Category: Non-EU Countries

  • MP launches bid to halt nuclear power station building

    MP launches bid to halt nuclear power station building

    Martin Horwood

    West MPMinisters should halt plans for new nuclear power stations in the UK following the disaster in Japan, a West MP said yesterday.

    Cheltenham Liberal Democrat Martin Horwood has tabled a Commons motion that has attracted support from MPs of all parties.

    Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has already ordered a report from the Chief Nuclear Inspector on the implications for the UK of events at Fukushima power station.

    The Daily Press has reported how South West anti-nuclear campaigners want him to shelve plans for new reactors in the UK, including those proposed for Hinkley Point in Somerset and Oldbury in South Gloucestershire.

    Mr Horwood’s Early Day Motion, which applauds the courage and expertise of those working to make the Japanese power stations safe, welcomes Mr Huhne’s decision.

    But it adds: “Events in Fukushima underline the extreme dangers inherent in nuclear power, the relative resilience of a completely safe, decentralised and renewable energy supply and the inability of even the highest design and safety standards to protect us from unforeseen events.”

    The MPs are calling on Mr Huhne “to suspend Government’s plans for a new nuclear power programme”.

    Mr Horwood said: “Events in Fukushima are reminding everyone how dangerous nuclear energy can be.

    “As if the Japanese people weren’t suffering enough, their electricity supply has been disrupted, hundreds of thousands evacuated and anxiety spreading throughout the civilian population.

    “Unforeseen events do happen – even in this country – and Fukushima demonstrates how dependence on nuclear power can add to the crisis.”

    So far the EDM has been signed by MPs from five other parties, including high profile Tory environment campaigner Zac Goldsmith and Caroline Lucas, the sole Green MP.

    Meanwhile the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into UK research and development capabilities.

    Committee chairman Lord Krebs said: “Although this inquiry was conceived before the recent tragic events in Japan, this underlines the importance of ensuring that our research and development capabilities meet out future nuclear energy needs not just for generation capacity, but also for ensuring safety.”

    www.thisissomerset.co.uk, March 18, 2011

     

  • Armenia and the Turks in the Time of Lawrence

    Armenia and the Turks in the Time of Lawrence

    Benny Morris

    Lawrence of ArabiaWhile Colonel T. E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”) sympathized with Armenian aspirations for sovereignty and, indeed, in a map he drew up after the Great War of a desirable Middle Eastern share-out of the Ottoman Empire he provided for an independent Armenia (in Cilicia), he was also party to the prevalent anti-Armenian prejudices of his day.

    Lawrence was a member of the British delegation to the 1919 postwar Paris peace conference. On November 3 he told Frank Polk, the American “Commissioner” in Paris, that the Armenians were prone to lend “money at exorbitant rates of interest” and took “the Turks’ land or horses in security for payment,” and this at least in part explained the Turkish atrocities against them during World War I.

    But there was another factor. “Armenians,” he told Polk, as related in Polk’s report on their conversation, “have a passion for martyrdom, which they find they can best satisfy by quarrelling with their neighbors . . . They can be relied upon to provoke trouble for themselves in the near future.”

    In general, Lawrence felt, “it would be most undesirable to attempt to establish an Armenian state.” Except in a specific territory, where they would be overwhelmingly preponderant. “The idea of an Armenian State infuriates all the other races, and it would require 5 divisions of troops (100,000 troops) to maintain it.”

    According to Lawrence, the Turks had been exhausted by the Great War and their “army is rotten with venereal disease and unnatural vice.” Hence, their birth rate was falling. He thought that if the Turks were “confined to their own territories, in thirty years’ time [Turkey] would once more be bounding with health and, incidentally, lusting for conquest.” (Perhaps Lawrence’s use of the words “vice” and “lust” were influenced by his personal experiences during the war years.)

    About his friend the Emir Faisal, the military leader of the Arab Revolt and the de facto ruler at the time in Damascus, Lawrence said that he was “cautious, moderate, usually honest but capable of treachery if it suited him.

    Surprisingly, Lawrence told Polk that “the Jews get on well with the Arabs ” and added that, contrary to prevailing opinion at the time among British officials, “the Jew is a good cultivator both in Palestine and Mesopotamia [he was speaking here of Iraqi Jews].” The problem was that “the conditions [in the Middle East] preclude enterprise in the shape of improvements and [the Jew] requires five shillings a day to live on against the Arab’s or Syrian’s sixpence [i.e., half a shilling: there were twenty shillings to the pound sterling].”

    Lawrence concluded by saying that “the Zionist movement has ‘many prophets but no politicians’ [had he lived into the 21st century he would have thought otherwise] . . . The movement has been mismanaged in the last nine months,” he thought.

    He offered Polk one general, final reflection about the Middle Eastern peoples: “No nation must expect gratitude from the East or anything but the ‘Order of the Boot’ as soon as they can manage it [meaning that the Arabs or the Turks would boot out foreign powers as soon as they could affect it, no matter how beneficial these powers had been to the locals in previous years].”

    nationalinterest.org, March 8, 2011

  • Turkey helps free Guardian journalist in Libya

    Turkey helps free Guardian journalist in Libya

    Ghaith Abdul-Ahad released from Libyan prison after Turkish government and foreign ministry joined negotiations

    The Turkish government played a role in helping free the Guardian journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad from prison in Libya, it has been disclosed.

    Guardian journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad had been detained by the Libyan authorities for a fortnight.
    Guardian journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad had been detained by the Libyan authorities for a fortnight.

    Abdul-Ahad had been detained by the Libyan authorities for a fortnight after being picked up from the coastal town of Sabratha on 2 March, along with a Brazilian correspondent.

    He was freed on Wednesday after the editor-in-chief of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, flew to Tripoli to help organise his release.

    Rusbridger revealed on Thursday that the Turkish government, which is handling UK interests in Libya after the closure of the British embassy, had been actively involved in the negotiations to free Abdul-Ahad. It is believed the prime minister and president’s offices were involved in behind-the-scenes talks since the weekend, along with the foreign ministry.

    “We’re very grateful for the efforts of many people, including the Turkish government, for their role in helping Ghaith be freed,” said Rusbridger. He added that Abdul-Ahad had been held in solitary confinement, but had not been physically harmed.

    Abdul-Ahad entered Libya from Tunisia and was last in touch with the paper on the day of his capture.

    The journalist, an Iraqi national, is a highly respected staff correspondent who has written for the Guardian since 2004. He has reported from Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan, telling the stories of ordinary people in times of conflict.

    News of Abdul-Ahad’s release came as the New York Times said four of its journalists were missing in Libya. They are: Anthony Shadid, the Beirut bureau chief; two photographers, Tyler Hicks and Lynsey Addario, who have worked extensively in the Middle East and Africa; and Stephen Farrell, a reporter and videographer who was kidnapped by the Taliban in 2009 and rescued by British commandos.

    The newspaper said it had last been in contact with the journalists on Tuesday morning, New York time. It said it had received reports the four might have been detained by government forces in the eastern town of Ajdabiya.

    via Turkey helps free Guardian journalist in Libya | World news | guardian.co.uk.

  • Deportation flights to Iraq resume despite UN warning

    Deportation flights to Iraq resume despite UN warning

    Asylum seekers have been returned to Baghdad after a temporary suspension of repatriation flights

    Owen Bowcott

    Iraqi protesters
    Iraqi protesters in Baghdad. As many as 30 have been killed in the 'Arab spring' demonstrations. Photograph: Shihab Ahmed/EPA

    The first group deportation of Iraqis for six months has seen a number of asylum seekers returned to a country convulsed by civil rights protests and violence.

    The decision to resume charter flights was in defiance of warnings by the United Nations high commissioner for refugees that it is unsafe to remove people to Baghdad and central Iraq.

    The plane, organised by the UK Borders Agency in conjunction with the Swedish government and the EU border agency Frontex, left Stansted airport at 7am on Wednesday. Last-minute appeals on behalf of other failed asylum seekers prevented several others from being forcibly repatriated. It is not known how many deportees from Sweden were on board.

    Charter flight removals to Baghdad were temporarily suspended last October after the European court of human rights ruled that a surge in sectarian violence and suicide bombings made Baghdad and the surrounding area too dangerous.

    The Home Office has since pledged to “continue to undertake” deportations but acknowledged that, in cases where the Strasbourg court supported petitions from individuals demonstrating that they were at risk, it would not enforce removal.

    Refugee organisations said that as many as 17 people had been deported, but the Home Office maintained that only eight had gone.

    Protesters in Baghdad and northern Iraq are staging “Arab spring”-style protests against corruption, poor services and lack of employment. As many as 30 demonstrators have been killed in the capital and the Kurdish city of Suleimaniya since mid-February as authorities have suppressed dissent.

    The UNHCR has criticised European states, including the UK, that have sent Iraqis back to the five central governorates, or provinces, including Baghdad. “We are very concerned about reports that the Home Office has returned Iraqis to Baghdad,” a spokeswoman for the UNHCR said. “The situation for minorities [such as Christians] in Iraq is very precarious. There has been a deterioration in security.”

    The International Federation of Iraqi Refugees, which monitors removals, said the resumption of charter flights had been done at a time when attention was focused on Libya.

    “The UK government, while it is saying how much it supports democracy and human rights in Libya, continues to support the corrupt governments in Iraq and Kurdistan (sic),” said a spokesman. “Now it is deporting people, many of whom left to flee this same government violence, into the middle of it. It is a criminal hypocrisy and must be stopped.”

    A Home Office spokesman said: “The UK courts have confirmed that we are able to return people to all of Iraq and that the return of Kurdish Iraqis via Baghdad does not expose them to serious harm. The UK Border Agency would prefer that those with no legal basis to remain in the UK leave voluntarily. Where they do not, we will seek to enforce their removal.”

    guardian.co.uk, 9 March 2011

  • Put a royal sock in it, Sarah

    Put a royal sock in it, Sarah

    Just when it seemed that things couldn’t get worse for the Duke of York, the Duchess offers her support. Judith Woods reports.

    Sarah Ferguson

    Who would want to be the Duchess of York’s PR this week? Short of being caught in a YouTube tryst with Charlie Sheen, snorting cocaine off a hooker in a hot tub, Sarah Ferguson’s stock could not conceivably sink any lower.

    At a time when her beleaguered, though still swaggering ex-husband, the Duke of York, is fighting for his future as Britain’s trade ambassador, her blunderingly gauche attempt to “support” him has merely piled Pelion on Ossa.

    In her latest intemperate outpouring the 51-year-old has querulously apologised for allowing the Duke to arrange a £15,000 payment from American billionaire and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein to help relieve her £5 million or so debts.

    She claims to be mortified that her actions have reflected badly on the man she admires most in all the world (the Duke, not Epstein) and has declared she would throw herself under a bus for her former husband. There are those in royal circles who are no doubt already revving up a Routemaster and wishing she would just get on with it.

    Being chums with the criminal class is highly dubious, but in truth, anyone casting aspersions on the Duke’s questionable judgment need look no further than the woman he married, still shares a house with (the Royal Lodge at Windsor) and to whom he remains bizarrely devoted.

    Needy, venal and entirely unencumbered with self- knowledge or native wit, the Duchess is yet again the architect of her own misfortune – less than a year after she was filmed in an uncover tabloid sting, seedily asking for cash in exchange for royal access.

    Her public declaration that she “abhors paedophilia” was so excruciatingly jejune it had half the nation involuntarily raising its hands mouthwards, in a subconscious attempt to vicariously gag her while the other half hastily logged on to www.republic.org to check if she were some sort of savant secretly committed to the downfall of the monarchy.

    But no, she is simply being Sarah. In 1994 a royal aide, Lord Charteris, famously referred to her as “vulgar, vulgar, vulgar” and was condemned as a snob. Fifteen years on, his pithy insight is to be applauded. According to the public relations expert Mark Borkowski, if nothing else, the Duchess is consistent.

    “She’s being true to her brand,” he says, simply. “She was a disaster when she was married to the oaf and she remains a complete car crash. She has a completely reckless willingness to engage with anyone who has her phone number: they call her, she spouts her mouth off and the rest is history.”

    Talk to long-standing friends and acquaintances and the Duchess’s verbosity becomes a leitmotif. The jolly garrulousness that once made her such refreshingly good company in the rather stilted atmosphere of Buckingham Palace has turned her into a liability.

    “Sarah is stupid and greedy which is a fatal combination, and she never knows when to keep her mouth shut,” is the harsh verdict of one royal insider who has known her for more than a decade.

    “She can be quite kind, but in recent times she just lives in her own little world and has no conception of the impact her behaviour will have until it all flies up in her face. The most frustrating aspect is that she never learns from her mistakes. Once upon a time, she had everything going for her and she botched it up.”

    Having married the Duke, then second in line to the throne, in 1986, the Duchess gave birth to two daughters, Princesses Beatrice, now 22, and Eugenie, 20. But she admitted to an American magazine in 2001 that the marriage began to disintegrate within a week (yes, a week) of the state ceremony because of her husband’s naval duties.

    The couple announced their separation in early 1992 and a few months later a set of unfortunate photographs was published in the press showing the American financial manager John Bryan sucking her toes, perhaps as a prelude to restructuring her portfolio.

    In the wake of her divorce in 1996, the Duchess spent much of her time in the United States, where she carved out a media career, wrote children’s stories and an autobiography and was in demand for commercial endorsements. America, the crucible of the confessional culture, appeared to be the perfect place for a woman who loved to talk about herself.

