Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Indian Authorities Step Up Security, Blame Islamic Militants for Saturday’s Blasts
By Anjana Pasricha
New Delhi
26 August 2007

In India, authorities are pointing to the involvement of Islamic militant groups for deadly bombings that have killed at least 42 people and injured more than 60 in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad. Anjana Pasricha reports from New Delhi, security has been stepped up in Hyderabad, a well-known information technology hub.

The federal government rushed paramilitary troops and bomb detection equipment to Hyderabad a day after the explosions ripped through a roadside stall and an amusement park.

The extra troops deployed as police said they found 19 unexploded bombs in the city, which is capital of Andhra Pradesh state.

Authorities say the unexploded devices, fitted with timers, were planted at public places such as cinema houses and bus stops.

As police launched a search for those responsible for the attacks, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, pointed the finger at Islamic militant groups based in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

He said information suggests that terrorist organizations based in those neighboring countries were not only responsible for Saturday’s deadly bombings, but also for a previous bomb attack in a city mosque that killed 11 people.

“As things stand today, available information with us points out to that not only this, the earlier Mecca Masjid bomb blast also, the available indications as of today point out to the organizations, to the terrorist organizations of Bangladesh and Pakistan,” said Rajasekhara Reddy.

The Chief Minister declined to give more detail.

India has blamed Islamic militant groups based in Pakistan, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, for attacks in New Delhi and Mumbai in recent years. Security experts say these groups use local Muslims to carry out the attacks.

Meanwhile, the city is trying to cope with the aftermath of the bombings. Friends and relatives have crowded hospitals where the injured are being treated and where efforts are being made to establish the identity of the victims.

Police say several people have been detained for questioning in the city, where I.T. companies such as Microsoft have large research centers.

By Heda Bayron
Hong Kong
17 August 2007

Bayron report - Download (MP3) 560K audio clip
Listen to Bayron report audio clip

The global financial turmoil continues, with another bruising trading day in Asia. Analysts say investors are worried the credit crisis in the United States will slow down the economy and hurt Asian exporters. VOA’s Heda Bayron reports from Hong Kong.

The Japanese stock market reeled from another day of heavy selling Friday. The Nikkei 225 index plunged 5.4 percent to close at 15,273 - its lowest level in a year.

There was no let-up to this week’s selling across Asia. South Korea’s KOSPI fell three percent to 1,638. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng fell as much as five percent before recovering somewhat and closing down almost 1.4 percent. China’s Shanghai Composite index ended 2.28 percent lower at 4,656.

Analysts say investors fear the U.S. sub-prime loan crisis could trigger a slow down in the U.S. economy, which could ultimately hurt Asian exporters.

Japanese exporters such as Honda, Canon and Toyota saw shares drop sharply Friday.

Yoshimasa Maruyama is an economist at investment bank BNP Paribas in Tokyo.

“The Japanese economy is depending on the U.S. economy so today the Japanese market was worried about U.S. consumer spending will go down because of the sub-prime problem and slow down the U.S. economy,” Maruyama said.

Adding to Japan’s woes, the yen reached a 14-month high against the dollar, making Japanese exports more expensive.

Over the past several years, many U.S. finance companies issued mortgages to people with poor credit histories. As U.S. interest rates have risen, many of those borrowers have defaulted, and some lenders have gone bankrupt, creating a credit problem in the United States.

Many investors are selling their shares because they fear the problem will spread to other companies and make it hard for businesses to borrow cash for their operations.

The crisis has triggered global stock market volatility in the past two weeks. Worries of a credit squeeze have prompted central banks in the U.S., Europe, Australia and Japan to inject billions of dollars into the money markets to raise liquidity and market confidence. On Friday, the Bank of Japan injected $10.5 billion into the system.

By Gary Thomas
Washington
14 August 2007

Watch US India Nuclear report / Windows Broadband - download video clip
Watch US India Nuclear report / Windows Broadband video clip
Watch US India Nuclear report / Windows Dialup - download video clip
Watch US India Nuclear report / Windows Dialup video clip

The United States has pledged to provide India with nuclear technology and fuel under a just-concluded agreement. However, the final deal must still be ratified by the two nation’s legislatures, and approved by the consortium governing the international nuclear trade. As VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, some controversy still clings to the U.S.-India nuclear deal.

India has been a member of the nuclear club for more than 30 years after first conducting a test it called a “peaceful nuclear explosion.” That prompted the U.S. and Canada to cut any nuclear cooperation with India and, say many analysts, sparked creation of international institutions and pacts to halt nuclear proliferation.

But now the U.S. and India have concluded a deal under which India will get U.S. nuclear fuel and technology, even though India has not renounced nuclear testing and, like its nuclear neighbor and archrival Pakistan, still refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Gary Samore was senior director for Non-Proliferation and Export Controls at the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. He says China’s growing power was a key factor in the decision to grant India special treatment in nuclear help. “The president in particular was persuaded that India would work with the United States to contain and balance the rising power of China if an exception was made.”

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center, says the administration concern about Indo-Iranian military cooperation was also a factor in the deal.

“Now it’s one thing for India to have diplomatic relations. Lots of countries have that. But formal military-to-military ties with working groups and the like — I don’t know of any other country that does, not even Russia. I mean, they sell them things, but they don’t sit around figuring out how to do naval exercises with a foreign navy.”

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns plays down stories about Indian and Iranian cooperation.

