Salmond and Grampian police should be ashamed for aiding Trump’s illegal campaign against the people of the Menie Estate ; but it doesn’t show Scotland is too small to be independent – the same happens in the US and UK regularly

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, The Telegraph and Grampian police should be ashamed for allowing and aiding Trump’s use of illegal methods to try to force people out of their homes and farms on the Menie Estate in Scotland but the main cause of the problem isn’t Scotland being too small to stand up to big money, similar things happen in the UK and US all the time. The cause of the problem is allowing big banks, firms and billionaires to make political donations and allowing revolving doors between jobs with them and with government departments giving contracts to them and regulating them. (If you just want to know what you can do rather than read the rest, scroll down to the ‘what you can do’ bolded sub-heading)

I'd thought Donald Trump was the obvious contender for balloon self-inflated by his own arrogance. Maybe Neil Midgely, deputy editor of the Telegraph newspaper is a contender too. He has a review of the documentary ‘You’ve been Trumped,’ which is Anthony Baxter’s film showing Trump’s SNP government and Grampian police backed campaign to try to force out people out of homes and farms they’ve lived on all their lives, by illegal methods including letting Trump’s employees cut off their water and electricity supplies, build earth berms round their houses and many other intrusions on to and damages to their property (1).

Midgely writes " But the …documentary…was so biased in favour of the protesters that it was hard not to end up rooting for Trump and his monolithic capitalist plans. There were endless sympathetic chats with the locals who wouldn’t sell their eyesore properties to Trump….When Trump’s men infuriated the locals – by apparently cutting off their water supply, or building mounds of earth outside their windows – the film’s implicit suggestion was that it was all done out of spite. And if spite was the motive, it was spite so bracing as to be a rare and precious thing. It was also cheering to see the busybody film-maker, Anthony Baxter, at one point carted off by the local constabulary. " (2).

First off Neil, they’re not “protesters”. The word you’re looking for is “residents” – people who’ve lived (and in some cases farmed) there for all their lives. They had considerable sympathy and support from many people and there were a few protests in favour of them, which get brief coverage in the documentary – but most of it is interviews with the residents, with police, with Trumps’ spokespeople (who unsurprisingly didn’t have much to say other than threats of getting the documentary makers arrested and charged), clips of Trump making his own case and film of what Trump’s employees and the police were doing, along with interviews with legal experts and experts on the likely impact on jobs from the development (which found, in opposition to Trump’s claims that local people would get a lot of jobs on it, most of the jobs would be likely to go to Polish and other EU migrant workers).

I thought that Conservatives were all for property rights, Neil ;  Seems not in your case. Seems you're quite happy for billionaires who've bought political influence to come in and take peoples' property and try to force them out of their homes to make way for another frigging golf course (because of course there's a massive shortage of them in Scotland - e.g St Andrews for instance has none, obviously), so long as they're oiks and not your golfing buddies.

I thought Conservatives were for upholding the law. Seems not in Neil’s case. He’s fine with money trumping the law; fine with Trump's money, or the promise of some jobs, getting police to let him illegally cut off peoples’ water and electricity supplies and steal parts of their land from them and even build earth berms round their houses.

I thought Conservatives were meant to be for civil liberties. In Mr Midgely’s case, seems not. He enjoys seeing people arrested on trumped up charges of 'breach of the peace' and handcuffed for merely interviewing the people involved.

I very much hope that you are a victim of similar injustices in future Neil – that your property is stolen by developers, that your electricity and water are cut off to try to force you out of your home – and that the police and government similarly either aid the developers or look the other way as your property  and rights and civil liberties are ridden roughshod over by big money. Then you might understand what you got wrong here.

On top of that Trump was determined he should get to build not just on 90% of the site he wanted, but that it had to include destroying an SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) containing rare species too. We don’t exactly have a shortage of golf courses in Scotland. St Andrews alone has more than you could count and there are huge numbers of others all over the country. If we lost a golf course we could replace it. If we lose rare species to extinction there is no getting them back though. They are gone forever.

The smartest political calculations can go wrong when they leave out right and wrong

SNP First Minister Alec Salmond decided to over-rule the elected local council’s planning committee – and it’s SNP chairman in 2009 – to give Trump exactly the planning permission he wanted. His government must have either looked the other way or else seen to it that the then SNP headed Aberdeenshire local council got the police to do a mixture of looking the other way as Trump’s employees broke the law on other peoples’ property, guarding the law breakers as they did so; and harassing and arresting the documentary makers (including by arresting them and putting them in a cell for four hours by mis-using the catch-all ‘breach of the peace’ charge).

Salmond calculated that he would gain more votes by the jobs created and sports coverage of the new golf course than he would lose by allowing an arrogant billionaire to over-rule the local council, destroy habitat for rare species and force people out of their homes. Even the most charismatic and intelligent politician can get his sums wrong where he doesn't factor in right and wrong though. In a case of poetic justice he’s suffered negative media coverage (largely due to Anthony Baxter’s work) combined with a feud with Trump over plans for offshore wind turbines off the coast of his golf course development. The recession created by the financial crisis has also reduced investment and demand for Trump’s development, which might fail yet.

Next time Salmond is engaging his brain purely as a vote calculating machine he should remember this and take right and wrong into account too.

Why it’s not caused by Scotland being a small country – and not an argument against independence

However those arguing that this shameful episode is due to Scotland being too small to resist big money’s influence and using it as an argument against independence have it wrong too.

The British and US governments cave in to big firms, banks and billionaires constantly. Just look at the NHS contracts going to Circle Healthcare whose shareholders lobbied for privatisation and donate to the Conservative party ; or US military aid of over $1bn a year to Egypt, openly given to subsidise US arms firms that make political donations to Presidential and congressional campaigns, particularly Lockheed Martin (3) – (9).

That’s not to mention all the white-washing of the pollution of water and air by fracking and on land oil drilling in the US due to the big oil and gas companies buying up political influence and even funding biased scientific studies (thankfully countered by neutral ones).

So the problem isn’t the size of the country, but big money buying influence through private donations to election campaigns and political parties; revolving door syndrome allowing people to go between jobs in those firms and the government departments giving contracts to and regulating them ; and governments’  choosing jobs from multinationals, which may go overseas as quickly as they arrived, over backing smaller businesses based in their own country. (the last problem being the relevant one with Trump and the SNP – though it’s possible Salmond also hoped to get donations for his party, though I’ve found no evidence he got any) (10) – (11).

The solution is to make it a criminal offence to give or receive private political donations,   or to go from a job in a government department to a company given contracts or regulated by it, or vice-versa, for 5 or 10 years; and provide limited, equal, public funding to all candidates in elections.

What you can do

Sign the petition against Trump’s illegal campaign to drive people out of their homes .

Join and/or donate to the Tripping Up Trump campaign group against forced compulsory purchase orders being issued purely for the benefit of big developers.

 

 

Sources

(1) = Independent blogs 18 Oct 2012 ‘You’ve Been Trumped! Director Anthony Baxter speaks about his new documentary’, http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/10/18/you%E2%80%99ve-been-trumped-director-anthony-baxter-speaks-about-his-new-documentary/

(2) = Telegraph 21 Oct 2012 ‘You've Been Trumped, BBC Two, review’,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9621334/Youve-Been-Trumped-BBC-Two-review.html

(3) = Herald letters 23 Oct 2012 ‘Trump documentary highlights the vulnerability of smaller economies’ http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/trump-documentary-highlights-the-vulnerability-of-smaller-economies.19214235

(4) = Conservative Home website ‘Big cash donors to the Conservative party, by ‘donor group’ January 2001 to June 2010’, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=CM2egqgB&key=0AtAQVk3Qj4FYdEJKVTg3aTZteV9pcnFZbXBvN3lRcUE&hl=en&authkey=CM2egqgB#gid=0

(5) = Observer 05 Jun 2011 ‘Questions grow over private care firm Circle Health ahead of flotation’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/05/questions-grow-over-circle-health

(6) = guardian.co.uk 05 Nov 2011 ‘Private firm to run NHS hospital’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/10/private-firm-run-nhs-hospital

(7) = NYT 23 Mar 2012 ‘Once Imperiled, U.S. Aid to Egypt Is Restored’,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/world/middleeast/once-imperiled-united-states-aid-to-egypt-is-restored.html?_r=0 ; ‘An intense debate within the Obama administration over resuming military assistance to Egypt, which in the end was approved Friday by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, turned in part on a question that had nothing to do with democratic progress in Egypt but rather with American jobs at home…. The companies involved include Lockheed Martin, which is scheduled to ship the first of a batch of 20 new F-16 fighter jets next month’

(8) = Center for Responsive Politics – Organisation Profiles – Lockheed Martin,
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000104 (shows Lockheed Martin executives and PAC committees donated over $2 million to candidates in the 2012 election cycle including Obama and Romney and members of congressional committees on defense spending)

(9) Center for Responsive Politics - Lockheed Martin: All Recipients ; Among Federal Candidates, 2008 Cycle, http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000104&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2008 (shows similar donations including to Obama and McCain’s campaigns in 2008)

(10) = Guardian 15 Oct 2012 ‘MoD staff and thousands of military officers join arms firms’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/15/mod-military-arms-firms

(11) = Guardian 22 Oct 2012 ‘Blurred boundaries between public service and private interest’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2012/oct/22/public-service-private-blurred-boundaries ; ‘the resignation from the NHS Commissioning Board of Jim Easton to become managing director of the private provider Care UK…Previous senior officials in the Department of Health transferring their wallets to the private sector include Matthew Swindells, chief information officer at the DH who joined KPMG, along with Mark Britnell and Gary Belfield, who had run the DH commissioning programme; Simon Stevens, Tony Blair's senior health advisor from 1997-2004 became a vice-president for United Health; and Penny Dash, formerly DH director of strategy, left for McKinsey.

Texas study actually shows fracking industry does contaminate water - and Institute which conducted it is funded by fracking company

Much of the media are reporting that a new study has supposedly shown that there is no evidence of fracking contaminating water. If you read the full study it says ‘no direct evidence’ (implying there is indirect evidence) and is also playing with words by pretending that drilling the well for fracking, lining it and transporting chemicals used in fracking above ground are not fracking – as they are separate stages of the process. This is like arguing that the BP / Halliburton DeepWater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico was nothing to do with the oil drilling industry because it was the result of the casing of the well being done imperfectly. It’s just playing with words. The reality is the fracking industry does contaminate water (and also air through flaring).

You can even find out half of this from the press release from the University, never mind the original study (1).

On top of that the people quoting this study are ignoring the fact that it was done by the Energy Institute of the University of Texas, which is funded by ConocoPhillips with at least $1.5million, ConocoPhillips being an oil and gas company currently facing law suits relating to it's fracking activities. That’s only the money we know about, because many American universities are refusing to say whether particular studies were funded by private companies or not, let alone which companies or by how much (2) – (3).

Even leaving aside the bias and conflict of interest in the study due to it's funding by a company involved in fracking (which means it has no credibility anyway), if you actually read the whole study, it's full findings are very different to the carefully misleading wording used in claiming that there's "no evidence that fracking contaminates water"

Time magazine reports that the study found that "Instead, researchers concluded that the problems associated with fracking tend to be due to mistakes made in other parts of the drilling process, like casing failures that allow drilling fluids and gas to escape from a well, poor cement jobs and spills on the surface. “These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” Charles Groat, an Energy Institute associate director and the lead author of the study, said in a statement." (4) So in other words fracking does cause these problems – but so does drilling for oil on land (something everyone knows already, so redundant).

It found that fracking does contaminate water in practice, because mistakes are made and short-cuts taken, leading to breaches in the casing during fracking and spilling of fracking chemicals above ground just as with drilling for oil, except that fracking pollutes ground water on land and so our drinking water.

Additionally the study admits that methane and various toxic materials present in the earth before fracturing begins may be released into wells and ground water due to fracturing, contaminating it - which shows how dishonest the summary claiming 'no evidence of contamination due to fracking' is.

See page 19 of the original study on this, which says "It appears that many of the water quality changes observed in water wells in a similar time frame as shale gas operations may be due to mobilization of constituents that were already present in the wells by energy (vibrations and pressure pulses) put into the ground during drilling and other operations rather than by hydraulic fracturing fluids or leakage from the well casing. As the vibrations and pressure changes disturb the wells, accumulated particles of iron and manganese oxides, as well as other materials on the casing wall and well bottom, may become agitated into suspension causing changes in color (red, orange or gold), increasing turbidity, and release of odors." (5)

Also note the ‘may’ – not very definite language.

So saying fracking doesn't cause it is misleading if the drilling to prepare for fracking the transportation of chemicals for fracking and the lining of the drilled wells does.

When this study and other proponents of fracking claim that water or air contamination is “not caused by fracking” it’s like claiming that the BP / Halliburton DeepWater Horizon oil spill was not due to drilling for oil because it was due to faulty capping of the well with concrete – it’s playing with words. In fact the fracking industry’s activities do cause water and air pollution just as oil drilling does cause oil spills and water and air pollution. The difference with fracking is that it's on land where spills can pollute water supplies and gas from flaring is likely to have dispersed less than gas flared on oil rigs by the time it reaches land, meaning it will affect more people breathing it in.

