Will civil war bring lasting peace to Iraq?
History shows civil wars must be fought without foreign interference before stability prevails.
By Edward N. Luttwak
EDWARD N. LUTTWAK is a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
June 2, 2006
CIVIL WARS can be especially atrocious as neighbors kill each other at close range, but they also have a purpose. They can bring lasting peace by destroying the will to fight and by removing the motives and opportunities for further violence.
England's civil war in the mid-17th century ensured the subsequent centuries of political stability under Parliament and a limited monarchy. But first there had to be a war with pitched battles and killing, including the decapitation of King Charles I, who had claimed absolute power by divine right.
The United States had its civil war two centuries later, which established the rule that states cannot leave the union — and abolished slavery in the process. The destruction was vast and the casualties immense as compared with all subsequent American wars, given the size of the population. But without the decisive victory of the Union, two separate and quarrelsome republics might still endure, periodically at war with each other.
Even Switzerland had a civil war — in 1847 — out of which came the limited but sturdy unity of its confederation. Close proximity, overlapping languages and centuries of common history were not enough to resolve differences between the cantons. They had to fight briefly, with 86 killed, to strike a balance of strength between them.
And so it must be with Iraq, the most haphazard of states, hurriedly created by the British after World War I with scant regard for its rival nationalities and sects. The sectarian hatred — erupting during the Saddam Hussein era and at full boil since his ouster — is now inflicting a heavy toll in casualties.
Attempts by U.S. and British forces to stop the killings are feeble; it would take many times as many troops as remain in Iraq to make any difference. Nor can the fundamental factors that are causing the violence be reversed at this point, certainly not by fielding more Iraqi army and police units.
Sure, it would be nice to think that all the parties could just sit down and partition the country peaceably. But the Shiites can't even agree among themselves, so what hope is there of them talking to the Sunnis? There is no hatred as strong as theological hatred. So it is time for outsiders to step aside and let the Iraqis fight it out among themselves, ending with each controlling its own region.
Of the conflicts, the Kurdish-Arab one is the least volatile. Decades of bloody fighting over Arab rule appear to be ending, and there's no longer any question that the Kurds will separate. The only question is whether they'll remain part of a loose Iraqi confederation or become an independent state.
As to the Shiites and Sunnis, however, there's no end in sight. The Shiite majority among the Arabs of Iraq had been ruled by Sunnis for centuries. But Hussein's vigorous attempt to modernize Iraq in a secular direction infuriated Shiite prelates. That in turn triggered brutal repression by the regime, which most Shiites inevitably viewed as yet another bout of Sunni oppression. The spread of Salafist fundamentalism among the Sunnis mandates violence against the Shiites.
And, while today's theocratic Iran is not necessarily viewed as a model, it demonstrates to Iraq's Shiites that they need not always be ruled by Sunnis. That in turn provokes the ire of the many Sunni Arabs who firmly believe that Iraq belongs to them regardless of their numbers.
And so the massacres continue on both sides.
Physical separation is therefore the only way to limit the carnage. That process has begun, to some extent, because the violence is driving out the members of one sect or the other from the many mixed villages, towns and city districts. This is a painful and very costly way of interrupting the cycle of attacks and reprisals, but that is how civil war achieves its purpose of eventually bringing peace.
Back in the 17th century, if the kings of continental Europe could have prevented England's civil war, it would have been at the price of perpetuating strife by blocking progress toward stable parliamentary government.
If the British and other European great powers had sent expeditionary armies to stop the enormous casualties and vast destruction of the American civil war, they could have prevented the eventual emergence of a peacefully united republic, perpetuating North-South hostility.
That is the mistake that the U.S. and its allies are now making by interfering with Iraq's civil war. They should disengage their troops from populated areas as much as possible, give up the intrusive checkpoints and patrols that are failing to contain the violence anyway and abandon the futile effort to build up military and police forces that are national only in name.
Some U.S. and allied forces still will be needed in remote desert bases to safeguard Iraq from foreign invasion, with some left to hold the Baghdad Green Zone. But for the rest, strict noninterference should be the rule. The sooner the Kurds, Sunni, Shiites, Turkmen and smaller minorities can define their own natural and stable boundaries within which they feel safe, the sooner the violence will come to an end.
Iraq's civil war is no different from the British, Swiss or American internal wars. It too should be allowed to bring peace.
(SUCH AN ATTRACTIVE IDEA - CAN IT REALLY BE RIGHT???)
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
China, Russia Join Deal on Iran
By Alissa J. Rubin
Times Staff Writer
June 2, 2006
VIENNA — Russia and China endorsed a package of incentives and penalties Thursday designed by Western nations to push Iran to suspend its nuclear program.
Few details of the agreement were forthcoming, and British Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett, who announced the deal in muted language, cautioned that negotiators wanted to present the package to the Iranians before making it public.
But diplomats close to the issue said incentives were similar to previous proposals, including helping Iran obtain a civilian nuclear reactor. The term "sanctions" was noticeably absent from discussion, but diplomats strongly signaled that should it refuse the offer, Iran would be subject to the full array of United Nations Security Council punitive measures.
"We have agreed to a set of far-reaching proposals as a basis for discussion with Iran," said Beckett, flanked by top officials of the five permanent Security Council members and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana in the ivy-lined garden of the British ambassador's Vienna residence.
"We are prepared to resume negotiations should Iran resume suspension of all enrichmentrelated and reprocessing activities as required" by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, she added. "And we would also suspend action in the Security Council. We also agreed that if Iran decides not to engage in negotiations, further steps would have to be taken in the Security Council."
Western powers believe that Iran is pursuing the capability to produce a nuclear bomb, but Tehran contends that it seeks only the technology to enrich uranium to generate electricity. (IS THIS REALLY A PICK'EM?)
The endorsement by Russia and China was considered a major breakthrough in months-long diplomatic efforts on the issue. Both nations are key to any sanctions because they hold veto power on the Security Council and are major trading partners with Iran.
Iran was circumspect in its first public comments on the offer. "Iran welcomes dialogue under just conditions, but [we] won't give up our [nuclear] rights," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in a statement read on state television. "We are prepared, within a defined, just framework and without any discrimination, to hold a dialogue about common concerns." (YOU'RE QUICKLY RUNNING OUT OF THE BAILITY TO DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS AND WHEN)
Iran will have "weeks, not months" to decide whether it is willing to negotiate and suspend its enrichment-related activities, Western diplomats said.
They added that the decision would be a tough one for the Islamic Republic; it would require Tehran to stop all research and development activity, including even "dry run" operation of centrifuges used to enrich gaseous uranium, a senior U.S. State Department diplomat said.
In addition, Tehran would have to answer outstanding questions from the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency, the IAEA, which has been seeking to learn the full extent of Iran's nuclear activities. Tehran also would have to abide by additional agency regulations, including more extensive inspections of nuclear-related facilities.
Whether Iran agrees to resume negotiations or refuses, months, if not years, of diplomacy lie ahead, diplomats said. (YEARS? ANYONE WANT TO TAKE THAT BET?)
The absence of specifics in Thursday's announcement appeared aimed at minimizing the likelihood of the proposal becoming the subject of public debate before the Iranians have a chance to hear it explained by the Europeans, who will probably present the package to Tehran in the next few days.
Diplomats hope that if the package is laid out privately, its seriousness will be clear and the Iranians will be hard put to dismiss it.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov, speaking to Russian media after the meeting, said, "Nobody will be going into details now. In the first place, this [proposal] should be given to Iran. Then we will look at the reaction of the Iranian side."
Lavrov urged Iran to take the offer seriously.
"We count on Tehran meeting these proposals in a constructive manner," he said.
U.S. diplomats were clearly pleased by the Russian endorsement. It helps clear the way for an agreement among the five permanent Security Council members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — plus Germany.
"These are conditions [set by] six countries…. We are very satisfied," said a senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the discussions.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced Wednesday that the U.S. was willing to join Europeans in direct talks with Iran if it suspended its nuclear activity, arrived in Vienna on Thursday. She spent more than eight hours meeting with leaders on the proposal, which is described as a five- or six-page document.
Diplomats close to the negotiations said that all parties had agreed to the incentives in the proposal, but that the penalties would be drawn from a list. Also undetermined was the timing of penalties, which diplomats said would depend on how the Iranians responded.
The incentives under discussion are not new; they include help with construction of a light-water reactor, guaranteed access to nuclear fuel for civilian power plants and imports of many goods for which the United States holds licenses, such as parts for airplanes. U.S. law bars trade with Iran; the two nations do not have diplomatic ties.
Potential punitive measures would include action by the Security Council, which has the power to ban travel, freeze assets, restrict visas and impose economic embargoes on exports of nuclear technology and a wide array of other goods to Iran. Diplomats said the package offered a clear choice to Iran: Suspend uranium enrichment and be treated as a full partner in the world community, or face painful consequences from a united international community with the power to undermine Iran's economy and stability.
(WHERE IS THE MILITARY THREAT?)
"So there are two paths ahead," Beckett said. "We urge Iran to take the positive path and to consider seriously our substantive proposals, which would bring significant benefits to Iran."
The agreement Thursday finalized discussions begun May 8 in London in which officials decided that they would present Iran with a choice, diplomats said. "But the details all came together tonight," a senior State Department official said Thursday.
Russia and China both expressed interest Thursday in joining the so-called EU-3 — Britain, France and Germany — and the U.S. if negotiations went forward. That approach would mirror the multilateral framework for talks with North Korea over its nuclear program.
Times staff writers Paul Richter in Washington and Kim Murphy in Moscow and special correspondent Julia Damianova in Vienna contributed to this report.
By Alissa J. Rubin
Times Staff Writer
June 2, 2006
VIENNA — Russia and China endorsed a package of incentives and penalties Thursday designed by Western nations to push Iran to suspend its nuclear program.
Few details of the agreement were forthcoming, and British Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett, who announced the deal in muted language, cautioned that negotiators wanted to present the package to the Iranians before making it public.
But diplomats close to the issue said incentives were similar to previous proposals, including helping Iran obtain a civilian nuclear reactor. The term "sanctions" was noticeably absent from discussion, but diplomats strongly signaled that should it refuse the offer, Iran would be subject to the full array of United Nations Security Council punitive measures.
"We have agreed to a set of far-reaching proposals as a basis for discussion with Iran," said Beckett, flanked by top officials of the five permanent Security Council members and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana in the ivy-lined garden of the British ambassador's Vienna residence.
"We are prepared to resume negotiations should Iran resume suspension of all enrichmentrelated and reprocessing activities as required" by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, she added. "And we would also suspend action in the Security Council. We also agreed that if Iran decides not to engage in negotiations, further steps would have to be taken in the Security Council."
Western powers believe that Iran is pursuing the capability to produce a nuclear bomb, but Tehran contends that it seeks only the technology to enrich uranium to generate electricity. (IS THIS REALLY A PICK'EM?)
The endorsement by Russia and China was considered a major breakthrough in months-long diplomatic efforts on the issue. Both nations are key to any sanctions because they hold veto power on the Security Council and are major trading partners with Iran.
Iran was circumspect in its first public comments on the offer. "Iran welcomes dialogue under just conditions, but [we] won't give up our [nuclear] rights," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in a statement read on state television. "We are prepared, within a defined, just framework and without any discrimination, to hold a dialogue about common concerns." (YOU'RE QUICKLY RUNNING OUT OF THE BAILITY TO DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS AND WHEN)
Iran will have "weeks, not months" to decide whether it is willing to negotiate and suspend its enrichment-related activities, Western diplomats said.
They added that the decision would be a tough one for the Islamic Republic; it would require Tehran to stop all research and development activity, including even "dry run" operation of centrifuges used to enrich gaseous uranium, a senior U.S. State Department diplomat said.
In addition, Tehran would have to answer outstanding questions from the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency, the IAEA, which has been seeking to learn the full extent of Iran's nuclear activities. Tehran also would have to abide by additional agency regulations, including more extensive inspections of nuclear-related facilities.
Whether Iran agrees to resume negotiations or refuses, months, if not years, of diplomacy lie ahead, diplomats said. (YEARS? ANYONE WANT TO TAKE THAT BET?)
The absence of specifics in Thursday's announcement appeared aimed at minimizing the likelihood of the proposal becoming the subject of public debate before the Iranians have a chance to hear it explained by the Europeans, who will probably present the package to Tehran in the next few days.
Diplomats hope that if the package is laid out privately, its seriousness will be clear and the Iranians will be hard put to dismiss it.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov, speaking to Russian media after the meeting, said, "Nobody will be going into details now. In the first place, this [proposal] should be given to Iran. Then we will look at the reaction of the Iranian side."
Lavrov urged Iran to take the offer seriously.
"We count on Tehran meeting these proposals in a constructive manner," he said.
U.S. diplomats were clearly pleased by the Russian endorsement. It helps clear the way for an agreement among the five permanent Security Council members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — plus Germany.
"These are conditions [set by] six countries…. We are very satisfied," said a senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the discussions.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced Wednesday that the U.S. was willing to join Europeans in direct talks with Iran if it suspended its nuclear activity, arrived in Vienna on Thursday. She spent more than eight hours meeting with leaders on the proposal, which is described as a five- or six-page document.
Diplomats close to the negotiations said that all parties had agreed to the incentives in the proposal, but that the penalties would be drawn from a list. Also undetermined was the timing of penalties, which diplomats said would depend on how the Iranians responded.
The incentives under discussion are not new; they include help with construction of a light-water reactor, guaranteed access to nuclear fuel for civilian power plants and imports of many goods for which the United States holds licenses, such as parts for airplanes. U.S. law bars trade with Iran; the two nations do not have diplomatic ties.
Potential punitive measures would include action by the Security Council, which has the power to ban travel, freeze assets, restrict visas and impose economic embargoes on exports of nuclear technology and a wide array of other goods to Iran. Diplomats said the package offered a clear choice to Iran: Suspend uranium enrichment and be treated as a full partner in the world community, or face painful consequences from a united international community with the power to undermine Iran's economy and stability.
(WHERE IS THE MILITARY THREAT?)
"So there are two paths ahead," Beckett said. "We urge Iran to take the positive path and to consider seriously our substantive proposals, which would bring significant benefits to Iran."
The agreement Thursday finalized discussions begun May 8 in London in which officials decided that they would present Iran with a choice, diplomats said. "But the details all came together tonight," a senior State Department official said Thursday.
Russia and China both expressed interest Thursday in joining the so-called EU-3 — Britain, France and Germany — and the U.S. if negotiations went forward. That approach would mirror the multilateral framework for talks with North Korea over its nuclear program.
Times staff writers Paul Richter in Washington and Kim Murphy in Moscow and special correspondent Julia Damianova in Vienna contributed to this report.
China Invites the West to Look Behind the Curtain
By revealing its rural poor, Beijing hopes to ease concerns over trade and military policies.
By Mark Magnier
Times Staff Writer
June 2, 2006
BEIJING — Chinese officials have settled on a new mantra in meetings with visiting foreign dignitaries: You've seen Beijing and Shanghai. Now it's time to go out to the countryside and see our tired, our poor, our huddled masses yearning to be fed.
Behind the polite invitation is a more substantive message. Namely, you may view us as a strategic threat poised to steal your jobs, drive up your gas prices and take over the world. But take a peek beyond the tall buildings and bright lights, and you'll have more sympathy for our problems.
And then maybe, just maybe, you won't be so hard on us.
"You should visit outside Shanghai and Beijing," Cai Wu, director of the information office of the State Council, China's Cabinet, told a group of newspaper editors in Beijing recently. "It's like visiting the house of a friend. The first time you stay in the living room. But next time, after you become better friends, you go into the kitchen and the basement."
Tang Jiaxuan, state councilor and a member of the Communist Party's Central Committee, also waxed metaphoric.
"When you go to the countryside, you will understand why Chinese say they are firmly walking on the road to peaceful development," Tang said in an interview at Zhongnanhai, the national seat of power. "China is not a country that hides its skeletons in the drawer."
Even on trips abroad, officials are making the pitch for a visit to the Chinese sticks. In Los Angeles on Thursday, Beijing Mayor Wang Qishan reminded business leaders who may have been to Shanghai and Beijing that the masses of rural poor in China earn less than half the $4,557 of an urban Beijing dweller.
Encouraging influential foreigners to have a "Green Acres" moment not only helps outsiders better understand China in all its complexity, it also makes tactical sense.
Beijing hopes to send a couple of messages. One is that its record $202-billion trade surplus with the United States last year may look huge but doesn't amount to all that much when divided by 1.3 billion people. A second is that China has too many domestic problems and is too focused on political stability to menace its neighbors.
"The government's old way of thinking was related to traditional culture, a concern with 'face' and presenting the best side to outsiders," said Xiao Gongqin, a history professor at Shanghai Normal University. "Now we'd like Western countries to see that China is lagging far behind. It's far, far from becoming a threat."
The perception gap was on display in late May after the release of a Pentagon report saying that China is rapidly extending its military reach, allowing it to compete with the U.S. and pose a potential threat to other countries.
Beijing strongly rejected those conclusions, arguing that its buildup is merely defensive. It accused Washington of Cold War-era thinking.
Beijing's call on foreigners to get a look at Chinese farmers living in squalor is also a sign of China's growing self-assurance. After all, it wasn't so long ago that officials rushed to hide even the smallest of blemishes, wary of leaving the impression that Chinese socialism was anything but perfect.
"China is much more confident," said Wang Yiwei, an America specialist at Fudan University in Shanghai. "It's rising, but it's eager to say it's not rising so much. And it has a point: While Shanghai is China's New York, the countryside is China's Africa."
Howard Snyder, a U.S. businessman who first came to China in 1981 to learn the language, recalls how tightly controlled the country was in those days. Foreigners were required to register before traveling even short distances, with trips to the countryside limited to Potemkin-style model villages.
In 1982, while studying at Beijing Normal University, Snyder slipped away to nearby Hebei province during the Chinese New Year break to experience a bit of rural life. The sort of visit officials now welcome was viewed at the time with great suspicion, prompting police to excoriate the university minder charged with watching over Snyder and other foreigners.
"There was both a fear of being seen as backward and a desire to avoid any foreign contact you might be accused of," Snyder said. "There's a Chinese expression, 'Once bitten by a snake, you're afraid of a rope for the next 10 years.' " After the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, a reign of terror when outside influence and Chinese tradition were demonized, "there was a real lingering fear of foreign contact," he said. Years of rapid economic growth, an increasing number of foreign leaders knocking on its door and China's growing role as a global player have made China far more open and less reflexive about criticism.
"It's a complete shift," said David Ben Kay, an American lawyer working for a U.S. software company who first came to China in the late 1980s.
All politics are local, in China as elsewhere, and the recent invitations to experience China's countryside also dovetail with a major initiative by the administration of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao.
The message to get beyond Shanghai subtly distinguishes the new leadership team from former President Jiang Zemin, a Shanghai booster whose policies benefited the moneyed, high-tech and glitzy. It also falls in line with Hu and Wen's focus on rural problems, migrant workers, the rich-poor gap and those left behind.
"It's entirely consistent with the line from the top," said Patrick Horgan, Beijing-based managing director with a consulting company and a longtime China resident. "And it's for the good. If people form their view of China from the China World and St. Regis hotels and from being whisked around in motorcades, they miss the bigger story."
China is increasingly welcoming not only potential friends but some of its harshest critics to poke around for themselves.
This spring, it invited Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) for a visit after the two drafted a bill to impose a 27.5% tariff on all Chinese goods imported into the U.S. unless Beijing agreed to revalue its currency. Critics say China's yuan is undervalued, giving its companies an unfair trade advantage.
Back in Washington the next week, the senators agreed to postpone a vote on the bill until September on the grounds that Beijing had assured them it was serious about currency reform.
That prompted a familiar refrain.
"I think with Sens. Schumer and Graham's visit to China, both sides have a better understanding of each other's views," a senior Chinese official told a group of U.S. reporters before Hu's trip to Washington in April.
"It's just a pity that, given the brief visit by the senators, there was no time to visit the impoverished Western areas."
Yin Lijin in The Times' Beijing Bureau contributed to this report.
By revealing its rural poor, Beijing hopes to ease concerns over trade and military policies.
By Mark Magnier
Times Staff Writer
June 2, 2006
BEIJING — Chinese officials have settled on a new mantra in meetings with visiting foreign dignitaries: You've seen Beijing and Shanghai. Now it's time to go out to the countryside and see our tired, our poor, our huddled masses yearning to be fed.
Behind the polite invitation is a more substantive message. Namely, you may view us as a strategic threat poised to steal your jobs, drive up your gas prices and take over the world. But take a peek beyond the tall buildings and bright lights, and you'll have more sympathy for our problems.
And then maybe, just maybe, you won't be so hard on us.
"You should visit outside Shanghai and Beijing," Cai Wu, director of the information office of the State Council, China's Cabinet, told a group of newspaper editors in Beijing recently. "It's like visiting the house of a friend. The first time you stay in the living room. But next time, after you become better friends, you go into the kitchen and the basement."
Tang Jiaxuan, state councilor and a member of the Communist Party's Central Committee, also waxed metaphoric.
"When you go to the countryside, you will understand why Chinese say they are firmly walking on the road to peaceful development," Tang said in an interview at Zhongnanhai, the national seat of power. "China is not a country that hides its skeletons in the drawer."
Even on trips abroad, officials are making the pitch for a visit to the Chinese sticks. In Los Angeles on Thursday, Beijing Mayor Wang Qishan reminded business leaders who may have been to Shanghai and Beijing that the masses of rural poor in China earn less than half the $4,557 of an urban Beijing dweller.
Encouraging influential foreigners to have a "Green Acres" moment not only helps outsiders better understand China in all its complexity, it also makes tactical sense.
Beijing hopes to send a couple of messages. One is that its record $202-billion trade surplus with the United States last year may look huge but doesn't amount to all that much when divided by 1.3 billion people. A second is that China has too many domestic problems and is too focused on political stability to menace its neighbors.
"The government's old way of thinking was related to traditional culture, a concern with 'face' and presenting the best side to outsiders," said Xiao Gongqin, a history professor at Shanghai Normal University. "Now we'd like Western countries to see that China is lagging far behind. It's far, far from becoming a threat."
The perception gap was on display in late May after the release of a Pentagon report saying that China is rapidly extending its military reach, allowing it to compete with the U.S. and pose a potential threat to other countries.
Beijing strongly rejected those conclusions, arguing that its buildup is merely defensive. It accused Washington of Cold War-era thinking.
Beijing's call on foreigners to get a look at Chinese farmers living in squalor is also a sign of China's growing self-assurance. After all, it wasn't so long ago that officials rushed to hide even the smallest of blemishes, wary of leaving the impression that Chinese socialism was anything but perfect.
"China is much more confident," said Wang Yiwei, an America specialist at Fudan University in Shanghai. "It's rising, but it's eager to say it's not rising so much. And it has a point: While Shanghai is China's New York, the countryside is China's Africa."
Howard Snyder, a U.S. businessman who first came to China in 1981 to learn the language, recalls how tightly controlled the country was in those days. Foreigners were required to register before traveling even short distances, with trips to the countryside limited to Potemkin-style model villages.
In 1982, while studying at Beijing Normal University, Snyder slipped away to nearby Hebei province during the Chinese New Year break to experience a bit of rural life. The sort of visit officials now welcome was viewed at the time with great suspicion, prompting police to excoriate the university minder charged with watching over Snyder and other foreigners.
"There was both a fear of being seen as backward and a desire to avoid any foreign contact you might be accused of," Snyder said. "There's a Chinese expression, 'Once bitten by a snake, you're afraid of a rope for the next 10 years.' " After the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, a reign of terror when outside influence and Chinese tradition were demonized, "there was a real lingering fear of foreign contact," he said. Years of rapid economic growth, an increasing number of foreign leaders knocking on its door and China's growing role as a global player have made China far more open and less reflexive about criticism.
"It's a complete shift," said David Ben Kay, an American lawyer working for a U.S. software company who first came to China in the late 1980s.
All politics are local, in China as elsewhere, and the recent invitations to experience China's countryside also dovetail with a major initiative by the administration of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao.
The message to get beyond Shanghai subtly distinguishes the new leadership team from former President Jiang Zemin, a Shanghai booster whose policies benefited the moneyed, high-tech and glitzy. It also falls in line with Hu and Wen's focus on rural problems, migrant workers, the rich-poor gap and those left behind.
"It's entirely consistent with the line from the top," said Patrick Horgan, Beijing-based managing director with a consulting company and a longtime China resident. "And it's for the good. If people form their view of China from the China World and St. Regis hotels and from being whisked around in motorcades, they miss the bigger story."
China is increasingly welcoming not only potential friends but some of its harshest critics to poke around for themselves.
This spring, it invited Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) for a visit after the two drafted a bill to impose a 27.5% tariff on all Chinese goods imported into the U.S. unless Beijing agreed to revalue its currency. Critics say China's yuan is undervalued, giving its companies an unfair trade advantage.
Back in Washington the next week, the senators agreed to postpone a vote on the bill until September on the grounds that Beijing had assured them it was serious about currency reform.
That prompted a familiar refrain.
"I think with Sens. Schumer and Graham's visit to China, both sides have a better understanding of each other's views," a senior Chinese official told a group of U.S. reporters before Hu's trip to Washington in April.
"It's just a pity that, given the brief visit by the senators, there was no time to visit the impoverished Western areas."
Yin Lijin in The Times' Beijing Bureau contributed to this report.
Army Corps Admits Design Flaws in New Orleans Levees (WAIT, WASN'T THE FLOODING WITHER BUSH'S FAULT OR BECAUSE OF GLOABAL WARMING?)
Its report says the defects were to blame for most of the flooding and damage from Katrina.
By Ralph Vartabedian
Times Staff Writer
June 2, 2006
NEW ORLEANS — The Army Corps of Engineers acknowledged Thursday that design defects in the levees protecting New Orleans caused the majority of flooding during Hurricane Katrina and that the disaster would almost certainly trigger reforms in how the federal government protected the American public.
The corps said its 40-year effort to construct a hurricane protection system for southern Louisiana had resulted in a set of piecemeal projects that "was a system in name only," a recognition that a wide range of errors, weak links and incomplete construction was at the heart of the massive damage that occurred Aug. 29.
The corps released a 6,000-page report written in the couched language of government engineers but which delivered a stunning set of findings about errors made in the design of storm walls and earthen levees that failed during Katrina.
The report found that four major breaches of I-walls, a type of concrete storm wall that sits on an earthen levee, caused 65% of the flooding in the New Orleans area.
Although the report's summary never uses the words "design defect," corps officials said they now accepted that their work had shortcomings and errors that were responsible, in large part, for the damage.
"We do take accountability," Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, commander and chief engineer of the corps, said at a news conference, where he was joined by five Army generals, the federal coordinator for Gulf Coast reconstruction and an assistant Army secretary.
The corps, Strock said, "is deeply saddened and enormously troubled" by the disaster.
Strock said the remaining I-walls would eventually have to be replaced because they proved ineffective during Katrina. The primary breaches at the 17th Street, London Avenue and Industrial canals occurred when storm waters were still several feet below the tops of the walls, meaning they failed well below the maximum forces they had been designed to withstand. (WONDERFUL WORK)
The report also puts in the historical record a formal acknowledgment of the scope of the disaster, which killed 1,293 people in the New Orleans area.
"The flooding caused a breakdown in New Orleans' social structure, a loss of cultural heritage and dramatically altered the physical, economic, political, social and psychological character of the area," it said. "These impacts are unprecedented in their social consequence and unparalleled in the modern era of the United States."
Although many of the technical findings had been released in preliminary studies by the corps, the report details significant new information:
• Southern Louisiana is sinking much faster than generally recognized, and levees were at substantially lower elevations relative to sea level than they were designed to be. In some cases, levees were 2 1/2 feet below their designed elevations. Moreover, as other federal agencies recognized the problem in recent years, the corps decided not to reexamine the issue.
• The city's pumping system, the only way to remove water from below sea level, was not designed to operate during a major storm. Because most of the region's pumps were inundated after Katrina, the corps was forced to use portable equipment that took 53 days to pump out the city, allowing the flood waters to saturate and destroy structures.
• Twenty-five percent of all the housing in the region was destroyed. In New Orleans, the proportion is believed to be higher. The destruction of homes accounted for 75% of the losses caused by Katrina, estimated by the corps at more than $20 billion. Outside estimates are much higher, exceeding $100 billion.
• A computer simulation showed that if the levees had not failed, the city still would have flooded because 14 inches of rain fell during a 24-hour period, and storm surges went over the levees. If the levees had held, the flooding would have been about one-third of what occurred.
Strock said the repaired sections of levees were now the strongest parts of the system. The repairs were supposed to be completed by June 1, but they are about two months behind schedule. Among ongoing projects is the installation of new pumps at the mouth of the 17th Street Canal. The enormous undertaking required heavy construction work on 169 miles of damaged or destroyed levees.
The report is full of technical language, including descriptions of design flaws as "overestimation of subsurface strength." Corps officials said the reason for such language was not to reduce the effect of the findings, but rather to set a "nonjudgmental tone."
Although the breaches caused most of the flooding, a significant part of the Katrina damage occurred because the storm was larger than the system was designed to withstand.
Although wind speeds had dropped sharply by the time the hurricane hit New Orleans, its power over the Gulf of Mexico had created the largest ocean surge to ever hit North America, the report said.
The surges along the Gulf Coast reached 28 feet, and waves of 14 feet came on top of the surges, creating a 42-foot wall of water. The ocean level was lifted by a drastic fall in the barometric pressure, one of the sharpest drops ever recorded in the region, Strock said.
The same failure mechanism was to blame for all of the I-wall breaches. As water rose against the walls, it caused them to tilt away from the canals and open a small gap along the base of the wall. Water rushed into the gap and cut the levee in half, significantly reducing its strength.
The water then penetrated deep into the foundation, causing instability in the case of the 17th Street Canal levee and seepage in the case of the London Avenue Canal levee. In both places, the water penetrating the foundation weakened the system so much that the earthen embankment shifted.
The report said the corps failed to recognize the potential for this failure. Outside experts, including a team of investigators from UC Berkeley, said in a report last week that the corps had ignored its own research that predicted such failures could occur.
In addition, the corps' report said, its engineers had used erroneous estimates of the soil strength under the levees. They also used tests that were spaced too far apart and only took averages of the soil strengths. The averages did not matter because the levees failed in the weakest layers.
The report does not attempt to explain why flawed decisions were made. Reed Mosher, a senior geotechnical expert for the corps and one of the principal investigators, said the biggest ingredient in the errors was the technology in use at the time the walls were designed.
"We wouldn't make the same mistakes today," he said.
The UC Berkeley engineers said the technology and know-how existed to build stronger levees, but the corps had lost some of its expertise starting in the 1980s as it shifted emphasis to managing projects and let private engineers do the design.
Strock said he "would not make apologies" for focusing on project management and disputed the assertion that the corps had lost its technical competence. A second investigation led by the University of Maryland is scheduled to report next month on the institutional and cultural factors within the corps that may have led to the errors.
The corps' investigation, known officially as the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force, was conducted by 150 experts and led by University of Maryland engineer Lewis E. Link. The report unveiled Thursday is a draft; a final version is due in September.
The findings will trigger significant changes in how the corps and other government agencies protect the public from storms and floods, Strock said.
The corps is responsible for 12,000 miles of levees across the U.S. It will start treating the levees with the same oversight as it does with dams, which have historically received a higher priority in terms of public safety.
Maj. Gen. Donald Riley, director of civil works for the corps, said reforms were also coming in how flood protection systems were designed and built.
In the future, he said, levees and other flood protection projects will have greater resiliency, so that even if storm waters overwhelm them, they will reduce the effects of floods and allow for a faster recovery.
The corps will abandon its use of an antiquated method of estimating storm forces, known as the standard project hurricane, Riley said. It was that model that led the public to incorrectly believe that the New Orleans levees could withstand a hurricane as powerful as Katrina.
In deciding whether to build levees, the corps has long used cost benefit analysis that considered the potential loss of property, not human life or the social value of a city. Now, he said, diverse factors will be considered when evaluating whether to build levees.
Riley said the corps also would be adopting a different system to evaluate the risks and consequences of its systems. Since Katrina, outside experts said the corps erred in risk analysis of its levees and should have built much larger margins of safety. Riley said the new system would use modern risk analysis and would become a national standard.
Strock acknowledged that the corps must prove to the public that it could provide a higher level of performance.
"For those who doubt us, words alone will not change minds," he said.
But the agency has emerged from the disaster as a stronger organization, he said.
"We are not wringing our hands; we are going to work."
Its report says the defects were to blame for most of the flooding and damage from Katrina.
By Ralph Vartabedian
Times Staff Writer
June 2, 2006
NEW ORLEANS — The Army Corps of Engineers acknowledged Thursday that design defects in the levees protecting New Orleans caused the majority of flooding during Hurricane Katrina and that the disaster would almost certainly trigger reforms in how the federal government protected the American public.
The corps said its 40-year effort to construct a hurricane protection system for southern Louisiana had resulted in a set of piecemeal projects that "was a system in name only," a recognition that a wide range of errors, weak links and incomplete construction was at the heart of the massive damage that occurred Aug. 29.
The corps released a 6,000-page report written in the couched language of government engineers but which delivered a stunning set of findings about errors made in the design of storm walls and earthen levees that failed during Katrina.
The report found that four major breaches of I-walls, a type of concrete storm wall that sits on an earthen levee, caused 65% of the flooding in the New Orleans area.
Although the report's summary never uses the words "design defect," corps officials said they now accepted that their work had shortcomings and errors that were responsible, in large part, for the damage.
"We do take accountability," Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, commander and chief engineer of the corps, said at a news conference, where he was joined by five Army generals, the federal coordinator for Gulf Coast reconstruction and an assistant Army secretary.
The corps, Strock said, "is deeply saddened and enormously troubled" by the disaster.
Strock said the remaining I-walls would eventually have to be replaced because they proved ineffective during Katrina. The primary breaches at the 17th Street, London Avenue and Industrial canals occurred when storm waters were still several feet below the tops of the walls, meaning they failed well below the maximum forces they had been designed to withstand. (WONDERFUL WORK)
The report also puts in the historical record a formal acknowledgment of the scope of the disaster, which killed 1,293 people in the New Orleans area.
"The flooding caused a breakdown in New Orleans' social structure, a loss of cultural heritage and dramatically altered the physical, economic, political, social and psychological character of the area," it said. "These impacts are unprecedented in their social consequence and unparalleled in the modern era of the United States."
Although many of the technical findings had been released in preliminary studies by the corps, the report details significant new information:
• Southern Louisiana is sinking much faster than generally recognized, and levees were at substantially lower elevations relative to sea level than they were designed to be. In some cases, levees were 2 1/2 feet below their designed elevations. Moreover, as other federal agencies recognized the problem in recent years, the corps decided not to reexamine the issue.
• The city's pumping system, the only way to remove water from below sea level, was not designed to operate during a major storm. Because most of the region's pumps were inundated after Katrina, the corps was forced to use portable equipment that took 53 days to pump out the city, allowing the flood waters to saturate and destroy structures.
• Twenty-five percent of all the housing in the region was destroyed. In New Orleans, the proportion is believed to be higher. The destruction of homes accounted for 75% of the losses caused by Katrina, estimated by the corps at more than $20 billion. Outside estimates are much higher, exceeding $100 billion.
• A computer simulation showed that if the levees had not failed, the city still would have flooded because 14 inches of rain fell during a 24-hour period, and storm surges went over the levees. If the levees had held, the flooding would have been about one-third of what occurred.
Strock said the repaired sections of levees were now the strongest parts of the system. The repairs were supposed to be completed by June 1, but they are about two months behind schedule. Among ongoing projects is the installation of new pumps at the mouth of the 17th Street Canal. The enormous undertaking required heavy construction work on 169 miles of damaged or destroyed levees.
The report is full of technical language, including descriptions of design flaws as "overestimation of subsurface strength." Corps officials said the reason for such language was not to reduce the effect of the findings, but rather to set a "nonjudgmental tone."
Although the breaches caused most of the flooding, a significant part of the Katrina damage occurred because the storm was larger than the system was designed to withstand.
Although wind speeds had dropped sharply by the time the hurricane hit New Orleans, its power over the Gulf of Mexico had created the largest ocean surge to ever hit North America, the report said.
The surges along the Gulf Coast reached 28 feet, and waves of 14 feet came on top of the surges, creating a 42-foot wall of water. The ocean level was lifted by a drastic fall in the barometric pressure, one of the sharpest drops ever recorded in the region, Strock said.
The same failure mechanism was to blame for all of the I-wall breaches. As water rose against the walls, it caused them to tilt away from the canals and open a small gap along the base of the wall. Water rushed into the gap and cut the levee in half, significantly reducing its strength.
The water then penetrated deep into the foundation, causing instability in the case of the 17th Street Canal levee and seepage in the case of the London Avenue Canal levee. In both places, the water penetrating the foundation weakened the system so much that the earthen embankment shifted.
The report said the corps failed to recognize the potential for this failure. Outside experts, including a team of investigators from UC Berkeley, said in a report last week that the corps had ignored its own research that predicted such failures could occur.
In addition, the corps' report said, its engineers had used erroneous estimates of the soil strength under the levees. They also used tests that were spaced too far apart and only took averages of the soil strengths. The averages did not matter because the levees failed in the weakest layers.
The report does not attempt to explain why flawed decisions were made. Reed Mosher, a senior geotechnical expert for the corps and one of the principal investigators, said the biggest ingredient in the errors was the technology in use at the time the walls were designed.
"We wouldn't make the same mistakes today," he said.
The UC Berkeley engineers said the technology and know-how existed to build stronger levees, but the corps had lost some of its expertise starting in the 1980s as it shifted emphasis to managing projects and let private engineers do the design.
Strock said he "would not make apologies" for focusing on project management and disputed the assertion that the corps had lost its technical competence. A second investigation led by the University of Maryland is scheduled to report next month on the institutional and cultural factors within the corps that may have led to the errors.
The corps' investigation, known officially as the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force, was conducted by 150 experts and led by University of Maryland engineer Lewis E. Link. The report unveiled Thursday is a draft; a final version is due in September.
The findings will trigger significant changes in how the corps and other government agencies protect the public from storms and floods, Strock said.
The corps is responsible for 12,000 miles of levees across the U.S. It will start treating the levees with the same oversight as it does with dams, which have historically received a higher priority in terms of public safety.
Maj. Gen. Donald Riley, director of civil works for the corps, said reforms were also coming in how flood protection systems were designed and built.
In the future, he said, levees and other flood protection projects will have greater resiliency, so that even if storm waters overwhelm them, they will reduce the effects of floods and allow for a faster recovery.
The corps will abandon its use of an antiquated method of estimating storm forces, known as the standard project hurricane, Riley said. It was that model that led the public to incorrectly believe that the New Orleans levees could withstand a hurricane as powerful as Katrina.
In deciding whether to build levees, the corps has long used cost benefit analysis that considered the potential loss of property, not human life or the social value of a city. Now, he said, diverse factors will be considered when evaluating whether to build levees.
Riley said the corps also would be adopting a different system to evaluate the risks and consequences of its systems. Since Katrina, outside experts said the corps erred in risk analysis of its levees and should have built much larger margins of safety. Riley said the new system would use modern risk analysis and would become a national standard.
Strock acknowledged that the corps must prove to the public that it could provide a higher level of performance.
"For those who doubt us, words alone will not change minds," he said.
But the agency has emerged from the disaster as a stronger organization, he said.
"We are not wringing our hands; we are going to work."
Iranians face bleak nuclear choice
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 02/06/2006)
Update: Iran 'will have nuclear bomb by 2010'
The world's major powers last night agreed a package of incentives for Iran to give up key parts of its nuclear programme - and a series of punishments if it does not.
The plan drawn up by America, Russia, China, France and Germany is designed to present Teheran with a bleak choice: halt the most dangerous parts of the nuclear programme and integrate into the world, or face isolation and economic damage.
Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, who chaired the meeting with five fellow foreign ministers in Vienna, said the details would not be disclosed before they were presented to Iran.
But even before receiving the package, Iranian ministers were adamant that they would never abandon uranium enrichment.
Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh, the Iranian oil minister, said: "We are never going to negotiate about the nuclear fuel cycle." (NEVER IS A LONG TIME. WHAT IS THE OIL MINISTER COMMENTING ON NUCLEAR POLICY FOR?)
Iran says it seeks to make fuel only for nuclear power reactors, but the West is convinced that the process will be used to make fissile material for atomic bombs.
After weeks of hard bargaining with Russia and China, which have resisted western attempts to threaten sanctions against Iran, the deal was made possible by America's remarkable U-turn a day earlier.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said America was ready to join European countries in negotiations with Iran if Teheran suspended its uranium enrichment programme. This would be the first time America opened direct talks with the Islamic republic for 27 years.
Earlier, Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, rejected America's terms.
"Iran welcomes dialogue under just conditions but won't give up our rights," he said. "We won't negotiate about the Iranian nation's natural nuclear rights but we are prepared, within a defined, just framework and without any discrimination, to hold a dialogue about common concerns." (WELL, WITH RIGHTS THERE ARE OBLIGATIONS . . . GOTTA PLAY BY THE RULES IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE RULES)
President George W Bush, who this week conducted telephone diplomacy with President Vladimir Putin of Russia and other leaders, said: "We'll see whether or not that is the firm position. If they continue their obstinacy, if they continue to say to the world 'We really don't care what your opinion is', then the world is going to act in concert."
He added: "There's uniform agreement that the Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon. And we'll discuss strategies to make sure that the international community speaks with one clear voice if the Iranians choose not to verifiably suspend."
The package is based on an earlier deal offered by Britain, France and Germany - and promptly rejected by Teheran. It will now carry greater weight because of America's involvement.
The world powers are known to have discussed carrots - such as building a western-designed light water power reactor and trade deals. Above all, there is the promise of normalisation of relations with America.
Possible "sticks" include a travel ban on Iranian officials, financial sanctions and even a partial trade embargo on petrol and other refined fuel products that are in short supply.
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 02/06/2006)
Update: Iran 'will have nuclear bomb by 2010'
The world's major powers last night agreed a package of incentives for Iran to give up key parts of its nuclear programme - and a series of punishments if it does not.
The plan drawn up by America, Russia, China, France and Germany is designed to present Teheran with a bleak choice: halt the most dangerous parts of the nuclear programme and integrate into the world, or face isolation and economic damage.
Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, who chaired the meeting with five fellow foreign ministers in Vienna, said the details would not be disclosed before they were presented to Iran.
But even before receiving the package, Iranian ministers were adamant that they would never abandon uranium enrichment.
Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh, the Iranian oil minister, said: "We are never going to negotiate about the nuclear fuel cycle." (NEVER IS A LONG TIME. WHAT IS THE OIL MINISTER COMMENTING ON NUCLEAR POLICY FOR?)
Iran says it seeks to make fuel only for nuclear power reactors, but the West is convinced that the process will be used to make fissile material for atomic bombs.
After weeks of hard bargaining with Russia and China, which have resisted western attempts to threaten sanctions against Iran, the deal was made possible by America's remarkable U-turn a day earlier.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said America was ready to join European countries in negotiations with Iran if Teheran suspended its uranium enrichment programme. This would be the first time America opened direct talks with the Islamic republic for 27 years.
Earlier, Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, rejected America's terms.
"Iran welcomes dialogue under just conditions but won't give up our rights," he said. "We won't negotiate about the Iranian nation's natural nuclear rights but we are prepared, within a defined, just framework and without any discrimination, to hold a dialogue about common concerns." (WELL, WITH RIGHTS THERE ARE OBLIGATIONS . . . GOTTA PLAY BY THE RULES IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE RULES)
President George W Bush, who this week conducted telephone diplomacy with President Vladimir Putin of Russia and other leaders, said: "We'll see whether or not that is the firm position. If they continue their obstinacy, if they continue to say to the world 'We really don't care what your opinion is', then the world is going to act in concert."
He added: "There's uniform agreement that the Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon. And we'll discuss strategies to make sure that the international community speaks with one clear voice if the Iranians choose not to verifiably suspend."
The package is based on an earlier deal offered by Britain, France and Germany - and promptly rejected by Teheran. It will now carry greater weight because of America's involvement.
The world powers are known to have discussed carrots - such as building a western-designed light water power reactor and trade deals. Above all, there is the promise of normalisation of relations with America.
Possible "sticks" include a travel ban on Iranian officials, financial sanctions and even a partial trade embargo on petrol and other refined fuel products that are in short supply.
Bank of China shares rise 15pc on market debut
By Richard Spencer in Shanghai (Filed: 02/06/2006)
Shares in the Bank of China, a flagship listing for the bank of the People's Republic, made a strong debut in first-day dealings in Hong Kong.
Priced at HK$2.95, already near the top of the range indicated in the prospectus, the shares surged 15pc to HK$3.40 by the end of the day.
Analysts said the success of the float was an indication of the confidence the markets still had in the strength of the Chinese economy despite long-held fears that it was overheated.
The surge in the price, on a day when the Hang Seng index fell 1.3pc, also reflected the fact that the share offer was heavily oversubscribed, with institutional investors believed to have bought shares to make up their portfolios.
The rise gave a healthy paper profit to the Royal Bank of Scotland, which led a consortium that bought a near 10pc stake in the Bank of China last year.
The Bank of China is the second largest of the so-called Big Four high street banks in China but it has the largest international presence, via its majority-owned Hong Kong-based subsidiary.
All four banks are state-owned but the government has been determined to list minority shareholdings, partly to raise capital and partly to encourage them to adopt better disciplined management and credit risk strategies.
The China Construction Bank listed last year, while the biggest, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, will list in the autumn, with its sale scheduled to raise between US$12bn and $15bn (£6.4bn to £8bn), one of the largest IPOs ever.
China's state banks have a long history of building up non-performing loans (NPL) and the Bank of China was given a US$22.5bn bail-out in the run-up to its listing.
Even so, its NPL ratio remains at 4.9pc and there continue to be concerns that a rash of new lending in the past few years might yet give it difficulties if the economy fails to sustain current growth rates.
The Chinese government will remain the majority shareholder in the bank but, in addition to the stakes owned by RBS, Temasek of Singapore, UBS and others, it put up a further 10.5pc for the IPO, raising a total of US$9.7bn.
It was the largest IPO for six years and the listing puts the Bank of China into the world's top 10 by market capitalisation.
Even at the starting price, it was valued at US$92.4bn.
An additional investor yesterday was Mitsubishi UFJ of Japan, which bought a stake worth US$180mn.
Xiao Gang, the Bank of China chairman, used the listing ceremony to confirm that there would be an additional float soon on the Shanghai stock market, which has recently begun showing signs of life after five years of slump.
Some rumours say that float could come as early as this month, though the Bank itself has moved to dismiss these reports as speculation.
By Richard Spencer in Shanghai (Filed: 02/06/2006)
Shares in the Bank of China, a flagship listing for the bank of the People's Republic, made a strong debut in first-day dealings in Hong Kong.
Priced at HK$2.95, already near the top of the range indicated in the prospectus, the shares surged 15pc to HK$3.40 by the end of the day.
Analysts said the success of the float was an indication of the confidence the markets still had in the strength of the Chinese economy despite long-held fears that it was overheated.
The surge in the price, on a day when the Hang Seng index fell 1.3pc, also reflected the fact that the share offer was heavily oversubscribed, with institutional investors believed to have bought shares to make up their portfolios.
The rise gave a healthy paper profit to the Royal Bank of Scotland, which led a consortium that bought a near 10pc stake in the Bank of China last year.
The Bank of China is the second largest of the so-called Big Four high street banks in China but it has the largest international presence, via its majority-owned Hong Kong-based subsidiary.
All four banks are state-owned but the government has been determined to list minority shareholdings, partly to raise capital and partly to encourage them to adopt better disciplined management and credit risk strategies.
The China Construction Bank listed last year, while the biggest, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, will list in the autumn, with its sale scheduled to raise between US$12bn and $15bn (£6.4bn to £8bn), one of the largest IPOs ever.
China's state banks have a long history of building up non-performing loans (NPL) and the Bank of China was given a US$22.5bn bail-out in the run-up to its listing.
Even so, its NPL ratio remains at 4.9pc and there continue to be concerns that a rash of new lending in the past few years might yet give it difficulties if the economy fails to sustain current growth rates.
The Chinese government will remain the majority shareholder in the bank but, in addition to the stakes owned by RBS, Temasek of Singapore, UBS and others, it put up a further 10.5pc for the IPO, raising a total of US$9.7bn.
It was the largest IPO for six years and the listing puts the Bank of China into the world's top 10 by market capitalisation.
Even at the starting price, it was valued at US$92.4bn.
An additional investor yesterday was Mitsubishi UFJ of Japan, which bought a stake worth US$180mn.
Xiao Gang, the Bank of China chairman, used the listing ceremony to confirm that there would be an additional float soon on the Shanghai stock market, which has recently begun showing signs of life after five years of slump.
Some rumours say that float could come as early as this month, though the Bank itself has moved to dismiss these reports as speculation.
Goldman to debate board shake-up
By Damian Reece, City Editor (Filed: 02/06/2006)
The board of Goldman Sachs will meet today in New York to confirm the appointment of Lloyd Blankfein as its next chief executive, but will also debate whether to appoint a separate chairman, splitting the roles held by Henry "Hank" Paulson who plans to step down to take up the job of US Treasury Secretary.
It is understood that should Goldman decide to go down this route with a separate chairman, it will fill the chairmanship from within the ranks of its existing independent directors.
Senior partners at the bank have, in recent days, been discussing the possibility of Lord Browne of Madingley, the chief executive of BP, being approached for the role of chairman. A spokesman for BP did not comment last night on whether Lord Browne would be willing to consider such a role.
However, he is one of the most prominent international business leaders on the board of Goldman Sachs and is himself planning to step down from his job at BP next year.
Such a move would almost certainly involve BP bringing forward its own succession plan which its chairman, Peter Sutherland, may be unwilling to countenance. However, senior figures within Goldman Sachs believe now is the right time to debate the pros and cons of splitting the role of chairman and chief executive. Hank Paulson himself is expected to lead the debate at today's board meeting.
Goldman sources say that there are two other clear candidates for the chairman's job should the board wish to split the roles. John Bryan is the retired chairman and chief executive of Sara Lee, the US consumer goods giant, where he was in charge from 1975 to 2000. By coincidence he is also on the board of BP and has wide business experience from his directorship of General Motors.
A third name being talked about in the Goldman's headquarters is Stephen Friedman, who would prove a controversial appointment. However, having already served as senior partner and chairman of the management committee in the years before Goldman floated in 1999, he is seen as having huge banking experience.
Mr Friedman quit his role in 1994 when the bank suffered a two-thirds collapse in profits from $1.2bn to $406m. His decision to go was seen by some as tantamount to treachery and caused considerable controversy within the bank at the time.
The push for a debate on splitting the role has arisen because Mr Paulson's decision to take up President George Bush's offer took many in the bank by surprise. Mr Paulson had declined the job before. The need for an immediate succession plan had not been considered necessary.
While Mr Blankfein is seen as making a highly competent chief executive, there are members of the Goldman elite who feel he, and the bank, would benefit if another experienced player was also involved to take on the more diplomatic elements of the job.
By Damian Reece, City Editor (Filed: 02/06/2006)
The board of Goldman Sachs will meet today in New York to confirm the appointment of Lloyd Blankfein as its next chief executive, but will also debate whether to appoint a separate chairman, splitting the roles held by Henry "Hank" Paulson who plans to step down to take up the job of US Treasury Secretary.
It is understood that should Goldman decide to go down this route with a separate chairman, it will fill the chairmanship from within the ranks of its existing independent directors.
Senior partners at the bank have, in recent days, been discussing the possibility of Lord Browne of Madingley, the chief executive of BP, being approached for the role of chairman. A spokesman for BP did not comment last night on whether Lord Browne would be willing to consider such a role.
However, he is one of the most prominent international business leaders on the board of Goldman Sachs and is himself planning to step down from his job at BP next year.
Such a move would almost certainly involve BP bringing forward its own succession plan which its chairman, Peter Sutherland, may be unwilling to countenance. However, senior figures within Goldman Sachs believe now is the right time to debate the pros and cons of splitting the role of chairman and chief executive. Hank Paulson himself is expected to lead the debate at today's board meeting.
Goldman sources say that there are two other clear candidates for the chairman's job should the board wish to split the roles. John Bryan is the retired chairman and chief executive of Sara Lee, the US consumer goods giant, where he was in charge from 1975 to 2000. By coincidence he is also on the board of BP and has wide business experience from his directorship of General Motors.
A third name being talked about in the Goldman's headquarters is Stephen Friedman, who would prove a controversial appointment. However, having already served as senior partner and chairman of the management committee in the years before Goldman floated in 1999, he is seen as having huge banking experience.
Mr Friedman quit his role in 1994 when the bank suffered a two-thirds collapse in profits from $1.2bn to $406m. His decision to go was seen by some as tantamount to treachery and caused considerable controversy within the bank at the time.
The push for a debate on splitting the role has arisen because Mr Paulson's decision to take up President George Bush's offer took many in the bank by surprise. Mr Paulson had declined the job before. The need for an immediate succession plan had not been considered necessary.
While Mr Blankfein is seen as making a highly competent chief executive, there are members of the Goldman elite who feel he, and the bank, would benefit if another experienced player was also involved to take on the more diplomatic elements of the job.
Iraq's Premier Sets State of Emergency For Southern City
Maliki Cites Rising Violence in Basra
By Nelson Hernandez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 1, 2006; A14
BAGHDAD, May 31 -- Alarmed by an explosion of crime and violence in the vital southern city of Basra, the Iraqi prime minister visited local leaders there on Wednesday, declared a state of emergency and warned that he would respond to security threats "with an iron hand."
The trip represented the first major effort by Iraq's new government to deal with the deteriorating situation in Basra, the linchpin of predominantly Shiite southern Iraq and a strategic site for the country's oil-driven economy. Speaking with unusual bluntness, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the politicians who traveled with him acknowledged a festering crisis in Iraq's second-largest city.
"What is with all these kidnappings, killings, and kidnapping gangs?" Maliki asked in a speech before hundreds of local leaders and military and police officers. "What is going on in this city, which has suffered through history? Tell us what you want. . . . We will be ready to support and back you up with all that we have in order to protect this city."
At a news conference after he met with local officials, Maliki promised a "large-scale security mobilization" and several measures to control violence, including creating more checkpoints and abolishing some tainted security agencies. He later formally declared a month-long state of emergency, television and news agencies reported.
Tariq al-Hashimi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents, said the government would form a security committee whose first goal would be to enforce a ban on unlicensed weapons in the hands of militias and tribal groups.
"Basra is not an exception to what is going in Baghdad, Anbar, Mosul and Diyala," Hashimi said, naming some of Iraq's most violent areas. "There are campaigns and intentions to split Iraqi ethnic groups in order to intensify the fight and divide the country. If we allowed that, it would be a huge danger to this country and all would regret it."
Despite a reputation for being calm, earned partly because there have been fewer attacks on foreign troops in Basra than in other parts of Iraq, the city has long been a tense area, with targeted killings and kidnappings taking the place of more spectacular public violence. Religious leaders have been unusually strict in imposing Islamic law, forbidding liquor, games and even riverside picnics.
In recent months, there have been open clashes among rival political groups, battles involving criminal gangs fighting for control of the lucrative oil smuggling business and, increasingly, attacks on some of the 7,200 British troops who patrol the region.
Reidar Visser, an Iraq analyst with the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs who edits historiae.org, a Web site that focuses on Basra and southern Iraq, said he believed the recent surge in violence was partly the result of an intensifying battle between two Shiite parties: the Fadhila Party, a powerful local group that dominates the provincial council, and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, which controls the Interior Ministry in Baghdad and thus influences the local police force.
"The conflict with SCIRI in Basra dates back to early 2005, when, after the local elections, Fadhila managed to sideline SCIRI in the local governorate council, by entering into coalition with smaller parties," Visser wrote in an e-mail. "At first, the tension was mainly fought out within the council. Then SCIRI boycotted the council for a while, and now it seems that the conflict has begun affecting the general security situation in Basra."
The situation took a sharp turn for the worse in May. Fadhila, a smaller party within Iraq's ruling Shiite alliance, withdrew from talks on the formation of the new government, apparently protesting a decision not to allow the party to continue controlling the Oil Ministry. The governor of Basra province, Mohammed al-Waeli, suspended the police chief, Maj. Gen. Hassan Suwadi and demanded he be fired, saying he was involved in criminal activities. A bomb exploded outside Suwadi's house in an apparent attempt to kill him. And nine British soldiers have died this month in three incidents, including the downing of a helicopter.
In a tense public meeting broadcast on national television, Maliki warned that he would respond with force to further problems.
"This visit is to meet you and visit the city and to work on what we hear of violations that we fear will increase," Maliki said. "We will announce, powerfully and frankly, that we will hit with an iron hand those gangs and those who interfere with security."
Basra is apparently the only city in Iraq where a formal state of emergency exists, though rampant violence affects many areas of the country.
At least 21 people were killed Wednesday in a mortar attack on a neighborhood in Baghdad and other attacks around Iraq, according to police sources and news reports.
The Reuters news agency also reported Wednesday night that 42 bodies had been discovered in Baghdad in the last 24 hours, citing Iraqi police sources. If the report is true, it would be the third consecutive day that more than 40 Iraqis have been killed. (AND HOW MANY IN THE LAST MONTH? THE LAST YEAR? C'MON, I NEED MORE NEGATIVE NEWS. IT CANNOT BE POSITIVE AT ALL)
Maliki's trip to Basra and the violence of the last few days have overshadowed the testimony of defense witnesses in the trial of former president Saddam Hussein and seven others over the killing of 148 people from the village of Dujail after a failed attempt on Hussein's life in 1982.
On Wednesday, Hussein's half brother Barzan al-Ibrahim, one of the co-defendants, was thrown out of the courtroom after an altercation with Judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman, who became upset when Ibrahim referred to Abdel-Rahman's Kurdish ethnicity.
Prosecutors also rebutted the defense team's argument the day before that the chief prosecutor, Jafar al-Mousawi, had attempted to recruit witnesses by offering bribes and false documents at a party in 2004.
The defense team claimed to have a picture of Mousawi at the party and displayed it before the court. It showed Mousawi, or at least a man who looked strikingly like him. (AND WHAT? HE WAS AT THE PARTY? NOW HE HAS TO PROVE A NEGATIVE? THE BURDEN IS ALL ON SADDAM.)
In response, Mousawi summoned a man identified as Abdul Aziz Mohammed al-Bender, who walked into the court wearing a brown suit. He could have been Mousawi's twin, except that he was slightly thinner and had a receding hairline. The court looked at the two men, standing side-by-side and then in profile. The picture was clearly of Bender.
Special correspondents Omar Fekeiki, Bassam Sebti, Salih Saif Aldin, Saad al-Izzi and K.I. Ibrahim in Baghdad, Hassan Shammari in Baqubah, Saad Sarhan in Najaf and a special correspondent in Basra contributed to this report.
Maliki Cites Rising Violence in Basra
By Nelson Hernandez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 1, 2006; A14
BAGHDAD, May 31 -- Alarmed by an explosion of crime and violence in the vital southern city of Basra, the Iraqi prime minister visited local leaders there on Wednesday, declared a state of emergency and warned that he would respond to security threats "with an iron hand."
The trip represented the first major effort by Iraq's new government to deal with the deteriorating situation in Basra, the linchpin of predominantly Shiite southern Iraq and a strategic site for the country's oil-driven economy. Speaking with unusual bluntness, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the politicians who traveled with him acknowledged a festering crisis in Iraq's second-largest city.
"What is with all these kidnappings, killings, and kidnapping gangs?" Maliki asked in a speech before hundreds of local leaders and military and police officers. "What is going on in this city, which has suffered through history? Tell us what you want. . . . We will be ready to support and back you up with all that we have in order to protect this city."
At a news conference after he met with local officials, Maliki promised a "large-scale security mobilization" and several measures to control violence, including creating more checkpoints and abolishing some tainted security agencies. He later formally declared a month-long state of emergency, television and news agencies reported.
Tariq al-Hashimi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents, said the government would form a security committee whose first goal would be to enforce a ban on unlicensed weapons in the hands of militias and tribal groups.
"Basra is not an exception to what is going in Baghdad, Anbar, Mosul and Diyala," Hashimi said, naming some of Iraq's most violent areas. "There are campaigns and intentions to split Iraqi ethnic groups in order to intensify the fight and divide the country. If we allowed that, it would be a huge danger to this country and all would regret it."
Despite a reputation for being calm, earned partly because there have been fewer attacks on foreign troops in Basra than in other parts of Iraq, the city has long been a tense area, with targeted killings and kidnappings taking the place of more spectacular public violence. Religious leaders have been unusually strict in imposing Islamic law, forbidding liquor, games and even riverside picnics.
In recent months, there have been open clashes among rival political groups, battles involving criminal gangs fighting for control of the lucrative oil smuggling business and, increasingly, attacks on some of the 7,200 British troops who patrol the region.
Reidar Visser, an Iraq analyst with the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs who edits historiae.org, a Web site that focuses on Basra and southern Iraq, said he believed the recent surge in violence was partly the result of an intensifying battle between two Shiite parties: the Fadhila Party, a powerful local group that dominates the provincial council, and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, which controls the Interior Ministry in Baghdad and thus influences the local police force.
"The conflict with SCIRI in Basra dates back to early 2005, when, after the local elections, Fadhila managed to sideline SCIRI in the local governorate council, by entering into coalition with smaller parties," Visser wrote in an e-mail. "At first, the tension was mainly fought out within the council. Then SCIRI boycotted the council for a while, and now it seems that the conflict has begun affecting the general security situation in Basra."
The situation took a sharp turn for the worse in May. Fadhila, a smaller party within Iraq's ruling Shiite alliance, withdrew from talks on the formation of the new government, apparently protesting a decision not to allow the party to continue controlling the Oil Ministry. The governor of Basra province, Mohammed al-Waeli, suspended the police chief, Maj. Gen. Hassan Suwadi and demanded he be fired, saying he was involved in criminal activities. A bomb exploded outside Suwadi's house in an apparent attempt to kill him. And nine British soldiers have died this month in three incidents, including the downing of a helicopter.
In a tense public meeting broadcast on national television, Maliki warned that he would respond with force to further problems.
"This visit is to meet you and visit the city and to work on what we hear of violations that we fear will increase," Maliki said. "We will announce, powerfully and frankly, that we will hit with an iron hand those gangs and those who interfere with security."
Basra is apparently the only city in Iraq where a formal state of emergency exists, though rampant violence affects many areas of the country.
At least 21 people were killed Wednesday in a mortar attack on a neighborhood in Baghdad and other attacks around Iraq, according to police sources and news reports.
The Reuters news agency also reported Wednesday night that 42 bodies had been discovered in Baghdad in the last 24 hours, citing Iraqi police sources. If the report is true, it would be the third consecutive day that more than 40 Iraqis have been killed. (AND HOW MANY IN THE LAST MONTH? THE LAST YEAR? C'MON, I NEED MORE NEGATIVE NEWS. IT CANNOT BE POSITIVE AT ALL)
Maliki's trip to Basra and the violence of the last few days have overshadowed the testimony of defense witnesses in the trial of former president Saddam Hussein and seven others over the killing of 148 people from the village of Dujail after a failed attempt on Hussein's life in 1982.
On Wednesday, Hussein's half brother Barzan al-Ibrahim, one of the co-defendants, was thrown out of the courtroom after an altercation with Judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman, who became upset when Ibrahim referred to Abdel-Rahman's Kurdish ethnicity.
Prosecutors also rebutted the defense team's argument the day before that the chief prosecutor, Jafar al-Mousawi, had attempted to recruit witnesses by offering bribes and false documents at a party in 2004.
The defense team claimed to have a picture of Mousawi at the party and displayed it before the court. It showed Mousawi, or at least a man who looked strikingly like him. (AND WHAT? HE WAS AT THE PARTY? NOW HE HAS TO PROVE A NEGATIVE? THE BURDEN IS ALL ON SADDAM.)
In response, Mousawi summoned a man identified as Abdul Aziz Mohammed al-Bender, who walked into the court wearing a brown suit. He could have been Mousawi's twin, except that he was slightly thinner and had a receding hairline. The court looked at the two men, standing side-by-side and then in profile. The picture was clearly of Bender.
Special correspondents Omar Fekeiki, Bassam Sebti, Salih Saif Aldin, Saad al-Izzi and K.I. Ibrahim in Baghdad, Hassan Shammari in Baqubah, Saad Sarhan in Najaf and a special correspondent in Basra contributed to this report.
In E. Timor, an Optimistic Enterprise Turns to Ashes
By Alan Sipress
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 2, 2006; A13
DILI, East Timor -- The colonial-era Palácio do Governo, with its white portico and stunning seafront vista, has long been a symbol of foreign domination here. The edifice has housed Portuguese imperialists, Indonesian occupiers and, more recently, U.N. administrators, who moved in after East Timor voted for independence in 1999. It wasn't until 2004 that senior ministers of this young country finally took full occupancy.
Now the foreigners are back. As smoke from burning homes billowed behind them, Australian soldiers in full combat gear took up positions along the second-floor veranda. They were part of a week-old international effort to restore order in a country unable to quell violence by its own rival security forces and marauding gangs.
"I feel disappointed because there has been so much foreign aid helping East Timor, and this is the result. It's all destroyed," said Leonardo Pinto, 29, a boyish-faced refugee who fled arson attacks in his neighborhood for the safety of a seaside churchyard. "I'm ashamed that our officials can't handle this problem themselves and have to invite in foreign forces."
East Timor had been the model for U.N. nation-building, hailed as an example of a modern state raised literally from ashes with the help of international cash and expertise. The island had been left devastated by Indonesian-backed militias, which went on a rampage of burning and looting after the East Timorese voted to break away.
The story of the country's return to anarchy and foreign dependency last week is one of grievances wired into the state at its creation, especially within the security forces, and then ignored by East Timorese leaders and foreign officials. (OF COURSE, ALL THESE FLAWS WERE NOT MENTIONED UNTIL NOW . . . AFTER THE BUILDINGS ARE BURNING)
"Our mistakes have been so costly to the people and to our country," Foreign Minister José Ramos-Horta said in an interview. "If we are not mature enough, let's get the Australians to stay indefinitely."
Ramos-Horta, a Nobel peace laureate, said East Timor had been too weak to manage its own affairs when it declared independence in 2002, taking over from a transitional U.N. authority, and too anxious for U.N. advisers and peacekeepers to leave afterward. A mission that at its peak included nearly 11,000 peacekeepers and international police officers had, by this year, shrunk to fewer than 400 U.N. workers, most of them involved in political matters. "The Timorese side was over-optimistic and over-confident and thought they should let the U.N. go," Ramos-Horta said. "The U.N. itself was eager to disengage as soon as possible.".
The international effort to create this new nation of about 900,000 people was unprecedented. Since 1999, the U.N and foreign governments have rebuilt a country where about three-quarters of the houses, schools and other buildings had been destroyed in militia violence. International agencies extended basic health care, education, electricity and other services across remote districts. The United Nations took the lead in building government ministries and agencies from scratch, including the courts and national police, by providing training, equipment and advice.
But this ambitious undertaking overlooked fundamental fissures inside East Timor's newly established armed forces and police.
When the armed forces were created, the senior officers were appointed from the guerrilla movement that had battled the Indonesians for 24 years. Most of them were from the easternmost part of the country, where the insurgency had been strongest. For balance, recruits were drawn from the western portion of East Timor, but they went largely into the lower ranks. Complaints of discrimination soon surfaced.
The East Timorese administration promised the World Bank and foreign governments it would address these grievances by adopting codes governing promotion and discipline, but the pledge was never fulfilled.
"If the international community had held the Timorese to their commitments, we would not have the current problem in the military," said a Western diplomat in East Timor who asked not to be identified on the grounds that it was inappropriate for him to criticize governments on the record. "The international community never stood up to the Timorese in the last three years."
Meanwhile, the police emerged as a rival force, with senior officers drawn largely from the west of the island. The United Nations favored the police over the armed forces, contending that police were better suited to maintaining law and order, and lavished money, equipment and new uniforms on them while their military counterparts received secondhand camouflage from Portugal and China. But U.N. officials never tackled the corruption and politicking that was becoming increasingly apparent within the ranks of the police, Western and East Timorese officials said.
Still, if not for an escalating series of missteps by rival factions over the last five months, the simmering tensions might not have exploded into civil strife.
In January, about 400 westerners in the armed forces signed a petition alleging discrimination and poor treatment. When they were ignored, they took their complaints to the streets the next month, demonstrating outside the office of President Xanana Gusmao.
"We asked the military institution to solve our problem and pay attention to our complaints. They did not listen," Lt. Gastao Salsinha, leader of the dissident soldiers, said in a telephone interview from the remote district where he is now in hiding. "Instead, they gave weapons to people in order to eliminate those of us who brought the petition."
Rather than addressing the grievances, which included discontent over pay, living conditions and the deployment of troops far from their families in the west, the military in March dismissed nearly 600 western soldiers, about 40 percent of the armed forces.
"We decided they were deserters," a senior army officer said as he sat under a tree at a base outside Dili. He asked not be identified out of fear for his family's safety. "If there was discrimination, they should resolve it within the military institution and not jump and go straight to the president and foreign embassies. We felt so ashamed."
