Friday, October 1, 2010

Charles Barkley RIPS LeBron James Over Race Comments


 Charles Barkley RIPS LeBron James Over Race Comments

 

LeBron James says that race has played a role in the massive backlash he has received since joining the Miami Heat over the summer.

Charles Barkley disagrees. The former NBA star spoke with WIP in Philadelphia and called out LeBron for his comments on race.

Barkley repeatedly referred to the James saga as a bad movie and said the criticism he has heard have nothing to do with race.

"The only criticism I've heard about LeBron and it was my biggest criticism, that decision thing was just stupid. It was stupid," Barkley said. "The second thing when they all came out there dancing around on stage, that was silly. That's the only thing I've heard LeBron get criticized about. That has nothing to do with race."

"It's like watching a movie," the Basketball Hall of Famer added. "Just when you think it couldn't get any stupider, it gets more stupid."

The TNT analyst also ripped ESPN for reporting on the Heat training camp every day and catering to James. "They have definitely crossed the line and this is unprecedented," he said. "This is unprecedented a** kissing."
The interview was transcribed by Sports Radio Interviews. You can listen to the entire segment here.


Lupe Fiasco Anti-Evil/Greed Twitter Stream Oct. 1, 2010

Lupe Fiasco Anti-Evil/Greed Twitter Stream Oct. 1, 2010







LeBron James, race and the NBA

LeBron James, race and the NBA

A close examination of the Heat's LeBron James and the role of race

By J.A. Adande
ESPN.com


"Pardon The Interruption" and "Around The Horn" look at the impact of LeBron James' comments to CNN.


Trying to avoid writing about the Miami Heat this season will be as difficult as trying to avoid writing about race and the NBA. Here we are, mere days after the teams assembled for the first time, and already the two inescapable subjects have converged into a sports topic so consuming that we managed to go an entire 24-hour cycle without talking about the New York Jets.

Race is so incendiary that the fire quickly engulfed what should have been the real news emanating from Soledad O'Brien's CNN interview, namely the first mea culpa of any kind from LeBron James' camp regarding "The Decision."

"The execution could have been a little better," Maverick Carter said. "And I take some of the blame for that."

When I threw that quote on Twitter all it did was make some people even angrier because Carter couched his confession.

"Mav took 'some' blame? SOME?!" @dgoldstein79 tweeted to me. "He's now up for 2 awards: Worst PR decision of the century AND biggest understatement. Congrats!"

No one bothered to parse the racial comments in the same way. How many people noticed that Maverick used the same "s-word" -- some -- in addressing the racial component of the summer-long backlash against LeBron?

"It definitely played a role in some of the stuff coming out of the media, things that were written for sure," Carter said.

It's important to keep in mind that he and LeBron were merely responding to questions. What O'Brien was doing asking them in the first place is another matter. For all we know she could have been trying to gather some sound bites for her next "Black in America" special. She asked and LeBron answered, and according to the transcript, it went as follows:

O'BRIEN: "Do you think there's a role that race plays in this?"

JAMES: "I think so, at times. It's always, you know, a race factor."

That's all it took. He didn't claim to be a victim of racial persecution, he didn't call for a racial revolution. He simply responded to a question and noted that race is a factor at times.

It's a simple, fundamental truth in our society and, in particular, the NBA. As long as the NBA features predominantly black athletes playing for predominantly white owners who are selling their sport to predominantly white ticket buyers, there will be a race factor. It's an ongoing quandary, usually left unsaid.

Every once in a while the league will try to address it, never more awkwardly than the "Love It Live" ad campaign that utilized dead white singers as a means to sell tickets to see living black basketball players. Apparently the league felt Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra made better spokespeople than Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal. And for the demographic that buys the bulk of season tickets and luxury suites, they very well could have been right.

That brings us to an essential component we must understand when it comes to any discussion of race and the NBA. It's OK for people to root for people who bear the most resemblance to themselves. I had no qualms with white Boston Celtics fans who bypassed racks of Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce jerseys to buy a Brian Scalabrine jersey. If they could identify more with him -- to the extent almost anyone can identify with a 6-foot-9 man with OrangeSicle-colored hair -- that's fine. It's no different than black people who previously didn't care about the difference between a serve and a volley rushing to the TV to cheer for Venus and Serena Williams. We all do it to some degree, be it with athletes or even "Price Is Right" contestants. We tend to support those representing our racial group.
It's not racism. I prefer the term that movie producer (and soon to be Golden State Warriors owner) Peter Guber used repeatedly in his conversation with Charles Barkley in Barkley's 2005 book "Who's Afraid of a Large Black Man?": tribalism.

Tribalism is about familiarity within the known entity. It's not about hatred of others, it's about comfort within your own, with a natural reluctance to expend the energy and time to break across the barriers and understand another group.

Most of what we're quick to label racism isn't really racism. Racism is premeditated, an organized class distinction based on believed superiority and inferiority of different races. That "ism" suffix makes racism a system, just like capitalism or socialism. Racism is used to justify exclusion and persecution based on skin color, things that rarely come into play in today's NBA.

The league routinely gets A grades in Richard Lapchick's racial report cards for diversity in its racial and gender hiring. While that doesn't mean there's complete equality in front offices and coaching sidelines, there's no sense that a powerful invisible barrier bans African-Americans from those jobs like the sonic fence keeping out the smoke monster in "Lost."

The color of LeBron's skin won't prevent him from making $14.5 million to play basketball for the Miami Heat this season. It didn't prevent him from signing endorsement deals with corporate titans Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Microsoft while in his early 20s. It didn't keep people of all races from buying his jersey. Racism has yet to come into play in LeBron's professional life. That doesn't mean he can exist in a racial vacuum.

James managed to navigate the first seven years of his career without running into any racial reefs. You could say there was an African-American style to him, but he never presented any views as coming from a uniquely African-American perspective. All debates about LeBron were on his merits as a basketball player, as an individual, never linked to his ethnicity. There was a flare-up about the similarity of his Vogue magazine cover photo to a "King Kong" poster, but James didn't join the discussion.

Lately there's been a slow-moving racial weather front moving across the radar screen on the LeBron narrative, and ultimately he couldn't escape the story.

It began with Jesse Jackson's claim that Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert's late-night rant about LeBron's departure reflected a "slave master mentality" and that "He sees LeBron as a runaway slave." It was an overly exaggerated reaction to the reaction. If Gilbert really saw LeBron as a slave, he would have tracked him down with bloodhounds and lynched him. That's what slave masters did to escaped slaves. That's why I'll never equate professional or collegiate athletics to slavery.

Orlando Sentinel columnist Shannon Owens linked LeBron's appearance on a list of 10 most disliked athletes to his race. And on ESPN.com, Vincent Thomas said the growing resentment toward LeBron from white people would increasingly lead black people to embrace him, almost reflexively.

Now James has entered the fray himself, simply by acknowledging the presence of something we're never comfortable talking about. It came to his porch and he finally opened the door.

The counterargument is that James never felt compelled to address the league's racial element when everybody was an ally. No one wondered about the racial motivations of reporters and fans when they were writing praise and buying jerseys.

That's because race doesn't affect acceptance, it affects tolerance. When people behave in a manner accepted by society at large they are easy for everyone to embrace. It's who chooses to align with the outcasts that is telling.

LeBron quickly evaporated his reservoir of goodwill with the self-serving "Decision." His own actions were responsible for the ignition and the acceleration of the vitriol. Where race comes in is the continuation. The racial element won't be measured in the condemnation, which came from all corners. It will be measured in the willingness to forgive.

Self-indulgent? I always wondered why that tag didn't stick with white athletes such as Eli Manning, John Elway, Danny Ferry and Kiki Vandeweghe, who refused to play for the teams that drafted them until they could force a trade. Did they avoid permanent ostracizing for their blatant attempt to circumvent the rules that are essential for competitive balance in the league simply because they were white? They certainly don't pop up on the list when we talk about spoiled athletes.

LeBron, like the "draft dodgers," never was accused of a major crime against society. But this week LeBron made a transgression that fewer are willing to forgive. He just forced us to discuss the existence of something none of us feels comfortable doing. He caused us to examine the bias that's always lurking, that has the potential to spring from any of us.


