Dark Matter Politics

Blair’s involvement in Iraq

I still remember that day – 2nd May 1997. Tony Blair entering 10 Downing Street becoming Britain’s youngest prime minister. It was not only his youthful spirit that invigorated me but the “New Labour Manifesto” filled me with a feeling of exuberant optimism. His close relationship with Bill Clinton seemed to usher a new era of social, economic and political progress.

The Blair of today is not the Blair of 1999. However the Blair of 1999 did demonstrate a clear foreign policy doctrine that would culminate in the full scale involvement of Britain in Iraq. Blair’s prelude to Iraq was Kosovo.

Kosovo was fought without U.N approval against Slobodan Milosevic. While Milosevic was responsible for slaughtering his own people, he did not pose any threat to any of the major European or NATO powers. The Kosovo bombing campaign was deployed under the NATO flag, although Britain, like the United States in Iraq, committed the largest force. Kosovo was a success. However had it failed, Clinton and Blair would have been regarded as interventionists and imperialists. Kosovo shaped Blair’s doctrine of international community.

The doctrine of international community is based on the belief a globalized world is like a chain of domino pieces, one event can directly impact and threaten the interests of Britain and the United States. The doctrine called for the major powers (US and Britain) to work through international institutions, intervening more aggressively in the domestic affairs of other nations; to strengthen their financial and public sectors, ultimately ushering them into the world of democracy and capitalism.

The doctrine of international community is as flawed as the Iraq war. First it assumes the United States and Britain own the solution to a nation’s problems, disregarding fundamental issues related to the ethnic, political and cultural history of a nation, well before the emergence of superpowers. As with Iraq, in Kosovo Britain and the United States failed to realise the Albanian and Serbians where caught in a dangerous and long conflict fuelled by nationalism and separatism.

Second, the doctrine of international community assumes the nations in questions will embrace the recipe of capitalism and democracy prepared by both powers.

Third, action taken under the doctrine of international community requires for humane motives rather than military interests to justify intervention. As with Iraq, Kosovo did not fulfill four precautionary measures tied to the doctrine including: right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospects.

Fourth, the doctrine of international community requires for its leaders to differentiate between policy and rhetoric.

Tony Blair and George W. Bush can no longer differentiate between policy and rhetoric, as their administrations have become cradles of spin, leading their electorate through a forgettable five years of foreign policy blunders.

Nashi: Russian Youth Movement

Nashi (meaning "Our People") is a youth movement brought to life by Vladimir Putin's chief political strategist Vladislav Surkov. The stated mission of Nashi is to "train young Russians to form a new governing elite to establish a "revolution" in political thinking and style of government to enable Russia to overtake its international competitors."

Political youth movements such as Nashi are not new to Russia. What is outside is the norm is the rapid growth and state patronage given to Nashi. The rapid growth of Nashi (now the largest youth movement in Russia) fuelled by the unquestioned support it has received by the Putin administration is directly related to the influence of opposition youth movements outside the existing status quo. Nashi seems to be the antidote the Kremlin is prescribing to immunise against the possible spread of an Ukrainian orange style youth movement in Russia. Alternatively Nashi can be seen as an attempt to establish a strong national identity platform young people can identify with – in short nationalism. A more radical but possible view, shared by Dark Matter Politics, sees Nashi as an attempt to embeed the beliefs and influence of Putin into Russian society, once the Russian leader is no longer in power. We believe Nashi is not about Putin´s legacy, but about Putin´s continued power play after he leaves office.

The next presidential elections in Russia will be held on the second Sunday of March, 2008. Putin will not be able to run for a third term in office, unless the constituion is modified. Furthermore, Russia will have Duma elections on December 2, 2007. The 2007 election will be the first use of party-list proportional representation, while the previous elections half of the seats where filled using proportional representation.

The importance of youth movements in Russia has grown as the new multi-party political system attempts to gain a voice and the overall population ages. The oldest movement is the youth branch of Yabloko (Russia’s liberal left party). A noteworthy addition to the youth movement is DA! (the initials DA make the Russian word for yes), which declares its goal to be "building a civil society in Russia and resolving concrete problems: the elimination of censorship, police tyranny, ethnic intolerance, corruption in higher educational establishments and problems in the army." Of equal note is the Youth Left Front which is the resulted from the unification of various left-wing youth organisations including the Communist Youth League and the Red Youth Vanguard. It has to be pointed out these movements, including Nashi not only serve as political instruments but contribute to social causes aimed at improving infrastructure and livelihoods.