The dismissed soldiers and their supporters staged a second demonstration in late April that culminated in clashes outside the Palácio do Governo. The police fled, and the army was called in. By the end of the day, at least five from the dissident camp had been killed and rumors of a far larger number of killings swept the capital.
A day later, Maj. Alfredo Reinado, commander of the military police and a westerner, abandoned the army, heading to the hills with about 20 heavily armed soldiers. He said he broke ranks in order to maintain the professionalism of the military in the face of discrimination and politicking.
"It's like an old sickness and old virus that started years ago. This has become a tumor growing until now," he said, referring to the rivalries within the security forces. Speaking by telephone from his mountain redoubt, he criticized the former rebel fighters now heading the armed forces, saying, "The guerrilla leaders betrayed the country. They're supposed to defend the whole country, not just the easterners."
But even as he urged dialogue, Reinado himself provoked a dangerous escalation in violence a week ago when he led his dissident forces into an eastern suburb of Dili. The soldiers encountered regular army troops in the area, and the result was the fiercest gun battle yet.
A day later, army forces in central Dili attacked the national police headquarters with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, charging that the police had aligned themselves with the dissident troops. The besieged police officers appealed for help from U.N. officials, who negotiated a truce and surrender. But as U.N. police officers and advisers escorted the unarmed East Timorese police down the street from their headquarters, four soldiers opened fire, killing 10 local policemen.
The police force, terrified, disintegrated in Dili. The military, already fractured, was further discredited. Rival gangs of easterners and westerners, armed with machetes, swords and knives, took over the capital's streets. The government called for the intervention of an Australian-led force made up of 2,200 peacekeepers from four countries.
Sukehiro Hasegawa, the U.N. coordinator in East Timor, acknowledged that the unrest represented a significant setback to a U.N. undertaking that had been widely considered successful. Most gravely, he said, the violence has sundered the national unity that carried East Timor to independence. (WAY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SUN RISES IN THE MORNING, THAT WATER IS WET AND THAT TALL PEOPLE ARE TALLER THAT SHORT PEOPLE)
"If the leaders of this country can come together and recognize the enormity of the problem, I think it will be temporary," Hasegawa said. "If the leaders cannot reconcile these differences, then it will become a long-term problem."
Back under the tree, the senior military officer bitterly distributed blame among the police, the dissident soldiers, the Timorese government and the United Nations.
"People say the only successful case for the U.N. is here in East Timor," he said, lowering his cigarette and flashing a sardonic smile. "You see how successful? People killing each other very successfully." (BINGO!)
By Alan Sipress
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 2, 2006; A13
DILI, East Timor -- The colonial-era Palácio do Governo, with its white portico and stunning seafront vista, has long been a symbol of foreign domination here. The edifice has housed Portuguese imperialists, Indonesian occupiers and, more recently, U.N. administrators, who moved in after East Timor voted for independence in 1999. It wasn't until 2004 that senior ministers of this young country finally took full occupancy.
Now the foreigners are back. As smoke from burning homes billowed behind them, Australian soldiers in full combat gear took up positions along the second-floor veranda. They were part of a week-old international effort to restore order in a country unable to quell violence by its own rival security forces and marauding gangs.
"I feel disappointed because there has been so much foreign aid helping East Timor, and this is the result. It's all destroyed," said Leonardo Pinto, 29, a boyish-faced refugee who fled arson attacks in his neighborhood for the safety of a seaside churchyard. "I'm ashamed that our officials can't handle this problem themselves and have to invite in foreign forces."
East Timor had been the model for U.N. nation-building, hailed as an example of a modern state raised literally from ashes with the help of international cash and expertise. The island had been left devastated by Indonesian-backed militias, which went on a rampage of burning and looting after the East Timorese voted to break away.
The story of the country's return to anarchy and foreign dependency last week is one of grievances wired into the state at its creation, especially within the security forces, and then ignored by East Timorese leaders and foreign officials. (OF COURSE, ALL THESE FLAWS WERE NOT MENTIONED UNTIL NOW . . . AFTER THE BUILDINGS ARE BURNING)
"Our mistakes have been so costly to the people and to our country," Foreign Minister José Ramos-Horta said in an interview. "If we are not mature enough, let's get the Australians to stay indefinitely."
Ramos-Horta, a Nobel peace laureate, said East Timor had been too weak to manage its own affairs when it declared independence in 2002, taking over from a transitional U.N. authority, and too anxious for U.N. advisers and peacekeepers to leave afterward. A mission that at its peak included nearly 11,000 peacekeepers and international police officers had, by this year, shrunk to fewer than 400 U.N. workers, most of them involved in political matters. "The Timorese side was over-optimistic and over-confident and thought they should let the U.N. go," Ramos-Horta said. "The U.N. itself was eager to disengage as soon as possible.".
The international effort to create this new nation of about 900,000 people was unprecedented. Since 1999, the U.N and foreign governments have rebuilt a country where about three-quarters of the houses, schools and other buildings had been destroyed in militia violence. International agencies extended basic health care, education, electricity and other services across remote districts. The United Nations took the lead in building government ministries and agencies from scratch, including the courts and national police, by providing training, equipment and advice.
But this ambitious undertaking overlooked fundamental fissures inside East Timor's newly established armed forces and police.
When the armed forces were created, the senior officers were appointed from the guerrilla movement that had battled the Indonesians for 24 years. Most of them were from the easternmost part of the country, where the insurgency had been strongest. For balance, recruits were drawn from the western portion of East Timor, but they went largely into the lower ranks. Complaints of discrimination soon surfaced.
The East Timorese administration promised the World Bank and foreign governments it would address these grievances by adopting codes governing promotion and discipline, but the pledge was never fulfilled.
"If the international community had held the Timorese to their commitments, we would not have the current problem in the military," said a Western diplomat in East Timor who asked not to be identified on the grounds that it was inappropriate for him to criticize governments on the record. "The international community never stood up to the Timorese in the last three years."
Meanwhile, the police emerged as a rival force, with senior officers drawn largely from the west of the island. The United Nations favored the police over the armed forces, contending that police were better suited to maintaining law and order, and lavished money, equipment and new uniforms on them while their military counterparts received secondhand camouflage from Portugal and China. But U.N. officials never tackled the corruption and politicking that was becoming increasingly apparent within the ranks of the police, Western and East Timorese officials said.
Still, if not for an escalating series of missteps by rival factions over the last five months, the simmering tensions might not have exploded into civil strife.
In January, about 400 westerners in the armed forces signed a petition alleging discrimination and poor treatment. When they were ignored, they took their complaints to the streets the next month, demonstrating outside the office of President Xanana Gusmao.
"We asked the military institution to solve our problem and pay attention to our complaints. They did not listen," Lt. Gastao Salsinha, leader of the dissident soldiers, said in a telephone interview from the remote district where he is now in hiding. "Instead, they gave weapons to people in order to eliminate those of us who brought the petition."
Rather than addressing the grievances, which included discontent over pay, living conditions and the deployment of troops far from their families in the west, the military in March dismissed nearly 600 western soldiers, about 40 percent of the armed forces.
"We decided they were deserters," a senior army officer said as he sat under a tree at a base outside Dili. He asked not be identified out of fear for his family's safety. "If there was discrimination, they should resolve it within the military institution and not jump and go straight to the president and foreign embassies. We felt so ashamed."
The dismissed soldiers and their supporters staged a second demonstration in late April that culminated in clashes outside the Palácio do Governo. The police fled, and the army was called in. By the end of the day, at least five from the dissident camp had been killed and rumors of a far larger number of killings swept the capital.
A day later, Maj. Alfredo Reinado, commander of the military police and a westerner, abandoned the army, heading to the hills with about 20 heavily armed soldiers. He said he broke ranks in order to maintain the professionalism of the military in the face of discrimination and politicking.
"It's like an old sickness and old virus that started years ago. This has become a tumor growing until now," he said, referring to the rivalries within the security forces. Speaking by telephone from his mountain redoubt, he criticized the former rebel fighters now heading the armed forces, saying, "The guerrilla leaders betrayed the country. They're supposed to defend the whole country, not just the easterners."
But even as he urged dialogue, Reinado himself provoked a dangerous escalation in violence a week ago when he led his dissident forces into an eastern suburb of Dili. The soldiers encountered regular army troops in the area, and the result was the fiercest gun battle yet.
A day later, army forces in central Dili attacked the national police headquarters with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, charging that the police had aligned themselves with the dissident troops. The besieged police officers appealed for help from U.N. officials, who negotiated a truce and surrender. But as U.N. police officers and advisers escorted the unarmed East Timorese police down the street from their headquarters, four soldiers opened fire, killing 10 local policemen.
The police force, terrified, disintegrated in Dili. The military, already fractured, was further discredited. Rival gangs of easterners and westerners, armed with machetes, swords and knives, took over the capital's streets. The government called for the intervention of an Australian-led force made up of 2,200 peacekeepers from four countries.
Sukehiro Hasegawa, the U.N. coordinator in East Timor, acknowledged that the unrest represented a significant setback to a U.N. undertaking that had been widely considered successful. Most gravely, he said, the violence has sundered the national unity that carried East Timor to independence. (WAY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SUN RISES IN THE MORNING, THAT WATER IS WET AND THAT TALL PEOPLE ARE TALLER THAT SHORT PEOPLE)
"If the leaders of this country can come together and recognize the enormity of the problem, I think it will be temporary," Hasegawa said. "If the leaders cannot reconcile these differences, then it will become a long-term problem."
Back under the tree, the senior military officer bitterly distributed blame among the police, the dissident soldiers, the Timorese government and the United Nations.
"People say the only successful case for the U.N. is here in East Timor," he said, lowering his cigarette and flashing a sardonic smile. "You see how successful? People killing each other very successfully." (BINGO!)
Clashes in Paris Suburbs Recall Riots of Fall
By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 1, 2006; A12
PARIS, May 31 -- Small gangs of youths pelted riot police with rocks and set cars and garbage bins ablaze late Tuesday in a second night of unrest in the Paris suburbs, raising fears of a return of the disturbances that inflamed 300 French towns and suburbs last fall.
The violence of the last two nights -- in which youths attacked police cars, government buildings and riot police -- was sparked in part by mounting resentment toward the mayor of the northeastern Paris suburb of Montfermeil, who in recent weeks imposed a law prohibiting 15- to 18-year-olds from gathering in groups of more than three and requiring anyone under 16 to be accompanied by an adult on city streets after 8 p.m.
The French government last fall promised to improve living conditions and job opportunities in suburbs heavily populated by immigrant families and where unemployment is rampant, but little has been done and the government's main initiative -- a youth jobs bill -- ended with this spring's politically disastrous student demonstrations.
At the same time, police have said crime has increased in poor suburban neighborhoods, and frustration with the government has continued to fester.
"We have the painful sense that nothing has been fixed," Francois Hollande, leader of the opposition Socialist Party, said in an interview on France-2 Television.
At 9:30 Tuesday night, an estimated 15 young people threw rocks and projectiles at police patrolling an apartment complex area. At 11 p.m., youths tossed a makeshift explosive into a police car. The officers inside barely had time to escape before the vehicle exploded in flames.
Marauding youths set afire about a dozen private cars and torched numerous garbage bins in Montfermeil and the adjacent town of Clichy-sous-Bois, where last fall's three weeks of violence began when two teenagers were electrocuted as they tried to hide in a power substation. They believed police were chasing them.
Muhittin Altun, a third youth who survived with severe burns in that incident, was arrested Tuesday night on charges of throwing rocks at a police car. He was later released, according to French news media.
Six police officers were reported slightly injured and 13 youths were detained in Tuesday night's incidents.
In Montfermeil, a suburb of high youth unemployment and government-subsidized housing projects, young people have been growing increasingly angry at Mayor Xavier Lemoine's attempts to crack down on gang violence. Although a local court earlier this month overturned his effort to limit youth gatherings, he vowed to seek other measures.
On Monday, residents said, police roughed up a woman who protested police efforts to arrest her son, a suspect in the beating several weeks ago of a bus driver. Police ended up arresting both the mother and son, according to police.
Monday night, hooded youths hurled stones and other projectiles at Mayor Lemoine's house and at City Hall, and the police who responded were attacked with baseball bats. The clashes lasted three hours and seven police officers reportedly were injured.
French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, whose characterizations of rioters as "scum" inflamed last fall's violence, visited police officers who had responded to Monday night's incidents. "More than 100 hooligans set upon you -- masked and carrying weapons," he said. "We are confronting not a spontaneous revolt, but hooligans who have only a single purpose -- to create the most damage and injure as many people as possible."
Transportation Minister Dominique Perben, of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement party, described the incidents as a "reminder" of last year's violence.
"The question of the suburbs is a question for the entire political class," Perben told I-tele television. "We must have the courage to look things in the face."
By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 1, 2006; A12
PARIS, May 31 -- Small gangs of youths pelted riot police with rocks and set cars and garbage bins ablaze late Tuesday in a second night of unrest in the Paris suburbs, raising fears of a return of the disturbances that inflamed 300 French towns and suburbs last fall.
The violence of the last two nights -- in which youths attacked police cars, government buildings and riot police -- was sparked in part by mounting resentment toward the mayor of the northeastern Paris suburb of Montfermeil, who in recent weeks imposed a law prohibiting 15- to 18-year-olds from gathering in groups of more than three and requiring anyone under 16 to be accompanied by an adult on city streets after 8 p.m.
The French government last fall promised to improve living conditions and job opportunities in suburbs heavily populated by immigrant families and where unemployment is rampant, but little has been done and the government's main initiative -- a youth jobs bill -- ended with this spring's politically disastrous student demonstrations.
At the same time, police have said crime has increased in poor suburban neighborhoods, and frustration with the government has continued to fester.
"We have the painful sense that nothing has been fixed," Francois Hollande, leader of the opposition Socialist Party, said in an interview on France-2 Television.
At 9:30 Tuesday night, an estimated 15 young people threw rocks and projectiles at police patrolling an apartment complex area. At 11 p.m., youths tossed a makeshift explosive into a police car. The officers inside barely had time to escape before the vehicle exploded in flames.
Marauding youths set afire about a dozen private cars and torched numerous garbage bins in Montfermeil and the adjacent town of Clichy-sous-Bois, where last fall's three weeks of violence began when two teenagers were electrocuted as they tried to hide in a power substation. They believed police were chasing them.
Muhittin Altun, a third youth who survived with severe burns in that incident, was arrested Tuesday night on charges of throwing rocks at a police car. He was later released, according to French news media.
Six police officers were reported slightly injured and 13 youths were detained in Tuesday night's incidents.
In Montfermeil, a suburb of high youth unemployment and government-subsidized housing projects, young people have been growing increasingly angry at Mayor Xavier Lemoine's attempts to crack down on gang violence. Although a local court earlier this month overturned his effort to limit youth gatherings, he vowed to seek other measures.
On Monday, residents said, police roughed up a woman who protested police efforts to arrest her son, a suspect in the beating several weeks ago of a bus driver. Police ended up arresting both the mother and son, according to police.
Monday night, hooded youths hurled stones and other projectiles at Mayor Lemoine's house and at City Hall, and the police who responded were attacked with baseball bats. The clashes lasted three hours and seven police officers reportedly were injured.
French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, whose characterizations of rioters as "scum" inflamed last fall's violence, visited police officers who had responded to Monday night's incidents. "More than 100 hooligans set upon you -- masked and carrying weapons," he said. "We are confronting not a spontaneous revolt, but hooligans who have only a single purpose -- to create the most damage and injure as many people as possible."
Transportation Minister Dominique Perben, of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement party, described the incidents as a "reminder" of last year's violence.
"The question of the suburbs is a question for the entire political class," Perben told I-tele television. "We must have the courage to look things in the face."
U.S. to Join Talks With Iran If Uranium Enrichment Stops (SOUNDS GOOD TO ME)
By Michael A. Fletcher and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 1, 2006; A01
The Bush administration offered for the first time yesterday to join European talks with Iran over its nuclear program, but only if the Iranian government suspends efforts to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, which the administration calls part of a covert attempt to make bombs.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the U.S. policy shift at a State Department news conference, warning that if the Iranian government chooses not to negotiate and to continue pursuing its nuclear ambitions, "it will incur only great costs."
"We urge Iran to make this choice for peace, to abandon its ambition for nuclear weapons," Rice said. Refusing to do so, she added, "will lead to international isolation and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions."
A senior administration official said there is substantial agreement from Russia and China -- two nations that have resisted sanctions against Iran -- on an escalating series of U.N. penalties that would be imposed if Iran does not comply. He said negotiators are expected to finalize a package that includes potential sanctions for noncompliance, as well as benefits if Iran accepts a deal being crafted by several nations during a meeting in Vienna today. Rice left for the meeting shortly after her announcement.
The Bush administration previously refused to engage in direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program, preferring to let three European Union nations -- Britain, France and Germany, known as the E.U.-3 -- conduct negotiations. But Germany lately has increasingly urged Washington to deal with Tehran directly, as have a growing roster of foreign policy experts and at least two U.S. senators. (WAIT, WE ARE BACK AGAIN AT THE UNILATERAL POSITION - AND THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM? DID EUROPE PUBLICLY CONCEDE ABSOLUTE FAILURE?)
"I thought it was important for the United States to take the lead, along with our partners, and that's what you're seeing," President Bush told reporters. "You're seeing robust diplomacy. I believe this problem can be solved diplomatically, and I'm going to give it every effort to do so."
John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called Javad Zarif, his Iranian counterpart, before Rice's announcement to inform him of the administration's willingness to engage in direct talks. Meanwhile, Rice's remarks were also given to the Swiss ambassador to the United States for transmission to Iran.
Iranian officials offered no clear, immediate reaction. The official Islamic Republic News Agency expressed skepticism on its Persian-language Web site, underscoring Iran's line that "halting enrichment definitely doesn't meet [its] interests." By this morning, however, its English-language site was led by an interview with former president Mohammad Khatami, who had promoted renewed contacts with Washington. Without mentioning the U.S. overture directly, Khatami said "the flag of dialogue and understanding, which was slightly on the verge of extinction, is again gaining momentum."
In extending the offer to enter the nuclear talks, Rice made it clear that the United States would not contemplate restoring diplomatic relations with Iran, which were severed during the 1979 hostage crisis, until the regime made changes, including renouncing its support of terrorist groups.
Senior Chinese and Russian officials welcomed the U.S. offer of direct talks, saying it showed an increased willingness to pursue diplomatic means to resolve the budding nuclear crisis. Still, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations, said the United States should provide Iran with security assurances and drop its demand that Iran cease uranium enrichment before such talks could begin.
"I think it in a way proves that the U.S. is more serious about the negotiations than about other options, but I do hope that this offer could be less conditional," Wang told reporters.
Wang said China may be prepared to take a tougher line with Iran if the United States and Europe offer more "attractive carrots" to the Iranians, including security assurances, and a pledge to allow Tehran to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program, including a small research-and-development project on uranium enrichment. (WHOA, WHOA, WHOA - WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SECURITY ASSURANCES? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ****ING MIND?)
The United States and key European allies oppose such a project, saying it would provide Tehran with the technical know-how to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Estimates vary, but some experts think Iran could master the expertise needed to produce a nuclear weapon by the end of the year, though U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that it would take Tehran a decade to build a bomb. (WHERE IS THE QUALIFIER THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN WRONG BEFORE????)
The shift in U.S. policy came after mounting calls for a dialogue with Iran from foreign policy experts and lawmakers, notably former secretaries of state Henry A. Kissinger and Madeleine K. Albright, and Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). The pressure increased in early May when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a rambling 18-page letter that was dismissed by Bush but was seen in much of the world as an invitation for talks with the United States. The letter was followed by back-channel communications making it clear that the Iranians were seeking direct talks. (MADELEINE IS APPLYING PRESSURE? IS THIS ****ING REAL? LIKE THE PRESSURE SHE APPLIED TO KIM IN NORTH KOREA WHILE SHE WAS DRINKING WITH HIM?)
Administration officials, meanwhile, said they began seriously discussing a plan to enter talks with Iran two months ago. Rice, on her way to New York in early May for what turned out to be a contentious meeting on the Iran issue, sketched an outline of a plan, a senior State Department official said.
Later, a small group -- including officials from the State Department, the White House and the Defense Department -- was assembled to flesh out her ideas. Bush discussed them with British Prime Minister Tony Blair during his visit to Washington last week, and Bush followed that up with phone calls to the leaders of France, Germany and Russia on Tuesday to ensure that they were on board. Rice, meanwhile, discussed the idea with her Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, before Bush gave final approval to the offer.
Rice and other Bush administration officials said the offer of direct negotiations would eliminate the argument that the U.S. refusal to deal directly with Iran on the nuclear issue was the impediment to resolving the impasse.
"This is the last excuse in some sense," she said. "There have been those who have said, 'Well, if only the negotiations had the potential for the United States to be a part of them, perhaps then Iran would respond.' So now we have a pretty clear path."
Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations and correspondent Karl Vick in Tehran contributed to this report.
By Michael A. Fletcher and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 1, 2006; A01
The Bush administration offered for the first time yesterday to join European talks with Iran over its nuclear program, but only if the Iranian government suspends efforts to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, which the administration calls part of a covert attempt to make bombs.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the U.S. policy shift at a State Department news conference, warning that if the Iranian government chooses not to negotiate and to continue pursuing its nuclear ambitions, "it will incur only great costs."
"We urge Iran to make this choice for peace, to abandon its ambition for nuclear weapons," Rice said. Refusing to do so, she added, "will lead to international isolation and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions."
A senior administration official said there is substantial agreement from Russia and China -- two nations that have resisted sanctions against Iran -- on an escalating series of U.N. penalties that would be imposed if Iran does not comply. He said negotiators are expected to finalize a package that includes potential sanctions for noncompliance, as well as benefits if Iran accepts a deal being crafted by several nations during a meeting in Vienna today. Rice left for the meeting shortly after her announcement.
The Bush administration previously refused to engage in direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program, preferring to let three European Union nations -- Britain, France and Germany, known as the E.U.-3 -- conduct negotiations. But Germany lately has increasingly urged Washington to deal with Tehran directly, as have a growing roster of foreign policy experts and at least two U.S. senators. (WAIT, WE ARE BACK AGAIN AT THE UNILATERAL POSITION - AND THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM? DID EUROPE PUBLICLY CONCEDE ABSOLUTE FAILURE?)
"I thought it was important for the United States to take the lead, along with our partners, and that's what you're seeing," President Bush told reporters. "You're seeing robust diplomacy. I believe this problem can be solved diplomatically, and I'm going to give it every effort to do so."
John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called Javad Zarif, his Iranian counterpart, before Rice's announcement to inform him of the administration's willingness to engage in direct talks. Meanwhile, Rice's remarks were also given to the Swiss ambassador to the United States for transmission to Iran.
Iranian officials offered no clear, immediate reaction. The official Islamic Republic News Agency expressed skepticism on its Persian-language Web site, underscoring Iran's line that "halting enrichment definitely doesn't meet [its] interests." By this morning, however, its English-language site was led by an interview with former president Mohammad Khatami, who had promoted renewed contacts with Washington. Without mentioning the U.S. overture directly, Khatami said "the flag of dialogue and understanding, which was slightly on the verge of extinction, is again gaining momentum."
In extending the offer to enter the nuclear talks, Rice made it clear that the United States would not contemplate restoring diplomatic relations with Iran, which were severed during the 1979 hostage crisis, until the regime made changes, including renouncing its support of terrorist groups.
Senior Chinese and Russian officials welcomed the U.S. offer of direct talks, saying it showed an increased willingness to pursue diplomatic means to resolve the budding nuclear crisis. Still, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations, said the United States should provide Iran with security assurances and drop its demand that Iran cease uranium enrichment before such talks could begin.
"I think it in a way proves that the U.S. is more serious about the negotiations than about other options, but I do hope that this offer could be less conditional," Wang told reporters.
Wang said China may be prepared to take a tougher line with Iran if the United States and Europe offer more "attractive carrots" to the Iranians, including security assurances, and a pledge to allow Tehran to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program, including a small research-and-development project on uranium enrichment. (WHOA, WHOA, WHOA - WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SECURITY ASSURANCES? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ****ING MIND?)
The United States and key European allies oppose such a project, saying it would provide Tehran with the technical know-how to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Estimates vary, but some experts think Iran could master the expertise needed to produce a nuclear weapon by the end of the year, though U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that it would take Tehran a decade to build a bomb. (WHERE IS THE QUALIFIER THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN WRONG BEFORE????)
The shift in U.S. policy came after mounting calls for a dialogue with Iran from foreign policy experts and lawmakers, notably former secretaries of state Henry A. Kissinger and Madeleine K. Albright, and Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). The pressure increased in early May when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a rambling 18-page letter that was dismissed by Bush but was seen in much of the world as an invitation for talks with the United States. The letter was followed by back-channel communications making it clear that the Iranians were seeking direct talks. (MADELEINE IS APPLYING PRESSURE? IS THIS ****ING REAL? LIKE THE PRESSURE SHE APPLIED TO KIM IN NORTH KOREA WHILE SHE WAS DRINKING WITH HIM?)
Administration officials, meanwhile, said they began seriously discussing a plan to enter talks with Iran two months ago. Rice, on her way to New York in early May for what turned out to be a contentious meeting on the Iran issue, sketched an outline of a plan, a senior State Department official said.
Later, a small group -- including officials from the State Department, the White House and the Defense Department -- was assembled to flesh out her ideas. Bush discussed them with British Prime Minister Tony Blair during his visit to Washington last week, and Bush followed that up with phone calls to the leaders of France, Germany and Russia on Tuesday to ensure that they were on board. Rice, meanwhile, discussed the idea with her Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, before Bush gave final approval to the offer.
Rice and other Bush administration officials said the offer of direct negotiations would eliminate the argument that the U.S. refusal to deal directly with Iran on the nuclear issue was the impediment to resolving the impasse.
"This is the last excuse in some sense," she said. "There have been those who have said, 'Well, if only the negotiations had the potential for the United States to be a part of them, perhaps then Iran would respond.' So now we have a pretty clear path."
Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations and correspondent Karl Vick in Tehran contributed to this report.
Shift in U.S. Stance Shows Power of Seven-Letter Word
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 1, 2006; A13
The Bush administration's decision to consider sitting down with the Iranian government underscores a central truth of diplomacy today: Nuclear weapons buy leverage.
For six years, President Bush and his aides have dismissed the idea of talking with Iran about its nuclear programs, and until last year gave little support to European efforts to restrain Iranian nuclear activity. Attempts by former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, a moderate, to foster a dialogue were rejected, and even back-channel moves failed to gain traction.
Now, in perhaps the biggest foreign policy shift of his presidency, Bush has approved the idea of sitting down at the table with the Iranian government -- one headed by a former student radical who denies the Holocaust. Attached to the U.S. offer was a stern condition: a verified suspension of Iran's nuclear enrichment operations. But the offer overturned a long-standing taboo, and it came from an administration stocked with officials who have made little secret of their desire to overthrow the government in Tehran.
The administration made this move at a moment of weakness. The president's public opinion ratings are among the lowest ever recorded for a modern president, and oil prices have reached record levels, in part because of the confrontation with Iran. The high price of oil, in turn, has enriched the Iranian treasury. (WHOSE WEAKNESS? WHO MADE THE FIRST OFFER?)
Iran recently announced it had learned how to achieve a key aspect of enriching uranium -- sooner than expected -- raising the stakes in the confrontation. Even so, the lingering fallout from the administration's decision to attack Iraq has made it increasingly difficult to win the support for sanctions on Iran from critical nations such as Russia and China. (YEAH, THIS IS ABOUT IRAQ. AND I ATE THE PLANET PLUTO LAST NIGHT)
A key factor in Bush's decision yesterday is the influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced the offer in a televised news conference. Since becoming secretary of state last year, Rice has worked assiduously to make certain that the United States does not maneuver itself into becoming the world's enemy No. 1, as it did on the Iraq war.
When Rice made her first trip overseas as secretary last year, to Europe, she had expected to hear a lot of concern about Iraq. Instead, she later said, she was surprised to learn that the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program was a bigger concern -- and that the United States was considered the problem. (THAT'S WEIRD, IRAN SAYS THEY WANT TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP AND THE US IS THE PROBLEM. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH EUROPE?)
She very quickly won Bush's approval for a public shift in policy: active support of the European negotiating track. The support included withdrawing the U.S. objection to Iran's application to the World Trade Organization and allowing Iran the potential to purchase civilian aviation spare parts. (WHY WOULD WE DO ALL THIS? LET EUROPE CRASH AND BURN, NOT THE US)
At the time, Rice insisted that the decision to support the Europeans did not mean the Americans would join the talks. (Lower-level U.S. officials on occasion have talked to Iranian counterparts about Afghanistan and Iraq.)
"We've made very clear that we have a lot of other problems with the Iranians," Rice said when she announced the decision in March 2005. "We've also made very clear that we don't intend to do anything to legitimize the Iranian regime. And so what we're looking at here is helping the Europeans in their diplomacy, not shifting policy toward Iran."
But the Iranians walked away from those talks, and the administration slowly found itself drawn into a different stance as the diplomacy unfolded. Rice needed to win over the Russians and Chinese -- and keep the Europeans in line -- so she quietly dropped the objections to the Iranian desire for nuclear power. Previously, the administration had insisted Iran had no need for nuclear power because of its vast oil and gas reserves. But to placate other nations, U.S. officials retreated from that insistence.
"The Iranian people believe they have a right to civil nuclear energy," Rice said yesterday. "We acknowledge that right." (HUH?)
Over the past two months Bush and Rice, along with Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, have considered the question of whether the time was right for the United States to sit at the talks. Once Bush received assurances earlier this week from leaders of China, Russia and other nations that if this offer were rejected they would accept a harder line against Iran, U.S. officials decided to go forward with the plan.
Rice said yesterday that she advocated this decision in part because of echoes of the concerns that she heard on her first trip -- that the United States was not serious about resolving this issue with diplomacy. (THE IS NOT SERIOUS OR IRAN IS NOT SERIOUS? PLEASE GIVE ME A ****ING BREAK)
Conservatives in the administration have chafed at the shifts, suggesting it shows weakness on the part of the United States because Iran apparently has been able to make significant progress in nuclear energy -- with little apparent consequence.
Rice made this new move just as it appeared the European effort was on the verge of collapsing through division and lack of leadership. The Germans, eager to strike a deal with Iran, have been the most adamant that the United States needed to join the talks.
"If this is what it takes to get Russia and China to join in sanctions, so be it," one administration skeptic said. "But I am most concerned that we will end up renegotiating with ourselves again."
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 1, 2006; A13
The Bush administration's decision to consider sitting down with the Iranian government underscores a central truth of diplomacy today: Nuclear weapons buy leverage.
For six years, President Bush and his aides have dismissed the idea of talking with Iran about its nuclear programs, and until last year gave little support to European efforts to restrain Iranian nuclear activity. Attempts by former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, a moderate, to foster a dialogue were rejected, and even back-channel moves failed to gain traction.
Now, in perhaps the biggest foreign policy shift of his presidency, Bush has approved the idea of sitting down at the table with the Iranian government -- one headed by a former student radical who denies the Holocaust. Attached to the U.S. offer was a stern condition: a verified suspension of Iran's nuclear enrichment operations. But the offer overturned a long-standing taboo, and it came from an administration stocked with officials who have made little secret of their desire to overthrow the government in Tehran.
The administration made this move at a moment of weakness. The president's public opinion ratings are among the lowest ever recorded for a modern president, and oil prices have reached record levels, in part because of the confrontation with Iran. The high price of oil, in turn, has enriched the Iranian treasury. (WHOSE WEAKNESS? WHO MADE THE FIRST OFFER?)
Iran recently announced it had learned how to achieve a key aspect of enriching uranium -- sooner than expected -- raising the stakes in the confrontation. Even so, the lingering fallout from the administration's decision to attack Iraq has made it increasingly difficult to win the support for sanctions on Iran from critical nations such as Russia and China. (YEAH, THIS IS ABOUT IRAQ. AND I ATE THE PLANET PLUTO LAST NIGHT)
A key factor in Bush's decision yesterday is the influence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced the offer in a televised news conference. Since becoming secretary of state last year, Rice has worked assiduously to make certain that the United States does not maneuver itself into becoming the world's enemy No. 1, as it did on the Iraq war.
When Rice made her first trip overseas as secretary last year, to Europe, she had expected to hear a lot of concern about Iraq. Instead, she later said, she was surprised to learn that the confrontation over Iran's nuclear program was a bigger concern -- and that the United States was considered the problem. (THAT'S WEIRD, IRAN SAYS THEY WANT TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP AND THE US IS THE PROBLEM. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH EUROPE?)
She very quickly won Bush's approval for a public shift in policy: active support of the European negotiating track. The support included withdrawing the U.S. objection to Iran's application to the World Trade Organization and allowing Iran the potential to purchase civilian aviation spare parts. (WHY WOULD WE DO ALL THIS? LET EUROPE CRASH AND BURN, NOT THE US)
At the time, Rice insisted that the decision to support the Europeans did not mean the Americans would join the talks. (Lower-level U.S. officials on occasion have talked to Iranian counterparts about Afghanistan and Iraq.)
"We've made very clear that we have a lot of other problems with the Iranians," Rice said when she announced the decision in March 2005. "We've also made very clear that we don't intend to do anything to legitimize the Iranian regime. And so what we're looking at here is helping the Europeans in their diplomacy, not shifting policy toward Iran."
But the Iranians walked away from those talks, and the administration slowly found itself drawn into a different stance as the diplomacy unfolded. Rice needed to win over the Russians and Chinese -- and keep the Europeans in line -- so she quietly dropped the objections to the Iranian desire for nuclear power. Previously, the administration had insisted Iran had no need for nuclear power because of its vast oil and gas reserves. But to placate other nations, U.S. officials retreated from that insistence.
"The Iranian people believe they have a right to civil nuclear energy," Rice said yesterday. "We acknowledge that right." (HUH?)
Over the past two months Bush and Rice, along with Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, have considered the question of whether the time was right for the United States to sit at the talks. Once Bush received assurances earlier this week from leaders of China, Russia and other nations that if this offer were rejected they would accept a harder line against Iran, U.S. officials decided to go forward with the plan.
Rice said yesterday that she advocated this decision in part because of echoes of the concerns that she heard on her first trip -- that the United States was not serious about resolving this issue with diplomacy. (THE IS NOT SERIOUS OR IRAN IS NOT SERIOUS? PLEASE GIVE ME A ****ING BREAK)
Conservatives in the administration have chafed at the shifts, suggesting it shows weakness on the part of the United States because Iran apparently has been able to make significant progress in nuclear energy -- with little apparent consequence.
Rice made this new move just as it appeared the European effort was on the verge of collapsing through division and lack of leadership. The Germans, eager to strike a deal with Iran, have been the most adamant that the United States needed to join the talks.
"If this is what it takes to get Russia and China to join in sanctions, so be it," one administration skeptic said. "But I am most concerned that we will end up renegotiating with ourselves again."
Science's Tiny, Big Unknown
Nanotechnology may revolutionize our lives. The first generation of engineered products has reached consumers, and with them come hard questions about safety.
By Charles Piller
Times Staff Writer
June 1, 2006
Magic Nano was billed as a miraculous solution for household drudgery, able to repel dirt and moisture from bathroom surfaces through the wonders of nanotechnology.
Instead, the spray-on ceramic sealant quickly has become an emblem of the growing global fears over incorporating artificial particles tens of thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair into such everyday products as golf balls, sunscreen and clothing.
Three days after Magic Nano went on sale in Europe in March, it was pulled from store shelves because at least 110 customers reported symptoms including racking coughs, chest pain and difficulty breathing.
"When I started to feel dizzy and nauseous, I got scared," said Carola Sennmann, a 37-year-old hairdresser in the German city of Goettingen, who felt flu-like symptoms within 30 minutes of spraying Magic Nano in her shower.
When she began to gasp for breath, she was rushed to the emergency room and suffered a sleepless, fevered night before the symptoms subsided. Doctors were baffled. Sennmann, though, had her own diagnosis: "I blame it on nanotechnology."
Last week, German regulators released tests that showed Magic Nano contained no nanoparticles. The product was designed to deposit an oil- and-water-repellent nano-thin film composed of silicon dioxide, but lab tests have yet to verify that property.
Experts still don't know what caused the illnesses in a case that highlights the murky definitions and poorly understood risks in one of the fastest-growing segments of science and technology. (WHAT IS THE STORY IF THERE WAS NO NANO INVOLVED?)
"So the speculation begins," said Andrew Maynard, chief scientist of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. "This is the great danger — you're going to have a response against nanotech as a whole."
Simply understanding what nanotechnology is can be daunting for most people. The scientists and engineers immersed in it face a greater challenge: calculating the immediate and long-term risks of tinkering with the chemical and biological building blocks of matter to construct particles so small they can pass freely through the walls of individual cells.
Nanotechnology involves the manufacture or manipulation of particles or structures that are 1 to 100 nanometers — billionths of a meter — in at least one dimension. A human hair is about 100,000 nanometers wide.
Such tiny particles can be made by breaking down larger blocks with ultra-fine grinders, controlled electrical explosions or lasers that blast apart raw materials. Chemical reactions can grow nanosized crystals, and metals can be vaporized to form nanomaterials when cooled.
Nanoparticles take on new chemical, electrical and physical properties that lead to "lighter, stronger, smarter, cheaper, cleaner and more precise" products, nanotechnology pioneer Ralph C. Merkle wrote in a seminal 1997 article.
Future Prospects
Some scientists believe that within a few decades nanotechnology will produce limitless, pollution-free energy and supercomputers the size of a grain of salt. It will transform deserts into lush gardens with cheaply desalinated sea water, they say, and neutralize noxious wastes by disassembling dangerous molecules into safe, reusable components. (MAYBE JUST A LITTLE HYPERBOLE)
"Nanotechnology has the potential to create revolutionary change across multiple, key areas of human endeavor," according to trade group NanoBusiness Alliance. "To maintain its global economic lead and to keep the U.S. homeland secure, we must win the nanotech race."
Today's uses are more mundane.
The minute specks already are in hundreds of products, such as spill-proof garments, cosmetics that claim to cure cellulite and health foods. Irving, Texas-based RBC Life Sciences Inc. sells a weight-loss chocolate drink that features "NanoClusters" that are 100,000 times smaller than a grain of sand, which it said "carry nutrition into your cells." Although smaller, the nanoparticles consist of the same substance as sand — silica.
Carbon nanotubes, far lighter than steel yet 50 times as strong, toughen tennis rackets and may one day be used to build aircraft.
Lux Research Inc. in New York projects a $2.6-trillion global market for nanotechnology-enabled products by 2014, or about 15% of that year's projected manufacturing output. In 2005, more than $9.6 billion was spent worldwide on nanotech R&D, about half of that by government and half by the industry.
Yet alterations in the chemistry of everyday life can have unpredictable consequences, experts said. New, engineered nanomaterials have variable sizes, shapes and coatings that affect their properties in so far poorly understood ways, said Nigel Walker, who heads the nanotech safety program of the National Institutes of Health.
Last year, the federal government spent more than $1 billion to jump-start nanotech R&D. A U.S. Senate hearing May 4 focused on how to encourage more investment in nanotechnology. But only 4% of the money spent on nanotechnology investigates toxicology or environmental safety.
Critics would prefer more safety research. The government does not regulate nanotechnology, meaning it can be included in food or cosmetics without federal oversight. That strikes some scientists as overly lax. (THE CRITICS GET TOO MUCH PRESS ATTENTION)
"We are at the beginning of this industrial revolution," said Dr. Andre Nel, an immunologist at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine. "The large majority of nanomaterials will not be toxic, but to get public confidence, it's important to practice the precautionary principle." (FAIR ENOUGH)
Atomic energy was at first regarded as a safe source of power "too cheap to meter." Chlorofluorocarbons were superior coolants until they opened a hole in the Earth's ozone layer. Pesticides, leaded gas and asbestos were long considered safe until they were revealed as killers. (THEY DID BY THEMSELVES - SURE)
Only once did an entire field pause to reflect on its potential for harm. In 1973, biologists decreed a yearlong moratorium on gene-splicing to design safer labs and rules for creating transgenic microorganisms.
Unlike those biologists, "a lot of today's physical scientists and engineers playing with nanotechnology have no concept of what the human and ecological dangers may be," said David Rejeski, director of the Woodrow Wilson center's nanotech project. (YEAH, RECKLESSNESS WOULD REALLY HELP THE INDUSTRY)
Research has shown that the smallest nanoparticles can pass through cell walls and damage DNA. In animals they have moved from the nostrils along the olfactory nerve and across the blood-brain barrier — the last line of defense against brain damage. (SO, NANOTECH CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE?)
Inhaled nanoparticles can cause lung tumors in rats. Some of the particles are virtually indestructible, much like asbestos fibers that cause lung disease, said Dr. John M. Balbus, who directs nanotech research for New York-based nonprofit watchdog Environmental Defense.
Over the next few years, nanostructures with moving parts will interact with the body and environment in complex ways. In a decade or less, scientists predict, microbots will build themselves atom by atom for benign purposes, such as pest control.
Worst-case scenarios often depict such creations going haywire, proliferating wildly and spreading like dust on the wind — reducing the environment to "gray goo." Many experts dismiss such notions as farfetched, but few rule them out. (AT LEAST THE SCARE TACTICS ARE CONTRAINED - OR NOT)
Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems Inc. and a top computer scientist, urged in 2000 that the world step back from nanotech until humanity had learned to control it.
He wrote in Wired magazine: "Gray goo would surely be a depressing ending to our human adventure on Earth, far worse than mere fire or ice, and one that could stem from a simple laboratory accident. Oops." (WHAT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING - I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE DANGER?)
Uses May Have Risks (DUH - FIRE HAS USES AND RISKS. SHOULD WE BAN THAT TOO?)
Today's nanotechnology seems remote from such grim fears, but its benefits are clear.
One widely available example is enhanced sunscreen. Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide have long been used to reflect damaging ultraviolet rays. The downside is unsightly white blotches on the noses of beachgoers.
Kristen Shurley, a chiropractic student in Dallas, swears by Sunforgettable, a powder loaded with titanium dioxide nanoparticles, marketed by Colorescience in Dana Point. It works transparently and also seemed to improve her severe acne.
Shurley, 26, wondered about brushing nanopowder on her face daily. "Do [particles] penetrate into the skin and absorb into the blood system and become toxic? I've done some research," she said. "It doesn't really seem to be the case."
Several lab tests and years of anecdotal evidence suggest that such products are safe and effective. (WAIT, I THOUGHT THERE WAS NO TESTING AT ALL)
Yet sunscreen — one of the most intensively studied nanoproducts — also shows the gaps in today's knowledge. Other lab tests showed nanoscale metal oxides to spark changes within skin cells that could lead to cancer. Scientists are unsure whether particles penetrate diseased or broken skin, such as Shurley's acne lesions, or whether they enter the body through mucous membranes of the eyes or nose, said Maynard of the Woodrow Wilson center.
Colorescience said it used only particles 50 nanometers or larger to help ensure that they rest on top of skin cells rather than penetrate them. Yet at 50 nanometers they can move into the lymphatic system, which circulates fluids that fight infections.
Particles of 70 nanometers can be inhaled into the deepest recesses of the lungs, where titanium dioxide has proved to be toxic in numerous studies. Inhalation would be a particular concern for aerosols, such as foot sprays and moisturizing facial mists now on the market that use nanotechnology.
The larger issue may be long-term, rather than acute illnesses such as those suspected from Magic Nano.
"It's unknown whether liberated nanotubes could make it to groundwater after being crushed and disposed at a landfill," Lux Research analyst Matthew M. Nordan wrote in a recent report.
Several methods to detect or size nanoparticles yield widely divergent results, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Such ambiguities reflect how nanotech defies conventional monitoring that tends to be based on the amount of a substance in the body or environment.
A few large chemical firms, such as DuPont Co. and Germany's BASF, have approached self-policing vigorously. British company Oxonica made safety a selling point when it coated sunscreen nanoparticles with manganese to reduce their potential to harm skin cells.
The NanoBusiness Alliance supports more government-funded safety studies, partly because few start-ups can afford multimillion-dollar tests.
"As people get ready to bring products to market, manufacturers will do testing to make sure those products are safe," said Sean Murdoch, the alliance's director. "No one wants unsafe products." Companies in the industry have completed many safety tests but withhold results to protect trade secrets, he added.
Colorescience said its supplier guaranteed the safety of titanium dioxide in Sunforgettable but declined to identify the supplier. Nano-Tex, the leading maker of technology to protect garments, publicly disclosed only a summary stating that its products had passed extensive health and environmental tests.
UCLA's Nel is developing a high-speed test system to predict nanomaterial toxicity. He hopes it will help deter a repeat of the transgenic food debacle of the last decade, in which hidden miscalculations and accidents moved unlabeled, altered fish and crops into the marketplace, prompting consumer boycotts.
"Out of transparency comes trust," he said. "Out of trust comes acceptance."
*
Piller reported from San Francisco. Times researcher Christian Retzlaff contributed to this report from Berlin.
Nanotechnology may revolutionize our lives. The first generation of engineered products has reached consumers, and with them come hard questions about safety.
By Charles Piller
Times Staff Writer
June 1, 2006
Magic Nano was billed as a miraculous solution for household drudgery, able to repel dirt and moisture from bathroom surfaces through the wonders of nanotechnology.
Instead, the spray-on ceramic sealant quickly has become an emblem of the growing global fears over incorporating artificial particles tens of thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair into such everyday products as golf balls, sunscreen and clothing.
Three days after Magic Nano went on sale in Europe in March, it was pulled from store shelves because at least 110 customers reported symptoms including racking coughs, chest pain and difficulty breathing.
"When I started to feel dizzy and nauseous, I got scared," said Carola Sennmann, a 37-year-old hairdresser in the German city of Goettingen, who felt flu-like symptoms within 30 minutes of spraying Magic Nano in her shower.
When she began to gasp for breath, she was rushed to the emergency room and suffered a sleepless, fevered night before the symptoms subsided. Doctors were baffled. Sennmann, though, had her own diagnosis: "I blame it on nanotechnology."
Last week, German regulators released tests that showed Magic Nano contained no nanoparticles. The product was designed to deposit an oil- and-water-repellent nano-thin film composed of silicon dioxide, but lab tests have yet to verify that property.
Experts still don't know what caused the illnesses in a case that highlights the murky definitions and poorly understood risks in one of the fastest-growing segments of science and technology. (WHAT IS THE STORY IF THERE WAS NO NANO INVOLVED?)
"So the speculation begins," said Andrew Maynard, chief scientist of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. "This is the great danger — you're going to have a response against nanotech as a whole."
Simply understanding what nanotechnology is can be daunting for most people. The scientists and engineers immersed in it face a greater challenge: calculating the immediate and long-term risks of tinkering with the chemical and biological building blocks of matter to construct particles so small they can pass freely through the walls of individual cells.
Nanotechnology involves the manufacture or manipulation of particles or structures that are 1 to 100 nanometers — billionths of a meter — in at least one dimension. A human hair is about 100,000 nanometers wide.
Such tiny particles can be made by breaking down larger blocks with ultra-fine grinders, controlled electrical explosions or lasers that blast apart raw materials. Chemical reactions can grow nanosized crystals, and metals can be vaporized to form nanomaterials when cooled.
Nanoparticles take on new chemical, electrical and physical properties that lead to "lighter, stronger, smarter, cheaper, cleaner and more precise" products, nanotechnology pioneer Ralph C. Merkle wrote in a seminal 1997 article.
Future Prospects
Some scientists believe that within a few decades nanotechnology will produce limitless, pollution-free energy and supercomputers the size of a grain of salt. It will transform deserts into lush gardens with cheaply desalinated sea water, they say, and neutralize noxious wastes by disassembling dangerous molecules into safe, reusable components. (MAYBE JUST A LITTLE HYPERBOLE)
"Nanotechnology has the potential to create revolutionary change across multiple, key areas of human endeavor," according to trade group NanoBusiness Alliance. "To maintain its global economic lead and to keep the U.S. homeland secure, we must win the nanotech race."
Today's uses are more mundane.
The minute specks already are in hundreds of products, such as spill-proof garments, cosmetics that claim to cure cellulite and health foods. Irving, Texas-based RBC Life Sciences Inc. sells a weight-loss chocolate drink that features "NanoClusters" that are 100,000 times smaller than a grain of sand, which it said "carry nutrition into your cells." Although smaller, the nanoparticles consist of the same substance as sand — silica.
Carbon nanotubes, far lighter than steel yet 50 times as strong, toughen tennis rackets and may one day be used to build aircraft.
Lux Research Inc. in New York projects a $2.6-trillion global market for nanotechnology-enabled products by 2014, or about 15% of that year's projected manufacturing output. In 2005, more than $9.6 billion was spent worldwide on nanotech R&D, about half of that by government and half by the industry.
Yet alterations in the chemistry of everyday life can have unpredictable consequences, experts said. New, engineered nanomaterials have variable sizes, shapes and coatings that affect their properties in so far poorly understood ways, said Nigel Walker, who heads the nanotech safety program of the National Institutes of Health.
Last year, the federal government spent more than $1 billion to jump-start nanotech R&D. A U.S. Senate hearing May 4 focused on how to encourage more investment in nanotechnology. But only 4% of the money spent on nanotechnology investigates toxicology or environmental safety.
Critics would prefer more safety research. The government does not regulate nanotechnology, meaning it can be included in food or cosmetics without federal oversight. That strikes some scientists as overly lax. (THE CRITICS GET TOO MUCH PRESS ATTENTION)
"We are at the beginning of this industrial revolution," said Dr. Andre Nel, an immunologist at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine. "The large majority of nanomaterials will not be toxic, but to get public confidence, it's important to practice the precautionary principle." (FAIR ENOUGH)
Atomic energy was at first regarded as a safe source of power "too cheap to meter." Chlorofluorocarbons were superior coolants until they opened a hole in the Earth's ozone layer. Pesticides, leaded gas and asbestos were long considered safe until they were revealed as killers. (THEY DID BY THEMSELVES - SURE)
Only once did an entire field pause to reflect on its potential for harm. In 1973, biologists decreed a yearlong moratorium on gene-splicing to design safer labs and rules for creating transgenic microorganisms.
Unlike those biologists, "a lot of today's physical scientists and engineers playing with nanotechnology have no concept of what the human and ecological dangers may be," said David Rejeski, director of the Woodrow Wilson center's nanotech project. (YEAH, RECKLESSNESS WOULD REALLY HELP THE INDUSTRY)
Research has shown that the smallest nanoparticles can pass through cell walls and damage DNA. In animals they have moved from the nostrils along the olfactory nerve and across the blood-brain barrier — the last line of defense against brain damage. (SO, NANOTECH CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE?)
Inhaled nanoparticles can cause lung tumors in rats. Some of the particles are virtually indestructible, much like asbestos fibers that cause lung disease, said Dr. John M. Balbus, who directs nanotech research for New York-based nonprofit watchdog Environmental Defense.
Over the next few years, nanostructures with moving parts will interact with the body and environment in complex ways. In a decade or less, scientists predict, microbots will build themselves atom by atom for benign purposes, such as pest control.
Worst-case scenarios often depict such creations going haywire, proliferating wildly and spreading like dust on the wind — reducing the environment to "gray goo." Many experts dismiss such notions as farfetched, but few rule them out. (AT LEAST THE SCARE TACTICS ARE CONTRAINED - OR NOT)
Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems Inc. and a top computer scientist, urged in 2000 that the world step back from nanotech until humanity had learned to control it.
He wrote in Wired magazine: "Gray goo would surely be a depressing ending to our human adventure on Earth, far worse than mere fire or ice, and one that could stem from a simple laboratory accident. Oops." (WHAT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING - I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE DANGER?)
Uses May Have Risks (DUH - FIRE HAS USES AND RISKS. SHOULD WE BAN THAT TOO?)
Today's nanotechnology seems remote from such grim fears, but its benefits are clear.
One widely available example is enhanced sunscreen. Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide have long been used to reflect damaging ultraviolet rays. The downside is unsightly white blotches on the noses of beachgoers.
Kristen Shurley, a chiropractic student in Dallas, swears by Sunforgettable, a powder loaded with titanium dioxide nanoparticles, marketed by Colorescience in Dana Point. It works transparently and also seemed to improve her severe acne.
Shurley, 26, wondered about brushing nanopowder on her face daily. "Do [particles] penetrate into the skin and absorb into the blood system and become toxic? I've done some research," she said. "It doesn't really seem to be the case."
Several lab tests and years of anecdotal evidence suggest that such products are safe and effective. (WAIT, I THOUGHT THERE WAS NO TESTING AT ALL)
Yet sunscreen — one of the most intensively studied nanoproducts — also shows the gaps in today's knowledge. Other lab tests showed nanoscale metal oxides to spark changes within skin cells that could lead to cancer. Scientists are unsure whether particles penetrate diseased or broken skin, such as Shurley's acne lesions, or whether they enter the body through mucous membranes of the eyes or nose, said Maynard of the Woodrow Wilson center.
Colorescience said it used only particles 50 nanometers or larger to help ensure that they rest on top of skin cells rather than penetrate them. Yet at 50 nanometers they can move into the lymphatic system, which circulates fluids that fight infections.
Particles of 70 nanometers can be inhaled into the deepest recesses of the lungs, where titanium dioxide has proved to be toxic in numerous studies. Inhalation would be a particular concern for aerosols, such as foot sprays and moisturizing facial mists now on the market that use nanotechnology.
The larger issue may be long-term, rather than acute illnesses such as those suspected from Magic Nano.
"It's unknown whether liberated nanotubes could make it to groundwater after being crushed and disposed at a landfill," Lux Research analyst Matthew M. Nordan wrote in a recent report.
Several methods to detect or size nanoparticles yield widely divergent results, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Such ambiguities reflect how nanotech defies conventional monitoring that tends to be based on the amount of a substance in the body or environment.
A few large chemical firms, such as DuPont Co. and Germany's BASF, have approached self-policing vigorously. British company Oxonica made safety a selling point when it coated sunscreen nanoparticles with manganese to reduce their potential to harm skin cells.
The NanoBusiness Alliance supports more government-funded safety studies, partly because few start-ups can afford multimillion-dollar tests.
"As people get ready to bring products to market, manufacturers will do testing to make sure those products are safe," said Sean Murdoch, the alliance's director. "No one wants unsafe products." Companies in the industry have completed many safety tests but withhold results to protect trade secrets, he added.
Colorescience said its supplier guaranteed the safety of titanium dioxide in Sunforgettable but declined to identify the supplier. Nano-Tex, the leading maker of technology to protect garments, publicly disclosed only a summary stating that its products had passed extensive health and environmental tests.
UCLA's Nel is developing a high-speed test system to predict nanomaterial toxicity. He hopes it will help deter a repeat of the transgenic food debacle of the last decade, in which hidden miscalculations and accidents moved unlabeled, altered fish and crops into the marketplace, prompting consumer boycotts.
"Out of transparency comes trust," he said. "Out of trust comes acceptance."
*
Piller reported from San Francisco. Times researcher Christian Retzlaff contributed to this report from Berlin.
Chavez in Russian arms factory deal
By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
(Filed: 01/06/2006)
Weeks after a US ban on weapon sales to Venezuela, Russia has agreed to build arms factories for President Hugo Chavez's Leftist government - a move likely to further sour relations between the White House and the Kremlin.
Though sharp differences have emerged over a wide range of foreign policy issues, the United States is likely to be particularly incensed because it regards the South American nation as being in its sphere of influence.
President Chavez - famed for his colourful attacks on George W Bush - revelled in America's discomfort. "The Russians are going to install a Kalashnikov rifle plant and a munitions factory so we can defend every street, every hill, every corner," he said.
"The United States is failing in its attempts to blockade us, to disarm us."
Washington announced the ban earlier this month ostensibly because of concern over the president's ties with Iran and Cuba and his alleged inaction against guerrillas in neighbouring Colombia.
Mr Chavez, who visited Britain earlier this month, has whipped up public opinion with repeated declarations that the United States is planning to invade.
The Russian state's official arms exporter, Rosoboron-export confirmed that talks were taking place with the Venezuelan government, but would not give details about the factories' production capacity or when they would be built.
Last year Russia was criticised by the White House when it signed a contract to supply Venezuela with 100,000 Kalashnikovs. The first shipment is due to arrive later this month.
Mr Chavez, who has accused the United States of being behind an attempted coup four years ago, also wants to buy Russian fighter jets and helicopters as part of an ambitious military modernization programme funded by Venezuela's vast oil profits.
Close allies in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Vladimir Putin and President Bush have fallen out over Russia's retreat from democratic principles and US support for the revolutions that toppled pro-Moscow regimes in Ukraine and Georgia.
By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
(Filed: 01/06/2006)
Weeks after a US ban on weapon sales to Venezuela, Russia has agreed to build arms factories for President Hugo Chavez's Leftist government - a move likely to further sour relations between the White House and the Kremlin.
Though sharp differences have emerged over a wide range of foreign policy issues, the United States is likely to be particularly incensed because it regards the South American nation as being in its sphere of influence.
President Chavez - famed for his colourful attacks on George W Bush - revelled in America's discomfort. "The Russians are going to install a Kalashnikov rifle plant and a munitions factory so we can defend every street, every hill, every corner," he said.
"The United States is failing in its attempts to blockade us, to disarm us."
Washington announced the ban earlier this month ostensibly because of concern over the president's ties with Iran and Cuba and his alleged inaction against guerrillas in neighbouring Colombia.
Mr Chavez, who visited Britain earlier this month, has whipped up public opinion with repeated declarations that the United States is planning to invade.
The Russian state's official arms exporter, Rosoboron-export confirmed that talks were taking place with the Venezuelan government, but would not give details about the factories' production capacity or when they would be built.
Last year Russia was criticised by the White House when it signed a contract to supply Venezuela with 100,000 Kalashnikovs. The first shipment is due to arrive later this month.
Mr Chavez, who has accused the United States of being behind an attempted coup four years ago, also wants to buy Russian fighter jets and helicopters as part of an ambitious military modernization programme funded by Venezuela's vast oil profits.
Close allies in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Vladimir Putin and President Bush have fallen out over Russia's retreat from democratic principles and US support for the revolutions that toppled pro-Moscow regimes in Ukraine and Georgia.
Fears of a lasting slump in risky assets mount
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 01/06/2006)
The equity and bond rout sweeping emerging markets is showing no sign of abating, prompting fears of a lasting downturn in risky assets.
In Turkey, the currency has crashed 21pc since early May as foreign investors rush for the exits. The Istanbul bourse was pummelled again yesterday, while the yield on two-year bonds jumped to 17.15pc.
"It's very hard to get out when liquidity dries up like this," said Ahmet Akarli, a Turkey expert at Goldman Sachs. "The funds can't reduce their exposure fast enough so they are hedging by betting against the lira," he said. Some 70pc of all equities on the Istanbul bourse are held by foreigners.
"Investors didn't pay any attention to Turkey's current account deficit (7pc of GDP) as long as liquidity was abundant. They're paying attention now," he said.
In India, the authorities said foreign funds had liquidated $2.5bn (£1.3bn) of positions during the past eight trading days alone. The Sensex stock market index tumbled a further 3.6pc yesterday and is now down 18pc from its peak in early May.
While India's economy grew at a blistering 9.3pc in the first quarter, fiscal deficits of 9pc of GDP (federal and state) have raised fears of an inflationary boom-bust. Kamal Nath, the trade minister, insisted the sell-off was just a bull-market breather. "There is nothing to be alarmed about. India is a very resilient economy now," he said.
Worldwide, the MSCI emerging market index is down 13pc since the sell-off began.
Kingsmill Bond, an economist at Deutsche Bank, said it was too early to plunge back into riskier markets. "There's more selling to come, we're not out of the woods yet," he said.
"The global growth cycle has peaked, and the draining of liquidity is a threat to the carry trade that has funded these markets. It is going to take more than a few weeks to unwind investments that have been building up for years."
The global exodus last week reached $5bn, according to data collected by Emerging Portfolio Fund Research in Boston.
"The sell-off is being driven by fears of inflation and higher interest rates in the US, Japan, and Europe," said Brad Durham, the group's managing director.
Deutsche Bank said countries with big current account deficits were in the most vulnerable to further hair cuts, citing Turkey, Hungary, and South Africa.
But Russia could soon be offering bargains after falling 12pc in the global avalanche. Flush with a petro-dollar surplus of 10pc of GDP, it boasts the world's fourth biggest foreign reserves.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 01/06/2006)
The equity and bond rout sweeping emerging markets is showing no sign of abating, prompting fears of a lasting downturn in risky assets.
In Turkey, the currency has crashed 21pc since early May as foreign investors rush for the exits. The Istanbul bourse was pummelled again yesterday, while the yield on two-year bonds jumped to 17.15pc.
"It's very hard to get out when liquidity dries up like this," said Ahmet Akarli, a Turkey expert at Goldman Sachs. "The funds can't reduce their exposure fast enough so they are hedging by betting against the lira," he said. Some 70pc of all equities on the Istanbul bourse are held by foreigners.
"Investors didn't pay any attention to Turkey's current account deficit (7pc of GDP) as long as liquidity was abundant. They're paying attention now," he said.
In India, the authorities said foreign funds had liquidated $2.5bn (£1.3bn) of positions during the past eight trading days alone. The Sensex stock market index tumbled a further 3.6pc yesterday and is now down 18pc from its peak in early May.
While India's economy grew at a blistering 9.3pc in the first quarter, fiscal deficits of 9pc of GDP (federal and state) have raised fears of an inflationary boom-bust. Kamal Nath, the trade minister, insisted the sell-off was just a bull-market breather. "There is nothing to be alarmed about. India is a very resilient economy now," he said.
Worldwide, the MSCI emerging market index is down 13pc since the sell-off began.
Kingsmill Bond, an economist at Deutsche Bank, said it was too early to plunge back into riskier markets. "There's more selling to come, we're not out of the woods yet," he said.
"The global growth cycle has peaked, and the draining of liquidity is a threat to the carry trade that has funded these markets. It is going to take more than a few weeks to unwind investments that have been building up for years."
The global exodus last week reached $5bn, according to data collected by Emerging Portfolio Fund Research in Boston.
"The sell-off is being driven by fears of inflation and higher interest rates in the US, Japan, and Europe," said Brad Durham, the group's managing director.
Deutsche Bank said countries with big current account deficits were in the most vulnerable to further hair cuts, citing Turkey, Hungary, and South Africa.
But Russia could soon be offering bargains after falling 12pc in the global avalanche. Flush with a petro-dollar surplus of 10pc of GDP, it boasts the world's fourth biggest foreign reserves.
Jaw-Jaw Before War-War?
By ROBERT D. BLACKWILL
June 1, 2006; Page A14
The Bush administration's announcement that it will join the EU-3 negotiations with Iran -- if Tehran suspends, verifiably, its enrichment and reprocessing activities -- will be seen as good news by many. With this new initiative, the American-led attempt to stop diplomatically Iran's nuclear weapons program will likely last for at least several more months. Perhaps Iran will eventually accede, either because of the threat or imposition of sanctions against it, or in the face of the united will of the international community.
We may hope the outcome is peaceful. But how probable is it? Vegas might give 3-1 odds against -- or longer. The Europeans have tried for two years to find a compromise with Tehran, without progress. Despite nearly unanimous condemnation by the international community, the regime appears determined to acquire nuclear weapons capability, and to replace the U.S. as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf area.
The essential problem here is not administration policy, the shape of the table, or who is sitting around it. Iran's nuclear policies are causing this crisis and Tehran has been left in no doubt about how to end it -- stop trying to create a nuclear arsenal. Nevertheless, if negotiations with Tehran fail, the case against using U.S. military force to set back Iran's nuclear weapons program is impressive.
Iran would retaliate strongly in Iraq, in Afghanistan and perhaps against the U.S. homeland. The effect in the Muslim world could be volcanic. Terror against America would increase. Islam could be further radicalized. Oil prices would skyrocket with damaging effects on the international economy, even if Iran did not interrupt its supply. The people of Iran would probably fall in behind the mullahs.
Global public opinion would further shift against the U.S. The Bush administration's resulting prolonged fixation on Iran could facilitate the rise of Chinese power and give North Korea more room to maneuver. Moreover, how accurate would U.S. intelligence and targeting information be? For what period would an air campaign have to last to be effective? If Iran subsequently began rebuilding its nuclear infrastructure, how long would it be before the U.S. might have to attack again?
For many, these arguments rule out military force. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has argued that, "if undertaken without the sanction of the U.N. Security Council either alone by the U.S. or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s)." Since it is difficult to imagine any circumstance in which the Security Council would endorse U.S. military action against Iran, this would seem to take the military option off the table for the likes of Mr. Brzezinski.
If diplomacy does not succeed, he suggests a policy of deterrence, which, he explains, "has worked in U.S.-Soviet relations, in U.S.-Chinese relations, and in Indo-Pak relations." But deterrence in the situations he mentions was focused on avoiding nuclear use. It did not prevent Pakistan from conducting more than a decade of cross-border terrorism in the course of which 40,000 innocent Indians were murdered. Would nuclear deterrence weaken Iran's ambition to become the hegemonic state in the Persian Gulf region? Would it end Iran's state support for international terrorist organizations? Would it lessen this Iranian regime's oft-repeated objective to eradicate Israel?
In fact, it would likely be the U.S. that would be deterred once Tehran acquired nuclear weapons capability and threatened U.S. national interests. Many argued a decade ago against military action against North Korea's nuclear facilities. Negotiate, they insisted. The PDRK presently produces probably several nuclear weapons a year. Who's sorry now? Henry Kissinger reminds us that bureaucrats and experts instinctively favor delay, equivocation, negotiation and the status quo, "because short of an unambiguous catastrophe the status quo has the advantage of familiarity and it is never possible to prove that another course would yield superior results."
The use of American military force against Iran's nuclear infrastructure would obviously carry great risk. But acquiescing in an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would be deeply dangerous for the U.S. and likeminded democracies for decades to come. It would be regarded by the entire world, friend and foe alike, as a strategic defeat for the U.S., and produce a major shift toward Iran in the balance of power in the Greater Middle East.
Iran would be emboldened to further endanger American vital national interests world-wide. Terrorist organizations everywhere would be given a major lift, some through direct support from Tehran. Israel's very existence would be called into question. And the nonproliferation regime could be dramatically, perhaps fatally, undermined. If Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Muslim states followed the Iranian nuclear example, for how long could a nuclear war in be avoided in this violent part of the world? John McCain sums it up: "In the end, there is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
Given the extraordinary stakes involved, ignoring the military option and hoping that we will somehow be rescued by sanctions, new negotiating mechanisms, or the Iranian mullahs is a serious mistake. We should instead follow Nehru's advice: "Risks and deadlocks when they occur at least have this advantage, that they force us to think." The distinguished French strategist Thérèse Delpech has been doing precisely that and warns, "The Iranian nuclear programme is progressing more rapidly than anticipated . . . and Tehran shows it has learned from Pyongyang that brinksmanship brings rewards." We may not have years to debate these historic policy choices. We should do so now before the gathering storm with Iran arrives with full force.
Mr. Blackwill, president of Barbour Griffith & Rogers International (a Republican lobbying and consulting firm), was U.S. ambassador to India from 2001-2003, deputy national security adviser for strategic planning and presidential envoy to Iraq in 2003-2004.
By ROBERT D. BLACKWILL
June 1, 2006; Page A14
The Bush administration's announcement that it will join the EU-3 negotiations with Iran -- if Tehran suspends, verifiably, its enrichment and reprocessing activities -- will be seen as good news by many. With this new initiative, the American-led attempt to stop diplomatically Iran's nuclear weapons program will likely last for at least several more months. Perhaps Iran will eventually accede, either because of the threat or imposition of sanctions against it, or in the face of the united will of the international community.
We may hope the outcome is peaceful. But how probable is it? Vegas might give 3-1 odds against -- or longer. The Europeans have tried for two years to find a compromise with Tehran, without progress. Despite nearly unanimous condemnation by the international community, the regime appears determined to acquire nuclear weapons capability, and to replace the U.S. as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf area.
The essential problem here is not administration policy, the shape of the table, or who is sitting around it. Iran's nuclear policies are causing this crisis and Tehran has been left in no doubt about how to end it -- stop trying to create a nuclear arsenal. Nevertheless, if negotiations with Tehran fail, the case against using U.S. military force to set back Iran's nuclear weapons program is impressive.
Iran would retaliate strongly in Iraq, in Afghanistan and perhaps against the U.S. homeland. The effect in the Muslim world could be volcanic. Terror against America would increase. Islam could be further radicalized. Oil prices would skyrocket with damaging effects on the international economy, even if Iran did not interrupt its supply. The people of Iran would probably fall in behind the mullahs.
Global public opinion would further shift against the U.S. The Bush administration's resulting prolonged fixation on Iran could facilitate the rise of Chinese power and give North Korea more room to maneuver. Moreover, how accurate would U.S. intelligence and targeting information be? For what period would an air campaign have to last to be effective? If Iran subsequently began rebuilding its nuclear infrastructure, how long would it be before the U.S. might have to attack again?
For many, these arguments rule out military force. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has argued that, "if undertaken without the sanction of the U.N. Security Council either alone by the U.S. or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s)." Since it is difficult to imagine any circumstance in which the Security Council would endorse U.S. military action against Iran, this would seem to take the military option off the table for the likes of Mr. Brzezinski.
