SEPTEMBER 2005

Norwegians head to the polls

12.09.2005 - 10:18 CET | By Teresa Küchler

The world's richest country, oil-producing Norway, is Monday (12 September) holding what analysts call "the most thrilling general elections in the history of the country".

Polls have indicated a tie between the three political blocs, and the person who holds the balance of power is a politician, who has repeatedly played the anti-immigration card. Carl I Hagen, leader of "Fremskrittspartiet" (Progress Party) has also promised to open the oil money coffers and hand out the proceeds to the people and to lower petrol prices radically, if he is elected. At the end of last week, polls indicated that this populist agenda may give Mr Hagen 20 per cent of votes.

Even if politicians from the whole political spectrum refuse to have any dealing with the Progress Party, his vote may well be what tips the balance between the political alliances that mark Norwegian politics. Jens Stoltenberg, leader of the labour party, appeared in early polls to be on the way to securing the prime minister’s post, counting on the help of supporting parties, the Socialist Left and the green Centre Party.

But more recent statistics show that the red-green alliance is facing a tie with the governing Christian democrat's alliance with the Liberal Left and Conservative Right, headed by current prime minister Kjell Magne Bondevik. A tie would leave the door open for the Progress Party to have the decisive vote.

One of Norway’s many political dilemmas is seeing the country becoming more and more bound to EU decisions, without having a chance to influence on them – it has close trading ties with the 25-nation bloc but is not a member. However, the EU question is still considered to be "political dynamite". After two rejections in referendums on joining the EU, in 1972 and 1994, every step towards the issue is politically highly charged.

After the pre-summer French and Dutch rejections of the EU constitution, polls showed that Norway, which had seemed to be edging towards a positive attitude to the EU, had swung back to a majority of no-sayers.

Former Dutch Prime Minister blames nuclear proliferation to Libya, Iran and
North Korea on the CIA's 'handling' of Pakistani top spy Dr. Kahn.

by Henk Ruyssenaars

FPF - The Netherlands - August 9 - 2005 - "We were not allowed by the american
intelligence service CIA to arrest Pakistani top spy Dr. Abdul Khan, whom we
knew was stealing nuclear secrets from us for years." This accusation was made
today by the former Prime minister of the Netherlands Ruud Lubbers, in an
investigating program - Argos - on Dutch national radio.*

Ex PM Lubbers was - in his usual frank way - blaming the CIA for Pakistani
proliferation of stolen nuclear knowledge.The program was made in cooperation
with Japanese TV, remembering the unnecessary atomic bombing of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima.*

This revelation is - to say the least - as usual 'very underreported' by the
international neocon 'information' agencies. Dutch minister of Justice P. H.
Donner, when earlier explicitly asked about possible CIA action concerning Khan,
did not tell the truth and told parliament "that nothing of the kind has
happened, the CIA had nothing to do with it".

A discussion in the pro neocon Dutch parliament, run by speaker mr. Weisglass
and again concerning Donner's lies about the CIA activities has been announced.
Nobody expects anything; except more lies.

According to the often very outspoken former prime minister and ex United
Nations Refugee High Commissioner* Lubbers: "Under the influence of the so
called 'Cold War', all 'western' intelligence services were ordered around by
the CIA, and were told 'to back off' so the CIA could follow and control Khan's
spy activities in Holland". For all those years the CIA wanted Khan to go on
with his spying, which ultimately was used to get US ally Pakistan atomic
weapons too, Lubbers said.

"Just let him go, we'll follow him, and that way get more information", the
permanently in Holland stationed CIA spooks told the servile Dutch secret
service. Which for decades - apart from the CIA etc. - also cooperates with the
Israeli Mossad. Dutch 'National Airport' Schiphol serves as an airport for the
Israeli airline 'El Al', and as a major Mossad base in Europe. Dutch Attorney
General Vrakking testified already on Jan. 29, 1999, that the El Al security
detachment at Schiphol was a branch of Mossad. This information is never
repeated in the Dutch media.

"Schiphol has become a hub for secret weapons transfers," charged Henk van der
Belt, an investigator working with the Bijlmer survivors. [after the crash of an
El Al airliner, see Url.]. "Dutch authorities have no jurisdiction over Israeli
activities at the airport." A TV Amsterdam (TVA) report identified Schiphol "as
one of several European airports that allows El Al to transfer cargo without
supervision." [El Al/Mossad - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/yurk6]

Cargo: European firms were eager to do business*

The result of the CIA's 'handling' and supervising the situation was clear to
anybody involved, and resulted in the following, as described by Christopher
Clary last year: " Khan skillfully maneuvered around international export
controls. He later said, "My long stay in Europe and intimate knowledge of
various countries and their manufacturing firms was an asset. Within two years
we had put up working prototypes of centrifuges and were going at full speed to
build the facilities at Kahuta."

The European firms were eager to do business: "They literally begged us to buy
their equipment," Khan recalled. It was an impressive feat, something which Khan
was well aware of. He boasted, "A country which could not make sewing needles,
good bicycles or even ordinary durable metalled roads was embarking on one of
the latest and most difficult technologies. We devised a strategy whereby we
would go all out to buy everything that we needed in the open market to lay the
foundation of a good infrastructure." [Url.: http://tinyurl.com/9kptv]

Khan - and his South African wife Henny with a British passport - at the end of
1975 - when working at the Dutch 'Ultra Centrifuge Project' in the laboratories
of Urenco in the dutch city of Almelo - understood that he was watched, and took
a very long weekend of which he didn't return.

The fact that the CIA forbade the Dutch secret service BVD (now AIVD) to arrest
or stop Khan in any other way, made him within some years the "Father of the
Pakistani Bomb'. Khan is also blamed - by the US - for selling nuclear secrets
to Iran, North Korea and Libya, a proliferation the CIA in this case must be
held responsible for.

Lubbers - in 1975 minister of Economy: "When asked, the CIA told us to let him
just go on, and not to arrest or stop Kahn working at or visiting the Urenco
centrifuge factory, as we had in mind." A court in Amsterdam condemned Khan in
1983 in his absence to four years in jail for his nuclear spying, but the
verdict strangely enough later on was annulled 'because of a procedural error'.
That was the only explanation given.

In 1986, when Ruud Lubbers was prime minister of the Netherlands, he again tried
to get the American government and the CIA to 'do something' about Khan's
dangerous activities, but was told: "let the services take care of this; the
Americans and the CIA do not want to interfere'. By not interfering and 'just
following' Dr. Khan, he was helped by the CIA to become the rich Pakistani
proliferation hero he is now: the 'Father of the Pakistani Bomb.'

Another bitter fact to chew in those days and to remember, when commemorating
the hideous war crime which totally unnecessary destroyed the Japanese cities of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the same inhuman possibility which 'thanks' to the CIA
and Dr. Khan, has spread.

Khan keeps a small menagerie of pets. Each day at sunrise, he takes a sackful of
peanuts when he walks into the wooded Margala Hills across from his home and
feeds the monkeys. Declared Khan, the day after his country exploded another
nuclear device, "I am the kindest man in Pakistan. I feed the ants in the
morning. I feed the monkeys." And the mainstream media feed us...

EU FARMERS THE BEST PROTECTED IN THE WORLD

By Lisbeth Kirk, from EU OBSERVER, Wednesday 24 August 2005


The EU is the world's largest provider of export subsidies by far, providing 85 percent to 90 percent of the world's total, according to a new report from the US Congressional Budget Office.
The report is published as work intensifies ahead of a crucial World Trade Organization (WTO) summit in Hong Kong in December.

Developing nations are accusing the rich of using subsidies to lower international prices and hurt farmers in poor countries. In total, 64 out of 76 countries have reported to the WTO that they granted subsidies of some kind to farmers in at least one of the years from 1998 through 2004, the report said. But a few countries dominate the total dollar value of subsidies granted.

The EU and the US each grant about one-third of the world's total - the EU a little more than the US because its agricultural sector is a little larger. The countries with the highest rates of total subsidy - that is, total subsidies as a percentage of agricultural output - are almost entirely high-income countries. Members of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Norway, and
Switzerland-Liechtenstein) top the list, followed by Japan, the US, and the EU at substantially lower but still sizeable rates. Australia and New Zealand have very low rates of total subsidy.

A substantial portion of agricultural production is protected from international competition by extreme tariffs - tariffs of over 100 percent. This holds true for 50 percent of eastern European production, 39 percent of EU production and 26 percent of US production, the report revealed.

The EU provides over half of the world's most trade-distorting category of domestic support (so-called amber-box support), according to the American analysts. Amber-box support can be limited and reduced by the WTO's agriculture agreement.

In contrast roughly 70 percent of US subsidies fall into the so-called green box, which is exempted from reduction requirements. The green box is for measures that were deemed to have little or no
distorting effects on trade or production, such as income support that is decoupled from production.

The EU has also pushed through reforms of its Common Agricultural Policy in recent years, aiming to decouple farm subsidies from production.

The US report is mainly based on statistics from 2002 or earlier, so that enlargement of the EU and the 2002 US farm bill might have changed the picture. The Congressional Budget Office assists the US House and Senate Budget Committees, and the Congress more generally, by preparing reports and analyses.

_____________________

"SECRETIVE AND SLOPPY" EURO BANK ATTACKED


By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Daily Telegraph,23 August 2005


The European Central Bank has been accused of secrecy, ineptitude, and sloppy use of inflation targeting by one of Britain's leading monetary experts.

Prof Charles Goodhart, a former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee, said the ECB's claim to manage inflation over the "medium term" was an empty mantra that let it dodge responsibility for failures.   In an open letter to ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet, published in the journal, Central Banking, he slammed the "conscious refusal" to be more precise.

"Is the medium term two years, three years, five years, n years, or what? By refusing to define the term, you can never be accused of missing your target. [It] is just an exercise in obfuscation," he said. He counselled Mr Trichet to have a good night's sleep before handling the press following key decisions - given past gaffes. "A meeting of the governing council is likely to be tense, often lengthy,
and almost always extremely fatiguing. You will face the world's media at a time when you are worn out and stressed. I think it fair to claim that your predecessor suffered many of his most unhappy occasions at exactly such press conferences," he said.

Mr Goodhart, emeritus professor at the London School of Economics, said the ECB should air its internal policy disputes by publishing the minutes rather than relying on secrecy to give a false sense of unity. "It is hardly desirable, nor does it lead ultimately to credibility, to suggest that consensus existed when, in practice, it did not," he said.

An ECB spokesman said secrecy was needed to shield the governors from national pressure. "Some could be in a hard position in their home countries if it was known how they argued at meetings," he said. Mr Trichet is expected to address the criticisms at a press conference on September 1.

The letter was part of a The Euro at Risk series published in the latest edition of Central Banking.

An article by Henrik Enderlein, a professor at Berlin's Free University, said the euro's one-size-fits-all monetary regime had blighted Germany from the outset. "Germany is the biggest economy in EMU and, as is now becoming obvious, has suffered most from the current EMU set-up," he said.

Prof Enderlein said interest rates had been 11.2pc too high for German needs on average since 1999, reaching a peak distortion of 31.2 in early 2001. He doubted whether structural reform in Germany could be successful until monetary policy comes to the rescue. "Ultimately, there could be a risk that EMU splits into two equally-sized groups of countries, one with high growth and high inflation, the other with low growth and low inflation," he said. While monetary policy was likely to be wrong for all states, those like Germany with very low inflation (or high real interest rates) could be trapped in a "bust cycle". He said the only solution is for the ECB to drop its one-size-fits all policy and instead set rates for a homogenous core built around Germany.

____________________

IRELAND PAVING THE WAY FOR EU BATTLE GROUPS


by Honor Mahony from EU OBSERVER, 15 August 2005


The Irish Government is taking concrete steps to preparing the way for its army to take part in the EU's battle groups, according to the country's defence minister.

In an interview with the daily newspaper, the Irish Examiner, Willie O'Dea admitted that the biggest concern with the battle groups was how participation fits with Ireland's policy of neutrality.
However, he said that the government would have proposals by the end of September.

At the moment, a committee is looking at the constitutional difficulties thrown up by participation.
New legislation is likely to be needed allowing Ireland to take part in the battle groups, which will be deployed around the world.

According to Mr O'Dea, there are a number of scenarios, which would be illegal under Irish law.
He pointed out that it would be illegal for foreign troops participating in a battle group to go to Ireland "under their own command". "That's illegal as the law stands at the moment", he said.
The defence minister also referred to Ireland's main issue with taking part in the battle groups - the fact that Ireland's participation on any mission undertaken by the battle group must go through the triple lock system: approval by the UN, the government and Irish parliament.

This triple lock system was drawn up in the wake of Ireland's referendum rejection of the EU's Nice Treaty, mainly due to fears about its neutrality being compromised.

Asked whether it would be possible to reconcile the conflicting principles, Mr O'Dea said: "What we are working out is how we can do that. We will have the mechanics in place by the end of September". The decision to set up the battle groups was taken late last year and envisages groups of around 1,500 soldiers being sent to the world's hotspots within ten days of a unanimous decision by member states


  HOW ABOUT THE TRUCK DRIVERS?

by Dr Richard North from EU REFERENDUM  blog, 22 August 2005


Well, if the accountants won't do it, and the farmers are too busy to get on their tractors and drive to Brussels, how about the truck (or lorry, as we used to say) drivers? Having had to weather the increased fuel costs and the insanity of the working time directive, they are, according to the Transport News Network, now bitching about foreign truck drivers. More specifically, they have noted that EU enlargement has created a "bonanza" for Eastern European lorries on UK Roads. Lorry operators from the ten accession states joining in May 2004 have doubled their traffic volumes in the UK, says the Department for Transport.

Of the new EU member states, 31 percent of the traffic from the new member states is from Poland - up 36 percent in the last year. Czechoslovakia and Hungary account for 25 percent each - up 23 percent and 87 percent respectively since Q2 2004. Overall traffic volume from accession states has increased 3.5 times since 2003.

The figures also confirm that the dwindling share of traffic undertaken by UK-based international hauliers has stabilised. In 1996, UK hauliers accounted for half of all international traffic. However, the combination of growing low cost foreign competition from Eastern Europe, and Sterling's appreciation in value against the Euro, meant that by 2004 the market share of UK-based hauliers had fallen to 25 per cent. Foreign trucks now represent some ten per cent of the maximum weight vehicles operating on UK roads - there are around 10,000 foreign lorries on UK roads every day of the week.

The point, of course, is that while UK operators pay through the nose for road tax and bear some of the highest diesel costs in Europe, none of these vehicles - or the almost ten percent from outside of the EU - make any payment to operate on UK roads.

Simon Chapman, Chief Economist of the Freight Transport Association says "International road haulage is an extremely tough environment for UK hauliers. No sooner had the problems created by Sterling's exchange rates begun to abate then lower cost competition from Eastern Europe put further downward pressure on rates. UK operators cannot operate indefinitely on wafer thin margins just to keep the wheels of their truck fleets turning." If we were an independent nation, we could perhaps levy a charge on every foreign vehicle entering the country - as do some other countries - but this is regarded as "discriminatory" by the EU and thus prohibited.

In an attempt to level the playing field, the government did attempt to bring in a lorry road user charging scheme, based on satellite monitoring, applicable to both domestic and foreign lorries, but this ran into technical problems and was abandoned, leaving no solution to an obviously unfair situation.

Perhaps, therefore, the lorry drivers can be prevailed to rise up. They could give lifts to the accountants, and bankers, and could be joined by the farmers in their tractors, to say nothing of the slaughterhouse owners, the fishermen, the airline pilots, the junior doctors (who cannot now get training places because of the working time directive), the electrical and electronic manufacturers, the garment retailers, chemical manufacturers, the military, taxpayers, consumersS
.......................................................................

Come to think of it, it there anyone left?  Why don't we all rise up?From Prof.Anthony Coughlan

German Election stirs up a refusal by The Left for a polarised Opposition between Merkel and Schroder: Interview with George Gysi of The Left


            DW-TV: Mr. Gysi, you're 57 years old, you're a solicitor, you were born in Berlin and after German unification you managed to transform the East German communist party, the SED, into the Party of Democratic Socialism, the PDS. Now the PDS has formed an alliance with politicians who broke away from Gerhard Schröder's governing Social Democratic Party. It is taking part in the general election under the new name of "Left Party," and almost out of nothing it has managed to get 11 to 12 percent in the opinion polls. How do you explain this lightning achievement?

            Gregor Gysi: Well, it's not yet an election result, but opinion polls, and I'm cautious in these matters. When German unification came many familiar institutions in East Germany disappeared. We knew that if we'd dissolve the party as well, it would create an unmanageable chaos. But what we achieved then always had one big flaw: We were seen as a political party which had its roots in communist East Germany. Now we're in a situation where Gerhard Schröder and his SPD have governed for seven years in a way which has willy-nilly created a new need for leftist politics in Germany. Many people understand that neo-liberalism cannot be the solution to our problems.

            What does the Left Party have to offer people? After all, the SPD didn't like to cut back on the welfare state in its seven years of government, but did it under great pains. What makes you so sure that you can do better?

            Well, I can't see that Gerhard Schröder suffered many pains, he has always looked pretty cheerful, and others, too. But if you tell me that you have seen them in agony, then I gladly take note of that.

            Well, just look at the painful struggle for reform.

            Yes, there were some people who suffered. But there were always the others, the protagonists of the neo-liberalist zeitgeist who said, "We can only revive the economy by cutting taxes for the rich and for big companies, and at the same time cutting back on the welfare state: cutting back on pensions and unemployment benefits and forcing the sick to pay more for the health service." We say: There is another way, and we prove its viability with examples like those of Britain, Sweden and other countries,and we say 'no' to the reforms here. Only when we regain some social justice, more social welfare, more real wage increases, only then can the economy recover.

            But Germany's problem is that the welfare state has become too expensive. And you haven't come up with an answer to that, namely how the Left Party would keep the welfare state going, how it would pay for it.

