'Global' thinking won't necessarily solve the world's problems

There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government

'Global' thinking won't necessarily solve the world's problems, says Janet Daley
By Janet Daley Published: 7:24PM GMT 19 Dec 2009


There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which "global" swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were "global crises" and "global challenges", the only possible resolution to which lay in "global solutions" necessitating "global agreements". Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a "global alliance" in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)
Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word "global", as in "global economic crisis", meant: "It's not my fault". To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.

Related Articles
This brave new world we live in needs leaders based in reality (/finance/comment/liamhalligan/5105721 /This-brave-new-world-we-live-in-needs-leaders-based-in-reality.html)
FSA slams stable door, but policy-making on the hoof won't solve crisis (/finance/comment/damianreece /2985356/FSA-slams-stable-door-but-policy-making-on-the-hoof-wont-solve-crisis.html)
Afghanistan election: Would you risk your life to cast a vote? (/comment/columnists/janetdaley/6072915

Turkmenistan-China pipeline changes energy balance

China has arrived in Central Asia. That is the unmistakeable lesson of the opening of the Turkmenistan-China gas pipeline on December 12 (BBC, December 14). The 1,833 kilometre pipeline, which will carry up to 40 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas, also traversing Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan before linking into China’s network in Xinjiang, was formally agreed only in April 2006. The construction of such an ambitious project in a relatively limited time-frame is a concrete demonstration of Beijing’s push to secure the region’s natural resources.

“The strategic significance of the Turkmenistan-China pipeline cannot be underestimated”, said analyst Borut Grgic (Atlantic Council, December 18). It is hard to argue with his assessment. This pipeline could be yet another blow to the EU’s Nabucco pipeline, from the Caspian to Europe: but Nabucco is already so frail that the possibility of losing Turkmen gas as well seems inevitable. Far more significant is the implications for Russian and Iranian Caspian policies, as well as China’s rising influence in Central Asia.

For Ashgabat, the pipeline will be a vital economic lifeline when operating at full capacity in 2012: the lack of supply to Russia is currently costing around $1 billion per month. It also opens the way for greater Chinese investment in the country’s huge but largely untapped gas fields. In the long-term, we could even see Chinese-built pipelines stretching across the deserts of Turkmenistan to Chinese-operated gas fields in the Caspian Sea. We are also likely to see a ripple effect from this project, as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan begin plugging their own gas supplies into the Turkmenistan-China pipeline.

Iran is only peripherally involved, but will still be watching China’s actions closely. Currently, a single pipeline takes 8bcm of Turkmen gas to northern Iran, but another pipeline is almost complete. When both are fully operational, 20bcm per year will be flowing to Turkmenistan’s southern neighbour.

If Russia begins to aggressively defend its stake in the country’s gas fields, we could soon see a three-way struggle between Moscow, Beijing and Tehran for control of Turkmen gas fields. Although Turkmenistan’s resources are vast, there is still no agreement on exactly how vast they are, partly as a result of the country’s suspicions towards outside investors and unreliable, centrally-planned economy. If there are insufficient supplies to satisfy all three hungry customers, there could be serious geo-economic competition in Turkmenistan.

For Russia, the pipeline is a major blow. It will deprive Moscow of its strategic control over large-scale Turkmen gas supplies. These supplies have been suspended since April 2009 due to a pipeline explosion, blamed on technical problems arising from a pricing dispute between Russia’s Gazprom and Turkmenistan. Although Gazprom is still contracted to purchase 90% of Ashgabat’s gas, when the pipeline restarts this share will be nearly halved, due to the China route and a new route to Iran (RFE/RL, December 14).

Gazprom has had a near-monopsony on Turkmenistan’s gas since 1991, relying on a mixture of Soviet-era pipeline infrastructures, preferential tariffs, political pressure and economic support. But Russia can no longer rely on the legacy of the USSR to keep Turkmenistan in its sphere of influence. As the pipeline shows, there are new players in town with deeper pockets and more political capital.

