Nannie-nannie boo-boo!

Below is an excerpt from Fox News from an interview with Dick Cheney done by Newsweek. If anyone ever doubted the subtlety of Dick's use of language or his Zen-like way of being, surely the quote below will convert you into a believer.

In the interview, Cheney also said he doesn't spend any time worrying about how the public or the media view him. When pressed to react to personal criticism from people with whom he has worked before, Cheney said: "Well, I'm vice president and they're not."

The End of Neo-Liberalism and the New Energy Mercantilism

In early January, when Russia again cut oil exports to Belarus, and in the process disrupted energy supplies to Germany and Poland, I was struck by the thought that perhaps we are now firmly in the final stages of neo-liberal hegemony. Russian energy nationalism, the rise of people’s movements in South America, the failure of the Washington consensus to deliver on any of its promises vis-à-vis development in developing countries, the US obsession with the GWOT—all of this sounds to me like the death knell of “Freimarkt über alles!” The hum that reverberates in all of these situations is that the neo-liberal worldview is loosing legitimacy. Thus, for example, the US must resort to violence to obtain its current and future foreign policy objectives. We no longer share enough common ground with the folks on the other side of the table to discuss matters, so we have no option but to pull out a gun to “explain” ourselves.

While I think these stories are related I don’t have the time or the expertise to pull it all together. But I will reference a recent “article” I saw from an investment research firm with a very free-market bias. While I would contest their interpretation of the events, if the facts they lay out are accurate, I think they are good indicators of free market backlash in the energy sector. They—the private energy deals of China and India, for example—are also fascinating examples of an alternative to the US belligerent, costly, and inhumane approach to securing cheap oil for the future.

From Investment U Research

Rapid expansion in China and India has led the governments of these countries to make sweeping changes in the way they buy oil. In many cases, they are beginning to circumvent the traditional distribution networks of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), and other bourses, entirely.

In fact, they’re undermining them, “locking up” supplies by purchasing crude from oil-producing countries directly – behind closed doors…

These deals last years, often taking large oil reserves off the market for a decade or more. And, though it will be difficult to know by how much, they could potentially impact the future price of crude. Consider the following:

* Angola committed to supply China with 200,000 barrels of crude per day at $60/barrel for the next 10 years, in return for Chinese investment in infrastructure projects such as railroads, roads and bridges.

* China National Petroleum Corp. has entered joint development agreements with Sudan, which is expected to produce as much as 300,000 barrels per day. Another Chinese firm, Sinopec Corp., is erecting a pipeline from that complex to Port Sudan on the Red Sea, where the Chinese are building a tanker terminal for shipping raw crude to the Chinese mainland. Altogether, Sudan provides 10% of Chinese petroleum imports.

* India already imports about 24 million tons of crude from Saudi Arabia every year, which is 26% of its total crude imports. It has stated a desire to secure long-term contracts to assure delivery in the future. Indian public sector firms have participating interests in oil and gas projects in Vietnam, Sudan, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Myanmar, Libya, Syria, Australia, Ivory Coast, Qatar and Egypt.

This strategy is coming to be known as "Energy Mercantilism."

Producers and consumers are bypassing the marketplace altogether. And the free markets that have historically determined the pricing and allocation of oil suddenly face a new uncertainty: Now that oil prices are being locked in outside of the marketplace, not everyone will pay the same price. It directly counters market pricing, and destabilizes the supply/distribution channels that currently determine how much we pay for oil.

The "State-Run" Energy Market

The world relies on an open marketplace to set the price of energy. For decades, the NYMEX has been the epicenter of oil trade.

But China and India, in cooperation with a key supplier, Russia, have turned the tables by making bilateral agreements to lock in long-term supplies at set prices, or by forming consortiums to guarantee supply.

And these “private” oil deals are beginning to roll in…

* In Russia, Vladimir Putin has been squeezing Europe by withholding supplies of natural gas while negotiating for exclusive pipeline deals. In 2003, he dismantled the Yukos oil group who had expanded dealings with the West. He has explicitly stated that Russia will demand bilateral long-term supply contracts with consuming nations, so Russia could guarantee stable demand for its exports.

* Recent testimony before the Congressional Committee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations outlined how China's three state-owned oil companies “have managed to establish control over about 3 mb/d [million barrels a day] of crude production, which could reach up to 6 mb/d by 2008.”

* In November 2005, Chinese President Hu Jintao toured Latin America and completed a number of economic deals, including an oil deal with Argentina. Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, has said Chinese firms would be allowed to operate 15 mature oil fields in eastern Venezuela, which could produce more than one billion barrels. Chavez has also invited Chinese firms to bid for natural gas exploration contracts.

The fact is, 90% of world reserves are controlled by national oil companies, as opposed to market-driven public companies.

Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM), for example, is the largest publicly traded oil company. And it ranks only 14th in proven reserves, directly below 13 national oil companies, including those of Iran and Venezuela.

The Bottom Line

A task force for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a highly respected Washington think tank, recently released a report that contains dire predictions for our economy and global oil markets.

Led by ex-CIA chiefs John Schlesinger and John Deutsch, the group reports that the United States will be unable to achieve energy independence any time in the foreseeable future, even with massive injections of ethanol, wind power and other alternative fuels.

Noting the potential ramifications of Energy Mercantilism, it recommends radical conservation initiatives, possibly including higher gasoline taxes and gasoline rationing.

It also calls for the implementation of “an active public policy… to correct these market failures that harm U.S. economic and national security.”

Most oil and gas resources,” the report states, “are controlled by state-run companies, some of which enter into supply contracts with consumer countries that are accompanied by political arrangements that distort the proper functioning of the market.”

The fact is, more and more oil buyers and sellers are hooking up directly, outside of the marketplace. And in many cases, they’re including other “payments” into the transactions – direct investment, infrastructure development and trade agreements.

It’s not certain how Energy Mercantilism will impact the price of oil, in real terms. But it will be an important trend to watch. We will continute to follow it, and be sure to bring any material developments to your attention.

Good Investing,

Don Miller,

Investment U Research

The "Surge" Revisited

Following up on last Thursday's theatrics, I came across a story in Truthdig.com by Stan Goff, a long-time military man turned journalist author. Goff offers a very similar analysis to mine but with more facts and more military insight. The article is a bit long, but it is in informative and does a particulary good describing the military situation both in Iraq and the at home.

The Hydrocarbon Law

The reason I lead into a discussion of the Bush administration’s military “surge” plan for Iraq by talking about fossil fuels is that neither the government nor the media seem inclined to talk about the subject. The desperation of the coming escalation of criminal lunacy is based not on some fantasy but on a real and coming competition between the U.S. and basically everyone else for these energy stores, even as most honest experts agree that world production of oil has now peaked and will begin an inexorable and irreversible decline. The reason for attempting to implant permanent U.S. military bases in the Persian Gulf area and install compliant governments (the real reason for the war from the very beginning) has everything to do with securing control over the region.

The surge plan is a painfully twisted military option, but what is twisting it is not well understood. Stability in Iraq could be achieved relatively easily, even now, in conjunction with a precipitous redeployment of Anglo-American military forces. The strange attractor—strange mostly because the media never mention it—is Iraq’s ”first postwar draft hydrocarbon law,” which would ”set up a committee consisting of highly qualified experts to speed up the process of issuing tenders and signing contracts with international oil companies to develop Iraq’s untapped oilfields.” This law, which is tantamount to privatization with an Anglo-American franchise in perpetuity, is the bottom line for the U.S., as evidenced by the fact that this is the one, absolute, bottom-line point of agreement between the Bush administration and the so-called Iraq Study Group. The rhetorical scuffle between these two entities is not the what, but the how.

For the whole story follow click here “Petraeus! Is Baghdad Burning?”

The Sun, the Moon, the Truth, and Wikileaks

For the past few weeks I've been thinking about why the Cheney administration has been so adamant about re-asserting the power of the executive office. My thoughts are still jumbled on this complicated matter, but one thing I'm thinking is that perhaps the progressive movements of the 1960s were much more effective than I realized. The civil rights movement, feminism, the environmental movements, the right-to-know movements, gay & lesbian rights movements, and the many other social movements were all assertions of the rights of individuals to be treated as equals and to use the power of the State to help enforce those rights. In doing so, this tended to do two things. First, it crowded out the claims made by big business. If Congress was busy passing civil rights legislation that meant it didn't have as much time for the multi-naiontal mining company that "needed' special tax treatment. At the same time, many of the specific claims made by these groups had the unintended consequence of making these groups more effective consumers, thus aiding at least some businesses. Second, and more importantly, it taught ordinary citizens that they could assert themselves and succeed. As J.E. Hoover is claimed to have said, the most dangerous thing the Black Panthers ever did was to give free breakfasts to black school children. If a group of young not-terribly-rich folks could provide free meals to kids, why couldn't the US government?

Another development, in many ways not related to the political developments, happened on the technology front. Over the past 20 years or so, there has been an explosion in computer, communication, and media technologies that have increased the power of citizens relative to large institutions (the State, corporations, foundations, international institutions like the IMF and the WB). In the hands of intelligent, dedicated, and organized people--i.e, average citizens with a legitimate claim--these technologies have made it substantially cheaper and easier to organize political activities, analyze complex situations, and publicize new claims. When you have a powerful, vested interest in keeping things the way they are, these kinds of developments are threatening.

As I said, all of this is still a jumble in my head. I hope to present a better summary in the future. But, as I was trying to organize these thoughts I received an email about a new site from the revolutionaries at Wikipedia.

http://www.wikileaks.org/index.html

Wikipedia describes the page as:

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by non-technical people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

This is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking about with regards to citizens' newly-discovered ability to assert their power. I encourage everyone to check out the site. It is an amazing idea and it is a perfect example of what is scaring the shit out of Dick Cheney and, in my current thinking, helps to explain why he needs terrorism and the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc,.

Democracy on the ropes

Now that I've made the connection between the GWOT and the Resource Wars virtually everything that is going on in US foreign policy makes sense to me. Even so, I could barely believe the quotes in today's WAPO article summarizing some of the weekend's tv programs. The Post quotes Dick Cheney as saying that "you can't fight a war by committee." Asked about the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, George farted out the following:

'You cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, 'Gee, public opinion's against, we better quit,' " Cheney agreed. That would "validate the al-Qaeda view of the world," he added.

Apparently, al-Qaeda has some twisted notion that the will of the people, their insights, ideas, fears, and hopes may have some value. The Cheney administration, of course, knows better and that's why George is fighting for democracy in Iraq.

"Surging toward the holy oil grail", by Pepe Escobar

The following is an excerpt from the Asia Times Online which dares to posit a connection between the "surge" and the Petroleum Law. It also points out, correctly I think, that a large racheting up in the violence is inevitable over the next six months.

Grabbing those oil fields by the horn
Washington's successive divide-and-rule tactics - facilitating a possible genocide of Sunnis, contemplating a mass slaughter of Shi'ites, betting on a regional Sunni/Shi'ite war - never for a second lose sight of the riches of Iraqi. For Big Business, an Iraq eaten alive by Balkanization is the ideal environment for the triumph of Anglo-American petrocracy.

A new Iraqi oil law will most likely be voted on in Parliament in the next few weeks, before the arrival of Bush's 21,500 men, and it should be in effect in March. The law is Anglo-American Big Oil's holy grail: the draft has been carefully scrutinized by Washington, Big Oil and the International Monetary Fund, but not by Iraqi politicians. The profit-sharing agreements enshrined by the law are immensely profitable for Big Oil. And crucially, the law prevents any Iraqi government from nationalizing the oil industry - as the majority of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member states did. In essence, it's a game of "if you nationalize, we invade you - again". So the law fulfills the early-2003 neo-con boast of "we are the new OPEC".

Iraq's petrodollars will turn to mush - or rather, as with Saudi Arabia, be recycled back to US banks. Security company Blackwater will make a killing "protecting" Iraqi pipelines. Bechtel and Halliburton will get myriad fat contracts to rebuild everything the US has bombarded since 1991.

But what's the use of an oil law in a 100-cadavers-a-day hellhole? Enter the escalation as a way of providing "stability". Whichever way the coming surge goes - ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, the battle of Sadr City - what matters is not the piling up of Arab Muslim (or American) bodies, but how much less cumbersome is the path toward the holy oil grail. Big Business will make a deal with anyone that facilitates the passing of the oil law, be it Maliki's Da'wa Party, the SCIRI, or - in a wildest-dream version - the Sadrists or al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, Sunni and Shi'ite, want the US out, and as soon as possible. A rape of Iraq's oil wealth enshrined by a Parliament-approved oil law would certainly lead to national unrest. For the moment it's fair to assume the US is taking no chances in its backroom deals, as the SCIRI's support for the new law, via Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi, is practically assured. Da'wa must be in the process of being bribed to death.

But Muqtada is another story. He is close to some Sunni factions. They are getting closer. And crucially, they agree on being Iraqi nationalists who want the Americans out. There's a very strong possibility of the Sadrists joining the muqawama in the event the oil law is approved. Thus the preemptive, two-pronged Bush escalation on the war front - against both Muqtada and nationalist Sunnis.

The ever-expanding killing fields
Stenographers of the "clash of civilizations" may rejoice. But what really matters is what 1.5 billion people of the Muslim ummah are seeing. They see, on a given day, apart from made-in-USA bombs over Palestine, the US bombarding Arab Muslims in Iraq, Central Asian Muslims in Afghanistan, black Muslims in Somalia. Soon, perhaps, Persian Muslims will be included. Blowback is assured.

Referring to the hearings on Capitol Hill last month on the Lancet study compiling 655,000 civilian deaths provoked by the war on Iraq, University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole wrote in his blog that the US government "has committed cliocide" - after the Greek muse Clio, who watched over the course of human history. Cliocide will of course continue.

In Iraq, there are only two stark, inevitable options for the White House: cliocide, as in mass slaughter (of Sunnis and Shi'ites alike); or defeat (which is all but assured). Bush has chosen the first option. The upcoming battle of Sadr City will signal the descent of Iraq into absolute, abysmal, irreversible chaos. Bush, in imperial-Rome mode, can then call the desolation victory, and retire. Provided, of course, the oil law is in the bag.

Pepe Escobar's complete article in the January 12, 2007 Asia Times Online can be read here.

Doublespeak Quote of the Year

It is only the 14th day of the year, but I think we alreay have the 2007 Doublespeak Quote the Year. Let's hope so. I found this in Friday's Whitehouse Briefing. Froomkin reports:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told CNN that Bush's condemnation of what she called 'Iran's meddlesomeness' [in his Wednesday night speech] was an important signal to the region. "'Surely the United States is not the one being threatening,' she said. 'We are not the ones being meddlesome and troublesome in Iraq.'

We invaded Iraq, we sat by while their national treasures were pillaged, we tortured their sons, and brothers, and fathers, we raped their daughters, and sisters, and mothers, we killed their childen, we aided and abetted in ushering in a civil war, yet Iran is the one who is meddling.

How the "surge" strategy might succeed

While reading Monday’s White House Briefing on George’s “surge” strategy, the following theory came to me as if in a dream. Things that didn’t make sense suddenly fell into place. For those of you who like a little drama, below I lay out the whole story in five acts. For the rest of you, here’s the summary:

The “surge” strategy is not just smoke and mirrors on the domestic front intended to help George save face, although it is that. It is also something liquid and crude. Dick Cheney has promised to keep the Maliki government in power through January 20^th, 2009, in exchange for passage of a new Petroleum Law. This new Petroleum Law, drawn up with the help of the consulting firm BearingPoint, will provide extremely preferential access to Iraq’s here-to-fore-nationalized oil reserves for US-based oil companies. See the article “Blood and Oil” which appeared in The Independent for a description of the New Petroleum Law. The “surge” is essentially Dick Cheney sending in the Marines, literally and figuratively, to protect the Maliki government long enough so that it can put the new law on the books. Only in this light does the surge strategy make any sense whatsoever.

Here’s the play in five acts…

Act I – Where in we learn the facts on the ground

First, the purpose of the war, as Helen Thomas so regularly reminds us, has never been explained with any plausibility. Every justification given so far has fallen, sometimes like a brick, usually like a feather. None have stood the test of time. We are fighting “to get the job done,” but George will not tell us what the job is.

Second, the current proposal for “going forward”, described as a troop “surge” by some and “escalation” by others, is the same weak hand of cards George tried to play in 2004, 2005, and 2006. But lets put aside the gambler’s hope that this time he’s going to draw three aces, the fact is that not a single substantial assertion about Iraq made by George and his friends has come to pass. Whatever rhetoric is employed to explain and/or justify the “surge” strategy it should be ignored.

Third, an Iraqi “government” doesn’t really exist, by any normal definition of the term. It does not have the monopoly on violence; it could not collect taxes if it wanted to; it barely provides basic human services to its people. Virtually all of the day-to-day political power is held by religious based organizations usually operating at the sub-municipal level. However, the Maliki administration does hold, for the moment, one thread of national power and that is the ability to pass laws, even if it cannot enforce them.

Act II – Where in the Hedgehog plays mouse with the Fox

First, George is a simple man. Once approvingly described as an ‘every man’ by Peggy Noonan, George is as easily read as a children’s book. George has been playing president for six years and for a while it was fun, but now George is tired. George is also willful and proud and doesn’t bargain with himself. He’s not going to give up in Iraq even if Barney and Dick Cheney are the last two dawgs in the country who support him. Another thing we know about George is that when he plays chess he thinks two or three moves ahead.

Second, Dick Cheney is a complex man. He is determined, intelligent, detail-oriented, and cunning. Dick Cheney is the hedgehog who knows many big things. Dick Cheney is Chuck Norris on steroids. To Dick Cheney, water boarding is just a dunk in the water. Dick Cheney is an oilman who understands peak oil and knows that energy conservation is nothing more than “a personal virtue.” Dick Cheney has a strong sense of his nation’s destiny. When Dick Cheney plays chess…he just shoots you.

Third, the mainstream media has discovered the real motive behind the "surge" strategy, and hard-boiled beatniks that they are, they’re not afraid to print it. Poor Georgee, that great mansion in the rolling hills of west Texas that he hoped to leave as his legacy is looking more like a broken down West Virginia outhouse. Nothing is going right in Iraq and even George—the fox who knows one thing—knows that the clock is ticking. What if--these streetwise Freudians provocatively ask--the whole “surge” strategy is just George’s egotistical attempt to quickly drywall a legacy worthy of his own deluded sense of self? These, of course, are the same reporters who deliberately obscure the truth by using such misleading terms as “the Bush administration.” But Dick Cheney doesn't leave things to chance. So while the pundits are blabbering about George's psychological motivations, Dick Cheney is keeping his mouth shut and making things happen, telling George what to think, who to fire, who to hire, where to invade, and what the job in Iraq really is.

Act III – Where in the laws are passed, the surge is made, and the blood is shed

First, Maliki and company will pull out all of the stops to get the new Petroleum Law through the parliament. Maliki and friends will do this as if their lives depend on it, because they do. Their gift to the people of Iraq and America will be wrapped in the traditional rhetoric of imperialism. US papers, to the extent that they actually cover it, will dutifully relay the words of American government officials and businessmen who will describe the new Petroleum Law as “necessary” and as “a first step in modernizing the out dated laws put in place under the old dictator.” Above all else, the bow on the box so to speak, the new law will be labeled as “fair.” (Here we will be given a chance to see the chasm that separates the right wing press from the far-right wing press. The far right wing press will describe the law as “fair,” while the right wing press will describe the law as “fair, given the circumstances.”) In reality, as described in a recent article in The Independent, the Petroleum Law as currently conceived will be extremely generous to US oil companies, allowing them to secure long-term contracts to exploit Iraqi oil resources at profit margins that are twice the industry average. Oil companies will also have the opportunity to sign these contracts when the national government is the weakest it has been in nearly 40 years. And as for the problem of enforcement, well unlike any other OPEC country, Iraq’s new Petroleum Law will permit international arbitration of disputes. The story of the new Petroleum Law is presented by The Indpendent in "Future of Iraq: the spoils of war" and "Blood and Oil".

Second, the troop escalation will take place. There will be tens-of-thousands of US troops added to the cauldron that is Iraq. They will operate to provide protection to the Maliki government on the one hand, and on the other, they will be a constant reminder to him and his friends of who is filling their off shore accounts.

Third, more American soldiers will die and maybe even die at a higher rate than they have over the past six months. The blood shed, suffering, and death will be a thousand-fold worse for the Iraqis.

Act IV – Where in much that was inexplicable now makes sense

First, what was the purpose of the US invasion of Iraq? Each time a “mission accomplished” is banner is waved—Saddam Hussein is toppled, the WMDs are…, a constitution is passed, free elections are held, a government is formed—the goal line is pushed back and we are told, “The job is not yet done.” But if the “job” is still not done, then clearly those other goals were simply necessary steps along the way to the ultimate goal. The real goal, the only goal, is and always has been to provide US-based oil companies with legalized access to the Iraqi oil fields.

Second, what are these “consequences” that the Maliki government is going to suffer if it doesn’t shape up? The notion that now George really means business is nonsensical. What partial steps could George take against the Maliki government to get it back on track? And if you can think of one, why hasn’t George already taken it? The only card that the Maliki government holds is the power to grant the legal right to exploit Iraq’s oil fields. The only “consequence” that the Maliki government can suffer is political and personal extinction.

Third, what could the addition of twenty-thousand troops actually achieve? The escalation cannot really affect the long-term prospects for peace in the country. Military experts uniformly agree that securing Iraq would take a force of about 500,000 troops. Going from about 140,000 to about 160,000 is clearly meaningless in the grand scheme of peace. It could however provide a good level of protection for the Maliki government, especially if things were to heat up on account of their giving away the nation’s oil reserves to the occupying force. The “surge” is about one more chance, but it is not one more chance to save Bush’s ego. It’s about one more chance for the Maliki government to deliver the goods that Dick Cheney wanted yesterday. And if Maliki and company don’t come through, well as we learned in Act II, Dick Cheney only thinks one move ahead, ‘cause he’s just gonna shoot you.

Act V – Where in the predictions are made and George suffers the consequences

First, the Democrats will hem-and-haw about the escalation and a few will even threaten to withhold funds to pay for it. Nothing will come of this.

Second, a new Petroleum Law, extremely favorable to US-based oil companies, will be pushed through the Iraqi parliament by the Maliki government. This may or may not result in increased attacks against the Maliki government; it will surely further erode its legitimacy.

Third, the escalation will happen. Many more will die on all sides. The increased death rates for Americans will be billed by the Dick Cheney administration as further evidence that we are winning and that the insurgency is in its last throes.

Third, the Maliki government will stay in power at least through January 2009 with or with out any appreciable change in its effectiveness as a governing entity. (Corollary prediction: many of the people in the Maliki government as well as their sons and brothers will become extraordinarily rich and virtually none of them will live in Iraq.)

Fourth, in ten years, regardless of the political situation that plays out in Iraq over the next few years, US-based oil companies will be pumping cheap Iraqi crude and making billions of dollars thanks to the contracts that they will have signed under the aegis of the Maliki government’s Petroleum Law.

Fifth, for the majority of American citizens no one will care very much about the US’s illegal invasion of a sovereign country in 2003. But before that happens Oliver Stone will make a movie about the drama that was MESSOPATAMIA…

"This aggression will not stand, man": Nicolas Sarkozy and the execution of Saddam Hussein

I just picked up this story thanks to someone from Americans for Peace and Justice, an anti-war organization based in Montpellier which I joined a few months ago. The piece entitled "L'exécution de Saddam Hussein est une faute" orginally appeared in Le Monde and was then translated and posted on Truthout.org.

Nicolas Sarkozy is the current presidential candidate for the Union pour un mouvement populaire (UMP). The UMP is the right of center party here and Sarkozy is generally considered the right-wing of the UMP. He’s a short man, brash, expressive, a little hot-tempered sometimes. It’s is interesting to compare his heated performances to the cool Ségolène Royal, the presidential candidate for the Parti socialiste. I may try to write more on the French elections as things begin to heat up here, but now I’d like to share the op-ed that Mr. Sarkozy wrote about the recent hanging of Saddam Hussein.

Many folks on the French left believe that Sarkozy is a dangerous man, an extremist, and even a closet fascist who would sacrifice the country’s principles of fraternité, liberté, and égalité at an altar of corporate greed and jingoism. With that in mind read the following letter from him and judge for yourself. I am no fan of Sarkozy’s neo-liberalist leanings and his visit to see George last year seemed to me not just awful politics on his part, but also a scary insight into what this man may think passes for good governance.

Nonetheless, read what the right-wing of the right in France thinks about Saddam Hussein's finish.

***

Saddam Hussein's Execution Is a Mistake
By Nicolas Sarkozy
Tuesday 02 January 2007

I would have liked to greet Saddam Hussein's trial as a significant step in Iraq's democratization. Unfortunately, the execution of the former Iraqi dictator throws an event that should have been a positive one in the reconstruction of this martyred country into a bad light. First, however, I must acknowledge with satisfaction that Saddam Hussein was judged.

I observe that the Criminal High Court is an Iraqi decision-making body, composed exclusively of Iraqi judges, the hearings of which are public. Experts and observers say, certainly quite rightly, that the arguments were conducted in a disorganized way and that the proceedings lacked dignity. Moreover, three defense attorneys were assassinated. The fact that Saddam Hussein should be judged by an Iraqi court is already a feat in itself under the circumstances into which the country is plunged. Let us remember that Iraq has only made the discovery of free elections, of a freely chosen constitution, of a coalition government, of parliamentary deliberations, and of an independent judiciary in recent months; but also, above all, let us remember that it is the scene of a particularly bloody civil war.

The trial is also a feat because the defendant happens to be the person who subjugated his fellow citizens through murder and terror for over thirty years and whom terrorists (I, for one, cannot call people who daily let off bombs among civilians a "resistance.") still claim as their own.

I would have liked to hail the fact that through this highly symbolic trial the Iraqi government had applied for itself those elements that essentially contribute to its sovereignty, such as an independent and professional judiciary system, or a democratic and uncorrupted police force.

The death penalty and the execution of the convicted man prevent me from that. I am opposed to the death penalty. For me, it's a question of principle. I believe that the world must continue to make its way toward total abolition of the death penalty. And, in the present instance, even though we're dealing with one of history's great criminals, I deem that Iraq would have grown and become greater by not executing the one who had made it suffer so much. I ardently desire Iraq's stabilization. But, as I see it, the in-depth stabilization of this region can take place only through the promotion of democratic values. I hate the idea that certain peoples should be condemned to violence for no reason other than that violence is part of a multi-century, even thousand-year-old tradition. And I believe that an indispensable step in the democratization of Iraq is the abolition of the death penalty.

Finally, I deeply deplore that Saddam Hussein, the dictator who had more blood on his hands than anyone in the world, did not have to appear and account before the law for his other crimes. I am sorry that justice was not done the Kurds, whose sufferings were unspeakable, and for whom the massacre of 5,000 civilians in the little town of Halabja in 1988 was only one monstrous event among many others. I am sorry justice was not done to the Shia, who were subjected to a barbarous repression in 1991 by the Iraqi Republican Guard - under the impassive regard, incidentally, of the international community.

It is difficult to reconcile the different constituencies of a people at the departure of a dictatorship. But that task seems even more difficult when light is not shed on the past.

The execution of Saddam Hussein, the worst of men, is a mistake.