NYT COMMITS SERIOUS JOURNALISTIC MALPRACTICE: MISREPRESENTATION OF UNSC STATEMENT ON SYRIA
INTRODUCTION By HAZ
Before you read this article take a look at the official Kofi Annan Statement published in NYT on March 21, 2012. It contains the six points referred below; Open: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/22/world/middleeast/united-nations-syria-statement.html
Now read the critique of Moon of Alabama
---------------------
NYT COMMITS SERIOUS JOURNALISTIC MALPRACTICE: MISREPRESENTATION OF UNSC STATEMENT ON SYRIA
Moon of Alabama | Friday, March 30, 2012
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/03/30/the-new-york-times-deceives-distorts-misrepresents-the-unsc-statement-on-syria/
NYT writer Rick Gladstone commits serious journalistic malpractice in his piece about the UNSC Presidential Statement on Syria. He writes as if the statement was a climbdown of Russia from its position and as if the statement is what the U.S. tried to achieve for month. The opposite is the case. The U.S. was forced to change its position while the Russians won on each of their points. But Gladstone writes:
"Overcoming months of bitter division, the United Nations Security Council delivered adiplomatic setback to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria on Wednesday, unanimously embracing efforts by Kofi Annan, the former secretary general, to negotiate a cease-fire in the year-old Syrian conflict, funnel aid to victims and begin a political transition.
…
The plan closely resembles an Arab League proposal that Mr. Assad has rejected.
…
Russia’s endorsement of the statement is an embarrassment for Mr. Assad, who hasrefused to negotiate with his political opponents and has characterized the uprising as a terrorist crime wave.
…
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had expressed anger over Russia’s support for Mr. Assad, praised the Security Council’s action as “a positive step.”“The council has now spoken with one voice,” she added."
There are at least three factual errors in Gladstone’s piece:
• The Annan plan does not by far resemble the Arab League proposal which called for the immediate step down of Assad
• The Russian endorsement is not an embarrassment for Assad but is consistent with its5-point plan which China and Bashar Assad endorsed
• Assad has not refused to negotiate though the rebels rejected Annan’s plan
• Clinton’s praise is just hiding that she lost the cause
For comparison read how Colum Lynch reports on the same issue for the Washington Post:
"The United States and its Arab and European partners have pressed for passage of an Arab League proposal that would have required Assad to yield considerable powers to a transitional government. But Russia, backed by China, recently vetoed a resolution endorsing that plan, insisting that the Syrian government should remain central to any negotiations on a political settlement in Syria. To secure Russian support, the council’s Western and Arab powers were forced to offer several concessions. A council statement, as a result, includes no condemnation of Syria, no specific timetable for a political transition and a watered-down threat of possible action against Syria if it fails to comply with the Annan plan.
At the last minute, the statement’s sponsors also stripped out a U.S. amendment demanding that Syria immediately allow U.N. humanitarian workers unimpeded access to civilians.
…
U.S. Ambassador Susan E. Rice characterized the council’s action as a “modest step” but added that it offered the greatest hope of reuniting the 15-nation council. SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/un-security-council-endorses-annans-peace-plan-for-syria/2012/03/21/gIQAnuB3RS_story.html
That report sounds quite different from what the New York Times published.
It is clear that the U.S. had to retreat from its position to only condemn violence by the Syrian government side and to call for Assad to go. But no NYT reader will get that point from reading the paper. One wonders what intention Gladstone has with his serious misrepresentation of what happened at the UNSC.
======================
sábado, 31 de marzo de 2012
FOREIGN TROOPS INSIDE SYRIA: THE FAILED UN BROKERED “PEACE PLAN” SETS THE STAGE FOR WAR
FOREIGN TROOPS INSIDE SYRIA: THE FAILED UN BROKERED “PEACE PLAN” SETS THE STAGE FOR WAR?
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/03/30/foreign-troops-inside-syria-the-failed-un-brokered-peace-plan-sets-the-stage-for-war/
“How you define your role, and where and how you decide to pursue it, is of vital interest to the United Nations, given the long tradition of cooperation and coordination between NATO and the UN in matters of war and peace.” (Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General, Address at NATO headquarters in Brussels on UN-NATO collaboration in the context of the 50th anniversary of NATO, January 1999)
In late February, 13 French military officers were arrrested in Homs at the height of the armed insurrection, pointing to the presence of foreign troops on Syrian soil in derogation of international law. The Daily Star (March 5, 2012) report suggested that the arrested officers could have been part of “a larger contingent” of French special forces operating within the ranks of the rebel Free Syria Army (FSA):
“It was not clear why the officers were in Syria, when they had arrived or whether they were part of a larger contingent in the city [Homs].
Strategic Homs was targeted in a 26-day shelling bombardment by the Syrian Army, which overran the city where anti-Assad protests and Free Syrian Army operations have been focused. (The Daily Star March 5, 2012)
The French government initially denied the report, insisting that “not a single French soldier is on Syrian soil.” Yet sources confirmed that negotiations between Paris and Damascus were held, in all probability regarding the repatriation of the French military officers:
“A French Foreign Ministry spokesman said: “We deny the idea that there are French troops on the ground in Syria. A Defense Ministry spokesman added: “We have no information on this. We neither confirm nor deny it.”
According to various reports in the British media, the “Daily Star … the supposed French captives were being held in a field hospital in Homs.”(Report: 13 French officers captured in Syria – Israel News, Ynetnews, Italics added)
While this arrest of military officers from a NATO member country was barely mentioned by the Western media, it is by no means an isolated incident. This is not the first time that foreign forces are arrested in Syria since the outset of the insurgency.
There is evidence of large numbers of foreign troops on the ground inside Syria including British, French, Turkish and Qatari special forces, British MI6 intelligence operatives as well a large numbers of mercenaries from Arab countries:
“As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help.”
“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening and are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need.” ” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). (emphasis added)
THE ELITES FORCES UK WEBSITE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT:
“British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)… The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces’ strength and to pave the way for any future training operations. … More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels.” Elite Forces UK, January 5, 2012 (emphasis added)
NATO RECRUITS MUJAHIDEEN MERCENARIES
Mercenaries from Arab countries are operating within highly trained terrorist brigades, financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In this regard, Israeli intelligence sources (August 2011) point to the direct involvement of NATO in the recruitment of jihadist “Muslim Volunteers”, in coordination with the Turkish military:
“Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria.” (http://www.debka.com/article/21255/ Debkafile, August 31, 2011 emphasis added)
In Homs, the Al Qaeda Faruq Brigade which includes mercenaries from Libya and Iraq have been involved in terrorizing the civilian population. They “have succeeded in expelling most of the Christians in Homs and have seized their homes by force”. “Snipers were stationed in the street … preventing people from leaving their homes for two months, targeting passers-by and cars and anything that moved in the streets, adding that the terrorists also robbed houses, committed massacres, murders and kidnapping.”
THE KOFI ANNAN “PEACE PLAN”
Published: March 21, 2012: Presidential Statement on the Joint Special Envoy on Syria. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/22/world/middleeast/united-nations-syria-statement.html
The arrest of the French military officers (circa 22nd of February) –which coincided with the beginning of Kofi Annan’s peacemaking mandate (February 28th)– was hushed up by the Al Assad government, largely with a view to avoiding undue controversy within the sphere of United Nations diplomacy.
Yet the decision by the Al Assad government to avoid raising the issue of Western military support to “opposition” forces has provided Washington and its allies with the upper hand. While claiming to represent the “international community”, the Atlantic Alliance is not only behind the armed insurrection, it is providing support and training to Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist brigades.
With Western forces and military advisers inside Syria, the so-called peace plan brokered by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has all the appearances of a staged event.
Peace Plan with Whom? A “Cease Fire” cannot be implemented without clearly identifying the identity of the parties involved. A real peace plan would require addressing the illegal presence of foreign military personnel on Syrian soil.
The Kofi Annan peace plan called for a cease-fire on “both sides”, while failing to acknowledge that foreign forces from NATO countries are directly involved in the conflict, on the “side” of the “opposition”.
Not surprisingly, immediately upon the adoption of the UN Arab League brokered Peace Plan, the “opposition” forces including the terrorist brigades, under the guidance of their foreign military handlers, decided to ignore the peace plan: renewed attacks by opposition gunmen directed against Syrian forces and civilians were reported in several cities immediately following the adoption of the peace plan. Meanwhile, the Al Assad government was urged to “halt the killings” and Damascus was casually blamed for “breaking the ceasefire”.
THIS “SCENARIO” HAD BEEN CAREFULLY PLANNED IN ADVANCE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE SIX POINTS PEACE PLAN.
The Kofi Annan Peace Plan, which was endorsed by Syria, China and Russia was slated to fail from the outset. It was also intended to be used as a propaganda ploy against the Al Assad government. Immediately following the endorsement of the Annan Peace Plan, a new wave of baseless accusations was directed against the Al Assad government, accusing “Syrian forces [of] deliberately attacking children in horrendous tactics ordered directly by President Bashar al-Assad, the UN human rights chief has claimed.”
THE WESTERN MILITARY ALLIANCE IS NOT COMMITTED TO PEACE.
A “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) intervention under a NATO mandate remains on the drawing board of the Pentagon. Dimitry Rogozin, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister intimated last September that NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria, with specific attack scenarios. More recently, in January 2012, two months prior to the outset of the Kofi Annan Peace Initiative, Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirmed that it “is drawing up secret plans for a NATO-sponsored no-fly zone [for Syria] [in coordination with its allies] “but first it needs backing from the United Nations Security Council.” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star).According to these secret plans: “fighting in Syria could be bigger and bloodier than the battle against Gaddafi“. (Ibid ).
What is the role of Kofi Annan. Is it an agenda for peace? Or is a Peacemaking Psyop which is intended to set the stage for and R2P NATO “humanitarian intervention“.
Prior to becoming Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan as Undersecretary of of UN Peacekeeping, faithfully served the interests of Washingon, upholding the legitimacy of US and NATO military interventions. “He was elevated to the post of Secretary-General by U.S. preference, with the U.S. vetoing a second five-year term in 1996 for his less amenable predecessor Boutros Boutros-Ghali…”:
“As the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping for Yugoslavia, [Kofi Annan] sanctioned Operation Deliberate Force, NATO’s bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. Annan’s prominent support for NATO’s 1999 war was significant. In an address he delivered at NATO headquarters in Brussels two months before the war, he urged NATO members to “recall the lessons of Bosnia” — “particularly those with the capacity to act.” NATO’s 1999 bombing war against Yugoslavia was an early but clear example of what R2P means in the real world, long before the phrase “responsibility to protect” had entered common usage. (Edward S. Herman and David Peterson , The Responsibility to Protect, the International Criminal Court, and Foreign Policy in Focus, Subverting the UN Charter in the Name of Human Rights, Global Research, August 2009, emphasis added)
Lest we forget, Kofi Annan was one of main architects of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Under his helm as UN Secretary General, R2P was unanimously endorsed in 2005 at the U.N. World Summit. The decision, which essentially set the stage for NATO’s R2P “humanitarian intervention” in Libya, called upon the international community to use all “appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means … to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” (See Carrie Crawford, The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Global Research, November 24, 2011)
-------------------------
Michel Chossudovsky,
Global Research http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/03/30/foreign-troops-inside-syria-the-failed-un-brokered-peace-plan-sets-the-stage-for-war/
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/03/30/foreign-troops-inside-syria-the-failed-un-brokered-peace-plan-sets-the-stage-for-war/
“How you define your role, and where and how you decide to pursue it, is of vital interest to the United Nations, given the long tradition of cooperation and coordination between NATO and the UN in matters of war and peace.” (Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General, Address at NATO headquarters in Brussels on UN-NATO collaboration in the context of the 50th anniversary of NATO, January 1999)
In late February, 13 French military officers were arrrested in Homs at the height of the armed insurrection, pointing to the presence of foreign troops on Syrian soil in derogation of international law. The Daily Star (March 5, 2012) report suggested that the arrested officers could have been part of “a larger contingent” of French special forces operating within the ranks of the rebel Free Syria Army (FSA):
“It was not clear why the officers were in Syria, when they had arrived or whether they were part of a larger contingent in the city [Homs].
Strategic Homs was targeted in a 26-day shelling bombardment by the Syrian Army, which overran the city where anti-Assad protests and Free Syrian Army operations have been focused. (The Daily Star March 5, 2012)
The French government initially denied the report, insisting that “not a single French soldier is on Syrian soil.” Yet sources confirmed that negotiations between Paris and Damascus were held, in all probability regarding the repatriation of the French military officers:
“A French Foreign Ministry spokesman said: “We deny the idea that there are French troops on the ground in Syria. A Defense Ministry spokesman added: “We have no information on this. We neither confirm nor deny it.”
According to various reports in the British media, the “Daily Star … the supposed French captives were being held in a field hospital in Homs.”(Report: 13 French officers captured in Syria – Israel News, Ynetnews, Italics added)
While this arrest of military officers from a NATO member country was barely mentioned by the Western media, it is by no means an isolated incident. This is not the first time that foreign forces are arrested in Syria since the outset of the insurgency.
There is evidence of large numbers of foreign troops on the ground inside Syria including British, French, Turkish and Qatari special forces, British MI6 intelligence operatives as well a large numbers of mercenaries from Arab countries:
“As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help.”
“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening and are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need.” ” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). (emphasis added)
THE ELITES FORCES UK WEBSITE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT:
“British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)… The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces’ strength and to pave the way for any future training operations. … More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels.” Elite Forces UK, January 5, 2012 (emphasis added)
NATO RECRUITS MUJAHIDEEN MERCENARIES
Mercenaries from Arab countries are operating within highly trained terrorist brigades, financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In this regard, Israeli intelligence sources (August 2011) point to the direct involvement of NATO in the recruitment of jihadist “Muslim Volunteers”, in coordination with the Turkish military:
“Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria.” (http://www.debka.com/article/21255/ Debkafile, August 31, 2011 emphasis added)
In Homs, the Al Qaeda Faruq Brigade which includes mercenaries from Libya and Iraq have been involved in terrorizing the civilian population. They “have succeeded in expelling most of the Christians in Homs and have seized their homes by force”. “Snipers were stationed in the street … preventing people from leaving their homes for two months, targeting passers-by and cars and anything that moved in the streets, adding that the terrorists also robbed houses, committed massacres, murders and kidnapping.”
THE KOFI ANNAN “PEACE PLAN”
Published: March 21, 2012: Presidential Statement on the Joint Special Envoy on Syria. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/22/world/middleeast/united-nations-syria-statement.html
The arrest of the French military officers (circa 22nd of February) –which coincided with the beginning of Kofi Annan’s peacemaking mandate (February 28th)– was hushed up by the Al Assad government, largely with a view to avoiding undue controversy within the sphere of United Nations diplomacy.
Yet the decision by the Al Assad government to avoid raising the issue of Western military support to “opposition” forces has provided Washington and its allies with the upper hand. While claiming to represent the “international community”, the Atlantic Alliance is not only behind the armed insurrection, it is providing support and training to Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist brigades.
With Western forces and military advisers inside Syria, the so-called peace plan brokered by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has all the appearances of a staged event.
Peace Plan with Whom? A “Cease Fire” cannot be implemented without clearly identifying the identity of the parties involved. A real peace plan would require addressing the illegal presence of foreign military personnel on Syrian soil.
The Kofi Annan peace plan called for a cease-fire on “both sides”, while failing to acknowledge that foreign forces from NATO countries are directly involved in the conflict, on the “side” of the “opposition”.
Not surprisingly, immediately upon the adoption of the UN Arab League brokered Peace Plan, the “opposition” forces including the terrorist brigades, under the guidance of their foreign military handlers, decided to ignore the peace plan: renewed attacks by opposition gunmen directed against Syrian forces and civilians were reported in several cities immediately following the adoption of the peace plan. Meanwhile, the Al Assad government was urged to “halt the killings” and Damascus was casually blamed for “breaking the ceasefire”.
THIS “SCENARIO” HAD BEEN CAREFULLY PLANNED IN ADVANCE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE SIX POINTS PEACE PLAN.
The Kofi Annan Peace Plan, which was endorsed by Syria, China and Russia was slated to fail from the outset. It was also intended to be used as a propaganda ploy against the Al Assad government. Immediately following the endorsement of the Annan Peace Plan, a new wave of baseless accusations was directed against the Al Assad government, accusing “Syrian forces [of] deliberately attacking children in horrendous tactics ordered directly by President Bashar al-Assad, the UN human rights chief has claimed.”
THE WESTERN MILITARY ALLIANCE IS NOT COMMITTED TO PEACE.
A “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) intervention under a NATO mandate remains on the drawing board of the Pentagon. Dimitry Rogozin, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister intimated last September that NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria, with specific attack scenarios. More recently, in January 2012, two months prior to the outset of the Kofi Annan Peace Initiative, Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirmed that it “is drawing up secret plans for a NATO-sponsored no-fly zone [for Syria] [in coordination with its allies] “but first it needs backing from the United Nations Security Council.” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star).According to these secret plans: “fighting in Syria could be bigger and bloodier than the battle against Gaddafi“. (Ibid ).
What is the role of Kofi Annan. Is it an agenda for peace? Or is a Peacemaking Psyop which is intended to set the stage for and R2P NATO “humanitarian intervention“.
Prior to becoming Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan as Undersecretary of of UN Peacekeeping, faithfully served the interests of Washingon, upholding the legitimacy of US and NATO military interventions. “He was elevated to the post of Secretary-General by U.S. preference, with the U.S. vetoing a second five-year term in 1996 for his less amenable predecessor Boutros Boutros-Ghali…”:
“As the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping for Yugoslavia, [Kofi Annan] sanctioned Operation Deliberate Force, NATO’s bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. Annan’s prominent support for NATO’s 1999 war was significant. In an address he delivered at NATO headquarters in Brussels two months before the war, he urged NATO members to “recall the lessons of Bosnia” — “particularly those with the capacity to act.” NATO’s 1999 bombing war against Yugoslavia was an early but clear example of what R2P means in the real world, long before the phrase “responsibility to protect” had entered common usage. (Edward S. Herman and David Peterson , The Responsibility to Protect, the International Criminal Court, and Foreign Policy in Focus, Subverting the UN Charter in the Name of Human Rights, Global Research, August 2009, emphasis added)
Lest we forget, Kofi Annan was one of main architects of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Under his helm as UN Secretary General, R2P was unanimously endorsed in 2005 at the U.N. World Summit. The decision, which essentially set the stage for NATO’s R2P “humanitarian intervention” in Libya, called upon the international community to use all “appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means … to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” (See Carrie Crawford, The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Global Research, November 24, 2011)
-------------------------
Michel Chossudovsky,
Global Research http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/03/30/foreign-troops-inside-syria-the-failed-un-brokered-peace-plan-sets-the-stage-for-war/
martes, 27 de marzo de 2012
FUKUSHIMA: PLANETARY GENOCIDE, ONE MORE REASON FOR WORLD PEACE
FUKUSHIMA: PLANETARY GENOCIDE, ONE MORE REASON FOR WORLD PEACE
IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPENS IF AN ATOMIC WAR STARTS
Now is the right time to start total disarmament
People in the us should lead this movement for peace
and criminalize the zionist of Israel for inciting a global war.
Es tiempo de detenerlos y regresarlos a los limites originales
que les fueron otorgados por la ONU despues del holocausto.
La compasion mundial con los judios fue magnanima con ellos,
pero los zionistas que capturaron el poder alli en Israel
abusaron de la fe mundial por la paz y la reconciliacion.
Los zionistas anexaron en forma ilegal, violenta y criminal
tierras y rios ajenos de Palestinos y pueblo vecinos.
Y luego se apoderaron de Jerusalen
la tierra santa que es de nadie y de todos
y amurallaron el "nuevo Israel" que dicen se expandira aun mas,
y luego destruyeron de la forma mas salvaje e inhumana
la vida y dignidad de pueblos palestinos enteros.
Los zionistas no tienen ninguna autorida moral
para hablar de holocausto. Ellos desecraron esa historia.
Usaron indebidamente el poder militar que Los EU le dio,
y se han convertido en criminales de guerra,
por tanto, varios de sus lideres actuales
debieran ser sometidos a un nuevo Nurenberg trial.
No estamos por la violoencia criminal contra los judios
como lo ocurrido en Francia, rechazamos esa violencia,
pero tampoco aplaudimos la incitacion a la guerra nuclear
porque eso es lo que esta detras su plan de atacar Iran.