The emergence of Nashi has faint parallels to that of the German Youth Movement in Germany (Die deutsche Jugendbewegung) - also known as the Wandervogel. The Wandervogel started and re-estabalished itself as an educational-cultural renewal movement in 1896. Unfortunately, the movement was absobed by government influence during the second world war, giving rise to the Nazi Youth. The movement gained strength among the youth as it allowed the young to break free of the perceived injustice of the Treaty of Versailles and make Germany strong again. 

The question is not "if" Nashi the Russian youth movement will become radicalised into a political movement; the question is "when".

North Korea Nuclear Tests

What to do in response to North Korea’s underground nuclear testing, taking in consideration the role of China, Japan and the United States?

Economic sanctions imposed on North Korea, while demonstrating a unified condemnation, address only the economic end of the regimes relationship with its people and the rest of the world. As seen in the case of Cuba and Venezuela (previously documented in Dark Matter Politics) sanctions become an effective political tool governments can utilise to galvanise and polarise popular opinion within their countries. Furthermore, the current US administration "axis of evil" policy, - which effectively destroyed 50 years of détente -, further inflames the propaganda and aggresive posture of governments such as North Korea.

Interestingly enough, China one of the most influential regional players, is particularly resistant to economic sanctions against North Korea because it believes these could push North Korea's population over the edge, resulting in a flood of refugees into China's neighbouring Liaoning and Jilin provinces and spurring domestic instability. Any further action, other than a strong statement of disapproval from China is unlikely. The reality is that China views North Korea as an important buffer against U.S. forces in South Korea and a friend deserving of some loyalty. Furthermore, reports indicate China supplies 70% of North Korea fuel and 40% of North Korea food supply.

The other key player in this equation is Japan. The nuclear test conducted by North Korea coincided with a visit by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to South Korea’s capital Seoul. Although it is unlikely the North Korean nuclear test will trigger an immediate arms race; Shinzo Abe Japan’s Prime Minister has hinted an end to Japan’s long enduring pacifist constitution. Shinzo Abe, Japan’s youngest premier (only 52 years old) and first born after World War II will take Japan into a more robust military and assertive foreign policy. Furthermore, among Abe’s new inner circle are Foreign Minister Taro Aso, known for his hard line stance toward China. If Japan sought a nuclear deterrent, it could develop it internally – after all, Japan is third, after the United States and France, in nuclear power output, and its 43 tons in plutonium stockpiles are among the largest in the world.

As for the United States, the nuclear testing undertaken by North Korea provides extra fuel to the current administrations’ "axis of evil" rhetoric. As for the US media, we can now expect nothing more than an assault in our senses and establishing a "state of fear". Reports of the mighty North Korean army (4th largest military in the world) will be paraded in front of our TV screens, the same way the media hyped the military capabilities of the Iraq. Without a doubt this incident will be used by the Republican party to establish of "state of fear" before the upcoming November 7th election in the House of Representatives. Currently, the House is currently composed of 230 Republicans, 201 Democrats and 1 Independent.

More concerningly and a reflection of the current US foreign policy, although North Korea is using its nuclear capabilities as a deterrent force, it has been demanding a non-aggression treaty and diplomatic relations with Washington.

Deliver knowledge to the North Korean people and they will make the choice regarding how their government should act. Do not deliver the North Korean people hunger and deprivation in the form of economic and aid sanctions. As for the North Korean government, engage in meaningful politics and diplomacy (as opposed to a pointless war of words with Pyongyang) leveraging the influence of China, the EU and Japan.

korea, north korea japan prime minister economic sanctions Pyongyang axis of evil korean army plutonium stockpiles Shinzo Abe Liaoning propaganda

Hezbollah and Israel

In 2000 Hezbollah captured three Israeli soldiers. The soldiers died during the operation, but four years later, Hezbollah was able to exchange their bodies for 430 Palestinians and Lebanese held in Israeli jails.

Six years later, Hezbollah sees itself engaged in a regional conflict with Israel following the adjunction of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on the 12^th of July 2006. This time around Israel’s aims are no longer limited to recovering the soldiers, safeguarding it citizens but a realignment of the politics in the Middle East.

The reality is that the 12^th of July incursion by Hezbollah has provided Israel and the United States with the perfect excuse to use its military might to realign the political spectrum in the Middle East. Furthermore, the media seems more than willing to play along. The reality is that this conflict is not limited to a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel; it is a conflict between the Lebanese people and Israeli people. By focusing its military actions and political rhetoric on Hezbollah, Israel and the United States have succeeded at incorporating this latest conflict to the “one size fit all” approach to the war on terror ideology. If anything has been learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is that the war against terrorism cannot be won by separating the people from radical groups and entities such as Hezbollah. War is no longer purely waged on the battlefield but on the airwaves, blogwaves and ultimately the hearts and minds of people – and groups such as Hezbollah know this better than Israel and the United States. This raises the issue of Palestine.

Hezbollah’s 12^th of July incursion was nothing more than a dramatic gesture of solidarity with the Palestinians. So while the Palestine position is supported by Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, the United States bears significant responsibility for the support of Israel.

Israel receives USD $2.6 billion in foreign military financing from America every year. Three quarters of that “international aid” has to be spent on products sold by US companies. America’s military aid accounts for 20% of Israel’s military budget. Since 2001 the Israel Armed Forces have been allocated USD $10.5 billion in military aid from the US government, but have only received USD $6.3 billion in arms. The remaining amount will be delivered to Israel in the next few years, although their attack on Lebanon will surely expedite the process. Without a doubt this level of military infrastructure limits the need, willigness or desire of the United States or Israel to take the dipolmatic route as opposed to the military option. On the other hand you have Hezbollah which is also happy to continue using the military option.

Sadly hard liners on both ends of the conflict, driven by common factors, refuse to end military aggression.

Agricultural Subsidies: A Lesson to be Learned from China?

It is estimated a staggering $350 to $380 billion is currently allocated every year on agricultural subsidies around the world.

The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture was the first time developed and developing nations addressed the issue of agricultural subsidies. The removal of agricultural subsidies depends largely in the involvement and steps taken by OECD countries (as the 23 members represent 50% of global trade and 60% of the world economy). The Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was originally signed by twenty countries in 1960 – a further ten countries have become members.

A recent report by OECD member countries indicates 30% of farmers receipts come from a combination of government interventions in markets and budgetary payments. On the other hand, China (not a OECD member country) provides its farmers with around 8 % subsidy, a far lower proportion than in most OECD countries. This is significant considering the importance of agriculture to the Chinese economy; accounting for almost 15% of GDP and providing more than 40% of all jobs. The graph below issued by the OECD provides an overview of the Average Bound MFN Tariffs by select countries on select goods.   

After entering the World Trade Organization in 2001, China began exploring ways to directly subsidize farmers, who were believed to be vulnerable to foreign competition (Liu, Ouyang, and Zhang). Furthermore, as part of its entry to the World Trade Organisation in 2001, China it agreed to cap its support for its farmers at 8.5% of production.

Without a doubt, OECD member countries including the United States, Canada and France (which is the largest recipient -22% in 2004 - of the controversial part of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy which began operating in 1962) could learn something from China in respects to agricultural subsidies.

agriculture china agricultural subsidies subsidies Trade Common Agricultural Policy Agricultural Policy The Uruguay Round Agreement

Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush: Text and Analysis

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad letter to George W. Bush is not only a new chapter in the on-going crisis, but a landmark event - the first direct communication from an Iranian leader to an American president since 1979. A copy of the President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad letter to George W. Bush has been posted by lemonde.fr

In his letter to President George W. Bush, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not only outlines a list of grievances with the United States but reveals key contradictions of the United States foreign policy. Some of more interesting and controversial observations contained in the letter are outlined below, followed by a Dark Matter Politics analysis.

"The contradiction of holding Christian beliefs but acting against those beliefs by commanding the death of thousands of individuals and the destruction of communities’ resources including electricity and water. How can those strong values be reconciled with the actions taken?"

