Samarbejdet mellem USA og Saudi-Arabien går tilbage til 1930erne og er fortsat idag en væsentlig komponent i den amerikanske sikkerhedspolitik, hvilket primært skyldes at Saudi-Arabien råder over verdens største oliereserver. Obama-administrationens samarbejde med Saudi-Arabien er således ikke noget nyt men blot en forlængelse af tidligere administrationers.
Det er almindeligt kendt, at Saudi-Arabien ikke just er en mønsterstat hvad styrets magtpraksis overfor civilbefolkningen angår, men det er ikke desto mindre værd at dvæle kortvarigt ved monarkiets jernnæve og menneskefjendske handlinger. Den korte version er iflg. Amnesty Internationals årsrapport fra 2009:
“Thousands of people continued to be detained without trial as terrorism suspects and hundreds more were arrested. In October, the government announced that more than 900 would be brought to trial. Human rights activists and peaceful critics of the government were detained or remained in prison, including prisoners of conscience. Freedom of expression, religion, association and assembly remained tightly restricted. Women continued to face severe discrimination in law and practice. Migrant workers suffered exploitation and abuse with little possibility of redress. Refugees and asylum-seekers were not adequately protected. The administration of justice remained shrouded in secrecy and was summary in nature. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were widespread and systematic, and carried out with impunity. Flogging was used widely as a main and additional punishment. The death penalty continued to be used extensively and in a discriminatory manner against migrant workers from developing countries, women and poor people. At least 102 people were executed.”
Selvom dette måske burde vække bekymringer hos Obama-administrationen, hvor man som bekendt taler meget om menneskerettigheder og demokrati, synes det ikke at være tilfældet, da man for blot få dage siden gennemførte en rekordstor våbenhandel med Saudi-Arabien til en værdi af 60 milliarder dollars. Ifølge en bekendtgørelse fra det amerikanske udenrigsministerium består denne gigantiske våbenhandel af 84 F-15 kampfly og 70 opgraderinger af eksisterende F-15'ere til en mere advanceret konfiguration, 70 Apache helikoptere, 72 Blackhawk helikoptere, 36 lette angrebshelikoptere og 12 lette træningshellikoptere. I følge Defense Security Cooperation Agency inkluderer våbenhandelen endvidere hundredevis af missiler, tusindevis af bomber og meget andet.
Men hvad skyldes denne omfattende militarisering af et af verdens mest berygtede diktaturer? Viceudenrigsminister Andrew Shapiro's officielle begrundelse er, at handelen “vil sende en kraftig besked til lande i regionen om, at vi er forpligtet til at støtte sikkerheden hos vores afgørende partnere og allierede i den Arabiske Gulf og det bredere Mellemøsten. Og det vil styrke Saudi-Arabiens evne til at afskrække og forsvare sig imod trusler ved dets grænser og mod dets olie-infrastruktur, hvilket er kritisk for vores økonomiske interesser.”
Disse officielle rationaler bag våbenhandelen problematiseres imidlertid af våben- og sikkerhedsanalytikeren William Hartung fra tænketanken New America Foundation:
“As to the idea of sending a signal to potential adversaries (by which the administration can only mean Iran), the "signal" in question is unlikely to have the intended result. If anything, the Iranian regime is likely to use the Saudi deal as yet another excuse to pursue or accelerate its nuclear ambitions. After all, what could 72 F-15 combat aircraft possibly be used for? Iran has no air force worth the name, so the planes for the Saudis aren't likely to be used to defend against Iran. They could be used as part of a U.S.-led attack on Iran, assuming they were integrated into a well functioning air force with well-trained pilots; but that is also an unlikely outcome. So, the F-15s are either useless (and therefore a waste of money) or unnecessarily provocative (and therefore contrary to genuine U.S. and Saudi security interests).
Will planes, bombs, and attack helicopters be of use in protecting Saudi oil installations? Probably not. The most likely route of attack would be surreptitiously planting a bomb or bombs, not attacking in recognizable groups that could be deterred or counter-attacked by aerial bombing or firing guns or missiles from helicopters. In theory the armed helcopters that are part of the deal could be used to hover near key installations and keep an eye out for potential saboteurs, but that is likely to be futile effort (not to mention being hugely expensive and logistically challenging).
One place that the new weaponry might be used is on Saudi Arabia's border with Yemen, where Houthi rebels and Al Qaeda operatives are present. But bombing alleged Al Qaeda sanctuaries or Houthi forces in northern Yemen are more likely to inflame the local population against Saudi Arabia and its arms supplier -- the United States -- than they are to weaken Al Qaeda.
That leaves one major rationale for the sale: money. In exchange for giving a huge boost to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other U.S. weapons contractors at a time when Pentagon spending is levelling off (although not being reduced in real terms), the Saudi government probably feels that sending boatloads of money to U.S. defense contractors will further cement its relationship with Washington so that the U.S. will come to their aid in a jam. But are large weapons deals the only way to forge strong relations?”
