This is absolutely mind-blowing (The Sunday Times of London):

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Please forgive my language, but how f**king convenient.

The response of Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, says it all: “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science.”

No wonder the alarmists resorted to intimidation and data-fudging; in this case, the emperor knew he had no clothes!

h/t to – whom else? - Kate at SDA 

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

While the number of fronts that exist to oppose globalization in the neo-liberal context only grows with the amount of areas that neo-liberal globalization attempts to impose itself, arguably the most advanced regional battle against this imposition is on-going in India, one of the very countries that proponents of neo-liberalization look to be depending on to take the “free market” world out of its economic crisis. 

Just as the economic crisis itself is a product of the inherent failings of globalization to provide equitably the necessities for the world’s majority who are left with no alternative but to rise against it, the re-birth of the Naxalites in India and the emergence of the Maoists are a direct results of the failings of the Indian government in Delhi to equitably provide for its own rural citizens according to its own constitution which declares India to be a socialist state. Furthermore, the lack of the Indian government to create and provide a tangible infrastructure of roads, lines of communications and development for its rural population is precisely why the Indian government is unable to contain these growing movements. Through their failings they have not provided themselves with the access necessary to reach, accommodate or answer these movements.

For the past 25 years, independent local struggles have found common interest and united under the banner of Maoism, which can be seen as a re-naissance of the Naxalite movement that the Indian government thought it had wiped out in the early 70s.

The Maoists today are much more then just a guerrilla movement. They have become a parallel government representing the rural population that has provided Indian citizens with alternative methods of agriculture, land reform, shifted the levels of education and health care, all the while seeing their existence strengthened and re-inforced by the Indian government’s inability to create a flow of trickle down that reaches the citizens of India who need it the most. This is the very reason that the role and influence of the Maoists has been necessary and growing. The immediate situation today in India, a country with 900 million cell phones, is that the success of the Maoists in providing and implementing positive reforms for the rural Indian population has not only made them heroes throughout the countryside. Their popularity has reached a point where urban populations in a country with a 50% illiteracy rate are seeing, despite media attempts to distort, the benefits provided by the united front struggle, and the great fear currently for the Indian government is that the Maoists’ sphere of influence will soon extend into the cities if it hasn’t already.

The Maoists do maintain a guerrilla army numbering roughly 20 thousand. The formation of their forces in and of itself speaks to one of the reasons for their popularity. It is comprised of 40% women. The step away from traditional male prejudices in actual practice and not only theory is one of a long list of improvements that Indian citizens want to see and the Maoists can be seen as representing improvement in action, especially when compared to official governmental provisions.

To counter the growing popularity of the Maoist movement the Indian government has launched counter-offensives on several fronts. The public relations battle is being fought through a media that has been effectively censored and denied the right to report on anything that would portray the Maoists in a positive way. This censorship extends to citizens as well. Recently ten well-known Indian artists, poets and writers provided a collective statement of recognition and support for the Maoist cause and movement. The response of the Indian government was to have these ten representatives of Indian culture arrested.

In addition, the failings of the Indian government make it very difficult to effectively curtail the awareness of the Maoist movement through strict media censorship. The illiteracy rate in India is an unacceptable 50% which means that half its citizens do not rely on the media for their news and information. The failure of the Indian government to properly regulate and integrate its own technological advancement means that the 900 million cell phones within the country have become a more valuable source of information then the media itself. This is how India communicates, and the popular opinion on the side of the Maoists is growing. 

On the physical front the Indian government has launched Operation Green Hunt, a 70 thousand troop-strong reaction to the Maoists. These elite Indian soldiers known as the  “Cobra Force” are themselves bound and limited by the failings of their government. The lack of basic infrastructure means there are not even roads for them to reach the heavily junglfied areas from where the Maoists manoeuvre and operate. What is most ironic is that because the Maoists operate from the edges of where three provinces, including Bengal, meet, the “Cobra Force” often falls victim to its own squabbling over jurisdiction, another failing of governmental organization.  

The most important reason why the Indian front in the on-going battle to oppose neo-liberal globalization is among the most important is because what the Maoists and Naxalites have been doing for the past 25 years is not simply fighting against the imposition of “free market” values in their traditional lands, they have been silently and diligently working on an alternate model of organization, sharing and resource distribution for all the people.

Neo-liberals, for all their talk and PR marketing have absolutely no problem with peoples using force, weaponry and even terrorism against them. These actions simply give the neo-liberal elites an excuse to justify their own continued dependences on the weapons industry and arms manufacturing as one of the core basis for their economies and societal organization. What they are truly afraid of are the concrete examples of alternative methods of societal organization which, when given the unhindered chance to develop, prove to be far superior at providing equitability for its citizens, especially in terms of distribution. This is the reason for the boycott and blockade of Cuba, this is the reason for the manipulation of the Middle East into the war zone it has been since the end of World War II, and this is the reason why the actions of the Maoists and Naxalites are so threatening to the neo-liberal establishment. Even with the continued conscious “dumbing down” of Western citizens by its elites through the perpetuation of addiction to drugs, television and, worst of all, the manipulation of the education and university systems, Western citizens will be clearly able to see the obvious advantages of the societal organization of the Maoists and Naxalites compared to their own living conditions in places like Detroit or New Orleans.

The Maoist and Naxalite model is not going away anytime soon because even if the Indian government causes a repeat of its actions from 1965-1975 and massacres every last Indian Naxalite, their alternative model will live on as will the Bolivarian model in and throughout Latin America.

-30-

tj

Last week, I had the great pleasure of attending a conference in Washington, DC entitled “Conservative Vision for a Free and Just Society.”  Monte Solberg was there; I like how he summed it up:

A terrific few days where we discussed a conservative vision of “social justice” which is about challenging local fraternal orders, churches and charities to step up to the plate and help those who need help. Conservatives need to do a better job of providing an alternative to the big, cold and ineffective welfare state, and this conference was all about exploring ways to do that.

It was an impressive collection of conservatives from Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, and the United States.  Canadians should pay special attention to the political changes coming in Britain. The work of the Centre for Social Justice is impressive, and has focused the political debate on issues of social breakdown and have helped to shape the Tory response.

I have a few thoughts to share…

We as conservatives have a tendency to focus first on things like tax cuts, small government, and government waste.  But is that what people really think about most these days?

Earlier this year, the Fraser Institute released a report demonstrating that the overall tax burden had grown from 33.5% of an average family’s income in 1961 to 43.9% in 2008.  Terrible.

But the report compares this rise in the overall tax burden to the portion of income that the average family spends on basic necessities (food, shelter, clothing), which is falling.  Something interesting is happening.  While the average family spent 90% of income on taxes and basic necessities in 1961, in 2008 the average family spent just under 80% on taxes and basic necessities.  While we may be taxed more heavily than ever, we’re also wealthier and have more disposable income than ever before.  Taxes just don’t bite in the same way they did in the days of Reagan or Thatcher.