If diplomacy does not succeed, he suggests a policy of deterrence, which, he explains, "has worked in U.S.-Soviet relations, in U.S.-Chinese relations, and in Indo-Pak relations." But deterrence in the situations he mentions was focused on avoiding nuclear use. It did not prevent Pakistan from conducting more than a decade of cross-border terrorism in the course of which 40,000 innocent Indians were murdered. Would nuclear deterrence weaken Iran's ambition to become the hegemonic state in the Persian Gulf region? Would it end Iran's state support for international terrorist organizations? Would it lessen this Iranian regime's oft-repeated objective to eradicate Israel?
In fact, it would likely be the U.S. that would be deterred once Tehran acquired nuclear weapons capability and threatened U.S. national interests. Many argued a decade ago against military action against North Korea's nuclear facilities. Negotiate, they insisted. The PDRK presently produces probably several nuclear weapons a year. Who's sorry now? Henry Kissinger reminds us that bureaucrats and experts instinctively favor delay, equivocation, negotiation and the status quo, "because short of an unambiguous catastrophe the status quo has the advantage of familiarity and it is never possible to prove that another course would yield superior results."
The use of American military force against Iran's nuclear infrastructure would obviously carry great risk. But acquiescing in an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would be deeply dangerous for the U.S. and likeminded democracies for decades to come. It would be regarded by the entire world, friend and foe alike, as a strategic defeat for the U.S., and produce a major shift toward Iran in the balance of power in the Greater Middle East.
Iran would be emboldened to further endanger American vital national interests world-wide. Terrorist organizations everywhere would be given a major lift, some through direct support from Tehran. Israel's very existence would be called into question. And the nonproliferation regime could be dramatically, perhaps fatally, undermined. If Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Muslim states followed the Iranian nuclear example, for how long could a nuclear war in be avoided in this violent part of the world? John McCain sums it up: "In the end, there is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
Given the extraordinary stakes involved, ignoring the military option and hoping that we will somehow be rescued by sanctions, new negotiating mechanisms, or the Iranian mullahs is a serious mistake. We should instead follow Nehru's advice: "Risks and deadlocks when they occur at least have this advantage, that they force us to think." The distinguished French strategist Thérèse Delpech has been doing precisely that and warns, "The Iranian nuclear programme is progressing more rapidly than anticipated . . . and Tehran shows it has learned from Pyongyang that brinksmanship brings rewards." We may not have years to debate these historic policy choices. We should do so now before the gathering storm with Iran arrives with full force.
Mr. Blackwill, president of Barbour Griffith & Rogers International (a Republican lobbying and consulting firm), was U.S. ambassador to India from 2001-2003, deputy national security adviser for strategic planning and presidential envoy to Iraq in 2003-2004.
Chaos Engulfs East Timor's Capital (ANOTHER UN SUCCESS STORY)
By Anthony Deutsch
Associated Press
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A11
DILI, East Timor, May 30 -- East Timor's president assumed emergency national security powers Tuesday after machete-wielding mobs torched homes and ransacked buildings in the capital and desperate residents scuffled over scarce food.
Youths fired slingshots in running street battles as Australian troops tried without apparent success to quell the violence by halting and disarming gangs hiding their faces with T-shirts.
What started as sporadic clashes between former soldiers and government troops has spiraled into open gang warfare. Violence has engulfed the capital, with at least 27 people killed and 100 wounded in the past week.
Aid workers expressed frustration at the insecurity despite the presence of more than 1,300 foreign troops from Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia. (WHO IS DESTABLIZING THE COUNTRY?)
President Xanana Gusmao said he was assuming "sole responsibility" for the country's national security to "prevent violence and avoid further fatalities."
The announcement came after cabinet officials said the defense and interior ministers had been fired.
With his government essentially not functioning and the armed forces in disarray, it was not clear whether Gusmao's statement would have any impact.
The government said it was authorizing foreign troops to detain suspects for 72 hours, rather than just disarm them.
Mobs armed with machetes burned houses and ransacked government offices, including the attorney general's, where they broke into the Serious Crimes Unit. Files on the defendants in the 1999 massacres that followed East Timor's vote for independence were stolen, Attorney General Longuinhos Monteiro said.
Justice Minister Domingos Sarmento said a contingent of 120 paramilitary police officers from Portugal, the former colonial ruler here, would help bolster the foreign force. The contingent is expected in the country by week's end, earlier than anticipated.
At a warehouse being used as a food distribution center, Australian troops struggled to maintain order as thousands of residents fought to get bags of rice.
The unrest was triggered by the firing in March of 600 soldiers from the 1,400-member army. The fired troops rioted last month before setting up positions in the hills surrounding the seaside capital.
By Anthony Deutsch
Associated Press
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A11
DILI, East Timor, May 30 -- East Timor's president assumed emergency national security powers Tuesday after machete-wielding mobs torched homes and ransacked buildings in the capital and desperate residents scuffled over scarce food.
Youths fired slingshots in running street battles as Australian troops tried without apparent success to quell the violence by halting and disarming gangs hiding their faces with T-shirts.
What started as sporadic clashes between former soldiers and government troops has spiraled into open gang warfare. Violence has engulfed the capital, with at least 27 people killed and 100 wounded in the past week.
Aid workers expressed frustration at the insecurity despite the presence of more than 1,300 foreign troops from Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia. (WHO IS DESTABLIZING THE COUNTRY?)
President Xanana Gusmao said he was assuming "sole responsibility" for the country's national security to "prevent violence and avoid further fatalities."
The announcement came after cabinet officials said the defense and interior ministers had been fired.
With his government essentially not functioning and the armed forces in disarray, it was not clear whether Gusmao's statement would have any impact.
The government said it was authorizing foreign troops to detain suspects for 72 hours, rather than just disarm them.
Mobs armed with machetes burned houses and ransacked government offices, including the attorney general's, where they broke into the Serious Crimes Unit. Files on the defendants in the 1999 massacres that followed East Timor's vote for independence were stolen, Attorney General Longuinhos Monteiro said.
Justice Minister Domingos Sarmento said a contingent of 120 paramilitary police officers from Portugal, the former colonial ruler here, would help bolster the foreign force. The contingent is expected in the country by week's end, earlier than anticipated.
At a warehouse being used as a food distribution center, Australian troops struggled to maintain order as thousands of residents fought to get bags of rice.
The unrest was triggered by the firing in March of 600 soldiers from the 1,400-member army. The fired troops rioted last month before setting up positions in the hills surrounding the seaside capital.
Bush's Nominee From Wall Street
Goldman Sachs Chairman Paulson Is Noted for His Adept Handling of Crises
By Brooke A. Masters
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; D01
NEW YORK, May 30 -- Treasury Secretary nominee Henry M. Paulson Jr. is often described as the kind of guy who thrives in a crisis.
In 2003, Paulson was chairman of the Nature Conservancy when the Arlington charity came under withering scrutiny for a variety of practices, including drilling for oil and selling undeveloped land to its trustees at reduced prices. Paulson immediately took charge, moving to rectify problems that had occurred during his tenure.
He brought in a crisis-management team from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., where he worked as chairman and chief executive, and put together a committee stacked with high-profile outsiders to study the charity and recommend changes. Then he sold the package to both the charity's supporters and its critics in Congress.
"He just went out and grabbed the problem and really worked it hard to get a good result," said Ira M. Millstein, a New York lawyer who headed the outside committee. "He was an outstanding leader of his board and an excellent crisis manager."
A few months later, Paulson again had to deal with crisis that developed on his watch. This time, after the New York Stock Exchange drew fire for awarding then-chairman Dick Grasso a $139.5 million retirement package, Paulson led a board revolt that forced out Grasso and led to both the separation of the exchange's regulatory and trading functions and the eventual decision to convert the not-for-profit exchange into a public company.
Over the years, Paulson has not shied away from controversy, but he has also been criticized for not paying enough attention until a crisis occurs. He owes his position as the sole head of Goldman to a 1999 coup in which he and several allies forced out Jon S. Corzine -- now the governor of New Jersey and a former U.S. senator -- and Paulson steered Goldman through the stock-analyst scandal relatively unscathed. Although the firm ended up paying $110 million to settle allegations that its research reports were too closely tied to investment banking, it paid less than its top competitors and, unlike several of them, was not accused of publishing fraudulent research.
"He's had to handle a lot of very difficult situations, and he has handled them well," said Robert E. Rubin, who served as Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and as Paulson's former boss at Goldman Sachs. "He's smart, he's bright, he's thoughtful, and he's intense. He's a very good choice."
Though Paulson reportedly rebuffed several earlier efforts to recruit him to replace outgoing Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, the Goldman Sachs chief is following a well-trod path. Goldman Sachs has a well-established history of sending top executives to Washington. In addition to Rubin and Corzine, Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten is a Goldman alumnus, as are Stephen Friedman, who led the National Economic Council until recently, and Kenneth D. Brody, who headed the Export-Import Bank under Clinton.
Balding and lanky, Paulson spent part of his early career in Washington, working first in the Pentagon and then as a staff assistant in the White House under President Richard M. Nixon. He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974 but spent most of his career in the Wall Street firm's Chicago office, only moving to New York after being named chief operating officer in 1994.
Since then, Paulson and his wife, Wendy, have largely shunned the New York social circuit. Though he is worth hundreds of millions of dollars -- last year alone he pulled down $38.8 million -- they have never joined a country club. Rather than summering in the Hamptons or tony Martha's Vineyard, the Paulsons maintain a home on a five-acre plot carved out of the Barrington, Ill., farm where he grew up. They are practicing Christian Scientists, so Paulson does not drink, and he regularly reads the Bible while on the road.
Between them, they have given $426,000 to federal candidates since 1989, more than $370,000 of it to Republicans, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. Henry Paulson was a "pioneer" for President Bush, meaning he raised more than $100,000 for the 2004 campaign. Most of the $55,000 that went to Democrats came from Wendy Paulson, who listed her occupation as homemaker or volunteer.
Dedicated nature-lovers, the Paulsons spend most of their free time on outdoor pursuits, including birding, kayaking and trips to exotic places to see the flora and fauna. Henry Paulson is fascinated by birds of prey, calling them "canaries in the coal mine" of the planet's environmental health because they sit atop the food chain. Every year, he arranges for a rare bird to visit the firm and invites 25 employees to come to the 30th-floor boardroom to meet the avian guest. Wendy Paulson, an environmental educator, was the first member of the family to become involved with the Nature Conservancy, but her husband shared her passion and joined the organization's board in 2001 when she rotated off.
Since then, Paulson has been devoted to the organization, said President Steven J. McCormick, adding: "He puts his money, his time and his commitment into the organization. I don't know anybody who works as hard as he does."
Paulson's interest in the environment also affected his leadership of Goldman Sachs. The firm bought and then donated thousands of acres of Chilean forest to protect it from logging and became the first major Wall Street player to adopt an environmental policy that officially acknowledges the problem of global warming. Both moves drew criticism from free-market advocates.
"Paulson is extremely weak on property rights. . . . He has basically used corporate assets to pursue his personal interests," said Steven Milloy, portfolio manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, an activist mutual fund. "When the conservative base finds out what Paulson really stands for, they're going to be up in arms."
At work, Paulson is known for his drive -- he spends hundreds of days on the road visiting clients and lobbying foreign governments from Europe to China in his effort to expand Goldman's business. Though he doesn't use e-mail and jokes about being inept with a computer, Paulson routinely leaves detailed 2 a.m. voice-mail messages for his subordinates.
That dedication stands in contrast to another criticism of Paulson -- that he is too detached. Goldman's institutional issues with stock research, the Nature Conservancy's problems and the NYSE pay crisis all developed on his watch. At the NYSE in particular, Paulson drew criticism for having missed more than half of the board meetings.
In trips to Washington, Paulson has stood out for his willingness to be direct, not only with regulators and Congress but also with fellow corporate titans. "People thought he was a down-the-middle guy, a straight shooter," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who called Paulson's selection "a pleasant surprise."
In spring 2002, when investor confidence had been shattered by the implosion of Enron Corp. and the revelation that Merrill Lynch & Co. stock analysts had privately disparaged stocks they were publicly touting, Paulson drew headlines when he called for institutional change. "In my lifetime, American business has never been under such scrutiny," Paulson told the National Press Club. "And to be blunt, much of it is deserved."
Though the Treasury's outgoing secretary has sometimes been seen as a salesman for economic policy decisions made by others, Wall Street and political observers predicted that Paulson would insist on a more substantive role. "He would not be anybody's messenger. He's too smart and too valuable," said former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Harvey L. Pitt. "He is going to be a force to be reckoned with."
Goldman Sachs Chairman Paulson Is Noted for His Adept Handling of Crises
By Brooke A. Masters
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; D01
NEW YORK, May 30 -- Treasury Secretary nominee Henry M. Paulson Jr. is often described as the kind of guy who thrives in a crisis.
In 2003, Paulson was chairman of the Nature Conservancy when the Arlington charity came under withering scrutiny for a variety of practices, including drilling for oil and selling undeveloped land to its trustees at reduced prices. Paulson immediately took charge, moving to rectify problems that had occurred during his tenure.
He brought in a crisis-management team from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., where he worked as chairman and chief executive, and put together a committee stacked with high-profile outsiders to study the charity and recommend changes. Then he sold the package to both the charity's supporters and its critics in Congress.
"He just went out and grabbed the problem and really worked it hard to get a good result," said Ira M. Millstein, a New York lawyer who headed the outside committee. "He was an outstanding leader of his board and an excellent crisis manager."
A few months later, Paulson again had to deal with crisis that developed on his watch. This time, after the New York Stock Exchange drew fire for awarding then-chairman Dick Grasso a $139.5 million retirement package, Paulson led a board revolt that forced out Grasso and led to both the separation of the exchange's regulatory and trading functions and the eventual decision to convert the not-for-profit exchange into a public company.
Over the years, Paulson has not shied away from controversy, but he has also been criticized for not paying enough attention until a crisis occurs. He owes his position as the sole head of Goldman to a 1999 coup in which he and several allies forced out Jon S. Corzine -- now the governor of New Jersey and a former U.S. senator -- and Paulson steered Goldman through the stock-analyst scandal relatively unscathed. Although the firm ended up paying $110 million to settle allegations that its research reports were too closely tied to investment banking, it paid less than its top competitors and, unlike several of them, was not accused of publishing fraudulent research.
"He's had to handle a lot of very difficult situations, and he has handled them well," said Robert E. Rubin, who served as Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and as Paulson's former boss at Goldman Sachs. "He's smart, he's bright, he's thoughtful, and he's intense. He's a very good choice."
Though Paulson reportedly rebuffed several earlier efforts to recruit him to replace outgoing Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, the Goldman Sachs chief is following a well-trod path. Goldman Sachs has a well-established history of sending top executives to Washington. In addition to Rubin and Corzine, Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten is a Goldman alumnus, as are Stephen Friedman, who led the National Economic Council until recently, and Kenneth D. Brody, who headed the Export-Import Bank under Clinton.
Balding and lanky, Paulson spent part of his early career in Washington, working first in the Pentagon and then as a staff assistant in the White House under President Richard M. Nixon. He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974 but spent most of his career in the Wall Street firm's Chicago office, only moving to New York after being named chief operating officer in 1994.
Since then, Paulson and his wife, Wendy, have largely shunned the New York social circuit. Though he is worth hundreds of millions of dollars -- last year alone he pulled down $38.8 million -- they have never joined a country club. Rather than summering in the Hamptons or tony Martha's Vineyard, the Paulsons maintain a home on a five-acre plot carved out of the Barrington, Ill., farm where he grew up. They are practicing Christian Scientists, so Paulson does not drink, and he regularly reads the Bible while on the road.
Between them, they have given $426,000 to federal candidates since 1989, more than $370,000 of it to Republicans, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. Henry Paulson was a "pioneer" for President Bush, meaning he raised more than $100,000 for the 2004 campaign. Most of the $55,000 that went to Democrats came from Wendy Paulson, who listed her occupation as homemaker or volunteer.
Dedicated nature-lovers, the Paulsons spend most of their free time on outdoor pursuits, including birding, kayaking and trips to exotic places to see the flora and fauna. Henry Paulson is fascinated by birds of prey, calling them "canaries in the coal mine" of the planet's environmental health because they sit atop the food chain. Every year, he arranges for a rare bird to visit the firm and invites 25 employees to come to the 30th-floor boardroom to meet the avian guest. Wendy Paulson, an environmental educator, was the first member of the family to become involved with the Nature Conservancy, but her husband shared her passion and joined the organization's board in 2001 when she rotated off.
Since then, Paulson has been devoted to the organization, said President Steven J. McCormick, adding: "He puts his money, his time and his commitment into the organization. I don't know anybody who works as hard as he does."
Paulson's interest in the environment also affected his leadership of Goldman Sachs. The firm bought and then donated thousands of acres of Chilean forest to protect it from logging and became the first major Wall Street player to adopt an environmental policy that officially acknowledges the problem of global warming. Both moves drew criticism from free-market advocates.
"Paulson is extremely weak on property rights. . . . He has basically used corporate assets to pursue his personal interests," said Steven Milloy, portfolio manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, an activist mutual fund. "When the conservative base finds out what Paulson really stands for, they're going to be up in arms."
At work, Paulson is known for his drive -- he spends hundreds of days on the road visiting clients and lobbying foreign governments from Europe to China in his effort to expand Goldman's business. Though he doesn't use e-mail and jokes about being inept with a computer, Paulson routinely leaves detailed 2 a.m. voice-mail messages for his subordinates.
That dedication stands in contrast to another criticism of Paulson -- that he is too detached. Goldman's institutional issues with stock research, the Nature Conservancy's problems and the NYSE pay crisis all developed on his watch. At the NYSE in particular, Paulson drew criticism for having missed more than half of the board meetings.
In trips to Washington, Paulson has stood out for his willingness to be direct, not only with regulators and Congress but also with fellow corporate titans. "People thought he was a down-the-middle guy, a straight shooter," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who called Paulson's selection "a pleasant surprise."
In spring 2002, when investor confidence had been shattered by the implosion of Enron Corp. and the revelation that Merrill Lynch & Co. stock analysts had privately disparaged stocks they were publicly touting, Paulson drew headlines when he called for institutional change. "In my lifetime, American business has never been under such scrutiny," Paulson told the National Press Club. "And to be blunt, much of it is deserved."
Though the Treasury's outgoing secretary has sometimes been seen as a salesman for economic policy decisions made by others, Wall Street and political observers predicted that Paulson would insist on a more substantive role. "He would not be anybody's messenger. He's too smart and too valuable," said former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Harvey L. Pitt. "He is going to be a force to be reckoned with."
Court Voids U.S.-Europe Passenger Agreement
By John Ward Anderson and Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A11
PARIS, May 30 -- Europe's highest court on Tuesday overturned a two-year-old anti-terror agreement under which European airlines provide U.S. law enforcement agencies with detailed information about passengers traveling to the United States. The agreement was improperly crafted, the court ruled.
The information-sharing, which privacy advocates have criticized, can continue until Sept. 30 to give officials on both sides of the Atlantic time to fashion a solution, according to the ruling by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
U.S. government officials said they did not believe the decision would nullify the agreement in the long term. "The content of the agreement was not what the court found issue with," said Jarrod Agen, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Instead, the court found issue "with the process of how the agreement was signed."
"There should be enough time to put together a new legal framework that will support the essence of the agreement," said Lufthansa spokesman Tom Tripp.
The agreement requires European airlines to give the United States electronic access to the "passenger name record," a computerized form that includes 34 fields of information, some of which are not necessarily filled out, including the passenger's name, address and credit card information. U.S. officials say the information is needed to more thoroughly screen arrivals to the United States.
The airlines are required to forward information about all of their passengers within 15 minutes of a plane's takeoff. In recent years, several planes from Europe have been turned back in mid-flight or forced to land short of their destination to give U.S. officials more time to check out questionable passengers.
U.S., European and airline officials said they were not surprised by the ruling, and they pledged to work together to find a way to continue to satisfy the U.S. demand for information about people traveling to the United States. They said there would be no disruption of flights or other inconveniences to passengers during the busy summer tourist season as a result of the decision.
"The ruling ensures that there is no lowering of data protection standards, no effect on passengers, no disruption of transatlantic air traffic and that a high level of security is maintained until September 30," European Commission spokesman Johannes Laitenberger told reporters.
In a telephone interview, a U.S. official in Brussels read a similarly worded statement.
"We've been in touch with European institutions to talk about how to deal with what came down," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "No one knew what it would say until today, but there were contacts between European institutions and U.S. authorities to agree to handle this in a smooth way, whatever happened."
The agreement had been approved by the European Commission -- the European Union's executive body -- in May 2004, but it was opposed by the European Parliament, the E.U.'s elected lawmaking body. The Parliament challenged the agreement in court for, among other reasons, violating the privacy of passengers.
The high court instead struck down the measure for "lacking an adequate legal basis," saying that the law under which it was approved -- the E.U. Data Protection Directive -- was meant to ensure a common data protection standard across the E.U., and not for processing personal data for public security reasons, according to a statement by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), which represents some of Europe's biggest airlines.
The United States has warned of long security checks at U.S. points of entry if passenger information is not provided before arrival, and has threatened to fine airlines $6,000 per passenger and revoke their landing rights for not turning over data.
It was unclear whether collection of the data has averted any terrorist strikes. According to the BBC, U.S. and European officials have reviewed the implementation of the agreement, but their conclusions are classified. (IF IT DOES NOT AVERT A TERRORIST STRIKE, IS IT A FAILURE? HOW ABOUT DETERRING ATTAKCS? HOW IS THAT MEASURED? OOPS, THAT DOES NOT FIT THE ARTICLE)
The United States originally wanted to store the passenger data for 50 years, but in a compromise prior to finalizing the May 2004 deal, agreed to save the information for 3 1/2 years. Passing over meal orders and other specialized information that could identify a passenger's religious or ethnic background was also prohibited.
Alexander reported from Washington.
By John Ward Anderson and Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A11
PARIS, May 30 -- Europe's highest court on Tuesday overturned a two-year-old anti-terror agreement under which European airlines provide U.S. law enforcement agencies with detailed information about passengers traveling to the United States. The agreement was improperly crafted, the court ruled.
The information-sharing, which privacy advocates have criticized, can continue until Sept. 30 to give officials on both sides of the Atlantic time to fashion a solution, according to the ruling by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
U.S. government officials said they did not believe the decision would nullify the agreement in the long term. "The content of the agreement was not what the court found issue with," said Jarrod Agen, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Instead, the court found issue "with the process of how the agreement was signed."
"There should be enough time to put together a new legal framework that will support the essence of the agreement," said Lufthansa spokesman Tom Tripp.
The agreement requires European airlines to give the United States electronic access to the "passenger name record," a computerized form that includes 34 fields of information, some of which are not necessarily filled out, including the passenger's name, address and credit card information. U.S. officials say the information is needed to more thoroughly screen arrivals to the United States.
The airlines are required to forward information about all of their passengers within 15 minutes of a plane's takeoff. In recent years, several planes from Europe have been turned back in mid-flight or forced to land short of their destination to give U.S. officials more time to check out questionable passengers.
U.S., European and airline officials said they were not surprised by the ruling, and they pledged to work together to find a way to continue to satisfy the U.S. demand for information about people traveling to the United States. They said there would be no disruption of flights or other inconveniences to passengers during the busy summer tourist season as a result of the decision.
"The ruling ensures that there is no lowering of data protection standards, no effect on passengers, no disruption of transatlantic air traffic and that a high level of security is maintained until September 30," European Commission spokesman Johannes Laitenberger told reporters.
In a telephone interview, a U.S. official in Brussels read a similarly worded statement.
"We've been in touch with European institutions to talk about how to deal with what came down," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "No one knew what it would say until today, but there were contacts between European institutions and U.S. authorities to agree to handle this in a smooth way, whatever happened."
The agreement had been approved by the European Commission -- the European Union's executive body -- in May 2004, but it was opposed by the European Parliament, the E.U.'s elected lawmaking body. The Parliament challenged the agreement in court for, among other reasons, violating the privacy of passengers.
The high court instead struck down the measure for "lacking an adequate legal basis," saying that the law under which it was approved -- the E.U. Data Protection Directive -- was meant to ensure a common data protection standard across the E.U., and not for processing personal data for public security reasons, according to a statement by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), which represents some of Europe's biggest airlines.
The United States has warned of long security checks at U.S. points of entry if passenger information is not provided before arrival, and has threatened to fine airlines $6,000 per passenger and revoke their landing rights for not turning over data.
It was unclear whether collection of the data has averted any terrorist strikes. According to the BBC, U.S. and European officials have reviewed the implementation of the agreement, but their conclusions are classified. (IF IT DOES NOT AVERT A TERRORIST STRIKE, IS IT A FAILURE? HOW ABOUT DETERRING ATTAKCS? HOW IS THAT MEASURED? OOPS, THAT DOES NOT FIT THE ARTICLE)
The United States originally wanted to store the passenger data for 50 years, but in a compromise prior to finalizing the May 2004 deal, agreed to save the information for 3 1/2 years. Passing over meal orders and other specialized information that could identify a passenger's religious or ethnic background was also prohibited.
Alexander reported from Washington.
Canada Pays Environmentally for U.S. Oil Thirst
Huge Mines Rapidly Draining Rivers, Cutting Into Forests, Boosting Emissions
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A01
FORT MCMURRAY, Alberta -- Huge mines here turning tarry sand into cash for Canada and oil for the United States are taking an unexpectedly high environmental toll, sucking water from rivers and natural gas from wells and producing large amounts of gases linked to global warming. (TAKING NATURAL GAS OUT OF WELLS IS ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE?)
The digging -- into an area the size of Maryland and Virginia combined -- has proliferated at gold-rush speed, spurred by high oil prices, new technology and an unquenched U.S. thirst for the fuel. The expansion has presented ecological problems that experts thought they would have decades to resolve.
"The river used to be blue. Now it's brown. Nobody can fish or drink from it. The air is bad. This has all happened so fast," said Elsie Fabian, 63, an elder in a native Indian community along the Athabasca River, a wide, meandering waterway once plied by fur traders. "It's terrible. We're surrounded by the mines." (BROWN? COULD THAT JUST BE DIRT?)
From her home on the bluff of the river, she can see billowing steam rising from a vast strip mine 10 miles away. There, almost 200 feet below what was once a forest, giant machines cleave the earth into a cratered moonscape. Immense shovels plunge into the ground, wresting out massive chunks. Trucks the size of houses prowl the pit. They deliver the black soil to clanking conveyers and vats that steam the tar from the sand. (STEAM? IS STEAM A PROBLEM TOO?)
The miners have created a marvel of human industry that takes a spongy muck once considered worthless and converts it into oil for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. But the price of that alchemy is high: Each barrel of oil requires two to five barrels of water, carves up four tons of earth, uses enough natural gas to heat a home for one to five days, and adds to the greenhouse gases slowly cooking the planet, according to the industry's own calculations. "COOKING THE PLANET? I GUESS WE ARE DONE DEBATING SOMETHINGS HUH?)
"The environmental cost has been great," said Jim Boucher, chief of the Fort MacKay First Nations Council, which includes Cree and Dene Indians, 35 miles north of Fort McMurray. He grew up on land that is now a clawed-out mine pit. But he has led his people into the mines by creating native-owned companies providing catering, truck driving, surveying and other services. "There is no other economic option," he said. "Hunting, trapping, fishing is gone."
Operators of the mines, which have helped make Canada the largest supplier of oil to the United States, believe they can find technological solutions to the environmental problems.
"There is a whole lot of work being done," Charles Ruigrok, chief executive of Syncrude, one of the largest companies, said at his corporate headquarters in downtown Fort McMurray. "I do believe technology will fix it."
The oil companies point to steady reductions in the amount of water and natural gas used to produce each barrel of oil, for example. But those efficiency gains have been wiped out by the rise in the number of barrels produced. Increasingly, environmental organizations are calling for a moratorium on the growth of the mines.
"We shouldn't be issuing new permits. We are foreclosing our future," said Dan Woynillowicz, who headed an extensive study for the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based nonprofit that conducts research on environmental issues. "In the 1990s, we acknowledged environmental challenges would occur. But we are 17 years ahead of schedule." (SO QUIT PRODUCING OIL? IS THAT A REAL SOLUTION?)
When the oil sands became recognized as economically viable in 2003, Canada suddenly emerged as holder of the world's second-largest oil reserves, behind Saudi Arabia. By 2015, according to industry forecasts, the oil sands will account for at least one-fourth of North America's oil production.
The United States already is counting on Canada to help wean it from oil from the Middle East. Other countries are eyeing the wealth; China has invested in two mining companies and a pipeline to move oil from Alberta to shipping ports on the Pacific.
As technology and ever-bigger machines reduced the cost of extracting oil from the sands, private companies rushed in, investing nearly $100 billion in mines and sprawling processing plants. They were expected to produce 1 million barrels a day by 2020. That goal was passed in 2004, and the companies are racing to double the output soon and triple it by 2015. (ANY JOBS PRODUCED? ANY REVENUE BENEFITS? OOPS, SORRY IT IS ALL ENVIRONMENT)
They dig out shallower seams and inject steam underground to liquefy and pump out the deeper sands. Heating the water and processing the crude bitumen -- a heavy, viscous oil -- produces carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is linked to global warming. The oil sands mines have become the largest contributor to Canada's increase in greenhouse gas emissions, according to Pembina's research. (HUMANS PRODUCE CARBON DIOXIDE - SHOULD WE KILL HUMANS THEN?)
"If you grow production of the oil sands, you are going to grow greenhouse emissions," Ruigrok said.
The oil companies are mulling ways to capture and bury carbon dioxide. Environmentalists want the companies to offset their greenhouse emissions by paying for conservation or alternative energy programs; Shell Canada has agreed to fund such programs to compensate for part of its carbon emissions. But oil company executives say that if their production is curbed, the world will buy the oil from worse polluters. (ANY ANSWER FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL NUTJOBS? NOPE)
"If we chose not to develop the resource, there would still be oil produced elsewhere in the world," Gordon Lambert, a senior vice president of Suncor Energy, said in an interview from Calgary.
Critics also question the wisdom of using natural gas to heat and upgrade the oil sands. "We are taking a cleaner energy source and turning it into something that produces a lot of emissions when you produce it and when you burn it," said Dale Marshall, a climate change policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation in Ottawa.
Those processes are "putting unacceptable pressure on the environment," said Julia Langer, director of the global threats program of World Wildlife Fund-Canada in Toronto. (WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE JULIA? IF YOU HAVE NONE, SHUT THE **** UP)
They point to threats to the Athabasca River, which flows like an azure ribbon from the Columbia Icefield in the Rocky Mountains. It tumbles through cool evergreen forests, wends through Alberta and finally joins the Peace River near Saskatchewan to form a teeming delta that is a major North American intersection for migrating birds.
Mining operations have been permitted to take twice the amount of water from the river than is used annually by Calgary, a city of 1 million people, according to Pembina. The group's report predicts that the oil sands mines will increase withdrawals by 50 percent in the next six years.
Native communities on the river say that further reductions in the low winter flows will make the river unhealthy and that the northern pike, walleye and burbot may not survive. And they believe the waters have been contaminated by someone. Native residents of Fort Chipewyan, a village of 1,200 on the shores of Lake Athabasca, have experienced abnormally high rates of rare cancers. Federal and provincial medical investigators are trying to determine the cause.
Industry officials say they do not pollute the river, and instead reuse the water they take as often as 17 times. The leftover emerges as a black, foul liquid collected in tailing ponds. The ponds have grown; one dam is among the largest in the world. The mining companies must fire off propane cannons to scare away migrating birds from the toxic waters.
Industry officials say they are confident they will find a way to cap the ponds and solve the other problems. "I don't think there is a silver bullet that is the single answer," said Greg Stringham, vice president of the Calgary-based Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "But there are five or six technologies that are promising."
The mines are being carved out of Canada's vast Boreal forest, a continental swath of timber and wetlands that ecologists say helps reduce global warming.
From her 25-foot-high perch in the driver's cabin of a Caterpillar 797, the world's largest truck, Michelle Noer acknowledges that the landscape of Syncrude's Aurora pit mine "looks pretty rough right now.
"If we just dug it up, I probably wouldn't be able to do it," said Noer, 37, who came from lush wine country in British Columbia for the work and high pay. "But we do reclaim it. And we do need the oil."
One of the early Syncrude mining sites to be reclaimed now boasts 40-foot jack pine and spruce trees and sings with the call of songbirds that flit over hiking trails. "Beware of the Wildlife," a sign warns. (SECOND TO LAST PARAGRAPH - HOW FITTING)
"It doesn't look bad. But it certainly isn't Boreal forest," said Pembina's Woynillowicz. "We have to wait and see if this ecosystem they have put back actually is going to be sustainable." (WHAT DOES SUSTAINABLE MEAN?)
Huge Mines Rapidly Draining Rivers, Cutting Into Forests, Boosting Emissions
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A01
FORT MCMURRAY, Alberta -- Huge mines here turning tarry sand into cash for Canada and oil for the United States are taking an unexpectedly high environmental toll, sucking water from rivers and natural gas from wells and producing large amounts of gases linked to global warming. (TAKING NATURAL GAS OUT OF WELLS IS ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE?)
The digging -- into an area the size of Maryland and Virginia combined -- has proliferated at gold-rush speed, spurred by high oil prices, new technology and an unquenched U.S. thirst for the fuel. The expansion has presented ecological problems that experts thought they would have decades to resolve.
"The river used to be blue. Now it's brown. Nobody can fish or drink from it. The air is bad. This has all happened so fast," said Elsie Fabian, 63, an elder in a native Indian community along the Athabasca River, a wide, meandering waterway once plied by fur traders. "It's terrible. We're surrounded by the mines." (BROWN? COULD THAT JUST BE DIRT?)
From her home on the bluff of the river, she can see billowing steam rising from a vast strip mine 10 miles away. There, almost 200 feet below what was once a forest, giant machines cleave the earth into a cratered moonscape. Immense shovels plunge into the ground, wresting out massive chunks. Trucks the size of houses prowl the pit. They deliver the black soil to clanking conveyers and vats that steam the tar from the sand. (STEAM? IS STEAM A PROBLEM TOO?)
The miners have created a marvel of human industry that takes a spongy muck once considered worthless and converts it into oil for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. But the price of that alchemy is high: Each barrel of oil requires two to five barrels of water, carves up four tons of earth, uses enough natural gas to heat a home for one to five days, and adds to the greenhouse gases slowly cooking the planet, according to the industry's own calculations. "COOKING THE PLANET? I GUESS WE ARE DONE DEBATING SOMETHINGS HUH?)
"The environmental cost has been great," said Jim Boucher, chief of the Fort MacKay First Nations Council, which includes Cree and Dene Indians, 35 miles north of Fort McMurray. He grew up on land that is now a clawed-out mine pit. But he has led his people into the mines by creating native-owned companies providing catering, truck driving, surveying and other services. "There is no other economic option," he said. "Hunting, trapping, fishing is gone."
Operators of the mines, which have helped make Canada the largest supplier of oil to the United States, believe they can find technological solutions to the environmental problems.
"There is a whole lot of work being done," Charles Ruigrok, chief executive of Syncrude, one of the largest companies, said at his corporate headquarters in downtown Fort McMurray. "I do believe technology will fix it."
The oil companies point to steady reductions in the amount of water and natural gas used to produce each barrel of oil, for example. But those efficiency gains have been wiped out by the rise in the number of barrels produced. Increasingly, environmental organizations are calling for a moratorium on the growth of the mines.
"We shouldn't be issuing new permits. We are foreclosing our future," said Dan Woynillowicz, who headed an extensive study for the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based nonprofit that conducts research on environmental issues. "In the 1990s, we acknowledged environmental challenges would occur. But we are 17 years ahead of schedule." (SO QUIT PRODUCING OIL? IS THAT A REAL SOLUTION?)
When the oil sands became recognized as economically viable in 2003, Canada suddenly emerged as holder of the world's second-largest oil reserves, behind Saudi Arabia. By 2015, according to industry forecasts, the oil sands will account for at least one-fourth of North America's oil production.
The United States already is counting on Canada to help wean it from oil from the Middle East. Other countries are eyeing the wealth; China has invested in two mining companies and a pipeline to move oil from Alberta to shipping ports on the Pacific.
As technology and ever-bigger machines reduced the cost of extracting oil from the sands, private companies rushed in, investing nearly $100 billion in mines and sprawling processing plants. They were expected to produce 1 million barrels a day by 2020. That goal was passed in 2004, and the companies are racing to double the output soon and triple it by 2015. (ANY JOBS PRODUCED? ANY REVENUE BENEFITS? OOPS, SORRY IT IS ALL ENVIRONMENT)
They dig out shallower seams and inject steam underground to liquefy and pump out the deeper sands. Heating the water and processing the crude bitumen -- a heavy, viscous oil -- produces carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is linked to global warming. The oil sands mines have become the largest contributor to Canada's increase in greenhouse gas emissions, according to Pembina's research. (HUMANS PRODUCE CARBON DIOXIDE - SHOULD WE KILL HUMANS THEN?)
"If you grow production of the oil sands, you are going to grow greenhouse emissions," Ruigrok said.
The oil companies are mulling ways to capture and bury carbon dioxide. Environmentalists want the companies to offset their greenhouse emissions by paying for conservation or alternative energy programs; Shell Canada has agreed to fund such programs to compensate for part of its carbon emissions. But oil company executives say that if their production is curbed, the world will buy the oil from worse polluters. (ANY ANSWER FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL NUTJOBS? NOPE)
"If we chose not to develop the resource, there would still be oil produced elsewhere in the world," Gordon Lambert, a senior vice president of Suncor Energy, said in an interview from Calgary.
Critics also question the wisdom of using natural gas to heat and upgrade the oil sands. "We are taking a cleaner energy source and turning it into something that produces a lot of emissions when you produce it and when you burn it," said Dale Marshall, a climate change policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation in Ottawa.
Those processes are "putting unacceptable pressure on the environment," said Julia Langer, director of the global threats program of World Wildlife Fund-Canada in Toronto. (WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE JULIA? IF YOU HAVE NONE, SHUT THE **** UP)
They point to threats to the Athabasca River, which flows like an azure ribbon from the Columbia Icefield in the Rocky Mountains. It tumbles through cool evergreen forests, wends through Alberta and finally joins the Peace River near Saskatchewan to form a teeming delta that is a major North American intersection for migrating birds.
Mining operations have been permitted to take twice the amount of water from the river than is used annually by Calgary, a city of 1 million people, according to Pembina. The group's report predicts that the oil sands mines will increase withdrawals by 50 percent in the next six years.
Native communities on the river say that further reductions in the low winter flows will make the river unhealthy and that the northern pike, walleye and burbot may not survive. And they believe the waters have been contaminated by someone. Native residents of Fort Chipewyan, a village of 1,200 on the shores of Lake Athabasca, have experienced abnormally high rates of rare cancers. Federal and provincial medical investigators are trying to determine the cause.
Industry officials say they do not pollute the river, and instead reuse the water they take as often as 17 times. The leftover emerges as a black, foul liquid collected in tailing ponds. The ponds have grown; one dam is among the largest in the world. The mining companies must fire off propane cannons to scare away migrating birds from the toxic waters.
Industry officials say they are confident they will find a way to cap the ponds and solve the other problems. "I don't think there is a silver bullet that is the single answer," said Greg Stringham, vice president of the Calgary-based Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "But there are five or six technologies that are promising."
The mines are being carved out of Canada's vast Boreal forest, a continental swath of timber and wetlands that ecologists say helps reduce global warming.
From her 25-foot-high perch in the driver's cabin of a Caterpillar 797, the world's largest truck, Michelle Noer acknowledges that the landscape of Syncrude's Aurora pit mine "looks pretty rough right now.
"If we just dug it up, I probably wouldn't be able to do it," said Noer, 37, who came from lush wine country in British Columbia for the work and high pay. "But we do reclaim it. And we do need the oil."
One of the early Syncrude mining sites to be reclaimed now boasts 40-foot jack pine and spruce trees and sings with the call of songbirds that flit over hiking trails. "Beware of the Wildlife," a sign warns. (SECOND TO LAST PARAGRAPH - HOW FITTING)
"It doesn't look bad. But it certainly isn't Boreal forest," said Pembina's Woynillowicz. "We have to wait and see if this ecosystem they have put back actually is going to be sustainable." (WHAT DOES SUSTAINABLE MEAN?)
Shaken by Riots, Afghans Gripped By Uncertainty (WHO HAS CERTAINTY TODAY?)
Tolerance of U.S. Troop Presence Tested
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A10
KABUL, May 30 -- Afghan army troops blanketed the capital Tuesday, schools and shops reopened and residents swept up the debris from riots that left 11 people dead and 130 injured. Many people remained angry both at the rioters and U.S. troops, and worried about permanent damage to the country's faltering democracy, economy and relations with the outside world.
Foreign peacekeeping troops kept off the streets, out of concern their presence would ignite new violence.
Monday's violence was sparked by a traffic accident involving a U.S. military convoy, and some residents continued to insist that American troops shot dozens of civilians while leaving the chaotic accident scene. (SURE THEY DID. THAT WOULD REALLY HELP WITH THE ON-GOING EFFORT IN AFGHANISTAN)
"The foreign soldiers shot my cousin, and now he is in a coma. They have brought us nothing but destruction. People are still poor and jobless, except the few who shine the foreigners' shoes. We want them out of here now," said Shah Mahmoud, 24, who was visiting the city hospital. He said his cousin, 17, worked near the accident site and was shot when he got caught up in an angry crowd that threw stones at the troops. (IS EVERYONE HANDICAPPED IN AFGHANISTAN OR CAN YOU DO THINGS YOURSELF?)
The U.S. military has said one civilian was killed when a military cargo truck smashed into a line of vehicles. It has promised a full investigation, but denied that troops shot anyone afterward.
In new violence, three Afghan workers for a South African charity, ActionAid, were shot dead Tuesday by a gunman riding a motorcycle as they drove on a road in Jowzjan province in northern Afghanistan, officials said. (NICE WORK GUYS - THAT WILL HELP RECONSTRUCTION)
Some business owners in Kabul said they had lost thousands of dollars worth of merchandise and regretted having taken the risk to invest in such a volatile environment. They said Afghan and international security forces had done little to protect their property.
Ali Chelsi, whose family owns a market in a fashionable shopping district, said the family had just ordered three shipping containers of home appliances from China, a major purchase based on expectations of growing affluence and foreign investment. "It will take us a month to get our business going again, and if the security situation doesn't improve, there will be no need for such appliances in Kabul," said Chelsi, as his nephew swept up shards of glass from their shattered picture window. (DID THE TROOPS BREAK WINDOWS AND STEAL THE GOODS?)
Other investors vowed to stay the course, saying they would not allow one day of violence to derail their plans. One was Ehsan Bayat, an Afghan American businessman who owns a major cellphone company and a new private television station here. A mob attacked the station Monday and burned all the cars in its parking lot. (NICE WORK BY THE MOB - WAS THE MOB ALL FOREIGNERS OR FELLOW AFGHANS?)
"I am committed to rebuilding Afghanistan, and I will invest more now in humanitarian projects," Bayat said. "If we give up now, tomorrow will be very bleak."
The riots were the worst the capital has experienced since the overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001. Other incidents, including the discovery of an Afghan Christian convert and the news of anti-Islamic cartoons published in Europe, have sparked demonstrations in Afghan cities, but none was as large or violent.
The most seriously damaged building was the headquarters of CARE International, which rioters doused with gasoline and then burned to rubble. The compound's rose garden, surrounded by tall pines, was burned black. A half-dozen other foreign aid agencies were also attacked and looted. (BOY, THAT ROSE GARDEN IS SUCH A BIG DEAL)
Paul Barker, CARE's country director, said the attack cost the agency three years of records and destroyed its administration. He said most of the attackers appeared to be boys caught up in the "excitement of looting and burning," but that other, more serious motives were at work.
"I think this reflects the frustration and anger some Afghans feel, and they were looking for symbols of foreign presence," he said. "The tolerance for U.S. military mistakes has become strained to the breaking point in a lot of people." (YEAH, ITS JUST THE US MILITARY MISTAKES - MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE AND TAKE OUR MONEY WITH US. WE'LL LET THE MULTILATERAL/WORLD INSTITUTIONS LEAD THE WAY. BEST OF LUCK!)
Many Afghans have welcomed the thousands of U.S. troops stationed here, but there have been signs that the welcome is wearing thin. Residents have often criticized foreign military forces for driving powerful vehicles too aggressively, and there has been growing concern about civilian casualties from U.S. attacks on Taliban insurgents. (DRIVING TOO FAST)
Two weeks ago, a U.S. airstrike in Kandahar province killed 15 residents in houses where Taliban fighters were hiding. Clashes in southern Afghanistan have caused more than 300 deaths in the past month. (SO IT KILLED TALIBAN TOO? WHY ARE THE RESIDENTS WHO COMPLAIN ALSO HARBORING THE TALIBAN? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS)
In Kabul, residents and business owners said many policemen fled from their posts when armed rioters approached, and that few security personnel were visible on the streets until the violence had dissipated.
A spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, which normally patrols the capital in armored vehicles, said it had been ready to help restore order Monday but that the Afghan authorities had asked the force not to do so.
"The government insisted, and we agreed, that we would remain in the background out of concern that our presence might inflame an already volatile situation," said Maj. Toby Jackman, a British spokesman for ISAF. "We remained poised all over the city, but we didn't want to pour water on an oily fire."
The Ministry of Public Health released a list of known casualties totaling 13 dead and 130 injured. Television stations frequently replayed a statement made by President Hamid Karzai late Monday saying that any further violence would be dealt with severely.
There were reports that some of the street violence was organized by anti-government groups.
Numerous witnesses said some rioters were older men who gave orders, carried AK-47 assault rifles and wore the dress of former anti-Soviet militia fighters whose political leaders oppose Karzai. (THAT IS KEY)
There were also indications of moral fervor in the crowds' actions. In this conservative Muslim country, many people are offended by Western lifestyles. Several restaurants reputed to employ prostitutes were damaged, and a major movie house took down its posters for fear of being attacked.
Outside Kabul's Emergency Hospital, there was a mood of barely contained rage among people waiting to visit their wounded relatives. In a crowd of two dozen men, none said they believed the U.S. military version of the Monday accident.
"After they hit all the cars, they got scared and just started shooting people," said a man who gave his name as Aziz, 43. He said his family lived near the accident scene and that his brother had come outside and been shot three times in the abdomen. "It was wrong what the people did in the streets, but it was the Americans' fault," he said. "They came here to protect us, but it is we who suffer." (YOU'RE RIGHT! WE SHOULD JSUT LEAVE AND YOU CAN HANDLE THE TALIBAN. AGAIN, BEST OF LUCK. AND PLEASE DO NOT BITCH WHEN THE WHEELS FALL OFF. OF COURSE, PLEAS FOR USA INTERVENTION SHOULD NOT HAPPEN)
Tolerance of U.S. Troop Presence Tested
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A10
KABUL, May 30 -- Afghan army troops blanketed the capital Tuesday, schools and shops reopened and residents swept up the debris from riots that left 11 people dead and 130 injured. Many people remained angry both at the rioters and U.S. troops, and worried about permanent damage to the country's faltering democracy, economy and relations with the outside world.
Foreign peacekeeping troops kept off the streets, out of concern their presence would ignite new violence.
Monday's violence was sparked by a traffic accident involving a U.S. military convoy, and some residents continued to insist that American troops shot dozens of civilians while leaving the chaotic accident scene. (SURE THEY DID. THAT WOULD REALLY HELP WITH THE ON-GOING EFFORT IN AFGHANISTAN)
"The foreign soldiers shot my cousin, and now he is in a coma. They have brought us nothing but destruction. People are still poor and jobless, except the few who shine the foreigners' shoes. We want them out of here now," said Shah Mahmoud, 24, who was visiting the city hospital. He said his cousin, 17, worked near the accident site and was shot when he got caught up in an angry crowd that threw stones at the troops. (IS EVERYONE HANDICAPPED IN AFGHANISTAN OR CAN YOU DO THINGS YOURSELF?)
The U.S. military has said one civilian was killed when a military cargo truck smashed into a line of vehicles. It has promised a full investigation, but denied that troops shot anyone afterward.
In new violence, three Afghan workers for a South African charity, ActionAid, were shot dead Tuesday by a gunman riding a motorcycle as they drove on a road in Jowzjan province in northern Afghanistan, officials said. (NICE WORK GUYS - THAT WILL HELP RECONSTRUCTION)
Some business owners in Kabul said they had lost thousands of dollars worth of merchandise and regretted having taken the risk to invest in such a volatile environment. They said Afghan and international security forces had done little to protect their property.
Ali Chelsi, whose family owns a market in a fashionable shopping district, said the family had just ordered three shipping containers of home appliances from China, a major purchase based on expectations of growing affluence and foreign investment. "It will take us a month to get our business going again, and if the security situation doesn't improve, there will be no need for such appliances in Kabul," said Chelsi, as his nephew swept up shards of glass from their shattered picture window. (DID THE TROOPS BREAK WINDOWS AND STEAL THE GOODS?)
Other investors vowed to stay the course, saying they would not allow one day of violence to derail their plans. One was Ehsan Bayat, an Afghan American businessman who owns a major cellphone company and a new private television station here. A mob attacked the station Monday and burned all the cars in its parking lot. (NICE WORK BY THE MOB - WAS THE MOB ALL FOREIGNERS OR FELLOW AFGHANS?)
"I am committed to rebuilding Afghanistan, and I will invest more now in humanitarian projects," Bayat said. "If we give up now, tomorrow will be very bleak."
The riots were the worst the capital has experienced since the overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001. Other incidents, including the discovery of an Afghan Christian convert and the news of anti-Islamic cartoons published in Europe, have sparked demonstrations in Afghan cities, but none was as large or violent.
The most seriously damaged building was the headquarters of CARE International, which rioters doused with gasoline and then burned to rubble. The compound's rose garden, surrounded by tall pines, was burned black. A half-dozen other foreign aid agencies were also attacked and looted. (BOY, THAT ROSE GARDEN IS SUCH A BIG DEAL)
Paul Barker, CARE's country director, said the attack cost the agency three years of records and destroyed its administration. He said most of the attackers appeared to be boys caught up in the "excitement of looting and burning," but that other, more serious motives were at work.
"I think this reflects the frustration and anger some Afghans feel, and they were looking for symbols of foreign presence," he said. "The tolerance for U.S. military mistakes has become strained to the breaking point in a lot of people." (YEAH, ITS JUST THE US MILITARY MISTAKES - MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE AND TAKE OUR MONEY WITH US. WE'LL LET THE MULTILATERAL/WORLD INSTITUTIONS LEAD THE WAY. BEST OF LUCK!)
Many Afghans have welcomed the thousands of U.S. troops stationed here, but there have been signs that the welcome is wearing thin. Residents have often criticized foreign military forces for driving powerful vehicles too aggressively, and there has been growing concern about civilian casualties from U.S. attacks on Taliban insurgents. (DRIVING TOO FAST)
Two weeks ago, a U.S. airstrike in Kandahar province killed 15 residents in houses where Taliban fighters were hiding. Clashes in southern Afghanistan have caused more than 300 deaths in the past month. (SO IT KILLED TALIBAN TOO? WHY ARE THE RESIDENTS WHO COMPLAIN ALSO HARBORING THE TALIBAN? YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS)
In Kabul, residents and business owners said many policemen fled from their posts when armed rioters approached, and that few security personnel were visible on the streets until the violence had dissipated.
A spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, which normally patrols the capital in armored vehicles, said it had been ready to help restore order Monday but that the Afghan authorities had asked the force not to do so.
"The government insisted, and we agreed, that we would remain in the background out of concern that our presence might inflame an already volatile situation," said Maj. Toby Jackman, a British spokesman for ISAF. "We remained poised all over the city, but we didn't want to pour water on an oily fire."
The Ministry of Public Health released a list of known casualties totaling 13 dead and 130 injured. Television stations frequently replayed a statement made by President Hamid Karzai late Monday saying that any further violence would be dealt with severely.
There were reports that some of the street violence was organized by anti-government groups.
Numerous witnesses said some rioters were older men who gave orders, carried AK-47 assault rifles and wore the dress of former anti-Soviet militia fighters whose political leaders oppose Karzai. (THAT IS KEY)
There were also indications of moral fervor in the crowds' actions. In this conservative Muslim country, many people are offended by Western lifestyles. Several restaurants reputed to employ prostitutes were damaged, and a major movie house took down its posters for fear of being attacked.
Outside Kabul's Emergency Hospital, there was a mood of barely contained rage among people waiting to visit their wounded relatives. In a crowd of two dozen men, none said they believed the U.S. military version of the Monday accident.
"After they hit all the cars, they got scared and just started shooting people," said a man who gave his name as Aziz, 43. He said his family lived near the accident scene and that his brother had come outside and been shot three times in the abdomen. "It was wrong what the people did in the streets, but it was the Americans' fault," he said. "They came here to protect us, but it is we who suffer." (YOU'RE RIGHT! WE SHOULD JSUT LEAVE AND YOU CAN HANDLE THE TALIBAN. AGAIN, BEST OF LUCK. AND PLEASE DO NOT BITCH WHEN THE WHEELS FALL OFF. OF COURSE, PLEAS FOR USA INTERVENTION SHOULD NOT HAPPEN)
Financier Chosen To Head Treasury
Bush Nominates Henry Paulson To Succeed Snow
By Michael A. Fletcher and Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A01
President Bush named Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chairman Henry M. Paulson Jr. as Treasury secretary yesterday, turning to a prominent Wall Street insider to lead his economic team and become the chief promoter of the administration's fiscal policies.
The nomination, announced in a brief Rose Garden ceremony, marked the first time Bush has chosen a chieftain from the world of finance to head the Treasury after the Cabinet post was occupied by two industrial-sector executives who struggled to hold sway with Bush's inner circle. Although Bush has shown mistrust of financiers, he hailed Paulson's service as head of "one of the most respected firms on Wall Street" who has "an intimate knowledge of financial markets and an ability to explain economic issues in clear terms." (MISTRUST OF FINANCIERS? WHERE THE **** DID THIS COME FROM??)
The move culminated a months-long recruitment during which Paulson rebuffed several White House overtures, according to administration officials and people familiar with Paulson's decision making. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten renewed the effort in recent weeks and persuaded his former Goldman Sachs colleague to meet with Bush at the White House earlier this month. It was then, after a long Saturday meeting 11 days ago, that Bush persuaded Paulson to take the job.
In the meeting, Paulson sought assurances that the post, which at times has been seen as subordinated by the White House, would have the proper kind of stature.
"He was curious about what was myth and what was reality when it came to the inner workings of the job," said a top Bush adviser with close knowledge of the selection process. "I think he was reassured by understanding how the job operates."
If confirmed by the Senate, Paulson, 60, will replace Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, who in December told the White House that he wanted to step down after three years in the job. Although a loyal booster of Bush's policies, Snow suffered from the widespread perception in markets and on Capitol Hill that he was an advocate rather than a key policymaker.
The White House sought Paulson even though he and his wife contributed nearly $1 million to an environmental organization that has been harshly critical of the president. (OOOO, A CONTRIBUTION, WHATEVER WILL WE DO)
Paulson's nomination comes as the economy is exhibiting robust growth and strength, but also some troubling signs. While the economy grew at its fastest rate in 2 1/2 years during the first quarter of 2006 and unemployment remains low, public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans think the economy is in fair or poor shape. Rising gasoline prices and a median household income that, adjusted for inflation, has fallen during the Bush years have fanned public anxiety. (SO, EVEN THE ECONOMY IS GOING GREAT, ENOUGH NEGATIVE STORIES HAVE MADE THERE MARK. POLLS MEAN THAT IT IS TRUE? THAT IS INTERESTING)
"Everything is going great in the economy until you look at the people in it," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute.
In brief remarks, Paulson said 32 years on Wall Street have given him a keen sense of the power that markets have in fostering economic growth and efficiency. "Our economy's strength is rooted in the entrepreneurial spirit and the competitive zeal of the American people, and in our free and open market," Paulson said as Bush looked on. "It is truly a marvel, but we cannot take it for granted."
In choosing Paulson, Bush defied skeptics who predicted that late in his presidency he would be unable to attract a Wall Street heavy hitter for a position that up to now has held little power in his administration. As chief since 1999 of one of Wall Street's wealthiest investment-banking firms, Paulson brings high-caliber financial credentials that contrast with Bush's previous Treasury chiefs -- Paul H. O'Neill, who ran Alcoa aluminum, and Snow, of the CSX railroad. (SO, AGAIN THE 'SKEPTICS' [READ: ANTI-BUSH] ARE, ONCE AGAIN, WRONG)
The White House was eager to find a candidate with credibility among investors. Markets have turned highly volatile in recent weeks, with the biggest dips coming in commodities and stocks in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. U.S. stocks, which have also dropped sharply from recent highs, sank anew yesterday, with the Dow Jones industrial average shedding 184.18 points, mainly because of a rise in oil prices and a report showing a decline in consumer confidence. With Alan Greenspan having recently left the Federal Reserve Board in the untested hands of a new chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, the administration was in danger of lacking a figure with deep experience in market downturns -- such as the Asian flu of the late 1990s -- that could undermine the international economy.
"We have a very strong economy, a very strong banking system, but these things do happen, just like hurricanes," said Stephen Friedman, the former director of Bush's National Economic Council and a predecessor of Paulson's at Goldman Sachs. "Hank is someone with a superb background, who understands markets in his bones. That's something the White House was very aware of."
Paulson worked in the Pentagon as a young man, after his graduation from Dartmouth College in 1968 and Harvard Business School in 1970. He began at Goldman Sachs in 1974 and worked his way up to chairman and chief executive, a job that brought him a compensation package in 2005 of $38.8 million.
An ardent conservationist, Paulson is the outgoing chairman of the Nature Conservancy, an environmental group. Paulson donated to the presidential campaigns of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). In 2003, he gave $2,000 to Bush's reelection effort. Since 1998, he and his wife, Wendy, have given $980,000 to a political organization affiliated with the League of Conservation Voters, which has slammed Bush, saying he is on the way to "compiling the worst environmental record of any president in the history of the United States." (SOUNDS BALANCED AND FAIR)
On economic policy, however, Paulson apparently is more in sync with the president. He has supported tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy, said Tony Snow, Bush's press secretary.
Paulson's nomination stirred no immediate objections in the Senate. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Finance Committee, said he looked forward to meeting the nominee. A Democratic member of the Finance Committee, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), said he spoke with Paulson yesterday and pledged his "full support for his nomination."
According to sources familiar with the events who spoke on the condition of anonymity because conversations were confidential, Paulson had long planned to pursue his passion for the environment when he retired. Even when Bolten called him in mid-May and urged him to reconsider after rebuffing the original White House overtures, Paulson rejected a request that he meet with Bush, saying he did not want to waste the president's time.
Bolten persisted, and Paulson eventually agreed to meet with Bush. During his long White House session May 20, Paulson "wanted to make sure that he would get access to the president, and he wanted to make sure he understood how the president viewed the job, and he was satisfied with the answers," a source said.
Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
Bush Nominates Henry Paulson To Succeed Snow
By Michael A. Fletcher and Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A01
President Bush named Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chairman Henry M. Paulson Jr. as Treasury secretary yesterday, turning to a prominent Wall Street insider to lead his economic team and become the chief promoter of the administration's fiscal policies.
The nomination, announced in a brief Rose Garden ceremony, marked the first time Bush has chosen a chieftain from the world of finance to head the Treasury after the Cabinet post was occupied by two industrial-sector executives who struggled to hold sway with Bush's inner circle. Although Bush has shown mistrust of financiers, he hailed Paulson's service as head of "one of the most respected firms on Wall Street" who has "an intimate knowledge of financial markets and an ability to explain economic issues in clear terms." (MISTRUST OF FINANCIERS? WHERE THE **** DID THIS COME FROM??)
The move culminated a months-long recruitment during which Paulson rebuffed several White House overtures, according to administration officials and people familiar with Paulson's decision making. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten renewed the effort in recent weeks and persuaded his former Goldman Sachs colleague to meet with Bush at the White House earlier this month. It was then, after a long Saturday meeting 11 days ago, that Bush persuaded Paulson to take the job.
In the meeting, Paulson sought assurances that the post, which at times has been seen as subordinated by the White House, would have the proper kind of stature.
"He was curious about what was myth and what was reality when it came to the inner workings of the job," said a top Bush adviser with close knowledge of the selection process. "I think he was reassured by understanding how the job operates."
If confirmed by the Senate, Paulson, 60, will replace Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, who in December told the White House that he wanted to step down after three years in the job. Although a loyal booster of Bush's policies, Snow suffered from the widespread perception in markets and on Capitol Hill that he was an advocate rather than a key policymaker.
The White House sought Paulson even though he and his wife contributed nearly $1 million to an environmental organization that has been harshly critical of the president. (OOOO, A CONTRIBUTION, WHATEVER WILL WE DO)
Paulson's nomination comes as the economy is exhibiting robust growth and strength, but also some troubling signs. While the economy grew at its fastest rate in 2 1/2 years during the first quarter of 2006 and unemployment remains low, public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans think the economy is in fair or poor shape. Rising gasoline prices and a median household income that, adjusted for inflation, has fallen during the Bush years have fanned public anxiety. (SO, EVEN THE ECONOMY IS GOING GREAT, ENOUGH NEGATIVE STORIES HAVE MADE THERE MARK. POLLS MEAN THAT IT IS TRUE? THAT IS INTERESTING)
"Everything is going great in the economy until you look at the people in it," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute.
In brief remarks, Paulson said 32 years on Wall Street have given him a keen sense of the power that markets have in fostering economic growth and efficiency. "Our economy's strength is rooted in the entrepreneurial spirit and the competitive zeal of the American people, and in our free and open market," Paulson said as Bush looked on. "It is truly a marvel, but we cannot take it for granted."
In choosing Paulson, Bush defied skeptics who predicted that late in his presidency he would be unable to attract a Wall Street heavy hitter for a position that up to now has held little power in his administration. As chief since 1999 of one of Wall Street's wealthiest investment-banking firms, Paulson brings high-caliber financial credentials that contrast with Bush's previous Treasury chiefs -- Paul H. O'Neill, who ran Alcoa aluminum, and Snow, of the CSX railroad. (SO, AGAIN THE 'SKEPTICS' [READ: ANTI-BUSH] ARE, ONCE AGAIN, WRONG)
The White House was eager to find a candidate with credibility among investors. Markets have turned highly volatile in recent weeks, with the biggest dips coming in commodities and stocks in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. U.S. stocks, which have also dropped sharply from recent highs, sank anew yesterday, with the Dow Jones industrial average shedding 184.18 points, mainly because of a rise in oil prices and a report showing a decline in consumer confidence. With Alan Greenspan having recently left the Federal Reserve Board in the untested hands of a new chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, the administration was in danger of lacking a figure with deep experience in market downturns -- such as the Asian flu of the late 1990s -- that could undermine the international economy.
"We have a very strong economy, a very strong banking system, but these things do happen, just like hurricanes," said Stephen Friedman, the former director of Bush's National Economic Council and a predecessor of Paulson's at Goldman Sachs. "Hank is someone with a superb background, who understands markets in his bones. That's something the White House was very aware of."
Paulson worked in the Pentagon as a young man, after his graduation from Dartmouth College in 1968 and Harvard Business School in 1970. He began at Goldman Sachs in 1974 and worked his way up to chairman and chief executive, a job that brought him a compensation package in 2005 of $38.8 million.
An ardent conservationist, Paulson is the outgoing chairman of the Nature Conservancy, an environmental group. Paulson donated to the presidential campaigns of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). In 2003, he gave $2,000 to Bush's reelection effort. Since 1998, he and his wife, Wendy, have given $980,000 to a political organization affiliated with the League of Conservation Voters, which has slammed Bush, saying he is on the way to "compiling the worst environmental record of any president in the history of the United States." (SOUNDS BALANCED AND FAIR)
On economic policy, however, Paulson apparently is more in sync with the president. He has supported tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy, said Tony Snow, Bush's press secretary.
Paulson's nomination stirred no immediate objections in the Senate. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Finance Committee, said he looked forward to meeting the nominee. A Democratic member of the Finance Committee, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), said he spoke with Paulson yesterday and pledged his "full support for his nomination."
According to sources familiar with the events who spoke on the condition of anonymity because conversations were confidential, Paulson had long planned to pursue his passion for the environment when he retired. Even when Bolten called him in mid-May and urged him to reconsider after rebuffing the original White House overtures, Paulson rejected a request that he meet with Bush, saying he did not want to waste the president's time.
Bolten persisted, and Paulson eventually agreed to meet with Bush. During his long White House session May 20, Paulson "wanted to make sure that he would get access to the president, and he wanted to make sure he understood how the president viewed the job, and he was satisfied with the answers," a source said.
Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
Nations Move Closer to Unity on Iran Strategy
Top officials are to meet this week in a bid to work out differences on sanctions and incentives aimed at halting Tehran's nuclear work.
By Alissa J. Rubin
Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2006
VIENNA — World powers appeared close to agreement Tuesday on steps to curb Iran's nuclear program, as several Western diplomats said they remained concerned about evidence of highly enriched uranium discovered on equipment at a military site.
A united front by the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany would boost the diplomatic effort on Iran, which has foundered in the face of defiance from the Tehran government, which announced in April that it had successfully enriched uranium. Since then, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his surrogates have made almost daily boasts about the country's nuclear program. (I THOUGHT IT WAS BECAUSE OF US ACTIONS?)
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and the foreign ministers of Germany and the five permanent council members — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China — are to meet Thursday in Vienna to try to bridge their differences on Iran. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to attend.
President Bush spoke to Russian, French and German leaders Tuesday.
The intensive discussions involve a package of incentives the EU will offer Iran, in exchange for Tehran's halting of uranium enrichment, providing more access to United Nations inspectors and answering outstanding questions from the inspectors.
Differences remain over the timing of sanctions if Iran refuses.
The Russians and Chinese are reluctant to support sanctions, particularly if they are tied to the EU offer.
The U.S. wants the EU to present its package of incentives at the same time the council approves a resolution authorizing sanctions if Iran fails to comply within 30 days.
Although positions have moved closer in recent discussions, differences apparently remain over crucial legal questions, including which chapter of the U.N. charter would be cited to authorize Iran's censure and which sanctions would be considered.
Iran has sent mixed signals about its willingness to negotiate. Most recently, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who is traveling in Malaysia, said Iran wanted to resume talks with the EU but would not talk to the United States, wire reports said.
The message from Tehran was less conciliatory. In a speech at Tehran University, Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy nuclear energy chief, cautioned Europeans to "consider irreversible realities" in their offer to Iran, a reference to his country's successful production of enriched uranium for power plants. Although the amount produced was small, and its enrichment level well below weapons grade, the achievement showed that Iranian engineers were on their way to mastering the technology. (RIGHT, THEY HAD NO PROBLEMS AND ARE WELL ON THEIR WAY, HUH?)
Iran appears to be proceeding with its enrichment program and continues to obscure the extent of its nuclear efforts before 2002, when its previously secret program was disclosed by an opposition group.
Traces of enriched uranium found recently on equipment from the former Physics Research Center at the Lavisan-Shian military site included at least one sample with an enrichment level of 54%, said diplomats close to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog. Other samples had lower levels, officials said.
The origin of the highly enriched uranium is unclear and troubling, diplomats said. Uranium for civilian purposes is typically enriched to 3% to 5%, although it can be enriched to as high as 10%. (OOPS - THAT KINDA BLOWS APART THE CIVILIAN USES THEORY)
The percentage refers to the relative amount of the U-235 uranium isotope, which is what's needed to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. Uranium enriched to more than 90% is considered weapons grade.
"Iran certainly still has some explaining to do," a senior diplomat in Vienna said.
The leading scenario to explain the presence of the highly enriched uranium, which was found on vacuum pumps, is that the traces came from equipment brought into Iran from Pakistan when Tehran was secretly importing centrifuge parts from the black market network of Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. (SURE, AND MAGIC BULLET THEORY IS LEGIT TOO)
Such a scenario would imply either that Iran used the vacuum pumps with the contaminated centrifuges in an enrichment experiment at the military site, or that scientists involved in working with the contaminated centrifuges brought the contamination with them to the site. "Contamination can spread very easily," a diplomat familiar with the issue said.
Either case would implicate the military in uranium enrichment and imply a link to development of a weapon. Such a link, which has been denied by Iran, would violate the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
David Albright, a former weapons inspector who runs the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, described the new findings as "important, because of the connections to the military, which is always something the Iranians have said there weren't."
He said the Pakistanis could have sent parts from a dismantled section of a cascade of centrifuges where uranium was enriched to the 54% level. Pakistan has a military nuclear program.
Another, more troubling option is that Iran has a secret, undisclosed military program where it is enriching uranium to high levels. But experts on Iran's program, diplomats and intelligence sources say it is unlikely the country would have been able to enrich to such high levels on its own. (BUT HAVE THEY, WITH OR WITHOUT HELP?)
"The main question is: Why was the contamination on that equipment at Lavisan?" said an official close to the IAEA. "It's not a smoking gun yet — they need to do more tests — but there is no civilian use for 54% enriched uranium except for medical isotopes, and the Iranians haven't said that was what they needed highly enriched uranium for."
