Teperdexrian

The Interesting, The Strange, The News.

Posts Tagged ‘washington

Bilderberg 2011: Full Official Attendee List

leave a comment »

Thanks to the fantastic work of Bilderberg activists, journalists and the Swiss media, we have now been able to obtain the full official list of 2011 Bilderberg attendees. Routinely, some members request that their names be kept off the roster so there will be additional Bilderbergers in attendance.

Belgium

  • Coene, Luc, Governor, National Bank of Belgium
  • Davignon, Etienne, Minister of State
  • Leysen, Thomas, Chairman, Umicore 

China

  • Fu, Ying, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
  • Huang, Yiping, Professor of Economics, China Center for Economic Research, Peking University 

Denmark

  • Eldrup, Anders, CEO, DONG Energy
  • Federspiel, Ulrik, Vice President, Global Affairs, Haldor Topsøe A/S
  • Schütze, Peter, Member of the Executive Management, Nordea Bank AB 

Germany

  • Ackermann, Josef, Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank
  • Enders, Thomas, CEO, Airbus SAS
  • Löscher, Peter, President and CEO, Siemens AG
  • Nass, Matthias, Chief International Correspondent, Die Zeit
  • Steinbrück, Peer, Member of the Bundestag; Former Minister of Finance 

Finland

  • Apunen, Matti, Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
  • Johansson, Ole, Chairman, Confederation of the Finnish Industries EK
  • Ollila, Jorma, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell
  • Pentikäinen, Mikael, Publisher and Senior Editor-in-Chief, Helsingin Sanomat 

France

  • Baverez, Nicolas, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Bazire, Nicolas, Managing Director, Groupe Arnault /LVMH
  • Castries, Henri de, Chairman and CEO, AXA
  • Lévy, Maurice, Chairman and CEO, Publicis Groupe S.A.
  • Montbrial, Thierry de, President, French Institute for International Relations
  • Roy, Olivier, Professor of Social and Political Theory, European University Institute 

Great Britain

  • Agius, Marcus, Chairman, Barclays PLC
  • Flint, Douglas J., Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings
  • Kerr, John, Member, House of Lords; Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell
  • Lambert, Richard, Independent Non-Executive Director, Ernst & Young
  • Mandelson, Peter, Member, House of Lords; Chairman, Global Counsel
  • Micklethwait, John, Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
  • Osborne, George, Chancellor of the Exchequer
  • Stewart, Rory, Member of Parliament
  • Taylor, J. Martin, Chairman, Syngenta International AG 

Greece

  • David, George A., Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A.
  • Hardouvelis, Gikas A., Chief Economist and Head of Research, Eurobank EFG
  • Papaconstantinou, George, Minister of Finance
  • Tsoukalis, Loukas, President, ELIAMEP Grisons 

International Organizations

  • Almunia, Joaquín, Vice President, European Commission
  • Daele, Frans van, Chief of Staff to the President of the European Council
  • Kroes, Neelie, Vice President, European Commission; Commissioner for Digital Agenda
  • Lamy, Pascal, Director General, World Trade Organization
  • Rompuy, Herman van, President, European Council
  • Sheeran, Josette, Executive Director, United Nations World Food Programme
  • Solana Madariaga, Javier, President, ESADEgeo Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics
  • Trichet, Jean-Claude, President, European Central Bank
  • Zoellick, Robert B., President, The World Bank Group

 Ireland

  • Gallagher, Paul, Senior Counsel; Former Attorney General
  • McDowell, Michael, Senior Counsel, Law Library; Former Deputy Prime Minister
  • Sutherland, Peter D., Chairman, Goldman Sachs International 

Italy

  • Bernabè, Franco, CEO, Telecom Italia SpA
  • Elkann, John, Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
  • Monti, Mario, President, Univers Commerciale Luigi Bocconi
  • Scaroni, Paolo, CEO, Eni S.p.A.
  • Tremonti, Giulio, Minister of Economy and Finance 

Canada

  • Carney, Mark J., Governor, Bank of Canada
  • Clark, Edmund, President and CEO, TD Bank Financial Group
  • McKenna, Frank, Deputy Chair, TD Bank Financial Group
  • Orbinksi, James, Professor of Medicine and Political Science, University of Toronto
  • Prichard, J. Robert S., Chair, Torys LLP
  • Reisman, Heather, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. Center, Brookings Institution 

Netherlands

  • Bolland, Marc J., Chief Executive, Marks and Spencer Group plc
  • Chavannes, Marc E., Political Columnist, NRC Handelsblad; Professor of Journalism
  • Halberstadt, Victor, Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings
  • H.M. the Queen of the Netherlands
  • Rosenthal, Uri, Minister of Foreign Affairs
  • Winter, Jaap W., Partner, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek

 Norway

  • Myklebust, Egil, Former Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, sk Hydro ASA
  • H.R.H. Crown Prince Haakon of Norway
  • Ottersen, Ole Petter, Rector, University of Oslo
  • Solberg, Erna, Leader of the Conservative Party 

Austria

  • Bronner, Oscar, CEO and Publisher, Standard Medien AG
  • Faymann, Werner, Federal Chancellor
  • Rothensteiner, Walter, Chairman of the Board, Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG
  • Scholten, Rudolf, Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG 

