Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Poverty Increasing Due to the Capitalist Crisis

Poverty Increasing Due to the Capitalist Crisis

New figures illustrate the failure of the system to meet people’s needs

By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire

An Associated Press investigation has further revealed that poverty is increasing at a significant rate inside the United States. This conclusion was drawn from a survey of economists, research centers and assorted academics with varying political viewpoints.

The general view of those consulted indicates that the 2011 Census data will show that the 2010 poverty rate of 15.1 percent will rise to 15.7 percent. This would place the poverty level at the same place as it was in 1965.

As the capitalist crisis continues and deepens in many ways, the number of people impacted by unemployment, underemployment, industrial restructuring, the foreclosure and eviction epidemic, the lowering of salaries and work benefits, is accelerating. Economic growth overall is miniscule and in European states closely allied with the U.S., recession has already been declared in Britain and the Eurozone countries.

The increase in poverty is most severe among the nationally oppressed communities. African Americans have the highest rate of poverty at 27.5 percent. Latina/os are not far behind with a poverty rate of 26.7 percent.

Overall it is estimated that 47 million people are living in poverty in the U.S. This represents 1 in 6 people residing in the country. (Atlanta Black Star, July 23)

At present the federal government says that in 2010 a family of four had to make for than $22,314 in order to rise above the poverty level. For an individual one had to earn more than $11,139.

However, these income figures are quite low. Most families who are earning much more than these above cited incomes feel strongly that they are in poverty.

The Atlanta Black Star report says that “An additional 9 million people in 2010 would have been counted above the poverty line if food stamps and tax credits were taken into account.”

The intensifying attacks on public education and public sector jobs, incomes and benefits will also contribute to the impoverishment of the working class and oppressed. The high foreclosure rates in the cities and suburbs will also contribute to the decline in educational and municipal employment as a result of the subsequent draining of tax revenue and consumer spending.

Some of the key findings of the Associated Press report say that poverty will remain above the pre-recession level for many years to come. This same report also predicts that poverty will increase in the suburbs as well which is now at 11.8 percent.

Poverty will also rise among part-time workers and people over 65 years old. In addition, poverty among children will climb above its 22 percent level of 2010.

Presidential Election Politics and Poverty

With this being an election year it is not surprising that this survey on poverty in the U.S. has not gained widespread media exposure and become a focus of debate between the Republican and Democratic contenders. In fact there has been virtually no discussion on the deepening crisis within the economy and the way forward in regard to job creation and poverty elimination.

In 1959, the first year that poverty rates were measured by the federal government, the rate stood above 22 percent. The lowest level was recorded at 11.1 percent in 1973.

The decline in poverty between the late 1950s and the early 1970s can be attributed to the upsurge in the civil rights and Black Power movements that reached unprecedented heights during this period. The administrations of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were forced to address the mass demonstrations, rebellions and labor actions among the African American population and other oppressed and progressive forces.

Reforms were implemented that created Medicaid, Medicare and other social welfare programs. Affirmative Action programs were enacted to give meaning to the Civil Rights, Voting Rights and Fair Housing bills of 1964-68.

Peter Edelman, the director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, said that “The issues aren’t just with public benefits. We have some deep problems in the economy.” (Atlanta Black Star)

Edelman continued pointing out that “The problem is that the tidal wave of low-wage jobs is dragging us down and the wage problem is not going to go away anytime soon.” Even the Federal Reserve Chairman recently stated the current official unemployment rate of 8.2 percent would not improve much over the next several years.

The stagnation of the U.S. capitalist economy and the overall worsening conditions for the masses of working people and oppressed will not be resolved by providing more tax cuts to the rich. Neither can progress be made by proposing job creation initiatives that largely involve tax credits and other incentives to businesses for the hiring of workers and youth.

Both political parties allied with the ruling class have no plans or programs to eliminate joblessness and poverty. Consequently, the solutions to these problems must come from those most seriously affected, the working class and the oppressed.

There needs to be demands put forward for a series of programs which will mandate the creation of tens of millions of jobs for people throughout the country. It is also necessary to provide everyone with a guaranteed annual income, healthcare coverage, quality education and housing.

Moreover, the crisis is not limited to the U.S. but is worldwide. On the European continent jobless figures in Spain are above 25 percent and remain very high in France, Greece and Italy.

The national debt is skyrocketing in the European states as the municipal debt is increasing exponentially in the cities and suburbs of the U.S. Numerous cities are facing bankruptcy and other emergency financial measures imposed by the courts and state governments at the aegis of the banks and corporations.

Socialism: The Only Way Out

Since the capitalist crisis shows no sign of abating, it is necessary for those who are genuinely committed to the liberation of the workers and the oppressed to expose the fact that a new economic system is needed in the U.S. and throughout the imperialist world. This economic system is socialism, where the wealth of the society as a whole will be utilized for the benefit and uplifting of the majority.

Socialism could bring about full-employment for workers and oppressed people through the production of goods and services that are needed by the people. Vast sums of wealth, property and land could be transferred to the masses in order to increase incomes and provide the necessary conditions for the elimination of exploitation and class stratification.

The special oppression of African Americans, Latina/os, Asians, women, LGBTQ communities, youth and seniors could be addressed directly under socialism. All oppressed groups would be able to realize self-determination and full equality.

In order for this to take place there must be a revolutionary party that can organize and provide the theoretical and ideological basis for the transformation of society. The utter bankruptcy of the two-party system in the U.S. is reflected in the lack of real debate and discussion around fundamental issues of concern to the majority of people within the country.

Politics through character assassination and slander is not the way forward. The organizers of today must expose the fact that a programmatic struggle is needed to address the concerns of the workers and oppressed and this can only be done through a movement that is independent of both capitalist parties.

Zimbabwe Moves Forward Despite Western Sanctions

Zimbabwe Moves Forward Despite Western Sanctions

Conditions for African farmers improve under land reform, indigenization

By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire

Over the last 14 years the government of the Republic of Zimbabwe in Southern Africa has been under vicious attack by the imperialist states. In 1998 it became clear that some action would be taken on the long-delayed promises of land redistribution to African farmers dispossessed during the colonial era beginning in the late 19th century.

The country gained its national independence in 1980 after more than a decade of armed struggle led by the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU-PF) and the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU-PF). Both liberation movements joined together during the late 1970s and formed the Patriotic Front to coordinate armed actions and to receive adequate assistance from the Organization of African Unity Liberation Committee and other internationalist forces.

Zimbabwe, formerly known under colonialism as Rhodesia, was one of the most prosperous of British colonies. The rich agricultural soil and the vast deposits of diamonds made the country a source of tremendous wealth for mine owners and commercial European-settler farmers.

In 2000 a movement of revolutionary war veterans backed-up by legislation seized the land controlled by several thousand descendants of the British colonialists. Land holdings were broken up into smaller farms and millions of Africans were given access to agricultural production as stakeholders and not subservient low-wage workers.

The advent of the land redistribution program of 2000 brought tremendous pressure upon the ZANU-PF government which had subsumed ZAPU in late 1987. Economic sanctions were leveled against the country by Britain, the United States, the European Union and Australia.

For many years the land redistribution program was attacked in the western corporate media as the source of the economic crisis in Zimbabwe. An opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), was formed and bankrolled by the displaced white settlers and their allies in the imperialist countries.

Numerous efforts were undertaken to plot regime-change strategies against Zimbabwe. The corporate media played an instrumental role in these destabilization programs to the extent of printing outright falsehoods and provocative appeals for the removal of the sovereign government.

However, over the last two years the economic conditions in Zimbabwe have improved. New discoveries of diamonds and the defeat of an effort by the West to prevent these resources from being marketed internationally brought additional revenues to the state.

Economic and political assistance from the Republic of South African and the People’s Republic of China helped in preventing a total economic collapse. The ZANU-PF ruling party created the “Look East” policy that emphasized trade and other economic agreements with African and Asian states.

In 2008 after the national elections had resulted in a political crisis that was being exploited by the West, the ZANU-PF government with mediation from the-then President Thabo Mbeki of the Republic of South Africa, agreed to a Global Political Agreement (GPA) which led to the formation of a coalition government with the MDC which by then had broken up into two factions. MDC faction leader Morgan Tsvangirai was appointed as Prime Minister while President Robert Mugabe of ZANU-PF maintained his post.

Since 2008 the country and government has moved toward stabilization. At present the process of drafting a new constitution is being finalized which will led to another round of national elections.

Corporate Media Takes Different Look at Land Program

Two articles were released in July that shed a positive light on the land redistribution program in Zimbabwe. On July 20 the New York Times through correspondent Lydia Polgreen said that “The success of these small-scale farmers has led some experts to reassess the legacy of Zimbabwe’s forced land redistribution, even as they condemn its violence and destruction.” (NYT)

Although the Times article regurgitates the false claims of widespread corruption within the agrarian program that favored the membership of the ZANU-PF ruling party, the article was forced to admit upon direct observation that “tens of thousands of people got small farm plots under the land reform, and in recent years many of these new farmers overcame early struggles to fare pretty well…. The result has been a broad, if painful, shift of wealth in agriculture from white commercial growers on huge farms to black farmers on much smaller plots of land.” (NYT)

Another article published in the Standard newspaper reports on the rising incomes within the Tobacco industry from the previous slump. The article notes that “Tobacco production had dipped following the chaotic land reform program to 48 million kg in 2008 from the peak of 236 million kg in 2000.” (Standard, July 29)

This same article goes on to point out that “The rebound in Tobacco production started in 2009. Although some tobacco farmers complained about the relatively low prices, most of them were happy with the price and the organized manner in which the crop was sold, unlike in previous years.”

Prior to the land redistribution program the tobacco industry was dominated by less than 2,000 white farmers. Today 60,000 farmers, most of whom are African, have raised production levels over 300 percent in a four year period.

The New York Times quotes Stuart Mhavei, a farmer who supports the ZANU-PF party of President Mugabe, saying that his small plot of land has earned him $US 10,000 this season.
He emphasizes his support for the party asking the question “Why should one white man have all this?” pointing at the vast land surrounding him. “This is Zimbabwe. Black people must come first.”

Implications of Zimbabwe Reforms

The land redistribution program in Zimbabwe is being followed-up by other efforts aimed at creating greater incomes and wealth among the indigenous population. The indigenization programs are aiming to create independent diamond miners and owners of the lucrative industry.

It has been estimated that the repository of diamonds in Zimbabwe are some of the largest in the world. The harnessing of these resources and their equitable distribution could raise living standards tremendously in Zimbabwe.

On a regional level there is enormous interest in developments related to agrarian reform. In South Africa and Namibia, whose African populations have not been given back the land stolen by the European settlers under colonialism, long for the days when they can undergo a similar transformation taking place in Zimbabwe.

The imperialist states are very concerned about the success of the land redistribution program in Zimbabwe. If the same initiative is taken within mining and finance it would threaten even further the grip of international capital on the resources and wealth of the people of southern Africa and the continent as a whole.

Progressive forces in the U.S. and other capitalist states should follow developments in Zimbabwe and defend the right of the people to self-determination and sovereignty. Progressive and revolutionary initiatives aimed at the re-allocation of wealth should be supported and sanctions against such efforts, as in Zimbabwe, should be opposed and condemned.

Abayomi Azikiwe, PANW Editor, Featured on Press TV World News: 'Revival of Egypt Economy Needs Huge Work'

Revival of Egypt economy needs huge work: Analyst

To watch this interview with Abayomi Azikiwe, director of Pan-African News Wire, from Detroit, just click on the website below:
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/07/29/253299/egypt-econ-revival-needs-huge-work/

Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:43AM GMT

The new Egyptian prime minister has postponed the announcement of a
new cabinet until next Thursday.

Hisham Qandil has been in consultations with candidates since President Mohamed Morsi appointed him to the post of prime minister last week.

The 50-year-old former irrigation minister has stated that he will pick ministers based on their competence, and says he might include many technocrats in his government.

The new team will replace another group appointed by the generals of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which took power in February 2011, after the Egyptians launched a revolution against the pro-Israeli regime in January, which eventually brought an end to the 30-year dictatorship of former President Hosni Mubarak.

Under a constitutional declaration issued on June 17, the SCAF took control of the state budget and gave itself veto power over a new constitution, diminishing President Morsi’s powers.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Abayomi Azikiwe, the director of Pan-African News Wire, from Detroit, to further discuss the issue. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: How do you evaluate the choice of prime minister by Mr. Morsi?

Azikiwe: I think that he’s attempting to build a national consensus by bringing in Mr. Hisham Qandil as the premier of the new government in Egypt.

It appears as if he’s attempting to negotiate with various political forces throughout the country in regard to establishing a new cabinet. This is probably the reason why there’s been this delay until this coming Thursday to announce the new cabinet that’s going to be seated in Egypt.

Several parties have been consulted in the entire process. Some have agreed to participate. Others have declined to participate.

I think it’s designed to build some type of national broad-based government inside of Egypt because that is going to be necessary in order to tackle the myriad of problems that have been left in regards to the legacy of Hosni Mubarak over the last three and a half decades.

I think this process is somewhat a tedious process but it’s necessary in order to move forward in any type of stable governmental structure in Egypt.

Press TV: Taking into consideration the fact that Mr. Qandil was in the cabinet of Mr. Ganzoori and, of course, the new prime minister says he is having consultations ahead of forming a cabinet, I'd like to know with whom he is having consultations.

Azikiwe: In all likelihood there’s intense discussions that are going on with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces because they don’t want to create any more tension between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military apparatus in the country.

Also, the other parties, the more secular parties, parties who also may be Islamists but are not part of the Freedom and Justice Party, will of course have to undergo some consideration. Also, some of the more nationalist organizations as well who have a long tradition of politics in Egypt itself.

I would say that all of these forces would have to be consulted in the formation of this new cabinet.

Press TV: One of the things expected of a prime minister is that he should be able to help the economy. Does Mr. Qandil have the experience and wisdom and the competence for economics taking into consideration his activities in the Irrigation Ministry?

Azikiwe: This is probably the reason why he was chosen. He is a US-educated technocrat. I think it’s necessary for them to be able to relate to Western economic forces that have played a very dominant role inside of Egypt over the last 30-plus years.

The economy is going to require a tremendous amount of work. First of all, the question of natural gas resources and trade with the state of Israel is going to be a very important aspect of the economic restructuring of Egypt because this has been disrupted as a result of the mass demonstrations that have taken place since last January 2011, and also sabotage of the pipelines between Egypt and Israel.

Also the tourist industry is going to take an enormous amount of work to revive tourism inside the country because this has, of course, suffered as a result of the instability that has occurred over the last 16 months inside the country as well.

Then of course, Egypt’s role with the United States is going to be of importance in regard to the extension of investments, the role of the military because that is very important in regard to US-Egyptian relation, and also the question of debt.

There’s been an enormous amount of debt that has built up in Egypt over the last several months because of the stalled economy, the problems associated with tourism, the problems associated with the natural gas industry. So there needs to be some renegotiation between Egypt’s creditors and the government itself in order to put it back on a sound footing.

Sudan President Bashir Turns Down Meeting With South's Kiir

Sudan's Bashir turns down summit with South Sudan's Kiir

Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:13pm GMT

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudan's president has turned down an invitation from the African Union to meet South Sudan's leader on Wednesday to move forward stalled talks to end hostilities, state news agency SUNA said on Tuesday.

The neighbours came close to war when border fighting escalated in April, the worst violence since South Sudan declared its independence a year ago under a 2005 agreement that ended decades of civil war.

African Union-sponsored talks between negotiators from both sides have ground to a halt over disputed issues including where to mark the border and how much landlocked South Sudan should pay to export oil through northern pipelines.

The two countries face the threat of sanctions from the U.N. Security Council if they do not resolve their disputes by Thursday.

Former South African President Thabo Mbeki, the AU's mediator, invited Sudanese leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir to meet South Sudan's President Salva Kiir in Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa on Wednesday, Sudan's foreign ministry told SUNA.

But Bashir turned down the meeting because of a previously scheduled visit to Qatar, the ministry said.

"The government prefers that such a summit should be held after good preparation and planning," ministry spokesman El-Obeid Morawah told the state news agency.

He said a presidents' summit "should not discuss details of negotiations but finalise certain issues to get positive results for the situation of both countries".

The two sides have made progress on oil talks but have still not reached an agreement, Morawah said. Talks over the disputed border will resume on Wednesday, he said.

There was no immediate comment from South Sudan or the African Union.

South Sudan shut down its oil production in January after both sides failed to agree on an export fee and Khartoum started taking oil as what it called compensation for unpaid fees. Oil is the lifeline of both economies.

Sudan accuses South Sudan of supporting rebels in two southern border states and the Western Darfur region, allegations that some diplomats find credible despite denials from Juba.

South Sudan itself accuses its neighbour of bombing its territory. Sudan routinely denies these allegations but Reuters reporters have witnessed several air strikes.

(Reporting by Ulf Laessing; Editing by Pravin Char)

Clinton Set to Promote US Militarism, Anti-China Rhetoric In Africa

Terror, China top Clinton's agenda in Africa tour

Published July 31, 2012
Associated Press

Growing security threats from Islamist militants and China's increasing influence throughout Africa are topping the agenda as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton begins an 11-day swing around the continent.

Clinton departs Tuesday for her latest marathon overseas journey, which will take her to at least six African nations, including the world's newest country, South Sudan, as well as Uganda, Kenya, Malawi and South Africa.

She will start the tour in Senegal, where U.S. officials say she will give a speech warning African states about the potential perils of Chinese investment, which many development experts claim enriches China at Africa's expense. She will say proper development will blunt the appeal of extremist groups that are gaining power in Nigeria and Mali and still threaten Somalia.

Without mentioning China by name, Clinton will urge African leaders to carefully consider projects proposed by foreign countries that do not demand complete accountability and may encourage corruption to the detriment of the people of some of the world's most impoverished nations, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to preview the speech.

The United States is increasingly concerned about China's growing interest in Africa, the result of its massive demand for energy and natural resources to fuel its exploding economy. U.S. officials, including Clinton, have in the past expressed deep reservations that China is exploiting Africa's raw materials without regard for human rights and democratic principles.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement that Clinton will use the speech in Dakar to praise Senegal's democracy and "highlight America's approach to partnership" across Africa.

Other officials said she would call on Africa's elites and peoples to recognize that their best chances for achieving good governance and better living standards lie with cooperation with responsible partners, like the U.S.

From Senegal, Clinton will traverse the continent to visit South Sudan, Uganda and Kenya.

In South Sudan, she will congratulate leaders on the anniversary of the creation of their country after it split with Sudan. But she will stress the need for the nascent state to make "progress in negotiations with Sudan to reach agreement on issues related to security, oil and citizenship."

Worsening relations between Juba and Khartoum have threatened to re-ignite what had been Africa's longest-running civil war when it ended with a historic peace treaty in 2005. Clinton will be visiting as the United Nations debates possible new measures to ease unresolved tensions that have risen steadily since South Sudan became independent.

In Uganda, where the U.S. recently has deployed a small number of special forces troops to help African militaries combat the brutal Lord's Resistance Army of Joseph Kony, Clinton will return to the security theme.

She will highlight the fact that Uganda is a "key U.S. partner" in regional security efforts and note that American troops are also training Ugandan soldiers, who make up the biggest contingent of an African Union force operating in Somalia to help defend the largely powerless government there from Islamic militants.

Clinton is also expected to raise human rights issues, particularly those related to the gay and lesbian communities in Uganda, which have come under increasing attack from conservative religious figures and lawmakers.

From Uganda, Clinton will travel to Kenya, where in addition to urging Kenyan leaders to hold peaceful, free and fair national elections in 2013, she will also meet Somali officials and underscore U.S. support for completing a planned political transition later in August.

After a brief stop in Malawi, Clinton then heads to South Africa, where she will continue a strategic dialogue with South African officials, promote U.S. business in the country and pay her respects to former President Nelson Mandela, who recently celebrated his 94th birthday.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/31/terror-china-top-clinton-agenda-in-africa-tour/print#ixzz22DM016U6

Security in Focus As Clinton Heads to Africa

Security in focus as Clinton heads to Africa

1:02am EDT
By Andrew Quinn

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton departs this week on a trip that will take her both to Africa's newest nation, South Sudan, and on a visit to the continent's elder statesman, 94-year-old anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela.

While Clinton's public focus will be on Africa's democratic achievements and economic potential, the trip also underscores U.S. security ties in the face of an array of growing threats --from Islamist extremists to narcotics cartels.

"The security threats are becoming much more visible and in some ways dangerous than they were before," said Jennifer Cooke, the head of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"There are big global issues on the table, and the U.S. does not have the kind of finances available to mount splashy new economic initiatives in Africa."

Clinton's trip -- potentially her last as America's top diplomat -- begins on Tuesday in Senegal, and continues on to South Sudan, where she will be the most senior U.S. official to visit since the country declared independence in July 2011.

Further stops include Uganda, Kenya, Malawi and South Africa, the State Department said.

Clinton is expected to highlight U.S. programs on development, education and HIV/AIDS -- long the backbone of U.S. engagement with Africa -- as well as U.S. economic interest in a continent whose rich resources and enviable growth rates have drawn rival suitors including China and India.

She will also likely emphasize projects for women and girls, one of her central themes in a job she says she will leave in January even if President Barack Obama is elected to a second term.

But Clinton's visit is also part of a U.S. push to broaden security partnerships with key countries such as Uganda and Kenya -- ties that are growing fast despite sometimes serious U.S. concerns over democratic governance.

UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

Obama laid out his policy for Africa in a speech in Ghana in July 2009, saying the United States stood ready to help African nations as they work to improve governance, fight corruption and resolve regional conflicts.

His speech led to widespread hopes on the continent that the first U.S. president with African roots would follow through with new policies to help achieve those goals.

But his administration has not launched major new initiatives such as the Clinton-era trade pact that granted tax breaks to African goods or President George W. Bush's AIDS initiative of 2003, which committed billions of dollars to the fight against HIV/AIDS on the continent.

"Africans will always see Obama as one of our own, so we are reluctant to criticize," said Mwangi Kimenyi, a Kenyan academic and director of the Africa Growth Initiative at the Brookings Institution.

"But it turns out our expectations for the president were a bit overrated and unrealistic. He could have been more courageous and done more."

The White House last month released a policy paper on Africa, repeating its commitment to strengthening democracy and spurring economic growth but lacking a single signature project which could cement Obama's Africa legacy.

Instead, attention has focused on AFRICOM, the unified U.S. Africa Command that the Pentagon established in 2007. It is playing an increasingly important role as the United States pumps resources into training African militaries.

Washington has reacted with increasing alarm as militant groups such as Somalia's al Shabaab, Nigeria's Boko Haram and al Qaeda's African wing based in the vast Sahel region open new fronts to advance Islamic extremism.

Concern over the Sahel has spiked since March when a coup in Mali opened the door to al Qaeda-linked Islamists in the north of the country, leading some analysts to say the lawless region could become an "African Afghanistan."

J. Peter Pham, director of the Africa program at the Atlantic Council, said Washington's emphasis on security, coupled with the lack of new economic initiatives, had shifted the balance in U.S. ties with Africa.

"It is militarization by default," Pham said. "Part of the reason is the U.S. interest in fighting al Qaeda, and part of it is because of the weakness of our African partners which are unable to contain these threats themselves."

DIVERGING PRIORITIES

The diverging U.S. priorities in Africa will be on display when Clinton visits Uganda, frequently cited as both a strong security partner and a country where democratic gains are under threat.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni's troops make up most of the African Union force attempting to stabilize Somalia and are now working with 100 U.S. military advisers to track down fugitive warlord Joseph Kony, perhaps Africa's most wanted man.

But opponents also criticize Museveni for what they say is his increasingly authoritarian rule, and the United States has joined other donor nations voicing concern over proposed tough new laws on homosexuality that have sparked an outcry among gay rights advocates.

The State Department said Clinton would use her visit "to encourage strengthening of democratic institutions and human rights, while also reinforcing Uganda as a key U.S. partner in promoting regional security."

Cooke of CSIS said Uganda was an example of the partnerships that the United States may be willing to maintain to advance broader security goals.

"It recalls the Cold War where the big security threat trumped U.S. support for democracy," Cooke said. "We don't have a lot of leverage with Uganda. They know we need them, and our lectures on good governance have not had any particular effect."

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

Car Bombs Kill 20 in Iraq

July 31, 2012, 10:26 a.m. ET

Two Iraq Car Bombs Kill 20 .

Associated Press

BAGHDAD—Two cars exploded within five minutes of each other Tuesday, killing 20 people and wounding 57 in an upscale Shiite neighborhood in Iraq's capital, officials said.

The afternoon's double blast sent plumes of black smoke over Karradah, a busy shopping district across the Tigris River from the Green Zone. The sounds of gunshots could be heard from blocks away.

The violence brought the July death toll to 244 people killed in shootings and bombings, as al Qaeda seeks to take advantage of political instability in Iraq.

Earlier this month, al Qaeda's leader in Iraq threatened to push back into areas the group was driven out of after sectarian fighting peaked in 2007. A day after al Qaeda issued the threat, shootings and bombings killed 115 people in Iraq's deadliest day in more than two years.

Tuesday's explosions came in the middle of Baghdad's rush hour as streets were clogged with people heading home from work.

Police said the first car blew up near a restaurant at a Karradah square, and down the street from a police station and a security checkpoint. Six people were killed and 21 wounded.

Five minutes later, the second car blew up outside an Iraq passport office a miles away, killing 14 and injuring 36. The attack also came about 400 yards from a major Interior Ministry headquarters.

Saadoun Hussein was selling cigarettes in a small nearby shop where the roof partially caved in from the second blast. He escaped unharmed.

"I think that terrorists were intending to attack the passport directorate, but failed to reach their target because of the traffic jam," said Mr. Hussein, 23.

Security forces and government offices are top targets for insurgents seeking to prove how unsafe Iraq remains. Six policemen were among the killed, and another 16 were hurt in the blasts.

Police and health officials confirmed the casualties but spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

US and Pakistan Sign NATO Convoy Deal for Afghan War

US and Pakistan sign Nato Afghan convoy deal

Pakistan and America signed a deal regulating Nato convoys travelling to Afghanistan on Tuesday as the two countries try to patch up the differences that almost led to a breakdown in their troubled alliance.

By Rob Crilly, Islamabad
2:36PM BST 31 Jul 2012
Daily Telegraph, UK

Islamabad agreed four weeks ago to reopen its roads to supplies destined for international troops, lifting a blockade imposed when American air strikes killed 24 of its troops last year.

However, it is understood that Pakistan also demanded a written agreement that it would be allowed to scan containers in order to ensure that lethal weapons were not being transported across its territory.

While Nato has only ever used the route for food, fuel, building materials and other non-lethal items, Pakistan is wary of criticism from hardline groups that it is helping international forces kill Afghans.

Under the deal signed in Rawalpindi, the home of Pakistan's powerful military, the US will also release £700m under the Coalition Support Fund to reimburse the troubled nation for fighting militants within its borders.

Richard Hoagland, the deputy US ambassador to Islamabad who signed the agreement on behalf of Washington, hailed it as a "demonstration of increased transparency and openness" between the two governments.

Pakistan lifted its blockade after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apologised for the air raid deaths, but a row over security guarantees and compensation have delayed a resumption of normal traffic.

Relations have been strained for more than a year, a period that included the covert US raid to kill Osama bin Laden at his secret Pakistani hideaway.

It comes just a day before the director general of Pakistan's ISI spy agency, Lieutenant General Zaheer ul-Islam, begins a three-day visit to Washington for talks with the head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Officials are briefing that his visit is another sign of warming relations.

"If the DG ISI is in Washington then you know things are moving in the right direction," said a senior Pakistani government official.

So far, however, only a handful of supply trucks have crossed into Afghanistan.

The Torkham border crossing, at the heart of the Kyhber Pass, was closed to Nato traffic last Thursday because of security concerns.

Saadi Gaddafi Wants to Lift Travel Ban

Gadhafi's son seeks waiver of travel ban, lawyer says

By Nic Robertson, CNN
updated 8:05 AM EDT
Tue July 31, 2012

(CNN) -- Saadi Gadhafi, one of the late Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi's sons, has asked the United Nations to let him travel outside the African nation of Niger, his lawyer says.

Gadhafi is under a travel ban because the international police agency Interpol has issued a "red notice" for him, calling for his arrest.

But he fears for his safety in Niger, his lawyer Nick Kaufman said. Saadi Gadhafi fled to Niger as his father's regime collapsed last year.

"There has been at least one assassination attempt," although Gadhafi is under government protection, Kaufman told CNN Monday. They also fear that instability in nearby Mali could affect his safety.

Kaufman has applied to the UN Sanctions Committee for a one-time waiver of Gadhafi's travel ban, Kaufman said.

"He wants to leave," the lawyer told CNN. "I've made an application."

Kaufmann said Niger's Minister of Justice, Marou Amadou, said he did not object: "He told me he has no problem with him [Saadi] leaving the country."

Libya wants Gadhafi handed over to face charges, but Niger has refused because they say Gadhafi will not get a fair trial and his life could be in danger if returns to his home country.

That puts Gadhafi in "a bizarre situation," Kaufman says: he is "under virtual house arrest and not free to gallivant around the city" that he wants to leave for his safety.

Kaufman says Justice Minister Amadou wants Gadhafi gone as long as it is done legally.

Kaufman said Amadou was concerned that the International Criminal Court not object to Gadhafi's travel, but the lawyer pointed out that the court currently has no charges outstanding against Saadi Gadhafi.

Kaufman says Gadhafi is "grateful to Niger" but adds it's in Niger's interests for Gadhafi to leave.

When asked where would Gadhafi go, the lawyer said: "He has certain destinations he like to go to."

He refused to elaborate.

Gadhafi's brother Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, once seen as their father's heir apparent, is in Libyan custody and is the subject of a tussle between Libya and the International Criminal Court, both of which want to put him on trial.

Kaufman says he made the application to the UN sanctions committee for the one-time travel waiver about a month ago.

He says when he didn't get a response in the customary five days he followed up and was told no decision had been reached.

He was informed a party or parties on the sanctions panel "had placed the request on hold," he said.

Kaufman says he fears the block is political.

He says he and his client are not entitled to know which country or countries on the sanctions committee have placed a hold on the decision. Such requests normally get a simple yes or no, he said.

The 15 nations on the Security Council have representatives on the sanctions panel.

A block placed by a nation is only lifted when that nation's term on the security council expires -- and if one of the permanent five Security Council members has placed the hold, the block on the waiver request could last indefinitely.

More US Sanctions Planned Against Iran

July 31, 2012

Deal Struck to Tighten Sanctions Against Iran

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate negotiators reached an agreement Monday night on a new round of sanctions against Iran, cracking down on energy, shipping and insurance sectors with punitive measures intended to derail what the West suspects is Tehran’s push to be able to build nuclear weapons.Lawmakers filed a final bill late Monday, with a House vote expected as early as Wednesday in the last week of work for Congress before its August recess.

“The bill sends a clear message to the Iranian regime that the U.S. is committed, through the use of sanctions, to preventing Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold,” said Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who is chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Senator Tim Johnson, the South Dakota Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said the bill reconciled the House and Senate bills and incorporated new provisions from lawmakers. He vowed to help pass it in the Senate before Congress adjourned.

Unless Iranians “come clean on their nuclear program, end the suppression of their people and stop supporting terrorist activities, they will face deepening international isolation and even greater economic and diplomatic pressure,” Mr. Johnson said.

The two lawmakers and their staff members worked for weeks to come up with a bill. Sanctions have broad bipartisan support in Congress, and officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, said they supported the legislation.

Any company shipping proliferation-sensitive goods to Iran would be subject to penalties under the bill, a provision pushed by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey. The bill would target the National Iranian Tanker Company, the state-run company and shipping line, as the measure tries to undermine the ways Iran ships oil.

The bill would also deny visas to and freeze assets of individuals and companies that supply Iran with technology that could be used against its citizens, like tear gas, rubber bullets and surveillance equipment, and it would extend sanctions on human rights violators to Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad’s government is accused of a bloody crackdown against protesters.

The bill targets Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps and requires companies that trade on the United States stock exchange to disclose any Iran-related business to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The United States and Europe contend that depriving Iran of its oil income would thwart what they suspect is its drive for nuclear weapons. Iran had exported 2.5 million barrels of oil per day to Europe, China, India, Japan and South Korea. American officials say the penalties have reduced those exports to less than 1.8 million barrels per day.

Several proponents of tough sanctions wanted Iran’s energy sector blacklisted and labeled a “zone of proliferation concern,” which would effectively ban all business. But the draft bill says the president should impose sanctions, and the provision is nonbinding.

Lawmakers also pushed for sanctions on the directors and shareholders of organizations like Swift, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, unless they stop providing services to the Central Bank of Iran. The draft bill does not target the directors.

Mark Dubowitz, a sanctions expert and executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, called the legislation a “strong bill that fills numerous loopholes and tightens the sanctions requirements.” He said “it could be a lot tougher” if Congress understood as much about the psychology of sanctions as the legality.

The new legislation builds on penalties that took effect this year. They focus on foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran’s central bank by prohibiting them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It applies only to foreign central bank transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

Monday, July 30, 2012

Libya Has Influenced Our Position on Syria, Says Russian Prime Minister

Medvedev: Libya has influenced our position on Syria

Published: 30 July, 2012, 08:29
Edited: 30 July, 2012, 13:19

Last year’s military intervention of Libya by NATO forces plays a large role in determining Russia’s current stance on Syria, PM Dmitry Medvedev told The Times newspaper in an interview.

Speaking in London, host of the 2012 Games, Medvedev fielded a number of questions, including his impressions of the opening ceremony, the trials and tribulations of Pussy Riot, and his prospects for making another presidential bid.

Q: What did you think of yesterday's Olympic opening?

А: You know, actually, I liked it for several reasons. First, of course, it was a huge and expensive show. It was very, very well organized. Most importantly though, it was a British show. It was not Chinese, or American, or Russian. The atmosphere was genuinely British. I think the central theme (of course, apart from sports, Pierre de Coubertin’s ideas and various historical reminiscences) was British music. It was presented in all its glory. Considering that people all over the world, including Russia, love British music, I think it was a very good idea to use it as a common language, as a communication tool that a large number of people understand. I took a few pictures and posted them on Instagram. Most Russian people who watched the opening ceremony enjoyed it totally. They write in their comments basically the same things I’ve just said.

Of course, as we watched the ceremony, we thought about the future. Our opening ceremony in 2014 will be different, of course. It will be a Winter Olympics, and I think it should not be as long, because this one was more than three hours long. But anyway, I think the specialists who will be staging our ceremony will analyze it and pick up some general principles.

So to summarize, it was very interesting, and they had many good ideas. Rowan Atkinson’s appearance, for example, was really funny. I didn’t expect I would laugh at the opening ceremony. But he was really good and did a good job.

And, of course, the key moment, that is, the lighting of the Olympic Flame, is always very important. Each time, it is a big secret, because the organizers want to surprise everybody. This time, too, it was impressive, as we saw the baton passed from the older generation to young athletes. And, of course, when they lit this great number of petals and the flame went up, this was also unique and really impressed me. And then, of course, there were outstanding athletes like Steve Redgrave. We know him because he was in Russia for our regatta, and I even unveiled a rowing club together with him. So it was very interesting and highly symbolic. My congratulations!

Q: Will Sochi be learning some things from the London Games in terms of organization? Are you cooperating quite closely with London at this point?

A: I think it is absolutely necessary. We are already cooperating, and part of the reason for coming here was to see some things and discuss some things with our colleagues. We have a large delegation here. Some of these people, of course, are here to help the athletes, but apart from that we have the top officials from the Russian Olympic Committee and the key members of the government responsible for the Sochi Games here as well. And they came here not only to promote our Games, but also to exchange ideas and develop cooperation with our partners. I think this is very, very helpful. But actually we have been doing this for quite a long time.

Q: Mr. Medvedev, did you have a chance to talk to David Cameron? Have you had discussions about the state of Anglo-Russian relations? And how would you assess those relations at the moment?

A: When you come to the opening ceremony, your purpose, of course, is not to have fully-fledged talks. But thanks to the schedule our British partners had kindly prepared, I had a chance to talk to about 20 presidents and prime ministers yesterday. The first person I talked to was David Cameron. Given the circumstances, we had a pretty extensive conversation at Buckingham Palace. I can tell you frankly that we discussed everything from British beef exports to Russia, to Syria, of course. We talked about all sorts of things. Of course, I wished David and all the British people good luck with the Games. I said I was certain the XXX Olympic Games would be remembered by all, even though it is not easy for the city and the country in general to organize such an event.

Q: How would you characterize Anglo-Russian relations? They had a very difficult few years. You hosted Mr. Cameron as president. How would you say relations are now? Are there periods of tension that have remained?

A: On the whole, I think our relations are not bad. We did have a period of tension, but this was not the first time in the history of our two countries that this had happened and each time our countries and their leaders were able to turn the page and look to the future, because time goes on and the state of our relations has a serious impact on global affairs. Historically, our countries have been partners. At some points, we were rivals, but then at other points, like at the time of war, we were partners. So short-term difficulties should not make us forget the main thing. We have no other option but to cooperate in all sorts of areas, including economic issues, because we are all concerned about the situation on the global financial markets and in the eurozone. It affects both Russia and the UK. Fortunately, neither Russia nor Britain is part of the eurozone. But we trade with those countries a lot, and Britain is an EU member. This alone is enough to keep us in contact all the time.

As for other issues, there are always some international affairs on the agenda. We have consultations. I can say that it was quite easy for me to work with Mr. Cameron’s predecessor, Mr. Brown. We had a good working relationship, even though he often said, “We have differences on this subject.” This formula was used a lot, but still we had a good relationship. And now, I think both Vladimir Putin and myself have a good working relationship with David Cameron, and we can have a frank discussion on any subject.

There are some difficulties, but we don’t need to emphasize them. Otherwise, we may end up in a deadlock. Actually, I think those difficulties are temporary and insignificant. So on the whole I would say everything’s fine.

Q: You mentioned Syria. This is clearly one of the big international worries at the moment. Russia has had a number of initiatives in trying to solve the situation there. I think David Cameron has a very different point of view from your own point of view. But both sides agree that the Annan plan is perhaps the only political way forward. Do you think that plan still has a chance to succeed given the fact that things are moving so swiftly on the ground?

A: I don’t want to be overly optimistic because the situation is very difficult and very complex. But I don’t think that the Annan plan is no longer relevant, and the reason is because it is a political, peaceful plan. In fact, it may seem that the positions of Russia and Britain, or Russia and the US, are vastly different, but actually they are not that different. We all agree that a full-scale civil war in Syria would be the worst-case scenario. And what we have today is, if you will, the premonition of civil war. A huge number of people have been killed. As usual, both sides are to blame, because they would not listen to each other and come to the negotiating table.

I reminded David yesterday that I had told President Assad more than a year ago that he should act promptly and carry out reforms and, most importantly, build a relationship with the opposition, even though it may be difficult for him, even though he belongs to the Alawite minority, and most opposition activists belong to a different branch of Islam. Syria is a very complex state. It’s much more complex than Egypt or Libya because of all the communities living there: Sunnis, Shia, Alawites, Druze and Christians. They will either find a way to get along or civil war and killings will go on indefinitely. So both sides are to blame. They should come to the negotiating table and find a solution to this very difficult problem. I don’t know what the future political situation in Syria will be like, and I don’t know what role Mr. Assad will have in this future arrangement. It’s up to the Syrian people to decide.

The difference between Russia and Britain on this issue is that we believe talks are the only way, and our partners want to take more drastic measures. But the question is – where is the line between resolutions and a military operation? We saw that with the resolution on Libya. It basically led to international intervention. This is a bad way. Both President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron assured me this is not what they want. So I think the plan is not over, and we should cooperate and continue consultations.

By the way, I discussed the subject yesterday with the Lebanese leader and the Turkish prime minister. So as you can see, the Syrian issue remains high on the agenda even at the Olympics. And since according to the constitution it is up to the president to shape foreign policy, I think Vladimir Putin will present Russia’s position on this issue.

Q: You were president at the time of the Libyan intervention and the diplomatic proceedings that went before the Libyan intervention. Is that experience actually now influencing Russia’s position on Syria? Did you feel that you were somehow betrayed over the Libya scenario and that you don't want to see a similar situation in Syria?

A: Of course, this is influencing our position. In fact, when the situation with Syria started, I said from the very beginning that we would adjust our approach because of what happened with Libya. When the resolution on Libya was adopted, we thought our countries would hold consultations and talks and at the same time we would send a serious signal to the Libyan leader. But unfortunately it ended up the way it did. They kept telling us there would be no military operation, no intervention, but eventually they started a full-blown war that claimed many lives. And most importantly, I think it is a bad way to determine a country’s future. We all share democratic values, but imposed democracy usually does not work. Democracy must grow from inside. Only then does it enjoy popular support. So, what happened with Libya has definitely affected my position and continues influencing Russia’s position on the Syrian conflict.

I believe the past few years have been the most productive ones in Russia-US relations. And I am glad that during this period I had a chance to work with President Obama on resetting our relations. I think we have achieved a lot, even though we still have differences on a number of issues. This is how international politics works: each state is guided by its own national interests the way it understands them. The Americans understand them in their way, the British in theirs, and Russia understands its national interests in its way, too. As a whole though, those were very positive years.

I don’t think that we’ve entered a new era or that Russia is now taking a harder line with regard to the US, as the media claim. I don’t think that our priorities have changed or that the reset is over, that it hasn’t produced any results. This is completely wrong. It has produced many useful results, like the New START treaty. We had no treaty in place but we have one now, and it will determine our interaction for the years to come, even though we have our differences on missile defense. We’ve managed to reset a number of useful mechanisms. We’ve had many consultations on international issues.

This is the first US administration to help Russia join the WTO, and I will always be grateful to Barack Obama for being fair. I remember how one day we were in a car together, talking without interpreters, and he told me, “You know, I’ll help you join the WTO.” And he did. You don’t forget such things. This shows he’s a man of his word.

It is not like something terrible, or extraordinary, is happening in our relations. When some people say our position has changed, they usually do so for ideological reasons. I hope President Putin also has a good working relationship with Barack Obama. In fact, this is already happening. They keep in contact and they write and call each other. This is perfectly normal. Of course, I will do my best to help develop this dialogue as much as I can within the constitution. So everything’s fine.

Q: You mentioned missile defense as a sort of outstanding difficulty that remains between the two sides. Is there any sign that you will come to agreement on this? Or that the US is willing to accommodate your concerns?

A: I think the problem is that no one understands entirely what missile defense actually stands for. What about you – do you have a profound understanding of what missile defense is? I’m sure not. Nor do the Americans, as in, American taxpayers. And as far as Europe is concerned, I’ve been told in private by some of the European leaders, “We don’t want that at all, but the Americans as our senior partners in NATO are insisting.” And that means a lot of money!

But most importantly, there is a question that never seems to get a proper answer: who is the threat that the missile shield is intended to counter? If it’s meant to check nations that pursue unauthorized nuclear programs and design new missiles, then it’s something we can understand. But in that case you need to explain to us why this missile shield and its interceptor missiles can intercept targets coming from Russia – which means they affect our nuclear capability. Now, if the architecture is intended against us, you should go ahead and say so. But that would constitute a disruption of the nuclear parity that Russia has maintained with the United States to this day, and this parity has been a key factor in ensuring security since World War II.

And this is a question we’ve had trouble getting an answer to. The US administration and some European partners keep telling us, “You don’t need to worry, you and we are certainly friends and we collaborate through the NATO-Russia Council, so everything will be alright.” But at the same time, US lawmakers on Capitol Hill are openly saying, “Of course it is against Russia, who else?” There are certainly different people in the Congress, and I prefer not to specify, but the trend itself is very telling.

So I believe NATO should first make up its mind: what is it they really want from their Phased Adaptive Approach? That’s number one, and number two is, what is Russia’s intended role? Because they’ve already turned down the proposal I made at the Lisbon Summit, regarding a joint missile defense architecture that would involve Russia. This is truly regrettable, because that initiative would have enabled us to get past this debate and effectively secure ourselves against the nations that may pose a genuine threat to both Russia and NATO member states. So you’ve turned down that initiative, now why don’t you tell us what’s going to happen next?

There is still time. I’ve mentioned it, and so has our incumbent president. But that time is naturally running out. And unless we manage to agree on something by 2018, a new arms race may become a possibility – which would be extremely bad for all of us, expensive and badly inefficient too.

Q: Mr. Medvedev, I remember listening to you a year ago at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, where you gave a very impressive speech about the future of the economy in Russia and, in particular, the dangers for your economy and the dangers from corruption. And you said that one of the things you would do is to make sure that if an official was accused of corruption, he would be removed from his job while an investigation was going on, to make sure there was no possibility. Do you think enough officials have been removed from their jobs to make it clear that you have overcome this problem? Or is there still a lot to do?

A: I still consider corruption a systemic threat to Russia, or any other country at that. But it is especially true of Russia, because we are a young democracy, and our economic institutions are still largely in the making. That is why I don’t see much progress on our part lately in combating corruption. Yet I have said publicly on many occasions that I’m very proud of having initiated a number of anti-corruption institutions that had simply been non-existent in Russia before. My years of serving as president and promoting the relevant initiatives have resulted in Russia developing anti-corruption laws. And that in itself is important, because it means we’ve acknowledged there’s a problem. Some five or seven years ago, it rarely even made it into public debate: well, yeah, we have corruption, but we’ve always had it. We had it in the Russian Empire, and we had it in the Soviet period. It’s still with us today, so just let it be – that was the sentiment.

Today, we are aware that this is a real systemic issue. We have the necessary regulatory instruments to deal with it. Thousands of public servants have already faced criminal investigations on charges of corruption, and a fair share of those cases result in actual prison sentences. Is that enough? No, it isn’t. We need to work harder and get down to the root causes, we need to upgrade our institutions, and we need to bring perpetrators to justice. By the way, I presided over a session of the Open Government recently, and this is essentially an expert panel set up specifically for such purposes. And the experts have come up with a whole list of new ideas, which I will certainly share with my fellow Cabinet members, and some of those proposals may eventually be implemented by the government.

But we need to keep on working. In principle, any society is confronted at some point or another by new forms of corruption, which government institutions and security agencies turn out to be unprepared for. I studied a review of the British press today, and I’ve noticed that corruption is a popular news topic in Britain, and corruption-related cases are given a lot of attention in London and in other places. This doesn’t mean corruption has gained in scale in the UK, but nevertheless, people are concerned. And that’s natural; people are also concerned about it in Russia. An absolute majority of Russians – no less than half, I’d imagine – regard corruption as a systemic risk for our society, and they believe the government should commit its efforts and its assets to combat this kind of crime. I am sure we’ll continue our work.

Q: You mentioned that Russia is a young democracy, and in recent months we've seen a real flowering of civil society activities, many of which you have responded to and encouraged through changes in the law to make it easier for political parties to register, and other things like that. More recently there's been concern though about laws which appeared to be going in the other direction, registering NGOs as foreign agents for example, imposing tighter restrictions on demonstrations, and the most recent case involving the Pussy Riot girls who are accused of hooliganism. Do you feel that that this criticism is justified, that Russia is somehow becoming less free, or do people really not understand what's happening in Russia?

A: You know, it seems to me that sometimes people just start believing in some phantoms and following some stereotypes. Personally, I don’t think anything special has been happening in Russian legislation in recent months. But if someone wants to prove that Russia has returned to totalitarianism and is rolling back civil rights, it will be very easy for them to find some proof because actually you can do that anywhere, in any country. For example, you mentioned the NGO bill. But the bulk of the bill the State Duma has adopted merely repeats what similar laws in a number of other countries, including the US, say. That’s my first point.

Second, the term “foreign agent” in itself is not a charge. It just reflects the fact that this NGO receives funds from abroad. It is only natural for a state to be concerned by political activities financed from abroad. It is the same all over the world, including the UK and the US. So I think there is nothing wrong with introducing some regulations in this situation. In fact, this law has yet to be applied. I am absolutely convinced that it will have no significant effect on the activities of NGOs involved in politics, let alone those involved in economic and cultural issues. So, we have this bill, but it hasn’t been implemented and so I think there is nothing to argue about. And even if we run into some problems, our lawmakers will be able to adjust this law and this includes the majority party that actually passed this law.

As to other high-profile issues, including the trial you’ve mentioned. Again, I think there is no reason to get excited. No sentence has yet been passed. The case is still under investigation. Indeed, there is a wide spectrum of opinions. In some countries such actions would have entailed far greater criminal liability. In fact, in some countries anyone who committed an act like this in a temple could have come to a rather sad end, no matter what religion the temple belongs to. But in any case, let's wait for the investigation to be completed and for the court to pass its verdict, and then we will be able to say whether there was a crime or not. It is easy to understand why this case has sparked so much controversy. It has to do with how we understand individual rights and freedoms. As I see it, there will always be differences on where to draw the line between ethics and law and how to define when an immoral act becomes a crime. And this is up to the court to decide. It is up to the court to rule whether there is a corpus delicti, in other words, elements of a crime. If there are none, this is a piece of real luck for the perpetrators: they hit the headlines and got away with what they did. But I do understand that for some of these girls being kept in prison is a real ordeal for them and their families.

Q: I was going to ask – you clearly as president introduced quite a few reforms to encourage civil society. Do you feel that civil society is healthy in Russia or is there more that could be done to promote political diversity, political pluralism?

A: On the whole, I think our civil society is getting more and more mature. When I ran for president in 2008, our civil society was less developed. Today our civil society is much more developed, diverse and active. This means our democracy is maturing and our civil society is growing.

Our people were extremely active during the Duma and presidential elections. This shows that they care about their outcome. This doesn’t mean I agree with everything that was said during that period, or that all the accusations against the authorities were false. But in any case it is good that people are so active in expressing their position, provided of course that they don’t break the law. And the authorities should engage in a dialogue with people.

By the way, all the changes to our political system that I presented in December are another result of the development of our civil society. So, I find it ridiculous when people talk about a “rollback” in Russia, or that Russia has abandoned democratic reforms, as we have actually solidified the foundation of our political system in recent years and even improved it.

We have radically changed our regulations for political parties. There will be many political parties now and they will be free to do what they want – again, as long as it is legal. We have reinstated elections for governors. Has anybody cancelled that? No, on the contrary, we are getting ready for these elections, together with the leaders of other political parties. I’ve recently met with the leaders of a number of other parties besides United Russia – of which I am the leader – and they are all preparing for the elections. They all are considering their chances in different places and they are very hopeful. Don’t you agree that this means our political system has changed? Don’t you agree that civil society is developing? So, I think we are doing fine.

Q: Just a final question – two final questions, one from me…

A: Three final questions?

Q: Thank you. You are famous for sending out tweets and directly responding to people who have called in to you. This is direct democracy in action. Do you have time to do that? Do you have time as prime minister now do you think to respond to all the young people who want to talk to you?

A: Absolutely. Right now, absolutely.

Q: Do you think Russia has embraced the whole Internet revolution? Oh, goodness, here we are – broadcast live. Do you think that the older generation has fully understood the complete need for absolute transparency in this kind of direct response from senior officials?

A: You know, this thing I’ve just shown you, and the new information environment in general, is the best safeguard against totalitarianism and a return to our sad past. No government in any country, even in some very complex areas like the Arab world, can ignore the omnipresent communications network that is emerging and developing whether the authorities like it or not.

By the way, the reason the authorities don’t like it is simply because people use it to criticize the authorities, and nobody likes that. I remember what some said about Twitter when there were riots in London. But nobody can do anything about it. We just need to create a proper legal framework for social networks. But you can’t block them. This means that a modern and up-to-date leader can’t afford to ignore this new information environment. Every leader should keep track of what’s going on there.

I think a successful politician must have direct contact with people. In the past, you had to physically go some place, step outside and meet people, and everybody, from emperors to prime ministers and presidents, did that. But this way you can only meet with people once or twice a month and you have a crowd of people standing around you, screaming something, and, of course, you can hear something but there are many things you can’t hear. As a result, all you can get is just bits and pieces. This is totally different.

Every day, I read at least 50 messages left for me via Facebook, Twitter, other social networks or even my website. If it is something important, I issue direct instructions. Sometimes in the morning, before I go to work, I go online and see something very urgent, something truly important. And then I print it out and write my instructions right on this sheet of paper.

In the past, it was unthinkable that the authorities could have this kind of direct interaction with people. I think this is very important. I repeat, if a politician can’t master these tools, he has no future.

Q: That leads actually very nicely to my final question which is: clearly you had an opportunity for a second term as president instead of becoming prime minister. Do you have any regrets about not pursuing the second term and might there be a second term in your future?

A: You’ve answered the question yourself. I am not that old. I am not going to resign from politics any time soon, and I have never said I will never run for president again – of course, as long as our people want me. If our people decide that they have had enough and they tell me good-bye, I’ll take up writing my memoirs.

But I strongly believe that at present there’s no reason for me, or for the political force I represent, to quit politics. So, I don’t rule out anything. Even today, I am very actively involved in politics, I work a lot, and I expect to keep doing that.

Thank you very much. I wish the people of Britain a wonderful Olympics I am sure people will remember it as another achievement in promoting the values of the Olympics, will remember its brilliant victories, the spectacular athletics events and British hospitality.

Violence Continues in Occupied Libya

Convoy of Libyan general attacked in east

July 29, 2012 05:29 PM EST

TRIPOLI, Libya — A Libyan militia commander says a convoy carrying a top Libyan military commander has come under fire in the eastern city of Benghazi.

Abdel-Basit Haroun, a Benghazi militia commander, says that Gen. Khalifa Hifter came under attack Sunday by unknown assailants. He was not hurt. The interim ruling council assigned him to form a national army.

Benghazi and the eastern region of Libya have seen a surge in assassination attempts against former military and security officials. Haroun says 13 were killed over the past month.

On Saturday night, former military intelligence chief Col. Suleiman Bouzz-Redah was killed while on his way to a mosque in Benghazi. He left the regime of Moammar Gadhafi and joined the rebels who overthrew the longtime ruler in a civil war last year.

More US Intervention in Somalia Revealed

Shabelle Media Network (Mogadishu)

Somalia: U.S. Breaks Somalia Arms Embargo, Helping Local Militias Fighting Al-Qaeda

29 July 2012

Washington — Twenty years after it helped establish a United Nations arms embargo on war-torn Somalia, the United States is now violating this international effort by helping local militias fighting Al-Qaeda.

According to the UN's Somalia Eritrea Monitoring Group, the U.S.is carrying out three covert programs to assist Somali fighters in their battles with Al-Shabab, the Somalia affiliate of Al-Qaeda.

The Central Intelligence Agency has reportedly sent officers to the government of Puntland, a semi-autonomous region not recognized by the UN. Also, American Special Forces are fighting alongside Puntland soldiers.

The Obama administration has not notified the UN of these activities, which is required under the embargo established in 1992 after theSomaliacivil war broke out.

The U.S.is not the only country violating the embargo. At least 11 other governments have failed to inform the UN of cargo flights to supply various parties in the Somalia conflict.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

US Rages at Syria Forces Success Against Rebels in Aleppo

US rages at Syria forces success against rebels in Aleppo

Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:35PM GMT
presstv.ir

The US voices outrage at the Syrian Army’s success in clearing Syria’s largest city of Aleppo of anti-Damascus armed groups.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Sunday that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has lost all legitimacy by attacking the armed groups in the city.

"If they continue this kind of tragic attack on their own people in Aleppo, I think it ultimately will be a nail in Assad's own coffin," Panetta told reporters.

"What Assad has been doing to his own people and what he continues to do to his own people makes clear that his regime is coming to an end. It's lost all legitimacy," he added.

This is while Syrian security forces are clearing more areas across the country of militants.

The US official made the remarks ahead of a weeklong trip to the Middle East and North Africa.

The United States has said it is enlarging its assistance to Syria's fractured opposition. Also, according to Reuters, the White House will soon authorize greater covert assistance to the armed gangs.

Washington has already thrown its support behind Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey for arming the Syrian opposition.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. The country says outlaws, saboteurs, and armed terrorists are the driving factor behind the unrest and deadly violence, while the opposition accuses the security forces of being behind the killings.

Western states have been calling for Assad to step down. However, Russia and China are strongly opposed to the Western drive to oust the Syrian president.

Damascus says that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country. There are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals.

Syrian Troops Recapture Key District in Aleppo

Syrian troops recapture key district in Aleppo: TV

English.news.cn 2012-07-30 03:08:37

• Syrian troops on Sunday regained their control of Salahuddien neighborhood, a key battlefield in Aleppo.

• Gov't forces have succeeded in freeing kidnapped people from armed rebels in Damascus and Daraa.

• LCC said at least 31 people were killed Sunday nationwide, nine of them in Aleppo.

DAMASCUS, July 29 (Xinhua) -- Syrian troops on Sunday regained their control of Salahuddien neighborhood, a key battlefield in the week-long clashes in northern province Aleppo, according to reports of a state-run TV.

The state TV said Salahuddien has been purged of armed groups, in reference to rebel fighters.

The neighborhood was the first to fall in the hands of the rebels last week, when they announced the commencement of battles in Aleppo to "liberate it" from government troops. The rebels are the ones who have ignited the spark of fighting in Aleppo.

Meanwhile, the state TV said that the government forces have also succeeded in freeing kidnapped people from the armed rebels in suburbs of the capital Damascus and southern Daraa province.

On the opposition side, the Local Coordination Committees (LCC) said the government troops have shelled the areas of Andan, Hraitan and Zbaidieh in Aleppo.

The group said the Salahuddien neighborhood was also subjected to shelling, adding that at least 31 people were killed Sunday nationwide, nine of them in Aleppo.

The LCC claimed that the rebels have taken control of al-Ahdath prison in Aleppo. It also said that 21 people were killed in the government troops' shelling on Sheikh Miskeen town in southern province of Daraa.

The activists' account cannot be independently verified.

Recently, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said around 17,000 people have died across Syria since the beginning of domestic unrest in Syria early last year.

Editor: Lu Hui

South Sudan Signs Economic Agreement With Israel on' 'Water Technology'

South Sudan Signs Economic Agreement With Israel On 'Water, Technology'

26 July 2012
Sudan Tribune

Khartoum — South Sudan and Israel signed, in the latter's capital Tel Aviv this week, their first economic cooperation agreement which focuses on development of technology and water infrastructure.

According to the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post, the deal was signed during a ceremony held at the Knesset on 23 July, between South Sudan's visiting minister of water and irrigation, Paul Mayom Akec, and on behalf the Jewish state by Zvika Fox, the vice president of strategy and marketing of Israel's Israel Military Industries Ltd (IMI).

Israel's Energy and Water Ministry said the deal outlined plans for cooperation between the two countries on desalination, irrigation, water transport and purification.

It is not clear, however, why the agreement was not signed with the relevant ministry but with the IMI which is a weapon manufacturer specializing, according to its website, in the production of modern land, air and naval combat systems.

Speaking at the signing ceremony, the South Sudanese minister pointed out that his country is facing tough economic times due to its dispute with neighbouring Sudan on oil exports.

In January this year, land-locked South Sudan shut down its daily oil production of 350,000 barrels, the lifeblood of the economy, following a bitter dispute with Sudan on a fair charge to transfer the commodity through the latter's pipelines.

Mayom complained that Sudan is asking for $36 US for every barrel of oil going through its territories, a demand he described as "absolutely unprecedented".

The minister however suggested that the new agreement with Israel could potentially allow South Sudan to transfer its oil to Israeli refineries, which his country also lacks.

"This way we will help you solve various problems in your area," he said. "We will be pleased to examine this."

Israel and South Sudan established diplomatic relations in the wake of the latter's secession from Sudan in July last year.