This text will be replaced by the player
Friday, July 23, 2010
Big Storm to Hit Gulf of Mexico ... All Oil Relief Operations Will Be Suspended ... Cap Will Stay On, Unattended
by Washington's Blog
As oil industry expert Bob Cavnar writes:
The National Hurricane Center this morning forecasted a 70% chance that Invest 97, now just south of the Bahamas, would form into a tropical cyclone. Destination? The central Gulf. In his McBriefing yesterday, Kent Wells announced that instead of running and cementing the last liner into relief well 1, they had already run in a storm packer to temporarily seal the well and were preparing to shut down. Here's the storm track by computer model.
In other words, BP is shutting down its drilling of the relief wells until the storm passes.
Cavnar points out that this could be awhile:
A hurricane, or even a tropical storm, will cause 10 days to 2 weeks of delay. Yesterday, [Admiral Thad] Allen said that the decision whether to open the capping stack or leave it closed was currently being discussed. Without monitoring, there is fear of a major leak causing serious damage to the wellhead endangering future containment efforts. He also said that they would leave an ROV boat as last boat out, since it can travel faster than the service vessels.
I agree with what Cavnar as written previously: instead of doing the "well integrity test", BP might have been able to kill the well by now if it hadn't suspended drilling of the relief wells so that it could run that test.
It is not yet clear whether the storm will turn into a hurricane. As I warned on May 14th, there is a possibility that a hurricane could spread the oil inland.
The Weather Channel notes today:
"The oil movement will be strongly impacted not only by what the storm track is but how large the storm is," says Luettich. "A small storm that has very strong winds could have a very large impact. But also a weaker storm that is larger will also have an impact."
***
"A hurricane on Katrina's path would push a lot of stuff onto shore, given where a lot of the oil is right now," says Luettich.
A storm that moves up the west coast of Florida may be the best case scenario for the oil slick, if there is such a thing. It may push the oil farther out to sea and help disperse it more.
***
What happens when the hurricane moves inland? It's not just coastal residents affected by the massive storms. The remnants can affect communities hundreds of miles inland.
***
As the hurricane moves inland it will pick up particles of oil. That will become part of the sea spray that moves inland with the storm. According to Chris Zappa, an oceanographer at Columbia University, we're likely to see a light coating of oil on electrical wires and trees. He likens it to standing in sea spray for a while. You'll walk away with a light sheen of salt water on your skin. Instead of salt water, it will feel like oil water.
However, this would be a very localized effect. For example if a hurricane made landfall in Alabama, the coastal communities would feel the oily sea spray. However, it wouldn't make it to Montgomery or even Dothan, which are both more than hour inland.
Thinking about a sheen of oil on your skin may give you the heebie jeebies, but it won't hurt you. Experts at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) say the amount of oil that would be carried inland in water vapor would be less than normal levels of pollution.
I don't believe anyone has studied the potential effect of a hurricane on the large amounts of methane released by the oil gusher, and the millions of gallons of Corexit sprayed into the Gulf. While some blithely dismiss any danger and others are giving apocalyptic visions, I don't think anyone really knows how bad it could be.
The government has just announced that the cap will stay on - unattended - throughout the storm. Specifically, National Incident Commander Thad Allen just announced:
The decision has been made to leave the cap on, even if the well is unattended.
I hope and pray that the well does not blow out while no one is looking.
Hurricanes can also tear up the seafloor, but probably only in shallow waters. As pointed out in a study conducted by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory at Stennis Space Center, Mississippi (via Science Daily):
Based on unique measurements taken directly under a powerful hurricane, the new study's calculations are the first to show that hurricanes propel underwater currents with enough oomph to dig up the seabed, potentially creating underwater mudslides and damaging pipes or other equipment resting on the bottom.
***
Based on unique measurements taken directly under a powerful hurricane, the new study's calculations are the first to show that hurricanes propel underwater currents with enough oomph to dig up the seabed, potentially creating underwater mudslides and damaging pipes or other equipment resting on the bottom.
***
The research team found that strong currents along the sea floor pushed and pulled on the seabed, scouring its surface. "Usually you only see this in very shallow water, where waves break on the beach, stirring up sand," says David Wang, co-author of the study. "In hurricanes, the much bigger waves can stir up the seafloor all the way down to 90 meters [300 feet]."
***
Hurricanes considerably weaker than Ivan, which was category-4, could still tear up the seafloor, causing significant damage as deep as 90 meters.
But even thought the ill-fated well is too deep to suffer a direct hit by a hurricane, there are many things which could still go wrong.
Global Research
As oil industry expert Bob Cavnar writes:
The National Hurricane Center this morning forecasted a 70% chance that Invest 97, now just south of the Bahamas, would form into a tropical cyclone. Destination? The central Gulf. In his McBriefing yesterday, Kent Wells announced that instead of running and cementing the last liner into relief well 1, they had already run in a storm packer to temporarily seal the well and were preparing to shut down. Here's the storm track by computer model.
In other words, BP is shutting down its drilling of the relief wells until the storm passes.
Cavnar points out that this could be awhile:
A hurricane, or even a tropical storm, will cause 10 days to 2 weeks of delay. Yesterday, [Admiral Thad] Allen said that the decision whether to open the capping stack or leave it closed was currently being discussed. Without monitoring, there is fear of a major leak causing serious damage to the wellhead endangering future containment efforts. He also said that they would leave an ROV boat as last boat out, since it can travel faster than the service vessels.
I agree with what Cavnar as written previously: instead of doing the "well integrity test", BP might have been able to kill the well by now if it hadn't suspended drilling of the relief wells so that it could run that test.