The Kremlin has tried to put a brave face on matters. First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov insisted that “we support these projects” (ITAR-TASS, December 19). His boss Vladimir Putin also reassured reporters that the pipeline would not affect Sino-Russian cooperation on energy, a strategic priority for Moscow (Oil&Gas Journal, December 7). But Russia is clearly concerned. The same scenario that played out to the west of the Caspian – the grasp of former Soviet energy resources by outside players – has now taken place to the east.

There are also implications for Russia’s bilateral gas trade with China. Vladimir Socor at the Jamestown Foundation notes that Siberian gas supplies to China now face a competitor in the form of Turkmen gas, increasing Beijing’s leverage in ongoing price negotiations (Jamestown Foundation, December 18). China’s increasing domination of Russia’s former dominions in Central Asia – which has also included recent plans to buy up Kazakh farmland (RFE/RL, December 17) – will have long-term implications for Russia’s political, energy and economic strategies. How it handles the rise of China in the region will be one of the most unpredictable trends of the next decade.

In order to keep the three Central Asian transit states cooperating with each other (not guaranteed given their history of disputes), China will have to make a firmer political commitment to the region. Just as Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey have become close allies as a result of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan project, so China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan will be bound together through this new pipeline. The implications - for Russia, Iran, and the West – will be serious.

By Alexander Jackson

ZIONIST NGOs PRESENTING THE ‘TRUTH’ IN THE FORM OF LIES

An integral cog in the Hasbara wheel of destruction are the groups operating as NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) .THIS is a description of one such group, one that has caused much damage and grief to many involved in Human Rights work on behalf of the Palestinian people.

Yesterday I posted a piece about the Canadian government cutting off funds to a group involved in Human Rights work. This action was instigated by a group in Israel which is linked above. Monitor, since its inception, has concentrated all of its energy on the spreading of lies to discredit any and all organisations working in the field of Human Rights on behalf of Palestinians. Their main target has been another NGO group called Human Rights Watch. Many man hours are spent trying to discredit them.

What Monitor sees as presenting the truth is nothing but a never ending web of lies. It seems that no one monitors them or their activities, but perhaps that is what is needed. Those that support and fund this organisation should be aware of how they operate. Below is one of the latest examples ….

Based on the following, NGO Monitor prepared an extensive dossier to present to the Canadian government….

• In December 2008, during the Gaza conflict, KAIROS wrote to Prime Minister Harper alleging that “[o]ne and a half million people living under illegal occupation…have no escape from being bombed as punishment for violent acts they did not commit.” Israel was blamed for Palestinian violence: “Mass killings turn youth growing up in despair and humiliation into fighters.”
• In another letter, the NGO claimed “Canada has an obligation to speak out against this collective punishment of the people in Gaza,” and expressed that it was “further disturbed” at Canada’s position that opposed one-sided UN Human Rights Council resolutions targeting Israel (and promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference).
• Further demonstrating its core political bias, KAIROS pressed the argument that thousands of Hamas’ “[rocket] attacks in no way justify this siege [of Gaza].”
• KAIROS frequently joins other anti-Israel NGOs in accusing Israel of “war crimes” and “collective punishment.”

• KAIROS’ response can be found HERE
  

With the logic used above, the UN, the EU and anyone else that speaks out against Israeli aggression or the occupation should also have their funds cut off. One point that must be noted is that Monitor never targets any right wing or Jewish terrorist organisations. That must not go ignored.

The following, from the archives of the Forward says it all….

Monitoring The Monitor

By Leonard Fein

One of the more active sideshows of our time is the tangle of new organizations devoted to uncovering and broadcasting what they see as “the truth.” Now that the Internet has radically simplified the work and lowered the cost of getting such messages out, it seems a wonder that there’s room in cyberspace for all the information that each day brings.

But there’s the rub: It’s not the quantity that’s the problem, it’s the nature of what passes for “information.” How are we to distinguish between information and noise? How can we tell when an organization’s ideological agenda colors its presentation?

What brings this to mind just now is an unfolding assault on Human Rights Watch, which is widely regarded and respected, along with Amnesty International USA, as the premier human rights agency in the United States. Its reports are carefully researched and, often to the embarrassment of governments, widely reported.

So, for example, its recent 53-page report on the “rendition” of some 60 alleged Islamist terrorists, sent to Egypt where (contrary to our president’s bland assessment) even our State Department indicates they are virtually certain to be tortured. Other Human Rights Watch reports in recent weeks have focused on Darfur; on America’s treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and on the state of human rights in Peru, in Nepal, in Iraq and in Vietnam.

These reports, frequently of conditions that would otherwise pass unnoticed, are produced by a staff of nearly 200 people in 15 offices around the world with an annual budget just short of $22 million.

It comes as no surprise that Human Rights Watch also speaks out on Israel, often (though not always) critically. Enter NGO Monitor, an organization that believes that the best way to defend Israel is to condemn anyone who criticizes it.

NGO Monitor operates out of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Institute for Contemporary Affairs. Its editor is Gerald Steinberg, a professor at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and its stated purpose is “to end the practice used by certain self-declared ‘humanitarian NGOs’ of exploiting the label ‘universal human rights values’ to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas.”

It is in that context that it has paid special attention to Human Rights Watch, offering on its Web site more reports on Human Rights Watch than on any other of the 75 NGOs it seeks to “out.” It holds that Human Rights Watch exploits “the rhetoric of universal human rights to promote narrow political and ideological preferences,” thereby falling squarely within the explicit scope of NGO Monitor’s interest.

I cannot here review all of what NGO Monitor claims as evidence for its harsh view that Human Rights Watch acts “in concert with [the] international demonization of Israel.” But here are two items that provide an indication of the “narrow political and ideological preferences” of NGO Monitor itself:

On April 18, NGO Monitor issued a “draft report on Human Rights Watch” which claims that an “objective quantitative analysis” shows that Human Rights Watch places an “extreme emphasis on critical assessments of Israel.” I have reviewed the draft document and checked its central claim against the actual documents Human Rights Watch has produced regarding Israel since the year 2000. The discrepancy between NGO Monitor’s claims and Human Rights Watch’s record is massive.

Human Rights Watch has in fact devoted more attention to each of five other nations in the region — Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran — than to Israel. I called this to Steinberg’s attention on May 3, and he responded that NGO Monitor would “examine and respond” to the discrepancies. Since then, I have received 27 emails from Steinberg; not one has in any way responded to this matter. Yet the draft report remains online, unamended.

On June 30, Israel’s Supreme Court issued a much-publicized ruling on the “separation fence.” The heart of the ruling was that “the route which the military commander established for the security fence… injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way, while violating their rights under humanitarian international law” and that the fence must therefore be relocated.

But if you were to read the NGO Monitor’s summary of the ruling, you would never know this. You would, instead, read all the court’s reasons for declaring that Israel has the right to build a fence to protect its citizens — and none of the language that explains the court’s view that the location of the fence is an unacceptable “infringement on the local inhabitants’ rights and interests.”

Now NGO Monitor is on a public campaign to establish a mechanism, as Steinberg puts it, “to watch the watchers” — that is, to provide external controls over the actions of NGOs in general and of Human Rights Watch in particular. It also urges that NGO hiring and other practices be “transparent.”

Here, again, my repeated requests for an explanation of just how hiring practices might be rendered transparent, and why board oversight and donor response are inadequate as safeguards, have gone unanswered.

Human Rights Watch is not beyond criticism; no NGO is. And all NGOs — NGO Monitor not less than Human Rights Watch — have an agenda. It is entirely appropriate for outsiders to enquire, to judge whether an NGO’s claimed agenda is honestly stated and honestly pursued.

