How Foreign Interventionism Has Incited West Africa’s Political Woes

Government operation to free hostages ensnared by an al-Qaeda-linked group in a natural gas plant in a remote area in Southeastern Algeria apparently ended up in a fiasco: most hostages were slain along with their captors.(Bloomberg)

Historian Eric Margolis at the LewRockwell.com sheds us  insightful historical compendium of the recent revival of the political turmoil at West Africa.

I categorized his essay into different headings

1. Not an endemic Islam Story

Western governments and media have done the public a major disservice by trumpeting warnings of an "Islamist threat" in Mali. It’s as if Osama bin Laden has popped up on the Niger River. Our newest crisis in Africa is not driven primarily by religion but by a spreading uprising against profoundly corrupt, western-backed oligarchic governments and endemic poverty.

2. The Repercussions of Libya War and the French Client States

Mali’s troubles began last year when it shaky government was overthrown. Meanwhile, heavily-armed nomadic Tuareg tribesmen, who had served Libya’s late Col. Gadaffi as mercenaries until he was overthrown by French and US intervention, poured back into their homeland in Mali’s north. A major unexpected consequence. Fierce Tuareg warriors, who battled French colonial rule for over a century, were fighting for an independent homeland, known as Azawad.

They, a small, violent jihadist group, Ansar Din, and another handful of obscure Islamists drove central government troops out of the north, which they proclaimed independent, and began marching on the fly-blown capital, Bamako.

France, the colonial ruler of most of West Africa until 1960, has overthrown and imposed client regimes there ever since. French political, financial and military advisors and intelligence services ran West Africa from behind a façade of supposedly independent governments. Disobedient regimes were quickly booted out by elite French troops and Foreign Legionnaires based in West Africa that guarded France’s mining and oil interests in what was known as "FrancAfrique."

3. Contagion and Diversion from Domestic Political-Economic Affairs.

Overthrowing African regimes was OK for France, but not for locals. When Mali’s French-backed regime was challenged, France feared its other West African clients might face similar fate, and began sending troops to back the Bamako regime. President Francois Hollande, who had vowed only weeks ago not to intervene in West Africa, said some 2,500 French troops would intervene in Mali. But only on a "temporary basis" claimed Hollande, forgetting de la Rochfoucauld’s dictum "there is nothing as permanent as the temporary!"

Other shaky western-backed West African governments took fright at events in Mali, fearing they too might face overthrow at the hands of angry Islamists calling for stern justice and an end to corruption. Nigeria, the region’s big power, vowed to send troops to Mali. Nigeria has been beset by its own revolutionary jihadist movement, Boko Haram, which claims Muslim Nigerians have been denied a fair share of the nation’s vast oil wealth, most of which has been stolen by corrupt officials.

France’s overheated claim that it faces a dire Islamic threat in obscure Mali could attract the attention of numbers of free-lance jihadists, many who are now busy tearing up Syria. Paris was better off when it claimed its troops were to protect ancient Muslim shrines in Timbuktu. Or it could have quietly sent in the Foreign Legion, as in the past.

Instead, Mali has become a crisis with the US, Britain, West African states and the UN involved in this tempest in an African teapot. A nice diversion from budget crisis.

4. Hostage taking in Algeria and the Expansion of the Theater of War by Interventionists.

Another Algerian jihadist group just attacked an important state gas installation in revenge for France’s assault on Mali. This bloody action has awoken Algeria’s hitherto quiescent Islamic resistance groups. They waged a ten year war against Algeria’s US and French backed military regime, one of the continent’s most repressive regimes, after Algeria’s armed forces crushed Islamists after they won a fair election in 1991.

Over 250,000 Algerians died in a long, bloody civil war. The Algiers government often used gangs of its soldiers disguised as rebel fighters to commit gruesome massacres to blacken the name of the opposition. Algeria may again be headed for a new bloodbath, this time with minority Berber people calling for their independent state.

US air forces and small numbers of Special Forces from its new Africa Command are now entering action in Mali and Algeria. More are sure to follow as West Africa smolders

My comments

As diversionary ploy to distract the public’s attention, wars has usually been the recourse of economically strained nations to drum up political support (via nationalism), as well as, to “suppress dissension among members of the productive class” (Salerno)

Wars has been typically used as justification for further inflationism and for expansionary government or the “opportunity to intensify economic exploitation” (Salerno)

Wars have been used to promote the financial and political interests of vested interested groups represented by military industrial complex “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex” (President Eisenhower), as well as, the neoconservative cabal through the ideological role of “global policeman” which formerly had been based on “global struggle against communism” (Gordon) and neocon goals of “continuing privileged hierarchical rule, and to continue to worship the nation-state and its war-making machine” (Rothbard).