(1) = Energy Institute of the University of Texas press release 23 Mar 2012 'Study Shows No Evidence of Groundwater Contamination from Hydraulic Fracturing', http://energy.utexas.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=154:study-shows-no-evidence-of-groundwater-contamination-from-hydraulic-fracturing&catid=34:press-releases&Itemid=54

(2) = University of Texas ‘ConocoPhillips Gives $1.5 Million to Fund Cutting-Edge Energy Research’, http://giving.utexas.edu/2010/11/01/conocophillips-energy-research/

(3) = BreakingLawSuitNews.com 23 Jan 2012 ‘Lawsuit Filed Against ConocoPhillips for Alleged Fracking-Related Water Contamination’ http://breakinglawsuitnews.com/lawsuit-filed-against-conocophillips-for-alleged-fracking-related-water-contamination/

(4) = Time 17 Feb 2012 ‘Shale Gas: It’s Not the Fracking That Might Be the Problem. It’s Everything Else’, http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/17/shale-gas-its-not-the-fracking-that-might-be-the-problem-its-everything-else/#ixzz1pKQpiwwM

(5) = Groat, Charles G. & Grimshaw, Thomas W. ( 2012) ‘Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development’,  Energy Institute of the University of Texas, February 2012, http://www.velaw.com/UploadedFiles/VEsite/Resources/ei_shale_gas_reg_summary1202[1].pdf (seems to download ok after a couple of refreshes on Internet Explorer, but won’t download on Firefox)

Fracking Insane - scientific evidence shows fracking causes illness by contaminating water and air with methane gas and toxic chemicals

The only reports saying it doesn’t are funded by the companies involved in fracking

Fracking or ‘hydraulic fracturing’ for shale gas has been being carried out for decades in the US and has now been approved by the British Coalition government (including Lib Dem minister Chris Hune) in Lancashire, including near Blackpool and by the Scottish SNP government in Scotland near Dumfries – with plans for more elsewhere (1) – (2).

 This is either a major mistake due to governments being taken in by propaganda and supposedly objective scientific studies funded by the companies involved; or else they are selling out the people they're meant to represent.

Oil companies who want to carry out ‘fracking’ (hydraulic fracturing) for gas are constantly claiming that there is ‘no evidence’ that fracking causes pollution of ground water or drinking water and no evidence it causes illnesses due to chemical and methane gas poisoning.

That claim is completely false. There’s lots of evidence of methane gas pollution of drinking water and ground water caused by fracking, found over decades, right up to the present ; and some recent evidence of chemicals used in fracking polluting water supplies.

The Evidence that Fracking causes air and water pollution with methane gas and fracking chemicals and serious illness

There’s a 1987 US environmental Protection Agency report on methane pollution of water supplies due to fracking in the mid-1980s in the US (3).

Those details of that report were not publicised by the EPA at the time for the same reason that most investigations of the effects of fracking are withheld for decades in the US - because big companies involved in fracking threatened people with law suits and legal bills they couldn’t afford if they continued to mention it ; and offered massive pay outs for ‘sealed court’ settlements on the other hand.

There are also recent scientific studies of dozens of fracking operations which found that ‘In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction.’ (4)

There are also studies from 1999 to the present showing levels of methane in well water in areas where fracking has taken place being vastly greater than in other areas – often high enough to cause explosions (5) – (7).

The US EPA has also recently found evidence of pollution of water in Wyoming with chemicals used in fracking there (8).

The documentary film ‘gasland’, which showed people made seriously ill by air and water pollution and tapwater which could be set on fire as a result of fracking, is constantly attacked as ‘propaganda’ and ‘unscientific’ by the oil and gas companies and their lawyers. In fact it is supported by all of the above scientific evidence; and the main critics of Gasland have been revealed as industry front groups – especially Energy in Depth, whose funders are all companies involved in fracking (9) – (10).

BBC reports from Pennsylvania show the same problem – tapwater so full of methane and other chemicals that it can be set on fire – as the Gasland documentary did , as well as the same serious illnesses among residents within days of fracking beginning, including barium poisoning (11).

Many of the supposedly objective scientific studies of fracking which claim there’s no evidence it pollutes water supplies are directly or indirectly funded by the oil and gas companies involved in fracking.

Even one of these studies (by the Swanson School of Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh) admits that ‘Air pollution is another factor that must be taken into consideration. Near the end of the well development, there is a practice called flaring that is used to get rid of the waste gas that is not able to be used. The excess gas is essentially set ablaze, leaving flames spewing far into the sky, burning for days on end, and emitting a significant amount of noxious gases.’ (12)

The Swanson study quotes it’s ‘additional resources’ as including  another supposedly objective academic study ‘The Economic Impacts of the Marcellus Shale: Implications for New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia’ which was a study funded by the ‘Marcellus Shale Coalition’, which factcheck.org found is in fact a trade association of companies involved in fracking for gas in the US (13) – (15).

A look at the full members of the Marcellus Shale Coalition and the funders of Energy in Depth shows they are the same companies (16) – (17).

Reports by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette found the Universities of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania are among those who refuse to provide details on what departments and studies were funded by private companies, let alone which private companies; and that campus associations and other proxy groups of these universities are taking money from the oil and gas companies for fracking operations on land owned by the universities, giving their studies of fracking another source of bias and conflict of interest (18) – (19).

Unsurprisingly the Swanson report  ends with the standard (and false) industry line that ‘It is important to note that not one case of pollution due to hydraulic fracturing has ever been recorded, though there have been occurrences due to other stages of the drilling process’ (my emphasis) (20)

The second part of the sentence seems to be making a distinction which in practice reveals how dishonest the first part of the sentence is. It’s just a semantic trick - playing with words by pretending that the stage of the fracking process which causes methane gas or chemical pollution of water supplies makes any difference.

The costs of fracking vastly outweigh the benefits

What will the costs be in terms of polluting farmland and drinking water supplies if fracking is allowed to continue? What will the cost be to the NHS and in lives of making large numbers of people ill , requiring treatment and unable to work, from methane and chemical pollution of drinking water and air due to fracking? What will be the cost in lives as people start dying due to fracking pollution of air and water supplies? How can jobs for some justify illness and death for far more people?

Is the plan perhaps that the number of people who die will reduce the unemployment statistics in the long run and that any who become too ill to work in the meantime will be classed as disabled rather than unemployed?

Any local council or national government giving permission for fracking is failing to protect the health and lives of it’s own people and is opening itself up to legal action and massive costs in the future, plus the responsibility for allowing the illness and death of large numbers of people and pollution that may last long after any jobs provided by fracking are gone. We have other industries we can create jobs and provide energy with – wind power, wave power and tidal power.

The economic benefit of the jobs created will be cancelled out by the bill in illness, death and increased food costs as polluting ground water will also reduce food production by killing crops and animals.

With climate change increasing droughts and the spread of desert and water use draining acquifers and rivers to the point they can’t recover across the world from California to the Middle East, water may be the ‘blue gold’ of the twenty first century (21) – (23). Permanently polluting it for gas supplies that may last only a few decades is not wise either.

What You Can Do

In Scotland:

Email First Minister Alec Salmond on this address -  Alex.Salmond.msp@scottish.parliament.uk and the Scottish cabinet scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk citing the scientific evidence from the US that fracking causes air and water pollution and serious illnesses and asking them to ban fracking in Scotlandon those grounds .

Please also forward this email,  or send an email with a link to this blog post to everyone you know who might sign.

In Wales:

Email the First Minister carwyn.jones@wales.gsi.gov.uk

Please also forward this email,  or send an email with a link to this blog post to everyone you know who might sign.

In England or anywhere in the UK

Sign the  UK government e-peitition calling for total ban on fracking in the UK, and/or the petition for a moratorium until further study .

You can email Prime Minister David Cameron on this link or write to him by post on the address on this link.

You can email UK Energy Minister Chris Huhne at this address ps.chris.huhne@decc.gsi.gov.uk.

To contact your local councillor, MP, MSP or member of the London, Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies go to this link.

Support the campaign to get 38 degrees to start a campaign against fracking in Scotland, England and Wales – add a comment and give 3 votes to the suggestion (this is not vote rigging – 38 degrees allows people 7 votes on what campaign suggestions it should take up at any time).

Please also forward this email, or send an email with a link to this blog post, to everyone you know who might sign.

In the US

You can contact your elected representatives at any level of government through the contact details on this website , refer them to the studies showing fracking causes air and water pollution and serious illnesses and ask them to call for a ban on it.

There are also petitions you can sign up to including Save the Water Table’s petition to ban fracking.

Please also forward this email, or send an email with a link to this blog post, to everyone you know who might sign.

Sources

(1) = Guardian.co.uk 02 Nov 2011 ‘Fracking 'probable' cause of Lancashire quakes’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/02/fracking-cause-lancashire-quakes

(2) = Scotland on Sunday 05 Nov 2011 ‘Fracking’ for gas given the green light’,  http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/fracking_for_gas_given_the_green_light_1_1950654

(3) = US Environmental Protection Agency 1987 ‘Report to Congress – Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Development and Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas and Geothermal Energy – Volume 1 of 3 – Oil and Gas’,http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/drilling-down-documents-7.html

(4) = Osborn, Stephen G et al (2011) ‘Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing’in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 17, 2011 vol. 108 no. 20 8172-8176http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.short

(5) = Holzman, DC (2011) ‘Methane Found in Well Water Near Fracking Sites’ in Environ Health Perspectives 119 (01 Jul 1999),http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.119-a289

(6) = AP 5/9/2011 ‘Methane in water near gas drilling sites, study finds’,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42964307/ns/us_news-environment/t/methane-water-near-gas-drilling-sites-study-finds/#.TuPXPHpU2uI

(7) = CNN money 10 May 2011 ‘Tainted drinking water found near gas wells’, http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/09/news/economy/natural_gas_fracking_duke/index.htm

(8) = Bloomberg 12 Dec 2011 ‘Wyoming’s Tainted Water Puts Pressure on EPA to Act on Gas Fracking’,http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-12/wyoming-s-tainted-water-pressures-epa-on-to-act-on-gas-fracking.html

(9) = http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

(10) = The Independent Petroleum Association of America 05 Jun 2009 ‘Hydraulic Fracturing under attack’,http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/HFUnderFire.pdf , ‘The "Energy In Depth" project would not be possible without the early financial commitments of: El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, IPAA, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.’

(11) = BBC news 28 Nov 2011 ‘How fracking affects a community in Pennsylvania’,  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15919248

(12) = Korey A. Kirker & Ryan N. Burger (2011) ‘JUST THE FRACKING FACTS’, Swanson School of Engineering 9 April 20011, University of Pittsburgh , Eleventh Annual Freshman Conference, http://region8water.colostate.edu/PDFs/1267.pdf

(13) = see (10) above)

(14) = Condisine, Timothy J et al (2011) ‘The Pennsylvania Marcellus Natural Gas Industry: Status, Economic Impacts, and Future Potential’, Pennsylvania State University College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering http://marcelluscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Final-2011-PA-Marcellus-Economic-Impacts.pdf , p ii ‘Acknowledgements The authors of this study acknowledge that the Marcellus Shale Coalition provided the funding for this study.’

(15) = Factcheck.org 14 Oct 2011 ‘Just the Fracking Facts’, http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/just-the-fracking-facts/

(16) = Marcellus Shale Coalition – Full Members, http://marcelluscoalition.org/about/full-members/

(17) = See (10) above

(18) = Pittsburgh Post Gazette 07 Nov 2011 ‘Corporate funding of Marcellus Shale studies at universities raises alarms’http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11311/1188150-503.stm#ixzz1gApAdRyG  (details companies involved in fracking funding studies of fracking at American universities, some of whom refuse to provide details of who funds research – including Pennsylvania State University and the University of Pittsburgh)

(19) = Pittsburg Post Gazette 06 Nov 2011 ‘Drilling on Campus: Marcellus Shale boom puts colleges at crossroads’, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11310/1187594-113.stm#ixzz1gB2BK1jO (details how students associations and campus groups in Pennsylvania university are selling drilling rights for fracking operations to companies on campus)

(20) = See (12) above

(21) = Reuters 14 Dec 2009 ‘California aquifers seen rapidly losing water’, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/15/us-water-california-idUSTRE5BE0FP20091215

(22) = US geological survey ‘Groundwater depletion’, http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html

(23) = BBC News 06 Oct 2009 ‘Jordan faces up to water crisis’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8292228.stm

Private creditors and banks' refusal to write down Greek debts likely to lead to Argentina style default

The Guardian has reported that German Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to get Greece’s private sector creditors, including the banks, to forgive some of Greece’s debts to them as part of a bail-out package for the Greek government. Some IMF and other economists argued for the same thing (1) – (2). The banks and other private creditors refused (3).

If they continue in their greed in refusing to give up any of the money owed to them Greece will most likely default on it’s debts and they will get not one penny.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy has claimed that leaving the Euro is not an option for either France or Greece as if they did their debts would still be denominated in Euros, the Greek and French currency would be worth far less than 1 euro per unit of currency and so their debt would effectively increase (4).

However if Greece has defaulted on all it’s debts this would not be a problem for them. It might affect their balance of payments negatively (i.e increase the value of what they import compared to what they export) but compared to the harsh conditions set for bail-out and the massive size of Greece’s debts this might seem like a minor problem.

The IMF and Greece’s governmental creditors in the EU have set the usual conditions of privatisation of public services and assets, sacking of public sector employees and cuts in welfare payments (5).

The privatisations demanded include the privatisation of water, which will price many of the poorest out of being able to afford water at all. Privatisation of water supplies led to cholera epidemics when it was done in South Africa as many people couldn’t afford piped water any more; and to riots in Cochabamba in Bolivia after the foreign water firms who bought up Bolivian water infrastructure started charging for the entire cost of new investments by raising prices in advance to cover the whole cost of major investments up front (6)  - (9).

They also include electricity (10). This would remove the revenues of one of the few public services that could turn a profit from government.

If the Greek government agrees to all this the likelihood is that the country will be tipped into a second even worse ‘double dip’ recession. Given that and massive public opposition to the rescue package conditions, since most Greeks don’t see why they should pay for the decisions of bankers and politicians who caused the crisis through lobbying for and implementing deregulation of the financial sector across most of the developed world, it seems likely the Greek government will either have to default, partially or entirely, on it’s debts, or else it will fall and whatever government replaces it will be forced to.

The IMF and EU conditions on the bail out are not addressing the main cause of Greece's debts either. This is tax avoidance through corruption. Many people and companies who can afford to, bribe officials or politicians to allow them to evade taxes altogether, resulting in the gap between tax revenues and government expenditure and placing the tax burden on those who can least afford it - the people and small businesses who can't afford to pay bribes (along with those who could but decide it would be wrong to) (11).

Defaulting on a large percentage of their other foreign debts did not work out badly for Argentina, in fact leading to it finally getting out of a situation of mass unemployment and massive debt. The debt default and repudiation of IMF conditions was followed by rapid growth which was interrupted briefly in 2009 by a recession caused by the global financial crisis, followed by more rapid growth. (The table on this link shows Argentina’s growth rate since 2002 if you change the start year to 2002.)   (12) – (14).

 Argentina did have help from Venezuela’s government, which had a surplus when oil prices were high due to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and tension over whether there’d be war with Iran. Venezuela funded Argentina paying off it’s debts to the IMF. Foreign creditors were then forced to accept 25% of the money initially owed to them (15) – (16).

As a result last year Argentina was  able to pay off  it’s debts at a rate equivalent to creditors getting 51% of what was initially owed to them despite suffering a recession due to the global financial crisis and having to default on debt payments again in 2009 (17) – (18).

Development economist Ha Joon Chang has pointed out that many developing countries have defaulted on their debts without disaster ensuing in the past and they were rapidly able to get new loans from new investors (19).

The IMF is usually far more concerned with what is good for foreign creditors than what’s good for the people of countries it’s imposing conditions on for loans and grants, because it’s funded by the richest countries and they appoint it’s head.

 

(1) = guardian.co.uk 17 Jun 2011 ‘Germany climbs down over Greece bailout demands’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/17/greece-bailout-germany-private-banks

(2) = guardian.co.uk 03 Jun 2011 ‘Anger mounts in Greece as eurozone ministers edge nearer to bailout deal’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/03/greece-debt-crisis-second-bailout-talks

(3) = See (1) above

(4) = EU business 27 Jun 2011 ‘Sarkozy says France will propose new plan to aid Greece’, http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/06/27/greece-debates-new-austerity-plan?videoId=216516632

(5) = Reuters 14 May 2011 ‘EU,IMF pushing Greece to fully privatise utilities – reports’,http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/14/greece-economy-idUSLDE74D02920110514

(6) = See (5) above

(7) = J. Pauw (2003)‘The politics of underdevelopment: metered to death-how a water experiment caused riots and a cholera epidemic’ in  Int J Health Serv. 2003;33(4):819-30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14758861

(8) = Water Justice 19 Oct 2004 ‘The UK Government and Water Privatisation’,http://www.waterjustice.org/analysis.php?componentID=2&articleID=83

(9) = The Nation 28 Jan 2005 ‘The Politics of Water in Bolivia’,  http://www.thenation.com/article/politics-water-bolivia

(10) = See (5) above

(11) = BBC Radio 4, 11 Feb 2010 'From Our Own Correspondent - No Tax Please we're Greek', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8509244.stm

(12) = BBC News 21 Nov 2002 ‘Crisis-hit Argentina defaults on debt’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2471617.stm

(13) = Guardian 02 Apr 2009 ‘Argentina heads for return of debt default that 'left it out of the world' seven years ago’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/argentina-debts-economic-crisis

(14) = Trading Economics -  ‘Argentina GDP Growth rate’, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/argentina/gdp-growth

(15) = guardian.co.uk 19 Dec 2005 ‘Goodbye and Good Riddance’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/dec/19/argentina.internationalnews

(16) = See (11) above

(17) = Guardian.co.uk 16 Apr 2010 ‘Argentina to repay 2001 debt as Greece struggles to avoid default’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/16/argentina-to-repay-2001-debt

(18) = See (12) above

(19) = Ha Joon Chang (2010) ‘23 Things they don’t tell you about capitalism’, Allen Lane, 2010

Libya : Most Libyans don't want any foreign military intervention - and that includes the vast majority of Gaddafi's opponents

Something those people calling for military intervention in Libya (and condemning the UN and Obama for not ordering it) should hear, is that even most of Gaddafi's opponents in Libya don't want any foreign military intervention in their country - and even many exiles are against it

For instance an NPR reporter in Bengazhi found

NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro said …Protesters also made clear that they do not welcome foreign intervention in Libya…….“They don't want to be rescued, they don't want any military intervention,” Garcia-Navarro reported from Benghazi. “They have done this themselves, they say, and they will get rid of Moammar Gadhafi finally themselves, as well.” (1)

Mahmoud Al Nakou, a Libyan exile in London, wrote

Despite the heavy sacrifice they are offering every day, Libyans utterly reject any foreign intervention, even for their defence and protection. From the outset, Gaddafi warned his overthrow would make Libya the same horrific, chaotic arena that Iraq and Afghanistan are today. But the people are adamant that this revolution is theirs alone. (2)

Al Jazeera reports that

Opposition protesters in eastern Libya have formed a national council, pledging to help free areas of the country still under Muammar Gaddafi's rule. Hafiz Ghoga, spokesman for the new National Libyan Council that was launched in the city of Benghazi on Sunday, said …..

…“We will help liberate other Libyan cities, in particular Tripoli through our national army, our armed forces, of which part have announced their support for the people," Ghoga said.

Ghoga said the newly formed council was not contacting foreign governments and did not want them to intervene.

His comments came after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington was "reaching out" to opposition groups in the east.and was prepared to offer "any kind of assistance" to Libyans seeking to overthrow the regime. (3)

No doubt opinion is divided and there will be a minority in favour of it, but it’s clear the vast majority of Gaddafi’s opponents don’t want any foreign militaries in their country and after the bloodbaths and systematic torture in Afghanistan and Iraq and Western governments’ ulterior motive in Libya – disputes with Gaddafi over oil profits, who could blame them?

Even resigned Libyan Justice Minister Abdel Jalil (another member of the ‘National Council’ of the revolution), who seems to be the Libyan version of Curveball, a defector who tells Western governments whatever lies they want to hear to get their favour, said he was against foreign military intervention in a TV interview with Al Jazeera.

UPDATE: Mustafa Abdel Jalil has replied to questions on a no fly zone and foreign military intervention by saying “What we want is an air embargo to stop Gaddafi bringing in mercenaries.” but that “Any intervention will be confronted with more force than we are using against Gaddafi.” , which sounds like the Council do want a no-fly zone but don't want foreign troops on the ground, assuming Jalil speaks for the whole Council(4).

UPDATE 5th March : Since the 1st of March some rebels in Benghazi have been calling for both a no-fly zone and air-strikes against Gaddafi's forces, but only if this is a UN authorised operation (5). It seems unlikely the Russian or Chinese governments will approve either on the UN Security Council unless Gaddafi starts using his air-force against civilians (as previous reports said he was). The Libyan airforce has switched to targeting arms and ammunition dumps to stop them falling into rebel hands - although there are also reports of water pipelines to rebel held cities being targeted, which - if they succeeded in hitting and cutting them (which they don't seem to have so far) could kill a lot of civilians and rebels through shortages of clean water (as they have in Iraq from 1991 to present). The Iraqi no-fly zones were never UN authorised, though the Bosnian no fly zone was.(6) - (8)

There is no reason why humanitarian flights of food, water, aid and to help transport migrant workers trapped on the Libyan/Egyptian and Libyan/Tunisian borders home should not be increased though, with military escorts if necessary. No-one could deny the need for these flights and many lives are already being saved by relatively small scale humanitarian flights by the British government and others (9)

(1) = NPR (US National Public Radio) 27 Feb 2011 ‘Libyan Rebels Close In On Tripoli’,http://www.npr.org/2011/02/27/134101354/libya-rebels-control-closest-city-to-capital

(2) = guardian.co.uk 27 Feb 2011 ‘Libya: neither tribal nor Islamist’ by Mahmoud Al Nakou,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/27/libya-democracy-freedom-extremists-gaddafi

(3) = Al Jazeera 27 Feb 2011 ‘Libya opposition launches council’,http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011227175955221853.html

(4) = Sky News 28 Feb 2011 'Libya: Rebels 'May Use Force To Take Tripoli'', http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201102115942113

(5) = Washington Post 05 Mar 2011 'As Gaddafi holds on, some Libyans seek foreign intervention', http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/01/AR2011030106963.html

(6) = BBC 01 Mar 2011 'Libya ammunition dump avoids air attack' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12614632

(7) = CNN News Stream transcript 03 Mar 2011 'Fight for Libya Heating Up; Crimes Against Humanity in Libya; Mubarak Corruption Allegations', http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/03/nwsm.01.html

(8) = NYT 28 Feb 2011 'Qaddafi’s Forces Hit Back at Rebels',http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/world/africa/01unrest.html

(9) = guardian.co.uk 02 Mar 2011 'Libya: Britain sends planes to help with mass airlift of refugees', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/02/libya-britain-sends-planes-refugees

A ceasefire allowing helicopters and trucks to be used to bring aid to flood victims is the way to win to save lives and win hearts and minds

Survivors of the floods in Pakistan face hunger, lack of clean water and exposure to the elements. A ceasefire could allow more of the helicopters being used in Afghanistan and some of the 5,000 truckloads a month of supplies going to NATO troops there to be used to rescue supply flood victims - saving lives and winning hearts and minds - Picture - AFP/Getty Images via CNN

With tens of millions of people without food or clean water after the floods in Pakistan; and the UN urgently requesting more helicopters for the aid effort; NATO governments should declare an immediate unilateral ceasefire in Afghanistan and re-direct many of their military helicopters and supply trucks from the war to the relief effort (1) – (4).

This could save large numbers of lives and win large numbers of hearts and minds which cannot be won by continuing the war, especially as the flood hit areas include some with large Pashtun populations, the same group which most Taliban on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border come from.

If the Taliban agree to a ceasefire then some of the vast quantities of ammunition and fuel currently being shipped to Pakistan and then through passes into Afghanistan for NATO forces could be replaced by aid shipped and trucked to flood survivors, with the operation placed under the command of charities, not military commanders.

Currently 5,000 truckloads a month of supplies are shipped to Pakistan then trucked through Pakistan and Afghanistan via the Khyber Pass to NATO forces there. Yet enough labourers and trucks have been hired to re-open routes that NATO spokespeople say “There’s no disruption that would influence any of our operations at that sort of level.”. (5) – (6).

If the Taliban continue attacks on NATO forces during a ceasefire called to help other Afghans, Pashtuns and Muslims they will lose support as a result.

I’m personally in favour of withdrawing from Afghanistan, but of course as long as we have troops in Afghanistan we have a duty to keep them supplied with enough food, ammunition, fuel and transport to avoid un-necessary casualties – so the aid redirected could not include the use of all the helicopters in Afghanistan or the redirection of all supply trucks to carry aid instead.

However if all military offensives were suspended by a ceasefire the troops would require far less supplies for purely defensive operations. The message sent  by helicopters and supply trucks being sent to save Muslims would have an immense impact on the view of NATO governments held by ordinary Afghans, Pakistanis and Muslims worldwide; just as many flood survivors have been turned towards Islamic fundamentalist groups by receiving aid from them. More importantly it could save huge numbers of lives.

It could also help build trust for a peace agreement which will have to come sooner or later in a war in which US intelligence reports show 90% of the people fighting NATO are neither Taliban nor Muslim fundamentalists (7).

The war in Afghanistan has been extended to Pakistan by the Obama administration on a much greater scale than under Bush, with more unmanned drone strikes (causing many civilian casualties), more US military aid to the Pakistan military dependent on them fighting the Pakistan Taliban and more US Special Forces leading Pakistan ‘counter terrorism’ units as they, for instance, round up suspected Taliban, torture them and shoot them in the head. Dozens of tortured bodies were found in the town of Swat for instance, after a US led offensive by the Pakistan military. Later a bomb set there killed 3 US special forces trainers. Swat is one of the areas hit by flooding. (8) – (13).

The Taliban on both sides of the border have committed plenty of murders of their own, including murdering a woman who made her living by dancing and stoning women accused of adultery to death.

This does not make torture and summary execution without trial of anyone suspected of being a Taliban, without any trial, somehow better though, especially since it will result in the torture and murder of many people who turn out to be innocent.

So far some victims of the floods say they have had more help from Islamic political parties like that of former Prime Minister  Nawaz Sharif and from more extreme groups linked to the Pakistan Taliban than they have from their own government or foreign governments (though some have actually welcomed any help, including from US forces). If this continues it will both cost a lot of civilian lives – far more than terrorism – and win a lot of hearts and minds – for the Taliban and similar extremists (14).

If NATO continues to use helicopters, ships and trucks which could be helping flood victims to send more fuel and ammunition to fight a war in Afghanistan while millions of Pakistanis starve or die of waterborne diseases due to lack of clean water though, the message to them will be clear : that NATO governments don’t really care about saving their lives, nor about winning their hearts of minds by any means except force or the threat of it. This will be especially so as the trucks bringing supplies to NATO troops in Pakistan via the passes on the border in North-West Pakistan will be passing through flood hit areas on their way.

Currently the US military have provided 19 helicopters out of at least 225 that they have based in Afghanistan and have rescued thousands of people from drowning (15) – (18). (They have far more helicopters than this in total worldwide but the majority are being repaired and maintained at any one time. The British military, much smaller, has 500, though most aren’t suitable to carry troops and many have to be repaired and refitted at any one time (19)). This is great to hear and has saved thousands from drowning, but a pretty small contribution for the second largest economy in the world and the only superpower, particularly compared to the hundreds left devoted to the war in Afghanistan.

NATO also promised to send ships and planes with aid. So far that seems to have amounted to just three planeloads from the whole of NATO (much of it from Slovakia, one of the poorest and smallest countries in NATO) and one US navy ship carrying 1,000 marines. Again this aid is welcome and important and saving lives, but compared to the resources devoted to killing people in Afghanistan, it’s very small stuff, especially coming from an organisation which includes the largest military in the world and two of its wealthiest economies – the EU and US – not forgetting Canada (20) – (23).

NATO’s website boasts of having “transported more than 421,000 pounds of emergency supplies”, with pounds presumably chosen as the unit of measurement because if you translate that to tonnes it comes out at just 186 tonnes – a small fraction of the amount supplied to NATO troops in Afghanistan over the same period (24).

By 25^th August the UN said it had just 13 helicopters for the flood rescue effort – and for the supply of food and clean water to refugees on a scale that dwarfs the rescue effort (25).

 It’s not much good rescuing people from drowning if you then let them and a thousand times as many others die of hunger, exposure or water borne disease.

The US’s defence budget for the financial year 2010-2011 is  $637 billion (a billion being a thousand million here). Spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since 2001 already exceeds $1 trillion (i.e 1 million million dollars).US government spending on the war on Afghanistan for the same period is estimated to come out at around $41 billion (41 thousand million). It’s pledge for aid to Pakistan flood victims stands at 150 million, which, while it’s the most pledged by any government so far, works out at less than 0.4% of it’s budget for the Afghanistan war this year. Even if you compare total US aid to Pakistan each year, at $7.5 billion over 5 years, or $1.5 billion a year, it comes to under 4% of spending on the war on Afghanistan per year, despite education and employment being far more effective ways to reduce terrorism and the overlap of sectarian violence with crime (26) – (27).

British government priorities don’t seem to be much better – one helicopter for instance being used to carry British Prime Minister David Cameron about on a public relations and vote getting exercise – and another used to let Deputy PM Nick Clegg do the same a few days later. Apparently this use of a helicopter was more important than either transporting troops in Afghanistan or saving drowning or hungry or ill people in Pakistan. The main debate in the media was over whether security against the Taliban shooting Cameron’s helicopter down was good enough or not (28) – (29).

Far more money and effort is being invested in getting ammunition and fuel to NATO forces to continue the war than to save any civilian lives in Afghanistan. This is exactly how you lose a war for the hearts and minds of the majority of the population.

(1) = UN General Assembly 19 Aug 2010 ‘General Assembly Calls for Strengthened Emergency Relief to Meet Pakistan’s Urgent Needs after Massive Destruction Caused by Unprecedented, Devastating Floods ;Secretary-General Briefs on Visit, Says Disaster Test for Global Solidarity; World Must Act, So ‘This Natural Disaster Does Not Become a Man-Made Catastrophe’, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga10969.doc.htm

(2) = BBC News 20 Aug 2010 ‘UN says Pakistan urgently needs more aid helicopters’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11040017

(3) = BBC News South Asia 25 Aug 2010 ‘Pakistan floods: Aid effort needs more helicopters’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11080542 ; ‘The aid operation in Pakistan urgently needs at least 40 more helicopters to help an estimated 800,000 people trapped by flood waters, the UN says. The warning comes as the country's prime minister said he was "seriously concerned" about potential epidemics of water-borne diseases like cholera and diarrhoea.’

(4) = Reuters 25 Aug 2010 ‘U.N. appeals for more helicopters for Pakistan flood aid’, http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100825/tts-uk-pakistan-floods-ca02f96_2.html ; ‘"We have got thirteen helicopters right now. We would like another 37 because more are needed," said U.N. humanitarian spokesman Maurizio Giuliano. "We are using aid drops. It's not the best way of doing it, but it is the only way."....The World Food Programme urged Pakistan's government to quickly help the 800,000 people who can only be reached by air. "The fear is they may die of hunger or any (disease) outbreak," WFP spokesman Amjad Jamal told Reuters.’

(5) = NATO Source Alliance News Blog ‘NATO Supply Route to Afghanistan Disrupted by Pakistan Floods’,http://www.acus.org/natosource/nato-supply-route-afghanistan-disrupted-pakistan-floods ; ‘Pakistan is the major supply route for equipment destined for 141,000 Nato forces in Afghanistan, with some 5000 lorries a month travelling through the Khyber pass on their way to the border and Kabul beyond... A spokesman for the American embassy in Islamabad said supplies were still getting through and that the floods would not affect the safety of service personnel in Afghanistan...“There’s no disruption that would influence any of our operations at that sort of level,” he said.’

(6) = New York Times24 Aug 2010 ‘Pakistan Flooding Disrupts Afghan War Supplies’,http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/world/asia/25pstan.html ; ‘Capt. Kevin Aandahl, a spokesman for United States Transportation Command, which oversees logistics for the war, said that the flooding had slowed supply lines but had not stopped matériel from getting to American troops in Afghanistan. ...“The bottom line is that stuff is moving,” Captain Aandahl said. He said he did not know the extent of the slowdown, but that goods were still crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan via the two main border crossings.

(7) = Boston Globe 09 Oct 2009 ‘Taliban not main Afghan enemy - Few militants driven by religion, reports say’, http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2009/10/09/most_insurgents_in_afghanistan_not_religiously_motivated_military_reports_say/

(8) = NYT 28 Feb 2009 ‘Obama Expands Missile Strikes InsidePakistan’ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/washington/21policy.html

(9) = New Yorker 26 Oct 2009 ‘The Predator War’,http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer ; see especially final section, beginning ‘Predator drones, with their superior surveillance abilities’

(10) = CBS/AP 12 Feb 2010 ‘Obama Has Increased Drone Attacks’,http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/12/politics/main6201484.shtml

(11) = Reuters 23 Aug 2010 ‘US Drone strike kills 20 people in Pakistan’,http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE67M0M320100823 ‘Missiles fired from a U.S. pilotless drone aircraft killed 13 militants and 7 civilians in Pakistan's North Waziristan on Monday, Pakistani intelligence officials said.They said the missiles were fired at a militant hideout. Most of the militants killed were members of the Afghan Taliban. Four women and three children were among the dead, said the officials. (Reporting by haji mujtaba)’

(12) = NYT 14 Sep 2009 ‘Pakistan Army Said to Be Linked to Swat Killings’,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/world/asia/15swat.html

(13) = ABC News 03 Feb 2010 ‘3 U.S. Special Forces Die in Pakistan Bombing’,http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-military-die-pakistan-bombing/story?id=9734681&page=1

(14) = guardian.co.uk 06 Aug 2010 ‘Pakistan floods: Storms ground US supply helicopters’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/pakistan-floods-storms-supply-helicopters ; ‘Also helping the relief effort are Islamist charities including the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation, which western officials say is linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group blamed for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The charity's head, Hafiz Abdur Rauf, said the assistance of the US army was welcome..."This is a difficult situation for us. Every helping hand and donation is welcome," he said, adding that his group was running 12 medical facilities and providing cooked food for 100,000 people every day. The foundation helped out after the Kashmir earthquake under a different name.’

(15) = Reuters 12 Aug 2010 ‘U.S. triples helicopters for Pakistan flood relief’,http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11218798.htm ; ‘Defence Secretary Robert.... Gates said the USS Peleliu, with about 19 helicopters on board, was already off the coast of Karachi. Six helicopters initially sent to Pakistan to assist relief efforts would return back to neighboring Afghanistan, he said.’

(16) = CNN 14 Aug 2010 ‘U.S. helicopters arrive in Pakistan to assist relief efforts’,http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/14/pakistan.floods/index.html#fbid=3s6cdZ_IS9U&wom=false ; ‘Two U.S. Navy MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters arrived Saturday to assist with humanitarian and rescue efforts in flood-ravaged Pakistan....A statement from the U.S. State Department says the two aircraft are part of the contingent of 19 helicopters, ordered to Pakistan on Wednesday by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates....Seven of the 19 craft are now in the country....Twelve Marine CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters will arrive over the next few days.... Since August 5, U.S. military helicopters have rescued more than 3,500 people and transported more than 412,000 pounds of emergency relief supplies, according to the State Department.’

(17) = US Air Forces Central 19 Aug 2010 ‘Additional U.S. Helicopters Arrive for Relief Ops, U.S. Cargo Planes Deliver Aid’, http://www.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123218332

(18) = Time magazine 27 Oct 2009 ‘Why Flying Choppers in Afghanistan Is So Deadly’, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1932386,00.html#ixzz0y1vtP6nQ ; first sentence of 5^th paragraph reads ‘The U.S. has over the past year doubled its number of helicopters based in Afghanistan to about 225, but troop numbers have risen even faster, making for a more acute chopper shortage.’

(19) = Hansard – House of Commons - Written Answers for 17 June 2009, column 338W,http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090617/text/90617w0013.htm

(20) = Telegraph 13 Aug 2010 ‘US Marines arrive to help Pakistan flood efforts as Zardari finally arrives’,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7941984/US-Marines-arrive-to-help-Pakistan-flood-efforts-as-Zardari-finally-arrives.html ; ‘The USS Peleliu arrived off the coast near Karachi on Thursday along with helicopters and about 1,000 Marines....The helicopters will fly to flood-hit areas and rescue stranded people and deliver food and other supplies.’

(21) = Reuters 20 Aug 2010 ‘NATO to provide planes and ships for Pakistan aid’,http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE67J1GN.htm ; ‘NATO said on Friday it would provide ships and aircraft to transport aid to flood-stricken Pakistan, a day after Islamabad warned that militants were trying to exploit the disaster. A statement from the Western military alliance, which is battling Islamist militants in Pakistan's neighbour Afghanistan, said a NATO aircraft would fly in power generators, water pumps and tents donated by Slovakia on Sunday.’

(22) = NATO Source 20 Aug 2010 ‘NATO to airlift aid to Pakistan’,http://www.acus.org/natosource/nato-airlift-aid-pakistan ; ‘In response to a request by the Government of Pakistan, the North Atlantic Council decided today to provide airlift and sealift for the delivery of aid donated by nations and humanitarian relief organizations. A NATO aircraft will conduct a humanitarian relief mission to Pakistan on Sunday 22 August 2010 in support of the flood humanitarian efforts in that country. A Trainer Cargo Aircraft of the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force (AWACS) will transport relief goods donated by the Republic of Slovakia. The flight will depart Geilenkirchen airbase in Germany to Islamabad with goods including power generators, water pumps and tents.’

(23) = Dawn (Pakistan) 27 Aug 2010 ‘Nato sends two more aid planes to Pakistan’,http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/06-nato-sends-two-more-aid-planes-to-pakistan-rs-01

(24) = CNN 14 Aug 2010 ‘U.S. helicopters arrive in Pakistan to assist relief efforts’,http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/08/14/pakistan.floods/index.html#fbid=3s6cdZ_IS9U&wom=false ; Since August 5, U.S. military helicopters have rescued more than 3,500 people and transported more than 412,000 pounds of emergency relief supplies, according to the State Department.’

(25) = See (4) above

(26) = Reuters / NYT 25 Aug 2010 ‘U.S. to give more flood aid to Pakistan’,http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/08/25/world/international-uk-pakistan-floods.html ;  ‘The United States will divert $50 million from a development package for Pakistan towards relief funds, the top U.S. aid official said on Wednesday after touring a flood victims camp supplied by a charity with suspected links to a militant group on a U.S. terrorist list....After touring a camp for flood victims set up in a school, Shah told a news conference that $50 million would be diverted from a five-year, $7.5 billion development package for Pakistan to help the flood relief effort.’

(27) = Congressional Research Service 16 July 2010 ‘The cost of Iraq Afghanistan and other global war on terror operations since 9/11’, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf ; see Summary

(28) = Guardian 27 Aug 2010 ‘Taliban give details of thwarted plan to attack David Cameron’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/27/david-cameron-taliban-attack-plan

(29) = guardian.co.uk 31 Aug 2010 ‘Afghan campaign turning the corner, says Nick Clegg, as Oxfam withdraws from remote area’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/31/afghan-campaign-corner-nick-clegg