    Her publicised weight gain and weight loss led to a lengthy involvement as a spokeswoman for WeightWatchers, and there were adverts for cranberry juice and Avon and a chat show before she once again “botched” things up with the cash-for-access scandal and was immortalised bragging to a fake businessman that she could “open up any door you want” in return for £500,000.

    The Duchess subsequently admitted – on the Oprah Winfrey Show, where else? – that she had been drinking and was “in the gutter” at that moment. In Britain her reputation was in tatters, but across the Atlantic her tale of adversity still had any number of takers and it was rumoured that the wealthiest television star in the States had offered the down-at-heel duchess a prime-time chat show on her new Oprah Winfrey Network. Whether any such offer remains on the table after the Epstein scandal is a matter of conjecture. Winfrey is an ardent supporter of personal reinvention, but the Duchess of York’s bankability has limits.

    She may be a royal by marriage but she hasn’t been invited to the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton next month, which she might have been able to turn into a nice little earner (on second thoughts, perhaps that’s why she fell off the 1,900-strong guest list).

    “The way Sarah talks now is pure LA psychobabble,” says a source. “People here are flabbergasted that she somehow carries on, lurching from one catastrophe to the next. She’s always complaining about having no money, but then her creditors see her off skiing or holidaying in St Bart’s and it must be terribly galling for them. I’m sure she gets her share of freebies, but even so, she does flaunt her lifestyle even while she complains she can’t afford it.”

    Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, is less damning: “Sarah appears to have lost her centre,” she sighs, although “centre” sounds for all the world like a euphemism for “moral compass”.

    “But as far as the Royal family are concerned, this incident is just a blip; if Andrew has government support and the backing of the Queen – and I don’t think she’s going to ask him to fall upon his sword – then it will all blow over, because life has a habit of doing that.”

    Professor Bill Purdue, visiting reader in modern history at the Open University, remains sanguine about the impact of the Yorks’ scandal on public perceptions of the monarchy. “Junior royals have a tradition of going off the rails slightly,” he says. “Another Duke of York, George III’s son, Frederick Augustus Hanover, otherwise knows as the Grand Old Duke of York from the nursery rhymes, was mired in a major scandal when it was revealed his mistress was selling army commissions.”

    Last month the Royal Opera House raised the curtain on Anna Nicole, a kitschy production that met with critical acclaim. How much more fabulously surreal (not to say extravagantly trashy) would be Fergie: The Musical?

    The Telegraph

     

  • Is the U.S. dollar on the brink?

    Is the U.S. dollar on the brink?

    julianBy: Julian D. W. Phillips, Gold/Silver Forecaster – Global Watch

    Just take a look at the chart of the U.S. dollar Index and you see a frightening sight.   If it sinks any further its support will have evaporated.   We have watched all this week the gold price rise and look good in the dollar.   But in the euro it has barely moved.   Against the Swiss Franc the dollar looks so weak.   With the Technical picture looking so poor, one turns to the fundamentals to see if they conflict or support a downturn for the dollar.

    The U.S. dollar Fundamentals

    Can government govern finances?

    The United States, right now, is on the brink of having used up all its legislated credit capacity.   At $14.3 trillion there is a desperate need for a higher credit limit.   Unless, by Friday, they have passed legislation to raise this, the government cannot issue checks or pay staff.   Yes, they can use various tricks to delay this to accommodate political brinkmanship, but the outside world will be alarmed that the government is unable to tend to such basics or allows politics to overrule finances.   Here there is a clash of systems, the need for financial correctness against the games politicians play.   With President Obama’s administration without sufficient power to legislate as they want at a critical time when government should be strong, there is little to inspire confidence in the U.S. government.   Global confidence in the U.S. dollar will be shaken if such a financial mess were to happen.   We would most likely see the ratings agencies downgrade U.S. debt before that happens.   From outside it looks as though the U.S. is oblivious to foreign investor’s opinions at a time when the U.S. is reliant on foreign investors buying U.S. debt.

    Moving down the ladder we have seen so much in the press that individual States are on the brink of bankruptcy and some already there and little seems to be being done to rectify matters to date.   Or should foreigners just presume that the Fed will rescue them with bailouts?   If that is to be the path followed that again will undermine foreign investors confidence in the dollar.

    What needs to be understood is that government finances at all levels have to be sound to inspire confidence?   It seems to be a simple obvious statement, so why is it not being applied?   Even Fed Chairman Mr. Ben Bernanke is calling for government to sort out the Federal deficit but all we see is a partisan battle that seems oblivious to their countries crying needs.   Or do we misunderstand the scene.   Are politics more important than good order?   Today saw the revelation that China owns more than $360 billion of Treasuries than was thought to be the case.   Does the government not worry about this dependence?   Or does the government want to ensure that the dollar weakens?   This is a strong impression pervading so many foreign exchanges now.

    And the inflation coming from the food and energy worlds is globally pervasive and capable of threatening what little economic growth there is in the developed world.  It will affect many, many countries and could reach into the U.S.A.   We do expect the U.K to experience a shrinking of its GDP in the first quarter of 2011 announcing the arrival of a double-dip recession, so shrinking growth could also affect the U.S. still with its lackluster economy.   What will this somewhat emasculated government do then?

    The Trade Deficit

    For so many years now the U.S. has run a Trade deficit balanced by a surplus on the Capital account.   This inflow of capital is the flow of power from the U.S. to foreign creditors.   Already we are seeing a tendency to try to diversify away from the U.S. dollar.   If this trend gathers momentum then the overall picture on the Balance of Payments could sink to a deficit.   How close is it now?   Or is it happening as foreign investors diversify into other currencies to stave off or reduce the impact on their surpluses of a falling dollar and overweight natures of their dollar holdings.   It’s bound to happen if only because of prudence.   And yet the U.S. is doing nothing to address the situation, why not?   We see that the main beneficiary of a weak dollar would be the U.S. on the trade front as well as on the debt front.  So one question that needs an answer is, does the U.S. government want a weak dollar?   Or is the U.S. government unconcerned at the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate.

    Inevitable weakness

    It seems that Europe and other nations are more worried about the U.S. dollar exchange rate than the U.S. is.   This laissez-faire attitude appears to confirm that the U.S. has no intention of protecting the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate.   For that reason we have to conclude that the U.S. dollar is inevitably headed to more weakness.   In the past the ‘top dog’ nature of the U.S. currency meant that the rest of the world had to suck it up.   Now, it’s only a matter of time before the U.S. is second to China’s economy in the world.   By 202 the Chinese economy will have doubled and we have no doubt that the Yuan will be the world’s ‘top dog’ currency, eclipsing the dollar.   When that happens and it may be well before 2020, the dollar like all other global currencies will have to pay its own bills with goods not simply freshly printed dollars.

    The $ and the € Gold Price

    Is it any wonder then that the gold price is rising in the U.S. dollar.   The euro is, the Swiss Franc, the Pound and other currencies are rising in the dollar too.   It’s not the gold price rising in the dollar it’s the dollar falling in terms of gold.  Likewise other currencies are not rising against the dollar, the dollar is falling against them.

    To get a clearer picture of what is really happening in the gold price one has to look at the gold price in the euro or the Swiss Franc.   That will reflect demand and supply better.   We have and will see the gold price rise in the euro for fundamental reasons but for accuracy’s sake we have to relegate the dollar price of gold to second or third place, because that’s more about the dollar than about gold.

    Gold as part of the global monetary system

    Today we read that the shareholders of the Bank of Italy, the Italian banks want to use the gold held by the central bank to shore up their balance sheets.   The Bank of Italy has gold reserves of 2451.8 metric tonnes (68.6% of their foreign exchange reserves) at the moment.   As shareholders assets, by including these reserves at market value, Italian banks look a lot healthier.   Yes, this is a touch of ‘cooking’ the books, but it recognizes the fact that gold has a monetary value, recognized in the monetary world.   In inter-nation currency transactions gold is being used to secure loans.   It has a de facto role in the monetary system that is getting harder and harder to avoid.

    Could gold be confiscated?

    Of course gold will never be confiscated for the same reasons it was in 1933 [money supply expansion].   Its role today can be as collateral for international transactions, as we see it being used now.   In a global world it is the only real monetary asset that bypasses nations to be global money that is truly mobile.   Should a nation find itself in trouble, much like these Italian banks, then gold sits there waiting to shore up balance sheets and serve as collateral for international currency swaps for nations with questionable creditworthiness.   Will the dollar fall into that category once the Yuan is a truly international currency?   Certainly holding gold will bypass that eventuality.   Even in the hands of the U.S. government its citizen’s gold could give the dollar a golden hue.

    In China it is understood by all that all assets of the nation including citizen’s gold is the property of the state.   In the U.S. citizens are allowed the privilege of owning gold and don’t have the right.   How small a step to confiscating the huge tonnage of citizen’s gold wherever it is.

    news.goldseek.com, 1 March 2011