Cocaine now cheaper than a glass of wine. Regular Ranters will no doubt remember that I've long thought that Tony Blair's success in getting drug prices down should form part of Labour's election campaign. Time was that hard drugs cost the earth and polluting petrol was cheap. Now, petrol is like rocking-horse shit and you can get stoned, ripped, twisted for peanuts. After all, heroin's cheap as chips, too. Labour - Casinos, Coke and Heroin! could do wonders for the youth vote.
Well, they'll need something to take everyone's mind off them exempting High Court judges from tax on their pension funds....
Blogging a noisy and socialistic view on politics, security, and whatever may take my fancy. "All the world now is in the Ranting humour" - Samuel Sheppard, 1647
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Idema: remember, hustlers don't change
The Sindy reports on our old friend, Jonathan/Kenneth/Jack Idema, the man who was arrested in Afghanistan for running his own jail. Idema, as previously blogged, claims to have been working for the US government. When apprehended, apart from the two men hanging by their ankles from the roof, he was surrounded by a weird entourage who he claimed were making a film about him. A little research into his background showed that he was always making a film, rather in the style of the Private Eye cartoon with the two writers ("I'm writing a book." "Neither am I.."). He attempted to sue George Clooney for supposedly basing The Peacemaker on his own heroic exploits. Exactly how heroic is doubtful - despite his boasting of being "the craziest Green Beret in the army", his real role was considerably less hoooooooyah. In fact, as I previously reported, he was a quartermaster for the reservist 11th Special Forces Group, a job that didn't actually require him to pass Special Forces selection although no doubt he was able to tell his marks that he was a Green Beret. Later he owned a business selling army webbing, chest-rigs and the like.
In jail, his Hollywood obsession apparently continues. He told the Indy's Nick Meo that he'd recruited an agent to pitch his life story, and that he was about to complete writing the script. One hopes the agent got paid in advance, because his film project has been "nearly finished" since 2001 and in my view is nothing but a way of getting people to fund him. Like all the best fraudsters, though, his spiel is based on a certain degree of truth. When the Pentagon is willing to deal with the Viktor Bouts and Ahmed Chalabis of this world, his claims are far more credible. The fact that responsible persons at Bagram accepted a prisoner from his group shows at least that bizarre things are going on there, but not necessarily that they approved of him. (After all, if you were in the guard commander's shoes and a bunch of random gunmen appeared with a terrified prisoner and a lot of overexcited superspook talk, would you really leave him to their tender mercies? Even if you didn't care about his fate it would certainly be a matter demanding urgent investigation.) The fact that they "accepted" the prisoner without arresting Idema, though, suggests that enough parallel-network stuff was going on that his claims weren't entirely unbelievable.
I don't for a moment believe, though, that he's the real thing. The Pentagon (or whoever) would never have confided such a mission to someone who spends his free time suing film stars and having himself idolised by a camarilla of cameramen. It's called a "secret service" for a reason. His comfortable captivity, I suspect, is more due to his skills as a plausible talker than anything else.
In fact, reviewing my previous coverage of Idema, I see that I'd forgotten just how Walter Mittyish he really is. We're looking at a man who claims he took his pet dog on combat parachute jumps (in his spare time from stacking blankets in the stores presumably).
In jail, his Hollywood obsession apparently continues. He told the Indy's Nick Meo that he'd recruited an agent to pitch his life story, and that he was about to complete writing the script. One hopes the agent got paid in advance, because his film project has been "nearly finished" since 2001 and in my view is nothing but a way of getting people to fund him. Like all the best fraudsters, though, his spiel is based on a certain degree of truth. When the Pentagon is willing to deal with the Viktor Bouts and Ahmed Chalabis of this world, his claims are far more credible. The fact that responsible persons at Bagram accepted a prisoner from his group shows at least that bizarre things are going on there, but not necessarily that they approved of him. (After all, if you were in the guard commander's shoes and a bunch of random gunmen appeared with a terrified prisoner and a lot of overexcited superspook talk, would you really leave him to their tender mercies? Even if you didn't care about his fate it would certainly be a matter demanding urgent investigation.) The fact that they "accepted" the prisoner without arresting Idema, though, suggests that enough parallel-network stuff was going on that his claims weren't entirely unbelievable.
I don't for a moment believe, though, that he's the real thing. The Pentagon (or whoever) would never have confided such a mission to someone who spends his free time suing film stars and having himself idolised by a camarilla of cameramen. It's called a "secret service" for a reason. His comfortable captivity, I suspect, is more due to his skills as a plausible talker than anything else.
In fact, reviewing my previous coverage of Idema, I see that I'd forgotten just how Walter Mittyish he really is. We're looking at a man who claims he took his pet dog on combat parachute jumps (in his spare time from stacking blankets in the stores presumably).
