WHY THE 3-5 YEAR LONGEVITY GAP IN THE USA?
In a September 1, NY Times piece entitled: “To Explain Longevity Gap, Look Past Health System”(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22tier.html?scp=1&sq=longevity&st=cse), author, John Tierney, calls on the expertise of prominent demographer, Samuel H. Preston, who attempts to absolve the US health care system for the fact that US citizens lives are shorter than in other nations. Preston“finds no evidence to blame the health care system for the longevity gap between (the US) and other industrialized countries,” states Tierney. “The US…does a pretty good job of identifying major diseases,” states Preston, who is well known for a correlation between a nation’s economic expansion and the longevity of its citizens, referenced in academic texts as the “Preston Curve”. According to the author, the problem in longevity for US citizens, who will live about three years less, than citizens of other Western industrialized nations, and five years less than in Japan, is because they “get sick more often than people in Europe and other industrialized countries.” Preston is quoted as stating that the difference is due to the “high rates of…death among middle aged Americans, chiefly from heart disease and cancer. He identifies the causes, stating: Americans are “fatter” and “smoke more”, and, I might add, are probably exposed to more chemical pollutants . To support his hypothesis of a direct correlation between higher GDP and longevity, (See: the Preston Curve at: http://www.ganfyd.org/images/1/17/PrestonCurves.png) Dr. Preston argues that, it is not health care that is responsible for the gap since once Americans become sick, data suggest they receive “better treatment” and “the mortality rates” from “breast cancer and prostate cancer have been declining significantly faster in the US than in other industrialized countries”.
That seems a poor bargain for the US citizen, who on average has between three and five fewer healthy years in later life—and is more likely to get cancer and circulatory disease than in other industrialized nations.
Does he expect that Americans take any satisfaction from the fact that they will live shorter less healthy lives, but when afflicted earlier in life than other nation’s citizenry, they will “survive” longer in hospital, or as out-patients due to “superior care”? I think not.
The problem of the longevity gap seems clear, other industrialized nations all of which support some form of universal health care, and consequently have a stake in the over-all health of their citizenry, have an economic interest in preventing disease and encouraging a healthy lifestyle. While in the US, without that incentive, the government focus is on the health of business. It favored (for many decades) the health of the tobacco industry over the incidence of lung cancer of its citizens; the health of giant agribusiness (producer of food products loaded with animal fats, cheap sugars and salt) over the obesity of consumers, the health of industries which pollute air and water, versus the breast and colon cancers of its people. It is clear, as Calvin Coolidge so succinctly said: “the business of America is business” (and what is implied: America’s first concern is not the well-being of its citizens).
So this we can agree on with Professor Preston, the longevity gap it’s not all the fault of the health care system (which as it is constituted now, prefers to treat actual disease --and maximize profit) than to accept lower fees for disease prevention).
Perhaps when the American public more fully comprehends these facts and consequence to their own lives they may begin to pressure Congress for a more balanced focus--one that includes a more robust concern for the health of it citizens.
Get the picture?
rjk
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
ENRON: INSTIGATED DEREGULATION-PROFITED FROM DEREGULATION-ABUSED DEREGULATION
The Enron Scandal 2001
Enron, an entity now found as a "dba" or a “doing business as" company, working from a seedy mailbox in a dusty central-Texas town, was once, prior to 2001 a giant energy corporation based in "big-oil" Huston, Texas. The company was started by Kenneth Lay, who in 1985 by merged Huston Natural Gas with Inter North two pipeline companies. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron, from which most of this data was gleaned). Soon afterward the US Congress deregulated natural gas prices (and it is likely given his political background and connections that Lay was aware of this). The result was a volatile pricing market, and an environment in which Enron found many opportunities for profitability. When variation in pricing and resulting hardship to natural-gas-users caused a public outcry in the halls of Congress for a to return to regulated pricing, Enron invested a good portion of its profits to effectively lobby Congress in opposition. Enron was successful. Its efforts (and those of others) kept the unfettered market in natural gas in place. By 1992 Enron had become the largest purveyor of natural gas in the US. The widely dispersed company needed a rapid means of controlling its varied operations and the new electronic technology and the internet met that need. From its innovative use of this system it developed an “on line trading model” which increased its effectiveness in managing its far-flung business interests. With successes in that field, it soon pursued a diversification strategy to adapt its innovative methods, from strictly natural gas, to other forms of energy and related businesses (wood pulp, paper, oil and gas pipelines, windmills, electricity plants) so by the late 1990s it had become one of the first “energy conglomerates” in the nation. And by 2000, it employed over 17, 000 and was one of the world’s leading electricity, natural gas, pulp and paper, pipeline and communications companies in the world. Its revenues were nearly 101 billion dollars in 2000.
Under the direction of founder, and CEO Kenneth Lay; company president, Jeffrey Skilling, (also chief operations officer); and Andrew Fastow (chief financial officer) the company’s stock price, and reputation grew. Fortune Magazine named Enron “America’s Most Innovative Company” for six consecutive years (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron). At its zenith, Enron owned or operated, 38 electric power plants world-wide, from gas fired plants in the UK, coal fired plants in Poland, and oil fired plants in the Phillipines; it operated wind farms in Iowa, Minnesota, California and Pennsylvania; generated electricity by means of hydroelectric power in Oregon, and by a “combined power” plant in Dabhol, India which burned naptha when the sources of natural gas were interrupted. It owned and operated natural gas and oil pipelines in South America, Florida, and many states in western USA. It owned and operated electric utilities in the USA, Brazil and Venezuela. It operated natural gas storage facilities in South Korea, Brazil, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. It operated timber and pulp paper companies in Quebec, Canada; and a paper company in New Jersey. It manufactured wind turbines, explored for gas and oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and manufactured pipe valves, thermostats, and electrical controls for appliances. By 2000, it ranked 18th on the Fortune 500 list. In 2000, Fortune 500 listed its revenues at $40 billion dollars, on assets claimed at $33 billion and its profits at nearly one billion ($893 million) and its earnings per share in 1998 was 2 dollars while in 1999 it had dropped to one dollars per share. In 2000, its stock hit a high of $90.00 a share. [For the same year, Fortune 500 ranked WalMart Corporation as number 2 (below General Motors). It listed revenues of nearly $167 billion, assets of $70 billion and profits of 5.4 billion, stockholder equity of $26 billion and market value of 213 billion. Its 1998 earnings per share was about 2 dollars (1.98) while its 1999 earnings were 1.2 dollars. Its ten year growth rate was 17.6%. See: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/snapshots/2000/1551.html] .
These figures, even with comparison to giant WalMart looked good in 2000, but less than a year later, as rumors of scandal hit, the company's stock value tumbled to $60.00 per share.
The “Enron Scandal” revealed that the company’s financial situation was fraudulent and was sustained by “institutionalized, systematic and creatively planned accounting fraud” initiated the subsequent government investigations and the company’s final collapse and failure culminating in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing. Enmeshed in the scandal was the Arthur Andersen Accounting firm-whose accountants were responsible for oversight. They"looked the other way" over Enron's cooked books. Arthur Andersen one of the five largest accounting businesses in the world was dissolved, when it lost its clients and as a result 85,000 jobs were lost, sending waves through the wider business world.
As a result of the dissolution of the Enron company “more than 20,000 Enron employees lost their jobs, pension funds and other compensation. A 2004 settlement provided $85 million out of a $2 billion dollar pension fund that was lost (or a little more than 4 cents on the dollar). Each employee received $3,100 dollars. In 2005 investors received a $4.2 billion dollar settlement. In 2008 a $7.2 billion dollar settlement was reached for a $40 billion dollar law-suit on behalf of shareholders ( See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal#Aftermath). That amount was distributed among the 1.5 million individual plaintiffs and U California (lead plaintiff). University of California’s law firm, Coughlin, Geller, Rudman and Robbins received $688 million dollars in fees---the highest in any securities fraud case.
Soon afterward the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed by Congress. The main provisions of the act (passed July 3, 2002) establishes a “Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to “develop standards for the preparation of audit reports.
In addition, on February 13, 2002 the SEC enacted changes in regulations for the NY Stock Exchange relative to the Enran debacle: The new rules stated: All firms must have a majority of independent directors (See defiition below). The compensation committee, nominating committee, and audit committee must be composed of independent directors. Audit committee members “should be” financially literate and one member is required to have accounting expertise. Finally besides regular sessions boards should hold additional sessions without management present.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary of Business Terms (http://www.yourdictionary.com/business/independent-director) An independent director is a corporate director who has no material relationship with the company in which he or she serves as director. For example, an independent director cannot be employed or have a family member employed by the company.
The Enron scandal did not alter the business world's taste for deregulation...it prospered and "advanced" over the next turbulent seven years under the younger Bush..a close friend of Ken Lay and culminated in the Bernie Madoff scandal the collapse of the Stock Market, the dissolution of Leahman Brothers, and the economic crisis we face today. When will we learn?
Get the picture?
rjk
To read about the Great Depression and other scalywags go on to read about "Ivar Kreuger the original Madoff"-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7939403.stm Kreuger was the owner of the original Enron...the response to the Kreuger Crash was a series of worthy regulations which were only abandoned in 1992.
Enron, an entity now found as a "dba" or a “doing business as" company, working from a seedy mailbox in a dusty central-Texas town, was once, prior to 2001 a giant energy corporation based in "big-oil" Huston, Texas. The company was started by Kenneth Lay, who in 1985 by merged Huston Natural Gas with Inter North two pipeline companies. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron, from which most of this data was gleaned). Soon afterward the US Congress deregulated natural gas prices (and it is likely given his political background and connections that Lay was aware of this). The result was a volatile pricing market, and an environment in which Enron found many opportunities for profitability. When variation in pricing and resulting hardship to natural-gas-users caused a public outcry in the halls of Congress for a to return to regulated pricing, Enron invested a good portion of its profits to effectively lobby Congress in opposition. Enron was successful. Its efforts (and those of others) kept the unfettered market in natural gas in place. By 1992 Enron had become the largest purveyor of natural gas in the US. The widely dispersed company needed a rapid means of controlling its varied operations and the new electronic technology and the internet met that need. From its innovative use of this system it developed an “on line trading model” which increased its effectiveness in managing its far-flung business interests. With successes in that field, it soon pursued a diversification strategy to adapt its innovative methods, from strictly natural gas, to other forms of energy and related businesses (wood pulp, paper, oil and gas pipelines, windmills, electricity plants) so by the late 1990s it had become one of the first “energy conglomerates” in the nation. And by 2000, it employed over 17, 000 and was one of the world’s leading electricity, natural gas, pulp and paper, pipeline and communications companies in the world. Its revenues were nearly 101 billion dollars in 2000.
Under the direction of founder, and CEO Kenneth Lay; company president, Jeffrey Skilling, (also chief operations officer); and Andrew Fastow (chief financial officer) the company’s stock price, and reputation grew. Fortune Magazine named Enron “America’s Most Innovative Company” for six consecutive years (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron). At its zenith, Enron owned or operated, 38 electric power plants world-wide, from gas fired plants in the UK, coal fired plants in Poland, and oil fired plants in the Phillipines; it operated wind farms in Iowa, Minnesota, California and Pennsylvania; generated electricity by means of hydroelectric power in Oregon, and by a “combined power” plant in Dabhol, India which burned naptha when the sources of natural gas were interrupted. It owned and operated natural gas and oil pipelines in South America, Florida, and many states in western USA. It owned and operated electric utilities in the USA, Brazil and Venezuela. It operated natural gas storage facilities in South Korea, Brazil, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. It operated timber and pulp paper companies in Quebec, Canada; and a paper company in New Jersey. It manufactured wind turbines, explored for gas and oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and manufactured pipe valves, thermostats, and electrical controls for appliances. By 2000, it ranked 18th on the Fortune 500 list. In 2000, Fortune 500 listed its revenues at $40 billion dollars, on assets claimed at $33 billion and its profits at nearly one billion ($893 million) and its earnings per share in 1998 was 2 dollars while in 1999 it had dropped to one dollars per share. In 2000, its stock hit a high of $90.00 a share. [For the same year, Fortune 500 ranked WalMart Corporation as number 2 (below General Motors). It listed revenues of nearly $167 billion, assets of $70 billion and profits of 5.4 billion, stockholder equity of $26 billion and market value of 213 billion. Its 1998 earnings per share was about 2 dollars (1.98) while its 1999 earnings were 1.2 dollars. Its ten year growth rate was 17.6%. See: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/snapshots/2000/1551.html] .
These figures, even with comparison to giant WalMart looked good in 2000, but less than a year later, as rumors of scandal hit, the company's stock value tumbled to $60.00 per share.
The “Enron Scandal” revealed that the company’s financial situation was fraudulent and was sustained by “institutionalized, systematic and creatively planned accounting fraud” initiated the subsequent government investigations and the company’s final collapse and failure culminating in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing. Enmeshed in the scandal was the Arthur Andersen Accounting firm-whose accountants were responsible for oversight. They"looked the other way" over Enron's cooked books. Arthur Andersen one of the five largest accounting businesses in the world was dissolved, when it lost its clients and as a result 85,000 jobs were lost, sending waves through the wider business world.
As a result of the dissolution of the Enron company “more than 20,000 Enron employees lost their jobs, pension funds and other compensation. A 2004 settlement provided $85 million out of a $2 billion dollar pension fund that was lost (or a little more than 4 cents on the dollar). Each employee received $3,100 dollars. In 2005 investors received a $4.2 billion dollar settlement. In 2008 a $7.2 billion dollar settlement was reached for a $40 billion dollar law-suit on behalf of shareholders ( See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal#Aftermath). That amount was distributed among the 1.5 million individual plaintiffs and U California (lead plaintiff). University of California’s law firm, Coughlin, Geller, Rudman and Robbins received $688 million dollars in fees---the highest in any securities fraud case.
Soon afterward the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed by Congress. The main provisions of the act (passed July 3, 2002) establishes a “Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to “develop standards for the preparation of audit reports.
In addition, on February 13, 2002 the SEC enacted changes in regulations for the NY Stock Exchange relative to the Enran debacle: The new rules stated: All firms must have a majority of independent directors (See defiition below). The compensation committee, nominating committee, and audit committee must be composed of independent directors. Audit committee members “should be” financially literate and one member is required to have accounting expertise. Finally besides regular sessions boards should hold additional sessions without management present.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary of Business Terms (http://www.yourdictionary.com/business/independent-director) An independent director is a corporate director who has no material relationship with the company in which he or she serves as director. For example, an independent director cannot be employed or have a family member employed by the company.
The Enron scandal did not alter the business world's taste for deregulation...it prospered and "advanced" over the next turbulent seven years under the younger Bush..a close friend of Ken Lay and culminated in the Bernie Madoff scandal the collapse of the Stock Market, the dissolution of Leahman Brothers, and the economic crisis we face today. When will we learn?
Get the picture?
rjk
To read about the Great Depression and other scalywags go on to read about "Ivar Kreuger the original Madoff"-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7939403.stm Kreuger was the owner of the original Enron...the response to the Kreuger Crash was a series of worthy regulations which were only abandoned in 1992.
Friday, September 18, 2009
EXCESSIVE RISK-TAKING TO GARNER BONUSES BY CEOs LEAD TO ECONOMIC CRISIS
The underlying causes of this last 2008 massive global recession was and remains a lack of effective regulation and oversight by the government and its agencies. During the Great Depression many of the very same problems were identified and addressed. But slowly, during the ascendency of monetary and social philosophies which aggrandized greed, and political parties which “poo-pooed” government regulation as too repressive, and corporations which insisted that they “regulate themselves” based on ineluctible “truths" and "market forces”, these sensible and needed government safety-nets were slowly closeted, closed down, or weakened. The results were economic chaos, bank failures, financial hardship, massive monetary loss and bankruptcy.
Besides lack of governemnt regulation from outside the corporation offices, lax regualations within the boardrooms also had their effects, resulting in excessive chief-executive-officer (CEO) compensation, which encouraged unwise corporate risk-taking leading to bank and corporate failures which ultimately became a major factor in the 2008 global economic collapse. Acccording to Seekingalpha.com, "Many bank executives received large salaries and large bonuses for the growth and illusory short-term profits associated with mortgage lending and mortgage securitization that landed us in the current mess." See: http://seekingalpha.com/article/85806-bank-executive-compensation-and-the-bailout
Why couldn’t we have well-learned our history and economic lessons and kept in place those post-Great Depression government regulations? Our behavior would have been termed by the ancient Greeks as prideful or hubristic and they would have predicted that such actions must call down on us our nemesis--economic chaos. And it did! Concerning hubris, Herodotus states (in part): “Seest thou how God with his lightning smites down” (the tallest animals first, and )….”his bolts fall ever on the highest houses and the tallest trees? So plainly does He love to bring down everything that exalts itself….” And how the Wall Street moguls did exalt themselves…with great big stock options, cash, perks, and massive bonuses.
If excessive CEO compensation was a factor in this recent economic crisis, what are we talking about? What is excessive ?
Recently Goldman-Sachs’ CEO, Mr Lloyd Blankfein joined the chorus of people lashing out at excessive executive bonuses..asserting that “compensation continues to generate controversy and anger. There is little justification for the payment of outsized discretionary compensation when a financial institution lost money for the year,” stated Blankfein, (reported by Bloomberg and at bloggingstocks: http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/09/goldman-sachs-ceo-blasts-excessive-compensation) who is the same person who, in 2007, awarded himself $68.5 million in annual compensation as valid compensation for his company’s participation in what would later turn out to be a giant bubble economy, and who (yes the same Lloyd Blankfein) recently directed Goldman-Sachs to set aside a record $1.4 billion (yes with a “b”) for executive compensation in 2009—yes this did occur during a global recession.
Is this the classic case of a Greek hubris, or simple conservative hypocrisy of the “Kάνω όπως εγώ λέω, όχι όπως εγώ κάνω” or “Do what I say, but don’t do what I do” sort?. Or perhaps it is simply greed. The "take it if you can and damn the hindmost" concept.
In 2007, the latest year that figures are available, the largest corporate participants in the Obama Administration’s bailout program paid their chief executives an average annual compensation of $11 million dollars (each), including salary, bonus and benefits. Of that amount, according to a review by Equilar, an executive compensation firm, only about $844,000 was cash salary. While about $2.5 million was in a cash bonus, with the bulk — $7.4 million — in stock awards, and the remainder in benefits and perks. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/politics/05pay.html. But see below how stock awards can be manipulated by “back dating” so that the actual amount of compensation is difficult to ascertain.
These figures may be put into perspective by examining executive compensation as compared to salaried workers in the same companies. While in Japan--not a country where executive talent is so common (and cheap) that you can find a talented executive in every Tokyo sushi joint—executives are paid an average of three (3X) times greater than non-management employees. Their companies and executives seem to do quite well…in view of their large share of our domestic auto-market. The Nipponese compensation package does not come close to the excesses found in the US workplace. For example, in the US even as far back as the 1980s, the ratio of total executive compensation (including bonuses and deferred compensation, pensions and perks) to the comparable figure earned by non-management employees was 50 (i.e. executive compensation was 50 times greater than non-management employees). About two decades later, by around 2003, this ratio had blossomed by a factor of six to over 300 times greater than non-management salaries for the approximately 400 largest corporations in the US. While in the fewer very large corporations, it rose to as much as 500 times greater! Thus, in a large corporation in which the average non-management employee made $65,000 dollars per year…the executive class were earning $2.6 million dollars, and in the very large entities, an executive might be taking home more than $3.2 million dollars annually. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/supply-demand-and-executive-pay/
Recall that the most powerful head of state, the premiere executive, and perhaps the one with the most demanding job in the world, is the President of the US--who earns only $400,000 in cash and no stock options. He does get good health care, a plane and a nice house to live in and some other perks that go along with that. But the whole package could not reach the annual level described for Mr Blankfein a Goldman-Sachs’ executive…of a corporation which had to be bailed out and lost money for its investors.
Even corporate board members themselves, view executive compensation as too “rich”. In an inquiry into excessive CEO compensation by the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California board members of the corporations studied acknowledge that CEO compensation is “frequently too high” . The authors conclude that 75% of board members questioned, agree that compensation (other than their own corporations) is too “rich”, and of that group, some 25% consider compensation to be “generally too high” in some high-profile cases. But in regard to their own corporation, their opinions are more sanguine regarding the level of compensation. http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/feb2009/ca2009025_072667.htm?chan=careers_managing+index+page_top+stories.
In an precient article entitled: “The solution to the bonus culture”, Davendra Kodwani (http://www.guardian.co.uk, March 26, 2009) states: that “the corporate entity with limited liability, where the owners delegate the responsibility of managing a business to professionals, may have been the most powerful of social innovations of the last four centuries”…but, as a result of the “innate conflict of interest between the managers and shareholders –the conflict is also at the heart of the current banking failures and the chaos in the world economy. ” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/25/corporate-governance-bonus-incentives)
What went wrong? Kodwani explains that in the 1970s companies tried to align these opposing interests by designing “compensation deals” that would link manager’s and shareholder’s interests. But how did the deal backfire? Kodwani asks, why didn’t the link prevent managers from assuming astronomical risks? First, most academic research indicates that there is really little support for a link between a firm’s performance and the level of executive incentives. Second: when a firm’s executive incentives are based on “CEO compensation in stock options , it increases the chances of questionable (perhaps a better word is fraudulent?-- Remember Enron) financial reporting in following years.” Kodwani reminds us that “reward and risk should go hand in hand…particularly in the age-old business of lending and borrowing”.
But what about using stock options as a way to “link” shareholders and managers interests? In regard to the potential for fraud in using stock options: (See 9-12-2006 OMB Watch Senate Finance Committee Looks at Executive Compensation Excesses“ Stock options are automatically considered "performance-based" and have become a popular way of providing deductible executive compensation. Companies can "backdate," or choose the date from which the options would be issued, to change the value of the stock option. Stock “backdating” is not necessarily illegal, but it can make it easier for companies to hide the true extent of an executive's pay. “ (See: http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3051)
David Reilly, in “Bankers craving bonuses, fudge loan-loss reality” evaluates another problem with the "bonus culture". Reilly states that “Back in the early 1990s, postmortems of the savings and loan crisis found banks had too much leeway in determining potential losses. As a result of their fradulent or misleading book keeping, "this ended up leading to bigger losses and making it tougher for regulators to deal with weakened institutions. Fast forward to today’s crisis and investors and regulators are seeing this same problem. Bankers apply a "light touch" (rjk's quotes) to loan-loss reserves, allowing them to reap profits -- and bonuses --even though a day of reckoning may result. The failure last week of Colonial BancGroup Inc., the largest U.S. bank to collapse since Washington Mutual Inc. did last fall, is the most recent example. In acquiring most of Colonial’s assets and liabilities, BB&T Corp. marked down the value of Colonial’s loans by an average of 37 percent.
That exceeds the average markdown of 18 percent at recently failed banks, according to research from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. When it took over Washington Mutual, JPMorgan Chase & Co. wrote down that institution’s residential mortgages by about 16 percent and home-equity loans by about 20 percent.
This means that the collapsed banks hadn’t created adequate reserves for possible losses, leading their loans to be wildly overvalued. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is left to clean up the mess. See( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a4LNv_COFnzY)
Why is executive compensation so often excessive? And why are companies unable to control the excesses? Most non-management employees agree to a level of compensation when they are hired and then live with it. But in the executive corporate world, it is the CEOs who head the board of directors and it is that body (the board) which sets their compensation package. Oh! how I would have liked that situation when I was an employee!
“ In the US, the CEO is usually the chair of an organization’s board but that person also selects the board members. In addition, continued tenure on the board is often dependent upon the willingness of the CEO to support reappointment of board members. As a result, the boardroom is the one place where pay is determined by the very people who are subservient to the person whose pay is being set.” I envison this as something like, permitting kindergartners to set their teacher’s salary, of course with her able assistance. In a board meeting managers can obviously set the agenda, control the figures presented to the board, and since they provide all the supporting information the board receives--they can manipulate that data to fit their own purposes. Anyone who has ever sat on a board knows how essentially powerless individual board members are relative to the manager. http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/feb2009/ca2009025_072667.htm?chan=careers_managing+index+page_top+stories.
Understandably, companies are very reluctant to hand over to the “government” or some outside agency the power to control their executive compensation, but since it is now fully apparent that they cannot do it themselves, and recent history has indicated how dangerous to the economy at large the “bonus culture” of large corporations remains. Thus, if corporations are unable or unwilling to monitor and control themselves—and their actions are a threat to our economy, we must act to protect us from executive excess (greed) and the government must step in to act.
Thus, government must step in and help control the “bonus culture” in American board rooms, a culture which leads to inefficiency, fraudulent practices and ultimately to economic chaos.
To underscore the seriousness of the situation, I submit here an article posted by Stephen Castle (September 17, 2009) in the NY Times: entitled: “Banker Pay to Face Global Limits at G20 Session” (downloaded 9-18-09). In it, Castle states that “The Euopean Union leaders…on Thursday agreed to use the Group of 20 meeting next week in Pittsburg to press for binding global rules on banker’s pay and new controls on bonuses, but avoided any explicit call for a ceiling on remuneration.” It is an unprecedented action to take –where by an international body such as the G20—would be setting rules for corporations within a sovereign state. But a good solution—if they can arrive at some reasonable mechanism and put teeth into rules for non-compliance.
The Europeans who suffered dearly from a recession that originated right here in NY City and are now united behind a call for new global rules..”backed up by the threat of sanctions at a national level”. Castle claims that the leaders of both Germany and France were determined to take a strong message to the G20 meeting and "put pressure on President Obama" (who has been wavering on this issue). “The leaders of both countries blame excessive risk-taking by bankers, motivated by the prospect of” (massive and excessive) “bonuses, for part of the economic crisis.” Unfortunately, “a ceiling on bonuses was opposed by Washington and London, where it was seen as unworkable”. Probably because, as noted above, there are many ways that a devious and determined CEO could arrange for a variety of compensation arrangements through stocks, stock options, back dating, etc. that would be difficult to police.
One option endorsed by Gordon Brown of the UK was the principle of “extending payments over several years and clawing back” portions of the pay-out if the company does not prove to be making a profit." This proposal seems more complex and even more easily circumvented than a simple bonus and salary ceiling. Howver even Brown was determined and stated firmly, that “there was no going back to the bonus structure of the past.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/business/global/18trade.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Get the picture?
rjk
Besides lack of governemnt regulation from outside the corporation offices, lax regualations within the boardrooms also had their effects, resulting in excessive chief-executive-officer (CEO) compensation, which encouraged unwise corporate risk-taking leading to bank and corporate failures which ultimately became a major factor in the 2008 global economic collapse. Acccording to Seekingalpha.com, "Many bank executives received large salaries and large bonuses for the growth and illusory short-term profits associated with mortgage lending and mortgage securitization that landed us in the current mess." See: http://seekingalpha.com/article/85806-bank-executive-compensation-and-the-bailout
Why couldn’t we have well-learned our history and economic lessons and kept in place those post-Great Depression government regulations? Our behavior would have been termed by the ancient Greeks as prideful or hubristic and they would have predicted that such actions must call down on us our nemesis--economic chaos. And it did! Concerning hubris, Herodotus states (in part): “Seest thou how God with his lightning smites down” (the tallest animals first, and )….”his bolts fall ever on the highest houses and the tallest trees? So plainly does He love to bring down everything that exalts itself….” And how the Wall Street moguls did exalt themselves…with great big stock options, cash, perks, and massive bonuses.
If excessive CEO compensation was a factor in this recent economic crisis, what are we talking about? What is excessive ?
Recently Goldman-Sachs’ CEO, Mr Lloyd Blankfein joined the chorus of people lashing out at excessive executive bonuses..asserting that “compensation continues to generate controversy and anger. There is little justification for the payment of outsized discretionary compensation when a financial institution lost money for the year,” stated Blankfein, (reported by Bloomberg and at bloggingstocks: http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/09/09/goldman-sachs-ceo-blasts-excessive-compensation) who is the same person who, in 2007, awarded himself $68.5 million in annual compensation as valid compensation for his company’s participation in what would later turn out to be a giant bubble economy, and who (yes the same Lloyd Blankfein) recently directed Goldman-Sachs to set aside a record $1.4 billion (yes with a “b”) for executive compensation in 2009—yes this did occur during a global recession.
Is this the classic case of a Greek hubris, or simple conservative hypocrisy of the “Kάνω όπως εγώ λέω, όχι όπως εγώ κάνω” or “Do what I say, but don’t do what I do” sort?. Or perhaps it is simply greed. The "take it if you can and damn the hindmost" concept.
In 2007, the latest year that figures are available, the largest corporate participants in the Obama Administration’s bailout program paid their chief executives an average annual compensation of $11 million dollars (each), including salary, bonus and benefits. Of that amount, according to a review by Equilar, an executive compensation firm, only about $844,000 was cash salary. While about $2.5 million was in a cash bonus, with the bulk — $7.4 million — in stock awards, and the remainder in benefits and perks. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/politics/05pay.html. But see below how stock awards can be manipulated by “back dating” so that the actual amount of compensation is difficult to ascertain.
These figures may be put into perspective by examining executive compensation as compared to salaried workers in the same companies. While in Japan--not a country where executive talent is so common (and cheap) that you can find a talented executive in every Tokyo sushi joint—executives are paid an average of three (3X) times greater than non-management employees. Their companies and executives seem to do quite well…in view of their large share of our domestic auto-market. The Nipponese compensation package does not come close to the excesses found in the US workplace. For example, in the US even as far back as the 1980s, the ratio of total executive compensation (including bonuses and deferred compensation, pensions and perks) to the comparable figure earned by non-management employees was 50 (i.e. executive compensation was 50 times greater than non-management employees). About two decades later, by around 2003, this ratio had blossomed by a factor of six to over 300 times greater than non-management salaries for the approximately 400 largest corporations in the US. While in the fewer very large corporations, it rose to as much as 500 times greater! Thus, in a large corporation in which the average non-management employee made $65,000 dollars per year…the executive class were earning $2.6 million dollars, and in the very large entities, an executive might be taking home more than $3.2 million dollars annually. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/supply-demand-and-executive-pay/
Recall that the most powerful head of state, the premiere executive, and perhaps the one with the most demanding job in the world, is the President of the US--who earns only $400,000 in cash and no stock options. He does get good health care, a plane and a nice house to live in and some other perks that go along with that. But the whole package could not reach the annual level described for Mr Blankfein a Goldman-Sachs’ executive…of a corporation which had to be bailed out and lost money for its investors.
Even corporate board members themselves, view executive compensation as too “rich”. In an inquiry into excessive CEO compensation by the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California board members of the corporations studied acknowledge that CEO compensation is “frequently too high” . The authors conclude that 75% of board members questioned, agree that compensation (other than their own corporations) is too “rich”, and of that group, some 25% consider compensation to be “generally too high” in some high-profile cases. But in regard to their own corporation, their opinions are more sanguine regarding the level of compensation. http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/feb2009/ca2009025_072667.htm?chan=careers_managing+index+page_top+stories.
In an precient article entitled: “The solution to the bonus culture”, Davendra Kodwani (http://www.guardian.co.uk, March 26, 2009) states: that “the corporate entity with limited liability, where the owners delegate the responsibility of managing a business to professionals, may have been the most powerful of social innovations of the last four centuries”…but, as a result of the “innate conflict of interest between the managers and shareholders –the conflict is also at the heart of the current banking failures and the chaos in the world economy. ” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/25/corporate-governance-bonus-incentives)
What went wrong? Kodwani explains that in the 1970s companies tried to align these opposing interests by designing “compensation deals” that would link manager’s and shareholder’s interests. But how did the deal backfire? Kodwani asks, why didn’t the link prevent managers from assuming astronomical risks? First, most academic research indicates that there is really little support for a link between a firm’s performance and the level of executive incentives. Second: when a firm’s executive incentives are based on “CEO compensation in stock options , it increases the chances of questionable (perhaps a better word is fraudulent?-- Remember Enron) financial reporting in following years.” Kodwani reminds us that “reward and risk should go hand in hand…particularly in the age-old business of lending and borrowing”.
But what about using stock options as a way to “link” shareholders and managers interests? In regard to the potential for fraud in using stock options: (See 9-12-2006 OMB Watch Senate Finance Committee Looks at Executive Compensation Excesses“ Stock options are automatically considered "performance-based" and have become a popular way of providing deductible executive compensation. Companies can "backdate," or choose the date from which the options would be issued, to change the value of the stock option. Stock “backdating” is not necessarily illegal, but it can make it easier for companies to hide the true extent of an executive's pay. “ (See: http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3051)
David Reilly, in “Bankers craving bonuses, fudge loan-loss reality” evaluates another problem with the "bonus culture". Reilly states that “Back in the early 1990s, postmortems of the savings and loan crisis found banks had too much leeway in determining potential losses. As a result of their fradulent or misleading book keeping, "this ended up leading to bigger losses and making it tougher for regulators to deal with weakened institutions. Fast forward to today’s crisis and investors and regulators are seeing this same problem. Bankers apply a "light touch" (rjk's quotes) to loan-loss reserves, allowing them to reap profits -- and bonuses --even though a day of reckoning may result. The failure last week of Colonial BancGroup Inc., the largest U.S. bank to collapse since Washington Mutual Inc. did last fall, is the most recent example. In acquiring most of Colonial’s assets and liabilities, BB&T Corp. marked down the value of Colonial’s loans by an average of 37 percent.
That exceeds the average markdown of 18 percent at recently failed banks, according to research from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. When it took over Washington Mutual, JPMorgan Chase & Co. wrote down that institution’s residential mortgages by about 16 percent and home-equity loans by about 20 percent.
This means that the collapsed banks hadn’t created adequate reserves for possible losses, leading their loans to be wildly overvalued. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is left to clean up the mess. See( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a4LNv_COFnzY)
Why is executive compensation so often excessive? And why are companies unable to control the excesses? Most non-management employees agree to a level of compensation when they are hired and then live with it. But in the executive corporate world, it is the CEOs who head the board of directors and it is that body (the board) which sets their compensation package. Oh! how I would have liked that situation when I was an employee!
“ In the US, the CEO is usually the chair of an organization’s board but that person also selects the board members. In addition, continued tenure on the board is often dependent upon the willingness of the CEO to support reappointment of board members. As a result, the boardroom is the one place where pay is determined by the very people who are subservient to the person whose pay is being set.” I envison this as something like, permitting kindergartners to set their teacher’s salary, of course with her able assistance. In a board meeting managers can obviously set the agenda, control the figures presented to the board, and since they provide all the supporting information the board receives--they can manipulate that data to fit their own purposes. Anyone who has ever sat on a board knows how essentially powerless individual board members are relative to the manager. http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/feb2009/ca2009025_072667.htm?chan=careers_managing+index+page_top+stories.
Understandably, companies are very reluctant to hand over to the “government” or some outside agency the power to control their executive compensation, but since it is now fully apparent that they cannot do it themselves, and recent history has indicated how dangerous to the economy at large the “bonus culture” of large corporations remains. Thus, if corporations are unable or unwilling to monitor and control themselves—and their actions are a threat to our economy, we must act to protect us from executive excess (greed) and the government must step in to act.
Thus, government must step in and help control the “bonus culture” in American board rooms, a culture which leads to inefficiency, fraudulent practices and ultimately to economic chaos.
To underscore the seriousness of the situation, I submit here an article posted by Stephen Castle (September 17, 2009) in the NY Times: entitled: “Banker Pay to Face Global Limits at G20 Session” (downloaded 9-18-09). In it, Castle states that “The Euopean Union leaders…on Thursday agreed to use the Group of 20 meeting next week in Pittsburg to press for binding global rules on banker’s pay and new controls on bonuses, but avoided any explicit call for a ceiling on remuneration.” It is an unprecedented action to take –where by an international body such as the G20—would be setting rules for corporations within a sovereign state. But a good solution—if they can arrive at some reasonable mechanism and put teeth into rules for non-compliance.
The Europeans who suffered dearly from a recession that originated right here in NY City and are now united behind a call for new global rules..”backed up by the threat of sanctions at a national level”. Castle claims that the leaders of both Germany and France were determined to take a strong message to the G20 meeting and "put pressure on President Obama" (who has been wavering on this issue). “The leaders of both countries blame excessive risk-taking by bankers, motivated by the prospect of” (massive and excessive) “bonuses, for part of the economic crisis.” Unfortunately, “a ceiling on bonuses was opposed by Washington and London, where it was seen as unworkable”. Probably because, as noted above, there are many ways that a devious and determined CEO could arrange for a variety of compensation arrangements through stocks, stock options, back dating, etc. that would be difficult to police.
One option endorsed by Gordon Brown of the UK was the principle of “extending payments over several years and clawing back” portions of the pay-out if the company does not prove to be making a profit." This proposal seems more complex and even more easily circumvented than a simple bonus and salary ceiling. Howver even Brown was determined and stated firmly, that “there was no going back to the bonus structure of the past.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/business/global/18trade.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Get the picture?
rjk
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
ISRAEL ACCUSED OF WAR CRIMES IN GAZA
War Crimes in Gaza—UN Report.
Israel has been accused of War Crimes in Gaza and now finds it hard to maintain its “victim” status.
First a bit of history for those of you who do not even know where Gaza is and are weak on facts about Israel.
Israel ranks as one of the top battle-hardened military forces in the world. Considering its stockpile of hundreds of nuclear weapons, the nation is military is ranked probably third or fourth in the world. If one ignores its nuclear capacity, and evaluates its airpower, and ground forces alone, it ranks 11th in the world just under Turkey (10th) and above South Korea, Italy, Pakistan, Taiwan, Iran, Sweden, Australia, Spain and many other nations (See: http://www.globalfirepower.com/).
Gaza, on the other hand, is an approximately 25 by five long by 5 mile wide desert coastal strip (smaller than Long Island’s South Fork from Southampton to Montauk) and one of the most densely populated places on earth with 1.4 million Palestinians, many of whom are long-term refugees from Israel proper. Israel controls the bordering sea as well as the airspace over Gaza. Its security fences seal off all Gaza borders (save in the southwest where Egypt controls the short Rafah boundary though it is also monitored by Israel military). Gaza is essentially a 139 square mile outdoor prison- ghetto controlled by Israel. The occupants have no way out--or back in-- were they so fortunate as to be whisked away from this outdoor prison.
In 2005, Israel, which has occupied the strip since 1967, unilaterally pulled its forces out of Gaza. However, since it still controls all crossing, air space, sea access all crossings as well as the amount of fuel, water, fuel, building materials, medicines and supplies that enter as well as all human access…international law still considers the territory to be occupied by Israel.
On December 27, 2007 When Israel unleashed the full power of its IDF with bombing and strafing raids by American-built F16 jets against tiny Gaza it was like the proverbial turkey shoot. It was no contest.
According to Wikipedia account of that war: "On 27 December 2008,[80] Israeli F-16 strike fighters launched a series of air strikes against targets in Gaza. Struck were police stations, schools, hospitals, UN warehouses, a mosque, various Hamas government buildings, a science building in the Islamic University, and a U.N.-operated elementary school in a Palestinian refugee camp.[81] Israel claimed that the attack was a response to Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel, which totaled over 3,000 in 2008, and which intensified during the few weeks preceding the operation. UN medical staff were killed by Israeli combatants during the attacks[citation needed]. Palestinian medical staff said at least 434 Palestinians were killed, and at least 2,800 wounded, made up mostly civilians and some Hamas members, in the first five days of Israeli strikes on Gaza. Israel began a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip on 3 January, 2009.[82] Israel rebuffed many cease-fire calls and both sides declared unilateral cease-fires.[83][84]
In total 13 Israelis and more than 1300 Palestinians were killed in the 22-day war.[85]
After 22 days of fighting, Israel decided to stop fighting, while insisting on holding its positions, while Hamas has vowed to fight on if Israeli forces do not leave the Strip.[86]
5,000 homes, 16 government buildings, and 20 mosques were destroyed. 25,000 homes were damaged.
Today the Gaza blockade continues
Main article: 2007–2009 blockade of the Gaza Strip
The 2-year old blockade of the Gaza strip continued after the end of the war, although Israel allowed to move in humanitarian aid.
The Red Cross has released a report that argues that Israel's continued blockade is making it impossible for Gaza to recover from the war. The Red Cross claims that the blockade is "strangling" the Gazan economy and also notes that the blockade has caused a shortage of basic medicines and equipment such as painkillers and x-ray film.[88]" See Wikipedia (Gaza Strip) downloaded September 16, 2009.
Now back to the NY Times article:
The title of the NY Times piece tells it all. The long expected UN report on the possibility of war crimes in Gaza appeared in the NY Times and should have been entitled something like “UN FINDS SIGNS OF WAR CRIMES IN GAZA” But typical of the Times which is unable to call a spade a spade when it comes to the Middle East. The Times—perhaps fearful of the response of its Jewish readership—entitled this piece by Sharon Otterman , Sept 15, 2009, "UN FINDS SIGNS OF WAR CRIMES ON BOTH SIDES IN GAZA". But read down to find that more than 1300 unarmed Palestinians were killed in Israeli Gaza incursion as they fled during the shameful three week “war: (that is as far as they could go within the confines of the 25 mile long outdoor prison called Gaza) from Israeli tanks, air-force, ground troops and artillery—firing phosphorus shells. Thirteen Israelis also died in the attack. But the Times disgraces itself with the shameful header. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/world/middleeast/16gaza.html?hp. The fact is that only through understanding of both sides of this issue can we as a nation and a people come to support government policies that will finally bring peace to both communities. The Times (though in truth it rasied the issue to first column status the following day) as the paper of record and with the most influential readership must bring the issues clearly and forthrightly to the public. Perhaps on day two they did.
The French paper Le Monde, entitiled their report: Selon l'ONU, Israël a commis des "crimes de guerre" à Gaza (According to the UN, Israel has commite war crimes in Gaza) http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2009/09/15/l-assemblee-adopte-hadopi-2-contre-le-telechargement-illegal_1240973_651865.html#ens_id=1232569
Le Figaro takes the point of view of Hamas entitling the report: ONU/Gaza:un rapport "politique"(Hamas) ( UN /Gaza : a politcal report (Hamas). Hamas states this is a political report, unequal and dishonest, in its evaluation it put the same blame on those who committed the crimes (of war) to those who were (simply) resisting (the attack) has declered the AFP director of Hamas in Gaza, Ismael Radwin
The scathing UN report (released Tuesday) concluded that both the Israeli military and the Palestinians “committed actions amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity.” What is the difference between “war crimes” and “actions amounting to war crimes” I don’t know.
The investigation carried out by Justice Richard Goldstone, a widely respected South African judge, found that neither Israel or the Palestinians carried out any “credible investigations” into alleged violations. I wonder how one could conceivably attempt to equate the Hamas revolutionaries in Gaza with the State of Israel…but I guess it served the interests of the US and UN to do so. Otherwise all that could be said was that Israel committed war crimes and then didn’t bother to investigate. What war cries could be ascribe to the victims…they didn’t die fast enough or get out of the way soon enough?
The charge against the Isreali side was that the report was “too one-sided ignoring the thousands of (ineffective and non fatal) rocket attacks.” In response (though I have not read the report) the summary indicates that it addresses that issue. The problem is that no one expects Israel not to defend itself or its citizens...it must do so. It was justified in responding to the rocket attacks (although logically one can justify the rocket attacks as a response to Israeli actions as well). However, this Gaza action was not a simple attack on rocketeers. It was a punitive incursion ment to punish as whole population and bomb them back into the stone age. That is the weakness in the Israeli argumument. It is addressed fully in the report and Judge Goldstone, addresses the same issue in a rebuttal as published in the NY Times the following day.
No one has brought up the question of “proportionality” in this disgraceful attack on an essentially confined, unarmed civilian population by a mighty modern military ranked as the fourth or fifth most powerful in the world (but see above).
The bulk of the report, for good reasons focuses on the Israeli violations. It concludes that Israeli forces engaged in a deliberate policy of “collective punishment in furtherance of “an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population” through blockades and the destruction of food, water and sanitation systems of its people.”
In one case, armored bulldozers of the Israeli forces systematically flattened the chicken coops of a farm that reportedly supplied 10 percent of the Gazan egg market, killing all 31,000 chickens inside. In another, the forces carried out a strike on a sewage plant wall, sending 200,000 cubic meters of raw sewage into neighboring farmland, the report said. The panel did not find a justifiable reason for the Israelis’ actions in either case.
It also found that the Israeli forces used disproportionate force against the Palestinian civilian population. In a number of cases, it said, Israeli forces launched “direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome,” even when the facts indicated no justifiable military objective. Based on the available evidence, some of those incidents, the report concluded, amounted to war crimes.
One such event took place in the Samouni neighborhood in Gaza City, when Israel soldiers shelled a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to gather. In seven cases, the report found, “civilians were shot while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and in some cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so.”
Israeli forces also intentionally attacked civilians in aiming a missile strike at a mosque during the early evening prayer, killing 15 people, and in firing antipersonnel flechette munitions, which release thousands of metal darts, on a crowd of family members and neighbors at a condolence tent, killing 5.
Israeli forces twice shelled civilian hospitals in Gaza, but in neither case was the attack justified, the report found. In the attack on Al Quds Hospital, the shelling of the building and an adjacent ambulance facility with white phosphorus shells caused fires that took a day to extinguish, and at no point was any warning given of an imminent strike, the report said. The panel found no evidence of the enemy fire that the Israeli military cited as rationale for its attack.
“These incidents indicate that the instructions given to the Israeli forces moving into Gaza provided for a low threshold for the use of lethal fire against the civilian population,” the report said. The conduct of the Israeli armed forces in these instances, it said, “constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention” and as such, “give rise to individual criminal responsibility.”
On the side of the Palestinians their armed groups fired repeated rockets and mortars into southern Israel. By failing to distinguish between military targets and the civilian population, those actions also “constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity,” the report said.
The mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants “mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack,” the report said, nor did it find evidence to suggest that Palestinian armed groups “either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks.”
The panel conducted 188 interviews, reviewed 10,000 pages of documents, and viewed more than 1,000 photographs and videos before drawing its conclusions. The panel said that Israel did not respond to a comprehensive list of questions, but that Palestinian authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank cooperated.
Now what can we do here in the US? Must we continue to support a nation accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, continue to supply them with weapons, prop up their economy and support their foreign policy goals. When do we let them go on their own?
When will the world court take up this case?
Get the picture
rjk
Israel has been accused of War Crimes in Gaza and now finds it hard to maintain its “victim” status.
First a bit of history for those of you who do not even know where Gaza is and are weak on facts about Israel.
Israel ranks as one of the top battle-hardened military forces in the world. Considering its stockpile of hundreds of nuclear weapons, the nation is military is ranked probably third or fourth in the world. If one ignores its nuclear capacity, and evaluates its airpower, and ground forces alone, it ranks 11th in the world just under Turkey (10th) and above South Korea, Italy, Pakistan, Taiwan, Iran, Sweden, Australia, Spain and many other nations (See: http://www.globalfirepower.com/).
Gaza, on the other hand, is an approximately 25 by five long by 5 mile wide desert coastal strip (smaller than Long Island’s South Fork from Southampton to Montauk) and one of the most densely populated places on earth with 1.4 million Palestinians, many of whom are long-term refugees from Israel proper. Israel controls the bordering sea as well as the airspace over Gaza. Its security fences seal off all Gaza borders (save in the southwest where Egypt controls the short Rafah boundary though it is also monitored by Israel military). Gaza is essentially a 139 square mile outdoor prison- ghetto controlled by Israel. The occupants have no way out--or back in-- were they so fortunate as to be whisked away from this outdoor prison.
In 2005, Israel, which has occupied the strip since 1967, unilaterally pulled its forces out of Gaza. However, since it still controls all crossing, air space, sea access all crossings as well as the amount of fuel, water, fuel, building materials, medicines and supplies that enter as well as all human access…international law still considers the territory to be occupied by Israel.
On December 27, 2007 When Israel unleashed the full power of its IDF with bombing and strafing raids by American-built F16 jets against tiny Gaza it was like the proverbial turkey shoot. It was no contest.
According to Wikipedia account of that war: "On 27 December 2008,[80] Israeli F-16 strike fighters launched a series of air strikes against targets in Gaza. Struck were police stations, schools, hospitals, UN warehouses, a mosque, various Hamas government buildings, a science building in the Islamic University, and a U.N.-operated elementary school in a Palestinian refugee camp.[81] Israel claimed that the attack was a response to Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel, which totaled over 3,000 in 2008, and which intensified during the few weeks preceding the operation. UN medical staff were killed by Israeli combatants during the attacks[citation needed]. Palestinian medical staff said at least 434 Palestinians were killed, and at least 2,800 wounded, made up mostly civilians and some Hamas members, in the first five days of Israeli strikes on Gaza. Israel began a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip on 3 January, 2009.[82] Israel rebuffed many cease-fire calls and both sides declared unilateral cease-fires.[83][84]
In total 13 Israelis and more than 1300 Palestinians were killed in the 22-day war.[85]
After 22 days of fighting, Israel decided to stop fighting, while insisting on holding its positions, while Hamas has vowed to fight on if Israeli forces do not leave the Strip.[86]
5,000 homes, 16 government buildings, and 20 mosques were destroyed. 25,000 homes were damaged.
Today the Gaza blockade continues
Main article: 2007–2009 blockade of the Gaza Strip
The 2-year old blockade of the Gaza strip continued after the end of the war, although Israel allowed to move in humanitarian aid.
The Red Cross has released a report that argues that Israel's continued blockade is making it impossible for Gaza to recover from the war. The Red Cross claims that the blockade is "strangling" the Gazan economy and also notes that the blockade has caused a shortage of basic medicines and equipment such as painkillers and x-ray film.[88]" See Wikipedia (Gaza Strip) downloaded September 16, 2009.
Now back to the NY Times article:
The title of the NY Times piece tells it all. The long expected UN report on the possibility of war crimes in Gaza appeared in the NY Times and should have been entitled something like “UN FINDS SIGNS OF WAR CRIMES IN GAZA” But typical of the Times which is unable to call a spade a spade when it comes to the Middle East. The Times—perhaps fearful of the response of its Jewish readership—entitled this piece by Sharon Otterman , Sept 15, 2009, "UN FINDS SIGNS OF WAR CRIMES ON BOTH SIDES IN GAZA". But read down to find that more than 1300 unarmed Palestinians were killed in Israeli Gaza incursion as they fled during the shameful three week “war: (that is as far as they could go within the confines of the 25 mile long outdoor prison called Gaza) from Israeli tanks, air-force, ground troops and artillery—firing phosphorus shells. Thirteen Israelis also died in the attack. But the Times disgraces itself with the shameful header. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/world/middleeast/16gaza.html?hp. The fact is that only through understanding of both sides of this issue can we as a nation and a people come to support government policies that will finally bring peace to both communities. The Times (though in truth it rasied the issue to first column status the following day) as the paper of record and with the most influential readership must bring the issues clearly and forthrightly to the public. Perhaps on day two they did.
The French paper Le Monde, entitiled their report: Selon l'ONU, Israël a commis des "crimes de guerre" à Gaza (According to the UN, Israel has commite war crimes in Gaza) http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2009/09/15/l-assemblee-adopte-hadopi-2-contre-le-telechargement-illegal_1240973_651865.html#ens_id=1232569
Le Figaro takes the point of view of Hamas entitling the report: ONU/Gaza:un rapport "politique"(Hamas) ( UN /Gaza : a politcal report (Hamas). Hamas states this is a political report, unequal and dishonest, in its evaluation it put the same blame on those who committed the crimes (of war) to those who were (simply) resisting (the attack) has declered the AFP director of Hamas in Gaza, Ismael Radwin
The scathing UN report (released Tuesday) concluded that both the Israeli military and the Palestinians “committed actions amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity.” What is the difference between “war crimes” and “actions amounting to war crimes” I don’t know.
The investigation carried out by Justice Richard Goldstone, a widely respected South African judge, found that neither Israel or the Palestinians carried out any “credible investigations” into alleged violations. I wonder how one could conceivably attempt to equate the Hamas revolutionaries in Gaza with the State of Israel…but I guess it served the interests of the US and UN to do so. Otherwise all that could be said was that Israel committed war crimes and then didn’t bother to investigate. What war cries could be ascribe to the victims…they didn’t die fast enough or get out of the way soon enough?
The charge against the Isreali side was that the report was “too one-sided ignoring the thousands of (ineffective and non fatal) rocket attacks.” In response (though I have not read the report) the summary indicates that it addresses that issue. The problem is that no one expects Israel not to defend itself or its citizens...it must do so. It was justified in responding to the rocket attacks (although logically one can justify the rocket attacks as a response to Israeli actions as well). However, this Gaza action was not a simple attack on rocketeers. It was a punitive incursion ment to punish as whole population and bomb them back into the stone age. That is the weakness in the Israeli argumument. It is addressed fully in the report and Judge Goldstone, addresses the same issue in a rebuttal as published in the NY Times the following day.
No one has brought up the question of “proportionality” in this disgraceful attack on an essentially confined, unarmed civilian population by a mighty modern military ranked as the fourth or fifth most powerful in the world (but see above).
The bulk of the report, for good reasons focuses on the Israeli violations. It concludes that Israeli forces engaged in a deliberate policy of “collective punishment in furtherance of “an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population” through blockades and the destruction of food, water and sanitation systems of its people.”
In one case, armored bulldozers of the Israeli forces systematically flattened the chicken coops of a farm that reportedly supplied 10 percent of the Gazan egg market, killing all 31,000 chickens inside. In another, the forces carried out a strike on a sewage plant wall, sending 200,000 cubic meters of raw sewage into neighboring farmland, the report said. The panel did not find a justifiable reason for the Israelis’ actions in either case.
It also found that the Israeli forces used disproportionate force against the Palestinian civilian population. In a number of cases, it said, Israeli forces launched “direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome,” even when the facts indicated no justifiable military objective. Based on the available evidence, some of those incidents, the report concluded, amounted to war crimes.
One such event took place in the Samouni neighborhood in Gaza City, when Israel soldiers shelled a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to gather. In seven cases, the report found, “civilians were shot while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and in some cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so.”
Israeli forces also intentionally attacked civilians in aiming a missile strike at a mosque during the early evening prayer, killing 15 people, and in firing antipersonnel flechette munitions, which release thousands of metal darts, on a crowd of family members and neighbors at a condolence tent, killing 5.
Israeli forces twice shelled civilian hospitals in Gaza, but in neither case was the attack justified, the report found. In the attack on Al Quds Hospital, the shelling of the building and an adjacent ambulance facility with white phosphorus shells caused fires that took a day to extinguish, and at no point was any warning given of an imminent strike, the report said. The panel found no evidence of the enemy fire that the Israeli military cited as rationale for its attack.
“These incidents indicate that the instructions given to the Israeli forces moving into Gaza provided for a low threshold for the use of lethal fire against the civilian population,” the report said. The conduct of the Israeli armed forces in these instances, it said, “constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention” and as such, “give rise to individual criminal responsibility.”
On the side of the Palestinians their armed groups fired repeated rockets and mortars into southern Israel. By failing to distinguish between military targets and the civilian population, those actions also “constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity,” the report said.
The mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants “mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack,” the report said, nor did it find evidence to suggest that Palestinian armed groups “either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks.”
The panel conducted 188 interviews, reviewed 10,000 pages of documents, and viewed more than 1,000 photographs and videos before drawing its conclusions. The panel said that Israel did not respond to a comprehensive list of questions, but that Palestinian authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank cooperated.
Now what can we do here in the US? Must we continue to support a nation accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, continue to supply them with weapons, prop up their economy and support their foreign policy goals. When do we let them go on their own?
When will the world court take up this case?
Get the picture
rjk
Friday, September 11, 2009
REVISITING CELL PHONES AND MALIGNANT GLIOMAS
Representatives of the cell-phone industry in the US continually assure us that cell-phones don't cause cancer since there is "no known mechanism" for radiation from their instruments to affect brain tissues. While the National Cancer Institute asssures us that the incidence of brain cancer has remained relatively steady over the years.
On the other-hand, the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the US-- a data base that should count heavily--has detected a rise in some forms of brain cancer. According to officials from that organization, the cause the increase in these lesions is still "uncertain" and "needs further study" . (See: LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus9the-2009sep09,0,7825195.column downloaded September 12, 2009.)
One suspects the authors in the American press such as the LA Times piece above, purposefully take a "on the fence" position. Their reports are so non-committal they seems designed only to confuse and titillate the reader. It is well to remember that in the US, as Calvin Coolidge said so famously, and with such innocence and brevity--"The business of America is business". Meaning if you're making money here in some capacity --the government is in there with you. It will do next to nothing to control your efforts (baring perhaps a release of radioactive nuclear waste) to restrict your profit making! So don't expect to hear any early alerts or warnings from that quarter. Trade groups are suspect for good reason. While scientists are often on the payroll of the very industries they are evaluating. And for newspapers-- remember they are in the business of selling advertisments.
Thus we can not expect any real "plain talk" until an verified health-care bill is passed some day and the government and insurance companies have an actual monetary stake in our citizen's health and long-term welfare. Until then, please look elsewhere for your health-related information.
Often that's what I do. I scan the foreign press--where "business bias" is somewhat modulated by other factors. Then again, sometimes I find it is better to evaluate how people are reacting to certain types of information, rather than to what they say or write. For that reason I was particularly alerted by Jeff Lean’s piece in the UK's Telegraph newspaper (on line) entitled: “Mobiles and Cancer—The Plot Thickens” (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6175172/Mobiles-and-cancer-the-plot-thickens.html) down loaded September 11, 2009.
My proverbial ears perked up as I read Jeff's statement in the Telegram: “The official European Environment Agency (EEA) is sounding a discreet alarm. And the French government is so concerned, that it is developing measures to ban the (cell-phone) devices from primary schools, stop their promotion to children under 12, and prevent them being sold without a headset to heavily reduce radiation exposure. ” Try to imagine that happening here in the US. The cell-phone lobby would have gone "postal" at such a move. Perhaps that is one of the underlying causes that the EU countries enjoy so much longer life span and reduced disease incidence while spending less than half of what we do on health care.
Those few sentences gave me pause. Lean added that “evidence is increasing that radiation from handsets present a cancer hazard, particularly to children and to those who use their phones for more than a decade.”
Furthermore, Lean's piece states that recent studies from Sweden, where heavy mobile phone-use began years before other areas in Europe (and the US), have now included these early users in their evaluations. The resulting research indicates that long term users "are about twice as likely to get malignant gliomas – an incurable brain cancer – and importantly these occur on the side of the head where they held the handset. Lean warns that "as the latency period for cancers is usually 20 to 30 years, this may indicate a much bigger toll to come.”
Other Swedish results evaluating the effects of cell phone use on children and teenagers "found that people who started using the phones before the age of 20 were five times more likely to contract the cancers, and eight times more prone to get them on the appropriate side of the head.”
If these warning prove valid, the more than two billion people using mobile phones around the world today may be subject to the threat of malignant glioma. This is a very troubling thought. Lean notes that in Britain – "where there are now nearly two cell phones in use per person – and where at least 90 per cent of 16-year-olds have their own handsets, as do more than 40 per cent of primary pupils."
Prof David Carpenter, dean of the school of Public Health at the State University of New York, Albany, flatly predicts an “epidemic of brain cancers” among today’s children as they grow up.”
I think those facts are pretty scary. I would be very careful using the cell-phones close to your body…or too close to your young children.
Get the picture?
rjk
On the other-hand, the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the US-- a data base that should count heavily--has detected a rise in some forms of brain cancer. According to officials from that organization, the cause the increase in these lesions is still "uncertain" and "needs further study" . (See: LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus9the-2009sep09,0,7825195.column downloaded September 12, 2009.)
One suspects the authors in the American press such as the LA Times piece above, purposefully take a "on the fence" position. Their reports are so non-committal they seems designed only to confuse and titillate the reader. It is well to remember that in the US, as Calvin Coolidge said so famously, and with such innocence and brevity--"The business of America is business". Meaning if you're making money here in some capacity --the government is in there with you. It will do next to nothing to control your efforts (baring perhaps a release of radioactive nuclear waste) to restrict your profit making! So don't expect to hear any early alerts or warnings from that quarter. Trade groups are suspect for good reason. While scientists are often on the payroll of the very industries they are evaluating. And for newspapers-- remember they are in the business of selling advertisments.
Thus we can not expect any real "plain talk" until an verified health-care bill is passed some day and the government and insurance companies have an actual monetary stake in our citizen's health and long-term welfare. Until then, please look elsewhere for your health-related information.
Often that's what I do. I scan the foreign press--where "business bias" is somewhat modulated by other factors. Then again, sometimes I find it is better to evaluate how people are reacting to certain types of information, rather than to what they say or write. For that reason I was particularly alerted by Jeff Lean’s piece in the UK's Telegraph newspaper (on line) entitled: “Mobiles and Cancer—The Plot Thickens” (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6175172/Mobiles-and-cancer-the-plot-thickens.html) down loaded September 11, 2009.
My proverbial ears perked up as I read Jeff's statement in the Telegram: “The official European Environment Agency (EEA) is sounding a discreet alarm. And the French government is so concerned, that it is developing measures to ban the (cell-phone) devices from primary schools, stop their promotion to children under 12, and prevent them being sold without a headset to heavily reduce radiation exposure. ” Try to imagine that happening here in the US. The cell-phone lobby would have gone "postal" at such a move. Perhaps that is one of the underlying causes that the EU countries enjoy so much longer life span and reduced disease incidence while spending less than half of what we do on health care.
Those few sentences gave me pause. Lean added that “evidence is increasing that radiation from handsets present a cancer hazard, particularly to children and to those who use their phones for more than a decade.”
Furthermore, Lean's piece states that recent studies from Sweden, where heavy mobile phone-use began years before other areas in Europe (and the US), have now included these early users in their evaluations. The resulting research indicates that long term users "are about twice as likely to get malignant gliomas – an incurable brain cancer – and importantly these occur on the side of the head where they held the handset. Lean warns that "as the latency period for cancers is usually 20 to 30 years, this may indicate a much bigger toll to come.”
Other Swedish results evaluating the effects of cell phone use on children and teenagers "found that people who started using the phones before the age of 20 were five times more likely to contract the cancers, and eight times more prone to get them on the appropriate side of the head.”
If these warning prove valid, the more than two billion people using mobile phones around the world today may be subject to the threat of malignant glioma. This is a very troubling thought. Lean notes that in Britain – "where there are now nearly two cell phones in use per person – and where at least 90 per cent of 16-year-olds have their own handsets, as do more than 40 per cent of primary pupils."
Prof David Carpenter, dean of the school of Public Health at the State University of New York, Albany, flatly predicts an “epidemic of brain cancers” among today’s children as they grow up.”
I think those facts are pretty scary. I would be very careful using the cell-phones close to your body…or too close to your young children.
Get the picture?
rjk
THE AFGHANISTAN KILLING FIELDS AND US STRATEGY
WHY AFGHAN CIVILIANS CONTINUE TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF NATO
A February 2009 UN report noted that the number of civilians killed in armed conflict in Afghanistan rose 40 percent last year (2008), to a record 2,118. CNN adds that Afghan security forces, and "U.S. and NATO troops killed 828 civilians.
Airstrikes -- many at night -- were responsible for the largest percentage of these fatalities." http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/17/afghanistan.civilian.casualties/index.html: The full accounting of this horrible war is not available for 2009, but the recent Kunduz fuel-truck bombings and its bizzare and bloody aftermath will certainly balloon the fatality numbers for the present year, beyond what they were in the past.
The Septermber 4th bombing of the two fuel trucks in Kunduz, may have caused the horrible incineration deaths of as many as 125 civilians if recent estimates are correct. The numbers are staggering and cause one to question our nations motives and actions in that nation--and wonder---why we are there?. Why do we do it? (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/04/afghan-village-devastated-nato-missiles).
The self-serving response of German PM, Angela Merkel (one of her nationals, a German NATO officer, Colonel Klein, called in the bomb-request) to this tragedy as reported in the world media, and her insistence, in the face of facts to the contrary, that “all of the dead were insurgents” just angered me further. (See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090907/wl_time/08599192089000). If I could easily imagine the circumstances in a rural mountain community where, when poor farmers learned there was “free fuel” for the taking just down the road---valuable commodity that would be needed for the coming winter—they rushed en mass to the site, so could a much-better informed Ms Merkel.
Furthermore, regarding the number of "insurgents" killed: it would be hard to imagine more than a small contingent of Taliban arriving with the two fuel trucks. The trucks cabs could probably accommodate no more than three or four men each. No other vehicles were pictured at the bomb-site. Possibly, with men hanging on the outside, there were at most ten "insurgents", maybe less. While the number of locals responding to such a “fire sale” could easily be in the many scores.
The fact that many AK47 rifle parts were found scattered at the blast site was offered as "proof" by the Germans that only insurgents were killed. But it is well known that most of these local civilians carry AK 47s. Ammo and parts of these weapons would be normally scattered on the ground where they died. In regard to the carrying of the AK47 by villagers, See: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1921633,00.html.
The awful pictures of the site showing the burnt and twisted remains of the trucks also revealed scattered of gerry-cans, barrels and containers, just what locals would have brought with them to fill with free fuel.
The responses of the media simply did not ring true. Civilian casualty reports ranged from only 5(!) to as many as 130, depending on who was reporting. Such wild variations are surely a sign of lack of information or even deception somewhere along the line of information.
Furthermore, the fuel-truck-bombing was only the last one in a long series of distressing attacks all with similar outcomes. Recall the UN report of over 800 civilians killed by NATO and US bombardment. These reports tell of innocent Afghan civilians, mothers, infants, children, young women, old people, all dying horrible deaths as they huddle together for safety indoors, or are caught in the open as they mass for a family gathering, a meeting or a wedding celebration. (See also an earlier blog of this author concerning NATO attacks on Afghan hospitals. (http://rjkspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/09/transfer-of-bad-behavior-iraq-to.html)
Reading these distressing reports, one is struck with the casual way bombing decisions are finalized, particularly where innocent civilians are know to be located. I found the following incident--one of scores-- in data provided by Human Rights Watch. This incident occurred in the Nijrab Distric: Kapisa Province, on March 4, 2007. (See Human Rights Watch, "Troops in Contact", downloaded September 11, 2009: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/afghanistan0908webwcover_0.pdf. Page 13)
The Human Rights Watch (HRW) report reveals that two insurgents were observed by American spotters firing a hand-held rocket at a US outpost. The spotters watched as the men retreated and then were seen to enter a near-by house. Soon after that, US planes dropped two, 2000 pound bombs on the house. Inside nine innocent civilians died in the blast, five women, three children and an elderly man. The two men were not among the dead.
A subsequent investigation revealed that the American troops had actually been in that house prior to the attack. They had seen the civilians and knew of their presence before planning to bomb the place. Yet they proceeded anyway. According to a witness: “US forces conceded their troops had been at the village the day before," said a relative of the family. “The Americans came here the day before they bombed, they searched the whole house and saw women and children in the house. Then the bombs fell."
What could have gone wrong? Was it an error? Perhaps nothing went wrong. To my mind, the large number of “accidental” attacks on civilians seems too difficult to explain as simple happenstance or error, one must assume that these are not accidents. They are just part of the regular military plan of an occupier--this is what is called "counter insurgency". Yes it is ugly. But that's what we are doing in Afghanistan.
This last fuel tanker incident was no different. Why were the trucks hit? Since they were wheel-rim deep in river sand, they were not going anywhere. Thus they were no threat to the German NATO troops--who were safely bivouacked two to three miles away. Reports have revealed that it was known to military observers--using high-tech (unmanned drone) reconnaissance that “large numbers of people were in the vicinity of the trucks.” The answer came to me in a flash. They knew local villagers were there but they bombed them anyway! It was not an accident!
The over-all strategy of any occupier from Caesar in Gaul to the Russians in Afghanistan, and the US in Iraq (or Vietnam) was and remains the same-- deny the “native warriors”, the “insurgents”, or “revolutionaries” what ever you want to call them--access to resources. The British did it to colonials right here on Long Island, when they attacked residents who might provide sustenance to the local Revolutionary militia.
Only a stone's throw from where I write, a colonial's hay rack was burned and his cattle killed by British occupation forces in 1778 in retaliation for the fact that the man's son had joined the local militia. Later the next day, a squad of British troops came marching down the road and arrested the lad's father and were marching the man off when a local Tory (the man's neighbor) begged them to let him go. Happily they did. In that situation, the US colonists were the insurgents—while the British Red Coats were the occupiers, who burned our hay stacks, shot our cattle, and used local residences as stables for their horses. In effect, to take what they wanted, deny any resources to the colonial insurgents, and punish those that would go over to the other side.
Our policy in Afghanistan remains the same--to deny resources to the enemy and to separate the insurgents (Taliban) from the civilian population. Furthermore that harsh strategy includes a form of "lethal instruction". In the case of US forces in Afghanistan, part of their operational goal is to "teach" the local Afghans that it is dangerous to either aid or support the insurgents.
Thus our recent actions in Afghanistan, and I expect General McChrystal’s "new plan" must have this element in it somewhere. Since it is obvious that “punitive” bombing raids and attacks have not stopped. If an Afghan villager gives aid or shelter to the Taliban, he (and his family) may be targeted. According to US military strategy, (as I interpret the facts) that is the important message for villagers to learn. Our unmanned drones, which attack stealthily in seemingly isolated Afghanistan mountian villages are another way to teach this tough lesson. A form of terrorism yes. It is “terror from the skies” designed to generate fear and respect for the US and NATO forces. To encourage the locals to abandon their ties to the Taliban, and come over to our side. The raw display of force says to them “we are stronger and can protect you better”.
So why the attack on the house with the resident family, and on the two tanker trucks? Those two cases were one way the US and NATO can "teach a lesson" to the rest of the population.
In regard to the fuel trucks, the contraband was a valuable resource, military planners could not let fall into the hands of the Taliban. The US command was convinced it must deny them the use of the fuel and prevent them its use as a "valuable commodity" to bargain away, or even simply give away. Fuel could be used to win friends. Thus the tankers trucks had to be destroyed.
If we killed those villagers who were “sympathetic” or leaning toward to the Taliban—as we destroyed the fuel…well that was too bad. There is my view of our strategy. It is an hypothesis that explains all of the accidents, mess ups, poor targeting and "mistakes".
That is why Afghan civilians continue to die.
Get the picture?
rjk
A February 2009 UN report noted that the number of civilians killed in armed conflict in Afghanistan rose 40 percent last year (2008), to a record 2,118. CNN adds that Afghan security forces, and "U.S. and NATO troops killed 828 civilians.
Airstrikes -- many at night -- were responsible for the largest percentage of these fatalities." http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/02/17/afghanistan.civilian.casualties/index.html: The full accounting of this horrible war is not available for 2009, but the recent Kunduz fuel-truck bombings and its bizzare and bloody aftermath will certainly balloon the fatality numbers for the present year, beyond what they were in the past.
The Septermber 4th bombing of the two fuel trucks in Kunduz, may have caused the horrible incineration deaths of as many as 125 civilians if recent estimates are correct. The numbers are staggering and cause one to question our nations motives and actions in that nation--and wonder---why we are there?. Why do we do it? (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/04/afghan-village-devastated-nato-missiles).
The self-serving response of German PM, Angela Merkel (one of her nationals, a German NATO officer, Colonel Klein, called in the bomb-request) to this tragedy as reported in the world media, and her insistence, in the face of facts to the contrary, that “all of the dead were insurgents” just angered me further. (See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090907/wl_time/08599192089000). If I could easily imagine the circumstances in a rural mountain community where, when poor farmers learned there was “free fuel” for the taking just down the road---valuable commodity that would be needed for the coming winter—they rushed en mass to the site, so could a much-better informed Ms Merkel.
Furthermore, regarding the number of "insurgents" killed: it would be hard to imagine more than a small contingent of Taliban arriving with the two fuel trucks. The trucks cabs could probably accommodate no more than three or four men each. No other vehicles were pictured at the bomb-site. Possibly, with men hanging on the outside, there were at most ten "insurgents", maybe less. While the number of locals responding to such a “fire sale” could easily be in the many scores.
The fact that many AK47 rifle parts were found scattered at the blast site was offered as "proof" by the Germans that only insurgents were killed. But it is well known that most of these local civilians carry AK 47s. Ammo and parts of these weapons would be normally scattered on the ground where they died. In regard to the carrying of the AK47 by villagers, See: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1921633,00.html.
The awful pictures of the site showing the burnt and twisted remains of the trucks also revealed scattered of gerry-cans, barrels and containers, just what locals would have brought with them to fill with free fuel.
The responses of the media simply did not ring true. Civilian casualty reports ranged from only 5(!) to as many as 130, depending on who was reporting. Such wild variations are surely a sign of lack of information or even deception somewhere along the line of information.
Furthermore, the fuel-truck-bombing was only the last one in a long series of distressing attacks all with similar outcomes. Recall the UN report of over 800 civilians killed by NATO and US bombardment. These reports tell of innocent Afghan civilians, mothers, infants, children, young women, old people, all dying horrible deaths as they huddle together for safety indoors, or are caught in the open as they mass for a family gathering, a meeting or a wedding celebration. (See also an earlier blog of this author concerning NATO attacks on Afghan hospitals. (http://rjkspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/09/transfer-of-bad-behavior-iraq-to.html)
Reading these distressing reports, one is struck with the casual way bombing decisions are finalized, particularly where innocent civilians are know to be located. I found the following incident--one of scores-- in data provided by Human Rights Watch. This incident occurred in the Nijrab Distric: Kapisa Province, on March 4, 2007. (See Human Rights Watch, "Troops in Contact", downloaded September 11, 2009: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/afghanistan0908webwcover_0.pdf. Page 13)
The Human Rights Watch (HRW) report reveals that two insurgents were observed by American spotters firing a hand-held rocket at a US outpost. The spotters watched as the men retreated and then were seen to enter a near-by house. Soon after that, US planes dropped two, 2000 pound bombs on the house. Inside nine innocent civilians died in the blast, five women, three children and an elderly man. The two men were not among the dead.
A subsequent investigation revealed that the American troops had actually been in that house prior to the attack. They had seen the civilians and knew of their presence before planning to bomb the place. Yet they proceeded anyway. According to a witness: “US forces conceded their troops had been at the village the day before," said a relative of the family. “The Americans came here the day before they bombed, they searched the whole house and saw women and children in the house. Then the bombs fell."
What could have gone wrong? Was it an error? Perhaps nothing went wrong. To my mind, the large number of “accidental” attacks on civilians seems too difficult to explain as simple happenstance or error, one must assume that these are not accidents. They are just part of the regular military plan of an occupier--this is what is called "counter insurgency". Yes it is ugly. But that's what we are doing in Afghanistan.
This last fuel tanker incident was no different. Why were the trucks hit? Since they were wheel-rim deep in river sand, they were not going anywhere. Thus they were no threat to the German NATO troops--who were safely bivouacked two to three miles away. Reports have revealed that it was known to military observers--using high-tech (unmanned drone) reconnaissance that “large numbers of people were in the vicinity of the trucks.” The answer came to me in a flash. They knew local villagers were there but they bombed them anyway! It was not an accident!
The over-all strategy of any occupier from Caesar in Gaul to the Russians in Afghanistan, and the US in Iraq (or Vietnam) was and remains the same-- deny the “native warriors”, the “insurgents”, or “revolutionaries” what ever you want to call them--access to resources. The British did it to colonials right here on Long Island, when they attacked residents who might provide sustenance to the local Revolutionary militia.
Only a stone's throw from where I write, a colonial's hay rack was burned and his cattle killed by British occupation forces in 1778 in retaliation for the fact that the man's son had joined the local militia. Later the next day, a squad of British troops came marching down the road and arrested the lad's father and were marching the man off when a local Tory (the man's neighbor) begged them to let him go. Happily they did. In that situation, the US colonists were the insurgents—while the British Red Coats were the occupiers, who burned our hay stacks, shot our cattle, and used local residences as stables for their horses. In effect, to take what they wanted, deny any resources to the colonial insurgents, and punish those that would go over to the other side.
Our policy in Afghanistan remains the same--to deny resources to the enemy and to separate the insurgents (Taliban) from the civilian population. Furthermore that harsh strategy includes a form of "lethal instruction". In the case of US forces in Afghanistan, part of their operational goal is to "teach" the local Afghans that it is dangerous to either aid or support the insurgents.
Thus our recent actions in Afghanistan, and I expect General McChrystal’s "new plan" must have this element in it somewhere. Since it is obvious that “punitive” bombing raids and attacks have not stopped. If an Afghan villager gives aid or shelter to the Taliban, he (and his family) may be targeted. According to US military strategy, (as I interpret the facts) that is the important message for villagers to learn. Our unmanned drones, which attack stealthily in seemingly isolated Afghanistan mountian villages are another way to teach this tough lesson. A form of terrorism yes. It is “terror from the skies” designed to generate fear and respect for the US and NATO forces. To encourage the locals to abandon their ties to the Taliban, and come over to our side. The raw display of force says to them “we are stronger and can protect you better”.
So why the attack on the house with the resident family, and on the two tanker trucks? Those two cases were one way the US and NATO can "teach a lesson" to the rest of the population.
In regard to the fuel trucks, the contraband was a valuable resource, military planners could not let fall into the hands of the Taliban. The US command was convinced it must deny them the use of the fuel and prevent them its use as a "valuable commodity" to bargain away, or even simply give away. Fuel could be used to win friends. Thus the tankers trucks had to be destroyed.
If we killed those villagers who were “sympathetic” or leaning toward to the Taliban—as we destroyed the fuel…well that was too bad. There is my view of our strategy. It is an hypothesis that explains all of the accidents, mess ups, poor targeting and "mistakes".
That is why Afghan civilians continue to die.
Get the picture?
rjk
WHAT ABOUT THE RESCUE OF STEVE FARREll?
After this fuel-truck disaster one would think that Kunduz had enough "learning" at the hands of its occupiers--already. So why was Gordon Brown encouraged (or ordered or cajoled) to send in the Biritsh Paratroopers to rescue Steve Farrell the NY Times reporter taken hostage by local Taliban as he investigated the fuel-truck story? Recall that while the Taliban were closing the deal for a release of Farrell and his interpreter the British troops stormed the compound guns blazing. The wife and infant child of the house's owner, a Taliban who remained in the house (the others fled), a British paratrooper, and Sultan Munadi, Farrell's Afghan interpreter were all killed. Only Farrell made it out. Why did they persist in this unnecessary and bloody attack--when both men were likely to be released unharmed?
For similar reasons as catalogued above. The US and its allies must be the arbiters of power. We can not "bargain" with the enemy. To do so would indicate to the locals that they--the Taliban-have some legitimacy--that would be handing over a powerful psychological tool to them. We must deny the "enemy" all power and respect--if we are to win over the minds of the local citizenry. Again, to be seen as the powerful military to whom the Afghans must render respect and who will eventually protect them. Those are the goals
This US military strategy has a long history, a logic and a coherence to it. We cannot deny its probable efficacy-- as inhumane and cruel as it is. The real question remains, why are we there in Afghanistan implementing this cruel strategy? What do we gain? What threats are we facing from the Taliban or from Afghanistan for us to demean our nation in this way? There are no apparent benefits to write down here. What advantages does our continued occupation and control of Afghanistan offer us? There may be some reason to hold that ground, but they have not been enunciated and what we have learned over these last eight years is that the costs are so very high---to us--and to the Afghans that one must ask...can it be worth it?Get the picture?
rjk
Thursday, September 10, 2009
MORE WASTED LIVES IN AFGHANISTAN
More unnecessary death and destruction in Afghanistan.
One would think that the bloody province of Kunduz had seen enough death and destruction for a long time when two NATO tanker trucks were hijacked, and their drivers killed by the Taliban. The tankers were spirited off into the hinterlands along dusty dirt roads only to be bogged down as they tried to cross a sandy river-ford. Unable to move the heavily loaded vehicles, the Taliban called in local tribesmen to help unload the fuel and carry off as much as they wanted. While this was occurring, near-by a German NATO contingent made aware of the situation decided to call in an air strike on the stranded trucks. Why let all that fuel get away into the hands of the Taliban? We can't let the Taliban look like nice guys giving away valuable fuel. Hey let's light up the night sky with it. The American F15 pilots—in spite of and in contravention of General Stanley McChrystal’s recent orders not to fire in areas where an attack was likely to cause civilian casualties—were quick and eager to comply. The result was a huge fireball and the death of as many as 125 Afghanis (as reported by: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53383,news,rescuing-journalist-stephen-farrell-was-a-risk-worth-taking-afghanistan-kidnap).
The oil spill had not drained away into the damp sands of the riverbed before the still- smouldering trucks attracted a gung-ho, 46 year-old NY Times journalist, Steven Farrell, who rode into the area with his Afghan interpreter Sultan Munadi (a father of two, journalist and academic). They were there to confirm the facts of a "hot story" and of civilian massacre called in by Germans and executed by Americans--the dying by Afghans--as usual. The two journalists visited the local hospital where they interviewed civilian casualties and were photographed there on September 5th with a badly-burned young local boy. Then they rode out to the river to view the bomb site. Their stay at the river may have lasted too long, since as they were getting ready to leave, they were kidnapped by Taliban forces and taken into Kunduz. Here the story becomes more murky.
Hostage taking in Afghanistan is almost commonplace. The Taliban were apparently looking for a quick pay-off from the NY Times or others, such as Farrell’s family, his insurance company, or the US. But as these negotiations were going on, most say successfully, the British PM, Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street, had either a bad idea or some bad advice which encouraged him to give the green light to an unnecessary, dangerous and politically risky rescue mission by the British SAS in Afghanistan.
The result was a disaster. Though the journalist Steven Farrell did get out alive- at least five people died for his release. The story is of a poorly planned. poorly executed, and bloody, operation--and wasted lives.
First, the American helicopters landed at the wrong compound, eliminating the important element of surprise. The Taliban at that point knew they were being attacked. It is surprising that they did not immediately kill their hostages--but may also suggest their intentions were not lethal. They just left, escaping out the back of the compound.
Finally, the British troops and their American transporters realizing their mistake…(here one wonders just how many people they may have killed in the neighboring compound)…moved on to where the hostages actually were located. As Farrell and his interpreter, abandoned by their captors, slipped out of the building in the rear, the British advance troops came through the front door with a massive blast. The massive explosion killed the wife and child of the house's owner.
By this time, Farrell and his interpreter had come around to the front of the compound where they huddled on the ground. Sultan Munadi, seeing the approaching British troops and wearing his headscarf and robes and still acting as the loyal native protector, ran out toward the British troops yelling “Journalists, Journalists!” One does not know whether it was his Afghan accent, his dark complexion or his head scarf, but he was instantly mowed down in a hail of SAS bullets.
Farrell, the real, "white-looking" guy who might have pulled off the warning, acted as more of a survivor type, and jumped into a ditch. When the shooting died down, he yelled out in his best British accent “Hostage--British hostage!”. He wisely refrained from referring to himself as an “Irish-British” hostage. In these situations clarity, simplicity and some close relation with the attackers pays off. Farrell had to step over poor, dead, loyal Sultan to get to his rescuers, but he did.
Just as sadly, in this unnecessary battle, a young British trooper, handsome twenty-nine year- old Corporal John Harrison also died of gunshot wounds.
A Taliban "leader", a woman and child, Sultan the loyal and heroic interpreter, and John Harrison the British corporal all met their deaths. Farrel went home. The deaths were all unnecessary---all of them. What are we fighting for? None of these men know.
It appears Farrell and his interpreter would probably have been released safely, as we learn now, if the higher ups in London had not interfered.
What made PM Gordon Brown go for it? Mr Gordon Brown, a guy I kind of feel sorry for, is a loner, blind-in-one eye, depressive, humorless, Prime Minister who is previously suspected of Asperger’s syndrome--a form of autism which affects social behavior—and one who is recently rumored to be taking powerful psychoactive drugs to control OCD and deepening mental depression. See: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53143,news,the-mole-gordon-brown-on-drugs-to-control-depression-poor-health-rumours). Perhaps on this occasion he missed his last medication, or just had a bad “hair” day. Poor Gordie everything he touches seems to turn to lead. Is this some kind of a Scottish curse?
But one must ask why was he considering this mission at all? Farrell, though he holds a British passport…is of Irish stock and carries an Irish passport as well. Who knows on what side of the Irish Sea ( or Muir Meann) his real heart lies. He has not been home in a long time, being more of an internationalist, who sees “God in the News”.
But perhaps the real reason was that Brown thought a successful rescue mission would add some luster to his presently tarnished reputation. Recent UK polls (MORI ratings) indicate that the Tories are up 43% to Labor’s (under Brown) 26%. (See: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/) Was this action taken just to pull his poll numbers up? It might have been. Robert Fox at thefirstpost.co.uk asks that question. He states “….the SAS (special services military forces) have provided the likes of Thatcher, Portillo, Blair and Hoon with quite a few grandstanding opportunities over the years. I hope Brown didn't do it just to boost the MORI ratings. That really would be worthy of blame, and more.” See: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53383,news,rescuing-journalist-stephen-farrell-was-a-risk-worth-taking-afghanistan-kidnap.
Afghanistan—oh what a waste of life..
Get the picture?
rjk
One would think that the bloody province of Kunduz had seen enough death and destruction for a long time when two NATO tanker trucks were hijacked, and their drivers killed by the Taliban. The tankers were spirited off into the hinterlands along dusty dirt roads only to be bogged down as they tried to cross a sandy river-ford. Unable to move the heavily loaded vehicles, the Taliban called in local tribesmen to help unload the fuel and carry off as much as they wanted. While this was occurring, near-by a German NATO contingent made aware of the situation decided to call in an air strike on the stranded trucks. Why let all that fuel get away into the hands of the Taliban? We can't let the Taliban look like nice guys giving away valuable fuel. Hey let's light up the night sky with it. The American F15 pilots—in spite of and in contravention of General Stanley McChrystal’s recent orders not to fire in areas where an attack was likely to cause civilian casualties—were quick and eager to comply. The result was a huge fireball and the death of as many as 125 Afghanis (as reported by: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53383,news,rescuing-journalist-stephen-farrell-was-a-risk-worth-taking-afghanistan-kidnap).
The oil spill had not drained away into the damp sands of the riverbed before the still- smouldering trucks attracted a gung-ho, 46 year-old NY Times journalist, Steven Farrell, who rode into the area with his Afghan interpreter Sultan Munadi (a father of two, journalist and academic). They were there to confirm the facts of a "hot story" and of civilian massacre called in by Germans and executed by Americans--the dying by Afghans--as usual. The two journalists visited the local hospital where they interviewed civilian casualties and were photographed there on September 5th with a badly-burned young local boy. Then they rode out to the river to view the bomb site. Their stay at the river may have lasted too long, since as they were getting ready to leave, they were kidnapped by Taliban forces and taken into Kunduz. Here the story becomes more murky.
Hostage taking in Afghanistan is almost commonplace. The Taliban were apparently looking for a quick pay-off from the NY Times or others, such as Farrell’s family, his insurance company, or the US. But as these negotiations were going on, most say successfully, the British PM, Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street, had either a bad idea or some bad advice which encouraged him to give the green light to an unnecessary, dangerous and politically risky rescue mission by the British SAS in Afghanistan.
The result was a disaster. Though the journalist Steven Farrell did get out alive- at least five people died for his release. The story is of a poorly planned. poorly executed, and bloody, operation--and wasted lives.
First, the American helicopters landed at the wrong compound, eliminating the important element of surprise. The Taliban at that point knew they were being attacked. It is surprising that they did not immediately kill their hostages--but may also suggest their intentions were not lethal. They just left, escaping out the back of the compound.
Finally, the British troops and their American transporters realizing their mistake…(here one wonders just how many people they may have killed in the neighboring compound)…moved on to where the hostages actually were located. As Farrell and his interpreter, abandoned by their captors, slipped out of the building in the rear, the British advance troops came through the front door with a massive blast. The massive explosion killed the wife and child of the house's owner.
By this time, Farrell and his interpreter had come around to the front of the compound where they huddled on the ground. Sultan Munadi, seeing the approaching British troops and wearing his headscarf and robes and still acting as the loyal native protector, ran out toward the British troops yelling “Journalists, Journalists!” One does not know whether it was his Afghan accent, his dark complexion or his head scarf, but he was instantly mowed down in a hail of SAS bullets.
Farrell, the real, "white-looking" guy who might have pulled off the warning, acted as more of a survivor type, and jumped into a ditch. When the shooting died down, he yelled out in his best British accent “Hostage--British hostage!”. He wisely refrained from referring to himself as an “Irish-British” hostage. In these situations clarity, simplicity and some close relation with the attackers pays off. Farrell had to step over poor, dead, loyal Sultan to get to his rescuers, but he did.
Just as sadly, in this unnecessary battle, a young British trooper, handsome twenty-nine year- old Corporal John Harrison also died of gunshot wounds.
A Taliban "leader", a woman and child, Sultan the loyal and heroic interpreter, and John Harrison the British corporal all met their deaths. Farrel went home. The deaths were all unnecessary---all of them. What are we fighting for? None of these men know.
It appears Farrell and his interpreter would probably have been released safely, as we learn now, if the higher ups in London had not interfered.
What made PM Gordon Brown go for it? Mr Gordon Brown, a guy I kind of feel sorry for, is a loner, blind-in-one eye, depressive, humorless, Prime Minister who is previously suspected of Asperger’s syndrome--a form of autism which affects social behavior—and one who is recently rumored to be taking powerful psychoactive drugs to control OCD and deepening mental depression. See: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53143,news,the-mole-gordon-brown-on-drugs-to-control-depression-poor-health-rumours). Perhaps on this occasion he missed his last medication, or just had a bad “hair” day. Poor Gordie everything he touches seems to turn to lead. Is this some kind of a Scottish curse?
But one must ask why was he considering this mission at all? Farrell, though he holds a British passport…is of Irish stock and carries an Irish passport as well. Who knows on what side of the Irish Sea ( or Muir Meann) his real heart lies. He has not been home in a long time, being more of an internationalist, who sees “God in the News”.
But perhaps the real reason was that Brown thought a successful rescue mission would add some luster to his presently tarnished reputation. Recent UK polls (MORI ratings) indicate that the Tories are up 43% to Labor’s (under Brown) 26%. (See: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/) Was this action taken just to pull his poll numbers up? It might have been. Robert Fox at thefirstpost.co.uk asks that question. He states “….the SAS (special services military forces) have provided the likes of Thatcher, Portillo, Blair and Hoon with quite a few grandstanding opportunities over the years. I hope Brown didn't do it just to boost the MORI ratings. That really would be worthy of blame, and more.” See: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53383,news,rescuing-journalist-stephen-farrell-was-a-risk-worth-taking-afghanistan-kidnap.
Afghanistan—oh what a waste of life..
Get the picture?
rjk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)