Monday, January 31, 2005

Life in Iraq: Some Blogs from the Frontline

Continuation from the previous post...

Most people I have interacted with, seem to take one of these two stances about the current happenings in Iraq:

  • either they have next to no interest in Iraq, apart from as a news item (which is not "real" in the real sense)... Almost as if Iraq is something which is happening on a different planet, and to people of a different species, while the life on planet earth goes on as if nothing is "happening",
  • or they have an opinion about Iraq - was it worth it or not? Is it right or not? Wasn't-it-better-to-get-rid-of-Saddam-Hussain vs. Isn't-Bush/USA-trying-to-act-like-imperialist?

To be honest, I also have an opinion about Iraq (in fact, I recently mentioned to a friend that listening to Bush's inaugural address reminded me of "The Feuhrer", and he told me to consult a psychiatrist for harbouring such delusions :0)....

Later, I checked on Google and found that apparently, like me, there must be some millions of people in the world who need urgent psychiatric care![1]... I felt particularly vindicated by this letter from one of the holocaust victims[2]... Iraq of today can as well be the Poland of 1930s...

That, in a way, is also the source/reason of my interest in Iraq. The tsunami waves of history also travel invisible till they are about to strike the distant shores, even though they may take a few years to strike...

Someone sent me a mail about the last post about Riverbend's Blog "Baghdad Burning" saying: "My first reaction was .. Anne Frank , but with more grisly details..." - I agreed, and was also struck by the subliminal imagery behind this observation. Diary of Anne Frank!!! What was the historical context in which she wrote that diary!!!

For those who may be interested, here are a few of my other sources/links for keeping track of the day-to-day life in Iraq. These is not a complete list, but some of those Iraqi/Arab blogs which I visit more often:

Life in Iraq:
  • The Baghdad Blogger's Blog
    http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
    Salam Pax's original blog - Where is Raed - which got translated into a film (which screened in the International Film Festival in Vancour a few months back). Though it's latest entry was in April '04, this perhaps is amongst the oldest Iraqi blog which started a few months before the Iraq invasion/liberation. The best way to get a feel of history in making would be to go back in archives to the first entry in December 2002, and read it forward... Salam Pax was able to attend the Vancour Film Festival, and now has another new blog

  • A Glimpse of Iraq
    http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/
    This blog, maintained by Abu Khaleel, has some of the most unique anecdotes, which are simultaneously touching and surrealistic. A very dispassionate view of a slice of the absurd reality.

  • Diary from Baghdad
    http://rosebaghdad.blogspot.com//
    Rose, a 27 year old woman, a civil engineer, writes about "the current events in Iraq in my point of view and as I hear from people living here around me and the way they see things here. Not as you hear from the news, but the way we feel and live with and how it affect us."... A cross-section of individual private life with history-in-making

  • Life in Baghdad
    http://thoughts04.blogspot.com/
    One year old blog, maintained by Ahmed Khuraffa - he didn't like Saddam, and he doesn’t like occupation either... A very personal and authentic view things as they are... By a person who is directly impacted by them.

    The following four blogs by "The Blogger Family" - mother and three sons - is an intimate view (view?... Makes one seem almost like a peeping tom!) of the personal life and aspirations getting intertwined with history:
  • Mom's Blog: A Family in Baghdad
    http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
  • Khalid: Tell Me a Secret
    http://secretsinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
  • Raed in Middle: I guess this is the Raed who wrote with Salam Pax!
    http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/
  • Majid: Me vs. Myself
    http://me-vs-myself.blogspot.com/

    News/Reports from the Frontline:
  • Dahr Jamail's Weblog
    http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/
    Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches are the reports from the trenches. He is a professional journalist, who, disenchanted by the mainstream media, decided to be on his own

  • Healing Iraq
    http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
    Maintained by Zeyad, this has some detailed posting about the events and happenings in Iraq, and his views about them.

  • Free Iraq.. It should actually read "Let's Free Iraq"
    http://abutamam.blogspot.com/
    A daily collection of news items about Iraq, specially about the US actions in and against Iraq.

    ... there are many more blogs, of course... maybe I will post them in one of the later posts...