It is not yet clear whether the storm will turn into a hurricane. As I warned on May 14th, there is a possibility that a hurricane could spread the oil inland.
The Weather Channel notes today:
"The oil movement will be strongly impacted not only by what the storm track is but how large the storm is," says Luettich. "A small storm that has very strong winds could have a very large impact. But also a weaker storm that is larger will also have an impact."
***
"A hurricane on Katrina's path would push a lot of stuff onto shore, given where a lot of the oil is right now," says Luettich.
A storm that moves up the west coast of Florida may be the best case scenario for the oil slick, if there is such a thing. It may push the oil farther out to sea and help disperse it more.
***
What happens when the hurricane moves inland? It's not just coastal residents affected by the massive storms. The remnants can affect communities hundreds of miles inland.
***
As the hurricane moves inland it will pick up particles of oil. That will become part of the sea spray that moves inland with the storm. According to Chris Zappa, an oceanographer at Columbia University, we're likely to see a light coating of oil on electrical wires and trees. He likens it to standing in sea spray for a while. You'll walk away with a light sheen of salt water on your skin. Instead of salt water, it will feel like oil water.
However, this would be a very localized effect. For example if a hurricane made landfall in Alabama, the coastal communities would feel the oily sea spray. However, it wouldn't make it to Montgomery or even Dothan, which are both more than hour inland.
Thinking about a sheen of oil on your skin may give you the heebie jeebies, but it won't hurt you. Experts at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) say the amount of oil that would be carried inland in water vapor would be less than normal levels of pollution.
I don't believe anyone has studied the potential effect of a hurricane on the large amounts of methane released by the oil gusher, and the millions of gallons of Corexit sprayed into the Gulf. While some blithely dismiss any danger and others are giving apocalyptic visions, I don't think anyone really knows how bad it could be.
The government has just announced that the cap will stay on - unattended - throughout the storm. Specifically, National Incident Commander Thad Allen just announced:
The decision has been made to leave the cap on, even if the well is unattended.
I hope and pray that the well does not blow out while no one is looking.
Hurricanes can also tear up the seafloor, but probably only in shallow waters. As pointed out in a study conducted by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory at Stennis Space Center, Mississippi (via Science Daily):
Based on unique measurements taken directly under a powerful hurricane, the new study's calculations are the first to show that hurricanes propel underwater currents with enough oomph to dig up the seabed, potentially creating underwater mudslides and damaging pipes or other equipment resting on the bottom.
***
Based on unique measurements taken directly under a powerful hurricane, the new study's calculations are the first to show that hurricanes propel underwater currents with enough oomph to dig up the seabed, potentially creating underwater mudslides and damaging pipes or other equipment resting on the bottom.
***
The research team found that strong currents along the sea floor pushed and pulled on the seabed, scouring its surface. "Usually you only see this in very shallow water, where waves break on the beach, stirring up sand," says David Wang, co-author of the study. "In hurricanes, the much bigger waves can stir up the seafloor all the way down to 90 meters [300 feet]."
***
Hurricanes considerably weaker than Ivan, which was category-4, could still tear up the seafloor, causing significant damage as deep as 90 meters.
But even thought the ill-fated well is too deep to suffer a direct hit by a hurricane, there are many things which could still go wrong.
Global Research
'Israel needs war to exist'
A former Israeli lecturer has said the entity depends on wars for its existence, warning that the hostility only invites disaster for Tel Aviv.
It is only constant confrontations and standoffs which keep the Israeli society from falling apart, said Ilan Pappe, who used to work as a senior lecturer at the University of Haifa in northern Israel.
He also said that the current Israeli government is the result of a colonialist movement. Colonialists, who did not have a country anywhere across the world, were obliged to remain here.
The Israeli regime, therefore, is constantly seeking to ignite new wars; against Lebanon and maybe soon against Iran, but future wars would not succeed and would instead lead the entity into disaster, he added, speaking to the German daily Junge Welt last month.
Israel waged two wars against Lebanon in 2000 and 2006, with the second round of offensives killing about 1,200 Lebanese, most of them civilians. The forces, however, withdrew on both occasions without having achieved any of their objectives.
Tel Aviv, meanwhile, has variously threatened to target Iran, accusing Tehran of leading nuclear activities for military purposes.
An outspoken anti-Zionist, Pappe taught at the university from 1984 to 2007, when he was effectively fired from the university after his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine hit the shelves. The publication states that Israel's formation was pre-planned and based on rendering Palestinians homeless.
Pappe says he was dismissed from the scene of post-graduate education in Israel following practical obstructions put in the way of his educational activities.
Israel was formed in 1948, when it militarily invaded vast expanses of the Arab territories. It was subsequently forced to return much of what was captured, but went on to occupy and later annex more portions of land in 1967.
My social studies led to me adopting my anti-Zionist positions, Pappe told the daily, saying that the challenges he was faced with mounted to a point when he could not hold any seminars.
He also favored a one-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which he said, would actually equal the end of Zionism.
The Israeli society is by no means a uniform one, Pappe said. He also that Jews who have come from Arab lands live in far worse conditions than the European migrants, Pappe said.
Source
It is only constant confrontations and standoffs which keep the Israeli society from falling apart, said Ilan Pappe, who used to work as a senior lecturer at the University of Haifa in northern Israel.
He also said that the current Israeli government is the result of a colonialist movement. Colonialists, who did not have a country anywhere across the world, were obliged to remain here.
The Israeli regime, therefore, is constantly seeking to ignite new wars; against Lebanon and maybe soon against Iran, but future wars would not succeed and would instead lead the entity into disaster, he added, speaking to the German daily Junge Welt last month.
Israel waged two wars against Lebanon in 2000 and 2006, with the second round of offensives killing about 1,200 Lebanese, most of them civilians. The forces, however, withdrew on both occasions without having achieved any of their objectives.
Tel Aviv, meanwhile, has variously threatened to target Iran, accusing Tehran of leading nuclear activities for military purposes.
An outspoken anti-Zionist, Pappe taught at the university from 1984 to 2007, when he was effectively fired from the university after his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine hit the shelves. The publication states that Israel's formation was pre-planned and based on rendering Palestinians homeless.
Pappe says he was dismissed from the scene of post-graduate education in Israel following practical obstructions put in the way of his educational activities.
Israel was formed in 1948, when it militarily invaded vast expanses of the Arab territories. It was subsequently forced to return much of what was captured, but went on to occupy and later annex more portions of land in 1967.
My social studies led to me adopting my anti-Zionist positions, Pappe told the daily, saying that the challenges he was faced with mounted to a point when he could not hold any seminars.
He also favored a one-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which he said, would actually equal the end of Zionism.
The Israeli society is by no means a uniform one, Pappe said. He also that Jews who have come from Arab lands live in far worse conditions than the European migrants, Pappe said.
Source
Thursday, July 22, 2010
No charge for police officer over G20 protest death
A riot squad officer, filmed shoving a man to the ground during violent G20 protests in London last year, will not face criminal charges over his death, Britain's chief prosecutor said on Thursday.
Ian Tomlinson, 47, died after being caught up in a demonstration outside the Bank of England where confrontations between anti-capitalist groups, environmental campaigners and riot police had broken out.
The newspaper-seller was walking slowly with his hands in his pockets away from a line of riot squad officers when one moved forward, hit him on the leg with a baton and then pushed him forcefully in the back.
Tomlinson collapsed shortly afterwards and died.
"After a thorough and careful review of the evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service has decided there is no realistic prospect of a conviction against the police officer in question for any offences ... and no charges should be brought against him," said the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer.
He said conflicting medical evidence meant that a prosecution case could not be proved beyond doubt. The lawyer for Tomlinson's family said it was a disgraceful decision.
Tomlinson had been on his way home and had not been taking part in the protests which were held as leaders of the G20 nations gathered in the capital to discuss the global financial crisis.
ASSAULT
Starmer said Tomlinson had posed no threat to the police officer or his colleagues and that there was sufficient evidence to show that his actions had constituted an assault.
But he said a "sharp disagreement" between medical experts meant a successful prosecution for manslaughter was unlikely.
An initial post-mortem recorded that Tomlinson had died from a heart attack, but two further checks showed the cause of death to be internal bleeding.
"The CPS would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between Mr Tomlinson's death and the alleged assault upon him," Starmer said.
He said other offences were considered but ruled out, including a charge of common assault which Starmer admitted could not be brought as there was a six-month time limit.
"The CPS are clearly admitting that the police officer assaulted our dad -- why is there no charge?" Paul King, Tomlinson's son told reporters.
"We feel very let down, very disappointed. Another copper has been let off. You ain't heard the last of us yet."
The family lawyer Jules Carey said they would consider appealing against the "disgraceful" decision.
"There needs to be an inquiry into exactly why nothing's happened today and what the failure is," he said.
The Metropolitan Police said it was waiting for the Independent Police Complaints Commission's (IPCC) report before deciding whether the officer should face misconduct proceedings.
In March, another riot squad officer Sergeant Delroy Smellie, who was captured on video footage hitting a woman with his metal baton during protests the day after Tomlinson's death, was cleared of assault after the judge accepted he had been acting in self-defence.
Hundreds of complaints were made about excessive violence by some officers during the G20 demonstrations on April 1 and 2, and the police's tactics have been widely condemned in reports by politicians, the IPCC and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Source
Ian Tomlinson, 47, died after being caught up in a demonstration outside the Bank of England where confrontations between anti-capitalist groups, environmental campaigners and riot police had broken out.
The newspaper-seller was walking slowly with his hands in his pockets away from a line of riot squad officers when one moved forward, hit him on the leg with a baton and then pushed him forcefully in the back.
Tomlinson collapsed shortly afterwards and died.
"After a thorough and careful review of the evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service has decided there is no realistic prospect of a conviction against the police officer in question for any offences ... and no charges should be brought against him," said the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer.
He said conflicting medical evidence meant that a prosecution case could not be proved beyond doubt. The lawyer for Tomlinson's family said it was a disgraceful decision.
Tomlinson had been on his way home and had not been taking part in the protests which were held as leaders of the G20 nations gathered in the capital to discuss the global financial crisis.
ASSAULT
Starmer said Tomlinson had posed no threat to the police officer or his colleagues and that there was sufficient evidence to show that his actions had constituted an assault.
But he said a "sharp disagreement" between medical experts meant a successful prosecution for manslaughter was unlikely.
An initial post-mortem recorded that Tomlinson had died from a heart attack, but two further checks showed the cause of death to be internal bleeding.
"The CPS would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between Mr Tomlinson's death and the alleged assault upon him," Starmer said.
He said other offences were considered but ruled out, including a charge of common assault which Starmer admitted could not be brought as there was a six-month time limit.
"The CPS are clearly admitting that the police officer assaulted our dad -- why is there no charge?" Paul King, Tomlinson's son told reporters.
"We feel very let down, very disappointed. Another copper has been let off. You ain't heard the last of us yet."
The family lawyer Jules Carey said they would consider appealing against the "disgraceful" decision.
"There needs to be an inquiry into exactly why nothing's happened today and what the failure is," he said.
The Metropolitan Police said it was waiting for the Independent Police Complaints Commission's (IPCC) report before deciding whether the officer should face misconduct proceedings.
In March, another riot squad officer Sergeant Delroy Smellie, who was captured on video footage hitting a woman with his metal baton during protests the day after Tomlinson's death, was cleared of assault after the judge accepted he had been acting in self-defence.
Hundreds of complaints were made about excessive violence by some officers during the G20 demonstrations on April 1 and 2, and the police's tactics have been widely condemned in reports by politicians, the IPCC and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Source
'People Are Getting Sick,' Cleanup Worker Says
Former Oil Spill Worker Says He Had No Protective Gear
GULF OF MEXICO, La. -- The work to cleanup the millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf can be hazardous, and one spill worker told WDSU that he has witnessed illness, injury and unsafe working conditions.
Jarred Bourgeois is the engineer on a crew ship that carries personnel and supplies to workers out in the Gulf, a far different job than he had when the spill first started.
"I was working for another company. I just started over here. I was working on the oil spill, pulling the booms. Very tedious. Very boring. Not the best job in the world, but it pays the bills," Bourgeois said.
Bourgeois was assigned to a boat with three others, working directly with oil removal. He said they were on the water for weeks.
"We were out there about 40-something days," he said.
At the time, he worked near the Deepwater Horizon site where the crude oil was the thickest and the freshest. He said conditions on the water were particularly hazardous then.
"It's a lot thicker then you see on TV. It's a lot worse. It's everywhere. The smell is outrageous. People (were) getting sick all the time. They don't really tell you what it is, why people are getting sick, but they were MedEvac-ing people left and right," Bourgeois said. "I have personally dealt with headaches and feeling bad. It's a lot different then what you see sitting at the house."
When asked whether it was fumes from the oil or the dispersants that were making people sick, Bourgeois said he couldn't be sure.
"I wasn't too much around the dispersants to tell the difference, but it could have been one or the other," he said.
From late April to mid-July, the federal government reports 571 incidents of illness and 757 injuries related to oil spill containment and cleanup work. The most common problems, according to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, were minor accidents or heat-related illnesses.
But the official log of medical events includes numerous reports of dizziness, faintings and concerns about exposure to chemical vapors, with dozens of workers taken to the hospital for evaluation or treatment.
"I don't know what the oil can do to you and all. I know we worked out there for 30-something days before they even let us know that we had to have protective equipment," Bourgeois said. "And when they did let us know, it was pretty extensive equipment, respirators, and we worked 30-something days with nothing."
Bourgeois said there were a lot of unknowns when it comes to working directly with the oil. He called conditions at his old job unsettling, as the company scrambled to deal with an unprecedented spill.
Source
GULF OF MEXICO, La. -- The work to cleanup the millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf can be hazardous, and one spill worker told WDSU that he has witnessed illness, injury and unsafe working conditions.
Jarred Bourgeois is the engineer on a crew ship that carries personnel and supplies to workers out in the Gulf, a far different job than he had when the spill first started.
"I was working for another company. I just started over here. I was working on the oil spill, pulling the booms. Very tedious. Very boring. Not the best job in the world, but it pays the bills," Bourgeois said.
Bourgeois was assigned to a boat with three others, working directly with oil removal. He said they were on the water for weeks.
"We were out there about 40-something days," he said.
At the time, he worked near the Deepwater Horizon site where the crude oil was the thickest and the freshest. He said conditions on the water were particularly hazardous then.
"It's a lot thicker then you see on TV. It's a lot worse. It's everywhere. The smell is outrageous. People (were) getting sick all the time. They don't really tell you what it is, why people are getting sick, but they were MedEvac-ing people left and right," Bourgeois said. "I have personally dealt with headaches and feeling bad. It's a lot different then what you see sitting at the house."
When asked whether it was fumes from the oil or the dispersants that were making people sick, Bourgeois said he couldn't be sure.
"I wasn't too much around the dispersants to tell the difference, but it could have been one or the other," he said.
From late April to mid-July, the federal government reports 571 incidents of illness and 757 injuries related to oil spill containment and cleanup work. The most common problems, according to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, were minor accidents or heat-related illnesses.
But the official log of medical events includes numerous reports of dizziness, faintings and concerns about exposure to chemical vapors, with dozens of workers taken to the hospital for evaluation or treatment.
"I don't know what the oil can do to you and all. I know we worked out there for 30-something days before they even let us know that we had to have protective equipment," Bourgeois said. "And when they did let us know, it was pretty extensive equipment, respirators, and we worked 30-something days with nothing."
Bourgeois said there were a lot of unknowns when it comes to working directly with the oil. He called conditions at his old job unsettling, as the company scrambled to deal with an unprecedented spill.
Source
America's Undeclared War on Pakistan
Clinton's Paradoxistan: Too Good to Be True
by James Gundun
It was a relatively flawless performance. With Washington stuck in its Afghan review and Pakistan’s cities under bombardment, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton touched down in a hostile Pakistan in October 2009 on a self-proclaimed propaganda mission. Greeted with bombs from Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and treated with hard questions on the freshly signed Kerry-Lugar bill, Clinton left a foul impression after deploying her grating “do more” mantra on al-Qaeda’s leadership.
July 2010 would be different. No major explosions signaled her arrival, which Clinton attributed to Pakistan’s military success in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Drones have lost their controversial potency and US aid, always a third rail, grows increasingly palatable to an economically struggling Pakistan. Clinton beamed throughout her photo-ops and Pakistani leadership reflected the shine. She even managed to accuse someone within the government of knowing Osama bin Laden’s location without drawing attention, having landed in South Korea by the time her Fox News interview aired.
From Islamabad Clinton triumphantly landed in Kabul for what she hailed as a “turning point” in Afghanistan: a six hour international conference that pledged $20 billion in aid and declared Afghan security forces would assume command of all provinces by 2014. The choreography went off as planned, which of course is the point when the show is too good to be true.
Like a bridge, errors in one part of the span expose other flaws and threaten to bring the entire structure down with it.
Though Clinton undoubtedly improved upon her last visit, charm can only beautify an ugly reality so much. Promises of aid were automatically linked to a military invasion of North Waziristan rather than Pakistan’s current strategy of negotiating with its hosts, Sirajuddin and Jalaluddin Haqqani. Clinton explicitly ruled out a dialogue with them, tagging US aid as conditional.
Already fearful of military servitude, it doesn’t help that US and foreign aid lacks the track record to inspire confidence among average Pakistanis. The Kerry-Lugar bill, President Barack Obama’s celebrated achievement in civilian aid, stalled in Congress due to fears of misappropriated funds; a trade bill designed for the FATA similarly gridlocked. Pakistan had to jump through hoops to receive long-delayed reimbursement from the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), while the Friends of Pakistan have delivered only $725 million of $5.6 billion pledged in April 2009.
So when Clinton announced “$500 million in several new development programs,” funded in part by the Kerry-Lugar bill, the many strings attached cast ominous shadows over her smiles. The attitude of Pakistan’s press was straightforward: “Given Pakistan's current plight, any assistance from the outside world has to be welcomed. The recognition by the US that policy cannot be focused only on security issues is also a step in the right direction.”
Whatever the strings and grudges, Pakistan simply isn’t in the position to turn down assistance.
But Islamabad’s endgame is roughly the opposite of Washington’s. While the White House believes its efficiency in delivering military and humanitarian aid determines success in Afghanistan, Pakistanis base success on the effectiveness of Pakistan’s leaders. These aren’t the same goals. America needs Pakistan to improve and thus assist in stabilizing Afghanistan so that it can remain in the region, but Pakistan wants to utilize US aid to regain sovereignty of the state and ultimately rid South Asia of America’s military presence.
“The hugely positive tone adopted by the Secretary of State will of course have brought smiles to the faces of Pakistani leaders,” wrote The News International. “But they must recognize that the relationship between Pakistan and the US is a complex one. Many believe it is in fact the root cause behind our militant problem and that this cannot be solved until the US withdraws from the region.”
Clinton may have missed this not-so-subtle difference, but the chances of her merely ignoring it are higher. While admitting that Pakistani’s negative perception of America “wouldn’t change overnight,” she raved about its new environment - “I could feel a change” - and Pakistani officials who, “really believe that the people are understanding that the United States wants to be a real partner to us and that it's not just killing terrorists.”
Pew Research Center listed Pakistani approval at 17% in June 2010, up 1% from last year but down from 19% in 2008.The News International warned upon her exit, “There is a very real risk that the latest aid offer will be seen as a kind of bribe intended to ensure that the fighting continues. The effort to persuade people that the war against militancy is Pakistan's has so far been a faltering one.”
The Dawn analyzed “Hillary’s iron fist in a velvet glove,” while a less generous Nation concluded, “It is time we broke off from the present US stranglehold that is suffocating Pakistan to death.”
But Clinton’s most telltale contradiction: passing the blame off to George Bush. "Of course there is a legacy of suspicion that we inherited,” she argues, when Pakistan is actually one of the Obama administration's favorite words - a “whole of government” problem. Anti-US sentiment has ran high for over 20 years and spans multiple presidencies, many staffed with the same officials that fill Obama’s cabinet and National Security Council. Pew still has Bill Clinton clocked at 22% in 1999.
Pakistan’s fate has always be decided by how the foreign chips fall, not how they stack up. America may uphold its obligations this time around, it just hasn’t before, and Afghanistan repeats the same story. The Huffington Post digs up the old bones of past “international conferences” and “turning points.”
Paradoxes in Kabul were equally numerous, for instance the massive quantity of foreign aid that may disappear. Karzai called for 50% to funnel through Afghanistan’s ministries by 2012, up from 20%, while dutifully promising to clean up corruption for Western ears. However, the conference followed a report from Integrity Watch Afghanistan that found corruption had doubled between 2006 and 2009. This story never seems to change, whether before or after Karzai's controversial election victory in 2009, and the West’s power to reform this gray area remains suspect.
Reintegration prospects are dwindling too. Reconciliation appears a non-starter in Washington despite its public support for reintegration, a stance that hinders reintegration. On top of UK reports that few Taliban are switching sides, the idea of transferring authority to Afghan forces by 2014 implies that the West still expects to be fighting the Taliban rather than reintegrating it. This tidal wave of uncertainty finally throws the 2014 deadline into upheaval.
When Karzai insisted, "Afghan national security forces will be responsible for all military and law enforcement operations throughout our country by 2014,” he’s asking for the same three years Iraq needed after its surge.
Given that most deadlines in Afghanistan evaporate, history and the present offer no reason to define 2014 as realistic as NATO did. Marjah and Kandahar’s time-lines already protracted. Obama’s 2011 transfer deadline, if not postponed outright, will amount to a symbolic transition of power, and Vice President Joe Biden recently conceded “a couple thousand troops” is the likeliest withdrawal option. Clinton desperately tried to counter the slippery slope by arguing, “the transition process may be able to begin by the end of this year."
