SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (19104)12/8/2003 6:04:31 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793649
 
Bin Laden’s Iraq Plans

At a secret meeting, bin Laden’s reps give bad news to the Taliban: Qaeda fighters are shifting to a new front
By Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh
NEWSWEEK

Dec. 15 issue — During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, three senior Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret meeting in Afghanistan with two top Taliban commanders.

THE CONFAB TOOK PLACE in mid-November in the remote, Taliban-controlled mountains of Khowst province near the Pakistan border, a region where Al Qaeda has found it easy to operate—frequently even using satellite phones despite U.S. surveillance.

At that meeting, according to Taliban sources, Osama bin Laden’s men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan’s ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.

All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said. Why? Because the terror chieftain and his top lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Turkey, according to Taliban sources who complain that their own movement will suffer. (Though certainly not as much as Washington would like: last week Taliban guerrillas killed a U.N. census worker in an ambush, and a rocket struck near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul only hours after a visit by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.) Bin Laden believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the “American crusaders” and that the Iraqi insurgency has been “100 percent successful so far,” according to a Taliban participant at the mid-November meeting who goes by the nom de guerre Sharafullah.

Fluent in Arabic, Sharafullah tells NEWSWEEK he acted as the meeting’s official translator. He has proved to be a reliable source in previous stories. Prior to 9/11, he was Mullah Omar’s translator in face-to-face meetings with bin Laden. And Sharafullah has translated correspondence between the two leaders. Another Taliban source separately confirmed that the meeting occurred, and he corroborated other parts of Sharafullah’s account.

If true, bin Laden’s shift of focus could be unsettling news for George W. Bush. The president is eager to quell the Iraqi insurgency and establish a democratic, stable Iraq as he heads into the 2004 re-election campaign. Until now, the attacks on Americans and other Coalition members have come mainly from local Saddam loyalists rather than an influx of foreign jihadists. But if the Taliban sources are correct, bin Laden may be aiming to help turn Iraq into “the central front” in the war on terror. That is how Bush himself described Iraq in a September speech, when he said, “We are fighting that enemy [there] today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets.” But the president may be getting more than he bargained for. With 79 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq in November—far more than in any previous month—many Democrats now see Bush’s troubles in Iraq as the central front in their campaign to unseat him.

Despite bin Laden’s apparently fresh interest in Iraq, sources in the region say there remains scant evidence that he had links to Saddam before the war. And U.S. officials who have sought to establish those links suggest now that Al Qaeda doesn’t have substantial resources to divert to Iraq. “There just doesn’t seem to be evidence of that,” says a U.S. intel official. Asked if Washington believes the Ramadan meeting took place, CIA spokesman William Harlow declined to comment.

Sharafullah described the Qaeda-Taliban meeting while sitting down openly with a NEWSWEEK reporter at a tea shop in Peshawar’s Kissakhani bazaar. That’s not unusual: Afghan Taliban officials often move freely in Pakistani cities despite President Pervez Musharraf’s vows to crack down. Even Mullah Omar himself, who has been sought by U.S. forces for two years, may be operating inside Pakistan, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told NEWSWEEK in an interview on Nov. 28. “Mullah Omar was spotted praying in a mosque in Quetta 10 days ago,” Karzai said. “This is the first time I have said this publicly.” Karzai alleged that Taliban rebels were getting support in Pakistan—Quetta has become their main base, he said—and he asked Musharraf to stop Pakistani Islamic groups from providing sanctuary. (“It is a lie that Mullah Omar is in Pakistan,” retorted Pakistan Information Minister Sheik Rashid Ahmed.)

Sharafullah, smartly dressed in a shalwar kameez, wool sweater and black boots, said bin Laden was represented at the Ramadan meeting by three Arabs in their mid-40s who were armed with new Kalashnikovs and bedecked in hand grenades. The Arabs informed Mullah Omar’s two representatives—one a former cabinet minister and the other a senior Taliban military commander—that bin Laden believed Al Qaeda had to widen the scope of its anti-infidel efforts as new opportunities arose. According to Sharafullah, the Qaeda representatives quoted bin Laden as saying, “The spilling of American blood is easy in Iraq. The Americans are drowning in deep, rising water.” Many Qaeda men are keen to go to Iraq, bin Laden’s delegates at the meeting allegedly added, and they again quoted “the sheik” as saying: “I’m giving men who are thirsty a chance to drink deeply.”

