InternetActivist.Org
27 February 2005
The 02/25 Tel Aviv bombing - The case for Occam's Razor
The February 25th suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, which killed four and wounded more than fifty, has been the subject of a great deal of speculation, with various parties casting accusations in all directions. However, I would argue that the most logical explanation - coupled as it is with an overt claim of responsibility - is probably the correct one.
The Israeli government was quick to blame Syria, which has been under a massive amount of pressure since the Hariri assassination in Lebanon (see my earlier commentary about that). This was quickly follow-up with Israel threatening to attack Syria as a consequence, see for example:
Israel threatens Syria after bomb attack
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0700world/tm_objectid=15237145&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=israel-threatens-syria-after-bomb-attack-name_page.html
This Israeli claim is further reinforced by the fact that Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Islamist group that did indeed claim responsibility for the bombing, had maintained an office in Damascus with the permission of the Syrian government.
However, realistically it is not likely that Syria had anything whatsoever to do with the attack and was probably just as taken aback as everyone else. Since the Hariri assassination, Syria has become an open target of the United States with the full support and encouragement of Israel and its advocates in this country. Right now, more so than ever before in recent history, Syria is trying to desperately to maintain a low-profile. The very last thing that Bashar al-Asad and the Syrian military would want right now is to be put in the spotlight regarding something as utterly damning as a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.
Syria was quick to deny the Israeli allegations and promptly closed the Islamic Jihad offices in Damascus, see for example:
Syria rejects Israel accusation on Tel Aviv bombing
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/gsn2005/2005_02/20050226/284638.html
"A Syrian Foreign Ministry source said: "Syria has no relation to this operation or any other (operation) and that the (Damascus) office of that group (Islamic Jihad) had been closed."
There is no reason to disbelieve that the Syrians are very upset about this, especially in view of Syria's current situation of being "under the gun" of U.S. pressure at this time.
Further, despite Israeli bluster and the potential for a limited Israeli strike on Syria, I believe Israel too realizes that Syria wasn't behind this attack. But, of course, no one accuses the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs of stupidity and thus it makes perfect sense for them to attempt to capitalize on this bombing to increase the pressure on Syria, Israel's last remaining enemy on its borders.
Although Israel can, and perhaps will, launch a limited strike on Syria, Israel will not seriously engage Syria to the extent that war become inevitable. The reason for this is that Syria still possesses its "doomsday option" - specifically vast stockpiles of chemical weapons and the Scud missiles to deliver them. See:
Syria: Chemical Weapons
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/cw.htm
Although Syrian Scud missiles are not as accurate or as effective as Iran's Shahabs or other missile systems, at the close proximity involved, they do not really need to be very advanced. Quite simply, five sarin-laden Scuds in Tel Aviv and Israel loses its demographic battle against the Palestinians by seeing an immediate halt to immigration, radically increased emigration, not to mention the loss of people directly from the attacks. Jewish Israelis are already a minority between the river and the sea (if one takes into account the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the 700,000 Israelis who reside abroad) and thus Syria has an effective means to deter an Israeli invasion. Of course this is an option of last resort because obviously Israel would destroy Syria as well - the old "mutually assured destruction" paradigm. This means Israel can get away with limited strikes on Syria and Syria cannot really respond to them. Israel has already done this before and can do it again, though they can't launch an attack of such intensity that the Syrians decide they have nothing else to lose.
This is, of course, the main reason that Israel is exerting a lot pressure on the United States to take on Syria. The reasoning being, if the U.S. does Israel's dirty work in this respect, Syria would probably use its weapons against U.S. forces in Iraq as opposed to Israel. However, I personally suspect that this is bad reasoning. Taking the example of Saddam Hussein in 1991, Syria might very well decide that if it is to go out in a bang, it would like the distinction of being remembered as the Arab power that finally destroyed Israel.
Either way, I very seriously doubt that anyone will be invading Syria. Although some minor limited strike is entirely possible, I do not think either the United States or Israel will push Syria into a position of absolute desperation.
The Palestine Authority, on the other hand, chose to blame the Lebanese Hizb-ut-Allah (Party of God, 'Hezbollah'). This, however, is patently absurd across the board and graphically illustrates Abbas' lack of political sophistication as opposed to his Israel counterparts.
First and foremost, Hizb-ut-Allah is utterly dependent on Syria to maintain its militant operations in Syria. Although much of the material and financial support is generally accepted to come from their fellow Shias in Iran, they rely upon Syrian goodwill to actually receive this aid. Further, Hizb-ut-Allah has not engaged in suicide bombing since before the ending of the Lebanese civil war, and just as importantly, has always limited its activities to Lebanon and northern Israel (as retaliation for Israeli strikes in Lebanon). Hizb-ut-Allah is a distinctively Lebanese movement and though sympathetic with the Palestinians has never played a direct role in their struggle against Israel, despite unsubstantiated pro-Israel hearsay to the contrary. While pro-Israel conspiracy theorists and propagandists constantly try to portray Hezbollah as part and parcel of the "great Arab conspiracy" to destroy Israel, in reality Hezbollah has gained its general respectability because it has always kept itself largely removed from larger international Islamist movements and has remained a specifically focused on Lebanon (though relying on support from Iran & Syria) . Hezbollah does remain in active conflict with Israel over the Shebaa Farms district (generally recognized as Syrian territory, but viewed by Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbollah as Lebanese), but its militant operations have been confined there.
The Palestine Authority claim is based on the unsubstantiated claim by two alleged Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade militant's claim to have spoken to Kais Obeid (the famous Israeli Palestinian advisor to Hezbollah, his fame stemming from the fact that so few Palestinians are accepted into Hezbollah's ranks & and is related to a former Israeli MK). The allegation is that Obeid called on these AAMB militants to claim responsibility for the attack. See, for example:
Palestinians see Hizbollah behind Israel attack
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/gsn2005/2005_02/20050226/284613.html
However, what it ultimately comes down to is that Hezbollah would not have endangered its vital links to Syria in such a way, even if it chose to change its long-standing policy regarding limiting its militant activities to Lebanon and returned to the use of suicide bombing.
So the question is, why did Abbas decide to blame Hezbollah, an organization that is widely popular in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and viewed as something of a model for Palestinian militants? The answer is that Abbas realized that if domestic Palestinian militants were held responsible, that Israel and the U.S. would demand that he crack down on them and of course this is precisely what happened anyway. This was Abbas' attempt to get himself off the "hot seat" and it utterly failed.
Specifically, Abbas cannot - anymore than Arafat before him could - forcibly disarm and shut down the Palestinian militant factions. After Sharon's 2002 offensive, the Palestine Authority's security services were rendered utterly bereft of any overall structure or strength and due to the Israeli policy of closures and fragmentation, virtually all PA security services in any given area are virtually autonomous units with no central command and control structure whatsoever. In many of the closed areas, the PA security forces are pretty much free to do as they please. Some have simply quit and gone home, others have entered into open alliance with militants in their local areas, while others have attempted to maintain their status as the "official" security forces, despite their weakness. The most graphic illustration of this reality was the funeral for Arafat, in which the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, not the Palestine Authority police, maintained law and order. Hamas plays a similar role in Gaza. Quite simply, in sheer physical terms, the PA is not capable of disarming the militants.
Further, there is the political dimension. Despite the rise and fall of hopes - for example, the current popular outrage among Palestinians regarding this most recent bombing See:
Angry Palestinians
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/gsn2005/2005_02/20050227/284648.html
the militants maintain a lot of popular support which
fluctuates in direct relation to Israeli behavior in the Occupied Territories. When the Israelis slow down their raids and bombs, popular support for the militants decreases, however when Israel increases military activity the support for the militants increases. This has been the general pattern since 1993.
The point is that the Palestinians have experienced many of these "ups-and-downs" and only a complete idiot would simply take Israel's alleged "good intentions" on faith since 1996 when Netanyahu put a de facto stop to the peace process and all Palestinians hopes regarding Israel's "intentions" were dashed. Frankly, until there are very real and tangible improvements on the ground, not statements of intent or hints and rumors, there is virtually no chance of breaking popular support for the militants. And since Sharon has effectively demanded that all militant resistance be stopped before there are any tangible improvements, the Palestine Authority is really in an utterly impossible situation.
So, Abbas must stop ALL militant activity - i.e. control every single individual Palestinian in the Occupied Territories - before Israel will allow him to show any tangible improvements. At the same time, Sharon, knowing full well that this demand is utterly impossible, remains in a very comfortable position of simply doing whatever he wants without any consideration for Abbas, who has failed to hold up his (utterly impossible) end of the "deal." Thus we have Sharon making loud demands on Abbas knowing full well that Abbas simply cannot comply and survive doing so as he himself broke the PA's power and has refused to let it be reconstituted:
Sharon demands Palestinians act after Tel Aviv bomb
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/gsn2005/2005_02/20050227/284681.html
We've been through this farce before and it appears we're about to go through it yet again. Nevertheless, we can certainly understand why Abbas tried - and failed - to make the case that the bombing was the responsibility of some foreign "third power."
So, who was responsible? Islamic Jihad says it was and is quite clear about its motivations:
Suicide bomber: My target was the PA
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/545147.html
"In a videotape made prior to the Friday suicide bombing that killed four people in Tel Aviv, bomber Abdullah Badran declared that the attack was intended to do harm to the Palestinian Authority, which he said served the interests of the United States."
This is completely in character for this organization and so is the rationale supplied. Further, Islamic Jihad is one of the few Palestinian militant groups that lacks significant public support, allowing it a degree of leeway to act even against popular opinion, which the other major groups utterly rely on to continue. Like all the militant factions, it is highly decentralized - a necessity to resist being brought down by Shin Bet - and thus the conflicting claims, the initial denial by the Gaza IJ leadership and then the claim from the IJ foreign bureau is also in character and quite reasonable. It is entirely possible that the Gaza leadership wasn't even aware of the attack until after the fact, despite the Israeli conspiracy theorists who claim that every terrorist in the world knows exactly what every other one is doing at all times and supports it.
In this case, I firmly believe that Occam's Razor is applicable - the mostly likely explanation is probably the correct one. As described in detail above, one can easily see why Israel would accuse Syria and why Abbas would blame Hezbollah, yet realistically, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt Islamic Jihad.
As for the consequences, all said it doesn't really matter, it was just a matter of time. Some form of Palestinian attack was inevitable sooner or later and thus a return to the old stalemate - Israel demanding the impossible of the PA, and upon the PA's failure to comply, Israel's reaction which in turn will spur on more Palestinian militant resistance and popular support for it. Don't be fooled by the media reports, in reality - the reality of those living under Israel's Occupation - despite all the rhetoric, nothing has really changed:
Did you say the Israelis are withdrawing?
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3640.shtml
"Since the Sharm El Sheikh summit things have significantly improved in the Palestinian territories. The Army has stopped its incursions in Palestinian towns, Palestinian civilians are free to move, prisoners are about to be released and economic activity is slowly recovering... At least this is the information that most western media is conveying to its people. The situation on the ground is unfortunately completely different. The Separation Wall is being completed faster than ever, all the military check points are still in place, the Palestinian detainees are still under Israeli custody and daily life is still hell for all Palestinians. ..."
The Israeli government was quick to blame Syria, which has been under a massive amount of pressure since the Hariri assassination in Lebanon (see my earlier commentary about that). This was quickly follow-up with Israel threatening to attack Syria as a consequence, see for example:
Israel threatens Syria after bomb attack
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0700world/tm_objectid=15237145&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=israel-threatens-syria-after-bomb-attack-name_page.html
This Israeli claim is further reinforced by the fact that Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Islamist group that did indeed claim responsibility for the bombing, had maintained an office in Damascus with the permission of the Syrian government.
However, realistically it is not likely that Syria had anything whatsoever to do with the attack and was probably just as taken aback as everyone else. Since the Hariri assassination, Syria has become an open target of the United States with the full support and encouragement of Israel and its advocates in this country. Right now, more so than ever before in recent history, Syria is trying to desperately to maintain a low-profile. The very last thing that Bashar al-Asad and the Syrian military would want right now is to be put in the spotlight regarding something as utterly damning as a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.
Syria was quick to deny the Israeli allegations and promptly closed the Islamic Jihad offices in Damascus, see for example:
Syria rejects Israel accusation on Tel Aviv bombing
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/gsn2005/2005_02/20050226/284638.html
"A Syrian Foreign Ministry source said: "Syria has no relation to this operation or any other (operation) and that the (Damascus) office of that group (Islamic Jihad) had been closed."
There is no reason to disbelieve that the Syrians are very upset about this, especially in view of Syria's current situation of being "under the gun" of U.S. pressure at this time.
Further, despite Israeli bluster and the potential for a limited Israeli strike on Syria, I believe Israel too realizes that Syria wasn't behind this attack. But, of course, no one accuses the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs of stupidity and thus it makes perfect sense for them to attempt to capitalize on this bombing to increase the pressure on Syria, Israel's last remaining enemy on its borders.
Although Israel can, and perhaps will, launch a limited strike on Syria, Israel will not seriously engage Syria to the extent that war become inevitable. The reason for this is that Syria still possesses its "doomsday option" - specifically vast stockpiles of chemical weapons and the Scud missiles to deliver them. See:
Syria: Chemical Weapons
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/cw.htm
Although Syrian Scud missiles are not as accurate or as effective as Iran's Shahabs or other missile systems, at the close proximity involved, they do not really need to be very advanced. Quite simply, five sarin-laden Scuds in Tel Aviv and Israel loses its demographic battle against the Palestinians by seeing an immediate halt to immigration, radically increased emigration, not to mention the loss of people directly from the attacks. Jewish Israelis are already a minority between the river and the sea (if one takes into account the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the 700,000 Israelis who reside abroad) and thus Syria has an effective means to deter an Israeli invasion. Of course this is an option of last resort because obviously Israel would destroy Syria as well - the old "mutually assured destruction" paradigm. This means Israel can get away with limited strikes on Syria and Syria cannot really respond to them. Israel has already done this before and can do it again, though they can't launch an attack of such intensity that the Syrians decide they have nothing else to lose.
This is, of course, the main reason that Israel is exerting a lot pressure on the United States to take on Syria. The reasoning being, if the U.S. does Israel's dirty work in this respect, Syria would probably use its weapons against U.S. forces in Iraq as opposed to Israel. However, I personally suspect that this is bad reasoning. Taking the example of Saddam Hussein in 1991, Syria might very well decide that if it is to go out in a bang, it would like the distinction of being remembered as the Arab power that finally destroyed Israel.
Either way, I very seriously doubt that anyone will be invading Syria. Although some minor limited strike is entirely possible, I do not think either the United States or Israel will push Syria into a position of absolute desperation.
The Palestine Authority, on the other hand, chose to blame the Lebanese Hizb-ut-Allah (Party of God, 'Hezbollah'). This, however, is patently absurd across the board and graphically illustrates Abbas' lack of political sophistication as opposed to his Israel counterparts.
First and foremost, Hizb-ut-Allah is utterly dependent on Syria to maintain its militant operations in Syria. Although much of the material and financial support is generally accepted to come from their fellow Shias in Iran, they rely upon Syrian goodwill to actually receive this aid. Further, Hizb-ut-Allah has not engaged in suicide bombing since before the ending of the Lebanese civil war, and just as importantly, has always limited its activities to Lebanon and northern Israel (as retaliation for Israeli strikes in Lebanon). Hizb-ut-Allah is a distinctively Lebanese movement and though sympathetic with the Palestinians has never played a direct role in their struggle against Israel, despite unsubstantiated pro-Israel hearsay to the contrary. While pro-Israel conspiracy theorists and propagandists constantly try to portray Hezbollah as part and parcel of the "great Arab conspiracy" to destroy Israel, in reality Hezbollah has gained its general respectability because it has always kept itself largely removed from larger international Islamist movements and has remained a specifically focused on Lebanon (though relying on support from Iran & Syria) . Hezbollah does remain in active conflict with Israel over the Shebaa Farms district (generally recognized as Syrian territory, but viewed by Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbollah as Lebanese), but its militant operations have been confined there.
The Palestine Authority claim is based on the unsubstantiated claim by two alleged Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade militant's claim to have spoken to Kais Obeid (the famous Israeli Palestinian advisor to Hezbollah, his fame stemming from the fact that so few Palestinians are accepted into Hezbollah's ranks & and is related to a former Israeli MK). The allegation is that Obeid called on these AAMB militants to claim responsibility for the attack. See, for example:
Palestinians see Hizbollah behind Israel attack
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/gsn2005/2005_02/20050226/284613.html
However, what it ultimately comes down to is that Hezbollah would not have endangered its vital links to Syria in such a way, even if it chose to change its long-standing policy regarding limiting its militant activities to Lebanon and returned to the use of suicide bombing.
So the question is, why did Abbas decide to blame Hezbollah, an organization that is widely popular in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and viewed as something of a model for Palestinian militants? The answer is that Abbas realized that if domestic Palestinian militants were held responsible, that Israel and the U.S. would demand that he crack down on them and of course this is precisely what happened anyway. This was Abbas' attempt to get himself off the "hot seat" and it utterly failed.
Specifically, Abbas cannot - anymore than Arafat before him could - forcibly disarm and shut down the Palestinian militant factions. After Sharon's 2002 offensive, the Palestine Authority's security services were rendered utterly bereft of any overall structure or strength and due to the Israeli policy of closures and fragmentation, virtually all PA security services in any given area are virtually autonomous units with no central command and control structure whatsoever. In many of the closed areas, the PA security forces are pretty much free to do as they please. Some have simply quit and gone home, others have entered into open alliance with militants in their local areas, while others have attempted to maintain their status as the "official" security forces, despite their weakness. The most graphic illustration of this reality was the funeral for Arafat, in which the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, not the Palestine Authority police, maintained law and order. Hamas plays a similar role in Gaza. Quite simply, in sheer physical terms, the PA is not capable of disarming the militants.
Further, there is the political dimension. Despite the rise and fall of hopes - for example, the current popular outrage among Palestinians regarding this most recent bombing See:
Angry Palestinians
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/gsn2005/2005_02/20050227/284648.html
the militants maintain a lot of popular support which
fluctuates in direct relation to Israeli behavior in the Occupied Territories. When the Israelis slow down their raids and bombs, popular support for the militants decreases, however when Israel increases military activity the support for the militants increases. This has been the general pattern since 1993.
The point is that the Palestinians have experienced many of these "ups-and-downs" and only a complete idiot would simply take Israel's alleged "good intentions" on faith since 1996 when Netanyahu put a de facto stop to the peace process and all Palestinians hopes regarding Israel's "intentions" were dashed. Frankly, until there are very real and tangible improvements on the ground, not statements of intent or hints and rumors, there is virtually no chance of breaking popular support for the militants. And since Sharon has effectively demanded that all militant resistance be stopped before there are any tangible improvements, the Palestine Authority is really in an utterly impossible situation.
So, Abbas must stop ALL militant activity - i.e. control every single individual Palestinian in the Occupied Territories - before Israel will allow him to show any tangible improvements. At the same time, Sharon, knowing full well that this demand is utterly impossible, remains in a very comfortable position of simply doing whatever he wants without any consideration for Abbas, who has failed to hold up his (utterly impossible) end of the "deal." Thus we have Sharon making loud demands on Abbas knowing full well that Abbas simply cannot comply and survive doing so as he himself broke the PA's power and has refused to let it be reconstituted:
Sharon demands Palestinians act after Tel Aviv bomb
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/gsn2005/2005_02/20050227/284681.html
We've been through this farce before and it appears we're about to go through it yet again. Nevertheless, we can certainly understand why Abbas tried - and failed - to make the case that the bombing was the responsibility of some foreign "third power."
So, who was responsible? Islamic Jihad says it was and is quite clear about its motivations:
Suicide bomber: My target was the PA
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/545147.html
"In a videotape made prior to the Friday suicide bombing that killed four people in Tel Aviv, bomber Abdullah Badran declared that the attack was intended to do harm to the Palestinian Authority, which he said served the interests of the United States."
This is completely in character for this organization and so is the rationale supplied. Further, Islamic Jihad is one of the few Palestinian militant groups that lacks significant public support, allowing it a degree of leeway to act even against popular opinion, which the other major groups utterly rely on to continue. Like all the militant factions, it is highly decentralized - a necessity to resist being brought down by Shin Bet - and thus the conflicting claims, the initial denial by the Gaza IJ leadership and then the claim from the IJ foreign bureau is also in character and quite reasonable. It is entirely possible that the Gaza leadership wasn't even aware of the attack until after the fact, despite the Israeli conspiracy theorists who claim that every terrorist in the world knows exactly what every other one is doing at all times and supports it.
In this case, I firmly believe that Occam's Razor is applicable - the mostly likely explanation is probably the correct one. As described in detail above, one can easily see why Israel would accuse Syria and why Abbas would blame Hezbollah, yet realistically, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt Islamic Jihad.
As for the consequences, all said it doesn't really matter, it was just a matter of time. Some form of Palestinian attack was inevitable sooner or later and thus a return to the old stalemate - Israel demanding the impossible of the PA, and upon the PA's failure to comply, Israel's reaction which in turn will spur on more Palestinian militant resistance and popular support for it. Don't be fooled by the media reports, in reality - the reality of those living under Israel's Occupation - despite all the rhetoric, nothing has really changed:
Did you say the Israelis are withdrawing?
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3640.shtml
"Since the Sharm El Sheikh summit things have significantly improved in the Palestinian territories. The Army has stopped its incursions in Palestinian towns, Palestinian civilians are free to move, prisoners are about to be released and economic activity is slowly recovering... At least this is the information that most western media is conveying to its people. The situation on the ground is unfortunately completely different. The Separation Wall is being completed faster than ever, all the military check points are still in place, the Palestinian detainees are still under Israeli custody and daily life is still hell for all Palestinians. ..."
25 February 2005
No one seems to be taking Bush's Iran hysteria too seriously...
One of the main reasons that I firmly believe that most of the world - especially the EU, China, India, and the other leading powers - will not support any moves toward a U.S. war on Iran is because Iran is one of the very few emerging markets in the world where the U.S. itself deliberately bars the partcipation of U.S. multi-national firms. So, if you're European, Chinese, or otherwise and want to tap into a major energy-rich market but you don't want to compete with American multi-nationals, Iran is perfect.
European firms display wares in Iran
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7018071/
KISH, Iran - As President Bush pressures European allies to get tougher with Iran, NBC News got a rare glimpse inside the country — at an Iranian air show attended by some of the world's leading military contractors eager to do business with America's adversary.
