinet meeting Wednesday that the government will seek to lower the rate of university enrollments by revaluing vocational training and high school diplomas, making the need to go on for university studies seem less pressing. The government will also police university administrations more closely to make sure they do not lower standards to bring in additional students as a way to collect more fees and expand budgets, the announcement said.
Different universities in different areas would have to react according to their own circumstances, the cabinet said in a statement posted on the government Web site. But it emphasized that, overall, scaling back enrollment would improve conditions at universities.
"It is also good for gradually solving conflicts and problems in universities, especially to relieve the pressure on graduates in finding jobs," it added.
Earlier attempts to slow the growth in university enrollments have proved largely ineffective, raising questions about whether Wen's latest orders will be enough to alleviate the problems. Bai Youdi, a retired Beijing secondary school history teacher, noted that in the late 1990s her school's graduating class had four sections and now has 13. But she predicted the pressure was likely to taper off in coming years as the children of China's current one-child families reach college age.
Communists Lead Kolkata's Capitalist Makeover (ONE OF THESE IS NOT RIGHT)
Once a 'dying city,' it is enjoying an economic boom under the region's long-ruling Marxists, whom Indian voters reward again at polls.
By Henry Chu
Times Staff Writer
May 12, 2006
KOLKATA, India — Boomtown fever is gripping this city, where Mother Teresa once ministered to the poor and sick. Dazzling skyscrapers, tacky billboards and huge tracts of land set aside for malls and condos have turned Kolkata into a showcase of free enterprise and private investment.
Who's behind this paean to capitalism?
Why, communists, of course.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has ruled the state of West Bengal for 29 years, making it the world's longest-serving democratically elected communist government. That record was extended Thursday by voters who returned the party-led Left Front by a landslide for a seventh straight term.
Gone is the old dogma about dictatorship of the proletariat and revolution of the masses. Leading today's communist charge is a man who acknowledges his policies are capitalist, who warns workers unions that they had better "behave," who unabashedly courts multinational corporations and who has become the darling of the upper classes. (SO, GONE IS COMMUNISM, AND ALL THAT IS LEFT IS A LABEL, HUH?)
Realism and pragmatism are the new watchwords as the state tries to cash in on India's market-oriented changes of the last 15 years. What is happening in West Bengal is emblematic of the economic liberalization sweeping the country and fueling its impressive growth, a shift in the rules of the game that has forced even onetime enemies of capitalism to change their stripes here in the home of the Bengal tiger.
Today's communist leaders eagerly sell West Bengal as business-friendly and cutting-edge, a place of improved infrastructure, tax incentives and a skilled workforce for high-tech and other service sectors, such as banking and insurance.
The re-branding appears to be paying off. The state's average economic growth rate has consistently outpaced the national rate over the last decade. Foreign companies such as IBM and PepsiCo have set up shop or are expanding operations. The real estate market is booming. (CAN YOU OWN REAL ESTATE IN A COMMUNIST SYSTEM???)
Residents in Kolkata, formerly known as Calcutta, describe a revived sense of confidence and can-do spirit in a metropolis that Rajiv Gandhi as prime minister had disparaged as a "dying city."
"Kolkata has been known as the city of power shortages, bandhs [strikes], traffic jams and Mother Teresa," said G.D. Gautama of West Bengal's department of information technology. "All those things have changed, and changed dramatically."
In place of dreary shops are upscale boutiques and cinemas that vie for the rupees of the growing ranks of people once dismissed as petite bourgeoisie. Traffic can still exasperate, but a new highway connects the airport to downtown and a gleaming new bridge spans the Hooghly River, not far from where the British established their foothold in India and turned Calcutta into the capital of the Raj.
But the problems besetting the rest of the country are in evidence as well: uneven growth that has kept large swaths of people from sharing in the rising prosperity, the demise of traditional industries, policies that critics say benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.
Only a short drive separates Kolkata's buzzing neon-lighted city center from the grim hand-to-mouth world of struggling farmhands and unemployed factory workers, the bedrock constituencies of the communists.
"You are opening shopping malls, all right. There are middle class, their numbers have increased, they should have shopping malls, no doubt about it," said Saifuddin Choudhury, a veteran political leader and former Communist Party member. By contrast, he added, "the agricultural laborer has no money. If he goes to the mall, in his dilapidated jalopy and clothes, will they let him in?"
Pretty much everyone here lays the credit, or blame, for the changes in West Bengal at the door of bespectacled, literary-minded, 62-year-old Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, the state's chief minister since late 2000.
When he took over the top job, Kolkata was still suffering from the disastrous effects of previous governments, under which labor unrest throbbed, bureaucracy ruled, industries fled and power cuts often lasted several hours a day. The malaise threatened to tarnish the legacy of the widely admired land policy changes that cemented the communists' hold on power and that granted plots to millions of peasant farmers and protected the rights of destitute sharecroppers. (WHY CHANGE IF YOU ARE A TRUE BELIEVER????)
Following the example of China and Vietnam, Bhattacharjee has discarded certain communist articles of faith.
Privatization of state enterprises? You bet. Curbing union militancy and strikes? Sure. Foreign direct investment? Bring it on.
"We are not doing socialism here. What we are doing is capitalism," Bhattacharjee acknowledged to reporters last month. "It is clear that we will not be able to establish socialism. Let us see how much we can do for workers from within this [system]."
His fans, sometimes referred to as "Buddha-ists," gush with praise for the chief minister's ardent wooing of investors.
"He goes out to welcome them and make sure that the job is done," said Ravi Poddar, head of Ravi Auto and former chairman of the Eastern Region of the Confederation of Indian Industry.
Much of Bhattacharjee's efforts have gone into trying to turn West Bengal into an IT hub to rival the cities of Bangalore and Hyderabad in the south. The state's share of India's IT exports is only 5%, but it is working hard to increase that.
Currently, the state is home to 235 IT companies, including such industry leaders as Wipro and Tata Consultancy Services. Thirteen IT parks, offering 13.3 million square feet of space, are due to be built within the next 2 1/2 years. Red tape has been cut so that opening a new IT business can be done in a matter of days, said Gautama of the state information technology department.
Kolkata's boosters tout the talent and loyalty of the local workforce, the lower costs of doing business and the much-improved electricity and water supply, the payoff of years of heavy investment in infrastructure.
But beneath the city's new glossy high-tech sheen are ailing traditional industries such as textiles, iron and steel, and tea. West Bengal's once-famous jute mills are being shuttered. Unemployed factory workers, in a state that still suffers from high rates of poverty, feel increasingly ignored by a government and party that once championed their interests.
"We are not against the IT sector, but it offers very few jobs. Labor is capital in a poor country, but instead of looking at the industrial problem from labor's viewpoint, the [Left Front] government has opted for the neoliberal path which puts profit over people," a trade unionist complained recently to the Indian Express newspaper.
As a sign of what they consider the government's misplaced priorities, critics point to New Town, a massive development on the edge of the city that will include office space, shopping malls and fancy high-rise apartments. Critics agree that Kolkata needs room to grow, but they accuse the government of giving paltry compensation to the farmers being displaced by the development.
Many of those agricultural laborers are now scrounging for work.
"What Buddhadeb is doing, he's only creating a dream for the elite middle class," said Choudhury, who was expelled from the Communist Party in 2001 and went on to found the Party for Democratic Socialism. (YEAH, SOCIALISM IS THE ANSWER)
The Communists, who run a disciplined party machine, have so far managed to stifle most internal dissent in their long march toward capitalism. However, like their counterparts in China, they have had to perform some head-spinning rhetorical and ideological acrobatics in order to justify their free-market policies to the rank and file. (I'M SURE ITS CONVINCING)
Kali Ghose, an official with the Center of Indian Trade Unions and a state party committee member, contends that the current policies are designed "to weaken" and eventually to overthrow capitalism, not promote it. Workers are being taught to stand up for their rights, he said, and to be vigilant against unchecked privatization and exploitation by the central government in New Delhi. (CAN YOU LIE LIKE THAT TO THAT MANY PEOPLE?)
But in the same breath, Ghose talks about the competitive global environment, the need to create wealth to eradicate poverty and the importance of profit in attracting industry. "We are not trying to build a communist society," he said, in what would seem a negation of the party's founding principles. (THEN USE COMMUNIST PRINCIPLES DUDE)
On the other end are critics who say that West Bengal has not yet gone far enough with its economic changes, that more liberalization — for example, in the retail sector — is necessary to keep the boom on track and to seal the government's newfound reputation as friendly to business.
Thursday's election success will no doubt strengthen Bhattacharjee's commitment to the course he has charted for his native state. Voters gave the Left Front government a crushing majority with 235 of 293 contested seats in the state assembly.
"We are Marxist, therefore, we are pragmatic," Bhattacharjee said after a recent campaign rally. "And since we are practical, we know it's wise to be capitalist at the moment, when the whole world is wooing capitalism."
Once a 'dying city,' it is enjoying an economic boom under the region's long-ruling Marxists, whom Indian voters reward again at polls.
By Henry Chu
Times Staff Writer
May 12, 2006
KOLKATA, India — Boomtown fever is gripping this city, where Mother Teresa once ministered to the poor and sick. Dazzling skyscrapers, tacky billboards and huge tracts of land set aside for malls and condos have turned Kolkata into a showcase of free enterprise and private investment.
Who's behind this paean to capitalism?
