By Yaroslav Trofimov, Tom Wright and Adam Entous for The Wall Street Journal

Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday met with Pakistan’s leaders, trying to gain Islamabad’s support for his peace outreach to the Taliban, as U.S. officials worked to keep expectations in check about the strategy’s prospects for yielding direct peace talks with the Islamic militant group.

The Taliban, meanwhile, denied Mr. Karzai’s claim that they have been negotiating with the Afghan government.On the first day of his three-day visit to Pakistan, Mr. Karzai met with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who promised Pakistani cooperation in investigating the September assassination of the chief Afghan peace negotiator and voiced support for an Afghan-led peace process. Pakistan’s Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, who wields considerable influence over the country’s foreign policy, also took part in the talks.

In Islamabad, Mr. Karzai reiterated that respect for the Afghan constitution and for women’s rights remain his “crucial conditions” for any future deal with the Taliban.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who has been skeptical of reconciliation efforts in the past, at a Thursday news conference lauded Mr. Karzai’s remarks—made in a Wall Street Journal interview—about Kabul’s willingness to engage with the Taliban.

“What President Karzai’s statement confirmed is that Afghanistan is very much involved in the process of reconciliation and that is extremely helpful and important to determining whether or not we are ultimately going to be able to succeed with reconciliation or not,” Mr. Panetta said. “The news that Afghanistan has joined those reconciliation discussions is important.”

Mr. Panetta said he didn’t know whether additional three-way sessions between the U.S., the Afghan government and the Taliban have been planned.

Another senior Obama administration official remained cautious about whether such confidence-building contacts would translate into direct peace talks, calling the process “complicated and precarious.”

A day after Mr. Karzai told the Journal that Afghan government representatives have had contacts with U.S. and Taliban officials in an attempt to end the 10-year war, the Taliban said they had no intention of negotiating with “the powerless Kabul administration.”

“If someone met the Karzai administration representing the Islamic Emirate, he is an impostor,” said a statement by the Taliban leadership, which calls itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The Taliban in the past denied reports of peace talks with the U.S., only to confirm them in recent months.

U.S. officials have confirmed Mr. Karzai’s remarks, saying at least one three-way negotiating session occurred in recent weeks.

Admitting negotiations with Kabul would be fraught will political risks for the insurgent leadership, possibly undermining the morale of Taliban fighters, and weakening the militants’ resolve amid coalition offensives.

The intensity of the conflict already declined dramatically in recent months, Afghan and coalition officials say, though it is unclear whether this drop is due to the spreading news about peace talks, unusually harsh winter weather, or a strategic decision by the Taliban to hold their fire as foreign forces withdraw.

Pakistan, which U.S. officials say provides shelter and support to the Taliban leadership, plays a crucial role in Afghanistan’s peace outreach.

Mr. Karzai’s relations with Pakistan neared a rupture point after the September assassination of former President Burhanuddin Rabbani, the peace negotiator, by purported Taliban peace emissaries. At the time, Afghan officials blamed the killing on Pakistan, something that Pakistani officials denied. Two suspects have since been arrested in Pakistan.

The White House wants to show progress on the reconciliation track before a May summit of North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders in Chicago. There, NATO leaders are expected to announce plans to shift to a train-and-assist mission in Afghanistan in 2013, giving Mr. Karzai’s security forces the lead role in combat operations before most U.S. and NATO troops pull out at the end of 2014.

Where Pakistan fits into tentative peace talks with the Taliban remains unclear. The U.S. has not kept Islamabad informed about developments in the peace process, Pakistan civilian and military leaders claim.

U.S. and Afghan officials say they are concerned Pakistan might try to undermine peace talks. In January 2010, Pakistan detained a senior Taliban leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. Afghan and U.S. officials claim Pakistan arrested him for contacting the U.S. and Mr. Karzai’s government without Pakistan’s knowledge, a claim denied by Pakistan.

Afghanistan has asked for Pakistan to transfer Mr. Baradar to Kabul, but this hasn’t happened so far. Pakistani officials deny they back the Taliban.

Pakistan will stay on the sidelines in the tentative peace process as long as the U.S. remains distrustful of Islamabad, said Imtiaz Gul, director of the Islamabad-based Center for Research and Security Studies.

“We’re not sure to what extent the U.S. wants Pakistan to play a role,” Mr. Gul said. “The Pakistani role at this moment seems very limited.”

Pakistan’s ability to play a meaningful part in talks has further been hampered by a deterioration in relations with U.S. after an American helicopter strike in November mistakenly killed 26 Pakistani soldiers along the Afghan border.

U.S. officials say they are still trying to hammer out an agreement with Taliban representatives on a sequence of confidence-building measures aimed at laying the ground for any future direct negotiations on ending the war.

In addition to the establishment of a political office for the Taliban in Qatar, the U.S. wants the Taliban to issue a statement distancing itself from international terrorism and to agree to stop fighting in certain areas of the country.

The U.S., in turn, would transfer of up to five Taliban militants held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Qatar. Key U.S. lawmakers have raised objections to the prospective prisoner transfers.

Officials have identified the five Guantanamo detainees who may be transferred to Qatar as Muhammad Fazl, a former senior Taliban defense official; two former local governors, Khairullah Khairkhwa and Noorullah Nori; former Taliban intelligence official Abdul Haq Wasiq; and top Taliban financier Muhammad Nabi.

Messrs. Haq Wasiq, Fazl and Nori were among the first 20 detainees who arrived at Guantanamo Bay 10 years ago, when the prison was opened on Jan. 11, 2002.