Russia's energy chief flies to Iran to seal nuclear deal
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=5221732&action=article
MOSCOW (AFX) - Russia's atomic agency chief, Alexander Rumyantsev, has flown to Iran to sign a vital agreement, on the return of nuclear fuel, that will finally allow Russia to launch the Islamic state's first nuclear power plant.
Iran Lures BNP, HSBC for Loans; U.S. Banks Barred
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=apxPmkzkceWc&refer=uk
BNP Paribas SA and over two dozen European, Asian and African banks are vying to arrange an estimated $50 billion of corporate loans in Iran. U.S. policies bar the world's three biggest lenders -- Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and JP Morgan Chase & Co. -- from the market.
Thai princess keen to expand ties with Iran
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_HOME&TYPE=HP&id=200502251408511
Kuala Lumpur, Feb 25, IRNA -- Thai Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn in a meeting with Iran`s Ambassador to Thailand Mohsen Pak Ayin here Friday referred to the historical background of mutual relations as a solid base for expansion of Iran-Thailand [ties].
Supreme leader receives Pak prime minister
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_HOME&TYPE=HP&id=200502240120494
Tehran, Feb 23, IRNA -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei received the visiting Pakistani Prime Minister Showkat Aziz and his accompanying delegation here on Wednesday evening.
Chinese journalists to visit Iran
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050224171454F06
Beijing, Feb 24, IRNA -- A number of Chinese journalists are to head for Iran on Thursday to visit the tourism attractions of the country.
Iran, Syria keen to expand cultural relations
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050223201945F05
Damascus, Feb 23, IRNA -- Deputy head of Islamic Culture and Communications Organization (ICCO), Mehdi Sana`ei, and Syrian Culture Minister Mahmud al-Sayyid in a meeting here Wednesday discussed ways of expanding cultural ties with the objective of making optimum use of literary and cultural commonalties.
Iran, Pakistan sign four memoranda of understanding
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050223191919F05
Tehran, Feb 23, IRNA -- Iran and Pakistan signed here Wednesday four memoranda of understanding on promoting bilateral relations. The four memoranda of understanding were signed in the presence of First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Aref and visiting Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
Strengthening news cooperation between Iran and Azerbaijan
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050219195438F01
Baku, Feb 19, IRNA -- Strengthening news cooperation between Iran and Azerbaijan Republic was emphasized in a meeting between Iran`s ambassador to Baku and the heads of IRNA and IRIB bureaus there with the head of Azerbaijan State News Agency "AzerTAJ" on Saturday. In the meeting, Iran`s Ambassador to Baku, Afshar Soleymani, evaluated the role and cooperation of the two countries` media in consolidation of mutual ties "important".
Iran, Tunisia study ways to expand mutual cooperation
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050216191418F28
Algiers, Feb 16, IRNA -- Iranian Ambassador to Tunisia Seyed Baqer Sakhaei and Tunisian Minister of Development and International Cooperation Mohamed Nouri Jouini exchanged views on Wednesday on ways for further expansion of mutual cooperation.
Bush statements won`t affect Russia-Iran relations - Primakov
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050213194339F25
Tehran, Feb 13, Itar-Tass/ACSNA/IRNA -- Recent statements by US President George W Bush on Iran will have no effect on the Russian-Iranian political and economic relations, President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Yevgeny Primakov said. "I do not think that the United States can launch a land operation against Iran," he said.
Iranian artists hold exhibition in Dubai
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050212225637F24
Dubai, Feb 12, IRNA --A painting and calligraphy exhibition by Iranian artists has opened in Dubai Art International Center.
Germany calls for end to Iran`s isolation, incentives to end
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050212174116F24
Munich, Feb 12, SPA/IRNA -- Germany appealed Saturday for the United States to join Europe in ending the isolation of Iran, saying economic and security incentives were needed to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
26th anniversary of Islamic Revolution celebrated in Brussels
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050211102018F23
Brussels, Feb 11, IRNA -- A large number of diplomats and officials from the European Union, Belgium and several other countries attended a reception at the residence of the Iranian ambassador in Brussels Thursday night to mark the 26th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. The participants included members of European Parliament, businessmen, scholars, journalists, artists and members of the Iranian expatriate community.
...and so on...
European firms display wares in Iran
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7018071/
KISH, Iran - As President Bush pressures European allies to get tougher with Iran, NBC News got a rare glimpse inside the country — at an Iranian air show attended by some of the world's leading military contractors eager to do business with America's adversary.
Russia's energy chief flies to Iran to seal nuclear deal
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=5221732&action=article
MOSCOW (AFX) - Russia's atomic agency chief, Alexander Rumyantsev, has flown to Iran to sign a vital agreement, on the return of nuclear fuel, that will finally allow Russia to launch the Islamic state's first nuclear power plant.
Iran Lures BNP, HSBC for Loans; U.S. Banks Barred
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=apxPmkzkceWc&refer=uk
BNP Paribas SA and over two dozen European, Asian and African banks are vying to arrange an estimated $50 billion of corporate loans in Iran. U.S. policies bar the world's three biggest lenders -- Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and JP Morgan Chase & Co. -- from the market.
Thai princess keen to expand ties with Iran
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_HOME&TYPE=HP&id=200502251408511
Kuala Lumpur, Feb 25, IRNA -- Thai Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn in a meeting with Iran`s Ambassador to Thailand Mohsen Pak Ayin here Friday referred to the historical background of mutual relations as a solid base for expansion of Iran-Thailand [ties].
Supreme leader receives Pak prime minister
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_HOME&TYPE=HP&id=200502240120494
Tehran, Feb 23, IRNA -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei received the visiting Pakistani Prime Minister Showkat Aziz and his accompanying delegation here on Wednesday evening.
Chinese journalists to visit Iran
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050224171454F06
Beijing, Feb 24, IRNA -- A number of Chinese journalists are to head for Iran on Thursday to visit the tourism attractions of the country.
Iran, Syria keen to expand cultural relations
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050223201945F05
Damascus, Feb 23, IRNA -- Deputy head of Islamic Culture and Communications Organization (ICCO), Mehdi Sana`ei, and Syrian Culture Minister Mahmud al-Sayyid in a meeting here Wednesday discussed ways of expanding cultural ties with the objective of making optimum use of literary and cultural commonalties.
Iran, Pakistan sign four memoranda of understanding
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050223191919F05
Tehran, Feb 23, IRNA -- Iran and Pakistan signed here Wednesday four memoranda of understanding on promoting bilateral relations. The four memoranda of understanding were signed in the presence of First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Aref and visiting Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
Strengthening news cooperation between Iran and Azerbaijan
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050219195438F01
Baku, Feb 19, IRNA -- Strengthening news cooperation between Iran and Azerbaijan Republic was emphasized in a meeting between Iran`s ambassador to Baku and the heads of IRNA and IRIB bureaus there with the head of Azerbaijan State News Agency "AzerTAJ" on Saturday. In the meeting, Iran`s Ambassador to Baku, Afshar Soleymani, evaluated the role and cooperation of the two countries` media in consolidation of mutual ties "important".
Iran, Tunisia study ways to expand mutual cooperation
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050216191418F28
Algiers, Feb 16, IRNA -- Iranian Ambassador to Tunisia Seyed Baqer Sakhaei and Tunisian Minister of Development and International Cooperation Mohamed Nouri Jouini exchanged views on Wednesday on ways for further expansion of mutual cooperation.
Bush statements won`t affect Russia-Iran relations - Primakov
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050213194339F25
Tehran, Feb 13, Itar-Tass/ACSNA/IRNA -- Recent statements by US President George W Bush on Iran will have no effect on the Russian-Iranian political and economic relations, President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Yevgeny Primakov said. "I do not think that the United States can launch a land operation against Iran," he said.
Iranian artists hold exhibition in Dubai
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050212225637F24
Dubai, Feb 12, IRNA --A painting and calligraphy exhibition by Iranian artists has opened in Dubai Art International Center.
Germany calls for end to Iran`s isolation, incentives to end
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050212174116F24
Munich, Feb 12, SPA/IRNA -- Germany appealed Saturday for the United States to join Europe in ending the isolation of Iran, saying economic and security incentives were needed to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
26th anniversary of Islamic Revolution celebrated in Brussels
http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_ARCHIVE&TYPE=_NARCHIVE&id=20050211102018F23
Brussels, Feb 11, IRNA -- A large number of diplomats and officials from the European Union, Belgium and several other countries attended a reception at the residence of the Iranian ambassador in Brussels Thursday night to mark the 26th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. The participants included members of European Parliament, businessmen, scholars, journalists, artists and members of the Iranian expatriate community.
...and so on...
24 February 2005
Really bad US propaganda & good Canadians
Exactly who do they think they're fooling? Is anyone in the world impressed with something as simple and amateurish as this? If this is the level of "strategic communication" (i.e. propaganda) that we're throwing millions of dollars into, someone really needs to get fired...LOL.
Bear in mind that this report is from an Associated Press reporting on a report from the fully U.S. owned and operated "Iraqi TV" outfit that we established under Bremmer as the official news channel - and "sovereign Iraq" is under U.S. military order to obey all of Bremmer's executive orders like maintaining this US-controlled television station...
Iraqi TV airs tape of purported Syrian intelligence officer involved in insurgency
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2005/February/focusoniraq_February171.xml§ion=focusoniraq
BAGHDAD - The bearded man in a gray jacket and shirt who appeared on the US-funded Iraqi state television station had a stark message about the insurgency - he was a Syrian intelligence officer who helped train people to behead others and build car bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops.
....
And so began a detailed 15-minute confession broadcast Wednesday by Al Iraqiya TV, in which the man, identified as 30-year-old Lt. Anas Ahmedal-Essa, said his group was recruited to "cause chaos in Iraq ... to bar America from reaching Syria."
"We received all the instructions from Syrian intelligence," said the man, who appeared in the propaganda video along with 10 Iraqis who said they had also been recruited by Syrian intelligence officers.
Later, Al Iraqiya aired another round of interviews with men it said were Sudanese and Egyptians who also trained in Syria to carry out attacks in Iraq.
Syrian officials could not immediately be reached for comment on the claims, which were not possible to authenticate independently. Iraqi officials also were unavailable for comment after the broadcasts, which aired late in the evening.
The videos were broadcast as the Bush administration steps up pressure on Syria to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs by allowing insurgents to cross into the country to fight coalition troops and by harboring formerIraqi regime members. Syria has denied the charges.
....
Al Iraqiya TV can be seen nation wide and is believed to be widely watched by Iraqis - mainly those who cannot afford satellite dishes offering the Persian Gulf-based Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya stations. But the station, which went on the air in May 2003 with help from the Pentagon, is viewed by many Iraqis as an American propaganda tool.
Wednesday was the first time the channel showed someone it claimed was a Syrian intelligence officer.
....
An unidentified Iraqi officer introduced the video, saying all insurgent groups in Iraq were covers for Syrian intelligence. He named a number of well-known groups, including one which has killed and beheaded foreigners.
Al-Essa claimed to be leader of the al-Fateh Army, a group that had not been heard of previously.
If nothing else thus far truly affirms the contention that the Pentagon and its "strategic communications" experts honestly believe that Iraqis- and Arabs in general - are utterly incapable of thought and are complete idiots who will accept absolutely anything they are told without question, this certainly does.
Meanwhile...
The terrorist-supporting (they're obviously not "with us") regime of Canada has decided not to spend billions of its own dollars on Bush's much vaunted missile defense program (does Al Qaeda have Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles? ...Or... is this in preparation for attacking someone who does?)...
