http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nixOL7u2474
http://www.pnsr.org/web/page/657/sectionid/579/pagelevel/3/interior.asp
| Iran-Contra Affair - Alex Douville | |
INTRODUCTION: The Iran-Contra affair resulted from two separate operations: the sale of arms to Iran in hopes that American hostages in Lebanon would be released and the supply of covert military aid to the Nicaraguan Contras waging an insurgency against the anti-American Nicaraguan government. While the diversion of profits from the arms deals to the Contras garnered the most attention at the time, the operations themselves represented a larger failure of the national security system. This study is important to the goals of the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR) in that it does not seek to assign blame or focus on the diversion of money, but instead aims to examine how lapses in the national security policy process resulted in two operations of dubious legality and efficacy. STRATEGY: The Reagan administration did not use the existing formal national security structures to conduct its covert policies towards Nicaragua and Iran. Instead, the operations involving Iran and the Contras were executed in an ad hoc manner. The consultative process and transparency of the National Security Council (NSC) and the executive departments were abandoned in favor of ad hoc decision-making by a small group of individuals. In part, the strategy was a direct result of the struggle between the executive and congressional branches of government over authority to determine foreign policy. In 1982, Congress passed the Boland Amendments, which prohibited the Department of Defense (DOD), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or any other government agency from providing military aid to the Contras. The White House viewed this as an attempt to limit its constitutional right to determine foreign policy and sought to bypass the legislation. To this end, Reagan shifted operational control of Contra policies from the CIA and DOD to the NSC staff, since the latter were not subject to formal congressional oversight and technically did not fall under the amendments’ restrictions. INTEGRATED ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER: The President’s decision to bypass the NSC and the executive departments was due to a confluence of two factors—the executive-legislative struggle already mentioned and the internal conflicts within Reagan’s informal cabinet government. This led Reagan to grant his National Security Advisor (NSA) considerable powers to determine, implement, and execute foreign policy rather than simply facilitate decision-making. Those agencies with the proper knowledge and skills to manage the operations in both Iran and Nicaragua—the CIA, the Department of State (DOS), and the DOD—were purposely bypassed because they were subject to congressional oversight. In addition, infighting prevented NSC principals from cooperating to form policy. DOS opposition to the arms deals and DOD’s refusal to run the Contra operation thus failed to influence actual events. The Secretaries of State and Defense remained outside the decision-making process and informational loop until the Iran-Contra affair was revealed in the press. EVALUATION: The conflict between the White House and Congress over control of foreign policy was the root cause of the Iran-Contra affair. This struggle resulted in the executive branch circumventing congressional controls to implement what it deemed were essential operations. Unfortunately, the means chosen—the operationalization of the NSC staff—proved ineffective. The NSA strictly controlled information about the administration’s policies regarding Iran and Nicaragua. While this approach allowed for greater secrecy and quicker decision-making, it did not facilitate improved decision-making or an appropriate level of debate about the policies to be implemented. As a result, policy implementation proved as problematic as policy formation. The NSC staff and NSA lacked the resources, capacity, or expertise to conduct Reagan’s foreign policies in Iran and Nicaragua independent of the other elements of the national security structure. RESULTS: The bypassing of the interagency decision-making structure led directly to the ill-advised operations in Iran and Nicaragua. By empowering only a few individuals with operational authority, a vital layer of discussion and open debate within the NSC was eliminated. This process allowed select actors to monopolize decision-making. They made errors in judgment and showed weakness in management. The resulting policies worked at cross purposes. For example, trading arms for hostages undercut the State Department’s support for arms embargos against state sponsors of terrorism. The excessive role of the NSA and NSC staff also confused other U.S. government agencies as to who exercised authority over U.S. foreign policy. Such confusion allowed individuals to exploit the prestige of the White House to expand their authority far beyond their positions. CONCLUSION: The failure to properly debate the Iranian and Nicaraguan operations within the existing national security structure—which normally includes considerable congressional involvement—led to ad hoc and uncoordinated policies. This lack of integration directly contributed to the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran and allowed for continued covert assistance to the Contras despite congressional prohibitions and substantial opposition within the executive branch. Nevertheless, the Tower Commission, established to probe the Iran-Contra affair, ignored the larger implications of the scandal and did not recommend sufficiently comprehensive changes to the national security system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tower EXCERPT: Death On April 5, 1991, Tower and his daughter Marian were killed along with twenty-one other people in the crash of Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 2311 on approach for landing at Brunswick, Georgia. The crash was due to propeller control failure. Also killed in the crash was astronaut Sonny Carter. Tower and his daughter are buried together in the family plot at the Sparkman-Hillcrest Memorial Park Cemetery in Dallas. His personal and political life are chronicled in his autobiography, Consequences: A Personal and Political Memoir, published a few months before his death. http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/matthew-simmons-death-foul-play/ Matthew SimmonsROCKLAND, Maine (AP) – Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker who espoused the peak oil theory, became an advocate for alternative energy and served as energy adviser to President George W. Bush, has died at his North Haven island home, officials said Monday. He was 67.Two years later, Simmons founded The Ocean Energy Institute, a think tank and venture capital fund in Rockland to promote offshore wind energy research and development. The institute is a part of the consortium led by the University of Maine, which aims to design and test floating deep-water wind turbine platforms. “Matt Simmons was an innovative thinker who pushed ideas that have the potential to yield a more environmentally and economically sustainable future for Maine and the world,” said Maine Gov. John Baldacci, who attended the opening of the institute’s headquarters last month. Simmons’ body was found Sunday night in his hot tub, investigators said. An autopsy by the state medical examiner’s office concluded Monday that he died from accidental drowning with heart disease as a contributing factor. In 1974, Simmons founded Simmons & Co. International, which grew into one of the largest investment banking companies serving the energy industry. He continued to serve as chairman emeritus until last month, when he retired to give his full energy to the Ocean Energy Institute. “We are deeply saddened by the unexpected loss of a true visionary and friend. As a pivotal figure in the lives of many of our employees, and countless others across the energy industry, Matt will be sorely missed,” Simmons & Co. CEO Mike Frazier said in a statement. Simmons was critical of BP PLC’s handling of the Gulf oil spill and predicted the company would file for bankruptcy. In one interview, he said the cleanup costs could top $1 trillion. As an international energy expert, Simmons correctly predicted in 2007 that oil would surpass $100 a barrel. The following year, it peaked at $147 a barrel. Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press What got Matt in “deep water” figuratively and literally?.. It’s not nice to speak truth to the power of the Oil Syndicate and the “Corporation.” and he did just that. Just listen…~jgComments and speculation are welcome.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffry_PicowerInvolvement with Bernard MadoffThe Jeffry M. and Barbara Picower Foundation was created in 1989 by Picower and his wife Barbara.[13] Barbara Picower was listed as Executive Director and trustee, with both Picowers being members of the board of directors.[17] Longtime friend Bernard Madoff managed foundation assets listed at over $1 billion.[13][18] It distributed over $268 million in grants to various American organizations, including Human Rights First and the New York Public Library.[13][18] In 2002, it granted $50 million to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscience research center, which was subsequently renamed the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory.[13][19] However, the Picower Foundation was forced to close in 2009 due to losses arising from the uncovering of Madoff's Ponzi scheme.[18] In June 2009, Irving Picard, the trustee liquidating Madoff's assets, filed a lawsuit against Picower in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), seeking the return of $7.2 billion in profits, alleging that Picower and his wife knew or should have known that their rates of return were "implausibly high", with some accounts showing annual returns ranging from 120% to more than 550% from 1996 through 1998, and 950% in 1999.[20][21] According to a June 28, 2009, MSNBC article, that would make the Picowers the biggest beneficiaries of Madoff's scam, exceeding even Madoff himself.[6] The Picowers' lawyer, William D. Zabel of Schulte Roth & Zabel, responded that, "They were totally shocked by his fraud and were in no way complicit in it."[21] On October 1, 2009, an additional court filing from the Madoff trustee documented an apparently fraudulent gain benefiting Picower. "According to the new filing, Mr. Picower opened an account with Mr. Madoff on April 18, 2006, by wiring a check for $125 million, more than a quarter of the entire sum he invested with Mr. Madoff over time. Within two weeks, the $125 million deposit had purportedly grown to $164 million because of a dramatic ‘gain’ on the securities held in the account—all of which supposedly had been purchased three months earlier ... Five months later, Mr. Picower withdrew his original $125 million, leaving $81 million in the account. There is no legitimate explanation for these events nor any possibility that they escaped Picower’s notice."[22] On 17 December, 2010, it was announced that a settlement of $7.2 billion had been reached with the Picower estate to resolve the Madoff trustee suit, and repay losses in the Madoff fraud. No explanation has surfaced why Madoff essentially bequeathed so much money to Picower.[5] [edit] DeathOn October 25, 2009, Jeffry Picower was found at the bottom of the pool of his Palm Beach home and could not be revived. Picower's wife, Barbara, told dispatchers she found him "at the bottom of their swimming pool" at their oceanfront estate shortly after noon, Palm Beach police said. He was taken to Good Samaritan Hospital, where he was pronounced dead about 80 minutes later.[23]According to the Palm Beach Police Department, "An autopsy of the body of Jeffry M. Picower was performed this morning. The Palm Beach County Medical Examiner's Office determined that Mr. Picower suffered a massive heart attack while in the swimming pool resulting in accidental drowning."[24] He was buried on October 27, 2009, in Mount Ararat Cemetery in Farmingdale, New York.[25] http://hedgefundoperationalduediligence.com/life-death-jeffrey-picower-madoffs-frenemy/ EXCERPT: The Life and Death of Jeffry Picower: Madoff’s Frenemy?To pull from the vernacular of the modern urban lexicon, perhaps Jeffry Picower could best be described as Bernard Madoff’s Frenemey (a pormanteau of “friend” and “enemy”). Madoff and the Picower’s seemed to have had a long and complex relationship to say the least. Rumored to be friends for years their relationship seemed to fall apart when Madoff turned himself in and the fraud was revealed. With the recent passing of Mr. Picower I thought a brief discussion look at Mr. Picower was in order. For those unfamiliar with Jeffry Picower and the somewhat murky details concerning his relationship with Madoff here is a bit of a summary.Early History Jeffry Picower was born in Bronx, New York. He received a bachelor’s degree from Pennsylvania State University,  a master’s in business from Columbia University and a law degree from Brooklyn Law School. He was also a certified public accountant. He worked as an accountant at the firm of Laventhol & Horwath in the 1980s during which time he established a series of tax shelters. The IRS challenged the validity of these shelters and Picower (and his firm) was later sued by client. The case settled out of court.In 1983 the SEC rebuked Picower for late disclosure of his greater than 5% position in a company which was involved in a merger. Picower Institute for Medical Research In 1991 Picower and Anthony Cerami established a charity, the Picower Institute for Medical Research at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York. The charity was initially established with an endowment of $10 mi  llion. Researchers at this institute made a promising discovery with possible applications for Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis. With the potential profitability the company was spun off into a for profit company called, Cytokine Networks. Cytokine later merged with a privately-held company called PharmaSciences to form a new entity called Cytkine PharmaSciences. The problem was that Picower owned 76% of PharmaSchiences stock and actually controlled 86.2% which put him in a major conflict of interest situation. The St. Petersburg Times Mary Jacoby wrote an article which in part outlined the relationship between Picower’s charities and his for-profit companies entitled, “Complex web benefits foundation founder: Set up to give to charities, the Picower Foundation indirectly enriches a drug company.” There were a number of articles written about the situation at the time including pieces in Forbes and a follow up piece in the St. Petersburg Times. This post by Ms. Jacoby’s | |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitaid
EXCERPTS:
1) UNITAID is an international facility for the purchase of drugs against HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. It was founded in September 2006 on the initiative of Brazil and France, and is to a great part financed by so called innovative development financing mechanisms, namely a solidarity levy on air line tickets.
Hosted by the WHO in Geneva, the organization's principal strength is the negotiation of low prices for drugs on the basis of its strong financial means. UNITAID does not have its own programs for the distribution of medication but supports programs by its partner organizations such as The Global Fund, the Clinton Foundation Health Access Initiative, or the WHO.
Due to a growing number of Member States (29 as of 2008) UNITAID's budget has exceeded US$ 1.3 billion[1] out of which at least 85% must be distributed to low-income countries.
2) [edit] Criticisms
Unitaid's patent pool has been criticised on the grounds that it is duplicative of many other public and private HIV R&D initiatives. Despite causing less than four per cent of mortality in less developed countries, HIV/AIDS already consumes around 40 per cent of all global health funding for R&D, suggesting that Unitaid's focus on HIV is a mispriotisation of scarce resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment