Friday, February 6, 2009

Russia allows transit of US military supplies

By MIKE ECKEL, Associated Press Writer Mike Eckel, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 11 mins ago

MOSCOW – Russia granted transit rights Friday to non-lethal U.S. military supplies headed to Afghanistan but only after apparently pressuring a former Soviet state to close an air base leased to the Americans.

The signal from Moscow: Russia is willing to help on Afghanistan, but only on the Kremlin's terms.

Kyrgyzstan announced the closure of the Manas air base but American officials suspect that Russia was behind the decision, having long been irritated by the U.S presence in central Asia.

The Russian decision to let U.S. supplies cross its territory opened another route to those through Pakistan now threatened by militant attacks, but U.S. officials were still left scrambling for alternatives to Manas.

Russia wants to open discussions on thorny policy issues that Washington and Moscow have clashed on in recent years — NATO enlargement, missile defense in Europe, a new strategic arms control treaty. More importantly, Russia's expectation is that Washington must go through Moscow where Central Asia is concerned.

Russia may also be showing Washington that its positions aren't immovable — particularly where Afghanistan is concerned. Russia fears Afghanistan is collapsing into anarchy, leading to instability or Islamic radicals migrating northward through Central Asia.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia had agreed days earlier to allow transit of U.S. non-lethal supplies to Afghanistan.

"We are now waiting for the American partners to provide a specific request with a quantity and description of cargo," Lavrov said Friday in remarks broadcast by Vesti-24 TV. "As soon as they do that we will issue relevant permissions."

He and other officials did not say whether the U.S. will be offered air or land transit corridors. Any new transit routes are unlikely to make up for the loss of Manas, home to tanker planes that refuel warplanes flying over Afghanistan as well as airlifts and medical evacuation operations.

The Kremlin last year signed a framework deal with NATO for transit of non-lethal cargo for coalition forces in Afghanistan and has allowed some alliance members, including Germany, France and Spain, to move supplies across its territory.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Igor Lyakin-Frolov said Germany has been using air and land routes and France so far only has used air transit.

Ground routes through Russia would likely cross into Kazakhstan and then Uzbekistan before entering northern Afghanistan.

The U.S. has reached a preliminary deal with Kazakhstan to use its territory and officials have said they are considering resuming military cooperation with Uzbekistan, which neighbors Afghanistan.

That option is problematic for Washington: Uzbekistan kicked U.S. forces out of a base there after sharp U.S. criticism of the country's human rights record and the government's brutal quashing of a 2005 uprising.

Renewing those ties would also open the United States to new accusations it is working with an authoritarian government that tortures its citizens. Uzbekistan has also in the past faced a low-level insurgency from Islamic radicals, though a government crackdown has quelled much of it.

U.S. officials have repeatedly said talks with Kyrgyzstan on the Manas base are still ongoing. U.S. State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid suggested Friday that Kyrgyz officials may be divided over whether to close the base, a source of income for the impoverished nation.

"They've not told us they reached a final decision," Duguid said.

Kyrgyzstan's parliament delayed a vote on the government's decision until next week, and some Kyrgyz officials have indicated they may be willing to discuss the issue with the United States.

But National Security Council chief Adakhan Madumarov said Friday the decision to close the base was final.

"There is no doubt the bill to revoke the basing agreement will be ratified," he said. "The fate of the air base has been sealed."

In a separate development, Tajikistan's president pledged Friday that his government would allow the transit of non-military supplies to coalition troops based in neighboring Afghanistan.

Still, Tajik routes are unlikely to greatly affect U.S. supplies because the mountainous country is hard to traverse by land and it already allows U.S. overflights.

____

Associated Press writers Leila Saralayeva in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, and Olga Tutubalina in Dushanbe, Tajikistan contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_afghanistan

Why Are We Still at War?

Tuesday 03 February 2009

by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

William McKeen sits at the grave of his best friend, Kevin Lucas.

The United States began its war in Afghanistan 88 months ago. "The war on terror" has no sunset clause. As a perpetual emotion machine, it offers to avenge what can never heal and to fix grief that is irreparable.

For the crimes against humanity committed on September 11, 2001, countless others are to follow, with huge conceits about technological "sophistication" and moral superiority. But if we scrape away the concrete of media truisms, we may reach substrata where some poets have dug.

W.H. Auden: "Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return."