Why, communists, of course.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has ruled the state of West Bengal for 29 years, making it the world's longest-serving democratically elected communist government. That record was extended Thursday by voters who returned the party-led Left Front by a landslide for a seventh straight term.
Gone is the old dogma about dictatorship of the proletariat and revolution of the masses. Leading today's communist charge is a man who acknowledges his policies are capitalist, who warns workers unions that they had better "behave," who unabashedly courts multinational corporations and who has become the darling of the upper classes. (SO, GONE IS COMMUNISM, AND ALL THAT IS LEFT IS A LABEL, HUH?)
Realism and pragmatism are the new watchwords as the state tries to cash in on India's market-oriented changes of the last 15 years. What is happening in West Bengal is emblematic of the economic liberalization sweeping the country and fueling its impressive growth, a shift in the rules of the game that has forced even onetime enemies of capitalism to change their stripes here in the home of the Bengal tiger.
Today's communist leaders eagerly sell West Bengal as business-friendly and cutting-edge, a place of improved infrastructure, tax incentives and a skilled workforce for high-tech and other service sectors, such as banking and insurance.
The re-branding appears to be paying off. The state's average economic growth rate has consistently outpaced the national rate over the last decade. Foreign companies such as IBM and PepsiCo have set up shop or are expanding operations. The real estate market is booming. (CAN YOU OWN REAL ESTATE IN A COMMUNIST SYSTEM???)
Residents in Kolkata, formerly known as Calcutta, describe a revived sense of confidence and can-do spirit in a metropolis that Rajiv Gandhi as prime minister had disparaged as a "dying city."
"Kolkata has been known as the city of power shortages, bandhs [strikes], traffic jams and Mother Teresa," said G.D. Gautama of West Bengal's department of information technology. "All those things have changed, and changed dramatically."
In place of dreary shops are upscale boutiques and cinemas that vie for the rupees of the growing ranks of people once dismissed as petite bourgeoisie. Traffic can still exasperate, but a new highway connects the airport to downtown and a gleaming new bridge spans the Hooghly River, not far from where the British established their foothold in India and turned Calcutta into the capital of the Raj.
But the problems besetting the rest of the country are in evidence as well: uneven growth that has kept large swaths of people from sharing in the rising prosperity, the demise of traditional industries, policies that critics say benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.
Only a short drive separates Kolkata's buzzing neon-lighted city center from the grim hand-to-mouth world of struggling farmhands and unemployed factory workers, the bedrock constituencies of the communists.
"You are opening shopping malls, all right. There are middle class, their numbers have increased, they should have shopping malls, no doubt about it," said Saifuddin Choudhury, a veteran political leader and former Communist Party member. By contrast, he added, "the agricultural laborer has no money. If he goes to the mall, in his dilapidated jalopy and clothes, will they let him in?"
Pretty much everyone here lays the credit, or blame, for the changes in West Bengal at the door of bespectacled, literary-minded, 62-year-old Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, the state's chief minister since late 2000.
When he took over the top job, Kolkata was still suffering from the disastrous effects of previous governments, under which labor unrest throbbed, bureaucracy ruled, industries fled and power cuts often lasted several hours a day. The malaise threatened to tarnish the legacy of the widely admired land policy changes that cemented the communists' hold on power and that granted plots to millions of peasant farmers and protected the rights of destitute sharecroppers. (WHY CHANGE IF YOU ARE A TRUE BELIEVER????)
Following the example of China and Vietnam, Bhattacharjee has discarded certain communist articles of faith.
Privatization of state enterprises? You bet. Curbing union militancy and strikes? Sure. Foreign direct investment? Bring it on.
"We are not doing socialism here. What we are doing is capitalism," Bhattacharjee acknowledged to reporters last month. "It is clear that we will not be able to establish socialism. Let us see how much we can do for workers from within this [system]."
His fans, sometimes referred to as "Buddha-ists," gush with praise for the chief minister's ardent wooing of investors.
"He goes out to welcome them and make sure that the job is done," said Ravi Poddar, head of Ravi Auto and former chairman of the Eastern Region of the Confederation of Indian Industry.
Much of Bhattacharjee's efforts have gone into trying to turn West Bengal into an IT hub to rival the cities of Bangalore and Hyderabad in the south. The state's share of India's IT exports is only 5%, but it is working hard to increase that.
Currently, the state is home to 235 IT companies, including such industry leaders as Wipro and Tata Consultancy Services. Thirteen IT parks, offering 13.3 million square feet of space, are due to be built within the next 2 1/2 years. Red tape has been cut so that opening a new IT business can be done in a matter of days, said Gautama of the state information technology department.
Kolkata's boosters tout the talent and loyalty of the local workforce, the lower costs of doing business and the much-improved electricity and water supply, the payoff of years of heavy investment in infrastructure.
But beneath the city's new glossy high-tech sheen are ailing traditional industries such as textiles, iron and steel, and tea. West Bengal's once-famous jute mills are being shuttered. Unemployed factory workers, in a state that still suffers from high rates of poverty, feel increasingly ignored by a government and party that once championed their interests.
"We are not against the IT sector, but it offers very few jobs. Labor is capital in a poor country, but instead of looking at the industrial problem from labor's viewpoint, the [Left Front] government has opted for the neoliberal path which puts profit over people," a trade unionist complained recently to the Indian Express newspaper.
As a sign of what they consider the government's misplaced priorities, critics point to New Town, a massive development on the edge of the city that will include office space, shopping malls and fancy high-rise apartments. Critics agree that Kolkata needs room to grow, but they accuse the government of giving paltry compensation to the farmers being displaced by the development.
Many of those agricultural laborers are now scrounging for work.
"What Buddhadeb is doing, he's only creating a dream for the elite middle class," said Choudhury, who was expelled from the Communist Party in 2001 and went on to found the Party for Democratic Socialism. (YEAH, SOCIALISM IS THE ANSWER)
The Communists, who run a disciplined party machine, have so far managed to stifle most internal dissent in their long march toward capitalism. However, like their counterparts in China, they have had to perform some head-spinning rhetorical and ideological acrobatics in order to justify their free-market policies to the rank and file. (I'M SURE ITS CONVINCING)
Kali Ghose, an official with the Center of Indian Trade Unions and a state party committee member, contends that the current policies are designed "to weaken" and eventually to overthrow capitalism, not promote it. Workers are being taught to stand up for their rights, he said, and to be vigilant against unchecked privatization and exploitation by the central government in New Delhi. (CAN YOU LIE LIKE THAT TO THAT MANY PEOPLE?)
But in the same breath, Ghose talks about the competitive global environment, the need to create wealth to eradicate poverty and the importance of profit in attracting industry. "We are not trying to build a communist society," he said, in what would seem a negation of the party's founding principles. (THEN USE COMMUNIST PRINCIPLES DUDE)
On the other end are critics who say that West Bengal has not yet gone far enough with its economic changes, that more liberalization — for example, in the retail sector — is necessary to keep the boom on track and to seal the government's newfound reputation as friendly to business.
Thursday's election success will no doubt strengthen Bhattacharjee's commitment to the course he has charted for his native state. Voters gave the Left Front government a crushing majority with 235 of 293 contested seats in the state assembly.
"We are Marxist, therefore, we are pragmatic," Bhattacharjee said after a recent campaign rally. "And since we are practical, we know it's wise to be capitalist at the moment, when the whole world is wooing capitalism."
New Furor Over NSA Phone Logs
National Security Agency secretly tracks millions of Americans' calls, a new report says. Bush and his CIA nominee defend anti-terrorism operations.
By Greg Miller
Times Staff Writer
May 12, 2006
WASHINGTON — President Bush and his nominee to lead the CIA faced a new furor Thursday over domestic spying operations after a news report that the National Security Agency has secretly assembled the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans. (WHAT KIND OF RECORDS? THE KIND THAT THE PHONE COMPANY 'SECRETLY' KEEPS?)
Moving to limit the political fallout, Bush held a hastily arranged news appearance at the White House in which he said the government was not "trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." But the president did not specifically address whether the data-gathering operation exists, except to refer to "new claims about other ways we are tracking down Al Qaeda."
His remarks did little to quell the reaction on Capitol Hill, where the USA Today report prompted calls for hearings and added to existing concerns over a program in which the NSA has eavesdropped on international phone conversations and e-mails of U.S. residents.
The revelations could be damaging to the confirmation prospects of Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was director of the NSA when the reported program is said to have begun, and who was nominated by Bush on Monday to serve as the next CIA director. (OR NOT)
"All I would want to say is that everything that NSA does is lawful and very carefully done," Hayden said Thursday as he emerged from the latest in a series of closed-door meetings with lawmakers designed to line up support for his nomination.
As part of the data-collection operation, USA Today reported, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth have given customers' records to the NSA. The records reportedly include phone numbers and the times calls are made, but not customers' names. The names are readily available elsewhere, however. (SO, THEY GAVE THEM PHONE BILLS WITHOUT CUSTOMER NAMES? OOOOO)
The three companies declined to comment Thursday, saying they could not discuss their cooperation in classified programs involving national security. USA Today reported that a fourth major carrier, Denver-based Qwest, refused to participate in the program because it was concerned about the legality of turning over customers' records.
As described, the program is less intrusive than the NSA domestic eavesdropping but would affect many more people. AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth have about 200 million customers combined, and the bulk of the nation's telecommunications traffic.
The White House has acknowledged that Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop without a court warrant on international calls and e-mails in the U.S. involving people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda. (YOU MEAN, PROVIDE SECURITY?)
The record-gathering program described by USA Today does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.
Instead, the aim is to analyze calling patterns for possible clues about the ways that terrorist networks communicate.
Some critics asked Thursday whether the two programs were linked, suggesting the NSA was combing phone logs to identify people to wiretap. NSA spokesman Don Weber declined to address the matter, saying, "It would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues."
Critics also questioned the usefulness of examining the phone records of millions of Americans for clues to Al Qaeda communications. (THANKS FOR THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE)
"Terrorist activity is so limited, and we have so little to go on, that you're not going to be able to put together a pattern you can search for," said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute and a member of a committee that advises the Department of Homeland Security on privacy matters. "You can't put together an algorithm that finds it." (REALLY? HAVE YOU HEARD OF ABLE DANGER?)
Harper said such a program would "threaten the civil liberties and privacy of hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans." (NO PRIVACY IN PHONE RECORDS PER THE USSC, THANKS THOUGH)
Bush said in his remarks Thursday that "the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval" and that "the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities."
Bush and Hayden both said that all of the NSA's activities were disclosed to "appropriate" members of Congress, referring to leaders in both chambers and members of newly created intelligence subcommittees that receive regular briefings from NSA officials.
There were no immediate indications that Hayden's nomination would be derailed. But there were signs that support for him was slipping and that confirmation hearings scheduled to begin next Thursday would be more contentious. (OOOOO)
"I believe we are on our way to a major constitutional confrontation on 4th Amendment guarantees [against] unreasonable search and seizure," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "I think this is also going to present a growing impediment to the confirmation of Gen. Hayden." (0 FOR 2 DIANNE. TOO BAD YOU ARE SO USELESS)
Key Republicans also expressed concern.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he would summon telephone company executives to testify "to see if we can learn some of the underlying facts."
That proposal rankled Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who issued a statement saying that the NSA's activities already were being scrutinized by a new subcommittee on the panel and that "calls for further oversight are unnecessary."
Roberts said the NSA operations were "lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks."
Some members of Congress indicated they were familiar with the phone records program, although none confirmed that they had been directly briefed on it.
Several defended its merit. "Do we want security … or do we want to get in a twit about our civil libertarian rights?" asked Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), a member of the Intelligence Committee.
Other high-ranking Republicans said they were not aware of the program and expressed some alarm.
"I am concerned about what I read with regard to the NSA database of phone calls," said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "I don't know enough about the details, except that I'm going to find out, because I'm not sure why it would be necessary for us to keep and have that kind of information." (STAND UP FOR SOMETHING JOHN)
Gen. Hayden was NSA director from 1999 to 2005, when he was named the top deputy to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte.
Hayden has been a principal defender of the domestic eavesdropping program. He has indicated that the NSA launched other post-Sept. 11 operations.
"After the attacks, I exercised some options I've always had that collectively better prepared us to defend the homeland," Hayden said in a January speech. "These programs were not related to the authorization that the president has recently spoken about."
Times staff writer Maura Reynolds contributed to this report.
National Security Agency secretly tracks millions of Americans' calls, a new report says. Bush and his CIA nominee defend anti-terrorism operations.
By Greg Miller
Times Staff Writer
May 12, 2006
WASHINGTON — President Bush and his nominee to lead the CIA faced a new furor Thursday over domestic spying operations after a news report that the National Security Agency has secretly assembled the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans. (WHAT KIND OF RECORDS? THE KIND THAT THE PHONE COMPANY 'SECRETLY' KEEPS?)
Moving to limit the political fallout, Bush held a hastily arranged news appearance at the White House in which he said the government was not "trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." But the president did not specifically address whether the data-gathering operation exists, except to refer to "new claims about other ways we are tracking down Al Qaeda."
His remarks did little to quell the reaction on Capitol Hill, where the USA Today report prompted calls for hearings and added to existing concerns over a program in which the NSA has eavesdropped on international phone conversations and e-mails of U.S. residents.
The revelations could be damaging to the confirmation prospects of Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was director of the NSA when the reported program is said to have begun, and who was nominated by Bush on Monday to serve as the next CIA director. (OR NOT)
"All I would want to say is that everything that NSA does is lawful and very carefully done," Hayden said Thursday as he emerged from the latest in a series of closed-door meetings with lawmakers designed to line up support for his nomination.
As part of the data-collection operation, USA Today reported, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth have given customers' records to the NSA. The records reportedly include phone numbers and the times calls are made, but not customers' names. The names are readily available elsewhere, however. (SO, THEY GAVE THEM PHONE BILLS WITHOUT CUSTOMER NAMES? OOOOO)
The three companies declined to comment Thursday, saying they could not discuss their cooperation in classified programs involving national security. USA Today reported that a fourth major carrier, Denver-based Qwest, refused to participate in the program because it was concerned about the legality of turning over customers' records.
As described, the program is less intrusive than the NSA domestic eavesdropping but would affect many more people. AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth have about 200 million customers combined, and the bulk of the nation's telecommunications traffic.
The White House has acknowledged that Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop without a court warrant on international calls and e-mails in the U.S. involving people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda. (YOU MEAN, PROVIDE SECURITY?)
The record-gathering program described by USA Today does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.
Instead, the aim is to analyze calling patterns for possible clues about the ways that terrorist networks communicate.
Some critics asked Thursday whether the two programs were linked, suggesting the NSA was combing phone logs to identify people to wiretap. NSA spokesman Don Weber declined to address the matter, saying, "It would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues."
Critics also questioned the usefulness of examining the phone records of millions of Americans for clues to Al Qaeda communications. (THANKS FOR THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE)
"Terrorist activity is so limited, and we have so little to go on, that you're not going to be able to put together a pattern you can search for," said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute and a member of a committee that advises the Department of Homeland Security on privacy matters. "You can't put together an algorithm that finds it." (REALLY? HAVE YOU HEARD OF ABLE DANGER?)
Harper said such a program would "threaten the civil liberties and privacy of hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans." (NO PRIVACY IN PHONE RECORDS PER THE USSC, THANKS THOUGH)
Bush said in his remarks Thursday that "the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval" and that "the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities."
Bush and Hayden both said that all of the NSA's activities were disclosed to "appropriate" members of Congress, referring to leaders in both chambers and members of newly created intelligence subcommittees that receive regular briefings from NSA officials.
There were no immediate indications that Hayden's nomination would be derailed. But there were signs that support for him was slipping and that confirmation hearings scheduled to begin next Thursday would be more contentious. (OOOOO)
"I believe we are on our way to a major constitutional confrontation on 4th Amendment guarantees [against] unreasonable search and seizure," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "I think this is also going to present a growing impediment to the confirmation of Gen. Hayden." (0 FOR 2 DIANNE. TOO BAD YOU ARE SO USELESS)
Key Republicans also expressed concern.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he would summon telephone company executives to testify "to see if we can learn some of the underlying facts."
That proposal rankled Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who issued a statement saying that the NSA's activities already were being scrutinized by a new subcommittee on the panel and that "calls for further oversight are unnecessary."
Roberts said the NSA operations were "lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks."
Some members of Congress indicated they were familiar with the phone records program, although none confirmed that they had been directly briefed on it.
Several defended its merit. "Do we want security … or do we want to get in a twit about our civil libertarian rights?" asked Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), a member of the Intelligence Committee.
Other high-ranking Republicans said they were not aware of the program and expressed some alarm.
"I am concerned about what I read with regard to the NSA database of phone calls," said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "I don't know enough about the details, except that I'm going to find out, because I'm not sure why it would be necessary for us to keep and have that kind of information." (STAND UP FOR SOMETHING JOHN)
Gen. Hayden was NSA director from 1999 to 2005, when he was named the top deputy to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte.
Hayden has been a principal defender of the domestic eavesdropping program. He has indicated that the NSA launched other post-Sept. 11 operations.
"After the attacks, I exercised some options I've always had that collectively better prepared us to defend the homeland," Hayden said in a January speech. "These programs were not related to the authorization that the president has recently spoken about."
Times staff writer Maura Reynolds contributed to this report.
Tamil Tiger naval raid brings war closer to Sri Lanka
By Peter Foster, South Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 12/05/2006)
Sri Lanka moved closer to all-out war yesterday when a troop ship was rammed by Tamil Tiger suicide bombers and the government responded with air strikes on rebel strongholds.
In a two-hour battle, the rebels also sank a naval patrol boat, killing at least 17 sailors. As many as 50 rebels died in the clashes off the north coast of the island, the Sri Lankan military said. The sea battle involved up to 15 boats from the Sea Tiger wing of the separatist movement.
The government ordered aircraft to bomb rebel-controlled strongholds in the north and east of the island. The armed forces were reported to have fired artillery shells and rockets over the port of Trincomalee towards Tiger-controlled areas.
The sea assault marked a serious escalation of violence in a month-long round of skirmishing in which more than 200 people have died. The government last month launched a two-day air campaign after a Tiger suicide bomber attacked and seriously wounded the chief of the Sri Lankan army.
Both sides have declared that they have no wish to return to the 20-year civil war in which 65,000 died.
But with a recent increase in attacks by the Tigers, many analysts fear the 2002 ceasefire is now approaching breaking point.
Yesterday's well organised attack by the Tigers developed into a major sea battle that the Sri Lankan military said raged for two-and-a-half hours before the rebels were forced to retreat.
The troop-carrier The Pearl Cruise II was transporting more than 700 soldiers to the northern peninsula of Jaffna, when it was engaged by Tiger fast-attack craft and suicide boats packed with explosives.
"We lost a Dvora [a fast-attack guard boat] but managed to save Pearl Cruise II and the 710 men aboard it," a Sri Lankan navy spokesman said.
The attack was condemned by the European-led ceasefire monitoring mission, one of whose observers was present on the sea patrol when the attack took place.
"They went for the Pearl Cruise with unarmed soldiers on board and [a truce monitor] flag on the top. It's a big violation," said Maj Gen Ulf Henricsson, the head of the mission. "It's almost the same as terminating the ceasefire by will."
By Peter Foster, South Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 12/05/2006)
Sri Lanka moved closer to all-out war yesterday when a troop ship was rammed by Tamil Tiger suicide bombers and the government responded with air strikes on rebel strongholds.
In a two-hour battle, the rebels also sank a naval patrol boat, killing at least 17 sailors. As many as 50 rebels died in the clashes off the north coast of the island, the Sri Lankan military said. The sea battle involved up to 15 boats from the Sea Tiger wing of the separatist movement.
The government ordered aircraft to bomb rebel-controlled strongholds in the north and east of the island. The armed forces were reported to have fired artillery shells and rockets over the port of Trincomalee towards Tiger-controlled areas.
The sea assault marked a serious escalation of violence in a month-long round of skirmishing in which more than 200 people have died. The government last month launched a two-day air campaign after a Tiger suicide bomber attacked and seriously wounded the chief of the Sri Lankan army.
Both sides have declared that they have no wish to return to the 20-year civil war in which 65,000 died.
But with a recent increase in attacks by the Tigers, many analysts fear the 2002 ceasefire is now approaching breaking point.
Yesterday's well organised attack by the Tigers developed into a major sea battle that the Sri Lankan military said raged for two-and-a-half hours before the rebels were forced to retreat.
The troop-carrier The Pearl Cruise II was transporting more than 700 soldiers to the northern peninsula of Jaffna, when it was engaged by Tiger fast-attack craft and suicide boats packed with explosives.
"We lost a Dvora [a fast-attack guard boat] but managed to save Pearl Cruise II and the 710 men aboard it," a Sri Lankan navy spokesman said.
The attack was condemned by the European-led ceasefire monitoring mission, one of whose observers was present on the sea patrol when the attack took place.
"They went for the Pearl Cruise with unarmed soldiers on board and [a truce monitor] flag on the top. It's a big violation," said Maj Gen Ulf Henricsson, the head of the mission. "It's almost the same as terminating the ceasefire by will."
They could have been stopped
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 12/05/2006)
Three of the four suicide bombers who killed 52 people in London last July were known in some form to MI5 but the security service had failed to follow up the leads in what Opposition MPs yesterday called a failure of intelligence.
An official report into the bombings published by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC), which reports directly to the Prime Minister, cleared MI5 of any negligence over its failure to thwart the attacks.
But it acknowledged that had different judgments been made and further inquiries conducted into individuals linked to other terrorist plots the outcome might have been different.
The report said greater coverage by MI6 in Pakistan, or more available manpower generally, "might have alerted the agencies to the intentions of the July 7 group".
The intelligence community had also failed fully to understand the threat from home-grown suicide bombers.
The report left many questions unanswered. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said it had exposed a serious intelligence failure that should be the subject of an independent investigation - a demand echoed by relatives of the victims.
However, John Reid, the Home Secretary, ruled out a public inquiry which he said would divert resources from MI5's continuing attempts to stop another outrage. He promised to meet the families to explain why he had reached this conclusion.
Officials also published yesterday an official account of the events of July 7, when Mohamed Sidique Khan, 30, Shezad Tanweer, 22, Germaine Lindsay, 19, and Hasib Hussain, 19, detonated their home-made devices, that cost just £8,000 to make, on three Underground trains and a bus.
It was the worst terrorist attack in British history.
The leading figure in the group was Khan, who left a video claiming responsibility that was later released by al-Qa'eda, though the extent of the link, if any, with the terrorist organisation run by Osama bin Laden remains uncertain and is still being investigated. He, along with Tanweer, had visited terrorist training camps in Pakistan. Khan also visited Afghanistan at least five years ago before the fall of the Taliban.
Although it seems likely that the four bombers marked the extent of the plot, the narrative compiled by a Whitehall official said there could be unknown others who had been involved in indoctrinating the group or in planning the attack.
MI5 originally said the bombings were a total surprise and the perpetrators complete unknowns.
But the ISC report confirmed that Khan and Tanweer had come to their attention on several occasions in connection with other inquiries. They were not followed up because they were seen as peripheral figures and other priorities intervened.
Lindsay's phone number was also found on MI5 files after July 7, but it was only possible to identify it as his after the attack.
The ISC said: "The story of what was know about the July 7 group prior to July indicates that if more resources had been in place sooner the chances of preventing the July attacks could have increased."
In the Commons, Mr Davis said: "At the time of the attack, and in the immediate aftermath, the Government were claiming that the bombers were previously unknown to the authorities because they had no previous criminal or terrorist activity. We now know that to be untrue."
He questioned the Government over why resources were not available to allow surveillance to continue on people who turned out, with hindsight, to be terrorists even though the September 11 outrage in America in 2001 had put the West on its guard.
Mr Reid said the fact that the suicide bombers were ordinary British citizens with little known history of extremist views, apparently well-integrated and with no obvious associations with jihadists made them especially difficult to defend against.
Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, told the committee: "Could we, could others, could the police have done better? Even with the wisdom of hindsight I think it is unlikely that we would have done so, with the resources available to use at the time and the other demands placed on us."
She added: "That position will remain in the forseeable future, We will continue top stop most of them, but we will not stop them all."
The report disclosed that three further attacks on Britain had been stopped since July 7 and several other plots had been intercepted since Sept 11, 2001.
The ISC has asked for the system of flagging up threats and alerts to be made less confusing and more transparent.
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 12/05/2006)
Three of the four suicide bombers who killed 52 people in London last July were known in some form to MI5 but the security service had failed to follow up the leads in what Opposition MPs yesterday called a failure of intelligence.
An official report into the bombings published by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee (ISC), which reports directly to the Prime Minister, cleared MI5 of any negligence over its failure to thwart the attacks.
But it acknowledged that had different judgments been made and further inquiries conducted into individuals linked to other terrorist plots the outcome might have been different.
The report said greater coverage by MI6 in Pakistan, or more available manpower generally, "might have alerted the agencies to the intentions of the July 7 group".
The intelligence community had also failed fully to understand the threat from home-grown suicide bombers.
The report left many questions unanswered. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said it had exposed a serious intelligence failure that should be the subject of an independent investigation - a demand echoed by relatives of the victims.
However, John Reid, the Home Secretary, ruled out a public inquiry which he said would divert resources from MI5's continuing attempts to stop another outrage. He promised to meet the families to explain why he had reached this conclusion.
Officials also published yesterday an official account of the events of July 7, when Mohamed Sidique Khan, 30, Shezad Tanweer, 22, Germaine Lindsay, 19, and Hasib Hussain, 19, detonated their home-made devices, that cost just £8,000 to make, on three Underground trains and a bus.
It was the worst terrorist attack in British history.
The leading figure in the group was Khan, who left a video claiming responsibility that was later released by al-Qa'eda, though the extent of the link, if any, with the terrorist organisation run by Osama bin Laden remains uncertain and is still being investigated. He, along with Tanweer, had visited terrorist training camps in Pakistan. Khan also visited Afghanistan at least five years ago before the fall of the Taliban.
Although it seems likely that the four bombers marked the extent of the plot, the narrative compiled by a Whitehall official said there could be unknown others who had been involved in indoctrinating the group or in planning the attack.
MI5 originally said the bombings were a total surprise and the perpetrators complete unknowns.
But the ISC report confirmed that Khan and Tanweer had come to their attention on several occasions in connection with other inquiries. They were not followed up because they were seen as peripheral figures and other priorities intervened.
Lindsay's phone number was also found on MI5 files after July 7, but it was only possible to identify it as his after the attack.
The ISC said: "The story of what was know about the July 7 group prior to July indicates that if more resources had been in place sooner the chances of preventing the July attacks could have increased."
In the Commons, Mr Davis said: "At the time of the attack, and in the immediate aftermath, the Government were claiming that the bombers were previously unknown to the authorities because they had no previous criminal or terrorist activity. We now know that to be untrue."
He questioned the Government over why resources were not available to allow surveillance to continue on people who turned out, with hindsight, to be terrorists even though the September 11 outrage in America in 2001 had put the West on its guard.
Mr Reid said the fact that the suicide bombers were ordinary British citizens with little known history of extremist views, apparently well-integrated and with no obvious associations with jihadists made them especially difficult to defend against.
Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, told the committee: "Could we, could others, could the police have done better? Even with the wisdom of hindsight I think it is unlikely that we would have done so, with the resources available to use at the time and the other demands placed on us."
She added: "That position will remain in the forseeable future, We will continue top stop most of them, but we will not stop them all."
The report disclosed that three further attacks on Britain had been stopped since July 7 and several other plots had been intercepted since Sept 11, 2001.