Most likely today’s imperial foreign policies as evidenced by West Africa’s conflicts signify as cauldron of the factors above.

Why Kashmir is Tinderbox for a Nuclear War

Historian Eric Margolis at the lewrockwell.com warns that the contested Kashmir region should always be in one’s radar screen since the area is a flashpoint that can precipitately trigger a world war with the pronounced risks of nuclear exchanges.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars and some very large battles over Kashmir. Both claim the entire mountain state. Pakistan’s intelligence service, ISI, has waged a long covert campaign to insert guerillas into Indian Kashmir to aid a series of spontaneous rebellions against Indian rule by the state’s Muslim majority…

Muslim Kashmiris have been in almost constant revolt against Indian rule since 1947 when the British divided India. Today, 500,000 Indian troops and paramilitary police garrison rebellious Kashmir. Some 40,000-50,000 Kashmiris are believed to have died over the past decade in uprising.

India blames the violence in Kashmir on "cross-border terrorism" engineered by Pakistani intelligence. Human rights groups accuse Indian forces of executions, torture, and reprisals against civilians. Large numbers of Hindus and Sikhs have fled strife-torn Kashmir after attacks by Muslim Kashmiri guerillas. It’s a very bloody, dirty war.

The Kashmir conflict poses multiple dangers. First is the very likely chance that local skirmishing can quickly surge into major fighting involving air power and heavy artillery. In 1999, a surprise attack by Pakistani commandos into the Indian-ruled Kargil region provoked heavy fighting. The two nations, with more than one million troops facing one another, came very close to an all-out war. I have on good authority that both sides put their tactical nuclear weapons on red alert. Angry Indian generals called on Delhi to use its powerful armored corps to cut Pakistan in half. India’s cautious civilian leadership said no.

Second, the Kashmir conflict also involves India’s strategic rival, China. Beijing claims the entire eastern end of the Himalayan border separating India and China, which Chinese troops occupied in a brief 1963 war. China also occupied, with Pakistan’s help, a high strategic plateau on the western end of the Himalayas known as Aksai Chin that was part of historic Tibet.

China is Pakistan’s closest political and military ally. Any major Indian attack on Pakistan would risk intervention by Chinese air, ground and missiles forces in neighboring Tibet.

Third, in the midst of all these serious tensions, India and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons – delivered by air and missile – are on hair-trigger alert. This means that during a severe crisis, both sides are faced with "use it, or lose" decision in minutes to use their nuclear arsenals.

The strategic command and control systems of India and Pakistan are said to be riddled with problems and often unreliable, though much improvement has been made in recent years.

A false report, a flight of birds, and off-course aircraft could provoke a nuclear exchange. By the time Islamabad could call Delhi, war might be on. A US Rand Corp study estimated an Indo-Pakistani nuclear exchange would kill two million immediately, injure or kill 100 million later, pollute the Indus River and send clouds of radioactive dust around the globe.

Given the recent skirmishes and the suspension of trade links, as well as the increasing use of territorial claims by governments as camouflage or as diversion to homegrown economic malaise and of the increasing political recourse towards policies of redistribution via financial repression, this area seems more geopolitically sensitive or more fragile than the East Asia’s territorial dispute.

The Untold Story of the Cuban Missile Crisis

Popular accounts of major historical events have mostly been inaccurate as they have either been incomplete or have been twisted to suit the biases of the author (for whatever purposes).

Historian Eric Margolis narrates of untold story of the Cuban Missile Crisis where covert horse trading between the governments of the US and the USSR led to its resolution thereby averting a nuclear holocaust.

Writes Mr. Margolis at the LewRockwell.com 

HAVANA – The black, sinister-looking Soviet SS-4 intermediate-ranged missile on display at Havana’s La Cabana fortress looks old, roughly finished, and rather primitive.

But this missile, and 41 others (including some longer-ranged SS-5’s) terrified the United States during the October 1962 missile crisis – 13 days that shook the world. Each of them could have delivered a one megaton warhead onto America’s East Coast cities, starting with Washington DC. One megaton is a city-buster.

When the Cuban missile crisis erupted 50 years ago this month, I was a student at Washington’s Georgetown University Foreign Service School. Cuba was headline news. The Cold War was at its peak.

A CIA-operation to invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro’s Marxist government had spectacularly failed at the Bay of Pigs. The new, inexperienced US president, John Kennedy, got cold feet on the last minute and called off vital air cover for an invasion by Cuban exiles. Deprived of air cover, most were killed or captured. Kennedy should have either call off the amphibious operation or provided it air cover.

The Pentagon then urged a full-scale US invasion of Cuba, backed by massive naval and air power. The Kennedy administration wavered.

Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchev seized the moment by sneaking 42 medium-ranged missiles and smaller tactical nukes into Cuba, right under the nose of the Americans. He gambled the Soviet nuclear-armed missiles would forestall a US invasion of Cuba, which Moscow intended to use as a base to expand its influence in Latin America.

When US U-2 spy planes finally spotted the Soviet missile bases all hell broke loose.

US forces went to DEFCON 3, then DEFCON 2 – the highest readiness stage before all-out war. Six US army and Marine divisions moved to South Florida and Georgia. Nearly 600 US warplanes were poised to attack.

On 25 Oct. nuclear weapons were loaded onto US B-47 and B-52 bombers. Seventy five percent of the Strategic Air Command’s bombers were airborne or poised to attack the USSR. Curiously, the Soviets did not go to maximum readiness.

In an act of madness, Fidel Castro furiously demanded Khrushchev launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US. Decades later, Castro admitted this was a terrible mistake. Fortunately, the Soviet leadership said "nyet!" A nuclear exchange in 1962 between the US and USSR would have killed an estimated 100 million people on each side.

As Soviet freighters steamed towards Cuba, the Kennedy White House imposed a naval and air blockade on Cuba. But it was called a "quarantine" since under international law, a blockade is an act of war. Today, in Washington’s undeclared war against Iran, the favored term is "sanctions."

Read the rest here

Possible Complications from Turkey-Syria Clash

Politicians easily indulge in war without understanding the possible complications from their actions.

Turkey’s recent border clashes with Syria risks opening open of the old wounds which could further sow fissures and destabilize the region. The skirmishes could be used as casus belli or a prelude to a broader theater of conflict which includes the US and Israel.

Historian Eric Margolis explains,  

Turkey's neighborly love-fest ended soon after Syria erupted in civil war. For reasons that still remain murky, Erdogan dropped his "love-thy-neighbor"policy and began actively supporting Syria's insurgents.

Until the Syrian uprising, Turkey had enjoyed good trade and political relations with Damascus. Syria had more or less dropped its claims to Turkish-ruled Hatay province, and told its Kurdish minority not to make trouble for the Turks. Hatay, and its strategic port of Iskenderun, were part of historic Syria (as was Lebanon and Palestine), but passed with French help to Turkish rule in the last century. If relations between Ankara and Damascus continue to worsen, this thorny issue may again heat up.

Turkey blundered into Syria's civil war soon after it erupted in March, 2011. Ankara allowed Syrian insurgent groups, funded and armed by Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, the US and Qatar, to operate from its soil. CIA established an important logistics and communications base for the insurgents at the US air base at Incirlik, Turkey. US, British and French special forces based in Turkey discreetly joined in the war to overthrow the Assad regime in Damascus – all part of Washington's undeclared but very real and intensifying multi-dimensional war against Iran, Syria's closest ally.

Each passing day of Syria's brutal civil war raises the risk that Turkey will send its armed forces into Syria, either to create so-called "civilian corridors"or no-fly zones to ground the Assad regime's air force. All-out NATO intervention led by the US could occur after American presidential elections.

Meanwhile, the besieged Assad regime in Damascus has lost control of a northern border region inhabited by 2 million ethnic Kurds who have become autonomous. Ankara, which faces a virtual independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq and its own long-simmering uprising by its Kurdish minority, is deeply alarmed by the specter of Kurdish nationalism.

The war in Syria has accentuated Turkey's serious Kurdish problem. This writer covered the Turkish – Kurdish conflict in eastern Anatolia a decade ago, in which over 40,000 had died by 1992 alone. Turkey thought it had put an end to the Kurdish PKK insurgency by capturing its leader, Abdullah Ocalan, in 1999. The PKK's main base was in Syria.

Ocalan remains in prison. But the Kurdish independence movement has sprung again to life. Syria will very likely resume aiding Kurdish PKK fighters to exact revenge on Turkey for abetting anti-regime guerillas. This is a huge problem for Turkey as Kurds make up 15-20% of its population.

By fueling Syria's civil war, Erdogan has kicked the Kurdish hornet's nest.

The conflict in Syria is pitting its minority Alawites (an offshoot of Shia Islam), who dominate the Assad regime, against the long-repressed Sunni majority. As Syria's Alawites fight for what some believe is their lives, their struggle is reverberating in Lebanon, where Shiites make up the largest religious community. Turkey's long-marginalized Alevis, who are another distant offshoot of Shia Islam and close to Syria's Alawis, and who are looked down on by the Sunni majority as heretics, are also feeling the reverberations of the Syrian conflict. Alevis may make up as much as 15% of Turkey's population of some 74 million.

Recent revelations of a massacre of Alevis in 1938 at the end of the era of Turkish strongman Ataturk has inflamed Alevi emotions in Turkey and deepened their sense of persecution and historic injustice.

So the Syrian conflict is reopening some of the deep fissures in Turkey's body politics just at a time when its zesty economy was enjoying a 7% growth rate – not far from China's – and Turkey had become the Mideast's cock of the walk.

Now, Syria bodes ill for all involved.

Read the rest here.  

If domestic political situation in Turkey deteriorates due to its present belligerent acts against Syria, then it is not that history repeats itself, but rather the impetuous acts by politicians reignites hostile relationships which had been long buried in the past.

As Prof Joseph Salernon points out, 

As a human endeavor like any other, war making is the product of reason, purpose and choice.

How Actions of the UN Security Council Increases the Risks of World War III

The UN Security Council has been a stooge for the war mongering politicos of Israel, neoconservatives and the military industrial complex which has been increasing the risks of World War III

Writes historian Eric Margolis at the Lew Rockwell.com 

Ahmadinejad has become a vital enabler of Netanyahu’s scare tactics. In reality, both are playing to domestic audiences. Netanyahu is fighting for a third term as Israel suffers from major economic problems. However, his nuclear alarms over Iran have succeeded in sidelining demands for a viable Palestinian state. No one at the UN paid any attention to Palestinian’s plaintive chirps.

There was no mention that Israel’s threats to attack Iran, and its demands the US blitz Iran, clearly violate the UN Charter and international law. Iran’s claims the West and Israel were waging economic and computer war against it and murdering its scientists were shrugged off.

Few seemed to take notice of Russia’s increasingly forceful comments that a US/Israeli attack against Iran or Syria could produce “consequences.” For those who enjoy worrying about a possible World War III,” this could be a good way to begin.

What was again painfully clear is that the UN Security Council is an unfair outdated relic of World War II that needs be expanded and made more democratic – and moved to a neutral nation. The victors of World War II they make the real decisions.

Quote of the Day: Manipulating Public Opinion to Foment War

Today, the most likely culprit are far right Christian fundamentalists, who hate Islam with religious passion, and a group of neconservative businessmen trying to promote war between the US and Muslim world – and namely, Iran. A network of Evangelical broadcasters, publishers and schools churns out a steady stream of anti-Islamic fulminations.

The latest anti-US riots across the Mideast further convinced many Americans that all Muslims are violent extremists. The hate film reinforced the mistaken notion held by many Muslims that the United States is bent on eradicating their faith.

All this fits nicely with efforts by right wing ideologues to push the US into war against Iran. President Obama has so far stoutly refused to give in to war-mongering, no mean feat in an election year in which he is neck-a-neck with Romney.

This week, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, demanded Obama openly define the conditions under which the US would attack Iran. Netanyahu’s American supporters accuse Obama of "throwing Israel under a bus." At times, it appears there are three candidates for office in Washington: Obama, Romney and Netanyahu.

Netanyahu scolded and rebuked Obama for not sending American troops and spending American treasure to attack Iran because it is a potential rival or threat to Israel. Netanyahu is now openly backing Romney for president.

In Yiddish, such behavior is called "chutzpah," a mixture of brazen nerve and outrageous presumption.

Add all this up and we have evil memories of the hysteria and military posturing of August, 1914, the lead-up to World War I, a totally unnecessary conflict that ran out of control and wrecked Europe.

Opinion in the Muslim world, America and Canada is being manipulated by those seeking war. A few more killings, a clash in the congested Gulf, a bombing in the west, and a wider Mideast war could erupt.

This is from historian Eric Margolis talking about the wave of attacks on US embassies in the Middle East (source Lew Rockwell.com)

America’s Asia Military Strategy: Encirclement via Air Power

Naval presence, according to historian Eric Margolis, has not been the real issue of US military expansion in Asia, which has been aimed at a supposed encirclement strategy of China, as already half of US warships, aircraft, and logistics vessels have already been deployed in the region.

The real goal is to expand air power.

Writes Eric Margolis,

However, naval forces are no longer the primary expression of America’s power. The US Air Force has dominated much of the non-communist globe since the 1950’s and serves America’s strategic interests in the same way the Royal Navy imposed the British Empire’s military and commercial power. Air power has played the decisive role in all of America’s military victories since World War I.

The Pentagon plans to strengthen its Pacific air power. This likely includes re-establishing US air bases in the Philippines and Australia, and expanding air bases in Guam, Okinawa, and South Korea.

America has been at war for decades. Its aircraft and warships are aging rapidly. Equally threatening, Congress may force deep military spending cuts as deficits worsen – at a time when the US military is being ordered to keep China bottled up on the Asian mainland.

China need only build its military power close to home. The United States must project and maintain its naval and air power 10,000 km across the Pacific Ocean, a hugely expensive, complex undertaking that gives cash-rich China an important, even decisive advantage.

The recent report of a Drone strike against supposed terrorists in Mindanao coupled by a free hand use of Subic and Clark facilities seems to validate this theory as well as partly my theory of the stealth resurrection of US bases here.

Greece Exit: Fall Back to Better Leap Forward

Historian Eric Margolis argues that Greece must exit the EU to save the euro

At the LewRockwell.com, Mr. Margolis writes,

What would happen to Greece if it quit the euro? Financial chaos, capital flight, riots, and bank failures. But after the apocalypse, Greece would eventually revert to its 1960’s status: a poor but proud nation living off tourism, shipping, agriculture and fishing.

Devaluing a new drachma won’t do much for a nation whose main export is olives and feta cheese. Besides, the Greeks have severely damaged their tourist industry by endless strikes and surly service.

Angela Merkel is rightly concerned that Greece’s exit from the euro would be a blow to Europe’s political unity. This aspect of the crisis is as important as the economic/financial dimension.

But Merkel should also recall the timeless dictum of Prussia’s king and renowned general, Frederick the Great: "he who defends everything, defends nothing."

Greece should never have been admitted to the euro. It snuck into the currency union by hiring those miscreants at Goldman Sachs to falsify its financial books.

Admitting Greece to the euro zone was a bridge too far. Euro membership should be limited to those nations that have solid finances and honest reporting. In short, a club of northern European nations that follow Germanic good government. Unprepared nations, like Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Moldova or Ukraine do not belong in the euro zone. Most have no business in the EU either.

The European Union and euro zone expanded too far, too fast. Retrenchment is now in order. As the French say, "fall back to better leap forward."

Amidst this crisis, what many forget is that it was caused by politicians borrowing too much to buy votes and shady bankers lending recklessly to boost their own bonuses.

If there is one thing we learn from the Euromess it is the Golden Rule: governments must raise any and all funds they spend.

Borrowing from the money lenders is poison. More empires and nations have been ruined by unsustainable borrowing than by wars. Politicians should not be allowed to borrow except for well-defined, long-term projects, likes roads or bridges, in which revenue streams and repayment schedules are clearly defined.

Well, government spending which has led to massive borrowing has been the main culprit that has brought upon this crisis. And to reduce government spending means to allow forces of productivity to flourish. And productivity comes from the free markets. It’s the only way.

Al-Qaida as Bogeyman

Writes journalist Eric Margolis

Al-Qaida was never the vast, worldwide terror organization that President George W. Bush claimed. As I witnessed, it was always tiny, no more than 200 men. Al-Qaida’s original goal was to fight the mostly Tajik and Uzbek Afghan Communists and their Soviet masters.

Al-Qaida became an ally of Taliban in this anti-Communist struggle. But Taliban had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. As the renowned journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave reported from Afghanistan, Taliban’s tribal chiefs tried to oust firebrand Bin Laden from their nation.

Today, what’s left of al-Qaida numbers no more than 25 men in Afghanistan, according to US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Yet President Barack Obama cites the alleged al-Qaida "threat" as the reason for keeping US forces in Afghanistan and keeping Pakistan under semi-occupation. That was the real purpose for releasing these letters. Al-Qaida has become an integral part of US politics.

Al-Qaida is being used as a bogeyman by America’s Republicans to defend bloated US military spending and defend torture as having led to finding bin Laden. My sources tell me a huge bribe led the US to bin Laden, not torture.

Wars or the threat of wars would have to be contrived in order to justify military spending (and inflationism) that benefits the very influential and powerful military industrial complex.

Today's "imperial" wars has basically been in realization of former President Dwight Eisenhower's admonitions in 1960. In a speech Mr. Eisenhower forewarned

[bold emphasis mine]

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

This could likely be one of the “unseen” factors, if not the main factor, behind the recent territorial claims dispute in Southeast Asia.

The Emergence of Capitalist Cuba?

I previously pointed out that the post-Fidel Castro Cuba has broken the proverbial ice of electing to take the road of economic liberalization.

Eric Margolis at the lewrockwell.com examines and predicts Cuba’s future…

Thanks to Raul’s recent reforms, small private enterprise is bubbling up everywhere. Aid and oil from Venezuela has kept the island afloat. People are more outspoken, a little less wary of the secret police and informers. One feels growing energy pulsating into Havana’s delightful old city. With its beautiful buildings, friendly, attractive people, and little music bars with their electrifying salsa bands, Havana is poised to resume its role of 50 years ago as the most fun – and perhaps wickedest city – in the world. All it needs are more hotels, better food, and waves of young Yankee partyers. Already, some 100,000-200,000 Americans sneak into forbidden Cuba each year.

America’s Great Satan, Fidel Castro, is sidelined by age and illness, but Cubans still love their national papa figure. Brother Raul, now pushing 81, has gained respect for his leadership. But once the Castro era is over, what will happen?

Either a power grab by the military and old guard, or the half million Miami-based Cubans will return and rebuild Cuba. A tsunami of US money will swamp Cuba, washing it into the modern world but erasing much of its austere charm and sense of community. Many friends of Cuba do not look forward to this change, though Cubans desperately need relief from their threadbare existence.

More evidence of Cuba’s reforms from Kansas City.com (bold emphasis added)

Across Cuba, there are entrepreneurs like Suarez and Hidalgo, striking out on their own as locksmiths, plumbers, electricians and the like. They've always existed, but operated on a smaller scale, illegally, in the informal economy.

"I can make more money," Suarez said, comparing his take with the official government monthly salary of $20.

In the past 24 months, Cuba's communist government has announced a series of economic openings intended to ease its announced plan to trim the country's bloated government payroll by 1 million jobs and to buy time as the country transitions away from the reign of the two Castro brothers who've ruled since 1959 but now are in their 80s.

The reforms include expanded self-employment, a liberalization of rules for family-run restaurants, more flexibility for Cuban farmers to sell their products, and even creation of fledgling real estate markets in big cities such as Havana and Santiago.

Most of the 181 newly allowed self-employment categories involve menial labor, and services such as beauty salons, barber shops and plumbers. The government says it has granted 371,000 licenses.

The reforms, however, remain far from free-market capitalism. Not included among the openings are medicine, scientific research and a range of technical jobs that the government has kept under its control. There are no wholesale businesses to provide goods and services to entrepreneurs.

What Cuba’s gradualist reforms has done so far has been to legitimize parts of her huge informal economy.

And the direction of Cuba’s reform will likely deepen and accelerate overtime as political leaders realize that their survival will depend on a wealthier citizenry from economic freedom.

Perhaps like Myanmar, whom has been slated to open a stock exchange by 2015, Cuba may even consider reviving the Havana Stock Exchange which was closed in 1960.

Bottom line is that globalization vastly aided by the internet, or the information age, have begun to pry open formerly closed economies. Forces of decentralization have swiftly been diffusing across the world.

And given the huge potentials of the reformist nations of Cuba and Myanmar, especially coming from a depressed level, investors ought to keep an eye on these prospective frontier markets.

Could the US be using the Euro crisis to extract support for a possible war against Iran?

The US appears to be dead set on bringing war to Iran.

Reports suggests that bailouts of the Eurozone via the IMF in exchange for embargoes against Iran could be part of the rescue package dangled or concessions arranged by US authorities.

Writes the Wall Street Journal Blog,

Europe may have just traded a U.S.-pushed Iranian oil embargo in exchange for Washington’s support of International Monetary Fund bailout loans to Italy and Spain, if one economist’s speculation is right.

Jacob Kirkegaard, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, speculates the timing Europe’s newly-proposed ban on Iranian oil imports is too fortuitous to be purely coincidental.

Greece, Spain and Italy–in that order–heavily depend on Iranian crude and have been the most resistant to an embargo. They are now no longer fighting a ban–Italy has stated it would support it in principle while the others have signaled they wouldn’t stand in the way. [The agreement in principle is subject to substantial negotiations on timing or exemptions for long-term deals.]

Each of those countries are also the current epicenters of Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. Athens is in the middle of negotiating an agreement with bondholders on a debt deal that will pave the way for a near doubling of emergency loans, including from the IMF. Italy has to roll over nearly $340 billion in debt this year, but the cost of borrowing has soared beyond levels economists say is sustainable. Rome late last year turned down an offer for an IMF loan, but many economists say Italy will need IMF credit to pull itself out of its financial mire. And Spain’s banks are facing a housing bubble that could very well mean Madrid must soon ask for IMF assistance.

Earlier the US has already began to apply political pressure by imposing sanctions against Iran’s central bank.

From Yahoo,

Iran's currency hit a new record low to the U.S. dollar on Monday, two days after President Barack Obama signed into law a bill targeting Iran's central bank as part of the West's efforts to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program.

The semiofficial Mehr news agency said the Iranian currency's exchange rate hovered late Monday around 17,800 riyals to the dollar, marking a roughly 12 percent slide compared to Sunday's rate of 15,900 riyals to the dollar. The riyal was trading at around 10,500 riyals to the U.S. dollar in late December 2010.

The report said Iran's central bank called on Iranian experts to meet Wednesday to discuss the turbulence in the currency market.

The bill Obama signed on Saturday includes an amendment barring foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. The Obama administration, however, is looking to soften the impact of the measure, fearing they could lead to a spike in global crude oil prices or pressure key allies that import Iranian oil.

Economic sanctions are meant to isolate nations which may invite or have been designed to provoke reprisals.

I am reminded by World War II, where economic sanctions has served as major compelling factor that has prompted Japan to strike at the US.

Writes historian Eric Margolis,

When in late 1941, US President Franklin Roosevelt sought (my view) to push Japan into the war by imposing an embargo of oil and scrap metal on Japan, Tokyo had a two-year stockpile of oil.

Tokyo’s military-dominated government faced a stark choice: go immediately to war in hopes of a quick victory while there was still oil, or watch its oil stores dwindle way and thus face military impotence. War was the choice.

Japan’s leading military officer, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, warned Japan was going to war for oil, and would be defeated because of lack of oil.

Stirring up patriotic passion through war has been a facile way to generate votes, especially with the US presidential elections fast approaching.

With President Obama’s improving but still near record low approval ratings, chances of re-election remains murky.

And it is of no wonder why most of the GOP Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, have also adapted a war stance.

Presidential aspirants from both camps have palpably been appealing to the public's emotions or to patriotism to solicit votes, as well as, tacitly appease the military industrial and banking interests groups.

In the words of former United States Senator from Indiana Albert J. Beveridge (1862-1927) also an American historian

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

People get what they deserve.

Will The US Fall For Osama Bin Laden’s Trap?

From Eric Margolis at the Lew Rockwell.com, (bold emphasis mine)

Bin Laden’s primary goal is overthrowing US-backed autocratic regimes across the Muslim world. Attacking western targets that supported them was only secondary.

Col. Gadaffi was not totally wrong when he blamed al-Qaida for Libya’s uprising. Bin Laden was not pulling the strings of Libya’s rebellion, but al-Qaida’s revolutionary philosophy and anti-western jihad certainly inspired many young people from Morocco to Bangladesh.

That’s Washington’s big problem. Invading Libya will intensify the fires burning in the Arab world and create yet another anti-western jihad.

This is exactly Osama bin Laden’s strategy: draw the bull in the china shop – US into many small wars in the Muslim world – and so bleed it dry. So far, the US has been cooperating with Osama’s master plan.