Iraqis reach tentative compromise on amended election measure

By Anthony Shadid and Nada Bakri Washington Post Friday, November 27, 2009 BAGHDAD -- Iraq's factions pulled the country back from crisis Thursday, reaching a tentative compromise on contested legislation to organize elections next year and potentially avoiding a second veto that could have delayed the vote for months. If the deal holds -- politicians were being briefed on it Thursday evening -- it would offer another example of what has become politics as usual in Iraq: A mounting crisis threatens to cast the country into further ethnic and sectarian strife, before a closed-door solution is reached at what appears to be the last minute. "We've reached an understanding," declared Abdul-Ilah Kazem, a spokesman for Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab and key player in the crisis. The crisis appeared to move a long way toward being settled on the eve of a major Muslim holiday, as lawmakers shuttled between U.N. and election officials in hopes of convincing them that all parties could be satisfied. Although security has improved in the past year, the crisis had led to Sunni Arab and even Kurdish calls for a boycott of the elections, which will choose a parliament and, in turn, a government that will preside over Iraq as the United States withdraws the last of its 115,000 troops. The Sunni threats were reminiscent of 2005, when the community largely refrained from voting -- a decision widely seen as setting the stage for brutal internecine strife in 2006 and 2007. "If the law was vetoed again, and then parliament overrode that veto, a lot of bridges would have been broken," said Hadi al-Ameri, a Shiite Islamist lawmaker who played a key role in the negotiations. "We want to keep these bridges, and we want to keep the consensus that we've had." But problems remain. Election officials have yet to endorse the tentative deal, although one said it "looks promising." Iraq's electoral commission must sign off on any agreement, and its members are loath to sanction a deal that seems to subvert the wording of the legislation. If they do, the results of the vote will almost certainly be contested by losing parties, who would deem the elections illegal. Even with an agreement, election officials said it would be almost impossible to hold the elections in January as originally planned. February is more likely. The legislation was originally passed Nov. 8 in a vote hailed by the Obama administration, which sees the election as milestone in its plans to withdraw all but 50,000 troops from the country by next August. But Hashimi, one of three members of Iraq's Presidency Council, each with the power of veto, rejected the measure, saying it gave too little representation to millions of Iraqi exiles, many of them Sunni Arabs. Parliament amended the legislation this week, with a change that appeared to backfire on Hashimi. Under the revision, Iraqi exiles would be counted in their home provinces. But a new way of allotting seats meant that majority-Sunni provinces would have fewer members of parliament than they would have under the original legislation. Sunnis were outraged, although some blamed Hashimi for a deal that became worse the second time around. Hashimi himself was angry, and hours after the vote, his aides and supporters said he would almost certainly veto the legislation. Under the tentative agreement, the law would be interpreted loosely, politicians acknowledged. Ameri said Kurds, who were bitter over the number of seats they received under the original legislation, would maintain the larger share they received under the amended version. He said Sunni provinces would retain the number of seats they had under the original measure. That was particularly a concern in Nineveh, a majority-Sunni province and a fault line between Arabs and Kurds in northern Iraq.

Saber-Rattling Iran by Proxy

Commentary Magazine Noah Pollak - 11.28.2009 - 8:00 AM Remember how liberals used to get apoplectic when members of the Bush administration said things like “all options are on the table with Iran”? This was beating the war drums, it was saber-rattling, it was exemplary of all that was wrong with the Bush administration’s approach to the world. Of course it isn’t surprising that such accusations are not leveled at the Obama administration, which has also regularly employed the all-options-on-the-table formulation — mostly because everyone understands that it isn’t a true statement. But here is a better one: According to the Washington Post, President Obama sent two officials on an advance trip to China before his recent visit. Their message? Sign a toughly worded IAEA statement or the Israelis might attack: If Beijing did not help the United States on this issue, the consequences could be severe, the visitors, Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Bader, both senior officials in the National Security Council, informed the Chinese. The Chinese were told that Israel regards Iran’s nuclear program as an “existential issue and that countries that have an existential issue don’t listen to other countries,” according to a senior administration official. The implication was clear: Israel could bomb Iran. One might go so far as to say that international affairs continues to be dominated by power and force, despite hopenchangey predictions of a new era of dialogue and cooperation. Even accomplishing something as modest as cajoling a Chinese signature on a largely meaningless IAEA statement necessitated the threat of force. “Soft power” and “smart diplomacy” didn’t quite cut it, did they? China’s inclusion on yesterday’s IAEA statement will be hailed as a great accomplishment for the Obama administration, but it should be apparent that this victory actually represents the hastened disintegration of the administration’s preferred policy — an elegant and high-minded diplomatic campaign. The “Israel will attack” card has now been played, and quite early. What will the White House say to China and Russia when it wishes to pursue sanctions, or even a gasoline embargo? A repetition of the same threat? Wasn’t Obama’s presidency supposed to liberate us from the ugly business of making threats?

Iraqi Government now has their own YouTube Channel

Iraqi Government on YouTube Governments, heads of state, and leaders from around the world are on YouTube, including the Pope, the Royal Family, and Queen Rania, and presidents from the United States to France, South Korea to Estonia. Today we're especially pleased to announce that the Iraqi Government has launched a dedicated YouTube channel, at youtube.com/iraqigov. Learn more from Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki: Earlier this year, I visited Baghdad as a guest of the U.S. State Department to engage in conversations about the role of technology in Iraq. In discussions with elected officials, private companies and NGOs, I routinely heard the desire to connect with fellow citizens, Iraqis outside the country's borders, and cultures across the world. But it wasn't just the Iraqi Government who expressed an interest in YouTube — I was pleasantly surprised by the high level of awareness from a wide variety of Iraqis. One young student told us she uses YouTube to understand what is really happening in her country based on the variety of opinions, citizen journalism and news reports uploaded to the site. There was little difference between her examples and those we often hear in other countries, which speaks to both the global community on YouTube and the universality of the video experience. Just this past week, our CEO Eric Schmidt traveled to Iraq to meet with government officials there about the challenge and opportunities they face. While in Iraq, Eric shot this video for Citizentube: We hope that by launching on YouTube, the Iraqi Government and their citizens will also find it easy to use YouTube to engage in such conversations, and bring their proceedings, policies and ideas to a larger audience around the world.

Economy's rebound not as strong as first thought

By JEANNINE AVERSA WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy grew at a 2.8 percent pace last quarter, as the recovery got off to a slower start than first thought. The Commerce Department's new reading on gross domestic product wasn't as energetic as the 3.5 percent growth rate for the July-September period estimated just a month ago. The main factors behind the downgrade: consumers didn't spend as much, commercial construction was weaker and the nation's trade deficit was more of a drag on growth. Businesses also trimmed more of their stockpiles, another restraining factor. The new reading on GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States - from machinery to manicures - was a tad weaker than the 2.9 percent growth rate economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had expected. Still, the good news is that the economy finally started to grow again, after a record four straight losing quarters. The bad news is that the rebound, now and in the months ahead, probably will be lethargic. The worst recession since the 1930s is very likely over, but the economy's return to good health will take time, Fed officials and economists say. Growth probably won't be strong enough to quickly drive down the nation's unemployment rate, currently at 10.2 percent. It's only the second time in the post-World War II period that unemployment has topped 10 percent. Some economists think economic growth will slow to around a 2.5 percent pace in the current quarter, although others say it could clock in at about 3 percent if holiday sales are better than expected. Most say they think the economy will weaken again next year, with growth at a pace of around 1 percent as the impact of the $787 billion stimulus package fades and consumers keep tightening their belts under the strain of high unemployment and hard-to-get credit. Much of the economy's return to growth last quarter reflected federal support for spending on homes and cars. But Tuesday's report shows that some of that spending was a bit less robust than initially thought. Spending on homes and other residential projects soared at an annualized pace of 19.5 percent last quarter, a little slower than the 23.4 percent rate first estimated. Spending on big-ticket "durable" goods - including cars - jumped at a pace of 20.1 percent, down from 22.3 percent. Even with the downward revisions, it was notable that such spending grew, after falling in the previous quarter. In the third quarter, the popular Cash for Clunkers rebates and an $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers juiced up sales of cars and homes. The clunkers program ended in August, but the tax credit has been extended and expanded beyond first-time buyers. What's not clear is whether the recovery can continue after government supports are gone. If consumers clam up, the economy could tip back into recession. President Barack Obama recently cautioned that the economy could suffer a "double dip" downturn. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, however, says he doesn't think that will happen. But last week the Fed chief did warn the recovery faces "important headwinds," such as tight credit and a weak job market that will make consumers cautious in their spending. Those factors "likely will prevent the expansion from being as robust as we would hope," Bernanke said. Tuesday's report showed that overall consumer spending - a major shaper of national economic activity - grew at a pace of 2.9 percent last quarter. That was down from a 3.4 percent growth rate first estimated, but still marked the best showing since early 2007. On the business side, companies cut back spending on commercial construction - a weak spot in the economy - at 15.1 percent annualized pace. That was deeper than the 9 percent annualized cut back first estimated. Businesses also trimmed stockpiles of goods by $133.4 billion last quarter, slightly more than initially estimated. And the nation's trade deficit ended up shaving 0.83 percentage point off GDP last quarter, more than first thought. Unlike past rebounds that were driven by the spending of everyday Americans, this one appears to hinge on spending by businesses, foreigners and - until it runs out - the government. In an encouraging note on that front, businesses after-tax profits grew at a 13.4 percent pace last quarter, up from a 0.9 percent pace in the prior period, Tuesday's report showed. In 1980, businesses led an economic recovery. It quickly fizzled, and the economy fell into a severe recession in 1981 and 1982. The unemployment rate climbed to 10.8 percent, the post-World War II high. The government makes three estimates of economic activity for any given quarter. Each is based on more complete data. Tuesday's was the second reading of the third-quarter GDP data. The return of economic growth puts the White House in a delicate position: Obama wants to take credit for ending the recession, but unemployment is still causing pain and anxiety nationwide. Millions have yet to feel a benefit from the recovery in the form of a new job or even an easier time getting a simple loan. Even those with jobs are reluctant to go on a spending spree. The values of their homes and 401(k)s have not fully recovered. Some economists think the jobless rate could climb as high as 11 percent by the middle of next year before making a slow descent. It could take at least four years for the unemployment rate to drop back down to more normal levels. "The best thing we can say about the labor market right now is that it may be getting worse more slowly," Bernanke said last week. Against that backdrop, Obama said he's weighing tax breaks that could encourage businesses to hire again.

Kirkuk’s factions are on speaking terms

O’Malley says foes overcame hurdles, will keep talking By James F. Smith Globe Staff / November 23, 2009 Overcoming walkouts and threatened boycotts, Iraqi legislators ended three days of ground-breaking negotiations in Baghdad on the future of the disputed city of Kirkuk with an agreement yesterday to keep talking in coming months, a Boston-based mediator said. Padraig O’Malley, professor of mediation and peace at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, organized the talks among local and national Iraqi legislators representing Arab, Kurd, and Turkmen ethnic groups, who have battled for years for dominance over the oil-rich northern city. The often-tense discussions came close to breakdown at several points, O’Malley said in an e-mail account sent from Baghdad. But at 2:20 a.m. yesterday, the parties agreed to take the negotiations forward among themselves in the coming months. Given the obstacles and animosities that have divided the people of Kirkuk, O’Malley called the outcome “quite remarkable.’’ “This agreement must now be underpinned by action for change, action for reconciliation, and action for progress,’’ he said. The negotiation flowed from a process that O’Malley set in motion in Helsinki in 2007 to help Iraqis find creative ways to solve disputes. Subsequent sessions in Helsinki and in Baghdad led to agreements on principles and a negotiating mechanism involving the country’s major parties. Conflicts have divided Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmens in Kirkuk since the US invasion ousted President Saddam Hussein in 2003, and Kirkuk is one of the disputes threatening to derail the scheduled national elections in January. O’Malley brought veterans of successful negotiations in Northern Ireland and South Africa to help facilitate the Kirkuk talks. They had also been part of the Helsinki meetings. The Kirkuk talks included 60 members of the national parliament, including Speaker Ayad al Samarrai, and members of the Kirkuk Provincial Council and the Kurdish Parliament. O’Malley said the Turkmen delegation threatened to boycott the conference because the Kurdistan parliament was invited. When that was resolved, the Kurdish Parliament delegates said they would boycott unless a draft agenda was amended. Halfway through the opening session, Arabs and Turkmens from the Kirkuk council walked out, and on the second day the Arab delegation from Kirkuk walked over a perceived insult, and only returned after three hours of side talks, O’Malley recounted. Later yesterday morning, the parties met in the office of Samarrai, shook hands, and signed the final agreement promising to continue the dialogue.

