By Alan Caruba

I am always wary of conspiracy theories. Most can be explained away as shared ideologies which, in the case of the current and recently past Congresses and White Houses, can be described as socialism. It did not and does not matter which Party was or is in power.

The other explanation for the national car wreck we’re in is just plain “stupidity.” Another way of describing this is “willful ignorance.” Both apply when the President, Senators or Representatives say things that have no basis in fact either historically or empirically.

We all know, for example, that it is getting colder no matter where we live, but the President has been lying about “global warming” and “greenhouse gas emissions” for some time now.

Similarly, Congress, going back to 1979 or so, has been doing everything in its capacity to thwart access to the tremendous reserves of energy in America, thus forcing Americans to pay more for imported oil and to subsidize the worst possible way to generate electricity, wind and solar power.

It has banned the manufacture or import of incandescent light bulbs starting in 2010.

It determines how much water can be used to flush your toilet.

It determines the content of every gallon of gasoline, requiring that ethanol be a component even though ethanol ensures less mileage and more carbon dioxide emissions from the tailpipe. It also drives up the cost of all foods made from corn or the livestock to which it is fed.

What kind of nation fails the most essential element of a modern society, the maintenance of its infrastructure? America’s roads, bridges, ports and other elements of infrastructure are sorely in need of repair or replacement. It’s not happening along with the failure to build a single new nuclear plant, nor refinery in three decades.

Meanwhile, following a Bush “stimulus” effort and an Obama “stimulus” bill, the economy remains mired in the doldrums. Unemployment has risen above 10%, the worst since 1983. Things like this don’t happen without a cause and, as Ronald Reagan used to say, “Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.”

In a similar fashion, during a 1959 interview with Mike Wallace, the author Ayn Rand said, “A free economy will not break down. All depressions are caused by government interference and the cure that is always offered…is more of the same poisons that caused the disasters.”

Rand was referring to the Great Depression, an economic disaster made infinitely worse and longer by all the government prescriptions applied by both President Hoover and, in particular, President Franklyn D. Roosevelt. It is now understood that FDR and his economic advisors literally stretched out the Great Depression to ten year’s duration by choking off the free flow of capital and trade.

There is an interesting comparison between FDR and President Obama. Neither had any experience in the world of business and commerce. Neither ever ran a business or met a payroll. A political campaign is not a business enterprise. It is a short-term fund raising effort. It produces nothing except a candidate who either wins or loses. Obama’s economic advisors have been prescribing the same awful “remedies” as FDR’s.

The present dilemma is that Obama is an ideologue, a “red diaper” baby raised on the socialist belief in the “redistribution of wealth” which essentially means taking money from productive wage earners and investors, and giving it to “the poor.” The problem with that is that there has always been about 14% of the population that have been and will be poor. Giving them other people’s money does not make them less poor; only more dependent on government.

This transfer of wealth in exchange for getting their vote comes with no guarantees. The large percentage of Blacks who voted for Obama in 2008 did not bother to return to the polls in this year’s elections. Neither did the worshipful youth who helped elect him by a slim seven points.

As for those youth and everyone else who has passed through the U.S. education system since the 1960s, the bad news is that you received some of the worst education available in any nation on Earth. That’s why you don’t understand much about what is happening in your life or in the world around you. The curriculum has been dumbed down to ensure your ignorance of things graduates in 1950 understood even if you do not.

The good news is the swift plunge in Obama’s popularity among all voters. He has proved himself to be spectacularly ill-prepared for the presidency on the basis of its ideology, his experience, and his judgment. One almost expects him to show up on “Dancing with the Stars” any day.

So what or who is wrecking America? A lot of very stupid people.

Only a Congress that openly admits it does not read the bills put before it votes on them could be so indifferent to the public will or the public good.

Two bills will wreck the economy beyond recognition. There is no public support for either healthcare reform or the energy cap-and-trade bill. Yet both are the keystone legislative goals of the White House.

Beyond stupidity, there is ideology.

The environmental movement, a quasi-religious cult, is fighting every form of energy production except solar or wind. It is engaged in a war on private property. It regards all chemicals as poisons despite the fact that the human body is a virtual chemical processing factory. It is the megaphone for “global warming”, the largest hoax—other than Communism—in modern history.

It’s just too easy to beat up the news and entertainment media, particularly the latter. What passes for entertainment is too stupid, too childish, and too vulgar for words. As for news, Americans are increasingly finding their own sources on the Internet and/or relying on sources such as The Wall Street Journal and others they trust.

So, if you are looking around for an answer to what or who is wrecking America, just keep looking around you. It’s Congress. It’s the White House. It’s people who believe the Democrat Party cares what they think. It’s people who think Islam is a religion of peace. It’s people who follow news of “celebrities.” It’s Nancy Pelosi. It’s Harry Reid. It’s Barney Frank. It’s Barack Hussein Obama.

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

By Alan Caruba

I have long harbored strong doubts about the knowledge that most Americans possess regarding the sources of energy they largely take for granted. We flip a switch and the lights go on. We pull up to the gas pump and drive away. We use machines that are totally dependent on having enough electricity to power entire cities as well as rural communities.

Since all successful economies depend on abundant, affordable energy, why is the Congress preparing to pass a cap-and-trade bill, renamed to suggest “clean energy” and “national security” has anything to do with a huge tax on the use of energy by all Americans?

There are some fundamental facts about energy in America you need to know. The Congressional Research Service recently released a report on U.S. energy reserves. To begin:

The U.S. has 1,321 billion barrels of oil (or barrels of oil equivalent for other sources of energy) when combining its recoverable natural gas, oil and coal reserves. This is oil known to exist and oil estimates in fields as yet untapped. Between Alaska and the continental offshore potential, we could literally be self-sufficient.

Keep in mind, however, oil represents less than 40% of our energy use, nor do we import most of that from the Middle East. Two-thirds of our oil consumption comes from North America with Canada and Mexico being major providers. By expanding domestic production, we could reduce dependency on the Middle East even further.

That said, since the days of Jimmy Carter, the White House and Congress has gone out of its way to make it difficult, if not impossible, to tap domestic reserves. When a windfall profits tax was imposed on November 9, 1978, it sent a message to U.S. oil companies they were not welcome here.

While ExxonMobil is the favorite target of environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth or the Sierra Club, the fact is that it is no longer in the seven top oil producers in the United States. The “big” domestic oil companies are now Aera Energy, Anadarko, and Occidental. ExxonMobil looks for oil in overseas locations.

Astonishingly, other oil producing nations whose reserves are ranked behind the U.S. are Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and Canada. The only oil “shortage” in the U.S. is one created by Congress and the energy policies of a succession of past presidents. An estimated 87% of our oil reserves remain untouched.

When it comes to coal, the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal with 28% of all the world’s coal reserves. Russian comes in second with 19%. Coal represents more than 50% of all the electricity produced in America and the Obama administration has declared war on it.

The cap-and-trade bill before Congress puts all of its emphasis on the two worst, most expensive, and job-killing forms of energy, wind and solar. Combined they represent a pathetic 1% of electricity. They are unreliable sources, dependent on whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Moreover, though never mentioned, they require backup sources of traditional energy production. You cannot have wind or solar energy without also having a coal-fired, hydroelectric, or nuclear plant to ensure a steady source.

As reported in Newsweek, “Each year as much as $100 billion is spent by governments and consumers around the world on green subsidies to encourage wind, solar, and other renewable energy markets.”

The result, in the U.S. is a virtually army, “1,150 lobbying groups that spent more than $20 million to lobby the U.S. Congress as it was writing the Clean Energy bill (which would create a $60 billion annual market for emissions permits by 2012.)”

The Newsweek article said, “It’s a genetic defect that not only guarantees great waste, but opens the door to manipulation and often demonstrably contravenes the objectives that climate policy is supposed to achieve.”