Bin Laden, they said, had also decided to “reorganize the distribution of funding” by reducing Al Qaeda’s monthly payment to the Afghan resistance from $3 million to $1.5 million, according to Sharafullah. Bin Laden’s men pointed out that raising and distributing funds has been complicated by the U.S. crackdown on jihadi charitable foundations, bank accounts of terror-related organizations and money transfers. Nonetheless, bin Laden wanted to “assure” the Afghan resistance that it would receive the promised amount. “We will never leave you alone,” the terror chief allegedly said through his representatives.

Judging from bin Laden’s taped messages over the years, his strategy has always been to sap America’s will and drive U.S. troops out of Arab lands altogether. While it remains unclear how well bin Laden is still able to direct or coordinate his far-flung cells and franchises, the most recent audiotaped message attributed to him, in October, calls on young Muslims to fight a holy war in Iraq. The New York Times reported Saturday that Qaeda operatives are also heading to Iraq from Europe. Some key Taliban sources claim there are more than 1,000 Qaeda fighters, military trainers and advisers who work closely with the Afghan resistance. These sources say at least one third of these Qaeda militants are now being sent to the Mideast. Mohammad Amir, a 32-year-old Taliban intelligence agent in Pakistan, says that of some 350 Qaeda fighters who operated out of Waziristan, an unregulated tribal area of Pakistan, nearly one half have already pulled out and headed for Iraq and neighboring countries.

The Taliban sources paint a portrait of a Qaeda network that has found new ways to operate, despite a U.S. dragnet in Central and South Asia. U.S. officials adamantly deny they have skimped on resources—intelligence or military—in that region. But there is evidence that the diversion of U.S. attention to Iraq has given Al Qaeda some breathing room, and that U.S. dependence on Pakistani troops and Afghan warlords is proving inadequate, perhaps even counter-productive, against the terror network. Over the past year, NEWSWEEK has learned, the CIA and British intelligence have been at odds over how badly the Taliban and Al Qaeda were damaged in the region. “The British were more prone to say the Taliban and Al Qaeda were coming back,” says a U.S. official who is privy to intel discussions, and who believes the Bush administration downplayed the threat in order to switch its focus to Iraq.

Many Qaeda operatives appear to be traveling to the Mideast via the long, overland route through Iran. But the Bush administration, preoccupied with Iraq, has been reluctant to take a harder line toward Iran over its role as a terrorist haven. “The Iranians and some Arab countries like Syria are breathing easier because the United States is bogged down in Iraq,” says one —Arab ambassador to Washington. Abdullah Ramezanzadeh, an Iranian government spokesman, says Tehran is arresting Qaeda suspects, but he notes that “before we consider America’s best interests, we have to consider our own people’s interests.”

Iran is an ideal transit station for Al Qaeda because it borders Afghanistan and Pakistan to its west and Iraq and Turkey to its east. Abdul Alkozai, a portly, black-turbaned Taliban intelligence and logistical officer along the Pakistani-Afghan border, says that two months ago bin Laden ordered 24 Qaeda-affiliated Turkish fighters to withdraw from Waziristan and head home to Turkey, also through Iran. Bin Laden has also dispatched some of his key senior aides to the Iraqi front over the past months. Three months ago he ordered Abdel Hadi al Iraqi, an Iraqi Baathist who fell out with Saddam in the 1980s and later became a Qaeda training-camp commander in Khowst, to leave bin Laden’s hideout in northeastern Afghanistan and head to Iraq, Taliban sources say.

Mullah omar has been dismayed by the apparent redirection of Qaeda forces, these same sources say. According to Sharafullah, bin Laden’s representatives at the November meeting counseled the Taliban to unite the Afghan resistance. The Qaeda leader urged the Taliban to coordinate with the other main anti-U.S. and anti-Karzai guerrilla outfits, which are run by Afghan warlords Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Saed Akbar Agha.

Mullah Omar’s official spokesman, Hamid Agha, denied to NEWSWEEK in a satellite-telephone interview that the Taliban had financial or military problems. “We have enough money to fund our resistance,” he said from an undisclosed location. The resurgent Taliban say they have been buoyed by an influx of hundreds of former Taliban fighters into their ranks over the past year. Many have rejoined because local warlords allied with U.S. forces and Karzai have persecuted them in their villages, both Taliban and U.S. intel sources say. “These repressive, pro-American warlords have been our best recruiting tool,” says Rahman Hotaki, a former Transport Ministry official and now a Taliban operative in Waziristan. “Warlords are pushing people to leave the warmth of their blankets at home and join us in our caves.” Hotaki admits that the departure of Qaeda trainers will hurt the Taliban. “We need more, not fewer, Qaeda experts, especially in explosives and other military technologies,” he says. “We can’t fight without foreign financial support.” But if bin Laden’s Taliban allies are to be believed, the Qaeda leader may no longer be sympathetic to their entreaties. It appears that he, like his mortal enemy George W. Bush, may be seeking to make Iraq center stage in the war on terror.

With Zahid Hussain in Islamabad and Babak Dehghanpisheh in Iran

msnbc.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (19104)12/9/2003 1:12:07 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793649
 
Brooks nails Dean. David can write! I had begin to wonder if he had given up Politics.

December 9, 2003
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Mysterious Stranger
By DAVID BROOKS

My moment of illumination about Howard Dean came one day in Iowa when I saw him lean into a crowd and begin a sentence with, "Us rural people. . . ."

Dean grew up on Park Avenue and in East Hampton. If he's a rural person, I'm the Queen of Sheba. Yet he said it with conviction. He said it uninhibited by any fear that someone might laugh at or contradict him.

It was then that I saw how Dean had liberated himself from his past, liberated himself from his record and liberated himself from the restraints that bind conventional politicians. He has freed himself to say anything, to be anybody.

Other candidates run on their biographies or their records. They keep policy staff from their former lives, and they try to keep their policy positions reasonably consistent.

But Dean runs less on biography than any other candidate in recent years. When he began running for president, he left his past behind, along with the encumbrances that go with it. As governor of Vermont, he was a centrist Democrat. But the new Dean who appeared on the campaign trail — a jarring sight for the Vermonters who knew his previous self — is an angry maverick.

The old Dean was a free trader. The new Dean is not. The old Dean was open to Medicare reform. The new Dean says Medicare is off the table. The old Dean courted the N.R.A.; the new Dean has swung in favor of gun control. The old Dean was a pro-business fiscal moderate; the new Dean, sounding like Ralph Nader, declares, "We've allowed our lives to become slaves to the bottom line of multinational corporations all over the world."

The philosopher George Santayana once observed that Americans don't bother to refute ideas — they just leave them behind. Dean shed his upper-crust WASP self, then his centrist governor self, bursting onto the national scene as a mysterious stranger who comes out of nowhere to battle corruption.

The newly liberated Dean is uninhibited. A normal person with no defense policy experience would not have the chutzpah to say, "Mr. President, if you'll pardon me, I'll teach you a little about defense." But Dean says it. A normal person, with an eye to past or future relationships, wouldn't compare Congress to "a bunch of cockroaches." Dean did it.

The newly liberated Dean doesn't worry about having a coherent political philosophy. There is a parlor game among Washington pundits called How Liberal Is Howard Dean? One group pores over his speeches, picks out the things no liberal could say and argues that he's actually a centrist. Another group picks out the things no centrist could say and argues that he's quite liberal.

But the liberated Dean is beyond categories like liberal and centrist because he is beyond coherence. He'll make a string of outspoken comments over a period of weeks — on "re-regulating" the economy or gay marriage — but none of them have any relation to the others. When you actually try to pin him down on a policy, you often find there is nothing there.

