WAR 02-07-2015-to-02-13-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/content/univ...al-revolution-in-china-education/2636270.html

University Head Sees Signs of Cultural Revolution in China Education

William Ide
February 10, 2015 8:04 AM

BEIJING— At a time when China is working to silence criticism of a new push to strengthen ideological teaching at schools, and keep textbooks promoting Western values out of the classroom, a professor has warned in a state-media interview that the growing education debate runs the risk of becoming too extreme.

In an interview with the Communist Party-backed People’s Daily website, Nankai University President Gong Ke said that some of the response to the campaign was dangerously similar to the Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957 and the Cultural Revolution. During those two periods intellectuals were brutally persecuted in China.

In the interview, Gong said that while some believe the ranks of China’s academies of higher learning should be cleansed, purified and rectified, he did not agree.

"That is the mentality of 1957 and 1966,” he said.

The debate picked up steam recently when China's education minister warned about the danger of Western values in textbooks.

China’s propaganda authorities have ordered the media to disseminate the ideas of Education Minister Yuan Guiren's, who is spearheading the campaign, and those of Maoist scholar Zhu Jidong and to delete any criticisms, according to an apparently leaked censorship directive published by the China Digital Times.

Zhu, a scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, has voiced his support for Education Minister Yuan Guiren’s perspective that China's youth are at risk and more controls are needed. He argues that businessmen, lawyers, artists and professors who have criticized the minister should be dealt with harshly.

Gong said that while there are those within the rank and file of teachers whose political views may be problematic, or who have lifestyle, financial or academic failings, more trust was needed.

“You cannot generalize, you cannot use them to represent the broad core of teachers,” he said.

Gong also warned that such an approach runs the risk of repeating the mistakes leftists made in the past, and going from one extreme to another.

Tightening control

Before stepping into office, hopes were high for reforms under China’s new leader Xi Jinping. Xi was only a teenager when his father was jailed during the Cultural Revolution and like many others during that era, his classes were halted so that students could criticize and fight their teachers.

Because of his experiences many thought he would avoid such extremes, but concerns continue to grow as he cracks down on civil society, tightens access to the Internet and now sets his sights on institutions of higher learning.

The new campaign not only focuses on ridding campuses of harmful western ideals, but also about restructuring the way institutions approach study in Marxism and Communist Party ideology.

Some have even warned about the threat scholars who have studied overseas pose to universities. But that was an idea the state-run Global Times recently shot down in an editorial entitled “Returned Scholars not a foe of Core Values.”

In it, the nationalistic tabloid argued that China can only be successful by continuing along the path of reform and opening up.

“Promoting ideological education in colleges can be considered a reform, with the goal of fostering a new generation of talented people who are faithful to their nation and its people,” it said.

But it also added that given China’s integration with the world, its education cannot be a closed system.

Hong Kong student protests

Some analysts have argued that Xi Jinping’s shift in attention to universities is an indirect result of the student protests in Hong Kong. China has long worried about Arab Spring-like protests reaching its shores.

Others argue that eventually the education minister may have to reverse course, given the unusually public backlash that continues.

Russell Moses, the dean of academics and faculty at the Beijing Center for Chinese Studies, has a different view.

In an article Moses recently wrote on The Wall Street Journal’s China RealTime blog, he said the campaign wasn’t really about anxiety of unrest at colleges in China or even educational reform.

“The real fear is that another of Xi’s campaigns, the broad and ongoing anti-corruption crackdown is beginning to focus on colleges,” he said.

And that presents conservatives with a threat, or maybe an opportunity, if they play their cards right, he added.

__

Related Articles

Chinese Official Warns Hong Kong Activists Not to Protest
China’s Western Values Debate Heats Up Online
As Innovation Lags, Taiwan to Retool University Entrance Exams

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/02/11/where-will-russia-strike-next/

Opinion 2/11/2015 @ 4:48PM 2,362 views

Where Will Russia Strike Next?

Guest post written by

Vasil Jaiani

Mr. Jaiani is a senior management analyst for the government of the District of Columbia.
(Disclaimer: Expressed opinions belong to the author and do not represent opinion of the government of the District of Columbia.)

Defiance, denial, disguised military invasion and intimidation have become hallmarks of Putin’s Russian foreign policy repertoire. Despite condemnation by the U.S. and European Union and economic downturn caused by the western sanctions and falling oil prices, Russia has not halted its camouflaged military aggression in Eastern Ukraine. In fact, Russia’s muscle flexing has surpassed its neighborhood and reached remote parts of Australia and the Gulf of Mexico. Although sending an aging naval fleet to Australia or strategic bomber flights in Gulf of Mexico are more symbolic than real threats, they attest to increasing belligerence of Russia’s foreign policy. If not effectively stopped in Ukraine, Russia is likely to launch another military adventure and there are a number of countries which may find themselves under Moscow’s gun.

Latvia and Estonia

These Baltic States, which border Russia, are home for large ethnically Russian minorities (estimates say that 25% of Estonia’s population and 27% of Latvia’s is Russian). Considering Moscow’s recent inclination to “defend” Russians elsewhere and a somewhat tense relationship with its small neighbors, there is a potential for Russian aggression against these countries.

Kremlin leadership has voiced discontent numerous times about how Russian minorities are treated in Latvia and Estonia. Among other things, the absence of an official status for Russian language in Latvia and the requirement in Estonia for Russians born before independence to pass an Estonian language examination to obtain citizenship have become sticking points.

Russia’s aggression against these two NATO members, however alarmist it may sound, is certainly plausible and there are already some premonitory signs. In September, Russian agents abducted an Estonian Internal Security Services officer from Estonian soil and charged him with espionage in Russia. Military planes have also been repeatedly detected in aggressive maneuvering and recurring breaches of Estonian and Latvian airspace. Success in Eastern Ukraine may embolden Putin to step up military provocations with Latvia and Estonia, potentially leading to a military standoff between Russia and NATO—a scenario which may put major nuclear powers on a collision course and gravely jeopardize peace and security in Europe.

Georgia

Russia’s small southern neighbor already suffered from Moscow’s military aggression in the summer of 2008 as a punishment for its NATO membership aspiration. Hostilities ended with Russia establishing control over Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and recognizing their independence. Although recognition by the Kremlin drew substantially more condemnation than support among international community, these regions still remain beyond Georgia’s control. Despite Georgia’s current timid foreign policy approach with Russia, Moscow is not ceasing its pursuit of a hostile agenda.

After successfully annexing Crimea, Russia is using a similar strategy in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In November, Moscow signed a treaty with the unrecognized leadership of Abkhazia effectively gaining control over its economic and military affairs—the move was criticized as essentially an annexation of this Georgian territory. The same treaty is to be signed with South Ossetia.

Russia also has considerable illegal military presence in both separatist territories which can be swiftly used to advance on the capital, Tbilisi, and other parts of the country currently controlled by Georgia’s central government. And a $1.5 billion highway construction project launched by Russia to connect Degestan, one of its most volatile regions, with eastern Georgia will enable Russian troops to promptly invade Georgia and gain a significant military advantage in the region.

Moldova

Sandwiched between Romania and Ukraine, Moldova may be the next target of Russian aggression. Moscow has been long annoyed by Moldova’s ever increasing integration with the EU. Together with Ukraine and Georgia, Moldova recently signed an association agreement with the EU bringing it economically and politically closer to Brussels. The Kremlin perceives this development as a way of undermining its political and economic clout in its post-Soviet backyard.

Disgruntled by Moldova’s snub and the recent success of pro-European parties promising more integration with the EU, the Kremlin has a couple of options to stage military aggression. Moscow could stir up situation and use a pretext of “defending” ethnic Russians in Moldova’s breakaway region of Transnistria, where the majority of population holds Russian citizenship. Although Russia does not directly border Moldova, it could use its 2,000 troops stationed in Transnistria for military and subversive operations. Moscow could also capitalize on a simmering tension between the region of Gagauzia and Moldova’s central government. The ethnic Gagauz minority, who represents more than 80% of the region’s population, has been skeptical of closer ties with Europe, and in a referendum held in February of last year, they favored associating with Russia. A vote on the right of Gagauzia to declare independence, included in the referendum, garnered equally wide local support. Moscow may take advantage of pro-Russian and separatist sentiments in Transnistria and Gagauzia to drag the country into a military confrontation.

Needs to be an effective push back

These are not the only countries in jeopardy of Russian military aggression. Other Eastern European countries like Poland or Romania may become the objects of Moscow’s belligerence. Putin has allegedly told President Poroshenko of Ukraine: “If I wanted, in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw and Bucharest.” This is a statement which should not be taken lightly. Even Russia’s traditional ally Belarus has been feeling the heat. Its dictatorial President Alexander Lukashenko has expressed his country’s readiness to defend its freedom militarily. “No matter who comes to the Belarusian land, I will fight. Even if it is Putin,” he stated. A recently passed legislation declaring the appearance of any foreign fighters on Belarusian soil as an act of aggression is indicative of Belarus’ anxiety.

The U.S. and European allies need to realize the grave danger that Russia’s military advance in Ukraine poses to the peace and security in Europe. Stopping Russian incursion in Ukraine may take more than imposing limited sanctions and sending non-lethal assistance. Policy makers in Washington and Brussels need to seriously consider providing arms to Kiev and stepping up sanctions to alter Moscow’s actions in Ukraine. The West once made a mistake by failing to act beyond condemnation when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. The problem seemed too remote and localized for the U.S. and the EU to disrupt their relationship with Russia to make them pay a significant political price. A passive response by the West to Russia’s invasion of Georgia paved the way to Ukrainian crisis. Without an effective push back in Ukraine, there are more crises to come.


(Though I'd be very interested in seeing the comments on this article, Forbes, like many other publications now require you to access it through a "social account" and agree to let them data mine it for advertising opportunities...That's not going to happen with anything I actually "use"....Housecarl)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art..._7_fears_when_it_comes_to_america_107620.html

February 11, 2015
China's 7 Fears When it Comes to America
By Michael Pillsbury

(Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt from the new book The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower by Michael Pillsbury. For book publishing rights please see the end of the excerpt.)

***

Beyond seeking to avoid arousing the American ba by inducing complacency, China’s strategy is largely intended to respond to the types of threats Chinese leaders believe the United States poses to China. Many U.S. officials—myself included—were late to recognize just how seriously Chinese leaders considered the U.S. “threat” to be; the accumulation of evidence to this effect convinced many, although not all, of us to look at Chinese perceptions differently. China was far less interested in conventional force projection than it was concerned with countering the American threat. The Assassin’s Mace is a key component of this approach.

I was tasked by the Pentagon to study Chinese threat perceptions. Many of my findings were greeted, then and now, with disbelief. Yet these Chinese threat perceptions, which I refer to as China’s “Seven Fears,” reflect the underlying attitudes of Chinese military and political leaders, particularly because those who wrote about these fears did not intend for their writings to shape popular opinion. The Seven Fears are derived solely from internal Chinese military sources; this was no propaganda effort designed to influence public opinion more broadly.

As China’s leaders see it, America has sought to dominate China since at least the time of Abraham Lincoln. I asked my Chinese contacts for evidence of this purported grand American scheme. Several Chinese military and civilian authors handed over a set of books and articles. From these materials, as well as interviews I conducted during six trips to China from 2001 to 2012, I concluded that China’s leaders believe the United States behaves like an ancient Chinese hegemon from the Warring States era. At first, it seemed to me to be illogical, even bizarre, for Chinese leaders to assert that American presidents from John Tyler to Bill Clinton had somehow learned the statecraft axioms of the Warring States and then decided to apply these esoteric concepts to contain China’s growth. This is a radical departure from the reality; in truth, the United States has labored to support China’s sovereignty, to promote Chinese economic development, and to give China a strong place in the global community.

I was astonished that my own report confirmed a revelation that I and others had previously dismissed as implausible even though it came from one of the highest-ranking Chinese defectors. Chen Youwei, a defector from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, identified several pathologies in Beijing’s decision making: reading the worst intentions into an adversary’s actions, ideological ossification, and disconnection from reality. Strangely, the Chinese had presumed that China was at the center of American war planning.

China’s Seven Fears are as follows:

1.) America’s war plan is to blockade China:

The behavior of most strategic actors is influenced by their psychological peculiarities: factors such as emotions, culture, and fears. China seems to fear blockades of its long coastline, and the string of islands off most of its coast makes the leadership feel even more vulnerable. Many in the Chinese military fear that China could be easily blockaded by a foreign power because of the maritime geography of the first island chain stretching from Japan to the Philippines that is perceived to be vulnerable to fortification. The islands are seen as a natural geographical obstacle blocking China’s access to the open ocean. Indeed, a former Japanese naval chief of staff has boasted that Chinese submarines would be unable to slip into the deep waters of the Pacific through the Ryukyu island chain, north or south of Taiwan, or through the Bashi (Luzon) Strait without being detected by U.S. and Japanese antisubmarine forces. Chinese military authors frequently discuss the need for training exercises and a military campaign plan to break out of an island blockade. One operations-research analysis describes seven lines of enemy capabilities that Chinese submarines would have to overcome to break a blockade. The United States, in their estimation, has supposedly built a blockade system of antisubmarine nets, hydroacoustic systems, underwater mines, surface warships, antisubmarine aircraft, submarines, and reconnaissance satellites.

2.) America supports plundering China’s maritime resources:

Chinese authors claim that valuable resources within China’s maritime territorial boundaries are being plundered by foreign powers because of China’s naval weakness, thereby threatening the country’s future development. Various proposals have been advocated to improve the situation. Zhang Wenmu, a former researcher at a Ministry of State Security think tank, goes so far as to say, “The navy is concerned with China’s sea power, and sea power is concerned with China’s future development. As I see it, if a nation lacks sea power, its development has no future.” A 2005 article in the Chinese military journal Military Economic Research states that China’s external-facing economy, foreign trade, and overseas markets all require having a powerful military force as a guarantee.

3.) America may choke off China’s sea lines of communication:

Many Chinese writings touch on the vulnerability of China’s sea lines of communication, especially the petroleum lifeline in the Strait of Malacca. Advocates of a blue-water navy cite the insecurity of China’s energy imports. According to one Chinese observer, the U.S., Japanese, and Indian fleets together “constitute overwhelming pressure on China’s oil supply,” though another study concludes that “only the U.S. has the power and the nerve to blockade China’s oil transport routes.” Similarly, Campaign Theory Study Guide, a 2002 textbook written by scholars at China’s National Defense University, raises several potential scenarios for the interdiction and defense of sea lines of communication. The Science of Campaigns, an important text also published by that university, discusses the defense of sea lines of communication in its 2006 edition. Some authors express urgency: “Regarding the problems . . . of sea embargo or oil lanes being cut off . . . China must . . . ‘repair the house before it rains.’” These advocates seem to want to shift priorities from a submarine-centric navy to one with aircraft carriers as the centerpieces.

4.) America seeks China’s territorial dismemberment:

China has outlined campaign plans against various invasion scenarios in a training manual intended only for internal military consumption. An influential 2005 study conducted by researchers from China’s National Defense University, the Academy of Military Science, and other top strategy think tanks assessed the vulnerabilities of each of China’s seven military regions, examining the various routes that an invading force could take. They used the military geography of each region and the frequency of historical invasion by foreign forces to forecast future vulnerabilities to land attack, even identifying neighbors as potential invaders. Recent changes to the structure of the People’s Liberation Army appear to be directed at improving the country’s resistance to land invasion.

5.) America may assist rebels inside China:

The three military regions along the northern border with Russia, including the Beijing military region, are said to be vulnerable to armored attacks and to airborne landings, as expressed in the 2005 study China’s Theater Military Geography. The “Northern Sword” exercise in Inner Mongolia in 2005 involved elements of two armored divisions: more than twenty-eight hundred tanks and other vehicles performed China’s largest field maneuver involving armored troops and an airlift over two thousand kilometers that simulated an attack on terrorists who were receiving foreign military support. Chinese spokesmen claimed the exercise scenario was foreign support of domestic terrorists but did not mention America explicitly.

6.) America may foment riots, civil war or terrorism inside China:

Constant Chinese proclamations against foreign support for “splittists” in Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang have become accepted as part of ordinary Chinese rhetoric, but these statements reflect a deep concern about China’s territorial integrity. A researcher with the Central Party International Liaison Department placed internal threats from splittists and the Falun Gong religious movement on the same level as the threat posed by U.S. hegemony.

7.) America threatens aircraft carrier strikes:

For at least a decade, Chinese military authors have assessed the threats from U.S. aircraft carriers and analyzed how best to counteract them. Operations- research analysis has suggested how Chinese forces should be employed to deal with the vulnerabilities of U.S. aircraft carriers, while other research cites specific weapons systems that China should develop. The Chinese anti-carrier missile is one of the responses to this fear of carrier strikes.



Michael Pillsbury is the director of the Center on Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and has served in presidential administrations from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Educated at Stanford and Columbia Universities, he is a former analyst at the RAND Corporation and research fellow at Harvard and has served in senior positions in the Defense Department and on the staff of four U.S. Senate committees. More information on the book is available at: http://100yearmarathon.com/



Publishing Rights: Excerpted from THE HUNDRED-YEAR MARATHON: CHINA’S SECRET STRATEGY TO REPLACE AMERICA AS THE GLOBAL SUPERPOWER by Michael Pillsbury published by HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY, LLC. Copyright © 2014 by Michael Pillsbury. All rights reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

For links and graphs see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/4817-targets-how-six-months-of-airstrikes-have-hurt-isil-or-not/

4,817 Targets: How Six Months Of Airstrikes Have Hurt ISIL (Or Not)

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
on February 11, 2015 at 5:07 PM
Comments 6

[UPDATED with McCain comment] The war is escalating. But what have six months of airstrikes against the self-proclaimed Islamic State actually achieved so far?

Last week, Jordan launched its retaliation against the Islamic State for burning a Jordanian pilot alive. Yesterday, we learned ISIL had murdered hostage Kayla Mueller. This morning, President Obama formally proposed a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIL, eliciting ambivalent comments from Congress (more on that below). The crucial question: how much leeway to leave for the future use of US ground troops.

This afternoon, US Central Command (CENTCOM) released its most detailed data yet on what the current airstrikes-only approach has accomplished so far. (We’ve analyzed earlier data here, here, and here). It counts 4,817 targets damaged or destroyed as of February 4th by the US and its coalition partners. The list is broken down into 28 categories, from 752 “fighting positions” — e.g. foxholes — to seven items of “communications equipment.” We thought we’d aggregate that a little for you:

CENTCOM data analyzed by Breaking Defense

One fact leaps out: This is close air support against enemy ground troops, not the surgical strikes against strategic targets that the Air Force was born for. Almost two-thirds of targets struck are troops, forward positions, and vehicles; just one-third are buildings and other fixed infrastructure. This is an imperfect indicator, since some buildings may be temporary staging positions close to the front line, and some troops may be hit far to the rear. Overall, though, the 2:1 ratio in targets by type indicates the air campaign is emphasizing ISIL’s forward fighting forces — what pilots once derided as “tank plinking” — rather than its rear support structure.

Of course, the Islamic State — like the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents — doesn’t have many strategic “nodes” to strike. While attacking ISIL’s oil infrastructure has hurt the terrorists’ finances, for example, it only accounts for 130 targets struck, less than three percent of the total. Attacks on bridges and roads likewise amount to only 69 targets (1.4 percent); there aren’t many of these “air interdiction” targets probably because ISIL doesn’t move in large, road-bound formations like Rommel trying to reinforce the Normandy beaches after D-Day, maneuvers which could be seen and stopped by Allied airpower.ISIL infrastructure struck

The US Air Force — and before that the Army Air Corps — historically wants to hit deep behind enemy lines. Its institutional preference is to cut off the head of the snake, not to deliver body blows. The 2003 “shock and awe” airstrikes were perhaps the pinnacle of this approach. Since 2003, however, with US ground troops engaged by guerrillas who had no headquarters, factories, or other infrastructure to target, the Air Force has gotten very good at close support. (The Navy and, even more so, the Marines never had the same institutional ambivalence about the mission).

The difference this time is it’s not US ground troops that the airstrikes are supporting: It’s local allies like the Kurdish pershmerga and Iraqi army. In some ways we’ve gone full circle back to 2001, when a massive American air effort supported Northern Alliance ground troops against the Taliban. The question is whether the 2001 model can work against the Islamic State.ISIL troops struck

The ISIL offensive has certainly stalled. Last year’s lightning advances gave way to local stalemates and a meatgrinder battle for Kobani, where ISIL troops massing to attack the Kurds on the ground made themselves easy targets for the Americans in the air. Overall, the air campaign has hit some 395 “staging areas” where ISIL fighters were gathering.

While ISIL captured parking lots full of sophisticated military vehicles from the Iraqi military, shortfalls in training and supplies mean it still relies on pickup trucks with weapons — but no armor — hastily bolted on: 396 of these “technicals” were struck, compared to just 62 tanks. Looking at the target list overall, ISIL largely lacks heavy weapons to support its fighters’ advance, armored personnel carriers to move them forward under fire, or tanks to spearhead the advance. Its lightly armed fanatics can overrun demoralized enemies like the Iraqi army or the moderate Syrians, but against determined resistance they end up replaying the Western Front of World War I.ISIL vehicles struck

But stalemating ISIL is a long way from rolling it back. Defense is easier than offense, but only offense can force an end to fighting, Clausewitz famously wrote. So far, though, the Iraqi security forces lack the morale to take the offensive, the Kurds lack the heavy weapons, and the moderate Syrian rebels lack both. They need US training, equipment, and air support to advance. But do they need US troops?

Currently, the US ground presence in the region is largely limited to rear-area training in Iraq. Senate Armed Services chairman John McCain called months ago for “more boots on the ground… in the form of forward air controllers, special forces and other people like that.” Small numbers of such specialists can direct airstrikes to precise and devastating effect, as they did in support of the Northern Alliance after 9/11, and arguably they are the crucial piece of our 2001 success in Afghanistan that’s missing from the Middle East today.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force that President Obama proposed this morning wouldn’t rule such limited ground forces out. The accompanying press release envisions special operations raids, search-and-rescue for downed pilots, and miscellaneous supporting roles “where ground combat operations are not expected or intended.” The text of the AUMF itself, however, only excludes “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” That’s a studiedly ambiguous phrase with loopholes large enough to drive a tank division through.

[UPDATED: After apparently taking most of the day to digest the president’s proposal, McCain came out with a scathing statement on the draft AUMF. “I am pleased that the President has finally taken the important step of proposing an AUMF to the Congress,” McCain said. “However, I have deep concerns about aspects of this proposed authorization, including limitations placed on the constitutional authority of the commander-in-chief, the failure to articulate an objective for the use of military force, and a narrow definition of strategy that seeks to separate the fight against ISIL from the underlying conflict in Syria and the Assad regime’s responsibility for this growing terrorist threat. This is a recipe for failure.”]

McCain’s counterpart Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said with his typical even-handedness that the President had taken “the right step” by asking for congressional authority, but the way Obama had done so raised “concerns,” especially “why he is seeking to tie his own hands by limiting authority that he’s already claimed.” The top Democrats on the two committees, Sen. Jack Reed and Rep. Adam Smith, both supported the president’s proposal — although Reed added it was “overdue.”

“Now,” Reed said, “it is time for Congress to debate, refine, and ultimately vote on a new AUMF.” The challenge will be aligning political realities with military ones.

Updated 8:30 am Thursday with McCain comment.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....On the face of it, with the Egyptian move until the recent mess, to primarily US equipment, this deal, and any possible Russian one, only complicates Egyptian logistical capability, unless they're including technology transfers and co-production......

For links and graphs see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-egypt-rafale-idUSKBN0LG1QV20150212

France, Egypt agree Rafale, military hardware deal: source

PARIS Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:22am EST

(Reuters) - France and Egypt have agreed a deal worth more than 5 billion euros ($5.7 billion) for the sale of Dassault Aviation-built Rafale fighter jets, a naval frigate and missiles, a French source close to the matter said on Thursday.

The deal would make Egypt, which has been looking to upgrade its military hardware over fears the crisis in neighboring Libya could spill over, the first export customer for the French warplane.

"Yes, there is an agreement," the source said in response to a report in Le Monde newspaper which said the two countries had initialed the deal on Thursday.

Le Monde said the final page outlining the modalities would be signed on Monday by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sissi and French officials, possibly President Francois Hollande or Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian. A French defense ministry official declined to comment beyond saying a deal had yet to be signed.

The deal includes 24 Rafale jets, a Fremm naval frigate and MBDA air-to-air missiles.

Egyptian government officials and Dassault executives could not immediately be reached for comment.

The Fremm is built by state-controlled DCNS, which is 35 percent owned by French group Thales. MBDA is a venture of Airbus Group <AIR .PA>, Britain's BAE Systems and Finmeccanica of Italy.

($1 = 0.8812 euros)

(Reporting By Emmanuel Jarry, Marine Pennetier, John Irish and Cyril Altmeyerhenzien; writing by John Irish; editing by Andrew Callus)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......Nature and geopolitics hate a vacuum.........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-pakistan-china-idUSKBN0LG1UP20150212

China offers to mediate in stalled Afghan Taliban peace talks

By Maria Golovnina
ISLAMABAD Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:44am EST

(Reuters) - China offered on Thursday to mediate in stalled efforts to engage the Afghan Taliban in peace negotiations, reflecting its desire to play a more active role in a region it sees as part of its sphere of influence.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made the announcement in Islamabad as he arrived in the Pakistani capital on a two-day visit aimed at cementing traditionally warm ties between communist China and conservative Islamic Pakistan.

Afghanistan and its Western backers have been trying to bring moderate Taliban figures to the negotiating table to end years of war in the country. Pakistan is key to the process because of its historic ties to the Taliban leadership.

"We will support the Afghan government in realizing reconciliation with various political factions including the Taliban," Wang told reporters.

"China is ready to play its constructive role and will provide necessary facilitation at any time if it is required by various parties in Afghanistan."

China's relationship with Pakistan, where it is heavily involved in projects including the nuclear sector, is often seen as a counterweight to India's influence in the region, with Afghanistan a playing field for proxy forces backed by each side.

Officials have informally floated the idea of China taking a more active role in talks but details have been sketchy and it is unclear what leverage China can use to persuade the Taliban to resume meaningful negotiations.

Many Afghan Taliban commanders use the border region with Pakistan as a safe haven.

“I have got a strong sense that Pakistan takes very seriously the issue of Afghanistan and it has a strong will to take a constructive part in the resolution of this matter," Wang said.

Global powers have tried to breathe life into the stalled talks for years but efforts to engage the Taliban have failed repeatedly. They finally collapsed in 2013 after Taliban representatives angered the Kabul government by trying to open an embassy-style office in Qatar.


(Additional reporting by Syed Raza Hassan; editing by Andrew Roche)

 

[Lilbitsnana]

News_Executive @News_Executive · 5m 5 minutes ago

Breaking: Drunk driver arrested after crashing Car into the fence of US Consulate in Shanghai,China.1 guard injured

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-venezuela-rallies-idUSKBN0LG2IC20150212

Venezuelan soldiers, students face off at anti-Maduro rallies

By Andrew Cawthorne and Javier Farias
CARACAS/SAN CRISTOBAL Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:29pm EST

(Reuters) - Venezuelan troops blocked students marching against President Nicolas Maduro on Thursday as pro-government supporters also rallied on the anniversary of 2014 protests that led to 43 deaths.

National Guard soldiers and police fired teargas and buckshot in the volatile western city of San Cristobal against demonstrators tossing rocks and Molotov cocktails.

Five security officials and three demonstrators were hurt in the nearly two-hour standoff, some shops vandalized, and four students arrested, witnesses and authorities said.

In Caracas, troops cordoned off several hundred students on an unauthorized march to a church where they planned a mass in honor of demonstrators who died. Instead, a priest came out and said brief prayers in the open-air.

Also in the capital, thousands of red-clad supporters of Maduro, the successor to late socialist leader Hugo Chavez who died of cancer in 2013, held a much larger rival rally.

Mindful of nearly four months of clashes last year, when thousands took to the streets demanding Maduro's resignation and protesting over the OPEC nation's faltering economy, some Caracas residents stayed at home to avoid trouble.

"We are marching peacefully to honor those who fell," said Fabio Valentini, 21, a pro-opposition student from Andres Bello Catholic University who was on the streets last year when the first victims were shot dead.

"Venezuela, today, is in a far worse situation than last year. The economy is in crisis. Crime is worse. Our aim is not to topple the regime, but to demand rights and changes to failed policies."


"TERRORIST PLANS"

Maduro says opposition radicals sought to carry out a coup in 2014, and still harbor the same ambition.

"Where did they get the stones, sticks, pipes and bottles to attack our officials?" said local military boss General Jose Morantes in San Cristobal. "Once again, we see terrorist plans to turn a peaceful march into violence within seconds."

Student leaders there blamed infiltrators for the trouble.

Venezuelans are suffering shortages, long shopping lines, high inflation, and a recession exacerbated by the plunge in crude revenues. Parliamentary elections looming for the end of 2015 are adding to national tensions.

"Oil prices will rise again and we'll be ok," said Javier Castillo, 20, a student at the Bolivarian University among thousands of singing, dancing and banner-waving Maduro supporters at the rally in Caracas' Plaza Venezuela.

"We on the Left are people of peace, happiness and harmony. Those on the far Right are the ones seeking violence. Let those bitter mummy's and daddy's boys come here and see the joy."

Jailed protest leader Leopoldo Lopez, who spearheaded last year's protests before being arrested, sent a message from jail.

"The fight continues," he said via a Twitter account run by his wife. "If you tire, you lose."

Both the government and opposition supporters blame each other for the 2014 deaths. Security officials, Maduro supporters and protesters were among the victims.


(Additional reporting by Jorge Silva in Caracas, Javier Farias in San Cristobal; editing by Brian Ellsworth and Diane Craft)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-afghanistan-usa-idUSKBN0LG20F20150212

U.S. commander in Afghanistan offers drawdown options

By David Alexander and Phil Stewart
WASHINGTON Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:00pm EST

(Reuters) - The head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan said on Thursday he has presented his commanders with options on troop withdrawals in 2015, even as U.S. lawmakers accused the Obama administration of rushing to cut the U.S. military presence after 13 years of war.

Army General John Campbell told the Senate Armed Services Committee his options would offer U.S. leaders flexibility in how they withdraw forces during the year.

About 10,000 U.S. troops are currently in Afghanistan to train and assist Afghan forces, but the number is slated to drop to 5,500 by year's end.

A senior administration official said on Wednesday that Obama was considering a request from Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to slow the pace of withdrawals.

Lawmakers asked Campbell whether his options included leaving in place more troops after the end of the year, noting that retired Marine General James Mattis, a former head of U.S. Central Command, had recommended some 20,000.

"None of the options recommend an increase like that," Campbell said.

He said most options would offer greater flexibility on the pace and timing of withdrawals, as well as the locations from which forces would be pulled.

Republican Senator John McCain, who chairs the Senate panel, said Ghani told a U.S. congressional delegation at the Munich security summit over the weekend that current U.S. drawdown plans could jeopardize his country.

Obama's plan calls for reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to just an embassy presence by the end of 2016.

"If we've learned anything from Iraq, it should be that wars do not end just because politicians say so," McCain said. "We cannot let the Taliban, al Qaeda and ISIS (Islamic State) conquer Afghanistan."

This summer's fighting season will be the first in which Afghan troops are "completely on their own," Campbell said. The U.S.-led international coalition withdrew most troops at the end of 2014, but left a small force to train Afghan troops and for counter-terrorism missions.

Afghan forces have led the fight against the Taliban for two years, with the international coalition in a supporting role. Campbell said Afghans had performed "quite well," but noted that they suffered a significant increase in casualties in 2014.

Ashton Carter, the nominee to be the next U.S. defense secretary, told his confirmation hearing last week he supported Obama's troop drawdown plan, but would be willing to review troop withdrawals if needed.


(Reporting by David Alexander and Phil Stewart; Editing by David Storey and Andre Grenon)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-nigeria-violence-niger-idUSKBN0LG1DE20150212

Thousands flee Niger town after Boko Haram attacks

By Abdoulaye Massalaki
NIAMEY Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:02pm EST

(Reuters) - Thousands of civilians fled their homes in the southeastern Niger town of Diffa this week, officials said on Thursday, following waves of cross-border raids and suicide bombings by Nigerian militant group Boko Haram.

Attacks in Niger are deepening a humanitarian crisis in the remote border zone. The area, struggling to feed some 150,000 people who have run to escape violence in northern Nigeria, has seen around 7,000 arrive this week in Zinder, Niger's second biggest town some 450 km (280 miles) west of Diffa.

Niger's military said its forces had killed 260 Boko Haram militants and had arrested others in fighting since Feb. 6. A suspected local leader of the group was arrested and several weapons including rocket launchers seized from his home.

The International Rescue Committee, which supplied the population estimates, has teams working around Diffa and Zinder. Matias Meier, country director, said some families in Zinder, one of the poorest regions in Niger, were having to host 20 people, while other displaced were sleeping in the stadium.

A local politician said the flow of people out of Diffa continued on Thursday even though the town was calm.

"Everyone wants to get as far from Boko Haram as possible," the politician said, asking not to be named.

The IRC's Meier said: "Those who went on the trucks are the lucky ones. Bus tickets are sold out until the end of next week. Many are just walking or going by bicycle."

A tout at Diffa's bus station said hundreds of mini-busses, coaches and trucks had ferried people out of the town. The cost of a seat in any vehicle travelling to Zinder had nearly tripled to 15,000 CFA francs ($26), he said.

Boko Haram's insurgency has killed thousands in northeastern Nigeria. Regional armies are mobilising a joint force of 8,700 men to defeat the group that is increasingly threatening neighbouring countries.


DON'T PANIC

Niger's army, backed by Chadian forces deployed to the country, has fought several battles sparked by raids in the Diffa region by militants this week.

"We have taken the steps necessary to guarantee the peace and security of the population. We call on people not to panic," said Colonel Moustapha Michel Ledru, spokesman for Niger's armed forces.

A state of emergency has been declared in Diffa region.

Local authorities in Zinder told France's RFI radio that at least 4,000 displaced had arrived in the town. Schools and administrative buildings there were largely closed on Thursday.

Authorities in Niger have registered over 100,000 Nigerian refugees and Nigeriens who have returned to their home country from Nigeria. However, Meier said violence in recent months meant the number of displaced in Diffa region was closer to 150,000.

The new wave of displacement comes as farmers should be preparing to plant crops for the next harvest, raising concerns about the long-term economic impact of the violence.


(Writing and additional reporting by David Lewis; Editing by Sophie Walker and Gareth Jones)


Related News

Suspected local head of Boko Haram arrested in Niger: sources

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-anbar-idUSKBN0LG23120150212

Islamic State fighters seize western Iraqi town: officials

BAGHDAD Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:45pm EST

(Reuters) - Islamic State insurgents took control on Thursday of most of the western Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi, threatening an air base where U.S. Marines are training Iraqi troops, officials said.

Al-Baghdadi, about 85 km (50 miles) northwest of Ramadi in Anbar province, had been besieged for months by the radical Sunni Islamist militants who captured vast swathes of northern and western Iraq last year.

"Ninety percent of al-Baghdadi district has fallen under the control of the insurgents," district manager Naji Arak told Reuters by phone.

Militants attacked al-Baghdadi from two directions earlier in the day and then advanced on the town, intelligence sources and officials in the Jazeera and Badiya operations commands said.

The officials said another group of insurgents then attacked the heavily-guarded Ain al-Asad air base five km southwest of the town, but were unable to break into it.

About 320 U.S. Marines are training members of the Iraqi 7th Division at the base, which has been struck by mortar fire on at least one previous occasion since December.

Pentagon spokeswoman Navy Commander Elissa Smith confirmed the fighting in al-Baghdadi. She said there had been no direct attack on the air base, adding: "There were reports of ineffective indirect fire in the vicinity of the base."

An Iraqi defence ministry spokesman declined to comment on the situation in Anbar.

The death toll from the fighting was not immediately clear.

Most of the surrounding towns in Anbar fell under Islamic State control after the group's rapid advance across the Syrian border last summer.

Elsewhere in Iraq, five civilians were killed when bombs went off in two towns south of Baghdad, police and medical sources said. Such attacks are not uncommon in and around the capital.


(Reporting by Saif Hameed in Baghdad and David Alexander in Washington; Writing by Stephen Kalin; Editing by Gareth Jones)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/12/us-yemen-security-idUSKBN0LG0VE20150212

Al Qaeda fighters seize Yemen army base, U.N. warns of civil war

By Mohammad Mukhashaf
ADEN, Yemen Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:42pm EST

(Reuters) - Al Qaeda-linked fighters seized a large army base in a dawn attack in southern Yemen on Thursday, militants and residents said, hours after the United Nations warned that the country was on the brink of civil war.

The base in the southern province of Shabwa, housing a brigade of up to 2,000 government soldiers, fell after several hours of heavy clashes, residents and local news sites said.

The al Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Sharia said on Twitter it had set off a suicide bomb at the gate and imprisoned some of the troops.

Al Qaeda and other Sunni Muslim militants have stepped up attacks since rival Iranian-backed Shi'ite Muslim fighters from the north seized the capital in September and started expanding across the country.

The Houthis have sidelined the central government and have clashed with Sunni tribesmen in Yemen, which borders oil giant Saudi Arabia.

"We believe the situation is very dangerous. Yemen is on the brink of civil war," Jamal Benomar, the U.N. Special Envoy to Yemen, said in an interview with television channels al Arabiya and al-Hadath late on Wednesday.

He accused all sides of contributing to the political and economic turmoil and called for more talks.

An official from the town of Beyhan near the seized army base said residents feared the Houthis would now move in to confront the Ansar al Sharia fighters.

"We are scared this (the capture of the army base) is going to be used as a justification for a Houthi attack and that they will take over Shabwa with the help of the army," the official said, refusing to be identified.

Ansar al-Sharia said after bombing the entrance of the base, it took control of three guard towers and one tank.

"By approximately eight o'clock in the morning, the mujahideen had imprisoned most of the soldiers inside," the group said on Twitter.

Yemen's government was a key ally of Washington in its war on al Qaeda. The United States has been carrying out drone strikes on militant targets for over a decade, many in the south.

But the United States, as well as Britain and France, closed their embassies in the capital Sanaa on Wednesday, citing security concerns since the Houthi takeover.

Yemen is also home to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, one of the global network's most active arms that has carried out attacks abroad.


(Additional reporting by Mohammed Ghobari in Sanaa and Omar Fahmy in Cairo; Writing by Raissa Kasolowsky; Editing by Ralph Boulton and Andrew Heavens)


Related News

U.N. chief says Yemen 'collapsing before our eyes'

U.N. says Yemen collapsing, on brink of civil war

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-13/militants-storm-pakistan-shiite-mosque/6094804

At least 19 dead as militants storm Pakistan mosque

Posted 23 minutes agoFri 13 Feb 2015, 3:03am

At least 19 people have been killed in the Pakistani city of Peshawar in a series of explosions targeting a Shiite mosque, in the latest sectarian attack to hit the South Asian nation.

The attack comes two weeks after a suicide bombing at a Shiite mosque in southern Pakistan killed 61 people, the deadliest sectarian incident to hit the country in nearly two years.

Police said four or five gunmen threw grenades before storming the Imamia mosque in Peshawar around the time of the main Friday prayers.

Doctor Mumtaz Khan of the Hayatabad Medical Complex told AFP that at least 19 people had been killed and 63 wounded.

Senior police official Mian Saeed confirmed the death toll, putting the number wounded at "more than 60".

TV footage showed people running away from the scene, some carrying injured on their shoulders others limping, as police fired shots and checked people at a barrier.

A witness, Shahid Hussain, told Reuters the worshippers had just finished prayers when five or six men wearing military uniforms broke into the mosque and started shooting.

"We had no idea what was going on, one of the attackers then blew himself up and then there was huge smoke and dust all around," he said.

The mosque is close to several government buildings including the offices of the Federal Investigation Agency and passport agency.

Mushtaq Ghani, information minister for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, of which Peshawar is the capital, told Geo TV the attack was a response to the army's ongoing offensive against militants in the tribal areas along the Afghan border.

Last month dozens of people were killed in a similar attack on a Shi'ite mosque in the southern city of Shikarpur.

AFP/Reuters

From other news sites:
•BBC: Deadly fighting at Pakistan mosque in Peshawar
•Yahoo!7 News: Militants storm Pakistan Shiite mosque, 10 killed
•The Sydney Morning Herald: At least 19 killed in attack on Shiite mosque in Pakistan
•Times of India: Militants attack Shia mosque in Pakistan, 10 killed: Reports
•Al Jazeera: Worshipers killed in Peshawar mosque attack

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31453951

13 February 2015 Last updated at 06:04 ET

Nigeria's 'Boko Haram' militants attack Chad for first time

Suspected Nigerian Boko Haram militants have carried out an attack on Chad overnight, the first such assault on Chadian soil, security sources say.

Officials said the fighters crossed Lake Chad by motorboat and attacked a village on the shores of the lake.

The militants were pushed back by Chadian troops after killing several people, residents said.

Chad recently joined Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon in a military coalition against Boko Haram.

Residents said around 30 militants attacked the village of Ngouboua, torching two-thirds of its homes.

"They came on board three canoes and succeeded in killing about 10 people before being pushed back by the army," one resident told Reuters.

The number of casualties was unconfirmed but Chadian officials told the BBC that a local chief had been killed during the attack.

Chadian military aircraft carried out airstrikes against the militants, destroying their vessels, officials told AFP.

Chadian police patrol Lake Chad Chadian police patrol Lake Chad
Approximately 7,000 people fled to the village of Ngouboua after Boko Haram attacked the Nigerian town of Baga across the border in January.

Chad has recently deployed troops in Cameroon and Nigeria to help fight the Boko Haram insurgency.

The Islamist militant group has intensified its attacks against Nigeria's neighbours over the past fortnight, forcing thousands of residents to flee their homes.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ys-fall-yemen-government-took-us-by-surprise/

Counterterror chief says fall of Yemen's government took US by surprise

Published February 13, 2015
·FoxNews.com
Comments 67

Video

The White House's top counterterrorism official admitted Thursday that the overthrow of Yemen's government by Shiite rebels last month caught U.S. intelligence off guard.

Nick Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Yemeni army's response to the advancing Houthi rebels resembled the Iraqi military's response to an onslaught by the Islamic State terror group (ISIS) that ended in the capture of Iraq's second-largest city this past summer.

"As the Houthi advances toward Sanaa [Yemen's capital] took place," Rasmussen said, "they weren't opposed in many places. ... The situation deteriorated far more rapidly than we expected."

Rasmussen made the admission under questioning by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who noted that President Barack Obama recently touted Yemen as a successful counterterrorism partnership. Now, it's a "total disaster," Blunt said.

The Houthis overran Sanaa last September and placed Yemen's U.S. and Saudi-backed President, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi under house arrest last month along with all the members of his Cabinet, leading to their mass resignations. That was quickly followed by the disbanding of the country's parliament.

Earlier this week, the U.S., the U.K., and France announced that they were closing their embassies in Sanaa and evacuating all personnel. British and French officials advised their citizens still in Yemen to leave the country immediately.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the U.S. embassy's closure has also forced the CIA to pull out dozens of personnel, including senior operatives who were working with Yemen's government against terrorists.

The success of the Iran-backed Houthis has proven to be a benefit to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the terror group's affiliate in that country. The group claimed responsibility for last month's deadly attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and has recently stepped up attacks in central and southern Yemen.

On Friday, Yemeni security officials said a suicide car bomber struck police headquarters in the central city of Bayda, which had recently been captured by the Houthis. There was no immediate word of any casualties.

The latest attack came one day after the United Nations envoy to Yemen warned that the country was at a crossroads between "civil war and disintegration," while U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that the country was "collapsing before our eyes."

The ambassador, Jamal Benomar told the U.N. Security Council that the instability is creating conditions for al-Qaida, a Sunni extremist terror group, to establish a foothold in more parts of the country. His remarks came just hours after Yemeni military officials said al-Qaida militants seized control of an important army base in the south.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rom-us-base-holding-320-marines-10043314.html

Isis militants seize parts of Iraq town 13 minutes away from US base holding 320 Marines

Heather Saul
Friday 13 February 2015

Isis militants seized control of parts of the western Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi, close to an air base where 320 US Marines are training Iraqi soldiers.

The town is northwest of Ramadi, in Anbar province, and has been under attack from the insurgents for months.

Much of the province was attacked by Isis during its bloody advance through Iraq and Syria, and now ninety per cent of the district has now been captured by fighters, a local official told Reuters.

Fox News reports that this is significant because of its proximity to the Al Asad air base holding hundreds of US Marines training members of the Iraqi 7th Division – the town is just a 13 minute drive away.

A Pentagon spokeswoman navy commander confirmed heavy fighting in al-Baghdadi, but stressed there had been no direct attack on the air base. However, she said there was reports of “ineffective indirect fire in the vicinity of the base”.

The death toll from fighting is not yet known. The heavily fortified air base has reportedly been attacked by mortar fire once previously since December.

Read More: • Isis magazine 'interviews' wife of supermarket gunman
• Isis 'forces Raqqa citizens to give blood to fighters'
• Operation Isis: Anonymous targets supporters

Militants attacked al-Baghdadi from two directions earlier in the day and then advanced on the town, intelligence sources and officials in the Jazeera and Badiya operations commands told Reuters.

Five civilians were also killed in bomb attacks in two towns south of Baghdad.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.euronews.com/2015/02/13/...nister-warns-of-nuclear-arms-race-in-middle-/

Exclusive: Israeli intelligence minister warns of nuclear arms race in Middle East

13/02 11:10 CET

A nuclear deal with Iran will spark an atomic arms race in the Middle East, Israel’s intelligence minister has warned.

Speaking in an interview with euronews, Yuval Steinitz sets out his case for ensuring Iran cannot remain in a position to develop nuclear weapons.

“First, sooner or later they will produce a bomb. Exactly like what happened after a similar agreement with North Korea a few years ago. And second, other countries, other Sunni countries in the vicinity will demand it,” he said.

Saudi Arabia’s Sunni rulers have long been concerned about the aspirations of the Shi’ite regime in Tehran. Turkey and Egypt would also be wary of seeing the balance of power in the region shift.

In the interview, which will air in full on Wednesday (February 18), Steinitz also:
gives his country’s analysis on how long it would take Iran to produce a viable weapon
alludes to the disruptions suffered by Tehran’s programme, widely attributed to Israel
sets on the conditions which Israel would like to see around any end to sanctions on Iran

Israel has a policy neither to admit nor deny that it has its own nuclear weapons programme.

However the country has at least 80 nuclear warheads, according to the latest data complied by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in June 2014.

The US, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany are conducting talks aimed at an agreement to end Iran’s nuclear weapons programme in return for a lifting of sanctions and asset freezes. They have set a deadline for an agreement of the end of June.

Copyright © 2015 euronews

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5213/iran-nuclear-weapons-breakout

Iran Speeding to Nuclear Weapons Breakout

by Bassam Tawil
February 13, 2015 at 5:00 am

Iran, with its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen, has surrounded all the oil fields in the region and is currently busy encircling Jordan, Israel and Palestine.

Iran not only reaches now from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, but Iranian Shi'ites have been spreading out through Africa and South America.

By the time U.S. President Barack Obama leaves office, Iran will not only have nuclear breakout capability, but also the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver its nuclear warheads to Europe and North America.

If Iran can finally drive the U.S. out of the Gulf by threatening U.S. assets, it will be free to pursue still further expansion.

If the deal signed with Iran is full of loopholes, it is Obama who will be blamed. Does Obama really want his legacy to be, "The President who was even a bigger fool than Neville Chamberlain"? He will not be seen as "Nixon in China." He will be seen as the Eid al-Adha lamb.

Recently, foreign ministers from the European Union (EU) have been holding meetings with representatives of the Arab and Muslim world, including Turkey and Qatar, with the intention of forming a "joint task force to fight Islamist terrorism."

Turkey and Qatar, for example, directly encourage Islamist terrorism, thus there is no way they can be part of a task force to act against it.

In some Islamic thinking, such nonsense, because of its certain lack of ever seeing the light, is merely a prologue to the ultimate war between Gog and Magog ("yagug wamagu"), and heralds the End of Days.

The Arab-Muslim world engages in perpetual internal strife. Iran, for instance, with its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen, has surrounded all the oil fields in the region, and is currently busy encircling Jordan, Israel and the Palestinians. Iran not only reaches now from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, but Iranian Shi'ites have been spreading out through Africa and South America. Another sign of the End of Days is the United States' collaboration with Iran against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It means the world will eventually pay for America's looking the other way while the Iranians are building nuclear bombs in their cellars.

These cellars may currently be distant from the shores of the United States, but they are close to all the oil fields in the Middle East. By the time U.S. President Barack Obama leaves office, Iran will not only have nuclear breakout capability, but also intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver its nuclear warheads. Its next target will be U.S. assets in the Gulf. If Iran can finally drive the U.S. "Great Satan" out of the Gulf by threatening U.S. assets, it will be free to pursue still further expansion.

These are or will be the victims of America's determination to drag out the problem of an exploding Middle East. That way, U.S. President Barack Obama can hand the region over to the next president, while forever pretending that the vacuum created by pulling U.S. troops out of the Middle East -- now being filled by Iran, the Islamic State and other terror groups -- had nothing to do with him.

This situation leaves, ironically, the lone voice of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu crying in the wilderness. As much as many of us may not like him or the people he represents, he is one of the two world leaders in the West telling the truth, warning of what is to come (Geert Wilders of the Netherlands is the other). This burden of responsibility for his people (how many of us wish our leaders had even a bit of that?) has earned him only the venom of the Obama Administration, who see him as trying to spoil their strategy of leading by procrastination.

It is also becoming increasingly clear that the Obama Administration's policy consists of running after Iran, in order to concede everything it wants, just to be able wave a piece of paper not worth the ink on it, claiming there is "a deal." Iran, for its part, would probably prefer not to sign anything, and most likely will not. Meanwhile, both sides continue strenuously to claim the opposite.

Western leaders just seem not to be programmed to understand the capabilities of other leaders, and how they, too, negotiate, manipulate and hide behind lies. Obama's Russian "Reset Button" did not work; his "Al Qaeda is on the run," did not work; "We shall never let Russia take the Ukraine" did not work; and the unwinnable Israel-Palestinian "Peace Process" did not work.

Obama, in order to wave a piece of paper not worth the ink on it, seems eager to fall victim to bogus promises, worthless treaties and other leaders' outright lies -- only to look an even bigger fool than Britain's former Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain. After meeting with Germany's with Adolf Hitler in 1938, Chamberlain returned to Britain boasting of "peace in our time." But Chamberlain did not have the luxury of seeing a Chamberlain duped before him. If the deal signed with Iran is full of loopholes, it is Obama who will be blamed. Does Obama really want his legacy to be, "The president who was an even bigger fool than Neville Chamberlain"? He will not be seen as "Nixon in China." He will be seen as the Eid al-Adha lamb.


Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398494/theres-no-grand-bargain-be-made-iran-michael-barone

February 13, 2015 12:00 AM
There’s No ‘Grand Bargain’ to Be Made with Iran
Obama’s plan for negotiations with Tehran rests on faulty assumptions about its leaders’ goals.

By Michael Barone
Comments

‘We will extend a hand if you are unwilling to unclench your fist,” President Obama proclaimed in his inaugural address in January 2009. He characterized those to whom this was addressed in negative terms, but the implication was that this president, unlike his predecessor, would be willing to negotiate with and make concessions to unfriendly nations.

It is a promise he has striven to keep, with Russia initially and Cuba more recently, but most of all to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The hand has been extended, more than once. But has the fist come unclenched?

That question has become increasingly uncomfortable and pressing as negotiations over nuclear weapons drag on. In a 9,000-word article in Mosaic magazine, former Bush staffer Michael Doran makes a powerful case that the answer is no — and that “a grand bargain with Iran” has been and remains the central goal of Obama’s foreign policy.

Obama assumes, Doran argues, that Iran and the U.S. are natural allies with common interests and that George W. Bush’s obduracy was the main obstacle to rapprochement. Bush had largely ignored the December 2006 recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission, including engagement with Iran, and ordered a surge of troops in Iraq instead. Obama has abandoned Iraq and pursued Iran.

Thus Obama turned a cold shoulder to Iran’s pro-democracy Green Revolution movement in June 2009. He proposed to let Iran keep its nuclear infrastructure and transfer uranium to Russia, a deal nixed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He signed sanctions against Iran only reluctantly in the face of near-unanimous support in Congress.

Early in 2013 he established secret back-channel negotiations with Iran. Months later he promised to relieve sanctions but accepted Iran’s right to enrich uranium and to keep it stockpiled, enriched to 5 percent.

He declined, against his top advisers’ recommendations, to arm rebels against the Iran-backed Assad regime in Syria after it crossed his “red line” of using chemical weapons, and let Iran’s friend Russia disarm them. “Obama has given Iran a free hand in Syria and Iraq,” Doran writes, “on the simplistic assumption that Tehran would combat al-Qaida and like-minded groups in a manner serving American interests.”

This year, Obama has spoken out against a bill, supported by large congressional majorities, that would re-impose sanctions if the U.S. and Iran don’t reach agreement on nuclear talks by June — the third deadline after failing to reach agreement in July and November 2014.

This seems to defy logic: If, as Obama concedes, sanctions brought Iran to the bargaining table, sanctions should move them toward agreement. But Obama’s position makes sense if you accept Doran’s argument that Obama’s overriding purpose is a regional alliance with Iran.

In The American Interest, Walter Russell Mead sets out a case for such an alliance. Iran’s population is educated and pro-American. An extended hand can encourage Iranian leaders to be more moderate. A likely alternative is an ugly war.

But, as Mead notes, there are weaknesses to such arguments. Even a friendly Iran would be hawkish on oil prices and hostile to Israel. Its untrammeled regional influence would reduce American leverage. And change in the character of a regime consistently hostile for 35 years is uncertain. “It looks to many,” Mead warns, “as if the United States is dumping its old allies without securing a replacement.”

America’s current Arab allies, after all, aren’t determined to destroy Israel. Iran’s mullahs, as Benjamin Netanyahu will presumably remind Congress next month, have been and are. Obama’s show of displeasure over the Netanyahu speech seems driven by concern that it may upset his plan for a grand bargain with Iran.

Obama may be comparing his outreach to Iran with Richard Nixon’s to China. But Nixon and Henry Kissinger were careful not to give China carte blanche to dominate its neighborhood.

There may be a certain American naïveté at work here. Just as George W. Bush thought Iraqis were yearning for American-style democracy and capitalism, so Obama seems to be assuming that Iran seeks to be an American-style power, prosperous and generous-minded.

But everything we know about the Iranian leaders tells us that their goals are sharply different from ours — and remain so even after the election of a president who remembers hearing as a child the call of the muezzin.

References to common backgrounds appeal to American voters. But they don’t seem likely to soften the hearts of Iranian dictators.

— Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner. © 2015 The Washington Examiner. Distributed by Creators.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busin...-missiles-threatens-new-arms-race/515863.html

Russian Fear of U.S. Hypersonic Missiles Threatens New Arms Race
By Matthew Bodner
Feb. 12 2015 20:13
Last edited 20:13

While conflict between the United States and Russia over Ukraine has raised talk of a new Cold War, another feature of that era has also begun to re-emerge — the missile race.

A new arms rivalry between Russia and the United States is heating up as the two major military powers rush to develop a new class of hypersonic, non-nuclear missiles that can strike any target on the globe within one hour of launch with devastating accuracy.

The United States is leading the chase for the new weapons, which Russia firmly believes poses a significant threat to its own nuclear missile forces.

"Russia considers this trend as a path to obtaining [non-nuclear] means of depriving Russia of its deterrent capability," Dr. Eugene Miasnikov, director of the Moscow-based Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies told The Moscow Times.

Russia's sensitivity to threats to its nuclear deterrence could lead it to mistake a hypersonic missile launch as the opening moves of a larger attack, some analysts say, arguing that the weapons are so destabilizing that their mere development could spark a nuclear war between major powers.

Hypersonic Weapons 101

Hypersonic missiles are being developed in the United States as part of the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, a loosely defined Department of Defense initiative to develop the capability to accurately hit targets with non-nuclear intercontinental missiles in record time.

The idea has its roots in U.S. post-9/11 counter-terrorism strategy, when the United States decided it needed the capability to hit targets as soon as they had been located.

To date, a reported $1 billion has been spent on the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program. A few billion dollars more would likely be needed to attain true hypersonic capability, according to James Acton, a senior associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The most prominent example of hypersonic weapons currently in development are so-called "boost-glide" weapons.

These are missiles that, instead of arcing into space before coming down on their target, are fired at a shallow trajectory that barely exits the atmosphere. After reaching a hypersonic speed, the missile's warhead is released and glides the rest of the way to its objective.

As the weapon begins to glide, its relatively shallow angle of approach makes it extremely difficult to track and defend against — a detail Russia's leadership finds troubling.

Russian Answer

While hypersonic weapons are still in the development phase, they have already raised the prospect that Russia might pull out of Cold War nuclear arms treaties with the United States.

President Vladimir Putin in 2013 warned that the hypersonic missile development "could negate all previous agreements on the limitation and reduction of strategic nuclear weapons, thereby disrupting the strategic balance of power."

Nuclear arms control agreements between Russia and the United States have only gotten shakier since then.

In July of last year, amid the tensions of the Ukraine crisis, Washington suggested Moscow had violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which bans an entire class of nuclear missiles.

In October, Putin told Serbian newspaper Politika that he considered Western sanctions over Ukraine an attempt to "blackmail Russia" and that the West should "remember the risks that a spat between major nuclear powers incurs for strategic stability," news agency Reuters reported.

Little information is available on the state of Russia's domestic hypersonic program, but the head of Russia's Tactical Missiles Corporation, Boris Obnosov, said last year the company is working with dozens of firms to implement a development program for a hypersonic missile. The Tactical Missiles Cooperation produces many of Russia's guided missile systems.

Another piece of the Russian hypersonic puzzle may have been unveiled last week, when President Vladimir Putin signed an order uniting Russia's largest defense contractor, the Almaz-Antey air-defense concern, with several smaller military space firms.

Though not directly related to the development of hypersonic missiles, the move might signal a greater focus on developing defense against the weapons.

Almaz-Antey did not respond to a request for comment.

Moscow's Fears

The United States seems so far to have failed to allay Moscow's fears that the missiles are being developed to target Russia rather than terrorist hideouts, said Carnegie's Acton.

Moscow has already worked hypersonic missiles into its long-standing grievances against the United States — including NATO expansion and the placement of missile defense systems in Europe.

"My biggest concern is that Russia will mistake a U.S. [hypersonic] attack against a neighboring state as an attack against Russia," said Acton.

Because the weapons do not follow ballistic trajectories, but glide and maneuver their way to the target, it is possible that Moscow would become confused about the missile's objective and believe Russia was the intended target. This would lead to a serious escalation of international tensions, and possibly provoke a counterattack.

But now is a bad time for dialogue. In recent weeks prominent U.S. politicians have advocated arming Kiev against Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, raising the specter of a proxy war between the two former Cold War enemies.

Miasnikov said that so long as both sides remain at odds, any developments in the U.S. hypersonic program will be construed in Moscow as a threat.

In any case, the weapons will be inexorably linked to U.S.-Russia bilateral relations because the way Russia perceives them to threaten its nuclear forces.

The Pentagon should work to better understand what it needs the weapons in question for, and present Russia with concrete proposals to mitigate the risk in deploying them, according to Acton.

For Moscow's part, "[it] should respond to such an offer constructively," he said.


Contact the author at m.bodner@imedia.ru

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...orea-further-light-precise-weapon-development

N. Korea to further 'light, precise' weapon development

SEOUL, Feb. 13 (Yonhap) -- North Korea's ruling communist party has adopted a resolution calling for the nation to focus more on developing cutting-edge weapons, Pyongyang's media reported Friday.

The decision came at a meeting of the Central Committee's Political Bureau of the Workers' Party of Korea to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the party's establishment and Korea's liberation from Japan's 35-year-long colonial rule, the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.

The North's leader Kim Jong-un attended the session held in Pyongyang on Tuesday, it said.

The North will "manufacture larger numbers of powerful, cutting-edge military hardware of its own style that are of high precision, light, unmanned and intelligent" to be prepared for modern warfare, read the resolution.

It stressed the spirit demonstrated in "conquering outer space."

The North succeeded in sending a long-range rocket into orbit in 2012. The world is concerned that the nuclear-armed country may have mastered a technology to miniaturize warheads.

The resolution said it's urgent to "step up the work of arming all the people and fortifying the whole country on a high level" to win the showdown with the United States.

It also declared a campaign to pave the way for "independent reunification" with South Korea and broaden diplomatic ties.

"We will resolutely frustrate the anti-DPRK war moves and nuclear and human rights rackets by the U.S. imperialists and the South Korean puppets," added the resolution, referring to North Korea by the acronym of its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

"We will also develop foreign relations in a multilateral and proactive way, and strengthen international solidarity with our revolution."

<All rights reserved by Yonhap News Agency>

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150213/eu--ukraine-303a229b60.html

Ukraine battles persist ahead of cease-fire deadline

Feb 13, 8:04 AM (ET)
By BALINT SZLANKO

(AP) In this Sunday, Feb. 8, 2015, file photo, a Ukrainian soldier patrols...
Full Image

LUHANSKE, Ukraine (AP) — Fierce fighting surged in east Ukraine as Russian-backed separatists mounted a major and sustained new push Friday to capture a strategic railway hub ahead of a weekend cease-fire deadline.

Clashes appeared only to have increased in the day since a peace agreement was sealed in the Belarusian capital of Minsk by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France. German Chancellor Angela Merkel cautiously described the agreement negotiated Thursday as "a glimmer of hope."

The government-held railway town of Debaltseve was on the receiving end of dozens of artillery and rocket salvos in the 24-hour period following the Minsk talks, Ukrainian military officials said.

Associated Press reporters Friday observed intense shelling along the highway north of the town, which remains the only land link between Debaltseve and the remainder of government-controlled territory.

(AP) In this Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015, file photo, Russian-backed separatists...
Full Image

The deadline for the warring sides to halt hostilities is set to take effect on Sunday, at one minute after midnight. Interfax-Ukraine news agency quoted Petro Mekhed, Ukraine's deputy defense minister, as saying separatist forces had been given the task of hoisting their flags over Debaltseve, as well as the port city of Mariuopol, by Sunday.

Military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said Friday that 11 soldiers were killed and another 40 wounded over the previous day. Regional authorities loyal to Kiev reported six civilian deaths in areas under their control, while rebels said seven people were killed in artillery attacks on the separatist-held cities of Luhansk and Horlivka.

Separatist forces recently have nearly completely encircled Ukrainian forces in Debaltseve, where all but a few thousand civilians have fled to areas away from the front.

Ukraine says that Debaltseve should remain in government control under the terms of a September peace deal that traced the contours of the front line. A copy of that agreement leaked to Ukrainian media last month shows the town lying on the government's side of the line of contact agreed by rebel and Ukrainian officials alike.

Ukrainian access to the sole highway still linking the town to government-held territory looks to have compromised with the apparent capture of the village of Lohvynove, which lies along the road, just north of Debaltseve. AP reporters on Friday morning saw the smoldering remains of two Ukrainian army trucks near the village of Luhanske, some 10 kilometers up the road from Lohvynove.

(AP) An early morning view of the city of Donetsk, Ukraine, Friday, Feb. 13, 2015. The...
Full Image

The Donbass Battalion, a unit with Ukraine's National Guard engaged in battles around Lohvynove, said in a statement that captured combatants had confirmed Russian troops were actively involved in battles.

Moscow vehemently denies that it provides manpower and weapons to the rebel forces, although the sheer quantity of powerful weapons at the separatists' disposal has increasingly strained that position.

Russian state news agency RIA-Novosti quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying Friday that Moscow would act only as a guarantor in the peace process but that it could not affect developments on the ground.

"We simply cannot do this physically, because Russia is not a participant in this conflict," Peskov was quoted as saying.

Elsewhere, by the Azov Sea in the southeast, Ukrainian government troops say they clawed back a handful of villages. Troops there have denied reporters access to the areas at the center of those operations, which are aimed at pushing back rebel forces from the city of Mariupol.

(AP) Ukrainian government troops rest atop an armored vehicle on the road towards...
Full Image

The cease-fire is to be monitored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's observer mission in Ukraine.

OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier said in Kiev that he hoped hostilities would be halted by the deadline.

"We would really hope to see a decrease already between now and that moment," he said.

Zannier said that combatants would have to do more to enable the OSCE peace-monitoring mission, which makes ample use of drone cameras, to properly fulfil its mandate.

"Aerial vehicles have been targeted more than once, monitors have been taken hostage, so we need a change of attitude," he said.

(AP) An elderly woman sits on a bus as she is evacuated from the village of Klynove to...
Full Image

The next step, to begin on Monday, is to form a sizeable buffer zone between Ukrainian forces and Russia-backed rebels. Each side is to pull heavy weaponry back from the front line, creating a zone roughly 30-85 miles (50-140 kilometers) wide, depending on the caliber of the weapons. The withdrawals are to be completed in two weeks.

Other thorny political questions, including a degree of autonomy for the disputed eastern regions, are to be settled by the end of the year.

The peace deal envisions an amnesty for people involved in the conflict, but the vague terms of that provision will likely be subjected to further disagreements and negotiation.

Speaking to parliament, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin said amnesty would not be granted to anybody suspected of committing crimes against humanity.

"This is an absolute position that was unambiguously underlined during (Thursday's) negotiations," Klimkin said.

---

Associated Press journalists Peter Leonard and Alexander Roslyakov in Kiev, Ukraine, and Laura Mills in Moscow contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150213/eu-russia-ukrainian-prisoner-f562aa3699.html

Russia says it will not release key Ukrainian prisoner

Feb 13, 8:20 AM (ET)

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian investigators say there are no grounds to release a key Ukrainian prisoner despite claims by Ukraine's president that she would soon be freed.

In a statement posted online Friday, Russia's Investigative Committee said that only a court could free Nadezhda Savchenko, a Ukrainian air force officer who has been on hunger strike in a Moscow prison for more than two months.

After marathon peace talks in Minsk, Belarus, that ended on Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko declared that Savchenko would soon be released.

Russia has charged her with involvement in the deaths of two Russian journalists in eastern Ukraine. Russia claims Savchenko voluntarily crossed the border into Russia before she was detained, which she denies.

The Minsk agreement calls for the exchange of all illegally held prisoners and hostages.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150213/as--afghanistan-05dca5ebb0.html

Gunmen kill Afghan peace council member

Feb 13, 7:33 AM (ET)

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — An Afghan official says gunmen have killed a member of the country's High Peace Council in the southern city of Kandahar.

The provincial spokesman, Samim Akhpelwak, said Friday that Sheirin Agha was assassinated during prayers at a Kandahar mosque on Thursday night.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani condemned the attack in a statement.

No group immediately claimed responsibility for the killing, but in the past, the Taliban have attacked members of the High Peace Council, a government body tasked with peace talks with the Taliban insurgency.

Separately, nine Afghans, including several children, were wounded in the crossfire during a clash between the Taliban and policemen in eastern Kapisa province on Thursday.

Kapisa Governr Mehrabuddin Safi says Taliban fighters attacked a checkpoint in Alasaye district, triggering a shootout with the security forces.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150213/af--boko_haram-000104b8f9.html

Boko Haram launches first attack on Chadian village

Feb 13, 9:11 AM (ET)
By DANY PADIRE and KRISTA LARSON

MOUNDOU, Chad (AP) — Suspected Boko Haram militants staged their first attack in Chad on Friday, hitting the third country outside their home base of Nigeria in recent days as the region beefs up its military response to the armed Muslim extremist group.

The assault took place in the village of Ngouboua on the shore of Lake Chad early Friday, and left a community leader, one Chadian soldier and at least two militants dead, Chad's military said.

Boko Haram has threated any nation contributing to the fight against them. The nation of Chad is contributing the most military muscle to the effort, with its soldiers already attacking the insurgents in the countries of Cameroon and Nigeria.

"The assailants have scattered and the army is now pursuing them," Chad army Col. Azem Bermandoa Agouna told The Associated Press by telephone.

Ngouboua is already home to nearly 3,300 refugees who had fled Boko Haram-related violence back home in Nigeria, according to the United Nations. The U.N. refugee agency said Friday it had heard reports of the deadly violence there and was investigating.

"Security is a major concern for all humanitarian agencies, and for the refugees themselves," the agency said Friday at a briefing in Geneva.

Boko Haram's insurgency has forced some 157,000 people to seek refuge in Niger, while 40,000 others have gone to Cameroon and 17,000 are in Chad, the U.N. said. Almost 1 million Nigerians are internally displaced, according to the country's own statistics.

Chad, Niger, Cameroon and Benin all have pledged to send military support though Chadian soldiers are already fighting Boko Haram militants inside Cameroon and Nigeria. The multinational force to fight Boko Haram is expected to be formally launched in coming weeks.

---

Larson reported from Dakar, Senegal.