El pueblo americano no quiere la guerra mundial atomica
y es tiempo de frenar incitaciones a la violencia nuclear.
Es tiempo de sacarlos de NPR y de la mass media del norte.
Ayer escuche un dialogo estupido entre dos zionistas en NPR
Una dama pregunto al varon cual es peor amenaza
las bombas nucleares de Korea del norte o las de Iran,
y este respondio que Iran es el peor enemigo del mundo.
Pero ocurre que Iran no controla el arsenal nuclear de Dimona
ni se opuso a firmar el tratado de no proliferan de nukes,
ni rechazo ser chequeado por el AIEA. Es Israel quien lo hace.
La propaganda zionista incitando a la confrontacion nuclear
y el posible ataque -"pre-emptive strike"- contra Iran
es crimen contra la paz mundial y debiera ser penalizado asi,
eso es violencia tambien; es la que genero lo ocurrido en Francia.
Es tiempo de frenar toda esta propaganda zionista en los EU.
Es tiempo de exigir se respeten los limites de ley
que les fueron concedidos por la Naciones Unidas en 1948
y es tiempo de pasar el control de Jerusalen
a un protectorado mundial similar al del Vaticano.
Basta de incitar a la violencia nuclear!!
Es tiempo de iniciar un mov robusto por la paz mundial!!
Hugo Adan. Marzo 27, 2012
-------------------
"Planetary Genocide": Fukushima One Year Later : The Poisoning of Planet Earth
by Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. Global Research, March 8, 2012
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29658
[Here extracts only]
“The most difficult thing of all is to see is what is right in front of your eyes.” Goethe.
As we approach the tragic one-year anniversary of Fukushima’s multiple nuclear reactors’ accident on March 11, that initially affected the entire Japanese population, we now know that this nightmare has engulfed all of us. Let us also not forget that this is the third nuclear attack on the Japanese (the first two were Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Given what has not been done to ensure public safety, we cannot think of it any other way. From the very first day, there were lies and a massive cover-up of the extent of the destruction and the inherent radioactive dangers –not just from Japanese officials and TEPCO corporate reports, but also from the US. The Mark 1 reactors, built by General Electric, have design flaws. There are many of these same-designed reactors in the US.
A year later, much of the corruption, deceit, and careless practices have been documented extensively here at Global Research –while mainstream news continues Orwellian doublespeak. Last month, in a rare but very belated mainstream account, CBS News reported that after the tsunami and nuclear accident: “The normal lines of [government] authority completely collapsed in Japan.” See:
www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57386266/report-govt-collapsed-during-japan-nuke-crisis
As Dr. Helen Caldicott and Dr. Chris Busby have repeatedly reported: “There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water, or other sources. Period.” See:
www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=23902
and
www.helencaldicott.com/2011/05/unsafe-at-any-dose/#more-285
So, what is not monitored, or where the radiation rates are manipulated, then no one –government officials and corporations– can ever be held accountable, nor can increased death rates, diabetes, stillbirths, birth defects ever be attributed to this catastrophic planetary event.
When have we ever been told the truth about our life-long systemic radiation poisoning? For decades, we have been uninformed experimental laboratory rats since before the Manhattan Project. There never were any ethical or precautionary considerations. Greed and secret agendas trumped everything else.
With various half-lives –some eons-long– of numerous radioactive components, the human race and every other living creature on our planet is on its way to extinction, due to the known sterilization effects of radiation. Here is a short list of the half-life of five of the radioactive isotopes that are and will continue to poison all of our children, and us, ad infinitum, in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink and in which we bathe:
• Cesium 137: 30 years
• Plutonium 239: 24,000 years
• Strontium 90: 29 years [mimics calcium in the body]
• Uranium 235: 700-million years
• Iodine 131: 8 days [absorbed into the thyroid and gives heavy radiation dose. Also goes into the soil, passed onto us through cow’s milk.]
In a report released just a few week’s ago, the milk tested in the San Francisco area still had radioactive levels of Cesium 134 and Cesium 137. According to even a compromised EPA, these are now at “150 percent of their maximum contaminant level.” Here’s the chart:
http://enenews.com/highest-level-radioactive-cesium-san-francisco-area-milk-august-2011-150-epas-maximum-contaminant-limit-chart
In addition, Fukushima’s Unit 3 reactor also used MOX [mixed oxide], a plutonium-uranium fuel mixture that is deadly. A single milligram of MOX is 2-million times more deadly than enriched uranium.
Current radiation levels reported on Feb. 25 in Tokyo, 100 miles from Fukushima and an international hub, are “25 times the Fukushima mandatory evacuation zone.” The eminent physicist Dr. Paolo Scampa has reported in detail his latest calculations on deadly radiation exposure here (see page 2):
www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/25/evacuate-tokyo-and-all-us-forces-from-japan
==================
TO READ WHOLE Art OPEN : http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29658
==================
IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPENS IF AN ATOMIC WAR STARTS
Now is the right time to start total disarmament
People in the us should lead this movement for peace
and criminalize the zionist of Israel for inciting a global war.
Es tiempo de detenerlos y regresarlos a los limites originales
que les fueron otorgados por la ONU despues del holocausto.
La compasion mundial con los judios fue magnanima con ellos,
pero los zionistas que capturaron el poder alli en Israel
abusaron de la fe mundial por la paz y la reconciliacion.
Los zionistas anexaron en forma ilegal, violenta y criminal
tierras y rios ajenos de Palestinos y pueblo vecinos.
Y luego se apoderaron de Jerusalen
la tierra santa que es de nadie y de todos
y amurallaron el "nuevo Israel" que dicen se expandira aun mas,
y luego destruyeron de la forma mas salvaje e inhumana
la vida y dignidad de pueblos palestinos enteros.
Los zionistas no tienen ninguna autorida moral
para hablar de holocausto. Ellos desecraron esa historia.
Usaron indebidamente el poder militar que Los EU le dio,
y se han convertido en criminales de guerra,
por tanto, varios de sus lideres actuales
debieran ser sometidos a un nuevo Nurenberg trial.
No estamos por la violoencia criminal contra los judios
como lo ocurrido en Francia, rechazamos esa violencia,
pero tampoco aplaudimos la incitacion a la guerra nuclear
porque eso es lo que esta detras su plan de atacar Iran.
El pueblo americano no quiere la guerra mundial atomica
y es tiempo de frenar incitaciones a la violencia nuclear.
Es tiempo de sacarlos de NPR y de la mass media del norte.
Ayer escuche un dialogo estupido entre dos zionistas en NPR
Una dama pregunto al varon cual es peor amenaza
las bombas nucleares de Korea del norte o las de Iran,
y este respondio que Iran es el peor enemigo del mundo.
Pero ocurre que Iran no controla el arsenal nuclear de Dimona
ni se opuso a firmar el tratado de no proliferan de nukes,
ni rechazo ser chequeado por el AIEA. Es Israel quien lo hace.
La propaganda zionista incitando a la confrontacion nuclear
y el posible ataque -"pre-emptive strike"- contra Iran
es crimen contra la paz mundial y debiera ser penalizado asi,
eso es violencia tambien; es la que genero lo ocurrido en Francia.
Es tiempo de frenar toda esta propaganda zionista en los EU.
Es tiempo de exigir se respeten los limites de ley
que les fueron concedidos por la Naciones Unidas en 1948
y es tiempo de pasar el control de Jerusalen
a un protectorado mundial similar al del Vaticano.
Basta de incitar a la violencia nuclear!!
Es tiempo de iniciar un mov robusto por la paz mundial!!
Hugo Adan. Marzo 27, 2012
-------------------
"Planetary Genocide": Fukushima One Year Later : The Poisoning of Planet Earth
by Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. Global Research, March 8, 2012
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29658
[Here extracts only]
“The most difficult thing of all is to see is what is right in front of your eyes.” Goethe.
As we approach the tragic one-year anniversary of Fukushima’s multiple nuclear reactors’ accident on March 11, that initially affected the entire Japanese population, we now know that this nightmare has engulfed all of us. Let us also not forget that this is the third nuclear attack on the Japanese (the first two were Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Given what has not been done to ensure public safety, we cannot think of it any other way. From the very first day, there were lies and a massive cover-up of the extent of the destruction and the inherent radioactive dangers –not just from Japanese officials and TEPCO corporate reports, but also from the US. The Mark 1 reactors, built by General Electric, have design flaws. There are many of these same-designed reactors in the US.
A year later, much of the corruption, deceit, and careless practices have been documented extensively here at Global Research –while mainstream news continues Orwellian doublespeak. Last month, in a rare but very belated mainstream account, CBS News reported that after the tsunami and nuclear accident: “The normal lines of [government] authority completely collapsed in Japan.” See:
www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57386266/report-govt-collapsed-during-japan-nuke-crisis
As Dr. Helen Caldicott and Dr. Chris Busby have repeatedly reported: “There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water, or other sources. Period.” See:
www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=23902
and
www.helencaldicott.com/2011/05/unsafe-at-any-dose/#more-285
So, what is not monitored, or where the radiation rates are manipulated, then no one –government officials and corporations– can ever be held accountable, nor can increased death rates, diabetes, stillbirths, birth defects ever be attributed to this catastrophic planetary event.
When have we ever been told the truth about our life-long systemic radiation poisoning? For decades, we have been uninformed experimental laboratory rats since before the Manhattan Project. There never were any ethical or precautionary considerations. Greed and secret agendas trumped everything else.
With various half-lives –some eons-long– of numerous radioactive components, the human race and every other living creature on our planet is on its way to extinction, due to the known sterilization effects of radiation. Here is a short list of the half-life of five of the radioactive isotopes that are and will continue to poison all of our children, and us, ad infinitum, in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink and in which we bathe:
• Cesium 137: 30 years
• Plutonium 239: 24,000 years
• Strontium 90: 29 years [mimics calcium in the body]
• Uranium 235: 700-million years
• Iodine 131: 8 days [absorbed into the thyroid and gives heavy radiation dose. Also goes into the soil, passed onto us through cow’s milk.]
In a report released just a few week’s ago, the milk tested in the San Francisco area still had radioactive levels of Cesium 134 and Cesium 137. According to even a compromised EPA, these are now at “150 percent of their maximum contaminant level.” Here’s the chart:
http://enenews.com/highest-level-radioactive-cesium-san-francisco-area-milk-august-2011-150-epas-maximum-contaminant-limit-chart
In addition, Fukushima’s Unit 3 reactor also used MOX [mixed oxide], a plutonium-uranium fuel mixture that is deadly. A single milligram of MOX is 2-million times more deadly than enriched uranium.
Current radiation levels reported on Feb. 25 in Tokyo, 100 miles from Fukushima and an international hub, are “25 times the Fukushima mandatory evacuation zone.” The eminent physicist Dr. Paolo Scampa has reported in detail his latest calculations on deadly radiation exposure here (see page 2):
www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/25/evacuate-tokyo-and-all-us-forces-from-japan
==================
TO READ WHOLE Art OPEN : http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29658
==================
lunes, 26 de marzo de 2012
SANCTIONS ON IRAN ARE CONDEMNED TO FAIL
CHINA SELLS IRAN HI-TECH SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM DEFYING US SANCTIONS?
Published: 23 March, 2012 [HERE ONLY EXTRACTS]
http://www.rt.com/news/chinese-iran-sanctions-surveillance-251/
Iran’s largest telecom company has obtained a powerful surveillance system from a Chinese manufacturer. Despite the boycott from Western companies, Tehran will be able to monitor landline, mobile and Internet communications of potential dissidents.
¬
The deal between the China-based ZTE Corporation and the Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI) was signed back in December 2010. As Reuters says in its comprehensive report, the system was part of a $130.6 million contract for networking equipment supplied by ZTE.TCI is predominantly state-controlled and has a near monopoly on Iran’s landline telephone services, as well as having much of the country’s Internet traffic flowing through its network.
Perhaps, the most intriguing implication of the ZTE-TCI deal is the backdoor route it provides Iran for obtaining American hi-tech products despite the US ban on non-humanitarian sales to Iran. The documentation pertaining to the deal lists hardware and software products from a number of renowned American companies, including Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Cisco, Dell and others.
ZTE, China's second largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer, is also a partner of a number of American firms. Some of these companies have denied any knowledge of the ZTE-TCI deal, while several have said in statements that they were launching internal investigations into the issue.
==================
'SANCTIONS AND FORCE AGAINST IRAN ILLOGICAL AND NAIVE' – BRITISH MP
http://www.rt.com/news/baron-interview-iran-peace-519/
Published: 14 March, 2012 [HERE ONLY EXTRACTS]
The West should accept Iran as a legitimate ‘regional superpower’ and drop ‘yesterdays’ rehashed policies of sanctions and military force, a British MP told RT. ¬Talking to RT, John Baron, the only UK Conservative MP to vote against military action in Libya, called the potential use of force against Iran “illogical and naive.” He further characterized the Western use of sanctions as “yesterday's failed policies.”
“Iran is not going to be deterred from pursuing its nuclear program,” he said. “It is illogical because we are keeping an option on the table which clearly inflames the situation. People know it would be a disaster if we pursued the option of force. It is not working – the Iranians have turned their mind against it, but at the same time it is an option which makes a peaceful outcome less likely.”
Baron’s motion to the UK government, however, was almost unanimously rejected amid fears Iran could strike first in the region. But, he argues, by taking the option of a peaceful resolution off the table, Britain only reduces regional tensions in the short term. The situation really needs a fresh approach from both sides, as many opportunities to better relations have already been lost.
“After 9/11, Iran was one of the first to show solidarity with the US,” he says, “in contrast to many in the Middle East. Also in the early stages of the Afghan war, Iran made approaches. What was their reward? To be classed as part of the "Axis of Evil" by President Bush. This led directly to the removal of the reformist and moderate President Khatami.”
But, he also says Iran was also wrong to turn their back on President Obama’s initial overtures.
“I am not an apologist for Iran’s human rights record, or its sponsoring of terrorism overseas,” Baron said. “But we’ve got to view and judge it in a balanced way”.
The policy of sabre-rattling and sanctions against Iran has clearly failed, he added.
“Iran is now toying with what it is – actually bringing forward an oil embargo which was imposed by the EU It certainly will bring it forward when it comes to France and the UK.”
=============
Published: 23 March, 2012 [HERE ONLY EXTRACTS]
http://www.rt.com/news/chinese-iran-sanctions-surveillance-251/
Iran’s largest telecom company has obtained a powerful surveillance system from a Chinese manufacturer. Despite the boycott from Western companies, Tehran will be able to monitor landline, mobile and Internet communications of potential dissidents.
¬
The deal between the China-based ZTE Corporation and the Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI) was signed back in December 2010. As Reuters says in its comprehensive report, the system was part of a $130.6 million contract for networking equipment supplied by ZTE.TCI is predominantly state-controlled and has a near monopoly on Iran’s landline telephone services, as well as having much of the country’s Internet traffic flowing through its network.
Perhaps, the most intriguing implication of the ZTE-TCI deal is the backdoor route it provides Iran for obtaining American hi-tech products despite the US ban on non-humanitarian sales to Iran. The documentation pertaining to the deal lists hardware and software products from a number of renowned American companies, including Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Cisco, Dell and others.
ZTE, China's second largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer, is also a partner of a number of American firms. Some of these companies have denied any knowledge of the ZTE-TCI deal, while several have said in statements that they were launching internal investigations into the issue.
==================
'SANCTIONS AND FORCE AGAINST IRAN ILLOGICAL AND NAIVE' – BRITISH MP
http://www.rt.com/news/baron-interview-iran-peace-519/
Published: 14 March, 2012 [HERE ONLY EXTRACTS]
The West should accept Iran as a legitimate ‘regional superpower’ and drop ‘yesterdays’ rehashed policies of sanctions and military force, a British MP told RT. ¬Talking to RT, John Baron, the only UK Conservative MP to vote against military action in Libya, called the potential use of force against Iran “illogical and naive.” He further characterized the Western use of sanctions as “yesterday's failed policies.”
“Iran is not going to be deterred from pursuing its nuclear program,” he said. “It is illogical because we are keeping an option on the table which clearly inflames the situation. People know it would be a disaster if we pursued the option of force. It is not working – the Iranians have turned their mind against it, but at the same time it is an option which makes a peaceful outcome less likely.”
Baron’s motion to the UK government, however, was almost unanimously rejected amid fears Iran could strike first in the region. But, he argues, by taking the option of a peaceful resolution off the table, Britain only reduces regional tensions in the short term. The situation really needs a fresh approach from both sides, as many opportunities to better relations have already been lost.
“After 9/11, Iran was one of the first to show solidarity with the US,” he says, “in contrast to many in the Middle East. Also in the early stages of the Afghan war, Iran made approaches. What was their reward? To be classed as part of the "Axis of Evil" by President Bush. This led directly to the removal of the reformist and moderate President Khatami.”
But, he also says Iran was also wrong to turn their back on President Obama’s initial overtures.
“I am not an apologist for Iran’s human rights record, or its sponsoring of terrorism overseas,” Baron said. “But we’ve got to view and judge it in a balanced way”.
The policy of sabre-rattling and sanctions against Iran has clearly failed, he added.
“Iran is now toying with what it is – actually bringing forward an oil embargo which was imposed by the EU It certainly will bring it forward when it comes to France and the UK.”
=============
sábado, 24 de marzo de 2012
WHAT IS PRESIDENT OBAMA SO AFRAID OF?
WHAT IS PRESIDENT OBAMA SO AFRAID OF?
INTRODUCCION
Por Hugo Adan. Marzo 24, 2012
La única forma de salir de la crisis actual es crear un nuevo modelo económico que no tiene que ser igual al de Rusia y China, que puede ser aún mucho mejor. Creo que en la misma cantidad de tiempo que se tomo Putin para sacar a Russia de la debacle que dejo Yelsin, podría también sacarse a los EU del atolladero econ en que estamos.
Eso no podría hacerse con un House y un Senado tan corruptos como el que hoy tenemos. Alli murieron todas la buenas iniciativas que especulo el candidato Obama (a mi ver le faltó un programa coherente y un equipo dispuesto a implementarlo). Para controlar y eliminar las contaminaciones que trae consigo la mano oculta del mercado liberal, o mas exactamente, para controlar el “iron fist” y el greed de las grandes corporaciones se requiere tomar real control del Estado con un tipo de sistema quasi-presidencialista como el que esta tras la propuesta que acaba de firmar Obama. Hablo del “NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS, EXECUTIVE ORDER” firmado el viernes 23 de marzo.
Mediante este Executive Order (EO)se transfiere al Presidente poderes que el no tuvo en su 1er mandato para solucionar problemas de emergencia. Los poderes que se transfiere a la Presidencia son los siguientes: :
(1) The EO vastly expands the role of Homeland Security,
(2) The EO further provides for an effective nationalization of the entire US economy in the event of an emergency. And
(3) The purpose of this EO is to “take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;” Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-what-president-obama-so-afraid
Estamos hablando de los mismos poderes que “democraticamente” se creo Putin en Rusia y que Bush también se creó para lo inverso (para dar mas poder a las grandes corporaciones y salvarlos de su debacle con los paquetazos que el inicio y que Obama continuo) cuando asalto el poder luego del ataque terrorista de sep 11. El Senado y el House fueron subordinados al Presidente Bush y quien se atrevió a discutir ese poder recibió su cartita con ántrax.
Esta vez se trata de prevenir emergencias como un posible enfrentamiento nuclear con Russia derivado del ataque de Israel a Iran. Pero podría también ser usado (si se evita el enfrentamiento poniendo en su sitio a Israel) para resolver el problema mayor que tenemos, el de la crisis económica interna, mediante el punto 2 de arriba.
El como se va a usar este instrumento legal llamado EO depende de
(a) quien llegue a la Presidencia;
(b) de quienes están detrás de esta propuesta (si es el actual military-industrial-complex ya podríamos imaginarnos lo que viene) y
(c) el EO podria ser usado por el nuevo Presidente para reorganizar los aparatos de Estado, sin tener que usar otro 9/11, ni el argumento de posible guerra nuclear (para evitar esto solo basta ilegalizar el chantaje guerra como crimen contra la paz).
Para mi lo mas importante es que el EO (especialmente el punto 2: effective nationalization of the entire US economy in the event of an emergency) se podria usar para re-organizar la economía nacional. Se requiere que el Estado participe de la bonanza de la expansion capitalista (como ocurre en Rusia, China, la India o Brazil) y pueda dotar a la nacion de educacion y salud extirpando de alli el greed y el "for profit business" lo que nos ha colocado como un pais de tercera clase en terminos de desarrollo humano. Y si nuestros empresarios no pueden competir a nivel internacional y son sacados de la competencia, la Estado no tiene por que pagar las consecuencias y regalar dineros de la nacion con los infames bailouts a empresarios corruptos y especuladores; al contrario, se los debiera enjuiciar y poner en la carcel si se prueban malos manejos de dineros de la nacion y/o atropellos a los derechos del labor.
No podemos continuar socializando las perdidas de unos cuantos bribones a costas de la nacion entera. Si el EO order ha sido diseniado para aplastar la protesta popular en defensa de esos bribones, el EO debe ser denunciado y habra mas de un juez dispuesto a defender la constitucion y los los derechos de la nacion contra el neoliberalismo obsoleto y sus dictadores politicos.
Esto supone 1ro evitar la guerra y controlar el macartismo siniestro que anida en el Homeland Security Department (preniado de islamofobia) y controlar también los nuevos impulsos anárquicos de la población americana (las balaceras), sobre todo del contingente que viene de zonas de guerra. Se requiere un proceso de ayuda psicológica y sobre todo ayuda para que esta juventud pueda ser insertada dentro de los trabajos de construccion al interior del pais o ayudarlos para que puedan auto-crear propias fuentes de trabajo.
Y se requiere 2do ajustar nuestro proyecto al contexto internacional y en esto la lucha por la paz y el desarme mundial es capital. Urge afianzar el liderazgo por la paz mundial y no con palabras, sino con hechos. Empecemos en el conflicto en el medio oriente. Afiancemos nuestra autonomia frente a los contendores y presionemos a Israel por el desmontaje de Dimona y otros silos nuclearos y de los missiles con cabeza nuclear apuntando a Rusia. EU y Rusia deberan ser los garantes de que Iran no construya bombas atomicas y de que el Medio oriente sea declarado zona libre de WMD.
Los enemigos gratuitos que Israel conquista a nivel mundial con sus insidias y chantajes de guerra nuclear no deben ser endosados al pueblo americano. Este pueblo no esta en favor de la guerra y debera ser el Estado quien se encarge de desmontar la islamofobia en sus medios de comunicacion y el crimen contra la paz sera delito grave. Los EU ya tenemos muchos enemigos y es hora de iniciar la reconciliacion con Irak y Afghanistan respetando el derecho a su autonomia y soberania.
Para evitar nuevas guerra es importante no usar dobles estándares, uno para los aliados de EU (aliados de conveniencia, realmente mercenarios) y otro para supuestos enemigos. EU debe colocarse por encima de la falsa disyuntiva (pais amigo vs pais enemigo) y exigir que Israel firme el tratado de no proliferacion de armas nucleares y se someta a chequeo su arsenal de bombas en Dimona por el IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Se debe emitir ya un EO condenando el chantajear nuclear de iniciar guerra por cuenta propia como crimen contra la paz mundial, segun Convenios Internacionales post Nurenberg trial.
------------------------
SOURCES
La nueva Orden Ejecutiva puede accederse en : http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness
La nota del Examiner se encuentra en: http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/president-obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-for-control-over-all-us-resources )
NOTE, this is an update: The above two sources has been listed in the recent article of Atilio Boron published in Rebelion: Obama prepara a Estados Unidos para una nueva guerra, del 3 de abril, 2012. http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=147396.
What I did publish in my article above -March 24, 2012- is the list of more on this issue (see below) and I suggest the readers to take a look of the first article. I was expecting a reaction from honest Judges in America, and it happens. Read it.
====================
MORE ON THIS ISSUE:
NDAA in court over indefinite detention of Americans
Published: 30 March, 2012
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-law-detention-military-883/
-----------------
Concern Over National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order a “Distraction”. By Kurt Nimmo. Infowars.com. March 30, 2012
http://www.infowars.com/mother-jones-fellow-concern-over-national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order-a-distraction/
---------------
• President Obama Issues Martial Law Executive Order | Your Black ...
http://blacklikemoi.com/2012/03/black-news/president-obama-issues-martial-law-executive-order/
-------------------
• Follow the “M” word: More on the “National Defense Resources ...
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/03/19/follow-the-m-word-more-on-the-national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order/
---------------------
Mar 19, 2012 – Follow the “M” word: More on the “National Defense Resources Preparedness” Executive Order. ... Here are the two main differences: ... Obama also established an interagency Defense Production Act ... But note: the specific requirement for the strategic plan came from the Defense Authorization Act in the ...
• Conspiracy Watch
www.conspiracywatch.net/
---------------------
Obama signs National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order ...
http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/obama-signs-national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order-permitting-peacetime-martial-law-a-draft-and-the-procurement-of-private-property/
----------------
Mar 17, 2012 – It exceeds the revelation in the National Defense Authorization Act .... This is ruling by decree, no different than Stalin, Mao, Hitler or any ....
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/18/national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order- ... and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several ...
=================
Leamos el articulo de Tyler Durden
WHAT IS PRESIDENT OBAMA SO AFRAID OF?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-what-president-obama-so-afraid
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/22/2012
Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man blog, Stgo de Chile, March 20,2012
Quietly, and with little fanfare, President Obama signed a “National Defense Resources Preparedness” Executive Order on Friday. As the name suggests, the order intends to shore up the country’s national defense resources in advance of a national emergency.
To be fair, this is not the first time that such an order has been written. Presidents Bush (II), Clinton, Reagan, and even Eisenhower provided directives in the same spirit as President Obama’s order– providing some level of government commandeering in times of national emergency.
In the past, these orders have related to things like production capacity for defense contractors, or giving FEMA authority to resolve disputes between other departments in federally designated emergency areas.
President Obama’s order, however, takes things much, much further.
(1) The order vastly expands the role of Homeland Security… as if these knuckleheads didn’t already have too much influence in people’s lives. Apparently highways, shopping malls, airports, bus stations, Wal-Marts, hotels, train stations, etc. aren’t enough for DHS. Now the Secretary of DHS will:
a) “advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness”.
This one is really clear. Under normal circumstances, matters related to defense would fall under the Secretary of Defense… or perhaps the National Security Advisor. Giving such responsibility to DHS suggests that the government is expecting an emergency from within.
b) “provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs… under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order…”
DHS now has authority to direct the emergency preparedness of every other government department. The Secretary of Homeland Security has effectively become the Emergency Czar.
c) have oversight of “all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.”
In case it wasn’t clear before, the people who molest children and radiate travelers will have total and complete control in some event defined as a national emergency in the sole discretion of the President.
(2) The order further provides for an effective nationalization of the entire US economy in the event of an emergency.
The Secretary of Labor, for example, will “collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense” and then “formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes.”
In other words, the Labor Department becomes the Ministry of Plenty, and all the good little citizens will be forcibly reallocated to other jobs. This turned out really well for the Soviets.
(3) The purpose of this order, for example, is to “take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;”
It goes on to list ‘adequate resources’ to include things like:
i) “all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels… solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy”, etc.
(ii) “all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements…”
(iii) “all commodities and products… that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals…”
(iv) “drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.”
Hmmmm. Food. Water. Energy. Medicine. Security. All the stuff that human beings need at a basic level to survive. Except that Obama’s executive order puts all of these resources under control of the government and allocates them exclusively to meet the needs of government.
In this capacity, we are all merely subordinates to the interests of the state… and it should be absolutely clear at this point where normal people stand in the grand pecking order: Citizens are resources to be exploited and sacrificed in order to ensure the continuity of government.
In the event of some catastrophe, you will be stripped of basic resources so that the government can survive. A free society cannot exist under a system in which the state exercises such control… or has the authority to exercise such control.
Taken in conjunction with the NSA’s new Utah spy center (which will collect and archive the complete contents of every email, tweet, Facebook post, Google search, phone call, and text message) and the National Defense Authorization Act, it’s clear that the Obama administration is expecting trouble from within.
And with good reason. By every possible calculation (except flat-out fraud), the US government is completely insolvent, and its balance sheet is growing worse by the day. The dollar is beginning to be seriously challenged as the global reserve standard, and every effort politicians make to ‘fix’ the economy only makes things worse.
As a matter of convenience, people are willing to deal with a lot of pain. They’ll suffer through wars, recessions, and all sorts of national unpleasantness. But the moment that rapidly decaying economics and shortages prevent people from being able to put food on the table for their families, they rise up. Just look at the Arab Spring.
This is all playing out with nearly perfect historical precision. Time and time again throughout history as once great empires accelerated their declines, governments have taken steps to protect their interests against the people.
In the past, they have imposed curfews, disarmed the population, curtailed civil liberties, and declared national emergencies, usually against some great faceless enemy from abroad who threatens their way of life.
As it turns out, though, our great faceless enemy is not some mythical boogeyman living in a cave, nor some angry brown person who hates us for our freedoms… but the very people within the system who’ve taken an oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’
Have you hit your breaking point yet?
=====================
INTRODUCCION
Por Hugo Adan. Marzo 24, 2012
La única forma de salir de la crisis actual es crear un nuevo modelo económico que no tiene que ser igual al de Rusia y China, que puede ser aún mucho mejor. Creo que en la misma cantidad de tiempo que se tomo Putin para sacar a Russia de la debacle que dejo Yelsin, podría también sacarse a los EU del atolladero econ en que estamos.
Eso no podría hacerse con un House y un Senado tan corruptos como el que hoy tenemos. Alli murieron todas la buenas iniciativas que especulo el candidato Obama (a mi ver le faltó un programa coherente y un equipo dispuesto a implementarlo). Para controlar y eliminar las contaminaciones que trae consigo la mano oculta del mercado liberal, o mas exactamente, para controlar el “iron fist” y el greed de las grandes corporaciones se requiere tomar real control del Estado con un tipo de sistema quasi-presidencialista como el que esta tras la propuesta que acaba de firmar Obama. Hablo del “NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS, EXECUTIVE ORDER” firmado el viernes 23 de marzo.
Mediante este Executive Order (EO)se transfiere al Presidente poderes que el no tuvo en su 1er mandato para solucionar problemas de emergencia. Los poderes que se transfiere a la Presidencia son los siguientes: :
(1) The EO vastly expands the role of Homeland Security,
(2) The EO further provides for an effective nationalization of the entire US economy in the event of an emergency. And
(3) The purpose of this EO is to “take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;” Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-what-president-obama-so-afraid
Estamos hablando de los mismos poderes que “democraticamente” se creo Putin en Rusia y que Bush también se creó para lo inverso (para dar mas poder a las grandes corporaciones y salvarlos de su debacle con los paquetazos que el inicio y que Obama continuo) cuando asalto el poder luego del ataque terrorista de sep 11. El Senado y el House fueron subordinados al Presidente Bush y quien se atrevió a discutir ese poder recibió su cartita con ántrax.
Esta vez se trata de prevenir emergencias como un posible enfrentamiento nuclear con Russia derivado del ataque de Israel a Iran. Pero podría también ser usado (si se evita el enfrentamiento poniendo en su sitio a Israel) para resolver el problema mayor que tenemos, el de la crisis económica interna, mediante el punto 2 de arriba.
El como se va a usar este instrumento legal llamado EO depende de
(a) quien llegue a la Presidencia;
(b) de quienes están detrás de esta propuesta (si es el actual military-industrial-complex ya podríamos imaginarnos lo que viene) y
(c) el EO podria ser usado por el nuevo Presidente para reorganizar los aparatos de Estado, sin tener que usar otro 9/11, ni el argumento de posible guerra nuclear (para evitar esto solo basta ilegalizar el chantaje guerra como crimen contra la paz).
Para mi lo mas importante es que el EO (especialmente el punto 2: effective nationalization of the entire US economy in the event of an emergency) se podria usar para re-organizar la economía nacional. Se requiere que el Estado participe de la bonanza de la expansion capitalista (como ocurre en Rusia, China, la India o Brazil) y pueda dotar a la nacion de educacion y salud extirpando de alli el greed y el "for profit business" lo que nos ha colocado como un pais de tercera clase en terminos de desarrollo humano. Y si nuestros empresarios no pueden competir a nivel internacional y son sacados de la competencia, la Estado no tiene por que pagar las consecuencias y regalar dineros de la nacion con los infames bailouts a empresarios corruptos y especuladores; al contrario, se los debiera enjuiciar y poner en la carcel si se prueban malos manejos de dineros de la nacion y/o atropellos a los derechos del labor.
No podemos continuar socializando las perdidas de unos cuantos bribones a costas de la nacion entera. Si el EO order ha sido diseniado para aplastar la protesta popular en defensa de esos bribones, el EO debe ser denunciado y habra mas de un juez dispuesto a defender la constitucion y los los derechos de la nacion contra el neoliberalismo obsoleto y sus dictadores politicos.
Esto supone 1ro evitar la guerra y controlar el macartismo siniestro que anida en el Homeland Security Department (preniado de islamofobia) y controlar también los nuevos impulsos anárquicos de la población americana (las balaceras), sobre todo del contingente que viene de zonas de guerra. Se requiere un proceso de ayuda psicológica y sobre todo ayuda para que esta juventud pueda ser insertada dentro de los trabajos de construccion al interior del pais o ayudarlos para que puedan auto-crear propias fuentes de trabajo.
Y se requiere 2do ajustar nuestro proyecto al contexto internacional y en esto la lucha por la paz y el desarme mundial es capital. Urge afianzar el liderazgo por la paz mundial y no con palabras, sino con hechos. Empecemos en el conflicto en el medio oriente. Afiancemos nuestra autonomia frente a los contendores y presionemos a Israel por el desmontaje de Dimona y otros silos nuclearos y de los missiles con cabeza nuclear apuntando a Rusia. EU y Rusia deberan ser los garantes de que Iran no construya bombas atomicas y de que el Medio oriente sea declarado zona libre de WMD.
Los enemigos gratuitos que Israel conquista a nivel mundial con sus insidias y chantajes de guerra nuclear no deben ser endosados al pueblo americano. Este pueblo no esta en favor de la guerra y debera ser el Estado quien se encarge de desmontar la islamofobia en sus medios de comunicacion y el crimen contra la paz sera delito grave. Los EU ya tenemos muchos enemigos y es hora de iniciar la reconciliacion con Irak y Afghanistan respetando el derecho a su autonomia y soberania.
Para evitar nuevas guerra es importante no usar dobles estándares, uno para los aliados de EU (aliados de conveniencia, realmente mercenarios) y otro para supuestos enemigos. EU debe colocarse por encima de la falsa disyuntiva (pais amigo vs pais enemigo) y exigir que Israel firme el tratado de no proliferacion de armas nucleares y se someta a chequeo su arsenal de bombas en Dimona por el IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Se debe emitir ya un EO condenando el chantajear nuclear de iniciar guerra por cuenta propia como crimen contra la paz mundial, segun Convenios Internacionales post Nurenberg trial.
------------------------
SOURCES
La nueva Orden Ejecutiva puede accederse en : http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness
La nota del Examiner se encuentra en: http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/president-obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-for-control-over-all-us-resources )
NOTE, this is an update: The above two sources has been listed in the recent article of Atilio Boron published in Rebelion: Obama prepara a Estados Unidos para una nueva guerra, del 3 de abril, 2012. http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=147396.
What I did publish in my article above -March 24, 2012- is the list of more on this issue (see below) and I suggest the readers to take a look of the first article. I was expecting a reaction from honest Judges in America, and it happens. Read it.
====================
NDAA in court over indefinite detention of Americans
Published: 30 March, 2012
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-law-detention-military-883/
-----------------
Concern Over National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order a “Distraction”. By Kurt Nimmo. Infowars.com. March 30, 2012
http://www.infowars.com/mother-jones-fellow-concern-over-national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order-a-distraction/
---------------
• President Obama Issues Martial Law Executive Order | Your Black ...
http://blacklikemoi.com/2012/03/black-news/president-obama-issues-martial-law-executive-order/
-------------------
• Follow the “M” word: More on the “National Defense Resources ...
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/03/19/follow-the-m-word-more-on-the-national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order/
---------------------
Mar 19, 2012 – Follow the “M” word: More on the “National Defense Resources Preparedness” Executive Order. ... Here are the two main differences: ... Obama also established an interagency Defense Production Act ... But note: the specific requirement for the strategic plan came from the Defense Authorization Act in the ...
• Conspiracy Watch
www.conspiracywatch.net/
---------------------
Obama signs National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order ...
http://spellchek.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/obama-signs-national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order-permitting-peacetime-martial-law-a-draft-and-the-procurement-of-private-property/
----------------
Mar 17, 2012 – It exceeds the revelation in the National Defense Authorization Act .... This is ruling by decree, no different than Stalin, Mao, Hitler or any ....
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/18/national-defense-resources-preparedness-executive-order- ... and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several ...
=================
Leamos el articulo de Tyler Durden
WHAT IS PRESIDENT OBAMA SO AFRAID OF?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-what-president-obama-so-afraid
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/22/2012
Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man blog, Stgo de Chile, March 20,2012
Quietly, and with little fanfare, President Obama signed a “National Defense Resources Preparedness” Executive Order on Friday. As the name suggests, the order intends to shore up the country’s national defense resources in advance of a national emergency.
To be fair, this is not the first time that such an order has been written. Presidents Bush (II), Clinton, Reagan, and even Eisenhower provided directives in the same spirit as President Obama’s order– providing some level of government commandeering in times of national emergency.
In the past, these orders have related to things like production capacity for defense contractors, or giving FEMA authority to resolve disputes between other departments in federally designated emergency areas.
President Obama’s order, however, takes things much, much further.
(1) The order vastly expands the role of Homeland Security… as if these knuckleheads didn’t already have too much influence in people’s lives. Apparently highways, shopping malls, airports, bus stations, Wal-Marts, hotels, train stations, etc. aren’t enough for DHS. Now the Secretary of DHS will:
a) “advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness”.
This one is really clear. Under normal circumstances, matters related to defense would fall under the Secretary of Defense… or perhaps the National Security Advisor. Giving such responsibility to DHS suggests that the government is expecting an emergency from within.
b) “provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs… under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order…”
DHS now has authority to direct the emergency preparedness of every other government department. The Secretary of Homeland Security has effectively become the Emergency Czar.
c) have oversight of “all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.”
In case it wasn’t clear before, the people who molest children and radiate travelers will have total and complete control in some event defined as a national emergency in the sole discretion of the President.
(2) The order further provides for an effective nationalization of the entire US economy in the event of an emergency.
The Secretary of Labor, for example, will “collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense” and then “formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes.”
In other words, the Labor Department becomes the Ministry of Plenty, and all the good little citizens will be forcibly reallocated to other jobs. This turned out really well for the Soviets.
(3) The purpose of this order, for example, is to “take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;”
It goes on to list ‘adequate resources’ to include things like:
i) “all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels… solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy”, etc.
(ii) “all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements…”
(iii) “all commodities and products… that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals…”
(iv) “drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.”
Hmmmm. Food. Water. Energy. Medicine. Security. All the stuff that human beings need at a basic level to survive. Except that Obama’s executive order puts all of these resources under control of the government and allocates them exclusively to meet the needs of government.
In this capacity, we are all merely subordinates to the interests of the state… and it should be absolutely clear at this point where normal people stand in the grand pecking order: Citizens are resources to be exploited and sacrificed in order to ensure the continuity of government.
In the event of some catastrophe, you will be stripped of basic resources so that the government can survive. A free society cannot exist under a system in which the state exercises such control… or has the authority to exercise such control.
Taken in conjunction with the NSA’s new Utah spy center (which will collect and archive the complete contents of every email, tweet, Facebook post, Google search, phone call, and text message) and the National Defense Authorization Act, it’s clear that the Obama administration is expecting trouble from within.
And with good reason. By every possible calculation (except flat-out fraud), the US government is completely insolvent, and its balance sheet is growing worse by the day. The dollar is beginning to be seriously challenged as the global reserve standard, and every effort politicians make to ‘fix’ the economy only makes things worse.
As a matter of convenience, people are willing to deal with a lot of pain. They’ll suffer through wars, recessions, and all sorts of national unpleasantness. But the moment that rapidly decaying economics and shortages prevent people from being able to put food on the table for their families, they rise up. Just look at the Arab Spring.
This is all playing out with nearly perfect historical precision. Time and time again throughout history as once great empires accelerated their declines, governments have taken steps to protect their interests against the people.
In the past, they have imposed curfews, disarmed the population, curtailed civil liberties, and declared national emergencies, usually against some great faceless enemy from abroad who threatens their way of life.
As it turns out, though, our great faceless enemy is not some mythical boogeyman living in a cave, nor some angry brown person who hates us for our freedoms… but the very people within the system who’ve taken an oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’
Have you hit your breaking point yet?
=====================
jueves, 22 de marzo de 2012
IRAN: WESTERN ERROR WOULD ‘ENDANGER ISRAEL’S EXISTENCE’
IRANIAN MINEFIELD: WESTERN ERROR WOULD ‘ENDANGER ISRAEL’S EXISTENCE’
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-israel-attack-existence-threat-235/
Published: 22 March, 2012
Any move - even the “slightest of errors” - which can be considered a hostile act against the Islamic Republic will jeopardize the very existence of the Israeli regime, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a senior Iranian lawmaker, has said.
Boroujerdi, who is also the head of the Majlis Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy, warned the West that it should take Iran’s threats with all seriousness, Press TV reports.
“Should the Western countries want to commit the slightest of errors regarding Iran, they will be gripped by such ramifications that will endanger the existence of the Zionist regime,” he is quoted as saying. "In case of any venture against our country, the aggressors will face a swift, resolute and serious countermeasure."
The harsh statement comes the same day as the US State Department revealed the list of 12 countries (http://www.rt.com/news/us-iran-sanctions-list-160/) which may be subjected to American financial sanctions for failing to cut oil imports from Iran.
Israel has still not ruled out a military strike to stop Iran's nuclear research, considering the economic sanctions (http://www.rt.com/news/irans-shift-reaction-gulf-893/) imposed by the US and EU to be insufficient.
On Wednesday, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mohamed ElBaradei, warned Israel that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites would not bring any good results and would only encourage the Islamic republic to develop nuclear weapons.
“You can bomb their facilities, but you cannot bomb their knowledge,” ElBaradei said. “If you were to bomb Iranian facilities, there would be a lesson for Iran – to develop nuclear weapons.”
Iran insists on the peaceful character of its nuclear program, while the US and Israel, backed by the majority of Western countries, continue to accuse Iran of developing nuclear weapons, though without any concrete evidence. All the intelligence gathered by US and Israeli spy agencies (Mossad and CIA concur: Iran isn’t seeking nukes http://www.rt.com/news/mossad-iran-nuclear-programme-851/) so far indicates that Iran’s military nuclear program was shut down way back in 2003.
Iranian officials have repeatedly promised an imminent retaliation to every country that dares to attack Iran.
===============
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-israel-attack-existence-threat-235/
Published: 22 March, 2012
Any move - even the “slightest of errors” - which can be considered a hostile act against the Islamic Republic will jeopardize the very existence of the Israeli regime, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a senior Iranian lawmaker, has said.
Boroujerdi, who is also the head of the Majlis Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy, warned the West that it should take Iran’s threats with all seriousness, Press TV reports.
“Should the Western countries want to commit the slightest of errors regarding Iran, they will be gripped by such ramifications that will endanger the existence of the Zionist regime,” he is quoted as saying. "In case of any venture against our country, the aggressors will face a swift, resolute and serious countermeasure."
The harsh statement comes the same day as the US State Department revealed the list of 12 countries (http://www.rt.com/news/us-iran-sanctions-list-160/) which may be subjected to American financial sanctions for failing to cut oil imports from Iran.
Israel has still not ruled out a military strike to stop Iran's nuclear research, considering the economic sanctions (http://www.rt.com/news/irans-shift-reaction-gulf-893/) imposed by the US and EU to be insufficient.
On Wednesday, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mohamed ElBaradei, warned Israel that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites would not bring any good results and would only encourage the Islamic republic to develop nuclear weapons.
“You can bomb their facilities, but you cannot bomb their knowledge,” ElBaradei said. “If you were to bomb Iranian facilities, there would be a lesson for Iran – to develop nuclear weapons.”
Iran insists on the peaceful character of its nuclear program, while the US and Israel, backed by the majority of Western countries, continue to accuse Iran of developing nuclear weapons, though without any concrete evidence. All the intelligence gathered by US and Israeli spy agencies (Mossad and CIA concur: Iran isn’t seeking nukes http://www.rt.com/news/mossad-iran-nuclear-programme-851/) so far indicates that Iran’s military nuclear program was shut down way back in 2003.
Iranian officials have repeatedly promised an imminent retaliation to every country that dares to attack Iran.
===============
US-EU SANCTIONS ON IRAN CAUSE PAIN TO THE WHOLE WORLD
US-EU SANCTIONS ON IRAN CAUSE PAIN TO THE WHOLE WORLD
SAID IMF CHIEF CHRISTINE LAGARDE: IT CAUSE 30% OIL PRICE SHOCK
Published march 21, 2012
INTRODUCTION
By Hugo adan. March 22, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
It seems to be one more of the usual deterrence game played between a) powerful countries armed with nuclear weapons intimidating a small country full of oil resources, that is, b) Iran. The pretext now is the assumed building of nuclear weapons (not evidence at all) and the claim by the Zionist of Israel to bomb Iran with a pre-emptive war. Is this just a blab from Israel or are there big interest at stake in favor of war?. To the IMF Chief this seems to be a nasty business from the profiteers of soaring oil prices. She didn’t mention who are they but the fact is that Israel continue making threat of war and the profiteers get more money.
The fact is that there is a 3rd player in the field, also armed with nukes, defending Iran against intimidation, then the previous deterrence game becomes either a dangerous game or a type of cold-war-era game with not nuke-confrontation on earth. IT IS DANGEROUS GAME BECAUSE ISRAEL IS ARMED WITH NUKES (it has a history of aggression with WMD to their neighbors in the region) AND THE US REGIMEN DOESN’T HAVE CONTROL ON THEM. So if they (Israel & US)START a WAR, IT HAS TO BE PLAYED UP THE END. Unless this is for the US a consented game of simulation designed to hurt another player (could be the Europe, as it is said by the corporate media here in the US. Europe is accused of being main factor preventing the US to overcome the Economic-crisis). If this is true, the simulacrum is intended to rid of a future competitor of the US, the EU. The objective in both cases, real war or simulation of war, is the control of oil in Iran.
Why this game has to be played up the end if war starts?. Because the intimidation tactic -known as deterrence game- is not working as expected by the US-UK and Israel. They put-on their boots first and then the socks. They used sanctions first n then after diplomacy, as a result of this mistake the western economies have been hurt. Politically, they are losing previous neutral countries like India. The designers of this game tried to correct this mistake by using the puppet Kofi Annan and he got a conditioned UN Sec Council resolution to give humanitarian aid to the civilian victims of the violence inside Syria. So far so good for NATO allies, if their intentions is to use Syria to invade and take control of Iran.
KOFI ANNAN: MISSIONER OF WAR or PEACE?
Of course US-UK-Israel used this legal instrument to open the space for their strategic aim: arm the mercenary-“rebels” and make it worse the violence inside Syria as it happens after the arrival of the fake missioner of peace. If the text of the SC Res gives them leverage to carry out their bad intentions, Syria has the right to reject such mission, or conditioned to due respect of their sovereignty and take control of the humanitarian supplies, or, band the US-UK and other countries who were involved in supported mercenaries’ violence inside Syria, to come to this country. If US-UK and allies get away with their plans, there won’t be peace but war over there. If 3rd countries like Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua from LA, or others non-members of the Arab League, get involved as commissioners for humanitarian aid, war can be avoided.
IS DETERRENCE GAME FROM COLD-WAR-ERA OBSOLETE or IT WORKS?
On the one side we have NATO allies and in the other, Russian allies, both of them armed with nuclear weapons. The aim of NATO is regime change both in Syria and Iran and that is possible only via carpet bombing and invasion of both countries. The aim of Russia is to provide security to their partners and protect their own interest avoiding the bombing and invasion of Syria n Iran. In economic terms, it means to continue controlling the supply of oil to Europe. At the end, oil is in both sides the major objective of peace n war. Deterrence only works if war is avoided at any cost. If the US-UK & NATO allies do not abandon their objective on Iran, war is very likely. That is the premise to look first in the current situation.
Now, let’s check the principles of deterrence. As T.Schelling and Huth P.K put it (they are the holly cows on deterrence in the West) deterrence Is the art of coercion, intimidation and threats to prevent an adversary of doing something (ie Iran should not make nukes. Or Israel should not bomb Iran) otherwise they will pay the big costs n loses of war. This military strategy of domination departs from two bases and follows several principals.
FIRST, IT IS BASED ON DIPLOMACY. Let’s make a difference between Real and war diplomacy. Real diplomacy is a form of bargaining that seeks outcomes for each state that though not ideal for either party, are better for both than any other alternative. War diplomacy is different, it is just the uses of threat via networks and institutions (i.e the Arab League or the UN) to convince the other party to refrain from initiating undesirable course of action. This diplomacy hides the real intention (of military nature) of the threat. That is NATO style of diplomacy, they used because they have control of org like the Arab League n UN institutions. Russian cannot used, though they have veto power, it is a limited power, so they skip diplomacy and make actions (deployment of aircraft-carrier and navy-missile-carrier) that speak louder than words of diplomats.
SECOND, IT IS BASED IN THE POWER TO HURT. If you place a nuclear-head missile pointing to Russia and they do the same to you, you have to be sure that these arms will be used when a war starts. If you have the monopoly of power to hurt, you can submit to your domain everyone else who has not such power, but if your contender has also nuclear weapons you better resolve your differences via real-diplomacy to get peace under the assumption of mutual-assured-destruction, this implies that both contenders will destroy themselves mutually if they go to war. This is maybe that Germany n France want, that Russian and US-UK got destroyed in a nuke-war. BUT if both US-UK and Russian allies postpone this crisis without going to war, is the EU that is destroyed, and the oil lords of US, UK and Russia will continue profiting from this crisis and high prize of oil.
THIRD, REGARDING PRINCIPLES OF DETERRENCE, THE BASIC ONE IS CREDIBILITY. In deterrence theory it is argue that a threat is credible if (a) the one who make the threat has the military capability to inflict substantial cost on an adversary; and (b) if the one with nuke-power is resolve to use its available military force. Because of the presence of Russians defending Iran n Syria, deterrence is condemned to failure in Iran. It should have failed also in the case of Syria if decided not to accept the UN missioner Kofi Annan. Assad made a mistake since the UN puppet make the mercenaries believe that NATO have not been abandon them. When a sniper hit a marine soldier from a building and other marines call helicopters or planes to bomb the building is because they want to deter civilians in the building of helping snipers. The same with Russians in Chechenia and Syrians with Assad. This principle (and the next one) accept the uses of limited force (in time n space), but not full scale of war (like carpet bombing and invasion) with unpredicted collateral damage. If this happens, it means that deterrence failed.
THE PRINCIPLE OF COERCIVE CREDIBILITY means using diplomacy to convince the adversary about the cost and benefit of cooperation and the consequences of non-cooperation. The case of economic sanctions can be seen as building coercive credibility. But it was also condemned to failure because of Russian in the area, besides, this sanctions was wrongly designed.
FOURTH, THE NEXT PRINCIPLE IS PROPORTIONALITY (nothing to do with proportionality in the theory of just war that limits the means used in war to military objectives, not civilian target and prohibit the uses of nukes, biological and chemical weapons) here proportionality refers the uses of threat in the diplomacy of war (if war start means that deterrence fails) and it implies that if a state make higher demands on another state, is higher the cost of compliance (it leads to not compliance, so deterrence fails). This seems to be the case of sanctions of not buying oil from Iran. This typical blockage don’t work with oil and the worse, it penalize not your enemy but your friends.
In July is coming the sanctions on gasoline, and this sanction is too much too soon and it won’t work either. The other one, the freezing of Iranian capital in western banks is illegal, just piracy, so an act of war that violates the principle of deterrence and speak louder on non-peaceful purposes. Proportionality limit the demands to policy changes, it should never goes to regimen change since it violated a main UN principle, that of sovereignty. If regime change is requested, should be taken as act of war since any regime has social basis and it targets them when nukes, mini-nukes (banker-busters)are used. Regime change is an unjust-illegal claim.
FIFTH, THE PRINCIPLE OF EXPECTED RECIPROCITY. If diplomacy of the attacker offers carrots to get concessions from an adversary and the contender do not pay attention to them and the sticks come (sanctions) for non-corresponding, and even though the contender does not concedes it means that the attacker has either to revise their tactic and get a balance between offering too little too late and given too much too soon. In other words, it means that diplomacy is a failure.
SIX, THE PRINCIPLE OF INTEREST AT STAKE. It means that: to greater interest correspond greater chances of military actions against the adversary. This could explain the easy success of NATO allies in Iraq and Libya (huge interests at stake on oil came together) but it also explain the difficulties in the invasion of Syria and the postponed attack on Iran, Russia and China are involved there. So there are greater chances of nuclear war if the powerful countries (Russia & US) do not sit and make real diplomacy, as it happens during the cold war when each side had a red to call in emergency situations.
THE QUESTION IS: can this war (if any) be limited to the Middle East only?. It is unlikely, since the bombing of Iran will be used by the Russian Lavrov to blow out Dimona and several missiles stations pointing to Russia. If the US-UK hit Russia or China they will retaliate immediately. Israel, London and 3-4 big cities in the US will be hit too. It won’t be the end of history, but if this war continue more than 3 days, it could be. Even with 2 days of nuclear ex-change, the world won’t be the same.
=======================
SOURCES:
Now let’s read current articles on this matter.
WAR WITH IRAN TO CAUSE 30% OIL PRICE SHOCK – IMF
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-oil-surge-prices-104/ Published march 21, 2012
A sudden cut of oil flow from Iran may cause a surge of crude prices of up to 30 per cent, dealing a blow to the world economy, warns IMF chief Christine Lagarde.
¬
The continuing standoff between Iran and the West may result in “serious consequences” for the world Lagarde, executive director of the International Monetary Fund, said Tuesday.
"Clearly it would be a shock to economies if there was a major shortage of exports of oil out of Iran, it would certainly drive up prices for a period of time," she told the media.
The IMF chief estimates that a sudden disruption of oil flow from the world’s second-largest exporter may cause the price to surge by 20 to 30 per cent. Benchmark crude prices have risen 7 per cent this year alone, as traders monitor the mounting pressure on Iran.
The campaign has resulted in surge of domestic prices in Iran and devaluation of its national currency, the rial. It also resulted in the rise of world oil prices, as nations following America’s suit were looking for alternative sources of oil.
----------------------------
US-EU WILL CONTINUE SANCTIONS by PENALIZING 12 DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
EUROPE n JAPAN WHO ALSO BUY IRAN OIL ARE EXCLUDED FROM PENALTIES
US CONTEMPLATES PETROLEUM PENALTIES
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-oil-surge-prices-104/ March 21, 2012
¬
The tension was somewhat deflated after the US said it would exempt 10 European nations and Japan from penalties for trading oil with Iran. All of them sided with American sanctions against Tehran’s oil industry and took steps towards reducing import from the Islamic Republic.
“We commend these countries for their actions and urge other nations that import oil from Iran to follow their example,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as the exemption was announced.
At the same time the US has a list of 12 countries which failed to join the sanctions and thus may be targeted by American penalties for doing so. Among those are the largest buyers of Iranian oil CHINA AND INDIA AS WELL AS US ALLIES SOUTH KOREA AND TURKEY.
President Obama may order to cut off banks operating in these countries and involved in oil trade with Iran from the American financial system. They may still get a waiver if the US national interests require so or if they change their policies by June 28.
The US issued sanctions against Iranian oil trade last year in a bid to stop uranium enrichment by Tehran. The West suspects that Tehran may be secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon, an accusation Iran denies.
----------------------
EVEN EXCLUDING SPAIN, GRECCE n ITALY SANCTIONS WILL STRANGLE THEM
WILL SWIFT BAN ON IRAN STRANGLE SPAIN?
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-sanctions-spain-gasoline-719/
Published: 16 March, 2012,
With the upcoming EU electronic banking transactions ban on Iran, the Islamic Republic might face a crude economic pinch. However, in an attempt to pressure Tehran, technocrats in Brussels might actually be leading Spain to the scaffold.
SWIFT, the world's biggest electronic banking system, is preparing to cut off Iranian financial firms, including the country's Central Bank, blacklisted by the EU. The move is part of the European plan to impose an embargo on Iranian oil this summer over Tehran’s nuclear program.
The EU and US are hoping to force Iran to the negotiating table by targeting its oil revenues.But the measure is expected to backfire on average Europeans, particularly in Spain, which imports over 1.5 million barrels of oil from Iran daily.
“EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE CASE AGAINST IRAN IS STRONG, THE SANCTIONS RIGHT NOW, EXERCISED BY COUNTRIES LIKE SPAIN, GREECE OR ITALY, WILL DAMAGE THOSE COUNTRIES MORE THAN IT WILL DAMAGE IRAN,” journalist Miguel-Anxo Murado told RT.
While countries like France and Britain can easily ban Iranian oil because they are not dependent on it, the EU’s most economically battered states – Spain, Greece and Italy – will feel the effect of the sanctions most.
“Of course we can’t refuse. The pressure from the US, Britain and France is huge,” Murado acknowledged.
SPAIN IS EUROPE’S SECOND LARGEST IMPORTER OF IRANIAN OIL AFTER ITALY. WHEN THE EU-IMPOSED SANCTIONS ON TEHRAN COME INTO FORCE THIS JULY, a good share of Spaniards may find driving a car an unattainable luxury.
One way or another, Spain has until July to find alternative sources of crude supplies. The country has already promised to switch oil imports as it continues to buy Iranian oil, albeit in lower quantities.
In addition, Spain's biggest refiner Repsol has repeatedly declined to comment on the details of its oil purchases.
---------------------
BECAUSE OF REPSOL US DON’T CARE IF SANCTION AFFECT MOSTLY SPAIN
REPSOL n CUBAN OIL
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-sanctions-spain-gasoline-719/ March 16
In late January, Repsol also announced it had started the long-awaited exploration of offshore oilfields near Cuba. However, any positive benefits felt from that venture will not materialize for several years.
Petrol prices in Spain used to be among the lowest in Europe. Now prices are rising as the looming oil embargo is expected to push them even higher. In a healthy economic situation, a rise in oil prices might be problematic. But coming at a time when Spain is on the brink of a second recession, it’s proving a nightmare for the population.
One year ago, Spain already had to reduce the speed limit from 120 km/h to 110 km/h in an effort to save up to €2.3 billion a year in oil costs. Today, with unemployment soaring at 22.8 percent, Spain has found itself in really dire straits.
RT’s Sara Firth spoke with people at a gas station in Valencia and most of them, if not all, seem to be petrified by the prospect of further spikes in gas prices.
“It's terrible that we should pay for decisions taken in Brussels, it's not known whom they are taken for but certainly not for ordinary people,” one of them told RT.
Spanish citizens said if the already high prices go even higher, people won’t be able to afford gasoline. Attempts to calm fears about a rise in prices have been made, with Saudi Arabia saying it has enough oil to make up for the loss of Iran’s supplies when the embargo comes into force.
But countries like Spain will still be paying the price of lost trade with Tehran and the cost of replacing oil contracts with the Islamic Republic, which have in fact increased since the EU-backed Libyan war.
Moreover, the prospect of military standoff with Iran is causing huge concern among oil traders and economists.
Energy Expert Adolfo Jumenez Regulio told RT that “while there is no war – price escalations due to sanctions can be corrected. The problems will come if there is a war with Iran – then you could see a real crisis.”
------------------------------
BLACKMAILING INDIA: WITH US or AGAINST But India is not a terrorist country
US COULD PUNISH INDIA FOR BUYING IRANIAN OIL
http://www.rt.com/news/us-india-oil-iran-635/. Edited: 15 March, 2012
The White House could impose sanctions on India if the country fails to meet the US demand to cut oil imports from Iran. As the US is trying to deprive Tehran of its leading source of revenue, India continues to resist US pressure.
President Obama could be forced to bar access to the US banking system for any Indian bank processing oil payments through the Iranian Central Bank, anonymous US officials told Bloomberg.
INDIA, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT US ALLIES IN ASIA, HAS REBELLED AGAINST AMERICAN PRESSURE to cut oil imports. Washington, followed by the EU, imposed sanctions on Tehran in an attempt to force the Islamic republic to give up its nuclear program.
Earlier, India and China proposed Iran to switch from the dollar to gold in bilateral trade, since the US and EU have issued unilateral sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and financial institutions.
India imports nearly 80 per cent of its oil needs, and oil accounts for nearly a third of the country's imports. Its demand for oil remains high, making it hard for the country to diversify its suppliers.
It’s not the first time India has experienced pressure from Washington over its economic alliance with Iran. It has been reported the country was forced to quit a joint pipeline project with Iran and Pakistan to transport gas from Iran. In 2010, India withdrew from negotiations, and the deal was signed between Pakistan and Iran only.
PAKISTAN also faces US pressure from the 2700 km long pipeline that will start transferring Iranian gas from 2014: the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned recently the deal could spur US sanctions.
The most peculiar thing is that the new US law targeting Iranian petroleum transactions doesn’t specify by what percentage a nation must reduce its Iranian oil imports to qualify for an exemption from sanctions. But given the level of trade between Iran and India, particularly where oil is concerned, New Delhi is a top priority target for Washington.
----------------------
INDIA, CHINA N TURKEY REFUSING TO JOIN THE SANCTION SPREE
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/
India has reportedly agreed to pay Tehran in gold for the oil it buys, in a move aimed at protecting Delhi from US-sanctions targeting countries who trade with Iran. China, another buyer of Iranian oil, may follow Delhi’s lead.
India and China need to switch from the dollar in bilateral trade, since the US and EU have issued unilateral sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and financial institutions. The sanctions would ban any bank involved in oil trade with Iran from dealing with American and European counterparts.
Both India and China, two major buyers of Iranian oil accounting for 22 and 13 percent of its total export respectively, have refused to join such sanctions. This means they have to establish a reliable way of paying for crude, independently of the parts of the global financial system controlled by New York and London.
Delhi’s current plan is to effect payments through two state-owned banks, India’s UCO Bank and Turkey’s Halk Bankasi, Turkey being another country refusing to join the sanction spree.
----------------------------
IRAN: EU OIL EMBARGO DOOMED TO FAIL
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-oil-embargo-sanctions-509/
Published: 23 January, 2012
The EU’s embargo on Iranian oil is “doomed to fail,” Tehran said after the crucial decision was taken. Iranian media outlets are sure the Persian country will not run out of customers - and suggest cutting off oil supplies to Europe before July.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast, as quoted by Itar-Tass, said that tightening the screws on Iran is an “illogical and useless measure…only understandable in the framework of propaganda and psychological war."
A total boycott of Iranian oil starting in July 2012 would but worsen the continuing economic crisis in Europe: “It seems the American authorities want to disrupt the energy sources of their rivals and weaken their economies under the pretext of piling up political pressure on Iran.”
Earlier in the day, several top Iranian officials threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, which Gulf crude exporters use to take almost a third of their oil to the international market, if more sanctions are imposed on Iran.
--------------------------------
IRAN 'DEFINITELY' CLOSING STRAIT OF HORMUZ OVER EU OIL EMBARGO
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-close-strait-hormuz-embargo-455/
Published: 23 January, 2012
Tensions in the Gulf could reach a breaking point as a senior Iranian official said Iran would “definitely” close the Strait of Hormuz if an EU oil embargo disrupted the export of crude oil.
Mohammad Kossari, deputy head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, issued the warning in respone to a decision by the European Union on Monday to impose an oil embargo on Iran over the country’s alleged nuclear weapons program.
However, with Washington’s decision to deploy a second carrier strike group in the Gulf, the EU’s attempt to pressure Iran economically could greatly increase the likelihood of all-out war in the region.
The Strait of Hormuz is the vital link between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It is also one of the most strategic chokepoints in the world when it comes to oil transit. With world oil output estimated at some 88 million barrels per day in 2011, the US Energy Information Administration estimated that some 17 million of those barrels passed through the Strait.
If economic sanctions sufficiently pressure Iran to retaliate by closing down the Strait, nearly 20 per cent of worldwide oil trade would be impacted, resulting in a massive spike in global energy costs.
With over half a million regular forces and an additional 120,000 personnel in the country’s elite Revolutionary Guard, analysts believe the consequences of a US-led war against Iran would dwarf recent Western-backed military incursions the Middle East.
Thus far, the US decision to maintain two carrier strike groups in the region has been described as “a routine activity” by Iran.
But the vast US military buildup in the region, which was bolstered when the Pentagon dispatched an additional 15,000 troops to the neighboring nation of Kuwait, was only the latest step in an obvious attempt by Washington to strengthen its military capabilities in the region.
According to Revolutionary Guard commander Brigadier General Jafaari, "The enemy is far more advanced technologically than we are, we have been using what is called asymmetric warfare methods… our forces are now well prepared for it," he said, as cited by Global Bearings.
Ultimately, the latest round of brinkmanship between Iran and the West may force Iran to the negotiating table over its uranium enrichment program.
However, the EU strategy of averting "chaos in the Middle East" by tightening the economic noose around Iran could spark the very conflagration it was ostensibly trying to avert.
------------------------------
US BELIEVE IN MILITARY SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS
WITH KOFI ANNAN THEY WANT TO OPEN SPACE TO INVADE SYRIA n IRAN
WITH TWO AIRCRAFT-CARRIERS IN THE REGION, TO INTIMIDATE RUSIA n CHINA
US aircraft carriers to deliver 'direct message to Iran'
http://www.rt.com/news/aircraft-carrier-hormuz-iran-391/
In an apparent show of strength, Washington is deploying a second carrier strike group in the Gulf. US officials also confirmed their commitment to maintaining a global fleet of 11 aircraft carriers despite budget pressure to cut the fleet's size.
Pentagon 'prepared': US set for Operation Iranian Freedom?
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-conflict-us-ready-179/
Washington is prepared to engage in war over the Strait of Hormuz at any moment, the Pentagon says. Some observers say the dangerous move is being viewed as a far from worst-case scenario in America, especially by its hawks.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday.
"We are not making any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation. Why? Because, frankly, we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now," Panetta explained.
The US says it will attack Iran if it tries to block the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for regional oil transit. Tehran has threatened to stop traffic through the Strait in response to mounting pressure, including threats, sanctions and particularly an air strike on its nuclear facilities, which Israel and the US say are on the table.
-----------------------
DANGEORUS GAME
Oil plot': US embargo on Iran targets Europe?
Tehran believes that Washington is trying to deal a blow to debt-ridden Europe by forcing it to join its embargo on Iranian oil imports. Doing so would be “suicidal” for Europe, Iran says.
Iran’s OPEC governor, Mohammad Ali Khatibi, said it would be “economic suicide” for Europe to join the sanctions amid the crisis.
“Regarding the economic crisis in the eurozone, imposing any sanction on Iran's oil will push European countries into a deeper crisis,” Khatibi said as quoted by Mehr news agency. “The European currency is already under pressure because of debt and financing problems facing some of its members.”
Double-edged embargo
Europe is a major importer of Iranian oil, the others being China, Japan, South Korea and India. Southern European countries like Italy, Spain and Greece buy some 13 per cent of all crude they consume from Iran.
-------------------
'Attack on Iran won't be an easy walk' - Lavrov
http://rt.com/politics/lavrov-russia-conference-us-iran-israel-syria-071/
Edited: 19 January, 2012,
During his annual news conference, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described the scenario Russia and the global community could face if things in the Middle East, especially in Iran, get out of hand.
The Russian Foreign Minister did not mince his words when he spoke about the “grave” consequences of a military strike against Iran.
would be better addressed to those who keep mentioning this as an option that remains on the table,” Lavrov said in a comment apparently intended for Israel and the United States. “The consequences will be really grave, and we are seriously concerned about this.”
-----------------------
SAID IMF CHIEF CHRISTINE LAGARDE: IT CAUSE 30% OIL PRICE SHOCK
Published march 21, 2012
INTRODUCTION
By Hugo adan. March 22, 2012
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
It seems to be one more of the usual deterrence game played between a) powerful countries armed with nuclear weapons intimidating a small country full of oil resources, that is, b) Iran. The pretext now is the assumed building of nuclear weapons (not evidence at all) and the claim by the Zionist of Israel to bomb Iran with a pre-emptive war. Is this just a blab from Israel or are there big interest at stake in favor of war?. To the IMF Chief this seems to be a nasty business from the profiteers of soaring oil prices. She didn’t mention who are they but the fact is that Israel continue making threat of war and the profiteers get more money.
The fact is that there is a 3rd player in the field, also armed with nukes, defending Iran against intimidation, then the previous deterrence game becomes either a dangerous game or a type of cold-war-era game with not nuke-confrontation on earth. IT IS DANGEROUS GAME BECAUSE ISRAEL IS ARMED WITH NUKES (it has a history of aggression with WMD to their neighbors in the region) AND THE US REGIMEN DOESN’T HAVE CONTROL ON THEM. So if they (Israel & US)START a WAR, IT HAS TO BE PLAYED UP THE END. Unless this is for the US a consented game of simulation designed to hurt another player (could be the Europe, as it is said by the corporate media here in the US. Europe is accused of being main factor preventing the US to overcome the Economic-crisis). If this is true, the simulacrum is intended to rid of a future competitor of the US, the EU. The objective in both cases, real war or simulation of war, is the control of oil in Iran.
Why this game has to be played up the end if war starts?. Because the intimidation tactic -known as deterrence game- is not working as expected by the US-UK and Israel. They put-on their boots first and then the socks. They used sanctions first n then after diplomacy, as a result of this mistake the western economies have been hurt. Politically, they are losing previous neutral countries like India. The designers of this game tried to correct this mistake by using the puppet Kofi Annan and he got a conditioned UN Sec Council resolution to give humanitarian aid to the civilian victims of the violence inside Syria. So far so good for NATO allies, if their intentions is to use Syria to invade and take control of Iran.
KOFI ANNAN: MISSIONER OF WAR or PEACE?
Of course US-UK-Israel used this legal instrument to open the space for their strategic aim: arm the mercenary-“rebels” and make it worse the violence inside Syria as it happens after the arrival of the fake missioner of peace. If the text of the SC Res gives them leverage to carry out their bad intentions, Syria has the right to reject such mission, or conditioned to due respect of their sovereignty and take control of the humanitarian supplies, or, band the US-UK and other countries who were involved in supported mercenaries’ violence inside Syria, to come to this country. If US-UK and allies get away with their plans, there won’t be peace but war over there. If 3rd countries like Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua from LA, or others non-members of the Arab League, get involved as commissioners for humanitarian aid, war can be avoided.
IS DETERRENCE GAME FROM COLD-WAR-ERA OBSOLETE or IT WORKS?
On the one side we have NATO allies and in the other, Russian allies, both of them armed with nuclear weapons. The aim of NATO is regime change both in Syria and Iran and that is possible only via carpet bombing and invasion of both countries. The aim of Russia is to provide security to their partners and protect their own interest avoiding the bombing and invasion of Syria n Iran. In economic terms, it means to continue controlling the supply of oil to Europe. At the end, oil is in both sides the major objective of peace n war. Deterrence only works if war is avoided at any cost. If the US-UK & NATO allies do not abandon their objective on Iran, war is very likely. That is the premise to look first in the current situation.
Now, let’s check the principles of deterrence. As T.Schelling and Huth P.K put it (they are the holly cows on deterrence in the West) deterrence Is the art of coercion, intimidation and threats to prevent an adversary of doing something (ie Iran should not make nukes. Or Israel should not bomb Iran) otherwise they will pay the big costs n loses of war. This military strategy of domination departs from two bases and follows several principals.
FIRST, IT IS BASED ON DIPLOMACY. Let’s make a difference between Real and war diplomacy. Real diplomacy is a form of bargaining that seeks outcomes for each state that though not ideal for either party, are better for both than any other alternative. War diplomacy is different, it is just the uses of threat via networks and institutions (i.e the Arab League or the UN) to convince the other party to refrain from initiating undesirable course of action. This diplomacy hides the real intention (of military nature) of the threat. That is NATO style of diplomacy, they used because they have control of org like the Arab League n UN institutions. Russian cannot used, though they have veto power, it is a limited power, so they skip diplomacy and make actions (deployment of aircraft-carrier and navy-missile-carrier) that speak louder than words of diplomats.
SECOND, IT IS BASED IN THE POWER TO HURT. If you place a nuclear-head missile pointing to Russia and they do the same to you, you have to be sure that these arms will be used when a war starts. If you have the monopoly of power to hurt, you can submit to your domain everyone else who has not such power, but if your contender has also nuclear weapons you better resolve your differences via real-diplomacy to get peace under the assumption of mutual-assured-destruction, this implies that both contenders will destroy themselves mutually if they go to war. This is maybe that Germany n France want, that Russian and US-UK got destroyed in a nuke-war. BUT if both US-UK and Russian allies postpone this crisis without going to war, is the EU that is destroyed, and the oil lords of US, UK and Russia will continue profiting from this crisis and high prize of oil.
THIRD, REGARDING PRINCIPLES OF DETERRENCE, THE BASIC ONE IS CREDIBILITY. In deterrence theory it is argue that a threat is credible if (a) the one who make the threat has the military capability to inflict substantial cost on an adversary; and (b) if the one with nuke-power is resolve to use its available military force. Because of the presence of Russians defending Iran n Syria, deterrence is condemned to failure in Iran. It should have failed also in the case of Syria if decided not to accept the UN missioner Kofi Annan. Assad made a mistake since the UN puppet make the mercenaries believe that NATO have not been abandon them. When a sniper hit a marine soldier from a building and other marines call helicopters or planes to bomb the building is because they want to deter civilians in the building of helping snipers. The same with Russians in Chechenia and Syrians with Assad. This principle (and the next one) accept the uses of limited force (in time n space), but not full scale of war (like carpet bombing and invasion) with unpredicted collateral damage. If this happens, it means that deterrence failed.
THE PRINCIPLE OF COERCIVE CREDIBILITY means using diplomacy to convince the adversary about the cost and benefit of cooperation and the consequences of non-cooperation. The case of economic sanctions can be seen as building coercive credibility. But it was also condemned to failure because of Russian in the area, besides, this sanctions was wrongly designed.
FOURTH, THE NEXT PRINCIPLE IS PROPORTIONALITY (nothing to do with proportionality in the theory of just war that limits the means used in war to military objectives, not civilian target and prohibit the uses of nukes, biological and chemical weapons) here proportionality refers the uses of threat in the diplomacy of war (if war start means that deterrence fails) and it implies that if a state make higher demands on another state, is higher the cost of compliance (it leads to not compliance, so deterrence fails). This seems to be the case of sanctions of not buying oil from Iran. This typical blockage don’t work with oil and the worse, it penalize not your enemy but your friends.
In July is coming the sanctions on gasoline, and this sanction is too much too soon and it won’t work either. The other one, the freezing of Iranian capital in western banks is illegal, just piracy, so an act of war that violates the principle of deterrence and speak louder on non-peaceful purposes. Proportionality limit the demands to policy changes, it should never goes to regimen change since it violated a main UN principle, that of sovereignty. If regime change is requested, should be taken as act of war since any regime has social basis and it targets them when nukes, mini-nukes (banker-busters)are used. Regime change is an unjust-illegal claim.
FIFTH, THE PRINCIPLE OF EXPECTED RECIPROCITY. If diplomacy of the attacker offers carrots to get concessions from an adversary and the contender do not pay attention to them and the sticks come (sanctions) for non-corresponding, and even though the contender does not concedes it means that the attacker has either to revise their tactic and get a balance between offering too little too late and given too much too soon. In other words, it means that diplomacy is a failure.
SIX, THE PRINCIPLE OF INTEREST AT STAKE. It means that: to greater interest correspond greater chances of military actions against the adversary. This could explain the easy success of NATO allies in Iraq and Libya (huge interests at stake on oil came together) but it also explain the difficulties in the invasion of Syria and the postponed attack on Iran, Russia and China are involved there. So there are greater chances of nuclear war if the powerful countries (Russia & US) do not sit and make real diplomacy, as it happens during the cold war when each side had a red to call in emergency situations.
THE QUESTION IS: can this war (if any) be limited to the Middle East only?. It is unlikely, since the bombing of Iran will be used by the Russian Lavrov to blow out Dimona and several missiles stations pointing to Russia. If the US-UK hit Russia or China they will retaliate immediately. Israel, London and 3-4 big cities in the US will be hit too. It won’t be the end of history, but if this war continue more than 3 days, it could be. Even with 2 days of nuclear ex-change, the world won’t be the same.
=======================
SOURCES:
Now let’s read current articles on this matter.
WAR WITH IRAN TO CAUSE 30% OIL PRICE SHOCK – IMF
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-oil-surge-prices-104/ Published march 21, 2012
A sudden cut of oil flow from Iran may cause a surge of crude prices of up to 30 per cent, dealing a blow to the world economy, warns IMF chief Christine Lagarde.
¬
The continuing standoff between Iran and the West may result in “serious consequences” for the world Lagarde, executive director of the International Monetary Fund, said Tuesday.
"Clearly it would be a shock to economies if there was a major shortage of exports of oil out of Iran, it would certainly drive up prices for a period of time," she told the media.
The IMF chief estimates that a sudden disruption of oil flow from the world’s second-largest exporter may cause the price to surge by 20 to 30 per cent. Benchmark crude prices have risen 7 per cent this year alone, as traders monitor the mounting pressure on Iran.
The campaign has resulted in surge of domestic prices in Iran and devaluation of its national currency, the rial. It also resulted in the rise of world oil prices, as nations following America’s suit were looking for alternative sources of oil.
----------------------------
US-EU WILL CONTINUE SANCTIONS by PENALIZING 12 DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
EUROPE n JAPAN WHO ALSO BUY IRAN OIL ARE EXCLUDED FROM PENALTIES
US CONTEMPLATES PETROLEUM PENALTIES
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-oil-surge-prices-104/ March 21, 2012
¬
The tension was somewhat deflated after the US said it would exempt 10 European nations and Japan from penalties for trading oil with Iran. All of them sided with American sanctions against Tehran’s oil industry and took steps towards reducing import from the Islamic Republic.
“We commend these countries for their actions and urge other nations that import oil from Iran to follow their example,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as the exemption was announced.
At the same time the US has a list of 12 countries which failed to join the sanctions and thus may be targeted by American penalties for doing so. Among those are the largest buyers of Iranian oil CHINA AND INDIA AS WELL AS US ALLIES SOUTH KOREA AND TURKEY.
President Obama may order to cut off banks operating in these countries and involved in oil trade with Iran from the American financial system. They may still get a waiver if the US national interests require so or if they change their policies by June 28.
The US issued sanctions against Iranian oil trade last year in a bid to stop uranium enrichment by Tehran. The West suspects that Tehran may be secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon, an accusation Iran denies.
----------------------
EVEN EXCLUDING SPAIN, GRECCE n ITALY SANCTIONS WILL STRANGLE THEM
WILL SWIFT BAN ON IRAN STRANGLE SPAIN?
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-sanctions-spain-gasoline-719/
Published: 16 March, 2012,
With the upcoming EU electronic banking transactions ban on Iran, the Islamic Republic might face a crude economic pinch. However, in an attempt to pressure Tehran, technocrats in Brussels might actually be leading Spain to the scaffold.
SWIFT, the world's biggest electronic banking system, is preparing to cut off Iranian financial firms, including the country's Central Bank, blacklisted by the EU. The move is part of the European plan to impose an embargo on Iranian oil this summer over Tehran’s nuclear program.
The EU and US are hoping to force Iran to the negotiating table by targeting its oil revenues.But the measure is expected to backfire on average Europeans, particularly in Spain, which imports over 1.5 million barrels of oil from Iran daily.
“EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE CASE AGAINST IRAN IS STRONG, THE SANCTIONS RIGHT NOW, EXERCISED BY COUNTRIES LIKE SPAIN, GREECE OR ITALY, WILL DAMAGE THOSE COUNTRIES MORE THAN IT WILL DAMAGE IRAN,” journalist Miguel-Anxo Murado told RT.
While countries like France and Britain can easily ban Iranian oil because they are not dependent on it, the EU’s most economically battered states – Spain, Greece and Italy – will feel the effect of the sanctions most.
“Of course we can’t refuse. The pressure from the US, Britain and France is huge,” Murado acknowledged.
SPAIN IS EUROPE’S SECOND LARGEST IMPORTER OF IRANIAN OIL AFTER ITALY. WHEN THE EU-IMPOSED SANCTIONS ON TEHRAN COME INTO FORCE THIS JULY, a good share of Spaniards may find driving a car an unattainable luxury.
One way or another, Spain has until July to find alternative sources of crude supplies. The country has already promised to switch oil imports as it continues to buy Iranian oil, albeit in lower quantities.
In addition, Spain's biggest refiner Repsol has repeatedly declined to comment on the details of its oil purchases.
---------------------
BECAUSE OF REPSOL US DON’T CARE IF SANCTION AFFECT MOSTLY SPAIN
REPSOL n CUBAN OIL
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-sanctions-spain-gasoline-719/ March 16
In late January, Repsol also announced it had started the long-awaited exploration of offshore oilfields near Cuba. However, any positive benefits felt from that venture will not materialize for several years.
Petrol prices in Spain used to be among the lowest in Europe. Now prices are rising as the looming oil embargo is expected to push them even higher. In a healthy economic situation, a rise in oil prices might be problematic. But coming at a time when Spain is on the brink of a second recession, it’s proving a nightmare for the population.
One year ago, Spain already had to reduce the speed limit from 120 km/h to 110 km/h in an effort to save up to €2.3 billion a year in oil costs. Today, with unemployment soaring at 22.8 percent, Spain has found itself in really dire straits.
RT’s Sara Firth spoke with people at a gas station in Valencia and most of them, if not all, seem to be petrified by the prospect of further spikes in gas prices.
“It's terrible that we should pay for decisions taken in Brussels, it's not known whom they are taken for but certainly not for ordinary people,” one of them told RT.
Spanish citizens said if the already high prices go even higher, people won’t be able to afford gasoline. Attempts to calm fears about a rise in prices have been made, with Saudi Arabia saying it has enough oil to make up for the loss of Iran’s supplies when the embargo comes into force.
But countries like Spain will still be paying the price of lost trade with Tehran and the cost of replacing oil contracts with the Islamic Republic, which have in fact increased since the EU-backed Libyan war.
Moreover, the prospect of military standoff with Iran is causing huge concern among oil traders and economists.
Energy Expert Adolfo Jumenez Regulio told RT that “while there is no war – price escalations due to sanctions can be corrected. The problems will come if there is a war with Iran – then you could see a real crisis.”
------------------------------
BLACKMAILING INDIA: WITH US or AGAINST But India is not a terrorist country
US COULD PUNISH INDIA FOR BUYING IRANIAN OIL
http://www.rt.com/news/us-india-oil-iran-635/. Edited: 15 March, 2012
The White House could impose sanctions on India if the country fails to meet the US demand to cut oil imports from Iran. As the US is trying to deprive Tehran of its leading source of revenue, India continues to resist US pressure.
President Obama could be forced to bar access to the US banking system for any Indian bank processing oil payments through the Iranian Central Bank, anonymous US officials told Bloomberg.
INDIA, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT US ALLIES IN ASIA, HAS REBELLED AGAINST AMERICAN PRESSURE to cut oil imports. Washington, followed by the EU, imposed sanctions on Tehran in an attempt to force the Islamic republic to give up its nuclear program.
Earlier, India and China proposed Iran to switch from the dollar to gold in bilateral trade, since the US and EU have issued unilateral sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and financial institutions.
India imports nearly 80 per cent of its oil needs, and oil accounts for nearly a third of the country's imports. Its demand for oil remains high, making it hard for the country to diversify its suppliers.
It’s not the first time India has experienced pressure from Washington over its economic alliance with Iran. It has been reported the country was forced to quit a joint pipeline project with Iran and Pakistan to transport gas from Iran. In 2010, India withdrew from negotiations, and the deal was signed between Pakistan and Iran only.
PAKISTAN also faces US pressure from the 2700 km long pipeline that will start transferring Iranian gas from 2014: the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned recently the deal could spur US sanctions.
The most peculiar thing is that the new US law targeting Iranian petroleum transactions doesn’t specify by what percentage a nation must reduce its Iranian oil imports to qualify for an exemption from sanctions. But given the level of trade between Iran and India, particularly where oil is concerned, New Delhi is a top priority target for Washington.
----------------------
INDIA, CHINA N TURKEY REFUSING TO JOIN THE SANCTION SPREE
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/
India has reportedly agreed to pay Tehran in gold for the oil it buys, in a move aimed at protecting Delhi from US-sanctions targeting countries who trade with Iran. China, another buyer of Iranian oil, may follow Delhi’s lead.
India and China need to switch from the dollar in bilateral trade, since the US and EU have issued unilateral sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and financial institutions. The sanctions would ban any bank involved in oil trade with Iran from dealing with American and European counterparts.
Both India and China, two major buyers of Iranian oil accounting for 22 and 13 percent of its total export respectively, have refused to join such sanctions. This means they have to establish a reliable way of paying for crude, independently of the parts of the global financial system controlled by New York and London.
Delhi’s current plan is to effect payments through two state-owned banks, India’s UCO Bank and Turkey’s Halk Bankasi, Turkey being another country refusing to join the sanction spree.
----------------------------
IRAN: EU OIL EMBARGO DOOMED TO FAIL
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-oil-embargo-sanctions-509/
Published: 23 January, 2012
The EU’s embargo on Iranian oil is “doomed to fail,” Tehran said after the crucial decision was taken. Iranian media outlets are sure the Persian country will not run out of customers - and suggest cutting off oil supplies to Europe before July.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast, as quoted by Itar-Tass, said that tightening the screws on Iran is an “illogical and useless measure…only understandable in the framework of propaganda and psychological war."
A total boycott of Iranian oil starting in July 2012 would but worsen the continuing economic crisis in Europe: “It seems the American authorities want to disrupt the energy sources of their rivals and weaken their economies under the pretext of piling up political pressure on Iran.”
Earlier in the day, several top Iranian officials threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, which Gulf crude exporters use to take almost a third of their oil to the international market, if more sanctions are imposed on Iran.
--------------------------------
IRAN 'DEFINITELY' CLOSING STRAIT OF HORMUZ OVER EU OIL EMBARGO
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-close-strait-hormuz-embargo-455/
Published: 23 January, 2012
Tensions in the Gulf could reach a breaking point as a senior Iranian official said Iran would “definitely” close the Strait of Hormuz if an EU oil embargo disrupted the export of crude oil.
Mohammad Kossari, deputy head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, issued the warning in respone to a decision by the European Union on Monday to impose an oil embargo on Iran over the country’s alleged nuclear weapons program.
However, with Washington’s decision to deploy a second carrier strike group in the Gulf, the EU’s attempt to pressure Iran economically could greatly increase the likelihood of all-out war in the region.
The Strait of Hormuz is the vital link between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It is also one of the most strategic chokepoints in the world when it comes to oil transit. With world oil output estimated at some 88 million barrels per day in 2011, the US Energy Information Administration estimated that some 17 million of those barrels passed through the Strait.
If economic sanctions sufficiently pressure Iran to retaliate by closing down the Strait, nearly 20 per cent of worldwide oil trade would be impacted, resulting in a massive spike in global energy costs.
With over half a million regular forces and an additional 120,000 personnel in the country’s elite Revolutionary Guard, analysts believe the consequences of a US-led war against Iran would dwarf recent Western-backed military incursions the Middle East.
Thus far, the US decision to maintain two carrier strike groups in the region has been described as “a routine activity” by Iran.
But the vast US military buildup in the region, which was bolstered when the Pentagon dispatched an additional 15,000 troops to the neighboring nation of Kuwait, was only the latest step in an obvious attempt by Washington to strengthen its military capabilities in the region.
According to Revolutionary Guard commander Brigadier General Jafaari, "The enemy is far more advanced technologically than we are, we have been using what is called asymmetric warfare methods… our forces are now well prepared for it," he said, as cited by Global Bearings.
Ultimately, the latest round of brinkmanship between Iran and the West may force Iran to the negotiating table over its uranium enrichment program.
However, the EU strategy of averting "chaos in the Middle East" by tightening the economic noose around Iran could spark the very conflagration it was ostensibly trying to avert.
------------------------------
US BELIEVE IN MILITARY SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS
WITH KOFI ANNAN THEY WANT TO OPEN SPACE TO INVADE SYRIA n IRAN
WITH TWO AIRCRAFT-CARRIERS IN THE REGION, TO INTIMIDATE RUSIA n CHINA
US aircraft carriers to deliver 'direct message to Iran'
http://www.rt.com/news/aircraft-carrier-hormuz-iran-391/
In an apparent show of strength, Washington is deploying a second carrier strike group in the Gulf. US officials also confirmed their commitment to maintaining a global fleet of 11 aircraft carriers despite budget pressure to cut the fleet's size.
Pentagon 'prepared': US set for Operation Iranian Freedom?
http://www.rt.com/news/iran-conflict-us-ready-179/
Washington is prepared to engage in war over the Strait of Hormuz at any moment, the Pentagon says. Some observers say the dangerous move is being viewed as a far from worst-case scenario in America, especially by its hawks.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday.
"We are not making any special steps at this point in order to deal with the situation. Why? Because, frankly, we are fully prepared to deal with that situation now," Panetta explained.
The US says it will attack Iran if it tries to block the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for regional oil transit. Tehran has threatened to stop traffic through the Strait in response to mounting pressure, including threats, sanctions and particularly an air strike on its nuclear facilities, which Israel and the US say are on the table.
-----------------------
DANGEORUS GAME
Oil plot': US embargo on Iran targets Europe?
Tehran believes that Washington is trying to deal a blow to debt-ridden Europe by forcing it to join its embargo on Iranian oil imports. Doing so would be “suicidal” for Europe, Iran says.
Iran’s OPEC governor, Mohammad Ali Khatibi, said it would be “economic suicide” for Europe to join the sanctions amid the crisis.
“Regarding the economic crisis in the eurozone, imposing any sanction on Iran's oil will push European countries into a deeper crisis,” Khatibi said as quoted by Mehr news agency. “The European currency is already under pressure because of debt and financing problems facing some of its members.”
Double-edged embargo
Europe is a major importer of Iranian oil, the others being China, Japan, South Korea and India. Southern European countries like Italy, Spain and Greece buy some 13 per cent of all crude they consume from Iran.
-------------------
'Attack on Iran won't be an easy walk' - Lavrov
http://rt.com/politics/lavrov-russia-conference-us-iran-israel-syria-071/
Edited: 19 January, 2012,
During his annual news conference, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described the scenario Russia and the global community could face if things in the Middle East, especially in Iran, get out of hand.
The Russian Foreign Minister did not mince his words when he spoke about the “grave” consequences of a military strike against Iran.
would be better addressed to those who keep mentioning this as an option that remains on the table,” Lavrov said in a comment apparently intended for Israel and the United States. “The consequences will be really grave, and we are seriously concerned about this.”
-----------------------
domingo, 18 de marzo de 2012
ECONOMIC RECOVERY FOR WHOM?
ECONOMIC RECOVERY FOR WHOM?
from Truth-out.org, 3/7/12. by Richard D. Wolff
http://brechtforum.org/economywatch/economic-recovery-whom
We expect ever-grosser competitive lying from the presidential primary candidates. We should expect no less from the media "analysts," politicians and academics competing for big business favors. With those expectations, we might be less disappointed by what we get.
These days, the hype about "economic recovery" is intense. Obama pitches it as a reason to reward him with campaign donations and votes. The money should flow in from the business community that wants badly to hide the fact that recovery has - from the beginning of this crisis - been only for them at the expense of recovery for everyone else. They need a president who hypes "recovery" as if it's about helping everyone in some general or "fair" way. The votes should come, Obama's team calculates, because average people are becoming increasingly desperate. They want someone in power who might help them even just a bit.
The Republicans had planned to use the economy against Obama (as he did against them in 2008). The recovery hype drove them to emphasize instead contraception, religion and the ever-popular Iran-bashing. By abandoning their attacks on "Obama's bad economy," Republicans leave the field to those hyping recovery.
The major media take their cues from politicians and their orders from the mega-corporations that own them. Mainstream academics, lowest on the public relations hype totem pole, celebrate recovery, too. Then they remember that they are supposed to be independent thinkers, so they find something about "the recovery" to "debate." That turns out to be, yet again, whether government interventions help or hinder economic recovery. In reality, big business leaders and the top politicians they control collaborate ever more closely for their mutual benefit. To mainstream academics falls the public relations task of pretending that big business and the government are adversaries.
However convenient to some, to speak of economic recovery today is false. There is no general improvement in economic conditions, let alone the sustained, self-reinforcing economic upturn that the word "recovery" is supposed to mean. Here is what we know early in March, 2012. The "good" news is about unemployment (slowly declining for a few months), retail sales (slowly rising) and especially sales of automobiles (rising quickly). It is also about corporate profits (high) and General Motors' (GM) profits (record high). Finally, the stock market had a nice upturn over recent months as well. That's pretty much it for the good news.
Here's the "bad" news.
Housing prices are falling again (their much-hyped "recovery" earlier during the crisis turned out to be false). Manufacturing was down in the latest reports, while consumer spending and construction spending were flat. Consumer debt is rising again. The largest city bankruptcy in US history has been announced for Stockton, California (population: 300,000). State and city services across the country continue to be cut. Real wages and job benefits keep trending down.
A closer look at the good news raises even more doubt about "recovery" than the bad news does.
Let's focus on those robust car sales and the hiring back of some laid-off auto-workers. Consider just two facts. First, the average age of cars on the roads in the US today is 10.8 years, making them the oldest fleet since the records began many years ago. People are not buying cars because they can afford them. Rather, their old cars now cost too much to repair too often. What they borrow to spend on car replacement now will require spending less on everything else in the months ahead. Second, hiring more auto-workers will have a much smaller impact on the US economy than rehiring used to. That is because the auto-industry bailout deal with the unions allows GM, for example, to hire "new" workers at $16 per hour, half of what they used to pay for the exact same jobs.
Looking closer at high corporate profits shows that they come more than ever from overseas activities of US corporations. Indeed, the country's sad condition and worse prospects are why so many US corporations place their hopes and investments outside the US.
The truth about "economic recovery" is that, for the mass of people, it is untrue. For the top 10 percent and especially the top 1 percent - those who brought global capitalism into crisis in 2007 - recovery has been real. They got the huge bailouts from Bush and Obama. They got the trillions in government loans at low interest that they then lent back to the government at higher interest rates (so much for how profits are capitalists' rewards for "taking risks"). To pay for its expensive bailouts (hyped as "stimulus plans"), the US government chose NOT to tax big businesses and their rich executives. Doing that, we were told by business and government alike, might "hamper the recovery."
So, the government borrowed trillions to "fund the recovery." And from whom? From the same banks, insurance companies, large corporations and rich executives whom the government had bailed out and NOT taxed. When those creditors began to worry that the US government's debt was becoming too high to sustain, they demanded that government cut back public services and use the money instead to pay interest and principal back to those creditors. And so it does.
"Recovery" is a recurring hype for a grotesquely unjust economic system. It is dusted off and reused whenever possible to cover the basic policy shared by both major parties in the US during major capitalist crises: help those at the top so maybe it will "trickle down" to everyone else. "Recovery" is the go-to word when business and government impose conditions to make the US more profitable especially for big business. Those conditions now include declining real wages, job benefits and public services for most Americans. They also include the huge numbers of personal and small business bankruptcies that cheapen the costs of second-hand equipment; empty office and retail space; and professionals (accountants, lawyers etc.) desperate for work.
"Recovery," in this capitalist economy, refers to profits, not to people.
-------------------------
Richard D. Wolff is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he taught economics from 1973 to 2008.
from Truth-out.org, 3/7/12. by Richard D. Wolff
http://brechtforum.org/economywatch/economic-recovery-whom
We expect ever-grosser competitive lying from the presidential primary candidates. We should expect no less from the media "analysts," politicians and academics competing for big business favors. With those expectations, we might be less disappointed by what we get.
These days, the hype about "economic recovery" is intense. Obama pitches it as a reason to reward him with campaign donations and votes. The money should flow in from the business community that wants badly to hide the fact that recovery has - from the beginning of this crisis - been only for them at the expense of recovery for everyone else. They need a president who hypes "recovery" as if it's about helping everyone in some general or "fair" way. The votes should come, Obama's team calculates, because average people are becoming increasingly desperate. They want someone in power who might help them even just a bit.
The Republicans had planned to use the economy against Obama (as he did against them in 2008). The recovery hype drove them to emphasize instead contraception, religion and the ever-popular Iran-bashing. By abandoning their attacks on "Obama's bad economy," Republicans leave the field to those hyping recovery.
The major media take their cues from politicians and their orders from the mega-corporations that own them. Mainstream academics, lowest on the public relations hype totem pole, celebrate recovery, too. Then they remember that they are supposed to be independent thinkers, so they find something about "the recovery" to "debate." That turns out to be, yet again, whether government interventions help or hinder economic recovery. In reality, big business leaders and the top politicians they control collaborate ever more closely for their mutual benefit. To mainstream academics falls the public relations task of pretending that big business and the government are adversaries.
However convenient to some, to speak of economic recovery today is false. There is no general improvement in economic conditions, let alone the sustained, self-reinforcing economic upturn that the word "recovery" is supposed to mean. Here is what we know early in March, 2012. The "good" news is about unemployment (slowly declining for a few months), retail sales (slowly rising) and especially sales of automobiles (rising quickly). It is also about corporate profits (high) and General Motors' (GM) profits (record high). Finally, the stock market had a nice upturn over recent months as well. That's pretty much it for the good news.
Here's the "bad" news.
Housing prices are falling again (their much-hyped "recovery" earlier during the crisis turned out to be false). Manufacturing was down in the latest reports, while consumer spending and construction spending were flat. Consumer debt is rising again. The largest city bankruptcy in US history has been announced for Stockton, California (population: 300,000). State and city services across the country continue to be cut. Real wages and job benefits keep trending down.
A closer look at the good news raises even more doubt about "recovery" than the bad news does.
Let's focus on those robust car sales and the hiring back of some laid-off auto-workers. Consider just two facts. First, the average age of cars on the roads in the US today is 10.8 years, making them the oldest fleet since the records began many years ago. People are not buying cars because they can afford them. Rather, their old cars now cost too much to repair too often. What they borrow to spend on car replacement now will require spending less on everything else in the months ahead. Second, hiring more auto-workers will have a much smaller impact on the US economy than rehiring used to. That is because the auto-industry bailout deal with the unions allows GM, for example, to hire "new" workers at $16 per hour, half of what they used to pay for the exact same jobs.
Looking closer at high corporate profits shows that they come more than ever from overseas activities of US corporations. Indeed, the country's sad condition and worse prospects are why so many US corporations place their hopes and investments outside the US.
The truth about "economic recovery" is that, for the mass of people, it is untrue. For the top 10 percent and especially the top 1 percent - those who brought global capitalism into crisis in 2007 - recovery has been real. They got the huge bailouts from Bush and Obama. They got the trillions in government loans at low interest that they then lent back to the government at higher interest rates (so much for how profits are capitalists' rewards for "taking risks"). To pay for its expensive bailouts (hyped as "stimulus plans"), the US government chose NOT to tax big businesses and their rich executives. Doing that, we were told by business and government alike, might "hamper the recovery."
So, the government borrowed trillions to "fund the recovery." And from whom? From the same banks, insurance companies, large corporations and rich executives whom the government had bailed out and NOT taxed. When those creditors began to worry that the US government's debt was becoming too high to sustain, they demanded that government cut back public services and use the money instead to pay interest and principal back to those creditors. And so it does.
"Recovery" is a recurring hype for a grotesquely unjust economic system. It is dusted off and reused whenever possible to cover the basic policy shared by both major parties in the US during major capitalist crises: help those at the top so maybe it will "trickle down" to everyone else. "Recovery" is the go-to word when business and government impose conditions to make the US more profitable especially for big business. Those conditions now include declining real wages, job benefits and public services for most Americans. They also include the huge numbers of personal and small business bankruptcies that cheapen the costs of second-hand equipment; empty office and retail space; and professionals (accountants, lawyers etc.) desperate for work.
"Recovery," in this capitalist economy, refers to profits, not to people.
-------------------------
Richard D. Wolff is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he taught economics from 1973 to 2008.
FASCIST ATTACKS ON INTERNET n FREE SPEECH
SURVEILLANCE by BIG BROTHERS: STROKES OF FASCISM WORD-WIDE
BESET BY ONLINE SURVEILLANCE AND CONTENT FILTERING.
