There’s an interesting snippet on Earth2Tech that says General Electric’s eco products are bringing in a lot of money. The Ecomagination division earned the firm about $12bn (about E8.6bn) in 2006 and is on course for earnings of $20bn by 2010.
The six medics convicted of infecting 460 Libyan children with HIV have been released and are back in Bulgaria.
They had been spared the death penalty in favour of life imprisonment after a compensation deal (reputed to be $1m per child) was reached with the childrens’ families. Now it seems a political deal between the EU and Libya has got them out of prison.
I’m glad they’re free. The case was a farce and an example of outsiders being blamed for internal errors — during the trial a French scientist testified poor hygiene at the hospital likely led to the contamination of the blood used in the transfusions. This happened in 1997, two years before the medics arrived in Libya. They had confessed, but have since alleged this was tortured out of them.
While I welcome their release I have some concerns about the deal. The EU and Tripoli have apparently agreed a “partnership” (or at least agreed to work toward one). What this will entail is unclear. The first thought I had when I read the term “partnership” was of Libya joining the union. Perhaps it was just a stray neuron hoping to go out in style.
Libya has for the last four or five years been attempting to normalise relations with the world at large.
The country is wealthier than most in northern Africa because of its oil reserves — reserves which have recently been opened up to foreign companies. The medics’ case has blocked closer ties between the EU and Libya, but now the case has been resolved political and economic progress can be made.
Economically it makes sense for the EU to court Tripoli. I think it can be taken as given that the oil supply across Terra has been drastically depleted — and cordial relations between the union and Gaddafi’s country would certainly allow Europe freer access to such badly needed reserves.
Libya’s coast is not that far away from Italy. Pipelines have stretched further; for example, gas pipes stretch from Russia to western Europe.
I hope I am just being cynical. I would like to think there were altruistic concerns, and that the medics were brought home simply because of the injustice of their situation. But the skeptic in the back of my mind insists something else has happened. I fear the medics’ situation has been used for political gains on both sides. I hope I’m wrong.
Update 26/07/07: French president Nicolas Sarkozy had met with Gaddafi, promising to help Libya rejoin “the concert of nations”. The article points out that French firms have been losing out since US companies re-entered the north African country, so Sarkozy is eager to make sure things don’t go to pot.
A line from the Libyan foreign minister has me concerned, though. He said France and Libya are to sign an agreement on “co-operation on a military-industrial partnership”.
I appreciate France’s historical ties to Africa, although it never ruled over Libya. However, I don’t see the logic of forming such a partnership.
France is a major arms exporter, so in that respect the deal would probably benefit most Gaddafi’s nation (and the arms manufacturers too). But why sign the deal? That it’s “military-industrial” implies a manufacturing aspect to the agreement. Does it mean French arms firms will be setting up shop in Libya, or that a multimillion-dollar revamp of the Libyan armed forces is on the way?
I’ll watch this with interest. Is France preparing an anti-terror front? Is it securing its business interests in north Africa? Is it making a good diplomatic impression to ensure preferential access to Libya oil? Perhaps all of the above and more.
Tomorrow Apple will announce earnings figures for the second quarter. The fact that Mac sales showed healthy growth is irrelevant to most observers — it’s all about the iPhone, which went on sale over the last two days of the period in question. The company is thought to have sold 200,000-700,000 of the little beauties but will confirm the figure in its report, which Reuters should have here. If it’s not I’ll update the link to Bloomberg or some other source.
It’ll offer some good iPhone news to counter claims a flaw in its web browser can lead to the phone being hacked.
UPDATE: AT&T says it activated only 146,000 iPhones. As the company is Apple’s exclusive carrier in the States, that does not bode well. The news wiped about $7bn off the tech firm’s share value.
FINAL UPDATE: Apple says it sold 270,000 iPhones. Hmm… I know there were activation problems but they weren’t on that sort of a scale. That said it’s possible a lot of people bought their phones but only activated them the day after the second quarter ended. At least that’s the excuse I’m offering for the disparity.
Portuguese television channel RTP left former dictator António de Oliveira Salazar out of the running to be the greatest of his countrymen, then relented.
Only for him to go and win the damn thing.
Scooping 41% of the vote (although one blogger has claimed an opinion poll taken around the time of the vote gave Salazar just 6.6%) he saw off challenges from writers, politicians and explorers such as Vasco de Gama.
Salazar ruled the country from 1932 to 1968. While managing to keep his country out of World War II and instituting corporatist policies that led to rapid economic growth in the 1940s and 1950s, his belief in holding on to overseas territories drained Portugal’s resources in the 1960s (ultimately ending the dictatorship). He created a secret police force that tortured opponents, although during his reign only 60 people died while in jail for political reasons. After Salazar’s death in 1968 the regime limped on only to be overthrown in a near-bloodless coup d’etat in 1974.
The Herald Tribune article linked to above points out that there has been a trend in economically insecure nations of yearning for “the authoritarianism of the past”. Portugal is the poorest country in western Europe. It also has a legacy of political corruption.
I once had a lecturer who spoke of the theory that people look for a ‘strongman’ out of a childhood belief that “Daddy will make it better”. He was referring to the dictatorships of ancient Greece (a different type of dictatorship I will not elaborate on right now), but the sentiment is still applicable.
However, I think it goes beyond that.
By banning something you make it that much alluring; the most dramatic example of this would have to be Prohibition in the US. It could be argued that Salazar’s win is down to his initially being omitted from the running — and certainly that sparked a campaign to get him included.
Many Portugese would have been born after his reign, and many would have lived only in its twilight. It makes me wonder how many people voted for Salazar as a protest or rebellion.
Time has an uncanny — and unfortunate — ability to soften opinons on historical figures. Although the dark sides of his rule have been well documented, that is not the same as a person having intimate experiences of living through it.
Consider the continuing mystique of Che Guevara. He has become a pop culture icon despite ordering the executions of hundreds of political opponents in pre-determined extrajudicial trials. For a slightly considered rant against him — but please don’t think I endorse it fully — check out this 2004 review of The Motorcycle Diaries.
Ladies and gentlemen I don’t claim to have all the answers, so I throw the floor open to your good selves. Agree with me? Disagree with me? I welcome your comments.
Catholicgauze has a link up to the Iraq culture smart card that’s being given to US Marines. It gives tips on social interaction and ethnic groups, lists handy phrases and numbers and includes “Do This” and “Don’t Do This” sections (such as always shake hands and never show the soles of your feet).
George Bush has signed an executive order prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects.
I can’t make out if this is putting a stop to CIA practices or just a public relations smokescreen. The White House would only say that if the agency had a detention/interrogation programme, it would have to adhere to the Bush order.
Interestingly, a CIA official quoted in the text said: “It would be wrong to assume the programme of the past transfers to the future.” Is this a tacit acknowledgment of extraordindary rendition? Is he indicating the alleged abuses have taken place, but won’t from now on? A kindler, gentler intelligence agency.
A report by the Council of Europe, which is essentially a human rights watchdog, found evidence the CIA ran secret prisons in Bulgaria and Romania from 2003-05. The agency has denied this and said its counter-terrorism methods were lawful. Bush has admitted prisoners were held overseas, but wouldn’t say where.
An Teach Bán wouldn’t say exactly Bush’s order allows. The following are banned:
- Torture or other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation and cruel or inhuman treatment.
- Willful or outrageous acts of personal abuse done to humiliate or degrade someone in a way so serious that any reasonable person would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation.
- Acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of an individual.
The second point above seems to be a direct reference to Abu Ghraib. Every one of these points should be welcomed, although it should not have taken an executive order to enforce them.
I appreciate the US considers itself in a war against terrorism, and I also appreciate that the CIA may feel some … unethical … actions are necessary to gain intelligence on hostile groups. But inhumane actions only serve to rally people against American efforts.
However there’s an interesting line in the article: “whatever interrogation practices used must be determined safe on an individual basis”.
Perhaps I’m overly reading between the lines but a system that can be tailored to “individual” cases is ripe for abuse, even if this becomes written policy.
There’s no way any of these policies can be verified without external oversight of CIA actions, and let’s face it that’s not going to happen (at least not to the extent that would be necessary).
So in essence what we have here — even if it is a shift in policy — is good publicity. Bush makes all the right noises, the CIA acts suitably serious and talks about accepting the order, and everybody’s happy.
Except this isn’t going to go away soon. The legacy of the rendition programme will last for many years to come. Even if the order becomes the agency’s standard practice, who’s going to believe them?