Core of the Word War: Israel:Iran, Syria, Hamasian Palestaine & Hizbullahland Lebanon > hostilities continue

.
A survey of the last week's developments in the core of the world war being waged by Islamofascism and its sponsors, the "rogue states" of Iran and Syria (as Condoleezza Rice calls them).

"War defeats diplomacy," here's another one by the pretentious leftwiing know-it-all Paul Rogers, in the pretntious leftwing know-it-all OpenDemocracy (Jul 18,2k6). Nevertheless, the mag and the article are must reads, even tho the brunt is blame-Israel-for-defending=itself.

In the final analysis there is no alternative to a peace settlement encompassing the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

There is little chance of that even beginning to be recognised in the current insecure environment within Israel. It is made even less likely by the solid support from the Bush administration, due in no small measure to the political significance of Christian Zionism in the United States (see David Brog's new book, Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State, Front Line Books, 2006).

Almost a week into the war, a weak and disunited Europe concentrates on evacuating its citizens from Lebanon, and the United States displays a special sense of irony by chartering a cruise ship to do the same. At present, the prospects for peace are minimal.

First, let me state that I am no Christian zionist. Second, historically, since George Washington's letter to the synogogue in New England, the USA has been a friend of Jews, and by extension since 1948, a friend of israel. This national legacy of friendship is stronger than some American Christains anti-semitism, some American Christian's doctrinalistic "zionism" (a heresy to be sure), and some efforts toward inter-state friendships between America and a number of Islamic states. Loyalty to a very longterm friend outweighs efforts to widen the circle of friendship that simply don't count as much. That's a secular valuation that isn't secularistic but a part of a Christian political ethos, a blibical secularity (as Henk hart used to put the matter).

"South Lebanon bears war's brunt," Nicholas Blandford

The bombing of roads and bridges linking the south to the rest of Lebanon has created a zone, UN peacekeepers here say, for the Israeli military to pursue its campaign against Lebanon's Hizbullah guerrillas. But it is civilians who are bearing the brunt of the conflict between the two old foes.

"They are only hitting civilians, not members of the party," Jaafar charges, referring to Hizbullah fighters. "They take out one house, and with it a whole family dies."

According to eyewitness accounts from survivors interviewed by the Monitor, Israel is striking homes, schools, town centers, using bombs that obliterate entire buildings. Israel is targeting the region because it is a Hizbullah stronghold and the base for rocket attacks on northern Israel.

Vehicles, including ambulances, according to hospital workers, have been shelled by gunboats and have been hit by helicopter gunfire. Even the Jabel Amel Hospital in Tyre has been hit, struck early Sunday morning by a missile, demolishing an entire wing and killing a family of nine.

A detail on the UN presence in Lebanon, which has done nothing to stop Hizbullah's assaults on Israel all along:

Even the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) has found itself unable to dispatch urgently needed relief convoys into the beleaguered villages of the border area to evacuate terrified residents or supply drinking water and basic staples.

A convoy of Chinese UNIFIL engineers dispatched to recover the bodies of the Qudsi family outside Tyre was forced to turn back when the road it was traveling along came under fire from artillery and Israeli navy gunboats.

UNIFIL's civilian staff have been evacuated from its headquarters in the coastal village of Naqoura, one mile north of the border, and have taken refuge in the Rest House hotel on the Tyre sea front.

Although UNIFIL is pressing the Israelis to allow it freedom of movement in the south, the peacekeepers estimate that its supply of fuel for trucks and armored personnel carriers will run out by the weekend which will completely paralyze the force until it can be resupplied from Beirut.

"Haifa residents quietly persevere," Josua Mitnick, CSM (Jul 19,2k6)

At least 50 Hizbullah rockets struck northern Israel Tuesday and at least four hit Haifa. At least one Israeli was killed in Tuesday's attacks. So far the militant Lebanese Shiites have fired some 750 rockets into northern Israel since the Israeli offensive began July 12.

But with a naval base, a shipping port, and oil refineries, the vulnerability of Israel's third-largest city to Hizbullah rocket attacks has taken residents and the country off guard.

After nearly a week of Katyusha strikes that claimed eight fatalities, Haifa locals are staying home, shuttering businesses, and resigning themselves to ducking into shelters or stairwells at a moment's notice.

That's good news for Israel, because with civilians in the line of fire in this war, home-front morale will directly impact Israel's ability to prolong its effort to weaken Hizbullah.

"It's the first times time since the 1948 [Arab-Israeli] war that the Israeli home front has been so exposed to attack and by an outside party," says Sami Michael, an Israeli author who lives in Haifa. "The population is showing maturity in dealing with the situation."

"Q & A: Behind the Israel-Hisbullah crisis, Dan Murphy

, CSM (Jul 19,2k6). This article is a must read, if for new other reason than its explanation of the attacks on Israel to which it is now responding, and the role of Hisbullah in compromising the govt of Lebanon, which latter has given Hizbullah a licence to bombard Israel with a huge cache of "10,000 short-range rockets from Iran and has received training from Iran and Syria." Then, too, are Hizbullah's long-range missiles, regarding which the origin is not to difficult to guess.

Another detail of note:

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Tuesday for a bigger, better-armed and more robust international force to stabilize southern Lebanon and buy time for the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbullah.

Shrugging off US and Israeli reluctance, Mr. Annan said he expected European nations to contribute troops to the proposed force in a bid to end fighting between Israel and Hizbullah and prevent a wider Middle East conflagration.

"It is urgent that the international community acts to make a difference on the ground," Annan said.

"Beyond the war in Lebanon," Bahman Baktiari and Augustus Richard Norton , CSM (Jul 19,2k6)

To suggest that Hizbullah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers on the orders of Tehran and Damascus is to grossly oversimplify a strong strategic relationship between Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran. While there is certainly a shared geopolitical framework among the three, operational decisions are typically made by Hizbullah. In fact, the group has become increasingly autonomous since its triumph in 2000, when it basically forced Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.

The latest Hizbullah operation - in which eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two wounded - profoundly embarrassed the vaunted Israeli army. While it may have been tactically brilliant, it was clearly a strategic miscalculation. The action even surprised the Iranian leadership whose anti-Israel rhetoric often obscures a nuanced relationship with the group. Pragmatism, not ideology, has been the secret to Iranian success in Lebanon.

While Shiite supporters of Hizbullah celebrated the nabbing of Israeli soldiers, many others, including some Shiites, are angry that Hizbullah provided Israel an excuse to wreak havoc in their country, where more than 200 civilians have already been killed. Iran is now seeing decades of constructive engagement with various political parties in Lebanon endangered by this miscalculation.

Hizbullah is a major foreign policy success for the clerics in Iran. For more than 20 years, with Iran's aid, Hizbullah built an infrastructure of hospitals, aid organizations, media, and construction companies. This has been key to Hizbullah's evolving success as a political party and is the furthest reach of Iranian influence within an Arab Shiite group.

Since the triumph of 2000, Hasan Nasrallah, Hizbullah's secretary general, has enjoyed superstar status in the Arab world - mainly for leading the first Arab party to retrieve occupied Arab territories through armed resistance against Israel. He is articulate, analytically rigorous, and he usually delivers on his promises. He no doubt saw the July 12 operation that provided casus belli to Israel as an opportunity to stiffen the backs of the Palestinians, and to further bolster Hizbullah as an exemplar for resistance.

But strong criticism from Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia underlines that it behaved recklessly, and in doing so provided an excuse for Israel to launch a war that it has long prepared to fight. If Israeli generals delight in the prospect of cutting Hizbullah down to size, the more important dimension of Israel's new war is preparing the battlefield vis-à-vis Iran. Israeli generals have already asserted an Iranian role in the firing of a missile that disabled an Israeli naval ship, killing four sailors. If Hizbullah's capacity to bombard Israel is even significantly reduced, then it will be easier for Israel to attack Iran's nuclear sites later. Israel has obviously been preparing for such an attack for several years, and if the US and the other players in the so-called "Five plus One" fail in their efforts to temper Iran's nuclear programs, Israel will most likely move against Iran.

"Israeli Warplanes Target Suspected Hezbollah Bunker in Beirut," , Associated Press via FoxNews (Jul 19,2k6)

JERUSALEM — Israeli warplanes dropped bombs late Wednesday on a bunker in south Beirut where senior Hezbollah leaders were thought to be, the military said.

Military officials said a wave of aircraft dropped 23 tons of explosives on the bunker. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to reporters, said top Hezbollah figures were thought to be there, possibly including Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. The officials said the bunker was in the Bourj al-Barajneh section of southern Beirut.

That's all I have for you today, dear refWrite readers.

-- Owlb

World War: Afghanistan: Taliban resurgence in Afghan 'theatre' of Islamofascism terror war

.
It's good to hear even conditional good news out of Afghanistan these days. In the lastest we read that "Afghan troops fight to retake southern towns," which means the Taliban's recovery of territories they target are at least being contested, and in this case, not be "outsiders" but by the new Afghan army itself. The other side of the same dispatch by Tom Regan Christian Science Monitor (Jul 18,2k6) runs a subtitle on the darker side, "Meanwhile, ongoing drought may drive Afghans to join the Taliban."