We do not have a climate policy in the United States. We have a huge scheme to enrich a small group of people who will control the exchanges for utterly bogus “carbon credits”, nothing more than the right to emit carbon dioxide as the natural result of burning fuel for energy. It is not, however, such industrial and other uses that represents the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. The Earth itself is responsible for 95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and that CO2 represents 3.618%.

By comparison, nuclear energy does not produce CO2 emissions and yet there hasn’t been a new nuclear reactor built in the United States for some thirty years.

The same is true for the building of a single new oil refinery in America. Since it takes about a decade from start to finish on these huge engineering projects and a billion dollar investment, it would be 2020 before one was in full production if begun next year. The real question is, if you were an oil company CEO, would you invest that kind of money when the U.S. won’t let you explore or extract oil on or offshore?

What no one is telling you is that CO2 does not “cause” global warming and there is no global warming. The Earth is actually in a natural cycle of cooling that began in 1998 and is anticipated to last at least two to three decades.

Europe’s experience with “renewable” energy has been a disaster. Great Britain is facing blackouts that will make economic growth impossible and wreak havoc on the daily lives of the English. As with other European nations, it has driven up the cost of electricity.

The American energy consumer is being lied to and stolen from in the form of the cap-and-trade bill under consideration and other obstacles.

The nation as a whole is being put at risk for lack of access to our own vast energy reserves, coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power that will be needed to reverse the present recession, unemployment, and the ability to grow our way back to prosperity.

Editor’s Note: To read the report, click on
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=f7bd7b77-ba50-48c2-a635-220d7cf8c519

Alan Caruba writes a daily post at Warning Signs. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

Read more thought provoking articles at Warning Signs

Our knowledge of Jewish life in the second century B.C.E. comes mainly from Flavius Josephus (37/38-95/100 C.E.), the great Jewish-Roman historian who wrote in Greek, the scholarly language of his time. The hellenization of the Jews had been thorough.The King of Judea and the High Priest of Yahweh had Greek names. (page 240).

During the third century B.C.E., the Tobiads were the principal advocates of hellenization among the Jews (Grayzel 1969:49). The Jewish family called the Tobiads (the sons of Tobias) traced their ancestry to Tobias the Ammonite, governor of the Persian province of Ammon (now Jordan), east of Jordan River, during the tenure of  Nehemiah in Judea in the fifth century B.C.E. One of them, Joseph ben Tobias, became very prominent during the second half of that century. (page 219).

By the beginning of the third century B.C.E. the Jews were being hellenized rapidly. They no longer spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, but Greek. Their religious services were conducted in Greek. Their personal Hebrew names were hellenized: Honio became Onias, Ezra became Esdras, Yeshua became Iesous (Jesus), and Joshua became Jason. Some Jews had Greek names only, such as Antigonus, Hyrkanos, Aristobolus, or Philon (Philo).The choice of such names by Jews for their children indicated the degree of their hellenization. (page 219).

During the reign of Ptolemaios Philadelphos (Ptolemy II, 308-246 B.C.E.), the Torah and other Jewish holy scriptures were translated into Greek by a synod of scholars. (page 215).

During the years that he was the High Priest and ethnarch (175-171 B.C.E.) Jason promoted Greek sports at the expense of Temple worship. Jason did not last long in the office of High Priest. He was unseated in 171 B.C.E. by Menelaos, a member of the noble Jewish Tobiads and a more extreme Hellenizer than Jason himself.(page 224-225).

By the first century, Greek had become the language of the Jews in the”diaspora”. The Jews of the Hellenic world spoke Greek the way present-day American Jews speak English. During the Greco-Roman and the Byzantine periods, from the late fourth century B.C.E., to the early seventh century C.E. most Jews were thoroughly Hellenized.(page 454).

By the third century B.C.E the Jews of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt had become thoroughly hellenized. They worshipped Zeus, Hera, and the rest of the Greek pantheon. There were images of Greek sun god Helios, the wine god Dionysos, and the demigod Heracles on Jewish synagogue floor mosaics at Sepphori an other Gallilean cities as late as the sixth century C.E. But the Orthodox Jews violently resisted Hellenism. The conflict between Helenism and Judaism, or rather between hellenized and Orthodox Jews, was to lead to major trouble in the second century BCE, after Palestine was captured from Egypt by the Seleucid Greeks of Syria. (page 215).

Just as in modern America most Jews use English rather than Hebrew in their religious services and rituals, so Greek was used by the Jews of Egypt, including Judea, in their religion (page 215).

Hellenic culture was much more attractive to the young Jews of Judea than the rigid strictures of their own religion. The Greek myths and deities, projections of the deepest infantile conflicts and family relations, etched into the unconscious mind of every person, deeply appealed to the people, just as the Canaanites myths had to their ancestors. The Tobiads led the wave of hellenization among the Jews. (page 220)

Jews always spoke the language of the land which was their home. When expulsions and persecutions eventually brought about a wider separation between the Jews and the non-Jews, the result was a growing dissimilarity between the intimate languages spoken by each group.(Grayzel quoted on page 458).

in the early fourth century, the Jews were divided into three main groupings. Those living in the Western Roman Empire of Italy, which comprised much of Western Europe, spoke mainly Latin, the lingua franca of the West, and the native European languages of the ethnic groups amongst whom they lived. The Jews of the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium, with its capital at Constantinople spoke mainly Greek, the language of the East. The Jews living in Sassanian Neo-Persian empire east of the Euphrates spoke mainly Aramaic. Hebrew continued to be spoken by Jewish scholars and by the people in their prayers. (page 337).

During the seventh and eighth centuries the lands inhabited by Jew in the Middle East and North Africa were conquered by the Muslim Arabs. Arabic became the language of the these Jews. (page 454).

Text extracts from A psychoanalytic history of the Jews By Avner Falk.

Judaism – an existential challenge

Jews - the eternal victims

The Jewish population, followers of one of the oldest religions in the world, across countries and in Israel, today faces an existential challenge. With 0.25% of world population, i.e. less than 1.5 crore Jews left, in a world of more than 600 crore people, they have made enemies of their neighbours around their country.

The Jewish state, dependent on US largesse, hangs by a thin thread. Without Hitler, the world population of Jews would possibly have been not much better. Maybe 2.5 crores instead of 1.5 crores (at the risk of sounding insensitive). Maybe 0.5% of world population, instead of 0.25%. Also, must be remembered that Jewish studies in the modern context are affected by the ‘Jews as the eternal victims’ syndrome.

Genetic analysis of the Jewish populations

So, what is the reason for this fragile position of the Jewish population? One recent study states that

Admixture analysis based on binary and Y-STR haplotypes indicates a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%) and Sephardic Jewish (19.8%) sources. Despite alternative possible sources for lineages ascribed a Sephardic Jewish origin, these proportions attest to a high level of religious conversion (whether voluntary or enforced), driven by historical episodes of social and religious intolerance, that ultimately led to the integration of descendants.

(from The Genetic Legacy of Religious Diversity and Intolerance: Paternal Lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula by Susan M. Adams,Elena Bosch,Patricia L. Balaresque,Stéphane J. Ballereau,Andrew C. Lee,Eduardo Arroyo,Ana M. López-Parra,Mercedes Aler,Marina S. Gisbert Grifo,Maria Brion,Angel Carracedo,João Lavinha,Begoña Martínez-Jarreta,Lluis Quintana-Murci,Antònia Picornell,Misericordia Ramon,Karl Skorecki,Doron M. Behar,Francesc Calafell andMark A. Jobling, Copyright 2008 The American Society of Human Genetics, The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 83, Issue 6, 725-736, 04 December 2008).

Another study concludes that the Jewish population shares a high level of common paternal similarities.