“Now, I know there is some connection between India and Iran militarily. Our advice, consistent with the Security Council sanctions, would be to diminish a country’s military relationship with Iran. But I’m not sure, as an objective observer, I would say that there’s a burgeoning relationship.”

But Sokolski says the Indo-Iranian military cooperation could be a key stumbling block in getting final Congressional approval for the pact. “Well, one way to deal with that is to say, ‘Okay, we approve the deal, we’re ready to go, but one condition: you’ve got to give us an answer that we like, you’ve got to renunciate these ties with regard to the formal military-to-military connections.’ I don’t know if Congress will do that. There are some who want to. And we’ll see what happens.”

The deal must also be approved by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the international body that governs the nuclear technology trade. Gary Samore says that in the end China will reluctantly go along with the agreement. “Even China, I think, wants to have a good relationship with India, and recognizes that if it blocks consensus in the Nuclear Suppliers Group to allow India to benefit from this agreement, Delhi will be very, very angry, and that will damage bilateral relations between India and China. So I think the N.S.G. will go along, even though some countries may try to delay a decision a bit longer than the Bush administration hopes.”

However, Henry Sokolski says, Beijing may try to wring concessions out of Washington in return for signing off on the U.S.-Indian deal.

crossposted at:

Reject the UN

Screw the UN

.

In spite of all the efforts of those not directly involved in the war in Iraq to facilitate a failure by aiding the enemy or favoring surrender, their has been much positive news presented in recent weeks. The antiwar, peacenik, surrender at any cost crowd may be in for a rude awakening as a result of the incredible commitment of the United States military.

That is why news of possible re-involvement of the United Nations in Iraq is a bit troubling. While those opposed to victory in Iraq will attribute UN member opposition to military force in Iraq to the flawed intel and other mistakes leading up to the war, that would be putting the horse in front of the cart. The opposition was for different reasons and the intel flaws were not determined or presented until after the war began. The reasons for the opposition had more to do with arrangements with Saddam Hussein by those expressing opposition to enforcing UN resolutions. The primary reason for opposition presented by the left in the US had little to do with any antiwar philosophy. That excuse was used by liberal politicians to inflame the antiwar segment of the public to cover the failures of the Clinton Administration. Had Clinton successfully addressed the Saddam Hussein problem during his Administration, the problem would not have been left for President Bush.

News reports indicate President Bush and Prime Minister Brown are in favor of this new UN involvement. Some sources report there are clerics and others associated with various groups in Iraq who prefer discussion with the UN rather than with American or British leaders or representatives. Perhaps that preference is based on insistence from the United States, Britain and others that the new Iraqi government is dragging its feet in forging solutions among its members. The recent defections from the government and its members’ summer vacation are examples of a complacent attitude.

Which brings this discussion to the conclusion to be drawn in this post. There may be some truth in all the talk of a need for a political solution in Iraq. But not for the reasons often given. Just as Democrats have conceded a victory in Iraq would be a problem for them, the same may be true of members of the new Iraqi government as well as previous opposition from members of the UN.

The trade, economic or financial scams initiated by Saddam Hussein with certain UN member countries was the real motive behind opposition to US enforcement of UN resolutions. The Democratic party’s political agenda was the real motive behind opposing the war in Iraq. And the failure of the new Iraqi government to solve their problems in a timely manner can be explained by the selfish motives of members who stand to gain by prolonging sectarian violence.

If the continued success of current military operations in Iraq provide enough positive news in September to thwart efforts of the contrived opposition, victory in the Iraq war may be at hand. But the question remains whether current plans for UN intervention will jeopardize the current success. Members of the Iraqi government who prefer UN intervention may only see it as a way of prolonging the conflict. While the real reason the US and Britain express support for the UN may in fact be a concession. T(hat offering may develop into an Achilles heel for victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(SOURCES)

UN Security Council to vote on Iraq mission
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council was expected to vote on Friday on a resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq, diplomats said.

U.N. council to vote on Iraq resolution
By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP
UNITED NATIONS - U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said a resolution that would expand the U.N. mandate in Iraq will internationalize the effort to assist Iraqis in overcoming their internal differences and bringing neighboring countries together to help the country.

U.N. to have expanded political role in Iraq
By Patrick Worsnip
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations will see its role in Iraq expanded to include seeking reconciliation between warring factions and dialogue with neighboring countries under a Security Council resolution planned for Friday.

Blue Dogs barking
For the first time during 110th Congress, the Blue Dog Coalition — a 47-member grouping of self-described moderate and conservative Democrats — defied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership on a critical national security issue: Saturday night’s vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), where 41 dissident Democrats, nearly all of them Blue Dogs, provided the margin of victory for President Bush on the issue of terrorist surveillance.

Clyburn: Petraeus Report May Split Dems
On its website, the Washington Post reports House Majority Whip James Clyburn said “a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq” by Gen. David Petraeus “likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.” Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, “said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting [their] next steps.” Clyburn noted that Petraeus “carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats,” and “without their support…Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.”

Split in anti-war left
By Manu Raju
August 08, 2007
Congress’s failure to secure a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq has split anti-war activists on the tactical question of whether to attack Democrats, who now control Capitol Hill.

The split has also underlined accusations among some activists that MoveOn has abandoned its credentials as an issue-based advocacy group and now instead provides cover for Democratic Party leaders.

