Cancun cambio vs continuismo climatico letal.
HAZ, diciembre 12, 2010
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/
Que se consensuo y que no? Consenso: acuerdo sobre puntos comunes entre partes en conflicto.
Si reducir las emisiones es el problema central, el como hacerlo hoy, debio ser eje del debate. En otras palabras, como todas las naciones del mundo deben contribuir a ese esfuerzo?. Es claro que no todas las naciones causaron el problema, unos son mas culpables que otros y debieran contribuir mas en su solucion. El caso es que todos estamos en el tren, saltar fuera de el es tan suicida como no hacer nada.
El meeting the Cancun termino, el pueblo dio calor al show y los ejecutivos del Banco Mundial y las ONU adresaron el ACUERDO -del ultimo minuto, pero que tenian bajo la manga- cuyo documento final aun no se conoce, pero que compromete la firma de mas de 190 naciones del mundo. Algo de este acuerdo reproducimos abajo de lo que las Naciones Unidas –principal sponsor del evento Cancun- a emitido en forma official.
Mas alla de las promesas que contiene el acuerdo, lo mas positivo es el hecho de que son ahora esas 190+ naciones las que van a chequear y monitorear la concresion de lo prometido. Los pasajeros del tren suicida -190+ naciones- estan ahora en alerta. Otra cosa positiva es que hay ya una voz disonante: Como se puede entregar el control del tren a quien han causado el problema (Evo vs el Banco Mundial)
Pero queda en suspenso la pregunta de fondo: Es posible reducir las Emisiones dejando intacto el modelo de crecimiento economico neoliberal basado en la energia contaminante que agravara las emisiones de carbono?. Que se hace por prohibir los carros poluters y las nuevas exploraciones de petroleo que agravan la deforestacion en el pulmon del mundo, el amazonas, por tomar un caso.
Por ahora revisemos los acuerdos, como fueron lograron y que reacciones generaron, en especial la de Bolivia.
=================
ACUERDOS LOGRADOS EN INGLES Y CASTELLANO:
Aun no se conoce el documento final, pero aqui van los preliminaries.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
Welcome to the official website of the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun
COP 16 / CMP 6, 29 November to 10 December 2010
The United Nations Climate Change Conference took place in Cancun, Mexico, from 29 November to 10 December 2010. It encompassed the sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) and the sixth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), as well as the thirty-third sessions of both the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), and the fifteenth session of the AWG-KP and thirteenth session of the AWG-LCA.
UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun delivers balanced package of decisions, restores faith in multilateral process
Cancun, Mexico, 11 December 2010
The UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, ended on Saturday with the adoption of a balanced package of decisions that set all governments more firmly on the path towards a low-emissions future and support enhanced action on climate change in the developing world.
Press release (191 kB) esp
PRESS RELEASE
UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún delivers balanced package of decisions, restores faith in multilateral process
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/pr_20101211_cop16_closing.pdf
(Cancún, 11 December 2010) . The UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico, ended on Saturday with the adoption of a balanced package of decisions that set all governments more firmly on the path towards a low-emissions future and support enhanced action on climate change in the developing world.
The package, dubbed the .Cancún Agreements. was welcomed to repeated loud and prolonged applause and acclaim by Parties in the final plenary.
Cancún has done its job. The beacon of hope has been reignited and faith in the multilateral climate change process to deliver results has been restored,. said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres. .Nations have shown they can work together under a common roof, to reach consensus on a common cause. They have shown that consensus in a transparent and inclusive process can create opportunity for all,. she said.
Governments have given a clear signal that they are headed towards a low-emissions future together, they have agreed to be accountable to each other for the actions they take to get there, and they have set it out in a way which encourages countries to be more ambitious over time,. she said.
Nations launched a set of initiatives and institutions to protect the poor and the vulnerable from climate change and to deploy the money and technology that developing countries need to plan and build their own sustainable futures. And they agreed to launch concrete action to preserve forests in developing nations, which will increase going forward.
They also agreed that countries need to work to stay below a two degree temperature rise and they set a clear timetable for review, to ensure that global action is adequate to meet the emerging reality of climate change.
.This is not the end, but it is a new beginning. It is not what is ultimately required but it is the essential foundation on which to build greater, collective ambition,. said Ms. Figueres.
Elements of the Cancún Agreements include:
• Industrialised country targets are officially recognised under the multilateral process and these countries are to develop low-carbon development plans and strategies and assess how best to meet them, including through market mechanisms, and to report their inventories annually.
Mailing Address: CLIMATE CHANGE SECRETARIAT (UNFCCC), P.O. Box 260 124, D-53153 Bonn, Germany Office Location: Haus Carstanjen, Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8, D-53175 Bonn, Germany Media Information Office: (49-228) 815-1005 Fax: (49-228) 815-1999 Email: press@unfccc.int Web: http://unfccc.int
Developing country actions to reduce emissions are officially recognised under the multilateral process. A registry is to be set up to record and match developing country mitigation actions to finance and technology support from by industrialised countries. Developing countries are to publish progress reports every two years.
• Parties meeting under the Kyoto Protocol agree to continue negotiations with the aim of completing their work and ensuring there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the treaty.
• The Kyoto Protocol.s Clean Development Mechanisms has been strengthened to drive more major investments and technology into environmentally sound and sustainable emission reduction projects in the developing world.
• Parties launched a set of initiatives and institutions to protect the vulnerable from climate change and to deploy the money and technology that developing countries need to plan and build their own sustainable futures.
• A total of $30 billion in fast start finance from industrialised countries to support climate action in the developing world up to 2012 and the intention to raise $100 billion in long-term funds by 2020 is included in the decisions.
• In the field of climate finance, a process to design a Green Climate Fund under the Conference of the Parties, with a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries, is established.
• A new .Cancún Adaptation Framework. is established to allow better planning and implementation of adaptation projects in developing countries through increased financial and technical support, including a clear process for continuing work on loss and damage.
• Governments agree to boost action to curb emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries with technological and financial support.
• Parties have established a technology mechanism with a Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network to increase technology cooperation to support action on adaptation and mitigation.
The next Conference of the Parties is scheduled to take place in South Africa, from 28 November to 9 December 2011.
About the UNFCCC
With 194 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 191 of the UNFCCC Parties. Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction commitments. The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.
In Spanish
COMUNICADO DE PRENSA
La Conferencia de la ONU sobre Cambio Climático en Cancún da como resultado un paquete equilibrado de decisiones, restaura la fe en proceso multilateral
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/pr_20101211_cop16_closing_esp.pdf
(Cancún, 11 de diciembre de 2010) . La Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático en Cancún, México, llegó a su fin el sábado con la adopción de un paquete equilibrado de decisiones que coloca a todos los gobiernos en una posición más firme en el camino hacia un futuro bajo en emisiones y apoya una mejor acción sobre cambio climático en el mundo en desarrollo.
Dicho paquete, llamado .Los Acuerdos de Cancún., fue recibido con un repetido, fuerte y prolongado aplauso y la aclamación de las Partes al final de la plenaria.
Cancún hizo su trabajo. La llama de la esperanza se ha reavivado y la fe en que el proceso multilateral sobre cambio climático dé resultados se ha restaurado., afirmó la Secretaria Ejecutiva de la CMNUCC, Christiana Figueres. .Las naciones han mostrado que pueden trabajar juntas bajo un mismo techo para lograr un consenso sobre una causa común. Han demostrado que el consenso en un proceso transparente e inclusivo puede crear oportunidades para todos., agregó.
.Los gobiernos han dado una clara señal de que se dirigen juntos hacia un futuro de bajas emisiones. Han acordado rendirse cuentas entre ellos sobre las acciones que lleven a cabo para lograr sus metas, y lo han expuesto de una manera en la que alientan a los países a ser más ambiciosos con el paso del tiempo., dijo la Secretaria Ejecutiva.
Las Naciones lanzaron un conjunto de iniciativas e instituciones para proteger del cambio climático a las personas vulnerables y a las que viven en la pobreza y para distribuir el dinero y la tecnología que los países en desarrollo necesitan para planear y construir sus propios futuros sostenibles. También acordaron lanzar acciones concretas para la preservación forestal en las naciones en desarrollo, lo cual aumentaría los avances.
De igual modo, reconocieron que los países necesitan trabajar para mantenerse por debajo de un aumento de temperatura de dos grados y establecieron un claro cuadro cronológico de revisión, con el fin de asegurar que la acción mundial es la adecuada para enfrentar la realidad emergente del cambio climático.
Este no es el final, sino un nuevo comienzo. No es lo que se necesitaba finalmente, pero sí representa los cimientos esenciales sobre los cuales se puede construir una mayor ambición colectiva., dijo la Dra. Figueres.
Mailing Address: CLIMATE CHANGE SECRETARIAT (UNFCCC), P.O. Box 260 124, D-53153 Bonn, Germany Office Location: Haus Carstanjen, Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8, D-53175 Bonn, Germany Media Information Office: (49-228) 815-1005 Fax: (49-228) 815-1999 Email: press@unfccc.int Web: http://unfccc.int
Los elementos de los Acuerdos de Cancún incluyen los siguientes:
• Los objetivos de los países industrializados se reconocieron oficialmente bajo un proceso multilateral. Estos países crearán planes y estrategias de desarrollo bajo en carbono y evaluarán la mejor forma de hacerlo, incluyendo a través de mecanismos de mercado, y reportarán sus inventarios cada año.
• Las acciones de los países en desarrollo para reducir las emisiones se reconocieron oficialmente en el proceso multilateral. Se establecerá un registro con el fin de relacionar y registrar las acciones de mitigación de los países en desarrollo con el financiamiento y soporte tecnológico brindado por los países industrializados. Los países en desarrollo publicarán informes del progreso logrado cada dos años.
• Las Partes reunidas en el Protocolo de Kyoto aceptan continuar con las negociaciones con el propósito de completar su trabajo y asegurar que no hay brecha alguna entre el primer periodo de compromisos y el segundo del tratado.
• Los Mecanismos de Desarrollo Limpio del Protocolo de Kyoto se han reforzado para traducir más inversiones mayores y tecnología en proyectos ambientalmente seguros y sostenibles de reducción de emisiones en el mundo en desarrollo.
• Las partes lanzaron un conjunto de iniciativas e instituciones para proteger a las personas vulnerables del cambio climático y para distribuir el dinero y la tecnología que los países en desarrollo necesitan para planear y construir sus propios futuros sostenibles.
• En las decisiones se incluyó también un total de 30 mil millones de dólares en financiamiento de arranque rápido proveniente de los países industrializados para apoyar la acción sobre cambio climático en los países en desarrollo hasta el año 2012 y la intención de recaudar $100 mil millones de dólares en fondos a largo plazo para 2020.
• Respecto al financiamiento climático, se estableció un proceso para diseñar un Fondo Verde para el Clima bajo la Conferencia de las Partes que cuente con una junta con igual representación de los países en desarrollo y desarrollados.
• Se estableció un Nuevo .Marco de Adaptación de Cancún. con el objetivo de permitir una mejor planeación e implementación de los proyectos de adaptación en los países en desarrollo a través de un mayor financiamiento y soporte técnico, incluyendo un proceso claro para continuar con el trabajo en pérdidas y daños.
• Los gobiernos acordaron fomentar la acción para frenar las emisiones debidas a la deforestación y la degradación forestal en los países en desarrollo con soporte tecnológico y financiamiento.
• Las Partes establecieron un mecanismo de tecnología con un Comité Ejecutivo de Tecnología, así como con el Centro y la Red de Tecnología Climática para aumentar la cooperación tecnológica para apoyar la acción sobre adaptación y mitigación.
La próxima Conferencia de las Partes está programada del 28 de noviembre al 9 de diciembre de 2011 en Sudáfrica.
La CMNUCC
La Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC), con sus 194 Partes, cuenta entre sus miembros a casi todos los países del mundo y es el tratado que sirve de base al Protocolo de Kyoto de 1997. El Protocolo de Kyoto ha sido ratificado por 191 de las Partes en la CMNUCC. En el contexto del Protocolo, 37 Estados .Estados industrializados o en proceso de transición a una economía de mercado. tienen compromisos jurídicamente vinculantes de reducción de las emisiones. El objetivo último de ambos tratados es estabilizar las concentraciones de gases de efecto invernadero en la atmósfera situándolas en un nivel que impida interferencias humanas nocivas en el sistema climático.
=====================
REACCIONES. LAS OBJECIONES DE BOLIVIA. 2 articulos
1.
Bolivia sola contra 193 países
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=118508
Julián Miglierini.
BBC Mundo http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2010/12/101211_cumbre_cancun_bolivia_contra_193_paises_pl.shtml?print=1
La delegación boliviana en la cumbre de cambio climático que finalizó este sábado en Cancún fue la única en rechazar los acuerdos alcanzados por el pleno del foro y anunció que interpondrá un reclamo formal contra la manera en que se llegó al pacto global.
Al rechazarse al acuerdo, que pacta una futura renegociación del Protocolo de Kioto - a través del cual los países ricos limitan sus emisiones - y establece mecanismos de ayuda a países en desarrollo, entre otros temas, Bolivia quería evitar que el pleno apruebe un pacto que, según ese país, no es lo suficientemente enérgico en algunos temas que no se habían terminado de negociar.
Tradicionalmente las decisiones de la convención se toman por consenso unánime, por lo que la presencia de un sólo opositor puede hacer caer cualquier acuerdo alcanzado por los demás países.
Pero esa estrategia no pareció dar los resultados que la delegación boliviana esperaba - los acuerdos fueron aprobados con el acuerdo de los demás 193 países y sólo se "tomó nota" de las reservas de Bolivia.
Tras el fin de la última sesión plenaria, el embajador de Bolivia antes Naciones Unidas y jefe de la delegación, Pablo Solón, dijo que su país se va de esta cumbre "con la frente en alto; somos la delegación de un país que no se vende, no se arrodilla, tiene mucha dignidad y principios".
Solón agregó que el país hará una reclamación ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia por la manera en la que se adoptaron los acuerdos.
Tensión
Bolivia objetaba, por ejemplo, que en el primer texto no hay un firme compromiso de renovación del Protocolo de Kioto -que vence en 2012- y que los recortes contemplados en el acuerdo no son suficientemente profundos para evitar un marcado aumento de la temperatura global.
La posición de Bolivia dio lugar a una tensa ida y vuelta entre su embajador en Naciones Unidas y jefe de su delegación aquí, Pablo Solón, y la canciller mexicana y presidenta de la sesión, Patricia Espinosa, en la última sesión de la cumbre.
Los cientos de asistentes a la sesión plenaria aplaudían cada intervención de Espinosa y callaban ante los reclamos de Bolivia.
"Somos representantes de un país pequeño que tiene principios, pequeño pero con soberanía", dijo Solón en el plenario de la cumbre.
Al ver que la reunión plenaria procedía a aprobar los dos acuerdos sin contar con el respaldo de Bolivia, Solón advirtió sobre las implicaciones de semejante decisión.
"El precedente es funesto", dijo Solón. "Hoy será Bolivia y mañana será cualquier país; no podemos de ninguna manera acabar con lo que significa la regla de consenso".
Consenso, no unanimidad
Pero Espinosa les respondió con contundencia.
"La regla del consenso no significa la unanimidad" dijo Espinosa.
"Ni muchos menos que una delegación pretenda imponer el derecho de veto para romper la voluntad que con tanto trabajo han venido alcanzando los demás participantes", e hizo caer el martillo que marcaba la toma de una decisión.
Lo que muchos se preguntan en Cancún es cómo Bolivia pudo quedarse sola, sin el apoyo total en su posición de parte de ninguno de sus aliados del ALBA o del resto del mundo.
En entrevista con BBC Mundo al final de la reunión, la jefa de la delegación de Venezuela - un férreo aliado de La Paz -, Claudia Salerno, dijo que su país se solidarizaba con Bolivia.
"No es un buen precedente el que acaba de ocurrir", dijo sobre la aprobación del acuerdo sin apoyo boliviano, "no me voy con un sabor agradable en la boca, porque se violaron las reglas de procedimiento".
Postura extremista
Sin embargo, Salerno aseguró que en estos casos de negociaciones multilaterales, hay que mostrar flexibilidad.
"Nosotros éramos inflexibles con algunas cosas y esas las peleamos hasta el último minuto, pero este era el momento de la convergencia y la flexibilidad."
Desde otros países de la región hubo también comentarios respecto a Bolivia.
"Las reservas (de Bolivia) son obviamente válidas", dijo a BBC Mundo Sandra Bessudo, jefa de la delegación de Colombia, tras el fin de la reunión.
"Sin embargo esa posición tan extremista en un contexto como lo que se está intentando construir desde aquí hace que el proceso vaya hacia atrás", agregó.
La delegación de Bolivia, por su parte, aseguró que la historia les dará la razón.
"Lo que aquí (en Cancún) se ha acordado va a llevar a víctimas humanas y de la naturaleza", sentenció.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2010/12/101211_cumbre_cancun_bolivia_contra_193_paises_pl.shtml?print=1
2
Cancún cede al Banco Mundial la gestión del cambio climático
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=118512
Gara. http://www.gara.net/paperezkoa/20101212/237516/es/Cancun-cede-Banco-Mundial-gestion-cambio-climatico
Cerca de 200 países reunidos en Cancún (México) adoptaron ayer una serie de mecanismos -todavía embrionarios- para luchar contra el cambio climático, un acuerdo que fue acogido con una ovación y que pasa página de la inmensa decepción de Copenhague, hace un año.
El texto prevé la creación de un fondo verde para ayudar a los países en desarrollo a hacer frente al calentamiento y pone en marcha un mecanismo para luchar contra la deforestación.
Sin embargo, este fondo estará controlado inicialmente por el Banco Mundial, un organismo que no se ha distinguido por su sensibilidad medioambiental. Al contrario, las exigencias neoliberales del Banco Mundial han impedido que numerosos países hayan tenido que suspender sus programas sociales, lo que ha generado también problemas medioambientales.
El objetivo de la cita mexicana -con ambiciones modestas- era resucitar el proceso de negociación impulsado por la ONU, fuertemente desprestigiado por la inmensa decepción que supuso la cumbre de Copenhague. Misión cumplida, según las delegaciones reunidas en pleno para adoptar el texto.
Con este acuerdo, «se ha salvado el fracaso del sistema multilateral de negociaciones sobre el cambio climático», declaró a France Presse la ministra francesa de Ecología, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet.
