You are being snooped on, Malaysia views US-NSA spying seriously!

Asia being snooped on, too 

Spying by foreign intelligence agencies is also prevalent in Malaysia and other regional countries via the Internet or spying equipment located in embassies.

SO last week it was the turn of Asians to learn that their region was also the subject of foreign spying.

This was no surprise. If American intelligence is spying on Americans, on Latin Americans, and on Europeans (including its top political leader, Angela Merkel of Germany), it is a foregone conclusion that Asia would not be left out.

There is no revelation yet that Asian prime ministers and presidents have had their personal mobile phones and e-mails tapped.

But it is also a foregone conclusion that these things are happening. Be prepared, therefore, to read in the coming weeks about famous Asian leaders, opposition stalwarts, journalists and celebrities being the subjects of snooping.

Nevertheless, the news that American and Australian embassies are being used to snoop on Asian countries justifiably caused outrage in our region. The Australian surveillance is reportedly in cooperation with the United States.

Malaysia is one of the places where Australian intelligence operates to spy, according to reports in the Der Spiegel and Sydney Morning Herald. They revealed that the spying takes place from the Australian High Commission in Kuala Lumpur.

Other Asian countries where the intelligence collection is conducted is the Australian embassies in China, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Timor Leste and Papua New Guinea.

The news reports also revealed that the US embassies have also been conducting surveillance activities in many Asian countries including Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Thailand, Cambodia and Myanmar.

Malaysia last Friday registered its protests in official notes handed to the Australian High Commissioner and the US Deputy Chief of Mission who were summoned to Wisma Putra. The notes warned that surveillance of close friends could severely damage relations.

Indonesia warned the United States and Australia that the continuation of surveillance facilities inside their embassies threatened to derail years of trust built up between countries.

China also responded to the report that the American embassy in Beijing and consulates in Shanghai and Chengdu operated special spying facilities.

Its Foreign Ministry has demanded an explanation from the United States, saying that “foreign entities must not in any form engage in activities that are incompatible with their status and that are harmful to China’s national security and interest”.

Also last Friday, Brazil and Germany introduced a draft resolution to a United Nations General Assembly committee calling for an end to excessive surveillance.

The press reports on spying in Asian countries are based on information leaked by Edward Snowden, a former contractor with the US National Security Agency.

Newspapers and magazines had previously revealed that the personal phones of the German chancellor and the Brazilian president had been tapped. Both leaders have registered protests directly to US President Barack Obama.

Last week also saw revelations by the Washington Post that the US and British intelligence agencies had found a way of intercepting communications from Google as well as Yahoo as the data were being passed between their data centres.

“We are outraged at the lengths to which the government seems to have gone,” said Google’s chief legal officer.

The Internet giant companies have found that their encryptment system protecting e-mail and other information flowing through its data centres is not secure after all.

The technology companies are worried that their millions of customers will no longer trust that their privacy will be protected.

How will this affect the use of browsing, e-mail, Facebook and other facets of the Internet technology?

US companies and entities currently dominate the global Internet business. Much of the world’s flow of data go through Internet companies based in the United States.

The US administration had projected itself as an honest host of the Internet centres, respecting the rights and privacy of the world’s Internet and e-mail users, and a champion of Internet freedom.

That image has been shattered by the series of revelations emerging from Snowden’s leaked files. The opposite image has replaced it, of a government that has used high technology to gather billions of bits of data on practically all Internet users.

If counter-terrorism was the official reason, this now seems to be only a pretext for also spying on any important person, including one’s closest allies.

Now that they have lost confidence that the United States or other countries will respect privacy of the politicians, companies and citizens of their countries, some governments are now planning to limit the reach of American-based Internet companies.

The Financial Times reported that Brazil is planning regulations that would force technology companies to retain information on the Internet about its citizens and institutions within Brazil itself.

It also said that European officials are discussing the need to have stronger cloud computing capabilities in Europe to protect their citizens’ privacy.

Brazil is also planning to bring up in various UN agencies and fora the need for a global framework to respect and protect privacy on the Internet.

Contributed by Global Trends Martiin Khor
The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

Related posts:  
1.  USA Spying, the Super-Snooper !
2.  NSA secretly hacks, intercepts Google, Yahoo daily 

Malaysia views spying seriously

KLUANG: Spying activities on Malaysia by its allies is a serious matter, says Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein.

This is because it can cause relations between Malaysia and these countries, long established based on trust and sincerity, to be tense.

“I believe if this (spying) is not fully explained, our long-established good relations can be adversely affected. Therefore, we need a full explanation on the extent of the spying activities and for what purpose.

“Tensions can be avoided if the allies involved uphold the trust and sincerity in their relations with Malaysia,” he said.

Hishammuddin said this to reporters after attending a Deepavali open house hosted by Johor Unity and Human Resources Committee chairman R.Vidyanathan here yesterday.

The spying issue arose following media reports on the claim made by intelligence informant Edward Snowden that the United States had 90 electronic surveillance facilities throughout the world, including at its embassy in Kuala Lumpur.

In light of this, Hishammuddin wanted a detailed explanation on the matter as such activities could threaten Malaysia’s security and its other interests.

The US ambassador to Malaysia, Joseph Y. Yun, was reported to have explained on the spying claim to Wisma Putra.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman said Yun had stated that all surveillance activities by the United States throughout the world were specifically for security, to detect threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

On his trip to China last month, Hishammuddin said it was aimed at enhancing cooperation in the area of defence, especially through joint exercises, exchange programmes involving navy and other military officers, establishing cooperation between the defence industries of both countries, and efforts to combat terrorism and transnational crime.

Meanwhile in Yan, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said they would arrest any foreign diplomat found to be involved in spying activities.

“We will not hesitate because spying is a threat to the country’s sovereignty. In the 1980s, we have arrested foreign diplomats involved in spying activities.

“We will do the same again if there is proof of such activities,” he told newsmen after a briefing on the Sungai Limau by-election at the Yan police headquarters yesterday.

- The Star/Asia News Network Monday Nov 4, 2013

A de-Americanized world needed !

SHUTDOWN. A view of a hall on Capitol Hill September 29, 2013 in Washington, DC. AFP/Brendan Smialowski

As U.S. politicians of both political parties are still shuffling back and forth between the White House and the Capitol Hill without striking a viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world.

Emerging from the bloodshed of the Second World War as the world's most powerful nation, the United States has since then been trying to build a global empire by imposing a postwar world order, fueling recovery in Europe, and encouraging regime-change in nations that it deems hardly Washington-friendly.

With its seemingly unrivaled economic and military might, the United States has declared that it has vital national interests to protect in nearly every corner of the globe, and been habituated to meddling in the business of other countries and regions far away from its shores.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has gone to all lengths to appear before the world as the one that claims the moral high ground, yet covertly doing things that are as audacious as torturing prisoners of war, slaying civilians in drone attacks, and spying on world leaders.

Under what is known as the Pax-Americana, we fail to see a world where the United States is helping to defuse violence and conflicts, reduce poor and displaced population, and bring about real, lasting peace.

Moreover, instead of honoring its duties as a responsible leading power, a self-serving Washington has abused its superpower status and introduced even more chaos into the world by shifting financial risks overseas, instigating regional tensions amid territorial disputes, and fighting unwarranted wars under the cover of outright lies.

As a result, the world is still crawling its way out of an economic disaster thanks to the voracious Wall Street elites, while bombings and killings have become virtually daily routines in Iraq years after Washington claimed it has liberated its people from tyrannical rule.

Most recently, the cyclical stagnation in Washington for a viable bipartisan solution over a federal budget and an approval for raising debt ceiling has again left many nations' tremendous dollar assets in jeopardy and the international community highly agonized.

Such alarming days when the destinies of others are in the hands of a hypocritical nation have to be terminated, and a new world order should be put in place, according to which all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and protected on an equal footing.

To that end, several corner stones should be laid to underpin a de-Americanized world.

For starters, all nations need to hew to the basic principles of the international law, including respect for sovereignty, and keeping hands off domestic affairs of others.

Furthermore, the authority of the United Nations in handling global hotspot issues has to be recognized. That means no one has the right to wage any form of military action against others without a UN mandate.

Apart from that, the world's financial system also has to embrace some substantial reforms.

The developing and emerging market economies need to have more say in major international financial institutions including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, so that they could better reflect the transformations of the global economic and political landscape.

What may also be included as a key part of an effective reform is the introduction of a new international reserve currency that is to be created to replace the dominant U.S. dollar, so that the international community could permanently stay away from the spillover of the intensifying domestic political turmoil in the United States.

Of course, the purpose of promoting these changes is not to completely toss the United States aside, which is also impossible. Rather, it is to encourage Washington to play a much more constructive role in addressing global affairs.

And among all options, it is suggested that the beltway politicians first begin with ending the pernicious impasse.

- By Xinhua Commentary writer Liu Chang 2013-10-13

Related posts:

• US mind-boggling politicians: stop rocking the boat...
• IMF, China, Japan warn USA's debts on default! Demistiying the US debt ceiling.

Related News:
 

'De-Americanised' world needed after US shutdown - New Straits Times

•	World Bank chief urges U.S. to break fiscal impasse
•	Obama meets Democratic senators to find fiscal deal
•	U.S. fiscal crisis: House explains why Republicans unwilling to pass budget bill
•	Obama reaches out to Republicans on ending fiscal logjam
•	U.S. fiscal policy uncertainties affect global economy: World Bank official

Chavez’s legacy will live on

While his death sparked an outpouring of grief, his legacy will forever be remembered.
 
HUGO Chavez, who died last week, mourned by millions of Venezuelan citizens and people around the South American region, was a figure that was larger than life.

During his 14 years as president of Venezuela, he managed to institute profound changes with effects on his country and the developing world long after his death.

Some leaders and media outlets in the West have been giving misleading or trivialised commentaries, just as they tried to demonise him during his lifetime.

This is to be expected, since Chavez was felt by the establishment as a thorn in the flesh.

He had not minced words in criticising and acting against the so-called Washington Consensus, a nexus of policies and institutions (including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the US Treasury) that promoted a version of free-market fundamentalism that adversely affected the economic and social life of the Latin American region.

Chavez’s greatest feat was to identify and break out from the straightjacket of the Washington Consensus and to formulate policies that were very different, which he believed would benefit the people, especially the poor.

One of the first things he did as president, after being elected in 1998 with a large majority, was to re-organise the national oil industry and to play a leading role in reviving Opec, the organisation of oil exporting countries.

The price of oil shot up from around US$10 (RM30) a barrel in 1998 to US$20 (RM60), and then to around the US$100 (RM300) level where it now is.

The country’s net oil export revenues climbed from around US$14bil (RM42bil) in 1999 to US$60bil (RM180bil) in 2011.

The hugely increased oil revenues was the basis for financing many innovative social programmes.

Known as “missions”, they included raising literacy and education levels, providing healthcare to the poor through thousands of doctors and health assistants in the communities and providing cheap food for the urban population through special supermarkets.

In the rural areas, there were separate “missions” to look after the peasants, resolve problems of mining communities, and meet the interests of indigenous peoples.

These well-documented social programmes and accompanying economic policies did much to improve the lot of the poor.

According to data compiled by the London-based Guardian, from 1999 (when Chavez assumed the presidency) to 2011, GDP per capita rose from US$4,105 to US$10,801, (RM12,740 to RM33,530) extreme poverty decreased from 23.4% of the population to 8.5% and infant mortality fell from a rate of 20 per 1,000 live births to a rate of 13 per 1,000 live births in 2011.

On the other hand, Venezuela still faces serious problems: an over-dependency on oil, high inflation and a high crime rate.

The pro-poor orientation and policies of the state were responsible for the strong support of the poor for Chavez.

Their devotion to the president was evident in the outpouring of grief and the massive turnout at his lying in state and his funeral.

To his critics, Chavez had simply used oil money to “bribe the poor” to vote for him.

But for Chavez and his colleagues in what they termed the “Bolivarian revolution”, re-orienting institutions and policies to benefit the poor was the main reason to be in government.

Chavez’s influence went far beyond Venezuela. His policies, and fiery rhetoric, set alight the imagination of social movements and the public in South America, and started an important trend.

Following his ascent to power, several other leaders assumed political leadership in neighbouring countries who also bucked the ideology and policies of the Washington Consensus.

The assumption to power of so many such leaders have broken the political sway of Washington and the economic spell of the Washington consensus in the region.

Chavez’s legacy may just be as important as a master builder of regional unity and integration.

In his tribute to Chavez the former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva credited Chavez for his leadership role in the setting up of so many regional institutions in recent years.

They include the 2008 treaty that established the Union of South American Nations, the setting up in 2011 of the political forum of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (that does not include the United States and Canada) and the Bank of the South.

“Of the many leaders I have met, few have believed so much in the unity of our continent and its diverse peoples – indigenous Indians, descendants of Europeans and Africans, recent immigrants – as he did,” said Lula of Chavez.

Chavez was also a believer and practitioner of broader South-South solidarity and cooperation.

He used his country’s oil revenues to finance economic and social programmes in poorer neighbouring countries, from selling oil at below market prices to treatment for the blind.

His memory and grasp of issues and people were also phenomenal.

When I approached him in the main aisle of the conference hall of the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2010, and introduced myself as director of the South Centre, he immediately recalled his knowledge of the centre and his meeting with and admiration for Julius Nyerere, the former Tanzanian President, founding chairman of the centre and another towering pioneer of South-South cooperation.

Without hesitation or ceremony, Chavez invited me to visit Caracas and to organise a large conference to promote South-South solidarity. Alas, we were not able to make that proposed conference a reality before Chavez passed away.

Chavez lit up that Copenhagen conference by telling the thousand-strong audience, that included many heads of state and governments, of his disappointment with the rich countries for not doing enough to contain the climate crisis.

“They spend trillions of dollars bailing out the banks. If only the climate was a bank it would have been saved by now,” he said.

The straight talking and colourful Chavez will be missed; his legacy will live on.

Global Trends By MARTIN KHOR

Related posts:

'Latin Spring' still on course after Hugo Chavez' death from caner

CIA Assasinating South American Head of States with Cancer Virus , Chavez the latest Victim a US Plot? 

'Latin Spring' still on course after Hugo Chavez' death from caner

The post-Chavez era is unlikely to be very different, mainly because the West is still unprepared to change.

 A supporter lines up to pay her last respects to late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, outside the Military Academy in Caracas on March 8, 2013. Venezuela gave Hugo Chavez a lavish farewell on Friday at a state funeral that brought some of the world's most notorious strongmen to... 

THE expected death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez from cancer has produced predictable reactions all-round. The left mourned a fallen hero who had “made” a revolution, the right basked in quiet hopefulness for change, and the rest offered condolences to the extent their politics afforded.

Yet the leader who broke the mould of Venezuelan politics seemed to deserve less conventional responses to his 14 years of reshaping the country.

In an otherwise balanced airing, the BBC featured pundits variously calling Chavez “a communist” and “anti-American”, blithely repeating the familiar line about his links with Iranian and Russian counterparts being merely superficial.

CNN took a business angle in accusing Chavez of under-investing in Venezuela’s oil sector. And so on. Critics elsewhere alleged that he was just another Latin American strongman who promoted the cult of the individual and undermined democratic institutions.

Evidently, Chavez did not dampen public enthusiasm for his leadership. But his failure in upholding democratic institutions applies particularly only within the narrow context of formal democratic procedure.

His biggest contribution to Venezuela is to awaken the people to their democratic birthrights like adequate housing, healthcare and education.

This change has been so profound as to remake national politics, so that even opposition politicians now have to promise the same thing, only more. In a primal democratic institution and process, the masses would vote with their feet against any candidate who dared to offer the people less.

This transformation is further based on overturning decades of unquestioned allegiance to the Washington Consensus of “open markets”, “privatisation” and “deregulation”. A Latin America that has changed thus is not about to change back too soon.

True enough, Chavez had been a Latin American strongman. But that quality was more cultural than political, as he adopted the classically paternalistic, macho style of the Latin caudillo.

The difference, again, is that while previous Latin American caudillos tended to be pro-US right-wing dictators, Chavez was not that. So he is regarded differently or not at all.

There is no doubt that Chavez and his policies were popular and not just populist. One of the biggest problems for his opponents has been his transformation of the state to serve public, rather than privileged private, interests.

Critics have also tended to fundamentally misread history, believing that Chavez had reinvented Venezuela. The reality is that Chavez himself had been a product of the times in the region, rather than the other way round.

The same regional moment had also produced similarly progressive leaders in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. This so-called “turn to the left” in the region may instead be named the “Latin Spring”.

Since the turn of the century, the movement swept a region like the “Arab Spring” later did, but with key differences. The Latin Spring involved more countries, far more people, and was established democratically rather than through bloodshed and foreign military intervention.

But despite its strengths, it was not regarded positively by the Western establishment and mainstream media, because another key difference was that it went against Western-friendly despots rather than Western-averse ones.

And Chavez was placed at the head of the movement because Venezuela was seen to have started it all. From the lack of a positive reception came the negative perceptions.

But the fact is that neither Chavez nor any other individual, however gifted, could have masterminded or stage-managed a historic regional movement even if he wanted to.

The various Latin American countries are all sovereign nation states dominated by no single individual. There is also no single power “guiding” them other than the US that had done so before.

The new era is one of each country taking charge of its own affairs for itself, based on the people taking charge of the state. The time of death squads, Iran-Contras and transnational corporations lording it over the peasants is past.

It happened before, but in piecemeal fashion: the fall of Nicaragua’s Somoza, Bolivia’s Suarez and Chile’s Pinochet. It was never a broad movement like today’s.

The scale and reach of the present movement is much larger than any single country’s experience. It is also set to outlive individuals like Chavez.

Failing to recognise this will mean failing to deal adequately with these countries, at a time in history when they are also becoming more important. It would also allow Cold War ideology to claim more unwitting victims.

Chavez’s opponents and critics have long linked him with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, an apparent error that is true and justified but only unintentionally. Like Castro, he was essentially a Third World nationalist pushed into making less than ideal linkages around the globe by default.

But today’s newly awakened Latin America cannot be pushed into the fold of a non-existent Soviet Union, nor of a Russia or China too preoccupied with its own internal challenges and anxious only for foreign markets or sources of raw materials.

Instead, they are more likely to be pushed more closely to one another, finding common cause among themselves and in relation to Washington and its Consensus”. The new Latin America will remain different from before, long after Chavez ‘s presidency despite its significant national contribution to it.

Behind The Headlines by BUNN NAGARA

Related post:

CIA Assasinating South American Head of States with Cancer Virus , Chavez the latest Victim a US Plot?

http://youtu.be/jFqcMG6XjgQ

CIA Assasinating South American Head of States with Cancer Virus , Chavez the latest Victim a US Plot?

  
JNN 8 Mar 2013 Caracas : The Venezuelan president himself, before he died Wednesday, wondered aloud whether the US government – or the banksters who own it – gave him, and its other leading Latin American enemies, cancer.





“How did it happen that six leaders of Latin American countries which had criticized US policies and tried to create an influential alliance in order to be independent and sovereign states, fell ill simultaneously with the same disease?”

A little over a year ago, Chavez went on Venezuelan national radio and said: “I don’t know but… it is very odd that we have seen Lugo affected by cancer, Dilma when she was a candidate, me, going into an election year, not long ago Lula and now Cristina… It is very hard to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some leaders in Latin America. It’s at the very least strange, very strange.”

Strange indeed… so strange that if you think Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Paraguayan Fernando Lugo, and former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – Latin America’s top anti-US empire leaders – all just happened to contract cancer around the same time by sheer chance, you must be some kind of crazy coincidence theorist.

Am I 100% certain that the CIA killed Hugo Chavez? Absolutely not.

It could have been non-governmental assassins working for the bankers.

But any way you slice it, the masters of the US empire are undoubtedly responsible for giving Chavez and other Latin American leaders cancer. How do we know that? Just examine the Empire’s track record.
Fidel Castro’s bodyguard, Fabian Escalante, estimates that the CIA attempted to kill the Cuban president an astonishing 638 times. The CIA’s methods included exploding cigars, biological warfare agents painted on Castro’s diving suit, deadly pills, toxic bacteria in coffee, an exploding speaker’s podium, snipers, poison-wielding female friends, and explosive underwater sea shells.

The CIA’s assassination attempts against Castro were like a Tom and Jerry cartoon, with the CIA as the murderously inept cat, and the Cuban president as a clever and very lucky mouse. Some might even argue that Castro’s survival, in the face of 638 assassination attempts by the world’s greatest power, is evidence that El Presidente’s communist atheism was incorrect, and that God, or at least a guardian angel, must have been watching over “Infidel Castro” all along.

Theology aside, the CIA’s endless attempts on Castro’s life provide ample evidence that US authorities will stop at nothing in their efforts to murder their Latin American enemies.

John Perkins, in his bestselling book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, supplies more evidence that the bankers that own the US government routinely murder heads of state, using private assassins as well as CIA killers.

Perkins, during his career as an “economic hit man,” gained first-hand knowledge about how the big international bankers maintain their empire in Latin America and elsewhere. Perkins’ job was to visit leaders of foreign countries and convince them to accept loans that could never be paid back. Why? The bankers want to force these nations into debt slavery. When the country goes bankrupt, the bankers seize the nation’s natural resources and establish complete control over its government and economy.

Perkins would meet with a targeted nation’s leader and say: “I have a fist-full of hundred dollar bills in one hand, and a bullet in the other. Which do you want?” If the leader accepted the loans, thereby enslaving his country, he got the payoff. If he angrily chased Perkins out of his office, the bankers would call in the “asteroids” to assassinate the uncooperative head of state.

The “asteroids” are the world’s most expensive and accomplished professional killers. They work on contract – sometimes to the CIA, sometimes to the bankers, and sometimes to wealthy private individuals. And though their specialty is causing plane crashes, they are capable of killing people, including heads of state, in any number of ways.

This isn’t just speculation. John Perkins actually knows some of these CIA-linked professional killers personally. And he has testified about their murders of Latin American leaders.Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is dedicated to Perkins’ murdered friends Gen. Torrijos of Panama and President Jaime Roldos of Ecuador. Both were killed by CIA-linked “asteroids” in engineered plane crashes.

Do CIA-linked killers sometimes induce cancer in their victims? Apparently they do. One notable victim: Jack Ruby (née Jack Rubenstein), a mobster who was himself a professional killer, and whose last hit was the choreographed murder of JFK-assassination patsy Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas Police Department. Ruby begged to be taken to Washington to tell the real story of the JFK murder, but instead died in prison, of a sudden and mysterious cancer, before he could reveal what he knew.

Have the CIA-bankster “asteroids” ever tried to kill Latin American leaders with cancer? The answer is an unequivocal “yes.”

Edward Haslam’s book Dr. Mary’s Monkey proves what JFK assassination prosecutor Jim Garrison had earlier alleged: Child-molesting CIA agent David Ferrie, one of President Kennedy’s killers, had experimented extensively with cancer-causing viruses for the CIA in his huge home laboratory. The purpose: To give Fidel Castro and other Latin American leaders cancer. (Ferrie himself was killed by the CIA shortly before he was scheduled to testify in court about his role in the JFK assassination.)

To summarize: We know that the bankers who own the US government routinely try to kill any Latin American leader who refuses to be their puppet. We know that they have mounted thousands of assassination attempts against Latin American leaders, including more than 600 against Castro alone. We know that they have been experimenting with cancer viruses, and killing people with cancer, since the 1960s.

So if you think Hugo Chavez died a natural death, I am afraid that you are terminally naïve.

Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro has announced the expulsion of two US embassy officials for allegedly spying on the country’s military, accusing Washington of having infected late President Hugo Chavez with the cancer virus.

Maduro charged the US administration in a televised speech on Tuesday, after holding an emergency meeting with high military command and civilian leaders and hours before the announcement of President Chavez’s death.

Caracas accused the US embassy’s Air Force attache, Colonel David Delmonaco, and assistant air attache, Major Devlin Kostal, of trying to stir up a military plot against the Venezuelan government.

Washington confirmed that the two officials were employed at the embassy, saying Delmonaco was en route back to the US, and Kostal was in America at the time.

Maduro also said that, “We have no doubt” that the President’s cancer, first diagnosed in 2011, was induced by “the historical enemies of our homeland,” a thinly-veiled reference to the US.

He compared the situation to the death of the late leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat, who Maduro claimed was “inoculated with an illness.”

US State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said in a statement that Washington “definitely rejects” the assertion that the US was involved in Chavez’s illness.

On Tuesday, the 58-year-old Venezuelan leader died after a two-year battle with cancer.

Back in 2011, Chavez had accused the US of developing a technology for infecting Latin American leaders with cancer.

Argentinean President Cristina Kirchner Fernandez, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and former Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo have all received treatment for cancer disease.

“Wouldn’t it be weird if they [the US] had developed a technology for inducing cancer and nobody knows up until now?” Chavez had said at the time.

Russian Communist Party head Gennady Zyuganov today demanded an international investigation into the death of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, claiming it was “far from a coincidence” that six leaders of Latin-American countries who had criticized the U.S. simultaneously fell ill with cancer.

“How did it happen that six leaders of Latin American countries which had criticized US policies and tried to create an influential alliance in order to be independent and sovereign states, fell ill simultaneously with the same disease?” Zyuganov told Russian state television, urging an investigation under “international control” into Chavez’s death.

Zyuganov is accurate so far as his claim that six Latin-American leaders were diagnosed with cancer within a relatively close period of time, most notably Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in December 2012, although later analysis proved that she had never actually suffered from the illness.

Current Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo, and the former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, have all been hit with cancer in the last few years. In 2006 it was also reported that retired Cuban leader Fidel Castro was also diagnosed with cancer.

- Jafria Community's Voice

 “Chavez Death Could Be A US Plot”

The death of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez from cancer may have been part of a plot by the United States to infect its enemies in Latin America with the disease, the leader of Russia’s Communist party, Gennady Zyuganov, speculated on Wednesday.

“How did it happen that six leaders of Latin American countries which had criticized US policies and tried to create an influential alliance in order to be independent and sovereign states, fell ill simultaneously with the same disease?” Zyuganov said in comments carried by Russian state television.

“In my view, this was far from a coincidence,” said Zyuganov, the head of Russia’s second-largest political party. He urged an investigation under “international control” into Chavez’s death.

Zyuganov’s claim echoed accusations by Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro, who alleged last week that Chavez had fallen victim to an “imperialist” plot.

“The old enemies of our fatherland looked for a way to harm his health,” Maduro said,



Chavez, who died on Tuesday at the age of 58 after an almost two-year battle with cancer, had himself speculated that the United States may have developed methods to infect its enemies with the disease.

“Would it be so strange that they’ve invented the technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?” Chavez – who once famously called former US President George W. Bush “the devil” – said in late 2011, after he had been diagnosed with the disease.

He was speaking a day after Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

“Fidel [Castro] always told me, ‘Chávez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat … a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what,’ he said in late 2011 after he had been diagnosed with cancer,” Chavez added.

Castro was himself the target of numerous US assassination plots, according to declassified documents published by the CIA in 2007.

Among the other leftwing Latin America leaders diagnosed with cancer are Brazil’s current president, Dilma Rousseff, Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo, and the former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

By Stephen Gowans Global Research

Dim global growth prospects in 2013

The year 2012 is coming to a close, leaving behind many problems. Most are man-made originating in politics.

Yet, sadly, there are no major political leaders who have the credibility, charisma and strength of character to garner the needed political resolve to set their own nations or the world on the righteous path of sustainable growth.

The re-election of US President Barack Obama helped a little. As I write, even if he is able to persuade opposition Republicans in Congress to a deal to avoid the looming “fiscal cliff” (self-inflicted arrangement involving US$600bil of indiscriminate tax hikes and “sequester” cuts in military and welfare spending, bringing on a 3% reduction in 2013 fiscal deficit), the resulting cuts and taxes will invariably become a drag on growth estimated by most to be at least 1% of gross doemstic product or GDP in 2013.

The downside risk to global growth is likely to be exacerbated by the spread of the ongoing austerity to most advanced nations. Thus far, the recessionary fiscal drag has been centred on the eurozone periphery and United Kingdom. Latest indicators point to it spreading to the eurozone's core (including Germany and France) and Japan.

This only confirms the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s contention that excessive front-loading of fiscal austerity will “dim global growth prospects in 2013.”

The recent near simultaneous leadership changes in China, Japan and South Korea offer East Asia a fresh opportunity for reconciliation after a period of tension.

The region's three biggest economies now appear to be confidently over the hump following the Tokyo and South Korean elections last week and Beijing's leadership “jockeying” resolved by last month. But, realistically, they continue to face headwinds from a stumbling world economy.

North Korea's rocket launch last week adds to regional uncertainty. So does continuing unrest in Syria and the Middle East.

Critical to the well-being of nations is how they will use this opportunity to get their ties back on track.

Enter 2013

The year 2013 is a big step following a tough year. To me, six events had dominated:

(i) Europe held the world's fate in its unsteady hands for most of the year. It took the European Central Bank (ECB) president Mario Draghi's promise “to do whatever it takes to save the euro” to rid the sting out of the crisis, with a later pledge of “unlimited” bond buying;

(ii) The impact of the war in Syria and Morsi's uneasy presidency in Egypt;

(iii) Leadership transition in four of the world's five largest economies, with “elections” in United States, France, Japan and China ushering promises of new approaches to politics and policy making;

(iv) Serious political disputes in the East Asia seas;

(v) recent massive anti-Putin unrest in Russia; and

(vi) Serious transformation moves in Myanmar.

Today they still continue to dominate. For the moment, it is too soon to tell what their politics will bring in 2013. But one thing is for sure: Global business gloom has deepened since the third quarter of 2012 and is likely to persist.

I think there are some important lessons.

First, investment risks have turned more political. US businesses today have more than US$1 trillion in cash reserves and committed facilities awaiting investment. For them, the nightmare is Washington staying gridlocked, four days before falling off the “cliff.” Hopefully, like before, the “game of chicken ends at the last minute.”

Second, even a small economy like Greece (barely 2% of eurozone economy) can have a material impact on global business sentiment as the “Grexit” drama showed.

Third, the European episode pointed clearly that governments can't cut and grow. One of the important takeaways from 2012 is that it is critical to always focus on the big picture and not be grappled by event risks as these come and go.

As a US civil rights activist once said: “For all its uncertainty, we cannot flee the future.” So as we step into 2013, nations just have to embrace risks and learn to manage and live with them. Scurrying away will not help.

OECD slashes forecast

Paris-based rich nations' think-tank OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) said in mid-December that its composite leading indicators (CLIs) point to widely differing growth outlooks among its 34 member states.

Signs are of a modest pick-up in United States and the United Kingdom, slowdown in Canada and Russia, and deepening recession in the eurozone (including significant slackening in Germany and France) and in Japan, and possibly Brazil.

OECD's CLIs are designed to provide early signals of turning points between economic expansion and slowdown, based on extensive data that have a reliable history of signalling changes in activity.

Overall, barring worst fears won't come to pass, combined OECD GDP will only rise 1%1.5% in 2013, not much change from 2012, with a modest pick-up to 2%2.5% in 2014.

Not unlike IMF's forecast, OECD growth will only expand if eurozone deals seriously with its political and debt crisis, and the United States finds a timely credible path to avoid the “cliff.”

Absent such actions, world growth would slide into another downturn, with deepening recession in the eurozone periphery, and contraction or stagnation at the core and related advanced nations. What's needed is “very careful policy steering”.

Eurozone manufacturing kept contracting in November for a 16th month. Data show signs of recession extending into 2013 as policymakers struggle to come to grips with the crisis. For businesses and investors, the October Markit survey concluded that in 2013 companies can expect challenging sales and profits, causing many to focus on cost cutting.

Eurozone: ECB slashed its forecast for the eurozone in 2013, signalling another difficult year ahead. Echoing the IMF, it now expects growth of between shrinking at 0.9% to a growth of 0.3% next year (minus 0.5% in 2012).

The level of uncertainty was reflected in its first attempt to forecast 2014 at 1.2%. “Gradual recovery should start later in 2013” (GDP shrank 0.1% in the third quarter of 2012).

As the eurozone slipped into recession for the second time in four years, Germany's growth slowed down to 0.2% in the third quarter of 2012 (0.3% in the second quarter); expectation is for it to expand 0.4% in 2013 (from 1.6% in 2012). However, Germany faces a “favourable environment on the back of expansionary monetary policy”. Expect some revival later on in the second half of 2013, following better-than-expected jump in investor sentiment in December.

Industrial output in Germany fell 2.4% in October (minus 1.6% in September); France reported a 0.6% drop while Spain and Portugal had increases of 1.2% and 4.8% respectively.

“France is facing conditions much worse than Germany it's fast becoming aligned with its southern neighbours of Spain and Italy.” Germany, given its openness, cannot “prosper alone; it has a particular interest in the welfare of its partners”.

Nevertheless, eurozone's peripheral shows little sign of recovery: GDP continues to shrink because of fiscal austerity, euro's excessive strength and severe credit crunch. Already, social and political backlash against more austerity is becoming overwhelming with strikes, riots, violence and rise of extremist politics.

They just need growth. Another year of muddling through only revives old risks in a more virulent form in 2013 and beyond.

The United States: Growth in United States remained anaemic at 1.5%2% for most of 2012. Political and policy uncertainties abound. Fiscal worries are centred on four key areas: taxes, spending, stimulus and borrowing.

The United States needs:

(i) A package exceeding US$1 trillion in revenues over 10 years and set in motion a tax reform process in 2013 to limit tax deductions and lower rates for businesses and individuals;

(ii) A package of spending cuts with less generous social benefits, health spending reductions and cuts in selected mandatory programmes, including military;

(iii) Some short-term stimulus measures, especially on infrastructure projects and on education and R&D; and

(iv) Raising the debt ceiling now.

Already, with continuing impasse even at this late hour, forecasters are downgrading growth expectations for 2013. “It's a dangerous situation,” says Nobel Laureate P. Krugman. “The opposition is lost and rudderless, bitter & angry as it lashes out in the death throes of the conservative dream.”

All this is happening at a time of significant game changes boosting the outlook:

(a) Housing is recovering;

(b) Manufacturing re-engineering is underway;

(c) The third quarter 2012 growth is up 3.1% (1.3% in the seconbd quarter), with consumer spending rising 1.6% and unemployment down to 7.7%, its lowest since 2008;

(d) Pent-up demand is awaiting to be unleashed upon clarity on the future fiscal pathway; and

(e) New future in energy transformation, especially from low cost shale oil and gas.

But first, the daunting task to regain business and consumer confidence needs to begin now. Because of continuing uncertainty, consensus forecast chances of 24% for greater than 3% growth in 2013, same as chances of a recession.

On the whole, they expect growth of 2.3% in 2013, better than three months ago. But, this won't materially help the 12 million jobless. Even by 2014, unemployment is unlikely to be lower than 7%.

East Asia and Pacific (EAP): World Bank's December update places growth in China and developing East Asia at 7.5% in 2012 (against 8.3% in 2011) in the face of weak external demand.

Growth in EAP is still the highest among the developing world and constituted 40% of global growth, but is set to recover to 7.9% in 2013.

EAP (excluding China) will grow 5.6% in 2012, 1% higher than in 2011 due mainly to a rebound of activity in Thailand, strong growth in the Philippines, and relatively modest slowdown in Indonesia and Vietnam. Malaysia held a steady course.

For the entire region, easy fiscal and monetary policies supported growth. Next year, the region will benefit from continued strong domestic demand and the mild expected global recovery, especially in the second half of 2013.

I agree with the World Bank that most EAP nations have retained strong underlying macroeconomic fundamentals and should be better able to withstand external shocks. But many risks remain, including open vulnerabilities in the eurozone that could readily lead to renewed financial market volatility, and global slowdown: The United States falling off the “cliff” resulting in a loss of growth push for EAP; potential hostility arising from political territorial tensions in the Asian seas; and fallout from unexpected developments in Syria and the Middle East.

However, the robust growth in services this year reflects strong domestic support derived from continuing rising incomes. As these trends gather strength, services can be expected to emerge as a new growth driver in EAP.

For the region, latest business sentiment surveys have turned positive for the fourth quarter of 2012, reversing two consecutive quarters of declines, while global uncertainties remained the biggest concern for the region's firms.

China is expected to grow by 7%-9% in 2012 (9.3% in 2011), the lowest since 1999, due mainly to lower domestic demand growth reflecting the 2011 stabilisation measures. World Bank expects China to expand 8.4% in 2013 fuelled by fiscal stimulus and faster effective implementation of large investment projects.

Indications are the recent slowdown has now bottomed out: The third quarter 2012 GDP rose 7.4%, below the historical trend and the lowest in 14 quarters, but its quarter-on-quarter growth reached a 9.1% annual rate in the third quarter of 2012. Growth is, however, expected to slacken to 8% in 2014 as productivity and labour force growth tail off.

Consumer prices will likely continue to fall, averaging 2.8% in 2012, but will rise moderately to 3.3% in 2013 as growth picks up and the lagged effects of easy monetary policies in the second half of 2011 take hold.

China's policy challenge is to balance the trade-off between supporting growth and reforming. But, priority remains at implementing targeted tax cuts, health and social welfare spending and large-scale social housing to support consumption.

What, then, are we to do?

Geopolitical uncertainties will engulf 2013. Consumers, corporate and investors are bound to remain cautious and risk adverse even scared.

But prospects in EAP look bright and the region continues to have ample fiscal space to counter the impact of external shocks.

Much of the global uncertainties are still being generated in Europe. It's messy there right now, but the recovery of Europe will come some day.

Today, the ratio of stock market value to GDP averaged worldwide at 80%. In peripheral Europe, this ratio ranged from 23% in Greece to 38% in Portugal akin to where Asian counterparts were in 1998. Italy's total stock market value is today about the same as Apple's.

R. Sharma of Morgan Stanley made these and other insightful comments in the Financial Times, with this refrain: Is Italy worth no more than Apple? Food for thought.

Look at it this way. We all have to keep the perspective in approaching 2013 in order to avoid our own self-made “cliff.”

WHAT ARE WE TO DO
BY TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN

 ● Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who speaks, writes and consults on economic and financial issues. Feedback is most welcome; email: starbiz@thestar.com.my.

Related posts:
US Fiscal Cliff poses threat to economy worldwide! 
'Cliff' worries may drive tax selling on Wall Street...

Malaysia in 2013, stability amid a global storm