Opinion: The Turn
William Kristol Mon Aug 6, 11:13 AM ET
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 012, Issue 45 - 8/13/2007 - Hot July brings cooling showers, / Apricots and gillyflowers, as Sara Coleridge’s doggerel has it. But for the American antiwar movement, this July brought only a cold drizzle, wilted blossoms, and bitter fruit.

For the Iraq war’s opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military analysts–Democrats, no less!–reporting that the situation on the ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable..

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Gone Hollywood, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Screw the UN
Reject the UN
Conservative Thoughts
.

Ban Ki Moon, the current Secretary General of the UN who follows Kofi Annan in that role has presented both contrast and similarities to his predecessor. At face value, his suggestion that all countries should be treated equally with regard to human rights policies is fair and should be an obvious conclusion to draw for reasonable people. If the Islamic Council had not criticized him for the remarks with accusations of taking sides, this would have been just another press item from the United Nations. Without the noise from the Islamic Council, Moon’s remarks would have resembled the style of Annan by overstating the obvious. Moon’s subtle insinuation was detected by this story’s antagonists.

The excerpt and video below provide a dramatic presentation of the situation and further explain what most already know. Some of the nations in the UN are deflecting attention from their abusive policies by pointing their fingers at Israel as the sole target of a scheme to shift guilt.

UN Watch Briefing
Analysis and Commentary from UN Watch in Geneva
July 11, 2007 — Issue 163
New Video: UN Human Rights Council Members—In Their Own Words

At its recent June 2007 session, the UN Human Rights Council concluded its lengthy reform process by voting, first, to drop Belarus and Cuba from its blacklist. New restrictions were imposed on the independent experts who report on country violations. The ability to introduce resolutions that name abusers was curbed. And Israel was singled out for permanent indictment—subjected to the council’s sole agenda item on a specific country, and to the sole investigation that examines only one side, presumes guilt in advance, and is immune from review.

The Human Rights Council of the United Nations has been under fire since its inception. This year is no different. The report below is from the UN’s own documents and is a brief insight to another flawed initiative from an organization in what and how are they united? Can the world really afford to continue these sham activities? What can this sort of behavior ever solve? There are essentially rhetorical questions.

Fourteen nations elected to serve on UN Human Rights Council
17 May 2007 – Fourteen countries have been elected to serve on the United Nations Human Rights Council after two rounds of balloting among Member States today at UN Headquarters in New York.

Angola, Bolivia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Qatar, Slovenia and South Africa were successful after the first round of voting, while Bosnia and Herzegovina and Italy were chosen following a second round.

Here is a response from the other side of the issue.

Ki-Moon Criticized Over Israel
by Marc Shoffman - Thursday 2nd August 2007
Muslim states in the United Nations Human Rights Council have been criticized after attacking UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for sticking up for Israel.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the UN’s 57-strong Organization of the Islamic Conference at a UN meeting last Wednesday, attacked Ki-Moon after he said it was unfair to single out Israel for permanent review.

Ban said all countries should be treated equally after a resolution by the Council last June which put Israel’s human rights conduct under permanent review while failing to name any other countries.
(click to read the rest)

An excerpt from a recent speech by Ban Ki Moon demonstrates both his similarities and contrasts to Annan. The contrast is another reference to some truth about the UN while his other statements sound like Annan in his limp defense of the United Nations.

Unfortunately over the last six decades, even though the United Nations has been promoting human rights, peace and development, it has not enjoyed proper appreciation.

Polls show that two thirds of Americans think the United Nations is doing a poor job. Yet these same polls show that even larger majorities (74 per cent, to be exact) believe the United Nations should play a larger role in the world –- whether intervening to prevent genocide or aggressively investigating human rights abuses. An equally healthy percentage of Americans believe that the nation’s foreign policy should be conducted in partnership with the United Nations. (Read the full report) CLICK

Even the Secretary General points to data showing that two out of three Americans look unfavorably towards the United Nations. He may have misinterpreted the 74% figure. Perhaps three out of four Americans answered the way they did indicating the UN does little if anything to fulfill its obligations. Do something!!! That may be the real sentiment of those represented in the poll.

But Moon should get some credit for his remarks about human rights and how all countries should be treated equally. Yet nosing in to US affairs regarding incarceration of illegal aliens and allowing the Human Rights Council and the Islamic Council to conspire against others, especially in such blatant fashion, should be quelled. So his remarks may have been just another empty PR task from an empty leader. To be fair, more time should pass before judging this individual. But all experience and history thus far suggests a low probability of any improvements

Even the recent activity with distributing peace keeping forces around the world has more chance of causing more sexual abuse cases than resolving conflict. The UN must successfully string together a number of significant, positive accomplishments that can withstand global scrutiny before any optimism can be displayed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

By David Gollust
Washington
20 July 2007

Senior diplomats of the United States and India Friday ended four days of closed-door negotiations in Washington on an unprecedented nuclear cooperation agreement. They reported “substantial progress” but no final agreement. VOA’s David Gollust reports from the State Department.

The U.S.-India talks, originally scheduled to last two days, stretched into a four-day negotiating marathon.

Though a final agreement was not announced, the two delegations said substantial progress was made on outstanding issues and that their work would now be submitted to the respective governments for final review.

President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh approved the nuclear deal in principle in July of 2005.

It calls for India, since 1998 a declared nuclear weapons state, to open its civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection in exchange for access to U.S. nuclear power plant technology and reactor fuel.

Going into the round of State Department meetings, there were a number of obstacles to an implementing accord, including Indian objections to U.S. demands that it refrain from further nuclear weapons testing and not reprocess U.S.-supplied nuclear fuel.

The chief U.S. delegate to the talks, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, told VOA late Thursday the sides had overcome many of the outstanding issues.

But Burns did not elaborate and Friday’s joint statement also did not give specifics or a timetable for finishing the accord. It said the two governments “look forward” to completing remaining steps and concluding what was termed “this historic initiative.”

The Washington meetings had been depicted in some press reports as a make-or-break round, and Indian officials had been quoted as saying that failure to reach agreement this week could doom the deal altogether.

However at a news briefing, State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey said efforts to finish the accord will continue. “Certainly, I wouldn’t read a lack of an announcement of an agreement today as anything indicating that we won’t ultimately be able to have a deal and be able to move forward on this. It’s clear that both countries have the good will necessary to do this, are willing to work with one another to achieve an agreement, and we’re certainly hopeful we’ll get one in the very near future,” he said.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon led the Indian team joined by National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan.

During the week, the Indian team also met with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, among others, reflecting the Bush administration’s high interest in completing the accord.

President Bush and key aides have framed the opening to India as one of the administration’s key foreign policy achievements and a possible catalyst for further high-profile defense and commercial deals.

Elements of a nuclear accord would have to be approved by the U.S. Congress, where there is bipartisan support but also concern that cooperation with India, a non-signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, undermines efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.

Indian critics meanwhile say the New Delhi government is bending to U.S. pressure in ways that could limit the country’s nuclear capability.

By VOA News
21 July 2007

Herman report - Download 511k audio clip
Listen to Herman report audio clip

Indian election officials say Pratibha Patil has become the country’s first female president.

The election commission announced that Ms. Patil, of the ruling Congress Party, defeated opposition-backed Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat of the Bharatiya Janata Party in Thursday’s vote by national and state lawmakers.

Her election to the largely ceremonial post follows what analysts called one of India’s most bitter political contests in which questions were raised about scandals involving members of her family.

Ms. Patil has been the governor of the northwestern state of Rajasthan.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.

crossposted at:

Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

.

Nixon’s legacy included the milestone of opening dialogue with China and historic visits by the West to the mysterious and isolated region of the world. Carter’s often criticized administration had what appeared as a Middle East peace effort that came closer than any other at resolving the conflicts. Reagan convinced the Soviet Union to ‘tear down this wall’. Much about President Bush these days points to the near obsession of American Presidents to push for their legacy in the fading hours of their Presidency. Beyond victory in the war in Iraq, President Bush’s latest call for Middle East peace talks presents among other things, his search for a legacy.

Along with most in the international community, as indicated below, the US and EU want nothing to do with Hamas while a few voices are heard urging dialogue with the generally perceived Middle East outlaws. No relationship in the search for Middle East peace may be more of a gamble than the involvement of both President Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In general, the intentions of both men may be to recover some success for their respective legacies after the controversy and criticism over the war in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan.

US, EU shun Hamas as Blair takes over as Middle East peace envoy
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Quartet of Middle East mediators met for the first time with Tony Blair as special envoy on Thursday at a meeting Washington hopes will breathe some life into the stagnant Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In Cairo, Foreign Minister Ahmad Abou al-Gheit said Thursday that a Mideast peace conference called for by US President George W. Bush will likely be held in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Understandably, some in the Middle East are wary or even suspicious of Tony Blair’s involvement. Of all the people on the planet likely to have a role to play in the search for Middle East peace, Tony Blair probably has the best chance of providing a sense of genuine sincerity and honesty to the task at hand. But the baggage of his history with President Bush and some indications he bears his own separate agenda on solving this never ending crisis may sabotage his ability to assist before it really begins.

Blair hampered in Middle East role
BEN LYNFIELD IN JERUSALEM
Ms Rice deftly defended the limiting of the scope of Mr Blair’s job, despite EU foreign ministers arguing that it should be expanded. The American backed brief says “yes” to Palestinian institution building and economy, but “no” to a role in peace negotiations.

Indeed, if Mr Blair entertains the idea of gradually expanding his own mandate, and dreams about jump starting peace talks, he may find that Ms Rice is a no less formidable obstacle than the Israelis and Palestinians.

Among Palestinians, Mr Blair’s impending arrival is being greeted with a mixture of skepticism and anticipation.

But Palestinian politicians outside of Fatah, and even some Israelis, say such a policy is doomed to failure because it excludes the group chosen by the majority of Palestinians in the 2006 elections.

Abbas may be viewed as a wild card in this entire scenario. His power or influence over any part of the conflict may be suspect and the call for elections just one more attempt by a weak player to muster languishing support.

Abbas plans to call early elections, isolate Hamas
AP, RAMALLAH, WEST BANK
Friday, Jul 20, 2007
In a speech on Wednesday, Abbas asked the Palestine Central Council, a Palestinian Liberation Organization decision-making body, to endorse his call for elections that aides said would be designed to freeze Hamas out of the political arena.

Abbas’ aides said they expected the election by the end of the year or early next year. His announcement came as the US and other international mediators were moving swiftly to try to revive Mideast peace efforts.

And no one should overlook the complications provided by the most suspected opposition to any peace in the region, none other than the President of Iran. A meeting between Iran, Syria and Hamas is nothing more than a strategy session of those opposing peace efforts in the Middle East.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad in Syria for talks with Assad, Hamas
19/07/2007 11:04 DAMASCUS, July 19 (AFP)
The fact that Ahmadinejad’s visit — his second to Damascus since becoming president in 2005 — comes so soon after Assad’s re-election will be seen as a clear sign of the value of the relationship to both sides.