I USA hilser man da heller ikke overraskende våbenhandlen velkommen fra våbenindustriel side. Fred Downey, vicepræsident for interesseorganisationen Aerospace Industries Association udtaler at “The deal, which is expected to pay out over the next 15 to 20 years, will not single handedly save the military aircraft industrial base, but it may well help keep some aerospace companies alive” samt at “the Saudi sales will help keep workers with critical skills - from design engineers to production line workers - remain employed in the aerospace industry”.
.
tirsdag den 30. november 2010
mandag den 29. november 2010
Om USAs støtte til Mubaraks diktatur.
Da Barack Obama den 2. Oktober 2002 talte til en anti-krigsdemonstration i Chicago inkluderede talen hård kritik af USA's allierede i Ægypten og Saudi-Arabien. Han sagde:
"Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells."
Da Obama gav sit første interview til BBC i Juni 2009 havde piben imidlertid fået en anden lyd. Mubarak, som han altså tidligere havde omtalt som en ”såkaldt allieret”, blev nu karakteriseret som en ”stålsat allieret” og ”en stabiliserende kraft i regionen”. Til spørgsmålet ”anser du Mubarak for at være en autoritær leder?” svarede Obama ”nej” og tilføjede ”Jeg undlader at påklistre mærkater på folk”. Præsidentens udtalelser i interviewet stod således i skarp kontrast til hans udtalelser blot syv år tidligere, hvor han som bekendt beskrev Mubaraks regime som repressivt. Hvad var der sket? Var Mubarak kommet på bedre tanker i mellemtiden og havde derfor ændret sin magtpraksis på så fundamental vis, at der ikke længere var grund til kritik? Desværre ikke.
I Human Right Watch årsberetning fra 2010 kan man læse at Ægypten ”continued to suppress political dissent in 2009” og uddybende, at landets autoriteter ”harassed rights activists, and detained journalists, bloggers, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood (the banned organization that is the country's largest opposition group). Authorities used lethal force against migrants and refugees attempting to cross into Israel, and forcibly returned asylum seekers and refugees to countries where they could face torture.” Desuden kunne man i årsrapporten læse, at der foregår omfattende tortur i Ægypten: ”Police and security forces regularly engage in torture and brutality in police stations and detention centers, and at points of arrest.” Heller ikke religionsfriheden har gode vilkår i landet: ”Although Egypt's constitution provides for equal rights without regard to religion, discrimination against Egyptian Christians, and official intolerance of Baha'is, some Muslim sects, and Muslims who convert to Christianity continue.”
I det amerikanske udenrigsministeriums egen officielle ”Human Rights Report” fra 2009 gør man sig heller ikke nogle illusioner mht. Ægypten. Om tilstanden i landet i 2008 hedder det:
”The government's respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas ... Security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, in most cases with impunity. Prison and detention center conditions were poor. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention. The executive branch exercised control over and pressured the judiciary. The government's respect for freedoms of association and religion remained poor during the year, and the government continued to restrict nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The government partially restricted freedom of expression.”
Til trods for ovenstående rapporter om menneskerettighedernes og frihedsrettighedernes svære vilkår i Ægypten er der imidlertid ikke noget der tyder på, at man fra amerikansk side har tænkt sig at begrænse eller eliminere den økonomiske og militære støtte til den ægyptiske diktaturstat. I en officiel rapport til Kongressen dateret 16. september 2010, får vi at vide, at den årlige støtte på cirka 3 milliarder dollars, som man hvert år har ydet til Ægypten siden 1979, var reduceret en smule i 2009, idet Ægypten i 2009 “kun” modtog $200 millioner i økonomisk støtte og $1.3 milliarder i militær støtte. Reduktionen i støtten skyldtes til dels, at man havde skåret den økonomiske støtte ned til det halve, og dermed fjernet den del af støtten som skulle gå til demokratifremmende formål. Om den militære støtte hedder det endvidere at: “..Although there are no verifiable figures on total Egyptian military spending, it is estimated that U.S. military aid covers as much as 80 % of the Defense Ministry’s weapons procurement costs.”
Om støtten til Ægypten skriver professor i international politik Stephen Zunes: ”... As long as the Mubarak regime knows that the U.S. aid will keep flowing regardless of its violations of internationally recognized human rights, there is little incentive for political liberalization. The growing anti-American sentiment in Egypt stems not as much from U.S. support for Israel as it does from U.S. support for Mubarak's dictatorial rule.” Den amerikanske militarisering af Ægypten og andre lande i Mellemøsten øger endvidere truslen mod USA iflg. Zunes: "..the more the United States has militarized the region, the less secure the American people have become. All the sophisticated weaponry, brave fighting men and women, and brilliant military leadership the United States may possess will do little good if there are hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East and beyond who hate us."
"Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells."
Da Obama gav sit første interview til BBC i Juni 2009 havde piben imidlertid fået en anden lyd. Mubarak, som han altså tidligere havde omtalt som en ”såkaldt allieret”, blev nu karakteriseret som en ”stålsat allieret” og ”en stabiliserende kraft i regionen”. Til spørgsmålet ”anser du Mubarak for at være en autoritær leder?” svarede Obama ”nej” og tilføjede ”Jeg undlader at påklistre mærkater på folk”. Præsidentens udtalelser i interviewet stod således i skarp kontrast til hans udtalelser blot syv år tidligere, hvor han som bekendt beskrev Mubaraks regime som repressivt. Hvad var der sket? Var Mubarak kommet på bedre tanker i mellemtiden og havde derfor ændret sin magtpraksis på så fundamental vis, at der ikke længere var grund til kritik? Desværre ikke.