The U.S. has received assurances from Qatar that the five militants, if transferred, won’t be released by the government or handed over to the Taliban. But officials said the men could be freed later as part of a future Afghan-Taliban peace deal.

Filed under: Afghanistan, Democracy, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistani Taliban, Pakistanis, Peace, President Obama, Taliban, Tehrik-i-Taliban, terrorism, United States, US Army Tagged: Afghan-Taliban Peace, Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, Islamabad, Kabul, Leon Panetta, NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Pakistan, Qatar, Taliban, United States, Washington DC

For those who have not yet read Andrew Sullivan’s Newsweek piece on Obama, published this past week, take note: it should be required reading for all U.S. voters as the country continues its journey toward the 2012 presidential election. Self-identified as a conservative-minded independent, Sullivan takes on the liberal, conservative, and moderate critiques of Obama’s term in office with dexterity — slashing some of the most pervasive arguments from both parties and all sides as fallacious, overblown, and often even factually or internally inconsistent — and maintains that the President’s character, record, and promise remain “grossly underappreciated.” But his main point is this: Obama has been pragmatic from the start, never focused on making short-term gains for which he can immediately and loudly take credit, but instead taking a long view strategy that entails slow, deliberate, unprovocative persistence and makes the changes he achieves more durable.

The point of Sullivan’s piece is not to deify Barack Obama. It is to ground an assessment of the President’s work in reality, which he does quite well. And it can remind Cuba watchers (myself included) of the character and nature of the man we’re considering when we discuss Cuba policy and Executive capabilities and actions.

First, it can help us to remember and recognize the sheer number of challenges the President faced when he took office. The economy was swirling lower into recession, with employment tumbling and our financial system threatening to pull the country into a true depression without swift and decisive action by the Executive and Congress. The U.S. global image was tarnished by our record on torture and by our bloated military presence and arrogant rhetoric. Yet still, not long into his time in office and even as he focused largely on addressing these and other pressing issues, President Obama fulfilled the only concrete campaign promise he made with respect to Cuba policy: he granted Americans unrestricted rights to send money to and visit family in Cuba. Even this small step was met with criticism, and attempts have been made in Congress to roll this policy back. But Obama has held his ground — quietly but firmly — threatening executive veto in order to make sure that his policy remains.

Second, we can recall the number of actors involved in affecting policy, which include, of course, not only the President and his administration but also the legislative branch and nongovernmental actors like lobbying groups, Cuban-American constituencies, think tanks, and others. The Executive seldom acts alone to change policy except, as we have seen, in situations deemed (correctly or not) particularly urgent and crucial to national security. Whatever the merits of changing U.S. policy toward Cuba, it simply does not fall into this category. And he does not yet have Congressional consensus on Cuba.

Third, we are reminded that Obama was not elected as a liberal crusader, but as a pragmatic, unifying reformist. Cuba policy may be ripe for change, but should the President unilaterally decree a set of changes called for by Cuba watchers, think tanks and other nongovernmental actors, he would have to willfully ignore a Congress that has been determined to avoid such changes. This is not his style. Ultimately, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” came from the President working with top military and defense leaders, and they (including Admiral Mike Mullen) came forward and made the case for doing away with the policy. Had Obama acted unilaterally, the repeal would no doubt have taken more heat than it did, would have met with more resistance, and might not have been durable in the long run. We can expect to see the same with further change to U.S. policy toward Cuba, or any changes put in place will be at risk of immediate opposition, counter-attack, and retaliation or repeal. Remember: pragmatic, unifying reformist, not crusader.

And finally, we are reminded that for Washington, Cuba has always been a long game. The basic tenets of our current policy toward the island have been around for half a century without yielding any measurable “success”. Any movement in broad perception, understanding and opinions has been glacial, but we are, however slowly, moving as a population toward a different consensus than that under which current policy was designed. And as more Americans learn about and visit Cuba under the current people-to-people travel regulations, the consensus can be expected to grow.

All of this does not have to make us more patient about seeing additional changes in long-standing U.S. policy toward Cuba. But it could help us see the long view. And perhaps the President is on track.

This week Iranian President Ahmadinejad toured Nicaragua, Cuba, Ecuador and Venezuela in a push to expand Iran’s international relationships as well as to establish Iran in America’s backyard. With recent tensions being ramped up exponentially between the US and Iran, world focus on any actions made by Iran receives a fair amount of attention. There are many theories on how Iran can benefit from an extended relationship in Latin America, but the clear absence of a visit to Brazil on this trip reflects the limitations of a Latin America saddled with Iranian interests. After Turkey’s and Brazil’s attempt to deflate tensions in the region regarding Iran’s nuclear program nearly two years ago, a strong relationship with Latin America as a whole may not be in the cards for Mr. Ahmadinejad.

The absence of a visit to Brazil shows a clear move by Brazil to avoid tying itself further to Iran. There are reasons of economic ties to the US as well as the lack of benefits Brazil has in slowing its economy and relations with the rest of the world for the sake of Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Brazil as the world’s top ethanol producer also places Brazil at odds with Iran and its oil, especially since Brazil is a seller of oil itself and has no benefits linking itself to a foreign power that would likely enter into a hot conflict with many of Brazil’s future customers. A middle position allows Brazil to mediate and promote its exports globally as well as in the Middle East and Iran.