ESPN Senior Writer J.A. Adande
On Twitter | On ESPN.com | On TrueHoop | On e-mail
Follow ESPN's NBA coverage on Twitter | On Facebook

In a Computer Worm, a Possible Biblical Clue

In a Computer Worm, a Possible Biblical Clue

Deep inside the computer worm that some specialists suspect is aimed at slowing Iran’s race for a nuclear weapon lies what could be a fleeting reference to the Book of Esther, the Old Testament tale in which the Jews pre-empt a Persian plot to destroy them.

That use of the word “Myrtus” — which can be read as an allusion to Esther — to name a file inside the code is one of several murky clues that have emerged as computer experts try to trace the origin and purpose of the rogue Stuxnet program, which seeks out a specific kind of command module for industrial equipment.

Not surprisingly, the Israelis are not saying whether Stuxnet has any connection to the secretive cyberwar unit it has built inside Israel’s intelligence service. Nor is the Obama administration, which while talking about cyberdefenses has also rapidly ramped up a broad covert program, inherited from the Bush administration, to undermine Iran’s nuclear program. In interviews in several countries, experts in both cyberwar and nuclear enrichment technology say the Stuxnet mystery may never be solved.

There are many competing explanations for myrtus, which could simply signify myrtle, a plant important to many cultures in the region. But some security experts see the reference as a signature allusion to Esther, a clear warning in a mounting technological and psychological battle as Israel and its allies try to breach Tehran’s most heavily guarded project. Others doubt the Israelis were involved and say the word could have been inserted as deliberate misinformation, to implicate Israel.

“The Iranians are already paranoid about the fact that some of their scientists have defected and several of their secret nuclear sites have been revealed,” one former intelligence official who still works on Iran issues said recently. “Whatever the origin and purpose of Stuxnet, it ramps up the psychological pressure.”

So a calling card in the code could be part of a mind game, or sloppiness or whimsy from the coders.

The malicious code has appeared in many countries, notably China, India, Indonesia and Iran. But there are tantalizing hints that Iran’s nuclear program was the primary target. Officials in both the United States and Israel have made no secret of the fact that undermining the computer systems that control Iran’s huge enrichment plant at Natanz is a high priority. (The Iranians know it, too: They have never let international inspectors into the control room of the plant, the inspectors report, presumably to keep secret what kind of equipment they are using.)

The fact that Stuxnet appears designed to attack a certain type of Siemens industrial control computer, used widely to manage oil pipelines, electrical power grids and many kinds of nuclear plants, may be telling. Just last year officials in Dubai seized a large shipment of those controllers — known as the Simatic S-7 — after Western intelligence agencies warned that the shipment was bound for Iran and would likely be used in its nuclear program.

“What we were told by many sources,” said Olli Heinonen, who retired last month as the head of inspections at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, “was that the Iranian nuclear program was acquiring this kind of equipment.”

Also, starting in the summer of 2009, the Iranians began having tremendous difficulty running their centrifuges, the tall, silvery machines that spin at supersonic speed to enrich uranium — and which can explode spectacularly if they become unstable. In New York last week, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, shrugged off suggestions that the country was having trouble keeping its enrichment plants going.

Yet something — perhaps the worm or some other form of sabotage, bad parts or a dearth of skilled technicians — is indeed slowing Iran’s advance.

The reports on Iran show a fairly steady drop in the number of centrifuges used to enrich uranium at the main Natanz plant. After reaching a peak of 4,920 machines in May 2009, the numbers declined to 3,772 centrifuges this past August, the most recent reporting period. That is a decline of 23 percent. (At the same time, production of low-enriched uranium has remained fairly constant, indicating the Iranians have learned how to make better use of fewer working machines.)

Computer experts say the first versions of the worm appeared as early as 2009 and that the sophisticated version contained an internal time stamp from January of this year.

These events add up to a mass of suspicions, not proof. Moreover, the difficulty experts have had in figuring out the origin of Stuxnet points to both the appeal and the danger of computer attacks in a new age of cyberwar.

