Ambassador Crocker Discusses Assyrian Police Force, Refugees on Capitol Hill

GMT 4-15-2008 21:5:55
Assyrian International News Agency
To unsubscribe or set email news digest options, visit http://www.aina.org/mailinglist.html

Washington -- On April 10, 2008, the House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs held a public hearing in which US Ambassador Ryan Crocker answered questions regarding various issues about Iraq. Along with questions about the recent US surge in troops and how US money is being spent in the country, Mr. Crocker answered several questions pertaining specifically to the Assyrian Christians.

Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), opened with a grim description of what he sees happening to the Assyrians. In addition to church bombings and general threats to the vulnerable community, he reminded the committee of the kidnapping and murder of the late Assyrian Chaldean Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho early last month. The Assyrian Christians of Iraq, stated Mr. Wolf, are unarmed and especially vulnerable to violence, which translates into them being a disproportionate number of Iraq's refugees (upwards of 40% by some estimates). He asked the Ambassador to report back late next week with a commitment from the Iraqi government to appropriate funding for the refugees, and specifically the Christian refugees. He also wanted a commitment from the Iraqi government that they would do more to protect the minority. Ambassador Crocker responded with a firm "yes", and committed to securing both requests.

The second question on Assyrians came from Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL), regarding the twice blocked Assyrian police force in the Nineveh Plains.1 Mr. Kirk began his questions by reminding Ambassador Crocker that "the Iraqi Interior Ministry ordered the creation of a local police force for the Assyrians...of about 700 policemen to patrol the Christian villages there...two years after the order the police force doesn't exist." He confirmed that Central Command supports the standing order of the Iraqi Government, and the Kurdish Regional Government representative in Washington D.C. committed their support of the order as well. "The community has issued detailed planning of the police force to protect [themselves]", Mr. Kirk remarked. "I don't think we have detailed plans for any other set of villages in Iraq - but we certainly have it for these villages." Mr. Kirk then expressed his desire to see the police force created and funded quickly.

Ambassador Crocker confidently assured Mr. Kirk that the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Nineveh had informed him the previous evening that the Assyrian police force is now moving forward. It will be made up of 700 Assyrian Christians from the Nineveh Plains.

"We are happy that the police force issue has moved forward, and we will be working with the relevant actors to certify that the next steps are carried out in a timely manner," says Michael Youash of the D.C. based Iraq Sustainable Democracy Project. "We will work to ensure that the police force reflects the decisions of the legitimate representatives who are doing the work on the ground in the Nineveh Plains."

The Assyrians of Iraq are the indigenous nation and world's first Christians. The core of their indigenous homeland is in the Nineveh Plains. They are currently without a legitimate security force in the area, and this police force will secure the inhabitants along with the thousands of internally displaced Assyrians fleeing from other areas of Iraq back to their native villages.

By Waleeta Canon
www.zindamagazine.com

These 5 companies win the predictability prize

As earnings season gets under way, you are going to hear one word used again and again. And that word is: PREDICTABILITY.

It’s easy to see why. After 6 months of hurricane-force disruption, striking deep in to Wall Street’s most hallowed financial institutions…bringing the entire economy to the brink of a new Depression…after all of this, a simple extra penny of earnings for the quarter will be heralded as if it were the first swallow of spring.
THAT’S PREDICTABLE

The average Starbucks customer goes to Starbucks 20 times a month and spends $3 per visit. That’s $60 a month, $720 a year.

THAT’S NOT PREDICTABLE

The value of Bear Stearns portfolio is something between $10/share and less than nothing. Nobody really knows.

THAT’S PREDICTABLE

The average Autodesk client pays an ongoing maintenance and upgrade fee representing 35% of Autodesk’s revenues.

THAT’S NOT PREDICTABLE

The amount of gold held by central banks worldwide is something between $825 and $850 billion. If banks sell, then what? The contract for June gold is $892, down from $1,040 two weeks ago.

THAT’S PREDICTABLE

Paychex gets 80% of its revenue from existing customers. It has grown revenue and earnings for 17 straight years.

THAT’S NOT PREDICTABLE

Schering-Plough’s heart drugs turn out to be a mixed blessing. The news sent the stock down 29% this week and has forced the company to cut costs by $1.5 billion. Notice that no mention is made of increasing research. Until Schering-Plough does that, they have no control over their destiny.

THAT’S PREDICTABLE

Costco’s repeat business is 89%. Wal-Mart would kill for that number but The Bentonville Bully is clueless about how to charm your customer into returning.
Which growth companies are heroes
of predictability?

Companies bearing good news this earnings season will see BIG jumps in share price. Dependability, predictability, visibility—these are getting hugely rewarded.

