Balkingpoints.com / Balkers

Kabul coalition of the willing, or the deluded?

USA / Jeff — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:03:48 +0000

Hillary Clinton parses the withdraw date issue, at the international
conference on Afghanistan on Tuesday in Kabul – length 1:14

Leaders Renew Vows of Support for Afghanistan

July 20, 2010
By ALISSA J. RUBIN, RICHARD A. OPPEL, Jr. and MARK LANDLER

Pool photo by Paul J. Richards
President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during the international conference on Afghanistan on Tuesday in Kabul. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki is at left in the second row and Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi is at right.

KABUL, Afghanistan — American, European and other foreign leaders met here Tuesday to pledge anew their support for Afghanistan as they committed to complete transition of security and budgeting responsibility to the Afghan government by 2014. They acknowledged that neither the people of their own countries nor those in Afghanistan had much patience left.

President Hamid Karzai promised to make concrete efforts to reduce corruption and find a way to end the fighting in his country — areas in which he has pledged improvement in the past. He painted a picture of a country that could flourish, lifting its “people from poverty to prosperity and from insecurity to stability.”

“Our vision is to be the peaceful meeting place of civilizations,” he said in an address. “Our location in the center of the new Silk Road makes us a convergence point of regional and global economic interests.”

Whether Afghanistan can get there without an enormous infusion of further foreign aid and the presence of a significant number of foreign troops seems doubtful — at least for the next few years. That point was underscored by the vague language around the timeline for handing over security responsibility.

The goal of a transition by 2014, which Mr. Karzai outlined last year, is nonbinding and essentially unenforceable. Much depends on how and when security responsibility will be transferred, for instance whether province by province or district by district. More specific plans will be developed later this year, according to the document.

Transition to Afghan control is the basis of the exit plan for NATO troops and member countries have differing senses of urgency. The western European democracies with the most troops in the country — Britain, France and Germany — are under great domestic pressure to reduce their contingents while the United States, which has by far the heaviest military presence, is somewhat more focused on how to give the best chance to its counter-insurgency strategy.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged the unpopularity of the war in remarks to foreign leaders gathered in a large conference room at the Afghan Interior Ministry, saying that that winning popular support for the continued mission here, given the relatively limited progress so far, would be a challenge.

“We know the road ahead will not be easy,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Citizens of many nations represented here, including my own, wonder whether success is even possible — and if so, whether we all have the commitment to achieve it.”

She pledged to answer those doubts with actions. She also endeavored to reduce somewhat the significance of the July 2011 date, which President Obama set in his speech outlining his Afghan policy last fall as the date when he would begin to bring troops home.

“The July 2011 date captures both our sense of urgency and the strength of our resolve,” Mrs. Clinton said. “The transition process is too important to push off indefinitely. But this date is the start of a new phase, not the end of our involvement.”

Mrs. Clinton tried to dispel concerns about the transition, saying the Afghans had presented the most detailed plans yet for how to hand off control to Afghan security forces.

“Today was a real turning point,” Mrs. Clinton said.

However, the overall significance of the conference was hard to gauge because much of the final statement was a list of boards and commissions to be created, laws to be drafted and enforced and schedules to be fleshed out. The same themes, if not always the exact pledges, have been sounded many times before by Mr. Karzai’s government to little effect.

Mr. Karzai spoke only briefly about the reintegration and reconciliation with the Taliban although it is a major effort of his government and of considerable concern both to many Afghans and to NATO troops who are fighting here. The sparse commentary seemed to signal that there was still little agreement on exactly how to proceed after months of meetings and consultations both within the Afghan government and with American, United Nations and NATO allies.

In some respects, the most significant elements were in what was not said or what occurred during behind-the-scenes meetings. Mrs. Clinton met with Afghan women leaders before the conference began and heard their concerns that their interests would be left behind in the peace effort with the Taliban.

Fouzia Kofi, a former deputy speaker in the Afghan Parliament, said she was concerned by recent signals from Mr. Karzai’s government. If the reconciliation process is mishandled, she warned, it could “take the country back hundreds of years.”