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fails to concede most religions co-exist in a constant flux and state of contradiction including the Jewish and Muslim religions. Although this contradiction is more acute within pockets of extremism, all individuals will adapt and interpret their religious beliefs to justify their actions – especially politicians. George W. Bush is not alone on this one but his moral ground is shaking more and more every day.

"The justification for invading Iraq was not to topple Saddam Hussein, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Instead of the troops returning with weapons of mass destruction, they have returned with thousands of individuals currently being held in Guantanamo Bay and other prisons."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad statement resonates loudly with a large portion of the international community. No weapons of mass destruction where found or will be found. The Bush and Blair administration in a superb but failed public relations drive, have tried to convince the world that the invasion of Iraq can be justified by the fact it is has given the Iraqi people a chance for democracy in their country. Democracy has never been one the United States best exports (or Iran’s imports) – the approach taken repeatedly fails to recognise democracy has to provide freedom of experience as opposed to being indoctrinated and dictated.

"The cost of establishing the State of Israel and the enduring struggle of the Palestinian people which has not rightly been recognised by the United States."

A brief review of contemporary history in the Middle East indicates the seeds for the struggle where planted by the European colonial powers. However, it is evident the United States support for Israel was driven by the politics of the Cold War. Describing the new US strategy in the Middle East, James Feron wrote in the New York Times (11 June, 1966), that the: "United States has come to the conclusion that it must rely on a local power - the deterrent of a friendly power -- as a first line to stave off America's direct involvement. Israel feels she fits this definition."

Following the start of hostilities between the newly established Israeli state and Arab countries including Egypt, the United States and the Soviet Union sponsored talks in Geneva. These talks quickly collapsed, leading to Henry Kissinger’s famous "shuttle diplomacy" (organizing separate agreements between Israel and each Arab government). From the start, Kissinger’s negotiations ignored the Palestinians. As international support for and recognition of the PLO grew, (culminating in Yasir Arafat's appearance in November 1974 at the UN General Assembly) the case was brought to the United Nations. The United Nations voted 105 to 4 to recognize the Palestinians’ right to self- determination, and to grant the PLO observer status within the United Nations itself. Only Israel and the US, along with US-dependent Bolivia and the Dominican Republic, voted against the resolution. It was a start of a very difficult relationship between Israel, the United States and the Arab nations – which is complicated by the presence extremist organisations on both ends, enduring the use of violence as opposed to diplomacy.

The acceptance 9/11 was a horrendous incident and the killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Furthermore, an acceptance all governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. "However, why haven’t those who botched their responsibilities identified? And, why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity to the American people?"

Only recently have the events of 9/11 been able to be analysed without compromising the rightful sensitivities of an entire nation. The findings of the 9/11 Commission place the blame on the intelligence services, mainly the CIA for not being alert to such a treat. Many theories are arising about the events that lead to the terrible events of 9/11 and the potential withholding of information by certain elements of the US government. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provides an interesting observation of the "culture of fear" which surrounded the United States and the United Kingdom. In all respects the mainstream media in countries like the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Italy have been responsible for enduring a sense of fear among citizens. On the other hand, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fails to mention his administration also leverages the influence of the media to push its domestic and international agenda. Domestically, television and radio is controlled by The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting; limiting the access to other media sources. Abroad Iran launched Al Alam - The World - a 24-hour news channel in Arabic, which was launched just when the Saddam Hussein's regime was ousted in Iraq.

The letter is more than anything a unique insight into the thinking and beliefs of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – a manifesto of heart felt rhetoric but calculated wording. The letter touches on many of the contradictions that have plagued the United States’ foreign policy and been responsible for annihilating so many people who used to hold the United States in admiration and respect. The letter does not address or provide further insight into Iran’s nuclear enrichment program – a missed opportunity and grave error by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

All this leads us to believe the Bush administration has probably commissioned a group of psychologists to analyse the letter, as opposed to political analysts. Will the letter help defuse some of the tension? Not all. The letter fails to address the rationale behind his policy of nuclear development and making relevant arguments relative to the current situation. The letter will be labelled as propaganda by those seeking a more aggressive and direct stance against Iran. The situation on Iran is increasingly becoming a battle of perception, in which propaganda and counter-propaganda will be used by both parties to further their positions.

iran iran letter Politics United Nations fear Religion Middle East

Islam and the West

Iran is a country with great economic potential. Iran has a large and young population – 60% of its 65 million inhabitants are aged 15 to 53 years old – providing a huge commercial potential for consumer goods. Iran holds 9% of the world’s proven oil reserves and 15% of the world’s proven gas reserves. Iran will not only be the centre of international diplomacy and posturing for years to come, but a main protagonist in the new struggle between East (Russia and China) and West (the European Union and the United States).

