The Voice of the White House

Washington , D.C. , March 15, 2008 : “There is a prevailing perception in America , even in conservative circles, that Jewish interests are American interests, and that unwavering support for Israel is a requirement for all Americans to avoid being labeled as the worst of racists.

Americans underestimate the power of Jewish interests in publishing and entertainment as well as the influence of political advisers throughout the political spectrum. Remember the power of Benjamin Disraeli in the UK . Because they have a unified ethnic and religious doctrine, other points of view simply cannot challenge their presumed moral superiority, even when their documents are patently false and hyperbolic.

In the American print and television media, the daily attention to Israel and its "courageous" battle against Palestinians in American media does not reflect the true importance of that region in world news. We under-report African issues (anybody keeping up with Mugabe for example), Sri Lanka , Indonesia , the Chinese build-up, on and on. Because of the NYT bully pulpit as much as 20% of the world news in American media is devoted daily to Israel , when it is a tiny nation of no significance to the United States economically.

The reality is  that Americans cannot discern the difference between secular Zionists and Jewish people in general. Thus, any sustained revelations will be vulnerable to accusations of anti-semitism, a difficult charge to rebut. When we read about the at least 3,000 year history of anti-semitism, it is difficult to discern group identities, but all cultures have responded with hostility toward the Jew, even though Jewish contributions to culture can be demonstrated. The tendency of Jewish elites to seek control of social mechanisms (government, publishing, entertainment, commerce) is reflected in the famous quote of Michael Douglas in the movie "Wall Street," when he said, "I produce nothing-I own."

So the question is whether any sustained publication of material that might be termed anti-semitic will progress against fierce attacks and, even though large numbers of readers might follow the blog enthusiastically, it would be undermined by assaults from many directions. In this case, truth is no defense, since the law and the mass media dares not challenge the dominance of power elite, many of whom are indeed of "dual citizenship." There are some who understand the history of how this came to be, but the average American does not understand the diaspora with its mix of blessings and curses, nor do they recall how and why the nation of Israel came to be or why the United States is bound to defend and support that nation unreservedly.”

Israel : Time To Boycott, Divest and Sanction

March 14, 2008

by Frank Scott

Axis of Logic

The situation in Israel has become more murderous and unjust than ever in the sixty year life of that nation. Founded over the bodies of an indigenous population, and rationalized as somehow permissible because of the Nazi persecution of European Jews in World War Two, the Jewish state has been treated by the USA as a holy land beyond criticism, and often beyond rational thought. The Palestinian people were thrown out of their homeland, into refugee camps, or forced to live in Israel as second class citizens, maligned and forgotten souls who had done nothing to incur the vengeful wrath that was visited upon them, and has grown worse over the years.

Israel ’s birth at the expense of indigenous people was really not that different from America ’s and in keeping with the ancient and bloody history of one people attacking another and taking over their habitat. But this new nation was supposed to somehow be uniquely based on justice, to serve a people who had survived persecution , abuse, loss of their homelands and massacres at the hands of oppressors. Result? They persecuted, abused , expelled from their homeland and massacred the inhabitants of Palestine . And this was treated with uncritical support and financing by much of the guilty west, never with more passionate and unquestioning devotion than by the USA .

We have been the major financial and military sponsor of the Jewish state, far surpassing aid it received from Germany , which at least had reason to atone for its previous dreadful treatment of Jews. Why has the USA given tens of billions of dollars and thousands of lives as well, to help perpetuate a Jewish apartheid state ? The answer is the American Jewish lobby, which uses the power of money, and guilt, and sees to it that our government responds to Israeli interests first, by often placing American interests second. This charge usually provokes frenzied accusations of anti-Semitism, even when it is made by supposedly safe establishment figures like academics or ex presidents. Though the anti-Semitic label is losing some of its power, it still can make presidential candidates and the American congress tremble in fear. Why? How?

The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) power structure that exercised much control over the U.S. government through the middle of the twentieth century has since been replaced by the Jewish Lobby. And though many critics insist on calling it just another lobby, it is unlike any other , past or present. It doesn't support industries, as most commercial lobbies did under WASP control, nor does it represent ethnic, racial or religious groups , as do lobbies which originated after the WASP era ended and identity group politics, no threat to their power, began. It stands exclusively for the interests of a foreign country, and it exercises an antidemocratic control over the American political process to an extreme that has become more threatening with time.

The worst political and military excesses of the USA in the Middle East are rationalized by some as simply being about control of oil. But whether they are sincerely ignorant , cynical apologists, or cringing cowards , they are in a state of treacherous denial. Our uncritical support for Israel is not only the cause of much hatred for our nation in the rest of the world, but could inflict future damage on the USA far beyond the tragedy of 911.

It is irresponsible to think, as some do, that a small minority of American Jews who speak out against Israeli policies can change the situation. They are relatively meaningless , not only in number and financial clout, but in that they rarely if ever identify the lobby, often in fear of being called self hating Jews. It is for the American people as a whole to speak in a democratic voice and demand an end to the existence of a Jewish state, perpetuated on the backs of a conquered people, and surviving in its present form only because of American dollars and military might . And to do so in no uncertain terms.

The economic policy of divestiture, boycott and sanctions worked to make the world aware that change had to come in the apartheid state of South Africa , and that kind of movement must be brought to bear on American support for the apartheid state of Israel . Many church , community and campus groups have already begun to take such action and need the support of new groups , to literally join in a democratic lobby against the lobby. And to do so with what power fears almost as much as the barrel of a gun ; that is, the contents of a wallet .

Our federal tax dollars supporting Israel are not the only ones we should be conscious of , though we need to pressure our government in Washington most of all . States, counties and municipalities, as well as labor unions and pension funds use our taxes to invest in Israel Bonds and financial paper, as well as private Israeli firms. We need to exercise control of our money and divest it from those sources that are under the sway of the lobby and are used to strengthen injustice. Funds supposedly under public and not private control need to be the first, but not the only targets of this campaign. And it must be conducted with all deliberate speed, to end a human rights atrocity and help bring about a democratic state of Palestine with equal rights for all its people; Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Frank Scott writes political commentary which appears in the Coastal Post, The Independent Monitor and on his shared blog at: http://legalienate.blogspot.com. email: frankscott@comcast.net

PLO: “ Israel killed 274 residents, including 50 children, 18 women, since the beginning of 2008”

March 14, 2008

Imemc

The National and International Department of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) reported that the Israeli army killed 274 Palestinians, including 50 children and 18 women since the beginning of 2008.

The report documents the Israeli violations against the Palestinian people. It stated that the Israeli army carried war crimes during its offensive against the Gaza Strip, and explained that the army used different sorts of weapons against civilians, who were the vast majority of the casualties in the latest offensive.

The report indicated that two infants (20 days old and 7 months old) were among the Palestinians who were killed by the army. Eighteen women were also killed and one resident was shot and killed by Israeli settlers in the West Bank .

The report added that 979 Palestinians were shot and injured in the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the year, among them were 35 residents who suffered permanent disabilities.

32 patients died in the Gaza Strip due to the siege after the Israeli Authorities refused to allow them to leave the Gaza Strip for medical treatment abroad, most of them were children. Five more residents died at roadblocks in the West Bank after the army obstructed their transfer to hospitals and medical facilities.

The Israeli army kidnapped nearly 1500 Palestinians, including 10 children, since the beginning of the year, and one detainee died due to medical negligence.

The report also stated that the Israeli government continued its violations in Jerusalem by expanding settlements, annexing lands and constructions in the Old City .

The Israeli government illegal grabbed 1500 Dunams of Palestinians lands in Al Esawiyya and Anata towns, near Jerusalem .

The government also released bids for constructing more than 1100 houses for settlers in Abu Ghneim settlement, and continued its excavations under the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Settlers in Jerusalem illegally occupied several Palestinian houses, while the government registered some of these houses to the settlers.

The Israeli authorities bulldozed and shelled 43 houses, most of them were in Jablia, in the Gaza Strip, and 40 other houses were partially destroyed. Other houses were demolished in Jerusalem .

Israel continued the construction of the Annexation Wall in the West Bank and confiscated 1676 Dumans of land which belong to Palestinian residents of Al Thahiriyya, Doura, Arab Al Ramadeen towns near the southern West Bank city of Hebron .

1500 Dunams were annexed from Palestinian towns east of Jerusalem as Israel continued to construct the settler-only roads surrounding the city.

The PLO department warned that the ongoing Israeli violations and the ongoing siege in the Gaza Strip would only create further tension and lead to further civilian casualties.

It demanded the International Community to intervene and stop the Israeli violations and attacks against the Palestinian people and their lands.

http://www.imemc.org/article/53463

The Imbalance

On average, the U.S gave more than $6.8 million* to Israel each day and gave $0.3 million** to the Palestinians each day during Fiscal Year 2007.

During 2007, Israel received about 20 times more aid than the Palestinians

“Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War ll. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America 's entire foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain .”

- John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt

"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"

* The source for US aid to Israel during Fiscal Year 2007 is the Congressional Research Service’s “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel,” written by Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, updated January 2, 2008. According to this report, the US gave Israel at least $2,500.2 million in 2007. This number does not include the $137.894 million we spent on joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects or the $1.4 billion in loan guarantees made available to Israel in 2007.

U.S. aid to Israel is the lowest it has been since 1981 due to the fact that we have slowly been phasing out economic aid to Israel and gradually replacing it with increased military aid. Within several years, military aid to Israel will have reached $3.1 billion each year (or an average of $8.49 million a day). Thus, U.S. tax dollars are subsidizing one of the most powerful foreign militaries. According to the CRS report, current U.S. military aid, “grants to Israel represent over 20% of the overall Israeli defense budget.”

Contrary to ordinary U.S. policy, Israel has been and continues to be allowed to use 26% of this military aid to purchase equipment from Israeli manufacturers. According to CRS, “no other recipient of U.S. military assistance has been granted this benefit.” Thanks in part to this indirect U.S. subsidy, Israel ’s arms industry has become one of the strongest in the world. “In 2006, it was the 9th leading supplier of arms worldwide.”

By all accounts the United States has given more money to Israel than to any other country. The Congressional Research Service’s conservative estimate of total cumulative US aid to Israel (not adjusted for inflation) from 1949 through 2007 is $101.1908 billion.

A July 2006 Washington Report article “A Conservative Estimate of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: $108 Billion,” by Shirl McArthur, puts the cumulative total even higher.

According to McArthur, “[T]he indirect or consequential costs to the American taxpayer as a result of Washington’s blind support for Israel exceed by many times the amount of direct U.S. aid to Israel. Some of these ‘indirect or consequential’ costs would include the costs to U.S. manufacturers of the Arab boycott, the costs to U.S. companies and consumers of the Arab oil embargo and consequent soaring oil prices as a result of U.S. support for Israel in the 1973 war, and the costs of U.S. unilateral economic sanctions on Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria. (For a discussion of these larger costs, see ‘The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion,’ by the late Thomas R. Stauffer, June 2003 Washington Report, p. 20.)”

** The source for US aid to the Palestinians during Fiscal Year 2007 is the Congressional Research Service's Report “U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians”, written by Paul Morro, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, updated October 9, 2007. In 2007, the US provided $50 million for the U.S. Agency for International Development’s West Bank and Gaza program, as well as $77 million directly to the Palestinian Authority. The United States does not provide money to the PLO or Hamas. There are a number of restrictions on how US aid to Palestinians may be spent and it is strictly audited

Israel raises the ante against Iran

March 14, 2008

by Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Asia Times

We are in no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us. We cannot say so too openly, however, because we have a history of using any threat in order to get weapons ... thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from the US and Germany."

- Israeli author, Martin van Crevled, June 2007.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is on a speaking tour in the United States , putting her considerable personal charm in the service of a shrewd salesmanship - of a US war on Iran .

Although considered a dove by Israeli standards, Livni is now on a historic mission that has begun with a pre-travel warmer in the form of a highly publicized telephone call to the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, assuring him that there is direct linkage "between Iran and the terror groups".

Coinciding with the ominous news that US CENTCOM chief Admiral William Fallon has resigned - or been sacked - for his opposition to a war with Iran, Livni hopes to harvest a blowing wind of war against another Middle Eastern country that dares to challenge Israel's regional hegemony. It is a familiar story with a recent precedent in Iraq and a script for action, requiring high-pitched public diplomacy with the help of a vast network of sympathetic media pundits, that Israel has fully mastered.

Last week, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's pressure on Israel "to honor peace obligations" fell on deaf ears and as far as Israel is concerned the so-called "Annapolis roadmap" - to have a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital - is a sideshow to a sideshow, with the central focus on the "Iran threat", just as it was on the "Iraq threat" a mere few years ago.

But, of course, the Israelis and their infinite reservoir of support in the US would rather the world fall into a Nietzschean "sham of forgetfulness" on how aptly, and cunningly, they sold the perception of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and even his direct connection to the September 11, 2001 , atrocities.

Although the US government has conclusively found no evidence of such connections, the various pro-Israel pundits who excelled in their assignment to propagate that false image, refuse to acknowledge their error, let alone recant.

Chief among the latter is Laurie Mylroie, who was given free access to the US media as a "terrorism expert" prior to the US's invasion of Iraq, advertising her book on Saddam and September 11, time and again repeating the line that the September 11 attacks "had to be sponsored by a state", that is, Iraq.

In compensation for a job well done, Mylroie landed a full professorship at a US university, despite the fully questionable and empirically refuted nature of her unfounded allegations against Saddam. Who knows, maybe she is even the recipient of an Israeli medal of honor for her unique salesmanship of war.

This time, however, with the stakes on Iran relatively higher, the discrete charm of the affable Livni is fully required to pave the way for another disastrous war in the Middle East, since Israel is incapable of peace with the Palestinians and is in dire need of other pretexts to channel public attention away from its oppressive policies against the Palestinian people.

This is reflected in the Israeli government's blunt announcement of a new settlement in the West Bank , timed with Rice's visit, which must have surely sent a signal that no matter how it may be interpreted as a provocation that belies the peace process, Israel 's policy of annexation and confiscation of Palestinian lands will continue unabated.

But not everything proceeds according to Israel 's wishes, given the United Nations' recent condemnation of Israel 's "excessive force" against the Palestinians in Gaza . Much as Livni and other Israeli officials hope otherwise, there is a limit to the gullibility of US public, who are averse toward another costly US "proxy war" on Israel 's behalf. No matter how many US editorials spin their services in this direction, the fact remains there is a growing healthy concern in the US regarding the undue influence of Israel on US foreign policy.

Unfortunately, that healthy skepticism is presently staved off by a sophisticated public relations ploy on Israel 's part that blames  Iran   for the death of the peace process and exonerates Israel , while presenting a caricature of independence-seeking Palestinians as mere proxies of Iran 's "messianic fundamentalists".

Such self-serving image projections of the Iranian enemy conveniently overlook US-Iran shared interests in the region and, instead, seek desperately to paint a black and white picture of US-Iran relations as a zero-sum game. Of course, this is a harder sell, as the US and Iran both support the same regimes in Baghdad and Kabul and also have a vested interest in preventing the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Sunni insurgency in Iraq .

Meanwhile, amid new US allegations of Iranian subversive activities in Iraq, a fourth round of US-Iran talks has been postponed and, per an informed Iranian analyst, that is simply because the US does not want to negotiate with Iran from the position of weakness since Tehran has gained much as a result of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent trip to Baghdad. "The US should make a strategic adjustment with Iran or continue with its cold war crusade that is disfunctional because Iran and the US have common interests in the region," the analyst insisted.

So, the clever Israelis and their friends have mounted a serious campaign to convince the world that Iran is in bed with the Taliban and also with al-Qaeda, as well as with practically "every terror group opposed to the US", to paraphrase Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns at his recent talk at Harvard University.

Burns, who was the US 's pointman on Iran until recently, boasted of his role in US-Israel strategic dialogue and put a complete seal of approval on Israel 's warmongering policy with regard to Iran . Surely, this will earn Burns a suitable position in the next US administration, another reminder of how real change in US foreign policy is foreclosed by the recycling of complaint, pro-Israel voices in the US government. [1]

In conclusion, the waning months of the George W Bush administration represent a golden opportunity for Israel to ignite another Middle East conflict that, in essence, is rooted in Israel 's structural inability to make peace with the Arab and Muslim world.

Note

1. At his Harvard talk, Burns discounted the importance of the recent US intelligence report on Iran , regarding Iran 's peaceful nuclear work, and insisted the US is determined to stop Iran 's development of its "nuclear weapon capability", which he defined first and foremost in terms of Iran 's uranium enrichment program. He dispensed with the argument that the International Atomic Energy Agency can detect any diversion from that program, which is allowed under the articles of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, nor did Burns address the question of why the US continues to refuse giving security guarantees to Iran .

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran 's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran 's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran 's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction.

SECRECY NEWS

from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy

Volume 2008, Issue No. 27

March 20, 2008

DOD REPORT ON CAPTURED IRAQI DOCUMENTS

A Defense Department-sponsored report that examined captured Iraqi documents for indications of links between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations is now available online.

The five-volume report affirmed that there was "no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda." But it also said there was "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism."

Although the report was publicly released on March 13, the Department of Defense declined to publish it online, offering instead to provide copies on disk. The full five-volume study has now been posted on the Federation of American Scientists web site.

See "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," Institute for Defense Analyses, November 2007, redacted and released March 2008:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html

The study was first reported prior to release by Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers. The first of the five volumes was previously posted on the ABC News web site. The latter volumes include hundreds of  pages of captured Iraqi documents, declassified and translated into English.

The Defense Intelligence Agency "made every effort to balance national security concerns, requirements of law, and the needs of an informed democracy and focused the redactions to the necessary minimum," the report states.

The Iraqi documents themselves are an eclectic, uneven bunch.

One of them, a fifty-page Iraqi "intelligence" analysis, disparages the austerely conservative Wahhabi school of Islam by claiming that its eighteenth century founder, Ibn 'Abd al Wahhab, had ancestors who were Jews.

In what must be the only laugh-out-loud line in the generally dismal five-volume report, the Iraqi analysis states that Ibn 'Abd al Wahhab's grandfather's true name was not "Sulayman" but "Shulman."

"Tawran confirms that Sulayman, the grandfather of the sheikh, is (Shulman); he is Jew from the merchants of the city of Burstah in Turkey, he had left it and settled in Damascus, grew his beard, and wore the Muslim turban, but was thrown out for being voodoo" (at page 20 of 56).

The analysis, produced by the Air Defense Security System of Iraq's General Military Intelligence Directorate, is not a very reliable guide to Islamic or Jewish history, though it may explain something about

Iraq 's air defenses.

"The Birth of Al-Wahabi Movement and Its Historic Roots" appears in volume 5 of the Defense Department report and is also available in this extract (13 MB PDF):

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/wahhabi.pdf

SOME NEW INTELLIGENCE BOOKS

Some noteworthy new books on intelligence policy, reform and history include these.

Former CIA analyst and outspoken CIA critic Melvin A. Goodman decries "The Decline and Fall of the CIA" in his new book "Failure of Intelligence" (Rowman and Littlefield, 2008):

http://www.amazon.com/Failure-Intelligence-Decline-Fall-CIA/dp/0742551105

UCLA professor Amy Zegart examines pre-9/11 intelligence failures and their implications for intelligence reform in "Spying Blind" ( Princeton , 2007):

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8498.html

Journalist Jefferson Morley traces "the hidden history of the CIA" through the career of Winston Scott, the CIA station chief in Mexico City from 1956 to 1969, in "Our Man in Mexico " (Univ. Press of Kansas, 2008):

http://www.ourmaninmexico.com/

VARIOUS RESOURCES

The National Archives this week announced the opening of approximately 1.3 million pages of historic Central Intelligence Agency records dating from 1947 to 1977. The documents, which are described as open source publications gathered by the CIA's Foreign Documents Division, are being released as "a part of the National Declassification Initiative program announced by the Archivist of the United States Allen Weinstein in April 2006."

http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2008/nr08-74.html

On March 17, 2008 , the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB) heard public comments on its report Improving Declassification that was sent to the President in 2007. The meeting was covered by Lee White of the National Coalition for History and reported here:

http://historycoalition.org/2008/03/19/

Last year the National Intelligence Council, a component of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, sponsored a conference in Ghana on democratization in Africa . The NIC has now published the proceedings of that conference for broad public consumption and consideration. A copy of "Democratization in Africa : What Progress Toward Institutionalization?" is posted here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/nic/african_democ_2008.pdf

U.S. Air Force intelligence organization and functions are described in "General Intelligence Rules," Air Force Instruction 14-202 (vol. 3), 10 March 2008:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afi14-202v3.pdf

Volume 2008, Issue No. 26

March 18, 2008

FORMER ISOO DIRECTORS TO TESTIFY FOR DEFENSE IN AIPAC TRIAL

In a blow to Justice Department prosecutors, two former directors of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) are expected to testify for the defense in the controversial trial of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who are charged with unlawful receipt and transmission of classified information.

Steven Garfinkel (ISOO director from 1980-2002) and J. William Leonard (2002-2007) have been the voice of classification authority across three decades and five presidential administrations. They inspected, oversaw and reported to the President on the government's classification and declassification programs. And last week they were listed among eight proposed expert witnesses for the defense in the

AIPAC case, formally known as USA v. Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman.

As deeply knowledgeable classification officials, Mr. Garfinkel and Mr. Leonard might have been expected to testify for the government in a case involving classification policy. The fact that they are testifying for the defense is a startling indication that the prosecution's case has strayed far beyond any consensus view regarding the proper protection of classified information.

The surprising participation of these former classification officials was first reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the New York Sun. See "Key New Witnesses Sign on for the Defense in AIPAC Case" by Josh Gerstein, New York Sun, March 17:

http://www.nysun.com/article/73017

In another sign that the government's case may be unraveling, the lead prosecutor quit last month to take a job in the private sector. See "Top prosecutor in AIPAC case quits," Jewish Telegraphic Agency, February 28:

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107251.html

Selected case files from the AIPAC prosecution may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/index.html

SECURITY GUIDANCE FOR LAWYERS WITH CIA CLIENTS

Attorneys representing employees of the Central Intelligence Agency who are suing the Agency are obliged to sign a non-disclosure agreement and to comply with CIA secrecy requirements.

The CIA has prepared an introduction to its security policies for non-governmental attorneys. It includes answers to questions such as: How do I know when information is classified? What restrictions are

there on how I handle my client's information at my office? And so forth.

See "Security Guidance for Representatives," Central Intelligence Agency, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/rep.pdf

The document was filed last week in the case of Franz Boening v. CIA, which alleges unlawful prior restraint by the Agency. The CIA is refusing to provide access to key case documents to the plaintiff's attorney in the case, Mark S. Zaid, despite the fact that he holds a security clearance.

A SECRET SESSION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

"Since 1830, the House has met behind closed doors only three times," according to the Congressional Research Service: "in 1979 to discuss the Panama Canal , in 1980 to discuss Central American assistance, and in 1983 to discuss U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua ."

On March 13, the House went into secret session once more to consider classified matters concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After some extended discussion of the unusual practice, followed by a security check, public access to the proceedings was barred. See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/secret.html

For related background see "Secret Sessions of the House and Senate," Congressional Research Service, updated May 25, 2007 :

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/98-718.pdf

and "Secret Sessions of Congress: A Brief Historical Overview," updated May 30, 2007 :

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS20145.pdf

Lieberman lends McCain an assist after gaffe in Jordan

March 18, 2008

by David Edwards

Raw Story

Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, expressed fresh concern Tuesday about Iran 's influence in Iraq and rising sway in Mideast .

However, as the Washington Post's campaign blog points out, McCain "misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran ."

"He said several times that Iran , a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda," Cameron W. Barr and Michael D. Shear note. "In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq ."

After McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran," the post reports "Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear," leading McCain to add: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

The Post blog adds, "The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night."

McCain also voiced concern that Tehran is bringing militants over the border into Iran for training before sending them back to fight U.S. troops in Iraq , and blamed Syria for allegedly continuing to "expedite" a flow of foreign fighters.

"We continue to be concerned about Iranian influence and assistance to Hezbollah as well as Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons," McCain said.

He added that, if elected president, he would coordinate better with Europe to impose a "broad range of sanctions and punishments" on Tehran , to "convince them that their activities, particularly development of nuclear weapons, is not a beneficial goal to seek."

McCain declined to comment on whether he could back an eventual decision to strike Iran if Tehran doesn't cease its nuclear activities.

In response to a question about possible U.S. strikes against Tehran , McCain only said: "At the end of the day, we cannot afford having a nuclear armed Iran ."

He warned that any hasty pullout from Iraq would be a mistake that would favor Iran and al-Qaida.

"We continue to be very concerned about the Iranian influence in Iraq and in the region," McCain said.

McCain ran into trouble last year when he joked about bombing Iran, giving a campaign audience in South Carolina a rendition of the opening lyrics of the Beach Boys rock classic "Barbara Ann," calling the tune "Bomb Iran" and changing the words to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway, ah ..."

McCain, who has linked his political future to U.S. success in Iraq , was in the wartorn country on Monday for meetings with Iraqi and U.S. diplomatic and military officials.

"We were very encouraged by the success of the surge and the reduction in U.S. casualties," McCain told reporters in Jordan , where he stopped on the next leg of a congressional visit that will also take him to Israel , Britain and France .

"We are succeeding, but we still have a long way to go," he warned. "Al-Qaida is on the run, they're not defeated."

A "major battle" remains to be fought to reclaim the northern Iraqi city of Mosul , he said, stating it was a success for the U.S. that Iraqi troops were now "taking the lead in that struggle" against al-Qaida.

Later Tuesday, McCain received a celebrity welcome in Jerusalem , beginning a two-day visit to Israel with a stop at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. As his motorcade pulled up dozens of tourists greeted him and chanted "Mac is back," as he shook their hands and posed for photographs.

During his 90-minute visit at the memorial and museum, McCain was visibly moved, his eyes welling with tears as he viewed photographs from Nazi death camps.

Wearing a skullcap placed on his head by Lieberman, McCain laid a wreath in memory of the 6 million Jewish Holocaust victims and lit a memorial flame. Signing the Yad Vashem visitors' book he wrote: "I am deeply moved. Never again. John McCain."

His visit to Iraq was the Arizona senator's first since emerging as the presumed Republican nominee. He was accompanied by Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut , an independent, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., two of his top supporters in the race for president.

He promised that, if elected president, he would uphold a long-term military commitment in Iraq as long as al-Qaida in Iraq is not defeated.

McCain, who is the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the trip to the Middle East and Europe was for fact-finding purposes, not a campaign photo opportunity.

He is expected to meet with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for the first time, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the third time. He met and corresponded with Sarkozy both before and after the French president was elected. They last saw each other last summer.

McCain has told U.S. reporters he worries that insurgents might try to influence the November presidential election by stepping up their attacks in Iraq .

McCain is a supporter of the 2003 invasion and President Bush's troop increase last year.

Comment: Another right- wing dim bulb trying to get into the Oval Office, dignity pants and all. Who will be McCain’s running mate? Ann Coulter? One’s a man and the other hasn’t been one for years. BH

Bear Stearns's Ruin Will Shake Sovereign Funds

March 18, 2008

by Andy Mukheriee

Bloomberg

In the end, Citic Securities Co. was lucky to sidestep the messy  unraveling of Bear Stearns Cos.

Five months ago, the biggest Chinese brokerage wanted to buy 6 percent of the New York-based securities firm for $1 billion.

Miraculously for Citic, the ``deal of a lifetime, as Bear Stearns Chairman James ``Jimmy Cayne then described the tie-up, was never implemented.

That spared Citic the embarrassment of paying 69 times the price at which JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed on March 16 to take over the beleaguered company.

Citic Group Chairman Kong Dan yesterday announced that the investment plan, as well as a proposed joint venture with Bear Stearns, was canceled.

Citic Securities shares rose yesterday in Shanghai even as China 's benchmark CSI 300 Index fell to an eight-month low.

While Citic may have been saved by serendipitous inaction, some state-owned investment vehicles in Asia and the Middle East may not have been so fortunate.

Banks and securities firms have raised as much as $105 billion of fresh capital by selling stakes to individuals, institutions and governments amid subprime-related losses.

The so-called sovereign wealth funds have provided at least half of the total, picking up stakes in Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch & Co. and UBS AG.

After the spectacular collapse of Bear Stearns, these custodians of public money must now wonder whether they have really acquired sizable chunks of great franchises on the cheap, or if, in fact, they have bought lemons.

Only time will tell.

Attractively Designed

Several of the sovereign-fund investments in U.S. financial companies are structured as interest-paying securities convertible into equity at a future date.

A drop in the share price in the short run doesn't immediately — or necessarily — erode the return on the sovereign fund's investment.

Even so, not all of the investments appear to be in great shape. Take Citigroup, for example. The stock must climb almost 72 percent from its current level for Abu Dhabi Investment Authority to profit from its investment over and above the very attractive 11 percent interest it will receive until conversion.

If one assumes that the U.S. financial system will emerge from the current gloom well before the mandatory conversion of Citigroup equity notes that starts in the first quarter of 2010, then it's not unreasonable to expect that Abu Dhabi will ultimately make lots of money on its investment.

Shadow of Doubt

However, given what happened to Bear Stearns — at the close of last week, its stock traded at $30; by the end of the weekend, the shares were worth just $2 — there's now considerable risk that the securities issued by one or more U.S. bank or brokerage may convert into shares at a loss for the white knights who rescued them.

What if the magnitude of the loss is so large as to completely overshadow the interest income?

That wouldn't make sovereign wealth funds look very smart, would it?

Jim Rogers, who co-founded the Quantum Hedge Fund with billionaire investor George Soros in the 1970s, says sovereign funds betting on U.S. financial stocks are going to lose money because they opened their purse strings too early.

Rogers may have a point.

Already there's heartburn in China over state-owned China Investment Corp.'s $3 billion investment last May for 9 percent of Blackstone Group LP, the world's biggest buyout fund. That stake, according to yesterday's market price, has shrunk to less than half its original value.

`Sweat and Blood'

Morgan Stanley shares have lost 30 percent of their value since Dec. 20, the day it announced a $5 billion cash infusion — again by China Investment.

UBS stock has fallen 57 percent since Dec. 10, when it wrote down $10 billion of U.S. subprime investments and announced a bailout by strategic investors, including Government of Singapore Investment Corp.

Sovereign wealth funds are long-term investors.

They can afford to be patient.

But that doesn't mean they have a complete license to bungle their trades in the short- to medium-term.

Following the Blackstone debacle, bloggers in China have questioned the judgment of state-appointed investment managers, with one anonymous writer on Sina.com, a popular Web portal, asking the authorities to take greater care in investing the country's foreign reserves, ``the product of the sweat and blood of the people of China.''

`First of Many'

If there's still such a thing as ``fundamental value'' of a U.S. financial company, post-Bear Stearns no one can claim to know just what it is.

``Bear Stearns's demise should probably be viewed as the first of many,'' Richard Bernstein, chief investment strategist at Merrill Lynch, wrote in a report yesterday.

Comments like those will make sovereign wealth funds in Asia and the Middle East cringe. No doubt they will now be extra- cautious about investing in U.S. financial stocks. But what about the billions of dollars they have already committed?

The fate of those investments is now in the domain of luck and prayers. The fund managers can only hope they haven't bitten off more risk than their political masters can chew.

Trust Goes Down the Drain

March 18, 2008

by Chan Akya

Asia Times

Conversation from 10 years ago: relating to John Meriwether of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) calling his friend at Bear Stearns:

Bear Stearns - How much are you down by, John?

John - Half.

Bear Stearns - You are finished.

John - But I have billions in cash, more fund raising to come, etc. Bear Stearns - John, when you are down by half, people figure you can go all the way. You are finished.

My article published on Friday (see Forget Spitzer, fire Bernanke, Asia Times Online, March 15, 2008) touched upon the unconventional rescue of a large securities firm by the Fed last Monday when it announced a new refinancing tool to help Wall Street. It appears that the firm in question was Bear Stearns, an ironic throwback to the advice given to LTCM that I quoted above.

Over the weekend, JPMorgan Chase agreed to buy Bear Stearns  for US$2 per share, a fraction of the $30 or so that the company closed at on Friday, itself about 50% down for the day. The infamous rule of "down by half, finished" appears to have struck none other than the very firm that used it to measure its risk outstanding with other funds. Full credit for what happened over the weekend though must go to what the Fed did on Friday.

On Friday, the Fed announced a more direct rescue of Bear Stearns, by providing back-to-back financing through JPMorgan wherein the latter would hand over all eligible securities held by Bear Stearns to the Fed, and would pass along all Fed credit to the investment bank. Essentially, JPMorgan had the role of a middleman with the ultimate risk being held by the Fed as all financing to Bear Stearns was "without recourse" - a legal term that essentially means, once you make a loan against something, you are pretty much on your own, pal.

Glass Steagall

Following from the near collapse of the US financial system in the earlier part of the 20th century, authorities moved to separate normal banking activities from those of investment banks. The separation has become increasingly blurred in recent times, but in effect while the Fed is responsible for commercial banks, it does not have a direct role in the financing and operations of the investment banks. Each of the regional Fed banks (for example the Federal Reserve of New York, or NY Fed as its more commonly known) has responsibility for all commercial banks registered in New York , and so on. Thus, if any of these banks had a problem such as bank run, the NY Fed would step in to help that institution.

Bear Stearns, being an investment bank, did not have direct access to the Fed "window", leaving it at a competitive disadvantage to commercial banks such as Citigroup, JPMorgan and Bank of America when it came to the process of accessing liquidity. Therefore, on Monday as a first step the Fed made a concession to the very kind of collateral that investment banks were holding in large volumes, such as residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS). This kind of collateral is not a big problem for commercial banks to hold - indeed it can be argued that making mortgages to individuals is their main business – therefore there isn’t much of an issue keeping these securities on their books funded by cheap deposits left by increasingly scared individuals across the US .

Investment banks on the other hand saw their cost of funding more than triple since last year and more importantly, found that many tools for refinancing were completely shut. The process of selling mortgage-backed securities had already ground to a complete halt, even as defaults were rising on the underlying home loans - essentially a dual hit for the investment banks.

As I wrote in the above article, there was clearly a break in the system wherein many of these commercial banks refused to accept securities as collateral from investment banks even if the onward refinancing with the Fed was made available. This is potentially due to two concerns: 1. Firstly, some commercial banks would have exceeded their specific credit limits to various investment banks having provided them with ever increasing lines of credit against difficult-to-value collateral over the past 12 months. 2. Secondly, while these securities could be refinanced with the Fed, they were all "with recourse", ie if there was a problem with the quality of collateral for example through a ratings downgrade, the Fed could demand its money back from the commercial bank while the latter could possibly not hope to make a successful claim against a failing investment bank.

Matters seemed to have proceeded far faster than even I had expected since Wednesday last week when I wrote the above article. In effect, one or more commercial banks had refused to lend to the likes of Bear Stearns under "any circumstances", and even refused to accept a modicum of risk that exists in all market transactions such as buying and selling foreign exchange, settling interest rate contracts and credit derivative contracts.

Thus, on Friday, the Fed was forced to act directly to help Bear Stearns by providing it with unprecedented access to liquidity. The initial reaction to the announcement was a sharp jump in the share price of Bear Stearns in pre-market trading.

However, even equity investors are not that stupid these days. While they still can be accused of living in aerial castles with respect to the rest of the stock market, at least their view of the risks of holding stock in securities firms has matured over the past few months.

Last year at one point, Bear Sterns’ stock was trading close to $180. At the beginning of last

week, it was trading around $60, falling from $80 at the beginning of March. On Friday, after first rising a few dollars, around 10% in pre-market, the stock opened more than 10% lower and continued to fall.

Even the most gullible equity investor could no longer be fooled about the turn of events. Bear Stearns needed a rescue because it was going bust, and that was all there was to the positive spin on the story from the NY Fed, and all discussions from the company about its real book value were hollow.

Financial institutions survive purely on the confidence of investors, who after all trust them to hold significantly more assets than their capital bases would allow. A typical investment bank with a market value of $10 billion would typically have assets of over $200 billion, to give you an idea of the kind of leverage we are talking about here. I would hate to analyze the figures of Bear Stearns on these counts because many of those assets were impaired, and partially that was already reflected in the reduced stock capitalization.

Going forward

Much like a financial game of whack-the-mole, the rescue of Bear Stearns puts in question the next potential victim. As I noted in the Friday article, other investment banks may be better off for the immediate future, but all have similar existential crises in front. Why should any investor trust them to manage assets far in excess of their capital bases?

Their financial results for the first quarter ended February, due over the course of this week, will inevitably raise issues of potential downside and worst-case scenarios. No bank prepares for all its depositors to turn up on the same day to demand their money back, and neither does any investment bank.

A few weeks back, I wrote Mr Paulson, Tear Down This Wall (Street) (Asia Times Online, February 16, 2008 ) purely because of a deeply held personal belief that a major investment bank would go bust in 2008. I certainly did not know that it would be Bear Stearns nor that it would happen by the first quarter itself. In any event, the reason for that article was to implore US authorities not to expand the circle of trouble by bailing out investment banks because that would only make problems worse for the entire global financial system.

It appears that US financial authorities have been overly influenced by their European counterparts and have chosen to effectively nationalize troubled companies. That process did not work in Japan where banks remain moribund more than a decade after these efforts began in earnest, nor in countries like France where banks seem to lurch from one crisis to the next. Thankfully, market circuit-breakers in the US still work wherein the firms being asked to buy troubled investment banks are exerting their own pressure on price - as JPMorgan showed by offering a price of $2 per share rather than the $30 closing price (or even the $20 that the weekend press indicated).

All commercial banks accepting to purchase investment banks would put their own existence in jeopardy, not the least because of the sheer size of these companies as well as their complexity. Accounting standards and regulations are vastly different between these companies due to many decades of Glass Steagall.

The acquisition of Bear by JPMorgan means that investors cannot trust the reported book value of US financial firms anymore. If they cannot trust investment banks, can the trust of commercial banks be really all that higher? The discount to book value should tell the Fed and all other central banks an important truth namely that the bailers themselves may need to be bailed out in time.

Are We on the Brink of a 'New Little Ice Age?'

March 3, 2008

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Thinking is centered around slow changes to our climate and how they will affect humans and the habitability of our planet. Yet this thinking is flawed: It ignores the well-established fact that the Earths’

climate has changed rapidly in the past and could change rapidly in the future. The issue centers around the paradox that global warming could instigate a new Little Ice Age in the northern hemisphere.

Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily apparent in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctia. One sees clear indications of long-term changes discussed above, with CO² and proxy temperature changes associated with the last ice age and its transition into our present interglacial period of warmth. But, in addition, there is a strong chaotic variation of properties with a quasi-period of around 1500 years. We say chaotic because these millennial shifts look like anything but regular oscillations. Rather, they look like rapid, decade-long transitions between cold and warm climates followed by long interludes in one of the two states.

The best known example of these events is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named for arctic wildflower remains identified in northern European sediments. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder.

The lack of periodicity and the present failure to isolate a stable forcing mechanism À la Milankovitch, has prompted much scientific debate about the cause of the Younger Dryas and other millennial scale events. Indeed, the Younger Dryas occurred at a time when orbital forcing should have continued to drive climate to the present warm state.

A whole volume that reviews the evidence for abrupt climate change and speculates on its mechanisms was published recently by an expert group commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences in the US . This very readable compilation contains a breadth and depth of discussion that we cannot hope to match here. [ “Abrupt Climage Change,” National Academy Press, 2002].

Presently, there is only one viable mechanism identified in the report that may play a major role in determining the stable states of our climate and what causes transitions between them: It involves ocean dynamics.

In order to balance the excess heating near the equator and cooling at the poles of the earth, both atmosphere and ocean transport heat from low to high latitudes. Warmer surface water is cooled at high latitudes, releasing heat to the atmosphere, which is then radiated away to space. This heat engine operates to reduce equator-to-pole temperature differences and is a prime moderating mechanism for climate on Earth.

Warmer ocean surface temperatures at low latitudes also release water vapor through an excess of evaporation over precipitation to the atmosphere, and this water vapor is transported poleward in the atmosphere along with a portion of the excess heat. At high latitudes where the atmosphere cools, this water vapor falls out as an excess of precipitation over evaporation. This is part of a second important component of our climate system: the hydrologic cycle. As the ocean waters are cooled in their poleward journey, they become denser. If sufficiently cooled, they can sink to form cold dense flows that spread equatorward at great depths, thus perpetuating the circulation system that transports warm surface flows toward high latitude oceans.

The cycle is completed by oceanic mixing, which slowly converts the cold deep waters to warm surface waters. Thus, surface forcing and internal mixing are two major players in this overturning circulation, called the great ocean conveyor.

The waters moving poleward are relatively salty due to more evaporation at low latitudes, which increases surface salinity. At higher latitudes surface waters become fresher as a consequence of the dominance of precipitation over evaporation at high latitudes.

The freshening tendency makes the surface water more buoyant, thus opposing the cooling tendency. If the freshening is sufficiently large, the surface waters may not be dense enough to sink to great depths in the ocean, thus inhibiting the action of the ocean conveyor and upsetting one important part of the earth’s heating system.

This system of regulation does not operate the same in all oceans. The Asian continent limits the northern extent of the Indian Ocean to the tropics, and deep water does not presently form in the North Pacific, because surface waters are just too fresh. Our present climate promotes cold deep water formation around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic Ocean . The conveyor circulation increases the northward transport of warmer waters in the Gulf Stream at mid-latitudes by about 50% over what wind-driven transport alone would do.

Our limited knowledge of ocean climate on long time scales, extracted from the analysis of sediment cores taken around the world ocean, has generally implicated the North Atlantic as the most unstable member of the conveyor: During millennial periods of cold climate, North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) formation either stopped or was seriously reduced. And this has generally followed periods of large freshwater discharge into the northern N. Atlantic caused by rapid melting of glacial or multi-year ice in the Arctic Basin . It is thought that these fresh waters, which have been transported into the regions of deep water formation, have interrupted the conveyor by overcoming the high latitude cooling effect with excessive freshening.

The ocean conveyor need not stop entirely when the NADW formation is curtailed. It can continue at shallower depths in the N. Atlantic and persist in the Southern Ocean where Antarctic Bottom Water formation continues or is even accelerated. Yet a disruption of the northern limb of the overturning circulation will affect the heat balance of the northern hemisphere and could affect both the oceanic and atmospheric climate. Model calculations indicate the potential for cooling of 3 to 5 degree Celsius in the ocean and atmosphere should a total disruption occur. This is a third to a half the temperature change experienced during major ice ages.

These changes are twice as large as those experienced in the worst winters of the past century in the eastern US, and are likely to persist for decades to centuries after a climate transition occurs. They are of a magnitude comparable to the Little Ice Age, which had profound effects on human settlements in Europe and North America during the 16th through 18th centuries. Their geographic extent is in doubt; it might be limited to regions bounding the N. Atlantic Ocean . High latitude temperature changes in the ocean are much less capable of affecting the global atmosphere than low latitude ones, such as those produced by El Niño.

Whether the pathway for propagation of climate change is atmospheric or oceanic, or whether changes in oceanic and terrestrial sequestration of carbon may globalize effects of climate change, as suspected for glacial/inter-glacial climate changes, are open questions. Yet we begin to approach how the paradox mentioned above can happen: Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us.

Consider first some observations of oceanic change over the modern instrumental record going back 40 years. During this time interval, we have observed a rise in mean global temperature. Because of its large heat capacity, the ocean has registered small but significant changes in temperature. The largest temperature increases are in the near surface waters, but warming has been measurable to depths as great as 3000 meters in the N. Atlantic . Superimposed on this long-term increase are interannual and decadal changes that often obscure these trends, causing regional variability and cooling in some regions, and warming in others.

In addition, recent evidence shows that the high latitude oceans have freshened while the subtropics and tropics have become saltier. These possible changes in the hydrological cycle have not been limited to the North Atlantic , but have been seen in all major oceans. Yet it is the N. Atlantic where these changes can act to disrupt the overturning circulation and cause a rapid climate transition.

A 3-4 meter, high latitude buildup of fresh water over this time period has decreased water column salinities throughout the subpolar N. Atlantic as deep as 2000m. At the same time, subtropical and northern tropical salinities have increased.

The degree to which the two effects balance out in terms of fresh water is important for climate change. If the net effect is a lowering of salinity, then fresh water must have been added from other sources: river runoff, melting of multi-year arctic ice, or glaciers. A flooding of the northern Atlantic with fresh water from these various sources has the potential to reduce or even disrupt the overturning circulation.

Whether or not the latter will happen is the nexus of the problem, and one that is hard to predict with confidence. At present we do not even have a system in place for monitoring the overturning circulation.

Models of the overturning circulation are very sensitive to how internal mixing is parameterized. Recall that internal mixing of heat and salt is an integral part of overturning circulation. One recent study shows that for a model with constant vertical mixing, which is commonly used in coupled ocean-atmosphere climate runs, there is only one stable climate state: our present one with substantial sinking and dense water formation in the northern N. Atlantic .

With a slightly different formulation, more consistent with some recent measurements of oceanic mixing rates that are small near the surface and become larger over rough bottom topography, a second stable state emerges with little or no deep-water production in the northern N. Atlantic . The existence of a second stable state is crucial to understanding when and if abrupt climate change occurs. When it occurs in model runs and in geological data, it is invariably linked to rapid addition of fresh water at high northern latitudes.

And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem. In addition to incorporating a terrestrial biosphere and polar ice, which both play a large role in the reflectivity of solar radiation, one has to accurately parameterize mixing that occurs on centimeter to tens of centimeter scales in the ocean. And one has to produce long coupled global climate runs of many centuries! This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future climate change.

Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them. Errors in initial data can lead to poor atmospheric predictions in several days. So one sure pathway to better weather predictions is better initial data.

For the ocean, our date coverage is wholly inadequate. We can’t say now what the overturning circulation looks like with any confidence and are faced with the task of predicting what it may be like in 10 years!

Efforts are now underway to remedy this. Global coverage of upper ocean temperature and salinity measurements with autonomous floats is well within our capability within the next decade as are surface measures of wind stress and ocean circulation from satellites.

The measurement of deep flows is more difficult, but knowledge about the locations of critical avenues of dense water flows exists, and efforts are underway to measure them in some key locations with moored arrays.

Our knowledge about past climate change is limited as well. There are only a handful of high-resolution ice core climate records of the past 100,000 years, and even fewer ocean records of comparable resolution. Better definition of past climate states is needed not only in and of itself, but for use by modelers to test their best climate models in reproducing what we know happened in the past before believing model projections about the future. We are not there yet, and progress needs to be made on both better data and improved models before we can begin to answer some critical questions about future climate change.

Researchers always tell you that more research funding is needed, and we are not any different. Our main message is not just that, however. It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean , we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.