Several lines of evidence support the hypothesis that Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish neighbors. The only exception was the Ethiopian Jews, who were affiliated more closely with non-Jewish Ethiopians and other North Africans.

Second, despite their high degree of geographic dispersion, Jewish populations from Europe, North Africa, and the Near East were less diverged genetically from each other than any other group of populations in this study. At the most basic level, the genetic distances observed among Jewish and non-Jewish populations can be interpreted as reflecting common ancestry, genetic drift, and gene flow. The latter two processes will tend to increase genetic distances among Jewish populations, whereas admixture will also have the effect of decreasing genetic distances between Jewish and non-Jewish populations.

Our results suggest that common ancestry is the major determinant of the genetic distances observed among Jewish communities, with admixture playing a secondary role. (from Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes By M. F. Hammer, A. J. Redd, E. T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, H. Jarjanazi, T. Karafet*, S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. Oppenheim, M. A. Jobling, T. Jenkins, H. Ostrer, and B. Bonné-Tamir)

Of course, it begs the question, was the Jewish population ever a significant part of global population? One writer who has addressed this question is James Carroll, in his book, Constantine’s sword. He estimates,

Jews accounted for 10 percent of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors had not intervened, there would be 200 million Jews in the world today, instead of something like 13 million. (He goes onto recount that the) potential demographic crisis facing the Jewish people is defined by the loss of the murdered millions, not only in the twentieth century, but in all others. (from Constantine’s sword By James Carroll, page 26-27, texts in brackets, mine).

Population growth and changes (of not just the Jews) are subject to interplay of complex demographic factors – like assimilation, disease, migration, reproduction rates and proselytization. Since these factors affect all human populations, further analysis of these factors may just reinforce current red herring theories.

The Israel and USA tango - who is using whom!

Jews – the eternal victims?

Of course, Jews have not been the only population group in the world who have had to face the problems of epidemics, migration, assimilation, and conversion. What could have been a significant reason for the decline in the Jewish population over the centuries?

A 2ndlook at history points out (extracts above) that the Jewish populations gave up their language and culture ab initio. Within a few centuries of its foundation, they were giving up on their culture.

Interestingly, and apparently, language plays an important and crucial role in the expansion and growth of populations – as the Jewish case seems to suggest.

Those who don’t learn from history …

The Jewish history has invaluable lessons for Indians. For one, all those who think that English is God’s special gift to India (and mankind), should look at the eclipse of the Greek language. I am yet to discover the logic which shows that English will fare better than Greek, Spanish, Persian or Urdu.

Reducing the role of the Indian State

The massive subsidy given by the Indian state towards English language education needs to be phased out. Indian languages (all of them) should start getting back on their feet. The people of India, each individual will choose their language. No bureaucrat, politician, ‘intellectual’ will decide that. Finito. Completo. Terminato. Endlich. Eindig. ändlig.

The Indian language basket also calls for diversification. India needs to learn more foreign languages. The great ‘software success story’ is actually two countries – US and UK who give between 70%-80% of Indian software business? This is coolie labour! We are missing out on the massive Japanese, French and the Spanish markets because we have not invested in those foreign languages. And we have missed out on computing in Indian languages, because we have not invested there either.

The Israel and USA tango - who is using whom!

The trial by the family and supporters of Ken Saro-Wiwa (hanged by Nigeria’s military in 1995 on trumped up charges in the Niger Delta) Shell Oil will resume on Wednesday. But this time not for the actual hearing–postponed “indefinitely” by the presiding last week–but for a pre-trial conference between the lawyers of the two parties.

Meanwhile, to refresh your memories, here’s a short video made by lawyers for the Wiwa family and their supporters.

This, by the way, as Nigeria’s government has declared war on the people of the Niger Delta (read here and here)

Alan Caruba.

Oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, along with Venezuela, will grow rich while Americans will be faced with high costs for gasoline, motor and heating oil, and everything else that depends on oil such as asphalt or even Vaseline.

Meanwhile, oil producers in America, large and small, will take a financial beating. If you don’t like living in a modern, advanced and industrialized society, you will favor this. If you think Americans consume too much, drive too much, and deserve to be punished for it, you will favor this.

Recently, Barry Russell, the president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, released a statement in which he said, “President Obama delivered a devastating blow to the American oil and natural gas industry by proposing an astonishing $30 billion tax increase (as part of his FY 2010 budget) on American energy producers, most of whom are small businesses.”

“Ninety percent of the oil and natural gas wells developed in the United States are done by small, independent businesses – not so called ‘Big Oil’ – so tax increases hurt these companies most.” It also, of course, hurts any prospect for the discovery and production of new sources of oil and natural gas in America.

In a world where more oil and natural gas is required by developing nations such as India and China, the Obama administration proposes:

(1) A repeal of expensing of intangible drilling costs; a repeal of percentage depletion that allows for the depreciation of existing small, barely economic wells;

(2) A repeal of marginal well tax credit, a safety net for wells that produce small amounts of oil and gas that, collectively, supply almost 20% of the nation’s oil and 12% of its gas;

(3) A repeal of the enhanced oil recovery credit that allows industry to get more energy from wells that are depleted instead of drilling new wells;

(4) Increases the costs of geological and geophysical amortization
costs involving the high cost of doing seismic and other high-tech surveys;

(5) An excise tax on Gulf of Mexico production;

(6) And a repeal of the manufacturing tax deduction, a provision given to every other American manufacturer and which allows independent oil and natural gas producers to put more money into new energy projects.

It is a plan to destroy the American oil and natural gas industry, and with it the nation’s economy.

Right now, however, the Obama administration has installed an “energy team” that is completely opposed to the development of any energy resources in America, from offshore and ANWR oil to coal mining or the construction of coal-fired plants to generate electricity. Coal currently produces 50% of the nation’s electricity.

Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy, is on record saying, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” It is $8 a gallon there.

Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior, the agency that administers energy leasing on federal lands and most offshore areas, has a long record of opposition to such leasing of oil, natural gas, and coal exploration and extraction. He has already nullified recently awarded leases for natural gas drilling in federal land in Utah. Salazar is responsible for legislation blocking the development of shale oil.

Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, out-does Al Gore with predictions of global warming calamities. Back in the 1970s he was worrying whether mankind would survive the “threat of making the planet too cold.”

Meanwhile, Wall Street is watching investment drop like a stone as Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, testifies that U.S. oil and natural gas producing companies should not receive federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming!

This attack on energy companies and access to energy resources in America is a formula for failure.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.

Here’s my first take on the Surgut move into Hungary (for Business New Europe). This is a bigger story than many people realise. The threat to Nabucco, etc, is obviously a lead; but there is also the (terribly) under-covered — because complex — matter of Russia rearranging its oil export business.

Kremlin energy comes to Hungary

Derek Brower in London
March 31, 2009

Surgutneftegas is to buy a stake in Hungarian oil and gas company Mol, in a move which is raising alarm bells about Russia’s ambitions to expand into the downstream of Europe’s energy sector and the fate of the EU’s cherished Nabucco gas pipeline.

The deal, which sees Austria’s OMV sell its 21.2% holding in Mol to Kremlin-friendly Surgutneftegas, surprised the sector – not least because of the price, which at twice the market value suggests a political element, reckon analysts. The €1.4bn transaction is the first major foreign acquisition of Russia’s fourth-largest oil producer, which accumulated around $20bn in cash during the recent oil-price bonanza. Surgutneftegas is run by Vladimir Bogdanov, who is thought to enjoy a good relationship with Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin, but its ownership structure is opaque, with shareholders thought to include senior Russian officials.

The deal will delight OMV, allowing the Austrian firm roughly to recoup the cost of its aborted attempt to buy Mol outright. The European Commission finally blocked the move in the summer of last year on competition grounds. OMV would not respond to requests for an interview.

