By Bart Mongoven

Representatives of transparency advocates Global Witness and Freedom House appealed to the U.S. government this week to help them in their struggle to get former Soviet Union (FSU) countries, including Russia, to disclose the amount of money they receive from oil and natural gas operations — and to reveal how that money is spent. The concept, known as revenue transparency, is backed by a growing network of organizations and companies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but has received little more than lip service from Washington.

In their July 23 testimony before the Helsinki Commission, the U.S. arm of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the activists said programs such as the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Publish What You Pay campaign are beginning to show positive results in some regions. They implied, however, that FSU countries conspicuously lack transparency.

The activists contended that the tight global oil supplies make transparency in oil-rich states more important than ever, because energy security in the short term requires knowledge — and knowledge requires transparency. They also argued that the U.S. drive toward energy security is complicated by its reliance on countries where corruption and disregard for the rule of law run rampant. Finally, both organizations concluded that campaigning by nongovernmental organizations is unlikely to be sufficient in the FSU and that improving transparency there will require the U.S. government to become actively involved — in terms of effort and funding — in supporting global transparency programs.

Also on July 23, Merrill Lynch issued a research report arguing that Africa has, in broad terms, turned a corner and deserves investor attention. The report contends that parts of Africa have seen improvements in governance just as oil and commodity prices have increased. As a result, according to Merrill Lynch, many places in Africa are witnessing economic growth and an improved investment climate.

By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

The July 17 release of portions of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) titled "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland" has generated a great deal of comment from Stratfor readers, many of whom contend it is at odds with our assessment published shortly before the contents of the NIE were leaked. In that report, we attempted to clarify what we mean when we refer to "al Qaeda" and we differentiate between the small al Qaeda core organization (what we call "al Qaeda prime"), the somewhat wider array of al Qaeda franchise organizations (such as al Qaeda in Iraq) and the broad assortment of grassroots jihadists who have no actual connection to the core organization. Our assessment also echoed an assertion we have been making for quite some time now — that al Qaeda lacks the ability to pose a strategic threat to the United States.

It must be understood that al Qaeda and other jihadists still pose a tactical threat to the U.S. homeland. In other words, they can still kill Americans. In fact, in looking at the jihadist shift in operations abroad, attacks against smaller, softer targets have actually caused more fatalities than large-scale strikes against hard targets. However, attacks against low-level soft targets, such as the November 2005 hotel attacks in Amman, Jordan, and the July 7, 2005, suicide bombings in London, do not have the strategic impact of a 9/11-style attack.

A number of tactical and strategic considerations have led us to conclude that al Qaeda does not pose a strategic threat.

By George Friedman

Domestic politics in most countries normally are of little interest geopolitically. On the whole this is true of the United States as well. Most political debates are more operatic than meaningful, most political actors are interchangeable and the distinctions between candidates rarely make a difference. The policies they advocate are so transformed by Congress and the Supreme Court — the checks and balances the Founding Fathers liked so much, coupled with federalism — that the president rarely decides anything.

That is not how the world perceives the role, however. In spite of evidence to the contrary, the president of the United States is perceived as the ultimate "decider," someone whose power determines the course of action of the world’s strongest nation. Therefore, when presidents weaken, the behavior of foreign powers tends to shift, and when elections approach, their behavior shifts even more. The expectation of change on the burning issue of Iraq is based on the misperception that the American presidency is inherently powerful or that presidents shape the consensus rather than react to it.

By Bart Mongoven

A significant shift is coming in the way corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues are dealt with in the United States.

The current era has been characterized by a focus on globalization, specifically on the demand by activists that companies operating globally meet international standards — not the often-lax or nonexistent ones in the countries where they operate — on labor, the environment and human rights. Until now, the activist focus on these issues has mirrored broader society’s interests and concerns. However, with the possible exception of immigration, globalization-related issues no longer are driving themes.

Replacing them is a narrower set of issues dealing with personal choices in the marketplace. This movement, typified by the emerging concern over sustainable consumption, advocates better corporate responses to consumer demands — demands that might not yet exist — for energy-saving light bulbs, cars that get better gas mileage, products whose materials do not pose a health risk to users and so on.

Osama bin Laden, in terms of the worldwide terrorist movement, no longer exists.  He is either dead or so incapacitated, or incoherent, that his own top troops have had to fake a five-year-old appearance by the would-be caliph in a video released this week.

So what’s up with that idiot Michael Chertkoff, nominal head of homeland security, proclaiming that al Qaeda has returned to its previous strength?  It hasn’t.  It’s recruited tons of mindless, displaced Arabs to shoot and rig bombs, but that’s far from the sophisticated operatives required for 9/11.

My only guess is that the freaked-out Bush administration is looking to use terrorism scare tactics to shore up support for the effort in Iraq (how eerie is this–I almost wrote Saigon?!).

Truth is, al Qaeda can’t do much outside of the Middle East.  The stuff in Great Britain (why is it still Great?) is just localized crap by jerks with loose or no affiliations with the Pakistani al Qaeda organization.

Prediction:  Look for a deal soon among Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United States regarding Iraq.  And catch this–the Sunnis may soon return to power in Iraq.

Stuck at home waiting for an electrician to patch up a bad circuit, I turned on the news and saw that the stock market had skyrocketed to a new record close.

Cut to an interview of a Demofiend, who said something to the effect that "not only do we [Democrafts] not think the economy is helping anyone but the rich, but so do the American people."

Oh, really.  Tell that to all my working- and middle-class friends and neighbors who, since Bush took office, have not only moved to huge new houses but also bought luxury cars, boats and vacation homes.

If the news tomorrow said, "Every American who owns any retirement account is now a millionaire," I doubt the Demofiends would say anything except that the economy is helping only the rich and the poor are getting poorer.  Blah, blah, BS, BS.

These phoney Demofiends are sickening.  Lord deliver us from having to deal with the stench, defeat and misery of a Demofiend in the White House.  The only bright spot would be that they’d screw things up so much that no Demofiend could ever get elected president again.

Now, how about some plain speakin’?  Does any of us really want the United States to become Mexico’s northern province?

Well, we’re nearly there.

If you’ve studied the fall of the Roman Empire and the history tenets of Arnold Toynbee, you have to be extremely worried.  We’re going where Rome went to create its own downfall by relying on barbarians and mercenaries (foreigners in this sense and in our case those who won’t even learn the English language) to do what we’ve grown too fat and lazy to do, even fight for the country.

In steps Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, an up-till-now marginal candidate in the Republican presidential sweepstakes.  However, the man is now talking common sense and drawing huge crowds in Iowa with his messages:

I have a solution [to illegal immigration].  It’s a radical one.  Scary.  Enormously controversial.  It’s called: Enforce the…law.

And:

Seal the border and send ‘em back [not his words, but a summarization by liberals].

Amen or what?