Maldives President and Climate Advocate Forced at Gunpoint to Step Down

Maldives leader Mohamed Nasheed, called the “world’s most environmentally outspoken president” because of his calls for drastically cutting greenhouse gas emissions, was forced to resign—at gunpoint, he claimed. He had used stunts such as an underwater cabinet meeting to highlight his island nation’s vulnerability to sea-level rise.

His resignation followed weeks of protests and was apparently motivated by internal politics unrelated to his environmental views.

In 2008 Mohamed Nasheed was elected president. The coup against him was by the military and a former president.He is calling for outside intervention to restore democracy.

What is the U.S. reaction one might ask? What is "democracy promoter" Obama going to do about this?

Yeah. You guessed that right. He recognizes the new military supported dictatorship:

The United States on Thursday recognized the new government of Maldives President Mohamed Waheed as legitimate and urged him to fulfill a pledge to form a national unity government.
…
Nasheed, the Indian Ocean country's first democratically elected president who has hunkered down at his modest family home in the capital Male since losing the presidency on Tuesday, has appealed for urgent foreign help.

The United States is "also encouraging him, as we encouraged President Waheed that this needs to settled now peaceably through dialogue and through the formation, as the new president has pledged, of a national unity government," Nuland said.

A World Flying Blind – Andy Xie – Caixin Online  

The outlook for the global economy is gloomy and leaders lacking vision are to blame. Eventually, this will come back to haunt all of us

At the annual World Economic Forum in Davos we again saw familiar faces from the West, but some different characters from emerging economies. Some of the last year's bunch went to jail amidst the revolutions engulfing the Middle East. They were discussing how to fix capitalism. Apparently, the same people who blew up the world and got their governments to bail them out are now again making millions and talking about how to fix things. Not many people see the irony in this. The tragedy of the global financial crisis is that it didn't sweep away the old order.
…
The world is a dangerous place because it is being led by the wrong people like the Davos crowd. Monetary and fiscal measures merely prolong the stagnation and stoke inflation down the road. This muddling-through equilibrium will blow up in our faces when inflation causes social turmoil.

David Graeber’s Debt: My First 5,000 Words – Aaron Bady – The New Inquiry

[I]f “debt” doesn’t seem simple and quantifiable and reducible to numbers, some of the more irreducibly complex moral vocabularies that other human societies have used to think about the problem start to come into view. Another world isn’t just possible, but other worlds have happened, almost nothing but other worlds. And this is, I think, the richest and most engrossing part of the book (and to which I must, by necessity, give shortest shrift), Graeber’s survey of the vast anthropological record which is available to us, but so often unread, describing or at least suggesting how different human societies have considered these questions, human societies who did not believe that paying one’s debts or facing the consequences was the very highest of moral imperatives.

Valediction – on saying farewell to Tony Judt – G.J. Meyer – LA Review Of Books

Towards the end of Thinking the Twentieth Century’s last chapter, Judt suggests the chillingly plausible possibility that we are, perhaps, in the process of becoming China: of becoming, that is, “an unfree capitalist society” in which the government stays out of the economy except at the loftiest strategic levels (eliminating competition from outside, for example) while remaining brutally repressive politically, systemically corrupt, and, yes, indifferent to injustice. He notes that American voters, in expressing their preferences at election time, seem to be indicating that they prefer the Chinese model not only to European social democracy but even to the genuinely democratic achievements of their own still-recent past.

That, Judt says, is what he finds “terrifying.”

Cont. reading: Three Must-Reads On The Political Economy

1. China and Russia vetoed the recent western UN Security Council resolution because they feared that the west's intention, despite denials, was regime change in Syria by force.

The west has now decided to disprove their "disgusting" fears wrong by attempting regime change by force in Syria.

2. It is feared that a prolonged internal struggle in Syria could create problems in countries surrounding Syria.

The west must therefore act to intensify and prolong the struggle in Syria by destabilizing countries surrounding Syria.

3. The best way to better human rights in a multi-faith country ruled by a secular plutocracy is to weaponize those backward religious forces that will provide for the most savaging sectarian-dictatorial rule possible.

When in October 2011 the total retreat of U.S. military from Iraq was officially confirmed plans continued for a massive embassy and several consulates with some 10,000 staff and some 5,000 security personal. I found that unlikely:

But that embassy is a fixed target which can easily be harassed with by rocket and mortar fire. Its logistic lines of communication are also open to permanent challenges. The mercenaries guarding it will have severely restricted rules of engagement and will not be able to prevent attacks.