I Human Right Watch årsberetning fra 2010 kan man læse at Ægypten ”continued to suppress political dissent in 2009” og uddybende, at landets autoriteter ”harassed rights activists, and detained journalists, bloggers, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood (the banned organization that is the country's largest opposition group). Authorities used lethal force against migrants and refugees attempting to cross into Israel, and forcibly returned asylum seekers and refugees to countries where they could face torture.” Desuden kunne man i årsrapporten læse, at der foregår omfattende tortur i Ægypten: ”Police and security forces regularly engage in torture and brutality in police stations and detention centers, and at points of arrest.” Heller ikke religionsfriheden har gode vilkår i landet: ”Although Egypt's constitution provides for equal rights without regard to religion, discrimination against Egyptian Christians, and official intolerance of Baha'is, some Muslim sects, and Muslims who convert to Christianity continue.”
I det amerikanske udenrigsministeriums egen officielle ”Human Rights Report” fra 2009 gør man sig heller ikke nogle illusioner mht. Ægypten. Om tilstanden i landet i 2008 hedder det:
”The government's respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas ... Security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, in most cases with impunity. Prison and detention center conditions were poor. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention. The executive branch exercised control over and pressured the judiciary. The government's respect for freedoms of association and religion remained poor during the year, and the government continued to restrict nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The government partially restricted freedom of expression.”
Til trods for ovenstående rapporter om menneskerettighedernes og frihedsrettighedernes svære vilkår i Ægypten er der imidlertid ikke noget der tyder på, at man fra amerikansk side har tænkt sig at begrænse eller eliminere den økonomiske og militære støtte til den ægyptiske diktaturstat. I en officiel rapport til Kongressen dateret 16. september 2010, får vi at vide, at den årlige støtte på cirka 3 milliarder dollars, som man hvert år har ydet til Ægypten siden 1979, var reduceret en smule i 2009, idet Ægypten i 2009 “kun” modtog $200 millioner i økonomisk støtte og $1.3 milliarder i militær støtte. Reduktionen i støtten skyldtes til dels, at man havde skåret den økonomiske støtte ned til det halve, og dermed fjernet den del af støtten som skulle gå til demokratifremmende formål. Om den militære støtte hedder det endvidere at: “..Although there are no verifiable figures on total Egyptian military spending, it is estimated that U.S. military aid covers as much as 80 % of the Defense Ministry’s weapons procurement costs.”
Om støtten til Ægypten skriver professor i international politik Stephen Zunes: ”... As long as the Mubarak regime knows that the U.S. aid will keep flowing regardless of its violations of internationally recognized human rights, there is little incentive for political liberalization. The growing anti-American sentiment in Egypt stems not as much from U.S. support for Israel as it does from U.S. support for Mubarak's dictatorial rule.” Den amerikanske militarisering af Ægypten og andre lande i Mellemøsten øger endvidere truslen mod USA iflg. Zunes: "..the more the United States has militarized the region, the less secure the American people have become. All the sophisticated weaponry, brave fighting men and women, and brilliant military leadership the United States may possess will do little good if there are hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East and beyond who hate us."
Tim Jackson on Prosperity Without Growth.
Every society clings to a myth by which it lives. Ours is the myth of economic growth. For the last five decades the pursuit of growth has been the single most important policy goal across the world. The global economy is almost five times the size it was half a century ago. If it continues to grow at the same rate the economy will be 80 times that size by the year 2100.
This extraordinary ramping up of global economic activity has no historical precedent. It’s totally at odds with our scientific knowledge of the finite resource base and the fragile ecology on which we depend for survival. And it has already been accompanied by the degradation of an estimated 60% of the world’s ecosystems. For the most part, we avoid the stark reality of these numbers. The default assumption is that – financial crises aside – growth will continue indefinitely. Not just for the poorest countries, where a better quality of life is undeniably needed, but even for the richest nations where the cornucopia of material wealth adds little to happiness and is beginning to threaten the foundations of our wellbeing.
The reasons for this collective blindness are easy enough to find. The modern economy is structurally reliant on economic growth for its stability. When growth falters – as it has done recently – politicians panic. Businesses struggle to survive. People lose their jobs and sometimes their homes. A spiral of recession looms. Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems on which we depend for survival. It has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people’s livelihoods.
Today we find ourselves faced with the imminent end of the era of cheap oil, the prospect (beyond the recent bubble) of steadily rising commodity prices,the degradation of forests, lakes and soils, conflicts over land use, water quality, fishing rights and the momentous challenge of stabilising concentrations of carbon in the global atmosphere. And we face these tasks with an economy that is fundamentally broken, in desperate need of renewal.
In these circumstances, a return to business as usual is not an option. Prosperity for the few founded on ecological destruction and persistent social injustice is no foundation for a civilised society. Economic recovery is vital. Protecting people’s jobs – and creating new ones – is absolutely essential. But we also stand in urgent need of a renewed sense of shared prosperity. A commitment to fairness and flourishing in a finite world.