Portugal

  • Balsemão, Francisco Pinto, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister
  • Ferreira Alves, Clara, CEO, Claref LDA; writer
  • Nogueira Leite, António, Member of the Board, José de Mello Investimentos, SGPS, SA 

Sweden

Mordashov, Alexey A., CEO, Severstal

Schweden

  • Bildt, Carl, Minister of Foreign Affairs
  • Björling, Ewa, Minister for Trade
  • Wallenberg, Jacob, Chairman, Investor AB 

Switzerland

  • Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter, Chairman, Nestlé S.A.
  • Groth, Hans, Senior Director, Healthcare Policy & Market Access, Oncology Business Unit, Pfizer Europe
  • Janom Steiner, Barbara, Head of the Department of Justice, Security and Health, Canton
  • Kudelski, André, Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group SA
  • Leuthard, Doris, Federal Councillor
  • Schmid, Martin, President, Government of the Canton Grisons
  • Schweiger, Rolf, Ständerat
  • Soiron, Rolf, Chairman of the Board, Holcim Ltd., Lonza Ltd.
  • Vasella, Daniel L., Chairman, Novartis AG
  • Witmer, Jürg, Chairman, Givaudan SA and Clariant AG 

Spain

  • Cebrián, Juan Luis, CEO, PRISA
  • Cospedal, María Dolores de, Secretary General, Partido Popular
  • León Gross, Bernardino, Secretary General of the Spanish Presidency
  • Nin Génova, Juan María, President and CEO, La Caixa
  • H.M. Queen Sofia of Spain

Turkey

  • Ciliv, Süreyya, CEO, Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S.
  • Gülek Domac, Tayyibe, Former Minister of State
  • Koç, Mustafa V., Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
  • Pekin, Sefika, Founding Partner, Pekin & Bayar Law Firm 

USA

  • Alexander, Keith B., Commander, USCYBERCOM; Director, National Security Agency
  • Altman, Roger C., Chairman, Evercore Partners Inc.
  • Bezos, Jeff, Founder and CEO, Amazon.com
  • Collins, Timothy C., CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
  • Feldstein, Martin S., George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University
  • Hoffman, Reid, Co-founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn
  • Hughes, Chris R., Co-founder, Facebook
  • Jacobs, Kenneth M., Chairman & CEO, Lazard
  • Johnson, James A., Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
  • Jordan, Jr., Vernon E., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
  • Keane, John M., Senior Partner, SCP Partners; General, US Army, Retired
  • Kissinger, Henry A., Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
  • Kleinfeld, Klaus, Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
  • Kravis, Henry R., Co-Chairman and co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis, Roberts & Co.
  • Kravis, Marie-Josée, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.
  • Li, Cheng, Senior Fellow and Director of Research, John L. Thornton China Center, Brookings Institution
  • Mundie, Craig J., Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
  • Orszag, Peter R., Vice Chairman, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
  • Perle, Richard N., Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
  • Rockefeller, David, Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank
  • Rose, Charlie, Executive Editor and Anchor, Charlie Rose
  • Rubin, Robert E., Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury
  • Schmidt, Eric, Executive Chairman, Google Inc.
  • Steinberg, James B., Deputy Secretary of State
  • Thiel, Peter A., President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC
  • Varney, Christine A., Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust
  • Vaupel, James W., Founding Director, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research
  • Warsh, Kevin, Former Governor, Federal Reserve Board
  • Wolfensohn, James D., Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC

 

This is interesting nonetheless. I’m not one to follow Bilderberg coverage but given the  article I posted earlier, ‘Bilderberg mystery: Why do people believe in cabals?‘, I thought I would post this in-case anyone is interested in seeing who will be attending the event.

 

Via Infowars

Bilderberg mystery: Why do people believe in cabals?

with one comment

Composite

Ordinary people can only guess at the goings-on at the meetings of the secretive Bilderberg Group, which is bringing together the world’s financial and political elite this week. Conspiracy theories abound as to what is discussed and who is there. Why, asks Tom de Castella?

The belief in secret cabals running the world is a hardy perennial. And on Thursday perhaps the most controversial clandestine organisation of our times – the Bilderberg Group – is meeting behind closed doors.

In the manner of a James Bond plot, up to 150 leading politicians and business people are to gather in a ski resort in Switzerland for four days of discussion about the future of the world.

Previous attendees of the group, which meets once a year in a five-star hotel, are said to have included Bill Clinton, Prince Charles and Peter Mandelson, as well as dozens of company CEOs.

First meeting in 1954, the aim was to shore up US-European relations and prevent another world war. Now under the group’s leadership of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and one-time EU vice president, Viscount Davignon, the aim is purportedly to allow Western elites to share ideas.

But conspiracy theorists have accused it of everything from deliberately engineering the credit crunch to planning to kill 80% of the world population. Longtime opponent and US radio host Alex Jones, heckled one meeting through a megaphone: “We know you are ruthless. We know you are evil. We respect your dark power.”

Part of the reason for alarm is the group’s secretive working methods. Names of attendees are not usually released before the conference, meetings are closed to the public and the media, and no press releases are issued.

The gnashing of teeth over Bilderberg is ridiculous, says Times columnist David Aaronovitch. “It’s really an occasional supper club for the rich and powerful,” he argues.

Denis Healey, co-founder of the group, told the journalist Jon Ronson in his book Them that people overlook the practical benefits of informal networking. “Bilderberg is the most useful international group I ever attended,” he told him. “The confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions.”

So why do groups like this cause so much alarm? Aaronovitch, who wrote the 2009 book Voodoo Histories, says plots to install a new world order have traditionally been a conspiracy fantasy. “They tend to believe that everything true, local and national is under threat from cosmopolitan, international forces often linked to financial capitalism and therefore, also often, to Jewish interests.”

Bilderberg chairman Viscount DavignonSecret cabals extend beyond the Bilderberg Group. The Illuminati, which derives from a 16th Century Bavarian secret society, is alleged to be an all powerful secret society, including US presidents, that has controlled major world events. The Freemasons – famous for their peculiar handshakes – is a secret fraternity society that has become more open in recent years after extensive criticism.

The charter of Hamas – the Islamist party governing Gaza – asserts that the Freemasons are in league with the Jews and those unlikely bully boys – the Rotary Club – to undermine Palestine.

John Hamill, spokesman for freemasonry’s governing body in England and Wales says the organisation is aware of Hamas’s allegation.

“There’s no truth in it, freemasonry is apolitical. It probably arises because one of our ceremonies is about the story of King Solomon’s Temple. For some reason Islamic governments translate that into Zionism.”

In fact, many conspiracy theories surrounding cabals hint at an anti-Semitic worldview. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a forged document, probably created by agents of Tsarist Russia, which appeared to show a Jewish plot to take over the world.

Despite being proved to be a fraud, the idea has been kept alive by anti-Semites and has spawned later versions. One of those, the Zionist Occupational Government, argues that countries have puppet governments but that the real power is held by Jewish interests.

More recently, former sports journalist David Icke has proclaimed that the world is governed by alien, reptilian shape shifters. In other words, giant lizards.

There is obviously no right-wing monopoly on conspiracy theories. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Hilary Clinton blamed a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for her husband’s predicament. And more recently, some on the left have argued that the 9/11 attacks were organised by President Bush’s inner circle in order to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

The politics of cabals has always been pretty muddled, says James McConnachie, co-author of the Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories. These groups allow protesters to project their own fears onto them.

In the US, the most extreme fear over Bilderberg is of a hidden cabal run by the European Union and threatening American freedoms. In Europe, the view is often of a free market elite trying to push through a right-wing agenda.

“Conspiracy theories are quite blind to conventional notions of left and right,” says McConnachie. “The left is organising an international government. Meanwhile, global capitalism on the right may be doing the same thing by different means.”

For Aaronovitch what often triggers widespread cabal theories are moments of great upheaval.

“It happens a lot when times are changing significantly. Whether, oddly, they are changing for better as well as for the worse. Why did McCarthyism happen at the time when US economy was growing faster than at any time in history?”

Society was in flux, the economy expanding rapidly and millions of servicemen were coming back from the war.

It’s not just the about social context. Some people are more susceptible than others to believing in wacky cabals, says Prof Chris French, of Goldsmith College’s psychology department. “It’s people who tend to be alienated by the mainstream, who feel powerless. They have a need to have a sense of control.”

Not only do they not trust the government, they tend not to trust their neighbours either. And in the need for control, there may be links to the roots of religious belief, he says.

The conspiracy theorists may get overexcited but they have a point, says Prof Andrew Kakabadse, co-author of new book Bilderberg People.

Secret talks

  • Bilderberg is named after the Dutch hotel where the first meeting took place in 1954
  • The initial focus was the state of the trans-Atlantic alliance and the problems facing Europe and the US
  • British Labour politician Denis Healey was a founding member
  • An invitation list is compiled each year by a steering committee
  • About 120 people from North America and Europe are invited. About one-third are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications
  • Meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names. Bill Clinton went in 1991 while still governor of Arkansas, Tony Blair was there two years later while an opposition MP

The group has genuine power that far outranks the World Economic Forum, which meets in Davos, he argues. And with no transparency, it is easy to see why people are worried about its influence.

“It’s much smarter than conspiracy,” says Prof Kakabadse. “This is moulding the way people think so that it seems like there’s no alternative to what is happening.”

The agenda the group has is to bring together the political elites on both right and left, let them mix in relaxed, luxurious surroundings with business leaders, and let the ideas fizz.

It may seem like a glorified dinner party but that is to miss the point. “When you’ve been to enough dinner parties you see a theme emerging,” he says. The theme at Bilderberg is to bolster a consensus around free market Western capitalism and its interests around the globe, he says.

“Is this all leading to the start of the ruling the world idea? In one sense yes. There’s a very strong move to have a One World government in the mould of free market Western capitalism.”

Degree of nefariousness

Conventional critiques of alienated people seeking order in a chaotic world may well be true. But there’s more to it than that, McConnachie argues.

“The other explanation is more dangerous. That they are precisely right – they just over-egg the way they articulate it.”

The Bilderberg Group matches up to how a global conspiracy would work – a secretive body attempting to shape the direction of the world, he suggests.

“The only difference is the degree of nefariousness,” he says. “They tend to see this cabal as outright evil. When things are more nuanced than that.”

For all the tales of lizards running the world, we all owe a debt to conspiracy theorists, McConnachie argues.

“Occasionally you have to give credit to conspiracy theorists who raise issues that the mainstream press has ignored. It’s only recently that the media has picked up on the Bilderbergers. Would the media be running stories if there weren’t these wild allegations flying around?”

But Aaronovitch disagrees. Believing in cabals leads to certain groups being victimised and obstructs a rational view of the world.

“To have a strong belief in the Bilderberg Group means believing in a fantasy,” he says. “It suggests that there are people – like God – acting as a higher power. And it replaces the intolerable thought that there’s nothing at work at all, that the world is chaotic. It may be a form of therapy but it has people believing in an anti-scientific message.”

Via BBC

China hacks Gmail accounts of senior U.S. officials one day after Obama’s cyber warning

leave a comment »

  • Google said U.S. government officials targeted
  • Security breach larger than previous Gmail attacks
  • Pentagon warn U.S. may retaliate with military force
  • Hackers also target military contractor that supplies unmanned aerial vehicles
  • Beijing denies being behind attack

Fears China is plotting a devastating ‘cyber war’ against the West were heightened yesterday when it emerged Chinese hackers have stolen hundreds of passwords belonging to senior U.S. government officials.

The security breach was revealed by Google which said victims had been carefully targeted in a scam traced to the city of Jinan in the Communist state’ s Shangdong province.

Experts suspect Chinese hackers are capable of reducing the U.S. or its allies including Britain to stone-age conditions at the press of a button – by crippling the computers running everything from banks and supermarkets to power stations and water plants.

 

Hacked: Google admitted that hundreds of Gmail accounts had been targeted by hackers in China, including those of senior U.S. officials

Hacked: Google admitted that hundreds of Gmail accounts had been targeted by hackers in China, including those of senior U.S. officials.

In a chilling echo of the Cold War, a ‘cyber arms race’ is rapidly developing between East and West, with the U.S. even threatening to retaliate with military weapons to any ‘act of war’ attack on its computers from a foreign power.

Earlier this week the US said it would react militarily to future cyber incursions from other countries.

One U.S. military official quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying: ‘If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks.’

British defence minister Nick Harvey underlined the growing sense of panic by declaring that ‘action in cyberspace will form part of the future battlefield’.

Row: Google said the phishing scam had originated in China

Row: Google said the phishing scam had originated in China.

Sir Michael Rake, chairman of BT Group and a figurehead for cyber security issues in industry, warned world powers were being drawn into a hi-tech arms race in which countries could wage war without firing a single shot.

Sir Michael said: ‘I don’t think personally it’s an exaggeration to say you can bring a state to its knees without any military action whatsoever.’

Although there is no direct evidence that the Chinese hackers in the latest case are in the pay of the Chinese government, their attacks were so sophisticated and highly-targeted that few experts doubt they were state-sponsored.

Apart from anything else, unlike other internet scams, there was no obvious financial gain behind them, suggesting a sinister rather than a financial motive.

Senior U.S. and South Korean government officials who fell victim to the scam were tricked into giving away their Google and Yahoo email login details.

Threat: The Pentagon said it is ready to retaliate against cyber attacks

Threat: The Pentagon said it is ready to retaliate against cyber attacks.

Defence: The Pentagon will reclassify cyber attacks as an aggressive act if it causes the equivalent loss of life or damage to infrastructure as a conventional military attack

Defence: The Pentagon will reclassify cyber attacks as an aggressive act if it causes the equivalent loss of life or damage to infrastructure as a conventional military attack.

They had received ‘Trojan horse’ emails that purported to be from someone they knew, but were in fact carefully-crafted fakes.

One example email had the title: ‘Fw: Draft US-China Joint Statement’, and contained the text: ‘This is the latest version of State’s joint statement.’

Enticed into opening the email, the unsuspecting user was directed to a convincing but bogus Google or Yahoo email page where they were invited to type in their login and password. When they did so, their supposedly-secret details immediately fell into the hands of the Chinese hackers.

Armed with the passwords, the hackers could access the user’s real email account and spy on genuine emails being sent between government officials.

Although the scam – which went on for months before being uncovered – targeted personal email accounts, rather than government accounts, officials could have forwarded their work emails to their personal Gmail accounts.

Sensitive: The Lockheed Joint Strike Fighter, just one of many weapons manufactured by the company and used by both the U.S. and the UK armed forces

Sensitive: The Lockheed Joint Strike Fighter, just one of many weapons manufactured by the company and used by both the U.S. and the UK armed forces.

A Google spokesman said yesterday: ‘Google detected and has disrupted this campaign to take users’ passwords and monitor their emails. We have notified victims and secured their accounts.’

The White House said it was investigating. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the allegations were ‘very serious’ and would be investigated by the FBI.

Online threat: Hackers have breached Lockheed security (file photo)Beijing has repeatedly denied hacking into foreign countries’ systems.

Britian has found itself under attack also.

Last month, Chancellor George Osborne revealed that foreign intelligence agencies were trying to break into the Treasury computer system to steal information or spread viruses at the rate of more than one attack a day.

MI5 and the FBI have warned British and American companies of the mushrooming threat from Chinese government-backed hackers trying to pilfer commercial secrets.

Whitehall has announced an extra £500million to be spent on bolstering cyber security, amid concerns that Britain’s computer networks linking banking, power and water systems are too vulnerable to digital sabotage.

But America is not always the victim in cyber attacks. The U.S. and Israel were blamed for the development of the Stuxnet virus, a computer worm that targets industrial software and was credited with sabotage attacks on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Delegates at an international cyber security conference held in London this week warned the crisis was so severe that nations should agree an international ‘non-proliferation’ treaty similar to the one drawn up to slow the spread of nuclear weapons.

 

Via DailyMail

U.S. arms makers said to be bleeding secrets to cyber foes

leave a comment »

Top Pentagon contractors have been bleeding secrets for years as a result of penetrations of their computer networks, current and former national security officials say.

The Defense Department, which runs its own worldwide eavesdropping, spying and code-cracking systems, says more than 100 foreign intelligence organizations have been trying to break into U.S. networks.

Some of the perpetrators “already have the capacity to disrupt” U.S. information infrastructure, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, who is leading remedial efforts, wrote last fall in the journal Foreign Affairs.

Joel Brenner, the National Counterintelligence executive from 2006 to 2009, said most if not all of the big defense contractors’ networks had been pierced.

“This has been happening since the late ’90s,” he told Reuters Tuesday. He identified the main threats as coming from Russia, China and Iran.

“They’re after our weapons systems and R&D,” or research and development, said Brenner, now with the law firm of Cooley LLP in Washington.

Lockheed Martin Corp, the Pentagon’s No. 1 supplier by sales, said on Saturday that it had thwarted “a significant and tenacious” attack on its information systems network that it detected May 21. Ten days later, the company says its still working to restore full employee access to the network while maintaining the highest level of security.

Lockheed, which is also the government’s top information technology provider, said it had become “a frequent target of adversaries from around the world.” A spokeswoman said it said it used the term “adversaries” only in a general sense.

Lockheed builds F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets as well as Aegis naval combat system, THAAD missile defense and other big-ticket weapons systems sold to U.S. allies. It has not disclosed which of its business units was targeted.

Cyber intruders were reported in 2009 to have broken into computers holding data on Lockheed’s projected $380 billion-plus F-35 fighter program, the Pentagon’s costliest arms purchase.

Other big Pentagon contractors include Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp, General Dynamics Corp, BAE Systems Plc and Raytheon Co. Each of these declined to comment on whether it believed its networks had been penetrated.

James Miller, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, said last May that the United States was losing terabytes of data in cyber attacks, enough to fill “multiple Libraries of Congress.” The world’s largest library, its archive totaled about 235 terabytes of data as of April, the Library of Congress says on its web site.

“The scale of compromise, including the loss of sensitive and unclassified data, is staggering,” Miller told a Washington forum.

U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who led a Senate Intelligence Committee cyber task force last year, said in March that cybercrime has put the United States “on the losing end of what could be the largest illicit transfer of wealth in world history.”

Retired Air Force General Michael Hayden, a former director of central intelligence and ex-head of the Pentagon’s National Security Agency, said no network was safe if it had Internet access.

“You can isolate a network, a classified network,” he told Reuters in an interview last year. “Maybe you can get a certain level of confidence that you are not penetrated. But if you are out there connected to the world wide web you are vulnerable all the time.”

Anup Ghosh, a former senior scientist at the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, said there had been a string of intrusions into networks of U.S. defense contractors, security companies and U.S. government labs, including the U.S. Energy Department’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, since the start of this year.

The advantage is with the intruders, said Ghosh, who worked on securing military networks for DARPA from 2002 to 2006 and now heads Invincea, a software security company.

“We’ve failed to innovate in the area of information security,” he said in an email Tuesday. “We’re fighting today’s battles with the equivalent of cold-war era defenses.”


Via NewsDaily

Chinese army develop first-person shooter game with U.S. troops as the enemy

leave a comment »

The Chinese army have developed a computer game that sees their troops shooting at ‘enemy’ U.S. forces.

Glorious Revolution, which is used as a training tool for People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers, pits the Chinese army against the U.S. military in a ‘Call of Duty’ style first person shooter.

In a video report, Chinese soldiers can be seen storming buildings and shooting at ‘enemy’ troops as they exit a bunker, before destroying an Apache helicopter gunship.

Training: Chinese troops hone their skills on the Glorious Revolution computer game

A Chinese state media video report shows rows of PLA soldiers hunkered over computer screens as they play through missions of Glorious Revolution.

The use of computer games by governments and international organisations to train their people has become more widespread in recent years.

The game is similar to the U.S. army’s very own shooter, America’s Army, which is used as a recruitment tool.

In the same vein, the Pentagon has developed its own ‘thinking’ first person simulators that deliberately overload commanders with information to see how they cope.

NATO also has its own game for negotiating with maritime pirates and even Hezbollah created a game called Special Force 2.

The news comes as it emerged the U.S. military are considering sending officers and cadets to China on study exchange programs.

Admiral Patrick Walsh said Washington is seeking to improve its relationship with the Chinese military, and an officer exchange program would provide a better understanding of Chinese culture, goals and thoughts.

‘There’s a strong effort here to improve the relationship,’ Adm. Walsh said on the sidelines of a global naval conference in Singapore.’

Shot: One scene depicts an Apache helicopter ship being blown out of the sky

Shot: One scene depicts an Apache helicopter ship being blown out of the sky

Troops: Chinese forces are seen here battling U.S. forces

Troops: Chinese forces are seen here battling U.S. forces

Despite this being the PLA’s first publicised foray into the world of first person shooters, reviews of the Chinese game have been broadly positive.

According to Wired magazine, one blogger who saw the game wrote: ‘The game itself looks pretty well-made.

‘Graphics definitely on par with at least the [Call of Duty] series.’

Despite the virtual nature of the game, one Chinese website warned the political and propaganda overtones it embodies could be damaging to trainees.

They wrote: ‘The game content and the values ​​embodied in military thinking … are very different.

‘Long-term use is not conducive to military education and training, and may even mislead officers and men.’

The game comes as President Barack Obama and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates have been been in talks to help restore military-to-military relations between the two countries.

Early last year, China angrily cut off most of those contacts after the United States announced a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, the self-governing island that China considers a renegade province.

China has also expressed a desire for warmer military ties, most recently when the chief of staff of the People’s Liberation Army, General Chen Bingde, visited Washington this week.

Via DailyMail

China no threat, Chinese general says on U.S. trip

with 2 comments

A top Chinese general rejected growing American concerns about China’s military buildup Wednesday, telling audiences at the National Defense University and the Pentagon that the People’s Liberation Army was no threat.

“The world has no need to worry, let alone fear … China’s growth,” said General Chen Bingde, chief of the PLA general staff, in a rare address to a packed room of U.S. military officers and faculty at the National Defense University.

But the reassurances by Chen during a high-profile visit to the United States were also accompanied by fresh warnings against any future U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, which underscored the fragile nature of the relationship.

As members of Congress press for the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, which Beijing sees as a renegade province, Chen warned that new U.S. weapons sales to the self-ruled island would damage military ties.

“As to how bad the impact will be, it will depend on the nature of the weapons sold to Taiwan,” Chen told a Pentagon media briefing.

With an occasional smile, Chen quoted U.S. presidents including Abraham Lincoln to drive home his points. He turned to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous quote “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” trying to allay concerns about China.

Military ties are perhaps the weakest link in relations between the world’s two largest economies — which have also been tested in the past year by disputes over trade, currency, North Korea and human rights.

Chen is the highest ranking official to lead a military delegation to the United States since Beijing cut off ties to the United States in 2010 over a U.S. arms sale to Taiwan worth up to $6.4 billion.

Those ties appeared to gain new footing during Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ January trip to Beijing, even though it was overshadowed by a test flight of China’s J-20 stealth fighter that again stoked concerns about its military buildup.

China also plans to develop aircraft carriers, anti-ship ballistic missiles and other advanced systems which have alarmed the Asian powers and the United States, the dominant power in the Pacific. U.S. officials accuse Beijing of designing their weapons system to counter U.S. capabilities.

DECADES BEHIND THE WEST?

Chen played down Chinese military advances on his trip, telling the audience of U.S. military officers and faculty at the National Defense University the People’s Liberation Army lagged at least 20 years behind developed Western nations.

“To be honest, I feel very sad after visiting (the United States), because I think, I feel and I know, how poor our equipments are and how underdeveloped we remain,” Chen said.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chen’s host, stressed the importance of renewed dialogue to minimize the risk of misunderstanding.

“What he and I have both talked about is a future that is a peaceful future and a better one for our children and grandchildren. That does not include a conflict between China and the United States,” Mullen told reporters.

But some members of Congress criticized the U.S. military for too openly engaging with Chen and his delegation, particularly his access to U.S. military facilities. Chen will visit Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, home to some high-tech U.S. defenses.

“There can be no doubt that every scrap of information this expert delegation collects will be used against us,” said Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in a statement.

“The Chinese military openly regards the United States as an enemy,” she said. “We should not undermine our own security by thinking we can make friends with self-proclaimed adversaries with hospitality and open arms.”

Still, the Chinese and U.S. economies, Chen noted, are inextricably linked. China has the world’s biggest foreign exchange reserve, with about two-thirds estimated to be held in dollars. Jokes about U.S. dependence on China to finance its debt are commonplace in the United States, and Chen appeared to seize the opportunity in Washington.

Talking about fiscal constraints on China’s military, Chen got a long round of laughter from his U.S. audience by joking: “If you can lend us some money, I think that would be easier.”

Provided by NewsDaily

U.S. fines BAE $79 million over arms-control breaches

leave a comment »

Britain’s BAE Systems Plc agreed to pay up to $79 million in U.S. government fines for more than 2,500 alleged breaches of rules governing military exports, the State Department said on Tuesday.

The civil settlement is the biggest in the department’s history. It ends long-running corruption investigations into the company, Europe’s biggest arms maker by sales, on both sides of the Atlantic.

The department cleared BAE’s fast-growing U.S. unit and its subsidiaries of all charges against the parent company, based in Farnborough, outside London.

But it said a lack of full cooperation from the parent had left it “unable to assess fully the potential harm to U.S. national security” from the unauthorized resale of U.S. weapons and technology know-how to more than a dozen countries.

The U.S. subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc, accounts for about 52 percent of the company’s worldwide sales and is among the Pentagon’s top 10 suppliers. It operates a separate export compliance program under a special security pact that governs its dealings inside and outside the United States.

The State Department said it found a total of 2,591 BAE arms-control breaches after the parent company’s criminal conviction last year for violations of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which frame U.S. arms-control laws.

For instance, the department said, BAE failed to get a required U.S. nod to engage in “brokering activities” involving U.S. systems or sub-systems incorporated on the EF-2000 Eurofighter Typhoon. Since 1998, BAE has marketed or exported the fighter to Australia, Czech Republic, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Austria, Denmark, Japan and Switzerland, the department said.

Beside unauthorized brokering of U.S.-supplied arms and services, the alleged breaches of U.S. law included failure to register as a broker; failure to file mandated annual reports; causing unauthorized brokering; failure to report the payment of fees or commissions associated with arms deals; and failure to maintain records involving controlled transactions.

The State Department, in a “proposed charging letter” made public on its web site, described the violations as “systemic, widespread and sustained for more than 10 years.”

BAE also failed to cooperate fully for the 14 months since the criminal pleadings set the stage for the parallel civil investigation, the department said. It followed the global settlement announced in February 2010 of criminal cases brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and Britain’s Serious Fraud Office.

Under its agreement last year with the Justice Department, the company pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiring to make false statements to the U.S. government and paid a fine of $400 million. In London, BAE pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to keep records of payments made to a marketing advisor in Tanzania and paid about $50 million.

The cases grew from criminal investigations into arms deals in Saudi Arabia, Tanzania, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Hungary.

The State Department said it is releasing an administrative hold it imposed, after the criminal conviction, on license applications by the parent company to export U.S.-origin arms and services.

But it declared a policy of presumptive denial on three BAE subsidiaries “because of their substantial involvement in activities related to the conviction.” The units’ export license requests would be approved only if they were determined to be in the U.S. national interest.

The department identified these as BAE Systems CS&S International, Red Diamond Trading Ltd and Poseidon Trading Investments Ltd.

BAE, apparently referring to this, said a limited number of its UK-originating exports would be subject to “enhanced administrative review.” This was not expected to hurt current or future exports, it said.

The parent company’s settlement with the State Department will have “zero impact” on the U.S. unit’s ability to carry out its business plan, John Suttle, a company spokesman, said in a teleconference.

Phil Finnegan, director of corporate analysis at the Teal Group aerospace consultancy, said BAE needed to make such an agreement because it is heavily reliant on the U.S. arms market, the world’s most lucrative.

“BAE must continue to be in a strong position with the U.S. government so it can win new contracts and expand through its continuing stream of U.S. acquisitions,” he said.

Under the four-year term of its consent deal with BAE, the State Department agreed to consider suspending $10 million of the new fines to offset the cost of improved export control compliance measures.

Shares in BAE, which have risen 3 percent in 2011, closed down 0.6 percent at 337.2 pence on the London Stock Exchange.

Via NewsDaily

Written by Nokgiir

May 18, 2011 at 12:08 am

Russia may take action over U.S. missile shield

leave a comment »

Russia says it may take action if Washington and Moscow fail to agree on a joint missile shield

Russia’s deputy defense minister has said action could be taken if the United States deploys its new missile defense system near Russia’s borders.

In a news conference on Friday, deputy defense minister Anatoly Antonov said the Russian military was looking at ways to “protect our nation if Russia is not consulted in talks with NATO.”

“There is not only talk, some serious work is also being done,” Antonov said. “The Defense Ministry should allow for the worst possible scenario.”

His comments come just hours after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Kazakhstan that the talks were going through a complicated phase.

“So far this matter is proceeding with difficulty, but the [U.S.] Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] has assured us that measures are being taken on her side,” Lavrov said.

Lavrov added that he had met Clinton during an Arctic Council meeting in Greenland on Thursday and had discussed missile defense.

“We agreed that it was necessary to give a political impulse to the work of experts, so that before our two presidents meet in Deauville for the G8 summit it will be possible to set out some results,” Lavrov said.

The United States and Romania announced last week a deal to deploy missile interceptors in Romania as part of its plan to erect a missile shield over Europe.

The move immediately drew criticism from Russia, which fears the scheme may compromise its security by weakening its nuclear missile arsenal.

But U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher said Moscow need not worry.

“We have good relations with Russia. We have just ratified the New START treaty, we are working together on various other issues,” she was quoted as saying in media reports last week.

“It is a system that will defend NATO and, if Russia chooses to work with us in a cooperative manner, the system will defend Russia, too.”

Russia agreed to cooperate on NATO’s European missile defense program at a NATO summit in Lisbon last year.


Russia ‘disappointed’ by U.S. failure to provide missile guarantees

Moscow is concerned by the United States’ refusal to provide legally binding guarantees that its European missile defense system will not be directed against Russia, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Monday.

“The Americans are insisting on the importance of launching practical cooperation without any preconditions,” he said, adding that Russia “cannot start cooperation on specific projects without legal guarantees that a future system will not be directed against our security interests.”

Moscow reserves the right to pull out of the new START Treaty, he warned.

“The new START Treaty may become hostage to the U.S. approach,” the official said.

“The qualitative and quantitative buildup of the U.S. missile defense system, which will jeopardize Russia’s strategic nuclear capability, can be regarded as an exceptional event under Article 14 of the said Treaty whereby Russia has the right to withdraw from this agreement,” Ryabkov said.

Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on the so-called European missile shield during the NATO-Russia Council summit in Lisbon in November 2010. NATO insists there should be two independent systems that exchange information, while Russia favors a joint system.

Russia is opposed to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense systems near its borders, claiming they would be a security threat. NATO and the United States insist that the shield would defend NATO members against missiles from North Korea and Iran and would not be directed at Russia.

Via Rian & Russia

Bin Laden dead before U.S. raid – Iranian Intelligence Minister

leave a comment »

Osama bin Laden

Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi said Tehran has evidence that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had died of disease long before the United States’ alleged raid on the terrorist, FARS Iranian news agency said.

Bin Laden was killed on May 2 in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad, north of the capital Islamabad, during a raid by U.S. Navy Seals.

“We have accurate information that bin Laden died of illness some time ago,” Moslehi said.

Bin Laden’s body was buried at sea less than 24 hours after the operation.

“If the US military and intelligence apparatus have really arrested or killed bin Laden, why don’t they show him (his dead body) why have they thrown his corpse into the sea?” Moslehi continued.

A DNA test proved that the corpse of the dead man belonged to bin Laden, who has topped the FBI’s most wanted list for the past decade.

White House spokesman, Jay Carney said on Wednesday that Washington would not release bin Laden’s postmortem photos to avoid instigating propaganda and possible violence.

Via Rian

Washington Worries China Will Challenge U.S. Dominance in Space

leave a comment »

U.S. power brokers aren’t sure how to handle China’s rapidly expanding space capabilities, according to testimony at a congressional hearing yesterday (May 11).

China recently demonstrated the ability to destroy satellites on orbit, and it’s ramping up plans for a space station and a possible manned lunar landing in the next decade or so. At a hearing on “The Implications of China’s Military and Civil Space Programs,” a range of experts discussed what these developments might mean for the United States.

While opinions and viewpoints varied, a few key themes emerged, including the need to engage with China to better understand just what the nation hopes to achieve in space. [Photos: China’s First Space Station]

“There’s still a lack of clear understanding of what Beijing’s goals are, and how we interact with those,” Ben Baseley-Walker of the Secure World Foundation, a non-profit organization committed to space sustainability, told SPACE.com. Baseley-Walker attended the hearing, which took place at the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

China’s space capabilities ramping up

In 2007, China destroyed one of its own satellites on orbit during an anti-satellite test, showcasing an ability that makes the United States and other nations nervous. Since then, the country has conducted other tests advancing its military space capabilities, including a 2010 missile-interception demonstration.

Beijing is also ramping up its human spaceflight program. In 2003, China became the third nation to launch a person into space, and it has flown several manned missions since.

The country also hopes to build a large space station between 2015 and 2022, according to hearing panelist Alanna Krolikowski, a visiting scholar at George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute.

And, beyond that, China appears to be gearing up for a manned lunar landing. The nation’s human spaceflight program aims to complete an in-depth concept study on the subject by about 2020, Krolikowski said at the hearing. [Infographic: How China’s First Space Station Will Work]

These developments have some politicians and policy experts worried. They think China may be positioning itself to challenge outright the United States’ dominance in space, which currently gives America a huge advantage on the battlefield.

“What concerns me most about the Chinese space program is that, unlike the U.S., it is being led by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA),” Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) testified at the hearing. “There is no reason to believe that the PLA’s space program will be any more benign than the PLA’s recent military posture.”

Is Beijing a threat?

The White House has recently stated a willingness to work with China on expensive, difficult space projects, such as a manned mission to Mars. Wolf thinks this is a bad idea, citing the potential threat China poses as well as its abysmal human-rights record.

“The U.S. has no business cooperating with the PLA to help develop its space program,” said Wolf, who chairs the commerce, justice and science subcommittee of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

However, other panelists cited the possible benefits to the United States of such cooperation, which range from expanding opportunities for American businesses to increasing space security. If the United States thinks China can become a “normal” spacefaring country, keen to exploit space commercially, collaboration is probably a good idea, according to Krolikowski.

“As China invests in and derives greater benefit from space, it will acquire the same stake in creating a predictable, stable, safe and sustainable space environment that the U.S., Canada, Japan and European and other countries already share,” Krolikowski said.

Cooperation and engagement could also help reveal China’s goals for space. Does China, for example, hope to dominate military space aggressively in the near future, or is it concerned more about self-defense?

“While China’s capabilities in space are known to U.S. observers, its intentions are not,” Krolikowski said.

According to Baseley-Walker, panelists stressed the importance of getting to the bottom of those intentions. It’s difficult to draw up and implement effective policy, after all, without a basic understanding of where China is coming from, and where it’s going.

Via Space