Stanley Kunitz: "In a murderous time / the heart breaks and breaks / and lives by breaking."

And from 1965, when another faraway war got its jolt of righteous escalation from Washington's certainty, Richard Farina wrote: "And death will be our darling and fear will be our name." Then as now came the lessons that taught with unfathomable violence once and for all that unauthorized violence must be crushed by superior violence.

The US war effort in Afghanistan owes itself to the enduring "war on terrorism," chasing a holy grail of victory that can never be.

Early into the second year of the Afghanistan war, in November 2002, a retired US Army general, William Odom, appeared on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" program and told viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism."

But the "war on terrorism" rubric - increasingly shortened to the even vaguer "war on terror" - kept holding enormous promise for a warfare state of mind. Early on, the writer Joan Didion saw the blotting of the horizon and said so: "We had seen, most importantly, the insistent use of Sept. 11 to justify the reconception of America's correct role in the world as one of initiating and waging virtually perpetual war."

There, in one sentence, an essayist and novelist had captured the essence of a historical moment that vast numbers of journalists had refused to recognize - or, at least, had refused to publicly acknowledge. Didion put to shame the array of self-important and widely lauded journalists at the likes of The New York Times, The Washington Post, PBS and National Public Radio.

The new US "war on terror" was rhetorically bent on dismissing the concept of peacetime as a fatuous mirage.

Now, in early 2009, we're entering what could be called Endless War 2.0, while the new president's escalation of warfare in Afghanistan makes the rounds of the media trade shows, preening the newest applications of technological might and domestic political acquiescence.

And now, although repression of open debate has greatly dissipated since the first months after 9/11, the narrow range of political discourse on Afghanistan is essential to the Obama administration's reported plan to double US troop deployments in that country within a year.

"This war, if it proliferates over the next decade, could prove worse in one respect than any conflict we have yet experienced," Norman Mailer wrote in his book "Why Are We at War?" six years ago. "It is that we will never know just what we are fighting for. It is not enough to say we are against terrorism. Of course we are. In America, who is not? But terrorism compared to more conventional kinds of war is formless, and it is hard to feel righteous when in combat with a void ..."

Anticipating futility and destruction that would be enormous and endless, Mailer told an interviewer in late 2002: "This war is so unbalanced in so many ways, so much power on one side, so much true hatred on the other, so much technology for us, so much potential terrorism on the other, that the damages cannot be estimated. It is bad to enter a war that offers no clear avenue to conclusion.... There will always be someone left to act as a terrorist."

And there will always be plenty of rationales for continuing to send out the patrols and launch the missiles and drop the bombs in Afghanistan, just as there have been in Iraq, just as there were in Vietnam and Laos. Those countries, with very different histories, had the misfortune to share a singular enemy, the most powerful military force on the planet.

It may be profoundly true that we are not red states and blue states, that we are the United States of America - but what that really means is still very much up for grabs. Even the greatest rhetoric is just that. And while the clock ticks, the deployment orders are going through channels.

For anyone who believes that the war in Afghanistan makes sense, I recommend the January 30 discussion on "Bill Moyers Journal" with historian Marilyn Young and former Pentagon official Pierre Sprey. A chilling antidote to illusions that fuel the war can be found in the transcript.

Now, on Capitol Hill and at the White House, convenience masquerades as realism about "the war on terror." Too big to fail. A beast too awesome and immortal not to feed.

And death will be our darling. And fear will be our name.

-------

Norman Solomon is the author of "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," which has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. For recent TV and radio interviews with him about President Obama and war policies, go to: www.normansolomon.com.

http://www.truthout.org/020309R?print

The War on Terror is a Hoax

By Paul Craig Roberts

February 04, 2009 Information Clearinghouse" -- - According to US government propaganda, terrorist cells are spread throughout America, making it necessary for the government to spy on all Americans and violate most other constitutional protections. Among President Bush’s last words as he left office was the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists.

If America were infected with terrorists, we would not need the government to tell us. We would know it from events. As there are no events, the US government substitutes warnings in order to keep alive the fear that causes the public to accept pointless wars, the infringement of civil liberty, national ID cards, and inconveniences and harassments when they fly.

The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated.

I do not approve of assassinations, and am ashamed of my country’s government for engaging in political assassination. The US and Israel have set a very bad example for al Qaeda to follow.