Delivering these goals may seem an unfamiliar or even incongruous task to policy in the modern age. The role of government has been framed so narrowly by material aims, and hollowed out by a misguided vision of unbounded consumer freedoms. The concept of governance itself stands in urgent need of renewal.
But the current economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. To sweep away the short-term thinking that has plagued society for decades. To replace it with considered policy capable of addressing the enormous challenge of delivering a lasting prosperity.
For at the end of the day, prosperity goes beyond material pleasures. It transcends material concerns. It resides in the quality of our lives and in the health and happiness of our families. It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate fully in the life of society.
Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings – within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times.
From "Prosperity without Growth" by Tim Jackson, Economics Commissioner, Sustainable Development Commission, March 2009.
This extraordinary ramping up of global economic activity has no historical precedent. It’s totally at odds with our scientific knowledge of the finite resource base and the fragile ecology on which we depend for survival. And it has already been accompanied by the degradation of an estimated 60% of the world’s ecosystems. For the most part, we avoid the stark reality of these numbers. The default assumption is that – financial crises aside – growth will continue indefinitely. Not just for the poorest countries, where a better quality of life is undeniably needed, but even for the richest nations where the cornucopia of material wealth adds little to happiness and is beginning to threaten the foundations of our wellbeing.
The reasons for this collective blindness are easy enough to find. The modern economy is structurally reliant on economic growth for its stability. When growth falters – as it has done recently – politicians panic. Businesses struggle to survive. People lose their jobs and sometimes their homes. A spiral of recession looms. Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems on which we depend for survival. It has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people’s livelihoods.
Today we find ourselves faced with the imminent end of the era of cheap oil, the prospect (beyond the recent bubble) of steadily rising commodity prices,the degradation of forests, lakes and soils, conflicts over land use, water quality, fishing rights and the momentous challenge of stabilising concentrations of carbon in the global atmosphere. And we face these tasks with an economy that is fundamentally broken, in desperate need of renewal.
In these circumstances, a return to business as usual is not an option. Prosperity for the few founded on ecological destruction and persistent social injustice is no foundation for a civilised society. Economic recovery is vital. Protecting people’s jobs – and creating new ones – is absolutely essential. But we also stand in urgent need of a renewed sense of shared prosperity. A commitment to fairness and flourishing in a finite world.
Delivering these goals may seem an unfamiliar or even incongruous task to policy in the modern age. The role of government has been framed so narrowly by material aims, and hollowed out by a misguided vision of unbounded consumer freedoms. The concept of governance itself stands in urgent need of renewal.
But the current economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. To sweep away the short-term thinking that has plagued society for decades. To replace it with considered policy capable of addressing the enormous challenge of delivering a lasting prosperity.
For at the end of the day, prosperity goes beyond material pleasures. It transcends material concerns. It resides in the quality of our lives and in the health and happiness of our families. It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate fully in the life of society.
Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings – within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times.
From "Prosperity without Growth" by Tim Jackson, Economics Commissioner, Sustainable Development Commission, March 2009.
Herbert Schiller on Corporate Media.
“The media are mutually and continually reinforcing. Since they operate according to commercial rules, rely on advertising, and are tied tightly to the corporate economy, both in their own structure and in their relationships with sponsors, the media constitutes an industry, not an aggregation of independent, freewheeling informational entrepreneurs, each offering a highly individualistic product. By need and by design, the images and messages they purvey, are, with few exceptions, constructed to achieve similar objectives, which are, simply put, profitability and the affirmation and maintenance of the private-ownership consumer society.”
- Herbert Schiller: "The Mind Managers" p. 22. (Beacon Press 1973).
- Herbert Schiller: "The Mind Managers" p. 22. (Beacon Press 1973).
Videnskabsfolk vender ældningsprocessen om i mus.
"Scientists claim to be a step closer to reversing the ageing process after rejuvenating worn out organs in elderly mice. The experimental treatment developed by researchers at Harvard Medical School turned weak and feeble old mice into healthy animals by regenerating their aged bodies.
The surprise recovery of the animals has raised hopes among scientists that it may be possible to achieve a similar feat in humans – or at least to slow down the ageing process.
An anti-ageing therapy could have a dramatic impact on public health by reducing the burden of age-related health problems, such as dementia, stroke and heart disease, and prolonging the quality of life for an increasingly aged population."
The Guardian: Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans.
The surprise recovery of the animals has raised hopes among scientists that it may be possible to achieve a similar feat in humans – or at least to slow down the ageing process.
An anti-ageing therapy could have a dramatic impact on public health by reducing the burden of age-related health problems, such as dementia, stroke and heart disease, and prolonging the quality of life for an increasingly aged population."
The Guardian: Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans.
Amerikanske Diplomater Udspionerede FN-ledelse.
Citat fra den engelske avis The Guardians' Wikileaks dækning:
"Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.
A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.
It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.
Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives".
The secret "national human intelligence collection directive" was sent to US missions at the UN in New York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates, including those in London, Paris and Moscow.