Some argue that Iran in Venezuela and Cuba is not so much of a move from Iran to pursue economic and political ties close to the United States, but is a failure of the last few administrations to take advantage of changes in those countries; recently a physically weak Chavez and the opening of the Cuban market. The United States’ lack of initiative in Latin America has allowed for an opening in America’s backyard and has created a signal to foreign commercial interests from China, Russia, Europe and Iran to come into the region and establish them in a region that was always considered a main source of commercial ties for the United States. Iran creating closer ties in the region goes beyond commercial interests as seen by many analysts on Latin America and Iran. Iran’s links to past attacks in the region as well as moves by the Iranian government to establish its military intelligence in Latin America may be a move to counterbalance US actions in the Middle East. While the actual abilities for Iran to strike the US from Latin America or hurt the US inside of the region may be limited, the presence of Iranian agents in America’s backyard may do its job in striking fear into American’s daily lives by inciting a new type of missile crisis into the minds of Americans.

While Latin America has welcomed Iran to some degree in the region, it should be noted that intentions to assault the United States or become part of the Axis powers in a war with Iran and the West is likely not in the cards for any country in Latin America. Latin American countries benefit little from a strong relationship with Iran and often try to maintain its economic ties while still being able to dent the United States’ reputation. While it is clear that historically the US has not been the best hegemony for many Latin American states, there is a limit to how far countries like Cuba and Venezuela will go in poking at the US for the sake of Iran. Regarding a US hegemony in the Middle East, critics of US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan often do not lodge the same criticisms with possible future actions taken against Iran, and blocking the Strait of Hormuz and 40% of the world’s oil exports is likely the line for many. With a strong and battered opposition in Iran’s massive youth population and Iran’s government balancing political legitimacy with internal challenges in its own government, a hot conflict with Iran may fracture its society and send its allies running from the fallout, possibly that of a nuclear conflict. Latin Americans will surely take care of themselves first and avoid tying themselves to conflicts in the Middle East that have no end and no solutions. It is up to the United States to create an ease of amicable ties beyond Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Colombia that will close the gap in Latin America.

By Carlos Harrison for The Huffington Post

It’s been a troubled – some might say, tragic – 10 years for the detention camps at the Guantánamo Naval Base in Cuba. And as they slouch into their 11th year on January 11, there’s no end in sight.

“We say to ourselves, in sort of gallows humor: Guantánamo will close when the last detainee there dies of natural causes,” Jeremy Varon, an organizer with Witness Against Torture, told the Huffington Post on Wednesday.

Franz Kafka himself would have been hard-pressed to concoct a more bewildering and brutal contradictory reality. Allegations over the years have included sexual humiliation, waterboarding, and the use of dogs to scare detainees. Released detainees reported being locked in in sensory deprivation cells, beaten repeatedly, and forced to race while wearing leg shackles. If they fell, they were punished.

If it sounds like Abu Ghraib, it should. The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee found that intelligence teams transported the “aggressive” interrogation techniques perfected at Guantánamo to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The link between Cuba and the war zones, the New York Times reported, was Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then the head of detention operations at Guantánamo. At his insistence, the Times wrote, the Defense Department sent training teams on 90-day tours in Iraq, showing the soldiers there the techniques utilized on the island. The timing, Amnesty International points out, happened to coincide with when the worst abuses occurred at Abu Ghraib.

Thanks to reports like those, the detention camps have become an international symbol of what democracy and justice are not. They’ve been plagued by suicide attempts by desperate detainees and condemned by the United Nations, human rights groups, even former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who called for the immediate closing of the camps in 2006.
“The value of holding prisoners there was unclear, but the price we were paying around the world for doing so was obvious,” Powell said.

The camps were created in 2002 as a deliberately “extraterritorial” place to extract information from captives in the “War on Terror.” By putting them at Guantanamo, the United States, meant to be beyond the jurisdiction of both the Geneva Conventions and U.S. courts.

That didn’t put them outside the range of public opinion. The camps sparked outrage on day one. Pictures flew around the world of shackled and handcuffed detainees on their knees on the ground with black hoods over their heads and mittens on their hands.

The indignation grew as the first 20 captives went into wire cages at Camp X-Ray, described by critics as “kennels.” Soon, though, the detainees were transferred to permanent cells, and Camp X-Ray was closed.

But the human rights complaints continued, even from some of America’s closest allies.
In 2006, speaking on BBC radio, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said:

“I am absolutely clear that the U.S. has no intention of maintaining a Gulag in Guantanamo Bay. They want to see the situation resolved and they would like it other than it is. However, that is the situation that they have.”

In all 779 detainees have been held in the camps. Eight have died there, including six suicides. One man died of colon cancer, another after an apparent heart attack.

And, in the 10 years since it opened, only six detainees have been convicted of war crimes.
The last 171 still there are caught at the conflicting conjunction where bureaucracy, politics, and military regulations collide – offering little chance, at least for the foreseeable future, of gaining their release.

Forty-six are classified as “indefinite detainees,” held without charges, but considered too dangerous to be released; 89 are eligible for release or transfer but in perpetual custody because there is no place to send them. Five more have been convicted of war crimes; and six face trial – perhaps this year – for the 9/11 attacks and the October 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing.
That makes Guantanamo, as Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald described it in a piece for Foreign Affairs, “arguably the most expensive prison camp on earth, with a staff of 1,850 U.S. troops and civilians managing a compound that contains 171 captives, at a cost of $800,000 a year per detainee.”

But even the budget conscious Congress resists closing the base. In fact, it has used its spending oversight powers to thwart the president’s efforts to do just that. It has used that authority to prevent the trial of detainees on U.S. soil and to block the purchase of a dedicated prison facility in Illinois to house transferred detainees.
And no one wants to risk having a released captive later become involved in an act of terrorism or insurgency, which happened with at least one-fourth of the 500 detainees set free under President George W. Bush.

So, the captives remain in Guantanamo. Until when no one knows.
As Marc Thiessen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told CNN:

“We have the right to continue to hold them as long as al Qaeda is at war with us.”

Having the right, though, doesn’t make it right, said Geneve Mantri, government relations director for national security, Amnesty International.

Speaking to The Huffington Post on Wednesday, he said the 89 cleared for release by both the Bush administration and a review ordered by President Obama, “represent little or no threat.”

“This has always been sold as a question of the worst of the worst and the reality is that a large number of the people that have been picked up, I hate to say it are in the insignificant and rather pathetically sad story category,” he said.

“There is a minority of people (in the camps) that no one doubts are truly dangerous. That minority of people should be placed in front of a US court. Because we have the most efficient system, the fastest and cheapest and best system for looking at all the evidence. You produce it all in a court of law. Have a real defense — an internationally recognized defense. And then put them away forever.”

Filed under: Afghanistan, Democracy, Freedoms, Hate Crime, homegrown terror, Middle East, Pakistan, Pakistani Taliban, President Obama, United States Tagged: Civil Rights, Constitutional Rights, Cuba, GITMO, Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay, Gulag, Human rights, NDAA, President Obama, United Nations

By Harry Pasha:

Borderline: North Korea from Emphas.is on Vimeo.

Tomas Van Houtryve, an award-winning documentary photographer, is creating a book of photographs made in the shadow of North Korea. Van Houtryve’s book, due out this year, has been a long-term, painstaking project. Writes philosopher Tzvetan Todorov in the book’s foreword:

Over the course of seven years, award-winning documentary photographer Tomas van Houtryve secured unprecedented access to North Korea, Cuba, China, Nepal, Vietnam, Laos and Moldova. He discovered a secretive world of revolutionaries, spies, opposition fighters and ordinary workers. His photographs explore the gulf between the high ideals of communism and its complex present day reality.

By Len Hart

In our lifetimes, the best and brightest have been snuffed before our very eyes by the cowardly, unseen, shadowy exercise of pure evil and rotten ambition. The most prominent victims are John F. Kennedy who was, at the time, President of the United States, Robert Kennedy, a former U.S. Attorney General and candidate for his party’s Presidential nomination, Dr,. Martin Luther Kr whose ‘dream’ while liberating to right thinking persons was, in fact, a gauntlet thrown down in front of those who dare to enslave us. Those benefiting most from JFKs murder are most certainly guilty of it. It’s a question of motive, method and opportunity. The American right wing had all three. An analysis of the motives reveal a pattern, a constituency supporting murder as a means of achieving ‘regime change’.

JFK tried to strip the power of the FED, abolish the Oil Depletion Allowance, and ‘smash the CIA into a thousand pieces’. No President since has dared piss off so many powerful and ruthless people.

JFK tried to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. The move would have by passed the Fed by restoring to the government the power and authority to issue currency. Executive Order 11110 gave the US government the ability to create its own money –backed by silver! It just might have put the FED out of business.

Some background and basic economics: to pay it’s bills, the US government borrows money from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Federal Reserve Notes are not backed up by anything. ‘Silver certificates’ issued under the authority of JFKs order would have been backed up by government owned silver. The government would no longer borrow from the FED to pay its obligations. It would have done so with ‘silver certificates’ issued by the government itself.

Like any commodity, Federal Reserve notes are subject to the laws of supply and demand. The demand for Federal Reserve notes might have collapsed altogether and the FED itself might have been forced out of business.

Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level. It would have would have made it possible for the government to repay its debt without having to borrow worthless ‘notes’ from the Fed and having to repay them later at interest.

Executive Order 11110 was never repealed. One wonders why no other President ever bothered to utilize it. Could it have had anything to do with the fact that JFKs order made him very, very unpopular throughout the banking establishment? In fact, JFK was brutally murdered in Dallas just five months after issuing the order. No more silver certificates were issued. The FED’s gravy train was still intact.

The ‘scheme’ preferred by the Fed allows the Fed to create money which it loans to the government at interest. The private Federal Reserve owners don’t have a trillion dollars to lend the Government, nor do they need it. All they do is create it, via a bookkeeping entry, and write a check to the U.S. Government as the loan in exchange for the U.S. Bonds. The U.S. Government banks at the Federal Reserve Bank so cashing this check is very easy.

It’s a scheme, possibly a scam. Certainly –no hard currency is exchanged. Government agents are never seen walking out of the FED offices –under armed guard –carrying bullion, coins, or, indeed, anything of real value. The Fed makes an ‘entry’ in the books! The government makes an entry in its books! And you thought you had to work hard to make money!

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
–Thomas Jefferson

JFK Threatened to Repeal the ‘Oil Depletion Allowance’!

It’s always been about the ‘price of oil’ at the wellhead and the profits that accrue to ‘big oil’! Having grown up in Texas, I can vouch for the following very short, illustrative history: "Ross Sterling, the former owner of Humble Oil, was elected governor of Texas and took office on 20th January, 1931. The Texas Railroad Commission, under the control of the large oil producers, attempted to limit the production of oil (prorationing) in the new fields of East Texas. On 31st July, 1931, the federal court in Houston sided with a group of independent oil producers and ruled that the Texas Railroad Commission had no right to impose prorationing."