Aside from those problems I find it dubious to believe that Iraqi politicians and government functionaries are willing to talk to all those diplomats. Why should they?

In the end most of the diplomats will sit in their offices with nothing to do but to be ready to jump up and head to the bunkers when the next rocket alarm goes off. Additonally there is pressure from Congress to reduce the State Department's budget.
…
A year from now that presence may very well come down to more normal levels of just a few hundred people.

Security, logistics, Iraqi officials resisting, no one to talk to, costs were the reasons I foresaw.

A first reduction of the gigantic plans was announced a week later to a total of some 5-10,000. I insisted that the numbers would go down further.

It now seems that this was right:

Less than two months after American troops left, the State Department is preparing to slash by as much as half the enormous diplomatic presence it had planned for Iraq, a sharp sign of declining American influence in the country.
…
[T]he Americans have been frustrated by Iraqi obstructionism and are now largely confined to the embassy because of security concerns, unable to interact enough with ordinary Iraqis to justify the $6 billion annual price tag.
…
Convoys of food that were previously escorted by the United States military from Kuwait were delayed at border crossings as Iraqis demanded documentation that the Americans were unaccustomed to providing.
…
At the Kirkuk airport, an Office of Security Cooperation, which handles weapons sales to the Iraqis and where a number of diplomats work, is frequently attacked by rockets fired by, officials believe, members of Men of the Army of Al Naqshbandi Order, a Sunni insurgent group.

All the problems I saw coming are there. They will continue to be there and will lead to further reductions, much more than now planned, until the embassy staff reaches a normal level of maybe 50-100 people.

But if an amateur writer on the Internets with no experience in diplomacy or Iraq could predict this why couldn't the U.S. State Department?

More: Is there anything the State Department got right during the last years? That "reset" with Russia where the Cyrillic inscription on the button Clinton presented actually spelled "overload" and which was no reset at all? The humiliation Israel provided Obama? The catastrophic relations with Pakistan? The recent UNSC debacle?

Asked differently: Is Hillary Clinton the worst (and thereby probably most dangerous) Secretary of State Obama could have chosen?

Borzou Daragahi is the Middle East and North Africa correspondent for the Financial Times. He just tweeted:

borzou Borzou Daragahi
Wow – Misurata revolutionaries announce combat deaths of three #Libyan fighters in #Syria on.fb.me/z8a6kV

This is the first confirmation of what former CIA agent Philip Giraldi reported back in December:

Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi’s army.

Giraldi, without naming any sources, also claimed:

French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.

The obvious attempt of regime-change the U.S., its European followers and its Arab stooges are engineering in their service to Israel, could eventually push Syria into the direction of a civil war. The Israelis believe that a weakened Syria will be good for them.

But, like nearly always, the blowback of such a campaign is likely larger than the gain and in the end will disappoint the instigators.

UN: Afghan Civilian Deaths Up for 5th Straight Year (VOA, Feb 4)

A United Nations report says more than 3,000 civilians died in Afghanistan's conflict last year, the worst annual toll in the decade-long war.

The U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said Saturday that 3,021 civilians were killed in 2011, an 8 percent increase over the previous year, and the fifth year in a row that the death toll has risen.

News: ISAF commander encouraged by UNAMA report findings (DVIDS, Feb 6)

KABUL, Afghanistan – Gen. John R. Allen, commander, International Security Assistance Force, welcomes the latest report from the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan that shows a reduction in coalition-related civilian casualties.

“Every citizen of Afghanistan must know ISAF will continue to do all we can to reduce casualties that affect the Afghan civilian population. This data is promising but there is more work to be done,” said Allen.

Hypocrisy is a typical characteristic of all kinds of governments. So it is no wonder to find that the Chinese government can be just as inconsistent in its behavior and words as any western one.

A top headline on the Chinese official English language paper, the Chinese Daily, today is: Airlines barred from EU carbon scheme:

BEIJING – China's airlines are not allowed to pay a charge on carbon emissions imposed by the Europe Union (EU), and neither to hike freights nor to add other fees accordingly without government permission, the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) said Monday.

The CAAC said in a statement that it had been authorized by the State Council, China's Cabinet, to notify the ban to all domestic airlines.
…
"China objects to the EU's decision to impose the scheme on non-EU airlines, and has expressed its concerns over the scheme through various channels," the statement said.

While the Chinese governments expects its carrier's planes to be welcome in Europe, it does not want them to pay a pollution tax for the dirt they produce there.

But on the same day it publishes this decision, the China Daily official editorial recommends that: Polluters should pay the bill:

The cadmium polluting the Longjiang River in the Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region has highlighted the issue of who should pay for pollution cleanups and the damage they cause to the environment.
…
It is common sense that the party responsible for the pollution, usually the companies that discharge the pollutants, rather than public money should pay the cleanup costs and any compensation.
…
The ingrained belief that polluters should pay the bills and it is dauntingly costly to discharge pollutants not only forces the enterprises to consistently adopt new cleaner technologies, but also promotes the development of a green economy.

So what is it? Should polluters pay for the mess they make or should they not? The Chinese positions seems to be reverse NIMBY one. If the mess they make is not-in-my-backyard they shall not pay. Otherwise they must. That not a consistent position and also not a sustainable one.

Updated below.

There is supposed to be a hot discussion today about a UN Security Council with regard to Syria. To support it the Syrian rebel's Human Rights mouthpiece in London had reported a huge attack by government forces on Homs with alleged over 200 killed. That totally unconfirmed report was widely repeated in the western press but will have little to do with UNSC outcome.

The western countries at the UN Security Council want a hard resolution against Syria. Russia, China and other states fear that a resolution, if not formulated very well, could eventually be interpret as a demand for regime change in Syria or as permission to use of force against the Syrian government.

After a Russian draft resolution was earlier rejected a one draft was put forward officially by Marocco. But in fact the new draft had been edited by a member of the British UN delegation.

This draft refers to a plan by the Arab League that demands Assad to step down and to give the power to his vice president who would then head a somehow installed "unity government".  A few month ago Saudi Arabia had put forward a similar plan for Yemen which was eventually officially agreed to but which predictably ended in chaos. The Arab League plan is the main point where Russia and others object. The current western draft is "in accordance with" the Arab League plan. Russia wants the resolution to refer to the Saudi plan only as "taken into account."

A showdown was planned for last week when the Foreign Ministers of France, the UK and the United States showed up a SC to push their resolution through. The planned party went awry as the Russian foreign minister did not show up as the west had planned for. Lavrow, travelling down under, simply did not pick up the phone for over 24 hours when Clinton tried to call him to demand his attendance.

The western resolution has been discussed for several days now but Russia and China still promise to veto it in its current form. Russia has now put forward changes it demands before it to sign onto it. Below I show parts (the complete text can be found here) of the western resolution in green and the changes Russia is demanding as strike-outs or in red. Judge for yourself if they are justified.

The Security Council,

pp1 Recalling the presidential statement of 3 August 2011,

[…]

pp11 Welcoming the engagement of the Secretary-General and all diplomatic efforts aimed at addressing the situation, and noting in this regard the offer of the Russian Federation to host a meeting in Moscow, in consultation with the League of Arab States,

pp11b Expresses support for the broad trend of political transition to democratic, plural political systems in the Middle East,

1. Condemns the continued widespread and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities, such as especially the use of force against civilians., arbitrary executions, killing and persecution of protestors and members of the media, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, interference with access to medical treatment, torture, sexual violence, and ill-treatment, including against children;

Cont. reading: Text Of The UNSC Draft On Syria With Russian Changes

News & views …

As the New York Times reported: C.I.A. Says Iran Makes Progress On Atom Arms:

A draft Central Intelligence Agency report on Iran concludes that the country is making progress on a nuclear arms program and could develop a nuclear weapon …
…
But Iran's leaders deny interest in developing a nuclear weapon. "We have no need for nuclear weapons," Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Mohammad Besharati was quoted as saying on Iran's official radio on Friday. He described press reports that Iran was planning to acquire nuclear weapons as "a lie and a plot."
…
But the report, which goes further than the last formal estimate on Iran, is expected to be fiercely contested when it is reviewed for approval by the nation's other intelligence agencies this week. The earlier report, written late last year, concluded only that at least some of Iran's revolutionary leaders were intent on developing nuclear weapons, but that the program was disorganized and in an early stage of development.
…
Another example of the current dispute centers on a classified Pentagon overview of Iran's military buildup that concludes that by the end of the decade, Iran will have enough naval equipment to "dominate" Persian Gulf waters and threaten commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Administration officials familiar with the report.

The report, prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency late last summer, also concludes that over the next eight years, Iran will double the number of tanks and armored vehicles in its arsenal and try to service and even build tanks itself. The country is expected to replace its aging American warplanes with the same number of some of the most advanced planes and related weapons systems from Russia and China, to buy more missiles from China and North Korea and to increase its chemical weapons stockpiles.

But parts of the report are viewed as overblown by other Pentagon experts, who say that the naval buildup is being matched by the gulf Arab states, and that the most Teheran might be able to do by 2000 is to threaten — but not dominate — the region.

The big headlines yesterday were U.S. military says Taliban set to retake power: report and Pakistan helping Afghan Taliban – Nato. Center of those pieces was a report by the U.S. Special Forces Task Force 3-10 in Bagram. Its assessment is allegedly based on 27,000 interrogations of more than 4,000 captured Taleban operatives and civilians. The report describes the opinions caught "Taliban" and civilians have about their fight. It "leaked" to the London Times and the BBC.

When the news appeared yesterday I asked myself who was "leaking" this to what purpose. The answer came with today's headlines: U.S. to Shift Afghan Role in '13, Panetta: U.S., NATO will seek to end Afghan combat mission next year and NATO Focuses on Timetable for Afghan Withdrawal.

I am pretty sure that the "leaking" of the report yesterday was intentional and was done in preparation for Panetta's announcement of an earlier than planed partial retreat from Afghanistan. Interestingly there are signs that the "leaked" report has been cleansed ar sanitized likely to allow for an argument of a permanent stay of some U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

General Allen, accompanying in Panetta's press conference that generated today's headlines, makes clear that while the U.S. wants to stop the counterinsurgency fight it still wants to stay in Afghanistan:

As the president has said, we're committed to an enduring presence there. We have the missions we're going to be involved with — those CT operations. We'll be involved with training, advising and assisting, not only the Afghan forces, but we'll continue to have to provide enabling forces for ISAF as well as Afghanistan. And there'll be a large civilian presence there involved with development. So there clearly is going to be a continuing presence in Afghanistan for the long term, and that's something, you know, we'll want to discuss again at this ministerial.

Parts of the original report which "leaked" to the BBC and the Times have been published on the site of London Times reporter Jonathan Boone. Notice the motives:

In the last year there has been unprecedented interest, even from GIRoA members, in joining the insurgent cause. Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taleban governance over GIRoA, usually as a result of government corruption, ethnic bias and lack of connection with local religious and tribal leaders. The effectiveness of Taleban governance allows for increased recruitment rates which, subsequently, bolsters their ability to replace losses.

Later in the report it looks on "Why the Taleban Fight":

The Taleban will not accept any government which is perceived to exclude the Pashtuns, who constitute the largest tribe among the Afghan population. GIRoA corruption, abuse of power, and suspected lack of commitment to Islam continue to provoke significant anti-government sentiment.

The Taleban will be hostile to any government that appears to act as an agent of foreign powers to instill “Western” values. The Taleban do not fight for financial gain.

The eventual overthrow of GIRoA remains their primary motivator.

As Kate Clark of the Afghan Analyst Network points out that these descriptions of motives are astonishingly incomplete:

What the report appears to be silent on is the other huge factor driving the war, the ten year foreign occupation – as many Afghans, whether they welcome international forces or not, call it. Night raids, killing civilians, detentions – even when all three of these actions may be legal and/or militarily necessary – upset people. Then there was the torture, mainly by US forces, in the first couple of years and the support the international military gives to abusive Afghan actors. Curiously, there is no mention of this – did the detainees not mention the foreigners?

We can make a safe bet that the prisoners did make the point that the occupation itself, the night raids, killing, detention and torture of compatriots, are a rather large motivation for them to fight and for civilians and Afghan government agents to support them. The seems to intentionally leave out the major motives of the fighters and their supporters.

The "leak's" purpose was to support the now announced decision of the Obama administration to cut short the planned continuation of the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. But if it had included the major motive for the Taliban to fight it could have been used to argue against the planned continuation of the counterterrorism campaign in Afghanistan, which will require a continued occupation by some 30,000 U.S. soldiers, and to support the necessary total retreat from the country.

To "leak" a sanitized version of the report shows that the whole splash of "retreat from Afghanistan" announced now is likely a mere election ploy to deceive some anti-war liberals into again electing Obama.