As Cairo’s biggest football clubs – Zamalek and Ahly – prepare for the local derby, the revolution is bringing change to the sport Ahmed can remember the moment with perfect clarity. It was in Tahrir Square on 2 February, and the young Zamalek “ultra” – the term given to the fanatical hardcore supporters of Cairo’s two biggest football clubs – found himself side by side with fans of Ahly, his team’s hated rivals, as the Mubarak regime sent thugs on horses and camels marauding into the crowd. “We were together on the frontline, defending the revolution and putting football behind us,” he recalls. “It was the moment I realised that everything had changed.” On Wednesday Ahmed will come face to face with those Ahly fans again, though in very different circumstances. Five months on from the uprising that toppled Egypt’s dictatorship, Zamalek and Ahly will clash in one of the world’s most hotly contested sporting derbies, commanding a television audience of 40 million in Egypt alone. Parts of the capital will be put into lockdown as thousands of armed police and army soldiers attempt to keep opposing supporters apart. “It’s not just a game,” says Hassan Almstkawy, a columnist for Al Ahram newspaper and the country’s premier sporting pundit. “Apart from war, only two things can bring millions and millions of people onto the streets: revolution and football. Now we have both at the same time.” The run-up to this crunch meeting could not have been more dramatic; Ahly, historically the more successful of the two teams, had been trailing Zamalek at the top of the Egyptian league by six points when an anti-government uprising broke out in late January and the football calendar was suspended. Yet since matches resumed in April, Ahly – who were named “African club of the century” last decade and are only two titles away from overtaking Barcelona as the most trophy-winning team of all time – have enjoyed a sensational run of form, and last week climbed above Zamalek just as the season was drawing to a close. With four games to go, most Egyptians believe Zamalek have to win on Wednesday to keep their dream of winning the championship in 2011 – their centenary year – alive. “Football is a religion here; when things are bad elsewhere in society this is what we turn to,” says Karim Sabet, a 34-year-old Ahly supporter. Mido, a Zamalek striker who formerly played for Ajax and a number of English Premier League clubs, agrees. “This is a massive event for the whole of the Egyptian people,” he said. “I’ve played in the Tottenham-Arsenal derby but honestly this is different – you’ve got the same intense atmosphere but with a bigger stadium and crazier fans. People live for this match.” But as 75,000 people pack Cairo International Stadium, the action on the pitch isn’t the only thing football fans will be watching out for. In a year when political change has penetrated every corner of Egyptian society, the Middle East’s two most powerful sporting outfits have not remained immune from revolutionary fervour – no surprise considering the history of the clubs, which both emerged out of the early 20th-century nationalist struggle against British colonialism. “Ahly was born from a movement of students, doctors, farmers and engineers who came together to establish a forum in which Egyptians could discuss politics for themselves,” says Hanan El-Zainy, a member of the Ahly management team and currently the only woman working inside Egyptian football. “Our former presidents have included government ministers and officers who helped Gamal Abdel Nasser win independence in 1952; our history is the history of a nation.” As Nasser cracked down on opposition and established a one-party state, Ahly and Zamalek assumed the role of proxy representatives for a wide stratum of Egyptian society and became, in Almstkawy’s words, “the two biggest political parties in Egypt”. “The government used football to distract the masses from political failures; Egyptians compensated for their absence in the political process with fanatical support for one of the two big teams,” says the pundit. “Politics and football here have always been interlinked. Inevitably then the fans of these clubs played a critical role in this year’s uprising – without their strength on the battlefield in resisting Mubarak’s forces, the 25 January revolution would have been defeated early on.” As Egypt’s revolution continues, the country’s football fans have continued to make the pro-change cause their own. Ongoing demonstrations against military rule and institutional corruption regularly feature the distinctive jerseys of both clubs, and recent Zamalek fixtures against the national army and police teams have seen Zamalek fans singing in no uncertain terms about what they think of the latter in the new, partially liberated Egypt. Now the spirit of Tahrir is also dissolving old certainties inside the clubs. Players and coaches who were perceived to have been close to the old