The operation targeted at the UN appears to have involved all of Washington's main intelligence agencies. The CIA's clandestine service, the US Secret Service and the FBI were included in the "reporting and collection needs" cable alongside the state department under the heading "collection requirements and tasking"...."
The Guardian: US diplomats spied on UN leadership.
"Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.
A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.
It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.
Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives".
The secret "national human intelligence collection directive" was sent to US missions at the UN in New York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates, including those in London, Paris and Moscow.
The operation targeted at the UN appears to have involved all of Washington's main intelligence agencies. The CIA's clandestine service, the US Secret Service and the FBI were included in the "reporting and collection needs" cable alongside the state department under the heading "collection requirements and tasking"...."
The Guardian: US diplomats spied on UN leadership.
søndag den 28. november 2010
Professor Herman E. Daly on economic growth.
“Exactly what is growing? One thing is the GDP, the annual marketed flow of final goods and services. But there is also the throughput – the metabolic flow of useful matter and energy from environmental sources, through the economic subsystem (production and consumption), and back to environmental sinks as waste. Economists have focused on GDP and, until recently, neglected throughput. But throughput is the relevant magnitude for answering the question about how big the economy is – namely how big is the economy's metabolic flow relative to the natural cycles that regenerate the economy's ressource depletion and absorb its waste emissions, as well as providing countless other natural services? The answer is that the economic subsystem is now a very large relative to the ecosystem that sustains it. How big can the economy possibly be before it overwhelms and destroys the ecosystem in the short run? We have decided apparantly to do an experiment to answer this question empirically! How big should the economy be, what is its optimum scale relative to the ecosystem? If we were true economists we would stop the throughput growth before the extra environmental and social costs that it causes exceeds the extra production benefits that it produces.”
- Professor of economics Herman E. Daly.
[source: Tim Jackson: "Prosperity Without Growth", Earthscan 2009]
- Professor of economics Herman E. Daly.
[source: Tim Jackson: "Prosperity Without Growth", Earthscan 2009]
lørdag den 27. november 2010
Dokumentar: Human Resources.
I en ny dybdeborende dokumentar med titlen "Human Resources" foretager dokumentaristen Scott Noble en interessant og forstyrrende udforskning af mange forskellige emner som tilsammen udgør en skrækindjagende syntese og sønderlemmende kritik af moderne styreformer og former for kontrol. Hvis man kunne lide Adam Curtis "The Century of the Self" vil man også kunne lide "Human Resources".
torsdag den 25. november 2010
Preben Wilhjelm: Hvorfor danner S, SF og DF ikke bare regering?
Preben Wilhjelm er det tætteste man kommer på en dansk politiker som jeg respekterer men desværre er han en gammel mand som for længst har forladt Borgen. Dengang han var repræsentant for VS i Folketinget udtalte et socialdemokratisk folketingsmedlem, at Preben Wilhjelm udgjorde omtrent halvdelen af Folketingets hjernekapacitet. Om det skulle forstås som et kompliment til Preben Wilhjelm eller en kritik af Folketingets øvrige medlemmer, melder historien desværre ikke noget om, men hans skarpe hjerne - han er både licentiat i jura og atomfysiker - er stadig i glimrende form. Igår kunne man læse en veloplagt kronik af ham i politiken.
USA planlagde krig mod Afghanistan før 9-11 iflg. Pakistans tidligere udenrigsminister.
Den 18. september 2001, altså før Afghanistan-krigen påbegyndes i oktober måned, bringer BBC en artikel hvor den forhenværende pakistanske udenrigsminister Niaz Naik udtaler, at USA allerede havde planer om at angribe Afghanistan før den 11. september:
"Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest."
"Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest."
David Korten: Den Nye Økonomi.
Hvad er økonomiens formål?
Vi begynder med et fundamentalt spørgsmål. Er mennesker til for at tjene økonomien? Eller eksisterer økonomien for at tjene mennesker? Hvis det er det sidste, er det så nok kun at tjene et begunstiget mindretal? Eller bør den tjene alle? Når man stiller det sådan op er svaret selvindlysende og råber på en genopfindelse af vores karakteristiske kultur og institutioner.
Det eksisterende pengedrevne økonomiske system er designet og forvaltet af Wall Street koncerner for at maksimere det finansielle afkast til deres største spillere. Dets indikatorer anser konverteringen af de manges reelle levende rigdom, til de fås fantomrigdom, som en nettofortjeneste for samfundet. Dets indbyggede dynamikker driver mod finansiel ustabilitet, koncentration af rigdom, et stresset miljø og politisk korruption og skaber derfor forøget risiko for økonomisk, socialt, miljømæssigt og politisk kollaps.
Den Gamle Økonomi arbejder for de få på kort sigt og for ingen på lang sigt. Vi har brug for en Ny Økonomi som tjener alle mennesker til alle tider.
Et Demokratisk Markedsbaseret Alternativ.
Selvom det finansielle kollaps i september 2008 skabte megen tragisk lidelse er det en velsignelse set i et større perspektiv. Billioner af dollars i finansiel fantomrigdom forsvandt på et øjeblik. Korruptionen i et økonomisk system som destruerer menneskeliv, fælleskab og miljø for at tjene penge til de allerede velstående, blev udstillet foran alles øjne.
Vi – folket, har midlerne og retten til at erstatte kulturen og institutionerne i dette korrupte system med en Ny Økonomis institutioner og kultur, som prioriterer menneskers, familiers, fælleskabers og naturens behov over grådige bankfolk på Wall Streets. De samme forholdsregler som er nødvendige for at sikre vores kollektive overlevelse vil give os den verden af fælles fred, velstand og sikkerhed som de fleste mennesker har drømt om i årtusinder.
Moderne Patrioter.
Millioner af mennesker verden over har sluttet sig sammen for at genopbygge deres lokale økonomier og fælleskaber. De støtter lokalejede virksomheder i menneskestørrelse og familielandbrug, udvikler lokale finansielle institutioner, genopretter landbrugs- og skovarealer og ændrer fremgangsmåderne for brug af land for at koncenterere befolkningen i kompakte samfund som mindsker afhængigheden af biler, ombygger deres bygninger for at spare på energien og arbejder på anden vis henimod lokal selvforsyning af fødevarer, energi og andre basale fornødenheder.
Ved at tage kontrol over deres liv og bygge modstandsdygtige lokale økonomier som bruger lokale resourcer og ansætter lokale folk for at møde lokale behov under lokal kontrol, erklærer de deres uafhængigheden fra Wall Street selskabernes koloniale dominans. De er den moderne ækvivalent til de tapre patrioter som i tidligere tider erklærede deres uafhængighed fra den britiske konge og hans royale selskaber og som påbegyndte en ny nation dedikeret til at opnå et modigt ideal kaldet demokrati.
Et levende Systemperspektiv.
De fleste diskussioner som har at gøre med miljøet, retfærdighed, fred, fattigdom, race, køn, immigration, kriminalitet, værdier, uddannelse, familieliv og meget andet, fokuserer på handlinger som i bunden af floden skal udbedre konsekvenserne af systemfejl længere oppe af strømmen. Ægte, vedvarende løsninger afhænger af transformationen af grundlæggende værdier og institutioner på måder som sjældent diskuteres i offentlige debatter. Vi kan ikke længere tolerere denne stilhed. Vores fremtid afhænger af transitionen til en Ny Økonomi som efterligner strukturerne og dynamikkerne i Jordens biosfære. Det begynder alt sammen med en samtale.
Oversættelse af Thomas Bonde November 2010.
Den engelske version og meget mere kan læses på David Kortens site.
Vi begynder med et fundamentalt spørgsmål. Er mennesker til for at tjene økonomien? Eller eksisterer økonomien for at tjene mennesker? Hvis det er det sidste, er det så nok kun at tjene et begunstiget mindretal? Eller bør den tjene alle? Når man stiller det sådan op er svaret selvindlysende og råber på en genopfindelse af vores karakteristiske kultur og institutioner.
Det eksisterende pengedrevne økonomiske system er designet og forvaltet af Wall Street koncerner for at maksimere det finansielle afkast til deres største spillere. Dets indikatorer anser konverteringen af de manges reelle levende rigdom, til de fås fantomrigdom, som en nettofortjeneste for samfundet. Dets indbyggede dynamikker driver mod finansiel ustabilitet, koncentration af rigdom, et stresset miljø og politisk korruption og skaber derfor forøget risiko for økonomisk, socialt, miljømæssigt og politisk kollaps.
Den Gamle Økonomi arbejder for de få på kort sigt og for ingen på lang sigt. Vi har brug for en Ny Økonomi som tjener alle mennesker til alle tider.
Et Demokratisk Markedsbaseret Alternativ.
Selvom det finansielle kollaps i september 2008 skabte megen tragisk lidelse er det en velsignelse set i et større perspektiv. Billioner af dollars i finansiel fantomrigdom forsvandt på et øjeblik. Korruptionen i et økonomisk system som destruerer menneskeliv, fælleskab og miljø for at tjene penge til de allerede velstående, blev udstillet foran alles øjne.
Vi – folket, har midlerne og retten til at erstatte kulturen og institutionerne i dette korrupte system med en Ny Økonomis institutioner og kultur, som prioriterer menneskers, familiers, fælleskabers og naturens behov over grådige bankfolk på Wall Streets. De samme forholdsregler som er nødvendige for at sikre vores kollektive overlevelse vil give os den verden af fælles fred, velstand og sikkerhed som de fleste mennesker har drømt om i årtusinder.
Moderne Patrioter.
Millioner af mennesker verden over har sluttet sig sammen for at genopbygge deres lokale økonomier og fælleskaber. De støtter lokalejede virksomheder i menneskestørrelse og familielandbrug, udvikler lokale finansielle institutioner, genopretter landbrugs- og skovarealer og ændrer fremgangsmåderne for brug af land for at koncenterere befolkningen i kompakte samfund som mindsker afhængigheden af biler, ombygger deres bygninger for at spare på energien og arbejder på anden vis henimod lokal selvforsyning af fødevarer, energi og andre basale fornødenheder.
Ved at tage kontrol over deres liv og bygge modstandsdygtige lokale økonomier som bruger lokale resourcer og ansætter lokale folk for at møde lokale behov under lokal kontrol, erklærer de deres uafhængigheden fra Wall Street selskabernes koloniale dominans. De er den moderne ækvivalent til de tapre patrioter som i tidligere tider erklærede deres uafhængighed fra den britiske konge og hans royale selskaber og som påbegyndte en ny nation dedikeret til at opnå et modigt ideal kaldet demokrati.
Et levende Systemperspektiv.
De fleste diskussioner som har at gøre med miljøet, retfærdighed, fred, fattigdom, race, køn, immigration, kriminalitet, værdier, uddannelse, familieliv og meget andet, fokuserer på handlinger som i bunden af floden skal udbedre konsekvenserne af systemfejl længere oppe af strømmen. Ægte, vedvarende løsninger afhænger af transformationen af grundlæggende værdier og institutioner på måder som sjældent diskuteres i offentlige debatter. Vi kan ikke længere tolerere denne stilhed. Vores fremtid afhænger af transitionen til en Ny Økonomi som efterligner strukturerne og dynamikkerne i Jordens biosfære. Det begynder alt sammen med en samtale.
Oversættelse af Thomas Bonde November 2010.
Den engelske version og meget mere kan læses på David Kortens site.
Dokumentation: Carter-administrationens støtte til Suharto.
Året er 1978. De Indonesiske styrker fortsætter, i strid med det internationale samfunds bestemmelser, militæroperationerne man i 1975 påbegyndte da Indonesien invaderede og besatte Øst-Timor. Umiddelbart sammenfaldende med at man fra indonesiske side planlægger et massivt luftbombardament af Øst-Timor mhp. at nedkæmpe den væbnede separatistbevægelse, anmoder Jimmy Carters vicepræsident Walter Mondale den 26. April i et memorandum til præsidenten, om Carters tilladelse til at sælge en eskadrille A-4 kampfly til Suharto-styret. Walter Mondale begrunder anmodningen med, at det vil gavne amerikanske interesser: "Eftersom det underliggende formål med mit besøg er at bekræfte, at vi ønsker at samarbejde med Indonesien, mener jeg en positiv respons til Suharto vil være i vores interesse." Selvom Mondale i briefingen nævner, at der under besøget vil blive talt om menneskerettigheder med Suharto, er der ingen nævnelse af situationen på det besatte Øst-Timor i memoet.
onsdag den 24. november 2010
Jeremy Scahill Interview
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
"We met with various factions of the Taleban when we were in Afghanistan. Some of them are loyal to [Mullah] Omar, others are members of the Haqqani network which is backed by Pakistan and the ISI spy agency there. Then you have people who are sort of freelancers. One of the most disturbing news we heard is that Omar, the Amir of the Taleban, the Afghan Taleban, sent an envoy to meet with a new Taleban commander and they hacked to death Omar's envoy..."
Propaganda: Kabuls børn lever i sikkerhed.
NATOs øverste civile repræsentant, britiske Mark Sedwill,udtalte for nylig, at børnene i den afghanske hovedstad Kabul nok lever i større sikkerhed end børn i London, Glasgow eller New York. Denne udtalelse står imidlertid i skarp kontrast til realiteterne.
Professor i mellemøsthistorie Juan Cole har følgende kommentar til udtalelsen på sin blog:
"Quite apart from the bombings in the Afghan capital, far beyond anything in Western capitals, some 1,795 children were killed or wounded in conflict-related violence from September 2008 to August 2010 (admittedly in the whole country and not just in Kabul). Moreover, there are powerful crime syndicates and kidnapping rings in the capital and drug addiction is spreading among even children and youth. He wasn’t speaking of infant mortality, so it isn’t fair to slam him on the grounds that a fifth of Afghan children die before reaching age five. But knowledge of the truly horrific health statistics of Afghan children might have instilled some caution about making Panglossian statements."
Professor i mellemøsthistorie Juan Cole har følgende kommentar til udtalelsen på sin blog:
"Quite apart from the bombings in the Afghan capital, far beyond anything in Western capitals, some 1,795 children were killed or wounded in conflict-related violence from September 2008 to August 2010 (admittedly in the whole country and not just in Kabul). Moreover, there are powerful crime syndicates and kidnapping rings in the capital and drug addiction is spreading among even children and youth. He wasn’t speaking of infant mortality, so it isn’t fair to slam him on the grounds that a fifth of Afghan children die before reaching age five. But knowledge of the truly horrific health statistics of Afghan children might have instilled some caution about making Panglossian statements."
Var Irak-krigen ulovlig?
Et af de væsentligste i spørgsmål angående den danske deltagelse i Irak-krigen er om denne deltagelse var i strid med gældende international lov. Lad os se nærmere på det.
Nürnberg-tribunalet nævnes som regel i historiske udredninger om international lov idet tribunalet lagde grunden for det der idag kendes som Nürnberg-principperne hvor man definerede ‘forbrydelser mod freden’ således:
“(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”
Under retssagerne i Nürnberg sagde dommer Ross H. Jackson:
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
En anden juridisk konstruktion man typisk støder på i sammenhænge hvor der tales om international lov, er FN-chartret. Med udgangspunkt i chartret udtalte Kofi Annan - som på daværende tidspunkt var generalsekretær for FN - i 2004, at krigen var ulovlig:
“From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.”
Det er ikke vanskeligt at fremhæve hans bevæggrund for denne dom idet der i FN Chartrets Artikel 2, paragraf 4 utvetydigt står:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Så er der Rom-statutten som Danmark indførte som en del af landets lovgivning i januar 2002. I statutten er angrebskrig ligeledes defineret som en forbrydelse. Problemet er så her, at der ikke hersker enighed om hvad der præcis karakteriserer en sådan, hvorfor ICC ikke kan føre retssager hvor angrebskrig behandles som en forbrydelse.
Summa summarum: Irak-krigen kan ikke retfærddigøres som en forvarskrig, da Irak ikke truede Danmark eller nogle af de andre krigsførende parter på daværende tidspunkt. Krigen var heller ikke sanktioneret af FNs sikkerhedsråd da resolution 1441 ikke gav hjemmel for krigsførelse. Krigen var altså en ikke-sanktioneret angrebskrig og en sådan er ulovlig i henhold til international lov.
Nürnberg-tribunalet nævnes som regel i historiske udredninger om international lov idet tribunalet lagde grunden for det der idag kendes som Nürnberg-principperne hvor man definerede ‘forbrydelser mod freden’ således:
“(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”
Under retssagerne i Nürnberg sagde dommer Ross H. Jackson:
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
En anden juridisk konstruktion man typisk støder på i sammenhænge hvor der tales om international lov, er FN-chartret. Med udgangspunkt i chartret udtalte Kofi Annan - som på daværende tidspunkt var generalsekretær for FN - i 2004, at krigen var ulovlig:
“From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.”
Det er ikke vanskeligt at fremhæve hans bevæggrund for denne dom idet der i FN Chartrets Artikel 2, paragraf 4 utvetydigt står:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Så er der Rom-statutten som Danmark indførte som en del af landets lovgivning i januar 2002. I statutten er angrebskrig ligeledes defineret som en forbrydelse. Problemet er så her, at der ikke hersker enighed om hvad der præcis karakteriserer en sådan, hvorfor ICC ikke kan føre retssager hvor angrebskrig behandles som en forbrydelse.
Summa summarum: Irak-krigen kan ikke retfærddigøres som en forvarskrig, da Irak ikke truede Danmark eller nogle af de andre krigsførende parter på daværende tidspunkt. Krigen var heller ikke sanktioneret af FNs sikkerhedsråd da resolution 1441 ikke gav hjemmel for krigsførelse. Krigen var altså en ikke-sanktioneret angrebskrig og en sådan er ulovlig i henhold til international lov.
tirsdag den 23. november 2010
Dokumentation: Nixons støtte til Suharto
I et dokument klassificeret som "Top Secret/Sensitive" lærer vi om et møde den 26. Maj 1970 der finder sted i Det Hvide Hus. Mødet er mellem Richard Nixon og den indonesiske præsident Suharto som er på sit første statsbesøg til USA. Til mødet, hvor også Henry Kissinger er tilstede, byder Richard Nixon den indonesiske leder velkommen og tilføjer, at han anser Suharto for en gammel ven. Nixon spørger ind til hvordan det forholder sig med landets revolutionære bevægelser, hvortil Suharto svarer at "their strength can be said to have been nullified ... Tens of thousands of these have been interrogated and placed in detention." Studenterbevægelsen i landet er nu iflg. Suharto "active participants in the New Order" hvilket man har opnået fordi "they have received indoctrination concerning the ideas of the New Order". Nixon spørger herefter ind til Suhartos tanker angående "U.S. programs in Indonesia" hvortil Suharto svarer: "Our achievement has been based upon the hard work of our government and people but the assistance which we have received from friendly countries has been particularly helpful. We are aware that the U.S. Government faces many problems and we are thankful for the increases in aid that have been possible in the past. " Til dette svarer Nixon: "As always we are interested in supporting your economic progress and in these efforts we do so without any strings attached and without interference in your internal affairs. When you became President in Indonesia it was a difficult and dangerous time in Indonesia. We wanted to help then and we continue on the same basis." Suharto takker Nixon for hans respekt for "our non-aligned status" og forklarer herefter Nixon, at Indonesiens militær er skrøbeligt, da det militære udstyr stammer fra Rusland og Kina, hvorfor man fra russisk og kinesisk side kender til landets militære svagheder, samt, at det er vanskeligt at skaffe reservedele nu hvor Indonesien har erklæret sig neutralt. Nixon lader til at forstå problematikken idet han siger: "To maintain your non-alignment, you must be strong enough to defend such neutrality. During your visit here I would like your Chief of Staff to meet appropiate people to determine the needs of Indonesia and the appropriate role of the U.S." og Nixon tilføjer "We know your intentions are only for the purposes of defense and that you have no intention of attacking others ... We will follow through. It is our desire to help but not hurt your position. We understand that the internal political situation in Indonesia is very complex and that your country is in a critical geographical position. Please feel free to speak ... with me concerning any aspect of our economic program, private investment, Export-Import Bank or military assistance. Our primary interest is a free and independent Indonesia." Suharto slutter mødet af med disse ord: "I am very happy with our cooperation in an atmosphere of mutual respect."
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)