Obama - Same old shit

Thought Obama was the saviour? Don't be a fool. He is no different to all other post-war Presidents:

Barack Obama's government was accused of "blackmail" after it emerged that America had threatened to withdraw co-operation in terrorist cases if a UK court ordered the disclosure of secret torture evidence.

In the first real test of the "special relationship" between Britain and the US since Mr Obama's inauguration, MPs and human rights groups called for an inquiry into the case that concerns the treatment of a British resident, Binyam Mohamed, still being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Secret CIA documents held by the Foreign Office detail the interrogation and treatment of Mr Mohamed, who claims he was brutally tortured after being flown by US agents to a secret prison in Morocco before his detention at the US naval base in Cuba.

Good work Messiah.

After The War Comes The Opportunity

It is no surprise to learn that the American government is lining up potential investors in Georgia:

The US Department of Commerce is working with two private American-Georgian business associations to stage a trade summit in Tbilisi in late October. The initiative is part of a general effort to bolster investor confidence in Georgia.

The Bush administration has been a leading backer of Georgia as the Caucasus country rebuilds following Russia’s August invasion. The US Congress has already approved an administration-sponsored aid package worth as much as $1 billion. The idea for the business summit reportedly came from the "highest level" in Washington, and it is seen as a means to stimulate private-sector interest in Georgia’s economic recovery.

While the guest list for the summit has not been publicly released, organizers note that some Fortune 500 companies, as well as large private equity firms, have expressed an intention to attend. According to a partial list of confirmed companies made available to EurasiaNet, investors are considering multi-million dollar projects in several sectors including hydro-power production, power transmission, wind energy, hospitals and wine. The summit will be chaired by Deputy Commerce Secretary John Sullivan. In addition to organizing the Tbilisi summit, the US Trade Office is pushing Congress to expand Georgia’s eligibility for duty-free imports to the United States.

According to Tamara Koziridze, a deputy economic minister, the Georgian government is "hoping" that summit will bring new investment into the country. "We hope very much it will be productive in the sense that companies with a real interest in Georgia will participate and will have sufficient follow up," Kovziridze said.

What a fantastic opportunity for corporate America. Multi-million dollar contracts will be signed, huge swathes of the Georgian economy will be handed over to American companies and American hegemony in the region will be confirmed. It's almost like the US wanted Georgia (one of the fastest growing ecnomies in the region) to start a war it was bound to lose if only to pick up the pieces and have a tasty slice of future growth with the aid of a neo-conservative, anti-democratic Georgian leader. Good work chaps.

America Stands Should to Shoulder With Georgian Murderer

Dick Cheney has been vociferous in his support for Georgia during his visit to the country. In a press conference alongside Saakashvili, the American vice-president said:

"After your nation won its freedom in the Rose Revolution, America came to the aid of this courageous young democracy.

"We are doing so again as you work to overcome an invasion of your sovereign territory and an illegitimate unilateral attempt to change your country's borders by force that has been universally condemned by the free world."

Well, not universally condemned by the free world. Universally condemned by those subjected to Western propaganda, but I digress. Let's remind ourselves of what this 'courageous young democracy' stands for shall we?

• During a peaceful anti-government demonstration in the capital city, the state authorities sent in special military forces armed with machine guns to violently disperse the crowds. Twenty-five people were arrested, including five opposition politicians.
  

• In November last year, 50,000 people took to the streets to demonstrate against 'government corruption'. Tear gas, rubber bullets and water canons were used to once more break up the demonstration. Furthermore, men dressed in black (apparently working for the government) were sent in to attack protestors. As a result, over 500 people were admitted to hospital.

• And, just last month, Georgian forces were sent into South Ossetia to assert Georgian authority in the region. Churches were burnt down, 15 Russian peacekeepers were murdered, 30,000 South Ossetians fled to the north and a further 1,500 civilians were murdered by Georgian forces.

Yes, this is what the 'free world' stands by. Repression, corruption, murder and violence. All this wrapped up in American friendly neo-liberalism. This is what Cheney stands by. This is what America stands by. Another nail in the coffin of the free world.

Georgia Receives American Aid

The question is, what do the Americans get in return?

American Military To Prevent Coup in Georgia?

There has been much talk of the aid being given to the Georgians in the wake of their folly a week ago. Which begs a few questions. Are the Americans providing aid for purely altruistic reasons? Doubtful. Are they sending a message to the Russian government? Certainly. Or are the Americans truly scared that Saakashvili will topple as a result of his humiliation in Georgia and are trying to pre-empt any attempts to overthrow this 'vital ally'? I would say almost definitely.

Saakashvili is certainly in a very precarious position at the moment. His poll ratings were already falling quite dramatically before this latest crisis, mainly due to his preference for sending armed police to disrupt any demonstrations against his rule. His utter failure to complete that which he had pledged (the unification of all parts of Georgia), ensures that even his staunchest supporters must be wavering right now. And that will come as a real concern to a White House that sees this part of the world as strategically vital to US ambitions globally. The toppling of a pro-American leader in this region could have massive implications for the US, not least in relation to the Missile Defence program.

Georgia is one of the countries muted to be a base for these so-called 'defensive' weapons, which is why the US has been so keen to push the case for their membership of NATO. The removal of a leader keen to bend to the wishes of the US would ensure that the 'missile shield' would not receive Georgian approval - a particular problem given the proximity of Georgia to Iran (the supposed target of the 'missile shield'). And with Poland now keen to sign up to missile bases on their territory, the US will be eager to get other allies on board as soon as possible. And what better way to ensure that there is no immediate likelihood of their prized possession in the region coming to harm than to send US troops into the region to provide 'aid'? No doubt the Georgian people will think twice about rising up against Saakashvili as long as they have a superpower paying a 'friendly' visit. Only a few days ago the Georgian leader was talking of Russian occupation in one of his more fantastical pronouncements. There certainly appears to be an occupation, but it is not Russian.

South Ossetia Through the Looking Glass

We helped in Iraq - now help us, beg Georgians

So says the highly emotive front page of today's Times. Such a headline has reflected a broader trend across the media to represent Georgia as an innocent party in the current conflict. As ever, the story is far more complex than that, not least because the conflict was instigated by a Georgian leader eager to boost his ratings and please his Western allies.

Mikheil Saakashvili came to power in 2004 after the so-called 'Rose Revolution' that brought to an end the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze. Saakashvili rode into power on the back of a commitment to unite Georgia and usher in a new era of pro-Western Georgian politics (much to the alarm of the Russian government). Eager to appeal to the West, Saakashvili's party, the United National Movement, moved away from its previous centre-left positioning and took up the mantle of 'liberal conservatism'. The main focus of the post-revolution party was economic liberalism alongside civic nationalism - a recipe clearly designed to appeal to the West (particularly America, who had already referred to the 'Rose Revolution' as a 'powerful moment' from a 'key ally in the region'). In fact, so wide-ranging have their reforms been, that the World Bank has named Georgia as the number one economic reformer in the world, and the country is ranked 18 for 'ease of doing business'.

