Kontent Review

By Iason Athanasiadis

TEHRAN - For Hossein Shariatzadeh, a veteran of the eight-year Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, now navigating Tehran's traffic-choked streets as a taxi driver, the issue of whether the United States will strike Iraq is hardly a frightening prospect.

"This is Iran," he roared. "It is fire. It is a nuclear bomb. Don't look at my sitting behind the wheel of this car. I would get up in a second and head off to the front to fight."

During his 18 months of service at the front, Shariatzadeh claims to have fought in several flashpoint events. Before being evacuated to Tehran after taking a bullet in the stomach, he participated in the 18th Mah, Fath-ul Mubin and Fajrs 1, 2 and 4 offensives, some of the most horrific campaigns of a drawn-out war characterized by trench warfare and tens of thousands of dead in return for minuscule advances.

Despite Shariatzadeh's lust to head to the front and defend his homeland, Iran's strategic planners are acutely aware that a military confrontation with the technologically more advanced US Army would be as rapid and multi-fronted as the Iran-Iraq War was static and slow-paced. Quite simply, there would not be a single front.

Neither the US nor Israel has ruled out taking military action against nuclear-related targets in Iran if ongoing diplomatic efforts to freeze Tehran's nuclear program do not prove successful.

Accordingly, Iran has been quietly restructuring its military, while carrying out a series of military exercises testing its new military dogma. In December, more than 15,000 members of the regular armed forces participated in war games in northwestern Iran's strategically sensitive East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan border provinces that focused on irregular warfare carried out by highly mobile and speedy army units.

In another telling development, a second exercise was launched in the majority-Arab province of Khuzestan, reportedly aimed at quelling insurgencies in areas subject to ethnic unrest and prone to foreign influence. Involving 100,000 troops, the exercise provided a taste of how the Islamic Republic would respond to further disturbances in the strategic, oil-rich province.

The exercise came on the heels of news that the irregular Basij forces that led Iran's offensives against Iraq were being bolstered by so-called Ashura battalions with riot-control training.

It is all part of a fundamental transition that Iran's Revolutionary Guard (RG) is undergoing as it moves away from focusing on waging its defense of the country on the borders - unrealistic in view of the vast territory that requires securing and the gulf separating Iranian and US military capabilities - and toward drawing the enemy into the heartland and defeating it with asymmetrical tactics.

At the same time, the RG is moving away from a joint command with the ordinary army and taking a more prominent role in controlling Iran's often porous borders, even as it makes each of Iran's border provinces autonomous in the event of war. Iranian military planners know that the first step taken by an invading force would be to occupy oil-rich Khuzestan province, secure the sensitive Strait of Hormuz and cut off the Iranian military's oil supply, forcing it to depend on its limited stocks.

Foreign diplomats who monitor Iran's army make it clear that Iran's leadership has acknowledged it stands little chance of defeating the US Army with conventional military doctrine. The shift in focus to guerrilla warfare against an occupying army in the aftermath of a successful invasion mirrors developments in Iraq, where a triumphant US campaign has been followed by three years of slow hemorrhaging at the hands of insurgents.

Tehran argues that it is at a high level of preparedness and points to a number of war games carried out in recent months along its coastal zones, from Bandar Abbas and the Strait of Hormuz in January to the Persian Gulf theater in April and the Khorramshahr naval base and the northwestern parts of the Persian Gulf as of Sunday.

From several interviews with Iranian officials, researchers and foreign diplomats, it is clear that the Iranian army considers itself ready to repel a US land offensive and increasingly sees itself as the main regional power.

In line with the new feeling of invulnerability sweeping through Iran's military elite, RG commander-in-chief Yehya Rahim Safavi warned last month that "the Americans should accept Iran as a great regional power, and they should know that sanctions and military threats are not going to benefit them but are going to be against their interests and against the interests of some European countries".

Iran's new asymmetrical-warfare plan appears to be aimed at neutralizing possible US-led offensives across the Mandali-Ilam (central Iraq-central Iran) axis. The Iranian Zagros mountain range offers a natural first line of defense. It has been reported that the RG is constructing new bases at Khorramabad, Pessyan, Borujerd, Zagheh and Malayer in the province of Lorestan, which would assure the logistics of a quarter of a million troops and provide temporary shelter for half a million refugees from the border. These bases are supposedly complementing older ones further west at Sahneh and Kangavar.

"We know for a fact that no two Western wars are similar," said Hossein, a member of the RG, "and we know there are at least three possible scenarios of attacking these [nuclear] sites, including using their submarines in the Persian Gulf, commandos from the sea, or Mujahideen-e-Khalq trained in Israel and Azerbaijan to destroy the Bushehr nuclear power plant from the inside."

Even while Iran's military is choosing to go low-tech, the country's leadership is continuing to apply advanced technology to military uses. Tehran is continuing with development of its long-range missiles and is forging ahead on its indigenous satellite program that centers on Russian-supplied technology.

In addition, Tehran's aging air-defense system will be boosted by Russian-supplied land-to-air rockets. Also, Iran has aging Chinese missiles that it upgraded and could deploy on coastal batteries, fast attack boats or even warplanes. Finally, were Iran to possess the fearsome Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship missiles, it could turn the Persian Gulf into a death trap for the US fleet.

"While Iranian air power is somewhat limited, it has much in terms of land-to-air weaponry and has improvised much as well," Abdurrahman Shayyal, a Saudi Middle East and North Africa analyst, told Asia Times Online. "Furthermore, Iran has proved rather hard to infiltrate, and its military installations and bases are very well protected."

With the confrontation between Washington and Tehran escalating, a new, US-inspired plan to establish an anti-Iranian security regime has further raised tension in the Persian Gulf region. Aside from running covert operations inside Iran's ethnically mixed border provinces, the US administration is marshaling an alliance of Iran's Arab neighbors in the intensifying face-off.

The US media reported last weekend that the United States was trying to create a regional missile-defense system for the Gulf that would be integrated with real-time intelligence using sophisticated US Navy Aegis cruisers.

"Any security regime for the Persian Gulf that doesn't include Iran will not succeed," said Muhammad Reza Saedabadi, an assistant professor at the Institute of North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran. "It's splitting the region. It's good for the arms race and for arms sales to Persian Gulf states, but not for regional security."

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continued ratcheting up the tension by refusing to offer Iran a guarantee that the United States would not attack it. "Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table," she said.

While seen as potentially threatening by several Gulf Arab governments, Iran commands significant popularity among indigenous Shi'ite Arab populations in Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. To a lesser extend, Sunni Arabs in the Gulf region and the wider Middle East applaud Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad for his strident anti-Western rhetoric, which emphasizes his country's independence and echoes the anti-imperialist liberation ideology of 1960s pan-Arabism.

Reflecting this mood, the English-language Gulf News published an editorial on Tuesday titled "An American offer we must refuse". It said, "As if the region was not volatile enough, the US now wants to install an advanced missile system in GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council ] states.

"Gulf countries have enough problems trying to walk a narrow path between the various positions ... so there is no need to exacerbate things further by introducing into the region such controversial measures as heightened security controls and advanced missile systems," the newspaper said.

At a "consultative summit" in Riyadh on May 6, the GCC countries indicated that they did not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but were also opposed to the use of force against it. Their position with regard to Iran, so far, bears greater similarity with the stance taken by Russia and China than the one adopted by the US and its European allies.

The GCC is a regional organization comprising the six Persian Gulf Arab states. Created on May 25, 1981, the council's members are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

"The US is being completely ridiculous. While it wishes to police the region, it is dealing with a country that is significantly more powerful than Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Vietnam, and every other country bar Germany that it has ever fought," said Abdurrahman Shayyal.
--------------------------------------------------

Iason Athanasiadis is an Iran-based correspondent.

Posted by kevin mckern at 09:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

19.05.2006

Source:

URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/feedback/80600-iran-0

On April 28th, IAEA released its report on Iran. IAEA reported that: “the Agency cannot make a judgment about, or reach a conclusion on, future compliance or intentions.” The report came as no surprise to those who have been following the ongoing dispute between Iran, United States and the IAEA. The United States, for quite some time now, has been accusing Iran of trying to develop Nuclear weapons and Iran has been insisting that its intentions are peaceful and that it is only interested in peaceful use of the Nuclear energy. Iran, to allay the international community’s fear, froze its enrichment program and started a series of negotiations with U.K., Germany, and France. However, without the United States these negotiations were not going to produce any results, since it was only the United States that could address the Iranian’s national security concerns. Iranian seeing themselves surrounded by American forces wanted a security guarantee that United States would not invade Iran, something that United States was not prepared to give. So the negotiations with the European three failed and Iran resumed its enrichment program. Iran was threatened with Security Council and even invasion without any effect. Now once again there is talk of Security Council resolution under article 7 and continuous threats of invasion. There have even been talks of tactical nuclear strike on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. All these events are reminiscent of the negotiations and threats preceding the invasion of Iraq. The unfolding events are so similar that makes one wonder if the Iraq scenario is not being used as a template for Iran. And with what has come to light since the Iraq invasion, we have to assume that like Iraq, the decision to invade Iran has already been taken, and that the E.U. Three negotiations and IAEA are being used to prepare the public for that event. There are already reports of increased U.S. provocations along Iranian borders such as flying unmanned surveillance flight over Iran, and insertion of commandos into Iran for intelligence gathering and other activities. The talk of invasion is also accompanied with war games. For example on April 14th, ‘USA Today’ reported that “Amid rising tensions between the United States and Iran over the future of Iran's nuclear program, the Pentagon is planning a war game in July so officials can explore options for a crisis involving Iran.” But this war game is not the first of its kind. According to William M. Arkin of Washington Post, “In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theatre Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form.” But why did United States attack Iraq and why is she so keen on attacking Iran now? We now know that from the beginning, this administration was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq. Washington has, over time, given a number of different reasons for invading Iraq: starting with Iraq’s developing Nuclear weapons, to war on terror, to spreading democracy in the Middle East. All these reasons have proven to be false. Iraq did not possess any Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD); and did not have any link to Al Qaeda. And instead of democracy, Iraqis have had to endure Abu Gharib, car bombs, shortage of basic services such as electricity, clean water, and health care. None of the ministries are functioning properly and in addition Iraq has to deal with half a million displaced people. There is also talk of partitioning of Iraq. On top of all this, the Iraqis now face a possible bloody civil war. After spending over 320 Billion dollars for Iraq war (officially so far) and with no end in sight, why is this administration insisting in starting another catastrophic war in the Middle East? There have been a number of theories put forward by various groups and individuals. These theories include: crusade against Islam, control of oil reserve, checking the resurgence of Russia and rise of China, and furthering the interests of Israel. The answer probably contains some of all of the above. However two theories stand out as more plausible. Fight for oil reserves The profits of five oil companies combined (American: ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Conoco, British: Shell and British Petroleum) in 2005 was 111 billion dollars. And these profits are about to go through the roof. The reason? Production can not keep-up with demand, and even if it could, there isn’t enough oil to satisfy all, at present prices. Oil companies’ valuations are based on those companies’ access to oil reserves. Iraq and Iran combined have over 20% of the world’s total proven oil reserves. Imagine what having access to those reserves will do for the valuation of American oil companies, not to mention their profits. There is also the matter of consumption. United States consumes fully 25 percent of the world oil supplies. China and India are growing rapidly and their economies consume more and more oil. China currently consumes 8.2 percent of the world’s oil production. Soon it will increase to 10 or even 14 percent. Where is that oil going to come from? Is United States willing to reduce its share for China? It is highly improbable. Recently, President Bush held a television conference where he assured the public that Americans’ dependence on Oil soon would be over. He spoke of great new technologies and fuel sources that were just around the corner. What he forgot to mention was that there are 600 million cars in the world today that run on petrol, and it is estimated that if the present trend continues, by 2030, the number of cars in the world will reach 1.2 billion. Just to change the engines of the existing 600 million cars will take years, not to mention all the petrol stations and the support facilities that have to be modified for this to work. There is also more in a barrel of oil than petrol for our cars. We need such oil derivatives as jet fuel, Kerosene, lubricants, feedstock, asphalt, etc., for our industries to function. Currently over 60% of the world’s oil reserves are in Middle East. Four countries in the region, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait, have over half of the world’s proven oil reserves. If we keep the world’s oil consumption at its current level then the Middle East can theoretically supply the world with oil, at its current production rate, for another 80 years. But the fact is that in 15 years the North American and Asia Pacific oil reserves will be depleted. This will represent a marked reduction in oil supplies world wide. In other words within 15 years if we do not increase oil production drastically in the Middle East and elsewhere, world will face tremendous oil shortages. Increasing oil production is not that easy either. Each Oil field has an optimum production rate. If one tries to go beyond that rate and tries to sustain high production rate, one damages the oil field and thereby substantially reducing the amount of recoverable oil. This problem is well documented by the oil industry. But what about the new oil discoveries? Well there have been very little new discoveries; the future doesn’t seem that bright either. According to Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) analysis of the long term world oil supply we can expect to discover only 10% more oil in the future. Even this 10% is disputed. The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) which closely follows the development in the oil industry, Foundation of Economic Sustainability (FEASTA), and others see an alarming trend in the future oil discovery and production. If one looks at the amount of oil discovered in the years from 1930 to the present one sees a clear downward trend in new discoveries; this in spite of using more money and better technologies. In March 2005, HIS energy (an international oil consultancy firm) did a comprehensive analysis of the world oil supply and demand and reached the following conclusion: that even if one includes Natural Gas production and all other liquid fuels in our total available supplies, there will be a shortage anytime from 2011 to 2020. Israel There is no doubt that Israel has a powerful lobby in the United States. There are currently over 50 Jewish organisations that directly or indirectly lobby for Israel. The Israeli influence is well known, but few are willing to openly talk about it, especially in the United States and Europe. The Israeli dimension is particularly difficult to mention, for if one dares to state the obvious, one is branded as anti-Semite or a terrorist sympathiser. The Jewish lobby also can make life very unpleasant for those who dare to mention the extent of its influence in U.S. and other countries. There are still a few brave soles such as John Mearsheimer (Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) and Stephen Walt (Belfer Professor of International Relations and Academic Dean of Harvard University) in the U.S. that are willing to speak-out. In March 2006, they wrote an article titled “the Israel Lobby” in which they question the United States policies in the Middle East. Here is a section of their article: “Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain. Other recipients get their money in quarterly instalments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.” The Israel Connection John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are not anti-Semites nor are they uninformed individuals. What they are saying is that United States’ Middle Eastern policy is in the interest of Israel and counterproductive for the United States. We now know that as soon as the Bush administration came to power, it started looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. It used every possible propaganda tool under the sun to get the UN to sanction the invasion of Iraq, and when it didn’t succeed, it went ahead and invaded Iraq anyway. The people in U.S. pushing for an invasion, the so called Neo-Cons were at the forefront of disseminating misinformation in anyway they could. But to understand part of their agenda we have to go back to 1996. In 1996 the newly elected prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu commissioned a study group called ”Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" to craft a strategy for Israel in the coming decades. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ which included Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, created the Israel’s strategy paper titled: “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. The paper contains six pages of recommendations for Benjamin Netanyahu and some of the more relevant suggestions are presented bellow: We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behaviour of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighbourhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land - to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future. Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by: - striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan. - paralleling Syria’s behaviour by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces. - striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper. Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power. Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defence into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society. Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights. Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signalled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam. It is interesting to note that many of the co-authors of this strategy paper are Jewish Americans and not Israelis. Below you will find a very short description of a few co-authors. Richard Perle has served in important government posts under various administrations. He was Secretary of Defence under Reagan administration and Chairman of the Defence policy Advisory Committee (2001-2003) under Bush Administration. He is also the signatory of Project for the New American Century, a think-tank institute and one of the main organisations pushing for invasion of Iran. Perle is currently a resident fellow at the conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He sits also on the board of advisors of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Douglas Faith served at Defense Department as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, under Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Feith had previously served in the Reagan administration, starting off as Middle East specialist at the National Security Council (1981-82) and then transferring to the Defense Department where he spent two years as staff lawyer for Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle. He is the director of Foundation for Jewish Studies, and former advisor to Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). David Wurmser, Dick Cheney's Middle East adviser, was the Special Adviser to Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (2001-2003). He is also member of Board of Directors of U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon. One can produce a very long list of influential people in United States (e.g., Paul Wolfowitz -current World Bank President and Undersecretary of Defence for Policy from1989-93) that work very hard to safeguard Israel’s interests. To be continued Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway and is currently writing a book about the reasons behind the United  States involvement in Iraq and Iran. He's a former associate professor of Nordland University, Norway. He can be contacted at: bakhtiarspace-articles@yahoo.no

Posted by kevin mckern at 06:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - In pushing for a showdown over Iran's nuclear program in the United Nations Security Council, the administration of US President George W Bush has presented the issue as a matter of global security - an Iranian nuclear threat in defiance of the international community.

But the history of the conflict and the private strategic thinking of both sides reveal that the dispute is really about the Bush administration's drive for greater dominance in the Middle East and Iran's demand for recognition as a regional power.

It is now known that the Iranian leadership, which was convinced that Bush was planning to move against Iran after toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq, proposed in April 2003 to negotiate with the United States on the very issues that the US administration had claimed were the basis for its hostile posture toward Tehran: its nuclear program, its support for Hezbollah and other anti-Israeli armed groups, and its hostility to Israel's existence.

Tehran offered concrete, substantive concessions on those issues. But on the advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Bush refused to respond to the proposal for negotiation. Nuclear weapons were not, therefore, the primary US concern. In the hierarchy of the US administration's interests, the denial of legitimacy to the Islamic Republic trumped a deal that could have provided assurances against an Iranian nuclear weapon.

For insight into the real aims of the Bush administration in pushing the issue of Iranian access to nuclear technology to a crisis point, one can turn to Tom Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-conservative think-tank. Donnelly was the deputy executive director of the Project for the New American Century from 1999 to 2002, and was the main author of "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

That paper was written for Cheney and Rumsfeld during the transition following Bush's election and had the participation of four prominent figures who later took positions in the administration: Stephen Cambone, Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton.

Donnelly's analysis of the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons, published last October in the book Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, makes it clear that the real objection to Iran's becoming a nuclear power is that it would impede the larger US ambitions in the Middle East - what Donnelly calls the Bush administration's "project of transforming the Middle East".

Contrary to the official line depicting Iran as a radical state threatening to plunge the region into war, Donnelly refers to Iran as "more the status quo power" in the region in relation to the United States. Iran, he explains, "stands directly athwart this project of regional transformation". Up to now, he observes, the Iranian regime has been "incapable of stemming the seeping US presence in the Persian Gulf and in the broader region". And the invasion of Iraq "completed the near-encirclement of Iran by US military forces".

Donnelly writes that a "nuclear Iran" is a problem not so much because Tehran would employ those weapons or pass them on to terrorist groups, but mainly because of "the constraining effect it threatens to impose upon US strategy for the greater Middle East".

The "greatest danger", according to Donnelly, is that the "realists" would "pursue a 'balance of power' approach with a nuclear Iran, undercutting the Bush 'liberation strategy'". Although Donnelly doesn't say so explicitly, it would undercut that strategy primarily by ruling out a US attack on Iran as part of a "regime change" strategy.

Instead, in Donnelly's scenario, a nuclear capability would incline those outside the neo-conservative priesthood to negotiate a "detente" with Iran, which would bring the plan for the extension of US political-military dominance in the Middle East to a halt.

What is really at stake in the confrontation with Iran from the Bush administration's perspective, according to this authority on neo-conservative strategy, is the opportunity to reorder the power hierarchy in the Middle East even further in favor of the United States by overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran's position
Meanwhile, Iran has not acknowledged its real interest in pushing its position on nuclear-fuel enrichment to the point of confrontation with the United States, either. Instead, it has focused in public pronouncements on the enormously popular position that Iran will not give up its right to have civilian nuclear power.

According to observers familiar with their thinking, senior Iranian national-security officials have long been saying privately that Iran should try to reach an agreement with the United States that would normalize relations and acknowledge officially Iran's legitimate role in the security of the Persian Gulf.

Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iran's foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, who conducted extensive interviews with senior Iranian national-security officials in 2004, said Iran "is now primarily trying to become rehabilitated in the political order of the region".

Najmeh Bozorgmehr, an Iranian journalist now at the Brookings Institution as a visiting scholar, agrees. Based on several years of covering Iran's national-security policy, she said, "Iran wants to bargain with the United States on Iran's regional role," as well as on removal of sanctions and assurances against US attack. Tehran has been looking for any source of leverage with which to bargain with the United States on those issues, she said, and "enrichment has become a big bargaining chip".

Bozorgmehr said the Iranians have become convinced that they have to do something to show the United States "we can give you a hard time" to induce the Bush administration to negotiate. And Parsi said the prevailing view among Iranian officials after the 2003 US rejection of diplomacy was that they had to have the capability to inflict some pain on the United States to get its attention.

According to Parsi, that rejection confirmed Iranian suspicions that the US problem is not with Iran's policies but with its power. That Iranian conclusion precisely parallels Donnelly's insider analysis of the Bush administration's aims.

But what the Iranians really want, according to these observers of Iranian national-security thinking, is not nuclear weapons but the recognition of Iran's status in the power hierarchy of the Persian Gulf region. The Iranian demand for regional status can only be achieved through a broad diplomatic agreement with the United States.

The Bush administration's insistence on extending its dominance in the Middle East even further can only be achieved, however, by the threat of force and, if that fails, war against Iran.
----------------------------------------------------

Gareth Porter is a historian and national-security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published last June.

Posted by kevin mckern at 12:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena - which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them. Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilisation model, Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make "War and Terror" his slogan, And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time, Have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set ablaze. Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women - as occupation troops - put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families. On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with. Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal; nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the imposed war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West. Mr President, You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness? There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals. European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values. Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel. I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families. Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained? Mr President, I am sure you know how - and at what cost - Israel was established: * Many thousands were killed in the process. * Millions of indigenous people were made refugees. * Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed. This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now. A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures, and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique - or at the very least extremely rare - in recent memory. Another big question asked by the people is "why is this regime being supported?" Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands - inside and outside Palestine - whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum? The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent (observers) have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government. If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying "why are all UNSC (UN Security Council) resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?" Mr President, As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them - many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies. It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well. Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R and D one of the basic rights of nations? You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed. Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to. Mr President, Don't Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, Why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear? The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth - including minerals - is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others? Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights? The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d'etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-a-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter. Mr President, September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies. All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems - and even hunts its opponents abroad. September Eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial? All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9/11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people - who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks - some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity - some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic? American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity? Some believe that the hype paved the way - and was the justification - for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly - for the public to finally believe - and the ground set for an attack on Iraq. Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well? Mr President, In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them. The question here is "what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?" As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist - to a larger or lesser extent - in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign - paid from the public treasury - be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles? What has been said are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention - which I am hoping you will agree to some of it - is: Those in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures. The people will scrutinise our presidencies. Did we (manage) to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice or just supported (special) interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful - thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the spectre of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administrations set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns, Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people's rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office - to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets - or not? Mr President, How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the spectre of insecurity - raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue? If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, (where) would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American government? Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone. If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us? My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is "monotheism" or belief in a single God and no other in the world. The Holy Quran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: (3.64) Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran) Mr President, According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets. "To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases." "The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds." "The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court" "Planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins" "He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors" "He is the Compassionate, the Merciful" "He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness" "He is witness to the actions of His servants" "He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast" "Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds" "A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants" and "A good end and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves." We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth. We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Quran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Quran as well: (19.36) And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. (Mariam) Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers. The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans. We again read in the Holy Book: "The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious." All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well. Divine prophets have promised: The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards (Heaven) and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions. All prophets speak of peace and tranquillity for man - based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity. Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world - that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets - and improve our performance? Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice? Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected? Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets? Mr President, History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of men to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him. Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is the situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace. The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies. The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries. The people are disgusted with increasing corruption. The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations. Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems. We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?" Mr President, Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things. Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran -- AFP

Posted by kevin mckern at 07:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Bureau of Labor Statistics payroll jobs report released May 5 says the economy created 131,000 private sector jobs in April. Construction added 10,000 jobs, natural resources, mining and logging added 8,000 jobs, and manufacturing added 19,000. Despite this unusual gain, the economy has 10,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than a year ago.

Most of the April job gain --72%--is in domestic services, with education and health services (primarily health care and social assistance) and waitresses and bartenders accounting for 55,000 jobs or 42% of the total job gain. Financial activities added 26,000 jobs and professional and business services added 28,000. Retail trade lost 36,000 jobs.

During 2001 and 2002 the US economy lost 2,298,000 jobs. These lost jobs were not regained until early in February 2005. From February 2005 through April 2006, the economy has gained 2,584 jobs (mainly in domestic services).

The total job gain for the 64 month period from January 2001 through April 2006 is 7,000,000 jobs less than the 9,600,000 jobs necessary to stay even with population growth during that period. The unemployment rate is low because millions of discouraged workers have dropped out of the work force and are not counted as unemployed.

In 2005 the US had a current account deficit in excess of $800 billion. That means Americans consumed $800 billion more goods and services than they produced. A significant percentage of this figure is offshore production by US companies for American markets.

The US current account deficit as a percent of Gross Domestic Product is unprecedented. As more jobs and manufacturing are moved offshore, Americans become more dependent on foreign made goods. This year the deficit could reach $1 trillion.

The US pays its current account deficit by giving up ownership of its existing assets or wealth. Foreigners don't simply hold the $800 billion in cash. They use it to acquire US equities, real estate, bonds, and entire companies.

The federal budget is also in the red to the tune of about $400 billion. As Americans have ceased to save, the federal government is dependent on foreigners to lend it the money to operate and to wage war in the Middle East.

American consumers are heavily indebted. The growth of consumer debt is what has been fueling the economy. Social Security and Medicare are in financial trouble, as are many company pension plans. Decide for yourself--is this the economic picture of a superpower that can dictate to the world, or is it the picture of a second-rate country dependent on foreigners to finance its consumption and the operation of its government?

No-think economists make rhetorical arguments that the decline of US manufacturing employment reflects higher productivity from technological improvements and not a decline in US manufacturing per se. George Mason University economist Walter Williams recently ridiculed the claim that US manufacturing jobs are moving to China. Williams asks how the US could be losing manufacturing jobs to China when the Chinese are losing jobs faster than the US: "Since, 2000, China has lost 4.5 million manufacturing jobs, compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S."

The 4.5 million figure comes from a Conference Board report that is misleading. The report that counts was written by Judith Banister under contract to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and published in November 2005 (www.bls.gov/fls/chinareport.pdf). Banister's report was peer reviewed both within the BLS and externally by persons with expert knowledge of China.

Chinese manufacturing employment has been growing strongly since the 1980s except for a short period in the late 1990s when layoffs resulted from the restructuring and privatization of inefficient state owned and collective owned factories. To equate temporary layoffs from a massive restructuring within manufacturing with US long-term manufacturing job loss indicates extreme carelessness or incompetence.

Banister concludes: "In recent decades, China has become a manufacturing powerhouse. The country's official data showed 83 million manufacturing employees in 2002, but that figure is likely to be understated; the actual number was probably closer to 109 million. By contrast, in 2002, the Group of Seven (G7) major industrialized countries had a total of 53 million manufacturing workers."

The G7 is the US and Europe. In contrast to China's 109,000,000 manufacturing workers, the US has 14,000,000.

When I was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, the US did not have a trade deficit in manufactured goods. Today the US has a $500 billion annual deficit in manufactured goods. If the US is doing as well in manufacturing as no-think economists claim, where did an annual trade deficit in manufactured goods of one-half trillion dollars come from?

If the US is the high-tech leader of the world, why does the US have a trade deficit in advanced technology products with China?

There was a time when American economists were empirical and paid attention to facts. Today American economists are merely the handmaidens of offshore producers. Apparently, they follow President Bush's lead and do not read newspapers--thus, their ignorance of countless stories of US manufacturers moving entire plants and many thousands of US engineering jobs to China.

Chinese firms, including state owned firms, have numerous reasons, tax and otherwise, to understate their employment. Banister's report gives the details.

Banister points out that the excess supply of labor in China is about five to six times the size of the total US work force. As a result, there is no shortage of workers in China, nor will there be in the foreseeable future.

The huge excess supply of labor means extremely low Chinese wages. The average Chinese wage is $0.57 per hour, a mere 3% of the average US manufacturing worker's wage. With first world technology, capital, and business knowhow crowding into China, virtually free Chinese labor is as productive as US labor. This should make it obvious to anyone who claims to be an economist that offshore production of goods and services is an example of capital seeking absolute advantage in lowest factor cost, not a case of free trade based on comparative advantage.

American economists have failed their country as badly as have the Republican and Democratic parties. The sad fact is that there is no leader in sight capable of reversing the rapid decline of the United States of America.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

 

Posted by kevin mckern at 12:47 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Does George Bush get you down?

Does your mind go numb when you read another story about another GOP-legislated atrocity?

Do you feel that you just can’t take any more of it? That you just are too tired to care?

You could be suffering from outrage fatigue. In which case, you are not alone.

The other day an editor here groaned, “Not another torture story.” A colleague snapped back, “That’s a win for them.”

The Web has been abuzz with discussions about “outrage fatigue” and its debilitating effects. Consider the following thoughts on the syndrome, gleaned from postings over the past couple years.

There is despair:

“I’m sorry guys, with so many things to be outraged about I’m worn down. It’s partly because it feels like nothing you do with the outrage has any effect,” writes Spocko.

“There has been so much to be outraged about from the Republicans the past six years and yet they have never been held to account. It is easy to just feel powerless and give up. It hurts too much to care about the state of the country,” writes Erik.

There is resignation:

“I just can’t get too outraged anymore since every day brings a new outrage. Law of diminishing returns and all that jazz I guess,” writes Cursed Pirate Monkey.

“It used to be I’d have opinions on the latest scary news of the government and all that shizzle, but over time, U.S. political shit has ended up provoking more a ‘meh’ reaction than anything else. … Just how mad can any single thing make a dude? The answer is that each drumbeat of the march in the wrong national direction reduces the capacity for outrage. Hence outrage muthafuckin’ fatigue, yo. My friend Bill is one of those lefty dudes who sends tons of e-mails like, ‘Man, can you believe this shit?’ Sorry Bill, but the muthafuckin’ truth hurts: I usually glance at your forward, think to myself, ‘Yes, that does kinda suck,’ then instantly trash the e-mail and go back to Fark,” writes Pat in Politics.

There is fear:

“The effect of outrage fatigue is actually scary—things that should be considered very damaging by the American voter just get slipped under the rug with very little notice. … The Bush White House has successfully recalibrated outrage meters so dramatically that we, and the American public, can hardly remember how we used to react to various kinds of events,” writes Frankly0.

There is backlash:

“As to outrage: What matters is getting Bush out of office. … The Bushies could care less how outraged you are. It’s the rope-a-dope defense. By November, all of our outrage reservoirs will be completely empty and we won’t even have the energy to vote,” writes Cleek.

“There’s this new chic meme out there in the blogosphere that people are calling ‘outrage fatigue.’ I dislike the term immensely. I actually think there’s this kind of spiritual battle between the concept of ‘standing up for what’s right’ and the concepts of cynicism, snarkiness and bitchy hopelessness. Referring to ‘outrage fatigue’ is just another way to make it okay to lose hope,” writes Curt. To which Cat, in despair mode, responds: “When you say ‘Outrage Fatigue,’ I interpret it as that awful feeling when you just have to stop reading the news for a while. When you fear that if you hear one more crappy thing, you’ll just crawl under your bed and die slowly.”

While Suzanne Marshall had this to say: “Even though I know how seriously messed-up the situation is in Iraq, I’ve became inured to all but the most extreme levels of wrongdoing. For months, no amount of civilian bombing could get me mad. Then those amazing photos of the tortured Iraqi prisoners hit the streets, and I got that old rush of overwhelming disgust with my government. Then more photos came out, and more officials were implicated, and now—I don’t know. It’s like a switch in my head turned off again.” Whoops, that last quote was from the Onion, playing off the zeitgeist.

Like its cousins—combat fatigue, donor fatigue, compassion fatigue, chronic fatigue, metal fatigue—outrage fatigue has yet to be recognized, or even noted, by the American Psychological Association. That could change as it begins to turn up in therapists’ caseloads. Jon Carroll reports in the San Francisco Chronicle, “A therapist I know says that more and more people are showing up at her door with a nonspecific anxiety disorder, which turns out to be shame and confusion about the state of the nation.”

So what’s the cure?

Outrage is a little bit like anger. Therapist Margaret Paul observes, “Anger that comes from an adult, rational place can be called outrage. Outrage is the feeling we have when confronted with injustice. Outrage mobilizes us to take appropriate action when harm is being done to ourselves, others and the planet.”

And like anger, when we don’t express our outrage, we repress it and turn that outrage in on ourselves.

That can have bad effects according to Ease@Work, a company that advises businesses on how to treat employees. “Repressed anger is unexpressed anger. Some people can internalize anger so that they fool others, and sometimes themselves, into believing they are not angry. The problem with repressed anger is that it is turned back inside the person, leading to health problems such as hypertension, stroke, and heart disease. … Bottling up this powerful emotion can make some people withdraw and lose interest in others and in activities, common signs of depression.”

In the case of a person grappling with outrage fatigue, the easiest solution is to protect yourself from bad news and learn not to care. Another solution is to do something about your outrage. Nurture it. Express it.

Bang a pot. In December 2001 in Argentina, pot bangers led a popular revolt against IMF-imposed economic austerity measures and toppled the government.

That has been tried here. As the Washington Times reported earlier this year, “Liberal activists—among them graying leftovers from the Vietnam-era antiwar movement—plan to gather near the Capitol tonight, banging pots and pans to drown out President Bush’s State of the Union address.” Maybe it didn’t work, but it no doubt felt good.

Managing Terror

While the American Psychological Association has not begun to address the needs of our brothers and sisters suffering outrage fatigue, it has worked closely with the White House in the war on terror. Heeding a call following 9/11 from Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger, the APA asked its members “for examples of research vignettes that might inform (directly or indirectly) strategies to deal with the aftermath of the nations terrorist attacks.”

One of the problems the APA addressed: “What can be done to help people cope with the ongoing threat of terrorism?”

What is known as Terror Management Theory (TMT) has the answer. According to the APA, “From the perspective of TMT, the recent terrorist attacks provided Americans with a massive reminder of death and the fragility of life, coupled with an attack on the psychological structures that normally protect us from fears of death and vulnerability.”

Indeed the public reaction to the attacks is very similar to what psychologists had previously discovered in more than 150 experiments on how people responded to reminders of death and threats to their cultural worldview. According to the APA, these responses include:

• People respond more negatively to those who criticize one’s country and behaviorally distance themselves from such individuals.
• People respond more positively to those who praise one’s country and behaviorally approach such persons.
• People have increased attraction to heroes and greater reverence for cultural icons, such as American flags or crucifixes.
• People have an increased desire for punishment of moral transgressors.
• People experience a shift toward desires for security and away from desires for freedom.

No wonder we have outrage fatigue.

Postscript

As I was writing this, I was also working with Kurt Vonnegut on something he is writing for In These Times. That is, until I received a fax from him that said: “Forget it. I don’t want to fight any more.”

I faxed back, “Do you think you are suffering from outrage fatigue?” Adding that, if he was, did he have any thoughts about the condition?

The next day I received this fax: “About Outrage Fatigue: I knew what it was like to lose a battle. Now I know what it was like to lose a war.”

Fatigued, perhaps. But I am not going to let that get me down. I prefer to ponder the last joke Kurt told me: “George Bush is so dumb it wouldn’t surprise me if he thought Peter Pan was a wash basin in a whorehouse.”

Posted by kevin mckern at 01:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yeah, go Monkey Go!

Posted by kevin mckern at 10:41 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

April 28, 2006

The cast and producers of the Follies’ video “Every Breath You Take” were featured on CNBC’s Power Lunch today, as appreciation of the small masterpiece continued to spread over the Internet and through the media.

In his starring role in the student revue as Dean Glenn Hubbard, student Michael O’Rorke lip-synched a creatively worded spoof version of The Police pop hit to Chairman Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Board. Outgoing GBA president Cabe Franklin provided the vocals.

The video got its nationwide release on April 25 when it was featured on CNNMoney.com’s EyeOpener newsletter. It has also appeared in the Washington Post and on CNN.

Posted by kevin mckern at 04:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

From Russia, you might say, with love. This weekend, Alexei Kudrin,
Russia's finance minister, dropped a bombshell in Washington.

Attending the annual meetings of the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund, Kudrin caused his American hosts discomfort by openly
questioning the dollar's pre-eminence as the world's "absolute"
reserve currency.

The greenback's recent volatility and the yawning US trade
deficit, "are definitely causing concern with regard to its reserve
currency status," he said. "The international community can hardly
be satisfied with this instability."

Kudrin's intervention coincided with another meeting, also in
Washington, of finance ministers and central bankers from the Group
of Seven - which doesn't include Russia.

Top of the agenda: the effect of ever-rising oil prices on inflation
and interest rates.

G7 countries are worried the spiraling price of crude -- which
closed at $72.79 a barrel on Friday and which has now trebled in
three years -- could inflict real economic damage. The US Federal
Reserve, in particular, has been forced to take drastic action --
raising interest rates 15 times since June 2004 to keep inflation in
check.

Given that fragility, it is significant that Kudrin is now wondering
aloud if the long-standing dollar hegemony can last. For him to do
so is to highlight that America is vulnerable should that status be
lost. That's because Russia, with its awesome oil and gas reserves,
could kick-start a challenge to the dollar's supremacy.

Most nations stockpile their foreign exchange holdings in dollars.
The US currency accounts for more than two thirds of all central
bank reserves worldwide.

This reserve status means that the dollar is constantly in demand,
whatever the underlying strength of the US economy.

And now, with massive trade and budget deficits to finance, America
is increasingly reliant on that status. The unprecedented weight of
US liabilities means a threat to the dollar's dominance could result
in a currency collapse, plunging the world's largest economy into
recession.

That won't happen immediately. The dollar has sat astride the globe
for some time now -- in fact, for most of the last century. But this
statement from Russia -- a country of growing financial and
strategic significance -- still caused the dollar to slide. It also
fuelled speculation that central banks could increasingly diversify
their holdings away from dollars.

Kudrin's statement followed news that Sweden has cut its dollar
holdings, from 37 per cent of central bank reserves to 20 per cent,
with the euro's share rising to 50 per cent. Central banks in some
Gulf states have also lately mooted a shift into the euro. Such
sentiments helped push the dollar to a seven-month low against the
single currency last week.

But Russia's intervention will have raised eyebrows in Washington
because the backbone of the dollar's reserve currency status -- the
main guarantee that status continues -- is the fact that oil is
traded in dollars. And that is something the likes of Kudrin can
directly affect.

For historic reasons, the dollar remains the
world's "petrocurrency" -- the only currency for the settlement of
oil contracts on world markets. That makes the EU and Russia
dependent on it. But with central banks switching to euros, the
logical next step would be for fuel-exporting countries to start
quoting oil prices in euros too.

The EU is Russia's main trading partner. More than two thirds of
Russia's oil and gas is exported to the EU. That makes Russia a
strong candidate to become the first major oil exporter to start
trading in euros. Such a scenario, in recent years, has become
theoretically possible. But now, with these latest comments, Kudrin
has thrust that possibility into the open.

The G7 meeting was dominated, of course, by concern over Iran's
nuclear programme. The threat of military action against Iran,
itself a major crude exporter, is one reason oil prices are now
testing record highs.

It is worth noting that Tehran has ongoing plans to set up an oil
trading exchange to compete with New York's NYMEX and with London's
International Petroleum Exchange. In the light of Kudrin's comments,
it is significant that the Iranians want to run their oil bourse in
euros, not dollars.

Were the Iranians to establish a Middle-East based euro-only oil
exchange, the dollar's unique petrocurrency status could unravel.
That, in turn, would threaten its broader dominance -- which, given
America's groaning twin deficit, could seriously hurt the US economy.

Some cite this as the real reason the US wants to attack Iran: to
protect the dollar's unique position. I wouldn't go that far, but
the prospect of a non-dollar oil exchange in Tehran is certainly an
aggravating factor.

The opening of Iran's new oil exchange has recently been delayed.
But having spoken with numerous officials in Tehran, and western
consultants who've been working with the Iranians for several years,
I think it will go ahead. The exchange entity has already been
legally incorporated in Iran and a site purchased to house
administrative and regulatory staff.

The reality is that as long as most of Opec's oil -- read Saudi
Arabia -- is priced in dollars, the US currency will retain its
hegemony. But the opening of an oil bourse in Tehran, which now
looks likely, will signal at least tacit Saudi consent for euro-
based oil trading. The US knows this, which is why it is nervous
about the dollar's status being questioned.

From the G7's fringe, Kudrin has now touched this raw nerve. This
weekend's meetings have been dominated by questions of global
financial imbalance - in particular, America's huge deficits.

Kudrin's missive comes as central bankers, and currency dealers,
start to conclude the only way to resolve the massive US external
deficit is a somewhat weaker US currency. As the IMF itself warned
yesterday, a "substantial" dollar decline may be needed.

One way to bring that about would be for the euro to enter the
global oil trading system. This is unlikely to happen soon. It might
not happen at all. But the idea is now not only realistic but firmly
on the table in Washington. Perhaps not with love, but it was placed
there by the Russians.

Posted by kevin mckern at 12:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, April 25, 2006; A23

 

During the Jim Crow era, many American communists fiercely fought racism. This is a fact. It is also a fact that segregationists and others often smeared civil rights activists by calling them communists. This technique is sometimes called guilt by association and sometimes "McCarthyism." If you think it's dead, you have not been following the controversy over a long essay about the so-called "Israel Lobby."

On April 5, for instance, The Post ran an op-ed, "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic," by Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a respected defense intellectual. Cohen does not much like a paper on the Israel lobby that was written by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University. He found it anti-Semitic. I did not.

But I did find Cohen's piece to be offensive. It starts by noting that the paper, titled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," had been endorsed by David Duke, the former head of the Ku Klux Klan. It goes on to quote Duke, who, I am sure, has nodded his head in agreement over the years with an occasional piece of mine, as saying the paper is a "modern Declaration of American Independence." If you follow Cohen's reasoning, then you would have to conclude that David Duke and the Founding Fathers have something in common. I am not, as they say, willing to go there.

Unfortunately, Cohen's piece is not unique. The New York Sun reported on its front page of March 24 an allegation from Alan Dershowitz that some of the quotes from the Israel lobby paper "appear on hate sites." Maybe they do, but Mearsheimer and Walt took those quotes (about press coverage of Israel) from a book written by Max Frankel, a former editor of the New York Times. To associate Mearsheimer and Walt with hate groups is rank guilt by association and does not in any way rebut the argument made in their paper on the Israel lobby.

There is hardly a stronger, more odious, accusation than anti-Semitism. It comes freighted with more than a thousand years of tragic history, culminating in the Holocaust. The mere suggestion of it is enough for any sane person to hold his tongue. Yet this did not stop the respected German newspaper editor Josef Joffe from stating in the New Republic that the lobby paper "puts 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' to shame." He is referring to the most notorious anti-Semitic text of all time. My friend Joffe is in dire need of a cold compress.

My own reading of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper found it unremarkable, a bit sloppy and one-sided (nothing here about the Arab oil lobby), but nothing that even a casual newspaper reader does not know. Its basic point -- that Israel's American supporters have immense influence over U.S. foreign policy -- is inarguable. After all, President Bush has just recently given Israel NATO-like status without so much as a murmur from Congress. "I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," Bush said. This was the second or third time he's made this pledge, crossing a line that previous administrations would not -- in effect, promulgating a treaty seemingly on the spot. No other country gets this sort of treatment.

Israel's special place in U.S. foreign policy is deserved, in my view, and not entirely the product of lobbying. Israel has earned it, and isn't there something bracing about a special relationship that is not based on oil or markets or strategic location but on shared values? (A bit now like Britain.) But I can understand how foreign policy "realists" such as Mearsheimer and Walt might question its utility and not only think that a bit too much power is located in a specific lobby but that it is rarely even discussed. This may be wrong, but it is not (necessarily) anti-Semitic. In fact, after reading the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, the respected Israeli newspaper Haaretz not only failed to discern anti-Semitism but commended the paper to its readers. "The professors' article does not deserve condemnation," Haaretz stated in an editorial.

An abridged version of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper was published by the London Review of Books and is available online at http://www.lrb.co.uk/ . Read it and decide for yourself whether it is anti-Semitic. Whatever the case, their argument is hardly rebutted by purple denunciations and smear tactics. Rather than being persuasive, Mearsheimer and Walt's more hysterical critics suggest by their extreme reactions that the duo is on to something. These tactics by Israel's friends sully Israel's good name more than Mearsheimer and Walt ever could.

cohenr@washpost.com

Posted by kevin mckern at 12:06 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by kevin mckern at 02:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By an Asia Times Online Special Correspondent

TEHRAN - A former Iranian ambassador and Islamic Republic insider has provided intriguing details to Asia Times Online about US covert operations inside Iran aimed at destabilizing the country and toppling the regime - or preparing for an American attack.

"The Iranian government knows and is aware of such infiltration. It means that the Iranian government has identified them [the covert operatives] but for some reason does not want to show [this]," said the former diplomat on condition of anonymity.

Speaking in Tehran, the ex-Foreign Ministry official said the agents being used by the US "were originally Iranians and not Americans" possibly recruited in the United States or through US embassies in Dubai and Ankara. He also warned that such actions will engender "some reactions".

"Both sides will certainly do something," he said in a reference to Iran's capability to stir trouble up in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan for the occupying US troops there.

Veteran US journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in a much-discussed recent article in The New Yorker magazine that the administration of President George W Bush has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack as the crisis with Iran over its nuclear program escalates.

Hersh wrote that "teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups". The template seems identical to the period that preceded US air strikes against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan during which a covert Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) campaign distributed millions of dollars to tribal allies.

"The Iranian accusations are true," said Richard Sale, intelligence correspondent for United Press International, referring to charges that the US is using the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) organization and other groups to carry out cross-border operations. "But it is being done on such a small scale - a series of pinpricks - it would seem to have no strategic value at all."

There has been a marked spike in unrest in Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Balochistan, three of Iran's provinces with a high concentration of ethnic Kurdish, Arab and Balochi minorities respectively. With the exception of the immediate post-revolutionary period, when the Kurds rebelled against the central government and were suppressed violently, ethnic minorities have received better treatment, more autonomy and less ethnic discrimination than under the shah.

"The president hasn't notified the Congress that American troops are operating inside Iran," said Sam Gardiner, a retired US Army colonel who specializes in war-game scenarios. "So it's a very serious question about the constitutional framework under which we are now conducting military operations in Iran."

Camp Warhorse is the major US military base in the strategic Iraqi province of Diyala that borders Iran. Last month, Asia Times Online asked the US official in charge of all overt and covert operations emanating from there whether the military and the MEK colluded on an operational level. He denied any such knowledge.

"They have a gated community up there," came the genial reply. "Not really guarded - it's more gated. They bake really good bread," he added, smiling.

But that is contrary to what Hersh was told by his sources, According to him, US combat troops are already inside Iran and, in the event of air strikes, would be in position to mark critical targets with laser beams to ensure bombing accuracy and excite sectarian tensions between the population and the central government. As of early winter, Hersh's source claims that the units were also working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris in the north, the Balochis in the southeast, and the Kurds in the northwest.

Last week, speaking on the sidelines of a Palestinian solidarity conference, Major-General Yehyia Rahim Safavi, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander, sent a warning to the US and British intelligence services he accuses of using Iraq and Kuwait to infiltrate Iran. "I tell them that their agents can be our agents too, and they should not waste their money so casually."

On April 9, Iran claimed to have shot down an unmanned surveillance plane in the southwestern province of Khuzestan, according to a report in the semi-official Jumhuri Eslami newspaper. US media have also reported that the US military has been secretly flying surveillance drones over Iran since 2004, using radar, video, still photography and air filters to monitor Iranian military formations and track Iran's air-defense system. The US denied having lost a drone.

This new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by CIA operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of Congress.

The confirmation that the US is carrying out covert activities inside Iran makes more sense out of a series of suspicious events that have occurred along Iran's borders this year. In early January, a military airplane belonging to Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards went down close to the Iraqi border. The plane was carrying 11 of the Guard's top commanders, including General Ahmad Kazemi, the commander of the IRGC's ground forces, and Brigadier-General Nabiollah Shahmoradi, who was deputy commander for intelligence.

Although a spokesman blamed bad weather and dilapidated engines for the crash, the private intelligence company Stratfor noted that there are several reasons to suspect foul play, not least of which was that any aircraft carrying so many of Iran's elite military luminaries would undergo "thorough tests for technical issues before flight". Later, Iran's defense minister accused Britain and the US of bringing the plane down through "electronic jamming".

"Given all intelligence information that we have gathered, we can say that agents of the United States, Britain and Israel are seeking to destabilize Iran through a coordinated plan," Minister of Interior Mustafa Pour-Mohammadi said. This sentiment was echoed on websites such as AmericanIntelligence.us, where one reader commented, "We couldn't have made a better hit on the IRGC's leadership if planned ... sure it was just an accident?"

Then, in late January, a previously unknown Sunni Muslim group called Jundallah (Soldier of Allah) captured nine Iranian soldiers in the remote badlands of Sistan-Balochistan province that borders Afghanistan and Pakistan. And in mid-February, another airplane crashed just inside Iraq after taking off from Azerbaijan and transiting Iranian airspace. The Iranian Mehr news agency reported that the "passengers on board were possibly of Israeli origin". It added that US troops have restricted access to the site to Iraqi Kurdish officials and that Western media were reporting the passengers aboard as having been German.

The Iranian government has not sat idly by and just taken these breaches of sovereignty. Early this month, an unidentified source in the Interior Ministry was quoted by the hardline Kayhan newspaper as saying that the leader and 11 members of the Jundallah group had been killed by Iranian troops. Then last Friday, Iranian missile batteries shelled Iranian Kurdish rebel positions inside Iraqi territory. They were targeting a militant group called PJAK that seeks more autonomy for Iran's Kurdish population and has been operating out of Iraq since 1999.

The former Iranian ambassador argues that in the event that US pressure on Iran continues, "the end of the tunnel" for President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's administration is "weaponization of the [nuclear] technology ... and a military strike".

"The Americans are pushing Iran to become a nuclear state. Iran just wants to be a supplier of nuclear fuel. But [with their threats] they are pushing it further."

Posted by kevin mckern at 03:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

 

We, Ministers and Governors, met today and resolutely reaffirmed that openness and globalization are beneficial in promoting economic prosperity and reducing poverty. These benefits are most effectively realized with sound economic management and supportive policies for those whose welfare is adversely affected. We committed to: strengthen economic policies in our countries; work together to remove distortions to the global adjustment process; resist protectionism and promote liberalization of trade and investment including an ambitious outcome from the Doha Development Round; and modernize the international financial institutions.

The strong global economic expansion continues into its fourth year and the outlook remains favorable, supported by improved macroeconomic policies in many countries as well as benign financial market conditions. Inflation remains contained despite high oil prices and global trade growth is buoyant. Yet risks remain from oil market developments, global imbalances, and growing protectionism. We underscored that global economic adjustment is a shared responsibility.

We are strengthening the dialogue between oil producers and consumers to further improve market transparency through the release of more complete and timely data on production, consumption and inventories, and for clear reporting of oil reserves. We urge investment in exploration, production, energy infrastructure, and refinery capacity. Investment is crucial and oil producing countries should provide open and secure investment environments to enable market participants to meet pressing needs. We remain committed to greater energy efficiency, conservation, and diversification, which will improve the balance between supply and demand.

We reaffirm that exchange rates should reflect economic fundamentals. Excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates are undesirable for economic growth. We continue to monitor exchange markets closely and cooperate as appropriate. Greater exchange rate flexibility is desirable in emerging economies with large current account surpluses, especially China, for necessary adjustments to occur.

We welcomed the IMF Managing Director's Strategic Review to equip the IMF to help countries meet the macroeconomic and financial policy challenges of globalization. We supported the strengthening of IMF surveillance, including through increased emphasis on the consistency of exchange rate policies with domestic policies and a market-based international monetary system and on the spillover effects of domestic policies on other countries. We support a new