For example, asked how we should proceed in Iraq, he says hawkishly, "We can't pull out responsibly." Then on another occasion he says dovishly, "Our troops need to come home," and explains, fantastically, that we need to recruit 110,000 foreign troops to take the place of our reserves. Then he says we should not be spending billions more dollars there. Then he says again that we have to stay and finish the job.

At each moment, he appears outspoken, blunt and honest. But over time he is incoherent and contradictory.

He is, in short, a man unrooted. This gives him an amazing freshness and an exhilarating freedom.

Everybody talks about how the Internet has been key to his fund-raising and organization. Nobody talks about how it has shaped his persona. On the Internet, the long term doesn't matter, as long as you are blunt and forceful at that moment. On the Internet, a new persona is just a click away. On the Internet, everyone is loosely tethered, careless and free. Dean is the Internet man, a string of exhilarating moments and daring accusations.

The only problem is that us rural folk distrust people who reinvent themselves. Many of us rural folk are nervous about putting the power of the presidency in the hands of a man who could be anyone.

nytimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (19104)12/9/2003 10:52:02 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793649
 
A synopsis of Jordan. For a short piece, it is excellent.

Jordan, a U.S. Ally, Abounds in Contradictions
James P. Pinkerton

December 9, 2003

Amman, Jordan - Everything one needs to know about how the Jordanians operate is revealed in a prominent downtown wall mural in this capital city. It shows both the dexterity and the hypocrisy of the government here, and it also explains its longevity.

Inscribed on the mural are the words from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family."

Inspiring sentiments. But atop those wonderful words is a contradictory message: the flags of all the Arab countries, including such notorious human-rights violators as Libya, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Come to think of it, Jordan is not listed as "free" by the New York City-based watchdog Freedom House.

In other words, Jordan celebrates human rights, even as it celebrates Arab regimes that disdain human rights. And the newspapers here are nominally independent, but they tend toward propagandistic cheerleading.

Al Rai (Opinion) recently "reported" on a meeting of Arab experts in which they all agreed to work toward the betterment of the Arab world. That's an important story, but only if (a) disputatious voices are heard or (b) some explanation as to why Arabs have lagged behind is provided. And neither of these things has happened.

But Jordan practices thought control with a light touch: Seemingly every meeting - indeed, every ribbon-cutting - is graced by the presence of His Majesty King Abdullah or else the photogenic Queen Rania. Which means that conferences here have a way of becoming substanceless photo ops.

Of course, the mere fact that Jordan has a king who speaks English with an American accent - he was at Georgetown University for a year - makes it different from most Arab states. And, in fact, Jordan has carved out a separate identity. Within five minutes of meeting you, just about every Jordanian wants to know if you have visited Petra, the spectacular city-in-living-stone - seen in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" - built by the pre-Muslim Nabateans some 2,000 years ago. The remaining discussion typically turns to ancient Roman ruins. Anything Muslim comes much later.

As part of the same effort to "brand" the nation as unique, the technical name is the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan." The Hashemites, of course, are the royal family of Jordan. But, as dynasties go, they don't have much of a history. The first king of Jordan, Abdullah, was born in Mecca and spent much of his early life in Istanbul. But he backed the winning side in World War I, and so, after the war, the victorious British rewarded him with the mostly empty territory that lay east of Palestine, beyond the Jordan River. As if to prove the area's afterthoughtness, the new entity was called "Trans-Jordan." It would be as if New Yorkers dubbed America west of the Hudson as simply, "Trans-Hudson."

Trans-Jordan fought against Israel in 1947-8. But as Israeli historian Avi Shlaim demonstrated in his 1988 book, "Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine," Abdullah's real goal was to grab as much of Palestine as he could, leaving the Israelis with the rest. Jordan lost its Palestinian turf - the West Bank - in 1967, and has since renounced any claim on the area.

