03/22 to 03/29 ***The***Winds***of***WAR

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://38north.org/2012/02/dwright021212/

Post Published: 12 February 2012
Found in section: WMD

A North Korean Mobile ICBM?

By David Wright

Press stories appearing in early December 2011 raised the possibility of a North Korean mobile intercontinental range ballistic missile (ICBM). Given what is known publicly about North Korea’s missile program, this is a surprising claim that is worth examining.

The impression these and other stories give is that North Korea is developing a new ballistic missile—leap-frogging its previous efforts at building a long-range missile—and is on the verge of posing a new threat to the United States.

This is almost certainly not the case. As the analysis below shows, these reports do not necessarily imply the development of a new missile different than those which it is already known to be working on. Instead, they may mean that the North is building or acquiring trucks or trailers that can be used to transport missiles currently under development.

Press Reports

The earliest public statement about a possible North Korean mobile ICBM was a comment by Robert Gates just before he stepped down as Secretary of Defense six months after his January 2011 remarks that Pyongyang might have a nuclear-armed intercontinental missile within five years.[1]

In particular, on June 4, 2011,responding to a question about North Korea during a meeting in Singapore, Secretary Gates talked about a looming threat and added the detail about a potential mobile ICBM:

With the continued development of long-range missiles and potentially a road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile, and their continued development of nuclear weapons, North Korea is in the process of becoming a direct threat to the United States.[2]

Just two and a half weeks later in a June 21 interview in Newsweek, Secretary Gates went beyond his previous statements, expressing much more certainty about both the threat to the United States and the existence of a mobile ICBM program:

North Korea now constitutes a direct threat to the United States. The president told [China’s] President Hu that last year. They are developing a road-mobile ICBM. I never would have dreamed they would go to a road-mobile before testing a static ICBM.[3]

Unfortunately, he was not asked to elaborate in either case. It is odd that in early June Secretary Gates referred to North Korea as “in the process of becoming” a direct threat to the United States—consistent with his statements the previous January—while two weeks later he said that the United States had already considered North Korea to be a direct threat the previous year.

Secretary Gates’ remarks attractedpress attention at the time, and the issue surfaced again—largely because of a December 5 story in the Washington Times written by Bill Gertz.[4] This article was about a November 17 letter sent by five Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on strategic forces to the current Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, urging stronger administration support for long-range missile defenses.[5] The letter referred to a briefing given by the administration but does not tie that briefing to claims about a North Korean mobile ICBM. The authors also referred to Secretary Gates’ June 4 statement when discussing the reason they supported an invigorated missile defense program.

Mr. Gertz writes that following the briefing “Congressional aides declined to comment on the intelligence” and that “Administration officials familiar with the missile data said U.S. intelligence analysts have some disagreement over the developments.” Given what is known about North Korean missiles, what might be going on?

What is a “Mobile Missile”?

North Korea has a clear motivation to pursue a missile that is not tied to a fixed launch site. The United States and other countries are watching its launch sites carefully, and an ICBM is large and easy to spot. Once the missile is moved into launch position it becomes a target that an adversary could attack during a crisis.

So it would not be surprising if North Korea was interested in developing the ability to move intermediate- or long-range missiles and launch them from unknown sites. One option might be to hide them in caves, for example, where they could be concealed until they are rolled out to launch, similar to what China is believed to have done with some of its early missiles.

The term “mobile missile” tends to bring to mind an image of a missile carried on a mobile launcher that can move to a desired location, and then raise the missile into launch position and fire it relatively quickly. Current examples of mobile ICBMs of this kind are the Russian SS-25 missile and the Chinese DF-31 and DF-31A missiles.

But these three mobile missiles use solid propellant. As discussed below, North Korea does not have the ability to build large solid-fueled missiles. Liquid-propellant missiles of the same long-range capability tend to be much larger and more fragile. Such missiles cannot be transported, or erected into a vertical launch position from a horizontal traveling position, while fueled.

The main reason that large liquid-propellant missiles cannot be transported while filled with fuel has to do with the missile’s structure. To attain the high burnout speed necessary to propel a warhead long distances, the mass of the metal missile body must be kept as low as possible, and this requirement is especially strict for ICBMs.[6] Such a lightweight structure for the missile body would not be strong or rugged enough to withstand the stress of transporting a fueled missile or attempting to raise it into launch position.

As a result, moving a large liquid-propellant missile by truck or trailer would require the missile to be transported without being filled with fuel. This would reduce the mass to well under 10 tons and reduce the stresses on the missile.

While this would allow the missile to be moved to remote launch sites, it could not be launched quickly once it reached that site. Instead, the missile would have to be erected into a vertical position and then filled with fuel from large tank trucks that accompanied it. This process can take a couple hours.

These missiles may therefore be “moveable” but not “mobile” in the typical usage of that term. In short, North Korea may be trying to acquire “moveable missile” capability.

As an example, Figure 1 shows trucks needed to fuel the liquid-propellant Chinese DF-3 missile prior to a launch. This missile is roughly the same size as the first stage of the North Korean Unha-2 launcher; as we discuss below, a North Korean ICBM is likely to be derived from or similar to the Unha-2. A multi-stage missile would require additional fuel trucks.

Figure 1: This photo shows a Chinese DF-3 missile, which is the first stage of the DF-4, being fueled for launch. The trucks surrounding it carry the fuel and oxidizer that are pumped into its tanks. This missile is essentially the same size as the first stage of the North Korean Unha-2. http://chinesemilitaryreview.blogspo...c-missile.html.

What kind of truck or trailer would be needed to transport an unfueled liquid-propellant ICBM?

A North Korean ICBM would be essentially the same size and mass as China’s two-stage DF-4 missile (see below), which was used as the basis of China’s first satellite launch vehicle, the Long March-1 (CZ-1). The DF-4 has a length of 28 m, a mass of 80 tons fueled and less than 10 tons unfueled.[7]

Figure 2 shows a photo of the DF-4 being prepared for launch, with the trailer used to carry it. This trailer allowed the missile to be transported—unfueled—to caves, where it was hidden. It could then be rolled out, erected, fueled, and fired.

The transport system could use a large truck instead of a trailer like that shown in Figure 2. But the picture makes clear that the system needed to transport a missile of this kind can be relatively simple and need not indicate a leap in technology.

Figure 2: A Chinese DF-4 missile after being erected from its mobile carrier. http://www.sinodefence.com/space/missile/df4.asp.

Even with such a trailer, there is a question of over how large an area North Korea could move such a missile. Trying to move a missile over the rough terrain of the remote, mountainous parts of North Korea may result in jarring and shaking that could cause damage to the missile body and/or components such as the electronics. There are few large, well-maintained roads in these areas, and building a road suitable for a large trailer of this kind would be evident from satellite observation, providing clues to where the missiles were stored.

Such a mode of operation would build on experience that North Korea has already had with two missiles. One is North Korea’s version of the short-range Scud missile. With a range of about 300 km, these missiles have low mass and a very rugged body, since they were designed to be transported. They are believed to be fueled at a central location and then can be moved while fueled. The second missile is the Nodong, which is essentially a scaled-up Scud with a range of about 1,300 km. When fueled, the Nodong has nearly four times the mass of the Scud. Little is known about how this missile is operated. The Musudan missile has been shown in parades on a transporter, but this missile is not operational (see below).

A Long-range Missile?

While North Korea can build trucks or trailers for a missile, it is important keep in mind that it does not have an operational ICBM or intermediate-range missile. The longest range operational missile it has successfully flight tested is the Nodong.

As noted above, North Korea does not have the ability to build long-range solid-fueled missiles. Its only solid-fueled delivery system is believed to be the Toksa—a version of the Soviet SS-21 missile—with a range of about 100 km. Producing large, solid-fueled rocket motors is a very significant technical challenge. For example, propellant must have a consistency rigid enough to support its own weight, but must not be so hard and brittle that it forms cracks, which can cause the propellant to explode when it burns. These requirements are especially demanding for a mobile missile, since it must be able to withstand the additional stresses of moving. China only built a road-mobile solid-fueled ICBM recently after 20 years of development.

As a result, any North Korean ICBM developed in the foreseeable future would almost certainly be liquid fueled.

There have been repeated claims that Pyongyang received either Soviet-made R-27 medium-range missiles (originally a submarine-launched missile called the SS-N-6 in the West), R-27 missile components, and/or production equipment from Russian sources, and may have sold some to Iran. If North Korea has acquired some number of complete R-27 missiles from Russia then it could conceivably deploy them without flight-testing since they would have been previously tested. Even so, their range is only about 2,400 km with a 650 kg payload.[8] . If North Korea instead acquired components or production equipment for the R-27 from Russia, it would need to do a proof flight test of the missiles it produced to gain confidence in the production process and to consider the weapon an operational military system.

The Musudan missile, which has been widely discussed in the press, has not been flight tested. Since this deleivery-system is a significant modification of the R-27 it cannot be considered operational without such tests (more below). It appears to have a range of about 3,200 km with a 650 kg payload.[9]

The Taepodong-2 (TD-2), which is the name given to a long-range missile believed to use the technology of the Unha-2 space launcher, has also not been flight tested. The Unha-2 has not been successfully tested, although the first two stages appeared to operate largely as planned in a April 2009 launch. In addition, North Korea has not tested a reentry vehicle and heat shield for a long-range missile, which it would need for delivering a warhead by a missile like the TD-2.

The most likely scenario, therefore, is that North Korea continues to develop the technology displayed in the Unha-2 launcher, which could be adapted to either a two- or three-stage TD-2 ICBM. A two-stage version of the TD-2 could have a range of more than 9,000 km with a 650 kg payload. A three-stage version, with sufficient structure to carry a heavy warhead and a heat shield instead of a lightweight satellite, could have a range of greater than 11,000 km.

If North Korea had acquired or could produce enough R-27 engines it could get somewhat better performance by replacing the cluster of four Nodong engines in the first stage of the Unha-2 with four clustered R-27 engines. Getting higher performance out of these engines would require North Korea to have large amounts of the advanced propellant the R-27 uses;[10] each missile would require some 60 tons. To reach intercontinental ranges, this missile would also have a fueled mass of roughly 80 tons, similar to the TD-2.

What about the Musudan Missile?

Speculation about a mobile ICBM seems to center on the Musudan missile. For example, the December 5 Washington Times story states:

Officials familiar with the intelligence said government analysts believe the missile could be a variant of North Korea’s new Musudan intermediate-range missile, first disclosed publicly in October 2010.

This statement is misleading since it suggests that a “variant” with some relatively minor modification of the Musudan missile would result in a delivery-system with ICBM range. This is not true.

As noted above, the Musudan (Figure 3[11]) is a single-stage missile believed to be a modified version of the Soviet R-27. No flight tests of the Musudan have been observed.

Figure 3: Musudan missiles in an October 2010 North Korean military parade (photo from Yonhap News).

The second stage of the Unha-2 launcher that North Korea used—unsuccessfully—to try to place a satellite in orbit in April 2009 appears to be an R-27 missile, and the third stage appears to use the steering motors of the R-27. During the launch, the second stage appeared to function properly but the third stage did not.[12]

However, the fact that an R-27 was apparently flown as the second stage of the Unha-2 in 2009 does not mean that the Musudan can be considered to be flight tested, as some reports claim, because the Musudan missile has been substantially modified from the R-27. The missile body has been lengthened by some 2.5 m (more than 25 percent) to carry more fuel, which adds four to five tons of mass and significantly changes the mass distribution of the missile and of the stresses on the body.

As a result, the fact that North Korea has never conducted a test launch of the Musudan is significant. It means that the Musudan cannot be considered operational, and North Korea cannot assume that a launch would be successful, and would therefore be unlikely to mate a nuclear warhead to the missile.

Even if the Musudan were tested, its range is much shorter than an ICBM. As noted above, based on the characteristics of the R-27, modeling shows that the Musudan would have a range of roughly 3,200 km with a 650 kg payload.

Reaching intercontinental range would require a missile that was significantly larger than the Musudan and had multiple stages. For comparison, the two-stage version of the TD-2 discussed above would have a length of some 26 m and a mass of 80 tons. This is more than twice as long as the Musudan (which is about 12 m in length) and more than four times heavier (the Musudan mass is about 18 tons). Moreover, it has a first-stage diameter of 2.4 m, compared to the 1.5 m diameter of the Musudan. A true ICBM, with a range of more than 11,000 km would be even larger.

Even if North Korea had enough R-27 engines to develop a new first stage using a cluster of four of these engines rather than Nodong engines, so that the missile consisted entirely of R-27 technology, it would still be a multi-stage missile similar in size to the TD-2.[13] It makes no sense to call this a “variant” of the Musudan.

Conclusion

Statements about a possible North Korean development of a mobile ICBM do not imply the development of a new missile. Instead they may indicate that North Korea is interested in finding a way to transport a long-range missile like the TD-2 and launch it from locations other than a fixed site, similar to what China did with its DF-4 intermediate-range missile.

Mobile missiles would complicate the conduct of a pre-emptive strike on the missile compared to an attack against weapons launched from a known, fixed site. However, in the situation described above, the missile would be transported unfueled and would need to be accompanied by a set of trucks that would fuel it once placed in launch position. Preparation would probably take several hours. That, combined with the additional infrastructure at the site would remove some of the advantages typically associated with mobile missiles.

In any event, the primary concern for the United States should be stopping the development and flight testing of intermediate- and long-range ballistic missiles, whether or not they are going to eventually be mobile. Currently, North Korea has not successfully flight tested a missile with range longer than 1,300 km. Without such tests, readily detected by U.S. satellites, a delivery system cannot be considered operational. As a result, there would be significant benefits to the United States engaging North Korea to reinstate the missile flight moratorium that it observed from 1998 through 2005—which would keep the Musudan, TD-2, and other missiles from becoming operational—and then to seeking a permanent ban on such tests.
[1] D. Wright, “Secretary Gates and the North Korean Missile Threat,” 38North.org, January 27, 2011, http://38north.org/2011/01/secretary...issile-threat/.

[2] 10th IISS Asia Security Summit, The Shangri-La Dialogue, Singapore, June 4, 2011, http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the-...ry-session/qa/.

[3] J. Barry, “The Defense Secretary’s Exit Interview,” The Daily Beast, June 21, 2011, http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ore.print.html.

[4] B. Gertz, “North Korea making missile able to hit U.S.,” Washington Times, December 5, 2011, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-hit-us/print/.

[5] Letter to L. Panetta, November 17, 2011, http://turner.house.gov/UploadedFile...g_Strategy.pdf.

[6] This is a direct consequence of the “rocket equation”—see D. Wright, L. Grego, L. Gronlund, The Physics of Space Security, 2005, p. 75, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen..._section_7.pdf.

[7] J. Lewis and Hua Di, “China’s Ballistic Missile Programs,” International Security, Vol. 17, No. 2, Fall 1992, pp. 5-40.

[8] See D. Wright, “More on Musudan Range Estimates,” October 12, 2010, http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/130...ange-estimates.

[9] D. Wright, “More on Musudan Range Estimates;” a U.S. estimate in an October 2009 Wikileaks cable gave a slightly longer range (4,000 km with a 500 kg payload), but details of this estimate are not known, http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/10/09STATE103755.html.

[10] The R-27 uses UDMH with nitrogen tetroxide as an oxidizer, although using nitric acid as an oxidizer would give similar performance.

[11] Some reports say the missile was first seen in a 2007 parade that was not open to the international press; see “North Korea Rolls Out Ballistic Missiles,” Global Security Newswire, October 13, 2010, http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/north...stic-missiles/.

[12] D. Wright and T. Postol, “A Post-launch Examination of the Unha-2,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June 29, 2009, http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/f...-of-the-unha-2.

[13] The Chinese DF-4 missile uses lightweight structure and advance propellants, similar to what a missile based on R-27 components might use, and it is essentially the same size the TD-2 discussed here, with a mass of 80 tons, a length of 28 m, and a diameter of 2.25 m (Lewis and Hua, “China’s Ballistic Missile Programs”).
Post Published: 12 February 2012
Found in section: WMD

Tags: david wright, df-3 missile, df-4 missile, icbm, intercontinental ballistic missile, launchers, missiles, mobile carrier, mobile icbm, multi-stage missile, musudan, nodong, robert gates, scud, solid fueled missile, taepodong-2, testing, unha-2, warhead
Previous Topic: “The Orphan Master’s Son”: No Window
Next Topic: China’s Embrace of North Korea: The Curious Case of the Hwanggumpyong Island Economic Zone
Reader Feedback
7 Responses to “A North Korean Mobile ICBM?”

1.
master182000 says:
February 24, 2012 at 9:44 am

Do the North Koreans even have a nuclear warhead? So far they’ve detonated 2 nuclear ‘devices’ and the estimated yields for both were low, if I remember.
2.
David Wright says:
February 16, 2012 at 2:29 pm

Matthew,

Looking at their missile programs, and the same may be true with their nuclear programs, Iran has taken a much more systematic approach to development than North Korea. The North’s main contribution now may be if it is able to acquire and share technology.
3.
38 North: A North Korean Mobile ICBM? by David Wright « CanKor says:
February 15, 2012 at 10:54 am

[...] The following article is authored by David Wright. Please follow our link to this article on the 38North site. [...]
4.
Petter says:
February 14, 2012 at 1:45 am

They could also acquire solid-fuel MRBMs based on the Chinese M-9 and further developed by the Pakistanis under the Shaheen program but that is just unfunded speculation that is extremely unlikely to happen even if their Ghauri systems is just basically North Korean built/designed Nodong based liquid fueled MRBMs. An important distinction to make about the Sajjil is that it is a short range two-stage solid fuel rocket. Not a large single stage like the Pakistanis is deploying and developing. North Korea can probably acquire the same M-9/DF-15 system from a third country, like Syria, but that would just be a short range system and no support structure to build them exists any way.

But building on that it is much more likely that Pakistan and India can threaten the wider world in a few years then any other country.

However with regards to knowledge acquired through partners Pakistan seems to have stopped developing the Ghauri system and aren’t working on extending its range any more. So I’m not sure how worried the world should be just because North Korea did setup part of Iran’s and Pakistan’s missile program.

Iran aren’t focused on extending the range either on the Shahabs. They have pretty much vowed to not build anything that can threaten Europe too, and aren’t likely to build and test such systems. Cooperation aren’t really happening their any more either as it’s largely a separate program that stands on their own merits with capabilities exceeding the North Koreans in some regards.

India is also working, have tested on land and wants SLBMs for that matter. Meaning they don’t really need an missile with intercontinental range in the numbers of 11 000 – 15 000 km. Depending on where their nuclear submarines patrols.

That is ignoring Israel of course that already has operational ICBM capacity.

Of course North Korea would pretty much not build any long range system as long as they can’t get any money out of it, by selling the designs which nobody seems to like to have so. Of course they wouldn’t build an mobile ICBM before they have an ICBM either. Regardless if it’s liquid or solid fuel. They also misses or misjudges or just misinform about the capabilities of the speculation of a Musudan missile, it’s fuel is highly corrosive and it wouldn’t stand fueled at hidden locations any way. No liquid fuel system would. Not just that it would just not be moved when fueled. That the SS-N-6/R-27 where ruined by being fueled which it was when deployed in submarines it helped a lot to limit proliferation of that system. A lengthen R-27 wouldn’t be a long range threat any way. Even if it works and can be produced in some numbers. All systems the North Koreans have are mobile launch systems so I don’t get why the new focus on mobile is brought up either. Satellite launch vehicles will always differ in some points to pure weapons and have no real reason to be test platforms for solid fuel rockets. Neither will anybody really suspect or assess the North Koreans as turning those platforms into missiles by themselves.
5.
Matthew Clayton says:
February 14, 2012 at 1:38 am

Your piece provided me with welcome detail on the current state of North Korea’s missile programmes.

Also interesting is your response to Miles Pomper regarding Iran’s missile range, which in solid fuel form has already surpassed North Korea’s liquid fuel missile range.

Taking that into account, rather than North Korea sharing missile technology with Iran in exchange for nuclear expertise, do you have any ideas on how the two countries co-operation can remain symmetrical, when Iran is making progress in it’s nuclear program and is already in possession of superior missile technology?
6.
David Wright says:
February 13, 2012 at 9:48 pm

Miles,
The longest range Iranian solid-fueled missile is the two-stage Sajjil, which IISS estimates to have a range of about 2,500 km with a 500 kg payload. This shows Iran is developing the ability to make solid engines. However, it still has a long way to go to develop a solid ICBM, both in terms of developing a larger and higher thrust rocket motor and getting the structural mass of the missile down. So this is still many years off. The point is that even if North Korea is learning to manufacture solid motors from Iran, any long-range missile it would build in the foreseeable future would be liquid fueled.
7.
Miles Pomper says:
February 13, 2012 at 10:36 am

David,
Excellent piece.
But haven’t the Iranians tested longer-range solid-fuel weapons than the North Koreans? While not an ICBM either, couldn’t the North Koreans build on this?

[Housecarl]

Hummm...

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/op...lies.html?_r=1

Op-Ed Columnist
A Festival of Lies
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: March 24, 2012
* Read All Comments (219) »

THE historian Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote a brutally clear-eyed piece in The National Review, looking back at America’s different approaches to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan and how, sadly, none of them could be said to have worked yet.

“Let us review the various American policy options for the Middle East over the last few decades,” Hanson wrote. “Military assistance or punitive intervention without follow-up mostly failed. The verdict on far more costly nation-building is still out. Trying to help popular insurgents topple unpopular dictators does not guarantee anything better. Propping up dictators with military aid is both odious and counterproductive. Keeping clear of maniacal regimes leads to either nuclear acquisition or genocide — or 16 acres of rubble in Manhattan. What have we learned? Tribalism, oil, and Islamic fundamentalism are a bad mix that leaves Americans sick and tired of the Middle East — both when they get in it and when they try to stay out of it.”

And that is why it’s time to rethink everything we’re doing out there. What the Middle East needs most from America today are modern schools and hard truths, and we haven’t found a way to offer either. Because Hanson is right: What ails the Middle East today truly is a toxic mix of tribalism, Shiite-Sunni sectarianism, fundamentalism and oil — oil that constantly tempts us to intervene or to prop up dictators.

This cocktail erodes all the requirements of a forward-looking society — which are institutions that deliver decent government, consensual politics that provide for rotations in power, women’s rights and an ethic of pluralism that protects minorities and allows for modern education. The United Nations Arab Human Development Report published in 2002 by some brave Arab social scientists also said something similar: What ails the Arab world is a deficit of freedom, a deficit of modern education and a deficit of women’s empowerment.

So helping to overcome those deficits should be what U.S. policy is about, yet we seem unable to sustain that. Look at Egypt: More than half of its women and a quarter of its men can’t read. The young Egyptians who drove the revolution are desperate for the educational tools and freedom to succeed in the modern world. Our response should have been to shift our aid money from military equipment to building science-and-technology high schools and community colleges across Egypt.

Yet, instead, a year later, we’re in the crazy situation of paying $5 million in bail to an Egyptian junta to get U.S. democracy workers out of jail there, while likely certifying that this junta is liberalizing and merits another $1.3 billion in arms aid. We’re going to give $1.3 billion more in guns to a country whose only predators are illiteracy and poverty.

In Afghanistan, I laugh out loud whenever I hear Obama administration officials explaining that we just need to train more Afghan soldiers to fight and then we can leave. Is there anything funnier? Afghan men need to be trained to fight? They defeated the British and the Soviets!

The problem is that we turned a blind eye as President Hamid Karzai stole the election and operated a corrupt regime. Then President Obama declared that our policy was to surge U.S. troops to clear out the Taliban so “good” Afghan government could come in and take our place. There is no such government. Our problem is not that Afghans don’t know the way to fight. It is that not enough have the will to fight for the government they have. How many would fight for Karzai if we didn’t pay them?

And so it goes. In Pakistan, we pay the Pakistani Army to be two-faced, otherwise it would be only one-faced and totally against us. In Bahrain, we looked the other way while ruling Sunni hard-liners crushed a Shiite-led movement for more power-sharing, and we silently watch our ally Israel build more settlements in the West Bank that we know are a disaster for its Jewish democracy.

But we don’t tell Pakistan the truth because it has nukes. We don’t tell the Saudis the truth because we’re addicted to their oil. We don’t tell Bahrain the truth because we need its naval base. We don’t tell Egypt the truth because we’re afraid it will walk from Camp David. We don’t tell Israel the truth because it has votes. And we don’t tell Karzai the truth because Obama is afraid John McCain will call him a wimp.

Sorry, but nothing good can be built on a soil so rich with lies on our side and so rich with sectarianism, tribalism and oil-fueled fundamentalism on their side. Don’t get me wrong. I believe change is possible and am ready to invest in it. But it has got to start with them wanting it. I’ll support anyone in that region who truly shares our values — and the agenda of the Arab Human Development Report — and is ready to fight for them. But I am fed up with supporting people just because they look less awful than the other guys and eventually turn out to be just as bad.

Where people don’t share our values, we should insulate ourselves by reducing our dependence on oil. But we must stop wanting good government more than they do, looking the other way at bad behavior, telling ourselves that next year will be different, sticking with a bad war for fear of being called wimps and selling more tanks to people who can’t read.

______

The Hanson article....

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...is-hanson?pg=1

March 8, 2012 12:00 A.M.
We Give Up
Americans are sick and tired of the Middle East.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Americans — left, right, Democrats, and Republicans — are all sick of thankless nation-building in the Middle East. Yet democratization was not our first choice, but rather a last resort after other methods failed.

The United States long ago supplied Afghan insurgents, who expelled the Soviets after a decade of fighting. Then we left. The country descended into even worse medievalism under the Taliban. So after removing the Taliban, who had hosted the perpetrators of 9/11, we promised in 2001 to stay on.

We won the first Gulf War in 1991. Then most of our forces left the region. The result was the mass murder of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, twelve years of no-fly zones, and a failed oil-for-food embargo of Saddam’s Iraq. So after removing Saddam in 2003, we tried to leave behind something better.

In the last ten years, the United States has spent more than $1 trillion, and thousands of American lives have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both places seem far better off than they were before American intervention — at least for a while longer.

Yet the Iraqis now bear Americans little good will. They seem friendlier to Iran and Syria than to their liberators. In Afghanistan, riots continue over the mistaken burning of some defaced Korans, despite serial American apologies.

How about the option of bombing the bad guys and then just staying clear? We just did that to the terrorist-friendly Gaddafi dictatorship in Libya. But now that Gaddafi is gone, there is chaos. Islamic gangs torture and execute black Africans who supported the deposed regime, according to press reports. British World War II cemeteries that were honored during 70 years of Libyan kings and dictators could not survive six months of a “free” Libya. In Benghazi, gangs just ransacked and defaced the monuments of the British war dead.

Not having boots on the ground may ensure that endless chaos will consume the hope of a calm post-Gaddafi Libya. That was also true of Somalia and Lebanon after American troops were attacked and abruptly left.

How about another option: aid and words of encouragement only? We have urged Egyptian reform, under both George W. Bush and now Barack Obama. When protesters forced the removal of dictator Hosni Mubarak, the United States approved. It even appears likely that we will keep sending Egypt annual subsidies of more than $1.5 billion — as we have for more than 30 years. Yet anti-American Islamists are now the dominant force in Egyptian politics. American aid workers were recently arrested and threatened with trial by new Egyptian reformers.

Still another American choice would be not to nation-build, bomb, or even to get near a Middle Eastern country — as we seem to be doing with Iran and Syria. The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since the shah left in 1979. Until the Obama administration desperately tried to reestablish contacts with the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria by appointing a new ambassador, there had been nearly six years of estrangement.

Yet Iran is nearing its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon both to threaten Israel and to bully other oil-exporting regimes of the Persian Gulf. The Syrian government is now butchering thousands of its own citizens with impunity.

A final option would be to return to the old policy of reestablishing friendly relationships with Middle East dictatorships regardless of their internal politics — and then keeping mum about their excesses. We did that with Pakistan, which has both received billions in U.S. aid and produced a nuclear bomb. Yet it is hard to imagine a more anti-American country than nuclear Pakistan, without which the Taliban could not kill Americans so easily in Afghanistan.

The United States once saved the Kuwaiti regime after it was swallowed up by Saddam Hussein. We have enjoyed strong ties with the Saudi monarchy as well. Neither country seems especially friendly to the U.S. It is still a crime to publicly practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the 19 mass-murdering hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis. Oil in the Middle East costs less than $5 a barrel to produce; it now sells for over $100, largely because of the policies of our allies and OPEC members.

Let us review the various American policy options for the Middle East over the last few decades. Military assistance or punitive intervention without follow-up mostly failed. The verdict on far more costly nation-building is still out. Trying to help popular insurgents topple unpopular dictators does not guarantee anything better. Propping up dictators with military aid is both odious and counterproductive. Keeping clear of maniacal regimes leads to either nuclear acquisition or genocide — or 16 acres of rubble in Manhattan.

What have we learned? Tribalism, oil, and Islamic fundamentalism are a bad mix that leaves Americans sick and tired of the Middle East — both when they get in it and when they try to stay out of it.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of the just-released The End of Sparta. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com. © 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...35317cedbb.a31

US, Turkey agree 'non-lethal' aid for Syria rebels

(AFP) – 2 hours ago

SEOUL — US President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed Sunday on the need to send "non-lethal" aid to Syrian rebels, including communications equipment, a US official said.

The two men agreed that a "Friends of Syria" group meeting on April 1 in Turkey should work on furnishing aid and medical supplies, as they met in South Korea, said US deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

Washington has said several times that it is looking at providing non-lethal aid to Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, whom the United States says should step down.

The rebels are badly outgunned by Syria's armed forces but the White House has said that it does not favour arming them, arguing that further "militarising" the conflict would worsen civilian bloodshed.

"We are very much in agreement that there should be a process whereby a transition to a representative and legitimate government in Syria takes place," Obama said.

Erdogan noted that 17,000 refugees had fled to Turkey from Syria since an uprising last year was met with lethal force by Assad's forces in a crackdown that has killed around 9,000 people and now looks more like a civil war.

"Of course, as human beings, people with conscience, we cannot remain a spectator to these developments, which are things that we have to be doing something about within the framework of international law," Erdogan said.

However the Obama administration appears to fear that any weapons sent to Syria would be at risk of falling into the wrong hands, and does not appear to have full confidence in rebel groups or a clear picture of their makeup.

"Given the uncertain nature of elements of the opposition, we're not discussing supplying lethal support," Rhodes said.

"But there's a range of things we can do, and the humanitarian, non-lethal side of things that could make a positive difference for the Syrian people and the opposition."

Washington has also ruled out unilateral military action in Syria, and says there is no coalition favouring multilateral action like that which ousted Libya's Moamer Kadhafi last year.

But Rhodes said that Erdogan and Obama did talk about the need to send a strong message to those around Assad that he will not dictate Syria's future, in an apparent effort to spark defections from his inner circle.

The two leaders also on Sunday discussed Iran, with Obama reiterating a warning he made earlier this month that the "window" for diplomacy to end a showdown with the Islamic republic over its nuclear programme was closing.

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said earlier this month that the United States was looking at providing non-lethal aid such as radio equipment to help opposition forces in their fight against Assad's regime.

But he declined to go further in a public forum.

Obama and Erdogan met for an hour and forty-five minutes in South Korea, as fighting escalated in Syria, with blasts rocking the flashpoint city of Homs.

Rebels meanwhile attacked a military base in Damascus province, activists and monitors said.

As the year-old conflict showed no signs of abating, rebel fighters set up a military council to unify their ranks and political opposition leaders called a meeting of all dissident groups to forge common objectives.

The latest violence came as UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan was in Moscow to seek the vital backing of Russia, a key ally of the Syrian regime, for his plan to end the bloodshed.

There are growing signs that Moscow is beginning to lose patience with Assad, despite his commitment to massive new Russian arms purchases and the granting of key naval access to the Mediterranean.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Related articles

* US to pursue 'non-lethal' aid for Syrian rebels
San Francisco Chronicle - 4 hours ago
* Annan in Moscow seeks support for Syria peace effort
Ahram Online - 6 hours ago
* US, Turkish Leaders Agree On Next Steps On Syria
KJCT8.com - 5 hours ago

[Housecarl]

As Commander-In-Chief I don't think I would be so quick to admit that my own Military Intelligence Network was not capable of determining who was in charge of a country. That kinda makes us look incompetent.

Yeah, it does have that flavor to it. But considering the source of the statement not all that surprising...

[TorahTips]

Yeah, it does have that flavor to it. But considering the source of the statement not all that surprising...

Nothing to worry about here, though. NK doesn't have nukes. They said so themselves a number of years ago. That makes me feel better.

[BREWER]

Posted for fair use and discussion.
http://www.debka.com/article/21858/

Obama’s back-channel to Tehran bypasses allies Erdogan and Netanyahu
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis March 24, 2012, 10:46 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Barack Obama Erdogan Binyamin Netanyahu Iran nuclear South Korea
Barack Obama and Tayyip Erdogan get together

US President Barack Obama this week gave his two allies, the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, a lesson in the politics of expediency, when Tuesday, March 20, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced exemptions for 11 nations from new US financial sanctions against countries that don’t reduce the Iranian oil purchases by June 28.

The countries benefiting from this concession are Britain, Germany, Belgium, France, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Spain, Holland, Poland and Japan.

The news flew over the heads of Israelis who were too completely caught up in the terrorist attack on the Jewish school in Toulouse for it to register. Ankara took note - and umbrage. It was a cold shower on the high hopes Prime Minister Erdogan had entertained for his meeting with President Obama in Seoul, South Korea Sunday, March 25.

Their conversation was allotted six hours! The Turkish prime minister took that as a sign that he would be handed the starring role of Washington’s senior broker in the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. This would be tantamount to US recognition of Turkey as the leading Middle East power bar none.

Erdogan also counted on his services in this regard winning US recognition by Turkey’s addition to the list of 11 nations enjoying exemptions from the new sanctions. Ankara needs this concession in view of the large quantities of oil it continues to import from Iran, and the use Iran makes of Turkish banks to facilitate its international oil sales.

Above all, Ankara is deeply engrossed in an effort to have the new Iranian and Iraqi pipelines to Europe routed through Turkey, reducing the Strait of Hormuz’s crucial importance as a primary route for the world’s oil supplies. This pipeline would also hurt Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf oil producers, all of whom are dead set against Erdogan’s hegemonic aspirations in the Middle East.

But for now no exemption appears to be on offer to Ankara.

debkafile’s intelligence sources report that Erdogan had planned to fly straight from his long conversation with Obama to Tehran and hand Iran’s leaders a Turkish formula counter-signed by the US president for digging the nuclear dispute out of its crisis.
This might still happen. But, when he returns home, the Turkish prime minister will still have to explain why Turkey was left off the exemptions list.

Even worse, it only dawned on Erdogan belatedly that Ankara was not Washington’s main channel to Tehran as he had believed. In the past month, he had sent Hakan Fidan, the Director of Turkish intelligence, MIT, traveling in and out of Tehran to tie up the last ends of their understanding ready for his summit with Obama. Certain he would be the bearer of tidings, he was brought up short by discovering that the Obama administration and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s office had been in dialogue through a separate secret channel for some time.

On March 12, a close Obama associate, the former US Senator Chuck Hagel, virtually gave the game away when he said in an interview: “There may be back-channel talks, I don’t see any other way around this.”

Israel did not fare any better than Turkey at Obama’s hands.

While Defense Minister Ehud Barak stressed in an interview Thursday, March 22 that America and Israel were in close accord on intelligence evaluations of the state of Iran’s program, he omitted mention of the intelligence gap on the hidden US-Iranian negotiating track.

Hagel was also revealing on another question. Asked by the interviewer: So does this mean “Bomb Iran or live with Iran with a bomb?” He replied: "Exactly. We may eventually wind up with those choices. But I don’t think we’re there now.”

What he was saying was that the secret US-Iranian channel has not yet run its course. This may explain why no date has been set for the Six Power talks with Iran in Istanbul next month.

At all events, the Obama administration appears to be rethinking sanctions as a bludgeon for turning Tehran away from its nuclear weapon aspirations.

Those second thoughts were closely reflected in a new assessment coming from London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies Friday, March 23, which asserted that sanctions were having an effect – “but just not the effect they were supposed to have.”

They have made the Iranians more not less committed to pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was said, and “had the knock-on effect of pushing oil prices to levels threatening the global economy.”

To put things into perspective, Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said Saturday, March 24, that the Six Power nuclear talks with Iran next month will be the last attempt to persuade Tehran to give up is nuclear weapon program by talks.

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

‘Nothing left’ but force if next talks with
Iran fail, warns ex-Mossad chief Halevy

There’s no more time for ‘let’s meet again in two
or three months,’ he tells The Times of Israel

By David HorovitzMarch 25, 2012, 8:08 pm
http://www.timesofisrael.com/nothing...-chief-halevy/

If upcoming international talks with Iran on thwarting its nuclear program do not quickly produce a breakthrough, there will be “nothing else left” but a resort to force, the former head of the Mossad, Efraim Halevy, told The Times of Israel in an interview on Sunday.

And it’s “tragic,” added Halevy, that “I don’t see any great effort being made” by the P5+1 group — the five UN Security Council permanent members and Germany – to prepare urgently and effectively for those talks.

The lights “should be burning through the night” to get a strategy together, he said. “The number one thing the world should be doing (on Iran) is investing enormous preparation into the P5+1 confrontation, because this is really the ‘Last Train to San Fernando’,” said Halevy, who also served as national security adviser and held senior ambassadorial positions. “I don’t detect any signs of this.”

Iran, he said, would doubtless try to play for time in the talks, for which no date or venue have yet been set but which are likely to convene soon. (The last such talks collapsed in Istanbul in January 2011). The international community, therefore, needed to be ready with its strategy and tactics, and to be represented by “a very high-level, experienced, wise and creative negotiator.”

As things stand, he went on, the Iranians would have a single negotiator, but the international community would likely have “all these diplomats sitting there,” approaching the talks as “a very ceremonious affair.”

For the international community, said Halevy, “there’s no time for, you know, ‘Let’s meet again in two or three months, let’s do our homework, let’s not rush things, let’s look at it, and so forth.’” Rather, he said, “there has to be a breakthrough… If there is no breakthrough, it means to say that the talks have failed.”

Asked if, by a breakthrough, he meant Iran announcing the suspension of its nuclear program, Halevy demurred. “I don’t want to say ‘Iran suspending the program.’ I don’t believe that everything will become public overnight.” But it would need to be clear, he said, “that there is a serious negotiation… They don’t have to spell it all out, but it has to be clear.”

Halevy said he did see signs of greater potential international coordination over Iran. He was encouraged by the growing consensus on tackling Syria, notably including Russia and China, which he said could also be reflected in a coordinated strategy on Iran. He also noted that the priority for the ayatollahs’ regime in Iran is “survival” at all costs.

Nonetheless, if the negotiations fail, “there’s nothing else left” but a resort to force, he said.


Perhaps, it was put to Halevy, Israel could live with a nuclear weapons-capable Iran? Halevy responded: “I don’t think that we should countenance that as long as we can do what we can to remove it.

Perhaps, it was put to Halevy, Israel could live with a nuclear weapons-capable Iran? Halevy responded: “I don’t think that we should countenance that as long as we can do what we can to remove it. I don’t accept the notion that Israel is destructible. But I think that if Iran retains a nuclear capability, life here is going to be very tough for a very long period to come. Israel will not disappear, but Israel will go through a period which I would not like it to go through.”

Halevy’s comments stand in some contrast to those of his successor as head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, who said last year that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be “a stupid idea” and told CBS’s 60 Minutes earlier this month that “An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.”

Halevy stressed in the interview that Israel “should want a diplomatic solution.” It should be prepared to demonstrate to the international community that it was prepared to made “strategic changes” in policy, “true sacrifices,” in that cause. These changes, he said, could include apologizing to Turkey (over the Mavi Marmara affair) and agreeing to deal with Hamas. If Israel didn’t take such steps, said Halevy, “then it would be said that Israel didn’t really believe in the diplomatic solution, didn’t believe in the sanctions,” and simply “wants to attack Iran.”

Did Halevy believe the Israeli government wants a diplomatic solution? “I’m not sure every Israeli wants a diplomatic solution,” he said. “I’m not sure that the government is entirely behind this support for a diplomatic solution.”

Asked whether Israel should already be readying a military strike, Halevy said: “I have no doubt that for the past few years Israel has been readying its capabilities to meet the Iranians if necessary by force.”






=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

25 Mar, 2012, 11.25PM IST

Iran willing to work with Russia on more nuclear power plants

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/12406992.cms

TEHRAN: Atomic Energy Organization of Iran ( AEOI) head Fereidoon Abbasi said his country is willing to work with Russia on more nuclear power plants, reports said Sunday.

"Since the Russian contractor of Bushehr nuclear power plant has worked properly (on the project) in recent years ... we are willing to work with them on several more power plants," Abbasi was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency, reported Xinhua.

Bushehr nuclear power plant has already reached 75 percent of its capacity, he said, expressing hope that the power plant will approach its final capacity of 1,000 MW in late May.

The Russian State Atomic Agency Rosatom on Wednesday announced that work at the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran was proceeding as scheduled.

"There are no deviations from the schedule, everything is going in accordance with the dates set earlier," Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Rosatom said.

"Our position is highly tough. There is a deadline, and everything will be completed by that date," Kiriyenko said, adding that Rosatom was not going to complete any work ahead of the plan at the cost of safety.

Rosatom plans to switch the Bushehr plant to full power in the first half of 2012.

However, the Rosatom chief said that Russia will not build more nuclear power plants in Iran.

Construction of the Bushehr plant began in 1975 by several German companies. However, work halted when the US imposed an embargo on hi-tech supplies to Iran after the 1979 revolution.

Russia signed a contract with Iran to complete the construction in 1998. Completion of the plant's construction has been postponed several times by mounting technical and financial challenges and pressure from Washington.




=

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...2e03700e131486

Taliban warn Pakistan lawmakers over NATO supplies

By ISHTIAQ MAHSUD, Associated Press – 1 hour ago

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (AP) — The Taliban on Sunday threatened to attack Pakistani lawmakers and their families if they support allowing NATO to resume shipping supplies through the country to troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

Pakistan closed its Afghan border crossings to NATO in November in retaliation for American airstrikes that accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan's parliament is scheduled to begin debate Monday on a revised relationship with the U.S. that could lead to the border being reopened.

Pakistani Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan accused Pakistani officials of acting like slaves for the U.S. and said allowing NATO supplies to resume would be "shameful and unacceptable."

"These parliamentarians must know that in such case, none of them will be safe in their homes," Ahsan told The Associated Press. "We will start attacking all the parliamentarians and their families."

Ahsan also said militants would "publicly slaughter" drivers ferrying NATO supplies.

The U.S. is eager to get the supplies moving again because it has had to spend much more money shipping goods by an alternative route that runs through Central Asia.

The supply line through Pakistan will also be key to trucking out equipment as the U.S. seeks to withdraw most of its combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Pakistan would also benefit from patching up relations because it needs U.S. assistance to help keep its struggling economy afloat. The U.S. has given Pakistan billions of dollars in aid since 2001 to enlist its support in fighting Islamist militants, but the relationship has been plagued by mistrust.

A Pakistani parliamentary commission tasked with proposing new guidelines for the relationship between the two countries last week demanded an end to American drone attacks and an apology for the airstrikes that killed Pakistani troops.

The commission also recommended that the Pakistani government charge NATO more for shipments through the country if it allows them to resume. The parliament is scheduled to begin debate on these points Monday.

Washington has expressed regret for the border incident but avoided a formal apology. U.S. officials were reportedly preparing to apologize last month but had to postpone the plan after U.S. soldiers burned copies of the Quran in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama apologized for that, bring criticism from political opponents.

High-level meetings between the two countries were mostly put on hold following the airstrikes, but lately they have started to pick up.

On Sunday, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari met with Marc Grossman, the U.S. special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, on the sidelines of a conference in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, the U.S. said.

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is scheduled to meet Obama during a meeting in Seoul, South Korea, on Tuesday.

The Pakistani army, and to a lesser extent the civilian government, will ultimately decide whether to restore ties with the U.S., but parliament could influence the decision. Analysts say placing the issue before lawmakers is an attempt to give the government and the army some political cover, so they can claim support of the country before quietly reopening the supply route.

Opposition lawmakers have indicated they may not back the proposed new terms with the U.S.

"If the government wants the parliament to provide guidance on certain issues and situations, then we are ready to, but the government has to convince us, because its track record regarding two previous resolutions proved to be very bad," Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, the leader of the opposition in parliament, said Saturday.

Parliament passed a resolution last May recommending Pakistan cut off NATO supplies if the U.S. didn't stop drone strikes in the country. The missile attacks continued, as did the NATO supplies.

The drone strikes are unpopular among Pakistanis and have long been publicly opposed by the Pakistani army and government as a violation of the country's sovereignty. They also maintain that the attacks fan support for militancy even as they kill insurgents.

The issue is muddied by the fact that in private, the army has approved at least some of the strikes and provided intelligence on them, raising questions over whether they technically violate the sovereignty of the country. American officials rarely talk about the program in public.

Associated Press writers Sebastian Abbot and Zarar Khan contributed to this report from Islamabad.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Related articles

* Pakistan Taleban warning over Nato supply route
Straits Times - 5 hours ago
* No action on deadly Nato strike in Pakistan: US
The Nation, Pakistan - 9 hours ago
* No Charges in NATO Airstrike
Daily Beast - 17 hours ago

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://bikyamasr.com/63732/south-sud...ong-civil-war/

South Sudan demobilizing child soldiers from decades-long civil war
Pete Willows | 25 March 2012 | 0 Comments

CAIRO: South Sudan’s army, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) on Saturday denied using child soldiers.

Pieng Deng Kuol, the deputy chief of general staff in the SPLA told press there were children in their ranks during the civil war with the Sudan, which were not recruited by the army, but were released by 2001.

Kuol said that the SPLA “always makes sure that child right groups including UN agencies enter our camps” and that these groups were informed when children were identified in rebel groups.

The UN special representative for children and armed conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, said on Friday said that there are still child soldiers in the SPLA, and that it is “very important that we de-list them as soon as possible.”

“If you’re a violator that’s been persistent, there’s the possibility of sanctions,” she added, noting those could include asset freezes, and arms or travel embargoes. She conceded that South Sudan has made progress on this front since independence.

“We estimate that there will be about 2,000 children that will be released,” said Coomaraswamy.

The South Sudan government in February announced the signing of a deal with a rebel group formerly under the leadership of the late George Athor, who launched his rebellion in 2010 after failing to win gubernatorial election against the incumbent Jonglei governor, Kuol Manyang Juuk.

Athor was one of the senior commanders who fought against the Sudanese government during more than two decades of civil war between the north and south.

He was killed in December 2011 in Morobo County, Central Equatoria, where he was reported to have gone to seek new recruits into his movement.

He was killed less than a month after signing an agreement witnessed by South Sudan president Salva Kiir, in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi in November 2011.

He was replaced by Peter Kuol Chol Awan, who responded to a presidential amnesty and came to Juba in February, 2012. Unverified reports claim there were 1,500 soldiers under the age of 18 in his ranks.

The signing of a peace deal with another rebel group in 2011, led by David Yau Yau who fought against the Juba government under the leadership of Athor in Pibor reportedly led to the integration of 80 child soldiers into the national army.

The SPLA released a memorandum of understanding in March pledging to not use child soldiers.

In 2003 while fighting Khartoum’s forces, the SPLA was put on a UN blacklist of forces that use child soldiers.

In February the UN Mission in South Sudan announced that it was supporting the demobilization of 1,500 child soldiers.

Majak D’ Agoot, the country’s deputy minister of defense, said in February that the army needed to reduce its number of troops but declined to give exact figures.

The country’s Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration commission (DDR), is targeting to disarm 90,000, having disarmed 12,500 up to April 2011. Phase two of the program will begin in April 2012.

BM

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesig...php?nid=227789

Monday, March 26, 2012
Sudan's Bashir to attend Arab summit in Baghdad
Afp, Baghdad

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, will attend this week's Arab summit in Baghdad, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's office said.

"President al-Bashir told President Talabani that he will head his country's delegation to attend the next Arab summit in Baghdad this week," the presidency's website said after a phone call between the two leaders.

Iraq is not a signatory to the ICC's founding Rome Statute, according to a copy of the treaty posted on the UN's website.

The foreign ministry has said on its website that "the protection of President al-Bashir is guaranteed one hundred percent," adding that the same goes for all summit attendees.

The Arab summit is due to be held in Baghdad from Tuesday to Thursday.

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/inter...-sudans/507099

Oil-Thirsty China Caught Between Two Feuding Sudans
Sudarsan Raghavan & Andrew Higgins | March 25, 2012

Juba, South Sudan. Soon after South Sudan became independent last year, China opened an embassy here, eager to protect its oil interests. It quickly dispatched its foreign minister and began discussing a huge aid package for this destitute land.

Just a few months later, Beijing finds itself trapped in a bitter wrangle between South Sudan and its former rulers in Sudan, with both countries pressing Beijing to take their side.

The dispute has cut off a significant source of oil to fuel China’s booming economy and imperiled billions of dollars in Chinese investments. It has also threatened Beijing’s diplomatic and economic relations with both countries and strained the boundaries of a longstanding Chinese policy of noninterference in the internal affairs of other nations.

“This new reality has left China uncomfortably stuck in the middle of a tug-of-war,” said Zach Vertin, a Sudan analyst with the International Crisis Group. “Both sides have attempted to leverage the Chinese oil interest.”

The saga playing out in one of the world’s poorest regions highlights the troubles an increasingly prosperous China faces as it tries to adjust to tumultuous change: from Sudan to Libya, Syria and Burma, Beijing has resisted what it portrays as Western-style meddling.

But by staying on the sidelines, China has jeopardized its interests and image as a friend of the developing world. Many Arab nations were furious when China joined Russia in blocking United Nations action on Syria.

At the center of the struggle between the two Sudans is oil, which until last summer was controlled by Khartoum but now lies mostly within the borders of the world’s newest state, the Republic of South Sudan.

China is the biggest player in the oil industry on both sides of the frontier: It holds big stakes in the main oil fields in the south and in pipelines and other infrastructure in the north.

After years of providing diplomatic cover and weapons to a regime in Khartoum ostracized by the West, China must face up to a simple fact, said Pagan Amum, the secretary general of South Sudan’s ruling party: “The master has changed. It was Khartoum. Now it is Juba.”

China’s efforts to shift gears in Sudan began in 2005 with the signing of a peace deal between Khartoum and southern rebels. The agreement ended what was Africa’s longest civil war and paved the way for South Sudan’s independence in July.

But officials now say the Chinese have not done enough to erase suspicions rooted in Beijing’s support for Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, an indicted war-crimes suspect who used Chinese-supplied arms in attempts to prevent the south from seceding.

South Sudan, which depends on oil for 98 percent of its revenue, insists it wants to remain partners with China. But South Sudanese officials warn that if Beijing does not align its interests with their country, they will seek out Western oil companies.

Khartoum, which depends heavily on China, is determined to keep Beijing on its side. The government has exerted influence over Chinese-led oil consortiums, which pump most of their oil in the south but still need the north to get it to China.

The south has refused to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties for using Sudan’s pipelines. Sudan responded by seizing oil tankers carrying South Sudanese crude and imposed a blockade on the export of the oil. Last month, South Sudan shut down its oil production, roughly 350,000 barrels a day, after accusing Sudan of stealing $815 million worth of its oil.

South Sudan said recently that it intended to build a pipeline that would head south to Kenya. It is not clear who would fund such a massive project, but, if built, it would sharply reduce Juba’s dependence on the north — and the value of China’s $20 billion investment in existing pipelines to Sudan’s Chinese-built oil export terminal on the Red Sea.

State-owned China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) has a large stake in most of the biggest oil concessions. The oil from both Sudans represents at least 5 percent of China’s crude imports.

It is unlikely, analysts said, that China would jilt Khartoum for Juba. That would alarm other repressive regimes, such as those in Angola and Equatorial Guinea, where China has forged highly profitable oil relationships.

“The Chinese are not going to throw away old friends,” Vertin said. “They won’t abandon Sudan. That would be a bad precedent for them.”

Sudan also has some powerful and loyal friends in Beijing, though how long this lasts may depend as much on the internal politics of the Communist Party as on events in Africa.

One of Khartoum’s biggest backers in Beijing has been Zhou Yongkang, a member of the party’s Politburo Standing Committee responsible for security.

In recent days, however, rumors have swirled that Zhou is in political trouble after the purge last week of a senior party official with whom he is thought to have been allied. Zhou used to be head of CNPC and led the company’s push into Sudan’s oil sector in the 1990s.

Amid mounting anger in Juba over China’s continuing coziness with Khartoum, South Sudan on Feb. 20 expelled Liu Yingcai, the head of Petrodar, a consortium that is majority-owned by CNPC.

The Juba government accused Liu of colluding with Khartoum to steal South Sudan’s oil. Petrodar has denied the allegations.

Juba is also probing the actions of the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Co., an oil consortium that is 40 percent owned by China and also may have helped Khartoum steal oil. If the consortiums are found sufficiently guilty, Amum said, their contracts could be terminated.

As tensions between the two Sudans grow, China’s position becomes more precarious. Last month, Sudanese forces allegedly bombed an oil field in South Sudan, sending Chinese and other foreign oil workers scrambling for their lives.

“It’s a message to all foreigners: ‘You deal with us, not the other side,’ ” said a foreign supervisor who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Washington Post

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2012/0...murderous-kony

25 March 2012 - 2:48pm| by Noel Young | 0 comments
After that viral video, 5000 African soldiers set out to catch evil Kony

The African Union is to form a 5,000-strong brigade to hunt down Joseph Kony , subject of a viral video seen by 100 million people round the world in the past few weeks.

The video made by the American group Invisible Children was heavily criticised because it focused on what Kony was doing years ago in areas he has now left.

"Nonetheless it has been very effective, if it has now produced this result" said one commentator.

Kony has used his militia to terrorise communities throughout central Africa for more than 14 years. He is now said to be hiding with his Lord's Resistance Army in the jungles of central Africa.

The "hunt Kony"brigade will be led by Uganda and include troops from the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan - all of them ravaged by LRA raids.

"We need to stop Kony with hardware – with military hardware in this case. We're on a mission," an African Union envoy, Francisco Madeira, told reporters in Entebbe, Uganda. "We need to stop Kony."

Abou Moussa, the UN envoy in the region, told the BBC that Kony, who believes he is the spokesman of God, was now believed to be in the Central African Republic. Moussa said the LRA had dwindled in size but was still creating havoc.

Kony and his henchmen have been wanted by the international criminal court in The Hague since 2005. He is thought to have recruited between 60,000 and 100,000 child soldiers and displaced around two million people.

African ministers agreed the new strategy at a meeting in Entebbe, Uganda. A spokesman said the LRA was now down to to between 200 and 700 followers but remained a threat.

Moussa said international interest in Kony had been "useful, very important".

The force will be based in South Sudan and is expected to receive assistance from the US army.

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.independent.co.ug/news/ne...-chinese-fever

Chinese fever
Sunday, 25 March 2012 10:48 By Haggai Matsiko

When Museveni wears Beijing’s big boots

On Feb. 21, the China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC), acquired a third of Uganda’s newly discovered but potentially huge oil reserves in a US$ 2.9 million farm-down deal with the British firm, Tullow Oil and France’s Total. Nothing official yet, but China is expected to lead negotiations to construct an oil refinery in the country’s Albertine region.

This deal was the latest in Beijing’s courtship of Kampala with its wads of cash, loans, grants, and investments. Speaking at a reception soon after the CNOOC deal on Feb. 23, the new Chinese ambassador to Kampala, Zhao Yali, stated Beijing’s intentions:

“In conducting cooperation with Africa,” he said, “we adhere to the principles of mutual benefit and common development, making sure that our assistance will be result-oriented, without strings attached. This practice has been widely appreciated by African countries.”

He reminded his guests that his country had invested US$596 million in Uganda in the last decade. Like it has done in several countries in Africa; from Angola to Zimbabwe, and Cameroon, China is marking its entry into Uganda by donating a swanky new US$27 million twin-tower office for President Yoweri Museveni, a new hospital, the Uganda-China Friendship Hospital in the capital, and a US$350m Kampala express highway—the biggest road project in years, from the country’s only international airport to the capital. There are many other smaller projects and when Chinese Defence Minister, Liang Guanglie, visited Kampala late last year, he handed Museveni a US$2.3 million military assistance cheque.

Zhao also mentioned China’s other donations to Uganda, including the country’s biggest football stadium at Nambole in Kampala, the Foreign Affairs ministry office building, the National Statistics Office building, and others. Zhao said China’s interests in Uganda like in the whole of Africa is simply business.

China’s focusing on business is, however, a very unpopular pitch on the street in Kampala. The Sino-Uganda business relationship is terribly unequal. Although the value of bilateral trade between the two had reached a record US$ 400 million high, China’s exports are bulging at US$359 million compared to Uganda’s to US$ 40 million. Some analysts like Dr. Paul Omach, an international relations expert at Makerere University, say China’s interest in Uganda is not business but oil. They worry that for oil, “China is willing to pay whatever the price”.

“It is likely to worsen corruption considering that they do not believe in transparency,” Dr Omach told The Independent in an interview.

Two weeks before Ambassador Zhao hosted his party, President Museveni gave Ugandans a taste of what his dealings with China portend when he signed agreements with Tullow that enabled the CNOOC farm-down deal in total disregard for a Parliamentary moratorium. In an attempt to explain why he did it, Museveni told parliamentarians that a Chinese minister had convinced him that with new cleaner sources of energy emerging by the day, oil might soon not be as precious.

Uganda’s oil reserves are unproven but highest estimates place them at about 2 million barrels. It is, however, unclear if the Chinese official told Museveni that China in fact is among the top 15 countries with the biggest proven oil reserves in the world. Despite sitting on 20 billion barrels of oil, China is seeking to acquire more in Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, and the two Sudans, and Uganda.

Museveni’s game

While China wants oil, Dr. George Okiror, another senior lecturer at the Department of Political Sciences, Makerere University, says President Museveni also needs the Chinese.

“They are a luring, rich alternative to the West that has increasingly attacked Museveni for his undemocratic tendencies,” Dr Okiror says.

The West, mainly the U.S., EU, and their partner organizations like the World Bank and IMF, have until now been the main funders of the Ugandan economy. Observers say China’s donations, especially of US$2.3 million to fund the Uganda army’s mission in Somalia, was meant to stamp Beijing’s imprint in the region.

Okiror’s colleague at Makerere University, Prof. William Muhumuza, who has written a paper on China, says Beijing’s interest in Africa has in this way renewed an ongoing “scramble for Africa’s natural resources”. He predicts that China is likely to emerge victorious because, he says, it is smarter and clear from the start that they do not care about democracy and are only interested in getting natural resources as fast as possible. He says by claiming to uphold democratic values, the U.S and their partners are being ironical, quietly they do not push for democracy in Uganda.

“Why is it that a lot of pressure was put on the Moi regime in Kenya, aid was cut and they kept a blind eye on Uganda?” he asks, “as long as their interests are catered for they do not care about other issues.”

Prof. Muhumuza says by playing China off the western interests, Museveni is playing strategically and is likely to get a better deal.

Dr Omach says the West distorted the internal political structures in Uganda and made Museveni so powerful but he has now become too powerful for them.

“The west is to blame for Museveni’s overstay in power,” he says, “but the Chinese are worse because unlike the West, when in pursuit of its national interests, China doesn’t seek to balance this pursuit with other ethical values like human rights, democracy and the like. They believe in totalitarianism, they work for the state, the party and not the individual contrary to western principles where the individual comes fast and then the state.”

They all seem to agree that China is likely to cushion Museveni against the West’s pressures to open up political space and respect human rights. Dr Okiror says that there is an increasing trend among African leaders to see China as an alternative that disregards what the West has been pushing around. He agrees with Omach that the Chinese are likely to enable Museveni hang on longer to power and praises their directness.

“For all these donors, their national interests comes first,” Okiror says, “even for the U.S that claims to champion it, democracy comes second.”

However, although Museveni is their big partner in the fight against terrorism in the East Africa and Horn of Africa region, the U.S, UN, Britain and other western countries have attacked him for his severe crackdown on opposition and the corruption in his government.

Museveni has consistently hit back telling them he needs no lectures on good governance. Unlike in the past when Museveni has often bowed down to the West’s pressure, he is becoming increasingly belligerent. He recently told Parliament that since the discovery of oil he is no longer prepared to countenance the West’s humiliating terms for aid. “They make you write applications like a small boy applying for a job,” he said.

The donors too have noted Museveni’s change of tone since the discovery of oil. They are aware they are no longer as influential with Museveni. In a 2010 Global Witness report, several donors told the researchers that they felt that they no longer wielded that power.

As tension between the two erstwhile friends has grown, the western donors have continued to work with Museveni—albeit uncomfortably, and threatened to cut aid to Uganda.

America reacts

But Daniel Travis, the Public Affairs Officer at U.S. mission in Kampala told The Independent that the U.S. Mission Uganda welcomes China’s increasing engagement with Uganda.

“The United States’ interest in Uganda’s oil industry is limited to its desire to see it benefit the Ugandan people,” he said by email, “Transparent public-private partnership is the best way to make that happen, regardless of where a company involved may have its origins.”

He added that as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in June of 2011, the U.S does not see the Chinese commercial and diplomatic interest in Africa as inherently in conflict with U.S. interest.

Travis added that “Collaborative diplomacy” has been a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, especially in Africa. “In practice, this means working closely with our international partners and multilateral institutions on issues of common interest and concern, and, as far as we are concerned, China is an essential part of that policy, he added, “Each donor country has a different approach to aid, and there are merits to each philosophy.”

He said, however, that the important thing, “from our point of view, is the obvious fact that China takes its role as a donor very seriously.”

China’s policy of non-interference is not good for Africa, according to Richard Dowden, author of “Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles”. He writes that the policy of noninterference has freed up China to do business, including selling weapons, to rogue states like Sudan and Zimbabwe.

As a result, China’s list of top trading partners in Africa reads like a script of damned countries. Angola, Sudan, DRC, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Leaders of these countries with the backing of China have plundered their resources and mistreated their citizens.

This list of China’s partners in Africa worries democracy promoters in Uganda because it reads like a list of the continents worst dictators—José Eduardo dos Santos, Angola’s president and Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Equotorial Guinea’s despot both in power for 33 years. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s 87 year old despot in power for 29 year was shunned by the west but is China’s darling. Paul Biya’s Cameroon in power for 30 years and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir who has massacred tens of thousands of his citizens and had over two million displaced mainly with the help of Beijing.

Some observers have predicted that China’s export into Uganda will be typical; increased corruption, resource plunder, regime longevity, and authoritarianism.

“There is a notion that they are bringing development but development in their view is about structures, it is not about human beings. The Chinese will construct buildings on graves and corpses,” says Dr Omach, “That is why most of their development will be prescriptions for disaster, it is the kind that can only be sustained by force and yes it works for a person like Museveni who does not want restraint.”

Omach says in countries where China operates like Sudan, their executives have been abducted, and in Zambia and South Africa they are loathed because of the poor conditions they treat locals while defending dictatorial regimes like Sudan’s al-Bashir.

Already, the Uganda Police is using equipment, including anti-riot armoured trucks supplied by Poly Technologies, a Chinese weapon firm, to suppress opposition street protests against President Museveni. Shipped in shortly after elections, the monster vehicles were unleashed during the Walk-to-Work protests to disperse and choke protestors by spraying tear-gas and coloured water on protestors.

But a high ranking Chinese official who requested anonymity denied China will meddle in Uganda’s politics.

“For us, we don’t want ourselves involved in the issues of the country, we are here to help Uganda develop, but we also need profits and that is mainly it,” the official said. That attitude is what is causing feverish anxiety for pro-democracy observers.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geopolitics_china

The Geopolitics of China: A Great Power Enclosed
March 25, 2012 | 1333 GMT

Editor's Note: This is the second in a series of monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs. This was originally published in June 2008.