Missile rejection perplexes U.S.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/23/940281-cp.html
(CP) - Canada's apparent decision to stay out of a North American missile-defence system has dumbfounded Americans as an unnecessary giveaway of sovereignty, Washington's envoy to Ottawa said Wednesday.
....
Despite strong pressure from the U.S. to sign on, Prime Minister Paul Martin was expected to pull the plug on Canada's participation in the missile program on Thursday. However, reaction from American officials suggested the decision had already been made.
....
Washington had hoped Canada would would go further and participate in building the continental defence shield, an elaborate system that some worry could lead to weapons in space and an international arms race.
....
Unpopular with most Canadians, the multibillion-dollar program to shoot down incoming missiles has been a political nightmare for Martin's minority government. There's been intense pressure from Bush, who unexpectedly raised the issue during his visit to Canada last December and reportedly was blunt with Martin in a private meeting.
....
U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason said Canada's refusal to get more involved would be "unfortunate in a symbolic sense." "It's the first time since 1938 that Canada would have refused to participate in continental defence. It's a turning point. But the impact would be much greater if Canada pulled back from where it is now."
I like Canadians!
Bear in mind that this report is from an Associated Press reporting on a report from the fully U.S. owned and operated "Iraqi TV" outfit that we established under Bremmer as the official news channel - and "sovereign Iraq" is under U.S. military order to obey all of Bremmer's executive orders like maintaining this US-controlled television station...
Iraqi TV airs tape of purported Syrian intelligence officer involved in insurgency
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2005/February/focusoniraq_February171.xml§ion=focusoniraq
BAGHDAD - The bearded man in a gray jacket and shirt who appeared on the US-funded Iraqi state television station had a stark message about the insurgency - he was a Syrian intelligence officer who helped train people to behead others and build car bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops.
....
And so began a detailed 15-minute confession broadcast Wednesday by Al Iraqiya TV, in which the man, identified as 30-year-old Lt. Anas Ahmedal-Essa, said his group was recruited to "cause chaos in Iraq ... to bar America from reaching Syria."
"We received all the instructions from Syrian intelligence," said the man, who appeared in the propaganda video along with 10 Iraqis who said they had also been recruited by Syrian intelligence officers.
Later, Al Iraqiya aired another round of interviews with men it said were Sudanese and Egyptians who also trained in Syria to carry out attacks in Iraq.
Syrian officials could not immediately be reached for comment on the claims, which were not possible to authenticate independently. Iraqi officials also were unavailable for comment after the broadcasts, which aired late in the evening.
The videos were broadcast as the Bush administration steps up pressure on Syria to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs by allowing insurgents to cross into the country to fight coalition troops and by harboring formerIraqi regime members. Syria has denied the charges.
....
Al Iraqiya TV can be seen nation wide and is believed to be widely watched by Iraqis - mainly those who cannot afford satellite dishes offering the Persian Gulf-based Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya stations. But the station, which went on the air in May 2003 with help from the Pentagon, is viewed by many Iraqis as an American propaganda tool.
Wednesday was the first time the channel showed someone it claimed was a Syrian intelligence officer.
....
An unidentified Iraqi officer introduced the video, saying all insurgent groups in Iraq were covers for Syrian intelligence. He named a number of well-known groups, including one which has killed and beheaded foreigners.
Al-Essa claimed to be leader of the al-Fateh Army, a group that had not been heard of previously.
If nothing else thus far truly affirms the contention that the Pentagon and its "strategic communications" experts honestly believe that Iraqis- and Arabs in general - are utterly incapable of thought and are complete idiots who will accept absolutely anything they are told without question, this certainly does.
Meanwhile...
The terrorist-supporting (they're obviously not "with us") regime of Canada has decided not to spend billions of its own dollars on Bush's much vaunted missile defense program (does Al Qaeda have Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles? ...Or... is this in preparation for attacking someone who does?)...
Missile rejection perplexes U.S.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/23/940281-cp.html
(CP) - Canada's apparent decision to stay out of a North American missile-defence system has dumbfounded Americans as an unnecessary giveaway of sovereignty, Washington's envoy to Ottawa said Wednesday.
....
Despite strong pressure from the U.S. to sign on, Prime Minister Paul Martin was expected to pull the plug on Canada's participation in the missile program on Thursday. However, reaction from American officials suggested the decision had already been made.
....
Washington had hoped Canada would would go further and participate in building the continental defence shield, an elaborate system that some worry could lead to weapons in space and an international arms race.
....
Unpopular with most Canadians, the multibillion-dollar program to shoot down incoming missiles has been a political nightmare for Martin's minority government. There's been intense pressure from Bush, who unexpectedly raised the issue during his visit to Canada last December and reportedly was blunt with Martin in a private meeting.
....
U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason said Canada's refusal to get more involved would be "unfortunate in a symbolic sense." "It's the first time since 1938 that Canada would have refused to participate in continental defence. It's a turning point. But the impact would be much greater if Canada pulled back from where it is now."
I like Canadians!
23 February 2005
Bush's "fence-mending" tour of Europe...
While anyone dependent on the U.S. media would be under the impression that Bush's "fence-mending" trip to Europe currently underway is a resounding success and that Europe has come to see the error of its ways (i.e. now supports Bush on everything - the arms embargo on China, the Int'l Criminal Court, Kyoto, the landmine convention, missle defense, the hypothetical Iranian nuclear weapons program, and so on).
Of course in reality nothing could be further from the truth. While Chirac and Bush may agree about the Syrians in Lebanon, that is hardly the basis of a lasting collaboration in view of the overall differences. More importantly, contrary to the glowing presentation found in the U.S. media, the European media is much more circumspect and reflective ofEuropean views. See, for example:
EU chief dampens mood of entente with Bush
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/22/weu22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/22/ixnewstop.html
The EU's foreign policy chief ... disputed the American view that last month's elections in Iraq had vindicated the US decision to invade and questioned whether the Bush administration's promises of a new era in relations with Europe meant anything.
At the same time, a new poll taken in nine countries - including theUnited States - shows that a majority of the people (roughly two-thirds on average) in most of the developed first-world (Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Spain) are opposed to Bush's "mission" of imposing democracy (i.e. US sanctioned puppet regimes that properly obey US demands, like the "democracies" of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Colombia, and so on) on all the "evil" (i.e. independent) countries of the world.
Nine Countries Spotlighted by Poll
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4817113,00.html
BRITAIN: Two-thirds in Britain don't think the United States should take the role of spreading democracy.
CANADA: By almost a 3-1 margin, Canadians don't think the United States should be trying to spread democracy and end tyranny.
FRANCE: More than eight in 10, 84 percent, say the United States should not be in the business of exporting democracy - the highest level of opposition of five European countries polled.
GERMANY: By a large margin, Germans disagree with the Bush administration's goal of spreading democracy.
ITALY: Just over half of Italians, 53 percent, say the United States should not be in the business of spreading democracy around the world.
MEXICO: Those close economic ties to the U.S. remain healthy even though they disagree with President Bush's plan to spread democracy and end tyranny around the world.
SOUTH KOREA: South Koreans say by a 2-1 margin that they do not think the United States should be trying to spread democracy.
SPAIN: By a 2-1 margin, Spaniards say they do not think the UnitedStates should be trying to spread democracy and end tyranny.
UNITED STATES: A slight majority, 53 percent, disagree with President Bush's plan to spread democracy to other countries, while just over four in 10, 45 percent, agree.
Of course in reality nothing could be further from the truth. While Chirac and Bush may agree about the Syrians in Lebanon, that is hardly the basis of a lasting collaboration in view of the overall differences. More importantly, contrary to the glowing presentation found in the U.S. media, the European media is much more circumspect and reflective ofEuropean views. See, for example:
EU chief dampens mood of entente with Bush
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/22/weu22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/22/ixnewstop.html
The EU's foreign policy chief ... disputed the American view that last month's elections in Iraq had vindicated the US decision to invade and questioned whether the Bush administration's promises of a new era in relations with Europe meant anything.
At the same time, a new poll taken in nine countries - including theUnited States - shows that a majority of the people (roughly two-thirds on average) in most of the developed first-world (Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Spain) are opposed to Bush's "mission" of imposing democracy (i.e. US sanctioned puppet regimes that properly obey US demands, like the "democracies" of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Colombia, and so on) on all the "evil" (i.e. independent) countries of the world.
Nine Countries Spotlighted by Poll
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4817113,00.html
BRITAIN: Two-thirds in Britain don't think the United States should take the role of spreading democracy.
CANADA: By almost a 3-1 margin, Canadians don't think the United States should be trying to spread democracy and end tyranny.
FRANCE: More than eight in 10, 84 percent, say the United States should not be in the business of exporting democracy - the highest level of opposition of five European countries polled.
GERMANY: By a large margin, Germans disagree with the Bush administration's goal of spreading democracy.
ITALY: Just over half of Italians, 53 percent, say the United States should not be in the business of spreading democracy around the world.
MEXICO: Those close economic ties to the U.S. remain healthy even though they disagree with President Bush's plan to spread democracy and end tyranny around the world.
SOUTH KOREA: South Koreans say by a 2-1 margin that they do not think the United States should be trying to spread democracy.
SPAIN: By a 2-1 margin, Spaniards say they do not think the UnitedStates should be trying to spread democracy and end tyranny.
UNITED STATES: A slight majority, 53 percent, disagree with President Bush's plan to spread democracy to other countries, while just over four in 10, 45 percent, agree.
22 February 2005
McCain's surprise? Yeah right...
Sen. John McCain, currently part of a U.S. congressional delegation to Afghanistan, has just called for the U.S. to set up permanent military bases in that country.
McCain Calls for Permanent Afghan Bases http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8137.htm
Although at present we only have some 17,000 troops there, and mostly in the passive west of the country. The 20,000 man "Afghan Army" and NATO forces are covering all the dangerous areas - Kabul, the Pakistani border, the north, &c. So with Afghan collaborators and NATO doing all the dirty work, what need does the U.S. have for permanent bases in the country - especially in the relatively pacified west of the country where our troops are based?
Hmmm...
The Oil Connection: Afghanistan and Caspian Sea oil pipeline routes
http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html
Excerpts:
Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan, which was under serious consideration inthe mid-1990s. The idea has since been undermined by Afghanistan's instability.
The Soviets had estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in the 1970s. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. ... Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Oil exploration and development work as well as plans to build a 10,000-bbl/d refinery were halted after the 1979 Soviet invasion. ... Besides oil and natural gas, Afghanistan also is estimated to have 73 million tons of coal reserves, most of which is located in the region between Herat and Badashkan in the northern part of the country. Although Afghanistan produced over 100,000 short tons of coal annually as late as the early 1990s, as of 1999, the country was producing only around 1,000 short tons.
In January 1998, the Taliban signed an agreement that would allow a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day natural gas pipeline project led by Unocal to proceed. The proposed pipeline would have transported natural gas from Turkmenistan's 45-Tcf Dauletabad natural gas field to Pakistan, and most likely would have run from Dauletabad south to the Afghan border and through Herat and Qandahar in Afghanistan, to Quetta, Pakistan. The line would then have linked with Pakistan's natural gas grid at Sui. Natural gas shipments had been projected to start at 700 Mmcf/d in 1999 and to rise to 1.4 Bcf/d or higher by 2002. In March 1998, however, Unocal announced a delay in finalizing project details due to Afghanistan's continuing civil war. In June 1998, Gazprom announced that it was relinquishing its 10% stake in the gas pipeline project consortium (known as the Central Asian Gas Pipeline Ltd., or Centgas), which was formed in August 1996. As of June 1998, Unocal and Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil held a combined 85% stake in Centgas, while Turkmenrusgas owned 5%. Other participants in the proposed project besides Delta Oil include the Crescent Group of Pakistan, Gazprom of Russia, Hyundai Engineering & Construction Company of South Korea, Inpex and Itochu of Japan ...