Surgutneftegas said the stake was a “serious basis for the start of long-term, mutually beneficial co-operation between our companies and will serve to strengthen European energy security.”

But the move has annoyed Mol and the government, which had colluded to defeat OMV’s hostile takeover attempt. In a statement, the company said it had, “always favoured partners providing stable, mutually advantageous cooperation. There have not been, nor are there, any strategic or operational relationships between Surgutneftegas and Mol. Therefore, the intentions of Surgutneftegas, formulated in its statement, are not clear.” The company added that it only learned of the deal through press reports.

The official reaction from Brussels to the Surgutneftegas deal was muted. A spokesman for Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs told bne that the commission would not get involved. “They aren’t buying control of Mol,” said spokesman Ferran Tarradellas, indicating that there would be no competition worries from the deal. And he downplayed worries of growing Russian influence in the EU. “You can buy Lukoil oil in Brussels. Aeroflot can buy Ryanair tomorrow. Our market is open to every company that wants to invest.”

Gas pipelines

However, that reaction sidesteps the wider implications of the agreement, which could affect Europe’s broader energy strategy, say analysts. Given Surgutneftegas’ close ties to the Kremlin, the deal will prompt worries about Hungary’s position on two rival proposed natural gas pipelines projects in the region. Mol is one of the partners in the Nabucco pipeline consortium to import Central Asian gas to Europe – a project the European Commission says is a “strategic necessity” as the continent seeks to weaken Russia’s hold on its gas supplies. But Russia has also courted Budapest to endorse its South Stream project, which would export Russian gas to the region in competition with Nabucco.

Indeed, Surgutneftegas’ willingness to pay twice the market value for the stake has raised the spectre of the Kremlin’s involvement in the deal. “It looks like there is something else involved,” says Chris Weafer, an analyst at Uralsib, an investment bank based in Moscow. “In isolation, it does not make commercial sense.” Weafer suggested the deal might be a “favour to OMV,” with implications for the South Stream pipeline, which OMV has also endorsed despite heading the consortium to develop Nabucco. Although Surgutneftegas is unlikely to launch an aggressive campaign to secure control of Mol, it will probably seek a blocking minority stake of 25% plus one share, Weafer says. That could affect the company’s participation in Nabucco or its attitude to South Stream.

Igor Sechin, head of Russia’s oil sector, denied that Moscow had acted in the deal on behalf of Surgutneftegas, which he described as Russia’s “best private oil company.” Yet any blow to the Nabucco plans could be collateral damage from Russia’s broader campaign to consolidate the country’s oil exports in the hands of its biggest producers – and preferred traders. That strategy, in place since the Kremlin dismantled the country’s once-largest oil firm Yukos in 2004, has seen oil exporters close to the Kremlin, including Surgutneftegas and state-controlled Rosneft, concentrate the bulk of seaborne and overland sales in the hands of favoured trading companies, such as secretive Switzerland-based Gunvor.

Lukoil has also sought to gain control over crude sales into Germany through the 1.3m barrels-a-day Druzhba pipeline to Central Europe. And in recent weeks, changes made by the Russian energy ministry to the flows along the pipeline have favoured Russia’s largest oil exporters, including Surgutneftegas and Lukoil, to the detriment of smaller companies, say observers. The arrival in Hungary of Surgutneftegas may now influence Mol’s crude-oil purchasing policy from the pipeline, too.

It will also help meet Russia’s ambition to broaden its portfolio of downstream assets in Europe’s downstream. The Kremlin was disappointed not to win control of a refinery in Lithuania that once belonged to Yukos, and Lukoil was recently considering a bid for Spanish energy firm Repsol. Last year, it also added a joint venture with Italian refiner ERG to other European assets.

Yet any worries in the EU about the latest transaction – and what it signals about Russia’s goals – will reveal, again, the inherent inconsistencies in the bloc’s energy strategy. Brussels blocked OMV’s bid for Mol, despite implicitly allowing the creation of other large corporate tie-ups in the bloc’s utilities sector. Moreover, OMV warned last year that Brussels’ move would force the company to sell its stake in Mol to another firm, possibly an expansion-minded Russian one. The EU can’t claim that it wasn’t warned.

Untapped, written by John Ghazvinian, was an excellent introduction to what the author refers to as the ‘Second Scramble for Africa’. Ghazvinian jaunts about Africa exploring and investigating the current and future oil producers of the continent and provides a comprehensive overview on the potential for success or failure facing African petrostates. Reading as part – travel journal, part – socio/economic/political analysis, Ghazvinian has provided the ideal book for anyone wishing to understand the history and current happenings of the African states of Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, The Congo, Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea. His insightful investigating shows how he talked with just about anyone and everyone that was impacted by oil in Africa. From the Oil Execs at the super majors (ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc) to the politicians, to the rural villagers adversely affected by the drilling, everyone has the voice heard in Untapped. 

Before reading Untapped, I knew how oil was impacting the outlook of the continent, but never heard the details of the dealings between the supermajors in the oil business and how they dealt with national governments and their populations. These revealing stories that Ghazvinian tells in his book should be of particular interest to those who wish to see how oil is interacting with the national politics of many African nations.

The book is a must read for anyone interested in the continent of the Oil Producing business, but is critical for anyone researching potential national security concerns for those countries of the West. As Ghazvinian shows in  the book, the cheque book of the Chinese could replace some of the stalwarts in international finance such as the IMF and the World Bank when it comes to dealing with aid in Africa. For so long the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have attached strict conditions to any aid or loans received by African governments from these two institutions. With the Chinese government willing to attach significant aid packages, without any preconditions or stipulations, to their bids on oil blocks, the dynamics in Africa could change significantly for the worse. Or rather more frightening may remain just as corrupt as they currently stand. However, another perspective could be put forth that less outside interference from Monetary Institutions and Foreign governments could lead to a greater degree of sovereignty for these African petro-states. However, if they continue to degrade the democracy that exists, or block the voices and concerns of their own citizens, the world must be seriously concerned about the use of petrodollars to pad politicians’ bank accounts and the purchasing of military equipment.

Ghazavinian makes no subjective judgements on the African leaders and the actions of the Oil Companies, which makes the book such a strong review of the continent’s ’black gold’. However, the overall tone that is found from the book says that if significant changes are not made by the way African petrostates spend and use their money from oil profits, the ‘Dutch Disease’ and ‘curse of oil’ will propagate throughout these oil producing states benefitting the wallets of the gas guzzling West and corrupt African politicians rather than any improvement in the lives of those Africans living on less than $1 a day.

Academic Resource:

Untapped has a solid index, from which to quickly surf the book’s contents, but what sets this book apart is the solid list of sources and further reading that Ghazvinian provides at the end. A map showing his visited countries is in the front of the book, which proves useful for those unfamiliar with the region, but no other media is presented. A quick read due to Ghzavinian’s writing style should make it very accessible for students needing to use it as a resource

Overall Rating: A

America, America!

I first heard this at an activist’s house. I was so fascinated that I was hung-ho on playing it at our college film festival. It became a big hit at the MCC college film fest; with people singing the song and asking for encores. Once our schedule got a little messed up because people wanted to hear this song again and again and again. On a more serious note, the message in this song is both true and sad. The lyrics of this fantastic song go:

America, America, American War Paruda

War War War American War

American War Paruda

America so free I am dying to see,

Disneyland and Statue Liberty,

Choose between Coca-Cola and Pepsi,

Home-made prison with colour-TV,

America so strong with nuclear bomb,

Big one, small one and one long,

Vietnam napalmed, Afghanistan bombed,

America decide what is right, what is wrong.

America, America, American War Paruda

War War War American War

American War Paruda

America never sad, only go mad,

Blame someone say the world is bad,

First communist, then terrorist,

If not this maybe some other list.