Georges Yared here, and my GameChangers service focuses on growth companies but, paradoxically, many of them sport the predictability Wall Street craves.

Let me show you what I mean.

Apple is one of our top GameChangers—an incredible growth story, as I’m sure you know. It has tripled in the last 2 years. But it has also achieved reliability by creating a NEW HABIT: music downloads. Last month, Steve Jobs announced the FOUR BILLIONTH download. Think about this: Does anyone download once? Of course not! Downloads are like peanuts: No one ever takes just one!

When Apple announces earnings on April 23rd, Wall Street will reward the stock—and the stockholders.

Here’s another example:

Costco is a growth story, a GameChanger. Costco co-founder Jim Senegal isn’t building a business. He’s building a cult. It is sustained by word of mouth and one-on-one marketing via email. Members renew at (get this) 89%.

That’s a number you can take to the bank—and we’ll watch Jim Senegal do just that on May 29, when Costco’s earnings come out.

Here’s a third example, a company that makes nuclear reactors safe. Like Apple and Costco, it’s a fantastic growth story, a profound GameChanger—up 150% in the last 2 years.

But here’s the number that Wall Street loves. The next $20 billion in sales for this company IS ALREADY BOOKED.

There’s a jargon word for this on the Street: Visibility.

Visibility means: I can see it, I can touch it, I can count on it. Our nuclear plant builder has Earnings Visibility for the next 5 years.

In a world where 100-year old banks don’t have earnings visibility out for the next 5 DAYS, this is comforting news indeed!

Chinese Geopolitics and the Significance of Tibet

April 15, 2008

By George Friedman
China is an island. We do not mean it is surrounded by water; we mean China is surrounded by territory that is difficult to traverse. Therefore, China is hard to invade; given its size and population, it is even harder to occupy. This also makes it hard for the Chinese to invade others; not utterly impossible, but quite difficult. Containing a fifth of the world’s population, China can wall itself off from the world, as it did prior to the United Kingdom’s forced entry in the 19th century and under Mao Zedong. All of this means China is a great power, but one that has to behave very differently than other great powers.
Analyzing Chinese Geography
Let’s begin simply by analyzing Chinese geography, looking at two maps. The first represents the physical geography of China.

The second shows the population density not only of China, but also of the surrounding countries.
China’s geography is roughly divided into two parts: a mountainous, arid western part and a coastal plain that becomes hilly at its westward end. The overwhelming majority of China’s population is concentrated in that coastal plain. The majority of China’s territory — the area west of this coastal plain — is lightly inhabited, however. This eastern region is the Chinese heartland that must be defended at all cost.
China as island is surrounded by impassable barriers — barriers that are difficult to pass or areas that essentially are wastelands with minimal population. To the east is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and northwest are the Siberian and Mongolian regions, sparsely populated and difficult to move through. To the south, there are the hills, mountains and jungles that separate China from Southeast Asia; to visualize this terrain, just remember the incredible effort that went into building the Burma Road during World War II. To the southwest lie the Himalayas. In the northwest are Kazakhstan and the vast steppes of Central Asia. Only in the far northeast, with the Russian maritime provinces and the Yalu River separating China from Korea, are there traversable points of contacts. But the balance of military power is heavily in China’s favor at these points.

(click image to enlarge)

Strategically, China has two problems, both pivoting around the question of defending the coastal region.

First, China must prevent attacks from the sea. This is what the Japanese did in the 1930s, first invading Manchuria in the northeast and then moving south into the heart of China. It is also what the British and other European powers did on a lesser scale in the 19th century. China’s defense against such attacks is size and population. It draws invaders in and then wears them out, with China suffering massive casualties and economic losses in the process.

The second threat to China comes from powers moving in through the underpopulated portion of the west, establishing bases and moving east, or coming out of the underpopulated regions around China and invading. This is what happened during the Mongol invasion from the northwest. But that invasion was aided by tremendous Chinese disunity, as were the European and Japanese incursions.

Beijing’s Three Imperatives

Beijing therefore has three geopolitical imperatives:

Maintain internal unity so that far powers can’t weaken the ability of the central government to defend China.

2. Maintain a strong coastal defense to prevent an incursion from the Pacific.
Secure China’s periphery by anchoring the country’s frontiers on impassable geographical features; in other words, hold its current borders.

In short, China’s strategy is to establish an island, defend its frontiers efficiently using its geographical isolation as a force multiplier, and, above all, maintain the power of the central government over the country, preventing regionalism and factionalism.

We see Beijing struggling to maintain control over China. Its vast security apparatus and interlocking economic system are intended to achieve that.

We see Beijing building coastal defenses in the Pacific, including missiles that can reach deep into the Pacific, in the long run trying to force the U.S. Navy on the defensive.

And we see Beijing working to retain control over two key regions: Xinjiang and Tibet.

Xinjiang is Muslim. This means at one point it was invaded by Islamic forces. It also means that it can be invaded and become a highway into the Chinese heartland. Defense of the Chinese heartland therefore begins in Xinjiang.

So long as Xinjiang is Chinese, Beijing will enjoy a 1,500-mile, inhospitable buffer between Lanzhou — the westernmost major Chinese city and its oil center — and the border of Kazakhstan. The Chinese thus will hold Xinjiang regardless of Muslim secessionists.

The Importance of Tibet to China

Now look at Tibet on the population density and terrain maps. On the terrain map one sees the high mountain passes of the Himalayas. Running from the Hindu Kush on the border with Pakistan to the Myanmar border, small groups can traverse this terrain, but no major army is going to thrust across this border in either direction. Supplying a major force through these mountains is impossible. From a military point of view, it is a solid wall.

Note that running along the frontier directly south of this border is one of the largest population concentrations in the world.

If China were to withdraw from Tibet, and there were no military hindrance to population movement, Beijing fears this population could migrate into Tibet. If there were such a migration, Tibet could turn into an extension of India and, over time, become a potential beachhead for Indian power.

If that were to happen, India’s strategic frontier would directly abut Sichuan and Yunnan — the Chinese heartland.

The Chinese have a fundamental national interest in retaining Tibet, because Tibet is the Chinese anchor in the Himalayas. If that were open, or if Xinjiang became independent, the vast buffers between China and the rest of Eurasia would break down. The Chinese can’t predict the evolution of Indian, Islamic or Russian power in such a circumstance, and they certainly don’t intend to find out. They will hold both of these provinces, particularly Tibet.

The Chinese note that the Dalai Lama has been in India ever since China invaded Tibet. The Chinese regard him as an Indian puppet. They see the latest unrest in Tibet as instigated by the Indian government, which uses the Dalai Lama to try to destabilize the Chinese hold on Tibet and open the door to Indian expansion. To put it differently, their view is that the Indians could shut the Dalai Lama down if they wanted to, and that they don’t signals Indian complicity.

It should be added that the Chinese see the American hand behind this as well. Apart from public statements of support, the Americans and Indians have formed a strategic partnership since 2001.

The Chinese view the United States — which is primarily focused on the Islamic world — as encouraging India and the Dalai Lama to probe the Chinese, partly to embarrass them over the Olympics and partly to increase the stress on the central government. The central government is stretched in maintaining Chinese security as the Olympics approach. The Chinese are distracted. Beijing also notes the similarities between what is happening in Tibet and the “color” revolutions the United States supported and helped stimulate in the former Soviet Union.
It is critical to understand that whatever the issues might be to the West, the Chinese see Tibet as a matter of fundamental national security, and they view pro-Tibetan agitation in the West as an attempt to strike at the heart of Chinese national security. The Chinese are therefore trapped. They are staging the Olympics in order to demonstrate Chinese cohesion and progress. But they must hold on to Tibet for national security reasons, and therefore their public relations strategy is collapsing. Neither India nor the United States is particularly upset that the Europeans are thinking about canceling attendance at various ceremonies.

A Lack of Countermoves
China has few countermoves to this pressure over Tibet. There is always talk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. That is not going to happen — not because China doesn’t want to, but because it does not have the naval capability of seizing control of the Taiwan Straits or seizing air superiority, certainly not if the United States doesn’t want it (and we note that the United States has two carrier battle groups in the Taiwan region at the moment). Beijing thus could bombard Taiwan, but not without enormous cost to itself and its own defensive capabilities. It does not have the capability to surge forces across the strait, much less to sustain operations there in anything short of a completely permissive threat environment. The Chinese could fire missiles at Taiwan, but that risks counterstrikes from American missiles. And, of course, Beijing could go nuclear, but that is not likely given the stakes. The most likely Chinese counter here would be trying to isolate Taiwan from shipping by firing missiles. But that again assumes the United States would not respond — something Beijing can’t count on.
While China thus lacks politico-military options to counter the Tibet pressure, it also lacks economic options. It is highly dependent for its economic well-being on exports to the United States and other countries; drawing money out of U.S. financial markets would require Beijing to put it somewhere else. If the Chinese invested in Europe, European interest rates would go down and U.S. rates would go up, and European money would pour into the United States. The long-held fear of the Chinese withdrawing their money from U.S. markets is therefore illusory: The Chinese are trapped economically. Far more than the United States, they can’t afford a confrontation.
That leaves the pressure on Tibet, and China struggling to contain it. Note that Beijing’s first imperative is to maintain China’s internal coherence. China’s great danger is always a weakening of the central government and the development of regionalism.

Beijing is far from losing control, but recently we have observed a set of interesting breakdowns.

The inability to control events in Tibet is one.

Significant shortages of diesel fuel is a second.

Shortages of rice and other grains is a third. These are small things, but they are things that should not be happening in a country as well-heeled in terms of cash as China is, and as accustomed as it is to managing security threats.
China must hold Tibet, and it will. The really interesting question is whether the stresses building up on China’s central administration are beginning to degrade its ability to control and manage events. It is easy to understand China’s obsession with Tibet. The next step is to watch China trying to pick up the pieces on a series of administrative miscues. That will give us a sense of the state of Chinese affairs

April 15, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Speech About Nothing

By DAVID BROOKS
We’re in the middle of a series of historic economic transformations.

A string of technological revolutions have made American workers much more productive. Over the past 30 years, steel producers have reduced the number of hours it takes to produce a ton of steel by up to 90 percent.

A social revolution has radically increased the number of women in the work force and pushed down the wages of men.

A medical revolution has led to enhanced diagnosis and treatment but also rapid health care inflation that burdens American employers and eats into workers’ weekly paychecks.

An information revolution has increased the economic rewards of education and punished those who lack it.

A pedagogical revolution has led to ferocious competition to get into the top universities but a decline in quality at the primary and secondary levels. For the first time in the nation’s history, workers retiring from the labor force are better educated than the ones coming in.

All of these huge social forces have had profound effects on how Americans work and live. All of them have combined to create a mass upper class, but also a struggling working class. They have all contributed to rising living standards — and also to the feelings of anxiety that show up in poll after poll.

You would think that if you were a thoughtful presidential candidate, addressing voters in an economically complicated state like Pennsylvania, you would want to describe how these pervasive forces are shaping the lives of voters and how government should respond. But, then again, you are not trapped in a campaign bubble. You have not outsourced your brain to political tacticians.

Barack Obama delivered a speech in Pittsburgh on Monday on the economic stresses facing American workers. In the speech, he devoted one clause in one sentence to the single biggest factor affecting the workplace: technological change. He then devoted 45 sentences to one of the least important: trade deals.

Economists differ over how much outsourcing will change the American job market in the future, but there is little evidence that trade has been a major cause of job loss or even wage stagnation so far. As Robert Z. Lawrence of the Peterson Institute for International Economics wrote in a recent study: “The recent increase in U.S. inequality ... has little to do with global forces that might especially affect unskilled workers — namely, immigration and expanded trade with developing countries.”

And yet all Democratic domestic policy discussions have to start with trade and, in 99.9 percent of the cases, end with trade.

And we have not even begun to plumb the insignificance of Obama’s emphasis on Monday. He wasn’t even talking about trade in general. He was talking about the Nafta- and Cafta-style trade agreements whose negative effects on the American economy are barely measurable. And, to make matters even more inconsequential, he wasn’t even taking a clear stand on such deals themselves.

Obama stuffed his speech with the textbook clichés that Democratic consultants tell their candidates to use when talking about trade — warnings about Chinese perfidy and lead paint in toys. But instead of following those clichés into the realm of economic populism, he hedged.

He wound up in the no-man’s land between Lou Dobbs-style populism and Bill Clinton-style free trade. He made a series of on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand distinctions about which sort of trade deals he’d support and which he wouldn’t. It added up to a vague, watered-down version of economic light beer. In the end, he suggested a few minor tweaks in the U.S. tax code that would have a microscopic effect on outsourcing, and a few health and safety provisions which might have teenie-weenie effects on investment decisions. The ideas he sketched out in the speech aren’t dangerous. They’re just trivial.

We all know why Obama spoke the way he did on Monday. The forces transforming the American economy are big and hard to control. If you think your listeners aren’t sophisticated enough to grasp them, it’s much easier to blame those perfidious foreigners for all economic woes. It’s much more heroic to pretend that, by opposing Nafta, you can improve the lives of middle-class voters. Furthermore, these trade deals have become symbolic bogies for union activists. Instead of concerning themselves with the tidal waves washing overhead, they’ve decided to insist on bended-knee submission in the holy war against Colombia.

What I don’t understand is why the political consultants prefer this kind of rhetoric. Aren’t there windows in the vans they use to drive around the state? Don’t they see that most middle-class voters are service workers in suburban office parks, not 1930s-style proletarians in the steel mills?

American voters aren’t so stupid as to think their problems are caused by foreigners and malevolent lobbyists. When Obama speaks down to his audiences, it makes me so bitter I want to cling to my laptop and my college degree.

Iraq's financial free ride may end
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
45 minutes ago
Iraq's financial free ride may be over. After five years, Republicans and Democrats seem to have found common ground on at least one aspect of the war. From the fiercest foes of the war to the most steadfast Bush supporters, they are looking at Iraq's surging oil income and saying Baghdad should start picking up more of the tab, particularly for rebuilding hospitals, roads, power lines and the rest of the shattered country.

"I think the American people are growing weary not only of the war, but they are looking at why Baghdad can't pay more of these costs. And the answer is they can," said Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Nelson, a Democrat, is drafting legislation with Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana that would restrict future reconstruction dollars to loans instead of grants.

Their bill also would require that Baghdad pay for the fuel used by American troops and take over U.S. payments to predominantly Sunni fighters in the Awakening movement. Plans are to propose the legislation as part of a war bill to cover spending through September.

Likewise, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he wants to add a provision to a defense policy bill that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country before U.S. dollars are spent.

These senators, well-known war skeptics, could find allies in lawmakers who support Bush's current Iraq policies. In hearings last week, Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates whether Baghdad should start paying some U.S. combat costs, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., raised the possibility that an anticipated Iraqi budget surplus this year could be used to help Afghanistan, whose $700 million in annual revenue represents a small fraction of Iraq's $46.8 billion budget.

Bush has suggested that Congress is preaching to the choir. Last week, he noted that Baghdad's latest budget would outspend the U.S. by more than 10 to one on Iraq reconstruction, with American funding for large-scale projects "approaching zero."

"Ultimately, we expect Iraq to shoulder the full burden of these costs," he said.

But lawmakers are dubious. Considering that past predictions on Iraq have fallen short, the legislation would ensure Iraq assumes more of the financial burden, they say.

On the surface, it looks as though the U.S. has about split the costs of rebuilding efforts with the Iraqis: Congress has appropriated about $47.5 billion since 2003 while the Iraqis have budgeted $50.6 billion. International contributions have totaled $15.8 billion.

And, as Bush pointed out, Iraq's latest budget is on track to outspend the U.S. when it comes to rebuilding. Baghdad has devoted $13.4 billion in 2008 for capital expenses, more than a quarter of its $48.6 billion budget.

However, there is a key difference: Whereas the U.S. has spent most of the money it has approved, Iraq hasn't, according to the watchdog agency that audits reconstruction efforts. In 2006 and 2007, for example, Iraq spent only $2.9 billion of its designated $16.3 billion capital budget, which is used to invest in reconstruction projects.

Bush administration and military officials say the lack of spending isn't sinister.

"Part of it's a lack of expertise. Part of it is a lack of trained people. And part of it, in the past, has probably been politics," Gates told Congress last week. "We think they're making headway on all of those."

Levin said he doesn't buy it, including Bush's declaration that the U.S. is no longer in the business of major reconstruction. Congress received notice on April 3 that the Pentagon planned to transfer $590 million in its war budget to cover construction and infrastructure improvements for Iraq security forces.

"I just think it's totally unacceptable that we say they don't know how to cut a check," Levin said.

A primary cause for the unhappiness in Congress is the high price of oil as the U.S. heads into election season. While Americans are complaining of gasoline prices, officials predict Iraq is headed toward a major windfall because of the soaring price of oil and record-setting production levels.

For years after the 2003 invasion, a lack of infrastructure kept Iraq's oil production and exports down. But with rebuilding efforts bearing fruit, including U.S.-aided actions to prevent the illegal tapping of pipelines, production had recovered to an average of about 2.4 million barrels per day by late last year compared with 2 million a day earlier in the year and 1.3 million in early 2003.

Adding to Baghdad's projected surplus is Iraq's conservative estimate of the oil's worth. The country's 2008 budget of $46.8 billion was calculated based on $57 per barrel of oil, roughly half of today's market rate, according to a report by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

Stuart Bowen, who heads the IG office, predicted in a March hearing that Iraq's oil revenue could climb to as high as $60 billion this year, from early estimates of $35 billion.

The U.S. military isn't reaping those benefits. American troops in Iraq are buying fuel on the open market at $3.23 a gallon and spending some $153 million a month, according to a recent report by The Associated Press.

Collins says the Iraqis should cover those costs.

"It's really difficult for Americans who are struggling with the high cost of the energy to see us paying for fuel costs in a country that has the second-largest oil reserves" and a burgeoning budget surplus, she said.