History and politics favour the East to win in Iran; although a handful of European and American companies have been operating for years in Iran, despite pressure from U.S policy makers. The United States and Europe have faced restricted access to Iran since the late 70’s. These restrictions where formalised in 1996 with the passing of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). ILSA provided for the imposition of sanctions on companies, irrespective of their corporate "nationality," that invest more than USD $20 million annually in the Iranian oil and gas sectors."

The most controversial element of the ILSA legislation is that the United States could seek to penalize foreign companies for investing in Iran. To date, Iran has attracted an estimated $30 billion in foreign investment in its petroleum sector since ILSA was enacted. The European Union (EU) opposes the application of ILSA sanctions to companies in member countries, and on November 22, 1996 passed Resolution 2271 directing EU companies not to comply with ILSA.

An American company that has taken the advice of the European Union is Halliburton (which had Dick Cheney as CEO). Last year Halliburton’s CEO (and Dick Cheney’s successor) David Lesar announced, after much pressure, the firm had plans to cease doing business in Iran. However Lesar did fail to mention the company continued doing business in Iran by skirting U.S. laws. Halliburton’s Tehran office was set-up through its subsidiary Halliburton Products and Services which is registered through a Cayman Island subsidiary.

Furthermore, Halliburton will participate in a USD $308 million project to develop Iran’s huge South Pars natural gas fields. South Pars covers an area of 3,700 square km and contains a reservoir of 437 trillion cubic feet of gas which is about 8% of the world's natural gas reserves. Reports released by Newsweek show that Halliburton’s revenue from Iran - principally through the Dubai-based Halliburton Products and Services, but also including five other foreign subsidiaries - grew from USD $31 million a year in 2001 (when Bush first called Iran an "axis of evil" nation for its support of terrorism) to USD $42.5 million in 2003.

What other foreign companies are heavily involved in Iran? As part of the South Pars project the following companies have secured profitable contracts; French company TotalFinaElf, Russian firm Gazprom, Brazilian company Petronas, Norwegian company Statoil and South Korean Lucky Goldstar (LG). Without a doubt the involvement (or lack of involvement) of these companies in Iran, greatly influences the stance of their national government on Iran. Does the involvement of Russian oil firm Gazprom explain the ambivalent stance of the Russian government towards to the Iranian nuclear controversy? On the other hand does the involvement of Halliburton and other US companies influence the administrations stance towards Iran?

The latest entrant to this select group of foreign corporations in Iran, is China’s Sinopec. Sinopec recently signed a the two-part deal with the Iranian government, giving Sinopec a half-share in one of Iran's most important new discoveries, the Yadavaran field, an energy-rich area in southwest Iran, allowing the company to explore for oil over the next few decades. With the field's oil reserves estimated at about 17 billion barrels, China's operations could be worth another USD $100 billion.

Iran provides an insight into China’s growing and influencial foreign policy. China’s policy, based on the ideals of unity and power, suprisingly lacks any hegemonic ambitions. In fact, China’s foreign policy, unlike the United States is not devoted to advancing any higher international ideological interests such as spreading freedom and democracy. At the heart of China’s approach is the belief ideology is secondary to advancing national interests. However, it is unlikely China’s approach will remain unchanged. Its political pragmatism to international relations will quickly evolve once it begins adopting populaist domestic policies, which will require increased posturing internationaly. The most significant issue to alter China’s current forgein policy will be Taiwan.

Symbol of Britain’s Big Brother state

Parliament Square in London is no longer just a great vantage point for great views of Big Ben, but a symbol of Britain’s "Big Brother" state. 

Parliament Square, became Britain’s first official roundabout in 1926 as well as the home of Brain Haw. Brian Haw has been protesting outside of Parliament Square against the Iraq war since 2nd of June 2001.  In October 2002, following attempts by government officials to remove him, he won a major case in the High Court, in which the judge ruled that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech in Parliament Square. This outright acknowledgement of citizens’ freedom of speech is currently being challenged by the governments’ latest security legislation – the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, among other policies, prohibits any group demonstrations or individual demonstrators (even peaceful silent protests) within a half-mile zone around Westminster. The half-mile area covers Parliament, Whitehall, Downing Street, Westminster Abbey, the Middlesex Guildhall, New Scotland Yard, and the Home Office. It also covers a sliver of land on the other bank of the River Thames, including County Hall, the Jubilee Gardens, St Thomas' Hospital and the London Eye. Furthermore, it extends police powers to fine and arrest individuals partaking in demonstrations without an official police permit. Supporters of the law claim it is required to ensure of safety of residents and workers around the area, as well as limit “anti-social” behaviour.

Regardless of individual beliefs on the Iraq War, nuclear power, fox hunting, taxation or any other subject, as well as ones conviction to participate in a demonstration or not; freedom of speech that does not harm or hinder is unequivocal! Placing "exclusion zones" on these rights is the start of a slippery road - before you know it Christmas carols won't be allowed within Parliament Square as the government strives to establish an "open secure multi-cultural secular society".

Prime Minister Tony Blair stated on 7 April 2002, "When I pass protestors every day at Downing Street... I may not like what they call me, but I thank God they can. That's called freedom."

It is a matter of serious Dark Matter Politics when a country sanctioning and promoting principles of freedom of speech around the world, fails to fully support them for its own citizens.    

Brian Haw anti terrorism protests dark matter

Net Neutrality: The Battle for Open Access to Online Content

For the past few years, legislators and key members of the telecommunications industry in the United States have been working on updating the Telecommunications Act of 1996; largely obsolete due to dramatic changes in the industry - including the migration of voice and video signals to the Internet. This new initiative has created an explosive and controversial battle between access providers (such as AT&T and Verizon) and content providers (such as Google and Amazon) over access and distribution of content. Net Neutrality - "the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content or use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by an Internet service or access provider". Maintaining the principle of net neutrality would keep broadband providers from discriminating against any forms of digital content.

Rejection of the principle of net neutrality would allow access providers to tier and potentially charge for the delivery of content. Division in Congress appears to be falling along party lines, with Democrats overwhelmingly in support of Net Neutrality and most Republicans siding with the major carriers. Joe Barton, a Republican who chairs the committee overseeing telecommunications law, says providers "may not block, or unreasonably impair or interfere with, the offering of, access to or the use of any lawful content, application or service provided over the Internet." Content providers such as Amazon and Google argue for Network Neutrality, which calls for companies that own the means of delivery (the broadband pipes) do not configure their networks in a way that benefits favourites. Web 2.0 (the new Internet following the burst of the dot-com bubble) is about content and participation. Some of the largest acquisitions include News Corp.’s $580 million purchase of MySpace (a leading community site), New York Times Company $410 million purchase of About.com (a leading content portal) and Experian’s $485 million purchase of PriceGrabber.com (a leading price comparison site).

Major U.S. carriers, including AT&T and Verizon have been lobbying both the House of Representatives and Senate in an effort to push through legislation allowing them to establish separate "tiers" of service on the Internet. These tiers would be used for the express delivery of voice and video services, as well as content. More controversial is that these carriers want to be able to charge for access to these tiers. Service and content providers which sign up to use the carriers’ "fast lane" would receive guarantees for "priority" delivery of their data. Access providers argue they should be able to collect access fees to off-set the cost of network upgrades (which would be necessary to facilitate the delivery and innovation of next-generation services).

During the past two years, and reminiscent of the exuberance of the late 90’s, there has been a dramatic increase in mergers and acquisitions within the online sector. Although this time around the industry is far more mature and stable, a major battle is taking place for the ownership and control of content. Companies such as News International have recognised the

Interactive mergers and acquisitions in the first quarter of 2006 totaled 54 deals worth $3.2 billion, up from $2.6 billion for 47 deals in the last quarter of 2005 (excluding the $1 billion swap of Yahoo China's assets with Alibaba), and up from $2.9 billion for 28 deals in the first quarter of 2005.