The US deals with al Qaeda and Taliban by assassinating their leaders, and Israel deals with Hamas by assassinating its leaders. It is reasonable to assume that al Qaeda would deal with the instigators and leaders of America’s wars in the Middle East in the same way.

Today every al Qaeda member is aware of the complicity of neoconservatives in the death and devastation inflicted on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza. Moreover, neocons are highly visible and are soft targets compared to Hamas and Hezbollah leaders. Neocons have been identified in the media for years, and as everyone knows, multiple listings of their names are available online.

Neocons do not have Secret Service protection. Dreadful to contemplate, but it would be child’s play for al Qaeda to assassinate any and every neocon. Yet, neocons move around freely, a good indication that the US does not have a terrorist problem.

If, as neocons constantly allege, terrorists can smuggle nuclear weapons or dirty bombs into the US with which to wreak havoc upon our cities, terrorists can acquire weapons with which to assassinate any neocon or former government official.

Yet, the neocons, who are the Americans most hated by Muslims, remain unscathed.

The “war on terror” is a hoax that fronts for American control of oil pipelines, the profits of the military-security complex, the assault on civil liberty by fomenters of a police state, and Israel’s territorial expansion.

There were no al Qaeda in Iraq until the Americans brought them there by invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, who kept al Qaeda out of Iraq. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, but a movement attempting to unify Afghanistan under Muslim law. The only Americans threatened by the Taliban are the Americans Bush sent to Afghanistan to kill Taliban and to impose a puppet state on the Afghan people.

Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine, or what little remains of Palestine after Israel’s illegal annexations. Hamas is a terrorist organization in the same sense that the Israeli government and the US government are terrorist organizations. In an effort to bring Hamas under Israeli hegemony, Israel employs terror bombing and assassinations against Palestinians. Hamas replies to the Israeli terror with homemade and ineffectual rockets.

Hezbollah represents the Shi’ites of southern Lebanon, another area in the Middle East that Israel seeks for its territorial expansion.

The US brands Hamas and Hezbollah “terrorist organizations” for no other reason than the US is on Israel’s side of the conflict. There is no objective basis for the US Department of State’s “finding” that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. It is merely a propagandistic declaration.

Americans and Israelis do not call their bombings of civilians terror. What Americans and Israelis call terror is the response of oppressed people who are stateless because their countries are ruled by puppets loyal to the oppressors. These people, dispossessed of their own countries, have no State Departments, Defense Departments, seats in the United Nations, or voices in the mainstream media. They can submit to foreign hegemony or resist by the limited means available to them.

The fact that Israel and the United States carry on endless propaganda to prevent this fundamental truth from being realized indicates that it is Israel and the US that are in the wrong and the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, and Afghans who are being wronged.

The retired American generals who serve as war propagandists for Fox “News” are forever claiming that Iran arms the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents and Hamas. But where are the arms? To deal with American tanks, insurgents have to construct homemade explosive devices out of artillery shells. After six years of conflict the insurgents still have no weapon against the American helicopter gunships. Contrast this “arming” with the weaponry the US supplied to the Afghans three decades ago when they were fighting to drive out the Soviets.

The films of Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza show large numbers of Gazans fleeing from Israeli bombs or digging out the dead and maimed, and none of these people are armed. A person would think that by now every Palestinian would be armed, every man, woman, and child. Yet, all the films of the Israeli attack show an unarmed population. Hamas has to construct homemade rockets that are little more than a sign of defiance. If Hamas were armed by Iran, Israel’s assault on Gaza would have cost Israel its helicopter gunships, its tanks, and hundreds of lives of its soldiers.

Hamas is a small organization armed with small caliber rifles incapable of penetrating body armor. Hamas is unable to stop small bands of Israeli settlers from descending on West Bank Palestinian villages, driving out the Palestinians, and appropriating their land.

The great mystery is: why after 60 years of oppression are the Palestinians still an unarmed people? Clearly, the Muslim countries are complicit with Israel and the US in keeping the Palestinians unarmed.

The unsupported assertion that Iran supplies sophisticated arms to the Palestinians is like the unsupported assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. These assertions are propagandistic justifications for killing Arab civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure in order to secure US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21906.htm

Facing Foreclosure? Don't Leave. Squat.

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
Posted on February 6, 2009, Printed on February 6, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/125533/

Marcy Kaptur of Ohio is the longest-serving Democratic congresswoman in U.S. history. Her district, stretching along the shore of Lake Erie from west of Cleveland to Toledo, faces an epidemic of home foreclosures and 11.5 percent unemployment. That heartland region, the Rust Belt, had its heart torn out by the North American Free Trade Agreement, with shuttered factories and struggling family farms. Kaptur led the fight in Congress against NAFTA. Now, she is recommending a radical foreclosure solution from the floor of the U.S. Congress: "So I say to the American people, you be squatters in your own homes. Don't you leave."

She criticizes the bailout's failure to protect homeowners facing foreclosure. Her advice to "squat" cleverly exploits a legal technicality within the subprime-mortgage crisis. These mortgages were made, then bundled into securities and sold and resold repeatedly, by the very Wall Street banks that are now benefiting from TARP (the Troubled Asset Relief Program). The banks foreclosing on families very often can't locate the actual loan note that binds the homeowner to the bad loan. "Produce the note," Kaptur recommends those facing foreclosure demands of the banks.

"[P]ossession is nine-tenths of the law," Rep. Kaptur told me. "Therefore, stay in your property. Get proper legal representation … [if] Wall Street cannot produce the deed nor the mortgage audit trail … you should stay in your home. It is your castle. It's more than a piece of property. … Most people don't even think about getting representation, because they get a piece of paper from the bank, and they go, 'Oh, it's the bank,' and they become fearful, rather than saying: 'This is contract law. The mortgage is a contract. I am one party. There is another party. What are my legal rights under the law as a property owner?' "If you look at the bad paper, if you look at where there's trouble, 95 to 98 percent of the paper really has moved to five institutions: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wachovia, Citigroup and HSBC. They have this country held by the neck."

Kaptur recommends calling the local Legal Aid Society, Bar Association or 888-995-4673 for legal assistance.

The onerous duty of physically evicting people and dragging their possessions to the curb typically falls on the local sheriff. Kaptur conditions her squatting advice, saying, "If it's a sheriff's eviction, if it's reached that point, that is almost impossible." Unless the sheriff refuses to carry out the eviction, as Sheriff Warren C. Evans of Wayne County, Mich., has decided to do. Wayne County, including Detroit, has had more than 46,000 foreclosures in the past two years.

After reviewing TARP, Evans determined that home foreclosures would conflict with TARP's goal of reducing foreclosures, and that he'd be violating the law by denying foreclosed homeowners the chance at potential federal assistance. "I cannot in clear conscience allow one more family to be put out of their home until I am satisfied they have been afforded every option they are entitled to under the law to avoid foreclosure," he said.

Bruce Marks of the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America is taking the fight to the homes of the banks' CEOs. Last October, as the TARP bailout was shaping up to benefit Wall Street and not Main Street, NACA blockaded the entrance of mortgage giant Fannie Mae until it got a meeting with executives there. Now NACA is working with Fannie Mae to restructure mortgages. Marks is organizing a nationwide, three-day "Predator's Tour," going to the CEOs' homes to demand meetings with them. He told me: "This is what we're going to do with thousands of homeowners, go to their (the CEOs') home and say: 'I want you to meet my family. I want you to see who you're foreclosing on.' … If they're going to take our homes, we're going to go to their homes, and we're going to tell them, 'No more.' "

Before the inauguration, Larry Summers, the chair of President Obama's National Economic Council, promised congressional Democratic leaders to "implement smart, aggressive policies to reduce the number of preventable foreclosures by helping to reduce mortgage payments for economically stressed but responsible homeowners, while also reforming our bankruptcy laws and strengthening existing housing initiatives."

According to a report by RealtyTrac, "Foreclosure filings were reported on 2.3 million U.S. properties in 2008, an increase of 81 percent from 2007 and up 225 percent from 2006." As the financial crisis deepens, people facing foreclosure should take Kaptur's advice and tell their bankers, "Produce the note."



Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!
© 2009 Democracy Now! All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/125533/

Why Military Responses to Terror Attacks Are Always Doomed to Fail

By Deepak Chopra and Ken Robinson, AlterNet
Posted on February 6, 2009, Printed on February 6, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/125563/

This piece originally appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.

