Friday 28 June 2013

VALCO’s DEBT: It Is Killing The Volta River Authority

Minister of Energy, Emmanuel Kofi Buah

By Ekow Mensah
The Volta Aluminum Company's (VALCO) indebtedness to the Volta River Authority appears to be suffocating the power generator to death.

Documents available to “The Insight” indicate the VALCO owes the VRA as much as US $37 million.

This is in spite of the fact that VALCO gets power at a heavily subsided rate of only 5 cents per KWH.

An internal review of the power sector done by the Chief Executive of the VRA said VALCO is not in a position to pay its debts.

VALCO forecasted a net loss of US $16 million for 2012 and similar level of loss is expected this year.

The relevant section of the internal review done by the VRA is published below unedited.
As of December 15, 2012, VALCO is operating one potline, and producing about 40,000 metric tonnes of a year, approximately 20% of overall plant capacity. It is forecasting a net loss of US$[16] million for 2012 and a similar level of loss in 2013 if it continues to operate only one potline. Meanwhile, VALCO has accrued debts to VRA in the amount of US$37 million, despite the fact of receiving a favourable tariff of US cents 5.1kWh, for which VALCO unilaterally declared it could not honour so long as it was operating less than two potlines.

Progress towards an integrated aluminum industry, the justification of the special dispensation for VALCO, is not in evidence. A Chinese company is understood to have taken over the development of one of the major bauxite concessions; how and in what manner it is tied to VALCO's future is not clear. Equally, the plan to provide the required 350 MW of electricity required to run VALCO at a 100% capacity is yet to be delivered. VALCO appears torn between insisting on its special place in Ghana's industrial development landscape for some portion of the country's meagre electricity capacity, and developing and building its own dedicated power plant that will ensure that VALCO does not have to compete with the needs of the rest of the country.

Regardless of the intentions for the future, VALCO's current impact on VRA's operations and finances is unequivocally negative. 70 MW of baseloaded power supplied to VALCO eroded reserve margins below 10% in 2012; it was a matter of course that there would be nation-wide load-shedding once the WAGP pipeline was damaged taking out 200 MW of power supplied by the Sunon Asogli plant. The exercise needs to be performed to verify whether the Consumer Reliability Cost ("CRC,,)3 from the nation-wide load shedding more than offset the benefits, such as can be described, from running one potline at VALCO in the same period.

GRIDCo's 2011 Reliability Report estimated the CRC in 2010, when Akosombo/Kpong registered its highest operating level, there was no load shedding, and generation was thought to be adequate, at US$113.5 million, less than 0.5% of the country's GDP, versus a CRC in 2007 when the country faced significant load shedding, of US$3.3. billion, or 22% of the country's GDP.4

Unfortunately, the generation picture for 2013 does not provide the reserve margins that were originally hoped for. First of all, Asogli's 200 MW power capacity will not be available until late 1 st Quarter/early 2nd Quarter, which means system reserve will remain below [5%] for the first quarter of 2013. The Bui hydro plant, originally expected to come on schedule in the 4th Quarter 2012, is now expected to come on over the course of 2013; the first 133 MW by the 2nd Quarter, and then the full complement of 400 MW by September/October assuming appreciable inflows into the Black Volta. No other new capacity is expected in 2013; the earliest new capacity will be VRA's 200 MW Kpone Thermal Power Plant ("KTPP") which is expected sometime in the 2nd Half of 2014.

VRA therefore does not see a supply situation in 2013 that would warrant VALCO operating at more than one line for at least the first three quarters of the year; any more would erode system reserve margins further, and put the entire system at increased supply risk. At the same time, VALCO does not believe it can pay its rapidly mounting bills to VRA if it does not increase production to more than one potline. This essential conundrum suggests a radical solution is required for the successful resolution of the VALCO problem.

VALCO's expanded operation to more than one potline, then, should be determined by Government's strategic commitment to it. Strictly, Government should shut down VALCO, if the CRC for a one-line VALCO operation can be demonstrated to outweigh the benefits of a one-line VALCO operation for the first nine months of 2013. If such a scenario is deemed unfeasible, then Government must make a specific subsidy provision for VALCO until such time it can run profitably, and pay up the US$37 million in arrears to VRA, and provision to subsidise it until such time VALCO can expand beyond a one potline operation.
In parallel and as soon as practicable, VALCO should complete the development and commence the implementation of a dedicated power plant that supports 100% VALCO operation and provisions for its future expansion, one that would complement rather than compete with the needs of a rapidly growing economy.

VALCO has two options in respect of choice of fuel to power its plants. The first would be to receive a portion of Akosombo/Kpong's hydro resource, which would have the net effect of raising electricity tariffs to the general populace, who will no longer benefit from low-cost hydro blended into the wholesale tariff. The second is the more feasible option: VALCO would receive a special dispensation on price and quantity on gas received from Ghana's gas fields. A 60 mmmscfd allocation of gas supply, possibly from the first tranche of gas supply from the Jubilee field, would also allow VALCO to run three potlines. Ghana gas delivered at any price up to US$4/mmbtu to a combined cycle power plant should yield an electricity price of less than US cents 6/kWh to VALCO, and allow it to comfortably run its operations at two lines or more.

This latter scenario suggests 3-4 years before VAL CO's combined cycle operation is available, assuming it is a greenfield operation; less, if existing capacity is acquired or expanded. Until then, VALCO should not operate beyond 11/2 -2 lines, at all times ensuring that the system reserve margin is 10% or more. If generation supply is not adequate to run VA LCO at 11 /2 or more, it should be shut down, or Government must make explicit provision to subsidize it until it can run at those levels. Further, Government should layout a feasible timeline with clear milestones for how the development of the country's bauxite mines will tie into the construction of an alumina refinery, and the operation and consequent expansion of the VALCO smelter. Absent that, the current operation of VALCO at any level is moot.

Finally, it is not clear that Government alone can successfully motivate a long-term solution for VALCO: the dynamics of the aluminium industry; its capital intensive nature; the nature of supply contracts required, all suggest that a private sector investor with a substantial balance sheet, would better optimize VALCO's current assets than the Government of Ghana itself

Editorial
COLLECT THE BILLS
Total indebtedness to the electricity sub-sector is estimated at more than Gh¢1 billion.

The Insight believes that if this huge amount is collected it will not be necessary to increase the tariffs of the electricity companies.

The level of indebtedness to the companies is a clear case of gross inefficiency which much be dealt with seriously.

If the current management of the companies cannot perform this task, then they ought to be shown the exit.

These companies need to collect these monies to survive and everything possible has to be done to ensure that the indebted entities pay up.

There can be no compromised on this.

By Chido Onumah
Let me say from the outset that it would be scandalous and a grave mistake for the opposition – and by this, I refer to the All Progressives Congress (APC) – to look toward any of the gladiators in the current war of attrition in the People’s Democratic Party, Aminu Tambuwal, Babangida Aliyu, Sule Lamido, etc., as a candidate for the presidency in 2015. With all due respect to these men, and not minding the fact that there are PDP elements in the APC, it would not only smack of unseriousness, but would leave voters no choice in 2015.

Having exorcised the incubus of a PDP takeover of the opposition, let’s pose the fundamental question: who will defeat President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015? We need to pose this question frontally and be sincere in our answers. That is the only way the opposition can assess its strength and chances as we head into the battle of 2015.

Too often, we hear the beer parlour assertion that, “President Jonathan is incompetent; he has to go in 2015”. Clearly, President Jonathan has performed woefully; but when was the last time incompetence cost anybody reelection in Nigeria? It didn’t happen with Shehu Shagari in 1983; certainly, not with Olusegun Obasanjo in 2003.

What is needed, therefore, is a comprehensive strategy to defeat PDP in 2015. And top on the agenda would be the urgent need to market a national candidate who provides a clear and credible alternative to President Jonathan. If free and fair elections were held today (even though the PDP would never permit free and fair elections), chances are that President Jonathan will emerge victorious. I say this with all sense of responsibility.
This is not Nigeria of June 12, 1993, even though Bashir Tofa, the defeated presidential candidate of the National Republican Convention (NRC) in that election and now a chieftain of APC would want us to forget the election and its significance.

Of course, I sympathize with Tofa. I would bury any thoughts of that election if I had been in his position. It is not easy on one’s reputation and psyche running a presidential election and getting trounced in your home constituency. That must go down as one inglorious record for the Guinness World Records.

Back to reality. The country is fractured today as never before. There are still many out there who will vote on the basis of religion; many who will vote because of money, ethnicity and other mundane considerations. Of course, we have to grant them their right to poor judgment. That is the nature of democracy.

There are those who have argued, from their limited understanding of the issue, that one way of addressing the minorities’ question in Nigeria is for President Jonathan to go for a second term whether he deserves it or not. These are the issues that will come to play whether we accept them or not. It is this fracture – add money and rigging – that will determine the outcome of the 2015 election.

So, is the opposition ready to compete in 2015? The answer, of course, will depend on who you ask. Even though the PDP appears like a party that faces imminent implosion, the campaign for 2015 has started in earnest, the glib talk by the president and his handlers notwithstanding. 

Nigerians are yearning for an alternative to Goodluck Jonathan; not just an alternative, but a credible alternative. Talking about the presidency in 2015, the APC, undoubtedly, is a party of immense potentials. But if elections were held today, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd) is perhaps the only person with the pedigree, name recognition and national appeal who can give President Jonathan and the PDP a run for their money.

However, Gen. Buhari has not shown enough statesmanship to make him a winning candidate across the country. By his actions and inaction, the former head of state seems to be saying, “I don’t need the vote of majority of Nigerians to be elected president”. Lately, Gen. Buhari has been assailed by those who accuse him of making “unguarded and insensitive” statements. His handlers have repeatedly affirmed that he is a victim; one who is misunderstood and often misquoted. It may well be true. Leaving aside the issue of his comments, the expectation is that for a man who has run for president thrice and plans a fourth attempt, Gen. Buhari ought to be much more visible and active across the country.

He ought to be out on the street either comforting victims of various acts of terror across the country and offering them hope and a new vision for Nigeria or dousing the perception that he is a provincial leader. He has earned that right. Perhaps he ought to take a cue from Uzor Orji Kalu, a man who should be on trial for his ruination of Abia State.  

We may not like it, but the truth is that after 14 years in power the PDP has managed to reach every nook and cranny of the country. The opposition needs do much to ingrain in the mass of our people the need for a better and workable alternative.
Time is certainly running out.

Globalising Media & Information Literacy  
Next week (June 26-28), the global media and information literacy (MIL) movement will converge on Nigeria for the Global Forum for Partnerships on MIL (GFPMIL), incorporating the International Conference on MIL and Intercultural Dialogue.

With the theme “Promoting Media and Information Literacy as a Means to Cultural Diversity”, the conference which draws upon over 40 years of UNESCO’s experience in MIL, is a joint initiative of UNESCO, the Federal Ministry of Information, the Government of Saudi Arabia, the Swedish International Development Agency, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, and other key stakeholders around the world.   

The GFPMIL will be a permanent mechanism and seeks to globally reposition MIL around the core objectives of: articulating key strategic partnerships to drive MIL development and impact globally focusing on seven development areas: 1) governance and citizenship; 2) education, teaching and learning; 3) linguistic and diversity intercultural dialogue; 4) women, disabled and other disadvantaged; 5) health and wellness; 6) business, industry, employment and economic development; 7) agriculture, farming, wildlife protection, forestry and natural resources conservation.

With Africa as a Global Priority for UNESCO, the International MIL and Intercultural Dialogue Conference will focus on Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa and will be the first global partnership project in this domain. It will set the way forward for future partnerships, enabling the MIL community to speak as one voice on certain critical matters, particularly as it relates to policies.

Let’s hope that Nigeria’s participation will go beyond the conference to embrace this global phenomenon that seeks to provide the vital life skill for students and youth to become critical thinkers and consumers of information and media messages and, therefore, active participants in their societies.


Zizi Harina Nyanga
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe
By Dr Gary K. Busch
There is an old Shona saying, “Zizi harina nyanga”. In essence it means that things are not always what they appear to be. There is an upswell of insincere advice washing over Zimbabwe from ‘disinterested’ African leaders of the Southern African Development Council (SADC), declaring that in spite of the rulings of the Zimbabwe Constitutional Court, Mugabe should postpone the national elections beyond the Court’s July 31 deadline. It is more than insincere advice; it is a deliberate play by the SADC elite to prevent the victory of ZANU-PF in these upcoming elections.

Right now any political poll will tell the world that the Zimbabwe electorate is fed up with the stalemate in the efforts of the country to escape the stranglehold of economic sanctions and demonstrate the complete collapse of any credibility and support for the MDC’s disloyal opposition. In a fair election, if the apathy of the disenchanted voters could be overcome, Tendai Biti would find it hard to get elected dogcatcher at Sam Levy’s.

The West, especially Britain and the EU, and the fanatical anti-Mugabe zealot Susan Rice in the U.S., are trying everything to prevent a free and fair election in Zimbabwe. They have pulled out all the stops in recent years to try and block any growth or recovery in Zimbabwe and have foisted a shotgun marriage between ZANU-PF and the two flavours of the MDC in a condominium of political operations whose time has come to its legal end. Morgan Tsvangirai, Biti and their ilk have served their term of occupation of the political heights of Zimbabwe and now must show in a free poll that they command the respect and support of the population. They know they do not have that support so are adducing all kinds of red herring proposals called “reform” in a last-ditch effort to block their public shame in the upcoming election.

They are supported in this by an aggregation of part-time democrats occupying the leadership positions in SADC. It is more than ironic that these leaders spend their days passing endless resolutions about the sanctity of the Constitutions, the need to respect the judiciary and the Rule of Law and then turn around and lecture the Zimbabwe Government about the urgent need toextend the constitutional deadline beyond the legal cut-off of July 31 and to ignore the ruling of the Zimbabwe Constitutional court. Mugabe was forced to use a presidential decree to bypass Parliament to fast-track changes to election laws and declare the voting date. The opposition parliamentarians were dead set against following the ruling of the Court; it is always difficult for turkeys to vote to support Christmas.

The supposed urgent need for reform is a sham. The justice minister has denied any need for the so-called ‘media or security reforms’ that Morgan Tsvangirai's party says must be enacted before an election takes place.

Despite this the SADC leaders, many of whom have defied term limits, ignored endless rulings of their domestic courts, rigged electoral rolls and allowed and fostered a level of domestic corruption that swells their personal coffers,  decided that democracy would be served best in Zimbabwe by defying the courts and the Constitution. These are the same leaders who have tolerated the Rajoelina coup democracy in Madagascar and are now backing away from any commitment there for free and fair elections. Hypocrisy is not only a Western failing.

Mugabe knows that if he allows the date for the election to slip by, he, too, will have his legitimacy questioned. Right now he has a mandate from the Zimbabwe people expressed in a popular vote to run the country. Tsvangirai and his followers no longer have such a mandate. Their periods in office are up under the terms of the agreement made to put them into the condominium. Mugabe is not stupid enough to fall into the trap of overstaying his mandate and is willing to have the election as required.

No amount of foreign pressure is going to get Mugabe and ZANU-PF to countervail the Constitutional Court and the new Constitution. What Mugabe fears is not the MDC or the age-old battle against Western powers. He fears that all this delay, bitterness and indecision fostered by the condominium will create a level of apathy among the voters who seem to be fed up with all this chicanery and posturing.

The owl may not have horns, despite the ability of the SADC to appear to see them behind every bush. The answer to “Who Rules?” is to have an election. Why is this so difficult to understand?

The Village Mourners Association
Wole Soyinka
By Wole Soyinka
Nigerians who are old enough will surely recall the source of the above title. For others, I ought to narrate its origin. Fortunately, early this year, I delivered a lecture at the University of Ibadan, where I made a passing reference to the true owners of that copyright. Here is the relevant section:

“At the passing of a short-lived dictator, his successor decreed two weeks of mourning, two weeks during which the nation went into a coma. Even the television and radio stations closed down – nothing but martial and funereal music was played, while churches and mosques took over the abandoned air-waves to drown the nation in suras and canticles of lachrymose outpouring. A very sharp group quickly formed something that was called the National Mourners Association – clever lot! While the nation was quarantined and bogged down in the orgy of lamentation, they were touring the world, sponsored by government, to take the gospel of anguish to every corner of the world that boasted a Nigerian diplomatic mission.”

Yes, that was at the death of General Murtala Mohammed. But now, we turn to address the latest progenies of that association, operating in a different clime and context, but cacophonously enmeshed in variations on that ancient tune.

When that day comes that individuals encounter hostility over their sensibilities in dealing with loss in their own way, privately, away from public eye, with or without symbolic public gestures, then we are witnessing the end, not simply of plain civility, but of civilization, and the enthronement of Fascism. It is not the intolerance and excess of a moment’s excitation, but of a cultivated arrogance and will to imposition, one that attempts to dictate the private responses of others to shared events. Once again we are confronted with the Nigerian phenomenon of the egregious appropriation of what is not on offer and thus, is not subject to dispute. Where frustrated, these claimants reel out chapters from their Book of Imprecations.

Let it be stated here, for the avoidance of doubt, that I am a solid believer in the collective rites of Farewell. I believe in Ritual. Humanity is often assisted to reconcile with loss in a collective, and even spectacular mode. The choice to participate or not, however, belongs to each individual, including even those who arrogate to themselves the mission of imposing on others their own preferred mode of bidding farewell. These self-righteous clerics are dangerous beings, especially where they flaunt the credentials of secular learning and gather in caucuses of presumed Humanities. From the herd, the mindless Internet fiddlers for whom the landing of a planetary probe, or a medical breakthrough is simply distraction from fraudulent internet mailing, nothing less is expected. What menaces the collective health of society is when the deserving highs of intellectual application of the former, become indistinguishable from the loutish low of the latter.

I do not pander to the expectations of the sanctimonious. I can absent myself from any event, for reasons that are personal to me. I can absent myself as the result of a mundane domestic situation, as legitimately as from a visceral rejection of occupancy of the same space, at the same time, in the same cause, with certain other participants. I may absent myself for the very reason of my disdain for that breed which is certain to cavil at the very fact of my absence. Such specimens pollute the very space they claim to honour. Sputter and rage they may, but even the most illustrious of that ilk cannot control that choice, neither will they be permitted free passage to encroach upon, and abuse the private spaces of human responsiveness.

I shall speak to them directly: your psychological profile is commonplace. It is not the honour to Chinua that agitates you, no, it is your own self-regarding that seeks to be reflected in the homage to a departed colleague. It does not take a psycho-analyst to recognize this phenomenon of greedy acquisitiveness, even of immaterial products. Like emotional parasites, you feed off others, but you have never learnt to value what others give, or be thereby nourished. I recognize you, atavistic minds – was it not your type that once disseminated an unbelievably primitive accounting for Chinua Achebe’s motor accident? Here goes the story, for those who seek light relief from ponderous unctuousness:

What happened was that I found myself unable to return to Nigeria for a Colloquium in honour of Chinua’s sixtieth birthday. My dramatic mind immediately scrambled for some striking manner of compensation. So I telephoned a business friend who had some agricultural connections in Delta State and told him: find the chunkiest, spotless ram in Delta State – all white or all black, but a thoroughbred of striking physique. Find a leather pouch, tie it to its neck with the following message and deliver it at the venue of the Colloquium. I no longer recall the exact dictated wording, nothing inspirational, just the usual felicitations and injunctions to turn that ram into asun for general feasting.

Those who attended the event will recall the grand entry of the gift - as reported by one and all, including the foreign visitors, and Chinua’s reported reaction, seated on the podium. He shook head and said, “Typical of Wole”. The ram was then led off to meet its destiny at the hands of the gathered. (As a side note, it was I who took a gift away from his seventieth at Bard University – a sobering flash of time past that resulted in my ELEGY FOR A NATION. I had that poem re-published to mark the day of his funeral.)
Our story is only beginning. On the way back from that celebration, Chinua had his accident and was flown to the United Kingdom. At the first opportunity, I made my way there and called up the High Commissioner, Dove-Edwin, who was certain to know the hospital location. It turned out that he also planned a visit that afternoon, and he agreed to give me a ride. We waited – I was joined by two others – waited, and waited, then a phone call came from him that the visit had been called off. The High Commissioner would explain why, on arrival – over a promised dinner, as compensation.

That explanation was this: Dove-Edwin had received communication that some of “Chinua’s people” – a university professor among them, who was named – had pronounced publicly that “Chinua should have known better than to accept a spotless ram from his enemy” – yes, that was the word used – “enemy”. I verified this report from various other sources. Later, an alternative diagnosis surfaced: “Chinua had been too long away from the chieftaincy politics of his hometown, otherwise he would have realized that the title that he took was coveted by some others – and these were deeply steeped in traditional psychic combat”. In short, those rivals “did him in”. Both diagnoses competed for dominance for a while, petering out eventually.

Before the promotion of that alternative cause-and-effect however, Dove-Edwin had re-scheduled, and we had a most bracing, optimistic afternoon with Chinua. Yes, our patient was eventually told the cause of the earlier postponement, and he had a good laugh. On my return to Nigeria, I could not wait to take the opportunity of a public lecture to invite all desperate enemies to please send me their rams of choice – spotless, spotted, piebald, striped or nondescript – so I could treat starving writers to free meals in my home for the rest of the year. And I promised to taste a piece of each ram before serving.

Yes, it is that same breed that continues to sow poison in the minds of the susceptible. Alas for you, it so happens that some of us insist on our own way of commemorating, of being there, even when absent. You, by contrast were never there, however ostentatiously you position yourselves at the event, or at vicarious gatherings to denounce, attribute sinister motivations, and inseminate hate against those whom your pedestrian vision cannot see. Your very loudness proclaims your absence. You were always absent. You will always be absent. So, this communication is not really meant for you but for those potential almajiri – whose minds you corrupt daily with your jeremiads in that accomodating madrassa known as Internet. As a teacher, I lament your failure to use the opportunity of the passing of a revered writer to turn your younger generation in enlightened directions. You have chosen instead to coarsen their sensibilities and breed in their minds misunderstanding, suspicion and above all – hate!

You will have understood by now how I have come to view you as no different from the homicidal clerics who arm youths with kerosene and match, cudgel and knife, a few Naira in their beggars’ bowls, and dispatch them to set fire to structures of comradely cohabitation, of reflection, of mind enlargement, and destroy communities of learning. Your gospel of separatism goes beyond the geographical – in which I have not the slightest interest! – but the humanistic. The difference is in the weapon – in your case, poison, mind corrosion. The means – Internet, and its wide open, undiscriminating generosity. That is where you lay spores of poison, and doom future generations to a confinement of human relationships within the darkest corners of the mind.
You are beyond pity. Kindly absent your selves from my funeral, when that event finally intrudes.

5 Rules for Arming Rebels
Before going to war in Syria, the Obama administration should heed the lessons of history.
By Edward Luttwak 
These are the rebels Obama supports in Syria
It was for several good and solid reasons that U.S. President Barack Obama's administration long resisted pressures to intervene more forcefully in Syria's civil war. To start with, there is the sheer complexity of a conflict at the intersection of religious, ethnic, regional, and global politics, as illustrated by the plain fact that the most Westernized of Syrians (including its Christians) support the Assad government that the United States seeks to displace, while its enemies are certainly not America's friends and, indeed, include the most dangerous of Muslim extremists.

But no matter: After two years of restraint, the administration -- having decided to send "direct military assistance" to the rebels -- has chosen sides and is now choosing sides within sides.

By now, after failed attempts at managing complexity in Iraq and Afghanistan, all should soberly recognize that any successful intervention requires the terrible I-win, you-lose simplicity of war. When that is absent, so too is success. In the end, regardless of the costs in blood and treasure of U.S. efforts -- costs that in this case also include a greater enmity with Russia -- it is still likely that all sides will blame the American infidel for anything that displeases them, as in Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Libya. Neither complexity nor the inevitable accusations of sinister American motives (greed for oil, war on Islam, or both) can be helped, but the Obama administration has stepped forward anyway. Even if conditions on the ground in Syria virtually exclude the possibility of a good outcome, the following five rules -- derived from bitter experience in arming other rebels (some of it personal) -- could at least serve to minimize the damage.

Rule 1: Figure out who your friends are.
The first rule, politically, is to identify one's allies. When Obama finally, officially, makes the announcement that Washington is arming the rebels, it must include the key phrases: "We are acting with our allies in the region" or, better, "our close allies in the region and beyond it."

But once the obligatory words are spoken, it is essential that all U.S. personnel all the way down the chain of command be fully aware of the brutal truth that explains the survival of Bashar al-Assad's regime: America's "allies in the region" are remarkably ineffectual, in spite of every apparent advantage.

Early on, Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani proclaimed his total support for the "Syrian people," sending money and buying weapons at ridiculous prices (and delivering very few). And though his armed forces are small and poorly placed to provide any combat support, he does have billions of dollars at his disposal that he can and does spend on every passing whim. The same goes for the Saudis, who are much less noisy than the Qataris in supporting the rebels but are the real leaders of the Sunni crusade against Assad -- and they too are not short of funds.

Yet in spite of the most ample promises by Qatar and the Saudis, Syrian refugees in Jordan have been living in misery -- there are even persistent reports of the sale of child brides by desperate families. Likewise, the actual flow of weapons to the rebels has been notably meager. In neither case it is just a matter of simple avarice, but rather reflects the operational incapacity of both governments. For more than a year, Washington has been content to allow others to funnel weapons and money, but with Assad's recent victories against the rebels, Obama was forced into action. The Saudi and Qatari rulers just do not have honest, efficient officials whom they can rely on to distribute money or weapons wisely. In the bad old days, the Saudis would just hand over sacks of $100 bills to Osama bin Laden, before he turned against them. Now, too, they would willingly hand over sacks of bank notes to a chief if there were one, but they simply cannot field officials on the ground who can choose between the great number of Syrian claimants, given U.S. injunctions not to arm the most extreme jihadists, including those who accept the "al-Nusra" label.

A much greater surprise is Turkey's all-round incapacity. Early on, with characteristic bombast, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan more or less ordered Assad to stop shooting and start talking. With 75 million inhabitants, a fast-growing economy, a million men under arms, and a 510-mile border with Syria, Turkey should have been the dominant power in the confrontation. But instead of being intimidated into surrender, or just moderation, the Assad regime publicly ridiculedErdogan and Turkish imperial pretensions, denounced Turkey's Islamist government as nothing more than Sunni fanatics, and then proceeded to shoot down a stray Turkish jet fighter before repeatedly sending artillery rounds into Turkish towns. The Turkish response to this insult and attack? Nothing. And that is what Turkey will do as an ally of the United States in Syria: nothing.

It turns out that the country's 15 million to 20 million Bektashis and other Alevis, long cruelly persecuted by Sunni rulers, oppose any action that would strengthen the Sunnis of Syria. In addition, there are also some 2 million Alawites along the border with Syria, mostly in Hatay, the piece of Syria annexed by Turkey in 1939, who vehemently support their compatriot Assad. Then there are the Kurds who predominate in the provinces along the border with Syria and automatically oppose any action by the Turkish armed forces they have so long resisted. On top of that, Turkey's ruling AKP Islamist party has used conspiracy charges, arising from the supposedly vastErgenekon plot, against dozens of very senior officers to immobilize the armed forces, which are guilty in the party's eyes of both defending secularism and menacing democracy. They have succeeded all too well, but this leaves Turkey as a non-power -- a richly ironic outcome given the solemn debates of recent years on whether Ankara is a regional power, a middle power, or a neo-Ottoman power as Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu kept claiming. The world has discovered that Turkey is not even a small power. The bottom line is that the United States will not only lack an ally in fighting Assad, but will also have to operate in a hostile environment, given the many people in Turkey who support the Syrian regime -- some of them ready and willing to attack any U.S. personnel they encounter, or at least help Assad's agents in trying to kill Americans.
Rule 2: Be prepared to do all the work.
Given these "allies," the United States will have to do the lifting -- and not just the heavy part. There should be no illusions now that anyone will be of much help, with the possible exception of whatever money can be extracted from Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
That, in turn, raises the issue of which Americans should do the dirty work of funneling weapons. Always bureaucratically adept, even if operationally incompetent in far too many cases, the CIA already has the Washington end of the action. But if weapons are to be supplied, it is essential to call on the only Americans who can tell the difference between Sunni bad guys who only want to oppress other Syrians and the really bad guys who happen to be waging their global jihad in Syria.

What's needed are true experts, people who really speak the region's Arabic: the regular U.S. Army and Marine Corps officers who successfully sponsored and then effectively controlled the Sunni tribal insurgents in Iraq whose "awakening" defeated the jihadists who were attacking U.S. troops. Some of them are already involved in supporting the rebels under Joint Special Operations Command, but if the mission were expanded it would be a good idea to call for volunteers from the reservists who did the same job in Iraq.
Rule 3: Don't give away anything that you would want to have back.
That includes expertise in identifying and handling any chemical weapons that might be encountered, as well as the supply of any portable anti-aircraft weapons. There are likely already a great number of them in Syria, some of them much more effective than the old 9K32 "Strela-2" or SAM-7 models that have already been used by terrorists against civilian aircraft. Whatever happens, the U.S. counterpart to these weapons -- the current version of the FIM-92 Stinger -- cannot be supplied, as it is even more lethal than the original that was used to such great success against Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Indeed, the Syrian government's use of aircraft for bombing rebel targets might have to be deterred by threats alone -- under-the-table threats, of course, given the impossibility of obtaining Russian or Chinese consent at the U.N. Security Council. Any U.S. intercepts of Syrian aircraft would amount to a drastic escalation, but Assad knows full well that American strike aircraft could reach Syrian airspace in minutes from nearby bases, including from the British staging facilities in Cyprus.

Rule 4: Do not invite an equal and opposite response by another great power.
The prospect of any such drastic escalation immediately brings us to Rule 4, which might as well be Rule 1, or Ãœber 1: Nothing should be done, not even the supply of the smallest of small arms, without a serious, full-dress effort to find some understanding with Russia, for which Assad is not one ally among many, but arguably its only extant military ally. After being cheated over Libya, where a no-fly zone was illegally converted into a free-bombing zone, the Russians will want compensation in Syria if they cooperate at all, including a continuing if diminished role for Assad. That will not satisfy Sunni supremacists but should satisfy Washington, for which neither a rebel defeat nor a rebel victory constitutes a successful outcome. In exchange for the keeping of Assad, the Russians would have to secure the essential quid pro quo for Washington: a clean and final break with Iran and Hezbollah -- which, by the way, would satisfy the Saudis too, as well as Israel.

Rule 5: Lay some ground rules for the endgame.
The fifth and final rule reflects some more bitter experience: Whatever happens, but especially if the regime collapses, it is imperative to maintain a sharp distinction between the government that must be purged and the state that must be preserved. This includes institutions like the regular army and police, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and other such agencies. Under the Assads, decades of nominally Baathist (but actually secular) rule favored the rise of Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Ismailis in the bureaucracy. If U.S. arms prove to be the factor that gives Sunni rebels victory, and if Sunnis fire them all, the Syrian state will disintegrate -- with all the disastrous consequences experienced in Iraq. Unpaid soldiers and police become bandits and insurgents; public services and utilities, including water and electricity, go to pot; chaos and sectarianism flourish. As it is, Syria after Assad is likely to fragment into ethnic ministates, but if its state apparatus is also dissolved, the ensuing anarchy will be especially miserable and uncontrollably violent, with plenty of evil consequences for all near and far. The last thing the Levant needs is another Somalia, or several of them. 

Putin Draws Red Line on Syria
Russian President Vladimir Putin
Russian President Vladimir Putin can take credit for standing up to the G8 warmongers on Syria. Thanks to the feisty Russian leader’s political courage, an all-out war in Syria may have been averted - at least for now.

Only days ago, Western media were touting that Putin would be given a political drubbing at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland this week by the US, Britain and France - the three main NATO powers pushing for regime change in Syria.

The arrogance and spite awaiting Putin was summed up by Washington’s Canadian puppet prime minister, Stephen Harper, when he accused, through media channels, the Russian president of supporting “thugs in Syria”.

Harper said: “I don't think we should fool ourselves. This is G7 plus one. We in the West have a very different perspective on this situation. Mr Putin and his government are supporting the thugs of the Assad regime.”

When the conference opened, Putin didn’t waste time on a minion like Harper. He had bigger fish to fry. During the summit, Putin told Obama, Cameron and Hollande face-to-face that Russia was standing firm in its support for the government of President Bashar al Assad in Damascus. He warned that any plans by the Western powers to openly supply weapons to anti-government militants in Syria was against international law and would destabilize the region; and Putin refused to revoke a deal by Russia to deliver anti-aircraft defence missiles to Syria, pointing out that the transaction was a legal bilateral agreement between sovereign countries. 

In one fell swoop, Putin used the auspices of the annual G8 forum to debunk Western lies and propaganda on Syria and to reiterate the facts of international relations, namely, that Syria is a sovereign country with a sovereign government.

Earlier, British Prime Minister David Cameron, who hosted the two-day summit in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, was betting along with US President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande that the G8 meeting would cause Putin to wilt under their combined pressure.

Far from wilting, the Russian leader stood his ground and ended up tying his pusillanimous adversaries up in knots. Putin showed the courage of conviction; the others had the courage of conmen.

Last week, the Americans, British and French tried to pile the pressure on Putin with lurid claims that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons of mass destruction. Those claims were of course bogus, but they were aimed at creating a red line pretext for the NATO powers to openly begin sending weapons to their proxy mercenaries fighting in Syria to bring down Assad.

Washington duly followed last week with official approval for supplying weapons, at least in principle, just as the British and French had done in preceding weeks. The gang of three also mulled the setting up of “no-fly zones” on Syria’s southern flank over the border from Jordan. News that the Americans were leaving F-16 fighter jets, Osprey troop-carrying planes and Patriot missiles inside Jordan following recent war exercises may also be seen as a calculated threat of NATO intervention in Syria.

So, as the leaders of the G8 countries gathered in Northern Ireland at the start of this week, the pressure was on Putin to give ground on policy towards Russia’s ally, Syria. In particular, the objective of the US, Britain and France was to get the Russian leader to throw Syria’s Assad to the wolves.

The ousting of Assad has been the top foreign political priority of the Western regimes for more than two years. Under the cynical guise of supporting a “pro-democracy uprising”, Washington and the two former colonial powers have plunged Syria into a maelstrom of violence that has resulted in more than 90,000 deaths. The NATO brigands have in effect been holding a gun to the Syrian people’s head in a bid to enforce their criminal scheme of regime change.

Last weekend, former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas confirmed this criminal conspiracy. Dumas told French media how British officials had briefed him on a secret plan for sabotaging Syria - more than two years before conflict in that country flared up in March 2011.

We also know from the American neocon Project for a New American Century and separate disclosures by former US NATO General Wesley Clark that Washington was working on a similar pernicious plot against Syria more than 10 years ago.

The Russians fell for the NATO charade on Libya, with the much-vaunted “no-fly zone” and “responsibility to protect” turning into a murderous blitzkrieg to topple Muammar Gaddafi.

But Moscow seems now to have rumbled NATO’s rolling plan across the Middle East. Russia knows that this regime change is predicated on permanent war that won’t stop at Syria. It is an agenda for total domination across the oil- and gas-rich region that is also targeting Moscow’s other ally, Iran, and will eventually target Russia itself.

At the G8 meeting, British Prime Minister David Cameron did his best to sound consensual. “We have overcome our fundamental differences,” he said with fake tones of fraternity. Cameron was probably still wincing from the rhetorical slap in the face he received from Putin before the G8 summit began, when the Russian leader effectively accused Britain at a press conference in Downing Street of wanting to support organ-eaters and cannibals in Syria.

The G8 summit ended this week with a vaguely stated commitment to end the violence in Syria. That commitment is not worth the paper that it is written on given the underlying criminal intent of Washington, London and Paris. But, importantly, the final G8 communiqué had the glaring omission of calling for President Assad’s ouster. Officially, at least, that American, British and French demand has been given short shrift under G8 terms.

The Western regime-change plan in Syria - already suffering major military defeats on the ground - just received another blow from President Putin who defiantly resisted NATO pressure for betrayal.

Putin stood up to the NATO bullies, showed them to be non-entities, and he drew his own red line on Syria. His courage on display in Northern Ireland this week may just be enough to avert the all-out war that the Western imperialist states have been recklessly driving towards.










WARNING: Your Kenkey Can Kill You


Minister of Health, Sherry Aryeetey
By Ekow Mensah
Please don’t look far for what can kill you. The Fante Kenkey you buy from the Mfantseman West and East Municipal Assemblies can send you to your grave.

This because the Fante Kenkey cooked in these areas is wrapped in polyethylene films prior to cooking.

The Food and Drugs Board (FDB) has determined that this expose the Kenkey to the risk of Bisphenol A (BPA) and Phthalates.

These chemical leach into the Kenkey because the polyethylene films with which the Kenkey is wrapped were not designed for boiling temperature.

In a document, signed by Dr Stephen K. Opuni, Chief Executive the Food and Drugs Board said “though the pellets used for the manufacture of the polyethylene films are food grade, these polyethylene films are meant for packaging of food under normal room temperatures only and not for cooking.”

The FDB says it intends to embark upon the education of the general public on the danger of cooking food wrapped in polyethylene films.

It says, it will liaise with the Mfantseman West and East Municipal Assemblies to education the Kenkey processors and sellers in the catchment area on the need to use plantain leaves only in packaging Kenkey……”

A report by Eliza Martinez outlines the dangers of using polyethlene films in graphic details.

She writes, boiling foods in plastic bags is a trend that has come and gone several times. In recent years people have begun to question the safety of this cooking method. The FDA regulates the safety of plastic containers so that they can be used for boiling or heating foods. However, plastic bags are not regulated the same way. Harvard Medical School recommends heating foods only in approved containers that are labeled as such, especially when heating in the microwave. Many dangers that can lead to illness or injury exist when food is boiled in plastic bags.

MELTING
According to the North Dakota State University (NDSU) Agriculture Communication, some bags are made from plastic that is too thin to boil without melting. They recommend calling the manufacturers of the plastic bag and asking them what the softening point is. NDSU reports that Ziploc brand bags have a softening point of 195 degrees, which means they would melt at boiling point, 212 degrees. This will ruin both the food and the dishes the bags are in.

CHEMICAL LEACHING
When plastic is boiled, the chemicals used to produce it can leach into the food being prepared due to a high temperature. Common chemicals in plastic include BPA and phthalates. Harvard Medical School says that high-fat foods are especially susceptible. NDSU adds that some plastic bags will leach toxic fumes from the ink, glue and recycled materials used in making them.
 
The Kenkey wrapped with plantain leaves is coverved with plastics
BURNS
The Food Domain says that when water is boiled in a bag it can cause bubbles to form that could burst when the bag is moved. Even if the water is outside the bag, the bag itself can still burst open when temperatures get very high. If either of these two things happen, the cooks may get burns on their face or hands. Adding salt or other spices can produce the same effect because it disturbs the bubbles that have formed, causing them to erupt. NDSU also reports that the bag can ignite, producing a fire and subsequent burns to a person standing nearby. This is most common when a microwave oven is being used.

Phthalate
Phthalates are mainly used as plasticizers (substances added to plastics to increase their flexibility, transparency, durability, and longevity). Phthalates are being phased out of many products in the United StatesCanada, and European Union over health concerns.

Phthalates are used in a large variety of products, from enteric coatings of pharmaceutical tablets and nutritional supplements to viscosity control agents, gelling agents, film formers, stabilizersdispersantslubricants, binders, emulsifying agents, and suspending agents. End-applications include adhesives and glues, electronics, agricultural adjuvants, building materials, personal-care products, medical devices, detergents and surfactants, packaging, children's toysmodeling clay, waxes, paints, printing inks and coatings, pharmaceuticals, food products, and textiles.

Phthalates are easily released into the environment because there is no covalent bond between the phthalates and plastics in which they are mixed. As plastics age and break down, the release of phthalates accelerates. People are commonly exposed to phthalates, and most Americans tested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have metabolites of multiple phthalates in their urine. Because phthalate plasticizers are not chemically bound to PVC, they can easily leach and evaporate into food or the atmosphere. Phthalate exposure can be through direct use or by indirect means through leaching and general environmental contamination. Fatty foods such as milk, butter, and meats are a major source.

In studies of rodents exposed to certain phthalates, high doses have been shown to change hormone levels and cause birth defects.

What is BPA, and what are the concerns about BPA?
BPA stands for bisphenol A. BPA is an industrial chemical that has been used to make certain plastics and resins since the 1960s.

BPA is found in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. Polycarbonate plastics are often used in containers that store food and beverages, such as water bottles. They may also be used in other consumer goods.

Epoxy resins are used to coat the inside of metal products, such as food cans, bottle tops and water supply lines. Some dental sealants and composites also may contain BPA.

Some research has shown that BPA can seep into food or beverages from containers that are made with BPA. Exposure to BPA is a concern because of possible health effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.

However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said that BPA is safe at the very low levels that occur in some foods. This assessment is based on review of hundreds of studies.

The FDA is continuing its review of BPA, including supporting ongoing research. In the meantime, if you're concerned about BPA, you can take these steps to reduce your exposure:
Seek out BPA-free products. More and more BPA-free products have come to market. Look for products labeled as BPA-free. If a product isn't labeled, keep in mind that some, but not all, plastics marked with recycle codes 3 or 7 may be made with BPA.

Cut back on cans: Reduce your use of canned foods since most cans are lined with BPA-containing resin.

Avoid heat :The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health, advises against microwaving polycarbonate plastics or putting them in the dishwasher, because the plastic may break down over time and allow BPA to leach into foods.
Use alternatives. Use glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers for hot foods and liquids instead of plastic containers.

Editorial
BRITISH JAZZ
The decision of the British establishment that Ghanaians and other specified nationals would have to deposit ¢3,000 before they are issued with visas to visit that country.

The claim that this measure is meant as a guarantee against visitors who over stay their visa is laughable.

If British citizens were asked to deposit ¢3000 before being issued with visas to visit Ghana, how many of them would quality?

It is obvious that the current economic crunch in Western Europe is largely responsible for this and other discriminatory decisions in the United Kingdom.

Those who control the levers of power in the UK, have bought into the suggestion that the immigrants are responsible for mass unemployment, homelessness, lack of access to education etc.

They strangely believe that if they can block immigrants from Ghana and elsewhere all will be fine.

The Insight is convinced that the social and economic problems in the U.K spring from the crisis of Capitalism.

The capitalist system is no longer able to provide for the needs of the British people and blaming immigrants is nothing more than escapism.

We urge the Government of Ghana to respond adequately to the discrimination and insult form the British establishment.

Ghana must also insist on British citizens depositing £3000 before being issued with Visas to visit.

British citizens need to have taste of what they are dishing out to the people of Ghana.
What kind of jazz is this?

WOW! LOSES BE WHAT?
Kwaku Botswe, VRA Boss
This is from the horses own mouth. The Volta River Authority (VRA) says that the loses in the electricity sub-sector are not sustainable.

A review of the sub-sector by the Chief Executive of the VRA claimed that in 2011,” ECG and NEDCO registered Aggregate Technical, Commercial and collection losses of 40 per cent and over”

In real terms this means that the ECG received value for only 4,100 gwh of the 7,260 Wh of power supplied to it by the VRA.

The VRA gave NEDCO 730gwh of power but the company received value for only 445gwh.
The loses of the ECG and NEDCO are said to be twice the losses suffered by comparable developing countries such as India.

 The VRA’s verdict is more than damming.

It says “Ghana’s electricity sector will not meaningfully grow when 40 per cent of all generation produced leaks out through these loses.

“This will be the case whether that generation is publicly owned and managed or whether it is privately owned and managed” it said.




Google beyond CIA and espionage factory
By Gordon Duff
Intercepted emails expose Google as an intelligence contractor openly involved in aiding terror organizations throughout Africa, Asia and the world, working well outside any official oversight and authority, far beyond even the CIA’s wildest abuses.

STRATFOR, in an email exchange says this of Google:
“GOOGLE is getting White House and State Department support & air cover. In reality, they are doing things the CIA cannot do. But, I agree with you. He's going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the best thing to happen to expose Google’s covert role in foaming up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov. can then disavow knowledge and GOOGLE is left holding the (expletive deleted) bag.”

Among the STRATFOR emails Wikileaks received were some exposing Google as, not just an intelligence contractor for the CIA and Department of Defense but foreign governments as well.

Text within the highly sensitive cables outlines criminal and even terrorist activities on the part of Google including the planning of insurgency operations. Sources have confirmed Google has helped plan military operations against Syria and has been directly involved, working with Arab states, Turkey and Azerbaijan to plan destabilization of Iran.

Emails expose meetings between Google executives and insurgency groups in Azerbaijan operating against Iran.

Under the front name of “Google Ideas Groups,” with support including “air cover,” authorized by the White House and State Department, Google Corporation is directly involved in planning terror attacks.

The SACIA (South African Counter Intelligence Agency) said:
“Google should be brought to justice for terrorism, international privacy violation and it's time for governments to take action and wake up as Google also poses a threat to global security when privacy information in exchanges without control of any government. This directly violates the international agreements on classified and non-classified information exchange of the UN. The absence of media reporting of Google espionage and insurgency operations and the lack of prosecutions clearly demonstrates that the line between “private security” and terrorism and piracy has been permanently blurred.”

Wikileaks intercepted STRATFOR emails outlining Google operations in planning insurgencies and illegally conduction both foreign policy and espionage.

“Re: GOOGLE & Iran ** internal use only - pls do not forward **
Released on 2012-03-14 22:00 GMT
Email-ID 1121800
Date 2011-02-27 15:31:56
From burton@stratfor.com
To scott.stewart@stratfor.com, secure@stratfor.com
GOOGLE is getting White House and State Department support & air cover. In reality,they are doing things the CIA cannot do. But, I agree with you. He'sgoing to get himself kidnapped or killed.
Might be the best thing tohappen to expose Google’s covert role in foaming up-risings, to beblunt. The US Gov. can then disavow knowledge and GOOGLE is leftholding the (expletive-deleted) bag.
Scott Stewart wrote:
Cohen might end up having an accident if he is not careful. This is notchild's play.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:28 AM
> To: Secure List
> Subject: GOOGLE & Iran ** internal use only - pls do not forward **
> *** PLS DO NOT FORWARD -- SOLE SOURCE
> ** Extracted from an internal email to a senior Google Executive. Themsg is from Jared Cohen (the former policy appointee @ State) anddiscusses Cohen's plans on meeting w/Iranians (note: anti-government insurgents).
I wanted to follow-up and get a sense of your latest thinking on theproposed March trip to UAE, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. The purpose of thistrip is to exclusively engage the Iranian community to better understandthe challenges faced by Iranians as part of one of our Google Ideasgroups on repressive societies.
Here is what we are thinking:
Drive to Azerbaijan/Iranian border and engage the Iranian communities closer to the border (this is important because we need the AzeriIranian perspective)”


Google had long been criticized for selling “keyword intercepts” from Gmail accounts to advertisers. However, it has long been known that, not only does Google go much further, scanning emails for intelligence, both security related and corporate, but there is no clear accounting of who Google’s clients are.

Sources indicate that Google sells email and search related intercepts to governments like China, Vietnam, North Korea and others.

Additionally, Google has been proven to accept payment for suppressing searches of news stories clients find embarrassing, to push conspiracies, to support hate groups, to work in smear campaigns and now, of course, is exposed as having armed personnel working directly with insurgents in direct violation of international law.

INVESTOR FRAUD
Google Corporation has systematically represented key core aspects of their business model, intelligence gathering and security contracting. Certainly, there has been no mention of terrorism and espionage, activities “outed” by STRATFOR and Wikileaks.

From Google’s investor relations site:
“We believe in the importance of building stockholder trust. We adhere to the highest levels of ethical business practices, as embodied by the Google Code of Conduct, which provides guidelines for ethical conduct by our directors, officers and employees.”

Nothing in any Google publication indicates that employees are involved in illegal covert operations that fall within the ICC’s definition of “war crimes.”

When STRATFOR, as outlined above, says the following of Google employees:
“He's going to get himself kidnapped or killed…Cohen might end up having an accident if he is not careful. This is not child's play.”

This is a well-known and respected private intelligence contractor’s assessment of the price Google can expect its employees to pay for involvement in “foaming up-risings.”

Not one Google stockholder, many of whom are institutional investors or individuals who would never own stock in a company involved in war crimes or who are legally prohibited from doing so, has been informed of the activities they are backing.

MK “Google Ultra”

Top intelligence and security personnel now warn that, not only the use of Gmail accounts but even the Google search engine including derivative engines like AOL Search and others can place users in quite real danger.

All information passing through Google, including use of Google Voice, Google Groups, Gmail, Google Search, Google Talk and every other corporate platform is gleaned, not just for intelligence but subjected to sophisticated algorithms.

Profiles created are designed to predict behavior, interpret possible threats and target with information crafted to play on fears and vulnerabilities in control economic, political and social activities of the individual.

We could call it “Google slavery.”


Countering Imperialism: An Alternative Vision to Tyranny
The White House
The alternative to cockroaches 
Many of us have a vision, an alternative vision to the tyranny of those who control the world. But we are ridiculed, dismissed, put on trial (Manning), confined to a small embassy in London for months on end (Assange), called unrealistic or subversive and told to ‘get real’. Are we destined to be the ‘I told you so bunch’?

The current wholly corrupt system is edging humanity towards the precipice of oblivion. When that happens, we (if we are still alive – if anything is still alive, apart from cockroaches) will say ‘we told you so’. If there is to be any hope, if there is to be anything better, we must remain ‘unreal’ and true to our beliefs.  

Some like to believe that the meek (or gentle) shall inherit the earth. But it is popularly suggested that cockroaches may well do so if or when humanity destroys itself through nuclear war (or depleted uranium radiation). Cockroaches have a much higher radiation resistance than vertebrates, with the lethal dose perhaps six to 15 times that for humans.
Cockroaches are regarded as pests. They feed on human food, and can leave an offensive odor. They can also passively transport microbes on their body surfaces, including those that are potentially dangerous to humans. Cockroaches have been shown to be linked with allergic reactions in humans, including asthma. 

It begs the question: is there much difference between the people that currently run the world and the cockroach? Both are pests, both feed off humanity, both cause disease and suffering. And both can end up sucking the oxygen from our lungs. The only difference is that there is no malicious intent on the part of the insect variety – it’s just the way they are. And the impact of the cockroach is minimal by comparison.

The same may not be said of the human variety that has instituted a corrupt system of ‘globalisation’. This system of US-led imperialism benefits state-corporate interests who have been able to manipulate the international system of trade and finance in their favour to shift capital around the globe at ease. Supported by militarism and secular theology masquerading as neo-liberal economic theory, the result has been big profits and environmental degradation, easy money and cheap labour, private gain and public havoc.
  
The food and pharmaceuticals/healthcare industries work hand in glove to sicken and treat us; ‘big oil’ works with agribusiness to impose a system of big-dam, water intensive chemical-industrial at the expense of environmental sustainability; from Syria to Pakistan, US militarism is implemented under on behalf of powerful corporations under the lie of ‘humanitarianism’ or the ‘war on terror’; and the profiteering nuclear energy and resource extraction industries are destroying democracy, robbing people of their land and putting environments in jeopardy in places like India, where a nation’s poorest people are considered ‘surplus to requirements’, an inconvenient truth, and are beaten, raped and disposed of because they are a barrier to corporate ‘progress’ – profit and greed.

Whole populations are lied to and deceived on behalf of rich corporate interests that have succeeded in hijacking the machineries of state and media for commercial gain. Democracy is corrupted, local economies are destroyed, debt and dependency is used to assert control, science is pressed into the service of a worldwide arms industry and fraudulent corporate activities and there is endless conflict over finite resources. 

The current system is ecologically destructive and relies on perpetual war and conflict. It is both socially divisive and unsustainable and is tied to an image of the world laid down by corrupt transnational corporations and translated into policy by the IMF, WTO, World Bank and national governments. 

Projects like Navdanya in India that seek to take the control of food and agriculture back from agribusiness, or the finer elements of successful policies in places like Cuba or Venezuela, are just some of the many examples from across the world that indicate how we could address the problems we currently face. However, from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and General Electric to Shell, Monsanto and others, there are those who seek to maintain the current system at all costs. We don’t need them, but they will be difficult to get rid of. 

“Some cockroaches have been known to live up to three months without food and a month without water. They are even resilient enough to survive occasional freezing temperatures. This makes them difficult to eradicate once they have infested an area.” – Wikipedia
These cockroaches, the financiers, industrialists and corporate funded politicians, despise transparency, dislike democracy and hate anyone trying to hold them to genuine account. These are the criminals who have quite literally got away with murder with their illegal wars, indiscriminate use of drone attacks and exploitative economic policies.

It is the likes of Bush, Blair, Obama, Cheney, Rice and their profiteering arms dealing cronies, private ‘security’ contractors and corporate billionaire puppet masters who should be standing in the dock, not the likes of Manning or Assange. They should be made to pay for the millions of deaths they have caused.

“It (the Nuremberg tribunal) defines aggression as the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes, and it encompasses all of the evil that follows. The US and British invasion of Iraq was a textbook example of aggression, which means that we were responsible for all the evil that followed. Serious conflict arose. It spread all over the region. In fact the region is being torn to shreds by this conflict.

That’s part of the evil that follows…Take a look at the International criminal court (ICC) – Black Africans or other people the West doesn’t like. Bush and Blair ought to be up there. There is no recent crime worse than the invasion of Iraq.
Obama’s got to be there for the terror war… it’s just murder on executive whim” Noam Chomsky (1)

However, to achieve what Chomsky advocates would entail the victims of such crimes being made to sit in judgement over the perpetrators. The International Criminal Court, a criminal court in the starkest sense of the term, is based on the opposite principle. And that’s the reason for its existence.

Will Robots Cause Capitalism to Collapse?

In March the Socialist Party debated with Federico Pistono, the author of a book entitled Robots Will Steal Your Job, But That’s OK: How to Survive the Economic Collapse and Be Happy (reviewed in the March Socialist Standard). His argument is typical of many who think that the market-money-wages system we call capitalism is going to soon collapse as a result of the increasing pace of technological innovation leading to constantly growing mass unemployment. Peter Joseph, the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement, put it more dramatically in a TV interview the same month:
‘unemployment is a consequence of technology, entirely. The entire reason we have unemployment in America and across the world is explicitly based on the application of technology for cost efficiency. And this is not going to stop. And this will lead to what has been called by theorists the ‘contradiction of capitalism’, to the ultimate instability of our social system: the ability to produce more with less people and cheaper rates. It’s a complete clash of the system.’ (www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhZSxeiziMg).
A computer whizz-kid himself, Pistono describes various already-existing inventions that can displace humans in production, particularly due to advances in computer technology. Two he discusses in detail, because of their impact on relatively unskilled labour, are automatic vending machines (which would replace shop assistants) and driverless road vehicles (which would replace van and lorry drivers). He then asks why, if this is all possible, we are not seeing it:
‘Sounds futuristic? Every piece of technology needed for making this happen already exists, and has existed for many years. Then why is it not in place already?’
Good question. Why indeed?
Why machines are (and aren’t) introduced
When a machine is introduced in a particular production unit this reduces the number of workers (living labour) required there to produce the same goods or provide the same service. But, since the machine had to be produced by living labour, extra workers must have been taken on somewhere else to build it, so the question arises of whether the two effects on employment cancel each other out at the level of the economy as a whole.
At first, economists tried to argue that this was so but they soon recognised that they were mistaken and conceded that there would be a net reduction in the total level of employment, not as great as the number of workers displaced in the productive units affected but to a level less than previously. In other words, machines sack more workers than they take on.
Writing in 1821 not long after the Luddites had been smashing knitting machinery, David Ricardo concluded:
‘That the opinion entertained by the labouring class, that the employment of machinery is frequently detrimental to their interests, is not founded on prejudice and error, but is conformable to the correct principles of political economy’( Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, third edition, Ch. 31).
He added that this reduction in total employment could, and normally would, be offset if the economy expanded as a result of new capital investment in some other field of activity. Marx, writing nearly fifty years later, agreed. This – the expansion of capitalist production – is the reason why the introduction of machinery in the past has not resulted in steadily increasing mass unemployment.
Marx made a further point about the introduction of machinery: for a machine to be genuinely ‘labour saving’ in the sense of reducing the total labour-time required to produce something from start to finish, ‘less labour must be expended in producing the machinery than is displaced by the employment of that machinery.’ (Capital, Vol 1, Ch. 15, section 2). By ‘labour’ Marx meant not simply ‘living labour’ or its immediate product but also the ‘dead labour’, the product of previous living labour, incorporated in the raw materials, energy, buildings and machinery used in production.
In a rationally-organised society based on the common ownership of productive resources so that production can be carried on to produce directly to satisfy human needs instead of for profit whether or not a machine did this would be the main criterion for deciding whether to apply it to production. Not all inventions of machines do displace more labour than would be required to produce them but, in a rationally-organised society, even machines falling into this category could be introduced if it was considered that the specific labour that would be replaced was considered dangerous, unhealthy or boring.
But this is not what happens under capitalism. Built-in to the capitalist system is a drag on the use of machines. As Marx went on to explain:
‘For the capitalist, however, there is a further limit on its use. Instead of paying for the labour, he pays only the value of the labour-power employed; the limit to his using a machine is therefore fixed by the difference between the value of the machine and the value of the labour-power replaced by it.’
Under capitalism the immediate product of living labour is divided into a part that the capitalist firm has to pay for (wages) and a part that it doesn’t pay for (surplus value, the source of profit). This means that under capitalism a machine that would genuinely save labour – the time society has to spend to produce something – would only be introduced if it also reduced the total labour that the capitalist firm had to pay for, i.e. the dead labour incorporated in the machine and materials plus the living labour it employs. If this is not the case, then the labour-saving machine will not be introduced, as to do so would reduce the amount of unpaid labour that the firm extracts, i.e. the source of its profits. In fact, the lower wages are, the less the incentive to apply labour-saving inventions, and vice versa.
Marx gave some concrete examples to illustrate that under capitalism there is a difference between invention and application:
‘Hence, the invention nowadays in England of machines that are employed only in North America, just as in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries machines were invented in Germany for use exclusively in Holland, and just as many French inventions of the eighteenth century were exploited only in England … The Yankees have invented a stone-breaking machine. The English do not make use of it because the ‘wretch’ who does this work gets paid such a small portion of his labour that machinery would increase the cost of production to the capitalist.’
This is the answer to Pistono’s question as to why the futuristic labour-saving inventions he describes have not been used on a wide scale: capitalist firms are only interested in using machinery if it will reduce their costs of production, i.e. the labour (living and dead) that they have to pay for. They will not and do not introduce machines that will increase their costs of production, even if their use would reduce the total amount of labour required to produce them.
This is why, as long as capitalism lasts, the rate of the actual application of machinery to production will always be less than the rate at which labour-saving machines are invented. In this sense speculations such as Pistono’s about the rate at which inventions will increase (he claims, somewhat hyperbolically, that this will become exponential in the coming decades) is irrelevant. It is not this that will determine the rate at which inventions will be applied to production as the rate at which ‘robots will steal our jobs.’ That will depend on the rate at which they reduce the labour that a capitalist firm has to pay for, which will be considerably slower than the rate at which labour-saving machines are invented.
Under capitalism invention is one thing, application another. The mere invention of some labour-saving machine does not destroy jobs; only its application does.
Will history repeat itself?
The trouble with many theories of economic collapse is that, if they were true, they need to explain why capitalism has not already collapsed a long time ago. Pistono’s argument is no exception. He is aware of this, as he quotes one critic as exclaiming:
‘Have you ever heard of this discipline called history? We’ve gone through the same crap 150 years ago, and none of what you say has happened!’
It’s actually a good question. Mechanisation has been going on since the Industrial Revolution started in the eighteenth century (in fact, that’s what this was) but it has not resulted in steadily increasing unemployment. Pistono’s reply is that it will be different this time as in the past the pace of labour-saving technological inventions has never been as fast as it is today.
We have just seen that Pistono commits the fallacy of confusing technological invention with the application of inventions to production. Even so, as in the past mechanisation has not resulted in growing technological unemployment, since the capitalist system expanded to absorb this, a weaker version of Pistono’s contention might still be valid: that the rate at which machines are introduced (despite the restrictions on this under capitalism) might still be faster than capitalism can expand. In this case unemployment would still grow.
While capitalism does expand in the long run it does not expand, as everyone is agreed nowadays, in a straight upward-sloping line. It goes in fits and starts, booms and slumps, with each succeeding boom reaching a higher level of production and employment than the previous one.
Because capitalism grows in this way, it needs a pool of unemployed workers, which Marx called ‘the industrial reserve army of labour’, that capitalist firms can draw on quickly in a period of boom and who become unemployed again when the slump comes. So, unemployment rises and falls with the capitalist business cycle.
Pistono does not go as far as Peter Joseph and claim that all unemployment today is technological, but he does advance the increase in unemployment since 2007 as proof of his contention that the increasing application of modern technology is causing unemployment to grow.
Some of today’s unemployment will indeed be technological in the sense of being living labour displaced by machines and unable to find new employment because capitalism is not expanding (Ricardo’s worst case scenario), but most is cyclical, the result of capitalism currently being in one of its periods of slump. It is the industrial reserve army of labour returning to its slump level. Also, capitalist economists talk cynically about a ‘natural’ level of unemployment (the rate below which they say a rise in price level would result). So, by no means all unemployment today is technological; in fact, only a relatively small proportion will be.
Predictions of a continual increase in mass unemployment will only turn out to be true if capitalism does not recover from the present slump, and even then wouldn’t increase at the rate this hypothesis suggests. If it does recover then unemployment will fall.
So the question can be reformulated as: Will capitalism recover from the slump or will unemployment go on increasing until the system collapses? Both past experience and the theory of how capitalism works based on this suggest that capitalism will eventually recover, however long it takes and however hard workers have to be squeezed. There is no way of knowing, though, exactly how long it will take.
In any event, capitalism will have to be ended by the conscious action of people who want to replace it by a system where the resources of the planet have become the common heritage of all. Then, there will no longer be any barrier to the robotisation of repetitive and boring jobs. Then, robots will ‘steal our jobs’ much more quickly than today and that will be OK, as there will be no harmful side-effects since access to what people need to live and enjoy life won’t be tied to working for a wage or salary. As Marx put it, ‘the field of application for machinery would therefore be entirely different in a communist society from what it is in bourgeois society.’



North Korea
North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un with Generals
By Pam Benson
A former senior US official, who recently retired, says North Korea is a difficult target for the intelligence community but "the coverage is very extensive using national technical means: imagery, intercepts and other means."  The official said, "It's hard to get in there, but we do have external capabilities. Looking, listening and watching are all in play."

Moving a missile to the east coast is "very discernible", the official said, even on mobile launchers. The mobile launchers are more difficult–one or two might get through, the official said, but North Korea has limited routes to take whether by rail or road. "It's not a large country with an intricate transportation system."

What is difficult to ascertain is its uranium enrichment program. It could be buried in underground facilities where there are no air samples, nothing to collect.
There are other shortfalls for gathering intelligence on North Korea, in particular a lack of human intelligence, the official said. "We don't have physical access, minimal, if at all," the official said.

What's missing from US knowledge is what are the plans and intentions of the Kim Jung Un regime. "They're not going to attack us or anybody else with nuclear weapons because they know the consequences. They're not suicidal."  But there are a lot of unanswered questions, the official said, "Where are they going with their nuclear program?  Who is whispering in Kim Jung Un's ear?  What's the bottom line?"

The official says the physical aspects are very important, but "we don't necessarily know where all facilities are, the amount of fissile material it has, how many actual weapons they have produced."

"We look from afar, but we're not in the eye of the storm," the official said.
If the regime decides to launch a missile it would undoubtedly be a test, not a strike, the former official said.  "They know enough to know not to take the country down." But the former official warned that "it doesn't mean we can't stumble into something that escalates and spins out of control."

The former official does agree with the moves the US has taken in response to North Korea's continued provocations.  "Kim Jung Un and the hardliners need to know we are very serious, we have capabilities that are extensive, which extend to our allies in Japan and South Korea and that we are prepared to use them if North Korea does anything of a kinetic nature."

The official doesn't think there is a risk Kim Jung Un and the hardliners could feel they are backed into a corner and be forced to act.  "They respect you when you are straight, honest, show what you have and don't threaten them."  But when asked if the show of force by the US–the B2 flights, the additional ships–could be considered a threat by North Korea, the official responded, "They put the ball in play with threats of strikes against the U.S."


Not Another Maggie Thatcher?

Margaret Thatcher
Then there was the TV programme Young Margaret: Love, Life And Letters, to which Moore was an important contributor, if an apparently embarrassed one. This revealed a rather different character with a talent for cynical manipulation when it came to human relationships. For example among a succession of unsuspecting man friends she at first cultivated a relationship with one she described as displaying ‘...the kind of naivety only a Scotsman can have’ but who owned a fair bit of land and profitable shares in industry. When Margaret had more promising prospects in sight, the farmer was briskly passed on to her sister Muriel who was thus made (we believe) happy ever after.
Such discriminatory skills were also applied in the matter of some other holidaymakers in Madeira who are derided as ‘...rather tatty tourists, Jews and novo rich.’ And rich among the examples of cold, calculating tactics is her view of her father, Alf Roberts the grocer from Grantham, once credited, as she worked her way up to the top of the Greasy Pole, as an enduring, invaluable example of parental guidance for a supremely ambitious daughter. After her mother died Thatcher had Alf move in with her but this did not yield the kind of advantages she had planned: ‘He is eating the most enormous meals and doing absolutely nothing except reading’ she complained to Muriel, telling her she intended to ‘shunt Pop off ... will this be all right with you? Otherwise he will just hang on and on and not take any hints.’ A month or so afterwards Alf was writing to Muriel that he never heard anything from Margaret: ‘in fact I don't think I know their new phone number.’ And then, unremarked, he died.
Tory MP
A spin-off of the post mortem reverence for Thatcher was the requirement that any aspirant successor would have to be, apart from female, as scabrous as the Lady herself. It seemed a promising time for the emergence of Liz Truss, MP for South West Norfolk and recently promoted Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education. Although new to the game of Westminster politics – she was first elected in 2010 – she quickly attracted some notice, for example the assessment of her boss David Gove that she was ‘a minister to watch,’ and then the calculated flattery of Labour MP Sharon Hodgson that she had the ‘common touch of the Iron Lady about her ...she may take it as a compliment.’ Truss could describe her parents as ‘to the left of Labour.’ As a child she was taken by her mother to CND demonstrations and one of her school essays was an anticipatory piece on the fall of Margaret Thatcher. At Oxford she joined the LibDems, making something of a name for herself with an anti-monarchist speech at their 1994 conference. It was a couple of years later that she found her true place in the Conservative Party and, after the usual couple of abortive efforts, as the party's parliamentary candidate for South West Norfolk, where at her first election in 2010 she had a solid majority of over 13,000.
Reform
She had been a Deputy Director of Reform, a ‘think tank’ which calls itself independent and non-political but which was founded by a Tory MP and a former head of the political section of the Conservative Research Department. Its declared aim is to promote what it calls a ‘better way’ for public services and economic success through private industry and market de-regulation. It also works for the abolition of ‘pensioner gimmicks’ such as free TV licensing and the winter fuel payment. So when Truss was promoted to Gove's team she was well placed to implement Reform's ideas on ’higher standards’ in schools. For anyone with any doubts on the issue there was her paper Britannia Unchained which denounced British workers as ‘...among the worst idlers in the world’ with too many of them who ‘...prefer a lie-in to hard work’. A ’key plank’ in her intentions for nurseries is to work the staff harder by increasing their allocation of two-year-olds from four to six. At the same time she has been free with strictures on those workers because when she had inspected nurseries here ‘I have seen too many chaotic settings where children are running around. There's no sense of purpose’.. Among the response to these comments, from parents as well as experienced child-care practitioners, the arguments against stricter discipline for children were flavoured with reminders that the level of morale in nurseries would be associated with low wages, poor working conditions and a lack of expectations for the future.
Affair
And it must be said that Truss has not always been so strict in applying sound principles to her own behaviour. After her adoption as the candidate for South West Norfolk there was a move to reverse the decision when it became known that some years before she had had an affair with Mark Field, the Tory MP for Westminster. Some of the local Tories, dubbed The Turnip Taliban, led by former High Sheriff of Norfolk, Sir Jeremy Bagge, argued that Truss was unsuitable as their candidate because she had chosen to conceal the matter, leaving them to find out through a Sunday newspaper article. In the event, the rebellion failed and Truss continued on her way to emerge as a hopeful to be the new Iron Lady - who might in fact have taught her of the necessity in politics to be ready always to suppress the truth while energetically promoting falsehoods.