The battle for Net Neutrality boils down to the way rich content (such as video content) is priced, distributed and accessed (uniform access versus tiered access). The rejection of the Net Neutrality principle will without a doubt guarantee short term financial gain for access providers as they will not only charge consumers for the content but tag content owners with fees to distribute their content.

The outcome of this debate will undoubtatly reshape the way content is distributed and accessed online, with major content providers purchasing or partnering with access providers such as Comcast (with 21 million subscribers and is the largest such provider in the US) or Time Warner.

Imagine not being able to access Yahoo's Web portal as quickly from your Internet service provider, because your broadband provider (the company that owns the cable lines) has cut a deal with Google to provide their services exclusively. Imagine having to pay an extra 10 cents every time you sell an item on eBay or for downloading a movie from www.shockwave.com. The reality is the content providers, wil pass on any access fees to consumers. Furthermore, what are these ISP's companies going to do with this incremental revenue? Improve their customer service, provide free tools such as spam protection and virus protection? Unlikely. I encourage you to join the Save the Internet campaign to ensure Net Neutrality is kept and protected.

The Chagos Archipelago, Diego Garcia and British Colonialism

The United States fearing the expansion of Communism in Asia, was seeking to establish a military presence between the Mediterranean and the Philippines. The Chagos Archipelago (a group of 600 individual tropical islands in the Indian Ocean about 500 kilometres from the Maldives in the Indian Ocean) provided the United States with the geographical and strategic advantage they sought as well as a minimal “population problem”.The United Kingdom had gained possession of both Mauritius and the Chagos Archipelago in 1814, and retained the islands as part of the British Indian Ocean Territory when Mauritius gained independence. The islands were discovered by Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama in the early sixteenth century (Chagos comes from the Portuguese word "Chagas") then claimed by the French as a possession of Mauritius in the eighteenth century.

A deal was signed between the United States and the British Government in 1966, that allowed for the building of a military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia. As part of the agreement, between 1967 and 1973 the British Government forced 2,000 island inhabitants to move from the Chagos group of islands. The British action violated articles 9 and 13 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which state that "no one should be subjected to arbitrary exile" and "everybody has the right to return to his country".

What lead the British Government to completely disregard in international law and the genuine right of its inhabitants? The British government’s case for expulsion of the island inhabitants was based on denying that the islanders were permanent residents and insisting they were temporary contract workers, employed on the copra plantations. This was the line that both the British and US governments were to maintain for years, even though they knew it was untrue. In 2000, the High Court ruled the removal of the inhabitants was illegal. The British government blocked the decision resorting to a series of draconian colonial powers.

In return for the “leasing” of the island (the lease expires in 2016), the United States offered a United Kingdom an USD $11M subsidy on the Polaris submarine nuclear program which was considered key to establish a nuclear deterrent in the region as well as provide support, following the British humiliating withdrawal from the Suez Canal in 1956 (confirmation source: wikipedia.org). However the Polaris agreement accentuated the contradiction between Britain's global ambitions and its resources meant that the Polaris deal was only one of a number of arrangements made between the US and the UK during this period. Based on a report from Ewen MacAskill and Rob Evans from The Guardian in 2000, in return for US help in trying to strengthen the pound in September 1965, an informal agreement was made that the Wilson would tighten spending; control wage rises and also more importantly, supports American intervention against Vietnam (confirmation source: wikipedia.org).

What is worst was Wilson’s complete disregard for universal law principles. While Mauritius was granted independence in 1968, the Chagos Islands were annexed to the British colonies, establishing the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Despite UN Resolution 1514 on decolonisation and the division in public opinion in Mauritius, the island accepted a £3 million compensation from Great Britain. It was officially granted independence on March 12, 1968 despite UN General Assembly resolution 2066 XX in December 1965 which mandated that Great Britain takes "no action which would dismember the Territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity" (confirmation source: The Guardian).

Diego Garcia currently houses 1,600 military personnel and 1,500 civilian contractors. The island is said to be a joint American-British military base - but only 50 troops are British (confirmation source: wikipedia.org). The depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago represents a serious case of Dark Matter Politics. Furthermore, no politician in over thirty years has explained why Chagos islanders, American and UK military cannot coexist on a territory that is longer than 190 kilometres.