            Well, you haven't asked me yet. If you want to improve the welfare state you'll have to raise the money. So, we've proposed a new tax system which would enlist the business world in a reasonable way, especially big business. It means that we have to change our tax system. We want to introduce a stock market speculation tax and a wealth tax. We have worked it all out. The accusation that medium incomes would be taxed most in our system is rubbish. We have presented a tax system which would bring in at least 64 billion euros ($79.4 billion) a year. And we need the money because otherwise we won't be able to improve the welfare state and reduce public debt in order to keep to the Maastricht criteria. So, I think there's an exciting debate going on.

            You talk about opposition to the neo-liberal mainstream, opposition to cuts in the welfare state. But why only opposition? Don't you want to carry out these policies in government?

            It's not possible. We can't realistically hope to win more than 50 percent of the votes.

            But you could aim for a coalition.

            Yes - but who with? They are all basically neo-liberals. You see, it would mean the SPD would have to go through a process -- presumably in opposition -- of considering that their reform policies might have been wrong. A new faction would have to emerge, to lead the party back to its
Social Democratic roots. I think that may well happen -- but not this year. What we need first of all is public debate of these issues -- in the media as well. I have the impression, talking to people in western Germany that they think eastern Germany is to blame for the scaling back of the welfare state. And that hurts a little. Of course there were political, economic, moral and democratic reasons for the end of the Soviet system. But I got the impression that some people in the West now seem to be saying that the social welfare state was just a compromise, set up as a counter-balance to what was offered under communism -- and that now we don't need it any more.
And we have to do something against that.

                        So are you saying you want to lead the SPD back to its Social Democratic past, and then you could imagine working with them?

                        Well I would say that Oskar Lafontaine maybe wants that more than me -- he was once the SPD leader, after all. I was never a member of the SPD. But in terms of a coalition -- that would be a prerequisite, yes. Because then we would have similar goals and we would be able to reach compromises together. But when our goals are so different -- how could you find any middle ground?

                        Oskar Lafontaine isn't just a former SPD leader -- he's also the declared arch-enemy of Chancellor Schröder. Do you worry that you are just giving him the opportunity to take some kind of personal revenge?

                        No, that doesn't worry me. Gerhard Schröder has been on his way out since the North Rhine-Westphalia election. Oskar Lafontaine knows that, too. He knows that he probably won't even see Schröder in parliament any more. Lafontaine knows that our new party -- to the left of the Social Democrats - will be a significant political force. And in years to come, we might be able to work with the SPD if they return to their roots. Of course people might think there are other factors motivating Oskar Lafontaine -- that's perfectly legitimate. Who wouldn't think that? But in
my opinion, it has very little to do with Gerhard Schröder any more.

                        The East German SED became the SED-PDS, then the PDS. Now it's the Left Party. What will you be called in five years?

                        I honestly can't say. Because the truth is, we have not merged with the WASG in western Germany. The WASG has decided not to stand at the election. We are standing. I don't want to go into the legal details right now. But if we get into parliament -- and I hope we will -- then for the first time, we will have more members of parliament from the west than from the east. For the other parties that's perfectly normal -- but not for mine. These are new challenges. In time, the leadership of the two parties will realize that the only sensible option is to merge. And in 80 percent of our policies, that won't be a problem. For 15 percent, some discussion will be needed. And for 5 percent it will be really difficult. But we'll get there. And then there will be a new name.

                        Which might be what?

                        Oh please don't ask such difficult questions! I think the main thing will be "The Left." That's easy to remember. It's what we're already labeled as, and that's fine. At least you know then where you stand with us. We certainly won't succumb to the ridiculous temptation to
campaign as the Party of the New Center.

                        Christian F. Trippe interviewed Gregor Gysi

Right-wing Propaganda Blasphemy rushes in to German Election, i.e.Get your professional "historian" to tip the balances:

another set of 9's for the devil : 27.1.2006 inauguration of universal (!) holocaust day.

UN urged to launch annual day marking Holocaust
By Reuters

UNITED NATIONS - Israel is urging the United Nations to establish an annual international Holocaust memorial day, a top Israeli diplomat said on Thursday.

An Israeli draft resolution, which it hopes will be adopted by the 191-member General Assembly during its 60th session opening next month, proposes January 27 as a day to commemorate Holocaust victims, marking the day in 1945 when Russian troops liberated Auschwitz, the largest Nazi death camp.

More than 30 European countries support Israel's plan, British Deputy Ambassador Adam Thomson said in a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and Assembly President Jean Ping made public on Thursday.

"It is a universal resolution," said Israeli Deputy UN ambassador Daniel Carmon in an interview. "A nonpolitical remembrance of the most atrocious event that happened in the last century - it should be acknowledged by the United Nations."