It's a sore temptation to hunt down Osama bin Laden -- one of the most consistent campaign promises made by President Obama -- and yet there are strong arguments against it. U.S. forces would have to penetrate deep into provincial Pakistan and perhaps even conduct house-to-house searches. Such incursions would destabilize Pakistan's already shaky regime and inflame the extremist element. More troops would have to be committed to the Afghanistan war zone, with no positive outcome in sight. And making a martyr of bin Laden would probably incite a crop of new terrorists as deadly as he and his cohorts.

But the most compelling reason is that any solely military solution to terrorism is doomed to fail. Right now, U.S. intelligence knows that the jihadist movement is endemic in the extremist sects of Islam. It exists from neighborhood to neighborhood, dinner table to dinner table, across a vast swath of the globe. Although terrorism is a tactic, what lies behind it is an idea, and once an idea seeps into people's brains, bombs and mortar attacks won't defeat it. That's why Israel's overwhelming military superiority to Hezbollah and Hamas hasn't defeated those movements and never will -- this is an enemy for whom death is a victory of the spirit.

Our only hope against Islamic terrorism is to police it in the short run, and offer a more enticing idea in the long run. Peace and social reform are both enticing ideas. Changing our strategic relationship with corrupt regimes that receive significant foreign assistance from the United States is a second important step. The United States must shift its anti-terrorism policy in those directions. Because the United States kept pursuing a military solution, the 2004 presidential election was a poisoned chalice. Whoever won it would be plunged into the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq. The 2008 election was better. Both candidates pledged to leave Iraq, Republican Sen. John McCain under the face-saving banner of "victory;" Democratic Sen. Obama under the more realistic banner of ending an unjust war that should never have been started.

There is a military difference between "deploying" more soldiers to Afghanistan and "employing" them within the country -- in an effective way. If President Obama insists on troop buildups in Afghanistan and a promise to hunt down bin Laden, we must all recognize that a country should not pursue two contradictory ideas at the same time: one, that terrorism is stateless, and two, that military forays into foreign states are productive. The chief reason to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, once we entered and found chaos, is humanitarian, as it has been for at least five years. Both are failed states; both are rife with violent extremists. Age-old hatreds won't die easily in either region, and yet the United States can't stand by and let those hatreds turn into genocide and endless combat.

The United Nations and NATO must rally to carry out the humanitarian goals that need to be pursued. But that's not the same as deluding ourselves into believing that we are defeating terrorism. Bush's war on terror was a horrendous mistake, an ideological delusion and a failed tactic. It alienated most of the world and created as many extremists as it defeated. Obama knows all this. Now it's time for him to lead us out of a self-created quagmire. The United States can't have it both ways, talking peace but maintaining a hostile military presence in the region, neither Pakistan, nor Afghanistan has a government seen as legitimate by its population. Neither has the ability, or the national will to police its borders, or seriously confront extremism, or foreign fighters. History has already taught us how these endeavors end, and they do not end well. No matter how just our cause, we are seen as aggressors, and may just as likely suffer the death of a thousand cuts, just like Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Soviet Union. Without establishing a foundation of legitimacy, and hope, or any semblance of the rule of law, a purely military strategy will likely be defeated in the end.





Deepak Chopra is the president of the Alliance for a New Humanity. Ken Robinson is a former U.S. Ranger and Special Forces officer.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/125563/

Naomi Klein: Public Revolt Builds Against Rip-off Rescue Plans for the Economy

By Naomi Klein, The Nation
Posted on February 6, 2009, Printed on February 6, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/125566/

Watching the crowds in Iceland banging pots and pans until their government fell reminded me of a chant popular in anti-capitalist circles in 2002: "You are Enron. We are Argentina."

Its message was simple enough. You--politicians and CEOs huddled at some trade summit--are like the reckless scamming execs at Enron (of course, we didn't know the half of it). We--the rabble outside--are like the people of Argentina, who, in the midst of an economic crisis eerily similar to our own, took to the street banging pots and pans. They shouted, "¡Que se vayan todos!" ("All of them must go!") and forced out a procession of four presidents in less than three weeks. What made Argentina's 2001-02 uprising unique was that it wasn't directed at a particular political party or even at corruption in the abstract. The target was the dominant economic model--this was the first national revolt against contemporary deregulated capitalism.

It's taken a while, but from Iceland to Latvia, South Korea to Greece, the rest of the world is finally having its ¡Que se vayan todos! moment.

The stoic Icelandic matriarchs beating their pots flat even as their kids ransack the fridge for projectiles (eggs, sure, but yogurt?) echo the tactics made famous in Buenos Aires. So does the collective rage at elites who trashed a once thriving country and thought they could get away with it. As Gudrun Jonsdottir, a 36-year-old Icelandic office worker, put it: "I've just had enough of this whole thing. I don't trust the government, I don't trust the banks, I don't trust the political parties and I don't trust the IMF. We had a good country, and they ruined it."

Another echo: in Reykjavik, the protesters clearly won't be bought off by a mere change of face at the top (even if the new PM is a lesbian). They want aid for people, not just banks; criminal investigations into the debacle; and deep electoral reform.

Similar demands can be heard these days in Latvia, whose economy has contracted more sharply than any country in the EU, and where the government is teetering on the brink. For weeks the capital has been rocked by protests, including a full-blown, cobblestone-hurling riot on January 13. As in Iceland, Latvians are appalled by their leaders' refusal to take any responsibility for the mess. Asked by Bloomberg TV what caused the crisis, Latvia's finance minister shrugged: "Nothing special."

But Latvia's troubles are indeed special: the very policies that allowed the "Baltic Tiger" to grow at a rate of 12 percent in 2006 are also causing it to contract violently by a projected 10 percent this year: money, freed of all barriers, flows out as quickly as it flows in, with plenty being diverted to political pockets. (It is no coincidence that many of today's basket cases are yesterday's "miracles": Ireland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia.)

Something else Argentina-esque is in the air. In 2001 Argentina's leaders responded to the crisis with a brutal International Monetary Fund-prescribed austerity package: $9 billion in spending cuts, much of it hitting health and education. This proved to be a fatal mistake. Unions staged a general strike, teachers moved their classes to the streets and the protests never stopped.

This same bottom-up refusal to bear the brunt of the crisis unites many of today's protests. In Latvia, much of the popular rage has focused on government austerity measures--mass layoffs, reduced social services and slashed public sector salaries--all to qualify for an IMF emergency loan (no, nothing has changed). In Greece, December's riots followed a police shooting of a 15-year-old. But what's kept them going, with farmers taking the lead from students, is widespread rage at the government's crisis response: banks got a $36 billion bailout while workers got their pensions cut and farmers received next to nothing. Despite the inconvenience caused by tractors blocking roads, 78 percent of Greeks say the farmers' demands are reasonable. Similarly, in France the recent general strike--triggered in part by President Sarkozy's plans to reduce the number of teachers dramatically--inspired the support of 70 percent of the population.

Perhaps the sturdiest thread connecting this global backlash is a rejection of the logic of "extraordinary politics"--the phrase coined by Polish politician Leszek Balcerowicz to describe how, in a crisis, politicians can ignore legislative rules and rush through unpopular "reforms." That trick is getting tired, as South Korea's government recently discovered. In December, the ruling party tried to use the crisis to ram through a highly controversial free trade agreement with the United States. Taking closed-door politics to new extremes, legislators locked themselves in the chamber so they could vote in private, barricading the door with desks, chairs and couches.

Opposition politicians were having none of it: with sledgehammers and an electric saw, they broke in and staged a twelve-day sit-in of Parliament. The vote was delayed, allowing for more debate--a victory for a new kind of "extraordinary politics."

Here in Canada, politics is markedly less YouTube-friendly--but it has still been surprisingly eventful. In October the Conservative Party won national elections on an unambitious platform. Six weeks later, our Tory prime minister found his inner ideologue, presenting a budget bill that stripped public sector workers of the right to strike, canceled public funding for political parties and contained no economic stimulus. Opposition parties responded by forming a historic coalition that was only prevented from taking power by an abrupt suspension of Parliament. The Tories have just come back with a revised budget: the pet right-wing policies have disappeared, and it is packed with economic stimulus.

The pattern is clear: governments that respond to a crisis created by free-market ideology with an acceleration of that same discredited agenda will not survive to tell the tale. As Italy's students have taken to shouting in the streets: "We won't pay for your crisis!"

Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (September 2007); an earlier international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies; and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (2002).
© 2009 The Nation All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/125566/

Kyrgyzstan says U.S. air base decision is final

Fri Feb 6, 2009 9:54am EST

By Olga Dzyubenko

BISHKEK (Reuters) - Kyrgyzstan said on Friday its decision to shut a U.S. air base was final, dealing a blow to Washington's efforts to retain what has been an important staging post for U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan.

The United States said it was still "engaged" with Kyrgyzstan about keeping the Manas base in the poor, former Soviet republic and traditional Russian ally. But one senior Kyrgyz official said no talks were currently taking place.

Kyrgyzstan's stance has set a tough challenge for new U.S. President Barack Obama, who plans to send more troops to Afghanistan to try to boost NATO efforts to defeat Taliban and al Qaeda insurgents.

The standoff over the tiny but strategically placed nation marks a new twist in an escalating power struggle in Central Asia reminiscent of the 19th-century "Great Game" between tsarist Russia and the British Empire.

"The air base's fate has been decided," Adakhan Madumarov, Secretary of the Kyrgyz Security Council, told reporters.

"I see no reason why the air base should remain in place now that this decision has been taken ... We are not holding any talks on this," he added, hinting there will be no further discussions with Washington on the air base.

Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev announced the closure of the base this week after securing more than $2 billion in financial aid and credit from Russia at talks in Moscow.

The announcement left the United States scrambling to find alternative supply routes through other parts of Central Asia for shipments bound for landlocked Afghanistan.

Speaking in Tajikistan, another ex-Soviet republic in Central Asia, the U.S. envoy to Dushanbe said Tajikistan had agreed to offer its air space for transport of non-military NATO supplies to Afghanistan.

A Western diplomatic source told Reuters separately on Thursday the United States was close to a deal with Uzbekistan that would also allow Washington to open a new railway supply route for its troops in Afghanistan.

The United States, also seeking to reinforce supply routes to Afghanistan that bypass Pakistan where convoys face security risks, says it is still hopeful the base can be retained. "We're still very much engaged," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

Asked if Washington had made any additional offers over the base, Kyrgyz Prime Minister Igor Chudinov said: "We have not received any proposals." He says Kyrgyzstan wants to shut the base because it disagrees with U.S. methods in Afghanistan.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Kyrgyzstan's actions as "regrettable" on Thursday.

"We will proceed in a very effective manner no matter what the outcome of the Kyrgyzstan government's deliberations might be," she said of military operations in Afghanistan.

RUSSIAN POSITION

Russia, irked by the U.S. military presence in Kyrgyzstan which it regards as part of its strategic sphere of interest, has long exerted pressure on the landlocked and mountainous Central Asian country to evict the U.S. forces.

NATO says it is concerned about Russia's possible involvement in the Kyrgyz decision. Moscow, which operates its own military base in Kyrgyzstan, has strongly denied any link between its aid package and the move to shut Manas.

Moscow says it is ready for cooperation over Afghanistan. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia had agreed to allow non-military NATO cargo to transit through its territory.

"We expect that when our U.S. partners are ready to send us a concrete request with the volume and type of cargo, as soon as we receive it we will give our permission," he told Russia's Vesti-24 television.

The Russian aid package, unanimously approved by the Kyrgyz parliament on Friday, includes a $1.7 billion discounted loan to help Kyrgyzstan build a hydroelectric power plant.

The Kyrgyz government needs parliamentary approval to proceed with the closure, but this is seen as a formality as the chamber is controlled by a pro-presidential party. It is expected to vote next week.

(Writing by Maria Golovnina; Additional reporting by Roman Kozhevnikov in Tajikistan, Conor Humphries in Moscow)

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5151GN20090206

Russia and allies to create joint air defence: report

Fri Feb 6, 2009 8:44am EST

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia and its post-Soviet allies are planning to create a joint air defense system stretching from NATO's borders to China, news agencies quoted an official from their Moscow-led regional security group as saying on Friday. Russia and Belarus, which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania, agreed Tuesday to merge their air defense systems in a move seen by many experts as a response to U.S. plans to deploy elements of its missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

"The united air defense system of Russia and Belarus will become part of a joint air defense system of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (ODKB)," Interfax news agency quoted general secretary Nikolai Bordyuzha as saying.

The seven-member ODKB also includes the Caucasus republic of Armenia and four Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

"We are planning to create within the framework of our organization three regional air defense systems including Russia-Belarus, Russia-Armenian in the Caucasus region and the Central Asian air defense system," Bordyuzha added.

The joint air defense project, which would combine early warning systems of member states and create a single control center, has been talked about for years. Bordyuzha did not say when the project would finally be accomplished.

Out of seven ODKB states only Russia has a major modern air defense system capable of detecting and destroying both airplanes and missiles. Russia also has several major radars in ex-Soviet states.

Moscow has recently stepped up efforts to reinforce economic, military and security ties with ex-Soviet allies most of whom are being actively courted by the West and show some willingness for a more balanced foreign policy less dependent on Moscow.

Russia and Belarus decided on the creation of the joint air defense system Tuesday, a day before ODKB leaders agreed to set up a joint fast reaction force at their summit in Moscow.

The decisions have been accompanied by hefty Russian financial aid to allies struggling with the global crisis.

Russia has promised to consider nearly $3 billion in fresh credits to Belarus and agreed to contribute up to $7 billion to a $10 billion regional emergency fund.

Analysts say the creation of a joint air defense system may also be a response to the U.S. missile shield plans in Europe viewed by Moscow as a direct threat to national security.

Moscow is seeking to persuade new U.S. President Barack Obama to review a decision by his predecessor George W. Bush to deploy interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech republic.

Stronger regional alliances may give Russia a stronger say in talks with Washington, which will also include the sensitive issues of NATO membership for ex-Soviet Ukraine and Georgia and Russia's support to the U.S.-led operation in Afghanistan.

Tuesday, Kyrgyzstan announced it would close a U.S. air base near its capital Bishkek, a key element in supplying U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The decision was made after Russia offered Kyrgyzstan a life-saving aid package of over $2 billion.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who has sought to persuade NATO and the European Union to review global security arrangements, has said he will speak to Western partners on behalf of ODKB allies as well.

(Writing by Oleg Shchedrov, editing by Myra MacDonald)

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5153E620090206?sp=true

U.S. job losses accelerate

Fri Feb 6, 2009 10:55am EST

By Glenn Somerville

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers slashed 598,000 jobs in January, the deepest cut in payrolls in 34 years and the jobless rate shot up to 7.6 percent, according to a Labor Department report on Friday that underlined a deepening recession.

January's job losses were worse than the 525,000 that had been forecast by Wall Street economists, who also had expected the unemployment rate to come in lower at 7.5 percent. The bleak data is certain to be cited by the Obama administration as a fresh reason for Congress to speed up debate over economic stimulus proposals that could cost $800 billion or more.

Last month's job reductions were the largest since 602,000 in December 1974, while the jobless rate reached its highest level in more than 16 years.

"The economy is just falling into oblivion and it will get worse," said Greg Salvaggio, vice-president for trading at Tempus Consulting in Washington, shortly after the jobs report was issued. Others agreed, saying it intensifies pressure for the government to try something to prop up the economy.

"These are huge, huge declines, said Nigel Gault, director of U.S. economic research for Global Insight in Lexington, Mass. "Hopefully it will concentrate some minds in the Senate so they can come to an agreement (on a stimulus package)."

U.S. equity index futures rose after the data boosted expectations for passage of the stimulus package. Long-dated U.S. government debt prices extended losses on concern that the government will have to borrow huge amounts to finance any stimulus measures.

Labor officials said job losses were gaining momentum.

"January's sharp drop in employment brings job losses to 3.6 million since the start of the recession in December 2007," Commissioner of Labor Statistics Keith Hall said in a statement, and "about half the decline occurred in the last three months."

January's losses followed upwardly revised cuts of 577,000 in December and 597,000 in November.

The manufacturing sector bled jobs at the sharpest rate during January in more than 26 years, shedding 207,000 workers after cutting 162,000 in December. The last time more factory jobs were lost in a single month was in October 1982 when 221,000 were cut. An index measuring total paid hours for factory workers dropped to its lowest level since 1940, department officials said.

Construction industries dropped 111,000 jobs in January after 86,000 in December and Hall said that pace of cuts was accelerating. Retail businesses cut another 45,000 positions after shedding 82,700 in December.

There were 121,000 job losses among professional and business services providers in January on top of 106,000 that were eliminated in December. Only education and health services added jobs as did the government.

Analysts said there was no sign of relief on the horizon, judging from the depth and breadth of January's labor market plunge.

"It is just another confirmation that were are in a deep and long recession, and the bottom is not even in sight," said Robert MacIntosh, chief economist for Eaton Vance Management in Boston. "Manufacturing is incredibly weak -- it's going to be a long haul."

(Reporting by Glenn Somerville; Editing by Neil Stempleman)

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5153B720090206