I think that quality of life, not standard of living, is what people think about most these days.  i.e. work-life balance, family; schools, healthcare; clean air, clean water; healthy living and the good life.  We need to align our political priorities with the public’s priorities.

Aligning our priorities with the public’s priorities is essential to growing the conservative coalition and earning the trust of Canadians.  This does not mean discarding conservative principles.  It means we should work to demonstrate that conservative principles are capable of better serving the things that Canadians truly value.

So then, what do we mean by ‘conservative principles’?  On what principled basis do we form a political coalition to achieve our common vision?

Much is made of the divide between libertarians and social conservatives in Canada.  And given the size of our country it gets much more complicated very quickly: Quebec soft-nationalists, Atlantic and Ontario traditionalists, democratic reformers, prairie populists, pragmatist partisans and more all reasonably belong in the conservative coalition in Canada.

I actually think the social justice message allows us the opportunity to bridge these divisions and focus on a common vision of government, politics, and society.

Our opposition to massive government intervention corresponds to our belief in the common decency of our compatriots and the universal human capacity for social justice.  And so, as conservatives:

• We dispute the assumption that the state alone represents our collective will;
• That serving the public interest requires serving the interests of the state;
• And we challenge the growing assumption that the state should be the sole provider of social goods and benefits.

Simply put, the path to limited government and a free and virtuous society passes through civil society, church, community, and family.

Steve McIntyre manages to undo “Mike’s Nature Trick” and reveals the decline that Phil Jones et al tried so hard to remain hidden (re-scraped from Watts Up with That via SDA):

For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here.

Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true. The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001, though pre-calibration values were archived in a different NCDC file here. While the decline was shown in Briffa et al 1998 and Briffa 2000, it was not shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.) For now, here is a graphic showing the deleted data in red. A retrieval script follows.

Figure 1. Two versions of Briffa MXD reconstruction, showing archived and climategate versions.

The relevant IPCC 2001 graph, shown below, clearly does not show the decline in the Briffa MXD reconstruction. Contrary to Gavin Schmidt’s claim that the decline is “hidden in plain sight”, the inconvenient data has simply been deleted. The reason, as explained on Sep 22, 1999 by Michael Mann to coauthors in 938018124.txt, was to avoid giving “fodder to the skeptics”. Reasonable people might well disagree with Gavin Schmidt as to whether this is a “a good way to deal with a problem” or simply a trick.

Figure 2. IPCC 2001 Fig 2.21 showing Briffa, Jones and Mann reconstructions together with HadCRU temperature.

It reminds me of the warning given to all of us by the great economist Ronald Coase: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess.”

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Courtesy of Kate at SDA, a stunner from Andrew Bolt of the Australian Herald Sun.  Both New Zealand and Australian temperature data were “adjusted” – and in both cases, the adjustment was downward for the distant past and upward for the recent past: creating a warming trend that never really existed.

I particularly like this part (emphasis added):

Those adjustments were made by New Zealand climate scientist Jim Salinger, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who started work on the series when he was with the University of East Anglia, the centre of the Climategate scandal.

Why amd I not surprised?

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

So simple for retrieving that not-quite-perfect photo, and yet I’ve never bothered with it:
Only sharpen what needs sharpened.

There’s a new version of Google doing the rounds – Link.

A clear answer, from the Lawyer’s Christian Fellowship, to ‘Is God Just?’:

Man is capable of some pretty impressive stuff.

Israel is being investigated by the UN for supposed war crimes in Gaza, despite evidence from those in the know to the contrary. They also seem rather singled out for sanctions on the world stage. Link.

Finally. It felt like it would never happen. Negotiations were at a standstill, secretaries of state could no longer hide their irritation, and it felt like there was nothing left to be done but wait. A long, painful, agonizing waste of time orchestrated as blackmail. Finally, Netanyahu dropped the towel. Or at least part of it.

Yesterday, the controversial and irritatingly uncompromising Prime Minister of Israel took one step towards maturity and inclusion. He conceded to Washington a ten-months freeze of settlements in the West Bank, requested by Europe ever since the death of Itzhak Rabin and by the United States the moment the moment the Obama Administration came into power. Netanyahu had become the thorn in every diplomats side. His submission is not whole: although his promise was clear on the status of the West Bank, East Jerusalem remains in the vagueness of a hugely compromises statu quo.

Benjamin Netanyahu: between a rock and a hard place

So why the sudden gesture towards peace? “we want to show the world a simple truth, that of knowing the Israeli government is willing to start negotiating with the Palestinians, that it is taking concrete measures in that direction, and that it is serious in its peaceful intentions.” the message is hopeful and beautiful, but the ten-month limit allows us to doubt the veracity of those claims.

What will happen once the term limit is reached, and will it be long enough to craft a lasting peace process? The Palestinians remain skeptical on the subject of Netanyahu’s commitment precisely on his unwillingness to clear the East Jerusalem fire. “In [our] eyes. East Jerusalem represents a red line not to cross. Any return to negotiations has to be made on the basis of a complete stop to settlements in the West Bank… Jerusalem included”, declared Nabil Abbou Roudeina, Mahmoud Abbas’ spokesperson. Those negotiations are therefore not that close to happening, since both authorities wish to claim the Holy City as their capital.

Netanyahu, first entirely opposed to any compromise and used to unconditional support from the White House, is finding himself in a situation where he can’t win. On one side, he came to realise the new American administration were not lax on international law as the previous was; and on the other, his own party line – elected along with right wing party Likoud – is heavily relying on nationalism and the expansion of Isreaeli territory. Who is Netanyahu trying to please the most? Danny Dayan, leader of the Yesha Council, representing the colons, feels betrayed by his Prime Minister to the point of claiming that colons feel “persecuted” and that the Likoud’s ideal of a Great Israel is being washed away in the name of international compromise. Nationalists are learning the drawbacks of diplomatic relations and pay the price of international alienation.

Several protests have taken place from the most radical fringes of the colons, most of them commanding officers of the Tsahal. Netanyahu, who himself ha never been more inclined than his predecessor to satisfy the utmost Zionist dream, is now facing the same threats progressive leader Rabin did before being assassinated in 1995 for participating in the Camp David summit.

Ten months during which the world will hold their breath and wait to see if the majority of Israelis – who do want peace and no longer wish to be world pariahs for living in a state perpetuating war crimes in their name – will once and for all take over the handful of right wing radicals menacing to perpetuate a conflict that has shed blood for way too long.

The Foreign Office has ditched Sir Humphrey's guide to Britain as part of a modernisation programme...

Perhaps with the threat of being shipped out of Whitehall to the regions, to save money, the Foreign Office has decided to drag its image of Britain into the modern age. 

The official book, The United Kingdom: 100 Questions Answered, used in UK embassies abroad, to explain Britain to the world is now considered too out of date to be useful. Some of the top questions the book asks are: ‘What is Cockney rhyming slang?’ and ‘Why do the British like drinking tea’!

The book claims: “Britain’s most popular ‘fast food’ has got to be fish and chips… curry — a spicy dish with meat, fish and vegetables — is now the most popular meal”.

According to the Telegraph, the book admits “British humour” is often a source of “mystification for other nations”, the book suggests: “It may be loosely defined as an attitude of mind which is readily responsive to the incongruous and ridiculous.”

Other concepts explained are the difference between “tea time” and “high tea” and the rules of darts which involves “short, weighted steel darts thrown at a circular dartboard numbered in sections”.

The FCO has decided to phase the book out as, although it had been helpful in the past, they ‘recognise that parts of it are a little dated and Sir Humphreyesque.’

No wonder we have such international influence with this level of self-awareness!

PKKH

The red corridor which is now turning into red alert for Indian sovereignty has been camouflaged by the Government of India so strongly since years to save the face in the world community. But now the cover is proving too short to hide this ugly reality.

Naxals/Maoists issue is widely censored by the common Indians you interact in daily life, but the living reality says otherwise. Naxalite/Maoist insurgents are controlling more than 45% of India without any obstruction from the state anywhere in those regions. The police and paramilitary is too vulnerable to their deadly attacks due to lack of capability and fire power to confront these militants. The most dangerous reality is that the Militants are now in full control of those regions where there are located key Nuclear Installations or most convincingly the Nuclear Arsenal storage sites

Talcher’s Heavy Water Plant

Starting from the state of Orissa at the eastern coast of India, where Maoists are showing much stronger presence. A very important Heavy Water Plant is located in the City of Talcher in this state. Since last many months this city is badly hurt due to repeated terrorist activities of Maoists and their supporters. Maoists displayed their power most recently when they blocked the road access to Talcher making things to complete standstill inside that city and in the surrounding areas. Most ironic is that the presence of law enforcing agencies in these areas is very minimal and almost next to none. Local residents are living in extreme fear and in complete insecurity. In these circumstances, any serious accident to the Heavy Water Plant would lead to complete catastrophe. It is ironic that besides being completely helpless against the growing influence of Maoists near this important nuclear site, Indian media is not alarming any warnings. It is clear that India is hiding this matter deliberately and does not want the world to know about the intensity of the threat.

Uranium mines & mills, Jaduguda, Jharkand

The important Uranium mines and mills in Jaduguda Jharkand are facing worst catastrophe of deadly leakages when a new tailings pipeline burst caused a uranium mill tailings spill that reached nearby homes. Ironically this incidence of International importance was camouflaged again by the Indian media. It is widely believed that this particular area is now under full control of Naxal/Moist forces.

Read More

Madras Atomic Power Station

Located at  Kalpakkam about 80 km south of Chennai, India, is a comprehensive nuclear power production, fuel reprocessing, and waste treatment facility that includes plutonium fuel fabrication for fast breeder reactors [FBRs]. It is also India’s first fully indigenously constructed nuclear power station. It has two units of 170 MWe capacity each. The first and second units of the station went critical in 1983 and 1985 respectively. The station has reactors housed in a reactor building with double shell containment ensuring total protection even in the remotest possibility of loss of coolant accident. An Interim Storage Facility [ISF] is also located in Kalpakkam

Naxal tentacles are reaching Chennai which as mentioned above has this important Power Plant, Naxal presence just few kilometers from this city is a living threat which no one can ignore so easily. The recent train mishap in Chennai is believed to be the activity of Naxals to signal their strong presence in this region too. Read Report

Narora nuclear power plant

Narora is located on the banks of river Ganges, in district Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh. A nuclear power plant is located in its vicinity. The insurgent sympathizers smuggle highly radioactive material out of the Nuclear Fuel Complex to detonate a radiological dispersion device or ‘dirty bomb’ in Hyderabad. An example of security blunder that could have resulted in the theft of fissile material in August 2006: Security was tightened in and around the Narora nuclear power plant after three men working there were arrested for giving fake addresses at the time of their appointments. Unbelievably, the men were given access to the facilities without first conducting thorough background checks. The problem is that India does not only have 22 declared including under construction  nuclear reactors, but it also has about 60 less secure agencies connected with nuclear activities. India is well known for lax security and overworked systems; security experts believe smuggling of radioactive materials to be highly probable.

There are several other regions where Naxal ideology is gaining popularity and more and more poor and homeless are becoming part of their Army. The Maoist/Naxals are too close to capture the half of India and consolidate their position for their future goals. Read More

It is extremely ironic that India is yelling and screaming about the vulnerability of Pakistani Nukes, but it is more catastrophic when we see that many important locations of Indian Nuclear Installations are situated in those areas which are in complete control of these insurgents. Why this truth is hidden from the world? The catastrophe of weapons slipping into the hands of most cruel terrorists on earth is quite possible not in years but in days. The question arise that who will raise the alarm for the world? The world leaders are quite unmoved on this issue, but once we come to know that Naxals have obtained few of the war heads for their ugly means then it will become a global threat overnight and the sleeping savers of the world would jump for crash program! This is bad luck for the poor people of India in particular that their government has thrown them in front of Maoists/Naxals and has accepted an undeclared defeat against these forces. Read More

From every corner of India sane and intellectual journalists and news channels are now beginning to raise their voice on this issue but it seems that water has reached the noses already.

When we analyze as to why India is not taking strong action against Maoists/Naxals then we can find few important reasons behind this criminal delay which is hurting Indian existence:

• India has till now portrayed itself as a safe and trouble free country thus gaining maximum attention of tourism and foreign investment which it does not want to loose due to this issue.
• Next year a huge event of Cricket World Cup is to be held in India and the Government does not want a situation in which the neighboring country Pakistan has fallen into after initiating assault over Taliban Militants which brought complete catastrophe and subsequent barring of all International sporting events to be conducted there for security reasons.
• India does not want itself to be slipped into the same situation where Pakistan has been pointed out as an unsafe Nuclear Power.
• It is also believed that Americans are trying to penetrate into Nuclear Installations of India in the name of assistance or help to increase security level of these Installations. Some of them are almost 4 decades old and have completed their life. India is trying to hide the vulnerable status of their Nuclear command and control system to avoid undue interference of USA.

In short, Indian nation would have to bear the threat of Naxals/Maoists helplessly because in the near future Indian Government seems to have no plan but to unwillingly allow these terrorists to spread their influence inside the whole of the Indian territories.

USA, UK, China and Europe should see this latest development with responsibility because the threat of Maoist/Naxals is 1000 times more deadly than the proclaimed threats in Pakistan who are confined to only some remote mountain areas as compared to Naxals/Maoists who are controlling the cities and the huge region in full. World cannot afford to see the Nuclear Arsenal of India easily slipping into the hands of Naxals who can use that any time anywhere to surprise the peace loving nations. It is also possible that these insurgents who are so close to capture these important weapons would also sell them ahead to Al Qaeda or any deadly group which can hit America with unmatchable intensity as USA has put a blind eye on this possibility.

By: RupeeNews | Moin Ansari

There is a parable in South Asia, mainly Bharat (aka India) which loosely translated goes something like this “All night long, we told you the lengthly and long-winded story of Ramayan–and in the morning you asks was ‘Sita’ one of the main characters–a man or a woman”. Obviously one who has ever read or heard the story of Sita, will never forget the fact that Sita was a woman. In Western terms it would be like reading Shakespeare and then asking whether Juliette was a woman or a man. This is exactly what happened in Washington. Even before Prime Minister arrived in Delhi, everyone know what the agenda would be—Bharati gripes against Pakistan on terror.

Mr. Manmohan didn’t realise that each time he mentioned Mumbai and terror in the same breath, it took millions of Dollars away from business in the commercial capital of Bharat. However he along with Sancho Panza in Delhi persisted in the old story of terror and why Pakistan should be sanctioned, blah blah blah.

After the long discussion, the congratulatory interview paid advertisement (interview) with Pakistanphobe Farid Zakaria and others, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met with President Obama, he wanted to hear mr. Obama threaten, castigate, and scold Pakistan–to Bharati chagrin, the exact opposite happened.

After patiently listening to Bharati whining for the years, Washington essentially ignored Bharat, tripled aid to Pakistan, increase military supplies to Islamabad, and is working on construction a Reconstruction Opportunity Zone (ROZ), and a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Bharat’s arch-enemy.

Obviously Mr. Singh knew all this before he came to Washington. The Bharati lobby had essentially failed to derail the Biden/Kerry-Lugar bill and the amendment letter attached to it watered down or eliminated the Bharati inspired language in the bill.

This picture is very descriptive and worth a thousand words—as Mr. Singh “stood rapt withal”, his stone faced silence, drooping face and stoic demeanour was unable to hide the disappointment–when he heard President Obama snubbed the Bharati Prime Minister by loudly proclaiming that Pakistan was a very important ally of the United States and that it was doing a lot in fighting terror.

Mr. Singh will have a lot to answer for when he returns to Delhi–the opposition will tear him apart on why he was unsuccessful in his mission–maligning Pakistan

In a press conference with the Indian PM, the US president emphasised that Pakistan was progressing against extremism. —Photo by AFP

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama on Tuesday re-emphasised Pakistan’s key position in the American strategy for South Asia, telling a joint news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that Islamabad had an enormously important role in the security of that region.

His statement, in response to a question about US military assistance to Pakistan, was a calculated departure from the tributes he had paid to India earlier.

In remarks delivered before the news conference, Mr Obama described India as ‘indispensable’ for his visions for the future of the world, ‘a leader in Asia and around the world,’ and a ‘nuclear power’ with which the United States would like to work ‘in preventing the spread of the world’s most deadly weapons, securing loose nuclear materials from terrorists, and pursuing our shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons.’

While Mr Obama continued this eulogy in the press conference as well, he paused to stress Pakistan’s importance in the South Asian region when an Indian journalist spoke about the perception that US military aid to Pakistan was misused against India.

‘Obviously, Pakistan has an enormously important role in the security of the region,’ said Mr Obama, adding that Islamabad could fulfil this role ‘by making sure that the extremist organisations that often operate out of its territories are dealt with effectively.’

I have gained confidence that there’s not an important question out there that has not been asked that we haven’t answered to the best of our abilities, the US president said. —Photo by AFP

While acknowledging that Pakistan faced the problem of terrorism, Mr Obama said he also had ‘seen some progress’ in Islamabad’s efforts to fight the militancy.

While Prime Minister Singh was bush playing victim in Washington, his Chief of Staff General Kapoor, suffering from Foot-in-mouth-disease was busy displaying his incompetence by threatening war to its nuclear armed neighbors.

Stephen Cohen a known Indophile who created the now debunked “Cold Start Strategy” has clearly said that the India and the US are strategically moving apart. This assessment comes in the wake of the reality that America’s new banker is not New York—it is Beijing. Prime Minister Manamohan Singh sheepishly mentioned this anomaly during his various conversations in Washington and elsewhere. While the chest thumping on democracy fell on deaf ears, what chagrined the prime minister and Bharati media was the fact that the US has ignored Delhi’s whining on Mumbai. Contrary to the lobbying efforts of Delhi, the US Congress tripled aid to Pakistan, and then some—it is also working on ROZ and a FTA with Pakistan. Unbeknownst to Delhi, the US Army has helped the generals in Islamabad with weapons that are under the radar or press and or media scrutiny.

‘The work that the Pakistan military is doing in the Swat Valley and in South Waziristan all indicates the degree to which they are beginning to recognise that extremism, even if initially directed to the outside, can ultimately also have an adverse impact on their security internally,’ he said.

‘So my hope is that over time what we’re going to see is further clarity and further cooperation between all the parties and all peoples of goodwill in the region to eradicate terrorist activity, to eradicate the kind of violent extremism that we’ve seen.’

Such cooperation, he said, would benefit the peoples of Pakistan and India, and the world community as well.

Mr Obama conceded that in the past the US-Pakistan relationship was ‘single-mindedly focussed just on military assistance’ and that the United States didn’t think more broadly about how to encourage and develop the kinds of civil society in Pakistan that would make a difference in the lives of people day-to-day.

His administration, Mr Obama added, had tried to change this approach by re-focussing its attention on helping the Pakistani people.

Showing more diplomatic skill than some of his senior diplomats, President Obama also nudged India and Pakistan to resume their dialogue without appearing intrusive.

‘One of the things I admire most about Prime Minister Singh is that I think at his core he is a man of peace,’ said Mr Obama before stressing the need for a peaceful resolution of India-Pakistan disputes.

‘Obviously, there are historic conflicts between India and Pakistan. It is not the place of the United States to try to, from the outside, resolve all those conflicts,’ he said.

Pakistan has important role in S. Asia: Obama

[Cambridge University Autumn 25/09/2008, The Berry student politics magazine.]

A Frontline source of mine has reported worrying circumstances in small-town British outposts of Helmand Province. Troops are dispatched to extremely remote areas with ration packs (meant) to last up to six months; the harsh Afghan terrain ensures that outposts are completely cut off and the British Army is not able to supply our soldiers with water – they have to buy their own. Within Nato-allocated British provinces winning over hearts and minds can only be achieved by increasing security with more boots on the ground – but this is proving tricky with too few troops, so US forces have moved in to help.

Fragile Afghanistan is now UN-rated the World’s tenth failed state. Constantly a strategic buffer in the path of conflict, it has been progressively shattered through the Anglo-Russian race for central Asian dominance, three Anglo-Afghan conflicts, civil war, Soviet invasion and now Nato and US intervention. In 2008, having “won” in Iraq, we are returning attention to “re-win” in Afghanistan. The US are increasing troops to recapture Afghan territory (which we appear to have misplaced during focus on Iraq) from highly experienced mountain tribesmen who not only have innate mountain-terrain expertise that was the undoing of past British and Russian invasions, but who also have – seven years on – improved weaponry, greater terrorist funding and an inflamed surplus of allied fighters.

Taliban fighters are anything from the “ten dollar” Afghan – the untrained local guy paid his daily bread to kill an ISAF soldier – to the Chechnyans, Pakistanis, Iranians, Iraqis, even western Chinese, most of whom receive training in Pakistan before being sent across to the southern region of Garmsir in British-controlled Helmand province. British forces in southern outposts buckle down and shoot as new Taliban and Al’Qaeda recruits flood in from across the border to receive their first bloody fighting experiences. Survivors then work their way up to Northern provinces, training and fighting as they go.

Troops and villagers are constantly on edge, living in fear of increasing suicide bombings. The Taliban have now realised they cannot fight conventional face-to-face warfare and are relying on IED technology passed on from Al-Qaeda supporters in Iraq, and bomb-makers in Iran; local Afghan’s wouldn’t have a clue how to build these, they’re all coming from the outside. It is clear, seven years on, that this war is not only Afghanistan’s to fight. The overarching War on Terror has fuelled further aggression and helped transform Al-Qaeda from an idea into a reality.

Perhaps the most distressing consequence of starving the Afghan war long-term of military resources alongside centre-stage Iraq, is that distraught Afghan civilians have now reverted back to tolerating the Taliban. Hardly surprising when the only alternative is a weak government with little control over a corrupt police force. The Afghan police work for whichever side gives them more money. They tax the locals, and are often under financial (and literal) influence of drugs – one of the main illegal sources funding fighting activities. With no established law worth respecting, civilians are scared of both foreigners and insurgents alike. Civilians don’t want to appear friendly with Western troops for fear of Taliban punishment. Local loyalties are torn – those who edge towards the beacon of “enduring freedom” are perpetuating further conflict and risking everything.

Enforced foreign security is trying to solidify what is otherwise – from a nomadic viewpoint – a blurred border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But Afghans live in tribes, villages, provinces, not in a globally contextualised “Afghanistan”. American forces will infiltrate village gatherings and negotiate with tribal chiefs, establishing their local problems, how they can help – winning over hearts and minds. They can afford to give village elders up to twenty thousand dollars without justification; the US budget allows for greater security efforts, but long term stability seems undermined when bribery is involved. It’s easy to say we’ve “won” but at what price? In a war torn country with little infrastructure, money has little value to locals unsure of who is watching and whom to trust. Where there is war there are sides to be taken, it’s everyman for himself.

The British do not have the same financial luxury as the US, but there is united emphasis between ISAF and US forces in training and then serving alongside local afghan police and military forces. Nato-led ISAF continue with their main prerogative in upholding security for the creation of a stable Afghan state with a legitimate government: a boots-on-the-ground effort – covering all localities, building local institutions such as schools, and giving a positive public profile so as to reassure villagers that there is alternative security to the Taliban.

But whispers of another thirty-year Northern Ireland are drifting through British troops. Recently the Taliban declared that they will continue fighting for another twenty years if they have to. Have our soldiers been told about the history of warfare in Afghanistan, how it was once the forgotten frontline of WWII, how we couldn’t beat the notorious “Talibs” nor capture the Fakir of Ipi, a foreshadow of Osama, thanks to the unbeatable mountains? The terrain hasn’t changed, and the Talibs have more friends than ever. What makes us so sure we can beat them now?

Surely a war on terror only undermines itself when it is breeding more terror. In a World made confused on why we went to war in the first place, the volume now needs to be turned up on Afghanistan to refresh the debate on our original motives for fighting there, whether we are realistically capable of winning, and if so, how we can go about it in ways that do not undermine our own home security in the eyes of would-be terrorists, nor risk making broken promises to war torn civilians whom we have starved of mass media attention and military focus for too long.

PKKH

By Shahid R. Siddiqi. Axis of Logic

When the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh meets President Obama during his visit to the US this week, the two leaders will discuss the framework for strategic dialogue between the two countries.

Singh seeks to solidify a relationship, transformed under the Bush administration from distant friendship to that of a ‘key ally’. That transformation led to a nuclear cooperation deal, increasing trade and investment, educational exchanges and unprecedented security collaboration. He is keen to finalize the civilian nuclear deal and seek Obama’s support for his bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Singh may also seek reassurance that the Indo-US relationship will not be overshadowed by the increasing Sino-US collaboration.

After the collapse of Soviet Union, India’s former mentor and ally, India sought an alliance with the United States who also had interest in wooing it. In the US containment-of-China policy under Bush, India could prove extremely useful to advance U.S. interests, particularly because of strained Sino-Indian relations over regional ambitions and border disputes which led it into a war with China in 1962, though with a humiliating outcome.

But this created a paradox for the US. Pakistan was once a key ally of the U.S., an important link in their strategy to contain communism during the cold war era and a member of the U.S.-sponsored, but now defunct military pacts – SEATO & CENTO. Pakistan became highly suspicious of this U.S. ‘tilt’ towards India. Pakistan had an acrimonious relationship with India mainly over the Kashmir and water and India’s blatant role in the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971.

The consistent Indian threat to Pakistan’s security led Pakistan to develop a nuclear response to Indian acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1974 to maintain the balance of power and ward off Indian hegemonic designs. Despite Pakistan’s efforts and calls by the international community, India refused negotiated settlements of disputes. This has kept the pot simmering, maintaining an uneasy peace in the region. In the absence of progress in resolving the root causes of tensions, recent assurances by Obama and Singh, that India poses no threat to Pakistan – were rejected outright in Pakistan.

The US has used Pakistan for its own geopolitical objectives in the past during the cold war, to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the 1980s and then for its war on terror in Afghanistan after 9/11. While it aided and equipped Pakistan for the role it wanted Pakistan to play, Pakistan’s relationship with the US has swung from being the ‘most allied ally’ to being the “most neglected ally” and then to being the ‘most sanctioned ally’, depending upon how much the US needed Pakistan’s services at any given time. In Pakistan, the US has come to be perceived as most unreliable and is viewed with deep suspicion.

Presently, the deepening U.S. relations with India result from the changing American perspective of the region. India could prove to be a huge market for American high tech goods and weapon systems in the future. Also its growing nuclear and military strength coupled with regional ambitions could be useful to the US as its proxy for policing the region.

Realizing that he cannot maintain a military presence in Afghanistan for long, Obama needs to install a proxy power there too when he decides to pull out, most likely by 2011. India fits the bill. The US expects India to keep the government in Kabul under check, keep peace among warring factions and protect American interests.

India has its own interests too. The nuclear deterrence will not allow India to launch military aggression against Pakistan, but it can work for the dismemberment of Pakistan by promoting an Eastern Pakistan style insurgency in Balochistan and by continuing to squeeze Pakistan on the western border using rogue elements from the tribal belt. It has already begun to position its troops there under cover of “development work”.

The belief that India can hold the fort for the US is a fallacy. If the Afghans, who fiercely oppose foreign occupiers whom they have thrown out unceremoniously in the past and if the U.S. is also on the verge of withdrawal, what makes anyone think that Indian forces would be welcome to stay? Besides, the Taliban, who are bound to gain political influence in Kabul sooner or later, will reject Indian military presence on their soil, as it will represent American interests.

This Indo-US partnership, which seeks to serve divergent geopolitical objectives and is based on taking advantage of one and other, will neither be smooth nor lasting. Above all, it will seriously jeopardize peace in South Asia by alienating Pakistan and adding to its existing tensions with India. This will also ring alarm bells in Tehran and Beijing.

As of now in the current US matrix, cordial Sino-US relations are very important for a variety of reasons, mainly owing to U.S. reliance on Chinese economic support and that will not end any time soon. It is clearly not feasible for Obama to promote relations with India at the cost of its relations with China.

But this will not sit well with a sensitive India, given the history of Sino-Indian rivalry. Only recently the Indian officials, says a Washington Post report, in an outburst of Brahmanic self importance expressed concern that New Delhi has suddenly been relegated to the second tier of U.S.-Asian relations because Obama did not mention India in his speech on US relations in Asia recently. The speech was delivered in Tokyo and focused on the Asia-Pacific region and not South Asia. This, the Indians believe, is Obama’s failure to recognize India’s broader regional aspirations, something that the Bush administration had encouraged. The Indians were upset that “Washington was leaning too closely to China”.

Then to India’s chagrin came a call made through the joint statement on conclusion of Obama’s visit to China, in which Obama suggested that Beijing mediate between India and Pakistan. The statement said,

“China and the United States are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region.”

“A third-country role cannot be envisaged nor is it necessary” to solve disputes between India and Pakistan, was the retort by Indian Foreign Ministry. The influential Times of India headline read “Obama’s China [credit] card casts shadow on PM’s US visit,” referring to the $800 billion in U.S. Treasury securities held by China.

Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment said he detected in India “a sense of exclusion that’s been gnawing at them since the Tokyo speech.” He added: “The joint statement prompted new fears that somehow the United States and China would collude to manage events in South Asia.”

Tellis said this has caused particular neuralgia in India because tensions between Beijing and New Delhi have risen recently over competing border claims. India is also upset over Chinese plans to divert waters of Brahmaputra River that originates in Tibet and flows into Northeastern India, without whose water its plains would lay waste. In addition, Indians are concerned that the Obama administration, unlike the Bush administration, views India as part of the South Asian problem, which includes the instability in Pakistan.

China’s interest in South Asia, a natural outcome of its regional security concerns in its sensitive underbelly and its very close relations with Pakistan, is unpalatable for India which considers South Asia as its exclusive domain.

These Indian sensitivities will keep the US on the edge. To assure them that India was in its own league in South Asia and of America’s growing closeness, Secretary Clinton spent four days in India in July but refrained from a stopover in neighboring Pakistan.

In a geopolitically sensitive region, where the US has to cater to important bilateral interests with China, even handedly deal with a Pakistan whose cooperation in Afghanistan is key to its success and which is increasingly angry over repeated American betrayals, and to keep the Taliban and Pashtun sensitivities in mind while negotiating a exit deal with them, the tendency to throw tantrums on the part of Indian leadership could make the new partnership difficult to sustain.

Therefore, before rushing into a collaborative arrangement with India and offering highly sensitive nuclear technologies, the US will be well-advised to first test out the prickly world of relations with New Delhi.

Despite tall claims about being the biggest democracy, India remains high on the list of human rights violations and has a long way to go in ensuring equal social status to Dalits (also called the untouchables) who form 20 percent of the population. It has been repeatedly accused of ethnic and religious cleansing of minorities.

If the US could make a political issue out of Tiananmen Square and Obama could refer to human rights issues during his China visit, why should not India be held to the same standard during Singh’s visit.

As for the Indian request for a permanent seat on the Security Council, it is important to bear in mind that India itself is involved in Kashmir dispute pending before the Security Council and whose Resolutions it has refused to implement. At the bottom of the dispute is the issue of exercise of the people’s will in determining Kashmir’s final dispensation. The dispute has led India to fight three wars with Pakistan and one with China. India has stationed several army divisions in Kashmir to subjugate the people and independent sources have confirmed killings of thousands of unarmed Kashmiris and sexual abuse perpetrated on thousands of women by these security forces.

In response to a similar bid earlier, India was advised to first settle the Kashmir dispute. Then the U.S.-India relationship had just begun to take shape with limited US influence over India. But now that the US enjoys greater clout, it could more effectively pressure India for a negotiated settlement, which is in every one’s interest, as well as in the interest of peace.

© Copyright 2009 by AxisofLogic.com

I wouldn't mess with him either

The news breaks this morning that, apparently, the North Korean regime is going to ensure that it’s long suffering residents will only be able to see their national team play if they are fortunate enough to achieve yet another Glorious Victory.

Denial of the facts and rearrangement of them to prove otherwise is as old as humanity itself. Repressive regimes certainly don’t have a monopoly on it. After all, its what our politicians attempt to do on a daily basis. Spin is the name of the game.

The real difference is that rather than sitting back and taking such arrant nonsense from our politicians, we are, for now, allowed to hit back. Well, I say we, but most of us just sit back and let the media do it on our behalf. That’s not always a good thing, but it’s better than nothing. And it keeps those dastardly pols on their toes.

But what intrigues me most is that we like to forget about North Korea. OK, we’re a bit worried about the crackpot in charge of the country, and whether he has or hasn’t got nuclear weapons. But otherwise, we don’t really have anything to say about the fact that the vast majority of the country are living in great poverty, and the regime doesn’t tolerate any dissent.

Over here in the West, we call those human rights abuses. Sometimes we use terms like “crimes against humanity” or even “genocide”.

When it suits us (which is definitely not when anyone talks about China), we like to use such positions to sit atop a high horse of moral superiority. And, perhaps, rightly so. After all, in a direct matchup between state-sponsored murder of trouble-makers we really ought to come out much lower than they do.

Some years ago, some of you may remember a small conflict that occurred in the Middle East. It involved a country called Iraq. There was an exchange of gunfire, and a small handful of military largesse, and soon enough we’d got rid of the blighters. Our justification at the time was that the country was posing a grave threat to the West. “45 minutes from destruction”, some fella quipped. That convinced everybody.

As the years passed, we realised we’d been duped a little. It seems, in fact, that the leader of the country was playing us along, hoping we’d believe he did have weapons of mass destruction and so would leave him alone just in case he was crazy enough (and he was) to use them against us.