As a supporter of free market economics, it was clear that the Georgian leader would seek closer links with the West, and so it has proven. Since coming to power, Saakashvili has courted the EU and NATO in a bid to gain membership to these prestigious Western organisations. So keen has he been to seek America's favour, that he even agreed to double the number of troops Georgia sent into Iraq, making Georgian forces one of the largest outside the US and UK. Furthermore, the Georgian government, through it's attempts to court NATO membership, has also shown it's willingness to be utilised as a base for America's so-called 'missile shield' in Central and Eastern Europe. Certainly, Bush has been keen to give the Georgian government full NATO membership, although he has so far been defeated (incidentally, it is worth noting that NATO intends to vote on Georgian membership once more in December). There is no doubt that this is Bush's man. An economic liberal eager to open up markets and adopt a Western style of government in a region dominated by the former Soviet Union.

Despite the appearance of the Georgian leader in the Western media, Saakashvili is certainly not whiter than white. On July 1st 2005, Georgian police violently clashed with protesters in central Tbilisi over the detention of two athletes for blackmail. The initial demonstration soon turned into a demonstration against the central authorities, who had already stopped attempts at an earlier rally. Anti-riot police and special military forces armed with machine guns proceeded to violently disperse the rally and put an end to the anti-government protests. As a result of the rally, 25 people were arrested, including 5 opposition politicians.

Further demonstrations occurred in November 2007 when 50,000 demonstrators took to the streets to protest against the allegedly corrupt Georgian regime. Saakashvilli was accused of presiding over an authoritarian regime and there was a growing demand for fresh democratic elections. Once more the crowds were dispersed with armed riot police utilising tear gas, rubber bullets and water canons. Protesters were beaten and men dressed in black clothes and black masks also attacked protesters. As a result of the violence, some 508 people were admitted to hospital, most suffering with the effects of exposure to tear gas.

This is, of course, the kind of leader that Bush admires. As Naomi Klein has demonstrated in The Shock Doctrine, new liberal policies go hand in hand with violent crackdowns on the civilian population. Saakashvili has been instrumental in Georgia's neo-liberal development over the past four years (hence it's standing with the World Bank) whilst simultaneously crushing dissent and cementing his position at the head of an authoritarian regime. It comes, therefore, as no surprise to see the Western response to the latest crimes against humanity perpetuated by this Friedmanite Georgian leader.

Whilst it appears to have been forgotten by much of the media, it was Georgia that instigated the recent violence. Keen to recover the kind of popularity he received at the instigation of the Rose Revolution, Saakashavili has seen his approval rating plummet from around 86% when entering office to around 16% at the end of 2007. Given the problems in South Ossetia, an attempt to unify Georgia would surely boost approval ratings. All that was needed was the support of the US and other Western allies to ensure that it could go ahead without getting in the way of Georgia's broader ambitions (EU, NATO etc). Given the strategic significance of the region for the US (particularly in light of the missile defence program), there was no way that the US would stand in the way. In fact, there has been some evidence that the US had been actively involved in the assault on South Ossetia.

As recently as July this year, around 1,600 troops from the US, Georgia and other Eastern European countries had been involved in exercises near the Georgian border. Good old Condi Rice even visited the region recently during a particularly tense stand-off in the region during which time one US state official stated that:

"Moscow should realize its Soviet empire is gone."

And it even appears that Israel has been involved in training the Georgian army in what appears to be a repeat of the assault on Lebanon in 2006:

“In addition to the spy drones, Israel has also been supplying Georgia with infantry weapons and electronics for artillery systems, and has helped upgrade Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets assembled in Georgia, according to Koba Liklikadze, an independent military expert based in Tbilisi. Former Israeli generals also serve as advisers to the Georgian military.” [hat-tip InfoWars]

The fact that Georgia had increased it's military spending from $30 million to $1 billion, and that the US was giving massive military aid, indicates that the Georgian government were preparing for open conflict. Furthermore, the US has further worsened the situation in South Ossetia by airlifting Georgian troops from Iraq into Georgia in an attempt to aid the Georgian government. Bush's finger prints are all over this one. Clearly they have pushed the boat out to aid a fellow economic liberal in yet another disastrous foreign intervention. Much like the situation in Lebanon in 2006, the US's actions will only lead to a strengthening of the power they were seeking to undermine. The 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon led to the strengthening of Hezbollah and Iran. There is no doubt that this current conflict will lead to the strengthening of Russia within the region.

Putting aside the tactical error made by the Bush administration, there has been a series of serious human rights abuses perpetuated by the Georgian armed forces during the assault on South Ossetia. According to one source:

"Much of the city (Tskhinvali) was reportedly in flames Friday. The regional parliament building had burned down, the university was on fire, and the town’s main hospital had been rendered inoperative by the bombardment."

Vesti radio reported that Georgian forces burned down a church in Tanara in South Ossetia where people were hiding, to the ground, with all the people inside. The Deputy Director of an information agency as an eye witness reported that fragments of cluster bombs of were found in Tskinvali. There have also been reports by a South Ossetian reservist that civilians who were hiding in basements were shot dead by Georgian soldiers.

Wikipedia reports that, "Russian soldiers captured group of American mercenaries on territory of South Ossetia. Group was captured near of Zare village."

An estimated 1,500 people have died in the onslaught and 30,000 more fled across the Russian border. Large swaths of the city have been reduced to rubble including the one hospital that was pounded by Georgia bombers. Georgia has cut off the water supply to the city.The Red Cross now anticipates a "humanitarian catastrophe" as a result of the fighting.

“I saw bodies lying on the streets, around ruined buildings, in cars,” Lyudmila Ostayeva, 50, told the Associated Press after fleeing the city with her family to a village near the Russian border. “It’s impossible to count them now. There is hardly a single building left undamaged.”

At least 15 Russia peacekeepers were killed in the initial fighting and 70 more were sent to hospital. Georgia's army stormed the South Ossetia capital, Tskhinvali, killing more than 1,000 fleeing civilians. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin told news agencies in an interview how the hostilities began:

Russian peacekeepers "were killed by their own [Georgian] partners in the peacekeeping forces. There is a Russian battalion, an Ossetian battalion, and a Georgian battalion... and all of a sudden the Georgians, Georgian peacekeepers, begin shooting their Russian colleagues. This is of course a war crime. I do not rule out that the Hague and Strasbourg courts and institutions in other cities will be involved in investigating these crimes, and this inhuman drama that has been played out."

And yet, these human rights abuses seem to have underplayed whilst the US and her partners continue to attack Russian aggression, and simultaneously refusing to condemn the actions of the Georgian government. Saakashvili has shown his quality in the past. He is not afraid of abusing individual human rights to maintain his stronghold on the country and seek favour with the US. The fact that he is prepared to compare the situation with Kosovo when his own forces have behaved so barbarically in South Ossetia reveals the lengths to which he is prepared to go to win the PR battle, a battle that he certainly seems to be winning in the West when one glances at the media. Whilst there is no excuse for a Russian invasion of Georgia, observers must remember that the Georgian leader is behind this crisis and he has proven that he is nothing more than a war criminal with authoritarian tendencies. One can only hope that his gross folly will lead to his inevitable removal and the Georgian people can have a leader that cares about the interests of the populace and not neo-liberal global posturing to court favour with the West.

The Role of The West in the Establishment of Hamas

Despite dominating the world media for many years, many aspects of the Israel/Palestine conflict remain hidden from view. Quite often, contemporary events are not placed in context. No background is given, no explanation is outlined. Large chunks of the history of the conflict are ignored or cast aside as irrelevant. As is the case in reporting of many events across the world, what is left out is nearly always as interesting as what is left in.

Take the rise of Hamas, for example. Hamas is frequently referred to as a terrorist organisation that has a destabilising influence across the Middle East. Western critics often refer to the organisation as an impediment to peace rather than an aid. However, the history of Hamas is clouded in mystery and obscured from any discussion relating to progress in the region. It is, of course, obscured for very good reason - it underlines the duplicity of Western foreign policy within the region. A duplicity that goes some way to explaining why the conflict is so complex and remains some distance from resolution.

Arab nationalism was seen as a threat to Western hegemony throughout the region in the 1950s and 60s. Suddenly Arab leaders were gaining confidence and seeking to reclaim their resources. Underpinned with a nationalist, secular ideology, these leaders declared their refusal to bow to Western demands. The rise of Gamal Abdal Nasser in Egypt and the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, gave many Arabs hope that they were about to witness a new era of dignity and freedom. This, of course, scared the West. A populist movement that sought to reclaim its natural resources? They could see that the emergence of Arab nationalism would have a massive impact on oil supplies and thus a situation could emerge whereby the Arab nationalists would hold all the cards, rather than the West. Alongside his nationalist agenda, Nasser also played an important role in the establishment of the PLO, a secular organisation reflecting Nasser’s own particular brand of Arab nationalism. If the PLO were to be successful in negotiating a deal with the Israelis, it would have been a massive victory for Arab nationalism and would have represented a serious threat to Western hegemony. Being the Palestinians sole representative on the world stage, it also united the Palestinian people, at least until the establishment of Hamas in 1987.

However, Nasser was not without his enemies within his own country. Despite initially supporting Nasser’s coup, The Muslim Brotherhood became disillusioned with Nasser’s secularist brand of politics and, in 1954, an attempt was made on his life. After the failed assassination attempt, the Islamists who were not rounded up and arrested subsequently left to settle in Saudi Arabia where they were welcomed as an important bulwark to the rise of ‘godless Communism’. The Saudi regime was particularly disturbed by the rise of Nasser as it threatened their fundamentalist form of government and consequently threatened their influence in the region. If an alternative form of government were to gain momentum, the Saudi regime would surely fall. Consequently, during this period, the Saudi government (alongside its ally the US) continued to provide financial backing to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood continued to agitate in Egypt and engaged in ‘radical activity’ led by one Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Under Yassin’s leadership, longtime Muslim Brotherhood activists were simply redirected from promoting Islamic observance to engaging in violent anti-Israel activities. Yassin had, by this stage, established his violent anti-Israeli credentials and was clearly pursuing a more radical Islamic course compared to the more secular PLO. However, this did not prevent the Western powers from pursuing a course of engagement with Yassin and his colleagues in the Brotherhood.

During the 1980s, Yassin focused on developing a ‘charitable organisation’ within Gaza that developed a network of social-welfare organizations, mosques, and schools. It was also at this time that the US and Israel provided financial support to Yassin and his organisation, despite Yassin’s previous anti-Israeli agitation in Egypt. Ostensibly, his organisation was supported as a counter-balance to the PLO and its secular Arab nationalism, which was seen as a massive threat to Western hegemony in the region (due to the loss of control of natural resources). According to Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies, Israel:

"...aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)."

A resurgence of Arab nationalism in the region was of deep concern to the United States and the growth of a radical Islamic organisation would be a useful counter-weight to the rise of nationalist secularism. This was further demonstrated by the support of radical Islamists in Afghanistan (including Osama Bin Laden) during the conflict with the Soviet Union. With a radical alternative to Arab nationalism, the Arab people would remain divided and consequently allow the US to maintain influence in the region. As one former CIA official put it, Israel's support for Hamas :

"...was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative."

Furthermore, according to US officials:

....funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini's Iran.

Consequently, whether it was intentioned or not, it would appear that the growth of Hamas as a power bloc within the region was directly attributable to the United State and her allies. Concerned by the growth of Arab nationalism and the problems that would cause for the West in the region, the US threw in its lot with radical Islamists who would prove to be a useful barrier to the rise of Soviet supported, secular regimes within the region. Despite the background of Yassin in Egypt, both Israel and the US had no problem with supplying funds and offering their support to Yassin’s ‘charitable organisation’. Thus the combination of Israel and the US managed to ensure that the Palestinian people were divided between a secular organisation prepared to do business with Israel (the PLO recognised Israel in 1993 as part of the Declaration of Principles), and a radical Islamic organisation that took a less compromising position regarding peace in the region. And yet, the covert support by the US government for radical Islamic groups over the years has remained firmly outside of the scope of the mainstream media’s assessment of the situation in the Middle East. Yet how can we understand the situation in the Middle East if we do not understand how it was created? The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is tied to the West’s attempts to assert hegemony throughout the region and ensure it remains the dominant force on the global stage. Ironic that the forces they utilised to ensure their dominance are now the very forces that threaten to demolish it.

World's Leading Terrorist State Accuses Venezuela

Perhaps this week's 'it would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the US is run by loonies' moment comes from a CNN report regarding the latest US terror report. According to CNN:

Venezuela's associations with terror states, Iran's meddling in Iraq and the resurgence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan top the concerns in a new State Department report on terrorism threats in countries around the world.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is not cooperating with U.S. anti-terror efforts and has "deepened Venezuelan relationships with state sponsors of terrorism Iran and Cuba," the annual report says.

The report notes Chavez's "ideological sympathy" for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the Colombian-based National Liberation Army, which "regularly crossed into Venezuelan territory to rest and regroup."

While the report says it "remained unclear to what extent the Venezuelan government provided support to Colombian terrorist organizations," it notes that Venezuelan weapons stocks have turned up in the hands of Colombian terrorist organizations.

It's the last paragraph that is particularly interesting. American weapons are often found in the hands of terrorists in Colombia which, by their own reckoning, means that the American government is 'providing support to Colombian terrorist organisations'. Worse still, US backed terrorists are responsible for far more murders than other 'terrorist organisations' in Colombia. So I guess, from an impartial perspective, one could argue that the US is a greater terrorist threat than Venezuela. Which is hardly in any doubt when one sees the terror that the US government brings to the world.

Afghanistan Heading Back to Pre-Invasion State

"Kabul has seen a wave of liberal, unwelcome influences of late. There are women dressed immodestly, prostitution can be found openly and even alcohol is available on the market. Our job is to protect the Afghan people from being exposed to this un-Islamic way of life and poor morals."

Now some people reading the above quote might think that it originated from post-Soviet Afghanistan. It sounds like the early rumblings of the Taliban regime that was to ravage the country for many years. In fact, the above quote is a little more recent. Very recent. In fact, the above quote is lifted from today's Guardian.

Despite the high ideals of bringing 'freedom and democracy' to a country that has been afflicted by wave upon wave of imperialism over the years, Afghanistan is actually turning back the clock. In recent weeks, the Afghan government has attempted to ban popular Indian soap operas and, more seriously, the high court has confirmed the death sentence of nearly 100 people. In terms of the crackdown on the media, The Guardian reports:

Last week parliament tried to stop several private TV channels from broadcasting a number of Indian soap operas. But many stations, including the popular local Tolo TV, are defying the ban. The ministry of information and culture issued a "final warning" to Tolo and Afghan TV to stop broadcasting the Indian soaps by April 29, saying that "otherwise they will be referred to the judiciary".

To make matters worse (as if that was possible), US puppet and former consultant to Unocal, President Hamad Karzai, has sided with the conservatives in this latest tussle. Far from bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, Karzai seems intent on returning the country to it's previous repressive state. That the Americans seem willing to go along with this is hardly surprising. Back in October 2006, former senator Bill Frist (a Republican no less) called on the Taliban to be brought into the Afghan government. No sooner had the US proclaimed high ideals about the future of Aghanistan, than it returns the country back to it's pre-war state. For the people of Afghanistan, they have once more become the victims to the imperial ambition of others.

Taiwan - China's Other Problem

"We are also determined to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

President G W Bush 8th March 2005

Whilst the media has been focused on the ongoing situation in Tibet and its struggle for freedom, the situation in Taiwan has been generally overlooked, and yet it exposes the double standard at the heart of US/UK foreign policy.

Taiwan first applied for UN membership in July of last year. The Chinese government, however, saw this as a threat to the unity of China and gave very clear warnings to Taiwan should they continue to proceed along these lines, threatening to use force if it continues to pursue a course of independence. Despite these continued threats, the Taiwanese government decided to press forward with a referendum on UN membership which was scheduled to take place today. What is particularly interesting about this fight for freedom and democracy, is the stance taken by the United States and the United Kingdom.

In the light of the Bush administration's 'commitment to democracy' (as opposed for their lust to control the earth's resources), one would expect there to be noises of encouragement emanating from the White House - no such luck. Instead, the United States government has been echoing similar sentiments to that of the Chinese government - this is not a welcome development. When discussing the proposed Taiwanese referendum towards the end of last year, Condoleeza Rice said the following:

"We think that Taiwan's referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name 'Taiwan' is a provocative policy.

"It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage."

'
Provocative'? 'No real benefit?'. Unusual terms to describe the desire of the Taiwanese people to be free, an ideal that the Bush administration apparently believed in. How quickly these high ideals are abandoned when faced with a more serious foe than the pathetic offering of the Iraqi army. Could it be that the US only supports democracy when it knows it can defeat the enemies of this high ideal? When it could lead to a conflict they would likely lose, suddenly democracy doesn't seem that important anymore. And yet, Bush claims to 'support the growth of democratic movements' across the world.

It now appears that the movement towards independence has been nothing more than a blip in the recent history of Taiwan. Reports suggest that Ma Ying-jeou, of the Kuomintang party, has won the election by 17%. Ma has committed himself to even stronger ties with China and has proposed a formal peace treaty with Beijing. Although it is difficult to say how much impact the reaction to the referendum from Beijing and Washington has had on the poll (the referendum did not garner enough votes to be valid), the threat of military invasion from China would have done much to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the Taiwanese. Furthermore, Ma has been particularly clever in his campaigning. Understanding that there was growing concern regarding the situation in Tibet, Ma criticised the authorities in Beijing to ease fears at home whilst also claiming he would not push the issue with China (thus preserving the facade of independence and pleasing both his masters in Beijing and Taiwan).

The real winners in this election has been the capitalists, who have been pushing for closer ties with China for some time. China has been a major source of business for Taiwanese capitalists in recent years, as one Taiwanese resident pointed out:

"Nowadays Taiwanese capitalists hire at least ten million workers in China and almost all Taiwan’s top 50 manufacturing companies have subsidiaries there. The mainland’s abundant cheap labour, cheap land, tax-breaks and subsidies for foreign companies, mean that China has actually become the main source of profit for Taiwanese capitalism".

Even in communist China's sphere of influence capitalism rules, no wonder the US was keen to turn a blind eye to the calls for democracy in Taiwan. As a result of which, it appears that the flame of democracy has been extinguished in Taiwan, and both China and the US have conspired to snuff it out.

US Goverment to Designate Venezuela as a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

You may remember from one of my earlier posts that I wrote that US experts were looking into the emails that were discovered on laptops belonging to the murdered members of the FARC. This seemed particularly suspicious at the time as Colombia is a well known proxy for the US in South America, and Venezuela has long been in their sights. It has now emerged that US attorneys are looking into the possibility of labelling Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism. From United Press International:

WASHINGTON, March 10 (UPI) -- A government official said the White House asked attorneys to look into requirements for placing Venezuela on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The inquiry follows allegations that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's ties with Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia guerrillas ran deeper than originally thought, The Miami Herald reported Monday.

The legal review follows Colombia's seizing four computers belonging to a FARC guerrilla leader in a March 1 raid. In them, it was hinted that the Venezuelan government was in the process of providing $300 million in assistance FARC, which officials in the United States and Colombia call a "narco-terrorist" group but Chavez considers a legitimate insurgency.

The U.S. official -- speaking anonymously to the Herald -- wouldn't predict if the discoveries would lead to sanctions, saying the documents' veracity must be corroborated.

If the documents are shown to be true, then "I think it will beg the question of whether or not Venezuela, given Chavez's interactions with the FARC, has ... crossed the threshold of state sponsor of terror," the official said.

Of course, it will be the United States who will determine the veracity of these documents in what will be an entirely self-serving 'investigation'. And the documents themselves?? Well, Greg Palast has discovered that, what a surprise, they are cooked up. From his website:

The US press snorted up this line about Chavez’ $300 million to “terrorists” quicker than the young Bush inhaling Colombia’s powdered export.

What the US press did not do is look at the evidence, the email in the magic laptop. (Presumably, the FARC leader’s last words were, “Listen, my password is ….”)

I read them. (You can read them here) While you can read it all in español, here is, in translation, the one and only mention of the alleged $300 million from Chavez:

“… With relation to the 300, which from now on we will call “dossier,” efforts are now going forward at the instructions of the boss to the cojo [slang term for ‘cripple’], which I will explain in a separate note. Let’s call the boss Ángel, and the cripple Ernesto.”

Got that? Where is Hugo? Where’s 300 million? And 300 what? Indeed, in context, the note is all about the hostage exchange with the FARC that Chavez was working on at the time (December 23, 2007) at the request of the Colombian government.

Indeed, the entire remainder of the email is all about the mechanism of the hostage exchange. Here’s the next line:

“To receive the three freed ones, Chavez proposes three options: Plan A. Do it to via of a ‘humanitarian caravan’; one that will involve Venezuela, France, the Vatican[?], Switzerland, European Union, democrats [civil society], Argentina, Red Cross, etc.”

Now we await the results of this investigation. If Bush has his way, Venezuela could be next to join the infamous 'axis of evil'. A dream come true for many in the establishment who have become disturbed by the recent rise in populist leaders throughout the region. This could lead to increased attempts to destabilise Venezuela and increased support for Chavez's opponents in the country. Just one question. If it only takes a few dubious emails to class Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism, how much more evidence is required to prove that President Uribe runs a terrorist state?

President Uribe Shakes Hands With Correa and Chavez

The prolonged stand-off in Latin America has finally drawn to a close, but not before a continuation of the war of words that has been a feature of this confrontation. Before finally agreeing to shake hands with Correa and Chavez, Uribe continued to make accusations regarding supposed links between President Correa and the FARC. Considering the originator of these remarks, the accusations are laughable. Uribe has well documented links to terrorists within his own country. However, President Uribe finally conceded that the Colombians should not have entered Ecuadorean land and the subsequent declaration noted that President Uribe had apologised for the incursion.

Uribe's humiliation was complete when, after a heated exchange, the Dominican President Leonel Fernandez tried to calm things down by urging Uribe to shake hands with his antagonists (see clip below). You could sense the unease as Uribe made his way round the table to shake hands with Correa and Chavez. There is no doubt about who the overall

winner is as a result of this stand-off. Chavez stood 'shoulder to shoulder' with Correa in the immediate aftermath of the incursion into Ecuador. He stood firm and refused to concede any ground to President Uribe during the entire stand-off. The sight of a humiliated Uribe walking around the table to concede to Chavez is a massive victory for the Venezuelan. Chavez further humiliated Uribe by posing as the peacemaker in the region. According to one report:

Venezuela president Hugo Chavez today asked Alvaro Uribe, president of Colombia, to set aside their differences and work together for peace-

"Let us move far away from war and work for peace," he said, after denying funding the FARC guerrilla.

Such scenes and rhetoric will surely rankle those in Washington who were hoping that this crisis would diminish Chavez's standing in Latin America. After all, this was what the stand-off was really about. An attempt to undermine the leftist leaders in South America and re-assert US dominance in the region. However, America's man has been left to look weak and subservient, whilst the populist leaders (particularly Chavez) have emerged even stronger. Uribe will surely be in for a dressing down by his masters in the White House after this abject display.

Gaza - Ethnic Cleansing on the Table?

In my haste to cover the events in South America, I have unforgiveably overlooked events in Gaza. It would appear, according to the reports of various agencies (including Amnesty International) that the people of Gaza are enduring their worst humanitarian disaster since 1967. From the BBC:

Gaza's humanitarian situation is at its worst since Israel occupied the territory in 1967, say UK-based human rights and development groups.

They include Amnesty International, Save the Children, Cafod, Care International and Christian Aid.

They criticise Israel's blockade on Gaza as illegal collective punishment which fails to deliver security.

Israel says its military action and other measures are lawful and needed to stop rocket attacks from Gaza.

Israel pulled its troops and settlers out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, but retains control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory.

The following is taken from Amnesty International:

This latest cycle of killings and destruction comes at a time when the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza are confronting a humanitarian crisis as a result of the increasingly stringent blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza.

Hospitals and medical facilities, already facing severe difficulties in coping with shortages of electricity, fuel, equipment and spare parts due to the Israeli blockade, are struggling to cope with the new influx of casualties caused by Israeli attacks in the last few days.

With Gaza's borders sealed, many patients in dire need of medical care that is not available in Gaza cannot be transferred to hospitals abroad and risk losing their lives.

In the past two months, Israeli forces have killed more than 230 Palestinians in Gaza, including scores of unarmed civilians, and wounded and maimed many others. During the same period, Palestinian armed groups have continued to fire qassam and other rockets indiscriminately at Israel from the Gaza Strip, mostly towards the town of Sderot but also, last week, the more distant town of Ashkelon.

One Israeli civilian has been killed and several injured by such rockets fired from Gaza into Sderot and other areas by Palestinian armed groups.

Amnesty International has again called on Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to ensure that Palestinian armed groups cease immediately from carrying out indiscriminate attacks against Israel, and for those responsible to be held to account.

"It is high time that the leaders of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) took effective steps to prevent and punish attacks on civilians in Israel," said Malcolm Smart, "but their failure to do so does not make it legitimate for the Israeli authorities to launch reckless air and artillery strikes which wreak such death and destruction among Palestinian civilians.

"At the same time, the Palestinian armed groups who launch frequent rocket attacks from Gaza into nearby Israeli towns not only show a callous disregard for the lives of Israeli civilians but also expose the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip to the danger of Israeli attacks."

Malcolm Smart said that Amnesty International condemned all attacks on civilians, but that "unlawful attacks by one side cannot justify violations by the other."

The question is, how much longer will it be before Gaza is occupied by Israeli forces?

Israel and the West must carry a heavy burden for the unrelenting violence in the region. Their reckless actions are not bringing peace, they are bringing resentment. Every bomb, every incursion, every retaliation breeds more anger and more contempt. They are merely fanning the fires within Gaza instead of 'winning hearts and minds'. And yet, the solution is simple. The West still refuses to negotiate with Hamas, relying instead on the old tactic of divide and conquer. There can be no peace until Hamas are brought into the process, difficult thought that may be for some to accept. They were, after all, the party elected by the people in a democratic election. An election that was hailed by the West before the result, and ignored afterwards.

As time passes, the risk of an even greater humanitarian crisis grows. The collective punishment of an entire people will lead to ever greater numbers of women and children being slaughtered in the name of revenge. Where will it all end? With the ethnic cleansing of the entire region?? With the final humiliation of a people that have lived on the land for centuries before the Balfour declaration? Israeli terrorism played a role in the establishment of the Israeli state. Terrorism seems to be the weapon of choice of the Israeli government.

What Links Uribe, Exxon and Chevron?

Well, it would appear that they all intend to make hefty capital from the current war of words that is brewing in South America. Uribe, in particular, is desperate to re-assert his terrorist fighting credentials after Chavez's victorious negotiations to have four hostages released from captivity by the FARC. This has particularly hurt Uribe as he has allegedly been on the receiving end of some pretty harsh criticism by the hostages regarding his tactics. The problem for Uribe is that if you remove the terrorist threat you remove his reason to exist. He has no real interest in ensuring that hostages are returned safely and that a peace deal is brokered because, the longer the 'war' continues, the longer Uribe and his kind will be needed in power. Uribe was voted in because he is seen to be tough with the 'terrorists', with no 'terrorists' to fight, why would anyone vote for leaders of his kind? Thus Uribe has been humiliated by Chavez who achieved in a few weeks what Uribe was unable to achieve in six years. By painting Chavez as a friend to terrorists (and terrorists who are seeking a 'dirty bomb' no less), Uribe hopes to diminish his standing amongst Colombians and thus avert the possibility of a Chavez-esque leader emerging in Colombia (something not desired in Washington either).

As for Exxon, their reasons for wanting to see Chavez's reputation damaged in South America is obvious. Venezuela has been embarking on a massive programme of nationalisation and Exxon is not too keen on this development to say the least. To date, the oil giant has refused to enter into partnership with the Venezuelan government and has even gone to the extent of freezing the PDVSA's assets through a UK court. It is now arguing that this should go further and they are now insisting that it should get a global order from a U.K. court freezing $12 billion of Petroleos de Venezuela SA assets since a New York court doesn't have the power. Exxon clearly has much to gain from the 'link' between Chavez and 'terrorism' and the subsequent damage to his reputation that they hope this brings. So what of Chevron? What do they hope to achieve from this stand-off in South America?

Chevron is in the middle of a court battle in Ecuador revolving around the alleged dumping of 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon rainforest and abandoning of hundreds of open-air toxic waste pits in an area roughly the size of Rhode Island. This battle has become increasingly dirty as time has gone on. Chebron has repeatedly attacked the court-appointed special master who is preparing the damages assessment against the oil giant. Amongst the many allegations, Chevron are accused of:

.....personal harassment and an ad hominem advertising campaign, coinciding with the mysterious theft of case-related files from the court-appointed special master's office,according to the Amazon Defense Coalition, the organization that represents an estimated 30,000 plaintiffs in the case, including the members of five Amazon indigenous groups.

According to one lawyer on the case, Julio Prieto:

"Chevron is using extrajudicial influence to undermine the one independent expert who is preparing to tell the truth about Chevron's damages in Ecuador."

Cabrera has been the victim of a particularly vicious campaign of intimidation by Chevron. The attacks include:

...the purchase of full-page advertisements in Ecuadorian newspapers suggesting Cabrera is a criminal. Cabrera also has been stalked by a team of 25 Chevron lawyers and private
security agents while he does his fieldwork near Chevron's former production sites in the rainforest. Press releases put out by Chevron mock Cabrera for his middle name, "Stalin."

Most recently, Chevron has filed a motion with a separate Ecuadorian court seeking to depose Cabrera, an action which the plaintiffs consider illegal. Cabrera has also been the victim of a mysterious robbery of his office from where his files on the case were stolen.

Chevron's harassment became so grave that the trial judge ordered security agents to keep Chevron representatives away from Cabrera so he could complete his field work without interference or fear of intimidation.

These are the latest in a long line of examples of Chevron's disregard for the legal process in Ecuador:

The latest charges follow a series of incidents in 2005 and 2006 that called into question Chevron's commitment to a fair trial. These included the creation of a false military report written by Chevron lawyers claiming they were going to be kidnapped, death and kidnapping threats against community leaders active in the lawsuit, and the separate robbery of case-related materials from the law offices of Alejandro Ponce, who works with the plaintiffs.

Chevron also admitted in 2006 that it was making payments to Ecuadorian military officials in exchange for "protection" services during the trial. Several uniformed Ecuadorian soldiers have accompanied Chevron's lawyers to judicial inspection sites, carrying their bags and technical equipment while peering menacingly at members of the local population.

Clearly, an attempt by Colombia and the US to smear President Correa is in the interests of Chevron. By creating evidence that Correa is linked to terrorists in a neighboring South American country, public confidence in Correa will surely be damaged, allowing a more pliable leader to step forward and lead the way. When this is put into the context of recent events in Ecuador (only three presidents since 1979 have served a full-term in the country and the last three were overthrown), one can see that Chevron hope that Correa will be another Ecuadorean leader who fails to complete a full term.

I am not convinced that this confrontation is part of an attempt to launch a military strike on any of the left-leaning nations in South America. However, I am convinced that this is part of an attempt to smear the leaders of these countries and thus strengthen opposition movements in these countries. The US cannot afford another military front opening up and will avoid one at all costs (as will Colombia), their only real option is a political strike which appears very much on the table. Fox News has already been making explicit links between the government of Ecuador and the FARC, claiming that:

"Colombia said documents in Reyes' laptop also indicate that Ecuador' internal security minister met recently with a FARC envoy to discuss deepening relations with Ecuador, and even replacing military officers who might oppose that."

However, it has also emerged that (surprise, surprise) the documents that the Colombian government claims shows that the FARC intended to asssemble a 'dirty bomb', actually show nothing of the sort. From The Guardian:

Colombia said documents found at the base showed rebels wanted to make a radioactive dirty bomb. But the documents it shared with reporters didn't support the allegation, indicating instead that the rebels were trying to buy uranium to resell at a profit.

Still, make enough allegations of links to terror and, eventually, one will stick. One wonders how many other outrageous smears the Colombian government will come out with over the coming days and weeks.

Colombian Lies About Ecuador and Venezuela - Part of Wider US Campaign?

The situation is continuing to escalate in South America. Ecuador and Venezuela have now, according to the BBC, cut all ties with the Colombian government, expelling all Colombian diplomats. Unsurprisingly, the Colombian government have embarked on a massive smear campaign (aided, no doubt, by the US) to damage the reputations of both Chavez and Correa. The following is taken from the International Herald Tribune:

Venezuela and Ecuador sought Monday to make Colombia pay a high price for killing a leftist rebel leader in the Ecuadorean jungle — expelling its diplomats, ordering troops to the border and cracking down on trade across the border.

But Colombia quickly struck back, revealing what it said were incriminating documents seized from the rebel camp that suggest its neighbors have been secretly supporting the leftist rebels' deadly insurgency.

Colombia's national police chief stood by its attack that killed Reyes, and said that documents recovered from his laptop showed Venezuela's leftist government recently paid $300 million to the rebels, among other financial and political ties that date back years, and that high-level meetings have been held between rebels and Ecuadorean officials.

And this shocker: Colombia says some documents suggest the rebels have bought and sold uranium.

"When they mention negotiations for 50 kilos of uranium this means that the FARC are taking big steps in the world of terrorism to become a global aggressor. We're not talking of domestic guerrilla but transnational terrorism," Gen. Oscar Naranjo said at an explosive news conference.

But here is the killer:

Naranjo didn't give any details on when, where or from whom the uranium was allegedly bought. He provided no proof of the payment and wouldn't release copies of the documents, which he said are "tremendously revelatory" and are being examined with the help of U.S. experts.

No prizes for guessing what the US experts might deduce. Of course, most of what Colombia alleges must be taken with a pinch of salt. The Colombian government has a long history of involvement with human rights abuses and paramilitary activity and can hardly be taken seriously when accusing others of dubious activity.

It has also emerged that the Colombian government has also seriously compromised efforts by the French government to release one of the hostages, Ingrid Betancourt. Betancourt is a former Colombian presidential candidate who also holds French nationality and has been the subject of negotiations between the French government and the FARC. The French government's contact had been Raul Reyes, until his murder by the Colombian military. The murder of this key contact has made efforts by the French government to release her even more desperate. French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner told French Inter radio on Monday:

"It is bad news that the man we were talking to, with whom we had contacts, has been killed. Do you see how ugly the world is?"

Ugly indeed when the Colombian government invades sovereign territory to assassinate a key contact for the release of a hostage.

Furthermore, it has also emerged that the Colombian account of events leading up to the murder of Reyes were stretching the truth somewhat. It would appear that the FARC had not launched any attack on Colombia from the camp in Ecuador, contradicting claims by the Colombian government. The following is lifted from a piece on ZNet by Decio Machado:

Images, testimonies of resident and of three guerrillas found alive, ballistic reports and Ecuadorian military intelligence demonstrate the heap of lies of the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe. According to the Colombian version, the Front 48 of the FARC was being pursued on indication that Reyes would be present in a small settlement called Granada, near the Ecuadorian frontier but still in Colombian territory.

The Colombian Defence Minister, Juan Manuel Santos, indicated that during the operation the Colombian armed forces had been attacked from a FARC camp situated 1,800 metres from the border in Ecuadorian territory. The Colombian air force then located and attacked the guerrilla camp, taking into account the order not to violate the Ecuadorian air space. The Colombian armed forces later went in to ensure control of the place, leaving the Colombian police in charge till the arrival of the Ecuadorian army.

Investigations on the part of the Ecuadorian authorities show there was no combat on the side of the FARC unit which was attacked. With the exception of three of them keeping guard, the 18 killed were asleep in their undergarments; none of the guerrillas had the opportunity of fighting or surrendering. The arms in the camp were piled up. They did not have the chance even to reach for their rifles and grenades; they were massacred while asleep.

The testimonies of the residents of the area, as also the large craters on the camp ground, show that four bombs were launched from Colombian aircraft that entered Ecuadorian territory. According to the investigations of the military intelligence, these were launched from the south of the camp, which is to say that the aircraft had intruded more than 10 km into Ecuadorian territory when the attack began.

After the bombing from these aircraft, several ‘Supertuscan’ helicopters of the Colombian air force came in and from these the attack on the FARC camp in Ecuadorian territory continued. The helicopters landed special commandos who finished off the injured guerrillas. As the bullet wounds in the bodies of the majority of the guerrillas show, many of them were piled up in a part of the camp and killed from behind. Even the photographs taken by the Colombian government of Raul Reyes’ body show he had a shot on the left side of his face.

Information coming from Ecuadorian military intelligence indicates that the country’s air space was not only violated on the dawn of March 1 but also that on the dawn of March 2 there was another incursion of the helicopters with night vision equipment to pick up members of the armed forces and Colombian police still in Ecuadorian territory. The position of the trees brought down by the bombardment, the multiple bullet holes on them, as also the position of the bodies, demonstrate that while the FARC was guarding the camp on the northern side facing the Colombian frontier, the air incursion happened from the south, which indicates that the Colombian air force intruded without permission or notification, contravening all international norms about Ecuadorian air space.

The testimonies of the area’s residents indicate the attack lasted from approximately after midnight till six in the morning of March 1. The precision of the attack also shows the use of important military technology which puts on the table the possibility of the participation of the United States in the massacres, at least in spotting the guerrilla unit.

It would certainly appear that the US has it's hands all over this one. What with the combination of military intelligence/hardware and the 'experts' who are analysing documents at the scene that supposedly link Venezuela and Ecuador with what the US calls a 'terrorist organisation', could we possibly see a widening of the 'war on terror'?? Could the United States be on the verge of turning it's attention back on to it's own backyard and launching a new vicious campaign to turn back the "pink tide" sweeping South America?? Perhaps this re-assertion has become more desperate as a result of Ecuador's recent decision not to renew the agreement with the US to utilise the Manta air base as part of the Plan Colombia strategy. Whatever, the US government is clearly concerned about it's weakening hegemony in the region and is prepared to step up efforts to ensure it is the dominant player in the region once more.

See also:

Ecuador Rising - Hatarinchej - The people of Ecuador are rising up to refound their country as a pluri-national homeland for all. This inspiring movement, with Ecuador's indigenous peoples at its heart, is part of the revolution spreading across the Americas, laying the groundwork for a new, fairer, world. Ecuador Rising aims to bring news and analysis of events unfolding in Ecuador to english speakers. [Added to blogroll]

UPDATE

It now appears that President Uribe is calling for Chavez to be charged by the International Criminal Court for "financing genocide". Yes, you did read that correctly. The President of a country in which paramilitaries are free to roam the country and murder trade unionists with impunity is attempting to have Chavez prosecuted for genocide. Perhaps if the ICC is to look into Uribe's ridiculous claims, it might also take serious action against the Colombian government for allowing union members to be murdered with impunity.

Ecuador Sends Troops To Colombian Border

It would seem that Ecuador has sent troops to the border with the world's leading terrorist state:

Ecuador and Venezuela have moved troops to their borders with Colombia in an escalating row over the killing of a Farc rebel leader in Ecuador.

Ecuador and Venezuela have also both expelled Colombian diplomats.

Colombian troops entered Ecuador on Saturday in a raid that killed Colombian rebel leader Raul Reyes.

Of course, the Colombian government is talking of it's sisterhood with a neighboring South American country but they have never been that concerned about their neighbours in the past. On the contrary, Colombia is seen by Washington as crucial to re-asserting ideological dominance in the region. It is unlikely that further action will be taken by Venezuela or Ecuador, but the current situation is sure to be used as an example of the danger that the left-wing tide poses to US interests.

USS New York - The Most Inappropriate Memorial in History??

Can you think of anything more fitting for the victims of the attacks on 11/9???

Thousands of people have watched the naming in Louisiana of a US warship built partly from steel salvaged from the World Trade Center.

The twin towers in New York were destroyed in the hijacked planes attack of 11 September 2001.

Friends and families of 9/11 victims were among those at the ceremony for the new amphibious assault ship, the USS New York, in the base of Avondale.

The bow contains 7.5 tonnes of steel taken from Ground Zero.

It also bore a shield with two bars to symbolise the towers and a banner with the slogan Never Forget.

The remains of a building from a terrorist attack that killed thousands, has been used to help construct a US navy warship which will help to kill thousands. And so, the cycle continues.

Fox News - Laugh Out Loud Funny

One of the 'benefits' of coming to Spain is the chance to catch a bit of Fox news. Even though I am forced to pay for Sky news whether I want to or not, I choose not to line Murdoch's pockets further by paying his over inflated subscription. Yes Biased BBC fans, even if I did not own a TV, I would still be forced to pay money to keep Sky operating. The difference with the BBC is.......??

Anyway, just a quick glimpse of Fox and it is easy to see why American's are a little confused about the world. Take today for example. Sean Hannity, the puffed up right-wing windbag, was interviewing Karl Rove (laughingly dubbed 'the architect' - is that because he labours over grand designs which ultimately fail to deliver??) about the forthcoming American election. So far, so typical. What had me gasping with astonishment, however, was their description of Barak Obama. Obama is, according to Rove, a man of the "far-left". Far-left!!!!!?????? I laughed so hard I nearly choked. In what friggin' world could Obama ever be described as "far-left"???? Of his policies, which are particularly linked to far-left ideology??? I can barely think of one. Try to make a similar comparison in the UK, and almost everyone would laugh in your face. It strikes me as rather similar to pointing at an opponent and shouting "fascist" before running in the other direction. "Far-left"???? Obama is a representative of the Republican Lite party, a party that has never embraced that ideals of socialism, but has been as craven in its rush to support the rich as the Republicans. I worry for the state of America when brain dead experts like Rove and Hannity can openly claim such utter nonsense. And don't even get me started on Liebermann's appearance...........

Venezuelan Army Put on High Alert

Hugo Chavez has ordered troops to the Colombian border following a Colombian incursion in Ecuador. From CNN:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Sunday ordered his military to move 10 battalions to the country's border with Colombia, and ordered the closure of the Venezuelan embassy in Colombia's capital.

He made the comments on his weekly Sunday talk show "Alo Presidente," or "Hello, President."

The move was in apparent reaction to Colombia's joint operation Saturday in Ecuador that resulted in the death of the second-in-command of the FARC Colombian rebels group.

Chavez condemned the operation Saturday, saying the Colombian government violated Ecuador's sovereignty. He said if the operation had been conducted in Venezuela, he would have declared war against Colombia.

"Colombia's government recognizes -- in a happy and irresponsible attitude -- that it has violated the sovereignty of a neighbor country. And that's worrisome," he said.

"President Uribe, think well. Don't think about doing that over here, don't think it. Because it would very serious, a military raid in Venezuelan territory would be 'causus belli.' There is not any excuse."

Colombian Defence Minister, Juan Manuel Santos, claimed that Uribe had informed Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. However, it has also emerged that Correa has sent a strongly worded protest to the Colombian government and has also recalled his ambassador in Colombia. Could this be an attempt by the US proxy to assert the primacy of US interests in the region? Certainly it will appear that the establishment may well spin this in favour of Uribe and in opposition to Chavez. In fact, the Bush administration already seems to have set to work on this:

The White House weighed in on the situation Sunday, saying, "We're monitoring the situation."

"This is an odd reaction by Venezuela to Colombia's efforts against the FARC, a terrorist organization that continues to hold Colombians, Americans and others hostage," spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

But then, I guess they would find it odd given as they have a thing for violating sovereign nations. The spin starts here.

British Government Sought to Protect Relationship with Israel

This from The Guardian:

The full extent of government anxiety about the state of British-Israel relations can be exposed for the first time today in a secret document seen by the Guardian.

The document reveals how the Foreign Office successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel contained on the first draft of the controversial, now discredited Iraq weapons dossier. At the heart of it was nervousness at the top of government about any mention of Israel's nuclear arsenal in an official paper accusing Iraq of flouting the UN's authority on weapons of mass destruction.

The dossier was made public this week, but the Foreign Office succeeded before a tribunal in having the handwritten mention of Israel kept secret.

The FO never argued that the information would damage national security. The Guardian has seen the full text and a witness statement from a senior Foreign Office official, who argued behind closed doors that any public mention of the candid reference would seriously damage UK/Israeli relations. In the statement, he reveals that in the past five years there have been 10 substantial incidents and 20 more minor ones relating to Israeli concerns about attitudes to their government within Whitehall.

The Information Tribunal, which adjudicates on disputes involving the Freedom of Information Act, agreed to remove the single reference to Israel when it ordered the release of the draft of the Iraqi weapons dossier written by John Williams, the FO's chief information officer at the time.

Along with unfavourable references to the US and Japan, the reference to Israel was written in the margin by someone commenting on the opening paragraph of the Williams draft. It was written against the claim that "no other country [apart from Iraq] has flouted the United Nations' authority so brazenly in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction".

This comes on the back of the 'revelation' that the UK government put the interests of the US government before the interests of UK citizens, the failure of Scotland Yard to arrest an alleged war criminal and the ongoing BAE scandal. All of this begs the question, when are we going to stop allowing other countries to dictate to us? When are we going to stick two fingers up to the Saudis, the Americans and the Israelis and determine out own course of action? When are we going to stop being controlled by the interests of others? I for one won't be holding my breath.