Archive for the 'World' Category

National Intelligence Council report: sun setting on the American century

Courtesy The London Times Online.

The next two decades will see a world living with the daily threat of nuclear war, environmental catastrophe and the decline of America as the dominant global power, according to a frighteningly bleak assessment by the US intelligence community.

“The world of the near future will be subject to an increased likelihood of conflict over resources, including food and water, and will be haunted by the persistence of rogue states and terrorist groups with greater access to nuclear weapons,” said the report by the National Intelligence Council, a body of analysts from across the US intelligence community.

The analysts said that the report had been prepared in time for Barack Obama’s entry into the Oval office on January 20, where he will be faced with some of the greatest challenges of any newly elected US president.

“The likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used will increase with expanded access to technology and a widening range of options for limited strikes,” the 121-page assessment said.

The analysts draw attention to an already escalating nuclear arms race in the Middle East and anticipate that a growing number of rogue states will be prepared to share their destructive technology with terror groups. “Over the next 15-20 years reactions to the decisions Iran makes about its nuclear programme could cause a number of regional states to intensify these efforts and consider actively pursuing nuclear weapons,” the reportGlobal Trends 2025 said. “This will add a new and more dangerous dimension to what is likely to be increasing competition for influence within the region,” it said.

The spread of nuclear capabilities will raise questions about the ability of weak states to safeguard them, it added. “If the number of nuclear-capable states increases, so will the number of countries potentially willing to provide nuclear assistance to other countries or to terrorists.”

-Article Continues @ Sourced Site.

Stocks surge after China stimulus

Courtesy BBC News:

Asian markets have risen sharply, a day after China announced a huge investment plan to kick-start its slowing economy.

Stocks leapt in Japan, China and Hong Kong, buoyed by China’s efforts to sustain its growth rates, on which many Asian economies depend.

About $586bn (£370bn) is to go into housing, infrastructure and post-earthquake reconstruction in China over the next two years.

Correspondents say the package is a response to falling growth and exports.

There will also be significant cuts in company tax, while banks will be allowed to lend more to projects involving rural development and technical innovation.

The government also promised a shift to a “moderately easy” monetary policy.

“The investment expansion should be done swiftly and forcefully,” a State Council meeting chaired by Premier Wen Jiabao concluded.

“It’s a huge package,” Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, was quoted as saying by the Reuters news agency after a meeting of the Group of 20 finance officials in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

“It will have an influence not only on the world economy in supporting demand but also a lot of influence on the Chinese economy itself, and I think it is good news for correcting imbalances.”

Market bounce

-Article Continued @ Sourced Site.

U.S., Canada Increasingly at Odds over Water

Courtesy Celsias:

The United States and Canada have often been uneasy neighbors, perhaps never more so than when Canada included the U.S. on a list ofcountries that torture inmates  .

That flashpoint aside, Canada’s recent habit of distancing itself may have less to do with politics and more to do with a perceivedextraterritorial expansion   of U.S. environmental laws - a state of affairs that wakens Canadian fears of being gobbled up by its larger, stronger and louder neighbor.  

For example, in July of this year, the National Academies   expressed the opinion   that the United States should pass Great Lakes protection laws more closely mirroring the standards sets by the International Maritime Organization   (IMO) - standards which Canada had already adopted.

On October 3, President Bush took up the challenge by signing theGreat Lakes Compact  , a complex, 13-part bill that will protect the Lakes’ water from unwarranted diversion and protect the water itself via standards for everything from industrial chemicals to sewage, including ballast water regulations aimed at preventing the introduction and spread of invasive species   (PDF).

This Compact, almost a decade in the making   and several times stalled by state governors unwilling to accept a broader but more limiting portfolio of protections, is now law. Diversions outside the Lakes area will require the unanimous agreement of all eight   governors (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York) and the heads of adjacent Canadian provinces (Quebec and Ontario).

That the Compact is still not as comprehensive as standards set by the IMO is unfortunate. Even so, the Compact is by far the most thorough bill yet passed in the U.S. regarding Great Lakes water, and not a moment too soon as drought   spreads throughout the U.S. southeast, southwest, the Pacific Coast, Idaho, and even into the upper Great Plains.

drought monitor

The bill, a political hot potato among U.S. governors, finally won grudging Canadian acceptance when the U.S. Senate incorporated an amendment, at the Council of Canadian’s request, prohibiting sales to water bottlers  . Most likely, Canadians felt they had no choice. NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, clearly defines water as both a service and an investment  , opening wide the door to sales south of the U.S. border by any U.S. government agency looking for an edge in Mexico.

These water-sale schemes weren’t isolated to the U.S, however. The Compact, which serves an area in the U.S. and contiguous Canadian provinces with a population of approximately 40 million, is the offshoot of a 1999 proposal from Ontario   to ship Lakes water to Asia, and Ontario was not the only schemer. At various times, British Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland had also considered licensing bulk water exports

Article Continues @ Sourced Site.

Oil ‘to shoot back through $100′

Courtesy The Guardian:

The oil price will shoot back through $100 a barrel as soon as economic conditions return to normal, and will break through $200 threshold by 2030, say officials at the International Energy Agency.

The world energy watchdog is certain the “era of cheap oil” is over, according to research due to out next week. Indeed last year it had predicted the oil price would reach $108 in 2030 so has more than doubled its long-term price target.

“While market imbalances could temporarily cause prices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the era of cheap oil is over,” says the IEA in the World Energy Outlook report, obtained by the Financial Times ahead of its release next week.

Oil prices have endured a rollercoaster ride this year during some of the most volatile trading on record. Crude climbed relentlessly from $96 a barrel in January to a record $147 by mid-July, spelling misery for drivers.

Households also suffered as wholesale gas and electricity prices - which are linked to those of oil - soared to record levels and were swiftly passed on in higher fuel bills. Oil’s rise was also a main driver for soaring inflation in the UK, which doubled in six months to nearly 5%.

But the intensification of the financial crisis this autumn has depressed the oil price to $60-$70 a barrel - today Brent crude was off 1% at $65.

As a result, the AA estimates that average UK petrol prices have fallen back from a peak of 119.7p per litre in mid July to 97.44p, reducing the cost of a 50-litre tank of petrol by about £11. It complains about a lack of “transparency” as lower prices are not passed on in full to consumers - but rises are.

Article Continues @ Sourced Site.

The World’s Reaction to President-Elect(ed) Obama

(CNN) – Around the world, media reaction to the Democrats’ victory has poured in, as newspapers and broadcasters reflect on the Obama campaign and the global impact his win will have.

The International Herald Tribune said that America had “leaped” across the color line, calling Obama “a 47-year-old black man who made history both because of his race and in spite of it.”

The Times of London said Obama had revitalized U.S. politics. “The immense turnout in yesterday’s election was testament to the energy, excitement and expectations of a rejuvenated American democracy, as well as the fears of a nation standing at a crossroads of history,” the paper said.

It added that Obama’s inheritance would be challenging. “The new president faces economic and social convulsions at home, conflict abroad.”

Also in London, The Guardian focused on the historic nature of the Democrats’ win, saying: “Victory in the end came as easily as the polls had predicted,” and comparing Obama’s achievement with Roosevelt’s of 1932 and Reagan’s of 1980.

In Germany, Der Spiegel’s Gregor Peter Schmitz, writing from Chicago, called Obama’s rise “astonishing,” adding that his “curious ability to remain untouched by all the razzmatazz around him is likely to prove a source of strength.”

Al Jazeera said Obama had “surfed to power on a wave of voter discontent generated by the failures of President George Bush and the Republican Party” and added that he faces “unique challenges.” It continued that he must “act quickly” to restore confidence in the economy and with his country “sick of war” is “unlikely to make any additional major overseas military commitments.”

The Jerusalem Post said that the transition in Middle Eastern policy from the Bush administration to Obama’s would be “‘evolutionary, not revolutionary,’ according to diplomatic assessments in Jerusalem.”

Article Continued @ Sourced Site.

European donkey, Asian elephant

Courtesy The Guardian:

American presidential elections provide a near perfect test to understand the difference between European and Asian world views, even if the two continents are far from united internally. If you want America to lead by the power of example, you favour Barack Obama; if you want to be reassured by the continuation of America’s power in a traditional security sense, you probably prefer John McCain.

Whereas a majority of Europeans – with the exception of those who for historical and geographic reasons are obsessed with the return of the “Russian bear” – support Obama, a majority of Asians, particular among the elite, seem to support McCain. This difference stems above all from strategic considerations, but it probably also contains a cultural dimension.

In Asia, Indonesia may look “European” in its Obama craze, but it essentially constitutes an anomaly, easily explainable by Obama’s brief Indonesian upbringing. Otherwise, and for very different reasons, a majority of Asian elites are awaiting the growing possibility of an Obama victory with some bewilderment and even apprehension. For example, Japanese elites tend to favour continuity over change.

In their mind, the hard power of the United States is more important than its soft power, and their vision of an America “bound to lead” is largely unchanged. For them, the US is above all the strategic counterweight needed to balance China.

But the Chinese, too, may very likely be favouring McCain, for the opposite reason. The decline of America’s image and influence in the world does not annoy them. As Asia’s leading power, China has seized the mantle of “hope” from the US. America could regain it under Obama, but not under McCain. Why favour change, when continuity works so well?

Indian elites reach the same conclusion for different reasons. The Bush years are seen positively, for they coincide with the consolidation of India’s international status and emergence as America’s key diplomatic partner in Asia. In Singapore, ideological considerations reinforce strategic interests. A very conservative regime naturally tends to prefer a Republican candidate over a Democrat.

Article continued @ Sourced Site.

Time to bury the ‘clean coal’ myth

Courtesy The Guardian (UK)

 

Who came up with the term “clean coal”? It is the most toxic phrase in the greenwash lexicon. George W Bush, by promising to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the pursuit of advanced “clean” coal technologies, certainly popularised it. But I’d love to know where it came from. Any thoughts out there?

It is, of course, oxymoronic. Coal is about acid rain and peasouper smogs, asthma and mercury contamination, radioactive waste emissions and ripping apart mountains, killing trees, lung cancer and, of course, global warming.

Coal emits more carbon dioxide for every unit of energy generated than any other fuel. Sure you can clean it up a bit – though the toxins you’ve taken out of the ground have to go somewhere. But clean coal? Just say no.

But the phrase rolls on. Google offers more than a million web pages. We will hear a lot more of it as the UK government wrestles with whether to approve a new billion-pound “cleaner coal” power station – Britain’s first coal plant for three decades – at Kingsnorth in Kent.

E.ON, the company that wants to build the station, says Kingsnorth will be “ready” to capture carbon dioxide emissions before they go up the stack. Great, except there is no such technology right now.

This phrase “clean coal” has developed a life of its own thanks to remorseless commercial propagandising. This year a coalition of US coal mining companies and electricity utilities called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (and recently renamed the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity) is paying the advertising agency R&R Partners $35m (£22m) to promote “clean coal” through advertising and other promotional activity.

This is up there with the safe cigarette and “atoms for peace”. The industry is fighting back against growing scientific calls to outlaw coal burning, and the rejection of dozens of coal power plants proposals by communities across the US, with several states effectively banning them.

You may have noticed the campaign’s effect. Both John McCain and Barack Obama support clean coal. It’s neat. Who could be against clean coal? It allows them to oppose dirty coal without antagonising anyone. You may not have spotted that Americans for Balanced Energy Choices sponsored two early presidential debates, during which – guess what – no questions were asked about global warming.

And here in Britain you can see the impact of the new mantra. In Putney, in southwest London, there is a branch of the International Energy Agency that used to be called the Coal Research Centre. It’s changed its name – to the Clean Coal Centre. Thanks to its “industrial sponsors” it is able to “provide unbiased information on the sustainable use of coal worldwide.” Right. Like the fact there isn’t any?

Is clean coal possible in future? Well, if you mean could we capture carbon dioxide emissions and bury them somewhere out of harm’s way – in old coal seams or oilfields or salt mines – yes, it is possible. The former British chief scientist Sir David King called it “the only hope for mankind”.

But the most authoritative study, The Future of Coal, published last year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), concluded that the first commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant wouldn’t come on stream until 2030 at the earliest.

Last year too, the Edison Electric Institute, which represents most US power generators, admitted to a House Select Committee in Washington DC that commercial deployment will require 25 years research costing at least $20bn.

And that was before the US administration last December canned the biggest R&D project on the technology anywhere in the world. It said it was too costly and hinted that, for all their green talk, industry wasn’t prepared to back it.

Oh, and if the technology did one day work – and could demonstrate that it could keep liquefied carbon dioxide buried for the thousands of years necessary – it would take decades to build the vast infrastructure needed to deploy on a large scale. Infrastructure that could only be paid for by maintaining a vast dirty coal-burning industry for the duration.

Article Continued @ Sourced Site.

Blackwater sends warship to Gulf of Aden

Courtesy Lloyd’s List (UK)

BLACKWATER Worldwide — the US private military contractor embroiled in controversy over its actions in Iraq — has sent a private sector warship equipped with helicopters to the Gulf of Aden, and is offering its services to shipowners concerned with Somali piracy.

The vessel, McArthur, is described as a multipurpose unit designed to support military and law-enforcement training, peace-keeping and stability operations.

The ship and its helicopters have the ability to patrol a commercial vessel’s route, thereby avoiding the need to hire security contractors to ride on board.

Blackwater’s move came just hours before the Indian government confirmed that it intends to deploy a warship in the Gulf of Aden to guard its merchant ships from Somali pirates. The Indian ship will join assets from Russia, Malaysia and a multinational western-dominated coalition in the troubled waters.

Article Continues @ Sourced Site.

Misconceptions of Obama fuel Republican campaign - 13 Oct 08

Ed Comment: My only complaint with this video is that the people profiled are described White, Working Class… While they were definitely white, I don’t believe that many of them were working. I wonder How many of them well reflect on their behavior when they get jobs under an Obama Administration? Also Viewers please note the use of Provocative language in this video. -Shiinai.

Courtesy Al Jazeera.


YouTube Download

As the Violence Soars, Mexico Signals It’s Had Enough of America’s Stupid War on Drugs

Courtesy Alternet

Even on his most homicidal of days, Al Pacino’s character in Scarface couldn’t even approach the level of drug trafficking-related brutality bleeding down Mexico’s streets. It is no longer unusual for the Mexican news media to report on yet another, freshly decapitated head stuck atop a fencepost or a metal spike, or a garbage bag filled with body parts, usually with a hand-scrawled note or placard attached. That amounts to a cartel’s calling card, and it’s usually delivered in the form of a warning to a rival cartel, or for the Mexican authorities to stay away and stop seizing their drugs. Other times, it’s just a chilling placard intended to strike terror into the hearts of the people who come across the gory scene and the text: “Ha Ha Ha.” To be sure that their message is heard, cartels are known to send regular text messages to newspaper reporters, place newspaper advertisements, or to even upload their own killing videos (sometimes accompanied by narco-corridos as background music) to YouTube.

Mexican drug cartels are, rather effectively, fighting the government’s War on Drugs with their own War of Terror, often swelling their ranks (and combat/terror tactics) with former members of law enforcement. The Zetas, for instance, are members of former Mexican counter-narcotics squads (some with U.S.-assisted training under their belts), who have become the self-proclaimed and much-feared hit men of the Gulf cartel.

So far this year, roughly 3,500 murders have been directly attributed to the drug war in Mexico, surpassing last year’s estimate of 2,500. (These numbers include the murders of at least 500 soldiers, cops, judges, politicians — and their family members — in nearly two years. The drug war rages across Mexico’s urban and (mostly) rural terrain, and murders are usually targeted toward pronounced rivals, but increasing numbers of victims are innocent bystanders, including women and children who were previously considered off-limits where acts of drug war-related retaliation were concerned.

Reports of attacks are rolling in daily, sometimes several times a day. This Sunday, unidentified gunmen shot up the United States consulate in the northern Mexican city of Monterrey. While no injuries were reported there because the consulate was closed, six young adults attending a private celebration were killed on Saturday in the violence-and-drug-plagued Mexican border state of Chihuahua, in Ciudad Juárez. Those murders, as yet unsolved, followed on the heels of 11 homicides in a Chihuahua bar, when a gunman opened fire on unsuspecting patrons, including a prominent journalist who may or may not have been a specific target.

It should be of note that much of the worst drug war violence is happening right at the border: Tijuana, adjacent to San Diego, saw nearly 40 people murdered in the last week of September alone, in addition to nearly 25 deaths of male and female prisoners the previous week due to two major riots at the vastly overcrowded Tijuana State Prison. (Prisoners alleged frequent incidents of torture and sexual violence, sometimes leading to death, at the hands of guards.)

American newspapers located in border cities and states tend to report some of the more gruesome events and mass killings, but the rest of this country seems remarkably in the dark about what’s happening to our Mexican neighbors, much less the fact that the violence has increased dramatically since U.S. drug war dollars have increased in the form of support for Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s militarily-minded crackdown on trafficking, with the goal of dismantling the cartels’ leadership apparatus, as well as breaking apart close alliances between local authorities, cops, and drug traffickers. (Corruption in Mexican law enforcement and military is epidemic; consider that many police officers in Mexico make no more than $5,000 per year.)

Since President Calderón took office in December 2006, he has authorized large-scale troop deployments (roughly 30,000 troops), in an attempt to diminish the power lorded over Mexico and its citizens by rival Gulf and Sinaloa cartels, as well as affiliates like La Familia, which has earned a reputation for particularly memorable and gruesome acts, including the night that five decapitated heads were thrown onto a dance floor packed with people.

Seizures of illicit drugs, particularly cocaine, have indeed increased. But so has the bloodshed and the level of fear: a national poll published on October 4th indicated that more than 40% of Mexicans felt less secure since Calderón’s drug war offensive began. Another poll published by the Mexico City daily, Reforma, showed that more than half of Mexicans believed that the cartels, not the government, were winning the drug war.

Still, as one would imagine, the Bush Administration has responded favorably to Calderón’s crackdown on drug cartels, ushering in the three-year “Merida Initiative” to support counter-narcotics efforts in Mexico and Central America: “The Merida Initiative complements U.S. domestic efforts to reduce drug demand, stop the flow of arms and weapons, and confront gangs and criminal organizations,” as the State Department explained in April 2008.

This past June, Bush struck a deal with Calderón to approve $400 million toward additional drug war assistance (representing a 20% increase in the Mexican anti-narcotics budget) — for still more helicopters, military training, ion scanners, canine units, and surveillance technology.

Considering their close ties, President Calderón’s announcement earlier this month must have come as a bit of an unwanted surprise to the Bush Administration. On October 2, Calderón proposed legislation that would decriminalize drug possession, ostensibly for personal use. Not just for marijuana, as one might have expected in a country where pot smoke has not been demonized to the same degree as in the U.S., but for cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, as well.

To be more specific, Calderón’s proposed legislation, supported by the Mexican attorney general’s office, is intended to address a different kind of drug crisis on Mexican soil: a growing number of addicts. Cocaine once solely destined from Colombia and other Andean nations toward the U.S. is still flowing in such great supply that it has ended up attracting more users — and abusers. In addition, meth lab crackdowns in the U.S. have allowed narco-cartels to step in and fill the void, so that speed is now more readily available in Mexico, as well. The impact has been dramatic: according to the government’s own statistics, the number of drug addicts in Mexico is estimated to have doubled in just six years to 307,000, while the number of people who have tried drugs at some point rose from 3.5 million to 4.5 million.

Article Continues @ Sourced Site.




  • Support The H.O.R.N.

    Monthly Subscriptions
    Rock ($10 USD)
    Paper ($25 USD)
    Scissors ($50 USD)
    Hammer! ($100 USD)
  • To donate by mail

Streaming and Archives made possible by
The White Rose Society

Chatroom


  • One Billion Bulbs The Head On Radio Network Bulbs Change Statistics

  • H.O.R.N. Widgets




  • Subscribe

    Subscribe to my RSS Feeds

    Categories