Albright said the contamination information was part of a trail that connected officials affiliated with Lavisan's Physics Research Center to nuclear procurement and possibly nuclear experiments.
Whether Lavisan was ever used for nuclear experiments is unknown because shortly before IAEA inspectors visited the vast site in 2004, the buildings and soil were carted away. (SOUNDS INNOCENT TO ME. WE SHOULD GIVE IRAN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT)
Top officials are to meet this week in a bid to work out differences on sanctions and incentives aimed at halting Tehran's nuclear work.
By Alissa J. Rubin
Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2006
VIENNA — World powers appeared close to agreement Tuesday on steps to curb Iran's nuclear program, as several Western diplomats said they remained concerned about evidence of highly enriched uranium discovered on equipment at a military site.
A united front by the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany would boost the diplomatic effort on Iran, which has foundered in the face of defiance from the Tehran government, which announced in April that it had successfully enriched uranium. Since then, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his surrogates have made almost daily boasts about the country's nuclear program. (I THOUGHT IT WAS BECAUSE OF US ACTIONS?)
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and the foreign ministers of Germany and the five permanent council members — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China — are to meet Thursday in Vienna to try to bridge their differences on Iran. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to attend.
President Bush spoke to Russian, French and German leaders Tuesday.
The intensive discussions involve a package of incentives the EU will offer Iran, in exchange for Tehran's halting of uranium enrichment, providing more access to United Nations inspectors and answering outstanding questions from the inspectors.
Differences remain over the timing of sanctions if Iran refuses.
The Russians and Chinese are reluctant to support sanctions, particularly if they are tied to the EU offer.
The U.S. wants the EU to present its package of incentives at the same time the council approves a resolution authorizing sanctions if Iran fails to comply within 30 days.
Although positions have moved closer in recent discussions, differences apparently remain over crucial legal questions, including which chapter of the U.N. charter would be cited to authorize Iran's censure and which sanctions would be considered.
Iran has sent mixed signals about its willingness to negotiate. Most recently, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who is traveling in Malaysia, said Iran wanted to resume talks with the EU but would not talk to the United States, wire reports said.
The message from Tehran was less conciliatory. In a speech at Tehran University, Mohammed Saeedi, the deputy nuclear energy chief, cautioned Europeans to "consider irreversible realities" in their offer to Iran, a reference to his country's successful production of enriched uranium for power plants. Although the amount produced was small, and its enrichment level well below weapons grade, the achievement showed that Iranian engineers were on their way to mastering the technology. (RIGHT, THEY HAD NO PROBLEMS AND ARE WELL ON THEIR WAY, HUH?)
Iran appears to be proceeding with its enrichment program and continues to obscure the extent of its nuclear efforts before 2002, when its previously secret program was disclosed by an opposition group.
Traces of enriched uranium found recently on equipment from the former Physics Research Center at the Lavisan-Shian military site included at least one sample with an enrichment level of 54%, said diplomats close to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog. Other samples had lower levels, officials said.
The origin of the highly enriched uranium is unclear and troubling, diplomats said. Uranium for civilian purposes is typically enriched to 3% to 5%, although it can be enriched to as high as 10%. (OOPS - THAT KINDA BLOWS APART THE CIVILIAN USES THEORY)
The percentage refers to the relative amount of the U-235 uranium isotope, which is what's needed to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. Uranium enriched to more than 90% is considered weapons grade.
"Iran certainly still has some explaining to do," a senior diplomat in Vienna said.
The leading scenario to explain the presence of the highly enriched uranium, which was found on vacuum pumps, is that the traces came from equipment brought into Iran from Pakistan when Tehran was secretly importing centrifuge parts from the black market network of Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. (SURE, AND MAGIC BULLET THEORY IS LEGIT TOO)
Such a scenario would imply either that Iran used the vacuum pumps with the contaminated centrifuges in an enrichment experiment at the military site, or that scientists involved in working with the contaminated centrifuges brought the contamination with them to the site. "Contamination can spread very easily," a diplomat familiar with the issue said.
Either case would implicate the military in uranium enrichment and imply a link to development of a weapon. Such a link, which has been denied by Iran, would violate the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
David Albright, a former weapons inspector who runs the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, described the new findings as "important, because of the connections to the military, which is always something the Iranians have said there weren't."
He said the Pakistanis could have sent parts from a dismantled section of a cascade of centrifuges where uranium was enriched to the 54% level. Pakistan has a military nuclear program.
Another, more troubling option is that Iran has a secret, undisclosed military program where it is enriching uranium to high levels. But experts on Iran's program, diplomats and intelligence sources say it is unlikely the country would have been able to enrich to such high levels on its own. (BUT HAVE THEY, WITH OR WITHOUT HELP?)
"The main question is: Why was the contamination on that equipment at Lavisan?" said an official close to the IAEA. "It's not a smoking gun yet — they need to do more tests — but there is no civilian use for 54% enriched uranium except for medical isotopes, and the Iranians haven't said that was what they needed highly enriched uranium for."
Albright said the contamination information was part of a trail that connected officials affiliated with Lavisan's Physics Research Center to nuclear procurement and possibly nuclear experiments.
Whether Lavisan was ever used for nuclear experiments is unknown because shortly before IAEA inspectors visited the vast site in 2004, the buildings and soil were carted away. (SOUNDS INNOCENT TO ME. WE SHOULD GIVE IRAN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT)
Mexico Rivals Vie for Dissatisfied Middle
The wealthy are drawn to Calderon, the poor to Lopez Obrador. But the presidency may rest with voters in between, in cities such as Ecatepec.
By Héctor Tobar
Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2006
ECATEPEC, Mexico — Jose Luis Arriaga is the kind of voter Mexico's presidential campaigns are spending millions to reach — or at least scare. If he makes the wrong choice on election day, they warn, his hard-earned savings might disappear into thin air.
They also remind him about what frustrates him most: spiraling crime, unemployment, rampant corruption and the fact that so many of his countrymen are leaving for the United States. On occasion, they appeal to his sense of social equality.
The taco stand owner is an undecided voter in an election being fought between two leading candidates who claim a strong base on either side of this country's class divide.
Former Energy Secretary Felipe Calderon of the conservative National Action Party has a passionate following among the country's well-off minority and its upper middle class. As for Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the onetime mayor of Mexico City, one need only look at the slogan of his leftist Democratic Revolution Party: "For the Good of Everyone, the Poor First."
In between are the people who consider themselves neither poor nor well off. In other words, people such as Arriaga, who runs a taqueria in this sprawling city of 1.6 million people in the key state of Mexico, a horseshoe-shaped territory surrounding Mexico City.
"It's a hard choice to make," Arriaga said. "We're being told so many things, we don't know who to believe."
Mexico City pollster Dan Lund says the campaign for the July presidential contest has become a battle to win over middle- and lower-middle-class voters, the swing-vote "soccer moms" of this election.
"There's a huge group of voters who are dissatisfied with their options," said Pamela Starr, Latin America analyst for Eurasia Group, a global risk consulting firm. "They don't associate themselves with the poor, but at the same time they're dissatisfied with the way things have gone under" President Vicente Fox.
Here in Ecatepec, as elsewhere, swing voters seem to be torn between two dramatically different visions of where their country stands, and where it should go next.
Arriaga keeps his taqueria open 12 hours a day. He identifies with the poor, who buy his tacos and tortas (Mexican sandwiches) for about $1 each. If the city government, which will have a new mayor in a few months, were to suddenly evict him from his prime spot in the central plaza, he might be poor too.
In Fox's Mexico, things are not going well for the poor, Arriaga said. "What the country needs is work," he said. "Lopez Obrador says he's for the poor…. But when they say so many bad things about him, you figure two out of 10 must be true."
The "bad things" he's heard come from Calderon's campaign ads, which suggest Lopez Obrador would be a populist demagogue who would run the economy into the ground. Arriaga's business might be small, with seating for only six customers, but he thinks like a businessman nonetheless.
"If the prices start going up again for the basic things, then it's bad for us," he said.
In a country with a history of devaluations and hyperinflation, one doesn't take financial stability for granted. Fox was the president of financial stability, and Calderon is his party's candidate. But Arriaga says he knows almost nothing about Calderon. And he's troubled by a new Lopez Obrador ad that links Calderon to a controversial 1998 bailout of the country's banking system that many saw as a giveaway to the rich. Calderon backed the bailout when he was leader of the National Action Party, known as the PAN.
In recent years, the ambivalence of residents such as Arriaga has made Ecatepec something of a political Frisbee, tossed from one party to the next. It is one of the few cities to have elected mayors from each of Mexico's three major parties in its last three local elections.
"We like to vote for whatever is in fashion," said Pablo Flores, director of Radio Ecatepec, a station that broadcasts via loudspeakers in the city's plazas.
Once upon a time, the Revolutionary Institutional Party, known as the PRI, won all the elections here, thanks to a formidable party apparatus and a system of patronage that reached down to the block level.
Then, six years ago, Fox came along. "Everyone in Ecatepec got excited about Fox," Flores said. "People liked the way he talked. He really caught on."
Fox's election in 2000 broke the PRI's 71-year hold on power. His coattails helped PAN's local candidate win the mayor's race in Ecatepec for the first time.
"Fox came to change things," said Humberto Soto Ramirez, the owner of a small clothing factory who supplements his income driving a taxi-van. "But what the PRI built in 70 years, Fox couldn't change in six."
But in 2003, after the PAN mayor became embroiled in corruption charges, the PRI took back Ecatepec's City Hall.
In the most recent municipal elections, this March, Ecatepec elected a mayor from the Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, for the first time: Lopez Obrador campaigned in the city, and his popularity no doubt helped local PRD candidates. The PRI has fallen out of favor, largely because of allegations of corruption surrounding its presidential candidate, Roberto Madrazo, who lags far behind in the polls.
"Lopez Obrador was in fashion, so we voted for him," Flores said.
Like many people here, Flores likes what Lopez Obrador has to say about the state of Mexican government. Without prompting, he repeats a staple of the Lopez Obrador stump speech: that corruption eats up a big chunk of the public budget that would be better spent on government services. (NO ****)
"The people need to see more police, more security for the taxes they pay," Flores said. "Instead, everything goes into 'current spending,' " a Mexican euphemism for the way bureaucrats dispense political favors disguised as administrative costs.
Still, Flores thinks that Lopez Obrador is a "populist" and that the educated Calderon is better prepared to be president. Lopez Obrador struggled to finish his studies at a public university in Mexico, whereas Calderon has a master's degree from Harvard. But Calderon is seen by many people in Ecatepec as a bland technocrat and isn't generating a lot of excitement here, Flores said.
"It's just the way he is, his personality," Flores said. "The people just don't believe him when he says he's our brother."
The most enthusiastic campaigning going on in Ecatepec these days is for Lopez Obrador, Flores said. The local PRD has "youth brigades" that rally every week in the city's main plaza.
"They're sort of like evangelicals," Flores said, frowning.
The idea that his campaign is a crusade to "make history" is one Lopez Obrador repeats often. A series of ads by filmmaker Luis Mandoki reinforce the message with black-and-white footage of his family's rustic country home in Tabasco and of Lopez Obrador speaking to massive crowds in Mexico City.
By contrast, two Calderon ads use black-and-white shots of Lopez Obrador engaged in street fighting during protests against alleged electoral fraud in Tabasco, and of Lopez Obrador shaking the hand of the Zapatista guerrilla leader, Subcomandante Marcos.
In one sense, the campaign boils down to two very distinct ways of looking at the country's most charismatic politician, Lopez Obrador.
Lopez Obrador portrays himself as an antidote to a corrupt past favoring the rich, offering his own plebian biography and record as a fighter for the poor as mayor of Mexico City.
Calderon is telling voters that rather than gambling on an uncertain future with an unstable leftist, they should choose his credentials as the U.S.-educated son of a traditional family.
"There's been a lot of attacks," Arturo Ortega said as he stood in the doorway of his home, looking out at Ecatepec's plaza. "I don't know about everybody else, but I'm exhausted from watching it all."
The wealthy are drawn to Calderon, the poor to Lopez Obrador. But the presidency may rest with voters in between, in cities such as Ecatepec.
By Héctor Tobar
Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2006
ECATEPEC, Mexico — Jose Luis Arriaga is the kind of voter Mexico's presidential campaigns are spending millions to reach — or at least scare. If he makes the wrong choice on election day, they warn, his hard-earned savings might disappear into thin air.
They also remind him about what frustrates him most: spiraling crime, unemployment, rampant corruption and the fact that so many of his countrymen are leaving for the United States. On occasion, they appeal to his sense of social equality.
The taco stand owner is an undecided voter in an election being fought between two leading candidates who claim a strong base on either side of this country's class divide.
Former Energy Secretary Felipe Calderon of the conservative National Action Party has a passionate following among the country's well-off minority and its upper middle class. As for Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the onetime mayor of Mexico City, one need only look at the slogan of his leftist Democratic Revolution Party: "For the Good of Everyone, the Poor First."
In between are the people who consider themselves neither poor nor well off. In other words, people such as Arriaga, who runs a taqueria in this sprawling city of 1.6 million people in the key state of Mexico, a horseshoe-shaped territory surrounding Mexico City.
"It's a hard choice to make," Arriaga said. "We're being told so many things, we don't know who to believe."
Mexico City pollster Dan Lund says the campaign for the July presidential contest has become a battle to win over middle- and lower-middle-class voters, the swing-vote "soccer moms" of this election.
"There's a huge group of voters who are dissatisfied with their options," said Pamela Starr, Latin America analyst for Eurasia Group, a global risk consulting firm. "They don't associate themselves with the poor, but at the same time they're dissatisfied with the way things have gone under" President Vicente Fox.
Here in Ecatepec, as elsewhere, swing voters seem to be torn between two dramatically different visions of where their country stands, and where it should go next.
Arriaga keeps his taqueria open 12 hours a day. He identifies with the poor, who buy his tacos and tortas (Mexican sandwiches) for about $1 each. If the city government, which will have a new mayor in a few months, were to suddenly evict him from his prime spot in the central plaza, he might be poor too.
In Fox's Mexico, things are not going well for the poor, Arriaga said. "What the country needs is work," he said. "Lopez Obrador says he's for the poor…. But when they say so many bad things about him, you figure two out of 10 must be true."
The "bad things" he's heard come from Calderon's campaign ads, which suggest Lopez Obrador would be a populist demagogue who would run the economy into the ground. Arriaga's business might be small, with seating for only six customers, but he thinks like a businessman nonetheless.
"If the prices start going up again for the basic things, then it's bad for us," he said.
In a country with a history of devaluations and hyperinflation, one doesn't take financial stability for granted. Fox was the president of financial stability, and Calderon is his party's candidate. But Arriaga says he knows almost nothing about Calderon. And he's troubled by a new Lopez Obrador ad that links Calderon to a controversial 1998 bailout of the country's banking system that many saw as a giveaway to the rich. Calderon backed the bailout when he was leader of the National Action Party, known as the PAN.
In recent years, the ambivalence of residents such as Arriaga has made Ecatepec something of a political Frisbee, tossed from one party to the next. It is one of the few cities to have elected mayors from each of Mexico's three major parties in its last three local elections.
"We like to vote for whatever is in fashion," said Pablo Flores, director of Radio Ecatepec, a station that broadcasts via loudspeakers in the city's plazas.
Once upon a time, the Revolutionary Institutional Party, known as the PRI, won all the elections here, thanks to a formidable party apparatus and a system of patronage that reached down to the block level.
Then, six years ago, Fox came along. "Everyone in Ecatepec got excited about Fox," Flores said. "People liked the way he talked. He really caught on."
Fox's election in 2000 broke the PRI's 71-year hold on power. His coattails helped PAN's local candidate win the mayor's race in Ecatepec for the first time.
"Fox came to change things," said Humberto Soto Ramirez, the owner of a small clothing factory who supplements his income driving a taxi-van. "But what the PRI built in 70 years, Fox couldn't change in six."
But in 2003, after the PAN mayor became embroiled in corruption charges, the PRI took back Ecatepec's City Hall.
In the most recent municipal elections, this March, Ecatepec elected a mayor from the Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, for the first time: Lopez Obrador campaigned in the city, and his popularity no doubt helped local PRD candidates. The PRI has fallen out of favor, largely because of allegations of corruption surrounding its presidential candidate, Roberto Madrazo, who lags far behind in the polls.
"Lopez Obrador was in fashion, so we voted for him," Flores said.
Like many people here, Flores likes what Lopez Obrador has to say about the state of Mexican government. Without prompting, he repeats a staple of the Lopez Obrador stump speech: that corruption eats up a big chunk of the public budget that would be better spent on government services. (NO ****)
"The people need to see more police, more security for the taxes they pay," Flores said. "Instead, everything goes into 'current spending,' " a Mexican euphemism for the way bureaucrats dispense political favors disguised as administrative costs.
Still, Flores thinks that Lopez Obrador is a "populist" and that the educated Calderon is better prepared to be president. Lopez Obrador struggled to finish his studies at a public university in Mexico, whereas Calderon has a master's degree from Harvard. But Calderon is seen by many people in Ecatepec as a bland technocrat and isn't generating a lot of excitement here, Flores said.
"It's just the way he is, his personality," Flores said. "The people just don't believe him when he says he's our brother."
The most enthusiastic campaigning going on in Ecatepec these days is for Lopez Obrador, Flores said. The local PRD has "youth brigades" that rally every week in the city's main plaza.
"They're sort of like evangelicals," Flores said, frowning.
The idea that his campaign is a crusade to "make history" is one Lopez Obrador repeats often. A series of ads by filmmaker Luis Mandoki reinforce the message with black-and-white footage of his family's rustic country home in Tabasco and of Lopez Obrador speaking to massive crowds in Mexico City.
By contrast, two Calderon ads use black-and-white shots of Lopez Obrador engaged in street fighting during protests against alleged electoral fraud in Tabasco, and of Lopez Obrador shaking the hand of the Zapatista guerrilla leader, Subcomandante Marcos.
In one sense, the campaign boils down to two very distinct ways of looking at the country's most charismatic politician, Lopez Obrador.
Lopez Obrador portrays himself as an antidote to a corrupt past favoring the rich, offering his own plebian biography and record as a fighter for the poor as mayor of Mexico City.
Calderon is telling voters that rather than gambling on an uncertain future with an unstable leftist, they should choose his credentials as the U.S.-educated son of a traditional family.
"There's been a lot of attacks," Arturo Ortega said as he stood in the doorway of his home, looking out at Ecatepec's plaza. "I don't know about everybody else, but I'm exhausted from watching it all."
Hopes for Iraq Pullback Fading
The worsening situation in the west means U.S. troops are likely to stay, officials say. Military sends backup but denies an offensive is coming.
By Louise Roug and Peter Spiegel
Times Staff Writers
May 31, 2006
BAGHDAD — The Pentagon's hopes of making substantial reductions in U.S. troop levels in Iraq this year appear to be fading as a result of resurgent violence in the country, particularly in the Sunni Arab stronghold of Al Anbar province, military officials acknowledge. (NOT SO FAST, LATIMES STYLE)
Army Gen. George W. Casey, commander of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, said Tuesday that he was moving 1,500 "backup" troops from Kuwait to Al Anbar, the western region that includes the war-torn cities of Fallouja and Ramadi.
Publicly, Pentagon officials insisted Tuesday that the move was temporary and unrelated to Casey's much-delayed recommendation on overall troop levels, now expected to be made next month. But other officers have privately acknowledged that the worsening situation in Al Anbar — particularly in Ramadi, which U.S. officials say is now under insurgent control — is likely to prevent any significant drawdown this year. (WE'LL JSUT HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE - HARD TO BE SO SURE OF THE FUTURE IN 6 MONTHS)
Since the beginning of the year, military commanders have said that progress in forming a government and training the Iraqi military might allow U.S. troop levels to be reduced from more than 130,000 to 100,000 or fewer. But a senior officer privy to Iraq planning discussions, who requested anonymity when discussing internal Pentagon debates, said there was "a growing realization" that ongoing violence was hampering withdrawal plans.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair hinted at that realization last week when, after a meeting with Casey, he said he expected insurgents to "test" the new Iraqi government "very, very strongly" in coming months. Blair and President Bush, meeting at the White House last week, postponed an anticipated announcement on troop reduction.
On Tuesday, Italy announced it would withdraw its 2,600 troops by year's end, and South Korea this week began drawing down 1,000 of its 3,200 troops in Iraq.
Ramadi remains the area of most concern, military officials in Iraq and Washington said. Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, a senior planner for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that Ramadi was "probably the most contentious city right now inside Iraq," adding that insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi's organization might be trying to establish a "safe haven" in the city. (WELL, WHAT IF AMZ IS OUT OF THE BALLGAME?)
"It's a convenient location in that regard, because of the Euphrates River valley, access to border areas, access into Baghdad," Ham said. "You could see from that area why it would be an area they'd be interested in."
Signs that Zarqawi-linked groups have taken over the city have been growing. One by one, Sunni sheiks who had vowed to fight radical Islamic insurgents in Al Anbar province have been assassinated.
Tribal leaders describe Ramadi as a lawless city where American troops are unable to stop the gunmen who threaten and kill residents. U.S. forces in the city, hunkered down in the battle-scarred downtown government center, come under large-scale attack almost daily. (WELL, THEY COULD STOP THEM BUT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE HOW THAT GOES DOWN)
Repeated assaults on officers and recruits have left the city without an effective police force.
Military officials say the deployment of new troops to Al Anbar is not a prelude to an offensive like the one launched in 2004 on Fallouja, which had become a haven for rebels.
"Moving this force will allow tribal leaders and government officials to go about the very difficult task of taking back their towns from the criminal elements," said Army Maj. J. Todd Breasseale, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. "The local sheiks are trying to do the right thing, but they need help doing it."
(WHY DO THE SHEIKS NOT SUPPORT AMZ?)
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, also said that although Al Anbar remained a "challenge," it did not reflect the security situation in the rest of Iraq. The Pentagon's congressionally mandated quarterly status report on Iraq, published Tuesday, shows that 81% of attacks over the last three months came in four central provinces, including Al Anbar, while the remaining regions were comparatively peaceful.
But the report also shows an increase in the overall average number of attacks, from fewer than 500 per week last year to more than 600 per week in the most recent quarter. The increase was attributed to sectarian violence that erupted after the February bombing of a prominent Shiite mosque in Samarra.
On average, nearly 80 Iraqis were killed or wounded every day from mid-February through mid-May, up from the previous quarter's 60 per day. At least 92 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Al Anbar since the start of the year.
Ramadi residents say they have detected an intensified U.S. effort in recent days to wrest control of the city's streets from insurgents. A Sunni sheik said residents had begun to flee as American forces stepped up bombing raids and ground patrols in the last 10 days.
Ibrahim Zaki Humadi, 37, who left Ramadi with his wife and five children three weeks ago, said U.S. troops had cordoned off his neighborhood with concrete blocks and set up sniper positions. Residents must signal the soldiers when they want to leave the area, he said.
"They are fortifying their positions and are shooting at everyone who moves who doesn't carry a white flag, and even that cannot guarantee your survival," he said, referring to Iraqi as well as American troops. "The situation is miserable."
Ali Hatim Salman, a tribal sheik in Al Anbar, said an increasing number of civilians were fleeing Ramadi, either for its suburbs or Baghdad, at least in part because they suspect the U.S. is preparing an offensive.
"Some areas in Ramadi are controlled completely by the terrorists," Salman said. "If the Americans want to stabilize the city, they can do that."
If commanders decide to launch a large-scale offensive in Ramadi, they may have to wait until the new government in Baghdad is more firmly in place. Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has yet to appoint a defense or interior minister, and a U.S. intelligence official said coalition officers had refrained from launching such an operation because of opposition from the preceding interim government.
Speaking weeks before Casey had committed the new troops to Baghdad, the intelligence official said U.S. Marines, who are deployed in Al Anbar, as early as December had been discussing plans for a major sweep in Ramadi, but remained concerned about a potentially adverse political fallout, as occurred after offensives in Fallouja and Najaf.
"Ramadi is literally a bloody stalemate," the intelligence official said. "The governor is a prisoner in his own provincial capital building."
An attack on Ramadi would force U.S. commanders to draw on significant manpower to clear out and then stabilize the region, as well as to prepare contingencies for any backlash.
"You can't do that and withdraw at the same time," said another military officer.
*
Roug reported from Baghdad and Spiegel from Washington. Times staff writers Solomon Moore and Raheem Salman in Baghdad and Julian E. Barnes in Washington contributed to this report.
The worsening situation in the west means U.S. troops are likely to stay, officials say. Military sends backup but denies an offensive is coming.
By Louise Roug and Peter Spiegel
Times Staff Writers
May 31, 2006
BAGHDAD — The Pentagon's hopes of making substantial reductions in U.S. troop levels in Iraq this year appear to be fading as a result of resurgent violence in the country, particularly in the Sunni Arab stronghold of Al Anbar province, military officials acknowledge. (NOT SO FAST, LATIMES STYLE)
Army Gen. George W. Casey, commander of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, said Tuesday that he was moving 1,500 "backup" troops from Kuwait to Al Anbar, the western region that includes the war-torn cities of Fallouja and Ramadi.
Publicly, Pentagon officials insisted Tuesday that the move was temporary and unrelated to Casey's much-delayed recommendation on overall troop levels, now expected to be made next month. But other officers have privately acknowledged that the worsening situation in Al Anbar — particularly in Ramadi, which U.S. officials say is now under insurgent control — is likely to prevent any significant drawdown this year. (WE'LL JSUT HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE - HARD TO BE SO SURE OF THE FUTURE IN 6 MONTHS)
Since the beginning of the year, military commanders have said that progress in forming a government and training the Iraqi military might allow U.S. troop levels to be reduced from more than 130,000 to 100,000 or fewer. But a senior officer privy to Iraq planning discussions, who requested anonymity when discussing internal Pentagon debates, said there was "a growing realization" that ongoing violence was hampering withdrawal plans.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair hinted at that realization last week when, after a meeting with Casey, he said he expected insurgents to "test" the new Iraqi government "very, very strongly" in coming months. Blair and President Bush, meeting at the White House last week, postponed an anticipated announcement on troop reduction.
On Tuesday, Italy announced it would withdraw its 2,600 troops by year's end, and South Korea this week began drawing down 1,000 of its 3,200 troops in Iraq.
Ramadi remains the area of most concern, military officials in Iraq and Washington said. Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, a senior planner for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that Ramadi was "probably the most contentious city right now inside Iraq," adding that insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi's organization might be trying to establish a "safe haven" in the city. (WELL, WHAT IF AMZ IS OUT OF THE BALLGAME?)
"It's a convenient location in that regard, because of the Euphrates River valley, access to border areas, access into Baghdad," Ham said. "You could see from that area why it would be an area they'd be interested in."
Signs that Zarqawi-linked groups have taken over the city have been growing. One by one, Sunni sheiks who had vowed to fight radical Islamic insurgents in Al Anbar province have been assassinated.
Tribal leaders describe Ramadi as a lawless city where American troops are unable to stop the gunmen who threaten and kill residents. U.S. forces in the city, hunkered down in the battle-scarred downtown government center, come under large-scale attack almost daily. (WELL, THEY COULD STOP THEM BUT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE HOW THAT GOES DOWN)
Repeated assaults on officers and recruits have left the city without an effective police force.
Military officials say the deployment of new troops to Al Anbar is not a prelude to an offensive like the one launched in 2004 on Fallouja, which had become a haven for rebels.
"Moving this force will allow tribal leaders and government officials to go about the very difficult task of taking back their towns from the criminal elements," said Army Maj. J. Todd Breasseale, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. "The local sheiks are trying to do the right thing, but they need help doing it."
(WHY DO THE SHEIKS NOT SUPPORT AMZ?)
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, also said that although Al Anbar remained a "challenge," it did not reflect the security situation in the rest of Iraq. The Pentagon's congressionally mandated quarterly status report on Iraq, published Tuesday, shows that 81% of attacks over the last three months came in four central provinces, including Al Anbar, while the remaining regions were comparatively peaceful.
But the report also shows an increase in the overall average number of attacks, from fewer than 500 per week last year to more than 600 per week in the most recent quarter. The increase was attributed to sectarian violence that erupted after the February bombing of a prominent Shiite mosque in Samarra.
On average, nearly 80 Iraqis were killed or wounded every day from mid-February through mid-May, up from the previous quarter's 60 per day. At least 92 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Al Anbar since the start of the year.
Ramadi residents say they have detected an intensified U.S. effort in recent days to wrest control of the city's streets from insurgents. A Sunni sheik said residents had begun to flee as American forces stepped up bombing raids and ground patrols in the last 10 days.
Ibrahim Zaki Humadi, 37, who left Ramadi with his wife and five children three weeks ago, said U.S. troops had cordoned off his neighborhood with concrete blocks and set up sniper positions. Residents must signal the soldiers when they want to leave the area, he said.
"They are fortifying their positions and are shooting at everyone who moves who doesn't carry a white flag, and even that cannot guarantee your survival," he said, referring to Iraqi as well as American troops. "The situation is miserable."
Ali Hatim Salman, a tribal sheik in Al Anbar, said an increasing number of civilians were fleeing Ramadi, either for its suburbs or Baghdad, at least in part because they suspect the U.S. is preparing an offensive.
"Some areas in Ramadi are controlled completely by the terrorists," Salman said. "If the Americans want to stabilize the city, they can do that."
If commanders decide to launch a large-scale offensive in Ramadi, they may have to wait until the new government in Baghdad is more firmly in place. Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has yet to appoint a defense or interior minister, and a U.S. intelligence official said coalition officers had refrained from launching such an operation because of opposition from the preceding interim government.
Speaking weeks before Casey had committed the new troops to Baghdad, the intelligence official said U.S. Marines, who are deployed in Al Anbar, as early as December had been discussing plans for a major sweep in Ramadi, but remained concerned about a potentially adverse political fallout, as occurred after offensives in Fallouja and Najaf.
"Ramadi is literally a bloody stalemate," the intelligence official said. "The governor is a prisoner in his own provincial capital building."
An attack on Ramadi would force U.S. commanders to draw on significant manpower to clear out and then stabilize the region, as well as to prepare contingencies for any backlash.
"You can't do that and withdraw at the same time," said another military officer.
*
Roug reported from Baghdad and Spiegel from Washington. Times staff writers Solomon Moore and Raheem Salman in Baghdad and Julian E. Barnes in Washington contributed to this report.
Outgoing euro chief warns of 'tensions'
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 31/05/2006)
Otmar Issing, Europe's high priest of monetary orthodoxy, has confessed that the euro was launched on flawed foundations and is now threatened by "big tensions" between north and south.
In a parting shot before stepping down today as the European Central Bank's chief economist, and dominant force, Dr Issing said the stark differences in wage inflation across the eurozone were storing up future trouble.
"The continuing divergence in unit labour costs has caused some member states to lose a substantial degree of competitiveness. This can cause big tensions," he said
"Some of these countries have manoeuvred themselves into a difficult situation. They must do everything to change course," he told the German daily Handelsblatt.
While he did not name the culprits, Dr Issing was clearly fingering the Club Med quartet of Portugal, Greece, Italy, and Spain, all of which failed to kick their inflationary habits after joining EMU.
He said the euro project was launched before the building blocks were in place. "The proper functioning of a monetary union requires flexible labour and good markets. These conditions have not been fulfilled from the start."
Dr Issing has been Frankfurt's intellectual powerhouse since the early 1990s, infusing the fledgling euro-bank with the ethos and monetary discipline of the revered Bundesbank, where he had also been chief economist.
A loyal public servant, he has never questioned the euro's viability, but it is an open secret that he long favoured a core currency limited to France, Germany and Benelux, and doubted whether the euro could survive as an orphan currency without the backing of full political union. Dr Issing said the ECB's biggest mistake so far has been to cling to lax monetary policy too long, allowing excess liquidity to build up. The M3 money supply has grown 8.8pc in the year to April, accelerating to a 10.5pc annual rate over the past three months.
"This high liquidity contains the potential for inflation. It has also led to a hunt for higher yields. Risk premiums have been so compressed that a lot of investors are no longer aware to the real risk they are taking on," he said.
Unlike the US Federal Reserve, which abolished M3 data this year and takes a benign view of asset bubbles, the ECB views any surge in the money supply as a portent of trouble.
The veiled warnings about Italy came as the new finance minister, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, warned of hair-shirt policies after a preliminary review of the budget books turned up fresh horrors.
"The reality is worse than what it appeared to be at first glance," he said.
Rome said hundreds of unfunded infrastructure projects had been launched by the outgoing government to create a "Potemkin" illusion of prosperity, leaving a wreckage of debts and signed contracts that could not be honoured.
The budget deficit is expected to reach 5pc of GDP by next year, while the national debt is spiralling upwards again for the first time since the early 1990s.
Charles Dumas, global strategist at Lombard Street Research, said Italy had frittered away the one-off, windfall benefits of monetary union and would eventually be forced out of the system. "Italy's whole structure of labour costs is now so far out of whack, it would take a depression to restore the balance. It can't be done."
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 31/05/2006)
Otmar Issing, Europe's high priest of monetary orthodoxy, has confessed that the euro was launched on flawed foundations and is now threatened by "big tensions" between north and south.
In a parting shot before stepping down today as the European Central Bank's chief economist, and dominant force, Dr Issing said the stark differences in wage inflation across the eurozone were storing up future trouble.
"The continuing divergence in unit labour costs has caused some member states to lose a substantial degree of competitiveness. This can cause big tensions," he said
"Some of these countries have manoeuvred themselves into a difficult situation. They must do everything to change course," he told the German daily Handelsblatt.
While he did not name the culprits, Dr Issing was clearly fingering the Club Med quartet of Portugal, Greece, Italy, and Spain, all of which failed to kick their inflationary habits after joining EMU.
He said the euro project was launched before the building blocks were in place. "The proper functioning of a monetary union requires flexible labour and good markets. These conditions have not been fulfilled from the start."
Dr Issing has been Frankfurt's intellectual powerhouse since the early 1990s, infusing the fledgling euro-bank with the ethos and monetary discipline of the revered Bundesbank, where he had also been chief economist.
A loyal public servant, he has never questioned the euro's viability, but it is an open secret that he long favoured a core currency limited to France, Germany and Benelux, and doubted whether the euro could survive as an orphan currency without the backing of full political union. Dr Issing said the ECB's biggest mistake so far has been to cling to lax monetary policy too long, allowing excess liquidity to build up. The M3 money supply has grown 8.8pc in the year to April, accelerating to a 10.5pc annual rate over the past three months.
"This high liquidity contains the potential for inflation. It has also led to a hunt for higher yields. Risk premiums have been so compressed that a lot of investors are no longer aware to the real risk they are taking on," he said.
Unlike the US Federal Reserve, which abolished M3 data this year and takes a benign view of asset bubbles, the ECB views any surge in the money supply as a portent of trouble.
The veiled warnings about Italy came as the new finance minister, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, warned of hair-shirt policies after a preliminary review of the budget books turned up fresh horrors.
"The reality is worse than what it appeared to be at first glance," he said.
Rome said hundreds of unfunded infrastructure projects had been launched by the outgoing government to create a "Potemkin" illusion of prosperity, leaving a wreckage of debts and signed contracts that could not be honoured.
The budget deficit is expected to reach 5pc of GDP by next year, while the national debt is spiralling upwards again for the first time since the early 1990s.
Charles Dumas, global strategist at Lombard Street Research, said Italy had frittered away the one-off, windfall benefits of monetary union and would eventually be forced out of the system. "Italy's whole structure of labour costs is now so far out of whack, it would take a depression to restore the balance. It can't be done."
Goldman chief to guide US economy
By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor (Filed: 31/05/2006)
George W Bush has appointed Henry "Hank" Paulson, one of Wall Street's most influential investment bankers, as his new Treasury Secretary.
The President's surprise choice of Mr Paulson, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, ends the three-year tenure of John Snow, and could signal a change in US economic policy, analysts said. (NOT REALLY A SURPRISE)
However, the appointment failed to arrest the instability which has plagued the market in recent weeks, as the dollar weakened further, with new plunges in equities on Wall Street and in London.
Analysts said it was likely that under Mr Paulson, 60, the US will continue to allow the dollar to weaken. It lurched more than three cents against the pound yesterday to $1.8856 and dropped 1¾ cents against the euro to $1.2888.
Stock markets were similarly miserable. The FTSE 100 closed down 139 points at 5652, while on Wall Street the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 105 points lower at 11,174 in late trading after a decline in consumer confidence in the quarter and disappointing May sales from Wal-Mart.
Mr Snow's departure had been expected for a number of months. Mr Bush, appearing with Mr Paulson at the White House, said: "When he is confirmed by the Senate, he'll be a superb addition to my cabinet.
"Hank shares my philosophy that the economy prospers when we trust the American people to save, spend and invest their money as they see fit."
Mr Paulson said: "Our economy's strength is rooted in the competitive zeal of the American people and in our free and open market … but we cannot take it for granted. We must take steps to maintain our competitive edge in the world."
Mr Paulson is the second recent Treasury Secretary to come from Goldman Sachs after the former Goldman chief executive Robert Rubin, in the position from 1995 to 1999 under Bill Clinton. Another Goldman alumnus, Joshua Bolten, was recently appointed White House chief of staff.
Mr Paulson, who has been chief executive at Goldman Sachs since 1999, worked as a staff assistant to Richard Nixon in the White House in the early 1970s.
Although he had previously been linked with the job, he had reportedly rejected informal offers from the White House.
He must now have his nomination approved by Congress, but this is likely to be a formality, particularly since he already has the support of Senator Chuck Schumer, a key Democrat on the Senate finance and banking committees.
Mr Snow came under repeated fire during his tenure for the government's low public approval ratings on the economy. However, he has scored points recently, by pushing China to revalue its currency, and encouraging the International Monetary Fund to reform.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, said he was looking forward to continuing the "strong relationship" he had forged with Mr Snow with his likely successor.
By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor (Filed: 31/05/2006)
George W Bush has appointed Henry "Hank" Paulson, one of Wall Street's most influential investment bankers, as his new Treasury Secretary.
The President's surprise choice of Mr Paulson, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, ends the three-year tenure of John Snow, and could signal a change in US economic policy, analysts said. (NOT REALLY A SURPRISE)
However, the appointment failed to arrest the instability which has plagued the market in recent weeks, as the dollar weakened further, with new plunges in equities on Wall Street and in London.
Analysts said it was likely that under Mr Paulson, 60, the US will continue to allow the dollar to weaken. It lurched more than three cents against the pound yesterday to $1.8856 and dropped 1¾ cents against the euro to $1.2888.
Stock markets were similarly miserable. The FTSE 100 closed down 139 points at 5652, while on Wall Street the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 105 points lower at 11,174 in late trading after a decline in consumer confidence in the quarter and disappointing May sales from Wal-Mart.
Mr Snow's departure had been expected for a number of months. Mr Bush, appearing with Mr Paulson at the White House, said: "When he is confirmed by the Senate, he'll be a superb addition to my cabinet.
"Hank shares my philosophy that the economy prospers when we trust the American people to save, spend and invest their money as they see fit."
Mr Paulson said: "Our economy's strength is rooted in the competitive zeal of the American people and in our free and open market … but we cannot take it for granted. We must take steps to maintain our competitive edge in the world."
Mr Paulson is the second recent Treasury Secretary to come from Goldman Sachs after the former Goldman chief executive Robert Rubin, in the position from 1995 to 1999 under Bill Clinton. Another Goldman alumnus, Joshua Bolten, was recently appointed White House chief of staff.
Mr Paulson, who has been chief executive at Goldman Sachs since 1999, worked as a staff assistant to Richard Nixon in the White House in the early 1970s.
Although he had previously been linked with the job, he had reportedly rejected informal offers from the White House.
He must now have his nomination approved by Congress, but this is likely to be a formality, particularly since he already has the support of Senator Chuck Schumer, a key Democrat on the Senate finance and banking committees.
Mr Snow came under repeated fire during his tenure for the government's low public approval ratings on the economy. However, he has scored points recently, by pushing China to revalue its currency, and encouraging the International Monetary Fund to reform.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, said he was looking forward to continuing the "strong relationship" he had forged with Mr Snow with his likely successor.
Villages doomed by China's cancer rivers
By Richard Spencer in Xiditou
(Filed: 31/05/2006)
A new phrase has become current in China as the country comes to terms with the environmental devastation caused by its explosive economic growth: "cancer villages".
Not long ago they were farming settlements in the vast countryside. Now they are dominated by factories and blighted by the disease crippling their inhabitants.
Government figures show that 300 million people regularly drink polluted water and the effects are clear in the cancer village of Xiditou, near the port city of Tianjin, south-east of Beijing.
The Tianjin health authority admits that its cancer rate is 30 times the national average, a figure blamed on water and air contaminated by a rash of chemical factories.
A year ago Zhao Cuian, a driver, began to feel pains in his leg. When they got so bad that he became lame, he went for a check-up.
"They said he had bone marrow cancer," his wife, Li Shimei, said. He was 40. "He had an operation but they found it had spread to his other organs."
Mr Zhao died two months ago, another name on a list of 250 cancer victims from Xiditou and the neighbouring village of Liukuaizhuang, compiled by residents.
The story of Xiditou is replicated all over the country. As the effects of economic reforms rippled through the 1980s, local governments eagerly built new factories but had little experience of environmental controls.
In a process that was rarely clear, many of these factories fell under the private control of their bosses in the 1990s.
In Xiditou, farmland was cleared in the late 1980s to make way for factories making raw materials for paint, which still line the banks of the Yongding River. The waste they release is clearly visible, lining the banks with pools of black sludge and, in one case, pouring out of plastic pipes.
The villagers who now complain of the stench and the oily film on the water say they were never compensated for the loss of their land.
"We used to be famous for our rice," Mrs Li's brother said. "Now the water is so bad that no local vegetables pass national safety standards."
When people first became sick in the mid-1990s, they did not understand what was happening, said a woman whose young son has suffered a series of blood disorders. She asked not to be named, as she had already been threatened by officials for talking to the press.
"We only learned from newspapers and television that the waste water, gases and rubbish dumped by the factories could be the main reason," she said.
The official cancer rate in Xiditou and Liukuaizhuang is 2,032 and 1,313 per 100,000 respectively, compared with the national rate of 70.
Last year the Tianjin municipal authorities ordered the closure of the factories but campaigners say that at least 20 have defied the law.
Local officials do not care because, residents say, they have long since moved into the city, like the factory bosses. The villagers' case has been taken up by a research team at the Beijing University of Politics and Law. Tests on tap water found traces of highly carcinogenic benzene that were 50 per cent above national safe limits.
Xu Kezhu, one of the researchers, said families had run up large hospital bills and desperately needed compensation. Mrs Li said she owed 50,000 yuan (about £3,500) and her 15-year-old daughter had had to leave school and take a job in a toy factory. But Miss Xu said the courts were refusing to accept their case.
More than 10 years ago, another river, the Huai, was identified as one of the most polluted in the country, affecting millions of lives.
The government ordered a shut-down of local industry but the problem continues to be critical.
"People would not believe that the municipal government would give orders and yet there would be no improvement," said Ji Shaolian, whose husband Zhao Yunzhi was diagnosed with lung cancer in his mid-fifties. He died on May 7. Mrs Ji said that other villagers had succumbed to cancer.
"When it comes down to it, the local government has done nothing," she said.
By Richard Spencer in Xiditou
(Filed: 31/05/2006)
A new phrase has become current in China as the country comes to terms with the environmental devastation caused by its explosive economic growth: "cancer villages".
Not long ago they were farming settlements in the vast countryside. Now they are dominated by factories and blighted by the disease crippling their inhabitants.
Government figures show that 300 million people regularly drink polluted water and the effects are clear in the cancer village of Xiditou, near the port city of Tianjin, south-east of Beijing.
The Tianjin health authority admits that its cancer rate is 30 times the national average, a figure blamed on water and air contaminated by a rash of chemical factories.
A year ago Zhao Cuian, a driver, began to feel pains in his leg. When they got so bad that he became lame, he went for a check-up.
"They said he had bone marrow cancer," his wife, Li Shimei, said. He was 40. "He had an operation but they found it had spread to his other organs."
Mr Zhao died two months ago, another name on a list of 250 cancer victims from Xiditou and the neighbouring village of Liukuaizhuang, compiled by residents.
The story of Xiditou is replicated all over the country. As the effects of economic reforms rippled through the 1980s, local governments eagerly built new factories but had little experience of environmental controls.
In a process that was rarely clear, many of these factories fell under the private control of their bosses in the 1990s.
In Xiditou, farmland was cleared in the late 1980s to make way for factories making raw materials for paint, which still line the banks of the Yongding River. The waste they release is clearly visible, lining the banks with pools of black sludge and, in one case, pouring out of plastic pipes.
The villagers who now complain of the stench and the oily film on the water say they were never compensated for the loss of their land.
"We used to be famous for our rice," Mrs Li's brother said. "Now the water is so bad that no local vegetables pass national safety standards."
When people first became sick in the mid-1990s, they did not understand what was happening, said a woman whose young son has suffered a series of blood disorders. She asked not to be named, as she had already been threatened by officials for talking to the press.
"We only learned from newspapers and television that the waste water, gases and rubbish dumped by the factories could be the main reason," she said.
The official cancer rate in Xiditou and Liukuaizhuang is 2,032 and 1,313 per 100,000 respectively, compared with the national rate of 70.
Last year the Tianjin municipal authorities ordered the closure of the factories but campaigners say that at least 20 have defied the law.
Local officials do not care because, residents say, they have long since moved into the city, like the factory bosses. The villagers' case has been taken up by a research team at the Beijing University of Politics and Law. Tests on tap water found traces of highly carcinogenic benzene that were 50 per cent above national safe limits.
Xu Kezhu, one of the researchers, said families had run up large hospital bills and desperately needed compensation. Mrs Li said she owed 50,000 yuan (about £3,500) and her 15-year-old daughter had had to leave school and take a job in a toy factory. But Miss Xu said the courts were refusing to accept their case.
More than 10 years ago, another river, the Huai, was identified as one of the most polluted in the country, affecting millions of lives.
The government ordered a shut-down of local industry but the problem continues to be critical.
"People would not believe that the municipal government would give orders and yet there would be no improvement," said Ji Shaolian, whose husband Zhao Yunzhi was diagnosed with lung cancer in his mid-fifties. He died on May 7. Mrs Ji said that other villagers had succumbed to cancer.
"When it comes down to it, the local government has done nothing," she said.
EU privacy ruling threatens chaos on flights to US
By David Rennie in Brussels and David Millward, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 31/05/2006)
Millions of tourists and business travellers planning to fly to the United States were left in legal limbo yesterday after the European Union's highest court struck down an agreement on sharing the personal details of passengers with US authorities.
Acknowledging the potentially devastating effects of its ruling, the European Court of Justice gave EU and American officials until Oct 1 to come up with a new deal.
The Passenger Name Records (PNR) agreement governs 34 pieces of personal information that must be handed by airlines to the American authorities within 15 minutes of a plane taking off. It came in as a counter-terrorist measure demanded by Washington after September 11.
If the EU and US fail to reach a new agreement by October, national governments will have to strike their own deals with the US, or all flights from their airports to American destinations could be grounded.
Sources at British Airways, which flies six million people across the Atlantic a year, said they had been privately assured by the Government that domestic data protection laws would not prevent them from handing over the PNR information.
However, countries such as Holland and Italy have strict privacy laws, opening the way for airlines to face sanctions if they hand over personal details. But if they do not hand over the data, they face fines in the US of about £4,000 per passenger.
The PNR agreement was only reached after fierce debate, as some EU governments and members of the European Parliament queried whether the Bush administration could be entrusted to respect EU concerns about personal privacy if handed sensitive personal data.
Bowing to European demands, US authorities agreed to store the data for only three and a half years, and abandoned its demands for data on meal preferences, which could indicate a passenger's religion.
This time, all sides are under astonishing pressure to swallow pride and forge a new agreement in record time.
Stewart Baker, the assistant secretary for policy at the US department of homeland security, said: "I am confident that we will find a resolution that will keep the data flowing and the planes flying."
The case against the PNR agreement was brought by the European Parliament, which claimed it infringed the fundamental rights of citizens.
The court did not address these claims, focusing instead on the European Commission's decision to use its powers to regulate trade to conclude the PNR agreement. That decision was wrong, the court said, because the information ended up in the hands of law enforcement agencies.
The commission is now faced with drafting a new piece of EU framework legislation using legal powers that govern police co-operation. Such matters require the unanimous consent of all 25 EU nations, which is normally a recipe for years of foot-dragging.
The commission said yesterday that it was committed to finding a new agreement. That was greeted with criticism from MEPs worried about civil liberties.
Graham Watson, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament, said: "The response to 9/11 has been costly both to the taxpayer and to individual freedoms. It has made us little, if any, safer." (THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS GRAHAM, BUT GO **** YOURSELF OK?)
In Britain, airlines could run the risk of being sued by passengers who objects to the unauthorised disclosure of their data, said Richard Jones, a lawyer with Clifford Chance.
Also, depending on how the British courts interpret the ruling, the EU information commissioner could serve an order instructing the airlines to stop passing information on to the Americans.
By David Rennie in Brussels and David Millward, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 31/05/2006)
Millions of tourists and business travellers planning to fly to the United States were left in legal limbo yesterday after the European Union's highest court struck down an agreement on sharing the personal details of passengers with US authorities.
Acknowledging the potentially devastating effects of its ruling, the European Court of Justice gave EU and American officials until Oct 1 to come up with a new deal.
The Passenger Name Records (PNR) agreement governs 34 pieces of personal information that must be handed by airlines to the American authorities within 15 minutes of a plane taking off. It came in as a counter-terrorist measure demanded by Washington after September 11.
If the EU and US fail to reach a new agreement by October, national governments will have to strike their own deals with the US, or all flights from their airports to American destinations could be grounded.
Sources at British Airways, which flies six million people across the Atlantic a year, said they had been privately assured by the Government that domestic data protection laws would not prevent them from handing over the PNR information.
However, countries such as Holland and Italy have strict privacy laws, opening the way for airlines to face sanctions if they hand over personal details. But if they do not hand over the data, they face fines in the US of about £4,000 per passenger.
The PNR agreement was only reached after fierce debate, as some EU governments and members of the European Parliament queried whether the Bush administration could be entrusted to respect EU concerns about personal privacy if handed sensitive personal data.
Bowing to European demands, US authorities agreed to store the data for only three and a half years, and abandoned its demands for data on meal preferences, which could indicate a passenger's religion.
This time, all sides are under astonishing pressure to swallow pride and forge a new agreement in record time.
Stewart Baker, the assistant secretary for policy at the US department of homeland security, said: "I am confident that we will find a resolution that will keep the data flowing and the planes flying."
The case against the PNR agreement was brought by the European Parliament, which claimed it infringed the fundamental rights of citizens.
The court did not address these claims, focusing instead on the European Commission's decision to use its powers to regulate trade to conclude the PNR agreement. That decision was wrong, the court said, because the information ended up in the hands of law enforcement agencies.
The commission is now faced with drafting a new piece of EU framework legislation using legal powers that govern police co-operation. Such matters require the unanimous consent of all 25 EU nations, which is normally a recipe for years of foot-dragging.
The commission said yesterday that it was committed to finding a new agreement. That was greeted with criticism from MEPs worried about civil liberties.
Graham Watson, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament, said: "The response to 9/11 has been costly both to the taxpayer and to individual freedoms. It has made us little, if any, safer." (THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS GRAHAM, BUT GO **** YOURSELF OK?)
In Britain, airlines could run the risk of being sued by passengers who objects to the unauthorised disclosure of their data, said Richard Jones, a lawyer with Clifford Chance.
Also, depending on how the British courts interpret the ruling, the EU information commissioner could serve an order instructing the airlines to stop passing information on to the Americans.
Democrats in disarray as Bush basks in glow of Iraq trip
Jun 14 9:54 AM US/Eastern
US President George W. Bush's triumphant return from his unannounced visit in Iraq found opposition Democrats more divided than ever on US policy in the wartorn country, and how best to capitalize on administration missteps there.
Republicans basked in the afterglow of the president's dramatic lightning visit Tuesday to meet with Iraq's new Prime Minister Nuri Maliki -- an event likely to figure prominently in a daylong debate Thursday in the House of Representatives on Iraq and the US "war on terror."
Bush's trip Tuesday followed last week's successes in Iraq, with the formation of the country's new unity government and the killing of Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
But Democrats -- who have disagreed about the war since the invasion more than three years ago -- continued to be riven by internal dissent, particularly on the critical question of an exit strategy from Iraq.
One of the party's most prominent figures, Senator John Kerry, is expected to introduce a resolution this week calling for a pullout of American forces by the end of the year.
"No matter how brave our soldiers are, no matter how valiant, no matter what their caring ... our soldiers cannot bring democracy to Iraq at the barrel of a gun," Kerry said Tuesday at a gathering of progressive Democrats. (HAS THIS BEEN PROVEN FALSE YET?)
"The Iraqis themselves must build democracy. And it will never be done if Iraqis' leaders are unwilling to make the compromises necessary that that requires," the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate told hundreds of activists at a convention entitled "Campaign for America's Future: Take Back America." (TAKE BACK AMERICA FROM WHO?)
But at the same forum, another top Senate Democrat, Hillary Clinton, insisted that it would not be a "smart strategy" to create a timeline to leave Iraq.
Both Kerry and Clinton are also leading presidential contenders in 2008, an election in which Iraq is due to figure prominently.
The divisions over Iraq also come with Democrats fighting to reclaim the House and Senate from Republicans in midterm elections in November.
Kerry, whom Bush defeated in the 2004 presidential election, said at Tuesday's rally that the president's presence in Iraq did not change his view that the US military venture there is counter-productive. (SO WHAT? WHEN HAS KERRY BEEN CORRECT?)
The Massachusetts Democrat derided the president's "quick, and now not-so-secret trip to Iraq," saying the military role there increasingly resembles the US military debacle in Vietnam. (HOW DOES THE TRIP HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH VIETNAM? NICE TRY. CHANTING VIETNAM DOES NOT MAKE IT SO)
"For a long time, we've been told that Iraq and Vietnam were different. But in telling and very tragic ways now, they are converging," he said. (HOW? WHEN WERE THE ELECTIONS IN VIETNAM?)
He added: "We need a deadline now for the Iraqis to understand they must stand up and fight for their own country." (HOW DOES A DEADLINE HELP THIS SITUATION?)
Clinton on Tuesday made a plea for party unity, urging Democrats to coalesce around their opposition to the Bush administration, rather than being fractured over Iraq and other internal party disagreements.
"If we're going to win in November then we have to be smarter, tougher and better prepared than our opponents," she said.
"One thing they do know how to do is win and we have to reach out to people who may not be able to agree with us."
Some Democrats, like Senator Charles Schumer, conceded that the administration has had a relatively good few days in Iraq, but said, without calling for a specific timetable for pulling out, that the successes are not enough to warrant a prolonged stay for troops. (DID THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE A GOOD FEW DAYS OR DID THE COUNTRY? IT'S LL POLITICAL FOR CHUCK)
"The president today went to Iraq, I'm glad he went to Iraq. He got a first hand look. Maybe he'll come out finally with a plan that will show us a way out of this quagmire," Schumer told a news conference. (A WAY OUT? QUAGMIRE? WHO HAS LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY NOW?)
The US Senate on Wednesday was to hold a vote on emergency funding for US military operations in Iraq, after the House on Tuesday passed the 94.5 billion dollar measure, which included 66 billion dollars for US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Jun 14 9:54 AM US/Eastern
US President George W. Bush's triumphant return from his unannounced visit in Iraq found opposition Democrats more divided than ever on US policy in the wartorn country, and how best to capitalize on administration missteps there.
Republicans basked in the afterglow of the president's dramatic lightning visit Tuesday to meet with Iraq's new Prime Minister Nuri Maliki -- an event likely to figure prominently in a daylong debate Thursday in the House of Representatives on Iraq and the US "war on terror."
Bush's trip Tuesday followed last week's successes in Iraq, with the formation of the country's new unity government and the killing of Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
But Democrats -- who have disagreed about the war since the invasion more than three years ago -- continued to be riven by internal dissent, particularly on the critical question of an exit strategy from Iraq.
One of the party's most prominent figures, Senator John Kerry, is expected to introduce a resolution this week calling for a pullout of American forces by the end of the year.
"No matter how brave our soldiers are, no matter how valiant, no matter what their caring ... our soldiers cannot bring democracy to Iraq at the barrel of a gun," Kerry said Tuesday at a gathering of progressive Democrats. (HAS THIS BEEN PROVEN FALSE YET?)
"The Iraqis themselves must build democracy. And it will never be done if Iraqis' leaders are unwilling to make the compromises necessary that that requires," the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate told hundreds of activists at a convention entitled "Campaign for America's Future: Take Back America." (TAKE BACK AMERICA FROM WHO?)
But at the same forum, another top Senate Democrat, Hillary Clinton, insisted that it would not be a "smart strategy" to create a timeline to leave Iraq.
Both Kerry and Clinton are also leading presidential contenders in 2008, an election in which Iraq is due to figure prominently.
The divisions over Iraq also come with Democrats fighting to reclaim the House and Senate from Republicans in midterm elections in November.
Kerry, whom Bush defeated in the 2004 presidential election, said at Tuesday's rally that the president's presence in Iraq did not change his view that the US military venture there is counter-productive. (SO WHAT? WHEN HAS KERRY BEEN CORRECT?)
The Massachusetts Democrat derided the president's "quick, and now not-so-secret trip to Iraq," saying the military role there increasingly resembles the US military debacle in Vietnam. (HOW DOES THE TRIP HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH VIETNAM? NICE TRY. CHANTING VIETNAM DOES NOT MAKE IT SO)
"For a long time, we've been told that Iraq and Vietnam were different. But in telling and very tragic ways now, they are converging," he said. (HOW? WHEN WERE THE ELECTIONS IN VIETNAM?)
He added: "We need a deadline now for the Iraqis to understand they must stand up and fight for their own country." (HOW DOES A DEADLINE HELP THIS SITUATION?)
Clinton on Tuesday made a plea for party unity, urging Democrats to coalesce around their opposition to the Bush administration, rather than being fractured over Iraq and other internal party disagreements.
"If we're going to win in November then we have to be smarter, tougher and better prepared than our opponents," she said.
"One thing they do know how to do is win and we have to reach out to people who may not be able to agree with us."
Some Democrats, like Senator Charles Schumer, conceded that the administration has had a relatively good few days in Iraq, but said, without calling for a specific timetable for pulling out, that the successes are not enough to warrant a prolonged stay for troops. (DID THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE A GOOD FEW DAYS OR DID THE COUNTRY? IT'S LL POLITICAL FOR CHUCK)
"The president today went to Iraq, I'm glad he went to Iraq. He got a first hand look. Maybe he'll come out finally with a plan that will show us a way out of this quagmire," Schumer told a news conference. (A WAY OUT? QUAGMIRE? WHO HAS LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY NOW?)
The US Senate on Wednesday was to hold a vote on emergency funding for US military operations in Iraq, after the House on Tuesday passed the 94.5 billion dollar measure, which included 66 billion dollars for US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.
Reid Accepted Free Boxing Tickets While a Related Bill Was Pending
By John Solomon
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; A03
Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.
Reid took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.
He defended the gifts, saying that they would never influence his position on the bill and he was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. "Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's number one businesses," he said. "I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge. (REALLY? WHY ARE YOU SPECIAL AND SOMEONE WHO CANNOT BE INFLUENCED? YOU ARE THE BIGGEST DOUBLE-FACER I HAVE EVER SEEN)
Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts -- particularly on multiple occasions -- when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.
"Senators and Senate staff should be wary of accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence, or elicit favorable official action," the Senate ethics manual states. It cites the 1990s example of an Oregon lawmaker who took gifts for personal use from a South Carolina state university and its president while that school was trying to influence his official actions.
"Repeatedly taking gifts which the Gifts Rule otherwise permits to be accepted may, nonetheless, reflect discredit upon the institution, and should be avoided," the manual states.
Several ethics experts said Reid should have paid for the tickets, which were close to the ring and worth between several hundred and several thousand dollars each, to avoid the appearance he was being influenced by gifts.
Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights. (BUT HARRY DID NEITHER. TOOK THE TICKETS AND THEN INFLUENCED THE RESULT. CAN YOU SAY CULTURE OF CORRUPTION?)
In an interview Thursday in his Capitol office, Reid defended his decisions to accept the tickets and to take several actions benefiting former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients and partners as they donated to him.
"I'm not Goodie Two Shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said. (WHO CARES WHAT YOU FEEL?)
Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staff member who went to work with Abramoff.
The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff's partners, firm and clients.
Reid said he viewed the two official meetings and the fundraiser as a single event. "I think it all was one, the way I look at it," he said. (OH, OK HARRY. WHATEVER YOU SAY. NICE EXAMPLE)
One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Reid at the fundraiser and the next morning tribal officials met briefly with Reid and Ayoob at Reid's office to discuss federal programs. Reid and the tribal chairman posed for a picture.
Five days earlier, Reid met with Ayoob and representatives of the Sac & Fox tribe of Iowa for about 15 minutes to discuss at least two legislative requests. Reid's office said the senator never acted on those requests.
A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study for which Ayoob was lobbying. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it.
Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.
Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff's partners, the Associated Press reported recently. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs. (MR DOUBLE STANDARD)
Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meetings or actions they took were in any way connected with political donations. (BUT THESE DO NOT APPLY TO HARRY)
Reid defended his actions, stating he would never change his position because of donations, free tickets or a request from a former staffer turned lobbyist. (SURE HARRY, YOU ARE DIFFERENT FROM EVERYONE ELSE ACCUSED)
"People who deal with me and have over the years know that I am an advocate for what I believe in. I always try to do it fair, never take advantage of people on purpose," he said. ('ON PURPOSE'? THAT IS QUITE A BIG EXCEPTION)
Asked if he would have done anything differently, the Senate Democratic leader said his only concern was "the willingness of the press . . . to take these instances and try to make a big deal out of them." (NOT EVEN SAYING HE IS SORRY? WHY NOT HARRY? IT'S JUST THE PRESS, YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG?)
By John Solomon
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; A03
Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.
Reid took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.
He defended the gifts, saying that they would never influence his position on the bill and he was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. "Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's number one businesses," he said. "I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge. (REALLY? WHY ARE YOU SPECIAL AND SOMEONE WHO CANNOT BE INFLUENCED? YOU ARE THE BIGGEST DOUBLE-FACER I HAVE EVER SEEN)
Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts -- particularly on multiple occasions -- when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.
"Senators and Senate staff should be wary of accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence, or elicit favorable official action," the Senate ethics manual states. It cites the 1990s example of an Oregon lawmaker who took gifts for personal use from a South Carolina state university and its president while that school was trying to influence his official actions.
"Repeatedly taking gifts which the Gifts Rule otherwise permits to be accepted may, nonetheless, reflect discredit upon the institution, and should be avoided," the manual states.
Several ethics experts said Reid should have paid for the tickets, which were close to the ring and worth between several hundred and several thousand dollars each, to avoid the appearance he was being influenced by gifts.
Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights. (BUT HARRY DID NEITHER. TOOK THE TICKETS AND THEN INFLUENCED THE RESULT. CAN YOU SAY CULTURE OF CORRUPTION?)
In an interview Thursday in his Capitol office, Reid defended his decisions to accept the tickets and to take several actions benefiting former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients and partners as they donated to him.
"I'm not Goodie Two Shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said. (WHO CARES WHAT YOU FEEL?)
Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staff member who went to work with Abramoff.
The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff's partners, firm and clients.
Reid said he viewed the two official meetings and the fundraiser as a single event. "I think it all was one, the way I look at it," he said. (OH, OK HARRY. WHATEVER YOU SAY. NICE EXAMPLE)
One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Reid at the fundraiser and the next morning tribal officials met briefly with Reid and Ayoob at Reid's office to discuss federal programs. Reid and the tribal chairman posed for a picture.
Five days earlier, Reid met with Ayoob and representatives of the Sac & Fox tribe of Iowa for about 15 minutes to discuss at least two legislative requests. Reid's office said the senator never acted on those requests.
A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study for which Ayoob was lobbying. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it.
Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.
Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff's partners, the Associated Press reported recently. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs. (MR DOUBLE STANDARD)
Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meetings or actions they took were in any way connected with political donations. (BUT THESE DO NOT APPLY TO HARRY)
Reid defended his actions, stating he would never change his position because of donations, free tickets or a request from a former staffer turned lobbyist. (SURE HARRY, YOU ARE DIFFERENT FROM EVERYONE ELSE ACCUSED)
"People who deal with me and have over the years know that I am an advocate for what I believe in. I always try to do it fair, never take advantage of people on purpose," he said. ('ON PURPOSE'? THAT IS QUITE A BIG EXCEPTION)
Asked if he would have done anything differently, the Senate Democratic leader said his only concern was "the willingness of the press . . . to take these instances and try to make a big deal out of them." (NOT EVEN SAYING HE IS SORRY? WHY NOT HARRY? IT'S JUST THE PRESS, YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG?)
Justices' Heaviest Lifting Is Ahead
As the Supreme Court term ends, weighty issues will test Roberts' consensus-finding skills.
By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer
May 30, 2006
WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court heads into the final month of its term, the new chief justice has shown a knack for finding ways to decide cases on narrow issues that have led to unanimous rulings.
But June is rarely the time for harmony and unanimity at the high court.
The justices tend to put off the most difficult cases to the end of the term, and this one is no different. The court faces major decisions on terrorism tribunals, wetlands protection, lethal injection, domestic violence prosecutions and campaign finance limits.
FOR THE RECORD:
Supreme Court: An article Tuesday in Section A about cases still to be decided by the high court this term said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. explained his desire to press for narrow rulings over broad pronouncements this way: "If it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case." The quote should have said: "If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more." Also, a chart that listed the pending cases said a whistle-blower lawsuit arose when a Los Angeles deputy sheriff alleged he was moved to a less desirable job for reporting police misconduct. The employee was a deputy district attorney. —
The final cases could test whether Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. can extend his record through his first term on the court, which he acknowledged could be a challenge in a recent talk to Maryland judges.
"I do feel at this point a bit like the fellow who jumped off the Empire State Building, passed the 50th floor and said, 'So far, so good,' " he joked. "The hard part's coming up."
In all, 37 cases remain to be decided by the end of June. Unlike in years past, however, the justices will not face end-of-term decisions on issues that typically divide the court along ideological lines, such as religion, affirmative action, abortion and gay rights.
In one highly anticipated case, the court could deal a rebuke to President Bush and the Defense Department for their plans to put some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba on trial for war crimes in special military courts.
Defense lawyers and civil libertarians say the military courts have not set fair rules and do not adhere to international standards for war crimes trials.
That decision, however, will not bear the imprint of the new chief justice. He is sitting out the case because he heard it when he was on the U.S. Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of the administration's position.
Meanwhile, property rights advocates hope Roberts and the court will sharply cut back on the reach of the federal law that protects wetlands and streams by deciding that it applies only to "navigable" waters.
The Clean Water Act seeks to protect the nation's rivers, bays and lakes from pollution. Since the 1970s, environmental regulators have cited it to stop the dredging of wetlands and the flow of tainted drainage into small streams because the pollution will end up in lakes and bays.
The Bush administration has linked up with environmentalists to protect the broad reach of federal anti-pollution law.
And the court could make it far harder to prosecute domestic violence. Because victims are often afraid to testify in court, prosecutors commonly use their tape-recorded calls to 911.
Justice Antonin Scalia, however, has said defendants have a right to confront their accusers face-to-face in court, and he may persuade a majority to halt prosecutions based on out-of-court statements.
Most of the remaining cases will not change the law in a significant way, and many may be resolved on narrow issues.
For example, the justices in January stopped Florida's planned execution of Clarence Hill, the murderer of a police officer whose many appeals were rejected. His defense lawyer said he was not challenging Hill's conviction or death sentence, but the method of execution.
Challenges to lethal injection have been filed in many states, including California. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose has scheduled a hearing in September on whether the state must change its lethal injection procedures.
Some doctors say the drugs commonly used in lethal injections may, if wrongly administered, cause excruciating pain. (OOO NO, THAT WOULD BE SO HORRIBLE)
But the Supreme Court justices might decide only a procedural question: Can a state inmate win a new hearing in federal court after his final appeals have been rejected? If the justices do so, the court will put off for another day the ultimate question of whether such injections amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
Roberts has established that he intends to steer his court toward such narrow rulings.
This month, the court decided eight cases, and all were unanimous. Sometimes, however, the ruling skirted the most difficult issue.
For example, an Ohio case tested whether states could give special tax breaks to lure big corporations to build new factories there. A lower court, siding with some disgruntled taxpayers, said the tax breaks were unconstitutional.
Roberts, writing for the court in DaimlerChrysler Corp. vs. Cuno, threw out the lawsuit on the grounds that the taxpayers did not have standing in federal court to challenge the state's policy. The decision sent the case back to a state court to start again.
In January, the court even managed to resolve an abortion case with a narrow, unanimous ruling. The justices revived a New Hampshire law that required doctors to notify the parents of girls under age 18 two days before they performed an abortion, but the justices also said there must be an exception for medical emergencies.
The chief justice recently explained to Georgetown law school graduates his desire to press for narrow rulings over broad pronouncements. "If it is not necessary to decide more to a case," he said, "then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case."
*
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Topping the court's docket
Here are 10 of the most important questions the Supreme Court will confront in June, the last month of its term.
War on terrorism
Can the Bush administration try detainees at Guantanamo Bay in special military courts? This is a clash between Bush's claim of war powers and Geneva Convention rules. (Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld)
Texas redistricting
Can Texas redraw its electoral districts in mid-decade to give the Republican Party more seats in Congress? At issue is a redistricting plan engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Such plans are usually drawn only once a decade based on the census. (League of United Latin American Citizens vs. Perry)
Campaign spending
Can Vermont strictly limit how much state candidates spend on campaigns? The state is challenging the 1976 Supreme Court ruling Buckley vs. Valeo, which said federal candidates had a free-speech right to spend as much as they wanted. (Randall vs. Sorrell)
Whistle-blowers
Does the 1st Amendment protect government whistle-blowers from being punished for reporting wrongdoing? This case arose when a Los Angeles deputy sheriff alleged he was moved to a less desirable job for reporting misconduct by the police. The outcome could affect the rights of 21 million public employees. (Garcetti vs. Ceballos)
Domestic violence
Can the government prosecute domestic assaults based not on courtroom testimony of the alleged victim but on taped 911 calls? A ban on such evidence would make it much harder for prosecutors to pursue cases when the victim can't or won't testify. (Davis vs. Washington and Hammon vs. Indiana)
Wetlands
Does the Clean Water Act protect inland streams and wetlands, or is this federal anti-pollution measure limited to navigable rivers, lakes and bays? If a Michigan developer prevails, it would greatly limit the reach of a key environmental law. (Rapanos vs. United States)
Lethal injections
Can death row inmates file a last-minute appeal after losing all previous appeals to challenge the method of execution as cruel? Lawyers for a Florida murderer won a stay on the day their client faced execution, citing studies that suggested a drug used in executions may mask an inmate's pain. (Hill vs. McDonough)
DNA
Can a death row inmate win a new trial after showing that new DNA analysis refutes some of the evidence against him? Paul House was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a neighbor, but DNA tests showed he did not have sex with her. (House vs. Bell)
Foreign felons
Do foreign prisoners in the United States have a right to reopen their cases if they and their consulates were not informed of their rights at the time of their arrest? The World Court ruled that the Vienna Convention gives legal rights to Mexican natives imprisoned in the United States. (Sanchez-Llamas vs. Oregon)
Retaliation
Can an employer be forced to pay damages for transferring a worker to a lesser job after she has filed a complaint of sexual harassment? Employers say retaliation claims, such as this one involving a woman who was removed from her job as a forklift operator, are the fastest-growing kind of discrimination cases. (Burlington Northern vs. White)
Graphics reporting by David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
As the Supreme Court term ends, weighty issues will test Roberts' consensus-finding skills.
By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer
May 30, 2006
WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court heads into the final month of its term, the new chief justice has shown a knack for finding ways to decide cases on narrow issues that have led to unanimous rulings.
But June is rarely the time for harmony and unanimity at the high court.
The justices tend to put off the most difficult cases to the end of the term, and this one is no different. The court faces major decisions on terrorism tribunals, wetlands protection, lethal injection, domestic violence prosecutions and campaign finance limits.
FOR THE RECORD:
Supreme Court: An article Tuesday in Section A about cases still to be decided by the high court this term said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. explained his desire to press for narrow rulings over broad pronouncements this way: "If it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case." The quote should have said: "If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more." Also, a chart that listed the pending cases said a whistle-blower lawsuit arose when a Los Angeles deputy sheriff alleged he was moved to a less desirable job for reporting police misconduct. The employee was a deputy district attorney. —
The final cases could test whether Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. can extend his record through his first term on the court, which he acknowledged could be a challenge in a recent talk to Maryland judges.
"I do feel at this point a bit like the fellow who jumped off the Empire State Building, passed the 50th floor and said, 'So far, so good,' " he joked. "The hard part's coming up."
In all, 37 cases remain to be decided by the end of June. Unlike in years past, however, the justices will not face end-of-term decisions on issues that typically divide the court along ideological lines, such as religion, affirmative action, abortion and gay rights.
In one highly anticipated case, the court could deal a rebuke to President Bush and the Defense Department for their plans to put some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba on trial for war crimes in special military courts.
Defense lawyers and civil libertarians say the military courts have not set fair rules and do not adhere to international standards for war crimes trials.
That decision, however, will not bear the imprint of the new chief justice. He is sitting out the case because he heard it when he was on the U.S. Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of the administration's position.
Meanwhile, property rights advocates hope Roberts and the court will sharply cut back on the reach of the federal law that protects wetlands and streams by deciding that it applies only to "navigable" waters.
The Clean Water Act seeks to protect the nation's rivers, bays and lakes from pollution. Since the 1970s, environmental regulators have cited it to stop the dredging of wetlands and the flow of tainted drainage into small streams because the pollution will end up in lakes and bays.
The Bush administration has linked up with environmentalists to protect the broad reach of federal anti-pollution law.
And the court could make it far harder to prosecute domestic violence. Because victims are often afraid to testify in court, prosecutors commonly use their tape-recorded calls to 911.
Justice Antonin Scalia, however, has said defendants have a right to confront their accusers face-to-face in court, and he may persuade a majority to halt prosecutions based on out-of-court statements.
Most of the remaining cases will not change the law in a significant way, and many may be resolved on narrow issues.
For example, the justices in January stopped Florida's planned execution of Clarence Hill, the murderer of a police officer whose many appeals were rejected. His defense lawyer said he was not challenging Hill's conviction or death sentence, but the method of execution.
Challenges to lethal injection have been filed in many states, including California. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose has scheduled a hearing in September on whether the state must change its lethal injection procedures.
Some doctors say the drugs commonly used in lethal injections may, if wrongly administered, cause excruciating pain. (OOO NO, THAT WOULD BE SO HORRIBLE)
But the Supreme Court justices might decide only a procedural question: Can a state inmate win a new hearing in federal court after his final appeals have been rejected? If the justices do so, the court will put off for another day the ultimate question of whether such injections amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
Roberts has established that he intends to steer his court toward such narrow rulings.
This month, the court decided eight cases, and all were unanimous. Sometimes, however, the ruling skirted the most difficult issue.
For example, an Ohio case tested whether states could give special tax breaks to lure big corporations to build new factories there. A lower court, siding with some disgruntled taxpayers, said the tax breaks were unconstitutional.
Roberts, writing for the court in DaimlerChrysler Corp. vs. Cuno, threw out the lawsuit on the grounds that the taxpayers did not have standing in federal court to challenge the state's policy. The decision sent the case back to a state court to start again.
In January, the court even managed to resolve an abortion case with a narrow, unanimous ruling. The justices revived a New Hampshire law that required doctors to notify the parents of girls under age 18 two days before they performed an abortion, but the justices also said there must be an exception for medical emergencies.
The chief justice recently explained to Georgetown law school graduates his desire to press for narrow rulings over broad pronouncements. "If it is not necessary to decide more to a case," he said, "then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case."
*
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Topping the court's docket
Here are 10 of the most important questions the Supreme Court will confront in June, the last month of its term.
War on terrorism
Can the Bush administration try detainees at Guantanamo Bay in special military courts? This is a clash between Bush's claim of war powers and Geneva Convention rules. (Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld)
Texas redistricting
Can Texas redraw its electoral districts in mid-decade to give the Republican Party more seats in Congress? At issue is a redistricting plan engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Such plans are usually drawn only once a decade based on the census. (League of United Latin American Citizens vs. Perry)
Campaign spending
Can Vermont strictly limit how much state candidates spend on campaigns? The state is challenging the 1976 Supreme Court ruling Buckley vs. Valeo, which said federal candidates had a free-speech right to spend as much as they wanted. (Randall vs. Sorrell)
Whistle-blowers
Does the 1st Amendment protect government whistle-blowers from being punished for reporting wrongdoing? This case arose when a Los Angeles deputy sheriff alleged he was moved to a less desirable job for reporting misconduct by the police. The outcome could affect the rights of 21 million public employees. (Garcetti vs. Ceballos)
Domestic violence
Can the government prosecute domestic assaults based not on courtroom testimony of the alleged victim but on taped 911 calls? A ban on such evidence would make it much harder for prosecutors to pursue cases when the victim can't or won't testify. (Davis vs. Washington and Hammon vs. Indiana)
Wetlands
Does the Clean Water Act protect inland streams and wetlands, or is this federal anti-pollution measure limited to navigable rivers, lakes and bays? If a Michigan developer prevails, it would greatly limit the reach of a key environmental law. (Rapanos vs. United States)
Lethal injections
Can death row inmates file a last-minute appeal after losing all previous appeals to challenge the method of execution as cruel? Lawyers for a Florida murderer won a stay on the day their client faced execution, citing studies that suggested a drug used in executions may mask an inmate's pain. (Hill vs. McDonough)
DNA
Can a death row inmate win a new trial after showing that new DNA analysis refutes some of the evidence against him? Paul House was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a neighbor, but DNA tests showed he did not have sex with her. (House vs. Bell)
Foreign felons
Do foreign prisoners in the United States have a right to reopen their cases if they and their consulates were not informed of their rights at the time of their arrest? The World Court ruled that the Vienna Convention gives legal rights to Mexican natives imprisoned in the United States. (Sanchez-Llamas vs. Oregon)
Retaliation
Can an employer be forced to pay damages for transferring a worker to a lesser job after she has filed a complaint of sexual harassment? Employers say retaliation claims, such as this one involving a woman who was removed from her job as a forklift operator, are the fastest-growing kind of discrimination cases. (Burlington Northern vs. White)
Graphics reporting by David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
Speak Out? Are You Crazy?
In a throwback to Soviet times, Russians who cross the powerful are increasingly hustled into mental asylums, rights activists say.
By Kim Murphy
Times Staff Writer
May 30, 2006
CHEBOKSARY, Russia — Albert Imendayev collected the signatures he needed to run for the legislature last fall in this city on the banks of the Volga River. He met with supporters, prepared his campaign material. He would have made the ballot had it not been for one thing: He was hauled off to a mental asylum.
Only days before he was required to appear at the local election commission to finalize his candidacy, an investigator from the prosecutor's office met Imendayev at the courthouse with three police officers. They kept him locked up until a judge could be found to sign the order committing him for a psychiatric evaluation.
"The hearing took place, and I was taken straight off to the asylum," said the businessman and human rights activist. By the time he was released nine days later, the election filing deadline had passed and he was out of the race.
Imendayev's act of insanity was filing a series of legal complaints against local officials, police, prosecutors and judges, alleging corruption, violation of court procedures and cronyism — charges that are far from rare in today's Russia. The prosecutor, a frequent target of Imendayev's darts, called his behavior "paranoia."
Through much of the Cold War, the Soviet Union waged a chilling psychiatric war against political dissidents. Critics of the communist authorities found themselves locked for months or years behind the barred windows of state asylums, drugged into tranquillity and prevented from talking to lawyers or family.
The end of the Soviet Union saw the adoption of laws that raised legal protections for psychiatric patients to international standards, granting potential mental patients guarantees of legal representation and commitment only on the orders of a court. But Imendayev's trip behind hospital walls in September was, human rights activists say, one of many signs that punitive psychiatry has not disappeared.
"This has only just resurfaced in recent years, and for a time we couldn't even believe it was happening. But now it seems quite clear that such abuses are on the rise, and that this is a trend," said Yury Savenko, president of the Independent Psychiatric Assn., an advocacy group of professional psychiatrists that has pushed for mental health reforms in Russia.
The ranks of the "insane" over the last three years have included women divorcing powerful husbands, people locked in business disputes and citizens, like Imendayev, who have become a nuisance by filing numerous legal challenges against local politicians and judges or lodging appeals against government agencies to uphold their rights.
Unlike during the Soviet era, when an all-powerful KGB locked up those who challenged the foundations of the regime, there appears to be no systematic federal repression of dissidents through the mental health system. Instead, citizens today fall victim to regional authorities in localized disputes, or to private antagonists who have the means, as so many in Russia do, to bribe their way through the courts.
"People are being institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals unlawfully, and on the most diverse grounds," the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights concluded in a 2004 study. "Not only did punitive psychiatry exist during the Soviet period, and not only does it exist today, unfortunately there are no grounds to hope that it will disappear in the foreseeable future."
In another case here in Cheboksary, a four-term opposition deputy in the regional parliament, Igor Molyakov, spent six months in jail on libel charges in 2004. While incarcerated, he was ordered committed for psychiatric hospitalization after a judge agreed with government lawyers that Molyakov's repeated writings about corruption among local authorities reflected an outlook so "somber" that it might constitute a "mental disorder."
In St. Petersburg, Ivan Ivannikov, who lectured for 38 years at the State University of Economics and Finance, found himself wrestled to the ground, handcuffed and dragged to the city psychiatric hospital in December 2003 after a protracted dispute with a well-connected contractor over repairs to his apartment. An influential state psychiatrist signed the recommendation for commitment without ever having met Ivannikov, deciding that his multiple legal complaints against the contractor constituted an "obsession" with "revenge." He was released after 60 days.
In Moscow, Natalya Kuznetsova was fired from her job at the federal audit chamber not long after charging that $140 million had been siphoned out of the federal budget in 2001 and 2002. A subsequent set of quarrels with her supervisors led to her firing, and when she filed suit seeking disability compensation, a state psychologist reported she had a mental disability.
"When they finally fired me on the 25th of January, 2005, they threatened to call a psychiatric ambulance for me," said Kuznetsova, who successfully fought against commitment. "This is all because of flourishing corruption. These corrupt people are using psychiatric persecution to destroy people."
In some cases, people who families and friends insist had no overt signs of mental illness have been committed for more than a year, sometimes drugged with sedatives and tied to their beds when they resisted, and prevented from attending the often-perfunctory court hearings that extended their hospitalization.
In many of these cases, patients were talked into signing consent forms. The rate of involuntary hospitalizations is so suspiciously low in at least 51 facilities across Russia that the Helsinki commission concluded that coerced consent through "persuading" and "falsification of signatures" was widespread.
State and regional mental health officials say improper hospitalizations are rare, and most psychiatrists say they follow the orders of the courts in conducting their reviews.
"Of course I have heard of such cases. The world over, there are dishonest people with bad consciences. But there are also people who are mentally ill but who do not appear so to non-specialists," said Vladimir Rothstein, a professor at a research center affiliated with the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and head of the advocacy group Public Initiative on Psychiatry.
In 2004, doctors connected to the very institute that perfected the tools under which Soviet-era dissidents were hospitalized from the 1960s through the 1980s sought to roll back some reforms in Russia's landmark 1992 law on mental health. Proponents of mental health reform only narrowly beat back the effort by the doctors from the Serbsky Institute for Social and Forensic Psychiatry.
The proposed amendments included allowing doctors to keep patients under involuntary hospitalization longer without a court order and restricting the ability of patient-rights groups and nongovernment psychiatrists to advocate for clients in court or provide independent expert testimony.
Directors of the Serbsky Institute declined to be interviewed. The head of the state-run Chuvashia Republican Psychiatric Hospital in Cheboksary, however, said patients who accused officials of psychiatric abuse often painted a remarkably different picture than those who dealt with the cases.
"I've been the head doctor here for eight years, and I have not heard of a single case of pressure being put on doctors by law enforcement officials for a diagnosis," Alexander Kozlov said. "I can also assure you with 100% confidence that in this hospital, not a single dissident ever received treatment, and not a single dissident was ever given a diagnosis of schizophrenia or sent for compulsory treatment."
(HA HA HA HA HA)
Human rights leaders say the government psychiatric apparatus has updated legal protections for patients but has changed relatively little in its mind-set since the Soviet era.
"It's important to note that the Serbsky Institute, like the majority of penal institutions in our country, was not obliterated after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The sign outside the door was modified. They even expressed some regrets that there had been 'isolated cases' when psychiatry had made some 'wrong decisions.' But ultimately, very little was changed," said Alexander Podrabinek, who wrote a book on psychiatric abuses in the Soviet era.
"Persecution that has to do with the intellect or the mind or one's psychological health is perceived as perhaps worse than physical punishment, or even torture, because it's more frightening to lose your mind than to lose your freedom," he said.
Cheboksary, a city of 420,000 people about 400 miles east of Moscow, is known as Russia's hops-growing center, with a long tradition of beer-making. It is the capital of the republic of Chuvashia, governed since 1994 by former Russian Justice Minister Nikolai Fyodorov, who controls all levers of power in the republic, from the press to the police to the courts.
Members of Imendayev's organization, For Human Rights, and other opposition activists have long accused Fyodorov's allies of consolidating money and power through manipulation of elections and the court system. The case that landed Imendayev in the hospital began last year, while he was running for office and also acting as an advocate for a teacher who felt she had been improperly fired.
The case had gone to court, and he thought it was almost won. Then a police officer familiar with the case "came up to us … and I recorded it on tape," Imendayev said. "The words were very crude. He literally said to her: 'You idiot, what are you trying to do battle with? The system? Everything here is under control. Everything has been bought.' What he meant was that people on the other side had given money to the judge."
Imendayev wrote a complaint to the prosecutor-general of Russia, mentioning the tape. At the end of the next court hearing, he was removed to the Chuvashia Republican Psychiatric Hospital.
At least three other members of the local branch of For Human Rights have been hospitalized in the last few years, accused of having various forms of schizophrenia, paranoia and other mental disabilities requiring urgent diagnosis or treatment.
Fyodorov's administration dismisses the idea that anyone has been recommended for psychiatric treatment based on politics. "Our judicial branch of power is independent," said Boris Kuzmin, the president's spokesman. "Moreover, our president has a background in law. I think he would not tolerate any sort of violations or pressure on the courts."
Still, Fyodorov's own lawyers moved against Molyakov, the opposition lawmaker arrested on suspicion of libeling the president during his election campaign. In November 2004, they sought to have him hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation.
When federal Judge Oleg Zhukov overturned a lower court's psychiatric referral order, the president's lawyers appealed, arguing that Molyakov's accomplishments as an author and philosophy professor didn't mean he wasn't crazy.
"The court ought to know that even being a personal genius doesn't rule out a mental disorder … (Van Gogh, F.M. Dostoyevsky, N.V. Gogol, etc.)," the lawyers asserted. "As has been established by scientists, the risk of a mental disease in gifted people … is seven to eight times higher."
But of all the cases, the story of Sergei Zotov, a convicted extortionist and businessman-turned-political-gadfly, is unparalleled in its alternate melodrama and hilarity, reading more like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," Russian-style, than the sorry episode in regional politics that it is.
Zotov, 47, got in trouble with the law in the early 1990s, when he flirted with the kind of speculation schemes that widely accompanied the collapse of communism. In 1991, he was brought up on organized-crime charges that originated with an alleged attempt to sell a car at black-market prices (and also involved Zotov's generous use of his skills as a boxer).
He was convicted and sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison, where he spent much of the time reading the law and filing appeals. Once he was released, Zotov turned his newfound legal expertise against the system, filing complaint after complaint demanding criminal prosecution of various alleged instances of corruption and election fraud within the political establishment in Cheboksary.
Zotov would file a challenge to the slightest infraction of court rules — judges who didn't wear their robes on hot days, or a state flag hung in the wrong direction. But he also filed complaints challenging purported misdeeds on the part of local authorities, including the alleged awarding of state property to ministers and judges and evidence that voters were paid and escorted to the polls by pro-government candidates.
"I'm like a bone stuck in their throats," Zotov, a pudgy, balding man who wears rose-colored sunglasses to cover up a bad eye, said cheerfully in a recent interview.
The war was already well underway in November 2002 when he entered a Supreme Court hearing room presided over by then-Chief Justice Pyotr Yurkin. Zotov, who was running for the regional legislature, had accused the judge of improperly taking title to a state-owned apartment and other malfeasance.
As soon as Zotov stood to raise his endless procedural motions, Yurkin ordered him ejected. What happened next is like a Russian "Rashomon": It depends on who saw it.
What is clear is that a bailiff ended up on the floor and a large table was broken as Zotov was hauled from the courtroom. Zotov insists that the bailiff fell and that the table broke when he tried to hang on to it as he was being dragged away.
Some of the judges present testified that Zotov threw the bailiff over his shoulder, karate-style, and either kicked the table or landed on it hard with his hindquarters.
Yurkin sent Zotov to the Chuvashia Republican Psychiatric Hospital. He remained there and at other facilities for seven months and repeatedly was given psychiatric drugs, despite pleas by his family and colleagues that he was sane and should be released. Hearings to continue his hospitalization were held but neither Zotov nor his lawyers appeared. Doctors said he showed signs of hyperactivity, inflated self-importance and "nonsensical ideas of reform."
"It was awful there," said his wife, Natalya Semyonova. "I would go to the window, and Sergei was gathering information and trying to communicate it to us through the window about people who were being kept there illegally, about people who'd had their apartments taken away. There was one man who'd been there 25 years."
After his release in April 2004, Zotov tried to run for the local legislature again. When he appeared on television, slamming local authorities, the court ordered him to undergo outpatient psychiatric treatment, a prospect he feared so much he went into hiding.
In February of last year, two dozen police officers and firefighters arrived at Zotov's apartment to take him back to the mental hospital. The order they were executing referred to him as "a person who had committed a socially dangerous act," according to the prosecutor's office. When Semyonova refused to answer the door, two officers scaled a ladder to the family's ninth-floor balcony, all to no avail — Zotov was not at home.
Dmitry Ivanov, deputy spokesman for the police, said law enforcement officers are no longer actively looking for Zotov, but "if he does show up, we will have to react." He denied any campaign against the human rights activist, and hinted that Zotov might have tried to have himself hospitalized to seek shelter from dangerous associates in the criminal underworld.
Prosecutors, in a written response, said Zotov's case "was handled in accordance with all legal procedures." They said psychiatrists at the Serbsky Institute had examined Zotov and his courtroom outburst and concluded that "when he committed his crime, he was unable to acknowledge its actual nature and social danger, he wasn't able to control his actions, and he requires mandatory treatment in an inpatient facility."
The doctors at the Chuvashia hospital declined to discuss Zotov's case in detail. But they implied that Zotov's version of events was distorted.
"I think if the opponents of your main character were to turn to you and told you about the ways in which he'd offended or harmed them, you'd feel a sense of sympathy for them as well," said Lyudmila Karnilova, deputy chief psychiatrist.
"As for the idea of a psychiatric hospital hunting someone down and dragging them back here, this is certainly not the case. Our main responsibility is to treat patients who need our help," added Kozlov, the chief doctor.
Zotov, who rarely visits his own apartment, says he fears for his sanity if he has to go back to the hospital.
"People who fight for justice in our republic, it's already a trend that they become subjected to isolation in a psychiatric hospital," said Semyonova, his wife.
"This entire case, from the beginning, was based on nothing more than personal antipathy toward my husband."
In a throwback to Soviet times, Russians who cross the powerful are increasingly hustled into mental asylums, rights activists say.
By Kim Murphy
Times Staff Writer
May 30, 2006
CHEBOKSARY, Russia — Albert Imendayev collected the signatures he needed to run for the legislature last fall in this city on the banks of the Volga River. He met with supporters, prepared his campaign material. He would have made the ballot had it not been for one thing: He was hauled off to a mental asylum.
Only days before he was required to appear at the local election commission to finalize his candidacy, an investigator from the prosecutor's office met Imendayev at the courthouse with three police officers. They kept him locked up until a judge could be found to sign the order committing him for a psychiatric evaluation.
"The hearing took place, and I was taken straight off to the asylum," said the businessman and human rights activist. By the time he was released nine days later, the election filing deadline had passed and he was out of the race.
Imendayev's act of insanity was filing a series of legal complaints against local officials, police, prosecutors and judges, alleging corruption, violation of court procedures and cronyism — charges that are far from rare in today's Russia. The prosecutor, a frequent target of Imendayev's darts, called his behavior "paranoia."
Through much of the Cold War, the Soviet Union waged a chilling psychiatric war against political dissidents. Critics of the communist authorities found themselves locked for months or years behind the barred windows of state asylums, drugged into tranquillity and prevented from talking to lawyers or family.
The end of the Soviet Union saw the adoption of laws that raised legal protections for psychiatric patients to international standards, granting potential mental patients guarantees of legal representation and commitment only on the orders of a court. But Imendayev's trip behind hospital walls in September was, human rights activists say, one of many signs that punitive psychiatry has not disappeared.
"This has only just resurfaced in recent years, and for a time we couldn't even believe it was happening. But now it seems quite clear that such abuses are on the rise, and that this is a trend," said Yury Savenko, president of the Independent Psychiatric Assn., an advocacy group of professional psychiatrists that has pushed for mental health reforms in Russia.
The ranks of the "insane" over the last three years have included women divorcing powerful husbands, people locked in business disputes and citizens, like Imendayev, who have become a nuisance by filing numerous legal challenges against local politicians and judges or lodging appeals against government agencies to uphold their rights.
Unlike during the Soviet era, when an all-powerful KGB locked up those who challenged the foundations of the regime, there appears to be no systematic federal repression of dissidents through the mental health system. Instead, citizens today fall victim to regional authorities in localized disputes, or to private antagonists who have the means, as so many in Russia do, to bribe their way through the courts.
"People are being institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals unlawfully, and on the most diverse grounds," the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights concluded in a 2004 study. "Not only did punitive psychiatry exist during the Soviet period, and not only does it exist today, unfortunately there are no grounds to hope that it will disappear in the foreseeable future."
In another case here in Cheboksary, a four-term opposition deputy in the regional parliament, Igor Molyakov, spent six months in jail on libel charges in 2004. While incarcerated, he was ordered committed for psychiatric hospitalization after a judge agreed with government lawyers that Molyakov's repeated writings about corruption among local authorities reflected an outlook so "somber" that it might constitute a "mental disorder."
In St. Petersburg, Ivan Ivannikov, who lectured for 38 years at the State University of Economics and Finance, found himself wrestled to the ground, handcuffed and dragged to the city psychiatric hospital in December 2003 after a protracted dispute with a well-connected contractor over repairs to his apartment. An influential state psychiatrist signed the recommendation for commitment without ever having met Ivannikov, deciding that his multiple legal complaints against the contractor constituted an "obsession" with "revenge." He was released after 60 days.
In Moscow, Natalya Kuznetsova was fired from her job at the federal audit chamber not long after charging that $140 million had been siphoned out of the federal budget in 2001 and 2002. A subsequent set of quarrels with her supervisors led to her firing, and when she filed suit seeking disability compensation, a state psychologist reported she had a mental disability.
"When they finally fired me on the 25th of January, 2005, they threatened to call a psychiatric ambulance for me," said Kuznetsova, who successfully fought against commitment. "This is all because of flourishing corruption. These corrupt people are using psychiatric persecution to destroy people."
In some cases, people who families and friends insist had no overt signs of mental illness have been committed for more than a year, sometimes drugged with sedatives and tied to their beds when they resisted, and prevented from attending the often-perfunctory court hearings that extended their hospitalization.
In many of these cases, patients were talked into signing consent forms. The rate of involuntary hospitalizations is so suspiciously low in at least 51 facilities across Russia that the Helsinki commission concluded that coerced consent through "persuading" and "falsification of signatures" was widespread.
State and regional mental health officials say improper hospitalizations are rare, and most psychiatrists say they follow the orders of the courts in conducting their reviews.
"Of course I have heard of such cases. The world over, there are dishonest people with bad consciences. But there are also people who are mentally ill but who do not appear so to non-specialists," said Vladimir Rothstein, a professor at a research center affiliated with the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and head of the advocacy group Public Initiative on Psychiatry.
In 2004, doctors connected to the very institute that perfected the tools under which Soviet-era dissidents were hospitalized from the 1960s through the 1980s sought to roll back some reforms in Russia's landmark 1992 law on mental health. Proponents of mental health reform only narrowly beat back the effort by the doctors from the Serbsky Institute for Social and Forensic Psychiatry.
The proposed amendments included allowing doctors to keep patients under involuntary hospitalization longer without a court order and restricting the ability of patient-rights groups and nongovernment psychiatrists to advocate for clients in court or provide independent expert testimony.
Directors of the Serbsky Institute declined to be interviewed. The head of the state-run Chuvashia Republican Psychiatric Hospital in Cheboksary, however, said patients who accused officials of psychiatric abuse often painted a remarkably different picture than those who dealt with the cases.
"I've been the head doctor here for eight years, and I have not heard of a single case of pressure being put on doctors by law enforcement officials for a diagnosis," Alexander Kozlov said. "I can also assure you with 100% confidence that in this hospital, not a single dissident ever received treatment, and not a single dissident was ever given a diagnosis of schizophrenia or sent for compulsory treatment."
(HA HA HA HA HA)
Human rights leaders say the government psychiatric apparatus has updated legal protections for patients but has changed relatively little in its mind-set since the Soviet era.
"It's important to note that the Serbsky Institute, like the majority of penal institutions in our country, was not obliterated after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The sign outside the door was modified. They even expressed some regrets that there had been 'isolated cases' when psychiatry had made some 'wrong decisions.' But ultimately, very little was changed," said Alexander Podrabinek, who wrote a book on psychiatric abuses in the Soviet era.
"Persecution that has to do with the intellect or the mind or one's psychological health is perceived as perhaps worse than physical punishment, or even torture, because it's more frightening to lose your mind than to lose your freedom," he said.
Cheboksary, a city of 420,000 people about 400 miles east of Moscow, is known as Russia's hops-growing center, with a long tradition of beer-making. It is the capital of the republic of Chuvashia, governed since 1994 by former Russian Justice Minister Nikolai Fyodorov, who controls all levers of power in the republic, from the press to the police to the courts.
Members of Imendayev's organization, For Human Rights, and other opposition activists have long accused Fyodorov's allies of consolidating money and power through manipulation of elections and the court system. The case that landed Imendayev in the hospital began last year, while he was running for office and also acting as an advocate for a teacher who felt she had been improperly fired.
The case had gone to court, and he thought it was almost won. Then a police officer familiar with the case "came up to us … and I recorded it on tape," Imendayev said. "The words were very crude. He literally said to her: 'You idiot, what are you trying to do battle with? The system? Everything here is under control. Everything has been bought.' What he meant was that people on the other side had given money to the judge."
Imendayev wrote a complaint to the prosecutor-general of Russia, mentioning the tape. At the end of the next court hearing, he was removed to the Chuvashia Republican Psychiatric Hospital.
At least three other members of the local branch of For Human Rights have been hospitalized in the last few years, accused of having various forms of schizophrenia, paranoia and other mental disabilities requiring urgent diagnosis or treatment.
Fyodorov's administration dismisses the idea that anyone has been recommended for psychiatric treatment based on politics. "Our judicial branch of power is independent," said Boris Kuzmin, the president's spokesman. "Moreover, our president has a background in law. I think he would not tolerate any sort of violations or pressure on the courts."
Still, Fyodorov's own lawyers moved against Molyakov, the opposition lawmaker arrested on suspicion of libeling the president during his election campaign. In November 2004, they sought to have him hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation.
When federal Judge Oleg Zhukov overturned a lower court's psychiatric referral order, the president's lawyers appealed, arguing that Molyakov's accomplishments as an author and philosophy professor didn't mean he wasn't crazy.
"The court ought to know that even being a personal genius doesn't rule out a mental disorder … (Van Gogh, F.M. Dostoyevsky, N.V. Gogol, etc.)," the lawyers asserted. "As has been established by scientists, the risk of a mental disease in gifted people … is seven to eight times higher."
But of all the cases, the story of Sergei Zotov, a convicted extortionist and businessman-turned-political-gadfly, is unparalleled in its alternate melodrama and hilarity, reading more like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," Russian-style, than the sorry episode in regional politics that it is.
Zotov, 47, got in trouble with the law in the early 1990s, when he flirted with the kind of speculation schemes that widely accompanied the collapse of communism. In 1991, he was brought up on organized-crime charges that originated with an alleged attempt to sell a car at black-market prices (and also involved Zotov's generous use of his skills as a boxer).
He was convicted and sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison, where he spent much of the time reading the law and filing appeals. Once he was released, Zotov turned his newfound legal expertise against the system, filing complaint after complaint demanding criminal prosecution of various alleged instances of corruption and election fraud within the political establishment in Cheboksary.
Zotov would file a challenge to the slightest infraction of court rules — judges who didn't wear their robes on hot days, or a state flag hung in the wrong direction. But he also filed complaints challenging purported misdeeds on the part of local authorities, including the alleged awarding of state property to ministers and judges and evidence that voters were paid and escorted to the polls by pro-government candidates.
"I'm like a bone stuck in their throats," Zotov, a pudgy, balding man who wears rose-colored sunglasses to cover up a bad eye, said cheerfully in a recent interview.
The war was already well underway in November 2002 when he entered a Supreme Court hearing room presided over by then-Chief Justice Pyotr Yurkin. Zotov, who was running for the regional legislature, had accused the judge of improperly taking title to a state-owned apartment and other malfeasance.
As soon as Zotov stood to raise his endless procedural motions, Yurkin ordered him ejected. What happened next is like a Russian "Rashomon": It depends on who saw it.
What is clear is that a bailiff ended up on the floor and a large table was broken as Zotov was hauled from the courtroom. Zotov insists that the bailiff fell and that the table broke when he tried to hang on to it as he was being dragged away.
Some of the judges present testified that Zotov threw the bailiff over his shoulder, karate-style, and either kicked the table or landed on it hard with his hindquarters.
Yurkin sent Zotov to the Chuvashia Republican Psychiatric Hospital. He remained there and at other facilities for seven months and repeatedly was given psychiatric drugs, despite pleas by his family and colleagues that he was sane and should be released. Hearings to continue his hospitalization were held but neither Zotov nor his lawyers appeared. Doctors said he showed signs of hyperactivity, inflated self-importance and "nonsensical ideas of reform."
"It was awful there," said his wife, Natalya Semyonova. "I would go to the window, and Sergei was gathering information and trying to communicate it to us through the window about people who were being kept there illegally, about people who'd had their apartments taken away. There was one man who'd been there 25 years."
After his release in April 2004, Zotov tried to run for the local legislature again. When he appeared on television, slamming local authorities, the court ordered him to undergo outpatient psychiatric treatment, a prospect he feared so much he went into hiding.
In February of last year, two dozen police officers and firefighters arrived at Zotov's apartment to take him back to the mental hospital. The order they were executing referred to him as "a person who had committed a socially dangerous act," according to the prosecutor's office. When Semyonova refused to answer the door, two officers scaled a ladder to the family's ninth-floor balcony, all to no avail — Zotov was not at home.
Dmitry Ivanov, deputy spokesman for the police, said law enforcement officers are no longer actively looking for Zotov, but "if he does show up, we will have to react." He denied any campaign against the human rights activist, and hinted that Zotov might have tried to have himself hospitalized to seek shelter from dangerous associates in the criminal underworld.
Prosecutors, in a written response, said Zotov's case "was handled in accordance with all legal procedures." They said psychiatrists at the Serbsky Institute had examined Zotov and his courtroom outburst and concluded that "when he committed his crime, he was unable to acknowledge its actual nature and social danger, he wasn't able to control his actions, and he requires mandatory treatment in an inpatient facility."
The doctors at the Chuvashia hospital declined to discuss Zotov's case in detail. But they implied that Zotov's version of events was distorted.
"I think if the opponents of your main character were to turn to you and told you about the ways in which he'd offended or harmed them, you'd feel a sense of sympathy for them as well," said Lyudmila Karnilova, deputy chief psychiatrist.
"As for the idea of a psychiatric hospital hunting someone down and dragging them back here, this is certainly not the case. Our main responsibility is to treat patients who need our help," added Kozlov, the chief doctor.
Zotov, who rarely visits his own apartment, says he fears for his sanity if he has to go back to the hospital.
"People who fight for justice in our republic, it's already a trend that they become subjected to isolation in a psychiatric hospital," said Semyonova, his wife.
"This entire case, from the beginning, was based on nothing more than personal antipathy toward my husband."
Afghanistan poses the real threat
By Ahmed Rashid
(Filed: 30/05/2006)
Lahore
The last thing Tony Blair and President George W. Bush need, at a moment of multiple crises for both of them, is a revamped Taliban taking control of southern Afghanistan - but that is now not impossible to imagine.
Bush and Blair have only themselves to blame, as they fought an unnecessary war in Iraq and allowed the Taliban and al-Qa'eda to fester in Central Asia during the five years that followed 9/11. (UNNECESSARY? NICE CONCLUSION)
Yesterday's widespread riots in Kabul are indicative of how disillusioned many Afghans feel about the failure of the West to help rebuild their country. (YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. HOW MANY PROTESTED?)
Nato is now stuck with the consequences. To enlist more troops from more countries and increase its forces from 9,000 to 18,000, Nato billed its replacement of American forces in southern Afghanistan as a major stabilisation and reconstruction effort. Instead, Nato forces, including 3,000 British troops deployed in Helmand province, will have to fight their way out of an unprecedented Taliban offensive that has claimed 400 lives since May 17.
Fighting a full-scale guerrilla war is not what countries such as Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany and others enlisted for. The mandate from their governments is reconstruction, not combat. (BLAME THE TALIBAN, UNLESS YOU THINK THEY ARE JUSTIFIED. OF CORSE, YOU CAN ALSO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO THE WOMEN IN PAST, ETC.)
"Nato will not fail in Afghanistan … the family of nations will expect nothing less than success," General James Jones, the head of US and Nato forces in Europe, told a recent seminar in Madrid.
Gen Jones is now desperately trying to persuade contributing countries to end the restrictions they impose on their troops, making it impossible for some of them to fight or commanders to run a proper military campaign. (THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LEGITIMATE PROBLEM)
"What is the point of deploying troops who don't fight," ask many Afghans. That is why Gen Jones calls these caveats - they now number a staggering 71 - "Nato's operational cancer".
Nato's weaknesses are what worry President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan government. The Taliban and al-Qa'eda know this and more. They have closely followed the testy debates in parliaments across Europe about deploying troops to Afghanistan. They count on inflicting a few bloody casualties, letting body bags arrive in European capitals, and then seeing the protests against deployment escalate.
The Taliban are also testing American resolve. Nato's deployment is part of Washington's agenda to reduce its forces in Afghanistan. It is pulling 3,000 troops out this summer and possibly more later.
The Karzai government is angry with Washington, because many Afghans see this as the start of a full American withdrawal.
The Afghans are also angry that neither the Americans nor Nato seem to be taking the extent to which the Taliban have found sanctuary in Pakistan seriously enough. Senior Nato officials admit that Pakistan's military regime is turning a blind eye to Taliban activities, but what can Nato do when the Americans could do nothing during the past five years?
Despite Bush and Blair claiming to be successfully micromanaging the war on terror, the war is expanding and the region faces increasing chaos. (SOUNDS LIKE THOSE COUNTRIES SHOULD DO SOMETHING - NOT THE US ACTING UNILATERALLY)
Afghanistan has become the new battleground for the 59-year proxy war between India and Pakistan; Afghan anger at the Pakistanis is returned in kind, as Islamabad accuses Kabul of allowing Indian spies access to Pakistan's western border, while Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad are accused of funding an insurgency in Baluchistan province. In turning a blind eye to the Taliban, Pakistan is pressuring Karzai, America and Nato to accede to its demands.
Al-Qa'eda, now under the operational leadership of the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahri, has helped reorganise the Taliban, create unlimited sources of funding from the sale of Afghan-grown opium and forged a new alliance linking the Taliban with extremist groups in Pakistan, Central Asia, the Caucasus and Iraq. Al-Qa'eda has facilitated a major exchange of fighters and training between the Taliban and the extremist groups in Iraq.
Iran is spending large sums out of its windfall oil income in buying support among disaffected and disillusioned Afghan warlords. The day America or Israel attacks Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, these Afghans will be unleashed on American and Nato forces in Afghanistan, opening a new front quite separate from the Taliban insurgency. (GO FOR IT. I THINK IRAN HAS ITS HANDS FULL)
In Central Asia, the Western alliance is floundering. America lost its major military base in Central Asia after Uzbekistan kicked American forces out last year. Emboldened, tiny Kyrgyzstan is now demanding that Washington pay it 100 times more for the base it provides for American forces. Russia and China are working on making sure that America and Nato surrender all their remaining toeholds in Central Asia. (WHY WAS THAT? BECAUSE THE US STOOD UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS? I GUESS THAT SHOULD BE GLOSSED OVER FOR THE ARTICLE TO MAKE ITS MAIN POINT - EVERYTHING THE US DOES IS WRONG AND BAD)
All this is a result of America, Britain and others taking their eye off the ball and circumventing the indisputable truth of 9/11: that the centre of global jihadism and the threat it poses the world still lies in this region, not in Iraq. (THE POINT IS TO KEEP IT THERE, NOT LET IRAQ BUCKLE UNDER)
Yet in the past five years there has been no Western military presence in three of the four provinces in southern Afghanistan that constituted the Taliban heartland and today are the battleground for its revival. The promises of Western funding and reconstruction were never fulfilled; Pashtuns have seen barely any change in their lives and have reverted to cultivating opium as a means to survive. The vacuum in the south has been steadily filled by the Taliban. (SURE THING, THE ROAD AROUND AFGHANISTAN IS COMPLETED RIGHT? HOW CAN YOU HAVE RECONSTRUCTION WITHOUT SECURITY? THEY ATTACK AND THEN BLAME THE US FOR NOT DOING ANYTHING? GET BACK TO PLANET EARTH)
Warlords, nominated as governors and police chiefs in the south by Kabul, indulged in drugs trafficking and abuses of the worst kind and went unchallenged for too long by the international community and Kabul. Meanwhile, Karzai's sensible offer of an amnesty to the Taliban in 2003 was never backed coherently by Western funding and support.
The Western alliance can still win in Afghanistan and root out terrorism, but only by means of a serious, aggressive and sustained commitment by its member countries. So far at least, that commitment is still not apparent. (WHERE IS THE REST OF THE 'INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY'? SINCE IT IS NOT EASY, THEY ARE NO WHERE TO BE FOUND)
By Ahmed Rashid
(Filed: 30/05/2006)
Lahore
The last thing Tony Blair and President George W. Bush need, at a moment of multiple crises for both of them, is a revamped Taliban taking control of southern Afghanistan - but that is now not impossible to imagine.
Bush and Blair have only themselves to blame, as they fought an unnecessary war in Iraq and allowed the Taliban and al-Qa'eda to fester in Central Asia during the five years that followed 9/11. (UNNECESSARY? NICE CONCLUSION)
Yesterday's widespread riots in Kabul are indicative of how disillusioned many Afghans feel about the failure of the West to help rebuild their country. (YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. HOW MANY PROTESTED?)
Nato is now stuck with the consequences. To enlist more troops from more countries and increase its forces from 9,000 to 18,000, Nato billed its replacement of American forces in southern Afghanistan as a major stabilisation and reconstruction effort. Instead, Nato forces, including 3,000 British troops deployed in Helmand province, will have to fight their way out of an unprecedented Taliban offensive that has claimed 400 lives since May 17.
Fighting a full-scale guerrilla war is not what countries such as Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany and others enlisted for. The mandate from their governments is reconstruction, not combat. (BLAME THE TALIBAN, UNLESS YOU THINK THEY ARE JUSTIFIED. OF CORSE, YOU CAN ALSO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO THE WOMEN IN PAST, ETC.)
"Nato will not fail in Afghanistan … the family of nations will expect nothing less than success," General James Jones, the head of US and Nato forces in Europe, told a recent seminar in Madrid.
Gen Jones is now desperately trying to persuade contributing countries to end the restrictions they impose on their troops, making it impossible for some of them to fight or commanders to run a proper military campaign. (THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LEGITIMATE PROBLEM)
"What is the point of deploying troops who don't fight," ask many Afghans. That is why Gen Jones calls these caveats - they now number a staggering 71 - "Nato's operational cancer".
Nato's weaknesses are what worry President Hamid Karzai and the Afghan government. The Taliban and al-Qa'eda know this and more. They have closely followed the testy debates in parliaments across Europe about deploying troops to Afghanistan. They count on inflicting a few bloody casualties, letting body bags arrive in European capitals, and then seeing the protests against deployment escalate.
The Taliban are also testing American resolve. Nato's deployment is part of Washington's agenda to reduce its forces in Afghanistan. It is pulling 3,000 troops out this summer and possibly more later.
The Karzai government is angry with Washington, because many Afghans see this as the start of a full American withdrawal.
The Afghans are also angry that neither the Americans nor Nato seem to be taking the extent to which the Taliban have found sanctuary in Pakistan seriously enough. Senior Nato officials admit that Pakistan's military regime is turning a blind eye to Taliban activities, but what can Nato do when the Americans could do nothing during the past five years?
Despite Bush and Blair claiming to be successfully micromanaging the war on terror, the war is expanding and the region faces increasing chaos. (SOUNDS LIKE THOSE COUNTRIES SHOULD DO SOMETHING - NOT THE US ACTING UNILATERALLY)
Afghanistan has become the new battleground for the 59-year proxy war between India and Pakistan; Afghan anger at the Pakistanis is returned in kind, as Islamabad accuses Kabul of allowing Indian spies access to Pakistan's western border, while Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad are accused of funding an insurgency in Baluchistan province. In turning a blind eye to the Taliban, Pakistan is pressuring Karzai, America and Nato to accede to its demands.
Al-Qa'eda, now under the operational leadership of the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahri, has helped reorganise the Taliban, create unlimited sources of funding from the sale of Afghan-grown opium and forged a new alliance linking the Taliban with extremist groups in Pakistan, Central Asia, the Caucasus and Iraq. Al-Qa'eda has facilitated a major exchange of fighters and training between the Taliban and the extremist groups in Iraq.
Iran is spending large sums out of its windfall oil income in buying support among disaffected and disillusioned Afghan warlords. The day America or Israel attacks Iran to destroy its nuclear programme, these Afghans will be unleashed on American and Nato forces in Afghanistan, opening a new front quite separate from the Taliban insurgency. (GO FOR IT. I THINK IRAN HAS ITS HANDS FULL)
In Central Asia, the Western alliance is floundering. America lost its major military base in Central Asia after Uzbekistan kicked American forces out last year. Emboldened, tiny Kyrgyzstan is now demanding that Washington pay it 100 times more for the base it provides for American forces. Russia and China are working on making sure that America and Nato surrender all their remaining toeholds in Central Asia. (WHY WAS THAT? BECAUSE THE US STOOD UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS? I GUESS THAT SHOULD BE GLOSSED OVER FOR THE ARTICLE TO MAKE ITS MAIN POINT - EVERYTHING THE US DOES IS WRONG AND BAD)
All this is a result of America, Britain and others taking their eye off the ball and circumventing the indisputable truth of 9/11: that the centre of global jihadism and the threat it poses the world still lies in this region, not in Iraq. (THE POINT IS TO KEEP IT THERE, NOT LET IRAQ BUCKLE UNDER)
Yet in the past five years there has been no Western military presence in three of the four provinces in southern Afghanistan that constituted the Taliban heartland and today are the battleground for its revival. The promises of Western funding and reconstruction were never fulfilled; Pashtuns have seen barely any change in their lives and have reverted to cultivating opium as a means to survive. The vacuum in the south has been steadily filled by the Taliban. (SURE THING, THE ROAD AROUND AFGHANISTAN IS COMPLETED RIGHT? HOW CAN YOU HAVE RECONSTRUCTION WITHOUT SECURITY? THEY ATTACK AND THEN BLAME THE US FOR NOT DOING ANYTHING? GET BACK TO PLANET EARTH)
Warlords, nominated as governors and police chiefs in the south by Kabul, indulged in drugs trafficking and abuses of the worst kind and went unchallenged for too long by the international community and Kabul. Meanwhile, Karzai's sensible offer of an amnesty to the Taliban in 2003 was never backed coherently by Western funding and support.
The Western alliance can still win in Afghanistan and root out terrorism, but only by means of a serious, aggressive and sustained commitment by its member countries. So far at least, that commitment is still not apparent. (WHERE IS THE REST OF THE 'INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY'? SINCE IT IS NOT EASY, THEY ARE NO WHERE TO BE FOUND)
Uribe's Second Term Is a First
The Colombian president makes history with his reelection. He takes 62% of the vote.
By Chris Kraul
Times Staff Writer
May 29, 2006
BOGOTA, Colombia — President Alvaro Uribe swept to a reelection victory Sunday as voters gave him a resounding vote of confidence for having reduced violence and reignited the economy, and for restored confidence in a nation that four years ago seemed on the verge of disintegration.
With 96% of the votes counted, Uribe had 62%, a massive lead over the closest of his three main rivals, the Alternative Democratic Pole's Carlos Gaviria, with 22%. Gaviria conceded the race, in effect making Uribe the nation's first president to be democratically elected to a second term.
Uribe's followers in Congress had the constitution changed last year to allow him to become the first modern Colombian president to run for reelection.
"We have to construct a truly secure nation. A secure country is one that guarantees liberties," Uribe told a cheering crowd at a victory speech in a downtown hotel. "Terrorism has wanted to destroy them. Democratic security has tried to recover the liberties that terrorism has wanted to destroy."
Uribe ran on a promise to continue the fight against guerrilla armies, the largest of which, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, has opposed the government in a four-decade-old civil war. The improved security under Uribe's term has been financed partly by Plan Colombia, the U.S. foreign aid package that has funneled more than $600 million annually to Colombia since 2000.
Plan Colombia dollars have enabled Uribe to expand the number of uniformed military and police by a third, to about 400,000, since he took office in 2002. Some of the aid has gone to financing the demobilization of about 30,000 right-wing paramilitary units. Since 2002, killings are down by a third and kidnappings are down by two-thirds.
Human rights groups have criticized Uribe for allegedly favoring the paramilitary groups in the peace process. But a visiting senior U.S. State Department official this week said Uribe had little choice but to offer them generous terms in exchange for laying down their arms. (DO THE HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS EVER HAVE ANYTHING POSITIVE TO ADD?)
"What's the alternative?" the official asked. "The alternative is no process."
Sunday's results were better than many expected for Uribe, and came despite a light turnout of about 45%, which supporters feared would hurt him. Uribe did best in urban areas, where, before his election in 2002, guerrilla advances and terrorist strikes had prompted about 1 million middle- and upper-class citizens to flee the country.
Voters from varied demographic backgrounds interviewed as they left polling places here Sunday morning said they were enthusiastic Uribistas. "Onward, Mr. President," retired public official Julio Piñero, 77, said as he left polls in the impoverished July 20 neighborhood.
"People sense that the country has gone forward and know enough not to be fooled by bright colors and promises," Piñero said. "It has cost a lot of work and higher taxes, but it's for our own good. The president should be allowed to finish his plan."
Uribe's victory came despite his notice to Colombians in March that he would raise taxes on the wealthiest to back purchases of equipment for the army.
In remarks to reporters Saturday, Uribe, a bookish and plain-spoken Oxford-educated lawyer who once took law classes from Gaviria, denied suggestions that he might seek a third term. Several voters said Sunday that they would support him again.
"He's been called to govern," said Mercedes Mora, a 63-year-old housewife. "He can end the war if we support him."
A minority of voters said Uribe had neglected the poor and become increasingly authoritarian. (YAWN)
"If you protest, he paints you as a communist or a criminal," said teacher Nora Casas, 57, who said she voted for Gaviria.
The Colombian president makes history with his reelection. He takes 62% of the vote.
By Chris Kraul
Times Staff Writer
May 29, 2006
BOGOTA, Colombia — President Alvaro Uribe swept to a reelection victory Sunday as voters gave him a resounding vote of confidence for having reduced violence and reignited the economy, and for restored confidence in a nation that four years ago seemed on the verge of disintegration.
With 96% of the votes counted, Uribe had 62%, a massive lead over the closest of his three main rivals, the Alternative Democratic Pole's Carlos Gaviria, with 22%. Gaviria conceded the race, in effect making Uribe the nation's first president to be democratically elected to a second term.
Uribe's followers in Congress had the constitution changed last year to allow him to become the first modern Colombian president to run for reelection.
"We have to construct a truly secure nation. A secure country is one that guarantees liberties," Uribe told a cheering crowd at a victory speech in a downtown hotel. "Terrorism has wanted to destroy them. Democratic security has tried to recover the liberties that terrorism has wanted to destroy."
Uribe ran on a promise to continue the fight against guerrilla armies, the largest of which, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, has opposed the government in a four-decade-old civil war. The improved security under Uribe's term has been financed partly by Plan Colombia, the U.S. foreign aid package that has funneled more than $600 million annually to Colombia since 2000.
Plan Colombia dollars have enabled Uribe to expand the number of uniformed military and police by a third, to about 400,000, since he took office in 2002. Some of the aid has gone to financing the demobilization of about 30,000 right-wing paramilitary units. Since 2002, killings are down by a third and kidnappings are down by two-thirds.
Human rights groups have criticized Uribe for allegedly favoring the paramilitary groups in the peace process. But a visiting senior U.S. State Department official this week said Uribe had little choice but to offer them generous terms in exchange for laying down their arms. (DO THE HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS EVER HAVE ANYTHING POSITIVE TO ADD?)
"What's the alternative?" the official asked. "The alternative is no process."
Sunday's results were better than many expected for Uribe, and came despite a light turnout of about 45%, which supporters feared would hurt him. Uribe did best in urban areas, where, before his election in 2002, guerrilla advances and terrorist strikes had prompted about 1 million middle- and upper-class citizens to flee the country.
Voters from varied demographic backgrounds interviewed as they left polling places here Sunday morning said they were enthusiastic Uribistas. "Onward, Mr. President," retired public official Julio Piñero, 77, said as he left polls in the impoverished July 20 neighborhood.
"People sense that the country has gone forward and know enough not to be fooled by bright colors and promises," Piñero said. "It has cost a lot of work and higher taxes, but it's for our own good. The president should be allowed to finish his plan."
Uribe's victory came despite his notice to Colombians in March that he would raise taxes on the wealthiest to back purchases of equipment for the army.
In remarks to reporters Saturday, Uribe, a bookish and plain-spoken Oxford-educated lawyer who once took law classes from Gaviria, denied suggestions that he might seek a third term. Several voters said Sunday that they would support him again.
"He's been called to govern," said Mercedes Mora, a 63-year-old housewife. "He can end the war if we support him."
A minority of voters said Uribe had neglected the poor and become increasingly authoritarian. (YAWN)
"If you protest, he paints you as a communist or a criminal," said teacher Nora Casas, 57, who said she voted for Gaviria.
Coal in comeback as gas prices surge
By Edmund Conway (Filed: 30/05/2006)
Britain is more reliant on coal for its electricity than it has been at any time over the past decade, according to government figures.
The amount of coal consumed by UK power stations increased last year to the highest level since 1996, as record gas prices forced electricity suppliers to find other sources of power.
This pushed up Britain's carbon dioxide emissions to their highest in 10 years, figures from the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) show. They also help explain why ministers tried to lower targets for cuts to carbon emissions.
The government research, which has been quietly released on the DTI website, also shows that domestic coal production plunged by 18pc last year.
Imports of the carboniferous fuel "were 21pc higher at a new record level and generators' demand for coal was up 3½pc".
According to the DTI report "deep mined production fell to a record low of 9.5m tonnes, while opencast coal production was at its lowest level since 1975 and 13pc lower than in 2004. Ellington mine closed due to flooding leaving only eight major deep mines."
Stubbornly high oil and gas prices over the past year have meant that coal, which is a more inefficient source of energy, is once again a viable option for generators.
According to the DTI's numbers, power generators burnt 32.7m tonnes of coal last year, measured in terms of its oil-equivalent weight. This compares with 31.3m tonnes in 2004 and a record low of 25.5m tonnes in 1999.
Because coal is a more polluting fuel than other sources, the UK's carbon emissions rose by half a million tonnes last year to 157.4m tonnes, the highest since 1996.
Even after accounting for newly-planted forests, which reduce CO2 levels, net emissions were still the highest since 2000.
By Edmund Conway (Filed: 30/05/2006)
Britain is more reliant on coal for its electricity than it has been at any time over the past decade, according to government figures.
The amount of coal consumed by UK power stations increased last year to the highest level since 1996, as record gas prices forced electricity suppliers to find other sources of power.
This pushed up Britain's carbon dioxide emissions to their highest in 10 years, figures from the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) show. They also help explain why ministers tried to lower targets for cuts to carbon emissions.
The government research, which has been quietly released on the DTI website, also shows that domestic coal production plunged by 18pc last year.
Imports of the carboniferous fuel "were 21pc higher at a new record level and generators' demand for coal was up 3½pc".
According to the DTI report "deep mined production fell to a record low of 9.5m tonnes, while opencast coal production was at its lowest level since 1975 and 13pc lower than in 2004. Ellington mine closed due to flooding leaving only eight major deep mines."
Stubbornly high oil and gas prices over the past year have meant that coal, which is a more inefficient source of energy, is once again a viable option for generators.
According to the DTI's numbers, power generators burnt 32.7m tonnes of coal last year, measured in terms of its oil-equivalent weight. This compares with 31.3m tonnes in 2004 and a record low of 25.5m tonnes in 1999.
Because coal is a more polluting fuel than other sources, the UK's carbon emissions rose by half a million tonnes last year to 157.4m tonnes, the highest since 1996.
Even after accounting for newly-planted forests, which reduce CO2 levels, net emissions were still the highest since 2000.
RBS joins Bank of China in credit card venture
By Katherine Griffiths, City Correspondent (Filed: 30/05/2006)
Royal Bank of Scotland is to increase its exposure to China with an initiative to sell credit cards in the country through a joint venture with Bank of China.
The move will mark a deepening of Royal Bank's relationship with its partner, in which the Edinburgh-based bank led a consortium of banks to take an almost 10pc stake last September.
At the time, Royal Bank was criticised by some investors who did not want it to do yet another major deal and especially not in China, where the banking industry is just emerging. But thanks to China's blistering growth in recent years, the market for its products has ballooned.
Royal Bank is also now mulling another plan to target wealthy Chinese nationals, possibly using its subsidiary Coutts, the Queen's bank, as a brand.
Credit cards are China's fastest-growing consumer product, according to the consulting firm McKinsey, but lenders face the problem that most customers lack personal credit histories, making it hard to assess their riskiness. Many of China's banks are also struggling with bad loans.
Royal Bank said it believed Bank of China had chosen it because of its expertise in the credit card market. "We have got years of experience in risk management in the credit card environment," a spokesman said.
RBS has 11m credit card customers in the UK, issued under brands including Mint, NatWest and through its joint venture with Tesco. The bank would not give a timetable for the launch of the credit cards.
The move will come after Bank of China floats on the stock market later this week, in what is set to be the biggest flotation in six years.
The pricing of Bank of China's shares this week values it at more than $90bn, making it one of the world's 10 largest banks by market capitalisation.
Royal Bank, Merrill Lynch and Li Ka-shing, the Hong Kong tycoon, paid £1.65bn for a 9.6pc stake in Bank of China last August. Royal Bank is looking at an estimated £70m profit from its £800m investment.
Royal Bank is not taking up its rights to the new shares, in a move which will see it reduce its holding from 5.16pc to 4.6pc. Overall, the consortium's stake is falling from 9.6pc to 8.6pc.
By Katherine Griffiths, City Correspondent (Filed: 30/05/2006)
Royal Bank of Scotland is to increase its exposure to China with an initiative to sell credit cards in the country through a joint venture with Bank of China.
The move will mark a deepening of Royal Bank's relationship with its partner, in which the Edinburgh-based bank led a consortium of banks to take an almost 10pc stake last September.
At the time, Royal Bank was criticised by some investors who did not want it to do yet another major deal and especially not in China, where the banking industry is just emerging. But thanks to China's blistering growth in recent years, the market for its products has ballooned.
Royal Bank is also now mulling another plan to target wealthy Chinese nationals, possibly using its subsidiary Coutts, the Queen's bank, as a brand.
Credit cards are China's fastest-growing consumer product, according to the consulting firm McKinsey, but lenders face the problem that most customers lack personal credit histories, making it hard to assess their riskiness. Many of China's banks are also struggling with bad loans.
Royal Bank said it believed Bank of China had chosen it because of its expertise in the credit card market. "We have got years of experience in risk management in the credit card environment," a spokesman said.
RBS has 11m credit card customers in the UK, issued under brands including Mint, NatWest and through its joint venture with Tesco. The bank would not give a timetable for the launch of the credit cards.
The move will come after Bank of China floats on the stock market later this week, in what is set to be the biggest flotation in six years.
The pricing of Bank of China's shares this week values it at more than $90bn, making it one of the world's 10 largest banks by market capitalisation.
Royal Bank, Merrill Lynch and Li Ka-shing, the Hong Kong tycoon, paid £1.65bn for a 9.6pc stake in Bank of China last August. Royal Bank is looking at an estimated £70m profit from its £800m investment.
Royal Bank is not taking up its rights to the new shares, in a move which will see it reduce its holding from 5.16pc to 4.6pc. Overall, the consortium's stake is falling from 9.6pc to 8.6pc.
West must take pre-emptive action for its own security
By Janet Daley
(Filed: 29/05/2006)
You could hear a snigger of triumph echo round the world as George Bush and Tony Blair uttered an admission of their "mistakes" over Iraq. Not quite the mortified apology that the anti-war lobby wanted, but it would make a satisfying headline.
The Blair Government is imploding at home and when Tony goes under, George will be friendless. The Bush-Blair foreign misadventure show is in its last, discredited moments.
In no time at all, we will be back to business as usual: the UN can hunker down happily into its familiar stalemates and corrupt corridor deals, while Europe witters about the minutiae of its latest wave of regulations. And the peoples of the world who live under murderous despots can go to hell in a handcart.
Well, it's not to be: never business as usual again, I'm afraid. The status quo ante is not an option - not just, as Mr Blair likes to say, because of 9/11, but because the old dispensation was a product of the Cold War.
In the days when two nuclear superpowers eyeballed each other across the wall, the little dictators were part of a global chess game.
The big boys could be complacently cynical about third world tyrannies: it didn't matter if a ruler was genocidal or corrupt and kept his own population in terrorised poverty. All that mattered was that he was your guy.
We kept our sons-of-bitches under control and they kept their sons-of-bitches under control. It was a global carve-up of the most callous and immoral kind.
It always makes me smile when I hear Leftists complaining, in the old Stalinist tradition, about Western imperialism in Iraq: these are the very people who used to attack the United States for supporting dictatorships that suited its interests.
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either it's good to remove dictators, or it isn't. But anyway, the game is up. It is the little dictators and the rogue states, with their access to nuclear weapons and their terrorist networks, who are the threat now.
The ideological struggle which had once bribed and coerced them into compliance is finished. They are on the loose, and there is no room for complacency any more.
The undoing of the Blair-Bush case for the war - the "deception" of public opinion over the existence of weapons of mass destruction - was actually rooted in this historical shift. Removing Saddam Hussein had to be justified on the old rules - he is an immediate threat to our national security - when, in reality, this was the first war to be fought on the new rules.
In his Georgetown University speech, Mr Blair said that, in this new global politics "idealism becomes the realpolitik", which sounds like one of his rhetorical oxymorons.
Typical of Mr Blair's pronouncements on this subject, it was sententious and self-regarding - and absolutely right. What he meant was that a policy that would once have seemed hopelessly pious and far-reaching - liberating oppressed people in distant lands that seem to have little to do with us - was not just an abstract moral duty but essential for our security.
If terror is to be defeated, then the swamp that breeds terrorists must be drained. So try putting it this way: "Pre-emption is the pragmatism of the 21st century." Mr Blair's talk about UN reform makes Washington impatient: they see the talking shop principle as exhausted, irrelevant and too reliant on the cooperation of the dictators who must be displaced.
If there is a criticism to be made of the Blair logic, it is that it does not follow the argument through to its obvious conclusion: the lunatic in charge of Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances, and so the threat of force must remain on the table as a last resort.
If his beloved international consensus fails, Mr Blair knows that the United States and its best friends will have to handle this alone, whoever occupies the White House and Downing Street.
But it is a pity about Europe's pusillanimous response to the new order: the US does have real limitations in its understanding of how the rest of the world thinks.
What really went wrong in Iraq was a failure of the US to grasp that not everyone would seize the gift of freedom with both hands and make it work. They say that America is an optimistic country because that's where the optimists went.
What is also true is that it is the place where people went when they hungered for freedom - from religious persecution, from poverty, from inequality. Americans believe that being free is a universal birthright.
They just don't get it when nations, given the choice, opt for dictatorship, theocracy or the tribalism of warlords. What Mr Blair has tried to sell to Washington is the wisdom that the Old World has to offer about ancient hatreds and peoples who fear liberty - but this will not wash if Europe wants no part of the new order and refuses the role it might have had.
Now the Blair era is crashing to a gruesome end. While the Prime Minister delivered his grand speech on the future of the world, his deputy was playing croquet in a kind of parody of aristocratic insouciance.
There is a comic quality to the fiasco of New Labour's failure to manage even the most mundane functions of government. The brand new Home Secretary sets off on holiday while illegal immigrants discover that they can simply walk out of detention.
But in the first analysis, the Iraq war will be seen as the cause of Mr Blair's collapse. It will be his support for the Bush foreign policy that will take the blame - at least, in the media coverage - for his downfall, even though domestic problems are causing greater public anger and anxiety.
But, as Mr Blair knows, these things are connected: illegal immigration, which arouses so much resentment, will remain a problem for Britain and the US so long as poverty and oppression in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East persist.
In the West, we have learned how to eradicate mass starvation and gross inequality. There is no mystery: the answer is liberal democratic government and free market economics. Those are the things that we are going to have to export if we are to have any hope of a peaceful future.
By Janet Daley
(Filed: 29/05/2006)
You could hear a snigger of triumph echo round the world as George Bush and Tony Blair uttered an admission of their "mistakes" over Iraq. Not quite the mortified apology that the anti-war lobby wanted, but it would make a satisfying headline.
The Blair Government is imploding at home and when Tony goes under, George will be friendless. The Bush-Blair foreign misadventure show is in its last, discredited moments.
In no time at all, we will be back to business as usual: the UN can hunker down happily into its familiar stalemates and corrupt corridor deals, while Europe witters about the minutiae of its latest wave of regulations. And the peoples of the world who live under murderous despots can go to hell in a handcart.
Well, it's not to be: never business as usual again, I'm afraid. The status quo ante is not an option - not just, as Mr Blair likes to say, because of 9/11, but because the old dispensation was a product of the Cold War.
In the days when two nuclear superpowers eyeballed each other across the wall, the little dictators were part of a global chess game.
The big boys could be complacently cynical about third world tyrannies: it didn't matter if a ruler was genocidal or corrupt and kept his own population in terrorised poverty. All that mattered was that he was your guy.
We kept our sons-of-bitches under control and they kept their sons-of-bitches under control. It was a global carve-up of the most callous and immoral kind.
It always makes me smile when I hear Leftists complaining, in the old Stalinist tradition, about Western imperialism in Iraq: these are the very people who used to attack the United States for supporting dictatorships that suited its interests.
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either it's good to remove dictators, or it isn't. But anyway, the game is up. It is the little dictators and the rogue states, with their access to nuclear weapons and their terrorist networks, who are the threat now.
The ideological struggle which had once bribed and coerced them into compliance is finished. They are on the loose, and there is no room for complacency any more.
The undoing of the Blair-Bush case for the war - the "deception" of public opinion over the existence of weapons of mass destruction - was actually rooted in this historical shift. Removing Saddam Hussein had to be justified on the old rules - he is an immediate threat to our national security - when, in reality, this was the first war to be fought on the new rules.
In his Georgetown University speech, Mr Blair said that, in this new global politics "idealism becomes the realpolitik", which sounds like one of his rhetorical oxymorons.
Typical of Mr Blair's pronouncements on this subject, it was sententious and self-regarding - and absolutely right. What he meant was that a policy that would once have seemed hopelessly pious and far-reaching - liberating oppressed people in distant lands that seem to have little to do with us - was not just an abstract moral duty but essential for our security.
If terror is to be defeated, then the swamp that breeds terrorists must be drained. So try putting it this way: "Pre-emption is the pragmatism of the 21st century." Mr Blair's talk about UN reform makes Washington impatient: they see the talking shop principle as exhausted, irrelevant and too reliant on the cooperation of the dictators who must be displaced.
If there is a criticism to be made of the Blair logic, it is that it does not follow the argument through to its obvious conclusion: the lunatic in charge of Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances, and so the threat of force must remain on the table as a last resort.
If his beloved international consensus fails, Mr Blair knows that the United States and its best friends will have to handle this alone, whoever occupies the White House and Downing Street.
But it is a pity about Europe's pusillanimous response to the new order: the US does have real limitations in its understanding of how the rest of the world thinks.
What really went wrong in Iraq was a failure of the US to grasp that not everyone would seize the gift of freedom with both hands and make it work. They say that America is an optimistic country because that's where the optimists went.
What is also true is that it is the place where people went when they hungered for freedom - from religious persecution, from poverty, from inequality. Americans believe that being free is a universal birthright.
They just don't get it when nations, given the choice, opt for dictatorship, theocracy or the tribalism of warlords. What Mr Blair has tried to sell to Washington is the wisdom that the Old World has to offer about ancient hatreds and peoples who fear liberty - but this will not wash if Europe wants no part of the new order and refuses the role it might have had.
Now the Blair era is crashing to a gruesome end. While the Prime Minister delivered his grand speech on the future of the world, his deputy was playing croquet in a kind of parody of aristocratic insouciance.
There is a comic quality to the fiasco of New Labour's failure to manage even the most mundane functions of government. The brand new Home Secretary sets off on holiday while illegal immigrants discover that they can simply walk out of detention.
But in the first analysis, the Iraq war will be seen as the cause of Mr Blair's collapse. It will be his support for the Bush foreign policy that will take the blame - at least, in the media coverage - for his downfall, even though domestic problems are causing greater public anger and anxiety.
But, as Mr Blair knows, these things are connected: illegal immigration, which arouses so much resentment, will remain a problem for Britain and the US so long as poverty and oppression in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East persist.
In the West, we have learned how to eradicate mass starvation and gross inequality. There is no mystery: the answer is liberal democratic government and free market economics. Those are the things that we are going to have to export if we are to have any hope of a peaceful future.
Extreme tactics by animal rights activists appear to have fatally damaged their cause
By Anthony King
(Filed: 29/05/2006)
Public revulsion at the activities of animal rights extremists appears to be damaging their cause and producing the opposite effect to that intended.
According to YouGov's survey for The Daily Telegraph, the proportion of people approving of animal testing in medical research is now at an all-time high and more than three-quarters believe that the more extreme elements among animal rights activists deserve to be called "terrorists".
The overwhelming majority of Britons have no objection to animal rights campaigners staging peaceful demonstrations or holding aloft placards portraying the pain they say is inflicted on laboratory animals. They may even approve of campaigns along these lines.
However, huge majorities clearly abhor almost every activity the extremists engage in. Most people think the Judge Michael Pert was right recently to sentence three extremists to 12-year prison terms. A lot of people think 12 years was not nearly enough.
Most earlier surveys on animal testing have shown opinion more or less evenly divided. A Gallup poll a decade ago found 40 per cent in favour of using live animals for purposes of medical research but with 50 per cent opposed.
An ICM survey last year found that the balance of opinion had shifted the other way with 50 per cent in favour but 47 per cent opposed. YouGov's findings suggest that opinion has now shifted further.
YouGov asked: "In your view, is it acceptable or not to test new medical treatments on animals before they are tested on human beings?"
The findings, set out in the chart, are emphatic. More than two thirds of people, 70 per cent, believe that using animals for these purposes is acceptable. Only 18 per cent believe that it is not acceptable under any circumstances.
The phrase included in the question, "before they are tested on human beings", may well have triggered memories of the men at Northwick Park Hospital who suffered when successful tests on animals proved unsuccessful on human subjects.
A striking feature of the data is that, with one exception, opinion on the issue differs scarcely at all from one social group to another. People in all age groups and all parts of the country, and supporters of all political parties, are united in believing that testing new medical treatments on live animals is morally acceptable.
The one exception is the large gap that exists between women and men. Among women, a substantial majority, 59 per cent, favour animal testing, but among men the corresponding proportion is far higher: 82 per cent.
Conversely, whereas 25 per cent of women are opposed to animal testing under any circumstances, the corresponding figure among men is a modest 10 per cent.
Nearly three quarters of YouGov's respondents, 72 per cent, believe that testing on animals is "sometimes essential". Only 19 per cent maintain that "alternative methods are always available".
Moreover, a large majority, 72 per cent, are also persuaded that the big pharmaceutical companies mean what they say when they threaten to transfer their medical research facilities to other countries if the research environment in Britain becomes, from their point of view, unduly repressive. A mere 14 per cent think that the companies are bluffing and simply want to conduct research on animals free of effective restrictions.
Although some people would be happy to see such work taken abroad, they amount, as the figures in the chart show, to only about one in eight, 13 per cent. Far more, 46 per cent, say they "would be sorry if this work were no longer being done in Britain". The animal rights activists are clearly losing that particular propaganda war.
The methods used by some of the more extreme activists are evidently deeply repugnant to the vast majority of people. Almost no one supports damaging and vandalising property, let alone issuing death threats and digging up and absconding with human remains.
The proportion of people opposed to such actions approaches 100 per cent - a most unusual occurrence in opinion surveys.
Fully 88 per cent also believe it is morally wrong to post on the internet the names in addresses of people, including small shareholders, who are in any way connected with animal testing.
But perhaps the clearest single measure of people's abhorrence of the activities of animal rights extremists emerges from the responses to YouGov's question about the sentences handed down by Judge Pert. The proportion reckoning the judge's sentences were about right or not tough enough totals 85 per cent.
Fewer than one in 10, only eight per cent, think that the judge should have been more lenient. Unsurprisingly, some people want to attach the label "terrorist" to the more extreme pro-animal activists. Given recent events, a large majority of YouGov's respondents, 77 per cent, are happy to agree.
It cannot be proved, but there is every reason to believe that the extremists are creating an atmosphere in which people view medical research using live animals more sympathetically than they would otherwise.
A cause with such unattractive supporters can come - however illogically - to appear unattractive in itself. YouGov also reminded respondents that the Prime Minister recently promised additional "efforts to support and protect individuals and companies engaged in life-saving medical research" and asked whether they believed that the Government should make such efforts.
As the figures in the chart make plain, most people think that it should. Medical testing with animals seems to be one of the few issues at the moment on which Tony Blair's Government can count on solid majority support.
YouGov elicited the opinions of 2,102 adults across Britain online between May 23 and 25. The data have been weighted to conform to the demographical profile of British adults as a whole. YouGov abides by the rules of the British Polling Council.
•Anthony King is professor of government at Essex University
By Anthony King
(Filed: 29/05/2006)
Public revulsion at the activities of animal rights extremists appears to be damaging their cause and producing the opposite effect to that intended.
According to YouGov's survey for The Daily Telegraph, the proportion of people approving of animal testing in medical research is now at an all-time high and more than three-quarters believe that the more extreme elements among animal rights activists deserve to be called "terrorists".
The overwhelming majority of Britons have no objection to animal rights campaigners staging peaceful demonstrations or holding aloft placards portraying the pain they say is inflicted on laboratory animals. They may even approve of campaigns along these lines.
However, huge majorities clearly abhor almost every activity the extremists engage in. Most people think the Judge Michael Pert was right recently to sentence three extremists to 12-year prison terms. A lot of people think 12 years was not nearly enough.
Most earlier surveys on animal testing have shown opinion more or less evenly divided. A Gallup poll a decade ago found 40 per cent in favour of using live animals for purposes of medical research but with 50 per cent opposed.
An ICM survey last year found that the balance of opinion had shifted the other way with 50 per cent in favour but 47 per cent opposed. YouGov's findings suggest that opinion has now shifted further.
YouGov asked: "In your view, is it acceptable or not to test new medical treatments on animals before they are tested on human beings?"
The findings, set out in the chart, are emphatic. More than two thirds of people, 70 per cent, believe that using animals for these purposes is acceptable. Only 18 per cent believe that it is not acceptable under any circumstances.
The phrase included in the question, "before they are tested on human beings", may well have triggered memories of the men at Northwick Park Hospital who suffered when successful tests on animals proved unsuccessful on human subjects.
A striking feature of the data is that, with one exception, opinion on the issue differs scarcely at all from one social group to another. People in all age groups and all parts of the country, and supporters of all political parties, are united in believing that testing new medical treatments on live animals is morally acceptable.
The one exception is the large gap that exists between women and men. Among women, a substantial majority, 59 per cent, favour animal testing, but among men the corresponding proportion is far higher: 82 per cent.
Conversely, whereas 25 per cent of women are opposed to animal testing under any circumstances, the corresponding figure among men is a modest 10 per cent.
Nearly three quarters of YouGov's respondents, 72 per cent, believe that testing on animals is "sometimes essential". Only 19 per cent maintain that "alternative methods are always available".
Moreover, a large majority, 72 per cent, are also persuaded that the big pharmaceutical companies mean what they say when they threaten to transfer their medical research facilities to other countries if the research environment in Britain becomes, from their point of view, unduly repressive. A mere 14 per cent think that the companies are bluffing and simply want to conduct research on animals free of effective restrictions.
Although some people would be happy to see such work taken abroad, they amount, as the figures in the chart show, to only about one in eight, 13 per cent. Far more, 46 per cent, say they "would be sorry if this work were no longer being done in Britain". The animal rights activists are clearly losing that particular propaganda war.
The methods used by some of the more extreme activists are evidently deeply repugnant to the vast majority of people. Almost no one supports damaging and vandalising property, let alone issuing death threats and digging up and absconding with human remains.
The proportion of people opposed to such actions approaches 100 per cent - a most unusual occurrence in opinion surveys.
Fully 88 per cent also believe it is morally wrong to post on the internet the names in addresses of people, including small shareholders, who are in any way connected with animal testing.
But perhaps the clearest single measure of people's abhorrence of the activities of animal rights extremists emerges from the responses to YouGov's question about the sentences handed down by Judge Pert. The proportion reckoning the judge's sentences were about right or not tough enough totals 85 per cent.
Fewer than one in 10, only eight per cent, think that the judge should have been more lenient. Unsurprisingly, some people want to attach the label "terrorist" to the more extreme pro-animal activists. Given recent events, a large majority of YouGov's respondents, 77 per cent, are happy to agree.
It cannot be proved, but there is every reason to believe that the extremists are creating an atmosphere in which people view medical research using live animals more sympathetically than they would otherwise.
A cause with such unattractive supporters can come - however illogically - to appear unattractive in itself. YouGov also reminded respondents that the Prime Minister recently promised additional "efforts to support and protect individuals and companies engaged in life-saving medical research" and asked whether they believed that the Government should make such efforts.
As the figures in the chart make plain, most people think that it should. Medical testing with animals seems to be one of the few issues at the moment on which Tony Blair's Government can count on solid majority support.
YouGov elicited the opinions of 2,102 adults across Britain online between May 23 and 25. The data have been weighted to conform to the demographical profile of British adults as a whole. YouGov abides by the rules of the British Polling Council.
•Anthony King is professor of government at Essex University
Public turns on animal terrorists
By Philip Johnston Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 29/05/2006)
Extremist behaviour by animal rights protesters has had the effect of increasing public support for testing new medical treatments on animals, a poll for The Daily Telegraph has found.
The proportion of people who approve of animal testing is now at an all-time high and more than three quarters believe that the more fanatical activists can justifiably be defined as "terrorists".
High-profile campaigns, such as intimidating scientists and threatening shareholders in pharmaceutical companies, appear to have backfired badly.
The YouGov survey suggests that fewer than one person in five considers animal testing to be unacceptable in any circumstance.
More that 70 per cent said they accepted that experimentation on animals was sometimes essential because alternative methods were unavailable.
There was also widespread concern that a ban on medical research on animals would merely encourage pharmaceutical multi-nationals to set up abroad, where the safeguards that exist in Britain against causing unnecessary suffering may be absent.
The findings appear to contradict the claims often made by opponents of animal testing that there is "overwhelming" public support for their cause. While people might prefer not to see animals suffer, just 19 per cent took the view that alternative methods of testing were always available.
Brian Cass, the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences, an animal-testing research company which has been the target of activists for several years, said: "The issue has had so much publicity that organisations like ourselves have gone out of our way to provide an almost open laboratory to the media.
"This has brought a much more open presentation of both how animal testing is done and the legal requirements that control it. Once people understand what is going on they are in a much better position to form objective judgments. When they do so they tend to support the work."
Previous polls have shown opinion more or less evenly divided on animal testing.
YouGov's findings indicate that by stepping up their campaign, extremists have damaged their cause. While most people have no objection to campaigners staging peaceful demonstrations, they draw the line at some of the activities seen in recent years.
There was strong support for the 12-year jail terms given this month to three extremists who had been involved in a campaign of intimidation, including the disinterment of the body of a woman whose family bred animals for experimentation.
Opposition to threats, hate campaigns and vandalism is almost universal and 88 per cent believe it is wrong to post the names and addresses of people connected with animal testing on the internet.
Alistair Currie, the campaigns director of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said extremists had not helped the animal rights cause.
"It has produced an image problem for the animal rights movement as a whole," he said. "But that doesn't necessarily mean people are more committed to animal rights experiments that they were previously."
The findings suggest that Tony Blair was very much in tune with public opinion when he took the unusual step of agreeing to sign a petition affirming support for the right of scientists to conduct legitimate animal experiments.
He also said that the Government would consider a new law to protect the identities of those involved in testing.
His move came amid continuing protests in Oxford against plans for a new medical research laboratory at the university and complaints that despite a few high-profile prosecutions, the police are not doing enough to disrupt the activities of known extremists.
Part of the reason for changing public attitudes could be an appreciation that animals are no longer used to test cosmetics in Britain, though the number of tests for medical purposes is rising. In 2004, there were around 2.85 million "procedures", a rise of just over two per cent on the previous year.
By Philip Johnston Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 29/05/2006)
Extremist behaviour by animal rights protesters has had the effect of increasing public support for testing new medical treatments on animals, a poll for The Daily Telegraph has found.
The proportion of people who approve of animal testing is now at an all-time high and more than three quarters believe that the more fanatical activists can justifiably be defined as "terrorists".
High-profile campaigns, such as intimidating scientists and threatening shareholders in pharmaceutical companies, appear to have backfired badly.
The YouGov survey suggests that fewer than one person in five considers animal testing to be unacceptable in any circumstance.
More that 70 per cent said they accepted that experimentation on animals was sometimes essential because alternative methods were unavailable.
There was also widespread concern that a ban on medical research on animals would merely encourage pharmaceutical multi-nationals to set up abroad, where the safeguards that exist in Britain against causing unnecessary suffering may be absent.
The findings appear to contradict the claims often made by opponents of animal testing that there is "overwhelming" public support for their cause. While people might prefer not to see animals suffer, just 19 per cent took the view that alternative methods of testing were always available.
Brian Cass, the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences, an animal-testing research company which has been the target of activists for several years, said: "The issue has had so much publicity that organisations like ourselves have gone out of our way to provide an almost open laboratory to the media.
"This has brought a much more open presentation of both how animal testing is done and the legal requirements that control it. Once people understand what is going on they are in a much better position to form objective judgments. When they do so they tend to support the work."
Previous polls have shown opinion more or less evenly divided on animal testing.
YouGov's findings indicate that by stepping up their campaign, extremists have damaged their cause. While most people have no objection to campaigners staging peaceful demonstrations, they draw the line at some of the activities seen in recent years.
There was strong support for the 12-year jail terms given this month to three extremists who had been involved in a campaign of intimidation, including the disinterment of the body of a woman whose family bred animals for experimentation.
Opposition to threats, hate campaigns and vandalism is almost universal and 88 per cent believe it is wrong to post the names and addresses of people connected with animal testing on the internet.
Alistair Currie, the campaigns director of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said extremists had not helped the animal rights cause.
"It has produced an image problem for the animal rights movement as a whole," he said. "But that doesn't necessarily mean people are more committed to animal rights experiments that they were previously."
The findings suggest that Tony Blair was very much in tune with public opinion when he took the unusual step of agreeing to sign a petition affirming support for the right of scientists to conduct legitimate animal experiments.
He also said that the Government would consider a new law to protect the identities of those involved in testing.
His move came amid continuing protests in Oxford against plans for a new medical research laboratory at the university and complaints that despite a few high-profile prosecutions, the police are not doing enough to disrupt the activities of known extremists.
Part of the reason for changing public attitudes could be an appreciation that animals are no longer used to test cosmetics in Britain, though the number of tests for medical purposes is rising. In 2004, there were around 2.85 million "procedures", a rise of just over two per cent on the previous year.
4 Iraqi Areas May Be Handed Over
A military official says the U.S. will transfer security duties to local police in the provinces by the end of this year.
By Louise Roug
Times Staff Writer
May 28, 2006
BAGHDAD — A senior U.S. military official Saturday outlined plans to hand over security to Iraqi police in Baghdad province and three others before the end of the year. But even as he spoke, Iraqi politicians failed to meet a deadline to appoint the ministers who eventually would be responsible for those forces.
The official described the military's strategy for transfer of authority to the provincial governments in the relatively stable provinces of Najaf and Karbala in the next few months. The restive provinces of Babil and Baghdad "will take a little longer," he said in a background briefing with reporters. The official said he believed it could happen by the end of the year but emphasized that the timeline for all four areas would be governed by security conditions.
Under the plan, local governors will initially take control of the police, intended as a "bridging" phase before the Iraqi government assumes full responsibility for security.
Since the new Cabinet was sworn in, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has repeatedly talked of Iraqis taking over security responsibilities from the Americans. It's a message that also benefits the Bush administration, which is preparing for midterm elections and has lost significant domestic support over the conflict.
But Iraqi politicians have been unable to agree on who should be named as defense, interior and national security ministers.
"I sometimes tell my colleagues that I look at this issue just like what is going on in the stock market," said Safiya Suhail, who represents a secular slate in the Council of Representatives, the Iraqi parliament. "This name goes up, and that name comes down, every day."
The country's sectarian division is reflected in the protracted negotiations over the country's top security jobs. Sunnis have complained that the interim Shiite-led government allowed security forces to be infiltrated by Shiite militias.
Although the Sunni-led insurgency still mostly targets Shiites, the majority of victims in Baghdad are now Sunni, many of them abducted by men in uniform and shot execution-style.
"The biggest concern I have is with the bodies that we find, and we're trying to bring that down," the U.S. official said. Among the police force's greatest challenges are militias and a lack of public trust, he said. "You have got to get a police force that's respected, that can provide civil law."
On Saturday, at least 13 people were killed in separate shootings.
In Baqubah, just north of the capital, gunmen killed three Shiite brothers, all blacksmiths, while cohorts killed two Shiite brothers who worked as mechanics in a shop next door.
Mukhalad Tahseen, a 30-year-old grocer, said he saw four men arrive in a car.
"They split into two groups: Two killed the blacksmiths, and the other two killed the mechanics," Tahseen said, describing the victims as "harmless, good men."
Police said officers chased the gunmen's car, but they got away.
South of Baqubah, a drive-by shooting at a police checkpoint killed one officer and wounded three.
Gunmen in two cars killed two soldiers — including the son of Mizhar Abdullah Ruwayyid, one of Saddam Hussein's codefendants — at another checkpoint on the highway between Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul.
In the northern city of Kirkuk, two police officers and an Iraqi army colonel were fatally shot, authorities said. It was the latest in a series of attacks against local security forces. Four roadside bombs also went off in and around the city but there were no reports of casualties.
Gunmen also killed a security advisor to the Interior Ministry and a passenger in his car on the highway between Mosul and the capital.
An AH-1 Cobra helicopter carrying two U.S. Marines crashed during a maintenance test flight Saturday in Al Anbar province in what appeared to be an accident, according to the U.S. military.
"We are using all the resources available to find our missing comrades," Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Salas said in a statement.
A Marine assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 28th Infantry Division was killed Friday in Al Anbar province, the U.S. military said Saturday. Despite continuous sweeps of cities and villages, U.S. troops have been unable to secure the vast western province.
Also in Al Anbar, police said the body of a blindfolded and handcuffed civilian was discovered Friday in a southern neighborhood of Fallouja.
*
Times staff writers Raheem Salman, Suhail Ahmad and Saif Rasheed in Baghdad contributed to this report.
A military official says the U.S. will transfer security duties to local police in the provinces by the end of this year.
By Louise Roug
Times Staff Writer
May 28, 2006
BAGHDAD — A senior U.S. military official Saturday outlined plans to hand over security to Iraqi police in Baghdad province and three others before the end of the year. But even as he spoke, Iraqi politicians failed to meet a deadline to appoint the ministers who eventually would be responsible for those forces.
The official described the military's strategy for transfer of authority to the provincial governments in the relatively stable provinces of Najaf and Karbala in the next few months. The restive provinces of Babil and Baghdad "will take a little longer," he said in a background briefing with reporters. The official said he believed it could happen by the end of the year but emphasized that the timeline for all four areas would be governed by security conditions.
Under the plan, local governors will initially take control of the police, intended as a "bridging" phase before the Iraqi government assumes full responsibility for security.
Since the new Cabinet was sworn in, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has repeatedly talked of Iraqis taking over security responsibilities from the Americans. It's a message that also benefits the Bush administration, which is preparing for midterm elections and has lost significant domestic support over the conflict.
But Iraqi politicians have been unable to agree on who should be named as defense, interior and national security ministers.
"I sometimes tell my colleagues that I look at this issue just like what is going on in the stock market," said Safiya Suhail, who represents a secular slate in the Council of Representatives, the Iraqi parliament. "This name goes up, and that name comes down, every day."
The country's sectarian division is reflected in the protracted negotiations over the country's top security jobs. Sunnis have complained that the interim Shiite-led government allowed security forces to be infiltrated by Shiite militias.
Although the Sunni-led insurgency still mostly targets Shiites, the majority of victims in Baghdad are now Sunni, many of them abducted by men in uniform and shot execution-style.
"The biggest concern I have is with the bodies that we find, and we're trying to bring that down," the U.S. official said. Among the police force's greatest challenges are militias and a lack of public trust, he said. "You have got to get a police force that's respected, that can provide civil law."
On Saturday, at least 13 people were killed in separate shootings.
In Baqubah, just north of the capital, gunmen killed three Shiite brothers, all blacksmiths, while cohorts killed two Shiite brothers who worked as mechanics in a shop next door.
Mukhalad Tahseen, a 30-year-old grocer, said he saw four men arrive in a car.
"They split into two groups: Two killed the blacksmiths, and the other two killed the mechanics," Tahseen said, describing the victims as "harmless, good men."
Police said officers chased the gunmen's car, but they got away.
South of Baqubah, a drive-by shooting at a police checkpoint killed one officer and wounded three.
Gunmen in two cars killed two soldiers — including the son of Mizhar Abdullah Ruwayyid, one of Saddam Hussein's codefendants — at another checkpoint on the highway between Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul.
In the northern city of Kirkuk, two police officers and an Iraqi army colonel were fatally shot, authorities said. It was the latest in a series of attacks against local security forces. Four roadside bombs also went off in and around the city but there were no reports of casualties.
Gunmen also killed a security advisor to the Interior Ministry and a passenger in his car on the highway between Mosul and the capital.
An AH-1 Cobra helicopter carrying two U.S. Marines crashed during a maintenance test flight Saturday in Al Anbar province in what appeared to be an accident, according to the U.S. military.
"We are using all the resources available to find our missing comrades," Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Salas said in a statement.
A Marine assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 28th Infantry Division was killed Friday in Al Anbar province, the U.S. military said Saturday. Despite continuous sweeps of cities and villages, U.S. troops have been unable to secure the vast western province.
Also in Al Anbar, police said the body of a blindfolded and handcuffed civilian was discovered Friday in a southern neighborhood of Fallouja.
*
Times staff writers Raheem Salman, Suhail Ahmad and Saif Rasheed in Baghdad contributed to this report.
Blair beefed up his Iran speech to please Bush
By Toby Harnden in Washington and Patrick Hennessy
(Filed: 28/05/2006)
Tony Blair made significant changes to one of his most important foreign policy speeches after bowing to American objections, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
The Prime Minister changed key passages on possible action against Iran, climate change, and a proposed shake-up of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Objections by President George W Bush's inner circle played a key role in the alterations, which were made just before Mr Blair delivered his landmark address at Georgetown University in Washington, on Friday, British sources have revealed.
Only three hours before the speech was delivered, Downing Street officials were briefing journalists that the Prime Minister would stress that "change should not be imposed" on Iran, reflecting the British view that bombing or invading Iran is not a realistic option.
American officials had insisted, however, that the possibility of military action remained "on the table", arguing that this helped to exert maximum pressure on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
By the time he made his speech, Mr Blair had significantly bowed to the American position, claiming "I am not saying we should impose change" and leaving the door open for a military attack.
He also backed away from a planned demand for a change in the running of the world's biggest financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Prime Minister originally intended to spell out a plan for Europe and the United States to give up their exclusive rights to install their own nationals as heads of the bank and the IMF respectively.
This would help to persuade smaller nations to give up their effective right to choose the United Nations secretary general, in favour of a move to install a leading international figure. Instead, Mr Blair's speech glossed over the issues, merely citing a "powerful case for reform".
Another planned section was intended to take a tough line on global warming and the Kyoto Treaty, which Washington still has not signed.
In the event, Mr Blair merely claimed: "We must act on climate change", but did not go into detail. At this point, as a mobile telephone rang in the audience, he even made a joke about American interference. "I hope that isn't the White House telling me they don't agree with that," he said. "They act very quickly, these guys."
On Iran, most US officials privately support the British position and aides to both leaders concede that with their personal poll ratings plummeting neither has the political capital to attack Teheran. There are signs that President Bush also recognises this. In response to a question from this newspaper during the joint press conference on Thursday night, Mr Bush struck an almost mournful tone and acknowledged for the first time that he had made "mistakes" over Iraq.
He regretted "saying 'bring it on', kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learnt some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner.
"You know, 'Wanted dead or alive', that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted, and so I learnt from that." Officials involved in discussions between Mr Blair and Mr Bush, who had dinner without aides present in the president's White House quarters on Thursday, indicated that the American position on Iran had softened.
Mr Blair told him that Russia and China were close to agreeing the need for a tough UN resolution combining both incentives and deterrents for Iran on the nuclear issue. "The Russians are moving towards agreeing the sticks and the Americans are moving towards agreeing the carrots," said a Western diplomat.
Mr Blair will fly from America this week to join his family on holiday in the Italian villa of Prince Girolamo Strozzi. This will be the fifth time they have stayed at Cusona, near San Gimigniano, in Tuscany.
By Toby Harnden in Washington and Patrick Hennessy
(Filed: 28/05/2006)
Tony Blair made significant changes to one of his most important foreign policy speeches after bowing to American objections, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
The Prime Minister changed key passages on possible action against Iran, climate change, and a proposed shake-up of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Objections by President George W Bush's inner circle played a key role in the alterations, which were made just before Mr Blair delivered his landmark address at Georgetown University in Washington, on Friday, British sources have revealed.
Only three hours before the speech was delivered, Downing Street officials were briefing journalists that the Prime Minister would stress that "change should not be imposed" on Iran, reflecting the British view that bombing or invading Iran is not a realistic option.
American officials had insisted, however, that the possibility of military action remained "on the table", arguing that this helped to exert maximum pressure on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
By the time he made his speech, Mr Blair had significantly bowed to the American position, claiming "I am not saying we should impose change" and leaving the door open for a military attack.
He also backed away from a planned demand for a change in the running of the world's biggest financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Prime Minister originally intended to spell out a plan for Europe and the United States to give up their exclusive rights to install their own nationals as heads of the bank and the IMF respectively.
This would help to persuade smaller nations to give up their effective right to choose the United Nations secretary general, in favour of a move to install a leading international figure. Instead, Mr Blair's speech glossed over the issues, merely citing a "powerful case for reform".
Another planned section was intended to take a tough line on global warming and the Kyoto Treaty, which Washington still has not signed.
In the event, Mr Blair merely claimed: "We must act on climate change", but did not go into detail. At this point, as a mobile telephone rang in the audience, he even made a joke about American interference. "I hope that isn't the White House telling me they don't agree with that," he said. "They act very quickly, these guys."
On Iran, most US officials privately support the British position and aides to both leaders concede that with their personal poll ratings plummeting neither has the political capital to attack Teheran. There are signs that President Bush also recognises this. In response to a question from this newspaper during the joint press conference on Thursday night, Mr Bush struck an almost mournful tone and acknowledged for the first time that he had made "mistakes" over Iraq.
He regretted "saying 'bring it on', kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learnt some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner.
"You know, 'Wanted dead or alive', that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted, and so I learnt from that." Officials involved in discussions between Mr Blair and Mr Bush, who had dinner without aides present in the president's White House quarters on Thursday, indicated that the American position on Iran had softened.
Mr Blair told him that Russia and China were close to agreeing the need for a tough UN resolution combining both incentives and deterrents for Iran on the nuclear issue. "The Russians are moving towards agreeing the sticks and the Americans are moving towards agreeing the carrots," said a Western diplomat.
Mr Blair will fly from America this week to join his family on holiday in the Italian villa of Prince Girolamo Strozzi. This will be the fifth time they have stayed at Cusona, near San Gimigniano, in Tuscany.
Militias Join Rebels in East Timor Violence
Associated Press
Saturday, May 27, 2006; A18
DILI, East Timor, May 27 -- Women and children ran screaming from their homes as renegade militias burned dozens of homes in East Timor's capital Saturday, even as foreign troops worked to stem violence that threatens to split the nation.
Civilian militiamen armed with machetes and spears roamed neighborhoods in southern Dili, throwing rocks through the windows of the small, tin-roofed houses and setting them on fire.
Hundreds of panicked residents sought shelter in churches as Australian troops arrived in tanks and Land Rovers to attempt to restore order. The number of casualties wasn't known, but ambulances were seen leaving the area with sirens blaring.
The militiamen are apparently allied with police and former soldiers angered by the dismissal in March of 600 soldiers -- more than 40 percent of the country's army -- after they went on a month-long strike to protest poor working conditions.
At least 23 people have been killed in a week of fighting that poses the most serious threat to the desperately poor country since it broke free of Indonesian rule in 1999. The government asked for international help this week, saying it could not control the situation, and hundreds of Australian troops have already arrived. New Zealand, Malaysia and Portugal have also agreed to send forces.
Associated Press
Saturday, May 27, 2006; A18
DILI, East Timor, May 27 -- Women and children ran screaming from their homes as renegade militias burned dozens of homes in East Timor's capital Saturday, even as foreign troops worked to stem violence that threatens to split the nation.
Civilian militiamen armed with machetes and spears roamed neighborhoods in southern Dili, throwing rocks through the windows of the small, tin-roofed houses and setting them on fire.
Hundreds of panicked residents sought shelter in churches as Australian troops arrived in tanks and Land Rovers to attempt to restore order. The number of casualties wasn't known, but ambulances were seen leaving the area with sirens blaring.
The militiamen are apparently allied with police and former soldiers angered by the dismissal in March of 600 soldiers -- more than 40 percent of the country's army -- after they went on a month-long strike to protest poor working conditions.
At least 23 people have been killed in a week of fighting that poses the most serious threat to the desperately poor country since it broke free of Indonesian rule in 1999. The government asked for international help this week, saying it could not control the situation, and hundreds of Australian troops have already arrived. New Zealand, Malaysia and Portugal have also agreed to send forces.
Cautious Investors Mount a Retreat
World Markets Pull Back From Highs On Inflation Fears
By Nell Henderson and Brooke A. Masters
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 27, 2006; D01
Many investors have been pushing their "sell" buttons in recent weeks, shedding global stocks, debt and other assets on fears of rising inflation, higher interest rates and slower economic growth this year.
This marks a reversal for hedge funds, mutual funds and other big market players whose enthusiasm earlier this year helped push prices up sharply for oil, copper and other raw materials; U.S. stocks; and riskier assets in developing economies, or "emerging markets."
Oil traded above $75 a barrel in late April, and the Dow Jones industrial average hit a six-year high in early May. At its peak on May 8, Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc.'s emerging-markets index was up 25 percent this year.
Those lofty prices reflected investors' expectations then that the world's major central banks would nudge interest rates up a little this year, keep inflation low and fuel continued healthy global economic growth. But signs of climbing consumer prices have clouded that profitable scenario, roiling financial markets and driving asset prices lower worldwide.
U.S. benchmark crude oil fell below $69 a barrel a week ago, before rebounding to close yesterday around $71 a barrel; the Dow closed yesterday 3.7 percent below its recent high close; MSCI's emerging-market index has dropped 13 percent since its peak, while the major stock indexes for Japan, Europe, Brazil and many other economies are lower than they were a month ago.
"This is a scare about growth," said James Swanson, chief investment strategist for MFS Investment Management Inc., which runs mutual funds and also manages pension funds. "This is a psychological pullback."
Many in financial markets fear that faster inflation may prompt the Federal Reserve and its counterparts in other major economies to push interest rates significantly higher than investors had expected this year, leading to slower growth, according to fund managers and traders.
The concerns began building after the Fed raised its benchmark short-term rate May 10 and indicated that it might lift it higher in June. They deepened on May 17, when the Labor Department reported that U.S. consumer inflation had picked up in April, for a second month in a row, strengthening expectations that the Fed will hike rates again.
Adding to the jumpiness in financial markets is uncertainty about how successfully the Fed's new chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, will handle this challenge, traders say. Some investors worry that the rookie Fed chief is already behind the curve in combating inflation; others worry that he'll raise rates too much.
Financial markets also expect interest rates to rise this year in Europe and Japan. But investors don't know how high rates will go, how those increases will affect the relative value of currencies in various economies or whether China will follow up on promises to let its currency rise in value, said Bill Gross, managing director of Pimco, Pacific Investment Management Co.
There is "a lot more uncertainty now as opposed to a few months ago," Gross said. "That's why you're seeing all this volatility in the marketplace."
Traders and fund managers say they haven't seen signs of stress in the financial system so far but agree there is always a risk of serious turmoil -- as happened in 1998 when a Russian debt default pushed a U.S. hedge fund to the brink of collapse and caused the U.S. bond market to almost cease functioning. Adding to the current volatility, analysts said, is fear that the bird flu could prompt an economic crisis in Asia.
And as borrowing costs rise, heavily leveraged investors grow more vulnerable, Gross said. "No doubt, there is more [systemic] risk today than six months ago."
A factor in the current situation is that the prices of stocks, bonds, raw materials, real estate, collectibles and other investments rose in recent years while central banks in the United States, Europe and Japan held interest rates very low to spur economic growth, pumping more cash, or "liquidity," into the world economy.
Much of that extra money flowed into hedge funds, the lightly regulated and often heavily leveraged private investment funds for investors willing to take greater risks in search of greater returns. And relatively low rates of return in the industrialized world prompted many investors to "reach for yield," seeking better returns by putting their money into riskier investments, such as those in emerging markets.
At the end of the first quarter, hedge funds that specialized in emerging markets had $50.4 billion in assets under management, up 245 percent from the $14.6 billion in that sector three years earlier, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc. That's significantly faster than the already explosive growth of hedge funds in general. Total hedge-fund assets rose 182 percent over the same period, to $1.81 trillion from $640 billion.
Now, borrowing costs are rising. "In a nutshell, the era of easy and abundant global liquidity is coming to an end -- a change in the global monetary backdrop that usually inflicts pain on the asset class highly dependent on easy money -- the emerging markets," Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist for Bank of America's Investment Strategies Group, wrote in a recent analysis for clients.
Much of the recent price run-ups in emerging-market assets and commodities was driven by "momentum investors," who place their money in anything going up and then sell when the price stops rising, analysts said.
"A lot of this was momentum players, just like the momentum players were in the Nasdaq six years ago because that was what was going up," said Harvey Hirschhorn, Bank of America's chief portfolio strategist. "As soon as it stopped going up, they headed for the hills."
And hedge funds had done well this year until May, Gross said. Now that they "see a little bit of risk at the fringe, they pull back to lock in their gains for the year."
World Markets Pull Back From Highs On Inflation Fears
By Nell Henderson and Brooke A. Masters
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 27, 2006; D01
Many investors have been pushing their "sell" buttons in recent weeks, shedding global stocks, debt and other assets on fears of rising inflation, higher interest rates and slower economic growth this year.
This marks a reversal for hedge funds, mutual funds and other big market players whose enthusiasm earlier this year helped push prices up sharply for oil, copper and other raw materials; U.S. stocks; and riskier assets in developing economies, or "emerging markets."
Oil traded above $75 a barrel in late April, and the Dow Jones industrial average hit a six-year high in early May. At its peak on May 8, Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc.'s emerging-markets index was up 25 percent this year.
Those lofty prices reflected investors' expectations then that the world's major central banks would nudge interest rates up a little this year, keep inflation low and fuel continued healthy global economic growth. But signs of climbing consumer prices have clouded that profitable scenario, roiling financial markets and driving asset prices lower worldwide.
U.S. benchmark crude oil fell below $69 a barrel a week ago, before rebounding to close yesterday around $71 a barrel; the Dow closed yesterday 3.7 percent below its recent high close; MSCI's emerging-market index has dropped 13 percent since its peak, while the major stock indexes for Japan, Europe, Brazil and many other economies are lower than they were a month ago.
"This is a scare about growth," said James Swanson, chief investment strategist for MFS Investment Management Inc., which runs mutual funds and also manages pension funds. "This is a psychological pullback."
Many in financial markets fear that faster inflation may prompt the Federal Reserve and its counterparts in other major economies to push interest rates significantly higher than investors had expected this year, leading to slower growth, according to fund managers and traders.
The concerns began building after the Fed raised its benchmark short-term rate May 10 and indicated that it might lift it higher in June. They deepened on May 17, when the Labor Department reported that U.S. consumer inflation had picked up in April, for a second month in a row, strengthening expectations that the Fed will hike rates again.
Adding to the jumpiness in financial markets is uncertainty about how successfully the Fed's new chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, will handle this challenge, traders say. Some investors worry that the rookie Fed chief is already behind the curve in combating inflation; others worry that he'll raise rates too much.
Financial markets also expect interest rates to rise this year in Europe and Japan. But investors don't know how high rates will go, how those increases will affect the relative value of currencies in various economies or whether China will follow up on promises to let its currency rise in value, said Bill Gross, managing director of Pimco, Pacific Investment Management Co.
There is "a lot more uncertainty now as opposed to a few months ago," Gross said. "That's why you're seeing all this volatility in the marketplace."
Traders and fund managers say they haven't seen signs of stress in the financial system so far but agree there is always a risk of serious turmoil -- as happened in 1998 when a Russian debt default pushed a U.S. hedge fund to the brink of collapse and caused the U.S. bond market to almost cease functioning. Adding to the current volatility, analysts said, is fear that the bird flu could prompt an economic crisis in Asia.
And as borrowing costs rise, heavily leveraged investors grow more vulnerable, Gross said. "No doubt, there is more [systemic] risk today than six months ago."
A factor in the current situation is that the prices of stocks, bonds, raw materials, real estate, collectibles and other investments rose in recent years while central banks in the United States, Europe and Japan held interest rates very low to spur economic growth, pumping more cash, or "liquidity," into the world economy.
Much of that extra money flowed into hedge funds, the lightly regulated and often heavily leveraged private investment funds for investors willing to take greater risks in search of greater returns. And relatively low rates of return in the industrialized world prompted many investors to "reach for yield," seeking better returns by putting their money into riskier investments, such as those in emerging markets.
At the end of the first quarter, hedge funds that specialized in emerging markets had $50.4 billion in assets under management, up 245 percent from the $14.6 billion in that sector three years earlier, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc. That's significantly faster than the already explosive growth of hedge funds in general. Total hedge-fund assets rose 182 percent over the same period, to $1.81 trillion from $640 billion.
Now, borrowing costs are rising. "In a nutshell, the era of easy and abundant global liquidity is coming to an end -- a change in the global monetary backdrop that usually inflicts pain on the asset class highly dependent on easy money -- the emerging markets," Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist for Bank of America's Investment Strategies Group, wrote in a recent analysis for clients.
Much of the recent price run-ups in emerging-market assets and commodities was driven by "momentum investors," who place their money in anything going up and then sell when the price stops rising, analysts said.
"A lot of this was momentum players, just like the momentum players were in the Nasdaq six years ago because that was what was going up," said Harvey Hirschhorn, Bank of America's chief portfolio strategist. "As soon as it stopped going up, they headed for the hills."
And hedge funds had done well this year until May, Gross said. Now that they "see a little bit of risk at the fringe, they pull back to lock in their gains for the year."
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Hayden Confirmed as CIA Chief
Objections to Role in Domestic Spying Fail to Derail Nomination
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 27, 2006; A02
Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, a career intelligence officer who has overseen some of the government's most secret and controversial surveillance programs, was confirmed by the Senate yesterday to head the CIA as it tries to regain some of its lost luster.
Senators voted 78 to 15 to confirm Hayden to succeed Porter J. Goss, who steps down today after 18 stormy months.
The Senate endorsed President Bush's view that Hayden is the right person to take the helm of an agency still rocked by intelligence failures that preceded the 2001 terrorist attacks and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Bush first chose Goss, then a GOP House member from Florida, for the task. But the president lost confidence after Goss and his openly partisan aides clashed with veteran officials in the CIA and other agencies.
Hayden's nomination drew fire from some Democrats and civil liberties groups because he headed the National Security Agency when it began conducting warrantless wiretaps of Americans' international phone calls in a bid to find possible terrorists. Hayden and Bush, who acknowledged the program only after press reports outlined it, have said the effort is narrowly targeted at terrorism suspects. (SO ALL THE DEMOCRATS STOOD UP AND VOTED AGAINST HIM RIGHT? HOW COULD YOU VOTE AGAINST CIVIL LIBERTIES?)
But thousands of phone calls reportedly have been monitored without producing promising leads, and many lawmakers say Hayden and other officials have yet to explain adequately why they should not have to obtain court warrants for the wiretaps. (PROMISING LEADS? IS THIS CLASSIFIED PROGRAM SUPPOSED TO MENTION WHEN THERE ARE PROMISING LEADS? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ****ING MIND? WHERE IS THE ABUSE? WHICH VICTIMS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT ABUSIVE TACTICS?)
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (Pa.), the only Republican to vote against confirmation, said he did so to protest "the administration's policy of not informing the Congress . . . in a way which enables the Congress and the Judiciary Committee to do our constitutional job on oversight." He called Hayden "a man with an outstanding record." (PROTEST VOTE? ARE YOU CRAZY?)
Specter joined 14 Democrats in opposing confirmation. Supporting it were 52 Republicans, 25 Democrats and one independent. The senators from Maryland and Virginia voted to confirm Hayden.
Bush praised the vote for Hayden in a statement, saying: "Winning the war on terror requires that America have the best intelligence possible, and his strong leadership will ensure that we do. General Hayden is a patriot and a dedicated public servant whose broad experience, dedication, and expertise make him the right person to lead the CIA at this critical time."
When Bush nominated Hayden on May 8, several House Republicans and a few senators said they feared that his military background was inappropriate for a CIA director at a time when the Pentagon is aggressively trying to expand its role in intelligence matters. But Hayden, an engaging man who excels at briefing lawmakers, said in private meetings and open hearings that he has stood up to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld when he disagreed with the secretary's policies and is willing to do so again.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who raised questions about Hayden's active military status, said yesterday that the general "has convinced me that he can make the transition from the military side to the civilian side of the intelligence community while continuing to move the CIA in a positive direction of change and transition."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) voted against confirmation. She said in a statement that the CIA director should "show respect for the rule of law and recognition of the oversight role of Congress." She added: "General Michael Hayden has had a distinguished career serving our nation . . . However, I believe there are unanswered questions about whether he will exercise the independence and judgment necessary to be an effective CIA director in an administration that has rejected contrary views." (UNANSWERED QUESTIONS? OR UNASKED? OR ANSWERS THAT ARE CLASSIFIED AND THAT CANNOT BE DISCLOSED?)
Senate Democrats signaled from the start that they would not make a concerted effort to block the nomination. Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) voted for confirmation and said, "I am hopeful General Hayden will provide the CIA the kind of nonpartisan leadership it has sorely lacked for the past several years." (BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T, COULD THEY?)
Objections to Role in Domestic Spying Fail to Derail Nomination
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 27, 2006; A02
Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, a career intelligence officer who has overseen some of the government's most secret and controversial surveillance programs, was confirmed by the Senate yesterday to head the CIA as it tries to regain some of its lost luster.
Senators voted 78 to 15 to confirm Hayden to succeed Porter J. Goss, who steps down today after 18 stormy months.
The Senate endorsed President Bush's view that Hayden is the right person to take the helm of an agency still rocked by intelligence failures that preceded the 2001 terrorist attacks and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Bush first chose Goss, then a GOP House member from Florida, for the task. But the president lost confidence after Goss and his openly partisan aides clashed with veteran officials in the CIA and other agencies.
Hayden's nomination drew fire from some Democrats and civil liberties groups because he headed the National Security Agency when it began conducting warrantless wiretaps of Americans' international phone calls in a bid to find possible terrorists. Hayden and Bush, who acknowledged the program only after press reports outlined it, have said the effort is narrowly targeted at terrorism suspects. (SO ALL THE DEMOCRATS STOOD UP AND VOTED AGAINST HIM RIGHT? HOW COULD YOU VOTE AGAINST CIVIL LIBERTIES?)
But thousands of phone calls reportedly have been monitored without producing promising leads, and many lawmakers say Hayden and other officials have yet to explain adequately why they should not have to obtain court warrants for the wiretaps. (PROMISING LEADS? IS THIS CLASSIFIED PROGRAM SUPPOSED TO MENTION WHEN THERE ARE PROMISING LEADS? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ****ING MIND? WHERE IS THE ABUSE? WHICH VICTIMS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT ABUSIVE TACTICS?)
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (Pa.), the only Republican to vote against confirmation, said he did so to protest "the administration's policy of not informing the Congress . . . in a way which enables the Congress and the Judiciary Committee to do our constitutional job on oversight." He called Hayden "a man with an outstanding record." (PROTEST VOTE? ARE YOU CRAZY?)
Specter joined 14 Democrats in opposing confirmation. Supporting it were 52 Republicans, 25 Democrats and one independent. The senators from Maryland and Virginia voted to confirm Hayden.
Bush praised the vote for Hayden in a statement, saying: "Winning the war on terror requires that America have the best intelligence possible, and his strong leadership will ensure that we do. General Hayden is a patriot and a dedicated public servant whose broad experience, dedication, and expertise make him the right person to lead the CIA at this critical time."
When Bush nominated Hayden on May 8, several House Republicans and a few senators said they feared that his military background was inappropriate for a CIA director at a time when the Pentagon is aggressively trying to expand its role in intelligence matters. But Hayden, an engaging man who excels at briefing lawmakers, said in private meetings and open hearings that he has stood up to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld when he disagreed with the secretary's policies and is willing to do so again.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who raised questions about Hayden's active military status, said yesterday that the general "has convinced me that he can make the transition from the military side to the civilian side of the intelligence community while continuing to move the CIA in a positive direction of change and transition."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) voted against confirmation. She said in a statement that the CIA director should "show respect for the rule of law and recognition of the oversight role of Congress." She added: "General Michael Hayden has had a distinguished career serving our nation . . . However, I believe there are unanswered questions about whether he will exercise the independence and judgment necessary to be an effective CIA director in an administration that has rejected contrary views." (UNANSWERED QUESTIONS? OR UNASKED? OR ANSWERS THAT ARE CLASSIFIED AND THAT CANNOT BE DISCLOSED?)
Senate Democrats signaled from the start that they would not make a concerted effort to block the nomination. Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) voted for confirmation and said, "I am hopeful General Hayden will provide the CIA the kind of nonpartisan leadership it has sorely lacked for the past several years." (BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T, COULD THEY?)
Stop the con game of class-action suits
Greedy lawyers have twisted the law to enrich themselves.
By Lawrence W. Schonbrun
LAWRENCE W. SCHONBRUN is an attorney based in Berkeley.
May 27, 2006
AS A LAWYER who has been fighting the class-action lawsuit con game for 15 years, I know the indictment last week of one of the most prominent law firms in the business focuses long-overdue attention on our dysfunctional legal system. But charging Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman with allegedly paying illegal kickbacks to plaintiffs is akin to charging Al Capone with income-tax evasion. A much bigger problem remains unaddressed.
Law firms that specialize in class-action lawsuits have for many years exploited the same shameful business practices of the companies they sue, such as operating as a cartel-like syndicate and overcharging clients. In the process, these members of the bar have perverted what was established in the 1960s as a noble effort to give minority groups access to the civil courts.
Milberg Weiss — considered the Darth Vader of plaintiff law firms — has earned well over a billion dollars in legal fees by taking American businesses to court over claims of stock fraud, defective products and unfair business practices. Attorneys such as San Diego-based William Lerach, a former principal of the firm, and Melvyn I. Weiss have made staggering personal fortunes using the law as a bludgeon to scare large businesses into paying them to go away.
Another lawyer, the late Wendell H. Gauthier of New Orleans, made so much money in the case against breast implant makers and in the case resulting from the 1986 San Juan, Puerto Rico, Dupont Plaza Hotel fire that he was able to buy a chunk of the New Orleans Saints football team.
Meanwhile, real victims of bad corporate behavior often receive little more than a coupon worth a few dollars toward a purchase from the very company being sued. I have objected to the legal fees awarded lawyers in about 150 class-action lawsuits, with limited success. In the process, I have accumulated a long list of case studies demonstrating how dysfunctional this system is. Here are a few examples:
• Class-action lawyers sued the Bank of Boston in 1993, claiming that the bank had charged customers excessive escrow fees. Lawyers for both sides put together a settlement that ended up awarding each customer between $2.19 and $8.76, while counsel got more than $8.5 million in fees. The judge then allowed the bank to charge its customers for its share of those legal fees, as much as $91 each. One of the customers who objected to this settlement was subsequently sued by the class-action lawyers for $25 million.
• When class-action lawyers got wind of the accidental release of sulfuric acid from a General Chemical Corp. plant in Richmond, Calif., in 1993, they sent recruiters into nearby neighborhoods to sign up "victims," 60,000 in all. Some 30,000 people had flooded local hospitals, but doctors could find only a handful who had been injured. Rather than risk a trial and huge legal fees, the company settled the case for $180 million, of which the judge awarded $50 million to the lawyers. The average settlement for the victims: less than $1,000.
• A few years ago, an enterprising lawyer read that one of Intel Corp.'s computer chips was not quite as fast as originally rated and that the problem had been corrected. Several class-action law firms filed a suit, even though there was no evidence that anyone had been misled. Intel folded without a fight, offering 450,000 potential victims — most of whom didn't even know they owned an Intel chip — rebate coupons worth $50 each. Only 159 people responded. Over my objection, the judge gave in to the lawyers' demands for fees of $1.5 million.
• In 1994, class-action lawyers sued Packard Bell for selling computers containing reconditioned and recycled parts. Even though both sides agreed that the recycled parts had lower failure rates than new ones, and even though the settlement involved only an agreement by Packard to disclose the recycled parts in future instruction manuals, the judge awarded the lawyers $3.95 million in legal fees — two months after the case was filed.
• In Texas last year, a federal judge threw out a silicosis class action after discovering that claims of injuries cooked up by the lawyers, doctors and screening companies were fraudulent: "These diagnoses were about litigation rather than healthcare … manufactured for money."
The best outcome in the Milberg Weiss case would be for the public to get really angry about how judges and the defendant corporations have helped class-action lawyers manipulate the system at the expense of the rest of us. In the clubby atmosphere of the courtroom, there are no participants with clean hands. Lawyers for defendant companies and lawyers for the plaintiff class both win, enjoying the lion's share of every payday. Judges are loath to rock the boat.
Most disturbing to me, who came of age as an activist in the civil rights movement, is how greed has twisted the law away from its original intent. A panel of legal academics in the mid1960s paved the way for changes in federal court that made it possible for one plaintiff to automatically represent an entire class of people. The change allowed lawyers to take on a single disenfranchised client — such as a black family being denied equal access to housing — and claim to represent all those who may have been similarly discriminated against and, if successful, earn a fee from the defendant based on the entire class, regardless of how many people actually benefited.
I have watched with dismay, as helping others became for class-action lawyers merely an unintended consequence of cashing in by working the legal system to pick the deepest corporate pockets. I hope I'm not the only lawyer rooting for the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles to pull the thread that unravels this broader scandal. The future of justice in America may depend on it.
Greedy lawyers have twisted the law to enrich themselves.
By Lawrence W. Schonbrun
LAWRENCE W. SCHONBRUN is an attorney based in Berkeley.
May 27, 2006
AS A LAWYER who has been fighting the class-action lawsuit con game for 15 years, I know the indictment last week of one of the most prominent law firms in the business focuses long-overdue attention on our dysfunctional legal system. But charging Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman with allegedly paying illegal kickbacks to plaintiffs is akin to charging Al Capone with income-tax evasion. A much bigger problem remains unaddressed.
Law firms that specialize in class-action lawsuits have for many years exploited the same shameful business practices of the companies they sue, such as operating as a cartel-like syndicate and overcharging clients. In the process, these members of the bar have perverted what was established in the 1960s as a noble effort to give minority groups access to the civil courts.
Milberg Weiss — considered the Darth Vader of plaintiff law firms — has earned well over a billion dollars in legal fees by taking American businesses to court over claims of stock fraud, defective products and unfair business practices. Attorneys such as San Diego-based William Lerach, a former principal of the firm, and Melvyn I. Weiss have made staggering personal fortunes using the law as a bludgeon to scare large businesses into paying them to go away.
Another lawyer, the late Wendell H. Gauthier of New Orleans, made so much money in the case against breast implant makers and in the case resulting from the 1986 San Juan, Puerto Rico, Dupont Plaza Hotel fire that he was able to buy a chunk of the New Orleans Saints football team.
Meanwhile, real victims of bad corporate behavior often receive little more than a coupon worth a few dollars toward a purchase from the very company being sued. I have objected to the legal fees awarded lawyers in about 150 class-action lawsuits, with limited success. In the process, I have accumulated a long list of case studies demonstrating how dysfunctional this system is. Here are a few examples:
• Class-action lawyers sued the Bank of Boston in 1993, claiming that the bank had charged customers excessive escrow fees. Lawyers for both sides put together a settlement that ended up awarding each customer between $2.19 and $8.76, while counsel got more than $8.5 million in fees. The judge then allowed the bank to charge its customers for its share of those legal fees, as much as $91 each. One of the customers who objected to this settlement was subsequently sued by the class-action lawyers for $25 million.
• When class-action lawyers got wind of the accidental release of sulfuric acid from a General Chemical Corp. plant in Richmond, Calif., in 1993, they sent recruiters into nearby neighborhoods to sign up "victims," 60,000 in all. Some 30,000 people had flooded local hospitals, but doctors could find only a handful who had been injured. Rather than risk a trial and huge legal fees, the company settled the case for $180 million, of which the judge awarded $50 million to the lawyers. The average settlement for the victims: less than $1,000.
• A few years ago, an enterprising lawyer read that one of Intel Corp.'s computer chips was not quite as fast as originally rated and that the problem had been corrected. Several class-action law firms filed a suit, even though there was no evidence that anyone had been misled. Intel folded without a fight, offering 450,000 potential victims — most of whom didn't even know they owned an Intel chip — rebate coupons worth $50 each. Only 159 people responded. Over my objection, the judge gave in to the lawyers' demands for fees of $1.5 million.
• In 1994, class-action lawyers sued Packard Bell for selling computers containing reconditioned and recycled parts. Even though both sides agreed that the recycled parts had lower failure rates than new ones, and even though the settlement involved only an agreement by Packard to disclose the recycled parts in future instruction manuals, the judge awarded the lawyers $3.95 million in legal fees — two months after the case was filed.
• In Texas last year, a federal judge threw out a silicosis class action after discovering that claims of injuries cooked up by the lawyers, doctors and screening companies were fraudulent: "These diagnoses were about litigation rather than healthcare … manufactured for money."
The best outcome in the Milberg Weiss case would be for the public to get really angry about how judges and the defendant corporations have helped class-action lawyers manipulate the system at the expense of the rest of us. In the clubby atmosphere of the courtroom, there are no participants with clean hands. Lawyers for defendant companies and lawyers for the plaintiff class both win, enjoying the lion's share of every payday. Judges are loath to rock the boat.
Most disturbing to me, who came of age as an activist in the civil rights movement, is how greed has twisted the law away from its original intent. A panel of legal academics in the mid1960s paved the way for changes in federal court that made it possible for one plaintiff to automatically represent an entire class of people. The change allowed lawyers to take on a single disenfranchised client — such as a black family being denied equal access to housing — and claim to represent all those who may have been similarly discriminated against and, if successful, earn a fee from the defendant based on the entire class, regardless of how many people actually benefited.
I have watched with dismay, as helping others became for class-action lawyers merely an unintended consequence of cashing in by working the legal system to pick the deepest corporate pockets. I hope I'm not the only lawyer rooting for the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles to pull the thread that unravels this broader scandal. The future of justice in America may depend on it.
Strong Signs of Rift Among Democrats
Support for a challenger to longtime Sen. Joe Lieberman indicates tensions over Iraq war.
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer
May 27, 2006
WASHINGTON — The liberal challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) escalated Friday when the political arm of MoveOn.org, an influential online advocacy group, endorsed the political newcomer opposing his bid for renomination.
Gaining the support of MoveOn's political action committee was Ned Lamont, a businessman who wants to unseat Lieberman largely because of the veteran lawmaker's staunch support for the war in Iraq.
The group announced its backing after polling MoveOn's members in Connecticut.
MoveOn has emerged as a leading voice for left-leaning activists, and the endorsement marks the first time that its PAC has sought to unseat an incumbent Democratic senator.
"Lamont's message resonated with members who want a senator who will stand up to President Bush on key issues and represent the views of most people in Connecticut," said Eli Pariser, executive director of the MoveOn PAC.
With the endorsement, the group will seek to raise money and generate volunteers for Lamont among MoveOn's 3.2 million members nationwide.
Lamont earlier this week gained an endorsement from Democracy for America, a liberal grass-roots group that Howard Dean established as his campaign for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination foundered. Dean gave up his leadership role when he became chairman of the Democratic National Committee last year, but the group is headed by his brother, Jim Dean. (SOUNDS NEUTRAL AND LEGAL TO ME)
Lamont's candidacy also has become a priority for many liberal websites, such as Daily Kos — whose founder, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, recently appeared in one of Lamont's television advertisements.
With the involvement of these groups, the face-off between Lieberman and Lamont in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary has emerged as the focal point of tensions between Democratic liberals and centrists over the party's direction.
"This is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "It will have repercussions for the 2008 presidential campaign and whether centrists will feel comfortable within the Democratic Party."
Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate, long had been considered politically invulnerable in his home state. First elected to his Senate seat in 1988, he remains the favorite to win the primary. But the same polls that show Lieberman leading the race also reveal widespread discontent among Connecticut Democrats over Iraq — the sentiment Lamont hopes will propel him to victory.
Earlier this month, Lamont won support from 33% of the delegates to the state Democratic convention, enough to win him a spot on the primary ballot.
The poll of MoveOn's Connecticut members was conducted during a 24-hour period that concluded Friday morning. Both Lieberman and Lamont were invited to make their case through e-mails, but Lieberman chose not to send one.
Pariser said that of the 5,500 people participating in the poll, 85% of them voted to endorse Lamont. (DUH, THEY WERE ON THE WEB-SITE FOR A REASON. THAT REASON IS N0T TO VOTE FOR JOE.)
Lieberman campaign aides dismissed the results as insignificant. "Just as we expected, Joe Lieberman won neither the endorsement of MoveOn.Org nor was chosen the next 'American Idol,' " said Marion Steinfels, a campaign spokesperson.
Some analysts, however, believe the endorsement could strengthen Lamont.
MoveOn's PAC has proved capable of raising substantial sums from its members — it collected about $800,000 last year for Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a strong critic of the Iraq war, in just a few days. (BYRD NEEDED MONEY? THE REAL STORY IS WHY BYRD HAD NO MONEY)
Lamont's credibility as a candidate also should benefit from MoveOn's stamp of approval, said Scott McLean, chairman of the political science department at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn. (HOW SUCCESSFUL HAS THAT "STAMP" OF APPROVAL BEEN?)
"Getting 33% at the convention is really impressive, but [Friday's endorsement] is even bigger because it shows the grass-roots and money [donors] … that there is something behind Ned Lamont," McLean said. "It's big. It's huge." (WOW, ALMOST 5,000)
Wittmann said that if Lamont and his allies succeed in ousting Lieberman, "it would be devastating to the Democratic Party" by suggesting that centrists are no longer welcome. (GO LAMONT)
"This shows that [MoveOn] is trying to precipitate a civil war within the party," he said.
Pariser dismissed that suggestion. "We think primaries are a healthy part of the democratic process for a reason — so voters can choose who represents them rather than the chattering class of Beltway insiders," he said. "And if supporters of the Iraq war — Republicans and some Democrats — are in electoral trouble, it's probably because a majority of the people in this country think it was a disastrous mistake."
Lieberman has responded to Lamont's challenge by stressing his support for traditional Democratic positions on issues such as the environment and abortion rights.
But McLean said Lieberman has been hurt by having "a tin ear" for the opinions of liberal Connecticut Democrats deeply disaffected with Bush and the Iraq war.
Thursday night may have been a case in point.
While the online poll was being conducted, Lieberman was at a Washington dinner receiving an award from the Committee on the Present Danger, a hawkish foreign policy group whose membership includes prominent conservatives and leading supporters in both parties of the Iraq war.
Support for a challenger to longtime Sen. Joe Lieberman indicates tensions over Iraq war.
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer
May 27, 2006
WASHINGTON — The liberal challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) escalated Friday when the political arm of MoveOn.org, an influential online advocacy group, endorsed the political newcomer opposing his bid for renomination.
Gaining the support of MoveOn's political action committee was Ned Lamont, a businessman who wants to unseat Lieberman largely because of the veteran lawmaker's staunch support for the war in Iraq.
The group announced its backing after polling MoveOn's members in Connecticut.
MoveOn has emerged as a leading voice for left-leaning activists, and the endorsement marks the first time that its PAC has sought to unseat an incumbent Democratic senator.
"Lamont's message resonated with members who want a senator who will stand up to President Bush on key issues and represent the views of most people in Connecticut," said Eli Pariser, executive director of the MoveOn PAC.
With the endorsement, the group will seek to raise money and generate volunteers for Lamont among MoveOn's 3.2 million members nationwide.
Lamont earlier this week gained an endorsement from Democracy for America, a liberal grass-roots group that Howard Dean established as his campaign for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination foundered. Dean gave up his leadership role when he became chairman of the Democratic National Committee last year, but the group is headed by his brother, Jim Dean. (SOUNDS NEUTRAL AND LEGAL TO ME)
Lamont's candidacy also has become a priority for many liberal websites, such as Daily Kos — whose founder, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, recently appeared in one of Lamont's television advertisements.
With the involvement of these groups, the face-off between Lieberman and Lamont in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary has emerged as the focal point of tensions between Democratic liberals and centrists over the party's direction.
"This is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "It will have repercussions for the 2008 presidential campaign and whether centrists will feel comfortable within the Democratic Party."
Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate, long had been considered politically invulnerable in his home state. First elected to his Senate seat in 1988, he remains the favorite to win the primary. But the same polls that show Lieberman leading the race also reveal widespread discontent among Connecticut Democrats over Iraq — the sentiment Lamont hopes will propel him to victory.
Earlier this month, Lamont won support from 33% of the delegates to the state Democratic convention, enough to win him a spot on the primary ballot.
The poll of MoveOn's Connecticut members was conducted during a 24-hour period that concluded Friday morning. Both Lieberman and Lamont were invited to make their case through e-mails, but Lieberman chose not to send one.
Pariser said that of the 5,500 people participating in the poll, 85% of them voted to endorse Lamont. (DUH, THEY WERE ON THE WEB-SITE FOR A REASON. THAT REASON IS N0T TO VOTE FOR JOE.)
Lieberman campaign aides dismissed the results as insignificant. "Just as we expected, Joe Lieberman won neither the endorsement of MoveOn.Org nor was chosen the next 'American Idol,' " said Marion Steinfels, a campaign spokesperson.
Some analysts, however, believe the endorsement could strengthen Lamont.
MoveOn's PAC has proved capable of raising substantial sums from its members — it collected about $800,000 last year for Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a strong critic of the Iraq war, in just a few days. (BYRD NEEDED MONEY? THE REAL STORY IS WHY BYRD HAD NO MONEY)
Lamont's credibility as a candidate also should benefit from MoveOn's stamp of approval, said Scott McLean, chairman of the political science department at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn. (HOW SUCCESSFUL HAS THAT "STAMP" OF APPROVAL BEEN?)
"Getting 33% at the convention is really impressive, but [Friday's endorsement] is even bigger because it shows the grass-roots and money [donors] … that there is something behind Ned Lamont," McLean said. "It's big. It's huge." (WOW, ALMOST 5,000)
Wittmann said that if Lamont and his allies succeed in ousting Lieberman, "it would be devastating to the Democratic Party" by suggesting that centrists are no longer welcome. (GO LAMONT)
"This shows that [MoveOn] is trying to precipitate a civil war within the party," he said.
Pariser dismissed that suggestion. "We think primaries are a healthy part of the democratic process for a reason — so voters can choose who represents them rather than the chattering class of Beltway insiders," he said. "And if supporters of the Iraq war — Republicans and some Democrats — are in electoral trouble, it's probably because a majority of the people in this country think it was a disastrous mistake."
Lieberman has responded to Lamont's challenge by stressing his support for traditional Democratic positions on issues such as the environment and abortion rights.
But McLean said Lieberman has been hurt by having "a tin ear" for the opinions of liberal Connecticut Democrats deeply disaffected with Bush and the Iraq war.
Thursday night may have been a case in point.
While the online poll was being conducted, Lieberman was at a Washington dinner receiving an award from the Committee on the Present Danger, a hawkish foreign policy group whose membership includes prominent conservatives and leading supporters in both parties of the Iraq war.
GOP Heavy Hitters Pressuring White House to Talk With Iran
By Laura Rozen
Special to The Times
May 27, 2006
WASHINGTON — Amid concern that the U.S. is drifting toward eventual confrontation with Iran, a growing number of influential statesmen, Republican senators and foreign policy experts are stepping up pressure on the Bush administration to consider doing what no U.S. administration has done in 27 years: talk directly with Iran.
In recent congressional hearings, think-tank conferences, op-ed essays and media appearances, Republican heavyweights — including former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) — have publicly urged the administration to leave the current path of escalation and join European allies in direct talks with Tehran. (RICHARD LUGAR AND CHUCK HAGEL ARE THE HEAVY-WEIGHTS? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?)
The public campaign parallels private efforts by GOP insiders, foreign policy specialists and U.S. allies abroad to influence the thinking of key administration officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Elliott Abrams, who oversees Iran policy at the National Security Council. Both have met recently with foreign diplomats and outside experts and have discussed U.S. diplomacy with Iran.
"I think the administration is gradually and with some reluctance moving in the right direction," said a central figure in the Republican foreign policy establishment who is trying to shift the administration's stance.
"But I don't think they are taking initiatives now. I think they are being dragged."
The administration's stance toward Iran, refusing direct talks while allowing other nations to negotiate, has paid few dividends and could add to the unpopularity of future sanctions or military action, the foreign policy expert said. (ADD TO THE UNPOPULARITY OF MILITARY ACTIONS? HOW MUCHMORE UNPOPULAR COULD IT GET? WHY IS THIS ON THE US?)
But the administration may be forced to change as a result of "pressure from Europeans, from the Russians, and the general sense that they are just on a wicket they can't sustain there," the expert said. (REALLY? I THOUGHT THE PRESSURE WAS ON THE IRANIANS?)
As pressure on the White House intensified in the last week, there were signs of slight but significant shifts in the administration position.
Press Secretary Tony Snow repeated the administration's refusal to consider direct talks but said things could change if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment efforts and committed to halting them permanently.
"When that happens, all right, then there may be some opportunities," Snow said.
On May 8, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a 17-page letter asking Bush for direct talks.
In Snow's comments last week, analysts said they detected the outlines of a U.S. counterproposal about conditions for possible talks.
A decision to talk to the Iranians would be a dramatic departure from the administration's strategy of isolating the Tehran regime. Critics of engagement, including Vice President Dick Cheney and influential neoconservatives, say such talks would legitimize a duplicitous regime and represent a blow to Iranian human rights activists and dissidents. (INTERESTING: UNILATERAL ACTIONS WITH IRAN ARE ENDORSED HERE, AND IT WAS ONLY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WHO ISOLATED IRAN? IS THERE A REASON FOR THIS MISREPRESENTATION?)
The Bush administration has sought to support anti-regime efforts.
Such hawkish voices have dominated in the administration and Congress, but a perceptible recent shift seems to favor Republican foreign policy "realists" and moderates. ("REALISTS" GOT US INTO THE 9-11 PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE)
Pressure for talks involving the United States began to build after the collapse of a Russian-sponsored compromise on Iranian nuclear enrichment this year and after disagreement in the last month within the U.N. Security Council on the best approach.
"Some of the E.U. members were nervous that things were really going downhill very fast and headed to military confrontation," said one nongovernmental energy consultant knowledgeable about the internal debate. "When [the Russia proposal] failed, all bets were off. And that prompted thinking that there has got to be another way." (BUT WAIT, I THOUGHT MILITARY ACTION COULD BECOME EVEN MORE UNPOPULAR? SO IS THAT INCORRECT NOW?)
Visiting German officials urged the administration to hold direct talks in April, and Rice has met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who favors greater U.S. involvement.
Lugar held two days of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month featuring speaker after speaker who proposed some form of dialogue. (SOUNDS LIKE A BALANCED HEARING)
"The witnesses generally shared the view that no diplomatic options, including direct talks, should be taken off the table," Lugar said. "Direct talks may in some circumstances be useful to demonstrating to our allies our commitment to diplomacy [and] reducing the risk of accidental escalation." (IF YOU DECIDE WHAT WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY, THEN YOU CAN MAKE THE 'GENERALLY' COMMENT)
Kissinger and Hagel have called for talks.
