Unrepentant Blair

Protestors called Blair a 'liar' and a 'war criminal'

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been appearing before an inquiry looking into Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War. Blair said he did not wait for UN backing, because he believed it would never be given.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he wanted the backing of the United Nations in the Iraq war, but believed that he would never get it. Giving evidence to a UK public inquiry into the decision to go to war, he said he thought that it would be pointless to continue debating the war with fellow United Nations Security Council members.

The inquiry is examining the legitimacy of the war as well as when the decision on providing military support for the 2003 US-led invasion was made. Blair, now an international envoy to the Middle East, said he doubted at the time that it would be possible to secure a UN “second resolution” that would add legitimacy to the war under international law.

“It was very, very clear to me that the French, the Germans and the Russians had decided they weren’t going to be in favor of this (…) There was a straightforward division, frankly, and I don’t think it would have mattered how much time we had taken; they weren’t going to agree that force should be used.”

Blair denied the accusation that he made a secret agreement with his US counterpart George W. Bush to go to war in Iraq. The former Labour Party leader was asked whether he had pledged to support the war during a visit to the then president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. Blair said he had told Bush, “we are going to be with you in confronting and dealing with this threat,” but that no promises were made.

9/11 attacks changed judgement

The September 11 attacks changed the “calculus of risk” and meant it was no longer possible to contain Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein through sanctions, Blair also said. Britain committed 45,000 troops to the war. It was the most controversial episode of Blair’s 10-year premiership, provoking huge protests, divisions within his party and accusations he had deceived the public about the justification for invasion.

Under close questioning, Blair said the September 11 Qaeda attacks on the United States – and the threat of weapons of mass destruction – were the main factors in Britain’s decision to invade Iraq.

“We were advised that these people would use chemical or biological weapons or a nuclear device if they could get hold of them; that completely changed our assessment of where the risks for security lay.”

Unrepentant Blair defends war in Iraq without UN backing

No regrets over decision

At the end of the session, Blair said that he did not regret the war despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction were not found.

“If I’m asked if I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better with Saddam and his two sons out of power, then I believe indeed we are.”

The British inquiry has already heard from senior civil servants who said intelligence in the days before the March 20, 2003 invasion indicated that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction had already been dismantled.

Protesters outside of the building where the inquiry was being held chanted “Tony Blair, war criminal!” as he entered through a back door amid high security.

Observers say that Blair’s appearance may not only affect his personal political legacy but also damage the Labour government of his successor Gordon Brown, who was chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the Iraq invasion.

France is Living a Conservative Revolution

Conservative Morals in the country of human rights
Paid holidays, May 68, abortion rights, PACS (1) … social progress in France was plentiful in the 20th century and this country has long been a leader in Europe. Today this no longer seems to be the case. In its place, family, work, authority and pride of being French values are currently intensifying. So therefore, some point the finger at a come back to traditional fractures, particularly since the coming to power of Nicolas Sarkozy. What is it really? Does France going through a conservative revolution? Overview on topics discussed in public opinion.

When gay marriage?
Ten years after coming into force of PACS, marriage gateway to homosexual couples is still in discussion in public opinion — while five European countries have already approved it (Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway and Sweden). Mayor of Montpellier Mrs. Hélène Mandroux, launched a formal appeal in favor of gay marriage for the sake of “equal rights”. She has received support from several mayors, such as Pierre Cohen (Toulouse), Bertrand Delanoë (Paris) or Martine Aubry (Lille). Cécile Duflot on behalf of the Greens and Marie-George Buffet on behalf of the Communist Party have also rallied to the cause.

Adoption, always restrained.
If nine European countries now allow it, France still refuses to allow adoption by homosexual couples. Law is very restrictive: in order to adopt you must be either married or unmarried heterosexual and in fact the preferred profile is a couple married under 40, childless, and with a comfortable financial position. The Court of Besancon has ordered, however, the General Council of Jura region to issue an approval for adoption to Mrs Emmanuelle B., a homosexual teacher who fought for this for over ten years. France has in fact been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008 for sex discrimination. Do we head towards an adoption gap to homosexuals? Nothing is less certain, government has just  reaffirm its opposition to any change in the law.

