Reporting on the Middle East, Science, and Education

Peace for Israel and Iran

CNP Webmaster — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:39:42 +0000

Israel and Iran have much in common

by Anthony Zeitouni, CG News, 02 October 2008

What can save Israel and Iran from destroying each other? Only the seeds of peace lying dormant in both countries. These seeds lie in the Iranian and Israeli people. They need to be cultivated with civil society exchanges – between students and intellectuals, scientists, doctors, engineers, university professors, and even clerics – where both sides share their experiences in fighting common challenges.

WASHINGTON – On its 60th anniversary, Israel is still concerned about survival. Even with nuclear weapons and the strongest military in the Middle East, the Jewish state remains anxious. Iranian leaders are similarly concerned about the future of their administrations, even as the country approaches the 30th anniversary of its Islamic Revolution.Israel fears any potential threat, whether it comes from Hamas, Hezbollah, or political Islamic groups. Israel also has begun to fear its shifting demographics, where birth rates are significantly higher among Palestinians than Jews. But above all, Israel perceives a threat from Iran

In a similar vein, Iran is threatened by an outside force that would roll back its revolution. The religious conservatives in Iran are resistant to perceived reformists, which at various times have been supported by the United States, and stands alone as one of the only Shia majority countries in the region.

Yet the conservatives of Iran, heirs to Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution, also face the possibility of seeing their regime replaced by the followers of former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami.

Iran and Israel share a sense of isolation: Israel is comprised of an ethnic and religious minority (Jewish) in a largely Arab and Muslim Middle East. Likewise, Iran’s government is an ethno-religious minority (Shi’a Persians) surrounded by Sunni countries.

Few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel. There are 80 synagogues (11 of them in Tehran), many with Hebrew schools. And over 25,000 Jews, most of whom are determined to remain, because they are as proud of their Iranian culture as they are of their Jewish roots.

Iran and Israel should stop writing the narrative of the other as “enemy”. Ahmadinejad is perceived by Israel as a threat, while Israel’s extremists believe that the world’s evil emanates from Iran.

These views are too black and white, and too polarising.

Both are spreading fear to their people when indeed they should be promoting solidarity, first by turning down the aggressive rhetoric. The countries should work to build better communication between their societies, so that the two peoples might find a common ground of understanding.

The Iranian people are less concerned with the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad than they are with the country’s pressing domestic issues. In his latest statement, Hasan Rouhani, Khatami’s security advisor, strongly criticised Ahmadinejad’s policies, and attacked him for “destroying the dignity of Persian people as well as making them poor.” These criticisms are likely to become more frequent as the presidential election in Iran approaches in June 2009.

The economy is now the Iranian people’s top priority, not Palestine. The younger generations of Iran and Israel, who are looking toward a better future, do not support the drum beats of war.
They would only lead to a war that would destroy countries and stifle development throughout the Middle East. No country can win, but all countries stand to lose.

What can save Israel and Iran from destroying each other? Only the seeds of peace lying dormant in both countries. These seeds lie in the Iranian and Israeli people. They need to be cultivated with civil society exchanges – between students and intellectuals, scientists, doctors, engineers, university professors, and even clerics – where both sides share their experiences in fighting common challenges.

Leaders in both countries need to care for these seeds so they can spread and grow. This is the role for those who want to save their people and heritage while building a future for the next generation.

###

* Anthony Zeitouni (anthonygaz@gmail.com ) is a Washington-based conflict resolution researcher. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service, 2 October 2008, www.commongroundnews.org.

Copyright permission is granted for publication.

New Treatment for Addicts

CNP Webmaster — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:15:18 +0000

Extreme rehab: Inside the world’s most radical drug clinic

Dr Andre Waismann is rewriting the rulebook for rehab, with incredible success. So why is the medical establishment ignoring his work? Nick Harding investigates

Thursday, 2 October 2008,

Independent.co.uk

Dr Andre Waismann looks out of the window towards the Gaza Strip. Speaking in a medical centre in the Israeli town of Ashkelon, a few miles north of the heavily fortified border and constantly under threat from Kassam rocket attack, he explains his vision. “My goal,” he says, “is that any drug addict in the world will one day be able to turn up at their local general hospital and say, ‘good evening, I am hooked on opiates’. They will then lie down on a treatment table and be cured quickly before going home healthy. It will be as simple as taking a trip to the dentist.”

Waismann’s clinic, based in Barzilai Medical Centre in the south of Israel, offers a controversial solution for drug addicts dependent on opiates such as heroin and morphine, as well as people hooked on painkillers containing the opiate codeine, such as Vicodin. Waismann and his team “clean” them of their addiction. The vomiting, nausea, stomach cramps and fever associated with opiate withdrawal are bypassed and the patient, who is sedated during the process, awakes with no cravings, having gone through detoxification. For the next 10 months to a year they take regular pills to counteract the effects of any heroin or opiate they may take and, according to Waismann, become fully functioning members of society again. He says he has successfully treated 11,000 patients over 14 years, and refers to his technique as ANR, or accelerated neuro-regulation. He says it reverses both the physical and the psychological dependency on the drug.

His goal, to have his techniques taken up globally, is driven by a singular philosophy that has made him unpopular with many involved in conventional drug misuse treatment programmes. He believes addiction is a medical problem, not a psychological one and that, on the whole, humans have an innate desire to be healthy, even those who inject heroin. He argues that psychological problems arise because of addiction, so if you can beat the addiction, it is easier to overcome the mental health problems associated with it. Conventional wisdom dictates the opposite, that psychological problems are primarily a catalyst for drug misuse, and that you must treat these in tandem with the dependency, often, in the case of methadone prescription, simply switching the addiction from one substance to another. It’s a classic chicken-and-egg argument; and in the UK, the chicken is sitting on a nest woven from almost £400m of taxpayers’ money allocated for drug treatment.

Waismann believes his methods offer the most humane form of treatment for all opiate addicts, whether hooked on heroin or painkillers, and he accuses drug treatment policymakers in the UK, who favour counselling-based treatment and methadone substitution, of backward thinking.

He states: “It doesn’t matter whether it is a heroin addict who has been using for 20 years or a businessman who started taking codeine for a back problem and got hooked, they develop the same medical illness, which is dependency. You can try the drug once or twice, maybe three or four times, and initially you can chose to use or not to use, but at some point you develop dependency and from that point on if you do not use you will feel terribly ill. As a consequence, users develop severe psychological problems. Convention says addicts have psychological problems to begin with and because of those they become drug addicts. It is not the case. Dependency is a central nervous system disorder that is reversible. Addicts are not mad nor are they people with addictive personalities. They are trapped by a body and mind that constantly craves opiates, and can be healed without methadone, without psychological counselling and without being locked away in rehabilitation centres.”I do not claim to be a genius – I am just a doctor who is tired of seeing addicts being tossed on to the sidelines or fed methadone to keep them under control.”

Born in Brazil, Waismann trained as an anaesthesiologist. But it was in 1985, during his military service in the Israeli army, that he realised the pervasive nature of drug addiction, after witnessing how drugs administered to wounded soldiers could turn into narcotic addiction.

“In a war zone, when someone is badly injured, you cannot do much, so you give them strong painkillers,” he says, “They become dependent. They go home and they develop psychiatric problems, are given psychiatric drugs and then they become zombies, there are thousands of ex-servicemen in situations like that.” In biological terms, there is no difference between these war veterans, painkiller-addicted businessmen, morphine-addicted hospital patients with chronic illness and heroin-addicted prostitutes. The mechanics of their dependency are the same.

Opiates create their alluring effects by hooking on to specific areas on brain cells called opiate receptors. This process produces an effect like pleasure, or reward, and pain relief. Waismann explains: “Our bodies produce natural opiates – endorphins. But when you start using heroin, your endorphin levels go down because your brain doesn’t need to produce it any more. The system collapses. Your dependency on heroin increases until the day you no longer produce endorphins and you become totally dependent on heroin. The more you put in your brain, the more receptors your brain produces and the more receptors you have, the more heroin you need. Eventually you reach the point where the amount of heroin that you need to feel high is the amount that kills you.”

At his ANR clinic, Waismann and his team administer drugs commonly used by anaesthetists to clear the patient’s receptors of opiates and then block them with other drugs that render them impervious to opiates. Each patient is screened to ascertain their level of dependency and is then sedated. The drugs are administered and constantly monitored. The patient is blissfully unaware of the withdrawal process, symptoms that are usually so uncomfortable for addicts. After the treatment, they continue taking a regular dose of the “blocking” medication Naltrexone for up to year, ensuring that any subsequent opiate use will have no effect. “The procedure takes less than 36 hours and afterwards the patient is no longer dependent and does not have cravings,” says Waismann proudly. “This is what modern medicine can achieve.”

The anecdotal evidence and glowing reports of the treatment’s effects are compelling. But if Waismann’s method, and other similar rapid detoxification programmes are the wonder cures they claim to be, then why are they not being offered routinely to all opiate addicts?

Israel has been at the forefront of rapid detox under anaesthesia, and, since he first developed the treatment, Waismann has travelled the globe to raise awareness. His crusade started in Australia 12 years ago when a magazine, The Australian Women’s Weekly, flew a 25-year-old heroin addict, Joanne Frare, and her brother, Peter, to be cured at Waismann’s clinic in Tel Aviv. There was so much interest in the story that Waismann agreed to fly to Australia to share his groundbreaking medical procedure with public health authorities there. When he arrived, the magazine reported: “He had just discharged four more Australians from his clinic and since Joanne Frare’s treatment, more than 25 other Australians have followed suit. All are healthy, most are home, and to a man – and woman – they are no longer addicted to the curse that is heroin.” In Lismore, Frare’s home town, more than 300 people, including addicts, families of users, doctors, politicians and business leaders, crammed in to the local workers’ club to hear Waismann.

Since then he has visited India, Cyprus, Indonesia, Brussels, Italy, Croatia and Kazakhstan and his methods have been adopted in several clinics across the world. He says his crusade is moral, not financial. His rallying cry in the countries he visits is the same as the message he has for the UK. “Don’t send me your patients, they are already coming. Send me your doctors and I will teach them.”

And, amazingly, he refuses to cash in on his impressive results. “I will never open a private clinic anywhere,” he says, “I work in a government hospital, I will teach my technique anywhere in the world for free. People from developed Western countries like the UK fly to me in the Middle East, [where they are ] under threat of rocket attack, to have proper medical care. It sounds strange, but that is the situation. The UK has spent millions on research into drug addiction over the years but nothing has changed in the level of care for patients. Medicine however, has changed. So how come, with the biotechnology we have now that allows us to know what is happening in the brain and how dependency works, we cannot help those patients to have better more humane treatment?”

Yet, despite repeated efforts to expound his philosophy in the UK and a recent meeting with shadow justice minister David Burrowes, his main claim to fame in this country so far is as the man who nearly treated Amy Winehouse. Waismann made headlines in May when it was reported he had been approached by the tragic singer’s family (though Winehouse’s management subsequently denied the report). Waismann is typically discreet on the subject. “I do not comment on specifics, but was in touch with the family of a British celebrity. I was told, ‘We are doing fine, we are controlling it, we don’t need your help.’ If they are trying to control this person’s dependency with methadone or any other heroin substitute they are not helping, they are prolonging the illness. I have treated many famous people and many politicians and businessmen. For every one of them you have hundreds of other people who are not famous.

“The media concentrates on the celebrities, but there are many people dying because they are not being given proper treatment.”

Adam Catalove is a 31-year-old morphine addict. He was prescribed the painkiller at the age of 20 after radical surgery to repair his collapsed lungs resulted in nerve damage that left him in excruciating pain. If Catalove was in a car that drove over a stone, waves of pain would rip through his body. He became dependent on his medication, and after eight years did not know whether he needed the morphine to control the pain or whether he needed the morphine just because he needed the morphine.

He became a zombie, sitting in a chair in his parent’s home watching his life slip away through the glazed eyes of an addict. Unlike Winehouse, Catalove did not have the luxury of choice when he first took the narcotic he became dependent on, but he became an addict just the same. His father, Simon Catalove, a 69-year-old businessman from Scotland who emigrated to Israel before Adam was born, cared for his son.

Simon Catalove says, “Adam ended up on 165mg of morphine a day. He hadn’t slept in a bed for eight years, it was too painful for him. Instead, he spent his days in a reclining armchair. Eventually he was partly paralysed and in a wheelchair. Three years ago we started reducing his medication and got him moving again on walking sticks but he still needed 100mg of morphine a day and he was dependent. If he went a day without his dose he would start withdrawal symptoms. After all these years you can’t suddenly give that up.”

If Adam Catalove had been living in Britain, the next step would have possibly been a detoxification programme, maybe as an in-patient, or with methadone. Instead, earlier this month, his father took him to Waismann’s clinic.

“If someone told me two weeks ago that there was a treatment that would render him morphine-free in less than two days I wouldn’t have believed them,” says Simon Catalove now.

“Since the treatment his eyes have changed. He is a different guy. The main difference is his attitude. He is positive about life again. He’s even started driving.”

Such life-affirming plaudits are impressive, but they hold little credence with drug policymakers in the UK where accelerated opiate detoxification programmes like Waismann’s are often treated with disdain. Waismann argues this is because “the subject of drug-dependency treatment is not in the hands of proper doctor, it is decided by psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers”. Medical research counters that the process is at best highly selective in the people it works for and, at worst, dangerous.

Nevertheless, in the face of spiralling and domestic drug misuse treatment figures, a Holy Grail would be welcome. In England alone, the Home Office estimates that there are more than 332,000 problem drug users and around 75 per cent of these are heroin, methadone, morphine or other opiate users. In Scotland, there are 21,000 registered methadone users. According to the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS), of the 80,000 people who started drug treatment in 2006, a quarter failed to complete 12 weeks.

A study in Scotland found that only 8 per cent of users abstained 33 months after treatment. The majority cited heroin as the main problem.

The total cost to society of the misuse of drugs is estimated at £39bn a year in the UK. The budget for drug-addiction programmes in England this year is £398m. In 2006, the budget was boosted by £130m, but a subsequent report by the BBC found that rates of people emerging from treatment free of addiction had hardly changed. In response, then shadow home secretary David Davis wrote to the chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee describing the investment as “massive failed expenditure”. The Department of Health countered that effective treatment takes between five and seven years and it was too early to see any significant results.

Despite the huge cost, according to guidelines issued by the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, an arm of the NHS, rapid detox is not recommended and “oral methadone should be the maintenance treatment for the majority of heroin users”.

Policy spokesman Hugo Luck says: “Detoxification in itself should not be seen as a ‘cure’ for dependence, it carries a very high risk of relapse and should only be provided to drug misusers who have made an active choice to try to establish a drug-free lifestyle, are committed and informed about the process, and have a stable and supportive social situation following detoxification. The NTA is not aware of Dr Waismann or his ANR method, but in the UK, ultra-rapid detoxification for heroin and other opioid misuse is not a recommended treatment. Other forms of detoxification are recommended, but only within a package of care-planned drug treatment.”

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence also studies treatments and recommends which ones should be provided by the NHS. Last year, it issued unequivocal guidelines on rapid detox which stated: “Ultra-rapid detoxification under general anaesthesia or heavy sedation (where the airway needs to be supported) must not be offered. This is because of the risk of serious adverse events, including death.”

The independent charity Drugscope acknowledges that there are some benefits to the method, but warns that a cautious, measured approach is needed. Spokesman Harry Shapiro says: “The principle of treatments like the Waismann technique is that they are a way of getting through the very unpleasant withdrawal symptoms without being conscious of what is going on. But to tout this as a cure for heroin addiction is extremely misleading because coming off heroin is a long process. Getting the drug out of your body is the easy bit; the difficult bit is staying off it. If you detox someone and they go back out in the same rubbish environment they were in before, the chances are that they will relapse.”

The charity advocates a wide range of treatment options, but warns that heroin addicts who undergo rapid detox need their Naltrexone use monitored closely as they are at high risk of overdose if they misuse subsequently because they lose their tolerance to heroin. Shapiro continues: “These treatments are not available on NHS, they get people through the obstacle of withdrawal, but have not got much claim beyond that. After that, it is down to the user and the support network they have around them, so in that sense it is no different from any other method. Different methods work for different people, Narcotics Anonymous works for certain people, as does methadone. You can’t treat all people with drug problems as one group. Everyone is different and will respond to different treatments.”

And therein lies the crux of Waismann’s struggle – there is no consensus to his belief that dependency is an illness and can be removed from a patient in the same way an infected appendix. He remains unperturbed but, looking towards the impenetrable walls of the Gaza border and the hatred and rockets beyond, he knows he has a battle on his hands.

“I fought in Israel for over 10 years to be allowed to use my techniques in a government hospital,” she said. “People couldn’t believe someone could quit 20 years of heroin addiction in 36 hours without the withdrawal pains and cravings. It sounds too good to be true, but it is not. It is a huge historical change and it will take time, all I am asking is to get the debate started.”

For further information, go to www.anrclinic.info

No Amnesty for Israel

CNP Webmaster — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:46:36 +0000

Amnesty’s Obsession with Israel

Amnesty persistently condemns Israel while ignoring suffering elsewhere

By Yael Beck, Merav Fima, YNet News, October 2, 2008

Even in a month when war raged in Georgia, Amnesty International continued to focus on the Gaza Strip, persistently blaming Israel for ongoing Palestinian hardship.

Amnesty, in fact, issued harsher condemnations of Israel than of any party to the Georgian conflict. With a ceasefire holding between Israel and Hamas, resulting in a period of calm, Amnesty stubbornly continued to spew hollow publications repeating outdated allegations.

Moreover, Amnesty took pride in its relentless criticism of Israel, while the rest of the world rightly concerned itself with the unfolding crisis in Georgia. In a press release, the organization boasted: “With the ceasefire holding, the suffering in Gaza has fallen off the international news agenda. However, Amnesty International members continue to campaign.” This “explanation” merely highlights Amnesty’s obsession with Israel, regardless of the reality on the ground.

Regular readers of Amnesty’s material are not fooled by their non-stop publications condemning Israel and can easily discern that they seldom reveal anything new. Many of its press releases are identical, except for minor alterations. Amnesty’s ulterior motive appears to be to maintain a constant production rate of material denouncing Israel, regardless of actual developments.

For example, Amnesty’s distasteful decision to continue issuing condemnations of Israel during a period of intense intra-Palestinian fighting clearly illustrates the point. Unsurprisingly, Amnesty failed to mention, let alone praise, Israel’s commendable acceptance of Fatah members fleeing from Hamas.

While devoting so many of its resources to Gaza, at a time of acute suffering and human rights abuses in Georgia, Amnesty International failed to provide effective coverage of the Georgian conflict. Although one would reasonably expect Amnesty to immediately respond with urgency to such a crisis, raising awareness for its victims, Amnesty preferred to focus on its usual target: Israel.

For instance, on August 12, 2008, the organization released a statement headlined “Trapped – collective punishment in Gaza.” An expanded version was re-issued on August 27, 2008. As NGO Monitor analysis has demonstrated, the report lacks evidence and credibility, largely ignores the context of terrorism, exploits international legal terminology, and presents data in a highly selective and distorted manner.

Concurrently, Amnesty released a series of vague and neutral statements calling on all sides of the conflict in the Caucuses to avoid harming civilians, without assuming a clear stance, nor providing comprehensive reporting on the events.

Lame response to Georgian conflict

Amnesty’s scarce coverage of the war in Georgia is not the result of inaccessibility. Human Rights Watch managed to provide ongoing and insightful coverage, based on its delegation’s observations. Such limp statements on Amnesty’s part betray its commitment to the defense of every individual’s human rights.

Disappointingly, Amnesty expressed less concern regarding the events in Georgia, despite the fact that a greater number of civilians were killed during that conflict than over the course of the Second Lebanon War in 2006. On that occasion, Amnesty rushed to condemn Israel in almost-daily publications. It did not hesitate to portray Israel as an aggressor and largely ignored the fact that civilians in northern Israel suffered a constant barrage of rockets launched by the Hizbullah terrorist organization.

Amnesty’s lame response to the recent Georgian conflict, overshadowed by its focus on Israel, indicates that the Second Lebanon War simply served as an incentive for Amnesty to pursue its shameless Israel-bashing. Had its aversion to war been genuine, Amnesty would have responded as forcefully or even more vocally to the Georgian conflict.

Were it truly concerned with the universality of human rights, Amnesty would apply the same standards to all countries. Hence, Amnesty’s aim appears clear: to persistently condemn Israel, even if it means neglecting those suffering in other, more pressing conflicts across the world.

The authors are researchers at NGO Monitor, www.ngo-monitor.org

Commerce Promotes Peace

CNP Webmaster — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:50:45 +0000

Israeli Jews and Arabs find hope in microfinance fund

By Karin Kloosterman, Israel 21C, October 02, 2008

The cost of housing in Israel’s capital city Jerusalem is soaring, the disparity between rich and poor is growing wider, while the trust between Arabs and Jews remains thin.

The issue of poverty is especially dire for Jerusalem’s poorer Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims who are gearing up for major holidays at this time of the year. The Jews are already making advance preparations for the Jewish New Year in late September, while the month-long half day of fasting - and then feasting - for the Muslim holiday of Ramadan is underway.

Like in America during Thanksgiving and Christmas time, it’s easy to see in Israel how the poor suffer during holiday time. There are reports of food insecurity in the local newspapers and food banks beg for donations. Charitable acts take on a deeper meaning for those that have the means to give - and they do give. But what about the rest of the year?

In the Jewish religion, the highest form of charity is helping a person earn his or her own living. Following this age-old tradition, and merging it to complement Muslim laws in charitable giving, is a new NGO - the Jerusalem Interest-free Microfinance Fund (JIMF) - which has initiated a scheme to give interest-free loans to help Jerusalem’s poor start their own businesses.

Borrowing models from the laws in both religions - including prohibitions to accept interest-based loans - the JIMF, founded by two UK citizens, follows a worldwide trend of microfinancing, especially in the area of the environment.

Breaking barriers of suspicion

In Jerusalem, new opportunities for building businesses can break down barriers of suspicion between Israeli Arabs and Jews, reduce religious fanaticism and lead to a more prosperous city and region for all, believe JIMF founders Donald Franklin and his partner Michael Pollak. They also hope it will break down barriers in philanthropy where each faith tends to support its own.

The JIMF could lead to change, since both Jews and Muslims everywhere are bound to give a percentage of their earnings to those less fortunate. It’s called “tzdaka” in Judaism and “zakat” in Islam: “We want to comply with halacha (Jewish) and sharia (Islamic) law,” says Franklin, an economist in the UK, who notes that both words come from the same root, meaning path or way.

He tells ISRAEL21c, “I was anxious to find a way of extending contact [between Islam and Judaism] which was more constructive.”

The JIMF is also advised by Fiyaz Mughal and Jafar Sabbah, who are helping decide among other things, which of the would-be entrepreneurs in Jerusalem will receive some of the $200,000 in financing the NGO has already collected. Part of the JIMF’s service will be business training to the borrower, giving the loan extra value, while loan re-payment will be enforced by either the Jewish courts - the Beit Din - or the by the elders in the Muslim communities, depending on the recipient.

If the model works, Franklin is hoping that similar micro-loan initiatives can extend throughout the region, maybe even in the Palestinian Authority - where the Al Rafah Microfinancing Bank is set up - but unable currently to provide loans, he says.

International Banking Crisis

CNP Webmaster — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:03:55 +0000

The Spreading Global Banking Crisis and Its International Ramifications

By William R. Thomson, 321Gold, Oct 1, 2008

The United States prides itself on being the home of free market capitalism, governed by the rule of law. However, the rapidly developing capital market crisis demonstrates once again that, faced with a systemic crisis, rules and ideology take second place to pragmatism. A similar incident happened on 15 August 1971 when Nixon arbitrarily ditched the solemn US international pledge to honour the Bretton Woods Agreements making the dollar convertible into gold at US$35 an ounce. Cynics might say that the US lives by the Gold Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Hence, the unprecedented developments in which the free market took second place to untrammelled state socialism as the national debt was effectively doubled in the blink of an eye as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with their $5 trillion indebtedness were nationalised, to be followed in rapid succession by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the nationalisation of the world’s largest insurance company AIG at a cost of $85 billion. Merrill Lynch was forced into a shotgun marriage and the last two major investment banks were forced to convert to commercial banks to stay in business and get the support of the Federal Reserve Board. Then Washington Mutual, the fourth largest bank was closed down and Wachovia, that two weeks earlier was touted as the saviour of Merrill Lynch, was folded into Citicorp. Finally, in an effort to solve a systemic crisis, there is the unprecedented proposal to use $700 billion of taxpayer funds to buy the toxic debt of a banking system bordering on bankruptcy.

This has created an emotional political firestorm, not seen since the 1930s, since the middle and working classes feel they are being asked to bail out the banker ‘fat cats’ who are seen as having created the problem whilst ordinary wage earners are losing their jobs and having their houses foreclosed. Of course, the story is in reality more complicated and longer standing involving a failure of government to understand and regulate adequately a fast changing industry, but it is equally a story about failed political will, ideology, rampant greed and corruption.

The House of Representatives, all of whom face re-election in 5 weeks times spectacularly rejected the bill the first time it was presented to them on Monday 29 September, an almost unprecedented slap in the face for the failed Administration of George Bush. But after the markets tumbled 7 percent in an hour’s trading in the after math of the vote it seems likely a modified version will pass the Congress shortly.

It is said that success has many fathers and failure none. It is the inverse with the present situation: failure has many fathers; in banking, regulation and policy. However, the time for recriminations is later. The task now is to contain the evolving firestorm and minimise the severe global fallout that could be very destabilising in the extreme.

At the heart of the matter is the incredible growth of debt and leverage in the financial markets since deregulation set in about 30 years ago but which went into overdrive in the past ten years. Derivatives scarcely existed 15 years ago; today they total between $600 trillion and a quadrillion- that’s 1000 trillion or 10 to the power 15. By comparison the world’s GDP is less than $60 trillion and the capitalisation of all the world’s stock markets is less than $50 trillion.

Even worse are the opaque and unregulated $60 trillion over the counter derivatives in areas such as credit default swaps related to the US mortgage fiasco. In the prophetic words of Warren Buffett they have proven to be weapons of wealth destruction on an unprecedented scale.

Scale of the problem

The US banking system is facing a solvency problem on a scale approximately as serious relative to its economy as the Asian crisis was to the region eleven years ago or the Japanese crisis of the 1990s. But because of its position in the world, its impact on the global economy is far greater.

No one has a good handle on the numbers yet. The IMF originally estimated about $1 trillion in losses and now says that will be too low. Nouriel Roubini has estimated eventual losses of over $2 trillion and Marc Faber of the order of $5 trillion. This compares with a US GDP of $14 trillion. If that is true then the $700 billion ‘bailout package’ may just be a down payment on the final cost.

The US budget deficit for the year beginning October 2008 seems likely to more than double and exceed $1 trillion - maybe even reaching 10 percent of GDP - and financing this could put severe pressure on the dollar since, unlike Japan and the rest of Asia, the US has a miserable savings rate and is dependent on borrowing from abroad, primarily the Middle East and Asian central banks and sovereign wealth funds to finance its twin deficits.

The potential therefore certainly exists for the financing of these deficits to be inflationary in the medium term and cause further weakness, possibly severe, in the dollar. The diversification of international reserves that has been underway since the creation of the Euro will probably gather pace. This should also be a catalyst to encourage Asian nations to step up their efforts to coordinate their currency exchange rates.

Will the programme work?

There is no certainty that the measures as proposed will work but it is reasonable to presume there will be pragmatism in its execution and any necessary adjustments will be made along the way. The political will is probably there now and it would seem quite likely that the US government may need to take an equity position in some of these institutions until their health can be restored.

The result of this catastrophe will be a period of recession, possibly global, followed by an extended period of lower growth, accompanied by a much stronger regulatory regime for the financial sector that will have to operate with reduced leverage. Bank profits in the US and Europe will be smaller moving forward as they are forced to operate with lower levels of risk.

Global Contagion

The cancer has now spread to the European banking system and daily bailouts, mergers and partial nationalisations are becoming the order of the day. Some European banks are affected because they have bought large tranches of these toxic US products whilst others, such as the UK, Ireland and Spain are affected by weak national housing markets. The Scandinavian banks are affected by their large exposure to the weak markets in the Baltics and Eastern Europe. In addition, the European Central Bank is untested in a regional banking crisis and indeed does not have either an institutional ability or authority to act at present.

The Asian economies and their banks are better placed to withstand America’s problems. Lower economic growth rates in the region are inevitable but they have the ability to increase domestic demand to make up for flagging exports. At the same time, the banks have only recently recovered from the stresses of the 1997-2002 crisis period and, as a consequence, avoided much of the stupidity that consumed Western institutions during the recent housing and derivative boom. They can also see that much of the lecturing they endured about crony capitalism was sheer hypocrisy when the shoe was on the other foot.

Other consequences of the crisis

The US budget is already under pressure at a time that demographics were about to explode it in any case. The crisis will put further extreme pressures on the budget and will probably force it to moderate its international ambitions in areas such as foreign assistance and military adventurism. The election of a new president will also have to be monitored closely, since he will be under pressure for more protectionist policies.

We must hope that the lessons of the 1930s are well enough understood and remembered. The world and the markets have some very challenging times ahead. But, as is well known, the Chinese symbol for crisis is in two parts: one symbolises danger the other opportunity. Out of this crisis will rise opportunities and some brave and liquid future Warren Buffett’s will profit from the misery. Others, should be careful, not panic, invest in quality assets globally and never forget there is one asset that is no one else’s liability - gold. Its day is upon us as the ultimate insurance policy.

William R. Thomson
email: wrthomson@btconnect.com

William Thomson is Chairman of Private Capital Ltd. in Hong Kong and an adviser to Axiom Funds and Finavestment Ltd. in London.

Source: 321gold Ltd

Demographic Destruction

CNP Webmaster — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:19:20 +0000

Open Letter to Mahmoud Abbas From Palestinian Organizations

Monday, September 29, 2008

Party for Socialism and Liberation
http://www.pslweb.org/

Right of return is inalienable, indivisible right of all Palestian refugees

The following letter was presented to the office of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on behalf of 78 Palestinian organizations on Wednesday, Sept. 22.

The right of Palestinian refugees to
return to their land is central to the
Palestinian struggle.

To: President Mahmoud Abbas
Chair of the Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee
President of the Palestinian National Authority

CC:
League of Arab States
Non-Aligned Movement
Organization of the Islamic Conference

Re: The Rights of Palestinian Refugees and the Final Status Negotiations

Dear Mr. President,

Greetings of Return

We, the undersigned Palestinian refugee organizations, civil society movements and institutions in the Palestinian homeland and in exile are national organizations working to defend the right of return. We appeal to you now because we are convinced that the alignment of the official Palestinian position and the position of the Palestinian people with regards to the final status negotiation issues is of the highest priority. Foremost among these issues is the cause of the Palestinian refugees.

We are convinced that the alignment of popular and official positions is the main guarantee of a strong Palestinian position in the current negotiation process, which is taking place in a local, regional and global context that jeopardizes the national rights of the Palestinian people. In this context, we are concerned in particular about the rights of Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons to return to their original lands and properties, restitution of their homes, lands and properties and compensation for damages incurred over the past 60 years. Based on the fact that all of these rights are guaranteed under international law, and based on our awareness of the enormous pressures faced by Palestinian negotiators and the tactics of negotiations, such as secrecy with regards to the negotiation proceedings, we call upon you to adopt a negotiation strategy that is based on openness with the entirety of the Palestinian people—irrespective of their current place of residence—regarding all aspects and details of the negotiation process. Implementation of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return was and continues to be the main purpose for which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established, a purpose which forms the central pillar of the PLO’s legitimacy as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Transparency and candidness of our representatives with all sectors of our society will guarantee that our rights are best defended, and strengthen our position in the face of enormous pressures.

It has been clear at all stages of the negotiations that this process aims to eliminate the core issue of the Arab/Palestinian struggle for freedom and justice: the Palestinian refugees and their rights of return and restitution. In fact, elimination of these central Palestinian/Arab demands form the centerpiece of both Israeli and U.S. policies. It is also no secret that during the so-called “Oslo Peace Process” these policies have employed insidious tactics in order to nullify these rights altogether. Such tactics include attempts to substitute the return and restitution of the refugees with monetary compensation; to reduce the number of those entitled to exercise these rights from over 7 million Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons to a tiny minority, including so-called “hardship cases” that would be arbitrarily defined by Israel; to suggest that the refugees return to homes located in the areas administered by the Palestinian Authority; and other humiliating “trade offs” whereby Palestinians are expected to surrender the right of refugees to return to homes, lands and properties of origin in exchange for other rights and demands, such as self-determination, borders, the reclamation of Jerusalem and removal of the illegal settlement-colonies. The Palestinian leadership has rejected such degrading bargaining tactics in previous negotiations, notably those known as the second Camp David summit and the Clinton initiative. The late President Yasser Arafat rejected these tactics, and he was made to pay for that with his liberty and his life.

Whereas the rights of return, restitution and compensation are enshrined in international law and specifically affirmed in U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 and U.N. Security Council Resolution 237;

Whereas we see that increasing U.S. pressure aims to force Palestinian negotiators to agree to an obscure framework for a solution that is to be achieved by any means and at the soonest date, and that such a framework is largely for internal U.S. consumption in the context of a U.S. Presidential election;

Whereas it has become clear that the U.S. administration is working on other fronts to market its obscure framework for a solution in the September 2008 session of the U.N. General Assembly;

Whereas we realize, as a result of our movement’s long and difficult experience with Israeli politics, that Israeli political actors seek to solve the internal Israeli political crisis by venting destruction on the Palestinian front through various policies and practices, all of which work to entrench Israeli occupation, colonialism, and apartheid, and aim to attain international recognition of Israel as a ‘Jewish State;’

Whereas Western and Israeli election platforms must not be employed to put pressure on the Palestinian negotiators, who should in no way be a party to the political maneuvers of U.S. and Israeli political candidates, particularly in order to protect the legality, legitimacy, and sanctity of Palestinian national rights regardless of who emerges victorious in foreign elections;

Whereas we perceive the retreat of the once principled European position, and the transformation of this position into one that conforms to the U.S. policy of total complicity and support for Israel;
Whereas we clearly see the weakness and inability of the Arab countries to take action or play any effective role;

Whereas we witness the sharp, painful and unprecedented deterioration in the internal Palestinian political arena;

Whereas it has become plain and obvious that powerful external pressures aim to annul Palestinian refugee rights, particularly the right to return to their original lands and properties and the restitution of these lands and properties;
Whereas Israel and the U.S., according to Israeli officials, are intensifying their efforts to reach a framework for a solution that is acceptable to both Israel and the U.S. and will be viable regardless of the ruling party;

Whereas the primary measure of the legitimacy of any solution remains the extent to which it will lead to the exercise of the right of self-determination by the Palestinian people, including foremost the right of Palestinian refugees to choose to return to their original homes and lands regardless of their current place of refuge,

We approach you with this statement based on our strong desire to chart a way forward that is built on the highest levels of clarity and candidness with the Palestinian people; a way forward that aims to strengthen the Palestinian position in this sensitive stage of the Palestinian struggle; a way forward that ensures that any framework for a solution will include the following principles in clear and immutable language:

The rights of Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons to return, restitution and compensation are fundamental rights under international law and relevant U.N. resolutions—particularly U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 and U.N. Security Council Resolution 237. The content of these rights is non-negotiable irrespective of the manner in which they will be exercised;

The right of return is an individual right held by every Palestinian refugee and internally displaced person. This right is passed on from one generation to the next, based on the individual’s choice on whether or not to return, an inalienable and indivisible right, and not affected by any bilateral, multilateral, or international treaty or agreement. Any such agreement must respect the fundamental precepts and principles of international law;

The right of Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons to return is a collective right that is not limited to one group or another, and it is an integral part of the Palestinian right of self-determination;

The right of Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons to return is not subject to referendum.

May you remain steadfast in our struggle for freedom and dignity.

Drafted: August 2008

Signed:

194 Association (Syria)
Abassiya Association (Palestine)
Abnaa Al-Balad Center for the Defense of the Right of Return (Syria)
Aidun Group (Lebanon)
Aidun Group (Syria)
Al-Awda Palestine Network (Holland)
Al-Awda, Palestine Right to Return Coalition (North America)
Arab Cultural Forum (Gaza, Palestine)
Arab Liberation Front
Arab Palestinian Front
Association for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced (Palestine)
Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights (Palestine)
Beit Nabala Association (Palestine)
Bisan Association (Syria)
Coalition of Right of Return Defense Committees (Jordan)
Coalition of Right of Return Defense Committees (Jordan)
Committee for the Rights of Palestinian Women (Syria)
Confederation of Right of Return Committees (Europe: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Greece, Germany, France, Holland, Poland, Finland)
Coordinating Committee of Palestinian Organizations Working in Lebanon (Lebanon)
Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine (Palestine)
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Democratic Palestine Committee
Depopulated Towns and Villages Associations (Gaza, Palestine)
Farah Heritage Society (Syria)
Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (Palestine)
Higher Follow-up Committee on Prisoners (Palestine)
Higher National Committee for the Defense of the Right of Return (Palestine)
Inevitable Return Assembly (Syria)
Islamic Jihad Movement
Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]
Istiqlal Youth Union (Lebanon)
Istiqlal Youth Union (Syria)
Ittijah: Union of Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations (Palestine)
Jafra Youth Center (Syria)
Jimzo Association (Palestine)
Lajee Center, Aida Camp (Palestine)
National Assembly of of Palestinian Civil Society Organizations (Palestine)
National Committee to Commemorate the Martyr Ahmad Al-Shuqairy (Jordan)
National Nakba Commemoration Committee (Palestine)
Palestine Democratic Union [Fida]
Palestine House Educational and Cultural Center (Canada)
Palestine Liberation Movement [Fatah]
Palestine Remembered (USA)
Palestine Right of Return Coalition (Global)
Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (Palestine)
Palestinian Civil Society Coordinating Committee in Palestine and Abroad (Global)
Palestinian Liberation Front
Palestinian National Democratic Movement (Palestine)
Palestinian National Initiative
Palestinian People’s Party
Palestinian Popular Struggle Front
Palestinian Refugee Rights Defense Committee (Balata Camp, Palestine)
Palestinian University Professors Union (Gaza, Palestine)
Palestinian Women’s Grassroots Organization (Syria)
Palestinian Youth Democratic Union (Syria)
Palestinian Youth Organization (Syria)
Palestinian Youth Struggle Union (Syria Branch)
People’s Assembly of the Towns and Villages Depopulated in 1948 (Palestine)
Platform of Associations in Solidarity with Palestine (Switzerland)
Popular Committees to Defend the Right of Return (Gaza, Palestine)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command
Refugee and Right of Return Committee (Syria)
Refugee Camp Popular Committees (West Bank & Gaza, Palestine)
Refugee Executive Office (Palestine)
Right of Return committee (Switzerland)
Ruwwad Cultural Center (Aida Camp, Palestine)
Salameh Association (Palestine)
Secular Democratic State Group (Gaza, Palestine)
Union of Right of Return Committees (Syria)
Union of Women’s Activity Centers, West Bank Refugee Camps (Palestine)
Union of Youth Activity Centers, Refugee Camps (Palestine)
Vanguard for the Popular Liberation War [Sa'iqa]
Women’s Activity Centers (Gaza, Palestine)
Yaffa Charitable Fund (Jordan)
Yaffa Cultural Center (Balata Camp, Palestine)
Youth Assembly (Gaza, Palestine)
Youth Struggle Union (Lebanon)