Watch the Metrodome collapse – CNN International

The Daily Philadelphian

Watch the Metrodome collapse CNN International (CNN) — A powerful snowstorm barreled east through the Midwest on Sunday, bringing with it more precipitation and gusty winds and leaving behind a trail of significant damage, large snow drifts and subarctic temperatures, according to the National … Frazier shoots down reports about Favre sittingMinneapolis Star Tribune Giants Biding Their Time in Midst of Quite a Bizarre Road TripFanHouse A convoluted travel weekend for GiantsBoston Herald Detroit Free Press –Newsday –Tampabay.com all 1,964 news articles »

Sports – Google News

Transparency International Poll: The World Is Getting More Corrupt

As if it wasn’t bad enough that a souring world economy has people all over the world already abuzz, a new poll finds that most people believe the world is more corrupt than it was three years ago:

Some 56% of people interviewed by Transparency International said their country had become more corrupt.

And there’s finally a bit of good news for the United States: it is not ranked in the very top category:

The organisation put Afghanistan, Nigeria, Iraq and India in the most corrupt category, followed by China, Russia and much of the Middle East.

Meanwhile, a BBC poll suggests that corruption is the world’s most talked about problem.

About one in five of those polled by the BBC said they had discussed issues relating to corruption with others in the last month, making it the most talked about concern ahead of climate change, poverty, unemployment and rising food and energy costs.

And what do people consider the most corrupt institution? American independent voters will appreciate this finding (although the modus operendi may be a bit different depending on the country):

In the Transparency International survey, political parties were regarded as the most corrupt institutions, and 50% of people believed their government was ineffective at tackling the problem.

One in four of those polled said they had paid a bribe in the past year – the police being the most common recipient.

Some 29% of bribes went to the police, 20% to registry and permit officials, and 14% to members of the judiciary.

Political parties have long been regarded as the most corrupt institutions – they topped the list in Transparency’s 2004 barometer with 71%. In this year’s report, 80% regarded them as corrupt.

And religious institutions? They may wish to do some prayers about their images, too:

Religious bodies experienced a sharp rise in people regarding them as corrupt – 28% in 2004 increased to 53% by 2010.

According to the BBC, the people who reported the most corruption in their daily lives are from Afghanistan, Nigeria, Iraq and India. Roughly half of those reported having to pay a bribe the past year.

While people from Cambodia (84%) and Liberia (89%) were the most likely to have to pay a bribe, the Danish reported 0% bribery.

Robin Hodess, Transparency’s policy and research director, expressed particular concern at the figures on bribery.

“Unfortunately people’s experience with bribery most often involves the police, and this is really worrying,” he said.

Reuters frames the poll this way:

The public’s faith in political parties has been sharply eroded during the financial crisis, with four out of five people saying they are corrupt or very corrupt, a survey showed Thursday.

The 2010 Global Corruption Barometer by Berlin-based watchdog Transparency International (TI) showed that 79 percent of respondents in a global study believed parties were “corrupt or extremely corrupt,” up from 69 percent in 2009.

TI said the sample of countries used was slightly larger in 2010, and that if a comparison was made between 65 nations polled in both years, the increase was more pronounced — 82 percent saw parties as corrupt in 2010, up from 68 percent last year.

“The fall-out of the financial crises continues to affect people’s opinions of corruption, particularly in Europe and North America,” TI chairwoman Huguette Labelle said.

“Institutions everywhere must be resolute in their efforts to restore good governance and trust,” she added.

Israel’s Jerusalem Post says this:

Transparency International – Israel released a poll on Thursday, which showed that Israelis think that political parties are the most corrupt institution in the country.

Nearly 90 percent of Israelis said that parties were corrupt, giving them a score of 4.5 out of five possible corruption points. The Knesset was ranked as the second-most corrupt institution, with a score of four. The IDF was in last place, with 2.6 out of five points.

The Kenyan Broadcasting Corporation offers this:

At least 92% of Kenyans perceive the police force as the most corrupt institution.

This is according to the 2010 Global Corruption Barometer Report, a worldwide public opinion survey on corruption, released Thursday by Transparency International on the International Anti Corruption Day.

In 2010 the Global Corruption Barometer covered 86 countries and territories polling 91,781 individuals between 1st June and 30th September 2010 with a margin of error of between 2.18% and 4.40% per country.

The survey had a nationwide sample of 1,000 people in Kenya and was conducted between 1st and 10th July 2010.

The Barometer explores the general public’s views about corruption levels in their country and their government efforts to fight corruption.

The 2010 Barometer also probes the frequency of bribery, reasons for paying a bribe in the past year, and attitudes towards reporting incidents of corruption.

The Irish Times:

IRISH PEOPLE’S trust in politicians is among the lowest of any country worldwide, according to a survey.

Transparency International’s Irish branch surveyed 1,000 Irish residents between June and September this year. The survey, released today to coincide with International Anti-Corruption Day, found people felt corruption to be on the rise in most public institutions. The perception of corruption in politics and the church was among the highest of the 86 countries surveyed.

In a barometer measuring between 1 and 5, at which 5 is the most corrupt, participants scored Irish political parties at 4.4. Only Greece, Israel, Nigeria and Romania rated their political parties as being more corrupt.

Six out of 10 Irish people felt levels of corruption had risen in the past three years. The public’s trust in the church and the Oireachtas deteriorated most dramatically since the last study was carried out in 2007. However, the perception of corruption in business, the media, NGOs, the education system, the Garda and the military also deteriorated. The only improvement was in relation to the legal system.

More than eight out of 10 people believed the Government was ineffective in tackling the abuse of power while 4 per cent claimed they had paid a bribe in the last year.

Chief executive of Transparency Ireland John Devitt said the findings were not surprising. “If anything, it’s surprising the Irish figures are not worse,” he said.

Radio Free Europe:

The report also found that corruption takes a huge toll on poor people. TI chairwoman Huguette Labelle called it “a regressive tax” and an “injustice [that] must be addressed.”

When it comes to their own government’s efforts against corruption, most citizens reported not being impressed.

The exceptions were in the United States and most NIS countries, where citizens said they believed the government was having an effect against corruption.

Marschall said the group was surprised to learn that political parties are the least-trusted groups in many countries. Some 80 percent of respondents said they believed such organizations are “deeply corrupt.”

Amidst the report’s bad news there is some good news. The survey found a healthy level of outrage over corruption and more people than ever said they would be willing to stand up and report incidents of corruption to authorities.

“More people are now ready to fight against corruption. More people believe that, actually, he or she can make a difference,” Marschall said. “Seventy percent of all our respondents told us that they are ready now to report on corruption if they come across such a case, so that is definitely good news.”

However, that number drops in half if the person is a victim of corruption.

The copyrighted cartoon by Angel Boligan, Cagle Cartoons, El Universal, Mexico City, is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. All rights reserved.

The Moderate Voice

Thanks to International Aid, Gaza Is Going To Be A Well-Off Islamist Republic

This post was written by Barry Rubin and is reposted here with permission.

Thanks to International Aid, Gaza Is Going To Be A Well-Off Islamist Republic

By Barry Rubin

The Gaza Strip is doing really well economically and the Hamas regime seems set to go on forever. It’s raking in the aid money but every dollar and every project is shaped to ensure that Hamas remains in power, can return to violence in future and…wreck everything again.

“There are a slew of products here, and beautiful restaurants. Is this the Gaza we have been hearing about?” asked a Sudanese official arriving there, as quoted by the Palestinian news agency Maan. “Where is the siege? I don’t see it in Gaza. I wish Sudan’s residents could live under the conditions of the Gazan siege.”

There is massive construction, including rebuilding what was destroyed in the war Hamas began against Israel two years ago. If Hamas were a normal government this would all be great. By normal government I mean even a normal dictatorship. Such a regime would say:

We’re raising living standards, we’re increasing our popularity. Why should we be so foolish as to go to war against a stronger neighbor and see all of this destroyed again?

But, of course, Hamas is not a normal ruling group. It believes that the Creator of the Universe is on its side and wants it to fight. Hamas revels in martyrdom. It thinks total victory and the killing of all Israeli Jews is achievable. And it knows that the rest of the world won’t let it be fully defeated and thrown out of power no matter how many rockets, martyrs, and terrorist groups it sends into Israel.

As a dictatorial regime intending to control everything and stay in power forever, Hamas is locking the Gaza population into its patronage system, a sort of Islamist welfare state, so that people wouldn’t dare break with their rulers.

The main project: is building 25,000 new housing units in the northern Gaza Strip, just west of Beit Lahiya. Here’s how a business magazine explains it:

“The neighborhood…will be named after the residence of the 72 virgins waiting in paradise. The al-Buraq neighborhood, named after the horse Prophet Muhammad rode from Mecca to the al-Aqsa Mosque, will be built on the lands of Gush Katif. The Andalus neighborhood is aimed at reminding the Muslims of their days of glory in Spain.”

Let’s stop a minute and consider those names and what a reporter wouldn’t even notice here:

-72 virgins: To remind everyone growing up there that they, too, can get six dozen virgins if they become a martyr by blowing up Israeli civilians.

-The horse: To remind everyone that their goal in life is to devote themselves to warfare so they, too, can travel to the al-Aqsa mosque and conquer Jerusalem.

-Andalus: To remind everyone of the one-time (and future?) extent of the Muslim empire which even conquered Spain, and where they also intend to return.

This is a fascinating example of how economic development mixes with political power and indoctrination. Up in Lebanon, Hizballah is doing similar things. But there’s more, much more.

Who gets the apartments? First in line are the families of martyrs, prisoners, and wounded fighters. This shows the advantages of fighting for Hamas. The way you get an apartment is not to get a good education and work hard to earn the necessary money but rather to die in battle.

Next on the priority list come young couples who don’t have an apartment or a lot to build on. That’s nice, but it relates to the theme—which Hamas has voiced often-of maximizing population growth so as to achieve victory through overwhelming numbers, which also provides more fighters

Only in third place come families that lost their homes during the fighting last year, which is the group you’d expect to have the highest priority. All the humanitarian groups that have decried Israel’s defensive war against Hamas might take note that Hamas has put the victims last in line for relief. This is a good indication of its thinking and policies.

You can bet, by the way, that Hamas loyalists will get put into line in each of these categories ahead of Fatah supporters. That gives people an incentive to switch sides and to support the regime.

Moreover, only those working for the Hamas government can get a bank loan; families of casualties can get help from Hamas-controlled Islamic charities. The rest can get mortgages only with Islamic associations controlled by Hamas. Anybody involved in opposition activities would probably get turned down. And, of course, the people who do get help must be grateful to Hamas for the roof over their heads.
Finally, the way the project is being laid out looks to me as if it is being set up as a barrier to any future Israeli military operation into the Gaza Strip.

On one hand, it will create a dense network of narrow streets and buildings which can be more easily defended by guerrillas, likely to inflict more casualties on Israel’s soldiers.

On the other hand, it would be the architectural equivalent of a human shield, since Israeli forces would have to damage civilian apartments to engage Hamas men firing from them, thus creating a situation which could be falsely portrayed as a war crime.

At any rate, it should be rather impossible to speak about the Gaza Strip as deprived and suffering any more, though I suspect that won’t stop a lot of people from doing so. .The article explains:

“There is apparently no shortage of money. Generous donations are flowing in from Iran, Islamic associations across the Arab worlds, and governmental elements in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Western elements.

“Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has been mercilessly pursuing Hamas in the West Bank, is aiding Gaza with millions of dollars, boasting that 57% of the Palestinian Authority budget is directed at the Strip. Abbas pays the salaries of 70,000 government workers from the post-Hamas era, maintains the health and education systems, and even funds some of Gaza’s electricity production expenses.”

So Hamas is awash with funds, no doubt using part of the money for paying, training, and arming its soldiers and security men. Unlike the Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank, however, Hamas is also putting in a tax system: value-added tax, income tax, tax on gas, and tax on all goods arriving from Israel. Bottom line: Hamas will take its cut of everything coming in and everything going on.

And how is the world responding to this? Well, Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair wants the sanctions reduced even further, presumably on the dangerously risky theory that if Hamas gets to be really wealthy and popular it will become moderate rather than better able to promote revolution and terrorism.

It is a good thing that Gazans will have nicer lives materially. But the same process will ensure that they will not have a better life in terms of freedom. With Hamas indoctrinating young people to become terrorists and even suicide bombers many of them will have shorter lives. And since Hamas is just preparing for another war with Israel—or provocations that will eventually lead to war—those apartments might not be there forever either.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). You can read more of Barry Rubin’s posts at Rubin Reports.

Technorati Tag: Gaza and Hamas.

Daled Amos

Great news: Shanghai teens destroy U.S. in respected international standardized test

“We have to see this as a wake-up call.”

---

Hey, who’s up for a little civilizational-decline anxiety on a slow Tuesday news night? Why, I haven’t wet myself like this over China since that Chinese professor ad during the campaign! After reading this, I’m going to have nightmares like Cartman in that “South Park” episode about the Beijing Olympics. “Wow, I’m kind of stunned, […]

Read this post »

Hot Air » Top Picks

The U.S. role in international climate finance – A blueprint for near-term leadership

The vital national interests of the United States require our nation to forge a global partnership with developing nations to accelerate their climate actions through new international investments in clean energy technologies, energy efficiency, tropical forest conservation and climate adaptation.

This is a cross-post from The Alliance for Climate Protection and Andrew Light of the Center for American Progress.

Read the full report (pdf)

Download the summary for policymakers (pdf)

Download the foreword by Maggie L. Fox, John D. Podesta, and Nigel Purvis (pdf)

Download a message from Vice President Al Gore (pdf)

Foreword

We sponsored this joint report by the Alliance for Climate Protection and the Center for American Progress, based on analysis by Climate Advisers and Project Catalyst, to help convey an important truth: the United States must find the political will to lead on international climate finance, and doing so is possible despite current economic and political conditions.

While the past two years have brought many ups and downs in international and domestic climate policy, one of the most promising developments was the acceptance by all major economies of the scientific consensus that the world must limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. For the first time the world has an enduring measuring stick against which to gauge progress. Another positive development has been that all major economies for the first time have outlined the emissions reductions they plan to achieve through 2020. A review of these commitments shows that some nations are already taking impressive action, others have promised new measures, and still others are doing and planning very little. Despite this diversity, these pledges provide a starting point for a truly global effort.

We must acknowledge, though, that recent events in the United States have been deeply disappointing to all those at home and abroad who seek American leadership on climate change. Climate legislation collapsed in the U.S. Senate, and the results of the recent midterm elections appear to have taken the most promising solutions off the table for the time being. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Obama administration is pursuing policies and programs that can help mitigate U.S. emissions—including efforts to improve vehicle efficiency, clamp down on old, highly polluting coal power plants, invest in renewable energy technologies and regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In addition, the United States is currently on track to deliver over $ 4 billion in “fast start” climate financing for developing countries. However, these efforts will not be sufficient to meet the United States’ share of a global effort, even if the measures are enough to fulfill the U.S. pledge under the Copenhagen Accord. And even while many U.S. states are moving forward with their own policies to curb climate pollution, overall, the sum of all U.S. policies will not protect vital U.S. and global economic, security, public health and environmental interests in the face of ravaging climate change. We are therefore deeply concerned about the inability of our nation to come to terms with the enormity of the climate crisis and mount an ambitious, comprehensive response. This failure has many causes, from the influence of polluters and corporate special interests in U.S. politics to the aftermath of the recent recession. Even in the face of these unavoidable political realities, we believe the United States can reduce emissions well below current levels by 2020 if it aggressively pursues a mix of climate and energy policies.

From the data presented in this report, however, we know that even if all countries meet their existing emissions mitigation pledges for 2020, a substantial gap will remain between these emissions reductions and the reductions needed to limit climate change to 2 degrees Celsius. In fact, if countries only achieve the low end of their proposed policies, the world still will need to avoid an additional 6.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2020, more than current total U.S. energy sector emissions. The questions at the forefront of our minds, then, are where should the world go from here and how can the United States do its part?

After taking a hard look at the data, the authors of this report conclude—and we agree—that the United States and other developed nations must partner with developing nations, particularly major emerging economies, to help them implement additional strategies for low-emissions development. These would be new initiatives to grow their economies, increase efficiency and security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve resilience to climate impacts—all through collaboration that will require leadership from a broad range of public and private actors.

This report explains why such a partnership is in the vital national interests of the United States—including to help close the competitiveness gap with China and other countries over clean energy technologies—and provides a blueprint for U.S. action in the near-term through 2015. Engaging other nations, particularly developing countries, will require new U.S. investments in international climate finance. Mobilizing new public and private resources in the near term will not be easy, but this report shows that it will not be impossible either.

Make no mistake: our purpose is not to shift the burden of emissions reductions to developing nations that have done less to cause the climate crisis, have the least capacity to respond, and are the most vulnerable to climate impacts. The United States and other developed nations must do their part at home. But we also must internalize the political reality that U.S. domestic emissions reductions will not be sufficient in the near term and that our nation has to find other ways to contribute to an effective global effort. To that end we must expand our work to support other nations that are making good-faith efforts to reduce their emissions.

Importantly, all “climate hawks”—the ever growing circle of civic, health, educational, business, foreign policy and national security leaders, international development advocates, faith communities and environmentalists who understand why strong climate policies are essential—must take responsibility for building the political will needed to turn this blueprint for U.S. action on international climate finance into a reality. A sustained and coordinated public education and advocacy effort will be essential to eventual success.

The authors of this report are Andrew Stevenson and Nigel Purvis from Climate Advisers, Claire O’Connor from the Alliance for Climate Protection, and Andrew Light from the Center for American Progress. We are grateful for the persuasive case they have made for U.S. leadership on international climate finance and their insightful policy recommendations.

Maggie L. Fox is the President and CEO of the Alliance for Climate Action, John D. Podesta is the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress, and Nigel Purvis is the President and CEO of Climate Advisers.

Summary for policymakers

The vital national interests of the United States require our nation to forge a global partnership with developing nations to accelerate their climate actions through new international investments in clean energy technologies, energy efficiency, tropical forest conservation and climate adaptation. This report by the Center for American Progress and the Alliance for Climate protection, based on analysis by Project Catalyst and Climate Advisers, identifies a plan for U.S. leadership on a global climate investment strategy in the near term, 2013-2015, and breaks down how much money will be needed from developed countries to achieve emission reductions in particular sectors in developing countries. We assess the difficult political climate in the United States and make the case for the feasibility of this effort.

New U.S. investments in financing international climate action will yield many benefits including:

• Increased competitiveness with China and other trading partners by U.S. firms, helping them capture a substantially larger share of global clean energy markets—worth $ 2 trillion annually and rapidly growing
• Reduced risks of climate-related national security threats, including from severe floods or droughts in Pakistan and the Middle East
• Stronger relationships with key strategic allies and major emerging economies, such as Indonesia, India, and Brazil, that will enhance America’s ability to build global coalitions on security and economic policy and advance democratic ideals
• Billions of dollars in reduced climate impacts in the United States, including on U.S. coastal infrastructure and farmers
• Improved energy security and lower energy prices for traditional fuels

The need for action

All major nations—including China, India, and other emerging economies—have agreed to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Scientists concur that this is the maximum level of warming allowable to stand a good chance of avoiding dangerous and potentially catastrophic climate change.

Spurred in part by the creation of the Copenhagen Accord, all these major carbon emitters have outlined and begun to implement emissions reduction policies through 2020 toward the global temperature objective. But more ambitious climate actions are needed worldwide—a gap of 6.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year exists between the low end of possible emissions reduction outcomes through 2020 from countries’ unconditional pledges and existing policies, and the necessary emissions reductions by that date to place the world on a pathway to reaching the 2 degree objective. With the collapse of comprehensive climate legislation in the United States and significant gains by climate skeptics in U.S. midterm elections, domestic climate champions and the international climate community wonder whether the United States can still lead.

The United States can restore its international credibility and help to close more than half the gap in global climate ambition by leading a new international partnership to scale up emissions mitigation measures of developing nations. The partnership must supplement, not become a substitute for, far stronger domestic policies to reduce U.S. emissions. This international partnership will require combining technical expertise, innovative thinking, political determination, and, importantly, new financial resources to help reduce the costs of green growth and low-emissions development in developing nations.

The need for climate finance

The Copenhagen Accord established a “fast start” financing goal of $ 30 billion to flow from developed to developing countries by 2012. In turn it identified the need for the establishment of a climate fund with aim of mobilizing $ 100 billion annually by 2020. We argue that an additional capital investment of incremental financing is needed of about $ 60 billion per year by 2020. Billions more in additional financing also will be needed for climate adaptation. Compared to annual spending by major economies on fossil fuel subsidies ($ 312 billion), energy ($ 5 trillion), and infrastructure ($ 7 trillion), these sums are small.

The world will need to draw on a variety of existing and new sources of finance to meet these investments, including public budget resources, carbon markets, development bank lending, and private financing. A recent high-level report commissioned by the United Nations secretary general described the task of mobilizing new international resources for climate finance as challenging but feasible in view of global economic and political conditions.

Efforts to mobilize new international climate financing could be delayed by differences among countries about the ideal mix of public and private investment. Thus, while working toward consensus for 2020, countries should set global funding goals for each of the following four sources: public funding, private investment, multilateral development bank lending, and carbon markets.

To develop a strategy for success, the world and the United States should focus on concrete objectives for near-term progress (2013–2015) while ensuring international climate goals are consistent with economic as well as political realities and aligned with broader economic, national security, and foreign policy priorities.

Policy recommendations

The United States should work collaboratively with other nations to ensure the following actions happen at the global level:

• Developed nations should deliver on their fast-start financing pledges for the period 2010–2012, as announced at the 15th U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009. More specifically, nations should provide a combined $ 30 billion in total international climate financing from public sources over this period. Analysts estimate that current global pledges total about $ 28 billion.
• To build on the fast-start period and make concrete progress toward longer- term goals, countries should create a new 2013–2015 ramp-up period for international climate finance. Countries could structure this period around helping developing nations achieve the following concrete objectives in line with the global 2 degree temperature goal:
  • Build an additional 125 gigawatts of low-carbon power above business as usual, reducing emissions by 400 million tons per year
  • Improve energy efficiency by an amount equal to 4 percent of business-as-usual energy consumption, reducing emissions 1.4 billion tons per year
  • Limit emissions from land use by reducing deforestation 20 percent below recent levels by 2015, planting new trees and improving agricultural processes, lowering net emissions by 2.0 billion tons per year
  • Address adaptation needs by ensuring every country achieves at least a minimum level of climate resilience

While creating these new mitigation and adaptation goals for a 2013–2015 ramp-up period, countries should evaluate international financing needs, develop a process for identifying and agreeing on new sources of domestic and international financing, and set a deadline for countries to outline how they plan to contribute. Based on our analysis, the following resources are needed to achieve the interim goals listed above, constituting significant yet realistic increases in public and private investment compared to existing levels:

• Public financing: $ 15 billion in 2013, increasing to $ 25 billion in 2015
• Carbon markets: $ 5 billion to $ 10 billion in 2013, increasing to $ 10–$ 20 billion in 2015, primarily from nations with existing cap-and-trade systems
• Development bank lending: $ 10 billion to $ 15 billion in 2013, increasing to $ 15 billion to $ 20 billion in 2015
• Private financing: $ 40 billion to $ 120 billion in 2013, increasing to $ 60 billion to $ 160 billion in 2015

Countries should not only pursue this global partnership through international climate negotiations, but also with equal vigor through parallel and complementary vehicles, such as bilateral and regional partnerships as well as other flexible multicountry initiatives. The United States should give special attention to creating new mechanisms for international transparency to ensure accountability and verify results.

Financially, the United States should contribute to this vital global partnership in the following ways:

• Deliver its fair share of fast-start funding—approximately 20 percent of the global total, or a combined $ 6 billion over three years. Doing so will require a substantial increase in international climate programs in 2012 over 2010 levels.
• During the interim 2013 to 2015 period, the United States also should assume responsibility for mobilizing an average of 20 percent of public and private resources needed to achieve the climate goals outlined above. For public funding this would amount to $ 3 billion in 2013 and $ 5 billion in 2015, compared to roughly $ 1 billion in 2010.
• The United States should use some of this new funding to launch three to five new bilateral climate partnerships with key strategic allies, such as Indonesia and India, backed by U.S. financing of at least $ 500 million each.
• The United States should also spearhead an effort to increase multilateral development bank lending for renewables and energy efficiency to $ 15 billion to $ 20 billion per year by 2015, subject to the World Bank and other institutions aligning existing lending with climate objectives.
• To advance these goals and safeguard the competitiveness of U.S. aviation and shipping carriers, the United States should work proactively with major trading partners to avoid unilateral taxes by other nations on U.S. carriers, including through new international agreements and sensible U.S. policies that mobilize international climate financing.

–– Andrew Light is a Senior Fellow and Coordinator of International Climate Policy at the Center for American Progress.

Read the full report (pdf)

Download the summary for policymakers (pdf)

Download the foreword by Maggie L. Fox, John D. Podesta, and Nigel Purvis (pdf)

Download a message from Vice President Al Gore (pdf)

Climate Progress

Transparency international or the Red Brigades

The reporting on Wikileaks and Julian Assange has been getting better, I think, as his leak festival has unfolded, with an initial lack of interest in his motives giving way to a an idealized view of him as an extremely coherent new kind of revolutionary — idealized or demonized depending on your politics — and now, in a very smart piece from Evgeny Morozov in the FT, to something in between:

"Mr Assange is more of a college sophomore still undecided about his major, than a man with a plan," suggesting that the real U.S. decision right now is on the future of the loose congress of hackers around him and his organization, "a choice between WikiLeaks becoming a new Red Brigades, or a new Transparency International."

Morozov also tweeted yesterday a link to a 1997 book "Underground," a narrative history of ’90s hackers and cops for which Assange was both a character and the "researcher." The book is a pretty good read, and a glimpse at a culture where ideology is really a function of the activity — a obsessive game of breaking through barriers and digging out information. A sample:

Like most hackers, The Parmaster didn’t just want the secret, he needed it. He was in that peculiar state attained by real hackers where they will do just about anything to obtain a certain piece of information. He was obsessed….That’s how it worked with real hackers. They didn’t just fancy a titbit here and there. Once they knew information about a particular system was available, that there was a hidden entrance, they chased it down relentlessly.

 

It’s possible to read Assange through some essays — the interpretation passed around a lot last week is here – as an anarchist with a plan to destroy all government by making it impossible to have secrets, and that’s clearly an aspect of what’s going on here. But Morozov’s suggestion is not entirely to by into Wikileaks’ vision of itself.

Ben Smith’s Blog

Skip to main content CNN CNN US * EDITION: U.S. * INTERNATIONAL * MÉXICO Set edition preference * Sign up * Log in * Home * Video * NewsPulse * U.S. * World * Politics * Justice * Entertainment * Tech * Health * Living * Travel * Opinion * iReport * Money * Sports [Feedback] Feedback Share this on: Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn Holder: ‘Significant’ actions taken in WikiLeaks investigation By the CNN Wire Staff December 6, 2010 11:40 a.m. EST STORY HIGHLIGHTS * U.S. attorney general calls posts of diplomatic cables “arrogant” and misguided” * Swiss bank ends business relationship with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange Washington (CNN) – Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that he has authorized “significant” actions related to the criminal investigation of WikiLeaks as the website faces increasing pressure worldwide for publishing sensitive U.S. diplomatic cables. “National security of the United States has been put at risk,” Holder said. “The lives of people who work for the American people have been put at risk. The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that I believe are arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way. We are doing everything that we can.” Holder, speaking at a news conference on financial fraud, declined to answer questions about the possibility of the U.S. government shutting WikiLeaks down, saying he does not want to talk about capabilities and techniques at the government’s disposal. His comments came as a Swiss bank announced that it had closed the account of Julian Assange, the website’s founder. “The decision comes after it was revealed that Assange provided false information regarding his place of residence when opening the account,” Swiss PostFinance said in a news release. (MORE) Share this on: Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn We recommend You might like: * And the winner of ‘Dancing with the Stars’ is… The Marquee Blog * Obama in Afghanistan Afghanistan Crossroads * House, Senate Democrats: no tax cut extension over $250,000 CNN Politics * Clinton condemns leak as ‘attack on international community’ CNN US * Fighters scrambled as DC airspace rules violated CNN US From around the web Selected for you by our sponsor: * California man goes to court for modifying Xbox 360 Digital Trends * WikiLeaks: Vladimir Putin, He’s Just Like Us New York Magazine * WikiLeaks Worse for SEC Than Bank of America TheStreet * WikiLeaks’ Next Target Could Be U.S. Bank TheStreet * Citizen Journalists Offer Disturbing Video From Inside North Korea New York Magazine [what’s this] Loading comments… Problems loading Disqus? Log in or sign up to comment soundoff (0 Comments) Show: Newest | Oldest | Most liked Post a comment Log in or sign up to comment There are no comments on this story. Be the first! Thanks for posting. Would you like to edit your profile? NewsPulse Most popular stories right now WikiLeaks lists sites key to U.S. security Frum: Why obesity harms national security Officials: Bodies of U.S. balloonists found Mechanic convicted in deadly Concorde crash Australia: Assange allowed to return home Explore the news with NewsPulse » * Healthcare Jobs * Sales and Marketing Jobs * Finance Jobs Quick Job Search more options » 30° HI 38°LO 20° Welcome, NCWeather forecast Home | Video | NewsPulse | U.S. | World | Politics | Justice | Entertainment | Tech | Health | Living | Travel | Opinion | iReport | Money | Sports Tools & widgets | RSS | Podcasts | Blogs | CNN mobile | My profile | E-mail alerts | CNN shop | Site map CNN en ESPAÑOL | CNN Chile | CNN Expansion | | | | CNN TV | HLN | Transcripts © 2010 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of service | Privacy guidelines | Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help

Washington (CNN) – Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that he has authorized “significant” actions related to the criminal investigation of WikiLeaks as the website faces increasing pressure worldwide for publishing sensitive U.S. diplomatic cables.

“National security of the United States has been put at risk,” Holder said. “The lives of people who work for the American people have been put at risk. The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that I believe are arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way. We are doing everything that we can.”
FULL STORY

CNN Political Ticker

Syria’s Nuclear Program Requires Stronger International Response

Although Iran and North Korea have received far more attention, Syria is belatedly becoming a prime focus of international concern over nuclear proliferation.

On December 1, the Institute for Science and International Security released satellite photos of suspected Syrian nuclear sites linked to the covert Al-Kibar nuclear reactor that Israeli warplanes bombed in 2007, shortly before it could begin operations. The CIA later confirmed that the site contained a North Korean–designed nuclear reactor that would have been capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Syria blocked inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from investigating the suspected nuclear facility until after it had cleaned up the bombed site to remove incriminating evidence. Under strong international pressure, it reluctantly permitted IAEA inspectors a brief visit in 2008 but since then has stonewalled IAEA efforts to investigate its nuclear program.

On Thursday, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said that he sent a letter to Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem formally requesting access to suspected nuclear sites. If Syria continues to block the IAEA investigation, its failure to comply with its nonproliferation commitments can be referred to the United Nations Security Council for further action. Similar nuclear defiance by Iran led to an escalating series of U.N. sanctions.

Iran is suspected of financing the covert Syrian reactor in an end run to acquire plutonium for nuclear weapons without risking the discovery of additional nuclear facilities on its own territory. Syria, which has little oil, does not have the economic resources or technological infrastructure to independently build an expensive nuclear weapons program. The tyrannical Syrian and Iranian regimes are close allies that have developed strong ties with North Korea, an outlaw nuclear power that has provided important military and nuclear assistance to both.

In February, Western officials leaked the fact that before Israel destroyed the Syrian reactor in September 2007, North Korea had delivered 45 tons of un-enriched uranium “yellow cake” to Syria and subsequently moved it to Iran via Turkey after the Israeli strike.

Despite U.N. sanctions, North Korea has continued to provide both Iran and Syria with missiles, components, and technology, and the recently revealed North Korean uranium enrichment plant at Yongbyon poses an additional proliferation risk. The Yongbyon facility appears to have a design similar to Iran’s uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. North Korea may have obtained Iranian help on uranium enrichment in exchange for its extensive assistance for Iran’s ballistic missile force, which is largely based on North Korean missile technology. Or there may have been a nuclear quid pro quo in the form of a transfer of its nuclear technology or plutonium to Iran.

Whatever the arrangement is, it is clear that Tehran and Pyongyang have secretively undertaken extensive nuclear cooperation. According to a senior North Korean defector: “The nuclear power and missile research institutes in the North and Iran are effectively one body. North Korean nuclear and missile scientists are in Iran and Iranian scientists are working in the North. They share everything.”

While Iran and North Korea have been forced by sanctions to pay a growing price for their nuclear defiance, Syria has so far escaped any consequences. This should be rectified as soon as possible. Polite letters from the IAEA will have little effect unless they are strongly backed by an international coalition determined to punish Damascus if it continues to drag its feet on its nonproliferation obligations. This requires firm American leadership.

The Obama Administration could start by abandoning its diplomatic wooing of Syria and taking a harder line on Syria’s nuclear violations. A bipartisan group of eight congressional leaders wrote a December 2 letter to President Obama urging him to take stronger action against Syria’s nuclear program. The signers included Representatives Jeff Fortenberry (R–NE), Edward Markey (D–MA), Ed Royce (R–CA), and Brad Sherman (D–CA) and Senators John Ensign (R–NV), Kirsten Gillibrand (D–NY), Jon Kyl (R–AZ), and Joseph Lieberman (I-D–CT).

If the Obama Administration fails to provide the strong leadership needed to ensure more effective action at the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council, then Syria, a junior partner in the nuclear axis of evil, will continue to advance its illicit nuclear program with impunity.

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Tiger hunts first win in 2010 and No.1 spot – CNN International

CTV.ca

Tiger hunts first win in 2010 and No.1 spot CNN International (CNN) — Tiger Woods has one last chance to salvage a victory from a sorry 2010 and claim back his World No.1 spot from England's Lee Westwood. Woods is the tournament host this week at the Chevron World Challenge in California, which is not an … Tiger Woods posts flurry of answers on Twitter siteBBC Sport Woods Returns to World ChallengeNew York Times Tiger Woods will be glad to see 2010 in his rearview mirrorLos Angeles Times Telegraph.co.uk –Reuters –FOXSports.com all 949 news articles »

Sports – Google News

Cables Provide Insight Into International Climate And Energy Security

Leaked diplomatic cables provide new insight into the intersection of climate policy and international security. Many of these issues have been raised by the Center for American Progress, in its work to reduce the multitudinous risks associated with oil dependence.

CLIMATE POLICY

Cables note that leaders like Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy consider global warming to be an issue of top importance. As of November 2009, State Department officials were still confident about the passage of climate legislation by Congress, a cable from Ambassador to France Charles H. Rivkin to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reveals:

Even sophisticated observers are skeptical that long-term reduction goals legislated in the United States can be counted on as more than aspirations, especially if radical cuts are not imposed up front. We have reiterated that U.S. laws are reliably enforced by the Federal government and by U.S. courts, using the Clean Air Act as our example. Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials agree that legislation moving through Congress and the Administration’s proposals would establish a system comparable to the EU’s measures. These officials regard Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo’s public criticisms of Waxman-Markey as “insufficient on the medium term goal” as distracting attention from the need for China and India to reduce their rates of growth in GHG emissions.

In the ensuing months, the U.S. Senate killed any prospect for the passage of climate legislation, making concerns about the reliability of long-term targets a moot point. Industrial polluters have launched a broad campaign to dismantle the Clean Air Act, and a wave of global warming deniers swept into office, firmly opposed to any action to fight climate pollution whatsoever.

THE COSTS OF OIL

As the Wonk Room has previously discussed, the international price of oil has a major impact on the power of the Iranian regime. One cable describes a December 2008 meeting between Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart A. Levey and top Israeli officials, including Tzipi Livni, then the Foreign Minister and now the opposition leader:

Livni asked if the declining price of oil was becoming leverage in the efforts to thwart Iranian financial efforts. Levey said that it was and that the Iranian private sector was becoming more vocal in its criticisms of the government.

A Wonk Room analysis has found that a strong cap on carbon would significantly cut the flow of petrodollars to Iran’s hostile regime.

Center for American Progress experts have also raised concerns about the “risks from technology, natural disasters, and geopolitical turmoil” associated with the oil market. The United States directly imports https://southcapitolstreet.com/files/tag/international/oil_from__a_href_.css”http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/oil_imports_security.html”>ten different dangerous or unstable countries. an october 2009 cable from ambassador to russia john beyrle notes that the russian government “benefits significantly” — on the order of $ 10 billion a year — from the “instability premium” in the world oil market due to Iran:

As the world’s largest exporter of oil and gas, Russia also benefits significantly from the “instability premium” embedded in world oil prices due to tensions with Iran. Even a USD 5 per barrel instability premium would net Russia almost USD 9 billion per year for oil and approximately USD 2-4 billion from its gas exports. Finally, given Iran’s position as the second largest owner of gas reserves, Russia’s gas sector clearly benefits from the lack of international investment in the development of Iran’s natural gas sector.

SAUDI ARABIA

Center for American Progress writers have previously noted Saudi Arabia’s intransigence on climate policy and its limited efforts to liberalize its society. In a February 2010 cable preparing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her visit to the Arab petrostate, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Smith describes how the nation is shifting its policy, including its increased engagement with China:

Guided by a vision that dovetails with some key elements of the President’s Cairo speech, King Abdullah has begun to implement an ambitious plan to transform Saudi Arabia’s economy away from excessive reliance on hydrocarbons and towards a knowledge-based economy that can provide sustainable development for the long-term. Achieving these goals will require nothing short of a revolution in the education system and significant changes in most aspects of Saudi society, especially the status of women.

. . .

Saudi Arabia is thinking through how best to take a leaf from the Chinese playbook and use these expanded trade ties to achieve important political goals. In this regard, Saudi Arabia has told the Chinese that it is willing to effectively trade a guaranteed oil supply in return for Chinese pressure on Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.

. . .

Your visit offers an important opportunity to head off a serious clash over climate change. Saudi officials are very concerned that a climate change treaty would significantly reduce their income just as they face significant costs to diversify their economy. We want to get beyond the obstructionism that Saudi negotiators have often shown during the negotiations and persuade senior leaders to work with us in a partnership to meet their strategic concerns, including by cooperating on developing solar and biomass energy. The King is particularly sensitive to avoid Saudi Arabia being singled out as the bad actor, particularly on environmental issues. Your conveying the importance the President places on working as partners with Saudi Arabia on the Copenhagen process will be very important in making this dialogue more constructive. Secretary Chu intends to explore specific areas of collaboration during his February 21-23 visit.

Wonk Room

Cables Provide Insight Into International Climate And Energy Security

Leaked diplomatic cables provide new insight into the intersection of climate policy and international security. Many of these issues have been raised by the Center for American Progress, in its work to reduce the multitudinous risks associated with oil dependence.

CLIMATE POLICY

Cables note that leaders like Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy consider global warming to be an issue of top importance. As of November 2009, State Department officials were still confident about the passage of climate legislation by Congress, a cable from Ambassador to France Charles H. Rivkin to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reveals:

Even sophisticated observers are skeptical that long-term reduction goals legislated in the United States can be counted on as more than aspirations, especially if radical cuts are not imposed up front. We have reiterated that U.S. laws are reliably enforced by the Federal government and by U.S. courts, using the Clean Air Act as our example. Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials agree that legislation moving through Congress and the Administration’s proposals would establish a system comparable to the EU’s measures. These officials regard Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo’s public criticisms of Waxman-Markey as “insufficient on the medium term goal” as distracting attention from the need for China and India to reduce their rates of growth in GHG emissions.

In the ensuing months, the U.S. Senate killed any prospect for the passage of climate legislation, making concerns about the reliability of long-term targets a moot point. Industrial polluters have launched a broad campaign to dismantle the Clean Air Act, and a wave of global warming deniers swept into office, firmly opposed to any action to fight climate pollution whatsoever.

THE COSTS OF OIL

As the Wonk Room has previously discussed, the international price of oil has a major impact on the power of the Iranian regime. One cable describes a December 2008 meeting between Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart A. Levey and top Israeli officials, including Tzipi Livni, then the Foreign Minister and now the opposition leader:

Livni asked if the declining price of oil was becoming leverage in the efforts to thwart Iranian financial efforts. Levey said that it was and that the Iranian private sector was becoming more vocal in its criticisms of the government.

A Wonk Room analysis has found that a strong cap on carbon would significantly cut the flow of petrodollars to Iran’s hostile regime.

Center for American Progress experts have also raised concerns about the “risks from technology, natural disasters, and geopolitical turmoil” associated with the oil market. The United States directly imports https://southcapitolstreet.com/files/tag/international/oil_from__a_href_.css”http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/oil_imports_security.html”>ten different dangerous or unstable countries. an october 2009 cable from ambassador to russia john beyrle notes that the russian government “benefits significantly” — on the order of $ 10 billion a year — from the “instability premium” in the world oil market due to Iran:

As the world’s largest exporter of oil and gas, Russia also benefits significantly from the “instability premium” embedded in world oil prices due to tensions with Iran. Even a USD 5 per barrel instability premium would net Russia almost USD 9 billion per year for oil and approximately USD 2-4 billion from its gas exports. Finally, given Iran’s position as the second largest owner of gas reserves, Russia’s gas sector clearly benefits from the lack of international investment in the development of Iran’s natural gas sector.

SAUDI ARABIA

Center for American Progress writers have previously noted Saudi Arabia’s intransigence on climate policy and its limited efforts to liberalize its society. In a February 2010 cable preparing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her visit to the Arab petrostate, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Smith describes how the nation is shifting its policy, including its increased engagement with China:

Guided by a vision that dovetails with some key elements of the President’s Cairo speech, King Abdullah has begun to implement an ambitious plan to transform Saudi Arabia’s economy away from excessive reliance on hydrocarbons and towards a knowledge-based economy that can provide sustainable development for the long-term. Achieving these goals will require nothing short of a revolution in the education system and significant changes in most aspects of Saudi society, especially the status of women.

. . .

Saudi Arabia is thinking through how best to take a leaf from the Chinese playbook and use these expanded trade ties to achieve important political goals. In this regard, Saudi Arabia has told the Chinese that it is willing to effectively trade a guaranteed oil supply in return for Chinese pressure on Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.

. . .

Your visit offers an important opportunity to head off a serious clash over climate change. Saudi officials are very concerned that a climate change treaty would significantly reduce their income just as they face significant costs to diversify their economy. We want to get beyond the obstructionism that Saudi negotiators have often shown during the negotiations and persuade senior leaders to work with us in a partnership to meet their strategic concerns, including by cooperating on developing solar and biomass energy. The King is particularly sensitive to avoid Saudi Arabia being singled out as the bad actor, particularly on environmental issues. Your conveying the importance the President places on working as partners with Saudi Arabia on the Copenhagen process will be very important in making this dialogue more constructive. Secretary Chu intends to explore specific areas of collaboration during his February 21-23 visit.

Wonk Room

Hillary on Wikileaks: This isn’t an attack on America, it’s an attack on the international community

Damage control.

---

It surely wasn’t intended as an attack on the international community — Wikileaks’ statement yesterday afternoon made it abundantly clear who their target was — but this is nifty spin insofar as it tries to redirect international anger away from the U.S. and towards Assange. The One could have said this himself, in fact, at […]

Read this post »

Hot Air » Top Picks

The Front Lines of Reality: An International Perspective on the Battle over Free Speech

©2010 BlueBloggin. All Rights Reserved.

.
BlueBloggin

Wikileaks Releases Diplomatic Cables, Revealing International Secrets

Another massive Wikileaks document dump apparently stemming from the actions of Pvt. Bradley Manning has hit the web, this time it consists of State Department cables that reveal information that could have international ramifications:

WASHINGTON — A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

Some of the cables, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, were written as recently as late February, revealing the Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts. The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks intends to make the archive public on its Web site in batches, beginning Sunday.

The anticipated disclosure of the cables is already sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment, and could conceivably strain relations with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are impossible to predict.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and American ambassadors around the world have been contacting foreign officials in recent days to alert them to the expected disclosures. On Saturday, the State Department’s legal adviser, Harold Hongju Koh, wrote to a lawyer for WikiLeaks informing the organization that the distribution of the cables was illegal and could endanger lives, disrupt military and counterterrorism operations and undermine international cooperation against nuclear proliferation and other threats.

Among the more interesting revelations in the documents, and the ones most likely to raise eyebrows, are these:

¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

¶ Gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.

¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in a group of detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

(…)

¶ A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said.

¶ Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.

¶ An intriguing alliance: American diplomats in Rome reported in 2009 on what their Italian contacts described as an extraordinarily close relationship between Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian prime minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister and business magnate, including “lavish gifts,” lucrative energy contracts and a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italian go-between. They wrote that Mr. Berlusconi “appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe. The diplomats also noted that while Mr. Putin enjoys supremacy over all other public figures in Russia, he is undermined by an unmanageable bureaucracy that often ignores his edicts.

The cables also provide a glimpse into history that we haven’t seen yet:

In a 1979 cable to Washington, Bruce Laingen, an American diplomat in Teheran, mused with a knowing tone about the Iranian revolution that had just occurred: “Perhaps the single dominant aspect of the Persian psyche is an overriding egoism,” Mr. Laingen wrote, offering tips on exploiting this psyche in negotiations with the new government. Less than three months later, Mr. Laingen and his colleagues would be taken hostage by radical Iranian students, hurling the Carter administration into crisis and, perhaps, demonstrating the hazards of diplomatic hubris.

In 1989, an American diplomat in Panama City mulled over the options open to Gen. Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian leader, who was facing narcotics charges in the United States and intense domestic and international political pressure to step down. The cable called General Noriega “a master of survival”; its author appeared to have no inkling that one week later, the United States would invade Panama to unseat General Noriega and arrest him.

In 1990, an American diplomat sent an excited dispatch from Cape Town: he had just learned from a lawyer for Nelson Mandela that Mr. Mandela’s 27-year imprisonment was to end. The cable conveys the momentous changes about to begin for South Africa, even as it discusses preparations for an impending visit from the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.

The voluminous traffic of more recent years — well over half of the quarter-million cables date from 2007 or later — show American officials struggling with events whose outcomes are far from sure. To read through them is to become a global voyeur, immersed in the jawboning, inducements and penalties the United States wields in trying to have its way with a recalcitrant world.

The cables also reveal that the United States has increased the use of diplomats in intelligence gathering in recent years, and detailed the extent to which two Administrations have struggled over the problem of Iran’s nuclear weapons program:

In day-by-day detail, the cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, tell the disparate diplomatic back stories of two administrations pressed from all sides to confront Tehran. They show how President George W. Bush, hamstrung by the complexities of Iraq and suspicions that he might attack Iran, struggled to put together even modest sanctions.

They also offer new insights into how President Obama, determined to merge his promise of “engagement” with his vow to raise the pressure on the Iranians, assembled a coalition that agreed to impose an array of sanctions considerably harsher than any before attempted.

When Mr. Obama took office, many allies feared that his offers of engagement would make him appear weak to the Iranians. But the cables show how Mr. Obama’s aides quickly countered those worries by rolling out a plan to encircle Iran with economic sanctions and antimissile defenses. In essence, the administration expected its outreach to fail, but believed that it had to make a bona fide attempt in order to build support for tougher measures.

Feeding the administration’s urgency was the intelligence about Iran’s missile program. As it weighed the implications of those findings, the administration maneuvered to win Russian support for sanctions. It killed a Bush-era plan for a missile defense site in Poland — which Moscow’s leaders feared was directed at them, not Tehran — and replaced it with one floating closer to Iran’s coast. While the cables leave unclear whether there was an explicit quid pro quo, the move seems to have paid off.

There is also an American-inspired plan to get the Saudis to offer China a steady oil supply, to wean it from energy dependence on Iran. The Saudis agreed, and insisted on ironclad commitments from Beijing to join in sanctions against Tehran.

At the same time, the cables reveal how Iran’s ascent has unified Israel and many longtime Arab adversaries — notably the Saudis — in a common cause. Publicly, these Arab states held their tongues, for fearDenial-Of-Service attacks of a domestic uproar and the retributions of a powerful neighbor. Privately, they clamored for strong action — by someone else.

If they seemed obsessed with Iran, though, they also seemed deeply conflicted about how to deal with it — with diplomacy, covert action or force. In one typical cable, a senior Omani military officer is described as unable to decide what is worse: “a strike against Iran’s nuclear capability and the resulting turmoil it would cause in the Gulf, or inaction and having to live with a nuclear-capable Iran.”

Still, running beneath the cables is a belief among many leaders that unless the current government in Tehran falls, Iran will have a bomb sooner or later. And the Obama administration appears doubtful that a military strike would change that.

There’s apparently more to come over the next several days, including several stories that could have serious diplomatic consequences. One rumored story that may be contained in these or other documents, for example, is the claim that the Turkish Government was providing support for al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent groups at the same time that American troops were fighting them on the ground. Turkey is a NATO ally, of course, and a revelation like that could have serious consequences for U.S.-Turkish relations.

This latest document dump will also renew the controversy over Wikileaks itself, which has been ongoing ever since the first set of documents about Afghanistan came out during the summer. Private Manning remains in custody and is likely to be spending the rest of his life in prison for leaking all these documents, but Wikileaks itself is a creature of the Internet and  not withstanding, it seems unlikely that the U.S. will ever really be able to shut it down, and I’m honestly not sure that it should.

Outside the Beltway

The International and Domestic Politics of North Korea’s Attack

The predominant interpretation of North Korea’s military attack on a South Korean island this week is that it is a provocation aimed at strengthening North Korea’s international bargaining position. Kim Jong-Il has long been a model example to illustrate Schelling’s teachings on the rationality of irrationality: in a game of brinkmanship it pays to act like you will not respond to reason. Traditionally, North Korea has been able to extract various goodies from the international community following such provocations. The Guardian has a nice illustration of the current crisis in the context of Schelling’s ideas and David Rothkopf engages in a similar exercise (without explicitly mentioning Schelling).

My colleague Victor Cha, however, points out in an interview with Jim Lehrer that it is unclear why North Korea would have to engage in military provocations to get back to the negotiating table. The Obama administration has clearly signaled its willingness to do this all along and if the North wanted to demonstrate its continued resolve, the submarine attack earlier this year should have done the trick. Instead, Cha argues that we have to seriously consider that this is primarily about North Korean domestic politics. They are going through a succession process in which the credibility and toughness of a very young and inexperienced new leader has to be established. Creating a crisis may help create a myth of heroism on behalf of that young leader.

Both of these perspectives may be partially right but it nonetheless matters where the emphasis lies. If this is a provocation as usual, then new negotiations and concessions may “work” in the sense that they will quiet the North Koreans until they feel the need to provoke again. If Cha is right, then the North Korean leadership may actually want to see a limited military response that they can defend themselves against in some heroic fashion.

Either way, these games of brinkmanship with large military forces that are trigger ready always carry the risk of escalation. Let’s hope reason prevails. On that note: Happy Thanksgiving for those of you in the U.S!

h/t Tony Arend

The Monkey Cage

Next Page »

• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
•