McCain Calls for Permanent Afghan Bases http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8137.htm
Although at present we only have some 17,000 troops there, and mostly in the passive west of the country. The 20,000 man "Afghan Army" and NATO forces are covering all the dangerous areas - Kabul, the Pakistani border, the north, &c. So with Afghan collaborators and NATO doing all the dirty work, what need does the U.S. have for permanent bases in the country - especially in the relatively pacified west of the country where our troops are based?
Hmmm...
The Oil Connection: Afghanistan and Caspian Sea oil pipeline routes
http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html
Excerpts:
Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan, which was under serious consideration inthe mid-1990s. The idea has since been undermined by Afghanistan's instability.
The Soviets had estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in the 1970s. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. ... Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Oil exploration and development work as well as plans to build a 10,000-bbl/d refinery were halted after the 1979 Soviet invasion. ... Besides oil and natural gas, Afghanistan also is estimated to have 73 million tons of coal reserves, most of which is located in the region between Herat and Badashkan in the northern part of the country. Although Afghanistan produced over 100,000 short tons of coal annually as late as the early 1990s, as of 1999, the country was producing only around 1,000 short tons.
In January 1998, the Taliban signed an agreement that would allow a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day natural gas pipeline project led by Unocal to proceed. The proposed pipeline would have transported natural gas from Turkmenistan's 45-Tcf Dauletabad natural gas field to Pakistan, and most likely would have run from Dauletabad south to the Afghan border and through Herat and Qandahar in Afghanistan, to Quetta, Pakistan. The line would then have linked with Pakistan's natural gas grid at Sui. Natural gas shipments had been projected to start at 700 Mmcf/d in 1999 and to rise to 1.4 Bcf/d or higher by 2002. In March 1998, however, Unocal announced a delay in finalizing project details due to Afghanistan's continuing civil war. In June 1998, Gazprom announced that it was relinquishing its 10% stake in the gas pipeline project consortium (known as the Central Asian Gas Pipeline Ltd., or Centgas), which was formed in August 1996. As of June 1998, Unocal and Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil held a combined 85% stake in Centgas, while Turkmenrusgas owned 5%. Other participants in the proposed project besides Delta Oil include the Crescent Group of Pakistan, Gazprom of Russia, Hyundai Engineering & Construction Company of South Korea, Inpex and Itochu of Japan ...
21 February 2005
To 'liberate' Cuba's new oil finds
So it was early to mid 2003 that the likelihood of offshore oil for Cuba became a real issue. See, for example,
Gulf of Mexico oil, Cuba's billion-dollar bet -http://havanajournal.com/business_comments/A1089_0_4_0_M/
- and of course at the end of 2004, it was announced that they had indeed discovered significant offshore oil reserves.
On the surface, this has thrown the U.S. into something of a quandry because of our unilateral sanctions against Cuba, see for example,
Cuban Oil Drilling Could Put U.S. Embargo Over An Economic Barrel -http://www.tampatribune.com/MGBCMHXK34E.html
- However, realistically, the regime in Washington has been ready since the end of 2003, when hidden within the labyrinth of the U.S. State Department, Bush set up the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba - http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rt/cuba/ - whose overt purpose is "regime change", e.g. "Bring about a peaceful, near-term end to the dictatorship;" [i.e. install a sympathetic government to US interests] and "Create the core institutions of a free economy;" [i.e. open Cuba to US economic exploitation and monoploization - a return to the "good ole days" of Batista].
The Commission has allocated some $36 million for encouraging Cuban dissidents, $18 million to advance U.S. propaganda (Radio Marti, &c.), and undisclosed amounts to use U.S. Embassies around to world to villify Cuba as well coordinating with allied states and international actors to increase Cuban international isolation (the problem being that Europe and most of the rest of the world doesn't see the Castro regime as being all that bad - only Americans believe it is some dire dictatorship today). For a comprehensive analysis of the Commission's efforts to 'liberate' Cuba [that is, Cuba's oil] see:
Venezuela Obstacle to USPlans for Regime Change in Cuba -http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1357
Gulf of Mexico oil, Cuba's billion-dollar bet -http://havanajournal.com/business_comments/A1089_0_4_0_M/
- and of course at the end of 2004, it was announced that they had indeed discovered significant offshore oil reserves.
On the surface, this has thrown the U.S. into something of a quandry because of our unilateral sanctions against Cuba, see for example,
Cuban Oil Drilling Could Put U.S. Embargo Over An Economic Barrel -http://www.tampatribune.com/MGBCMHXK34E.html
- However, realistically, the regime in Washington has been ready since the end of 2003, when hidden within the labyrinth of the U.S. State Department, Bush set up the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba - http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rt/cuba/ - whose overt purpose is "regime change", e.g. "Bring about a peaceful, near-term end to the dictatorship;" [i.e. install a sympathetic government to US interests] and "Create the core institutions of a free economy;" [i.e. open Cuba to US economic exploitation and monoploization - a return to the "good ole days" of Batista].
The Commission has allocated some $36 million for encouraging Cuban dissidents, $18 million to advance U.S. propaganda (Radio Marti, &c.), and undisclosed amounts to use U.S. Embassies around to world to villify Cuba as well coordinating with allied states and international actors to increase Cuban international isolation (the problem being that Europe and most of the rest of the world doesn't see the Castro regime as being all that bad - only Americans believe it is some dire dictatorship today). For a comprehensive analysis of the Commission's efforts to 'liberate' Cuba [that is, Cuba's oil] see:
Venezuela Obstacle to USPlans for Regime Change in Cuba -http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1357
20 February 2005
Will NATO survive Bush?
With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the opposing Warsaw Pact, the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - the western military alliance against the Soviets - found itself lacking a purpose. However, new purposes were quickly identified and the alliance has managed to continue.
First the alliance was employed to intervene with Security Council approval in the Bosnian conflict, leading people to suggest that NATO could become the Security Council's enforcement agency. However, this was a one time incident, and NATO's descent into lawlessness by its illegal (military aggression without the sanction of the Security Council) aggression against Yugoslavia in the Kosovo crisis has undermined any possibility that NATO could be universally accepted as a benevolent enforcement service for the Security Council.
Further, NATO has been used as both a "carrot" and a "stick" for various American and West European interests. For example, the "carrot" of NATO membership has been successfully used as a means of wooing East European countries away from the Russian sphere of influence and into the US/EU one. The threat of moving NATO headquarters from Belgium was successfully used as a "stick" by the United States to coerce the Belgian judiciary into overturning its war crimes law after Israeli Prime Minister General Sharon was indicted for the Sabra & Shatilla massacres in Lebanon.
Thus NATO does still have its uses though none of them are consistent with the alliance's ostensible purpose. In that all NATO operations require the approval of all NATO members, and Bush's foreign policy has successfully alienated a good portion of NATO through his military adventurism, NATO may well join the thousands of Iraqi and Afghans thus far killed as casualties of Bush's imperialist vision of global domination.
One good illustration of this trend is Turkey. Turkey is a full NATO member and has played a fundamental and vital role in a number of operations, including the first Iraq war, the NATO intervention in Bosnia, and the illegal NATO aggression against Yugoslav Kosovo as well as the US invasion of Afghanistan. However, in the face of Bush's illegal aggression against Iraq, the Turks balked, denying the use of Turkish airspace and bases to further Bush's quest for lootable oil and geopolitical domination.
As the US occupation of Iraq has continued, the only significant element of the Iraqi population to actively support our occupation and various installed puppet regimes have been the Kurds. Most of the Iraqi collaborators, i.e. the "Iraqi defense forces" & "Iraqi police", have been Kurds. Thus, in order to maintain this small degree of support, theUS has had to continue to defend Kurdish autonomy, and this in turn has led to a stronger Kurdish push for independence. During the recent "Iraqi" election farce, the Kurdish parties organized an independence referendum at all the polling places in the Kurdish areas, the result of which was a vast majority of Kurds demanding their own state.
The United States - the controlling power in occupied Iraq - is opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdish state because then their most avid collaborators in Iraq would leave and focus on their own state as opposed to administrating Iraq for us and whatever puppet regime we opt to install. However, at the same time, we have to keep the Kurds happy, as we do not want to lose their active support and collaboration. After all, if the Kurds were to join the rest of Iraq in resisting the US occupation, not only would our most loyal collaborationist force be lost, but many more U.S. troops would be needed to occupy the north.
As a result, it seems likely that the U.S. will stall on the issue of a free Kurdistan for as long as it can, and once this option is gone will propose a very slow "transitional" process for Kurdish independence.
For the Turks however, none of this acceptable. Most of Kurdistan falls within Turkey and even the existing "Kurdish autonomous area" imposed by the United States has been viewed as a dire threat to Turkey's territorial integrity as this area has become a safe haven for Kurdish separatists to propagate their cause in Turkish Kurdistan. Turkey has even said clearly that any moves in the direction of a sovereign Kurdish state - which would automatically have a strong territorial claim on much of eastern Turkey - would be opposed by the Turkish government and could result in Turkish intervention in Kurdish Iraq.
Despite the silly nonsense about "sovereign Iraq", the fact remains that the United States remains the occupying power in Iraq and that the state lacks any pretense to actual sovereignty. Nevertheless, due to this farce that the US has created, a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq to suppress the Kurds would ostensibly purely an Iraqi-Turkish affair. That being said, of course there can be no doubt that such an act would in fact be a U.S.-Turkish affair, but due to Bush's feeble attempts deny our occupation this would not - officially - be the case meaning that a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq would not technically be a matter of U.S. concern.
In result, we have the following article that seemingly points out a military build-up between two fellow NATO members - Turkey and the United States.
'US Discreetly Reinforcing N. Iraq Military Bases'
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20050218&hn=16621
US military bases have been discreetly reinforced in the Kerkuk (Kirkuk) region against the possibility that Turkey might intervene militarily if Kurds take control of the city.
The article also touched upon Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's statements that Turkey will not stay quiet about the developments in Kirkuk and noted that some nationalists in Turkey still regard Kirkuk as Turkish territory. Tisdall quoted a Turkish diplomat who said: "Kirkuk is the number one security issue and public concern right now. Kirkuk is a potential powder keg. For us it has special status. It is like Jerusalem. It belongs to all the people. We do not want to intervene in Iraq, but we have red lines: Kirkuk and attacks on ethnic minorities."
"Poll success fuels Turkish fears over Kurdish independence" http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbriefing/story/0,15205,1414959,00.html
With domestic pressure increasing on Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ministers have hinted at renewed military intervention. This is causing additional strains in Ankara's relations with the US.
Could NATO survive an armed conflict between its members, even if both sides used proxies - the US controlled "Iraqi military" and the Turkish controlled "Turkoman Front"? Could the U.S. continued occupation of Iraq result in the end of NATO?
First the alliance was employed to intervene with Security Council approval in the Bosnian conflict, leading people to suggest that NATO could become the Security Council's enforcement agency. However, this was a one time incident, and NATO's descent into lawlessness by its illegal (military aggression without the sanction of the Security Council) aggression against Yugoslavia in the Kosovo crisis has undermined any possibility that NATO could be universally accepted as a benevolent enforcement service for the Security Council.
Further, NATO has been used as both a "carrot" and a "stick" for various American and West European interests. For example, the "carrot" of NATO membership has been successfully used as a means of wooing East European countries away from the Russian sphere of influence and into the US/EU one. The threat of moving NATO headquarters from Belgium was successfully used as a "stick" by the United States to coerce the Belgian judiciary into overturning its war crimes law after Israeli Prime Minister General Sharon was indicted for the Sabra & Shatilla massacres in Lebanon.
Thus NATO does still have its uses though none of them are consistent with the alliance's ostensible purpose. In that all NATO operations require the approval of all NATO members, and Bush's foreign policy has successfully alienated a good portion of NATO through his military adventurism, NATO may well join the thousands of Iraqi and Afghans thus far killed as casualties of Bush's imperialist vision of global domination.
One good illustration of this trend is Turkey. Turkey is a full NATO member and has played a fundamental and vital role in a number of operations, including the first Iraq war, the NATO intervention in Bosnia, and the illegal NATO aggression against Yugoslav Kosovo as well as the US invasion of Afghanistan. However, in the face of Bush's illegal aggression against Iraq, the Turks balked, denying the use of Turkish airspace and bases to further Bush's quest for lootable oil and geopolitical domination.
As the US occupation of Iraq has continued, the only significant element of the Iraqi population to actively support our occupation and various installed puppet regimes have been the Kurds. Most of the Iraqi collaborators, i.e. the "Iraqi defense forces" & "Iraqi police", have been Kurds. Thus, in order to maintain this small degree of support, theUS has had to continue to defend Kurdish autonomy, and this in turn has led to a stronger Kurdish push for independence. During the recent "Iraqi" election farce, the Kurdish parties organized an independence referendum at all the polling places in the Kurdish areas, the result of which was a vast majority of Kurds demanding their own state.
The United States - the controlling power in occupied Iraq - is opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdish state because then their most avid collaborators in Iraq would leave and focus on their own state as opposed to administrating Iraq for us and whatever puppet regime we opt to install. However, at the same time, we have to keep the Kurds happy, as we do not want to lose their active support and collaboration. After all, if the Kurds were to join the rest of Iraq in resisting the US occupation, not only would our most loyal collaborationist force be lost, but many more U.S. troops would be needed to occupy the north.
As a result, it seems likely that the U.S. will stall on the issue of a free Kurdistan for as long as it can, and once this option is gone will propose a very slow "transitional" process for Kurdish independence.
For the Turks however, none of this acceptable. Most of Kurdistan falls within Turkey and even the existing "Kurdish autonomous area" imposed by the United States has been viewed as a dire threat to Turkey's territorial integrity as this area has become a safe haven for Kurdish separatists to propagate their cause in Turkish Kurdistan. Turkey has even said clearly that any moves in the direction of a sovereign Kurdish state - which would automatically have a strong territorial claim on much of eastern Turkey - would be opposed by the Turkish government and could result in Turkish intervention in Kurdish Iraq.
Despite the silly nonsense about "sovereign Iraq", the fact remains that the United States remains the occupying power in Iraq and that the state lacks any pretense to actual sovereignty. Nevertheless, due to this farce that the US has created, a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq to suppress the Kurds would ostensibly purely an Iraqi-Turkish affair. That being said, of course there can be no doubt that such an act would in fact be a U.S.-Turkish affair, but due to Bush's feeble attempts deny our occupation this would not - officially - be the case meaning that a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq would not technically be a matter of U.S. concern.
In result, we have the following article that seemingly points out a military build-up between two fellow NATO members - Turkey and the United States.
'US Discreetly Reinforcing N. Iraq Military Bases'
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20050218&hn=16621
US military bases have been discreetly reinforced in the Kerkuk (Kirkuk) region against the possibility that Turkey might intervene militarily if Kurds take control of the city.
The article also touched upon Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's statements that Turkey will not stay quiet about the developments in Kirkuk and noted that some nationalists in Turkey still regard Kirkuk as Turkish territory. Tisdall quoted a Turkish diplomat who said: "Kirkuk is the number one security issue and public concern right now. Kirkuk is a potential powder keg. For us it has special status. It is like Jerusalem. It belongs to all the people. We do not want to intervene in Iraq, but we have red lines: Kirkuk and attacks on ethnic minorities."
"Poll success fuels Turkish fears over Kurdish independence" http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbriefing/story/0,15205,1414959,00.html
With domestic pressure increasing on Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ministers have hinted at renewed military intervention. This is causing additional strains in Ankara's relations with the US.
Could NATO survive an armed conflict between its members, even if both sides used proxies - the US controlled "Iraqi military" and the Turkish controlled "Turkoman Front"? Could the U.S. continued occupation of Iraq result in the end of NATO?
17 February 2005
Bush is uniting the world...
... against the United States. A few articles I came across today...
Russia and China become part of strategic alliance
- Putin now looks at BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1627.asp
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese authorities decided to form the strategic alliance for defense, trade and energy. Russia will deliver oil to China and China will collaborate with Russia in Geopolitical strategic defense of Euresia.
The third emerging alliance is BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The newly formed Russia-China alliance provides Putin the necessary critical mass to move ahead and formally create the BRICS alliance.
Recently Brazil moved ahead and formed a business alliance withVenezuela. China and Russia also formed alliance with Venezuela. In spite of Washington's opposition, Russia plans to provide defense hardware to Venezuela and nuclear reactors to Iran.
Iran to aid Syria against threats
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4270859.stm
"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari.
Russia confirms plan to arm Syria
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12276340-38201,00.html
RUSSIA said today it intended to sell a new air defence missile system to Syria, overriding Israeli concern about the move.
It said the weaponry was only for close-range use and would not upset the balance of military force in the Middle East. "Negotiations are now taking place on delivery to Damascus of the Strelets close-range anti-air system," Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed senior defenceministry official as saying.
India wants gas pipeline extended to China
http://www.dawn.com/2005/02/15/top9.htm
NEW DELHI, Feb 14: India said on Monday that it wants the proposed gas pipeline from Iran via Pakistan to be extended to China, a move that could lend political security and urgency to the $4.5 billion project. "We should look beyond a national gas grid. Asian natural gas industry players should come together to form an Asian gas grid," Indian Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar said while inaugurating the third Asian gas buyers' summit here this morning.
Brazil and Venezuela Establish a "Strategic Alliance"
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1506
Caracas, Venezuela, Feb 14, 2004—In hopes of cementing what both Venezuela and Brazil have referred to as a strategic alliance and a model for South American integration, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavezand Brazilian President Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva signed 20 agreements in oil and energy projects as well as in defense yesterday.
Russia-Iran
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/GSN2005/2005_02/20050217/284024.html
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia's nuclear chief said Thursday he will travel to Iran next week to sign a protocol on returning spent nuclear fuel to Russia, the only remaining obstacle to the launch of a Russian-built nuclear reactor in Iran. Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency head Alexander Rumyantsev said he would sign the long-delayed protocol inTehran on Feb. 26, paving the way for deliveries of Russian nuclear fuel for the Bushehr reactor, which is set to begin operating in early 2006.
Ukraine-Iraq
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/GSN2005/2005_02/20050217/284009.html
KIEV, Ukraine (AP)-- Ukraine's new president said Thursday that withdrawal of the nation's soldiers from Iraq tops the agenda for the cash-starved military. ... President Viktor Yushchenko, who took office in January, told top military commanders and the defense minister "the pullout of our peacekeeping contingent from Iraq is the primary task,"the ministry said in a statement.
Russia and China become part of strategic alliance
- Putin now looks at BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1627.asp
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese authorities decided to form the strategic alliance for defense, trade and energy. Russia will deliver oil to China and China will collaborate with Russia in Geopolitical strategic defense of Euresia.
The third emerging alliance is BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The newly formed Russia-China alliance provides Putin the necessary critical mass to move ahead and formally create the BRICS alliance.
Recently Brazil moved ahead and formed a business alliance withVenezuela. China and Russia also formed alliance with Venezuela. In spite of Washington's opposition, Russia plans to provide defense hardware to Venezuela and nuclear reactors to Iran.
Iran to aid Syria against threats
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4270859.stm
"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari.
Russia confirms plan to arm Syria
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12276340-38201,00.html
RUSSIA said today it intended to sell a new air defence missile system to Syria, overriding Israeli concern about the move.
It said the weaponry was only for close-range use and would not upset the balance of military force in the Middle East. "Negotiations are now taking place on delivery to Damascus of the Strelets close-range anti-air system," Interfax news agency quoted an unnamed senior defenceministry official as saying.
India wants gas pipeline extended to China
http://www.dawn.com/2005/02/15/top9.htm
NEW DELHI, Feb 14: India said on Monday that it wants the proposed gas pipeline from Iran via Pakistan to be extended to China, a move that could lend political security and urgency to the $4.5 billion project. "We should look beyond a national gas grid. Asian natural gas industry players should come together to form an Asian gas grid," Indian Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar said while inaugurating the third Asian gas buyers' summit here this morning.
Brazil and Venezuela Establish a "Strategic Alliance"
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1506
Caracas, Venezuela, Feb 14, 2004—In hopes of cementing what both Venezuela and Brazil have referred to as a strategic alliance and a model for South American integration, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavezand Brazilian President Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva signed 20 agreements in oil and energy projects as well as in defense yesterday.
Russia-Iran
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/GSN2005/2005_02/20050217/284024.html
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia's nuclear chief said Thursday he will travel to Iran next week to sign a protocol on returning spent nuclear fuel to Russia, the only remaining obstacle to the launch of a Russian-built nuclear reactor in Iran. Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency head Alexander Rumyantsev said he would sign the long-delayed protocol inTehran on Feb. 26, paving the way for deliveries of Russian nuclear fuel for the Bushehr reactor, which is set to begin operating in early 2006.
Ukraine-Iraq
http://194.90.101.50/gsnlib_a/GSN2005/2005_02/20050217/284009.html
KIEV, Ukraine (AP)-- Ukraine's new president said Thursday that withdrawal of the nation's soldiers from Iraq tops the agenda for the cash-starved military. ... President Viktor Yushchenko, who took office in January, told top military commanders and the defense minister "the pullout of our peacekeeping contingent from Iraq is the primary task,"the ministry said in a statement.
15 February 2005
Talk about chutzpah... and who killed Hariri?
Now it has to take some serious nerve for the White House press secretary Scott McClellan to stand there - with a straight face -repeatedly condemning the "foreign occupation" of Lebanon by Syria which is minute compared to our occupation of Iraq. He spoke of... "its continued foreign occupation" ... "efforts to build an independent, sovereign Lebanon, free of foreign domination" ... "people of Lebanon deserve the freedom to choose their leaders free of intimidation, terror and foreign occupation" ... "to restore Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and democracy by freeing it from foreign occupation" ... and so on. [see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050214-6.html#2 ]
, as though a few hundred miles away we were not engaged in a vastly larger, vastly more unpopular, and vastly more violent occupation ofIraq. Obviously the White House thinks much more of Lebanese Arabs than it does Iraqi Arabs. I bet the Iraqis would like "the freedom to choose their leaders free of intimidation, terror and foreign occupation" too.
Anyway, the real question is - who was really responsible for the murder of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon and why.
The official claim of responsibility came from a completely unknown group calling itself the "Support and Jihad in Syria and Lebanon" and claiming the assassination was in reaction to Hariri's ties to the Saudi royal family. However, virtually everyone has dismissed this as nonsense. Such a Sunni Islamist group would inevitably view Syria -which has a firm track record of brutal suppression of Sunni Islamists (best exemplified by the Homs Massacre) - as much more of a threat than a Lebanese anti-Syrian politician. Hariri, in fact, was largely seen as a potential ally in getting the Syrians out of Lebanon. So the idea of Sunni Islamists (i.e. al-Qaeda types) being involved is utterly nonsensical.
Israel and the US Right was quick to immediately blame Syria. The argument being that Hariri represented a real threat to Syria's continued "open invitation" to keep troops in the Bekaa Valley and with elections coming up, Syria decided to eliminate this threat. While none can really argue that the Syrian military would have any qualms about murdering an opposition threat, the method and circumstances make this very unlikely.
Realistically Syria has been under the gun for over a year now, trying desperately to avoid giving the US an excuse to attack, trying to keeps its borders with Iraq closed, reaching out for closer collaboration with the EU (they just entered the EU Mediterrean trade bloc), and better international relations in general. Although the military continues to run Syria, with the succession of Western-educated Bashar al-Assad, after the death of his father Hafiz, Syria has been working very hard to improve its international image, even going so far as to actively collaborate with the United States by sharing intelligence and even holding US abducted detainees.
Further, the Syrians have an exhaustive network of sympathizers and supporters in Lebanon, spearheaded by the sitting pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud. If Syria felt that Hariri represented such a threat that he had to be murdered, they could have gotten too him much easier and much quieter. The sheer drama of the massive bombing in Lebanon runs in DIRECT opposition to Syria's interests in the country. Right now, especially with the US continuing to exert massive pressure on other countries to isolate Syria, it is very much in Syria's interest to have a very quiet and docile Lebanon and to utterly de-emphasize the continuing Syria presence in the Bekaa Valley.
There is the possibility that other Lebanese factions could have been behind this, in a deliberate attempt to put Syria in the spotlight. This is not impossible, but in the wake of the massive civil war that tore Lebanon apart in the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, the idea that a Lebanese faction would risk re-starting the civil war through such a massive bombing is also extremely unlikely. Make no mistake about it, there is a strong movement in Lebanon to see the Syrians leave, but at no point has this movement resorted to violence, quite specifically because if anyone on Earth knows how violence can spiral out of control, it is the people of Lebanon. So this seems highly unlikely.
Hizb-ut-Allah remains active resisting the Israeli occupation of the Shebaa Farms district and would never interfere directly in Lebanese politics without the permission of Syria, and as noted above, this is a disaster for Syria. The Palestinian refugees have been effectively muzzled since the end of the Lebanese civil war, and would have nothing to gain by the Hariri assassination in any possible respect. So these two can also be ruled out.
Some have argued that the US, or a US proxy, was responsible in order to highlight the Syrian occupation and to try to gain international support for stronger measures against Syria. And the White House's response certainly seems to lend some weight to this notion. However, this is ultimately predicated on the suggestion that the US intends to either invade Syria, or occupy Lebanon (to isolate Syria) and neither of these ideas are very realistic. There is no secret about the strain that Iraq is putting on us - not to mention the cost - nor is there any doubt that a US occupation of either Lebanon or Syria would be just as costly, just as unpopular, and would develop into just as much of a quagmire as Iraq has. Further, neither Syria nor Lebanon really have anything for us to loot, i.e. oil. A big part of the case for war in Iraq was that it would cost us nothing because Iraqi oil would pay for it all - but no such argument can be made for Syria or Lebanon. And finally, we've already been chased out of Lebanon once and so we know just how easy it is for that entire country to lapse into utter anarchy. For years we've quietly supported the Syrian influence in Lebanon specifically because they help keep the peace.
So, at least in my opinion, I would suggest that it is very unlikely that we (as in the US) is behind this.
So this leaves Israel. Of course Iran and some others automatically blamed Israel, and this is virtually routine - almost anything that happens mysteriously gets blamed on Israel. However, in this particular case, there is in fact a degree of viability to the charge. Since 9/11, Israel and its lobby in the US has been talking non-stop about how evil Syria is, how it supports terrorism, and so on and so forth. Such pressures resulted in the Syria Accountability Act (a "paper sanction"since it is unilateral and we have virtually no trade to sanction) and so on. Further, most people in Washington recognize this pressure for what it is, an Israeli effort to get the US to take care of one its problems for it. Syria poses no threat to the US, has collaborated with us in the war against the Islamists (Syria hates them more than we do, and has been much more aggressive in attacking them), and has nothing to offset the cost of attacking them. The US has no direct interest whatsoever in attacking Syria.
However, this is not the case for Israel, for whom Syria represents the last of its primary neighboring military threats. Israel can't take Syria out itself because Syria has massive stockpiles of fully legal chemical weapons and the Scuds to deliver them. Just a few chemical-laden Scuds in Tel-Aviv and Israel loses its "demographic battle" against the native Palestinians over night. However, if the US were to attack Syria, perhaps Syria would direct its weapons against the US forces in Iraq instead of Israel.
Further, Israel has an established and absolutely undeniable history of using car bombs to either kill people its wants killed or to achieve various political goals. Like Syria, they still maintain a massive network of employees and sympathizers in Lebanon, meaning they had access; and they are the only ones thus far to benefit in any respect by the assassination, by getting the White House to suddenly take a far more aggressive stance against Syria. Finally, Sharon has a real need to show the electorate that he can get the US to serve Israeli interests before his "disengagement" scheme is implemented with the US as mediators (i.e. he needs to show that the US will remain completely dedicated to Israel, allowing him to dictate whatever terms to the Palestinians).
So, who is really responsible? No one seems to really know. But thus far, the only suggested party to benefit - and the only one likely to benefit anytime soon - is Israel. Of course that in of itself doesn't mean Israel did it, but it certainly begs the question.
, as though a few hundred miles away we were not engaged in a vastly larger, vastly more unpopular, and vastly more violent occupation ofIraq. Obviously the White House thinks much more of Lebanese Arabs than it does Iraqi Arabs. I bet the Iraqis would like "the freedom to choose their leaders free of intimidation, terror and foreign occupation" too.
Anyway, the real question is - who was really responsible for the murder of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon and why.
The official claim of responsibility came from a completely unknown group calling itself the "Support and Jihad in Syria and Lebanon" and claiming the assassination was in reaction to Hariri's ties to the Saudi royal family. However, virtually everyone has dismissed this as nonsense. Such a Sunni Islamist group would inevitably view Syria -which has a firm track record of brutal suppression of Sunni Islamists (best exemplified by the Homs Massacre) - as much more of a threat than a Lebanese anti-Syrian politician. Hariri, in fact, was largely seen as a potential ally in getting the Syrians out of Lebanon. So the idea of Sunni Islamists (i.e. al-Qaeda types) being involved is utterly nonsensical.
Israel and the US Right was quick to immediately blame Syria. The argument being that Hariri represented a real threat to Syria's continued "open invitation" to keep troops in the Bekaa Valley and with elections coming up, Syria decided to eliminate this threat. While none can really argue that the Syrian military would have any qualms about murdering an opposition threat, the method and circumstances make this very unlikely.
Realistically Syria has been under the gun for over a year now, trying desperately to avoid giving the US an excuse to attack, trying to keeps its borders with Iraq closed, reaching out for closer collaboration with the EU (they just entered the EU Mediterrean trade bloc), and better international relations in general. Although the military continues to run Syria, with the succession of Western-educated Bashar al-Assad, after the death of his father Hafiz, Syria has been working very hard to improve its international image, even going so far as to actively collaborate with the United States by sharing intelligence and even holding US abducted detainees.
Further, the Syrians have an exhaustive network of sympathizers and supporters in Lebanon, spearheaded by the sitting pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud. If Syria felt that Hariri represented such a threat that he had to be murdered, they could have gotten too him much easier and much quieter. The sheer drama of the massive bombing in Lebanon runs in DIRECT opposition to Syria's interests in the country. Right now, especially with the US continuing to exert massive pressure on other countries to isolate Syria, it is very much in Syria's interest to have a very quiet and docile Lebanon and to utterly de-emphasize the continuing Syria presence in the Bekaa Valley.
There is the possibility that other Lebanese factions could have been behind this, in a deliberate attempt to put Syria in the spotlight. This is not impossible, but in the wake of the massive civil war that tore Lebanon apart in the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, the idea that a Lebanese faction would risk re-starting the civil war through such a massive bombing is also extremely unlikely. Make no mistake about it, there is a strong movement in Lebanon to see the Syrians leave, but at no point has this movement resorted to violence, quite specifically because if anyone on Earth knows how violence can spiral out of control, it is the people of Lebanon. So this seems highly unlikely.
Hizb-ut-Allah remains active resisting the Israeli occupation of the Shebaa Farms district and would never interfere directly in Lebanese politics without the permission of Syria, and as noted above, this is a disaster for Syria. The Palestinian refugees have been effectively muzzled since the end of the Lebanese civil war, and would have nothing to gain by the Hariri assassination in any possible respect. So these two can also be ruled out.
Some have argued that the US, or a US proxy, was responsible in order to highlight the Syrian occupation and to try to gain international support for stronger measures against Syria. And the White House's response certainly seems to lend some weight to this notion. However, this is ultimately predicated on the suggestion that the US intends to either invade Syria, or occupy Lebanon (to isolate Syria) and neither of these ideas are very realistic. There is no secret about the strain that Iraq is putting on us - not to mention the cost - nor is there any doubt that a US occupation of either Lebanon or Syria would be just as costly, just as unpopular, and would develop into just as much of a quagmire as Iraq has. Further, neither Syria nor Lebanon really have anything for us to loot, i.e. oil. A big part of the case for war in Iraq was that it would cost us nothing because Iraqi oil would pay for it all - but no such argument can be made for Syria or Lebanon. And finally, we've already been chased out of Lebanon once and so we know just how easy it is for that entire country to lapse into utter anarchy. For years we've quietly supported the Syrian influence in Lebanon specifically because they help keep the peace.
So, at least in my opinion, I would suggest that it is very unlikely that we (as in the US) is behind this.
So this leaves Israel. Of course Iran and some others automatically blamed Israel, and this is virtually routine - almost anything that happens mysteriously gets blamed on Israel. However, in this particular case, there is in fact a degree of viability to the charge. Since 9/11, Israel and its lobby in the US has been talking non-stop about how evil Syria is, how it supports terrorism, and so on and so forth. Such pressures resulted in the Syria Accountability Act (a "paper sanction"since it is unilateral and we have virtually no trade to sanction) and so on. Further, most people in Washington recognize this pressure for what it is, an Israeli effort to get the US to take care of one its problems for it. Syria poses no threat to the US, has collaborated with us in the war against the Islamists (Syria hates them more than we do, and has been much more aggressive in attacking them), and has nothing to offset the cost of attacking them. The US has no direct interest whatsoever in attacking Syria.
However, this is not the case for Israel, for whom Syria represents the last of its primary neighboring military threats. Israel can't take Syria out itself because Syria has massive stockpiles of fully legal chemical weapons and the Scuds to deliver them. Just a few chemical-laden Scuds in Tel-Aviv and Israel loses its "demographic battle" against the native Palestinians over night. However, if the US were to attack Syria, perhaps Syria would direct its weapons against the US forces in Iraq instead of Israel.