A very restrictive law on assisted reproduction.
Medically assisted procreation (PMA), relating to all the techniques (artificial insemination, fertilization in vitro…) designed to help unfertile couples to conceive outside the natural union and obtain a successful pregnancy, is extremely restrained in France. It is reserved to heterosexual couples only, married or not. France is one of the most restrictive in this area: Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom allow it for homosexual couples and single women; these countries also provide PMA forensics, i.e. after the death of the companion who has previously done frozen semen and given his consent. Is this a sign of real ethical concerns or a certain conservatism of morals?

Surrogate mothers have no legal existence in France.
Surrogate motherhood is still banned in France. As a result, every year between 300 and 400 infertile couples go abroad, in countries where it is permitted to apply for a surrogate angel. But children born of this practice have no civil status in France … The Mennesson couple, whose twin girls were carried by a Californian woman in 2000 and who still do not have a civil status in France, are moving their fight from the field of media to the political field. Attitudes begin to evolve already: according to a recent survey, 65% of French would think positively on it; and the Senate had even suggested it in a report issued in 2008. Will surrogates then soon be recognized in France? Wait and see… revision of the laws of bioethics in 2010 for an early response.

Legalization of cannabis far from the agenda.
Daniel Vaillant, socialist MP and former Minister of Interior, has just reopened the controversy on the legalization of cannabis — saying he supports it. He suggests a control of production and import to reduce consumption, as currently done with alcohol. President Sarkozy’s UMP ruling party, immediately retorted saying the proposal was “totally unacceptable”. Currently the French law is one of the strictest in Europe since it not only proscribes production and selling of cannabis. It also punishes personal consumption even for soft drugs. If legalization issue is regularly on public debate, it seems that we are still far from a legal endorsement.

Elected representatives, fully representative of the people?
MP Representatives and senators elected by the people are representatives thereof… Do they? In fact, they are sometimes far from resembling the citizens who elected them… Thus, if French population counts on 52% women, the National Assembly (House of Representatives) only trusts 18.2% of them – putting France on the 62nd in the world rankings, just after Venezuela and Nicaragua; almost the same percentage of women in Parliament than Sudan (18.1%), while women’s status is extremely different!

And France does not differ either on the social origin background of MPs … While employees and workers represent more than half the working population, only 1% of representatives come from their ranks.

Women and the glass ceiling (2)
In general, women are underrepresented in all the dominant positions both in companies as in public life (they occupy only 15 % of senior management positions in the civil service). It is customary to say that they are trapped under a glass ceiling that prevents them from reaching the summit. They are also victims of various inequalities at work: all work time together, they earn average 27% less than men. And they suffer extra part-time occupation, more than their male colleagues: 8.6% compared to 2.4% of men.

Immigrants and discrimination.
French of foreign extraction keep on facing discrimination in hiring. Thus, on average and equal skills, a French applicant with a French name (and surname) has 1.5 to 3 times more interview proposals than a French-Moroccan.
Unemployment affects much more foreign than French: on average, over one-fifth of the active EU non-nationals were unemployed in 2007, compared to 8 % for the workforce as a whole and to 7.5 % of French.
High Authority against Discrimination and for Equality (HALDE), annually receives thousands of complaints about it.

____________
(1) The Pacte Civil de Solidarité (PACS) is a legal alternative to marriage, a civil union which gives ‘pacser’ couples many of the same legal rights of a traditionally married couple.
(2) i.e. gender gap

Obama Lays Siege to the Financial Casino

>> Haga clic aquí para la versión en castellano

The tragedy that hit Haiti last week meant a welcome sigh of relief to the four Wall Street emperors. That sad day — Wednesday 13 to be exact – wherein more than 111,000 people were killed in one of the poorest countries in the world, Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO; James Dimon, JP Morgan Chase CEO; John J . Mack, Morgan Stanley CEO and Brian T. Moynihan, Bank of America CEO, responded to questioning by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), a commission created by President Obama last year to investigate and discover the perpetrators of the worst financial crisis of the past 70 years.

The catastrophe in Haiti prevented these four glorious characters to get the front pages and the information came buried in the back pages the next day. Parts of the final reports are here. They worth a look for a clearer understanding of recent events and from which the press has turned a blind eye, such as articles published today by El Pais, one of Sandro Pozzi and another by Peter Larsen. None’s aware of the reasons for President Obama to besiege bankers — “If they want war, we will give them,” he said Friday — as well as the requirement to divide the largest banks into smaller entities, or the application of $ 120,000 million tax expected to recover some of the rescue plans. This is a direct comeback to the results of last week and which the press did not report.

Wall Street bankers admit mistakes by the financial crisis. In their view, they already assumed an attitude of apology – but they did not actually account for their acts. As when Lloyd Blankfein said: “What we did, didn’t worked well. We regret that people have lost so much money. ” But what “not worked well” for the people, worked well for them, they who shared out hundreds of billions of dollars in bonuses.

As of Wednesday and Thursday last week, bankers totally downplayed the consequences of the crisis: “It was the perfect storm of the year”, Blankfein said, while James Dimon trivialized “This happens every five or six years”, as if we were into a normal slowdown business cycle and not into a systemic failure founded on financial basis generated by fraud. And although they were cautious not to blame the government, the government caught them and wouldn’t let go of the piece. Furthermore when the bank has continued speculating and creating the seeds of the next crisis.

The investigation led by Sheila Bair, of the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) helped to illustrate that the trouble is structural and that government and consumers have long been hostage of Wall Street. The frantic struggle to eliminate the Glass-Steagall Act was one of their results. Now you understand Obama’s saying “We will never again be held hostage to banks too big to fail”. And this is just the beginning.

The investigation detected that commercial and investment banks, in collusion with political world, managed to completely disable the security mechanisms and take full control of the system while cheating the government. No public institution was relevant to their view, all public boards were pawn agencies like the SEC — that despite having warned of repeated fraud cases as Bernie Madoff, failed authorizations to investigate and arrest, and so the unscrupulous swindlers could commit crimes with the gentle complicity of the banks. Financial capital formed its own internal guerrilla and finished devouring the industrial capital, the one producing and creating jobs.

Much of this is because the leading figures of finance (Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin) have held positions in banking, government and Wall Street: what must be considered a real incest. You can not serve two masters, being Secretary of the Treasury (that is, a high state official servant) and hold such visible ties with commercial banks, more so when the Fed, is since 1914 a fully private body which lends money to the state, and whose interests are paid by all taxpayers. It would not be surprising that once the whole truth is done Fed decides to return to the Treasury. Maybe Paul Volcker’s plan has already thought about it.

Coppola’s Tetro a Surrealistic Treasure

Francis Ford Coppola’s (The Godfather, Apocalypse Now) most recent film Tetro is positively an improvement upon his last independent production Youth Without Youth. Where that film felt indulgent and disappointing, this one has an emotional tide that hits like a hammer to the heart, the central relationship one full of highs and lows so uncompromising and generous trying to assess them all and give them meaning takes more than a single viewing.

With obvious echoes to Vittorio De Sica, François Truffaut, Federico Fellini and Pedro Almodóvar, Coppola has composed a sublime interpersonal familial masterwork that can sometimes feel like a slap to the cheek. Tetro and Bennie’s relationship is never quite anticipated, their ultimate destination one of beautiful yet unnerving simplicity. There is a profound believability to it all that shook me up, the destination so fantastical the journey getting there almost didn’t even matter.

On a technical side the film is luminously shot. The Mihai Malaimare’s sublime use of black and white is magnetic and poetical. While the director mixes in a few color moments here and there (Coppelia doll-like dances on the edge of the fantastical), it is the main narrative that retains the most weight, the cinematographer’s magnificent ability to bring it all to such pure realization a testament to both his skill and the Oscar-winning director’s storytelling abilities.

It helps that actors as Alden Ehrenreich (Bennie) and Maribel Verdú (Miranda) are more than up to the challenge. Ehrenreich is a discovery: he photographs like a young Marlon Brando and under an exceptional direction makes miracles in his role. There are however some over-indulgent moments by Vincent Gallo. And that is not a minor obstacle (is there a less appealing actor than Gallo?). Acting aside and frequently cliché, Gallo often remains peripheral and inexpressive.

The first 20 minutes drag a bit too much and are filled with cliché’s, yes some dialogs may seem a bit flat and insincere, but then the drama picks up, the relationships evolve and the story becomes so baroque, melodramatic and enjoyable.

The film, for all its beauty, can feel a bit like a vanity project, and especially towards the end there were sequences where I almost couldn’t help but wonder what in the world Coppola was thinking. Overall, however, these moments did not bother. You simply don’t care about them, the central storyline revolving around Tetro, Bennie and Miranda is so strong and the emotional investment so high.  And the captivating city of Buenos Aires is a fabulous character that breaths a life of its own. Buenos Aires has an old fashion, a seductive kind of elegance nowhere better found than here.

Coppola has chosen to take a completely unorthodox road to depict the most unusual of his Italian family sagas. In the manner of Almodóvar. The result is a baroque, exaggerated, convincing, visually dramatic movie, which I am sure I will want to watch soon again.

Haiti, Death of Pariah

The difference is not in nature but in the dark nature of money.

Injured children sit along Delmas road, Port-au-Prince, Haiti (AP Photo/Jorge Cruz)

.

The historical premises.

A few days after the tragic earthquake that struck Haiti, we should remember the responsibilities from France but also the United States and Spain in the misery of this small Caribbean country.
Christopher Columbus landed on the shores of Hipaniola in 1492, and the native people there were all but wiped out by Spanish settlers within 25 years. In 1697, Spain ceded the western part of the island, now Haiti, to France, which made it into the wealthiest colony in the Caribbean due to thriving forestry and sugar industries, and the heavy importation of African slaves.
But in the late 18th century a slave rebellion under leader Toussaint Louverture was successful and after a long struggle, it became a republic on January 1, 1804.
Haiti is a country towards which France has a debt…  The country gained its independence heavily indebted to France…  Do you know that Haiti has spent the 19th century to pay its debt to the ancient metropolis?  They paid on the nail their independence to France.
Haiti has also experienced the beginnings of American imperialism which has repeatedly invaded this sorrowful country.
We, French, Americans, Spaniards have exploited this people, we destroyed this island…  the best evidence of this complicity is that France has hosted on its soil the fallen Haitian dictator Bébé Doc… Our assistance is a form of payment.  Help them is paying our debt.

.

The enormous bearing of indifference.

Nobody can predict natural tragedies, but one can live in a skyscraper in Japan and only have suffered a scratch. Or you can live in any corner of Haiti and die like thousands of fellow men. The difference is not in nature but in the dark nature of money and power, dividing the world between those who have an existence and those struggling to get a sham of living.  Some live, others survive, and if it has always been that way since man is dragged by this suffering planet, this is particularly glaring since science and technology intended to make possible the dream of Michelangelo. This arrogant man who brought his finger to God, and culminated with his daring, the wonder of the Sistine Chapel, was a man who civilized himself wherein through his individual process he civilized the environment. Centuries after these dreams, we know that we have not yet reach God, but rather our delusions of grandeur, and have done with the same clumsiness we stepped on Earth. We are in the 21st century, we enjoy a great technological development, we are surrounded by comfort, we have made progress in the fight against disease, but we have not advanced in the domain of our miseries. If in the 21st century there are countries like Haiti, stranded, with millions of people who do not matter to anyone, who live and die miserably, if that happens, it is not because the world is complicated – and surely it is — but simply because of our very indifference, arrogance and ambition. We do not mind anything.
True, we were shocked with the images on TV news and many countries (i.e. the democratic, because the tyrannical fail to do so) mobilize resources. For a few days, Haiti exists in the retina of the world. But it will take time, the news will be less noticeable, Haiti will no longer be a point of interest and we will forget that we have millions of people abandoned on an ruined island. At the end of the day, why should we change our indifference, if we have always cultivated it with zeal? Of course, this does not fit all, and there are people involved as Doctors Without Borders or religious organizations or volunteers of various kinds, trying to bring some calm to the corners of hell.
That said, I do not talk about solidarity but of collective, structural commitment. If the rich and powerful would do so, Haiti would turn its misfortune. Like many other countries. We have economic and technological capacity. Why do not we go ahead? Because we do not care of the pariah death, the death of those who do not have anything. It does not concern us. We did not make progress to achieve universal justice. We have just moved enough to ensure that the misery of many does not endanger the welfare of some few fellows. Misery is based on that.

Obama’s War

The worst war is the one being fought into our brains.

West is repeating mistakes of the past in Afghanistan

As soon as its terms are acknowledged you can give it for lost. And you have to write it in full: in Europe, the war in Afghanistan is being considered ever-increasing lost.

It is about the culture war (1) wherein violent actions have a dual persuasive function: intimidate the whole population and transfer responsibility — i.e. guiltiness — to those who act in disagreement with radical Islam, thereby becoming potential targets. The result is that they lead to restraint freedom of expression and censorship. This war has many accomplices, because not only radical Muslims ask for a special status for their religion. Ireland enforced this Jan 1^st an anti-blasphemy act which punishes by fine up to € 25,000 those who commit blasphemy publicly. A soldier of this war is the Somali who the Year’s Day attempted assassination — ax and knife in hand — against Kurt Westergard, the Danish cartoonist who published a Muhammad caricature in the Jylland Posten in 2005 — who, since then, is under police protection. Pope, Tony Blair and even George Bush agreed criticizing the cartoons — despite freedom of expression is far better protected in West than in Middle East.

The next battle to fight, waged in view of everybody in the street and in institutions, is not far behind. As the former fight, its identification mark suggests that you are losing it as soon as you accept its existence. The dream of invulnerability can lead to the greatest aberrations. What a hard life will have those who use air transportation! But it happens likewise in trains, buses, subways and even private cars. There is however an inversion of terms in this case. In Europe, for now more familiarized with risk society, the reaction is moderate. In the US, however, where the legend of invulnerability has thrived, even Obama has been incapable to reverse the effects of war on the rule of law and freedoms. The soldier of this war is a Nigerian who tried to blow up the Northwest flight on its arrival to Detroit — from Amsterdam — on Christmas Day. And because of it Guantanamo will remain open. And as a result, imprisoned people without trial will keep on running, as well as secret warrants, eavesdropping without judicial control and everything Bush did at wholesale scale, but now acomplished in retail and with greater care and prevention.

The Culture War of values as shown on a graffiti

Where we are losing the second war at most — the war on values — is inside the third war; the war of real fighters with true clashes, and belligerent general staffs… basically, Obama’s real war. It is a regrettable and revolting war, as any war, but it is more certain and effective. It is waged in secret, without bluster, quietly — although the effects emerge with no little alarm from time to time. Such as, in the recent suicide attack on the CIA base in Afghanistan — a historic setback for the United States who believed getting bin Laden within reach through a double agent when in fact they lost six US agents and one  Jordan’s allied. This action of Al Qaeda is in response to a cyber war through drones, which maintains the CIA in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has killed at least two dozen of prominent terrorist leaders.

Obama has intensified this kind of war, to the point that some experts say it will replace the current massive presence of troops in the conflict zone that spreads out from Pakistan to Somalia. The CIA has accomplished more than 50 attacks from Predator and Reaper drones all through Obama’ first year at the White House – figures that double those of 2008 with Bush on the stage and surpass the whole activity of the Bush 8 year Presidency. Formally it is about a targeted assassinations program that Bush authorized after another Republican president, Gerald Ford, banished it in 1976. Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions and law professor at the New York University, believes that such actions may be legal in terms of “just war” when there are no other means to stop or prevent the enemy to go on with its activity and when every precaution is taken to avoid civilian casualties. But this does not appear to be the case because there is no official information and no possibility of judicial or parliamentary control over such actions.

Bush made a package with all those wars, which he called Global War on Terror — some mistook with a war against the Arabs or against Islam. “Invoices” for those errors, increasingly higher, are still coming now. Obama qualifies and distinguishes amongst them: but this does not make him immune to criticism from the right, for his supposed excessive restraint and, from the left, because of his continuity with Bush’s illegal war.

_____________

(1) Have a look on the clash of ideas over here: The Cultural War

The Complex Game of Wrong Impressions – A First Balance on Copenhagen

>> Haga clic aquí para la versión en castellano

Beyond the political and scientific debate, economists make different analysis on a meeting that brought together more than 180 countries whose commitments regularly lacked of consistency: some advocate the growth model through expansion, other propose corrective measures more or less significant.

U.S. and Chinese positions, though contradictory, are no less obvious and essential, since it is impossible to imagine a positive outcome to the climate challenge without the support of both countries.

And what about the help of more than 7,000 million promised by the European Union that seemed initially to account for and optimistic output of the summit?

The rush of numbers is exhausting and often unnecessary. In this case, let us aim at misconceptions…

First: Macro meetings as Kyoto and Copenhagen have a realistic chance of success? Unfortunately, not (not always). In Kyoto, the aim was to limit the effects of the emission of greenhouse gases by 2012: Russia agreed to limit at 33% – in fact it simply did 0% – Spain promised to increase up to 15% – and did so by 54%. We better look after more realistic goals…

Second misconception: China is the leading global polluter. True, in gross terms, false in relative terms. Just remember that each Chinese pollutes four times less than an American. Furthermore, much of China’s pollution is the result of production for developed countries.

US is self-centred and does not make a move. Fascinating misinformation – manipulation? During this time American industry continues to invest in green energy. The Obama plan is a firm commitment to renewable energies, with volumes going from 1 to 20 in contrast to what Europeans planned – the ineffective French stimulus plan, for example. Many U.S. states have long acted individually. And since a decade, the US public opinion has evolved. What is more, American industry and business circles have changed their frame of mind. American employers face two opposing clans: on the one hand, polluters with hard entrenched positions – the powerful coal industry provides over half the energy consumed in this country, so huge interest which one cannot imagine in Europe – and on the other, a group of companies that calls repeatedly the federal government to establish clear standards and set uniform federal marks in order to harmonize practices rather than lead to a patchwork in which the industry – and in fine jobs — cannot develop properly. They also wish to clarify the price of oil in the mid term so as to know what kind of investments they will perform. The inimitable Sarah Palin issued an article in the Washington Post that gives a good idea of the hardness of the debate in the U.S. …

Europe is exemplary. Overall yes, Europe has played the game and has done more than other continents. On the other hand: no. Austria, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Spain have not achieved at all what they promised. And let us speak of Denmark, the summit’s host, which boasts of making 20% of its electricity from wind power, forgetting that 80% comes from highly polluting hydroelectrics.

Transportation segment is the main cause of GHG emissions. False. The main polluter is the production of energy itself. Even worse, agriculture, which in developed countries represents every day a smaller portion of its GDP, is one of the most important sources of CO2 emissions, even greater than the automotive: a cow produces 3.4 tonnes of  CO2 per year, while a usual car produces 1.8 Tn.

Some may point out miracle solutions to survive. i.e. renewable energy, electric car. All it takes to be convinced of the contrary is to recall that those energies and devices represent only 2.5% approx. of global electricity consumption. That consumption is projected to be 10% in 2030 but nothing is less certain. Regarding the electric car, its theoretical part is expected to be of 10% of the fleet in 2020 – the most reasonable analysis expect it to reach 3%

When the true ideas?

Just in case: Would you prefer that your car emits less CO2 or would you rather prefer to lose your job? It is not necessary to go against climate progress to choose the correct check box.

Related Posts:

Countdown to Copenhagen
Climate Change: Preparing a New Protocol (I)
Climate Change: Expectations for the New Protocol (II)
Climate Change: Upcoming meetings (III)