The ISC has asked for the system of flagging up threats and alerts to be made less confusing and more transparent.
Chinese flight plan takes off
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 12/05/2006)
China is to build up to 50 new airports and double its fleet of passenger jets over the next five years to meet the demand for travel from its growing middle class.
The country's Civil Aviation Administration (CAAC) said $23bn (£12.2bn) had been earmarked for new hubs and regional airports, much of it to be financed by Chinese insurers flush with investment funds, or in joint ventures with Western companies.
CAAC official Zhao Hongyuan said: "All the projects will offer investment opportunities for investors at home and abroad."
Britain's Arup Urban Design, Australia's Macquarie Infrastructure and Germany's airport operator Fraport are all expected to benefit.
China is the third biggest air-travel market after the US and Europe, flying 138m passengers last year.
With plans to recruit 1,000 jet pilots a year, China aims to boost its fleet from around 860 to 4,000 by 2020 - anathema to ecologists as air traffic damages the ozone layer.
The priority is enlarging the hubs of Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing Capital, which will become the largest airport in the world.
Some $2.5bn is to be spent on five new airports in the tourism hotspot of Yunnan in south-west China as part of a campaign to spread the prosperity of the Eastern seaboard deeper into the hinterland.
The country expects to overtake the US to become the world's leading destination for tourists by 2020.
For the time being China is woefully under-served, with 142 airports for 1.3bn people. The expansion drive is part of a goal to challenge the US and Europe to become a global force in aviation.
Beijing is already drawing up blueprints for a Chinese-designed jet with 175 seats to compete with the Boeing 737 workhorse and the Airbus A320 series.
Airbus itself is expected to start manufacturing older versions of its jets on Chinese soil by 2008 under a deal struck last year in exchange for an order of 150 A320s.
More than 130,000 workers are already employed in the aerospace sector in Shaanxi province alone, China's answer to Seattle.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 12/05/2006)
China is to build up to 50 new airports and double its fleet of passenger jets over the next five years to meet the demand for travel from its growing middle class.
The country's Civil Aviation Administration (CAAC) said $23bn (£12.2bn) had been earmarked for new hubs and regional airports, much of it to be financed by Chinese insurers flush with investment funds, or in joint ventures with Western companies.
CAAC official Zhao Hongyuan said: "All the projects will offer investment opportunities for investors at home and abroad."
Britain's Arup Urban Design, Australia's Macquarie Infrastructure and Germany's airport operator Fraport are all expected to benefit.
China is the third biggest air-travel market after the US and Europe, flying 138m passengers last year.
With plans to recruit 1,000 jet pilots a year, China aims to boost its fleet from around 860 to 4,000 by 2020 - anathema to ecologists as air traffic damages the ozone layer.
The priority is enlarging the hubs of Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing Capital, which will become the largest airport in the world.
Some $2.5bn is to be spent on five new airports in the tourism hotspot of Yunnan in south-west China as part of a campaign to spread the prosperity of the Eastern seaboard deeper into the hinterland.
The country expects to overtake the US to become the world's leading destination for tourists by 2020.
For the time being China is woefully under-served, with 142 airports for 1.3bn people. The expansion drive is part of a goal to challenge the US and Europe to become a global force in aviation.
Beijing is already drawing up blueprints for a Chinese-designed jet with 175 seats to compete with the Boeing 737 workhorse and the Airbus A320 series.
Airbus itself is expected to start manufacturing older versions of its jets on Chinese soil by 2008 under a deal struck last year in exchange for an order of 150 A320s.
More than 130,000 workers are already employed in the aerospace sector in Shaanxi province alone, China's answer to Seattle.
Copper price soars as bull run hots up
By Josephine Moulds (Filed: 12/05/2006)
Commodities continued their bull run led by copper, which broke through $8,800 a tonne during the day.
"It has been a wild, wild day; wilder even than it has become in recent weeks," said Stephen Briggs, economist at French investment bank SG.
"The copper price was, at one point, up 10pc on the day, which is almost unheard of. Copper is dragging the other base metals up with it and having an effect on precious metals."
Copper closed up $471 at $8,619 a tonne in London.
Demand for copper, particularly from China and India, has outstripped supply, which has been hampered by strikes and accidents. Zinc, which closed up $505.5 at $3,980, is in similarly short supply. Nickel rose $1,150 in sympathy with other metals to $21,700. Gold hit a new 25-year high, closing up $16.90 at $719.
The wall of money pouring into commodities has boosted prices. Mr Briggs said: "There is a lot of pension fund and mutual fund money being diversified into this asset class."
A key factor in the metals bull market has also been the decline in the dollar. Metal prices are expressed in dollars, and so when the dollar weakens they become cheaper for holders of other currencies. The dollar's decline continued yesterday, falling 1½ cents to $1.8794 against the pound.
Stephen Lewis, economist at Insinger de Beaufort, said: "The dollar has been falling because there has been a feeling that east Asian central banks are not going to be accumulating dollars. Indeed they may be shedding them."
Belligerent comments from Iran's president also prompted risk fears. The Brent oil price in London closed at $73.43, up 99c.
By Josephine Moulds (Filed: 12/05/2006)
Commodities continued their bull run led by copper, which broke through $8,800 a tonne during the day.
"It has been a wild, wild day; wilder even than it has become in recent weeks," said Stephen Briggs, economist at French investment bank SG.
"The copper price was, at one point, up 10pc on the day, which is almost unheard of. Copper is dragging the other base metals up with it and having an effect on precious metals."
Copper closed up $471 at $8,619 a tonne in London.
Demand for copper, particularly from China and India, has outstripped supply, which has been hampered by strikes and accidents. Zinc, which closed up $505.5 at $3,980, is in similarly short supply. Nickel rose $1,150 in sympathy with other metals to $21,700. Gold hit a new 25-year high, closing up $16.90 at $719.
The wall of money pouring into commodities has boosted prices. Mr Briggs said: "There is a lot of pension fund and mutual fund money being diversified into this asset class."
A key factor in the metals bull market has also been the decline in the dollar. Metal prices are expressed in dollars, and so when the dollar weakens they become cheaper for holders of other currencies. The dollar's decline continued yesterday, falling 1½ cents to $1.8794 against the pound.
Stephen Lewis, economist at Insinger de Beaufort, said: "The dollar has been falling because there has been a feeling that east Asian central banks are not going to be accumulating dollars. Indeed they may be shedding them."
Belligerent comments from Iran's president also prompted risk fears. The Brent oil price in London closed at $73.43, up 99c.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Experts say US funding Somali warlords
Mon Jun 5, 2006 12:43 PM ET
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been funneling more than $100,000 a month to warlords battling Islamist militia in Somalia, according to a Somalia expert who has conferred with the groups in the country.
The U.S. operation, which former intelligence officials say is aimed at preventing emergence of rulers who could provide al Qaeda with a safe haven akin to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, appeared to be seriously set back on Monday when an Islamic coalition claimed control of Mogadishu.
U.S. government officials refused to discuss any possible secret U.S. involvement in the strategically placed Horn of Africa state, which has been wrecked by years of fighting.
But former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said an operation to support the warlords' alliance appeared to involve both the CIA and U.S. military.
John Prendergast, who monitors Somalia for the think-tank International Crisis Group, said he learned during meetings with alliance members in Somalia that the CIA was financing the warlords with cash payments.
Prendergast estimated that CIA-operated flights into Somalia have been bringing in $100,000 to $150,000 per month for the warlords. The flights remain in Somalia for the day, he said, so that U.S. agents can confer with their allies.
The Bush administration has maintained a silence over allegations in recent months of a U.S. proxy war against Islamist radicalism in the country.
Pentagon spokesman Navy Lt. Commander Joe Carpenter reiterated the administration's position that the United States stands ready to "disrupt the efforts of terrorists wherever they may be active."
SECRET SUPPORT
Claims of clandestine U.S. support for secular warlords who call themselves the "Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism" have been aired by Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf and independent analysts.
A United Nations team charged with monitoring a U.N. arms embargo against Somalia has also said it is investigating an unnamed country's clandestine support for the warlords alliance as a possible violation of the weapons ban. (HOW DO THE ISLAMIC GROUPS GET WEAPONS? WILL THE UN INVESTIGATE THAT TOO?)
The former intelligence officials said the operation was controlled by the Pentagon through U.S. Central Command's Combined Joint Task Force for the Horn of Africa, a counterterrorism mission based in neighboring Djibouti established after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
On Monday, after months of fighting that has killed around 350 people, the Islamic militia claimed control of Mogadishu and a warlord militiaman said his coalition's leaders were fleeing the capital.
U.S. intelligence has produced no conclusive evidence of an active al Qaeda presence in Somalia, experts said. But there have been reports of al Qaeda members in the country, including suspects in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa.
"The Pentagon, and now the U.S. government as a whole, is convinced these are elements for establishing a religious-based government like the Taliban, that could be exploited by al Qaeda," said a former intelligence official knowledgeable about U.S. courterterrorism activities.
The CIA has given its warlord allies surveillance equipment for tracking al Qaeda suspects and appeared to view the warlords as a counter to the influence of Afghanistan-trained Islamist militia leader Aden Hashi Aryo, Prendergast said.
"By circumventing the new government and going straight to individual warlords, the U.S. is perpetuating and even deepening Somalia's fundamental problems, and compromising long-term efforts to combat extremism," Prendergast said.
Somalia, a country of 10 million people, has had no effective central authority since 1991 when warlords overthrew military dictator Mohamed Siad Barre. The central government is based temporarily in the town of Baidoa and has been unable to control events in Mogadishu.
Americans have bad memories of U.S. involvement in Somalia in 1993, when 18 U.S. soldiers were killed and 79 injured in a battle with guerrillas loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid after entering the country to support a relief effort.
Mon Jun 5, 2006 12:43 PM ET
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been funneling more than $100,000 a month to warlords battling Islamist militia in Somalia, according to a Somalia expert who has conferred with the groups in the country.
The U.S. operation, which former intelligence officials say is aimed at preventing emergence of rulers who could provide al Qaeda with a safe haven akin to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, appeared to be seriously set back on Monday when an Islamic coalition claimed control of Mogadishu.
U.S. government officials refused to discuss any possible secret U.S. involvement in the strategically placed Horn of Africa state, which has been wrecked by years of fighting.
But former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said an operation to support the warlords' alliance appeared to involve both the CIA and U.S. military.
John Prendergast, who monitors Somalia for the think-tank International Crisis Group, said he learned during meetings with alliance members in Somalia that the CIA was financing the warlords with cash payments.
Prendergast estimated that CIA-operated flights into Somalia have been bringing in $100,000 to $150,000 per month for the warlords. The flights remain in Somalia for the day, he said, so that U.S. agents can confer with their allies.
The Bush administration has maintained a silence over allegations in recent months of a U.S. proxy war against Islamist radicalism in the country.
Pentagon spokesman Navy Lt. Commander Joe Carpenter reiterated the administration's position that the United States stands ready to "disrupt the efforts of terrorists wherever they may be active."
SECRET SUPPORT
Claims of clandestine U.S. support for secular warlords who call themselves the "Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism" have been aired by Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf and independent analysts.
A United Nations team charged with monitoring a U.N. arms embargo against Somalia has also said it is investigating an unnamed country's clandestine support for the warlords alliance as a possible violation of the weapons ban. (HOW DO THE ISLAMIC GROUPS GET WEAPONS? WILL THE UN INVESTIGATE THAT TOO?)
The former intelligence officials said the operation was controlled by the Pentagon through U.S. Central Command's Combined Joint Task Force for the Horn of Africa, a counterterrorism mission based in neighboring Djibouti established after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
On Monday, after months of fighting that has killed around 350 people, the Islamic militia claimed control of Mogadishu and a warlord militiaman said his coalition's leaders were fleeing the capital.
U.S. intelligence has produced no conclusive evidence of an active al Qaeda presence in Somalia, experts said. But there have been reports of al Qaeda members in the country, including suspects in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa.
"The Pentagon, and now the U.S. government as a whole, is convinced these are elements for establishing a religious-based government like the Taliban, that could be exploited by al Qaeda," said a former intelligence official knowledgeable about U.S. courterterrorism activities.
The CIA has given its warlord allies surveillance equipment for tracking al Qaeda suspects and appeared to view the warlords as a counter to the influence of Afghanistan-trained Islamist militia leader Aden Hashi Aryo, Prendergast said.
"By circumventing the new government and going straight to individual warlords, the U.S. is perpetuating and even deepening Somalia's fundamental problems, and compromising long-term efforts to combat extremism," Prendergast said.
Somalia, a country of 10 million people, has had no effective central authority since 1991 when warlords overthrew military dictator Mohamed Siad Barre. The central government is based temporarily in the town of Baidoa and has been unable to control events in Mogadishu.
Americans have bad memories of U.S. involvement in Somalia in 1993, when 18 U.S. soldiers were killed and 79 injured in a battle with guerrillas loyal to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid after entering the country to support a relief effort.
A Talk at Lunch That Shifted the Stance on Iran
By HELENE COOPER and DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, June 3 — On a Tuesday afternoon two months ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat down to a small lunch in President Bush's private dining room behind the Oval Office and delivered grim news to her boss: Their coalition against Iran was at risk of falling apart.
A meeting she had attended in Berlin days earlier with European foreign ministers had been a disaster, she reported, according to participants in the discussion. Iran was neatly exploiting divisions among the Europeans and Russia, and speeding ahead with its enrichment of uranium. The president grimaced, one aide recalled, interpreting the look as one of exasperation "that said, 'O.K., team, what's the answer?' "
That body language touched off a closely held two-month effort to reach a drastically different strategy, one articulated two weeks later in a single sentence that Ms. Rice wrote in a private memorandum. It broached the idea that the United States end its nearly three-decade policy against direct talks with Iran.
Mr. Bush's aides rarely describe policy debates in the Oval Office in much detail. But in recounting his decisions in this case, they appeared eager to portray him as determined to rebuild a fractured coalition still bearing scars from Iraq and find a way out of a negotiating dynamic that, as one aide said recently, "the Iranians were winning."
Mr. Bush gradually grew more comfortable with offering talks to a country that he considers the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, and whose president has advocated wiping Israel off the map. Mr. Bush's own early misgivings about the path he was considering came in a flurry of phone calls to Ms. Rice and to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser, that often began with questions like "What if the Iranians do this," gaming out loud a number of possible situations.
Mr. Bush left open the option of scuttling the entire idea until early Wednesday morning, three senior officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were describing internal debates in the White House. He made the final decision only after telephone calls with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and the Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany led him to conclude that if Tehran refused to suspend its enrichment of uranium, or later dragged its feet, they would support an escalating series of sanctions against Iran at the United Nations that could lead to a confrontation.
Even after Mr. Bush edited the statement that Ms. Rice was scheduled to read Wednesday before she flew to Vienna to encourage Europe and Russia to sign on to a final package of incentives for Iran — and sanctions if it turns the offer down — Ms. Rice wanted to check in one more time. She called Mr. Bush. Was he sure he was O.K. with his decision?
"Go do it," he was said to have responded.
She did, but the results remain unclear. Iran has given no indication it will agree to Mr. Bush's threshold condition, suspending nuclear fuel production. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that he would oppose "any pressure to deprive our people from their right" to pursue a peaceful nuclear program.
The official news agency IRNA reported that Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said Saturday that Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, was expected to arrive in Tehran in the next few days with the new package of incentives.
"Iran will examine the proposal and announce its opinion after that," Mr. Mottaki said. Mr. Bush's aides now acknowledge that the approach they had once publicly described as successfully "isolating" Iran was in fact viewed internally as going nowhere. Mr. Bush's search for a new option was driven, they say, by concern that the path he was on two months ago would inevitably force one of two potentially disastrous outcomes: an Iranian bomb, or an American attack on Iran's facilities.
Conservatives, even some inside the administration, are worried that Mr. Bush may be forced into other concessions, including allowing Iran to continue some low level of nuclear fuel production. Others fear that the commitments Mr. Bush believes he extracted from Mr. Putin, Ms. Merkel and President Jacques Chirac of France may erode.
But the story of how a president who rarely changes his mind did so in this case — after refusing similar proposals on Iran four years ago — illustrates the changed dynamic between the State Department and the White House in Mr. Bush's second term. When Colin L. Powell was secretary of state, the two buildings often seemed at war. But 18 months after Ms. Rice took over, her relationship with Mr. Bush has led to policies that one former adviser to Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush said "he never would have allowed Colin to pursue."
It is unclear how much dissent, if any, surrounded the decision, which appears to have been driven largely by the president, Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley, with other senior national security officials playing a more remote role. Both White House and State Department officials say Vice President Dick Cheney, long an opponent of proposals to engage Iran, agreed to this experiment. But it is unclear whether he is an enthusiast, or simply expects Iran to reject suspending enrichment — clearing the way to sanctions that could test the Iranian government's ability to survive. (HOW IS DISSENT IMPORTANT? WHY DOES IT MATTER IF CHENEY'S HEART IS INTO IT? AGAIN, DEATH THROUGH TRIVAL DETAILS)
After the surprise election of Mr. Ahmadinejad last summer, Iran ended its suspension of uranium enrichment, and the United States and Europe won resolutions at the International Atomic Energy Agency to move the issue to the United Nations Security Council. But it took weeks over the winter to get the weakest of Security Council actions — a "presidential statement." Russia, which has huge financial interests in Iran and is supplying it with nuclear reactors, was particularly reluctant to push the Iranians too hard.
At a private dinner on March 6 at the Watergate with Ms. Rice, Mr. Hadley and Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov warned that Iran could do what North Korea did in 2003 — throw out inspectors and abandon the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That would close the biggest window into Iran's program, making it hard to assess its bomb capability — the same issue that had led to huge errors in Iraq.
On March 30, Ms. Rice traveled to Berlin for what turned into a fractious meeting with representatives of the other four permanent members of the Security Council and Germany. She questioned what kind of sanctions would be effective. The conversation went nowhere.
That led to Ms. Rice's warning to Mr. Bush over lunch, on April 4, that the momentum to confront Iran was disintegrating. Mr. Bush, one aide noted, was receiving special intelligence assessments every morning, some on Iran's intentions, others examining Mr. Ahmadinejad's personality, still others exploring how long it would take Iran to produce a bomb.
On Easter weekend, Ms. Rice sat in her apartment and drafted a two-page proposal for a new strategy that pursued three tracks: the threat of "coercive measures" through the United Nations, negotiations with Iran that included what Ms. Rice has called "bold" incentives for Iran to give up the production of all nuclear fuel and a separate set of strategies for economic sanctions if the Security Council failed to act.
They were accompanied by a calendar Ms. Rice had marked in three colors tracking the schedule for each of the three tracks, which Mr. Hadley told her was "brilliant, colorful, and completely impenetrable."
For the first time, her proposal also raised a question the administration had long avoided: Had the time arrived for the United States to play what she and Mr. Bush, both bridge players, called their biggest card — offering to talk with Iran? She shared the proposal with Mr. Hadley, and then raised it with Mr. Bush in private on May 5
The idea intrigued Mr. Bush, White House officials say, and on May 8, Ms. Rice met with him just hours before flying to New York for a meeting with her European counterparts.
She asked him what kind of body language to display at the United Nations meeting. Should she signal that the United States was considering negotiations with Iran? "Be careful," he said, according to officials familiar with the conversation. "I haven't made up my mind."
That same day, an 18-page letter from Mr. Ahmadinejad arrived. It declared liberal democracy a failure, although it also was perceived by many as an effort to reach out and start a dialogue.
Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley read the letter on the flight to New York, but dismissed it. "It isn't addressing the issues we're dealing with in a concrete way," Ms. Rice said that day.
Her meeting in New York with her European counterparts turned testy, particularly an exchange with Mr. Lavrov, who was still smarting from a speech by Mr. Cheney denouncing Russia for its increasingly authoritarian behavior. But the discussion, while fractious, convinced her that the only way to break the stalemate was to offer to join the negotiations.
While Mr. Bush was intrigued, he was intent on secrecy, and so when the National Security Council met on the subject on May 17, he warned against leaks. The session was notable because Mr. Cheney, who had fought in the first term against engagement with Iran, said the offer might work, largely because it would force the choices back on Iran. And while the council had dismissed the letter, it used the meeting to discuss whether to respond.
While Mr. Bush initially told Ms. Rice that others could work out the final negotiations, Ms. Rice told the president that "only you can nail this down," apparently a reference to keeping Ms. Merkel and Mr. Putin on board. Mr. Bush made the calls and got them to agree that if Iran resists, they will move ahead with a range of sanctions.
But Mr. Bush, led by Ms. Rice, is taking a significant risk. He must hold together countries that bitterly broke with the United States three years ago on Iraq. And now, he seems acutely aware that part of his legacy may depend on his ability to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear power in the Middle East, without again resorting to military force. (I THOUGHT HIS LEGACY WAS 'NO WMD IN IRAQ'?)
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran for this article.
By HELENE COOPER and DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, June 3 — On a Tuesday afternoon two months ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat down to a small lunch in President Bush's private dining room behind the Oval Office and delivered grim news to her boss: Their coalition against Iran was at risk of falling apart.
A meeting she had attended in Berlin days earlier with European foreign ministers had been a disaster, she reported, according to participants in the discussion. Iran was neatly exploiting divisions among the Europeans and Russia, and speeding ahead with its enrichment of uranium. The president grimaced, one aide recalled, interpreting the look as one of exasperation "that said, 'O.K., team, what's the answer?' "
That body language touched off a closely held two-month effort to reach a drastically different strategy, one articulated two weeks later in a single sentence that Ms. Rice wrote in a private memorandum. It broached the idea that the United States end its nearly three-decade policy against direct talks with Iran.
Mr. Bush's aides rarely describe policy debates in the Oval Office in much detail. But in recounting his decisions in this case, they appeared eager to portray him as determined to rebuild a fractured coalition still bearing scars from Iraq and find a way out of a negotiating dynamic that, as one aide said recently, "the Iranians were winning."
Mr. Bush gradually grew more comfortable with offering talks to a country that he considers the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, and whose president has advocated wiping Israel off the map. Mr. Bush's own early misgivings about the path he was considering came in a flurry of phone calls to Ms. Rice and to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser, that often began with questions like "What if the Iranians do this," gaming out loud a number of possible situations.
Mr. Bush left open the option of scuttling the entire idea until early Wednesday morning, three senior officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were describing internal debates in the White House. He made the final decision only after telephone calls with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and the Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany led him to conclude that if Tehran refused to suspend its enrichment of uranium, or later dragged its feet, they would support an escalating series of sanctions against Iran at the United Nations that could lead to a confrontation.
Even after Mr. Bush edited the statement that Ms. Rice was scheduled to read Wednesday before she flew to Vienna to encourage Europe and Russia to sign on to a final package of incentives for Iran — and sanctions if it turns the offer down — Ms. Rice wanted to check in one more time. She called Mr. Bush. Was he sure he was O.K. with his decision?
"Go do it," he was said to have responded.
She did, but the results remain unclear. Iran has given no indication it will agree to Mr. Bush's threshold condition, suspending nuclear fuel production. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that he would oppose "any pressure to deprive our people from their right" to pursue a peaceful nuclear program.
The official news agency IRNA reported that Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said Saturday that Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, was expected to arrive in Tehran in the next few days with the new package of incentives.
"Iran will examine the proposal and announce its opinion after that," Mr. Mottaki said. Mr. Bush's aides now acknowledge that the approach they had once publicly described as successfully "isolating" Iran was in fact viewed internally as going nowhere. Mr. Bush's search for a new option was driven, they say, by concern that the path he was on two months ago would inevitably force one of two potentially disastrous outcomes: an Iranian bomb, or an American attack on Iran's facilities.
Conservatives, even some inside the administration, are worried that Mr. Bush may be forced into other concessions, including allowing Iran to continue some low level of nuclear fuel production. Others fear that the commitments Mr. Bush believes he extracted from Mr. Putin, Ms. Merkel and President Jacques Chirac of France may erode.
But the story of how a president who rarely changes his mind did so in this case — after refusing similar proposals on Iran four years ago — illustrates the changed dynamic between the State Department and the White House in Mr. Bush's second term. When Colin L. Powell was secretary of state, the two buildings often seemed at war. But 18 months after Ms. Rice took over, her relationship with Mr. Bush has led to policies that one former adviser to Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush said "he never would have allowed Colin to pursue."
It is unclear how much dissent, if any, surrounded the decision, which appears to have been driven largely by the president, Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley, with other senior national security officials playing a more remote role. Both White House and State Department officials say Vice President Dick Cheney, long an opponent of proposals to engage Iran, agreed to this experiment. But it is unclear whether he is an enthusiast, or simply expects Iran to reject suspending enrichment — clearing the way to sanctions that could test the Iranian government's ability to survive. (HOW IS DISSENT IMPORTANT? WHY DOES IT MATTER IF CHENEY'S HEART IS INTO IT? AGAIN, DEATH THROUGH TRIVAL DETAILS)
After the surprise election of Mr. Ahmadinejad last summer, Iran ended its suspension of uranium enrichment, and the United States and Europe won resolutions at the International Atomic Energy Agency to move the issue to the United Nations Security Council. But it took weeks over the winter to get the weakest of Security Council actions — a "presidential statement." Russia, which has huge financial interests in Iran and is supplying it with nuclear reactors, was particularly reluctant to push the Iranians too hard.
At a private dinner on March 6 at the Watergate with Ms. Rice, Mr. Hadley and Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov warned that Iran could do what North Korea did in 2003 — throw out inspectors and abandon the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That would close the biggest window into Iran's program, making it hard to assess its bomb capability — the same issue that had led to huge errors in Iraq.
On March 30, Ms. Rice traveled to Berlin for what turned into a fractious meeting with representatives of the other four permanent members of the Security Council and Germany. She questioned what kind of sanctions would be effective. The conversation went nowhere.
That led to Ms. Rice's warning to Mr. Bush over lunch, on April 4, that the momentum to confront Iran was disintegrating. Mr. Bush, one aide noted, was receiving special intelligence assessments every morning, some on Iran's intentions, others examining Mr. Ahmadinejad's personality, still others exploring how long it would take Iran to produce a bomb.
On Easter weekend, Ms. Rice sat in her apartment and drafted a two-page proposal for a new strategy that pursued three tracks: the threat of "coercive measures" through the United Nations, negotiations with Iran that included what Ms. Rice has called "bold" incentives for Iran to give up the production of all nuclear fuel and a separate set of strategies for economic sanctions if the Security Council failed to act.
They were accompanied by a calendar Ms. Rice had marked in three colors tracking the schedule for each of the three tracks, which Mr. Hadley told her was "brilliant, colorful, and completely impenetrable."
For the first time, her proposal also raised a question the administration had long avoided: Had the time arrived for the United States to play what she and Mr. Bush, both bridge players, called their biggest card — offering to talk with Iran? She shared the proposal with Mr. Hadley, and then raised it with Mr. Bush in private on May 5
The idea intrigued Mr. Bush, White House officials say, and on May 8, Ms. Rice met with him just hours before flying to New York for a meeting with her European counterparts.
She asked him what kind of body language to display at the United Nations meeting. Should she signal that the United States was considering negotiations with Iran? "Be careful," he said, according to officials familiar with the conversation. "I haven't made up my mind."
That same day, an 18-page letter from Mr. Ahmadinejad arrived. It declared liberal democracy a failure, although it also was perceived by many as an effort to reach out and start a dialogue.
Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley read the letter on the flight to New York, but dismissed it. "It isn't addressing the issues we're dealing with in a concrete way," Ms. Rice said that day.