El texto adoptado tras doce jornadas de negociaciones intensas y en ocasiones tensas, «abre una nueva era para la cooperación internacional sobre el clima», aseguró la ministra mexicana de Exteriores, Patricia Espinosa, quien presidió los debates.
Algunas horas antes, el texto de compromiso puesto sobre la mesa por México recibió el apoyo de la mayoría de los 194 estados presentes en la Convención de la ONU sobre el Clima.
Este texto «evidentemente no resolverá la cuestión del cambio climático, pero pienso que es un verdadero paso adelante», señaló el principal negociador estadounidense, Todd Stern.
La principal virtud del texto, aprobado pese a la oposición de Bolivia, es oficializar numerosos puntos del acuerdo político de Copenhague, que no fue jamás adoptado por la Convención de la ONU.
De este modo, se fija el objetivo de limitar el alza de la temperatura media del planeta a dos grados por encima de los niveles preindustriales. «Las partes deben actuar de manera urgente para lograr este objetivo a largo plazo», indicó el acuerdo adoptado.
El texto permite asimismo salvar, al menos temporalmente, el futuro del Protocolo de Kioto, único tratado jurídicamente obligatorio sobre el clima que existe actualmente, pese a que no ha sido suscrito ni por EEUU ni por China, principales agentes contaminantes del mundo.
Esta cuestión deberá ser resuelta irremediablemente en la próxima cita sobre el clima, a finales de 2011 en Durban (Sudáfrica).
Los países desarrollados prometieron en Copenhague movilizar 100.000 millones de dólares [75.500 millones de euros]. El nuevo fondo verde, que gestionará una parte importante de esta cantidad, tendrá un consejo de administración con representación igualitaria entre estados desarrollados y en vías de desarrollo. El texto de Cancún prevé que el Banco Mundial actuará como administrador temporal durante tres años.
Las numerosas preguntas que surgen sobre la manera en la que se creará este fondo siguen sin respuesta. Un panel impulsado por la ONU sugirió la puesta en marcha de financiación alternativa, como tasas sobre el transporte y las transacciones financieras.
El texto aprobado en la Cumbre de Cancún establece, asimismo, las bases de un mecanismo para reducir la deforestación, que está en el origen del 15% al 20% de las emisiones globales de gases de efecto invernadero.
Bolivia recurrirá ante el Tribunal de La Haya
Bolivia anunció ayer que acudirá al Tribunal Internacional de La Haya para impugnar el resultado de la Cumbre de Cancún al considerar que violó el reglamento de la ONU en la aprobación de sus documentos finales.
El jefe de la delegación boliviana, Pablo Solón, señaló que la presidenta de la cumbre, Patricia Espinosa, violó el reglamento de la Convención, que establece que los acuerdos se adoptan con el consentimiento de los 194 países miembros.
Entre otras cosas, Bolivia rechazó el acuerdo de Cancún por considerar que abre las puertas a que se sustituya en un futuro el Protocolo de Kioto (1997), el único instrumento vinculante que hasta la fecha obliga a los países desarrollados a reducir sus emisiones.
También rechaza que se amplíe la posibilidad de aumentar el uso de nuevos mecanismos de mercado como si fueran «una varita mágica», así como que se otorgue un papel temporal al Banco Mundial para gestionar el nuevo fondo verde de ayudas a los países en desarrollo.
A juicio de Solón, la cumbre de Cancún «ha terminado muy mal» porque la Presidencia mexicana no respetó las reglas, «algo que ni siquiera ocurrió en Copenhague».
Países latinoamericanos aliados de Bolivia, como Venezuela, no apoyaron en esta ocasión la postura de La Paz. La delegada venezolana, Claudia Salerno, se congratuló por la creación del fondo y de los compromisos para frenar la deforestación.
El negociador cubano, Orlando Rey, señaló a Efe que el acuerdo «permite recobrar la confianza, el valor del multilateralismo y el basamento para empeños superiores».
http://www.gara.net/paperezkoa/20101212/237516/es/Cancun-cede-Banco-Mundial-gestion-cambio-climatico
=============
Recent news sobre los acuerdos de Cancun in English
Telegraph report:
Cancun meeting reaches climate change agreement
The Cancun climate change talks closed in the early hours of Saturday morning with an agreement aimed at stopping climate change.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent Cancun
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8196074/Cancun-meeting-reaches-climate-change-agreement.html
The new deal falls short of a global treaty. However it has progressed from Copenhagen by getting all countries, except Bolivia, to sign up to an official UN document.
The Cancun deal commits all countries to keeping temperature rise below 2C (3.6F) by reducing emissions. Rich countries have agreed to consider an extension of the Kyoto Protocol while poor countries will sign up to emission cuts for the first time. There are also a series of key decisions on setting up a green fund to help poor countries cope with climate change and halting deforestation.
Chris Huhne, the Climate Change and Energy Secretary, said the proposals did not give everybody everything they wanted but it was progress.
"We've made much more progress than anybody expected only weeks," he said.
"We have real commitments to reductions of greenhouse gases both by developed and developing countries."
=================
WASHINGTON POST REPORT:
Cancun Agreements put 193 nations on track to deal with climate change
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121102308.html
By Juliet Eilperin and William Booth
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 11, 2010; 7:07 PM
CANCUN, MEXICO - Delegates from 193 nations agreed Saturday on a new global framework to help developing countries curb their carbon output and cope with the effects of climate change, but they postponed the harder question of precisely how industrialized and major emerging economies will share the task of making deeper greenhouse-gas emission cuts in the coming decade.
The package known as the Cancun Agreements has salvaged a U.N.-backed process that was close to failure, delivering a diplomatic victory to the talks' Mexican hosts. But it also highlighted the obstacles that await as countries continue to grapple with climate change through broad international negotiations.
After an all-night session that included a face-off between Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa and Bolivia's U.N. ambassador, Pablo Solon, members of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) agreed to create a "Green Climate Fund" that will transfer money from rich countries to poor ones; research centers that will ease the transfer of clean-energy technology; and a system in which developing nations can be compensated for keeping rain forests intact.
"Cancun has done its job," UNFCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said in a statement. "Nations have shown they can work together under a common roof, to reach consensus on a common cause."
But the outcome left some gaping holes, including spelling out exactly how the new pot of international aid will be funded and whether the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the current global climate pact, will be extended once its first commitment period expires in 2012. Signatories such as Japan and Russia oppose an extension because the United States, China and India are not bound to mandatory emission reductions under Kyoto.
Akira Yamada, Japan's deputy director general for global issues, said the current Kyoto framework amounted to having big emitters act as "spectators" while the rest of the industrialized world played a soccer match. "We would hope they would come down to the field to play with us, to score against global warming," Yamada said.
The new framework encapsulates the current commitments that both industrialized and developing nations have made to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade, though it notes that these will not meet the agreed-upon goal of keeping the rise in global temperatures from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels. To achieve that, industrialized countries would have cut their emissions between 25 and 40 percent compared with 1990 levels in the next decade, as opposed to the 16 percent they have promised.
Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said delegates have "bought themselves some time" but will face an even tougher negotiation next year in Durban, South Africa. "The big issues are still unaddressed," he said.
Still, the agreement cemented and fleshed out key elements of the Copenhagen Accord, the controversial deal brokered among President Obama and the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa in a closed meeting last year. That pact was not formally adopted by the U.N. body after a handful of Latin American countries raised objections, but it established the idea that major developing countries would subject voluntary emissions cuts to international scrutiny while the industrialized world would mobilize $100 billion in climate aid for poor nations by 2020.
"The reality is we really got what we were looking for," said U.S. special climate envoy Todd Stern in an interview Saturday. On issues such as forests, financing and scrutiny of major emitters' carbon reductions, he said, "we got good, substantive decisions on all of those things."
Michael Levi, senior follow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in an e-mail that while "most of the important work of cutting emissions will be driven outside the U.N. process," the Cancun agreement "should be applauded not because it solves everything, but because it chooses not to: it focuses on those areas where the U.N. process has the most potential to be useful, and avoids others where the U.N. process is a dead end."
Some elements of the deal, including one known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, could have an immediate impact on curbing carbon emissions. The new language establishes rules for calculating how much carbon is stored in forest stocks vulnerable to logging or burning, along with safeguards for rain-forest dwellers and biodiversity.
Rebecca Chacko, who directs climate policy for the advocacy group Conservation International, said this "basic framework" is "going to inspire countries to really ramp up the financing immediately" for forest preservation, as well as open the door to more private funding.
In the end, Mexico was able to pull off what the president of the Center for Clean Air Policy, Ned Helme, called a negotiating "tour de force" by asking delegates what was most important to them and what they could compromise on. The Mexicans finally won over everyone - except Solon, who complained about everything from future climate targets to his treatment by checkpoint security guards.
In an interview, Espinosa said: "We were feeling very uncomfortable, because Bolivia is a very close friend to the Mexican people. We share a lot with Bolivia. Both countries have many indigenous peoples. We both have forests. So being so far apart was difficult for us."
President Felipe Calderon in an interview Saturday morning called the late-night conclusion, with its repeated applause for Mexico and its appeals to save humanity, "a very emotional night for all of us."
Minutes later, at a breakfast by the sea for the Mexican delegation, Calderon hoisted a cold beer and dug into his tacos, after being hailed as the world's new leader on climate change.
eilperinj@washpost.com boothb@washpost.com
==================
Cancun Climate Delegates Sign Off On Agreement
Posted on: Sunday, 12 December 2010
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1964927/cancun_climate_delegates_sign_off_on_agreement/
Delegates at the UN climate summit in Cancun have reached an agreement to curb climate change, including a massive fund to aid developing countries.
All participating nations endorsed the deal drawn up by the Mexican hosts, although Bolivia made some objections.
The draft says deeper cuts in carbon emissions are needed, but do not establish a mechanism for achieving pledges made by countries. The Kyoto Protocol was a huge stumbling block for some countries that resisted it during the final week of negotiations. However, diplomats were able to come to a compromise.
Delegates applauded speeches from Japan, China and the US -- nations that had caused the most friction during negotiations -- as one by one they signed the draft.
BBC environment correspondent Richard Black said the meeting did not achieve the all-encompassing deal that many activists and governments were hoping for. But he said it was being “touted as a platform on which that comprehensive agreement can be built.”
“Now the world must deliver on its promises. There is more hard work to be done ahead of the climate change conference in South Africa next year,” UK Prime Minister David Cameron told BBC News.
The Green Climate Fund is expected to raise and disburse $100 billion per year by 2020 to protect the poorest nations against climate impacts and assist them with low-carbon development.
A newly appointed Adaptation Committee will support countries as they establish climate protection plans.
And partners for funding developing countries to reduce deforestation are outlined.
The deal is nowhere near the comprehensive plan that many countries backed at last year’s Copenhagen summit and continue to back now. It leaves open the question of whether any of its measures, including emission cuts, will be legally binding.
“What we have now is a text that, while not perfect, is certainly a good basis for moving forward,” said chief US negotiator Todd Stern.
“The negotiations in the future will continue to be difficult,” China’s chief negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, added.
Bolivia found faults with elements of the deal and with the way the texts were constructed through private conversations between small groups of countries.
Delegation chief Pablo Solon said what was most worrisome was that commitments would not be made under the Kyoto Protocol. “We're talking about a [combined] reduction in emissions of 13-16 percent, and what this means is an increase of more than 4C,” he said.
“Responsibly, we cannot go along with this - this would mean we went along with a situation that my president has termed 'ecocide and genocide',” said Solon.
But Clair Parker, senior climate policy adviser for the global conservation group IUCN, said: “We have moved away from the post-Copenhagen paralysis.”
“Developing countries can now see new money on the table which they can draw on to adapt to the impacts they're already facing and reduce emissions,” she said.
“There's enough in it that we can work towards next year's meeting in South Africa to get a legally binding agreement there,” commented Tara Rao, senior policy adviser with environmental group World Wildlife Fund.
The final day of the two-week climate change summit had begun with little hope of a deal. But ministers conducted intensive behind-the-scenes diplomacy to formulate texts that all parties could agree to, to some extent.
Both Russia and Japan secured wording that leaves them a possible route to escape extension of the Kyoto Protocol’s legally binding emission cuts, while strongly implying that the protocol will have a successful future - a key demand of developing countries.
The Green Climate Fund will initially utilize the World Bank as a trustee -- as the United States, European Union and Japan had demanded -- while giving oversight to a new body balanced between developed and developing nations.
Developing countries will be subject to international verification when they are funded by Western monies -- a formulation that seemed to satisfy both China, which had concerns on such verification procedures, and the US, which had demanded them.
domingo, 12 de diciembre de 2010
miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2010
SEXO y MENTIRAS EN LA CIUDAD GLOBAL. CASO ASSANGE
SEXO y MENTIRAS EN LA CIUDAD GLOBAL. CASO ASSANGE
HAZ, diciembre 8 del 2010
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com
En el show de la TV americana "Sex in the City" se puede ver el puritanismo hipócrita de un sector de feministas quienes tratan de vender - entre "las niñas radicales del norte" - los 10 nuevos mandamientos de la biblia para el sexo (tener cuidado con los condones filtrados de wiki-leaks, es uno de ellos). Algunas damas estúpidas toman en serio las "normas morales" de estas comediantes que buscan trivializar la cuestión relación correcta entre hombre y mujer, para terminar preguntándose por qué estoy tan sola en mis 40 o mas años, Por qué no pude contraer matrimonio con un hombre razonable?. La respuesta es obvia. Usted uso condones OB-B que le filtraron wiki-basura del gobierno en su mente. (OB-B significa Obama y Bush).
Este TV show "sexo en la ciudad" tiene una gran audiencia en los EE.UU. y esto crea contexto favorable al "escándalo hipócrita" de Suecia, donde Julian Assange –el autor de los wikileaks- va a ser enjuiciado. Esa hipocresía encontrara audiencia Americana en el sector despolitizado de "feministas radicales ". Assange es culpable de abuso sexual de niñas treintonas e inocentes, diran estas damas ingenuas. Afortunadamente, también hay otra gran audiencia, más grande que la anterior de feministas críticas y con mente independiente de lo que la televisión intenta vender. Estas damas ven el caso Assange con lentes que van más allá del falso sexismo freudiano. Con ellas compartimos los siguientes puntos:
1. El verdadero problema en el caso Assange es que este hombre expuso la mentira y la duplicidad de nuestros servidores públicos (los estadounidenses y otros), por esto ha sido detenido por interpol bajo pretextos falsos: el no haber usado condónes en su relación con dos damas, lo que en ese país no esta permitido. Lo cierto es que sexo no es el problema de esencia, en este caso. El sexo es pura manipulación hipócrita típica de la televisión estadounidense en tiempos electorales, lo es también en países caucasicos de Europa como Suecia. Recordemos el caso de Mónica Lewinsky en los EU?. Los estadounidenses perdonaron a Bill Clinton y lo re-eligieron por 2da vez. El caso Assange es también político e igual debe ser perdonado. De lo contrario las elites de poder en America y a nivel mundial deberán también ser expuestos. Debe ser asi, ellos gustan el fuego del globalismo neo-liberal, pues a quemarlos en su propio infierno. Si tiran piedras a su techo de vidrio, les lloverá vidrios rotos.
2. Este tampoco es un caso de terrorismo, como el gobierno USA pretende usarlo luego de pedir la extradición de Assange. Lo que aquí se encubre es la brutalidad, la tortura y otros crímenes de guerra cometidos por los EE.UU. y la OTAN en Irak, Afganistán y otros países, y se trata además del uso ilegal y autoritario de las embajadas de EE.UU. y la diplomacia de los EE.UU., para encubrir dichos delitos. Esto es lo que Assange denuncia en los wikileaks y tenemos el derecho a escuchar tal información. La Constitución estadounidense garantiza esa libertad. Su violación será ilegal. Las empresas que cortaron apoyo a los Wikileaks deben ser castigadas por los consumidores estadounidenses.
3. Las leyes “anti” terroristas de EU no tienen base legal ni ética para enjuiciar a Assange. Tales leyes anti-terroristas son una violación de los derechos constitucionales (empezando en la supresión del habeas corpus) y esta ilegalidad sigue impune. Peor aún si los gobernantes de EE.UU. han obligado a adoptar entre los aliados y los países clientes tales leyes, eso también constituye violación de leyes internacionales. No se puede fundar leyes basándose en la mentira e impunidad avalados y propagados por la prensa corporativa. La raíz de todas esta mentiras fue lo difundido sobre los causantes del terrorismo de sept 11, 2001. El cuentazo Bin Laden y Al Qaeda como autores del atentado terrorista fue la madre de todas las mentiras posteriores. De allí nacieron las leyes “anti-terrorismo” y con ellas se cubrió con velo de impunidad a los gobernantes que hicieron parte del atentado 9-11. Bush impidió una verdadera investigación independiente de los hechos. Científicos USA afirmaron que hubo implosión y que 9-11 fue un trabajo interno. Varios senadores y muchas personalidades firmaron una petición para que se reabra una investigación independiente. No ocurrió. Se creó en cambio un contexto mediático en favor de la mentira oficial en la mente de muchos americanos. En el nombre de anti-“terrorismo” muchos crímenes de gente inocente ha sido cometidos y un montón de dinero en efectivo ha sido dado a empresas que se benefician del negocio sucio de combatir el terrorismo, es el caso de las maquinas TSA en los aeropuertos EE.UU.
4. Si se tuerce una vez mas las leyes estadounidenses para condenar a Assange estallara un nuevo movimiento de derechos civiles, lo mismo si se busca establecer mordazas en el uso del Internet para seguir avalando el terrorismo real de fuerzas de ocupación estadounidenses y de la OTAN. Si prosperan, muchos más estadounidenses inocentes serán condenados a juicio. La información alternativa será cancelada. Esa sería la última violación de los derechos constitucionales y lo que encenderá un poderoso revolucionario por derechos civiles similar y de mas alcance que en los 60 del siglo pasado. Assange no es quien comete terrorismo, son los dueños del poder quienes lo hacen. Assange debe ser liberado y las UN deben restablecer su dignidad ofreciendo a el un verdadero premio Nobel. Mucha gente va a firmar dicha petición. Muchas feministas de América lo firmaran también. No esperamos que lo hagan mujeres oportunistas de EU y Suecia que usan la cama para lograr fama dinero o ambos. Da pena saber que fueron damas de Suecia quienes empujaron el movimiento feminista hacia el basural de la historia y más triste aun si damas norteamericanas tratan de hacer lo mismo. Debemos pedir en cambio la libertad inmediata de Assange y el pleno respeto del Internet libre de especuladores financieros y también el pleno respeto y apoyo a los medios de comunicación alternativos.
