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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (41768)3/9/2010 10:40:44 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 71588
 
U.S. Hopes Exports Will Help Open Closed Societies

By MARK LANDLER
March 7, 2010
nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — Seeking to exploit the Internet’s potential for prying open closed societies, the Obama administration will permit technology companies to export online services like instant messaging, chat and photo sharing to Iran, Cuba and Sudan, a senior administration official said Sunday.

On Monday, he said, the Treasury Department will issue a general license for the export of free personal Internet services and software geared toward the populations in all three countries, allowing Microsoft, Yahoo and other providers to get around strict export restrictions.

The companies had resisted offering such services for fear of violating existing sanctions. But there have been growing calls in Congress and elsewhere to lift the restrictions, particularly after the postelection protests in Iran illustrated the power of Internet-based services like Facebook and Twitter.

“The more people have access to a range of Internet technology and services, the harder it’s going to be for the Iranian government to clamp down on their speech and free expression,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made yet.

The decision, which had been expected, underscores the complexity of dealing with politically repressive governments in the digital age: even as the Obama administration is opening up trade in Internet services to Iran, it is shaping harsh new sanctions that would crack down on Iranian access to financing and technology that could help Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

Critics have said these sanctions are leaky and ineffective, and some say it makes more sense to spread digital technology, which makes it harder for governments to restrict the flow of information within societies, and to prevent their people from contact with the outside world.

The Treasury Department’s action follows a recommendation by the State Department in mid-December that the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is run by the Treasury, authorize the downloading of “free mass-market software” in Iran by Microsoft, Google and other companies.

In a speech in January, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that Internet freedom had become a fundamental principle of American foreign policy. “Viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day,” she said, referring to censored publications that were passed around in Soviet-era Russia and helped fuel the dissident movement.

While Iran is the prime target of the Treasury’s action, it has implications for Sudan and Cuba, where the administration is also seeking to open more channels of communication to the outside world. Two other blacklisted countries, North Korea and Syria, are not affected by the decision because their sanctions do not currently rule out the export of Internet services.

In the chaotic days after the June election in Iran, the State Department asked Twitter to put off maintenance of its global network, which would have cut off service to Iranians using it to swap information and tell the world about antigovernment protests. The administration’s move will not deprive the Iranian authorities of the ability to clamp down on the Internet, as happened in February, when service was constricted so heavily that Iranians had difficulty accessing Gmail accounts and organizing protests before the 31st anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. But by offering Iranians more options, the official said, it will force the authorities in Iran to plug more holes.

“We want to make sure the information flows,” he said. “It will obviously have political implications in a range of ways.”

The administration’s blanket waiver does not apply to encryption and other software that makes it harder for the authorities to track people’s Internet activity. That category of technology does not fall within the mass-market services that can be downloaded free from the Internet, he said.

But the official said the Treasury would grant licenses to such providers on a case-by-case basis, and would generally look favorably on them. One such service, known as Haystack, is awaiting a waiver from the State Department, and is subsequently likely to obtain a Treasury license.

Developed by the Censorship Research Center, a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization, Haystack uses mathematical formulas to disguise a user’s Internet traffic from official censors.

In December, Representative James Moran, Democrat of Virginia, introduced a bill in the House that would “support the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people by enhancing their ability to access the Internet and communications services.” It also calls for the United States to give tools to Iranians to help circumvent government restrictions on the Internet.

The State Department says it is working in 40 countries to help people get around these barriers. But critics said it had moved slowly in spending $15 million appropriated by Congress in 2008 to support these programs.

Advocates of one service, Global Internet Freedom Consortium, complain that it has not received financing because it is linked to Falun Gong, a sect condemned by the Chinese government as a cult.

The administration’s main focus on Iran these days is marshaling support at the United Nations Security Council for a tough new sanctions resolution, aimed particularly at the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Last month, the Treasury Department froze the assets of four construction firms linked to the guard, which runs Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

While the Internet decision would seem at odds with more sanctions “at some meta-level,” the official said, he described it as part of an overall strategy to force the Iranian government to alter its behavior.



To: longnshort who wrote (41768)3/11/2010 3:32:15 PM
From: RMF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
I'm not sure what you mean on that one?

Are the Lutherans in Minnesota strapping bombs on their kids?

BTW... the Natzis and Stalin DID send their kids out. They didn't strap bombs on them, they just gave them rifles.



To: longnshort who wrote (41768)3/29/2010 3:18:25 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Obama slights our friends, kowtows to our enemies
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
March 28, 2010


Barack Obama's decision to postpone his trip to Indonesia and Australia -- to a democracy with the world's largest Muslim population and to the only nation that has fought alongside us in all the wars of the last century -- is of a piece with his foreign policy generally: Attack America's friends and kowtow to our enemies.

Examples run from Britain to Israel. Early in his administration, Obama returned a bust of Churchill that the British government had loaned the White House after 9/11. Then Obama gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown a set of DVDs that don't work on British machines and that Brown, who has impaired vision, would have trouble watching anyway.

More recently Obama summoned Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House, permitted no photographs, laid down nonnegotiable demands and went off to dinner.

Some may attribute these slights to biases inherited from the men who supplied the titles of Obama's two books. Perhaps like Barack Obama Sr., he regards the British as evil colonialists. Or perhaps like his preacher for 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he regards Israel as an evil oppressor.

But the list of American friends Obama has slighted is long. It includes Poland and the Czech Republic (anti-missile program canceled), Honduras (backing the constitutionally ousted president), Georgia (no support against Russia) and Colombia and South Korea (no action on pending free-trade agreements).

In the meantime Obama sends yearly greetings to (as he puts it) the Islamic Republic of Iran, exchanges friendly greetings with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, caves to Russian demands on arms control and sends a new ambassador to Syria.

What we're seeing, I think, is a president who shares a view, long held by some on the American left, that the real danger to America often comes from America's allies.

This attitude goes back to Gen. Joseph Stilwell's feud against China's Chiang Kai-shek in World War II. As Barbara Tuchman writes in her definitive biography, Stilwell thought Chiang was undercutting the United States by not fighting hard enough against the Japanese. He may have shared the view common among some "old China hands" -- diplomats and journalists like Edgar Snow -- that the Chinese communists were preferable.

After China fell to the communists, the old China hands got a fair share of the blame, and liberals who opposed military support of Chiang were vilified. This lesson was not forgotten.

In his first book on Vietnam, David Halberstam argued that the Diem brothers were not fighting hard enough against the communists. I remember him telling a group at the Harvard Crimson at the time how the United States needed to replace the Diems in order for liberals to avoid a political backlash like that against the old China hands.

The idea that allies can cause you trouble is not totally without merit. The Cold War caused us to embrace some unsavory folks; Democratic administrations supported military takeovers in Brazil in 1964 and Greece in 1967, just as a Republican administration supported one in Chile in 1973.

But liberals tend to forget the first two examples and remain fixated on the third. They see history as moving inevitably and beneficially to the left and bemoan American alliances with what they see as retrograde right-wing regimes.

They want us to look more favorably on those like Chavez and Fidel Castro who claim they are helping the poor. Somehow it is seen as progressive to cuddle up to those who attack America and to scorn those who have shown their friendship and common values over many years.

And so Obama, the object of so much adulation in Western Europe, seems to have had only the coolest of relations with its leaders. The candidate who spoke in Berlin is now the president with no sympathy for the leaders of peoples freed when the wall fell. They are seen as impediments to his goal of propitiating Vladimir Putin's Russia, where Josef Stalin is now an honored hero.

Obama's concessions to Russia have not prevented Russia from watering down sanctions against Iran. And Obama's display of scorning Netanyahu has not gotten the Palestinians to sit down face-to-face with the Israelis as Netanyahu has promised to do.

Obama proclaims that through persistence he can make the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and the Palestinians see things our way. The evidence so far is that they are making him do things their way -- and that our friends are wondering whether it pays to be on America's side.

Michael Barone, the Washington Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com