  • Tuesday, January 25, 2005

    Iraq Burning: A Peep Through the Media Veil

    Much of what we get to know about what is happenings in Iraq is through the mainstream (read, Western) media - which, to be fair - barring a few examples, tries to be objective....but then, in the current Iraq, the foreign journalists hardly get to move out of the Green Zone...

    I have been trying to understand how Iraqis experience their liberation/occupation through the numerous blogs maintained by the "liberated/occupied" iraqis (I have a whole list of these blogs, and will also post them in one of the future postings).

    One of my favourite blogs is by a 25-year old girl called "riverbend" - Baghdad Burning[1]. Her blog is also getting published as a book by the same name this year

    Here are some recent excerpts from her blog:

    Iraqi Elections:
    ...The elections are set for the 29th. It's an interesting situation. The different sects and factions just can't seem to agree. Sunni Arabs are going to boycott elections. It's not about religion or fatwas or any of that so much as the principle of holding elections while you are under occupation. People don't really sense that this is the first stepping stone to democracy as western media is implying. Many people sense that this is just the final act of a really bad play. It's the tying of the ribbon on the "democracy parcel" we've been handed. It's being stuck with an occupation government that has been labeled 'legitimate' through elections.

    We're being bombarded with cute Iraqi commercials of happy Iraqi families preparing to vote. Signs and billboards remind us that the elections are getting closer...

    Can you just imagine what our history books are going to look like 20 years from now?

    "The first democratic elections were held in Iraq on January 29, 2005 under the ever-watchful collective eye of the occupation forces, headed by the United States of America. Troops in tanks watched as swarms of warm, fuzzy Iraqis headed for the ballot boxes to select one of the American-approved candidates..."

    It won't look good.

    There are several problems. The first is the fact that, technically, we don't know the candidates. We know the principal heads of the lists but we don't know who exactly will be running. It really is confusing. They aren't making the lists public because they are afraid the candidates will be assassinated.

    Another problem is the selling of ballots. We're getting our ballots through the people who give out the food rations in the varying areas. The whole family is registered with this person(s) and the ages of the varying family members are known. Many, many, many people are not going to vote. Some of those people are selling their voting cards for up to $400. The word on the street is that these ballots are being bought by people coming in from Iran. They will purchase the ballots, make false IDs (which is ridiculously easy these days) and vote for SCIRI or Daawa candidates. Sunnis are receiving their ballots although they don't intend to vote, just so that they won't be sold.

    Yet another issue is the fact that on all the voting cards, the gender of the voter, regardless of sex, is labeled "male". Now, call me insane, but I found this slightly disturbing. Why was that done? Was it some sort of a mistake? Why is the sex on the card anyway? What difference does it make? There are some theories about this. Some are saying that many of the more religiously inclined families won't want their womenfolk voting so it might be permissible for the head of the family to take the women's ID and her ballot and do the voting for her. Another theory is that this 'mistake' will make things easier for people making fake IDs to vote in place of females.

    All of this has given the coming elections a sort of sinister cloak. There is too much mystery involved and too little transparency. It is more than a little bit worrisome.

    American politicians seem to be very confident that Iraq is going to come out of these elections with a secular government. How is that going to happen when many Shia Iraqis are being driven to vote with various fatwas from Sistani and gang? Sistani and some others of Iranian inclination came out with fatwas claiming that non-voters will burn in the hottest fires of the underworld for an eternity if they don't vote (I'm wondering- was this a fatwa borrowed from right-wing Bushies during the American elections?). So someone fuelled with a scorching fatwa like that one- how will they vote? Secular? Yeah, right.

    There are NO WMDs:
    This was an interesting piece of news a couple of days ago:

    The United States has ended its physical search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, which was cited by the first administration of President George W Bush as the main reason for invading the country, the White House has said.

    Why does this not surprise me? Does it surprise anyone? I always had the feeling that the only people who actually believed this war was about weapons of mass destruction were either paranoid Americans or deluded expatriate Iraqis- or a combination of both. I wonder now, after hundreds and hundreds of Americans actually died on Iraqi soil and over a hundred-thousand Iraqis are dead, how Americans view the current situation. I have another question- the article mentions a "Duelfer Report" stating the weapons never existed and all the intelligence was wrong. This report was supposedly published in October 2004. The question is this: was this report made public before the elections? Did Americans actually vote for Bush with this knowledge?

    ....They don't care about right or wrong or innocents dead and more to die. They were somewhat ahead of the game. When they saw their idiotic president wasn't going to find weapons anywhere in Iraq, they decided it would be about mass graves. It wasn't long before the very people who came to 'liberate' a sovereign country soon began burying more Iraqis in mass graves. The smart weapons began to stupidly kill 'possibly innocent' civilians (they are only 'definitely innocent' if they are working with the current Iraqi security forces or American troops). It went once more from protecting poor Iraqis from themselves to protecting Americans from 'terrorists'...

    ...Now we're being 'officially' told that the weapons never existed. After Iraq has been devastated, we're told it's a mistake...

    ...I hope Americans feel good about taking their war on terror to foreign soil. For bringing the terrorists to Iraq- Chalabi, Allawi, Zarqawi, the Hakeems… How is our current situation going to secure America? How is a complete generation that is growing up in fear and chaos going to view Americans ten years from now? Does anyone ask that? After September 11, because of what a few fanatics did, Americans decided to become infected with a collective case of xenophobia… Yet after all Iraqis have been through under the occupation, we're expected to be tolerant and grateful. Why? Because we get more wheat in our diets?

    Terrorism:
    Terror isn't just worrying about a plane hitting a skyscraper…terrorism is being caught in traffic and hearing the crack of an AK-47 a few meters away because the National Guard want to let an American humvee or Iraqi official through. Terror is watching your house being raided and knowing that the silliest thing might get you dragged away to Abu Ghraib where soldiers can torture, beat and kill. Terror is that first moment after a series of machine-gun shots, when you lift your head frantically to make sure your loved ones are still in one piece. Terror is trying to pick the shards of glass resulting from a nearby explosion out of the living-room couch and trying not to imagine what would have happened if a person had been sitting there.

    The weapons never existed. It's like having a loved one sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit- having your country burned and bombed beyond recognition, almost. Then, after two years of grieving for the lost people, and mourning the lost sovereignty, we're told we were innocent of harboring those weapons. We were never a threat to America...

    Congratulations Bush- we are a threat now.

    Christmas Wishlist:
    I have to make this fast.

    No electricity for three days in a row (well, unless you count that glorious hour we got 3 days ago...). Generators on gasoline are hardly working at all. Generators on diesel fuel aren't faring much better- most will only work for 3 or 4 straight hours then they have to be turned off to rest.

    Ok- what is the typical Iraqi Christmas wishlist (I won't list 'peace', 'security' and 'freedom' - Christmas miracles are exclusive to Charles Dickens), let's see:

    1. 20 liters of gasoline
    2. A cylinder of gas for cooking
    3. Kerosene for the heaters
    4. Those expensive blast-proof windows
    5. Landmine detectors
    6. Running water
    7. Thuraya satellite phones (the mobile phone services are really, really bad of late) 8. Portable diesel generators (for the whole family to enjoy!) 9. Coleman rechargeable flashlight with extra batteries (you can never go wrong with a fancy flashlight) 10. Scented candles (it shows you care- but you're also practical)

    When Santa delivers please make sure he is wearing a bullet-proof vest and helmet. He should also politely ring the doorbell or knock, as a more subtle entry might bring him face to face with an AK-47. With the current fuel shortage, reindeer and a sleigh are highly practical- but Rudolph should be left behind as the flashing red nose might create a bomb scare (we're all a little jumpy lately).

    Governance:
    Allawi declared a "State of Emergency" a couple of days ago... A state of emergency now - because previous to this week, we Iraqis were living in an American made Utopia, as the world is well aware. So what does an "Emergency State" signify for Iraqis? Basically, it means we are now officially more prone to being detained, raided, and just generally abused by our new Iraqi forces and American ones. Today they declared a curfew on Baghdad after 10 p.m. but it hasn't really made an impact because people have stopped leaving their houses after dark anyway.

    The last few days have been tense and heart-rending. Most of us are really worried about Falloojeh. Really worried about Falloojeh and all the innocents dying and dead in that city. There were several explosions in Baghdad these last few days and hardly any of them were covered by the press. All this chaos has somehow become uncomfortably normal. Two years ago I never would have dreamed of living like this- now this lifestyle has become the norm and I can barely remembering having lived any other way....

    Friday, January 21, 2005

    "Socialism": Well, Alive and Thriving!!!

    This is a continuation of my previous post... to have a relook at the much-criticised "socialist" economic model.

    The fall of Berlin Wall, and the collapse of Soviet economy is widely described as the triumph of free-market capitalist economy over the flawed socialistic economy model (the fact that this connection is a pretty large leap of logic, is another story;0)... But such is power of this paradigm, that since then any information which contradicts this myth (e.g., when later Russia adapted the IMF-prescribed model of free markets, its economy went into even greater shambles), is forgotten, ignored, or at best, explained away as an exception.

    Contrary to popular belief, the socialistic economies have been thriving, are competitive, and perhaps provide a better model of economic development than the free-market economies, as the data below shows.

    While there is perhaps nothing wrong in the free-market capitalist economy (except that it is a contradiction in terms, as I had once pointed out earlier)[1], but there is a certain intellectual poverty in the blind belief that "one-size fits-all" - that one economic model is suited for all societies, irrespective of their unique history, local needs, cultural values, etc.

    It is in this context, it is useful to study the The Scandinavian Socialist Model[2]. The Scandinavian countries - Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland - are Socialist Welfare States, characterised by all those things which are nowadays seen as "primitive" and "backward" - high taxes, government subsidies, state interventions, etc.

    The following is the global ranking of these countries - they feature in top 20 on all - on 5 indices of development:

    1. GCI (Global Competitiveness Index): issued by World Economic Forum, and is based on a composite ranking of growth potential, business competitiveness, etc.

    2. HDI (Human Development Index) : issued by UN which is a composite of education, per capita GDP, longivity, etc.

    3. Gini Index: this a part of HDI, which ranks countries according income disparities in the society

    4. IDC Information Society index: composit of computer/telecom penetration and e-nabled societal structrue etc.

    5. Economist's Quality of Life Index: issued by The Economist's Intelligence Unit, and is a composite of 9 factors: material well-being, health, political stability, family and community life, climate and environment, job security, political freedom and gender equality.

    Since the world - and definitely, India - has become quite "US-centric", I have color-coded the rankings of these countries and USA.


    Think about it! - why do these facts never feature in main-stream media, are never discussed in public forums, are rarely taught in business schools or elsewhere?... and for that matter, why most of us never bothered to find out about these alternative economic models?!!!


    [1]: http://alternativeperspective.blogspot.com/2003/10/capitalism-contradicts-free-market-we.html
    [2]: http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scn/faq28.html

    Thursday, January 20, 2005

    Did "Socialist" Indian Stagnate before 1991?

    One of the popular beliefs (I would call it just a belief... even a myth), specially among the contemporary urban educated Indians is that India, due to its "Nehruvian Socialism" remained stagnant till 1991. It is unfortunate, that not only most believe that prior to 1991, India lived in dark, corrupt ages, but also that the economy and growth was stagnant...

    This myth is also fueled by media, and often many good and influential writers who put this point quite convincingly too. One such example is this quote from Gurucharan Das's India Unbound:

    "…in July 1991… with the announcement of sweeping liberalization by the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao… opened the economy… dismantled import controls, lowered customs duties, and devalued the currency… virtually abolished licensing controls on private investment, dropped tax rates, and broke public sector monopolies…. We felt as though our second independence had arrived: we were going to be free from a rapacious and domineering state…"

    Like a Meme or an Idea Virus, such a view of history gets replicated, till people actually start believing it (this is, unfortunately, more true of many young educated Indians, who often believe that intellectual brilliance - and they are briliant!! - can compensate for their lack of historical rooting)

    Thus this posting!...just to put the facts in perspective (the following are the facts and figures I could collect from various sources - I am sure, there will be many more such tables):




    ... There is another dogma about "socialism"... but I will come to that later...