regime have been placed on blacklists by fans; this month the formerly popular coach of the national team Hassan Shehata was forced out, ostensibly due to a bad run of results which prevented Egypt from qualifying for the African Cup of Nations – a competition they have won seven times – but also thanks to his staunch support of Mubarak. More significantly, pressure from supporters has encouraged some teams to challenge the hegemony of the Egyptian Football Association (EFA), a long-time hotbed of corruption allegations, and this week a third of the nation’s sides issued a vote of no confidence in the Mubarak-appointed EFA board. “Of course the revolution has touched the sporting world as well, especially football,” says Ashraf Sobhi, a director at Zamalek. In the aftermath of the uprising some of Zamalek’s non-playing staff went on strike as part of a wave of industrial action sweeping the country, and forced concessions from senior management. Since then the team has made more of an effort to engage with fans and recently organised a number of events to promote tourism to the country and commemorate this year’s martyrs. “It’s our role as a sporting club to serve Egypt; each Egyptian should be proud of the revolution and think about how they can best help build the country right now, and we as a football team are doing the same,” argues Sobhi. “We have a responsibility to use the power and popularity of Zamalek to serve the community.” Teams are also attempting to break free from government control; most are currently obliged to have a series of government-appointed directors on their boards and state regulations governing private investment in sporting clubs remain highly restrictive. “We need the freedom to expand and take on the biggest sides in the world,” adds Sobhi. “Egypt has changed, and we must do the same.” One reality that is unlikely to be transformed any time soon, though, is the exclusive membership structure of the clubs themselves. Both teams boast sprawling leisure complexes in the heart of Cairo featuring lush grass, high-end cafes and a series of swimming pools, all open to members who, theoretically at least, hold democratic control of the organisation. But it’s a democracy accessible to only a fraction of the two teams’ millions of fans – prospective Ahly members must be of “good reputation”, educated to university level and capable of paying $23,000 (£14,400), and there are no plans yet to soften the criteria. “Our members are decision-makers so of course they have to be carefully selected,” says El-Zainy in what could be a summary of the elite attitude towards public political participation in the Mubarak era. “We are a national movement but we have to make sure any new member is right for us.” And so on Wednesday, as the battle for Egyptian football supremacy kicks off, a broader struggle is playing out behind the scenes. “It will take time, but corruption and the remnants of the old regime that remain entrenched inside the sporting world will eventually be removed,” predicts Almstkawy. “A revolution is like a volcano: when it explodes it covers everywhere in ash and nothing – not even football – can escape it.” Egypt Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Hosni Mubarak Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
GP who led government reform bill’s ‘listening exercise’ says changes could leave hospitals vulnerable to EU competition law The government is facing renewed pressure over its health bill after the GP who led its “listening exercise” admitted he should have done more to flag up concerns about private patients in NHS hospitals, and grassroots doctors meeting in Cardiff demanded further changes. Labour warned that the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, was still planning to create a “full-scale market” after Steve Field acknowledged that the government would leave hospitals vulnerable to European Union competition law due to the presence of private patients in NHS hospitals. Concerns about a backdoor privatisation of the NHS prompted David Cameron and Nick Clegg to appoint Field to lead the Future Forum review. As Field was addressing MPs, who are considering the bill again at committee stage, doctors in the British Medical Association defied their leadership to pass a motion at their annual conference criticising the “respray” of the health and social care bill. Field said a majority of NHS staff who attended his meetings had raised concerns about government plans to lift a cap on the number of private patients using NHS hospitals. Labour said lifting the cap, which was introduced in 2006, would help foster a free market approach in the NHS. Field said: “If you wanted a gut feeling from what was happening in the listening exercise – the feeling was actually the private cap should stay because people felt that would provide the protection. But it should be reviewed and put at a reasonable level.” He admitted he had second thoughts about failing to mention the cap in his report. “To be honest, we didn’t put as much in our report as perhaps we could have done. In fact, it was one area, when we reread the paper at the end, we might have been stronger on.” Field said he had decided not to address the cap because of mixed feedback from hospitals – at University Hospital Birmingham the cap is set at 1% while the Royal Marsden in London’s cap is set at about 30%. “So University Hospital Birmingham couldn’t bring money in which would actually help its NHS services,” Field said as he pointed out that lifting the cap would leave hospitals more vulnerable to competition law. “On the other hand, if you opened the cap it may be more likely to be under EU law and from competition and from Monitor. So when we weighed up the proposals and the problems that might arise we chose not to go into any great detail.” John Healey, Labour’s shadow health secretary, said: “Steve Field is right and this was a serious omission from the Future Forum report. Removing the private patients’ cap is a vital feature of the government’s plans to turn the health service into a full-scale market, which will see NHS patients waiting longer and open up hospitals to greater challenge under competition law.” Sue Slipman, the director of the Foundation Trust Network, said it was right to lift the cap. Slipman told MPs: “Depending upon the range of patient choices, it isn’t necessarily the case that there would be fewer NHS patients if you expand the facilities as a result of the money you can [raise]. It depends where you invest that money. “The term ‘private patient cap’ is a misnomer. This is all money that can be brought into the system as a result of any service which may derive from private patients. So, for example, if you run laundry in your hospital and any of that laundry is used by those who supply services to private patients, this counts against the cap. We believe that the lifting of the private patient cap would enable public providers to being more money into the NHS to benefit NHS patients.” The BMA membership rejected leader Dr Hamish Meldrum’s attempts to reassure them that key elements of the bill should not damage the NHS. Their motion said there was still anxiety about: • The role of the NHS regulator Monitor. They fear it will still promote competition between hospitals, even though Meldrum insisted that “competition has gone” as Monitor’s main duty as a result of changes following the NHS Future Forum. • Competition potentially being forced on the NHS through an extension of patients’ right to choose where they are treated. • The health secretary’s legal duty to provide a comprehensive health service in England. Dr Clive Peedell, a member of the BMA’s ruling council, said: “Grassroots doctors have seen through the smoke and mirrors of this government, which pretends that it has made major changes to the bill but hasn’t. Despite David Cameron’s claims that they have listened to our concerns and made significant changes, the main levers for the marketisation and privatisation of the NHS remain intact in the nill.” Dr Jacky Davis, a council member, said: “We are being sold a respray job, two write-offs welded together, and we need to look under the paintwork to see what’s there.” The overhauled bill would still allow “any qualified provider” – including private healthcare firms – to treat NHS patients, while competition would simply be rebranded as patient choice, she claimed. The vote is a setback for Meldrum, who also saw delegates vote to mandate the BMA to campaign for the withdrawal of the bill, which the BMA leader had warned would make negotiations with government difficult, especially after the union helped secure some key concessions. A Department of Health spokesman said: “This vote is disappointing because, only a few weeks ago, the doctors’ union said there was much in our response to the listening exercise that addressed their concerns, and that many of the principles outlined reflected changes they had called for. “The bill has changed substantially since the BMA first voted to oppose government policy. Our plans have been greatly strengthened in order to improve care for patients and safeguard the future of the NHS.” A separate call to scrap the bill altogether was defeated by 54% to 45% after Meldrum pleaded with members to “vote with your heads, not your hearts” and not take action that would leave the BMA marginalised and unable to influence the bill’s remaining parliamentary stages. NHS Health policy Health Public services policy Nicholas Watt Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
South Korean military preparing new rules of engagement for troops as Seoul threatens tough response to any attack Around the edge of the baseball field at Camp Bonifas, South Korean marines under the United Nations Command are busy building four bomb shelters. The American and Korean troops at the camp are just 400 yards from the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) that has divided North from South Korea since the 1953 armistice. It has always been a tense place, ringed by razor wire and minefields, but now there is a particular urgency to the military spadework. North Korea has carried out two major military attacks on the South in the past 15 months, and is widely believed in Seoul to be planning a third, in an attempt to extract diplomatic and economic concessions. What makes the current situation so fraught with danger – some say the most perilous moment on the Korean peninsula for a generation – is South Korea’s hardline stance. The government of President Lee Myung-bak, facing elections next year and criticism for its cautious response to the previous two incidents, is threatening to unleash a far more punishing response to any further “provocation”, setting the scene for an unpredictable tit-for-tat escalation. South Korean islands along the western maritime border, the scene of the two earlier incidents, are bristling with new weapons. Government officials in Seoul confirmed that those new defences will include Israeli-made Delilah missiles, with a range of 150 miles – enough to hit Pyongyang. The South Korean military is meanwhile preparing new rules of engagement for its frontline troops which would allow it to respond “robustly” to an attack without immediately consulting the government in Seoul. Security officials talk of “proactive deterrence”, saying any future response would no longer be proportionate, but rather punitive enough to dissuade the Kim Jong-il regime in Pyongyang from making further attacks. A South Korean counterattack would target not just the North Korean units involved in any future military action but command posts as far away as the North Korean capital. Officials in Seoul even talk of a future incident as “an opportunity” that would allow them to “restore” a working level of deterrence. But it is a high-risk strategy. “We are now in the most dangerous moment in Korean history over the last 25 years,” said Andrei Lankov, a Russian professor at Seoul’s Kookmin University. “South Korea has already committed itself to a strong reaction to a future North Korean provocation so many times and so loudly that if they don’t do it they will lose elections and be shamed. “So they will probably react. North Korea is not getting what they want [diplomatically] so they will probably use their usual trick of rising escalation. My advice to war history fans is you should think of buying a map of the Korean peninsula.” Government officials in Seoul, speaking off the record, agreed that they were braced for a North Korean “provocation”, because Pyongyang’s peace overtures of the past few months have failed to persuade Seoul, Washington or Tokyo to enter a dialogue. All three capitals insist on a North Korean apology for the two previous incidents, the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, and the bombardment of the western island of Yeonpyeong, as well as concrete steps towards dismantling the North Korean nuclear programme, as preconditions for talks. “North Korea has been trying this peace offensive for the past seven months. Now is the time for the North Koreans to change their mode towards more a conflictual approach,” a former South Korean official and government adviser predicted. Another reason Seoul expects another incident is that the regime in Pyongyang appears to be seeking to enhance the martial credentials of the heir apparent, Kim Jong-un, by flexing North Korea’s muscles. Seoul’s bellicose language and heavy investment in border defences is clearly aimed at dissuading Pyongyang from trying a repeat of the Cheonan or Yeonpyeong attacks. However, some observers doubt whether South Korea’s political leaders and military commanders, when the moment came, would actually order a response that risked triggering a full-scale war. “I don’t know if there is real political will,” the former official said. “The new order being given to commanders is ‘shoot first and then call’ [Seoul]. But I don’t know if the field commanders will shoot. Also, while the rules of engagement have changed to more proactive deterrence, looking at the current deployment of forces, I don’t think we have the ability to execute that plan.” North Korea’s next move to grab Washington’s attention may also come in another form, a third nuclear test. South Korean government experts believe Pyongyang is fully capable of carrying out such a test and argue that the decision will ultimately be political: whether it would be more likely to force concessions from a concerned international community, largely in the form of food aid, or tighten the sanctions screw on North Korea still further. In response to a nuclear test, Seoul would have no military response, and would instead have to hope that China, North Korea’s neighbour and protector, would agree to further sanctions. “China’s record so far is not encouraging,” an official conceded. While there is widespread apprehension in the region that Korea’s frozen conflict will turn hot once more in the near future, there is also general agreement that all the parties to the conflict will do their utmost to ensure there is no return to full-scale war. “Both sides are afraid of war and if they see that the probability is real they will go to a lot of highly humiliating concessions to prevent it,” Lankov said. “That is because North Korea knows that it is going to lose, and South Korean knows it is going to win but at a cost that is unacceptable, and it doesn’t know what to do if it does win.” South Korea North Korea Julian Borger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Another Hannity Job: Cued-up Obama clips provide Bachmann all the cover she needs to toss off ‘John Wayne’ gaffe
June 28, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Sean Hannity had the excuses all ready-made for Michele Bachmann on his Fox News show last night, cuing up a number of minor verbal gaffes by President Obama as the softball he could lob to Bachmann when he asked her about her idiotic mixup of John Wayne’s birthplace while campaigning in Iowa. That’s right: Once again, it’s Obama’s fault that Michele Bachmann is an idiot. Perhaps just as noteworthy: Bachmann in fact fails to cop to the fact that she made a stupid mistake at any point. Hannity simply covers for her, saying: “It’s obvious you misspoke.” So this simply leaves Bachmann free to go on a rant attacking Obama once again. This is what we call a classic Hannity Job . I guess this sort of thing goes over well with Republican primary voters. Don’t ask me why. They’re beyond anything resembling rational human understanding.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media What do you get when you put a draft dodging, conservative 70′s rock guitarist and a xenophobic and possibly corrupt Arizona sheriff? Dinner with Wingnuts. FOX Phoenix: They come from two different worlds, but Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and rocker Ted Nugent do see eye to eye on the issue of illegal immigration. That was a topic of discussion at a dinner date between the two Monday night. The two see eye to eye on pretty much everything — just two friends from two very different backgrounds, having dinner, and they let us crash the party. Nugent is still known for his guitar playing, but these days his conservative politics are becoming just as well known. He’s even a special deputy in the sheriff’s office. “He’s a captain. If he does good we’ll make him a colonel,” chuckles Arpaio. Nugent was sworn in last year and since then the two have stayed in touch. Nugent was invited to dinner at Bobby Q’s near Dunlap and I-17 in Phoenix, and he asked the sheriff to come along. So what does Nugent like so much about Sheriff Joe? “How about truth and logic and the American way and doing the right thing whether it’s politically correct or not. Getting the job done protecting the citizens and enforcing the law… what I just mentioned is all the right things and all the obvious common sense thing to do. And he is my common sense guy,” he says. Nugent has become well known for his support of gun rights and his distaste for some prominent Democrats. He’s also heavily involved in the DARE program . They may come from two different worlds which would be law enforcement and music, but they carry the same ideological background. And they both like to hunt things except Joe hunts people. Stephen Colbert abuses Ted Nugent’s last column in the Washington Times which attacks American youth and calls them ‘stoned on apathy.’ : Millennials sleep as their future crumbles While I personally condemn violence of any kind, I am stunned that they are not participating more in the Tea Party , even rioting in the streets, clashing with the cops, conducting sit-ins at their colleges, interrupting political events and so on. Instead, the young people of this generation appear to be sound asleep, lethargic and seemingly unaware of how badly their generation is being royally abused by the deep-seated corruption and abuse of power in the government. They appear to be terminally stoned on apathy. Ted is condemning violence but is calling for riots in the streets. Shockingly, Wall Street, Banks and corporations were spared his ire. See, that’s who would benefit from Nugent’s riots. Young Americans were politically naive in 1960 but at least willing to be engaged. Although I remember the various protests and marches, I was either squirrel hunting or putting a sharp edge on my sonic guitar-slaying skills , having not awakened to my “we the people” duties quite yet. Regrettably, I knew nothing about politics and, sadly, little of our nation’s history. I lived in the 60′s and 70′s too and protests and riots were initiated because of the draft which forced us to be sent to Vietnam. That didn’t end too well for over fifty thousand of American youths.