Ever since, the Jordanians have posed as moderate conciliators. But what that really means is that the Jordanians tell the various sides what they want to hear. The government recently hosted a conference denouncing the Israeli "security wall" going up in the West Bank as an Apartheid-like abomination. Yet in a 1996 strategy document, a right-wing Israeli think tank, closely associated with both the Likud Party and American neoconservatives, Jordan was described as an ally that would work with Israel to "roll back" Syria and Iraq. So which is it? Probably both. Even more recently, King Abdullah traveled last week to Washington to bask in official acclaim and to collect still more American aid.

It's a tricky game for the Hashemites because many, if not most, of the 5.3 million people here hail from Palestine. Indeed, in a bloody 1970 civil war, the Hashemite army crushed the Palestinian Liberation Organization. During my stay here, I made the mistake of asking Abu Ali, a newsstand proprietor, where he was from. He grew testy with me, and finally said, "Jaffa."

Which, of course, is in present-day Israel. Another Jordanian explained to me that Palestinian-Jordanians such as Abu Ali hate to be asked about their origins because such a question poses an implicit challenge to their loyalty. And in Jordan, the police are always watching.

Speaking of which, later, in the lobby of the Hyatt, I happened to be chatting with a man who appeared to be working there in some undetermined capacity - that is, he was sitting quietly. I asked, dully, where he was from; in response, he swelled a bit and described himself as "a real Jordanian." He was dark, befitting, I guessed, his ancestry among the Bedouins indigenous to this desert zone.

From his tone, I could guess the rest: Most of the other workers in the hotel were much lighter, befitting the greater European ethnic influence that comes from living near cosmopolitan cities. Which is to say, those lighter-skinned folk were probably Palestinians. Later, a Jordanian told me that this "real Jordanian" was an undercover security man, guarding the hotel - and also, of course, guarding the interests of the Hashemites.

That's Jordan. A government that's gotten where it's gotten by cultivating the great powers for a long time, long enough to become a distinct and pleasant country. It's a country free enough to be friendly, and not free enough to be unfriendly. And so far, at least, it's the best ally America has in the Arab world.

James P. Pinkerton's e-mail address is pinkerto@ix.netcom.com.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
newsday.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (19104)12/9/2003 3:29:07 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793649
 
This is a MAJOR story on what almost amounts to treason by Grover Norquist. It should be front page in the major media, but they have not covered it. It will be a great embarrassment to Bush. I start with the cover letter by Horowitz, and then the article.

A Troubling Influence
By Frank J Gaffney Jr.
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 9, 2003

Why We Are Publishing This Article by David Horowitz

The article you are about to read is the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published. As an Internet magazine, with a wide circulation, we have been in the forefront of the effort to expose the radical Fifth Column in this country, whose agendas are at odds with the nation’s security, and whose purposes are hostile to its own. In his first address to Congress after 9/11, the President noted that we are facing the same totalitarian enemies we faced in the preceding century. It is not surprising that their domestic supporters in the American Left should have continued their efforts to weaken this nation and tarnish its image. Just as there was a prominent internal Fifth Column during the Cold War, so there has been a prominent Fifth Column during the war on terror.

By no means do all the opponents of America’s war policies (or even a majority) fit this category. Disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy and respect for that disagreement is a foundational value of our political system. The self-declared enemies of the nation are distinguished by the intemperate nature of their attacks on America and its President – referring to the one as Adolf Hitler, for example, or the other as the world’s “greatest terrorist state.” They are known as well by their political choices and associations. Many leaders of the movement opposing the war in Iraq have worked for half a century with the agents of America’s communist enemies and with totalitarian states like Cuba and the former USSR.

We have had no compunction about identifying these individuals and groups. America is no longer protected by geographical barriers or by its unsurpassed military technologies. Today terrorists who can penetrate our borders with the help of Fifth Column networks will have access to weapons of mass destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of American deaths. One slip in our security defenses can result in a catastrophe undreamed of before.

What is particularly disturbing, about the information in this article by former Reagan Defense official, Frank Gaffney, is that it concerns an individual who loves this country and would be the last person to wish it harm, and the first one would expect to defend it. I have known Grover Norquist for almost twenty years as a political ally. Long before I myself was cognizant of the Communist threat – indeed when I was part of one of those Fifth Column networks – Grover Norquist was mobilizing his countrymen to combat it. In the early 1980s, Grover was in the forefront of conservative efforts to get the Reagan Administration to support the liberation struggles of anti-Communists in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan.

It is with a heavy heart therefore, that I am posting this article, which is the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column. I have confronted Grover about these issues and have talked to others who have done likewise. But it has been left to Frank Gaffney and a few others, including Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, to make the case and to suffer the inevitable recriminations that have followed earlier disclosures of some aspects of this story.

Up to now, the controversy over these charges has been dismissed or swept under the rug, as a clash of personalities or the product of one of those intra-bureaucratic feuds so familiar to the Washington scene. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. The reality is much more serious. No one reading this document to its bitter end will confuse its claims and confirming evidence with those of a political cat fight. On the basis of the evidence assembled here, it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, Grover’s own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” Grover appointed Alamoudi’s deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation.

Parts of this story have been published before, but never in such detail and never with the full picture of Islamist influence in view. No doubt, that is partly because of Grover Norquist’s large (and therefore intimidating) presence in the Washington community. Many have been quite simply afraid to raise these issues and thus have allowed Grover to make them seem a matter of individual personality differences. This suits his agendas well, as it does those of his Islamist allies. If matters in dispute reflect personal animosity or “racial” prejudice, as Grover insists, then the true gravity of these charges is obscured. The fact remains that while Grover has denied the charges or sought to dismiss them with such arguments on many occasions, he has never answered them. If he wishes to do so now, the pages of frontpagemag.com are open to him.

Many have been reluctant to support these charges or to make them public because they involve a prominent conservative. I am familiar with these attitudes from my years on the Left. Loyalty is an important political value, but there comes a point where loyalty to friends or to parties comes into conflict with loyalty to fundamental principles and ultimately to one’s country. Grover’s activities have reached that point. E.M. Forster, a weak-spirited liberal, once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and his friends, he “hoped [he] would have the guts” to betray his country.

No such sentiment motivates this journal. In our war with the Islamo-fascists we are all engaged in a battle with evil on a scale that affects the lives and freedoms of hundreds of millions people outside this nation as well as within it. America is on the front line of this battle and there is no replacement waiting in the wings if it fails, or if its will to fight is sapped from within. This makes our individual battles to keep our country vigilant and strong the most important responsibilities we have. That is why we could not in good conscience do otherwise, than to bring this story to light.
frontpagemag.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (19104)12/9/2003 4:42:40 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793649
 
Wining and dining the "Global Warming" NGO's in Milan. And guess who pays the piper?

The shaky science behind Kyoto has become manifest this year with the publication of articles in scientific journals that show that the current century is not the warmest in the past millennium; that the "hockey-stick" formulation by Michael Mann, showing sharply rising temperatures, is faulty; and that the Earth's major climate swings are likely linked to the activity of stars, including our Sun.

Moveable Feast

By James K. Glassman Published 12/09/2003

Tech Central Station

MILAN, Italy -- Here they go again.



In this vibrant northern Italy city, with the snowy Alps in the background and the most gorgeous Gothic cathedral in Europe in the foreground, thousands of delegates from 188 countries have gathered for a United Nations conference to discuss how to implement the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gases caused by human activity and, so the controversial theory goes, limit global warming.



The meeting is called COP-9, for "conference of the parties, nine." It's an annual moveable feast, funded with gouts of U.N. money (the budget is $18 million a year). What's expected to happen here? Basically, nothing -- besides the aggrandizement of the ever-growing climate-change industry, fueled by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have been scaring the pants off donors for a decade.



There are a lot of gloomy environmentalists walking around the halls of the gigantic Feria Milano. They have finally gotten the message that Kyoto is on its deathbed.



It is now six years since the agreement was signed, and it still has not been ratified. "We would have liked to announce and welcome here, in Milan, at COP 9, the first meeting of the parties of the Kyoto Protocol," said Altero Matteoli, Italy's environment minister, in his welcoming remarks to the conference. "Unfortunately, we did not have this opportunity."



