Posts by thedailyjournalist:
- · Jews vs Muslims
- · Sunni vs Shia
- · Wars over crude oil
New York State corruption report
December 4th, 2013
The Commission to Investigate Public Corruption.
To read report: New York State corruption report
China-Russia Relations: Tales of Different “Pivots”
December 2nd, 2013
By Yu Bin.
To read article: China-Russia Relations:Tales of Different “Pivots”
Alleged chat: Bradley Manning and Julian Assange
November 29th, 2013
By The Daily Journalist.
To read conversation: Alleged chat: Bradley Manning and Julian Assange
History of the Russian Nuclear Weapon Program
November 27th, 2013By Hawkins, Houston T.
To read report: History of the Russian Nuclear Weapon Program
Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2013
November 21st, 2013By U.S. Defense Mil.
To read report: Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2013
NSA USSID SP0018J Spying Drug Traffic Radio
November 19th, 2013
By Cryptome.
To read: NSA USSID SP0018J Spying Drug Traffic Radio
JPMorgan and the Wen Family
November 17th, 2013
Posted by Cryptome: By The New York Times.
Read report: JPMorgan and the Wen Family
Anti-satellite Weapons, Deterrence and Sino-American Space Relations
November 15th, 2013By Michael Krepon & Julia Thompson.
To read the document:
Is technology a complicated asset for the future?
November 14th, 2013
The Daily Journalist Opinion.
Technology has become an essential part of modern times, that is here to stay for a long time. Unlike in the past where man power was crucial for innovation and development during the era of Industrialization, technology has branded itself as the modern prodigy that allows services, industry, utilities and agriculture to flourish as never before seen.
A) Corporations like “Wal-Mart”, have started to include on their “check out” sections intelligent scanning machines as opposed to cashiers, which have taken people out of work.
B) Online business are responsible for extinguishing physical based retail companies. This can be observed specially during Christmas season, as many “big malls” have shown a big decrease of shopper consumption during seasonal boom sales.
C) Blockbuster (movies) as many music industry labels and other different industries are losing the battle against illegal downloading, made from Bit-Torrents, file shares, and peer2peer downloading sites.
D) Even Wall Street which was once flooded with stockbrokers, is now changing their large rooms to exchange stocks and bonds via electronically without the need of paper. So the paper industry must have lost money because it’s not been used as before digitization arrived.
And many other examples….
The question is simple. Many people are losing their jobs to manufacturers in China, but with the addition of technological advances it seems that China is not the main reason unemployment is going up, as technology itself is the biggest cause of job losses.
Unlike people, machines work much more efficiently, never get sick and don’t need insurance premiums to accommodate their health. Also in principal, insurance is also not quite as needed for machines than as for employees. This seems a disadvantage for people, but not for a corporations financial perspective. Faster production, less wages paid, means more profit in theory.
Is technology going to replace even more workers in the future? Wouldn’t that spark a big crisis in the future? Can machines really do the job more efficiently than our own brains? Should technology dominate our future generations or will the future generation dominate technology? If companies sacrifice the human workforce for machines, in the end how could the unemployed afford to buy more products if they’re not working ( more losses for the company than gain)?
Seyed Mostafa Mousavipour.
“These days science and technology are pushing relentlessly from every direction. The exponential upsurge in technological advances is increasingly transforming and influencing existing mechanisms of everyday life, ranging from personal relationships to professional aspects.
The ever-rising tide of technology is, however, getting daunting due to the inexorable pace of technology which has rendered us unable to keep it from infiltrating different areas of our lives. That is, even if we disapprove of this massive influx, our existence today is inextricably entwined with technology in one way or another that it has become an impossibility to keep it at arm’s length. Quite ironically, this much-vaunted fruit of mankind venture – technology – is here to remain, survive and even outlive or replace us.
Fear of this unleashed force is now haunting us: a day may come that man is tripped over by technology; a day when man is the servant of machines, and they are quite capable of manipulating him. This unsavory premonition is unfortunately among the core parameters of capitalist societies – those which have already climbed up the dizzying pinnacle of science and technology at the expense of ethics and humanity.
In other words, capitalist societies are governed by giant businesses which attach a far greater value to material gains. I believe if we do not revert to the core ethical and human values, we will be devoured by technology one day. ”
David J. Merkel.
“There have been many complaints about improvements in technology affecting labor over the last 200+ years. For the most part, they are bogus.
That we can produce more with less labor is a good thing. The excess labor can seek other employment, and here is what I would suggest:
Think back on the era (around 1800, think Jane Austen) where wealthy families had a lot of resources, and hired a lot of people to aid them in their daily lives. If the income distribution is tilting toward rich folks controlling more of total income, it makes sense to provide services to them, much as it was in the early 1800s.
This takes some humility, but I have worked for rich guys before, and it can be quite remunerative to be on their team.
You can’t change technology, but you can change how you interface with it. Look for your best advantage, and work with the rich, or use the technology to create your own firm – that is what I am doing.”
Adil F Raja.
“The question brought forward is most current and important issue having deep rooted impact on the global demography and socioeconomic health of world population. As far as the advent of technology and it’s future growth is concern, I consider it like downhill flowing water which will eventually find it’s way forward. The solution lies in not withholding progress, but identifying and employing innovative measures to provide alternative means of employment to the masses.
These means should be related to fields of work where technology alone can never completely substitute manpower, like agricultural field, cattle/dairy farming and livestock management. Food security being an equally emerging global problem area like the subject being discussed can absorb numerous workforce to augment the production, in particular at the developing and third world countries.
The supply chain related to this market is also manpower intensive. This is just one point in case as how to tackle the posed problem beside many other innovative ideas and options. The process of human evolution and modernization will go on as the technology evolves further, but the basic needs and instincts of human beings will remain the same with slight alterations. The purpose of mankind therefore never gets lost but have to be found/rediscovered at every level.”
Claude Nougat.
“As always, those questions are so loaded they’d require a whole book to answer them! So, just briefly:
1. technology is here to stay and will displace more and more people in the future, creating ever larger spirals of unemployment;
2. that may (and does) have an effect on consumption at the macro level: as masses become unemployed there will be inevitable dips in consumption – but not long-lasting as a reaction sets in and the business cycle goes on an upswing again;
3. What causes the upswing? The adaptation of the workforce to the new, re-configured job market. Why do I say “re-configured”? Because the jobs that need to be filled, as technology advances, are increasingly demanding in special skills. Because technology is not a monster that goes forward on its own. No, it doesn’t, it’s created by hum’ans! So new jobs open up (mostly IT and Silicon Valley-linked jobs nowadays, but the future may bring other kinds of technical jobs…) And the business cycle starts over again.
4. What worries me is something else: the hijacking of technology by the One Percent. Technological advances provide benefits that increasingly only the ultra-rich can afford. Humanity will be divided into two groups: the majority that ekes a living, barely surviving in polluted, treeless, unlivable cities and a tiny minority that will live a charmed life in protected, gated communities with clean air and green plants…”
John Hauserman.
“The question assumes that the economy is a zero sum game. History tells us that such is a false assumption. Just slightly over a decade ago our economy hummed at a rate which equaled technical full employment. In other words; somewhere around 3-4% of the population, for whatever reasons, is not seriously seeking employment and so an unemployment rate below 4% signifies full employment.
Under the zero sum scenarios, a job which is lost to a machine is simply lost–end of story. In reality, the frenzied nineties told a much different story. When the tech led boom swelled the ranks of the employed, the jobs gained were not simply those in related fields.
The gains and resulting profits that flowed went into the pockets of shareholders (in the form of dividends) and those business owners skilled enough to play the right hand. Those profits and dividends resulted in the creation of new economic activity. Restaurants, auto dealers, luxury jewelers, real estate, travel, clothiers, and small businesses (which could suddenly compete on a worldwide basis) were all winners. As a result millions of jobs were created as an offshoot of the tech driven economic activity.
Less obvious however, were gains which occurred as a result of mass wealth building. Charitable foundations, research hospitals, and universities were all big beneficiaries. As a result, physicians, scientists, and others all became wanted commodities. Even to this day, the U.S. has a shortage of such skilled positions and employers can’t find enough workers to staff needed positions; at least not without going abroad. In fact, this is less a story of a shortage of U.S. jobs than it is a story of a shortage of U.S. skilled workers.
The real danger to the economy going forward is an administration (and electorate) that seeks to remove money from the job creators that propel our economy; and pump that money into the very same educational framework that has failed us thus far. History tells us quite clearly that a fully functioning free market economy will ultimately create jobs as entrepreneurs learn how to create the goods and services desired by those who garner wealth–provided those entrepreneurs have access to an appropriately educated and trained labor force.
Additionally, even as the emerging world economies are in the early stages of creating a middle class which is roughly ten times that of the U.S baby boomers, some in the U.S. are declaring that higher taxes, mountains of red tape, and punitive legislation are the best ways to address corporate profits. While it is certain that a new found middle class will demand all manner of goods and services, it is less certain that the U.S. will be a major provider. While these economies are discovering and embracing the economic genius of our founding fathers who delivered economic control into the hands of the people, many in the U.S. are rejecting those very ideals that have made us the greatest economic power that the world has ever known.
Their rejection of these principles simultaneously embraces the (past) failed endeavors of those who now emulate us (or at least who we used to be). The single greatest threat to the future of American jobs is the rising political clout of those who seek government control over our economy. A simple look around and one can determine quite unequivocally that those economies with the most governmental control also create the fewest jobs and opportunity for their citizens; while those which embrace private industry have provided the greatest upward mobility and lowest levels of poverty. The ruling class in any society, no matter how distributed, represents a tiny fraction of an overall population.
There is simply no way that their creative brain power (no matter how substantial) can match the collective genius of the rest of the population; the math is simply too overwhelming. The key to creating a better life and more robust (job creating) economy that thrives from technological advances rests in the hands of the many, not that of the few. ”
Melissa A. Ortega.
“The challenges and conflicts that can arise in the area of information technology appear seemingly simple even if computers are not capable of feelings or really living. Business owners are working to survive and thrive in today’s economy. I think that there is a threat to open business communication that can hinder company performance due to advancements in IT. In today’s economy a company owner is expected to meet the needs of internal and external stakeholders in an effort to improve employee’s job satisfaction and prioritize the needs of a growing company.
IT can withstand such problems because there is nobody around to help. The good thing about computers is that software can be developed that can help improve communications, frame problems and create important dialogue for the working class. The concept is called reframing which is a powerful tool in a tough situation and can help a manager lead employees out of problem areas throughout the work day.
Nowadays, the fate of information technology and the digital age is left to the politics aspects of the company. Organizational politics, culture and diversity can affect daily business operations as well as the performance of employees. Personalities and feelings can surface when politics at a company are not managed responsibly. When politics are managed appropriately; a company can succeed and employees are much happier at work. So, a large amount of time and money is spent on planning in this area for the primary purpose of increasing organizational effectiveness and bottom line results.
An important area of concern that is encouraged by advancements in IT is parochialism. This is the belief that there is only way particular way getting the job done. A computer can definitely help a company overcome difficulties in cross-cultural communication by helping people but I do not think IT will ever be a better working model than a human being. Yet, IT does improve the productivity levels for a company in important mass communication areas such as: Emails, messaging, processes, procedures, guidelines or other types of human communication.
IT should improve on the problems that can happen from the non-verbal communication at a business. If a company owner fails to recognize the importance of employee satisfaction and careful allocation of scarce resources many problems can occur including economic fallout. The important external stakeholders whose jobs are at risk as IT changes the position of the employee are also thought to be the backbone of America i.e. suppliers, customers, government, and the community. Leadership is an important topic in the global economy. Are we failing in business daily due to tyrant control over industry to include information technology? Are we leading with the latest technological advancements or are information systems leading us around?
Leadership is important as a manager will be expected to guide employees through areas that may be complex and obscure to be sure. The political aspects of a company may allow employees to accept differences, introduce new ideas, communicate effectively, and also plan for the future. I think that computers may alleviate an incredible amount of daily stressors that adversely affect many managers and employees; however, I do not think it is in the best interest of anyone to lead like machines. Computers can not understand diversity on a supreme level.
IT does not shape the cultural values and norms that affect the human condition. Domestic or global cross-cultural influences can positively or negatively affect the results of the organization’s political strength strategy. Cultural ethnic groups retain distinct cultural patterns and have different sets of values that help them survive and maintain an economy. The organizational culture of a company is based on their mission, vision, and values system and characterizes the work environment. Organizational culture is relied upon to help people understand the underlying principles at work that must be assuaged in an effort to help people get along at work.Important to remember is that responsible leader should work to evoke change by understanding that diversity sometimes reveals the need to be unique in an effort to be a good citizen, IT is not citizenship.
A strong business needs to always be ethical. Ethical conduct can help a company more readily absorb panic and shock. Ethical conduct can also help a company become more resilient. Company values will shape the behaviors the organizational ethical practices of constituents. Leadership must work to develop a style that is appropriate to the front line results of a company in an effort to help employees denote right from wrong. Computers do no understand right or wrong they only receive information. Human beings are the judges and thinkers on this planet who plan and negotiate.”
C. Bonjukian Patten
“Interesting question for which I have no answers; only more questions but…
Machines need people to create them. It would behoove our society to make more strides in promoting jobs that work with machines to high school seniors and or college students studying only liberal arts courses. In order to maintain a working relationship with machinery there must be people involved to maintain these machines and repair then when broken.”
George Mapp.
“According to The Chopra Center, Ayurveda is a 5,000-year-old system of natural healing that has its origins in the Vedic culture of India. More than a mere system of treating illness, Ayurveda is a science of life [Ayur= life,Veda= science or knowledge]. Ayurveda reminds us that health is the balanced and dynamic integration between our environment, body, mind, and spirit. What if we take the premise of Ayurveda and apply it to the macro-economic model of the American economy or even the world’s economy. Would the American or the world’s economy be in a balanced integration between ourselves and our environment? What about the U.S. standard of living, is it in balance or is it unhealthy? Not only would I say that the U.S. economy and the standard of living are both unhealthy but are both falling off a cliff. I believe that the exponential technological advances in the last several decades are soon going to hurt the U.S. economy and standard of living. As an American and as a human being, I am extremely concerned that the advances in technology, if not managed effectively and efficiently, will cause damage and harm that will drastically outweigh the benefits.
Out of curiosity, I checked the national unemployment rate from last month which is according to the Bureau of Labor statistics, stands at 7.3%. Just for a number I went back approximately 25 years. According to the same source, in 1990 the national unemployment rate was 5.4% in January 1990. I also checked the poverty levels in the U.S. According to the Wikipedia, “In November 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children.” According to the U.S. Census, “the number of persons below the official government poverty level was 36.6 million in 1990, representing 13.5% of the Nation’s population.” If you target specific areas, demographics and / or states the current rates of poverty and unemployment are much higher than the national average.
Jaime Ortega in his introduction to his question mentioned Walmart. How they are using intelligent scanning machines as opposed to humans thus putting people out of work. What makes this an extremely scary scenario is that Walmart happens to be the world’s largest public employer. Many of the worlds leading corporations and retailers follow and mimic what they do in order to compete effectively in the market place and sometimes just try to stay in business. Walmart has been criticized numerous times for its low wages and hard-ball pricing polices to its suppliers. They are so huge and powerful that they have the ability to dictate their terms to their suppliers, in other words they tell them what they are going to get paid.
I have also observed over the years that many of our youth and young-adults can not do basic math but instead rely on what they input into the register or more times than not what they scan, then the computerized register will calculate the change for them. That is in the fraction of cash transactions, mostly items are scanned and a credit card swiped and a few buttons pressed. Also, spelling has become a non-issue with auto-correct and spell check now prevalent in almost any electronic communication we use in this country. Another disturbing trend that I have noticed is that many teens use text-talk. A jargon of abbreviations and short cuts to words, basically another language that many older adults wouldn’t be able to understand. Not only have I noticed a decline in language skills but communication skills appear to be suffering as well. I have some younger friends that almost exclusively text instead of talking. In fact, I have a few friends that I have never spoken to on the phone.
Despite the huge and magnificent technological advances in healthcare and science, we as a nation are poorer, sicker, more obese, more dependent on pharmaceutical drugs and underemployed than say about 25 years ago. Technology is eliminating jobs from almost every facet of the U.S. workforce. From Wall Street to Main Street. I saw the impact on electronic trading first hand, I was an international equity trader on Wall Street for over 12 years. Electronic trading dried up the volumes in the Over-The-Counter market [people placed trades electronically as opposed to dealing directly with market-makers like myself] as well as the spreads narrowing drastically. The spread is the difference in price between what a market-maker will pay [bid] for a stock as opposed to what he is willing to sell [offer] it for.
Just think to yourself how difficult it is to get a real person on the phone when you call customer service at your phone company, your bank etc. Often times you will hear a foreign voice. That is another disturbing trend of U.S. corporations outsourcing jobs overseas for cheaper labor that takes away even more jobs. That compiled with the increasing number of jobs being eliminated by machines it is quite scary. From a CEO or shareholders perspective they all probably agree that machines do not call out sick, do not go on vacation, nortake lunch breaks and don’t need pensions or healthcare insurance?
But eventually and unfortunately it appears that it might be sooner rather than later, the economic model will become unbalanced and things will fall apart. Basic economics of supply and demand teaches us that if supplies increase much faster than demand then the prices must come down to compensate. Eventually if we as a nation continued to outsource jobs, eliminate jobs to computers and machines the majority of Americans will be unemployed and buying solely food, water and other necessities and less ‘widgets’. If that scenario plays out then eventually many corporations will also fail thus exponentially increasing the unemployment rate and result in an economy in free-fall.
I am of the school that if a loved-one, a son or daughter, spouse or parent has cancer I want to cure the cancer and make them healthy so that they will live. I feel the same about the country in which I was born in, I want to fix it, make it healthy. Both traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda have been around for over 5,000 years and both treat and cure illness‘ not simply medicate the symptoms. In our society, nearly the entire medical profession is predicated upon taking pills to relieve a symptom of a disease almost never to treat or cure a disease.
Technology can be also be used to teach us how to eat and live healthier, how to become less dependent on fossil fuels, how to develop more solar and wind technologies, to conserve water, to protect the ozone as opposed to mass produce more and more widgets that mostly get thrown away and become an additional burden on our environment. Ironically I saw a Huffington Post article today titled, What India Can Teach The Rest Of The World About Living Well, here is one excerpt from the article:
“India is the fastest-growing destination for wellness tourism, with an average of 22 percent annual growth, according to recent data from Stanford Research Center funded by Spafinder Wellness.”
I have been lucky enough to have traveled to over 35 countries. One country that I lived in was India. That is why I started with a brief intro of Ayurveda. But mostly because the entire philosophy of Ayurveda is built around balance. I feel the same way about technology. We can use it more effectively and more efficiently to make our economy and standard of living better and not worse.
I am convinced that currently we are not using technology for enough positive and productive benefits. Unfortunately I think that if we continue in the same direction we will as a nation continue to suffer and cut off our nose to spite our face. However, maybe to my own detriment I am an optimist and continue to hope that enough people who agree with me will eventuallydevelop more technologies that create more jobs as opposed to eliminating them, technologies that cure disease, that conserve energy and help the environment more than we are hurting it. Hopefully we as a nation will make better uses and smarter decisions.
That same Huff Post article mentions 10 reasons why we should look to India to live well. I’ll mention just a few, They have strong family values, They’re making low-cost health innovations. They have a culture that prizes compassion. They value inner wisdom. They cook with turmeric. Turmeric is a popular spice in Indian cooking, and it’s a superfood that can boost longevity and ward off illness.
The decline of family values in this country in my opinion is the most serious and is at the core of many of the major problems that is ailing our nation. And look at what they put in their food, a ‘superfood’ we put preservatives and chemicals that are slowly killing us. Even India is using technology to make low-cost health innovations. According to a Washington Post article titled, The royal birth cost $15,000. The average American birth is billed at $30,000, it states that: “The average total price charged for pregnancy and newborn care was about $30,000 for a vaginal delivery and $50,000 for a C-section,” My daughter was born in 2009 in India in a private hospital for less than $500.
Clearly we as Americans can do much better than we have been in utilizing technology. I have no doubt that we can became a productive nation, a healthy nation, an intelligent nation if we make the right choices on how we choose to use the quantum leaps in technology that is available to us. Hopefully not just for me or for you but for my children and your children as well as your grandchildren and for all the children that share the only planet that we have.”
Eric Tham.
“Technological advances over the past few decades has come a long way. From electronics, to the internet, then to enterprises, the wave that is coming now is enterprise analytics.
This is the use of machines to help humans perform better, and vice versa humans tuning machine to perform better. One of the buzzword in the past year is big data.
This is the velocity and volume of data that come with social media and mobile / internet revolution. Along with it comes data scientist – what the WSJ says the sexiest job of the next century. Presently the author is pursuing a postgrad degree in data analytics, and the glaring reality of using analytics to mine marketing trends, future data is so apparent. A job that is previously done by the travelling salesman is now done by the internet and data visualisation tools.
The worker of the future is now more sophisticated. Technology will create more jobs and displace some. The author’s hunch is that the net effect is negative. Older workers who are not able to keep up may find themselves displaced. There will be a greater divide between the have-nots and haves.
Overall, there will be a temporary structural dis-location in the next 2 decades. What happens after that is too far out in the telescope.”
Jaime Ortega (Editor)
“Technology itself is not harmful, but when greed and technology unify to create a brainchild, then questions in the form of answers emerge with relative ease.
I am all for mobile technologies, and other devices that help us communicate, benefit our health and also give us access to newer strands of information. However I am afraid the promoters of such technologies are not going to design a “Walt Disney world”, so I am doubtful what the agenda might hold, but what I do know is that it will be designed to produce extra wealth and that always edges the boundaries of greed.
Normally, government and multimillionaire dollar industries try technologies first and if they happen to work out well for gain, it gets trademarked to the public who get access. Let’s look at 3d printers! Many 3d printers, have the capabilities necessary to actually print guns. Is this really a good idea if it becomes a commercial asset?
I am sure the NRA won’t be pleased if guns can be 3d printed. Just as much as the video industry was not pleased with the introduction of bit torrents, files sharing and other downloaded programs. Did Blockbuster and other similar companies lose to new technologies? Yes they did. Did employees lose out to better technologies (legal or illegal)? Yes they did.
The point is technology is not a great antidote for unemployment. It is easy for a company to say ‘we should regulate’ when their stocks start to plunge, but looks like these companies only ‘wake up from the dream” when well foreknown problems boomerang back very strongly at them.
Obviously, relevant technologies either sell or mass produce at enormous quantities to benefit users, but other technologies can replace manual production for digital production and that is where I have a serious problem.
There needs to be legitimate regulation on technological advances and devices, just as regulation should be implemented in our financial system that led us not too long ago to our infamous global recession. Alan Greenspan, said there was no need or regulation when regulation was indeed needed. Was he wrong? Yes. And regulation should be forced in newer technologies.
It’s a fairly basic principal. But corporations that expand need to understand that we’re the ultimate technology. No technology will replace the human race or its achievements. And machines are human dependent, even though, many companies are starting to forget that principal to accommodate to their financial gain.”
The Emerging Indian Economy
November 13th, 2013
By CSIS.
Read Full Report: The Emerging India Economy
The Indian economy is estimated to have registered a growth rate of 5.0 per cent in 2012-13 in terms of gross domestic product at factor cost at constant 2004-05 prices, following a growth of 6.2 per cent in 2011-12. Growth in 2011-12 and 2012-13 is on the lower side, in the context of the decadal average of 7.9 per cent during 2003-04 to 2012-13.
This is attributable mainly to weakening industrial growth in the context of tight monetary policy followed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) through most of 2011-12, and continued uncertainty in the global economy. With some moderation in headline WPI
inflation, there has been a reduction in the repo rate by the RBI by 50 basis points in April, 2012 and by 25 basis points in January 2013.
The impact of tight monetary policy has been reflected in the quarterly growth rates of GDP. Quarterly GDP growth declined in each of the successive quarters between the fourth quarter of 2010-11, and the fourth quarter of 2011-12. The slowdown in the economy, particularly in the industry sector has entailed a lower-than budgeted growth in government revenues. However, measures undertaken as part of mid-course correction have helped in improving the expenditure outcome in 2012-13.
Security, privacy and surveillance in European policy documents
November 10th, 2013
By David Barnard-Wills.
Read full report: Security, privacy and surveillance in European policy documents
Abstract
† Through an examination of security and privacy policy documents from the EU, selected European states and the USA, this article examines problem construction and policy making in the interrelated fields of security, privacy, and surveillance.
† This horizontal analysis, across a set of documents, provides insights into the way these topics are viewed within the policy-making process.
† The analysis also shows the development of EU governmentality around security and privacy, and indicates that whilst the policy discourse of security and privacy is not homogeneous, the influence of European-level governance on security and privacy practices is significant. † The study aims to make a contribution to the literature on security and privacy and on the international context for policy making.
World Drug Report 2013
November 9th, 2013
By United Nations.
Read full story: World Drug Report 2013
The findings of the World Drug Report 2013 deliver important lessons for the forthcoming high-level review of the commitments that countries reaffirmed in 2009 on the measures for drug control. These measures are laid out in the Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem.
At the global level, there has been an increase in the production and misuse of new psychoactive substances, that is, substances that are not under international control. The manufacture and use of substances that are under international control remain largely stable as compared with 2009, although trends in drug supply and demand have been unequal across regions and countries and across
drug types.
Member States that are party to the three international drug control Conventions, which were adopted to protect the health and welfare of mankind, remain committed to the drug control system. Evidence shows that while the system may not have eliminated the drug problem, it continues to ensure that it does not escalate to unmanageable proportions.
We have to admit that, globally, the demand for drugs has not been substantially reduced and that some challenges exist in the implementation of the drug control system, in the violence generated by trafficking in illicit drugs, in the fast evolving nature of new psychoactive substances, and in those national legislative measures which may result in a violation of human rights. The real issue is not to amend the Conventions, but to implement them according to their underlying spirit.
Rick Francona answers questions about the NSA’s latest foreign surveillance scandal
November 5th, 2013
Interview by Jaime Ortega.
Rick Francona is a former NBC News Middle East military analyst, retired USAF intelligence officer and Middle East specialist and CNN Military Analyst”. Website: rickfrancona.com
1) What is your thoughts on the NSA spying foreign allies? Is it healthy for America’s relation with the EU and will that consecrate into a serious rupture of mistrust between close peers?
I am not sure I agree with the term “spying” in regards to NSA. Spying to me is when you convince someone to betray their countries and work for a foreign power. The National Security Agency intercepts and collects foreign communications. While some country’s may try to make that illegal, once you put something onto electronic media, it is out there for anyone with the capability to access it.
The United States has been collection the communications of some, not all, allies for as long as we have had the capability. All of these operations are in response to validated collection requirements – someone asked for information one a particular topic and these particular communications were assessed to contain the information needed to satisfy the request. NSA, or any intelligence agency, just goes out and collects whatever they want. The intelligence community responds to its consumers.
As for relations with the EU, it could be a temporary problem, but I seriously doubt that any of them are surprised. They will do the Claude Rains “shocked” routine, but I don’t foresee a major issue. If the communications are sensitive, they should be encrypted. Using any type of unsecured communications device is asking for someone to exploit it.
2) Merkel and other presidents are trying to get in contact with Edward Snowden to get more information about the spying programs. It seems now, that Edward Snowden has become somehow a vital key to open up new classified information about the CIA’s and NSA’s programs in Europe. How is the U.S. going to react with its close allies as their trying to obtain more information with Russia’s diplomatic permission from Edward Snowden?
They are sovereign nations trying to secure their own communications vulnerabilities, so it will be hard for us to convince them not to seek the information from Snowden. Snowden is no doubt a fabulous source of information for the Russians. How would we treat someone who brought us all that information. We certainly would not send him back.
3) Overall, does the U.S. Government really trust its allies when we consider it targets not only its citizens but the actual presidents?
Trust and intelligence may be mutually exclusive terms. It really has nothing to do with it. If there is a collection requirement, obviously someone in the US government is wary of what we are being told by a particular ally. Again, NSA does not determine trust or who are allies – it responds to validated (that also means vetted by the lawyers) collection requirements.
Why wouldn’t you try to collect leadership communications – those are probably the best sources of the information the intelligence community has been tasked to collect. Regular citizens are not usually of interest unless they have access to information of interest.
4) It’s been proven again and again, that the NSA no matter what program they come up with does not have the capacity to process all the communications it intercepts since it doesn’t have the actual man power to sustain that vast amount of information it gathers. Why is the NSA, focused on spying other nations considering the unlikely hood of listing all the threats their supposed to intercept?
Again, NSA and the intelligence community respond to information requirements. They do collect vast amounts of data that will never be fully processed, but that data may be useful at a later date, hence the need to store huge amounts of information. For example, when a raid of an al-Qa’idah safehouse in Pakistan yields cell phones or laptops that contain email addresses, phone numbers, etc., it requires searching through the stored data.
If that data is associated with a US person (different than a US citizen), that requires a FISA warrant. Some of the phone numbers may be in countries that are considered to be allies – NSA needs to access those records and communications. Remember, many of the 9/11 hijackers were living in Germany, an ally.
5) Obama was not the first president who gave his permission to wiretap conversations among close allies. Bush also did so as well with the former German chancellor. Did spying on close allies start prior to the Bush era, or did they start after 9/11?
I suspect it has gone on since we have had the capability. I an not sure this type of collection – they are foreign communications, which is the NSA charter – requires Presidential approval.
We do have agreements with certain countries on limiting certain activities, but unless there is an agreement, foreign communications are valid collection targets.
6) How is this latest diplomatic scandal going to affect Obama’s campaign overall and reputation? In 2008 he toured in the primaries around EU, promoting peace but it seems a little hypocritical now?
I don’t think this will affect it at all. There will be some lip service, but if the European countries think that we are not targeting their communications, they are naive. I don’t assess them to be naive. Do you not think the BND and DGSE are not involved in similar operations? If we think not, it is us who are naive.
NSA’s other problematic programs
November 5th, 2013
By TDJ data awareness recollection gathering.
From WIkiPedia.
Verified for content accuracy by The Daily Journalist
MAINWAY is a database maintained by the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) containing metadata for hundreds of billions of telephone calls made through the four largest telephone carriers in the United States: At&t, SBC, BellSouth (all three now called AT&T), and Verizon.
The existence of this database and the NSA program that compiled it was unknown to the general public until USA Today broke the story on May 10, 2006. It is estimated that the database contains over 1.9 trillion call-detail records. According to Bloomberg News, the effort began approximately seven months before the September 11, 2001 attacks. As of June 2013, the database stores metadata for at least five years.
The records include detailed call information (caller, receiver, date/time of call, length of call, etc.) for use in traffic analysis and social network analysis, but do not include audio information or transcripts of the content of the phone calls.
The database’s existence has prompted fierce objections. It is often viewed as an illegal warrantless search and a violation of the pen register provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and (in some cases) the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
By University of Pennsylvania.
The program, known by its unclassified nickname “Stellar Wind,” is code named
“RAGTIME.”
1. Who has access?
Only about 3 dozen NSA officials have access to the intercept data from
RAGTIME’s domestic counter-terrorism collection operation.
Source: turn.com
2. Who contributes to the program?
As many as 50 companies have provided data to the program
3. How does it collect data?
In order to collect on a target, the NSA needs one additional piece of evidence
besides its own proprietary link-analysis protocols which assigns probability scores
to each potential target.
Source: i-logue.com
4. How does it interact with NSA?
Although the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rarely rejects RAGTIME-P
requests, it often asks the NSA to provide more information before it approves
them.
Source: en.wikipedia.org
5. What is program XKEYSCORE?
At Fort Meade, a program called XKEYSCORE processes all signals before they are
shunted off to various “production lines” that deal with specific issues. PINWALE is
the main NSA database for recorded signals intercepts. It is compartmentalized by
keywords (the NSA calls them “selectors”). Metadata is stored in a database called
MARINA and is generally retained for five years.
Source: williamaarkin.wordpress.com
6. How do they access reporting?
“Finished reporting,” or transcripts and analysis of calls, is accessed through the
MAUI database. (Metadata is never included in MAUI.) There are dozens of other
NSA signals activity lines, or SIGADS, that process data in parallel. Among the
active databases and systems: ANCHORY, an all-source database for
communications intelligence; HOMEBASE, which allows analysts to coordinate their
searches with DNI mission priorities; AIRGAP, which deals with priority DOD
missions; WRANGLER, which focuses on electronic intelligence; TINMAN, a
database related to air warning and surveillance; OILSTOCK, a system for analyzing
air warning and surveillance data; and many more.[i]
7. How does the FBI interact with the program?
The Bush Administration believed that the program was highly protected, and
instructed the NSA to share only the most essential data with the FBI. But the FBI
had “read in” more than 500 of its special agents. Had policy-makers been aware
of this, sharing the RAGTIME data and its sources would have been much more
efficient and would have allowed the FBI to separate the wheat from the chaff must
more easily.
Image by Julie Jacobson / AP
8. What happened with the New York Times?10,757 Views
NSA Director Michael Hayden was secretly pleased that the New York Times
withheld significant details of the program when the articles revealing it were first
published, but he play-acted in public, castigating the Times for their indiscretion.
9. How does NSA know if something is wrong with
the attorney general?
The set-up to the famous hospital-room confrontation between White House
counsel Alberto Gonzales and ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft : James
Comey, as acting attorney general, refused to affix his signature to a specific set of
certifications provided by the Justice Department to Internet, financial and data
companies, believing that the justification for providing the bulk data to the NSA
was not sufficient. The White House panicked, because they worried that the
companies would simply stop cooperating with the NSA if they suddenly didn’t see
the signature of attorney general. They would know that something was wrong.
Source: guardian.co.uk
10. What does Congress think about surveillance
laws?
Congress repeatedly resisted the entreaties of the Bush Administration to change
the surveillance laws once the RAGTIME program had been institutionalized. This
was for a simple reason: they did not want to be responsible for a program that was
not legal
By Empty Wheel. Net,
CNET is getting a lot of attention for its report that NSA, “has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.”
In general, I’m just going to outsource my analysis of what the exchange means to Julian Sanchez (I hope he doesn’t charge me as much as Mike McConnell’s Booz Allen Hamilton for outsourced analysis).
What seems more likely is that Nadler is saying analysts sifting through metadata have the discretion to determine (on the basis of what they’re seeing in the metadata) that a particular phone number or e-mail account satisfies the conditions of one of the broad authorizations for electronic surveillance under §702 of the FISA Amendments Act.
[snip]
The analyst must believe that one end of the communication is outside the United States, and flag that account or phone line for collection. Note that even if the real target is the domestic phone number, an analyst working from the metadatabase wouldn’t have a name, just a number. That means there’s no “particular, known US person,” which ensures that the §702 ban on “reverse targeting” is, pretty much by definition, not violated.
None of that would be too surprising in principle: That’s the whole point of §702!
That is, what Nadler may have learned that the same analysts who have access to the phone metadata may also have authority to issue directives to companies for phone content collection. If so, it would be entirely feasible for the same analyst to learn, via the metadata database, that a suspect phone number is in contact with the US and for her to submit a request for actual content to the providers, without having to first get a FISA order covering the US person callers directly. Since she was still “targeting” the original overseas phone number, she would be able to get the US person content without a specific order.
I just want to point to a part of this exchange that everyone is ignoring (but that I pointed out while live tweeting this).
Mueller: I’m not certain it’s the same–I’m not certain it’s an answer to the same question.
Mueller didn’t deny the NSA can get access to US person phone content without a warrant. He just suggested that Nadler might be conflating two different programs or questions.
And that’s one of the things to remember about this discussion. Among many other methods of shielding parts of the programs, the government is thus far discussing primarily the two programs identified by the Guardian: the phone metadata collection (which the WaPo reports is called MAINWAY) and the Internet content access (PRISM).
Thus, we are effectively just talking about two programs, and not two that intersect via targeted technology, as MAINWAY would with NUCLEON and MARINA with PRISM. So, while there are a slew of other possibilities for what Mueller might mean by “another question,” one big one is “how may an analyst access NUCLEON information if she had MAINWAY data”?
And, as Sanchez notes in his piece, the way 702 is supposed to work (and indeed, would have to work for the claims made about PRISM’s role in thwarting the Najibullah Zazi attack to be remotely true) is that US person information comes up along with targeted foreign targets. Indeed, as I noted last year during the FISA Amendments Act debate, in an effort to defeat this amendment prohibiting effectively what Sanchez has laid out, Sheldon Whitehouse said that getting US content without a warrant was the entire point.
He referred back to his time using warrants as a US Attorney, and said that requiring a warrant to access the US person communication would “kill this program,” and that to think warrants “fundamentally misapprehends the way in which this program operates.”
The possibility that the government would do this kind of thing has been raised repeatedly since Russ Feingold did so in 2009 during the FISA Amendments Act debates, speaking specifically about the content of calls to people overseas.
It may be that, discussed in isolation, the government can avoid talking about what Feingold and Wyden and others have called a backdoor. Which is probably why they don’t want us to “confuse” (that is, understand the relationship between) the business records and content access.
By James Ball.
The National Security Agency is storing the online metadata of millions ofinternet users for up to a year, regardless of whether or not they are persons of interest to the agency, top secret documents reveal.
Metadata provides a record of almost anything a user does online, from browsing history – such as map searches and websites visited – to account details, email activity, and even some account passwords. This can be used to build a detailed picture of an individual’s life.
The Obama administration has repeatedly stated that the NSA keeps only the content of messages and communications of people it is intentionally targeting – but internal documents reveal the agency retains vast amounts of metadata.
An introductory guide to digital network intelligence for NSA field agents, included in documents disclosed by former contractor Edward Snowden, describes the agency’s metadata repository, codenamed Marina. Any computer metadata picked up by NSA collection systems is routed to the Marina database, the guide explains. Phone metadata is sent to a separate system.
“The Marina metadata application tracks a user’s browser experience, gathers contact information/content and develops summaries of target,” the analysts’ guide explains. “This tool offers the ability to export the data in a variety of formats, as well as create various charts to assist in pattern-of-life development.”
The guide goes on to explain Marina’s unique capability: “Of the more distinguishing features, Marina has the ability to look back on the last 365 days’ worth of DNI metadata seen by the Sigint collection system,regardless whether or not it was tasked for collection.” [Emphasis in original.]
On Saturday, the New York Times reported that the NSA was using itsmetadata troves to build profiles of US citizens’ social connections, associations and in some cases location, augmenting the material the agency collects with additional information bought in from the commercial sector, which is is not subject to the same legal restrictions as other data.
The ability to look back on a full year’s history for any individual whose data was collected – either deliberately or incidentally – offers the NSAthe potential to find information on people who have later become targets. But it relies on storing the personal data of large numbers of internet users who are not, and never will be, of interest to the US intelligence community.
Marina aggregates NSA metadata from an array of sources, some targeted, others on a large scale. Programs such as Prism – which operates through legally compelled “partnerships” with major internet companies – allow the NSA to obtain content and metadata on thousands of targets without individual warrants.
The NSA also collects enormous quantities of metadata from the fibre-optic cables that make up the backbone of the internet. The agency has placed taps on undersea cables, and is given access to internet data through partnerships with American telecoms companies.
About 90% of the world’s online communications cross the US, giving theNSA what it calls in classified documents a “home-field advantage” when it comes to intercepting information.
By confirming that all metadata “seen” by NSA collection systems is stored, the Marina document suggests such collections are not merely used to filter target information, but also to store data at scale.
A sign of how much information could be contained within the repository comes from a document voluntarily disclosed by the NSA in August, in the wake of the first tranche of revelations from the Snowden documents.
The seven-page document, titled “The National Security Agency: Missions, Authorities, Oversight and Partnerships”, says the agency “touches” 1.6% of daily internet traffic – an estimate which is not believed to include large-scale internet taps operated by GCHQ, the NSA’s UK counterpart.
The document cites figures from a major tech provider that the internet carries 1,826 petabytes of information per day. One petabyte, according to tech website Gizmodo, is equivalent to over 13 years of HDTV video.
“In its foreign intelligence mission, NSA touches about 1.6% of that,” the document states. “However, of the 1.6% of the data, only 0.025% is actually selected for review.
“The net effect is that NSA analysts look at 0.00004% of the world’s traffic in conducting their mission – that’s less than one part in a million.”
However, critics were skeptical of the reassurances, because large quantities of internet data is represented by music and video sharing, or large file transfers – content which is easy to identify and dismiss without entering it into systems. Therefore, the NSA could be picking up a much larger percentage of internet traffic that contains communications and browsing activity.
Journalism professor and internet commentator Jeff Jarvis noted: “[By] very rough, beer-soaked-napkin numbers, the NSA’s 1.6% of net traffic would be half of the communication on the net. That’s one helluva lot of ‘touching’.”
Much of the NSA’s data collection is carried out under section 702 of theFisa Amendments Act. This provision allows for the collection of data without individual warrants of communications, where at least one end of the conversation, or data exchange, involves a non-American located outside the US at the time of collection.
The NSA is required to “minimize” the data of US persons, but is permitted to keep US communications where it is not technically possible to remove them, and also to keep and use any “inadvertently” obtained US communications if they contain intelligence material, evidence of a crime, or if they are encrypted.
The Guardian has also revealed the existence of a so-called “backdoor search loophole”, a 2011 rule change that allows NSA analysts to search for the names of US citizens, under certain circumstances, in mass-data repositories collected under section 702.
According to the New York Times, NSA analysts were told that metadatacould be used “without regard to the nationality or location of the communicants”, and that Americans’ social contacts could be traced by the agency, providing there was some foreign intelligence justification for doing so.
The Guardian approached the NSA with four specific questions about the use of metadata, including a request for the rationale behind storing 365 days’ worth of untargeted data, and an estimate of the quantity of US citizens’ metadata stored in its repositories.
But the NSA did not address any of these questions in its response, providing instead a statement focusing on its foreign intelligence activities.
“NSA is a foreign intelligence agency,” the statement said. “NSA’s foreign intelligence activities are conducted pursuant to procedures approved by the US attorney general and the secretary of defense, and, where applicable, the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court, to protect the privacy interests of Americans.
“These interests must be addressed in the collection, retention, and dissemination of any information. Moreover, all queries of lawfully collected data must be conducted for a foreign intelligence purpose.”
It continued: “We know there is a false perception out there that NSAlistens to the phone calls and reads the email of everyday Americans, aiming to unlawfully monitor or profile US citizens. It’s just not the case.
“NSA’s activities are directed against foreign intelligence targets in response to requirements from US leaders in order to protect the nation and its interests fro
The US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights
November 3rd, 2013
By The European Parliament.
This Briefing note aims at providing the LIBE Committee with background and contextual information on PRISM/FISA/NSA activities and US surveillance programmes and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights, including privacy and data protection.
On June 5th the Washington Post and The Guardian published a secret order made under s.215 of the PATRIOT Act requiring the Verizon telephone company to give the NSA details of all US domestic and international phone calls, and “on an ongoing basis”. On June 6th the two newspapers revealed the existence of an NSA programme codenamed PRISM that accessed data from leading brands of US Internet companies.
By the end of the day a statement from Adm. Clapper (Director of NSA) officially acknowledged the PRISM programme and that it relied on powers under the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) 2008 s.702 (aka §1881a). On June 9th Edward Snowden voluntarily disclosed his identity and a film interview with him was released. In the European Parliament resolution of 4 July 2013 on the US National Security Agency surveillance programme, MEPs expressed serious concern over PRISM and other surveillance programmes and strongly condemned spying on EU official representatives and called on the US authorities to provide them with full information on these allegations without further delay.
Inquiries by the Commission1, Art.29 Working Party2, and a few MS Parliaments are also in progress. The problem of transnational mass surveillance and democracy Snowden’s revelations about PRISM show that Cyber mass-surveillance at the transnational level induces systemic breaches of fundamental rights. These breaches lead us to question the scale of transnational mass surveillance and its implications for our democracies.
“Our government in its very nature, and our open society in all its instinct, under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights automatically outlaws intelligence organizations of the kind that have developed in police states” (Allen Dulles, 1963)4 “There’s been spying for years, there’s been surveillance for years, and so forth, I’m not going to pass judgement on that, it’s the nature of our society”
(Eric Schmidt, Executive chairman of Google, 2013) These two quotations are distinct in time by 50 years. They differ in the answers but address the same central question: how far can democratic societies continue to exist in their very nature, if intelligence activities include massive surveillance of populations? For Eric Schmidt and according to most of the media reports in the world, the nature of society has changed.
Technologies of telecommunication, including mobile phones, Internet, satellites and more generally all data which can be digitalised and integrated into platforms, have given the possibilities of gathering unprecedented amount of data, to keep them, to organise them, to search them. If the technologies exist, then they have to be used: “it is not possible to go against the flow”. Therefore it is not a surprise to discover that programmes run by intelligence services use these techniques at their maximum possibilities and in secrecy.
The assumption is that if everyone else with these technical capabilities uses them, then we should too. If not, it would be naivety or even worse: a defeat endangering the national security of a country by letting another country benefitfrom the possibilities opened by these technologies.
However, should we have to live with this extension of espionage to massive surveillance of populations and accept it as “a fact” a Fortunately, totalitarian regimes have more or less disappeared before the full development of theses capacities. Today, in democratic regimes, when these technologies are used, they are limited on purpose and are mainly centred on antiterrorism collaboration, in order to prevent attempts of attacks.
According to Intelligence Services worldwide, these technologies are not endangering civil liberties; they are the best way to protect the citizen from global terrorism. Intelligence services screen suspicious behaviours and exchange of information occurs at the international level. Only “real suspects” are, in principle, under surveillance. From this perspective, far from being a “shame”, the revelations of programmes like PRISM could be seen as a proof of a good level of collaboration, which has eventually to be enhanced in the future against numerous forms of violence.
In front of this “recital” given by the most important authorities of the different intelligence services and the antiterrorism agencies in the US, in the UK, in France, and at the EU level, it is critical to discuss the supposedly new nature of our societies. The impact of technological transformations in democratic societies, how to use these technologies as resources for both information exchange and competition over information (a key element of a globalised world), what are the rights of the different governments in processing them: these are the core questions.
As stated by Allen Dulles above, justifications given by intelligence services work in favour of a police state and against the very nature of an open society living in democratic regimes. Proponents of an open society insist that, against the previous trend, technologies ought not to drive human actions; they have to be used in reasonable ways and under the Rule of Law. The mass scaling has to be contained. Constitutional provisions have to be applied, and the presumption of innocence is applicable for all human beings (not only citizens).
If suspicions exist, they have to be related to certain forms of crime, and not marginal behaviours or life styles. Hence, what is at stake here is not the mechanisms by which antiterrorism laws and activities have to be regulated at the transatlantic level, even if it is a subset of the question. It is not even the question of espionage activities between different governments. It is the question of the nature, the scale, and the depth of surveillance that can be tolerated in and between democracies.
Snowden’s revelations highlight numerous breaches of fundamental rights. This affects in priority all the persons whose data have been extracted via surveillance of communications, digital cables or cloud computing technologies, as soon as they are under a category of suspicion, or of some interest for foreign intelligence purposes. However, all these persons are not protected in the same way, especially if they are not US citizens.
The EU citizen is therefore particularly fragile in this configuration connecting US intelligence services, private companies that provide services at the global level and the ownership they can exercise over their data. It is clear that if EU citizens do not have the same level of protections as the US citizens, because of the practices of the US intelligence services and the lack of effective protections, they will become the first victims of these systems.
Freedom of thought, opinion, expression and of the press are cardinal values that have to be preserved. Any citizen of the EU has the right to have a private life, i.e, a life which is not fully under the surveillance of any state apparatus. The investigative eyes of any government have to be strongly reminded of distinctions between private and public activities, between what is a crime and what is simply a different life-style.
By gathering massive data on life-styles in order to elaborate patterns and profiles concerning political attitudes and economic choices, PRISM seems to have allowed an unprecedented scale and depth in intelligence gathering, which goes beyond counter terrorism and beyond espionage activities carried out by liberal regimes in the past. This may lead towards an illegal form of Total Information Awareness where data of millions of people are subject to collection and manipulation by the NSA.
This note wants to assess this question of the craft of intelligence and its necessary limits in democracy and between them. As we will see, through the documents delivered by Snowden, the scale of the PRISM programme is global; its depth reaches the digital data of large groups of populations and breaches the fundamental rights of large groups of populations, especially EU citizens. The EU institutions have therefore the right and duty to examine this emergence of cyber mass-surveillance and how it affects the fundamental rights of the EU citizen abroad and at home.
Privacy governance: EU/US competing models
A careful analysis of US privacy laws compared to the EU Data Protection framework shows that the former allows few practical options for the individual to live their lives with selfdetermination over their personal data. However a core effect of Data Protection law is that if data is copied from one computer to another, then providing the right legal conditions for transfer exist, the individual cannot object on the grounds that their privacy risk increases through every such proliferation of “their” data5. This holds true if the data is copied onto a thousand machines in one organization, or spread onward to a thousand organisations, or to a different legal regime in a Third Country.
The individual cannot stop this once they lose possession of their data, whereas for example if the data was “intellectual property”, then a license to reproduce the data would be necessary by permission. We are all the authors of our lives, and it seems increasingly anomalous that Internet companies lay claim to property rights in the patterns of data minutely recording our thoughts and behaviour, yet ask the people who produce this data to sacrifice their autonomy and take privacy on trust.
The EU Data Protection framework in theory is categorically better than the US for privacy, but in practice it is hard to find any real-world Internet services that implement DP principles by design, conveniently and securely. Privacy governance around the world has evolved around two competing models. Europe made some rights of individuals inalienable and assigned responsibilities to Data Controller organizations, whereas in the United States companies inserted waivers of rights into Terms and Conditions contracts allowing exploitation of data in exhaustive ways (known as the ‘Notice-and-Choice” principle).
The PRISM crisis arose directly from the emerging dominance over the last decade of “free” services operated from remote warehouses full of computer servers, by companies predominantly based in US jurisdiction, that has become known as Cloud computing. To explain this relationship we must explore details of the US framework of national security law.
Scope and structure
It is striking that since the first reports of “warrantless wiretapping” in the last decade, and until quite recently in the PRISM-related revelations, European media have covered US surveillance controver sies as if these were purely parochial arguments about US civil liberties, apparently oblivious that the surveillance activity was directed at the rest-of the- world.
This note aims to document this under-appreciated aspect. It will show that the scope of surveillance conducted under a change in the FISA law in 2008 extended its scope beyond interception of communications to include any data in public cloud computing as well. This has very strong implications for the EU’s continued sovereignty over data and the protection of its citizens’ rights. The aim is here to provide a guide to how surveillance of Internet communications by the US government developed, and how this affects the human right to privacy, integrating historical, technical, and policy analysis from the perspective of the individual EU citizen.
The Note will therefore cover the following:
– (I) An account of US foreign surveillance history and current known state
– (II) An overview of the main legal controversies both in US terms, and the effects and consequences for EU citizens’ rights
– (III) Strategic options for the European Parliament and recommendations
1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF US SURVEILLANCE KEY FINDINGS
A historical account of US various surveillance programmes (precursors to Echelon, PRISM, etc.) and US legislation in the field of surveillance (FISA and FAA) shows that the US has continuously disregarded the fundamental rights of non-US citizens.
In Particular, the scope of FAA coupled with expressly ‘political’ definitions of what constitutes ‘foreign intelligence information’ creates a power of masssurveillance specifically targeted at the data of non-US persons located outside the US, which eludes effective control by current and proposed EU Data Protection regulation.
A historical account of US surveillance programmes provides the context for their interpretation as the latest phase of a system of US exceptionalism, with origins in World War II. These programmes constitute the greatest contemporary challenge to data protection, because they incorporated arbitrary discriminatory standards of treatment strictly according to nationality and geopolitical alliances, which are secret and incompatible with the rule of law under EU structures.
1.1. World War II and the origins of the UKUSA treaties
In the 1970s there were the first disclosures of the extent of Allied success in WWII cryptanalysis. The world discovered the secret history of Bletchley Park (aka Station X), Churchill’s signals intelligence headquarters. The story of post-war secret intelligence partnerships at the international level is intertwined with the personal trajectory of Alan Turing, a great mathematician and co-founder of computer science, who was critical to the effort to design automated machines which could feasibly solve ciphers generated by machine, such as Enigma (used for many Nazi Germany communications).
Alan Turing travelled to the US in 1942 to supervise US Navy mass-production of the decryption machines (called ‘bombes’) for the Atlantic war, and to review work on a new scrambler telephone at Bell Laboratories to be used for communications between Heads of Government. Unfortunately Turing was not equipped with any letters of authority, so he was detained by US immigration as suspicious until rescued by UK officials in New York.
What was initially supposed to be a two-week trip turned into months, as no precedent existed to grant even a foreign ally security clearance to the laboratories he was supposed to visit. There followed several months of fraught UK diplomacy and turf wars between the US Navy and Army, since the latter had no “need-to-know” about Ultra (the name given to intelligence produced from decryption at Bletchley). The UK wanted as few people as possible in on the secret, and the disharmony thus experienced inside the US military
security hierarchies became known as “the Turing Affair”.
These were the origins of the post-war secret intelligence partnership between the US and UK as “first” parties, Canada/Australia/New Zealand as second parties, and other nations with lesser access as third parties. The treaty is named UKUSA, and we know the details above about its genesis because in 2010 the US National Security Agency declassified the unredacted text of UKUSA treaties up until the 1950s with related correspondence (the 8 UKUSA Agreement Release 1940-1956 Early Papers Concerning US-UK Agreement – 1940–1944, NSA/CSS current text is secret).
GCHQ9 did not declassify much in comparison, although the occasion was billed as joint exercise. The purpose of the UKUSA treaties was to establish defined areas of technical cooperation and avoid conflicts. However, no general “no spy” clause appears in the versions published up until the 1950s, but expressions of amity comparable to public treaties. It is not known whether any comprehensive secret “no spy” agreement exists today between the UK and US, and neither has ever given legislative or executive comment on the matter.
1.2. ECHELON: the UKUSA communications surveillance nexus
From the founding of the US National Security Agency (NSA) in 1952 throughout the Cold War, both the UK and US vastly expanded their signal intelligence capacities, collecting from undersea cables at landing points10, satellites intercepting terrestrial microwave relays, and arrays of antennae usually sited in military bases and embassies. The evolution and nature of these capabilities were documented from open source research in two reports11 to the European institutions culminating in the Parliament’s inquiry into ECHELON in 2000.
ECHELON was in fact a codeword for one particular surveillance system, but became in common usage a synecdoche for the entire UKUSA communications surveillance nexus. The last meeting the EP inquiry committee was on September 10, 2001. The Committee recommended to the European Parliament that citizens of EU member states use cryptography in their communications to protect their privacy, because economic espionage with ECHELON had obviously been conducted by the US intelligence agencies.
1.3. 1975-1978: Watergate and the Church Committee
After the US was convulsed by the Watergate scandal culminating in the resignation of Richard Nixon, Senator Frank Church led a Congressional committee of inquiry into abuses of power by law-enforcement and intelligence agencies which had conducted illegal domestic wire-tapping of political and civic leaders under presidential authority, and contrary to the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution which protects privacy against unreasonable searches without a particular warrant, issued on “probable cause” (meaning evidence of a 50% likelihood of criminality).
The Church inquiry reported on the question of whether the Fourth Amendment restricts the mass-trawling and collection of international communications, which they discovered had been secretly conducted since the 1940s on telegrams12. The inquiry canvassed that inadvertent collection of Americans’ data transmitted internationally was tolerable, if procedures were made for “minimization” of erroneous unwarranted access (and mistakes not used prejudicially against Americans).
This idea was codified into the first Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which regulated the interception of international (and domestic) “foreign intelligence information” from telecommunications carriers. Collection of data by any nation from outside its territory is literally lawless and not restricted by any explicit international agreements.\
1.4. The post-9/11 context: extension of intelligence powers
After the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, privacy and data protection has been deeply challenged by exceptional measures taken in the name of security and the fight against terrorism. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was enacted by the US Congress on October 26, 2001, and its primary effect was to greatly extend law enforcement agencies’ powers for gathering domestic intelligence inside the US.
The revised Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment Act of 2008 (FAA)13 created a power of mass-surveillance specifically targeted at the data of non-US persons located outside the US. These aspects and their implications for EU citizens will be analysed in the following section (Section 2). Numerous new surveillance programmes and modalities were further suggested to President Bush by NSA Director Gen. Hayden, without explicit authorization under statute, and approval was nevertheless given.
Those programmes were retroactively deemed lawful in secret memoranda prepared by a relatively junior legal14 official, under the Authorisation to Use Military Force (AUMF) for the war in Afghanistan and associated War on Terror operations. Amongst these programmes was one codenamed Stellar Wind which involved placing fibreoptic cable “splitters” in major Internet switching centres, and triaging the enormous volumes of traffic in real-time with a small high-performance scanning computer (known as a deep-packet inspection box), which would send data filtered by this means back to the NSA.
An AT&T technical supervisor in the San Francisco office was asked to assist in constructing such a facility (“Room 641A”) and was concerned that this activity manifestly broke US Constitutional protections, because the cable carried domestic as well as international traffic. He took his story with documentation to the New York Times, which did not publish15 the story for a year, until 2005 after the re-election of President Bush.
Other whistle-blowers from the NSA, CIA and FBI emerged with tales of illegal masssurveillance via mobile phones, the Internet and satellites, and even revealed that phone calls of Barack Obama (he was then Senator) and Supreme Court judges had been tapped. The controversy was exacerbated because two years before, a former National Security Adviser had proposed a research programme for Total Information Awareness – T.I.A., a massive system of surveillance of all digital data, processed with advanced artificial intelligence algorithms to detect terrorist plots.
Immediate adverse media commentary prompted the US Congress to de-fund research into T.I.A., but rumours persisted that it had been absorbed into an intelligence “black budget”. When the “warrantless wiretapping” allegations surfaced in a series of press reports from The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal, the resonance with the supposedly cancelled T.I.A project intensified the level of public unease.
1.5. Edward Snowden’s revelations and PRISM
On June 5th The Washington Post and The Guardian published a secret order made under s.215 of the PATRIOT Act requiring the Verizon telephone company to give the NSA details of all US domestic and international phone calls, and “on an ongoing basis”. On June 6th the two newspapers revealed the existence of an NSA programme codenamed PRISM, which accessed data from leading brands of US Internet companies. By the end of the day a statement from Adm.Clapper (Director of NSA) officially acknowledged the PRISM programme and that it relied on powers under the FISA Amendment 2008 s.1881a/702.
On June 9th Edward Snowden voluntarily disclosed his identity and a film interview with him was released. The primary publication was in three newspapers: The Guardian, The Washington Post, and Der Spiegel. Four journalists have played a central role in obtaining, analysing and interpreting this material for the public: Barton Gellman, Laura Poitras, Jacob Appelbaum and Glenn Greenwald. They were joined by The Guardian (US edition), the New York Times in conjunction with ProPublica after the UK government insisted on destruction of The Guardian’s copy of the Snowden material in their London offices, under the supervision of GCHQ18.What can be referred to as the ‘PRISM scandal’ revealed a number of surveillance programmes, including: 1.5.1 “Upstream”
The slides published from the Snowden material feature references to “Upstream” collection programmes by the NSA adumbrated by various codewords. Data is copied from both public and private networks to the NSA from international fibre-optic cables at landing points, and from central exchanges which switch Internet traffic between the major carriers, through agreements negotiated with (or legal orders served on) the operating companies (and probably also by intercepting cables on the seabed19 when necessary).
1.5.2 XKeyscore
The XKeyscore system was described in slides20 (dated 200821) published by The Guardian on the 31st of July. It is an “exploitation system/analytic framework”, which enables searching a “3 day rolling buffer” of “full take” data stored at 150 global sites on 700 database servers.
The system integrates data collected22 from US embassy sites, foreign satellite and microwave transmissions (i.e. the system formerly known as ECHELON), and the “upstream” sources above. The system indexes e-mail addresses, file names, IP addresses and port numbers, cookies, webmail and chat usernames and buddylists, phone numbers, and metadata from web browsing sessions (including words typed into search engines and locations visited on Google Maps).
The distinctive advantage of the system is that it enables an analyst to discover “strong selectors” (search parameters which identify or can be used to extract data precisely about a target), and to look for “anomalous events” such as someone “using encryption” or “searching for suspicious stuff”.
The analyst can use the result of these index searches to “simply pull content from the site as required”. This system of unified search allows retrospective trawling through 3 days (as of 2008) of a much greater volume of data than is feasible to copy back to the NSA. The system can also do “Persona Session Collection” which means that an “anomalous event” potentially characteristic of a particular target can be used to trigger automatic collection of associated data, without knowledge of a “strong selector”.
It is also possible to find “all the exploitable machines in country X” by matching the fingerprints of configurations which show up in the data streams captured, with NSA’s database of known software vulnerabilities. The slides also say it is possible to find all Excel spreadsheets “with MAC addresses coming out of Iraq”23. Slide 17 is remarkable because it contained the first intimations of systemic compromise of encryption systems24 (see BULLRUN below).
1.5.3 BULLRUN
BULLRUN25 is the codename for a NSA programme for the last decade for an “aggressive multi-pronged effort to break into widely used encryption technologies”, revealed in a joint Guardian26/New York Times story on September 1st. This programme has caused the greatest shock amongst the Internet technical security community of all the Snowden material so far, and frantic efforts are underway worldwide to assess which systems might be vulnerable, and to upgrade or change keys, ciphers and systems, not least because adversaries in hostile countries will now be trying to discover any backdoor mechanisms previously only known by the NSA.
The programme budget is $250m per annum, and may use some of the following methods: collaboration with vendors of IT security products and software, mathematical cryptanalysis and “side-channel” attacks, forging of public-key certificates, infiltrating and influencing technical bodies towards adopting insecure standards, and likely use of coercive legal orders to compel introduction of “backdoors”.
It is important to stress that no evidence has emerged (yet) that the fundamental cipher algorithms in common use have been broken mathematically, however over the past few years doubts have grown about vulnerabilities in the complex “protocols” used to set-up and ensure compatibility amongst the software in common use.
FISA 702 may require a service provider to “immediately provide the government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition” of foreign intelligence information, and thus on its face could compel disclosure of cryptographic keys, This seems anomalous because ostensibly Microsoft stopped incorporating the MAC address in the GUID (Global Unique Identifier – a way of generating a unique document index number) with Office 2000, and MAC addresses are not correlated to a particular country (unless somehow the NSA has obtained a comprehensive database or built one somehow specially for Iraq or is able to monitor and collect WiFi signals at long range and/orsystematically).
“Show me all the VPN startups in country X, and give me the data so I can decrypt and discover the users” – a VPN (Virtual Private Network) is an “encrypted tunnel” between the user’s computer and a VPN provider, so Internet traffic notionally appears to originate from the VPN provider rather than the user, for privacy and security reasons.
The corresponding codename of the similar GCHQ cryptographic penetration programme is EDGEHILL, curiously both names of battles from each country’s civil war, and is outside the scope of this Note. 26 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa gchq-encryption-codes-security including the SSL keys used to secure data-in-transit by major search engines, social networks, webmail portals, and Cloud services in general. It is not yet known whether the power has been used in this way.
To keep reading this great article: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/briefingnote_/briefingnote_en.pdf
Executive Trade Secrets
October 30th, 2013By Tom C.W. Lin.
The law discriminates among a corporation’s secrets. In the eyes of the law, commercial secrets of corporations are legitimate secrets that deserve legal protection and nondisclosure, but personal secrets of executives are not as deserving of legal protection and nondisclosure. This divergent treatment of secrets has resulted in a legal landscape of perplexing, paradoxical paths for corporations and executives concerning executive disclosures—a precarious landscape that has left corporations and investors dangerously susceptible to revelations of private facts that shock market valuation and institutional stability.
This Article explores this divergent treatment of secrets in the context of public corporations and the private individuals who manage them, and offers a new way of thinking about corporate and personal secrets. This Article conceives the concept of Executive Trade Secrets as a pragmatic theoretical framework for unlocking this paradox of secrets and addressing the challenges surrounding executive disclosures.
This Article is the first to use trade secrets law to address the interdisciplinary legal issues surrounding executive disclosures. It re-conceptualizes private matters of executives as legally protectable trade secrets by unfolding the hidden symmetry between commercial secrets and personal secrets. It reveals Executive Trade Secrets as faithful to the first principles of the laws of trade secrets, privacy, securities, and corporations, and explains how such fidelity protects the privacy interests of executives and the corporate interests of shareholders. This Article, ultimately, constructs a way to think anew about executive disclosures and the larger issues at the modern nexus of secrecy, privacy, and commerce.
INTRODUCTION
Secrets pose vexing problems for law and society. The WikiLeaks scandal that unfolded in 2010 illustrates the difficulties concerning secrets in the Information Age.2 Free societies and free markets generally require openness and transparency.3 But individual secrets that deserve legal protection and nondisclosure 8 while personal secrets concerning private facts of executives are not as deserving of legal protection and nondisclosure.
This discriminatory treatment of secrets has resulted in a muddled legal landscape of paradoxical paths concerning executive disclosures of private information—diminishing privacy protections for executives, weakening legal safeguards for investors, and leaving corporations and investors dangerously susceptible to revelations of private facts that shock market valuation and institutional stability.
Two prominent episodes involving Apple, one of the most secretive companies in the world,9 and its reclusive former chief executive, Steve Jobs, illustrate this dangerous discriminatory treatment of secrets: The Mysterious Illness. In the summer of 2008, Steve Jobs’s sickly appearance at a trade show sent Apple shares moving.10 Apple shareholders and the marketplace began wondering whether Mr. Jobs’s pancreatic cancer, for which he was treated in 2004, had returned.
Apple refused to comment on his health condition, stating that it was a “private matter.”12 For months, the company’s shares fluctuated under the uncertainty cast by Mr. Jobs’s health and rumors surrounding it. At various times, Mr. Jobs was reported to have suffered a heart attack13 or died.14 Finally, in January of 2009, Mr. Jobs told the world in a letter that he was suffering from a “hormonal imbalance” with a “relatively simple and straightforward” remedy and that he would“continue as Apple’s CEO during [his] recovery.”15 About a week later, Apple announced that he was taking leave from the company due to health reasons.
Following this unexpected announcement many in the legal and corporate community suggested that Mr. Jobs and Apple may have violated federal securities law and state corporate law by not timely disclosing his private health condition to investors, given his importance to the company.17 Amidst the outcry, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) commenced an investigation shortly thereafter.
As a coda, in January 2011, Mr. Jobs once again took medical leave from Apple under similarly mysterious circumstances without any meaningful disclosure from Apple or Mr. Jobs to the public.19 Apple shares again dropped precipitously upon the announcement of his leave.20 In August 2011, in a short letter,21 Mr. Jobs resigned as chief executive of Apple.22 Shortly after the announcement, Apple shares dropped 5% during after-hours trading.23 Mr. Jobs would pass away a few weeks later in early October 2011 at the age of fifty-six.
The Misplaced iPhone. In the spring of 2010, an Apple engineer misplaced a top secret prototype iPhone at a bar. The phone was subsequently found and sold to the consumer electronic weblog, Gizmodo.com, which examined it “as if it were an alien from another planet” and posted numerous images and commentary of the device for Apple-obsessed consumers and competitors.25 Apple then reported the phone stolen.
The blogger in possession of the phone subsequently returned it after Mr. Jobs and Apple’s general counsel contacted him.27 Following the phone’s return, a special task force of armed police officers and investigators broke down the front door of the home of Gizmodo’s editor and confiscated several personal items in connection with the misplaced phone.28 The iPhone 4—the ultimate literation of the misplaced prototype—was launched in the summer of 2010 and became the most successful product launch for Apple.
In just three days, over 1.7 million units were sold.30 While some questioned Apple’s heavy-handed tactics,31 few legal commentators disputed that Apple had a right to protect the secrets of its iPhone prototype.32 In sum, these two episodes, the Mysterious Illness and the Misplaced iPhone, highlight the contrasting legal treatments and perceptions of business secrets and the secrets of business people.
While Mr. Jobs’s refusal to reveal his private medical secrets incited an SEC investigation, Apple’s aggressive (and armed) defense of its product secrets garnered understanding. The law must better address this divergent treatment of secrets as private lives of executives continue to attract more public attention.
This Article explores this divergent and paradoxical treatment of secrets, in the context of public firms and the private individuals who manage them, and introduces the concept of Executive Trade Secrets as a pragmatic theoretical framework for executives, investors, and regulators to address and to think anew about executive disclosures of private facts. This Article is the first to use trade secrets law to address the difficult interdisciplinary legal issues surrounding executive disclosures.
his Article aims to reveal that the secrets of the Mysterious Illness are much like the secrets of the Misplaced iPhone, that some personal secrets of executives are like the commercial secrets of the businesses they manage. Both are worthy of legal protection and nondisclosure. Executive Trade Secrets, as conceived here, will change conventional understandings of executive disclosures, strengthen privacy protections for executives, and further the corporate interests of shareholders. Ultimately, it will offer a new way to think about executive disclosures and the larger issues at the modern nexus of privacy, secrecy, and commerce.
It should be noted upfront that this Article does not intend to create a heroic construct to shield all private information of executives from public disclosure, nor does it intend to elevate the privacy rights of executives. Instead, this Article inquires into the legal para-dox between business secrets and secrets of business people, and it reveals the hidden symmetry of both types of secrets and key implications uncovered by this revelation.
This Article proceeds with this revelation in five parts.
Part I starts with an exposition of the laws of corporate secret-telling. It begins by documenting the disclosure requirements of firms and executives under federal securities law.35 It then explicates on the rise of executives and the fall of their privacy.36
Part II exposes how the secrets of executives are shielded from the public and shown to the public. It commences with an exploration of the legal tensions arising out of executive disclosures by traversing the main fault lines at the nexus of securities law, corporate law, and privacy law.37 It then examines the inconsistent executive disclosure practices of firms, as a symptom of these tensions and the lack of a workable legal framework.
Part III begins laying the foundation for creating a pragmatic theoretical framework for resolving the paradox of secrets between commercial secrets and executive secrets. It does so by surveying the smoother terrain of trade secrets law, describing how trade secrets law protects the secrets of businesses, and highlighting the importance of trade secrets to commerce.
Building on the foundation of existing trade secrets law, Part IV introduces the concept of Executive Trade Secrets as the key to unlocking the paradox of secrets and addressing problematic issues of executive disclosures.40 It re-conceptualizes certain private matters of executives as legally protectable trade secrets by revealing the hidden symmetry between the commercial secrets of businesses and the personal secrets of executives.
Part IV also studies how Executive Trade Secrets is faithful to the first principles of the laws of trade secrets, privacy, securities, and corporations. It proceeds to reveal how such fidelity creates a pragmatic, interdisciplinary legal framework for executives, investors, and regulators to think anew about executive disclosure. To explicate further on the concept of Executive Trade Secrets,Part IV closes with an examination of the inelegant—but instructive— political analogue of executive privilege.
Part V explores three key implications arising out of the concept of Executive Trade Secrets.42 First, it addresses whether such a conception creates a benign shield to protect or a malignant shield to hide.43 Second, Part V suggests that executive disclosure operating within the Executive Trade Secrets framework can lead to better executive pools and more public firms.44 Third, it discusses how such a conception of personal secrets as trade secrets coincides with and resides within the modern trend of privacy commoditization.45Finally, this Article closes with a brief conclusion.
I. PUBLIC FIRMS AND PRIVATE MANAGERS
The public corporation is one of the greatest inventions of mankind— an engine for the energy and ingenuity of entrepreneurs, a vehicle for incredible wealth-creation and innovation.46 In America, in exchange for access to public funds, firms relinquish certain secrets of their affairs to the world.47 Those secrets include information about the firms themselves and the individuals who serve as their executives. This information comes into the light through a regulatory framework established by securities regulation and corporate law.
A. The Disclosure Obligations of Public Firms
The federal securities regulatory framework was built on the principle of public disclosure.48 The Securities Act of 193349 (the Securi- ties Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 193450 (the Exchange Act) serve as the legal bases of that framework. Firms that choose to make public offerings of securities in the U.S. capital markets must comply with the disclosure requirements of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.
Despite the recent financial crisis,52 the U.S. capital markets remain one of the largest pools of capital for firms.53 Absent proper compliance, the SEC can restrict a firm’s access to the U.S. capital markets.54 Absent access to such funding, firms would have to incur significant costs in raising capital for future investments, talent retention, and ongoing operations.55 Therefore, many businesses aspire to become public firms and, thus, comply with the disclosure requirements of both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.
To read more on this report go to: http://www3.nd.edu/~ndlrev/archive_public/87ndlr3/Lin.pdf
NSA’s claims of EU spying on its own members becames unresolved
October 30th, 2013
By Jaime Ortega.
Gen. Keith Alexander , director of the National Security Agency (NSA ) who has backed Obama publicly, said at a hearing before the Intelligence Committee of the House of Representatives that the information they have in countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy came across ” European partners.”
” To be perfectly clear , we do not collect that information,” Alexander specifically cited relevant reports published by a serious of newspapers around the world , as well as by the French newspaper ‘Le Monde ‘ and the Italian ‘L’ Espresso .’
The disclosures of such means, based on the documents provided by former CIA consultant , Edward Snowden , which indicated that the NSA had spied over 70 million phone calls in France and 60 million in Spain in the span of a month , are ” completely false ,” said Alexander.
However another anonymous source suggest that while the NSA was spying on Spain and Portugal directly, Spain was actually collecting data on Germany with additional help from the NSA.
The NSA declined to comment, as did the Spanish foreign ministry and a spokesman for the French Embassy in Washington. A spokesman for Spain’s intelligence service said: “Spanish law impedes us from talking about our procedures, methods and relationships with other intelligence services.”
In recent days, leading newspapers in France and Spain have cited documents provided by the fugitive former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in reports that alleged that the NSA was sweeping up massive quantities of phone records in those countries.
Le Monde said the documents showed that more than 70 million French phone records between early December 2012 and early January 2013 were collected by the NSA, prompting Paris to lodge a protest with the U.S.
In Spain, the El Mundo newspaper reported that it had seen NSA documents that showed the U.S. spy agency had intercepted 60.5 million phone calls in Spain during the same time period.
The director of the NSA also confirmed the revelations found on the ‘Wall Street Journal’ in which the wiretapping in these countries, attributed to the NSA , had been made by European secret services and “given ” to the U.S. agency . He added that these data are from foreign intelligence agencies and communications as most were captured outside Europe.
Whistle blowers for The Daily Journalist commented that while the US, Russia, China, Britain and France are well-known to engage in aggressive cyber espionage, including against allies, many other countries do not have anywhere near the same surveillance infrastructure – and concentrate their more limited resources on counter-terrorism and serious crime.
Questioning the latest reactions on the Wall Street Journal’s findings, but not shutting the possibility down.
Asked whether the NSA shared information with fellow” European allies ” and if they likewise share information with the U.S. agency , Gen. Alexander responded affirmatively yes.
Also speaking at the hearing, the Director of National Intelligence , James Clapper, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies , including the NSA. In his speech, he denounced ” a torrent of damaging revelations ” to the work of their services.
US President Barack Obama has “recently ordered” the National Security Agency to stop tapping the UN headquarters in New York amid the review of electronic surveillance programs, Reuters reported, citing official sources.
“The United States is not conducting electronic surveillance targeting the United Nations headquarters in New York,” a senior Obama administration official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Another official told the news agency that the decision was made within the last few weeks after the president’s aides said in briefings that the White House no longer wanted to conduct certain monitoring of UN targets.
The official could not elaborate on the extent of past surveillance and did not say whether the monitoring of UN diplomats elsewhere in the world is continuing, as such programs are highly classified.
Italian Organized Crime
October 28th, 2013
By Europol.
Mafia-type Italian organised crime is a clear and present threat to the European Union (EU). The basis of the power of the Italian Mafias resides in their control and exploitation of the territory and of the community. The contextualised concepts of family, power, respect and territory are fundamental to understanding the dynamics of the Mafias. The Mafias are capable of manipulating elections and installing their men in administrative positions even far away from the territories they control. From that perspective, the threat they pose is unparalleled by any other European Organised Crime Group (OCG).
Exploiting legislative loopholes and using the services of corrupt administrators and professionals, they launder money and manage it through front companies and straw men. The four Italian Mafia-type organisations – Sicilian Mafia, Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta, Neapolitan Camorra and Apulian Organised Crime – present common traits but also specific individual characteristics that need to be appreciated. When operating outside their territory of origin, the Mafias modify their behaviours and modi operandi.
Cosa Nostra is the oldest, most traditional and widespread manifestation of the Sicilian Mafia. Its international expansion has mainly been directed towards North America. In the EU its emissaries facilitate criminal operations and money laundering. Cosa Nostra’s present strategy of keeping a low-profile is valid both within the territories it controls and outside them. Cosa Nostra is increasing its involvement in cocaine trafficking, often cooperating with other Mafias.
Extremely skilled Cosa Nostra money launderers manage legitimate business structures and have infiltrated the economy of some target countries, including South Africa, Canada, USA, Venezuela and Spain. Other Sicilian Mafia groups not affiliated to Cosa Nostra include the Stidda and the Cursoti and Laudani clans. They also present a threat at an EU level because of their involvement in violent crime, including hit-and-run armed robberies.
The ‘Ndrangheta is among the richest and most powerful organised crime groups at a global level. It has a dominant position on the European cocaine market due to excellent relations with the producers. The ‘Ndrangheta is trying to colonise new territories and attempts to exert its influence over Calabrese migrant communities. It reproduces abroad perfect copies of its operational structures, the ‘Ndrine (or Clans) and the Locali, which still fall under the supreme authority of the Calabrian Crimine.
The ‘Ndrangheta has a hierarchical structure and has repeatedly proven its skill in infiltrating political and economic environments and its remarkable capacity for corruption. Through the shrewd use of its immense liquidity (of criminal origin) in legitimate business structures it has been able to achieve a position of quasi-monopoly in selected sectors, such as construction, real estate and transport. The ‘Ndrangheta is mainly present in Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, the USA, Colombia and Australia.
The Camorra is for the most part a horizontal cluster of Clans and Families engaged inconstant internal strife. Their presence on the territory has a very high impact. Unlike theirSicilian and Calabrian counterparts, Camorra bosses tend to have a very high profile, with a flashy lifestyle and extravagant expenses. Outside its territory the Camorra is mainly involved in drug trafficking, cigarette smuggling, illicit waste dumping and particularly in the sale of counterfeit products, either procured via Chinese OCGs or directly manufactured by the Clans.
It is also among the principal producers of counterfeit Euros, then sold to and placed on the market by other OCGs. The Camorra is present in Spain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Eastern Europe, the USA and Latin America. Apulian Organised Crime is frequently and wrongly identified with the Sacra Corona Unita (SCU), which is one of its components but by no means the only one. The Società Foggiana, the Camorra Barese and the Gargano’s Mafia are other criminal clusters belonging to Apulian Organised Crime.
Traditionally engaged in smuggling, Apulian organised criminals evolved from trafficking cigarettes to human beings, drugs, weapons and illegal waste disposal. Outside of Italy, Apulian Organised Crime is present mainly in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Albania.
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
Italian organised crime is known all over the world, to the point that the term ‘Mafia’ is now understood across the globe as referring to the organised criminal underworld. Literature on the subject is abundant, ranging from history, sociology and criminology to fiction and plain entertainment. The distinctive character, looks, habits, idiosyncrasies and jargon of the Mafiosi have been described, analysed, explained and imitated. Apparently, everybody is familiar with Italian organised crime.
Nevertheless, a document analysing the overall scope of Italian organised crime at an international level from the law enforcement (LE) perspective, and the threat it poses in the EU and beyond, does not exist. This document is intended to fill that important information gap. This is a public report intended for a wide audience, based on a more detailed strategic assessment prepared for law enforcement purposes. The extreme difficulty in collecting information of the required quality confirmed the particular nature of Italian OC, which tends to operate ‘under the radar’ whenever it acts outside its territory.
2.2 Aims and Objectives
The restricted version of this document, made available to the EU law enforcement community, aims at explaining the nature and structure of the four Italian Mafias: Sicilian Mafia, Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta, Neapolitan Camorra and Apulian Organised Crime. It analyses their international dimension, the different attitudes they assume when operating outside their territory, the well-practised and new modi operandi used in their criminal operations, and their trans-national strategies. It also attempts to anticipate their next moves, and indeed to identify possible vulnerabilities and the course of actions necessary to successfully combat Mafia activity.
The decision to produce a report focusing on these OCGs was based on an intelligence gap recognised by Europol in the production of the 2011 Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA) and confirmed in the production of its successor, the 2013 Serious Organised Crime Threat Assessment (SOCTA). This is in line with Europol’s role in the EU Policy Cycle for organised and serious international crime, which foresees the production of regional or thematic threat assessments to address identified intelligence gaps.
This public report aims to summarise the restricted document in a manner which affords the reader a good understanding of the nature of Italian Organised Crime and an appreciation of the very real threat they currently pose to the European Union, and the challenge facing law enforcement agencies as a result. The much longer restricted report includes extensive details of up-to-date case examples, with relevant citations, which cannot be included here for reasons of confidentiality.
3 ITALIAN ORGANISED CRIME: COMMON FEATURES
The origin of Italian Mafia-type criminal organisations is the subject of abundant literature.Many theories are provided in the vast array of varied and often conflicting explanations of how, when and where the Mafia was born. These range from myth and legend, often mixed with Hollywood glamorisation and media speculation. The present report is a threat assessment, not a historical study. Research on the genesis of the Mafias and narration of their evolution is not the objective. However, there are a few fundamental and interconnected tenets that must be seriously considered whenever the Italian Mafias are involved: family, power, respect and territory.
3.1 Family
In virtually every culture, family is considered the basic element of society. It provides food, shelter and education to the newborn, manages internal dynamics and settles possible disputes. Several families and individuals constitute a community, where interpersonal relations are ruled by law (ubi societas ibi ius). Laws are made by the state exercising sovereignty on the territory where the community reside, and the state ‘upholds the claim to the monopoly of the use of physical force in the enforcement of its order’1.
Family bonds and obligations vary according to cultural and historical differences. In areas historically affected by a strong presence of Italian organised crime, the emotional and affectionate character commonly attributed to Mediterranean people, combined with a secular mistrust towards the state,2 amplified the role and the power of the family in the community. Governed by distant and foreign powers that preserved obsolete feudal rights far into the 19th century, local communities in Southern Italy were deprived of a consistent network of social, economic, industrial and political structures that, in the rest of Western Europe, marked the progress of modern states since the Peace of Westphalia (1648).
The state was often seen as a greedy and hostile entity imposing taxes without providing services, and the extended family was considered the only reliable point of reference. That sense of belonging to the family is often stretched to the point of superseding the rule of law governing the community of reference, leading to actions for the benefit and aggrandisement of the family and its members, even to the detriment of the community.
That overpowering sense of family, which has been romanticised in cinema and literature, is a formidable obstacle to the normal evolution of the community. In fact, no one affected by it will further the interests of the community, except when it is to his (or his family’s) private advantage to do so. In such cases, the expectation of material gain is the only motive for involvement in public affairs. This sentiment provided the ideal base on which the Mafias built their power: total commitment to (and total control of) a closely knit group; tremendous emotional impact boosted by centuries of local traditions; induced self-victimisation to justify abusive behaviours (‘everybody is against us, but we will defeat them all’); mistrust of the state and of its laws (‘the family only recognises and follows its own rules’); incessant reinforcement of family ‘esprit de corps’; strict systems of reward and punishment; overbearing emphasis on an adapted concept of honour; and ruthless treatment of members considered as traitors.
3.2 Power
Hunger for power is the essence of the Mafias. In common with all other OCGs, economic power is of paramount relevance to Mafia-type organisations, but it is by no means the only form of power they seek, and possibly not even the most important….
To keep reading about this great report go to: https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/italian_organised_crime_threat_assessment_0.pdf
Mexico’s Drug War
October 21st, 2013By Robert S. Leiken.
INTRODUCTION
Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón staked his presidency on a military campaign against the country’s crime syndicates, deploying half of Mexico’s combat ready troops and tens of thousands of federal police in 18 states. The conflict has caused 50,000 deaths, more than five times what America has lost in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. In Washington, several high officials and political leaders assert that Mexico faces an insurgency that may require
American military assistance.
But is Mexico’s “war” a low intensity conflict or a high intensity crime scene? Does Mexico face a “criminal insurgency” or a turf war? Does the situation present a national security threat or a law enforcement crisis? Should it be addressed primarily by the military or the police? Should the U.S. be sending military or police advisors? Is the current death toll an inevitable by-product of strategic progress or a signal of failure
Background
Two years ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations that in Mexico …we face an increasing threat from a well-organized network, drug trafficking threat that is, in some cases, morphing into or making common cause with what we would consider an insurgency, in Mexico and in Central America….And these drug cartels are now showing more and more indices of insurgency — you know, all of a sudden car bombs show up, which weren’t there before. So it’s becoming — it’s looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago, where the narco traffickers control…certain parts of the country…
The comment disconcerted many in Mexico including its president who reportedly communicated his concern to President Barack Obama. The latter promptly and publicly rejected the Colombia analogy, stating “Mexico is a vast and progressive democracy with a growing economy, and as a result you cannot compare what is happening in Mexico with what happened in Colombia 20 years ago.”
Both of these clashing appraisals are questionable, recognizes that Mexico matters for many reasons: our strategic stability to the south (and hence to freedom of action elsewhere), our border security, as an important market for our goods and capital, as a source of energy, a destination for tourists, a primary source of immigration, and for our narcotics control and domestic law enforcement. This common ground notwithstanding, Clinton remained steadfast in her original conviction, as she made clear a few weeks later at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club.
And the Secretary was by no means alone. Two weeks before the respected ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Richard Lugar called for increasing U.S. military assistance to combat Mexico’s “narco insurgency.”
The alarm registered by the foreign policy leaders of the two political parties reflects a disquiet in Washington that has spread as Mexico’s violence has escalated in both scope and scale. Mexican officials now speak of a “national security threat” while many in Washington talk of a “criminal insurgency.” This last formulation is especially popular in the Pentagon at a time when the United States is waging two counter-insurgencies overseas.
Those wars gave special currency to counterinsurgency doctrine or COIN. COIN offers a strategic doctrine that stresses the protection and mobilization of the local population, winning their support to “clear, hold and build.” The doctrine was born in counter-insurgency warfare in Malaysia and Vietnam, promptly forgotten in the era of high-tech bombardment of the Balkans and Iraq, and then resurrected by General David Petraeus for American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is a form of warfare with which the United States has become familiar as it confronts small wars and terrorism—loosely grouped as “insurgencies.” Thanks to the success of the Iraq “surge,” COIN advocates have built an influential network of support in Washington.
The doctrine has bi-partisan appeal. It has been embraced by Republicans in Iraq and by President Obama in Afghanistan. Conservatives like COIN because it projects U.S. power. Liberals, or at least “liberal internationalists,” like it because it promises to “win hearts and minds.” COIN’s foremost advocate is the Center for a New American Security [CNAS], whose funders include the Department of Defense, each of the military services, and many prominent defense contractors.
The think tank’s founders and alumni include former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michelle Flournoy, and current Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Kurt Campbell. In September CNAS released a study that described Leiken the conflict in Mexico as “no longer simply a crime problem, but a threat that is metastasizing into a new form of widespread, networked criminal insurgency.”
The report argues that Mexico’s “insurgent cartels…increasingly challenge the government directly.” In November Washington Post columnist Edward Schumacher-Matos, citing the CNAS report, complained that “the Mexican elite class and military remain too proud to do what they immediately should: Call in the Marines.”
Though the Mexican insurgency paradigm clearly enjoys support from influential Washington figures and institutions, not everyone shares this view. Asked to comment on the Secretary of State’s formulation, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela, swiftly noted that the conflict in Mexico “is not a matter of a militarized group within society seeking to take control of the state for political reasons.”
7 At a meeting of The Center for the National Interest’s Mexico discussion group Michael Shifter, the president of the Inter-American Dialogue called the Clinton-CNAS formulation “a misleading characterization,” albeit one “prompted by legitimate alarm at Mexico’s spiraling and spreading violence.” At the same meeting John Bailey, director of the Mexico Project at Georgetown University, suggested that what was occurring in Mexico was not “a low intensity conflict” but “a high intensity crime war.” Bailey suggested that Mexican blood is being shed not in an insurgency but in combat among drug cartels that is unprecedented in scope and arsenal.
Similarly, Luis Astorga and David Shirk argued in a paper for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that the violence “reflects internecine conflicts between organized crime groups.”Two other informed observers reached the same conclusion that “most of the violence has been the result of competition and rivalries among the cartels….”
Mexican officials themselves estimate that “90% of the dead are involved in the drug trade, another 6% are police officers and soldiers,” the rest innocent by-standers. top government advisor and spokesperson, Joaquin Villalobos, asserted in January 2010 that “of the 25,000 deaths registered to date, 90% are from the cartels and the rest are civilians and members of the security forces.”
Those ratios bear no semblance to those of an insurgency—like in Vietnam, El Salvador, Colombia, or Iraq. Phillip Caputo noted in the fall of 2009 that of the many things Mexico lacks these days, …clarity is near the top of the list. It is dangerous to know the truth.
Finding it is frustrating. Statements by U.S. and Mexican government officials, repeated by a news media that prefers simple story lines, have fostered the impression in the United States that the conflict in Mexico is between Calderón’s white hats and the crime syndicates’ black hats.The reality is far more complicated, as suggested by this statistic: out of Mexico’s Drug War those 14,000 dead, fewer than 100 have been soldiers. Presumably, army casualties would be far higher if the war were as straightforward as it’s often made out to be.
What does appear clear-cut, if colossal, is the arsenal the crime syndicates deploy. They can attack with surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank rockets, grenade launchers, bazookas, armor-piercing munitions, not to mention military-grade assault rifles, and 50-caliber machine guns. They defend themselves in Kevlar ballistic helmets, body armor and night vision goggles. These sophisticated arms and the emergence of hierarchical cell structures are only some of the phenomena that has led a number of analysts and journalists to fashion the oxymoron “criminal insurgency.”
Mexican cartels have employed psychological operations, fomented anti-government protests, attacked both police and military in infantry style assaults, assassinated political officials [and] journalists, beheaded and maimed their victims, to amplify the strategic impact of their attacks, and co-opted and corrupted the military, police and political officials at all levels of government. The result is… a set of interlocking “criminal insurgencies” culminating in virtual civil war.
Drug smuggling from and through Mexico dates back to the prohibition era, when bootleggers smuggled rum across the country’s northern border. As the century progressed, criminals turned to marijuana, heroin, and, most recently, cocaine and methamphetamines for new sources of revenue. The ruling PRI chose to co-opt rather than confront these criminal groups, in line with a culture of corruption and impunity. But while organized crime organizations penetrated local state and even federal governments and drug “cartels” (a.k.a. Drug Trafficking Organizations or DTOs) proliferated, their presence seldom affected wider Mexican society.
This began to change under President Vicente Fox. In 2005, Fox announced “the mother of all battles” and, for the first time in history, deployed the military against Mexico’s transnational crime organizations (TCOs). His successor, Felipe Calderón, dramatically expanded this policy when he entered office in December 2006. Under his plan, the military targeted the TCOs’ logistical and financial networks. Troops would establish checkpoints, interdict drug shipments, fumigate marijuana and opium crops, and capture the most important leaders and strategists.
The military would also coordinate with local security forces to retake and secure territory. Over the next four years, this strategy would involve over 50,000 troops and 5,000 federal police…
To read more about this report please go to: http://cftni.org/42460_CNI_web.pdf
Has Israel become the lesser of the two evils?
October 18th, 2013‘
Contributor Opinion.
Palestinians and Israelis have disputed their land for more than half a century. Some even claim it’s a Biblical dilemma dating back to the Philistines and ancient Israel. Many have tried to promote peace around the region but some have employed violence to stimulate more problems that escalated due to the death of many innocent people. It is a region where religion seems to play a bigger role than politics, and no matter how many peace treaties foreign countries try to come up with, it never seems to work or last long.
It seemed in the past that many European countries and Asian countries supported the Palestinian cause to the point of massively protesting inside major plazas, as in their views Palestinians were brutally oppressed by the Israeli Army. But indirectly through time and after 9/11 with the threat of radical Islam spreading rapidly to the west, it literally reverted the choice of preference back to the Israeli cause. From Denmark’s controversial cartoons, to Germany, France .. Uyghur in China, Chechnya and Russia, Kosovo and Serbia, England and Spain subway bombings, Bombay shootings, Nigerian embassy, recently Al-Shabaab’s tragedy in Kenya — it has reached a point where many would rather cheer for tyrannical regimes like Al Assad’s, or Sisi’s (Egypt), rather than the threat of the FSA supported by Al-Qaeda or even the Islamic Brotherhood who technically won via-democracy in Egypt. Now people cheer for Israel because many now dislike radical Islam.
Many critics observe Israel as an oppressor country that should have never been there to begin with powered by a British-American agenda before its foundation, specially amongst activist, communist and Anti-Imperialist countries besides Muslims supporters worldwide. But many more now consider Hamas as a real threat for global security as it is backed by the Islamic Brotherhood, Hezbollah and other worrisome organizations that also threaten westernized countries in shocks of horror. And as a result terrorism and radical Islamization has diminished the Palestinian cause.
But examining the Middle East during these past few years during the recent turmoils other thoughts come to mind. If you compare how Israel has treated the Palestinians over decades, considering the rapid amount of violence experienced in neighboring countries recently, it’s fair to say that Palestinians are not really struggling that bad under Israel as of today, especially compared with the short period of time during which many Iron-fisted Regimes during the Arab Spring have brutally treated their own populations. Despite Israel’s military capacity, they actually never used full force against Palestinians, even when 200 rockets were launched across the border. Historically many countries would have severely retaliated and killed thousands as a response, which raises the question of Israel’s brutal policy in the Middle East.
What is the best solution to find common ground between Israelis and Palestinians? Has the rise of Hamas negatively affected the Palestinian image including the rise of radical Islam globally? Has Israel dealt with the Palestinians as brutally as many have claimed over the years? In the end of the day, after the brutal Arab Spring is it really fair to say that Palestine is better under Israel’s authority than under the control of neighboring countries who seem to always have dictators ruling who accuse Israel of doing the same?
Fadi F. Elhusseini.
“Your piece looked balanced except for the last two paragraphs.
For instance, you say: “If you compare how Israel has treated the Palestinians over decades, considering the rapid amount of violence experienced in neighboring countries recently, its fair to say that Palestinians are not really struggling that bad under Israel as of today, especially compared with how in a short period of time many Iron-fisted Regimes during the Arab Spring have brutally treated their own population.”
This is absolutely erroneous. A long-term gradual pain is much harder than a sudden death. Palestinians have been suffering for more than sixty years now. Many of the suffering and massacres are not amply covered by media and the disastrous living conditions they experience are way beyond description.
Thus, it is true that the brutality we have seen from many of the neighboring countries surpassed what was published or people learned about, concerning Israeli practices, but still a crime is a crime and in 2008/2009, in less than a month Israel killed more than 1500 Palestinians. This was Israel “moderate” retaliation of few home-made rockets launched from Gaza.
In the last paragraph you say: “In the end of the day, considering the Arab Spring, is it really fair to say after the brutal Arab Spring, that Palestine is better under Israel’s authority, than under the control of neighboring countries?” This sentence is extremely absurd and discriminatory as you are suggesting that either:
1- Palestinians are just “objects” who have always to live under occupation,
2- Or Palestinians should thank God for living under Israeli occupation, and hence you seek a justification for the existence of this occupation.
Being under occupation is not a choice and you are suggesting that living under “Israeli” occupation can be better than any other occupation!!! What a point!!! Occupation is occupation; ugly, unfair, wrong and justice must prevail after all.”
Mehmood-Ul-Hassan Khan.
“It has been very complicated and complex phenomena for so many years. Unfinished agenda of Palestine freedom is still as far cry. Innocent people from both sides have been easy prey of vested socio-economic, Geo-politics and Geo-strategic politics.
Islam has nothing do with the widespread of radicalism around the globe. International movers and shakers have been using religion as motivation force to eliminate their enemy. It was used to dismantle former USSR with the help of Afghan Fighters which afterwards, labeled fugitive, terrorists and enemies of democracy, human rights or humanity. What is true that is still debatable?
The government of Pakistan has revealed the closed connection between CIA and other renowned agencies with the Taliban. Destruction, conspiracy and sabotage activities have been played on the soil of Pakistan in disguised character of strategic ally. The ancient philosophy of enemy’s enemy is my best friend is still relevant and functional.
Israel being the elder brother must show spirits of accommodation to settle the burning issue of Palestine, one of the main causes of martial struggle of so many radical Islam followers in the world and especially in the Middle East and MENA.
The division of Sunni and Shia ethnicity has been one of the favorite tools in the hands of imperialists. Proxy wars in foreign countries have been one of the most wanted games on the chessboard of regional and international politics. China has heavily invested in Africa, Latin America and MENA and so called highly projected Arab Spring was planned to kick-out China from these region by the Imperialists dying for hegemony, possession of oil and gas reservoirs.
Civil unrest in Brazil, Argentine and even Turkey were designed to weaken Chinese Connection in these emerging economies. Massacre in Myanmar, Philippine, and some extend Sri Lanka against weaker Muslims are being carried out because of Chinese strategic depth. Monks are new icon of communal hatred with permit to kill by so called completely nonviolent people on our earth.
Religion is asset not liability everywhere in the world. Every religion does not permit killing of innocent people. Economic dynamic, political supremacy and the last but not the least, dream of ultimate victor is now the main actors of destruction and denial of social development. We are all human being dreaming having qualitative life, better future, a world free from all kinds of hatred and inequalities which is still far away.
Freedom of speech does not mean that someone has the license to kill the religious feelings and emotions of other people living in the world. It cannot be used for vested interests. Main thing is system of governance which must be free from stigma, corruption and abuse. Vested interests of USA, Israel and to some extend MENA stand in the peaceful settlement of Israel-Palestine dispute.”
Catherine Haig.
“Israel should never have been made into a country. Since it’s inception and inclusion under British protection and then under American protection it has flourished however it should never be as powerful as it seems to be now. I think this American shut down may prove to be quite an interesting dilemma for this country as well as all Arab run countries. America has now stopped giving Egyptian countries money – thankfully they don’t deserve a dime of our taxpayer money while our own citizens are poor, homeless and some working five jobs and living in shelters.
Israel and Palestinians are brothers yet they are both the biggest anti-Semites and it’s laughable when they use that word on others to denote “racism” against Jews. I hope they blow each other up and Israel becomes a place where the old city can expand. In the old city there are 4 quarters: Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Armenian. How the Armenians got there is a long story but these 4 cultural groups are able to live in harmony most times in the old city. May they forever be together in peace. The rest of Israel is going to hell and the Palestinians lost their cause the second they tried to Goliath their opposition.”
Mordechai Kedar.
“The creation of an artificial Palestinian state requiring the uprooting of Jewish families where no Arab population currently exists would lead to indefensible borders for the Jewish homeland. The more moderate PA and Fatah want a Palestinian state as a precursor for the ultimate demise of Israel.
Hamas remains opposed to any agreement which establishes a border recognizing the Israeli state. Any proposed re-unification between Hamas and Fatah is an obvious ploy that further threatens the survival of Israel and the Jewish people. The recent attacks against Israel by Hamas are now coordinated with the militant pro-Syrian, Iran-backed Islamic Jihad. Plus the Popular Resistance Committee is yet another terrorist group operating from Gaza.
The Arab Spring has brought about a much less stable region. Israel can no longer allow the rest of the world to dictate policy that makes it more difficult for the Jewish nation to survive. Israel must declare it’s own independent solution with regards to the so-called Palestinian movement and militant jihadism that appears to be on the accendancy. Doing nothing only invites intervention from abroad.
Prior to statehood in 1948 the larger territory was known as the British Mandate of Palestine. The Jewish people, who have been on this land continuously for 3,286 years, were often referred to as the Palestinians from the early 1920’s until statehood in 1948. Here are just two examples that prove this important distinction. The Palestine Post was founded by an American Jew in December 1932 in the Mandate of Palestine and supported the struggle for a Jewish Homeland. In 1950, two years after the State of Israel was declared, the paper was renamed The Jerusalem Post. And what started as the Palestine Symphony Orchestra is known today as the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra.
The Arabs who emigrated to the territory in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s to live and prosper among the Jews never wanted to be recognized as the Palestinians until it became a convenient tool in their opposition to the Jewish Homeland. In 1964 the PLO was formed which finally transformed the mantle of Palestinian from the pre-statehood Jews to the post-statehood Arabs.
Historically there never existed an Arab or Islamic state of Palestine with a capital in Jerusalem. The capital of “Jund Falastin” (“The District of Palestine”) under the Islamic 7th century occupation was the city of Ramle, 30 kilometers to the west of Jerusalem. It is very important that this historical truth be recognized as a basis for peace.
There is no Occupied territory west of the Jordan River. There is Disputed territory as a result of wars thrust upon Israel by jealous Arab neighbors. Today Arabs live within the State of Israel and in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. These Arab population centers are not going away and neither is the State of Israel.
Gaza is already a state-like entity, since Hamas took it over by force from the PLO in June 2007, thus breaking the Palestinian Authority into two separate entities. If Israel is forced to leave Judea and Samaria as part of a peace agreement, it becomes very possible that the more militant Hamas would eventually take over from the current PA/Fatah regime just as they did in Gaza, either by elections or by force. No one can guarantee otherwise.
Due to tribal rifts and local patriotism there will never be a successful unity government among the Palestinian Arab population centers in Judea and Samaria or Gaza. Like the PLO in the past, the PA/Fatah and Hamas do not represent the true ambitions of the majority of peaceful Arabs who just want a better future for their children within a traditional framework and local governance. The failed Two State Solution is rapidly heading to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Successful Arab leadership must be independent, local and firmly rooted with a traditional and homogenous sociological foundation. Israel and the world should recognize and support local leadership in the Arab Palestinian population centers that desire lasting peaceful relations as independent city-states. Because of ongoing corruption and an overt anti-Israel agenda, the leaders of the PLO, PA/Fatah and Hamas have devoted almost a half century in a futile attempt to eliminate Israel and destroy all that her citizens have accomplished.
The eight city-states would comprise the areas of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Jericho, Tul-Karm, Kalkilya, the Arab part of Hebron and the Gaza strip. Local residents would become citizens of these eight independent countries. Any Arab leadership that attempts to circumvent or dominate the development of these Palestinian Emirates would inhibit a future of security and economic opportunity for the citizens of these eight independent countries.
The Arab refugee situation can only be solved if there is lasting stability in the region. In 1948 approximately 500,000 Arabs were uprooted in advance of an Arab attack on Israel. At the same time about 850,000 Jews were thrown out of neighboring Arab countries, and most of the Jewish refugees successfully resettled in Israel. The Arab refugees have since been discriminated against by the Arab countries in the region in conjunction with the biased policies of UNRWA, so not a single Arab refugee has ever been resettled. The former director of the refugee agency in Jordan, Sir Alexander Galloway, actually stated, “The Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore… as a weapon against Israel.” The obvious failure of the peace initiatives, which have been based on false assumptions for so many decades, has only perpetuated the Arab refugee problem and human suffering.
Complex problems require simple, workable solutions. The development of the Palestinian Emirates is a viable alternative based on the sociology of the different clans and tribes in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. This initiative will bring about a stable peace to the region and added security for Israel.”
Sokari Ekine.
“It is difficult to isolate the exact question [s] being posed in this question. Having said that it seems to me that the questions posed make certain assumptions and conflate the occupation of Palestine and continued building of settlements with acts of terror and what has become to be known as ‘radical Islam’.
It also makes spurious connections between dictatorships in Syria and Iran assuming that these are somehow ‘bad’ as opposed to so called democracy which engage in the murder of civilians via drones on a daily basis [FACT]. Even the late Palestinian academic and activist Edward Said never denied the right of an Israeli state. That is not the point. First we can compare the increasing forced acquisition of Palestinian lands by Israel over the past 50 years -[try a simple google search].
Secondly comparing the ‘treatment of Palestinians by Israelis’ to that of say Saddam Hussein to Iraqis is disingenuous. You cannot compare the lives of people who live under daily occupation, and violence by occupiers including the need to carry passes, restricted movement, never knowing when their homes will be blasted and or invaded by the IDF, the inability to farm their lands and basically reach their potential to that of Syria or any other dictatorship – or is it that the Syrian rebels would prefer to live under Israeli occupation that under Assad? I doubt very much.
How one can even begin to imagine that living under occupation is ‘not that bad’. This completely ignores the reality of the daily lives of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the constant acts of violence committed by far right Zionist settlers. IT also ignores the fact of thousands of Palestinians who have died during the 1st and 2nd Intifadas and everything in-between. It is also important to note that Palestinians do not have freedom of movement in the occupied territory and their lands are continuously being appropriated by settlers.
On another issue lets take a look at the silent response of the Israeli government to it’s own citizens disgusting racism towards African immigrants i.e. the mass incarceration of African immigrants which fortunately a high court has ruled unconstitutional and other recent reports of rampant racism – see here and here
As for solutions – I think only a fantasy expert would imagine a solution under the present Zionist government of Benjamin Netanyahu and a US leadership that has never had the intention of objectivity since neither have continued to ignore all UN resolutions in favour of Palestine.”
Hossein Amiri.
“What is the best solution to find common ground between Israelis and Palestinians?
I do not believe the two-state solution is the best one, Because I believe the region is not geographically suitable for both sides can live in peace.
I believe that a secular government including all citizens from Palestine and Israel can be a solution but it will take a time maybe next next generation.
Is the rise of Hamas negatively affected the Palestinian image including the rise of radical Islam globally?
I don’t think so.
An Occupied land needs political and military forces for negotiation and bargaining. Hamas does its own function as s a militia group and also as an bargaining chip.
Has Israel dealt with the Palestinians as brutally as many have claimed over the years?
No, More of them are media propaganda. But I think Israel should be a little softer.
In the end of the day, considering the Arab Spring, is it really fair to say after the brutal Arab Spring, that Palestine is better under Israel’s authority, than under the control of neighboring countries who seem to always have dictators in their rule ship that accuse Israel of doing the same?
Yes Arab Dictators to me are worse than Israeli Racism. because Israel kills Muslims who are not Israeli citizens and are not Jews but Arab dictators kill their own people, who were under their authority for many years.
I don’t think Israel will accept Arabs under its authority because it will lead to a demographic problem for Israel which will be a catastrophe. ”
Aditya Pandey.
“I don’t think that the flaw should be attributed to just one side. Both Israel and Palestine are equally responsible for the wall of mistrust that exists between them. One side hates negotiating while the other continues to build settlements.
The situation forces me to draw an analogy with the existing tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir issue. Pak-sponsored terrorists have tried to unsettle the calmness displayed by India towards resolving the dispute by carrying out bombing activities. But the stance taken by India has been commendable.
Many dubbed India as a soft state. But I think India’s decision was wise enough. Likewise, Israel should understand that, by indulging in this everlasting war with Palestine, it risks diminishing the potential of its economy.
From what I have gathered from my understanding of post-partition India and Pak, the reason behind the contrasting political situations in both countries is due to the vision that the country’s leaders had for their country at the beginning. Their ideals got imprinted on the political fabric of the both countries and still continue to affect new generations.
Similarly, howsoever averse the conditions might be, a good leader can always step back rather than risking a foot ahead to fall into the ditch. But, it seems Israel doesn’t want to step back even slightly. Every missile landing onto other side of the fence leaves behind a child who has lost his mother, a student who wished to study but has lost his mentor and people who are left with nothing than to avenge their loss.
So, the situation is going to worsen if Israel doesn’t heed the implications of its’ actions and Palestine fails to appear for talks. Two state solution could have been a panacea, but that risks diverting the conflict from Israel’s borders to its inner core.”
Frank’s Palatnick.
“As a semi-retired UN Advisor of Global Education my philosophy is based on the framework ‘ Ask not what teachers can do for students. Ask what students can do for us. They are our future. Let them show us the way ‘. Students have the capability to create a better biosphere. For some time high school and college students have been involved in a process called the ‘ Model UN and most recently the ‘ Online Model UN. This process includes, but is not limited to the organizations within the UN. i.e ‘ The World Court ‘ and ‘ UNESCO ‘.
This process/framework enables/empowers students ( now called ‘ travelers ‘ on a journey of discovery and investigation in order to create methods and modalities to create a better world ) to solve problems/issues that we are now facing. What I feel is still missing from this process ( Model UN ) is that the results of their ‘ group think ‘ is not being transmitted to the proper/relative authorities. Results garnered/gleaned from these Model UN activities should be sent, as is, to the actual ambassador, head of country, government official, judge and etc. If ‘ travelers ‘ are our future, why not listen ? I don’t mean ‘ hear ‘. I mean ‘ listen ‘.
In that light I have been having an electronic conversation with the ex Director of Teacher Training, under the Minister of Education/Higher Education of Palestine, who has not only agreed with my philosophies on LinkedIn but has inculcated these philosophies into teacher training academies in Palestine. As a professor of a proposed judicial academy located in Canada who has studied various issues/topics of judicial craft, I feel one way to approach the problem in the Middle East is to have the parties concerned bring their case to the World Court.
Personally I feel that there is no ‘ one way to skin a cat ‘ as the saying goes. Due to the concept that the results of individual attempts by an organization or individual has not resulted in a better environment, we should attempt it multilaterally. In other words, we should try to cure the negative issues on all levels. We should approach the problems facing us through political, lega, religious, social, emotional and other disciplines and frameworks. We can even go as far as to say we should approach issues on a deeper level. We must understand the word ‘ understanding ‘ .
I have been brought up understanding that everyone is the summation of their experiences and the interpretation of those experiences. If society, as a whole, followed the frameworks of empathy, compassion and humanism from the time we are born, the world as we know it could be a more forward thinking biosphere.”
Raphael Cohen-Almagor.
Israel and the Palestinian Authority have recently resumed peace negotiations. To erect peace, it is essential to have trust, good will and security. It would be far-fetched to hope at present for peace in the short term. We should have little illusions about peace, at least so long as Hamas is determined to wipe Israel off the map. Israel does not even appear on Hamas maps. Israel should aspire to enter a long-term interim agreement; to build trust; evacuate isolated settlements; consolidate economic conditions for Palestinians; bolster security on both sides; stop enlarging existing settlements; dismantle checkpoints to make the lives of Palestinian civilians easier; develop the nautilus Iron Dom against rockets and other anti-rocket mechanisms. Finally, international cooperation is required to lift the existential Iranian threat.
I believe that if there is a will, there is a way. Both sides should aspire to peace in order to reach peace. Both sides need to understand that peace is a precious commodity and therefore be prepared to pay high price for its achievement, reaching a solution that is agreeable to both. The peace deal should be attractive to both, equally. It cannot be one-sided, enforced or coerced. Of all the possible solutions presently on the table, a two state solution seems to be the most viable. I believe that good starting points are the Clinton parameters and the Geneva Accord. Both documents lay the foundations for resolving all contentious issues.
The Palestinians aspire to have an independent state in the 1967 borders, with Arab Jerusalem as its capital and a substantial return of refugees to Israel. The Israelis wish to retain the Jewish character of Israel, being the only Jewish state in the world, and they wish to enjoy life in security, free of violence and terror. Both parties should explicitly accept UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 and then begin their full implementation. The endgame will be based on the following parameters:
Palestinian sovereignty – will be declared and respected.
Mutual recognition – Israel shall recognize the State of Palestine. Palestine shall recognize the State of Israel.
Mutual diplomatic relations – Israel and Palestine shall immediately establish full diplomatic relationships with each other, installing ambassadors in the capital of the respective partner.
Capital – each state is free to choose its own capital.
Borders – These should be reasonable and logical for both sides. Former military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin rightly claimed that having a border is the best security arrangement. Settling the conflict would give Israel greater international legitimacy to fight terrorism and enable it to deal with the more serious emerging threat from Iran.
Israel will withdraw to the Green Line, evacuating settlements and resettling the settlers in other parts of the country. The major settlement blocs — Ma’ale Adumim, Givat Ze’ev, Gush Etzion, Modi’in Illit and Ariel –- which account for approximately 70% of the Jewish population in the West Bank and for less than 2% of its size, may be annexed to Israel upon reaching an agreement with the PA of territory exchange that will be equal in size. Border adjustment must be kept to the necessary minimum and must be reciprocal. At the Taba talks, the Palestinians presented a map in which Israel would annex 3.1 percent of the West Bank and transfer to the PA other territory of the same size. Senior Israeli negotiator Yossi Beilin said that they were willing to concede Israeli annexation of three settlement blocs of at least 4 percent of the West Bank. Prime Minister Olmert offered Palestinian President Abbas a similar or even slightly better deal but Abbas did not reply positively.
Territorial contiguity – a corridor would connect the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to allow safe and free passage. The road will be permanently open and solely Palestinian. No Israeli checkpoints will be there. Palestinians will not be able to enter Israel from this corridor, nor shall Israelis enter Palestine from the corridor.
The Security Barrier creates a political reality. It should run roughly along the 1967 mutually agreed borders.
Security – Palestine and Israel shall base their security relations on cooperation, mutual trust, good neighborly relations, and the protection of their joint interests. The Palestinian sovereignty should be respected as much as possible. Checkpoints will be dismantled. Only the most necessary control and early-warning posts will remain, subject to review and necessity agreed upon by both sides. The Palestinian state will be non-militarized. This issue was agreed upon in 1995. Also agreed upon were joint Israeli-Palestinian patrols along the Jordan River, the installation of early warning posts, and the establishment of a permanent international observer force to ensure the implementation of the agreed security arrangements. The early warning posts will be periodically visited by Israeli security officers but they won’t be permanently present on Palestinian soil. If there is a need for a permanent presence, this would be trusted to an agreed-upon third party.
Safe passage – There will be a safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza, with no Israeli presence or checkpoints. The safe passage will be under Palestinian sovereignty and control. Palestine will ensure that this safe passage won’t be abused for violent purposes. Such abuse would undermine peace and trust between the two parties.
Jerusalem – What is Palestinian will come under the territory of the new capital Al Kuds. Al Kuds would include East Jerusalem and the adjacent Palestinian land and villages. Abu Dis, Al-Izarieh and Al-Sawahreh will be included in the Palestinian capital. The Israeli capital would include West Jerusalem and the adjacent Israeli settlements. To maintain Palestinian contiguity, Israel may be required to give up some of the settlements around Arab Jerusalem. The Old City will be granted a special status. Special arrangements and recognition will be made to honour the importance of the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter for Jews, and similarly special arrangements and recognition will be made to honour the importance of the Islamic and Christian holy places. The Old City will be opened to all faiths under international custodianship. There will be Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in providing municipality services to both populations.
Haram al-Sharif – On March 31, 2013, a Jordan-Palestinian agreement was signed between the PA and Jordan, entrusting King Abdullah II with the defense of Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem. While Jordan may be a party to any agreement concerning the site, a broader arrangement is welcomed. As agreed by Abbas and Olmert, it will be under the control of a five-nation consortium: Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States. The Waqf will continue its administration. Jews will enjoy right of access. Excavation for antiquities may be undertaken only with the full agreement of both sides. Similarly, alterations to the historical structures and foundations can be made only upon the consent of both sides.
Water – The UN secretary-general has said that Palestinians “have virtually no control” over the water resources in the West Bank, with 86 percent of the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea under the de facto jurisdiction of the settlement regional councils. Israel and Palestine should seek a fair solution that would not infringe the rights of any of the sides and will assure that the Palestinian people will have the required water supply for sustenance and growth.
Fishing – Israel and Palestine will enjoy fishing rights in their respective territorial waters.
Terrorism and violence – Israel should remain steadfast on its demand of the Palestinians to fight down terrorism. Zero tolerance in this sphere. Both sides will work together to curb violence. Both sides will see that their citizens on both sides of the border reside in peace and tranquility. Zealots and terrorists, Palestinian and Jews, will receive grave penalties for any violation of peace and tranquility. The Palestinians, apparently, fail to understand the gravity of terrorism and are willing to accept it as part of life. Senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said that the option is not either armed struggle or negotiations. “We can fight and negotiate at the same time, just as the Algerians and the Vietnamese had done”. Democracies, however, see things differently. On this issue there should be no compromise.
Incitement – Both sides need to clean up the atmosphere, fight bigotry, racism, incitement and hate on both sides of the fence/wall. This includes a close study of the education curricula in both the PA and Israel. Both sides need to overhaul their school books, excluding incitement, racism, bigotry and hate against one another. The curricula should reflect a language of peace, tolerance and liberty. Both sides should utilize the media to promote peaceful messages of reconciliation and mutual recognition.
Education – Israel and Palestine will institute a shared curriculum on good neighborhood, understanding cultures and religions, respect for others and not harming others. This education program will commence at the kindergarten and continue at primary and high schools. In every age group vital concepts for understanding the other will be studied. This program is critical for establishing peaceful relationships and trust between the two parties.
Languages – Starting in primary schools, Arabic will be a mandatory language for pupils to study in Jewish schools. Similarly, Hebrew will be a mandatory language for pupils to study in Palestinian schools. Language is the most important bridge between different cultures and nations. Israeli will master Arabic to the same extent that they presently master English. Palestinians will master Hebrew as their second language.
Prisoners – As an act of good will, part of the trust-building process, Israel will release a number of agreed upon prisoners. With time, as trust will grow between the two sides, all security prisoners will return home.
Refugees and their right of return – This is a major concern for both Palestine and Israel. For Palestinians, this issue is about their history, justice and fairness. For Israelis, this is a debated issue, where many Israelis are unwilling to claim responsibility for the Palestinian tragedy and most Israelis object to the right of return as this would mean the end of Zionism. The issue is most difficult to resolve as the original refugee population of an estimated 700,000-750,000 has grown to 4,966,664 refugees registered with UNRWA at the end of November 2010. About 40% of the refugees live in Jordan, where they comprise about a third of the population; another 41% are in the West Bank and Gaza, 10% are in Syria, and 9% are in Lebanon. In the West Bank, refugees constitute about one-third of the population while in Gaza they comprise over 80% of the population.
Israel and the PA have been arguing endlessly about this issue as a matter of principle without examining by surveys how many of the refugees and their families actually are intended to return to Israel if this option were to be available to them. What needs to be done is to identify the population, establish the numbers, and after mapping the refugee population conduct a survey among them that would include the following options:
· Return to Israel;
· Return to the West Bank;
· Return to the Gaza Strip;
· Emigrate to third countries that would commit to absorbing a certain quota (appeal will be made to countries that receive immigration on a regular basis to participate in this settlement effort);
· Remain where they are.
The 1948 Palestinian refugees will be able to settle in Palestine. The rest of the world is legitimate to set quotas. Unification of families should be allowed in Israel on a limited quota annual scale. But massive refugee return to Israel will not be allowed. This dream should be abandoned. When President Abbas was asked whether he would wish Safed, where he was born he replied: “It’s my right to see it, but not to live there”. I suspect that President Abbas’s view reflects the view of many Palestinians who seek recognition, apology and compensation, not the right of return.
Thus Israel should recognize the Nakba, acknowledge Palestinian suffering, and compensate the 1948 refugees and their children (but not grandchildren) for the suffering inflicted on them. An international tribunal of reputable historians and international lawyers, including equal representatives of Israel and Palestine, will determine the level of compensation. If needed, Israel may establish an international relief fund to which humanitarian countries that wish to see the end of the conflict contribute. I believe that between Israel, Europe, the Moslem World, North America and other countries of good will (the Geneva Accord mentions Japan; I would add China, Australia and Brazil), the required funding can be secured. The United Nations and the World Bank may also be approached to offer assistance.
Economic Agreements – Israel and Palestine will consider opportunities for economic cooperation for the benefit of both societies, aiming to capitalize on the potential of both, to optimize resources and coordinate efforts. Israel would help Palestine develop independent economy and open doors for Palestine in the Western world and elsewhere. Palestine will pave the way for Israel’s integration into the Middle East as an equal member in the community of neighbouring countries. Palestine will help Israel develop economic, industrial, tourist and other relationships with the Arab and Muslim countries.
International Commerce – Israel and Palestine will be free to conduct international commerce as they see fit. In order to develop trust between the two parties, some level of transparency about logs of commerce will be agreed and memorandums of understanding will be signed by the two parties.
Tourism – Israel and Palestine will coordinate efforts in promoting tourism to the region, this via collaboration with the neighboring countries in order to facilitate cultural and religious experiences that are unique to this region.
Communication and Media – Mutual channels of communication will be opened on television, radio and the Internet. These media channels will transmit their broadcast in two or three languages: Arabic, Hebrew and possibly also English. Communication and language are important for the development of good neighborly relations.
Termination of the conflict – following the signing of a comprehensive agreement covering all issues and concerns, an official statement will be issued declaring the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
International Arbitration – Difficult issues that won’t be resolved by direct negotiations will be delegated to a special arbitration committee. This special committee will have an equal number of Israeli and Palestinian delegates plus an uneven number of international experts. The committee will include lawyers, economists, human rights experts and experts on the Middle East. Their resolutions would be final, without having the right of appeal. Both Israel and Palestine will commit to accept every decision of the arbitration committee. One model to follow might be the arbitration committee comprised to resolve the Taba dispute between Israel and Egypt.
Pierre-Antoine Klethi.
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict finds its roots in a situation created decades ago. Therefore, the solution is necessarily complex. I cannot claim to have the (right) solution to end this conflict; here are just a few elements to think about:
Ending the conflict means mutual hate must be erased or, at least, sidelined.
In a deadly spiral, violence calls for violence and revenge. So, a key requirement is to break the vicious circle. One side – whether it is the Israelis or the Palestinians – will have to reach a hand first. The Israelis, as the strongest economic and military power, would potentially be the best placed to do it…
Hindering the spreading of mutual hate requires action in the media, at political level and in education. So, leading politicians need be convinced of the necessity of a peaceful solution to the conflict. The international community can contribute to it, but a lot will also depend on bilateral ties.
Colonisation needs to stop. Moreover, in schools, children should be taught to respect the other side (which should be labeled as “adversary”, if necessary, rather than “enemy”). Exchanges between people of the two sides would also create mutual understanding and trust.
So, there must be a political commitment and, ideally, also a civil society commitment to a peaceful solution.
Creating a Palestinian State
I support a two-States solution. But we must be aware of many problems. Palestinian groups need to organise a full reconciliation; otherwise, there will be no Palestinian leadership capable of managing a State.
Moreover, I am not convinced that a State with two entities (Gaza and Westbank) is adequate for the stability of a young and, let’s face it, weak State. In addition, a lot of capacity-building and State-building should be done by the international community in support of the process.
The role of the Arab spring
With luck, Tunisia will show that the Arab Spring can result in a functioning democracy. This would encourage the Hamas in participating in democratic elections, despite the error committed years ago by the international community when it refused to admit the electoral victory of the Hamas.
A two-States solution would mean that Israel stops ruling in the Westbank, but all Palestinian parties need to understand that more autonomy means also more responsibility.
Many actors need to show good will to find a stable and peaceful solution to one of the longest lasting conflicts in the world. The current situation does not leave much hope, so we will probably have to wait for a window of opportunity to open in (a hopefully near) future!”
Georgios Protopapas.
“The Israel- Palestine conflict is one of the most complicated “hot topics” of the Middle East that directly related to the regional balance of power. On the one hand the government of Israel tries to convince the international community that Palestinians, especially the Islamic movement Hamas, are terrorists.
On the other hand Palestinians characterizes Israel as an occupation force and criticizes Tel- Aviv for the brutal violations of their rights. However the two sides exaggerate in some cases the facts to promote their national interests and to win the support of international community.
The rise of radical Islam that poses an important threat for Israel and the West could be reducing by a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. One of the reasons for the rise of radical Islam is the Israel policy against Palestinians and the American support to Tel – Aviv. The settlement of Israel – Palestine could decrease the radical Islam voices, within the Palestinians territories and also in the Arab world and to weaken the aggressive politics of Hamas.
Palestinians have the basic state infrastructures and under the control of the international community could be a viable state. Palestinians fight for their freedoms for decades and they want desperately to become a free state. If not achieve their independence the situation will favor the rise of the radical Islam.
A significant problem that hammers the revival of the peace talks is the lack of domestic unity of the two sides, Israel and Palestinians. The political system of Israel favors the participation many political parties in Knesset. The winner party of the elections is extremely difficult to win the majority of the parliament.
The governmental coalition is hostage to the political interests of the parties that participate in the government. The sensitive balance of power within the coalition does not permit the exercise of a realistic foreign policy. Palestinians as well as have their own problems. The Palestinian Authority and the Islamic movement of Hamas antagonize for the power on the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian Authority dominates in West Bank and Hamas controls Gaza that is under siege from Israel.
A peaceful settlement of the Palestine conflict desperately needs the establishment of a “road map” that would be based on mutual compromise and confidence – security building measures. On this context the following steps should be adopted: Firstly, the declaration of an indisputable truce by the two sides (Israel – Palestinian Authority, Hamas) and the end of siege of Gaza . Secondly, the control of Palestinian extremists groups those operate in Gaza by the security of Hamas.
Thirdly, the creation of the common committee (Israel – Palestinians) in monthly base in order to prevent tension and to resolve problems. Finally the revival of the peace talks under the auspice of the United Nations, the US and the European Union. A draft of the two –state solution should be focused to the security of Israel and the economic and social development of Palestinian territories.
Moreover, the Israel-Palestinian settlement is influenced by the foreign policy of Iran and its conflict with Washington and West. Iran is a traditional enemy of Israel and a threat for the national security of the USA. However, the situation has started to change due to the new president of Iran Hassan Rouhani, a moderate personality. If Iran and West manage to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem, the possibilities for an agreement between Israel and Palestinians would be increased.”
David J. Merkel.
“In the end of the day, considering the Arab Spring, is it really fair to say after the brutal Arab Spring, that Palestine is better under Israel’s authority, than under the control of neighboring countries who seem to always have dictators in their rulership that accuse Israel of doing the same?
Just as Islam focuses on one supposed prophet and one uni-personal God, it tends to create countries that have one leader, whether a king, a dictator, a representative of the army, etc. Islam does not have a great track record with democracy – there is a greater tendency for their cultures to seek the one strong leader, because that is what is pictured for them in the Quran.
Christians & Jews have a greater tendency toward democracy because the Bible was written over two millennia by over 40 writers who said basically the same thing in several languages, in several countries, and during very different times of governments. There were kings, tribal government, judges, federalism, being dominated by foreign powers, and times of chaos where it would be difficult to determine who was in charge.
That’s one reason why Christians & Jews tend toward democracy – their Scriptures glorify one God, but not one strong prophet, or one strong human leader.
Now, all that said, Israel was imposed on the Middle East, particularly by the US & UK pushing Zionism post-WWII. As with all colonialism, this should not have been done, and it has created resentment over the last 60+ years.
In one sense, what is done is done. We can’t undo the past, but we can cease to unduly support the parties in power in the Middle East, and let them work out their problems without interference from external parties.
Thus I would discourage financial and military support from all external parties, including the US, in the Middle East. Let them work out their own problems, without the complications of external powers pushing proxy wars, such as:
There will still be wars, but they won’t be as big when they realize that they don’t have the implicit support of various patrons.
Has Israel dealt with the Palestinians as brutally as many have claimed over the years?
Israel has shut off support for Gaza, and restricted them economically. They have taken over lands owned by Palestians for Jewish settlements. But Israel accepts non-Jewish citizens, so long as there is Jewish dominance in overall policy.
It would probably be worse with Muslim rulers. There are Palestinians in much of the Middle East, and they aren’t much favored anywhere. All that said, it was fundamentally not fair to force Israel onto the Middle East. It was also not fair for the European powers to carve up the Middle East pre-WWI. Nor was it fair for the US & UK to install the Shah in Iran, while eliminating a democratically elected ruler, Mossadegh.
Let the Western powers get out of the Middle East, and let them solve their own problems.
Is the rise of Hamas negatively affected the Palestinian image including the rise of radical Islam globally?
Multiple-party games are always tougher, because coalitions must be formed in order to facilitate stability, and in this case, none of the three parties wants to agree. (The same problem exists in Egypt & Syria.)
Radical Islam does not easily accept compromise, so it is always a destabilizing factor. But why should anyone care about the “image” of the Palestinians? This is their fight. Let them fight it, and let patrons stay out of it. External parties fighting their own proxy wars make things worse. This includes the UN.
What is the best solution to find common ground between Israelis and Palestinians?
Let them work it out themselves, without any third parties trying to foment wars or broker peace. Then they will have to talk to each other, because no one else will “come to the rescue” if they are in trouble.
Thus, the best strategy of the rest of the world is to do nothing, and let the wars in the Middle East burn themselves out, with no pesky foreigners pushing their own agendas. That has always led to greater conflict in the Middle East.”
Jaime Ortega Simo.
“Palestine gave a negative image to the world when they used democracy via-majority as a pretext to elect Hamas as their government. That doomed and ruined their cause, because it went from the understandable geopolitical struggle they suffered to the religious extremism Egyptian seculars encountered when Morsi became the President.
Hamas is identified, labeled and linked with extremist groups like Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Abu Sayyaf, Hezbollah, Al-Nusra, Jihadi Wahhabist, Islamic Brotherhood .. and considering the present growth radical Islam has experienced this past decade it has become a latent headache in Western Europe. It has become an “old crusaders” battle for democracy supporters that avoid the thought of living under Sharia Law to give up basic rights, as no one wants to live the quality of life the Taliban enjoys in Afghanistan.
Little by little the image of Hamas started to drastically change the Palestinian cause, and gave leeway to Israel’s anti radical Islamic agenda which has literally shadowed the occupational struggle many critics at one point protested against and deemed necessary. Even Putin is concerned about global jihad, even though it seems hypocritical as Russia secretly support Sudan’s government with China’s help providing them with weapons. China likewise condemns the Muslim Uygur’s for being fundamentalists in Northern China but supports Iran and Sudan. (The World just doesn’t make sense anymore.)
Is the Palestinian-Israeli problem solvable? Absolutely not! Because it goes beyond the world of politics and diplomacy, it enters the world of beliefs, tradition and religious culture that biasedly undermines any democratic measure and sends all ‘peace treaties’ into oblivion.
The Palestine-Israeli problem is not just bounded by religious-anarchism and intolerance, but also between racial tension and rights, that affect their political and financial stability. In the end, it would finish how it started: a religious end without any chance for diplomacy. The situation is historically unsolvable.
However, politicians for the longest time have smoke-screened the truth about that specific region blinding the press about the fatalist possibility to find a final solution for the dilemma. As it’s hard for well paid peace counselors of Foreign Affairs to be honest , or for the United Nations to say clearly and simple, “Ok that’s just beyond our authority, we can’t solve the problem!” They know it’s just not solvable in the sh0rt and long run.
Israel has been the newest occupier in the large list of contenders inside the Palestinian territory, and that is never good for a culture that has always struggled to preserve itself intact, specially for the Palestinian’s who have experience many occupations over the centuries. But the truth is Palestinians should had molded into the newer system and integrated right away by accepting the Israeli state, rather than by fighting it and cause Israel to retaliate.
Another problem is that Palestinians never had a national cause to begin with prior to the state of Israel. What we call Palestine was also under British rule, and before England it was under Ottoman Rule for over 400 years. Before that — Arabic rule; it was even occupied by a powerful Roman Empire. I personally feel bad for Palestinians as they never had a national identity and that alone became their downfall, which really explains why England invited Jews to come to their Palestinian territory. If Palestine would have been a country prior to WWII, Israel would have never existed. But without a former and official country, they were an empty fridge waiting for something to be refrigerated.
The truth is that it’s a disputed land historically, and it has become a landmark for occupation for different religions, especially in the city of Jerusalem. And lets’ face it, Jews are not welcomed to establish their beliefs in those lands as opposed to the Ottoman Rule that shared similar beliefs with the Palestinians, yet both nations occupied the same region with different agendas. Religion again plays the biggest asset on those regions. It was the fact that the new settlers were Jewish that stated the dog and cat tail chase.
Occupation is invasion of territory by an outside agent, and regardless where it happens it’s almost never good in the short run. It’s something unstoppable, no one likes it, and every few hundred years (on average) a culture rises and the country invaded is forced to change costumes and mold to newer ones. Some resist, but logically end up having more casualties.
Sometimes these occupations can be bad or good. As an example: In Mexico despite the drug cartel problems they currently experience, most Mexicans don’t regularly behead people in temples any longer when the moon crescent comes out! Spanish Imperialism ended the heart and brain sacrificial rituals to the Aztec gods (one could say that was good) despite the fact Spain occupied their lands and shortly afterward gave sexually transmitted diseases to the natives .
But occupations are not always the same, and not all play by the same rules, and one must be technical in military history to understand that outcome. Historically speaking, every conquering country has occupied and changed the sieged culture either for good or for bad.
And even though occupation is bad itself in some instances (not all), it has to be compared with other historical occupations to observe how injustice plays itself out, once someone’s land has been taken to serve another’s own strategic interest.
But let’s look at history and compare the Israeli occupation with other great world powers:
Has Israel slaved Palestinians like the Portuguese did with the Haitians who were dying from cutting sugar canes and no treatment for Malaria? Well, no, not really. Palestinians earn a salary and have access to hospitals despite the racial profiling; they do hold rights. Or has Israel chosen the weak Palestinians over the healthy ones or their women over their men, for sex trade and slavery as observed in the Arab-African Slave Trade, Hitler’s Germany, and the cotton slave production England authorized in North America’s deep South? Not really! Has Israel retaliated with the same brute force Europe colonizers showed with Native Americans once they took their land? Well, no, not really except that Natives were racially profiled like Israelis do with Palestinians and that is something we still see today in many western countries who, “are supposed to be civilized.”
(Being Spanish as I am ..) Has Israel reacted with the Palestinians like the Spanish conquistadors did when they raped thousands of natives in what is now modern day Latin America (Mestizos) and gave deadly epidemics to the native Americans? Well, no, not really, Israel has not done so. Has Israel told Palestinians to convert to Judaism or die from torture, as the Roman Catholic Church imposed in the inquisition to moors and Jews in Medieval Europe? Well, no, not really. Has Israel taxed Palestinians with the Muslim ‘Jizya tax’ because they’re from a different religion as that is clearly religious discrimination. What makes one religion better than the other to be taxed? Well, no, not really. Has Israel considered its relative strength against the Palestinian people, and ever invaded the r,egion for the sole purpose of expanding their empire like the imperialist Japan did in the 1940’s when they invaded China, and Korea? Well, no not really. And so it goes.
Despite Israel’s occupation, when we compare their occupation with other nations above, it hasn’t proven that bad and that drastic. Palestinians have a certain level of democracy other Arab countries as yet have not experienced. There have been thousands of deaths for decades from both fronts, and mostly Palestinian casualties. But Israel, despite its military capabilities, if you look at their recent history, their military has only retaliated to provoked threats. Israel has rarely voluntarily gone into war without at least some dimmable explanation not caused or started by the other side. The problem is, Israel’s retaliation inside Gaza and the West Bank was overdone, making one question its strategy and Zionist agenda.
But is Zionism itself really a polar opposite of religious Martyrdoms? Well, not really. It’s just another plague.
But considering the brutal retaliation of the Arab Spring to its own people, Israel has never reacted like those tyrannical leaders did to their own population, even considering they share the same religion that the Palestinian people practice. And just by looking at other Arab nations and their ethnic reactions with their own populations, it’s just sad. This is absurd if you think about it. How can someone eat your heart, or behead you if you share the same culture, religion and ethnicity? Well, it happened in Spain’s Civil War and the French Revolution, how that happens is beyond me. Israel has not reacted in that manner or even close in dealing with Palestine, which makes me think by looking at other Arab proxy states, that it seems better for Palestine to be under the authority of Israel than their own council or under the authority of another occupational neighboring country.
The point is, Israeli occupation was simply an historical glitch in how modern occupation is conducted. It wasn’t by expansion, conquering or military invasion. It could only be justified because the land was conceded to them by other Imperialist nations like England and the U.S., who simply gave it to the Jews because there just wasn’t such a thing as “Palestine”. And the problem is that when you give property to someone when you’re in power, it just simply creates discrepancies for the native settlers who have to cope with the newbies. And for that I understand the frustration of the Palestinians.
Jews didn’t earn or deserve to acquire ownership over Palestine, even if they were unjustly expelled from the Roman Empire’s second diaspora and the Babylonian first diaspora. It was a sudden and unexpected move for many for Israel to return to its ancient home. But the truth is the Palestinian land was not an independent country before Israel declared independence, it was just a land tied by strong pheromones of culture and religion, but without any real nationalistic entity as it’s almost always historically engulfed by stronger empires that kept conquering it over and over again.
Palestinians have actually been treated even more unjustly in the regions of Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan but this is not spoken of too much by the media, because there are fewer Palestinians per-capita than in Israel in those lands, and that would give bad publicity to the Arab League that so supports Palestine. (Again, the world is weird.) But that is oddly never mentioned in the Arab media. That is just as manipulative as Fox News, Msnbc .. etc
Likewise Palestinians have taken their religious role into play, and have made Jews nervous about Hamas’ ultimate goal to throw all Jews into the Mediterranean Sea, which is supported by Hezbollah. The fact that Israel has not actually wiped out the jihadist agenda inside Palestine after the 200 rockets launched to hit Israeli targets, really shows Israel’s patience and tolerance in comparison to their African/Arab neighbors that seem not to really care about their own population and wouldn’t hesitate to retaliate harshly to keep order. I believe if Palestine was an Arab colony, and they would have launched 200 rockets like in Israel, it would had been a massacre as shown in other parts of the proxy region.
Lands will always be taken and occupied as it is an historical pattern that will happen over and over again (I believe history is not progressive but repetitive), and theoretically speaking with a glimpse of imagination 1 Million years from now, Israel and Palestine might not exist, and the next thing you know is that it’s all submerged in the bottom of the ocean (as Iran plans to do), while other diving cultures are deep-sea scuba diving taking pictures of the new civilizations discovered. As we are presently finding other civilizations that probably never got along. What is land for? It’s all happened before; nothing new.
Palestine has to blend with Israel and hijack Hamas, and forget about its occupation and move on. Israel has to end the racism and give them more rights to supply what they want, but both firstly need to burn their ultra orthodox and radical Islamic beliefs that are simply the root cause of the problem. In my opinion, certain sects of Judaism and Islam should be illegal in that region, so both secular Palestinians and Israelis can enjoy their piece of land without worrying about killing each other and make it about their respective religions.
But that will never happen, so hope for the worst. Oddly, Roman Catholics graduated from the school of violence, which is why we don’t see Jesuits or night Templar poisoning people or burning people at the stake near your favorite restaurant. I suggest a few religions start asking the Pope for the Catholic, magic recipe.