NGO Monitor is not exempt from the kind of scrutiny it proposes for Human Rights Watch and others; its claim that Human Rights Watch “promotes narrow political and ideological preferences” while its own hands are clean and its motives pure is vacuous.

Let it, as it wishes, “watch the watcher” — but let it, in turn, be watched.

*

Some background information on the group can be found HERE

World's Sole Military Superpower's 2 Million-Troop, $1 Trillion Wars

With a census of slightly over 300 million in a world of almost seven billion people, the U.S. accounts for over 40 percent of officially acknowledged worldwide government military spending with a population that is only 4 percent of that of the earth's. A 10-1 disparity.

In addition to its 1,445,000 active duty service members, the Pentagon can and does call upon 1.2 million National Guard and other reserve components. As many as 30% of troops that have served in Afghanistan and Iraq are mobilized reservists. The Army National Guard has activated over 400,000 soldiers since the war in Afghanistan began and in March of 2009 approximately 125,000 National Guard and other reserve personnel were on active duty.

The Defense Department also has over 800,000 civilian employees at home and deployed worldwide. The Pentagon, then, has more than 3.5 million people at its immediate disposal excluding private military contractors.

After allotting over a trillion dollars for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone and packing off more than two million of its citizens to the two nations, the U.S. military establishment and peace prize president have already laid the groundwork for yet more wars. Boeing, Raytheon and General Electric won't be kept waiting.


In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on December 10 the president of the United States appropriated for his country the title of "the world's sole military superpower" and for himself "the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars."

This may well have been the first time that an American - and of course any - head of state in history boasted of his nation being the only uncontested military power on the planet and unquestionably the only time a Nobel Peace Prize recipient identified himself as presiding over not only a war but two wars simultaneously.

As to the appropriateness of laying such claims in the venue and on the occasion he did - accepting the world's preeminent peace award before the Norwegian Nobel Committee - Barack Obama at least had the excuse of being perfectly accurate in his contentions.

He is in fact the commander-in-chief in charge of two major and several smaller wars and his nation is without doubt the first global military power which for decades has operated without constraints on five of six inhabited continents and has troops stationed in all six. United States armed forces personnel and weapons, including nuclear arms, are stationed at as many as 820 installations in scores of nations.

The U.S. has recently assigned thousands of troops to seven new bases in Bulgaria and Romania [1], deployed the first foreign troops to Israel in that nation's history to run an interceptor missile radar facility in the Negev Desert [2], and last week signed a status of forces agreement with Poland for Patriot missiles (to be followed by previously ship-based Aegis Standard Missile-3s interceptors) and U.S. soldiers to be stationed there. The troops will be the first foreign forces based in Poland since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991.

The U.S., whose current military budget is at Cold War, which is to say at the highest of post-World War II, levels, also officially accounts for over 41% of international military spending according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's report on 2008 figures: $607 billion of $1.464 trillion worldwide. On October 28 President Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act with a price tag of $680 billion, including $130 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That figure excludes military spending outside of the Department of Defense. The American government has for several decades been the standard-bearer in outsourcing to private sector contractors in every realm and the Pentagon is certainly no exception to the practice. According to some estimates, American military and military-related allotments in addition to the formal Pentagon budget can bring annual U.S. defense spending as high as $1.16 trillion, almost half of official expenditures for all of the world's 192 nations, including the U.S., last year.

With a census of slightly over 300 million in a world of almost seven billion people, the U.S. accounts for over 40 percent of officially acknowledged worldwide government military spending with a population that is only 4 percent of that of the earth's. A 10-1 disparity.

The U.S. also has the world's second largest standing army, over 1,445,000 men and women under arms according to estimates of earlier this year, second only to China with 2,255,000. China has a population of over 1.325 billion, more than four times that of America, and does not have a vast army of private contractors supplementing its armed forces. And of course unlike the U.S. it has no troops stationed abroad. India, with a population of 1.140 billion, has active duty troop strength smaller than that of the U.S. at 1,415,000.

The U.S. and Britain are possibly alone in the world in deploying reservists to war zones; this last February the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen acknowledged that 600,000 reserves have been called up to serve in the area of responsibility of the U.S. Central Command, in charge of the Afghan and Iraqi wars, since 2001. In addition to its 1,445,000 active duty service members, the Pentagon can and does call upon 1.2 million National Guard and other reserve components. As many as 30% of troops that have served in Afghanistan and Iraq are mobilized reservists. The Army National Guard has activated over 400,000 soldiers since the war in Afghanistan began and in March of 2009 approximately 125,000 National Guard and other reserve personnel were on active duty.

The Defense Department also has over 800,000 civilian employees at home and deployed worldwide. The Pentagon, then, has more than 3.5 million people at its immediate disposal excluding private military contractors.

In the last 48 hours two unprecedented thresholds have been crossed. On the morning of December 19 the U.S. Senate met in a rare Saturday morning session to approve a $636.3 billion military budget for next year. The vote was 88-10, as the earlier vote by the House of Representatives on December 16 was 395-34. In both cases the negative votes were not necessarily an indication of opposition to war spending but part of the labyrinthine American legislative practices of trade-offs, add-ons and deal-making on other, unrelated issues, what in the local vernacular are colorfully described as horse-trading and log-rolling among other choice terms. A no vote in the House or Senate, then, was not automatically a reflection of anti-war or even fiscally conservative sentiments.

The Pentagon appropriation included another $101 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Obama signed the last formal Iraq and Afghanistan War Supplemental Appropriations, worth $106 billion, in July), but did not include the first of several additional requests, what are termed emergency spending measures, for the Afghan war. The first such request is expected early next year, more than $30 billion for the additional 33,000 U.S. troops to be deployed to the war zone, which will increase the number of American forces there to over 100,000.

On the day of the Senate vote Bloomberg News cited the Congressional Research Service, which had tallied the numbers, in revealing that the funds apportioned for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have now pushed the total expenditure for both to over $1 trillion. "That includes $748 billion for spending related to the war in Iraq and $300 billion for Afghanistan, the research service said in a Sept. 28 report."

The new Pentagon spending plan "includes $2.5 billion to buy 10 additional Boeing Co. C-17 transports that weren't requested by the Pentagon. Chicago-based Boeing also would benefit from $1.5 billion for 18 F/A-E/F Super Hornet fighters, nine more than the administration requested."

Funding for military aircraft not even requested by the Defense Department and the White House or for larger numbers of them than were is another curious component of the American body politic. That arms merchants (and not only domestic ones) place their own orders with the American people's alleged representatives - the current Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn, was senior vice president of Government Operations and Strategy for Raytheon Company prior to assuming his new post - is illustrated by the following excerpts from the same report:

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended April 6 that the C-17 program be terminated once Boeing delivers the last of 205 C-17s in late 2010. Boeing, the second-largest defense contractor, has said its plant in Long Beach, California, will shut down in 2011 without more orders.

"The budget also includes $465 million for the backup engine of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The engine is built by Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. and London-based Rolls Royce Plc. The administration earlier threatened to veto the entire defense bill if it contained any money for the engine." [3]

The Pentagon and its chief Gates may win battles with the Congress and even the White House when they relate to the use of military force abroad, but against the weapons manufacturers and the congressmen whose election campaigns they contribute to the military brass will come off the losers.

In addition to the nearly two-thirds of a trillion dollar annual Pentagon war chest, the ongoing trillion dollar Broader Middle East war is a lucrative boon to the merchants of death and their political hangers-on.

On December 18 a story was posted on several American armed forces websites that U.S. soldiers have been sent to Afghanistan and Iraq 3.3 million times since the invasion of the first country in October of 2001. The report specifies that "more than 2 million men and women have shouldered those deployments, with 793,000 of them deploying more than once."

The break-down according to services is as follows:

More than 1 million troops from the Army.

Over 389,900 from the Air Force.

Over 367,900 from the Navy.

More than 251,800 Marines.

This past October alone 172,800 soldiers, 31,500 airmen, 30,000 sailors and 20,900 Marines were dispatched to the two war zones. [4]

The bulk of the U.S.'s permanent global warfighting force may be deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, but enough troops are left over to man newly acquired bases in Eastern Europe, remain in Middle East nations other than Iraq, be based on and transit through the Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan, take over seven new military bases in Colombia, run regional operations out of America's first permanent base in Africa - Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, where 2,400 personnel are stationed - and engage in counterinsurgency campaigns in the Philippines, Mali, Uganda, Yemen and Pakistan.

Recently a U.S. armed forces newspaper reported in an article titled "AFRICOM could add Marine Air Ground Task Force" that "A 1,000-strong Marine combat task force capable of rapidly deploying to hot spots could soon be at the disposal of the new U.S. Africa Command."

The feature added that a Marine unit previously attached to the newly launched AFRICOM has "already deployed in support of training missions in Uganda and Mali," whose armies are fighting the Lord's Resistance Army and Tuareg rebels, respectively. [5]

In Yemen, Houthi rebel sources "accused the U.S. air force [on December 15] of joining attacks against them, and killing at least 120 people in a raid in the north of the poor Arab state."

Their information office said "The savage crime committed by the U.S. air force shows the real face of the United States." [6]

According to ABC News "On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday [December 17] against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen," [7] to complement mounting missile attacks in Pakistan.

The Houthi rebels are religiously Shi'ia, so any attempt at exploiting an al-Qaeda rationale for bombing their villages is a subterfuge.

At the same time the Commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and NATO Allied Air Component, General Roger Brady, fresh from a tour of inspection of the Caucasus nations of Azerbaijan and Georgia, was at the Adazi Training Base in Latvia to meet with the defense ministers of that nation, Estonia and Lithuania and plan "closer military cooperation in the security sector between the Baltic States and the USA which also included joint exercises in the Baltic region." [9] All five nations mentioned above - Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia and Lithuania - border Russia.

During the same week's summit of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) in Havana, Cuba, the host country's president Raul Castro said of the latest Pentagon buildup in Colombia that "The deployment of [U.S.] military bases in the region is...an act of aggression against Latin America and the Caribbean." [9]

Less than a week later the government of Colombia, the third largest recipient of American military aid in the world, announced it would construct a new military base near its border with Venezuela. "Defense Minister Gabriel Silva said [on December 18] that the base, located on the Guajira peninsula near the city of Nazaret, would have up to 1,000 troops. Two air battalions would also be activated at other border areas....Army Commander General Oscar Gonzalez meanwhile announced [the following day] that six air battalions were being activated, including two on the border with Venezuela." [10]

After allotting over a trillion dollars for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone and packing off more than two million of its citizens to the two nations, the U.S. military establishment and peace prize president have already laid the groundwork for yet more wars. Boeing, Raytheon and General Electric won't be kept waiting.


Notes

1) Bulgaria, Romania: U.S., NATO Bases For War In The East
Stop NATO, October 24, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/bulgaria-romania-u-s-nato-bases-for-war-in-the-east
2) Israel: Forging NATO Missile Shield, Rehearsing War With Iran
Stop NATO, November 5, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/israel-forging-nato-missile-shield-rehearsing-war-with-iran
3) Bloomberg News, December 19, 2009
4) Michelle Tan, 2 million troops have deployed since 9/11
December 18, 2009
5) Stars And Stripes, December 16, 2009
6) Reuters, December 16, 2009
7) ABC News, December 18, 2009
8) Defense Professionals, December 14, 2009
9) Russian Information Agency Novosti, December 14, 2009
10) Agence France-Presse, December 19, 2009
===========================

Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.

by Rick Rozoff
Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rick Rozoff

US retailers in rush to save Christmas sales after storm

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US retailers scrambled Monday to stave off a holiday sales disaster after an East Coast blizzard that forced many shops and malls to close for the critical pre-Christmas weekend.

Some retailers announced extended opening hours to make up for lost sales after the snowstorm blanketed a large swathe of the east coast on what is one of the busiest shopping weekends of the year.

Online retailers, who looked set to become the biggest winners from the record snowfalls, extended shipping offers to allow consumers to get last-minute gifts by Christmas Eve.

The storm "may put a damper on last minute Christmas shopping, possibly causing more shoppers to use gift cards rather than trek to visit retail stores," said Fred Dickson, analyst at the brokerage DA Davidson & Co.

"We may see some last-minute bargains no one expected ahead of the storm in hopes of making up for lost sales and volume."

Peter Morici, economist at the University of Maryland, said he expected the blizzard to shift some sales to the Internet.

"Overall, fewer items will be purchased but the transactions prices will be higher both owing to a more limited scope of choices for shoppers and more online shipping and handling revenues," he said.

"Retail sales will be somewhat lower but the big story will be the migration to online outlets. Higher transactions prices will compensate, considerably, for smaller volumes."

Some online merchants including Land's End and Overstock.com were promising free or discounted shipping for procrastinators who order Monday or in some cases Tuesday, for delivery Thursday.

Amazon.com was still promising delivery in time for Christmas for many items, with free shipping on electronics.

Target, one of the largest US retailers, announced Monday that most of its stores in markets affected by the heavy snowstorm along the east coast, will operate extended holiday hours ahead of December 25, from 7 am to midnight.

This includes all stores in the capital Washington and states of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and many stores in Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts.

"We understand that the shopping plans for many of our guests in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast during this weekend before Christmas were affected by the severe storm," said Troy Risch, executive vice president at Target.

"To give these guests more opportunity to make all their holiday purchases, the majority of our stores in hard hit areas will open one hour earlier than originally planned and remain open until midnight."

Retailers are also planning for post-Christmas sales. Target said all stores nationwide will be open from 7 am on December 26 while rival JC Penney said stores would open at 5 am -- the earliest opening on the day after Christmas in store history.

The snowstorm caps what is expected to be a lackluster holiday season for the retail industry. The National Retail Federation has called for a drop of 1.0 percent in dollar value compared to last year for the season, which often is critical for sales and profits.

In the nation's capital, Washington, federal government agencies were closed Monday after the snowstorm that saw up to 24 inches (61 centimeters) blanket parts of the region on Saturday and Sunday.

But from Virginia north to New York and Maine, residents awoke to clear skies, with the worst of the storm well over as holiday shoppers scrambled to make up for lost time four days ahead of Christmas.

Mercedes-Based 10,000-Liter Water Cannon

This endearing vehicle is the Water Cannon 10000, built by Austrian coachbuilder Rosenbauer and based on the Mercedes-Benz Actros 3341 all-wheel-drive truck. Ten thousand is the water capacity in liters (equalling 2642 gallons). Every minute, up to 925 gallons can be dispensed at high pressure to clear the road and put protests to a swift end. Refilling is accomplished at water hydrants, open water, or both simultaneously, all at the same rate.

Reassuringly, the 31-ton Water Cannon 10000 is propelled by “an environmentally friendly Euro 5 version of a V-6 turbo-diesel engine. . . featuring BlueTec SCR diesel technology,” gushes a Mercedes press release. There’s more good news: “The driver benefits from a convenient Mercedes Powershift automated transmission.” And while the auxiliary HVAC system helps “maintain a pleasant interior temperature,” there is also “a refrigerated compartment for storing refreshments.” Nice!

German police seem to expect more than a few riots over the next few years, as 78 of these vehicles will be put into service over the next ten years (at total cost of €75 million or $107.6 million). Open the refreshments!

歐洲‧多國雪災80死‧歐洲之星”停駛數萬人困火車站

（法國‧巴黎）歐洲多國週一（12月21日）持續受到暴風雪吹襲，至今已造成至少80人死亡。各地交通癱瘓，連接英國與歐洲大陸的“歐洲之星”客運列車連續第3天停駛，擾亂逾10萬名乘客的行程，引發民眾不滿。

受“歐洲之星”停駛影響，目前有數以萬計的乘客受困火車站。另外，多國機場停飛、路面結冰致使公路交通癱瘓，交通事故頻傳，加上一些地區出現電力供應中斷，讓這場雪災災情雪上加霜。

法國巴黎快速鐵路（RER），週日（12月20日）晚上發生出軌意外。一輛汽車在結冰的路面打滑，把路邊的水泥塊撞往鐵軌，列車煞車不及撞上水泥塊，車頭出軌，36人受傷。

克羅地亞首都薩格勒布也發生火車意外，一列火車撞上一個緩衝物，導致52人受傷。

德最低達攝氏零下33度

歐洲各地都錄得最低氣溫，其中德國巴伐利亞最低達攝氏零下33.6度。歐洲一些地區，降雪超過50厘米。

在波蘭，當局表示，已有42人凍死。烏克蘭也有27人死亡，德國6人死於交通意外，奧地利也有3人喪生。法國至少2人凍死。

“歐洲之星”停駛，連結倫敦、巴黎及布魯塞爾的交通網中斷，使數以萬計的乘客聖誕節假日出遊或返國的計劃受阻。

這間公司今日（週二，12月22日）宣佈“局部”復駛，將可恢復三分之二來往英國至法國的服務，預期可接載2萬6000名乘客。

這間公司會儘快在未來數天疏導其餘受影響的乘客，相信要待聖誕節後才能全面恢復列車服務。

厄爾尼諾重臨令北半球暴雪

專家表示，極端天氣侵襲北半球，是因為厄爾尼諾現象重臨，導致赤道附近大氣層變暖，而太陽活動為11年以來最低，令北極圈的大氣變冷。當冷空氣和大量水氣匯合，就產生了冰雪天氣。

氣候專家奧斯本表示，太陽活動為影響天氣的重要元素。太陽黑子活動每11年就達到高峰，而在這些高峰中途則是低潮期。奧斯本說：“在過去12個月，我們經歷了54年以來沒看過太陽黑子的最長時間……這是今年出現不尋常的寒冷天氣的一個主要原因。”

歐美雪災災情

歐洲

‧低溫或車禍造成全歐共80人死。

‧法、德、英、荷、西等國眾多班機取消，許多人受困機場。

‧連結倫敦、巴黎和布魯塞爾的歐洲之星，自上週五（12月18日）晚上起停擺3天，影響10萬人的聖誕節假期。

‧巴黎1輛車因結冰路面打滑，造成列車出軌，36傷。

‧克羅埃西亞札格瑞布列車進站未停，撞水泥塊，50傷。

‧俄羅斯首都莫斯科週日晚至週一晨大雪，全市交通嚴重堵塞。

‧羅馬尼亞錫比烏最低溫達攝氏零下20度，降雪50厘米

‧意大利威尼斯最低溫達攝氏零下7度

‧荷蘭阿姆斯特丹的斯希普霍爾機場多數班機停駛，受困機場的700名乘客在機場過夜

美國

‧紐約、紐澤西3機場取消1200航班。

‧維吉尼亞州和俄亥俄州車禍意外至少6死。

‧北卡羅來納州2.8萬戶停電。

‧華府1輛巴士和1輛剷雪機相撞，9人送醫。

資料來源：綜合外電