THE ROVING EYE

The president is in the trunk

By Pepe Escobar

An historical irony has placed little Honduras at the eye of the volcano in both the United Nations General Assembly in New York and the Group of 20 (G-20) meeting in Pittsburgh this week - even though United States corporate media would rather focus on Libyan Muammar Gaddafi and the tribulations of his traveling tent. [1]

As much as the 2008 financial crisis exposed the economic fallacy of US-propelled neo-liberalism, the June 28 oligarch-directed military coup in Honduras has exposed the fallacy of the Barack Obama administration's pledge to uphold democratic values around the world. Stolen elections in Afghanistan? We don't like it, but ... Military coup in Honduras? We don't like it, but ...

What passes for official US policy at the G-20 consists of telling big exporting powers such as China, Germany and Japan to engage in an orgy of consumption (as the US used to) while vaguely promising the US will finally boost savings. Fat chance.

As for Honduras, this is now the Obama administration's hour of truth: will it finally come clean and follow world opinion - also expressed by the UN, the European Union and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) - in condemning and isolating the coup plotters?

The stick, or deafening silence
Deposed, rightful Honduran President Manuel Zelaya has been to Washington no less than six times since the coup. Not once was he allowed to meet Obama. Then, this past Monday morning, Zelaya showed up at the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras' capital, after a spectacular run that started in Nicaragua, involved a flight to El Salvador on a plane offered by Venezuela, and a 15-hour odyssey across the border to Honduras on foot and by car, evading myriad checkpoints manned by local intelligence - which is, crucially, funded, trained and maintained by the Pentagon. Zelaya was smuggled into the Brazilian Embassy in the trunk of car.

Zelaya may have had help from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, under the umbrella of the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA). But now the strategic game-changer has been to shift the attention towards Brazil - and that means under the UNASUR.

Whether Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva knew it before hand or only at the last minute (as the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs insists) is irrelevant. It was not the US that called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council this week; it was Brazil.

Lula forcefully demanded the restoration of democracy in Honduras in his speech at the UN General Assembly - with strong applause from the plenary. Obama's speech came right after Lula's. Not a word on Honduras. Obama spoke of a "new era of engagement" or at best an "inter-connected world" - while Lula spoke about the emergence of a real multilateral world; its subtext means the hyperpower does not have the monopoly anymore, be it on the word, the stick, or deafening silence.

Obama even stressed the US "can't fix it alone" - as if the war in Afghanistan and confrontation with Iran were global, and not only US, obsessions. (By the way: Lula met Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad face-to-face for over an hour on the sidelines of the UN assembly. He later said that as much as Brazil had the right to develop its own peaceful nuclear program, so did Iran).

By Obama's own admission, the US can't fix Honduras alone, but at least it could have emitted the right signals, delegitimizing the coup politically, militarily, economically and diplomatically from the beginning.

So far, the US-dominated Organization of American States (OAS) has engaged in a pantomime negotiated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias which calls for Zelaya's return as president, coup plotters integrated into the government, and amnesty for everybody, including installed coup President Roberto Micheletti.

This is ludicrous. It's as if in the (failed) George W Bush administration-supported 2002 coup against Chavez in Venezuela, the plotters would have been allowed to stay as his ministers.

Only the minimal Honduran oligarchy and the media they control support the coup. They have no social base. A communique by the National Front Against the Coup stresses that some businessmen and military who initially supported the plotters are now leaving the country. The coup plotters - emboldened by force, as if this was Latin America in the 1970s all over again - reverted to, what else, mass repression, a state of siege and tear-gassing everyone in sight.

What the majority of the people in Honduras want is their rightful president back in power and a constituent assembly, for which they are campaigning all around the country. Zelaya's own counter-coup has been to risk his life and install a government in exile - but not in exile, inside his own country - the ultimate nightmare of any dictatorship. For the coup plotters, there are only two endgames: unleash state terrorism or get out of Dodge and beg for asylum in Panama.

The Pentagon power play
Washington's glaring ambiguity is easily attributed to the ongoing, fierce internal war in the US. The true US supporters of the coup in Honduras are US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and the State Department. But even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been forced to back down. On Monday, she finally was forced to admit "the remainder of President Zelaya's term [is] to be respected".

Crucially, Obama has to know how the ambiguous US stance on Honduras is a dagger pointing to his heart. It leaves his lofty promise of a new relationship between the US and Latin America in tatters. Worse still, it unveils how helpless he is facing his - in theory - subordinates at the Pentagon and the State Department, no to mention vast reactionary forces across the US for whom multilateralism means a surrender to "socialism" and to America's enemies.

As American political activist, author and lecturer Noam Chomsky has pointed out, Central America is still traumatized by the "Reaganesque terror" of the 1980s. In a wider context in Latin America, the US used to exert control either by hardcore violence, direct or indirect, or by applying an economic stranglehold. This belongs to the past - as much as coup lovers in the Pentagon may regret it.

Coups, anyway, are far from gone. The Bush administration tried (and failed) in Venezuela in 2002; now Washington engages in subversion/propaganda via an extensive media network and National Endowment for Democracy-style support for the disgruntled local oligarchies. In Haiti, both France and the US got rid of the government and sent the president to South Africa. Honduras is a more complex case. The International Monetary Fund has just approved an enormous loan to Honduras - which will cover for the lack of direct US "assistance".

Most of all, the US role in Honduras is a Pentagon-playing-the-New Great Game matter. The coup is intimately linked to ongoing remilitarization of Latin America - from the reactivation of the dormant Fourth Fleet to the installation of seven new military bases in Colombia. (See US's 'arc of instability' just gets bigger, September 3, Asia Times Online.)

In pure Pentagonese, Honduras under Zelaya fell under the good old Cold War domino theory. The government had to go because it was linked to ALBA, which means Nicaragua and, above all, Venezuela. Chavez is playing a high stakes New Great Game - he just bought US$2 billion in weapons from Russia at a time when Moscow wants access to the Orinoco oil wealth, and he is also doing energy megadeals with China. The Pentagonese response is an array of bases in Colombia to monitor him. Now Zelaya's move to the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa introduces an even juicier element.

Last December, Brazil struck a strategic military partnership with France - involving a multibillion-dollar purchase of submarines, helicopters and jet fighters - with full technology transfer included. Lula is privileging the French over Boeing - and obviously the US industrial-military complex is not amused. Brazil projects power independently from the US and France in South America. This is all about multilateralism in action - of the kind reactionary forces in the US simply abhor.

Brazil is a key G-20 member at the Pittsburgh summit - the largest economy in Latin America, swinging its way towards great power status, and still a key ally and trading partner of the US. Brazil may not solve the crisis in Honduras. But Lula - whom Obama immensely respects - may convince him it's time to finally come clean, and side with the people of Honduras.