Contemporary China is an island. Although it is not surrounded by water (which borders only its eastern flank), China is bordered by terrain that is difficult to traverse in virtually any direction. There are some areas that can be traversed, but to understand China we must begin by visualizing the mountains, jungles and wastelands that enclose it. This outer shell both contains and protects China.

Internally, China must be divided into two parts: the Chinese heartland and the non-Chinese buffer regions surrounding it. There is a line in China called the 15-inch isohyet, east of which more than 15 inches of rain fall each year and west of which the annual rainfall is less. The vast majority of Chinese live east and south of this line, in the region known as Han China -- the Chinese heartland. The region is home to the ethnic Han, whom the world regards as the Chinese. It is important to understand that more than a billion people live in this area, which is about half the size of the United States.

The Chinese heartland is divided into two parts, northern and southern, which in turn is represented by two main dialects, Mandarin in the north and Cantonese in the south. These dialects share a writing system but are almost mutually incomprehensible when spoken. The Chinese heartland is defined by two major rivers -- the Yellow River in the north and the Yangtze in the South, along with a third lesser river in the south, the Pearl. The heartland is China's agricultural region. However -- and this is the single most important fact about China -- it has about one-third the arable land per person as the rest of the world. This pressure has defined modern Chinese history -- both in terms of living with it and trying to move beyond it.

A ring of non-Han regions surround this heartland -- Tibet, Xinjiang province (home of the Muslim Uighurs), Inner Mongolia and Manchuria (a historical name given to the region north of North Korea that now consists of the Chinese provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning).

These are the buffer regions that historically have been under Chinese rule when China was strong and have broken away when China was weak. Today, there is a great deal of Han settlement in these regions, a cause of friction, but today Han China is strong.

These are also the regions where the historical threat to China originated. Han China is a region full of rivers and rain. It is therefore a land of farmers and merchants. The surrounding areas are the land of nomads and horsemen. In the 13th century, the Mongols under Ghenghis Khan invaded and occupied parts of Han China until the 15th century, when the Han reasserted their authority. Following this period, Chinese strategy remained constant: the slow and systematic assertion of control over these outer regions in order to protect the Han from incursions by nomadic cavalry. This imperative drove Chinese foreign policy. In spite of the imbalance of population, or perhaps because of it, China saw itself as extremely vulnerable to military forces moving from the north and west. Defending a massed population of farmers against these forces was difficult. The easiest solution, the one the Chinese chose, was to reverse the order and impose themselves on their potential conquerors.

There was another reason. Aside from providing buffers, these possessions provided defensible borders. With borderlands under their control, China was strongly anchored. Let's consider the nature of China's border sequentially, starting in the east along the southern border with Vietnam and Myanmar. The border with Vietnam is the only border readily traversable by large armies or mass commerce. In fact, as recently as 1979, China and Vietnam fought a short border war, and there have been points in history when China has dominated Vietnam. However, the rest of the southern border where Yunnan province meets Laos and Myanmar is hilly jungle, difficult to traverse, with almost no major roads. Significant movement across this border is almost impossible. During World War II, the United States struggled to build the Burma Road to reach Yunnan and supply Chiang Kai-shek's forces. The effort was so difficult it became legendary. China is secure in this region.

Hkakabo Razi, almost 19,000 feet high, marks the border between China, Myanmar and India. At this point, China's southwestern frontier begins, anchored in the Himalayas. More precisely, it is where Tibet, controlled by China, borders India and the two Himalayan states, Nepal and Bhutan. This border runs in a long arc past Pakistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, ending at Pik Pobedy, a 25,000-foot mountain marking the border with China, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. It is possible to pass through this border region with difficulty; historically, parts of it have been accessible as a merchant route. On the whole, however, the Himalayas are a barrier to substantial trade and certainly to military forces. India and China -- and China and much of Central Asia -- are sealed off from each other.

The one exception is the next section of the border, with Kazakhstan. This area is passable but has relatively little transport. As the transport expands, this will be the main route between China and the rest of Eurasia. It is the one land bridge from the Chinese island that can be used. The problem is distance. The border with Kazakhstan is almost a thousand miles from the first tier of Han Chinese provinces, and the route passes through sparsely populated Muslim territory, a region that has posed significant challenges to China. Importantly, the Silk Road from China ran through Xinjiang and Kazakhstan on its way west. It was the only way to go.

There is, finally, the long northern border first with Mongolia and then with Russia, running to the Pacific. This border is certainly passable. Indeed, the only successful invasion of China took place when Mongol horsemen attacked from Mongolia, occupying a good deal of Han China. China's buffers -- Inner Mongolia and Manchuria -- have protected Han China from other attacks. The Chinese have not attacked northward for two reasons. First, there has historically not been much there worth taking. Second, north-south access is difficult. Russia has two rail lines running from the west to the Pacific -- the famous Trans-Siberian Railroad (TSR) and the Baikal-Amur Mainline (BAM), which connects those two cities and ties into the TSR. Aside from that, there is no east-west ground transportation linking Russia. There is also no north-south transportation. What appears accessible really is not.

The area in Russia that is most accessible from China is the region bordering the Pacific, the area from Russia's Vladivostok to Blagoveschensk. This region has reasonable transport, population and advantages for both sides. If there were ever a conflict between China and Russia, this is the area that would be at the center of it. It is also the area, as you move southward and away from the Pacific, that borders on the Korean Peninsula, the area of China's last major military conflict.

Then there is the Pacific coast, which has numerous harbors and has historically had substantial coastal trade. It is interesting to note that, apart from the attempt by the Mongols to invade Japan, and a single major maritime thrust by China into the Indian Ocean -- primarily for trade and abandoned fairly quickly -- China has never been a maritime power. Prior to the 19th century, it had not faced enemies capable of posing a naval threat and, as a result, it had little interest in spending large sums of money on building a navy.

China, when it controls Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria, is an insulated state. Han China has only one point of potential friction, in the southeast with Vietnam. Other than that it is surrounded by non-Han buffer regions that it has politically integrated into China. There is a second friction point in eastern Manchuria, touching on Siberia and Korea. There is, finally, a single opening into the rest of Eurasia on the Xinjiang-Kazakh border.

China's most vulnerable point, since the arrival of Europeans in the western Pacific in the mid-19th century, has been its coast. Apart from European encroachments in which commercial interests were backed up by limited force, China suffered its most significant military encounter -- and long and miserable war -- after the Japanese invaded and occupied large parts of eastern China along with Manchuria in the 1930s. Despite the mismatch in military power and more than a dozen years of war, Japan still could not force the Chinese government to capitulate. The simple fact was that Han China, given its size and population density, could not be subdued. No matter how many victories the Japanese won, they could not decisively defeat the Chinese.

China is hard to invade; given its size and population, it is even harder to occupy. This also makes it hard for the Chinese to invade others -- not utterly impossible, but quite difficult. Containing a fifth of the world's population, China can wall itself off from the world, as it did prior to the United Kingdom's forced entry in the 19th century and as it did under Mao Zedong. All of this means China is a great power, but one that has to behave very differently from other great powers.
China's Geopolitical Imperatives

China has three overriding geopolitical imperatives:

1. Maintain internal unity in the Han Chinese regions.
2. Maintain control of the buffer regions.
3. Protect the coast from foreign encroachment.
Maintaining Internal Unity

China is more enclosed than any other great power. The size of its population, coupled with its secure frontiers and relative abundance of resources, allows it to develop with minimal intercourse with the rest of the world, if it chooses. During the Maoist period, for example, China became an insular nation, driven primarily by internal interests and considerations, indifferent or hostile to the rest of the world. It was secure and, except for its involvement in the Korean War and its efforts to pacify restless buffer regions, was relatively peaceful. Internally, however, China underwent periodic, self-generated chaos.

The weakness of insularity for China is poverty. Given the ratio of arable land to population, a self-enclosed China is a poor China. Its population is so poor that economic development
driven by domestic demand, no matter how limited it might be, is impossible. However, an isolated China is easier to manage by a central government. The great danger in China is a rupture within the Han Chinese nation. If that happens, if the central government weakens, the peripheral regions will spin off, and China will then be vulnerable to foreigners taking advantage of Chinese weakness.

For China to prosper, it has to engage in trade, exporting silk, silver and industrial products. Historically, land trade has not posed a problem for China. The Silk Road allowed foreign influences to come into China and the resulting wealth created a degree of instability. On the whole, however, it could be managed.

The dynamic of industrialism changed both the geography of Chinese trade and its consequences. In the mid-19th century, when Europe -- led by the British --compelled the Chinese government to give trading concessions to the British, it opened a new chapter in Chinese history. For the first time, the Pacific coast was the interface with the world, not Central Asia. This in turn massively destabilized China.

As trade between China and the world intensified, the Chinese who were engaged in trading increased their wealth dramatically. Those in the coastal provinces of China, the region most deeply involved in trading, became relatively wealthy while the Chinese in the interior (not the buffer regions, which were always poor, but the non-coastal provinces of Han China) remained poor, subsistence farmers.

The central government was balanced between the divergent interests of coastal China and the interior. The coastal region, particularly its newly enriched leadership, had an interest in maintaining and intensifying relations with European powers and with the United States and Japan. The more intense the trade, the wealthier the coastal leadership and the greater the disparity between the regions. In due course, foreigners allied with Chinese coastal merchants and politicians became more powerful in the coastal regions than the central government. The worst geopolitical nightmare of China came true. China fragmented, breaking into regions, some increasingly under the control of foreigners, particularly foreign commercial interests. Beijing lost control over the country. It should be noted that this was the context in which Japan invaded China, which made Japan's failure to defeat China all the more extraordinary.

Mao's goal was threefold, Marxism aside. First, he wanted to recentralize China -- re-establishing Beijing as China's capital and political center. Second, he wanted to end the massive inequality between the coastal region and the rest of China. Third, he wanted to expel the foreigners from China. In short, he wanted to recreate a united Han China.

Mao first attempted to trigger an uprising in the cities in 1927 but failed because the coalition of Chinese interests and foreign powers was impossible to break. Instead he took the Long March to the interior of China, where he raised a massive peasant army that was both nationalist and egalitarian and, in 1948, returned to the coastal region and expelled the foreigners. Mao re-enclosed China, recentralized it, and accepted the inevitable result. China became equal but extraordinarily poor.

China's primary geopolitical issue is this: For it to develop it must engage in international trade. If it does that, it must use its coastal cities as an interface with the world. When that happens, the coastal cities and the surrounding region become increasingly wealthy. The influence of foreigners over this region increases and the interests of foreigners and the coastal Chinese converge and begin competing with the interests of the central government. China is constantly challenged by the problem of how to avoid this outcome while engaging in international trade.
Controlling the Buffer Regions

Prior to Mao's rise, with the central government weakened and Han China engaged simultaneously in war with Japan, civil war and regionalism, the center was not holding. While Manchuria was under Chinese control, Outer Mongolia was under Soviet control and extending its influence (Soviet power more than Marxist ideology) into Inner Mongolia, and Tibet and Xinjiang were drifting away.

At the same time that Mao was fighting the civil war, he was also laying the groundwork for taking control of the buffer regions. Interestingly, his first moves were designed to block Soviet interests in these regions. Mao moved to consolidate Chinese communist control over Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, effectively leveraging the Soviets out. Xinjiang had been under the control of a regional warlord, Yang Zengxin. Shortly after the end of the civil war, Mao moved to force him out and take over Xinjiang. Finally, in 1950 Mao moved against Tibet, which he secured in 1951.

The rapid-fire consolidation of the buffer regions gave Mao what all Chinese emperors sought, a China secure from invasion. Controlling Tibet meant that India could not move across the Himalayas and establish a secure base of operations on the Tibetan Plateau. There could be skirmishes in the Himalayas, but no one could push a multidivisional force across those mountains and keep it supplied. So long as Tibet was in Chinese hands, the Indians could live on the other side of the moon. Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria buffered China from the Soviet Union. Mao was more of a geopolitician than an ideologue. He did not trust the Soviets. With the buffer states in hand, they would not invade China. The distances, the poor transportation and the lack of resources meant that any Soviet invasion would run into massive logistical problems well before it reached Han China's populated regions, and become bogged down -- just as the Japanese had.

China had geopolitical issues with Vietnam, Pakistan and Afghanistan, neighboring states with which it shared a border, but the real problem for China would come in Manchuria or, more precisely, Korea. The Soviets, more than the Chinese, had encouraged a North Korean invasion of South Korea. It is difficult to speculate on Joseph Stalin's thinking, but it worked out superbly for him. The United States intervened, defeated the North Korean Army and drove to the Yalu, the river border with China. The Chinese, seeing the well-armed and well-trained American force surge to its borders, decided that it had to block its advance and attacked south. What resulted was three years of brutal warfare in which the Chinese lost about a million men. From the Soviet point of view, fighting between China and the United States was the best thing imaginable. But from Stratfor's point of view, what it demonstrated was the sensitivity of the Chinese to any encroachment on their borderlands, their buffers, which represent the foundation of their national security.
Protecting the Coast

With the buffer regions under control, the coast is China's most vulnerable point, but its vulnerability is not to invasion. Given the Japanese example, no one has the interest or forces to try to invade mainland China, supply an army there and hope to win. Invasion is not a meaningful threat.

The coastal threat to China is economic, though most would not call it a threat. As we saw, the British intrusion into China culminated in the destabilization of the country, the virtual collapse of the central government and civil war. It was all caused by prosperity. Mao had solved the problem by sealing the coast of China off to any real development and liquidating the class that had collaborated with foreign business. For Mao, xenophobia was integral to national policy. He saw foreign presence as undermining the stability of China. He preferred impoverished unity to chaos. He also understood that, given China's population and geography, it could defend itself against potential attackers without an advanced military-industrial complex.

His successor, Deng Xiaoping, was heir to a powerful state in control of China and the buffer regions. He also felt under tremendous pressure politically to improve living standards, and he undoubtedly understood that technological gaps would eventually threaten Chinese national security. He took a historic gamble. He knew that China's economy could not develop on its own. China's internal demand for goods was too weak because the Chinese were too poor.

Deng gambled that he could open China to foreign investment and reorient the Chinese economy away from agriculture and heavy industry and toward export-oriented industries. By doing so he would increase living standards, import technology and train China's workforce. He was betting that the effort this time would not destabilize China, create massive tensions between the prosperous coastal provinces and the interior, foster regionalism, or put the coastal regions under foreign control. Deng believed he could avoid all that by maintaining a strong central government, based on a loyal army and Communist Party apparatus. His successors have struggled to maintain that loyalty to the state and not to foreign investors, who can make individuals wealthy. That is the bet that is currently being played out.
China's Geopolitics and its Current Position

From a political and military standpoint, China has achieved its strategic goals. The buffer regions are intact and China faces no threat in Eurasia. It sees a Western attempt to force China out of Tibet as an attempt to undermine Chinese national security. For China, however, Tibet is a minor irritant; China has no possible intention of leaving Tibet, the Tibetans cannot rise up and win, and no one is about to invade the region. Similarly, the Uighur Muslims represent an irritant in Xinjiang and not a direct threat. The Russians have no interest in or capability of invading China, and the Korean Peninsula does not represent a direct threat to the Chinese, certainly not one they could not handle.

The greatest military threat to China comes from the United States Navy. The Chinese have become highly dependent on seaborne trade and the United States Navy is in a position to blockade China's ports if it wished. Should the United States do that, it would cripple China. Therefore, China's primary military interest is to make such a blockade impossible.

It would take several generations for China to build a surface navy able to compete with the U.S. Navy. Simply training naval aviators to conduct carrier-based operations effectively would take decades -- at least until these trainees became admirals and captains. And this does not take into account the time it would take to build an aircraft carrier and carrier-capable aircraft and master the intricacies of carrier operations.

For China, the primary mission is to raise the price of a blockade so high that the Americans would not attempt it. The means for that would be land- and submarine-based anti-ship missiles. The strategic solution is for China to construct a missile force sufficiently dispersed that it cannot be suppressed by the United States and with sufficient range to engage the United States at substantial distance, as far as the central Pacific.

This missile force would have to be able to identify and track potential targets to be effective. Therefore, if the Chinese are to pursue this strategy, they must also develop a space-based maritime reconnaissance system. These are the technologies the Chinese are focusing on. Anti-ship missiles and space-based systems, including anti-satellite systems designed to blind the Americans, represent China's military counter to its only significant military threat.

China could also use those missiles to blockade Taiwan by interdicting ships going to and from the island. But the Chinese do not have the naval ability to land a sufficient amphibious force and sustain it in ground combat. Nor do they have the ability to establish air superiority over the Taiwan Strait. China might be able to harass Taiwan but it will not invade it. Missiles, satellites and submarines constitute China's naval strategy.

For China, the primary problem posed by Taiwan is naval. Taiwan is positioned in such a way that it can readily serve as an air and naval base that could isolate maritime movement between the South China Sea and the East China Sea, effectively leaving the northern Chinese coast and Shanghai isolated. When you consider the Ryukyu Islands that stretch from Taiwan to Japan and add them to this mix, a non-naval power could blockade the northern Chinese coast if it held Taiwan.

Taiwan would not be important to China unless it became actively hostile or allied with or occupied by a hostile power such as the United States. If that happened, its geographical position would pose an extremely serious problem for China. Taiwan is also an important symbolic issue to China and a way to rally nationalism. Although Taiwan presents no immediate threat, it does pose potential dangers that China cannot ignore.

There is one area in which China is being modestly expansionist -- Central Asia and particularly Kazakhstan. Traditionally a route for trading silk, Kazakhstan is now an area that can produce energy, badly needed by China's industry. The Chinese have been active in developing commercial relations with Kazakhstan and in developing roads into Kazakhstan. These roads are opening a trading route that allows oil to flow in one direction and industrial goods in another.

In doing this, the Chinese are challenging Russia's sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. The Russians have been prepared to tolerate increased Chinese economic activity in the region while being wary of China's turning into a political power. Kazakhstan has been European Russia's historical buffer state against Chinese expansion and it has been under Russian domination. This region must be watched carefully. If Russia begins to feel that China is becoming too assertive in this region, it could respond militarily to Chinese economic power.

Chinese-Russian relations have historically been complex. Before World War II, the Soviets attempted to manipulate Chinese politics. After World War II, relations between the Soviet Union and China were never as good as some thought, and sometimes these relations became directly hostile, as in 1968, when Russian and Chinese troops fought a battle along the Ussuri River. The Russians have historically feared a Chinese move into their Pacific maritime provinces. The Chinese have feared a Russian move into Manchuria and beyond.

Neither of these things happened because the logistical challenges involved were enormous and neither had an appetite for the risk of fighting the other. We would think that this caution will prevail under current circumstances. However, growing Chinese influence in Kazakhstan is not a minor matter for the Russians, who may choose to contest China there. If they do, and it becomes a serious matter, the secondary pressure point for both sides would be in the Pacific region, complicated by proximity to Korea.

But these are only theoretical possibilities. The threat of an American blockade on China's coast, of using Taiwan to isolate northern China, of conflict over Kazakhstan -- all are possibilities that the Chinese must take into account as they plan for the worst. In fact, the United States does not have an interest in blockading China and the Chinese and Russians are not going to escalate competition over Kazakhstan.

China does not have a military-based geopolitical problem. It is in its traditional strong position, physically secure as it holds its buffer regions. It has achieved it three strategic imperatives. What is most vulnerable at this point is its first imperative: the unity of Han China. That is not threatened militarily. Rather, the threat to it is economic.
Economic Dimensions of Chinese Geopolitics

The problem of China, rooted in geopolitics, is economic and it presents itself in two ways. The first is simple. China has an export-oriented economy. It is in a position of dependency. No matter how large its currency reserves or how advanced its technology or how cheap its labor force, China depends on the willingness and ability of other countries to import its goods -- as well as the ability to physically ship them. Any disruption of this flow has a direct effect on the Chinese economy.

The primary reason other countries buy Chinese goods is price. They are cheaper because of wage differentials. Should China lose that advantage to other nations or for other reasons, its ability to export would decline. Today, for example, as energy prices rise, the cost of production rises and the relative importance of the wage differential decreases. At a certain point, as China's trading partners see it, the value of Chinese imports relative to the political cost of closing down their factories will shift.

And all of this is outside of China's control. China cannot control the world price of oil. It can cut into its cash reserves to subsidize those prices for manufacturers but that would essentially be transferring money back to consuming nations. It can control rising wages by imposing price controls, but that would cause internal instability. The center of gravity of China is that it has become the industrial workshop of the world and, as such, it is totally dependent on the world to keep buying its goods rather than someone else's goods.

There are other issues for China, ranging from a dysfunctional financial system to farmland being taken out of production for factories. These are all significant and add to the story. But in geopolitics we look for the center of gravity, and for China the center of gravity is that the more effective it becomes at exporting, the more of a hostage it becomes to its customers. Some observers have warned that China might take its money out of American banks. Unlikely, but assume it did. What would China do without the United States as a customer?

China has placed itself in a position where it has to keep its customers happy. It struggles against this reality daily, but the fact is that the rest of the world is far less dependent on China's exports than China is dependent on the rest of the world.

Which brings us to the second, even more serious part of China's economic problem. The first geopolitical imperative of China is to ensure the unity of Han China. The third is to protect the coast. Deng's bet was that he could open the coast without disrupting the unity of Han China. As in the 19th century, the coastal region has become wealthy. The interior has remained extraordinarily poor. The coastal region is deeply enmeshed in the global economy. The interior is not. Beijing is once again balancing between the coast and the interior.

The interests of the coastal region and the interests of importers and investors are closely tied to each other. Beijing's interest is in maintaining internal stability. As pressures grow, it will seek to increase its control of the political and economic life of the coast. The interest of the interior is to have money transferred to it from the coast. The interest of the coast is to hold on to its money. Beijing will try to satisfy both, without letting China break apart and without resorting to Mao's draconian measures. But the worse the international economic situation becomes the less demand there will be for Chinese products and the less room there will be for China to maneuver.

The second part of the problem derives from the first. Assuming that the global economy does not decline now, it will at some point. When it does, and Chinese exports fall dramatically, Beijing will have to balance between an interior hungry for money and a coastal region that is hurting badly. It is important to remember that something like 900 million Chinese live in the interior while only about 400 million live in the coastal region. When it comes to balancing power, the interior is the physical threat to the regime while the coast destabilizes the distribution of wealth. The interior has mass on its side. The coast has the international trading system on its. Emperors have stumbled over less.
Conclusion

Geopolitics is based on geography and politics. Politics is built on two foundations: military and economic. The two interact and support each other but are ultimately distinct. For China, securing its buffer regions generally eliminates military problems. What problems are left for China are long-term issues concerning northeastern Manchuria and the balance of power in the Pacific.

China's geopolitical problem is economic. Its first geopolitical imperative, maintain the unity of Han China, and its third, protect the coast, are both more deeply affected by economic considerations than military ones. Its internal and external political problems flow from economics. The dramatic economic development of the last generation has been ruthlessly geographic. This development has benefited the coast and left the interior -- the vast majority of Chinese -- behind. It has also left China vulnerable to global economic forces that it cannot control and cannot accommodate. This is not new in Chinese history, but its usual resolution is in regionalism and the weakening of the central government. Deng's gamble is being played out by his successors. He dealt the hand. They have to play it.

The question on the table is whether the economic basis of China is a foundation or a balancing act. If the former, it can last a long time. If the latter, everyone falls down eventually. There appears to be little evidence that it is a foundation. It excludes most of the Chinese from the game, people who are making less than $100 a month. That is a balancing act and it threatens the first geopolitical imperative of China: protecting the unity of the Han Chinese.

Read more: The Geopolitics of China: A Great Power Enclosed | Stratfor

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120325003183.htm

Missile shoot-down order likely Fri.

The Yomiuri Shimbun

A government order to shoot down a North Korean missile scheduled to be launched next month could come as soon as Friday, government sources said, as Japan ramps up its preparations to deal with the threat.

Issuance of the order to the Self-Defense Forces could come after Friday's meeting of the Security Council of Japan, which is chaired by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, the sources said.

The defense Ministry will deploy three Aegis-equipped destroyers in the East China Sea, the Pacific Ocean and the Sea of japan to track the missile, they said.

North Korea announced this month it will launch an "Earth observation satellite" sometime between April 12 and 16 to mark the centennial of state founder Kim Il Sung's birthday, which falls on April 15. It is widely believed that North Korea actually plans to test-fire a long-range missile.

To prepare for a "double-stage interception," the ministry will deploy ground-based Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors mainly in Okinawa Prefecture, the sources said.

During talks with Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima at the Okinawa prefectural government building Saturday, Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba was quoted as saying the government is doing everything it can to beef up defenses ahead of the launch.

Aegis destroyers and PAC-3s were deployed ahead of North Korea's launch of a ballistic missile in 2009.

Gemba asked for cooperation from Nakaima because the government "will definitely need to have consultations" with Okinawa's government over Pyongyang's upcoming launch.

The government will not intercept a missile, satellite or launch vehicle when they fly over Japanese territory, the sources said. However, if there is a possibility that the missile or its fragments might fall on Japanese territory or waters, Standard Missile-3 interceptors aboard the Aegis vessels will be fired to shoot them down in outer space, the sources said.

If the interceptors miss, the PAC-3s will shoot down the target as it reenters the atmosphere, they said.

The Aegis destroyers to be deployed in waters around japan will likely be the Kirishima, Myoko and Chokai, the sources said.

PAC-3 interceptors will be deployed on the main Okinawa island as well as Miyakojima island and Ishigakijima island, which are near the missile's likely trajectory, they said.

The government is considering deploying PAC-3s in the Tokyo metropolitan area to defend the capital in case North Korea's missile veers off course, according to the sources.

The missile's first-stage booster is expected to fall in the Yellow Sea, and the second in the Pacific off Luzon, the Philippines, they said.
(Mar. 26, 2012)

[Be Well]

Thank you for the news. It's sickening. How much worse before the conflagration. Can't be too long.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5C...paper4972.html

Paper no. 4972

23-Mar-2012

Destabilizing Forces Active in Bangladesh

Guest column by Rajeev Sharma
(The views expressed are author’s own)

Some developments during the last couple of months are clear indications that destabilizing forces have been operating with vengeance in Bangladesh to overthrow the democratically elected Awami League (AL) led Government. The so-called Islamic nationalist forces in the country have embarked upon a meticulously worked out plan to create large scale lawlessness and anarchy with the objective of subverting the ongoing trial of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the anti-liberation forces/Pak collaborators of 1971. These forces represented by Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) advocate a strong Islamic nationalist identity for the country with a pronounced pro-Pak tilt, painting India in a negative light. Their main objective is to raise the bogey of Islam as a tool to capture state power.

Recently, Bangladesh army disclosed that it had foiled a plot by more than a dozen “religiously fanatic” officers to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. “We have unearthed a heinous conspiracy to overthrow the democratic government through the army”, Army spokesman Brig Gen Masud Razzaq said in a statement on January 19. “The attempt has been thwarted with the wholehearted efforts of army soldiers,” the statement said, adding that the plot had been fomented by Bangladeshi expatriates in touch with ‘religiously fanatic’ army officers. Giving details about the failed coup, which was unearthed in December last, Gen Razzaq said an officer of the rank of Major who was now on the run circulated emails to different serving officers detailing a plan to overthrow the Government on January 9-10. The Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT), banned in Bangladesh in 2009 was directly involved in the attempt to overthrow the Government, the statement added. The plot involved up to 16 Islamist officers, raising fears about the prevalence of hardliners in the upper ranks of the country’s 140,000 strong Army.

The banned radical outfit HuT that enjoys covert patronage of BNP/JEI clique recently published and circulated a huge number of pamphlets in Dhaka in May 2011, throwing an open challenge to the Government by announcing its decision to hold rallies and processions in Dhaka and across the country in support of its demand for introduction of ‘khelafat’ (caliphate) in the country. Posters visible at different strategic points and locations in Dhaka and its outskirts contained various calls including call for establishment of ‘khelafat’ by overthrowing the democratically elected AL led Government. Saving the country’s independence and sovereignty, its natural gas and oil and creating powerful defence forces, free of the influence of the United States, the UK and India were among other demands on these pamphlets and posters. These also termed Sheikh Hasina as an agent of anti – Islamic forces including India and the US.

Leaders and activists of HuT have been very active in various ways. Around 350 HuT leaders and workers including its Chief Coordinator Professor Mohiuddin Ahmed of Dhaka University, senior leaders Golam Mawla, Kazi Morshedul Haque and Mahmudul Bari were arrested on October 20, 2009 when the organization was banned. But activities of the radical organization continue unabated even now. HuT activists are openly carrying out subversive and anti-democratic activities in support of their demand for introduction of Islamic rule in the country. HuT is an international Islamic militant group originally set up in Jerusalem in 1953 to fight for a separate Palestinian homeland. It started its activities in Bangladesh in 2000.

Incidentally, within one and a half month of its second term, the Government headed by Sheikh Hasina had to encounter a violent challenge in the form of mutiny by the country’s border guarding troops BDR on February 25, 2009. The Government acted swiftly and managed to persuade the rebel BDR troops to surrender and lay down arms. But in the process, it could not avoid anger of a section of Army officers who even sought to bring pressure on the then Army chief Gen Moeen U Ahmed to take a strong position vis-à-vis Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina as she had initially announced amnesty to mutinying troops who had killed many senior Army officers.

The BNP-JEI Alliance sought to exploit the situation fully to its advantage and left no stone unturned to instigate the Army officers for a violent show-down with the Government. Thanks to the astuteness displayed by Gen Moeen and his highly professional and disciplined band of soldiers who remained strongly supportive of the democratically elected Government, failing which there would have been another upheaval in the country on the pattern of August 15, 1975 when the country’s founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was brutally assassinated and that could have swept Sheikh Hasina away. The BDR mutiny was the first of a series of attempts initiated to overthrow the duly elected Sheikh Hasina led Government. Within the army only unscrupulous elements have showed eagerness to join the mullahs and mercenaries to subvert democracy and grab state power. There are still important sections within the army who do not wish to get involved in politics.

On the occasion of first anniversary of the BDR mutiny, the HuT circulated leaflets in cantonment areas appealing to the army personnel to take up arms and rise in revolt to overthrow the Sheikh Hasina led Government and establish Allah’s rule. These leaflets accused Hasina of having staged the BDR mutiny to kill Army officers. The objective was to arouse camaraderie among army personnel and whip up their passion for revenge. After being banned in Bangladesh, the UK chapter of HuT has been providing funds through many covert channels to sustain activities of its Bangladesh counterpart. HuT militants are being secretly organized to join hands with JEI and its student organ Islami Chhatra Shibir (ICS) to destabilize the country.

Soon after the foiled mutiny, significant number of pro-BNP/JEI entities in civil society, media, political groups and pro-Pakistan lobbies launched propaganda against India saying that BDR mutiny was planned and executed by India in complicity with AL to weaken Bangladesh Army and lower its resistance to Indian aggression. This malicious propaganda was also spread among some influential members of Bangladeshi Diaspora.

In its attempts to create anarchy and lawlessness in the country, the BNP-JEI clique is working on a plan to utilize the HuT and Jamiatul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) militants as their assets on the ground. The HuT and JMB militants have a very active grassroots level network due to the covert support and patronage received from the BNP-JEI Alliance when it ruled the country. The network of these two radical groups are now so powerful that although the security forces have seized huge stockpiles of explosive materials, broken numerous terrorist cells and apprehended thousands of militants, there has not been any let up in their activities.

Of late, there are media reports of unrest in the readymade garment industry as well. Recently, three garment workers were killed and more than 30 injured in Tongi industrial area in police firing following outbreak of violent labour unrest there. This unrest, caused due to non-payment of back wages, is being fuelled by some well identified quarters bent on fomenting trouble and fishing in troubled waters. The BNP/JEI Alliance accused the AL Government of conspiring to destroy the garment industry to give advantage to a ‘foreign country’ (meaning India) in exporting readymade garments. Efforts are also being made to misguide the people and instigate them against the diplomatic offensive launched by the Government to settle outstanding disputes with Myanmar and India.

The Government’s proposed education policy and the Women Empowerment policy have also come in for scathing criticism from these so-called Islamic nationalist lobbies demanding introduction of Islamic education system and establishment of Islamic values in the society. The daily Star in its issue of January 29 last reported that twelve 'Islamic' minded parties announced their vehement opposition to the ongoing war crimes trial. These parties have even threatened to try 'Indian agents' if their demand for stopping the trial were not met. Nothing could get more audacious, reactionary and outrageous than this. How dare this group, hideous in its intentions, belittle and oppose the war crimes trial that may provide a small amount of solace to the gaping wounds the dear and near ones of these victims continue to bear. The other demands these people are making -- one of them is to scrap the women's development policy -- are ominous expressions of fanaticism and distortion of religion that directly contradict the spirit of Bangladesh’s constitution and Liberation War.

Recent arrest in Bangladesh of the mafia don Dawood Ibrahim’s nephew Daud Merchant @ Abdul Rauf and his associate Zahid Sheikh has led to disclosure of plans of the don in collusion with ISI and the Pakistan based international terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) to destabilize not merely the AL Govt in Bangladesh; the plan is to target India as well.

All these incidents are linked to each other and are integral to the plot aimed at destabilizing the AL Government with an ulterior motive. The AL Government is viewed as an enemy of the ‘two nation’ theory propounded by Pakistan and therefore, to the so-called Islamic nationalist forces, it is an anathema. These forces are now seeking help from the mafia and radical Islamic groups to overthrow the democratically elected Sheikh Hasina led Government.

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5C...paper4978.html

Paper no 4978

25-Mar-2012

CHINA: REAL WORLD VS VIRTUAL WORLD

By B.Raman

Beijing seems as normal as ever. Widespread rumours disseminated by Chinese microblogs about a tussle for power and even an attempted coup after the March 15,2012, sacking of Bo Xilai , an informal, easily accessible and populist party functionary from his post of Party chief of Southwest China's Chongqing Municipality, have proved false.

2. According to some of these rumours, Bo enjoyed the support of Zhou Yongkang, the ninth-ranking member of the Standing Committee of the Politbureau of the Communist Party of China, who has been the head of the Party's powerful Political and Legal Affairs Committee, which oversees police and judicial matters, since 2007.

3.These rumours even alleged that there was an attempted coup by elements in the Ministry of Public Security associated with Zhou Yongkang and speculated that Zhou might also be on the way out.

4.These rumours spread by China’s 300 million strong Netizen community have proved false. Things have been normal in Beijing. President Hu Jintao arrived in Seoul on the afternoon of March 25 to attend the nuclear security summit and he is going ahead with his plans to visit New Delhi the coming week to attend the BRIC summit and to pay a bilateral visit to Cambodia. The Chinese have not suggested any changes in the programmes of foreign visitors to Beijing. Vice President Xi Jinping, who is expected to take over from Hu later this year, met former Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio in Beijing, on March 23.

5. Even Zhou, who has been in the centre of these rumours, has been visible and functioning normally. The State-owned Xinhua news agency disseminated on March 22, a letter reported to have been written by Zhou to a conference of police and public security officials stressing the importance of better interactions between law enforcement officials and the public in order to improve their public image.

6. In the meanwhile, Radio Free Asia, funded by the US State Department, has disseminated a report that over 3000 police and public security officials from the provinces have been called to Beijing to attend a re-training programme starting on March 26. The significance of this retraining programme is not clear. Is this connected to the removal of Bo, whose No 2 and police chief, had allegedly made an unsuccessful attempt to seek asylum in the US Consulate in Chengdu?

7. While the rumours have proved to be false, the fact that the rumours spread so fast and so widely should be a matter of concern to the Chinese leaders. This shows that anti-State and anti-Government elements have a capability for causing instability through orchestrated disinformation through the Net.

8. China’s real world seems to be normal, but not its virtual world which is being skilfully used by anti-State elements to create confusion.

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75 )

[Housecarl]

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-leung-leader/

Hong Kong’s elite heed Beijing, pick Leung as leader

By Kelvin Chan - Associated Press

Sunday, March 25, 2012

HONG KONG (AP) — Hong Kong’s elite chose a former Cabinet chief as the southern Chinese financial hub’s next leader on Sunday, heeding Beijing’s wishes and public opinion following a tumultuous, bitter race that highlighted public discontent.

Leung Chun-ying, 57, was declared the semiautonomous Special Administrative Region’s next chief executive after securing 689 votes from a 1,200-seat committee of business leaders and other elites, most of them loyal to Beijing. Initially considered the underdog, Mr. Leung gained the support of China’s Communist Party leaders, who backed off their deeply unpopular first choice, Henry Tang.

Hong Kong’s 7.1 million ordinary residents, who had no say, used a mock poll to show their unhappiness over an undemocratic vote in which the two main candidates were establishment figures acceptable to Beijing. About 55 percent of the 222,990 votes cast were blank in the poll conducted by Hong Kong University researchers, local media reports said.

Mr. Leung, a real estate surveyor who’s known as C.Y., bowed deeply three times to election committee members after his victory was declared. Mr. Tang received 285 votes. Pro-democracy candidate Albert Ho, who had no chance of winning, got 76 votes. Another 82 of the 1,132 total votes cast were deemed invalid — most were blank.

Hundreds of pro-democracy protesters gathered at the large waterfront convention center where the vote was held, waving banners and chanting slogans calling for “One person, one vote to choose the chief executive.” Some tried to push past barricades but were stopped by dozens of police, who used pepper spray.

Mr. Tang, whose backers included Li Ka-shing, Hong Kong’s richest man, was seen early on as Beijing’s preferred candidate. But Mr. Tang, the heir to a textile fortune, was hit by a string of gaffes and scandals that torpedoed his approval rating.

The scandals also added to wider public discontent, driven by a yawning rich-poor gap and sky-high housing prices that have stirred popular resentment of the city’s billionaires, who control Hong Kong’s economy and vast real estate empires, and their perceived close ties with the government.

Beijing’s decision to switch to Mr. Leung, the son of a police officer, in the days leading up to the vote indicated China’s leaders think public opinion was still important as they sought a credible leader to help defuse growing anger and prevent large-scale protests, even if it means upsetting the billionaires.

Mr. Leung’s pledges to beef up social reforms and expand public housing have irked the city’s tycoons but pleased ordinary Hong Kongers.

Hong Kong, a former British colony that was returned to Chinese rule in 1997, is an unrestrained global capital of commerce with Western-style rights and freedoms not seen on the mainland. But it never has had full democracy, and the tumultuous race has heightened many Hong Kongers’ desire to elect their leader directly. Beijing has promised universal suffrage for 2017, when Mr. Leung’s five-year term ends, but no road map has been laid out.

“To the people who are shouting and protesting outside — yes, they do have a vote, they do have a voice; yes, they are part of Hong Kong,” said Mr. Leung, who stepped down from the Cabinet and as chairman of a property firm to run. “I shall work with the whole of Hong Kong in the next five years to make sure the 2017 universal suffrage chief executive election will work well.”

Mr. Leung pledged to maintain Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms in his victory speech.

His popularity rating benefited from Mr. Tang’s scandals, which included an extramarital affair, rumors of an out-of-wedlock child and a huge, illegally built addition to his home. At one point, polls showed more than 50 percent of people supported Mr. Leung versus about 17 percent for Tang.

But Mr. Leung’s rating also slid after he was hit by multiple controversies, including a conflict of interest scandal and accusations by Mr. Tang that he was overly willing to deploy riot police and tear gas in 2003 to confront protesters opposed to controversial anti-subversion legislation.

Many also believe he is a longtime secret member of China’s Communist Party, which they say explains how he was named to a key post on a committee helping draft the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s miniconstitution, that took effect after China regained control in 1997. Mr. Leung denied Sunday that he was a member of the party, which officially doesn’t exist in Hong Kong.

“I’m not a member of the Communist Party, I’m not a so-called underground member of the Communist Party,” he said.

Joseph Cheng, a political science professor of City University of Hong Kong, said there is a high chance of further anti-government protests.

“Hong Kong people don’t have high expectations of this administration. They believe that collusion with major business will continue, and they are not happy,” Mr. Cheng said.

Mr. Leung will take office on July 1, succeeding Donald Tsang, who is barred from another term.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://thedailynewsegypt.com/region/...oint-town.html

Bahrain police battle to control streets in flashpoint town
By Andrew Hammond /Reuters
March 25, 2012, 5:17 pm

SITRA: Bahraini police clashed with anti-government protesters on Saturday at a Shia town where residents tried to demonstrate against the Gulf Arab state's holding of a Formula One race next month.

Hundreds of riot police backed by dark blue armored vehicles and jeeps patrolled the streets of Sitra, a poor district southeast of Manama where youths threw petrol bombs and stones at security forces who responded with tear gas canisters, Reuters witnesses said.

Sitra has long been a flashpoint area where Shia Muslim youths vent anger against a government they feel marginalizes them politically and economically.

The Sunni-led government blames Shia clerics for the communal conflict, saying they had turned people against the state and incited Shia to raise the temperature on the streets ahead of the race.

A man and a woman died of asphyxiation caused by tear gas grenades fired by Bahrain's security forces, AFP reported. The cause of the deaths could not immediately be confirmed.

Anger on the streets of Sitra rose each time patrols had passed and residents taunted security forces by shouting from inside houses, banging on trash bins and honking horns.

"Come here, you immigrants," youths shouted, referring to foreign Sunni Muslim hires working with riot police. Some chanted against the island's ruler, King Hamad.

"You know, it's been going on like this for 30 years, and they still don't want to give us our rights," said Ali Mansour, a 45-year-old taxi driver sheltering with his wife in a car as fumes began to seep in from more canisters that landed nearby.

Bahrain has been bitterly divided since its Shia majority led protests last year for reforms they hope would reduce the powers of the ruling Al Khalifa family, give parliament legislative clout and bring opposition figures into government.

Some called for ditching the monarchy altogether, angering many Sunnis who view the royal family as a force for good and protection against Shia empowerment.

The authorities crushed the protest movement, which was inspired by revolts that brought down entrenched rulers in Egypt and Tunisia, by imposing a period of martial law and bringing in Saudi and other Gulf Arab troops to help win back control of the streets.

But over a year later, ongoing unrest — with clashes in Shia villages and large opposition party marches — has damaged Bahrain's economy and alarmed Western allies.

They view Bahrain as an important ally in their standoff with Iran over its nuclear program but want the government to resolve the conflict by reaching a deal with the opposition.

A UN rights body this week expressed concern over the use of excessive force and tear gas by Bahraini security forces.

Anti-government hotspot

Sitra is covered in anti-government graffiti describing the king as a tyrant and glorifying imprisoned community leaders. One poster cited a condemnation by Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of the concept of kingship as un-Islamic.

Many streets are strewn with concrete blocks, pieces of wood and trashbins to stop police cars moving into the back alleys.

King Hamad took power in 1999 and vowed to restore parliament and introduce democratic reforms, receiving a rapturous welcome in 2001. He freed prisoners after taking office but came under pressure to introduce further reforms following last year's protests.

Now Bahrain's Formula One Grand Prix on April 20-22 has become embroiled in the troubles, as opposition groups vow to step up protests. Police pulled down posters on the walls in Sitra saying "No Formula 1 in Bahrain."

"They are paying a lot for Formula One, while people are dying every day," said Mirza Rabia, 41, a government employee.

Activists say at least 33 people have died since June amid daily clashes in Shia districts, as the government tries to lock protesters in to stop any renewed mass movement in Manama.

Police question the causes of death and their attribution to the conflict. They say they are showing restraint in the face of violent youth challenging state authority.

"We are the government and these guys are scum. Molotov cocktails are not peaceful, they make it rain with Molotovs," said a police corporal who declined to be named.

He said it was difficult to imagine integrating people from Shia communities into the police force — a key recommendation from former Miami police chief John Timoney who is advising the interior ministry on improving conduct.

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article33787.html

Saudi Arabia: House of Saud, Falling House of Cards
Politics / Middle East Mar 25, 2012 - 08:15 AM

By: Washingtons_Blog

Politics

Best Financial Markets Analysis Article

Saudi rulers are struggling to contain a new wave of public protests that has erupted across the Arabian kingdom as security forces open fire on unarmed civilians.

The big question: is the House of Saud finally beginning to collapse like the fragile house of cards that this creaking, ruling monarchy represents?

The irony is rich indeed. For the past year, the Saudi rulers have done their utmost to crush the slightest dissent in their country, while at the same time they have backed Western interference, aggression and regime change in Libya and Syria – under the guise, wait for it, of advocating democratic freedom and human rights.

At least two people have been reported dead from Saudi police violence against an outpouring of crowds who have taken to the streets in the kingdom – a female student and a man, described as a well-known human rights activist, are the latest victims. Many others have been injured or arrested as state security forces mobilise in what appears to be a desperate bid by the rulers to contain spreading protests.

The irony is that Saudi Arabia is one of the most vocal members of the Arab League to denounce Syria for alleged human rights violations against protesters in that country. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has even called on Syria’s President Bashar Al Assad to step down and give way to greater democratic reforms.

The irony comes in at least two parts: Saudi’s King Abdullah presides over an absolute monarchy that is brutally suppressing all and any peaceful dissent in his country calling for democracy; and, two, Saudi Arabia is funding and arming subversive groups in Syria who are accused of committing assassinations, kidnappings and many other terrorisms to bring down the secular Assad government.

For the past year, Saudi Arabia – the world’s biggest oil producer and a key Western ally – has witnessed persistent protests against the ruling House of Saud.

Up to now, the demonstrations calling for democratic freedoms have been mainly located in Saudi’s oil-rich Eastern Province, principally in the city of Qatif.

But, most worryingly for US-backed King Abdullah and his entourage of brothers and half-brothers, there is this week growing public dissent in all quarters of the kingdom.

Major street demonstrations are reported in the capital, Riyadh, in the Central Province. Protests are also taking off in the north, such as the city of Ar’ar, the western port of Jeddah and in the southern university city of Abha.

When other Arab countries saw mass protests last year against their dictatorial rulers, Saudi Arabia was also embroiled in the regional ferment. However, Saudi Arabia appeared peripheral to the momentous changes sweeping the Arab region with few media reports of any substantive popular uprising.

This can be explained partly by the ruthlessness of the Saudi authorities in crushing any incipient sign of protest in the kingdom. At least 10 people have been killed over the past year from Saudi state forces attacking peaceful demonstrations. Another explanation for the apparent low-key public protests in Saudi Arabia is the under-reporting of such events by the Western mainstream media.

The popular dissent in Saudi Arabia against its rulers is to be sure there; it is just not being reported by the Western corporate media. That is because Saudi Arabia is a major strategic ally of Western governments, for example in supplying oil, buying huge amounts of weapons, and advancing geopolitical agenda in support of the garrison state of Israel or facilitating the NATO conquest of Libya, hammering Syria, and trying to destabilise Iran.

The so-called free press and media in the West take tacit orders from their governments. The corporate media also take, depend on, lucrative advertising money from Saudi and Gulf Arab super rich entrepreneurs and state Sovereign Wealth Funds. Reporting on protests in Saudi Arabia and more especially reporting on state brutality is for the more accurately termed unfree media tantamount to cutting off the hand that feeds.

But, despite the suppression of protests and information, the people of Saudi Arabia are on the move against their Western-backed despotic rulers. And the grievances are as abundant as the oil in that country.

For a start, the Eastern Province has a large Shia Muslim population – perhaps 50 per cent compared with 10 per cent overall in Saudi Arabia. The Shia have been grossly discriminated against by the Wahhabi rulers of the House of Saud. Despite possessing the vast oil wealth of the Arabian Peninsula, poverty is rampant among the Eastern Province Shia.

Secondly, the Shia of Eastern Saudi Arabia are inflamed by the House of Saud’s invasion of neighbouring Bahrain and the ongoing brutal crackdown against the mainly Shia-led pro-democracy movement on that island. Recall that before the relatively recent imposition of European colonial boundaries, the people of Bahrain had close kinship with those of Eastern Saudi Arabia. It is not uncommon for families to have members in both territories until this day.

But the issue is much bigger than that. Right across Saudi Arabia, there are deep, seething grievances in the populace against the House of Saud, grievances that unite Shia, Sunni and non-religionists alike.

Despite Saudi Arabia’s vast oil wealth and official GDP per capita, unemployment and poverty are rampant. As with the other Gulf Arab countries, Saudi Arabia’s rulers rely on a slave labour economy recruited from South Asia and Africa. This means that many young Saudis have to endure a life of unemployment.

Other grievances include no elections and negligible freedom of expression – all forms of public protest are strictly banned; the state is run on an extreme Wahhabist application of Sharia law, where limbs are amputated for petty crimes and women are forbidden from driving cars because the kingdom’s religious police view that particular activity as being “unchaste”.

Nevertheless, the winds of change that have swept the region seem now to be assailing Saudi Arabia with increasing force.

While analysts have been focusing on the implications of a weakened Syria and Iran, the other side of coin has not received much attention. The fallout from a determined pro-democracy movement succeeding to overthrow the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia could be the surprise to rock the region, akin to the seismic event of the Iranian revolution in 1979.

Such an outcome would not be hard to contemplate. After all, Saudi Arabia as a state is a very recent and fragile construct. It was only formed in 1932 when imperialist Britain shoe-horned Ibn Saud into power against the Ottoman Empire and after the violent ouster of several tribal rivals.

Ever since, the House of Saud has ruled with fragile control over a fissile territory with deep, enduring tribal animosities. The present ailing and 87-year-old King Abdullah is one of 37 reputed sons of Ibn Saud. Rifts within the House of Saud and rivalries as to the successor of King Abdullah are constantly boiling. But even more explosive than these House of Saud tensions are those of the general population who are weary of dynastic, despotic rule.

A collapse of the House of Saud would have explosive consequences. How would the US-led warmongering towards Syria and Iran be conducted/blunted? How would that especial affront to international law and human rights, Israel, continue to survive? The price of oil would hit record levels beyond $150 a barrel and that would surely spell a coup de grace to the death-gasping capitalist world economy.

Bring it on.

Finian Cunningham is a journalist and musician www.myspace.com/finiancunninghammusic

Finian Cunningham is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Finian Cunningham

© Copyright Finian Cunningham, Global Research, 2012

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...40d9fcb3254.c1

Obama meets Hu after blunt words on North Korea

By Stephen Collinson (AFP) – 1 hour ago

SEOUL — US President Barack Obama meets President Hu Jintao Monday, after delivering a sharp public warning to China that its efforts to control its nuclear armed neighbor North Korea are not working.

Obama and Hu will hold talks on the sidelines of a summit dedicated to the threat of nuclear terrorism, and their bid to keep ties stable, despite the turbulence of domestic political drama in both nations, will be put to the test.

With North Korea threatening to launch a rocket next month, Northeast Asia is again on edge, and Obama made clear in unusually direct language in Seoul and Sunday that he did not believe China's approach was bearing fruit.

While sympathising with China's lot in sharing a border with the erratic communist state, Obama suggested it was time for a change in Chinese strategy.

"What I've said to them consistently is rewarding bad behavior, turning a blind eye to deliberate provocations, trying to paper over these not just provocative words but extraordinarily provocative acts that violate international norms -- that's not obviously working." Obama said.

"My suggestion to China is, is that how they communicate their concerns to North Korea should probably reflect the fact that the approach they've taken over the last several decades hasn't led to a fundamental shift in North Korea's behavior."

Washington has frequently called on Beijing to do more to control Pyongyang, given its role as one of North Korea's few trading partners, and states with any influence over its despotic leaders.

Hu and Obama will meet at a time when both leaders are increasingly preoccupied by their own domestic political calendars -- with a new generation of leaders poised to assume power in China and Obama's quickening re-election bid at home.

Obama must watch his flank as his likely Republican foe Mitt Romney lacerates his policy towards Beijing, seeking to exploit a perception among blue collar voters that unfair Chinese trade practices cost US jobs.

Hu enters the meeting against a backdrop of intrigue ahead of the 18th Communist Party Congress later this year, expected to enshrine Xi Jinping as China's next leader.

Jia Qingguo, professor and associate dean of the School of International Studies of Peking University said Hu and Obama will be preoccupied with "how to maintain stability in the relationship" as the year's politics unfold.

The Hu-Obama summit takes place after China's Communist Party leadership was rocked by a rare scandal, after Bo Xilai, leader of the Chongqing metropolis was sacked after a key aide reportedly tried to defect to the United States.

"I think the summit meeting is very important for both countries, especially on the domestic side, given the election year in the US and the political earthquake surrounding the removal of Bo Xilai," said Zhu Feng, also of Peking University.

"There needs to be an exchange of views on how the bilateral relations can stay the same without too much disruptions over election politics and domestic factors."

Obama and Hu have met multiple times on the sidelines of international summits, to further what both sides say is a desire to work together on vital economic and security issues important to both sides.

But disputes over trade, frank talk over China's territorial spats with its neighbors in the South China Sea, and different views on Syria's crackdown on dissent and Iran's nuclear program have chipped away at mutual trust.

Obama emerged from his last meeting with Hu in Hawaii in November showing clear signs of frustration, saying China must now act like a "grown-up" and play by global trading rules.

This month, Washington signaled that it would lodge a complaint with the World Trade Organization over China's curbs on the export of "rare earth" elements which are vital to the US computer and hi-tech industry.

The long-standing disupte over China's yuan currency which Washington says is kept artificially low to boost exports in a manner which hurts the US economy, also has the potential to become an issue before November's election.

While US presidential candidates often lash China, only to fall in line with decades of foreign policy towards Beijing when elected, Obama cannot afford to ignore Romney's assault.

"Romney has set the tone," said Douglas Paal, an Asia specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

"Obama is not going to let Romney get to his right on China."

Despite White House denials, in this environment it is not a stretch to see Obama's shot across China's bows on rare earth exports and his announcement of a new task force to probe Beijing's trade abuses, as politically motivated.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Related articles

* Nuclear summit begins under North Korean shadow
New Zealand Herald - 1 hour ago
* Not clear who is running North Korea, says Obama
Hindustan Times - 3 hours ago
* PM Lee to attend 2nd Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul
Straits Times - 12 hours ago

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...40d9fcb3254.21

Nuclear summit to begin under N. Korean shadow

By Karl Malakunas (AFP) – 1 hour ago

SEOUL — US President Barack Obama and dozens of other world leaders will begin a summit Monday on curbing the threat of nuclear terrorism, but North Korea's atomic plans will be in focus on the sidelines.

The two-day meeting in South Korea is a follow-up to an inaugural summit in Washington in 2010 hosted by Obama, which kick-started efforts to lock up fissile material around the globe that could make thousands of bombs.

Obama announced on the eve of the Seoul event, which will gather leaders or top officials from 53 nations, that Ukraine had fulfilled a pledge made two years ago to remove all highly enriched uranium from its territory.

"I believe it is a preview of the kind of progress we are going to see over the next two days in confronting one of the most urgent challenges to global security -- the security of the world's nuclear weapons and preventing nuclear terrorism," Obama said.

While North Korea's nuclear programme is not officially on the agenda in Seoul, it is expected to be intensely discussed on the sidelines as world leaders take advantage of the opportunity of face-to-face meetings.

Tensions have escalated in recent weeks after North Korea announced it would launch a long-range rocket in April.

The nuclear-armed North says its rocket will merely put a peaceful satellite into orbit.

But the United States and many other countries believe the launch is intended to test a long-range missile that could one day deliver an atomic warhead.

Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak presented a united front against North Korea during a press conference on Sunday, warning it again against the rocket launch and further "provocative" actions.

"North Korea will achieve nothing by threats or by provocations," Obama said.

Lee added: "President Obama and I have agreed to respond sternly to any provocations and threats by the North and to continually enhance the firm South Korea-US defence readiness."

Obama also sought to step up pressure on China, North Korea's chief international ally, which has declined to speak out strongly against Pyongyang in relation to the planned rocket launch.

"My suggestion to China is that how they communicate their concerns to North Korea should probably reflect the fact that the approach they have taken over the last several decades has not led to a fundamental shift in North Korea's behaviour," Obama said.

Obama is scheduled to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao on Monday, and separately with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

The United States, China and Russia, along with Japan and South Korea, are involved in long-running and currently stalled negotiations with the North aimed at convincing it to give up its atomic ambitions.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are similarly not on the agenda in Seoul but the leaders of the world powers may take the opportunity of their face-to-face meetings to discuss US-led efforts to curtail Tehran's programme.

Experts have acknowledged major progress on the fissile material front since the Washington summit.

They point to former Soviet republic Kazakhstan securing over 13 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium since then, while Chile eliminated its entire HEU stockpile.

The United States and Russia also signed a protocol under which each will dispose of 34 tonnes of plutonium -- enough for 17,000 nuclear weapons.

But experts say much more must be done to end an apocalyptic threat.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
Related articles

* Nuclear summit begins under North Korean shadow
New Zealand Herald - 1 hour ago
* Not clear who is running North Korea, says Obama
Hindustan Times - 3 hours ago
* China turning blind eye to N.Korea: US
Gulf Today - 1 hour ago

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-3-2012_pg7_10

Monday, March 26, 2012

Pakistan wants civil nuclear technology: Gilani

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said on Sunday Pakistan wanted civil nuclear technology to meet its energy requirements. Talking to reporters at the Chaklala airbase before leaving for Seoul, the prime minister said civil nuclear technology had been “our requirement and we have been demanding it”.

The prime minister will attend the second Nuclear Security Summit in South Korea on March 26 and 27. More than 54 leaders from across the world are attending the summit to discuss the main issues of nuclear security and safety. Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and Ambassador to the US Sherry Rehman are accompanying Gilani.

The prime minister said that nuclear technology was important for Pakistan to maintain balance with India and promote regional stability. “If we do not have balance with India, then there will be lack of stability in the region,” he added.

Gilani said the Nuclear Security Summit would be follow-up of the first summit that was held in Washington in 2010. During the summit, he said, he would exchange views with world leaders and talks would focus on strengthening security of nuclear assets. He said Pakistan had 40-year experience of using the nuclear technology and it had an effective command and control system for the safety of nuclear assets.

“This security system is beyond doubt and well-protected,” he said. On the sidelines of the summit, Gilani said he would meet with US President Barack Obama and discuss the situation in Afghanistan. To a question, the prime minister said parliament would decide about the reopening of NATO supply route. “Consensus will be built among political parties on the issue of NATO supply,” he added. app

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome...=feeds-newsxml

India-South Korea seek to take trade to $40billion by 2015

By Mail Today Reporter

PUBLISHED: 16:42 EST, 25 March 2012 | UPDATED: 16:42 EST, 25 March 2012

Seeking to expand their strategic ties, India and South Korea on Sunday agreed to step up political and security cooperation, as they vowed to double the bilateral trade to an ambitious $40 billion by 2015.

'We agreed to expand our political and security cooperation,' Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said after his talks with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in Seoul.

'With this objective in mind, I informed President Lee of India's decision to position a Defence Attache at our Embassy here in Seoul before the end of the year,' he said, adding that 'these steps are being taken to add substance to our (India and South Korea's) strategic partnership'.

'Ours is a partnership built on shared values that provide a firm foundation for further development,' Singh said.

Noting that bilateral trade had risen by 65 per cent over the past two years, since the implementation of the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), Singh said: 'President Lee and I agreed that our strong economic ties are fundamental to our growing interaction.

'We have therefore set a new target of $40 billion by 2015. We also agreed to accelerate work in progress to upgrade the CEPA and make it more ambitious,'Singh, who is on a four-day visit to the island to attend the Nuclear Security Summit, said.

In a joint statement released after the talks, the two leaders expressed grave concern about the continued threat of terrorism and piracy emanating from various quarters.

They expressed hope that the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, which was under consideration at the United Nations, would be adopted soon, the joint statement said. India also joined South Korea in voicing concern over North Korea's plan to launch an 'application satellite', a move that is likely to escalate tension in the peninsula.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/...ani-singh.html

‘Pull aside meet’ between Gilani, Singh likely
Seoul, March 25, 2012, PTI:

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh may meet his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the second “Nuclear Security Summit” that begins here on Monday.

Though no formal meeting has been sought, the two leaders may come face-to-face during a reception hosted by South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak for the world leaders attending the summit.

Lee is also hosting a Working Dinner for the leaders at the COEX Convention Centre when they would review the progress made since the “Washington Summit”.

Both the Indian and Pakistani sides said no formal meeting has been scheduled. However, they did not rule out a “pull aside” meeting during the summit as both Singh and Gilani will be at the venue from morning till evening.

“No structured meeting is planned, but a pull aside is always possible,” Pakistan’s ambassador to South Korea Shaukat Ali Mukadam told reporters here on the sidelines of a ceremonial welcome to Singh at the “The Blue House”, the presidential residence.

“There are possibilities. There are various places to meet, they could meet in leaders’ lounge,” he said.

Mukadam said Gilani had a tight schedule in Seoul where he would be meeting US President Barack Obama and some other world leaders.

Some reports had earlier suggested that Gilani could meet Singh. The Pakistan prime minister will leave Seoul on Wednesday, while Singh leaves on Tuesday evening.

Sources in the Pakistan government had said Indian and Pakistani officials are working on arranging a meeting between Gilani and Singh.

However, Indian diplomatic sources said the meeting has not been scheduled yet. The summit in Seoul is a follow-up to the Nuclear Security Summit held in Washington in April, 2010.

The summit is expected to be attended by 45 heads of state or governments, including US President Barack Obama, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao.

[Housecarl]

Humm.....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://style.brecorder.com/top-news/...al-trade-.html

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan vow to promote, strengthen regional trade
Sunday, 25 March 2012 21:25

DUSHANBE: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistanon Sunday reiterated their resolve to promote and strengthen trade and economic cooperation in the region besides joining hands to fight the menace of terrorism, militancy and drug trafficking for a win-win situation.

This was agreed during a quadrilateral meeting among President Asif Ali Zardari, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Tajik President Emomali Rahmon here in the Central Asian state.

The leaders of four brotherly nations, who were together for Nowruz celebrations hosted by Tajikistan, used the occasion for a quadrilateral meeting to discuss matters of mutual interest including the ways and means to strengthen trade and economic cooperation among their countries.

Spokesperson to the President Senator Farhatullah Babar said that President Zardari stressed the need of enhanced regional cooperation to curb the menace and nexus of drug trafficking and militancy, a major impediment in the trade and economic development of the region.

The President said he had taken up the issue at international level and would continue to pursue it adding, "we must work together."

In the context of regional energy cooperation, President Zardari saidPakistanwas committed to realize and complete the Iran-Pakistan (IP) and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline projects.

"I look forward to work with you on all issues of mutual interest," he added.

President Zardari said non-state actors wanted to destabilize Afghanistan, adding, butPakistan was committed to peace in the region, particularly Afghanistan, as a stable Afghanistanwas also in the interest of Pakistan.

The President said in the post 2014 geo-strategic scenario after drawdown of foreign forces from Afghanistan, closer cooperation among the four brotherly countries in all fields, particularly in defence, security and intelligence sharing assumes greater significance.

All the four leaders were unanimous in the view that terrorism and militancy pose a serious threat to peace, security and socio-economic development of the region and need to be tackled jointly and through regional approach and solutions.

They were of the view that the strong bonds among them rooted in the shared history of culture, religion and traditions need to be translated into closer cooperation in trade, communication, transportation, energy, infrastructure etc for mutual benefit.

Copyright APP (Associated Press of Pakistan), 2012

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/10...n-time/928233/

100 km from Karachi, 500 years back in time
Sajjad Ashraf : Mon Mar 26 2012, 02:32 hrs

Baloch grievances need to be addressed, starting with an effective provincial government

Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest province, constituting 43 per cent of its territory with just 4 per cent of its population, is undergoing another spell of violence, leading to calls for independence by the Baloch nationalist leadership.

Strategically located, Balochistan provides the shortest land link to Afghanistan and to fast-developing western China. It has 700 km of Arabian Sea coastline, close to the Straits of Hormuz from where nearly one-sixth of world’s oil supplies pass. It is mineral-rich with potentially some of the biggest mines of gold and copper. Natural gas, first extracted here in 1954, has fuelled Pakistan’s economy for nearly 50 years. The area is also the logical route for the Iran-Pakistan-India energy corridor. Allegedly the home of Quetta Shura, the consultative body of Afghan resistance, its low population makes it easy prey for overseas predators.

While nationalism may cause Baloch yearning for self-governance, the feeling of inadequate compensation for resources extracted out of Balochistan remains central to their grievances against Islamabad. For example, the natural gas exploited from 1954 onwards from Sui, driving the Pakistan economy, was only provided to users in Balochistan in the ’ 80s. The region gets only 2 per cent profits out of major Saindak copper mines. Drive 100 kilometres out of Karachi, Pakistan’s biggest city and financial capital, into Balochistan, and you drive 500 years back in time.

The new Gwadar town development, adjacent to the port, has actually turned out to be a land grab for outsiders who contemplate its development into a high-end resort. The locals are outraged.

A Musharraf-era decision to develop two new cantonments in the middle of Pakistan in the Baloch districts of Kohlu and Dera Bugti caused tremendous Balochi ire. The killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti, former chief minister of Balochistan, in 2006, inflamed the unrest in Balochistan. Musharraf’s trial for killing Bugti and removal of these cantonments is now the Baloch rallying cry.

Fiercely tribal and nationalist, the Baloch resent the Punjabi-dominated Pakistani state structure. There have been repeated armed movements calling for everything from greater autonomy to complete independence. The current movement — the fifth since 1948 — started in 2004. Short of answers, the Pakistani government’s response thus far has been typical: blame a foreign power or the sardars (tribal chiefs) rather than addressing genuine concerns.

Baloch demands range from calls for outright independence to greater autonomy and control over resources. The 18th constitutional amendment, giving provinces greater control over economic resources, has led to more corruption in Balochistan, where the entire 65-member provincial assembly comprises the front bench. The chief minister is known more for his buffoonery than his leadership. The recent government offer of an all party conference on Balochistan has no takers.

Of serious concern is the question of missing persons in Balochistan. Though reliable numbers are not available, they are said to range from less than a hundred to thousands. Bodies of many missing have been found bearing torture marks. Politicians and civil society blame it on secret agencies.

Pakistan, born out of a partition of India in1947, from which Bangladesh spun out after a bitter civil war in 1971, faces a serious dilemma that even educated Pakistanis find hard to comprehend. Both divisions occurred on the basis of demands for justice and fairness, which the separating communities failed to find in a larger whole. Both were resisted in the beginning and yet occurred with millions of lives lost. Justice and fairness are at the centre of Baloch demands.

Baloch nationalist leadership knows that a thinly populated, large land mass where the Baloch constitute just about half the population works against their demand for complete independence. Equally valorous Pashtuns, who number much of the other half, are well integrated into the Pakistani state system and will challenge the Baloch demand. Contiguity to other provinces with divided populations makes it easier for the military to play its part in quelling the insurgency. Moreover, unlike Indian military support to the Bengali uprising in 1971, Pakistan will not face a hostile neighbour in Iran who will provide succour to the insurgency.

In this backdrop, the demand for independence seems like a tool only used by the nationalists to extract maximum concessions. There seems to be total agreement in the rest of Pakistan that force is no solution to these problems, and that Baloch grievances need to be addressed. A corruption-free and effective provincial government, working in the interest of the people, needs to reclaim space from the military and establish the order necessary for resumption of economic activity. Pakistan’s leadership must initiate a credible dialogue quickly, before election year polarisation begins to haunt the country as it did in 1971.

The writer, formerly in the Pakistan Foreign Service, is adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

[Fred's Horseradish]

Flying Dutchman and others, thanks so much for these updates. We will never see this stuff on MSM.

Personally, I believe that Iran is testing a proxy war against Israel right now. Remember, they have Russian advisers and Russia is the master at proxy wars. I believe that Iran has infiltrated and probably controls many of the splinter groups in and around Israel. I believe that the actions involving Gaza are actually proxy operations by Iran.

When Israel takes decisive action again one or more of these groups, then there will be an outcry against them that will justify the launch of significant military attacks from nations surrounding them (even countries like Egypt). Their enemies will "hope" that a multinational action against them will prevent them from striking Iran directly because their military will be spread too thin.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Israel will use jets to take out Iranian facilities.

Torah Tips, good post and welcome. In collage, I majored in Biblical languages. Even translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/tur...&NewsCatID=338

Turkey, US join hands on Iran, Syria and PKK fight
1 hour ago
SEOUL
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and US President Barack Obama discuss Syria and Iran ahead of a nuclear summit in Seoul, finding common ground on the need to send ‘non-lethal’ aid to Syrian insurgents

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and U.S. President Barack Obama agreed yesterday on the need to send “non-lethal” aid to Syrian rebels, including communications equipment, a U.S. official said after their meeting in Seoul.

The leaders agreed that a Friends of Syria group meeting April 1 in Istanbul should seek to provide such aid and medical supplies, said U.S. deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes after they met on the eve of a nuclear security summit.

The two leaders held a joint press conference after their nearly 90-minute meeting. Obama said the political developments in Syria dominated the agenda of the meeting and that Ankara and Washington would continue to work together on the crisis in Syria. Erdoğan also said his Iran visit this week would mostly focus on Syria.

“It was a very fruitful meeting,” Erdoğan said. “We had a chance to evaluate the situation in Syria. It made us happy to see that our opinions are similar on the matter.”

Washington has said several times that it is looking at providing non-lethal aid to Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, whom the United States says should step down.

The White House has said it does not favor arming the rebels, arguing that further “militarizing” the conflict would worsen civilian bloodshed. In the talks with Erdoğan, Obama said the U.S. and Turkey agreed that “there should be a process” of transition to a “legitimate government” in Syria.
Erdoğan said 17,000 refugees had fled from Syria to Turkey. “We cannot be spectators” to the humanitarian crisis sparked by the crackdown on rebel groups that has killed more than 9,000 people, he said.

However, the Obama administration appears to fear that any weapons sent to Syria would be at risk of falling into the wrong hands and does not appear to have confidence in rebel groups or a clear picture of their makeup. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said earlier this month that the U.S. was looking at providing non-lethal aid such as radio equipment to help opposition forces in their fight against Bashar al-Assad’s government.

Al-Assad survives with the backing of Russia, China and Iran

There is a revival of relations between the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the al-Assad regime, Erdoğan said while en route to Seoul. “In the past, al-Assad handed over the members of PKK but today he is protecting them,” the prime minister said, adding that the government was still working on a buffer zone inside Syria due to the developments.

“We are seeking to involve Russia, China and Iran into to reach a solution,” he said.

“Al-Assad is trying to buy time. He is surviving with the backing of Russia, China and Iran and his government has budget problems. Whenever the opposition gains strength, his departure will be very quick,” Erdoğan was quoted as saying by daily Hürriyet.

The prime minister also said they are on the verge of breaking all diplomatic relations with Syria, which would include pulling the country’s ambassador out of Syria.

Fight against terrorism

The two leaders also discussed Iran, with Obama saying there was still time to resolve the Iranian nuclear standoff through diplomacy but that the window for such a solution was closing. “I believe there is a window of time to solve this diplomatically but that window is closing,” Reuters quoted Obama as saying.

Obama said progress needed to be made soon on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. “Iran has to fulfill its obligations.”

The U.S. president also touched on the much-debated issue of religious freedom in Turkey and said he was happy to see that they were on the same page.

Erdoğan also mentioned Turkey’s fight against the PKK, saying the U.S. was on Turkey’s side. “It is good to see United States with us in our fight against this terrorist group,” Erdoğan told reporters. “Our fight will continue, but we will also continue political negotiations as well.”

In response, Obama said they were in harmony in the fight against the PKK. They also discussed the current situation in Iraq.

The prime minister further said they hoped to come closer to realizing the “expected future for Cyprus.”

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82O0BR20120325

Iraq locks down Baghdad before Arab summit

By Serena Chaudhry

BAGHDAD | Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:57am EDT

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's government has locked down Baghdad ahead of this week's Arab League Summit, throwing up a maze of security checkpoints and roadblocks as it seeks to protect the capital from insurgent attacks.

The three-day summit is the first of its kind to be held in Iraq in more than two decades, and a successful meeting would allow Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to show the country is pulling back from years of violence and upheaval months after the last U.S. troops left.

"Our lack of intelligence capabilities means we can't find explosives as we don't have the apparatus," said Hakim al-Zamili, a member of the parliamentary security committee.

"We have to rely on these old-fashioned methods like blocking the streets. So far it's been a success despite the impact on the citizens."

Despite the security clampdown, Baghdad and other cities were targeted with more than 30 bombs last Tuesday, however, killing at least 52 people.

It was Iraq's bloodiest day in almost a month and the scale of the coordinated blasts underscored the country's fragile security and the insurgents' apparent resolve to prove Maliki's government cannot keep the country safe for the summit.

Al Qaeda's Iraqi affiliate claimed responsibility for the attacks. It still controls the streets elsewhere in the country.

DISRUPTION

Entire streets in Baghdad have been closed down, SWAT teams have been combing the city, the government has declared a five-day public holiday, and around 100,000 extra security forces have been drafted in to man hundreds of checkpoints.

The extra security has caused big traffic jams, forcing some people to abandon their cars and walk to work. The delays have been so bad that lawmakers have called for emergency lanes to be opened up to allow doctors and ambulances to reach hospitals in a timely fashion.

Baghdad residents have long suffered due to disruption caused by the capital's blast walls, checkpoints and security roadblocks. Getting into the heavily fortified Green Zone, home to ministries and many embassies, can often mean long waits.

But the security clampdown has irked even war-weary Baghdadis.

"I left home at 7 a.m. and got stuck in a horrible traffic jam. Cars could not move... I had to get out of the car and walk to work. I arrived at 11 a.m.," said 30-year-old Baghdad resident Farouq Abdullah.

On a trip to Baghdad's airport last week, passengers jumped out of taxis and cars caught at security checkpoints and walked to the terminal with their luggage instead.

Iraq's stock exchange also had to close as workers and traders were unable to reach its central Baghdad office. Stock market chief executive Taha Abdulsalam said he hoped to resume trading from April 1.

Transport difficulties have also pushed up food prices.

Twenty-three percent of Iraq's population live below the poverty line, according to the planning ministry, and many Iraqis are dependent on a national food ration program. Food ration shortages led to mass protests last summer.

"Prices of groceries have nearly doubled because of costly and difficult transport. People are afraid of shortages during the week the government has declared a holiday," said Ali Ibrahim, a grocer in Baghdad.

Ibrahim said the tighter security measures had pushed up the price of one kilogram of apples to 2,500 Iraqi dinars ($2.14) from 1,250 Iraqi dinars.

SCEPTICISM

Iraq is still trying to build up its army and police to tackle al Qaeda-linked Sunni insurgent groups and Shi'ite militias, who remain capable of carrying out lethal attacks.

Security analysts said the extra measures were likely to deter some of the smaller insurgent groups, but warned that some may seek to attack after the summit, which takes place from March 27-29 in a former Saddam Hussein palace.

"Security forces will relax after this long period on alert so we think terrorists will try to target some places after the summit if they can't do it before," Zamili told Reuters.

Some Baghdad residents are skeptical of whether the extra measures will help secure the capital.

"When we arrived at a checkpoint, I did not see an explosives detector in the hand of the soldier," said Um Laith, who works in Baghdad. "He was just ordering cars to pull up, arbitrarily."

While violence from the country's long war has eased since the days of sectarian slaughter in 2006-07 when tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed, the sound of a roadside bomb going off or a mortar round detonating is still common in the capital.

Hundreds of people have been killed in bombings and attacks since a political crisis erupted in December, increasing tensions among Sunni and Shi'ite political blocs, and threatening to push Iraq back into the worst of its sectarian violence.

(Additional reporting by Raheem Salman and Mohammed Ameer; Editing by Patrick Markey and Andrew Osborn)

Related News

* Insight: Iraq war over? Not where Qaeda rules through fear
11:58am EDT
* Iraqi al Qaeda claims bombs targeting summit security
Wed, Mar 21 2012
* Dozens of bombs kill at least 52 across Iraq
Tue, Mar 20 2012
* Iraq's Sadr stages Shi'ite show of force before summit
Mon, Mar 19 2012
* Blast hits Aleppo; clashes and protests across Syria
Sun, Mar 18 2012

Analysis & Opinion

* Obama’s first foreign policy blunder
* U.S. housing hangover finally wearing off

Related Topics

* World »
* Iraq »

[Housecarl]

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82O08H20120325

Insight: Iraq war over? Not where Qaeda rules through fear

By Suadad al-Salhy
Comments 3
MOSUL, Iraq | Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:58am EDT

MOSUL, Iraq (Reuters) - A spruced-up Baghdad is welcoming Arab leaders this week to declare that war is over and Iraq is open for business. To Um Qassim, carrying her shopping beside a rubbish-filled creek four hours drive from the capital, it is a cruel joke.

In her home city of Mosul, out of view of visiting dignitaries, al Qaeda still controls the streets and people like her still whisper about death.

"They killed my neighbor three days ago, and later they sent his family a message saying, 'We are sorry, your son was not targeted, he was killed by mistake,'" she said quietly to Reuters, trying to catch her breath as she hauled two heavy sacks of food home from the market.

Arriving in Mosul from Baghdad, you feel the sinister lurch of going back in time to 2006 or 2007, the days of sectarian slaughter when Iraq's militant gangs stalked the streets and killed tens of thousands of their countrymen.

The familiar signs, long-since vanished from Baghdad, are all still here: the towering concrete blast walls, the dirt obstacles piled in the centre of the roads to slow down racing attackers, the buildings wrecked by the impact of shells.

Razor wire is rampant like a weed, shrapnel crunches under foot and the garbage lies rotting in heaps, because war makes basic civic duties like cleaning the streets seem like lunacy.

This is not the Iraq that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government is touting now that U.S. troops have pulled out and oil billions are rolling in. Hundreds of millions have been spent smartening up the capital for this week's Arab League summit. New lines have been painted on the pavement and palms planted in the highway dividers.

Baghdad's ministers describe Iraq's crippling infrastructure problems as an opportunity to invest. Occasional explosions are dismissed as the last throes of isolated cells trying to show they are still relevant in a country where the overwhelming majority is committed to peace.

But during a visit of several days in Iraq's third largest city, security officials and residents of Mosul painted a picture far worse than commonly understood from Baghdad.

Far from being furtive and on the run, al Qaeda and its allies maintain a hold over economic and political life that shows little sign of loosening. Residents speak fearfully.

Um Qassim's family of nine are Shi'ites from the small Shabak minority, one of the many ethnic groups that share Iraq's most diverse city. They have had to abandon their home and move into two rooms across town.

"They have displaced all the Shabak from their houses to eastern Mosul. Whoever resists, they kill him or bomb his house," Um Qassim said.

As she began speaking to Reuters, her husband approached, clearly agitated: "Be careful, do not mention your real name," he said. "Keep in your mind that they can reach us anytime."

Shop owners say they are forced to pay protection money to the militants. Security officials say the fighters are raising millions of dollars per month here, which they use to fund bomb attacks across Iraq.

"They keep coming, every three months, to take $300 - $100 per month - always at the same time but not the same person," said a pharmacist, who spoke to Reuters only when his shop was empty and became silent whenever a customer entered.

"They are very organized and very polite. I cannot get rid of them. The pharmacist next door refused to pay. They planted a bomb inside his pharmacy and one of his workers lost his leg."

MAP OF WAR

Mosul is the unofficial capital of "the Islamic State of Iraq" or ISI, an al Qaeda-run fief whose influence stretches over a swathe of Iraq known as the peninsula - towns along the empty desert between the Tigris and Euphrates north of Baghdad.

The implications for Iraq's security at the national level have become clear in the months since the U.S. troops withdrew. Every three or four weeks since December, al Qaeda and the ISI have managed to stage a spectacular day of coordinated bombings across the country, each time detonating dozens of bombs, killing scores of people and wounding hundreds.

In the latest day of attacks, on March 20, more than 40 bombs were planted in 20 towns and cities across Iraq. The death toll compiled by Reuters was 52 with 250 people wounded, though the actual toll was probably higher. The damage to the official narrative of a country emerging from war was incalculable.

With civil war now emerging just across the frontier in Syria and tension between Mosul's Arabs and the neighboring autonomous Kurdish part of Iraq, instability here could become a regional issue that could spread beyond Iraq's borders.

While Iraq's Shi'ite armed groups have all announced they are laying down their weapons since the U.S. withdrawal, six major Sunni groups say they will keep fighting. Without a U.S. occupation to rail against, their rhetoric has become almost exclusively sectarian. They are fighting because they consider Shi'ites apostates who must be driven from power through force.

Like Baghdad was five years ago, Mosul is carved up into heavily fortified neighborhoods. There are "Green Zones" - protected districts open only to those who carry special security badges - and "the red zone" - everywhere else.

Government buildings and the homes of senior officials are inside the Green Zones, protected by concrete walls and heavily-manned checkpoints. Without control of the streets in the red zone, officials feel like prisoners in their own city.

"Security is totally missing in Mosul. I am a son of Mosul and cannot walk in the city. The security forces control just the main roads," said a senior security official, who declined to be named while giving an assessment that differs so strongly from the official line.

"I sleep here in a small room and cannot sleep in my own home in the Hidbaa neighborhood. When I want to leave this building I need more than eight armed vehicles to protect me."

From Mosul, the influence of the militants spreads to the Syrian border and through the Tigris provinces of Nineveh, Kirkuk, Salahuddin and Diyala, across the empty desert to the province of Anbar and the lush Euphrates valley on Baghdad's outskirts that U.S. forces used to call the triangle of death.

The desert between Iraq's two great rivers is dotted with rocky caves, and full of hills, sandy ditches and secret roads used by nomads and smugglers. Security forces say they lack the manpower to patrol it.

"Unfortunately many areas are not under the control of the security forces. Covering every kilometer is impossible," Mehdi al-Garraway, commander of federal police in Mosul, told Reuters.

"Between 2,000 and 2,500 square kilometers (about 750 to 1,000 square miles) might need to be covered by additional troops."

Because the area straddles several provinces, fighters exploit the lack of coordination among security forces. They can hide in bastions like Baaj northwest of Mosul, Qaiyara south of Mosul, Shirqat north of Tikrit and Hawija southwest of Kirkuk, and escape pursuit across provincial boundaries.

"This is a real problem that we are facing: permission is required for forces from Mosul to pursue someone into Salahuddeen or for forces in Salahuddeen to pursue someone in Kirkuk," Garraway said.

Police and troops from different regions, or even different units within a region, have little contact, making them vulnerable to infiltration or impersonation.

In a notorious incident this month, fighters disguised in uniforms and vehicles of a special police unit came out of the desert into the Euphrates town of Haditha and went from checkpoint to checkpoint, rounding up and shooting police. They killed 27, including two officers dragged out of their homes and executed in the street.

EVERYONE PAYS

Protection rackets are now the main source of funding for militants who spend millions on weapons, safe houses, vehicles and bribes to buy freedom for detained leaders. In Mosul alone, intelligence officials say the militants generate $6-7 million in monthly revenue from extortion.

Officials recite the list: shops, guest houses, neighborhood electricity generator operators, fuel tanker drivers, cement dealers, estate agents, telecoms firms - everybody pays. Even officials themselves pay.

"Protection money, by which I mean money paid by citizens to the armed groups ... jewelers, pharmacists, doctors, merchants, contractors, all of them are paying, and there is information suggesting that the directors of the government departments are paying too," said Zuhair al-Chalabi, head of a council set up by the central government to run reconstruction projects in Mosul.

"There is no one who avoids paying protection money. There is a threat, a killing - anyone does not pay, he won't stay alive for a day," Chalabi, said.

As one merchant who asked not to be identified put it: "I am paying the 'state' (the ISI) instead of paying taxes for the government. I pay those people to protect myself because the police cannot."

Officials say there are more than 600 pharmacies, 1,350 neighborhood generator operators, 42 car parks and countless food shops in Mosul, each of which has been paying $100-$200 per month for around two years.

"This money is spent not just in Mosul but across all the other Iraqi provinces," Garraway, said. "We believe the most recent operations carried out in Baghdad were planned here in southern Mosul."

Garraway said local police, federal police and army troops in Mosul were working hard to squeeze the financial resources of the ISI by shutting parking lots and currency exchange offices, monitoring the movements of fuel tanker drivers and encouraging shops, generator owners and pharmacists not to pay.

REGRET

There is little sign in Mosul of the sort of economic reconstruction projects the government is rolling out elsewhere. That plays into the hands of the militants' recruiters.

"Usually, they are attracting the unemployed youth who spends his time hanging around in the streets," said a senior Iraqi intelligence officer who supervises investigations of al Qaeda detainees. "They pay his rent, a month's salary and gifts after each operation he participates in."

Government jobs that are available are frequently with the security forces. Locals are afraid to take them.

"None of the men of Mosul dares to apply to join the security forces because he would be killed," said Mahmmoud al-Sabaawi, the leader of Sahwa, a government-backed militia, in the Mosul suburb of Qaiyara.

Many police in the area are Shi'ites from distant parts of the country, which alienates Sunni Arabs.

"Maliki keeps sending Shi'ite troops to Mosul to humiliate Sunnis. He knows that people here won't cooperate with them but even so, he keeps sending them," said Mostafa, a Sunni Arab standing at the entrance of one of the Green Zones, waiting for a relative to escort him inside.

Al Qaeda propaganda videos distributed throughout Mosul show the punishment for joining the security forces. In one video, distributed on CD, a federal policeman is beheaded on camera by a militant while another militant reads from the Koran.

Ali Raad Hassan, a married and father of three languishing in Mosul's Ghazlani jail for distributing al Qaeda videos, said he worked for the militants after despairing of ever finding a proper job despite a business degree from Mosul University.

"I have kids, diapers and milk, my monthly expenses exceed 300,000 dinars (around $250)," Hassan said, weeping. "I applied for many jobs. I applied to work in education, health, at the municipality. I never got an answer."

Of his work with al Qaeda, he said: "I swear to God that I regret it, but I could not leave the work. I wanted to leave it, but I could not."

(Additional reporting by Jamal al-Badrani; Editing by Peter Graff)

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://blogs.reuters.com/india-exper...t-sanctuaries/


Expert Zone
Straight from the Specialists

U.S.-Pakistan reset: Still need to deal with terrorist sanctuaries
By Lisa Curtis
March 22, 2012

afghanistan | lisa curtis | pakistan | U.S.

(The views expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not represent those of Reuters)

A Pakistan parliamentary committee has released its recommendations for “resetting” the parameters of U.S.-Pakistan relations. U.S.-Pakistan ties have been severely strained since the November 26, 2011, NATO attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers along the border with Afghanistan.

Since then, there have been no high-level U.S. visits to Pakistan, and NATO supply routes running through Pakistani territory have been shut down. The Pakistani parliament’s efforts to reframe the relationship could be helpful in restoring ties, as long as the U.S. brings its own terms to the table.

Starting point for U.S.-Pakistan negotiations
The recommendations from the parliamentary commission include calling for the U.S. to end drone strikes on Pakistani territory; to apologise for the November 26, 2011, NATO strike; to start paying fees for the transit of NATO shipments for the war in Afghanistan; to refrain from “hot pursuit” operations by U.S. forces from Afghanistan into Pakistani territory; and to increase transparency of the activities of foreign security contractors. The parliament will now debate the commission’s recommendations and eventually vote on a resolution on U.S.-Pakistan ties, possibly within the next week.

The most contentious demand from the U.S. perspective is the call to end drone strikes. The drone missile campaign in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) has proven to be one of Washington’s most effective tools in fighting global terrorism. An increase in the tempo of drone strikes in this region from mid-2009 to 2011 led to the crippling of al Qaeda. The U.S. media have reported that documents found at Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad showed bin Laden was worried about the devastating impact of the drone campaign on his organisation.

The three-month cooling-off period between the U.S. and Pakistan has had some benefits for both sides. It has provided space for de-escalation of the negative rhetoric surrounding relations in both the Pakistani and U.S. media. The lack of high-level U.S. visits to Pakistan, in particular, has meant that U.S. visitors did not become lightning rods for the Pakistani media to generate anti-American stories. U.S. civilian aid also has continued to flow to Pakistan during this period, demonstrating U.S. commitment to Pakistani economic development even in the face of deteriorating security relations. There seems to be growing recognition within Pakistan that U.S. aid is helpful to the country and not merely a way for the U.S. to buy influence.

Moreover, a parliamentary debate on ties could strengthen Pakistan’s democratic institutions, although the military will continue to have the final say on most security-related issues. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar has said the parliamentary debate would allow the Pakistani people to “take ownership” of the relationship, which could go a long way toward reducing anti-American sentiment in the country.

The suspension of ties has also allowed each side to examine some of the key assumptions about the relationship. For instance, while shutting down NATO supply routes through Pakistan has proven difficult for the U.S. and NATO forces, it has not been the unmitigated disaster many in the U.S. and NATO feared it would be. Media reports indicate it has been about six times more expensive for the U.S. and NATO to rely solely on the so-called Northern Distribution Network through the Baltic states, Russia, and Central Asia. But the cutoff of Pakistani routes did not force the U.S. to alter the tempo of its military operations inside Afghanistan.

Many of the countries involved in the Northern Distribution Network are eager to continue to serve as supply routes both into and out of Afghanistan in order to receive transit fees. In fact, Russia is reportedly considering allowing NATO to use one of its airfields to move troops and non-lethal cargo to and from Afghanistan.

While Pakistan still represents the cheapest and most efficient transit route for supplies, the U.S. and NATO have other options should Pakistan continue to hold up cooperation.

U.S. should also set terms for relationship

In resetting U.S.-Pakistan relations, the U.S. also needs to put forward some of its own terms for the relationship. Trust is a two-way street, and U.S. leaders have lost faith in Pakistan’s credibility as a reliable counterterrorism partner following the discovery of bin Laden in the heart of a Pakistani military cantonment town and its refusal to crack down on the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network bases within its territory.

Moving forward, the U.S. should:

Continue drone strikes as necessary. As long as terrorist sanctuaries continue to exist in Pakistan, the U.S. will have to take steps to deal with them in the absence of effective Pakistani action. The drones have proven their effectiveness in reducing threats and degrading al Qaeda. If Pakistan demonstrates that it can be trusted to act on information about terrorist targets, U.S. officials can then consider cooperating more closely with their Pakistani counterparts and allowing them to take the lead in conducting drone missions.

Demand Pakistani cooperation in a joint investigation into how bin Laden was able to shelter in Pakistan for so long. Members of the U.S. Congress continue to be puzzled by the fact that the world’s most wanted terrorist could have hidden under the nose of the Pakistani military for so long. Even if Pakistani officials were not complicit in hiding bin Laden, they need to track down and prosecute those individuals who were involved in protecting him. Media reports have indicated there were contacts between members of the Pakistani terrorist group Harakat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM) and Osama bin Laden’s courier. If true, these revelations show that Pakistan’s segmented approach to terrorism contributed to bin Laden’s ability to live undetected deep inside Pakistan. Pakistan has long sought to distinguish between Kashmir-focused terrorist groups — which it allows to operate freely in Pakistan as a buffer against India — and al Qaeda. U.S. officials should reject this distinction and make clear that they view any individuals who facilitate al Qaeda as threats to America.

Encourage Islamabad to continue opening trade ties to India, and build on the vision of enhanced regional trade to widen constituencies for peace in India and Pakistan. Pakistan-India relations took a major step forward with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s recent announcement that Pakistan will grant India Most Favoured Nation (MFN) trade status by the end of the year. Pakistan’s focus on improving economic ties with its neighbours will help contribute to overall stability in the region by enhancing regional integration and boosting overall trade and economic growth. The key to stabilising Afghanistan is to reduce Indo-Pakistani rivalry. The U.S. needs to continue its diplomatic efforts to help the two countries resolve tensions in an effort to create a new security paradigm in the region that discourages zero-sum thinking and encourages regional economic integration and cooperation.

Persevere in coaxing greater Pakistani cooperation with the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Pakistani military leaders have failed to crack down on Taliban and Haqqani network sanctuaries because they assess these groups will serve as assets for Pakistan in the future. However, there are signs that Pakistani leaders increasingly recognise that a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan would have a destabilising impact on Pakistan. U.S. officials must build on this sentiment by convincing Pakistani leaders that unless they use their resources to force the Taliban to compromise in Afghanistan, Pakistan will suffer in the future from an emboldened Taliban leadership.

Overcoming frustration on both sides
The Pakistani parliament’s efforts to reframe the relationship could be helpful in restoring U.S.-Pakistan ties. However, Pakistani leaders must appreciate that the U.S. has certain red lines when it comes to fighting terrorism and will insist on action to further degrade the terrorist sanctuary in Pakistan’s tribal border areas. While there is an opportunity to improve relations, Pakistani officials should not overplay their hand but should recognise that U.S. officials are equally frustrated with the relationship.

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://af.reuters.com/article/energy...8EQ00A20120326

Obama, in Seoul speech, to discuss further nuclear arms cuts
Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:37am GMT

SEOUL, March 26 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will voice confidence on Monday that the United States can further reduce its nuclear weapons stockpile while maintaining its strategic deterrent and international commitments, a White House official said.

Obama, who will deliver a speech at a university in Seoul ahead of nuclear security summit, plans to raise the issue of arms control with Russian President-elect Vladimir Putin when they meet in May, the official said. Moscow and Washington reached a new START treaty earlier in Obama's term.

"He will reaffirm his commitment to reduce America's nuclear weapons and the role they play in our national security strategy," the official said of Obama's address.

Obama will also commit to a "new framework for civil nuclear cooperation that allows nations to tap the energy we seek without pursuing a fuel cycle that endlessly produces more nuclear materials", the official said. (Reporting By Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Nick Macfie)

© Thomson Reuters 2012 All rights reserved

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/20...t_14909270.htm

Seoul put on high alert for summit
Updated: 2012-03-26 08:07
By Zhang Yunbi in Seoul (China Daily)

Seoul built a ring of steel around the venue for the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit virtually overnight.

Guests at the COEX Intercontinental Hotel woke up on Sunday morning to find its ground floor packed with police officers and security personnel.

The hotel, which is next door to the summit's venue COEX Korea Exhibition Center and will host global leaders and delegations attending the summit, has installed X-ray machines and metal detectors in its lobby, while its two revolving doors are now the only points of exit and entry.

"The security checks will last for two days from Monday, and during that period the hotel will ensure that all the guests that have checked in are here for the summit," said a staff member at the hotel on condition of anonymity.

On Saturday night, yellow and black barriers were placed along sidewalks around the exhibition center and hotel.

Protesters against the summit could be seen along the barriers in the city, including some who were holding signs reading "No Nuke".

However, only the media was able to rival the number of security personnel on the streets on Sunday morning.

Around 3,700 reporters from around the globe have registered to attend the summit, while KBS, one of South Korea's leading television stations, has set up a glass-walled broadcast studio across from the venue's east gate.

Li Yi, a 25-year-old Chinese student at Dongguk University in Seoul, said he had noticed a growing number of police officers patrolling the city's subway stations during the last week.

"The station nearest to the hotel and the venue has been blocked to passengers, so if we want to get there we need to get off a stop earlier," he said.

Security has also been at the highest level at Gimpo and Incheon airports, both major transit hubs for delegates, since Friday.

Airport facilities have been temporarily drafted in from provincial areas in preparation for the increased traffic, and to prevent delays in arrivals and departures.

According to a report by The Korean Herald, roughly 40,000 police officers have also been deployed to increase safety nationwide.

The two-day Nuclear Security Summit will bring together 45 State leaders, including those of South Korea, the United States, China, Japan, Russia, India, Indonesia and France.

zhangyunbi@chinadaily.com.cn

(China Daily 03/26/2012 page3)

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17507976

25 March 2012 Last updated at 22:08 ET

Obama to discuss more nuclear arms cuts with Russia

US President Barack Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak at a joint press conference in Seoul ahead of the summit

US President Barack Obama has been holding meetings ahead of the Seoul summit

Continue reading the main story
Kim Jong-il dead

* Memorial in pictures
* Uniting N Korea in grief
* Mystical cult of personality
* Genuine tears?

US President Barack Obama says he will discuss further nuclear arms cuts with newly-elected Russian President Vladimir Putin in May.

President Obama made the comments during an address at a summit aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism.

The meeting in Seoul involves representatives from some 50 countries.

Speaking at Hankuk University, Mr Obama reiterated his commitment towards ''a world without nuclear weapons'' and also addressed China and North Korea.

He is looking forward to meeting Mr Putin, he said.

Mr Obama would seek to follow on from the New Start treaty he struck in 2010 with outgoing Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev in 2010.

The New Start (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) deal agreed between Washington and Moscow aims to replace its lapsed predecessor, Start.

It trims US and Russian nuclear arsenals to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads - a cut of about 30% from a limit set previously.

The treaty would also allow each side visually to inspect the other's nuclear capability, with the aim of verifying how many warheads each missile carries.

In addition, there will be legally binding limits on the number of warheads and missiles that can be deployed on land, on submarines, and on bombers, at any one time.

Warning to Pyongyang

In Asia, President Obama said, the US has invited China to work together and ''that offer remains open''.

He also addressed North Korea's nuclear ambitions directly in his speech, saying that the US has ''no hostile intent'' towards the country, but ''there will be no rewards for provocation''.

He warned Pyongyang that its planned long-range missile launch would only increase its isolation.

Pyongyang says it is preparing to launch a long-range missile which it says will put a satellite in orbit.

''You can continue with the road you are on but we know where that leads,'' he said, addressing the North Korean leaders directly.

''Today, we say, Pyongyang, have the courage to pursue peace.''

Earlier, he and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said North Korea risked further sanctions and isolation if it did not cancel its launch plans.

The launch will contravene an agreement Pyongyang reached last month which would have seen it receive food aid in exchange for a partial freeze on nuclear activities and an end to ballistics tests.

The North also agreed to allow UN inspectors in, the US said.

The invitation comes three months after Kim Jong-un came to power following the death of his father, Kim Jong-il.

The North said the launch - between 12 and 16 April - would mark the 100th birthday of its late Great Leader Kim Il-sung.
Intrusive process

Despite lofty announcements it may prove difficult to achieve significant progress at the summit, says the BBC's Jonathan Marcus.

The summit agenda is to be expanded to include a wide variety of radiological materials which terrorists could use to make a dirty bomb - one that spreads radiological contamination rather than initiating a nuclear explosion

But experts say there is unlikely to be agreement on converting all nuclear power stations to use low-enriched fuel.

Nor will there be agreement on common standards for nuclear security.

Some countries see this whole process as highly intrusive.

And there is still no common appreciation of the level of threat posed by nuclear terrorism, our correspondent says.


__

Analysis
image of Jonathan Marcus Jonathan Marcus BBC diplomatic correspondent

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, there have been fears about nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists and extremists.

In the United States, such concerns took on added significance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. Washington and its key allies - like the UK - are convinced that al-Qaeda is seeking to obtain material for a nuclear or radiological bomb.

In April 2010, President Barack Obama convened a summit in Washington that set the ambitious goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide within four years. Some progress has been made - for example Chile returned highly enriched uranium to the US; Kazakhstan has moved spent fuel to a secure depot; and Ukraine has transferred fissile material to a Russian storage site.

But progress has been patchy, in part because the initial goal set in 2010 was vague without a detailed timeline or work plan. Now two years on, this Seoul summit will try to create new momentum.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...paS_story.html

Obama: US has more nuclear weapons than needed; security possible even with further reductions

By Associated Press, Updated: Sunday, March 25, 6:55 PM AP

SEOUL, South Korea — Obama: US has more nuclear weapons than needed; security possible even with further reductions

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Housecarl]

ETA: FWIW, the reason why I've put these titles in red is because of the lack of public discussion and debate on this subject in the MSM....For those who recall the Cold War nuclear weapons policies debates in comparison to these goings on with the Obama Admin., the lack of them is like trying to hear a pin drop at a major sporting event. For those who don't personally remember just look up the anti-nuclear political campaigns of the Cold War (funded we found out shockingly by the Soviets to a degree) and the debates regarding specific systems...Housecarl


For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...topNews&rpc=71

Obama to reaffirm pledge on nuclear arms cuts

By Matt Spetalnick

SEOUL | Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:08pm EDT

SEOUL (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will voice confidence on Monday that the United States can further reduce its nuclear weapons stockpile while maintaining its strategic deterrent and international commitments, a White House official said.

Obama, spoke at a university in Seoul ahead of global nuclear security summit, plans to raise the issue of arms control with Russian President-elect Vladimir Putin when they meet in May, the official said. Moscow and Washington reached a new START treaty earlier in Obama's term.

"He will reaffirm his commitment to reduce America's nuclear weapons and the role they play in our national security strategy," the official said of Obama's address.

Obama set expectations high in a 2009 speech in Prague when he declared it was time to seek "a world without nuclear weapons". He acknowledged it was a long-term goal, but his high-flown oratory helped him win the Nobel Peace Prize.

With Republican opposition as strong as ever to the United States joining the global nuclear test-ban treaty, Obama for now has had to shelve his earlier promise to push for ratification.

Another arms accord with Moscow will be an even tougher sell to conservatives who say Obama has not moved fast enough to modernize the U.S. strategic arsenal, a pledge he made in return for Republican votes that helped ratify the START treaty.

He unveiled a revamped policy in 2010 renouncing development of new nuclear weapons and restricting use of those already in Washington's arsenal. He followed that up by signing a landmark arms reduction treaty with Russia last year.

Obama secured commitments from world leaders at the inaugural 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington to help keep bomb-grade material out of terrorists' hands, and independent experts say most of the pledges are being met -- though many were modest in scope.

But momentum seems to have slowed on Obama's nuclear agenda and, with the November 6 presidential election looming, chances for major new advances look doubtful.

Underscoring a sense of caution, defense and national security officials have spent months debating a secret set of new options being prepared for Obama to help guide future arms-control talks. Ideas range from maintaining the status quo to reducing warheads by up to 80 percent, an official has said.

But the administration appears reluctant to push publicly on such a divisive issue as his re-election campaign gathers pace.

CAUTION AGAINST COMPLACENCY

While arms-control groups sees some progress on nuclear security due to Obama's efforts, they caution against complacency when more than 50 leaders meet on Monday.

Outside experts are mostly skeptical of the chances for meeting the Washington summit's headline pledge to safeguard all of the world's nuclear materials within four years and are now pushing for voluntary arrangements to be made enforceable.

The main topic of conversation between world leaders in Seoul will be the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, even though neither is on the official agenda and neither has been invited.

On Sunday, Obama ratcheted up pressure on China to rein in the North over its nuclear aspirations and missile programs, saying it shouldn't "turn a blind eye" to its ally's bad behavior.

Obama will meet his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, and will urge him to use his influence over Pyongyang to try to convince the North not to proceed with a controversial long-missile test next month.

Seoul and Washington say the launch will be a disguised test of a ballistic missile that violates Pyongyang's latest international commitments. North Korea says it merely wants to put a satellite into orbit.

Obama said such a launch would only lead to further isolation of the impoverished North, which much show its sincerity if on-again-off-again six-party aid-for-disarmament talks are to restart.

China is host to the six-party talks, which involve Japan and Russia as well as the two Koreas and the United States. The talks broke down three years ago.

(Writing by Jeremy Laurence; Editing by Nick Macfie)


Related News

* Obama tells Iran time running out to end standoff
10:06pm EDT
* Obama tells North Korea it will not reward provocations
10:08pm EDT

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...144168275.html

Asia
March 25, 2012
North Korea Warns Against Criticism at Nuclear Security Summit
William Ide

Only days before the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea began, North Korea issued a stern warning not to criticize its nuclear program, saying through its state media that any inclusion of it in a statement would be a "declaration of war."

Such threats from Pyongyang are not uncommon. North Korea often warns of war when it is facing international criticism. Now, there is growing concern about Pyongyang's plan to carry out a missile launch next month, only weeks after it appeared to have agreed to end such tests.

Analysts say that although North Korea likely will be on the agenda at the Nuclear Summit, it is unclear what role it will play in the main discussions.

Richard Bush, director of the Center for North East Asia Policy Studies at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, says that although North Korea’s warning will be regarded as a firing of "empty cannons," it is likely that Pyongyang will find its way into the summit's concluding statement because it "fits the interest of the host government [i.e., Seoul]."

Abraham Denmark, Asia-Pacific security advisor at the Center for Naval Analyses outside Washington, says Pyongyang will not be overlooked. "North Korea represents the greatest challenge to the stability of Northeast Asia, and will rightfully be a top issue for leaders to discuss at the summit," he says. "In fact, North Korea's bellicosity and its recent behavior makes it all the more an appropriate subject for discussion."

In addition to its threat of war, Pyongyang recently said it plans to launch a satellite next month. The announcement came shortly after North Korea agreed in February to suspend nuclear tests, long-range ballistic missile launches and other nuclear-related activities.

Despite its insistence that the satellite launch is "scientific" in nature, the United States and other nations say it is being used to test North Korea's ballistic missile capabilities.

Georgetown University political scientist Balbina Hwang says the leaders' statement at the summit should reflect the content of the talks. "Including truthful statements about North Korea, whether or not it displeases North Korea," she says.

At the last Nuclear Security Summit two years ago, North Korea was not mentioned in the final communiqué. And the reclusive communist state received only minor attention on the sidelines of the meeting. During that summit, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak invited then-North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to attend this year's summit in Seoul, if Pyongyang agreed to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

That did not happen, and the North Korean leader died last December. This year's summit comes at a time when there is much uncertainty about North Korea, which is in the midst of a leadership transition.

For many analysts, North Korea's rhetoric fits an old pattern. The threat of war and plans for a missile launch are a reflection of domestic politics in North Korea, says Abe Denmark. "Pyongyang is still establishing modes of behavior and decision making after the death of Kim Jong Il. And it appears that leadership transition dynamics are being expressed in its foreign policy," he says.

Balbina Hwang says the satellite launch and agreement in February, while contradictory, are part of Pyongyang's tactics to draw fine lines of separation between its provocative activities.

"Although the U.S. government position is that a satellite launch was covered under the February 29 moratorium, the North Koreans are clearly trying to test that proposition in the arena of international opinion," she says. "It is also a clever way for North Korea to throw the ball back into the U.S. court, as now, if the deal falls apart, the North Koreans can blame U.S. action or inaction, as the case may be."

Analyst Richard Bush agrees that Pyongyang's actions might be part of a pattern, but that they also might have been a miscalculation that the United States would accept its claim that a missile test and satellite launch are different.

"Pyongyang may also have been trying to influence the April South Korea National Assembly elections," Bush says. "And I am sure that Pyongyang is annoyed enough that it is South Korea that is hosting this high-profile conference."

Related Articles

* U.S. President Barack Obama looks along the border between North and South Korea at Observation Post Ouellette along the DMZ outside Seoul, March 25, 2012.
US President Peers Into North Korea

Obama looks through binoculars into N. Korea while Kim Jong Un, attends a ceremony marking the end of official mourning for his father

* UN Chief Urges North Korea to Reconsider Rocket Launch Plan
* Obama, Lee Present United Front Against Possible N. Korean Threat