I agree with the sentiments expressed. I would choose Singapore instead, simply because Switzerland maybe neutral (now) but is European and the world center of gravity is slowly shifting towards the east. NYC, Switzerland are too tied to the structure that was created by US and the west after WWII, and this structure is showing a lot of strain. I will not go into IMF, WB etc...
I might add that most of the public in other countries is aware of the tactics of the western entities; I remember growing up in India, that the educated elite knew that some of the western news organizations were a front for western spy agencies; the NGOs were often tainted.....It is the general public here in the USA that I find most brainwashed and even unwilling to learn the facts because the facts are such a jolt to the world view they have grown up in and are fed continually.
We really need to revisit a number of our business models (News, TV, free speech=money; corporations=people etc etc.
Prof Steve Cohen is perhaps the only expert that has provided an unbiased view of this Ukrainian crisis. I find most of the other US experts bordering on selective dissemination of information. The simple question one has to ask is why is it NOT in Russia's interest to protect its interests on its border, while we have since 1991 encroached on bringing NATO closer and closer to the borders of Russia.
I want to remind our readers that we invaded tiny Granada ostensibly to protect 20 plus american students!
A big deal is being made of the fact that Crimea is going to hold a referendum on whether it wants to stay as part of Ukraine or become part of Russia. Our president says it is illegal because a referendum has to be done by the whole of Ukraine for this to happen; so I suppose the upcoming referendum in Scotland is also illegal. I am just pointing to our hypocrisies... let us admit we are out to get Russia for geopolitical reasons, since we see a bipolar world in the future consisting of US and China.
'soft on Indians', on the contrary most of his recent high stake successes have been against south asians (Rajaratnam and rajat gupta, neena(?). He opted to give cohen of SAC a pass at criminal charges against him (not the company).
Bill, it is an assumption to imply that the maid in question was kept in virtual slavery. I have not read anywhere that she claimed that to be the case. The issue is not even her salary but rather the existence of two contracts and the alleged visa statement falsification (note: the counsel has made a 'not guilty' plea). The maid was hired in India, and I can attest that including boarding, lodging, food and clothing she was not being short changed by Indian salary standards. I bet she could not have made it on minimum wage $9 in NYC without boarding, lodging etc. As far as the wider picture is concerned, it is exactly as Prof. Cole has written in the column, it is militarization of our police and the loss of our fundamental rights which we have given up with the false expectation of security!
Margaret, the story appears to be more complex than the NYT (and other US MSM) has published so far. Please see my post later on, it is not clear to me who is the victim and of what. The maid in question appears to have had a well thought out plan to bring her husband and child to this country. Also, according to Indian media her parent-in-laws work in the US embassy / consulate!
Thank you once again Prof. Cole for an informative article. I would just add to it the fact that the treatment meted out to someone arrested is determined by the said persons ability to pay for justice. As an example look at the lopsided population of US prisons, where the poor and often blacks are put away for a small quantity of marijuana, while a rich white goes free. (The recent "Affluenza" case as an extreme example).
Now to the particulars of this case, it appears that the vice counsel may have violated some visa laws, but given that one is not guilty until a judge says so, this is a probable cause indictment. Nevertheless, as you say, I agree the treatment by state department police and the US marshals appears to be over the top. Some one at state dropped the ball or there is more to this and it was done on purpose.
The case appears to be not as black and white as Mr Preet Bharara has made out to be. The spotlight in the western media has been on Ms Devayani, the vice counsel. However, the maid's (Mrs. Sangeeta Richards) story has escaped scrutiny. Very little is mentioned that she apparently left the home of the counsel in June without notification with some missing material (?). It is mentioned in the Indian media (including Times of India) that she or at least some immigration lawyer on her behalf tried to black mail Ms Devayani and that she reported that fact to the US authorities. It also appears that they ignored that as they were busy building a case of human-trafficking and in-spite of the fact that the Indian government informed the US embassy in India that her husband's (Ms Richards husband Philip) passport had been cancelled, he and his children were secretly given a human trafficking visa and brought to USA (this was stated by Mr Bharara, who by the way is an American/Indian, born in India). This all seems very fishy to me, it appears there could be a case of some personal vendetta or there is more to this story than is known so far. Some bloggers in the NY/NJ have suggested that Mr. Bharara may be trying to raise his profile in preparation for a political role in the future.
I find it amazing that the US attorney' s office would expend so much energy in pursuing this case when he has given up on criminal cases against ANY of the executives responsible for the banking debacle.
Finally, this may be the 'last straw that broke the camel's back'. India and Indians have felt very slighted by the heavy handedness of the US authorities when their Ex president , or a movie hero were detained just because they happened to have a name like Khan. The treatment of VIPs is always a reciprocal affair and one may find that some of the privileges that American diplomats and politicians take for granted when they travel to India may be affected and I for one do not consider it to be childish.
I am pleased that Mr. Obama was able to get this far given the neo-cons, AIPAC, Israeli and Saudi lobbies and money which influences (I am being generous - it is more like 'buys') the majority of our congress and the media.
I would not under-rate the ability of the above mentioned forces to do everything to scuttle this agreement. Also, a joint attack by Israel/ Saudi Arabia is not all that far fetched, which will result in the Pavlovian response by the US of siding with Israel no matter what.
I just hope that Mr Obama has the strength to warn Israel - Saudi Arabia of any such misadventures and the ability to thwart them.
Darpanet led to inter-networking (ie the protocols, pipes and plumbing);world wide web is the portal (browsers/html) to the plumbing, two different pieces of what we colloquially call the internet.
Why are we not calling it a terrorist attack, potentially sponsored by Saudi / other interests? The mainstream media (WAPO, NYT) seems to go with 'explosion or blast'. Could it be because they are our terrorists!
I really see no reason for Iran to make major compromise to their nuclear program. Notice, over time how our demands have changed...first it was no weapon, then weapons production capability and now anything that has the potential to enable a weapons capability. Eventually we will be asking Iranians can not study nuclear energy et al.
So far nothing Iran has done is contrary to NPT; the security council resolutions are un-democratic and irrelevant as they over-ride a treaty.
We are doing this because we can....we will eventually turn the non western world against us and when it is strong enough, we will see good bye to dollar as a reserve currency.
If we are serious about solving problems, address the elephant in the room, namely Israel.
Later, Mr Zarif responded to the claim on Twitter.
"No amount of spinning can change what happened within 5+1 in Geneva from 6pm Thursday to 5:45pm Saturday. But it can further erode confidence," he wrote.
"Mr Secretary, was it Iran that gutted over half of US draft Thursday night? And publicly commented against it Friday morning?"
"Mr Zarif appeared to be referring to French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who on Friday morning cautioned in a statement that his country wanted a "credible agreement". At the end of the day's talks, Mr Fabius told France Inter radio that Paris could not accept a "fool's game".
A Russian foreign ministry source was also quoted by the Interfax news agency on Tuesday as saying the failure was "not Iran's fault"."
The Guardian has a detailed description of what happened. I find it unbelievable that we let a country like Israel run our foreign policy, this is insulting to me as an american. From Guardian:
"In a bid to contain the danger, the lead US negotiator, Wendy Sherman, flew straight from the talks in Geneva to Israel to reassure Binyamin Netanyahu's government that the intended deal would not harm his country's national
interests.
The hastily arranged trip represented an acknowledgement of Netanyahu's power to block a deal through his influence in the US Congress and in Europe. Egged on by the Israelis, the US Senate is poised to pass new sanctions that threaten to derail the talks before they get to their planned next round in 10 days' time."
"It has emerged that after a call from Barack Obama on Friday evening asking him not to oppose the planned Geneva deal, Netanyahu did the opposite. He called British prime minister, David Cameron, Russian president Vladimir Putin, German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president François Hollande, asking them to block it."
It is clear that Israel is not a friend and cannot be trusted. This is not the first instance of Israel publicly humiliating the USA. That Israel needs to be taught a lesson is obvious, and in my opinion if Obama took the podium and publicly took Bibi to task by pointing out his treachery and taking some actions (e.g. no more sharing of NSA data, reduction in aid...) the public at large will support him. He should say it is not in the US interest to start another war in the middle east and attack the Lindsey et al for putting the interest of Israel ahead of the USA.
I am in full agreement with you. James is too willing to give the Israelis a free pass. The Holocaust has been used too often to justify all the wrongs the Israelis are doing in Palestine.
To my knowledge, the Palestinians were NOT responsible for the Holocaust, it was the Europeans; if there was ever a case to install a European colony of Jews fleeing the Holocaust, the place was a portion of Germany, not Palestine.
But that ship has sailed and the Israelis have shown themselves to be ruthless land and resource grabbers...there are no two ways about it...you only have to look at the time sequence of the maps that Prof. Cole has posted so often.
Finally, personally, I think the time for a two state solution is gone....thee will eventually be a single state perhaps rising from the ashes of an 'apartheid' like Israeli state...I am sorry for being very negative, but this is of course my humble opinion.
I do not disagree with your analysis. Finding a single root cause is a futile exercise, when one is talking about society and economy. I would add the oil embargo as a big factor in inflation.
Bill, fully agree with you...I do not believe one party is significantly better than the other when it comes to entrenched politicians (they have all been bought)...
Just like Reagan, who is now almost worshiped as a saint by the right, was responsible for the breakup of the unions and the bad mouthing of the government; Clinton, who almost sits on a similar pedestal was responsible for sowing the seeds of the middle class decline and the loss of manufacturing.
Could not find the book you mentioned (on Amazon) but found the following:
The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson (Apr 26, 2011)
Is this any good? I will get it and definitely read it....also, I do read a lot of Scandinavian mystery novels and have been getting the inkling of the ascent of the neo-nazi right-wing groups (do not follow the politics in these countries as thoroughly as perhaps I should).
This does not lead to a good ending for capitalistic/democratic societies....does the end result always have to be fascism, due to greed and capture of state organs by the monied class?
To 'Nobody', what you list are by and large good goals. The question is how does one go about accomplishing them. The politicians do no longer need the voters because they can be manipulated by sophisticated advertising paid for by rich interests. Mass protests can not take place because of the national security state, the police will put it down with an increasing degree of brutality. The judiciary has by and large been bought...now we have 'corporations are people' and 'money is free speech'
...this will either self implode over time or we are headed towards an 'Elysium' like set up. In the meantime we can slow the trend...
I believe, invasion by itself is not genocide, but the awe and shock of baghdad, the carpet bombing of faluja, the blockade of food to children etc constitute very heinous crimes!
I suppose by the same logic, what happened in Cambodia can not be characterized as genocide; though the mass killing of american indians does qualify.
Maybe the civilized world needs another term, because as some one pointed out, we the US by not being signatories to a number of treaties (Rome Statute, some geneva conventions, ICC etc) are able to continue to have a holier than thou attitude.
Joe from Lowell, I do not support the tea party and DO support the ACA, (as a matter of fact I would have preferred a single payer option). But regarding transfer from rich, in actual fact I believe there is a surcharge of 2.3% (or so) on dividend income of people making more than $250K or $400K plus in annual income. I am pretty sure it is accurate though I have not gone back and looked it over. There may be other taxes as well....but this one I do remember.
Prof. Cole, the real question is,"is USA ready to do a deal, or better still, does USA have Israel's permission?"
Any one who has followed this topic knows that to expect Iran to prove the non existence of a program they do not have is a smoke screen to create a different smoke screen under which Israel has all but completed the occupation of Palestine.
The west has successfully completed a western enclave in Palestine; Mission Accomplished.
I think the Palestinians are headed for second class citizenship of a de-facto apartheid state of greater Israel. Because of the unconditional support from USA this state will be immune from any outside effort, moral or otherwise. An independent Palestinian State on WB and Gaza is no longer a viable possibility. The Arabs always thought that time was on their side, I think they are in for a rude surprise.
John, I agree mostly with all the points you made, but I have take exception to your use of name calling "Putin is a bastard" and "Assad is a liar"; it did not add any value to the points you made. One could use the same descriptions for our president and administrations and we would be all roiled up. As an example, our government, Obama included has repeatedly lied about NSA and other matters.
1. The credibility of the UNSC was shot down a long time ago, with all the vetos by US in support of Israel; why is it more insidious when it comes to others when they use the tool for their strategic interests.
2. Prof. Cole unless have you have seen more evidence of the gas attack (and you may have)the current evidence does not prove that it was the regime that did it. Honestly, with a heavy heart I challenge you to show some OBJECTIVE evidence. Calling it a crackpot theory (without real evidence) is not a scholarly statement!
3. INMHO, you come across as an apologist for the current administration and the US record, and I know that was not your intent!
Bill, I do not believe it was the Europeans that were clamoring for the dismantling of Yugoslavia. Once it started they (especially Germany) took full advantage of it. The initiative was once again a strategic initiative of the usa to remove the last pro Russian government in the mainland of Europe, and as usual this was done under the guise of humanitarian intervention. This same pattern is being followed for the very same reasons; do not be fooled about some moral obligation (we have ignored and abetted too many of morally reprehensible situations).
okay, Joe...we are back to calling things chemical weapons only when we want them such. So agent orange used in vietnam, white phosphorus in iraq, and depleted uranium which is still resulting in deformed children being born in Iraq are not banned! BTW, white phosphorus and napalm are banned items, but only for ohers. Great Powers can not be encumbered by such minor rules, laws, norms (pick your word). Finally,we did not attack saddam when he attacked iran with CW or gassed the kurds, in fact we gave a helping hand by providing saddam with target information.
Now, if you want to be legal, there is NO International legal basis for attacking Syria, that is why our Orwellian president now calls it 'international norms'. This morning I heard another variation (on NPR)...'cultural norms being violated hence we need to act'!
Lane, the international law does not support your assertion. My reading is there are two relevant ones: a chemical weapons ban which Syria did NOT sign and a Geneva convention which bans the use of chemical weapons among states (this was not a use against another state). Perhaps Prof. Cole can clarify.
Joe, if you tally all the UNSC resolutions USA has vetoed (mostly in support of Israel) they exceed by far the ones ussr and Russia have vetoed. Of course, Israel is a no no topic in the us MSM!
Prof. Cole, I am not a fan of the military govt. in Egypt, but as stated In your piece, their stand appears principled. As to paranoia, if I were a Muslim Mid East country, I would be paranoid too. Uncle Sam has a history here as you have so often pointed out!
Joe from Lowell, your observation is correct. I think it is to be expected from the readership of this blog, which has memory of the 'gulf of Tonkin resolution', 'the yellow cake of Iraq', the 'wmd trucks of Iraq',the 'nuclear program of Iraq', etc etc.
Trust once lost is hard to regain with statements like 'trust me'. It is exactly that the people of US DO NOT TRUST their government!!
Jacob, I am afraid it will take a herculean effort to take the public away from their sports broadcasts and reality shows. I have coffee everyday at a local Starbucks and have a group of regulars (conservatives and progressives). The typical response is 'it does not affect me'; the progressives are worse they are so adverse to attacking anything Obama and are willing to rationalize any/all mis-behavior from Mr. O.
"The opposition boycotted the vote" and now they invite the army to conduct a coup and topple a duly elected government. I believe the sacrosanct western media / civic groups also said the elections that brought in Morsi were fair and square. People are giving 20Mil number in the streets; the best I have heard is 1.5M; I think the people confuse it with 20 mil signatures (not verifiable). Anyway, I think the tiger is out of the cage and the liberals will rue the day and I feel very sad for ALL the people of Egypt.
Richard, your response is focusing on motives of MB, something that I do not have the ability to know, all I can do is provide my reading of the facts. Please provide some objective reference to how Morsi governed in an undemocratic manner. My reading is that they won three separate elections/referendum. The only reason he took supreme power for a short period of time was to avert the Mubarak appointed supreme court from dissolving the constitution writing body (they had already dissolved a duly elected lower house of the parliament). On the question of exclusive manner: sure he packed the upper house with pro Morsi supporters, but that was not illegal and democracy does have winners and losers. The liberals should have waited for the next round of elections which were due within the next year. To ask for military to stage a coup was undemocratic. Finally, I believe, your expectation of MB to not protest is expecting too much of some one whose duly provided rights have been taken away by a military coup (and that is what it is)!
Prof. Cole, I am an avid reader of your blog and thank you for your contribution to information on middle east. However, I must take issue with your narrative in this blog. You seem to blame the MB disproportionately and use language like Morsi pushed through a constitution with only 30% participation. Come on sir, what kind of participation and victory margins have we had in the greatest democracy (USA). You also forget to mention that it was the Mubarak era judiciary with the covert backing of the military that dissolved the duly elected lower house. In my opinion, Morsi was forced into taking action to counter the forces of the military and the elite that lost the elections! I BTW, am not a supporter of religion in politics, am of Indian (Hindu) origin. I just want to call it as I see it. The blame lies very squarely in the lap of the military and its supporters(incl.US government) who never wanted a popular democracy in Egypt or region for that matter (Hamas in Gaza).
Newsnag, All you have done is parrot generalities. Pls be specific about the things morse did unconstitutionally or illegally. Also, do not forget to list the decrees the Mubarak era military announced to thwart morse. The fact remains this was a military coup and no amount of beating around the bush can change that,
Constitutionally and/or legally who has the right to appoint the prosecutor general?
My recollection is that the one that was fired was appointed by a dictator or by the military Junta that followed. What power does Morsi, as the elected president have?
Steve, should we not let the Lebanese decide their own fate? Our intervention has only made life worse for the Lebanese. As for Hizbullah being 'a toxic presence', one could accuse Israeli occupation of the west bank and Golan height (not to mention illegal blockade of Gaza) being a very toxic presence in the neighborhood, Israel just happens to be our toxic presence.
JohnH, I fully agree with your points. These points have been ignored by the western media for the most part. The rest of the world (world without west), is looking for better alternatives as soon as possible, and we the west will wake up only when it is too late. We are winning the tactical battle with sanctions but will lose the strategic war.
Prof Cole, I enjoy your column and your insights. Re: the negotiations, I think the progress will not take place before the US elections because there is no way, Mr Obama can show any flexibility lest the whole Israeli and the right-wing lobby will go after his hide. Iran is not going to totally capitulate, which is the only outcome Mr Obama can accept before the election.
Note: where did the chief negotiator fly to directly from Baghdad; to Israel to report to the Grand Master Netanyahu!!!
I believe we (the US) are itching to get involved militarily in a more direct way than we already are; all for geopolitical reasons (Russian naval base and influence; remove threat against israel; weaken iran....)and not for humanitarian reasons. We will open another source of long term terror threat to ourselves.
my understanding is that in Syria the Sunnis, while being the largest sectarian group, are still less than 50% of the population, hence NOT a majority Sunni country. We have opened a Pandora's box (Condi rice started it by creating the scare of the Shia crescent, and Hillary has run with the ball)which will once again come to bite us a.la. Afghanistan.
forgetting for a moment how truly democratic Israel is, double puzzled has failed to note that China, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia (as per our media) are hardly paragons of democracy!! In addition, Eugene, you have repeated a number of erroneous claims in your last sentence of the second last para.
I do not get your first response; on the contrary because you cannot get all five (since at-least one of them is committing the crime against humanity) to agree to take action any of the permanent member of the UNSC is assured of NO UNSC or UN action.
And no I am not reluctant on your second point, I only point out the fact that it is only used against the poorer and underprivileged and often where the motivation of the UNSC permanent members is far from purely humanitarian. I would prefer that actions under this portion of the charter be by a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly, which is far more democratic. This way we may have had action against US and UK for Iraq related atrocities.
Prof. Cole, I would like to point to some issues with your article as you rightly point out that only the UNSC can authorize use of force. This leaves all the members of the UNSC to conduct crimes against humanity (e.g. US/UK in Iraq, China in Tibet..etc.) without impunity. You go on to say therefore it is 'desirable' to add more members such as India and as a result we have to add Pakistan (how about India because we have added CHINA). I think it is not only desirable, but rather IMPERATIVE if the UNSC is to regain any credibility.
You also support the addition of Pakistan on the basis that we need to have a Muslim country on the UNSC. If we start making additions based on religious grounds, then I think we need to add Israel (Jewish), Nepal (Hindu) etc. The point is that basing it on religion can get very silly very soon.
Finally, I think the 'Crimes against humanity' rationale is quite vague and has so far been used by West against non western countries, otherwise we would have taken Israel to task a long ago, a la Lebanon and Gaza, or as mentioned above USA, UK, China, Russia etc. Other mechanisms are needed!!
I agree with the sentiments expressed. I would choose Singapore instead, simply because Switzerland maybe neutral (now) but is European and the world center of gravity is slowly shifting towards the east. NYC, Switzerland are too tied to the structure that was created by US and the west after WWII, and this structure is showing a lot of strain. I will not go into IMF, WB etc...
John, an excellent blog!!
I might add that most of the public in other countries is aware of the tactics of the western entities; I remember growing up in India, that the educated elite knew that some of the western news organizations were a front for western spy agencies; the NGOs were often tainted.....It is the general public here in the USA that I find most brainwashed and even unwilling to learn the facts because the facts are such a jolt to the world view they have grown up in and are fed continually.
We really need to revisit a number of our business models (News, TV, free speech=money; corporations=people etc etc.
Thanks, Prof Cole.
Prof Steve Cohen is perhaps the only expert that has provided an unbiased view of this Ukrainian crisis. I find most of the other US experts bordering on selective dissemination of information. The simple question one has to ask is why is it NOT in Russia's interest to protect its interests on its border, while we have since 1991 encroached on bringing NATO closer and closer to the borders of Russia.
I want to remind our readers that we invaded tiny Granada ostensibly to protect 20 plus american students!
A big deal is being made of the fact that Crimea is going to hold a referendum on whether it wants to stay as part of Ukraine or become part of Russia. Our president says it is illegal because a referendum has to be done by the whole of Ukraine for this to happen; so I suppose the upcoming referendum in Scotland is also illegal. I am just pointing to our hypocrisies... let us admit we are out to get Russia for geopolitical reasons, since we see a bipolar world in the future consisting of US and China.
Frankly, except for item 4, all the other items apply to us equally!!
thanks.
Prof. Cole what is this with ads by AIPAC and other pro-Israel entities on your website. Have you gone commercial????
'soft on Indians', on the contrary most of his recent high stake successes have been against south asians (Rajaratnam and rajat gupta, neena(?). He opted to give cohen of SAC a pass at criminal charges against him (not the company).
Bill, it is an assumption to imply that the maid in question was kept in virtual slavery. I have not read anywhere that she claimed that to be the case. The issue is not even her salary but rather the existence of two contracts and the alleged visa statement falsification (note: the counsel has made a 'not guilty' plea). The maid was hired in India, and I can attest that including boarding, lodging, food and clothing she was not being short changed by Indian salary standards. I bet she could not have made it on minimum wage $9 in NYC without boarding, lodging etc. As far as the wider picture is concerned, it is exactly as Prof. Cole has written in the column, it is militarization of our police and the loss of our fundamental rights which we have given up with the false expectation of security!
Margaret, the story appears to be more complex than the NYT (and other US MSM) has published so far. Please see my post later on, it is not clear to me who is the victim and of what. The maid in question appears to have had a well thought out plan to bring her husband and child to this country. Also, according to Indian media her parent-in-laws work in the US embassy / consulate!
Point well taken!
Thank you once again Prof. Cole for an informative article. I would just add to it the fact that the treatment meted out to someone arrested is determined by the said persons ability to pay for justice. As an example look at the lopsided population of US prisons, where the poor and often blacks are put away for a small quantity of marijuana, while a rich white goes free. (The recent "Affluenza" case as an extreme example).
Now to the particulars of this case, it appears that the vice counsel may have violated some visa laws, but given that one is not guilty until a judge says so, this is a probable cause indictment. Nevertheless, as you say, I agree the treatment by state department police and the US marshals appears to be over the top. Some one at state dropped the ball or there is more to this and it was done on purpose.
The case appears to be not as black and white as Mr Preet Bharara has made out to be. The spotlight in the western media has been on Ms Devayani, the vice counsel. However, the maid's (Mrs. Sangeeta Richards) story has escaped scrutiny. Very little is mentioned that she apparently left the home of the counsel in June without notification with some missing material (?). It is mentioned in the Indian media (including Times of India) that she or at least some immigration lawyer on her behalf tried to black mail Ms Devayani and that she reported that fact to the US authorities. It also appears that they ignored that as they were busy building a case of human-trafficking and in-spite of the fact that the Indian government informed the US embassy in India that her husband's (Ms Richards husband Philip) passport had been cancelled, he and his children were secretly given a human trafficking visa and brought to USA (this was stated by Mr Bharara, who by the way is an American/Indian, born in India). This all seems very fishy to me, it appears there could be a case of some personal vendetta or there is more to this story than is known so far. Some bloggers in the NY/NJ have suggested that Mr. Bharara may be trying to raise his profile in preparation for a political role in the future.
I find it amazing that the US attorney' s office would expend so much energy in pursuing this case when he has given up on criminal cases against ANY of the executives responsible for the banking debacle.
Finally, this may be the 'last straw that broke the camel's back'. India and Indians have felt very slighted by the heavy handedness of the US authorities when their Ex president , or a movie hero were detained just because they happened to have a name like Khan. The treatment of VIPs is always a reciprocal affair and one may find that some of the privileges that American diplomats and politicians take for granted when they travel to India may be affected and I for one do not consider it to be childish.
Thank you Prof. Cole for this analysis!!!
C'mon, prof. Do you really believe the MB behavior was anywhere near as dictatorial than the sisi regime!
Then the other side of me says the secularists and left asked for this....not a military coup!! Really!!
Thank you Prof. Cole for an informative post.
I am pleased that Mr. Obama was able to get this far given the neo-cons, AIPAC, Israeli and Saudi lobbies and money which influences (I am being generous - it is more like 'buys') the majority of our congress and the media.
I would not under-rate the ability of the above mentioned forces to do everything to scuttle this agreement. Also, a joint attack by Israel/ Saudi Arabia is not all that far fetched, which will result in the Pavlovian response by the US of siding with Israel no matter what.
I just hope that Mr Obama has the strength to warn Israel - Saudi Arabia of any such misadventures and the ability to thwart them.
With my fingers crossed!
Darpanet led to inter-networking (ie the protocols, pipes and plumbing);world wide web is the portal (browsers/html) to the plumbing, two different pieces of what we colloquially call the internet.
I agree with your last point...regarding our terrorists, well they are our client's (saudi's) terrorists, hence they are ours.
Why are we not calling it a terrorist attack, potentially sponsored by Saudi / other interests? The mainstream media (WAPO, NYT) seems to go with 'explosion or blast'. Could it be because they are our terrorists!
I really see no reason for Iran to make major compromise to their nuclear program. Notice, over time how our demands have changed...first it was no weapon, then weapons production capability and now anything that has the potential to enable a weapons capability. Eventually we will be asking Iranians can not study nuclear energy et al.
So far nothing Iran has done is contrary to NPT; the security council resolutions are un-democratic and irrelevant as they over-ride a treaty.
We are doing this because we can....we will eventually turn the non western world against us and when it is strong enough, we will see good bye to dollar as a reserve currency.
If we are serious about solving problems, address the elephant in the room, namely Israel.
some additional reporting (BBC):
Later, Mr Zarif responded to the claim on Twitter.
"No amount of spinning can change what happened within 5+1 in Geneva from 6pm Thursday to 5:45pm Saturday. But it can further erode confidence," he wrote.
"Mr Secretary, was it Iran that gutted over half of US draft Thursday night? And publicly commented against it Friday morning?"
"Mr Zarif appeared to be referring to French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who on Friday morning cautioned in a statement that his country wanted a "credible agreement". At the end of the day's talks, Mr Fabius told France Inter radio that Paris could not accept a "fool's game".
A Russian foreign ministry source was also quoted by the Interfax news agency on Tuesday as saying the failure was "not Iran's fault"."
I have the same question. Are the spin masters at work and has the AIPAC already gotten to the administration to change its tune and lay it on Iran?
I know, I know! But for once I hope the US administration develops some 'kahunas (?)' to take on this Frankenstein monster.
The Guardian has a detailed description of what happened. I find it unbelievable that we let a country like Israel run our foreign policy, this is insulting to me as an american. From Guardian:
"In a bid to contain the danger, the lead US negotiator, Wendy Sherman, flew straight from the talks in Geneva to Israel to reassure Binyamin Netanyahu's government that the intended deal would not harm his country's national
interests.
The hastily arranged trip represented an acknowledgement of Netanyahu's power to block a deal through his influence in the US Congress and in Europe. Egged on by the Israelis, the US Senate is poised to pass new sanctions that threaten to derail the talks before they get to their planned next round in 10 days' time."
"It has emerged that after a call from Barack Obama on Friday evening asking him not to oppose the planned Geneva deal, Netanyahu did the opposite. He called British prime minister, David Cameron, Russian president Vladimir Putin, German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president François Hollande, asking them to block it."
It is clear that Israel is not a friend and cannot be trusted. This is not the first instance of Israel publicly humiliating the USA. That Israel needs to be taught a lesson is obvious, and in my opinion if Obama took the podium and publicly took Bibi to task by pointing out his treachery and taking some actions (e.g. no more sharing of NSA data, reduction in aid...) the public at large will support him. He should say it is not in the US interest to start another war in the middle east and attack the Lindsey et al for putting the interest of Israel ahead of the USA.
I am in full agreement with you. James is too willing to give the Israelis a free pass. The Holocaust has been used too often to justify all the wrongs the Israelis are doing in Palestine.
To my knowledge, the Palestinians were NOT responsible for the Holocaust, it was the Europeans; if there was ever a case to install a European colony of Jews fleeing the Holocaust, the place was a portion of Germany, not Palestine.
But that ship has sailed and the Israelis have shown themselves to be ruthless land and resource grabbers...there are no two ways about it...you only have to look at the time sequence of the maps that Prof. Cole has posted so often.
Finally, personally, I think the time for a two state solution is gone....thee will eventually be a single state perhaps rising from the ashes of an 'apartheid' like Israeli state...I am sorry for being very negative, but this is of course my humble opinion.
I do not disagree with your analysis. Finding a single root cause is a futile exercise, when one is talking about society and economy. I would add the oil embargo as a big factor in inflation.
Bill, fully agree with you...I do not believe one party is significantly better than the other when it comes to entrenched politicians (they have all been bought)...
I found the following article right on...
link to salon.com
Just like Reagan, who is now almost worshiped as a saint by the right, was responsible for the breakup of the unions and the bad mouthing of the government; Clinton, who almost sits on a similar pedestal was responsible for sowing the seeds of the middle class decline and the loss of manufacturing.
Hello Bjorn,
Thanks for your comments....
Could not find the book you mentioned (on Amazon) but found the following:
The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson (Apr 26, 2011)
Is this any good? I will get it and definitely read it....also, I do read a lot of Scandinavian mystery novels and have been getting the inkling of the ascent of the neo-nazi right-wing groups (do not follow the politics in these countries as thoroughly as perhaps I should).
This does not lead to a good ending for capitalistic/democratic societies....does the end result always have to be fascism, due to greed and capture of state organs by the monied class?
Nice post!
I am sure you have seen this:
link to socialreader.com
To 'Nobody', what you list are by and large good goals. The question is how does one go about accomplishing them. The politicians do no longer need the voters because they can be manipulated by sophisticated advertising paid for by rich interests. Mass protests can not take place because of the national security state, the police will put it down with an increasing degree of brutality. The judiciary has by and large been bought...now we have 'corporations are people' and 'money is free speech'
...this will either self implode over time or we are headed towards an 'Elysium' like set up. In the meantime we can slow the trend...
thanks, I second Prof Cole. We have lost sight of the social contract.
I believe, invasion by itself is not genocide, but the awe and shock of baghdad, the carpet bombing of faluja, the blockade of food to children etc constitute very heinous crimes!
I suppose by the same logic, what happened in Cambodia can not be characterized as genocide; though the mass killing of american indians does qualify.
Maybe the civilized world needs another term, because as some one pointed out, we the US by not being signatories to a number of treaties (Rome Statute, some geneva conventions, ICC etc) are able to continue to have a holier than thou attitude.
Joe from Lowell, I do not support the tea party and DO support the ACA, (as a matter of fact I would have preferred a single payer option). But regarding transfer from rich, in actual fact I believe there is a surcharge of 2.3% (or so) on dividend income of people making more than $250K or $400K plus in annual income. I am pretty sure it is accurate though I have not gone back and looked it over. There may be other taxes as well....but this one I do remember.
Prof. Cole, the real question is,"is USA ready to do a deal, or better still, does USA have Israel's permission?"
Any one who has followed this topic knows that to expect Iran to prove the non existence of a program they do not have is a smoke screen to create a different smoke screen under which Israel has all but completed the occupation of Palestine.
The west has successfully completed a western enclave in Palestine; Mission Accomplished.
I think the Palestinians are headed for second class citizenship of a de-facto apartheid state of greater Israel. Because of the unconditional support from USA this state will be immune from any outside effort, moral or otherwise. An independent Palestinian State on WB and Gaza is no longer a viable possibility. The Arabs always thought that time was on their side, I think they are in for a rude surprise.
John, I agree mostly with all the points you made, but I have take exception to your use of name calling "Putin is a bastard" and "Assad is a liar"; it did not add any value to the points you made. One could use the same descriptions for our president and administrations and we would be all roiled up. As an example, our government, Obama included has repeatedly lied about NSA and other matters.
Prof. Cole, I have three observations:
1. The credibility of the UNSC was shot down a long time ago, with all the vetos by US in support of Israel; why is it more insidious when it comes to others when they use the tool for their strategic interests.
2. Prof. Cole unless have you have seen more evidence of the gas attack (and you may have)the current evidence does not prove that it was the regime that did it. Honestly, with a heavy heart I challenge you to show some OBJECTIVE evidence. Calling it a crackpot theory (without real evidence) is not a scholarly statement!
3. INMHO, you come across as an apologist for the current administration and the US record, and I know that was not your intent!
Bill, I do not believe it was the Europeans that were clamoring for the dismantling of Yugoslavia. Once it started they (especially Germany) took full advantage of it. The initiative was once again a strategic initiative of the usa to remove the last pro Russian government in the mainland of Europe, and as usual this was done under the guise of humanitarian intervention. This same pattern is being followed for the very same reasons; do not be fooled about some moral obligation (we have ignored and abetted too many of morally reprehensible situations).
Let us get out of Europe they are big boys now!!
okay, Joe...we are back to calling things chemical weapons only when we want them such. So agent orange used in vietnam, white phosphorus in iraq, and depleted uranium which is still resulting in deformed children being born in Iraq are not banned! BTW, white phosphorus and napalm are banned items, but only for ohers. Great Powers can not be encumbered by such minor rules, laws, norms (pick your word). Finally,we did not attack saddam when he attacked iran with CW or gassed the kurds, in fact we gave a helping hand by providing saddam with target information.
Now, if you want to be legal, there is NO International legal basis for attacking Syria, that is why our Orwellian president now calls it 'international norms'. This morning I heard another variation (on NPR)...'cultural norms being violated hence we need to act'!
The constant apologist!! You can not seem to comprehend the possibility that our government can lie to get what it wants.
Lane, the international law does not support your assertion. My reading is there are two relevant ones: a chemical weapons ban which Syria did NOT sign and a Geneva convention which bans the use of chemical weapons among states (this was not a use against another state). Perhaps Prof. Cole can clarify.
Joe, if you tally all the UNSC resolutions USA has vetoed (mostly in support of Israel) they exceed by far the ones ussr and Russia have vetoed. Of course, Israel is a no no topic in the us MSM!
Prof. Cole, I am not a fan of the military govt. in Egypt, but as stated In your piece, their stand appears principled. As to paranoia, if I were a Muslim Mid East country, I would be paranoid too. Uncle Sam has a history here as you have so often pointed out!
Joe from Lowell, your observation is correct. I think it is to be expected from the readership of this blog, which has memory of the 'gulf of Tonkin resolution', 'the yellow cake of Iraq', the 'wmd trucks of Iraq',the 'nuclear program of Iraq', etc etc.
Trust once lost is hard to regain with statements like 'trust me'. It is exactly that the people of US DO NOT TRUST their government!!
false flag operations are known to happen. i guess we will only find out 40 years from now, when cia archives are laid open.
we already have one on our southern border!
Jacob, I am afraid it will take a herculean effort to take the public away from their sports broadcasts and reality shows. I have coffee everyday at a local Starbucks and have a group of regulars (conservatives and progressives). The typical response is 'it does not affect me'; the progressives are worse they are so adverse to attacking anything Obama and are willing to rationalize any/all mis-behavior from Mr. O.
joe from Lowell, your quote below is an example of pure inflammatory and baseless commentary.
'One election doesn’t give the President free rein to make himself Pharaoh. Even Hitler’s party won one election.
He was voted into office to oversee the writing of a constitution, and he decided that the constitution was going to read “L’etat, c’est moi.”'
I believe Kassandra above makes good points worth pondering about.
"The opposition boycotted the vote" and now they invite the army to conduct a coup and topple a duly elected government. I believe the sacrosanct western media / civic groups also said the elections that brought in Morsi were fair and square. People are giving 20Mil number in the streets; the best I have heard is 1.5M; I think the people confuse it with 20 mil signatures (not verifiable). Anyway, I think the tiger is out of the cage and the liberals will rue the day and I feel very sad for ALL the people of Egypt.
Richard, your response is focusing on motives of MB, something that I do not have the ability to know, all I can do is provide my reading of the facts. Please provide some objective reference to how Morsi governed in an undemocratic manner. My reading is that they won three separate elections/referendum. The only reason he took supreme power for a short period of time was to avert the Mubarak appointed supreme court from dissolving the constitution writing body (they had already dissolved a duly elected lower house of the parliament). On the question of exclusive manner: sure he packed the upper house with pro Morsi supporters, but that was not illegal and democracy does have winners and losers. The liberals should have waited for the next round of elections which were due within the next year. To ask for military to stage a coup was undemocratic. Finally, I believe, your expectation of MB to not protest is expecting too much of some one whose duly provided rights have been taken away by a military coup (and that is what it is)!
Prof. Cole, I am an avid reader of your blog and thank you for your contribution to information on middle east. However, I must take issue with your narrative in this blog. You seem to blame the MB disproportionately and use language like Morsi pushed through a constitution with only 30% participation. Come on sir, what kind of participation and victory margins have we had in the greatest democracy (USA). You also forget to mention that it was the Mubarak era judiciary with the covert backing of the military that dissolved the duly elected lower house. In my opinion, Morsi was forced into taking action to counter the forces of the military and the elite that lost the elections! I BTW, am not a supporter of religion in politics, am of Indian (Hindu) origin. I just want to call it as I see it. The blame lies very squarely in the lap of the military and its supporters(incl.US government) who never wanted a popular democracy in Egypt or region for that matter (Hamas in Gaza).
It would be revealing to list the number of election era promises Mr Obama has broken and where he has gone 180 degrees!
Newsnag, All you have done is parrot generalities. Pls be specific about the things morse did unconstitutionally or illegally. Also, do not forget to list the decrees the Mubarak era military announced to thwart morse. The fact remains this was a military coup and no amount of beating around the bush can change that,
Constitutionally and/or legally who has the right to appoint the prosecutor general?
My recollection is that the one that was fired was appointed by a dictator or by the military Junta that followed. What power does Morsi, as the elected president have?
Steve, should we not let the Lebanese decide their own fate? Our intervention has only made life worse for the Lebanese. As for Hizbullah being 'a toxic presence', one could accuse Israeli occupation of the west bank and Golan height (not to mention illegal blockade of Gaza) being a very toxic presence in the neighborhood, Israel just happens to be our toxic presence.
JohnH, I fully agree with your points. These points have been ignored by the western media for the most part. The rest of the world (world without west), is looking for better alternatives as soon as possible, and we the west will wake up only when it is too late. We are winning the tactical battle with sanctions but will lose the strategic war.
wonder who the real crazies are: Iran or Israel!!
Prof Cole, I enjoy your column and your insights. Re: the negotiations, I think the progress will not take place before the US elections because there is no way, Mr Obama can show any flexibility lest the whole Israeli and the right-wing lobby will go after his hide. Iran is not going to totally capitulate, which is the only outcome Mr Obama can accept before the election.
Note: where did the chief negotiator fly to directly from Baghdad; to Israel to report to the Grand Master Netanyahu!!!
I believe we (the US) are itching to get involved militarily in a more direct way than we already are; all for geopolitical reasons (Russian naval base and influence; remove threat against israel; weaken iran....)and not for humanitarian reasons. We will open another source of long term terror threat to ourselves.
my understanding is that in Syria the Sunnis, while being the largest sectarian group, are still less than 50% of the population, hence NOT a majority Sunni country. We have opened a Pandora's box (Condi rice started it by creating the scare of the Shia crescent, and Hillary has run with the ball)which will once again come to bite us a.la. Afghanistan.
forgetting for a moment how truly democratic Israel is, double puzzled has failed to note that China, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia (as per our media) are hardly paragons of democracy!! In addition, Eugene, you have repeated a number of erroneous claims in your last sentence of the second last para.
I do not get your first response; on the contrary because you cannot get all five (since at-least one of them is committing the crime against humanity) to agree to take action any of the permanent member of the UNSC is assured of NO UNSC or UN action.
And no I am not reluctant on your second point, I only point out the fact that it is only used against the poorer and underprivileged and often where the motivation of the UNSC permanent members is far from purely humanitarian. I would prefer that actions under this portion of the charter be by a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly, which is far more democratic. This way we may have had action against US and UK for Iraq related atrocities.
Prof. Cole, I would like to point to some issues with your article as you rightly point out that only the UNSC can authorize use of force. This leaves all the members of the UNSC to conduct crimes against humanity (e.g. US/UK in Iraq, China in Tibet..etc.) without impunity. You go on to say therefore it is 'desirable' to add more members such as India and as a result we have to add Pakistan (how about India because we have added CHINA). I think it is not only desirable, but rather IMPERATIVE if the UNSC is to regain any credibility.
You also support the addition of Pakistan on the basis that we need to have a Muslim country on the UNSC. If we start making additions based on religious grounds, then I think we need to add Israel (Jewish), Nepal (Hindu) etc. The point is that basing it on religion can get very silly very soon.
Finally, I think the 'Crimes against humanity' rationale is quite vague and has so far been used by West against non western countries, otherwise we would have taken Israel to task a long ago, a la Lebanon and Gaza, or as mentioned above USA, UK, China, Russia etc. Other mechanisms are needed!!