“We need to make sure that not only we are protected, but also our children,” Ms. Kofi said.

Arezo Qani, who works with disadvantaged women in northern Afghanistan, expressed fears that rearming local militias, something the United States has pushed, would also threaten women. And she said women needed to be consulting in the drafting of new laws.

Mrs. Clinton said protecting women’s rights was a “personal commitment of mine.” While she said the United States was open to an Afghan-led reconciliation, “it can’t come at the cost of women’s lives,” she said.

The security transition timetable, though not the main focus of this meeting, is perhaps the most significant element for NATO leaders most of whom will face election challenges well before 2014. The European countries are looking for a more concrete withdrawal plan for their troops that they can advertise to their voters, while the United States military leadership, is hewing to a “conditions-based” approach that allows them to slow down in areas where the insurgency appears more tenacious or where Afghan troops and police appear to have inadequate capabilities.

The Iranian Foreign Minister used the conference as an opportunity to get in some digs at the foreign forces. The criticism came just a few weeks after the United Nations Security Council voted to enforce sanctions against Iran for failing to halt its nuclear program.

“The presence and increase in the number of foreign forces is one of the factors in the insecurity, violence and dissatisfaction of the public,” said Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran’s foreign minister.

A moment later the United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, interrupted and told him to get to the point. On Monday, the new American and NATO commander for Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, traveled to the south of the country together.

According to one NATO official, they have had “frank discussions.”

“There are indications that the timeline and what constitutes the conditions for transition are possibly different in terms of what NATO is thinking and what Petraeus may be thinking as he settles into an understanding of what he is dealing with in this insurgency,” said the NATO official, who, like several other diplomats and officials interviewed on Monday, refused to be identified by name because of the delicacy of the issue.

But another official from the American-led NATO coalition insisted that General Petraeus and Mr. Rasmussen were not in disagreement. “They see eye to eye,” that official said, “and anyone who reports otherwise clearly has missed key conversations, which is understandable, because some have been one on one.”

A Western diplomat in Kabul praised what he described as General Petraeus’s effort to “bring a sense of realism” to the debate. “He’s being very careful, especially in the first month, to not give a sense of expectations and promises that he will then not be able to deliver,” the diplomat said.

An administration official added that the general was focusing on the evaluation of the Afghan war due at year’s end. “He’s got four and a half months until the review, and he’ll brook no dissent,” the official said.

Worldstage July: Russian Federation

admin — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:26:43 +0000

from Encyclopædia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/513251/Russia

Country, eastern Europe and northern Asia, formerly the preeminent republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Area: 6,592,800 sq mi (17,075,400 sq km).

Population (2009 est.): 141,852,000.

Capital: Moscow. The population is primarily Russian; minorities include Tatars and Ukrainians.

Languages: Russian (official), various Turkic and Uralic languages.

Religions: Christianity (mostly Eastern Orthodox, also Protestant); also Islam. However, about one-third of the people are nonreligious or atheist.

Currency: ruble.

The land and its environments are varied, including the Ural Mountains and ranges in eastern Siberia, the highest peaks being on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The Russian Plain contains the great Volga and Northern Dvina rivers, and in Siberia are the valleys of the Ob, Yenisey, Lena, and Amur rivers. Tundra covers extensive portions in the north, and in the south there are forests, steppes, and fertile areas.

The economy was industrialized from 1917 to 1945 but was in serious decline by the 1980s. In 1992 the government decreed radical reforms to convert the centrally planned economy into a market economy based on private enterprise. Russia is a federal multiparty republic with a bicameral legislative body; its head of state is the president, and the head of government is the prime minister.

What is now the territory of Russia was inhabited from ancient times by various peoples, including the Slavs. From the 8th century bce to the 6th century ce the area was overrun by successive nomadic peoples, including the Sythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Huns, and Avars. Kievan Rus, a confederation of principalities ruling from Kiev, emerged c. the 10th century; it lost supremacy in the 11th–12th century to independent principalities, including Novgorod and Vladimir. Novgorod ascended in the north and was the only Russian principality to escape the domination of the Mongol Golden Horde in the 13th century. In the 14th–15th century the princes of Moscow gradually overthrew the Mongols.

Under Ivan IV (the Terrible), Russia began to expand. The Romanov dynasty arose in 1613. Expansion continued under Peter I (the Great) and Catherine II (the Great). The area was invaded by Napoleon in 1812; after his defeat, Russia received most of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw (1815). Russia annexed Georgia, Armenia, and Caucasus territories in the 19th century. The Russian southward advance against the Ottoman Empire was of key importance to Europe (see Crimea). Russia was defeated in the Crimean War (1853–56). Chinese cession of the Amur River’s left bank in 1858 marked Russia’s expansion in East Asia. Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. in 1867 (see Alaska Purchase). Defeat in the Russo-Japanese War led to an unsuccessful uprising in 1905 (see Russian Revolution of 1905).

In World War I Russia fought against the Central Powers. The popular overthrow of the tsarist regime in 1917 marked the beginning of a government of soviets (see Russian Revolution of 1917). The Bolsheviks brought the main part of the former empire under communist control and organized it as the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (coextensive with present-day Russia). The Russian S.F.S.R. joined other soviet republics in 1922 to form the U.S.S.R.

Upon the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. in 1991, the Russian S.F.S.R. was renamed and became the leading member of the Commonwealth of Independent States. It adopted a new constitution in 1993. During the 1990s and into the early 21st century, it struggled on several fronts, beset with economic difficulties, political corruption, and independence movements (see Chechnya).

The Russian Federation stretches over a vast expanse of eastern Europe and northern Asia. Once the preeminent republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.; commonly known as theSoviet Union), Russia became an independent country after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991.

Russia is a land of superlatives. By far the world’s largest country, it covers nearly twice the territory of Canada, the second largest. It extends across the whole of northern Asia and the eastern third of Europe, spanning nine time zones and incorporating a great range of environments and landforms, from deserts to semiarid steppes to deep forests and Arctic tundra. Russia contains Europe’s longest river, the Volga, and its largest lake, Ladoga. Russia also is home to the world’s deepest lake, Baikal, and the country recorded the world’s lowest temperature outside the North and South poles.

The inhabitants of Russia are quite diverse. Most are ethnic Russians, but there also are more than 120 other ethnic groups present, speaking many languages and following disparate religious and cultural traditions. Most of the Russian population is concentrated in the European portion of the country, especially in the fertile region surrounding Moscow, the capital. Moscow and St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad) are the two most important cultural and financial centres in Russia and are among the most picturesque cities in the world. Russians are also populous in Asia, however; beginning in the 17th century, and particularly pronounced throughout much of the 20th century, a steady flow of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people moved eastward into Siberia, where cities such as Vladivostok and Irkutsk now flourish.

Russia’s climate is extreme, with forbidding winters that have several times famously saved the country from foreign invaders. Although the climate adds a layer of difficulty to daily life, the land is a generous source of crops and materials, including vast reserves of oil, gas, and precious metals. That richness of resources has not translated into an easy life for most of the country’s people, however; indeed, much of Russia’s history has been a grim tale of the very wealthy and powerful few ruling over a great mass of their poor and powerless compatriots. Serfdom endured well into the modern era; the years of Soviet communist rule (1917–91), especially the long dictatorship of Joseph Stalin, saw subjugation of a different and more exacting sort.

The Russian republic was established immediately after the Russian Revolution of 1917 and became a union republic in 1922. During the post-World War II era, Russia was a central player in international affairs, locked in a Cold War struggle with the United States. In 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia joined with several other former Soviet republics to form a loose coalition, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Although the demise of Soviet-style communism and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union brought profound political and economic changes, including the beginnings of the formation of a large middle class, for much of the postcommunist era Russians had to endure a generally weak economy, high inflation, and a complex of social ills that served to lower life expectancy significantly. Despite such profound problems, Russia showed promise of achieving its potential as a world power once again, as if to exemplify a favourite proverb, stated in the 19th century by Austrian statesman Klemens, Fürst (prince) von Metternich: “Russia is never as strong as she appears, and never as weak as she appears.”

Russia can boast a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences. Prerevolutionary Russian society produced the writings and music of such giants of world culture as Anton Chekhov, Aleksandr Pushkin, Leo Tolstoy, Nikolay Gogol, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. The 1917 revolution and the changes it brought were reflected in the works of such noted figures as the novelists Maksim Gorky, Boris Pasternak, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the composers Dmitry Shostakovich and Sergey Prokofiev. And the late Soviet and postcommunist eras witnessed a revival of interest in once-forbidden artists such as the poets Vladimir Mayakovsky and Anna Akhmatova while ushering in new talents such as the novelist Victor Pelevin and the writer and journalist Tatyana Tolstaya, whose celebration of the arrival of winter in St. Petersburg, a beloved event, suggests the resilience and stoutheartedness of her people:

The snow begins to fall in October. People watch for it impatiently, turning repeatedly to look outside. If only it would come! Everyone is tired of the cold rain that taps stupidly on windows and roofs. The houses are so drenched that they seem about to crumble into sand. But then, just as the gloomy sky sinks even lower, there comes the hope that the boring drum of water from the clouds will finally give way to a flurry of…and there it goes: tiny dry grains at first, then an exquisitely carved flake, two, three ornate stars, followed by fat fluffs of snow, then more, more, more—a great store of cotton tumbling down.

For the geography and history of the other former Soviet republics, see Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine. See also Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

B/P Globetrotter

admin — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:29:52 +0000

Post your international travel, or immigration stories under this new section of Balkingpoints.com

Follow the posting instructions here, and check the box for B/P Globetrotter under the Categories selection at the right of the posting form. You can include any pictures and video clips you have, and enable or disable comments.

Email site author Roy Greenfield if any questions;

BP Disaster: A nation’s summer rollercoaster?

USA / Allison — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 00:32:47 +0000

San Francisco, CA-

Is it foolish to rely on corporations at all? One economist, Robert Reich, says “Yes”.

The scope of the Horizon Deepwater disaster continues to unfold exponentially. Today we offer a round up of the more compelling angles. The daily meetings held by Admiral Thad Allen and others often focus, at this point, on minutiae of operational successes and glitches that the primary vessels involved with the Lower Marine Riser experience in hourly work. As of late yesterday and early today, one of the ROVs (underwater vehicles) had accidently “bumped” into the riser tube thereby causing yet another effluence of oil directly into the deep gulf waters.

Without engaging in the neck-bending volleys of finger-pointing between the administration, the BP gang, and the public, the latest news from the White House is a kind of updated “access dashboard” for those who seek to volunteer or locate a job working on the frontline of the recovery and repair process, wherever that kind of position might send a person.

As the clean up is now an industry unto itself, many citizens and other observers continue to express a posse-like mentality in the public sphere, calling for the location and punishment of a variety of culpable figures. Those figures span the range from Tony Hayward, former chief executive for BP, to the still-unnamed figures in management at the moment the oil rig itself collapsed, to the Chairman of BP Carl-Henric Svanberg aka “Mr. Small People” and beyond.

Driven by a financial industry report, The Flip Side contacted Robert Reich, Former Secretary of Labor and Professor of Economics at University of California, Berkeley. We shared with him recent data that JP Morgan Chase held 28.34% of BP (controlling shares) and that JP Morgan Chase had received federal funds in 2007 (even though they reputedly paid those funds back in 2009.) Then we asked if one could point to that information and deduce that BP, if held primarily by JPMC, and if JPMC was bailed out with taxpayers funds, if one go so far as to suggest that BP is, to a certain extent, “us.”

We further explained that this was not an attempt to be “flip” or inexact, but simply to crack open the vagaries of corporate control and taxpayer funding. His response: “Good point about JP Morgan Chase. The real problem [with BP] is that BP, like any large corporation, exists to maximize shareholder value, whoever those shareholders happen to be. It does not exist to protect the health or safety of a nation. That’s why it’s foolish to rely on a corporation to fix what it negligently or recklessly created.” The simple facts about corporations are that they are, indeed, kind of a spider’s web of contractual agreements, taking advantage of our laws that allow an entity such as a corporation many “rights” and privileges given to a private individual, while a corporation is the farthest thing from an individual citizen than one can imagine.

Moving on to the real pain here: the wildlife recovery process marked a milestone last Sunday with the release of over 40 brown pelicans. View a video here on the Unified Response website.

Thus, this disaster continues to wreak havoc with the temperament and emotional life of the average American. Yesterday, two workers involved in the clean-up died. Admiral Thad Allen could not comment on the deaths during the press conference yesterday, as he had “just been notified” prior to the conference itself. Rather than experience a kind of “Mad Max” post-petroleum apocalyptic end, will we, instead, drown in our own brown, tarry greed, and pull innocent wildlife down with us? The recent worker deaths seem ominous. And we have yet to witness what happens to this operation when hurricanes do arrive. It looks to be a bumpy summer, indeed.

____

Allison Addicott is a professional writer who is also an award winning public speaker. She writes at The Washington Times Communities as author of ”The Flip Side“. and is the editor for the entire “Public Good” section at The Washinton Times Communities. To learn more about her visit www.allisonaddicott.com. Her work has also appeared at The Daily Kos, and other sites. She has lived in Washington DC, San Diego, Paris, Tokyo, Honolulu, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where she now lives.

____

What Say You?

What role in – and responsibility to – society do corporations have?

Site Log In

(or sign in with GFC button below)

G20 gives Toronto a black eye

Canada / Pat Morin — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 05:44:14 +0000

These global paranoids come out of the woodwork at every summit of international leaders now. All the G20’s, climate summits like Copenhagen, just like clockwork.

I have to say it was more of a self-fulfilling prophecy this time. Most of the protestors are peaceful. Woven in there are always few troublemakers who are not there to promote any issue. The police and host government know that, so they show up in force. Then a few thugs start something, as they did this weekend in Toronto with some windows broken out and car or trash can fires, etc, etc.

The media shows the vandalism and announces a crowd size (10,000 or more for Saturday), making it look like a big riot. When actually it’s still just that few doing all the damage. The police are already there by the hundreds, then they overreact to the few troublemakers and start manhandling people who are peaceful!

Over 400 arrests in Toronto G20 riots
SUNDAY, JUN 27, 2010 11:53 ET

Authorities meet protester fury with handcuffs at the world economic meeting
BY ROB GILLIES, ASSOCIATED PRESS

Police made more than 400 arrests after black-clad demonstrators broke off from a crowd of peaceful protesters at the global economic summit and went on a rampage in downtown Toronto that lasted into the early morning hours, authorities said Sunday.

The roving band of protesters torched four police cruisers and shattered shop windows with baseball bats and hammers for blocks, including at police headquarters, then shed some of their black clothes, revealing other garments, and continued their rampage.

Police used shields, clubs, tear gas and pepper spray to push back the protesters who tried to head south toward the security fence surrounding the Group of 20 summit site. Some demonstrators hurled rocks and bottles at police.

The vandalism occurred just blocks from where U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders were meeting and staying.

“What we saw yesterday is a bunch of thugs that pretend to have a difference of opinion with policies and instead choose violence to express those so-called differences of opinion,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief spokesman Dimitri Soudas said Sunday.

Toronto Police Sgt. Tim Burrows said Sunday that at least 412 people had been arrested in the rampage that began Saturday afternoon. Those arrested were taken to a temporary holding center constructed for the summit.

The streets of downtown Toronto were quiet at daylight, but Burrows said police were expecting a large protest later Sunday morning at a park near the detention center.

Burrows said many of the violent protesters were Canadian. He added that authorities had known of their plans for some time.

“We’re not sure we have the leaders, but we have a large proportion of those people and the people who decided they wanted to be influenced by these violent protesters and join with their cause,” Burrows said. “A lot of them were home grown. There’s a lot of Canadian talent in the group.”

Thousands of police headed to Toronto to reinforce security there after the smaller Group of Eight summit ended Saturday in Huntsville, Ontario, about 140 miles (225 kilometers) away. Security was being provided by an estimated 19,000 law enforcement officers drawn from across Canada, and security costs were estimated at more than US$900 million.

Saturday’s protests began with a peaceful march, sponsored by labor unions and dubbed family friendly, that was the largest demonstration planned during the summit weekend. Its organizers had hoped to draw a crowd of 10,000, but only about half that number turned out on a rainy day.

Police in riot gear and riding bikes formed a blockade, keeping protesters from approaching the steel and concrete security fence a few blocks south of the march route. Police closed a stretch of Toronto’s subway system along the protest route and the largest shopping mall downtown closed after the protest took a turned for the worse.

The black-clad demonstrators broke off from the larger crowd of peaceful protesters and began torching police cars and smashing shop windows.

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair said the goal of the militant protesters was to draw police away from the security perimeter of the summit so that fellow protesters could attempt to disrupt the meeting.

Some police officers were struck by rocks and bottles and assaulted, but none was injured badly enough to stop working, Blair said.

“We have never seen that level of wanton criminality and vandalism and destruction on our streets,” Blair said.

Previous global summit protests have turned violent. In 1999, 50,000 protesters shut down World Trade Organization sessions in Seattle as police fired tear gas and rubber bullets. There were some 600 arrests and $3 million in property damage. One man died after clashes with police at a G-20 meeting held in London in April 2009.

At the September G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, police fired canisters of pepper spray and smoke and rubber bullets at marchers.

——–

Copyright ©2010 Associated Press

2010 World Cup

USA / Jeff — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:03:09 +0000

Football fans in South Africa revelled in a long night of celebrations
as the final hours ticked down before the 2010 World Cup – length 1:37

Has USA already turned into a police state?

USA / theorem — Sun, 30 May 2010 00:52:07 +0000

Here is an ongoing case that shocked me utterly when I heard about it – a college student was arrested and charged with terrorism just because he got into a purely verbal dispute with a faculty member, and the police has kept him in cutody without informing his family.

The student’s name is TianTian Zhai, an international graduate student of Stevens Institute of Technology, NJ. Around April 15, there was a verbal dispute between him and a faculty member of Stevens Tech, but there was no physical contact between them. On April 16, Zhai was arrested and charged with terrorism, and nobody outside knew about his detention until a jail-mate of Zhai passed the news to a local restaurant owner in early May, who then passed the news to Zhai’s incredulous parents. Zhai is still being detained. It is unknown whether he is being represented by any lawyer.

According to the news reports in the Chinese American communities such as “Qiao Bao” (”Expatriate News Report,” May 20, 2010), during the verbal dispute Zhai said to the faculty member: “If worse comes to worst, I’ll fight you to the end.” While those words sound inappropriate and aggressive to me, it is clearly not terrorism. In addition, not having been in the states for long, Zhai might not really mean what his words sounded like. Furthermore, even if Zhai meant what he said, when did our country fall into a state that criminalizes people purely based on their speech?

Here is picture of Zhai–

—I doubt any sane person upon looking at the picture would not find the terrorism charge unbelievable.

Cases like this make me wonder if the real terrorists have already won their war. Paranoia has spread to even university campuses. Where is our good old tolerant trusting American way of life?

What Say You?

Should the U.S. cancel Constitutional freedoms which have served as a democracy model throughout the world, due to fear of terrorism from a small number of religious extremists?

Log In

Reflections on oil

South Africa / Madeleine — Thu, 20 May 2010 06:08:16 +0000

I’m not qualified to talk about oil in depth, if you’ll pardon the pun, but it seems (to my surprise) that no-one has raised the point yet. To me the oil leak in the Mexican Gulf is one of the most important things that’s happened lately, and it puts the spotlight on oil as such.

Oil is one of the facts of daily life to which few people (except those in the industry) give much thought until a major spill occurs. Now we have one of those on the US’s doorstep. (There are others at this very moment, apart from the constant sluicing out of ship bilges etc. that daily pollutes the sea. Read the Kon-Tiki expedition and see how long ago tar balls were polluting the oceans. Leaks on land? We don’t hear much about these things.)

There’s no easy way to end oil dependence, and that’s not counting resistance from the oil industry.

To begin with, we need the stuff for our cars. Electric cars are beginning to feature; in South Africa we’ve just come up with our first home-grown car (the Joule) and it’s electric. Of course, electric cars rate only two cheers at most until we have clean energy.

Meanwhile, oil-as-fuel remains. It remains a prime pollutant in every way. Even when nothing goes “wrong”, the industry is morally pollutive , irredeemably so (check the dirt that’s being stirred up by the current enquiry into the Gulf spill) and probably most of the carbon pollution that’s driving climate change is fuelled by oil.

The oil industry is entrenched. There are many, many vested interests there. The world would be a far better place if we could replace fossil fuels with clean renewable energy. How do we do it?

What Say You?

What is your idea or preferred means, of energy conversion?

Log In

Teva Pharmaceuticals: taking over the global generic market

USA / toddcurl — Sun, 16 May 2010 05:32:46 +0000

With the costs of name-brand drugs rising exponentially over the past 20 years and higher premiums and co-pays, US citizens have, to a large extent, been able to count on lower-priced generics, which have always been assumed to be the same as their name-brand equivalents. This is not the case anymore as Teva Pharmaceuticals, based in Israel, has been swallowing up many of the leading generic drug manufactures over the past few years, making them the sole producer of many important generics that so many of us count on for a myriad of medical conditions.

For the rest of the world where health-care is typically universal, reliance on generic drugs has not been much of an issue up until recently. Generics are now making up an ever-increasing share of the EU pharmaceutical market. While the Eu will likely never adopt the for-profit U.S. model of health-care, it will most likely continue to increase the availability of generics over more costly name-brand drugs, with potentially detrimental health consequences.

The fact that Teva is buying up the competition is not the focus here–though corporate monopolies are never good for consumers. It is the fact that so many of Teva’s generics are poorly produced in third-world countries and are not the same as their brand-name equivalents. While the chemical components of their drugs are the same, or bio-equivalent, as the main chemical compound of the name-brand, it is the low-quality precursor chemicals, inferior manufacturing facilities and lack of production oversight that is causing adverse reactions in consumers that have begun taking generics produced under the Teva Umbrella.

Teva takes over

Teva was officially created in 1976 after the merger of three pharmaceutical companies created in Israel by European Immigrants. In 1982, the FDA (The United States Food and Drug Administration) approved its main manufacturing plant — and so began the path to market domination.

Teva is not solely interested in generics as they have produced some very effective and useful proprietary drugs such as Copaxone and Azilect. Despite their own research and development, Teva’s meteoric rise atop the pharmaceutical food chain has come through buying and merging with other large drug manufacturers. Most recently, the acquisition of Barr Pharmaceuticals in 2008 for over 7 billion dollars has further entrenched them in generic manufacturing.

Barr had been the largest generic manufacturer in the world when they were acquired by Teva. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily earth-shattering information — big company acquires other big company, making bigger company; the way of capitalism. The relevance of the Barr acquisition lies in the history of Barr–a history of corruption and inferior production standards. Teva, as far as pharmaceutical giants go, has typically been considered a quality developer and producer of proprietary drugs up until the past few years. It is their acquisitions over the past ten years — Barr in particular — and their quest to cheaply produce generics to make even more money that has brought their quality standards under scrutiny.

Lowering the Barr

Barr was an outsider looking in for many years, trying desperately to get FDA approval for its generics. But this quest was deterred by the FDA, who was approving generics and other drugs for the highest bidder.

The company earned notoriety during the late 1980s, when its founder testified before a congressional committee about bribes between generic drug producers and U.S. Food & Drug Administration officials. Funding Universe

This testimony would actually set Barr back a bit throughout the 80s and into the early 90s as the FDA, in possible retaliation, stonewalled the approval for many of Barr’s bio-equivalent manufacturing requests. This would change in the mid 90s when Barr became more aggressive in its approach. With a team of highly paid attorneys, Barr set out to find loopholes in the patents of many popular name-brand drugs. One of the more notable patent challenges came against Eli Lilly’s Prozac in 1996.

Challenging existing patents with a “dream team” of patent layers would become Barr’s main focus in the late 90s and throughout this decade. Considering Barr had smoothed over relations with the FDA in the 90s, getting bio-equivalency approval after winning patent challenges in court was a quick and easy process — unlike the 80s which led Barr to testify against the FDA in the first place. Now Barr was in the driver’s seat. Barr swallowed up other generic manufacturers and continued to win patent suits and gain first rights to bio-equivalency claims of expiring patents.

When Barr was acquired by Teva in 2008, a string of voluntary re-calls would soon follow. Despite Barr’s unscrupulous business history, quality-control of their drugs was never a big issue. With Teva’s acquisition and control of Barr and its wide scope of generic manufacturing, the quest to make their drugs at the cheapest price possible has resulted in the use of low-quality precursor chemicals and a complete lack of manufacturing oversight. Just nine months ago, Barr’s generic Adderall was re-called because they were distributing batches at four to five times the listed dosage. Considering Adderall is a blend of amphetamines, this resulted in an array of cardiovascular and psychological problems for those unfortunate enough to take these potent Adderall pills.

While I’m on the subject of Adderall, it is of importance to note the complacency of many of the major brand-name drug manufacturers in allowing their proprietary formulas to be produced in a manner inconsistent with their own production standards. Shire pharmaceuticals, the original producer of Adderall, has recently granted Barr/Teva the right to be the sole manufacturer of Extended Release Adderall, which is still under patent. The reason for this is of course profit. Shire has a large stake in the growing ADHD market, and are pushing their new ADHD drug Vyvanse as the be all and end all of ADHS medication. Essentially, they have given up any concern over the quality perceptions of the very popular and widely used Adderall to push Vyvanse which is simply Dextro-Amphetamine (Dexidrine) with lysine bonded to it, supposedly creating a less abusable prodrug of something that has been around for over a hundred years. I’ll save my critique of the ineffectiveness of Vyvanse for another time as that would involve delving into some complicated bio and neuro-chemistry.

In addition to the Adderall recalls, there have been others just in the past two years since Barr was acquired by Teva. Obviously, recalls and mistakes happen, but Teva seems to make more mistakes than what one would consider acceptable when dealing with drugs that are used to treat life-threatening illnesses. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole, has historically shown indifference to their actual consumers for the sake of generating more profit. With Teva taking over such a large portion of the generic drug market, this could be a scary proposition for those of us who depend on affordable drugs for treating our medical conditions.

The FDA, the federal administration responsible for overseeing the safety and effectiveness of these medications in the United States, has continued to turn a blind eye to the issues of Teva. Considering the FDA’s history of corruption and the fact that it is made up largely of former pharmaceutical executives and representatives, their apathy toward consumers in favor of these corporations should come as no surprise. This could indeed affect the rest of the world as well, as so many countries are taking a similarly lax attitude toward quality control — especially countries on the global economic periphery who have a hard time getting any drugs in general, name brand or generic.

This article was taken from my website The Todd Blog and has been slightly edited from the original version.

What Say You?

More oversight on your drugs, or let the free market alone?

Log In

UN Nuclear Non-Prolif Conference (NPT)

USA / Jeff — Fri, 07 May 2010 00:48:00 +0000

Secretary Clinton delivers remarks at the Review Conference of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at the United Nations – length 20:23

Secretary Clinton press conference – length 14:38

What Say You?

How effective can the NPT be for curbing the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide?

Log In