Wikileaks will be temporarily suspending its publication of confidential documents in order to fight a financial boycott against the organization that has reportedly cut off 95 percent of its revenue.
"WikiLeaks has published the biggest leaks in journalistic history," WikiLeaks Co-Founder Julian Assange said at a press conference Monday. "This has triggered aggressive retaliation from powerful groups."
The "powerful groups" Assange is talking about consist of banks, credit card companies, and money transfer companies: the Bank of America, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, and Western Union. According to Assange, this "arbitrary and unlawful financial blockade" has destroyed about 95 percent of WikiLeak's revenue.
"It came as part of a concerted, U.S.-based political attack that included vitriol by senior right-wing politicians in the United States and high-level calls for the assassination of WikiLeaks staff and myself personally," Assange said.
He says the blockade has forced WikiLeaks to run on cash reserves for the past 11 months, and has cost the organization tens of millions of dollars in lost donations. He says that WikiLeaks must now divert its "scarce resources" to focus entirely on "fighting this unlawful financial blockage."
According to Assange, WikiLeaks has initiated legal action against the blockade in Iceland, Denmark, Brussels, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. It has also filed an anti-trust complaint to the European Commission, and expects to hear a decision on that action by next month.
The financial blockade on WikiLeaks occurred shortly after the organization began releasing confidential U.S. diplomatic documents in November of last year.
Assange argues that the current conflict between WikiLeaks and some of the most powerful financial institutions in the world has far-reaching consequences.
"If this financial attack stands unchallenged, a dangerous, oppressive and undemocratic precedent will have been set, the implications of which go far beyond WikiLeaks and its work," he warned. "Any organization that falls foul of these powerful financial companies or their political allies can expect similar extrajudicial action."
Varun Aaron has long generated buzz because he's been touted as amongst the quickest bowlers in India. There were many people eagerly anticipating a debut for the young pacer as early as the Indian team's tour of England, but Aaron remained a passenger there. With Umesh Yadav injured and the return series sealed, Aaron finally got his chance. And it was quite a collective meeting-of-expectations that Aaron pulled off in his international debut.
Before singing the hosannas though, let's backtrack a little and take a reality check.
Aaron was up against the English ODI side in India - and England in India in ODIs have not been a force for a long time. He was carefully shielded by Dhoni from bowling in the power-plays, and only bowled when there was full freedom to set the field. The batsmen he dismissed were Numbers 8,9 and 10. Even Tim Bresnan (one of Aaron's wickets) - the highest scorer in the England innings - has never in his life batted at Number 6 or higher in either his ODI or Test batting career. And most important of all, India - or the Indian cricket fan to be more accurate - has gone through several heart-breaking false dawns of the 'next great pace hope' kinds. Apart from Zaheer Khan, none of those who promised much have delivered anywhere close to it so far.
And yet, in spite of these factors, it may - just may - be time for some optimism. For the more adventurous fan, it may be time for a quiet little jig too. Here's why.
Consider the situation Aaron was facing before the match. There had been virtually ceaseless build-up about him, about how he was going to be almost a saviour of sorts to a pace-starved nation. Never mind that he hadn't played more than 12 matches in either First Class cricket or List A limited-overs matches so far. Never mind that at 140 clicks he might have been among the faster Indians around, but he was far from being amongst the quickest in the world. Never mind that he was born barely two weeks before Sachin Tendulkar made his international debut, and was still a very young man. That kind of pressure of expectation alone is enough to stifle anyone, and yet Aaron didn't let it stifle him. It may have seemed as if Dhoni was wrapping him in cotton-wool and not trusting him enough when he wasn't given the ball in the power-play overs, but Dhoni might just have been giving Aaron the biggest vote of confidence of all. The expectations would have created sufficient internal pressure for Aaron, and it is unreasonable to expect someone as young and raw to handle it coolly straight away. By minimizing at least whatever external pressures he could, Dhoni recognized that maybe Aaron was a player worth investing in for the future and that his present therefore had to be handled carefully lest he implode. Dhoni thus gave Aaron as much of a controlled setting as was possible. He (and the rest of the team and nation) could only hope that Aaron grabbed his chance.
Now consider the match situations in which Aaron bowled. When he was introduced into the attack, England were cruising at 61/2 in 10 overs, with Trott and Pietersen having both spent some time in the middle and both batting at good strike-rates. Aaron proceeded to give just 3 runs in his first over and 3 in his second. An attempted yorker in his third over went wrong and Pietersen deposited it to the boundary which made his third over a tad expensive at 8 runs, but aside from that one bad ball, Aaron had a pretty good first international spell. In summary, he came on to bowl at a fairly challenging situation in the match and held his own.
His second spell came when India were much better placed. England had slipped to 192/7 in 40 overs when Aaron returned with Bresnan and Borthwick at the crease. It was the sort of score from which teams had routinely added 40-50 frustrating lower-order runs against India with the tail never being knocked off as quickly as it should have been. Aaron's first over did nothing to indicate matters were going to be otherwise, with Bresnan even creaming him through the covers for a boundary off the second ball of the over. That however, would be the last boundary Aaron would concede on his debut. In his next over, he cleaned up Borthwick and didn't give a run away. In the next one, it was Stuart Meaker that lost his stumps. And off the first ball of his next over, Aaron bowled a superb delivery that appeared to have just beaten Bresnan, but actually ended up clipping the stumps. The tail had been effectively cleaned up and in what was probably the most pleasing thing to Aaron about his wickets, each one was 'bowled' - the classic fast bowler's dismissal.
The last time a young Indian bowler came on the scene who was capable of cleaning out batsmen like that - who actually did it on his debut and caused great excitement among Indian fans - was Zaheer Khan in 2000. Zaheer's debut was against Kenya in which he took 3/48 (a figure bettered by Aaron), but it was his next match that fully showcased his exciting potential. That was against Australia 4 days later and Zaheer dismissed Gilchrist and Steve Waugh - the latter memorably yorked.
Aaron, of course, has a long, long way to go before he can even think of filling in Zaheer's boots. But the fact that he has begun as encouragingly as he has, is very good for a start. Now, all it needs is for the BCCI to find a way to not let his development go the way the vast majority of other fast-bowling hopes development has.
Eoin Morgan is the world's top batsman in the inaugural ICC T20 rankings.
Ajantha Mendis topped the bowlers' charts.
The International Cricket Council released its first set of international Twenty20 rankings, with reigning World T20 champions England topping the list in the team rankings and Eoin Morgan of England and Ajantha Mendis of Sri Lanka topping the batting and bowling rankings respectively. Shane Watson of Australia was the highest ranked all-rounder.
England, which is also the top ranked Test side, has a rating of 127 points and leads second-placed Sri Lanka by just one rating point.
Only six ratings points separate the next four sides with New Zealand occupying third position on 117, followed by South Africa, ICC World Twenty20 2007 winner India, and Australia. Rather surprisingly, Pakistan are ranked 7th. The finalists of the 2007 edition, winners of the 2009 edition and semi-finalists of the 2010 edition could have justifiably expected a higher rank. In response to numerous questions about the same on Twitter, the ICC clarified that rankings were based on results from August 1, 2009 and that World Cup results didn't carry extra weight while assigning ranking points. In the period in question, Pakistan have lost more than 50% of their International T20s - hence their lower than expected rank.
Teams that have played eight or more T20Is since August 2009 have been included on the table. Bangladesh, along with Associate Members Canada, Ireland, Kenya, Netherlands and Scotland, which have T20I status, will all join the table as soon as they have played sufficient matches to qualify for a ranking.
The methodology behind ranking sides in Twenty20s is similar to the one used for ODIs, with the purpose too being the same - giving context to bilateral matches and series. For instance, if India defeat England in the one-off T20 after the current ODI series, England will slip to third from their top spot, with India rising to 2nd from 5th.
ICC General Manager - Cricket, David Richardson, speaking at the launch ceremony, said: "The ICC is delighted to announce the team and player rankings for Twenty20 international cricket. The launch of T20I rankings will generate even more interest in the shortest format and will help to give more context to bilateral T20Is.
"Despite the fact that not as many T20Is have been played as Tests or ODIs, the ICC believes these rankings add context to nation versus nation contests in the shortest of cricket's three vibrant international formats."
The new system is not without its detractors or shortcomings, though most players have expressed support for it. Among the major shortcomings of the system are that it does not differentiate between a win in a dead-rubber T20 International versus, for example, the semi-final or the final of the T20 World Cup. It also gives no weightage to wins at home or wins away.
Among the positive aspects of the ratings are undoubtedly the fact that recent results are given greater weightage than past results on a diminishing scale.
Why did President Barack Obama announce Friday that he has decided to end the American troop presence in Iraq by the end of the year?
The United States had been negotiating with Iraqi leaders for months on a possible continuing military presence in Iraq. But the negotiations stalled over a key hitch: Iraqi leaders refused to comply with Washington's insistence that any American forces serving in Iraq be granted legal immunity in that country.
"The end of war in Iraq reflects a larger transition," Obama said Friday, noting that the number of American troops deployed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has decreased from 180,000 when he took office to less than half that by the end of this year. "The tide of war is receding."
On Jan. 1, the United States and Iraq will have a "normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect," Obama said.
Over the summer, however, the United States was asking to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq next year. "This was well below the 20-30,000 troops that military experts believed optimum," Ken Pollack, a member of Bill Clinton's National Security Council who wrote an influential book advocating war with Iraq, wrote in an analysis distributed by the Brookings Institution. "Just a few weeks ago, the Administration then unilaterally decided to cut that number down to about 3,000. There was nothing that 3,000 troops were usefully going to do in Iraq. No mission they could adequately perform from among the long list of critical tasks they have been undertaking until the present. At most, they would be a symbolic force, that might give Tehran some pause before trying to push around the Iraqi government." Pollack continued:
However, even playing that role would have been hard for so small a force since they would have had tremendous difficulty defending themselves from the mostly-Shi'ah (these days), Iranian-backed terrorists who continue to attack American troops and bases wherever they can.
At that point, it had become almost unimaginable that any Iraqi political leader would champion the cause of a residual American military presence in the face of popular resentment and ferocious Iranian opposition. What Iraqi would publicly demand that Iraq accommodate the highly unpopular American demands for immunity for U.S. troops when Washington was going to leave behind a force incapable of doing anything to preserve Iraq's fragile and increasingly strained peace? Why take the heat for a fig leaf?
Of course, the truth was that the Iraqi government itself had already become deeply ambivalent, if not downright hostile to a residual American military presence. Although it was useful to the prime minister to have some American troops there as a signal to Iran that it shouldn't act too overbearing lest Baghdad ask Washington to beef up its presence, he and his cohorts probably believe that they can secure the same advantages from American arms sales and training missions. The flip side to that was that the American military presence had become increasingly burdensome to the government--challenging its interpretation of events, preventing it from acting as it saw fit, hindering their consolidation of power, insisting that Iraqi officials adhered to rule of law, and acting unilaterally against criminals and terrorists the government would have preferred to overlook. All of this had become deeply inconvenient for the government.
Though there have been reports for weeks that American-Iraqi negotiations were stuck on that and other disagreements, Pentagon officials had always discounted those reports as premature, saying negotiations were still continuing.
And it's worth noting that, in the details of the arrangement Obama announced Friday, the United States will maintain an Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq, which will consist of hundreds, if not thousands of American defense personnel.
There were other signs of wiggle room in Obama's announcement. "As I told Prime Minister Maliki, we will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces, again, just as we offer training and assistance to countries around the world," Obama said Friday. "After all, there will be some difficult days ahead for Iraq and the United States will continue to have an interest in an Iraq that is stable, secure and self-reliant."
Still, Obama's announcement Friday does not represent only a linguistic sleight of hand, for either country. Almost nine years after the American invasion to topple Saddam Hussein--and in the year since popular uprisings began to topple a succession of the Middle East's long-entrenched dictators and autocrats from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya, not primarily at the hands of the American military but by the power of those countries' own people--the United States and Iraq will finally be able to have a "fresh start" to their post-war relationship, as Obama put it Friday.
"The United States is fulfilling our agreement with an Iraqi government that wants to shape its own future," John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, said in a statement Friday. "We are creating a new partnership that shifts from a clear military focus to a new relationship that is more expansive, hinging on increased diplomatic, economic and cultural relations."
Wikileaks will be temporarily suspending its publication of confidential documents in order to fight a financial boycott against the organization that has reportedly cut off 95 percent of its revenue.
According to Assange, WikiLeaks has initiated legal action against the blockade in Iceland, Denmark, Brussels, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. It has also filed an anti-trust complaint to the European Commission, and expects to hear a decision on that action by next month.