Large oil companies in Texas such as Humble Oil were in favour of prorationing and Sterling came under great pressure to intervene. On 16th August, 1931, Sterling declared martial law in Rusk, Upshur, Gregg and Smith counties. In his proclamation Sterling declared that the independent oil producers in these counties were "in a state of insurrection" and that the "reckless and illegal exploitation of (oil) must be stopped until such time as the said resources may be properly conserved and developed under the protection of the civil authorities".
Sterling now ordered the commander of the Texas National Guard, Jacob F. Wolters, to "without delay shut down each and every producing crude oil well and/or producing well of natural gas". Wolters who was the chief lobbyist of several major oil companies in Texas, readily agreed to this action. Wolters used more than a thousand troops to make sure that the oil wells in East Texas ceased production. The Texas Railroad Commission was now in firm control of the world’s most prolific oil fields. It now controlled the supply of the oil in the United States. As a result, the price of oil began to increase." –Texas Oil Industry and the Assassination of JFK

Humble later became "Exxon". It is not only prices but profits. Big oil was literally guaranteed huge profits by another bit of accounting legerdemain: the oil depletion allowance. the ‘oil depletion allowance’ is like depreciation but more abstract. Depreciation is often visible. Machines wear out, the loss of utility is real. From an accounting standpoint, the ‘oil depletion allowance’ is just a whopping write off, literally a pay off for the oil you will not find later! Now –how would like to be paid now for the money you won’t make later when the business you’re in now is no longer profitable?

Sweet deal, perhaps even better than the ‘sweet deal’ the FED got. I can think of no other industry that has managed to so effectively shake down the government. I can think of few businesses in which you are paid upfront the money you will not make at some point in the future.

By 1962, JFK sealed his fate. He decided to take on the Texas oil industry. He persuaded Congress to ‘remove the distinction between repatriated profits and profits reinvested abroad’. The law applied to all industries but seemed to affect the oil industry particularly. Texas oil fat cats watched earnings from foreign investments fall by one half –or from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.

As President, LBJ, abandoned plans to abolish the oil industry’s sacred cow, the cow it regularly milked. The oil depletion allowance was not disallowed until the Presidency of Jimmy Carter who is still reviled in Texas. One would never suspect that Carter is among the TOP Presidents in terms of economic performance. At that, Carter is among the fortunate; it is only his ‘record’ that has been assassinated.

JFK Threatend to ‘smash the CIA into a thousand pieces’

We know that the CIA had conspired with ‘cuban exiles’ in Florida to assist in the invasion of Cuba. Both entities acted without authorization from the government, without a declaration of war from Congress which alone has the power to declare war –or so says that ‘goddamned piece of paper’, the US constitution.

Certainly, because of Cuba, the CIA was more motivated to murder JFK than was Lee Harvey Oswald. The CIA saw Kennedy as a threat to "national security" and, from the CIA/Cuban exile perspective, he proved it when he refused to order air support during the Bay of Pigs invasion. The axis of CIA/Cuban exiles never forgave JFK this ‘act of betrayal’.

It is at this time in our history that the name George Bush comes up. It was in 1959 –the year that Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba–that George Bush set up Zapata Offshore in a Houston headquarters.

George must have been a frequent visitor to New Orleans. Because of his family’s estate on Jupiter Island, he would also have been a frequent visitor to the Hobe Sound area. And then, there were Zapata Offshore drilling operations in the Florida Strait. On all of these activities, the official "red Studebaker" biographical material and the Zapata Offshore annual reports are extremely cryptic.
…

According to Joseph McBride of The Nation, "a source with close connections to the intelligence community confirms that Bush started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961, using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities." 1 By the time of the Kennedy assassination, we have an official FBI document which refers to "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency," and despite official disclaimers there is every reason to think that this is indeed the man in the White House today. The mystery of George Bush as a possible covert operator hinges on four points, each one of which represents one of the great political and espionage scandals of postwar American history. These four cardinal points are:

The abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, launched on April 16-17, 1961, prepared with the assistance of the CIA’s "Miami Station" (also known under the code name JM/WAVE). After the failure of the amphibious landings of Brigade 2506, Miami station, under the leadership of Theodore Shackley, became the focus for Operation Mongoose, a series of covert operations directed against Castro, Cuba, and possibly other targets.

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and the coverup of those responsible for this crime. The Watergate scandal, beginning with an April, 1971 visit to Miami, Florida by E. Howard Hunt on the tenth anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion to recruit operatives for the White House Special Investigations Unit (the "Plumbers" and later Watergate burglars) from among Cuban-American Bay of Pigs veterans.
The Iran-contra affair, which became a public scandal during October-November 1986, several of whose central figures, such as Felix Rodriguez, were also veterans of the Bay of Pigs.

George Bush’s role in both Watergate and the October surprise/Iran-contra complex will be treated in detail at later points in this book. Right now it is important to see that thirty years of covert operations, in many respects, form a single continuous whole. This is especially true in regard to the dramatis personae. Georgie Anne Geyer points to the obvious in a recent book: "…an entire new Cuban cadre now emerged from the Bay of Pigs.

The names Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Rolando Martinez, Felix Rodriguez and Eugenio Martinez would, in the next quarter century, pop up, often decisively, over and over again in the most dangerous American foreign policy crises.

There were Cubans flying missions for the CIA in the Congo and even for the Portuguese in Africa; Cubans were the burglars of Watergate; Cubans played key roles in Nicaragua, in Irangate, in the American move into the Persian Gulf." 2 Felix Rodriguez tells us that he was infiltrated into Cuba with the other members of the "Grey Team" in conjunction with the Bay of Pigs landings; this is the same man we will find directing the contra supply effort in central American during the 1980′s, working under the direct supervision of Don Gregg and George Bush. 3 Theodore Shackley, the JM/WAVE station chief, will later show up in Bush’s 1979-80 presidential campaign.
…
This FBI document identifying George Bush as a CIA agent in November, 1963 was first published by Joseph McBride in The Nation in July, 1988, just before Bush received the Republican nomination for president. McBride’s source observed: "I know [Bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination. There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA."
–Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography — by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin, CHAPTER VIII-b – THE BAY OF PIGS AND THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION

I recently quoted Albert Speer’s summation of the Third Reich which, for so long, he served admirably with the best fascist architecture Reichsmarks could buy! Speer summed up the Third Reich. He said that it had been built upon hollow, meaningless platitudes. The same can be said of the GOP in America: "George Bush’s inaugural address of January 21, 1989, was on the whole an eminently colorless and forgettable oration. The speech was for the most part a rehash of the tired demagogy of Bush’s election campaign, with the ritual references to "a thousand points of light" and the hollow pledge that when it came to the drug inundation which Bush had supposedly been fighting for most of the decade…
Bush’s performance during the Panama crisis was especially ominous because of the president’s clearly emerging mental imbalance. Several outbursts during the Noriega press conferences had resembled genuine public fits. Racist and sexual obsessions were reaching critical mass in Bush’s subconscious. These gross phenomena did not receive the attention they would have merited from journalists, television commentators, and pundits, who rather preferred studiously to ignore them. It was during these waning days of 1989 that Bush’s mental disintegration became unmistakeable, foreshadowing the greater furors yet to come." — Chapter XXIII, The End of History

How will we remember the ‘presidency’ since the murder of JFK? I will remember these years for what was not accomplished because JFK was murdered –the dreams that are still unfulfilled, the hopes that were dashed! I will remember an era of GOP dominance distinguished by its celebration of mediocrity. I will remember a GOP that rewarded crookery and made of evil a banality. It took a horrible war and millions of deaths to crush the Third Reich! What will it take to crush the oppressive GOP dominion of some fifty years? Please tell me! We have work to do.

As Reported By Reuters

President Barack Obama signed a sweeping US defense funding bill on Saturday which includes new sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran’s central bank, and curtailing up to $850 million in aid to Pakistan. The bill was signed despite concerns about sections that expand the US military’s authority over terrorism suspects and limit his powers in foreign affairs.

The massive defense bill Congress passed on earlier in December freezes 60 per cent of the $850 million aid, or $510 million, until the US defense secretary provides lawmakers with assurances that Pakistan is working to counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs). US lawmakers say that many Afghan bombs that kill US troops are made with fertilizer smuggled by militants across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” Obama said in a statement, citing limits on transferring detainees from the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and requirements he notify Congress before sharing some defense missile information with Russia as problematic.

The bill, approved by Congress last week after its language was revised, aims with its Iran sanctions to reduce Tehran’s oil revenues but gives the US president powers to waive penalties as required. Senior US officials said Washington was engaging with its foreign partners to ensure the sanctions can work without harming global energy markets, and stressed the US strategy for engaging with Iran was unchanged by the bill.

The bill may also prove problematic for Pakistan in ways other than providing assurances of concrete steps to counter the manufacture of IEDs. The sanctions placed on dealing with Iran’s central banks may weigh on Pakistan’s plans for the Iran-Pakistan pipeline which aims to provide gas to Pakistan.

Pakistan needs the gas supplies from Iran to augment its own gas reserves which have been shrinking fast, leading to widespread gas shortages affecting its industry and daily life.

Filed under: Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistanis, President Obama, United States, US Army, US-Pakistan Relations Tagged: Afghanistan, Iran, NATO, Pakistan, Pakistan Aid, Pakistanis for Peace, President Obama, US Aid, US Pakistan Relations

This past weekend we saw the commemoration of the 63rd anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, via the celebration of International Human Rights Day on Saturday.  While the day was established to be a celebration of our freedoms, many continue to live without their basic rights.  Those who are hit hardest by this absence are 86% of the world’s children living in developing nations. Many of these children lack access to primary education, and are placed in situations of forced labor, sexual abuse, and/or gender inequality. A third of all children in the developing world have had some level of malnutrition by the age of five, and have little or no access to adequate healthcare.  Sadly, while we celebrated International Human Rights Day millions of children continue to live in dire conditions.

In the month leading up to International Human Rights Day, UN agencies tackled the ongoing issues by reported gaps in funding and readdressing focus in the for global equality.  The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) published its annual Human Development Index last month; the report gave a heartening outlook for millions of people in some of the world’s poorest nations.  The top scorers in the UNDP’s 2011 ranking were Norway, Australia and the Netherlands. The United States ranked fourth, while Burundi, Niger and Congo make up the bottom three countries on the list.

According to a summary of the report by the UNDP:

“Many disadvantaged people carry a double burden of deprivation. They are more vulnerable to the wider effects of environmental degradation, because of more severe stresses and fewer coping tools. They must also deal with threats to their immediate environment from indoor air pollution, dirty water and unimproved sanitation. Forecasts suggest that continuing failure to reduce the grave environmental risks and deepening social inequalities threatens to slow decades of sustained progress by the world’s poor majority—and even to reverse the global convergence in human development.”

Much of this unequal burden has been swept under the rug; however, programs to address some of these imbalances are beginning to take foot, such as cook stove initiatives (“pinpointed as a low cost or cost-saving measure, which would represent close to 25 percent of the total climate benefit. A switch to more efficient cook-stoves would save households and communities the time and money, usually spent over the collection and purchase of firewood and other sources of fuel.” United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)) and family planning.

This year the report’s Gender Inequality Index (GII) was updated to include 145 countries, which highlighted “how reproductive health constraints contribute to gender inequality.” The theme was heavily argued at the International Family Planing Conference (IFPC), as I wrote in the post Leaders Meet to Put Family Planning on the Global Agenda. The 2011 Human Development Index noted that there was a direct connection to family planing and the environment, which both continue to strain the lives of families in developing nations.  The Index stated that:

“In countries where effective control of reproduction is universal, women have fewer children, with attendant gains for maternal and child health and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.  For instance, in Cuba, Mauritius, Thailand and Tunisia, where reproductive healthcare and contraceptives are readily available, fertility rates are below two births per woman. But substantial unmet need persists worldwide, and evidence suggests that if all women could exercise reproductive choice, population growth would slow enough to bring greenhouse gas emissions below current levels.”

According to the Index, meeting the needs set for family planning by 2050 would lower the world’s carbon emissions by an estimated 17 percent.

As we prepare for a new year, it is clear the the priorities that should take precedent on the 2012 agenda must include family planning and local environmental changes.

Caracas last week welcomed all leaders from across Latin America in order to establish CELAC, a new regional organisation that seeks to create an OAS without a United States (or Canada!) and create a forum for one voice for Latin America. CELAC, while attended by all Latin American countries, is hosted and promoted by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Despite differing perspectives between countries in the region, CELAC aims to take advantage of Latin America’s recent economic successes and deepening influence in global affairs, and do so without the influence of the United States in developing regional affairs internally and abroad.

CELAC might assist leftists in Latin America to pull the region away from the United States and assist independent nations in Latin America to develop relations apart from US economic policy and trade. The problem with CELAC is that the overlap with the OAS and the differing interests of countries in the region might turn CELAC into another forum that loses its influence over a decade. The history of regional cooperation in Latin America always peaks at the main issue that not all states in the region agree with each other, and some are currently in a cold peace at best. Considering the cold peace between Colombia and Venezuela, Colombian President Santos attended the CELAC meeting, but maintains his popularity due to his policy to challenge FARC and Chavez’s support for militants within Colombia. Considering the current growth between Argentina and Brazil with China, President Kirchner and President Rousseff left on the second day of the conference as ties with China and the US are key components of growth for both economies and takes priority over regional cooperation on many issues. It should be noted that China did congratulate CELAC on its establishment, as they are aware that its trading partners are a part of a forum that would send trade from the US towards China. Mexico also supported the creation of CELAC, but maintains extremely strong ties with the United States with millions of its citizens living abroad still being part of the dialogue of Latin American culture and economics in the Americas. CELAC, while erasing the US from its forum, did go further to include Cuba in the CELAC forum. There could positive developments beyond a victory for leftists in the region, as by allowing an opening Cuba to develop in a forum that involves the entire region enables all of Latin America to smooth Cuba’s opening and include rights for its citizens in future discussions. While Cuba may not develop as Syria has done, the effect of a Latin America Arab League in CELAC might produce positive results.

CELAC is not the first regional forum to occur in Latin America, but may be the next one to fail as the majority of regional agreements tend to meet their end within a decade. The latest agreements to fail have been the FTAA from 2001 and it can be argued that MERCOSUR, while not defunct, has little potential for expansion and lacks attention from its members since Argentina’s economic problems in 2001. Beyond those two agreements, there are lists from past decades of regional agreements and treaties that have never met their objectives, and CELAC as an Americanless OAS might displace the OAS or disappear from the scene. Two elements come into play as well, as individual countries like Brazil can make a large impact on their own within the region and globally without a CELAC or OAS. As well, the lack of a United States that has done little to present itself in Latin America in almost a decade has little effect in the region with or without the OAS. The OAS would do well to include Cuba and include offices in Brazil in order to displace CELAC, but for individual countries it makes little difference but to create further forums for discussion between very individualistic nations. Despite this, it never hurts to speak face to face on more occasions and CELAC might be of interest over the next few years.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has changed its ambassadors in 14 important countries and three more ambassadors have been asked to return to headquarters after relinquishing their assignment so that they are also subsequently replaced with new envoys.

It is the biggest shuffle in the ambassadors/high commissioners in the recent history of the Foreign Office. Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani has approved the appointment of the new envoys and a formal announcement pertaining to the new postings and transfers would be made towards the end of the week. Pakistan will have new ambassadors in Russia, Holland, Brazil, Germany, Egypt, Algeria, Cuba, Nepal, Kenya, Yemen, Tunisia, Chile and Serbia. In the meanwhile, Prime Minister Gilani has sent for country’s envoys posted in about 15 significant capitals to discuss the new dimensions of the foreign policy in the wake of a row between Islamabad and Washington after acts of aggression by the United States against Paksistan.

Highly placed diplomatic sources told The News that Islamabad and some noteworthy capitals will witness hectic diplomatic activities in a couple of weeks against the backdrop of Pakistan’s decision to bring about a major shift in its ties with some important capitals. Pakistan’s ambassadors/high commissioners in China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, US, India, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Afghanistan, United Nations, Germany, Belgium, Japan, Indonesia and Iran are expected to attend the ambassadors conference being organized in a week. Some retired diplomats including former foreign secretaries and ambassadors/high commissioners are also being consulted in the process. The government is determined to ask the United States to evolve ‘fresh terms of engagements’ for future ties and the consultations are part of Pakistan’s preparations of the same before it enters into serious dialogue in the light of the findings of the parliament in this regard.

Referring to the reshuffle in the appointments of the ambassadors, the sources said that Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir will replace Pakistan’s high commissioner in India Shahid Malik who is completing his extended tenure in New Delhi in the second quarter of next year. The change could be brought in place before the expiry of the contractual period of the high commissioner. The prime minister has decided that no high commissioner/ambassador who is already serving for a contractual period would be given further extension. Pakistan will designate new ambassador in Moscow next month as incumbent Khalid Khattak is attaining the superannuation age in March/April same year. Additional Foreign Secretary for Europe and spokesman of the Foreign Office Abdul Basit Khan has been appointed ambassador in Germany to replace Shahid Kamal who is retiring next month. Manzoor ul Haq Director General Middle East desk (DGME) has been made ambassador for Egypt where Ms Seema Naqvi is returning after completion of her tenure. Arshad Saood Khosa has been appointed ambassador for Brazil vice Alamgir Khan Babar who has already returned to headquarters and taken over the slot of Additional Secretary for Americas, Afghanistan and Central Asia. Irfan Yusuf Shami Director General Disarmament (DG-Disarmnt-P) has been posted ambassador in Yemen in place of Khawja Alqama who has already returned to the country after completion of his contractual period. He is a renowned intellectual and educationist and he has been offered some important responsibility back in the country. Khalid Durrani Director General Policy Planning (DGPP) has been made ambassador for Algeria vice Muhammad Aslam who is reaching the age of retirement next month. Additional Secretary for Policy Planning (ASPP) Mushtaq Ali Shah has become ambassador for Tunisia to replace an artist Athar Mahmood who has also reached retirement age. Nasarullah Khan Director General Europe desk has been appointed ambassador for Nepal on a slot rendered vacant after relinquishing by Syed Ibrar Hussian who has become director general Afghanistan back in Islamabad. Ghulam Dastgir will become high commissioner in Kenya as Masroor Ahmad Junejo has returned to headquarters and he has been appointed Additional Foreign Secretary for Middle East (ASME) here. Pakistan’s ambassador in Netherland Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhary, ambassador in Chile Burhanul Islam and envoy in Serbia Nawaz Chaudhary will be relinquishing their respective assignment next month to come back to Islamabad. Nawaz Chaudhry will be retiring next month and new ambassadors for the three capitals would be announced accordingly. They have been communicated by the headquarters to leave their assigned capitals by mid January, the sources said.

Source: The News

I’ve had my head in some IR/conflict datasets recently and came across something interesting (that I’m sure has been reported elsewhere but is news to me).

According to COW, China is the most powerful country in the world.

Let me explain that statement. The Correlates of War database – affectionately known as COW data – is one of the foremost sources of data on interstate and intrastate conflict, as well as a bunch of other stuff like alliances and geography. One of its datasets (available for free download) is the National Material Capabilities dataset.

The NMC dataset goes back almost 200 years, all the way to 1815, and essentially ranks countries in terms of hard power, or material capabilities. It essentially aggregates (a) a state’s population, (b) its urban population, (c) iron and steel production, (d) energy consumption, (e) total number of military personnel, and (f) total expenditure on defense, and comes up with a composite CINC score.

These measures essentially capture the big-picture capabilities of a state if it is to fight a war. As the researchers in charge of the dataset put it, “The project selected demographic, industrial, and military indicators as the most effective measures of a nation’s material capabilities. These three indicators reflect the breadth and depth of the resources that a nation could bring to bear in instances of militarized disputes.” One way to think about various CINC scores is that they are indicators of the likelihood of success in a land war against another state. Just indicators, mind, not predictors.

Yes, these measures are a bit crude, and yes, all the cool kids today are using the PRIO conflict data, and yes, it’s a bit strange that a dataset measuring power doesn’t include a measure for nuclear weapons capacity. But the NMC data do provide a pretty good sense of various countries’ trajectories over time.

Anyway, to get to the point, according the NMC dataset, China now has the highest CINC score in the world. Not just that: China has evidently been more powerful than the U.S. for 15 years. I had no idea this was true. I made a simple graph of the two states’ CINC scores since 1900 and this is what it looks like:

Source data: Correlates of War project

At the end of the day, this doesn’t really mean anything. For one thing, it completely ignores – as I mentioned earlier – the disjunct between the two states’ nuclear forces. According to a widely cited article in International Security by Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, the U.S. actually possesses first-strike capability against the Chinese arsenal.

For another, this snapshot picture completely ignores the actual security environment the two states occupy: the U.S. is surrounded by friends (Canada), middling or weak powers (Mexico, Cuba), and two giant oceans. China, on the other hand, has three fairly powerful states right on its borders — Japan, Russia, India — all of which have checkered relations with it in the past, and at least two of which will grow as a power in the next two decades. China may well be “stronger” than the U.S. but it needs to be, given the neighborhood it lives in.

Still interesting to observe though, at least for me.