INDIA - US WANTS TO LINE UP TRADE, PROFIT AND REGIONAL CONTROL

Uncle Sam’s worldview Hussain H Zaidi Monday, August 11, 2014 From Print Edition [...] The US wants to preserve the existing global order based on liberalism. The US also realises that although it is the lone superpower, it cannot control world affairs independently. It needs regional partners or allies, particularly those believing in economic and political liberalism (Japan and South Korea in East Asia, India in South Asia), to control the world. The political expression of liberalism is democracy, while its economic expression is free market economy. Democracy is advocated mainly because it is useful for promoting American interests as autocratic regimes are more likely to breed extremism and terrorism – at present the most potent threat to the US-dominated global order – than representative ones. By the same token, free market economy is advocated because it best suits American companies engaged in international business. Promoting the political interests of the US government and the economic interests of domestic firms is the pivot on which the American policy revolves. And given India’s political and economic credentials it finely fits into this scheme Hence the repeated statements from the US leadership that India – the largest democracy, the world's second largest market, and a nuclear and a rising economic power – is their strategic partner and a natural ally. Washington believes that New Delhi has to play a leading role in achieving durable peace and stability in the region, which is necessary for preserving the global order. Indo-US economic and commercial relations are growing. Merchandise trade between the two countries has gone up from $35 billion in 2009 to $63 billion in 2013 including $22 billion exports from the USA and $41 billion exports from India. This gives India a trade surplus of $19 billion – the country's largest trade surplus with any country. For India, the US is the single largest export market and the 5th largest source of imports. The US would like to push up its exports and investment in India and take a larger pie of the enormous Indian market. Coming back to Kerry's recent visit to India, the first US cabinet level visit after the change of the guards in New Delhi, the occasion was the fifth session of the annual strategic dialogue between the two countries. The latest round itself is being seen as preparing the groundwork for Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the US next month. The joint statement issued at the end of the strategic dialogue, inter alia, reaffirmed US support to India's efforts to have a permanent seat on the UNSC; reiterated the “commitment to eliminating terrorist safe havens and infrastructure, and disrupting terrorist networks including Al-Qaeda and the Lashkar-e-Taiba” and asked “Pakistan to work toward bringing the perpetrators of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks to justice.” As the joint statement shows, any account of US-India relations is incomplete without mentioning Pakistan. At least on paper, the US and Pakistan are also strategic partners and encouraging phrases such as ‘enduring partnership’, ‘shared goals’ and ‘mutual interest and respect’ are employed to characterise Washington-Islamabad ties as well. Yet the two sets of relations are different in terms of both the scale and the dynamics. New Delhi's much bigger economic muscles aside, several irritants have held back the Washington-Islamabad [Pakistan] relations. Take the war on terror. The US has long suspected that in the counterterrorism campaign, Pakistan has been hunting with the hounds and running with the hare. Although the ongoing military operation in North Waziristan, a long-standing US demand, will serve to dampen such suspicion, concerns regarding Pakistan being ‘soft’ on, if not allegedly supporting, non-state actors' involvement in cross-border terrorism is not likely to die down. Likewise, Washington has not conceded to Islamabad's [Pakistan's] demand for transfer of nuclear technology, because it suspects Islamabad does not have a clean record in non-proliferation. The US mediation on Kashmir on Pakistan's terms is also out of the question, as India has been successful in having the world see the militancy in the disputed territory as an expression of religious extremism. It is precisely for this reason that China, also facing religious uprising in its Muslim majority province of Xinjiang, no more supports Pakistan's Kashmir stance. Islamabad, on its part, complains that it has not been adequately compensated for the economic loss caused by the war on terror; that the US aid has too many strings attached to it and is cut off arbitrarily; that at times its sovereignty has been violated by American forces; that Americans have been oblivious to its major demands including a civil nuclear technology agreement – similar to the one with India – having UNSC resolutions on Kashmir implemented, and granting preferential market access to Pakistan exports in what is their single largest destination. Pakistan's problem is not that it's smaller than India but that it is an unstable society governed by a fragile political system – a fatal combination. The position held by such a country in a world power's worldview is qualitatively different from that occupied by a much more stable country. Hence, whereas the US interest in Islamabad consists mainly in the war on terror and nuclear non proliferation, New Delhi has a much larger role to play in Washington's scheme of things. EXRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-266459-Uncle-Sams-worldview

Sounds like the US uses the same old 'partnership' spiel on everyone.

US interest in forming 'partnerships' is to maintain control on a global scale, for US political interests and US corporate interests.

US also wants stability (undisrupted trade) and some of that Indian trade surplus cash.

It appears to have a different relationship with Pakistan, due to the 'fragile political system' in Pakistan.

The US interest in Pakistan is (a) suppression of 'terror' and (b) nuclear non-proliferation.

Sore points for Pakistan are:

• Kashmir
• Insufficient compensation for economic losses (Pakistan bound up in military / 'war on terror' US directives)
• US aid - many strings attached; arbitrary.
• US military violation of Pakistan's sovereignty
• Oblivious to Pakistan demands:

• civil nuclear technology agreement
• Implementation of US Security Council resolutions - Kashmir
• the granting of preferential market access to Pakistan exports

-------------------------------------------------

Found this article an interesting one.

Unfamiliar with the 'war on terror' aspects and with the issue in Kashmir, but aware from other articles/sources that much of the US aid to Pakistan is spent on military rather than economic purposes.

US isn't intrinsically interested in democracy.  

US wants (a) regional stability (b) stable trade (c) free markets (d) strategic and political global control -- and this, by and large, is all about serving corporate American interests.

....................................................................

Checking out Google images out of curiosity, came across some scary looking stuff going on in Pakistan.  

Looks like there's bombings.

Appear to be ordinary people who have got massive guns (machine guns?).  

Loads of violence.

OBAMA WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY - PUTTING LIPSTICK ON PIGS

State Dept to spend over $500k on training staff for congressional grilling Published time: August 10, 2014 17:44 Edited time: August 10, 2014 22:50 The US State Department has approved a $545,000 contract to coach its officials on how to testify before Congress and brief lawmakers. The department had to seek help from a professional firm after a series of embarrassing performances by its staff. The department has hired an Orlando, Florida-based company called AMTIS, Inc. The contract includes classes entitled 'Communicating with Congress: Briefing and Testifying.' It also includes a separate ambassadorial seminar “for building effective relationships with members of Congress and their staffers.” According to the contract, the 'Communicating with Congress' classes will be offered “between three to four times per year. There is a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 15 participants per class.” In addition, there will be individual sessions and classes of mock hearings where officials will testify in front of a panel of experts, who will then give their feedback on the performances. Other topics taught under the contract include “Tips for leveraging State’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs” and “Training and skill-building in briefing techniques,” as well as “Building effective relationships.” [...]

The company also has contacts with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. It worked on two “congressional testimony training sessions” with the Inspector General’s Office at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Washington Times reported. The State Department hired AMTIS following several embarrassing performances by its staffers at congressional hearings. Indeed, some of the State Department senior-level officials will be remembered for their statements. Earlier this year, the White House came under fire over a handful of President Obama's ambassador nominees, who appeared to lack knowledge or expertise about the nations where they would serve. EXRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE SOURCE - RT NEWS - HERE.

The $500,000 of taxpayer money Obama's approved is $500k that could have been spent better had Obama ensured he screened staff and hired able staff in the first place.

The government waste isn't limited to that $500k Obama's blowing; FOUR other government departments have also blown money on attempts to train morons to be more adept at lying to you.

USA-OBAMA & UK-CAMERON - DENY UKRAINE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS - BOTH DESPICABLE

Readout of the President's Call with Prime Minister Cameron of the United Kingdom By Newsroom America Feeds at 9 Aug 14:52 The President spoke this morning with UK Prime Minister David Cameron about the crises in Iraq and Ukraine, and the growing Ebola outbreak in West Africa. On Iraq, the two leaders agreed to provide additional, immediate humanitarian assistance, and to develop options that will secure the safety of the civilians on Mount Sinjar. They discussed efforts to counter the threat posed by ISIL against all Iraqis, and agreed on the need for Iraqi political leaders from all factions to put aside their differences and to form an inclusive government capable of pulling the country together. The President and Prime Minister also discussed the developing situation in Ukraine, and agreed that any Russian intervention in Ukraine, even under purported "humanitarian" auspices, without the formal, express consent and authorization of the Government of Ukraine is unacceptable, violates international law, and will provoke additional consequences. On Gaza, they condemned the resumption of rocket fire and called for an immediate cessation of hostilities leading to a sustainable cease-fire. President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron reiterated support for Israel's right to self-defense while emphasizing the need for all sides to minimize civilian casualties. Finally, regarding the growing Ebola outbreak, the two leaders welcomed the efforts of the World Health Organization, and vowed to increase the assistance provided by the U.S. and UK governments. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/09/readout-presidents-call-prime-minister-cameron-united-kingdom

Sun Aug 10, 2014 3:9 Russia Rejects UK Hammond's Biased Accusations on Ukraine Crisis TEHRAN (FNA)- Russian embassy in the UK rejected biased accusations of British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond over the crisis in Ukraine. “This statement (the Hammond's comments) is unjust, misleading and unacceptable. Russia did not supply and is not supplying weapons to Ukraine," the Russian embassy said in a statement on Saturday, Itar-Tass reported. “We are surprised that the Government of the United Kingdom denies humanitarian disaster in the Donbas region. Even if the media in UK by some unknown reason choose not to inform public on it, does not mean the appalling humanitarian disaster does not exist. Deliberate silence on that is nothing more than bias and distortion of facts," it added. “Despite previous international agreements, including provisions of the Geneva Statement of April 17 and the Berlin Declaration of July 2, Kiev continues a large-scale military operation in this region using heavy artillery, armored vehicles, Grad multi-launch missile systems, causing deaths of Ukrainian civilians and mass destruction of civilian infrastructure," the statement further said. “According to the data of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 1367 people have been killed and 4087 people have been injured (of which 2589 were civilians, including 29 children) since the beginning of this operation. In total, there are about 3.9 million civilians in the area of military action. Vital infrastructure, including power supply and water supply, residential buildings are being destroyed. In some populated areas up to 80 percent of houses are destroyed. About 200,000 Ukrainians have no access to drinking water. In the last week, numbers of internally displaced people (112,000 people according to Ukrainian data) and refugees (163,000 according to Russian Federal Migration Service data) have drastically increased," it went on to say. “The most dramatic situation is in healthcare. About 70 percent of medical personnel were forced to evacuate to safer regions, but those who stayed are in mortal danger, because there is high risk for ambulances to be attacked,” the embassy said in the statement. “British Foreign Office statement does not represent the facts. It is aimed at misleading the international community and general public by pointing in the wrong direction. Instead, the UK should do something to make Kiev regime stop killing innocent civilians, prevent appalling humanitarian catastrophe and start inclusive real political dialogue with all Ukrainian parties." In a statement published on the UK government’s official website on August 8, the UK’s foreign secretary said there were no conditions for a humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Source - Fars News Agency - here.

What they are doing is backing the US puppet government of Ukraine that's shelling the East Ukraine people, in violation of international agreements -- and EVEN MORE DESPICABLE and beyond belief is that they DENY a humanitarian crisis and deny humanitarian aid to 3.9 million Ukrainians who are without everything we take for granted in an intact city.

There's dead; there's injured; there's few medics; there's 3.9 million people in a war zone; there's displaced; there's destroyed homes; there's destroyed infrastructure; there's 200,000 Ukrainians without drinking water.

And they smile sweetly and *deny* a humanitarian crisis.

That is just sick beyond belief.

On top of that, the press is either silent because it's (a) corporate owned or (b) silenced by the government of two nations who are known to conduct mass surveillance worldwide, conduct kidnappings and torture (rendition) jointly -- two representatives of government that no longer serve the people that voted for them and, instead, clearly serve global corporate interests.

Meanwhile, the average person lives in a police state, Obama and Cameron play global pirates and global cops, alongside unelected intelligence services that aren't even answerable to the government -- they're above it.

So who, exactly, is running US and UK?

UK - In Brief

UK in Brief HSBC - now closing Syrian bank accounts (earlier, they'd been closing Islamic accounts connected with charities and individuals associated with charities) Accused of 'shamelessly profiling' customers and accused of Islamophobia  http://rt.com/uk/178900-hsbc-syrian-laundering-closed/ Comment:  Disgusting.  Imagine the outrage if they were closing Jewish bank accounts. 'Jihadist' Flag @ East London Housing Estate Now for the other side of the coin, I guess. Housing estate in Canary Wharf’s East London. Guardian journalists - hassled by abt 20 'Asian youths' and told to leave. Threat to break camera. Passer-by (taking mobile phone photo) harassed about (possibly) being Jewish.  http://rt.com/uk/178908-jihadist-flag-east-london/ Comment:  Don't care what kind of flags people want to fly.  But I am outraged that those entering the neighbourhood were harassed.  No way known should that ever happen.  It's a public place.  Nobody should be in a position where they think they can claim neighbourhoods or suburbs etc.  Something should be done about that. Anti-NATO Summit - 'Campaigners staging 192 Mile Long March on Newport' NATO ... 28-nation military bloc usually attracts protesters No NATO Newport Group, heading out on 19 day 'relay' March http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/peace-activists-march-newport-oppose-7551985 RT News reports that more than 20,000 protesters around the world are expected to take part in demonstrations and that UK's drafted 9,000 police to keep the UK protesters in line. “Many of us are increasingly worried by the threat that NATO poses to world stability and peaceful relations,” said the organizers.   “Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has reinvented itself supposedly as a tool of the ‘international community’ to safeguard ‘freedom and security’. “In reality it is a vehicle for US-led use of force in the interests of the rich and powerful, accelerating militarization, bypassing the United Nations and the system of international law, and escalating spending on arms,” they added.  [rtnews] http://rt.com/uk/179000-nato-summit-protest-march/ Comment:  Perhaps the NATO protesters have a point.  If you go to the RT News link, there's a scary looking twitter message from 'UK Delegation, NATO'.  No wonder people are protesting.

USA - FATCATS OVER DEMOCRACY

Insight: Plutocracy trumping democracy Posted: Sunday, August 10, 2014 3:30 am By Timothy J. Barnett, Special to The Star A disquieting paradox is increasingly apparent. Americans hope for the self-respect and happiness that arise from a hearty sense of earned merit. Yet, we simultaneously desire greater wealth and advantages than deserved by any prudent measure of social responsibility. We reckon ourselves upstanding because of petty morality, while seeking to exploit lawful loopholes that aid wealth acquisition. Our strange sense of deservedness is rooted in strategic play and name recognition, not the true value of our contributions. Our bifurcated economic recovery — great for the top 5 percent while meager for the bottom 75 percent — belies claims that all is well. The spread of financial pragmatism (i.e., follow any working trend) has left most Americans inattentive to the morality of national laws that shape economic activity. Indeed, the ease by which we speculate in many markets has calloused us to the notion of earned merit. Ultimately, market opportunity is our moral compass; that is, when we’re not admiring the highly disproportionate rewards of celebrity. The notion of what constitutes fair opportunity and deservedness changes along with culture, religion and business conditions. This relativity causes many intellectuals to scoff at the idea that culture or politics could ever find sufficient consensus about merit to create an ethos by which various expressions of merit could be evaluated and fairly rewarded. Hence, our politics subsidize and reward financial power, corporatism, interest group demands and the growth expediencies that are allegedly necessary to underwrite entitlements. This system, as widely noted, is a model of unethical financial distribution. Until the industrial revolution in the early 1800s, Americans’ economic rewards were generally aligned with one’s prudence, labor, ingenuity and stewardship of resources — with a little luck thrown in. As the industrial age dawned, much of this changed, the outcome working to advantage those with capital over others with little but their labor. In Russia, the result was the communist revolution — a movement that endeavored to restore linkage between deservedness and labor. The mantra was: “All workers in a workers’ state.” In the West, most observers saw the workers’ adage as a deception arising from desperation, with party elites gaining advantage over their proletarian prey. Americans broadly viewed the communist ideology as economically inefficient. Additionally, communism was viewed as unfair to contributions arising from ingenuity, entrepreneurship, business management, the wise stewardship of property and earned capital. Europeans, not quite so enamored by free markets, looked to democratic socialism as a hybrid way. In America, we thought we had the best of all worlds with a wide-open market system, bounded only for a few robber barons and monopolists. Buoyed by rapid growth, inexpensive land, abundant low-cost resources and other helpful dynamics, the expansion of social mobility seemed to confirm our economic judgments. In short, we felt immune to any need for a national conversation on just deserts. Our market morality seemed amply moored by a robust work ethic, sense of self-responsibility and belief in business propriety (flaws aside). Why would we want big government to tell us what to do when we already knew the answers? In retrospect, we were caught off-guard by cultural and technological changes. Beginning with the computer age in the 1980s and the blossoming of electronic media shortly thereafter, tremendous leverage was created for exploiting vulnerabilities in our ad-hoc market architecture. Rampant diversity in ideals, orientations, ethics and goals left us with little cultural consensus apart from ambiguous generalities. This is the outcome John Jay feared most in his discussion of the American prospect (Federalist Paper No. 2). Lacking a unifying vision, our politics fell prey to the only commonality that remained: the chase for prosperity as subsidized by growth. The story of America’s last 10 years demonstrates this point. What we now call “merit” reflects a breakdown in the linkage between contributions and rewards. Nationally, we’re baffled, as nothing in our political toolkit addresses such a challenge. [...] EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/article_d1931214-1f4c-11e4-ac46-0019bb2963f4.html Timothy J. Barnett is an associate professor in the political science department at Jacksonville State University. His Ph.D. was earned at the University of Kansas.

This is a fantastic article well worth a read.
Need to link to rest of it (above).

I'm amazed it's come out of the US!

Jacksonville State Uni is Alabama.

Market Morality

Advantage:          5% vs 75%
Advantage:   Capital vs No Capital

Free Markets

• Robber Barons 
• Monopolists

US & UK - RENDITION - YANUS RAHMATULLAH

UK government attempts to conceal its involvement in rendition and torture By Robert Stevens 9 August 2014 The British government is seeking to cover up its role in the illegal “extraordinary rendition”—kidnappings and torture—programme run by the United States. Ahead of the delayed release of a US Senate report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture system ... [...] The war crimes carried out by British troops during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in which the UK was the main partner of the US, continue to come to light. Last week Reprieve cited the case of Yunus Rahmatullah, a Pakistani citizen who was captured by British forces in Iraq in February 2004 and subsequent rendered to Afghanistan later that year. He was held at the US-run prison at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan for ten years without charge, trial, or access to a lawyer. He was initially seized despite having no involvement with any of the fighting in Iraq and was only in the country in order to find work on real estate projects after the initial US invasion, resulting in the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, had ended. According to Reprieve, UK troops raided a house where he was staying with friends, “blindfolded Yunus, punched and kicked him, and hit him with the butt of their rifles. He was thrown in the back of a military vehicle and driven to a camp. On the way, the vehicle stopped and Yunus was taken out. UK forces again violently assaulted him.” Reprieve adds, “He was detained in Iraq at the now-notorious Camp Nama, where UK forces were also present, and possibly also in Abu Ghraib prison.” The US-run Abu Ghraib was the site of horrifying and systematic torture, abuse and murder of prisoners by US military personnel in Iraq. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/09/rend-a09.html

This is the tail end of the British trying to hide their collusion story (in WSWS above).

I thought this guy might deserve his own post.

Never having paid attention to what's going on beyond my own narrow range of interests, this stuff is new and mind-boggling to me.

How can someone be kidnapped and basically gaoled for a DECADE -- without charge -- or lawyer or trial?

Wikipedia on Rahmatullah - here.

Check this out:

... because he was captured in Iraq by British Forces the UK justice system had standing to rule on his detention

"a substantial case for saying that the UK government is under an international legal obligation to demand the return of the applicant, and the US government is bound to accede to such an request."

The Court of Appeal agreed Rahmatullah's detention was "unlawful" and ordered Britain to pursue his release until January 18, 2012. [wikipedia]

UK & US - UK DIEGO GARCIA BASE - US-UK COLLUSION - RENDITION, TORTURE - UK COVER-UP

UK government attempts to conceal its involvement in rendition and torture By Robert Stevens 9 August 2014 The British government is seeking to cover up its role in the illegal “extraordinary rendition”—kidnappings and torture—programme run by the United States. Ahead of the delayed release of a US Senate report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture system, in place under the previous George W. Bush administration, the Observer revealed that the UK government has approached its US counterparts to censor information regarding Britain’s involvement in rendition and torture through the use of the Indian Ocean air base of Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia, a tiny atoll, is a British Overseas Territory that has been leased to the US for decades. It became a strategic base for the US military during the Cold War and was used to supply its forces in the Red Sea and Vietnam. It was also the only base used for air strikes against Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991. It was used again by the US military for the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq in 2003 as well as the heavy bombardment of Afghanistan in 2001. The Observer cites a letter from former UK Foreign Secretary William Hague to the human rights organisation Reprieve. Hague was Foreign Secretary for four years in the government of Prime Minister David Cameron until last month’s cabinet reshuffle. Hague informed Reprieve that, “We have made representations to seek assurances that ordinary procedures for clearance of UK material will be followed in the event that UK material provide[d] to the Senate committee were to be disclosed.” The meaning is clear: the UK government is insistent that details of its active participation in an illegal global kidnapping and torture network, in close collaboration with the US, remain under lock and key. The censoring being demanded by the British is just part of an overall mass of redactions being put in place by the US military-intelligence apparatus prior to the report’s release. Last Friday, Senator Dianne Feinstein said the Senate Intelligence Committee would delay the release of the declassified summary of its voluminous report on the CIA torture system, due to the scale of redactions being made. Successive UK governments have denied accusations that Diego Garcia was used as a “black site” prison and that rendition flights landed there. As far back as 2002, the Washington Post reported that Diego Garcia was “one of a number of secret detention centers overseas.” In 2008 then British Home Secretary David Miliband told parliament that two US flights each containing a prisoner did refuel on the island in 2002, but claimed those detained remained on board and that the “US Government has assured us that no US detainees have ever been held on Diego Garcia.” Andrew Tyrie, a Conservative MP, is the founder and chairman of Parliaments all-party group on rendition. [...] Tyrie has called for an inquiry in Britain’s involvement in rendition and torture on the basis that without this happening, the UK’s ability to portray itself as an upholder of democracy on the international stage is vastly undermined. “With the truth established, Britain can draw a line under these allegations and demonstrate that we abide by the values that we expect of others.” The lies that Diego Garcia has played no role in rendition and torture continue to unravel. An account by freelance investigative journalist Andy Worthington, published on Al-Jazeera last month noted, “In October 2003, Time reported that ‘a regional intelligence official’ had stated that Hambali, a ‘high-value detainee’ seized in Thailand two months earlier, was being held and interrogated on Diego Garcia, and in the years that followed, other claims were made, both by journalists and by retired US general Barry McCaffrey, who, in May 2004 and December 2006, referred to prisoners being held on Diego Garcia.” [...] continued @ source link http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/09/rend-a09.html

Feinstein's report's been delayed because they're whiting out the British, huh?

Wasn't democracy supposed to be transparent?

Kidnapping and torture ... lawlessness ... even terrorism  ... isn't that what the powers that be supposedly stand 'against'.  LOL

Hypocrisy, inscrutability and lawlessness is how you maintain an empire.