Saturday, November 27, 2004
The Guardian Just Doesn't Get It
The Grauniad's Jonathan Steele has produced a frankly silly article in yesterday's paper in which he basically decides that the Ukrainian revolution is an evil CIA plot. Steele has already been roundly cursed by the blogosphere for this particularly dodgy argument:
But the sloppy logic doesn't end there. In the next paragraph, Steele accuses the US of pursuing a geostrategic encirclement of Russia by trying to pull Ukraine into the orbit of the West. What is the alternative policy he offers Ukrainians, then? Er - to offer the Ukraine membership in the EU. To recap, the enlargement of NATO and the EU is an evil western plot against Russia. To resist it, you should join - the EU! Leaving aside the small matter that the evil fascist CIA stooge Yushchenko's declared policy is to join the EU, I wonder what the explanation of this bizarre sentence is?
But the Guardian can always find space for this kind of stuff. In fact, its comment page betrays a bizarre obsession with the views of people like Neil Clark and other intellectuals who hold a torch for vicious little tyrants like Alexander Lukashenko and Slobodan Milosevic. Again and again, we find the same old charges. It's all the work of the CIA! And they are really Nazis! Today's paper contains an article by John Laughland (who not so long ago published this apologia for Russia's war in Chechnya in the Grauniad) in which he claims to have met two neo-Nazis in the Kiev crowds. Two of them! Just think! He continues by referring to Yushchenko and his allies "standing up for the Socialist Party newspaper after it ran an anti-semitic article". So obviously they must be all Nazis. Or perhaps they stood up for it because they didn't believe in press censorship, but that is clearly a wild and unlikely idea not even worth mentioning. Even if they actually said so at the time:
Mr. Laughland has previous for calling people Nazis when they don't agree with him:
Check out Neil Clark on the death of Zoran Djindjc:
Meanwhile, at the front, Foreign Notes's mother-in-law has joined the revolution. I wonder if she's really a CIA agent too? Post-Modern Clog has more Steele-bashing, with the advantage of actually being present in Kiev rather than Farringdon Road.
"Nor is there much evidence to imagine that, were he the incumbent president facing a severe challenge, he would not have tried to falsify the poll."So - Yushchenko's a total bastard because we don't know that he wouldn't steal an election if the situation arose, and therefore it's far better to let the government - ah - steal an election. (Note as well that Steele seems to be demanding that Yushchenko prove himself innocent.) Further on, he snarls about the US "provocatively" funding exit polls:
"More provocatively, the US and other western embassies paid for exit polls, prompting Russia to do likewise, though apparently to a lesser extent.Well, a credulous mind might have thought that stealing the election was the provocative bit. The final exit poll results in the US election weren't actually wrong - they reflected the overall result exactly. And the argument that the ones that did diverge were wrong assumes that the election itself was entirely honest. We are told that "Intervening in foreign elections, under the guise of an impartial interest in helping civil society, has become the run-up to the postmodern coup d'etat, the CIA-sponsored third world uprising of cold war days adapted to post-Soviet conditions". We aren't told, however, what form this adaptation takes. If Steele is right, and the whole thing is a giant conspiracy, it would appear that this adaptation consists in getting rid of the torture, killings, tanks on the streets and ensuing military dictatorship - or in other words, the CIA-sponsored third world uprising pretty much in its entirety.
The US's own election this month showed how wrong exit polls can be. But they provide a powerful mobilising effect, making it easier to persuade people to mount civil disobedience or seize public buildings on the grounds the election must have been stolen if the official results diverge"
But the sloppy logic doesn't end there. In the next paragraph, Steele accuses the US of pursuing a geostrategic encirclement of Russia by trying to pull Ukraine into the orbit of the West. What is the alternative policy he offers Ukrainians, then? Er - to offer the Ukraine membership in the EU. To recap, the enlargement of NATO and the EU is an evil western plot against Russia. To resist it, you should join - the EU! Leaving aside the small matter that the evil fascist CIA stooge Yushchenko's declared policy is to join the EU, I wonder what the explanation of this bizarre sentence is?
"Some protesters have been chanting nationalistic and secessionist songs from the anti-semitic years of the second world war."Secessionist? I assume secession in the second world war would mean secession from the Soviet Union. Well, Ukraine seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991 to become an independent state. What could be more absurd than to rail at the citizens of that state for singing songs about being, er, an independent state? What the hell is wrong with it?
But the Guardian can always find space for this kind of stuff. In fact, its comment page betrays a bizarre obsession with the views of people like Neil Clark and other intellectuals who hold a torch for vicious little tyrants like Alexander Lukashenko and Slobodan Milosevic. Again and again, we find the same old charges. It's all the work of the CIA! And they are really Nazis! Today's paper contains an article by John Laughland (who not so long ago published this apologia for Russia's war in Chechnya in the Grauniad) in which he claims to have met two neo-Nazis in the Kiev crowds. Two of them! Just think! He continues by referring to Yushchenko and his allies "standing up for the Socialist Party newspaper after it ran an anti-semitic article". So obviously they must be all Nazis. Or perhaps they stood up for it because they didn't believe in press censorship, but that is clearly a wild and unlikely idea not even worth mentioning. Even if they actually said so at the time:
"Yushchenko, Moroz and their oligarch ally Yulia Timoshenko meanwhile cited a court order closing the paper as evidence of the government's desire to muzzle the media"Mr. Laughland clearly has dead certain evidence that this view is not worth a moment's consideration. Why he doesn't share it with us is his affair. But the Guardian seems to have practically no quality control when it comes to these people.