America friends all over the world,

Fanatics, Dictators and Murderers,

America so sad for the world to see,

Bin Laden is paid to be an enemy.

America, America, American War Paruda

War War War American War

American War Paruda

If you have might, everything is right.

While you bark, you also bite.

Killing everyone best way to manage,

Then tell your friends collateral damage.

Saddam you scoundrel where are the weapons?

These inspectors instead of eyes have buttons.

Now, we’ll show how everyone is wrong,

Saddam your belly is actually a bomb.

America, America, American War Paruda

War War War American War

American War Paruda

America has a package for every country,

First CIA, World Bank and MNC,

If bribe don’t work destroy the whole place,

Put puppet regime with UN First Aid,

We can see through American tactics and tricks,

Armament deals and Oil politics,

World War III no need to worry,

God save us from American Peace and Liberty.

El 12 de Noviembre de 2008, en plena cumbre bilateral económica e industrial España y Rusia, el viceprimer ministro ruso, Alexander Zhukov, anunció el interés de GAZPROM (en la que el Estado posee el 50% del capital) por hacerse con el 20% de REPSOL, actualmente en manos de Sacyr. El Ministro español del ramo, Miguel Sebastián, con quien minutos antes habían estado reunidos, declaró al enterarse haber tenido en ese momento “la primera noticia”. La operación es de bastante envergadura politico-económica porque Repsol es, a su vez, el segundo accionista de Gas Natural, con el 30,8%.

Gazprom no tiene presencia en España. Es la primera gasística del mundo en reservas de gas natural (controla alrededor del 16% del total mundial) y tiene el monopolio en Rusia de las exportaciones de este combustible. Todo en Gazprom es de gran tamaño: tiene una plantilla de más de 430.000 empleados y pagó en impuestos el equivalente a la quinta parte del presupuesto de la federación rusa.

Que una gran empresa con una sólida estructura que la respalde venga a invertir en España en tiempos de crisis económica es una buena noticia, y así lo fue en un principio para los accionistas minoritarios de REPSOL-YPF (los más desfavorecidos siempre en este tipo de operaciones), quienes acogieron con entusiasmo la operación. Sin embargo, horas más tarde, en cuanto llegan las órdenes de “atacar al oso ruso”, se pone en marcha toda la artillería mediática anti-rusa, así como los políticos de todos los signos políticos. De esta forma, tenemos:

- Desde el Gobierno (PSOE), al Ministro de Economía Pedro Solbes diciendo que “le chirría que una empresa pública compre REPSOL“.

- Desde la oposición (PP), Mariano Rajoy diciendo que “el PP está radicalmente en contra de que Gazprom entre en REPSOL y exige al Gobierno que lo impida“.

- Desde la Unión Europea, el Presidente de la Comisión Europea, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso hace una amenaza velada al decir que “no cree que Gazprom pueda comprar el 20% de REPSOL porque no tiene suficientes recursos económicos“, y recomienda además al ejecutivo español que “utilize la cláusula de reprocidad para vetar la entrada de la empresa rusa en REPSOL“. Además, el “amigo” Javier Solana hace unas declaraciones en las que expresa su “no” rotundo a esta operación.

- Y finalmente, el Presidente español, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero sentecia de muerte la operación al afirmar que “Gazprom ni está ni estará en REPSOL“.

Tras esta película de acontecimientos GAZPROM se pronuncia de manera oficial 48 horas más tarde de que saltara la noticia a la palestra, y tras haber conseguido acaparar las portadas de los principales medios de comunicación nacionales y de muchos del mundo, declara que no tiene la intención de comprar un 20% de REPSOL.

Esta operación ya es historia, una pena, ya que las sinergias que se podrían haber generado, y lo más importante, la posible bajada de precios para el consumidor español, como consecuencia de una mejora en efectividad productiva en Repsol se ha quedado en un mera quimera. La verdad es que hay para “repartir estopa” para todos los lados:

- Gobierno español: está claro que el ejecutivo de Zapatero es altamente sumiso a los designios OTANicos, y que como consecuencia del conflicto Georgiano, ha recibido órdenes de que “a Rusia ni las gracias”. Su actitud no es nada nueva, ya que como ya comentamos en su día, el Gobierno de Rodriguez Zapatero incluso ha dado la nacionalidad española a uno de los más buscados mafiosos rusos para que así no pueda ser estraditado a Rusia para ser juzgado: hablamos de Gusinski, del clan de Los Oligarcas.

- Oposición: Marianico te equivocas, y de hecho, tu sucesor Aznar sacó una ley que decía que España nunca debería ser dependiente el 100% energéticamente de ningún país, y ahora lo somos “gasísticamente” hablando de Argelia. Esta ha sido una oportunidad perdida para diversificar nuestras fuentes de abastacimiento y no depender directamente del monopolio argelino. De hecho, ambas compañías ya venían trabajando conjuntamente desde 2006.

- Para todos. Eso de que una empresa pública no puede participar en REPSOL es mentira, ya que actualmente, entre los accionistas de referencia de REPSOL encontramos a la compañía estatal de Méjico PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos), empresa pública del Estado mejicano, que posee más de un 5% de REPSOL.

Por supuesto, también quedarán para la historia las histéricas consignas anti-rusas lanzadas desde los medios de comunicación que tradicionalmente mantienen esta postura sin ningún tipo de tapujos: ABC (acuérdense de cuando venía a decir que la mafia rusa en España operaba siguiendo órdenes del gobierno ruso), INTERECONOMÍA (esa cadena que suele distorsionar tanto las noticias referentes a Rusia).

¿Por que cuando se le ofrecía ese 20% a Fondos Soberanos de países árabes (QUE NO SON DEMOCRACIAS) no pasaba nada, y ahora que una compañía participada por el Estado ruso lo intenta hacer, parece que se acaba el mundo?. Las afirmaciones que se han vertido en los mentrideros político-periodísticos han sido para quedarse con la boca abierta ante la desinformación de unos y la mala leche de otros (o quizás las dos cosas de todos), con afirmaciones como:

- “Gazprom es la herramienta para que Rusia exitenda los tentáculos sobre Europa“. ¿Acaso no es Rusia Europa?, y ¿por que no opinamos lo mismo cuando por ejemplo Telefónica opera o compra en Argentina o cualquier otro país del mundo?

- “Gazprom es una herramienta político-económica“. Pues hombre, mire usted, es una empresa privada cuyo objetivo es maximizar beneficios, y por cierto bajo la dirección del actual presidente ruso, se consolidó como una de las mayores compañías del mundo. Como empresa, al igual que Telefónica, sus motivaciones son pues púramente economicistas (Telefónica da servicio en Argentina según sea rentable o no, y no en función de que “políticamente” sea “bueno” para España).

- “Es un arma política que se usará para cerrarnos el grifo del gas si no hacemos lo que nos dicen“. Pero bueno, señores, ¿no depende actualmente España al 100% del monopolio del gas de Argelia?, ¿no sería bueno introducir mayor competencia?.

- “El presidente Ruso fue directivo de Gazprom“. ¡Vaya!, pero si vuestro “colegita” George W. Bush, no solo es que fuera directivo de una petrolera, es que tenía inversiones en varias de ellas…

- “Podría Rusia frenar la capacidad productiva de la Unión Europea“… ¿y los países árabes con el petróleo o los del Magreb con el gas?.

Lo dicho, una pena, ya que en otros países de la Unión Europea como Alemania o Italia, están tomándonos la delantera (como siempre) y ya han firmado acuerdos estratégicos con la gasista rusa para desarrollo y abastecimiento a largo plazo, así como para la elaboración conjunta de proyectos energéticos.