For intelligence agencies they are an almost irresistible weapon, free of fingerprints. Israel has poured huge resources into Unit 8200, its secretive cyberwar operation, and the United States has built its capacity inside the National Security Agency and inside the military, which just opened a Cyber Command.

But the near impossibility of figuring out where they came from makes deterrence a huge problem — and explains why many have warned against the use of cyberweapons. No country, President Obama was warned even before he took office, is more vulnerable to cyberattack than the United States.

For now, it is hard to determine if the worm has infected centrifuge controllers at Natanz. While the S-7 industrial controller is used widely in Iran, and many other countries, even Siemens says it does not know where it is being used. Alexander Machowetz, a spokesman in Germany for Siemens, said the company did no business with Iran’s nuclear program. “It could be that there is equipment,” he said in a telephone interview. “But we never delivered it to Natanz.”

But Siemens industrial controllers are unregulated commodities that are sold and resold all over the world — the controllers intercepted in Dubai traveled through China, according to officials familiar with the seizure.

Ralph Langner, a German computer security consultant who was the first independent expert to assert that the malware had been “weaponized” and designed to attack the Iranian centrifuge array, argues that the Stuxnet worm could have been brought into the Iranian nuclear complex by Russian contractors.

“It would be an absolute no-brainer to leave an infected USB stick near one of these guys,” he said, “and there would be more than a 50 percent chance of having him pick it up and infect his computer.”
There are many reasons to suspect Israel’s involvement in Stuxnet. Intelligence is the single largest section of its military and the unit devoted to signal, electronic and computer network intelligence, known as Unit 8200, is the largest group within intelligence.

Yossi Melman, who covers intelligence for the newspaper Haaretz and is at work on a book about Israeli intelligence over the past decade, said in a telephone interview that he suspected that Israel was involved.

He noted that Meir Dagan, head of Mossad, had his term extended last year partly because he was said to be involved in important projects. He added that in the past year Israeli estimates of when Iran will have a nuclear weapon had been extended to 2014.

“They seem to know something, that they have more time than originally thought,” he said.

Then there is the allusion to myrtus — which may be telling, or may be a red herring.

Several of the teams of computer security researchers who have been dissecting the software found a text string that suggests that the attackers named their project Myrtus. The guava fruit is part of the Myrtus family, and one of the code modules is identified as Guava.

It was Mr. Langner who first noted that Myrtus is an allusion to the Hebrew word for Esther. The Book of Esther tells the story of a Persian plot against the Jews, who attacked their enemies pre-emptively.

“If you read the Bible you can make a guess,” said Mr. Langner, in a telephone interview from Germany on Wednesday.

Carol Newsom, an Old Testament scholar at Emory University, confirmed the linguistic connection between the plant family and the Old Testament figure, noting that Queen Esther’s original name in Hebrew was Hadassah, which is similar to the Hebrew word for myrtle. Perhaps, she said, “someone was making a learned cross-linguistic wordplay.”

But other Israeli experts said they doubted Israel’s involvement. Shai Blitzblau, the technical director and head of the computer warfare laboratory at Maglan, an Israeli company specializing in information security, said he was “convinced that Israel had nothing to do with Stuxnet.”

“We did a complete simulation of it and we sliced the code to its deepest level,” he said. “We have studied its protocols and functionality. Our two main suspects for this are high-level industrial espionage against Siemens and a kind of academic experiment.”

Mr. Blitzblau noted that the worm hit India, Indonesia and Russia before it hit Iran, though the worm has been found disproportionately in Iranian computers. He also noted that the Stuxnet worm has no code that reports back the results of the infection it creates. Presumably, a good intelligence agency would like to trace its work.


Ethan Bronner contributed reporting from Israel, and William J. Broad from New York.



US Is 'Practically Owned' by China: Analyst

US Is 'Practically Owned' by China: Analyst




The US supremacy as the top world economy will end sooner than many people believe, so gold is a better investment than the dollar despite it hitting a new record, Tom Winnifrith, CEO at financial services firm Rivington Street Holdings, told CNBC.com Monday.

Gold [XAU=X  1309.25    4.00  (+0.31%)   ] hit a new record high Monday and silver [XAG=X  21.8    0.10  (+0.46%)   ] rose to another 30-year peak as investors were worried about the dollar weakening further after the Federal Reserve hinted at more quantitative easing last week.

The US trade deficit and debt continue to grow and the authorities are reluctant to address the problem, preferring to print money, Winnifrith said.

"America is practically owned by China," he said.

He reminded of the fact that in 1900, sterling was the world's reserve currency but by 1948, that was no longer the case as the British Empire collapsed.

"America is doing what Britain did," Winnifrith said. "America spends much more than it can afford and it's not addressing the issue."

In 1832, China and India were the world's two largest economies and by 2032, they will regain that status, he predicted.

"The 200 years when Britain and the US were the top two economies were an aberration and that will change," Winnifrith said.

"The decline of empires has happened much faster than folks think. I believe that gold will be a far better bet
in 20 years than the dollar," he added.






Thursday, September 30, 2010

The Mullahs’ Murder of Americans

The Mullahs’ Murder of Americans

 




Michael Ledeen sheds light on how Iran kills our troops – and why nothing is said or done about it....


Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Michael A. Ledeen, a noted political analyst and a Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He is the author of The Iranian Time Bomb, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership and Tocqueville on American Character, and he is a contributor to The Wall Street Journal. His latest book is Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West.



FP: Michael A. Ledeen, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about how Iran is killing our troops and why nobody is really doing anything about it.

Share with us what is going on.


Ledeen: They have been killing Americans for 30 years. That’s what the chants of “Death to America!” are all about. From the Hezbollah suicide attacks on the US Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut in the early 1980s, to the use of Iranian-made roadside bombs and mines in Iraq and Afghanistan by terrorists trained in Iran, to armed assaults against American troops by members of the Quds force, Iran is at war with us.
 
Every so often a military leader calls attention to this fact, but no publication, and no political leader, makes it a central theme of our national debate. Why? Because if you accept the fact that the Iranian regime is killing Americans almost every day, you are compelled to do something about it. And hardly anyone is willing to do anything effective. The only evil action by the mullahs that interests the West is the nuclear program, even though they have demonstrated very clearly that they don’t need nukes to murder and maim thousands of Americans.

FP: Why did Iran declare war on us? Why is it waging war on us? Is there anything we can do to get them to stop?

Ledeen: Declaring war on us is at the heart of the Iranian Revolution; war on the modern world was Khomeini’s dream. That’s why he called us The Great Satan. I don’t think we can talk them out of their core values. As Jonathan Swift said, you can’t reason a man out of something he didn’t reason himself into in the first place.


FP: Can you expand for us a bit on the process by which Iran kills our troops today? You mention Iranian-made roadside bombs and mines in Iraq and Afghanistan and armed assaults against American troops by members of the Quds force. Tell us some more what’s happening here.


Ledeen: Thousands of Americans have been killed and wounded.  Those who plant the mines and bombs–the IEDs and the EFPs–are often trained by Iranians in Iran.  And many of the suicide bombers are also trained by Iranians.

FP: Let us suppose someone like Newt Gingrich becomes President in 2012 and gets the courage to make this a central theme of our national debate. He calls you and says, “Michael, what can and should my administration do about this?” What do you tell him?


Ledeen: Support the Iranian opposition. Talk to them, ask them what they need, and then get it to them.


FP: What are the prospects, do you think, of Iranians overthrowing the tyranny that oppresses them? In other words, can a revolution against the Mullahs succeed in the near future?


Ledeen: Yes it can succeed. The overwhelming majority of Iranians want it to succeed, and it would have succeeded long since, IMHO, if the opposition had had some outside help. But no Western country has helped.


FP: Your thoughts on Obama?


Ledeen: I think of him like a typical Ivy League undergraduate, gulled by political correctness, who doesn’t understand American greatness, and instead blames us for most of the world’s problems and injustices.  He wants to cut America down to size.


FP: Looking back at your career and experiences, what are some of the key lessons you have learned that you think are crucial for an American administration to absorb and act upon?


Ledeen: There’s a lot to learn, and I’ve only learned a small part of it.  But the main thing is what Machiavelli says to leaders:  you will be judged on whether you win or lose, and everybody hates a loser.  Unfortunately we have a generation of Western leaders who prefer to be nice losers.  The other big thing is that the world looks to America for guidance; there is no escape from our role as a superpower…like it or not.

FP: Your perspective on Russia’s role vis-à-vis Iran?


Ledeen: Hah! My favorite mystery. There is no doubt that the Russians played a significant role in the creation of the Islamic Republic’s terror apparatus and intelligence services. That said, we (or at least I) don’t know nearly enough. I can’t believe that the Russians want the mullahs to have nuclear weapons; they know that the ayatollahs are constantly stirring up jihad in the Balkans. So, for example, when I hear about this computer “worm” I wonder if it’s the Russians…I think the Russians work very hard to get control over at least part of the Islamic Republic, but the Iranians do not trust them, and so there’s a kind of “balance of paranoia.” It’s a great subject. Ask Pacepa about it.


FP: Your thoughts on the Left’s behavior in our terror war in general?


Ledeen: What can I say?  Too many of them want us to lose.


FP: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about our civilization’s will and capacity to defend itself from radical Islam?

Ledeen: I’m an optimist by nature, as my father was. I cannot imagine losing to a group that is locked in the 12th century. We are more adaptive, and stronger by orders of magnitude. They will lose every major battle, and eventually they will lose standing with the umma. When Iran finally comes down, the whole world will change for the better, and we will have a much easier time of it. It’s maddening to see that our leaders don’t seem to see the war whole, and don’t agree that regime change in Tehran is the best single stroke in the war against the terror masters. As it has been from day one. Somebody said that.

FP: Michael A. Ledeen, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.


Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Email him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com






Ecuadorean troops stormed a hospital in Quito late on Thursday and rescued President Rafael Correa

Troops storm Ecuador hospital, free Correa

By Hugh Bronstein and Alexandra Valencia



Ecuadorean army soldiers stand on the runway of the military airbase
of the Mariscal Sucre International Airport
to force its closure, in Quito September 30, 2010.

(Reuters) - Ecuadorean troops stormed a hospital in Quito late on Thursday and rescued President Rafael Correa, who had been holed up surrounded by renegade police protesting against government austerity measures.

Correa arrived back at the presidential palace in the capital, where local TV images showed a large crowd of supporters cheering and waving Ecuador's flag.


Amid heavy gunfire, he had been freed after soldiers raided the building where he had spent most of the day.


Dissident police had earlier attacked Correa, prompting the 47-year-old leftist leader to seek refuge in the hospital, where he accused rivals of trying to topple him in a coup.


The U.S.-trained economist and friend of Venezuela's socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez took power in 2007, alienating foreign investors but winning approval ratings with populist policies like greater state control over natural resources.


The United Nations and governments across the Americas threw their support behind Correa, with the White House backing him and calling for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.


Global oil prices rose to a seven-week high of near $80 a barrel, partly due to the turmoil in OPEC's smallest member.



Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Wal-Mart Bids $4.6 Billion for South Africa's Massmart


Wal-Mart Bids $4.6 Billion for South Africa's Massmart


By MIGUEL BUSTILLO in Houston,
ROBB. M. STEWART in Johannesburg
and PAUL SONNE in London


Wal-Mart Stores Inc. made an aggressive but expensive bid to expand in Africa ahead of its international competitors, offering to buy South African retailer Massmart Holdings Inc. for 32 billion rand ($4.6 billion).

Wal-Mart's proposed offer—the company's biggest acquisition in more than a decade—would represent a relatively high premium for Massmart, a 290-store chain operating in 13 African nations.

Yet a deal would give the Bentonville, Ark., giant a critical foothold to expand in Africa and allow Wal-Mart to beat European multinational rivals Carrefour SA, Tesco PLC and Metro AG into the potentially lucrative sub-Saharan market.

Massmart would serve as "a fantastic entry point to a broader part of the continent," said Andy Bond, a former chief executive of Wal-Mart's U.K. subsidiary Asda, who is spearheading the purchase. Massmart already is expanding beyond its South Africa base, Mr. Bond said in an interview Monday.

A shopper left a Massmart chain, the Game store,
in South Gate mall south of Johannesburg, South Africa, on Monday.
Wal-Mart has learned the hard way that a first-mover advantage can be important in international retailing.

Carrefour, Wal-Mart's global archrival, beat Wal-Mart to South America, opening stores in Brazil in 1975, nearly two decades before Wal-Mart. The France-based company also was the first major international chain to establish a presence in Asia, through a joint venture in Taiwan in 1989.

Despite investing billions of dollars building and buying stores, Wal-Mart still trails Carrefour in Brazil today. And Carrefour remains the largest international retailer in China, the most coveted retail market in the developing world. While Carrefour doesn't have sub-Saharan operations, the chain has stores in northern Africa.

Wal-Mart's African foray is risky, however. The offer is roughly 13 times Massmart's pretax earnings and would place Wal-Mart into a politically combustible region.

South Africa is emerging slowly from the recession, is plagued by high crime and unemployment and marked with a heavily unionized work force known for long, sometimes violent, strikes. Other sub-Saharan nations carry even more political risks.

"Massmart is well positioned as a springboard for sub-Saharan Africa, but we believe that it will take a much longer time period for the company to earn its cost of capital in Africa," said Janney Montgomery Scott analyst David Strasser. "For every relatively stable country like Botswana, there is a Zimbabwe."

Nevertheless, Wal-Mart appears prepared to face those risks as it looks to extend its reach in emerging markets and expand its international business, which makes up a fourth of the company's roughly $405 billion in annual revenue.

The international division clearly is Wal-Mart's growth engine, now that sales at U.S. stores open at least a year have fallen for five consecutive quarters. The company is examining entering other emerging markets as well, including Russia and the Middle East. "Wal-Mart is a company that wants to aggressively expand world-wide," Mr. Bond said.



But Wal-Mart hasn't always managed to get its formula right abroad, in part because the retailer sometimes has failed to cater to local habits and markets. Wal-Mart in 2006 abandoned its Germany operation after spending eight years trying to crack the market, one of Europe's most competitive discount-retailing environments. Wal-Mart pulled out of South Korea last decade.

South Africa, particularly Johannesburg and Cape Town, is an attractive prospect, drawing shoppers from Nigeria, Kenya and elsewhere on the continent because of its well developed roads and wide range of retailers, from discount stores to high-end, international brands.

Like Wal-Mart, Massmart operates low-cost, high-volume stores with a strong general retail business and an emerging food operation. Founded in 1990, Massmart operates several chains, including Game general-merchandise stores, Makro warehouse-club stores and Builders Warehouse for construction and home improvement.

Massmart is one of several large chains, including Shoprite Holdings Ltd. and Woolworths Holdings Ltd., that dominate South Africa and have expanded into neighboring countries. Massmart reported sales of 47.55 billion rand in the fiscal year through June, up 10% from a year earlier.

Wal-Mart made a nonbinding proposal that could lead to a cash offer of 148 rand ($21.08) a share for Massmart. The companies said Monday that they are in exclusive negotiations to try to hammer out a deal, which would be subject to regulatory approval.

Massmart's shares closed 11% higher at 149 rand in Johannesburg, giving the company a market value of about 30 billion rand and indicating that Wal-Mart may have to adjust its offer somewhat higher. Wal-Mart shares fell 60 cents to $53.48 in 4 p.m. composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

"It is early days," Massmart CEO Grant Pattison said during a conference call. He said his impression is that Massmart's entire management team would be retained in a deal.

Mr. Bond said Wal-Mart, should it close the deal, would support Massmart's existing black economic-empowerment arrangements, and try to enhance them where possible. Companies in South Africa are required to include equity ownership by blacks as part of the government's efforts to reverse years of apartheid rule and bring the majority population into the mainstream economy.


**Write to Miguel Bustillo at miguel.bustillo@wsj.com
and Paul Sonne at paul.sonne@wsj.com **