Further, Israel has an established and absolutely undeniable history of using car bombs to either kill people its wants killed or to achieve various political goals. Like Syria, they still maintain a massive network of employees and sympathizers in Lebanon, meaning they had access; and they are the only ones thus far to benefit in any respect by the assassination, by getting the White House to suddenly take a far more aggressive stance against Syria. Finally, Sharon has a real need to show the electorate that he can get the US to serve Israeli interests before his "disengagement" scheme is implemented with the US as mediators (i.e. he needs to show that the US will remain completely dedicated to Israel, allowing him to dictate whatever terms to the Palestinians).
So, who is really responsible? No one seems to really know. But thus far, the only suggested party to benefit - and the only one likely to benefit anytime soon - is Israel. Of course that in of itself doesn't mean Israel did it, but it certainly begs the question.
12 February 2005
What could be behind Condi's extended "Axis of Evil"?
4 More Countries Added To Bush's Axis Of Evil
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7755.htm
"To be sure, in our world there remain outposts of tyranny and America stands with oppressed people on every continent ... in Cuba, and Burma (Myanmar), and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe," Rice told a Senate committee considering her nomination to succeed ColinPowell as secretary of state."
I wonder what could be behind this? Especially since we don't mind tyranny and oppression in our "allied" client states like Pakistan, Colombia, Central African Republic, Saudi Arabia, or Turkmenistan. Hmmm....
Myanmar: Chinese, Myanmar firms ink petroleum deal
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/04/content_371625.htm
"A Chinese oil company and a state-run Myanmar oil company reached a production-sharing contract here Friday on cooperation in petroleum exploration. Under the contract, signed between the Dian-Qian-Gui Petroleum Exploration Bureau of SINOPEC of China and the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, petroleum exploration will be carried out at Block D, an onshore block in Myanmar's western Rakhine state."
Cuba: Pebercan Discovers a New Deposit in Cuba http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2004/24/c8683.html
"The first analysis of the oil produced by the SANTA CRUZ 100 well shows a higher grade of oil than that produced up until then on the CANASI and SEBORUCO fields. The results of the ongoing supplemental analysis will be communicated during the course of January 2005. Upon completion of the first production tests, the SANTA CRUZ 100 well flows 1,300 barrels per day on a 14mm choke."
Zimbabwe: Oil And Gas Industry
http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/af/zi/p0005.htm
"Zimbabwe has no proven oil or natural gas reserves. It has, however, large coal reserves and good potential for coal-bed methane gas production. In February 1999, two US investors and local mining firm, Zimbabwe Mining and Smelting Company (ZIMASCO) announced the discoveryof 500 billion cubic metres of sulphur-free methane gas in a 177-square kilometre basin near Lupane in western Matabeleland. The investors have set up a joint venture called Shangani Energy Exploration (SEE) and intend to invest in excess of US$ 62 million in the project which will include building a power station near the gas fields. The potential to exploit the methane gas to make diesel and petrol, generate electricityand to produce fertilizers and paraffin, could benefit Zimbabwe greatly considering its fuel crisis due to a shortage of foreign currency."
Belarus: The U.S. Should Oppose Dictatorship in Belarus
http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/em945.cfm
"Consult with Russia regarding possible political changes that would make Belarus more democratic and predictable. Such a coordinated effort would benefit Russia by making the transit route for Russian gas to Europe less prone to Lukashenka's interference and would eliminate the need for Russia to support the Belarusian economy with subsidized natural gas at a cost of over $2 billion per year."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7755.htm
"To be sure, in our world there remain outposts of tyranny and America stands with oppressed people on every continent ... in Cuba, and Burma (Myanmar), and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe," Rice told a Senate committee considering her nomination to succeed ColinPowell as secretary of state."
I wonder what could be behind this? Especially since we don't mind tyranny and oppression in our "allied" client states like Pakistan, Colombia, Central African Republic, Saudi Arabia, or Turkmenistan. Hmmm....
Myanmar: Chinese, Myanmar firms ink petroleum deal
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/04/content_371625.htm
"A Chinese oil company and a state-run Myanmar oil company reached a production-sharing contract here Friday on cooperation in petroleum exploration. Under the contract, signed between the Dian-Qian-Gui Petroleum Exploration Bureau of SINOPEC of China and the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, petroleum exploration will be carried out at Block D, an onshore block in Myanmar's western Rakhine state."
Cuba: Pebercan Discovers a New Deposit in Cuba http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2004/24/c8683.html
"The first analysis of the oil produced by the SANTA CRUZ 100 well shows a higher grade of oil than that produced up until then on the CANASI and SEBORUCO fields. The results of the ongoing supplemental analysis will be communicated during the course of January 2005. Upon completion of the first production tests, the SANTA CRUZ 100 well flows 1,300 barrels per day on a 14mm choke."
Zimbabwe: Oil And Gas Industry
http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/af/zi/p0005.htm
"Zimbabwe has no proven oil or natural gas reserves. It has, however, large coal reserves and good potential for coal-bed methane gas production. In February 1999, two US investors and local mining firm, Zimbabwe Mining and Smelting Company (ZIMASCO) announced the discoveryof 500 billion cubic metres of sulphur-free methane gas in a 177-square kilometre basin near Lupane in western Matabeleland. The investors have set up a joint venture called Shangani Energy Exploration (SEE) and intend to invest in excess of US$ 62 million in the project which will include building a power station near the gas fields. The potential to exploit the methane gas to make diesel and petrol, generate electricityand to produce fertilizers and paraffin, could benefit Zimbabwe greatly considering its fuel crisis due to a shortage of foreign currency."
Belarus: The U.S. Should Oppose Dictatorship in Belarus
http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/em945.cfm
"Consult with Russia regarding possible political changes that would make Belarus more democratic and predictable. Such a coordinated effort would benefit Russia by making the transit route for Russian gas to Europe less prone to Lukashenka's interference and would eliminate the need for Russia to support the Belarusian economy with subsidized natural gas at a cost of over $2 billion per year."
I firmly believe that this administration has every intention of increasing its militarism and using military force to impose US demands on other parts of the world. However, the US Central Command, which has authority over the Middle East is already stretched thin because ofIraq. So, while it is entirely possible that we might launch air/missile strikes against Iran or Syria, I find it extremely unlikely that we'll engage in another major invasion/occupation of another Middle Eastern country - Iraq is going to keep us busy for a long time.
Nevertheless, the enormous US Southern Command (http://www.southcom.mil/home/) - in charge of Central and South America - has been sitting on its hands. We currently have troops deployed in Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Puerto Rico, Netherlands Antilles, El Salvador, Aruba, Curaçao and elsewhere (see http://www.ciponline.org/facts/bases.htm).
At the same time, the people of Latin America are getting a bit"uppity", doing things that actually favor their own interests as opposed to ours and even having the chutzpah to suggest that some of their resources should be used in their own interests. Of course we've NEVER allowed that kind of thing, literally thirty years after independence we were raiding Latin American targets and this has been the status quo ever since. Since 9/11 alone we've overtly interferred in the internal politics and elections in Nicaragua (2001), Bolivia (2002), Venezuela (2001 to present), and El Salvador (2004) and of course Haiti.
However, despite these not so subtle interventions, the Latin Americans are still pushing their own agendas ... especially Cuba, which has been under the gun from the US since the 1960's and Venezuela. Virtually everyday there are new articles about Venezuela and Chavez and what an evil bastard he is in the US corporate media. For more onVenezuela see: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
Further, the people of Bolivia are also in revolt against their government's intention to sell all its natural gas reserves to the US leaving their people penniless. The people are demanding that the natural gas be nationalized and the profits used to benefit the Bolivian people. They ousted one government a little over a year ago because of the same issue and now it looks likely to happen again ... http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/611/611p18b.htm
Further - as illustrated by the recent World Social Forum in Brazil -various Left-oriented groups advocating helping the poor and using Latin American resources to help Latin Americans as opposed to feeding the US consumption frenzy are on the rise throughout South America and to a lesser extent in Central America.
Obviously all these uppity Latin Americans need to be taught a lesson, specifically that they only exist to serve of us and that any pretense that they have their own concerns or that their lives should be put ahead of our comfort is a "terrorist" position. It has been a little while (1999 invasion of Panama) since we flexed our military muscle down there and the National Endowment for Democracy and covert operations like Haiti just don't have the same impact as outright military assault on the neighbors.
So, a little prediction... the next war Bush opts to start (or major escalation, for example using Colombia against Venezuela) will not be in the Middle East, but in South or Central America. Venezuela is obviously a prime target, so too is Cuba now that they've hit oil. Further it will deflect attention away from the continuing Iraqi quagmire, and we can safely count on plenty of Latin America's rich & elite serving as proxies for us, as has been US tradition since the 1840's. Thus no need for long permanent occupations and plenty of people willing to do our dirty work for us - just look at Nicaraga, El Salvador, and Colombia.
Nevertheless, the enormous US Southern Command (http://www.southcom.mil/home/) - in charge of Central and South America - has been sitting on its hands. We currently have troops deployed in Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Puerto Rico, Netherlands Antilles, El Salvador, Aruba, Curaçao and elsewhere (see http://www.ciponline.org/facts/bases.htm).
At the same time, the people of Latin America are getting a bit"uppity", doing things that actually favor their own interests as opposed to ours and even having the chutzpah to suggest that some of their resources should be used in their own interests. Of course we've NEVER allowed that kind of thing, literally thirty years after independence we were raiding Latin American targets and this has been the status quo ever since. Since 9/11 alone we've overtly interferred in the internal politics and elections in Nicaragua (2001), Bolivia (2002), Venezuela (2001 to present), and El Salvador (2004) and of course Haiti.
However, despite these not so subtle interventions, the Latin Americans are still pushing their own agendas ... especially Cuba, which has been under the gun from the US since the 1960's and Venezuela. Virtually everyday there are new articles about Venezuela and Chavez and what an evil bastard he is in the US corporate media. For more onVenezuela see: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
Further, the people of Bolivia are also in revolt against their government's intention to sell all its natural gas reserves to the US leaving their people penniless. The people are demanding that the natural gas be nationalized and the profits used to benefit the Bolivian people. They ousted one government a little over a year ago because of the same issue and now it looks likely to happen again ... http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/611/611p18b.htm
Further - as illustrated by the recent World Social Forum in Brazil -various Left-oriented groups advocating helping the poor and using Latin American resources to help Latin Americans as opposed to feeding the US consumption frenzy are on the rise throughout South America and to a lesser extent in Central America.
Obviously all these uppity Latin Americans need to be taught a lesson, specifically that they only exist to serve of us and that any pretense that they have their own concerns or that their lives should be put ahead of our comfort is a "terrorist" position. It has been a little while (1999 invasion of Panama) since we flexed our military muscle down there and the National Endowment for Democracy and covert operations like Haiti just don't have the same impact as outright military assault on the neighbors.
So, a little prediction... the next war Bush opts to start (or major escalation, for example using Colombia against Venezuela) will not be in the Middle East, but in South or Central America. Venezuela is obviously a prime target, so too is Cuba now that they've hit oil. Further it will deflect attention away from the continuing Iraqi quagmire, and we can safely count on plenty of Latin America's rich & elite serving as proxies for us, as has been US tradition since the 1840's. Thus no need for long permanent occupations and plenty of people willing to do our dirty work for us - just look at Nicaraga, El Salvador, and Colombia.
