LENIN'S BALANCE AND INSIGHT : BEAT THE BUSHES BUT WATCH FOR THE SWAMP, by Andrew Taylor, Oct 30, 2009

The more powerful enemy,” Lenin said, “can be conquered only by exerting the utmost effort, and by thoroughly, carefully, attentively, and skillfully taking advantage of every, even the smallest, “rift” among the enemies, … among the various groups of bourgeoisie …, by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally may be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable, and conditional. Those who do not understand this, do not understand even a particle of Marxism.”

AND

"Social-chauvinism and opportunism are the same in their political essence; class collaboration, repudiation of the proletarian dictatorship, rejection of revolutionary action, obeisance to bourgeois legality, non-confidence in the proletariat, and confidence in the bourgeoisie. The political ideas are identical, and so is the political content of their tactics. Social-chauvinism is the direct continuation and consummation of Millerandism, Bernsteinism, and British liberal-labour policies, their sum, their total, their highest achievement. "

In Pakistan, Clinton fails to charm Professional Women:By Huma Yusuf , Christian Science Monitor global news blog, Oct 30, 2009

In Pakistan, Clinton fails to charm Professional Women:By Huma Yusuf , Christian Science Monitor global news blog, Oct 30, 2009


http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/10/30/in-pakistan-clinton-fails-to-charm-professional-women/

ISLAMABAD – Addressing a roomful of Pakistani women Friday afternoon at the National Art Gallery here, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made every effort to connect with her audience. But after enduring multiple security checks and waiting over four hours for the secretary to arrive, most women left unimpressed.

“Frankly, it was a waste of my time,” said one assistant professor from the Fatima Jinnah Women’s University (FJWU) in Rawalpindi, who asked not to be named. “[Clinton] wasn’t interested in hearing the about the layman’s problems or the reality of our daily lives.”

That caused many, such as Shazia Marri, the information minister of the Sindh province, to leave the meeting frustrated that their concerns were not heard. “Emancipated women in Pakistan have a clear point of view that did not come across,” she said.

The local media has described Mrs. Clinton’s three-day visit to Pakistan as a “charm offensive.” Her town-hall meeting with female activists, lawyers, journalists, parliamentarians, and businesswomen from across the country was meant to conclude the trip on a high note, particularly in the wake of Wednesday’s car bomb attack on a Peshawar market that killed 117 – mostly women.

In her interactions with Pakistani women, Clinton tried to engage in personal-level diplomacy. Explaining how the US would support democracy in Pakistan, Clinton discussed the importance of “habits of the heart,” such as tolerance and compromise, which could be ingrained within families and by teachers in schools. Addressing concerns about aid delivery, she described how the US government organized a team of female Pakistani-American doctors to treat internally displaced women. And in a rare digression, she reminisced about an exchange of family photographs with the late former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Clinton attempted a relaxed manner, with an aside about having a Pakistani roommate. But her jokes about visiting Pakistan and not discussing security for once failed to win over the crowd. Pakistani women – much like the country’s youth and professionals, whom Clinton met in similar meetings in Lahore on Thursday – seemed more keen on discussing security issues. The questions that met with most applause from the audience were on US drone attacks, alleged American designs on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and whether the US intended to pressure India to settle the long-standing Kashmir conflict.

Several audience members said Clinton’s answers did little to allay their concerns or skepticism. “The responses were as expected,” added Ameena Saiyid, the managing director of Oxford University Press.

Many women, including Zainab Azmat, a resident of the South Waziristan tribal agency, currently lecturing at Peshawar’s Institute of Management Sciences (IMS), complained that Clinton’s answers were too “reserved.” Ms. Azmat added that the intention of the meeting was unclear. “Why were we here? What did they want us to ask? What did they want to convey to us?” she asked.

It didn’t help that many women objected to the format of the discussion, which was moderated by five female news anchors. Before Clinton arrived, one State Department representative explained that the format aimed to imitate the popular talk show, ‘The View.’

But it seems the women were not all convinced that the show is what the meeting most closely mirrored. “This meeting was as micromanaged as our country’s internal affairs,” quipped the FJWU professor. “[The Americans] were trying to retain the upper-hand in the conversation.”

Fariel Salahiddin, a financial consultant with Ministry of Information, still found the visit valuable, however. It is “admirable that Clinton is making this effort to reach out,” she said.

THE BELLS ARE TOLLING FOR THE DOLLAR, Reflections by Fidel, Friday, October 30, 2009

The Empire has ruled the world through economy and deceit rather than force. At the end of WWII, it had attained the privilege of minting the convertible hard currency, the monopoly over the nuclear weapon and the possession of most of the gold in the world while it was the only large-scale producer of manufactured equipment, consumer goods, food and services worldwide. However, there was a limit to the printing of paper money: the gold standard at a regular price of 35 dollars a troy ounce. This was the situation for over 25 years, until August 15, 1971, when an executive order issued by President Richard Nixon led the United States to unilaterally call off that international arrangement thus defrauding the world. I’ll never tire out of repeating it. That was how it threw on the world economy its military buildup and war adventure expenses, especially the Vietnam War, which according to conservative estimates cost no less than 200 billion dollars and the lives of over 45 thousand American youths.

More bombs were dropped on that small Third World nation than were used in the latest world war. Millions of people were killed or maimed. The suspension of the gold standard turned the US dollar into a hard currency that could be printed at will by the US government without the backing of a regular value.

The Treasury bonds and bills continued to circulate as convertible hard currencies. The states’ reserves continued feeding on that paper money that, on the one hand, could be used to buy raw material, properties, goods and services anywhere in the world while on the other favored American exports with respect to the rest of the economies of the world. Both, politicians and academics repeatedly mention the true cost of that genocidal war admirably portrayed in Oliver Stone’s film. Sometimes in their calculations people tend to overlook the fact that the millions of dollars of 1971 are not the same as the millions of dollars of 2009.

One million of dollars today, when the price of gold –a metal whose value has been the most stable through centuries-- exceeds one thousand dollars a troy ounce, is worth about 30 times its value when Nixon suspended the convertibility. Therefore, 200 billion dollars of 1971 amount to 6 trillion dollars of 2009. If this is not taken into account the new generations will not have an idea of the imperialist barbarity.

Likewise, when reference is made to the 20 billion dollars invested in Europe after the end of WWII --through the Marshall Plan to rebuild and control the economies of the main European powers which had the necessary labor force and technical culture for a fast development of production and services—people usually do not take notice of the fact that the real value of what the empire invested at that time amounts to 600 billion dollars at the current international value. They don’t realize that 20 billion dollars would hardly cover today the construction of three large oil refineries with a capacity of 800 thousand barrels of gasoline a day, in addition to other oil by-products.

The consumer societies and the absurd and whimsical waste of energy and natural resources that today threaten the survival of the human species could not be explained in such a short historical period without knowing the irresponsible way in which developed capitalism, in its highest stage, has governed the destiny of the world.

Such amazing waste explains why the debt of the two most industrialized countries in the world, the United States of America and Japan, amounts to approximately 20 trillion dollars.

Of course, the US economy is reaching an annual Gross Domestic Product of 15 trillion dollars. The capitalist crises are cyclical as the history of the system unequivocally shows but this time it is something else: it is a structural crisis, as Professor Jorge Giordani, Venezuelan minister of Planning and Development, explained last night to Walter Martinez in his Telesur program.

The press dispatches released today, Friday October 9, bring some additional irrefutable data. An AFP dispatch from Washington indicates that the US budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 amounts to 1.4 trillion dollars, that is, 9.9% of the GDP, “something unseen since 1945, after World War II,” it added.

In the year 2007, the deficit had already been one-third of that figure, and high deficits are expected in 2010, 2011 and 2012. That huge deficit has practically been mandated by the US Congress and government to bailout that country’s large banks, to prevent unemployment from rising beyond 10% and to release the United States from the recession. It is only natural that if they inundate the nation with dollars, the big stores will sell more goods, the industries will increase their outputs, less people will lose their housing, the wave of unemployment will subside and the Wall Street stocks will see their value grow. It was the classical way to solve the crisis. But, the world will never be the same. Paul Krugman, a celebrated Nobel laureate in Economics, has just said that international commerce has sustained its worst fall, worse even than that of the Great Depression, and expressed his doubts of a speedy recovery.

It is not possible to also inundate the world with dollars and believe that the paper money without a gold backing can retain its value. Other sounder economies have emerged. The US dollar is no longer the hard currency reserve of every state; actually, those who still have it wish to distance from it albeit trying, as much as possible, to prevent its devaluation before they can get rid of it.

The European Union Euro, the Chinese Yuan, the Suisse Franc, the Japanese Yen –despite this country’s debt—and even the Pound Sterling and other hard currencies have come to take the place of the US dollar in international commerce. Once again the metal gold is becoming a significant international reserve currency.

This is not a whimsical personal opinion, nor do I wish to slander that currency.

Another Nobel laureate in Economics, Joseph Stiglitz, has said --according to a press dispatch-- that it is most likely that the green bill continues to be downcast, that politicians do not determine the exchange rates neither do speeches. He said this on October 6, at the IMF and World Bank Joint Annual Assembly held in Istanbul. The meeting was received with smashed shop windows and fires caused by Molotov cocktails.

Other news related that the European countries were afraid of the negative effect of the dollar’s weakness with respect to the Euro and its consequences for the European exports. The US secretary of the Treasury said that his country was interested in a strong dollar. Stiglitz laughed at the official statement and said --according to EFE-- that in the case of the United States the money has been wasted and the reason has been the multimillion bailout of banks and wars like that of Afghanistan. Again according this press agency, the Nobel Laureate insisted that instead of investing 700 billion to help the bankers, the US could have used part of that money to help the developing countries and this would have encouraged global demand.

The president of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, had sounded an alarm a few days before and warned that the dollar would not be able to endlessly preserve its status as the reserve currency.

An outstanding professor of Economics at Harvard University, Kenneth Rogoff, has said that the next big financial crisis will be that of the public deficits.

The World Bank has stated that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had showed that the world central banks had accumulated fewer dollars during the second semester of 2009 than at any other time during the past ten years while increasing the amount of Euros.

On October 6, the AFP published that gold had reached the record figure of 1,045 dollars for one ounce due to the weakening of the dollar and fear of inflation.

The London daily Independent reported that a group of oil-producing countries were considering the replacement of the dollar in commercial transactions by a pool of hard currencies including the Yen, Yuan, Euro, gold and a future common currency.

The news, either leaked or deduced with impressive logic, was denied by some of the countries supposedly interested in that protective measure. They do not want it to collapse, but they neither want to continue to accumulate a currency that has lost 30 times its value in less than three decades.

I cannot avoid mentioning a dispatch from EFE, that cannot be accused of being anti-imperialist press agency and that in the present circumstances carries especially interesting opinions:

“Experts in economics and finances agreed in New York today that the worst crisis since the Great Depression has resulted in a less significant role for that country in world economy.”

“Recession has changed the way in which the world looks at the US. Now our country is less significant than before and this is something we should admit, said David Rubenstein, president and founder of the Carlyle Group, the largest risk capital firm in the world, in his address to the World Business Forum.”

“The financial world will be less focused in the US. (…) New York will never again be the financial capital of the world, a role it will have to share with London, Shanghai, Dubai, Sao Paulo and other cities, he said.”

“…he described the problems the US will face once it leaves behind a major recession that will still be around for a couple of months.”

“…the huge public debt, inflation, unemployment, the dollar’s loss of value as a reserve hard currency, the energy prices…”

“The government should reduce public expenses to cope with the debt problem and do something it does not like much: raise taxes.”

“Columbia University economist and special UN advisor Jeffrey Sachs has agreed with Rubenstein that the US economic and financial predominance is fading.”

“We have left a system focused on the United States for one which is multilateral…”

“…twenty years of irresponsibility, first by Bill Clinton’s administration and then by George W. Bush’s, caved in to Wall Street pressures…”

“…the banks negotiated with ‘toxic assets’ to obtain easy money, Sachs explained.”

“What is important now is to recognize the unprecedented challenge of achieving a sustainable economic development that is consistent with the basic rules of physics and biology on this planet…”

On the other hand, the reports coming directly from our delegation in Bangkok, capital of Thailand, were absolutely not encouraging:

Our ministry of Foreign Affairs literally reported that “what was under discussion was basically whether or not to ratify the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities among the industrial nations and the so-called emerging economies, essentially China, Brazil, India and South Africa, and the underdeveloped countries.

“China, Brazil, India, South Africa, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan and the ALBA countries are the most active. In general, most nations in the Group of 77 are holding correct and firm positions.

“The figures of carbon emissions reductions under discussion do not correspond with those scientifically calculated to keep the rise in temperature under 2 degrees Celsius, 25-40%. At the moment, the negotiation is moving around a reduction of 11-18%.

“The United States is not making any real effort but accepting just a 4% reduction with respect to the year 1990.”

In the morning of this Friday 9, the world woke up to the news that “the good Obama” of the riddle –as explained by Bolivarian President Hugo Chavez Frias at the United Nations—had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I do not always agree with the positions of that institution but I must admit that, at this moment it was, in my view, a positive action. It compensates the setback sustained by Obama in Copenhagen when Rio de Janeiro, and not Chicago, was chosen as the venue of the 2016 Olympics, a choice that elicited heated attacks from his right-wing adversaries.

Many will feel that he has yet to earn the right to receive such an award. Rather than a prize to the President of the United States, we choose to see that decision as a criticism of the genocidal policy pursued by more than a few presidents of that country who took that nation to the crossroads where it is today. That is, as a call for peace and for the pursuit of solutions conducive to the survival of the species.

Fidel Castro Ruz

Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A., By DEXTER FILKINS, MARK MAZZETTI and JAMES RISEN, New York Times (Excerpts), 29 Oct. 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.

The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.

The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America’s increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The C.I.A.’s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban.

More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.

“If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves,” said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.

Ahmed Wali Karzai said in an interview that he cooperated with American civilian and military officials, but did not engage in the drug trade and did not receive payments from the C.I.A.

The relationship between Mr. Karzai and the C.I.A. is wide ranging, several American officials said. He helps the C.I.A. operate a paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, that is used for raids against suspected insurgents and terrorists. On at least one occasion, the strike force has been accused of mounting an unauthorized operation against an official of the Afghan government, the officials said.

Mr. Karzai is also paid for allowing the C.I.A. and American Special Operations troops to rent a large compound outside the city — the former home of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban’s founder. The same compound is also the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. “He’s our landlord,” a senior American official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Karzai also helps the C.I.A. communicate with and sometimes meet with Afghans loyal to the Taliban. Mr. Karzai’s role as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban is now regarded as valuable by those who support working with Mr. Karzai, as the Obama administration is placing a greater focus on encouraging Taliban leaders to change sides.

A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment for this article.

...


Dexter Filkins reported from Kabul, and Mark Mazzetti and James Risen from Washington. Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington.

U.N. Votes To End U.S. Embargo Against Cuba 187-3, RTT, Oct 29, 09

The United Nations General Assembly-UNGA, has called on the Obama administration to end Washington's Cold War-era trade embargo against Cuba that has cost the communist nation's economy tens-of-billions of dollars over the years.

The overwhelming non-binding vote, condemning the 47-year-old embargo, was backed by 187 countries, ranging from Latin American neighbors of Cuba to members of the European Union besides other close U.S. allies. Only Israel and tiny Palau supported the United States, while Micronesia and the Marshall Islands abstained.

This was the 19th time in a row the U.N. voted to adopt the symbolic measure, which has become an annual ritual to show the global disapproval of America's hardline stance toward the small, communist island, and the first time since Barack Obama became President.

The number of countries opposing the U.S. measure has grown steadily since 1992, when 59 countries voted in favor of the resolution. The figure was 179 in 2004, 182 in 2005, 184 in 2007, and 185 last year.

However, the Obama administration, which came to power earlier this year, in a departure from the previous ones, eased the financial and travel restrictions on Americans with relatives on the island.

Addressing the assembly, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla termed the U.S. embargo as a "massive, flagrant and systemic" violation of human rights and an "act of arrogance" that has cost the Cuban economy tens-of-billions of dollars over the years and deprived children of needed medical care.

It continues to be an absurd policy which causes suffering (to the Cuban people), and in the Geneva Convention of 1948 it was described as a genocide act and it is ethically unacceptable, he added.

Both Venezuela and Argentina welcomed the condemnation by the UNGA of the U.S. embargo against Cuba. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez thanked "the world for this moral support with whom we advance step by step in an attempt to destroy the embargo."

Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana was reported as saying that his government "expects the U.S. to respect the strong opinion of the international community" on lifting its embargo against Cuba.

"We have voted against the embargo years ago. We consider the embargo to be completely out of place and time," Taiana added.

Countering the charges, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations said it is wrong to blame U.S. sanctions for deprivation in Cuba.

Calling the Cuban statement hostile and reminiscent of the Cold War era, she said the Obama administration is committed to trying to write a new chapter in relations with Cuba by engaging the Havana government.

U.S. Defends Cuba Policy

The U.S. says it will not lift the embargo, imposed nearly five decades ago at the height of the Cold War when Cuba was a Soviet ally, until the small communist island accepts some political, economic, and social changes.

Wednesday, the Obama administration defended the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba saying it has altered its predecessors policy by opening dialogue with Cuba on several fronts, but reiterated it has no intention to reward Havana by lifting sanctions until it acts on human rights violations.

...

Brzezinski Says Ignore US Public on Afghanistan, in: Let's Try Democracy, By David Swanson, 29 October 2009

http://www.davidswanson.org/node/2266

Zbigniew Brzezinski spoke at a RAND Corporation forum on Afghanistan in a Senate caucus room on Thursday. His first statement was that "Withdrawal from Afghanistan in the near future is a No-No." He offered no reasons why and suggested that his other statements would be more controversial.

During a subsequent question-and-answer period, I asked Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, why he had provided no rationale for his first rule. I asked him why such a rule should be considered uncontroversial when approximately half of Americans oppose the occupation of Afghanistan. I asked how he would respond to the arguments of a US diplomat who just resigned in protest.

Brzezinski's response would make Dick "So?" Cheney proud. He responded that it was understandable but that a lot of people are weak and don't know any better, and they should be ignored. But, he urged that those supporters of war who would criticize the president if he pulled out should be feared and followed.

These are paraphrases. For exact wording get the video. Here are my notes on Brzezinski's remarks:

1. "Withdrawal from Afghanistan in the near future is a No-No." He gives no reason, just takes it for granted everyone agrees. Says #2 will be more controversial.
2. Don't repeat what Soviet Union did. Don't Americanize the American occupation of Afghanistan.
3. Make sure NATO and anybody else willing is there with the Americans, esply Islamic troops.
The Three Fundamental Noes.

To Do:
1. Deny safe haven to al Qaeda. That is THE objective. Don't build a nation.
2. Be sensitive to ethnic diversity while we're building a nation.
3. Do what USSR did in crushing democratic movements in places like Poland. Hire natives to fight.
4. We may have to put in more troops. Control cities and roads. Undertake counterinsurgency.
5. Pursue accomodations with Taleban and Talebanlike formations.
6. Keep economic assistance flowing rather than abandoning Afghanistan as we did after the counterinsurgency against the USSR. Seduce the population.
7. Involve the Europeans in funding elimination of narcotic crops.
8. Be more respectful of Pakistani strategic interests in Afghanistan.
9. Engage China and Iran with their interests in Afghanistan.
10. Build a North-South pipeline to the Indian Ocean.
11. Rename it The Vietghanipipelinistan Quagmire of Freedom.
OK I made up #11.

Hillary Unplugged Live in Pakistan, By Andrew Taylor, Oct 28, 2009

Mrs Clinton effused about how she adored Pakistani food and fashion,“I love the food, I wear shalwar kameezes,” she told to Dawn TV, “I mean, give me a seekh kebab and some gow, and I’ll be a happy person.”


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton landed in Pakistan yesterday to launch a goodwill blitz on behalf of US-Pakistan relations. Mrs. Clinton is anxious to channel new positive cultural connections to the Pakistan people to augment America’s relationship with the beleguered nation, beyond the usual real news that has made Pakistanis hostile toward being on the receiving end of America's "concerns".

Mrs. Clinton’s three-day mission will be an extraordinary showcase of her skills as an ambassador of American good will towards the afflicted nation. Using a post-surgical metaphor, Clinton said she is realistic about the scope of the problem: “There’s just a lot of scar tissue,” she conceded. She also noted disapprovingly that,“It doesn’t help when we do something like this, and people question our motives.”

Mrs. Clinton’s media show began in Washington before leaving on her three-day tour by providing interviews with Pakistani TV shows, in which she spoke warmly and enthusiastically of Pakistanis, stating that some of her best friends were Pakistanis - going back many years to her university days. She effused about how she adored Pakistani food and fashion.

“I love the food, I wear shalwar kameezes,” she told to Dawn TV, “I mean, give me a seekh kebab and some gow, and I’ll be a happy person.”

She pointed out to the hostile and suspicious recipients of Obama's "Af-Pak" policy that she and Bill used to get her Pakistani intimates to bring Pakistani food to the White House.

Her message to the Pakistani people is decidedly personal and pastoral: that they have real friends in the administration including President Obama, who she said also had warm ties to Pakistanis.


“We can do much more through the media to counter some of the myths and misperceptions,” said the Secretary of State. She suggested that the Obama government should use the Internet and cellphones to bypass negative media and get its message of warmth to the Pakistani people.

Mrs Clinton characterized her visit's purpose on the way to Pakistan in the plane:“People remember when we try to connect,” she said.