This might do wonders for Obama's global credibility - especially now that he has seemingly backed down on his demand for a freeze on Israeli settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem. (See Netanyahu and Obama: Who's fooling who?, Asia Times Online, September 24)

Were Obama not to make his move, the impression would remain that if he can't even control his own reactionary/militarist backyard in Washington, not to mention Latin America, how will he face up to Russia and China on the global stage?

Note
1. Known for pitching a large Bedouin tent on his trips abroad, Gaddafi this time pitched it on famous US entrepreneur Donald Trump's 86 hectare (213 acre) estate in Bedford, a town about 50 kilometers north of New York, after New York police turned down his request to erect it in Central Park.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Obama's Korean honeymoon sours

By Donald Kirk

NEW YORK - United States President Barack Obama could hardly be expected to endorse the pronouncement of his predecessor in the White House, George W Bush, that North Korea ranked in an "axis of evil" along with Iran and Iraq.

That phrase, uttered by Bush in his first State of the Union address in January 2002, now counts as perhaps the most memorable of Bushisms - alongside the "Mission Accomplished" banner after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Although Obama did not resort to such rhetoric, he veered close enough in his maiden address to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday in which he warned that Iran and North Korea, if they "choose to ignore international standards" and "put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead or regional security", must "be held accountable".

Exactly how to hold them accountable is another matter. Certainly, as Obama stated, the world must "demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise", but those words will seem empty if he imagines talk of reconciliation will curb the nuclear ambitions of these collaborators in the nuclear arms race.
The fact that Iran and North Korea have exchanged components and know-how, and that North Korea has exported missiles to Iran, inextricably links them - if not in an "axis of evil", then at least in a military and commercial alliance.

Obama's words contrast with the US view that North Korea may now be an eligible partner for dialogue. The director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has said the US and North Korea are in a "honeymoon" phase since former US president Bill Clinton flew to Pyongyang on his "unofficial mission" in early August. Clinton met with the Dear Leader Kim Jong-il for three hours and 17 minutes and flew home with the two women from Al Gore's Current TV network who'd been detained on the North's Tumen River border with China.

How long this honeymoon spirit will endure is far from certain. Obama on Thursday, the day after his speech before the UN General Assembly, again talked tough - this time as he chaired a summit of global leaders of the member states of the UN Security Council.

The message was a call to fully implement Security Council resolutions on Iran and North Korea - notably the sanctions adopted by the council after North Korea conducted its second underground nuclear test on May 25. In a gesture to show the previous resolutions were serious, the Security Council marked the occasion by passing yet another resolution, this one "demanding full compliance with Security Council resolutions on Iran and North Korea and calling on the parties to find an early negotiated solution".

The message seemed to be that the United States was as hell-bent as ever on getting all UN member nations to cooperate on keeping North Korea from exporting arms of any kind. The sanctions have indeed put a severe crimp in North Korean arms exports - evidenced by the North Korean decision to reverse the course of a freighter apparently bound for Myanmar - and also have stopped the import of certain luxury products for the North Korean elite.

Publicity surrounding these events masks the reality that still more North Korean arms shipments may have gone undetected by sea - or by air over China or Russia. Chinese and Russian leaders have certainly paid lip service to the sanctions, but their commitment to curbing North Korean exports is unclear.

Nor is it at all clear that the resolution adopted by the Security Council on Thursday "will also strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty", as Obama declared. To the contrary, during the "honeymoon period" cited by Panetta the question of North Korea returning to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been largely ignored if not forgotten.

North Korea formally withdrew from the NPT in January 2003 and restarted the five-megawatt reactor at its nuclear complex at Yongbyon after expelling inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in December 2002.

The expulsion of the IAEA inspectors represented the final breakdown of the 1994 Geneva framework agreement under which North Korea had shut down the reactor in return for the promise of twin light-water nuclear reactors to help fulfill its energy needs. The framework fell apart after North Korea, in a meeting in October 2002 with a mission led by James Kelly, then US assistant secretary of state for East Asia, acknowledged an entirely separate program for developing nuclear warheads with highly enriched uranium.

North Korea for years loudly denied having acknowledged anything to do with highly enriched uranium but in September, a month after Clinton's visit, boasted of entering "the final stage" of developing uranium for nuclear warheads. The timing of the boast suggested the North's urgent interest in two-way dialogue with the US rather than the six-party talks to which it had vowed never to return.

Obama's performance at the UN would seem to conflict with a diplomatic offensive waged by the State Department to convince reluctant South Koreans and Japanese that there's really no harm in sending Stephen Bosworth, the US nuclear envoy, over to Pyongyang for those two-way talks. As the Americans tell it, Bosworth would spend his time talking the North Koreans into returning to six-party talks - and nothing else.

Obama's remarks suggest, however, that Bosworth would have much more to discuss. How about getting North Korea to agree to return to the NPT in return for the US agreeing to cut some slack on sanctions? And what about opening liaison offices in Washington and Pyongyang - the precursor to diplomatic relations and a peace treaty in place of the uneasy truce that ended the Korean War in July 1953?

United States diplomats persist in attempting to allay the qualms of the South Koreans, but they have nothing to say about President Lee Myung-bak's proposal for a "grand bargain" - a comprehensive multi-nation package of incentives - to persuade North Korea to abandon its nukes.

The bargain as proposed by Lee in New York would come with massive aid and security guarantees if only the North does away with "key elements of its nuclear program".

The offer of a "grand bargain" is essentially a rhetorical gesture, reminiscent of Lee's previous promises of vast aid, all quite quickly spurned by the North. The offer may, however, serve the purpose of letting the Americans know that South Korea has ideas of its own when it comes to dealing with the North Koreans.
If so, the American response was not exactly encouraging. Yonhap, the South Korean news agency, reported that Kurt Campbell, assistant secretary of state for East Asia, was "not aware" of Lee's "grand bargain" at all.

Instead, Campbell went on about "small but fundamental steps so that we can take at least some early actions going forth". South Koreans were left wondering just what steps and actions he have in mind.

A senior South Korean official, briefing South Korean reporters in Washington, scoffed at agreements reached with North Korea in six-party talks, citing loopholes that enabled the North to retain its nuclear arsenal. "We will first bring North Koreans back to the six-party talks," he said, "and press them hard for a package deal or a grand bargain, however it is named."

They need not have been too concerned. Campbell's remark may have been familiar diplomatic gibberish. No one seemed to know whether the Americans were getting tough, as Obama was at least pretending to do, or reverting to more talk against a background of the usual sound and fury.

Journalist Donald Kirk has been covering Korea - and the confrontation of forces in Northeast Asia - for more than 30 years.

(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

08:05, September 27, 2009

Chinese FM describes Hu's trip to U.S. as significant, far-reaching move The Chinese foreign minister on Saturday described President Hu Jintao's trip to the United States to attend four important summits as a significant and far-reaching diplomatic move. Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi made the remarks while briefing journalists who traveled to New York and Pittsburgh with Hu. Yang said that the four summits in the U.S. that Hu participated in focused on such attention-grabbing issues as the international financial crisis, climate change, non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Those issues have a significant bearing on international relations and on the global situation in the future, Yang said. He said those issues also have a direct bearing on China's long-term development and fundamental interests. Participating in four summits in as many days was an unprecedented diplomatic move by a Chinese president since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, Yang said. He said Hu systematically advanced China's viewpoints and stances on important global and regional issues during the four summits. Yang highlighted the 64th United Nations General Assembly, which drew more than 140 heads of state and government, and the world body's general debate during which Hu delivered his key-note speech "Join hands to create the future." The foreign minister quoted Hu as saying that the world is undergoing a hectic period of big development and reform and that it is seeing a stronger trend toward peace, development and cooperation. Hu pointed out during his U.N. speech that the world's peace and development is faced with serious challenges resulting from instability and uncertainty in the global situation. The Chinese president urged the international community to cherish the concepts of peace, development, cooperation, win-win and tolerance in their effort to promote a lasting peace, co-prosperity and a harmonious world. Yang said Hu proposed that the international community view the security issue through a broader view-finder, conduct cooperation with more open hearts, and materialize harmonious co-existence via a more tolerant mentality. Hu stressed in his speech that China's destiny is increasingly linked with that of the entire world. He said that China will stick to its path of peaceful development, one that leads to mutual benefits and a win-win scenario. He said China also will stick to the five principles of peaceful co-existence while pursuing friendly cooperation with all of the other countries in the world. China was, is and will remain a strength to be reckoned with in the maintenance of world peace and in the promotion of co-development of the world. As a responsible big country in the midst of development, China has performed its obligation to the U.N. Millennium Declaration by extending assistance to more than 120 countries. It also has written off debts owed it by 49 heavily indebted countries and least developed countries, and is offering zero-tariff treatment to exports from 40 least developed countries. China also will beef up its support for the developing countries that have been affected most by the international financial crisis. Hu said that China will continue its support to the developing nations by speeding up their growth to meet their millennium goals; China will continue to give the assistance promised to African countries during the Sino-Africa Summit; and China will continue to participate and promote the regional monetary and financial cooperation. Yang, who accompanied Hu to New York and Pittsburgh, said that the world sees the Chinese president's speech at the U.N. as commanding a strategic viewpoint and carrying a far-reaching connotation. Hu's speech demonstrated that China is playing an irreplaceable role in international and regional affairs as a builder of international systems, Yang said. He said that the international community welcomes China to play an even larger role on the international stage. At the U.N. non-proliferation and disarmament summit, Hu advanced his statement on the new security concept that China advocates. It was the first time in the past decade that a Chinese leader elaborated on China's policy toward nuclear issues in person at a multilateral occasion. Yang quoted Hu as saying that China has always advocated a total ban and total destruction of nuclear weapons. Hu said China will stick to its self-defense nuclear strategy and to its promise not to be the first to ever resort to nuclear weapons under any circumstance. China has also obliged itself to not threaten nuclear-free countries and regions with the use of nuclear weapons. Hu told the non-proliferation and disarmament summit that China will continue to promote the process of international nuclear disarmament and to contribute efforts toward the system safeguarding the implementation of the non-proliferation treaty. This approach, Hu said, has fully demonstrated China's fairness, responsibility and contribution toward the construction of a nuclear-free world, which reflected the legitimate claim by the developing countries, safeguarded the interests of the developing countries and helped to move the non-proliferation and disarmament talks to a more positive direction of development. Yang described the G-20 summit as an effective platform on which the international community can cooperate in its joint dealings with the ongoing international financial and economic crises to better governance of the global economy. 08:06, September 27, 2009 Chinese FM describes Hu's trip to U.S. as significant, far-reaching move (2) Hu has participated in all three of the G-20 summits centered on the financial crisis. In Pittsburgh, Hu made it clear that though the world has seen positive economic signs, there is a long way to go before full recovery is achieved because there are many uncertainties remaining. The Chinese president listed three tasks the international community must deal with without hesitation in face of their efforts to end the recession. The tasks, Yang re-capped, are to keep stimulating economic growth, to promote reform of the international financial system, and to strike a balanced development of the world economy. Hu said in Pittsburgh that all of the concerned countries should keep their stimulus plans in place and make more efforts in promoting consumption and domestic demand. He warned that those countries should also keep an eye on any potential side-effects of their efforts, especially concerning inflation. The developing countries, Hu said, should be given more representation and say in the world's international financial institutions. He said that all of the countries concerned also should make efforts to forge an international mechanism for balanced development of the world economy. Cooperation in technology should be given high priority so as to help bridge the gap between the developed and developing countries, Hu suggested. Hu cited China as an obvious example of the packaged stimulus plan in face of the ongoing financial and economic crises. He said that his country would continue to carry out its promised and planned assistance to developing countries, especially those in Africa, and would try within its capacity to increase such assistance. Hu's viewpoints and proposed measures on international cooperation on financial system won praise from many heads of state and government in Pittsburgh, Yang said. The foreign minister said that the president based his proposals on safeguarding the fundamental interests of the people in China and around the world and therefore his viewpoints and measures got nods of approval from many of the leaders at the G-20summit. As the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen approaches, Yang said the issue of climate change is attracting greater public attention. Because China is the largest developing country and an emerging economy, its stand on the issue is closely watched by the international community, Yang said. "Global climate change has a profound impact on the existence and development of mankind and is a major challenge facing all countries," Hu stressed. During his speech at the U.N. climate change summit, Hu put forward a four-point proposal on joint efforts to deal with climate change by the international community. Fulfilling respective responsibilities should be at the core of the effort, Hu said. Concerned parties should positively implement the "Bali Roadmap" talks according to the requests of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto protocol, Hu said. Achieving mutual benefits and a win-win outcome should be the goal of the effort, Hu said. Supporting developing countries in countering climate change is a responsibility of developed countries and also benefits their long-term interests, Hu said. "We should realize a win-win outcome for both developed and developing countries, and interests of each state and the whole mankind," he said. Promoting common development should be the basis of the effort, the president said. "Without common development, particularly the development of developing countries, there cannot be a broad and solid basis in the long run for tackling climate change," he said. Ensuring financing and technology holds the key to the success of the effort, Hu noted. He urged the developed countries to take up their responsibilities and provide developing nations with new financial support to facilitate their dealings with climate change. Although China faces a lot of difficulties in the course of development, it attaches great importance to climate change and has taken a series of measures to address the issue, Hu said. The Chinese leader pledged that his country will further integrate actions on climate change into its economic and social development plan. China will intensify efforts to conserve energy and improve energy efficiency, vigorously develop renewable and nuclear energy and step up efforts to develop a green economy, he said. As a responsible country, Hu said, China will make the Copenhagen conference achieve positive results. Hu emphasized the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and said that China firmly safeguards the interests of developing countries. Hu announced significant measures China will adopt on emission reduction, which have been lauded by the international community, Yang said. Many foreign leaders said Hu's speech hit the high points of current climate change talks, reflected the common aspirations of the developing countries, and showed the image of a responsible and large country, the foreign minister said. After meeting with dozens of foreign leaders on the sidelines of the U.N. meetings and the G-20 financial summit, Hu reached consensus with them on bilateral relations and joint efforts to deal with the financial crisis, Yang said. During talks with U.S. President Barack Obama, Hu pointed out that China and the United States should maintain frequent high-level exchanges and implement their pledges made at the first China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington in July. They also should deepen cooperation on major international and regional issues, expand exchanges on humanity, properly address each other's interests and concerns, and firmly oppose protectionism, Hu said. When meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Hu said China attaches great importance to enhancing its strategic partnership of cooperation with Russia. He said China is working to implement the consensus reached between the two sides. Both leaders agreed to further expand exchanges in various fields and deepen the Sino-Russian strategic partnership of cooperation. Yang said Hu's meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama was the first between the two leaders since Hatoyama was elected prime minister on Sept. 16. During their talks, Hu said the two sides should enhance high-level exchanges so as to improve political trust, promote trade and economic cooperation, and improve the feelings of their people toward each other in order to consolidate the basis of good public opinion. Hu said that Japan's war-time history and Taiwan are two major issues concerning the political basis of Sino-Japanese relations. China hopes Japan can live up to its commitment and properly handle the two issues. When meeting with his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy, Hu said China is ready to work with France to review the historical experience of bilateral relations, and promote a healthy and steady development of the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two nations. Hu also met with South African President Jacob Zuma, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov of Turkmenistan and President Evo Morales of Bolivia on bilateral ties and major issues of common concern. Yang said China has maintained friendly cooperation with nations in the world, and has forged partnership with many. Frequent high-level exchanges are an important way to boost bilateral ties with other countries. Yang summed up Hu's attendance at the four summits as a complete success. China will earnestly implement the consensus reached by Hu at the U.N. summits and expand cooperation with other nations to jointly meet the global challenges so as to contribute to the world's peace, stability and development, he said. Source: Xinhua 【1】 【2】 Copyright by People's Daily Online, All Rights Reserved

Cayman Islands resists taxing demands as it sinks deeper into crisis

• Tax haven holds budget as it waits for $30m emergency loan
• Direct taxation would lead to job losses, argue finance leaders

• Nick Mathiason
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 September 2009 20.13 BST
• Article history

The Cayman Islands leader, William McKeeva Bush, was today forced to postpone his annual budget as the British overseas territory's debt crisis worsens.

The situation prompted financial leaders of the Caribbean territory to launch a blistering attack on the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) minister, Chris Bryant, for demanding the tax haven introduces an employee tax to ward off disaster.

George Town in Grand Cayman: the territory is the capital of the world's hedge funds, which held £1.4tn there last year. Photograph: David Rogers/Getty Images

This month, the Guardian revealed the Caribbean tax haven was forced to ask the Foreign Office permission to borrow £278m from banks to repair huge deficits. The FCO refused, advising the island's authorities to impose property or payroll taxes. Talks are continuing over a £30m emergency loan package. If the money does not arrive soon, the island's government admits it will not be able to pay its civil servants.

Anthony Travers, chairman of the Cayman Islands Financial Services Association and its stock exchange, argued: "The move from an indirect to a direct system of taxation is a seismic shift which has not been thought through and which is not justified on the facts."

The territory is the capital of the world's hedge fund industry, which has assets of $2.3tn (£1.4tn) parked in the island according to figures last year, and it is the world's fifth biggest banking centre. Its GDP places it as the world's 12th richest jurisdiction, despite a population of only 51,900.

Despite its huge wealth, the overseas territory is strongly resisting pressure to levy taxes to escape a black hole caused by the cost of a large public infrastructure programme and dwindling licence fees from the financial institutions.

"I have canvassed senior business players in Cayman and they have indicated that at the first sign of a payroll tax they will have to consider their options," said Travers. "I believe this will inevitably lead to job losses and it will affect both the highly paid and more junior members of staff and lead not to a revenue increase, but a decrease."

Travers added that the City of London would be hit by any change. "The FCO's sniping at hedge funds plays right into the hands of EU legislators who are desperately trying to curb the success of the City of London and, in particular, the hedge fund industry. In short, if the FCO attack the Caymans, they damage London."

Cayman Islands leaders are furious the islands and other tax havens have been blamed by G20 world leaders for helping to bring about the financial crisis. But campaigners argue so-called "secrecy jurisdictions" were central to creating financial instability that exacerbated the crash.

Difficulties in the Caymans come at the same time as Switzerland has been taken off the OECD's "grey list" for signing its 12th information-sharing agreement with another country. Switzerland was promoted to the "white list" as G20 world leaders in Pittsburgh vowed to deploy sanctions against countries not complying with OECD tax protocols. There are 22 tax havens on its grey list.

In two weeks, the task of assessing how each country complies with anti-tax evasion measures will begin, with each OECD country being subjected to a peer review. Further pressure on the UK's tax havens is likely to come next week at a meeting of Commonwealth finance ministers

G20 leaders map out new economic order at Pittsburgh summit

Bankers' bonuses and excessive national deficits targeted in package of reforms

Patrick Wintour and Andrew Clark

• 
  
• The Guardian, Saturday 26 September 2009
• Article history

G20 leaders, installing themselves as permanent stewards of the world economy for the first time, agreed yesterday on a tighter regime for bankers' bonuses and mapped out an economic order in which countries would be urged to co-operate to avoid building up excessive trade deficits or surpluses.

Gordon Brown hailed the result of the summit in the former steelmaking city of Pittsburgh as a victory for British thinking and persistence, insisting the economic regime would have an impact in restoring balanced growth.

The G20 leaders agreed a system whereby they would collectively agree broad objectives every year, and then make themselves subject to a form of peer review supervised by the IMF.

The aim will be to encourage over-consuming countries, such as the US, to scale back spending and prompt those countries hoarding big surpluses, such as China and Germany, to boost consumer demand.

Barack Obama described the agreement as the opening of a "new era of engagement". "We cannot tolerate the same old boom and bust economies of the past," he said at the close of the two-day summit. "We can't grow complacent. We can't wait for a crisis, to co-operate."

The G20 also agreed to continue with the current stimulus measures, saying they had been effective in preventing the recession tipping into a great depression. The IMF is now predicting 3% growth worldwide next year, but Brown said "the recovery is still very fragile".

He claimed the stimulus measures implemented so far had saved 10 million jobs worldwide and a further 15 million could be saved in the coming year.

In a potentially momentous move, the G20 also resolved to become a permanent body responsible for economic co-operation, meeting annually at the level of leaders, rather than just finance ministers. The move is a recognition that the more limited G8 was hopelessly antiquated, as it excluded the emerging economies of China, India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil.

Such economies were only invited to the G8 as guests, but Brown and Obama wanted to shift emphasis to the G20, following the trailblazing summit in London in April chaired by Brown.

A final communique last night said: "We designate the G20 to be the main forum for our international economic co-operation." Canada and South Korea will host summits next year, followed by France in 2011.

Among the other agreed steps were a move to give developing countries a greater share of the votes at international finance institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.

The G20 leaders also gave the IMF responsibility for investigating the possibility of a so-called "Tobin tax" on financial speculation to contribute towards the cost of future crises. Reasserting their promise to rebalance global capital flows, G20 leaders pledged to "manage the transition towards a more balanced pattern of global growth", adding: "A return to the excessive risk-taking prevalent in some countries before the crisis is not an option."

Under the new regime, the IMF will regularly analyse whether the economic policies of G20 countries are consistent with "sustainable and balanced trajectories for the global economy".

Critics have suggested that this is toothless, pointing out that there would be no explicit penalties for countries judged to be behaving irresponsibly, partly due to reservations about such oversight from China and Germany.

Brown was adamant that the IMF led peer-review mechanism could bring real results, even though similar initiatives have foundered in the past because of the IMF's powerlessness to impose its recommendations.

He said the system was a post-war first: "The old systems of economic co-operation are over. The world is coming together to do what it should have done many years ago, and we recommended many years ago to create a system that can prevent crises as well as deal with them when they occur."

He also claimed leaders had learned from the past year's crisis that it was in their collective self-interest to co-operate more closely, including on the need to boost domestic consumer demand.

Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, accepted the broad principles of closer co-operation, but said: "We have taken active steps to adjust the overseas and domestic demand structure."

He said the real problem that needed addressing remained "the yawning development gap" between the developed and emerging economies.

He called for more concrete steps to assist developing countries.

In the year-long battle over controls on bankers' bonuses European countries, led by France and Germany, failed to get their way in imposing a cap on multi-million pound pay packages for bankers.

The US opposed any limit on principle, seeing it as excessive meddling in Wall Street, and Britain argued any such move would be impossible to enforce.

Instead, the G20 countries opted for a host of measures requiring banks to defer many bonuses for at least three years and to distribute the bulk of top executives' remuneration in shares.

The assembled leaders did agree to ban guaranteed bonuses, which are often dangled to poach staff by one bank from another.

During a brief break from negotiations, Alistair Darling, the chancellor, said a cap would not have been "practical" and that the more detailed guidelines were a "far more rigorous, better approach".

But the measures represented a climbdown for Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, who had threatened to walk out unless a "ceiling" on bankers' pay was established.

Outside the G20 convention centre, thousands of anti-globalisation demonstrators gathered for a second day, under the gaze of a huge contingent of riot police, a Swat team and armoured vehicles.

A gathering called the "peoples' march" trickled from suburban Pittsburgh towards the city centre to protest at issues including climate change, the war in Afghanistan and inadequate action by the G20 to tackle poverty. Demonstrators held up signs with slogans such as "G20 = death to capitalism" and "we say no to corporate greed".

But the march was authorised by police and there was little sign of a repetition of Thursday's disorder, when the authorities used teargas and high-pitched sonic weapons to disperse demonstrators.

Obama dismissed the protesters, describing them as "generic" opponents of capitalism. He pointed out that demonstrations were smaller and less violent than those at London's G20 summit in April, adding: "I fundamentally disagree with them that the free market is the source of all ills.

Critica el rector de la UNAM la absurda subordinación a los modelos retro del exterior

Enfermizo distanciamiento entre el poder y las mayorías: Narro

Inviable, el paquete económico para 2010, ya que se concreta a tapar hoyo financiero, acusa

Refrenda la demanda de que se otorguen más recursos a educación, ciencia y tecnología

El rector de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), José Narro Robles, criticó la propuesta presupuestal y fiscal del gobierno federal, ya que se trata de un planteamiento inviable que se concreta a tapar un hoyo financiero, sin perspectiva de mediano y largo plazos, y refrendó su demanda de que se otorguen más recursos públicos a la educación superior, la ciencia y la tecnología.

El rector de la UNAM, José Narro, durante la ceremonia de clausura de la Semana de la Ciencia y la Innovación 2009Foto Roberto García Ortiz

Ángel Bolaños

Dejar de impulsar, de dar presupuesto a estas áreas es, simple y llanamente, hipotecar el futuro del país, resaltó.

Al participar en la clausura de la Semana de la Ciencia y la Innovación 2009, realizada en el Palacio de Minería, advirtió que es indispensable un debate sobre las prioridades nacionales, ya que el modelo seguido no ha resultado pertinente en el terreno económico, pero tampoco en el académico y menos en el social. No crecemos lo que se requiere ni la gente en México vive mejor.

Pide respaldo de toda la sociedad

En el discurso pronunciado en ese acto –organizado por el Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología del Distrito Federal, al que asistió el jefe de Gobierno Marcelo Ebrard–, el rector resaltó la grave miopía política en torno a un modelo desvencijado y contraproducente.

Se refirió también a la absurda subordinación a los modelos retro del exterior y el distanciamiento enfermizo respecto a los problemas y carencias de la mayoría, lo que nos tiene sumidos en un pozo profundo y peligroso.

Preocupa, y mucho, resaltó, el desinterés de numerosos individuos en el conocimiento, y verdaderamente angustia que su producción y transmisión no sean prioridades en México.

Sostuvo que los asuntos del saber y el conocimiento no marchan bien en el país. Dio ejemplos: sólo 27 de cada cien personas en edad de asistir a la universidad lo pueden hacer, y 22 por ciento del total de jóvenes no estudian ni trabajan.

Explicó que México está muy lejos de las coberturas educativas en Estados Unidos, Canadá y España. No obstante, nuestro drama es que estamos por debajo del promedio en Argentina, Uruguay o Chile, pero también de Panamá, Perú o Colombia, añadió.

