Iran’s Central Bank warns German banks not to close operations in the country

Iran’s Central Bank warns German banks not to close operations in the country

FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) – Iran’s Central Bank has warned German banks that their withdrawal from the country may result in business disadvantages in the future, the bank’s vice governor Mohammad Jafar Mojarrad said in an interview with Financial Times Deutschland. “There is no guarantee that they may return in good times. Our economic relations are based on trust and it’s very difficult to restore trust once it has been breached,” he said. Mojarrad added that banks from Asia, Russia and the Gulf Region are prepared to take over the German banks’ business in Iran. Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank gradually shut down their Iranian operations in the past months and last week Allianz’s Dresdner Bank said it will also discontinue its business relations with the country. According to the report, the banks were put under pressure from Washington to cut ties to Iran as part of the United States’ plan to cut the country off from international money transactions as long as it refuses to stop its nuclear programme. judith.csaba@thomson.com jcs/rw COPYRIGHT

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=6254926&subject=companies&action=article

The Vanishing Coalition

The Vanishing Coalition
By: Leonard Doyle in Washington and Kim Sengupta, Independent on: 23.08.2007

President Bush invokes Vietnam as splits emerge with Iraq allies

President George Bush invoked the spectre of Vietnam for the first time yesterday as 15 more American soldiers died and increasing evidence emerged that the coalition of the willing that invaded Iraq four years ago has begun to fracture irreparably.

As the US death toll moved to 3,722, Iraq’s Prime Minister engaged in an angry war of words with his critics in Washington. Meanwhile, a senior US general issued a dark warning that American troops may have to be sent to the south of the country to fill the vacuum left by a projected British withdrawal.

Amid the chaos, an isolated Mr Bush vowed he would “fight to win”, that the so-called troop “surge” was working and that the lesson from Vietnam was that withdrawal had cost millions of lives.

Speaking to US Army veterans in Kansas, Mr Bush sought to soothe relations with the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who had earlier threatened to “find friends elsewhere”, after US officials suggested he be pushed aside.

However, in stark language that clearly riled British military leaders, the US general Jack Keane, who has just returned from Iraq, claimed that the security situation in the British-controlled zone had been allowed to deteriorate to “gangland warfare” with civilians at the mercy of rival Shia gunmen.

The general’s comments highlighted the growing rift between the US and UK over Iraq with complaints among American officials over the “inaction” of British forces against militias in Basra. At the same time the UK is resisting American pressure to delay pulling troops out of Basra, the sole remaining area it controls in the country.

A senior Ministry of Defence official in London said “we are not going to get involved in ‘tit-for-tat’ with the Americans” but British commanders insist that the security situation in Basra is being misrepresented by some in the US forces. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup said: “Our mission there was to get the place and the people to a state where the Iraqis could run the country if they chose to and we are very nearly there.

“Our mission was not to make the place look somewhere green and peaceful because that was never going to be achievable in that timescale and, in any case, only the Iraqis can fulfill that aspiration.”

The American exasperation, however, is compounded by the perception that British troops are “disengaging” while the US is losing lives daily in the “surge”. The crash of the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter in northern Iraq is thought to have been due to mechanical failure rather than hostile fire. Meanwhile, east of Baghdad another American soldier was killed in a roadside attack.

General Keane, who is recently retired but is considered to be influential within the Pentagon, said there was “frustration” among US commanders that they may have to send troops to the south while continuing to fight the insurgency in central and northern Iraq. He said: “That situation could arise if the situation gets worse in Basra if and when the British leave. Now the situation has changed in the south, it is considerably worse, certainly with the kind of gangland warfare that is preying on the people in the south.”

General Keane accused the British of being guilty of “general disengagement from the key issues around Basra”. He continued: “The Brits have never had enough troops to truly protect the population.” UK troop numbers are, in fact, due to be further reduced, by 500, to fewer than 5,000 at the end of the year.

Basra Palace, the last British base inside Basra City, was due to be handed over to Iraqi forces at the beginning of August. This has been delayed at the Americans’ request, but UK officials insist this will take place, along with the passing of control of the city to the Iraqi government, by the end of the year. British troops will then withdraw to the air bridgehead at Basra airport, where a reserve force of about 3,000 will remain when the official withdrawal from Iraq takes place next year.

The dangers in southern Iraq were also illustrated by the assassinations of the governors of two provinces, and the police chief of one.

Mohammed Ali al-Hassani, the governor of Muthanna, was killed along with his driver and bodyguard by a roadside bomb as he left his home for his office in the provincial capital Samawah. It followed the killing of Khalil Jalil Hanza, the governor of Qadisiyah province, along with the police chief, Major General Khalid Hassan, in another roadside attack.

With no end in sight to the bloodletting, Mr Maliki reacted angrily yesterday to what he called the “discourteous” remarks from his US allies. “Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria,” said Mr Maliki. “We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere.”

The message was driven home to President Bush overnight. If he had been reticent in his support for Mr Maliki on Tuesday, he was positively effusive yesterday. “It’s not up to the politicians in Washington DC to say whether he will remain in his position,” he said. “It is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship.”

On Tuesday President Bush said there was “a certain level of frustration” with the Iraqi government’s failure to unify Sunni, Shia and Kurd factions a few hours after Ryan Crocker, America’s ambassador to Baghdad, described political progress in the country as “extremely disappointing” and said US support for the Maliki government would run out and did not come with a “blank cheque”.

But it was Mr Bush’s comparison of the war in Iraq with Vietnam that raised most eyebrows yesterday. He specifically linked the US defeat and withdrawal from Vietnam to the rise of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia.

“Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people’, ‘re-education camps’ and ‘killing fields’.” Commentators were quick to point out that the bloodletting of the Khmer Rouge was a consequence of the US secret war again Cambodia.

“And it was President Bush who got us into the Iraq quagmire in the first place,” said David Gergen, a commentator and veteran of several administrations.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2886377.ece

‘Headless chickens’ and the China threat

‘Headless chickens’ and the China threat
By M K Bhadrakumar

It is not very often that a top diplomat publicly ridicules parliamentarians or media persons in his country as “headless chickens”, but that is what India’s ambassador in the United States, Ronen Sen, has done.

In a combative tone, the 64-year-old diplomat was punching hard at the critics back home of the India-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, commonly known as the “nuclear deal”.

The “deal” has set Indians against Indians. Sen’s outburst brings
<!– if (!document.phpAds_used) document.phpAds_used = ‘,’; phpAds_random = new String (Math.random()); phpAds_random = phpAds_random.substring(2,11); document.write (“”); //–>

to mind a statement by Robin Raphel, a US assistant secretary of state in the mid-1990s – somewhat before India and the US discovered they were “natural allies” – that all it takes is an hour for Washington to raise a political storm in Delhi.

The heart of the matter is that the political debate in India has lost transparency. No one in the Indian establishment is able to explain cogently what this nuclear agreement is all about. The Americans are consistent in placing proposed nuclear cooperation within a broader framework of “strategic partnership” with India. This is taking shape in the nature of close military ties not only bilaterally but also in the direction of India’s induction into the United States’ security tie-ups with its principal Asian allies – Japan and Australia.

Shifting Indian stances
But the Indian establishment fights shy of identifying with the US projection of the developing strategic alliance with India, even though it has no quarrel with it. The Indian side maintained two years ago when it all began that the nuclear deal was a major initiative for India’s energy security. But it soon transpired that even if India goes in dramatically for nuclear power plants in the next 15-year period, that can only meet something like 5% or 6% of the country’s anticipated energy needs.

So the argument shifted to underscoring that the deal was all about getting a now-friendly United States to lift its 1974 ban on the flow of high technology to India, which was imposed by Washington when India first blasted a nuclear weapon in 1974. But then critics pointed out that the agreement retained the US ban on “dual-use” technology. So the argument ran into a cul-de-sac. But not for long. It ducked, and slithered on to new turf – that the deal is plain, simple realpolitik.

That is to say, realpolitik demands that India should exploit the window of opportunity arising out of the United States’ need to “contain” China’s phenomenal rise in the 21st century. The argument goes that Washington is viewing India as a “balancer” in the international system. Some Indian strategic analysts are convinced that George W Bush, who is the “friendliest” US president that India has ever dealt with, and India must make the most out of it.

To quote Sen, “We [Indians] will not, and there has not been and I don’t think in the near future we will see such a friend and supporter as this president. Absolutely. There is none.” It is seldom that diplomats speak with such passion and intensity about friendships.

But to be with Bush, or not to be – that’s not quite the question, either. The main issue now is China and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan. China is appearing at the epicenter of the Indian rationale for the nuclear agreement. “To stop negotiations [over the deal] … will only help China,” said one Indian expert who visualized the leaders in Beijing “gloating over” the predicament that faces the Indian government in its inability to command majority support for the deal in Parliament, mainly because of opposition from the left-wing parties.

Another Indian expert added, “The main beneficiaries of the deal getting delayed, from a strategic point of view, are China and Pakistan – in that order. So whose interests are we protecting? If the deal is delayed or scuttled, it would allow the Chinese to acquire unipolarity in Asia. Countries like Russia, France and even Japan would like India on board because its presence would provide a sense of equipoise to the equation in the Asian strategic grid.”

Yet another Indian thinker concluded, “The choice presented to India is stark and simple. Either India integrates itself with the global powers or it isolates itself to be dominated by China and perpetually countervailed by Pakistan.”

The Indians have tied themselves in knots. There seems to be embarrassed silence in Washington. The theorist who saw all international politics as a chessboard, former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezenski, would feel confused at hearing the Indian experts waxing on his pet subject. The “balancer” par excellence in modern diplomacy, Henry Kissinger, must be having a wry smile. Bush’s close friend, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, would turn red in his ears.

Clearly, it is impossible for Washington to see eye to eye with the Indian doctrine that the international system arrays the “world powers” against China. Paulson wishes to see China as one of the most important “stakeholders” in the international system. Paulson sees a China that is estimated to hold more than US$900 billion in a mix of US bonds. And when China sold a net $5.8 billion of Treasury bonds in April, he took careful note.

Paulson is a China expert from his days as head of Goldman Sachs. Bush’s choice of him as treasury secretary was itself a measure of the crucial importance that Washington attaches to calming the waters of the United States’ relations with a rising China. The hard fact is that the US Treasury has no currencies to redeem its debt. Washington knows it has no hegemony over China’s policies.

Seventy percent of the goods on Wal-Mart’s shelves are made in China. The manufacturing centers in China are subsidizing American consumers. Roughly half of the United States’ imports from China are “offshored” production by US companies. The US dependence on China for advanced-technology products is steadily increasing. Neither the US nor China can exit from their mutual interlocked relationship, except on extremely painful terms.

China opposes the deal
Beijing refuses to criticize India for entering the nuclear deal with the US, but Chinese statements have taken note that Delhi is

<!– if (!document.phpAds_used) document.phpAds_used = ‘,’; phpAds_random = new String (Math.random()); phpAds_random = phpAds_random.substring(2,11); document.write (“”); //–>

driven by an all-consuming desire to become a “great power”, and that the deal is, by Indian reckoning, its key to unlocking the door leading to the big league in world politics. If China has doubts about the efficacy of India’s imminent passage to greatness, it hasn’t said so.

Indian strategic thinkers have alleged that China will help India’s arch-enemy Pakistan to have a nuclear deal. But on Monday a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman flatly dismissed the Indian allegation. “There is no such deal in the making,” he told an Indian correspondent in Beijing.

On the other hand, Chinese commentators have trained their guns on Washington’s “double standards” and on the “damage” that the accord with a power that has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will have on the global non-proliferation system. China has pointed out that the nuclear deal may affect the strategic balance in the South Asian region. China has expressed grave reservations about US efforts to draw “India in as a tool for its global strategic pattern”.

But China draws comfort by saying, “India’s DNA doesn’t allow itself to become an ally subordinate to the US, like Japan or Britain.” All in all, there is reason to believe China is unhappy with the nuclear deal between India and the US. But China sidesteps any direct criticism of India. In fact, senior US officials say that in all likelihood China may not oppose the deal when it comes up at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, where it has to be approved.

So where is the problem? Soon after nuclear tests in 1999, the government in Delhi attempted to rationalize them in terms of the “atmosphere of distress” prevailing in India’s relations with China. But there were no takers of the Indian thesis. So, once the dust settled, Delhi swiftly backtracked, and the process of dialogue with China resumed.

India’s China problem
The “problem” today is not entirely dissimilar. It is to be partly explained in terms of a political campaign to malign and isolate the Indian left wing’s opposition to the deal by portraying these parties as lacking in patriotism and as serving China’s geopolitical interests. Thus even Hindu fundamentalist spokesmen who distrust the nuclear deal changed tack once the deal began to be projected as a way to block China’s ascendancy in Asia.

Underlying all this is the main challenge for India. India is yet to figure out how to come to terms with China’s rise. There was a phase until recently when the Indian strategic community fancied that India’s growth rate would incrementally give China a run for its money. The realization that China has by far outstripped India has been slow in coming. But it is now sinking in.

As a former Indian diplomat, Rajiv Sikri, put it recently against the broad context of Sino-Indian relations, “The latent mistrust of China, which was well entrenched among the security agencies but of late was missing in the public perceptions and within the strategic community, has now resurfaced at a popular level.”

The US has no doubt found it expedient quietly to encourage such a trend in Indian public opinion. An odd statement here or there over the specter of China doesn’t really upset Paulson’s agenda. But it keeps the Indian strategic community on edge.

A sizable chunk of the Indian strategic community sincerely believes that the US desires to see India develop as a counterweight to China’s rise in Asia. Some among them believe that India may have already begun to act as a “balancer” in international politics. But Sikri, who headed the Indian Foreign Ministry until recently, thinks that at the official level, India’s overall relationship with China hasn’t yet been “thought through”.

At any rate, the China bogey has come in very handy in Delhi for invoking Indians’ intense sense of patriotism, and for garnering it in defense of the nuclear deal. Patriotism, in fact, has become the last refuge for those defending the nuclear deal with the US. The fact is that it is very difficult to attribute a raison d’etre for the nuclear deal except in terms of what in actuality it is, namely the alignment of Indian foreign policy with US geostrategy in Asia.

The Indian trait of self-righteousness that Raphel referred to is in full cry. Sen’s undiplomatic outburst reflected that. He asked, “So nothing happens by accident. It’s not just symbolic. It’s much, much more. But will we be able to get benefits out of all that without this [nuclear agreement]?”

He went on to answer: “All of this is inter-linked. We cannot insulate this. People don’t seem to realize that.”

The result is, like headless chickens, ageless Indian politicians are “running around”. Not a seemly sight for a great power in the making.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for more than 29 years, with postings including ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-98) and to Turkey (1998-2001

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IH23Df05.html

Crisis in the Green Zone

Nuri al-Maliki’s outburst against US criticism is bad news for George Bush, whose political project for Iraq now looks more fragile than ever.

Jonathan Steele

August 22, 2007 1:30 PM

The bad news from Iraq continues to grow for George Bush. First, a Blackhawk goes down, taking the lives of 14 hapless soldiers and crewmen. It is not the worst chopper disaster since the invasion, but it bumps the death toll of US personnel closer to the 4,000 mark.

Next comes the Iraqi prime minister, angrily announcing that “no one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people.” In two sentences Bush’s “benchmarks” have been tossed out of the window. These were the signs of political progress in Iraq that the White House wants to put in its report to Congress next month.

Nuri al-Maliki’s outburst follows public comments from Bush expressing frustration with the Iraqi government, and hinting that it may be replaced. Maliki knew Bush was putting him under pressure to come up with a series of measures that could match the military progress which General David Petraeus will outline when he reports on the surge. It was recently revealed that the Petraeus report will actually be drafted by the White House, using input from the general that can then be spun. But while Petraeus is a US government employee who is subject to the disciplines of command and control, Maliki isn’t. He’s independent enough to show his voters that he is not going to be dictated to by foreigners, even though he is in fact their puppet, whose position would collapse if the US left Iraq. The row symbolises the contradiction of describing a government as sovereign when its country is occupied.

Even before the latest spat between Maliki and Bush, the Iraqi prime minister was in difficulty. Half his cabinet has gone. The main Sunni members recently resigned, following a few months after the Shia ministers loyal to the anti-occupation cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr. This means that Maliki no longer has a guaranteed majority of supporters in parliament if it comes to a no-confidence vote.

Like Bush, Maliki has become a lame duck. Bush of course can stay in office for another 17 months. Maliki can also stagger on in charge of a minority government, since no other Iraqi seems able or willing to put a different coalition together. And, for all his tough talk about seeing Maliki replaced, Bush is doomed to go on supporting him. A vacuum in Baghdad would look even worse in American voters’ eyes.

In one sense, the crisis only confirms what has been clear for months. Whoever sits in the Green Zone in nominal charge of Iraq’s government has little power or authority beyond its walls. Bush’s political project for Iraq looks more fragile than ever.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2007/08/crisis_in_the_green_zone.html

Iranian intelligence overtaking Sunnis houses in north of Iraq and arresting number of people

Iranian intelligence overtaking Sunnis houses in north of Iraq and arresting number of people

Friday, 17 August 2007

Iranian intelligence overtaking Sunnis houses in north of Iraq and arresting number of people… HAQ agency- exclusive Iranian intelligence (Ettela’at) troops raided several houses of the Sunnis in Kurdish areas in northern Iraq in a brutally way and then arrested a group of youths of Sunni, mosques imams and preachers, including Sheikh Abdul Hamid al-ALY in the city of Marivan, Sheikh Abdul Ghaffar imams and preachers of the Peachosh village and another group of youths then who were taken to detention centers in Tehran and Kermanshah.

Last Updated ( Friday, 17 August 2007 )

http://76news.net/eng/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=385&Itemid=2

Russia issues fresh warning to Czech Republic over radar plans-1

Russia issues fresh warning to Czech Republic over radar plans-1
By: Ria Novosti on: 22.08.2007 [10:51 ]

Russia issues fresh warning to Czech Republic over radar plans-1
15:44 | 21/ 08/ 2007

(Adds Bartak’s response, more Baluyevsky comments, details in paragraphs 5-10)

MOSCOW, August 21 (RIA Novosti) – The decision to go ahead with the deployment of U.S. missile defense elements in the Czech Republic is a big mistake, a Russian senior military official said Tuesday.

“Russian-Czech consultations on the issue, which were held four months ago, regrettably brought no change in the Czech position. You made the decision to push ahead with the deployment of a radar on your soil. I believe that would be a huge mistake by your leadership,” Army Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said at a meeting with Martin Bartak, first deputy defense minister of the Czech Republic.

He said negotiations on the deployment of missile defense elements in Europe are becoming problematic, adding that the West doubts the need for such discussions.

“We are being told that there is no need to conduct consultations now that the decision to deploy a missile defense system has been made, and that Russia is only interfering in the dialogue between the U.S. and Poland and the U.S. and the Czech Republic. It seems to me that this is wrong,” Baluyevsky said.

The Czech official said his country will not make a final decision on deploying a U.S. missile defense radar on its soil before the end of the year.

“The decision will be made by parliament,” Bartak said. “We will continue talks and will not refuse to study the Russian Federation’s proposal on the joint of use its radar capabilities. We will closely follow talks on the issue between Russia and the U.S.”

He also said missile defense is a separate problem, which should not affect cooperation between Russia and the Czech Republic, not least in the military-technical sphere.

Gen. Baluyevsky urged Prague at the talks earlier Tuesday to delay the decision until after presidential elections in the United States, set for November 2008.

He said Washington might review Iran’s missile threat, which was one of the reasons for its decision to deploy missile defense elements in Europe.

“We believe that, based on realistic assessments of threats from the south, additional measures may be implemented on the deployment of additional missile defense elements in Europe, and we will stand firm on this position” he said.

The U.S. has said it wants to place a radar and a host of interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic to fend off what Washington sees as an impending missile threat from Iran and North Korea. But Russia regards the plan as a threat to its national security.

President Vladimir Putin, during his two-day meeting with President George W. Bush at the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, last month, proposed incorporating a new radar, currently being built in southern Russia, into a missile defense system managed by the NATO-Russia Joint Permanent Council, of which Moscow and Washington are members.

Russia also said it is ready to upgrade its early warning radar in Gabala, Azerbaijan, which was also proposed as an alternative to U.S. missile plans, but Washington has repeatedly called it obsolete.

But Putin’s proposals received a lukewarm response from the U.S.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070821/72918879.html

China Prepares to Dump U.S. Dollars

China Prepares to Dump U.S. Dollars
By: David Vaughn on: 22.08.2007

“China’s “nuclear option” to dump the dollar is real” “…China, not the Federal Reserve, controls US interest rates by its decision to purchase, hold, or dump US Treasury bonds…” “…Washington does not have hegemony over Chinese policy, and if matters go from push to shove, Washington can expect financial turmoil.” “China has many markets and can afford to lose the US market easier than the US can afford to lose the American brand names on Wal-Mart’s shelves that are made in China.”

“China Prepares to Dump U.S. Dollars”

By David Vaughn
Aug 20 2007 12:26PM

www.goldletterdv.com

The following is a good 6 dollar spike occurring in the middle of the week. Though too many are concerned with gold not breaking 700 already gold still continues to consolidate, gain steam, and become stronger still.

Now the title of this article is a pretty lofty accusation. We have heard this as a possibility countless, countless times but it has always been just a rumor. Is the possibility still just a rumor?

“China’s “nuclear option” to dump the dollar is real” “…China, not the Federal Reserve, controls US interest rates by its decision to purchase, hold, or dump US Treasury bonds…” “…Washington does not have hegemony over Chinese policy, and if matters go from push to shove, Washington can expect financial turmoil.” “China has many markets and can afford to lose the US market easier than the US can afford to lose the American brand names on Wal-Mart’s shelves that are made in China.”

Now just what would be the real cost should China stay true to their threat to dump U.S. dollars?

“Now let’s consider the cost to China of dumping dollars or Treasuries compared to the cost that the US is trying to impose on China.” “…consider that if China were to increase the value of the Yuan by 30 percent, the value of China’s dollar holdings would decline by 30 percent. It would have the same effect on China’s pocketbook as dumping dollars and Treasuries in the markets” “By dumping dollars, China expands its entry into other markets and accumulates more foreign currencies from trade surpluses.” “As is usually the case, the harm we suffer is inflicted by Washington.”

China has a carefully controlled socialist government that strictly controls any “official” statements coming from China. When China does want to send out a serious government endorsed statement it uses analysts and researchers to make a statement directed on the world stage and for all the world to take in – especially the United States. So what have the Chinese reported to us recently that has American politicians, including Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernake, quacking in their shoes?

“China threatens ‘nuclear option’ of dollar sales” “The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a Yuan revaluation.” “…such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.” ” …Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse if it chooses to do so.” “The words are alarming and unambiguous. This carries a clear political threat and could have very serious consequences at a time when the credit markets are already afraid of contagion from the subprime troubles…”

We see the economic storm building in intensity and this is no joke or imagination. Both the Fed and the rest of the world are presently injecting massive never before sums of billions of dollars to keep the world wide financial system door open. But right in the middle of this storm China, cool as a pickle, makes a threat it is thinking about selling an appreciable sum of those 1.333 trillion U.S. dollars it holds.

“China steps up currency fight by ‘absurd’ threat to sell $US dollars” “A Chinese Government researcher has issued a veiled threat to US policymakers not to get too tough in insisting the Chinese Yuan should appreciate. The researcher, He Fan, told the state-run China Daily that China had accumulated “a large sum of US dollars” and that its holdings contributed “a great deal to maintaining the position of the US dollar as an international currency”. If the Yuan’s exchange rate against the dollar did not remain stable, said Mr He, who works at the China Academy of Social Sciences, China could be forced to take strong action. China has $US1.33 trillion ($1.55 trillion) in foreign exchange reserves, with $US407 billion in US Treasuries, the second largest after Japan. A substantial sell-off of the reserves could spark a recession in the US economy, financial analysts said.” “Mr He’s statements were an apparent response to the US Senate Finance Committee, which last month approved legislation aimed at pressing for faster appreciation of the Yuan.”

Now is that not bravado and guts or what? If we look at all of this as a poker game played on the world stage I would say China believes itself to have the winning hand. You still think this is a joke? That is because you do not read enough. An astute reader can very quickly substantiate these allegations as real and with meat on their bones.

“Several U.S. senators have renewed calls in recent weeks to punish Beijing if it does not let the currency, the Yuan, rise in value.”

This is not an idle joke or saber rattling to increase readership. This is very real my friends. A very serious financial crisis is occurring right before our face and what intrigues me is that there is not a major effort to hide these events. The Fed Chairman is loudly and publicly stating the huge sums of liquidity he is injecting in our financial system. Now that is either supreme confidence and bravado or a sense of hopelessness that the crap is soon to hit the fan and there will be no way to hide its consequences. I’ll let you decide.

“The dollar continued its decline in global currency markets yesterday, intensifying worries among some economists that mounting U.S. budget and trade deficits could send the U.S. currency into a tailspin.” “The decline rekindled the fears of some analysts that the dollar could be headed for a severe sell-off…” “…foreigners might dump U.S. holdings.” ” …it would erode U.S. living standards below what they would be by making imported goods more expensive.”

Folks, I really do not believe this to be a veiled threat. I firmly believe China is going to exercise a controlled dumping of U.S. dollars. When a new power comes on the scene it is quite normal for the fresh power to flex its muscle and to show its superiority.

“Hi David, good article.” “VAE VICTUS”-Woe to the vanquished. Brennus leader of the Celts demanded a ransom from Rome, to be paid in gold. The Romans complained directly to Brennus that the measures were counterfeit, upon which Brennus drew his sword and threw it on the scales, exclaiming “vae victus!”, for the conquered have no rights.” “VAE VICTUS, AMERICANUM!! And bring out more gold.”

Sean M.

Read the following below and wag your tail.

“An investment adviser halted withdrawals Tuesday, prompting unfounded fears that the credit crunch had started to touch money-market funds. But problems in the subprime mortgage market continue to take their toll on small lenders.”

Yeah. Right. How do you like those “unfounded” fears that the credit crunch has started to touch money market funds?” We haven’t even seen the beginning of what all this financial mortgage crisis will obliterate. But gold remains strong and is getting only stronger.

“The Nymex metals market was the lone bright point Friday. Gold recovered from its losses of a day earlier as investors rushed back to that traditional haven amid the uncertainty in other markets.” ‘The market is starting to look at gold and silver as a place to maintain some value…”

Gold Letter, Inc. reviews gold, silver, uranium and other resource stocks under valued and poised to rise in this time of increased demand for all resources. Natural resources and related contrarian stocks will only escalate in value as the world continues to experience unprecedented population growth. Gold Letter’s 10 best performing stocks are up over 2,000% and GL’s top 55 performing stocks are up over 500%. Close to 90% of all Gold Letter’s recommendations since inception in January, 2003 are up over 250%. GL charts are computer generated and updated every hour while markets are open.

http://www.kitco.com/ind/vaughn/aug202007.html

Iran arrests ’separatists’ in oil-rich province

Iran arrests ’separatists’ in oil-rich province

AFP

August 22, 2007

TEHRAN –  Iran has arrested several members of a “separatist group” in its oil-rich western province of Khuzestan, and seized a stash of weapons from their hideout, Iranian media reported Wednesday. “Over recent days, members of a separatist group were arrested in Khuzestan,” the Mehr news agency cited a statement from the intelligence ministry as saying.

“They were arrested after a tip-off from the public. In searches of their hideout, a substantial number of military weapons were found,” it added.

There were no details provided about how many people had been arrested, or who they were.

“The aim of this separatist group was to create division and also to propagate religious sectarian division,” the statement said.

The restive province of Khuzestan borders Iraq, and is home to a substantial Arab community that includes both Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

The provincial capital, Ahvaz, was the scene of deadly attacks in October 2005 and January 2006, which Iran blamed on elements linked to Britain, whose forces are stationed in the region around the Iraqi city of Basra, over the border.

Earlier this month, the intelligence ministry said it had foiled a rebel plan to carry out a “terrorist act” in the oil-rich border province.

Iran regularly accuses archfoe the United States and its Western allies of being behind unrest in its sensitive border provinces, many of which are home to ethnic and religious minorities.

Neocons, theocons, Demcons, excons, and future cons

                    The Anti-Empire Report
Read this or George W. Bush will be president the rest of your life
                                          July 9, 2007
                                       by William Blum
                                  www.killinghope.org

Neocons, theocons, Demcons, excons, and future cons
Who do you think said this on June 20?   a)Rudy Giuliani; b)Hillary Clinton; c)George Bush; d)Mitt Romney;
or e)Barack Obama?

“The American military has done its job. Look what they accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They gave the Iraqis a chance for free and fair elections. They gave the Iraqi government the chance to begin to demonstrate that it understood its responsibilities to make the hard political decisions necessary to give the people of Iraq a better future. So the American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions which are important for their own people.”[1]

Right, it was the woman who wants to be president because … because she wants to be president … because she thinks it would be nice to be president … no other reason, no burning cause, no heartfelt desire for basic change in American society or to make a better world … she just thinks it would be nice, even great, to be president. And keep the American Empire in business, its routine generating of horror and misery being no problem; she wouldn’t want to be known as the president that hastened the decline of the empire.

And she spoke the above words at the “Take Back America” conference; she was speaking to liberals, committed liberal Democrats. She didn’t have to cater to them with any flag-waving pro-war rhetoric; they wanted to hear anti-war rhetoric (and she of course gave them a bit of that as well out of the other side of her mouth), so we can assume that this is how she really feels, if indeed the woman feels anything.

Think of why you are opposed to the war. Is it not largely because of all the unspeakable suffering brought down upon the heads and souls of the poor people of Iraq by the American military? Hillary Clinton couldn’t care less about that, literally. She thinks the American military has “succeeded”. Has she ever unequivocally labeled the war “illegal” or “immoral”? I used to think that Tony Blair was a member of the right wing or conservative wing of the British Labour Party. I finally realized one day that that was an incorrect description of his ideology. Blair is a conservative, a bloody Tory. How he wound up in the Labour Party is a matter I haven’t studied. Hillary Clinton, however, I’ve long known is a conservative; going back to at least the 1980s, while the wife of the Arkansas governor, she strongly supported the death squad torturers known as the Contras, who were the empire’s proxy army in Nicaragua.[2]

Now we hear from America’s venerable conservative magazine, William Buckley’s “National Review”, an editorial by Bruce Bartlett, policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan; treasury official under President George H.W. Bush; a fellow at two of the leading conservative think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute; you get the picture. Bartlett tells his readers that it’s almost certain that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. So what to do? Support the most conservative Democrat. He writes: “To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative.”[3]

We also hear from America’s premier magazine for the corporate wealthy, “Fortune”, whose recent cover features a picture of Clinton and the headline: “Business Loves Hillary”.[4]

Do those in love with the idea of a woman president care about such things? Have they never heard of Margaret Thatcher, who tried her best to cripple the UK’s marvelous National Health Service, amongst a hundred other reactionary policies? Most of Clinton’s supporters would love to see the end of the Iraqi daily horror and so they presumably will also ignore Ted Koppel, the newsman of impeccable establishment credentials, who reported recently that he was told by someone who had held a senior position at the Pentagon and occasionally briefs Hillary Clinton on Gulf area matters, that she expects US troops to still be in Iraq at the end of her first term and even at the end of her second term.[5]
The eternal struggle between the good guys and the bad guys
The United States and its wholly owned subsidiary, NATO, regularly drop bombs on Afghanistan which kill varying amounts of terrorists (or “terrorists”, also known as civilians, also known as women and children). They do this rather often, against people utterly defenseless against aerial attack. In the first half of this year, US/NATO forces killed more people than the Taliban and others opposed to the Western occupation did.[6] This was immediately followed by a reported 133 additional bombing victims in the first week of July.[7]

US/NATO spokespersons tell us that these unfortunate accidents happen because the enemy is deliberately putting civilians in harm’s way to provoke a backlash against the foreign forces. We are told at times that the enemy had located themselves in the same building as the victims, using them as “human shields”.[8] Therefore, it would seem, the enemy somehow knows in advance that a particular building is about to be bombed and they rush a bunch of civilians to the spot before the bombs begin to fall. Or it’s a place where civilians normally live and, finding out that the building is about to be bombed, the enemy rushes a group of their own people to the place so they can die with the civilians. Or, what appears to be much more likely, the enemy doesn’t know of the bombing in advance, but then the civilians would have to always be there; i.e., they live there; they may even be the wives and children of the enemy. Is there no limit to the evil cleverness and the clever evilness of this foe?

Western officials also tell us that the enemy deliberately attacks from civilian areas, even hoping to draw fire to drive a wedge between average Afghans and international troops.[9] Presumably the insurgents are attacking nearby Western military installations or troop concentrations. This raises the question: Why are the Western forces building installations and/or concentrating troops near civilian areas, deliberately putting civilians in harm’s way?

US/NATO military leaders argue that any comparison of casualties caused by Western forces and by the Taliban is fundamentally unfair because there is a clear moral distinction to be made between accidental deaths resulting from combat operations and deliberate killings of innocents by militants. “No [Western] soldier ever wakes up in the morning with the intention of harming any Afghan citizen,” said Maj. John Thomas, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. “If that does inadvertently happen, it is deeply, deeply regretted.”[10]

Is that not comforting language? Can any right-thinking, sensitive person fail to see who the good guys are?

During its many bombings from Vietnam to Iraq, Washington has repeatedly told the world that the resulting civilian deaths were accidental and very much “regretted”. But if you go out and drop powerful bombs over a populated area, and then learn that there have been a number of “unintended” casualties, and then the next day drop more bombs and learn again that there were “unintended” casualties, and then the next day you bomb again … at what point do you lose the right to say that the deaths were “unintended”?

During the US/NATO 78-day bombing of Serbia in 1999, which killed many civilians, a Belgrade office building — which housed political parties, TV and radio stations, 100 private companies, and more — was bombed. But before the missiles were fired into this building, NATO planners spelled out the risks: “Casualty Estimate 50-100 Government/Party employees. Unintended Civ Casualty Est: 250 — Apts in expected blast radius.”[11] The planners were saying that about 250 civilians living in nearby apartment buildings might be killed in the bombing, in addition to 50 to 100 government and political party employees, likewise innocent of any crime calling for execution. So what do we have here? We have grown men telling each other: We’ll do A, and we think that B may well be the result. But even if B does in fact result, we’re saying beforehand — as we’ll insist afterward — that it was unintended.

It was actually worse than this. As I’ve detailed elsewhere, the main purpose of the Serbian bombings — admitted to by NATO officials — was to make life so difficult for the public that support of the government of Slobodan Milosevic would be undermined.[12] This, in fact, is the classic definition of “terrorism”, as used by the FBI and the United Nations: The use or threat of violence against a civilian population to induce the government to change certain policies.

Another example of how “the enemy” can’t be trusted to act as nice as god-fearing regular Americans … “Defense officials said they believe at least 22 — and possibly as many as 50 — former Guantánamo detainees have returned to the battlefield to fight against the United States and its allies.”[13] The Defense Department has at times used the possibility of this happening as an argument against releasing detainees or closing Guantánamo.

But is it imaginable, not to mention likely, that after three, four or five years in the hell on earth known as Guantánamo, even detainees not disposed to terrorist violence — and many of them were picked up for reasons having nothing to do with terrorist violence — left with a deep-seated hatred of their jailors and a desire for revenge?
Don’t believe anything until it’s been officially denied.
Those of you who’ve been reading my musings over the years know that the bombing of PanAm flight 103 in December 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which took the lives of 270 people, has been a major interest of mine. When The Black Book of The American Empire is written someday there should be a mention of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a Libyan who has spent the last six years in prison charged with the Lockerbie bombing. I and many others, including a number in establishment legal positions, have been arguing for years that the evidence against Megrahi is very thin and unpersuasive. Now a court in Scotland has agreed and has ordered a new appeal for Megrahi. I and other so-called “conspiracy theorists” have been vindicated, although Megrahi is not yet free.

Briefly, the key international political facts are these: For well over a year after the bombing, the US and the UK insisted that Iran, Syria, and a Palestinian group had been behind the bombing, which was widely regarded as an act of revenge for the US shooting down an Iranian passenger plane over the Persian Gulf in July 1988, killing 290 people. (An act the US calls an accident, but which came about because of deliberate American intrusion into the Iran-Iraq war on the side of Iraq.)  

Stamp issued by Iran to commemorate the
shooting down of Iranian airliner flight 655
by USS Vincennes , July 1988
________________________________

Then the buildup to the US invasion of Iraq came along in 1990 (how quickly do nations change from allies to enemies on the empire’s chessboard) and the support of Iran and Syria was desired for the operation. Suddenly, in October 1990, the US declared that it was Libya — the Arab state least supportive of the US build-up to the Gulf War and the sanctions imposed against Iraq — that was behind the bombing after all. Megrahi and another Libyan were fingered.[14]

The Scottish Court’s recent ruling, as logical and justified as it is, is still a great surprise. When it comes to anything associated with the War on Terrorism, the UK and the US are not particularly noted for logic or justice. So what might be the reason they’re doing, or allowing, “the right thing” for a change? Could it be that Iran will now be charged with being the instigator and paymaster for the crime and that this will be used to hammer them into submission concerning nuclear power and weapons? Or justify an American attack? But then of course the United States would have to explain why it falsely accused Libya and allowed, and pushed for, an innocent man to be sent to prison for life. A very interesting dilemma. It would be great entertainment to hear George W. Bush trying to explain that one. (Cheney would just refuse to discuss the matter, saying it’s “classified”. Or tell the questioner to go fuck himself.) The dilemma is further heightened by the fact that it was the administration of George Bush Senior which made the accusation against Libya. His secretary of defense at the time was a gentleman named Richard B. Cheney.
A marriage made in heaven
Former White House counsel Harriet Miers once called George W. Bush the most brilliant man she has ever known.[15] She’s now no longer alone in her bizarre little padded cell. On June 10, during the president’s visit to Albania — arguably the most backward country in all of Europe, today as well as when it was a Soviet satellite — the joyous townspeople of Fushe Kruje yelled “Bushie! Bushie!” and Albania’s prime minister gushed over the “greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times.”

This was reported by Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, and prompted a letter from a reader, which said in part: “Regarding Eugene Robinson’s June 12 op-ed … It was inevitable that somebody would sneer at the Albanian reception of President Bush … [Robinson] patronizingly writing of ‘a wonderful reverse-Borat moment’. … U.S. support for Albania following the collapse of communism explains Albanian gratitude to the United States.”[16]

Ah yes, the wonderful collapse of communism and the even more wonderful birth of democracy, freedom, capitalism, and widespread poverty and deprivation in the former Soviet dominion. What actually happened is that the first election in “Free Albania”, in March 1991, resulted in an overwhelming endorsement of the Communists. And what did the United States then do? Of course, it proceeded to undertake a campaign to overthrow this very same elected government. The previous year in neighboring Bulgaria, another former Soviet satellite, the communists also won the election. And the United States overthrew them as well.[17] These were the first of the non-violent overthrows of governments of the former Soviet Union and its satellites directed and financed by the United States.[18]
“The one duty we owe to history is to rewrite it.” Oscar Wilde
Some international stories never come to an end, relegated to the history books and stamped finis. They keep popping up in the news of the day, each time igniting controversy and confusion anew. The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan in World War 2 is a prime example. On June 30, the Japanese Defense Minister, Fumio Kyuma, declared in a speech: “I understand that the bombing ended the war, and I think that it couldn’t be helped.”[19] Kyuma’s remark offended survivors of the bombings in Japan who believe the use of atomic weapons was excessive, and he soon had to resign. At the same time, it has undoubtedly pleased many American nationalists who insist that the United States had no choice but to use the bomb, and who resent the stigma the world has long attached to the US for being the first to employ such a dreadful weapon of mass destruction.

Kyuma was correct about one thing. The bombings did end the war. But that’s only because the United States wanted the war to end that way, partly so they could see how well the bomb worked, but principally to put the Soviet Union on notice that after the war, if the Russkis put up too much resistance to American imperialistic ambitions, this was a sample of what they could expect. Kyuma could just as correctly have said: “I understand that if the United States had accepted Japan’s peace overtures the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bomb.” As opposed to the American nationalists’ version of history, this version is well documented and established.[20]
Correction
The first item of the last edition of this report included a couple of examples of stereotypical cold war anti-communist thinking. I did not realize it at the time but the examples are derived in large part from an excellent book by Michael Parenti, “The Anti-Communist Impulse”, published in 1969, which should have been credited.
NOTES
[1] Speaking at the “Take Back America” conference, organized by the Campaign for America’s Future, June 20, 2007, Washington, DC; this excerpt can be heard at democracynow.org/ – June 21.

[2] Roger Morris, former member of the National Security Council, “Partners in Power” (1996), p.415

[3] National Review Online, May 1, 2007

[4] Fortune magazine, July 9, 2007

[5] National Public Radio, “All Things Considered”, June 11, 2007

[6] Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2007

[7] Washington Post, July 8, 2007, p.16

[8] Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2007

[9] Chicago Tribune, July 8, 2007, article by Kim Barker

[10] Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2007

[11] Washington Post, April 22, 1999, p.18

[12] William Blum, Rogue State, p.103-4

[13] Washington Post, June 22, 2007, p.3

[14] For an account of the case written in 2001, see: http://members.aol.com/bblum6/panam.htm. For a slightly updated account written in 2004, see: William Blum, Freeing the World to Death, chapter 10

[15] Copley News Service, October 10, 2005

[16] Washington Post, June 16, 2007, letter from Andrew Apostolou

[17] http://members.aol.com/bblum6/bulgaria.htm

[18] For further discussion of this, see Freeing the World to Death, p.166-71

[19] Associated Press, July 2, 2007

[20] http://members.aol.com/essays6/abomb.htm

William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
       Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at <www.killinghope.org >
Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website at “essays”.
      To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to <bblum6@aol.com> with “add” in the subject line. I’d like your name and city in the message, but that’s optional. I ask for your city only in case I’ll be speaking in your area.
      Or put “remove” in the subject line to do the opposite.
      Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission.  I’d appreciate it if the website were mentioned.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer47.htm

Turkish PM calls on army to stay out of politics

Turkish PM calls on army to stay out of politics

ANKARA: Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has called on the army to stay out of politics following months of tensions between the Islamist-rooted government and the staunchly secular military.

“Let us not mix the TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) up with politics. Let it stay in its place. Because all our institutions conduct their duties in line with what is set out in the constitution”, Erdogan told Kanal D late on Monday.

“If you draw them into politics, then why are we here?” Erdogan asked in the interview. “For us the armed forces are sacred. They have a special place.” The army, which has ousted four governments in the past 50 years, has voiced its opposition to Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul becoming president because of his Islamist past. Gul won most votes in the first round of a presidential election in parliament on Monday but fell just short of securing the two-thirds majority needed to become the European Union-applicant country’s next head of state immediately. The secular elite, which includes army generals, blocked Gul’s first bid to become president in April, triggering a parliamentary election in July which was intended to defuse the crisis over the presidency. reuters