Proponents of such talks point out that even in the case of North Korea — which, like Iran, Bush considers a rogue state — U.S. officials have taken a place at the bargaining table with representatives of other nations, in some cases speaking to their adversaries in person.
"There are lots of things we can talk about," said retired Air Force Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security advisor to former President George H.W. Bush and was a mentor to Rice. "We don't even have to talk directly. We could set up a system like we have with North Korea and talk to them on the fringes, in the hallways. There are lots of ways to do it, and I think we are gradually getting there."
Iranian dissidents are pushing for the toughest conditions if the U.S. eventually holds talks with Tehran's fundamentalist regime.
"I think the U.S. should have a very clear and transparent stance that it will not negotiate with Iran unless Iran should fulfill some prerequisites or preconditions," said dissident Mohsen Sazegara, who lives in Connecticut. "These conditions can be freedom of speech in Iran ... free elections, free labor syndicates and some other conditions."
Analysts expect U.S. officials to ease into talks with Iran, beginning not with bilateral negotiations, but a variation of the six-nation talks underway with North Korea. Other analysts suggested such talks would be preceded by negotiations conducted through a third party on terms of possible talks and would begin very quietly.
"If we were going to engage Iran, we would do this very quietly," said Mike Buttry, an aide to Hagel, who supports talks with Tehran. "We would not write a press release and say, 'We've engaged Iran.'" (YOU GUTLESS ****ER)
By Laura Rozen
Special to The Times
May 27, 2006
WASHINGTON — Amid concern that the U.S. is drifting toward eventual confrontation with Iran, a growing number of influential statesmen, Republican senators and foreign policy experts are stepping up pressure on the Bush administration to consider doing what no U.S. administration has done in 27 years: talk directly with Iran.
In recent congressional hearings, think-tank conferences, op-ed essays and media appearances, Republican heavyweights — including former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) — have publicly urged the administration to leave the current path of escalation and join European allies in direct talks with Tehran. (RICHARD LUGAR AND CHUCK HAGEL ARE THE HEAVY-WEIGHTS? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?)
The public campaign parallels private efforts by GOP insiders, foreign policy specialists and U.S. allies abroad to influence the thinking of key administration officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Elliott Abrams, who oversees Iran policy at the National Security Council. Both have met recently with foreign diplomats and outside experts and have discussed U.S. diplomacy with Iran.
"I think the administration is gradually and with some reluctance moving in the right direction," said a central figure in the Republican foreign policy establishment who is trying to shift the administration's stance.
"But I don't think they are taking initiatives now. I think they are being dragged."
The administration's stance toward Iran, refusing direct talks while allowing other nations to negotiate, has paid few dividends and could add to the unpopularity of future sanctions or military action, the foreign policy expert said. (ADD TO THE UNPOPULARITY OF MILITARY ACTIONS? HOW MUCHMORE UNPOPULAR COULD IT GET? WHY IS THIS ON THE US?)
But the administration may be forced to change as a result of "pressure from Europeans, from the Russians, and the general sense that they are just on a wicket they can't sustain there," the expert said. (REALLY? I THOUGHT THE PRESSURE WAS ON THE IRANIANS?)
As pressure on the White House intensified in the last week, there were signs of slight but significant shifts in the administration position.
Press Secretary Tony Snow repeated the administration's refusal to consider direct talks but said things could change if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment efforts and committed to halting them permanently.
"When that happens, all right, then there may be some opportunities," Snow said.
On May 8, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a 17-page letter asking Bush for direct talks.
In Snow's comments last week, analysts said they detected the outlines of a U.S. counterproposal about conditions for possible talks.
A decision to talk to the Iranians would be a dramatic departure from the administration's strategy of isolating the Tehran regime. Critics of engagement, including Vice President Dick Cheney and influential neoconservatives, say such talks would legitimize a duplicitous regime and represent a blow to Iranian human rights activists and dissidents. (INTERESTING: UNILATERAL ACTIONS WITH IRAN ARE ENDORSED HERE, AND IT WAS ONLY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WHO ISOLATED IRAN? IS THERE A REASON FOR THIS MISREPRESENTATION?)
The Bush administration has sought to support anti-regime efforts.
Such hawkish voices have dominated in the administration and Congress, but a perceptible recent shift seems to favor Republican foreign policy "realists" and moderates. ("REALISTS" GOT US INTO THE 9-11 PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE)
Pressure for talks involving the United States began to build after the collapse of a Russian-sponsored compromise on Iranian nuclear enrichment this year and after disagreement in the last month within the U.N. Security Council on the best approach.
"Some of the E.U. members were nervous that things were really going downhill very fast and headed to military confrontation," said one nongovernmental energy consultant knowledgeable about the internal debate. "When [the Russia proposal] failed, all bets were off. And that prompted thinking that there has got to be another way." (BUT WAIT, I THOUGHT MILITARY ACTION COULD BECOME EVEN MORE UNPOPULAR? SO IS THAT INCORRECT NOW?)
Visiting German officials urged the administration to hold direct talks in April, and Rice has met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who favors greater U.S. involvement.
Lugar held two days of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month featuring speaker after speaker who proposed some form of dialogue. (SOUNDS LIKE A BALANCED HEARING)
"The witnesses generally shared the view that no diplomatic options, including direct talks, should be taken off the table," Lugar said. "Direct talks may in some circumstances be useful to demonstrating to our allies our commitment to diplomacy [and] reducing the risk of accidental escalation." (IF YOU DECIDE WHAT WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY, THEN YOU CAN MAKE THE 'GENERALLY' COMMENT)
Kissinger and Hagel have called for talks.
Proponents of such talks point out that even in the case of North Korea — which, like Iran, Bush considers a rogue state — U.S. officials have taken a place at the bargaining table with representatives of other nations, in some cases speaking to their adversaries in person.
"There are lots of things we can talk about," said retired Air Force Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security advisor to former President George H.W. Bush and was a mentor to Rice. "We don't even have to talk directly. We could set up a system like we have with North Korea and talk to them on the fringes, in the hallways. There are lots of ways to do it, and I think we are gradually getting there."
Iranian dissidents are pushing for the toughest conditions if the U.S. eventually holds talks with Tehran's fundamentalist regime.
"I think the U.S. should have a very clear and transparent stance that it will not negotiate with Iran unless Iran should fulfill some prerequisites or preconditions," said dissident Mohsen Sazegara, who lives in Connecticut. "These conditions can be freedom of speech in Iran ... free elections, free labor syndicates and some other conditions."
Analysts expect U.S. officials to ease into talks with Iran, beginning not with bilateral negotiations, but a variation of the six-nation talks underway with North Korea. Other analysts suggested such talks would be preceded by negotiations conducted through a third party on terms of possible talks and would begin very quietly.
"If we were going to engage Iran, we would do this very quietly," said Mike Buttry, an aide to Hagel, who supports talks with Tehran. "We would not write a press release and say, 'We've engaged Iran.'" (YOU GUTLESS ****ER)
Say No to Tehran's Gambit
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A21
All of a sudden, revolutionary Iran has offered direct talks with the United States. All of a sudden, the usual suspects -- European commentators, American liberals, dissident CIA analysts, Madeleine Albright -- are urging the administration to take the bait.
It is not rare to see a regime such as Iran's -- despotic, internally weak, feeling the world closing in -- attempt so transparent a ploy to relieve pressure on itself. What is rare is to see the craven alacrity with which such a ploy is taken up by others.
Mark my words. The momentum for U.S.-Iran negotiations has only begun. The focus of the entire Iranian crisis will begin to shift from the question of whether Tehran will stop its nuclear program to whether Washington will sit down alone at the table with Tehran.
To this cynical bait-and-switch, there can be no American response other than No. Absolutely not.
Just yesterday the world was excoriating the Bush administration for its unilateralism -- on Kyoto, the ABM Treaty and, most especially, Iraq -- and demanding that Washington act in concert with the "international community." Just yesterday the Democratic nominee for president attacked President Bush's foreign policy precisely for refusing to consult with, listen to and work with "the allies."
Another day, another principle. Bush is now being pressured to abandon multilateralism and go it alone with Iran. Remember: In September 2003, after Iran was discovered cheating on its nuclear program, the United States wanted immediate U.N. action. The allies argued for a softer approach. Britain, France and Germany wanted to negotiate with Tehran and offer diplomatic and economic carrots in return for Iran's giving up its nuclear weapons program. The United States acquiesced.
After 2 1/2 years of utter futility, the E.U. Three had to admit failure and acknowledge the obvious: Iran had no intention of giving up its nuclear ambitions. Iran made the point irrefutable when it broke International Atomic Energy Agency seals and brazenly resumed uranium enrichment.
The full understanding we had with our allies was that if the E.U. Three process failed, we would go to the Security Council together and get sanctions imposed on Iran. Yes, Russia and China might still stand in the way. But even so, concerted sanctions by America, Europe and other economic powers could have devastating effects on Iran and its shaky clerical dictatorship.
Which is why the mullahs launched this recent initiative. They know, and fear, that if the West persists on its present and agreed course, they face sanctions so serious that their rule, already unpopular, might be in jeopardy. The very fact that Iran is desperately trying to change the subject, change the venue and shift the burden onto the United States shows how close the mullahs believe we are to achieving major international pressure on them.
Pushing Washington to abandon the multilateral process and enter negotiations alone is more than rank hypocrisy. It is a pernicious folly. It would short-circuit the process that, after years of dithering, is about to yield its first fruits: sanctions that Tehran fears. It would undo the allied consensus, produce endless new delays and give Iran more time to reach the point of no return, after which its nuclear status would be a fait accompli .
Entering negotiations carries with it the responsibility to do something if they fail. The E.U. Three understood that when they took on the mullahs a couple of years ago. Bilateral U.S.-Iran talks are the perfect way to get Europe off the hook. They would preempt all the current discussions about sanctions, place all responsibility for success on the negotiations and set America up to take the blame for their inevitable failure.
It is an obvious trap. We should resolutely say no.
Except on one condition. If the allies, rather than shift responsibility for this entire process back to Washington, will reassert their responsibility by pledging support for U.S. and/or coalition military action against Iran in the event that the bilateral talks fail, then we might achieve something.
You want us to talk? Fine. We will go there, but only if you arm us with the largest stick of all: your public support for military action if the talks fail. The mullahs already fear economic sanctions; they will fear European-backed U.S. military action infinitely more. Such negotiations might actually accomplish something.
That's our condition. Otherwise, the entire suggestion of bilateral talks is a ploy that should be rejected with the same contempt with which it was proposed.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A21
All of a sudden, revolutionary Iran has offered direct talks with the United States. All of a sudden, the usual suspects -- European commentators, American liberals, dissident CIA analysts, Madeleine Albright -- are urging the administration to take the bait.
It is not rare to see a regime such as Iran's -- despotic, internally weak, feeling the world closing in -- attempt so transparent a ploy to relieve pressure on itself. What is rare is to see the craven alacrity with which such a ploy is taken up by others.
Mark my words. The momentum for U.S.-Iran negotiations has only begun. The focus of the entire Iranian crisis will begin to shift from the question of whether Tehran will stop its nuclear program to whether Washington will sit down alone at the table with Tehran.
To this cynical bait-and-switch, there can be no American response other than No. Absolutely not.
Just yesterday the world was excoriating the Bush administration for its unilateralism -- on Kyoto, the ABM Treaty and, most especially, Iraq -- and demanding that Washington act in concert with the "international community." Just yesterday the Democratic nominee for president attacked President Bush's foreign policy precisely for refusing to consult with, listen to and work with "the allies."
Another day, another principle. Bush is now being pressured to abandon multilateralism and go it alone with Iran. Remember: In September 2003, after Iran was discovered cheating on its nuclear program, the United States wanted immediate U.N. action. The allies argued for a softer approach. Britain, France and Germany wanted to negotiate with Tehran and offer diplomatic and economic carrots in return for Iran's giving up its nuclear weapons program. The United States acquiesced.
After 2 1/2 years of utter futility, the E.U. Three had to admit failure and acknowledge the obvious: Iran had no intention of giving up its nuclear ambitions. Iran made the point irrefutable when it broke International Atomic Energy Agency seals and brazenly resumed uranium enrichment.
The full understanding we had with our allies was that if the E.U. Three process failed, we would go to the Security Council together and get sanctions imposed on Iran. Yes, Russia and China might still stand in the way. But even so, concerted sanctions by America, Europe and other economic powers could have devastating effects on Iran and its shaky clerical dictatorship.
Which is why the mullahs launched this recent initiative. They know, and fear, that if the West persists on its present and agreed course, they face sanctions so serious that their rule, already unpopular, might be in jeopardy. The very fact that Iran is desperately trying to change the subject, change the venue and shift the burden onto the United States shows how close the mullahs believe we are to achieving major international pressure on them.
Pushing Washington to abandon the multilateral process and enter negotiations alone is more than rank hypocrisy. It is a pernicious folly. It would short-circuit the process that, after years of dithering, is about to yield its first fruits: sanctions that Tehran fears. It would undo the allied consensus, produce endless new delays and give Iran more time to reach the point of no return, after which its nuclear status would be a fait accompli .
Entering negotiations carries with it the responsibility to do something if they fail. The E.U. Three understood that when they took on the mullahs a couple of years ago. Bilateral U.S.-Iran talks are the perfect way to get Europe off the hook. They would preempt all the current discussions about sanctions, place all responsibility for success on the negotiations and set America up to take the blame for their inevitable failure.
It is an obvious trap. We should resolutely say no.
Except on one condition. If the allies, rather than shift responsibility for this entire process back to Washington, will reassert their responsibility by pledging support for U.S. and/or coalition military action against Iran in the event that the bilateral talks fail, then we might achieve something.
You want us to talk? Fine. We will go there, but only if you arm us with the largest stick of all: your public support for military action if the talks fail. The mullahs already fear economic sanctions; they will fear European-backed U.S. military action infinitely more. Such negotiations might actually accomplish something.
That's our condition. Otherwise, the entire suggestion of bilateral talks is a ploy that should be rejected with the same contempt with which it was proposed.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Stop the Black-Only Treatment
By Michael Meyers
Friday, May 26, 2006; A21
I'm sorry to report that 52 years after Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal is all the rage in certain parts of the education world -- especially on college campuses where special programs are offered that target minority students for "special" and separate attention, counseling, mentoring, tutoring, residences and instruction.
The latest of these race fads are the Black Male Initiatives (BMIs), government-funded and university-sponsored, and underway on campuses in states including Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. The initiatives focus on recruiting, schooling and "saving" black men.
Until recently, when the New York Civil Rights Coalition filed a complaint against the City University of New York, these special programs were unassailable. But more and more they are being shown to feature new variants of an old prejudice. This has included stereotyping all black male students as "at risk," and, for example, running special classes only for black men at CUNY's Medgar Evers College. This special instruction focused on black men's alleged deficiencies and their need to act more responsibly in order to reclaim their traditional patriarchal roles as leaders in the black community and of the so-called black race. A tenet of the program at CUNY's Queensborough Community College is to provide black men with special tutoring, career services and academic advice. Until caught, CUNY's Hunter College invited only black male students to a planning conference on its BMI.
Many black leaders in and outside academia seem to have no objection to these figurative black-only signs over certain doorways at America's colleges. Not surprisingly, this racial identity ferment -- aka self-determination -- is proudly endorsed by white liberals disturbed by the dwindling numbers of black men on campus, as well as by many black female students for whom interracial dating is either taboo or impracticable.
Hence, college presidents are listening to their black students and to their officials for diversity and affirmative action or minority affairs, and they are setting up BMIs as a way of making life on campus more comfortable for black students. And black faculty have a new source of grants to apply for, from foundations that urge the study of the black male problem and experimentation with intervention techniques. No educator rebukes such offerings with the hard, nonstatistical truth that there is no such thing as "the black male," just as there never was such a thing as "the Negro."
While not all BMIs look alike, they're typically designed with an Afrocentric, male-domination focus, replete with outreach and links to black men's fraternal, community and pride organizations. Through emphasis on racial pride and "black male identity," black male students are encouraged, as at Medgar Evers College, to think about the status and future of the race: "The people in the village are many but the warriors are few and are now scattered; thus, leaving the borders unprotected and us as easy prey for the enemy," according to the director of the college's Male Development and Empowerment Center. Racial breast beating is a powerful ingredient in winning and securing support for such separatist programming.
Some BMIs are open to all students, for legal reasons. But the nomenclature shows a mission of serving and rescuing "at risk" black men from their alleged self-destructive behavior and from the afflictions of their environment. Only legal curmudgeons, it seems, would stand in the way of college as parent and social engineer, full of missionary zeal to bring rehabilitation and redemption to the wretched, conflicted souls of black men.
When the college takes on such tasks it is only confirming and reinforcing pernicious racial stereotypes. The penchant to isolate, track and segregate black men is a deeply offensive and nasty American social habit, and programs that parrot and mirror such group prejudices are as crude as they are paternalistic. Indeed, schools treating black men separately and differently from all others of similar age and qualification is exactly what federal Judge Robert L. Carter cautioned against in his indictment of proposals for public schools for African American boys. "The advocates of this panacea place no blame on the public school system," Carter said, but black males "are stigmatized and must be isolated from others in order to develop into productive adults."
The psychologist Kenneth Clark, who was my mentor and whose research did so much to bring about Brown, steered his colleagues on the New York State Board of Regents away from state-sponsored racial thinking. He persuaded them in 1972 to declare as policy that college officials were to avoid "any practices which would perpetuate a caste system in which groups are placed in certain stereotyped positions with little regard for the needs and desires of the individual." That policy continued: "Racist patterns of segregation can lead only to blocked communications, with a resultant social climate that is close and tense, if not hostile. Moreover, the de facto segregation of a minority group, even if demanded by that group, often results in peer pressure on individuals which may lead to intragroup hostility."
Dr. Clark died just last year, by which time the regents had long since abandoned the wisdom in that policy.
The writer, a former assistant national director of the NAACP, is executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition.
By Michael Meyers
Friday, May 26, 2006; A21
I'm sorry to report that 52 years after Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal is all the rage in certain parts of the education world -- especially on college campuses where special programs are offered that target minority students for "special" and separate attention, counseling, mentoring, tutoring, residences and instruction.
The latest of these race fads are the Black Male Initiatives (BMIs), government-funded and university-sponsored, and underway on campuses in states including Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. The initiatives focus on recruiting, schooling and "saving" black men.
Until recently, when the New York Civil Rights Coalition filed a complaint against the City University of New York, these special programs were unassailable. But more and more they are being shown to feature new variants of an old prejudice. This has included stereotyping all black male students as "at risk," and, for example, running special classes only for black men at CUNY's Medgar Evers College. This special instruction focused on black men's alleged deficiencies and their need to act more responsibly in order to reclaim their traditional patriarchal roles as leaders in the black community and of the so-called black race. A tenet of the program at CUNY's Queensborough Community College is to provide black men with special tutoring, career services and academic advice. Until caught, CUNY's Hunter College invited only black male students to a planning conference on its BMI.
Many black leaders in and outside academia seem to have no objection to these figurative black-only signs over certain doorways at America's colleges. Not surprisingly, this racial identity ferment -- aka self-determination -- is proudly endorsed by white liberals disturbed by the dwindling numbers of black men on campus, as well as by many black female students for whom interracial dating is either taboo or impracticable.
Hence, college presidents are listening to their black students and to their officials for diversity and affirmative action or minority affairs, and they are setting up BMIs as a way of making life on campus more comfortable for black students. And black faculty have a new source of grants to apply for, from foundations that urge the study of the black male problem and experimentation with intervention techniques. No educator rebukes such offerings with the hard, nonstatistical truth that there is no such thing as "the black male," just as there never was such a thing as "the Negro."
While not all BMIs look alike, they're typically designed with an Afrocentric, male-domination focus, replete with outreach and links to black men's fraternal, community and pride organizations. Through emphasis on racial pride and "black male identity," black male students are encouraged, as at Medgar Evers College, to think about the status and future of the race: "The people in the village are many but the warriors are few and are now scattered; thus, leaving the borders unprotected and us as easy prey for the enemy," according to the director of the college's Male Development and Empowerment Center. Racial breast beating is a powerful ingredient in winning and securing support for such separatist programming.
Some BMIs are open to all students, for legal reasons. But the nomenclature shows a mission of serving and rescuing "at risk" black men from their alleged self-destructive behavior and from the afflictions of their environment. Only legal curmudgeons, it seems, would stand in the way of college as parent and social engineer, full of missionary zeal to bring rehabilitation and redemption to the wretched, conflicted souls of black men.
When the college takes on such tasks it is only confirming and reinforcing pernicious racial stereotypes. The penchant to isolate, track and segregate black men is a deeply offensive and nasty American social habit, and programs that parrot and mirror such group prejudices are as crude as they are paternalistic. Indeed, schools treating black men separately and differently from all others of similar age and qualification is exactly what federal Judge Robert L. Carter cautioned against in his indictment of proposals for public schools for African American boys. "The advocates of this panacea place no blame on the public school system," Carter said, but black males "are stigmatized and must be isolated from others in order to develop into productive adults."
The psychologist Kenneth Clark, who was my mentor and whose research did so much to bring about Brown, steered his colleagues on the New York State Board of Regents away from state-sponsored racial thinking. He persuaded them in 1972 to declare as policy that college officials were to avoid "any practices which would perpetuate a caste system in which groups are placed in certain stereotyped positions with little regard for the needs and desires of the individual." That policy continued: "Racist patterns of segregation can lead only to blocked communications, with a resultant social climate that is close and tense, if not hostile. Moreover, the de facto segregation of a minority group, even if demanded by that group, often results in peer pressure on individuals which may lead to intragroup hostility."
Dr. Clark died just last year, by which time the regents had long since abandoned the wisdom in that policy.
The writer, a former assistant national director of the NAACP, is executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition.
Troops Land in Restive East Timor
Foreign Intervention Requested as Rebel Soldiers Attack Police
By Alan Sipress and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 26, 2006; A14
JAKARTA, Indonesia, May 25 -- Soldiers in East Timor opened fire on unarmed police officers Thursday, killing nine people and injuring 27, as Australian commandos arrived in an effort to quell surging violence on the tiny island nation.
The soldiers launched an hour-long attack on a police headquarters in Dili, the capital, in the deadliest clash since violence flared in East Timor several weeks ago. The unrest has been fueled by veterans angry over their dismissal from the army.
The violence jeopardized attempts by the government to assert control and represented a major setback for the United Nations, which had cited East Timor's independence in 2002 as one of the organization's greatest achievements of the past decade.
On Thursday, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he would dispatch a senior adviser to East Timor, and the Security Council met in an emergency session. Meanwhile, an initial planeload of Australian forces secured Dili's airport ahead of the full deployment of about 1,300 international troops requested by East Timor's government.
Before the attack on the police headquarters, in which two U.N. police advisers were wounded, five people had been killed in violence this week. Fierce gun battles forced residents to remain indoors while foreigners started to evacuate, according to news service reports. Several houses and shops were set on fire as rival factions carried their fight to the capital's downtown area, including streets by the presidential office and the U.N. compound.
East Timor's armed forces have launched attacks against police strongholds, including the Interior Ministry, U.N. Undersecretary Jean-Marie Guéhenno told the Security Council in a briefing.
He said the country's nascent police force was in "total disarray," noting that its commander, Paulo Martins, had not come to work in days and that his deputy and other officers had reportedly joined a dissident group of military police.
The investment in East Timor "is in danger of being seriously undermined should the international community fail to extend its support at this critical time of need," Guéhenno said. Besides Australia, Guéhenno said Portugal, New Zealand and Malaysia had made commitments to send troops.
Since East Timor won its independence from Indonesia, the government has struggled to absorb former rebel fighters into a modern military. The latest troubles began in March, when senior officers fired nearly half the army after hundreds of soldiers went on strike, alleging discrimination inside the armed forces. Those grievances erupted into deadly riots last month before reappearing in the form of a nascent guerrilla campaign by about 600 former soldiers based in the hills outside Dili. It was unclear if the violence on Thursday was led by the breakaway army faction.
The rebel commander told the BBC that the deployment of outside peacekeepers was vital to heading off civil war.
"There is no other way, or it will be war forever," said Maj. Alfredo Reinado, commander of the renegade force. "The government has taken too long. It is not capable of resolving this."
East Timorese voted for independence in 1999 following mob violence by Indonesian-backed militias. That violence ended only after the deployment of an Australian-led peacekeeping force. Today, the government in East Timor remains weak and strapped for cash, leaving it dependent on assistance from foreign governments and private organizations. The United Nations has substantially reduced its role on the island since early last year.
When the first contingent of Australians emerged from their plane Thursday and fanned out across the airfield, they were met by hundreds of cheering East Timorese.
"Welcome, Aussie soldiers. Please help us again," Judit Isaac, a homemaker, said as she watched the troops arrive, the Associated Press reported.
As international troops prepared to deploy, the U.S. Embassy ordered the evacuation of all nonessential personnel and advised U.S. citizens to leave the country.
"We can't control the situation," said Foreign Minister José Ramos-Horta, according to the AP. He said the foreign forces would help "disarm renegade troops and police rebelling against the state."
Lynch reported from the United Nations.
Foreign Intervention Requested as Rebel Soldiers Attack Police
By Alan Sipress and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 26, 2006; A14
JAKARTA, Indonesia, May 25 -- Soldiers in East Timor opened fire on unarmed police officers Thursday, killing nine people and injuring 27, as Australian commandos arrived in an effort to quell surging violence on the tiny island nation.
The soldiers launched an hour-long attack on a police headquarters in Dili, the capital, in the deadliest clash since violence flared in East Timor several weeks ago. The unrest has been fueled by veterans angry over their dismissal from the army.
The violence jeopardized attempts by the government to assert control and represented a major setback for the United Nations, which had cited East Timor's independence in 2002 as one of the organization's greatest achievements of the past decade.
On Thursday, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he would dispatch a senior adviser to East Timor, and the Security Council met in an emergency session. Meanwhile, an initial planeload of Australian forces secured Dili's airport ahead of the full deployment of about 1,300 international troops requested by East Timor's government.
Before the attack on the police headquarters, in which two U.N. police advisers were wounded, five people had been killed in violence this week. Fierce gun battles forced residents to remain indoors while foreigners started to evacuate, according to news service reports. Several houses and shops were set on fire as rival factions carried their fight to the capital's downtown area, including streets by the presidential office and the U.N. compound.
East Timor's armed forces have launched attacks against police strongholds, including the Interior Ministry, U.N. Undersecretary Jean-Marie Guéhenno told the Security Council in a briefing.
He said the country's nascent police force was in "total disarray," noting that its commander, Paulo Martins, had not come to work in days and that his deputy and other officers had reportedly joined a dissident group of military police.
The investment in East Timor "is in danger of being seriously undermined should the international community fail to extend its support at this critical time of need," Guéhenno said. Besides Australia, Guéhenno said Portugal, New Zealand and Malaysia had made commitments to send troops.
Since East Timor won its independence from Indonesia, the government has struggled to absorb former rebel fighters into a modern military. The latest troubles began in March, when senior officers fired nearly half the army after hundreds of soldiers went on strike, alleging discrimination inside the armed forces. Those grievances erupted into deadly riots last month before reappearing in the form of a nascent guerrilla campaign by about 600 former soldiers based in the hills outside Dili. It was unclear if the violence on Thursday was led by the breakaway army faction.
The rebel commander told the BBC that the deployment of outside peacekeepers was vital to heading off civil war.
"There is no other way, or it will be war forever," said Maj. Alfredo Reinado, commander of the renegade force. "The government has taken too long. It is not capable of resolving this."
East Timorese voted for independence in 1999 following mob violence by Indonesian-backed militias. That violence ended only after the deployment of an Australian-led peacekeeping force. Today, the government in East Timor remains weak and strapped for cash, leaving it dependent on assistance from foreign governments and private organizations. The United Nations has substantially reduced its role on the island since early last year.
When the first contingent of Australians emerged from their plane Thursday and fanned out across the airfield, they were met by hundreds of cheering East Timorese.
"Welcome, Aussie soldiers. Please help us again," Judit Isaac, a homemaker, said as she watched the troops arrive, the Associated Press reported.
As international troops prepared to deploy, the U.S. Embassy ordered the evacuation of all nonessential personnel and advised U.S. citizens to leave the country.
"We can't control the situation," said Foreign Minister José Ramos-Horta, according to the AP. He said the foreign forces would help "disarm renegade troops and police rebelling against the state."
Lynch reported from the United Nations.
Memorial Day
By CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
May 27, 2006; Page A6
LONDON -- In the Cotswold hills, in deep England, there is a pair of villages named Upper Slaughter and Lower Slaughter. In addition to its rather gruesome name, Lower Slaughter possesses a unique distinction. It is the only village in all of England that does not possess a First World War memorial. In the remainder of the country, even the smallest hamlet will have -- I almost said "will boast" -- a stone marker with an arresting number of names on it. In bigger towns, it wouldn't be possible to incise all the names in stone, though at the Menin Gate in the Belgian town of Ypres a whole arch is inscribed with the names of those who fell along the Somme. Every year on Nov. 11 -- anniversary of the 1918 "Armistice" -- the rest of the English-speaking world gathers, with Flanders poppies worn in the lapel, to commemorate the dead of all wars but in particular to feel again the still-aching wounds of the "war to end all wars": the barbaric conflict that shook peoples' faith in civilization itself.
Though the carnage of that war was felt much less in the United States, it was only after the doughboys returned in 1918 that the former Confederate states dropped their boycott of America's original "Memorial Day," proclaimed by Union commander Gen. John Logan in May 1868. And here one can note the bizarre manner in which war -- which is division by definition -- exerts its paradoxically unifying effect. If it is "the health of the state," as was sardonically said by that great foe of "Mr. Wilson's war," Randolph Bourne, then it can also be an agent of emancipation and nation-building and even (as was proved after 1945) of democracy. But even this reflection can never abolish the insoluble problem: how to estimate the value of those whose lives were cruelly cut off before victory was in sight. It is sometimes rather lazily said that these soldiers "gave" their lives. It would be equally apt, if more blunt, to say that they had their lives taken. Humanity has been grappling with this conundrum ever since Pericles gave his funeral oration, and there would have been many Spartan and Melian widows and orphans who would have been heartily sickened by those Athenian-centered remarks.
The soil of the United States is almost spoiled for choice when it comes to commemorative sites. They range from Gettysburg itself -- still one of the most staggering places of memory in the world -- to the Confederate statue of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, and extend from the Polar Bear monument in Detroit (honoring those Michiganders who helped invade Russia in 1919: a forgotten war if ever there was one) to Maya Lin's masterpiece of Vietnam understatement on the National Mall. But Memorial Day transcends the specific, and collectivizes all disparate recollections into one single reflection upon the losses inflicted by war itself. The summa of this style, and one that transcends Pericles, is of course the Gettysburg Address, in which one cannot distinguish which side's graves are actually being honored. It was always Mr. Lincoln's way to insist that he was the elected president of every state, not just the "northern" ones, and this speech still has the power to stir us because it was the most strenuous possible test of that essential proposition.
A memorial to, and for, all is certainly an improvement on the Arc de Triomphe/Brandenburg Gate style, which was regnant until 1918 and which asserted national exclusivity. Kemal Ataturk did a noble thing when he raised a monument to all those who fell at Gallipoli, and informed the British and Australian peoples that their "Tommies and Johnnies" would lie with his "Alis and Mehmets." But there are also disadvantages to a memorial that is too "inclusive." Not even President Reagan's fine speech at the cliffs of Pointe du Hoq has erased his crass equation of the "victims" at Bitburg cemetery with their victims. Bitburg is not Gettysburg: Some wounds cannot and perhaps should not be healed. The opposite danger also exists: Our "Memorial Day" is now the occasion of a three-day holiday weekend (over the protest of the Veterans of Foreign Wars) and has become somewhat banal precisely because it seems to honor nobody in particular.
The stark concept of "The Unknown Soldier" was the best expression of awe and respect that the century of total war managed to produce. Rudyard Kipling, whose only son John was posted as "missing" in 1915 (and whose remains were not found until 15 years ago) was the designer of the official headstone for those soldiers who lay in mass graves and could not even be identified. No pacifist, he nonetheless wrote with scorn of the "jelly-bellied flag-flappers" who lectured schoolboys on the glories of combat. Over time, it is the bleak poetry of Wilfred Owen, and not the inspirational verse of Julian Grenfell and Rupert Brooke, that has come to express the more profound experiences of warfare. Some thoughts must always lie too deep for tears.
Since all efforts at commemoration are bound to fall short, one must be on guard against any attempt at overstatement. In particular, one must resist efforts to ventriloquize the dead. To me, Cindy Sheehan's posthumous conscription of her son (who fell on Memorial Day) is as objectionable as Billy Graham's claim, at the National Cathedral, that all the dead of Sept. 11, 2001 were now in paradise. In the first instance, we have no reason to believe that young Casey Sheehan would ever have supported MoveOn.org, and in the second instance we cannot be expected to believe that almost 3,000 New Yorkers all died in a state of grace. Nothing is more tasteless, when set against the reality of death, than the hollow note of demagogy and false sentiment. These things are also subject to unintended consequences. When Dalton Trumbo wrote his leftist antiwar classic "Johnnie Got His Gun," he little expected that it would be used as a propaganda tool by pro-fascist isolationists in the late 1930s, and that he would be protesting in vain that this was not what he had really meant.
"Always think of it: never speak of it." That was the stoic French injunction during the time when the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had been lost. This resolution might serve us well at the present time, when we are in mid-conflict with a hideous foe, and when it is too soon to be thinking of memorials to a war not yet won. This Memorial Day, one might think particularly of those of our fallen who also guarded polling-places, opened schools and clinics, and excavated mass graves. They represent the highest form of the citizen, and every man and woman among them was a volunteer. This plain statement requires no further rhetoric.
Mr. Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair, is author, most recently, of "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America" (HarperCollins, 2005).
By CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
May 27, 2006; Page A6
LONDON -- In the Cotswold hills, in deep England, there is a pair of villages named Upper Slaughter and Lower Slaughter. In addition to its rather gruesome name, Lower Slaughter possesses a unique distinction. It is the only village in all of England that does not possess a First World War memorial. In the remainder of the country, even the smallest hamlet will have -- I almost said "will boast" -- a stone marker with an arresting number of names on it. In bigger towns, it wouldn't be possible to incise all the names in stone, though at the Menin Gate in the Belgian town of Ypres a whole arch is inscribed with the names of those who fell along the Somme. Every year on Nov. 11 -- anniversary of the 1918 "Armistice" -- the rest of the English-speaking world gathers, with Flanders poppies worn in the lapel, to commemorate the dead of all wars but in particular to feel again the still-aching wounds of the "war to end all wars": the barbaric conflict that shook peoples' faith in civilization itself.
Though the carnage of that war was felt much less in the United States, it was only after the doughboys returned in 1918 that the former Confederate states dropped their boycott of America's original "Memorial Day," proclaimed by Union commander Gen. John Logan in May 1868. And here one can note the bizarre manner in which war -- which is division by definition -- exerts its paradoxically unifying effect. If it is "the health of the state," as was sardonically said by that great foe of "Mr. Wilson's war," Randolph Bourne, then it can also be an agent of emancipation and nation-building and even (as was proved after 1945) of democracy. But even this reflection can never abolish the insoluble problem: how to estimate the value of those whose lives were cruelly cut off before victory was in sight. It is sometimes rather lazily said that these soldiers "gave" their lives. It would be equally apt, if more blunt, to say that they had their lives taken. Humanity has been grappling with this conundrum ever since Pericles gave his funeral oration, and there would have been many Spartan and Melian widows and orphans who would have been heartily sickened by those Athenian-centered remarks.
The soil of the United States is almost spoiled for choice when it comes to commemorative sites. They range from Gettysburg itself -- still one of the most staggering places of memory in the world -- to the Confederate statue of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, and extend from the Polar Bear monument in Detroit (honoring those Michiganders who helped invade Russia in 1919: a forgotten war if ever there was one) to Maya Lin's masterpiece of Vietnam understatement on the National Mall. But Memorial Day transcends the specific, and collectivizes all disparate recollections into one single reflection upon the losses inflicted by war itself. The summa of this style, and one that transcends Pericles, is of course the Gettysburg Address, in which one cannot distinguish which side's graves are actually being honored. It was always Mr. Lincoln's way to insist that he was the elected president of every state, not just the "northern" ones, and this speech still has the power to stir us because it was the most strenuous possible test of that essential proposition.
A memorial to, and for, all is certainly an improvement on the Arc de Triomphe/Brandenburg Gate style, which was regnant until 1918 and which asserted national exclusivity. Kemal Ataturk did a noble thing when he raised a monument to all those who fell at Gallipoli, and informed the British and Australian peoples that their "Tommies and Johnnies" would lie with his "Alis and Mehmets." But there are also disadvantages to a memorial that is too "inclusive." Not even President Reagan's fine speech at the cliffs of Pointe du Hoq has erased his crass equation of the "victims" at Bitburg cemetery with their victims. Bitburg is not Gettysburg: Some wounds cannot and perhaps should not be healed. The opposite danger also exists: Our "Memorial Day" is now the occasion of a three-day holiday weekend (over the protest of the Veterans of Foreign Wars) and has become somewhat banal precisely because it seems to honor nobody in particular.
The stark concept of "The Unknown Soldier" was the best expression of awe and respect that the century of total war managed to produce. Rudyard Kipling, whose only son John was posted as "missing" in 1915 (and whose remains were not found until 15 years ago) was the designer of the official headstone for those soldiers who lay in mass graves and could not even be identified. No pacifist, he nonetheless wrote with scorn of the "jelly-bellied flag-flappers" who lectured schoolboys on the glories of combat. Over time, it is the bleak poetry of Wilfred Owen, and not the inspirational verse of Julian Grenfell and Rupert Brooke, that has come to express the more profound experiences of warfare. Some thoughts must always lie too deep for tears.
Since all efforts at commemoration are bound to fall short, one must be on guard against any attempt at overstatement. In particular, one must resist efforts to ventriloquize the dead. To me, Cindy Sheehan's posthumous conscription of her son (who fell on Memorial Day) is as objectionable as Billy Graham's claim, at the National Cathedral, that all the dead of Sept. 11, 2001 were now in paradise. In the first instance, we have no reason to believe that young Casey Sheehan would ever have supported MoveOn.org, and in the second instance we cannot be expected to believe that almost 3,000 New Yorkers all died in a state of grace. Nothing is more tasteless, when set against the reality of death, than the hollow note of demagogy and false sentiment. These things are also subject to unintended consequences. When Dalton Trumbo wrote his leftist antiwar classic "Johnnie Got His Gun," he little expected that it would be used as a propaganda tool by pro-fascist isolationists in the late 1930s, and that he would be protesting in vain that this was not what he had really meant.
"Always think of it: never speak of it." That was the stoic French injunction during the time when the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had been lost. This resolution might serve us well at the present time, when we are in mid-conflict with a hideous foe, and when it is too soon to be thinking of memorials to a war not yet won. This Memorial Day, one might think particularly of those of our fallen who also guarded polling-places, opened schools and clinics, and excavated mass graves. They represent the highest form of the citizen, and every man and woman among them was a volunteer. This plain statement requires no further rhetoric.
Mr. Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair, is author, most recently, of "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America" (HarperCollins, 2005).
Iraqi Suburb Is More Secure, but Hemmed In (IMAGINE THAT - A POSITIVE HEADLINE, FOLLOWED BY A 'BUT'. MAKE SURE THINGS ARE NO VIEWED TOO POSITIVELY)
A U.S. cordon has kept insurgents out of the Sunni Arab town of Tarmiya. But residents are also cut off from the capital by Shiite militias.
By Solomon Moore
Times Staff Writer
May 26, 2006
TARMIYA, Iraq — Before the U.S. military moved into this suburb north of Baghdad and cordoned it off with six miles of concertina wire, insurgents had the run of the place.
They launched nearly daily attacks on the police that whittled down the 40-member force by half. U.S. patrols often were targeted by car bombs and roadside explosives. In one week in March, a bomb killed four Iraqi soldiers and a sniper killed a police officer inside Tarmiya's bullet-pocked police headquarters.
On Thursday, during a short, highly choreographed gathering at Tarmiya's town center arranged by the U.S. military, residents of the predominantly Sunni Arab town expressed gratitude to U.S. troops for driving out insurgents and beginning rebuilding projects that included water services, a hospital renovation, road construction and refurbishment of a youth center.
Local politicians and other residents say security has improved dramatically.
Tarmiya is an example of a cordon strategy used in towns in Al Anbar province, including Tall Afar and Fallouja, in which U.S. troops clear areas of guerrillas, form a perimeter and develop Iraqi security forces in the hope that they will be strong enough to hold off the insurgency once American soldiers leave.
The military presented Tarmiya, a verdant, palm-shaded village along the Tigris River, as a good news story: a Sunni Arab community that welcomes American troops and dislikes the Sunni Arab-driven insurgency.
But townspeople also said that although active insurgents are no longer in their midst, they are unable to live normal lives because their freedom of movement is limited. Shiite militias have in effect cut them off from the capital.
"My 2-year-old son has hemophilia, but there is no medicine here," said Ahmad Abdullah, a construction worker. "Sometimes I try to go to Baghdad, but I am afraid because gunmen kill and kidnap those who try to go there."
Taxi driver Qusay Abdel Hussein said that a woman who was trying to go to Baghdad to shop for food last week was killed on the way, and that he knew a man who was kidnapped while headed to the capital and was being held for ransom.
"This is a rural place, and we have many farmers who can't take their harvests to Baghdad. We can't take documents to the government or see our relatives in Baghdad," Hussein said. "I haven't been to Baghdad for eight months now because of the bad situation. I need money, but I can't get it because all the banks are in Baghdad."
Hussein said that he and friends and relatives had gone into debt to avoid making the dangerous trek into the capital.
Sheik Jassim Said, head of Tarmiya's local government council, said the town had become a haven for Sunni Arabs driven out of predominantly Shiite areas. The number of families that have arrived from places such as Baghdad, Nasiriya and Basra has reached 1,300, he said.
"These families [often] come a great distance because they have been displaced from their homes by armed militias that belong to the political parties," the sheik said.
He acknowledged that security had improved. But his son was recently slain by insurgents, and he said he did not feel safe. Council leaders still receive death threats from insurgents who oppose their cooperation with the U.S. military.
"We don't want the American occupation," the sheik said. "But if the Americans leave, we will be raided by armed groups."
U.S. Army Col. James Pasquarette, commander of the 1st Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said that Tarmiya had been an "intellectual sanctuary" for high-level insurgent leaders planning attacks in Baghdad, and that the Army had expected stiff resistance when it swept in two months ago.
"We were under the assumption that the population here was giving active and passive support to the insurgents," he said. "I'm glad to say that we were wrong. The people here didn't like the insurgents any more than we did."
The insurgents left town without any significant resistance and haven't been back, Pasquarette said.
The decrease in violence has enabled Iraqi and U.S. officials to start reconstruction. A division of the Iraqi army has helped secure the area, and 450 volunteers have reestablished the police force. Many of them will soon undergo eight weeks of training at a police academy in Jordan.
Pasquarette's unit has spent $4.5 million on reconstruction projects and plans to spend at least $7.5 million more. The town now depends on water from the Tigris. A five-mile water line that will bring fresh water from a nearby treatment plant is half completed.
U.S. funds also are paying for new surgery and birthing rooms at a medical clinic.
"The majority of our contractors are Iraqis," Pasquarette said. U.S. soldiers said that creating jobs in Tarmiya was part of the strategy to break the grip of the insurgency.
Iraqi contractor Nabil Mohammed Yaseen said he had employed 20 men to work on Tarmiya's youth center. "It was an unstable situation before. When the Americans came through here there would be a lot of explosions," he said. "Lately, it's been a lot better. There's a lot of reconstruction here."
But local leaders said that although the U.S. military had funded reconstruction efforts and helped to develop the security forces, national government leaders in Baghdad had not been so helpful. "They don't know anything," Said, the council leader, said.
In other news, the U.S. military announced that two soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in southern Iraq. They were not immediately identified and few details were given.
In Mosul, gunmen killed a local council member and his driver Thursday near a downtown mosque. In Baghdad, an assassination attempt seriously injured a high-ranking Defense Ministry official.
And U.S. military officials said they were not allowing journalists to travel with military units in Ramadi, an insurgent hot spot that has become one of the most deadly battlegrounds in Iraq, for an indefinite period. Military officials would not explain why they were stopping the practice.
Special correspondents in Baghdad and Mosul contributed to this report.
A U.S. cordon has kept insurgents out of the Sunni Arab town of Tarmiya. But residents are also cut off from the capital by Shiite militias.
By Solomon Moore
Times Staff Writer
May 26, 2006
TARMIYA, Iraq — Before the U.S. military moved into this suburb north of Baghdad and cordoned it off with six miles of concertina wire, insurgents had the run of the place.
They launched nearly daily attacks on the police that whittled down the 40-member force by half. U.S. patrols often were targeted by car bombs and roadside explosives. In one week in March, a bomb killed four Iraqi soldiers and a sniper killed a police officer inside Tarmiya's bullet-pocked police headquarters.
On Thursday, during a short, highly choreographed gathering at Tarmiya's town center arranged by the U.S. military, residents of the predominantly Sunni Arab town expressed gratitude to U.S. troops for driving out insurgents and beginning rebuilding projects that included water services, a hospital renovation, road construction and refurbishment of a youth center.
Local politicians and other residents say security has improved dramatically.
Tarmiya is an example of a cordon strategy used in towns in Al Anbar province, including Tall Afar and Fallouja, in which U.S. troops clear areas of guerrillas, form a perimeter and develop Iraqi security forces in the hope that they will be strong enough to hold off the insurgency once American soldiers leave.
The military presented Tarmiya, a verdant, palm-shaded village along the Tigris River, as a good news story: a Sunni Arab community that welcomes American troops and dislikes the Sunni Arab-driven insurgency.
But townspeople also said that although active insurgents are no longer in their midst, they are unable to live normal lives because their freedom of movement is limited. Shiite militias have in effect cut them off from the capital.
"My 2-year-old son has hemophilia, but there is no medicine here," said Ahmad Abdullah, a construction worker. "Sometimes I try to go to Baghdad, but I am afraid because gunmen kill and kidnap those who try to go there."
Taxi driver Qusay Abdel Hussein said that a woman who was trying to go to Baghdad to shop for food last week was killed on the way, and that he knew a man who was kidnapped while headed to the capital and was being held for ransom.
"This is a rural place, and we have many farmers who can't take their harvests to Baghdad. We can't take documents to the government or see our relatives in Baghdad," Hussein said. "I haven't been to Baghdad for eight months now because of the bad situation. I need money, but I can't get it because all the banks are in Baghdad."
Hussein said that he and friends and relatives had gone into debt to avoid making the dangerous trek into the capital.
Sheik Jassim Said, head of Tarmiya's local government council, said the town had become a haven for Sunni Arabs driven out of predominantly Shiite areas. The number of families that have arrived from places such as Baghdad, Nasiriya and Basra has reached 1,300, he said.
"These families [often] come a great distance because they have been displaced from their homes by armed militias that belong to the political parties," the sheik said.
He acknowledged that security had improved. But his son was recently slain by insurgents, and he said he did not feel safe. Council leaders still receive death threats from insurgents who oppose their cooperation with the U.S. military.
"We don't want the American occupation," the sheik said. "But if the Americans leave, we will be raided by armed groups."
U.S. Army Col. James Pasquarette, commander of the 1st Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said that Tarmiya had been an "intellectual sanctuary" for high-level insurgent leaders planning attacks in Baghdad, and that the Army had expected stiff resistance when it swept in two months ago.
"We were under the assumption that the population here was giving active and passive support to the insurgents," he said. "I'm glad to say that we were wrong. The people here didn't like the insurgents any more than we did."
The insurgents left town without any significant resistance and haven't been back, Pasquarette said.
The decrease in violence has enabled Iraqi and U.S. officials to start reconstruction. A division of the Iraqi army has helped secure the area, and 450 volunteers have reestablished the police force. Many of them will soon undergo eight weeks of training at a police academy in Jordan.
Pasquarette's unit has spent $4.5 million on reconstruction projects and plans to spend at least $7.5 million more. The town now depends on water from the Tigris. A five-mile water line that will bring fresh water from a nearby treatment plant is half completed.
U.S. funds also are paying for new surgery and birthing rooms at a medical clinic.
"The majority of our contractors are Iraqis," Pasquarette said. U.S. soldiers said that creating jobs in Tarmiya was part of the strategy to break the grip of the insurgency.
Iraqi contractor Nabil Mohammed Yaseen said he had employed 20 men to work on Tarmiya's youth center. "It was an unstable situation before. When the Americans came through here there would be a lot of explosions," he said. "Lately, it's been a lot better. There's a lot of reconstruction here."
But local leaders said that although the U.S. military had funded reconstruction efforts and helped to develop the security forces, national government leaders in Baghdad had not been so helpful. "They don't know anything," Said, the council leader, said.
In other news, the U.S. military announced that two soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in southern Iraq. They were not immediately identified and few details were given.
In Mosul, gunmen killed a local council member and his driver Thursday near a downtown mosque. In Baghdad, an assassination attempt seriously injured a high-ranking Defense Ministry official.
And U.S. military officials said they were not allowing journalists to travel with military units in Ramadi, an insurgent hot spot that has become one of the most deadly battlegrounds in Iraq, for an indefinite period. Military officials would not explain why they were stopping the practice.
Special correspondents in Baghdad and Mosul contributed to this report.
Probe Finds Marines Killed Unarmed Iraqi Civilians
By Tony Perry
Times Staff Writer
May 26, 2006
SAN DIEGO — Marines from Camp Pendleton wantonly killed unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, and then tried to cover up the slayings in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha, military investigations have found.
Officials who have seen the findings of the investigations said the filing of criminal charges, including some murder counts, was expected, which would make the Nov. 19 incident the most serious case of alleged U.S. war crimes in Iraq.
An administrative inquiry overseen by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell found that several infantry Marines fatally shot as many as 24 Iraqis and that other Marines either failed to stop them or filed misleading or blatantly false reports.
The report concludes that a dozen Marines acted improperly after a roadside bomb explosion killed a fellow Marine, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas.
Looking for insurgents, the Marines entered several homes and began firing their weapons, according to the report.
In its initial statement to the media, the Marine Corps said the Iraqi civilians were killed either by an insurgent bomb or by crossfire between Marines and insurgents.
But after Time magazine obtained pictures showing dead women and children and quoted Iraqis who said the attack was unprovoked, the Marine Corps backtracked on its explanation and called for an investigation. (NICE WORK TIME. MAYBE THERE ARE SOME MORE PICTURES OF ABU GHRAB)
The Marines, many of whom were on their third deployment to Iraq, are part of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment of the 1st Marine Division.
The battalion commander and two company commanders were relieved of duty last month because, a spokesman said, Maj. Gen. Richard Natonski, commanding general of the division, had lost confidence in their leadership.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which conducted a separate investigation, is expected to call for criminal charges, including murder, negligent homicide, dereliction of duty and filing a false report.
After the roadside bomb killed Terrazas, the Marines conducted a sweep of the area, a common military tactic. But instead of following the Geneva Convention rules about identifying combatants, the Marines killed Iraqis in homes and five sitting in a vehicle, reportedly without provocation, the investigation found. (ONLY THE US HAS TO FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS - IF YOU ARE ANOTHER COUNTRY, IT REALLY DOES NOT MATTER. HOW MANY STORIES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT THE GENEVA CONVETION VIOLATIONS IN CONGO, SIERRA LEONE, LIBERIA, UGANDA . . .)
Bargewell's report is to be given soon to Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the top operational commander in Baghdad. Chiarelli will make recommendations involving leadership, training and filing reports. Compensation has already been paid to families of some of the slain Iraqis.
Marine officials also confirmed Thursday that an investigation had been opened into an April 26 incident in which troops allegedly killed a civilian in the town of Hamandiya, west of Baghdad.
Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee flew to Iraq on Thursday to talk to Marines and remind them of long-standing orders to protect Iraqi civilians and follow the Geneva Convention.
Hagee is emphasizing "the importance of our core values" and reminding troops about the laws of war, a Marine Corps statement said.
The Marine commandant planned to read to officers and enlisted personnel a statement reminding them: "We must regulate force and violence, we only damage property that must be damaged, and we protect the noncombatants we find on the battlefield."
Hagee last week briefed key congressional leaders on the upcoming report. One of those, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a retired Marine colonel, said later that Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." (WAY TO GO JOHN, KICK'EM WHILE THEY ARE DOWN. NO WORD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ALREADY MADE ITS FINDINGS. GUESS THE INNOCENT TIL PROVEN GUILTY DOES NOT APPLY TO MARINES)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, held a news conference last Friday to plead with reporters, politicians and the public not to judge U.S. troops by the action "of one squad, in one city, on one morning."
The Marines have had more than 700 personnel killed in Iraq.
In his statement, Hagee said that Marines should overcome the tendency "of becoming indifferent to the loss of a human life" in their dealings with Iraqi civilians.
By Tony Perry
Times Staff Writer
May 26, 2006
SAN DIEGO — Marines from Camp Pendleton wantonly killed unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, and then tried to cover up the slayings in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha, military investigations have found.
Officials who have seen the findings of the investigations said the filing of criminal charges, including some murder counts, was expected, which would make the Nov. 19 incident the most serious case of alleged U.S. war crimes in Iraq.
An administrative inquiry overseen by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell found that several infantry Marines fatally shot as many as 24 Iraqis and that other Marines either failed to stop them or filed misleading or blatantly false reports.
The report concludes that a dozen Marines acted improperly after a roadside bomb explosion killed a fellow Marine, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas.
Looking for insurgents, the Marines entered several homes and began firing their weapons, according to the report.
In its initial statement to the media, the Marine Corps said the Iraqi civilians were killed either by an insurgent bomb or by crossfire between Marines and insurgents.
But after Time magazine obtained pictures showing dead women and children and quoted Iraqis who said the attack was unprovoked, the Marine Corps backtracked on its explanation and called for an investigation. (NICE WORK TIME. MAYBE THERE ARE SOME MORE PICTURES OF ABU GHRAB)
The Marines, many of whom were on their third deployment to Iraq, are part of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment of the 1st Marine Division.
The battalion commander and two company commanders were relieved of duty last month because, a spokesman said, Maj. Gen. Richard Natonski, commanding general of the division, had lost confidence in their leadership.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which conducted a separate investigation, is expected to call for criminal charges, including murder, negligent homicide, dereliction of duty and filing a false report.
After the roadside bomb killed Terrazas, the Marines conducted a sweep of the area, a common military tactic. But instead of following the Geneva Convention rules about identifying combatants, the Marines killed Iraqis in homes and five sitting in a vehicle, reportedly without provocation, the investigation found. (ONLY THE US HAS TO FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS - IF YOU ARE ANOTHER COUNTRY, IT REALLY DOES NOT MATTER. HOW MANY STORIES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT THE GENEVA CONVETION VIOLATIONS IN CONGO, SIERRA LEONE, LIBERIA, UGANDA . . .)
Bargewell's report is to be given soon to Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the top operational commander in Baghdad. Chiarelli will make recommendations involving leadership, training and filing reports. Compensation has already been paid to families of some of the slain Iraqis.
Marine officials also confirmed Thursday that an investigation had been opened into an April 26 incident in which troops allegedly killed a civilian in the town of Hamandiya, west of Baghdad.
Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee flew to Iraq on Thursday to talk to Marines and remind them of long-standing orders to protect Iraqi civilians and follow the Geneva Convention.
Hagee is emphasizing "the importance of our core values" and reminding troops about the laws of war, a Marine Corps statement said.
The Marine commandant planned to read to officers and enlisted personnel a statement reminding them: "We must regulate force and violence, we only damage property that must be damaged, and we protect the noncombatants we find on the battlefield."
Hagee last week briefed key congressional leaders on the upcoming report. One of those, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a retired Marine colonel, said later that Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." (WAY TO GO JOHN, KICK'EM WHILE THEY ARE DOWN. NO WORD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ALREADY MADE ITS FINDINGS. GUESS THE INNOCENT TIL PROVEN GUILTY DOES NOT APPLY TO MARINES)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, held a news conference last Friday to plead with reporters, politicians and the public not to judge U.S. troops by the action "of one squad, in one city, on one morning."
The Marines have had more than 700 personnel killed in Iraq.
In his statement, Hagee said that Marines should overcome the tendency "of becoming indifferent to the loss of a human life" in their dealings with Iraqi civilians.
Gang 'plotted to blow up Ministry of Sound'
By Duncan Gardham
(Filed: 26/05/2006)
An alleged al-Qa'eda terrorist cell discussed blowing up the Ministry of Sound nightclub to take revenge on "those slags dancing around", a jury heard yesterday.
Pictures of six of the seven alleged British terrorists were released for the first time as the court heard a covert recording made by MI5 in the student flat occupied by Jawad Akbar in Uxbridge, west London.
Akbar, then 20 and studying at Brunel University, suggested targeting bars and added: "The biggest nightclub in central London where no one can even turn around and say 'oh they were innocent', those slags dancing around and other things."
Apparently referring to the September 11 2001 attacks on America, he added: "Trust me, then you will get the public talking 'cause they targeted economics, yeah, but if you went for the social structure where every Tom, Dick and Harry goes on a Saturday night, yeah, that would be crazy, crazy thing."
Omar Khyam, one of the leaders of the gang, asked him: "If you got a job in a bar, yeah, say the Ministry of Sound, what are you planning to do there then?"
Akbar told him: "Blow the whole thing up."
Referring to the Bali nightclub bomb, he added: "I mean if you got that done in this country, yeah bruv, that would shock them. I'm talking about England is supposed to be the centre of everything, isn't it, in the world right now.
''Whenever you talk about it the British are so proud of it, when you think of it every single person goes, London supposed to be the highlight, yeah. Look at their security, it's crap, it's a joke." He apparently added: "You think, why aren't we attacking it?"
Khyam told him: "You have a proper plan, simultaneous, it's got to be big and effective."
Akbar said: "Our purpose is to defend the honour of the Muslim, yeah, and bring the Islamic state back because if the Islamic state were here then the problems would not be there."
The two men, both from Crawley, West Sussex, were discussing leaving their wives and families behind and whether Akbar was ready to join Khyam fighting Jihad in Pakistan.
Khyam said he believed Britain was a kufr [heathen] country and added: "You see things different, but me, it's just nothing, they just need to be killed and blood spilled. To me this is clear.
''The verse says lay in ambush for them, besiege them and kill them when you find them, to me that's just clear, kill them." (RELIGION OF PEACE AT IT AGAIN)
Quoting the Koran, Akbar said: "The best thing you can do is put terror in their hearts, there is no doubt, there is nothing better than that. We put fear in their hearts."
Khyam warned him to talk to those "running the Jihad [Holy War]" at the top in Pakistan and added: "So now in England, imagine you do something and there's brothers here you could jeopardise them, so it's better to consult those who are running the Jihad. There's a structure so work within the structure."
He added: "It's waiting bro. . . everyone's ready now, innit."
The pair also talked of other targets, including water, electricity and telecommunications but Khyam said it would have to be a "such a big explosion that hundreds of people died".
The Ministry of Sound was founded by James Palumbo, the son of Lord Palumbo in south London in 1991.
It was described as Britain's "most profitable club" with three bars and a VIP area, a capacity of 2,200, and a mixture of white, black, and Asian clubbers, including many tourists.
Gary Smart, the general manager, said: "If the nightclub was to be the subject of a terrorist attack it is clear the consequences could be devastating.
"With such a large number of people in a confined space it could lead to large loss of life, injury and structural damage."
It is claimed the gang were planning to use half a ton of ammonium nitrate stored in a lock-up in north west London for a homemade bomb.
Omar Khyam, 24, his brother Shujah ud din Mahmood, 19, Jawad Akbar, 22, Nabeel Hussain, 21, and Waheed Mahmood, 34, all from Crawley, West Sussex along with Anthony Garcia, 24, from Ilford, Essex, and Salahuddin Amin, 31, from Luton, Beds, all deny conspiracy to cause explosions.
The trial continues.
By Duncan Gardham
(Filed: 26/05/2006)
An alleged al-Qa'eda terrorist cell discussed blowing up the Ministry of Sound nightclub to take revenge on "those slags dancing around", a jury heard yesterday.
Pictures of six of the seven alleged British terrorists were released for the first time as the court heard a covert recording made by MI5 in the student flat occupied by Jawad Akbar in Uxbridge, west London.
Akbar, then 20 and studying at Brunel University, suggested targeting bars and added: "The biggest nightclub in central London where no one can even turn around and say 'oh they were innocent', those slags dancing around and other things."
Apparently referring to the September 11 2001 attacks on America, he added: "Trust me, then you will get the public talking 'cause they targeted economics, yeah, but if you went for the social structure where every Tom, Dick and Harry goes on a Saturday night, yeah, that would be crazy, crazy thing."
Omar Khyam, one of the leaders of the gang, asked him: "If you got a job in a bar, yeah, say the Ministry of Sound, what are you planning to do there then?"
Akbar told him: "Blow the whole thing up."
Referring to the Bali nightclub bomb, he added: "I mean if you got that done in this country, yeah bruv, that would shock them. I'm talking about England is supposed to be the centre of everything, isn't it, in the world right now.
''Whenever you talk about it the British are so proud of it, when you think of it every single person goes, London supposed to be the highlight, yeah. Look at their security, it's crap, it's a joke." He apparently added: "You think, why aren't we attacking it?"
Khyam told him: "You have a proper plan, simultaneous, it's got to be big and effective."
Akbar said: "Our purpose is to defend the honour of the Muslim, yeah, and bring the Islamic state back because if the Islamic state were here then the problems would not be there."
The two men, both from Crawley, West Sussex, were discussing leaving their wives and families behind and whether Akbar was ready to join Khyam fighting Jihad in Pakistan.
Khyam said he believed Britain was a kufr [heathen] country and added: "You see things different, but me, it's just nothing, they just need to be killed and blood spilled. To me this is clear.
''The verse says lay in ambush for them, besiege them and kill them when you find them, to me that's just clear, kill them." (RELIGION OF PEACE AT IT AGAIN)
Quoting the Koran, Akbar said: "The best thing you can do is put terror in their hearts, there is no doubt, there is nothing better than that. We put fear in their hearts."
Khyam warned him to talk to those "running the Jihad [Holy War]" at the top in Pakistan and added: "So now in England, imagine you do something and there's brothers here you could jeopardise them, so it's better to consult those who are running the Jihad. There's a structure so work within the structure."
He added: "It's waiting bro. . . everyone's ready now, innit."
The pair also talked of other targets, including water, electricity and telecommunications but Khyam said it would have to be a "such a big explosion that hundreds of people died".
The Ministry of Sound was founded by James Palumbo, the son of Lord Palumbo in south London in 1991.
It was described as Britain's "most profitable club" with three bars and a VIP area, a capacity of 2,200, and a mixture of white, black, and Asian clubbers, including many tourists.
Gary Smart, the general manager, said: "If the nightclub was to be the subject of a terrorist attack it is clear the consequences could be devastating.
"With such a large number of people in a confined space it could lead to large loss of life, injury and structural damage."
It is claimed the gang were planning to use half a ton of ammonium nitrate stored in a lock-up in north west London for a homemade bomb.
Omar Khyam, 24, his brother Shujah ud din Mahmood, 19, Jawad Akbar, 22, Nabeel Hussain, 21, and Waheed Mahmood, 34, all from Crawley, West Sussex along with Anthony Garcia, 24, from Ilford, Essex, and Salahuddin Amin, 31, from Luton, Beds, all deny conspiracy to cause explosions.
The trial continues.
Get Serious About China's Rising Military
By Dan Blumenthal
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A29
The Pentagon's annual report to Congress on China's military power, released this week, reveals that Beijing's buildup has advanced well beyond what most analysts considered likely just 10 years ago. Some highlights: The new arsenal of the People's Liberation Army includes more than 700 missiles deployed opposite Taiwan, a fleet of sophisticated diesel electric submarines, a growing nuclear submarine capability and advanced destroyers armed with lethal anti-ship cruise missiles. By making the potential cost of any U.S. intervention in the Taiwan Strait extraordinarily high, Beijing has accomplished its decade-long goal of establishing a credible military threat to Taiwan -- as well as a deterrent to the United States. The question is, what next?
The report points to some answers. With a growing dependence on oil imported from the Middle East and Africa, Chinese strategists are talking about creating a blue-water navy to secure Beijing's energy supply lines. The military may be reconsidering its nuclear "no-first-use policy" and examining ways to secure China's territorial claims in the South China and East China seas. Simply stated, as China's military power has grown, so too, it appears, have the strategic tasks that it may be assigned. This shouldn't be surprising. Our own history teaches that as a nation's power grows so do its ambitions.
As if to underscore this point, an official Chinese military journal recently published an article arguing that Beijing should develop a military "commensurate with its international status." Since Beijing's economic and diplomatic interests span the globe, such strategic thinking can take the People's Liberation Army in some troubling directions. For example, Beijing may conclude that relying on the U.S. Navy for the safety of its energy supplies is too risky, and decide to increase its naval presence along the expanse between the Persian Gulf and East Asia. This would make the Chinese navy the first since the Cold War to compete for sea control with the United States. In addition, there are numerous disputed territorial claims in the East China and South China seas that China could settle by military means. Japan and China already have come close to skirmishing over energy resources in nearby disputed waters.
Of course, given the opaque character of Chinese military planning and government decision making, analysts can only speculate as to what turns the Chinese military buildup will take. It would help if China were to open up its political system so that we and other regional powers could get a better handle on the country's long-term ambitions. But this seems unlikely, at least anytime soon. Indeed, the Pentagon report notes that secrecy, deception and surprise remain key components of Chinese strategic practice.
China has already changed Asia's balance of power. It is past time for America to get serious about deterring the potentially worst sorts of Chinese behavior and to provide allies in the region with reason for renewed confidence in the U.S. security umbrella. Unfortunately, we are only just beginning to grapple with this daunting strategic task.
The latest Quadrennial Defense Review states that China "has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States." The Pentagon seeks to "shape [China's] strategic choices" and to "dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that could enable regional hegemony." The Bush administration has taken some concrete action toward these ends. An upgraded alliance with Japan will improve our deterrent posture. The opening of a strategic relationship with India reflects in part an American desire to ensure that China does not gain hegemony over South or Central Asia. An increase in the size of the U.S. Navy's attack submarine fleet in Guam also brings more American capability into the Pacific. A nascent defense relationship with Vietnam may over time provide the American military with what it needs most in Asia -- more bases.
But our China policy leaves us a day late and a dollar short when it comes to the challenge posed by the speed of Beijing's military buildup. We still have restrictions on relations with Taiwan dating to the Carter era that make the island more difficult to defend. A stronger commitment by the Pentagon to developing long-range surveillance and strike capabilities would make Beijing less confident that it could use its vast territory as a sanctuary for its missile and other "disruptive" forces. Upgrading our undersea warfare capabilities will improve our regional freedom of action.
Washington's largely reactive and tepid response to China's growing military power is understandable given what is on America's plate at the moment. And policymakers are still hoping that they can gain China's cooperation on pressing international security crises. But as the Pentagon report says, China has been less than cooperative on those supposed common interests: denuclearizing North Korea and Iran, for example. A policy seeking to shape China into a responsible global actor works only if you are willing to recognize when it is not working. That time may be fast approaching.
The writer is resident fellow in Asian studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He formerly was senior country director for China and Taiwan in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
By Dan Blumenthal
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A29
The Pentagon's annual report to Congress on China's military power, released this week, reveals that Beijing's buildup has advanced well beyond what most analysts considered likely just 10 years ago. Some highlights: The new arsenal of the People's Liberation Army includes more than 700 missiles deployed opposite Taiwan, a fleet of sophisticated diesel electric submarines, a growing nuclear submarine capability and advanced destroyers armed with lethal anti-ship cruise missiles. By making the potential cost of any U.S. intervention in the Taiwan Strait extraordinarily high, Beijing has accomplished its decade-long goal of establishing a credible military threat to Taiwan -- as well as a deterrent to the United States. The question is, what next?
The report points to some answers. With a growing dependence on oil imported from the Middle East and Africa, Chinese strategists are talking about creating a blue-water navy to secure Beijing's energy supply lines. The military may be reconsidering its nuclear "no-first-use policy" and examining ways to secure China's territorial claims in the South China and East China seas. Simply stated, as China's military power has grown, so too, it appears, have the strategic tasks that it may be assigned. This shouldn't be surprising. Our own history teaches that as a nation's power grows so do its ambitions.
As if to underscore this point, an official Chinese military journal recently published an article arguing that Beijing should develop a military "commensurate with its international status." Since Beijing's economic and diplomatic interests span the globe, such strategic thinking can take the People's Liberation Army in some troubling directions. For example, Beijing may conclude that relying on the U.S. Navy for the safety of its energy supplies is too risky, and decide to increase its naval presence along the expanse between the Persian Gulf and East Asia. This would make the Chinese navy the first since the Cold War to compete for sea control with the United States. In addition, there are numerous disputed territorial claims in the East China and South China seas that China could settle by military means. Japan and China already have come close to skirmishing over energy resources in nearby disputed waters.
Of course, given the opaque character of Chinese military planning and government decision making, analysts can only speculate as to what turns the Chinese military buildup will take. It would help if China were to open up its political system so that we and other regional powers could get a better handle on the country's long-term ambitions. But this seems unlikely, at least anytime soon. Indeed, the Pentagon report notes that secrecy, deception and surprise remain key components of Chinese strategic practice.
China has already changed Asia's balance of power. It is past time for America to get serious about deterring the potentially worst sorts of Chinese behavior and to provide allies in the region with reason for renewed confidence in the U.S. security umbrella. Unfortunately, we are only just beginning to grapple with this daunting strategic task.
The latest Quadrennial Defense Review states that China "has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States." The Pentagon seeks to "shape [China's] strategic choices" and to "dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that could enable regional hegemony." The Bush administration has taken some concrete action toward these ends. An upgraded alliance with Japan will improve our deterrent posture. The opening of a strategic relationship with India reflects in part an American desire to ensure that China does not gain hegemony over South or Central Asia. An increase in the size of the U.S. Navy's attack submarine fleet in Guam also brings more American capability into the Pacific. A nascent defense relationship with Vietnam may over time provide the American military with what it needs most in Asia -- more bases.
But our China policy leaves us a day late and a dollar short when it comes to the challenge posed by the speed of Beijing's military buildup. We still have restrictions on relations with Taiwan dating to the Carter era that make the island more difficult to defend. A stronger commitment by the Pentagon to developing long-range surveillance and strike capabilities would make Beijing less confident that it could use its vast territory as a sanctuary for its missile and other "disruptive" forces. Upgrading our undersea warfare capabilities will improve our regional freedom of action.
Washington's largely reactive and tepid response to China's growing military power is understandable given what is on America's plate at the moment. And policymakers are still hoping that they can gain China's cooperation on pressing international security crises. But as the Pentagon report says, China has been less than cooperative on those supposed common interests: denuclearizing North Korea and Iran, for example. A policy seeking to shape China into a responsible global actor works only if you are willing to recognize when it is not working. That time may be fast approaching.
The writer is resident fellow in Asian studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He formerly was senior country director for China and Taiwan in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Powers Inch Ahead on Nuclear Deal With Iran
Reuters
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A23
LONDON, May 24 -- World powers made progress but failed to reach consensus in talks Wednesday on a package of incentives and threats to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear bomb.
Senior officials representing the U.N. Security Council's permanent members -- China, Russia, the United States, France and Britain -- plus Germany met to try to narrow divisions on inducing Tehran to halt sensitive uranium enrichment work.
"What I've heard is that there has been great progress," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington, adding that a deal was "not done yet." Washington and Western allies suspect Iran's professed bid for nuclear power for its economy is a cover for efforts to develop an atomic bomb. The Islamic republic has said it is developing nuclear technology for civilian energy generation, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued a defiant message Wednesday.
"Using nuclear energy is Iran's right," Ahmadinejad told a rally in a speech on state television.
At a separate meeting in Washington, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he discussed Iran's views with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after talks with Tehran's negotiator, Ali Larijani. "Of course I briefed Secretary Rice on the Iranian point of view, but it's rather different from the U.S. point of view," he said.
In Tehran, an Iranian official said talks with the United States were "not on the agenda" after The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Iran was making explicit requests for direct discussions with Washington.
"If there is going to be talk, there has to be respect . . . and the Americans have shown they are not familiar with this element," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. "Therefore, direct talk with America is not on the agenda."
McCormick, however, said Iran recently had sought bilateral talks, but that the Bush administration would stick with a multilateral approach. He added that "it's probably just an effort to change the subject, because they're feeling the pressure of the international community" on the nuclear issue.
Reuters
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A23
LONDON, May 24 -- World powers made progress but failed to reach consensus in talks Wednesday on a package of incentives and threats to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear bomb.
Senior officials representing the U.N. Security Council's permanent members -- China, Russia, the United States, France and Britain -- plus Germany met to try to narrow divisions on inducing Tehran to halt sensitive uranium enrichment work.
"What I've heard is that there has been great progress," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington, adding that a deal was "not done yet." Washington and Western allies suspect Iran's professed bid for nuclear power for its economy is a cover for efforts to develop an atomic bomb. The Islamic republic has said it is developing nuclear technology for civilian energy generation, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued a defiant message Wednesday.
"Using nuclear energy is Iran's right," Ahmadinejad told a rally in a speech on state television.
At a separate meeting in Washington, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he discussed Iran's views with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after talks with Tehran's negotiator, Ali Larijani. "Of course I briefed Secretary Rice on the Iranian point of view, but it's rather different from the U.S. point of view," he said.
In Tehran, an Iranian official said talks with the United States were "not on the agenda" after The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Iran was making explicit requests for direct discussions with Washington.
"If there is going to be talk, there has to be respect . . . and the Americans have shown they are not familiar with this element," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. "Therefore, direct talk with America is not on the agenda."
McCormick, however, said Iran recently had sought bilateral talks, but that the Bush administration would stick with a multilateral approach. He added that "it's probably just an effort to change the subject, because they're feeling the pressure of the international community" on the nuclear issue.
Support for Democracy Seen Falling in Africa
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A26
JOHANNESBURG, May 24 -- Africans are increasingly frustrated with democracy even as voters long for freer elections, broader civil liberties and more responsive political leaders, according to findings from multi-nation opinion polls released Wednesday.
Afrobarometer, a nonprofit polling project, reported that surveys conducted since 2000 have revealed a slow but steady deterioration in support for democracy, with particularly steep declines in Nigeria, Tanzania, Botswana and Uganda.
Sixty-one percent of Africans surveyed said they regard democracy as preferable to other political systems. But the pollsters found that flaws in many democracies across the continent have undermined support for the concept. (SO, THE PROBLEMS ARE THE FLAWS - NOT 'DEMOCRACY')
"Democracy's not been working politically," said Robert Mattes, one of the pollsters, speaking from Cape Town. Support for democracy is falling fastest in "places where you've had one-party rule for a long time or places where elections haven't been working."
The polls also found growing unhappiness among Africans about their personal financial circumstances and their national economies. Three-quarters of Africans surveyed said they have been short of cash in the past year, and 56 percent said they had been short of food. (UHHHH, IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY?)
Afrobarometer conducts house-to-house surveys in 18 sub-Saharan African countries to gauge public opinion. Pollsters complete at least 1,200 interviews in each country. In measuring continent-wide trends, the countries are given equal weight, meaning that Lesotho, with 2 million citizens, counts as much as Nigeria, with more than 130 million.
In Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa. the number of people rating their personal financial situations as at least "fairly good" declined from 68 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2005. The decline in satisfaction with democracy over that time was even steeper, from 84 to 26 percent.
Trust in Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo fell nearly as far, from 77 to 26 percent, defying a broad trend among Africans toward putting more faith in their presidents.
Powerfully negative trends were also found in Zimbabwe, which is six years into a political and economic crisis that has turned one of Africa's foremost success stories into one of its biggest failures.
Afrobarometer found that President Robert Mugabe's approval rating, which it said reached 58 percent in 2002, has fallen to 27 percent. Only 3 percent of Zimbabweans surveyed said the government was doing at least "fairly well" at creating jobs, down from 23 percent in 2002. Poll results showed a worsening of poverty and hunger as well.
Mattes said that rising unhappiness had not yet led to uprisings against Mugabe mainly because of his control over the nation's armed forces. Only 12 percent of Zimbabweans questioned said they felt free to speak their minds about politics, lower than in any of the countries polled.
"There's quite a willingness to take to the streets and oppose," said Mattes, "but they've been bottled up very effectively."
Afrobarometer, which is funded mainly by Western donors, is a joint project of the Institute for Democracy in South Africa, the Ghana Center for Democratic Development and Michigan State University.
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A26
JOHANNESBURG, May 24 -- Africans are increasingly frustrated with democracy even as voters long for freer elections, broader civil liberties and more responsive political leaders, according to findings from multi-nation opinion polls released Wednesday.
Afrobarometer, a nonprofit polling project, reported that surveys conducted since 2000 have revealed a slow but steady deterioration in support for democracy, with particularly steep declines in Nigeria, Tanzania, Botswana and Uganda.
Sixty-one percent of Africans surveyed said they regard democracy as preferable to other political systems. But the pollsters found that flaws in many democracies across the continent have undermined support for the concept. (SO, THE PROBLEMS ARE THE FLAWS - NOT 'DEMOCRACY')
"Democracy's not been working politically," said Robert Mattes, one of the pollsters, speaking from Cape Town. Support for democracy is falling fastest in "places where you've had one-party rule for a long time or places where elections haven't been working."
The polls also found growing unhappiness among Africans about their personal financial circumstances and their national economies. Three-quarters of Africans surveyed said they have been short of cash in the past year, and 56 percent said they had been short of food. (UHHHH, IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY?)
Afrobarometer conducts house-to-house surveys in 18 sub-Saharan African countries to gauge public opinion. Pollsters complete at least 1,200 interviews in each country. In measuring continent-wide trends, the countries are given equal weight, meaning that Lesotho, with 2 million citizens, counts as much as Nigeria, with more than 130 million.
In Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa. the number of people rating their personal financial situations as at least "fairly good" declined from 68 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2005. The decline in satisfaction with democracy over that time was even steeper, from 84 to 26 percent.
Trust in Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo fell nearly as far, from 77 to 26 percent, defying a broad trend among Africans toward putting more faith in their presidents.
Powerfully negative trends were also found in Zimbabwe, which is six years into a political and economic crisis that has turned one of Africa's foremost success stories into one of its biggest failures.
Afrobarometer found that President Robert Mugabe's approval rating, which it said reached 58 percent in 2002, has fallen to 27 percent. Only 3 percent of Zimbabweans surveyed said the government was doing at least "fairly well" at creating jobs, down from 23 percent in 2002. Poll results showed a worsening of poverty and hunger as well.
Mattes said that rising unhappiness had not yet led to uprisings against Mugabe mainly because of his control over the nation's armed forces. Only 12 percent of Zimbabweans questioned said they felt free to speak their minds about politics, lower than in any of the countries polled.
"There's quite a willingness to take to the streets and oppose," said Mattes, "but they've been bottled up very effectively."
Afrobarometer, which is funded mainly by Western donors, is a joint project of the Institute for Democracy in South Africa, the Ghana Center for Democratic Development and Michigan State University.
Ugandan Rebel Wants Peace With Government
'I Am Not a Terrorist,' Elusive Kony Says
Reuters
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A26
NAIROBI, May 24 -- One of the most wanted rebel chiefs in the world, Joseph Kony of the Lord's Resistance Army, has called for an end to his 20-year war with the Ugandan government in the first images of him seen in years.
"Most people do not know me . . . I am not a terrorist. . . . I am a human being, I want peace also," Kony, a self-proclaimed mystic, said in a video obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.
Kony and his rebels have spread terror in northern Uganda and southern Sudan in a conflict that has left tens of thousands of civilians dead and displaced 2 million. The rebels often mutilate survivors by slicing off lips and ears.
The International Criminal Court named Kony and his deputies in warrants issued last year for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The video, verified by sources in Uganda, showed about an hour of a meeting three weeks ago between the rebel group and its sworn enemy in the past, the Southern People's Liberation Movement/Army, a former rebel group.
The video showed Kony taking $20,000 in cash from Riek Machar, the vice president of southern Sudan. "Buy food with it, not ammunition," Machar is heard telling Kony. Kony and Machar pledged to end fighting, and Machar said he was ready to mediate between the LRA and President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda.
"I want you to know that we, the LRA, want peace," Kony said. "That is why I was in the bush. . . . I am fighting for peace."
After the Kony-Machar meeting, news of which emerged about a week ago, Museveni issued a statement saying he would guarantee Kony's safety if he ended the war. He had previously written off any further negotiations with his longtime foe.
Responding to the footage, a spokeswoman for the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, referred to a statement that governments of the region were obliged to give effect to the arrest warrants. "And we are confident they will honor their joint commitment to do so," the statement said.
'I Am Not a Terrorist,' Elusive Kony Says
Reuters
Thursday, May 25, 2006; A26
NAIROBI, May 24 -- One of the most wanted rebel chiefs in the world, Joseph Kony of the Lord's Resistance Army, has called for an end to his 20-year war with the Ugandan government in the first images of him seen in years.
"Most people do not know me . . . I am not a terrorist. . . . I am a human being, I want peace also," Kony, a self-proclaimed mystic, said in a video obtained by Reuters on Wednesday.
Kony and his rebels have spread terror in northern Uganda and southern Sudan in a conflict that has left tens of thousands of civilians dead and displaced 2 million. The rebels often mutilate survivors by slicing off lips and ears.
The International Criminal Court named Kony and his deputies in warrants issued last year for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The video, verified by sources in Uganda, showed about an hour of a meeting three weeks ago between the rebel group and its sworn enemy in the past, the Southern People's Liberation Movement/Army, a former rebel group.
The video showed Kony taking $20,000 in cash from Riek Machar, the vice president of southern Sudan. "Buy food with it, not ammunition," Machar is heard telling Kony. Kony and Machar pledged to end fighting, and Machar said he was ready to mediate between the LRA and President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda.
"I want you to know that we, the LRA, want peace," Kony said. "That is why I was in the bush. . . . I am fighting for peace."
After the Kony-Machar meeting, news of which emerged about a week ago, Museveni issued a statement saying he would guarantee Kony's safety if he ended the war. He had previously written off any further negotiations with his longtime foe.
Responding to the footage, a spokeswoman for the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, referred to a statement that governments of the region were obliged to give effect to the arrest warrants. "And we are confident they will honor their joint commitment to do so," the statement said.
Supreme Court: 9-0 is better than 5-4
Can the chief justice conquer the court's divide by aiming for unanimous rulings instead of swing-voting for the fences?
By Cass R. Sunstein
CASS R. SUNSTEIN teaches at the University of Chicago Law School.
May 25, 2006
THE SUPREME COURT regularly has to choose between issuing narrow rulings and issuing broader ones. (NO LONGER LIBERAL, SO THE RULINGS ARE MORE NARROW - WHAT IS THE SURPRISE?)
Suppose, for instance, that an alleged enemy combatant, who is also an American citizen, argues that he has a right to a hearing before he can be held as a prisoner by the United States. A minimalist court would be inclined to rule on the combatant's particular claim without saying a word about the president's general power to wage war on terror, and it would remain silent about the rights of foreigners.
Or suppose that an elderly cancer patient is challenging a state ban on physician-assisted suicide. A minimalist court would focus on the specific facts of the case and the law in question and refuse to say anything about whether the Constitution provides a more general right to privacy that might encompass a right to commit suicide.
Or imagine that a rejected white applicant is challenging an affirmative-action program at a particular medical school. A minimalist court might strike down the specific program for some narrow, perceived flaw in its structure without saying whether affirmative action is generally permissible. (JUST A PERCEIVED FLAW - NOT A 'REAL' ONE)
Last week, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered his first commencement address, at Georgetown University Law Center, he offered an original, substantive and unambiguous defense of narrow, minimalist rulings.
Roberts began by arguing in favor of unanimous or near-unanimous opinions, which, he said, serve the rule of law by ensuring that the court's message is not confused by its own internal divisions. He went on to suggest that such a consensus on the part of the justices would, almost by necessity, lead to narrow rulings, limited in most situations to the particular issue at hand.
"The broader the agreement among the justices, the more likely it is that the decision is on the narrowest possible ground," he said. After all, the nine justices have highly diverse views, and if they are able to join a single opinion, that opinion is likely to be narrow.
This, in the chief justice's view, is entirely desirable. "If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more," he said.
Roberts made several approving references to Justice Felix Frankfurter, one of American history's great minimalist judges who consistently called for narrow rulings, especially on the issues that divide the nation most sharply. Writing more than 50 years ago, Frankfurter said that the court has an obligation "to avoid putting fetters upon the future by needless pronouncements today."
It was advice Frankfurter followed himself. In his opinion voting to strike down President Truman's 1952 seizure of the nation's steel mills, Frankfurter refused to say much about presidential power in general. He emphasized that "rigorous adherence to the narrow scope of the judicial function" is especially important when national security is at risk, notwithstanding the national "eagerness to settle — preferably forever — a specific problem on the basis of the broadest possible constitutional pronouncement."
Roberts referred, with unmistakable enthusiasm, to Frankfurter's suggestion that courts should focus on the concrete issue and "not embarrass the future too much."
What makes Roberts' argument noteworthy is that it takes a side in one of the deepest and most long-standing divisions in American jurisprudence — a division that cuts across the standard ideological lines.
One strand of that jurisprudence, associated with justices Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black, prizes broad, ambitious rulings on the ground that they give the clearest signals to lower courts, potential litigants and the nation as a whole. Scalia has long attacked minimalism on the ground that a court that resolves "one case at a time" leaves far too much doubt. If the court focuses on particular facts, people won't know, for example, when affirmative-action programs are permissible, when government can interfere with private choices and what, exactly, the president may or may not do to protect the nation.
The competing strand, associated with Frankfurter and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, prizes narrow rulings. O'Connor emphasized the need for humility, which would require the justices to acknowledge what they do not know and to leave many questions undecided.
In a period in which the court must answer many novel questions, there is a lot to be said for minimalism — not least because it tries to avoid taking a stand on the most controversial questions and thus shows respect for people with reasonable competing views.
Indeed, narrow rulings help to promote a key goal of societies that are both diverse and free: to make agreement possible where agreement is necessary, while also making agreement unnecessary where agreement is not possible.
It remains to be seen whether the court as a whole might be willing and able to move in the direction of broader consensus and hence narrowness — something Roberts can encourage in his role as chief justice.
If the court does move in that direction, its movement would have major consequences not only for privacy, free speech and the war on terror but for nearly every question that now divides both the court and the country.
Can the chief justice conquer the court's divide by aiming for unanimous rulings instead of swing-voting for the fences?
By Cass R. Sunstein
CASS R. SUNSTEIN teaches at the University of Chicago Law School.
May 25, 2006
THE SUPREME COURT regularly has to choose between issuing narrow rulings and issuing broader ones. (NO LONGER LIBERAL, SO THE RULINGS ARE MORE NARROW - WHAT IS THE SURPRISE?)
Suppose, for instance, that an alleged enemy combatant, who is also an American citizen, argues that he has a right to a hearing before he can be held as a prisoner by the United States. A minimalist court would be inclined to rule on the combatant's particular claim without saying a word about the president's general power to wage war on terror, and it would remain silent about the rights of foreigners.
Or suppose that an elderly cancer patient is challenging a state ban on physician-assisted suicide. A minimalist court would focus on the specific facts of the case and the law in question and refuse to say anything about whether the Constitution provides a more general right to privacy that might encompass a right to commit suicide.
Or imagine that a rejected white applicant is challenging an affirmative-action program at a particular medical school. A minimalist court might strike down the specific program for some narrow, perceived flaw in its structure without saying whether affirmative action is generally permissible. (JUST A PERCEIVED FLAW - NOT A 'REAL' ONE)
Last week, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered his first commencement address, at Georgetown University Law Center, he offered an original, substantive and unambiguous defense of narrow, minimalist rulings.
Roberts began by arguing in favor of unanimous or near-unanimous opinions, which, he said, serve the rule of law by ensuring that the court's message is not confused by its own internal divisions. He went on to suggest that such a consensus on the part of the justices would, almost by necessity, lead to narrow rulings, limited in most situations to the particular issue at hand.
"The broader the agreement among the justices, the more likely it is that the decision is on the narrowest possible ground," he said. After all, the nine justices have highly diverse views, and if they are able to join a single opinion, that opinion is likely to be narrow.
This, in the chief justice's view, is entirely desirable. "If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, in my view it is necessary not to decide more," he said.
Roberts made several approving references to Justice Felix Frankfurter, one of American history's great minimalist judges who consistently called for narrow rulings, especially on the issues that divide the nation most sharply. Writing more than 50 years ago, Frankfurter said that the court has an obligation "to avoid putting fetters upon the future by needless pronouncements today."
It was advice Frankfurter followed himself. In his opinion voting to strike down President Truman's 1952 seizure of the nation's steel mills, Frankfurter refused to say much about presidential power in general. He emphasized that "rigorous adherence to the narrow scope of the judicial function" is especially important when national security is at risk, notwithstanding the national "eagerness to settle — preferably forever — a specific problem on the basis of the broadest possible constitutional pronouncement."
Roberts referred, with unmistakable enthusiasm, to Frankfurter's suggestion that courts should focus on the concrete issue and "not embarrass the future too much."
What makes Roberts' argument noteworthy is that it takes a side in one of the deepest and most long-standing divisions in American jurisprudence — a division that cuts across the standard ideological lines.
One strand of that jurisprudence, associated with justices Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black, prizes broad, ambitious rulings on the ground that they give the clearest signals to lower courts, potential litigants and the nation as a whole. Scalia has long attacked minimalism on the ground that a court that resolves "one case at a time" leaves far too much doubt. If the court focuses on particular facts, people won't know, for example, when affirmative-action programs are permissible, when government can interfere with private choices and what, exactly, the president may or may not do to protect the nation.
The competing strand, associated with Frankfurter and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, prizes narrow rulings. O'Connor emphasized the need for humility, which would require the justices to acknowledge what they do not know and to leave many questions undecided.
In a period in which the court must answer many novel questions, there is a lot to be said for minimalism — not least because it tries to avoid taking a stand on the most controversial questions and thus shows respect for people with reasonable competing views.
Indeed, narrow rulings help to promote a key goal of societies that are both diverse and free: to make agreement possible where agreement is necessary, while also making agreement unnecessary where agreement is not possible.
It remains to be seen whether the court as a whole might be willing and able to move in the direction of broader consensus and hence narrowness — something Roberts can encourage in his role as chief justice.
If the court does move in that direction, its movement would have major consequences not only for privacy, free speech and the war on terror but for nearly every question that now divides both the court and the country.
Chinese Bank IPO Raises $9.7 Billion
By Don Lee
Times Staff Writer
May 25, 2006
SHANGHAI — Facing down recent convulsions in global stock markets and long-held qualms about China's financial sector, state-owned Bank of China raised $9.7 billion Wednesday in the world's largest initial public offering in six years.
Interest in Bank of China, the nation's second-largest by assets, was so intense that demand for the shares was about 80 times the amount made available to investors. Billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal issued a statement confirming that his investment company bid $2 billion for a 2.7% stake in the Beijing-based bank.
The success of the stock offering wasn't surprising given China's booming economy, analysts said Wednesday. In October, China Construction Bank raised $9.2 billion in an IPO. Since then, its shares have risen about 44% on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
Bank of China's business is more diverse and international than China Construction Bank. About 25.6 billion Bank of China shares were priced at 38 cents, near the top of the target range of 32 cents to 39 cents. Trading will begin June 1 in Hong Kong.
Chinese banks are being supported by the nation's robust economy, and a downturn could expose weak spots that are hard for investors to see now, said Nicholas Lardy, a China expert and senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics in Washington.
"They may be shortsighted," he said.
For the near term, China's economic machine is expected to run full steam, powered by exports and foreign investments. China's economy surged 10.3% in the first quarter from a year earlier. Its banking sector hopes to ride the momentum by selling shares — thanks to the herd of investors captivated by anything China, as some analysts see it.
Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, the largest of the four big state-owned banks, is expected to net at least $10 billion in an IPO this year. "There is a frenzy for China IPOs now," said Andy Xie, an economist with Morgan Stanley in Hong Kong.
China's global economic muscle is attracting massive investment in other sectors as well. China Mobile was close to buying Millicom International Cellular of Luxembourg for about $5 billion, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. If completed, it would be the biggest foreign acquisition by a Chinese company and would give China Mobile access to millions of customers in other developing countries.
In Hong Kong, the heavy demand for Bank of China's shares contrasts sharply with the investor jitters that seem to be spreading. Emerging markets, typically the first to feel the effects of global stock tremors, have taken a drubbing in recent days amid worries that rising interest rates could slow growth.
But investors clamoring for Bank of China shares seemed unfazed by Chinese banks' historical problems with corruption and bad debts. In recent years, Bank of China has been hit with a number of scandals involving bribery and embezzlement by managers and employees.
Chinese lenders have struggled to improve the quality of their loan portfolios. The central government has provided tens of billions of dollars to prop up state banks hobbled by lax lending practices. Bank of China said in its stock literature that its proportion of bad loans fell to 4.9% at the end of last year from 5.5% a year earlier. The new figure is about double the U.S. average.
(COULD THAT POSSSIBLY BE RIGHT?)
Even so, analysts question the accuracy of such figures and say they can't be sure there has been significant improvement in the quality of credit checks and lending. Chinese banks, though, are pushing to strengthen their finances and management in preparation for stiffer competition when restrictions on foreign banks operating in China are loosened at the end of this year.
The Bank of China IPO comes as foreign financial institutions have a robust appetite for China's banks. Bank of America, Royal Bank of Scotland and Citicorp are among those that have taken stakes, hoping to expand their foothold in a promising market.
*
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Mega IPOs
The Bank of China raised $9.7 billion in its initial public stock offering. Here are some milestone initial offerings around the world of recent years.
(In billions)
Enel, Italy 1999: $16.5
AT&T Wireless 2000: $10.6
Bank of China 2006: $9.7
Kraft Foods 2001: $8.7
UPS 1999: $5.5
Infineon 2000: $5.2
China Unicom 2000: $4.9
Conoco 1998: $4.4
Sources: Renaissance Capital, Bloomberg News
By Don Lee
Times Staff Writer
May 25, 2006
SHANGHAI — Facing down recent convulsions in global stock markets and long-held qualms about China's financial sector, state-owned Bank of China raised $9.7 billion Wednesday in the world's largest initial public offering in six years.
Interest in Bank of China, the nation's second-largest by assets, was so intense that demand for the shares was about 80 times the amount made available to investors. Billionaire Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal issued a statement confirming that his investment company bid $2 billion for a 2.7% stake in the Beijing-based bank.
The success of the stock offering wasn't surprising given China's booming economy, analysts said Wednesday. In October, China Construction Bank raised $9.2 billion in an IPO. Since then, its shares have risen about 44% on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
Bank of China's business is more diverse and international than China Construction Bank. About 25.6 billion Bank of China shares were priced at 38 cents, near the top of the target range of 32 cents to 39 cents. Trading will begin June 1 in Hong Kong.
Chinese banks are being supported by the nation's robust economy, and a downturn could expose weak spots that are hard for investors to see now, said Nicholas Lardy, a China expert and senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics in Washington.
"They may be shortsighted," he said.
For the near term, China's economic machine is expected to run full steam, powered by exports and foreign investments. China's economy surged 10.3% in the first quarter from a year earlier. Its banking sector hopes to ride the momentum by selling shares — thanks to the herd of investors captivated by anything China, as some analysts see it.
Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, the largest of the four big state-owned banks, is expected to net at least $10 billion in an IPO this year. "There is a frenzy for China IPOs now," said Andy Xie, an economist with Morgan Stanley in Hong Kong.
China's global economic muscle is attracting massive investment in other sectors as well. China Mobile was close to buying Millicom International Cellular of Luxembourg for about $5 billion, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. If completed, it would be the biggest foreign acquisition by a Chinese company and would give China Mobile access to millions of customers in other developing countries.
In Hong Kong, the heavy demand for Bank of China's shares contrasts sharply with the investor jitters that seem to be spreading. Emerging markets, typically the first to feel the effects of global stock tremors, have taken a drubbing in recent days amid worries that rising interest rates could slow growth.
But investors clamoring for Bank of China shares seemed unfazed by Chinese banks' historical problems with corruption and bad debts. In recent years, Bank of China has been hit with a number of scandals involving bribery and embezzlement by managers and employees.
Chinese lenders have struggled to improve the quality of their loan portfolios. The central government has provided tens of billions of dollars to prop up state banks hobbled by lax lending practices. Bank of China said in its stock literature that its proportion of bad loans fell to 4.9% at the end of last year from 5.5% a year earlier. The new figure is about double the U.S. average.
(COULD THAT POSSSIBLY BE RIGHT?)
Even so, analysts question the accuracy of such figures and say they can't be sure there has been significant improvement in the quality of credit checks and lending. Chinese banks, though, are pushing to strengthen their finances and management in preparation for stiffer competition when restrictions on foreign banks operating in China are loosened at the end of this year.
The Bank of China IPO comes as foreign financial institutions have a robust appetite for China's banks. Bank of America, Royal Bank of Scotland and Citicorp are among those that have taken stakes, hoping to expand their foothold in a promising market.
*
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Mega IPOs
The Bank of China raised $9.7 billion in its initial public stock offering. Here are some milestone initial offerings around the world of recent years.
(In billions)
Enel, Italy 1999: $16.5
AT&T Wireless 2000: $10.6
Bank of China 2006: $9.7
Kraft Foods 2001: $8.7
UPS 1999: $5.5
Infineon 2000: $5.2
China Unicom 2000: $4.9
Conoco 1998: $4.4
Sources: Renaissance Capital, Bloomberg News
'Next wave of Iraq suicide bombers' thwarted
By Nigel Bunyan
(Filed: 25/05/2006)
Anti-terrorist police who arrested eight Libyans in a series of dawn raids yesterday believe they may have thwarted the next wave of suicide bomb attacks on British and US forces in Iraq.
The suspects, picked up at the end of a year-long investigation centred on Manchester, are being held on suspicion of either encouraging al-Qa'eda or helping to fund some of its atrocities.
But intelligence sources say that some of them may have been planning to fly out to Iraq as suicide bombers.
Some are regarded as so dangerous that police and Home Office officials are seeking their immediate deportation. In the meantime they are being held at police stations across Greater Manchester.
The men were arrested during co-ordinated raids on 19 addresses in five force areas. Twelve of the addresses are in Manchester, three in Birmingham and one each in Bolton, Liverpool, Middlesbrough and London. Two of the men have previously been named as having terrorist links on a United Nations website.
One of these, Tahir Nasuf, 44, works for the Sanabel Relief Agency, which raises money for Muslims in poor parts of the world. The charity has an office in Levenshulme, Manchester.
The US Treasury department has claimed that Sanabel is a front for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which in turn is said to have links with al-Qa'eda.
In February the UN froze the assets of both Nasuf and the Sanabel agency. He has always maintained his and the agency's innocence.
Yesterday police were standing guard outside the pebble-dashed, end-of-terrace house in Fallowfield that Nasuf shares with his wife and four children. His black Ford Mondeo had been removed from the street outside at dawn.
The wave of arrests, which began at 3am, involved 500 police officers. They were co-ordinated by the anti-terrorist unit of Greater Manchester Police and supported by MI5 and immigration officials.
Anti-terrorist officers said they had succeeded in arresting all the suspects they had targeted. Two were held under the Terrorism Act 2000, the others on suspicion of being in breach of immigration laws.
Two other men arrested in an early phase of the operation were later released.
Forensic officers are expected to take a number of days to search the raided properties. They have already taken away a number of computers and storage disks for examination.
Intelligence sources confirmed that, as expected, they found no evidence of such noxious substances as ricin poison.
Mike Todd, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, emphasised that the allegations against the men still being held concerned terrorist activity outside Britain. "I want to reassure people that we are not talking about a direct threat to the UK. We are talking about the facilitation of terrorism overseas. That could include funding and the provision of support and encouragement to terrorists."
Intelligence sources suggested last night that some of those under arrest may have helped to recruit and train terrorists. They regarded the operation as a "pro-active strike" against people suspected of encouraging terrorism.
Anti-terrorist officers said that the timing of the arrests had been agreed before John Reid took over as Home Secretary.
Some of the intelligence is believed to have surfaced last June when police raided the Manchester home of a suicide bomber who had blown himself up in an attack four months earlier.
The man, a 41-year-old French national of north African origin, was the first person to travel from Britain to attack coalition troops in Iraq. He had spoken to friends at a mosque in the city of his desire to fight jihad, or holy war, in the Middle East.
In this case, intelligence was supplied by the Iraqi security services. The bomber was unknown to MI5 but fits the profile of the "jihadists" who went to fight for the greater Muslim cause in Bosnia, Chechnya and or Afghanistan.
Security sources suspect there is a European network that supplies fighters and suicide bombers to Iraq, though just a "trickle" set out from Britain.
During this morning's raid a helicopter was seen hovering above Nasuf's house shortly after three police vans pulled up outside.
Later in the day, his tearful wife appeared outside wearing the headscarf and gloves of devout Muslim women.
Her sister, who was similarly dressed, said: "Police dressed in black came into the house before early morning prayers. My sister said she was very scared.
"She didn't know what was happening. They took her husband away. She doesn't know why. The police were in here looking for things; I don't know what."
Neighbours of a man arrested elsewhere in Manchester said he was often seen carrying computers into his home. Police also raided the offices of the Sanabel Relief Agency in Sparkbrook, Birmingham.
Mr Todd said of the operation: "This is a clear demonstration of how forces are working together to tackle the threat from terrorism."
By Nigel Bunyan
(Filed: 25/05/2006)
Anti-terrorist police who arrested eight Libyans in a series of dawn raids yesterday believe they may have thwarted the next wave of suicide bomb attacks on British and US forces in Iraq.
The suspects, picked up at the end of a year-long investigation centred on Manchester, are being held on suspicion of either encouraging al-Qa'eda or helping to fund some of its atrocities.
But intelligence sources say that some of them may have been planning to fly out to Iraq as suicide bombers.
Some are regarded as so dangerous that police and Home Office officials are seeking their immediate deportation. In the meantime they are being held at police stations across Greater Manchester.
The men were arrested during co-ordinated raids on 19 addresses in five force areas. Twelve of the addresses are in Manchester, three in Birmingham and one each in Bolton, Liverpool, Middlesbrough and London. Two of the men have previously been named as having terrorist links on a United Nations website.
One of these, Tahir Nasuf, 44, works for the Sanabel Relief Agency, which raises money for Muslims in poor parts of the world. The charity has an office in Levenshulme, Manchester.
The US Treasury department has claimed that Sanabel is a front for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which in turn is said to have links with al-Qa'eda.
In February the UN froze the assets of both Nasuf and the Sanabel agency. He has always maintained his and the agency's innocence.
Yesterday police were standing guard outside the pebble-dashed, end-of-terrace house in Fallowfield that Nasuf shares with his wife and four children. His black Ford Mondeo had been removed from the street outside at dawn.
The wave of arrests, which began at 3am, involved 500 police officers. They were co-ordinated by the anti-terrorist unit of Greater Manchester Police and supported by MI5 and immigration officials.
Anti-terrorist officers said they had succeeded in arresting all the suspects they had targeted. Two were held under the Terrorism Act 2000, the others on suspicion of being in breach of immigration laws.
Two other men arrested in an early phase of the operation were later released.
Forensic officers are expected to take a number of days to search the raided properties. They have already taken away a number of computers and storage disks for examination.
Intelligence sources confirmed that, as expected, they found no evidence of such noxious substances as ricin poison.
Mike Todd, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, emphasised that the allegations against the men still being held concerned terrorist activity outside Britain. "I want to reassure people that we are not talking about a direct threat to the UK. We are talking about the facilitation of terrorism overseas. That could include funding and the provision of support and encouragement to terrorists."
Intelligence sources suggested last night that some of those under arrest may have helped to recruit and train terrorists. They regarded the operation as a "pro-active strike" against people suspected of encouraging terrorism.
Anti-terrorist officers said that the timing of the arrests had been agreed before John Reid took over as Home Secretary.
Some of the intelligence is believed to have surfaced last June when police raided the Manchester home of a suicide bomber who had blown himself up in an attack four months earlier.
The man, a 41-year-old French national of north African origin, was the first person to travel from Britain to attack coalition troops in Iraq. He had spoken to friends at a mosque in the city of his desire to fight jihad, or holy war, in the Middle East.
In this case, intelligence was supplied by the Iraqi security services. The bomber was unknown to MI5 but fits the profile of the "jihadists" who went to fight for the greater Muslim cause in Bosnia, Chechnya and or Afghanistan.
Security sources suspect there is a European network that supplies fighters and suicide bombers to Iraq, though just a "trickle" set out from Britain.
During this morning's raid a helicopter was seen hovering above Nasuf's house shortly after three police vans pulled up outside.
Later in the day, his tearful wife appeared outside wearing the headscarf and gloves of devout Muslim women.
Her sister, who was similarly dressed, said: "Police dressed in black came into the house before early morning prayers. My sister said she was very scared.
"She didn't know what was happening. They took her husband away. She doesn't know why. The police were in here looking for things; I don't know what."
Neighbours of a man arrested elsewhere in Manchester said he was often seen carrying computers into his home. Police also raided the offices of the Sanabel Relief Agency in Sparkbrook, Birmingham.
Mr Todd said of the operation: "This is a clear demonstration of how forces are working together to tackle the threat from terrorism."
Pentagon Finds China Fortifying Its Long-Range Military Arsenal
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; A17
China's military buildup is increasingly aimed at projecting power far beyond its shores into the western Pacific to be able to interdict U.S. aircraft carriers and other nations' military forces, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday that outlines continued concerns over China's rising strategic influence in Asia.
Chinese military planners are focusing to a greater degree than in the past on targeting ships and submarines at long ranges using anti-ship cruise missiles, partly in reaction to Taiwan Strait crises in 1995 and 1996 that saw the U.S. military intervene with carrier battle groups, the report said.
The People's Liberation Army "is engaged in a sustained effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific," the report said. Long-term trends in China's development of nuclear and conventional weapons "have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region," it said.
The annual report to Congress on China's military power also highlighted Beijing's purchases of Russian weapons, its positioning of as many as 790 Chinese short-range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan and its nuclear weapons modernization. It warned that advances in nuclear missiles are spurring a debate among some high-ranking Chinese strategists over whether Beijing should change its "no first use" doctrine that bars using nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack.
The 50-page report states that China's military buildup remains primarily focused on Taiwan, and notes that its current ability to sustain military power over long distances is limited. But the report also outlines Chinese military ambitions that go well beyond Taiwan, and reiterates the Pentagon's latest formulation on China's military threat, stating that "China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States."
China's defense budget is expanding apace with the new investments, the report said. Beijing officially projects a growth in defense spending of 14.5 percent this year to about $35 billion. But the report, citing the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, puts the actual funding at twice or triple that amount -- or as much as $105 billion -- when all military-related spending is tallied.
The report details how the Chinese military is investing in cruise missiles, precision weapons and guidance systems that could target ships, submarines, aircraft and airbases as far away as the "second island chain" including the Mariana Islands and Guam. As part of this strategy, China is buying Russian aircraft, such as the IL-76 transport and IL-78 tanker aircraft, and has shown interest in the Su-33 maritime strike aircraft. China is in the early stages of "developing power projection for other contingencies other than Taiwan," said Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.
On Taiwan, the report said China had deployed about 100 more short-range ballistic missiles to garrisons opposite the island, increasing the total from 650 to 730 last year to between 710 and 790 now. "The balance between Beijing and Taiwan is heading in the wrong direction," Rodman said, adding that "maybe our job is to be the equalizer if a contingency arises."
The internal debate over China's nuclear policy of no first use is unfolding as the nation upgrades its nuclear arsenal to include more mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the DF-31A and the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile, according to the report. Both missiles are expected to become operable as early as 2007 and be capable of striking the United States, it said.
China's stated doctrine, reaffirmed last fall during a visit to Beijing by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is not to use nuclear weapons first. But senior U.S. defense officials said improvements in the quality and quantity of China's nuclear missiles had generated discussion among Chinese military and academic strategists over how and when to use them. "We take them at their word that they adhere to that doctrine," Rodman said. However, he said, "as their capabilities change they may be thinking about options that they didn't have before."
The report cites public comments by Chinese military officials and strategists stating that under certain extreme circumstances -- such as an all-out attack against the country by conventional forces -- that China should use nuclear weapons.
Any move to abandon the no-first-use doctrine would be "very destabilizing" in the region, a U.S. defense official said.
To address such concerns, the United States and China will soon start talks over nuclear strategy with the first U.S. visit by the head of China's nuclear arsenal, Jing Zhiyuan, the commander of the Second Artillery Corps, officials said. Jing will be hosted by his American counterpart, Gen. James E. Cartwright, chief of U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. No date has been finalized for the visit, Rodman said.
The strategic talks illustrate the Bush administration's two-pronged approach to China's military buildup set down in the 2006 National Security Strategy: to engage with Chinese military leaders to influence their choices while hedging against potential threats.
Experts on China's military differed on the significance of the debate over nuclear policy. "The real issue is not 'no first use.' The real issue is: Under what conditions China will use nuclear weapons . . . how bad do things have to get for the threshold to be crossed?" said Evan S. Medeiros, an expert at Rand Corp. He noted that some Chinese military commentators have stated that a precision strike by conventional weapons on China's nuclear facilities could be tantamount to a small-scale nuclear attack and lead China to consider using nuclear weapons.
Other experts played down the importance of the nuclear debate in China. "They are primarily interested in increasing conventional options in regional contingencies and vis-a-vis Taiwan," said Kurt Campbell, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; A17
China's military buildup is increasingly aimed at projecting power far beyond its shores into the western Pacific to be able to interdict U.S. aircraft carriers and other nations' military forces, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday that outlines continued concerns over China's rising strategic influence in Asia.
Chinese military planners are focusing to a greater degree than in the past on targeting ships and submarines at long ranges using anti-ship cruise missiles, partly in reaction to Taiwan Strait crises in 1995 and 1996 that saw the U.S. military intervene with carrier battle groups, the report said.
The People's Liberation Army "is engaged in a sustained effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific," the report said. Long-term trends in China's development of nuclear and conventional weapons "have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region," it said.
The annual report to Congress on China's military power also highlighted Beijing's purchases of Russian weapons, its positioning of as many as 790 Chinese short-range ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan and its nuclear weapons modernization. It warned that advances in nuclear missiles are spurring a debate among some high-ranking Chinese strategists over whether Beijing should change its "no first use" doctrine that bars using nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack.
The 50-page report states that China's military buildup remains primarily focused on Taiwan, and notes that its current ability to sustain military power over long distances is limited. But the report also outlines Chinese military ambitions that go well beyond Taiwan, and reiterates the Pentagon's latest formulation on China's military threat, stating that "China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States."
China's defense budget is expanding apace with the new investments, the report said. Beijing officially projects a growth in defense spending of 14.5 percent this year to about $35 billion. But the report, citing the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, puts the actual funding at twice or triple that amount -- or as much as $105 billion -- when all military-related spending is tallied.
The report details how the Chinese military is investing in cruise missiles, precision weapons and guidance systems that could target ships, submarines, aircraft and airbases as far away as the "second island chain" including the Mariana Islands and Guam. As part of this strategy, China is buying Russian aircraft, such as the IL-76 transport and IL-78 tanker aircraft, and has shown interest in the Su-33 maritime strike aircraft. China is in the early stages of "developing power projection for other contingencies other than Taiwan," said Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.
On Taiwan, the report said China had deployed about 100 more short-range ballistic missiles to garrisons opposite the island, increasing the total from 650 to 730 last year to between 710 and 790 now. "The balance between Beijing and Taiwan is heading in the wrong direction," Rodman said, adding that "maybe our job is to be the equalizer if a contingency arises."
The internal debate over China's nuclear policy of no first use is unfolding as the nation upgrades its nuclear arsenal to include more mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the DF-31A and the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile, according to the report. Both missiles are expected to become operable as early as 2007 and be capable of striking the United States, it said.
China's stated doctrine, reaffirmed last fall during a visit to Beijing by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is not to use nuclear weapons first. But senior U.S. defense officials said improvements in the quality and quantity of China's nuclear missiles had generated discussion among Chinese military and academic strategists over how and when to use them. "We take them at their word that they adhere to that doctrine," Rodman said. However, he said, "as their capabilities change they may be thinking about options that they didn't have before."
The report cites public comments by Chinese military officials and strategists stating that under certain extreme circumstances -- such as an all-out attack against the country by conventional forces -- that China should use nuclear weapons.
Any move to abandon the no-first-use doctrine would be "very destabilizing" in the region, a U.S. defense official said.
To address such concerns, the United States and China will soon start talks over nuclear strategy with the first U.S. visit by the head of China's nuclear arsenal, Jing Zhiyuan, the commander of the Second Artillery Corps, officials said. Jing will be hosted by his American counterpart, Gen. James E. Cartwright, chief of U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. No date has been finalized for the visit, Rodman said.
The strategic talks illustrate the Bush administration's two-pronged approach to China's military buildup set down in the 2006 National Security Strategy: to engage with Chinese military leaders to influence their choices while hedging against potential threats.
Experts on China's military differed on the significance of the debate over nuclear policy. "The real issue is not 'no first use.' The real issue is: Under what conditions China will use nuclear weapons . . . how bad do things have to get for the threshold to be crossed?" said Evan S. Medeiros, an expert at Rand Corp. He noted that some Chinese military commentators have stated that a precision strike by conventional weapons on China's nuclear facilities could be tantamount to a small-scale nuclear attack and lead China to consider using nuclear weapons.
Other experts played down the importance of the nuclear debate in China. "They are primarily interested in increasing conventional options in regional contingencies and vis-a-vis Taiwan," said Kurt Campbell, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Iraqi Insurgent Gives Chilling Confession
In Daily Violence, at Least 40 Are Killed
By Nelson Hernandez and Naseer Nouri
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; A18
BAGHDAD, May 23 -- An alleged agent of the group al-Qaeda in Iraq told a chilling story of hijacking, kidnapping and murder in the name of holy war Tuesday, a day after the Jordanian government announced his arrest in an operation carried out in Iraq.
In a videotaped confession broadcast on Jordanian state television, Ziad Khalaf al-Kerbouly related his deeds without a trace of emotion. Though Jordan's government billed him as a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative arrested in the murder of a Jordanian citizen, Kerbouly's account made him sound more like a simple foot soldier for Iraq's most prominent insurgent organization.
His confession gave a rare glimpse into the mentality of the combatants in a conflict in which at least 40 Iraqis were killed Tuesday, in a string of bombings and shootings that have become routine for everyone except those who have to live with the consequences.
Kerbouly said he was an Iraqi customs agent along the western border with Jordan and was in a position to know who was entering and leaving Iraq, and to kill them if it suited al-Qaeda's purposes. Among his targets was a Jordanian truck driver who, he said, hauled goods to Americans in Iraq. (OH, I GUESS YOUR COUNTRY TAKES SECOND BILLING)
"His name was Khalid al-Dasouqi," Kerbouly recalled in a flat tone. "He said, 'What will you do?' I said, 'I will kill you.' He started to beg me, 'Please, do not kill me,' and so I said, 'I must kill you.' He kept on begging me, and I pulled my personal pistol and said to him, 'Say your prayers.' He said them as he was begging.
"Immediately I shot him twice in the head. I left him in that spot and he was handcuffed and blindfolded. I made sure that he was dead, put his passport and papers over him and went away."
Dasouqi's brother called him afterward, said Kerbouly, who answered the call and told the brother that Dasouqi was still alive. Then he browsed through Dasouqi's cellphone files. Stumbling across a picture of Dasouqi's four young daughters, he said, "I had a kind of a reaction."
Twenty minutes later, he called the family back. "I told them that we have killed Khalid," he said.
Dasouqi's wife, interviewed separately in the broadcast as one of her daughters wept, suggested that Kerbouly be executed in front of a mosque.
Kerbouly also said he had hijacked trucks, killed four Iraqi soldiers and kidnapped two employees of the Moroccan Embassy in Baghdad, who were killed after he handed them over to his superiors.
Al-Arabiya television, quoting the Jordanian government, said Kerbouly was captured in Iraq by Jordanian intelligence agents, carried across the border and eventually arrested at Queen Alia International Airport near Amman, the capital. It was unclear when he was captured, when the confession was recorded or whether it had been coerced. (COERCED? THAT IS THE FIRST REACTION?)
The Jordanian government has cooperated extensively with U.S. efforts to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, particularly since the bombing of three hotels last November in Amman, which killed 60 people, plus three bombers. The organization is led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was born in Jordan. U.S. military commanders say that al-Qaeda in Iraq is small but well organized and well financed, and is responsible for many of the car bombings, shootings and kidnappings in Iraq.
In an interview with CNN's "Your World Today" program, Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, acknowledged that parts of Iraq's Anbar province, an al-Qaeda stronghold, were under insurgent control.
"I believe that parts of Anbar are under the control of terrorists and insurgents," he said. "But as far as the country as a whole is concerned, it is the coalition forces, along with Iraqi forces, who are in control. But it's a difficult security situation that Iraq is going through."
Violence continued in Baghdad on Tuesday, with at least 27 Iraqis killed in attacks in the capital, police officials and witnesses said.
In the first attack, a minibus packed with explosives and parked on a street in eastern Baghdad blew up as a police patrol passed by, killing seven people, said Haitham Khalaf Ahmad, a police officer, as he stood guard at a nearby checkpoint.
Another car bomb exploded in Sadr City, a predominantly Shiite district in the capital. The bomb targeted another police patrol, killing nine people, police Maj. Qasim Nima said.
As the sun set, another bomb -- apparently planted in a motorcycle -- exploded in the Tunis district of northern Baghdad, in front of a Shiite mosque. The blast killed 11 people, al-Iraqiya television said.
Seven people were killed in Baqubah, a city 30 miles northeast of Baghdad that has been the scene of much violence between Sunni Arabs and Shiites.
Special correspondents Salih Saif Aldin, Saad al-Izzi and Bassam Sebti in Baghdad and Hassan Shammari in Baqubah contributed to this report.
In Daily Violence, at Least 40 Are Killed
By Nelson Hernandez and Naseer Nouri
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; A18
BAGHDAD, May 23 -- An alleged agent of the group al-Qaeda in Iraq told a chilling story of hijacking, kidnapping and murder in the name of holy war Tuesday, a day after the Jordanian government announced his arrest in an operation carried out in Iraq.
In a videotaped confession broadcast on Jordanian state television, Ziad Khalaf al-Kerbouly related his deeds without a trace of emotion. Though Jordan's government billed him as a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative arrested in the murder of a Jordanian citizen, Kerbouly's account made him sound more like a simple foot soldier for Iraq's most prominent insurgent organization.
His confession gave a rare glimpse into the mentality of the combatants in a conflict in which at least 40 Iraqis were killed Tuesday, in a string of bombings and shootings that have become routine for everyone except those who have to live with the consequences.
Kerbouly said he was an Iraqi customs agent along the western border with Jordan and was in a position to know who was entering and leaving Iraq, and to kill them if it suited al-Qaeda's purposes. Among his targets was a Jordanian truck driver who, he said, hauled goods to Americans in Iraq. (OH, I GUESS YOUR COUNTRY TAKES SECOND BILLING)
"His name was Khalid al-Dasouqi," Kerbouly recalled in a flat tone. "He said, 'What will you do?' I said, 'I will kill you.' He started to beg me, 'Please, do not kill me,' and so I said, 'I must kill you.' He kept on begging me, and I pulled my personal pistol and said to him, 'Say your prayers.' He said them as he was begging.
"Immediately I shot him twice in the head. I left him in that spot and he was handcuffed and blindfolded. I made sure that he was dead, put his passport and papers over him and went away."
Dasouqi's brother called him afterward, said Kerbouly, who answered the call and told the brother that Dasouqi was still alive. Then he browsed through Dasouqi's cellphone files. Stumbling across a picture of Dasouqi's four young daughters, he said, "I had a kind of a reaction."
Twenty minutes later, he called the family back. "I told them that we have killed Khalid," he said.
Dasouqi's wife, interviewed separately in the broadcast as one of her daughters wept, suggested that Kerbouly be executed in front of a mosque.
Kerbouly also said he had hijacked trucks, killed four Iraqi soldiers and kidnapped two employees of the Moroccan Embassy in Baghdad, who were killed after he handed them over to his superiors.
Al-Arabiya television, quoting the Jordanian government, said Kerbouly was captured in Iraq by Jordanian intelligence agents, carried across the border and eventually arrested at Queen Alia International Airport near Amman, the capital. It was unclear when he was captured, when the confession was recorded or whether it had been coerced. (COERCED? THAT IS THE FIRST REACTION?)
The Jordanian government has cooperated extensively with U.S. efforts to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, particularly since the bombing of three hotels last November in Amman, which killed 60 people, plus three bombers. The organization is led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was born in Jordan. U.S. military commanders say that al-Qaeda in Iraq is small but well organized and well financed, and is responsible for many of the car bombings, shootings and kidnappings in Iraq.
In an interview with CNN's "Your World Today" program, Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, acknowledged that parts of Iraq's Anbar province, an al-Qaeda stronghold, were under insurgent control.
"I believe that parts of Anbar are under the control of terrorists and insurgents," he said. "But as far as the country as a whole is concerned, it is the coalition forces, along with Iraqi forces, who are in control. But it's a difficult security situation that Iraq is going through."
Violence continued in Baghdad on Tuesday, with at least 27 Iraqis killed in attacks in the capital, police officials and witnesses said.
In the first attack, a minibus packed with explosives and parked on a street in eastern Baghdad blew up as a police patrol passed by, killing seven people, said Haitham Khalaf Ahmad, a police officer, as he stood guard at a nearby checkpoint.
Another car bomb exploded in Sadr City, a predominantly Shiite district in the capital. The bomb targeted another police patrol, killing nine people, police Maj. Qasim Nima said.
As the sun set, another bomb -- apparently planted in a motorcycle -- exploded in the Tunis district of northern Baghdad, in front of a Shiite mosque. The blast killed 11 people, al-Iraqiya television said.
Seven people were killed in Baqubah, a city 30 miles northeast of Baghdad that has been the scene of much violence between Sunni Arabs and Shiites.
Special correspondents Salih Saif Aldin, Saad al-Izzi and Bassam Sebti in Baghdad and Hassan Shammari in Baqubah contributed to this report.
Intelligence Panel Backs Hayden as CIA Director
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; A08
Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden won a bipartisan endorsement from the Senate intelligence committee yesterday to head the CIA at a time of reorganization and troubled morale, and legislative leaders said they hope to have the full Senate confirm him for the job by Thursday.
The panel voted 12 to 3 to recommend that Hayden, a four-star general with substantial experience in electronic surveillance, succeed Porter J. Goss, who leaves the CIA post on Friday after 18 stormy months.
Hayden won the backing of the committee's eight Republicans and four of seven Democrats. Voting against him were Democrats Evan Bayh (Ind.), Russell Feingold (Wis.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.). (GO GET 'EM RUSS, HOW IS THAT CENTURE VOTE COMING?)
They objected mainly to what they called the administration's failure to justify adequately the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps of Americans' international calls. Hayden headed the NSA when the program was launched, soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. (THE JUSTIFICATION IS THAT THOSE NUMBERS SHOWED UP WITH KNOWN AQ PEOPLE. THAT IS ENOUGH)
"My vote was an objection to the administration's unwillingness to ensure both our physical security and our civil liberties," Bayh said. (YAWN)
Wyden said he also believes that Hayden misled Congress by suggesting the eavesdropping program -- revealed by the New York Times in December -- was the full extent of the highly secret domestic surveillance operation. USA Today recently reported that the NSA also collected millions of phone records from U.S. businesses and homes.
But the panel's other four Democrats expressed confidence in Hayden. Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), after citing erroneous estimates of Iraq's weaponry that preceded the 2003 U.S. invasion, told reporters he believes Hayden will "stand up to the president or anybody else who's trying to get him to reach a certain conclusion on the intelligence, and speak truth to power." (WHAT DO IRAQI PRE-WAR ESTIMATES HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING, CARL?)
Levin joined other senators in saying that Hayden, despite his military status, will protect the CIA against power plays by the Pentagon.
"He stood up to Secretary [of Defense Donald H.] Rumsfeld when Secretary Rumsfeld wanted certain intelligence components to stay with the Department of Defense," Levin said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Hayden "is the leader and honest broker the CIA needs to regain its footing as the world's premier spy service and the hub of our nation's intelligence analysis and research and development capabilities." She said the CIA has been "in turmoil" since late 2001. (DIANNE CHANGES HER TUNE YET AGAIN)
Also voting to endorse Hayden's confirmation were Democrats Barbara A. Mikulski (Md.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), and Republicans Pat Roberts (Kan.), Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), Trent Lott (Miss.), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). (JOHN, I SEE YOU WERE ALL TALK AGAIN)
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the vote, saying: "Hayden's public and private support of the NSA's illegal program to pry into the lives of innocent Americans speaks volumes about his willingness to sacrifice the rule of law to cater to this administration's policies." (WHY CHOOSE THE ACLU OF ALL GROUPS TO QUOTE?)
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; A08
Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden won a bipartisan endorsement from the Senate intelligence committee yesterday to head the CIA at a time of reorganization and troubled morale, and legislative leaders said they hope to have the full Senate confirm him for the job by Thursday.
The panel voted 12 to 3 to recommend that Hayden, a four-star general with substantial experience in electronic surveillance, succeed Porter J. Goss, who leaves the CIA post on Friday after 18 stormy months.
Hayden won the backing of the committee's eight Republicans and four of seven Democrats. Voting against him were Democrats Evan Bayh (Ind.), Russell Feingold (Wis.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.). (GO GET 'EM RUSS, HOW IS THAT CENTURE VOTE COMING?)
They objected mainly to what they called the administration's failure to justify adequately the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps of Americans' international calls. Hayden headed the NSA when the program was launched, soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. (THE JUSTIFICATION IS THAT THOSE NUMBERS SHOWED UP WITH KNOWN AQ PEOPLE. THAT IS ENOUGH)
"My vote was an objection to the administration's unwillingness to ensure both our physical security and our civil liberties," Bayh said. (YAWN)
Wyden said he also believes that Hayden misled Congress by suggesting the eavesdropping program -- revealed by the New York Times in December -- was the full extent of the highly secret domestic surveillance operation. USA Today recently reported that the NSA also collected millions of phone records from U.S. businesses and homes.
But the panel's other four Democrats expressed confidence in Hayden. Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), after citing erroneous estimates of Iraq's weaponry that preceded the 2003 U.S. invasion, told reporters he believes Hayden will "stand up to the president or anybody else who's trying to get him to reach a certain conclusion on the intelligence, and speak truth to power." (WHAT DO IRAQI PRE-WAR ESTIMATES HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING, CARL?)
Levin joined other senators in saying that Hayden, despite his military status, will protect the CIA against power plays by the Pentagon.
"He stood up to Secretary [of Defense Donald H.] Rumsfeld when Secretary Rumsfeld wanted certain intelligence components to stay with the Department of Defense," Levin said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Hayden "is the leader and honest broker the CIA needs to regain its footing as the world's premier spy service and the hub of our nation's intelligence analysis and research and development capabilities." She said the CIA has been "in turmoil" since late 2001. (DIANNE CHANGES HER TUNE YET AGAIN)
Also voting to endorse Hayden's confirmation were Democrats Barbara A. Mikulski (Md.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), and Republicans Pat Roberts (Kan.), Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), Trent Lott (Miss.), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). (JOHN, I SEE YOU WERE ALL TALK AGAIN)
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the vote, saying: "Hayden's public and private support of the NSA's illegal program to pry into the lives of innocent Americans speaks volumes about his willingness to sacrifice the rule of law to cater to this administration's policies." (WHY CHOOSE THE ACLU OF ALL GROUPS TO QUOTE?)
Iran Requests Direct Talks on Nuclear Program
By Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; A01
TEHRAN, May 23 -- Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats.
The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said.
Though the Tehran government in the past has routinely jailed its citizens on charges of contact with the country it calls the "Great Satan," Ahmadinejad's May 8 letter was implicitly endorsed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and lavished with praise by perhaps the most conservative ayatollah in the theocratic government.
"You know, two months ago nobody would believe that Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad together would be trying to get George W. Bush to begin negotiations," said Saeed Laylaz, a former government official and prominent analyst in Tehran. "This is a sign of changing strategy. They realize the situation is dangerous and they should not waste time, that they should reach out."
Laylaz and several diplomats said senior Iranian officials have asked a multitude of intermediaries to pass word to Washington making clear their appetite for direct talks. He said Ali Larijani, chairman of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, passed that message to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, who arrived in Washington Tuesday for talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.
Iranian officials made similar requests through Indonesia, Kuwait and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Laylaz said. American intelligence analysts also say Larijani's urgent requests for meetings with senior officials in France and Germany appear to be part of a bid for dialogue with Washington.
"They've been desperate to do it," said a European diplomat in Tehran.
U.S. intelligence analysts have assessed the letter as a major overture, an appraisal shared by analysts and foreign diplomats resident in Iran. Bush administration officials, however, have dismissed the proposed opening as a tactical move.
The administration repeatedly has rejected talks, saying Iran must negotiate with the three European powers that have led nuclear diplomacy since the Iranian nuclear program became public in 2002. Within hours of receiving Ahmadinejad's letter, Rice dismissed it as containing nothing new.
But U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said government experts have exerted mounting pressure on the Bush administration to reply to the letter, seconding public urgings from commentators and former officials. "The content was wacky and, from an American point of view, offensive. But why should we cede the high moral ground, and why shouldn't we at least respond to the Iranian people?" said an official who has been pushing for a public response. (READ: NOT ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE ADMINISTRATION)
Analysts, including American specialists on Iran, emphasized that the contents of the letter are less significant than its return address. No other Iranian president had attempted direct contact with his U.S. counterpart since the countries broke off diplomatic relations after student militants overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Iranian analysts said Ahmadinejad's familiar list of grievances on Iraq, Israel and terrorism was designed largely for domestic consumption. CIA analysts and experts on Iran within the government said it also could be interpreted as an attempt to articulate points for possible discussion with Washington.
"There is no question in my mind that there has been for some time a desire on the part of the senior Iranian leadership to engage in a dialogue with the United States," said Paul Pillar, who was the senior Middle East intelligence analyst with the CIA until last fall. (GO **** YOURSELF PAUL. DON'T YOU HAVE AN OP-ED TO WRITE ABOUT HOW YOU DID NOTHING WRONG AS STATION CHIEF, BUT YET EVERYTHING WENT TO ****)
"Much stranger first steps have led to dialogues than this letter. And as weird as the letter may be, if the Iranians want to begin discussions based on the theme of righteousness, that's something we should not be afraid to engage on," Pillar said. "We have pretty strong arguments about justice and righteousness of our own, so we should not shy away from that."
Inside Iran, the letter effectively widened an opening toward the United States that began in March, with Larijani's unusually public acceptance of an American invitation to direct talks on the situation in neighboring Iraq. That acceptance provoked sharp criticism from hard-liners until it was publicly endorsed by Khamenei.
By contrast, Ahmadinejad's letter sparked lavish praise from perhaps the most conservative cleric in Iran's government, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who chairs the Guardian Council, which oversees Iran's electoral process. Delivering the Friday sermon on May 12 in Tehran, Jannati called it "an extraordinary letter" and "an inspiration by God."
"The taboo is gone, for the first time when someone like Jannati endorses the message," said an Iranian political analyst who said he could not to be quoted by name because his employer had not authorized him to speak publicly.
Earlier attempts at outreach to Washington have been thwarted by conservatives. "The tradition is the hard-liners need American hostility," the analyst said. The most serious attempt was by Ahmadinejad's predecessor, reformist cleric Mohammad Khatami.
"When Khatami tried to do it, the leader rejected it," said the European diplomat. "But I guess they're worried enough. People don't want sanctions. Domestically, it's a good move."
Indeed, by last week, a prominent member of Iran's conservative parliament made headlines proposing talks with members of Congress.
"The taboo of the discussion is gone, but I don't think they've formed a consensus about normalization of relations," said a Western diplomat in Tehran. "But 'let's talk to the Americans' -- that was very controversial until recently."
The change appears rooted at least partly in Iran's political scene, now dominated entirely by conservatives. Pillar pointed out that with reformists driven from government, conservatives no longer fear that political credit for renewing contact with Washington will accrue to a rival domestic force. The Iranian public strongly favors restoring ties.
Laylaz also saw a second reason: Iran's nuclear program, which recently crossed a key threshold by enriching uranium.
"Now we have something to negotiate," Laylaz said. "The nuclear program of the regime has been successful, because five years ago nobody wanted to hear our voice."
Ordinary Iranians appear to approve of Ahmadinejad's overture. His letter remains at the top of the presidential Web site, http://www.president.ir .
"We have not had any relations for so many years, and Iran was always accused of being unwilling to talk," Masood Mohammadi, 23, said as he left Friday prayers last week. "Now Iran has taken the first step, and I hope the U.S. president replies in kind."
Linzer reported from Washington.
By Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; A01
TEHRAN, May 23 -- Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats.
The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said.
Though the Tehran government in the past has routinely jailed its citizens on charges of contact with the country it calls the "Great Satan," Ahmadinejad's May 8 letter was implicitly endorsed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and lavished with praise by perhaps the most conservative ayatollah in the theocratic government.
"You know, two months ago nobody would believe that Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad together would be trying to get George W. Bush to begin negotiations," said Saeed Laylaz, a former government official and prominent analyst in Tehran. "This is a sign of changing strategy. They realize the situation is dangerous and they should not waste time, that they should reach out."
Laylaz and several diplomats said senior Iranian officials have asked a multitude of intermediaries to pass word to Washington making clear their appetite for direct talks. He said Ali Larijani, chairman of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, passed that message to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, who arrived in Washington Tuesday for talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.
Iranian officials made similar requests through Indonesia, Kuwait and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Laylaz said. American intelligence analysts also say Larijani's urgent requests for meetings with senior officials in France and Germany appear to be part of a bid for dialogue with Washington.
"They've been desperate to do it," said a European diplomat in Tehran.
U.S. intelligence analysts have assessed the letter as a major overture, an appraisal shared by analysts and foreign diplomats resident in Iran. Bush administration officials, however, have dismissed the proposed opening as a tactical move.
The administration repeatedly has rejected talks, saying Iran must negotiate with the three European powers that have led nuclear diplomacy since the Iranian nuclear program became public in 2002. Within hours of receiving Ahmadinejad's letter, Rice dismissed it as containing nothing new.
But U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said government experts have exerted mounting pressure on the Bush administration to reply to the letter, seconding public urgings from commentators and former officials. "The content was wacky and, from an American point of view, offensive. But why should we cede the high moral ground, and why shouldn't we at least respond to the Iranian people?" said an official who has been pushing for a public response. (READ: NOT ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE ADMINISTRATION)
Analysts, including American specialists on Iran, emphasized that the contents of the letter are less significant than its return address. No other Iranian president had attempted direct contact with his U.S. counterpart since the countries broke off diplomatic relations after student militants overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Iranian analysts said Ahmadinejad's familiar list of grievances on Iraq, Israel and terrorism was designed largely for domestic consumption. CIA analysts and experts on Iran within the government said it also could be interpreted as an attempt to articulate points for possible discussion with Washington.
"There is no question in my mind that there has been for some time a desire on the part of the senior Iranian leadership to engage in a dialogue with the United States," said Paul Pillar, who was the senior Middle East intelligence analyst with the CIA until last fall. (GO **** YOURSELF PAUL. DON'T YOU HAVE AN OP-ED TO WRITE ABOUT HOW YOU DID NOTHING WRONG AS STATION CHIEF, BUT YET EVERYTHING WENT TO ****)
"Much stranger first steps have led to dialogues than this letter. And as weird as the letter may be, if the Iranians want to begin discussions based on the theme of righteousness, that's something we should not be afraid to engage on," Pillar said. "We have pretty strong arguments about justice and righteousness of our own, so we should not shy away from that."
Inside Iran, the letter effectively widened an opening toward the United States that began in March, with Larijani's unusually public acceptance of an American invitation to direct talks on the situation in neighboring Iraq. That acceptance provoked sharp criticism from hard-liners until it was publicly endorsed by Khamenei.
By contrast, Ahmadinejad's letter sparked lavish praise from perhaps the most conservative cleric in Iran's government, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who chairs the Guardian Council, which oversees Iran's electoral process. Delivering the Friday sermon on May 12 in Tehran, Jannati called it "an extraordinary letter" and "an inspiration by God."
"The taboo is gone, for the first time when someone like Jannati endorses the message," said an Iranian political analyst who said he could not to be quoted by name because his employer had not authorized him to speak publicly.
Earlier attempts at outreach to Washington have been thwarted by conservatives. "The tradition is the hard-liners need American hostility," the analyst said. The most serious attempt was by Ahmadinejad's predecessor, reformist cleric Mohammad Khatami.
"When Khatami tried to do it, the leader rejected it," said the European diplomat. "But I guess they're worried enough. People don't want sanctions. Domestically, it's a good move."
Indeed, by last week, a prominent member of Iran's conservative parliament made headlines proposing talks with members of Congress.
"The taboo of the discussion is gone, but I don't think they've formed a consensus about normalization of relations," said a Western diplomat in Tehran. "But 'let's talk to the Americans' -- that was very controversial until recently."
The change appears rooted at least partly in Iran's political scene, now dominated entirely by conservatives. Pillar pointed out that with reformists driven from government, conservatives no longer fear that political credit for renewing contact with Washington will accrue to a rival domestic force. The Iranian public strongly favors restoring ties.
Laylaz also saw a second reason: Iran's nuclear program, which recently crossed a key threshold by enriching uranium.
"Now we have something to negotiate," Laylaz said. "The nuclear program of the regime has been successful, because five years ago nobody wanted to hear our voice."
Ordinary Iranians appear to approve of Ahmadinejad's overture. His letter remains at the top of the presidential Web site, http://www.president.ir .
"We have not had any relations for so many years, and Iran was always accused of being unwilling to talk," Masood Mohammadi, 23, said as he left Friday prayers last week. "Now Iran has taken the first step, and I hope the U.S. president replies in kind."
Linzer reported from Washington.