A conservative thinktank’s attempt to reheat widely discredited Colombian military claims about Farc is pure black propaganda The release Tuesday of a “dossier” of Farc files , which were supposedly seized by the Colombian government in 2008, is truly a non-event. The report, by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) , appears to be an attempt by hawks in the US and the UK to perpetuate, using “black propaganda”, the failed policies of the George W Bush administration, as well as previous administrations of the cold war era, to which they respectively once belonged. All of its conclusions are based on the false premise that the documents that it claims to analyse are entirely trustworthy. Impartial observers of the events surrounding the supposed capture of computer files from the Farc , and their subsequent revelation in the media, have long ago concluded that the files are highly dubious at best. The Colombian military, which claims to have obtained the documents from computers and flash drives following an illegal bombing raid on a Farc camp inside Ecuador in March 2008, is the only party that can know for sure whether the documents are authentic. The IISS, and others who want the world to believe in the documents’ authenticity, rest much of their case on the supposed verification of the files by Interpol. But what Interpol actually said, in its 2008 report on the documents, was that the Colombian military’s treatment of the files “did not conform to internationally recognised principles for the ordinary handling of electronic evidence by law enforcement” . Interpol noted that there was a one-week period between the computer documents’ capture by Colombia, and when they were handed over to Interpol, during which time the Colombian authorities actually modified 9,440 files, and deleted 2,905, according to Interpol’s detailed forensic report. This “may complicate validating this evidence for purposes of its introduction in a judicial proceeding”, Interpol noted at the time . Following their remarkable initial “discovery” and “capture” (the computers, we were told, survived a bombing raid completely unscathed), the Colombian military made “revelations” that quickly turned out to be false. A photo depicting a high-level Ecuadorian official meeting with the Farc was revealed to be a fake . Even more embarrassing, the Colombian military’s claims that files showed the Farc were planning to make a “dirty bomb” were publicly dismissed by the US government and terrorism experts . The documents’ evidence of Venezuelan support for the Farc was so weak that Organisation of American States secretary general José Miguel Insulza told the US House subcommittee on western hemispheric affairs just a month later that there was “no evidence” of such support or collusion . Even more damning for the Colombian military’s case were statements last year by General Douglas Fraser , head of the US Southern Command, in response to questions from Senator John McCain, regarding the alleged Venezuela-Farc connection, and the laptop “revelations”: “We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection,” Fraser stated, adding, “I am skeptical.” (Fraser recanted his testimony the following day, following a meeting with the top state department official for Latin America, Arturo Valenzuela. But Fraser, as the US military’s leader for activities in South America, is in a much better position to know.) But perhaps most telling of all are the current close relations between the governments of Venezuela and Colombia, now that Juan Manuel Santos has taken over from Alvaro Uribe as president of Colombia. If Colombia, indeed, had evidence of Venezuelan support for the Farc, would Santos have so readily warmed to the Chávez administration, quickly boosting trade and political support? Santos, interestingly, is the man who, as Colombia’s defence minister, oversaw the raid on the Farc camp. US policy, during much of the Uribe administration (2002-2010), seemed designed to provoke tension between Colombia and Venezuela. Now, with Santos in office, and Colombia “looking ahead” and even dropping a Uribe era agreement stipulating an increased US military presence in Colombia, promoters of this policy are again hoping to stir up trouble, through the IISS. The world is being asked to trust the word of former Bush administration intelligence officials and national security advisers – who help to oversee IISS’s activities – and their counterparts in the UK, who include former advisers to Blair and Thatcher. The IISS expert chosen to present the dossier’s findings this week in Washington, for example, is a former British intelligence officer who conducted intelligence operations in Latin America. Other notable IISS advisory council members include Robert D Blackwill (former deputy national security adviser to George W Bush), Eliot Cohen (formerly secretary of state Condoleezza Rice’s senior adviser on strategic issues), Sir David Manning (formerly foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair) and Prince Faisal bin Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia. In other words, some of the same people who deceived the people of the United States and the United Kingdom into invading Iraq now want us to believe their “revelations” about Venezuela, Ecuador and the Farc. The IISS is full of people who should know a thing or two about “black propaganda” – forged or altered information, the source of which is masked, in order to advance policy objectives. The use of such “black propaganda” is as old as espionage itself, and used routinely by the CIA and MI6. The former CIA officer, Philip Agee , described several such operations in his revelatory memoir, Inside the Company: CIA Diary, published in the 1970s. If Bush cronies are now using “black propaganda” to smear the Chávez government in an attempt to undermine it, it would not be the first time. The Bush administration supported Chávez’s brief overthrow, in April 2002. The use of altered information – film footage that was manipulated to make it appear as though Chávez supporters had gunned down unarmed demonstrators – played a key role in that coup d’etat. Why should anyone take at face value former high-level Bush administration officials’ claims about Venezuelan or Ecuadorian connections to the Farc? Unfortunately, there are many loud voices that continue to see Latin America through a cold war prism, such as the current heads of the US House foreign affairs and western hemisphere committees, as well as various editorial writers at major US media organisations, who will be all too happy to take the IISS spooks and neocons at their word – just as they did in the runup to the invasion of Iraq. Colombia Farc Venezuela Ecuador US foreign policy Foreign policy George Bush Interpol Hugo Chávez Thinktanks Greg Grandin Miguel Tinker Salas guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The Cannes film festival starts today – with a record four women competing for the main prize. Why so few? The key directors talk to Charlotte Higgins about chauvinism and the Croisette At last year’s Cannes film festival, there was an outcry: there was not a single woman in competition for the Palme d’Or. British director Alicia Duffy screened her debut feature in the Directors’ Fortnight strand, and British directors Sophie Fiennes and Lucy Walker both took documentaries, but the main competition was an all-male affair: Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and 17 others. This year – perhaps by chance, perhaps as a corrective measure taken by the selectors – there are four female film-makers in contention: Lynne Ramsay , the British director of We Need to Talk About Kevin; Australian Julia Leigh ; France’s Maïwenn Le Besco ; and Japan’s Naomi Kawase . This is still only four out of 20 directors – depressingly, the largest number of women ever to have competed for the Palme in a single year since the festival began in 1946. Ramsay describes this as “shocking”. “There is a huge inequality in the numbers,” she tells me. Le Besco, who directs and stars in her third feature, Polisse, screening in Cannes tomorrow, says she has encountered sexism in the
Continue reading …Dating site AshleyMadison.com, where you can go in search of an extramarital affair, recently surveyed its members to find out which celebrities they’d most like to cheat with. Fox News reports on the findings from 30,000 US members. The women: Jessica Alba : Fifteen percent of the males surveyed…
Continue reading …When Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, a big change will come to the Navy: Its chaplains will be allowed to officiate at same-sex marriages. Rear Admiral Mark Tidd, the Navy’s head chaplain, made the announcement in a recent memo but noted that chaplains may decline to participate if gay…
Continue reading …
Lib Dem leader seeks to distance party from Tories – but Cameron fails to give him credit for moderating policies Nick Clegg is to begin the delicate process of distancing himself from the Conservatives’ embrace in the wake of last week’s election results, by asserting that “this is a coalition of necessity and not conviction”. In a speech on Wednesday to mark the anniversary of the coalition and the start of a second phase, he will promise to blow his party’s trumpet more and spell out where it has moderated the Conservatives’ position through what the Lib Dems describe as their blend of social fairness and economic efficiency. But the claim that the Lib Dems have softened the impact of some Conservative policies was rejected by David Cameron, who said in interviews: “I don’t accept the whole idea that the role of one party is somehow to moderate the other. The Conservative party, under my leadership, has changed. It is a new and different Conservative party.” In an indication of the more public disputes ahead, he also refused to give Clegg credit for imposing a rethink on the government’s NHS reforms. In his speech Clegg will admit last week’s election results were awful and rule out any prospect of a centre-right realignment, describing such talk as “nonsensical and naive”. He will promise: “In the next phase of the coalition, both partners will be able to be clearer in their identities, but equally clear about the need to support government and government policy. We will stand together, but not so closely that we stand in each other’s shadow. You will see a strong liberal identity in a strong coalition government. You might even call it muscular liberalism.” With some cabinet members anxious at the prospect of collective discipline collapsing as briefing wars break out across the coalition, Clegg will argue he can be more assertive without threatening the government’s stability. “Nobody wants a return to the nightmarish coalition that existed between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Nobody wants tit-for-tat government.” But he will also list things his party has blocked by being in coalition, including a replacement for Trident in this parliament, cutting inheritance tax for the wealthiest, renegotiating fundamental elements of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, building more prisons and replacing the Human Rights Act. Clegg will try to give his anxious party a glimpse of how it can rebuild a new constituency in time for the next election. He will insist the Lib Dems “will not define ourselves in relation to the other parties. If it requires a position on a spectrum, it is the centre. We are camped on the liberal centre ground of British politics. And we’re not moving.” He will also argue that the party can develop a unique offer to the electorate as the party that combines economic efficiency and social justice. He will say: “There is a reason neither of the two bigger parties won last May. Neither of them were really trusted to deliver both a strong, dynamic economy and a fair society. We can be trusted on both counts. At the next election we will say that we are demonstrably more economically credible than Labour, and more committed at heart to fairness than the Conservatives. “I am confident that showing we can combine economic soundness with social justice – competence with a conscience – will make us an even more formidable political force in the future. There are millions of people who want a liberal politics of the centre.” However, a host of cabinet ministers and senior Tories have undermined Clegg’s claim to be a moderating influence by stressing how much Liberal Democrat support has allowed the coalition to be more radical on public service changes and the deficit than if the Conservatives had been a minority administration. In interviews conducted with Andrew Rawnsley for his Channel 4 documentary A Year Inside Downing Street, but not broadcast, a succession of Tories hail the impact of the Liberal Democrats. The work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, says: “It’s helpful that we have two parties in tow pursuing a reform agenda because it means that you face really only one party [Labour] that is opposed to it. It does help that we’ve got two tied together so it leaves you only one political force to deal with. It helps also to persuade the other side that they are in a minority. “We’ve got a lot – my welfare reforms, the education reforms, the budget, huge changes – all of these are big, big Conservative-driven themes”. Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, states: “There’s a massive advantage in being a two-party government for whose parties 60% of the voters had voted at the election. If we’d been a minority government potentially facing the prospect of an early, snap, opportunistic election to try and secure a majority, it would have been much more difficult to put in place the tough programme of deficit reduction that we did.” William Hague, the foreign secretary says: “A Conservative government with a very small majority or in a minority would have been massively constrained in what we could take through parliament.” The chancellor, George Osborne, states: “We have put together a much stronger coalition government than anyone would have believed possible the morning after the general election and we’ve been able to take on big issues, not just on the economy, but on welfare, education, police reform. And that’s because there’s an appetite from all members of the government, Liberal Democrat and Conservative, to not waste this period in government but to do things with it to improve our country.” Cameron himself hints the coalition has developed an ideology of its own. “There’s been a sense that we don’t want to be a lowest common denominator government just trying to legislate where we agree.” One of the leaders of the Tory right, David Davis, claims: “The people who’ve paid the price for the coalition are the Liberals. The really big intellectual move for the Liberals was the move to accept the cuts. More than accept the cuts: to actually accept they were going to be the front of the cuts. “This was the point at which the Orange Book Liberals, essentially Gladstonian Liberals, came to the fore and said: yes, we’ve got to do this. And once they’d taken that leap into the cold water, they couldn’t pull back. They don’t have an escape. They have the best seats in the aeroplane and no parachutes. So they’re not going to blow the aeroplane up. It is simply not going to happen. “They’re going to enjoy the ride all the way to the destination. And hope at the end they get to where they want to be.” Liberal-Conservative coalition Nick Clegg David Cameron Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Two heads, two spines, one body. Conjoined twin girls were born at a hospital in southwestern China on Thursday. The AP reports that the girls, born to farmers, weighed 9 pounds, measured 20 inches, and share many organs, though they each have their own spine and esophagus. Local media quoted…