Nor is he likely to have it in the future. The treaty requires the assent of countries accounting for 55 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by industrial nations. With Russia's refusal to ratify, the tally is just 44 percent. The Russians may change their minds if the Europeans provide enough blandishment and bribery, but few realists here are counting on a reversal. Instead, the theme that has developed in the early days of this extravaganza, which began Dec. 1 and ends on Friday, is "beyond Kyoto."



That was the title of a 170-page report issued by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a well-heeled U.S.-based NGO. The report was announced at a sparsely attended press conference (of a dozen attendees, three were from TechCentralStation).



Eileen Claussen, the Pew Center's president, began by saying, "We are not ready to conclude that the Kyoto Protocol is dead, but whether or not it enters into force, we have to think about what comes next."



In other words, Kyoto is only a "first step," as Claussen put it, and it is time to move on to leapfrog to step two, whether step one is achieved or not.



Similar sentiments were offered by Boerge Brende, the Norwegian environment minister who also serves as chairman of the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development. In an interview, he said, "We need to start involving developing nations" -- which Kyoto exempts. "I'm not saying they have to promise to cut emissions," he added quickly.



Meanwhile, another influential NGO, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), has issued a report that contends that there is significant political and business support in the U.S. for mandatory emissions cuts even though the Bush Administration "has consistently rejected such a responsible approach" and has "time and time again picked short-term gains for big business over the long-term stability of the planet."



But Claussen, Brende and the WWF appear to be whistling past the graveyard. The Russians have all but buried Kyoto -- and for the same reasons that President Bush rejected it as "fatally flawed in early 2001: The agreement is based on uncertain science, and it will cause serious economic harm. As Dr. Yury Izrael, a Russian scientific leader, put it, "The most important issue is whether the Kyoto Protocol would improve the climate, stabilize it, or make it worse. This is not very clear."



The shaky science behind Kyoto has become manifest this year with the publication of articles in scientific journals that show that the current century is not the warmest in the past millennium; that the "hockey-stick" formulation by Michael Mann, showing sharply rising temperatures, is faulty; and that the Earth's major climate swings are likely linked to the activity of stars, including our Sun.



The Russian decision, however, is mainly rooted in economics. As Andrei Illarionov, who is President Vladimir Putin's economic advisor, put it, "The United States and Australia have calculated that they cannot bear the economic consequences of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. If they aren't rich enough to deal with those consequences, my question is whether Russia is much richer than the U.S. or Australia?"



In fact, it is the growing Russian economy that may have put the nail in the Kyoto coffin. The Europeans constructed the treaty in a way which, they expected, would compel Russia to ratify for financial reasons. The agreement requires that industrial nations reduce their emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels. Russia's emissions today are about 32 percent below those of 1990 because of the post-Soviet industrial meltdown. The assumption was that the Russians could then sell credits for these reductions to other nations under a trading scheme.



But Putin and his advisors believe Russia will meet a goal of doubling Gross Domestic Product by 2010. If that happens, then Russia's emissions, says Illarionov, will rise to 104 percent of their 1990 levels. Thus, Russia won't have emissions credits to sell. To the contrary, it will have to cut emissions itself, with depressive effects on its economy.



"Russia today has the opportunity to sell quotas [i.e., credits]," said Putin in an October speech at a World Economic Forum meeting in Moscow. "We hope such opportunities no longer exist."



With that statement, Putin summed up the case against Kyoto: At a time when so many developing nations are struggling to provide decent lives for their citizens, Kyoto-style measures will prolong poverty. And, with the science of warming so uncertain, the question is, For what?



With such serious drawbacks, no wonder the NGO extremists who dominate these conferences want to move "beyond Kyoto." But opponents of mandatory emissions cuts would be mistaken if they become complacent with their successes of the past few years. It's almost certain that the environmental activists and their U.N. colleagues will regroup and come out swinging again -- if only to keep this lucrative moveable feast moving.



James K. Glassman is part of the TechCentralStation team covering COP-9 in Milan this week.

Copyright © 2003 Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com