La inversión en ciencia en México es 20 por ciento menor a la de los países de la OCDE, y en la región nos adelantan por mucho Brasil y otras naciones.

No ha de extrañar, entonces, que de cada cien patentes concedidas el año pasado aquí, 98 correspondan a extranjeros, y sólo dos a connacionales.

En la batalla por lograr un mayor presupuesto para ciencia y educación superior, el rector de la UNAM expuso que espera contar no sólo con el respaldo de la Cámara de Diputados, sino de toda la sociedad mexicana.

Reconoció el apoyo que ya tiene de Marcelo Ebrard, y no perdió la oportunidad de pasar la bandera al director del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Enrique Villa, quien antes se había referido a él como amigo de luchas.

Ni la educación ni la ciencia van a quebrar las finanzas públicas, menos si se toma en cuenta que el gasto en esa materia no llega sino apenas a uno por ciento, abundó.

Narro llegó al Palacio de Minería con retraso de unos 15 minutos, por un inconveniente, según explicó, ocasionado por otro personaje de la vida nacional, un secretario de Estado, aclaró, que lo hizo retrasarse, y cuya identidad se reservó.

¿Ese personaje es el secretario de Educación, Alonso Lujambio?, se le preguntó en entrevista. Respondió que no, y rechazó también que se tratara del titular de Hacienda, Agustín Carstens.

Luego se le preguntó sobre el proyecto económico del gobierno federal para 2010, en especial el impuesto de 2 por ciento general al consumo. Contestó que es una propuesta inviable, porque sólo se concreta a tapar un hoyo financiero, cuando lo que se requiere es una perspectiva de mediano y largo plazos.

México requiere garantizar ingreso para tener proyectos de desarrollo importantes; en infraestructura, en empleo, en la salud y, por supuesto, en educación y en ciencia, apuntó.

Sacó a relucir las reflexiones y recomendaciones en materia presupuestal hechas por un grupo de expertos de la UNAM.

Se anunció, expuso, que el país tendría un proceso de acciones, medidas y proyectos para impulsar el empleo y reactivar la economía, pero, con todo respeto, no las vemos. ¿Donde están los grandes proyectos de desarrollo del país? ¿Dónde están las grandes propuestas para el futuro de México?

En el acto –que puso fin a cinco días de exposiciones y debates en los que participaron premios Nobel y Príncipe de Asturias, así como investigadores de universidades de varios países– hubo un pronunciamiento unánime contra la intención del Ejecutivo de reducir el presupuesto a las instituciones de educación superior.

En ese contexto, la titular del Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología del Distrito Federal, Esther Orozco, rescató la consigna acuñada por el mismo Narro hace un año: Ni un peso atrás.

Villa Rivera, quien antecedió al rector de la UNAM, advirtió que en estos momentos difíciles el desarrollo sustentable del país sólo será posible si se invierte en el desarrollo de recursos humanos, en educación.

Aquella idea de que el desarrollo de los pueblos está basado en la abundancia de sus materias primas dejó de estar vigente. Son aquéllos que han (invertido) y están invirtiendo en la formación de su capital humano y en actividades científicas y tecnológicas los que están logrando un mejor desarrollo, añadió.

A su vez, Marcelo Ebrard infundió optimismo al acto, al asegurar que es posible cambiar el diagnóstico si se toman en cuenta las recomendaciones que hicieron científicos a lo largo de esta semana, las cuales, resaltó, tienen como primer punto la formación de niños y jóvenes, para lo que se requiere de un presupuesto adecuado.

El procurador del PRIAN

2009-09-26

Satiricosas
Manú Dornbierer

Los temas de actualidad prueban sin lugar a duda el deterioro moral y mental de los que mandan en México y lo han llevado al caos. Pero ayer vimos, con el nombramiento de Chávez Chávez para titular de la PGR, que el poder del PRIAN se reconcentra y abruma, depositando la justicia en un individuo repudiado a nivel nacional e internacional. La “Iglesia en manos de Lutero”. El PRIAN de lleno votó por él y así arranca esa esperada 61 Legislatura con una traición a todos los mexicanos y una burla gigantesca a la supuesta democracia.
¿Cómo es posible que el detentor del Poder Ejecutivo escogiera como su procurador de justicia de la Nación a Arturo Chávez Chávez, quien recibió, cuando fue procurador de Justicia de Chihuahua, acusaciones gravísimas por los asesinatos de mujeres en Ciudad Juárez. Por ejemplo, una recomendación de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos de la OEA, por negligencia y omisión. En aquel tiempo corrió el rumor de que solapaba a degenerados juniors de Chihuahua. Por su parte, la misma ONU y Amnistía Internacional, entre otros organismos nacionales e internacionales, emitieron diversas recomendaciones pidiendo desde su remoción hasta su enjuiciamiento por desacato. Solapó, con el gobernador clasista y entreguista Francisco Barrio, los primeros feminicidios de Ciudad Juárez. La terrible situación posterior no se hubiera dado de detenerse a tiempo a los asesinos seriales.

Pero además Ch-Ch es odiador de indios, como pueden atestiguar los tarahumaras y los que los defienden. En W-Radio una señora denunció que por intentar detener una paliza descomunal a ese grupo indígena tan castigado, fue encarcelada.
Hay que preguntarle al diputado amigo Javier Corral a ver si se acuerda de estos hechos, no obstante su reconciliación partidaria. Está muy bien que un panista luche contra el duopolio televisivo que defiende a capa y espada su partido, pero un diputado chuihuahuense de su valor tiene obligación de luchar por la justicia en su estado. Chávez Chávez es otro procurador que odia a los indígenas, para no perder la costumbre, ya que Eduardo Medina Mora dejó el puesto por oponerse, dicen, a destrozar a los gobernadores que odia Calderón, pero sin la mínima acusación por el horrible crimen que encabezó en 2006 en Atenco en el Estado de México, en vil venganza del entonces presidente Fox por los machetes alzados en su contra cuando quiso apoderarse, pagando a 7 pesos el metro2 de terreno, de ricas tierras laborables para su negociazo aeroportuario.

EL JEFAZO DIEGO
Pero el nombramiento no se le ocurrió a Calderón, más pelele que nunca, al que sólo le permiten el relumbrón de recibir premios, al estilo Pinochet, como el que le dieron esta semana las compañías petroleras (las de los contratos con Pemex) y grandes bancos dentro de la Alliance to save Energy. El nombramiento vino sin duda de la mafia prianista que hoy gobierna, a la que sólo le importan los dinerales que se puede embolsar. La maneja Fernández de Cevallos, ahijado del capo di tutti capi, Carlos Salinas Lozano, al que en 1964 Diego escogió como padrino de su generación de abogados. El barbón conocido como “la ardilla de Los Pinos” cuando Carlos Salinas de Gortari residía ahí en las mismas condiciones espurias que Calderón hoy, es parte de la familia Salinas desde entonces y su mancomunada creación del PRIAN en 1989 para, legitimar a Charlie a cambio de la gubernatura de Baja California para el panista Ruffo, ya es añeja. Al bufete de mega abogangsters en cuestión pertenece Chávez Chávez, el que debería ser imparcial, honesto, justo y enterado de la abyecta situación de la Justicia en México. Pero todavía chambea con Diego y Lozano Desgracia, especialistas avezados en ganarle al Estado Mexicano -ergo a los mexicanos todos- miles de millones de pesos, defendiendo supuestamente casos “justos” de particulares que naturalmente les pagan fortunas. Actualmente llevan el negocito de cobrarle al Estado por segunda vez los terrenos ejidales del que es hoy el Puerto de Altamira, construido por el presidente López Portillo. Lozano Gracia y el propio Chávez Chávez firman los documentos respectivos.
Diego quiso -y pudo- ser presidente, pero a las órdenes del gran dinero y del prianismo se eclipsó cediendo el paso a Ernesto Zedillo. Sin embargo, conservó el poder e incrementó su capital y un “bajo perfil” como buen mafioso. Hasta adquirió él muy católico una novia joven a la que le construyó una carretera de concreto. El y su brother Carlos Salinas han conservado las riendas de esta hermosa República Mexicana de la que se supone que sus habitantes debemos estar orgullosos.
En cuanto a Felipe Calderón, intentó en los primeros tres años de su espuriato imponer a su grupo y lo hizo tan mal que le pararon brutalmente el alto con la muerte de Mouriño y luego con la contundente derrota en las elecciones de julio 2009. Hoy es sólo un operador secundario de la mafia prianista. Sí, el PRIAN que pareció disolverse antes de las elecciones, se cohesiona de nuevo obviamente con la facilidad del descaro que lo caracteriza. Son valores entendidos los que aparentan disgregación.
A resultas de la derrota electoral, el PRIAN de Carlos y Diego o viceversa retomó el mando completo y colocó en el más alto puesto burocrático al abogado penalista del célebre despacho, Gómez Mont. En otras palabras, Gobernación le pertenece. Y hoy de nuevo el jefe Diego obtiene la Procuraduría General de Justicia de la Nación, por la imposición de otro de sus socio-gatos: Arturo Chávez Chávez. Y el PRI, dicen, tiene la mayoría en la Cámara. Y Manlio Fabio, “La Muñeca” Beltrones, había propuesto algo inteligente respecto al caso. Sería bueno aprovechar el momento para que la Procuraduría fuera autónoma del Ejecutivo y no juez y parte. Pero a la hora de la hora, 75�e los diputados, el PRIAN en pleno obedeció al jefe Diego y a su brother. Desde su personal tienda de campaña Beatriz Paredes hizo lo mismo. ¿Y no hay PRIAN en esto, dicen? ¿No es Salinas siempre del brazo de Diego, el jefe de esta nueva camada de diputados ya traidores? ¿No se trata de ganar miles de millones de pesos extirpados al pueblo de México, una vez tras otra “defendiendo” a particulares contra el Estado? ¡Y todavía los abogangsters se dan aires de tribunos!
EJEMPLOS DE ROBOS A LOS MEXICANOS
En 2005, el jefe Diego, a la sazón senador de la República, le extirpó al Estado una inmensa cantidad de dinero para la familia Ramos Millán a propósito del predio de Santa Ursula, Delegación Tlalpan en el DF. La fortuna Ramos Millán provenía de un político de tiempos de Alemán, naturalmente enriquecido, que se mató en un accidente de avión con la actriz de cine Blanca Estela Pavón.
Como jefe de gobierno del DF, Andrés Manuel López Obrador opinó que el hecho de que la Secretaría de la Reforma Agraria aceptara pagar en abonos 1,214 millones de pesos a la familia Ramos Millán por el predio era “algo totalmente ilegal, indebido”. El mandatario capitalino consideró que cuando se trata de una indemnización se tiene que pagar el valor que tenía el terreno en el momento de la expropiación, más la actualización por inflación. Y dijo: “Quiero ver cuántas agarraderas tienen los abogados de la familia Ramos Millán”, Por su parte, el ministro de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) Juan Díaz Romero propuso reducir de mil 214 millones de pesos a 190 millones el monto de la indemnización que tendría que pagar la Secretaría de la Reforma Agraria (SRA) a la familia Ramos Millán por el predio que le fue expropiado en Santa Ursula Coapa 20 años antes. Pero, recordemos el poder del senador Fernández de Cevallos y su fantástico manejo del tráfico-transa de influencias. Ganó. Y a la fecha México le paga a él y a sus supuestos defendidos 30 millones de pesos al año y lo seguirá haciendo durante los 36 años que faltan, ya que el crédito se pactó a 40 años en 2005. Fueron fuertes las agarraderas de Diego entonces, pero habrá que ver qué pasa ahora que desaparece la Secretaría de la Reforma Agraria y que NO HAY DINERO. ¿De dónde sacará el gobierno de Calderón para pagar esa deuda? ¿Para cosas como ésta aumenta el IVA en 2�Estemos pendientes. El Jefe Diego tiene siempre una buena agarradera en la Suprema Corte de Justicia en la persona del ministro chiapaneco Sergio Valls, priísta y después panista, nombrado por Fox el año anterior al caso Ramos Millán el 28 de octubre de 2004, y electo por 15 años en esa superchamba. Será por ende ministro hasta 2019.
Hoy el secretario de Comunicaciones, Juan Molinar Horcasitas, dice respecto al similar caso de Altamira antes citado. “No estamos dispuestos a pagar mil 500 millones de pesos ni otra cantidad por un predio que ya se pagó a los ejidatarios que lo tenían hace 28 años, terrenos que el Estado mexicano ha destinado a un uso socialmente provechoso”. Pues a ver cómo le va con el nuevo procurador a este “probo” panista. Y a ver cómo le va a México con esta 61 Legislatura que tan pronto enseñó el cobre y a la que los ciudadanos debemos pararle el alto. Si no ¿quién?

http://satiricosas.es.tl

Obama comes to aid of Israel over UN war crimes charges

By Jean Shaoul

26 September 2009

An authoritative and highly critical United Nations inquiry released last week concluded that Israel “committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its three-week offensive against Gaza in December last year.

The report is one of the most damning ever made of Israel’s government and armed forces. Whereas in 1982, Israel betrayed its duty to protect the Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatilla in Beirut and was indirectly responsible for the massacre of more than 800 people by its Phalange allies, this time Israel was the direct perpetrator of war crimes.

The inquiry recommended that the UN Security Council call on Israel to conduct its own independent investigations into the military’s conduct, and that the council refer the findings to the International Criminal Court if it fails to do so within six months. The ICC is a treaty body set up to try war crimes and is separate from the International Court of Justice, a UN body to settle disputes between countries.

The report predictably elicited a furious counteroffensive from Israel, denouncing its findings. The campaign was waged throughout the media, including in the nominally liberal press. Britain’s Guardian, for example, gave space to Dan Koski, who works for an organisation dedicated to countering the arguments of human rights organisations critical of Israel, to mount a defence of Israel’s actions.

But Tel Aviv’s success in avoiding accountability for its criminal actions rests more properly on the active support of the United States and silent complicity of the major European powers, all of whom are anxious to avoid being brought to book for their own contempt for international law. The Security Council—dominated as it is by the US and the European powers that hold the power of veto—was the only body that could refer the case to the ICC, as Israel is not a signatory to the court.

The inquiry was forced upon the UN following international condemnation of Israel’s disproportionate and brutal force against an essentially unarmed population.

Israel launched a massive 22-day offensive against an unprotected population. It faced almost no opposition in Gaza as evidenced by the huge disparity in casualties. On the Palestinian side, 1,400 people—the majority of them civilians, including 400 women and children—were killed, at least 5,000 people injured, and 21,000 homes destroyed as well as much of the vital infrastructure. On the Israeli side, 13 people died, and several of these were the result of “friendly fire.”

Operation Cast Lead was a criminal venture from the very start. On the first day of the war, Yoav Galant, Israel’s Southern Front Commander, declared that the military would try to “send Gaza decades into the past” in terms of weapons capabilities, while achieving “the maximum number of enemy casualties and keeping Israel Defence Forces casualties at a minimum.”

The Israeli government knew this was illegal and made extensive preparations to evade prosecution. It refused to allow reporters into Gaza, where there were few international journalists after the BBC’s Alan Johnston was held captive for four months by Hamas, to ensure that the military’s conduct was shielded from public scrutiny. With only journalists “embedded” in Israel’s armed forces allowed to report, the sole on the spot independent coverage was provided by Al Jazeera.

Israel refused to allow the publication of photos or names of soldiers in Operation Cast Lead. It made official commitments at the highest levels to shield soldiers from charges of war crimes and declared that it will pay all legal expenses abroad. Officers who travel abroad have first to get approval for their trip.

The four-member inquiry panel, set up by the UN Human Rights Council, was chaired by someone of the highest credentials: the South African judge Richard Goldstone, who was the chief prosecutor in war crimes involving the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and is himself Jewish and a lifelong supporter of Israel.

He insisted that the inquiry deal with the run-up to the war and Hamas’s actions, so that the investigation would be seen as both “even handed” and comprehensive. When Israel refused to cooperate with his inquiry and prevented the panel from taking evidence in Israel and the West Bank, Goldstone held public hearings in Gaza and talked to Palestinians and Israelis in Geneva. The panel interviewed 188 people and read 300 reports.

The inquiry rejected Israel’s arguments that Hamas, which controls Gaza, was to blame and that Operation Cast Lead was a legitimate act of self-defence in response to rocket fire on Israeli towns and villages launched by militants from Gaza. The war was, it said, “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself and to force upon it an ever-increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability” (emphasis added).

It accused Israel of using Palestinians as human shields and said that Israel’s economic blockade of Gaza amounted to “collective punishment intentionally inflicted by the government of Israel on the people of the Gaza Strip.”

Israel’s actions deprived Gazans of means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, denied their freedom of movement and “could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, had been committed.”

The investigation also condemned Hamas, stating that rocket attacks, aimed at civilian targets, “would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity.” It criticised Gazan security forces for carrying out extrajudicial executions and the arbitrary arrest, detention and ill-treatment of its political opponents. The report also called for the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier captured in Gaza in July 2006. But it insisted that there could be no equation of the power of Israel, the occupying force, and that of the Palestinian people or its representatives, Hamas.

The report also said that all those countries that had signed the 1949 Geneva Conventions had a duty to search for and prosecute those responsible, using their “universal jurisdiction” to prosecute war criminals.

But while the UN human rights council in Geneva is expected to discuss the report on September 29, nothing will come of it.

The Obama administration came almost immediately to the aid of Tel Aviv, sharply criticising the report as unfair to Israel and for supposedly failing to deal fully with Hamas’s role before and during the conflict. The recommendation that Israel be referred to the ICC was summarily dismissed.

The US and other major imperialist powers have always sought to prevent any action being taken against Israel either through the ICC or by countries using “universal jurisdiction” to launch a prosecution in their own courts.

Belgium was bullied into changing its legislation based on universal jurisdiction after it attempted in February 2002 to charge then prime minister Ariel Sharon for war crimes in relation to Sabra and Shatilla. The then US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld even threatened to move the NATO headquarters out of Brussels.

When a Spanish court earlier this year attempted to open a criminal investigation under international law into the assassination of a Hamas leader in Gaza City by Israel in 2002, the investigation was dropped and the legislation amended, limiting it to cases involving Spanish victims or suspects present on Spanish soil.

As Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories and a professor of international public law, said, “But politically I think it [a referral to the ICC] is highly unlikely because the US and probably some European governments will create effective impunity for Israel by preventing the referral.”

At stake in such interventions is not simply a desire to protect a major US ally. The concerns of the Washington elite, and the political class in Europe, fall closer to home. Israel’s prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu spelled out very publicly why world leaders should quash the report and so allow Israel to plan and commit further crimes against the Palestinians and whomever else it chooses.

He warned that prosecuting Israel for war crimes could serve as a precedent for prosecutions against other countries. “It’s not just our problem,” Netanyahu told the media. “If they accused IDF [Israeli Defence Force] officers, IDF commanders, IDF soldiers, IDF pilots and even leaders, they will accuse you too. What, NATO isn’t fighting in various places? What, Russia isn’t fighting in various places?”

There is another factor that enables Israel to act with impunity, unlike 1982 when hundreds of thousands of Israelis demonstrated against their government’s complicity in the massacre of Sabra and Shatilla and demanded an independent inquiry.

Today, the widespread revulsion among the Israeli population at the murderous campaigns of the IDF against the Palestinians cannot find even the most limited political expression. The peace movement has collapsed and the Labour Party now sits in coalition with Netanyahu, after earlier occupying a government role alongside Kadima. Its leader Ehud Barak, then acting as minister of defence, was responsible for directing the assault in Gaza