NEW HEAD OF STAFF IN ARMENIA’S MINISTRY OF CULTURE
Tert.am
14:39 ~U 04.02.10
During today’s session, the Government of Armenia appointed Sergey
Avetisyan, for a three-month probation period, as head of staff at
the Ministry of Culture.
RA Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan congratulated Avetisyan on the
occasion of his appointment and wished him much success in his work.
ARMENIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN: INTERESTS OF ARMENIA AND PACE MONITORING COMMITTEE CO-REPORTERS COINCIDE
ArmInfo
2010-02-04 11:35:00
ArmInfo. There was nothing sensational in the statement by PACE
Monitoring Committee co-reporters, Naira Zohrabyan, Chairwoman
of the Armenian Parliamentary Committee for European Integration,
told ArmInfo.
To recall, the co-reporters John Prescott and George Colobier declared
that the Armenian authorities should immediately start fulfilling the
recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee to inquire into the incidents
of March 1-2 2008 in Yerevan. N. Zohrabyan said that the Parliamentary
Commission for State and Legal Affairs is addressing the given issue
and members of the other parliamentary commissions can also participate
in fulfillment of the provisions of the Ad Hoc Committee resolution. As
regards the Election Code reform, the parliamentarian believes that
it is very difficult to find an ideal model of election legislation
that would ensure free and fair elections. "Of course, we can improve
the Election Code, but there is lack of political will to fulfill
the election legislation," she said. Zohrabyan thinks that both the
authorities and the PACE co-reporters are interested in improvement
of the election system in Armenia.
GOVERNMENT OFFERS NEW INCENTIVES FOR ARMENIA-UAE COOPERATION
Tert.am
16:45 ~U 04.02.10
The Armenian government today approved an agreement on "Scientific and
Technical Cooperation between the Republic of Armenia and the United
Arab Emirates" that will offer an incentive for the implementation of
scientific, scientific-technical and socioeconomic joint programs and
projects on the principle of co-financing, as well as exchange programs
for scientists and specialists and training for those working in the
sciences. According to a government press release, these programs
and projects are essential for the economies of both countries.
The government also approved "RA National Report in accordance with 5/1
Resolution Paragraph 15(a) of the United Nations Human Rights Council."
With another ruling the government approved also RA’s 3rd and 4th
joint regular national reports on the implementation of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Last year, the government approved 6 more reports related to human
rights.
SWISS MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CONFIRMS TURKISH DIPLOMAT’S VISIT TO BERN
PanARMENIAN.Net
03.02.2010 15:11 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary, Feridun
Sinirlioglu will meet Switzerland’s State Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, Michael Ambul Friday, February 5.
As Swiss Foreign Ministry spokesman Erik Reumann told PanARMENIAN.Net
reporter, bilateral meetings of this kind, focusing on bilateral
relations, carry regular character. Meeting details will be provided
later, he said.
As Turkish media reported earlier, at Bern meeting Feridun Sinirlioglu
will voice Ankara’s concerns over the ruling of Armenian Constitutional
Court on Armenia-Turkey rapprochement.
The Protocols aimed at normalization of bilateral ties and opening of
the border between Armenia and Turkey were signed in Zurich by Armenian
Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet
Davutoglu on October 10, 2009, after a series of diplomatic talks
held through Swiss mediation.
On January 12, 2010, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Armenia found the protocols conformable to the country’s Organic Law.
Commenting on the CC ruling, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
said that "the decision contains preconditions and restrictive
provisions which impair the letter and spirit of the Protocols."
"The decision undermines the very reason for negotiating these
Protocols as well as their fundamental objective. This approach
cannot be accepted on our part. Turkey, in line with its accustomed
allegiance to its international commitments, maintains its adherence
to the primary provisions of these Protocols. We expect the same
allegiance from the Armenian Government," the Ministry said.
PACE CO-RAPPORTEURS: ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES NEED TO IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDED REFORMS WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY
Trend News
02.02.2010 18:46
PACE co-rapporteurs: Armenian authorities need to implement recommended
reforms without further delay
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe calls upon the
Armenian authorities to implement the reforms recommended by the ad
hoc Committee of the National Assembly of Armenia on the events of 1
and 2 March 2008, without further delay, PACE official statement says.
"The reforms recommended by the ad hoc Committee, in combination
with those contained in the relevant PACE resolutions, if implemented
in good faith, could comprehensively address the circumstances that
led to the events of 1 and 2 March 2008," said the co-rapporteurs on
Armenia John Prescott (from UK) and George Colombier (from France).
They stressed that these recommendations therefore needed to be
implemented without further delay, especially those related to the
reform of the police – including the establishment of an independent
oversight and complaints body – and the long overdue reform of the
electoral code. The co-rapporteurs announced that they would send a
letter to the Armenian Parliament asking it to provide the Monitoring
Committee, before its meeting on 17 March 2010 in Paris, with a clear
timetable for these reforms.
"On the basis of the discussions in the Monitoring Committee we
will then visit Yerevan this spring to discuss the establishment
of a clear roadmap for the implementation of these reforms," the
co-rapporteurs said.
In addition to the roadmap, the co-rapporteurs also intend to raise
the issue of the sentencing of Nikol Pashinian as well as other cases
where they have sought clarification from the authorities.
"A number of issues following the events of 1 and 2 March still need
to be clarified and addressed", the co-rapporteurs said, stressing
the continuing importance and need for the monitoring of political
developments by the Assembly and other relevant bodies of the Council
of Europe.
In mid January Pashinian was sentenced to seven years in prison for
riotous, although according to this article, the prosecution demanded
six years’ imprisonment.
DEVELOPMENT SLOWDOWN IS THE ONLY IMPACT OF GLOBAL RECESSION ON NASDAQ OMX ARMENIA
ARKA
Feb 1, 2010
YEREVAN, February 1. /ARKA/. The past year was quite successful for
NASDAQ OMX Armenia, despite it was hard for others, Armen Melikyan,
director general of this stock exchange, said Friday at a press
conference.
"All those markets holding auctions built up their volumes," he said.
Deals on corporate bonds totaled AMD 10.5 billion in 2009 against
the previous year’s AMD 2.2 billion.
Transactions on government bonds grew, compared with the previous
year as well, and totaled AMD 2.3 billion.
Besides, a new financial instrument, repo transaction, was introduced
in Armenia in December 2008.
The amount of these deals has exceeded AMD 5 billion since then,
Melikyan said.
There was fear, he said, that all trading floors would face decline
amid the global recession, but nothing like this happened, "since
in recent years, Armenia was undergoing development and implementing
only those programs focused on development".
"Our activities started becoming vigorous in 2008, and the global
crisis has had an impact on us, but it affected only pace of our
development."
The director general said that although the number and sizes of
deals precipitously shrank, capitalization remained almost unchanged,
and diminished only by 2% in 2009, compared with the previous year.
"This shows that not only global financial crisis, but also other
factors are impacting underdevelopment of this market."
NASDAQ OMX Armenia (Armenian Stock Exchange OJSC until January 27,2009)
was founded in 2001 as a self-regulating organization, a voluntary
association of 21 brokerage firms.
Early in November 2007, the stock exchange was transformed to an OJSC.
On January 7, 2008, OMX (at present NASDAQ OMX) became sole owner of
NASDAQ OMX Armenia and of the Central Depository of Armenia.
Twenty seven companies, including 20 banks, are NASDAQ OMX Armenia
Stock Exchange members now. ($1 = AMD 377.45).
AZERBAIJAN WRESTLERS WON’T BE PARTICIPATING IN YEREVAN WORLD CUP
Tert.am
11:34 ~U 01.02.10
Azerbaijan has officially declined from participating in the World Cup
in Greco-Roman Wrestling to take place in Yerevan from February 13-14.
Azerbaijan’s Wrestling Federation sent a letter to the International
Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA) officially withdrawing
from participation.
According to first vice president of the Azerbaijan Wrestling
Federation, Namik Aliyev, the rejection is not politically motivated
and is connected with sporting reasons: the participation in the world
cup in Armenia and the female world cup in China did not go with the
federation’s plans in preparing for the April championship of Europe
to be held in Baku, reports News.az.
There will be other teams coming to Yerevan instead of Azerbaijan:
teams from Denmark, Uzbekistan and Sweden will be participating in
the tournament.
WELCOMING THE TALIBAN WITH OPEN ARMS: DEFECTORS AND DECEPTION IN AFGHANISTAN
By Douglas Valentine
Online Journal
Feb 1, 2010, 00:33
Last week the U.S. Government began floating the idea of welcoming
low and mid-level Taliban defectors into its war on terror against Al
Qaeda. After waging an eight-year "dirty war" against the Taliban,
U.S. military commanders and politicians are publicly acknowledging
their "insurgent" enemy is actually part of the "fabric" of Afghan
society.
U.S. and NATO officials are also offering bribes from a billion dollar
"Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund" to Taliban fighters to defect.
Taliban leaders have condemned the buyout strategy as a "trick" to
divide and conquer its forces, and said that offers of reconciliation
were futile without a withdrawal of foreign troops.
This billion-dollar buyout may, indeed, seem a bizarre reversal
of fortunes, but only if one believes the U.S. genuinely wants
reconciliation with the Taliban. In reality, defectors programs
like the one proposed for Afghanistan are an essential part of the
traditional U.S. pacification policy. For example, the so-called Chieu
Hoi "Open Arms" program is touted by military historians as having
produced positive results throughout the Vietnam War by offering
"clemency to insurgents."
Make no mistake about it: this too is propaganda. Defector "amnesty"
or "clemency" or "open arms" programs are aggressive CIA intelligence
operations and have nothing to do with reconciliation.
As former DCI William Colby told me, CIA political action teams in
Vietnam (like Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan) employed
defectors whose job was to "go around the countryside and indicate to
the people that they used to be Vietcong and that the government has
received them and taken them in, and that the Chieu Hoi program does
exist as a way of VC currently on the other side to rally. [Defectors]
contact people like the families of known VC," Colby said, "and
provide them with transportation to defector and refugee centers."
Master spy Colby would certainly agree that information management —
language — is the essence of political warfare in general and defector
programs in particular. The first step in either case is concocting
a slogan that appeals to the sensibilities of the targeted audience,
which is why defectors programs are given names like "amnesty" or
"clemency" or "open arms."
Such cleverly crafted slogans need have no basis in reality. Instead,
by appealing to American (not Vietnamese or Afghan) sensibilities
(or lack thereof), these slogans serve as the first step in creating
deniability for the CIA’s roll in organizing repression.
During Senate hearings into CIA assassination plots against foreign
leaders, deniability was defined by the CIA’s deputy director of
operations, Richard Bissell, as "the use of circumlocution and
euphemism in discussions where precise definitions would expose covert
actions and bring them to an end."
Apart from using circumlocution and euphemism, and Madison Avenue
style slogans, the CIA creates deniability, and thus garners public
approval, by composing and planting distorted articles in foreign and
domestic newspapers. It also composes "official" communiques which
appear to have originated within, for example, the Karzai government
in Afghanistan.
To ensure the deniability necessary for public support of its
repressive policies, the CIA conducts covert action under cover
of Civic Action programs that are advertised as fostering freedom,
patriotism, brotherhood, democracy.
Likewise, the Taliban defector buyout program is said to foster
reconciliation.
In CIA jargon this manipulation of language is called "black
propaganda" and is the job of political and psychological (PP) warfare
officers in the covert action branch. "PP" officers played a major
role in packaging the Phoenix Program for sale to the American public
as a program designed "to protect the people from terrorism."~S
CIA disinformation campaigns persuade predisposed Americans to offer
their tax dollars to pay for the massive military and aid programs
that support the CIA’s covert action programs. The proposed billion
dollar Taliban defector program is just such a case.
Intelligence potential
After arranging for deniability, the CIA will launch a covert action
program like the Taliban defector program only if it has "intelligence
potential." Such a program must be able to produce information on an
enemy’s political, military, and economic infrastructure or it will
not be undertaken. The CIA after all, is not a "reconciliation" agency.
And defectors have superlative "intelligence potential."
Not only are defectors valued for their ability to sap the enemy’s
fighting strength and morale, but having worked on the inside, they are
an accurate and timely source of intelligence on enemy unit strength
and location. They also serve as guides and trackers, and after
defecting, many are immediately returned to their area of operations
with a reaction force to locate hidden enemy arms or food caches.
Others defectors, after being screened and interrogated by security
officers, are turned into double agents. Defectors who return to their
former positions inside enemy military units or political organizations
are, as Colby explained, provided with a "secure" means of contacting
their CIA case officer, to whom they feed information leading to the
arrest or ambush of enemy cadres, soldiers, and secret agents.
Defector programs also provide CIA "talent scouts" with cover for
recruiting criminals into counter-terrorist and political action
programs. Burglars, arsonists, forgers, and smugglers have unique
skills and no compunctions about preparing wanted posters or conducting
interrogations.
In Vietnam, the entire Fifty-second Ranger Battalion was recruited
from Saigon prisons.
With Obama’s surge and additional NATO forces providing cover for
more expansive CIA covert actions, CIA political and psychological
warfare experts are moving to the forefront of the occupation; and
of course, their Provincial Reconstruction Teams are, as noted in a
previous article, at the forefront of this "intelligence" surge. That
is why the Taliban defector buyout program is being launched now.
Let me repeat: what makes such an intelligence operation "covert"
is not any false impression on the part of the Taliban, but rather
the CIA’s ability to deny its involvement in the defector buyout
program to the American public.
A case study
Under cover of Civic Action, the CIA is waging a plausibly deniable
dirty war against the Taliban using black propaganda, defectors,
criminals, selective terror, indefinite detention and a slew of
other devious tactics disguised as bringing freedom and democracy,
but in fact designed to provide internal security for the puppet
Karzai regime.
The CIA perfected this practice in Vietnam, where it waged clandestine
political and psychological warfare with the U.S. Information Service
(USIS).
Ostensibly the overseas branch of the U.S. Information Agency
(which performed the same propaganda and censorship functions inside
America), the USIS had as its raison d’etre promotion of the "American
way." In its crusade to convert the world into one big happy Chamber
of Commerce, the USIS employed all manner of "media," from TVs,
radios, and satellites to armed propaganda teams, wanted posters,
and terrorism.
Frank Scotton, a CIA officer masquerading as an USIS officer, played
a large role in political and psychological operations (psyops) in
Vietnam. A graduate of American University’s College of International
Relations, Scotton received a government graduate assistantship to
the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii.
According to legendary CIA officer Lucien Conein, it was there that
Scotton was recruited into the CIA.
About the CIA-sponsored East-West Center, Scotton said, "It was a
cover for a training program in which Southeast Asians were brought
to Hawaii and trained to go back to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to
create agent nets." After passing the Foreign Service exam, Scotton
was persuaded to join the USIS, which "dealt with people," unlike
the State Department, which "observed from a distance.
After arriving in Vietnam in 1961, and initiating his vast agent net,
Scotton turned his attention to "energizing" the Vietnamese through
political action that advanced American policies.
In looking for individuals to mold into unilateral political cadres,
Scotton turned to the CIA’s defector program, which in April 1963
was placed under cover of the Agency for International Development
and named the Chieu Hoi (Open Arms) amnesty program.
There Scotton found the raw material he needed to prove the viability
of CIA political action and psywar programs. Scotton worked with
Vietnamese Special Forces Captain Nguyen Tuy (a graduate of Fort
Bragg’s Special Warfare Center who commanded the Fourth Special
Operations Detachment) and Tuy’s case officer, U.S. Special Forces
Captain Howard Walters in Pleiku Province.
As part of a pilot program designed to induce defectors, Scotton,
Walters, and Tuy set up an ambush deep in Vietcong territory and
waited till dark. When they spotted a VC unit, Scotton yelled in
Vietnamese through a bullhorn, "You are being misled! You are being
lied to! We promise you an education!" Then, full of purpose and
allegory, he shot a flare into the night sky and hollered, "Walk
toward the light!"
To his surprise, two defectors did walk in, convincing him and his
CIA bosses that "a determined GVN unit could contest the VC in terms
of combat and propaganda."
Back in camp, Scotton told the VC defectors that they had to divest
themselves of untruths. "We said that certainly the U.S. perpetrated
war crimes, but so did the VC [substitute Taliban]. We acknowledged
that theirs was the stronger force, but that didn’t mean that
everything they did was honorable and good and just." In this manner,
Scotton indoctrinated cadres for his political action teams.
The chief of CIA covert action programs, Tom Donohue, recognized
the value of intelligence obtained through defectors, and authorized
the establishment of Chieu Hoi programs in each of South Vietnam’s
provinces. In typical CIA style, there was nothing in writing, and
nothing went through the central government.
The CIA’s security officer would oversee the Chieu Hoi Program in any
particular province and select different defectors for different jobs,
working with agents at the district level and into the villages.
If a defector had potential, the province security officer put him on
an airplane and sent him to the central CIA re-indoctrination center,
where he was plied with special attention and wowed with CIA gadgetry.
The food was spectacular, full of protein, and the bullets weren’t
flying. The training was vigorous, but the defector was treated for
infections and put on weight. Other defectors then explained the
beauty of the American Way, and other applicable lessons of the day.
This brainwashing is "precisely" what political warfare is all
about: Having been selected into a "special" program and given
"special" treatment, defectors are taught the corporate sales pitch,
cross-trained as interchangeable parts for efficiency, then given
one last motivational booster shot of schmaltz.
Scotton called his program "motivational indoctrination."
This is deadly serious business, and conducted secretly at high
security CIA bases in Afghanistan. All defector debriefing reports are
certainly sent to the CIA station in Kabul for analysis and collation.
Translations are, typically, never considered accurate unless read and
confirmed in the original language by the same person, but that rarely
happens. Likewise, interrogations conducted through defectors are
rarely considered reliable, for significant information is generally
lost or misrepresented. And thus, the defector program will likely
be exploited by Taliban secret agents, just as the Chieu Hoi program
was penetrated in Vietnam.
According to Douglas McCollum, who monitored the Chieu Hoi program
in three provinces in Vietnam, "It was the biggest hole in the net.
They’d come in; we’d hold them, feed them, clothe them, get them a
mat. Then we’d release them, and they’d wander around the city for
a while, and then disappear."
What McCollom is referring to, "the revolving door syndrome," is
another reason the CIA is turning to the Taliban buyout program at
this particular time, when Obama’s surge will produce thousands of
more detainees and prisoners.
The CIA was plagued in Vietnam, as it is in Afghanistan, by
overcrowding in prisons, defector, interrogation, and detention
center. In Vietnam by 1966 there was little space available in the
prison system for actual "Communist offenders." And as more and
more people were captured and placed in pens, a large percentage was
necessarily squeezed out. Hence the revolving door.
Defectors and the Phoenix Program
In June 1967, the CIA’s Chieu Hoi defector program was incorporated
within its newly established Phoenix Program, as it was organized
by CIA officer Nelson Brickham, who appreciated Chieu Hoi as "one of
the few areas where police and paramilitary advisers cooperated."
The Phoenix program was designed to coordinate all intelligence
programs in South Vietnam so thee CIA could more identify and
neutralize Viet Cong political cadre. As Brickham said, "My motto was
to recruit them; if you can’t recruit them, defect them (that’s Chieu
Hoi); if you can’t defect them, capture them; if you can’t capture
them, kill them."
Brickham also emphasized that Chieu Hoi was a means for the CIA to
develop "unilateral penetrations unknown to the [South Vietnamese]
police."
In other words, the Taliban defector buyout program will be conducted
unilaterally by the CIA, apart from the Karzai government.
>>From 1967 onwards, all "rallied" VC cadre were included in Phoenix
neutralization statistics, and by 1969 more than a hundred thousand
defectors had been processed through 51 Chieu Hoi centers. The Chieu
Hoi program was managed from 1966 until March 1969 by Ogden Williams,
and then by Eugene P. Bable, a career CIA officer who had served in
the Flying Tigers.
The Phoenix Program sought to resolve the "revolving door syndrome" by
arranging through the SIDE (Screening, Interrogation and Detention of
the Enemy) Program the construction of permanent detention facilities;
a registration system coordinated with Chieu Hoi programs; and judicial
reform aimed at the rapid disposal of pending cases, as devised by
Robert Harper, a lawyer on contract to the CIA.
Through Phoenix, the CIA also began a policy of offering Chieu Hoi
status to informers.
>>From the language of the Phoenix reports, one could easily think
that the Chieu Hoi program was a great success. But many Chieu Hoi
defectors simply regurgitated the American line in order to win
amnesty, make a quick visit to their families, enjoy a few home-cooked
meals, and then return to the war for independence, fat and rested.
Legitimate Chieu Hoi defectors were pariahs who were not accepted
back in their villages.
Jim Ward, the senior CIA officer in charge of Phoenix in the Delta
(1967-1969) described Chieu Hoi as "a great program. Well done."
Ward explained that most Chieu Hoi advisers were from the U.S.
Information Service, although some were State Department or military
officers. "
Ward describes the defection process as follows: Upon arriving at
the Chieu Hoi center, the defector was "interviewed" and, if he had
information on the VCI, was sent to the CIA’s Province Interrogation
Center; if he had tactical military information, he was sent to
military interrogators.
Next came political indoctrination, lasting from 40-60 days, depending
on the individual. "They had a formal course," said Ward.
"They were shown movies and given lectures on democracy." Upon
graduation each was given an ID card, a meal, some money, and a chance
to repent. Political indoctrination was handled by defectors who said
they had been well treated by the Americans and had decided it was
better to live for a free Vietnam than to die for the totalitarian
North Vietnamese.
"Chieu Hoi had lots of guys who had been with the enemy before,"
Ward continued, "who knew how to talk to these people and would
persuade them to join the Territorial Forces or the PRU." Others
joined armed propaganda teams, which went back into VC territory to
contact Vietcong families and recruit more Vietcong defectors.
"The great thing about the Chieu Hoi program," Ward noted, "is that
we didn’t have to put people in jails or process them through the
judicial system, which was already overcrowded.
Political and Psychological Warfare
Despite his praise for the Chieu Hoi program, Ward said that
"Americans should have been targeted only against the North Vietnamese
and left the South Vietnamese forces to handle the insurgency,"
even though such a strategy would have precluded Phoenix.
The same lesson applies in Afghanistan. The U.S. has no legitimate
reason to be there, and thus it must rely on psychological ploys,
rather than any appeal to nationalism, to win the Afghanis over to
the American Way of doing things.
That is how High Value Reward and bounty programs become business
as usual. That is why the U.S. is instituting a defector program,
with a publicity campaign managed in the field by psyops teams
replete with radios, leaflets, posters, banners, TV shows, movies,
comic books falling from planes, and loudspeakers mounted on trucks
to spread the word.
On January 22, 1970, thirty-eight thousand of these leaflets were
dropped over three villages in Go Vap District. Addressed to specific
VCI members, they read: "Since you have joined the NLF, what have you
done for your family or your village and hamlet? Or have you just
broken up the happiness of many families and destroyed houses and
land? Some people among you have been awakened recently, they have
deserted the Communist ranks and were received by the GVN and the
people with open arms and family affection. You should be ready for
the end if you remain in the Communist ranks. You will be dealing with
difficulties bigger from day to day and will suffer serious failure
when the ARVN expand strongly. You had better return to your family
where you will be guaranteed safety and helped to establish a new
life. "
This is how defectors will be created in Afghanistan as well. Psyops
leaflets aimed at creating defectors will portray the Taliban as a
socially disruptive force that can only be stopped by America.
But Americans can only reach the Afghan "people" through "media" like
leaflets and loudspeakers — an indication of just how far removed
the CIA is from the reality of life in Afghanistan’s rural villages.
And while the CIA relies on cartoons to sell itself, the Taliban go
from person to person, proving that technology was no substitute for
human contact. Ultimately the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam for just
this reason.
The Taliban defector buyout program heralds just such a development
in Afghanistan — defeat — and nothing more.
Doug Valentine is the author of "The Phoenix Program" and his latest
book is "The Strength of the Pack: The Personalities, Politics and
Espionage Intrigues That Shaped The DEA." Please visit his website
at
Australia.TO
Hillary Clinton’s Prescription: Make The World A NATO Protectorate
Monday, 01 February 2010 11:37
Written by Rick Rozoff
Hillary Clinton
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy in London and Paris
last week advancing the new Euro-Atlantic agenda for the world.
As the top foreign policy official of what her commander-in-chief
Barack Obama touted as being the world’s sole military superpower on
December 10, she is no ordinary foreign minister. Her position is
rather some composite of several ones from previous historical epochs:
Viceroy, proconsul, imperial nuncio.
When a U.S. secretary of state speaks the world pays heed. Any nation
that doesn’t will suffer the consequences of that inattention, that
disrespect toward the imperatrix mundi.
On January 27 she was in London for a conference on Yemen and the
following day she attended the International Conference on Afghanistan
in the same city.
Also on the 28th she and two-thirds of her NATO quad counterparts,
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister
Bernard Kouchner (along with EU High Representative Catherine Ashton),
pronounced a joint verdict on the state of democracy in Nigeria,
Britain’s former colonial possession.
Afterwards she crossed the English channel and delivered an address
called Remarks on the Future of European Security at L’Ecole Militaire
in Paris on January 29. That presentation was the most substantive
component of her three-day European junket and the only one that dealt
mainly with the continent itself, her previous comments relating to
what are viewed by the United States and its Western European NATO
partners as backwards, "ungovernable" international badlands. That is,
the rest of the world.
While in Paris, Clinton held a joint press conference with her
counterpart Kouchner and said, "we…discussed the results of the
London meetings on Yemen and Afghanistan. We have a lot of work ahead
of us. We appreciate greatly the support that France has given in
developing a European police force mission to support NATO in its
effort to train police.
"We will be consulting even more closely. Our work in Africa is
particularly important. I applaud France for resuming diplomatic
relations with Rwanda, and I also appreciate greatly the work that
Bernard and the government here is doing in Guinea and in other
African countries." [1]
Rwanda and Guinea (Conakry) are former French colonies.
Two days before she made a similar joint appearance in London with
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Yemeni Foreign Minister
Abu Bakr Abdullah al-Qirbi. Yemen is a former British colony. The
conference on that country held on January 27 also included the
Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prince Saud
Al-Faisal, but not Secretary General Amr Moussa or any other
representative of the 22-member Arab League.
Having the foreign minister of the unpopular government in Yemen that
the U.S. is waging a covert – and not so covert – war to defend
against mass opposition in both the north and south of the nation and
the foreign minister of the nation that is bombing villages and
killing hundreds of civilians in the north was sufficient for the
Barack Obama and Gordon Brown governments. A war on the Arabian
peninsula whose three major belligerents are the Yemeni government,
Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is not viewed by Washington and London as a
matter that 20 other Arab nations need to be consulted about.
Clinton delivered comments on the occasion that were exactly what were
required to obscure the real state of affairs in Yemen in furtherance
of her nation’s military campaign there: "The United States is
intensifying security and development efforts with Yemen. We are
encouraged by the Government of Yemen’s recent efforts to take action
against al-Qaida and against other extremist groups. They have been
relentlessly pursuing the terrorists who threaten not only Yemen but
the Gulf region and far beyond, here to London and to our country in
the United States." [2]
Bombing Shia civilians in the country’s north and resorting to the
preferred "diplomatic" intervention of the last four American
secretaries of state – cruise missiles – in the south in the name of
protecting London from Osama bin Laden is yet another illustration of
how a nation behaves when it doesn’t have a formal diplomatic corps.
In the same breath she added "The Yemeni people deserve the
opportunity to determine their own future," when there was nothing
further from her mind.
She acknowledged that "a longstanding protest movement continues" in
the south and that fighting in the north "has left many thousands dead
and more than 200,000 displaced" – without in any manner alluding to
Saudi armed assaults in the north and U.S. cruise missile attacks in
the south – but her focus remained firmly on "extremists who incite
violence and inflict harm." American bombs and missiles, of course,
are nonviolent and harmless in the Secretary’s us-versus-them view of
statecraft.
Clinton didn’t miss an opportunity to dress down her nation’s client
Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh – "This must be a partnership if
it is to have a successful outcome" – for his failure to adequately
"protect human rights, advance gender equity, build democratic
institutions and the rule of law." The U.S. may extend its
Afghanistan-Pakistan war into the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of
Africa [3] in nominal support of the Yemeni head of state and his
Somali counterpart President Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, but they and
their like – Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai and Pakistan’s Asif Ali
Zardari – should not for a minute forget who is in charge and who
makes the rules.
The secretary of state had nothing to say about the condition of human
rights, gender equality and so forth in Saudi Arabia and America’s
other military vassals in the Persian Gulf. Medieval monarchies and
hereditary autocracies that host American military bases, buy billions
of dollars of advanced weapons from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and
Northrop Grumman and are home to the U.S. 5th Fleet are not subjected
to homilies on human rights and "democratic institutions."
On the day of the London conference on Afghanistan Clinton, flanked by
the foreign ministers of Africa’s two former major colonial masters,
Britain’s David Miliband and France’s Bernard Kouchner, also delivered
a lecture to the government of Nigeria, ordering it to address
"electoral reform, post-amnesty programs in the Niger Delta, economic
development, inter-faith discord and transparency." [4]
At the January 28 International Conference on Afghanistan, attended by
the foreign ministers of all 28 NATO member states and dozens of NATO
partnership underlings with troops in the South Asian war zone – the
"international community" as the West defines it – Clinton
complemented the Pentagon’s allies and satraps:
"I think that what we have seen is a global challenge that is being
met with a global response. I especially thank the countries that have
committed additional troops, leading with our host country, the United
Kingdom, but including Italy, Germany, Romania." [5]
She will need yet more troops in the near future for a far larger
conflict than those the U.S. and NATO are currently involved with in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia if the following comments
contribute to the results they appear to intend:
"I also had a chance to discuss Iran’s refusal to engage with the
international community on its nuclear program. They continue to
violate IAEA and Security Council requirements.
"The revelation of Iran’s secret nuclear facility at Qom has raised
further questions about Iran’s intentions. And in response to these
questions, the Iranian Government has provided a continuous stream of
threats to intensify its violation of international nuclear norms.
Iran’s approach leaves us with little choice but to work with our
partners to apply greater pressure…."
Washington and its main NATO partners Britain, France and Germany
along with miscellaneous allies around the world – "rogue" nuclear
powers India, Israel and Pakistan among them (who know who to align
with and purchase arms from) – dictate the terms on matters ranging
from the proper holding of elections to which nation can develop a
civilian nuclear power program. Any country outside the
"Euro-Atlantic" and "international" communities faces censure,
threats, "greater pressure" and ultimately military attack.
The U.S. has a population of 300 million and the European Union of 500
million, combined well under one-eighth that of the world. Yet the
two, whose military wing is NATO, hold "international conferences" on
Asia, the Middle East and other parts of the world and presume to
deliver ultimatums to all other nations.
To cite a recent example, the New York Times reported that "Secretary
of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on [January 29] that it
would face economic insecurity and diplomatic isolation if it did not
sign on to tough new sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program,
seeking to raise the pressure on Beijing to fall in line with an
American-led campaign." [6] On the same day "The Obama administration
notified Congress on Friday of its plans to proceed with five arms
sales transactions with Taiwan worth a total of $6.4 billion. The arms
deals include 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles,
advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship
targets and two refurbished minesweepers." [7]
Clinton has joined in the U.S. chorus of hectoring of China since she
took up her current post last year, in May even raising the specter of
Chinese penetration of Latin America.
China is not Afghanistan or Yemen. It is not even Iran. The last
generation’s foreign policy hubris and megalomania of the West,
epitomized by its wars in Southeast Europe and South Asia and the
Middle East, may be headed into far more dangerous territory.
Grandiosity, arrogance and perceived impunity blind those afflicted
with them, whether individuals or nations.
No clearer example exists than Secretary Clinton’s remarks in Paris on
January 29.
To demonstrate the worldview of those she represents – that the United
States and Europe are the incontestable metropolises and rulers by
right of the planet – early in her address Clinton said "I appreciate
the opportunity to discuss a matter of great consequence to the United
States, France, and every country on this continent and far beyond the
borders: the future of European security." [8]
That is, the U.S. arrogates to itself the prerogative of not only
speaking with authority on the security of a continent 3,500 miles
away but intervening around the world in its alleged defense.
Flattering her hosts, she further said: "As founding members of the
NATO Alliance, our countries have worked side by side for decades to
build a strong and secure Europe and to defend and promote democracy,
human rights, and the rule of law. And I am delighted that we are
working even more closely now that France is fully participating in
NATO’s integrated command structure. I thank President Sarkozy for his
leadership and look forward to benefiting from the counsel of our
French colleagues as together we chart NATO’s future."
Regarding the phrase "to defend and promote democracy, human rights,
and the rule of law," evocative of almost identical terms used two
days earlier in reference to Yemen, Clinton’s Paris speech was fairly
overflowing with similar language.
The words recently have been tarnished and debased so thoroughly by
the use they have frequently served – justifying war – that they are
at risk of deteriorating into not so much noble as suspect
abstractions.
Worse yet, they are incantations employed to praise oneself for
uniquely possessing them and to castigate others who don’t. ["Our work
extends beyond Europe as well….European and American voices speak as
one to denounce the gross violations of human rights in Iran." But not
in Saudi Arabia, Western Sahara, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,
post-"independence" Kosovo, Estonia and Latvia, etc.]
Clinton’s speech contained these terms and phrases in the following sequence:
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law
unity, partnership, and peace
global progress
reconciliation, cooperation, and community
security and our prosperity
importance of liberty and freedom
peace and security
development, democracy, and human rights
human potential
democratic institutions and the rule of law
progress and stability
democracy and stability
accountable, effective governments
economic and democratic development
expanding opportunity
development and greater stability
defend and promote human rights
peace and opportunity and prosperity
defending and advancing our values in the world
a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified and prosperous
The last is a variant of A Europe Whole And Free [9] first employed by
President George H.W. Bush in 1989 to inaugurate his putative new
world order.
As will be seen by further excerpts from her address (as well as its
location and context), Clinton’s use of the above expressions was, as
noted, both self-congratulatory and in contradistinction to the
implied lack of what they pertain to in the world outside of the
Euro-Atlantic community and its approved allies elsewhere.
Again taking up the theme of Western superiority and the need for the
Euro-Atlantic precedent to be enforced on others, she said "European
security is, not only to the individual nations, but to the world. It
is, after all, more than a collection of countries linked by history
and geography. It is a model for the transformative power of
reconciliation, cooperation, and community."
However, "much important work remains unfinished. The transition to
democracy is incomplete in parts of Europe and Eurasia." The
subjugation of Europe’s eastern "hinterlands" will be explored later
in relation to her comments on the European Union’s Eastern
Partnership and related matters.
"The transatlantic partnership has been both a cornerstone of global
security and a powerful force for global progress.
"NATO is revising its Strategic Concept to prepare for the alliance’s
summit at the end of this year here at (inaudible). I know there’s a
lot of thinking going on about strategic threats and how to meet them.
Next week, at the Munich Security Conference, leaders from across the
continent will address urgent security and foreign policy challenges.
"The United States, too, has also been studying ways to strengthen
European security and, therefore our own security, and to extend it to
foster security on a global scale."
To elite trans-Atlantic policy makers the above paragraphs’ meaning is
indisputable: The use of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
military bloc – the true foundation of the "transatlantic partnership"
– in waging war in and effectively colonizing the Balkans and in
expanding into Eastern Europe, incorporating twelve new nations
including former Warsaw Pact members and Soviet republics, is the
worldwide paradigm for the West in the 21st century.
That mechanism, using Europe as NATO’s springboard for geopolitical
aggrandizement in the east and the south, is being applied at the
moment against larger adversaries than the bloc has tackled before
now:
"European security remains an anchor of U.S. foreign and security
policy. A strong Europe is critical to our security and our
prosperity. Much of what we hope to accomplish globally depends on
working together with Europe….And so we are working with European
allies and partners to help bring stability to Afghanistan and try to
take on the dangers posed by Iran’s nuclear ambition."
"We have repeatedly called on Russia to honor the terms of its
ceasefire agreement with Georgia, and we refuse to recognize Russia’s
claims of independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. More broadly,
we object to any spheres of influence claimed in Europe in which one
country seeks to control another’s future. Our security depends upon
nations being able to choose their own destiny."
The final sentence is galling beyond endurance, coming as it does from
the foreign policy chief of a nation with hundreds of thousands of
troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and which with its NATO allies waged
war against Yugoslavia and tore the nation apart.
The one preceding it is equally absurd, as Clinton repeatedly insists
on the right of the U.S. to be not only a major player on the European
continent but the main arbiter of military, security, political,
energy and other policies there while denouncing Russia – it didn’t
need to be named – for alleged designs to establish a "sphere of
influence" in neighboring states.
"Security in Europe must be indivisible. For too long, the public
discourse around Europe’s security has been fixed on geographical and
political divides. Some have looked at the continent even now and seen
Western and Eastern Europe, old and new Europe, NATO and non-NATO
Europe, EU and non-EU Europe. The reality is that there are not many
Europes; there is only one Europe. And it is a Europe that includes
the United States as its partner….We are closer than ever to
achieving the goal that has inspired European and American leaders and
citizens – not only a Europe transformed, secure, democratic, unified
and prosperous, but a Euro-Atlantic alliance that is greater than the
sum of its parts…."
For decades, indeed since the end of World War II, American leaders
have been "inspired" by a vision of a Europe transformed and unified –
under NATO military command and a European Union serving as the
civilian, and increasingly military, complement to the Alliance.
"NATO must and will remain open to any country that aspires to become
a member and can meet the requirements of membership," even Ukraine
where the overwhelming majority of its citizens oppose being pulled
into the military bloc. ["We stand with the people of Ukraine as they
choose their next elected president in the coming week, an important
step in Ukraine’s journey toward democracy, stability, and integration
into Europe. And we are devoting ourselves to efforts to resolve
enduring conflicts, including in the Caucasus and on Cyprus."]
And should a nation be incorporated into the bloc even against the
will of its people, then the U.S. "will maintain an unwavering
commitment to the pledge enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty
that an attack on one is an attack on all. When France and our other
NATO allies invoked Article 5 in the aftermath of the attacks of
September 11th, 2001, it was a proclamation to the world that our
promise to each other was not rhetorical, but real….And for that, I
thank you. And I assure you and all members of NATO that our
commitment to Europe’s defense is equally strong.
"As proof of that commitment, we will continue to station American
troops in Europe, both to deter attacks and respond quickly if any
occur. We are working with our allies to ensure that NATO has the
plans it needs for responding to new and evolving contingencies. We
are engaged in productive discussions with our European allies about
building a new missile defense architecture…."
Washington is uncompromisingly bent on expanding NATO even further
along Russia’s borders – Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Finland –
despite misgivings among some NATO allies in Europe, and will use the
Alliance’s Article 5 war clause to "protect" those new outposts. It
will also drag all of Europe into its worldwide interceptor missile
system.
And not against military threats – there is no military threat to any
European nation – but against a veritable plethora of phantom
pretexts, including so-called cyber and energy security, both of which
are subterfuges for the U.S. to intervene against Russia. A host of
other ploys for NATO intervention were added, many from NATO Secretary
General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s 17-point list of last year [10]:
Iran’s nuclear program, "confronting North Korea’s defiance of its
international obligations," "tackling non-traditional threats such as
pandemic disease, cyber warfare, and the trafficking of children" and
the "need to be doing even more, such as in missile defense,
counternarcotics, and Afghanistan." Anything and everything is grist
to the U.S.’s and NATO’s mill.
As Clinton put it, "In the 21st century, the spirit of collective
defense must also include non-traditional threats. We believe NATO’s
new Strategic Concept must address these new threats. Energy security
is a particularly pressing priority. Countries vulnerable to energy
cut-offs face not only economic consequences but strategic risks as
well. And I welcome the recent establishment of the U.S.-EU Energy
Council, and we are determined to support Europe in its efforts to
diversify its energy supplies."
Diversifying energy supplies is a code phrase for driving Russia and
keeping Iran out of oil and natural gas deliveries to Europe. If the
tables were turned the U.S. would view – and treat – such a policy as
an act of war.
The global expansion of the American agenda in Europe was indicated
further in Clinton’s remarks that "This partnership is about so much
more than strengthening our security. At its core, it is about
defending and advancing our values in the world. I think it is
particularly critical today that we not only defend those values in
the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only
defend those values, but promote them; that we are not only on
defense, but on offense."
And placing the current world situation in historical perspective, she
said: "We are continuing the enterprise that we began at the end of
the Cold War to expand the zone of democracy and stability. We have
worked together this year to complete the effort we started in the
1990s to help bring peace and stability to the Balkans. And we are
working closely with the EU to support the six countries that the EU
engages through its Eastern Partnership initiative."
The Eastern Partnership is a U.S.-backed European Union program to
pull six of twelve former Soviet repiblics that formed the
Commonwealth of Independent States into the Western orbit: Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. [11] Armenia and
Belarus are members with Russia of the Collective Security Treaty
Organization, a potential counterbalance to NATO’s drive into the
former Soviet Union. Along with Serbia and Cyprus, those nations
represent the last obstacles to NATO, and behind it the U.S., securing
control of all of Europe.
Clinton also had the audacity to raise the issues of the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Conventional Forces in Europe
Treaty (CFE), the first almost two months beyond its December 5
expiration and the other, in its adapted form, not ratified by a
single member state of NATO, which – led by the U.S. – is exploiting
its suspension for military buildups in new Eastern European nations.
"Two years ago, Russia suspended the implementation of the CFE Treaty,
while the United States and our allies continue to do so. The
Russia-Georgia war in 2008 was not only a tragedy but has created a
further obstacle to moving forward…." The U.S. and NATO have
justified their non-ratification of the Adapted Conventional Forces in
Europe Treaty by demanding that Russia withdraw a small handful of
peacekeepers it maintains in post-conflict zones in Abkhazia, South
Ossetia and Transdniester. Had those forces been withdrawn earlier
under Western pressure, Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia in 2008,
coordinated with an attack on Abkhazia, might have proven successful
for its American-trained army.
Part of Clinton’s self-serving interpretation of the CFE Treaty is
"the right of host countries to consent to stationing foreign troops
in their territory." That is, U.S. and NATO and decidedly not Russia
troops. There can be no spheres of influence in former Soviet space –
except the West’s.
Her understanding of an autonomous Europe not "besieged" by Russia and
Iran – and North Korea – includes not only stationing American troops
on its soil but also nuclear weapons, hundreds of which are still
housed in NATO bases in several European countries. "President Obama
declared the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. As
long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe,
secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and we will
guarantee that defense to our allies.
"[W]e are conducting a comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review to chart a
new course that strengthens deterrence and reassurance for the United
States and our allies…." Clinton didn’t indicate which European
nations have requested to be placed under the Pentagon’s nuclear
shield.
After her presentation Clinton answered questions from the audience at
the French Military Academy.
Her extemporaneous comments were even more revealing that her prepared text.
They included:
"When it comes to NATO, I think that greater integration on the
European continent provides even more opportunity for the level of
cooperation to increase.
"But I think, given the complexity of the world today, closer
cooperation and more complementarity between the EU and NATO is in all
of our interests to try to forge common policies – economic and
development and political and legal on the one hand in the EU, and
principally security on the other hand in NATO. But as I said in my
remarks, they are no longer separated. It’s hard to say that security
is only about what it was when NATO was formed, and the EU has no role
to play in security issues."
NATO’s new Strategic Concept lays particular emphasis on the
advancement – indeed the culmination – of U.S.-EU-NATO global military
integration. [12]
Regarding the implementation of that project, Clinton stipulated the
issue of energy wars. "[I]t would be the EU’s responsibility to create
policies that would provide more independence and protections from
intimidation when it comes to energy markets from member nations. But
I can also see how in certain cases respecting energy, there may be a
role for NATO as well."
When asked about what in recent years has been referred to as Global
NATO "extending the boundaries of NATO to non-Western countries,
emerging powers like Brazil, India, other democracies that might
fulfill their criteria," Clinton advocated a series of expanding
partnerships in addition to the Partnership for Peace, Adriatic
Charter, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative,
Contact Country, Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military
Commission and others that take in over a third of the nations in the
world:
"How do we cooperate across geographic distance with countries in
other hemispheres, different geopolitical challenges? And there is a
modern living example of that with the NATO ISAF commitment in
Afghanistan.
"In many ways, it’s quite remarkable, the success of this alliance.
Yesterday at the London conference on Afghanistan, as you know, the
United States, under President Obama, has agreed to put 30,000 more
troops in Afghanistan. And member nations, NATO and ISAF – the
international partners – have come up with a total of 9,000 more
troops….NATO is leading the way, but NATO has to determine in what
ways it can cooperate with others. I think that the world that we face
of failing states, non-state actors, networks of terrorists, rogue
regimes – North Korea being a prime example – really test the
international community. And it’s a test we have to pass. Now, there
are some who say this is too complicated, it is out of area, it is not
our responsibility. But given the nature of the threats we face, I
don’t think that’s an adequate response.
"[C]yber security breaches, concerted attacks on networks and
countries, are likely to cross borders. We have to know how to defend
against them and we have to enlist nations who are likeminded to work
with. Similarly, with energy problems, attacks on pipelines, attacks
on container ships, attacks on electric grids will have consequences
far beyond boundaries. And it won’t just be NATO nations. NATO nations
border non-NATO nations."
A small consortium of Western nations, two in North America and 26 in
Europe – though most of the latter are nothing more than slavishly
subservient junior partners – has appointed itself, for its own
interests, the arbiter of world affairs in all matters from judging
the political legitimacy of governments to who receives energy
supplies from whom to the most urgent question of all, when and
against whom wars can be launched. [13]
Clinton’s speech in Paris has signaled her country’s intention to
formalize and extend that role throughout the world in the 21st
century.
Armenian boxing champions to become known on January 31
30.01.2010 17:50 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On January 30 Armenian boxing championships
semi-finals were held in the Sports-Concert Complex after Karen
Demirchyan. 100 sportsmen from Yerevan and Armenian different regions
take part in the championships. As the chief coach of the Armenian
national team Rafael Mehrabyan told a PanARMENIAN.Net, after the
championship ends the national team will be formed.
Before the European championship we will take part in 3 international
tournaments in Bulgaria, Chech Republic and Yerevan, Mehrabyan said.
Finals will be held on January 31 at 3:00 by Yerevan time.
Boxing is a combat sport in which two participants, generally of
similar weight, fight each other with their fists. Boxing is
supervised by a referee and is typically engaged in during a series of
one to three-minute intervals called rounds. There are three ways to
win. Victory is achieved if the opponent is knocked out and unable to
get up before the referee counts to ten seconds (a Knockout, or KO) or
if the opponent is deemed too injured to continue (a Technical
Knockout, or TKO). If there is no stoppage of the fight before an
agreed number of rounds, a winner is determined either by the
referee’s decision or by judges’ scorecards. Although fighting with
fists comes naturally to people, evidence of fist-fighting contests
first appear on ancient Sumerian, Egyptian and Minoan reliefs. The
ancient Greeks provide us our first historical records of boxing as a
formal sport; they codified a set of rules and staged tournaments with
professionals. The birth hour of boxing as a sport may be its
acceptance as an Olympic game as early as 688 BC. Modern boxing
evolved in Europe. In some countries with their own fighting sports,
the sport is referred to as "English Boxing" (e.g. in France to
contrast with French boxing, or in Burma with Burmese boxing and in
Thailand with Thai boxing). There are numerous different styles of
boxing practiced around the world. Boxing does not allow kicks like
the styles above.