    Sunday, December 26, 2004

    War Continues in Vietnam

    MERRY CHRISTMAS!
    ----------------
    Five killed by Vietnam War shell
    CNN, Saturday, December 25, 2004 Posted: 6:38 AM EST (1138 GMT)


    HANOI, Vietnam (Reuters ) -- Four children aged between nine and 14 and a 20-year old man were killed in southern Vietnam when a war-time mortar shell they were playing with exploded, state media reported on Saturday.

    The five were killed instantly on Tuesday in a field where they were tending a herd of cows in the southern province of Binh Thuan, the Thanh Nien (Young People) newspaper reported.

    Since the U.S.-led Vietnam War ended, nearly 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed by leftover ordnance.
    -------
    ...it seems ironical that they were killed in a war which "got over" more than a decade before they were even born!!!

    Thursday, December 09, 2004

    The Collapse of Dollar Economy??

    Is the US$ - and the global dollar economy - heading for a collapse?

    [This is continuation of a theme, on which I had twice written earlier: once, in April '03 about how the Iraq Invasion was/is a last ditch attempt to save US$[1], and then again, when a whole issue of Alternative Perspective in Feb'04[2] was devoted to this topic]

    Even if the idea seems far-fetched, it is worth a serious thought.

    Most such speculations focus only on the US Current Account Deficit, which has grown to disproportionate dimensions. It is true that US consumes more than it produces, imports more than it exports. Financing this deficit would require an inflow of $2.6bn/day... that, incidentally, is 80% of world's daily savings!!!...

    In contrast, since lst year or so, US is able to attract only $1.7bn/day back into economy (Visit the U.S. National Debt Clock[3])

    Perhaps a greater cause for worry should be the increasing cumulative US National Debt, which now is more than $7.5trillion, i.e., statistically, an average American child is born with $25,000 debt. 40% of this is foreign debt.





    Interestingly, the US government's response to this impending economic disaster has been to keep increasing the permissible debt-limit.... This year in October, when US reached the $7.4trillion debt-limit set by the senate/congress, it just raised the limit to $8.2trillion. At the present rate of debt-accumulation, this is just postponing the debt-bubble to burst by just another 470 days... Given the present promises of the "foreign policy" - preemptive strike, regime change, "democratisation" of Middle-East, war on terror, etc. - this will keep on increasing.

    Moreover, if one looks at the "hidden debt" - US Government's future commitments - the numbers are staggering. In 2008, when the 78mn baby-boomers start retiring, US will need more than $50 trillions to pay for the medicare, pension, social security, etc.!!!

    It is not surprising that Stephen Roach (Chief economist of Morgan Stanely) predicts that America has no better than a 10 percent chance of avoiding economic "armageddon."[4]

    So why is America, consciously and deliberately, continuing to slide down this path?

    In my understanding, there are two mindsets/hope/assumptions behind taking these risks:

  • One can take economic risks, and bet on the future, because the anticipated future inflows - hopefully coming from "democratisation of middle east", cheap oil, new world order, PNAC, etc. - will offset the present trends (the only other economic entity which did this kind of accounting - i.e., counting its "pro forma" earnings to boost its present balance sheet - in the recent past, was Enron!!!)

  • We are in it together. Since so many economies are locked in to US economy, if US falls, so will the world economy... And that is true. So there is a chance that other economies will try helping US survive, so that they can also survive.... After all, countries like China and Japan, the central banks of most developed and developing countries, etc., with their huge investments in dollar assets and dollar-reserves, will necessarily do their best to keep dollar afloat... historically, this is similar to the "white man's burden" felt by the gentry in London in the beginning of 20th century: if we don't consume as much as we do, "poor natives" will die of hunger!!!

    However, given the required inflows, these assumptions do not seem viable in the long run (or perhaps, even in the short run).

    Apart from the simple economic reality that there is not enough surplus money in the world to continue supporting US debt, there are two other emerging reasons, which contradict these assumptions:


    1. Crisis of Credibility & Legitimacy

    US, admittedly, has been a debt-based economy since long. During last couple of decades, the deficit had kept on accumulating, but the US economy has continued to grow.



    So what has changed now, that the rest of the world not continue to provide debt to US?

    One simple reason why this may not happen, is because globally, US has been losing its credibility as a moderate, peace-loving nation - not only in the Muslim world[5], but even among its traditional European allies[6].

    One reason for this loss of US legitimacy and moral supremacy has been its unilateral dismissal of multilateral mechanisms and treaties (see the list)[7]

    In their recent article in Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec, 2004), The Sources of American Legitimacy[8], Robert W. Tucker (Professor Emeritus of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University) & David C. Hendrickson (Robert J. Fox Distinguished Service Professor at Colorado College) observed:

    "The 18 months since the launching of the second Iraq war have brought home, even to its advocates, that the United States has a serious legitimacy problem. The pattern of the first Iraq war, in which an overwhelming victory set aside the reservations of most skeptics, has failed to emerge in the aftermath of the second. If anything, skepticism has deepened. The United States' approval ratings have plunged, especially in Europe-the cooperation of which Washington needs for a broad array of purposes-and in the Muslim world, where the United States must win over "hearts and minds" if it is to lessen the appeal of terrorism. In both areas, confidence in the propriety and purposes of U.S. power has dropped precipitously and shows little sign of recovery.... Legitimacy arises from the conviction that state action proceeds within the ambit of law, in two senses: first, that action issues from rightful authority, that is, from the political institution authorized to take it; and second, that it does not violate a legal or moral norm."

    The fallout of losing moral legitimacy on economic was summed up by the economist James Galbraith a couple of days back (Tompaine.com, Dec 6, 2004):[9]

    "For decades, the Western World tolerated the "exorbitant privilege" of a dollar-reserve economy because the United States was the indispensable power, providing reliable security against communism and insurrection without intolerable violence or oppression, thus conditions under which many countries on this side of the Iron Curtain grew and prospered. Those rationales evaporated 15 years ago, and the "Global War on Terror" is not a persuasive replacement. Thus, what was once a grudging bargain with the world's stabilizing hegemon country is now widely seen as a lingering subsidy for a predator state."

    Similarly, another article by Joseph Quinlan (Chief Market Strategist at Banc of America), Behind the Sinking Dollar: America’s Image as a "Rogue Nation? (The Globalist, Dec 7, 2004)[10] notes:

    "...the dollar’s decline mirrors America’s plunging approval rating with the rest of the world. Concerns over the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the Kyoto agreement, the U.S. relationships with international institutions and its allies, U.S. visa restrictions and burdensome custom procedures all could have converged to taint America’s global image."

    And one lends money only if one trusts the person's intentions, integrity and repaying capacity.

    2. The Rise of an Alternative Currency - Euro!!!

    Some of the reasons why, inspite of its "weak fundamentals", US$ has remained a global currency-of-choice, are/were:

  • About 80% foreign exchange transactions are conducted in US$.
  • Approximately half the world exports are done using US$.
  • To conduct international trade, countries and banks keep US$ in their reserves.
  • Currently, US$ accounts for 68% of all global exchange reserves.
  • All IMF loans are given in US$, and the debt servicing can be done only in US$ (which incidentally is not surprising, since US Treasury holds 51% stakes in IMF)

  • But perhaps the most importnt reason for the strength of US$ was the petro-dollar. By agreement with OPEC, all global oil trade has been done in US$. Since oil is needed by all economies, the necessity of buying US$ remained intact.

    However, since 1999, Euro has emerged as a strong contender for this spot. Starting weak at $0.85, over the last 4-5 years, it has been gaining strength over US$ to the current exchange rate of $1.33... And even though a strong Euro would hurt the European exports, and the European central banks would try to correct the situation), the global trade is gradually - and often imperceptibly - shifting to Euro. Consider, for instance:

  • In January, 2002, China announced its intention to diversify its portfolio of reserve currencies to increase the proportion of Euros in the kitty. This was a significant development, since China is not only one of the largest single market and exporter, but also holds $208bn - the second largest after Japan - in forex reserves in US$. While the forex currency portfoilio is a state secret in China, according to BNP Paribas, the Central Bank for Euro, this could have led to the share of US$ in China's forex portfolio from around 80% in 1998 to less than 50%.
  • Between, 2001 and 2003, Canada increased the Euro proportion in its forex reserves from 23% to 42%, while reducing the US$ from 75% to 55%.
  • In August 2002, Iran converted more than half of its forex reserves from US$ to Euro. Switching to oil payment in Euro would be just the next step. With 12,000 million tonnes of oil reserves, Iran has the 5th largest oil reserves in the world.
  • In January, 2003, Russian Central Bank announced that it had increased its Euro holdings in forex from 5% to 10%, while reducing the dollar's share from 90% to 75%. It made sense also, since 42% of Russia's imports come from Europe.
  • by mid-2002, many central banks in Taiwan, HongKong, and East European countries, had also started increasing their Euro holdings, while going slow on buying US$. Following the trend, in March 2003, Bank Indonesia was also considering shifting its forex from US$ to Euro.
  • The other country in the "Axis of Evil" - North Korea - also stopped dealing in US$ from December, 2002

    And Most importantly, during the last three years, OPEC is also shifting to Euro. According to a report by Bank of International Settlement, "At the end of June 2004, OPEC members' Euro denominated deposits reached 44 billion Euro nearly doubled compared to 23.5 billion Euro held in the third quarter of 2001... By comparison, OPEC dollar denominated deposits stood at $132.1 billion, down from $145.3 billion in the third quarter of 2001."[11]

    So do all these trends portend the end of global dollar economy?

    References:
    [1] http://www.geocities.com/madhukar_shukla/gulfwar2.html
    [2] http://www.geocities.com/madhukar_shukla/alt/044.html
    [3] http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
    [4] http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=55356
    [5] http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206
    [6] http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=175
    [7] http://alternativeperspective.blogspot.com/2004/10/american-multiple-unilateralism.html
    [8] http://tinyurl.com/5p95u
    [9] http://www.tompaine.com/articles/apocalypse_not_yet.php
    [10] http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/storyid.aspx?StoryId=4281
    [11] http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041207-031853-3224r.htm

  • Tuesday, December 07, 2004

    "Why They Hate Us": Pentagon Report

    The following is not written by a Jihadi, or anyone from the liberal left. It is quoted from a 122-page Pentagon Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication (click to download - pdf document). The report was submitted in September this year, but was made public only in the end of November, after the US Presidential elections were over:

  • "Muslims do not "hate our freedom," but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

  • Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that "freedom is the future of the Middle East" is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World - but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

  • Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.

  • Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack - to broad public support.

  • What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of "terrorist" groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.

  • Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic - namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is - for Americans - really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves."

  • Monday, November 08, 2004

    The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

    It was Benito Mussolini who once stated: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

    Given the current state of affairs, understanding the defining features of Fascism becomes even more important. One person, Dr. Lawrence Britt. Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the regimes all had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article is titled 'Fascism Anyone?', and appears in Free Inquiry's Spring 2003 issue on page 20.

    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
    Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
    Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
    The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

    4. Supremacy of the Military
    Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

    5. Rampant Sexism
    The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homo-sexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

    6. Controlled Mass Media
    Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

    7. Obsession with National Security
    Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
    Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

    9. Corporate Power is Protected
    The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

    10. Labor Power is Suppressed
    Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
    Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
    Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
    Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

    14. Fraudulent Elections
    Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

    Sunday, October 31, 2004

    American Multiple Unilateralism

    This table/ list is an interesting commentary on a nation, which wages war to establish peace, bypasses UN to uphold its "resolution", and unilaterally enforces the multi-lateral agreements on other nations, which it has unilaterally rejected itself:

    Convention on Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
    Signed July 17, 1980, never ratified
    The US remains one of a handful of countries, including Iran and Sudan, not to ratify CEDAW. Although Bush has called the treaty "generally favorable," the treaty faces resistance from US conservatives.

    Convention on the Rights of the Child
    Signed Feb. 16, 1995, never ratified At the UN
    Only the United States and Somalia, which has no functional government, have not ratified the Convention. Conservatives who favor the death penalty for minors strongly oppose the treaty.

    International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
    Signed Oct. 5, 1977, never ratified
    The US maintains that economic, social and cultural rights are "aspirational," not inalienable or enforceable. 142 countries have already ratified the Covenant.

    UN Framework Convention on Climate Control (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol
    Ratified UNFCCC Oct. 15, 1992; Signed Kyoto Protocol Nov. 12, 1998, never ratified
    Although President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, mandating a reduction in carbon emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012, a 2001 State Department memo rejected the protocol on the basis that it would harm the US economy and exempt developing countries from reduction requirements. Of industrialized states, only the US, Australia and Israel haven't ratified the protocol. The US did ratify the UNFCCC, but has not complied.

    Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
    Signed Sep. 24, 1996, never ratified
    The US Senate voted in 1999 to reject ratification of the test ban treaty. Taking another step away from the agreement, the White House released the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in early 2002 hinting at a return to testing and reserving the right to use nuclear weapons in a first-strike attack. The NPR also states that arms reductions can be reversed.

    Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
    Signed and ratified Summer 1972
    US unilateral withdrawal Dec. 13, 2001 The US became the first major power to unilaterally withdraw from a nuclear arms control treaty. Citing "terror threats," the Bush administration will pursue an enormously costly missile defense program, even though its scientific feasibility remains dubious.

    Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and Draft Proposal
    Signed April 10, 1972, ratified March 23, 1975, rejected Draft Proposal in June, 2001
    After the BWC was drafted in 1972, its 144 state parties agreed that the convention's enforcement mechanisms were inadequate. An "Ad Hoc Group" formed in 1994 to negotiate changes. When the group presented its draft proposal in 2001, the US rejected it and refused to return to negotiations, effectively derailing the treaty.

    Chemical Weapons Convention
    Signed Jan. 13, 1993, ratified Apr. 25, 1997
    The US ratified the Convention, but set extensive limitations on how it could be applied in the US, essentially gutting its provisions. The US specifies that material cannot be transferred outside the country for testing, limits which facilities can be tested, and gives the president the right to refuse inspection on the grounds of "national security."

    Mine Ban Treaty
    Never signed
    The US remains the only member of NATO besides Turkey, and the only state in the Western Hemisphere besides Cuba, not to sign the Mine Ban Treaty. The US used anti-personnel land mines in the first Gulf War, and claims that land mines are essential to protect US soldiers in heavily armed places like the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea.

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
    Signed Dec. 31, 2000, unsigned June 6, 2002 In 2002
    the US made the unprecedented move to "unsign" the treaty establishing the ICC. Since then, the US has systematically undermined the ICC by signing bilateral agreements with states to exempt US military and government personnel from the court's jurisdiction.

    Monday, October 25, 2004

    Unilteral Nation Building: Lessons from Histroy

    While much is being publicised about how Iraq, with the help of International Community will be the next example of Nation-Building (and will emerge as a vibrant democracy in the middle-east), the history sees to indicate otherise.

    This policy brief from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace throws up some dissonant facts about American Record on Nation Building:

  • During the last century, US has made around 200 military interventions around the world.

  • Based on 3 criteria, viz.,
    1. declared goal of "regime change" or "saving a regime",
    2. deployment and long-term commitment of large number of ground troops, and
    3. deep involvement in the political process through use of American military and civilian processes),

    only 16/200 would qualify as efforts towards "Nation Building"

  • Of these 16, in only 4 democracy could survive 10 years after the departure of US forces.

  • Of the 4 successful transitions to democracy, 2 nations (Panama and Granada were really small, with a population of >3mn and 0.1mn, respectively)

  • The other 2 much quoted examples of successful Nation Building - Germany and Japan - had many similar characteristics (which contrast with the situation in Iraq):
    1. both of these countries were homogenous societies with no dominant conflicting interest groups,
    2. had previous experience of constitutionalism, and
    3. the popular (and soemtime elite) interests were aligned to those of the US.


  • Not a single US-supported Surrogate Regime could make a transition to democracy in the post-conflict period.

    ... the full report/ Policy brief is available at:
    http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/HTMLBriefs-WP/24_May_2003_Policy_Brief/20009539v01.html

  •