Netizens [users] Fight On
Sunday 18 March 2012
by: Staff, Reporters Without Borders
http://www.truth-out.org/beset-online-surveillance-and-content-filtering-netizens-fight/1332086089
INTRODUCTION:
You will notice that The US is mostly excluded from this report –only the case of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, plus Sopa-Acta deserved few words at the end of this long article- and that IRAN, SYRIA, CHINA & RUSSIA have been selected as the worse violators of citizens [here netizens] rights. If Reporters without Borders claim to be the insurer of good faith on the cause of Internet and free speech, they do not have to be sided. NOW make yourself a question: who, besides the CIA-NATO operatives, are really interested in given you one side story? Dictator regimes, is that right? Then, who is and who is not a dictator? It depends on who is wearing the hood, better, who is being hidden behind your selected definition. In my opinion my country is a dictocracy, no real democracy, in which the wealthy or rich people buy elections and run the country. Does corporate media monopoly is or not included under the label dictator? . The answer is up to you. In my case I found some statements in this article very useful for netizens [I like this word] to fight for their rights. Anything that I considered “one side story” I bracketed. My personal comments are also in brackets and underlined. You have the right to go to the original web-site to read the full article]
------------------------
This report, which presents the 2012 list of countries that are “Enemies of the Internet” and “under surveillance,” updates the report published on 12 March 2011.
The last report, released in March 2011 at the climax of the Arab Spring, highlighted the fact that the Internet and social networks have been conclusively established as tools for protest, campaigning and circulating information, and as vehicles for freedom. In the months that followed, repressive regimes responded with tougher measures to what they regarded as unacceptable attempts to “destabilize” their authority. In 2011, netizens were at the heart of the political changes in the Arab world and elsewhere. They tried to resist the imposition of a news and information blackout but paid a high price.
At the same time, supposedly democratic countries continued to set a bad example by yielding to the temptation to prioritize security over other concerns and by adopting disproportionate measures to protect copyright. Internet users in “free” countries have learned to react in order to protect what they have won. Some governments stepped up pressure on technical service providers to act as Internet cops. Companies specializing in online surveillance are becoming the new mercenaries in an online arms race.
HACKTIVISTS are providing technical expertise to NETIZENS trapped by a repressive regime’s apparatus. Diplomats are getting involved. More than ever before, online freedom of expression is now a major foreign and domestic policy issue.
NEW MEDIA KEEP PUSHING BACK THE BOUNDARIES OF CENSORSHIP
Online social networks complicate matters for authoritarian regimes that are trying to suppress unwanted news and information. It was thanks to netizens that Tunisians learned about the street vendor who set himself on fire in Sidi Bouzid and Egyptians learned about Khaled Said, the young netizen who was beaten to death by police outside an Alexandria Internet café. It was thanks to social networks that Sidi Bouzid and Khaled Said became news stories and went on to become cornerstones of the Arab Spring.
The revolution of microblogs and opinion aggregators and the faster dissemination of news and information that results, combined with the growing use of mobile phones to live stream video, are all increasing the possibilities of freeing information from its straightjacket. The mixing of journalism and activism has been accentuated in extreme situations [..] where ordinary citizens, appalled by the bloodshed, are systematically gathering information for dissemination abroad, especially by the international news media. [..]
Saudi Arabia’s relentless censorship has not been able to prevent women from fighting for their right to drive or vote and getting their fight relayed on the Internet, attracting the international community’s attention and, as a result, a degree of attention within the country.
[..]
INTERNET AND MOBILE PHONE SHUTDOWNS BECOME COMMONPLACE
Repressive regimes have learned the lesson. Keeping the media at bay, intimidating witnesses and blocking access to a few news websites are not enough to ensure the success of a news blackout. A much more effective way is to seal off the area concerned to prevent unwanted witness from entering and any digital content from leaving, and to cut off communications by blocking SMS messaging and by shutting down Internet access and mobile phone services in a temporary or targeted manner.
Egypt showed the way at the height of the demonstrations at the end of February 2011 by cutting Internet access for five days, an unprecedented move. Other countries, such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon and Kazakhstan, have blocked SMS for the first ones or suspended the Internet for the last one during elections or unrest, or even ahead of anticipated unrest. [..]
Nonetheless, shutting down the Internet is a drastic solution that can create problems for the authorities and can hurt the economy. Slowing the Internet connection speed right down is more subtle but also effective as it makes it impossible to send or receive photos or videos. [..] Bahrain is an example of a news blackout succeeding thanks to an impressive combination of technical, judicial and physical censorship methods.
MORE CONTENT FILTERING
As soon as the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt got under way, most regimes that censor the Internet quickly reinforced online content filtering in a bid to head off any possibility of similar unrest spreading to their own countries. Some regimes have adopted filtering as standard tool of governance, one that strengthens their hold on power. Live-streaming sites and social networks are often the most affected.
[..]
South Korea has decided to increase the number of blocked websites in response to the North’s propaganda. [If this is OK, why is not in other cases?] Tajikistan, which does not figure in this report, has blocked Facebook and news websites while Pakistan is accused of wanting to build its own Great Electronic Wall.
MORE CONTENT REMOVAL, PRESSURE ON TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
Censors are increasingly trying to enlist private-sector Internet companies in online surveillance and censorship. Some cooperate, others resist. [..]. Website hosting companies are under growing pressure to remove content in response to “notice and take down” process, a procedure likely to lead to abuses, as UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression Frank La Rue has stressed.
[..]
THREAT TO NET NEUTRALITY AND ONLINE FREE SPEECH FROM “RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN”
More and more individuals are requesting that information involving them be deleted from online archives on the grounds of a supposed “right to be forgotten” or “right to digital oblivion.” A generalized “right to oblivion,” enshrined in a law, would be hard to reconcile with online freedom of expression and information. Such a law would be hard to implement in practice and could place an impossible obligation on content editors and hosting companies – the complete erasure of online content. A thorough debate is need to determine whether individual rights are not already sufficiently guaranteed by existing legal provisions on the right to privacy, media offences, personal data and recourse to the courts. (Read the response received by Reporters Without Borders from Viviane Reding’s spokesman on March 14th, 2012) [That is a EU case]
SURVEILLANCE GETTING MORE EFFECTIVE AND MORE INTRUSIVE
Internet content filtering is growing but Internet surveillance is growing even more. Censors prefer to monitor dissidents’ online activities and contacts rather than try to prevent them from going online. The police chief in the United Arab Emirates, for example, has acknowledged that the police monitor social networks. The security services no longer interrogate and torture a prisoner for the names of his accomplices. Now they want his Facebook, Skype and Vkontakte passwords. It is the same in Bahrain, Turkmenistan.[..]
THE PROTECTION OF NETWORKS OF DISSIDENTS AND REPORTERS’ SOURCES is one of the leading challenges in the fight for information. Foreign reporters visiting sensitive countries should take special precautions in accordance with local conditions. It is no longer enough to take a bullet-proof vest when setting off for a war zone or troubled region. A “digital survival kit” [it is in French and it doesn’t contain a real survival kit] is also needed to encrypt information, anonymize communications and, if necessary, circumvent censorship.
[..]
The neutralization of encryption, anonymization and circumvention tools is also being prioritized by repressive regimes. [It said that Iran China are making hard the CIA job] To enhance their surveillance abilities, repressive regimes turn to specialized companies for ever more effective equipment and software for filtering, monitoring and Deep Packet Inspection. The SpyFiles which WikiLeaks has published are a mine of information on the subject. The companies they use are very often western ones that have been lured by a very lucrative market.
They include the US company BlueCoat, criticized for its activities in Syria, the French company Amesys, which supplied Col. Gaddafi, and Vodafone, the target of an ANHRI suit in Egypt. The Italian company AreaSpa finally pulled out of Syria after an international campaign criticizing its cooperation with the Assad regime. The European Parliament has adopted a resolution [China, India, Russia y Turquia are considered prepressive regimen by the UE] supporting tougher regulation of exports to repressive countries. A bill with similar aims is currently before the US congress. [I do not think the US will include India, the heaven for big US tax-evaders outsourcing Co].
PROPAGANDA RULES THE WEB
Propaganda messages like this one have taken root on the Internet: “Dear students and friends, it was just a road accident. Some people with an ulterior motive have interpreted as an ethnic conflict, or linked to oil and gas. The government is taking this case very seriously … We hope that students will not believe the rumours …” The government is believed to have an arsenal of 40,000 microblogs to communicate with the population. [China is referred. For CIA it would be nice to shutter China in many pieces under the pretext of humanitarian & internet freedom causes. Dream on pals !! Get real !!]
[..]
Bahrain is spending millions to polish its image abroad and give the impression that the country has returned to normal. This has been capped by the announcement that the 2012 Bahrain Formula One Grand Prix, cancelled last year, will go ahead in April.
CYBER ATTACKS
Cyber attacks in the form of distributed denials of service (DDoS) are widespread. Last year saw the rise of groups of hacker such as Anonymous, which were behind cyber attacks on the Tunisian, Egyptian and Syrian governments’ websites.
Governments are often behind attempts to hack news websites or independent sites. [Does this statement includes my pals in the US?] Even Eritrea was hit. Opposition sites were blocked just as the United Nations was approving sanctions against the country. Sri Lankan sites were also victims of cyber attacks. [..]
During the demonstrations in Belarus, the Internet service provider BelTelecom redirected web users trying to connect to the Vkontakte social network to sites containing malicious software. [cyber war?]. Besides a regular army, every country now has a cyber army, which may or may not be official. [that every includes the US]
GETTING RID OF AWKWARD WITNESSES
2011 was the deadliest year for netizens, its violence unmatched in the time that dissidents and human rights campaigners have been making widespread use of the Web. Several were killed in Bahrain, Mexico, India. [..]. Dozens of others are probably still to be identified and there will undoubtedly be still more to add to the toll. [..].
In Mexico, drug cartels hit social network users directly. Three netizens and one journalist were shot dead in cold blood. The headless body of a Mexican Internet activist was found in Nuevo Laredo on 9 November. The victim, nicknamed “Rascatripas” (Belly-Scratcher), moderated the website “Nuevo Laredo en Vivo” which exposed organized crime. A message left beside the body proclaimed: “This happened to me for not understanding that I shouldn’t report things on social networks.”
On 9 April 2011, the netizen Zakariya Rashid Hassan died in custody in Bahrain, a week after he was arrested and charged with inciting hatred, disseminating false news, promoting sectarianism and calling for the overthrow of the government on online forums. [They forgot to say: complicity of our pals, the Saudis, in this crime].
[..]
RAIDS AND ROUNDUPS
As netizen numbers grow, more and more of them are at risk. At least 199 cases of arrests of netizens were recorded in 2011, a 31-percent increase compared with the previous year. Today, at least 120 netizens are in prison because of their activities.
[..]
Egypt jailed its first political prisoner of the post-Mubarak era, the blogger Maikel Nabil Sanad who was convicted for criticizing the armed forces.
[..]
INHUMAN TREATMENT, PRESSURE AND UNFAIR TACTICS
Many [..] Bahraini netizens have been tortured in custody. In Egypt bloggers have reported being subjected to degrading treatment during questioning by security forces. The “UAE five”, a group of netizens and activists accused of online subversion and jailed in the United Arab Emirates, were accused of being traitors, as were their families. In Bahrain, the noted dissident Nabeel Rajab is regularly smeared in the media as well as being subjected to physically assault.
[..]
CHAINS OF SUPPORT
Bonds have been created between blogospheres and citizens throughout the world have started relaying calls for solidarity, as well as startling images and shocking stories. Global Voices, the international network of bloggers and citizen journalists, has played an important role in the dialogue between online communities and NGOs that campaign for freedom of expression.
In order to combat increasingly competent censors, self-styled “hacktivists” have been giving technical assistance to vulnerable netizens to help them share information in the face of pervasive censorship. [..] Last year also saw the development of tools to bypass censorship and blocking of Web access, such as “Internet in a suitcase” and Freedom Box. Cyber freedom activists are working flat-out to respond to increasingly effective censorship tools.
DIPLOMATS ENTER THE PICTURE
Freedom of expression on the Internet is no longer the sole preserve of dissidents, geeks and censors. Diplomats have followed in their wake. Statements and joint texts issued by international organizations and coalitions of countries on Internet freedom have multiplied, from the report by Frank La Rue, the UN special rapporteur for the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression, who last June acknowledged Internet access as a basic right, to the ruling by the European Court of Justice condemning Internet filtering and its adverse effects on freedom of expression.
At a meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council in late February, the high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, deplored restrictions on the Internet and the arrests of bloggers in some countries. She declared: “The Internet has transformed human rights movements. States can no longer exercise control based on the notion of monopoly over information.”
The U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, urged the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to approve a statement guaranteeing online freedoms, believing “rights exercised in cyberspace deserve as much protection as those exercised in real space”. For their part, China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan defended the principle of a code of good conduct for the Internet, a concept that in reality is aimed as legitimizing censorship. [The SS Clinton should have been added to the Nobel Peace Prize given to OB. Now I guess is late because they came to Libya, they laugh, and -besides the leader- many other innocent people died. They will continue laughing until the impunity in Libya and Afghanistan last. Does this good cause in cyberspace will save her honor? Think about!!]
DEMOCRACIES HAVE A POOR RECORD
Some democratic countries are far from blameless. The free flow of news and information online often loses out to internal security, the war on terrorism and cyber crime, and even the protection of intellectual property.
[..]
The United Kingdom, whose Digital Rights Bill aimed at protecting copyright has been singled out by U.N. Commissioner La Rue, went through a difficult period during the riots last August. In a worrying development, the Canadian company Research In Motion, manufacturers of the Blackberry, made the personal details of some users available to the police without a prior court order.
Despite international condemnation and the fact that its laws are outdated, France still applies the Loppsi Internet security law, which provides for official filtering of the Web, and the Hadopi law, which allows for Web access to be cut off to prevent illegal downloading of copyright content, despite several unsuccessful cases. Decrees ordering the application of other laws show that the usual reaction of the authorities is to impose filtering. Australia has yet to scrap its national filtering system, despite waning support and the fact that the type of content it is designed to cover may change.
Speeches by U.S. officials on the importance of the fight against online censorship and their financial support for anti-censorship tools is belied by the treatment of WikiLeaks (see the Reporters Without Borders report on the United States and the Internet: [DOMESTIC REALITY DOES NOT MATCH BOLD WORDS ON INTERNET FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. In http://en.rsf.org/etats-unis-domestic-reality-does-not-match-02-11-2011,41324.html ) [It would have been nice that Reporters Without Borders started summarizing this article and said that they are going to criticize the fault of others nations by starting with the leader regime on this matters worldwide] Using Visa and MasterCard to cut off its access to funds has hampered the site’s operations. Bradley Manning, suspected of being one of WikiLeaks’ informers, has been detained for several months in dreadful conditions. The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is the subject of a “secret indictment” which Reporters Without Borders urges the U.S. authorities to clarify. [to crarify? RWB doesn’t have a position on this case? What remains to be clarified?, Why to take a position on other countries then?. Do you think you know others better than yours? ]
RESPONSE OF INTERNET USERS AND NETIZENS OF THE “FREE WORLD”
Internet users in Western countries cut their teeth with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Many of them took to the streets to protest against the repressive U.S. Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), which sacrificed Internet freedom for the sake of copyright protection. The operation Stop SOPA and the 24-hour blackout observed by many websites, including Wikipedia, mobilized Web users throughout the world who were potentially affected by these bills to an unprecedented extent.
The campaign took off again with a new wave of protest against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which up till then had left most people indifferent despite campaigns by the NGOs La Quadrature du Net and Reporters Without Borders. Netizens from all sides understood that these bills could affect on their day-to-day activities.
Eastern Europe spearheaded the campaign. Several governments held off ratification. Resistance to ACTA is stronger than ever and the treaty may not see the light of day. Vigilance must be maintained. The next target for Internet activists could be the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), proposed by the European Union to clamp down on infringements of intellectual property law, which could potentially lead to large-scale filtering of the Internet. Another blow for Web neutrality.
INTERNET SOVEREIGNTY AND FRAGMENTATION OF THE WEB
Internet sovereignty is an idea that is gaining ground in the minds of national leaders, whether repressive or not. Others have followed the example of the national platform created in Burma in 2010. Several times in 2011, Iranian regime announced the creation of a national Web, a "clean" version of the Internet with its own search engine and messaging service. This may mean two different types of access, one for the authorities and another for the rest of the population, similar to the way the Internet is now structured in Burma. Belarus requires commercial companies to register the websites they have set up in the country. This does not affect news and information sites for the time being.
[..]
In 2011, the fragmentation of the Internet gathered pace. Web users were granted varying access depending on where they were connected. This is contrary to the original concept of the founders of the Web. Digital segregation is spreading. Solidarity between defenders of a free Internet, accessible to all, is more than ever needed for the information to continue to flow.
The 2012 list of the Enemies of the Internet
Bahrain and Belarus, new Enemies of the Internet
Saudi Arabia has continued its relentless censorship and suppressed coverage of a provincial uprising. Uzbekistan took measures to prevent Uznet from becoming a forum for discussing the Arab springs. There is one light of hope: the situation is improving in Burma, where the military have permitted the release of journalists and bloggers and the unblocking of news websites, but the legislative and technical tools for controlling and monitoring the Internet have yet to be dismantled.
Bahrain offers an example of an effective news blackout based on a remarkable array of repressive measures: keeping the international media away, harassing human rights activists, arresting bloggers and netizens (one of whom died in detention), smearing and prosecuting free speech activists, and disrupting communications, especially during the major demonstrations.
In Belarus, President Lukashenko’s regime has increased his grip on the Web as the country sinks further into political isolation and economic stagnation. The Internet, a space used for circulating information and mobilizing protests, has been hit hard as the authorities have reacted to “revolution via the social media.” The list of blocked websites has grown longer and the Internet was partially blocked during the “silent protests.”
[..]
MOVEMENT IN “COUNTRIES UNDER SURVEILLANCE” LIST
The countries “under surveillance” list still includes Australia, whose government clings to a dangerous content filtering system;Egypt, where the new regime has resumed old practices and has directly targeted the most outspoken bloggers; Eritrea, a police state that keeps its citizens away from the Internet and is alarmed by its diaspora’s new-found militancy online and on the streets of foreign cities; France, which continues its “three-strikes” policy on illégal downloading, with suspension of Internet access, and wher administrative filtering is introduced by an internal security law and appears with increasing frequency in decrees implementing laws; and Malaysia, which continues to harass bloggers (who have more credibility that the traditional media) in the run-up to general elections.
In Venezuela, access to the Internet continues to be unrestricted. The level of self-censorship is hard to evaluate but the adoption in 2011 of legislation that could potentially limit Internet freedom has yet to have any damaging effect in practice. Reporters Without Borders will nonetheless remain vigilant as relations between the government and critical media are tense.
INDIA AND KAZAKHSTAN, NEW ADDITIONS TO THE “UNDER SURVEILLANCE” CATEGORY
Since the Mumbai bombings of 2008, the Indian authorities have stepped up Internet surveillance and pressure on technical service providers, while publicly rejecting accusations of censorship. The national security policy of the world’s biggest democracy is undermining freedom of expression and the protection of Internet users’ personal data.
Kazakhstan, which likes to think of itself as a regional model after holding the rotating presidency of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 2010, nonetheless seems to be turning its back on all its fine promises in order to take the road of cyber-censorship. [..]
Thailand and Burma
If Thailand continues down the slope of content filtering and jailing netizens on lèse-majesté charges, it could soon join the club of the world’s most repressive countries as regards the Internet. Burma could soon leave the Enemies of the Internet list if the country takes the necessary measures. It has clearly embarked on a promising period of reforms, which has included the release of journalists and bloggers and the restoration of access to blocked websites.
[..]
Other countries to watch
Other countries have jailed netizens or established a form of Internet censorship. Even if they are not on these lists, Reporters Without Borders will continue to closely monitor online freedom of information in countries such as Azerbaijan, Morocco and Tajikistan, to name just a few. At the time of writing, Pakistan has invited private-sector companies to bid for the creation of a national Internet filtering and blocking system. Reporters Without Borders has asked the authorities to abandon this project, which would result in the creation of an Electronic Great Wall. If they go ahead, Pakistan could be added to the Enemies of the Internet in 2013.
BESET BY ONLINE SURVEILLANCE AND CONTENT FILTERING.
Netizens [users] Fight On
Sunday 18 March 2012
by: Staff, Reporters Without Borders
http://www.truth-out.org/beset-online-surveillance-and-content-filtering-netizens-fight/1332086089
INTRODUCTION:
You will notice that The US is mostly excluded from this report –only the case of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, plus Sopa-Acta deserved few words at the end of this long article- and that IRAN, SYRIA, CHINA & RUSSIA have been selected as the worse violators of citizens [here netizens] rights. If Reporters without Borders claim to be the insurer of good faith on the cause of Internet and free speech, they do not have to be sided. NOW make yourself a question: who, besides the CIA-NATO operatives, are really interested in given you one side story? Dictator regimes, is that right? Then, who is and who is not a dictator? It depends on who is wearing the hood, better, who is being hidden behind your selected definition. In my opinion my country is a dictocracy, no real democracy, in which the wealthy or rich people buy elections and run the country. Does corporate media monopoly is or not included under the label dictator? . The answer is up to you. In my case I found some statements in this article very useful for netizens [I like this word] to fight for their rights. Anything that I considered “one side story” I bracketed. My personal comments are also in brackets and underlined. You have the right to go to the original web-site to read the full article]
------------------------
This report, which presents the 2012 list of countries that are “Enemies of the Internet” and “under surveillance,” updates the report published on 12 March 2011.
The last report, released in March 2011 at the climax of the Arab Spring, highlighted the fact that the Internet and social networks have been conclusively established as tools for protest, campaigning and circulating information, and as vehicles for freedom. In the months that followed, repressive regimes responded with tougher measures to what they regarded as unacceptable attempts to “destabilize” their authority. In 2011, netizens were at the heart of the political changes in the Arab world and elsewhere. They tried to resist the imposition of a news and information blackout but paid a high price.
At the same time, supposedly democratic countries continued to set a bad example by yielding to the temptation to prioritize security over other concerns and by adopting disproportionate measures to protect copyright. Internet users in “free” countries have learned to react in order to protect what they have won. Some governments stepped up pressure on technical service providers to act as Internet cops. Companies specializing in online surveillance are becoming the new mercenaries in an online arms race.
HACKTIVISTS are providing technical expertise to NETIZENS trapped by a repressive regime’s apparatus. Diplomats are getting involved. More than ever before, online freedom of expression is now a major foreign and domestic policy issue.
NEW MEDIA KEEP PUSHING BACK THE BOUNDARIES OF CENSORSHIP
Online social networks complicate matters for authoritarian regimes that are trying to suppress unwanted news and information. It was thanks to netizens that Tunisians learned about the street vendor who set himself on fire in Sidi Bouzid and Egyptians learned about Khaled Said, the young netizen who was beaten to death by police outside an Alexandria Internet café. It was thanks to social networks that Sidi Bouzid and Khaled Said became news stories and went on to become cornerstones of the Arab Spring.
The revolution of microblogs and opinion aggregators and the faster dissemination of news and information that results, combined with the growing use of mobile phones to live stream video, are all increasing the possibilities of freeing information from its straightjacket. The mixing of journalism and activism has been accentuated in extreme situations [..] where ordinary citizens, appalled by the bloodshed, are systematically gathering information for dissemination abroad, especially by the international news media. [..]
Saudi Arabia’s relentless censorship has not been able to prevent women from fighting for their right to drive or vote and getting their fight relayed on the Internet, attracting the international community’s attention and, as a result, a degree of attention within the country.
[..]
INTERNET AND MOBILE PHONE SHUTDOWNS BECOME COMMONPLACE
Repressive regimes have learned the lesson. Keeping the media at bay, intimidating witnesses and blocking access to a few news websites are not enough to ensure the success of a news blackout. A much more effective way is to seal off the area concerned to prevent unwanted witness from entering and any digital content from leaving, and to cut off communications by blocking SMS messaging and by shutting down Internet access and mobile phone services in a temporary or targeted manner.
Egypt showed the way at the height of the demonstrations at the end of February 2011 by cutting Internet access for five days, an unprecedented move. Other countries, such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon and Kazakhstan, have blocked SMS for the first ones or suspended the Internet for the last one during elections or unrest, or even ahead of anticipated unrest. [..]
Nonetheless, shutting down the Internet is a drastic solution that can create problems for the authorities and can hurt the economy. Slowing the Internet connection speed right down is more subtle but also effective as it makes it impossible to send or receive photos or videos. [..] Bahrain is an example of a news blackout succeeding thanks to an impressive combination of technical, judicial and physical censorship methods.
MORE CONTENT FILTERING
As soon as the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt got under way, most regimes that censor the Internet quickly reinforced online content filtering in a bid to head off any possibility of similar unrest spreading to their own countries. Some regimes have adopted filtering as standard tool of governance, one that strengthens their hold on power. Live-streaming sites and social networks are often the most affected.
[..]
South Korea has decided to increase the number of blocked websites in response to the North’s propaganda. [If this is OK, why is not in other cases?] Tajikistan, which does not figure in this report, has blocked Facebook and news websites while Pakistan is accused of wanting to build its own Great Electronic Wall.
MORE CONTENT REMOVAL, PRESSURE ON TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
Censors are increasingly trying to enlist private-sector Internet companies in online surveillance and censorship. Some cooperate, others resist. [..]. Website hosting companies are under growing pressure to remove content in response to “notice and take down” process, a procedure likely to lead to abuses, as UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression Frank La Rue has stressed.
[..]
THREAT TO NET NEUTRALITY AND ONLINE FREE SPEECH FROM “RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN”
More and more individuals are requesting that information involving them be deleted from online archives on the grounds of a supposed “right to be forgotten” or “right to digital oblivion.” A generalized “right to oblivion,” enshrined in a law, would be hard to reconcile with online freedom of expression and information. Such a law would be hard to implement in practice and could place an impossible obligation on content editors and hosting companies – the complete erasure of online content. A thorough debate is need to determine whether individual rights are not already sufficiently guaranteed by existing legal provisions on the right to privacy, media offences, personal data and recourse to the courts. (Read the response received by Reporters Without Borders from Viviane Reding’s spokesman on March 14th, 2012) [That is a EU case]
SURVEILLANCE GETTING MORE EFFECTIVE AND MORE INTRUSIVE
Internet content filtering is growing but Internet surveillance is growing even more. Censors prefer to monitor dissidents’ online activities and contacts rather than try to prevent them from going online. The police chief in the United Arab Emirates, for example, has acknowledged that the police monitor social networks. The security services no longer interrogate and torture a prisoner for the names of his accomplices. Now they want his Facebook, Skype and Vkontakte passwords. It is the same in Bahrain, Turkmenistan.[..]
THE PROTECTION OF NETWORKS OF DISSIDENTS AND REPORTERS’ SOURCES is one of the leading challenges in the fight for information. Foreign reporters visiting sensitive countries should take special precautions in accordance with local conditions. It is no longer enough to take a bullet-proof vest when setting off for a war zone or troubled region. A “digital survival kit” [it is in French and it doesn’t contain a real survival kit] is also needed to encrypt information, anonymize communications and, if necessary, circumvent censorship.
[..]
The neutralization of encryption, anonymization and circumvention tools is also being prioritized by repressive regimes. [It said that Iran China are making hard the CIA job] To enhance their surveillance abilities, repressive regimes turn to specialized companies for ever more effective equipment and software for filtering, monitoring and Deep Packet Inspection. The SpyFiles which WikiLeaks has published are a mine of information on the subject. The companies they use are very often western ones that have been lured by a very lucrative market.
They include the US company BlueCoat, criticized for its activities in Syria, the French company Amesys, which supplied Col. Gaddafi, and Vodafone, the target of an ANHRI suit in Egypt. The Italian company AreaSpa finally pulled out of Syria after an international campaign criticizing its cooperation with the Assad regime. The European Parliament has adopted a resolution [China, India, Russia y Turquia are considered prepressive regimen by the UE] supporting tougher regulation of exports to repressive countries. A bill with similar aims is currently before the US congress. [I do not think the US will include India, the heaven for big US tax-evaders outsourcing Co].
PROPAGANDA RULES THE WEB
Propaganda messages like this one have taken root on the Internet: “Dear students and friends, it was just a road accident. Some people with an ulterior motive have interpreted as an ethnic conflict, or linked to oil and gas. The government is taking this case very seriously … We hope that students will not believe the rumours …” The government is believed to have an arsenal of 40,000 microblogs to communicate with the population. [China is referred. For CIA it would be nice to shutter China in many pieces under the pretext of humanitarian & internet freedom causes. Dream on pals !! Get real !!]
[..]
Bahrain is spending millions to polish its image abroad and give the impression that the country has returned to normal. This has been capped by the announcement that the 2012 Bahrain Formula One Grand Prix, cancelled last year, will go ahead in April.
CYBER ATTACKS
Cyber attacks in the form of distributed denials of service (DDoS) are widespread. Last year saw the rise of groups of hacker such as Anonymous, which were behind cyber attacks on the Tunisian, Egyptian and Syrian governments’ websites.
Governments are often behind attempts to hack news websites or independent sites. [Does this statement includes my pals in the US?] Even Eritrea was hit. Opposition sites were blocked just as the United Nations was approving sanctions against the country. Sri Lankan sites were also victims of cyber attacks. [..]
During the demonstrations in Belarus, the Internet service provider BelTelecom redirected web users trying to connect to the Vkontakte social network to sites containing malicious software. [cyber war?]. Besides a regular army, every country now has a cyber army, which may or may not be official. [that every includes the US]
GETTING RID OF AWKWARD WITNESSES
2011 was the deadliest year for netizens, its violence unmatched in the time that dissidents and human rights campaigners have been making widespread use of the Web. Several were killed in Bahrain, Mexico, India. [..]. Dozens of others are probably still to be identified and there will undoubtedly be still more to add to the toll. [..].
In Mexico, drug cartels hit social network users directly. Three netizens and one journalist were shot dead in cold blood. The headless body of a Mexican Internet activist was found in Nuevo Laredo on 9 November. The victim, nicknamed “Rascatripas” (Belly-Scratcher), moderated the website “Nuevo Laredo en Vivo” which exposed organized crime. A message left beside the body proclaimed: “This happened to me for not understanding that I shouldn’t report things on social networks.”
On 9 April 2011, the netizen Zakariya Rashid Hassan died in custody in Bahrain, a week after he was arrested and charged with inciting hatred, disseminating false news, promoting sectarianism and calling for the overthrow of the government on online forums. [They forgot to say: complicity of our pals, the Saudis, in this crime].
[..]
RAIDS AND ROUNDUPS
As netizen numbers grow, more and more of them are at risk. At least 199 cases of arrests of netizens were recorded in 2011, a 31-percent increase compared with the previous year. Today, at least 120 netizens are in prison because of their activities.
[..]
Egypt jailed its first political prisoner of the post-Mubarak era, the blogger Maikel Nabil Sanad who was convicted for criticizing the armed forces.
[..]
INHUMAN TREATMENT, PRESSURE AND UNFAIR TACTICS
Many [..] Bahraini netizens have been tortured in custody. In Egypt bloggers have reported being subjected to degrading treatment during questioning by security forces. The “UAE five”, a group of netizens and activists accused of online subversion and jailed in the United Arab Emirates, were accused of being traitors, as were their families. In Bahrain, the noted dissident Nabeel Rajab is regularly smeared in the media as well as being subjected to physically assault.
[..]
CHAINS OF SUPPORT
Bonds have been created between blogospheres and citizens throughout the world have started relaying calls for solidarity, as well as startling images and shocking stories. Global Voices, the international network of bloggers and citizen journalists, has played an important role in the dialogue between online communities and NGOs that campaign for freedom of expression.
In order to combat increasingly competent censors, self-styled “hacktivists” have been giving technical assistance to vulnerable netizens to help them share information in the face of pervasive censorship. [..] Last year also saw the development of tools to bypass censorship and blocking of Web access, such as “Internet in a suitcase” and Freedom Box. Cyber freedom activists are working flat-out to respond to increasingly effective censorship tools.
DIPLOMATS ENTER THE PICTURE
Freedom of expression on the Internet is no longer the sole preserve of dissidents, geeks and censors. Diplomats have followed in their wake. Statements and joint texts issued by international organizations and coalitions of countries on Internet freedom have multiplied, from the report by Frank La Rue, the UN special rapporteur for the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression, who last June acknowledged Internet access as a basic right, to the ruling by the European Court of Justice condemning Internet filtering and its adverse effects on freedom of expression.
At a meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council in late February, the high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, deplored restrictions on the Internet and the arrests of bloggers in some countries. She declared: “The Internet has transformed human rights movements. States can no longer exercise control based on the notion of monopoly over information.”
The U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, urged the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to approve a statement guaranteeing online freedoms, believing “rights exercised in cyberspace deserve as much protection as those exercised in real space”. For their part, China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan defended the principle of a code of good conduct for the Internet, a concept that in reality is aimed as legitimizing censorship. [The SS Clinton should have been added to the Nobel Peace Prize given to OB. Now I guess is late because they came to Libya, they laugh, and -besides the leader- many other innocent people died. They will continue laughing until the impunity in Libya and Afghanistan last. Does this good cause in cyberspace will save her honor? Think about!!]
DEMOCRACIES HAVE A POOR RECORD
Some democratic countries are far from blameless. The free flow of news and information online often loses out to internal security, the war on terrorism and cyber crime, and even the protection of intellectual property.
[..]
The United Kingdom, whose Digital Rights Bill aimed at protecting copyright has been singled out by U.N. Commissioner La Rue, went through a difficult period during the riots last August. In a worrying development, the Canadian company Research In Motion, manufacturers of the Blackberry, made the personal details of some users available to the police without a prior court order.
Despite international condemnation and the fact that its laws are outdated, France still applies the Loppsi Internet security law, which provides for official filtering of the Web, and the Hadopi law, which allows for Web access to be cut off to prevent illegal downloading of copyright content, despite several unsuccessful cases. Decrees ordering the application of other laws show that the usual reaction of the authorities is to impose filtering. Australia has yet to scrap its national filtering system, despite waning support and the fact that the type of content it is designed to cover may change.
Speeches by U.S. officials on the importance of the fight against online censorship and their financial support for anti-censorship tools is belied by the treatment of WikiLeaks (see the Reporters Without Borders report on the United States and the Internet: [DOMESTIC REALITY DOES NOT MATCH BOLD WORDS ON INTERNET FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. In http://en.rsf.org/etats-unis-domestic-reality-does-not-match-02-11-2011,41324.html ) [It would have been nice that Reporters Without Borders started summarizing this article and said that they are going to criticize the fault of others nations by starting with the leader regime on this matters worldwide] Using Visa and MasterCard to cut off its access to funds has hampered the site’s operations. Bradley Manning, suspected of being one of WikiLeaks’ informers, has been detained for several months in dreadful conditions. The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is the subject of a “secret indictment” which Reporters Without Borders urges the U.S. authorities to clarify. [to crarify? RWB doesn’t have a position on this case? What remains to be clarified?, Why to take a position on other countries then?. Do you think you know others better than yours? ]
RESPONSE OF INTERNET USERS AND NETIZENS OF THE “FREE WORLD”
Internet users in Western countries cut their teeth with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Many of them took to the streets to protest against the repressive U.S. Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), which sacrificed Internet freedom for the sake of copyright protection. The operation Stop SOPA and the 24-hour blackout observed by many websites, including Wikipedia, mobilized Web users throughout the world who were potentially affected by these bills to an unprecedented extent.
The campaign took off again with a new wave of protest against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which up till then had left most people indifferent despite campaigns by the NGOs La Quadrature du Net and Reporters Without Borders. Netizens from all sides understood that these bills could affect on their day-to-day activities.
Eastern Europe spearheaded the campaign. Several governments held off ratification. Resistance to ACTA is stronger than ever and the treaty may not see the light of day. Vigilance must be maintained. The next target for Internet activists could be the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), proposed by the European Union to clamp down on infringements of intellectual property law, which could potentially lead to large-scale filtering of the Internet. Another blow for Web neutrality.
INTERNET SOVEREIGNTY AND FRAGMENTATION OF THE WEB
Internet sovereignty is an idea that is gaining ground in the minds of national leaders, whether repressive or not. Others have followed the example of the national platform created in Burma in 2010. Several times in 2011, Iranian regime announced the creation of a national Web, a "clean" version of the Internet with its own search engine and messaging service. This may mean two different types of access, one for the authorities and another for the rest of the population, similar to the way the Internet is now structured in Burma. Belarus requires commercial companies to register the websites they have set up in the country. This does not affect news and information sites for the time being.
[..]
In 2011, the fragmentation of the Internet gathered pace. Web users were granted varying access depending on where they were connected. This is contrary to the original concept of the founders of the Web. Digital segregation is spreading. Solidarity between defenders of a free Internet, accessible to all, is more than ever needed for the information to continue to flow.
The 2012 list of the Enemies of the Internet
Bahrain and Belarus, new Enemies of the Internet
Saudi Arabia has continued its relentless censorship and suppressed coverage of a provincial uprising. Uzbekistan took measures to prevent Uznet from becoming a forum for discussing the Arab springs. There is one light of hope: the situation is improving in Burma, where the military have permitted the release of journalists and bloggers and the unblocking of news websites, but the legislative and technical tools for controlling and monitoring the Internet have yet to be dismantled.
Bahrain offers an example of an effective news blackout based on a remarkable array of repressive measures: keeping the international media away, harassing human rights activists, arresting bloggers and netizens (one of whom died in detention), smearing and prosecuting free speech activists, and disrupting communications, especially during the major demonstrations.
In Belarus, President Lukashenko’s regime has increased his grip on the Web as the country sinks further into political isolation and economic stagnation. The Internet, a space used for circulating information and mobilizing protests, has been hit hard as the authorities have reacted to “revolution via the social media.” The list of blocked websites has grown longer and the Internet was partially blocked during the “silent protests.”
[..]
MOVEMENT IN “COUNTRIES UNDER SURVEILLANCE” LIST
The countries “under surveillance” list still includes Australia, whose government clings to a dangerous content filtering system;Egypt, where the new regime has resumed old practices and has directly targeted the most outspoken bloggers; Eritrea, a police state that keeps its citizens away from the Internet and is alarmed by its diaspora’s new-found militancy online and on the streets of foreign cities; France, which continues its “three-strikes” policy on illégal downloading, with suspension of Internet access, and wher administrative filtering is introduced by an internal security law and appears with increasing frequency in decrees implementing laws; and Malaysia, which continues to harass bloggers (who have more credibility that the traditional media) in the run-up to general elections.
In Venezuela, access to the Internet continues to be unrestricted. The level of self-censorship is hard to evaluate but the adoption in 2011 of legislation that could potentially limit Internet freedom has yet to have any damaging effect in practice. Reporters Without Borders will nonetheless remain vigilant as relations between the government and critical media are tense.
INDIA AND KAZAKHSTAN, NEW ADDITIONS TO THE “UNDER SURVEILLANCE” CATEGORY
Since the Mumbai bombings of 2008, the Indian authorities have stepped up Internet surveillance and pressure on technical service providers, while publicly rejecting accusations of censorship. The national security policy of the world’s biggest democracy is undermining freedom of expression and the protection of Internet users’ personal data.
Kazakhstan, which likes to think of itself as a regional model after holding the rotating presidency of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 2010, nonetheless seems to be turning its back on all its fine promises in order to take the road of cyber-censorship. [..]
Thailand and Burma
If Thailand continues down the slope of content filtering and jailing netizens on lèse-majesté charges, it could soon join the club of the world’s most repressive countries as regards the Internet. Burma could soon leave the Enemies of the Internet list if the country takes the necessary measures. It has clearly embarked on a promising period of reforms, which has included the release of journalists and bloggers and the restoration of access to blocked websites.
[..]
Other countries to watch
Other countries have jailed netizens or established a form of Internet censorship. Even if they are not on these lists, Reporters Without Borders will continue to closely monitor online freedom of information in countries such as Azerbaijan, Morocco and Tajikistan, to name just a few. At the time of writing, Pakistan has invited private-sector companies to bid for the creation of a national Internet filtering and blocking system. Reporters Without Borders has asked the authorities to abandon this project, which would result in the creation of an Electronic Great Wall. If they go ahead, Pakistan could be added to the Enemies of the Internet in 2013.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)