The Financial Times, Nikki Tait and Andrew Bounds, 23/6/2008

Network World, Paul Meller, 23/6/2008

After three years of work, the European Commission Monday launched the
European Union's first register of political lobbyists and an
accompanying code of conduct, but the move has been broadly criticized
for being too blunt an instrument to achieve real transparency.

Until now there has been no attempt to regulate the Brussels lobbying
process or to open it up to public scrutiny.

When the E.U. embarks on a reform of technology-related laws, or when
its executive body, the European Commission takes on an industry titan
like Microsoft in an antitrust battle, an army of lobbyists gets to work
in an effort to influence events.

A common criticism of some of the biggest technology and telecoms
companies has been that they hide behind numerous lobbying organizations
and industry associations, disguising the extent of their role in the
E.U. legislative and regulatory processes.

Technology companies rank among the biggest spenders on political
influence in Brussels so you would expect them and their representatives
in the E.U. capital to have the most to lose from signing up to the
register and code.

However, far from objecting, many privately agree with nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), including environmental campaigner Greenpeace,
that the initiative is ineffectual.

Lobbyists are being urged, but not obliged, to sign up to the register
from Monday. Registered lobbyists must declare approximately how much
they are paid, and by whom.

The code of conduct requires lobby groups to declare their interests
when meeting E.U. politicians and officials, and to ensure that "to the
best of their knowledge" the information provided to politicians is
"unbiased...and not misleading."

The initiative's main criticisms are that the register is not obligatory
and does not require naming individual lobbyists -- just their lobbying
firm, trade association, NGO or trade union.

ALTER-EU, an alliance of NGOs campaigning for greater lobbying
transparency, also argues that the rules for financial disclosure are
too weak and are unfairly skewed in favor of corporate lobbyists.

"Industry lobbyists are asked to give a 'good faith estimate' of their
lobbying expenditure in Brussels, while public interest organizations
must disclose their total budget. Transparency campaigners demand that
lobbyists be treated equally and disclose lobbying expenses as well as
overall budgets," ALTER-EU said in a statement issued Monday.

Craig Holman, a campaigner at the U.S. transparency group Public Citizen
described the Commission's register as "one of the world's weakest."

Brussels has never experienced a lobbying scandal on the scale of the
ones in Washington, D.C., in recent years involving former lobbyist Jack
Abramoff. European Commissioner in charge of administration, Slim
Kallas, said when he started work on the register three years ago that
the aim was to avert an Abramoff-style scandal.

Holman warned that by its voluntary nature and because it fails to
require detailed breakdowns of lobbying finances, the European system is
unlikely to achieve that aim.

Kallas defended the register at a press conference Monday. "There is a
fine tuning of details ahead of us but the important thing is that we
are making a very important, cultural change by going ahead with this
register," he said.

The European Information and Communications Technology Association
(EICTA) represents some of the biggest names in computing and consumer
electronics. Its director general, Mark McGann, said that if anything
the Commission should have gone further to clean up the lobbying scene
in Brussels.

With around 60 member companies including Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Nokia,
Samsung and smaller firms such as Bang & Olufsen, EICTA has been
involved in all the recent IT-related legislative initiatives at the
E.U. level.

"A compulsory register would be better," McGann said, although he
stressed this is his own opinion and not the official position of EICTA.
"You will never stop the more corrupt element in Brussels lobbying
without a compulsory list," he added.

Statewatch, an NGO that campaigns in defense of civil liberties,
dismissed the Commission's efforts to improve lobbying transparency. Its
editor, Tony Bunyan said the code of conduct is largely meaningless.

"What does 'unbiased' mean? Is a Commission press release 'biased'
because it presents its point of view, or is any point of view that
disagrees with it biased?" he said in a Statewatch statement.

The Commission rejected criticism that it has not gone far enough to
clean up lobbying in Brussels. Valerie Rampi, Kallas' spokeswoman said
making the register compulsory would have required new legislation,
which would take time to pass. Besides, hard law isn't needed, she
added, because the Commission plans to link its transparency drive with
separate transparency efforts undertaken by the European Parliament.

Lobbyists at the Parliament must register in order to get a badge that
allows them access to the Parliament's premises. The Commission doesn't
allow outsiders into its offices and has no plans to allow them in.
Journalists are barred from Commission premises other than the press
room in its headquarters.

An inter-institutional committee comprising representation from the
Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers, has been
created to try to forge one lobbying regime for all branches of the E.U.
lawmaking machine. The aim is to reach an agreement by the end of this year.

Once this regime is created, lobbyists will have to sign the
Commission's register to get the badge needed to enter Parliament's
premises, effectively making the register obligatory, Rampi said.

The IDG News Service is a Network World affiliate.

EUOBSERVER, Leigh Phillips, 23/6/2008

Lobbyists who try to influence European legislation on behalf of corporations, industry associations, trade unions and NGOs are being encouraged to sign up to a public register of their activities, launched on Monday (23 June) by the European Commission.

But civil society groups have slammed the registry, unveiled after years of consultations and discussions. The scheme, they believe, has "less than no value", as it is voluntary and does not contain the names of lobbyists, which campaigners say will make it impossible to track influence in Brussels.

"The commission started off over three years ago with worthy ideas for an EU lobby register, but the end product is proof that commercial lobbyists have excessive influence in Brussels," said Jorgo Riss of ALTER-EU, a coalition of NGOs campaigning for lobbying transparency in Europe.

Organisations that sign up to the register have to indicate the policy areas in which they are engaged in lobbying and disclose some financial information . They will also have to list the names of their clients.

However, there is no requirement that lobbyists have to register.

Clean and dirty lobbying

"This means the lobbyists who want to tell you what they're up to will tell you, and those who don't, won't," warned Craig Holman, from US transparency group Public Citizen, speaking to reporters ahead of the launch.

"Indeed, having the choice of registering or not is actually an advantage for lobbyists," said Erik Wesselius of Corporate Europe Observatory. "A company can hire a lobbying firm that is signed up to the register when they are doing 'clean' lobbying that no one would worry about, and hire an unregistered lobbying firm it when engaged in more sensitive, 'dirty' lobbying."

They also worry that the rules for financial disclosure are weak. Organisations are to register how much they are spending lobbying on behalf of a client within bands of €50,000. Lobbyists in the United States however must register every €7000 they spend.

Furthermore, financial disclosure is stricter for public interest lobbying efforts, such as those from environmental groups or human rights advocates than for those who attempt to influence legislation on behalf of corporations.

For-profit lobbying organisations are asked to report approximate figures related to lobbying expenditure, while public interest organisations are asked to provide figures for their organisations' total budgets.

The European Public Affairs Consultancies' Association (EPACA) – the trade association for Brussels lobbyists, however, welcomed the registry, and said in a statement it will encourage its members to sign up.

Peer pressure

Commission vice-president Siim Kallas, responsible for the European Transparency Initiative (ETI), which led to the development of the registry, said: "A voluntary solution suits all expectations in the best way."

"Where before we had nothing," he added. "This is much more than a self-regulating system."

Asked by reporters what would make lobbyists sign up to the system, a commission spokesperson replied that "peer pressure" and the potential damage to their reputation from not doing so would be effective.

"The commission is ready to trust the profession," said the EU executive in a statement. The commission argues that a mandatory register would actually end up with fewer lobbyists signed up, as any obligatory mechanism would require legislation, which in turn would have to include tighter legal definitions. Thus a much narrower definition of who is a lobbyist would apply.

Nonetheless, when commissioner Kallas launched the ETI in 2005, he had said "People [should be] allowed to know who [lobbyists] are, what they do and what they stand for" and he publicly criticised voluntary registries.

Secretary-general accused of watering down Kallas ambitions

Jorgo Riss, of ALTER-EU said he "applauded Mr Kallas' initial ambitious goals" and that the commissioner had been "very sincere" in wanting to achieve them.

Instead, he blamed the commission's top civil servant, secretary-general Catherine Day, for the more modest aims of the final product, and accused her of effectively usurping vice-president Kallas.

"Once the secretary-general got her hands on it, the goals were watered down considerably."

 A spokesperson for Ms Day, however, strongly denied ALTER-EU's accusations.

"It's simply not true," commission spokesperson Mark Grey told the EUobserver. "The secretary-general was requested to assist the vice-president with the practical implementation of the database.

"There was never any question of this being taken out of the competence of vice-president Kallas," he added.

One-stop shop

In May, the European Parliament voted to tighten up the rules governing the lobbyists via a mandatory scheme, requiring those seeking to influence officials in the EU's three main institutions to register themselves and provide income details.

The resolution, passed by an overwhelming majority of euro-deputies, suggests that lobbyists must adhere to a code of conduct and face sanctions, such as being barred from an institution, if they flout the rules.

The commission is expected to launch an inter-institutional working group this summer to investigate the development of a 'one-stop shop' establishing a common registry for the main EU institutions – the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

The Wall Street Journal, Dennis K. Berman, 23/6/2008

Who needs the media? It is time to take the message directly to the people.

So goes the latest maneuver by Belgian-Brazilian brewer InBev, which recently posted a series of quasi-journalistic interviews with CEO Carlos Brito and PR maven Steve Lipin on its Web site.

The interviews are light and informal, with the feel of Charlie Rose-turned-infomercial. Brito and Lipin are casual and tieless. Brito (as seen in the picture of the video below) looks especially low-key, turned out in a standard-issue button-down shirt that looks like it could use some ironing. But there is nothing lightweight about his mission: Bag Anheuser-Busch to create the world’s largest brewer.

The interviews clearly serve a host of different audiences, meant to both warn Anheuser-Busch’s board of directors, while placating nervous A-B employees and investors.

Early on in the interview, Brito sends a warning shot to A-B’s board of directors, which has long been accused of being entrenched and beholden to the Busch family. With a smile he says, “We respect the A-B board a lot. A group of individuals that have been in business for a long time, been in different companies and in different situations. They are strong and independent board…and they represent the shareholders.”

Brito moves on to address the employees, reminding them that St. Louis will remain the company’s North American headquarters. He then says that Inbev doesn’t intend (an interesting word choice) to close any American brewing locations.

Then comes the big payoff. That the “synergies” of an A-B-InBev deal will come from “top-line” growth, meaning selling more InBev products in the U.S., and more A-B products abroad.

Investors have typically regarded these revenue synergies with great skepticism. But Brito (as he is addressed by Lipin, in the style of “Pele” or “Ronaldo”) sees more opportunity than that. He then makes a subtle dig at Anheuser, and its apparent inability to compete against bigger competitors: “In every industry you see competition creeping up every day. A stronger company has more means, scale, and portfolio of people to succeed.”

Lipin then asks a somewhat pointed question about whether Anheuser-Busch is ready, culturally, to be owned by a foreign company. Brito sidesteps it artfully, saying that the beer itself–its recipes and brewing locations–will not change. Missing from that answer is, of course, the management style and culture of InBev. As Brito describes it, putting the two companies together is about fulfilling a “dream” that is built around greater entrepreneurship and company ownership.

Listening to the description, it sounds perfectly reasonable. But it is, of course, meant to be engagingly vague. Takeovers–especially unsolicited ones–are all about the smile. Until they aren’t. “We’re not afraid of tough conversations. Because we think that’s what builds the fabric of great companies,” Brito says at one moment.

Short of a brief audience with the press in Washington, D.C., Brito has been relatively scarce to the media. Perhaps in that spirit, he would like to sit down with Deal Journal for an interview. Surely he welcomes the dialogue, as do we.

International Herald Tribune, James Kanter, 23/6/2008

The European Commission opened its voluntary registry for the thousands of lobbyists and special interest groups operating in Brussels on Monday, aiming to shed more light on the forces that seek to influence regulations on everything from computer software to greenhouse gas emissions.

But relatively few companies or associations rushed to register on the first day - although they gave an inkling of the huge amounts spent each year on lobbying efforts. Good governance activist groups, meanwhile, renewed calls for the European Union to force lobbyists to disclose more information, calling the voluntary registry weak and flawed.

The Spanish telecommunications company Telefónica was the first to register, listing its lobbying costs as €950,000, or $1.5 million, during 2007.

"By registering right away we show how strongly we support this transparency initiative," said Carlos Lopez, head of global public policy for Telefónica. "I think all companies will be happy to use these rules."

By early evening, a total of 17 groups had joined the list, including the French drinks company Pernod Ricard, which said it had budgeted €460,000 for 2008.

Other groups included the European Community Shipowners' Associations, which said it spent €942,714 during 2007.

Some consultants said it could be several months before they register.

José Lalloum, the chairman of European Public Affairs Consultancies Association, which represents 35 of the largest consultancies operating in Brussels, including Hill & Knowlton and Weber Shandwick, said his group still was trying to ascertain what activities could be excluded from the register. He said it also wanted to figure out how to avoid listing activities that already have been listed by clients like multinational companies or governments.

Siim Kallas, the vice president of the commission, hailed the register as "an important moment of cultural change." He said the introduction of register was a first step to creating a single register that also would cover the European Parliament and other EU institutions.

Kallas also said there was no need to make the system obligatory.

"We think a voluntary system can be even more efficient than a mandatory system," Kallas said, although he would not elaborate.

EU officials have said that any attempt to impose mandatory registration would require legislation, which could take years to pass and end up with numerous loopholes.

Transparency International, an anti-corruption group, nevertheless called for an obligatory system to be established next year.

"The remaining deficiencies of the commission register should be remedied to guarantee real transparency and to ensure the establishment of a strong and mandatory lobbyist register," said Jana Mittermaier, the head of the group's Brussels office.

Another group, the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, called the register "weak and unbalanced" partly because names of individual lobbyists would not be available in many cases.

The group said that would make it hard to keep track of whether lobbyists had conflicts of interests or how many lobbyists in total are active in Brussels.

The group also said it would be hard to calculate how much money overall is spent by groups of companies and consultancies on a particular issue, like promoting biotechnology.

"When you compare it to other tested systems, such as in the United States, its voluntary nature and distortion in fact make it look like one of the world's weakest registers," said Craig Holman from Public Citizen, a group based in the United States.

Kallas said that the effectiveness of the system would be reviewed next year, but he did not specify how its effectiveness would be assessed.

The most sensitive part of the registry is information on the amount of money interest groups are paid for their work.

Consultancies that register must list the total amount of sales they derive from clients for lobbying all EU institutions. They also must list how much of that is represented by each client to the nearest €50,000, or as a percentage of their overall sales.

In-house lobbyists or those for trade associations that register must estimate to the nearest €50,000 their overall costs for directly lobbying all EU institutions. For nongovernmental organizations and research firms that register, the groups must give their overall budget for lobbying all EU institutions and their main sources of finance.

EU officials estimate that there are about 15,000 individuals active in lobbying in Brussels who represent about 2,600 special interest groups.

EU officials said companies that entered incorrect information could be suspended or removed from the register.

There also are options for whistle-blowers to report those that disguise the full extent of their activities.

The Press Gazette , James Ball, 23/6/2008

Fewer than one in 20 complaints made to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) about central Government departments led to a formal ruling to disclose information under the Freedom of Information Act.

This was one finding of Press Gazette research into complaints made about Freedom of Information requests to central Government departments.

The Home Office and Ministry of Justice, which were responsible for introducing the Act, received more complaints than any other department, getting 155 and 148 complaints respectively. The Department for Transport had the highest proportion of formal decision notices issued against it, at 8.7 per cent.

The ICO handles complaints from the public on how well public bodies handle requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, and has powers to force public authorities to disclose information. However, it has only issued formal notices on 4.4 per cent of complaints against central bodies.

Half of all complaints were either still awaiting decision or dismissed. One in three were resolved informally, while a further 4.7 per cent were formally resolved in the public authority’s favour, with a similar ratio partially upheld.

Freedom of Information campaigner Heather Brooke said the findings showed it was time for the Information Commissioner to come under the direct control of Parliament.

“By resolving so many complaints informally, the Commissioner has abdicated his responsibility to set important case law in the area of Freedom of Information,” she said.

“That so few rulings favour the public shows why the Commissioner should be accountable directly to Parliament and not Government, as there seems to be a clear bias in favour of his paymaster.”

A spokesman for the ICO said the Commissioner preferred informal resolution as part of a policy to resolve complaints “by co-operation, not compulsion”. Unlike the Information Tribunal, the ICO does not routinely make public its rulings.

The Financial Times, Edward Luce and Andrew Ward, 24/6/2008

John McCain’s right-hand man hit a raw nerve on Monday when he said another terrorist attack on US soil would prove a “big advantage” to the Republican nominee’s general election chances.

The comments by Charlie Black, who is arguably Mr McCain’s most experienced adviser, put into words what many Republicans and Democrats have privately been stating for months.

Mr Black, 60, who is a veteran of every Republican presidential campaign since the 1980s and served in the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations, immediately apologised for his remarks, which were published in an interview with Fortune Magazine.

Mr McCain, whom opinion polls show is trailing Barack Obama, his Democratic rival, by between six and 15 points, said: “I cannot imagine why he would say it. I strenuously disagree . . . It’s not true. I have worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another terrorist attack on America.”

The Obama campaign said: “The fact that John McCain’s top adviser says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a ‘big advantage’ for their political campaign is a complete disgrace and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change.”

The controversy arrived at a bad moment for the McCain campaign, which has come under increasing fire from otherwise friendly Republicans for its alleged amateurism. Critics say it has sent out mixed signals about Mr McCain’s political direction and shown a lack of “message discipline”.

For example, last week the campaign put out a televised advertisement stressing Mr McCain’s credentials on global warming on the same day that he gave a speech in Houston calling for a lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling.

Republican consultants also worry the campaign has not invested in on-the-ground operations in swing states, such as Ohio, to nearly the degree as George W. Bush did in 2004 or as has the Obama campaign.

Although many commentators may agree with Mr Black, his remarks are likely to result in calls for Mr McCain to remove him. Democrats have accused Mr McCain of hypocrisy for portraying himself as a political reformer while relying on several prominent working and former lobbyists for advice and fundraising.

As one of those lobbyists Mr Black – who headed the lobbying firm BKSH until he resigned in March – has also been targeted by groups that allege hypocrisy in Mr McCain’s critical stance on such firms. Some McCain staff, including Tom Loeffler, a senior fundraiser who previously lobbied for Saudi Arabia’s government, have resigned from the campaign.

MoveOn.org, the liberal activist group, recently launched a television advertisement calling for Mr McCain to fire Mr Black because of his lobbying work for foreign dictators, including Joseph Savimibi of Angola and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines.

According to recent opinion polls Mr Obama has a clear lead over Mr McCain on almost every domestic issue. However, both Mr McCain and the Republican party in general continue to hold an edge on national security and terrorism. Electoral analysts believe a McCain victory in November would likely arise from an election dominated by national security concerns.

The Washington Post, Jenna Johnson, 22/6/2008

Defunct Md. Agency Targeted Activists

They scavenged through trash and tailed people for hours. They used undercover operatives to infiltrate private meetings. The targets were not agents of foreign powers but advocacy groups that had been critical of corporations.

    In the 1990s, a Maryland-based private detective agency composed of former CIA agents and law enforcement officers spied on such activist groups as Greenpeace, the firm's records show.

    The agency, Beckett Brown International, had an operative at meetings of a group in Rockville that accused a nursing home of substandard care. In Louisiana, it kept tabs on environmental activists after a chemical spill. In Washington, it spied on food safety activists who had found taco shells made with genetically modified corn not approved for human consumption.

    BBI, which was founded in 1995, disbanded in 2000, and the activists might never have learned they were spied on. But a disgruntled BBI investor began digging through company records two years ago and has been contacting the former targets. He also gave The Washington Post access to the records, which provide an unusually detailed look into the secretive world of corporate spying.

    "These people were victims," investor John C. Dodd III said. "They were trying to make things better or just do their jobs, and these guys were spying on them."

    Although the targets were surprised when Dodd called, many said they had suspected they were being watched. Elder-care activists in Rockville had long wondered how Hebrew Home nursing facility officials seemed to predict their every move, former activist Ilene Henshaw said.

    "They were absolutely one step ahead of us," she said. "I never knew why."

    Not all of BBI's work targeted activists: Lysol wanted details of a New Jersey high school student's science fair project about cleaning products. Mary Kay executives sought a secret "psychological assessment" of a fellow executive. A consultant working for Nestlé wanted information about rivals Mars and Whetstone Candy.

    "I always thought they were trying to sabotage me," said Henry M. Whetstone Jr., who recently reviewed the BBI records. "Everyone thinks that the candy industry is this happy world. It's not. It has a really dark side."

    BBI was renamed in 1999, and it dissolved the next year. Dodd, who said he invested $700,000 in BBI, sued his former partners for breach of contract. He lost, but he kept more than 100 boxes of records from the firm's office in Severna Park.

    Former targets have paid Dodd or a lawyer working with him, in some cases as much as several thousand dollars, for access to and assistance with the material, he said. At least one plans to sue.

    In an interview, BBI founding partner Richard M. Beckett said his work focused on executive recruitment, a service for which The Washington Post Co. paid the firm $27,000 in 1998. Beckett said he knew little about the investigative work and left in 1999.

    Former BBI investigator Timothy S. Ward, a retired Maryland State Police officer, said BBI did nothing illegal. He declined to comment on methods or specific investigations, citing what he said were confidentiality requirements under Maryland law.

    The legality and ethics of such methods as dumpster diving and infiltration are widely debated and vary from state to state. Many private investigators and corporations have abandoned the practices since 2006, when it became known that Hewlett-Packard's chairwoman used investigators to spy on board members and reporters.

    Experts said corporations are typically insulated from such investigations by confidentiality agreements and multiple layers of subcontractors, making the BBI documents rare for more than the methods they reveal.

    "I don't know of many cases where you get to see the whole chain of people involved," said Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which researches privacy issues.

    That chain included Jim Daron, a D.C. police officer who helped seize trash from outside activists' offices. "If he can't get it with the shield, it will be difficult," Ward wrote in an e-mail about dumpsters in a gated alley.

    In an interview, Daron said he was present during trash pulls but served only as a driver. He said he stopped even that after BBI asked him to use his badge to gain access to restricted areas. "I said, 'No, it's over,' " he said.

    D.C. police officers must obtain permission to have outside jobs; Daron, who still works for the department, said he did not do so.

    The chain often included public relations consultants who hired BBI or urged clients to do so. The documents show that many of BBI's clients were referred by Nichols-Dezenhall Communications Management Group, a D.C. crisis management firm.

    Before Nichols-Dezenhall disbanded in 2003, founding partner Eric Dezenhall promoted his firm's willingness to aggressively respond to what he called "the culture of the attack."

    "We are the last resort, the Navy SEALs of the communications business," he told The Post in 1999. "Our only objective is to make the problem go away."

    In a statement, Dezenhall said neither he nor anyone else at his former firm authorized or condoned unethical activity. "Although at times we have recommended that our clients protect themselves by retaining security and investigative experts, we have not supervised or directed those activities because that has never been our area of expertise," he wrote.

    Dezenhall said his current firm, Dezenhall Resources, does not share Nichols-Dezenhall's "strategic focus." Managers, employees, clients and vendors "have turned over almost entirely since that time," he wrote.

    Nick Nichols, Dezenhall's former partner, was traveling and unavailable, an associate said recently. In his book "Rules for Corporate Warfare," Nichols wrote that he hired former law enforcement officials to investigate when clients were "the target of shakedown artists and other lowlifes. And, we're proud of it."

    'It's a Little Scary'

    In 1997, at a community center in Montgomery County, activists held meetings to discuss Hebrew Home. The group, made up largely of residents' relatives, alleged poor medication controls and rough treatment of residents. As they strategized, an undercover operative was paying close attention.

    Her reports - along with meeting agendas, license plate numbers and descriptions of advocates - were relayed to Hebrew Home officials, the records show.

    "It's a little scary they were doing this," said Henshaw, whose father lived in the home in 1997.

    Over a year, the nursing home paid BBI about $50,000 for investigative work, according to invoices addressed to chief executive Warren Slavin, who still directs the home.

    Hebrew Home said in a statement that it hired BBI on a recommendation from its public relations consultant because the activists were "threatening staff, interfering with care, and putting the health and well-being of our elderly residents at risk."

    "We are not aware of anyone on behalf of Hebrew Home having approved or directed, nor would we condone, any unethical activity that may have been undertaken by Beckett Brown," the facility said.

    In an interview, the operative identified in the documents, Madeline "Maddie" Cole, denied that she had worked for BBI. She said she attended activists' meetings about Hebrew Home but did not recall whether she had relayed information to anyone else.

    Hebrew Home made changes after state health officials found deficiencies, but Henshaw said she is certain her group would have been more effective if it had not been compromised.

    Getting to the 'Inner Circle'

    In 1998, at the urging of Nichols-Dezenhall, chemical company Condea Vista hired BBI to help with the fallout from an ethylene dichloride spill in Louisiana, Peter Markey, who oversaw public affairs for Condea Vista, said in sworn testimony. Thousands of workers said they were sickened in one of the largest spills in U.S. history.

    Markey said in a videotaped deposition last year that he, the company's president and its general counsel were aware that BBI was sifting through trash and infiltrating meetings but did not question the practices.

    Contacted recently, Sasol North America, which bought Condea Vista in 2001, said it could not comment on events that took place before it acquired the company.

    According to BBI documents, investigative targets included the law firm that represented many of the workers; lawyer Tom Filo and his activist wife; Beth Zilbert, who led a Louisiana advocacy group called CLEAN; and Greenpeace's Washington offices. Mother Jones magazine has reported on aspects of BBI's work.

    Ward, the former investigator, hired Jay A. Bly, a former Secret Service agent, to follow Zilbert and do weekly trash pickups. Bly wrote that he found little of value in the activist's trash: "no newspapers, magazines, flyers, envelopes... . It appears that they may be recycling all their trash."

    Reached by phone, Bly referred questions to Ward. Zilbert said: "See? Recycling pays."

    BBI obtained law firm documents, including one lawyer's tax returns, medical assessments and financial information about the firm's clients. "This stuff is stuff we never, ever would have thrown away," Filo said.

    An undercover operative not identified in the documents was named to the governing board of CLEAN. "I will be in the 'inner circle' and included in all the planning meetings," he wrote in an e-mail.

    The operative reported on meetings held at the law office after business hours and on private conversations about lawsuits, one of which took place in a parking lot because of concern that meeting rooms were bugged.

    In the years since, several class action lawsuits stemming from the spill have been settled. One remains, and lead lawyer Perry R. Sanders Jr. said he intends to use the information about BBI's intelligence gathering to press his claim.

    "It's just not okay this happened," Sanders said.

The Financial Times, Andrew Bounds and Nikki Tait, 23/6/2008

A new register of interests that marks the first serious attempt to control lobbying in Brussels is unworkable, say lobby firms, lawyers and campaign groups.

Siim Kallas, the European Union's administration commissioner, will launch the voluntary register today, saying it is the best way to avoid a US-style lobbying scandal.

"The European institutions are open and accountable - but as every day in Brussels sees the arrival of new lobbyists, it would be reckless and naive not to do everything we can to prevent future abuse of this openness," said Mr Kallas.

On joining the register, lobby firms will have to declare their biggest clients and an approximation of their fees. They will also have to sign the European Commission's - or an industry-wide - code of conduct.

However, some people think that it will be difficult to break down the financial information.

Catherine Stewart of Interel public relations asks whether sending a staff member to listen to a parliamentary debate would count as lobbying.

"Many of us will register in good faith, but the information may be misleading because you are comparing apples with pears," she said. "It is a dog's breakfast."

Groups representing Brussels public affairs firms said they would spend the summer drawing up advice on how to join.

Non-governmental organisations are also unhappy that they will have to declare total turnover rather than lobbying funds.

"The register is fundamentally flawed," said the EU Civil Society Contact Group, which represents hundreds of NGOs. "The register will not make public any information about the number of lobbyists working at the EU, nor who they work for."

Many also complain that they will have to declare the size of their membership - which the Commission says will indicate how much weight it should give to their opinions.

They say it will not be easy to track how much a company spends Brussels-wide. If they employ a consultancy, that firm will have to declare the income - not the company. Microsoft, for example, uses half a dozen public affairs agencies for different activities, ranging from its competition cases with the Commission to campaigning on its innovation policy.

Mr Kallas's staff say they want to give registrees discretion rather than have a box-ticking exercise, but that if it does not work, a mandatory, more prescriptive measure could follow.

The European parliament requires lobbyists to give their name and sign a code of conduct in return for access.

It is also tightening its rules, but the full details have yet to be approved.

Many of the big law firms are waiting for guidance from their professional bodies - the national law and bar societies - before deciding whether to register.

They are concerned that there could be a clash with their professional codes of conduct, which demand client confidentiality and, in most countries, require lawyers to act in their clients' best interests at all times.

The bar and law societies, in turn, are still taking legal advice on the situation, and are unlikely to issue formal guidelines before late summer or the autumn.

However, advocates of a more transparent lobbying system are strongly opposed to special treatment for lawyers once they expand beyond traditional legal work.

"Law firms should be treated similarly to other lobby firms when they do lobbying work," said Erik Wesselius, of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation.

However, Mr Kallas said there was no opt-out for lawyers, and it should be easy for them to follow the rules.

Registering the influence seekers

There are an estimated 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels. The new Commission register opens today.

Lobbyists, rather than individuals, must provide total lobbying income and breakdown of the largest clients by percentage or list fees in bands of €50,000 ($78,000, £39,500), so must companies and pan-industry interest groups such as the British Retail Consortium.

Lawyers do not need to declare fees for legal work.

Campaign groups such as Greenpeace must reveal their Brussels office income and its sources plus their membership to gauge how many people they represent.

The Times,  Rory Watson, 23/6/2008

Companies, consultancies and non-governmental organisations are being asked to disclose how much they spend lobbying European Union policymakers, under new rules that come into force today.

The initiative is being championed by Siim Kallas, the European Administration Commissioner, and is designed to show how different interest groups try to influence EU legislation. The information will be available in a register

By injecting greater transparency into the legislative process, the European Commission, in Brussels, hopes to dispel the widespread view that lobbyists exert undue pressure behind the scenes in the way EU decisions are taken. Mr Kallas said: “My line is this: money does not equal influence, but it does enhance it, and a register without financial disclosure would fail to address the issue of public perception.”

Under the scheme, public affairs consultancies and law firms that engage in lobbying are being asked to name their clients and to spell out to the nearest 50,000, or as a percentage of total revenue, how much they receive from them every year.

Companies and trade associations with their own in-house lobbyists are expected to estimate the annual cost of lobbying the EU institutions. Non-governmental organisations and think-tanks will have to publish their overall budget and itemise their main sources of funding.

Lobbyists are under no legal obligation to provide the information. The system is purely voluntary, unlike in the United States, where such details are required by law. However, the Commission is confident that peer pressure and the promise that the views of those who do register will be taken into account when new legislation is drafted, will persuade companies to sign up.

The introduction of the register, which comes after a code of conduct setting out ground rules for lobbyists, is prompting mixed reactions. Some companies fear that the information could jeopardise client confidentiality.

However, the European Public Affairs Consultancies Association, representing three quarters of public affairs practitioners in Brussels, is advising members to participate in the scheme. Jose Laloum, the association chairman, said: “We want this to work. Obviously, it is not perfect, but it legitimises business involvement. We will use the summer to assess exactly what it all means.”

Non-governmental organisations, which have played a vocal role in pressing for clear rules on lobbyists, argue that the guidelines do not go far enough. They want the register to list individual lobbyists' names.

A Greenpeace spokesman said: “This is more of a token gesture than a step forward in transparency. Without the names of individual lobbyists, it is difficult to expose cases of revolving doors' as people move between companies and EU institutions.”

Law firms face particular difficulties. One Brussels-based lawyer said: “You could argue that what the Commission is trying to do, is already being done by national professional bodies. We also have the added question of client confidentiality.”

The Law Society has already given warning that it is trying to establish whether firms and solicitors can register with the Commission while still fully complying with their duties under the Solicitors' Code.

International Herald Tribune, The Associated Press, 23/6/2008

The European Commission on Monday launched a voluntary register of lobbyists seeking to influence EU legislation — a measure that was immediately slammed by a leading transparency group as inadequate.

Industry representatives who decide to join the register will need to adhere to a binding code of conduct and disclose who they work for and how much clients pay them to put their views to commission officials.

EU Commission vice-president Siim Kallas argued that a voluntary register would be more effective than a mandatory one because participants will have an interest in showing their dealing with legislators is honest and fair — an assumption described by the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency as flawed.

"This voluntary lobby register is more of a token gesture for transparency than an actual step forward," said Erik Wesselius of the alliance, which represents more than 160 groups, trade unions, academics and others concerned with the increasing influence of lobbyists on EU legislation.

The alliance says that rules for financial disclosures are skewed in favor of industry lobbyists because, unlike public interest organizations, they will not be obliged to disclose their total budget, only a "good faith estimate" of their lobbying expenses.

The European Parliament has spoken in favor of a common mandatory — not voluntary — register of lobbyists valid for the European Commission, which drafts EU laws, and the Council of EU Ministers, which represents EU governments' interests in Brussels and approves legislation together with the European Parliament.

A working group including representatives of the three EU institutions will strive to establish a common list, which the parliament wants to be operational by the next European elections in 2009.

EU lawmakers are facing increased pressure from lobbyists seeking their say in drafting EU laws on issues ranging from blacklisting bad chemicals to setting carbon dioxide emission caps — major legislation with impact going beyond the EU's 490 million inhabitants.

Critics say the estimated 15,000 lobbyists and 2,500 interest organizations in Brussels hold too much sway in drafting EU legislature and more transparency is needed.

Brussels has become a growing hub for public affairs consultancies that work for individual companies and industry groups, corporate lobbyists, non-governmental organizations, charities and think-tanks, an environment comparable only with Washington.

The Sunday Times,  Jonathan Oliver, 22/6/2008

THE world’s largest marketing company, London-based WPP, faced embarrassment last week as it emerged that the head of its Zimbabwean affiliate had devised election advertisements for Robert Mugabe, portraying the British as lazy, pith helmet-wearing imperialists.

WPP, headed by Sir Martin Sorrell, ordered an internal investigation after the head of its Harare offshoot was named as the architect of a propaganda war launched by Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party.

Sharon Mugabe, the agency’s boss, who is believed by opposition politicians to be a cousin of the president, is credited with radically improving the government’s campaign literature.

One recent newspaper advertisement plays on prejudice against the former colonial masters, hinting that ordinary voters will benefit from the confiscation of white-owned farms.

“The British came only to seize land, conquer and enjoy life on our land at our expense,” it said. “It’s now time for us to enjoy the gains of our independence.” It pictures a white man in a pith helmet being carried aloft in a hammock by African servants.

Sharon Mugabe, 36, is the chief executive of Imago Y&R, the Zimbabwean business that is 25% owned by Young & Rubicam, the advertising, communications and marketing company that was acquired by WPP in 2000. Last night the Harare office was still listed on Young & Rubicam’s website.

A flattering profile in The Herald newspaper in Harare, which is state-owned, recently described her as “a marketing icon, a brand expert, a formidable strategist and a brand in her own right”.

Opposition politicians concede that she has helped to craft an impressive campaign for Zanu-PF. “We began to notice that the government’s ad campaigns had improved significantly,” said a source.

The revelation will be a personal embarrassment for Sorrell, one of the most admired and highly paid figures in British business, who prides himself on his company’s social responsibility. Only last week he pledged £5m of “communications support” to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

WPP is seeking to offload its stake in Imago Y&R, which in practice will probably mean selling it for a nominal sum to Sharon Mugabe. A spokesman said: “We do not want to be associated with this regime.”

WPP began working with Sharon Mugabe in 2006 when she bought a majority shareholding in the Zimbabwean firm from the white owner.

A company spokesman said: “She came to London. We did ask her if she was related to Robert Mugabe and she said no she was not.”

It is understood that WPP hired consultants to run a background check, which failed to find any significant link between her and the Zanu-PF regime.

The Washington Independent, James Risen, 19/6/2008

United Press International, Nick Mottern, 19/6/2008

"Americans remain optimistic that a last minute deal can be reached," reported The Wall Street Journal in its June 14-15, 2008 edition, describing an impasse over an extraordinary long-term "security" deal between the United States and Iraqi governments that would keep U.S. troops in Iraq for many, many years.

Gina Chon, reporting from Baghdad, was not referring to the American public. She was referring only to a statement by the State Department's Iraq coordinator, David Satterfield, who, she said in breezy style, "is in town for the negotiations" on the deal, which is opposed by an increasing number of Iraqis because it would make Iraq a captive state of the United States.

Oil was not mentioned in connection with Satterfield's negotiations. Nor was oil mentioned in the negotiation reports in The New York Times or Financial Times. In fact, it has been the practice of the major media to avoid mentioning oil in connection with military activity in Iraq; something also common in the Congress, all following the lead of the Bush administration.

But it is no coincidence that news of negotiations over the "security" agreement comes with news on June 19 that the occupied Iraqi government is getting ready to sign contracts with ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and Total to assist in developing Iraq's vast oil fields, holding the world's third-largest reserves. Although the contracts are simply for services, not long-term production agreements, the contracts give the major oil companies a foot in the door.

That they are no-bid contracts given to these Western firms over Russian, Chinese and Indian competitors is exceptional and clearly a matter of an occupied government responding to pressure from the occupier.

What the Bush administration and the major oil companies are striving for is a "security" agreement that will be locked into place before the November election, enabling U.S. troops to protect U.S. oil interests in Iraq and to control the Iraqi government for years to come.

The U.S. military-Iraqi oil connection was made surprisingly clear in March 2008 when Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said at a news conference in Iraq, as reported by United Press International, that he had made calls to major "energy" companies, urging them to invest in Iraq. Since it has been obvious the "majors" want back into Iraq, and have been pushing for an Iraq oil law that would result in huge profits for them, his calls could only have been to assure the oil officials their investments will be safe.

The United States is, according to a report by Patrick Cockburn in the newsletter Counterpunch, pushing the Iraqi government to allow the U.S. military total freedom in Iraq to do virtually anything it wants, supposedly to fight terrorists. The real day-to-day reality is that the agreement would provide a "legal" basis for allowing the U.S. military to do whatever it takes to protect the investments of major oil companies in Iraq after the U.N. mandate covering the occupation expires at the end of the year.

The United States will be protecting the oil operations not from invaders of Iraq but from Iraqis who are opposed to the long-term oil deals now being pushed by the United States and resisted by many inside and outside the government. Perhaps the most notable opponents of the long-term deals are members of the Iraqi oil workers union, who also oppose the occupation.

The terms of the proposed agreement have been kept secret by the Bush administration, even from the Congress. The Cockburn report says the terms, some acknowledged by Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, include:

-- Permanent military bases in Iraq; 50 is reportedly the minimum number.

-- Complete control of Iraqi air space below 29,000 feet.

-- Complete freedom to conduct military operations as the United States sees fit.

-- Immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and U.S. mercenaries, also known as private contractors.

-- Freedom to jail and interrogate Iraqis at will.

It is possible that provisions yet to be made public may also include commercial privileges, such as freedom for the United States from import and export duties, which would likely mean profit-making possibilities for big oil. This is suggested by a draft of the agreement, created by the United States as early as 2003, made available through the work of the National Security Archive and reported by The Public Record on June 14.

The astounding military/detention provisions of the agreement would effectively put all Iraqis under the control of the United States, with perhaps less sovereignty than any supposed nation in the world. The possibility that the United States may back down from some of these terms does not change the fact that these extraordinary demands have been made at all. The only reason anyone is even talking about them is the deadly force being thrown around in Iraq by the United States.

An example of why the Bush administration wants a blank check for the U.S. military in Iraq is the operation under way this week in and around the city of Amarah in southern Iraq, not far from the Halfaya super-giant oil field, which is estimated at 3.8 billion barrels. This field likely holds the equivalent of about 25 percent of the total reserves under control of ExxonMobil worldwide.

The official reason for the offensive, according to the occupied government of Iraq, is to root out "outlaws" and "criminals," according to Reuters. The area is reportedly under the control of Moqtada Sadr, a Shiite cleric opposed to the occupation.

If the offensive in Amarah, with a population of 250,000, goes like a similar attack in the oil center of Basra in March, following the Petraeus news conference, Iraqi troops will be supported by U.S. helicopter gunships that fire Hellfire missiles. This U.S. air weapon has been responsible for countless horrific civilian deaths as it often has been used in crowded urban neighborhoods.

There is no question that Americans are incensed about high gasoline prices. But it is doubtful that the vast majority of Americans want to be using gasoline in their cars that is being secured at gunpoint.

--

(Nick Mottern is the director of ConsumersforPeace.org.)

The Hill, Kevin Bogardus and Rebecca Brown, 19/6/2008

Vice President Dick Cheney has won his battle to withhold records from the public despite efforts by Congress and other critics who say they should be open to scrutiny.

    The Democrats are conceding defeat. The party's top investigator in the House of Representatives acknowledges that there is nothing more he can do to force the vice president's hand.

    "He has managed to stonewall everyone," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "I'm not sure there's anything we can do."

    Waxman said that despite Cheney's turning this administration into "one of the most secretive in history," there's not much he or anyone else can do because the administration has only a few more months left in office.

    Cheney argues that, as the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, he is not exclusively part of the executive branch and therefore not subject to the public-records standards that have been applied to past administrations.

    Congressional probes, sometimes ignored by the Justice Department, have led nowhere, and prominent lawmakers are throwing their hands in the air.

    A leading watchdog group agrees that Cheney will probably leave the White House without turning over the precise number of records he has determined to be classified or a detailed list naming whom he employs.

    The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), a branch of the National Archives, confirmed that it does not possess any reports about what data Cheney's office has classified or declassified. The Office of the Vice President (OVP) has previously done so in accordance with an executive order created by President Clinton in 1995, which aimed to create a uniform system of protecting classified information.

    Similarly, Cheney's staff information is not included in the Plum Book, which identifies all presidential-appointed positions. In the last Plum Book, the OVP was listed as Appendix 5, which stated that the vice president is part of neither the executive nor the legislative branch of government.

    The Office of Personnel Management confirmed that at this time they do not possess any staff information from OVP for the Plum Book.

    In addition, a Cheney aide wrote to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) on June 2 that its disclosure requirements for privately paid travel records apply only to those who head an "agency in the executive branch." In past letters to OGE, Cheney's staff said he does not head an agency and would not have to disclose.

    The aide did disclose, however, as "a matter of comity," that no staff members accepted trips paid for by outside sponsors.

    To find precedents for their position, Cheney staffers have sometimes reached back to arguments made by prior administrations. For example, one such staff letter to OGE cites an opinion given by President John F. Kennedy's Justice Department in 1961 that states: "the Vice President belongs neither to the Executive nor to the Legislative Branch but is attached by the Constitution to the latter."

    Joel Goldstein, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that opinion would provide technical support that Cheney's office was a "hybrid office," but history since then indicates otherwise.

    "This seems to be arguing form over substance. And it's not even clear that the form is that strong," said Goldstein, who has studied the vice presidency extensively. "The vice president has migrated closer and closer to the executive branch."

    Cheney has served as one of the most powerful vice presidents in history, acting as a close adviser to President Bush and offering input on some of the biggest decisions made by the administration

    "Constitutionally speaking, he presides over the Senate - of course he is a member of the legislative branch," said David Rivkin, a partner at Baker Hostetler. "The only executive power the vice president has is derivative of whatever the president decides. He has to wear two hats."

    Rivkin was an aide to two vice presidents, George H.W. Bush and Dan Quayle.

    To explain his position, a Cheney spokeswoman referenced an interview the vice president gave to CNN's Larry King in July 2007. There, Cheney argued he was part of both the executive and legislative branches - being a presidential adviser as well as a National Security Council member, but also receiving his paycheck from the Senate.

    "The vice president is sort of a weird duck in the sense that you do have some duties that are executive and some [that] are legislative," said Cheney. "In terms of accountability, I'm accountable to [President George W. Bush]."

    The refusal by Cheney's staff to cooperate with ISOO sparked Waxman to write a letter to Cheney last summer questioning whether that was wise, given his office's history of security breaches.

    The matter was also referred by Congress to the Justice Department. But the department passed on following up, citing Bush's belief that the vice president and his staff were not part of the executive branch and did not have to follow the president's own executive order.

    Cheney's contention led to theater on Capitol Hill last summer. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) introduced an amendment to the Financial Services spending bill that proposed stripping the OVP of its executive-branch funding. The measure failed by eight votes.

    Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.), one of two Republicans who voted for the amendment, still stands by his vote.

    "If you say you're not a member of the executive branch, you shouldn't be funded by the executive branch," Jones said. "As long as you're in office, you have a responsibility to show how you utilize your position."

    But despite Congress's tough talk, Cheney has managed to keep his funding and hold onto his records. The question now is whether his unique position will survive into the next administration.

    Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, who has battled with OVP to release more information, thinks not.

    "Vice President Cheney won the battles over non-disclosure, but I believe he has lost the war," said Aftergood. "His position has become an object of public ridicule."

    Rivkin disagrees. Cheney's stance was necessary for the executive branch, he said.

    "There has always been a grander debate on whether accommodation between the two political branches is the path to choose or it is better to stand on one's prerogatives," said Rivkin. "You need to preserve the ability of future vice presidents and presidents to assert their prerogatives."

The New York Times, Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt, 20/6/2008

Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.

Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country’s air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.”

But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.”

Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent.

Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. “If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack,” Mr. Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. “Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable.”

But Mr. Mofaz was criticized by other Israeli politicians as seeking to enhance his own standing as questions mount about whether the embattled Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, can hang on to power.

Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mr. Mofaz’s statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed.

Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran.

“They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard,” a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.

Any Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would confront a number of challenges. Many American experts say they believe that such an attack could delay but not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the program’s infrastructure is buried under earth and concrete and installed in long tunnels or hallways, making precise targeting difficult. There is also concern that not all of the facilities have been detected. To inflict maximum damage, multiple attacks might be necessary, which many analysts say is beyond Israel’s ability at this time.

But waiting also entails risks for the Israelis. Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran will soon master the technology it needs to produce substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

Iran is also taking steps to better defend its nuclear facilities. Two sets of advance Russian-made radar systems were recently delivered to Iran. The radar will enhance Iran’s ability to detect planes flying at low altitude.

Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in February that Iran was close to acquiring Russian-produced SA-20 surface-to-air missiles. American military officials said that the deployment of such systems would hamper Israel’s attack planning, putting pressure on Israel to act before the missiles are fielded.

For both the United States and Israel, Iran’s nuclear program has been a persistent worry. A National Intelligence Estimate that was issued in December by American intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had suspended work on weapons design in late 2003. The report stated that it was unclear if that work had resumed. It also noted that Iran’s work on uranium enrichment and on missiles, two steps that Iran would need to take to field a nuclear weapon, had continued.

In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran’s suspected work on nuclear matters was a “matter of serious concern” and that the Iranians owed the agency “substantial explanations.”

Over the past three decades, Israel has carried out two unilateral attacks against suspected nuclear sites in the Middle East. In 1981, Israeli jets conducted a raid against Iraq’s nuclear plant at Osirak after concluding that it was part of Saddam Hussein’s program to develop nuclear weapons. In September, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that American officials said housed a nuclear reactor built with the aid of North Korea.

The United States protested the Israeli strike against Iraq in 1981, but its comments in recent months have amounted to an implicit endorsement of the Israeli strike in Syria.

Pentagon officials said that Israel’s air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission.

Much of the planning appears to reflect a commitment by Israel’s military leaders to ensure that its armed forces are adequately equipped and trained, an imperative driven home by the difficulties the Israeli military encountered in its Lebanon operation against Hezbollah.

“They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they’re ready,” the Pentagon official said. “They’re not taking any options off the table.”

Global Research, Frida Berrigan, 19/6/2008

The Pentagon is in crisis: The war in Iraq is entering its fifth hot summer. And while U.S. troop casualties are down, the light at the end of the occupation tunnel is no closer and no brighter.

Headaches mount on the home front as well. The head of the Air Force was recently embarrassed and forced from the cockpit. Billions of dollars have been misplaced or misspent. Huge cost overruns bedevil weapons contractors. And, private contractors have formed a cubicle mercenary force, outnumbering uniformed personnel and federal employees in many DoD agencies.

The Government Accountability Office has issued a series of reports on these problems. While the watchdog agency sticks to the script of analytic bureaucratese, what they document is cumulatively damning to business as usual at the Pentagon.

Money Problems

The Pentagon has its work cut out for it. Keeping track of its more than half trillion dollar budget and the hundreds of billions more in war spending is no easy task. There is bound to be some slippage here and there. But the Pentagon’s Inspector General’s Office recently reported to Congress that the Pentagon is unable to account for nearly $15 billion earmarked for the Iraq reconstruction effort. In a May report to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Inspector General’s Office highlights $7.8 billion paid to contractors for everything from telephones to trucks without any support documentation—like a check for $5.6 million to an Iraqi contractor. For what? No one knows. Or the $32 million doled out to build a facility for the Iraqi military. Never built. Why not? No one knows.

One reason that money just seems to disappear is that there are not enough people watching the books. While the Pentagon budget has soared in the past seven years, the resources and staff time devoted to making sure that money is well spent have not increased.

In fiscal year 2007, the Pentagon contracted with companies for $316 billion in military goods and services. But the Inspector General’s Office only had the resources to track fewer than half those projects. And they also have to keep an eye on war spending. At the beginning of June, Inspector General Claude Kicklighter went to Congress with hat in hand to ask for another $25 million for his department next year. He is also arguing for a 25% increase in staffing over the next seven years. The funds – comparable to just a few hours of the war in Iraq – are in the proposed 2009 defense authorization bill now before Congress.

Meanwhile, the GAO estimates that the Pentagon has $900 billion in planned spending on weapons systems over the next five years. While Congressional and Pentagon leaders point to the need to “reset” military forces worn out by years of warfighting, the lion’s share of this money is not going to repair equipment or replenish dwindling stocks of needed material. Rather, it is going to pay the ever-spiraling bill for high tech weapons systems still in the pipeline.

According to “Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs,” a March GAO report, the Pentagon had 75 major weapons programs in production in 2000. Collectively, the programs were $42 billion over-budget and behind schedule by an average of 16 months. Today, there are 95 major weapons programs, which are $295 billion over-budget and 21 months behind schedule. Ouch.

“This would never be tolerated in the private sector,” lamented Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Maybe so, but when the private sector moves into the Pentagon in a period of “more-than-enough-to-go-around” military budgets, it seems like they have no problem spending the public’s money hand over fist.

Whose Pentagon?

In Iraq, private military contractors like Blackwater and Kellogg Brown and Root are doing soldiers’ work for many times the pay. PMCs – as they are called – are so ubiquitous that the United States can no longer go to war without them. According to “Additional Personal Conflict of Interest Safeguards Needed for Certain DoD Contractor Employees,” a March GAO report, the Pentagon can’t do its paperwork without private contractors either. In offices throughout the Department of Defense, cubicle mercenaries are working shoulder-to-shoulder with uniformed military staff and federal employees.

In fiscal year 2006, the Pentagon spent more on contracting for services with private companies than they spent on weapons systems or other equipment. Over the past 10 years, contracts with private companies for services have increased 78% in real terms – to a total of more than $151 billion.

The GAO looked at 21 different offices and found that private contractors outnumbered Department of Defense employees in more than half the locations. In some offices—like the engineering department of the Missile Defense Agency – they make up more than 80% of the work force. The GAO found that contractors are responsible for carrying out “a range of tasks, including studying alternative ways to acquire desired capabilities, developing contractor requirements and advising and assisting on source selection, budget, planning and award fee determination.” In its rebuttal to the GAO report, the DoD pointed out that most contractors are involved in the technical – rather than the policy – side of the work. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that an employee paid by L-3 Communications is sitting at a desk in the Pentagon and drafting the requirements that L-3 would need to fulfill to get another contract, and that an employee with SAIC is evaluating what sort of award fees should be granted to SAIC once they get another contract. Contract employees are also not subject to the federal laws and regulations designed to prevent personal conflicts of interest.

The GAO report did not discuss contractor pay, but a separate March report “Army Case Study Delineates Concerns with Use of Contractors as Contract Specialists” assesses the Army’s Contracting Center of Excellence. There, private contractors make up less than 20% of the workforce, but they are paid far more than federal employees. The average hourly cost of a contractor employee was more than 26% higher than that of a government employee.

Revolving Door: Spinning for Profit

For those public sector employees left at the Pentagon, the door to the corporate world is always open. In a May report titled “Post-Government Employment of Former DoD Officials Needs Greater Transparency,” the GAO found that thousands of senior Pentagon officials take refuge in the corporate world. In fact, of the almost 2,500 former Pentagon officials analyzed, almost two thirds of them went on to senior positions at just seven companies – SAIC, Northrop Grumman, Booz Allen Hamilton, L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Raytheon. Except for the consulting firm Booz Allen, all seven are on the Pentagon’s list of top ten contractors. Together, they received more than $87 billion in contracts from the DoD in 2007.

The GAO report asserts that “our results indicate that defense contractors may employ a substantial number of former DoD officials on assignments related to their former DoD agencies or direct responsibilities.”

Military policy will define the presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain. Already the rhetoric is flying thick and heavy. Who knows more about the surge? Who has more Iraq stamps on his passport? Who is more bellicose toward Iran? Who is more serious about beating the terrorists?

The answers to these questions are nothing more than political wordplay without a strategic and critical examination of the Pentagon – as the exerciser of American power abroad, as the single largest consumer of federal resources, and as a teetering bureaucratic disaster. Let’s see if either of them tackles the problems on the Potomac in a meaningful way.

Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Frida Berrigan is a senior program associate at the Arms and Security Project of the New America Foundation.

Forbes, Associated Press, 20/6/2008

The pharmaceutical industry's main trade group spent more than $3.6 million lobbying the federal government in the first quarter, according to a recent disclosure form.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, whose members include Pfizer, Amgen Inc. and Eli Lilly & Co., lobbied on how prices are set for seniors' medications, rules governing drug imports and other issues.

The drug industry, consistently one of the top spenders in Washington, has faced a host of proposals unfriendly to its interests since Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006.

According to a lobbying disclosure form filed April 21, the trade group advocated against:

_ A proposal that would have allowed the government - not private health insurers - to negotiate drug prices for seniors in Medicare. The measure, aimed at wringing lower prices from drug makers, has stalled in the House since President Bush threatened to veto it.

_ Legislation that would allow the U.S. to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and other foreign countries. Proponents said foreign competition would help drive down U.S. drug prices, but the pharmaceutical industry warned it could expose Americans to counterfeit medications.

_ Patent reform legislation that it argued could weaken legal protections on drug patents. High-tech companies supported the bill that passed the House last year aimed at improving the U.S. patent system, but the pharmaceutical lobby argued it could weaken protections by reducing infringement penalties. The bill has stalled in the Senate.

_ Various bills that would allow generic drug companies to sell cheaper copies of biotech drugs. Unlike traditional chemical drugs, biotech drugs have never faced generic competition because the Food and Drug Administration lacks authority to approve the cheaper copies.

The generic drug industry believes biotech drugs should receive no more than five years of market exclusivity before a generic can launch. But branded drug makers say biotech drugs must have at least 12 years of exclusivity. Efforts to reach a compromise are slowly developing in the House.

Former Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., is president and chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Among those who also lobbied on the group's behalf were: Mimi Kneuer, Tauzin's former chief of staff; Amy Efantis, former legislative director for Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala.; Valerie Jewett, former legislative director for Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J.; and Matt Sulkala, who was senior legislative assistant to Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla.

Besides Congress, the trade group lobbied the FDA, Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies in the first three months of the year.

Pink News, Tony Grew, 20/6/2008

The European Union Trade Commissioner has said that the President of France has "nothing against him personally" after Mr Sarkozy blamed him for the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty by Irish voters.

Mr Mandelson has been the UK's appointee in Brussels since November 2004 and last year was placed at number three on the PinkNews.co.uk list of the top 50 most influential LGBT people in British politics.

He is one of the few out politicians in the EU - only two out of 785 MEPs are openly gay.

Last week the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum, throwing the EU into confusion as to how to proceed.

France is reportedly displeased with Mr Mandelson's emphasis on free trade at the expense of protectionism, an issue that also concerned Irish voters.

Mr Sarkozy said:

"We can't blame (EU President) Barroso for this, choose another one, a better one, Mandelson for instance.

"The question of the World Trade Organisation was clearly mentioned in Ireland.

"It would be a nonsense to continue to negotiate an agreement in which we haven't got anything on services, or an industry and which would lead to a 20% reduction in agricultural output in a world where there are 800 million people dying of hunger."

Mr Mandelson later told Sky News "my skin is thick enough to take this."

"President Sarkozy at his press conference was in fact asked to blame the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, and he tactfully and diplomatically chose to blame me instead.

"I'm told that Mr Sarkozy has nothing against me personally."

This is not the first time Mr Mandelson has aroused a strong reaction from fellow politicians.

The feud between the former spin doctor and Gordon Brown is the stuff of Westminster legend.

Mr Mandelson backed Mr Blair over his close friend Mr Brown for the leadership of the Labour party in 1994.

The Prime Minister is said to have nurtured a grudge against Mr Mandelson ever since.

One of the architects of New Labour, Mr Mandelson was among Tony Blair's closest advisers and when Labour came to power in 1997, he was rewarded with the job of "co-ordinating the government," in which he antagonised many more senior figures.

Hated by many in his own party and dubbed the "Prince of Darkness," he was appointed to the Cabinet twice, but had to resign both times.

He was famously outed on national television by gay journalist Matthew Parris.

In March 2007, amid rumours that Gordon Brown would remove him when he took over as Prime Minister, Mr Mandelson was defiantly telling the BBC:

"I don't know whether this is going to come as a disappointment to him, but he can't actually fire me.

"So like it or not, I'm afraid he will have to accept me as Commissioner until November 2009.

"But I will not be seeking a nomination for a further term after that time."

By March this year there was widespread speculation that the long-running feud between Mandelson and Brown was at an end and that the Prime Minister was going to offer his friend another five years in Brussels.

Gordon Brown quashed those rumours when he told reporters that Mr Mandelson would only serve one term.

"Peter Mandelson said he doesn't want to become the next commissioner," he said.

"I think it is important to say that Peter Mandelson has done a great job as commissioner and, of course, it is his wish to do something else."

In the wake of the Irish rejection of the treaty, it is unclear how the EU will now move forward with the Lisbon Treaty.

"The Irish government and the governments of the other Member States will now need to assess what this result means for the process," Mr Barosso said in a statement after the Irish vote.

"The Treaty was signed by all 27 Member States, so there is a joint responsibility to address the situation.

"The "no" vote in Ireland has not solved the problems which the Lisbon Treaty is designed to solve.

"The ratification process is made up of 27 national processes, 18 Member States have already approved the Treaty, and the European Commission believes that the remaining ratifications should continue to take their course.

"The EU institutions and the Member States should continue the work of delivering for the citizens of Europe on issues like growth and jobs, social cohesion, energy security, climate change and fighting inflation. Working together in the EU remains the best way to deal with the challenges affecting Europeans today."

Spiegel Online, Juan Moreno, 18/6/2008

HOW AN AUTO LOBBYIST DIRECTS EU POLICY

France and Germany recently reached a compromise on CO2 emission limits for automobiles. The man behind the agreement is Matthias Wissmann -- a former transport minister turned auto industry lobbyist.

Matthias Wissmann sits by the fireplace in a luxury hotel in Brussels. A slender man, he wears a gold-buttoned dark blue jacket and round horn-rimmed glasses, the same glasses he seems to have worn for years. He speaks in clear, precise sentences and can instantly switch on a smile, no matter how much he dislikes someone.

On this day in Brussels, Wissmann is explaining which institutions he can "read" best. Three are important to him, he says: the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the German Bundestag and the Élysée Palace in Paris. “Reading parliament” sounds nice, much nicer than “influencing representatives” -- even if it means exactly that. Wissmann was at the Élysée Palace the day before, shortly before flying to Brussels. The Élysée is “difficult,” he says.

For over a year now, Wissmann has served as president of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), voice of BMW, Daimler, VW, Porsche and around 600 other companies. No other lobbyist in Germany is more powerful. After all, no other industry is as important as the car industry, which is responsible for €290 billion ($449 billion) in annual revenue and 750,000 jobs. Wissmann is the mouthpiece for an industry which is responsible for almost one in seven German jobs. Few people in Germany are so influential.

Just how much weight that voice carries was seen last Monday, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy met in the southern German city of Straubing and arrived at an agreement on automobile CO2 emission limits (more...). The European Commission’s original recommendations were considerably watered down. Among other things, the transition period will now be seven years rather than the original four.

But Wissmann wasn’t present at the discussion table in Straubing. He had an even better seat for the negotiations: inside the heads of those involved.

The compromise reached by Merkel and Sarkozy fit rather neatly with Wissmann’s wishes. In the fight between German cars and climate protection, Wissmann wants the cars to win -- and he has largely gotten what he wanted.

German automobile manufacturers, who mainly produce heavy, highly polluting sedans, have bought themselves a great deal of time with the longer transition period. Yes, they could develop newer and more fuel efficient technology. But they could also expand their fleets with a few compact cars or hybrids, reducing the fleet’s average consumption.

“The agreement is a considerable improvement over the European Commission’s recommendation,” Wissmann said after the compromise emerged, although he immediately added that it is “still not an ideal solution” -- something the nature of his job requires him to say. Within his association, talk was of “success,” but one of the most important rules of lobbying is not to talk about success publicly. Lobbying is a quiet business; The art of it lies in getting politicians to make the desired decisions, while making it look like they arrived at those decisions on their own.

Switching Sides

Wissmann is a master of this art. He knows the other side, having served as a member of the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament, for 31 years. Under former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Wissmann was a speaker on economic issues for the parliamentary group of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) before becoming minister for research and later transport minister.

Wissmann left the Bundestag on May 31, 2007. The next day, he became a lobbyist. He changed sides from one day to the next, from representative of the people to the shareholder’s representative, without even taking a break in between.

When Wissmann took over as VDA president over a year ago, things were looking better for the climate than for German cars. European Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas wanted to implement an emissions limit of 120 grams of CO2 per kilometer for all new cars by 2012. Manufacturers who didn’t reach these specifications would pay penalties -- high penalties. The goal of 120 grams of CO2 per kilometer is considerably easier for Fiat or Renault than for Daimler or BMW and so it was clear who would primarily pay the price: buyers of German cars.

Wissmann had to do something. He gave interviews, went on talk shows, took part in panel discussions -- that was part of the strategy, to tell the public about the German car manufacturers’ plight. The other part was much less conspicuous: Wissmann had to step into the political ring, in this case Brussels politics.

In the past few months, Wissmann has met with many European Parliament members. He already knew them well -- after all, shortly before he joined the VDA, he was chairman of the Bundestag’s European Union committee. The day after the conversation by the fireside in Brussels, Werner Langen, a member of the European Parliament for the CDU, authored a press release in which he stated that CO2 legislature in the European Parliament has “long been on a realistic path.” In the press release, Langen called for exactly what Wissmann’s VDA wanted -- even some of the wording was identical.

Langen has been in Brussels since 1994, where he is an expert on automobile CO2 limits in the European Parliament’s industry committee. He’s an experienced man and he can get out a majority vote. Anyone wanting to get something done in Brussels regarding automobile-related issues would do well to have him on their side. Wissmann and Langen have known each other since the 1970s. “I think Matthias Wissmann is doing a super job there,” says Langen. He sounds like a fan.

Next stop for Wissmann was Paris. He knew he couldn’t achieve his goal without the French. No really important topic is decided in Europe without France, and so strictly speaking Wissmann had two opponents to overcome: the climate and France.

Again his contacts helped him, this time in Germany, more precisely in the CDU. “Of course I can get an appointment with a federal minister when necessary,” says Wissmann. But that’s not difficult -- after all, any president of the VDA would get a slot in a minister’s schedule. The real question is whether another VDA president would also regularly send text messages to the chancellor -- and get answers back. Angela Merkel doesn’t just answer Wissmann’s messages; she also took care of the agreement with Sarkozy. If Wissmann had personally dictated the compromise between the two himself, it would hardly have come out much differently.

When Daimler Chairman Dieter Zetsche and VW Chairman Martin Winterkorn got Wissmann on board for the association, they didn't need a car expert but rather someone who knew how to shift a mood, how to sway a decision.

Representing a position is work Wissmann knows well. Before it was his own position, now it’s that of the companies that pay his salary. Technically, not much has changed. “The job reminds me strongly of my time as transport minister,” says Wissmann. He didn’t even have to replace his staff. Next to him sits Andreas Kraus, his press officer, a soft-spoken blond man wearing a three-piece suit. Kraus filled the same role for Wissmann during his time in the Bundestag. When asked whether his job has changed much, Kraus answers: “Nope.”

When one accompanies Matthias Wissmann about his work for a while, it quickly becomes clear that the difference between his work as a politician and as VDA president is indeed small. Before he sat behind his minister’s desk and lobbyists came through the door wanting something from him; now he’s the one coming through the door. Basically only the seating arrangement has changed.

Both lobbyists and politicians fight for certain interests, both work to persuade, both depend on good contacts and majorities. One does it for money, the other -- if the voters are lucky -- for the common good. Lobbying is what is left when the ideals are taken out of politics.

A couple of days after his stay in Brussels, Wissmann is in Berlin again. He has work to take care of in his legal office, located on the 22nd floor of a downtown building. He looks out over Berlin and can see the Reichstag, the Chancellery and Tiergarten park. He says he enjoys the view from up here.

“I’ve always believed in the American principle of alternating between politics and business,” he says. “Both sides learn from each other, helping to dispel prejudices.” Wissmann doesn’t see it as problematic for a politician to become a lobbyist. “It just needs to be done properly. Everyone needs to know who you’re working for. Just like in my case.” It sounds as if one could simply abandon old convictions, old interests and old connections.

For his new job, Wissmann had to adapt a great deal, but gave up very little. Angela Merkel had thought of making him Germany's European commissioner, but those were just plans, while becoming Germany’s most important lobbyist was a concrete offer -- and the VDA president’s very high salary didn’t hurt either.

A few months ago, it looked like the European Commission was going to get serious about climate protection and force manufacturers to make more efficient cars. They wanted to take drastic measures, and quickly.

Enter Matthias Wissmann. He’s won auto manufacturers an extra seven years. It looks like he was a good investment, worth every cent they pay him.