Yet believing in 2014, let alone Clinton’s new claim, makes no sense in a country where projects rarely start or finish on time.
The last few days in Afghanistan brought no surprises. The White House in particular is facing renewed criticism from the US Congress and media to clarify the war’s objectives, and Clinton’s tour was its answer. But instead of leveling with the US, Afghan, and Pakistani peoples and shunning unrealistic expectations, Washington rolled out more smoke and mirrors to conjure the image of success.
Being illusions, the deadlines are likely to vanish one by one and ultimately fail to break the West’s cycle of mission drift in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Global Research
by James Gundun
It was a relatively flawless performance. With Washington stuck in its Afghan review and Pakistan’s cities under bombardment, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton touched down in a hostile Pakistan in October 2009 on a self-proclaimed propaganda mission. Greeted with bombs from Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and treated with hard questions on the freshly signed Kerry-Lugar bill, Clinton left a foul impression after deploying her grating “do more” mantra on al-Qaeda’s leadership.
July 2010 would be different. No major explosions signaled her arrival, which Clinton attributed to Pakistan’s military success in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Drones have lost their controversial potency and US aid, always a third rail, grows increasingly palatable to an economically struggling Pakistan. Clinton beamed throughout her photo-ops and Pakistani leadership reflected the shine. She even managed to accuse someone within the government of knowing Osama bin Laden’s location without drawing attention, having landed in South Korea by the time her Fox News interview aired.
From Islamabad Clinton triumphantly landed in Kabul for what she hailed as a “turning point” in Afghanistan: a six hour international conference that pledged $20 billion in aid and declared Afghan security forces would assume command of all provinces by 2014. The choreography went off as planned, which of course is the point when the show is too good to be true.
Like a bridge, errors in one part of the span expose other flaws and threaten to bring the entire structure down with it.
Though Clinton undoubtedly improved upon her last visit, charm can only beautify an ugly reality so much. Promises of aid were automatically linked to a military invasion of North Waziristan rather than Pakistan’s current strategy of negotiating with its hosts, Sirajuddin and Jalaluddin Haqqani. Clinton explicitly ruled out a dialogue with them, tagging US aid as conditional.
Already fearful of military servitude, it doesn’t help that US and foreign aid lacks the track record to inspire confidence among average Pakistanis. The Kerry-Lugar bill, President Barack Obama’s celebrated achievement in civilian aid, stalled in Congress due to fears of misappropriated funds; a trade bill designed for the FATA similarly gridlocked. Pakistan had to jump through hoops to receive long-delayed reimbursement from the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), while the Friends of Pakistan have delivered only $725 million of $5.6 billion pledged in April 2009.
So when Clinton announced “$500 million in several new development programs,” funded in part by the Kerry-Lugar bill, the many strings attached cast ominous shadows over her smiles. The attitude of Pakistan’s press was straightforward: “Given Pakistan's current plight, any assistance from the outside world has to be welcomed. The recognition by the US that policy cannot be focused only on security issues is also a step in the right direction.”
Whatever the strings and grudges, Pakistan simply isn’t in the position to turn down assistance.
But Islamabad’s endgame is roughly the opposite of Washington’s. While the White House believes its efficiency in delivering military and humanitarian aid determines success in Afghanistan, Pakistanis base success on the effectiveness of Pakistan’s leaders. These aren’t the same goals. America needs Pakistan to improve and thus assist in stabilizing Afghanistan so that it can remain in the region, but Pakistan wants to utilize US aid to regain sovereignty of the state and ultimately rid South Asia of America’s military presence.
“The hugely positive tone adopted by the Secretary of State will of course have brought smiles to the faces of Pakistani leaders,” wrote The News International. “But they must recognize that the relationship between Pakistan and the US is a complex one. Many believe it is in fact the root cause behind our militant problem and that this cannot be solved until the US withdraws from the region.”
Clinton may have missed this not-so-subtle difference, but the chances of her merely ignoring it are higher. While admitting that Pakistani’s negative perception of America “wouldn’t change overnight,” she raved about its new environment - “I could feel a change” - and Pakistani officials who, “really believe that the people are understanding that the United States wants to be a real partner to us and that it's not just killing terrorists.”
Pew Research Center listed Pakistani approval at 17% in June 2010, up 1% from last year but down from 19% in 2008.The News International warned upon her exit, “There is a very real risk that the latest aid offer will be seen as a kind of bribe intended to ensure that the fighting continues. The effort to persuade people that the war against militancy is Pakistan's has so far been a faltering one.”
The Dawn analyzed “Hillary’s iron fist in a velvet glove,” while a less generous Nation concluded, “It is time we broke off from the present US stranglehold that is suffocating Pakistan to death.”
But Clinton’s most telltale contradiction: passing the blame off to George Bush. "Of course there is a legacy of suspicion that we inherited,” she argues, when Pakistan is actually one of the Obama administration's favorite words - a “whole of government” problem. Anti-US sentiment has ran high for over 20 years and spans multiple presidencies, many staffed with the same officials that fill Obama’s cabinet and National Security Council. Pew still has Bill Clinton clocked at 22% in 1999.
Pakistan’s fate has always be decided by how the foreign chips fall, not how they stack up. America may uphold its obligations this time around, it just hasn’t before, and Afghanistan repeats the same story. The Huffington Post digs up the old bones of past “international conferences” and “turning points.”
Paradoxes in Kabul were equally numerous, for instance the massive quantity of foreign aid that may disappear. Karzai called for 50% to funnel through Afghanistan’s ministries by 2012, up from 20%, while dutifully promising to clean up corruption for Western ears. However, the conference followed a report from Integrity Watch Afghanistan that found corruption had doubled between 2006 and 2009. This story never seems to change, whether before or after Karzai's controversial election victory in 2009, and the West’s power to reform this gray area remains suspect.
Reintegration prospects are dwindling too. Reconciliation appears a non-starter in Washington despite its public support for reintegration, a stance that hinders reintegration. On top of UK reports that few Taliban are switching sides, the idea of transferring authority to Afghan forces by 2014 implies that the West still expects to be fighting the Taliban rather than reintegrating it. This tidal wave of uncertainty finally throws the 2014 deadline into upheaval.
When Karzai insisted, "Afghan national security forces will be responsible for all military and law enforcement operations throughout our country by 2014,” he’s asking for the same three years Iraq needed after its surge.
Given that most deadlines in Afghanistan evaporate, history and the present offer no reason to define 2014 as realistic as NATO did. Marjah and Kandahar’s time-lines already protracted. Obama’s 2011 transfer deadline, if not postponed outright, will amount to a symbolic transition of power, and Vice President Joe Biden recently conceded “a couple thousand troops” is the likeliest withdrawal option. Clinton desperately tried to counter the slippery slope by arguing, “the transition process may be able to begin by the end of this year."
Yet believing in 2014, let alone Clinton’s new claim, makes no sense in a country where projects rarely start or finish on time.
The last few days in Afghanistan brought no surprises. The White House in particular is facing renewed criticism from the US Congress and media to clarify the war’s objectives, and Clinton’s tour was its answer. But instead of leveling with the US, Afghan, and Pakistani peoples and shunning unrealistic expectations, Washington rolled out more smoke and mirrors to conjure the image of success.
Being illusions, the deadlines are likely to vanish one by one and ultimately fail to break the West’s cycle of mission drift in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Global Research
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
UN Chief Dilly-Dallying on Panel to Probe Israeli Killings?
By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 21, 2010 (IPS) - When the Security Council condemned the killings by Israeli military forces of nine Turkish civilians on a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza last May, it also released a presidential statement "taking note" of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s proposal for an international investigation of the incident.
But nearly two months later there are no signs of the proposed "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation."
After an earlier devastating three-week Israeli military offensive against Gaza in late 2008 - which left more than 1,400 people dead and over 5,000 injured - the Human Rights Council in Geneva appointed a three member fact- finding mission, led by Judge Richard Goldstone.
That panel submitted a blistering report accusing both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes.
Norman Finkelstein, a scholar and political scientist, told IPS that after publication of the Goldstone report, Israeli leaders complained that the report was making it difficult for Israel to launch another war.
"Unfortunately, Ban Ki-moon did not implement the recommendations of the Goldstone report [to pursue war crimes charges], but instead has prolonged the proceedings," he added. "Now he is procrastinating on the formation of a committee to investigate Israeli crimes on the Mavi Marmara [the Turkish ship attacked by Israeli military forces]."
The outcome is easily foreseeable, said Finkelstein, author of several books, including 'This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion’.
Israel is now preparing for an attack on Lebanon, he warned. "It will be an assault next to which previous ones pale by comparison. And it is because Ban Ki-moon has been delinquent in his responsibilities that Israel will be able to launch this monstrous attack," he predicted.
When the death and destruction come in Lebanon, Ban should be held culpable, said Finkelstein.
"The secretary-general is obviously under pressure from the United States and other Western states not to conduct an international probe unless he has the concurrence of Israel," says one diplomatic source.
"If the Israelis do agree," he told IPS, "which I very much doubt, it will be a watered down investigation, not a 'full investigation’ the Security Council agreed on."
Last month an Israeli-appointed self-investigating panel absolved the military forces of any criminality in the flotilla attack.
Richard Falk, professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, told IPS: "It seems abundantly clear the Government of Israel is hostile to international criticisms, or to any effort to assess contested Israeli behaviour by way of a U.N. initiative."
Falk said Israel refused to cooperate with the Goldstone fact-finding mission, and then defamed Goldstone and repudiated the report once released - despite scrupulous efforts to produce a balanced assessment of alleged violations of humanitarian law by both Israelis and Palestinians.
"The failure so far by Ban Ki Moon to appoint forthwith such an investigative panel contrasts with the response to a similar call in relation to investigate allegations of Sri Lanka’s criminality in suppressing the Tamil insurgency," said Falk, currently U.N. special rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
"It should be obvious that only an international panel has any prospect of achieving a comprehensive, objective, and credible assessment of the flotilla incident, which directly involves a highly contested use of Israeli state power to attack a humanitarian mission on international waters," he added.
Asked if the secretary-general is still awaiting "permission" from Israel before naming the panel of inquiry, U.N. spokesperson Martin Nesirky told reporters Monday that Ban is very actively pursuing his proposal. "As you know, he has met [Israeli] Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and has spoken to him on the telephone."
He has also spoken to the Foreign Minister of Turkey, [Ahmet] Davutoglu, about this matter.
"So he is pursuing this very vigorously, and clearly, he does want to push ahead with it. But, as we’ve also mentioned on a number of occasions, you do need those key elements in place before you can actually make it happen," said Nesirky.
Asked who is responsible for the foot-dragging, Turkey or Israel, he said: "Look, it’s not a question of foot dragging; it is a question of making sure that everybody is on the same page, to mix a metaphor."
"It’s not for me to characterise the positions of other countries, or of member states; they can do that themselves," Nesirky said. "All I would say is that the secretary-general is in frequent contact with the parties concerned, and would hope to have a positive response so that he can then push ahead with this commission sooner rather than later."
Naseer H. Aruri, chancellor professor (Emeritus) at the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth, told IPS the proposed international commission "may never see the light of day if recent experience is to prove valid".
In October last year, Israel, the U.S. and western allies succeeded in "postponing" indefinitely the referral of the Goldstone report on the Israeli onslaught on Gaza to the U.N. Human Rights Council for discussion, he said.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that, behind the scenes, Palestinian officials had faced threats that Israel would retaliate by inflicting enormous damage on the beleaguered Palestinian economy.
The same accusations would have been launched against the Palestinian Authority had it not agreed to postpone the discussion of the Goldstone report in the U.N. Human Rights Council.
The flagrant violations of international law by Israel’s armed forces against civilians resulted in similar policy responses from U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. "Both excused Israel, shielded Israel from international scrutiny, and permitted Israel to once again get away with impunity," said Aruri.
Source
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 21, 2010 (IPS) - When the Security Council condemned the killings by Israeli military forces of nine Turkish civilians on a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza last May, it also released a presidential statement "taking note" of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s proposal for an international investigation of the incident.
But nearly two months later there are no signs of the proposed "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation."
After an earlier devastating three-week Israeli military offensive against Gaza in late 2008 - which left more than 1,400 people dead and over 5,000 injured - the Human Rights Council in Geneva appointed a three member fact- finding mission, led by Judge Richard Goldstone.
That panel submitted a blistering report accusing both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes.
Norman Finkelstein, a scholar and political scientist, told IPS that after publication of the Goldstone report, Israeli leaders complained that the report was making it difficult for Israel to launch another war.
"Unfortunately, Ban Ki-moon did not implement the recommendations of the Goldstone report [to pursue war crimes charges], but instead has prolonged the proceedings," he added. "Now he is procrastinating on the formation of a committee to investigate Israeli crimes on the Mavi Marmara [the Turkish ship attacked by Israeli military forces]."
The outcome is easily foreseeable, said Finkelstein, author of several books, including 'This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion’.
Israel is now preparing for an attack on Lebanon, he warned. "It will be an assault next to which previous ones pale by comparison. And it is because Ban Ki-moon has been delinquent in his responsibilities that Israel will be able to launch this monstrous attack," he predicted.
When the death and destruction come in Lebanon, Ban should be held culpable, said Finkelstein.
"The secretary-general is obviously under pressure from the United States and other Western states not to conduct an international probe unless he has the concurrence of Israel," says one diplomatic source.
"If the Israelis do agree," he told IPS, "which I very much doubt, it will be a watered down investigation, not a 'full investigation’ the Security Council agreed on."
Last month an Israeli-appointed self-investigating panel absolved the military forces of any criminality in the flotilla attack.
Richard Falk, professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, told IPS: "It seems abundantly clear the Government of Israel is hostile to international criticisms, or to any effort to assess contested Israeli behaviour by way of a U.N. initiative."
Falk said Israel refused to cooperate with the Goldstone fact-finding mission, and then defamed Goldstone and repudiated the report once released - despite scrupulous efforts to produce a balanced assessment of alleged violations of humanitarian law by both Israelis and Palestinians.
"The failure so far by Ban Ki Moon to appoint forthwith such an investigative panel contrasts with the response to a similar call in relation to investigate allegations of Sri Lanka’s criminality in suppressing the Tamil insurgency," said Falk, currently U.N. special rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
"It should be obvious that only an international panel has any prospect of achieving a comprehensive, objective, and credible assessment of the flotilla incident, which directly involves a highly contested use of Israeli state power to attack a humanitarian mission on international waters," he added.
Asked if the secretary-general is still awaiting "permission" from Israel before naming the panel of inquiry, U.N. spokesperson Martin Nesirky told reporters Monday that Ban is very actively pursuing his proposal. "As you know, he has met [Israeli] Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and has spoken to him on the telephone."
He has also spoken to the Foreign Minister of Turkey, [Ahmet] Davutoglu, about this matter.
"So he is pursuing this very vigorously, and clearly, he does want to push ahead with it. But, as we’ve also mentioned on a number of occasions, you do need those key elements in place before you can actually make it happen," said Nesirky.
Asked who is responsible for the foot-dragging, Turkey or Israel, he said: "Look, it’s not a question of foot dragging; it is a question of making sure that everybody is on the same page, to mix a metaphor."
"It’s not for me to characterise the positions of other countries, or of member states; they can do that themselves," Nesirky said. "All I would say is that the secretary-general is in frequent contact with the parties concerned, and would hope to have a positive response so that he can then push ahead with this commission sooner rather than later."
Naseer H. Aruri, chancellor professor (Emeritus) at the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth, told IPS the proposed international commission "may never see the light of day if recent experience is to prove valid".
In October last year, Israel, the U.S. and western allies succeeded in "postponing" indefinitely the referral of the Goldstone report on the Israeli onslaught on Gaza to the U.N. Human Rights Council for discussion, he said.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that, behind the scenes, Palestinian officials had faced threats that Israel would retaliate by inflicting enormous damage on the beleaguered Palestinian economy.
The same accusations would have been launched against the Palestinian Authority had it not agreed to postpone the discussion of the Goldstone report in the U.N. Human Rights Council.
The flagrant violations of international law by Israel’s armed forces against civilians resulted in similar policy responses from U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. "Both excused Israel, shielded Israel from international scrutiny, and permitted Israel to once again get away with impunity," said Aruri.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)