Afghan troops were preparing Tuesday to retake a town in the country's dangerous Helmand province that one official said had been "technically and temporarily" left to Taliban insurgents and Pakistani militants.

The Associated Press reports that between 300 and 400 Afghan soldiers were heading to the southern town of Garmser. "Our soldiers are going to Garmser with the support of the coalition to take it back from the Taliban," said Amir Mohammed Akhunzada, the deputy governor of Helmand province.

In Kabul, Associated Press reports that [Afghan] government officials accused the outlawed Pakistan-based militant Islamic group Lashkar-e-Tayyaba [which apparently figured largely in the train-terrorism in Mumbai - P] and the pro-Taliban political party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam of taking over Garmser[, Helmand province, Afghanistan]. Afghan police battled with the insurgents for 16 days before the police were forced to withdraw.

[Deputy Interior Minister Abdul Malik Sidiqi] said a second Helmand town - Naway-i-Barakzayi - that had been overrun by militants was reclaimed by government forces late Monday. "[The ousted insurgents had] burned the Afghan flag and raised the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam flag in the district."

The specter of unified terrorists with a political wing operating in Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan - at the very same time that the terrorists continue viciously in Iraq - and have been killing civilians and capturing a few soldiers in Israel from their strongholds in southern Lebanon (where Hizbullah had paralyzed the Lebanese govt) and Palestine's West Bank and Gaza (where Hamas had won the recent parliamentary elections), while recalling all the other places like-minded terrorists had struck in this worldwide endeavour - London UK, Bali Indonesia, Egypt, Kenya - we have to conclude that we are in the midst of a worldwide war. Returning to the specifically Afghan situation:

Meanwhile, the BBC reports that the country is now facing another problem - massive drought. And the drought is worse in the areas where the Taliban have the most "influence," reports show.

Much of the country's wheat crop has failed this year because of lower than expected snowfall during the winter and poor spring rains. Families are already reported to be going hungry in provinces as far Badakshan in the north-east and Josjan in the west.

Thousands of people in Zabul province have left their villages to search for food, but the World Food Programme says it does not have the resources to help them.

Reuters reports that poverty has been one of the main reasons for the resurgence of the Taliban in the south.

"There are many villages where, because development agencies can't operate normally in conditions of insurgency, people don't have enough to eat," a diplomat said.

"If the Taliban arrive with a little cash, that can be enough to induce people to join."

The situation in Afghanistan is, simply, dire. An analysis byv Hekmat Karzai and Seth G. Jones (CSM, "How to curb rising suicide terrorism in Afghanistan," (Jul 19,2k6) parses its subject matter into five distinct elements:

First, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have successfully tapped into the expertise and training of the broader jihadi community. Militants have imparted knowledge on suicide tactics to Afghan groups through the Internet and in face-to-face visits, and these militants - with Al Qaeda's assistance - have supplied a steady stream of suicide bombers.

Second, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have concluded that suicide bombing is more effective than other tactics in killing Afghan and coalition forces. This is a direct result of the success of such groups as Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, and Iraqi groups. Suicide attacks allow insurgents to achieve maximum impact with minimal resources. Data show that when the insurgents fight US and coalition forces directly in Afghanistan, there is only a 5 percent probability of inflicting casualties. With suicide attacks, the chance of killing people and instilling fear increases several fold.

Third, Al Qaeda and the Taliban believe that suicide attacks have increased the level of insecurity among the Afghan population. This has caused some Afghans to question the government's ability to protect them and has further destabilized the authority of local government institutions. Consequently, the distance between the Afghan government and the population in specific areas is widening.

Fourth, suicide attacks have provided renewed visibility for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which previous guerrilla attacks did not generate. Because of their lethality and high profile nature, every suicide attack is reported in the national and international media.

While the majority of suicide attackers are foreigners, some Afghans have been influenced by the increased proliferation of extremist propaganda and have carried out suicide attacks.

The two reports differ in more or less "blaming" the problems on Lakshar-e-Taiba (LeT) in the first article sited in this blog-entry, and instead "blaming" them on Al-Quaeda as the master of the resurgent Taliban in the secod article cited. The accounts may be reconcilable, one or both may be seriously mistaken (tho I doubt it). In any case, dire.

-- Politicarp

Economics: North America & EU: Stewardship ethics for business today

.
"Can profits and ethics coexist?," that's the question Rushworth Kidder
poses in reviewing a new book on business economics understood as an ethical discipline in the daily practice / vocation of businesspeople Christian Science Monitor (Jul 18,2k6). Profit with Honor: The New Stage of Market Capitalism by Daniel Yankelovich (Yale University Press; 189 pp., $24).

Today, says Yankelovich, a "third wave of mistrust of business and other institutions," following two earlier waves around the time of the Great Depression and again in the late 1960s, is upon us at least in North America.

Yankelovich argues that the current mistrust, while fed by scandals at Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and elsewhere, springs from a convergence of three deeper trends:

• The deregulation of the 1980s and 1990s that "transformed the gatekeepers - the accounting firms, the investment bankers, the business law firms, the regulatory agencies - into enablers." • The excesses of CEO pay, which tied it to "the vagaries of the stock market" and "sorely tempted" CEOs to "take questionable shortcuts, or even cheat." • The importing into business of bad cultural norms that include winning at all costs and gaming the system.

Fighting such trends with laws and compliance structures isn't enough. "If you want positive results," he writes, "you need to give people a positive basis for trust and respect and an ethical vision to live by, not merely severe punishment for misdeeds."

R+t now, I'd bet you're thinking what I'm thinking and it turns out I'm thinking what reviewer Kidder is thinking: "But how?"

Principium Consumers Hub

Recently a reformational philosopher-economist wrote on Thinknet out of the Dooyweerd Centre at Redeemer University that he had a certain unease with outfits like Live 8, Make Poverty History and the Micah Challenge. They're good on making demands of govts, but they don't do any concrete work of a business kind, a business kind that is different from the prevailing kind's so as to show a model and offer a vocation to young people who want to create enterprises that can produce good things and services differently, without excess of profits but with stable return on investment and gifts. Yes, I would argue that such a real alternative way of enterprizing would merit not only investments but also gifts from those who weren't looking for a return but a place to put accumulated capital to work that wouldn't be pissed down the down the drain of CEO mammoth salaries and bonuses, prestige advertizing campaigns that notified no potential customer of a good product ready for purchase, bad products like (where shall I start) luxury autos and gas-guzzlers at that.

Unlike many laments about corporate malfeasance that are awash with diagnoses but scant on prescriptions, this book steers directly toward a concept that Yankelovich describes as "stewardship ethics." He sees it as "a new stage of enlightened self-interest" that brings social norms together with business imperatives, focuses on community, and "emphasizes the conscious effort required to reconcile profitability with social good."

Yankelovich locates his concept between two popular but (in his view) flawed theories about business ethics. One is a laissez-faire approach that assumes "all reasonably honest ways of making profit somehow serve the public good" with no additional ethical imperatives required. The other is a corporate social responsibility approach. Arising from the nonprofit sector, this theory finds profitmaking suspect, and seeks to burden business with the correction of social ills unrelated to its core objectives.

This brings us to the core issue of practicality in the Yankelovich program. And for the reviewer as for the book's author, that brings us to today's captains of business:

Will hard-driving executives buy into stewardship ethics? Here he draws two strong arguments from his own work over the years.

The first concerns executive pay. He divides compensation into two pieces: "the wealth needed to provide a CEO with financial security and a high-status lifestyle, and the wealth desired mainly for scorekeeping purposes ('my bonus is bigger than yours')." His own research has convinced him that baby boomers - who make up the bulk of today's CEOs - desire more than money. He finds them "hungry for recognition and for the conviction that they are leaving a valued legacy for the future." If that hunger can replace the "scorekeeping" part of executive compensation - and Yankelovich thinks it can - then stewardship ethics may well be attractive to the CEO.

The second argument concerns our culture's broad social norms. "The good news is that the larger culture is ready for less self-centered, more-communal-minded values," he writes.

My own interest is not so much in today's top-of-the-heap executives. Were I interested in the older sets, I'd be more curious about the various hardcore evangelical and pentecostal business networks, faith&business movements, mostly Christian I've been presumming, but also with some Judaic voices like that of Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin (who had connections with Jack Abramoff, a fellow Orthodox Jew, for whom Lapin's teachings didn't seem to do much good - just as the Christian execs at Enron and World.com didn't get much good out of the likes of Business Reforme magazine and ChristianBusiness.net -- the latter being BR's rebrand these days (a name which of course can be shed as soon as scandal hits the outfit). I see a lot of Evangelicalism, a lot of Pentecostalism, and a lot of Judaic Orthodoxy in these sources - but very little of a renewing vision for the inner reformation of business structures, organizations, institutions, companies, firms, corporations, etc. Just the same old same-old, with a lot of gooey religiosity jazz. Too bad. We need a global movement of business for human good, and not the self-interest of owners, investors, employers, employees and their families only. How to satisfy the needs and drive to succeed which ferments, and could do so, in all these busienss-involved people (that could be each one of us) and at the same time build up a different pattern of doing business in the world that powerfully trend it toward the well-being of a starving population, unskilled, homeless, migrant - in so many places.