HAZ, diciembre 8 del 2010
http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com
En el show de la TV americana "Sex in the City" se puede ver el puritanismo hipócrita de un sector de feministas quienes tratan de vender - entre "las niñas radicales del norte" - los 10 nuevos mandamientos de la biblia para el sexo (tener cuidado con los condones filtrados de wiki-leaks, es uno de ellos). Algunas damas estúpidas toman en serio las "normas morales" de estas comediantes que buscan trivializar la cuestión relación correcta entre hombre y mujer, para terminar preguntándose por qué estoy tan sola en mis 40 o mas años, Por qué no pude contraer matrimonio con un hombre razonable?. La respuesta es obvia. Usted uso condones OB-B que le filtraron wiki-basura del gobierno en su mente. (OB-B significa Obama y Bush).
Este TV show "sexo en la ciudad" tiene una gran audiencia en los EE.UU. y esto crea contexto favorable al "escándalo hipócrita" de Suecia, donde Julian Assange –el autor de los wikileaks- va a ser enjuiciado. Esa hipocresía encontrara audiencia Americana en el sector despolitizado de "feministas radicales ". Assange es culpable de abuso sexual de niñas treintonas e inocentes, diran estas damas ingenuas. Afortunadamente, también hay otra gran audiencia, más grande que la anterior de feministas críticas y con mente independiente de lo que la televisión intenta vender. Estas damas ven el caso Assange con lentes que van más allá del falso sexismo freudiano. Con ellas compartimos los siguientes puntos:
1. El verdadero problema en el caso Assange es que este hombre expuso la mentira y la duplicidad de nuestros servidores públicos (los estadounidenses y otros), por esto ha sido detenido por interpol bajo pretextos falsos: el no haber usado condónes en su relación con dos damas, lo que en ese país no esta permitido. Lo cierto es que sexo no es el problema de esencia, en este caso. El sexo es pura manipulación hipócrita típica de la televisión estadounidense en tiempos electorales, lo es también en países caucasicos de Europa como Suecia. Recordemos el caso de Mónica Lewinsky en los EU?. Los estadounidenses perdonaron a Bill Clinton y lo re-eligieron por 2da vez. El caso Assange es también político e igual debe ser perdonado. De lo contrario las elites de poder en America y a nivel mundial deberán también ser expuestos. Debe ser asi, ellos gustan el fuego del globalismo neo-liberal, pues a quemarlos en su propio infierno. Si tiran piedras a su techo de vidrio, les lloverá vidrios rotos.
2. Este tampoco es un caso de terrorismo, como el gobierno USA pretende usarlo luego de pedir la extradición de Assange. Lo que aquí se encubre es la brutalidad, la tortura y otros crímenes de guerra cometidos por los EE.UU. y la OTAN en Irak, Afganistán y otros países, y se trata además del uso ilegal y autoritario de las embajadas de EE.UU. y la diplomacia de los EE.UU., para encubrir dichos delitos. Esto es lo que Assange denuncia en los wikileaks y tenemos el derecho a escuchar tal información. La Constitución estadounidense garantiza esa libertad. Su violación será ilegal. Las empresas que cortaron apoyo a los Wikileaks deben ser castigadas por los consumidores estadounidenses.
3. Las leyes “anti” terroristas de EU no tienen base legal ni ética para enjuiciar a Assange. Tales leyes anti-terroristas son una violación de los derechos constitucionales (empezando en la supresión del habeas corpus) y esta ilegalidad sigue impune. Peor aún si los gobernantes de EE.UU. han obligado a adoptar entre los aliados y los países clientes tales leyes, eso también constituye violación de leyes internacionales. No se puede fundar leyes basándose en la mentira e impunidad avalados y propagados por la prensa corporativa. La raíz de todas esta mentiras fue lo difundido sobre los causantes del terrorismo de sept 11, 2001. El cuentazo Bin Laden y Al Qaeda como autores del atentado terrorista fue la madre de todas las mentiras posteriores. De allí nacieron las leyes “anti-terrorismo” y con ellas se cubrió con velo de impunidad a los gobernantes que hicieron parte del atentado 9-11. Bush impidió una verdadera investigación independiente de los hechos. Científicos USA afirmaron que hubo implosión y que 9-11 fue un trabajo interno. Varios senadores y muchas personalidades firmaron una petición para que se reabra una investigación independiente. No ocurrió. Se creó en cambio un contexto mediático en favor de la mentira oficial en la mente de muchos americanos. En el nombre de anti-“terrorismo” muchos crímenes de gente inocente ha sido cometidos y un montón de dinero en efectivo ha sido dado a empresas que se benefician del negocio sucio de combatir el terrorismo, es el caso de las maquinas TSA en los aeropuertos EE.UU.
4. Si se tuerce una vez mas las leyes estadounidenses para condenar a Assange estallara un nuevo movimiento de derechos civiles, lo mismo si se busca establecer mordazas en el uso del Internet para seguir avalando el terrorismo real de fuerzas de ocupación estadounidenses y de la OTAN. Si prosperan, muchos más estadounidenses inocentes serán condenados a juicio. La información alternativa será cancelada. Esa sería la última violación de los derechos constitucionales y lo que encenderá un poderoso revolucionario por derechos civiles similar y de mas alcance que en los 60 del siglo pasado. Assange no es quien comete terrorismo, son los dueños del poder quienes lo hacen. Assange debe ser liberado y las UN deben restablecer su dignidad ofreciendo a el un verdadero premio Nobel. Mucha gente va a firmar dicha petición. Muchas feministas de América lo firmaran también. No esperamos que lo hagan mujeres oportunistas de EU y Suecia que usan la cama para lograr fama dinero o ambos. Da pena saber que fueron damas de Suecia quienes empujaron el movimiento feminista hacia el basural de la historia y más triste aun si damas norteamericanas tratan de hacer lo mismo. Debemos pedir en cambio la libertad inmediata de Assange y el pleno respeto del Internet libre de especuladores financieros y también el pleno respeto y apoyo a los medios de comunicación alternativos.
SEX N LIES IN THE GLOBAL CITY. ASSANGE CASE
SEX N LIES IN THE GLOBAL CITY. ASSANGE CASE
HAZ December 8-10
In the American TV-show “sex in the city” people saw the hypocritical puritanism of a branch of feminists who tried to sell out - among “radical girls”- the new 10 bible commandments for sex (be careful with wiki-leaky condoms, would be one of them). Some stupid ladies took serious the “moral rules” of these comedians who run and trivialize the issue men-women relations. They usually end up asking themselves why I’m alone in my 40th up, .Why I couldn’t marriage a reasonable man?. The answer is obvious. They were using OB-B-wiki-leaky-mind condoms. (OB-B stands for Obama-Bush).
TV shows like “sex in the city” have big audience in the US and it creates a favorable context for the “hypocritical scandal” in Sweden -where Assange is going to be trial- especially among this American audience of depoliticized “radical feminists”. Assange is guilty of sexual abuse on innocent girls over there, these naïve ladies would say. Fortunately, there is also another big audience –bigger than the previous one- of critical-mind girls who manage to create themselves an independent mind from whatever the TV tries to sells out. These ladies will see Assange’s case beyond the lenses of false Freudian sexism. With them we share the following points:
1. The real issue is political, Assange is the man who was exposing lies and duplicity of our public servants (Americans and others), but they could not detained under political charges, they use the false pretext invented in Sweden with not evidence at all, the charge of having sex without wearing a condom. Sex is not the issue in this case, it is not its essence. Sex is the smoke screen for the political lynching of Assange, it is pure hypocritical TV manipulation typical in American politics and perhaps in Sweden too. American people has a stand on this nasty manipulation; remember the case of Monica Lewinsky?. Americans pardoned Bill Clinton and he was elected for the 2nd term. Assange should be pardoned too. Otherwise the American and ruling global elite will be exposed too. They should be, those who like global neo-liberal fire, should be burned in its own hell.
2. This is not a case of terrorism either, as American intended to use it after asking Assange’s extradition. This is a case of the brutality, torture and other war crimes committed by the US and NATO forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries, and it is about the authoritarian manipulation of US embassies and US diplomacy world-wide to cover up such crimes. This is what Assange is denouncing and we have the right to read and listen such info. American constitution warrants such freedom. Its violation will be illegal. Those companies that cut hostage to wikileaks should be punished by American consumers.
3. US anti-terrorist laws have not either legal or ethical base to trial Assange. American anti-terrorist laws were a violation of constitutional rights (starting with habeas corpus) and this illegality is still unpunished. Worse even, US rulers have forced to adopt among allies and client countries such illegalities that also constitutes a violation on international laws. Impunity after impunity, lies after lies has being mounted by the corporate media since the mother of all lies on 9-11 terrorism as an act committed by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Recent evidence indicates that the towers in NY fell because of implosion. Bush covered the truth with the veil of impunity by denying a real independent investigation of the authors of the 9-11 and by enacting the anti-terrorist laws. Scientist who claimed that 9-11 was an inside job and senators and many Americans have signed a petition for an independent investigation received dead threats and some of them letters with antrax. The mind of Americans were set-up with the official story that such act of terrorism was done by Muslims. In the name of terrorism many crimes of innocent people has been committed and a lot of money has been cash from companies like the one who profit from the nasty business of TSA screening machines set in US airports.
4. If American laws is being twisted one more time -this time to trial Assange- a new revolutionary movement similar to the one in the 1960 will start. People will not allow to silence the internet to prevent real terrorism of US-NATO occupational force be exposed. If hapens, many more innocent americans will be trial, torture and condemned to life in prison. Such twist of law will be the final violation of constitutional rights that will ignite a new civil rights movement.
Terrorism is not the issue in Assange’s case. He should be freed and prize by the UN with a real peace Nobel prize to restore his dignity. Many people will sign such petition. Many real American feminist will signed too. We do not expect the opportunists American women who bed down for fame or money or both, to sign it. It is sad to know that ladies from Sweden just pushed the feminist movement back into the ditch and sadder if American ladies try to do the same. We should request instead the immediate freedom of Assange and full respect of free internet from corporate profiteers and full respect to alternative media.
HAZ December 8-10
In the American TV-show “sex in the city” people saw the hypocritical puritanism of a branch of feminists who tried to sell out - among “radical girls”- the new 10 bible commandments for sex (be careful with wiki-leaky condoms, would be one of them). Some stupid ladies took serious the “moral rules” of these comedians who run and trivialize the issue men-women relations. They usually end up asking themselves why I’m alone in my 40th up, .Why I couldn’t marriage a reasonable man?. The answer is obvious. They were using OB-B-wiki-leaky-mind condoms. (OB-B stands for Obama-Bush).
TV shows like “sex in the city” have big audience in the US and it creates a favorable context for the “hypocritical scandal” in Sweden -where Assange is going to be trial- especially among this American audience of depoliticized “radical feminists”. Assange is guilty of sexual abuse on innocent girls over there, these naïve ladies would say. Fortunately, there is also another big audience –bigger than the previous one- of critical-mind girls who manage to create themselves an independent mind from whatever the TV tries to sells out. These ladies will see Assange’s case beyond the lenses of false Freudian sexism. With them we share the following points:
1. The real issue is political, Assange is the man who was exposing lies and duplicity of our public servants (Americans and others), but they could not detained under political charges, they use the false pretext invented in Sweden with not evidence at all, the charge of having sex without wearing a condom. Sex is not the issue in this case, it is not its essence. Sex is the smoke screen for the political lynching of Assange, it is pure hypocritical TV manipulation typical in American politics and perhaps in Sweden too. American people has a stand on this nasty manipulation; remember the case of Monica Lewinsky?. Americans pardoned Bill Clinton and he was elected for the 2nd term. Assange should be pardoned too. Otherwise the American and ruling global elite will be exposed too. They should be, those who like global neo-liberal fire, should be burned in its own hell.
2. This is not a case of terrorism either, as American intended to use it after asking Assange’s extradition. This is a case of the brutality, torture and other war crimes committed by the US and NATO forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries, and it is about the authoritarian manipulation of US embassies and US diplomacy world-wide to cover up such crimes. This is what Assange is denouncing and we have the right to read and listen such info. American constitution warrants such freedom. Its violation will be illegal. Those companies that cut hostage to wikileaks should be punished by American consumers.
3. US anti-terrorist laws have not either legal or ethical base to trial Assange. American anti-terrorist laws were a violation of constitutional rights (starting with habeas corpus) and this illegality is still unpunished. Worse even, US rulers have forced to adopt among allies and client countries such illegalities that also constitutes a violation on international laws. Impunity after impunity, lies after lies has being mounted by the corporate media since the mother of all lies on 9-11 terrorism as an act committed by Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Recent evidence indicates that the towers in NY fell because of implosion. Bush covered the truth with the veil of impunity by denying a real independent investigation of the authors of the 9-11 and by enacting the anti-terrorist laws. Scientist who claimed that 9-11 was an inside job and senators and many Americans have signed a petition for an independent investigation received dead threats and some of them letters with antrax. The mind of Americans were set-up with the official story that such act of terrorism was done by Muslims. In the name of terrorism many crimes of innocent people has been committed and a lot of money has been cash from companies like the one who profit from the nasty business of TSA screening machines set in US airports.
4. If American laws is being twisted one more time -this time to trial Assange- a new revolutionary movement similar to the one in the 1960 will start. People will not allow to silence the internet to prevent real terrorism of US-NATO occupational force be exposed. If hapens, many more innocent americans will be trial, torture and condemned to life in prison. Such twist of law will be the final violation of constitutional rights that will ignite a new civil rights movement.
Terrorism is not the issue in Assange’s case. He should be freed and prize by the UN with a real peace Nobel prize to restore his dignity. Many people will sign such petition. Many real American feminist will signed too. We do not expect the opportunists American women who bed down for fame or money or both, to sign it. It is sad to know that ladies from Sweden just pushed the feminist movement back into the ditch and sadder if American ladies try to do the same. We should request instead the immediate freedom of Assange and full respect of free internet from corporate profiteers and full respect to alternative media.
martes, 7 de diciembre de 2010
Wikiledaks historia de crimenes y torturas de neo-Nazis americanos
Wikiledaks historia de crimenes y torturas de neo-Nazis americanos
El caso Al-Masri, aleman torturado por la CIA y Espaniol Jose Couso en Irak
WikiLeaks y el fin de la "diplomacia" estadounidense * por Amy Goodman
Democracy Now, Dic 05-2010
http://noti-alia.blogspot.com/
Dieterich Wikileaks es ataque cibernético de Israel-Washington http://mariategui.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-ataque-cibernetico-de-israel.html
[[UNA NOTA MIA:
Los recientes wikileaks como muchos casos anteriores no se ajustan a la logica de analisis usada por Dieterich (output analisis: mira a quien beneficia o perjudica wikileaks y te dire quien esta detras y cual su causa y contenido. Para Dieterich la Cia-Mossad estan detras de Wikileaks y Julian Asange seria un agente de estos ). Los casos que se muestran abajo indican lo contrario, que EU no es el beneficiario de la info que circula Julian Asange. Al contrario, tal info perjudica a las agencias y aparatos del imperio Americano incluida su diplomacia. Dieterich usa una logica errada: los efectos son la unica fuente de verdades cientificas sobre fenomenos socio-politicos.Tal postura analitica es incorrecta. Me extrania que la use Dieterich y que deje de lado el analisis causal, el de clase y el de contexto. Ver su documento reciente en: http://mariategui.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-ataque-cibernetico-de-israel.html
Mis observaciones criticas a Dieterich son:
1. El fenemeno wikileaks tiene que ver directamente con la debacle o caos actual del modelo neoliberal. Las Fuerzas Productivas (la revolucion informatica) no cabe ni pueden ser controlada dentro de las relaciones sociales de apropiacion en la globalizacion neoliberal actual. La acumulacion desenfranda a costa de la humanidad entera ha llegado a un punto de inflexion que habla del final del actual modelo de acumulacion capitalista. Amplios sectores de la buerguesia no lo soportan ya, menos aun las clases trabajadoras. Los amos de la globalizacion no pudieron crear nuevos recursos energeticos que reemplacen a los hidrocaburos contaminantes por el poder que tienen las mafias empresariales que siguen produciendo los carros poluters actuals. Tampoco pudieron salir de la crisis sin darle vida pasajera a los especuladores financieros, sacrificando asi a pueblos enteros, y hoy estan a punto de sacrificar el dollar para salvar al modelo imperial y sus aliados.
Hemos ingresado a la batalla final por el control de las comunicaciones y las mentes, en esto el control del internet es decisivo y los wikileaks indicant que dicho control tambien se les escapa a los duenios de la globalizacion neoliberal. Por esto nos alegran los wikileaks sigan circulando aun cuando se ha decretado la sentencia a muerte de Julian Asange. Es el principio del fin, el final de un modelo de globalizacion que solo le queda un camino: la nazificacion del pais y sus aliados y el consiguiente aislamineto mundial de estos y su posterior derrota en el corto o mediano plazo.
2. Un correcto analisis funcionalista de los outputs presupone buen analysis de los inputs y sobre todo la dinamica de su procesamiento (inputs into outputs). Por tanto el analisis de Dieterich es incompleto. Ademas es inconsistente: Para el “Julian Assange es el vector (portador) de la agresión cibernética a gran escala” por tanto se justificaria su eliminacion porque supuestamente estaria trabajando para la CIA y el Mossad israeli. Sin embargo en un analysis functional , quien procesa e informa los hechos es actor clave en la dinamica de conversion de inputs into outputs. Suprimir al informante es como suprimir al maestro en un analisis functional del sistema educativo. Lo mismo aqui, la eliminacion o asesinato de Assange dejaria sin base y funadamento el esquema de analysis que usa Dieterich.
3. En el analysis contextual y el systems approach se relativiza al observador o actor individual y se magnifica lo global (las fuerzas que operan a este nivel). La informacion se independiza de su autor y aun si se liquida a este, otro ocuparia su lugar. La informacion circula y es procesada con total independencia de quien la genero. La info deja de pertenecer a su oroginador y ahora pertenece a quien mejor la analize y a la colectividad que mejor saque provecho de ella. Mas que la info circulada por wikileaks es ahora su analysis lo que mas afectaria las alianzas y correlaciones de fuerzas a niveleles nacionales y mundiales. Cuando la bola circula en un game donde no hay solo dos contendores ni solo dos objetivos que midan victorias, quien mejor se apropia de ella para sus propios objetivos es el ganador. El perdedor sera el mas interesado en que se desinfle la bola, esto es, que se elimine a Julian Assange. Es lo que realmente quiere el imperio. A nosotros nos toca pedir que la bola siga en movimiento. Que se proteja a Julian Assange y se difunda y analize su informacion. HAZ, diciembre 6-10]]
===============
Leamos ahora el art de Amy Goodman
WikiLeaks y el fin de la "diplomacia" estadounidense
Una ve más WikiLeaks ha publicado una enorme cantidad de documentos.
Esta vez, se trata de cables diplomáticos del Departamento de Estado
estadounidense.
El sitio web de revelación de datos secretos anunció que publicará
gradualmente más de doscientos cincuenta mil documentos durante los
próximos meses.
De esta manera, los documentos podrán ser analizados y recibir la
atención que merecen. Los cables son comunicaciones internas escritas
entre embajadas de Estados Unidos de todo el mundo y también con el
Departamento de Estado.
WikiLeaks habla de la filtración como "el mayor conjunto de documentos
confidenciales que jamás se hayan dado a conocer, que proporcionan una
visión sin precedentes de las actividades en el exterior del gobierno
estadounidense."
Los críticos sostienen, al igual que lo hicieron cuando se filtraron
documentos secretos referidos a Irak y Afganistán, que habrá víctimas
fatales como resultado de estas filtraciones.
Sin embargo, se podría, en realidad, salvar vidas, dado que la forma en
que Estados Unidos hace diplomacia se encuentra más expuesta que nunca -
así como la aparente facilidad con la cual el gobierno de Estados Unidos
cumple (o no) con el dicho del periodista pionero I.F. Stone: "Los
gobiernos mienten."
Observemos el caso de Khaled El-Masri. El-Masri fue secuestrado en
Macedonia en el marco del llamado "programa de rendición extraordinaria"
de la CIA, por medio del cual el gobierno de Estados Unidos secuestra
personas en cualquier parte del mundo y las entrega secretamente a un
tercer país, adonde puedan ser objeto de torturas.
Khaled El-Masri cuenta lo que le sucedió: "Me llevaron a una habitación,
estaba esposado y me habían vendado los ojos. Cuando la puerta se cerró,
recibí golpes por todas partes. Entonces fui humillado. Pude oír que me
tomaban fotos durante el proceso, mientras estaba completamente desnudo.
Luego me ataron las manos por detrás de la espalda, me pusieron cadenas
en los tobillos y una bolsa en la cabeza. Luego fui introducido
brutalmente en un avión y en el aeropuerto me tiraron al piso. Cuando
desperté, estaba en Afganistán. Me sacaron brutalmente del avión y me
pusieron en el cofre de un automóvil."
Khaled El-Masri estuvo prisionero y fue torturado en una cárcel secreta
en Afganistán durante meses hasta que la CIA lo dejó abandonado en una
carretera desierta de Albania.
Esto sucedió a pesar de que la CIA sabía desde hacía tiempo que había
secuestrado al hombre equivocado. El-Masri, ciudadano alemán, intentó
que se hiciera justicia en los tribunales alemanes y todo indicaba que
trece agentes de la CIA enfrentarían cargos.
En ese momento intervino la embajada de Estados Unidos en Berlín y
realizó, según uno de los cables, la siguiente amenaza: "la emisión de
órdenes de captura internacional tendría un impacto negativo en las
relaciones bilaterales." Nunca se presentaron cargos en Alemania, lo que
sugiere que la amenaza diplomática funcionó. Aún así, los trece agentes
enfrentan todavía cargos en España, donde los fiscales gozan de un poco
más de libertad con respecto a las presiones políticas.
O al menos eso creíamos. De hecho, España también se destaca en los
documentos filtrados. Entre los cables, hay uno de fecha 14 de mayo de
2007 escrito por Eduardo Aguirre, un banquero cubano-estadounidense
conservador nombrado embajador en España por George W. Bush.
En el cable, Aguirre escribió: "Para nosotros, tendrá consecuencias
importantes que se continúe planteando el caso Couso, por el que tres
soldados estadounidenses enfrentan cargos en relación a la muerte del
camarógrafo español José Couso, ocurrida durante la batalla por Bagdad
en 2003."
Couso era un joven camarógrafo de la cadena española de televisión
Telecinco que estaba filmando desde el balcón del Hotel Palestina en
Bagdad el 8 de abril de 2003, cuando un tanque del ejército
estadounidense disparó sobre el hotel, en el que se alojaban
principalmente periodistas, causando la muerte a Couso y a un
camarógrafo de la agencia de noticias Reuters.
El Embajador Aguirre intentaba invalidar el juicio iniciado por la
familia Couso en España.
El hermano de José Couso, Javier Couso, inició el proceso judicial por
su hermano José junto a su madre. Aunque un tribunal español ha
reabierto la causa recientemente, Javier Couso reaccionó ante el cable
filtrado en estos días por WikiLeaks y dijo: "Nosotros estamos en primer
lugar indignados y horrorizados; horrorizados porque no podemos creer
que el gobierno de mi país y la fiscalía actúen conspirando con un
gobierno extranjero para impedir la investigación de lo que le pasó a un
ciudadano español; e indignados porque nos han mentido continuamente,
nos hemos reunido con todas esas personas del gobierno y de la fiscalía
y ellos decían que no iban a obstaculizar el caso."
Además, el embajador estadounidense presionó al gobierno español para
que desistiera de realizar un juicio, que sentaría precedente, contra el
ex Secretario de Defensa Donald Rumsfeld y otros funcionarios del
gobierno de Bush. En el mismo memorando Aguirre escribe: "El Vice
Ministro de Justicia dijo también que el gobierno español se opone
firmemente a la acusación presentada contra el ex Ministro Rumsfeld y
tratará de que sea desestimada.
El juez que atiende en la causa nos ha dicho que ha iniciado ya los
procedimientos para desestimar el caso."
Estas revelaciones han convulsionado al gobierno de España, ya que los
cables muestran claramente los intentos de Estados Unidos por incidir en
el sistema de justicia de ese país.
Hace varios años, el Embajador Aguirre declaró al periódico español El
País: "Soy el plomero de George Bush, voy a resolver todos los problemas
que George ponga en mis manos."
En otra serie de cables, el Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos
ordena a su personal de las Naciones Unidas y del resto del mundo que
espíen a funcionarios gubernamentales, e increíblemente, también da
instrucciones de que recaven información biométrica de los diplomáticos.
El cable dice textualmente: "Los datos deben incluir direcciones de
correo electrónico, números de teléfono y fax, huellas digitales,
imágenes faciales, escaneo de iris y de ADN."
WikiLeaks sigue asociada a un grupo de medios de comunicación de todo el
mundo: el periódico inglés The Guardian, El País, de España, el New York
Times, la revista alemana Der Spiegel y el periódico francés Le Monde.
David Leigh, editor de investigaciones del periódico The Guardian me
dijo: "Esta serie de revelaciones no ha terminado aún. Desde el
periódico The Guardian y otras cadenas de noticias del mundo iremos
haciendo revelaciones, a partir de ahora y día a día, posiblemente
durante toda la semana próxima y quizás más. Por lo cual, todavía no
hemos visto nada." Queda más de un cuarto de millón de cables que no han
sido dados a conocer públicamente aún.
Hace cuarenta años, Noam Chomsky, reconocido analista político y
lingüista, profesor del Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts, ayudó a
Daniel Ellsberg, el primer informante de Estados Unidos, a revelar los
Documentos del Pentágono. Le pregunté a Chomsky acerca de los cables
recientemente publicados por WikiLeaks y respondió: "La principal
importancia de los cables que han sido publicados hasta ahora radica en
lo que nos dicen sobre el liderazgo occidental. Lo que revelan es un
profundo odio a la democracia."
====================
He aqui el art de Dieterich:
Dieterich Wikileaks is CIA and Mossad counter-intelligence plan
“Wikileaks: ataque cibernético de Israel-Washington”
http://mariategui.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-ataque-cibernetico-de-israel.html
Heinz Dieterich / Mariátegui
06/12/10
Los servicios secretos de Israel y la CIA han logrado otra gran victoria en su guerra cibernética. Después de estropear las centrífugas del programa nuclear iraní (Natanz) mediante un software maligno (Stuxnet), consiguieron utilizar a Wikileaks y Julian Assange como vector (portador) de agresión cibernética a gran escala, contra sus “enemigos”. El método es el usual de la guerra informática: mezclar documentos verdaderos, pero triviales, con las falsificaciones que sirven como misiles teledirigidos contra los verdaderos blancos.
La autoría de esa agresión cibernética se aclara con el axioma de la criminalística Cui bono, es decir, ¿A quién beneficia el crimen? El patrón de los documentos proporciona la respuesta: a Israel, Washington y el imperialismo occidental en general, incluidos sus satélites mercantil-feudales árabes. Perjudica groseramente, con sus mentiras, a una serie de blancos particulares, como: Irán, que supuestamente es odiado por el mundo árabe; China, que presuntamente acepta el futuro dominio estadounidense sobre Corea del Norte; Brasil, cuyo Ministro de Defensa Nelson Jobim sería informante de Washington; Bolivia, cuyo Presidente Evo Morales tendría un gran “tumor” en la cabeza y la Venezuela bolivariana, que sería refugio de ETA y las FARC, al igual que Cuba.
Además de las agresiones concretas, la “Operación Wikileaks” prepara el control ideológico estricto sobre el internet y los portales progresistas. Un mundo fundamentalmente anti-democrático, como el capitalista-burgués actual, no puede permitir el libre flujo de información y debates en el internet. Declarar Wikileaks una organización terrorista y matar o encarcelar a Assange, como han solicitado importantes sectores de la clase política estadounidense, sería un gran paso adelante en la Gleichschaltung hitleriana (uniformización mental) que los amos del sistema requieren ante la crisis capitalista mundial. Otros portales, como www.kaosenlared.net y www.aporrea.org, aparecerían pronto en el index librorum (lista negra) por apología de la violencia y antisemitismo.
La autoría del delito israelí-estadounidense cibernético no sólo se revela ante el principio cui bono del Derecho Romano, sino también ante la absurda pretensión logística, de que un joven soldado homosexual, Bradley Manning, de la 10a División de Montaña de Estados Unidos, estacionado en una remota base militar en Iraq (FOB Hammer), pudo seleccionar, copiar y reenviar 260.000 documentos clasificados (!¡). Si Manning hubiera podido hacer esto, dejaría a Bill Gates como un mero aprendiz de computación.
La obstrucción de las centrífugas nucleares de Irán en 2010, en Natanz, siguió el ejemplo de una exitosa operación de la CIA contra un gaseoducto de la Unión Soviética, en los años ochenta, llevado a cabo bajo el mando de William Casey. Cuando la CIA se enteró que Moscú iba a comprar o piratear un sofisticado software canadiense para las bombas, turbinas y válvulas de un nuevo gaseoducto en Siberia, no bloqueó su venta, sino insertó, en contubernio con la empresa canadiense, una bomba lógica, un malware (Trojan horse) en el software, que alteraba los parámetros de velocidad y presión en el sistema, haciéndolo estallar en 1982.
La operación contra el centro nuclear iraní de Natanz sigue ese mismo modelo. Los servicios occidentales infiltraron las redes de compra de Irán para el nuevo reactor e insertaron en el software de las centrífugas el gusano electrónico “Stuxnet”, desarrollado a todas luces por la Inteligencia Militar israelí. Al igual que el “Caballo de Troya” de 1982, el Stuxnet hace fluctuar las velocidades y presiones de las centrífugas, las cuales, actuando en cadena, se destruyen. Se calcula que la capacidad operativa de las centrífugas en Natanz se redujo en un 30 por ciento por el ataque informático.
El modo de operación de la CIA y del Mossad abarca tres pasos. 1. Necesitan información preliminar sobre los planes del “enemigo”. En el caso de Wikileaks, Adrian Lamo, un hacker con quien Mannings correspondía, informó al FBI. 2. Sobre esa información deciden en qué forma actuar. En el caso de la URSS, de Natanz y de Wikileaks, resolvieron no bloquear de frente la operación planeada, sino aprovecharla para una operación cibernética propia de contrainteligencia. 3. Los grandes medios de adoctrinación burguesa y los gobiernos respectivos manipulan los eventos creados por ellos, durante largo tiempo. En ese sentido, los documentos de Wikileaks serán como la segunda computadora de Raúl Reyes. Una fuente inagotable de guerra psicológica y física contra los adversarios del Imperio.
Las operaciones cibernéticas y de desinformación son solo un aspecto de los proyectos de desestabilización de Estados Unidos e Israel, como demuestra su exitoso programa de asesinatos de científicos nucleares iraníes. Venezuela, con su extensa red de gaseoductos y oleoductos, cuyo software es parcialmente operado desde satélites, con su monoestructura eléctrica, con la fragilidad de su Metro, con sus fronteras selváticas y marítimas abiertas y una fuerte quinta columna adentro, tiene que prepararse muy bien, para neutralizar la embestida que Washington/Tel Aviv tienen preparada para el país de Bolívar.
El caso Al-Masri, aleman torturado por la CIA y Espaniol Jose Couso en Irak
WikiLeaks y el fin de la "diplomacia" estadounidense * por Amy Goodman
Democracy Now, Dic 05-2010
http://noti-alia.blogspot.com/
Dieterich Wikileaks es ataque cibernético de Israel-Washington http://mariategui.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-ataque-cibernetico-de-israel.html
[[UNA NOTA MIA:
Los recientes wikileaks como muchos casos anteriores no se ajustan a la logica de analisis usada por Dieterich (output analisis: mira a quien beneficia o perjudica wikileaks y te dire quien esta detras y cual su causa y contenido. Para Dieterich la Cia-Mossad estan detras de Wikileaks y Julian Asange seria un agente de estos ). Los casos que se muestran abajo indican lo contrario, que EU no es el beneficiario de la info que circula Julian Asange. Al contrario, tal info perjudica a las agencias y aparatos del imperio Americano incluida su diplomacia. Dieterich usa una logica errada: los efectos son la unica fuente de verdades cientificas sobre fenomenos socio-politicos.Tal postura analitica es incorrecta. Me extrania que la use Dieterich y que deje de lado el analisis causal, el de clase y el de contexto. Ver su documento reciente en: http://mariategui.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-ataque-cibernetico-de-israel.html
Mis observaciones criticas a Dieterich son:
1. El fenemeno wikileaks tiene que ver directamente con la debacle o caos actual del modelo neoliberal. Las Fuerzas Productivas (la revolucion informatica) no cabe ni pueden ser controlada dentro de las relaciones sociales de apropiacion en la globalizacion neoliberal actual. La acumulacion desenfranda a costa de la humanidad entera ha llegado a un punto de inflexion que habla del final del actual modelo de acumulacion capitalista. Amplios sectores de la buerguesia no lo soportan ya, menos aun las clases trabajadoras. Los amos de la globalizacion no pudieron crear nuevos recursos energeticos que reemplacen a los hidrocaburos contaminantes por el poder que tienen las mafias empresariales que siguen produciendo los carros poluters actuals. Tampoco pudieron salir de la crisis sin darle vida pasajera a los especuladores financieros, sacrificando asi a pueblos enteros, y hoy estan a punto de sacrificar el dollar para salvar al modelo imperial y sus aliados.
Hemos ingresado a la batalla final por el control de las comunicaciones y las mentes, en esto el control del internet es decisivo y los wikileaks indicant que dicho control tambien se les escapa a los duenios de la globalizacion neoliberal. Por esto nos alegran los wikileaks sigan circulando aun cuando se ha decretado la sentencia a muerte de Julian Asange. Es el principio del fin, el final de un modelo de globalizacion que solo le queda un camino: la nazificacion del pais y sus aliados y el consiguiente aislamineto mundial de estos y su posterior derrota en el corto o mediano plazo.
2. Un correcto analisis funcionalista de los outputs presupone buen analysis de los inputs y sobre todo la dinamica de su procesamiento (inputs into outputs). Por tanto el analisis de Dieterich es incompleto. Ademas es inconsistente: Para el “Julian Assange es el vector (portador) de la agresión cibernética a gran escala” por tanto se justificaria su eliminacion porque supuestamente estaria trabajando para la CIA y el Mossad israeli. Sin embargo en un analysis functional , quien procesa e informa los hechos es actor clave en la dinamica de conversion de inputs into outputs. Suprimir al informante es como suprimir al maestro en un analisis functional del sistema educativo. Lo mismo aqui, la eliminacion o asesinato de Assange dejaria sin base y funadamento el esquema de analysis que usa Dieterich.
3. En el analysis contextual y el systems approach se relativiza al observador o actor individual y se magnifica lo global (las fuerzas que operan a este nivel). La informacion se independiza de su autor y aun si se liquida a este, otro ocuparia su lugar. La informacion circula y es procesada con total independencia de quien la genero. La info deja de pertenecer a su oroginador y ahora pertenece a quien mejor la analize y a la colectividad que mejor saque provecho de ella. Mas que la info circulada por wikileaks es ahora su analysis lo que mas afectaria las alianzas y correlaciones de fuerzas a niveleles nacionales y mundiales. Cuando la bola circula en un game donde no hay solo dos contendores ni solo dos objetivos que midan victorias, quien mejor se apropia de ella para sus propios objetivos es el ganador. El perdedor sera el mas interesado en que se desinfle la bola, esto es, que se elimine a Julian Assange. Es lo que realmente quiere el imperio. A nosotros nos toca pedir que la bola siga en movimiento. Que se proteja a Julian Assange y se difunda y analize su informacion. HAZ, diciembre 6-10]]
===============
Leamos ahora el art de Amy Goodman
WikiLeaks y el fin de la "diplomacia" estadounidense
Una ve más WikiLeaks ha publicado una enorme cantidad de documentos.
Esta vez, se trata de cables diplomáticos del Departamento de Estado
estadounidense.
El sitio web de revelación de datos secretos anunció que publicará
gradualmente más de doscientos cincuenta mil documentos durante los
próximos meses.
De esta manera, los documentos podrán ser analizados y recibir la
atención que merecen. Los cables son comunicaciones internas escritas
entre embajadas de Estados Unidos de todo el mundo y también con el
Departamento de Estado.
WikiLeaks habla de la filtración como "el mayor conjunto de documentos
confidenciales que jamás se hayan dado a conocer, que proporcionan una
visión sin precedentes de las actividades en el exterior del gobierno
estadounidense."
Los críticos sostienen, al igual que lo hicieron cuando se filtraron
documentos secretos referidos a Irak y Afganistán, que habrá víctimas
fatales como resultado de estas filtraciones.
Sin embargo, se podría, en realidad, salvar vidas, dado que la forma en
que Estados Unidos hace diplomacia se encuentra más expuesta que nunca -
así como la aparente facilidad con la cual el gobierno de Estados Unidos
cumple (o no) con el dicho del periodista pionero I.F. Stone: "Los
gobiernos mienten."
Observemos el caso de Khaled El-Masri. El-Masri fue secuestrado en
Macedonia en el marco del llamado "programa de rendición extraordinaria"
de la CIA, por medio del cual el gobierno de Estados Unidos secuestra
personas en cualquier parte del mundo y las entrega secretamente a un
tercer país, adonde puedan ser objeto de torturas.
Khaled El-Masri cuenta lo que le sucedió: "Me llevaron a una habitación,
estaba esposado y me habían vendado los ojos. Cuando la puerta se cerró,
recibí golpes por todas partes. Entonces fui humillado. Pude oír que me
tomaban fotos durante el proceso, mientras estaba completamente desnudo.
Luego me ataron las manos por detrás de la espalda, me pusieron cadenas
en los tobillos y una bolsa en la cabeza. Luego fui introducido
brutalmente en un avión y en el aeropuerto me tiraron al piso. Cuando
desperté, estaba en Afganistán. Me sacaron brutalmente del avión y me
pusieron en el cofre de un automóvil."
Khaled El-Masri estuvo prisionero y fue torturado en una cárcel secreta
en Afganistán durante meses hasta que la CIA lo dejó abandonado en una
carretera desierta de Albania.
Esto sucedió a pesar de que la CIA sabía desde hacía tiempo que había
secuestrado al hombre equivocado. El-Masri, ciudadano alemán, intentó
que se hiciera justicia en los tribunales alemanes y todo indicaba que
trece agentes de la CIA enfrentarían cargos.
En ese momento intervino la embajada de Estados Unidos en Berlín y
realizó, según uno de los cables, la siguiente amenaza: "la emisión de
órdenes de captura internacional tendría un impacto negativo en las
relaciones bilaterales." Nunca se presentaron cargos en Alemania, lo que
sugiere que la amenaza diplomática funcionó. Aún así, los trece agentes
enfrentan todavía cargos en España, donde los fiscales gozan de un poco
más de libertad con respecto a las presiones políticas.
O al menos eso creíamos. De hecho, España también se destaca en los
documentos filtrados. Entre los cables, hay uno de fecha 14 de mayo de
2007 escrito por Eduardo Aguirre, un banquero cubano-estadounidense
conservador nombrado embajador en España por George W. Bush.
En el cable, Aguirre escribió: "Para nosotros, tendrá consecuencias
importantes que se continúe planteando el caso Couso, por el que tres
soldados estadounidenses enfrentan cargos en relación a la muerte del
camarógrafo español José Couso, ocurrida durante la batalla por Bagdad
en 2003."
Couso era un joven camarógrafo de la cadena española de televisión
Telecinco que estaba filmando desde el balcón del Hotel Palestina en
Bagdad el 8 de abril de 2003, cuando un tanque del ejército
estadounidense disparó sobre el hotel, en el que se alojaban
principalmente periodistas, causando la muerte a Couso y a un
camarógrafo de la agencia de noticias Reuters.
El Embajador Aguirre intentaba invalidar el juicio iniciado por la
familia Couso en España.
El hermano de José Couso, Javier Couso, inició el proceso judicial por
su hermano José junto a su madre. Aunque un tribunal español ha
reabierto la causa recientemente, Javier Couso reaccionó ante el cable
filtrado en estos días por WikiLeaks y dijo: "Nosotros estamos en primer
lugar indignados y horrorizados; horrorizados porque no podemos creer
que el gobierno de mi país y la fiscalía actúen conspirando con un
gobierno extranjero para impedir la investigación de lo que le pasó a un
ciudadano español; e indignados porque nos han mentido continuamente,
nos hemos reunido con todas esas personas del gobierno y de la fiscalía
y ellos decían que no iban a obstaculizar el caso."
Además, el embajador estadounidense presionó al gobierno español para
que desistiera de realizar un juicio, que sentaría precedente, contra el
ex Secretario de Defensa Donald Rumsfeld y otros funcionarios del
gobierno de Bush. En el mismo memorando Aguirre escribe: "El Vice
Ministro de Justicia dijo también que el gobierno español se opone
firmemente a la acusación presentada contra el ex Ministro Rumsfeld y
tratará de que sea desestimada.
El juez que atiende en la causa nos ha dicho que ha iniciado ya los
procedimientos para desestimar el caso."
Estas revelaciones han convulsionado al gobierno de España, ya que los
cables muestran claramente los intentos de Estados Unidos por incidir en
el sistema de justicia de ese país.
Hace varios años, el Embajador Aguirre declaró al periódico español El
País: "Soy el plomero de George Bush, voy a resolver todos los problemas
que George ponga en mis manos."
En otra serie de cables, el Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos
ordena a su personal de las Naciones Unidas y del resto del mundo que
espíen a funcionarios gubernamentales, e increíblemente, también da
instrucciones de que recaven información biométrica de los diplomáticos.
El cable dice textualmente: "Los datos deben incluir direcciones de
correo electrónico, números de teléfono y fax, huellas digitales,
imágenes faciales, escaneo de iris y de ADN."
WikiLeaks sigue asociada a un grupo de medios de comunicación de todo el
mundo: el periódico inglés The Guardian, El País, de España, el New York
Times, la revista alemana Der Spiegel y el periódico francés Le Monde.
David Leigh, editor de investigaciones del periódico The Guardian me
dijo: "Esta serie de revelaciones no ha terminado aún. Desde el
periódico The Guardian y otras cadenas de noticias del mundo iremos
haciendo revelaciones, a partir de ahora y día a día, posiblemente
durante toda la semana próxima y quizás más. Por lo cual, todavía no
hemos visto nada." Queda más de un cuarto de millón de cables que no han
sido dados a conocer públicamente aún.
Hace cuarenta años, Noam Chomsky, reconocido analista político y
lingüista, profesor del Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts, ayudó a
Daniel Ellsberg, el primer informante de Estados Unidos, a revelar los
Documentos del Pentágono. Le pregunté a Chomsky acerca de los cables
recientemente publicados por WikiLeaks y respondió: "La principal
importancia de los cables que han sido publicados hasta ahora radica en
lo que nos dicen sobre el liderazgo occidental. Lo que revelan es un
profundo odio a la democracia."
====================
He aqui el art de Dieterich:
Dieterich Wikileaks is CIA and Mossad counter-intelligence plan
“Wikileaks: ataque cibernético de Israel-Washington”
http://mariategui.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-ataque-cibernetico-de-israel.html
Heinz Dieterich / Mariátegui
06/12/10
Los servicios secretos de Israel y la CIA han logrado otra gran victoria en su guerra cibernética. Después de estropear las centrífugas del programa nuclear iraní (Natanz) mediante un software maligno (Stuxnet), consiguieron utilizar a Wikileaks y Julian Assange como vector (portador) de agresión cibernética a gran escala, contra sus “enemigos”. El método es el usual de la guerra informática: mezclar documentos verdaderos, pero triviales, con las falsificaciones que sirven como misiles teledirigidos contra los verdaderos blancos.
La autoría de esa agresión cibernética se aclara con el axioma de la criminalística Cui bono, es decir, ¿A quién beneficia el crimen? El patrón de los documentos proporciona la respuesta: a Israel, Washington y el imperialismo occidental en general, incluidos sus satélites mercantil-feudales árabes. Perjudica groseramente, con sus mentiras, a una serie de blancos particulares, como: Irán, que supuestamente es odiado por el mundo árabe; China, que presuntamente acepta el futuro dominio estadounidense sobre Corea del Norte; Brasil, cuyo Ministro de Defensa Nelson Jobim sería informante de Washington; Bolivia, cuyo Presidente Evo Morales tendría un gran “tumor” en la cabeza y la Venezuela bolivariana, que sería refugio de ETA y las FARC, al igual que Cuba.
Además de las agresiones concretas, la “Operación Wikileaks” prepara el control ideológico estricto sobre el internet y los portales progresistas. Un mundo fundamentalmente anti-democrático, como el capitalista-burgués actual, no puede permitir el libre flujo de información y debates en el internet. Declarar Wikileaks una organización terrorista y matar o encarcelar a Assange, como han solicitado importantes sectores de la clase política estadounidense, sería un gran paso adelante en la Gleichschaltung hitleriana (uniformización mental) que los amos del sistema requieren ante la crisis capitalista mundial. Otros portales, como www.kaosenlared.net y www.aporrea.org, aparecerían pronto en el index librorum (lista negra) por apología de la violencia y antisemitismo.
La autoría del delito israelí-estadounidense cibernético no sólo se revela ante el principio cui bono del Derecho Romano, sino también ante la absurda pretensión logística, de que un joven soldado homosexual, Bradley Manning, de la 10a División de Montaña de Estados Unidos, estacionado en una remota base militar en Iraq (FOB Hammer), pudo seleccionar, copiar y reenviar 260.000 documentos clasificados (!¡). Si Manning hubiera podido hacer esto, dejaría a Bill Gates como un mero aprendiz de computación.
La obstrucción de las centrífugas nucleares de Irán en 2010, en Natanz, siguió el ejemplo de una exitosa operación de la CIA contra un gaseoducto de la Unión Soviética, en los años ochenta, llevado a cabo bajo el mando de William Casey. Cuando la CIA se enteró que Moscú iba a comprar o piratear un sofisticado software canadiense para las bombas, turbinas y válvulas de un nuevo gaseoducto en Siberia, no bloqueó su venta, sino insertó, en contubernio con la empresa canadiense, una bomba lógica, un malware (Trojan horse) en el software, que alteraba los parámetros de velocidad y presión en el sistema, haciéndolo estallar en 1982.
La operación contra el centro nuclear iraní de Natanz sigue ese mismo modelo. Los servicios occidentales infiltraron las redes de compra de Irán para el nuevo reactor e insertaron en el software de las centrífugas el gusano electrónico “Stuxnet”, desarrollado a todas luces por la Inteligencia Militar israelí. Al igual que el “Caballo de Troya” de 1982, el Stuxnet hace fluctuar las velocidades y presiones de las centrífugas, las cuales, actuando en cadena, se destruyen. Se calcula que la capacidad operativa de las centrífugas en Natanz se redujo en un 30 por ciento por el ataque informático.
El modo de operación de la CIA y del Mossad abarca tres pasos. 1. Necesitan información preliminar sobre los planes del “enemigo”. En el caso de Wikileaks, Adrian Lamo, un hacker con quien Mannings correspondía, informó al FBI. 2. Sobre esa información deciden en qué forma actuar. En el caso de la URSS, de Natanz y de Wikileaks, resolvieron no bloquear de frente la operación planeada, sino aprovecharla para una operación cibernética propia de contrainteligencia. 3. Los grandes medios de adoctrinación burguesa y los gobiernos respectivos manipulan los eventos creados por ellos, durante largo tiempo. En ese sentido, los documentos de Wikileaks serán como la segunda computadora de Raúl Reyes. Una fuente inagotable de guerra psicológica y física contra los adversarios del Imperio.
Las operaciones cibernéticas y de desinformación son solo un aspecto de los proyectos de desestabilización de Estados Unidos e Israel, como demuestra su exitoso programa de asesinatos de científicos nucleares iraníes. Venezuela, con su extensa red de gaseoductos y oleoductos, cuyo software es parcialmente operado desde satélites, con su monoestructura eléctrica, con la fragilidad de su Metro, con sus fronteras selváticas y marítimas abiertas y una fuerte quinta columna adentro, tiene que prepararse muy bien, para neutralizar la embestida que Washington/Tel Aviv tienen preparada para el país de Bolívar.
jueves, 2 de diciembre de 2010
WAR ON TERRORISM, ANOTHER INSIDE JOB
WAR ON TERRORISM, ANOTHER INSIDE JOB
This is a modified version of the article cited below; it is just a SIN PERMISO sharing of info. All that is in brakets are my additions. HAZ, december 2, 2010.
In Nov 11 was published -in http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26797.htm- the most clear article on the war on terrorism. It is a nasty dirty business, suggest Phillip Giraldi in CFL, a business in which “it is reasonable to assume that close to a trillion dollars has been spent” only in the matter of gathering intelligence since the 9/11. The war on terrorism, he suggest, was invented or designed to justify spending still more money in a never ending cycle until the cash runs out. Who benefit from this waste of money? Michael Chertoff “who headed the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, and now is a partner in a company that sells security equipment for airports. He is not alone. [Behind] is the hidden empire of the military industrial complex with tentacles into nearly every congressional district that supports the endeavor”. Please open the original document IN http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26797.htm Here some extracts of this article:
Zero Based Terrorism. By Philip Giraldi. November 11, 2010. Original in "CFL", Nov, 09, 2010--
There is indication that the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives will support an open ended policy to "win" in Afghanistan, whatever that means. The Republicans would also support extending the war on terror to include the most recent in Yemen and the perennial favorite Somalia. The only fly in the ointment is the presence of a bloc of Tea Party Republicans in the new majority, a group that might be inclined to support American imperialism in all its glory but will be opposed to paying for it through higher taxes and an expansion of the military to actually do the fighting.
[Officially] Obama’s budgeting is $80 billion for intelligence programs for 2011. That figure is certainly too low, as many programs are hidden in other budgets or secretly funded because of their sensitivity. And it is reasonable to assume that the intelligence budget has been elevated since 9/11, meaning that something close to a trillion dollars has been spent. If one also includes part of the defense budget, which has doubled since 2001 based on the terrorist threat, the numbers are staggering, with Washington spending a minimum of two to three trillion dollars countering the terrorist menace, creating a massive governmental and private sector infrastructure ostensibly dedicated to keeping Americans safe.
[Given] a series of letter bombs which did not explode and did no damage, the call is for increased security, costing many more billions of dollars which will enrich former senior officials like Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, who headed the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, now is a partner in a company that sells security equipment for airports. He is not alone. Security has become a vast and lucrative enterprise for those in the military industrial complex with tentacles into nearly every congressional district that supports the endeavor.
What about the terrorist threat itself? Most Americans would be surprised to learn that no US citizen has been killed in the United States since 9/11 by an actual member of any of the groups that the State Department defines as "terrorist." Recent attacks were carried out by "loners," individuals who wanted to get even for US attacks on Muslim civilians worldwide. As Ron Paul has noted, they have attacked us because we are over there, in foreign lands killing civilians. If, as FOX news pundits frequently claim, terrorism is all part of a worldwide "Islamofascist" conspiracy to establish the Caliphate and kill unbelievers, it is all pretty lame.
People [[we intentionally suppress “The Tea Partiers”]] should look at both sides of the balance sheet before casting their votes on a continuing resolution to continue the war on terror. Assuming that Washington has spent some trillions of dollars against terrorists, it is important to note what the actual threat is and to evaluate what has been accomplished.
The fact that both Democratic and Republican administrations have been able to repeatedly cite "terrorism" to justify everything should suggest that either there are millions of terrorists running loose or that the policy to restrain them has failed. In spite of the most intensive manhunt in history, Usama bin Laden might or might not be still alive, but even if he is dead it has not been due to any effort by Washington to kill him. And the [vast amount of] money poured down [by the] government has not exactly hit the target. [We spent as]the terrorist groups operating in 2001 are still around, [that is] possibly by design to justify spending still more money in a never ending cycle until the cash runs out.
[[HAZ Note: In the last part of this article “the dog is barking to a wrong tree”. The tea party is a bunch of war-mongers and opportunists ready to be bribed and to accommodate into the establishment. This message should have been directed to people, I mean, to grass root organization and middle class unions and associations.
Let's read these last two paragraphs with my corrections added:]]
People should be asking themselves what exactly all the money is buying and should begin to question the bipartisan national security policy that has the United States invading and occupying country after country in an attempt to fix other people's problems. People should begin to ask just what would happen if the American voters were to finally demand that the Pentagon close its seven hundred bases overseas and bring our people home as part of a policy of non-intervention as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. America might then become free to be a hegemony based not on military might but on values and good example. Just imagine what that would be like.
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served 19 years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. [[Go to the original doct to read the full article]]
This is a modified version of the article cited below; it is just a SIN PERMISO sharing of info. All that is in brakets are my additions. HAZ, december 2, 2010.
In Nov 11 was published -in http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26797.htm- the most clear article on the war on terrorism. It is a nasty dirty business, suggest Phillip Giraldi in CFL, a business in which “it is reasonable to assume that close to a trillion dollars has been spent” only in the matter of gathering intelligence since the 9/11. The war on terrorism, he suggest, was invented or designed to justify spending still more money in a never ending cycle until the cash runs out. Who benefit from this waste of money? Michael Chertoff “who headed the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, and now is a partner in a company that sells security equipment for airports. He is not alone. [Behind] is the hidden empire of the military industrial complex with tentacles into nearly every congressional district that supports the endeavor”. Please open the original document IN http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26797.htm Here some extracts of this article:
Zero Based Terrorism. By Philip Giraldi. November 11, 2010. Original in "CFL", Nov, 09, 2010--
There is indication that the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives will support an open ended policy to "win" in Afghanistan, whatever that means. The Republicans would also support extending the war on terror to include the most recent in Yemen and the perennial favorite Somalia. The only fly in the ointment is the presence of a bloc of Tea Party Republicans in the new majority, a group that might be inclined to support American imperialism in all its glory but will be opposed to paying for it through higher taxes and an expansion of the military to actually do the fighting.
[Officially] Obama’s budgeting is $80 billion for intelligence programs for 2011. That figure is certainly too low, as many programs are hidden in other budgets or secretly funded because of their sensitivity. And it is reasonable to assume that the intelligence budget has been elevated since 9/11, meaning that something close to a trillion dollars has been spent. If one also includes part of the defense budget, which has doubled since 2001 based on the terrorist threat, the numbers are staggering, with Washington spending a minimum of two to three trillion dollars countering the terrorist menace, creating a massive governmental and private sector infrastructure ostensibly dedicated to keeping Americans safe.
[Given] a series of letter bombs which did not explode and did no damage, the call is for increased security, costing many more billions of dollars which will enrich former senior officials like Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, who headed the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, now is a partner in a company that sells security equipment for airports. He is not alone. Security has become a vast and lucrative enterprise for those in the military industrial complex with tentacles into nearly every congressional district that supports the endeavor.
What about the terrorist threat itself? Most Americans would be surprised to learn that no US citizen has been killed in the United States since 9/11 by an actual member of any of the groups that the State Department defines as "terrorist." Recent attacks were carried out by "loners," individuals who wanted to get even for US attacks on Muslim civilians worldwide. As Ron Paul has noted, they have attacked us because we are over there, in foreign lands killing civilians. If, as FOX news pundits frequently claim, terrorism is all part of a worldwide "Islamofascist" conspiracy to establish the Caliphate and kill unbelievers, it is all pretty lame.
People [[we intentionally suppress “The Tea Partiers”]] should look at both sides of the balance sheet before casting their votes on a continuing resolution to continue the war on terror. Assuming that Washington has spent some trillions of dollars against terrorists, it is important to note what the actual threat is and to evaluate what has been accomplished.
The fact that both Democratic and Republican administrations have been able to repeatedly cite "terrorism" to justify everything should suggest that either there are millions of terrorists running loose or that the policy to restrain them has failed. In spite of the most intensive manhunt in history, Usama bin Laden might or might not be still alive, but even if he is dead it has not been due to any effort by Washington to kill him. And the [vast amount of] money poured down [by the] government has not exactly hit the target. [We spent as]the terrorist groups operating in 2001 are still around, [that is] possibly by design to justify spending still more money in a never ending cycle until the cash runs out.
[[HAZ Note: In the last part of this article “the dog is barking to a wrong tree”. The tea party is a bunch of war-mongers and opportunists ready to be bribed and to accommodate into the establishment. This message should have been directed to people, I mean, to grass root organization and middle class unions and associations.
Let's read these last two paragraphs with my corrections added:]]
People should be asking themselves what exactly all the money is buying and should begin to question the bipartisan national security policy that has the United States invading and occupying country after country in an attempt to fix other people's problems. People should begin to ask just what would happen if the American voters were to finally demand that the Pentagon close its seven hundred bases overseas and bring our people home as part of a policy of non-intervention as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. America might then become free to be a hegemony based not on military might but on values and good example. Just imagine what that would be like.
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served 19 years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. [[Go to the original doct to read the full article]]
miércoles, 1 de diciembre de 2010
Amy Goodman, shame of your questions
Amy Goodman, shame of your questions + interview to Noam Chomsky.
DEMOCRACY NOW. November 30, 2010
HAZ, nov 30, 2010
Before going to Chomsky interview, please pay attention to the type of questions to David Leigh in the previous interview. It seems to be that Amy was doing here a job for the CIA, FBI or Mossad. To me is the inertia-force of the ideological context in the US, a context loaded with lies and sinister political manipulation in favor of imperial terrorism (war against T is just that, a violation of foundation of the US Constitution and the bill of rights). That type of questioning was a big mistake in the part of Amy Goodman and I am sure she will correct and compensate her fault by the right stand on the issue as soon as possible. Otherwise she will not be the highest icon of independent journalism in the US. Here some extracts from such interview:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/we_have_not_seen_anything_yet
AMY GOODMAN: David Leigh, How did you get the documents?
DAVID LEIGH: We got the documents from WikiLeaks.
AMY GOODMAN: And the New York Times, this time around, though it joined with the Guardian and Der Spiegel and a few other news outlets around the world last time in getting them directly from WikiLeaks, this time they didn’t. Explain what happened.
DAVID LEIGH: We don’t regard that as having much significance.
AMY GOODMAN: So, did – was it you, The Guardian, that gave the Wikileaks documents over to the New York Times this time?
DAVID LEIGH: We were the ones who physically passed them over. I don’t know what significance you have for that.
AMY GOODMAN: One of the pieces you’ve done and you’ve done many of them on all of these leaks, but the latest one, David, how 250,000 U.S. embassy cables were leaked from a fake Lady Gaga city to a thumb drive that is a pocket-sized bombshell, the biggest intelligence leak in history. Take us through it.
DAVID LEIGH: Well, you want me to take you through how the mechanism of the leak?
AMY GOODMAN: One of the pieces you’ve done and you’ve done many of them on all of these leaks, but the latest one, David, how 250,000 U.S. embassy cables were leaked from a fake Lady Gaga city to a thumb drive that is a pocket-sized bombshell, the biggest intelligence leak in history. Take us through it.
DAVID LEIGH: Well, you want me to take you through how the mechanism of the leak?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
DAVID LEIGH: Well, as we understand it, all of this starts with the United States itself. What they did was they created this gigantic data base of –an archive of these 250,000 cables. They put them not only on the State Department’s classified embassies’ websites, but on SIPRNET, which is the US Defense Department’s military Internet. That circulated to soldiers all across the world, everywhere the U.S. has got bases. As a result, it was accessible to a junior soldier cleared to the secret level and above, a 22-year-old Bradley Manning, according to the subsequent indictment. According to the chat logs Manning had with somebody else, he went in there with a CD marked Lady Gaga, reported to lips sync to it and nod his head to the time of the non-existing music, while all the while covertly downloading this stuff. He walked out with a CD. By the time the Guardian got it, it was on a thumb drive, a tiny little thumb drive and had 1.6 gigabytes of material, which contains 250 million words.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you believe he is the only source of these documents?
DAVID LEIGH: My personal opinion- which isn’t evidence, is yes- he is the only source.
===============
SHAME OF YOU AMY!
Does your question alleviate the situation that now faces Bradley Manning?. You force David to convert Bradley Manning in the scapegoat to your harassment, a person that is about to be indicted as treason to the nation in Martial Courts, but you wanted more names. As a result of this David Leigh abandoned you interview.
===============
I want to make clear my disappointment with the questions that Amy put on the journalist David Leigh from the Guardian because she is one of the persons who deserve my highest respect in journalism and because I help to disseminate some of her documents among the Latino community in the South . Such question clearly serve the interest of the CIA, FBI n Mosad (details on the mechanics: her insistence in the who and how the leaks were got). The focus should have being on the terrorist demonization of the messengers (Julian Assange has received now the label of most wanted terrorist, like the label given to Bin Laden or other members of the invented army of Al Qaeda). I am sure that there were no intentions to serve the interest of the CIA, FBI, Mosad, it is the context that is loaded with wrong ideology because of the manipulation from the corporate media and the neocons in Fox. They are now bombarding people with the message that Julian Assange made a fault. We made it, not Julian.
The issue to the corporate media is national security. That is the most common diversionary strategy aimed to avoid the substance of the information put across by the wikileaks. The essence of the Wikileaks info concernes human life, peace, freedom of information and democratic independence of the judiciary from political manipulation. The violation of these rights is a violation of the UN declaration of Human Rights and the US Constitution and its bills of rights, and diverse international laws.
Human life is the main concern of the wikileaks and according the http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ the number of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq is "1,421,933" and number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed in these illegal wars (Officially acknowledged) in U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 4,745. We have to add to this the horrendous torture of innocent people suspected of being Al Qaeda in clandestine and open prisons. This includes the case of one citizen from Germany and many more innocent people in the US.
The worse is that independent journalist who devote their life to uncover the truth have been also assassinated in Palestine and the occupied territories by the US and Nato allies. These are the real issues pointed out by Julian Assange’s info, his aim is the pursue of justice, independent investigation n rectification. It is a sign of mass idiotization to criminalize him, a common wisdom is right in this regard: when the moon is pointed out to them, only the idiots keep looking at the finger. Instead of criminalizing Julian Assange or intent to assassinate him or lynching Assange in phony courts, Americans and the international community should demand full respect of Assange life. We salute the fact that different countries are offering asylum to him. If Julian Assange is assassinated with the complicity of US citizens and courts, the hate against American will become xenophobic and no one American traveler will be safe around the world.
The argument that wikileaks put at risk our national security is nonsense. It departs from the false premise that the war of plundering abroad had to something with our national security. Those wars were based on a sack of lies. When the US troops were torturing and genociding innocent civilians they were not defending our national security, they were instead desecrating on our constitution and serving the interest of big corporation that profit from wars. The same nasty job was done by those known as “diplomats” when they bribe or force international court members to make a blind eye on the crimes committed by the US abroad. That is a violation of independence of the judiciary from other branches of government and the democratic principle of check and balances. Hillary Clinton was involved in such affair and the least she should do is resign to her post, otherwise international courts have the right to indict her for her violation of national and international laws.
The argument that gathering independent information about US war crimes is in itself a crime labeled as espionage, treason and the like has nonsense at all.
Independent information based on evidences is the essence of the Bill of Rights and is our right to demand respect to those who provide such info as Julian Assange did it. Gathering information about Human Rights is not a crime. Crime is instead the conceal of truth about what happens during the 9/11 terrorist attack, and more criminal even what the US media informed in the aftermath of such horrible event: that those who request an independent investigation on the possible “inside job” had received mail with anthrax in their houses. The same level of criminality was done by our diplomats like Mrs Clinton that tried to cover our criminal acts of war.
We do not need a tribunal against Assange, what we need is a new Nuremberg Tribunal to prosecute all the war criminals involved in the devastation of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine (including the Gaza ghetification by the Zionist of Israel). Assange is not a war criminal. He is the one who denounced the barbary of war and he deserves our admiration and support.
The UN should demand at international level respect to his life and give to him a nobel price of Peace. The same to those journalists who contribute to this cause like David Leigh from the Guardian.
We salute the decision of David Leigh to abandon the interview from Amy Goodman and we deplore Amy Goodman sidedness against pacifism when she interviewed him. It is the meaning of peace, freedom and democracy that is at stake and Amy always had such stand. All that we want from her is consistency with such values at all time, especially during this critical period. I am sure she will rectify her harassment on Leigh, and she will offer him public apology. Fortunately Noam Chomsky found the questioning of “from whom and how you get your leak” as irrelevant and focus on the relation between the leaks and democracy. Here such interview:
Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership"
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound
In a national broadcast exclusive interview, we speak with world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky about the release of more than 250,000 secret U.S. State Department cables by WikiLeaks. In 1971, Chomsky helped government whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg release the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret internal U.S. account of the Vietnam War. Commenting on the revelations that several Arab leaders are urging the United States to attack Iran, Chomsky says, "latest polls show] Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent," Chomsky says. "This may not be reported in the newspapers, but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments and the ambassadors. What this reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership."
AMY GOODMAN: We have lost David Leigh, investigations editor from The Guardian. He was speaking to us from the busy newsroom there. The Guardian is doing an ongoing series of pieces and exposes on these documents. They are being released slowly by the various news organizations, from The Guardian in London, to Der Spiegel in Germany, to El Pais in Spain, to the New York Times here in the United States.. For reaction to the WikiLeaks documents, we’re joined by world renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, author of over a hundred books including his latest Hopes and Prospects. Forty years ago, Noam and Howard Zinn helped government whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg edit and release the Pentagon Papers that top-secret internal U.S. history of the Vietnam War.
Noam Chomsky joins us from Boston. It is good to have you back again, Noam. Why don’t we start there. Before we talk about WikiLeaks, what was your involvement in the Pentagon Papers? I don’t think most people know about this.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Dan and I were friends. Tony Russo, who also who prepared them and helped leak them. I got advanced copies from Dan and Tony and there were several people who were releasing them to the press. I was one of them. Then I- along with Howard Zinn as you mentioned- edited a volume of essays and indexed the papers.
AMY GOODMAN: So explain how, though, how it worked. I always think this is important- to tell this story- especially for young people. Dan Ellsberg- Pentagon official, top-secret clearance- gets this U.S. involvement in Vietnam history out of his safe, he Xerox’s it and then how did you get your hands on it? He just directly gave it to you?
NOAM CHOMSKY: From Dan Ellsberg and Tony Russo, who had done the Xeroxing and the preparation of the material.
AMY GOODMAN: How much did you edit?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, we did not modify anything. The papers were not edited. They were in their original form. What Howard Zinn and I did was- they came out in four volumes- we prepared a fifth volume, which was critical essays by many scholars on the papers, what they mean, the significance and so on. And an index, which is almost indispensable for using them seriously. That’s the fifth volume in the Beacon Press series.
AMY GOODMAN: So you were then one of the first people to see the Pentagon Papers?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Outside of Dan Ellsberg and Tony Russo, yes. I mean, there were some journalists who may have seen them, I am not sure.
AMY GOODMAN: What are your thoughts today? For example, we just played this clip of New York republican congress member Peter King who says WikiLeaks should be declared a foreign terrorist organization.
NOAM CHOMSKY: I think that is outlandish. We should understand- and the Pentagon Papers is another case in point- that one of the major reasons for government secrecy is to protect the government from its own population. In the Pentagon Papers, for example, there was one volume- the negotiations volume- which might have had a bearing on ongoing activities and Daniel Ellsberg withheld that. That came out a little bit later. If you look at the papers themselves, there are things Americans should have known that others did not want them to know. And as far as I can tell, from what I’ve seen here, pretty much the same is true. In fact, the current leaks are- what I’ve seen, at least- primarily interesting because of what they tell us about how the diplomatic service works.
AMY GOODMAN: The documents’ revelations about Iran come just as the Iranian government has agreed to a new round of nuclear talks beginning next month. On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the cables vindicate the Israeli position that Iran poses a nuclear threat. Netanyahu said, "Our region has been hostage to a narrative that is the result of sixty years of propaganda, which paints Israel as the greatest threat. In reality, leaders understand that that view is bankrupt. For the first time in history, there is agreement that Iran is the threat. If leaders start saying openly what they have long been saying behind closed doors, with can make a real breakthrough on the road to peace," Netanyahu said. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also discussed Iran at her news conference in Washington. This is what she said:
HILARY CLINTON: I think that it should not be a surprise to anyone that Iran is a source of great concern, not only in the United States. What comes through in every meeting that I have- anywhere in the world- is a concern about Iranian actions and intentions. So, if anything, any of the comments that are being reported on allegedly from the cables confirm the fact that Iran poses a very serious threat in the eyes of many of her neighbors and a serious concern far beyond her region. That is why the international community came together to pass the strongest possible sanctions against Iran. It did not happen because the United States said, "Please, do this for us!" It happened because countries- once they evaluated the evidence concerning Iran’s actions and intentions- reached the same conclusion that the United States reached: that we must do whatever we can to muster the international community to take action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. So if anyone reading the stories about these, uh, alleged cables thinks carefully what they will conclude is that the concern about Iran is well founded, widely shared, and will continue to be at the source of the policy that we pursue with like-minded nations to try to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Secretary to Hillary Clinton yesterday at a news conference. I wanted to get your comment on Clinton, Netanyahu’s comment, and the fact that Abdullah of Saudi Arabia- the King who is now getting back surgery in the New York- called for the U.S. to attack Iran. Noam Chomsky?
NOAM CHOMSKY: That essentially reinforces what I said before, that the main significance of the cables that are being released so far is what they tell us about Western leadership. So Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu surely know of the careful polls of Arab public opinion. The Brookings Institute just a few months ago released extensive polls of what Arabs think about Iran. The results are rather striking. They show the Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel- that’s 80. The second major threat is the United States- that’s 77. Iran is listed as a threat by 10%.
With regard to nuclear weapons, rather remarkably, a majority- in fact, 57–say that the region would have a positive effect in the region if Iran had nuclear weapons. Now, these are not small numbers. 80, 77, say the U.S. and Israel are the major threat. 10 say Iran is the major threat. This may not be reported in the newspapers here- it is in England- but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments, and to the ambassadors. But there is not a word about it anywhere. What that reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership and the Israeli political leadership. These things aren’t even to be mentioned. This seeps its way all through the diplomatic service. The cables to not have any indication of that.
When they talk about Arabs, they mean the Arab dictators, not the population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions that the analysts here- Clinton and the media- have drawn. There’s also a minor problem; that’s the major problem. The minor problem is that we don’t know from the cables what the Arab leaders think and say. We know what was selected from the range of what they say. So there is a filtering process. We don’t know how much it distorts the information. But there is no question that what is a radical distortion is- or, not even a distortion, a reflection–of the concern that the dictators are what matter. The population does not matter, even if it’s overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. policy.
There are similar things elsewhere, such as keeping to this region. One of the most interesting cables was a cable from the U.S. ambassador in Israel to Hillary Clinton, which described the attack on Gaza- which we should call the U.S./Israeli attack on Gaza- December 2008. It states correctly there had been a truce. It does not add that during the truce- which was really not observed by Israel- but during the truce, Hamas scrupulously observed it according to the Israeli government, not a single rocket was fired. That’s an omission. But then comes a straight line: it says that in December 2008, Hamas renewed rocket firing and therefore Israel had to attack in self-defense. Now, the ambassador surely is aware that there must be somebody in the American Embassy who reads the Israeli press- the mainstream Israeli press- in which case the embassy is surely aware that it is exactly the opposite:
Hamas was calling for a renewal of the cease-fire. Israel considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to bomb rather than have security. Also omitted is that while Israel never observed the cease-fire- it maintained the siege in violation of the truce agreement- on November 4, the U.S. election 2008, the Israeli army invaded Gaza, killed half a dozen Hamas militants, which did lead to an exchange of fire in which all the casualties, as usual, were Palestinian. Then in December, Hamas- when the truce officially ended- Hamas called for renewing it. Israel refused, and the U.S. and Israel chose to launch the war. What the embassy reported is a gross falsification and a very significant one since- since it has to do the justification for the murderous attack- which means either the embassy hasn’t a clue to what is going on or else they’re lying outright.
AMY GOODMAN: And the latest report that just came out- from Oxfam, from Amnesty International, and other groups- about the effects of the siege on Gaza? What’s happening right now?
NOAM CHOMSKY: A siege is an act of war. If anyone insists on that, it is Israel. Israel launched two wars- '56 and ’67- in part on grounds its access to the outside world was very partially restricted. That very partial siege they considered an act of war and justification for- well, one of several justifications- for what they called "preventive"- or if you like, preemptive- war. So they understand that perfectly well and the point is correct. The siege is a criminal act, in the first place. The Security Council has called on Israel to lift it, and others have. It's designed to- as Israeli officials have have stated- to keep the people of Gaza to minimal level of existence. They do not want to kill them all off because that would not look good in international opinion. As they put it, "to keep them on a diet."
This justification, this began very shortly after the official Israeli withdrawal. There was an election in January 2006 after the only free election in the Arab world- carefully monitored, recognized to be free- but it had a flaw. The wrong people won. Namely Hamas, which the U.S. did not want it and Israel did not want. Instantly, within days, the U.S. and Israel instituted harsh measures to punish the people of Gaza for voting the wrong way in a free election.
The next step was that they- the U.S. and Israel- sought to, along with the Palestinian Authority, try to carry out a military coup in Gaza to overthrow the elected government. This failed- Hamas beat back the coup attempt. That was July 2007. At that point, the siege got much harsher. In between come in many acts of violence, shellings, invasions and so on and so forth. But basically, Israel claims that when the truce was established in the summer 2008, Israel’s reason for not observing it and withdrawing the siege was that there was an Israeli soldier- Gilad Shalit- who was captured at the border. International commentary regards this as a terrible crime. Well, whatever you think about it, capturing a soldier of an attacking army- and the army was attacking Gaza- capturing a soldier of an attacking army isn’t anywhere near the level of the crime of kidnapping civilians. Just one day before the capture of Gilad Shalit at the border, Israeli troops had entered Gaza, kidnapped two civilians- the Muammar Brothers- and spirited them across the border. They’ve disappeared somewhere in Israel’s prison system, which is where hundreds, maybe a thousand or so people are sometimes there for years without charges. There are also secret prisons. We don’t know what happens there.
This alone is a far worse crime than the kidnapping of Shalit. In fact, you could argue there was a reason why was barely covered: Israel has been doing this for years, in fact, decades. Kidnapping, capturing people, hijacking ships, killing people, bringing them to Israel sometimes as hostages for many years. So this is regular practice; Israel can do what it likes. But the reaction here and the rest of the world of regarding the Shalit kidnapping- well, not kidnapping, you don’t kidnap soldiers- the capture of a soldier as an unspeakable crime, justification for maintaining and murders siege... that’s disgraceful.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, so you have Amnesty International, Oxfam, Save the Children, and eighteen other aide groups calling on Israel to unconditionally lift the blockade of Gaza. And you have in the WikiLeaks release a U.S. diplomatic cable- provided to The Guardian by WikiLeaks- laying out, "National human intelligence collection directive: Asking U.S. personnel to obtain details of travel plans such as routes and vehicles used by Palestinian Authority leaders and Hamas members." The cable demands, "Biographical, financial, by metric information on key PA and Hamas leaders and representatives to include the Young Guard inside Gaza, the West Bank, and outside," it says.
NOAM CHOMSKY: That should not come as much of a surprise. Contrary to the image that is portrayed here, the United States is not an honest broker. It is a participant, a direct and crucial participant, in Israeli crimes, both in the West Bank and in Gaza. The attack in Gaza was a clear case in point: they used American weapons, the U.S. blocked cease-fire efforts, they gave diplomatic support. The same is true of the daily ongoing crimes in the West Bank, and we should not forget that. Actually, in Area C- the area of the West Bank that Israel controls- conditions for Palestinians have been reported by Save The Children to be worse than in Gaza. Again, this all takes place on the basis of crucial, decisive, U.S., military, diplomatic, economic support; and also ideological support- meaning, distorting the situation, as is done again dramatically in the cables.
The siege itself is simply criminal. It is not only blocking desperately needed aid from coming in, it also drives Palestinians away from the border. Gaza is a small place, heavily and densely overcrowded. And Israeli fire and attacks drive Palestinians away from the Arab land on the border, and also drive fisherman in from Gaza into territorial waters. They compelled by Israeli gunboats- all illegal, of course- to fish right near the shore where fishing is almost impossible because Israel has destroyed the power systems and sewage systems and the contamination is terrible. This is just a stranglehold to punish people for being there and for insisting on voting the wrong way. Israel decided, "We don’t want this anymore. Let’s just get rid of them."
We should also remember, the U.S./Israeli policy- since Oslo, since the early 1990’s- has been to separate Gaza from the West Bank. That is in straight violation of the Oslo agreements, but it has been carried out systematically, and it has a big effect. It means almost half the Palestinian population would be cut off from any possible political arrangement that would be made. It also means Palestine loses its access to the outside world- Gaza should have and can have airports and seaports. Right now, Israel has taken over about 40% of the West Bank. Obama’s latest offers have granted even more, and they’re certainly planning to take more. What is left is just canonized. It’s what the planner, Ariel Sharon called Bantustans. And they’re in prison, too, as Israel takes over the Jordan Valley and drives Palestinians out. So these are all crimes of a piece.
The Gaza siege is particularly grotesque because of the conditions under which people are forced to live. I mean, if a young person in Gaza- student in Gaza, let’s say- wants to study in a West Bank university, they can’t do it. If it a person in Gaza needs advanced medical training or treatment from an East Jerusalem hospital where the training is available, they can’t go! Medicines are held back. It is a scandalous crime, all around.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think the United States should do in this case?
NOAM CHOMSKY: What the United States should do is very simple: it should join the world. I mean, there are negotiations going on, supposedly. As they are presented here, the standard picture is that the U.S. is an honest broker trying to bring together two recalcitrant opponents- Israel and Palestinian Authority. That’s just a charade.
If there were serious negotiations, they would be organized by some neutral party and the U.S. and Israel would be on one side and the world would be on the other side. And that is not an exaggeration. It should not be a secret that there has long been an overwhelming international consensus on a diplomatic, political solution. Everyone knows the basic outlines; some of the details you can argue about. It includes everyone except the United States and Israel. The U.S. has been blocking it for 35 years with occasional departures- brief ones. It includes the Arab League. It includes the Organization of Islamic States. which happens to include Iran. It includes every relevant actor except the United States and Israel, the two rejectionist states. So if there were to be negotiations that were serious, that’s the way they would be organized. The actual negotiations barely reach the level of comedy. The issue that’s being debated is a footnote, a minor footnote: expansion of settlements. Of course it’s illegal. In fact, everything Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is illegal. That hasn’t even been controversial since 1967.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to come back to this in a minute. Noam Chomsky, author and institute professor emeritus at MIT, as we talk about WikiLeaks and the state of the world today.
[music break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Noam Chomsky, world-renowned dissident, author of more than 100 books, speaking to us from Boston. Noam, you wrote a piece after the midterm elections called Outrage Misguided. I want to read for you now what Sarah Palin tweeted – the former Alaskan governor, of course, and Republication vice presidential nominee. This is what she tweeted about WikiLeaks. Rather, she put it on Facebook. She said, “First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop WikiLeaks’ director Julian Assange from distributing this highly-sensitive classified material, especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a journalist any more than the editor of the Al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine “Inspire,” is a journalist. He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?” Noam Chomsky, your response?
NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s pretty much what I would expect Sarah Palin to say. I don’t know how much she understands, but I think we should pay attention to what we learn from the leaks. What we learned, for example, is kinds of things I’ve said. Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention, is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government – Hillary Clinton, others – and also by the diplomatic service.
To tell the world– well, they’re talking to each other- to pretend to each other that the Arab world regards Iran as the major threat and wants the U.S. to bomb Iran, is extremely revealing, when they know that approximately 80% of Arab opinion regards the U.S. and Israel as the major threat, 10% regard Iran as the major threat, and a majority, 57%, think the region would be better off with Iranian nuclear weapons as a kind of deterrent. That is does not even enter. All that enters is what they claim has been said by Arab dictators – brutal Arab dictators. That is what counts.
How representative this is of what they say, we don’t know, because we do not know what the filtering is. But that’s a minor point. But the major point is that the population is irrelevant. All that matters is the opinions of the dictators that we support. If they were to back us, that is the Arab world. That is a very revealing picture of the mentality of U.S. political leadership and, presumably, the lead opinion, judging by the commentary that’s appeared here, that’s the way it has been presented in the press as well. It does not matter with the Arabs believe.
AMY GOODMAN: Your piece, Outrage Misguided. Back to the midterm elections and what we’re going to see now. Can you talk about the tea party movement?
NOAM CHOMSKY: The Tea Party movement itself is, maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. It’s relatively affluent, white, nativist, you know, it has rather traditional nativist streaks to it. But what is much more important, I think, is the outrage. Over half the population says they more or less supported it, or support its message. What people are thinking is extremely interesting. I mean, overwhelmingly polls reveal that people are extremely bitter, angry, hostile, opposed to everything.
The primary cause undoubtedly is the economic disaster. It’s not just the financial catastrophe, it’s an economic disaster. I mean, in the manufacturing industry, for example, unemployment levels are at the level of the Great Depression. And unlike the Great Depression, those jobs are not coming back. U.S. owners and managers have long ago made the decision that they can make more profit with complicated financial deals than by production. So finance – this goes back to the 1970s, mainly Reagan escalated it, and onward- Clinton, too. The economy has been financialized.
Financial institutions have grown enormously in their share of corporate profits. It may be something like a third, or something like that today. At the same time, correspondingly, production has been exported. So you buy some electronic device from China. China is an assembly plant for a Northeast Asian production center. The parts and components come from the more advanced countries – and from the United States, and the technology . So yes, that’s a cheap place to assemble things and sell them back here. Rather similar in Mexico, now Vietnam, and so on. That is the way to make profits.
It destroys the society here, but that’s not the concern of the ownership class and the managerial class. Their concern is profit. That is what drives the economy. The rest of it is a fallout. People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t seem to understand it. So the same people who are a majority, who say that Wall Street is to blame for the current crisis, are voting Republican. Both parties are deep in the pockets of Wall Street, but the Republicans much more so than the Democrats.
The same is true on issue after issue. The antagonism to everyone is extremely high – actually antagonism – the population doesn’t like Democrats, but they hate Republicans even more. They’re against big business. They’re against government. They’re against Congress. They’re against science –
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we only have thirty seconds. I wanted ask if you were President Obama’s top adviser, what would you tell him to do right now?
NOAM CHOMSKY: I would tell him to do what FDR did when big business was opposed to him. Help organize, stimulate public opposition and put through a serious populist program, which can be done. Stimulate the economy. Don’t give away everything to financiers. Push through real health reform. The health reform that was pushed through may be a slight improvement but it leaves some major problems untouched. If you’re worried about the deficit, pay attention to the fact that it is almost all attributable to military spending and this totally dysfunctional health program.
================
To compensate the time lost in silly questioning to David Leigh I would suggest her to publish the complete interview with Noam Chomsky, since it was cut after the “thirty seconds” mentioning above, though the interview continue during the pledge time. In return I compromise my voluntary contribution to DN in December. Do not take bad Amy, I want you to be perfect, though nobody is. Anyway, you are still my hero (Haz, Nov 30-10).
DEMOCRACY NOW. November 30, 2010
HAZ, nov 30, 2010
Before going to Chomsky interview, please pay attention to the type of questions to David Leigh in the previous interview. It seems to be that Amy was doing here a job for the CIA, FBI or Mossad. To me is the inertia-force of the ideological context in the US, a context loaded with lies and sinister political manipulation in favor of imperial terrorism (war against T is just that, a violation of foundation of the US Constitution and the bill of rights). That type of questioning was a big mistake in the part of Amy Goodman and I am sure she will correct and compensate her fault by the right stand on the issue as soon as possible. Otherwise she will not be the highest icon of independent journalism in the US. Here some extracts from such interview:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/we_have_not_seen_anything_yet
AMY GOODMAN: David Leigh, How did you get the documents?
DAVID LEIGH: We got the documents from WikiLeaks.
AMY GOODMAN: And the New York Times, this time around, though it joined with the Guardian and Der Spiegel and a few other news outlets around the world last time in getting them directly from WikiLeaks, this time they didn’t. Explain what happened.
DAVID LEIGH: We don’t regard that as having much significance.
AMY GOODMAN: So, did – was it you, The Guardian, that gave the Wikileaks documents over to the New York Times this time?
DAVID LEIGH: We were the ones who physically passed them over. I don’t know what significance you have for that.
AMY GOODMAN: One of the pieces you’ve done and you’ve done many of them on all of these leaks, but the latest one, David, how 250,000 U.S. embassy cables were leaked from a fake Lady Gaga city to a thumb drive that is a pocket-sized bombshell, the biggest intelligence leak in history. Take us through it.
DAVID LEIGH: Well, you want me to take you through how the mechanism of the leak?
AMY GOODMAN: One of the pieces you’ve done and you’ve done many of them on all of these leaks, but the latest one, David, how 250,000 U.S. embassy cables were leaked from a fake Lady Gaga city to a thumb drive that is a pocket-sized bombshell, the biggest intelligence leak in history. Take us through it.
DAVID LEIGH: Well, you want me to take you through how the mechanism of the leak?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes.
DAVID LEIGH: Well, as we understand it, all of this starts with the United States itself. What they did was they created this gigantic data base of –an archive of these 250,000 cables. They put them not only on the State Department’s classified embassies’ websites, but on SIPRNET, which is the US Defense Department’s military Internet. That circulated to soldiers all across the world, everywhere the U.S. has got bases. As a result, it was accessible to a junior soldier cleared to the secret level and above, a 22-year-old Bradley Manning, according to the subsequent indictment. According to the chat logs Manning had with somebody else, he went in there with a CD marked Lady Gaga, reported to lips sync to it and nod his head to the time of the non-existing music, while all the while covertly downloading this stuff. He walked out with a CD. By the time the Guardian got it, it was on a thumb drive, a tiny little thumb drive and had 1.6 gigabytes of material, which contains 250 million words.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you believe he is the only source of these documents?
DAVID LEIGH: My personal opinion- which isn’t evidence, is yes- he is the only source.
===============
SHAME OF YOU AMY!
Does your question alleviate the situation that now faces Bradley Manning?. You force David to convert Bradley Manning in the scapegoat to your harassment, a person that is about to be indicted as treason to the nation in Martial Courts, but you wanted more names. As a result of this David Leigh abandoned you interview.
===============
I want to make clear my disappointment with the questions that Amy put on the journalist David Leigh from the Guardian because she is one of the persons who deserve my highest respect in journalism and because I help to disseminate some of her documents among the Latino community in the South . Such question clearly serve the interest of the CIA, FBI n Mosad (details on the mechanics: her insistence in the who and how the leaks were got). The focus should have being on the terrorist demonization of the messengers (Julian Assange has received now the label of most wanted terrorist, like the label given to Bin Laden or other members of the invented army of Al Qaeda). I am sure that there were no intentions to serve the interest of the CIA, FBI, Mosad, it is the context that is loaded with wrong ideology because of the manipulation from the corporate media and the neocons in Fox. They are now bombarding people with the message that Julian Assange made a fault. We made it, not Julian.
The issue to the corporate media is national security. That is the most common diversionary strategy aimed to avoid the substance of the information put across by the wikileaks. The essence of the Wikileaks info concernes human life, peace, freedom of information and democratic independence of the judiciary from political manipulation. The violation of these rights is a violation of the UN declaration of Human Rights and the US Constitution and its bills of rights, and diverse international laws.
Human life is the main concern of the wikileaks and according the http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ the number of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq is "1,421,933" and number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed in these illegal wars (Officially acknowledged) in U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 4,745. We have to add to this the horrendous torture of innocent people suspected of being Al Qaeda in clandestine and open prisons. This includes the case of one citizen from Germany and many more innocent people in the US.
The worse is that independent journalist who devote their life to uncover the truth have been also assassinated in Palestine and the occupied territories by the US and Nato allies. These are the real issues pointed out by Julian Assange’s info, his aim is the pursue of justice, independent investigation n rectification. It is a sign of mass idiotization to criminalize him, a common wisdom is right in this regard: when the moon is pointed out to them, only the idiots keep looking at the finger. Instead of criminalizing Julian Assange or intent to assassinate him or lynching Assange in phony courts, Americans and the international community should demand full respect of Assange life. We salute the fact that different countries are offering asylum to him. If Julian Assange is assassinated with the complicity of US citizens and courts, the hate against American will become xenophobic and no one American traveler will be safe around the world.
The argument that wikileaks put at risk our national security is nonsense. It departs from the false premise that the war of plundering abroad had to something with our national security. Those wars were based on a sack of lies. When the US troops were torturing and genociding innocent civilians they were not defending our national security, they were instead desecrating on our constitution and serving the interest of big corporation that profit from wars. The same nasty job was done by those known as “diplomats” when they bribe or force international court members to make a blind eye on the crimes committed by the US abroad. That is a violation of independence of the judiciary from other branches of government and the democratic principle of check and balances. Hillary Clinton was involved in such affair and the least she should do is resign to her post, otherwise international courts have the right to indict her for her violation of national and international laws.
The argument that gathering independent information about US war crimes is in itself a crime labeled as espionage, treason and the like has nonsense at all.
Independent information based on evidences is the essence of the Bill of Rights and is our right to demand respect to those who provide such info as Julian Assange did it. Gathering information about Human Rights is not a crime. Crime is instead the conceal of truth about what happens during the 9/11 terrorist attack, and more criminal even what the US media informed in the aftermath of such horrible event: that those who request an independent investigation on the possible “inside job” had received mail with anthrax in their houses. The same level of criminality was done by our diplomats like Mrs Clinton that tried to cover our criminal acts of war.
We do not need a tribunal against Assange, what we need is a new Nuremberg Tribunal to prosecute all the war criminals involved in the devastation of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine (including the Gaza ghetification by the Zionist of Israel). Assange is not a war criminal. He is the one who denounced the barbary of war and he deserves our admiration and support.
The UN should demand at international level respect to his life and give to him a nobel price of Peace. The same to those journalists who contribute to this cause like David Leigh from the Guardian.
We salute the decision of David Leigh to abandon the interview from Amy Goodman and we deplore Amy Goodman sidedness against pacifism when she interviewed him. It is the meaning of peace, freedom and democracy that is at stake and Amy always had such stand. All that we want from her is consistency with such values at all time, especially during this critical period. I am sure she will rectify her harassment on Leigh, and she will offer him public apology. Fortunately Noam Chomsky found the questioning of “from whom and how you get your leak” as irrelevant and focus on the relation between the leaks and democracy. Here such interview:
Noam Chomsky: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal "Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership"
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound
In a national broadcast exclusive interview, we speak with world-renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky about the release of more than 250,000 secret U.S. State Department cables by WikiLeaks. In 1971, Chomsky helped government whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg release the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret internal U.S. account of the Vietnam War. Commenting on the revelations that several Arab leaders are urging the United States to attack Iran, Chomsky says, "latest polls show] Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that’s 80 percent; the second threat is the United States, that’s 77 percent. Iran is listed as a threat by 10 percent," Chomsky says. "This may not be reported in the newspapers, but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments and the ambassadors. What this reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership."
AMY GOODMAN: We have lost David Leigh, investigations editor from The Guardian. He was speaking to us from the busy newsroom there. The Guardian is doing an ongoing series of pieces and exposes on these documents. They are being released slowly by the various news organizations, from The Guardian in London, to Der Spiegel in Germany, to El Pais in Spain, to the New York Times here in the United States.. For reaction to the WikiLeaks documents, we’re joined by world renowned political dissident and linguist Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, author of over a hundred books including his latest Hopes and Prospects. Forty years ago, Noam and Howard Zinn helped government whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg edit and release the Pentagon Papers that top-secret internal U.S. history of the Vietnam War.
Noam Chomsky joins us from Boston. It is good to have you back again, Noam. Why don’t we start there. Before we talk about WikiLeaks, what was your involvement in the Pentagon Papers? I don’t think most people know about this.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Dan and I were friends. Tony Russo, who also who prepared them and helped leak them. I got advanced copies from Dan and Tony and there were several people who were releasing them to the press. I was one of them. Then I- along with Howard Zinn as you mentioned- edited a volume of essays and indexed the papers.
AMY GOODMAN: So explain how, though, how it worked. I always think this is important- to tell this story- especially for young people. Dan Ellsberg- Pentagon official, top-secret clearance- gets this U.S. involvement in Vietnam history out of his safe, he Xerox’s it and then how did you get your hands on it? He just directly gave it to you?
NOAM CHOMSKY: From Dan Ellsberg and Tony Russo, who had done the Xeroxing and the preparation of the material.
AMY GOODMAN: How much did you edit?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, we did not modify anything. The papers were not edited. They were in their original form. What Howard Zinn and I did was- they came out in four volumes- we prepared a fifth volume, which was critical essays by many scholars on the papers, what they mean, the significance and so on. And an index, which is almost indispensable for using them seriously. That’s the fifth volume in the Beacon Press series.
AMY GOODMAN: So you were then one of the first people to see the Pentagon Papers?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Outside of Dan Ellsberg and Tony Russo, yes. I mean, there were some journalists who may have seen them, I am not sure.
AMY GOODMAN: What are your thoughts today? For example, we just played this clip of New York republican congress member Peter King who says WikiLeaks should be declared a foreign terrorist organization.
NOAM CHOMSKY: I think that is outlandish. We should understand- and the Pentagon Papers is another case in point- that one of the major reasons for government secrecy is to protect the government from its own population. In the Pentagon Papers, for example, there was one volume- the negotiations volume- which might have had a bearing on ongoing activities and Daniel Ellsberg withheld that. That came out a little bit later. If you look at the papers themselves, there are things Americans should have known that others did not want them to know. And as far as I can tell, from what I’ve seen here, pretty much the same is true. In fact, the current leaks are- what I’ve seen, at least- primarily interesting because of what they tell us about how the diplomatic service works.
AMY GOODMAN: The documents’ revelations about Iran come just as the Iranian government has agreed to a new round of nuclear talks beginning next month. On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the cables vindicate the Israeli position that Iran poses a nuclear threat. Netanyahu said, "Our region has been hostage to a narrative that is the result of sixty years of propaganda, which paints Israel as the greatest threat. In reality, leaders understand that that view is bankrupt. For the first time in history, there is agreement that Iran is the threat. If leaders start saying openly what they have long been saying behind closed doors, with can make a real breakthrough on the road to peace," Netanyahu said. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also discussed Iran at her news conference in Washington. This is what she said:
HILARY CLINTON: I think that it should not be a surprise to anyone that Iran is a source of great concern, not only in the United States. What comes through in every meeting that I have- anywhere in the world- is a concern about Iranian actions and intentions. So, if anything, any of the comments that are being reported on allegedly from the cables confirm the fact that Iran poses a very serious threat in the eyes of many of her neighbors and a serious concern far beyond her region. That is why the international community came together to pass the strongest possible sanctions against Iran. It did not happen because the United States said, "Please, do this for us!" It happened because countries- once they evaluated the evidence concerning Iran’s actions and intentions- reached the same conclusion that the United States reached: that we must do whatever we can to muster the international community to take action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. So if anyone reading the stories about these, uh, alleged cables thinks carefully what they will conclude is that the concern about Iran is well founded, widely shared, and will continue to be at the source of the policy that we pursue with like-minded nations to try to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Secretary to Hillary Clinton yesterday at a news conference. I wanted to get your comment on Clinton, Netanyahu’s comment, and the fact that Abdullah of Saudi Arabia- the King who is now getting back surgery in the New York- called for the U.S. to attack Iran. Noam Chomsky?
NOAM CHOMSKY: That essentially reinforces what I said before, that the main significance of the cables that are being released so far is what they tell us about Western leadership. So Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu surely know of the careful polls of Arab public opinion. The Brookings Institute just a few months ago released extensive polls of what Arabs think about Iran. The results are rather striking. They show the Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel- that’s 80. The second major threat is the United States- that’s 77. Iran is listed as a threat by 10%.
With regard to nuclear weapons, rather remarkably, a majority- in fact, 57–say that the region would have a positive effect in the region if Iran had nuclear weapons. Now, these are not small numbers. 80, 77, say the U.S. and Israel are the major threat. 10 say Iran is the major threat. This may not be reported in the newspapers here- it is in England- but it’s certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments, and to the ambassadors. But there is not a word about it anywhere. What that reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership and the Israeli political leadership. These things aren’t even to be mentioned. This seeps its way all through the diplomatic service. The cables to not have any indication of that.
When they talk about Arabs, they mean the Arab dictators, not the population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions that the analysts here- Clinton and the media- have drawn. There’s also a minor problem; that’s the major problem. The minor problem is that we don’t know from the cables what the Arab leaders think and say. We know what was selected from the range of what they say. So there is a filtering process. We don’t know how much it distorts the information. But there is no question that what is a radical distortion is- or, not even a distortion, a reflection–of the concern that the dictators are what matter. The population does not matter, even if it’s overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. policy.
There are similar things elsewhere, such as keeping to this region. One of the most interesting cables was a cable from the U.S. ambassador in Israel to Hillary Clinton, which described the attack on Gaza- which we should call the U.S./Israeli attack on Gaza- December 2008. It states correctly there had been a truce. It does not add that during the truce- which was really not observed by Israel- but during the truce, Hamas scrupulously observed it according to the Israeli government, not a single rocket was fired. That’s an omission. But then comes a straight line: it says that in December 2008, Hamas renewed rocket firing and therefore Israel had to attack in self-defense. Now, the ambassador surely is aware that there must be somebody in the American Embassy who reads the Israeli press- the mainstream Israeli press- in which case the embassy is surely aware that it is exactly the opposite:
Hamas was calling for a renewal of the cease-fire. Israel considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to bomb rather than have security. Also omitted is that while Israel never observed the cease-fire- it maintained the siege in violation of the truce agreement- on November 4, the U.S. election 2008, the Israeli army invaded Gaza, killed half a dozen Hamas militants, which did lead to an exchange of fire in which all the casualties, as usual, were Palestinian. Then in December, Hamas- when the truce officially ended- Hamas called for renewing it. Israel refused, and the U.S. and Israel chose to launch the war. What the embassy reported is a gross falsification and a very significant one since- since it has to do the justification for the murderous attack- which means either the embassy hasn’t a clue to what is going on or else they’re lying outright.
AMY GOODMAN: And the latest report that just came out- from Oxfam, from Amnesty International, and other groups- about the effects of the siege on Gaza? What’s happening right now?
NOAM CHOMSKY: A siege is an act of war. If anyone insists on that, it is Israel. Israel launched two wars- '56 and ’67- in part on grounds its access to the outside world was very partially restricted. That very partial siege they considered an act of war and justification for- well, one of several justifications- for what they called "preventive"- or if you like, preemptive- war. So they understand that perfectly well and the point is correct. The siege is a criminal act, in the first place. The Security Council has called on Israel to lift it, and others have. It's designed to- as Israeli officials have have stated- to keep the people of Gaza to minimal level of existence. They do not want to kill them all off because that would not look good in international opinion. As they put it, "to keep them on a diet."
This justification, this began very shortly after the official Israeli withdrawal. There was an election in January 2006 after the only free election in the Arab world- carefully monitored, recognized to be free- but it had a flaw. The wrong people won. Namely Hamas, which the U.S. did not want it and Israel did not want. Instantly, within days, the U.S. and Israel instituted harsh measures to punish the people of Gaza for voting the wrong way in a free election.
The next step was that they- the U.S. and Israel- sought to, along with the Palestinian Authority, try to carry out a military coup in Gaza to overthrow the elected government. This failed- Hamas beat back the coup attempt. That was July 2007. At that point, the siege got much harsher. In between come in many acts of violence, shellings, invasions and so on and so forth. But basically, Israel claims that when the truce was established in the summer 2008, Israel’s reason for not observing it and withdrawing the siege was that there was an Israeli soldier- Gilad Shalit- who was captured at the border. International commentary regards this as a terrible crime. Well, whatever you think about it, capturing a soldier of an attacking army- and the army was attacking Gaza- capturing a soldier of an attacking army isn’t anywhere near the level of the crime of kidnapping civilians. Just one day before the capture of Gilad Shalit at the border, Israeli troops had entered Gaza, kidnapped two civilians- the Muammar Brothers- and spirited them across the border. They’ve disappeared somewhere in Israel’s prison system, which is where hundreds, maybe a thousand or so people are sometimes there for years without charges. There are also secret prisons. We don’t know what happens there.
This alone is a far worse crime than the kidnapping of Shalit. In fact, you could argue there was a reason why was barely covered: Israel has been doing this for years, in fact, decades. Kidnapping, capturing people, hijacking ships, killing people, bringing them to Israel sometimes as hostages for many years. So this is regular practice; Israel can do what it likes. But the reaction here and the rest of the world of regarding the Shalit kidnapping- well, not kidnapping, you don’t kidnap soldiers- the capture of a soldier as an unspeakable crime, justification for maintaining and murders siege... that’s disgraceful.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, so you have Amnesty International, Oxfam, Save the Children, and eighteen other aide groups calling on Israel to unconditionally lift the blockade of Gaza. And you have in the WikiLeaks release a U.S. diplomatic cable- provided to The Guardian by WikiLeaks- laying out, "National human intelligence collection directive: Asking U.S. personnel to obtain details of travel plans such as routes and vehicles used by Palestinian Authority leaders and Hamas members." The cable demands, "Biographical, financial, by metric information on key PA and Hamas leaders and representatives to include the Young Guard inside Gaza, the West Bank, and outside," it says.
NOAM CHOMSKY: That should not come as much of a surprise. Contrary to the image that is portrayed here, the United States is not an honest broker. It is a participant, a direct and crucial participant, in Israeli crimes, both in the West Bank and in Gaza. The attack in Gaza was a clear case in point: they used American weapons, the U.S. blocked cease-fire efforts, they gave diplomatic support. The same is true of the daily ongoing crimes in the West Bank, and we should not forget that. Actually, in Area C- the area of the West Bank that Israel controls- conditions for Palestinians have been reported by Save The Children to be worse than in Gaza. Again, this all takes place on the basis of crucial, decisive, U.S., military, diplomatic, economic support; and also ideological support- meaning, distorting the situation, as is done again dramatically in the cables.
The siege itself is simply criminal. It is not only blocking desperately needed aid from coming in, it also drives Palestinians away from the border. Gaza is a small place, heavily and densely overcrowded. And Israeli fire and attacks drive Palestinians away from the Arab land on the border, and also drive fisherman in from Gaza into territorial waters. They compelled by Israeli gunboats- all illegal, of course- to fish right near the shore where fishing is almost impossible because Israel has destroyed the power systems and sewage systems and the contamination is terrible. This is just a stranglehold to punish people for being there and for insisting on voting the wrong way. Israel decided, "We don’t want this anymore. Let’s just get rid of them."
We should also remember, the U.S./Israeli policy- since Oslo, since the early 1990’s- has been to separate Gaza from the West Bank. That is in straight violation of the Oslo agreements, but it has been carried out systematically, and it has a big effect. It means almost half the Palestinian population would be cut off from any possible political arrangement that would be made. It also means Palestine loses its access to the outside world- Gaza should have and can have airports and seaports. Right now, Israel has taken over about 40% of the West Bank. Obama’s latest offers have granted even more, and they’re certainly planning to take more. What is left is just canonized. It’s what the planner, Ariel Sharon called Bantustans. And they’re in prison, too, as Israel takes over the Jordan Valley and drives Palestinians out. So these are all crimes of a piece.
The Gaza siege is particularly grotesque because of the conditions under which people are forced to live. I mean, if a young person in Gaza- student in Gaza, let’s say- wants to study in a West Bank university, they can’t do it. If it a person in Gaza needs advanced medical training or treatment from an East Jerusalem hospital where the training is available, they can’t go! Medicines are held back. It is a scandalous crime, all around.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think the United States should do in this case?
NOAM CHOMSKY: What the United States should do is very simple: it should join the world. I mean, there are negotiations going on, supposedly. As they are presented here, the standard picture is that the U.S. is an honest broker trying to bring together two recalcitrant opponents- Israel and Palestinian Authority. That’s just a charade.
If there were serious negotiations, they would be organized by some neutral party and the U.S. and Israel would be on one side and the world would be on the other side. And that is not an exaggeration. It should not be a secret that there has long been an overwhelming international consensus on a diplomatic, political solution. Everyone knows the basic outlines; some of the details you can argue about. It includes everyone except the United States and Israel. The U.S. has been blocking it for 35 years with occasional departures- brief ones. It includes the Arab League. It includes the Organization of Islamic States. which happens to include Iran. It includes every relevant actor except the United States and Israel, the two rejectionist states. So if there were to be negotiations that were serious, that’s the way they would be organized. The actual negotiations barely reach the level of comedy. The issue that’s being debated is a footnote, a minor footnote: expansion of settlements. Of course it’s illegal. In fact, everything Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is illegal. That hasn’t even been controversial since 1967.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to come back to this in a minute. Noam Chomsky, author and institute professor emeritus at MIT, as we talk about WikiLeaks and the state of the world today.
[music break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Noam Chomsky, world-renowned dissident, author of more than 100 books, speaking to us from Boston. Noam, you wrote a piece after the midterm elections called Outrage Misguided. I want to read for you now what Sarah Palin tweeted – the former Alaskan governor, of course, and Republication vice presidential nominee. This is what she tweeted about WikiLeaks. Rather, she put it on Facebook. She said, “First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop WikiLeaks’ director Julian Assange from distributing this highly-sensitive classified material, especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a journalist any more than the editor of the Al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine “Inspire,” is a journalist. He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?” Noam Chomsky, your response?
NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s pretty much what I would expect Sarah Palin to say. I don’t know how much she understands, but I think we should pay attention to what we learn from the leaks. What we learned, for example, is kinds of things I’ve said. Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention, is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government – Hillary Clinton, others – and also by the diplomatic service.
To tell the world– well, they’re talking to each other- to pretend to each other that the Arab world regards Iran as the major threat and wants the U.S. to bomb Iran, is extremely revealing, when they know that approximately 80% of Arab opinion regards the U.S. and Israel as the major threat, 10% regard Iran as the major threat, and a majority, 57%, think the region would be better off with Iranian nuclear weapons as a kind of deterrent. That is does not even enter. All that enters is what they claim has been said by Arab dictators – brutal Arab dictators. That is what counts.
How representative this is of what they say, we don’t know, because we do not know what the filtering is. But that’s a minor point. But the major point is that the population is irrelevant. All that matters is the opinions of the dictators that we support. If they were to back us, that is the Arab world. That is a very revealing picture of the mentality of U.S. political leadership and, presumably, the lead opinion, judging by the commentary that’s appeared here, that’s the way it has been presented in the press as well. It does not matter with the Arabs believe.
AMY GOODMAN: Your piece, Outrage Misguided. Back to the midterm elections and what we’re going to see now. Can you talk about the tea party movement?
NOAM CHOMSKY: The Tea Party movement itself is, maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. It’s relatively affluent, white, nativist, you know, it has rather traditional nativist streaks to it. But what is much more important, I think, is the outrage. Over half the population says they more or less supported it, or support its message. What people are thinking is extremely interesting. I mean, overwhelmingly polls reveal that people are extremely bitter, angry, hostile, opposed to everything.
The primary cause undoubtedly is the economic disaster. It’s not just the financial catastrophe, it’s an economic disaster. I mean, in the manufacturing industry, for example, unemployment levels are at the level of the Great Depression. And unlike the Great Depression, those jobs are not coming back. U.S. owners and managers have long ago made the decision that they can make more profit with complicated financial deals than by production. So finance – this goes back to the 1970s, mainly Reagan escalated it, and onward- Clinton, too. The economy has been financialized.
Financial institutions have grown enormously in their share of corporate profits. It may be something like a third, or something like that today. At the same time, correspondingly, production has been exported. So you buy some electronic device from China. China is an assembly plant for a Northeast Asian production center. The parts and components come from the more advanced countries – and from the United States, and the technology . So yes, that’s a cheap place to assemble things and sell them back here. Rather similar in Mexico, now Vietnam, and so on. That is the way to make profits.
It destroys the society here, but that’s not the concern of the ownership class and the managerial class. Their concern is profit. That is what drives the economy. The rest of it is a fallout. People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t seem to understand it. So the same people who are a majority, who say that Wall Street is to blame for the current crisis, are voting Republican. Both parties are deep in the pockets of Wall Street, but the Republicans much more so than the Democrats.
The same is true on issue after issue. The antagonism to everyone is extremely high – actually antagonism – the population doesn’t like Democrats, but they hate Republicans even more. They’re against big business. They’re against government. They’re against Congress. They’re against science –
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we only have thirty seconds. I wanted ask if you were President Obama’s top adviser, what would you tell him to do right now?
NOAM CHOMSKY: I would tell him to do what FDR did when big business was opposed to him. Help organize, stimulate public opposition and put through a serious populist program, which can be done. Stimulate the economy. Don’t give away everything to financiers. Push through real health reform. The health reform that was pushed through may be a slight improvement but it leaves some major problems untouched. If you’re worried about the deficit, pay attention to the fact that it is almost all attributable to military spending and this totally dysfunctional health program.
================
To compensate the time lost in silly questioning to David Leigh I would suggest her to publish the complete interview with Noam Chomsky, since it was cut after the “thirty seconds” mentioning above, though the interview continue during the pledge time. In return I compromise my voluntary contribution to DN in December. Do not take bad Amy, I want you to be perfect, though nobody is. Anyway, you are still my hero (Haz, Nov 30-10).
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)