But just like politicians, they cannot be trusted. All of a sudden the war was never about WMDs. No. It was because the leader of Iraq was an “evil dictator”. A brutal repressor of human rights. Stock footage of the man firing shotguns off balconies and ordering people to be executed soon rolled on the airwaves. Apparently, without us even knowing it, the war was actually fought to liberate the Iraqi people of such tyranny. And who could disagree? The man was batshit, after all.

Yet there remained troubling questions to those who were sceptical all along. “Why Iraq? Why now?” was what they used to say, before they would get shouted down by some Blair character for daring to have no compassion for the suffering of their fellow humans in Iraq.

It was classic memory hole stuff. The original pretexts for war were shuffled into the fire, and an ex post facto justification emerged.

The unfortunate consequence of such a doctrine can be seen in the headline to this post. A little facetious, yeah, but I’ve gotta get your attention somehow.

Got a repressive regime? Genocidal tendencies? Feeling the need to butcher a few of those people with the wrong skin colour or religion?

Well watch out, cos the World Police will soon be knocking on your door. Maybe. If they can be bothered.

And you aren’t China, or one of their chums.

Here’s to realpolitik!

PYF

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit Tuesday urged the world community to take notice of remarks passed by the Indian Army Chief, saying India is setting the stage for a limited war against Pakistan since long.

The FO spokesman said in its statement that the remarks of Indian Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor reflect the hazardous and aggressive nuclear theory propagated by India.

The spokesman said Deepak’s statement endorses Indian’s aggression-based ambitions regarding nuclear hegemony, adding it is incumbent upon the big world powers to keep intact the power balance in the region.

Abdul Basit said Pakistan is a responsible country and will continue working for the upkeep of peace in the South Asia on the basis of equality and mutual respect.

By: TimesOnline

World Agenda: BJP in the frame

for Babri mosque massacre

In the hours since I wrote about the latest on ClimateGate, there has been a part of MSM willing to swallow hard and accept that there is a story here (such as CBS News, which goes the extra step of looking into the horrfiyingly mangled computer-modeling code).

Others, however, have reacted in a manner similar to a child plugging his ears and screaming “I can’t hear you!”

The Boston Globe, for example, chose today to scare its reades with another the-sea-will-drown-us-all posts.  The commenters had a field day, but if I had seen it five minutes earlier my laptop would be covered in chocolate milk, and it would be near-run thing between the house fire it would have caused and laughter-cum-asphixiation for what would have killed me (Doug Ross had a similar problem – albeit without the chocolate milk).

The Houston Chronicle was even better for a laugh – insisting that “evidence continues to accumulate that the threat is accelerating” while citing someone from none other than East Anglia University, or as we skeptics prefer to call it, Alarmist Fraud HQ.  P.J. Gladnick at Newsbusters took credit for a post that really just wrote itself.

All of this comes courtesy of Mark Steyn, whose NRO Corner post title says it all: “Tree-Ring Circus.”

Like Atlas, the U.S. must now either take the world upon its shoulders alone or drop the ball. I say let's drop the ball on most issues.

Anne Applebaum, who writes for Slate and The Washington Post, has just published an excellent column where she persuasively argues that “no one wants America to be the sole global superpower, but no one wants to share the load.”

She uses Obama’s recent trip to China and Europe’s election of a new president and foreign minister as her primary evidence that no one really wants to engage the major foreign policy issues the Obama administration cares about. In China’s case, Applebaum writes that Chinese officials claim they are still a “developing country” that needs time before partnering on foreign policy issues with the U.S such as the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and North Korea and Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions.

Europe’s case is a little more puzzling from a psychological and practical standpoint. As far as I know it didn’t really make big news, but they finally ratified the Lisbon Treaty several weeks ago. This important treaty swiftly permitted countries in the European Union to elect a president and foreign minister to more effectively represent Europe’s unified interests on a global stage. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was under some consideration for the job, but it seems that the other countries felt he would overshadow their presence. Here’s Applebaum’s full explanation:

the leaders of Europe were locked into proverbial smoke-filled rooms (nowadays empty of smoke) arguing over who should be granted the new job of “president” of the European Union and who should become Europe’s new “high representative,” or foreign minister. These talks represented the culmination of a decade’s worth of diplomacy, debate, and national referendums, all designed to produce a more united European foreign policy and to give Europe a single phone number that Obama can call when he wants to chat. The result: The president of Europe will be Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, a politician unknown outside his own country. The foreign minister of Europe will be British official Catherine Ashton, a bureaucrat unknown even inside her own country. Candidates of far greater experience and influence—including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt—were rejected, apparently for fear they would have more experience and influence than the powers that be. Germany’s Der Spiegel heralded this news with the headline “Europe Chooses Nobodies.”

Translation: Europe might have a new phone number, but when Obama calls, the person on the other end of the line will still be unable to act. “Europe” will not be a unified entity capable of coordinating a unified policy in Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, the Middle East, or anywhere else anytime soon. Europe cannot, in short, become America’s full partner in foreign policy.

I agree with Applebaum that it was a stupid decision on Europe’s part to not choose a politician with more star power. As shallow as that sounds, I actually think it’s an important element to effective leadership.

Applebaum wrote her most recent column so clearly that it doesn’t make sense for me to try to paraphrase her concluding thoughts. So here’s whate she wrote:

And thus we are left with a curious situation: America no longer wants to be the sole superpower. The American president no longer wants to be the leader of a sole superpower. Nobody else wants America to be the sole superpower, and, in fact, America cannot even afford to be the sole superpower. Yet America has no obvious partner with which to share its superpowerdom, and if America were to cease being a superpower, nothing and no one would take its place…

This does mean that the Obama administration has a problem, however: Having come to office promising to work with allies, it may soon discover that there are no allies with which to work. Europe is still our best hope, because Europeans share most of our values. But organizing sanctions with a divided Europe—never mind a military operation—will continue to be a major chore. China, meanwhile, is acquiring vast foreign interests, trading in Africa and South America as well as Asia, and maintaining a vast army. But China appears uninterested in joining an international campaign against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or anything else.

Global military and security thus look set to remain in the hands of the United States, whether the United States wants it or not. Halfway through his presidency, George W. Bush found he had to drop unilateralism in favor of diplomacy. Now one wonders: At some point in his presidency, will Obama find he has to drop diplomacy in favor of unilateralism?

I think Applebaum’s conclusion is right on– the choice falls squarely on the United States as to making any global actions. The question I think is whether or not we should.

I’m starting to think that with the exception of taking a much, much needed leadership role on global climate change, the U.S. and the Obama administration would be far better off taking a backseat on foreign policy for the time being.

People are tired of the U.S. and its ideas about what is best for the world, especially as we struggle to change the infrastructure of our own country. What to do about health care in the U.S. is not entirely clear to me, but the political realities suggest that whatever action the U.S. government takes to improve the system is going to be fairly minor. The Obama administration has also played softball with the banking industry, and they are truly the robber barons of modern day.

In other words, President Obama has really taken the backseat on most major domestic issues since becoming president, and I am starting to agree with Ariana Huffington when she recently wondered what candidate Obama would think of President of Obama. The audacity of hope has instead become “the timidity of governing” she argued. If only Obama would realize this and instead focus on the old saying of “let’s solve problems at home first, before policing the world.”

That being said, I do think the U.S. can engage the rest of the world in new ways that aren’t necessarily all related to military strength and economic might. Focusing on education, clean energy, and the environment can all be positive ways to engage the rest of the world while not being so demanding and forceful. Who knows, it might even help the U.S. to get the Olympics again (I say this partially joking as I think Brazil was an excellent choice for the Olympics).

What do you think? Are the days of world superpowers over for now?

Image courtesy of lightmatter on Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Extensive coverage of police violence during the Democratic National Convention shocked and psychologically tasered the liberal American population who believes in civil rights and the necessity for a state to promote a trustworthy, reliable, and respectful police force on which the citizens can lean in times of inorderly conduit and criminal violence. Democratic societies have been failing one after the other to prove their population they knew how to control internal security issues, make the difference between political trouble and peaceful protests, anarchy and political activism… as well as not making any difference between any citizen, whether the bias is racial, religious, or political. The irony lying within the same countries’ foreign policy being based on exporting their own so-called democratic system is not lost on the victims of police violence. If the Grant case was easy for you to stomach, let’s turn to Paris where the question of national identity, that has been plaguing the nation of Voltaire ever since the independance of Algeria, is now reaching new heights of violence.

Last Wednesday – November 18th – Algeria wins over Egypt in a football match many French citizens of Algerian descent wish to commemorate. Anyss Arbib, a twenty-two year old student at the well-connected, internationally renowned National Institute of Political Science, decides to join the party on the Champs-Elysees in the capital, from his suburb in which most of the population is of northern african origin. North Paris, and specifically the 93rd regional district – Seine Saint Denis – has only gained a reputation through repeated violence, riots, and organized crime. Luckily for Arbib, who is himself entering the preparation for the National School of Governance, France is a soccer country, in which it is widely accepted to honk, scream, yell, and wave flags at whichever country has managed to shoot a ball inside a net.

Anyss Arbib has two major flaws going against him: he is coming from the aforementioned district, and is of Arab descent. Regardless of his qualities as a student, his deep and humble knowledge of the law, his ambition to become part of a government someday, and his writing abilities, Anyss Arbib, born a French citizen on French territory, is suddenly forced to question his own identity. Once the Champs-Elysees are invaded by a group of violent rioters, Arbib and his friends decide to leave and come back home, not willing to be assimilated to people whose behaviour they have always disapproved of. Back on the freeway, they suddenly encounter the police forces, stopping cars at random, dragging their drivers out on the road and beating them severely in front of terrified families and young people. Insults flow from members of the police: “get the fuck out, you dirty Arab”; “what the fuck are you looking at”, to a witness screaming that someone is going to die, before being teargassed by the same polician. Anyss Arbib tries to keep his composure.

Anyss Arbib here on the left with Richard Descoings, director of the National Institute of Political Science

“I have been nothing but polite”, he tells the policeman pushing him against his car. “There is no reason to behave so aggressively.” “Shut the fuck up”, replies the policeman. “I know my rights, I am a political science student”, Arbib calmly replies. “Well fuck political science!” is the reply he gets before being teargassed at close range, and losing consciousness. He comes to still on the freeway to watch a father of several children being dragged out of his seat and beaten up by batons. His friend has also been teargassed and is partially blind. “Go away, you Arab” says a policeman. “I’m French”, Arnyss replies. Was it at that precise moment he realised he wasn’t? A friend later told him, “Ivy League or not, you’ll always be an Arab, even with a French ID.”

When Nicolas Sarkozy introduced his best friend Brice Hortefeux at the head of a new yet controversial Ministry Of National Identity and Immigration, he knew he was just throwing more fuel into a already burning pan. Immigrants – often from the Maghreb, issued from France’s former colonies – are confined into suburbs and withdraw into a dangerous tendancy to communautarism and religious defiance to France’s secular system. With a crumbling education system and a government exacerbating violent opposition through cheap provocation, the 2006 riots so heavily documented worldwide were just one detail of a much bigger picture. France, unable to deal with its colonial past and fully integrate the sons and daughters of those who rebuilt the country after World War II, is now facing religious integrism clashing with other communities of faith, a growing illiteracy rate, decaying women’s rights in the face of integrism, and civil unstability. President Sarkozy was elected on agenda based on tough control and “zero tolerance”. In return, the difference between the upper middle class and the lower working class has grown to a deep, incrossable manhole, and national identity is nothing short of tacky patriotism sprinkled with daydreams of a glorious past that looks nothing like the contemporary bleak, dull reality.

Anyss Arbib is lucky; educated, smart, righteous, and well-guided, his story reached the frontpage of a national newspaper (Libération, November 24); complaints reach the inspection of the police forces, the IJSS; his outcry, firstly published on his Facebook page, touched national consciousness. But for the hundreds of thousands with no access to a network of media consultants or the knowledge of the complex administrative legal process, the mass of those left behind, no recourse is possible and ghettoism is the only answer.

In a word, Arbib is not just seeking accountability. He’s also searching for himself, tied between two worlds – one he barely knows, but is forced to reach out to for support; and one he thought he was a legitimate part of, but rejecting him on the basis of difference. France has never been a homogenuous melting pot of faiths and ethnicities. Under the pretext of assimilation, France just pushed every identity under the rug of the shining Republic. The Commission overseeing and evaluating police forces (CNDS)  will be dismantled by the end of the year despite increasing number of registered complaints  -19 in 2001, 152 in 2008 and 158 for the first three months of 2009). Now what’s a Republican to do?

While most of us in this neck of the blogosphere have been focused on the aftermath of the Virginia GOP sweep, the rest of the world is becoming engulfed by ClimateGate, i.e., the exposure of leading scientific proponents of “global warming” and “climate change” as data-fudging and dissent-supressing charlatans.

Yours truly mentioned it on the RWL blog, but it doesn’t hold a candle to what my Canadian friend Kate McMillan has put together at Small Dead Animals.

American MSM has, as one would expect, been almost completely silent (the New York Times, deliberately and shamefully so), but in Britain, one of the leading alarmists – George Monbiot of The Guardian – has posted a mea culpa(via Watts Up With That, emphasis in WUWT):

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

. . .

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

I should note that the original Guardian link is down as of 11:45 AM (I’ll put the link up if it starts working properly.

Of course, British newspapers have neither the illusion of “objectivity” or the pompous arrogance of their American counterparts.  Thus, no one in the British press would believe they could supress a story just by refusing to report on it.  Sadly, most American MSM outlets are clinging to this myth . . . all the more reason for the blogosphere.