Mr. Laughland has previous for calling people Nazis when they don't agree with him:
"Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda wizard, was also persuaded that technology brought peoples together and made borders anachronistic a thought which is common among modern pro-Europeans."This quote comes from his book The Tainted Source, written while he worked for Bill Cash's European Foundation, a rightwing thinktank. Fortunately for the Guardian's credibility, there's always Francis Wheen around, who brought this up in the paper.
Check out Neil Clark on the death of Zoran Djindjc:
"At the same time, there is evidence that underworld groups, controlled by Zoran Djindjic and linked to US intelligence, carried out a series of assassinations of key supporters of the Milosevic regime, including Defence Minister Pavle Bulatovic and Zika Petrovic, head of Yugoslav Airlines."What evidence? It doesn't appear, and later Clark mentions a figure of 30% unemployment without mentioning that this was actually better than some periods under Milosevic. Or you might try this weird excursion into sportswriting. In the past, Mr. Laughland claimed that nobody was really killed in Kosovo, but even after the Grauniad's Nick Cohen publicly bust his chops about this bizarre lie they still find no problem in running as much of his nonsense as they can fit in. The Guardian now has the absurd situation of printing great chunks from Neeka's Backlog about the revolution in the News section while the Comment section pours vitriol on her and everyone else involved. There is clearly a split in the newsroom here, and one side needs to get its quality control sorted.
Meanwhile, at the front, Foreign Notes's mother-in-law has joined the revolution. I wonder if she's really a CIA agent too? Post-Modern Clog has more Steele-bashing, with the advantage of actually being present in Kiev rather than Farringdon Road.
Friday, November 26, 2004
10 Posts in one day
I've just realised that, in some kind of outburst of unremitting creativity, I've updated 10 times today. And when this post hits, that'll make it 11. This means two things:
a) someone should be paying me for this
b)like the end of the Beatles' Helter Skelter, I GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!
a) someone should be paying me for this
b)like the end of the Beatles' Helter Skelter, I GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS!
Ukraine - slow rot gathers speed?
On the draining-away of authority theme, a round-up via Der Standard (note-German speaking) of state organisations changing sides. Apparently at least 400 Foreign Ministry staff have signed a declaration to that effect. 6 generals are reported to have come out for the opposition, as well as a former minister of defence, 40 employees of the Kiev state prosecutor and the prosecutor himself, the mayor of Kiev, the Kiev city police (although I suspect the ones who matter are the forces who answer to the Interior Ministry, in Soviet fashion), and senior staff of the central bank. An interesting comment to the article mentions that Europa besteht für mich aus lauter Sonderwege - in my opinion, Europe is nothing but special cases! That could almost be a blog motto.
An example - the Polish and Lithuanian politicians leading the mediation in what, of course, was once part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth....
An example - the Polish and Lithuanian politicians leading the mediation in what, of course, was once part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth....
Green Zone vulnerable?
In Iraq, meanwhile, four ex-Gurkhas working for a security company (Global Risk Strategies) have been killed and 15 wounded in an attack inside the Green Zone's perimeter. This doesn't say much for the degree of coalition security right outside its headquarters, although reports suggest the men were killed by a volley of rockets fired from outside the perimeter. In a sense, there was always a chance the insurgents (who quite often fire mortars over the wall into the Zone, but usually without success) would one day get lucky and land their rounds among some people, so it may not be all that significant.
A lot of people on the left, I suspect, will be deeply unsympathetic at the deaths of "mercenaries" or "so-called private contractors". This is unjust and callous. They are just as dead as if they were regular soldiers or indeed civilians, and it will be just as bad for their families. Especially, of course, as they'll be lucky to see any of their earnings back in Nepal. It might also be more helpful and more decent to consider if, had they received the same pension rights as British soldiers of equivalent rank, they would have been there.
A lot of people on the left, I suspect, will be deeply unsympathetic at the deaths of "mercenaries" or "so-called private contractors". This is unjust and callous. They are just as dead as if they were regular soldiers or indeed civilians, and it will be just as bad for their families. Especially, of course, as they'll be lucky to see any of their earnings back in Nepal. It might also be more helpful and more decent to consider if, had they received the same pension rights as British soldiers of equivalent rank, they would have been there.
Blogroll Call
Right - as well as the Kievbloggers, there have been some new blogs linking to the Ranter recently. Fraternal greetings, Charlie's Diary,
Smidsy, London and the North, Howling Spoons.
Smidsy, London and the North, Howling Spoons.
Negotiating - and burning the files...
It appears that negotiations have begun in the Ukraine under (heavy) EU/OSCE mediation. Probably a good thing, but as stated below, I think it's of limited relevance. The only result of negotiations that would have decisive effect would be if the government agreed to resign or to a solution equivalent to their resignation (for example, an independently conducted recount, or a new election). Otherwise, it will be the streets that decide.
Meanwhile, a report has come in that the Presidential Administration is burning its files, from yet another Kievblogger. One use for negotiations, of course, would be to gain time to launder your money, burn the files, destroy the evidence etc...
Meanwhile, a report has come in that the Presidential Administration is burning its files, from yet another Kievblogger. One use for negotiations, of course, would be to gain time to launder your money, burn the files, destroy the evidence etc...
What Was he Thinking?
Yesterday's Guardian Online featured a column by Dave Birch which, astonishingly, advocated the integration of RFID chips into sheets of blank paper. Birch quoted a variety of consumer/convenience gains of a "one day we'll get all nourishment in pill form" kind, suggesting that
Is finding your credit card bill quicker really worth the truly horrific potential for privacy invasion and censorship such an idea would present? Indeed, what was he thinking? The question appears to me to be whether Mr. Birch is a messy big-kid geek who sees remote monitoring of all paper documents as a great alternative to - refined shudder - picking up his credit card bill and putting it somewhere tidy, especially as it involves a new gadget, or whether he really wants total surveillance but thinks this sort of stuff will convince the burger-scoffing rubes who don't get it out there in Userland. There are well-attested reasons why members of technical elites do stupid things, and some of my favourites are those J.K. Galbraith offered in The New Industrial State. Broadly, he suggested that the "technostructure" is motivated, not by profit as that goes to the shareholders, but by "technical virtuosity" for its own sake, the approval of their peers, and the expansion of their departments. I suspect this is in operation here. Yay! Gadgets! New! Budget! Little thought is given to the consequences.
As a bonus question - why has the story vanished from the Guardian's compendious website? Not just that, but neither the Wayback Machine nor the Google cache bear any trace. Tsk tsk.
"If you couldn't find your credit card bill, you would just wander around the house with a mobile phone with an RFID reader in it (you can already buy these), waving it over stacks of paper until it beeped"He didn't apparently consider that the police, or evilly disposed persons, could do the same. In fact, he actually suggests putting the text on the paper on the RFID chip too, so they could simply check for subversive documents or material they consider discreditable to you with one click and a really kewl silver gadget. Great!
Is finding your credit card bill quicker really worth the truly horrific potential for privacy invasion and censorship such an idea would present? Indeed, what was he thinking? The question appears to me to be whether Mr. Birch is a messy big-kid geek who sees remote monitoring of all paper documents as a great alternative to - refined shudder - picking up his credit card bill and putting it somewhere tidy, especially as it involves a new gadget, or whether he really wants total surveillance but thinks this sort of stuff will convince the burger-scoffing rubes who don't get it out there in Userland. There are well-attested reasons why members of technical elites do stupid things, and some of my favourites are those J.K. Galbraith offered in The New Industrial State. Broadly, he suggested that the "technostructure" is motivated, not by profit as that goes to the shareholders, but by "technical virtuosity" for its own sake, the approval of their peers, and the expansion of their departments. I suspect this is in operation here. Yay! Gadgets! New! Budget! Little thought is given to the consequences.
As a bonus question - why has the story vanished from the Guardian's compendious website? Not just that, but neither the Wayback Machine nor the Google cache bear any trace. Tsk tsk.
Prime Minister apparently ignorant of own policy
The Guardian covers Tony Blair's much-blogged "text conversation" set up by a mobile phone company. Just like most articles about this, it entirely misses an important point by sniggering about Blair's familiarity or otherwise with technology.
What I find more worrying is his evident lack of familiarity with his own policy. In the text of the discussion, we find the following exchange:
Further, he ought to be ashamed of his own rhetoric. The best argument he can give is the false one that "other countries" somehow make us need ID cards. Somebody else's fault. Not me! This is an example of what Cory Doctorow calls "policy-laundering", attempting to shuffle the responsibility for unpopular policy onto others. Pathetic.
What I find more worrying is his evident lack of familiarity with his own policy. In the text of the discussion, we find the following exchange:
Teapot: Hi tony, id cards, why shd we pay for them?Well, leaving aside his grammar, this is factually incorrect even as a statement of government policy. The latest version of the government's policy on ID cards does NOT foresee combined passports and ID cards. Mr Blair's bill, which his government proclaims as the flagship of the next parliamentary programme and hence of the election campaign, foresees a separate national ID card and perhaps a biometric passport as well. (Reference) Anyway, Tony's arguments are weak in the extreme. Why does the fact that "many" countries (how many?) use biometric visas mean that we should have an internal ID card linked to a monster database on all citizens? The biometric visa could be stuck to an ordinary passport (and, of course, torn out after use). Visas are issued to people - not to passports. There is no need for a biometric check between the visa and the passport, but there might be a case for one between the visa and the traveller. Why should we need to turn our passports into national ID cards by stealth?
PM: The important thing to realise is we will have to change passports, many countries use biometric visas. We need to combine passports and ID cards.
Further, he ought to be ashamed of his own rhetoric. The best argument he can give is the false one that "other countries" somehow make us need ID cards. Somebody else's fault. Not me! This is an example of what Cory Doctorow calls "policy-laundering", attempting to shuffle the responsibility for unpopular policy onto others. Pathetic.
MEMRI vs Blogosphere
The right-wing Middle East Media Research Institute is trying to sue Juan Cole of Informed Comment for suggesting they were biased. Now, I was involved in a row at Fistful of Euros about the validity or otherwise of a MEMRI "Special Dispatch" containing a variety of rather wild and alarmist statements about Iran, so I suppose I'm biased too. But I'm also pretty sure Cole is in the right here.
MEMRI's business is translating chunks of Middle Eastern newspapers and sending them free of charge to important persons in Washington and elsewhere. The beef is that they are selective in what they translate, taking an aggressive neo-conservative line and picking out unpleasant sentiments. Critics of the organisation point out that three members of its board are former members of Israeli military intelligence, and that this might possibly cause its editorial policy to display a certain slant. Today's top four stories are as follows:
Palestinian Progressive Journalist: Reform in the Arab World Requires that True Intellectuals Speak Out"). Surely, in the no doubt gigantic spectrum of media they scan, there must have been more than that in three months? You might say that if you scroll down the Ranter, you would get the impression of a certain slant in my editorial policy. Indeed. But I do not claim the absolute degree of impartiality MEMRI does. In fact, the description strapline across the top of my blog ("Blogging a noisy and socialist view on politics, security...") might tell you something of what you might read under it. But their self-description claims they are nothing more than a translation service:
Anyway, they've just started suing bloggers who are rude about them, so why not write to them at memri@memri.org and let them know how you feel?
MEMRI's business is translating chunks of Middle Eastern newspapers and sending them free of charge to important persons in Washington and elsewhere. The beef is that they are selective in what they translate, taking an aggressive neo-conservative line and picking out unpleasant sentiments. Critics of the organisation point out that three members of its board are former members of Israeli military intelligence, and that this might possibly cause its editorial policy to display a certain slant. Today's top four stories are as follows:
Special Dispatch Series - No. 819, November 25, 2004You have to scroll back as far as August before you encounter anything even vaguely creditable ("Special Dispatch Series - No. 769, August 20, 2004
MEMRI TV Project: Mothers of Hizbullah Martyrs: We are Very Happy and Want to Sacrifice More Children
Special Dispatch Series - No. 818, November 24, 2004
Arab Progressive: 'Tell Me One Arab University that can Stand Side by Side with Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard…'
Special Dispatch Series - No. 817, November 23, 2004
Arab Progressive Columnist: Arab Artists Deal with the Past and Not with the Present, Due to Fear of the Regimes
Special Dispatch Series - No. 816, November 19, 2004
Egyptian Progressive: 'Why Can't We [Arabs] See Things as the Rest of the World Sees Them?'
Palestinian Progressive Journalist: Reform in the Arab World Requires that True Intellectuals Speak Out"). Surely, in the no doubt gigantic spectrum of media they scan, there must have been more than that in three months? You might say that if you scroll down the Ranter, you would get the impression of a certain slant in my editorial policy. Indeed. But I do not claim the absolute degree of impartiality MEMRI does. In fact, the description strapline across the top of my blog ("Blogging a noisy and socialist view on politics, security...") might tell you something of what you might read under it. But their self-description claims they are nothing more than a translation service:
"The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.
Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization."
Anyway, they've just started suing bloggers who are rude about them, so why not write to them at memri@memri.org and let them know how you feel?
Government....Computers......heh heh heh heh.....
The Department of Work & Pensions (for non-UK readers, the government department that administers Britain's social security system) has confirmed what everyone knows about the government's technological blind spot by throwing up what might be Britain's biggest-ever computer failure. It all started when they tried to update from Win2K to Windows XP.....then, before they knew what hit them, 80% of the department's PCs were just so many expensive paperweights. Now, the DWP is understandably very IT-dependent - just think of all those national insurance payments - so this is going to be a real connoisseur's cockup.
The people we have to thank for this? None other than everyone's favourite Big Consultant, Electronic Data Systems of Texas. Already blamed for a whole string of British public-sector IT disasters. Just wait for the day the National ID Card server falls over and starts puking 404 errors.
The people we have to thank for this? None other than everyone's favourite Big Consultant, Electronic Data Systems of Texas. Already blamed for a whole string of British public-sector IT disasters. Just wait for the day the National ID Card server falls over and starts puking 404 errors.
Looks like we're in for nasty weather
....I fear the end is coming soon. Well, enough Creedence Clearwater Revival. The dollar has taken another turn for the worse and this time it may be the real thing. I mentioned not so long ago that the huge accumulation of dollar central bank reserves since 1995 is beginning to look like a gigantic stock overhang, and if the BBC's report here is accurate, it may be about to be cleared.
"On Friday, the Shanghai-based China Business News reported China had cut the size of its US Treasury bond holdings in its foreign exchange reserves to $180bn to avoid losses from a weakening US dollar.If the Chinese central bankers turn bearish on the dollar , this could be going down fast. A further report, at Fistful of Euros points to the possibility of the Russians beginning to switch from dollars into euros. In comments, it is pointed out that Russian foreign reserves aren't that immense - but then again, the trigger for the 1976 sterling crisis was the Nigerian central bank leaving the sterling area. That's the kicker about metastability - you only need an "it" to get the rush for the exits started.
"China has already begun reducing U.S. dollar assets in forex reserves," the newspaper quoted Yu Yongding, a researcher who is also a member of the central bank's monetary policy committee, as saying. This report has since been disputed, helping push the dollar higher.."
Foreign Notes - Seizing the symbols of authority
Scott Clark in Kiev has this to say about the dynamics of the revolution:
As far as the administration goes, such things as the rebellion at state TV and the desertion of city councils shows that this is shaking. It must be assumed that the armed forces are still available, but there are also signs of slippage there.
On the other hand, the revolutionaries have gone a long way towards seizing the symbols of authority. The swearing-in in parliament was a neat coup in terms of legality or at least the perception of legality. But Weber's framework doesn't really help in understanding this situation because it doesn't really engage with the notion of democracy. What is the legitimacy that the opposition is gaining? It can't be exactly legal-rational, because they have revolted against a state that is operating in illegality. Only a legal decision or a new election could offer that. Weber offers the category of "charismatic" legitimacy, but this isn't enough - it isn't just the attraction of a (Hitler-like?) leader figure who got them out on the streets. We're talking primitive democracy here - the public in action. That's why, by the way, the negotiators and mediators now flocking to Kiev are irrelevant to the issue. What decides this will be the public on the streets - if they begin to trickle away, any dialogue stitched together by the EU or whoever will be fundamentally pointless. If the crowds don't trickle away, if they grow, in the end the diplomats will be overtaken by events.
Apparently, the protestors are now besieging government buildings and kept the prime minister out of his office for a while. Scrolling down, note the report that Yushchenko's side have constituted a government-in-waiting.
"So will Yanukovych be sworn in today? I suspect he will be. There is an authority vacuum out there right now which is being filled more and more by Yuschenko standing at the head of the multitudes on the street.Now, this is exactly what I've been going on about. Max Weber remarked that any form of government needs three things - the means of power (Machtmittel), an administrative staff (Verwaltungsstab), and some degree of legitimacy (Legitimation). Probably the best known consequence of this is Weber's division of legitimacy into three forms, traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. Now, clearly the means of power - the police - rest with the regime, which also still possesses the state bureaucracy. But its legitimacy is vanishing fast. If you consider Kuchma to have held legal-rational legitimacy, this is because rigging the elections breaks all the rules that are meant to provide that legitimacy.
Kuchma has all but disappeared. He is heard from from time to time in the press but that is about it. I think he wanted to retreat to the background after Yanukovych was elected and assumed power and that is what he has seemed to do. But Yanukovych has not assumed power yet and, with Kuchma out of sight, there really is no one in charge right now.
But not if you look at it from the perspective of the people here. In a speech yesterday, Yuschenko told every institution of government, and the press was included in this, what their duties were under the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. It sounded like he was setting up his government out there right on the street. And he is doing things to take care of the people out there on the street. He has made special pleas for the people of Kiev to take care of those who have traveled here from other areas, to make sure they are fed, that they have a place to stay and that they are kept warm when they are out in the cold. And he has asked for donations of food and clothing and money from the people here to help those down on the square. And yesterday, he asked for medicine to be brought down because some of the people are sick with pneumonia and need medicine. And the money, food and clothing are coming in.
What all of this means to the people is that Yuschenko is, in short, acting like president."
As far as the administration goes, such things as the rebellion at state TV and the desertion of city councils shows that this is shaking. It must be assumed that the armed forces are still available, but there are also signs of slippage there.
On the other hand, the revolutionaries have gone a long way towards seizing the symbols of authority. The swearing-in in parliament was a neat coup in terms of legality or at least the perception of legality. But Weber's framework doesn't really help in understanding this situation because it doesn't really engage with the notion of democracy. What is the legitimacy that the opposition is gaining? It can't be exactly legal-rational, because they have revolted against a state that is operating in illegality. Only a legal decision or a new election could offer that. Weber offers the category of "charismatic" legitimacy, but this isn't enough - it isn't just the attraction of a (Hitler-like?) leader figure who got them out on the streets. We're talking primitive democracy here - the public in action. That's why, by the way, the negotiators and mediators now flocking to Kiev are irrelevant to the issue. What decides this will be the public on the streets - if they begin to trickle away, any dialogue stitched together by the EU or whoever will be fundamentally pointless. If the crowds don't trickle away, if they grow, in the end the diplomats will be overtaken by events.
Apparently, the protestors are now besieging government buildings and kept the prime minister out of his office for a while. Scrolling down, note the report that Yushchenko's side have constituted a government-in-waiting.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Ukraine: Perhaps a Slow Rot And a Speedy End
Just to revisit a past post on the Ukrainian perhaps-revolution, I think I ought to make myself a little clearer. What I meant by a "slow rot" as the government's legitimacy or authority is eroded doesn't exclude dramatic change. What I meant was a distinction between a coup de theatre (or indeed coup d'etat), for example either an attempted mass repression or the regime's flight or resignation, and the scenario where a prolonged period of protest goes on while the government still exists - until the crack comes. Once a certain threshold of authority for either side is reached, there will be a dramatic change - either the protests melting away, or the government.
Events seem to be bearing this out - Viktor at the Periscope reports that demonstrations have spread to Dnepropetrovsk (in the officially pro-Yanushkovich Don basin) and that those local authorities who reject the result have formed a central executive committee. Further, a government minister has resigned. Both Neeka and Europhobia report that the crowds of "government supporters" are fraternising with the "orange" demonstrators. Perhaps most significant of all, one of the three geographical commanders of the Ukrainian army has stated that his command will not "fight our own people".
What really worries, me, is this report that the entire board of Yukos have apparently left Russia for the UK. What the hell's that about?
Events seem to be bearing this out - Viktor at the Periscope reports that demonstrations have spread to Dnepropetrovsk (in the officially pro-Yanushkovich Don basin) and that those local authorities who reject the result have formed a central executive committee. Further, a government minister has resigned. Both Neeka and Europhobia report that the crowds of "government supporters" are fraternising with the "orange" demonstrators. Perhaps most significant of all, one of the three geographical commanders of the Ukrainian army has stated that his command will not "fight our own people".
What really worries, me, is this report that the entire board of Yukos have apparently left Russia for the UK. What the hell's that about?
Another Election, Another Recount
The Kos links to an Ohio newspaper article concerning the coming recount there. No orange jackets though...
Ukraine: a bogus calm
Well, whatever was about to happen clearly didn't. Yushchenko called for a general strike and the occupation of public buildings after the results were announced. It's unlikely that anything dramatic will happen today as the EU-Russia summit takes place. In other news, reports of local administrations rejecting the government, demonstrators digging in, etc. are steadily coming in. So are stories about Russian soldiers, movement of troops and the like. One prosaic explanation for the "Russians" would be that they are Ukrainian soldiers from a unit recruited in the Russian-speaking parts of the country - this would explain their accents. As the terminology, uniforms, weapons and vehicles are nearly identical it would not be a difficult mistake to make.
On the international side, both the European Union and the USA have rejected the results in a surprising outbreak of transatlantic harmony. Jose-Manuel Barroso, facing the first real challenge of his Commission Presidency after the confirmation rows, suggested that Ukraine might face "consequences" in the event of violence - it being strongly hinted that those consequences might not be unconnected with some $1.31 billion in aid and trade advantages currently provided by the EU. Colin Powell, interestingly, used exactly the same formulation ("consequences in its relationship") when he rejected the results last night. Well, we shall see. On BBC television last night, a "campaign adviser" to Yanushkovich was interviewed. Bizarrely, he didn't speak of his man as "President", "Prime Minister" or "President-elect" although the BBC used the latter term - instead it was "Mr. Yanushkovich". Interestingly enough, he turned out not to be speaking from Kiev but from an unstated location in southern Ukraine. So - his campaign adviser doesn't call him "President" and has taken himself off to the provinces? Hardly a sign of confidence.
On the international side, both the European Union and the USA have rejected the results in a surprising outbreak of transatlantic harmony. Jose-Manuel Barroso, facing the first real challenge of his Commission Presidency after the confirmation rows, suggested that Ukraine might face "consequences" in the event of violence - it being strongly hinted that those consequences might not be unconnected with some $1.31 billion in aid and trade advantages currently provided by the EU. Colin Powell, interestingly, used exactly the same formulation ("consequences in its relationship") when he rejected the results last night. Well, we shall see. On BBC television last night, a "campaign adviser" to Yanushkovich was interviewed. Bizarrely, he didn't speak of his man as "President", "Prime Minister" or "President-elect" although the BBC used the latter term - instead it was "Mr. Yanushkovich". Interestingly enough, he turned out not to be speaking from Kiev but from an unstated location in southern Ukraine. So - his campaign adviser doesn't call him "President" and has taken himself off to the provinces? Hardly a sign of confidence.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
CEC declares Yanukovich win
Ukraine: it's not the despair, it's the hope that gets you
The crisis is now picking up with impressive speed. The Central Elections Commission was due to announce the final results at 1400GMT but they haven't produced yet. Russian-soldier rumours are increasingly frequent and credible, as are rumours that a run-off election will be held. A heavily-reported story that a military crackdown, either Ukrainian, Russian (false-flag), or Russian (overt) would begin at 1600 seems to be false. The European Union has named Polish president Aleksandr Kwasniewski as its representative in Ukraine. There have also been further signs of the government's authority eroding - the Commander in Chief of the Navy, for eaxmple, has declared for the opposition.
Blogs, meanwhile, are struggling technically as they did on US election night. (Has anyone else noticed that my two last Ukraine posts were published by Blogger in the wrong order?) Despite the tech farts and 404 errors, though, some are doing wonders. The Periscope with its Ukrainian commenters is putting out a lot of news. Scott Clark, Neeka and some others are reporting from the scene. Clark reports that the "Russians" were identified as such by - ahem - the Russian registration numbers on their transport. Looks like they're Russians, then. A special-purpose blog has been set up by Ukrainians in London.