Continue reading …The more wealthy Republican voters are, the more likely they are to support Mitt Romney—and the exact opposite is true of Sarah Palin, according to a new Gallup poll that breaks down the GOP field’s demographic appeal. Romney is the top candidate among college graduates, with 21% of the…
Continue reading …
Activists fear ecological haven will be destroyed but government says project is vital for economic growth Chilean authorities have approved a £1.8bn plan to dam two rivers in Patagonia for hydroelectricity, triggering angry protests and claims that swathes of pristine wilderness will be destroyed. The HidroAysén project envisages five dams to tap the Baker and Pascua rivers, an isolated area of fjords and valleys, and generate 2.75 gigawatts of power for Chile’s booming economy. The government has championed the dams as vital to poverty alleviation and economic growth, but public opinion has split, with many saying the project is unnecessary and will devastate an ecological haven. Police arrested dozens of protesters and clashed with hundreds more in Coihaique, a Patagonian city where on Monday a government-appointed commission voted 11 to one in favour of the dams after a three-year environmental review. The commissioners were kept indoors for their own safety as people threw rocks and battled police with water cannon and tear gas. Similar scenes unfolded in the capital, Santiago. The Patagonia Without Dams advocacy group accused the commissioners of conflicts of interest and said the project was “destructive and illegal”. It said the dams would flood at least 5,600 hectares of rare forest ecosystems, river valleys and farmland. “We are outraged. We are calling on President [Sebastián] Piñera to overturn this decision and protect Patagonia,” said Patricio Rodrigo, the group’s executive secretary. Critics say the project would also drown the habitat of the endangered southern huemul deer, a national symbol. An Ipsos poll said 61% of Chileans opposed the dams. The polarisation offered a sharp contrast to the nation’s feelgood glow after last year’s rescue of 31 trapped miners, an operation which boosted the conservative president’s ratings. The environment minister, María Ignacia Benítez, denied the commission’s findings were a stitch-up in favour of energy corporations and banks which would profit from the project. The “very demanding” investigation adhered to laws and took into account the environmental impact, she told Radio Agricultura. HidroAysén argued that the dams would provide cheap and clean electricity in comparison to oil and coal. Chile recently approved three coal plants, including the biggest one in Latin America. The interior minister, Rodrigo Hinzpeter, told reporters: “The most important thing is that our country needs to grow, to progress, and for this we need energy.” Some analysts say Chile will need to triple its energy capacity in the next 15 years to feed fast-growing industries and cities. Though rich in copper and other minerals, the country imports 97% of its fossil fuels and relies mainly on hydropower for electricity, leaving it vulnerable to oil shocks and drought. The council of ministers is expected to nod through the proposed dams but activists hope to win key concessions in the environmental impact assessment for the next phase of the project: 1,200-mile transmission lines, estimated to cost £2.3bn, to bring electricity from Patagonia to Santiago. That review, due in December, could sharply restrict the number of lines or alternatively open Patagonia to multiple lines, roads and possibly more dams. Much of the controversy hinges on whether Chile has viable alternative means to boost power capacity. With nuclear power widely considered anathema, some tout the Atacama desert as a source of immense solar thermal production, especially given its relative proximity to mines and industry. “Numerous studies have shown that Chile can sustainably and safely meet its energy needs through increased investments in non-conventional renewable energy and energy efficiency, with less environmental, social and economic costs than HidroAysén,” said Berklee Lowrey-Evans, of the International Rivers group. However Maria Isabel Gonzalez, former head of Chile’s National Energy Commission, rebuked foreign critics of the plan. “Chile is still a poor country, with 2.5 million poor people, and to overcome poverty we need energy, and for that reason we need to develop our own resources,” she told AP. “It would be very selfish on the part of the rich countries to say, ‘Look how they’re destroying these uninhabited pristine areas.’
Continue reading …
The once-dominant software company has agreed to pay more than three times Skype’s valuation just 18 months ago Microsoft’s acquisition of Skype, its biggest ever, is an $8.5bn (£5bn) gamble to try to catch up with Apple and Google. The software company, once so dominant, has been left behind by its more fleet-footed competitors as the pace of technological change – especially in mobile telecoms – has outstripped its ability to innovate. Analysts saw the deal, which edges out the $6bn it paid for online advertising company aQuantive in 2007, as a sign of Microsoft’s ambition to become a bigger force in the consumer and smartphone market. They also interpreted it as a sign that Microsoft intends to broaden its appeal to businesses by using Skype to offer cheaper services than existing phone companies. Skype, which has 663m people across the world registered to use its Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) communications, is available on personal computers and mobile phones – though not yet on Microsoft’s new Windows Phone operating system. That is expected to be remedied soon. The deal will see it established as a separate business inside Microsoft, dubbed Microsoft Skype. Tony Bates, the Skype chief executive, will become president of Microsoft Skype and report directly to Microsoft’s chief executive, Steve Ballmer. Ballmer, who tried to buy Yahoo three years ago for $45bn, spelled out his vision: “Skype is a phenomenal service that is loved by millions of people around the world. Together we will create the future of real-time communications so people can easily stay connected to family, friends, clients and colleagues anywhere in the world.” Others were less enthusiastic and highlighted the difficulty Microsoft faces in monetising Skype, whose telephony service is free between users. “It doesn’t make sense at all as a financial investment,” said Forrester Research analyst Andrew Bartels. “There’s no way Microsoft is going to generate enough revenue and profit from Skype to compensate.” Another, Shanghai-based Michael Clendenin, managing director of consulting firm RedTech, said: “If you consider Skype was just valued at about $2.5bn 18 months ago when a chunk was sold off, then $8.5bn seems generous and means Microsoft has a high wall to climb to prove to investors that Skype is a necessary linchpin for the company’s online and mobile strategy.” But despite Skype never having turned a profit, analysts were mostly enthusiastic. “For me, this actually looks like a near-perfect fit for Skype,” said Dean Bubley of Disruptive Analysis. “A substantial part of Skype’s current user base is from PCs. Although mobile devices get all the glory at the moment, Skype epitomises what’s best about desktop VoIP.” Next frontier Horace Dediu, a former Nokia business development executive who now runs the Asymco consultancy, said: “I see this as a pattern of consolidation of voice business models. I don’t think it’s coincidental that Apple, Microsoft and Google are all trying to secure assets, intellectual property, experts and businesses in VoIP and in voice control. “Voice is the next frontier both in IP-based communications and in user interfaces. Skype happens to have a very large pool of users who can be engaged with multiple services besides voice. These additional services can be the root of new business models. Microsoft has plenty of degrees of freedom to experiment with: Windows Live, [search engine] Bing, Windows Phone etc.” Google and Facebook were last week rumoured to be in the running for Skype but Microsoft emerged as prime bidder. The company already has three other VoIP offerings, via MSN Messenger, Xbox Live and Lync, used in its Office division. It is not clear how usernames will be integrated among them. Ballmer confirmed that Skype will continue to be developed for non-Windows platforms. Skype’s principal source of revenue is international calls made by people unwilling to pay standard voice rates, which can be far higher. The analysis company Telegeography noted that Skype’s international traffic volume grew by 39bn minutes in 2010 – twice the amount of all phone companies in the world combined. “Demand for international communications is probably limitless,” said Stephen Beckert, a Telegeography analyst. “Skype has taught millions of callers they no longer need a telco to talk to friends, family and business partners abroad.” Incorporating Skype into Windows Phone – which will be used by the Finnish phone-maker Nokia in forthcoming smartphones – could also have advantages in countries such as Latin America, where people find voice calls too expensive and prefer to use data services, said Stela Bokun of Pyramid Research. “At the end of 2011, 40% of handset users in Latin America and Mexico will be using handsets that are 3G+ enabled,” she told the Guardian. That could offer a route for Skype. Other possibilities in emerging markets include using Skype credits as payment for internet access, she said. Skype has never made a profit: in 2010 it recorded a loss of $7m on revenues of $860m – $1.30 per registered user a year, or $5 per “connected” user a year. While revenues have been growing it has been able to negotiate better call termination rates around the world with telephone companies. The acquisition is the second in Skype’s eight-year history. In October 2005 it was bought by eBay for $2.5bn, but was 70% sold in October 2009 to a consortium of private equity and venture capitalists. The purchase is subject to US regulatory approval, which the companies hope to secure later this year. Skype Internet Telecoms Mergers and acquisitions Technology sector Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …