04/23 to 04/30 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scotsman.com/news/interna...-day-1-2253339

North Korea ‘plans nuclear missile test for Army Day’
Published on Wednesday 25 April 2012 00:00

North Korea has almost completed preparations for a third nuclear test following its recent failed rocket launch.

A senior source, with links to the regime and neighbouring China, confirmed such a test was imminent.

South Korean defence sources have been quoted in local media as saying a launch could come within two weeks and one North Korea analyst has suggested that it could come as early as the North’s “Army Day” today.

The pariah state sacrificed the chance of closer ties with the United States when it launched the long-range rocket on 13 April and was censured by the United Nations’ Security Council, including the North’s only major ally, China.

Critics say the rocket launch was aimed at honing the North’s ability to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the US, in a bid to increase its influence.

Now the North appears to be about to carry out a third nuclear test after two in 2006 and 2009.

“Soon. Preparations are almost complete,” the source said when asked whether North Korea was planning a nuclear test.

This is the first time a senior official has confirmed a planned test and the source has correctly predicted events in the past, talking about the 2006 test days before they happened.

The rocket launch and nuclear test come as Kim Jong-un, the third of his line to rule North Korea, seeks to cement his hold on power.

Mr Kim succeeded in December and has reaffirmed his father’s “military first” policies that have impoverished the economy, appearing to dash hopes of an opening to the outside world. America, South Korea and Japan, which have most to fear from any North Korean nuclear threat, are watching events anxiously and many observers say the North may have the capacity to conduct a test using highly enriched uranium for the first time.

Defence experts say that by successfully enriching uranium, to make bombs of the type dropped on Hiroshima nearly 70 years ago, the North would be able to build up stocks of weapons-grade nuclear material.

It would also allow it more easily to manufacture a nuclear warhead to mount on an ICBM.

The source did not specify whether the test would be a third using plutonium, of which it has limited stocks, or whether uranium would be used.

The rocket launch and the planned nuclear test have exposed the limits of China’s hold over Mr Kim.

“China is like a chameleon toward North Korea,” said Kim Young-soo, professor of political science at Sogang University in Seoul. “It says it objects to North Korea’s provocative acts, but it does not participate in punishing the North.”

Reports have suggested a Chinese company may have supplied a 16-wheeled rocket launcher shown off at a military parade to mark this month’s centenary of the birth of Kim Il-sung, the state’s founder, in possible breach of UN sanctions. China denies this.

The source said there was debate in North Korea’s leadership over whether to go ahead with the launch in the face of US warnings and the possibility of further UN sanctions, but that hawks in the Korean People’s Army had won the debate.

The source dismissed speculation that the failed launch had dealt a blow to Kim Jong-un, believed to be in his late 20s, who came to power after his father Kim Jong-il died after a 17-year rule that saw North Korea experience a famine in the 1990s.

“Kim Jong-un was named first secretary of the Workers’ Party and head of the National Defence Commission,” the source said, adding that the titles consolidated his grip on power.

[Housecarl]

Hummmm....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...apons-1.426389

* Published 01:08 25.04.12
* Latest update 01:08 25.04.12

IDF chief to Haaretz: I do not believe Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons
Gantz says the international pressure on Iran, in the form of diplomatic and economic sanctions, is beginning to bear fruit.
By Amos Harel

"If Iran goes nuclear it will have negative dimensions for the world, for the region, for the freedom of action Iran will permit itself," Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told Haaretz in an Independence Day interview.

That freedom of action might be expressed "against us, via the force Iran will project toward its clients: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza. And there's also the potential for an existential threat. If they have a bomb, we are the only country in the world that someone calls for its destruction and also builds devices with which to bomb us. But despair not. We are a temperate state. The State of Israel is the strongest in the region and will remain so. Decisions can and must be made carefully, out of historic responsibility but without hysteria," Gantz said.

Both 2012 and 2013 are seen as critical with regard to Iran's nuclear program. At his rare public appearances Gantz has taken a cautious approach to the issue - mentioning the military option, whose development and preparation he oversees, while leaving the door open to international negotiations with Iran. His language is far from the dramatic rhetoric of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and is usually free of the Holocaust comparisons of which Israeli politicians are so fond.

Asked whether 2012 is also decisive for Iran, Gantz shies from the term. "Clearly, the more the Iranians progress the worse the situation is. This is a critical year, but not necessarily 'go, no-go.' The problem doesn't necessarily stop on December 31, 2012. We're in a period when something must happen: Either Iran takes its nuclear program to a civilian footing only or the world, perhaps we too, will have to do something. We're closer to the end of the discussions than the middle."

Gantz says the international pressure on Iran, in the form of diplomatic and economic sanctions, is beginning to bear fruit. "I also expect that someone is building operational tools of some sort, just in case. The military option is the last chronologically but the first in terms of its credibility. If it's not credible it has no meaning. We are preparing for it in a credible manner. That's my job, as a military man."

Iran, Gantz says, "is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn't yet decided whether to go the extra mile."

As long as its facilities are not bomb-proof, "the program is too vulnerable, in Iran's view. If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous."

About three months ago Gantz's U.S. counterpart, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, visited Israel as his guest. "We speak a great deal with the Americans. It's not on the level of a discussion, where I want something concrete and he forbids it. We are partners. We and the United States have a large common alignment of interests and relations, but America looks at America and Israel [looks at] Israel. We aren't two oceans away from the problem - we live here with our civilians, our women and our children, so we interpret the extent of the urgency differently. America says its piece openly, and what it says in the media is also said behind closed doors. It cannot be translated into lights, red or green, because no one is asking them anything in that regard."

Critical decisions

Gantz knows that in the event of another war he will face time pressures as a result of enemy operations against the home front. The IDF will have to bring massive force to bear from the outset, employing most of the means at its disposal quickly and without hesitation or delay.

Ground operations, long-distance fire and in-depth operations as well?

"I don't pretend to determine that now. I am preparing for full deployment of our capabilities. The political leadership will have to take courageous, painful decisions. There are a certain number of critical decisions in a war. The chief of staff makes about 10 of these in his sphere of responsibility in wartime, and the political leadership makes about half this number."

These decisions, Gantz knows, will be made under a barrage of rockets and missiles against civilian areas.

In light of the Arab Spring, Israel's military preparedness must now include a much greater and more varied range of arenas and possibilities.

"I don't know what will happen in Syria, but presumably the Golan Heights won't be as quiet as before. I cannot remove Syria from the military equation, nor Lebanon. I assume that if there are terror threats from the Golan or Lebanon I'll have to take action. I cannot do everything by 'stand-off' [remote]. The enemy's fire capabilities have developed at every distance, four or five times what they were in the Second Lebanon War and four or five times compared to the Gaza Strip before Operation Cast Lead, not to mention the new ground-to-air missile in Syria. I go to sleep with the understanding that what we did in the recent long and comprehensive exercises could happen in reality."

The IDF is also being used as a battlefield for the cultural and political wars of outside forces. The latest skirmish followed Gantz's dismissal of Lt. Col. Shaul Eisner, deputy commander of the IDF's Jordan Valley brigade, for hitting a left-wing activist from Denmark in the face with a rifle. Gantz terms the political interference in the affair a disaster.

"I don't see anyone benefiting from this story. I made my decision, and it's behind me. I don't understand what the right is defending, what the left is attacking. Who turned it into a political matter? Do you have to be a religious right-winger with a kippah in order to be resolute? Do you have to be a leftist in order to be principled? Where did that idiocy come from? Eisner made a professional error and a specific ethical mistake."

The interview with Gantz took place right after additional videos of the incident were made public, showing Eisner hitting additional left-wing activists.

"I didn't like even the first blow I saw. I will not cover for people so that others will say I backed them up. The lieutenant colonel erred and failed, and it's done and dusted. We are an army that uses force, not violence."

Measured, thoughtful and practical

With regard to another delicate issue, Gantz says he believes the IDF could draft more ultra-Orthodox men if an alternative to the Tal Law, recently overturned by the High Court of Justice, can be found.

"It's for the politicians to decide. What I'm looking for is equality in service," he says.

The end of his predecessor's assignment was tarnished by the so-called Harpaz affair, in which Lt. Col. Boaz Harpaz allegedly forged a document in a bid to keep Yoav Galant from being appointed chief of staff. Gantz received the draft report of the State Comptroller's Office on the affair last month. When the final version is issued Gantz will face career decisions about several figures connected to the affair, including Col. Erez Weiner, aide to former Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.

Gantz believes it is important that the final version be issued before State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss ends his term, at the beginning of July.

"At every opportunity I say to the comptroller, please, go to it."

As in our previous conversations, now too Gantz comes across as a measured, thoughtful and practical person. Only a few dozen steps separate him from his previous office, that of the deputy chief of staff, but the distance between them is unfathomable.

"I enjoy being here but also feel the gravity of the responsibility. I always said my favorite position was company commander in the Paratroop Brigade. As a company commander you have absolute definitions: the mission, the people. The rest we can manage. Here, I can't pass on the responsibility to anyone else. The buck really does stop here. That's why I say that occasionally I doze off but I never really sleep."

[almost ready]

Pyongyang is 'ready' for latest nuclear test

North Korea is ready to conduct its third underground nuclear test, with the timing a matter of politics and diplomacy, analysts said yesterday.

"They've put the dirt back over the entrance to the test site," said Choi Jin-wook, senior specialist on North Korea at the Korea Institute for National Unification in Seoul. "That means they are ready."

Adding to the sense of an impending test, Reuters reported from China quoting a "source with close ties to Pyongyang and Beijing" as saying "preparations are almost complete" for a test in the near future.

North Korea was reportedly moving toward testing another nuclear device after unleashing a torrent of invective against South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak and threatening to turn the South into "ashes".

Mr Choi said North Korea's new leader, Kim Jong-un, evidently wants to conduct the test quite soon in order to compensate for having "lost face" as a result of the failure of a long-range missile that broke up 90 seconds after its launch on 13 April.

North Korea last conducted a nuclear test in May 2009, six weeks after firing an earlier version of its long-range missile. The North conducted its first nuclear test in 2006.

The difference between the third test and the two previous ones is that it may be the first in which the device is produced with highly enriched uranium rather than plutonium. North Korea has shut down its five-megawatt reactor at its nuclear complex at Yongbyon but is fabricating centrifuges with enriched uranium at a new facility on the same site.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said he doubted the Chinese "were co-operating" with the North Koreans on nuclear projects, but questioned if they were trying stop them. The Chinese are not believed to support the North's programme but do not seem inclined to cut off the fuel and food on which the North relies.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-7675975.html

Not sure what the implications of this test are, but probably nothing good.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,0,85216.story

Kofi Annan decries situation in Syria
Special envoy says U.N. monitors are providing only brief breaks in the fighting, and he calls for quick deployment of remaining monitors.

By Los Angeles Times Staff

April 25, 2012

BEIRUT — The presence of United Nations-backed monitors in Syria is providing only brief respites from violence and in some cases may be making the situation worse, a spokesman for U.N. and Arab League special envoy Kofi Annan said Tuesday.

Annan spokesman Ahmad Fawzi said the small advance team of monitors is facing great difficulty in stemming the fighting between forces loyal to President Bashar Assad and opposition groups.

"When they leave, the exchanges start again," Fawzi told U.N. Television in Geneva, referring to the monitors. "We have credible reports that … these people who approach the observers may be approached by security forces or Syrian army and harassed or arrested or even worse, perhaps killed."

Annan, meanwhile, reportedly told the U.N. Security Council that the situation in Syria was bleak and called for the deployment of the full 300-member monitor force authorized by the council to verify what is happening there. The monitors are part of a peace plan set up to end the fighting in Syria.

But activists say Assad's forces have continued to shell cities and shoot protesters regardless of the peace plan and cease-fire.

In the Damascus suburb of Duma, a day after U.N. monitors were greeted with a large antigovernment demonstration, shells rained down on the town, killing 10 people, including the chief physician with the Red Crescent, activists said.

Video showed heavy black smoke rising from a building Tuesday just as another shell hit. "Duma is being shelled," a man says breathlessly in the video.

More than 30 people were reported killed nationwide, and in a central neighborhood of Damascus a car bomb exploded, injuring at least one person. Shooting and explosions were reported elsewhere, including Homs, Hama and Dara.

In a statement, activists in the Damascus suburb of Zabadani said they risked their lives to meet with the monitors and that "intelligence agents listed the names of the activists who met with the U.N. delegation, and listed those activists as armed and dangerous criminals who must be prosecuted and executed."

In a closed briefing Tuesday, Annan told the Security Council that the situation in Syria was "entirely contrary to the will of the international community," and he expressed alarm at reports that government troops had entered the central city of Hama firing automatic weapons, diplomats told the Associated Press.

Annan reportedly said it was necessary to get the additional U.N. monitors positioned quickly: "We need eyes and ears on the ground, able to move quickly and freely."

But activists have already become impatient with what they see as the inability of the monitors to quell the violence and brief tours that don't provide the chance to observe all the destruction and heavy weapons still stationed inside towns.

The Zabadani activists said the U.N. monitors met with them for only 10 minutes when they visited the town that months ago was the scene of fierce fighting between rebels and government forces. Activists said they attempted to give three monitors — the rest remained in the vehicle — a list of detainees and those killed but were told that was not part of the mission.

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8FP00320120425

UN Council to consider next steps on Sudan, S.Sudan

Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:23pm EDT

* UN says 16 killed in Sudan airstrikes on S.Sudan

* UN Council to base further action on AU communique

* AU wants Chapter 7 council endorsement of plan-envoy

By Michelle Nichols

UNITED NATIONS, April 24 (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council demanded on Tuesday that Sudan immediately stop airstrikes on South Sudan and will consider in the coming days what further steps to take to stop clashes between the east African neighbors spiraling into war.

Senior U.N. officials told the 15-nation body that aerial bombing of South Sudan's Unity State on Monday night had killed 16 civilians, injured several dozen and caused significant damage to infrastructure.

The Sudanese army has denied carrying out air strikes.

South Sudanese President Salva Kiir said the latest hostilities amounted to a declaration of a war by his northern neighbor.

Clashes along the ill-defined border between the former civil-war foes has led to a standoff over the Heglig oil field after it was seized earlier this month by troops from South Sudan, which declared independence last year.

"Council members welcomed the withdrawal from Heglig by the SPLA (South Sudan's army), demanded an immediate halt to aerial bombardments by the Sudanese forces and urged an immediate ceasefire and return to the negotiating table," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said, characterizing the Security Council consultations on Tuesday.

U.N. under-secretary-general for peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, U.N. envoy to Sudan Haile Menkerios and Hilde Johnson, head of the U.N. mission in South Sudan, known as UNMISS, all briefed the Security Council.

Rice, who is the Security Council president for April, said the council also "acknowledged the constructive contribution of the African Union Peace and Security Council and its communiqué adopted earlier today which will ... inform our consultations on further action."

The Security Council discussed last week possibly imposing sanctions on Sudan and South Sudan if the violence did not stop.

British U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told reporters that the African Union Peace and Security Council "set out a very detailed and clear roadmap and asked for Security Council Chapter 7 endorsement of that plan."

A Chapter 7 resolution by the council would be legally binding on both Sudan and South Sudan.

Distrust runs deep between the neighbors, who are at loggerheads over the position of their border, how much the landlocked south should pay to transport its oil through Sudan, and the division of national debt, among other issues.

Both are poor countries - South Sudan is one of the poorest in the world - and the dispute between them has already halted nearly all the oil production that underpins both economies. (Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Related News

* Analysis: Old wounds, ethnic rivalries stoke Sudan war fever
2:59pm EDT
* Sudan market bombing a "declaration of war": South
Mon, Apr 23 2012
* Sudan bombs South Sudan border area, kills three: witnesses
Mon, Apr 23 2012
* Sudan says repulses rebel attack in border state
Sun, Apr 22 2012
* UN council authorizes up to 300 Syria truce monitors
Sat, Apr 21 2012

Analysis & Opinion

* Washington Extra – Going nuclear?
* Expert urges unity in dialogue over water security

Related Topics

* United Nations »
* Industrials »

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/2018462.html

Iranian commander stresses IRGC's full control over US Navy in Persian gulf
24 April 2012, 22:52 (GMT+05:00)

Commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi stressed his forces domination and control over the US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, and said that the American naval forces need IRGC's permission for any move in the regional waters, Fars News reported.

"Today, Americans admit and acknowledge that the Persian Gulf is under the tight control of the IRGC Navy," Fadavi said on Tuesday.

"This doesn't mean inspection (of their ships), but controlling (them). That is to say, they should receive our permission and account to us for any move they want to make," he explained.

Last week, another commander of the IRGC said that all vessels, including the US warships, enter the Persian Gulf waters through the Strait of Hormuz only after they are checked by the IRGC naval forces.

"The alien vessels which enter the Persian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz always provide the needed answers and information to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) units," Lieutenant Commander of the IRGC Navy Alireza Tangsiri said on Wednesday.

He further noted the deployment of a US aircraft carrier in the region, and said, "This vessel, similar to the other warships, answered all the questions asked by the IRGC Navy without any problem or making any particular move and then continued the path to its specified destination."

The remarks by the Iranian commanders came as the US launched a propaganda campaign through a number of western media outlets about the deployment of the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise along with the Abraham Lincoln carrier in waters near the Persian Gulf, implying that their deployment means a fortification of the US military presence in the region against Iran.

The US says that the deployment is "routine" and the two carriers will support the American military operations in Afghanistan and anti-piracy efforts off Somalia's coast and in the Gulf of Aden.

[Housecarl]

Well this isn't going to go over well in Pyongyang....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_V...Ne2&category=2

Updated : April 25, 2012

South Korea Seeks Pyongyang's Asset Freeze

The South Korean government has submitted a list of North Korean entities whose assets it wants frozen by the United Nations' North Korea Sanctions Committee.
A source within U.N. headquarters said Tuesdaythat five or six countries have expanded their black listafter signing the presidential statement to "designate entities and items" to be subject to an asset freeze.
Among them, South Korea submitted a list of 19 such entitiesbased on the suggestions of a U.N.-affiliated panel of experts.
Last May, Seoul submitted a list of 19 North Korean entities and 17 individuals to be hit with an asset freeze.
But they were ruled out due to objections from China.

APR 25, 2012

Reporter : sojungko@arirang.co.kr

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...ench-election/

Contentions
Sarkozy’s Defeat Might be a Victory for Iran
Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 04.24.2012 - 6:40 PM

For Americans, picking favorites in French elections is a difficult task. The political combat between the inheritors of Charles De Gaulle’s centrist faction, the socialists and their more marginal foes on both the right and the left generally leaves Americans cold in a way that the equally remote battles of Conservatives and Laborites in Britain does not. Though Americans may have viewed Nicolas Sarkozy with more affection than his predecessor Jacques Chirac — whose opposition to American foreign policy inspired intense hostility on these shores — it isn’t likely that his departure from the Elysee Palace would generate much grief here. But the French election will have a not insignificant influence on a number of issues that are important to Americans. As Seth noted, Sarkozy’s defeat would be a blow to the joint effort he undertook with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to promote an austerity-first fiscal approach that would save the Eurozone. But the triumph of Francois Hollande and the Socialists might have an even bigger impact on the ability of the West to present a united front to Iran.

Sarkozy may share President Obama’s antipathy for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is also true that France’s stance on Middle East peace under his administration has been no more helpful than it might be under the Socialists. However, Sarkozy has been a stalwart opponent of Iran and its nuclear ambitions, often getting far ahead of the United States on the issue and helping to buttress the shaky determination of the European Union to take a firm stand. As Tony Karon points out in Time Magazine, it is almost a certainty that Hollande would not be interested in staking out such a tough position or using his influence to keep the EU in line on the matter.

Though the EU push for negotiations with Iran may be a doubtful strategy, it must be conceded that, although Tehran may intend to use the P5+1 talks to run out the clock, Sarkozy’s approach to the issue has been largely exemplary in his devotion to ensuring the nuclear threat is ended by any agreement. As Karon points out, without Sarkozy, the dynamic within the EU will change for the worse:

Sarkozy has been the leading voice of skepticism over negotiations among Western leaders, and he has taken the lead in pressing both the Obama administration and European governments to adopt the sanctions targeting Iran’s energy exports and banking sector that have had a painful impact on the Iranian economy. Britain supports France’s zero-enrichment demand, but hasn’t been quite as activist in promoting it. London is also more likely, analysts say, to go along with the consensus if Western powers can fashion an interim deal that offers concrete progress in reinforcing barriers to Iran using its nuclear program to create weapons, even if that leaves the issue of Iran’s ongoing enrichment to 3.5 percent unresolved for now. A nuclear compromise involving steps to diminish the danger of weaponization in the near term, but which leaves Iran with the capacity to enrich uranium and at the same time eases international pressure on Tehran, is precisely what the Israelis fear right now. And Sarkozy, while rejecting Israel’s threat to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, could be more willing to push back against a compromise on the enrichment issue than Hollande would be.

Sarkozy’s departure would come at a crucial time in the talks. EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton’s obvious interest in making the dispute disappear without an Iranian surrender needs to be balanced by strong opposition from France.

All this means the May 6 French runoff may be just as important for Israel, the United States and Iran as it is for France.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ar...litary-threat/

China's High-Tech Military Threat
Bill Gertz — April 2012

President Barack Obama said during the visit of Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping in February that “we welcome China’s peaceful rise [and] we believe that a strong and prosperous China is one that can help bring stability and prosperity to the region and the world.” Few presidents have made statements so stunningly disingenuous as this. For as he was speaking, Obama was presiding over a shift in military doctrine whose central tenet is that China is, and will be, the main military threat to the United States for at least the next generation.

Weeks earlier, in November 2011, the Pentagon conducted an unusual rollout of a new military unit called the Air Sea Battle Office. Three senior officers briefed reporters on what until then had been a secret program known as the Air Sea Battle Concept. The concept calls for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to integrate forces and other capabilities to defeat what the Pentagon has labeled “anti-access and area denial weapons”—high-technology arms that can prevent or deter the United States military from operating in certain areas.

What made the briefing unusual was the vague and confusing language the officials used to describe the unit’s intentions. When pressed on the question of whom the initiative was targeting, one official responded, “The concept isn’t about a specific actor; it’s about countering anti-access, area-denial capabilities.” While the Department of Defense relies on its ability to dodge sensitive matters in public, this was by its own standards an impressive display of ambiguity.

But it was also ambiguity with a purpose. In truth, the Air Sea Battle Concept is the culmination of a strategy fight that began nearly two decades ago inside the Pentagon and U.S. government at large over how to deal with a single actor: the People’s Republic of China. The unspoken truth about the November rollout was that the U.S. military had taken off the gloves as part of a major war-fighting initiative to counter new Chinese weapons that might succeed in enabling its weaker forces to defeat the United States in a regional war. The reluctance to publicly identify Chinese belligerence as the impetus for the concept is merely a ruse to mollify adherents of a “Benign China” school of foreign policy—the losing side of the long internal policy fight.

The ideological godfather of the benign-China school is Harvard professor and former Clinton administration defense policymaker Joseph S. Nye. In 1995, Nye put forth the notion that if the United States treated China as a threat, it would become a threat. Nye, who is also one of the progenitors of the soft-power school of policymaking now adopted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has called the notion of a threatening China a self-fulfilling prophecy only warmongers and defense contractors would or could celebrate. Approval of the new Air Sea Battle Concept represents a complete break with the tired dogma of the Nye view of China.

But as the adoption of Air Sea Battle now makes plain, there is nothing for any American to celebrate in the threat from Beijing. And if one side of this decades-long policy debate relied on prophecy, it was that of the benign school. Again and again, a clique of officials at the Defense Department and in intelligence circles refused to acknowledge the mounting evidence of China’s capabilities and intentions. Their efforts to stall the adoption of a reality-based China strategy allowed the Chinese to increase their destabilizing military forces, and ensured that Washington would one day have to play high-stakes catch-up.

The story of Air Sea Battle begins in the early 1990s, when U.S. intelligence agencies uncovered information indicating that the Chinese military regarded the United States as its main threat. The discovery was unwelcome news for many in the higher echelons of policymaking. They were enamored of China and wished to preserve and expand what they considered the great breakthrough in U.S.-China relations orchestrated by Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Wedded to the notion that China’s Communist regime was unlike its Soviet variant, they sought to cultivate China as a partner and ally of the United States.

Both cloak-and-dagger grunts and tenacious scholars have climbed the uphill road to the truth about China’s military buildup. The premier example of the former is Mark Stokes. In 1992, the Air Force major and assistant air attaché posted to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing risked his career by taking a private, self-styled surveillance trip to military bases in southern China. Stokes traveled by train from Beijing to Hunan, where he cleverly eluded Chinese surveillance through a series of taxi rides and wound his way to a major military base. At the time, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was in the early stages of a massive buildup whose most visible feature was the deployment of large numbers of missiles opposite Taiwan. Stokes discovered that the buildup, considered insignificant by his higher-ups, was taking place much more rapidly than had been known. Instead of just targeting Taiwan with a massive first strike, China’s missile forces were preparing for a possible strike on U.S. military forces in Japan and the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam.

Stokes’s discovery was relayed upward and set the stage for a shift in how Defense thought about China. His contribution to this shift is all the more impressive when considering that one of his bosses, Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, was the leading proponent of the benign-China school in the Pentagon and believed Beijing had an outdated military.

Of the scholars who opposed the benign-China camp, none is more important than Andrew Marshall, head of the Office of Net Assessment, a little-known intelligence-assessment unit reporting directly to the office of the secretary of defense. Marshall, now 90 and the Pentagon’s quiet legend, would not only help develop the new military strategy to counter a threatening China, but also trail-blaze the tactics for overcoming the bureaucratic sclerosis that kept bad China strategy in place.

In 1993, Marshall enlisted the unlikely figure of Peter Schwartz, a futurist and business-scenario planner who founded a company called Global Business Network. Schwartz produced a series of papers on future-warfare scenarios. Instead of looking at Chinese military developments as predictable and incremental, he introduced the idea that China would use surprise scenarios and could therefore develop what are today called anti-access weaponry and forces. Schwartz also suggested that China would seek to form alliances with U.S. allies as part of a strategy to deny United States forces access to East Asia—a notion the benign school considered dangerously false.

Incorporating Schwartz’s surprise “anti-access” scenarios and Stokes’s intelligence findings, Marshall partnered with the Navy to hold war games. Two teams of up to 50 officers each played Chinese “Red” forces and U.S. “Blue” forces. Based on the new criteria, China defeated the United States by launching a surprise missile barrage against bases in Asia, aircraft carrier strike groups in the western Pacific, and submarine forces. The enemy forces’ weapons involved both cruise and ballistic-missile attacks.

The Chinese victory was sound. It was also eye-opening; in all previous war games, U.S. forces had won. The outcome of the new games would be one of the key factors in Marshall’s developing the Air Sea Battle Concept.

Based on the intelligence breakthrough, the innovative surprise scenarios, and the losing war games, a decision was made in the Pentagon in 1995 to step up intelligence-targeting of the Chinese military. From then onward, the CIA, the electronic-intelligence gathering National Security Agency, and what was then called the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (later renamed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency) were tasked with using their resources to spy on Chinese forces with an emphasis on the technology and tactics being developed to target the U.S. military. China’s plans for attacking Taiwan were no longer Washington’s main concern.

New intelligence goals meant new methods. Marshall dispatched Michael Pillsbury, a Chinese-speaking consultant who was assistant undersecretary of defense for policy during the Reagan administration, to find out more about Chinese military thinking. In March 1995, Pillsbury obtained 100 Chinese books on future warfare from the PLA’s Academy of Military Sciences. He wrote about what his translations yielded in his influential book, China Debates the Future Security Environment, in 2000. Its alarming revelations contradicted the nonthreatening and self-defensive image of the Chinese military. The book revealed, in the words of former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, that Chinese “analysts examine a military future marked by ‘information deterrence,’ ‘crippling attacks on information systems,’ and similar notions.” China was looking for radical leaps in both weapons technology and asymmetric tactics to defeat the United States.

Still the bureaucratic culture of the Defense Department and the intelligence community had to be changed. In the late 1990s, Kurt Campbell, a deputy assistant secretary of defense in charge of China policy, emerged as a leading voice warning of the Chinese threat. Campbell clashed with Col. Karl Eikenberry, who as defense attaché was leading the charge for the benign-China policymakers and intelligence officials. Eikenberry’s camp opposed providing arms to Taiwan, regarding such transfers as the main impediment to improving relations with the PLA. In response, Campbell seized on provisions of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The TRA gives the United States authority to sell defensive arms to Taiwan and to prevent the forcible reunification of the island with the mainland. The law, passed by Congress to counter President Jimmy Carter’s turn away from Taiwan, was very nearly a mutual defense treaty that all but promised U.S. military support in a crisis. Campbell, who is now serving as assistant secretary of state for East Asia in the Obama administration, also launched landmark annual talks between the U.S. and Taiwanese militaries. These were major steps forward in taking policy momentum away from the pro-China camp.

But without more evidence of Chinese intentions, no genuine pivot could occur. Critical evidence came with the defection of PLA Senior Colonel Xu Junping in 2000. Xu was granted political asylum in America and proved to be a big catch for U.S. intelligence. He had been in charge of all North American affairs for the PLA, and by 2001 his shocking intelligence reports made their way through the national-security bureaucracy and to the desk of the new defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Xu confirmed many officials’ worst fears about China’s secret military buildup targeting the United States.

On April 1, 2001, history intervened to offer a real-world object lesson on China’s military posture. A Chinese F-8 jet crashed into a U.S. EP-3 surveillance aircraft over international waters near China. The American plane made an emergency landing at a military base on China’s Hainan Island, where the Chinese were detaining the 24 crew members. Suddenly, Chinese intentions were catapulted to the top of the national-security agenda for the new Bush administration.

Beijing demanded an apology from the United States, and this would contribute to what would become known as the Rumsfeld “hedge strategy.”

Prior to becoming defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld had spent years in the business community as a marginal member of the benign-China camp, but he hardened his views after the 2001 EP-3 incident.

In November 2001, Rusmfeld dispatched officials to India for talks on China. In June 2002, he sent officials to Singapore to discuss China with defense ministers there. Almost all agreed that something needed to be done to counter China’s growing assertiveness in the region. The trips resulted in Rumsfeld’s ordering the hedge strategy to be drafted and implemented before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

As long as China treated the United States as its enemy and refused to disclose the pace and purpose of its military buildup, the Pentagon had no choice but to begin taking the first steps to prepare for the worst. According to the hedge strategy, the United States would ostensibly support China’s modernization while readying itself for the emergence of China as a hostile power that threatened the United States and its interests.

Opposition to Rumsfeld’s hedge produced a policy split within the administration. Those opposed to the strategy included then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Adm. Dennis C. Blair, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command. The U.S. ambassador to Beijing at the time of the incident, retired Pacific Command head Adm. Joseph Prueher, led the effort with calls to reduce tensions and build trust with the Chinese military, despite the fact that no Chinese general would answer U.S. officials’ phone calls during the April 2001 crisis.

Rumsfeld opposed issuing the humiliating apology demanded by Beijing. There was, in fact, nothing to apologize for. The aircraft was monitoring China in international airspace and over international waters. But National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice overruled Rumsfeld and convinced President Bush to take the softer line. A letter of regret was issued and the United States was forced to cut up the grounded aircraft on Hainan Island, in the South China Sea, and ship it home in pieces aboard a Russian transport jet.

The fight over the China threat then became manifest in policy disputes about the annual report to Congress on the Chinese military. One clash erupted in 2005, when pro-China intelligence officials sought to limit estimates of Chinese war-fighting capabilities. Despite the breakthrough by Stokes and the defectors, the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency were among the leading proponents of the short-range China military-development theory, claiming the PLA had “short legs” and could therefore only walk, not run, to battles. It became an article of faith for intelligence analysts that China would be unable to reach Guam or conduct even short-term military operations beyond a 200-mile limit. To find out who was correct, much better intelligence was needed, but the intelligence and policy communities still restricted aggressive intelligence collection.

Europeans, for their part, were making a difficult situation more difficult. They continued to sell aircraft, submarines, radar, and other weapons and technology to Beijing despite an embargo imposed in 1989 after the bloody crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Rumsfeld, in response, launched a program to brief American allies on defector intelligence from China, with the goal of bolstering the embargo.

In the mid-2000s, the United States discovered that China was working on a program to develop anti-satellite weapons involving precision-guided missiles capable of hitting satellites in orbit and ground-based lasers that could blind or disrupt satellites in space. (Satellite warfare had been discussed in Chinese military writings as early as 1997, but evidence of actual programs did not surface until around 2006.) Still, many benign-China military analysts sought to play down China’s technical prowess. But they were embarrassed in January 2007, when China blasted a weather satellite into orbit with a ground-based anti-satellite missile.

The test represented a new level of threat to the U.S. military, which relies heavily on satellites for commanding forces over long distances, gathering intelligence, shriveling battle areas, and navigating its forces and precision-strike weaponry. With some two dozen anti-satellite missiles, defense officials realized, China could severely restrict the way the U.S. military operates around the world. The threat was compounded by the discovery of China’s secret programs to develop Yuan-class attack submarines and advanced cyber-warfare capabilities.

By this time, Rumsfeld had begun pushing a new policy dubbed “beyond Taiwan.” This recognized that the Chinese buildup could not be explained as being directed toward a single Taiwan conflict across the 100-mile Taiwan Strait. In a June 2005 speech in Singapore, Rumsfeld raised the most significant strategy questions about the Chinese military buildup: “Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases? Why these continuing robust deployments?” The still largely benign-China establishment was reluctant to answer. The late James Lilley, however, a former CIA China hand and an ambassador to China, responded to Rumsfeld’s questions with disbelief. “The answer is simple,” he said, after news of the speech reached the United States. “They see us as the enemy.”

Rumsfeld’s successor, Robert Gates, signaled an important shift in tone when he began referring in public to the “threat” posed by China. New defectors and more aggressive American intelligence-gathering helped paint a portrait of how real that threat was. A sensitive Air Force program proved that China was working on counter-stealth capabilities to detect and attack radar-evading aircraft.

For the pro-China officials who were still convinced that Beijing was interested only in building its strength to use against Taiwan, the counter-stealth program in China was difficult to explain. China’s military was also found to be working on a strategic program to kill U.S. satellites.

As new intelligence came in, new war games, incorporating a better understanding of China’s capabilities, were conducted. The scenarios were increasingly alarming. In 2006, one showed that in the opening hours of a military conflict a barrage of anti-satellite missiles and counter-stealth capabilities crippled U.S. military forces. Once again the cadre of U.S. officials who had sought to dismiss China’s military developments as nonthreatening were proved wrong.

In July 2007, Michael Pillsbury produced an influential paper for the Pentagon titled “Conflict Contingencies, Chinese Style.” It codified the notion that the Chinese military was not limited to forces for Taiwan. A second paper in January 2008 argued that in war games the U.S. had been utilizing an American system of war-planning instead of the system the Chinese actually used to plan combat. From then on, all war games would be played with new criteria for Chinese forces. Based on the new scenarios, by 2008, the Navy and Air Force were consistently losing to Chinese forces.

One fateful war game was held on October 28, 2008, at the U.S. Pacific Command headquarters in Honolulu; it became known as “Air Sea Battle 2028.” As a result of the presumably terrifying outcome of this single game, military leaders were told that it was time to design American forces and capabilities that would give the United States military the weapons and tactics to win a conflict with China. The results of the new design were stunning and formed the backbone of what is now the semi-secret Air Sea Battle Concept. In mid-2009, Gates signed the memo ordering the Air Force and Navy to develop a new concept that would better integrate Navy and Air Forces to meet the new challenge from China.

The details of the new concept are impressive, both in boldness and breath. The strategy calls for hitting China’s anti-access capabilities at their sources. Air Sea Battle aims to give the United States the ability to destroy submarine bases, many located in hardened underwater facilities along coasts. Additionally, China’s anti-satellite launch bases would have to be identified and destroyed before China could knock out orbiting satellites. Based on an internal report Pillsbury published titled “Chinese Military Fears and the Implications for Future U.S. Strategy,” a new list of Chinese strategic vulnerabilities will now play a key role in future development of military hardware and software for the Air Sea Battle Concept.

For the Air Force, the heart of Air Sea Battle is the development of a new long-range bomber. In late 2009, Air Force Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), described the stealth bomber as a concept aircraft. “It’s about putting flexibility and the ability to introduce unambiguous statements into the hands of our national leaders,” he told reporters. Deptula said the bomber will be a multi-role aircraft whose most important feature “isn’t its ability to deliver bombs, but its ability to assimilate information rapidly and then translate that information into decisions to be able to react.” An additional element of Air Sea Battle is developing unmanned aircraft, specifically a Navy version of the Air Force Global Hawk long-range drone. Another is the X-47 unmanned combat vehicle, the first jet fighter without a pilot on board.

The Pentagon will press the defense industry for new ideas, as one defense official put it, “about how to go into China.” Public discussion of Air Sea Battle has been focused largely on operations outside China, such as anti-submarine warfare, mines and countermine warfare, and defending carriers 1,000 miles from Chinese territory. Internal military operations against China under Air Sea Battle will include special forces commando raids on missile forces and bases and, most controversial, covert action and aid to ethnic groups, such as the Uighurs in Xinjiang, anti-regime elements inside Tibet, and ethnic Inner Mongolians seeking to reunite with independent Mongolia.

Those who were long suspicious of China’s military intentions have won the day, at least for now. But the battle over Air Sea Battle is not over.

The next fight will take place in the budget arena, where the Obama administration is planning to cut up to $1 trillion from defense spending over the next 10 years. There, the story of America’s education on China’s military should serve as a lesson for those who still seek to shrink U.S. fighting capabilities in the face of growing threats. Barack Obama, in looking to cut defense spending across the board, is repeating the mistakes of the benign-China school on a much larger scale. Motivated by faith in a benign global order, against all evidence, this would undercut America’s ability to lead the free world.

As the road to Air Sea Battle shows, wishful thinking is often overtaken by cruel reality. Moreover, when ideology overwhelms evidence, the beneficiary is always the enemy. While benign-China officials denied the facts, China was quietly allowed to field an array of new weapons systems designed for one purpose: to defeat the United States in a future conflict. The Obama administration deserves credit for shifting American strategy to respond to the genuine Chinese threat. According to one senior Obama administration official, “Air Sea Battle is to China what the Maritime Strategy [of the 1980s] was to the Soviet Union.” But Cold War strategy wasn’t implemented along with a simultaneous effort to defund it. If Air Sea Battle is under-resourced and gutted from within, it may prove as ineffective—and dangerous—as the wrongheaded strategy that preceded it.
About the Author

Bill Gertz, author of six books on national-security affairs, is senior editor of the Washington Free Beacon, a new online newspaper, and a national-security columnist for the Washington Times. This is his first article for Commentary.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use...
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.ph...nomy&Itemid=46

Exclusive: Half Iran tanker fleet storing oil at sea
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
By Luke Pachymuthu

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Iran has been forced to deploy more than half its fleet of supertankers to store oil at anchorage in the Gulf as buyers of its crude cut back because of sanctions, two Iran-based shipping sources said.

The sources, who are familiar with operations at Iran's main export terminal Kharg Island in the north of the Gulf, said 14 of National Iranian Tanker Company's (NITC) fleet of 25 very large crude carriers, each loaded with about 2 million barrels of oil, are now at anchor acting as floating storage.

A further five of Iran's nine Suezmax tankers, with capacity of one million barrels, are also parked offshore with oil aboard.

That means that of Iran's 59-million-barrel fleet of VLCCs and Suezmax sized tankers, 33 million barrels of capacity are being used to store crude at sea in the Gulf, or 56 percent of the fleet.

The shipping data suggests Iran's difficulties in selling its oil are getting more acute. With more than half the NITC fleet at anchorage, Iran's capacity to export oil is severely curtailed.

The Iranian shipping sources said that storage tanks on land at Kharg Island, with capacity of some 23 million barrels, are now full.

"The NITC fleet was deployed to Kharg Island to load cargo to prevent shore tank overflows. This has been going on since March," one of the sources, who is familiar with operations at Kharg Island, said.

"The tankers are fully laden," he said.

Industry estimates for the amount of Iranian oil in floating storage from oil companies and tanker tracking consultancies are much lower, in the range 8-16 million barrels, or 4-8 VLCCs.

However, those estimates are based on satellite data using ship tracking systems like the AIS (Automatic Identification System) that use onboard transponders.

Reuters reported on April 13 that most of the NITC tanker fleet had switched off their transponders to conceal shipping movements. Location data for many of the fleet has not been updated for at least three weeks.

"The ships' transponders have been switched off because they don't want to be detected," one of the Iranian shipping sources said.

"They are lying at anchorage. They do not navigate so they don't need the navigation system to be on."

That so many of Iran's tankers are anchored may explain why much of the fleet felt able to switch off its transponders.

Ships are obliged by international law for safety to have a satellite tracking device on board when travelling at sea. However, a ship's master has the discretion to turn off the device with the permission of the vessel's flag state.

Data made available to Reuters shows that at the end of March, 11 vessels were at anchor holding about 18 million barrels in floating storage. Since then the tally has grown by 8 tankers holding another 15 million barrels for a total of 33 million.

Europe's July 1 oil embargo and U.S. and European financial sanctions prompted by Iran's nuclear program have seen Tehran's oil sales drop to most Western destinations and drawn promises from some Asian buyers that they will cut purchases.

China had been expected to take increased volumes of Iranian crude but that has not happened yet.

China halved its Iranian crude imports in March compared to a year earlier and South Korea cut purchases by 40 percent.

Japan has also made steep cuts.

With half of its own fleet being used as floating storage, Iran would need to hire tankers on the open market or have importers hire their own ships to maintain exports.

But traders said it would seem unlikely Iran would deploy its own tankers for floating storage if it were able to sell the crude instead.

"We are not sure if NITC will be requiring more tankers for storage but commercial tanker arrivals coming into load crude have dropped significantly in the past one month because of sanctions issues," said one of the Iranian shipping sources.

Iran last week conceded that exports had fallen slightly to 2.1 million bpd of crude, from 2.2 million at the end of last year.

Independent estimates are that exports fell to about 1.9 million bpd in March and have fallen further in April.

If it cannot find new buyers for its crude Iran's only option other than floating storage would be to curtail oilfield production.

(additional reporting Daniel Fineren, writing Richard Mably; editing by Jason Neely)

[Housecarl]

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=267460

Netanyahu says Iran sanctions 'better work soon'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
04/24/2012 23:43

While sanctions against Iran are visibly impairing its economy, they have not impacted its continuing nuclear activities, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told CNN in a Tuesday interview.

"They're certainly taking a bite out of the Iranian economy, but so far they haven't rolled back the Iranian program or even stopped it by one iota," Netanyahu said. "I hope that changes, but so far, I can tell you the centrifuges are spinning."

"If the sanctions are going to work, they better work soon," he emphasized.

Asked how he knows about Iran's nuclear activities, the prime minister coyly retorted, "Oh, we know."

"We know, and others know and we share what we know. This is not a case of the questions that people had about Saddam Hussein," he continued when pressed further, referring to the botched intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program ahead of the 2003 invasion.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=267471

UN says Syria refusing observers by nationality
By REUTERS
LAST UPDATED: 04/25/2012 02:59

UNITED NATIONS - Syria has refused at least one UN military observer because of his nationality and has made clear it will not allow in UN staff from any country in the "Friends of Syria" group, the US envoy to the United Nations said on Tuesday.

Speaking after UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous briefed the Security council, US Ambassador Susan Rice said Ladsous told the 15-nation panel that Damascus was putting restrictions on the deployment of truce monitors.

"Mr. Ladsous reported that the Syrian government has refused at least one observer based on his nationality, and that Syrian authorities have stated they will not accept UNSMIS staff members from any nations that are members of the 'Friends of Democratic Syria'," Rice told reporters.

"He underscored that from the UN's point of view, this is entirely unacceptable," she said.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83N1E420120424

Three policemen wounded in Bahrain explosion

DUBAI | Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:59pm EDT

DUBAI (Reuters) - Three policemen were wounded by an explosion in a village in western Bahrain on Tuesday that the government said was a "terrorist" act after weeks of protests against a Formula One Grand Prix held in the Gulf Arab state.

The Interior Ministry said in a Twitter message that two of the three policemen were seriously wounded by the blast late on Tuesday. Residents earlier said four officers had been hurt.

"A terrorist ... bombing targeted policemen in the Diraz area and led to the injury of three policemen, two of them seriously," it said.

Diraz is one of the villages outside the capital Manama where there have been frequent pro-democracy protests by majority Shi'ites against the Sunni-Muslim led monarchy.

On April 9, seven policemen were wounded, three of them seriously, when a home-made bomb exploded during a protest near Manama calling for the release of an activist on a two-month hunger strike.

Bahrain, a U.S. ally that hosts Washington's Fifth Fleet, has been in turmoil since protests inspired by "Arab Spring" uprisings began in February 2011.

Though martial law and Saudi troops were brought in to crush them after one month, the strife has continued with regular mass marches by opposition parties and violent clashes with riot police.

The daughter of the jailed hunger striker was remanded in custody for seven days for protesting during last week's Formula One race, her lawyer said on Tuesday.

Zainab al-Khawaja was arrested on Saturday after she sat on the highway running past Bahrain's financial district during days of Shi'ite protests held to embarrass the kingdom's rulers at a time when the race drew international media attention.

International rights groups have called for the release of her father Abdulhadi al-Khawaja and 13 other protest leaders in jail for their role in last year's pro-democracy uprising.

An appeals court on Monday delayed the men's case to April 30, prompting Amnesty International to accuse the authorities of playing with Khawaja's life. The government says he is in good health in a military hospital.

Foreign governments, rights groups and media watchdogs have criticized Bahrain for its handling of the protests and the slow pace of reforms.

Following a public relations debacle over the Grand Prix, the government said on Monday it had appointed a new minister of state for information affairs.

(Writing by Firouz Sedarat; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

Related News

* Analysis: Bahrain hardliners in driving seat after F1 fiasco
7:06am EDT
* Bahrain protester died of birdshot wounds: relative
Mon, Apr 23 2012
* Vettel wins Bahrain Grand Prix, protesters kept away
Sun, Apr 22 2012
* Protests, clashes, death cast pall over Bahrain Grand Prix
Sat, Apr 21 2012
* Protests, clashes in Bahrain before Formula One race
Sat, Apr 21 2012

Analysis & Opinion

* Saudi man spends 12 extra years in jail awaiting father’s pardon
* Formula One has much to lose in Bahrain race

Related Topics

* Bahrain »

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83N0DM20120424

Exclusive: Indian shipping firms to carry Iran crude despite reduced insurance
Comments 3
By Nidhi Verma and Randy Fabi

NEW DELHI/SINGAPORE | Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:56am EDT

NEW DELHI/SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Indian shipping firms will continue to transport Iranian crude even if limited insurance coverage due to tightening Western sanctions leaves them financially exposed to a spill or accident, a top executive and industry sources said.

Tough new European Union sanctions aimed at stopping Iran's oil exports to Europe also ban EU insurers and reinsurers from covering tankers carrying Iranian crude anywhere in the world from July. Around 90 percent of the world's tanker insurance is based in the West, so the measures threaten shipments to Iran's top Asian buyers China, India, Japan and South Korea.

The sanctions seek to stem the flow of petrodollars to Tehran to force the OPEC member to halt a nuclear program the West suspects is intended to produce weapons.

Shipping Corp of India, which is the country's largest shipping firm, Great Eastern and other Indian tanker firms have asked state insurers to step in and provide up to $50 million in third-party liability coverage per tanker voyage.

The amount is a fraction of the typical $1 billion coverage that a supertanker carrying around 2 million barrels of crude would have from reinsurers against personal injury and pollution claims.

India's shipping companies would run the risk of shipping the crude even though they would be liable for any claims above $50 million in the case of an incident, industry sources said.

"To the best of our knowledge, over the last 10 years, none of the Indian shipping companies carrying Iranian crude oil into India has had any major incident relating to pollution or anything," Shipping Corp Chairman S. Hajara told Reuters on the sidelines of an industry conference in Singapore.

"Since there have been no claims in 10 years, we felt if we have cover of $50 million as a commercial organization it would be worthwhile for us to continue in that business."

India is the world's fourth-largest oil importer and one of the biggest customers for Iran's 2.2 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil exports. On average, there are 10 crude shipments a month from Iran to refineries on the west coast of India.

A major oil spill from one of these tankers could leave Indian shipowners liable for billions of dollars in damages.

The most expensive oil spill was the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1989, which industry groups estimate has cost as much as $7 billion so far in clean-up, fines, penalties and claims.

"Exxon Valdez happens once in decades. If you think all your risk must be covered, then you should not be in business," Hajara said, adding that liability limits for an oil spill have extended beyond $1 billion and $3 billion for other incidents.

"We have been very clear that Indian insurance companies will have a tough task, if not impossible, to get reinsurance if the sanctions really set in. We know if we ask for a huge amount of cover we will never get it."

The biggest reinsurers are located in Europe and according to some industry experts the only way to cope with the loss of European reinsurers would be for governments of importing countries to provide federal guarantees to cover any expenses relating to personal and pollution claims.

Shipowners have asked the government for sovereign guarantees, but have not received a response, Hajara said. Indian firms, along with Japan and South Korea, have also lobbied European officials for exemptions to the EU sanctions.

India's refiners are already cutting imports to comply with a separate set of U.S. sanctions requiring Iran's crude clients to significantly cut purchases. Refiners could cut imports by about a quarter in the 2012-2013 year that began on April 1, but are keen to keep the remaining imports coming.

In the fiscal year that ended on March 31, India's imports from Iran were less than 340,000 bpd, compared with the 362,000 bpd committed under annual term contracts. India is currently importing about 280,000 bpd.

A finance ministry source said the Indian government would consider any action necessary to keep oil flowing from Iran, India's second-biggest supplier after Saudi Arabia, including offering sovereign guarantees to shipments.

The shipping firms have sent their request to state insurers United India Insurance, General Insurance Company, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., said a shipping source. The shipping and finance ministries were also looking at the proposal.

A final decision is expected "very soon," Hajara said.

Japanese insurers have also warned ship owners they will only cover one tanker at a time carrying Iranian crude through the Middle East because their ability to provide cover is limited without the European reinsurance market.

That will reduce the number of tankers carrying Iranian oil to three or four a month as each ship takes about a week to 10 days to travel in and out of the Gulf, sources said, compared with about 10 ships a month last year.

Japan has cut its April crude loadings from Iran by nearly 80 percent compared to the first two months of the year.

(Additional reporting by Clare Baldwin in HONG KONG and Manoj Kumar in NEW DELHI; Editing by Jo Winterbottom, Simon Webb and Clarence Fernandez)

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...e109ae6992.2c1


Iraq cuts anti-Qaeda militia pay

(AFP) – 13 hours ago

BAGHDAD — Most of Iraq's remaining 40,000 anti-Qaeda militiamen have seen their pay cut by 20 percent this year following a decision by parliament, an aide to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told AFP on Tuesday.

"I have been obliged to reduce by 20 percent the wages of Sahwa (Awakening) members who earn more than 200,000 dinars ($158/120 euros) a month, although the remainder will not see their pay cut," said Maliki's national reconciliation adviser Amir al-Khuzai.

"I was forced to take this decision after the parliamentary finance committee cut by a third the national reconciliation budget for 2012 which had initially been earmarked to total 239 billion dinars ($190 million)," he said.

"It is the committee that is responsible for this situation."

The Sahwa were formed from among Sunni Arab tribesmen and former rebels who joined forces with the US military against Al-Qaeda from late 2006, helping turn the tide of the insurgency.

The Shiite-led government has a policy of trying to find them new jobs in the regular security forces or elsewhere in the public sector and their numbers are now down to just under 40,000 from a peak of some 87,000 four years ago.

"We are trying to integrate the rest in the public sector," Khuzai said.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. More »]

Related articles

* Iraq cuts anti Al-Qaeda militia pay
NOW LEBANON - 13 hours ago

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/155100

Chinese Tabloid Threatens Philippines With War Over Sea Claims
The nationalistic south East Asian nations are getting in deeper their dispute with China.
By Amiel Ungar
First Publish: 4/25/2012, 6:13 AM

Reuters

Mazel Tov! A Philippine mineral exploration has discovered a treasure trove of gas in that portion of the South China Sea that is claimed by both China and the Philippines..

That was the good news, but the bad news is that this will merely add gas to the fire, because the find further emphasizes that not hypothetical resources, but tangible ones worth billions of dollars, are at stake.

The Brussels-based International Crisis Group has warned that the dispute can serve as a flashpoint because the incidents between the Southeast Asian countries are becoming ever more frequent, leading the smaller countries to seek American protection, a policy that fuels further Chinese resentment and suspicion.

Because some Southeast Asian countries are new to the game and do not have the skills in conflict resolution developed by more mature regional systems, the problems are getting worse. Additionally, these states have either just emerged or are still in the process of nation-building and that process employs heavy doses of nationalism, making disputes less susceptible to compromise.

The Chinese Communist regime bases its legitimacy on justified claims that it has restored China's great power status.

It has also made a major issue of Chinese sovereignty over areas such as Taiwan.

Having convinced the public that the South China Sea, that China claims for historic reasons, is sacred Chinese territory, how can it afford to justify a compromise with - for example - the much smaller Philippines or Vietnam on these territorial issues?

China is also at a stage of leadership transition. The departing leaders will want to leave their mark and their successors will want to get off on the right foot with the public.

The Chinese attitude found expression in an editorial in the English language Global Times a subsidiary of the party daily People's Daily. The editorial stressed:

“China should be prepared to engage in a small-scale war at sea with the Philippines.”

“Once the war erupts, China must take resolute action to deliver a clear message to the outside world that it does not want a war, but definitely has no fear of it,” the tabloid said.

This hardly fosters confidence, particularly when added to the warm reception accorded by President Hu Jintao to Kim Yong Il, a top representative of the North Korean regime. Hu stressed the importance of the bilateral ties and announced that "we will carry on the tradition, boost strategic communication and coordination on key international issues and work for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula."

This statement came after North Korea threatened to reduce the South Korean government to ashes and after it was revealed that some components of the North Korean missile program were supplied by China, perhaps in the format of dual use technology.

The Obama administration is giving the Chinese government the benefit of the doubt and has studiously avoided exploiting the Bo Xilai affair.

This may change, as Mitt Romney has promised a much tougher line against Chinese policies.

[Housecarl]

Hummm....About the only way this really works is if the missiles on those 8X8 TELs they showed off last week are in fact solid fueled "weaponized" copies of KT-1s/DF-41s...at which point the guys in Beijing have some real explaining to do....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04...e-striking-us/

North Korea claims to have 'mobile weapons' capable of striking US
Published April 25, 2012
Associated Press

A senior North Korean army official says his country is armed with "powerful mobile weapons" capable of striking America.

Vice Marshal Ri Yong Ho emphasized the importance of defending the North against the U.S. and South Korea as Pyongyang marked the 80th anniversary of the nation's army Wednesday.

He told officials at the April 25 House of Culture that the weapons could defeat the U.S. "at a single blow."

North Korea made another unusual claim Monday, promising "special actions" that would reduce Seoul's government to ashes.

North Korea is believed to have nuclear weapons but not the technology to put them on long-range missiles. A rocket launch that the U.S. claimed was a North Korean attempt to test missile technology failed this month.

[Housecarl]

For links see attached....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russias-strategy

Russia's Strategy
April 24, 2012 | 0859 GMT
By George Friedman

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 reversed a process that had been under way since the Russian Empire's emergence in the 17th century. It was ultimately to incorporate four general elements: Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Caucasus and Siberia. The St. Petersburg-Moscow axis was its core, and Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine were its center of gravity. The borders were always dynamic, mostly expanding but periodically contracting as the international situation warranted. At its farthest extent, from 1945 to 1989, it reached central Germany, dominating the lands it seized in World War II. The Russian Empire was never at peace. As with many empires, there were always parts of it putting up (sometimes violent) resistance and parts that bordering powers coveted -- as well as parts of other nations that Russia coveted.

The Russian Empire subverted the assumption that political and military power requires a strong economy: It was never prosperous, but it was frequently powerful. The Russians defeated Napoleon and Hitler and confronted the far wealthier Americans for more than four decades in the Cold War, in spite of having a less developed or less advanced economy. Its economic weakness certainly did undermine its military power at times, but to understand Russia, it is important to begin by understanding that the relationship between military and economic power is not a simple one.

Economy and Security

There are many reasons for Russia's economic dysfunction, but the first explanation, if not the full explanation, is geography and transportation. The Russians and Ukrainians have some of the finest farmland in the world, comparable to that of the American Midwest. The difference is transportation, the ability to move the harvest to the rest of the empire and its far away population centers. Where the United States has the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio river system that integrates the area between the Rockies and the Appalachians, Russia's rivers do not provide an integrated highway to Russia, and given distances and lack of alternative modes of transport, Russian railways were never able to sustain consistent, bulk agricultural transport.

This is not to say that there wasn't integration in the empire's economy and that this didn't serve as a factor binding it together. It is to say that the lack of economic integration, and weakness in agricultural transport in particular, dramatically limited prosperity in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. At the same time, the relative underdevelopment of the empire and union made it impossible for them to successfully compete with Western Europe. Therefore, there was an economic motivation within the constituent parts of the empire and the union to integrate with each other. There could be synergies on a lower level of development among these nations.

Economics was one factor that bound the Russian Empire and Soviet Union together. Another was the military and security apparatus. The Russian security apparatus in particular played a significant role in holding first the empire and then the union together; in many ways, it was the most modern and efficient institution they had. Whatever temptations the constituent republics might have had to leave the empire or union, these were systematically repressed by internal security forces detecting and destroying opposition to the center. It could be put this way: The army created the empire. Its alignment of economic interests was the weak force holding it together, and the security apparatus was the strong force. If the empire and union were to survive, they would need economic relations ordered in such a way that some regions were put at a disadvantage, others at an advantage. That could happen only if the state were powerful enough to impose this reality. Since the state itself was limited in most dimensions, the security apparatus substituted for it. When the security apparatus failed, as it did at the end of World War I or in 1989-1991, the regime could not survive. When it did succeed, it held it all together.

In the Russian Empire, the economic force and the security force were supplemented by an overarching ideology: that of the Russian Orthodox Church, which provided a rationale for the system. The state security apparatus worked with the church and against dissident elements in other religions in the empire. In the Soviet Union, the religious ideology was supplemented with the secular ideology of Marxism-Leninism. The Soviet Union used its security apparatus to attempt a transformation of the economy and to crush opposition to the high cost of this transformation. In some sense, Marxism-Leninism was a more efficient ideology, since Russian Orthodoxy created religious differentials while Marxism-Leninism was hostile to all religions and at least theoretically indifferent to the many ethnicities and nations.

The fall of the Soviet Union really began with a crisis in the economy that created a crisis in the security force, the KGB. It was Yuri Andropov, the head of the KGB, who first began to understand the degree to which the Soviet Union's economy was failing under the growing corruption of the Brezhnev years and the cost of defense spending. The KGB understood two things. The first was that Russia had to restructure (Perestroika) or collapse. The second was that the traditional insularity of the Soviet Union had to be shifted and the Soviets had to open themselves to Western technology and methods (Glasnost). Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was a reformer, but he was a communist trying to reform the system to save the party. He was proceeding from the KGB model. His and Andropov's gamble was that the Soviet Union could survive and open to the West without collapsing and that it could trade geopolitical interests, such as domination of Eastern Europe, for economic relations without shattering the Soviet Union. They lost the bet.

The Soviet Collapse

The 1990s was a catastrophic period for the former Soviet Union. Except for a few regions, the collapse of the Soviet state and the security apparatus led to chaos, and privatization turned into theft. Not surprisingly, the most sophisticated and well-organized portion of the Soviet apparatus, the KGB, played a major role in the kleptocracy and retained, more than other institutions, its institutional identity. Over time, its control over the economy revived informally, until one of its representatives, Vladimir Putin, emerged as the leader of the state.

Putin developed three principles. The first was that the security system was the heart of the state. The second was that Moscow was the heart of Russia. The third was that Russia was the heart of the former Soviet Union. These principles were not suddenly imposed. The power of the KGB, renamed the FSB and SVR, slowly moved from a system of informal domination through kleptocracy to a more systematic domination of the state apparatus by the security services, reinstituting the old model. Putin took control of regional governments by appointing governors and controlling industry outside of Moscow. Most important, he cautiously moved Russia back to first among equals in the former Soviet Union.

Putin came to power on the heels of the Kosovo war. Russia had insisted that the West not go to war with Serbia, what was left of the former Yugoslavia. Russia was ignored, and its lack of influence left President Boris Yeltsin humiliated. But it was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine that convinced Putin that the United States intended to break Russia if someone like Yeltsin led it. Ukraine is economically and geographically essential to Russian national security, and Putin saw the attempt to create a pro-Western government that wanted to join NATO as Washington, using CIA-funded nongovernmental organizations pushing for regime change, attempted to permanently weaken Russia. Once the Orange Revolution succeeded, Putin moved to rectify the situation.

The first step was to make it clear that Russia had regained a substantial part of its power and was willing to use it. The second step was to demonstrate that American guarantees were worthless. The Russo-Georgian War of 2008 achieved both ends. The Russians had carried out an offensive operation and the Americans, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, could not respond. The lesson was not only for Georgia (which, similar to Ukraine, had also sought NATO membership). It was also for Ukraine and all other countries in the former Soviet Union, demonstrating that Russia was again going to be the heart of Eurasia. Indeed, one of Putin's latest projects is the Eurasian Union, tying together Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus, a large economic and military part of the former Soviet Union. Add to this Ukraine and the former Soviet Union emerges even more.

Remaking the Union

For Russia, the recreation of a union is a strategic necessity. As Putin put it, the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical catastrophe. Russia needs the economic integration, particularly given the new economic strategy of post-Soviet Russia, which is the export of raw materials, particularly energy. Aligning with states such as Kazakhstan in energy and Ukraine in grain provides Moscow with leverage in the rest of the world, particularly in Europe. As important, it provides strategic depth. The rest of the world knows that an invasion of Russia is inconceivable. The Russians can conceive of it. They remember that Germany in 1932 was crippled. By 1938 it was overwhelmingly powerful. Six years is not very long, and while such an evolution is unlikely now, from the Russian point of view, it must be taken seriously in the long run -- planning for the worst and hoping for the best.

Therefore, the heart of Russian strategy, after resurrecting state power in Russia, is to create a system of relationships within the former Soviet Union that will provide economic alignment and strategic depth but not give Russia an unsustainable obligation to underwrite the other nations' domestic policies. Unlike the Russian Empire or Soviet Union, Putin's strategy is to take advantage of relationships on a roughly mutual basis without undertaking responsibility for the other nations.

In achieving this goal, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a godsend. Until 9/11, the United States had been deeply involved in peeling off parts of the former Soviet Union such as the Baltics and integrating them into Western systems. With 9/11, the United States became obsessed with the jihadist wars, giving Russia a window of opportunity to stabilize itself and to increase its regional power.

As the United States extracts itself from Afghanistan, Russia has to be concerned that Washington will supplement its focus on China with a renewed focus on Russia. The possible end of these conflicts is not in Russia's interest. Therefore, one piece of Russian external strategy is to increase the likelihood of prolonged U.S. obsession with Iran. Currently, for example, Russia and Iran are the only major countries supporting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad. Russia wants to see a pro-Iranian Syria -- not because it is in Moscow's long-term interests but because, in the short run, anything that absorbs the United States will relieve possible pressure on Russia and give more time for reordering the former Soviet Union.

The crisis in Europe is similarly beneficial to Russia. The unease that Germany has with the European Union has not yet matured into a break, and it may never. However, Germany's unease means that it is looking for other partners, in part to ease the strain on Germany and in part to create options. Germany depends on Russian energy exports, and while that might decrease in coming years, Russia is dealing with the immediate future. Germany is looking for other potential economic partners and, most important at a time when Europe is undergoing extreme strain, Germany does not want to get caught in an American attempt to redraw Russian borders. The ballistic missile defense system is not significant, in the sense that it does not threaten Russia, but the U.S. presence in the region is worrisome to Moscow. For Russia, recruiting Germany to the view that the United States is a destabilizing force would be a tremendous achievement.

Other issues are side issues. China and Russia have issues, but China cannot pose a significant threat to core Russian interests unless it chooses to invade maritime Russia, which it won't. There are economic and political issues, of course, but China is not at the heart of Russia's strategic concerns.

For Russia, the overwhelming strategic concern is dominating the former Soviet Union without becoming its patron. Ukraine is the key missing element, and a long, complex political and economic game is under way. The second game is in Central Asia, where Russia is systematically asserting its strength. The third is in the Baltics, where it has not yet made a move. And there is the endless conflict in the northern Caucasus that always opens the door for reasserting Russian power in the south. Russia's foreign policy is built around the need to buy time for it to complete its evolution.

To do this, the Russians must keep the United States distracted, and the Russian strategy in the Middle East serves that purpose. The second part is to secure the West by drawing Germany into a mutually beneficial economic relationship while not generating major resistance in Poland or an American presence there. Whether this can be achieved depends as much on Iran as it does on Russia.

Russia has come far from where Yeltsin took it. The security forces are again the heart of the state. Moscow dominates Russia. Russia is moving to dominate the former Soviet Union. Its main adversary, the United States, is distracted, and Europe is weak and divided. Of course, Russia is economically dysfunctional, but that has been the case for centuries and does not mean it will always be weak. For the moment, Russia is content to be strong in what it calls the near abroad, or the former Soviet Union. Having come this far, it is not trying to solve insoluble problems.

Read more: Russia's Strategy | Stratfor

[Heliobas Disciple]

And over in Asia, the arms race between India and Pakistan is heating up.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...04-25-01-10-56
(fair use applies)

Pakistan tests upgraded nuclear-capable missile
Apr 25, 1:10 AM EDT

ISLAMABAD (AP) -- The Pakistani military says it has successfully test-launched an upgraded intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

The military said in a statement Wednesday that the missile was an improved version of the Shaheen 1 with a longer range. The Shaheen 1 is believed to have a range of 750 kilometers (465 miles).

The military did not provide the exact range of the new Shaheen 1A.

The launch comes days after Pakistan's neighbor and archenemy, India, announced that it had successfully test-launched a new nuclear-capable, long-range missile. The Agni-V has a range of 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles).

[...]

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

April 25, 2012


North Korea Boasts of Ability to
Destroy US Military in 'Single Blow'

Steve Herman | Seoul
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...148848865.html

North Korea's army marked its 80th anniversary Wednesday with a vow to retaliate against what its chief of staff terms the traitors in the South. The remarks are the latest in a series of harsh threats directed at Seoul in recent weeks.

North Korea's provocations

North Korea is boasting of “powerful, modern weapons” that can defeat in a single blow the United States, which it accuses of plotting a war against it.

Chief of general staff, Ri Yong Ho, gave no further details about the weaponry in his speech to mark the North Korean army's 80th anniversary.

His address, from Pyongyang's House of Culture, was broadcast later in the day on North Korean television.

Vice Marshal Ri says the blood of North Korea's military and civilians is boiling in anger with a desire for revenge against South Korea's president, Lee Myung-bak. He reiterates a threat of “sacred war,” transmitted earlier in the week, to crush the bases of provocation in the South.

North Korea's new, young leader Kim Jong Un was in the audience for Ri's remarks. But Kim - who holds the rank of a four-star general - did not address the gathering.

North Korea's failed rocket launchs

North Korea, on April 13, launched a multi-stage missile which exploded about two minutes into its flight over the Yellow Sea.

Pyongyang claimed it was trying to launch a peaceful satellite into space. The international community condemned the launch as a violation of U.N. Security Council sanctions forbidding North Korea from utilizing ballistic missile technology.

The failure only intensified fears that North Korea is preparing a third claimed nuclear test.

Pyongyang has made no announcement it is planning such a test. But satellite images from the beginning of this month showed fresh digging at the underground site where North Korea claims to have conducted two previous nuclear detonations.

Those tests followed failed long-range rocket launches in 2006 and 2009.

South Korea's Unification Ministry spokeswoman Park Soo-jin Wednesday said the North should focus more on addressing reported food shortages.

Park says her country strongly urges North Korea to pay more attention and care to its people, not to focus on developing nuclear weapons.

US sanctions North Korea

A White House spokesman warned North Korea to refrain from additional hostile or provocative acts. Jay Carney told reports that such moves would do nothing to advance peace on the Korean peninsula or in Northeast Asia.

The United States scrapped a February 29 food aid deal with North Korea after the attempted rocket launch. The action by Washington also prompted a vow of retaliation by Pyongyang.





=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

North Korea marks Army Day,
vowing war against South

Posted: 25 April 2012 2014 hrs
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...197405/1/.html

SEOUL: North Korea's military chief of staff accused the United States and South Korea on Wednesday of plotting war but said his country's own weaponry could destroy their armaments in "a single blow".

Vice-Marshal Ri Yong-Ho also repeated threats of war against South Korea, vowing to "cut the throats" of those seen as defaming Pyongyang's leadership.

The North has made a series of increasingly strongly worded threats against the South in recent weeks. On Monday its military threatened "special actions" soon to turn parts of Seoul to ashes.

Some analysts believe the new young leader Kim Jong-Un is trying to bolster his military credentials and divert attention from a failed rocket launch this month.

Ri, in a speech marking Army Day, credited Jong-Un's late father Kim Jong-Il with strengthening the 1.2 million-strong military in the nuclear-armed state.

Because of this, he said, "our military is now equipped with strong modern weapons capable of destroying what the imperialists call highly sophisticated weapons by a single blow".

The launch, which attracted UN condemnation, was to have been the centrepiece of celebrations in mid-April marking the 100th anniversary of the birth of founding leader Kim Il-Sung.

The North bridled at comments by the South's President Lee Myung-Bak and conservative media, who said the money spent on the launch could have bought food for the perennially hungry nation.

"Our military and people are full of rage against the Lee Myung-Bak's traitor groups, who dared to commit such an extreme criminal act as defaming our system and the top leadership," Ri told a national meeting in the April 25 House of Culture.

"Our military and people will launch a retaliatory war in our own way... to cut the throats of the reckless provocateurs and crush the source of provocations without a trace."

The US and its ally the South were making "ever-intensifying plots for war", he said.

The ceremony attended by Kim Jong-Un and other top leaders marked what the North calls the 80th anniversary of the military's founding, during the guerrilla struggle against Japanese colonial forces.

The North says its rocket launch was part of a peaceful bid to put a satellite in orbit, and not a disguised missile test as the US and its allies maintain.

Some analysts believe it will now stage a nuclear test, as it did in 2006 and 2009 following international censure of its rocket launches.

A former chief US nuclear negotiator said on Wednesday any third test would be "somehow different and bigger" than the previous two.

Christopher Hill did not elaborate in an interview in Seoul with Yonhap news agency. Some analysts believe it will use fuel from a uranium enrichment programme disclosed in 2010, rather than plutonium as previously.






=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

North Korea says its arsenal can defeat U.S.

The Associated Press
Posted: Apr 25, 2012 7:18 AM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...t.html?cmp=rss

North Korea is armed with "powerful modern weapons" capable of defeating the United States, a top military chief in Pyongyang said Wednesday, a claim that matches the country's regular rhetoric but is questioned by experts.

The comments by Vice Marshal Ri Yong Ho at a meeting marking the 80th anniversary of the army's founding came amid increased speculation abroad about the nation's missile arsenal and nuclear ambitions.

Washington worries about the possibility that North Korea might develop a reliable intercontinental ballistic missile and a nuclear bomb small enough to use as a payload.

But outside experts believe that is still a long way off.

Rocket test failures

North Korea has enough plutonium for about four to eight "simple" bombs, according to estimates by scientist Siegfried Hecker of the Center for International Security and Cooperation, but it doesn't yet appear to have the ability to make bombs small enough to mount on a missile. The country's past long-range rocket tests — in 1998, 2006, 2009 and earlier this month — are believed to have ended in failure.

Ri emphasized the importance of strengthening the military to defend North Korea against threats it sees from the United States and South Korea. He called his nation a nuclear and military power and praised new leader Kim Jong Un, believed to be in his late 20s, as a "military strategist" who has been giving the army guidance for years.

"The Korean People's Army is armed with powerful modern weapons ... that can defeat the (U.S.) imperialists at a single blow," he told party and military officials, using familiar descriptions of the country's rivals.

The Associated Press was among foreign news agencies based in Pyongyang allowed to observe the closed meeting, attended by Kim Jong Un.

Ri, who is chief of the army's General Staff, did not provide further details about North Korea's weapons, but his call to arms comes as the United States, Britain and others warn the North against provocations that would further heighten tensions. The Korean peninsula remains officially at war because the 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty.

Earlier this month, North Korea launched a long-range rocket in what its officials called a failed attempt to put a satellite into space. The launch was decried internationally as a banned test of long-range missile technology.

UN condemnation

The rocket broke into pieces shortly after liftoff. The UN Security Council later condemned the launch as a violation of resolutions prohibiting North Korea from engaging in nuclear and missile activity, and Washington halted a plan to provide the North with much-needed food aid in exchange for a moratorium on nuclear and missile tests.

On Monday, North Korea responded to U.S. and South Korean criticism with threats to reduce South Korean targets "to ashes"within minutes in a particularly sharp warning that followed days of protest rallies held nationwide.

There also are worries that North Korea may conduct a nuclear test, as it did after rocket launches in 2006 and 2009. South Korean intelligence officials say recent satellite images show the North has been digging a new tunnel in what could be preparation for a third atomic test.

U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta warned North Korea not to engage in any further provocation.

He told reporters in Brazil that he had no knowledge of any specific actions being planned by North Korea but said he would "strongly urge" it to avoid any destabilizing acts





=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

"War Drums along the MoHawk"


April 25, 2012 at 7:12 am

Military says North Korea has
'powerful modern weapons'

By Jean H. Lee
Associated Press
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...odern-weapons-

Pyongyang, North Korea— North Korea is armed with "powerful modern weapons" capable of defeating the United States, a top military chief in Pyongyang said Wednesday, a claim that matches the country's regular rhetoric but is questioned by experts.

The comments by Vice Marshal Ri Yong Ho at a meeting marking the 80th anniversary of the army's founding came amid increased speculation abroad about the nation's missile arsenal and nuclear ambitions.

Washington worries about the possibility that North Korea might develop a reliable intercontinental ballistic missile and a nuclear bomb small enough to use as a payload.

But outside experts believe that is still a long way off.

North Korea has enough plutonium for about four to eight "simple" bombs, according to estimates by scientist Siegfried Hecker of the Center for International Security and Cooperation, but it doesn't yet appear to have the ability to make bombs small enough to mount on a missile. The country's past long-range rocket tests — in 1998, 2006, 2009 and earlier this month — are believed to have ended in failure.

Ri emphasized the importance of strengthening the military to defend North Korea against threats it sees from the United States and South Korea. He called his nation a nuclear and military power and praised new leader Kim Jong Un, believed to be in his late 20s, as a "military strategist" who has been giving the army guidance for years.

"The Korean People's Army is armed with powerful modern weapons ... that can defeat the (U.S.) imperialists at a single blow," he told party and military officials, using familiar descriptions of the country's rivals.

The Associated Press was among foreign news agencies based in Pyongyang allowed to observe the closed meeting, attended by Kim Jong Un.

Ri, who is chief of the army's General Staff, did not provide further details about North Korea's weapons, but his call to arms comes as the United States, Britain and others warn the North against provocations that would further heighten tensions. The Korean peninsula remains officially at war because the 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty.

Earlier this month, North Korea launched a long-range rocket in what its officials called a failed attempt to put a satellite into space. The launch was decried internationally as a banned test of long-range missile technology.

The rocket broke into pieces shortly after liftoff. The U.N. Security Council later condemned the launch as a violation of resolutions prohibiting North Korea from engaging in nuclear and missile activity, and Washington halted a plan to provide the North with much-needed food aid in exchange for a moratorium on nuclear and missile tests.

On Monday, North Korea responded to U.S. and South Korean criticism with threats to reduce South Korean targets "to ashes" within minutes in a particularly sharp warning that followed days of protest rallies held nationwide.

There also are worries that North Korea may conduct a nuclear test, as it did after rocket launches in 2006 and 2009. South Korean intelligence officials say recent satellite images show the North has been digging a new tunnel in what could be preparation for a third atomic test.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned North Korea not to engage in any further provocation.

He told reporters in Brazil that he had no knowledge of any specific actions being planned by North Korea but said he would "strongly urge" it to avoid any destabilizing acts.


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz1t3de6aKR




=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

North Korea may be planning to
test 'bigger' nuclear bomb

Angus Walker: China Correspondent
Wed 25 Apr 2012
North Korea
http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-25/n...-nuclear-bomb/

A former US envoy to the six-party talks on North Korean nuclear disarmament has told the South Korean news agency Yonhap that if the DPRK does test a nuclear device then it will be "somehow different and bigger" - the suggestion being that the bomb could be built using enriched uranium.

The US and Seoul say North Korea's third nuclear test could be "soon".

While I was in Pyongyang last week, I spoke to a US space expert who had been invited in to observe the planned satellite launch.

He told me that although the US and South Korea always talk up the threat from North Korea, in fact their missile and rocket technology is way behind the US.

The rocket that blew up seconds after launch on 13 April was using technology the Americans were using 50 years ago, according to the US expert.

So when it comes to nuclear 'bombs' he said it's worth reminding ourselves that 50 years ago, US nuclear weapons were the "size of basketball courts".
Some experts believe the missiles displayed in the parade were fakes Credit: REUTERS/KCNA
It is still the general assessment that the North Koreans have not got the advanced technology and rockets powerful enough to blast a nuclear warhead at targets thousands of miles away, in mainland USA for example.

Two German experts have also told the South Korean press agency that the missiles being carried on 16-wheel trucks through the main square in Pyongyang during the massive parade on 15 April are in fact mock-ups, in their opinion.

I've also heard this theory from a source in Beijing. Without these experts actually being allowed to inspect the weapons it's difficult to really know if they were new ballistic missiles with a much longer range, or hollow tubes. It was, however, a show of defiance even if they were fakes.

North Korea does have a long history of threatening the South and the US. In North Korea this is seen as defensive, not aggressive. From birth, people are told that America is about to invade.

The Cold War has never really ended in North Korea. The Kim dynasty has told the people they are the only ones who can protect them, with the nuclear weapons and missiles they have developed despite the whole world being against them.

It's an argument that sticks in a country with only state media broadcasting the same message for decades.

See the violent cartoons currently on the North's official news agency for a taste of the tone often taken. The South Korean President is portrayed in a noose, being struck by lightning and in a rat trap.

Insults fly, abuse rains down, but so far today it's just words.





=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

US warns North Korea to
refrain from 'hostile acts'

The White House on Tuesday warned North Korea to refrain from future hostile acts amid
indications Pyongyang could soon embark on a new nuclear test or may plan more missile launches.

9:19AM BST 25 Apr 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tile-acts.html

Pyongyang should "refrain from engaging in any more hostile or provocative actions. They do nothing to advance the cause of peace on the Korean peninsula (or) in Northeast Asia," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.


He said such hostile acts would "do nothing to help the North Korean people, many of whom are starving because of the predilection of the North Korean regime to spend money on weapons systems rather than on economic development."


Carney's comments came amid new speculation that North Korea could soon conduct a third nuclear test, possibly within two weeks, after firing a long-range rocket this month.


South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported on preparations for a test in the northeastern town of Punggye-ri, where the North carried out two previous nuclear blasts in 2006 and 2009.


A South Korean government official told AFP on April 8 on condition of anonymity that satellite images showed a new underground tunnel built at the nuclear test site besides two others where the previous tests were conducted.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also cautioned Pyongyang, saying during a visit to Brazil on Tuesday that even though the rocket launch was a failure, it still amounted to a "provocation."

"We strongly urge North Korea not to engage ... in any dangerous provocation that would provide instability," Panetta told reporters in Brasilia.

On Monday, Carney had condemned bellicose North Korean behaviour after Pyongyang's military threatened to turn parts of Seoul to "ashes."

North Korea had warned of retaliation after the United States scrapped a deal for food aid over the rocket launch earlier this month by Pyongyang, the failure of which was an embarrassment for the regime of new leader Kim Jong-un.

Obama visited the demilitarised zone between the two Koreas last month and denounced the isolated and impoverished state as a nation which cannot make "anything of any use" and "doesn't work."

Source: AFP






=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Apr 26, 2012

Dangerous illusions over North Korea

By Yong Kwon
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/ND26Dg01.html

Reeling from North Korea's provocative rocket launch, the international community is shining the obligatory spotlight of shame on Pyongyang. As always the rhetoric of condemnation came from around the world and the United Nations even gained China's consent in the joint statement chastising North Korea. However, the monochrome analyses of the situation by policymakers and "experts" reflects how the world will continue to be ineffective in dealing with the North Korean problem.

In a recent article on Foreign Affairs, Jennifer Lind identified some of the reasons why the US has been rendered immobile on the Korean Peninsula: Pyongyang's unpredictability, the catastrophic consequences of North Korea's collapse, and the regime's nuclear capabilities. [1] Professor Lind's conclusions are not out of the ordinary, but her contextualization of the launch within a "long history of unpunished provocations" provides an interesting insight on a common shortfall in popular analysis of North Korean foreign policy.

Lind presumes a single linear narrative from the 1968 hijacking of the USS Pueblo to the 2010 shelling of the Yeonpyeong Island. While all these events share the common theme of North Korean instigation and Washington's inaction, without attempting to assess the various factors that motivate Pyongyang's provocative behavior, the broad interpretation of events implicitly reinforces the presupposition that North Korea's leaders act irrationally or without calculating risk.

Deprived of context, the provocations appear to be a mere application of brute force seeking immediate gratification (US hostages, death of South Korean politicians, etc) without long-term strategic gains. Yet evidence suggests that North Korea, like other states, practices doctrines, assumes legacies, and responds to international conditions. This is not to insinuate that Pyongyang's every move falls within some grand strategy, but there is no need to encourage an oversimplified interpretation, especially when there is empirical evidence that reveals the complexity of Pyongyang's foreign policymaking rationality.

The 1968 Pueblo crisis highlights this fact. Since Pyongyang did not share its intentions to hijack the US navy intelligence ship with other communist states, North Korea's true rationale behind the provocation remains unknown. Nonetheless, new documents uncovered in the archives of former communist states by the Woodrow Wilson Center underscore several key factors that were present in North Korea's decision-making process. Most recently, documents from the archive of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs note how Pyongyang may have sought closer ties with Beijing in 1968 by aggressively engaging Seoul and Washington. [2]

If cooperation with China was what incentivized North Korea's provocations during the Pueblo crisis, then Pyongyang would have been forced to reassess its behavior when China's relations with the United States shifted in the 1970s. This is consistent with the dramatic decrease in violence on the peninsula during the US-China detente despite Pyongyang maintaining hostile intentions towards Seoul. [3] Furthermore, this also explains why scholars have been unable to identify a singular motive running through North Korea's maritime provocations against South Korea in the Yellow Sea; Pyongyang is relentless responding to changes in the international environment. [4]

In short, there is little value in looking at the different North Korean provocations without assessing their causes and circumstances because each event developed from strategies responding to realities of that period of conflict. The manifestations of these strategies often appear violent and provocative because they are built upon pre-existing military tensions on the peninsula.

Failure to see all these variables at play results in a redundant assessment that yields no useful recommendation to break the tragedy and suffering in Korea. Likewise, while Lind is correct to criticize the ineffectiveness of current US policy that merely revolves around sanctions, she too does not present anything new.

Going forward, analysts and policymakers of the international community must keep in mind the current realities that will affect North Korea's strategic thinking. Pyongyang's willingness to forfeit the nutritional aid promised in the "Leap-day Deal" highlights the regime's readiness to combat the international order. Many see the rocket launch as a precursor to a nuclear test; in particular, now that the satellite has failed to enter orbit, experts suggest that the North Korean state may feel compelled to prove its destructive capacities to its citizens. [5]

Meanwhile, Moscow and Beijing's quiet responses to the rocket launch indicate that even in the event of a nuclear test, neither of Pyongyang's major supporters is likely to do anything substantial to reprimand the regime. On the contrary, growing Chinese investments and Russia's vision of a trans-Korean pipeline protect North Korea from rebuke that would jeopardize continued cooperation in these key projects. Pyongyang is undoubtedly aware of this and acts accordingly.

Despite solid support from China and Russia, North Korea is still dominated by extreme insecurities. In order to maintain parity with Seoul, Pyongyang has to project its greatest asset: the regime's apparent willingness to go to war. (See Calculus of an existential war Asia Times Online, April 21, 2011.)

However, since the sinking of the South Korean frigate Cheonan and the shelling of the Yeonpyeong Island, the North Korean military cannot attack physical assets in South Korea without provoking a serious response. Therefore, Pyongyang must choose other means to project deterrence. Rocket launches and nuclear weapons tests accommodate the needs of the state perfectly.

Recognizing that Pyongyang is motivated by insecurity, Washington's best chance of bringing stability to the region is to play a high stakes game where the US offers North Korea recognition, security, etc, in exchange for the nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and more.

Former ambassador Morton Abramowitz suggests exactly this approach and recommends sending a senior level official such as the vice president to negotiate. [6] While Abramowitz recognizes the inherent political challenges associated with dispatching such a senior politician to a rogue state, it is hard to see an alternative method of dealing with this crisis without broaching the subject of what the North Korean state most desires.

Washington bears the burden of dealing with Pyongyang. Allowing instability to overtake the region will be costly and unsafe for both North Korea's neighbors and North Koreans themselves. The fastest way for this to occur is if the US elects not to negotiate at all.

Unfortunately, this is most likely to happen in a sensitive time like an election year. Nonetheless, US policymakers must dispel the long-held assessment that North Korea will not alter its behavior under any circumstances and move forward towards engagement. Pyongyang will respond to changes, but Washington must initiate these changes.

The alternative is for the whole world to carry another security and humanitarian crisis into the decades to come. The time for change is now.

Notes
1. Jennifer Lind. "Why North Korea gets away with it." Foreign Affairs, April 12, 2012.

2. "This Warmongering State of Mind: New Materials on the Korean Crisis of 1968." NKIDP E-Dossier #5, April 20, 2012.

3. Christian F Ostermann and James Person. "The Rise and Fall of Detente on the Korean Peninsula, 1970-1974." NKIDP Critical Oral History transcript, July 2010.

4. Michishita, Narutshige. "North Korea's Military-Diplomatic Campaigns, 1966-2008." London: Routledge, 2009.

5. "Admission of failure." The Economist, April 13, 2012.

6. Morton Abramowitz. "Storms Brew in Pyongyang." National Interest, April 6, 2012







=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

China makes veiled warning to North
Korea not to carry out nuclear test

Reuters
2:54 a.m. EDT, April 25, 2012
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...,2698247.story

BEIJING (Reuters) - China on Wednesday issued a veiled warning to neighboring North Korea not to carry out what is widely expected to be an imminent nuclear test.

North Korea has almost completed preparations for a third nuclear test, a senior source with close ties to Pyongyang and Beijing told Reuters, an act that would draw further international condemnation following this month's failed rocket launch which the United States and others said was a disguised missile test.

Pyongyang (North Korea) "Peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia bears on China's national interest and also bears on the interests of all relevant parties," Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai told a news briefing.

"China will oppose anything which might jeopardize peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia, as this would damage China's national security interests and the interests of the relevant parties as well," he said, when asked about the possibility of a new nuclear test by North Korea.

"We believe that no party should take any action that might escalate tensions."

China is the only major power that the impoverished North has for an ally, but even Beijing's influence over Pyongyang is limited in the diplomatic stalemate over the North's efforts to build a nuclear arsenal.

The North's brief attempt at rapprochement with the United States earlier this year quickly evaporated with its April 13 launch of a long-range rocket which resulted in yet another censure by the U.N. Security Council, which includes China.

Critics say the rocket launch was aimed at honing the North's ability to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the United States, a move that would dramatically increase its military and diplomatic heft.

The United States has called on China to do more to rein in North Korea.

But Cui, in China's highest level comments yet on the possibility of a new test, said everyone shared equal responsibility.

"Maintaining peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia is the joint responsibility of all sides, not just China alone," he added.

"China's basic position on this issue is that the parties concerned should work unwaveringly for peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia."

Washington, Seoul and Tokyo, which have most to fear from any North Korean nuclear threat, are watching events anxiously and many observers say that Pyongyang may have the capacity to conduct a test using highly enriched uranium for the first time.





=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Oil magnate:
Israeli tech can solve the world’s energy
crisis, if red tape doesn’t tie it up

Tovia Luskin says it’s not true the rebbe told him where
to drill, but he did use a biblical verse as a guide

By David Shamah
April 25, 2012, 4:27 am2
http://www.timesofisrael.com/oil-mag...energy-crisis/

Once, people scoffed at the idea of Israel as a high-tech powerhouse – but today, the likes of Intel and Microsoft scout the Israeli start-up landscape to find the next big thing.

Based on recent developments, that same transformation is taking place in the area of energy — gas and oil. Not too long ago, the idea of an Israel that was not only energy independent, but even an exporter of fuel, was laughable. Even now, the prospect seems somewhat pie-in-the-sky to Israelis who pay for expensive (compared to most Western countries) gasoline and electricity. But if all goes well, Israelis will soon begin to reap the benefits from the recent major natural gas finds off the country’s coast.

Drilling has already begun at the Tamar gas field off Israel’s central northern coast, and the first of the estimated 8.3 trillion cubic feet of gas in that field should begin having an impact on the economy as early as next year, with the gas replacing coal in electricity production. One of the partners managing the Tamar field, Dalia Power Energies, plans to build a large power plant to supply cheaper electricity to Israeli consumers. That project will be completed in 2015.

The Tamar “bonus,” however, is just a prelude to the benefits to be reaped from the Leviathan field north of the Tamar find, which is estimated to have double the amount of gas Tamar has. That larger field is expected to come online in 2016-2018, and could make Israel one of the top natural gas exporters in the world if the country decides to get into that business.

If Israelis are perhaps not totally convinced, no one today laughs at the notion that Israel has the potential to be energy independent. But things were far different two decades ago when Tovia Luskin, arguably the father of Israel’s energy industry, began searching for oil. Thanks to Tamar and Leviathan, today it’s easy for believers in Israel’s energy future to have faith that, sooner or later, the country will benefit from the vast quantities of natural gas offshore. Back in 1993, seeing Israel as an energy power required pure faith — the kind of faith that Luskin actually had.

It was that faith that led Luskin, who rarely gives interviews, to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the late Menachem Mendel Schneerson, for a beracha, a special blessing to help him in his work. “It’s not true that the rebbe told me where to drill,” Luskin told The Times of Israel, dispelling part of the myth that has grown up around him and his company, Givot Olam. “The blessing I got was that my work in finding oil would succeed. He didn’t provide me with a timetable or a map,” Luskin said.

The map and timetable, Luskin came up with himself. According to the stories that circulated at the time, Luskin, a Russian-born geologist who was working in Australia, was inspired in 1988 when he came upon the passage in Deuteronomy 33:15 where Moses blesses the children of Joseph, Menashe and Ephraim. In the blessing, Moses says that God will bless the tribes with “the choicest gifts of the ancient mountains and the fruitfulness of the everlasting hills.” Commenting on the difference between “ancient mountains” and “everlasting hills,” the medieval commentator Rashi says that the latter are older, and were already in existence when the former were created.

The structure of the sentence reminded Luskin of geological structural traps, associated with petroleum reservoirs. He shared his insight with the Rebbe, who responded by blessing him that he would “report good news, and that it will be very soon.”

“The story of the blessing is true,” Luskin said, but he based the idea of searching in the area of Rosh Ha’ayin in central Israel — part of the tribal area allocated to Menashe — only after a professional geological evaluation of the terrain. The more he investigated the most likely spot, which became known as the Meged field, said Luskin, “the more it confirmed the story in the Bible. I have worked on oil fields in Australia, Indonesia, and Canada, and I have never seen a structure so likely to contain oil as the Meged field.”

And, as it turned out, his hunch and his research were correct, Luskin said. “It took us a while to explore, and we had plenty of dry holes, but today the Meged field is producing oil, and our company, Givot Olam [named for the biblical Hebrew term for "everlasting hills"], which has the licenses to explore and produce in the field, is profitable.”

The first oil in the Meged field was found in 2004, and the Meged-5 drill site began producing commercial quantities of petroleum in late 2010. The proved reserves of the field stand at 1.5 million barrels, but Luskin said he believes that the number is closer to over 200 million barrels, or even more — not enough to make Israel into another Saudi Arabia, but enough, said former MK Efraim Sneh, an expert on energy matters, to supply 10% of Israel’s oil needs on a long-term basis.

The Palestinian Authority has said that some of the Meged oil belongs to it, because the field extends onto areas administered by the PA. Sneh sees this claim as an excellent opportunity for Israel and the PA to cooperate on a project that will benefit them both.

Luskin said he hopes to extract as much of the oil as possible, and is planning to drill more wells — as many as 40. But there are several factors working against that plan, he said. Bureaucracy is always a problem, and bureaucrats have stood in the way of his plans several times — most recently this past January, when the government rejected a request by Givot Olam to drill three exploratory wells. In a statement to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, the company said that it appeared that the drilling request was rejected “because of a retroactive change in the planning procedures for oil wells” — bureaucratese par excellence, Luskin said.

But even more debilitating to the energy exploration business, said Luskin, was the implementation of the recommendations of the Sheshinski Commission. The commission was established several years ago by the government over concerns that licenses for oil and gas exploration had been leased too cheaply — perhaps with the expectation that nothing would come of the exploration. Now, however, the stakes are much higher, and the commission, headed by Hebrew University economist Eytan Sheshinsky, last year recommended retroactively increasing the state’s take by hiking some of the fees associated with leasing, and the net profit from production.

Luskin slammed the Sheshinsky plan, barely avoiding using terms “state-sponsored theft.” According to Luskin, “Sheshinsky without question is going to hamper exploration and production. The government came in the guise of a thief and changed the deal we explorers had with them. Not only does it retroactively raise the tax from 40% to 75% of the total value of what we find, it retroactively punishes success. I would not be surprised if the Tamar and Leviathan people stopped their work, although in truth the Sheshinsky plan hurts us at Givot Olam more than it hurts them.”

The loss is not only to his pocket, but to the state, as well, Luskin said. “I had every intention of building a university that would train engineers in oil exploration and energy management, an area that is crucial to Israel’s future. Now I’m not sure I will be able to,” considering how much money he is going to have to give up.

And learning how to develop oil and gas is important not only for Israel, but for the entire world. “The alternative energy projects like solar and wind are all nice, but they’re just projects. For the foreseeable future we are going to be dependent on fossil fuels, a finite resource.”

New technologies are needed to maximize the existing oil supply and to find new sources of oil and gas, and given Israel’s penchant for technology, this would be the perfect place for such a university. “We need to invest in a new generation of scientists, and Israel is the place to do it. If a solution to the energy crisis is to be found, it will be here,” he said, adding that “the world needs the Jewish brain.”





=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Iranian commander stresses IRGC's full
control over US Navy in Persian gulf

24 April 2012, 22:52 (GMT+05:00)
http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/2018462.html

Commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi stressed his forces domination and control over the US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, and said that the American naval forces need IRGC's permission for any move in the regional waters, Fars News reported.

"Today, Americans admit and acknowledge that the Persian Gulf is under the tight control of the IRGC Navy," Fadavi said on Tuesday.

"This doesn't mean inspection (of their ships), but controlling (them). That is to say, they should receive our permission and account to us for any move they want to make," he explained.

Last week, another commander of the IRGC said that all vessels, including the US warships, enter the Persian Gulf waters through the Strait of Hormuz only after they are checked by the IRGC naval forces.

"The alien vessels which enter the Persian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz always provide the needed answers and information to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) units," Lieutenant Commander of the IRGC Navy Alireza Tangsiri said on Wednesday.

He further noted the deployment of a US aircraft carrier in the region, and said, "This vessel, similar to the other warships, answered all the questions asked by the IRGC Navy without any problem or making any particular move and then continued the path to its specified destination."

The remarks by the Iranian commanders came as the US launched a propaganda campaign through a number of western media outlets about the deployment of the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise along with the Abraham Lincoln carrier in waters near the Persian Gulf, implying that their deployment means a fortification of the US military presence in the region against Iran.

The US says that the deployment is "routine" and the two carriers will support the American military operations in Afghanistan and anti-piracy efforts off Somalia's coast and in the Gulf of Aden.






=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Wednesday April 25, 2012

'Revolutionary Guard pressing Iran
to halt uranium enrichment'

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/news...le.php?id=4090

Al-Arabiya reports that Iran's Revolutionary Guard wants Tehran to announce the move in next round
of nuclear talks with world powers • Prime Minister Netanyahu: Iranian centrifuges continue to spin.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard is urging Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to end the country's uranium enrichment program, according to a report by Saudi-based Al-Arabiya on Tuesday. The report says the Guard wants Iranian negotiators to announce the move at the next round of talks with the West scheduled for late May in Baghdad.


According to the report, which was not officially confirmed in Tehran, Revolutionary Guard leaders are concerned about the toll sanctions are exacting on the country, which may become more severe if the nuclear talks fail. International sanctions on Iran have reportedly made it difficult for the country to implement national economic projects for which the Guard is responsible.


Iranian officials told Al-Arabiya that the sanctions have caused senior Guard officials to reconsider Iranian policies and discuss the issue of reconciliation with the West.


Iran is currently discussing its nuclear program with five major powers - Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. - and Germany (P5+1). A first round of talks began on April 14 and concluded with optimistic feelings on both sides.


According to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, the talks were "constructive and useful."


Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted as saying his country was ready to resolve all nuclear issues in the next round of talks with world powers if the West started lifting sanctions.


In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said sanctions are affecting Iran's economy, but are not effective enough. "So far they haven't rolled back the Iranian program, or even stopped it by one iota," Netanyahu told CNN's Erin Burnett during the exclusive interview.


"I can tell you the centrifuges are spinning. They were spinning before the talks began recently with Iran. They were spinning during the talks. They were spinning as we speak," Netanyahu said.


Netanyahu also said that Israel knows what Iran's nuclear program is all about. "We know. This is not the case, the questions, people had about Saddam Hussein," he said.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced on Tuesday that it is setting up a special agency within the U.S. armed forces to gather intelligence related to countries posing major threats, such as Iran and China.






=

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

08:30 AM ET, 04/25/2012

State Department:
Israel was never invited to the NATO summit

By Jennifer Rubin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...CXfT_blog.html

Tuesday morning I had a post concerning difficulties the State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland had in responding to an objection by Turkey to Israel’s attendance at an upcoming NATO summit. In short, she refused to say whether the U.S. would defend Israel’s participation.

Nuland contacted me late Tuesday afternoon to offer an explanation for her bobbing and weaving with the press. She told me, “had it come up at the briefing again today, I would have clarified that it was never in the plan to invite Israel to the NATO summit, nor have they attended any previous NATO summits. The only NATO partner format that Israel is a member of is the Mediterranean Dialog, which has never met at summit level, and won’t this time either.” So what was Turkey objecting to?

If you accept the State Department’s version, Turkey was simply mouthing off, adding more fuel to the cross-fire between the countries. An Israeli news report stated: “A NATO spokeswoman said there had not been a discussion on inviting Israel to the Chicago summit.” The Times of Israel also reported:

“It is true that Israel wasn’t invited, because Ankara is working hard to prevent NATO from strengthening two partnerships: its Mediterranean partnership because of Israel, and its European Union partnership because of Cyprus,” an Israeli diplomatic official said. He added that Turkey was subject to “scathing criticism” from fellow member states for obstructing the development of NATO’s ties.

“We didn’t plan on attending the summit anyway,” the official said, adding that the list of invitees to NATO summits was a matter to be discussed between the alliance and its member states and that Israel was not going to get involved.

If this is all accurate, Nuland was tap dancing on behalf of NATO to fend off questions about which countries were being invited and which were not (something still not determined), and perhaps to avoid publicly embarrassing the Turks. The result, however, was a failure to rhetorically come to Israel’s defense or to buck NATO’s misbegotten PR stance, until the public push back made this untenable.

But there is something more fundamental at issue. Israel wasn’t being invited because the Turks previously rejected a so-called “individual partner plan” outlining Israel’s participation in the Med Dialogue. Because NATO operates on consensus, Israel is being blocked from engaging with NATO, at least at high level. That is why Israel wasn’t invited. A report from the Atlantic Council makes clear: “Turkey said it will not allow Israel, a member of the Mediterranean Dialogue, a NATO outreach program with seven non-NATO nations, to take part in the alliance’s new ‘Partnership Cooperation Menu (PCM),’ during a NATO meeting in Brussels last week attended by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu.

Because of Ankara’s veto, Israel will not attend the NATO summit due to take place from May 20 to 21 in Chicago, an important diplomatic summit to be hosted by US President Barack Obama.” In other words, failure to invite Israel is the result of Turkey’s actions and our inability to convince Turkey to cease and desist from its Israel boycott.

A pro-Israel activist told me late Tuesday that it was a positive sign that the State Department was seeking to contain the situation. However, the activist bluntly told me that “none of this excuses” why the State Department couldn’t make it clear that U.S. policy is to allow Israel to participate wherever appropriate or wherever their concerns may be affected. (We are, right?)

A foreign policy guru who has been critical of the administration had similar take. The guru e-mailed that, in a way, the State Department explanation is “irrelevant” because “we should be able to invite whoever the hell we please without one of our partner nations telling them they can’t come.”

The administration’s defenders will say the State Department was trying to be a good NATO sport and can’t unblock the Turks because NATO operates on consensus. Its critics will say the administration once again put Israel too far down on its list of priorities and that the position on Israel’s participation as a NATO partner should be made clear to the Turks and everyone else. My own take is that the State Department spokeswoman really isn’t the problem here; rather, it is the administration for which she works that seems to value multi-lateralism and calming problem children (in this case, the Turks) more than the robust defense of bilateral friendships.







=

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/world/meast/syria-unrest/

Opposition: Syrian regime intensifies attacks in cities visited by monitors
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 12:29 PM EDT, Wed April 25, 2012

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* NEW: At least 21 people are killed Wednesday, opposition activists say
* They say fresh violence erupts in Douma and Hama after U.N. observers leave
* Syria is not accepting monitors from Friends of Syria nations, a U.N. official says
* Hillary Clinton: It is "absolutely deplorable" if the regime is killing those who spoke to monitors

(CNN) -- A small group of United Nations observers resumed its mission to monitor a truce in Syria that, at best, was tenuous from the start and showed more signs Wednesday of unraveling as opposition activists again reported widespread terror.

In what appeared to be a disturbing pattern of retaliation, security forces attacked hot spots -- including the cities of Hama and Douma -- after U.N. monitors left the areas.

Security forces have also reportedly targeted residents who have spoken to the monitors, according to Ahmad Fawzi, spokesman for special envoy Kofi Annan. Fawzi told the U.N. Security Council that people have been harassed and even killed for speaking.

One activist in Douma urged the monitors to return to the besieged city to see what was unfolding in the wake of their departure.
Syria's deadly lies to U.N. monitors
Shelling of Syrian city intensifies
U.N. to send more monitors to Syria
McCain: No hope for U.N. mission in Syria

"The security forces have continued their siege on Douma for the second day today," said Mohammed, identified only by his first name for safety reasons.

"We desperately call on the international monitors to return to Douma to see the other face of the regime," he said.

Tuesday, Annan told the Security Council that President Bashar al-Assad's actions were reprehensible.

"I am particularly alarmed by reports that government troops entered Hama (Monday) after observers departed, firing automatic weapons and killing a significant number of people," Annan said. "If confirmed, this is totally unacceptable and reprehensible."

Violence erupted again nationwide Wednesday. At least 21 people were killed, including three children, said the opposition Local Coordination Committees of Syria.

CNN cannot independently verify reports of violence and deaths within Syria, as the government has restricted access by international media.

A handful of U.N. observers have in recent days toured restive cities and towns after Annan, the joint U.N.-Arab League envoy, brokered a six-point peace plan with al-Assad.

Annan said Syria's foreign minister assured him heavy weapons and troops were withdrawn from population centers and that military operations had ended, a key element of the peace plan.

Annan described the communication as "encouraging," but added, "the only promises that count are the promises that are kept."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also expressed concern over reports of retaliation by the Syrian government.

"It is absolutely deplorable if there is this kind of intimidation and harassment and possible violence against those Syrians who have every right to meet with and discuss the situation with the monitors," she said.

U.N. approves expanding Syrian mission
Syrian activist on U.N. action
Day of defiance in Syria

Clinton said U.S. officials are preparing "additional steps" in case the violence continues or if the monitors are prevented from doing their work.

U.S. Sen. John McCain told CNN that he had little hope for success for the United Nations mission in Syria.

"How atrocious is it that the government allows these monitors in, people have the courage to come out and express their grievances and then they slaughter people," he said.

"That is such a slap in the face, a repudiation of what this is supposed to be about," he added. "Again, if it wasn't so serious, it would be a bad joke."

The ongoing carnage, say opposition activists, is proof that al-Assad does not intend to keep his promises; that he is playing cat-and-mouse games.

At least 38 people were killed across the country Tuesday, the LCC said.

The Red Cross said Mohammed al-Khadraa, a Syrian Arab Red Crescent volunteer, was killed and three others were injured in Douma Tuesday evening.

Al-Khadraa was shot and killed in a vehicle clearly marked with the Red Crescent emblem, the agency said.

The U.N. Security Council recently authorized sending up to 300 monitors to Syria for 90 days. They are tasked with observing a cease-fire that was supposed to have begun April 12.

By Monday, 30 observers are expected to be on the ground, with that number sweliing to 100 by month's end. But Wednesday, there were only 13.

One problem is that Damascus is unwilling to allow monitors from any of the 60-plus nations of the Friends of Syria group, which aims to find a solution to the Syrian crisis.

The group, which includes the United States, France and the United Kingdom, met earlier this month and formally recognized the opposition Syrian National Council as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

Analysis: U.N. mission does nothing to change endgame in Syria

Nationalities aside, some question whether the observers will be able to get an objective, comprehensive view of the situation.

"They are all the time watched by the security forces of the regime," said one opposition activist, who is not being identified for safety reasons.

The observers are also tasked with implementing the peace plan, which calls for the government and the opposition to end the bloodshed, provide access to the population for humanitarian groups, release detainees and start a political dialogue.

In March, 2011, the government started cracking down on peaceful protesters calling for the ouster of al- Assad, whose family has ruled Syria for 42 years.

The United Nations estimates at least 9,000 people have since died, while activist groups put the death toll at more than 11,000.

CNN's Amir Ahmed, Holly Yan, Moni Basu, Joe Vaccarello, Jill Dougherty and Elizabeth Joseph contributed to this report.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?o...00656&Itemid=1

Yemen Seals Alliance with U.S. to Fight Islamist Militias

Sanaa, Apr 25 (Prensa Latina) The Yemeni Army intensified on Wednesday an offensive against extremist militias, amid encountered reactions by the government''s announcement that it will strengthen its antiterrorist alliance with the United States, and the parliamentarians call to promote dialogue.

A spokesman for the Armed Forces said that about 10 irregular fighters identified as terrorists of the group Ansar Al-Sharia (supporters of the Islamic Law) were killed recently in an ambush in Lawdar district, in the southern province of Abyan.

According to the source, quoted by the state news agency SABA, the fighting got stronger on Tuesday night and lasted until Wednesday in Zinjíbar and Lawdar, the capital of Abyan, which authorities said was recovered after more than six hours of fighting.

Skirmishes continue in compliance with an order from Yemeni President Abdo Rabbo Mansour Hadi, although the parliamentarians from the Legislative Assembly insisted on the Executive to agree to hold talks with leaders of Ansar al-Sharia.

A group of legislators from different tendencies appreciated the talks with the militia, which in Sanaa is considered a branch of Al-Qaeda in the Arabic Peninsula (AQAP), a duty under certain conditions to put end to the bloodshed in the country.

However, leaders of Ansar Al-Sharia threatened to execute 73 soldiers captured if Hadi and Prime Minister Mohamed Basindwe do not meet their demands within a week.

On Tuesday, Hadi was praised by his supporters and criticized by political opponents after their meeting of hardly 45 minutes in this capital with the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Robert Mueller.

The capitulation of Al-Ahmar was considered the first successful action of Hadi to distance himself from Saleh's relatives, who were ruling the main armed institutions, although it came after the UN envoy to Yemen, Jamal Ben Omar, negotiated with the former president.

sus/jg/abo/lac/Ucl
Modificado el ( miércoles, 25 de abril de 2012 )

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/20..._sharqieh.aspx

Focus on Al Qaeda in Yemen Magnifies Chronic Instability

Yemen, Foreign Policy, Central Intelligence Agency

Ibrahim Sharqieh, Deputy Director, Brookings Doha Center

The National

April 25, 2012 —
In a recent conversation, the White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan and Yemen's newly elected President Abdrabu Mansour Hadi "pledged that the two countries, together with Yemen's other international partners, will work closely together to confront Yemen's security and economic challenges".
Yemen's new president Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi (L) receives the country's national flag from former president Ali Abdullah Saleh during a ceremony at the presidential palace in Sanaa February 27, 2012.

Yemen's new president Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi (L) receives the country's national flag from former president Ali Abdullah Saleh during a ceremony at the presidential palace in Sanaa February 27, 2012.
View Larger

Reuters/Khaled Abdullah
Despite the fact that Yemenis signed a power-transfer deal in November in the hopes of achieving lasting political change, this process was not mentioned in that high-level conversation. Undoubtedly, political progress has been made, with the election of a new president and the formation of a coalition government, yet economic improvements have yet to be delivered. Yemen is increasingly insecure, as the number of drone attacks has risen post-revolution.

No wonder The Washington Post reported last week: "The CIA is seeking authority to expand its covert drone campaign in Yemen by launching strikes against terrorism suspects even when it does not know the identities of those who could be killed, US officials said."

Since the February 25 inauguration of Yemen's new president, Abyan province has become the front of a new war against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). In mid-March, the bombing of Abyan resulted in the deaths of more than 60 militants.

By mid-April, violence had escalated; at least 222 people were killed in five days of clashes around the southern town of Loder. This escalation sends a clear message that a security solution is being pursued even more aggressively today than under the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who still wields considerable power in the country. Recent actions also suggest that the pattern of investing resources in a security solution - even at the expense of economic development - is also surviving in Yemen's post-Saleh period.

With the "Friends of Yemen" scheduled to meet next month, the international community should think carefully about the aid it provides. Investing resources in fighting AQAP has caused more harm than good.

In the past few years, focus on military spending to aid the fight against AQAP has perpetuated domestic instability. This can take place in two ways. First, in the context of instability, units created to preserve security can be manipulated to serve narrow political agendas. For example, the counterterrorism unit which the US helped to create and train, headed by Mr Saleh's nephew Yahya, opted to stay in Sanaa to protect the former president during the uprising - rather than mobilise in the South to preserve security.

Yemen's security establishment remains divided between supporters of the former regime and Mr Hadi and his supporters, creating dangerous conditions for the manipulation of security resources.

Second, the fight against AQAP has created beneficiaries who now depend on continued fighting for their survival. AQAP, for instance, announced that its attack against the Yemeni army, immediately following the inauguration of Mr Hadi, killed over 100 soldiers and led to the capture of their weaponry. Al Qaeda is arming itself with the weapons meant to fight it.

Some Yemeni analysts such as Abdul Ghani Al Iryani trace the emergence of Ansar Al Sharia - an AQAP-linked group - to the December 2009 drone attack that killed over 40 people, many of whom were civilians. Mr Al Iryani suggests: "Of the thousands of Ansar Al Sharia now fighting in Abyan, the majority were not Al Qaeda; they were angered by what they saw American aggression … one event that radicalised the entire [province]".

A third reason the international community should not invest in additional attacks is that the security solution has failed miserably. The most noticeable accomplishment of the drone attacks has been the aggravation of the security situation on the ground. Yemen analyst Gregory Johnsen agrees, stating that "such an approach actually does more to exacerbate the problem of Al Qaeda than it does to solve it". AQAP, which has something to fight against as long as attacks continue, has recently become stronger in Abyan, gaining control over areas such as Arhab, Jaar, Shaqra, Rawdah and Azzan.

Furthermore, continuing drone attacks are overshadowing Yemen's political process. Success in the country has been measured by the number of AQAP members killed, rather than by the development of a viable political system post-Saleh. Indeed, five months have passed since the signing of the transfer of power, yet no agreement has been signed on the location, participants or agenda of the upcoming national dialogue.

The Friends of Yemen meeting on May 23 should keep in mind that true friendship to Yemen involves helping the country become self sufficient through the delivery of economic assistance and the launch of a genuine, inclusive and sustainable national dialogue. It is also imperative for a clear political road map to emerge. The GCC-mediated power transfer led to a fragile peace, yet mistrust in the political process lingers. A successful national dialogue process may secure the now-fragile peace.

Pursuing a security solution in Yemen has created greater instability. A development strategy featuring an inclusive national dialogue should help break the cycle of violence. The time has come for a paradigm shift. A security solution is not sustainable in the long term in Yemen, yet economic development and a viable political road map are.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17844884

25 April 2012 Last updated at 11:16 ET
Yemeni soldiers 'will be beheaded' by militants
Man standing in front of a crowd and addressing camera in still taken from video obtained by the BBC on 25 April One man addresses the camera while others sit behind him

Continue reading the main story
Yemen uprising

* New leader's multiple challenges
* Press praises Yemen's election
* Yemen eyes future without Saleh
* Q&A: Country in turmoil

Eighty-five soldiers being held by Islamic militants in Yemen are in danger of being beheaded, according to a video obtained by the BBC.

The video shows one of the soldiers appealing for help.

Addressing the camera, he says that they have been sentenced to death, and asks for immediate action to be taken to save their lives.

Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi has ordered an offensive in Abyan province to try to drive militants out.

Standing up, with crowds of other soldiers sitting behind him, the man says: "We plead with all the people of Yemen to save our lives. They promised to slaughter us in a few days. Please save us, save us, save us."

The group say they are being held in the city of Jeaar in Southern Yemen by Ansar Ash'aryiah, a group linked to al-Qaeda.

President Hadi was elected president in February, following the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh after months of protests.

President Hadi immediately said one of his most important tasks was the "continuation of war against al-Qaeda as a religious and national duty".

Militants seized large parts of Abyan last year. Troops have suffered major losses trying to push them out.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83O0I720120425

South Sudan frees prisoners to defuse tensions

By Yara Bayoumy and Michael Martina

JUBA/BEIJING | Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:01am EDT

JUBA/BEIJING (Reuters) - South Sudan freed Sudanese prisoners of war on Wednesday in a gesture it hopes will defuse tensions between Khartoum and Juba whose armies have been embroiled in escalating cross-border fighting that has threatened to tip into all-out war.

Sitting atop one of Africa's most significant oil reserves, Sudan and South Sudan have been unable to resolve a dispute over oil revenues and border demarcation since the South gained independence in July.

Nearly all oil production has now stopped and the border fighting in contested oil-producing regions has grown more intensive, prompting China, which has economic interests in both countries, and the African Union to push for a diplomatic deal.

"The SPLA (South Sudan's army) handed over prisoners of war to the ICRC. They were 14 who were captured during the battles of Heglig from April 10-15," Philip Aguer, spokesman for South Sudan's army, said in Juba.

Aguer was referring to the Heglig oilfield which the SPLA had captured earlier this month, but later withdrew from, under international pressure. Juba has since accused Sudan's armed forces of bombing its territory, a claim Khartoum denies.

South Sudan's government and its army have said the deal had been brokered by Egypt during its foreign minister's visit to both countries about 10 days ago, and Aguer said the prisoners would be flown back to Khartoum via Cairo.

He said the men were mostly Sudanese from the north as well as one South Sudanese who he said had been recruited as a mercenary, adding the Sudanese army was holding at least seven SPLA members as prisoner of war.

"We have requested that they be released if they have not been killed," he said. There was no immediate comment on the prisoners from Khartoum.

Clashes appear to have ebbed following weeks of cross-border fighting after Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Ahmed Karti said Khartoum was ready to resume talks on security issues, a day after President Omar al-Bashir had ruled out negotiations.

Earlier, residents of Bentiu, about 80 km (50 miles) from the contested border, said the area had come under attack from Sudanese fighter jets, saying they feared their dusty town might be the next target in the conflict.

"I do not want war to come back," Nyachar Teny, an old woman, said in a local market damaged by the Monday air strike in which at least two people had been killed. "It seemed like everyone was finished with war."

A Reuters correspondent in Bentiu said he did not hear any air strikes on Wednesday, after days of bombardment in the area. Sudan has denied carrying out any air strikes.

CHINA, AU DIPLOMATIC OFFENSIVE

The United States, China and Britain have all urged both sides to return to the negotiating table and end the fighting along the poorly marked 1,800 km (1,200 miles) long border.

China has significant oil and business interests in both African nations and is one of Sudan's closest allies. Western powers hope Beijing will overcome its reluctance to get involved in the conflict and help resume talks.

China, where South Sudan President Salva Kiir travelled for talks this week, said it would send its Africa enjoy to Khartoum and Juba to help with talks. The enjoy, Zhong Jianhua, is expected to work with the United States, China said.

"This is the second time he will go to Sudan and South Sudan to promote talks," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said.

The African Union urged both sides to resume talks, which have collapsed several times, to strike a deal within three months or face a binding ruling.

The AU's Peace and Security Council issued a seven-point roadmap late on Tuesday that called on both sides to cease hostilities within 48 hours and called for the "unconditional" withdrawal of troops from disputed areas.

Both nations face severe economic crises with fuel shortages and rising food rising which will make it difficult to fund an all-out war for a long time. The approaching rain season will hamper any sustained ground fighting.

(Additional reporting by Aaron Maasho in Addis Ababa and Hereward Holland in Bentiu; Writing by Yara Bayoumy and Ulf Laessing Editing by Maria Golovnina)


Related News

* China to send envoy to Sudans, says working with U.S.
7:12am EDT
* AU gives Sudan, South Sudan three months to sign deal
7:52am EDT
* Air strikes revive fears of war in South Sudan
8:11am EDT

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/04/f...udan-minister/


FG to reinforce supplies to troops in Sudan – Minister
On April 25, 2012 · In News
11:00 am

The Minister of Defence, Dr Bello Mohammed says the Federal Government will reinforce supplies to Nigerian troops serving in Sudan.

The minister, who spoke to journalists at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, on arrival from Sudan late Tuesday, said the reinforcement would boost the troops’ operational efficiency.

He noted that the soldiers were serving in an area with harsh climate, noting that they ought to be well catered for.

“We are making arrangements from here to transport some welfare equipment and facilities such as beddings.

“We are making arrangements to give them more fighting and utility vehicles that will facilitate their comfortable stay and also facilitate their operational efficiency. ’’

Mohammed said the morale of the troops was very high, adding that Nigerian troops had restored peace in the sector where they are operating.

He said the Sudanese who fled to neighbouring countries are gradually returning home as a report of the development.

“ I believe that the United Nations/African Union Missions in Dafur (UNAMID is serving a very useful purpose and Nigeria troops are making useful contributions to the success.’’

The minister said the government of Sudan was very friendly and receptive to Nigeria as they believe that Nigeria is the backbone of UNAMID. (NAN).

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article616406.ece

By RAMZY BAROUD
Hidden hands behind Sudan’s oil conflict
Posted by
RAMZY BAROUD
Apr 25, 2012 00:35

Once again Omar Bashir, the president of Sudan, waved his walking stick in the air. Once again he spoke of splendid victories over his enemies as thousands of jubilant supporters danced and cheered. But this time around the stakes are too high.

An all-out war against newly independent South Sudan might not be in Sudan's best interest. South Sudan's saber-rattling is not an entirely independent initiative; its most recent territorial transgressions — which saw the occupation of Sudan’s largest oil field in Heglig on April 10, followed by a hasty retreat ten days later — might have been a calculated move aimed at drawing Sudan into a larger conflict.

Stunted by the capture of Heglig, which, according to some estimates, provides nearly half of the country's oil production, Bashir promised victory over Juba. Speaking to large crowd in the capital of North Kordofan, El-Obeid, Bashir affectively declared war. “Heglig isn't the end, it is the beginning,” he said, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal. Bashir also declared a desire to "liberate" the people of South Sudan from a government composed of "insects." Even when Heglig was declared a liberated region by Sudan's defense minister, the humiliation of defeat was simply replaced by the fervor of victory. "They started the fighting and we will announce when it will end, and our advance will never stop," Bashir announced on April 20.

Statements issued by the government of South Sudan are clearly more measured, with an international target audience in mind. Salva Kiir, President of South Sudan, simply said that his forces departed the region following appeals made by the international community. This includes a statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, which described the attack on Heglig as "an infringement on the sovereignty of Sudan and a clearly illegal act" (Reuters, April 19). A day before the hasty withdrawal, South Sudan government spokesman Barnaba Marial Benjamin claimed there had been no conflict in the first place. His statement was both bewildering and patronizing. He considered Sudan, which was then rallying for war to recapture its oil-rich area, a neighbor and "friendly nation", and claimed that "up to now we have not crossed even an inch into Sudan" (Associated Press, April 19).

The fact remains, however, that wherever there is oil political narratives cannot possibly be so simple. Sudan is caught in a multidimensional conflict involving weapons trade, internal instabilities, multiple civil wars and the reality of outside players with their own interests. None of this is enough to excuse the readiness for war on behalf of Khartoum and Juba, but it certainly presents serious obstacles to any attempt aimed at rectifying the situation.

With a single act of aggression, a whole set of conflicts are prone to flaring up. It is the nature of proxy politics, as many armed groups seek opportunities for territorial advances and financial gains. News reports already speak of a possible involvement of Uganda should the fledging war between Khartoum and Juba cross conventional boundaries. “As the possibility of a full-fledged war became unnervingly higher, Gen. Aronda Nyakairima, chief of Uganda's defense forces, said that his army might be compelled to intervene if Bashir did overthrow South Sudan's regime,” reported Alexis Okeowo in the New Yorker website (April 20). Both Sudans are fighting their own war against various rebel groups. Despite the lack of basic food in parts of the region, plenty of weapons effortlessly find inroads to wherever there is potential strife.

In a statement published last July, Amnesty International called on UN member states to control arm shipments to both Sudan and South Sudan. It accused the US, Russia and China of fueling violations in the Sudan conflict through the arms trade.

US support of South Sudan is already well known. "The US reportedly provided $100 million-a-year in military assistance to the SPLA (Sudan People's Liberation Army)," according to Russia Today (RT) on April 19, citing a December 2009 diplomatic cable revealed by WikiLeaks.

According to political author and columnist Reason Wafawarova, US interest in South Sudan is neither accidental nor motivated by humanitarian issues. He told RT, "It would not be surprising if the US is trying to capitalize on the vulnerability of South Sudan in its efforts to establish the AFRICOM base somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa." RT goes on to reference Sudan's Al-Intibaha newspaper for its reports on Israeli weapon supplies to Juba.

US and Israeli military support of Juba is not a new phenomenon. Sudan's civil war (1983-2005), which cost an estimated 2.5 million lives, could not have lasted as long as it did without steady sources of military funding. And while the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the January 9-15, 2011 referendum, and finally the independence of South Sudan in July were all meant to usher in a new era of peace and cooperation, none actualized. Sudan's territorial concessions proved most costly, and South Sudan, destroyed and landlocked, was ripe for outside exploitation. Both countries are now caught in a deadly embrace. They can neither part ways completely, nor cooperate successfully without a risk of war at every turn. Bashir also knows he is running out of options. While Khartoum has already "lost three-quarters of its oil revenue after the secession," according Egypt's Al Ahram Weekly, "now it is poised to lose the rest." Naturally, a conflict of this magnitude cannot be resolved by empty gestures and reassuring statements. The conflict has been festering for decades, and war has been the only common language. Powerful countries, including the US, Russia, China, but also Israel and regional Arab and Africa players exploited the conflict to their advantage whenever possible. In a recent analysis, the International Crisis Group in Brussels advised that a "new strategy is needed to avert an even bigger crisis." The crisis group recommends that the “UN Security Council must reassert itself to preserve international peace and security, including the implementation of border monitoring tasks as outlined by UN Interim Security Force in Abyei.”

Expecting the Security Council to act in political tandem seems a bit too optimistic, however. Considering that the US is arming and supporting South Sudan, and that Russia and China continue to support Khartoum, the rivalry in fact exists within the UN itself.

For a sustainable future peace arrangement, Sudan's territorial integrity must be respected, and South Sudan must not be pushed to the brink of desperation. Rivalries between the US, China and Russia cannot continue at the expense of nations that teeter between starvation and civil wars. And whatever hidden hands that continue to exploit Sudan's woes now need to be exposed and isolated.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is a columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com.

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...ba6ca58d517e9c

African Union: Sudan must stop bombing South Sudan

By KIRUBEL TADESSE, Associated Press – 3 hours ago

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (AP) — The African Union called on Sudan to stop its aerial bombardment of South Sudan and for both countries to cease hostilities as an uneasy calm settled over the south Wednesday with a lull in violence.

Sudan and South Sudan must withdraw their forces from the disputed border region and keep their troops within their borders, the AU Peace and Security Council said in a statement released after a council meeting late Tuesday.

The AU also said the two neighboring countries should stop issuing inflammatory statements and propaganda that could escalate the conflict.

South Sudan President Salva Kiir had said Tuesday that Sudan had "declared war" on his country following the north's repeated bombing of the south. Kiir's comments, made during a trip to China, signal a rise in rhetoric between the rival nations who spent decades at war with each other. Neither side has officially declared war.

Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir gave a fiery speech last week in which he said there will be no negotiations with the "poisonous insects" who are challenging Sudan's claim to a disputed territory near the border.

South Sudan won independence from Sudan last year as part of a 2005 peace treaty that ended decades of war that killed 2 million people.

Sudan and South Sudan have been drawing closer to a full-scale war in recent weeks over the unresolved issues of oil revenues and their disputed border. The violence has drawn alarm and condemnation from the international community.

The AU said Sudan and South Sudan must resume negotiations over their disputes, which collapsed earlier this month in Ethiopia when two the countries started attacking each other.

In January, the landlocked South Sudan shut down oil production and accused Sudan of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of oil it shipped through its northern neighbor. Sudan responded by bombing the South's oil fields.

Earlier this month, South Sudan invaded the oil-rich town of Helgig, which was in the control of Sudan but which both countries claim. South Sudan's government spokesman Barnaba Marial Benjamin said that troops from the south had withdrawn from the Heglig on Monday, but that Sudan continued with aerial bombardment of the south.

The U.N. Mission in South Sudan confirmed that at least 16 civilians in South Sudan were killed and 34 injured in bombings by Sudanese aircraft in Unity State, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations told reporters in New York Tuesday. She said the mission reported that the bombings also caused significant damage to infrastructure.

In the South Sudan region of Panakuac, which has seen days of air and ground attacks, violence subsided Wednesday and people were out in the streets.

South Sudan government spokesman Benjamin also said there was no reported incidents of violence by Wednesday afternoon in much of the south, though he cautioned he was still receiving reports from various regions.

A Chinese official said Wednesday Kiir had to cut short a five-day visit to China because of the rising threat of war at home. Kiir originally planned to spend five days in China, a key economic and strategic partner for the newly independent country. It remained unclear exactly when he would return to South Sudan.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Thursday, April 26, 2012O
The New York Times Exclusive

Why North Korea's rocket mattered

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesig...php?nid=231623

Sung-yoon leeSpectacular failure though it was, North Korea's latest rocket launching calls for punitive measures from America and its allies. Bad engineering is no reason for complacency; the benchmark for American policy must be North Korea's intent. And for decades, that government has been determined to develop nuclear-tipped long-range missiles that would give it leverage over the United States on a host of issues.

It's predictable that the misfire has triggered over-analysis and scape-goating, with calls for calm and tales of an internal power struggle between "hawks" and "doves" in the new Kim Jong-un government. Others say America and South Korea should re-engage the government in Pyongyang. Both views ignore the fact that Kim Jong-un is following a path of alternating provocations and peace offensives paved by his grandfather Kim Il-sung and perfected by his father, Kim Jong-il.

No government enjoys total unanimity. But the notion that in totalitarian North Korea, a few disgruntled military men might put their foot down and reverse a course of engagement set by their leader is foolish. It ignores the nature of the power structure in the North. For more than a half-century, the Kim clan has kept the military in line through vicious purges, competition that fosters loyalty to the leader, selective rewards and a multilayered security apparatus. While a military clique may one day challenge or even overthrow Kim Jong-un, the notion that the military wields a veto now is a mirage that plays into North Korea's stratagems.

And for those inclined to believe that the North can be persuaded to change its behaviour with inducements, consider this: Except for the invasion of the South in 1950, North Korea has never suffered a lasting or devastating penalty for its many attacks and provocations. On the contrary, it has often been rewarded for false pledges.

From January 1968 to December 1969, North Korea acted with impunity: It sent commandos into Seoul in a failed effort to kill the South Korean president, Park Chung-hee; it seized the United States Navy spy ship Pueblo and its crew, killing one sailor and holding 82 prisoners for 11 months until it got an apology from the Johnson administration; it shot down an American reconnaissance plane, killing 31 servicemen aboard, on Kim Il-sung's birthday in 1969; and it ambushed and killed four American soldiers patrolling the military demarcation line in October 1969.

A thaw followed in the early 1970s, thanks to American rapprochement with China. Talks between North and South ensued. Kim Il-sung called for diplomatic talks with America. But then North Korea resumed attacks. In 1974 it made another attempt on President Park's life, in which his wife died. In 1976 North Korean guards hacked two American soldiers to death.

In 1983, as North Korea sought talks with America, its agents targeted the South Korean president Chun Doo-hwan, with a bomb in Rangoon, Burma (now Yangon, Myanmar). He survived, but 17 other South Korean officials died. In 1998 North Korea fired a missile over Japan while America, South Korea and Japan were sending energy aid. In 2006 it test-fired a long-range missile on July 5 and staged its first nuclear test three months later. In 2009, it launched a long-range rocket in April and tested a nuclear device on Memorial Day.

In all of these episodes, North Korea was never penalised in any meaningful way. Indeed, several provocations were followed by blandishments -- rewards, in effect -- in the form of food, fuel and cash from North Korea's risk-averse adversaries in Seoul and Washington.

This record shows that North Korea doesn't respond to either rhetorical hostility or diplomatic civility. Its latest ballistic stunt followed a long pattern of ignoring outside warnings. But the American response should not also be the usual -- strong on rhetorical condemnation, weak on punitive action and generous in damage-control concessions. North Korea clearly seeks to continue this profitable cycle by dangling before America the possibility of denuclearisation, even as it conducts missile and nuclear tests.

Now, as Kim Jong-un is believed to be preparing for another nuclear test, the question remains how much longer America and its allies will take before devising a new collective strategy -- one that does not settle for short-term diplomatic gains at the cost of long-term strategic interests.

They can start by responding to the failed launching on Friday as if it had succeeded. The Obama administration is correct to cancel food shipments, which were contingent on a halt to missile and nuclear tests. But it should go further and act with its allies to hit the Kim government itself -- by tightening economic sanctions aimed at the privileged few at the top of the Kim dynasty's power structure; by not relenting in that pressure for the mere privilege of talking with North Korea; and by taking new measures to counter the propaganda apparatus with which the government controls the long-suffering North Korean people.

That may not stem North Korea's provocations in the short term. But the alternative is, at best, another half-century of putting up with provocations from the North or, far worse, a major nuclear crisis that ends in a devastating war.






=