Syria suspected of concealing nuclear activity

A photo of the destroyed al-Kibar reactor in Syria. The IAEA says Syria has uranium as its other nuclear sites. (Photo courtesy of U.S. government) J.J. Green, wtop.com WASHINGTON - The International Atomic Energy Agency and Syria are walking a tightrope and appear to be headed toward a collision over two nuclear sites where undeclared uranium was recently found. The agency found traces of uranium at the Dair Alzour nuclear site that are not included in Syria's declared inventory, according to a just released report. The Syrians said the uranium came from the Israeli missiles used to destroy the nearby al-Kibar reactor in September 2007. The presence of uranium particles was detected at a second site near Damascus -- the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor. Syria said it came from the accumulation of samples and reference materials used in neutron activation analysis. The IAEA is not buying either of the two explanations and is pressing Damascus for more answers and wants to know from where the uranium came. The agency has run its own tests and is certain the Syrian government is not telling the truth. That's where the tightrope act comes in. The IAEA won't comment on what clearly appears to be evasive behavior by the Syrian government because of concern about its tenuous relationship with Syria. The Syrian government, also aware of the slippery state of affairs, tells WTOP: "We are taking up the matter with IAEA, and are in constant consultation with them. We are going through appropriate channels and Syria stands by its legal obligations to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)." A U.S. counter-proliferation official is not convinced. "Syria has a record of concealing nuclear activities. The whole world saw that with the al-Kibar reactor, an undeclared facility, destroyed in 2007." Considering Syria's close relationship with Iran, which has refused to bend to international will to stop its nuclear weapons production activities, there is concern Syria is following the same path. "I think it should be a significant worry," says David Kay, senior research fellow at the Potomac Institute. "This is what the Syria case points to. States can, on their own, clandestinely make arrangements to acquire at least portions of a nuclear weapons production cycle." The precarious, global nuclear state of affairs involving Iran, North Korea and Pakistan is troubling to Kay. "[Countries in] the Middle East procuring nuclear weapons would be at the top of my list of concerns. That's why dealing with the Iranian program is so important, and that's why paying continued attention to what's happening in Pakistan is important." Kay, a former United Nations weapons inspector, says the existence of an underground nuclear weapons network could initiate a irreversible and harmful course of nuclear proliferation. "Myanmar is a good example," Kay says. "On their own with their indigenous technical capacity to produce either plutonium or highly enriched uranium, it's not something that would keep me awake at night. They simply don't have it. But this illicit network, government sanctioned and black market certainly means that if they desire it, there may be a real possibility of their gaining it." The IAEA concluded in a Nov. 16 report that there has been "essentially no progress made" since the last report several months ago. The report goes on to say Syria's evasive behavior, "gives rise to questions about the correctness and completeness of Syria's declaration, which the agency is obliged to pursue." The Israeli government has said repeatedly it will not allow Syria's ally, Iran, to develop a nuclear weapons program and "all options are on the table to stop it." Israeli intelligence suggests Iran could possibly have some type of weapon in 12 months. And because of that, Israeli Ambassador Alon Pinkus says Israel won't wait until a weapon is fully developed to attack. "There are other stages before that are almost as dangerous," Pinkus says. His comments lead to speculation that an attack could take place any day between now and a year. "Not necessarily, because that depends on what happens in the political or diplomatic arena within that 12-month period," says Pinkus. Syria was attacked quietly by the Israelis in the early morning hours of Sept. 6, 2007 -- but the April 24, 2008 announcement of the attack and the lack of tolerance for rogue nuclear weapons' operations by U.S. government officials was heard loud and clear. Still the IAEA reports no cooperation from the Syrians on resolving the current issues. The U.S. counter proliferation official says, "they [the Syrian Government] have a credibility problem, which this latest news will in no way resolve." (Copyright 2009 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.) J.J. Green, wtop.com WASHINGTON - The International Atomic Energy Agency and Syria are walking a tightrope and appear to be headed toward a collision over two nuclear sites where undeclared uranium was recently found. The agency found traces of uranium at the Dair Alzour nuclear site that are not included in Syria's declared inventory, according to a just released report. The Syrians said the uranium came from the Israeli missiles used to destroy the nearby al-Kibar reactor in September 2007. The presence of uranium particles was detected at a second site near Damascus -- the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor. Syria said it came from the accumulation of samples and reference materials used in neutron activation analysis. The IAEA is not buying either of the two explanations and is pressing Damascus for more answers and wants to know from where the uranium came. The agency has run its own tests and is certain the Syrian government is not telling the truth. That's where the tightrope act comes in. The IAEA won't comment on what clearly appears to be evasive behavior by the Syrian government because of concern about its tenuous relationship with Syria. The Syrian government, also aware of the slippery state of affairs, tells WTOP: "We are taking up the matter with IAEA, and are in constant consultation with them. We are going through appropriate channels and Syria stands by its legal obligations to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)." A U.S. counter-proliferation official is not convinced. "Syria has a record of concealing nuclear activities. The whole world saw that with the al-Kibar reactor, an undeclared facility, destroyed in 2007." Considering Syria's close relationship with Iran, which has refused to bend to international will to stop its nuclear weapons production activities, there is concern Syria is following the same path. "I think it should be a significant worry," says David Kay, senior research fellow at the Potomac Institute. "This is what the Syria case points to. States can, on their own, clandestinely make arrangements to acquire at least portions of a nuclear weapons production cycle." The precarious, global nuclear state of affairs involving Iran, North Korea and Pakistan is troubling to Kay. "[Countries in] the Middle East procuring nuclear weapons would be at the top of my list of concerns. That's why dealing with the Iranian program is so important, and that's why paying continued attention to what's happening in Pakistan is important." Kay, a former United Nations weapons inspector, says the existence of an underground nuclear weapons network could initiate a irreversible and harmful course of nuclear proliferation. "Myanmar is a good example," Kay says. "On their own with their indigenous technical capacity to produce either plutonium or highly enriched uranium, it's not something that would keep me awake at night. They simply don't have it. But this illicit network, government sanctioned and black market certainly means that if they desire it, there may be a real possibility of their gaining it." The IAEA concluded in a Nov. 16 report that there has been "essentially no progress made" since the last report several months ago. The report goes on to say Syria's evasive behavior, "gives rise to questions about the correctness and completeness of Syria's declaration, which the agency is obliged to pursue." The Israeli government has said repeatedly it will not allow Syria's ally, Iran, to develop a nuclear weapons program and "all options are on the table to stop it." Israeli intelligence suggests Iran could possibly have some type of weapon in 12 months. And because of that, Israeli Ambassador Alon Pinkus says Israel won't wait until a weapon is fully developed to attack. "There are other stages before that are almost as dangerous," Pinkus says. His comments lead to speculation that an attack could take place any day between now and a year. "Not necessarily, because that depends on what happens in the political or diplomatic arena within that 12-month period," says Pinkus. Syria was attacked quietly by the Israelis in the early morning hours of Sept. 6, 2007 -- but the April 24, 2008 announcement of the attack and the lack of tolerance for rogue nuclear weapons' operations by U.S. government officials was heard loud and clear. Still the IAEA reports no cooperation from the Syrians on resolving the current issues. The U.S. counter proliferation official says, "they [the Syrian Government] have a credibility problem, which this latest news will in no way resolve."

French Company warns on Global Economic Collapse

Société Générale has advised clients to be ready for a possible "global economic collapse" over the next two years, mapping a strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction. By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Published: 6:12PM GMT 18 Nov 2009 Comments 52 | Comment on this article Explosion of debt: Japan's public debt could reach as much as 270pc of GDP in the next two years. A bullet train is pictured speeding past Mount Fuji in Fuji city, west of Tokyo Photo: Reuters In a report entitled "Worst-case debt scenario", the bank's asset team said state rescue packages over the last year have merely transferred private liabilities onto sagging sovereign shoulders, creating a fresh set of problems. Overall debt is still far too high in almost all rich economies as a share of GDP (350pc in the US), whether public or private. It must be reduced by the hard slog of "deleveraging", for years. Related Articles 'Debt levels risk another crisis' "As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse," said the 68-page report, headed by asset chief Daniel Fermon. It is an exploration of the dangers, not a forecast. Under the French bank's "Bear Case" scenario (the gloomiest of three possible outcomes), the dollar would slide further and global equities would retest the March lows. Property prices would tumble again. Oil would fall back to $50 in 2010. Governments have already shot their fiscal bolts. Even without fresh spending, public debt would explode within two years to 105pc of GDP in the UK, 125pc in the US and the eurozone, and 270pc in Japan. Worldwide state debt would reach $45 trillion, up two-and-a-half times in a decade. (UK figures look low because debt started from a low base. Mr Ferman said the UK would converge with Europe at 130pc of GDP by 2015 under the bear case). The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. "High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt," it said. Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils. If so, gold would go "up, and up, and up" as the only safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s. The bank said the current crisis displays "compelling similarities" with Japan during its Lost Decade (or two), with a big difference: Japan was able to stay afloat by exporting into a robust global economy and by letting the yen fall. It is not possible for half the world to pursue this strategy at the same time. SocGen advises bears to sell the dollar and to "short" cyclical equities such as technology, auto, and travel to avoid being caught in the "inherent deflationary spiral". Emerging markets would not be spared. Paradoxically, they are more leveraged to the US growth than Wall Street itself. Farm commodities would hold up well, led by sugar. Mr Fermon said junk bonds would lose 31pc of their value in 2010 alone. However, sovereign bonds would "generate turbo-charged returns" mimicking the secular slide in yields seen in Japan as the slump ground on. At one point Japan's 10-year yield dropped to 0.40pc. The Fed would hold down yields by purchasing more bonds. The European Central Bank would do less, for political reasons. SocGen's case for buying sovereign bonds is controversial. A number of funds doubt whether the Japan scenario will be repeated, not least because Tokyo itself may be on the cusp of a debt compound crisis. Mr Fermon said his report had electrified clients on both sides of the Atlantic. "Everybody wants to know what the impact will be. A lot of hedge funds and bankers are worried," he said.

Stimulus Fraud

International Business The Economy: We knew something was funny when the White House claimed that 640,000 to 1 million jobs had been created from this year's stimulus. What we didn't know was that it would turn into a massive fraud. Not only have 640,000 new jobs not been created from the stimulus — an absurd claim, given the economy's loss of nearly 4 million payroll positions this year — but it now seems that even the jobs themselves are fictional. Thanks to the digging of a number of data sleuths, it turns out that many of the jobs reported by states come from made-up congressional districts. This would be funny if it weren't a criminal waste of public funds. And yet, G. Edward DeSeve, who runs the government's economic recovery program, says the errors are "relatively few" and "don't change the fundamental conclusions one can draw from the data." Excuse us? The "relatively few" errors are in fact thousands in number. But that's the pernicious place we find ourselves today — a public official defending shoddy accounting that looks an awful lot like fraud to the tune of billions of dollars. One example: the 15th Congressional District of Arizona, where 30 jobs were salvaged with $761,420 in spending, according to Recovery.gov, the official government Web site. As ABC News reports: "There is no 15th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight districts." States as diverse as Kansas, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Minnesota and West Virginia also reported phony jobs. Stimulus jobs were also reported in 35 congressional districts in Washington, D.C., and four U.S. territories. The problem: None of those jurisdictions even has congressional districts. All told, according to the useful Web site Watchdog.org, some $6.4 billion was spent to "create or save" 30,000 jobs in phantom districts. That comes out to about $225,000 per nonexistent job. And that's only what's been found so far. The Washington Examiner's bogus-job count is even higher — at 75,343, a figure likely to climb as more are discovered. Some cases were egregious. California's state university system took in $268.5 million in stimulus funds, claiming it "saved" 26,000 jobs. It has since admitted that few, if any, jobs were really at risk. The government's response to all this? "Human beings make mistakes," shrugged Recovery Board spokesman Ed Pound on Monday. But by Tuesday, as the furor grew, the board's DeSeve was vowing to go through reports with a "fine-tooth comb." But this should have been done all along. The official Web site vows that stimulus spending will "be subject to unprecedented transparency and accountability," and that inspectors general of 28 federal agencies will "continually review" their spending. To our knowledge, however, none of the errors was found by an inspector general. All were discovered by private individuals curious about what their tax dollars were being spent on. Imagine for a moment a CEO standing before the public and claiming similar bookkeeping errors. He'd be arrested for fraud, frog-marched from his office, tried, convicted and left to rot in jail. We said from the start that the stimulus and TARP programs would be an invitation to fraud, waste and abuse. Sadly, this has proved true. Yet no one is likely to suffer so much as a reprimand. As the White House talks about another stimulus, Americans need to know that the promises of transparency and openness in the first program haven't been kept. And that billions of their tax dollars are being wasted.

The worst is yet to come: Unemployed Americans should hunker down for more job losses

BY Nouriel Roubini Sunday, November 15th 2009, 4:00 AM Think the worst is over? Wrong. Conditions in the U.S. labor markets are awful and worsening. While the official unemployment rate is already 10.2% and another 200,000 jobs were lost in October, when you include discouraged workers and partially employed workers the figure is a whopping 17.5%. While losing 200,000 jobs per month is better than the 700,000 jobs lost in January, current job losses still average more than the per month rate of 150,000 during the last recession. Also, remember: The last recession ended in November 2001, but job losses continued for more than a year and half until June of 2003; ditto for the 1990-91 recession. So we can expect that job losses will continue until the end of 2010 at the earliest. In other words, if you are unemployed and looking for work and just waiting for the economy to turn the corner, you had better hunker down. All the economic numbers suggest this will take a while. The jobs just are not coming back. There's really just one hope for our leaders to turn things around: a bold prescription that increases the fiscal stimulus with another round of labor-intensive, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, helps fiscally strapped state and local governments and provides a temporary tax credit to the private sector to hire more workers. Helping the unemployed just by extending unemployment benefits is necessary not sufficient; it leads to persistent unemployment rather than job creation. The long-term picture for workers and families is even worse than current job loss numbers alone would suggest. Now as a way of sharing the pain, many firms are telling their workers to cut hours, take furloughs and accept lower wages. Specifically, that fall in hours worked is equivalent to another 3 million full time jobs lost on top of the 7.5 million jobs formally lost. This is very bad news but we must face facts. Many of the lost jobs are gone forever, including construction jobs, finance jobs and manufacturing jobs. Recent studies suggest that a quarter of U.S. jobs are fully out-sourceable over time to other countries. Other measures tell the same ugly story: The average length of unemployment is at an all time high; the ratio of job applicants to vacancies is 6 to 1; initial claims are down but continued claims are very high and now millions of unemployed are resorting to the exceptional extended unemployment benefits programs and are staying in them longer. Based on my best judgment, it is most likely that the unemployment rate will peak close to 11% and will remain at a very high level for two years or more. The weakness in labor markets and the sharp fall in labor income ensure a weak recovery of private consumption and an anemic recovery of the economy, and increases the risk of a double dip recession. As a result of these terribly weak labor markets, we can expect weak recovery of consumption and economic growth; larger budget deficits; greater delinquencies in residential and commercial real estate and greater fall in home and commercial real estate prices; greater losses for banks and financial institutions on residential and commercial real estate mortgages, and in credit cards, auto loans and student loans and thus a greater rate of failures of banks; and greater protectionist pressures. The damage will be extensive and severe unless bold policy action is undertaken now. Roubini is professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business at New York University and Chairman of Roubini Global Economics.

France welcomes Iraqi leader for first state visit

PARIS (AFP) - France moved to raise both its profile and its profits in Iraq on Monday, welcoming President Jalal Talabani to Paris with a series of trade and aid deals ready for signing. Talabani will be treated to full ceremonial honours when he arrives at the Elysee palace later Monday for his first full state visit, talks with President Nicolas Sarkozy and a dinner in his honour. Iraq's red, white and black flag with its "Allahu Akbar" (God is Greater) inscription flew on the Champs Elysees, celebrating the improving ties between Paris and Baghdad. The pomp and circumstance for Talabani in Paris came after Sarkozy paid a brief visit to Baghdad in February, confirming an upswing in ties between Iraq and France, the country that led international opposition to the US-led invasion in 2003. "This state visit -- which is the first by an Iraqi leader -- is key," said Boris Boillon, France's new 39-year-old Arabic-speaking ambassador to Baghdad. "This is a country that is rebuilding. Some 600 billion dollars will be spent on reconstruction," said Boillon, who took up his post two months ago. "It has the world's third largest oil reserves, with production set to increase from two million barrels a day to eight or 10 million in the coming years. "There is a huge challenge from reconstruction of the entire country. France wants to be on the forefront," he told RTL radio. Two economic accords will be signed during the visit to allow the French state development agency AFD to open up offices in Iraq and to roll out poverty-fighting programmes. Another agreement will open the door to the Coface export-credit agency to underwrite risks for French companies clinching contracts in Iraq. France will also offer expertise to help the Iraqi national museum in Baghdad recover its collection, which was damaged and partially looted after the 2003 invasion. A separate agreement will touch on developing agriculture in Iraq. It is the first time that an Iraqi leader has been welcomed for a state visit to France. Saddam Hussein was never given the honour despite his strong ties with Paris. Accompanied by his wife Hero Ibrahim Ahmad, the 75-year-old Iraqi president will lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris on Tuesday and be feted by Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, a prominent member of the Socialist opposition. After meeting with lawmakers from both houses of parliament, Talabani will be the guest of honour at a dinner hosted by Prime Minister Francois Fillon, who led a business delegation to Iraq in July. On Wednesday, the Iraqi leader will meet with France's Medef business lobby and hold talks with leading executives. Under former president Jacques Chirac, France opposed the decision by the United States to invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam and relations have at times been tense with the new leadership in Baghdad. But since Sarkozy took power in 2007 there have been several exchanges of visits between the two capitals as France attempted to return to its status of Iraq's main business partner. "On the Iraqi side, a page has been turned, they have a good image of French businesses," said Denis Bauchard, a Middle East expert at the French Institute for International Relations. "The Americans are doing all they can to get a return on their investment, they are insistent, but the Iraqis want to avoid a situation in which they have only one overbearing partner." Baghdad has already ordered 25 French-built military helicopters and the French oil giant Total hopes to sign major new contracts to explore and drill Iraq's currently underdeveloped oil wealth. Boillon said French companies seeking a bigger stake in Iraq would find security has significantly improved, About 10 people die each day from bombings and attacks, down from 60 to 100 deaths a day between 2004 and 2008, said the envoy.

Another Afghan war: Media leaks spark administration fight

| McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's internal debate over Afghan policy has escalated into a battle of media leaks that's straining relations between officials who're seeking a major troop increase and those who want a more limited approach and a greater focus on domestic priorities. The feud also has poisoned ties between the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan and the U.S. ambassador in Kabul, and left the administration struggling for leverage to press Afghan President Hamid Karzai to appoint untainted officials to his new government, attack corruption and share power with the parliament and provincial officials. The battle in the media prompted normally mild-mannered Defense Secretary Robert Gates to lash out at leakers Thursday, telling reporters on a flight to Oshkosh, Wis., that the disclosures do "not serve the country or . . . the military," and "everyone should just shut up." It may be too late for that. A U.S. defense official said the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, feels he was "stabbed in the back" by Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. Three months ago, Eikenberry supported McChrystal's request for more troops, but last week he sent a classified cable opposing it until Karzai shows that he can be trusted. The official, like others who were interviewed for this article, requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. However, according to a half-dozen U.S. military and administration officials, published reports that Obama was settling on a major troop increase, which began with a McClatchy story last Saturday, have deprived Eikenberry and other officials of the ability to tell Karzai that no more American troops will be forthcoming if he doesn't agree to implement reforms. Eikenberry wrote the cable last Friday after a meeting in which he pressed Karzai to send his brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the political power in southern Kandahar province who allegedly has links to the drug trade, anywhere outside the country, and to embrace a program of overhauls, known as the "Afghanistan Compact," that was drafted by U.S. and Afghan officials, three U.S. officials said. Karzai rejected the demands, the officials said. The Afghan leader is also under U.S. pressure to select senior officials for his new government from a U.S. list of 40 individuals whom the Obama administration considers competent and clean, said a diplomat in Kabul who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "There is tremendous pressure on Karzai that is piling up," the diplomat said. "They (U.S. officials) basically said there should be no place for warlords or cronies." Among those thought to be on the list is Sarwar Ahmedzai, one of the candidates who challenged Karzai in the fraud-marred August presidential election. Ahmedzai told McClatchy that Karzai's advisers met with him on Thursday and offered him a cabinet post, but that he turned down the offer. "I don't think this man is going to last five years," said Ahmedzai, who voiced concerns that Karzai would be pushed out by the U.S. if he failed to address international concerns over endemic corruption. "It's not easy to eradicate corruption in five or six years," he said. "Corruption has taken over every single institution, including the private entities." The increasingly acrimonious policy dispute may force President Barack Obama to delay unveiling his new Afghan policy until after Thanksgiving as the White House, the Pentagon and U.S. commanders in Afghanistan strive to resolve their differences. Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department intelligence analyst now with the Middle East Institute, said the leaks about Eikenberry's cable have left Obama with no choice but to delay the unveiling of his new Afghan policy. "He can't dismiss it (the cable)," Weinbaum said. "It complicates things enormously. It really sets things back." In the end, however, some U.S. officials think that Obama will still embrace a plan that calls for sending just over 30,000 additional U.S. troops because no more than that are available now, and because sending fewer troops would telegraph a lack of resolve to Taliban-led insurgents, their funders across the Muslim world, ordinary Afghans, Pakistan and U.S. allies. Still, U.S. commanders and senior defense officials said the prospect of a delay could mean putting off preparations for housing and supplying the additional forces, most of whom likely would be sent to Taliban strongholds in southern Afghanistan. Moreover, these commanders and officials worry that the public brawl and media leaks that Obama is seeking "off ramps" — options to curtail the U.S.-led military mission if Karzai doesn't comply with demands for changes — will encourage insurgents to intensify attacks on U.S. and allied soldiers in a bid to weaken flagging public support for the war in the U.S. and Europe. Finally, the officials said, extending the deliberations would stoke frustrations among European allies and also open Obama to more charges from Republicans that he's jeopardizing the lives of U.S. forces as the Taliban continue to gain strength. The policy battle has been simmering since administration officials led by Vice President Joe Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel began leaking to journalists this summer their opposition to McChrystal's call for a major troop increase to support intensified efforts to expand Afghan security forces and civilian aid programs. McChrystal and his allies fired back by criticizing the more limited counterterrorism approach favored by Biden. Advocates of this approach argue that the administration should be concentrating its time and political capital in tackling domestic issues such as health care and unemployment. They worry that Afghanistan is a quagmire, and think that the U.S. should limit the size of its force there and instead use Special Forces and missile-firing drone aircraft to kill al Qaida leaders. The policy feud erupted anew in public after McClatchy on Saturday reported that Obama was leaning toward sending more than 30,000 additional U.S. soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan. The New York Times, CBS News, Fox News and the Reuters and Associated Press wire services, among others, subsequently produced their own versions of the story. These leaks angered some White House aides and other officials, who suspected that senior military officials were trying to force Obama to agree to McChrystal's troop increase. In what the officials said was an effort to derail McChrystal's plan and regain some leverage over Karzai, administration officials then leaked that Obama was still considering four force-level options. Next, they leaked that the president had rejected all four options, then that he'd asked for refinements of the options and finally, in an orchestrated disclosure on Wednesday, that Eikenberry, a former Army general who served in Afghanistan, had opposed a troop increase in his classified cable. Obama, who departed Thursday for a weeklong tour of Asian countries, won't announce his decision until he returns from the trip, which ends on Nov. 19, and holds another strategy session with his top aides, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters traveling with the president. Gibbs said that U.S. and Afghan officials are discussing setting benchmarks to measure progress against the insurgency after the new strategy is announced. "Some benchmarks have been discussed," Gibbs said. "But . . . the president believes that we have been there for eight years. And we're not going to be there forever. . . . It's important to fully examine not just how we're going to get folks in but how we're going to get folks out."

The Cost of Obama's Indecision on Afghanistan

Weekly Standard Fred and Kim Kagan write on the homepage: General Stanley McChrystal's assessment and force-requirement studies were largely complete by the beginning of August. The White House has stated that the president will not be announcing a decision until the end of November at the earliest. White House officials claim that the delay does not affect the movement of U.S. forces or our prospects for military success next year. These claims are inaccurate. The delay in White House decision-making is protracting and complicating the campaign in Afghanistan and has reduced General McChrystal's ability to prepare for and conduct decisive operations next year. When McChrystal took command of the Afghan war in June, the White House made it clear that he was expected to make dramatic progress within a year--by the summer of 2010. McChrystal worked quickly both to understand the situation and to develop an appropriate course of action that would meet the goals of the White House strategy. His concept of operations aimed to reverse the enemy's momentum and address important problems in Afghan governance. At the same time, he oversaw the establishment of a new three-star headquarters, the deployment of the last of the additional forces his predecessor had requested for election security, the securing of the elections themselves, and major operations in Helmand and elsewhere. He also made the painful decision to pull U.S. forces back from isolated outposts that required too much manpower and were in danger of being overrun. He sought to create conditions for decisive operations in time to meet the expectations of the White House. He was supported in that effort by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen and by CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus. The White House has not done its part to allow General McChrystal to meet its own deadline. It was slow to receive and act on the assessment he sent, and it deliberately refused even to review his force recommendations for weeks after they were complete. In the intervening months the White House has held a series of seminars on Afghanistan and the region that should have been conducted before the new strategy was announced in March. If the White House had immediately received and acted on General McChrystal's recommendations--which were specifically tailored to meet the objectives described in the president's March 27 speech--the following critical initiatives could already be underway: * Expanding the Afghan National Security Forces as rapidly as possible toward the goal of 400,000 total, a figure agreed-upon by the Afghan Ministers of Defense and Interior and by the U.S. military's own reviews; * Preparing infrastructure within Afghanistan and the region to accommodate a large and rapid surge of U.S. forces; * Sending more forces immediately to support ongoing operations in Helmand; * Issuing orders to deploy all of the forces McChrystal requested as rapidly as possible. The White House could have begun all of those initiatives and still conducted a thoughtful review over the ensuing weeks.

Iraqi Arabs and Kurds Pursue a Common Ground

Military Commanders Are Finding Ways Cooperate to Help Counter Threat of Violence, as They Rethink Roles as Soldiers By GINA CHON The Wall Street Journal KIRKUK, Iraq -- Arab and Kurdish military commanders here are making efforts at cooperation despite their bitter political differences -- a surprising development that offers some hope that one of Iraq's most difficult ethnic divides may be narrowing. U.S. Army Lt. Col. Terry Cook, left, discusses security issues with peshmerga commander Brig. Gen. Sherko Fatah Namik at his headquarters in Kirkuk. Above hangs a portrait of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd. Kurdish and Arab politicians in Iraq have clashed over contested land, petroleum legislation and a draft constitution that the Kurdish semiautonomous enclave is pushing. Most recently, the two sides squabbled for weeks in Parliament over an election law governing next year's parliamentary polls. Lawmakers finally passed the legislation on Sunday. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has said Arab-Kurd tensions are the country's biggest security threat. But over the past six months, in parts of Iraq's north, American commanders have brokered a quiet, if uneasy, détente between the two sides' military forces. Officers from Iraq's mostly Arab national army have started working with counterparts from the Kurdish regional government's armed militia, the peshmerga. American military officers in Kirkuk have persuaded Arab and Kurdish commanders to cooperate partly by emphasizing what it means to be a professional soldier, which is not being involved in politics. They tell them that the problems between Kurdish and Arab politicians in Baghdad, and between the Kurdish regional and Iraqi governments, need to be solved by the politicians -- that their job as soldiers is to take care of security. When the Iraqi army's 12th Division, led by a former commander under Saddam Hussein, showed up in Kirkuk last year, Kurdish peshmerga commander Brig. Gen. Sherko Fatah Namik was ready for a fight. "If the Iraqi army comes here, I will kill them all," Gen. Namik told his American counterparts then. These days, at twice-monthly meetings on a U.S. outpost, Gen. Namik's men, Iraqi army officers and U.S. officials coordinate security and talk out problems, participants from both sides say. Gen. Namik isn't immune to the political debate. He often tells American commanders there needs to be a referendum on the status of Kirkuk, which he says will prove the city belongs to the Kurdish region. How voting will be held in Kirkuk, which is claimed by Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen, had been the key hurdle holding up the election law. Kurdish lawmaker Abdul-Bari Zebari, left, greets his Turkmen counterpart, Abbas Hasan al-Bayati, in Baghdad on Thursday. Still, Gen. Namik and Maj. Gen. Abdul Ameer of the Iraqi army -- the former commander under the Hussein regime -- have hammered out a joint-patrol plan for Kirkuk province, in which the U.S. military may play referee, though many Arab and Turkmen tribal and local government leaders oppose the plan. Such patrols for disputed Arab-Kurd areas were floated earlier this year by Gen. Odierno. Cooperation between the two militaries is incremental but it has eased friction among security-service officials on both sides. There has been a surge in big bombing attacks across the region this year, even as overall violence in much of the rest of Iraq has eased. The peshmerga's contribution in northern Kirkuk province leaves Gen. Ameer free to focus on tamping down violence in the province's south. Gen. Ameer initially opposed the peshmerga's presence in Kirkuk, saying they belonged in the Kurdish region, until he began meeting with Kurdish commanders, with the help of the U.S. military. U.S. commanders also have proposed joint patrols in Gaware, an ethnically mixed rural area in Iraq's northern Ninewa province. Currently, peshmerga and Iraqi security forces staff their own checkpoints along a key route there, operated separately on opposite sides of the road. They don't coordinate their patrols, leaving big swaths of territory unguarded, U.S. commanders say. The cooperation hasn't been easy, requiring U.S. troops to play arbitrator, grievance counselor and devil's advocate. Recently, American officers worked to rein in the Kurdish intelligence agency, known as the Asayeesh. U.S. commanders told the Kurds the agency can't conduct offensive operations. That's the job of the Iraqi army or police, they argued. Both sides say the new relationship would have been impossible without a strong push from the Americans. That has raised worry about whether it will endure once U.S. forces start to draw down as planned next year. Gen. Namik joined the peshmerga in 1985, at age 16, to fight Mr. Hussein's oppressive regime. A year later, the central government launched a campaign of oppression in the north, killing at least 150,000 Kurds and displacing hundreds of thousands. After Baghdad's military defeat in the Gulf War, the Kurdish region was given semiautonomy in 1991. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Gen. Namik joined American forces as they entered Kirkuk that April. He has been based in the province since. In 2008, Baghdad sent in the Iraqi 12th Army division, headed by Gen. Ameer. After several near-clashes, the U.S. military convinced peshmerga and Iraqi army commanders to sit down together at a lunch in March. The Iraqi army and local police, which are ethnically mixed but led by a Kurd, started to coordinate raids against insurgents in May. In June, representatives from the Kurdish and Iraqi security forces began working together at a U.S. base in Kirkuk, exchanging intelligence and coordinating security efforts. "Gen. Ameer and I are friends," Gen. Namik says. "I've told him the Kirkuk issue is bigger than us and can't be solved by us. We're soldiers and we have to take care of security for all Iraqis." Gen. Ameer said communication has been key to understanding each other because their efforts are now coordinated. Iraqi Ministry of Defense spokesman Mohammed al-Askari says the government supports cooperation between the Iraqi army and the peshmerga. Joint patrols involving the Iraqi army, peshmerga and U.S. forces in disputed areas of northern Iraq may start before the end of this year.

Iraq Passes Crucial Election Law

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS and SA’AD IZZI BAGHDAD — After weeks of political stalemate, Iraq approved a law on Sunday to administer a critical national election in January, a significant milestone for its fragile democracy and a step that will allow the rapid withdrawal of American combat forces early next year. The election, only the second national vote since the fall of Saddam Hussein, will be a crucial step toward popular sovereignty and stability in Iraq. But the election law had been stymied by a political battle over the northern province of Kirkuk, claimed by Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens, each of whom hoped electoral power would give them control of the region’s oil wealth. The compromise reached Sunday, which satisfied all three groups, was hailed by Iraqi and American leaders as a triumph for Iraq’s emerging democracy and a demonstration of Parliament’s ability to resolve sticky sectarian disputes for the national benefit. “Accomplishing this law is not a victory for anyone in particular, but a victory for the entire Iraqi people,” said Faryad Raundozi, a member of Parliament’s Kurdish Alliance. The United States had said that a delay of the election could set back the scheduled withdrawal of American combat troops. On Sunday, President Obama called the Parliament’s action “a significant breakthrough” that would ease fears about an American military withdrawal. “This agreement advances the political progress that can bring lasting peace and unity to Iraq, and allow for the orderly and responsible transition of American combat troops out of Iraq by next September,” Mr. Obama said at the White House. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq said in a statement that the passage of the law had been a “historic victory of the will of the people” and a “strong response” to those seeking to undermine Iraq’s democracy. American military commanders have said they intend to begin a rapid withdrawal of the 120,000 American troops still in Iraq after the election. The United States has pledged to withdraw all combat forces from Iraq by the end of next August, leaving about 50,000 troops in an advisory and support role. All American troops are scheduled to leave the country by the end of 2011. After the vote, the American ambassador to Iraq, Christopher R. Hill, said the withdrawal would proceed as planned. “What is important is that with the election law, we are very much on schedule for the drawdown,” he said. American and Iraqi officials hope the election will cement democracy here at a time when many people have grown discontented with their leadership and fed up with continued violence, corruption and high unemployment. The previous parliamentary vote, in 2005, was boycotted by many Sunni Arabs, an act that allowed the insurgency to fester and fueled subsequent sectarian bloodshed. This time, each of the major political parties and Iraqi’s major religious and ethnic groups have all said they will participate. Khalid Ataya, the deputy speaker of Parliament, told members of the legislature that they were taking a momentous step in the country’s young democratic history. “The Parliament has done something important for the people of Iraq,” he said. “This is a big blow to terrorists.” As an indication of the election’s importance to the United States, Mr. Hill was seen shuttling back and forth between the offices of various political parties all day Sunday in an effort to pressure them to reach a deal. “Go upstairs and vote!” he shouted at a pair of slow-moving lawmakers as they climbed a set of stairs to the chamber before the session. The election had been scheduled for Jan. 16, but as the parliamentary session ended late Sunday, officials said it appeared that it would be delayed by a few days to give election officials time to print ballots and to make other preparations. For weeks, the legislature had wrestled with how to determine voter eligibility in Kirkuk, which sits on billions of barrels of oil. The issue threatened to undermine the election, and Parliament’s inability to resolve it had become a symbol of Iraq’s political dysfunction. Tens of thousands of Kurds were forced out of Kirkuk by Saddam Hussein, who replaced them with Arabs in order to tighten his grip on the region’s oil. Since the United States-led invasion that ousted Mr. Hussein in 2003, thousands of Kurds have moved back. Arabs and Turkmens in Kirkuk had favored using voter registration lists from 2004 or 2005, while Kurds wanted to use voter rolls from 2009 that reflected their substantially higher numbers. The agreement reached Sunday, brokered by the United States and the United Nations, will use voter lists from 2009, but if the number of eligible voters in a particular area is deemed by members of Parliament to be suspiciously high, a committee overseen by the United Nations will be formed to determine whether fraud has occurred, according to a draft of the law. The compromise satisfied each of the groups competing for dominance in Kirkuk. “We have passed a stage, a crisis, and no one is a loser,” said Abbas al-Bayti, a Turkmen legislator. Osama al-Najafi, an Arab legislator, said: “There will be no injustice for the people of Kirkuk. This is a great victory for their historical rights.” The election will also allow voters to choose individual candidates as part of an “open list,” as opposed to the closed-list ballot in which voters pick political parties, who in turn choose people to occupy seats in Parliament. The 2005 election used a closed list, which helped protect candidates from assassination, but it strengthened organized parties rather than individual candidates and was unpopular with voters. The new law, which also reserves a quarter of the next Parliament’s seats for women, must be approved by President Jalal Talabani and his two vice presidents, which is expected to happen in a few days. Under the Constitution, the election must take place before the end of January, but an important Shiite religious observance comes during the last week of that month. Hamdia al-Hussaini, a member of the Independent High Electoral Commission, the Iraqi government agency that oversees elections, said Sunday that the vote would have to be delayed at least several days past the scheduled date of Jan. 16. “It can’t be held on the 16th because Parliament was late in passing the law,” she said. On Sunday, some Sunni Arab members of Parliament said they were unhappy about interference with the legislation by the United States, particularly the American insistence that elections not be delayed. “Unfortunately, the Americans are insisting on certain dates more than they are insisting on the objectivity of their decisions,” said Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni member of Parliament. Parliament has the final decision about when to hold the election.

What recovery? Unemployment shoots past 10 percent

Joblessness at 10 percent for 2nd time since WWII; millions of unemployed feel no recovery By Jeannine Aversa and Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writers On 6:39 pm EST, Friday November 6, 2009 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Just when it was beginning to look a little better, the economy relapsed Friday with a return to double-digit unemployment for only the second time since World War II and warnings that next year will be even worse than previously thought. The jobless rate rocketed to 10.2 percent in October, the highest since early 1983, dealing a psychological blow to Americans as they prepare holiday shopping lists. It was another worse-than-expected report casting a shadow over the struggling recovery. President Barack Obama called it "a sobering number that underscores the economic challenges that lie ahead." He signed a measure to extend unemployment benefits and to expand a tax credit for homebuyers. Economists had not expected the 10 percent mark to come so quickly and immediately darkened their forecasts. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, and Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR Inc., predicted the rate will peak at 11 percent by mid-2010. They earlier had projected 10.5 percent. Unemployment at 11 percent would be a post-World War II record. Only once since then has joblessness hit double digits in the United States -- from September 1982 to July 1983, topping out at 10.8 percent. "It's not a good report," said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for New York-based investment firm Miller Tabak & Co. "What we're seeing is a validation of the idea that a jobless recovery is perfectly on track." The Labor Department, using a survey of company payrolls, said the economy shed 190,000 jobs in October. A separate survey of households found 558,000 more people were unemployed last month than in September. Some 15.7 million Americans are out of work. The survey of companies doesn't count the self-employed and undercounts employees of small businesses. So the economic picture could be even more dire. One struggling small business, homebuilder Miller and Smith Inc. of McLean, Va., has trimmed its work force to about 100 from 350 at the height of the housing market in 2005. The company has been hurt by a slowdown in building and surging health care costs. Troubles for small businesses could have a disproportionate effect on the economy, because they account for about 60 percent of the nation's jobs. They tend to rely on credit cards and home equity lines -- both of which banks have tightened -- for cash flow. And the unemployment rate doesn't include people without jobs who have stopped looking, or those who have settled for part-time jobs. Counting those people, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest since at least 1994. Economists had expected unemployment to rise to no more than 9.9 percent, up just a tick from September's 9.8 percent, and the surprising jump added to fears that the recovery could fizzle if Americans don't spend. Already, consumer confidence for October came in well below what analysts were expecting. Shoppers' sentiments about the state of the economy are the gloomiest in nearly three decades. Stores, always with an eye on holiday sales, are especially worried this year. "This is a situation where the recovery balloon is getting off the ground but might not have enough power to keep rising," said Brian Bethune, economist at IHS Global Insight. Sitting at a St. Louis unemployment center, Paul Branyon, who was laid off in July from a Williams-Sonoma factory in Tennessee and now lives with relatives, shook his head and laughed at the notion that the recession is over. "It's getting actually harder right now," the 26-year-old said. "It seems like everywhere you go, people are losing jobs. People are cutting back. So it's going to get harder before it gets easier." The economy actually grew from July to September for the first time in a year, but that's no consolation for people like Jose Betancourt, 57, who goes to a Miami-area career center twice a week to take computer education classes. Betancourt has been out of work since July, when he was laid off from his supermarket maintenance job. He lives on about $600 a month in unemployment benefits, barely enough for the rent for his efficiency apartment, food and utilities. He has trouble believing the recession is over. In his neighborhood, he sees other jobless people and empty stores. "It's as if they just gave the economy a nice coat of varnish to make everyone feel better," he said. "I'm in a state of anxiety, and I see it all around Miami." The worst recession since the 1930s may be over, but the recovery isn't expected to be strong enough to stem job losses and get businesses hiring again. And the unemployed are staying out of work longer. The count of people jobless for six months or longer stands at a record 5.6 million. As for employers, few are confident enough in the recovery to hire. Art McKeen, plant manager of the Baldor Electric Co. factory in suburban St. Louis, says the plant has no plans add workers any time soon. Baldor cut back production last year and put workers on part-time hours rather than lay them off. Orders have picked up again, but not enough to justify hiring. "We don't have the need for them right now," McKeen said. Prospects that the government might pass a second stimulus bill appear dim. Congress is already grappling with sweeping health care legislation, raising concerns about further swelling the federal deficit. "More debt, more spending ... clearly has not worked -- particularly in a time of double-digit unemployment," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Democrats said the economy would have been in worse shape without the first stimulus. October was the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has lost jobs, the longest on record dating back 70 years. Losses at factories, construction companies, retailers and financial services companies far outweighed gains in education and health care, professional and business services and elsewhere. Government payrolls were flat. One faint sign of hope: Temporary employment grew by 33,700 jobs, its third straight month of gains after steep losses earlier this year. Employers are likely to add temporary workers before hiring permanent ones. Chris Rupkey, an economist at the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, called the big jump in the jobless rate "a kick in the stomach" and predicted a slog ahead. It could take at least four years for the jobless rate to drop to more normal levels of 5 or 6 percent. "The last two recoveries from recession in the '90s and 2001 were jobless, and this one is clearly headed down the same road," he said. Associated Press Writers Jim Kuhnhenn and Anne Flaherty in Washington, Emily Fredrix in Milwaukee, Christopher Leonard in St. Louis, Adrian Sainz in Miami, Andrew Vanacore in New York and Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.

Exxon Group Wins Iraq Oil Contract

Deal Would Pay Set Fee for Developing Giant Field With Royal Dutch Shell By GINA CHON BAGHDAD—The Iraqi Oil Ministry on Thursday said it has awarded a consortium led by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC the right to develop the West Qurna-1 oil field, representing the first American-led team gaining access to the country's oil patch. The pact is the latest in a series of deals Iraq has recently signed or initialed with some of the world's biggest oil companies. Earlier this week, Iraqi officials completed a final agreement with BP PLC and China National Petroleum Corp. and an initial agreement with a consortium led by Italy's Eni SpA. U.S. oil company Occidental Petroleum Corp. participated as a junior partner in the Eni-led team. An employee works at the Tawke oil field near the town of Zacho in Iraq. The Exxon-Shell team, combining two of the world's biggest publicly listed oil companies, had been seen as the favorite to win the contract, which calls for the consortium to boost production at the already-pumping field in southern Iraq in exchange for a per-barrel fee. Among the three competitors, it offered the highest production target for the field, the Oil Ministry said. An initial pact is expected to be signed on Thursday. The deal will then go to the Iraqi cabinet for approval before a final agreement can be signed, Oil Ministry spokesman Assem Jihad said. "We have agreed with the Ministry of Oil on the principles of the rehabilitation and development of the West Qurna field and look forward to completing the contract," said Exxon spokesman Patrick McGinn. The Exxon-Shell team beat out bids by a consortium made of Russia's OAO Lukoil and ConocoPhillips, and another one led by CNPC. After rejecting the Oil Ministry's payment terms as too stingy during a June auction, the three competitors for West Qurna later accepted the ministry's original $1.90-per-barrel payment for additional oil extracted above current production levels. Originally, Exxon asked for $4 a barrel, while the Lukoil consortium proposed $6.49 a barrel. The CNPC team proposed $2.60 a barrel. West Qurna-1 is believed to have about 8.7 billion barrels in oil reserves. The BP-CNPC group was the only consortium that didn't walk away from the summer bidding round, agreeing to cut its own proposed fees drastically to secure an early deal for Iraq's super-giant Rumaila field. Since the summer auction, the Oil Ministry continued talks with several companies regarding their bids. On Monday, Eni, along with partners Occidental and Korea Gas Corp., of South Korea, signed an initial agreement to develop the Zubair field in southern Iraq. Iraqi officials hope the contracts for the Rumaila, West Qurna-1 and Zubair fields will help bring Iraq's oil production to seven million barrels a day in six years, compared with the current production level of about 2.5 million barrels a day. Iraqi officials have struggled for years to lift production. Baghdad, even with foreign help, still faces major hurdles once work begins. Security across the country is still poor, though overall violence has fallen since the worst of Iraq's sectarian violence, following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Another possible hurdle is the health of the oil fields themselves. Iraqi oil officials have complained for years that Saddam Hussein pushed them to produce too much oil too quickly, without needed investment. Oil analysts have worried that may have damaged reservoirs irreparably. Iraq will hold a second bidding round in December for 10 unexplored oil and gas fields. Exxon Mobil, Lukoil, CNPC and other oil giants are among the more than 40 companies that are eligible to participate in that auction.

In Kabul, a collective sigh of relief

With Karzai declared winner, many hope political tension is over By Pamela Constable and Joshua Partlow Tuesday, November 3, 2009 Washington Post KABUL -- Election officials declared Afghan President Hamid Karzai the winner of a new five-year term Monday, canceling Saturday's runoff election just one day after Karzai's sole challenger quit the race. The decision ended weeks of political drift since a first presidential poll in August was found invalid because of massive fraud. In the capital, a sense of relief was instant and palpable. Kabul residents honked horns and exchanged celebratory text messages as the news spread. American, European and U.N. officials rushed to congratulate Karzai and pledged to work closely with his new administration. But the decision to allow Karzai to begin a new term without a clear mandate raised questions about the legitimacy of his future administration. And despite calls for calm by his rival, Abdullah Abdullah, there were fears that opposition supporters might cause violent unrest. In an unusual and potentially worrisome development Monday evening, Abdurrashid Dostum, a former ethnic militia leader and political ally of Karzai's who has a long track record of human rights abuses, arrived on an international flight at the Kabul airport. Dostum, who has been living in exile in Turkey, is a longtime rival of a northern strongman who backed Abdullah. An official from Dostum's political party confirmed Monday night that the ethnic Uzbek commander had just arrived in Kabul. He insisted that the visit was "normal" and that Dostum had no special agenda. But Dostum is a powerful and controversial figure. His last known visit here, to support Karzai's campaign in August, lasted only a few days after U.S. officials complained. Supporters of Dostum in northern Faryab province, reached by phone Monday night, said they expected him to visit there to rouse support in case of violence from followers of Attah Mohammed, the governor of nearby Balkh province. Mohammed, who abandoned Karzai to back Abdullah, is a former militia leader and longtime rival of Dostum's; the two camps have at times fought bloody battles. Mohammed has said he will not recognize a new Karzai government. 'Now he's elected' The terse announcement of Karzai's victory was made by the chairman of the Afghan Independent Election Commission, Azizullah Lodin, whose removal had been demanded by Abdullah as one of several conditions for remaining in the race. After Karzai rejected the demands, Abdullah, a former foreign minister and eye doctor, withdrew Sunday, saying he did not believe the runoff would be fair or transparent. Lodin said the seven-member panel had been "fully prepared" to hold the runoff but had decided that it should be canceled for a combination of reasons. He noted that there was only one candidate, that the poll would be costly and dangerous to hold, and that it could have created "many challenges to the country's security and stability." The chairman cited several provisions in the Afghan constitution in support of the panel's decision, but he also compared the situation to a wrestling match. Peppered with questions about how the commission reached its conclusion, Lodin said, "If one wrestler refuses to wrestle, the referee raises the hand of the other and declares him the winner." Lodin brushed off questions about Abdullah's complaints that Lodin had been biased during the election process toward Karzai, who appointed him and the other panel members. "We have answered these questions a thousand times. There is no need to discuss it further," he said through an interpreter. Abdullah aides said the decision had come as no surprise and was another indication of the panel's favoritism toward Karzai, but they accepted the result. "I think people were fed up with this controversy over the election," said Homayoun Shah Assefy, an Abdullah running mate. "I think it's a good thing that this is finished. Whether it's legal or not, we can stop discussing this matter. Now he's elected." Despite lingering questions over the commission's impartiality, foreign officials welcomed the announcement and said it appeared to have a constitutional basis. U.S. officials said privately that Karzai would clearly have won the runoff, and they maintained that Abdullah's voluntary withdrawal made it unnecessary to hold a new poll that would have exposed voters to the risk of Taliban attack. Even after hundreds of thousands of votes were discarded as fraudulent in the August poll, Karzai won more than 49 percent to Abdullah's 30 percent. U.N. reaction U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, visiting Kabul on Monday, said he welcomed the decision to cancel the poll and congratulated Karzai. He stressed, however, that "the new president must move swiftly to form a government that is able to command the support of both the Afghan people and the international community." Ban promised that the United Nations would continue to help Afghanistan despite the insurgent attack here that killed five foreign U.N. employees and three Afghans last week. But while Ban was pledging "every support and assistance to the new government" in Kabul, the United Nations announced that it would reduce its foreign staff in Pakistan and suspend some projects along the Afghan-Pakistani border, where extremist groups are based. In the streets of Kabul, many evening commuters and shoppers said they were happy and relieved that the election issue had been settled. Some said they had supported Karzai, but others said they were more concerned about preventing election-related violence than about whether Karzai or Abdullah won. "I am happy we are not going for the second round," said taxi driver Baz Mohammed, 40. "Security is terrible, business is stopped and the election would have cost a lot of money. I hope Afghanistan will stay calm now and that Mr. Karzai will be able to bring some changes." It was not clear how soon Karzai would begin his term or what changes he would make. U.S. officials and other Western allies have been urging him to crack down on corruption and improve governance, possibly with help from foreign advisers or new technocratic aides.

N. Korea Says It Has More Bomb-Grade Plutonium

New York Times By CHOE SANG-HUN SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea put further pressure on the United States to start bilateral talks by declaring on Tuesday that it had completed reprocessing its spent nuclear fuel for use in a bomb. In early September, North Korea had told the United Nations Security Council that it was in the “final phase” of reprocessing 8,000 spent fuel rods unloaded from its nuclear reactor in Yongbyon, north of Pyongyang, and was “weaponizing” plutonium extracted from the rods. If reprocessed with chemicals, the rods could yield enough plutonium for at least one nuclear bomb, according to officials and nuclear experts in Seoul and Washington. Using the same procedure at Yongbyon, North Korea was believed to have already accumulated enough plutonium for six to eight bombs. On Monday, the North’s official news agency, K.C.N.A., said that the country completed reprocessing the 8,000 rods two months ago and had made “significant achievements” in turning the plutonium into an atomic bomb. “We have no option but to strengthen our self-defense nuclear deterrent in the face of increasing nuclear threats and military provocations from hostile forces,” the news agency said. North Korea conducted underground nuclear tests in October 2006 and in May. In April, it also test-fired a long-range rocket. If fully developed, the rocket, known as a Taepodong-2, is feared to have the capacity to deliver a nuclear warhead as far as North America. Those moves resulted in new United Nations sanctions. Now, North Korea is trying to draw the United States back to the negotiating table, where its threats to reactivate its Yongbyon nuclear complex and acquire more bomb material serve as its strongest negotiating tool to obtain humanitarian aid, diplomatic recognition and other rewards. On Monday, North Korea pressed the United States for a decision about starting bilateral talks, warning that it was ready to proceed with its nuclear weapons program. North Korea has also said it was also enriching uranium. Highly-enriched uranium would give it another route to build nuclear bombs.