Blogs, meanwhile, are struggling technically as they did on US election night. (Has anyone else noticed that my two last Ukraine posts were published by Blogger in the wrong order?) Despite the tech farts and 404 errors, though, some are doing wonders. The Periscope with its Ukrainian commenters is putting out a lot of news. Scott Clark, Neeka and some others are reporting from the scene. Clark reports that the "Russians" were identified as such by - ahem - the Russian registration numbers on their transport. Looks like they're Russians, then. A special-purpose blog has been set up by Ukrainians in London.
Ukraine - A Slow Rot or Speedy End?
Over in the Ukraine, they're a-demonstrating still over the bizarre results of the presidential election. (99% results for the president, 100%+ turnouts..) With the presidency surrounded by a huge crowd clad in orange, what happens next? Some voices in the last few days have suggested that the crowds lack momentum, and that the regime will wait it out. But I think this is unlikely. The longer the fight goes on, the more the government will be discredited. That the regime was going to try some form of waiting game is clear from the decision of its parliamentarians not to turn up at a special session yesterday. Because the constitution requires 50% of the house plus 1 deputy to function, this manoeuvre prevented any binding decision or official statement.
But it also meant that the parliament was abandoned to the opposition, which they promptly took advantage of by staging a swearing-in ceremony for Yushchenko. It was good telly, at least until state TV pulled the plug. And the government seems not to have an answer either - they have yet to take any action to cement their claim, like appointing a cabinet. The problem with a waiting game is that the same factors you hope will work on the opposition can work on you - divisions, crisis-weariness, and dissatisfaction can set in. The Grauniad reports, for example, that reporters on the two main TV stations have gone on strike to protest censorship. The key point will be if and when this begins to affect the police/military, of course.
How could it end? One option would be the Georgian solution, with a tipping point being reached when the government's authority is eroded further and the opposition's support grows. Another would be the Jaruzelski option - start cracking heads and taking names, and officially freeze the election results. An alternative would be the Hungarian version - call in the Russians to crack heads, take names etc. But it seems unlikely that Russia would try anything quite so blatant unless open civil war was to break out. (Clearly, solution 3 might be triggered by a halfbaked solution 2.) In the event of a peaceful pre-revolution, I suspect that the Russians would probably give in gracefully. Watch for signs of Igor Ivanov turning up in Kiev - last year in the Caucasus he was the Kremlin's messenger to tell Shevardnadze and Abashidze to give up. When the Ig's in town the gig is up and the chips are down, clearly. If it looks like going Georgian, the Russians will probably flip on Yanushkovich and attempt to restore relations with the revolutionaries, having conducted their old pals to a well-heeled exile in Russia. That is, "conducted" as in "dragged kicking and screaming to a waiting Ilyushin 62", if necessary...
Speaking of Ilyushins, in the event of a Ukrainian revolution we may find the Viktor Bout thing blows wide open. He has been known to do a lot of business there - for example, the infamous deal to arm the Taliban was arranged with weapons from the Ukraine via the gangster Vadim Rabinovich. If this stone gets turned over, there may well be some interesting creepy crawlies underneath.
But it also meant that the parliament was abandoned to the opposition, which they promptly took advantage of by staging a swearing-in ceremony for Yushchenko. It was good telly, at least until state TV pulled the plug. And the government seems not to have an answer either - they have yet to take any action to cement their claim, like appointing a cabinet. The problem with a waiting game is that the same factors you hope will work on the opposition can work on you - divisions, crisis-weariness, and dissatisfaction can set in. The Grauniad reports, for example, that reporters on the two main TV stations have gone on strike to protest censorship. The key point will be if and when this begins to affect the police/military, of course.
How could it end? One option would be the Georgian solution, with a tipping point being reached when the government's authority is eroded further and the opposition's support grows. Another would be the Jaruzelski option - start cracking heads and taking names, and officially freeze the election results. An alternative would be the Hungarian version - call in the Russians to crack heads, take names etc. But it seems unlikely that Russia would try anything quite so blatant unless open civil war was to break out. (Clearly, solution 3 might be triggered by a halfbaked solution 2.) In the event of a peaceful pre-revolution, I suspect that the Russians would probably give in gracefully. Watch for signs of Igor Ivanov turning up in Kiev - last year in the Caucasus he was the Kremlin's messenger to tell Shevardnadze and Abashidze to give up. When the Ig's in town the gig is up and the chips are down, clearly. If it looks like going Georgian, the Russians will probably flip on Yanushkovich and attempt to restore relations with the revolutionaries, having conducted their old pals to a well-heeled exile in Russia. That is, "conducted" as in "dragged kicking and screaming to a waiting Ilyushin 62", if necessary...
Speaking of Ilyushins, in the event of a Ukrainian revolution we may find the Viktor Bout thing blows wide open. He has been known to do a lot of business there - for example, the infamous deal to arm the Taliban was arranged with weapons from the Ukraine via the gangster Vadim Rabinovich. If this stone gets turned over, there may well be some interesting creepy crawlies underneath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