To get more local: It's this phenom that presses America's borders. It's this phenom that shouts out for investment in good business in Mexico, that leaves wages, salaries and capital remaining in Mexico to provide rise-out-of-poverty jobs there, to build an economy from which all there will benefit.

I have to be careful I don't let utopian rhetoric run away with my vision-talk; because I want a practical, workable, step-at-a-time vision that will become articulate in economic challenges to young people who will study and act entrepreneurially for a new way of making a God-blessed dollar, of benefit to the whole society, at home and abroad, locally and globally. At the same time, I have no illusion that hunger, displacement, strife rising in poverty are the fate of the world for at least a long time to come. The problems are vastly structural, and the demographic realities of populations exanding without any hope of secular relief from childhood to old age are far too real.

In the hands of a less trusted author, either argument would require at least a chapter of charts, graphs, and quotations. Who but Dan Yankelovich can talk so briefly about baby-boomer longings or civil-society norms - and be so readily believed? If you hunger for scholarly detail, "Profit with Honor" may not satisfy you. But if you suspect that what's most needed today is a new vision for corporate ethics, this book makes perfect sense.

-- Politicarp

India: Terrorist attacks: Bombay is Mumbai is Islamofascist terrorist target

.
Tuesday, July 11, I began gathering news URLs about Mumbai, India (aka known by its colonial name, Bombay), the massacre there designed with engineering expertise that reminds one of how Hitler was praised for making the trains run on time. But trains have been occasions for massacre before in India--and those train-massacres resonated with the communal strife between India's Muslims and Hindus as well. An early report from BBC told us this:

More than 160 people have been killed and 460 injured by seven bombs on the train network in the Indian financial capital Mumbai (Bombay), police say.

The first of the near-simultaneous blasts went off at about 1830 local time (1300 GMT), during the rush hour in the suburbs on the Western Railway.

Correspondents spoke of scenes of pandemonium, with people jumping from trains and bodies flung onto tracks.

There have been a number of bomb attacks in Mumbai in recent years.

Most of the exploding bombs were on moving trains; two were detonated at train stations. See the BBC map.

An even earlier reports was from a BBC blog where Rabiya Prakesh mentions how internet locations had immediately gone into service.

Mumbai Help is keeping across the developing situation, and on tonight's programme we will try and bring you the latest.

If you are in Mumbai or have been affected by the blasts, please do get in touch with us. We want to try and piece together what has happened and what the situation is like on the ground.

We've already been getting some emails in telling us that the transport system has been paralysed, and the telephone networks are down.

On the matter of bloggers's speedy response, see blogger Steve's judgement of excellence on Obiter Dicta.

The day after the attacks some of the nitty gritty details in all their gritty began to emerge. CNN reported that h+ly sophisticated timers for at least some of the bombs in Bombay, were hidden in ...

Timers hidden in pencils have been discovered in at least three of the seven sites where bombs exploded on commuter trains in India's financial capital, killing 185 people, according to CNN's sister station, CNN-IBN.

The timers are believed to have detonated bombs made of RDX, one of the most powerful kinds of military explosives, the network quoted police as saying Wednesday.

However, CNN could not independently confirm the discovery of the timers or the material used in the explosives.

I decided to keep my own eyes open to mention of the timers in further reports.

No group has claimed responsibility for the blasts, which came in a span of 11 minutes during Tuesday evening's rush hour in Mumbai, when trains were jam-packed with commuters making their way home.

The Western Railway system carries more than 4.5 million passengers a day in the city formerly named Bombay.

Maharashtra state's police chief said more than 700 people were hurt, and hospitals continued appeals for blood donors.

Pakistan's govt was already on Jul 12,2k6 trying to fix blame on the Kashmir dispute between the countries which dispute has attracted terrorist activism for decades.

Not all judgments of the blogsphere's attention were positive. Already on Jul 12, Bombay's Sepia Mutiny scored not only America's mainstream media for being "poor in local coverage" of the murderous carnage, but also knocked the "relative silence from the blogosphere." The post by Ennis has some very serious geostrategic thinking, and refWrite recommends reading it. A sample where he refers us to Hukku, on another Sepia Mutiny page from the day before and now with scads of comments): I couldn't track what Ennis quotes, either on the earlier blog-entry nor on the Foreign Affairs page where :

“Accordingly, the Pakistani government continues to support the insurgents, although more subtly than before. But what the Musharraf regime and its more intransigent Islamist allies fail to recognize is that Indian patience with Pakistani-sponsored violence in Kashmir and elsewhere in India is nearly at an end. Although largely ignored by the U.S. media, bombings during the festival for the Hindu holiday of Diwali in New Delhi last November, in which Pakistani-based groups were implicated, almost precipitated another major crisis, which was averted only by the Indian leadership’s restraint. But it is far from clear whether such forbearance could survive another attack. Furthermore, in contrast to the 2001-2 crisis, when the Indian military lacked viable plans for responding to a Pakistani-based terrorist attack, the Indian army is now well prepared to undertake swift and decisive action by retaliating against targets in Pakistan at times and places of its own choosing. Unfortunately, the Pakistani leadership appears to be oblivious to India’s growing frustration. Consequently, although another Indo-Pakistani war is not likely, it remains possible…”

A preview of the first 500 of 3,474 words total gives a summary background for the Kindia-Pakistan conflict over Kashimir, but the key quote by author Sumit Ganguly is not in the 500.

Another analyst, writing in OpenDemocracy,Ajai Sahni puts the blame squarely on Pakistan:

The latest series of blasts is, in essence, a continuation of a sustained covert war against India in which Pakistan has created and exploited a number of Islamist terrorist groups over more than a decade and a half. The principal focus of this war remains at present the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K); but since the early 1990s there have been sustained efforts to extend this war to every part of India, and there has been a cyclical succession of terrorist operations across the length and breadth of the country.

The frequency, spread and, in some cases, intensity of these operations has seen some escalation in the past years, as international pressure on Pakistan to end terrorism in J&K has diminished levels of "deniable" engagement in that theatre after a diminution of the international "tolerance of terror" after 9/11.

It is significant that hundreds of Pakistan-backed terrorist cells have been discovered, disrupted and neutralised over the past years. The cumulative evidence of these operations has systematically confirmed a sustained and comprehensive Pakistani strategy of subversion and mobilisation for terrorism in virtually every significant concentration of Muslim people in India. This strategy has failed entirely to secure a mass base among India's Muslims, but a handful of recruits – sufficient to sustain a sporadic and, given contemporary technologies, fairly devastating, terrorist campaign – has been available.

Sahni argues that one or more of a shortlist of known organizations, in league with the Pakistan secret service and working according to its plan, are at the root of the terrorism this week in Mumbai. They are: Lakshar-e-Taiba / Pure Army of God (LeT); Studients Islamic Society of India (Simi); and "the Dawood Ibrahim gant" now based in Karachi -

"This has been involved in trafficking in arms and explosives, as well as the illegal transfer of funds to south Asian and international Islamist terrorist groups. The "D Company", as the gang is known, still has a stranglehold over organised crime in Bombay, and its infrastructure is regularly used by Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) to facilitate terrorist activities in India as well as abroad. The Dawood gang is on India's list of wanted terrorist organisations, as well as on the United States list of proscribed terrorist groups.

Mr Sahni may be altogether wrong regarding any and all of these three organizations, but his considered analysis is well worth your reading.

Another blogger of India-origin working n the USA gives us his take on the US media attention to the Mumbai story. On his blog Context Switch, Sibin Mohan tells us:

I would like to take an alternate spin on the media coverage in this post actually...I was incredulous about the response to the event by the American mainstream media ! They passed it off as a footnote at best, and then got on with more "serious" matters ! As I mentioned, the Washington Post probably had the initial uptake on the matter and a couple of editorials and op-eds. Similar coverage was seen in the New York Times. While I have great respect for the journalistic integrity of these two large institutions in world media, I was more than disappointed ! CNN, seemed to have better coverage and analysis on this situation ! So did Pajamas Media, Wikinews and Slate ! BBC, of course, has a pretty good handle on this situation (as expected from a respeced International news organization). So, why this blind spot from the two of America's (and probably the world's) largest news publications ? Even the Los Angeles Times had just one story on this...are American newspapers editors and readers just not interested in a bombing in internationl cities ?

Hang on a sec...the bombings in London and Madrid got a lot more coverage that this incident! I remember constant news reports and updates and stories and editorials being written about those "heinous" crimes ! Journalists were crying in unison about the rise of the islamic terrorists and how they should be countered...but in the case of Mumbai, not so much as a peep !

Let's digress (well, not really...) by reading a blog-entry, "Floods, Riots, and Bombs," by Avi who attends a friends wedding in Mumbai the day before, and visits his parents, but normally he lives these days in Indonesia. He has a heart for the city, and he was there on that day.

The Times of India follows the line of thawt offered by India's intelligence––the train terrorism of Jul 11,2k6 was the work of LeT and Simi. While this line is as yet entirely hypothetical (and may be the best "theory" available even now), the line has been picked up in the USA by Robert Spence, the know-it-all o jihad, writing for Human Events.

But the most poignant item I've seen so far is the article you'll get when you click on the title of this blog-entry. Give it a try.

-- Politicarp

Tags: Mumbai-Bombay terrorist attacks

• war
• terrorism
• India
• Kasmir
• Bombay
• Mumbai
• Lakshar-e-Taiba
• simi
• dgangindia

War: UN: UN's Security Council unanimously calls North Korea on its nukes & missiles

.
UN SC voted unanimously today (Sat, Jul 15,2k6) "to impose limited sanctions on North Korea for its recent missile tests and demanded that the reclusive communist nation suspend its ballistic missile program," according to a breaking news alert from CNN (click the blog-entry title above).

The resolution bans all U.N. member states from selling material or technology for missiles or weapons of mass destruction to North Korea -- and it bans all countries from receiving missiles, banned weapons or technology from Pyongyang.

It condemns North Korea's multiple missile launches on July 5 and demands that North Korea "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program" and re-establish a moratorium on missile launching. It also strongly urges North Korea to return to six-party talks on its nuclear program, which have been stalled since last September.

North Korea's U.N. Ambassador Pak Gil Yon, who was in the Security Council chamber for the vote, spoke afterward and accused the council of trying to isolate his country, known officially as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

However, the unanimous resolution was not the one for which Japan had asked. Japan wanted a full-sanctions regimen under the UN's Chapter 7. I would favour that move. As it is, the non-Chapter 7 action, however unanimous, just may not prove satisfactory to that country which is most in Pyongyang's line of fire. This development may mean that Japan feels it necessary to take unilateral military action against rejectionist North Korea, to remove the nuclear and missile launch-stations.

China's Ambassador Wang Guangya said his country, the North's closest ally, adopted "a responsible attitude" in opposing a Chapter 7 resolution, which would "further complicate and aggravate the situation.

Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the resolution sends "an appropriate signal" to North Korea "on the need to display restraint and to abide by its obligations regarding missiles, and at the same time it should work in favor of continuing the negotiating process in the interest of strengthening security and stability in the region."

FoxNews also sent out an alert to its newsletter for breaking news (refWrite subscribes to both).Online, AP via Fox reported the response of North Korea's UN Ambassador, Pak Gil Yon (the first name is the surname in Korean):

Pak warned that North Korea will "take stronger physical actions of other forms should any other country dare take issue with the exercises and put pressure on it."

At the end of his speech, he immediately left the council chamber in a move considered a breach of diplomatic protocol.

Agreement on the resolution culminated 10 days of difficult negotiations and was reached after a last-minute compromise between Japan, the United States and Britain — who wanted a tough statement — and Russia and China, who favored weaker language.

In the final negotiations, the council was divided on one issue: If the resolution should be adopted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows for the use of military force to make sure the resolution is obeyed.

China had threatened to veto any resolution that mentioned Chapter 7 and in the final compromise proposed by Britain, with support from France and China, it was dropped.

The resolution adopted Saturday by a 15-0 vote states that the Security Council was "acting under its special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security."

As the world turns -- PermRes

Economics: World economy: G8 Summit features Russian insistence on admission to World Trade Organization

.
Russia is at the top of its economic play this year as it hosts the G8 Summit, altho many ecnomists feel that the overall Russian economy just doesn't measure up for inclusion (but then. China's economy while advancing at tremendous speed still relies on slave labour and outlaws labour unions independent of state and party). Nevertheless, since Russia took over the huge oil companies built up by "robber baron" entrepreneurs, it has built pipelines and shipping lines to carry its wares to faraway markets anxious to pay Russia's price. The price is often politically filtered, of course. The Ukraine has been charged fees it couldn't pay, which helpled distablize the Orange Revolution coalition govt, so that the Russia-first party has been able to come to power very recnetly again.

One very knowledgeable reporter on the region for The Economist, but writing independently in his own blog,Edward Lucas was scathing in regard to the Putin-state in a pre-Summit piece. He blog-entried a backgrounder on Jul 10,2k6 that pulls no punches.

How Joseph Stalin and Leonid Brezhnev would have relished the irony: the leaders of the rich free world kowtowing to the authoritarian ruler of a state that is rich only in oil, gas and ruthlessness.

As Western leaders pack their bags for the first G8 summit hosted by Russia, starting in St Petersburg later this week, every one of them knows the event is a sick farce, of which President Putin's Soviet predecessors would have been proud.

G8 Summit in Russia

On the surface, the arriving Western leaders will be smiling. But they are intensely aware that there is only one agenda on Mr Putin's mind: to increase his iron grip on his country and rebuild the once-mighty Russian empire. America's vice-president Dick Cheney warned Russia in March to stop bullying and blackmailing those fledgling ex-Soviet states that were once part of its empire.

Mr Putin was utterly contemptuous in response, warning in his state of the union speech days later that Russia would build up its economic and military might, so as to make his country immune to foreign pressure.

For good measure he savagely mocked America, calling it 'Comrade Wolf'. The days are gone when such remarks could be dismissed as bombast by the leader of a ruined empire.

Christian Science Monitor also carried a preparatory article by Christopher Walker, writing from Moscow, "How the West should deal with Russia" but already three weeks ago (Jun21,2k6). He begins his analysis and recommendations with a most straitforward and relevant question:

Should the world's major democracies speak out loudly to express concern over the consolidation of autocracy in Russia?

With two major summits scheduled to be held in the next two and a half weeks, this question has come into particularly sharp relief. The European Union-United States summit, slated to take place Wednesday and Thursday in Vienna, and the G-8 summit, which Russia will host in St. Petersburg beginning July 11, are forums where the world's major democracies will have the opportunity to send a clear signal to Russia's leadership. The community of democracies should seize this chance to reiterate its expectations on Russia's democratic performance.

Complicating matters, however, is the subject of energy security, which is in the forefront of the Europeans' minds and the top agenda item at the G-8 summit. The European Union, which is increasingly reliant on Russian energy resources, is not eager to rub the Russian leadership the wrong way. At the same time, EU member states know they would be better served by a more democratically accountable Russia, which over the long term would be seen as a less capricious and more reliable partner. Although less dependent on Russian energy resources, the US, with its own addiction to oil, is likewise walking a fine line in encouraging democratic accountability in energy-rich but democracy-poor states around the world.

Russia is counted among the important states that rely on the energy sector as their principal economic engine. At the same time, it features among the world's most poorly governed, repressive, and corrupt regimes. Other such countries in the former Soviet space include Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Saudi Arabia and a number of other Gulf States fit this profile in the Middle East.

The West has pursued a strategy of engagement with Russia, which was formally invited in 1998 to what was then the "G-7" (Group of 7). The "G-8" was established to intensify engagement with Russia and to provide a mechanism that would encourage the country to pursue democratic and market reforms.

Russia's leadership bristles at criticism of its democratic performance and argues that it is pursuing a version of democracy appropriate for Russia. However, irrespective of the label attached to the Kremlin's political program - whether a "dictatorship of law," "managed democracy," or a variant of a Eurasian leadership model - the features of Russia's political system today are not consistent with pluralistic, transparent, and participatory politics. With virtually no exceptions, the authorities' approach has resulted in a dramatic shrinking of public space and an emasculation of any sector capable of holding the Kremlin to account.

The BBC carried a news item that added an element to drama to the confabulations prior to the Summit's official opening. Russia pushes WTO bid ahead of G8 (Jul 14,2k6).

Mr Putin and Mr Bush will have much to talk about this weekend. Diplomats have been locked in talks on Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization (WTO), as leaders gather in St Petersburg for the G8 summit.

Top level US and Russian negotiators were expected to resume talks ahead of the summit, which Russia is hosting.

Russia is eager to join the WTO, but US officials have warned that differences still remain between the two sides.

Moscow needs Washington's backing to join the 149-member group, and hopes to reach a deal during the G8 summit.

Energy-rich Russia is currently the only major power not to be a member of the WTO, which sets and regulates global trade rules.

A deal could unlock plans for huge US investments in Russian oil and gas fields.

Foreign investors are looking for certainty that the products they produce could be freely exported; and once in the WTO, no member would be allowed to discriminate against Russian products on international markets.

As mentioned, before this year's Summit of the advanced industrialized or post-industrialized countries got started, USA Prez George W Bush and Russia Prez Vladimir Putin met to orient one another to the upcoming event and smooth the way so that no one was thrown off-guard by surprises. But the climate can change from day to day, as apparently it did between the time of filing the above story on Friday and the story of the outcome of the drama today, Saturday. A new BBC item, "Russian WTO bid falters at summit" (updates thru Jul 15,2k6) tells us both what Russia was looking for, and what apparently the West (the USA at least) were unprepared to greenlite.

Talks on Russian entry into the World Trade Organization have been making slow progress on the eve of the annual G8 summit in St Petersburg.

The issue is high on the agenda of US President George W Bush and his host, Vladimir Putin, who met on Saturday as other leaders were due to arrive.

Mr Bush said a trade deal had been "almost reached" and talks will go on.

Other key issues for the summit are energy security and the crisis in the Middle East.

Mr Bush arrived in Russia's second city on Friday - the full G8 summit will officially open on Sunday morning.

Speaking after the talks, the two leaders said they had reached agreement on global nuclear energy, and fighting nuclear and other forms of terrorism.

But not admission, with the USA's sponsorship, into the WTO--something perhaps anomalous (or evidencing a double standard on the part of America) since the USA had already made China's entry into WTO a few years back. Continuing:

The three-day summit, which officially begins on Saturday and will bring together the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States, is mainly expected to focus on energy security, terrorism and the escalating situation in the Middle East.

Leaders of the world's major developing nations, including China, India and South Africa, are also expected to attend the summit.

The lack of progress on the stalled world trade talks, the so-called Doha Round, which are aimed at improving market access for poor countries, are expected to be the centrepiece of discussions with developing country leaders.

Besides another blog-entry on fruther developments in the general outcomes of this year's summit and in the outcome for Russia, refWrite hopes to carry further info on what became of last year's decisions regarding Africa's place in the world economy as globalization continues apace.

-- Spondent

Putin reacts to Western criticisms of democratic deficit in Russia
Has Putin sapped Russian democracy?
Putin the weak

War: Israel vs Hizbullah, Hamas: Fiting Islamofascist Terrorists

.
I've been scrambling to keep up with events in Lebanon, and Gaza, as Israel enters into a 2-front war reminiscent of its War for Independence. Again a war initiated, first in the South, by Hamas killer missiles, and then Hisbullah's attacks in the North. Here are some of the keen sources I found:

Analysis: Israel at war - Two days of dizzying escalation, and there can be no illusions: Israel is at war, by David Horovitz, Jerusalem Post (Jul 14,2k6)

A tactical failure by the IDF on the Gaza border barely two weeks ago prompted a drastic escalation on that front. Wednesday's still-graver tactical blow in the North has now led to a confrontation affecting immense numbers of civilians on either side of the Lebanese border, with the potential to impact other nations as well.

There are those who have branded this latest conflict a continuation of Israel's War of Independence, and there is no little truth in the assertion. On both of the fronts on which Israel has been drawn into heavy fighting, its enemies can make no legitimate claim to be pursuing a territorial dispute: as of last summer, Israel relinquished its hold on the Gaza Strip; in Lebanon, it pulled back to the UN-certified international border six years ago.

Except that, in both cases, the Jewish state's assailants are indeed pursuing a territorial ambition - to unseat Israel from its own sovereign lands.

Israel has watched Hizbullah build up its offensive capability in the years since the security zone was dismantled - watched it, ever bolder, establishing its positions up against the border fence and saw it developing its missile capability - and chose not to act. That stance was misinterpreted as weakness.

Hizbullah leader vows 'open war' on Israel, by Peter Hirschberg, Irish Times (Jul 15,2k6) reporting from Jerusalem:

Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah vowed to wage "open war" on Israel yesterday after it bombed his home and headquarters in southern Beirut, while in Israel the army chief warned that the Shia organisation had rockets that could reach Israeli cities up to 20km (12 miles)north of TelAviv.

Nasrallah quickly ended speculation in Israel over whether he had been hit in the strike, issuing a defiant statement in a telephone message broadcast on Hizbullah television. "You wanted open war. We are going to (wage) open war," he declared.

[Ireland]s] Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern has criticised the "disproportionate" Israeli response to the kidnappings of its soldiers,saying the crisis can only be resolved through dialogue.

Note that word "disproportionate." It recurs like a refrain thru-out the world newsmedia. It originates in the Just War Theory launched by St Augustine. I don't think it fits the contemporary situation, and I do not subscribe to it. The idea is too archly mathematical, a balance of reaction to the original terroristic action/s. I don't buy it. Of course, Israel should do everything it can not to harm innnocent civilians, but it must take out the terrorist enemy root and branch. There is simply no way around the military necessity, to which the casual bandying about of the term "disproportionate" offers not a scintilla of wisdom. Continuing ...

He condemned the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and citizens but said: "There are ways around dealing with that situation, not blowing ordinary civilians out of existence."

Lebanon seeks U.S. help to end Israel war, United Press International (Jul 14,2k6):

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora urged the United States to pressure Israel to stop mounting attacks against Lebanon.

An official statement said Siniora received a telephone call from U.S. Presdient George W. Bush Friday during which he briefed him on the dangerous developments in Lebanon and the large-scale Israeli aggression targeting Lebanese civilians, the infrastructure and public institutions.

"Siniora asked Bush to deploy all possible efforts to pressure Israel to stop its aggression and reach a comprehensive cease-fire and end its blockade on Lebanon," the statement said.

It said Bush expressed to Siniora his condolences for the loss of innocent civilian lives and showed understanding of the Lebanese government's stance and appreciation of the remarks and decisions made by the government in the wake of what happened on the south Lebanon border.

Bush also expressed keenness to put pressure on Israel to limit the damage inflicted on Lebanon as a result of military operations and avoid targeting civilians, the statement added.

Analysis: New turmoil empowers Islamists, by Claude Salhani, UPI (Jul 14,2k6).

Israel's pullout from Lebanon gave aspiration to the Palestinians, particularly to Hamas, who shares the same Islamist ideology with Hezbollah, that they could emulate Hezbollah's actions and eventually force Israel out of the Palestinian territories. Hezbollah became the poster child of Hamas and the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation.

Although too late to be able to change the course of affairs, Israel realized they had committed a major policy mistake in pulling out of south Lebanon as they did under pressure from Hezbollah. Israel's precipitated departure from south Lebanon was hailed as a major victory by the Lebanese Shiite organization. The group's stock among the Lebanese, as well as among the Arab and Muslim streets, skyrocketed. Hezbollah was seen as the first Arab force to have not only successfully resisted, but to have forced Israel's hand militarily.

Many Israeli observers believe the IDF's departure from south Lebanon in 2000 under pressure from Hezbollah was a major error. "We cannot afford another south Lebanon," admitted a senior Israeli diplomat in Washington to this reporter shortly after the IDF's exodus from Lebanon but before their unilateral exit from Gaza.

Now once again a gross miscalculation in foreign policy is being made by Israel. Israel's knee-jerk reaction following the kidnapping of their two soldiers by Hezbollah is not going to turn Lebanese public opinion against the militant Shiite organization, as Israel hopes. In fact, it's quite the opposite that is likely to occur.

The massive bombardment of Lebanon -- now in its third day -- the destruction of the runways at Beirut International Airport forcing its closure, the bombing of roads and bridges linking Beirut to other parts of the country and to the Syrian capital, Damascus, and the killing of more than 60 Lebanese civilians, including women and children, as a result of these bombardments will only help cement Hezbollah's popularity in the Arab world.

Bush urges innocent lives to be spared, by Anne Penketh, The Independent (London, UK; Jul 15,2k6).

President Jacques Chirac [of France] has accused Israel of possibly seeking the destruction of Lebanon as he condemned its "completely disproportionate" military offensive against Islamist guerrillas.

As Israel's war on two fronts threatened to hijack the G8 summit this weekend, President George Bush promised to urge Israel to spare civilians, but refrained from asking Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to halt military operations.

A total 73 people have been killed since Israel retaliated for the capture of two of its soldiers by Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon by bombing Beirut's airport and civilian installations. Hizbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel have killed four Israelis and wounded more than 150.

Mr Bush's refusal to press Israel to halt the offensive highlighted a growing rift between the US and European countries, after M. Chirac told an interviewer before heading to the G8: "One could ask if today there is not a sort of will to destroy Lebanon, its equipment, its roads, its communication." While condemning the scale of the Israeli response, he also added that actions of Hizbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon were "totally irresponsible".

Hizbollah's leader, Sayyed Hassa Nasrallah, emerged from hiding to broadcast a message warning the Israelis of "open war" after warplanes bombed his Beirut office. "You wanted open war. We are going to [wage] open war," Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a telephone message broadcast live on Hizbollah television after the attack. He said an Israeli navy ship was ablaze off Beirut, saying: "Look at it burn. It will sink and along with it dozens of Zionist soldiers." Israel confirmed that a ship had been hit.

It emerged last night that the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hizbollah, and a third captured in Gaza on 25 June were all alive and in "reasonable health". The Syrian-backed Islamic militants want to negotiate a prisoner swap with Israel.

Tony Blair denied there was a split between Europe and the US, as the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting. He added that as soon as possible, negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian authorities must "get back on the road map toward a two-state solution, as it offers the only chance for stability and peace in the future."

President Vladimir Putin said: "No hostage-takings are acceptable ... but neither is the use of full-scale force in response to these, even if unlawful, actions."

Meanwhile, in Gaza, Palestinian militants forced open the border crossing between the territory and Egypt, allowing about 600 people to freely pass through the Rafah crossing, while Israeli helicopter gunships and Egyptian police fired warning shots.

President Jacques Chirac has accused Israel of possibly seeking the destruction of Lebanon as he condemned its "completely disproportionate" military offensive against Islamist guerrillas.

As Israel's war on two fronts threatened to hijack the G8 summit this weekend, President George Bush promised to urge Israel to spare civilians, but refrained from asking Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to halt military operations.

A total 73 people have been killed since Israel retaliated for the capture of two of its soldiers by Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon by bombing Beirut's airport and civilian installations. Hizbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel have killed four Israelis and wounded more than 150.

Another source mentions a key fact of the situation: “The government is obviously incapable of taking the lead — Hezbollah long ago did that,” said Lamis Karaoui, 27, a lecturer at a private university in Beirut. Hezbollah, she said, now “makes decisions of war and peace, and acts as if it was the government.”

In a CNN report

U.S. President George W. Bush warned that Israel should take care not to weaken Lebanon's government, and stressed Syria "needs to be held to account."

"The democracy of Lebanon is an important part of laying a foundation of peace in that region," Bush said. "We've worked very hard to get Syria out of Lebanon" through various U.N. resolutions. ... Israel has a right to defend herself," Bush said, and Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad "needs to show some leadership toward peace."

It would be a mistake to overlook Syria, as it would also be a mistake to overlook Iran which is the mother of both Syria and Hisbullah in Lebanon.

-- Politicarp

Further Resources:

Israel-Hisbullah War continues into third day
Lebanon’s Government Appears to Be at a Stand Still

Terror: Russian colonies: Death of Shamil Basayev, Chechen terror chief, solves nothing

.
We mite call the death of Shamil Basayev an act of retributive justice, but we can't quickly give Russia's security forces credit for his actual demise, according to Sean Guillory writing on blog Publius Pundit, "Will Shamil Besayev's Death Change Anything?" (Jul 12,2k6).

The most important thing to remember about Besayev is that he was the Butcher of Beslan; he was the mastermind who organized and inspired the event that resulted in the slawter of Russian children. This did not take place in his own region, Chechnya, a largely Muslim-populated country. Rather, it took place in an ethincally-Russian region.

Likewise, Besayev's death occurred outside Chechnya, where iron rule discourages much terror activity. Instead, Besayev was in another region, Ingushetia, also with a large Muslim population, raising trouble and mayhem there. Apparently, the Russians were not prepared for B's sudden passing. Apparently, it was not Putin's boys in the state security apparatus that got B, but it was an accident - at least, so says Guillory.

Ingushetia itself is sandwiched between Chechnya (which is closer to the Russian heartland) and Northern Ossetia. Also, Ingushetia is mostly-all Muslim, a society twined together by strong clan connections and systems of authority.

RUSSIA > Chechnya * Ingushetia * North Ossetia

Historically, however, the clans of Ingushetia have struggled to reammain free of those of Chechnya to its east, and also of those of North Ossetia to its west where it borders on independent Georgia (wherein lays South Ossetia). Georgia is a thorn in Putin's backside, so any measure of loyalty from Ingushetia is valued in Moscow. For that very reason, Besayev gravitated to the task of terror outside his homeland, in neighbouring Ingushetia.

The Ingush and Chechen peoples have close historical, cultural and linguistic ties, although the Ingush have not shared in the fierceness of the resistance to Moscow put up by the Chechens over the past 200 years.

Part of the Russian empire since the early 19th century, Ingushetia was formally joined to Chechnya under Soviet rule in 1936 when it formed around one-fifth of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic within Russia.

Like the Chechens, the Ingush, despite their history of relative loyalty to Moscow, were deported to Central Asia towards the end of World War II by Stalin who accused them of collaborating with the Nazis. They were allowed to return only in 1957 when Khrushchev was Soviet leader.

There was tension after Dzhokhar Dudayev came to power as Chechen leader in 1991. When he declared Chechen sovereignty the Ingush resisted. There was some fighting along the border between the two regions and Russian troops were sent in to establish order. The Ingush subsequently voted in a referendum to form the Republic of Ingushetia within Russia. Although firmly tied to Moscow, the republic has its own anthem and state symbols.

Putin is locked into a policy of repression that is slowly creating a common-minded movement, apparently not so much "religiously" Muslim, as a secular desire of Muslim-background people to be free of the Russian yoke, but knowing the price to be paid would astronomical in blood (their blood too!) and civil disruption. Surely, sadly, it's a puzzlement. – Politicarp

Tags: Tsunamis alert quarrels

• terror
• islamofascism
• islamoliberators
• chechnya
• ingusetia
• northossetia
• besayevshamil
• russiansecurity

Nukes: North Korea: Fourth of July fusillade from NorKor

.
Kim Jong Il (that's capital "i," lowercase "l," as in "ill" or "eel"), the dictator in total control of North Korea, "test-fired seven missiles that plunged into the Sea of Japan without causing damage or injury."

In the Christian Science Monitor, Donald Kirk, Donald Kirk, "N. Korea's test threat launches uproar," already on Jun22,2k6, reported the view that

North Korea was interested in talking one-on-one [to the US, which the Bush administration had already rejected - P]. The inference was that North Korea would put off test-firing the missile depending on the US response - and then on the outcome of talks.

According to this logic, North Korea was just staking out a basis for negotiations by declaring its right to have a long-range missile and to fire it in violation of its own self-imposed moratorium.

In what has become a dangerous bargaining game, the United States is sure to spurn this overture while demanding that North Korea return to six-party talks designed to get the North to abandon its entire nuclear weapons program - not just the launch of a missile theoretically capable of reaching the US west coast with a nuclear warhead.

Japan, if anything more concerned than the US, since a test-firing would probably send a missile over its country, could be expected to support this position. Japan has warned of "stern measures" in retaliation for a missile.

North Korea, in calling for talks, is not about to consider giving up its nuclear warheads without a massive infusion of aid.

Asia > North Korea

Rather, the North's immediate concern is the ban imposed by the US Treasury on all financial firms doing business with the North. The ban has forced the Banco Delta Asia in Macao, the biggest conduit for $100 "supernotes" counterfeited in the North, to freeze North Korean accounts.

"The US is now strangling North Korea economically," says Kim Tae Woo, also a senior research scholar at the Institute for Defense Analyses, affiliated with South Korea's Defense Ministry. "Their immediate objective is to make the US step back." continued ...


continued...

Mr. Kim advances that view - and not what he sees as overblown suggestions of a US military response - as the primary reason why the North provoked what has become a "missile crisis."

In hinds+t, I have trouble with this take on things. On Tuesday, July 4, North Korea celebrated the Fourth of July and continued to dominate the worldnews on July 5, the US President's birthday by firing 7 missiles, including a long-range type, which failed promptly after launch.

Alarm, nevertheless, flashed thru-out the world. And correctly so. North Korea was fiting hard in competition with Iran toward some day sizzling something American or one of its regional neighbours.

Just as in ancient times, heads of state called in the astrologers before making a major move among their competitor powers, North Korea's exalted leader Kim, must have noted the conjunction of the 4th of July with the formidible state visits scheduled for a week later, China visiting NorKor for six days, then NorKor visting China for six days to celebrate the 45th anniversary of the treaty between the two Communist states.

The now-famous barrage of missiles out of the Frozen Land of Misery, apparently included a fizzled unarmed missile aimed at Hawaii, that would have been crossing above Japan were it not to have dropped into the ocean, close to its source. Even in NorKor's fondest hopes, it wasn't aimed at the North American continent. Neither Canada, nor continental USA. The target, I would suggest, was China. The wily Kim Jong Il was positioning himself for his "celebrations" with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. How could the Chinese ally rebuke Kim were Kim the courageous launcher of such fine missiles, one hopefully that would make its way toward Hawaii? A proof in principle of American vbulnerablity that could only impress the Chinese overloard.

China is urging NorKor to rejoin regional nukes talks. You remember–North Korea, Russia (which shares a small border with NK along the common seacoast, China (just over the Yalu River from Korea, a Chinese province called "the Korean Autonomous Province," until recently), Japan (just over the sea, and historic enemy and conqueror), South Korea (which maintained its independence from the Communist North with American help), and the USA (which, under Gen Douglas MacArther, helped the Southerners escape Communism and the horrible fate of the North thereunder). As a matter of fact, as mentioned, a delegation from China is in NorKor r+t now to celebrate the 45th anniversary of the treaty between the two countries; a top NK delegation goes to Beijing afterward. But Fox's headline seems to be contradicted by the substance of the report under it.

China is the North's biggest source of aid and the two sides have regular contacts. While Beijing has been under pressure to use its influence to persuade the regime to return to disarmament talks, it is unclear how much sway Beijing actually holds over the North.

The Chinese government hasn't said whether Wu or Hui would bring up the six-nation nuclear talks during their trip or released details on who they will meet. But a ministry spokeswoman has said China was "making assiduous efforts" in pushing for a resumption of the negotiations.

Talks have been deadlocked since November because of a boycott by Pyongyang in protest of a crackdown by Washington on the regime's alleged money-laundering and other financial crimes.

China has suggested an informal gathering of the six nations, which could allow the North to technically stand by its boycott, but at the same time meet with the other five parties — South Korea, China, the U.S., Japan and Russia.

There's much to learn from Robert Marquand's Jul 11,2k6 article, "Why missile tests worked for Kim Jong Il," Christian Science Monitor.

But I disagree that the NorKor godling had little functional goal in his recent manoeuvre; it was no tantrum. Rather, my hypothesis is that Kim hates China. Ever since NorKor lost all that Soviet aid, when that partiucalr Evil Empire succumbed to Glasnost, NorKor has slipped further and further away from its goal of self-reliance. Yes, China is helping out, but at the same time it has abolished the Autonomous Korean province within China itself, bordering on North Korea. Yes, China has increased aid, but not nearly enuff, as the poverty of the people (in dramatic comparison to the bureaucratic elite, the state security appartus, and the army–as Marquand itemizes) increases daily. My analysis is that Kim is intent on embarassing China and at the same time "earning" increased aid from the Colossus across the Yalu.

But, in this partiuclar point, Marquand convinces me:

Contrary to initial military analysis in the West, which focused on the failure of the Taepodong-2, Kim showed that his medium-range missiles are a threat to US bases and Japan. He is estimated to have more than 100 medium-range rockets.

"He has gratified his technical specialists and a military constituency," notes Mr. Snyder. "They demonstrated a capability for night launches, multiple launches, and the rockets send a signal that his ability to deliver in South Korea goes past just an artillery barrage of Seoul."

There has been kerfulling among the world's nations since the Fusillade of Missiles. Already on Jul 6,2k6, President Bush was moving beyond outrage and condemnation to a clear call for diplomacy, seemingly with three specific terms of approach in view. 1.) The US would only negotiate with NK thru the 6-nation regional group, and not 1-to-1. 2.) Diplomacy would take time. 3.) The US would in the meantime seek strong UN censure of NorKor, including a Security Council resolution that included some kind of condemnation after all, but also sanctions. At this point, the only question was: would Russia and China join in? Apparently, no, according to AP's "Bush: US wants dimplomtic solution for NK standoff.

On the same day (Jul 6) that this message went out to the world and to NorKor, the media also reported that Japan had introduced a resolution at the UN.

Rookmaker Club geostrategic analysis

A Chapter 7 resolution threatening sanctions against North Korea for launching missiles would pass if voted on, the US ambassador to the United Nations said Thursday.

"The text of the Japanese resolution has broad and deep support," Amb. John Bolton said. "These missile launches clearly pose a threat to security ... This is a test of the Security Council."

Meanwhile two veto-wielding Security Council members — Russia and China — back-peddled on their position, proposing instead to issue a presidential statement.

And what was the reaction of NorKor's godling Kim?

North Korea mocked international criticism of its multiple missile tests, threatening to fire off more rockets. Pyongyang's foreign minister released a blustery statement declaring that it had the right to develop and test its weapons — and vowing unspecified retaliation against anyone who tries to stop it.

"Our military will continue with missile launch drills in the future as part of efforts to strengthen self-defense deterrent," said the statement, carried in state-run media. "If anyone intends to dispute or add pressure about this, we will have to take stronger physical actions in other forms."

The statement did not specify what actions North Korea would take.

The article cited above, "US: UN Resolution against North Korea has deep support," documents an even more appalling account of South Korea's insouciance in the face of NorKor's action. The article headline is definitely misleading when we consider the stance taken in turn by Russia, China, and South Korea. No sanctions?

Thus, it fell to Japan to hear the penny drop and to give clear voice to it's people's fear of Kim's quest for nuke-warhead missile-power over the entire region and beyond. Undoubtedly there are geostrategists in Moscow, Beijing, Seoul and Washington who are discussing attack scenarios to take Pyongyang out of the nuke-power picture. But only in Tokyo are these alternate plans being spoken aloud.

On Jul 7,2k6, Japan re-wrote its draft resolution, re-introduced it, and did so against the consortium to which I've just alluded ("New UN Draft Resolution on NK retains sanctions threat," FoxNews (Jul 7,2k6).

UNITED NATIONS — Over Chinese and Russian objections, Japan introduced a draft Security Council resolution Friday that would impose sanctions on North Korea for its series of rocket test-launches and also order a halt to its development of ballistic missiles.

Backed by the United States, Britain and France, the resolution condemns the series of missile launches that the North conducted Wednesday after both its enemies and allies around the world warned it not to.

By putting forth the resolution, Japan risked a showdown with China and Russia, which have said they oppose sanctions or even passing a legally binding resolution on the issue. They want a more mild council statement that would chastize the North for the launches, and go no further.

Japan, USA, France, UK are leading the way to a strong resolution, while China, Russia, and South Korea are blocking the way to the unified world move that President Bush so clearly desires, along with his allies. The situation is reminiscent of the UN stalemate regarding action to curb genocidist Iraq. I doubt the UN is the answer, doubt it has any answers to the most pressing problems. Apparently, Japan thinks along the same line, and has become increasingly pro-active in its own r+t as a sovereign state necessarily looking to its own self-defense. In face of the blockage at the UN Security Council, Japan has let it be known that it is considering unilaterial military action action against the missile and nuclear facilities of of North Korea. FoxNews poses a question on its Fox Fan page, "Japan's pre-emptive strike?," inviting readers to share their reactions to the idea.

Japan is considering a pre-emptive strike against North Korea's missile bases, signaling a firm stance before a possible U.N. Security Council vote on sanctions against the communist-led country.

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe.

South Korea has dismissed the Japanese concern for its self-defense. But even easy-does-it SK had already halted aid to NK ("South Korea halts food aid to North Korea," FoxNews (Jul 7,2k6).

Seoul, South Korea — South Korea on Friday delayed food and fertilizer shipments to impoverished North Korea until the missile crisis is resolved, even as it pledged to press ahead with high-level talks with Pyongyang next week. A top U.S. envoy agreed with China to coordinate strategy on the North.

North Korea's plans to fire more missiles remained unclear. South Korean officials said another long-range missile may be at a Northern launch site, but they said latest intelligence shows no signs the reclusive regime was getting ready for more tests.

I feel sorry for South Korea; I understand SK's (along with China's) historic hatred of Japan--which at the outset of World War II in the Pacific had conquered all of Korea, China's Manchuria and other regions. Self-defense agasinst NorKor aggression will awaken wider circles of fear in countries formerly subjected to Japan's own aggression. But I don't think this should deter support for Japan should it decide to incinerate NorKor's missile and nuke facilities.

-- Politicarp

Further Resources:

Japan's Defense Chief says another NorKor missile launch coming but not soon
Japan outlines the necessity of a strong UN stand against NorCor's missiles.
North Korea's defiance of China on missiles
US to China: Put Pressure on NorKor
NorKor's long-range missile targeted near-Hawaii hit
Internal resistance to NorKor regime

Tags: Extreme left targets Lieberman for defeat

• politics
• war
• missiles
• nukes
• nkorea
• skorea
• china
• russia
• china
• japan
• usa
• britain
• france
• hawaii

Aesthetics: Arts: Hamas Holiday Calendar, a Kirschner cartoon

.

"The Palestinian Holiday Calendar," Yaakov Kirschner©July3,2006
Digitally republished with the permission of the artist.

.

.

Here the cartoonist is trying out a new character, possibly to add to his repertoire.

Yaakov Kirschner is an award-winning master of the cartoon / comic strip arts. Altho I tend to call him a "cartoonist," most of his work is actually presented in a set of panels with one or more characters / figures often equipped with dialogue ballons. Wry and succinct, his characters usually avoid picturing negative stereotypes. Given his situation, he mostly creates Palestinian and/or Israeli figures, both kinds alike attesting to Yaakov's general good humour, even in one of the most difficult places to maintain that spirit. Yaakov often supplies a note and a link that fills in the news item to which he may be responding in his comic strip of the day:

For those of you who don't know about the Palestinian Nakba Disaster Holiday click [Further Resources link on mainpage for the blog-entry].

Further Resource:

Nakba Holiday
More on Nakba Holday

Tags: Cartoonist looks at two events in the Palestinian calendar

• aesthetics
• aesthetipol
• arts
• cartoons
• comicstrips
• politics
• politicsisrael
• politicspalestinianhamas

Politics: USA, Connecticut: Extreme leftDems try to axe Lieberman

.
Leftwing Democrats have ganged up on Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut in an effort to deny him a win in the August 9 primary to represent his party in the November national elections this year. Lieberman's unacceptablity to this take-over tendency: he supports the War effort and the troops in Iraq, he supports the war effort and troops in Afghanistan, he supports the State of Israel, he supports the faith-based and community initiatives to pluralize the federal level of the American welfare system, he is himself a man of faith, an Orthodox Jew, a former candidate for US President. Washington Time's Eric Pfeiffer reports (Jul 7,2k6):

Three leading Democrat senators -- John Kerry of Massachusetts, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York -- have said they will support Mr. Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont, if he wins the Aug. 8 primary. Mrs. Clinton has endorsed Mr. Lieberman for the primary, but Mr. Kerry and Mr. Feingold have pointedly refused to do so. ...
The split of support for Mr. Lieberman among Democrats centers on a battle for the party's national identity. Mr. Lieberman has been a vocal supporter of the war in Iraq, which has drawn the ire of many liberal bloggers.

But Sen Lieberman is a liberal, is a Democrat, on the litmus test of concerns for the poor not met directly by the free market, he comes down on the side of the poor but he does try to balance the way programs are developed with sense of real fiscal responsiblity (egads!, does that make him a "moderate"?).

"The most radical fringe is running the show," said National Republican Senatorial Campaign spokesman Brian Nick. "Hillary Clinton and John Kerry want to be president, so they have abandoned him."
Such important liberal [and virulent - P] voices in the Internet "blogosphere" as DailyKos, MoveOn.org and Arianna Huffington have endorsed Mr. Lamont, often condemning Mr. Lieberman in very harsh terms as a political sellout. Mr. Lamont's campaign has run an ad showing Mr. Lieberman morphing into President Bush.

Not all Democrats have cut and run from Sen. Lieberman.

[Democratic Senate Campaign Committee] spokesman Phil Singer told the New York Daily News, "Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and the DSCC are supporting Joe Lieberman in the primary. We aren't going to speculate about what happens next." ... [Lieberman] has received a number of high-profile endorsements, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, fellow Connecticut Democrat Christopher J. Dodd and 17 Democratic members of the state legislature. More than a dozen other locally elected Democrats have also endorsed Mr. Lieberman.

From refWrite's standpoint, the re-election of Lieberman in the Connecticut Democrat primary and in the upcoming Nov federal election would be a plus for the American people ... and we should add, for the people of the developing democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan (to dwell on point of attack by the Dem extreme Left). The Senator's website gives us a brief profile of his fields of specialization within the Senate's system of committee work:

Senator Lieberman is Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (formerly the Governmental Affairs Committee), which is responsible for assuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government. In addition, he is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee; Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on AirLand Forces and sits on the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities; and the Small Business Committee.

Senator Lieberman is also a former Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which is "an idea center, catalyst, and national voice for a reform movement that is reshaping American politics by moving it beyond the old left-right debate." The DLC, like Senator Lieberman, advances public policy that honors the core American values of responsibility, opportunity, and community.

refWrite endorses Senator Joe Lieberman in the upcoming August 8 Democratic primary election.

–– Politicarp

Updates Jul 6,2k6: Lieberman's leftie opponent Lamont in Dem primary seriously misrepresents Senator's views .... Lieberman develops Plan B to run as Independent if Dem Primary dumps him

Further Resources:

Lieberman's work for faith-based&community initiatives (circa 2k1)
Lieberman leadership on faith-based&community initiatives (Aug7,2k1)

Diplomacy: Canada: Harper visit to Bush a solid success in Canadian diplomacy

.
Canada's Stephen Harper, Prime Minister for only a few months and head of a minority govt, reversed the brittle and narrowminded relations with the US that had been sponsored by the Liberal predecessor govts for the last 13 years. The occasion of the visit was both the American national holiday and the personal celebration of the American President's birthday.

On the agenda of the bilateral discussions were a host of heavy-duty world problems. Iran's nuclear-bmob ambitions, and North Korea's fireworks were among them.

But, perhaps even more important in the immediate situation, was what Toronto's Globe and Mail termed Harper's "caution" to his American counterpart on easy passage across the border between the two countries. This ties in with the hottest of all issues in the States: the massive ongoing influx of illegal immigrants over the US-Mexican border.

Canada

continued ...
America is super-border sensitive since 9/11, and is becoming more so since whole new bureaucracies are tasked with filling each and every security gap, no matter how intractable. In the face of the clear implications of this concern at large in the US and Bush's own limited political reconfiguration space, Harper went to argue for an assymetrical solution to American border issues between Mexico and Canada.

Dissuading Americans from the widely held belief that lax immigration policies have made Canada a haven for Islamic terrorists plotting cross-border strikes remains the No. 1 job for Canadian diplomats.

But bringing Mr. Bush on side won't persuade those in Congress who are seeking far tougher border restrictions.

Mr. Bush noted that Mr. Harper had given him an earful on the issue. He repeatedly said he was keen to satisfy Canadian demands for either a delay or some simple solutions to the law that will require passports or equivalent documents for land border crossings in 18 months.

No longer will Canadians or Americans be able to breeze across the border with a drivers' licence and a claim of citizenship.

"I would hate to see a law go into place that has the effect of not just limiting or endangering trade or tourism, but endangering all those thousands of social interactions that occur across our border every day and are the reason why Canada and the United States have the strongest relationship of any two countries, not just on the planet, but in the history of mankind," Mr. Harper said.

Mr. Bush was sympathetic to Canadian concerns, saying that as a former Texas governor he had first-hand knowledge of the ebb and flow of Mexican day workers crossing the Rio Grande and needing simple documents.

"If the Congress provides flexibility, of course we will work with the Canadian government to extend deadlines," Mr. Bush said. "If the Congress says, 'No, this is what our intent is,' we will work with the Canadian government to make the law work.''

When Harper used the argument > "endangering all those thousands of social interactions that occur across our border every day and are the reason why Canada and the United States have the strongest relationship of any two countries, not just on the planet, but in the history of mankind" > he seemed to resonate the language used by Russ Kuykendall of Work Research Foundation (WRF) in a major article in Policy Options, "Six Trade Corridors to the US: the lifeblood of Canada's economy."(Jul,2k6). The former part of Harper's argument > "I would hate to see a law go into place that has the effect of ... limiting or endangering trade or tourism"> is formidably buttressed by the Kuykendall article just cited, but is also definitively demonstrated in Michael van Pelt's and Kuykendall's impressive WRF title, Greenlighting Trade: A Trade Corridors Atlas that analyzes in the framework of six different industrial sectors how Canada actually conducts its trade with the US, with a favourable balance upon which Canada depends economically. Harper's argument is precisely what Van Pelt and Kuykendally have documented and disseminated, as much for the sake of Canadians who have swallowed the Liberal/NDP constant attack on the US and have forgotten just how exactly Canada needs good relations with our huge neighbour to the South.

–– Politicarp

Further Resources:

Stop US Border plan, says National Post
PM to US: Delay new passport law, says Ottawa Citizen

Politics: Mexico: Calderon wins by slimmest margin, election results contested by the Left

.
The legal winner of Mexico's presidential vote by a plurality (not a majority) is the conservative candidate of the National Action Party (PAN), the party of the preceding president, Vincente Fox. If confirmed by the deadline of September 6, PAN's Felipe Calderon will take office December 1 to serve for a single six-year term.

Update Jul 8,2k6: Calderon asks US, Canada help create Mexican jobs
Update Jul 9,2k6: Mass demo to reverse vote count, put Leftists in power

North America > Mexico


His opponent, with an excessively long name that I shall abbreviate to Lopez Obrador, lost conversely by the slimmest of margins (altho he did not come anywhere near a majority either, and is, after a recount, at best winner likewise of a plurality of 35+%, against the 35+% of Calderon (the official count separates them by only .06%). In the parliamentary elections the two leading parties are similarly close, but other parties will gain the remaining 30% of the seats. So the parliamentary politics of shifting alliances from issue to issue are expected.

Meantime, Lopez Obrador is claiming he lost the vote by fraud; and he's demanding a recount of every single ballot cast. To pressure the Federal Electoral Tribunal to that end LO has called his followers into the streets on tomorrow in order to intimdate the court. Meanwhile, Calderon is outlining his program, and called for a "unity government" including leaders of other political parties, and in the process has offered Lopez Obrador a cabinet post. Perhaps, Minister of Street Cleaning

For both the USA and Canada and the people of Mexico, the confirmation of Felipe Calderon is the best way out of underdevelopment and poverty. For the US, the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico remains the most immediate and difficult issue. One important strategy would be for the US and Canada, also, to encourage investment in the Mexican economy. This could help take off some of the pressure of massive illegal immigration over the borders by Mexicansw and others. But we shouldn't be surprised that to the degree a change occurs for the better in Mexico's economy, the more Mexico itself will be subjected to massive further illegal immigration from beyond its own southern border.

The countries to Mexico's south have the same demographics of h+ birthrates, little education, little economic infrastructure, little employment for each cohort of yourng men and women entering or desiring to enter the job market.

––Politicarp

Further Resources:

No concession of defeat from Lopez Obrador

Tags: Netherlands_leads_intrntn_aid

• politics
• politicsmexico
• mexico
• mexicoprezelection
• voteclose
• calderonfelipe
• lopezobrador

Holiday: Patrotic: The 4th of July, USA

.

Happy

.
Fourth of July

.
Independence Day, United States of America

War: Palestine: Hamas govt begs Israel for more war, a Kirschner cartoon

.

An original cartoon by Yaakov Kirschner©June 30, 2006
Digitally republished with the artists' permission

Politics: Mexico: Presidential vote split evenly on "quick count" between Left and R+t

.
As of Monday, July3,2k6, the electoral forces of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador representing the Left in all its factions under the banner of the Democratic Revolutionary Party, and the forces of Felipe Calderon of the National Action Party (successor candidate to the current Mexican President, Vincente Fox, and his Energy Ministry at 43 yrs old), together they had lined up with a dramatic evenness, leaving the former dictatorship of a unitary state, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) trailing at a very distant third.

Roberto Madrazo, candidate of the PRI, which ruled Mexico for seven decades until 2000, was never a factor in the race. He cast his ballot in Villahermosa on the oil-rich Gulf coast, saying he was sure he would win.

But in Mexico City, the streets belonged to the leftists, who flocked by the thousands into Zocalo Square, eating tamales from street vendors and waving communist flags.

Even the legendary Subcomandante Marcos -- the Zapatista leader who became a hero to the impoverished indigenous population -- showed up in Angel of Liberty Square, wearing his black mask and smoking a pipe.

He immediately was surrounded by Marxist groups, labor unions and Indians. Only a tight circle of supporters prevented him from being crushed by the crowd.

It will take a few days for the detailed count to be completed. Stay tuned.

––Politicarp

Further Resources:

BBC UPdate: Calderon leads by 1%, as counting of votes continues
Conservative edges ahead in Mexican vote, recount ordered, Jul 3,7pm