Her meeting in New York with her European counterparts turned testy, particularly an exchange with Mr. Lavrov, who was still smarting from a speech by Mr. Cheney denouncing Russia for its increasingly authoritarian behavior. But the discussion, while fractious, convinced her that the only way to break the stalemate was to offer to join the negotiations.
While Mr. Bush was intrigued, he was intent on secrecy, and so when the National Security Council met on the subject on May 17, he warned against leaks. The session was notable because Mr. Cheney, who had fought in the first term against engagement with Iran, said the offer might work, largely because it would force the choices back on Iran. And while the council had dismissed the letter, it used the meeting to discuss whether to respond.
While Mr. Bush initially told Ms. Rice that others could work out the final negotiations, Ms. Rice told the president that "only you can nail this down," apparently a reference to keeping Ms. Merkel and Mr. Putin on board. Mr. Bush made the calls and got them to agree that if Iran resists, they will move ahead with a range of sanctions.
But Mr. Bush, led by Ms. Rice, is taking a significant risk. He must hold together countries that bitterly broke with the United States three years ago on Iraq. And now, he seems acutely aware that part of his legacy may depend on his ability to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear power in the Middle East, without again resorting to military force. (I THOUGHT HIS LEGACY WAS 'NO WMD IN IRAQ'?)
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran for this article.
Freakoutonomics
June 2, 2006
By CHARLES R. MORRIS
LAST month saw one of the sharpest drops in consumer confidence since the recessions of 1979-1982. But those were truly dreadful times. Oil prices tripled, rates on home mortgages shot into the mid-teens, the stock market was a disaster area and unemployment rates reached double digits.
Over the past three years, by contrast, American economic performance has been almost glittering. Inflation is still low, while employment and productivity have all been rising strongly. True, stock markets are clearly nervous, and the sharp upsurge in gas prices is adding to consumer skittishness. But the reaction still seems inconsistent with the economy's underlying strengths.
There are parallels with another historical period, however, that suggest the deeper currents of uneasiness.
Pan the camera back to Pittsburgh, July 1877. The Pennsylvania Railroad yard, stretching along the city's riverfront, is a raging inferno, set afire by angry mobs of railroad workers. A contingent of state militiamen, trapped in a burning railroad roundhouse, fight their way through the flames with a Gatling gun.
Over the next few weeks riots rage throughout the country. In Chicago, newspaper headlines declare that "howling mobs" control the city. In New York, The Sun demands a "diet of lead" for rioters. Unrest in San Francisco explodes into a vicious anti-Chinese pogrom. The same period marks the glory years of the rural Granger movement and the Roman-candle growth of the Knights of Labor. American Populism puts down permanent roots.
Historians long attributed the turmoil to a "great depression of the 1870's." But recent detailed reconstructions of 19th-century data by economic historians show that there was no 1870's depression: aside from a short recession in 1873, in fact, the decade saw possibly the fastest sustained growth in American history.
Employment grew strongly, faster than the rate of immigration; consumption of food and other goods rose across the board. On a per capita basis, almost all output measures were up spectacularly. By the end of the decade, people were better housed, better clothed and lived on bigger farms. Department stores were popping up even in medium-sized cities. America was transforming into the world's first mass consumer society.
But why did people feel so miserable? Partly they were confused by prices, which were dropping sharply. Farmers thought falling grain prices meant they were getting poorer, without noticing that the price of everything else was falling too. Farmers' terms of trade — the price differences between what they sold and what they bought — actually racked up solid gains in the 1870's.
But ordinary people still had good reason to be terrified, just as ordinary people do today. Midwestern 1870's factory farms — thousand-acre spreads with 70-horse plowing teams — quickly dominated world markets but also wiped out the much smaller grain farmers of New York. Globalized grain markets were more volatile: good weather on the Russian steppes could ruin an American grower's year. Farmers found themselves caught in the coils of grain futures markets.
After the Civil War, artisanal local manufacturers usually enjoyed comfortable mini-monopolies. But with the rapid spread of the railroads and the telegraph, new department stores and mail-order catalogs pressured local producers and middlemen with mass-produced goods, a precursor to the Wal-Mart era. In the mid-1880's, the Bloomingdale's catalog promised that orders would arrive within two weeks in virtually the whole of the United States, including large swathes of territory reachable only by wagon-train a decade before. The productivity shock was comparable to that from the Internet in our own day.
Before the Civil War, America was perhaps the most egalitarian society in the world. But the unbridled entrepreneurialism of the 1870's gave rise to the robber barons. Even if ordinary people were doing better in the 1870's, the yawning gap between the very rich and everybody else fanned resentments. Interestingly, wealth inequality in today's America is roughly the same as in the Gilded Age.
The sharply increased social and geographic mobility of the 1870's set people adrift from traditional sources of security in families and villages. In our own day, the destruction of employer-employee relationships, the erosion of pension protection and employee health insurance may be creating a similar loss of moorings.
If one counts only the size of houses and cars, and the numbers of electronic gadgets stuffed into rec rooms, Americans are probably better off than ever before. But as the 1870's suggest, economic well-being doesn't come just from piling up toys. An economy has psychological or, if you will, spiritual, dimensions. A conviction of fairness, a feeling of not being totally on one's own, a sense of reasonable stability and predictability are all essential components of good economic performance. When they were missing in the 1870's, in the midst of a boom, the populace was brought to the brink of revolt.
Charles R. Morris is the author, most recently, of "The Tycoons."
June 2, 2006
By CHARLES R. MORRIS
LAST month saw one of the sharpest drops in consumer confidence since the recessions of 1979-1982. But those were truly dreadful times. Oil prices tripled, rates on home mortgages shot into the mid-teens, the stock market was a disaster area and unemployment rates reached double digits.
Over the past three years, by contrast, American economic performance has been almost glittering. Inflation is still low, while employment and productivity have all been rising strongly. True, stock markets are clearly nervous, and the sharp upsurge in gas prices is adding to consumer skittishness. But the reaction still seems inconsistent with the economy's underlying strengths.
There are parallels with another historical period, however, that suggest the deeper currents of uneasiness.
Pan the camera back to Pittsburgh, July 1877. The Pennsylvania Railroad yard, stretching along the city's riverfront, is a raging inferno, set afire by angry mobs of railroad workers. A contingent of state militiamen, trapped in a burning railroad roundhouse, fight their way through the flames with a Gatling gun.
Over the next few weeks riots rage throughout the country. In Chicago, newspaper headlines declare that "howling mobs" control the city. In New York, The Sun demands a "diet of lead" for rioters. Unrest in San Francisco explodes into a vicious anti-Chinese pogrom. The same period marks the glory years of the rural Granger movement and the Roman-candle growth of the Knights of Labor. American Populism puts down permanent roots.
Historians long attributed the turmoil to a "great depression of the 1870's." But recent detailed reconstructions of 19th-century data by economic historians show that there was no 1870's depression: aside from a short recession in 1873, in fact, the decade saw possibly the fastest sustained growth in American history.
Employment grew strongly, faster than the rate of immigration; consumption of food and other goods rose across the board. On a per capita basis, almost all output measures were up spectacularly. By the end of the decade, people were better housed, better clothed and lived on bigger farms. Department stores were popping up even in medium-sized cities. America was transforming into the world's first mass consumer society.
But why did people feel so miserable? Partly they were confused by prices, which were dropping sharply. Farmers thought falling grain prices meant they were getting poorer, without noticing that the price of everything else was falling too. Farmers' terms of trade — the price differences between what they sold and what they bought — actually racked up solid gains in the 1870's.
But ordinary people still had good reason to be terrified, just as ordinary people do today. Midwestern 1870's factory farms — thousand-acre spreads with 70-horse plowing teams — quickly dominated world markets but also wiped out the much smaller grain farmers of New York. Globalized grain markets were more volatile: good weather on the Russian steppes could ruin an American grower's year. Farmers found themselves caught in the coils of grain futures markets.
After the Civil War, artisanal local manufacturers usually enjoyed comfortable mini-monopolies. But with the rapid spread of the railroads and the telegraph, new department stores and mail-order catalogs pressured local producers and middlemen with mass-produced goods, a precursor to the Wal-Mart era. In the mid-1880's, the Bloomingdale's catalog promised that orders would arrive within two weeks in virtually the whole of the United States, including large swathes of territory reachable only by wagon-train a decade before. The productivity shock was comparable to that from the Internet in our own day.
Before the Civil War, America was perhaps the most egalitarian society in the world. But the unbridled entrepreneurialism of the 1870's gave rise to the robber barons. Even if ordinary people were doing better in the 1870's, the yawning gap between the very rich and everybody else fanned resentments. Interestingly, wealth inequality in today's America is roughly the same as in the Gilded Age.
The sharply increased social and geographic mobility of the 1870's set people adrift from traditional sources of security in families and villages. In our own day, the destruction of employer-employee relationships, the erosion of pension protection and employee health insurance may be creating a similar loss of moorings.
If one counts only the size of houses and cars, and the numbers of electronic gadgets stuffed into rec rooms, Americans are probably better off than ever before. But as the 1870's suggest, economic well-being doesn't come just from piling up toys. An economy has psychological or, if you will, spiritual, dimensions. A conviction of fairness, a feeling of not being totally on one's own, a sense of reasonable stability and predictability are all essential components of good economic performance. When they were missing in the 1870's, in the midst of a boom, the populace was brought to the brink of revolt.
Charles R. Morris is the author, most recently, of "The Tycoons."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)