Continue reading …
Tuesday's Morning Joe treated the conviction of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich as a relatively minor affair, and gave it little to no coverage save a brief discussion about the supposed injustice of the process. “It's any other day and that's any other news story,” said Mika Brzezinski, who appeared annoyed at being asked to cover the story at all. Later, she insisted “We're not going to waste the first block on this.”
Continue reading …
Abdul Qadir Fitrat, who has fled to the US, denies claims he failed to act on warnings about corruption at Kabul Bank The former governor of the Afghan central bank who fled Afghanistan will be prosecuted over the failure of the country’s largest private lender, the attorney general’s office in Kabul said on Tuesday. Abdul Qadir Fitrat and other officials at the bank face prosecution for not acting on warnings about corruption at Kabul Bank, which nearly collapsed last year because of mismanagement and questionable lending practices, said General Rahmatullah Nazari, the deputy attorney general. He told reporters that an arrest warrant for Fitrat has been sent to Interpol and the US embassy in the Afghan capital. Kabul Bank – now under the control of the central bank – has become a symbol of the country’s cronyism and corruption. The lender is now considered a bellwether on attempts to root out patronage and show accountability to world financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund. The deputy attorney general said that Fitrat received several warnings from the country’s intelligence service and anti-corruption officials about widespread irregularities at Kabul Bank. “Instead, he wrote to the anti-corruption body that Kabul Bank was moving in the right course and that the bank was not facing any financial threats – that there was no crisis to be worried about,” Nazari said. “It, in itself, indicates involvement of the central bank governor with Kabul Bank authorities in the crisis. He did not take any precautionary steps.” On Monday, Fitrat told Associated Press in a phone call from Virginia that he resigned and fled to the US because threats had been made on his life. He said the Karzai government in Kabul was refusing to charge those involved in fraudulent loans. “My life has become completely endangered,” Fitrat said. “Since I exposed the fraudulent practices on 27 April in parliament I have received information about threats on my life.” He said he has permanent resident status in the US and would not return to Afghanistan. Afghanistan United States Banking guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Documents obtained by Greenpeace show prominent opponent of climate change was funded by ExxonMobil, among others One of the world’s most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies. Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change. But according to a Greenpeace US investigation , he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil , the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world’s largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests. In addition, freedom of information documents suggest that Soon corresponded in 2003 with other prominent climate sceptics to try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN’s leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Soon, who had previously disclosed corporate funding he received in the 1990s, was today reportely unapologetic, telling Reuters that he agreed that he had received money from all of the groups and companies named in the report but denied that any group would have influenced his studies. “I have never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research,” he said. “I would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research.” He did not respond to a request from the Guardian to comment. Documents provided to Greenpeace by the Smithsonian under the US Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) show that the Charles G Koch Foundation , a leading provider of funds for climate sceptic groups, gave Soon two grants totalling $175,000 (then roughly £102,000) in 2005/6 and again in 2010. In addition the American Petroleum insitute (API) , which represents the US petroleum and natural gas industries, gave him multiple grants between 2001 and 2007 totalling $274,000, oil company Exxon Mobil provided $335,000 between 2005 and 2010, and Soon received other grants from coal and oil industry sources including the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute . As one of very few scientists to publish in peer-reviewed literature denying climate change, Soon is widely regarded as one of the leading sceptical voices. His scientific position and the vehemence of his views has made him a central figure in a heated political debate that has informed the US right wing and helped to undermine public trust in the science of global warming and UN negotiations. “A campaign of climate change denial has been waged for over 20 years by big oil and big coal,” said Kert Davies, a research director at Greenpeace US. “Scientists like Dr Soon, who take fossil fuel money and pretend to be independent scientists, are pawns.” Soon has strongly argued that the 20th century was not a uniquely extreme climatic period. His most famous work challenged the “hockey stick” graph of temperature records published by Michael Mann, which showed a relatively sharp rise in temperatures during the second half of the 20th century. A paper published with Sallie Baliunas in 2003 in the journal Climate Research which attacked the hockey stick on flimsy evidence led to a group of leading climate scientists including Mann deciding to boycott the journal . In a letter to the Guardian in February 2004 , Soon wrote that the authors had been open about their sources of funding. “All sources of funding for our research were fully disclosed in our manuscript. Most of our funding came from federal agencies, including the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and Nasa,” he wrote. He has also questioned the health risks of mercury emissions from coal and in 2007 co-wrote a paper that down-played the idea that polar bears are threatened by human-caused climate change The investigation is likely to embarrass Exxon, the world’s largest oil company, which for many years funded climate sceptics but in 2008 declared it would cut funds to lobby groups that “divert attention” from the need to find new sources of clean energy . According to the documents, Exxon provided $55,000 for Soon to study Arctic climate change in 2007 and 2008, and another $76,106 for research into solar variability between 2008 and 2010. Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said this week the company did not fund Soon last year, and that it funds hundreds of organisations to do research on climate and the environment. Southern gave Soon $120,000 starting in 2008 to study the Sun’s relation to climate change, according to the FIA documents. Spokeswoman Stephanie Kirijan said the company has spent about $500m on funding environmental research and development ,and that it did not fund Soon last year. In one 2003 email released to Greenpeace, that Soon sent, it is believed, to four other leading sceptics, he writes: “Clearly [the fourth assessment report] chapters may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all … But as a team, we may give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters …” He adds: “I hope we can … see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report.” In 2003 Soon said at a US senate hearing that he had “not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.” Climate change scepticism Climate change Climate change Oil John Vidal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Libya stabilisation report submitted by UK to Benghazi opposition outlines priorities after ceasefire Britain is calling for a “politically inclusive settlement” in post-Gaddafi Libya that will take heed of the mistakes made in Iraq after the 2003 US-led invasion. A detailed “stabilisation document”, overseen by the Department for International Development, has been submitted to the Benghazi-based Libyan opposition and sets out priorities after a ceasefire between the regime and rebels. It assumes that Gaddafi – wanted by the international criminal court for alleged crimes against humanity – will leave or be forced from power, but it does not predict when that will happen. “It (the stabilisation process) must be Libyan-owned and United Nations-led,” Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, said on Tuesday. “The work seeks to ensure that the international community learns the lessons of what happened in Iraq.” Issues range from preventing looting and revenge attacks to providing basic services, and ensuring effective communications to ensure Libyan citizens know what is happening at a time of uncertainty. Unarmed UN monitors would most likely police a ceasefire if the environment was “benign” but there are discussions about a heavier peacekeeping force. Turkey, Nato’s only Muslim member, is expected to play a key part. Britain, playing a leading role in Nato’s bombing campaign, has ruled out contributing to any peacekeeping force on the principle that it will not put “boots on the ground”, insisted Mitchell. Security and justice are the second of five priorities, with the recommendation that Libya should not follow the Iraqi example of disbanding the army, which has been seen by some officials as a strategic mistake that helped fuel the insurgency in the sensitive and volatile circumstances after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow. “The report has learned the lesson of Iraq about the importance of using to the maximum possible extent existing structures,” Mitchell said. “One of the first things that should happen once Tripoli falls is that someone should get on the phone to the former Tripoli chief of police and tell him he has got a job and he needs to secure the safety and security of the people of Tripoli. Of course, at that stage the sanctions on assets will be unfrozen and money will be able to flow much more easily than it is at the moment so as well as having a job he might actually get paid.” Benghazi’s rebel leaders “have spent some time working out who to call at that point and who to engage with to demonstrate the importance of good order”. The US, Britain and the UN would have “strong input” into a post-Gaddafi political settlement; the EU, Nato and the UN would take the lead on issues of security and justice; Australia, Turkey and the UN would help with basic services; Turkey, the US and the international financial institutions would lead on the economy. But, added Mitchell: “It is incredibly important that the whole of this process is Libyan-owned. This has been done as a service to the Libyan people.” The 50-page report, which includes recommendations on infrastructure, oil exports and basic services such as education, water and health, was produced by the UK-led international stabilisation response team, and is expected to win Libyan opposition, international and Arab approval at a meeting of the Libyan contact group in Istanbul in mid-July. “The position for Colonel Gaddafi is getting more and more difficult every day,” said Mitchell. “In military terms he has lost half of all his capacity. The international criminal court arrest warrants … have sent a signal to Gaddafi’s militias and his supporters. In the days of the mobile phone you can photograph human rights violators and war criminals in action. People at all levels, including in his militias, are leaving and defecting. All of this suggests that his time is limited.” Libya United Nations Muammar Gaddafi Middle East Africa Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Greece puts €50bn of national assets on sale in hotel ballroom but private equity firms are not interested While Greece erupted in protest again yesterday, representatives of the country’s government were at Claridge’s hotel trying to drum up international investors’ interest in a “fire sale” of its national assets. Up for sale are 39 airports, 850 ports, railways, motorways, sewage works, a couple of energy companies, banks, defence groups, thousands of acres of land for development, casinos and Greece’s national lottery. George Christodoulakis, Greece’s special secretary for asset restructuring and privatisations, said the sell-off would raise €50bn (£44bn) to help pay back the country’s €110bn bailout debt . The private equity bosses gathered in the hotel’s ballroom for the parade of Greece’s national treasures showed little interest in buying anything. Nikos Stathopoulous, managing partner of BC Partners, which has invested more than €3.5bn in Greece, said investors are put off by bureaucracy, strong unions, corruption and a lack of transparency. “Even in the good times Greece is not a country that attracts investment. Foreign investors don’t want to invest in a country where there is no flexibility in hiring and firing people,” he said. “You don’t want to invest in a country in which you wake up and a new law has been passed which totally undermines and destroys the value of the investment you’ve just made.” Stathopoulous said investors were finding it very hard to assess the risk of investing into Greece, which means assets “will be priced at lower than they are worth, lower than the Greek government, and even the European Union, expects”. Aref Lahham, managing director and founding partner of Orion Capital Managers, said most private equity firms would not buy Greek assets because the “risks are too high”. He added: “I think people will not buy those assets, that is the sad truth.” Lahham said more than half of the assets up for sale comprises land for commercial or residential development, which is unattractive because of the difficulty of securing financing to build in Greece. His firm was attracted by the potential of Greek tourism but legislation made it difficult for foreign companies to develop the country’s islands and beaches. “Greece is a fantastic tourism destination with very undeveloped infrastructure. There isn’t a Four Seasons or a Shangri-La or a Peninsula or any of the major hotel chains in Greece,” he said. “It’s strange, they would love to be there and we would love to build it for them, but somehow regulations don’t allow you to do so.” Lahham said Greece’s ambition to sell €15bn of assets by 2012 and the full €50bn by 2015 meant there was not enough time to carry out due diligence properly. “I simply do not believe the timescale. I’m afraid it is not going to happen within times – I’m afraid it is a fire sale.” Christodoulakis denied that the hastily arranged sell-off was a fire sale, preferring to describe it as a “professionally managed privatisation plan”. “We may sell them cheaper than [during normal conditions] but we will devote the funds to buying back debt, that means we are going to buy it back when it is cheaper.” When a fellow Greek interrupted to say the sell-off was “destroying our country”, Christodoulakis said there was “no point crying over spilt milk” and told his countryman to “try and be optimistic”. European debt crisis European banks Greece Europe Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …