Sunday, May 22, 2011

May 19 -Sex, Justice, and the American Way

Sex, Justice, and the American Way 

Hustler Publisher Larry Flynt on How Sex Has Shaped American Politics and the World

feature2-570x300.jpg
LARRY FLYNT donated $50,000 to the defense fund of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange. Writing on larryflynt.com, the iconoclastic publisher of Hustler and First Amendment defender called Assange a "journalist" and a "hero" worthy of a tickertape parade.

"If WikiLeaks had existed in 2003 when George W. Bush was ginning up the war in Iraq," Flynt says, "America might not be in the horrendous situation it is today." But aside from the broader political implications, Assange's struggle hits much closer to Flynt's own heart. It's about free speech.

"Here's what I know about censorship," Flynt writes in his defense of Assange leaking classified American intelligence cables. "The free flow of information is ultimately less harmful than the impeded flow of information. A democracy cannot exist without total access to the facts."

Flynt goes on to whip traditional media for negligence, believing it should've been they who unearthed and exposed the documents and not some "concerned outsider." For his actions, Flynt writes, "Assange has been hit with dubious criminal charges because his condom failed during a sexual encounter."

The supposed character smear should come as no surprise to Flynt, who's seen his own creditability hacked at for decades because of his proximity to sex. These supposedly puritanical naysayers—from the anti-gay crusade, abstinence-only conservatives, the folks still after Mayor Sam Adams' hide, and perhaps even those after Assange himself—seem to suggest that anyone labeled with a so-called perversion is unfit to be trusted.

In a new book, One Nation Under Sex, Flynt follows sex's influence throughout American history—from the founding fathers on down. In preparation for his Friday, May 20, trip to Portland I spoke with Flynt about sex, his book, politics, and free speech in the internet age.
•••
He called early.

"Hi Andrew, it's Larry."

I was asleep. It was 8:30 am. He was supposed to call at 9 am. I needed my recorder, my notes. Where the fuck are they? I'm in a sea of cobwebs with this man on the other line. He remains polite, understanding. Would it be better if he called back at nine, he asked? It would. And so he did.

At first his voice was strong. He was projecting. But eventually it withered some, a reminder of the assassination attempt and ensuing stroke. I had to lean in close.

What was the book's inspiration, I asked. Why now? Was it James Callender, the journalist who broke the story in the early 1800s of Thomas Jefferson's fathering of six children with the slave Sally Hemings?

"Nawwwww," Flynt drawls. "[Callender] was a muckraker. He just got upset with Jefferson because Jefferson wouldn't give him an appointment."

And so begins Flynt's journey between the White House sheets. It stretches from beginning to end. From Ben Franklin the flirt to the insatiable Bill Clinton. There's Warren Harding, the clueless man-whore. James Buchanan, the country's first gay president—and of course, JFK the louche womanizer.

Kennedy, it seems, was a lazy lover. He had a bad back—or at least that's what he liked to say. That way he'd always be on bottom. Already naked in bed he'd beckon his lovers in that cockeyed Irish drawl to "climb aboard." Sometimes Kennedy might only last a minute or two before shuffling his conquests off down the hallways to the doorman, all the while wearing only a towel.

But Jack's transgressions were all about a reckless kind of personality—not politics. While Flynt says Kennedy's brazenness brought undue risk, sex itself really isn't the issue.

"I'm the first one to defend a philandering president," Flynt tells me. "If you can fight two wars and balance the budget at the same time you should be able to sleep with whomever you want."

While One Nation Under Sex does indeed have fun with some of the more playful and salacious stories, Flynt insists he doesn't out politicians—here or in Hustler—just to expose their sex lives. "It's exposing the hypocrisy that's important," Flynt says. "Hypocrisy is the biggest threat to democracy."

Take for example, President Buchanan. In the book, Flynt alleges Buchanan's gay affair with a Southern slave owner made him a "slavery apologist who encouraged secessionists on the eve of the Civil War."

But sex's effects on history weren't always negative. Ben Franklin's "well-earned reputation as a ladies man," Flynt writes, "aided his effort to secure France's military assistance during the Revolutionary War." He also sheds light about how both first ladies and mistresses ended up influencing policy.

But the limitations of suggesting alternate realities, Flynt admits, are a crapshoot—and really, it's not what the book is about. Along with co-writer David Eisenbach, Flynt was more concerned about creating a comprehensive portrait of executive sex's reverberations in American history. Take away the speculations and few tawdry moments and One Nation Under Sex becomes a research paper—and an exhaustive one at that. Chapters average near 150 footnotes apiece. There are over 1,200 in all. Flynt's hope is that if America can come to terms with its sexual history then it will learn to discern personal relations from problematic hypocrisy.

In the course of challenging some ingrained and even sacred beliefs—like questioning Abraham Lincoln's sexuality or Martin Luther King Jr.'s fidelity—Flynt remains steadfast behind his work.
"Over the last 30 years I've exposed dozens of politicians," Flynt tells me. "Never once has the press said I was wrong or have I ever been sued by any of these people." Indeed, the historical record is on Flynt's mind. After all, he who writes history controls it.

"Historians are the most anally retentive group of professionals I've ever met," Flynt says. "They look at Mt. Rushmore and get red in the pants. They like to have their own vision of history and they don't want somebody taking a look at it from a different angle." That vision, Flynt told me, has valued policy above all else and as such, paints an incomplete portrait of history.

"There was a period—after the Civil War until the end of the Cold War—that the press seemed, itself, to be part of the establishment," Flynt says. "They were there to protect the president. So everybody got protected, whether it was Roosevelt or Kennedy. But after the Cold War, the press totally changed. They said, we're not going to do that anymore. Everything is fair game."

Today, Flynt says, the press' approach is generally healthier, at least in comprehensive coverage. "Everything is an open book," he says. "Everything gets exposed."

Such nakedness, Flynt believes, is critical to a functioning democracy. "The founding fathers gave us a great thing," he says. "And if we don't take care of it we'll be in serious trouble."
It's why Flynt wrote the book. It's why he devoted his life to free speech and the First Amendment. And it's why he gave $50,000 to Julian Assange.
•••

While you might still find a plastic-wrapped copy tucked atop the magazine rack at the bodega or corner store, Hustler isn’t the cultural force it once was. The internet’s assault on print has rocked porn harder than it has the flailing newspaper industry. From a peak circulation of over three million copies a month, Hustler now prints less than 500,000 issues (which are still sent, unasked for, to every congressman’s office on Capitol Hill).

As the magazine continues to shrink, Hustler’s online presence grows—just without the politics. Stories published in the magazine are nowhere to be found online—just porn, streaming and on demand.
When we talked, Flynt appeared to see little difference between how the magazine and its content have been handled pre- and post-internet. Flynt uses Twitter, but has fewer than 6,000 followers. He blogs, but only sporadically. New posts on larryflynt.com seem to turn up about once a month—light years in today’s media cycle.

Print, it seems, was Flynt’s fight—one he fought heroically. Now, in the ever-expanding, great digital wash, that battle for free speech will be waged once more. And though the philosophy of transparency remains much the same, the field has shifted dramatically. With his own profitable publishing company, Flynt entered into the fray backed by organizational strength. And while those operating in the nebulous digital cloud—like Assange—may be able to move quickly and bypass traditional gatekeepers, so too may they find their information difficult to monetize and as such, may find themselves reliant on the kindness of networks.

Whatever the odds or changes in strategy, Flynt says the stakes remain too high to blink. “Free speech is essential to all of us,” he tells me. “It’s universal. You can’t give up by saying I don’t have a microphone or printing press or bank account—you still have your voice and you still need to use it.” And so marches Assange, seemingly with the potential to carry a torch for free speech in a way that few since Flynt have. Politics, as they say, makes strange bedfellows.

Source:
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/sex-justice-and-the-american-way/Content?oid=3948000

Thursday, May 19, 2011

WikiLeaks central america conference (video, Elsalvador with Assange)

May 18 - WikiLeaks and the Altantuya Murder

WikiLeaks and the Altantuya Murder
Written by Our Correspondent   
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Image
Cables show the US embassy in KL feared "prosecutorial misconduct" during the sensational 2009 trial


The US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur closely followed the trial of the accused killers of Mongolian interpreter Altantuya Shaariibuu and frequently discussed whether current Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was involved in the killing, according to diplomatic cables supplied to Asia Sentinel by the WikiLeaks website.


The diplomats, like much of the public, also speculated that the trial was being deliberately delayed and feared what one cable calls "prosecutorial misconduct" that was being politically manipulated. The embassy officials based their concerns on sources within the prosecution, government and the political opposition.


The cables also draw attention to an intriguing allegation that then Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi may have attempted to use the proceedings to implicate Najib, a claim that was quickly hushed up in the Malaysian press.


Altantuya was murdered in October 2006 by two of Najib's bodyguards, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 30 and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35. who stood trial and were pronounced guilty in April 2009.  Abdul Razak Baginda, one of Najib's best friends and Altantuya's lover, was accused of participating in the murder but was freed without having to put on a defense.


The murder has been tied closely to the US$1 billion acquisition of French submarines by the Malaysian ministry of defense, which Najib headed as defense minister during the acquisitions. Altantuya reportedly acted as a translator on the transaction, which netted Razak Baginda's company a €114 million "commission" on the purchase.  Reportedly she had been offered US$500,000 for her part in translating.  After she was jilted, she vainly demanded payment. A letter she had written was made public after her death saying she regretted attempting to "blackmail" Razak Baginda.


French lawyers are investigating whether some of the €114 million was kicked back to French or Malaysian politicians. Despite the scandal, the US government has not publicly backed away from Najib. In April 2010, Najib visited the White House and was praised by President Barack Obama for the parliament's passage of an act allowing Malaysian authorities to take action against individuals and entities engaged in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.


The cables are replete with accounts of a long series of meetings with opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who repeatedly told the Americans that Najib was connected to corrupt practices in the acquisition of the submarines as well as the purchase of Sukhoi Su-MCM-30 Flanker fighter jets from Russia.  Anwar also called attention to Najib's connection to the Altantuya case.


A Jan. 24, 2007 cable, marked "secret," wrote that "Perceived irregularities on the part of prosecutors and the court, and the alleged destruction of some evidence, suggested to many that the case was subject to strong political pressure intended to protect Najib."


In a Feb. 1, 2008 cable, the embassy's Political Section Chief, Mark D. Clark, wrote that a deputy prosecutor had told him "there was almost no chance of winning guilty verdicts in the on-going trial of defendants Razak Baginda, a close advisor to Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, and two police officers.  She described the trial as interminably long." (That, of course, turned out to be wrong. Sirul and Azilah were ultimately convicted and have appealed their sentence) 


Clark called the trial a "a prosecutorial embarrassment from its inception, leading many to speculate that the ineptitude was by design.  On the eve of the trial,Malaysia's Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail dropped his lead prosecutors and replaced them with less experienced attorneys.  Similarly, a lead counsel for one of the defendants abruptly resigned before the trial 'because of (political) attempts to interfere with a defense he had proposed, in particular to protect an unnamed third party.'"


The protracted nature of the case, Clark continued, led "at least one regional newspaper to speculate that 'the case is being deliberately delayed to drive it from public view. Malaysia's daily newspapers rarely mention the case's latest developments, and it is unprecedented in Malaysian judicial history that a murder trial could drag on for seven months and still not give the defense an opportunity to present its case.  Such an environment has led many to conclude that the case was too politically sensitive to yield a verdict before the anticipated general elections."


A January 2007 cable called attention to Razak Baginda's affidavit confirming that he sought the help of Musa Safri, later identified by reporters as Najib's aide-de-camp, in ridding him of the jilted woman, and in other cables pointed out that Musa had never been called for questioning.


In another cable, dated May 16, 2007, Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, a deputy home affairs minister in former Prime Minister Ahmad Abdullah Badawi's cabinet told US Embassy officials that he was "certain that government prosecutors would limit their trial activities to the murder itself and the three defendants; prosecutors would not follow up on allegations of related corruption or other suspects."


In a Jan. 27, 2007 cable, marked "Secret," embassy officials wrote that "In December we heard from one of (Anwar's) lawyers that Razak Baginda's wife was in contact with Anwar and Wan Azizah, suggesting one possible source for Anwar's information." 


Razak Baginda's wife, during one of his first appearances in court, screamed that her husband "doesn't want to be prime minister." That was taken by observers as a reference to the fact that Najib reportedly had been having an affair with Altantuya but passed her on to Razak Baginda because it would be unseemly to have a mistress when he succeeded Abdullah Badawi as premier.  Najib has offered to swear on the Koran that he had never met the woman.


However, in July 2008, P Balasubramaniam, a former policeman and private detective who had been hired by Razak Baginda to protect him from Altantuya, filed a sworn statement saying he had been told by the accused man that Najib not only knew the murdered woman but had an affair with her and introduced her to him, passing her on because he did not want the onus of having a mistress in the event that he would become prime minister.


In a telephone interview on May 9, Anwar, however, told Asia Sentinel that Razak Baginda's wife was not the source of his knowledge of Najib's connection and that instead he had been told of the connection by Setev Shaariibuu, Altantuya's father, who said he had wished to present evidence of Najib's involvement, but was not allowed to do so.  Multiple attempts to contact Setev by Asia Sentinel have been unsuccessful.


Almost immediately after he made the statement, Balasubramaniam was picked up and driven to a police station, where he was forced to withdraw the statement and write a new one saying Razak Baginda had told him nothing of the sort. Balasubramaniam fled Malaysia for India.  He later said Najib's brother, Nizam,  and wife, Rosmah Mansor, had met with him and that he was offered RM5 million (US$1.48 million) to forget his statement connecting Najib to Altantuya. Balasubramaniam displayed a flock of checks drawn on the account of an associate of Najib's wife.  The former private detective has made a a series of statements from outside the country about Najib's involvement.


A February 2008 cable from Political Section Chief Clark gives a hint that Abdullah Badawi himself may have been trying to get rid of Najib by forcing Razak Baginda to implicate him in the murder.


"In the latest turn of the ongoing Altantuya murder trial (reftels), accused political insider Abdul Razak Baginda, who has remained calm and composed through most of the proceedings, unleashed an emotional tirade shortly after the February 20 noon recess on the trial's 90th day," Clark wrote. "Referring to the Prime Minister by his nick-name 'Pak Lah,' Razak reportedly exclaimed:  'You can die, Pak Lah! (in Malaysian - Matilah kau, Pak Lah!) I'm innocent!' according to unpublished journalist accounts. 

"Local  newspapers and the government news service Bernama reported the fact of the outburst, but did not print Razak's  statements.  The short-lived exception was the English language newspaper The Sun, which included the quotations from Razak in its early morning February 21 edition.  Sources at newspaper confirmed to us in confidence that the Ministry of Internal Security compelled The Sun to withdraw and recall thousands of copies of their first run paper in which the original quote was included.  Prime Minister Abdullah serves concurrently as Minister of Internal Security."


During the trial, Clark wrote, Razak Baginda, "appeared uneasy throughout the morning session of court on February 20.  Razak's father, Abdullah Malim Baginda had whispered something to him shortly before the trial had begun for the morning and apparently upset the accused.  Razak had remained quiet throughout the morning hearings, but just after the noon recess was called and as he was leaving the courtroom he kicked and banged the door and yelled "You can die, Pak Lah! Die, Pak Lah!  I am innocent.  I am innocent."  He was later seen crying before his lawyer while his mother attempted to comfort him."


"Speculation is rife in Malaysia's on-line community concerning what it was that set off Razak Baginda  outburst, including conspiracy theories alleging the Prime Minister's office had urged Razak to implicate Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak …in return for  sparing Razak a guilty verdict and its mandatory death sentence," officials wrote.  


The cable goes on to write, "Regardless, the Internal Security Ministry would want to limit any possibly inflammatory reference to the Prime Minister at the trial, and particularly at this juncture due to the proximity of Malaysia's general election to be held on March 8.  Any connection between the Prime Minister and the murder trial would be scandalous.  The GOM (government of Malaysia) reportedly has worked hard to 'drive (the case) from public view' … and is not about to allow the case to influence the coming elections.
 "

May 18 - New powers mean ASIO could spy on WikiLeaks

New powers mean ASIO could spy on WikiLeaks


A new bill before parliament will significantly increase ASIO’s powers to conduct offshore surveillance and extend surveillance to organisations such as WikiLeaks, just months after legislation widened ASIO’s power to share the results of its spying.

The Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 was introduced into the House of Representatives in March without debate and is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The inquiry deadline has been brought forward from September to June. So far there have been just six submissions (including ones from the Attorney-General’s Department and Queensland Police predictably supporting the bill) — reflecting the small number of stakeholders who are across the significance of these sorts of changes to legislation affecting intelligence services.

In March, ASIO’s powers to share information from wiretaps and computer access with other agencies were significantly expanded by the Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Act, which sailed through Parliament with the support of the government and the Opposition, to the fury of the Greens.

The new bill goes further and expands ASIO’s power to undertake surveillance activity offshore in two keys areas:
  • Currently the collection of foreign intelligence is limited to when the Attorney-General “is satisfied that the collection of that foreign intelligence is important in relation to the defence of the Commonwealth or to the conduct of the Commonwealth’s international affairs”. Under the bill, those criteria will be expanded to “the interests of Australia’s national security, Australia’s foreign relations or Australia’s national economic well-being”; and 
  • Foreign intelligence” is redefined to relate to “intelligence about the capabilities, intentions or activities of people or organisations outside Australia”. Under current legislation, it is limited to “intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of a foreign power”. Similarly, the concept of a “foreign power” has been redefined — currently it applies to “a foreign government, an entity that is directed or controlled by a foreign government or governments, or a foreign political organisation”. Under the bill, it will become “people, organisations and governments outside Australia”.

The new definitions free ASIO up to undertake surveillance offshore in relation to Australia’s economic interests - for example, the negotiation of BHP and Rio’s new iron ore contracts in China. But it also enables ASIO to spy on people and organisations overseas that do not fit the current definition of “foreign powers”.

As Dr Patrick Emerton of Monash’s Castan Centre for Human Rights Law points out in the centre’s ubmission, the current definitions in the act already allow for “non-state actors” (for example, who might be engaged in terrorist activities aimed at Australia) to be targeted — “most non-state organisations that threaten the security of Australia would be captured by the existing notion of foreign political organisation”. The expansion, however, would enable Julian Assange and WikiLeaks to be targeted by ASIO. As Emerton says in the submission:
Currently, information about WikiLeaks probably would not constitute foreign intelligence — because WikiLeaks is (arguably) not a foreign political organisation, and its activities do not threaten Australia’s security (as defined in section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth)). But WikiLeaks is an organisation, and Mr Assange is a person, outside Australia, and their activities evidently do have implications for Australia’s foreign relations. This example shows how the notion of “person or organisation outside Australia”, combined with the notion of “Australia’s foreign relations”, very considerably expands the scope of ASIO’s potential activities.”
Other non-political groupings — in the strict sense — such as Anonymous would also be legitimate targets under the revised definitions. One Anonymous operation brought down the www.aph.gov.au site and two Australians were subsequently convicted for participating.

As the Law Council explains in its submission, the current threshold test for spying on Australians domestically is significantly more stringent than that for overseas, and must relate to matters that are important in relation to security, which is then defined against several criteria. The amendments would enable much easier surveillance of Australians who go overseas and participate in political action.

Potentially, they may also enable surveillance of Australians engaged in action online, even if they are still in Australia, as long as it relates to “the capabilities, intentions or activities of people or organisations outside Australia”. For example, Australians participating in Anonymous operations, or perhaps even supporting WikiLeaks or other whistleblower organisations online, may now be legal targets of ASIO surveillance even though they are in Australia and not doing anything that relates to Australia’s security.

The bill also makes life easier for ASIO by expanding the remit of computer search warrants to include any information on the computer during the life of the warrant, not just when it was issued; ensuring ASIO can share employment-related information about people without them ever being able to access that information and clarifying ASIO’s immunities from Commonwealth and state civil and criminal laws.

The government brings forward a bill expanding ASIO’s powers once or twice a year, consistent with the unrestrained funding and staffing increases the agency has received,” Greens Senator Scott Ludlam told Crikey. “This current bill is the most ambitious we’ve seen. It will allow our clandestine intelligence agency to pursue covert campaigns against organisations like WikiLeaks or get involved in commercial espionage, presumably on behalf of Australian exporters.”

One of the ironies of national security legislation, of course, is that the Opposition, which is usually to be found instinctively saying “no” to anything proposed by Labor, disappears on the issue, ensuring the passage of these bills. “The government won’t need to justify such extraordinary overreach,” said Ludlam. “Because they know the opposition will vote for anything with ‘national security’ in the title. I think it’s a profoundly dangerous and unnecessary expansion of ASIO’s powers.”

Source: 


May 18 - WikiLeaks: US asked weapons firm to twist Canadian arms on missile defence

WikiLeaks

May 18 - El movimiento de "los indignados" irrumpe contra la política en España

El movimiento de "los indignados" irrumpe contra la política en España

Martes, 17 de mayo de 2011 a las 17:16
El movimiento M-15 fue convocado a través de las redes sociales; en Facebook reúne más de 70,000 seguidores y en Twiter acapara discusiones mundiales (AFP)
Lo más importante
  • El movimiento M-15 fue convocado a través de las redes sociales
  • Inició el domingo pasado cuando cientos de jóvenes protestaron en Madrid
  • La mayoría son jóvenes y se están "indignados" por el desempleo y la política
Temas relacionados
Miles de jóvenes protestan contra el desempleo y la política española en las vísperas de elecciones regionales (AFP).  
Miles de jóvenes protestan contra el desempleo y la política española en las vísperas de elecciones regionales (AFP).
 
(CNNMéxico) — Miles de personas han salido a las calles de Madrid y otras ciudades de España para expresar su indignación con la situación política, económica y social, lo que ha puesto presión sobre las elecciones del domingo, informó la agencia española EFE.

Los manifestantes gritan consignas contra los graves efectos de la crisis económica, el desempleo y el desencanto hacia los políticos.
Aunque se venía fraguando desde hace semanas a través de internet, el movimiento inició el domingo pasado, cuando centenares de jóvenes llegaron a la Puerta del Sol, en el centro de Madrid, con la intención de acampar hasta el domingo, cuando se celebrarán elecciones regionales y municipales en el país ibérico, de acuerdo con EFE.

Las fuerzas de seguridad desalojaron el martes a unos 150 de los manifestantes y detuvieron durante horas a varios de ellos, lo que motivó que cientos de jóvenes más regresaran al centro de Madrid para reiterar sus reclamos, según EFE.

Aglomeraciones menos numerosas con demandas similares se reportaron en Barcelona, Zaragoza, Valencia y Palma de Mallorca, según EFE.

La revolución islandesa y su reforma constitucional, junto a las revueltas árabes, el fenómeno WikiLeaks y las redes sociales han inspirado las protestas.

El movimiento 15-M (15 de mayo, por las protestas del domingo) está compuesto principalmente por jóvenes y fue convocado a través de varias plataformas y redes sociales en internet.

“No somos mercancía en manos de políticos y banqueros”, asegura la página Democracia real YA en Facebook, la cuenta de una de una de las plataformas que siguen 70,000 personas. Su propósito es invitar a indignarse con los poderes políticos y económicos, y exigir un cambio de rumbo.

La iniciativa también trascendió en Twitter, donde los términos #15mani, #nonosvamos, #acampadasol y #spanishrevolution situaron a las manifestaciones al tercer lugar de discusión mundial.
En el servicio de video You Tube, videos propagandísticos y de las marchas en las ciudades acumulan miles de vistas y seguidores.

El movimiento ciudadano ha sorprendido a los políticos de los partidos tradicionales en plena campaña electoral y se ha convertido en uno de los principales temas de debate en los medios.
Los partidos de la izquierda, como el Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) e Izquierda Unida han tratado de mostrarse comprensivos y solidarios, pero los indignados insisten en que, por el momento, no piensan dar su apoyo a ninguna formación, de acuerdo con EFE.

El movimiento no tiene una postura única sobre las próximas elecciones. Mientras algunas de las plataformas que lo apoyan se inclinan por la abstención, otros son partidarios de votar, pero no ninguno de los dos grandes partidos, PSOE y Partido Popular (PP, centroderecha) que dominan el mapa político español, según EFE.

La crisis económica que vive España tiene una de sus máximas expresiones en el desempleo, que ha llevado las cifras del paro a casi cinco millones de personas, más del 20% de la población activa, con una especial incidencia en los jóvenes.

El desempleo entre los menores de 25 años supera el 40%.

El Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) advirtió la semana pasada que España corre el riesgo de que se produzca "una generación perdida" entre la juventud. "Casi uno de cada dos trabajadores jóvenes no tiene empleo".

Source:

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

May 18 - WikiLeaks cables show that it was all about the oil

WikiLeaks cables show that it was all about the oil 

Kevin G. Hall talks with the Real News Network about the U.S. diplomatic push for more oil sources.


Gazprom, which grew out of the former Soviet Union's state gas ministry, had been busy buying up Yukos' far-flung empire, stoking American fears that soon Russia and its tough leader, Vladimir Putin, would control virtually all of the natural gas flowing to Europe.

The United States wanted to stop that from happening. So the American embassy in Slovakia hired a Texas-based oil consultant and began secretly advising the Slovakian government on how to buy the 49 percent stake Yukos had held in Transpetrol, the Slovakian oil pipeline company. 

With no oil experience of its own, the Slovakian government didn't know how much it should pay. The consultant, who sat in on the negotiations, assured Slovakia's economy minister, Lubomir Jahnatek, that the $120 million price offered to the group disposing of Yukos' assets was a bargain. Gazprom was willing to pay far more.

"We have made it clear to all parties that we do not want to publicize our role as technical advisors," the embassy said in an Aug. 10, 2006, cable that outlined what eventually became a deal. "Jahnatek is clearly appreciative of the input provided by (the consultant), and will continue to look to him and the U.S. embassy for information as he faces the challenges to the deal in the coming weeks." 

The communication, part of the cache of State Department cables that WikiLeaks passed to McClatchy and other news organizations, is just one indication of how the U.S. government over the years has maneuvered to influence the world's oil and natural gas markets.
With oil trading near $100 a barrel and gasoline near $4 a gallon at the pump, Americans can take solace in knowing that securing sources of oil has been a chief focus of U.S. embassies across the globe for years.

Of the 251,287 WikiLeaks documents McClatchy obtained, 23,927 of them — nearly one in 10 — reference oil. Gazprom alone is mentioned in 1,789.

In the cables, U.S. diplomats can be found plotting ways to prevent state entities such as Gazprom from taking control of key petroleum facilities, pressing oil companies to adjust their policies to match U.S. foreign policy goals, helping U.S.-based oil companies arrange deals on favorable terms and pressing foreign governments to assist companies that are willing to do the U.S.'s bidding.
Sometimes the U.S. approach seems mystifying. An Aug. 17, 2009, secret cable from the U.S. embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, recalled how days earlier the U.S. charge d'affaires, Richard Erdman, pushed Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al Naimi to get closer to China.

But there was an ulterior motive. At the time, the United States was trying to persuade China to back sanctions against Iran over the country's nuclear fuel enrichment program. The U.S. believes the program is part of an Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons. "We wouldn't mind seeing Saudi sales replacing some of Iran's oil exports to China. This would have the welcome side impact of reducing Iranian leverage over China," Erdman told Naimi in a cable.

Naimi responded that Saudi Arabia, a bitter rival to Iran, would soon be the largest oil supplier to China, and it came to pass. In 2010, Saudi Arabia was the top oil supplier to China. Iran was third, according to the Chinese website ChinaOilWeb.

A July 30, 2009, secret cable from the U.S embassy in Riyadh recounts how Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, while visiting the kingdom, leaned on his Saudi counterpart, Ibrahim al Assaf, to contain rising oil prices.

"Geithner said that it would be positive for the global recovery if oil prices did not rise further, whether from speculation or OPEC production," the cable said, noting that Geithner admitted "that the U.S. had not found a 'good way' to limit oil-price volatility."

The documents also show how in their global hunt for oil, companies from allied countries and foes alike complicate U.S. policy objectives.

One target of repeated U.S. ire is the Rome-based oil giant Eni, Italy's largest corporation and one in which the Italian government holds a 30 percent stake. Both efforts to expand its presence in Iran and its close ties to Russia's Gazprom are frequent topics in the cables.

"Eni CEO Paolo Scaroni told the ambassador that the Iranian energy minister has offered Eni investment opportunities in Iran's South Pars and Azadegan oil fields," said a secret cable from the U.S. embassy in Rome dated Jan. 12, 2007. "Scaroni said Eni is interested in additional investment in Iran so long as there are no multilateral sanctions against Iran in effect, Iran pays money owed Eni under existing contracts, and the investments are structured so that Eni's return is based on world oil and gas prices."

The embassy was particularly unhappy that Eni sought to structure its new business in Iran in such a way that it could claim that Iran was merely repaying old debts owed to the company, some dating to the 1950s. That would allow Eni to help Iran develop the fields and skirt any sanctions imposed over Iran's nuclear program, which the U.S. believes is intended to develop nuclear weapons.

The embassy urged U.S. officials in Washington to lean on Scaroni during an upcoming visit to squelch any deal. A subsequent cable indicates they did.

Scaroni was poised to try again with the Obama administration, according to a May 5, 2009, account of a meeting with another Eni official. "Post thinks there are good reasons for USG skepticism on this request," the cable said.

Eni's ties with Gazprom were the subject of an April 24, 2008, cable that urged the State and Treasury departments to express displeasure very clearly to Scaroni.

Specifically at issue was an Eni deal that would have given Gazprom access to Libyan oil and would have had Eni help Gazprom build a pipeline across the Black Sea. This project would have competed with a similar project backed by the U.S. government that would have connected gas fields in the Caspian region directly to Europe, bypassing Russia and Gazprom.

At the time, Silvio Berlusconi was about to become Italy's prime minister for a second time and the embassy urged headquarters to twist his arm as well.

"Post would like to push the new Berlusconi government to force Eni to act less as a stalking horse for Gazprom interests," the confidential cable said. "Eni . . . seems to be working in support of Gazprom's efforts to dominate Europe's energy supply, and against U.S.-supported E.U. efforts to diversify energy supply."

Eni has been in the news of late because it's the largest player in Libya's oil sector and Scaroni publicly voiced concern that U.S.-led efforts to oust strongman Moammar Gadhafi weren't in Italy's interest. On April 20, Scaroni announced that Eni was temporarily shelving its deal in Libya that would have given Gazprom a big stake in Libyan oil, a move the leaked documents show the U.S. had been seeking since 2008.

Sometimes, however, U.S. efforts were aimed at unleashing Russian oil.

A secret cable from Moscow dated April 16, 2009, tells how Houston-based ConocoPhillips planned to join the Russian firm Lukoil in bidding on oil contracts in Iraq. The joint effort in Iraq had the blessing of Putin, ConocoPhillips officials said, who noted that Putin had offered to provide debt relief to Iraq if the U.S.-Russian consortium were granted a contract.

Iraqi oil was the subject of many cables from diplomats in Iraq, including a number that dealt with the surprise 2007 announcement that Texas-based Hunt Oil Co. had entered into a production sharing agreement with the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq's north. The problem was Iraq hadn't yet passed its national oil law and the company's CEO, Dallas businessman Ray Hunt, was a friend of President George W. Bush. And Hunt served on Bush's foreign intelligence advisory committee.

A Sept. 9, 2007, cable from the U.S. government's Kurdistan Regional Reconstruction Team described Hunt Oil's Middle East manager, David McDonald, as unconcerned about the legalities of the deal.

"He did not express concern about the potential controversy surrounding signature of a PSC (production agreement) with the KRG that covers areas of operation currently outside the KRG's legal control," the reconstruction team warned. "He said, 'This is a significant opportunity that outweighs the legal ambiguity.' "
The cable said McDonald described hunting for oil in Iraq's north as "like shooting fish in a barrel." 

The cables are filled with information about the energy industry that can't help but surprise. One cable from the U.S. embassy in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, argues that the Obama administration should be paying closer attention to the small West African nation, noting that a sudden reversal of political winds could cost hundreds of American oil workers their jobs and threaten 20 percent of the U.S. oil supply. 

"Taking away U.S. energy imports from North America (i.e. those from our immediate neighbors Canada and Mexico), we find that over 30 percent of our imported oil and gas comes from the Gulf of Guinea region — more, for example, than from the Middle East," the May 21, 2009, cable noted. "The largest portion of the Gulf of Guinea maritime territory belongs to little EG."

The cable added that Spain and China are making oil plays in the country where U.S. companies Marathon Oil Corp. and Hess Corp. have as much as 30 percent of their capital invested.

Despite the unsavory reputation of Equatorial Guinea President Teodoro Obiang, who's proclaimed himself a living god, the time seemed right to reboot bilateral relations, the cable suggested, noting that Obama is a common surname there.

"The recent change in the U.S. administration — in the country with the highest per capita density of 'Obamas' in the world — was received as a herald of warmer relations," the cable said.

READ THE CABLES


MORE WIKILEAKS FROM MCCLATCHY


At midday on Friday 5 February, 2016 Julian Assange, John Jones QC, Melinda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson and Baltasar Garzon will be speaking at a press conference at the Frontline Club on the decision made by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on the Assange case.