The strength of their ties is viewed with the deepest suspicion in Washington, which blames Tehran and Damascus for much of the instability dogging the Middle East region.

The classic mixture of opposing agendas by all involved in Middle East ‘relations’ are no more an optimistic forecast for resolving problems now than at any time in the past. No one should be hopeful this early in the recent moves to hold talks on peace in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Maggie’s Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Wave the flag. Show pictures of American history. Applaud the contributions of immigrants in the US. So the author introduces a trip down memory lane. He mentions the Chinese being instrumental in building the transcontinental railway as a promotion for importing foreign labor. The Chinese who are familiar with it may have a different view of building the railway. The Czechs, Slovaks and Jews may have different recollections also. How the people providing the labor were treated is left out of the discussion. How offshore sweat shops and the practices of companies like Wal-Mart promote substandard working conditions in other countries is left out also.

And this is corporate America’s threat to the American people. Allow us to ignore you and abuse imported labor or we will simply ignore you and abuse labor offshore. There is no noble intention in these claims by business of a global economy and their need to survive. They are surviving quite well and always have by ignoring their responsibility to the countries in which they practice their philosophy. Whatever it takes. And as far as offshore labor is concerned. One should only have to mention Bhopal since it is in India. Businesses get to treat their workers worse in other countries and at slave labor rates. That is why it is the preferred option between importing labor to the US or outsourcing. Why settle for lowering wages by importing labor when you can pay next to nothing and avoid all those pesky labor and environmental laws that risk your bottom line?

Take a hard look at India and China and other locations where American business has outsourced. Then discuss what the intentions of big business really are. As for the historical anecdotes about immigration the world is not a static place and policies allowed in times past are not necessarily as glowing as represented nor practical in the modern world. It may be that American business would like to return to the days of fewer laws that inhibit their natural tendency to cheat and the desire to be something of a robber baron with unimaginable wealth amassed on the backs of mistreated labor and an unsuspecting nation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Andelman’s Angle

Outsourcing Vs. Immigration
David A. Andelman, 05.29.07, 12:00 PM ET
From America’s earliest days, when there was work to be done, businesses and the government brought workers to the job site to finish it. Chinese built the Transcontinental Railroad. Poles, Czech and Slovaks built the U.S. steel industry. Jews filled New York’s garment center.

Today, rather than bringing workers to the jobs, more often the jobs are going to the workers. Outsourcing has become the preferred method of getting the work done for a broad swath of American manufacturing, technology and service businesses.

The IndUS Business Journal was the source of a search engine result on immigration. However it was the hit’s description that was of interest and the source of the article was only noticed while viewing the result. It is another example of focusing on the plight of prospective immigrants specifically from South Asia with the case made for the sterling credentials, wide variety of success of South Asian immigrants to the US and their contribution in billions of dollars of entrepreneurial startup businesses.

The question that never seems to be asked in stories like these is why didn’t these immigrants have this success in their country of origin? The myth of the global economy based on the words of American business leaders who speak to it is about a race to a goal. While arguing the need for the best and the brightest from around the world and the willingness to extend the American dream to countless immigrants invading the US or outsourcing American jobs to foreign nations, the real objective is nothing so noble.

From the perspective of corporate America, why limit yourself to dominating the economy of just one nation. The economic trend after the world was devastated by WWII resulted in nations like Germany and Japan becoming economic powers in the decades that followed. Each decade brings more and more countries out of the ‘third world’ and into competition with the former world’s leading economic powers. China is probably the most well known current contender to join the ranks of emerging economic powers to challenge the US.

If you are unwilling to challenge the competition with sound principles, truly innovative development in products and services and sincerely foster the human potential in your own country, the ‘global economy’ is a must sell. Abandon the nation instrumental to your success. Convince your government of a false need and betray your country. Attempt to defeat your foreign and domestic competitors by acquiring the foreign labor pool whether the most skilled and educated or those willing to work for less than your own citizens.

This has nothing to do with supporting the tradition of a nation of immigrants. This is all about business. And every proponent has a financial interest that drives their argument. The source of the article accompanying this post is nothing more than a special interest group promoting their own best interest in this economic scam.

Stanford Matthews.
MoreWhat.com

Immigration battle wages; government loses hope

7/13/2007
BY CHRIS NELSON
They are engineers, financiers, attorneys and physicians. They have won Nobel prizes, flown in space and hold executive-level positions at some of the largest and most influential companies in the world.

South Asians have contributed more to America’s economic might than perhaps any other ethnic group, but for those individuals lacking U.S. citizenship or a green card, the question remains — who gets to stay?

In the post-Sept. 11 era, where security concerns have led to tighter immigration policies, the answer is simple — very few. And in most instances, luck is the determining factor over whether one stays or goes.

The Darth Vader of information technology has been very active this year. Precisely when the United States is in the midst of a national debate on critical issues, Bill Gates stands as the poster boy for what is wrong with corporate America. While spewing pleasant sounding descriptions on his version of American history mixed with less than subtle promotion of his corporate agenda, Gates again used the influence of his obscene wealth to ‘encourage’ Congress to do as he says. Here is the first excerpt from his testimony before a Senate hearing in March of this year.

Unfortunately, America’s immigration policies are driving away the world’s best and brightest precisely when we need them most. I appreciate the vital national security goals that motivate many of these policies. I am convinced, however, that we can protect our national security in ways that do less damage to our competitiveness and prosperity.

Moreover, the terrible shortfall in our visa supply for the highly skilled stems not from security concerns, but from visa policies that have not been updated in over a decade and a half. We live in a different economy now. Simply put: It makes no sense to tell well-trained, highly skilled individuals – many of whom are educated at our top colleges and
universities – that the United States does not welcome or value them.

Are you convinced that Bill Gates only has our best interests at heart? You will notice he did not mention why he prefers imported labor rather than the home grown variety. This early in the testimony Mr Gates declined to insult Americans about their abilities to compete for jobs in the tech sector. Later he expresses a ‘concern’ that Americans educated in American schools are 2nd rate but has just stated foreign-born individuals taught at the same schools are the best and the brightest. This is the less than subtle promotion Mr. Gates uses to express his desire for cheaper, more obedient and submissive foreign talent over American candidates.

You are encouraged to read the entire testimony at the link provided. Mr Gates lobbies for American business to be able to educate all the world in our schools and immediately allow the rest of the world to live and work here or else, as he warns, American business will continue to sidestep their responsibility by moving jobs offshore. Here is the most recent evidence of his lack of patience and intent to use whatever means necessary to reach his objective.

Toronto Mayor and Microsoft Canada open digital arts and technology skills centre in Jamestown, Rexdale

Rexdale Pro Tech Media Centre to offer community members skills
development through access to technology and education

MISSISSAUGA, ON, July 3 /CNW/ - Together with Toronto Mayor David Miller,
Microsoft Canada today launched the Rexdale Pro Tech Media Centre in Jamestown
- one of 13 priority neighbourhood areas identified by the City of Toronto for
focused support and investment. The Centre will provide free access to
state-of-the-art technology including digital arts and Microsoft curricula to
introduce Jamestown and Rexdale youth to potential careers in new media while
providing computer literacy skills. The Centre was made possible through joint
collaboration with community partners and by a Microsoft Community Technology
Skills (CTS) grant which includes a cash donation, software, hardware and
technical support valued at over $400,000 CDN.

The story above is one of many examples of Bill Gates and Microsoft bribing officials and communities who are quite willing to accept a deal with the devil to achieve their goals, right or wrong. The country where Gates amassed his wealth receives no ‘give back’ sentiment from the world’s wealthiest individual. His apparent true philosophy is what have you done for me lately.

Canada’s cities shortchanged and tapped out

Don Cayo, Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, July 06, 2007
If big cities are to fulfil their potential as the principal drivers of Canada’s economy, they must go far beyond their original role as simple providers of property-related services such as street-building and repair, police and fire services, garbage collection, water and sewer services.

They also need to make themselves attractive to the new generation of knowledge-based revenue generators — those highly skilled people who can live anywhere they choose.

Thursday’s announcement that Microsoft’s first Canadian software development centre will be located in Vancouver underlines the importance of civic amenities that tip the balance when a company can locate wherever it wants.

That’s right. Cave to the power and influence of corporate greed. Nothing helps sustain the repeated use of unethical business practices more than public officials willing to abandon principle to achieve short term gains. Engaging in long term alliances that will require continued disregard for proper public policy runs counter to good government.

The latest indication of Microsoft/Bill Gates’ disinterest in the public good is featured in news related to the GPLv3 licensing and the software giant’s entrance into matters of open source. Currently this blog has no opinion on MS’s responsibility under law, if any, on matters of open source. The only point to be made is whether anyone sincerely expected Microsoft to be truly concerned about advancing the promise of open source? Offering the swamp land in Florida or the Brooklyn Bridge for sale to those who believe that is another scam that would succeed with that mentality.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Microsoft tries evading new GPL grasp

By Stephen Shankland
Fri Jul 06, 2007
Microsoft on Thursday took steps to avoid entanglement with a new version of the General Public License, the most widely used license in the free and open-source software domain.

Microsoft: ‘Your Puny GPLv3 Can’t Hold Us!’

By Terrence Russell
July 06, 2007 | 2:00:52 PM
Steve_ballmer Strange things are afoot over in Redmond. With the release of the GPLv3 last week, it’s already been suspiciously quiet over at Microsoft. Even more perplexing was the software giant’s statement yesterday regarding the GPLv3:

Linux official lines up with Microsoft against GPLv3

‘Too many owners of Linux’ to change basis of free software license
By Paul Krill
The new GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3 is not a fit for Linux because switching would require permission from the kernel’s thousands of de-facto owners, a maintainer of the SCSI portion of the kernel said on Thursday.

At the same time Microsoft released a statement that the company has no obligations under GPLv3.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Planck’s Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:
Screw the UN

.
There is reason to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin longs for the days when they were an undisputed superpower. The recent strain with President Bush over missile defense in Europe and the former Soviet Bloc may just be another symptom that relations between the two countries are not well. Ending up on opposite sides of most arguments at the UN at least signal vastly different international objectives. But that may pale in comparison to the maneuvering of China and their use of the UN and ‘diplomatic’ efforts in regard to the hostile positions of Iran.

China urges diplomacy on Iran standoff

By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP
Tue Jul 3, 6:49 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS - China called Tuesday for stepped up diplomacy rather than new sanctions to try to persuade Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and rein in its nuclear program.

U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya spoke after the United States started discussions on a third round of tougher sanctions against Iran for refusing to freeze enrichment and China’s opposition signaled a tough fight ahead in the Security Council for Washington and its European allies.

Well of course China prefers meaningless negotiations with a country quite comfortable ignoring demands from the international community that they cease their nuclear ambitions and agree to oversight by outside sources. The concern over China’s thirst for oil as well as major economic expansion with nearly the same disregard of complaints as that shown by Iran are well founded. China as well as India are feverishly working out energy arrangements with Iran. Iran is in no position to ignore these overtures as their infrastructure and other internal problems are straining their economy and social stability. Just the kind of stress that has preceded other world conflicts resulting in war.

This pattern did not just develop. Here’s a little reference on the subject from several years ago.

China and India wrestling for Iran’s oil

Last Updated(Beijing Time):
2004-11-22 09:12

As the fight between China and Japan and that between China and Vietnam for petroleum is still pending, India, a future big oil consumer, is competing with China for oil supply from the Middle East, especially Iran, which is beyond the control of the U.S.

And the opinions on the topic are showing no significant change while answers to solve these problems are long in coming. Perhaps some of the world’s usual suspects for conflict and tension should understand they are not the only game in town.

Developing Asian nations pose an even greater challenge for U.S. efforts to isolate Iran. Both the China National Petroleum Corporation and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation recently announced plans to develop major liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, respectively in South Pars and in North Pars. China’s other major oil company, Sinopec, hopes to develop the Yadavaran oil field, which is expected to produce 300,000 barrels a day by 2010.

The most concerning news comes out of India, a country that is actually helping Iran alleviate its gasoline problem. It not only supplies some 15 percent of Iran’s gasoline imports, but an Indian business conglomerate, the Essar group, is negotiating the construction of a 300,000 barrel per day refinery in southern Iran. Two years ago, New Delhi also signed a $40 billion LNG deal with Iran. India’s domestic natural gas supply meets barely half its demand. Iran, which is geographically close to India, is a natural supplier. Tehran, which now wants to become India’s exclusive natural gas supplier, is pushing for the construction of a $7 billion gas pipeline deal that would connect the two countries via Pakistan. This would make one billion Indians dependent upon one of the world’s most radical regimes.

(source)

Other nations in world beyond Iran, India and China may find opposing the US and its efforts in foreign affairs are not really in their own best interests. If they believe the US is difficult to deal with they may be sorely surprised at the new found arrogance of the three just mentioned. It seems most reports go out of their way to ignore these particular implications.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Was this hostage incident with British journalist Alan Johnston simply a plot between associated terrorists attempting to obtain positive press for releasing a hostage? C’mon, the Army of Islam, sounds like a quickly conjured name to accommodate the plot. It is tough enough to accept names like Hezbollah and Hamas let alone the Popular Resistance Committees and the Executive Force. The point is this all seems rather fabricated by a group of rank amateurs. Ok, they are violent, have weapons and engage in terrorist activities but their intentions, credentials and importance are largely self-defined. And a lot of paid consultants, journalists or reporters seem to be the only people outside these groups judging their validity. So they are just a bunch of punks with weapons. How do they expect that to solve their problems? They may have had a chance to become legitimate players on the world stage engaging in the political process but opted to return to weapons and being stupid.

Sometimes it almost seems more prudent for all the major countries of the world to simply withdraw from any interactions with the Middle East and similar zones of insanity. Y’all wanna kill each other, fine. You want to keep blaming each other for the problems you face and not help each other out, fine. From the major powers on the planet to all lesser influences and organizations like the UN, most of the violence and problems faced by the Middle East only seem to be exacerbated by the rest of the world’s involvement. At one time or another all countries in the Middle East seem to be ‘playing’ other countries in the world to get what they want. And the arrangements keep rotating around the region shifting advantage from country to country. All the while the richest nations in the world are pouring billions into the mix and only a few ranking members of failing governments appear to receive the benefit.

That is why it would be nice if the US could finish the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Prepare them to take care of themselves and when ready call it a day. Every country foreign to the Middle East should then remove themselves and let the cards fall where they may. But there is a big flaw with this suggestion. It will never happen. Because the people in the Middle East countries are partly right. All the foreign countries involved in the Middle East have a stake in them but not for the right reasons. Other countries in the world will stay involved in the Middle East for their own selfish reasons. The centuries old conflicts in the region will continue and be complicated by outside interference. And the whole mess will never end.

Maybe this is a pessimistic or cynical interpretation of the problem. But it is a reflection of the historic trends in that region of the world.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Hamas closes in on BBC hostage stronghold

From correspondents in Baghdad
July 04, 2007 03:33am
HAMAS gunmen today took up positions around the stronghold of the kidnappers of BBC journalist Alan Johnston, as the Islamist movement hinted it could use force to secure the newsman’s release.

Members of Hamas’s armed wing and its self-styled police set up checkpoints at the entrance to the southern Sabra neighbourhood in Gaza City, searching vehicles and fanning out around a compound, an AFP correspondent said.

Hamas, Islamic group swap prisoners in Gaza

Wed Jul 4, 2007 5:54 AM IST
GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas and another militant Islamic group swapped prisoners on Tuesday in the Gaza Strip as mediators negotiated to free an abducted BBC reporter, a spokesman for a group of Palestinian mediators said.

Abu Mujahed, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, an umbrella militant group in Gaza, said the “Army of Islam has released nine students and Hamas has released detained members of the Army of Islam.”

Kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnston released

Last update - 08:11 04/07/2007
By News Agencies
Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist held hostage in the Gaza Strip since March, was handed over by his Islamist captors to Hamas officials on Wednesday.

The 45-year-old Briton was taken into the care of officials from the Hamas movement, which seized full control of Gaza three weeks ago.

“I was released a couple of hours ago. It was an appalling experience as you can imagine. Occasionally quite terrifying… Now it really is over,” Johnston told BBC World from the home of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza City.

crossposted at:
Reject the UN

It is not hard to believe that the only purpose of the UN is to provide a politically correct appearance for the selfish interests of all member nations. Nothing more than the same politically driven motives that smother any real progress on issues in the US Congress or similar government bodies in countries around the world. It is the international face of polarized agendas in every country on the planet.

A current example is the Doha round of trade negotiations of the WTO. You have the typical subgroups and silly names like the Group of Four (G4) and G10, Bulgaria, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Republic of Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Norway, Switzerland and Chinese Taipei, G6, G20, G33 and on it goes. The G4, the US, EU, India and Brazil as well as China are not interested in ending ag subsidies to protect their farmers. The 3rd world countries are interested in our markets as well as other industrialized countries and want to take advantage of their abilities to undercut the competition.

President Bush and President Putin had a meeting this week and it surely was not only about nukes and radar. President Bush’s ‘fast track’ trade authority expired at the end of June. That, together with all the aforementioned subgroups within the WTO and the failing Doha round and attempts to revive it by the APEC 21 nations meeting in Australia highlight the ‘my country first attitudes’ of so-called free trade agreements.

And of course the UN is involved.

WTO, UN chiefs say fate of billions hangs on global trade deal

Mon Jul 2, 1:25 PM ET

The heads of the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation on Monday both urged a successful conclusion to long-stalled global trade talks in order to lift billions of people out of poverty.

“The world desperately needs a successful conclusion to the Doha trade negotiations,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told a meeting of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in Geneva.

“Existing trade barriers, agricultural subsidies, and restrictive rules on intellectual property rights reinforce global inequities — and they make a mockery of our tall claims to eliminate hunger and poverty from the world,” he said.

It is always done. Use concern over humanitarian interests to promote the selfish goals of member countries. And the other common characteristic is present in all conflicts between two or more adversaries. That is to focus your strategy against the largest or most successful competitors or opponents. The common theme in announcements about the trade talks focus on the G4 their protective policies against unfair trade practices of international competitors. Not a strategy that is lost on any other of the 150 member nations in the WTO. It is simply more common to attack the kings of the hill in seeking global sympathy for one’s mission or goals, right or wrong..

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When is the last time you saw anything about someone from the UN being convicted? If the defense counsel for the defendant in this case is just continuing to advocate for his client by expressing his concerns over the conviction, then there is no sympathy here for Sanjaya Bahel. But if there is any miscarriage of justice then that is another matter. Currently there is an assumption that the defendant received his day in court and justice has been served.

More compelling would be the question of why with so many UN scandals like crimes in the oil for food program, there are so few proceedings against members or employees of the United Nations? A South Korean businessman named Tongsun Park is the only one convicted in the oil for food scandal as of July 2006.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Former UN official convicted

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer Thu Jun 7, 7:53 PM ET
NEW YORK - A former
United Nations official was convicted Thursday of helping a friend secure $100 million in U.N. contracts in exchange for a huge discount on two luxury Manhattan apartments and cash.

Sanjaya Bahel, 57, chief of the U.N.’s Commodity Procurement Section from 1999 to 2003, had maintained his innocence since his November arrest.

Bahel slumped in his chair when the verdicts were read convicting him of bribery, wire fraud and mail fraud. The charges carry a potential penalty of up to 30 years in prison.

Ros-Lehtinen Comments on Conviction in UN Scandal Case

Sanjaya Bahel Convicted in U.S. Federal Court for Bribery, Fraud

WASHINGTON, June 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A former senior official
in the procurement department of the United Nations was convicted today by
a jury in U.S. Federal District Court in New York for his role in steering
tens of millions of dollars in contracts to favored contractors. Sanjaya
Bahel, a native of India, received cash, travel and reduced rent on a
luxurious Manhattan apartment owned by a contractor in exchange for his
efforts at the UN on the company’s behalf. Bahel was convicted of bribery,
wire fraud and mail fraud and faces up to 30 years in prison. Statement of
Ros-Lehtinen:
Today’s conviction underscores the extent to which corruption has
undermined the important work of the United Nations. Given what we now know
about the UN’s weak accounting practices, I remain fearful that today’s
conviction only scratches the surface of the unaddressed problems that
continue to fester at the UN.
It is especially troubling that in 2004, UN investigators exonerated
Mr. Bahel for the crimes that he was convicted of today. What does this
tell us about the past investigatory practices of the UN? Secretary General
Ban Ki Moon ought to immediately undertake a review of who was responsible
for Mr. Bahel’s 2004 exoneration and take appropriate disciplinary action.
Although UN investigators reopened the case in 2006, it is unfortunate that
true justice for Bahel could only be delivered by a U.S. court.
I am grateful to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New
York for his tireless efforts to deliver justice in this case. I encourage
U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad to maintain vigilance over UN procurement and
encourage further coordination between UN oversight authorities and U.S.
law enforcement agencies.
CONTACT: Sam Stratman, (202) 226-7875,
Lee Cohen, (202) 226-1139

SOURCE House Committee on Foreign Affairs (Republican Office)