Como hemos recalcado, los intereses de Rusia y de los países miembros de la Unión Europea son concurrentes, y la lógica debería imperar para intentar llegar a acuerdos en España que sean beneficiosos para ambas partes. Si cortamos bruscamente y de malas formas las “buenas intenciones” inversoras rusas, no nos quejemos en un futuro cuando nos encontremos atrapados en un desierto enegético dominado por nuestros vecinos del sur. Si estallase un conflicto entre Argelia y Marruecos (algo no del todo improbable), o si se recrudeciera la ola integrista islámica en el magreb, nos quedaríamos sumidos en la más completa oscuridad y con los precios más altos del mundo occidental.

Aún nos queda por ver que solución nos ofrecen los talibanes del libre mercado, ya que algunas de sus propuestas se contradicen con sus principios, como por ejemplo la ya mencionada de vender la participación de REPSOL a fondos soberanos (es decir, a fondos de inversión pública de otros Estados) de países árabes e islámicos, o incluso a China, si, ese país que es una dictadura comunista, donde no hay democracia, y por supuesto, tampoco libre mercado, es decir, se agarran a un clavo ardiendo con tal de que no sea Rusia quien lo haga… y este es el problema de las trabas que se han puesto: EL PROBLEMA NO ES QUE GAZPROM TUVIERA PARTICIPACIÓN PÚBLICA O NO, EL PROBLEMA ES QUE GAZPROM ES UNA EMPRESA RUSA. Así de claro.

De esta cuestión, que ha quedado patente tras la oferta de la compañía 100% privada LUKOIL (empresa también rusa) hablaremos en la segunda parte de esta historia de locos. Por cierto, un comentario que dejamos para la reflexión: si a China se le deja invertir con elevados porcentajes en los grandes bancos de los EEUU cuando están a punto de quebrar ¿se supone que está haciendo China en los EEUU con total impunidad lo mismo que dicen que va a hacer Rusia con Gazprom en España?… Piensen por ustedes mismos, estamos en medio de una gran manipulación informativa, de la que los principales perjudicados seremos los ciudadanos españoles.

]]> http://openupthesun.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/100-mpg-25-ton-1959-lincoln-continental-mk-iv-convertible/ Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:44:46 +0000 remintola http://openupthesun.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/100-mpg-25-ton-1959-lincoln-continental-mk-iv-convertible/

Leave it to the radical hippie-liberal Neil Young and motor mechanic Jonathan Goodwin (and not Detroit) to reconstruct the original engine of a 2.5 ton 1959 Lincoln Continental Mk IV convertible into a new series-hybrid system. The car has gone from getting 9 miles to the gallon to now achieving around 100 miles to the gallon, and has been accepted as an entrant in the Automobile X Prize competition.

http://www.lincvolt.com/

Neil also offers some advice on the site as to how to save a major automobile company.

Soft state … soft target

The Indian State has often been accused of being ‘soft on terror.’ We are frequently reminded how we should consider patterning India along hard lines like Israel – which has ‘zero tolerance’ policy on ‘terrorism’. As proof, the Israeli actions against the perpetrators of the Munich massacre. Or the capture of Eichmann. The air raid of Entebbe is another example that is referred to, with a glow in the eye.

Israel’s Tenuous Existence

The first disqualification against accepting the Israeli State model is the fact it is heavily dependent on America, for fiscal and military aid – “since 1974 totals roughly $80 billion” and an article from Daily Times Of Pakistan says enviously “The United States has poured $140 billion into Israel since its formation”. That is about a US$56,000 for every Israeli family.

After all, (as NYT says)

America has vital long-term strategic interests in the Middle East. The gulf has well over 60 percent of the world’s proven conventional oil reserves and nearly 40 percent of its natural gas.

The Israel and USA tango - who is using whom!

To some it may look like a boon, but is surely the kiss of death.

American policymakers began regarding Israeli strength as an American asset in the Cold War, they supported significant aid as a matter of strategy, not charity. … American aid continues to flow to Israel. … critics on the opposite end of the political spectrum argue that while aid to Israel may be tied to the best of intentions, it does more harm than good to the Jewish State by propping up a big and inefficient government and making Israel dependent upon the U.S.

For how long can any country, society, individual survive on foreign largesse? Note how during the 1973, Arab Israeli War, the tide of battle finally turned when the massive US airlift of weapons, tanks, spares happened! Which itself, is self-serving – “American assistance, emerging as a disjointed policy that urges a peaceful resolution to the conflict while boosting military aid to Israel.”

Another client state of US, Pakistan enviously records, that

“Israel is the only country that receives all of its U.S. aid in a single package, while others only receive it in quarterly installments.” It continues, “Most recipients of military aid are obliged to spend it in the US but Israel is permitted to spend 25 percent of what it receives to subsidize its own defence industry,”…

Israel’s Future With Its Neighbours

The biggest Israeli failure is the state of permanent hostility it has engendered in the neighbourhood. Israel’s dysfunctional relationship with its neighbours has taken significant efforts from Israel – possibly, based on its superior ‘European’ extraction.

The Israel and USA tango - who is using whom!

How long can Israel depend on US support which since

“1982, … has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions which were critical of Tel Aviv, a number that exceeds the total number of vetoes exercised by all other permanent member states put together.”

American support may change (linked to American decline?) with time – but Israel’s neighbourhood is not changing!

The Persecution of Palestinians

The logic for the creation of Israel was persecution of Jews in Europe. Within 10 years, the same ‘persecuted’ Jews, allied themselves with their former persecutors and invaded Egypt – precipitating the Suez crisis. Thus the very logic of the creation of the Israeli state was corrupted within 10 years.

The subsequent occupation of neighbouring territories was a continuation of this policy of aggressive expansionism based on European and later American support.

Israel’s population is less than Pune

Pune’s official population of 45 lakhs is close to Israel’s population of 72 lakhs.

The only logic for Israeli policy is the probable Israeli intention. Is it that they are not staying in the neighbourhood after (or when, if you prefer) American aid ceases?

India with a population of 110 crores, has no such option.

Achille Mbembe, the Wits University (Johannesburg) based intellectual (born in Cameroon and formerly professor at Columbia and Penn), is less impressed about what an Obama Presidency might mean for the African continent (assuming Obama gets to be President):

Obama has said little about Africa since the start of the campaign. He might not endorse this cynicism, but nor has he indicated a willingness to significantly depart from the outdated view of the continent that has underpinned US policy since the end of the Cold War.

Here.

No Irene, not the state, I am still talking about the country. Surely most people have heard of the Russian invasion of the country of Georgia. If not, then drop your nuts and the game controller and get a flippin’ life. Yes, Irene there is more to this story than the media has told us about.

Please step into the Professor’s Way Back Machine and we will travel a few years into the past. It all began with the collapse of the old Soviet Union.

On a balmy day in 1992, Eduard Shevardnadze, becomes the leader of Georgia, after many months and years of civil turmoil and violence. Eventually Shevardnadze is elected president and the fun began. During his tenure there was widespread corruption and oppression. Georgia began negotiating a deal for a pipeline. The agreement he was expected to sign with the president of Azerbaijan would pave the way for a pipeline that would transport some 5 billion cubic meters of gas to Turkey via Georgia. .

The consortium, led by BP Amoco, who commissioned the project, say the pipeline will be more effective than present routes running to ports in Russia and Georgia, because they cut out the congestion in the Black Sea.

This all started in 2001. In 2002, US Special Forces deployed in Georgia to help train and equipment the Georgian army in counterinsurgent techniques. In 2003, the Georgian president struck a deal with Gazprom, a Russian company for pipeline transport, and thus western companies were shut out of the deal completely. This same year, after the deal with Gazprom was inked, the so called “Rose Revolution” started. It was an uprising by the people and the army over Shevardnadze’s failure to deal with the widespread corruption of his administration.

Shevardnadze was toppled and later the present president of Georgia, Saakasvili, is elected president with a substantial pro-US position.

Now was it a coincidence that the participants of the “Rose Revolution” were receiving training by US Special Forces? Personally, I do not believe in coincidences in international politics. Now the last armed conflict—since Gaprom was now dealt out of the pipeline deal, was the action anything to do with that? Another coincidence, the new Russian president is a past chairman of Gazprom.

Now the stage is set. And you have read or heard the outcome. All the chest thumping by the US president and candidates over the invasion of Georgia. Was the action truly about separatists or the politics of oil?

LOS ANGELES–A press conference by Azeri parliamentarians at the Museum of Tolerance on the Georgian conflict and its threat to western oil pipelines in the Caucasus was cut short Friday when this reporter was censored after asking about Azerbaijan’s growing belligerence towards Armenia.

The media briefing on the South Caucasus was hosted by the Simon Wiesenthal Center at its Los Angeles-based Museum of Tolerance. It featured a 5-member parliamentary delegation from Azerbaijan, as well as a member from the Consulate of Georgia. Azerbaijan’s Consul General in Los Angeles was also in attendance.

When a question was asked by this Asbarez reporter regarding an August 8 statement by the Azeri Foreign Ministry saying Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia served as a precedent for resolving ethnic conflicts in the region, he was silenced, not only by members of the audience and the Azeri consular staff, which denied the incident, but also by Rabbi Cooper who prematurely ended the conference (others were slated to speak) to take a tour of the museum.

Incidentally, the Republic of Armenia’s Consul General in Los Angeles, Armen Liloyan, was not invited to the press briefing. “We have never received such an invitation,” he said, when asked why a representative from Armenia, a US partner in the Caucasus, sharing warm relations and strong ties to both the United States and the west as well as Russia, was not invited.

Asbarez contacted Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, for comments on the Center’s failure to invite a representative from the Republic of Armenia to the briefing. But Cooper could not be reached for comment and did not return calls.

Though the event was publicized as a briefing about the “implications of the Russian invasion of Georgia for the region and for oil and gas supplies globally,” it was more rhetoric than information. Throughout the briefing, one common theme was conveyed to the audience–that the conflict in Georgia was actually between Russia and the West.

“This is an offensive against the United States, American interests, and values,” remarked Asim Mollazada, the Azeri parliamentarian giving the first and only briefing.

“We said we would like to be a reliable ally of the United States,” he said, underscoring Azerbaijan’s centrality to US interests in the region.

Rabbi Cooper, who moderated the press conference, echoed most of Mollazada’s remarks in his praise for the two former soviet republics. Azerbaijan and Georgia, he boasted, were model republics in the region with their impeccable democratic track records

Asim Mollazada, Member of the Azerbaijani Parliament, showing the location of the pipeline as Rabbi Abraham Cooper, SWC associate dean, looks on.

Mollazada, who is also the chairman of Azerbaijan’s Democratic Reform Party and a member of its parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, warned that Russia’s advance into Georgia and the PKK sabotage of a section of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline are “evil” forces that threaten to derail the democratic progress of Azerbaijan and Georgia.

According to international human rights watchdogs, such as Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Boarders, and Amnesty International, neither Georgia nor Azerbaijan has proven to be a model of democracy in the region.

On January 6, tens of thousands of Georgians, claiming fraud and demanding a recount, took to the streets to protest the election victory of American-allied President Mikheil Saakashvili. Saakashvili called for snap elections in November after he imposed a state of emergency following a brutal police crackdown on peaceful demonstrators calling for his resignation. Saakashvili, whose government was criticized by Human Rights Watch for “crossing the line” in November, is now being accused of having enacted policies of ethnic cleansing in its breakaway province of South Ossetia, which it devastated in a bombing campaign that began on August 7th.

Meanwhile, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev has faced persistent criticism over his heavy-handed treatment of independent media and opposition parties.

According to Amnesty International, journalists in Azerbaijan “striving to expose the misuse of government power are increasingly living under the threat of politically motivated arrests, physical assault and even death…[and] are only free to express opinions that fall in line with government directives. Anyone daring to voice criticism of the authorities or to expose Azerbaijan’s enduring corruption problem faces an uncertain future.”

Furthermore, the BTC pipeline, which Mollazada emphasized was as an agent of stability and democratic development in the region, has allowed Aliyev to strengthen his heavy-handed grip over Azerbaijan’s government. In preparation for his reelection in October, Aliyev has been establishing a cult of personality by propping up billboards throughout the country, depicting his father, the late president Haydar Aliyev and himself in a manner reminiscent of the Stalinist Soviet Union and 1980s Iraq under Sadam Hussein.

Despite the reality on the ground, Mollazada insisted that the region’s oil pipelines “solve problems.”

“[The BTC pipeline] is a system of transferring ideas of liberty…our goal, our priority is to create a system of liberty and human rights,” he remarked. “If evil wins in Georgia, the system will go to the middle ages.”

During the truncated question and answer session, an inquiry was made regarding the effect the conflict would have on the world oil market. Mollazada took advantage of the opportunity to frame the message in a way where American interests were being held hostage to Russian aggression in the region.

“Now oil is not pumping and immediately you will see prices will jump,” Mollazada said, stating that American, European, and Israeli interests would only be secured if Azerbaijan was supported. “It is vitally important to the energy security of Israel and Europe.”

But Azerbaijan’s longstanding insistence to isolate Armenia from regional development projects, namely the BTC pipeline, and the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars Railway, have further jeopardized the security and stability of the region and harmed US and western interests in the South Caucasus.

In spite of the windfall profits from the US–and the west–facilitated by the BTC project, Azerbaijan continues to lobby the United States for foreign aid rather than using its oil-generated wealth to better humanitarian and infrastructural problems it faces. Instead it uses these profits to bolster its blockade of Armenia, increasing the need for US humanitarian support to that country, a US partner in the region and diplomatic bridge between the West and Russia as well as Iran.

Although the tense status quo in Karabakh has by and large held, Aliyev has been using petrodollars from the BTC pipeline to beef up the country’s military, purchasing armaments and vehicles from France, the United States and the former Warsaw Pact countries. The tremendous new oil wealth has allowed Aliyev to increase defense spending from $175 million in 2004 to $2 billion in 2008. According to a Stratfor analysis, “Azerbaijan’s armament now has many wondering if Baku is planning another conflict against a neighbor that has been cut out of the region’s recent energy wealth.”

Azerbaijan ethnically cleansed its Christian Armenian minority in a series of pogroms and massacres as the Soviet Union was collapsing, forcing the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave forced into Azerbaijan, to declare independence. Karabakh’s democracy movement, legal by the statutes of the Soviet Constitution, triggered a brutal military attack on the enclave by Azerbaijan, sparking a conflict that ended with a Russian brokered ceasefire in 1994 and de facto independence for Karabakh.

Last month, Rabbi Cooper visited Azerbaijan to meet with the Foreign Minister and a leading Muslim religious leader, according to an Azeri Press Agency report cited by Day.az on July 22. During his meeting with the Azeri cleric, Sheikh-ul-Islam Haji Allahshukur Pasha-zade, who two years ago called on Azerbaijani’s to prepare for a “jihad” against Armenians, Cooper reportedly described Azerbaijan as “a tolerant country, where everyone can practice his religion without any restrictions.” His remarks, published the next day in a Day.az interview, were in reference to the Jewish community in Baku.

In the interview, Rabbi Cooper went on to say that Azerbaijan should do more to “inform the US community in details about their country and especially about [the Nagorno-Karabakh] conflict. The United States are mostly well informed about the ‘genocide of Armenians.’ It would be good if Azerbaijanis held work for informing Americans about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.”

In 2003, the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles was embroiled in controversy over its refusal to establish a permanent exhibit on the Armenian Genocide. Despite a six-day hunger strike by 14 young human rights activists, calls from thousands of Armenian Americans nationwide, a major story in the Los Angeles Times, and growing interest on the part of local, state, and federal lawmakers, the Museum of Tolerance only agreed to include references to the Armenian Genocide in various exhibits at the museum. The Museum still does not have a permanent exhibit on the Armenian Genocide.

BAKU (Asbarez)–The Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, David Harris, was in Baku Saturday where he told journalists at a press conference that his organization would lobby on behalf of Azerbaijan’s interests in the United States.

Harris was visiting Azerbaijan on the invitation of Azeri President Ilham Aliyev. During his two-day visit he met with the President, Foreign Minister, Prime Minister and other officials.

“[The] AJC has long appreciated the importance of Azerbaijan as an example of religious tolerance and a proven friend of the United States and Israel,” Harris said. “We valued this opportunity to learn more about this strong ally in a challenging and critical region. We look forward to sharing our views about Azerbaijan’s key role when we return to the United States.”

However, Harris’ remarks stand in stark contrast to significant documented evidence to the contrary. Azerbaijan’s numerous political as well as social human rights abuses both against its Azeri majority as well as its ethnic minorities, including Armenians and have been widely reported in US press as well as international human rights bodies.

But according to the Harris, “Azerbaijan is critical to Western energy security and to the avoidance of a potentially dangerous monopoly in the market for natural gas.” The South Caucusus, he explained, is witnessing a historic event in Georgia because the recent outbreak of fighting in South Ossetia is important not only for Georgia, but also the whole region, including Azerbaijan and its territorial integrity.

The AJC will lobby for the US Government to pay more attention to the work of the OSCE Minsk Group, mediating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Harris said, adding “the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was the key issue of discussion during my visit to Baku. We will work to improve the OSCE Minsk Group’s mission in the settlement of the conflict.”

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has yet to be resolved, is in danger of erupting as Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev continues to make louder calls for renewed war to “take back” Karabakh by force. Making the situation in Azerbaijan more tense is the growing uncertainty over the outcome of Azerbaijan’s upcoming Presidential elections, slated for October 15.

There is a definite cult of personality that is being established that threatens the viability of democratic development in Azerbaijan. Aliyev has been propping up billboards throughout the country, depicting his father, the late president Haydar Aliyev and himself in a manner reminiscent of the Stalinist Soviet Union and 1980s Iraq under Sadam Hussein.

Aliyev has faced persistent criticism over his heavy-handed treatment of independent media and opposition parties. Meanwhile, over a million Azeri refugees from the Karabakh Conflict still live in shantytowns and abandoned train carts. Human rights violations are at an all time high, as severe media restrictions continue to result in the imprisonment and torture of journalists and opposition activists. According to Eurasianet, Aliyev’s recent claims that his government allegedly oversaw the creation of 650,000 new jobs by the end of 2007 are not being received well by most of Azerbaijan’s population, which has yet to feel the affects of the country’s massive oil revenues.

With less than three months to go until elections are held in Azerbaijan, controversy is looming over President Ilham Aliyev’s failure to solve many of the country’s social ills. With Karabakh a major election issue in Azerbaijan, Aliyev has sought to exploit nationalist fervor surrounding the unresolved conflict to detract from his administrations failures at home. In recent months, he has been touring the country and delivering, publicly calling for a new war and threatening to take Karabakh back by force.

On June 26, Aliyev staged the country’s first military parade in 16 years, and announced his intentions to build a military industrial complex that would support a second round war with neighboring Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Azerbaijan ethnically cleansed its Christian Armenian minority in a series of pogroms and massacres as the Soviet Union was collapsing, forcing the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave forced into Azerbaijan, to declare independence. Karabakh’s democracy movement, legal by the statutes of the Soviet Constitution, triggered a brutal military attack on the enclave by Azerbaijan, sparking a conflict that ended with a Russian brokered ceasefire in 1994.

Azerbaijan has been using petrodollars from the BTC pipeline to beef up its military, purchasing armaments and vehicles from France, the United States or the former Warsaw Pact. According to Stratfor, “Azerbaijan’s armament now has many wondering if Baku is planning another conflict against a neighbor that has been cut out of the region’s recent energy wealth.”

A renewed conflict would halt any possibility of Caspian energy reaching the west, and be a direct threat to U.S. and European interests in the region.

Following an unprecedented violation of the Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire by Azeri forces on March 5, Stratfor intelligence wrote in an analysis piece citing the growing threat to regional security of a richer and stronger Azerbaijan.

“Azerbaijan has grown stronger and richer following the 2006 completion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline, which Western companies developed to feed oil to Europe,” it said. “The BTC led to a more pro-Western Azerbaijan, and the tremendous new wealth it generated has helped the country increase its defense spending from $175 million in 2004 to more than $1 billion at the start of 2008.” Azerbaijan’s military budget has since reached $2 billion.”

%u218Energy wealth has doubled Azerbaijan’s gross domestic product;Azerbaijan’s defense budget has jumped from just a few hundred million a year to a billion this past year,” Stratfor wrote earlier in 2007. “The country is arming itself, and neighboring Armenia is closely watching. The two countries have been deadlocked over the Azerbaijani secessionist region of Nagorno-Karabakh — a conflict that has flared into a war in the past. Azerbaijan’s armament now has many wondering if Baku is planning another conflict against a neighbor that has been cut out of the region’s recent energy wealth.”

Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s longstanding insistence to isolate fellow US Ally Armenia, from regional development projects, namely the BTC pipeline, and the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars Ralway, have further jeopardized the security and stability of US interests in the South Caucasus.

During the planning stages of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, Azerbaijan pressured British Petroleum to bypass a more economic a commercially secure route that went through Armenia, a fellow US partner in the region. In 2003, New York Congressman Joseph Crowley (NY-07) criticized the routing of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil and gas pipeline during the House International Relations Committee markup of the reauthorization for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). The Committee was considering the OPIC’s application for political risk insurance in connection with construction of the BTC pipeline.

At the markup’sCongressman Crowley stated: “American taxpayers are being asked to help cover hundreds of million of dollars in increased costs for the BTC pipeline route that would bypass the more economic and commercially viable route through Armenia. If the Caucasus region’sin my opinion’sis to move forward’swe must ensure that all countries move forward together at the same time. Choosing favorites in the Caucasus will not promote regional stability’seconomic integration’sand peace.”

Despite all this, Harris assured Azerbaijan’s leadership that his organization would work for the interests of Azerbaijan in the United States.

“As your friends, we will try to do something for this but it mostly depends on Azerbaijan itself. Americans shouldn’t only know Azerbaijan as an energy-rich country but also as a country that made important contributions to peacekeeping efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said, promising to take steps towards the strengthening of relations between Azerbaijan and the United State.

“We will work to improve the relations between the United States and Azerbaijan,” he said. “We will also pay attention to Americans’ education [of Azerbaijan] to convey to them the basic knowledge about Azerbaijan and to inform the political circles and U.S. presidential contenders about Azerbaijan.”

Meanwhile, the Azerbaijan Press Agency reported on Monday that the Izmir-based Azerbaijan Culture Center has began a petition drive demanding that the Turkish-Armenian border remain closed until the withdrawal of Armenians from the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

The head of the Center, Jamal Mammadkhanoglu, underscored that the borders should not open without an “Armenian withdrawal from Azerbaijani lands.”

“Turkey has to maintain its embargo against Armenia for that,” he said. “Otherwise, Azerbaijan has no other option but to liberate its lands through military force.”

Azerbaijan and Turkey must unite as one nation, like “a clenched fist,” he said.