WAR 02-21-2015-to-02-27-2015_____THEWINDSofWAR

Housecarl · Feb 20, 2015

(150) 01-24-2015-to-01-30-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...30-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(151) 01-31-2015-to-02-06-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...06-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(152) 02-07-2015-to-02-13-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...13-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(153) 02-14-2015-to-02-20-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...20-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

_____

Venezuela: Mayor and politicians being arrested, taken to prison; now prison is on fire
Started by Lilbitsnana‎, Yesterday 03:14 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...rrested-taken-to-prison-now-prison-is-on-fire

Corruption, falling oil prices and talk of a coup: The end of Chavez's socialist dream
Started by BREWER‎, Today 04:44 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...of-a-coup-The-end-of-Chavez-s-socialist-dream

Enemy in the Gates - Friday, 02/20/2015
Started by Ragnarok‎, Today 09:54 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?464157-Enemy-in-the-Gates-Friday-02-20-2015

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - NATO: Russian Tanks and Artillery Enter Ukraine
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ian-Tanks-and-Artillery-Enter-Ukraine/page386

SOMALIA: 2 Hotels attacked; car bombs, gunfire at least 25 dead some Somali Ministers/MPS
Started by Lilbitsnana‎, Today 02:22 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...re-at-least-25-dead-some-Somali-Ministers-MPS

ISRAEL heating up again... update posts 335/338
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ating-up-again...-update-posts-335-338/page16

Main Islamic State (ISIS) thread
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?451597-Main-Islamic-State-(ISIS)-thread/page59

Italy Prepares for War with ISIS from the South
Started by Intestinal Fortitude‎, 02-18-2015 05:50 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?464060-Italy-Prepares-for-War-with-ISIS-from-the-South

Intel: ISIS planning attacks on U.S. soil
Started by Ragnarok‎, 02-17-2015 08:36 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?463999-Intel-ISIS-planning-attacks-on-U.S.-soil/page2

Fort Carson Unit Headed to Possible Showdown with Islamic State
Started by Used Camels‎, 02-17-2015 01:05 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...eaded-to-Possible-Showdown-with-Islamic-State

US Officials Admit Concern Over Syrian Refugee's - coming into the US
Started by Coulter‎, 02-18-2015 09:15 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...cern-Over-Syrian-Refugee-s-coming-into-the-US

ISIS in Libya: Overrun Europe with Immigrants and ‘Turn it into Hell’
Started by Intestinal Fortitude‎, 02-17-2015 09:26 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...urope-with-Immigrants-and-‘Turn-it-into-Hell’

ISIS and Christians
Started by tomsawyer‎, 02-17-2015 03:47 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?463984-ISIS-and-Christians

White House Summit Features Muslim Leader with Record of Defending Terror Groups
Started by Intestinal Fortitude‎, 02-17-2015 09:17 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Leader-with-Record-of-Defending-Terror-Groups

BREAKING NEWS: 2 large explosions in central Cairo, #Egypt. (sound bombs? = 2 IEDs)
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ntral-Cairo-Egypt.-(sound-bombs-2-IEDs)/page6

IRAN MOVES TO CONTROL SUEZ CANAL AND YEMEN 1-21-2015
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-CONTROL-SUEZ-CANAL-AND-YEMEN-1-21-2015/page4

The Iran game (all of it)
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?439024-The-Iran-game-(all-of-it)/page14

EMAILS EXPOSED - US pullout of Yemen so fast, security bypassed
Started by Dennis Olson‎, Yesterday 06:13 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...US-pullout-of-Yemen-so-fast-security-bypassed

Russia Boosts Arms, Training for Leftist Latin Militaries
Started by JohnGaltfla‎, Today 05:18 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ts-Arms-Training-for-Leftist-Latin-Militaries

China to Develop Non-NATO-Integrated Missile Defense System for Turkey
Started by Possible Impact‎, Yesterday 06:52 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Integrated-Missile-Defense-System-for-Turkey

China's leader is telling the People's Liberation Army to prepare for war
Started by China Connection‎, 02-18-2015 08:40 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...e-People-s-Liberation-Army-to-prepare-for-war

North Korea Flight Tests New Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile
Started by Housecarl‎, 02-18-2015 11:26 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ests-New-Submarine-Launched-Ballistic-Missile
_____

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.france24.com/en/20150220-finding-libya-solution-daunting-task-world-experts/

21 February 2015 - 00H05
Finding Libya solution daunting task for world: experts

TRIPOLI (AFP) -
Having balked at Egypt's call for military intervention in Libya, the international community faces a daunting task to find a political solution to the lawless North African country's crisis, analysts say.

Roiled by turmoil ever since the NATO-backed ouster of dictator Moamer Kadhafi in 2011, Libya's security has continued to deteriorate, prompting calls for an easing of an arms embargo to help the internationally recognised government regain some control.

The beheading this week of 21 mainly Egyptian Coptic Christians by the Islamic State group sparked Cairo to launch air strikes against the jihadists in Libya and call for an international coalition to hit IS.

But Western and Arab states have flinched at the suggestion of force, and UN envoy Bernardino Leon told the UN Security Council Wednesday that the only cure for Libya's trauma was political.

Claudia Gazzini of the International Crisis Group said a political accord would be "difficult, but not impossible to achieve."

"The international community must stay focused on supporting the dialogue efforts and resist calls to lift the arms embargo," the analyst said.

Libya is awash with weapons and rival militias are battling for control of its cities and oil wealth. It has two rival governments and parliaments, one recognised by the international community and the other with ties to Islamists.

Any additional weapons could strengthen the divisive General Khalifa Haftar, whose forces are fighting Islamist militias in battles that widen the gulf between competing factions.

One UN diplomat said lifting the arms embargo would be tantamount to pouring fuel on the fire.

Mohamed El-Jareh, non-resident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Hariri Centre for the Middle East, said the international community was "running of out of time" to save Libya.

"The threat of Islamic State in Libya is set to increase exponentially," he warned.

Since launching efforts at dialogue in September, Leon has been unable to bring together leading players from rival camps.

The UN envoy's best achievement so far has been to begin "indirect" talks last week between the internationally recognised government and the General National Congress, which is under the leadership of Fajr Libya, a coalition of mainly Islamist militias currently controlling the capital Tripoli.

But observers believe efforts to bridge the gap between the two sides will fail so long as their respective armed factions -- Haftar for the elected government and Fajr Libya for the GNC -- are not at the same table.

- 'Powder keg' -

"It is very difficult, but with dialogue everything is possible," said Libya analyst Khaled al-Hetch.

He sees one solution as "giving Haftar the post that he wants", the supreme leadership of Libya's armed forces, in return for forming a unity government made up of representatives from both sides.

This week a lawmaker party to the talks, Tarek al-Jerouchi, said world leaders wanted their favoured parliament -- exiled in the remote east since Fajr Libya took Tripoli last year -- to remove Haftar from the scene.

It is a demand supported by Ibrahim al-Karaz, political science professor at the University of Tripoli, who said he viewed Haftar as an "obstacle" to a political solution.

Karaz also criticised Egypt for getting involved in the Libyan crisis.

"Egypt and other countries in the region need to stop interfering in Libyan affairs. It is foreign intervention that complicates all political processes," he said.

Analysts said the situation has been further muddied by Libya's rival factions each having its own regional backers. Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are said to support Haftar, with Qatar and Turkey favouring Fajr Libya.

"These countries are setting fire to the powder keg," said Saad Djebbar, a London-based analyst.

"In Libya there is a fight for influence between regions and tribes. Each of them wants to say their piece. The international community needs to reassure each player and make them understand that they all have a place in the new Libya."

© 2015 AFP

Housecarl · Feb 20, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/21/us-venezuela-opposition-idUSKBN0LO1F820150221

Venezuela opposition urges release of mayor accused of conspiring

By Andrew Cawthorne and Alexandra Ulmer
CARACAS Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:17pm EST

(Reuters) - Venezuelan opposition leaders and protesters on Friday demanded the release of a veteran Caracas mayor arrested on accusations of plotting violence against President Nicolas Maduro's government.

The socialist leader and successor to Hugo Chavez cast Antonio Ledezma's detention on Thursday night as part of efforts to stop a U.S.-backed coup, but opponents scoffed at that as a smokescreen to distract from Venezuela's economic crisis.

Intelligence agents seized the 59-year-old mayor at his office and held him at their Helicoide headquarters. Ledezma was then transferred to the Palace of Justice on Friday night and was awaiting charges, his wife Mitzy said.

"He's in good spirits and very optimistic of demonstrating he has no links with any wrongdoing," his lawyer Omar Estacio said after a brief visit to Ledezma with Mitzy earlier on Friday.

Ledezma is the highest-profile Maduro opponent in custody after fellow opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, arrested a year ago for his role in street protests that brought four months of violence and led to the death of 43 Venezuelans.

Dubbed "The Vampire" by Maduro supporters, the mayor allied himself with opposition radicals last year in supporting the street campaign, dubbed the "La Salida" or "The Exit."

Maduro called the 2014 violence a coup attempt against his socialist government, and officials said last week Ledezma was among various politicians supporting a new plot with dissident military officers to topple the president via air strikes.

"No one is untouchable in Venezuela," Maduro said on Friday night. "We'll use an iron fist against coup-mongers."

The main evidence shown by officials was a public document signed by Ledezma and two other opposition leaders urging a transition, which officials call a roadmap for a coup but opponents term a political strategy paper.

The public prosecutor's office said in a statement that Ledezma would be formally accused of "presumed involvement in conspiratorial acts to organize and carry out violent acts against the democratically constituted government."

U.S. DENIES INVOLVEMENT

Opposition leaders, who gathered in a Caracas square on Friday with several hundred supporters, said Maduro was trying to make Venezuelans forget the economic recession, the highest inflation in the Americas and widespread scarcities.

Maduro, 52, a former union activist, bus driver and long-serving foreign minister, has seen his popularity plummet since he narrowly won election in 2013 to replace Chavez.

"They're trying to distract us," said pro-Ledezma demonstrator and lawyer Rosibel Torres, 53, waving a Venezuelan flag with "Freedom" written on it. "We're entering a stage of brutal repression. We're openly in dictatorship."

Although opposition leaders lampoon Maduro's coup allegations, there is a history of plotting against Venezuela's socialist government including a brief 2002 coup against Chavez that was endorsed by the United States at the time.

Some hardline activists acknowledge the existence of an underground movement bent on toppling Maduro, and recently detained student radical Lorent Saleh surfaced in a government-broadcast video praising Ledezma as "an old fox ... the politician who has most supported the resistance."

The public prosecutor's statement mentioned Ledezma's "links with the case of Lorent Saleh," among other activists in jail accused of planning attacks.

Given accusations from Maduro and other officials that right-wing Colombian politicians were also involved in plotting, that country's President Juan Manuel Santos insisted on Friday that was not the case.

"There is no plot whatsoever against any government from Colombia and, of course, if I find out anything concrete in that respect, I'd not only condemn it but act with all the force of the law," Santos said in a speech.

Santos, who clashed in the past with Chavez before they patched up their differences, has irked Maduro by urging Lopez's release and in Friday's speech he called for guarantees of due process for Ledezma. "It interests, hurts and worries us, all what's going on in Venezuela," he said.

The mayor's arrest touched off some isolated protests in Caracas and brought renewed violence in the volatile western city of San Cristobal, witnesses said.

Masked youths threw stones at the governor's residence in San Cristobal, they said, and several dozen faced off with security forces on Friday.

Isolated pot-banging reportedly rang out in affluent areas of Caracas on Friday night in a traditional form of protest.

Opposition leader Henrique Capriles said that night he would start criss-crossing Venezuela again to shore up the perennially fragmented anti-government base.

The two-time presidential candidate also showed what he said was a Datanalisis poll putting Maduro's popularity at 23.3 percent between Jan. 27 and Feb.7, which would mark a slight increase from around 22 percent at the end of 2014.

Washington, which recently slapped sanctions on some Venezuela officials, called accusations it was trying to destabilize the South American OPEC nation "ludicrous."

"The Treasury Department and the State Department are closely monitoring this situation and are considering tools that may be available that can better steer the Venezuelan government in the direction that they believe they should be headed," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

(Additional reporting by Diego Ore and Eyanir Chinea in Caracas, Helen Murphy in Bogota, David Lawder in Washington; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne, Dan Grebler, Tom Brown and Lisa Shumaker)

Housecarl · Feb 20, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/21/us-afghanistan-usa-idUSKBN0LP02D20150221

New U.S. defense chief in Afghanistan seeking 'lasting' success

By Phil Stewart
KABUL Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:48pm EST

(Reuters) - New U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter arrived in Afghanistan on Saturday on his first trip since taking over the job this week, saying he wanted to talk to Afghan and American officials to ensure a "lasting" success as U.S. troops withdraw.

Carter, who was sworn in on Tuesday, has suggested he would be open to slowing U.S. withdrawal plans, if necessary. But he did not signal whether he was leaning in that direction in comments to reporters shortly before landing in Kabul.

"We’re looking for success in Afghanistan that is lasting, and the lasting accomplishment of our mission here," Carter said in his first news conference since taking the job.

"How to do that, what the best way to do that is, is precisely what I’m here to assess."

President Barack Obama's plans call for cutting U.S. troops from about 10,000 now to 5,500 by the end of this year and drawing down to a U.S. embassy presence in Kabul at the end of 2016.

The drawdown strategy has also drawn sharp criticism from Republicans in Congress, who say that the hard-fought gains made against the Taliban could be lost in much the same way that sectarian violence returned to Iraq after the U.S. withdrawal.

Obama is weighing a request from Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to slow the withdrawal plans, and the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has also publicly signaled that he is seeking greater flexibility in the months ahead.

Carter, a former Pentagon No. 2, said Obama wanted him to make his own assessment and did not rule out recommending "adjustments" if necessary.

Carter said he looked forward to an update from Ghani and added the two would discuss Afghan government-led peace efforts with Taliban militants.

Senior Pakistani army, Afghan and diplomatic officials said on Thursday the Afghan Taliban had signaled they were willing to open peace talks with Kabul.

Asked about peace prospects, Carter said: "I'll have a better chance to assess that after I've heard from him, because he's really in the driver's seat of that process.

"Obviously we're supportive of it but it's Afghan-led," he said.

Carter’s unannounced visit to Afghanistan came after the bloodiest year in Afghanistan since the war against Taliban militants began in 2001.

Afghanistan's national army and police suffered record losses last year, with nearly 5,000 killed, a pace that U.S.

military officials caution is unsustainable.

A total of 3,699 Afghan civilians were killed, according to U.N. data, as fighting intensified in tandem with the sharp drawdown of U.S. and allied foreign troops who formally ended their combat role in December.

The emergence of a small number of militants in Afghanistan aligning themselves with the Islamic State, which swept into northern Iraq last summer, has underscored anxieties about the dangers as foreign forces withdraw.

Carter suggested any threat from the Islamic State in Afghanistan was minimal.

"I’ve see the reports of people essentially rebranding themselves as ISIL here in Afghanistan, as has occurred in other places," Carter said, using an acronym for the militant group.

"The reports I’ve seen still have them in small numbers, and aspirational."

(Writing by Kay Johnson; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Housecarl · Feb 20, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-face-charges-as-president-sees-endless-coup-

Caracas Mayor Charged as President Sees ‘Endless Coup’

by Anatoly Kurmanaev and Andrew Rosati
10:26 AM PST
February 20, 2015

(Bloomberg) -- The opposition mayor of Venezuela’s capital was charged Friday for conspiring against the government after President Nicolas Maduro said he’s facing an “endless coup” amid plunging popularity and a deepening recession.

Intelligence officers in riot gear forced Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma from his office Thursday without a warrant, said lawmaker Richard Blanco of Ledezma’s Brave People’s Alliance. The arrest comes as the opposition reiterated calls for Maduro to step down and the president resurrects charges that his opponents, the U.S., Colombian paramilitaries and business leaders are conspiring against him.

“We’re dismantling an endless coup promoted from the U.S.,” Maduro, who succeeded the late Hugo Chavez in March 2013, said in a Twitter posting Friday. He cited a Feb. 11 letter signed by Ledezma and two other opposition leaders saying the country’s problems showed the government to be in a “terminal phase” and calling for a peaceful “transition.”

The U.S. said Maduro’s statements were baseless.

The public prosecutor said in a statement Ledezma was charged with planning “create chaos in the country.” The 59-year-old will await trial at the Ramo Verde military jail, where opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez has been held for a year.

Ledezma will be replaced in new elections if judges deem him unfit to return to his duties, Jorge Rodriguez, a member of the ruling party’s central committee and mayor of a Caracas borough said in an interview on state television.

A few dozen people banged pots from their windows in protest over detentions Friday night in the opposition stronghold neighborhood of Chacao in eastern Caracas, a year after a wave of national street clashes left 43 dead. Events across the country are planned for Feb. 27, the head of opposition alliance Jesus Torrealba told reporters.

Friday Rally

“The coup that is happening is being perpetrated by the state,” Torrealba said. “The world is realizing what’s going on in Venezuela. They are making the opposition illegal.”

At a Friday rally, opposition leaders including former lawmaker Maria Corina Machado said Maduro should step down. Machado and Lopez joined Ledezma in signing the letter cited by Maduro. Machado, who was expelled from Congress last year for speaking at a summit in Panama, is the only one of the three not detained.

Fears of police repression and fatigue have damped enthusiasm for new protests this year, said David Smilde, senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America.

Distracting Voters

Maduro, 52, is seeking to distract voters from economic problems ahead of congressional elections expected later this year, Diego Moya-Ocampos, a London-based political analyst at consulting firm IHS Inc., said in a telephone interview.

The opposition would obtain as much as 60 percent of the votes in the election, twice as many as the ruling party, according to a poll by Caracas-based Datanalisis published in a note to clients by Barclays Plc on Feb. 18. The note didn’t specify the poll timing and margin of error.

“The election would not represent an automatic government change, but it would be difficult for a president with low support, in a very polarized country and after an important political defeat, to contain pressures for change,” Barclays economist Alejandro Arreaza wrote in the note.

The price on Venezuela’s benchmark dollar bonds due 2027 fell 1.44 cents on the dollar to 39.45 cents on Friday.

Maduro ‘Desperate’

A collapse in oil prices has deepened Venezuela’s economic crisis, pushing shortages of basic products to a record. The country’s economy will contract 7 percent this year, according to UBS AG. Inflation, which reached 69 percent in December, is the fastest in the world.

Ledezma should be immediately freed until the government shows concrete evidence of crime, Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas director for Human Rights Watch, said.

The Caracas mayor, who began his political career in the corn-producing heartland of central Venezuela in the early 1970s, has criticized Maduro for his handling of the economy and the detention of Lopez.

“Ledezma’s detention shows just how desperate Maduro has become in trying to maintain power,” Jorge Piedrahita, chief executive officer of brokerage Torino Capital, said by phone from New York.

To contact the reporters on this story: Anatoly Kurmanaev in Caracas at akurmanaev1@bloomberg.net; Andrew Rosati in Caracas at arosati3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Philip Sanders at psanders@bloomberg.net Bill Faries, Randall Woods

Housecarl · Feb 20, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.hudson.org/research/11048-moscow-and-pyongyang-from-disdain-to-partnership-

Moscow and Pyongyang: From Disdain to Partnership?

Russian-North Korean relations have been on a roll during the past year, but may soon encounter roadblocks.

By Richard Weitz
February 18, 2015

145 Shares
4 Comments

A few weeks ago, the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) said that Moscow and Pyongyang planned to “deepen political, economic and military contacts and exchanges” this year. The two governments have recently launched new economic projects and partnerships to expand bilateral and regional transportation and investment. Last year, more senior North Korean leaders visited Russia than any other country. In the coming months, Russian President Vladimir Putin could become the first foreign leader to meet with Kim Jong-un, the reclusive leader of the DPRK, who Russia says has accepted Putin’s invitation to visit Moscow in May.

If Kim does come, it will mark the culmination of the growing, high-level interaction between the two governments. In February 2014, Kim Yong-nam, chairman of the Presidium of the DPRK’s Supreme People’s Assembly, attended the opening of the Olympic Games in Sochi. The following month, the Russian minister of Development for the Far East, Alexander Galushka, visited North Korea with Rustam Minnihanov, the president of the Russian Republic of Tatarstan. From April 28-30, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Trutnev, also the presidential envoy for the Far Eastern Federal District, spent three days in North Korea along with the governors of Russia’s far eastern provinces of Amursky, Khabarovsky and Primorsky. In September and October, Foreign Minister Ri Su-yong spent ten days in Moscow and in Russia’s Far East negotiating various economic deals, with a focus on the agricultural sector.

The most important visit occurred in November, when Choe Ryong-hae, ranking second or third in the DPRK Party hierarchy and a close aide to Kim, spent a week in Russia. He delivered a personal letter from Kim to Putin which asked for renewed aid and diplomatic support to keep the United Nations from passing a critical human rights resolution. For the first time, the text of the resolution advocated sending Kim and other DPRK leaders responsible for human rights atrocities to the International Criminal Court.

The Russian government has not resumed economic or military aid, but did help block the human rights sanctions. Moscow has even supported Pyongyang against U.S. allegations that North Korea launched a cyber attack against Sony Pictures for producing The Interview. Russian officials and media joined their North Korean counterparts in denouncing the film’s depiction of a fictional assassination of Kim as needlessly provocative. When he received the new DPRK ambassador to Russia in November, Putin declared that, “A further deepening of political ties and trade and economic cooperation is definitely in the interests of the peoples of both countries and ensuring regional stability and security.” Both governments have discussed plans to reconstruct North Korea’s railroad network and connect it to Russia’s, build a natural gas pipeline and electricity power lines through the Korean Peninsula, and develop North Korea’s potentially extensive mineral riches.

Russia’s latest diplomatic initiative has been to invite Kim to Moscow to take part in the Victory Day celebrations marking the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Germany in World War II. Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov said such a would promote “peace on the Korean peninsula, as well as northeast Asia,” and “would be a logical continuation of a recently noticeably activated Russian-North Korean political dialogue [and] would contribute to the implementation of agreements reached by the parties in the economic field.”

By inviting Kim to Moscow, Russia also demonstrates that it retains considerable diplomatic influence despite Western efforts to isolate Russia over Ukraine. Through its engagement with Pyongyang, Moscow also gains leverage with Tokyo, as the Russian and Japanese foreign ministries have launched a wide-ranging dialogue on North Korea-related issues. Moreover, having Kim sit next to Putin will certainly help the Russian state media distract viewers from the likely absence of many Western leaders at the event, including U.S. President Barack Obama, who has already said he will not come. If South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye attends, Putin could even venture his hand at some high-profile personal diplomacy between the Korean leaders.

The Russian government’s recent drive to improve relations with North Korea was not unexpected. Even before the West imposed economic sanctions on Russia following Moscow’s March 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, the government had been striving to deepen Russia’s economic ties with Asia by shipping more energy eastward, joining regional institutions, and encouraging more Asian investment in Russia. Since Ukraine, Russians have redoubled their Asian Pivot, though thus far the main surge has occurred almost exclusively with China rather than Japan, South Korea, or the DPRK.

Moscow’s policies towards Korean issues have remained remarkably consistent during the past two decades. Russian policymakers are eager to normalize the security situation on the Korean Peninsula both for its own sake and to realize their own economic ambitions. Moscow’s goals include avoiding another major war on the Korean Peninsula; preventing DPRK provocations from prompting additional countries to obtain nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles; eliminating the DPRK’s nuclear program through positive incentives rather than punishments; encouraging all parties to fulfill their commitments; building transportation and energy corridors through the Korean Peninsula; and enhancing Moscow’s diplomatic presence in East Asia.

Still, at the end of the day, Russian strategists consider a nuclear-armed DPRK as only an indirect threat, since they do not see any reason why North Korea would attack Russia. Therefore, Russia is unwilling to incur major risks to force the North Koreans to renounce their nuclear weapons ambitions. Russian officials oppose strong sanctions that could precipitate North Korea’s collapse into a failed state. They seek to change Pyongyang’s behavior, but not its regime. Russia remains more concerned about the economic and security consequences of the DPRK’s collapse for Russia than Pyongyang’s intransigence and provocations.

Moscow’s ability to pursue its goals is constrained by its limited influence in the Koreas and the rest of East Asia. Russian officials constantly fear being shunted aside in the Korean peace and security dialogue, despite what they see as Moscow’s obvious interest in the results. Russian policymakers strive to maintain a high-profile in regional diplomatic efforts, including Moscow’s central role in the Six-Party Talks – a framework that, like the United Nations, substantiates Moscow’s claims to great power status in negotiating East Asian security issues. Russian policymakers have also sought – rather unsuccessfully over the past decade – to mediate Korean security disputes by playing up their country’s good relations with both Koreas.

Russian and U.S. leaders have cited their cooperation in managing the North Korean nuclear dispute as evidence that, despite their many differences, the two governments can continue to work together in solving important international security issues. But Russian government representatives have faulted the United States for impeding a resumption of the Six-Party Talks: “If the American side takes adequate steps and makes the effort, not just claims, to North Korea to meet one-sided requirements, we will definitely welcome it,” an anonymous Russian Foreign Ministry official told the media.

The DPRK has many minerals and other natural resources, but what Russian entrepreneurs most value about North Korea is its pivotal location between Russia and East Asia. They want to make the DPRK a transit country for Russian energy and economic exports to South Korea and other Asia-Pacific countries. Russian planners aspire to construct energy pipelines between Russia and South Korea across North Korean territory. They have also discussed building a trans-Korean railroad and linking it with Russia’s Trans-Siberian rail system. If realized, the new rail line would allow the shipment of goods between Europe and Korea to proceed three times faster than through the Suez Canal. Russians have also sought to use the DPRK’s ice free ports which, unlike Vladivostok, are accessible year-round. In addition to the economic benefits, Russian policymakers say that these projects would contribute to regional peace and security. However, the DPRK’s continuing alienation from the international community has severely slowed the progress of transnational projects involving its territory.

To jump-start these projects, in the first half of 2014 the Russian parliament and president approved the 2012 agreement to write off 90 percent of the DPRK’s $10.94 billion Soviet-era debt (valued as of September 2012). Russia agreed to allow North Korea to repay the remaining $1.09 billion in semiannual installments over the next twenty years, and use these payments to fund bilateral economic infrastructure projects.

Moreover, the Russian-DPRK joint venture to develop the Rajin port has so far completed the modernization of a pier and built a 34-mile railway connecting the facility to the Russian border. This project to develop a transshipment center for northeast Asia continues to attract interest among South Korean businesses, with the South Korean government even granting a waiver from the economic sanctions that were adopted after the 2010 provocations. Moreover, Russian energy officials and firms are evaluating various plans to transmit electricity from the Russian Far East to North or South Korea. The Russian and DPRK governments are pondering a megaproject in which Russia would spend $25 billion over 20 years to modernize North Korea’s dilapidated 3,000-km rail network in return for privileged access to North Korea’s mineral resources, whose value might exceed that cost by several orders of magnitude.

The prospects for Russian-DPRK military cooperation are less clear. In November, the vice chief of the DPRK’s Army General Staff, No Kwang-choi, travelled to Moscow with a North Korean leadership team. According to the Korean Central News Agency, No met with his Russian counterpart and, “Both sides had a wide-ranging exchange of views on putting the friendship and cooperation between the armies of the two countries on a new higher stage.” Last week, Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said that the Russian and North Korean militaries would hold joint drills later this year.

The DPRK is especially eager to acquire new Russian warplanes to replace its aging Soviet-era planes. The North Koreans have reportedly notified Moscow that they want to obtain Russia’s top-of-the-line Su-35, but they might settle for Russian help in sustaining and modernizing the DPRK’s existing fleet of planes. Although international sanctions limit foreign military sales to North Korea, Russia might be able to provide spare parts under the guise of aiding North Korea’s civilian airliners.

To circumvent the Western sanctions imposed on both their economies, which make it difficult for them to use Western currencies and financial institutions, the Russian and DPRK governments agreed to use rubles for some transactions, thus facilitating the realization of their declared objective of raising two-way trade to $1 billion by 2020. The first ruble-based transaction occurred with agreements reached during the October 2014 meeting of the Russia-DPRK intergovernmental committee on commercial-economic relations..

Actually realizing all of these plans will remain a challenge. According to the latest data, Russia-DPRK trade remains low, with the first three quarters of 2014 seeing a slight decline compared to the first nine months in 2013. In contrast, North Korea’s trade dependence on China has reached record levels, with more than 90 percent of DPRK exports going to China in 2013. The volume of DPRK trade and investment with China is many times greater than with Russia. These figures are unlikely to change any time soon given the greater degree of compatibility between the Chinese and North Korean economies and the deep-rooted and long-standing PRC ties with North Korean economic activities.

Moreover, trying to reconstruct the DPRK rail network and build new trans-Korean railroads and pipelines could take decades and cost billions of dollars. The success of these projects would also require an unprecedented period of cooperative relations among the two Koreas and Russia. The same is true of Russian aspirations to establish an enduring commercial presence in Kaesong Industrial Complex or to boost bilateral commerce to $1 billion, some ten times current levels.

Russia could better achieve these goals if it departed from its post-Soviet insistence that all foreign economic intercourse proceed according to market principles and instead returned to the “friendship prices” of the high Soviet era of the 1960s and 1970s. Russian officials have thus far refused to do this.

Other barriers to DPRK-Russian economic exchanges include the limited commercial experience and marketable skills of the North Korean workforce, widespread impoverishment that makes purchasing Russian consumables impossible for most North Korean consumers, and the country’s underdeveloped transportation, energy, and other infrastructure systems.

Most likely, Russia will use any renewed commercial presence in the DPRK less as a revenue source and more as a foundation to expand Russia’s economic ties with more valuable East Asian partners. Conversely, as in the case with Iran, Russian planners may calculate that they need to establish some kind of robust economic foothold now, in case North Korea should later reconcile with the West and embrace South Korea, Japan, and other new economic partners.

In terms of the broader implications of the recent Russia-DPRK reconciliation, Moscow might gain more influence in the stalled Six-Party Talks and thus push to resume negotiations or alternatively play a spoiler role and punish the United States and Japan for imposing sanctions on Russia. Indeed, Russian government officials have recently warned that they might break with Washington on the nuclear talks regarding North Korea and Iran due to U.S. sanctions. While Moscow has thus far eschewed such disruptive actions, the tensions between Russia and the U.S. over Ukraine and other issues have likely already made Pyongyang bolder in resisting its nuclear disarmament.

Although it is unlikely that anything Russia, China, or any other country does regarding North Korea will induce this regime to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions, international pressure by Russia and other countries seems to have discouraged more nuclear or long-range ballistic missile tests since 2013. With Kim expecting to visit Moscow in May, the DPRK is less likely to conduct another nuclear test or additional provocations before then. Afterwards, he would have to weigh a potential loss of his new Russian ties when contemplating future disruptive steps.

Given the race to see which happens first – the DPRK develops a credible nuclear deterrent and when the regime in Pyongyang collapses from its own internal contradictions – the Russian-DPRK reconciliation could help keep the situation from getting worse while we await a more enduring solution to the Pyongyang problem.

Housecarl · Feb 20, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/is-there-a-silver-lining-to-chinas-south-china-sea-land-reclamation/

Is There a Silver Lining to China's South China Sea Land Reclamation?

China’s land reclamation projects could be a precursor to a final definition of the “nine dash line.”

By Shannon Tiezzi
February 20, 2015

223 Shares
42 Comments

Recently released satellite footage gathered by IHS Jane’s has revealed the massive extent of China’s land reclamation projects in the South China Sea. The images show that Beijing has created entirely new islands on a number of reef in the Spratlys, including Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reefs, Johnson South Reef, and Hughes Reef.

The Wall Street Journal collected the images and placed them next to satellite footage from early 2014 to make clear the extent of the construction projects. China’s isn’t just building piers and airstrips on existing land (as Taiwan is doing on Itu Aba, for example) – it is creating islands and then building on top of them. In one case, Fiery Cross Reef, the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative estimates China expanded the size of the existing land more than tenfold, making the new island more than three times larger than Itu Aba (previously the largest of the Spratly Islands).

IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly’s Asia Pacific editor, James Hardy, told the Wall Street Journal that “this is a methodical, well-planned campaign to create a chain of air and sea capable fortresses across the center of the Spratly Islands chain.” The new facilities will presumably provide refueling and supply stations for Chinese naval and aerial patrols of the region – a crucial step if China plans to establish an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea, as many analysts believe it will.

Other claimants in the South China Sea – including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan – already have facilities in the South China Sea. However, critics say the scale of China’s projects outweighs anything seen before in the disputed areas. “The sheer acreage of China’s reclamation work over the past two to three years dwarfs anything and everything other claimants have done by many times over,” Daniel Russel, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, told the WSJ. Another unnamed U.S. official warned that China’s already “unprecedented” efforts are likely to continue: “f anything, it [the land reclamation] looks to be accelerating.”

Beyond the obvious tactical benefits of having “unsinkable aircraft carriers” in the middle of the Spratlys, there are possible legal benefits as well. As Tran Truong Thuy notes in a piece for AMTI, China (unlike the other claimants) insists that the Spratlys should generate not only the standard 12 nautical miles of territorial sea, but a full 200 nmi exclusive economic zone (EEZ). China hopes to bolster this interpretation of UNCLOS by expanding the reefs (some of which were previously underwater at high tide) into “into full-fledged islands that can fulfill the requirement Article 121 of UNCLOS of being able to “sustain human habitation or economic life of their own.”

However, Article 121 also specifies that an island is “a naturally formed area of land” (emphasis added), which would seem to preclude China’s artificial islands from qualifying. Ian Storey of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore told the Wall Street Journal that China wouldn’t be able to use its new islands to solidify its claims in the area.

Still, the wish to legally shore up China’s claims is often posited as a driving force behind the land reclamation projects – particularly as the construction sped up noticeably after the Philippines filed its arbitration case against China’s “nine-dash line” claim in the South China Sea. If there’s a silver lining to China’s land reclamation projects, it may be that China is actively seeking to create facts on the ground that will bring its claims into compliance with UNCLOS – which means re-defining its “nine-dash line” claim to match with the language of EEZs and territorial waters found in UNCLOS. Currently, China’s claims are ill-defined both geographically (where, precisely, does the “nine-dash line” end?) and legally (how much control does China want to assert over the waters within the “nine-dash line”?). Reinterpreting its claim according to UNCLOS (albeit with the original conditions altered to suit China’s interests) would at least provide a solid base for future negotiations — rival claimants would have something to hole onto besides rigid claims to historical sovereignty.

As Greg Austin noted in a recent piece for The Diplomat, China’s refusal to clarify the nine-dash line (which it inherited from the previous Republic of China government) is a major obstacle to untangling the various competing claims — and also a major source of worry among rival claimants. As Austin also notes, China may be edging toward a definitive explanation of the line. A recent article in Eurasia Review by two Chinese researchers from the National Institute for South China Sea Studies says that Beijing is “evaluating” the scope of the rights it wants to exercise in the South China Sea – that’s “why China has not yet clarified the title of rights within the ‘dash-line.’” The implication of the “yet” here is that China will eventually clarify its claims – perhaps after it has finished solidifying control through its extensive land reclamation activities.

Housecarl · Feb 20, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/status-of-iran-nuclear-negotiations-2015-2

Briefing

An Iran nuclear deal is coming into focus, and there's one glaring problem

Armin Rosen Tomorrow at 10:00 AM

The Iranian foreign minister might be habitually screaming at his American counterpart, but the fact that they’re at least scheduled to renew talks in Geneva this week raises the possibility that a final nuclear deal could be in the offing.

Time is running out, after all: Barring another extension, the Joint Plan of Action, signed in Geneva in November of 2013, will expire on July 1st. The sides planned on reaching a “political agreement” by March 1st.

And as the Brookings Institution’s Suzanne Maloney argued in a January 21st article, the talks have been a disappointment even for some supporters of the negotiating process, with Iran showing little flexibility on key issues.

The urgency of the current negotiating round has reportedly led to the US softening its position on a crucial demand.

This week, controversy erupted when the Israeli government allegedly leaked supposed details of the US’s negotiating stance, which included assertions that the US would be willing to let Iran keep 6,500 uranium enrichment centrifuges under a final agreement.

A New York Times report on February 17 stated that the US had offered to let Iran keep 4,500 centrifuges in an offer made last fall, but that “there is now talk of raising that figure to 6,500 centrifuges.”

This isn’t that important, at least according to an anonymous American official that the Times quotes. “They tell part of the story, like how many centrifuges we might consider letting the Iranians hold,” the official told the Times, in apparent reference to the alleged Israeli leaks. “What they don’t tell you is that we only let them have that many centrifuges if they ship most of their fuel out of the country.”

The thinking on display here is that stockpile control is the key to a nuclear deal. US negotiators believe that restrictions on enrichment and rigorously enforced enriched uranium stockpile limits — along with other caveats, like the aforementioned requirement that Iran ship its enriched uranium to Russia, where it will be converted to non-weaponizable fuel rods — will be able to prevent Tehran from accumulating enough high-enriched uranium to construct a nuclear weapon undetected.

By this logic, the problem with Iran’s nuclear program isn’t its 19,000 centrifuges, secretive and heavily guarded nuclear facilities, weaponization and advance centrifuge research, Revolutionary Guards Corps involvement, ballistic missile program, and plutonium reactor.

Instead, the problem at hand is the much more narrow and solvable issue of preventing Iran from having enough plutonium or high-enriched uranium needed to actually construct a bomb within a certain time limit.

So the latest reports suggest that Iran would be allowed to keep between 4,500 and 6,500 centrifuges. A nuclear weapon requires 5,000 separative work units (SWU) of uranium enrichment, Olli Heinonen, a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former deputy director general for safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Agency. (SWU is a standard unit for measuring the effort needed to separate uranium isotopes.)

Each Iranian centrifuge produces 1 SWU a year, although the country has 1,000 more advanced machines capable of producing 5 SWU. So it would take Iran about six months to create a single nuclear weapon with 10,000 centrifuges if it had no previous stockpile of low or high-enriched uranium to bump up to weapons grade. At the moment, Iran has over 8 metric tons of low-enriched uranium, shortening its path to a bomb.

Interestingly, one of Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s stated “red lines” in negotiations is 190,000 SWU a year (No. 8 below).

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/54e7b08c6bb3f78d38b71191/image.jpg

The reasoning for letting Iran have those 4,500-6,500 centrifuges in any deal is that they wouldn’t be numerous or efficient enough to produce nuclear weapons faster than international monitors could detect them. Just keep enriched uranium stocks below a certain level, the thinking goes, and the Iranian nuclear crisis is solved as Tehran keeps it nuclear infrastructure while its economy is open to the rest of the world.

However, there’s one glaring problem with this train of thought: Heinonen told Business Insider that “there’s no technical reason” for Iran to possess 5,000 centrifuges.

That said, there are three primary reasons why Iran would keep enriching uranium after a nuclear deal: securing its enriched uranium stocks for civilian reactors, maintaining its mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle, and/or remaining on the threshold of a nuclear weapons capability (or actually obtaining it) so as to further project its power throughout the region.

Only the last of these requires nearly as many centrifuges as Iran is asking for and what US negotiators are reportedly willing to give.

Reason 1 for enrichment: Getting enriched uranium for a civilian reactor

If Iran were really building a nuclear program for purely civilian reasons, it could just purchase all of its enriched uranium from a foreign seller. The price per SWU has gradually increased in recent years, but not to the point where buying foreign enriched uranium is more expensive than say, building an expensive indigenous program that may result in diplomatic isolation and crippling international economic sanctions.

Most countries have figured that out by now. There just aren’t that many places with their own domestic uranium enrichment infrastructure.

Russia is the global enrichment, producing 26 million SWU a year, according to the World Nuclear Association. Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and French chip in another 20 million or so combined, largely thanks to Urenco, the venerable European multi-national widely considered to be the civilian industry leader. Japan, Brazil, and Argentina all have small enrichment facilities. India enriches uranium for its nuclear submarine program, and North Korea has its own illicit program.

The United States has dozens of civilian nuclear reactors. But it actually imports the vast majority of its enriched uranium and has no currently operating industrial scale enrichment facilities, Heinonen says.

Here’s the Department of Energy’s breakdown on the origin of civilian use enriched uranium since 1994. Ever since the late 1990s, US power plants have acquire most of their enriched uranium from overseas:

Screen Shot 2015 02 19 at 12.18.20 PM

The US isn’t the only country with an extensive nuclear infrastructure and no active enrichment program. South Korea has 23 nuclear power plants, but is prohibited from developing an indigenous enrichment capability under a bilateral agreement with the US.

Which brings things back to Iran. As Heinonen explained, Iran would need somewhere on the order of 200,000 centrifuges (i.e., near Khamenei’s red line amount) to domestically supply enriched uranium for the Bushehr reactor. Otherwise, Russia could to continue to fill stocks.

“Iran has this long-term contract from Russia so they don’t need to do enrichment themselves,” Heinonen, the Harvard fellow, told BI. “And if they did do it themselves they need many more centrifuges.”

Significantly, there’s no reason Iran absolutely needs to enrich its own uranium. The price of an SWU’s worth of enrichment has gone up slightly over the past few years, but the estimated $US27 million to fund Khameini’s demand of 190,000 SWUs pales in comparison to the heavy economic cost of the sanctions Iran has had to endure as a result of its program.

Iran SWU

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/54e7b81aeab8ea610bd8ea8f/image.jpg

This chart shows the price for running one SWU. Operating 190,000 SWUs would cost about $US27 million.

And uranium itself has actually decreased in price lately, even if the price per SWU is creeping incrementally upward.

Basically, global enrichment capacity far outstrips demand.

“There’s an oversupply of enrichment services,” Heinonen said. “At this point in time, it’s almost double [the global] enrichment capacity compared to the needs.”

At the end of the day, as the World Nuclear Association notes, Iran’s major project developing uranium enrichment capability “is heavily censured by the UN, since no commercial purpose is evident.”

Reason 2: Mastery of the fuel cycle

Heinonen sees one practical reason for Iran to keep its centrifuges: keeping up its mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle even under a greatly reduced program. “I think they want to be kind of a threshold state, where they can take a step either for peaceful or non-peaceful purposes,” Heinonen says. “In order to maintain your skills you need to work with [the centrifuges] … you cannot just shut them down.”

Keeping up this nuclear expertise would conceivably require a “demonstration scale” cascade where Iran runs “several parallel cascades, to demonstrate that you can handle a great number of centrifuges,” says Heinonen.

Nevertheless, that doesn’t explain why Iran would need 4,500 to 6,500 centrifuges. According to Heinonan, a “demonstration cascade” can be maintained with only 1,000-2,000 centrifuges.

Reason 3: Staying on or surpassing the nuclear threshold

Importantly, allowing Iran to keep 4,500-6,500 centrifuges would be to let Tehran remain within striking distance of a nuclear weapon.

The reported number of centrifuges allowed is thousands more than what Iran would need to maintain some minimum degree of nuclear enrichment expertise. Furthermore, 4,500-6,500 centrifuges would place Iran on the cusp of what it needs to build a nuclear weapon in between six months and a year. That would allow them to maintain the threat of short-term nuclear breakout — and the amount of time assumes Iran has no hidden uranium stockpiles or enrichment facilities.

There’s a larger principle at stake, though. A deal including 4,500 centrifuges or more would make Iran one of the few countries in the world to have its uranium enrichment formally legalized under an international treaty.

Strikingly, this wouldn’t happen as the result of an alliance with the US. The US has a nuclear cooperation treaty with India, for instance, but Delhi is a longstanding US economic and political ally and a fellow democracy. And this wouldn’t be a reward for Iran’s virtuous behaviour on the world stage. Iran’s uranium enrichment is banned under several UN Security Council resolutions. Tehran is still a US-listed state sponsor of terrorism, and its assistance is responsible for Bashar al-Assad’s regime hanging on in Syria.

Under an agreement that allows Iran to keep thousands of centrifuges, Iran will be given a greenlight to enrich uranium — something it has no practical need to do — thanks to decades of recalcitrance, single-minded policy dedication, and outright deceit. It would be a historic and nearly unprecedented accomplishment, and one with unknown implications for the future of nuclear proliferation.

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/21/us-iraq-idUSKBN0LP03V20150221

New U.S. defense chief silent on date of Mosul offensive

By Phil Stewart
KABUL Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:13pm EST

(Reuters) - New U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Saturday he would not telegraph the precise timing of an upcoming Iraqi offensive to retake the city of Mosul from Islamic State militants, after a U.S. military briefing caused an uproar.

Two influential Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, sent a scathing letter to the White House on Friday complaining about a Thursday briefing that predicted a Mosul offensive likely to start in April or May, involving 20,000 to 25,000 Iraqi and Kurdish forces.

"These disclosures not only risk the success of our mission, but could also cost the lives of U.S., Iraqi, and coalition forces," McCain and Graham wrote to President Barack Obama.

Carter, in his first briefing with reporters since being sworn in on Tuesday, did not address the briefing by an unnamed Central Command official explicitly, or the letter from McCain and Graham. But, asked about the Mosul offensive, he made a point about refusing to offer details.

"I think the only thing I'd like to say about that is that (offensive) is one that will be Iraqi-led and U.S.-supported. And it's important that it be launched at a time when it can succeed," Carter told reporters shortly before landing in Afghanistan.

He added: "Even if I knew exactly when that was going to be, I wouldn't tell you."

Mosul, which had a population of more than 1 million people, was captured by Islamic State fighters in June and is the largest city in the group's self-declared caliphate, a stretch of territory that straddles the border between northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

It is highly unusual for the U.S. military to openly telegraph the timing of an upcoming offensive, especially to a large group of reporters.

McCain and Graham, in their letter to Obama, demanded to know the identity of the unnamed U.S. official who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity. They also asked whether the official had prior approval from the White House.

"Those responsible have jeopardized our national security interests and must be held accountable," they wrote.

A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House had no advance knowledge of the briefing and did not give any direction about what would be said.

The official also added that Carter was aware of the letter from McCain and Graham and was always concerned about safeguarding information about future military operations.

(Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/20/us-nigeria-violence-idUSKBN0LO1HH20150220

Boko Haram fighters kill 21 people near Nigeria's Chibok

BAUCHI, Nigeria Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:12am EST

(Reuters) - Boko Haram militants fleeing a Nigerian army offensive killed 21 people on Friday in attacks near the village of Chibok, close to where the rebels abducted more than 200 schoolgirls last year, a military source said.

The rebels were fleeing a land and air offensive to clear them out of the Sambisa forest when they raided the villages of Gatamarwa, Makalama and Layhawul and opened fire at random on terrified residents, the source said.

(Reporting by Lanre Ola; Writing by Tim Cocks; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/20/us-china-india-territory-idUSKBN0LO1UN20150220

China protests Modi's visit to disputed border region

SHANGHAI Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:02pm EST

(Reuters) - China said on Friday it had lodged an official protest against Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to a border region claimed by both countries.

China disputes the entire territory of Arunachal Pradesh, calling it south Tibet. Its historic town Tawang, a key site for Tibetan Buddhism, was briefly occupied by Chinese forces during a 1962 war.

"The Chinese government has never recognized the so-called 'Arunachal Pradesh'," a statement on the Chinese Foreign Ministry's website said on Friday.

It said Modi's visit was "not conducive to the overall development of bilateral relations".

Modi visited Arunachal Pradesh on Friday to inaugurate the opening of a train line and power station. He did not mention China but pledged billions of dollars of investment to develop infrastructure in the region.

"I assure you that you will witness more development in the state in the next five years than it has seen in the last 28 years," Modi said, addressing a huge crowd.

Faster transport links and exploitation of Arunachal Pradesh's hydro-electric potential are the keys to fighting poverty and bringing about rapid development in the frontier state, he said.

In January, China objected to statements by Japan's foreign ministry supporting India's claim to the region.

A visit by U.S. President Barack Obama to India in January was widely seen as a sign Modi is moving closer to the United States, to offset rising Chinese influence in Asia and, in particular, intensifying activity by the Chinese navy in the Indian Ocean.

(Reporting by Pete Sweeney; Editing by Andrew Roche and Susan Fenton)

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150221/ml-yemen-faf360dfcb.html

Former Yemen president flees capital after rebels let him go

Feb 21, 4:39 AM (ET)
By AHMED AL-HAJ

SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Yemen's former president left the capital after Shiite rebels who surrounded his house let him go under international and local pressure, aides close to him said Saturday.

The aides said former President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi left Sanaa and later arrived in Aden. They say Hadi later plans to leave the country to receive medical treatment.

Hadi has been under house arrest for several weeks following a coup by Shiite Houthi rebels. The rebels earlier captured the capital, Sanaa, in September.

The aides say the rebels let Hadi go after pressure from the United Nations, the U.S., Russia and local political parties.

The aides spoke on condition of anonymity as they weren't authorized to speak to journalists.

Witnesses said Houthis and others in the area later ransacked Hadi's house and at least three people were seen each taking out a Kalashnikov assault rifle from the house.

Jamal Benomar, the U.N. envoy to Yemen, said Friday that rival factions, including the Houthis, have agreed on a new legislative body consisting of former and new lawmakers to serve during the country's upcoming transition period.

But a coalition of Yemeni parties voiced objections to the plan, describing it as an insufficient half-solution.

Ahmed Lakaz, spokesman of the Unionist Gathering Party, which is taking part in the dialogue, said the parties told the Houthis that they would be out of the process if Hadi was not freed.

Yemen has been locked in a political crisis since the Houthi rebels took over the capital and eventually forced the resignation of the elected Western-backed president and dissolved the parliament while keeping Hadi under house arrest.

The political crisis cast also doubts on the United States' ability to continue its counter-terrorism operations, especially with loss of Hadi, a strong U.S. ally.

However, the U.S. has continued to target al-Qaida's branch in Yemen, known as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, with drone strikes. Tribal sources said Friday that two suspected al-Qaida members were killed in a drone strike in the southern province of Shabwa.

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150221/af-somalia-violence-4d34dfd543.html

25 people dead in Friday's al-Shabab attack on Somali hotel

Feb 21, 4:47 AM (ET)
By ABDI GULED

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — Twenty-five people were killed and 40 wounded in suicide attacks at a hotel in Somalia's capital on Friday, the Somali government said Saturday.

One Islamic extremist rammed an explosives-laden vehicle into the gate of the Central Hotel, and another went in and blew himself up, a statement from Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke's office said.

Government officials were meeting at the Central Hotel at the time, and the statement said Mogadishu's deputy mayor and two legislators were among the dead. It was unclear whether the government's report of 25 dead included the two bombers.

Al-Shabab, Somalia's Islamic extremist rebels, claimed responsibility for the attack. Despite the loss of key strongholds in Somalia, al-Shabab, which is linked to al-Qaida, continues to stage attacks in the capital, Mogadishu, and elsewhere.

Somalia's president Hassan Sheikh Mohamud condemned the attack and said it would not derail efforts by his government to restore peace to Somalia which is recovering from decades of war.

This is the second attack on a hotel in Mogadishu in less than a month. On Jan. 22, three Somali nationals were killed when a suicide car bomber blew himself up at the gate of a hotel housing the advance party of the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who visited the country days later.

Al-Shabab controlled much of Mogadishu during the years 2007 to 2011, but was pushed out of Somalia's capital and other major cities by African Union forces.

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...arrest-12-people-after-bomb-blasts-in-capital

Somali Authorities Arrest 12 People After Bomb Blasts in Capital

by Mohamed Sheikh Nor

12:14 AM PST
February 21, 2015

(Bloomberg) -- Somalia’s authorities arrested 12 people in connection with twin bomb blasts in the capital, Mogadishu, on Friday that killed at least 25 people, the government said.

“Security forces apprehended 12 people, including two of the hotel owners, in connection with Friday’s blasts,” Security Minister Abdirisaq Omar Mohamed told state-run radio Saturday. At least 40 people were injured in the explosions, Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali’s office said in an e-mailed statement.

The “terrorist attack” on the Central Hotel in Mogadishu, in which a car laden with explosives detonated before a suicide bomber exploded inside the compound, took place while guests were attending Friday prayers at the hotel’s mosque, according to the statement. Two lawmakers and the deputy mayor of Mogadishu were among the dead, Mohamed said.

Al-Shabaab, the Somalia-based Islamist militant group linked to al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility for the bombings, according to a statement published on the website of pro-al-Shabaab Radio Andalus.

Al-Shabaab has waged an insurgency in the Horn of Africa nation since 2006 in a bid to impose Shariah, or Islamic law. African peacekeepers have joined government forces to stabilize the country, sparking revenge attacks by al-Shabaab outside Somalia’s borders, including in neighboring Kenya where its fighters raided the Westgate mall in Nairobi in 2013, leaving at least 67 people dead.

While the group has lost ground since being driven out of Mogadishu in 2011, it continues to stage deadly gun and bomb attacks in Somalia.

Friday’s attack came ahead of a visit Saturday by Djiboutian President Ismail Omar Guelleh to Mogadishu for talks with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud. On Jan. 22, al-Shabaab attacked the SYL Hotel in Mogadishu where Turkish delegates were staying ahead of a visit by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mohamed Sheikh Nor in Mogadishu at msheikhnor@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Paul Richardson at pmrichardson@bloomberg.net Ville Heiskanen

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/204ecbb8-b913-11e4-a8d0-00144feab7de.html

February 20, 2015 3:54 pm

Nato must prepare for Russian attack, warns UK general

Sam Jones, London
Comments

Nato forces must prepare for a large-scale conventional assault by Russia on an eastern European member state designed to catch the alliance off guard and snatch territory, the deputy supreme commander of the military alliance has warned.

Openly raising the prospect of a conventional armed conflict with Russia on European soil, the remarks by Sir Adrian Bradshaw, second-in-command of Nato’s forces in Europe, are some of the most strident yet from the alliance.

The warning comes as relations with the Kremlin worsen just days into a second fragile ceasefire aimed at curbing the bloodshed in eastern Ukraine between Kiev’s forces and Russian-backed separatists.

Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank in London on Friday, Sir Adrian said that as well as adapting to tackle the “hybrid” military tactics — a combination of conventional, irregular and cyber warfare techniques — being used by Russia in Ukraine, allied forces needed to be ready for an overt invasion.

“Russia might believe the large-scale conventional forces she has shown she can generate at very short notice — as we saw in the snap exercises that preceded the takeover of Crimea — could in future not only be used for intimidation and coercion, but to seize Nato territory,” he said.

Sir Adrian, a former commander of British land forces and the most senior UK officer in the alliance, added: “After which the threat of escalation might be used to prevent re-establishment of territorial integrity. This use of so-called escalation dominance was, of course, a classic Soviet technique.”

Deploying overwhelming force at short notice has become a hallmark of Russian military exercises. Russia’s 2013 “Zapad” (West) war game involved the rapid mobilisation of 25,000 troops in Belarus and the enclave of Kaliningrad for a conflict with a Nato state. A snap exercise in Russia’s eastern military district later the same year was the largest since the fall of the Iron Curtain — it involved 160,000 troops.

Russia could potentially seize territory in a Nato state using rapidly assembled forces — for example, the Russian-speaking enclave of Narva in Estonia — before the alliance had time to act, forcing leaders to either declare war or swallow their pride.

Such a course of action would raise the prospect of a “slide into strategic conflict”, which, “however unlikely we see that as being now, represents an obvious existential threat to our whole being”, Sir Adrian added, hinting at the potential for nuclear confrontation.

The prospect of a brazen Russian attack is one factor driving Nato moves to speed up its ability to deploy large military units in the event of a crisis.

The centrepiece of the alliance’s shift in policy following a summit in Wales in September is a “spearhead” brigade-sized rapid reaction force capable of deploying within 48 hours.

Nato is preparing to station “force integration units” in each of its eastern European member states to act as eyes and ears on the ground as well as prepare for rapid deployment of Nato forces.

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...n-of-Russian-danger-to-EU-NATO/5311424457297/

Officials warn of Russian danger to EU, NATO

Gen. Sir Adrian Bradshaw said Estonia, Lativa and Lithuania remain vulnerable to possible Russian military advances.

By Ed Adamczyk Follow @adamczyk_ed Contact the Author | Feb. 20, 2015 at 2:03 PM

LONDON, Feb. 20 (UPI) -- A senior NATO military officer warned that Russia could invade the Baltic States with tactics practiced in Ukraine.

In a London speech to the Royal United Services Institute, British Gen. Sir Adrian Bradshaw, Deputy Supreme Commander of NATO forces, cited a "danger that Russia might believe that the large-scale conventional forces which she has shown she can generate on very short notice, as we saw in the snap exercise that preceded the takeover of Crimea, could in the future be used not only for intimidation and coercion but potentially to seize NATO territory."

He referred to the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, NATO-member countries which border Russia and were part of the Soviet Union.

Bradshaw's comments came the same day Valdis Dombrovskis, European Commission Vice president and former Latvia Prime Minister, called for a stronger NATO presence in the Baltic countries.

"Russia's aggression against Ukraine is very worrying for Baltic states. It shows that Russia is looking to redraw Europe's 21st century borders by force, and it must be noted that Ukraine is not the first country to face Russia's aggression," Dombrovskis said in London.

The unusually strong warnings came a day after British defense minister Michael Fallon called Russian President Vladimir Putin "a real and present danger" to NATO and to the Baltic states, and two days after British fighter jets intercepted Russian bombers flying near British airspace.

Britain's House of Lords committee overseeing European Union relations issued a report Friday accusing the EU and the British government of a "catastrophic misreading" of Russia's intentions for Ukraine, saying Britain was not "active or visible enough" to dissuade the Kremlin from its involvement in Ukraine.

Related UPI Stories
•After rebels take Ukraine town, cease-fire hopes fade
•Russian bombers intercepted by British fighter planes

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

"Too little too late" or "Just in time"?.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-visits-afghanistan-as-troop-options-reviewed

New Pentagon Chief Tells Afghan Leaders He’ll Reassess U.S. Exit

by 'David Lerman
6:25 PM PST
February 20, 2015

(Bloomberg) -- Ashton Carter used his first visit to Afghanistan as the new defense secretary to promise a broad review of the U.S.’s mission that could include a slower timetable for withdrawing troops in America’s longest war.

Following a meeting with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in Kabul, the new Pentagon chief told reporters that the Obama administration is willing to reconsider its plan to pull out almost all U.S. forces by January 2017. Carter took over from former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel four days ago.

“Our priority now is to make sure this progress sticks,” Carter said, citing political and military gains by Afghanistan over the past two years. “That is why President Obama is considering a number of options to reinforce our support for President Ghani’s security strategy, including possible changes to the timeline for our drawdown of U.S. troops.”

The review reflects doubts about whether the Afghan military, undermined by factionalism and equipped with only rudimentary combat aircraft, can secure the country on its own. The U.S. has failed to root out Taliban insurgents after 13 years of war in which more than 2,300 Americans have died.

President Barack Obama’s timetable calls for drawing down to about 5,500 troops by the end of this year from about 10,000 now. The president has pledged to bring home all but a small contingent of troops to guard the U.S. Embassy in Kabul by the time he leaves office in January 2017.

No decisions have been made on whether any changes should be made to Obama’s plan, which was announced last year. Ghani will discuss the issue of adequate troop levels with Obama on his visit to Washington next month, Carter said.

Base Closures

The reassessment “could mean taking another look at the timing and sequencing of base closures to ensure we have the right array of capabilities,” Carter said at a joint press conference with Ghani after their meeting. “We are discussing and rethinking details of a counterterrorism mission and how the environment has changed here,” he said, without elaborating.

While the U.S. proclaimed the end of combat operations in December, its new mission -- using a smaller force -- entails training Afghan troops and conducting counterterrorism operations. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Campbell, told Congress last week that he’s providing options on adjusting the pace of withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

Ghani said Obama deserved thanks for showing flexibility in his withdrawal plan -- a step taken in December when Hagel announced a move to retain about 1,000 troops in Afghanistan longer than initially forecast. He also left the door open to possible talks with the Taliban.

Taliban Talks

“The grounds for peace have never been better in the last 36 years,” Ghani said, referring to decades of war that have plagued his country. “We cannot make premature announcements.”

Neighboring Pakistan has sought to serve as an intermediary in reviving long-dormant peace talks between Afghanistan’s government and the Taliban. Afghanistan appreciates Pakistan’s efforts, according to a statement Friday from Ghani’s office.

Besides Ghani, Carter also met with Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, as well as with U.S. military officials. They planned to discuss how to end the war, which began in 2001 to oust the Taliban from power after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

The U.S. already has spent $65 billion building Afghanistan’s army and police forces, and billions more are projected over the next decade. The U.S. and its allies are paying 65 percent of Afghanistan’s budget this year.

Carter, a veteran Defense Department official who has served 11 defense secretaries in his career, told Pentagon employees in a speech Thursday that the U.S. has a “very successful campaign in Afghanistan, but it’s not finished and it needs to be won.”

To contact the reporter on this story: David Lerman in Kabul at dlerman1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Daniel Ten Kate at dtenkate@bloomberg.net; John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net Laurie Asseo

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/21/us-nigeria-violence-niger-idUSKBN0LP09A20150221

Boko Haram attacks island on Niger side of Lake Chad

By Abdoulaye Massalaki
NIAMEY Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:46am EST

(Reuters) - Boko Haram militants attacked an island on Niger's side of Lake Chad but the army repelled them after heavy fighting, residents and security sources said on Saturday.

The Lake Chad area - a vast maze of tiny islands and swampland sheltering thousands of Nigerian refugees - is thought to be serving as a hideout for the Islamist insurgent group.

"There was heavy weapons and machine gun fire from about 2000 local time," said a resident of Niger's nearby lakeside town of N'Guigmi, which Boko Haram attempted to seize earlier this month. Niger security sources said several Boko Haram members were killed in the fighting.

It was not immediately clear which island had been attacked and whether it was inhabited, but the security sources and residents said it was in Niger and within 50 km (30 miles) of the borders with Chad and Nigeria.

Last week, Boko Haram fighters aboard motorized canoes attacked a fishing village in Chad, killing at least five people in the group's first known lethal attack on that country.

The Sunni group, which has killed thousands of people in a six-year insurgency in Nigeria, has been gaining strength in the past year. It has carved out a territory the size of Belgium in the northeast of the country and intensified cross-border raids.

But regional forces from Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Niger have won battles against the group in recent weeks as they seek to hem them within their heartland.

Niger, a poor desert nation, is also seeking to dismantle clandestine Boko Haram networks around its southern border. The defense ministry on Friday raised 2 billion CFA francs (£3.46 million) to help the army fight the jihadists via a telethon campaign.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius arrived in Chad on Saturday as part of a 48-hour trip to countries affected by Boko Haram's insurgency. He will travel to Cameroon and Niger next.

"I came here to offer (President Idriss) Deby France's support and solidarity," he told journalists, adding that he expected African countries to lead the fight against Boko Haram. France, the former colonial master, has a strong military presence in the region and provides intelligence and logistical aid.

The United States is deepening its commitment to countering the group and will share communications equipment and intelligence with African allies.

Military chiefs will meet in Chad's capital N'Djamena next week to finalize plans for a 8,700-strong task-force of troops from Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, Benin and Niger to fight the militant group.

(Additional reporting by Madjiasra Nako; Writing by Emma Farge; Editing by Alison Williams and Stephen Powell)

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-turn-technical-as-mit-physicists-join-debate

Iran Nuclear Talks Turn Technical as MIT Physicists Join Debate

by Jonathan Tirone
5:11 AM PST
February 21, 2015

(Bloomberg) -- Some of the differences separating the U.S. and Iran may narrow today in Geneva when both countries bring in top scientists to work on the technical elements of a possible nuclear accord.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and the head of the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, arrived today in Geneva for talks scheduled to run until Monday. Both men researched nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology during the 1970s.

The scientists are participating in the talks “so technical issues can be solved at the highest level,” an Iranian government website said via Twitter, adding that the two officials have a connection via the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minster Mohammad Javad Zarif are expected to join the talks tomorrow.

Diplomats have given themselves until March 24 to work out a deal over Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. and world powers have asked the Persian Gulf country to cut its uranium-enrichment capacity in return for rolling back sanctions. Iran has resisted dismantling any of its fast-spinning centrifuges currently being used to enrich the heavy metal that can be used to fuel both nuclear reactors and bombs.

Since signing a 2013 interim accord that saw Iran suspend its most sensitive nuclear activities in exchange for limited sanctions relief, the sides have remained at loggerheads. The arrival of Moniz and Salehi may mean the sides are ready to compromise, according to International Crisis Group analyst Ali Vaez.

“The presence of Salehi and his American counterpart shows that technical discussions are nearing their end,” Vaez said in an e-mailed reply to questions from Istanbul.

Engineering Studies

Salehi received his doctorate in nuclear engineering from MIT in 1977. In his research thesis, written about the way neutrons move in different reactors, Salehi thanked the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for partly funding his studies.

Four years earlier, in 1973, Moniz was appointed to MIT’s faculty. He published four papers the year Salehi graduated on topics ranging from electrodynamics and nuclear physics, MIT records show.

MIT received about $1 million from the Iranian government to train 23 students in the 1970s, according to online records published by Harvard University.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at jtirone@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Alan Crawford at acrawford6@bloomberg.net Trista Kelley, Paul Richardson

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/iraqis-struggling-to-prep-for-retaking-isis-held-mosul-1.2246835

Iraqis struggling to prep for retaking ISIS-held Mosul

Lolita C. Baldor and Sameer Yacoub, The Associated Press
Published Saturday, February 21, 2015 9:19AM EST

WASHINGTON -- Questions persist about whether the struggling Iraqi military will be ready for the operation to retake the country's second largest city from Islamic State militants in just a few months.

Iraqi officials continue to insist they haven't gotten the advanced weapons they need for the operation in the northern city of Mosul, and some question whether they will be ready for a spring offensive. But the Pentagon insists the U.S. has sent tens of thousands of weapons and ammunition and more is in the pipeline.

Hakim al-Zamili, the head of the security and defence committee in the Iraqi parliament, told The Associated Press Friday that "any operation would be fruitless" unless the brigades are properly prepared and have the weapons they need.

"I think if these weapons are not made available soon, the military assault might wait beyond spring," he said. "The Americans might have their own calculations and estimations, but we as Iraqis have our own opinion. We are fighting and moving on the ground, so we have better vision and April might be too soon."

A U.S. Central Command official provided some details of the battle plan Thursday, saying the co-ordinated military mission to retake Mosul will likely begin in April or May and will involve up to 25,000 Iraqi troops. They have cautioned, however, that if the Iraqis aren't ready, the timing could be delayed.

The core of the fighting force will be five of Iraq's most accomplished brigades, who will go through additional U.S. training before the operation.

But al-Zamili said that while several of Iraq's units have gone through training recently, "these well-trained brigades cannot get involved in battles without being equipped with advanced and effective weapons that would enable them to penetrate enemy lines."

His comment reflects a common complaint from the Iraqi government, both in recent months and throughout much of the Iraq war. The U.S., however, has sent tens of thousands of weapons, ammunition, body armour and other equipment to the country.

According to a senior defence official, the U.S. sent nearly 1,600 Hellfire missiles to Iraq last year, and has already delivered 232 more. About 10,000 M-16 assault rifles are due to arrive in the next few weeks, along with 23,000 ammunition magazines. The U.S. also has delivered thousands of rockets, mortar rounds, tank rounds, .50-calibre rounds and 10,000 M-68 combat optical sights, a rifle scope commonly used by the U.S. military.

About 250 mine-resistant, armour-protected vehicles will be delivered in a few weeks, along with sophisticated radio systems for the MRAPs and more ammunition rounds, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The public discussion of the operation, including how many Iraqi brigades would be involved and how Kurdish Peshmerga military would be used, triggered questions about whether it provided any key information to the enemy.

The Pentagon doesn't often disclose as much about an operation before it takes place, but in some cases it can be a strategic tactic intended to affect the enemy, trigger a reaction or even prompt some militants to flee before the assault begins. Military officials also said none of the information released by U.S. Central Command could be put to any operational use by the Islamic State militants.

The operation itself comes as no surprise to the Islamic State group. Iraqi leaders have for months made it publicly clear that they were planning an operation to retake Mosul and that they were eager to get started. In addition, U.S. officials had already acknowledged they were beginning preparations for the Mosul mission, including using airstrikes to shut down supply lines the insurgents were using to get equipment or people in and out of the city.

Associated Press writer Josh Lederman contributed to this report.

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150221/iran-nuclear-talks-28a04aea6a.html

US warns it is ready to walk away from Iran nuclear talks

Feb 21, 3:33 PM (ET)
By GEORGE JAHN and BRADLEY KLAPPER

GENEVA (AP) — With only weeks left to the deadline to reach a first-stage nuclear deal with Iran, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday that "significant gaps" remained and warned that America was ready to walk away from the talks if Tehran doesn't agree to terms demonstrating that it doesn't want atomic arms.

Kerry spoke after the Iranian Atomic Energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz added their muscle to the talks for the first time to help resolve technical disputes standing in the way of an agreement meant to curb Iran's nuclear programs in exchange for sanctions relief for the Islamic Republic.

But Kerry warned against undue optimism. Salehi's and Moniz's presence is no "indication whatsoever that something is about to be decided," he said. "There are still significant gaps."

World powers and Iran have set an end of March deadline for a framework agreement, with four further months for the technical work to be ironed out. The talks have missed two previous deadlines, and President Barack Obama has said a further extension would make little sense without a basis for continuing discussions.

Kerry, who flies to Geneva Sunday from London, said there was no doubt Obama was serious. The president, he said, "is fully prepared to stop these talks if he feels that they're not being met with the kind of productive decision-making necessary to prove that a program is in fact peaceful."

If the talks fail, Obama may be unable to continue holding off Congress from passing new sanctions against Iran. That, in turn, could scuttle any further diplomatic solution to U.S.-led attempts to increase the time Tehran would need to be able to make nuclear arms. Iran denies any interest in such weapons.

Skepticism about the negotiations already is strong among congressional hardliners, Washington's closest Arab allies and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is expected to strongly criticize them in an address the U.S. Congress early next month.

Western officials say the U.S. decided to send Moniz only after Iran announced that Salehi was coming. They were expected to discuss the number of centrifuges Iran can operate to enrich uranium; how much enriched material it can stockpile; what research and development it may pursue related to enrichment, and the future of a planned heavy water reactor that could produce substantial amounts of plutonium — which like enriched uranium is a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is also at the talks, and Kerry is to meet him Sunday and Monday.

For months, the negotiations have been primarily between Washington and Tehran. But Kerry insisted "there is absolutely no divergence" between the U.S. and the five other powers — Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — over what Iran needed to agree to, "to prove that its nuclear program is going to be peaceful in the future."

__

Klapper reported from London

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150221/as--united_states-afghanistan-f6d95f3abf.html

Pentagon chief: US considering slowing exit from Afghanistan

Feb 21, 12:02 PM (ET)
By ROBERT BURNS

(AP) U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter speaks on board his plane en route to...
Full Image

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The United States is considering slowing its military exit from Afghanistan by keeping a larger-than-planned troop presence this year and next because the new Afghan government is proving to be a more reliable partner, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Saturday.

Carter, on his first overseas trip since starting the Pentagon job Tuesday, also said the Obama administration is "rethinking" the counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, although he did not elaborate.

No decisions have been made, but President Barack Obama will discuss a range of options for slowing the U.S. military withdrawal when Afghan president Ashraf Ghani visits the White House next month, Carter said at a news conference with Ghani. The presidents also plan to talk about the future of the counterterrorism fight in Afghanistan, he said.

Carter did not say Obama was considering keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016, only that the president was rethinking the pace of troop withdrawals for 2015 and 2016.

(AP) Afghan President Ashraf Ghani addresses a new conference with U.S. Defense Secretary...
Full Image

There are about 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, down from a peak of 100,000 as recently as 2010-11.

While the White House recently acknowledged it was reconsidering the exit plan, Carter's remarks were the most direct explanation by a Pentagon official amid criticism from opposition Republicans that the Democratic commander in chief is beating a hasty and risky retreat.

On Feb. 11, the White House said Ghani had requested "some flexibility in the troop drawdown timeline" and that the administration was "actively considering" that. A day later, Gen. John Campbell, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that he had presented U.S. leaders with several options that would allow him to better continue training and advising Afghan forces, particularly through this summer's peak fighting season.

The "common denominator" in the new thinking about the U.S. military mission is a belief in Washington that the formation of a unity government in Kabul last year has opened new possibilities for progress on both the political and security fronts, Carter said.

The unity government of Ashraf and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah offers new promise for a more effective partnership in stabilizing the country, Carter said.

(AP) U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter makes remarks during a news conference with Afghan...
Full Image

U.S. officials had grown grew impatient with former President Hamid Karzai, who sometimes publicly criticized the U.S. military and took a dimmer view of partnering with the Americans.

"That's a major change," Carter said, something "that just a few months ago we couldn't have planned on."

Obama's current plan calls for troop levels to drop by half from 10,000 by the end of this year and be at nearly zero by the end of 2016. The U.S. would maintain a security cooperation office in Kabul. Ghani has made it known he thinks that should be slowed down in order to better support Afghan forces battling a resilient Taliban insurgency.

In remarks to reporters later Saturday, Campbell said progress in stabilizing Afghanistan is evident in the security forces' ability to plan and execute complex military operations. He said they are in the early stages of a major offensive in Helmand province, combining air and ground forces to retake lost ground. The top U.S. commander said he could not discuss details in order to preserve security for the operation, but said it currently involves fighting near the city of Sangin.

Carter did not specify what changes Obama is considering in the U.S. military presence. But he said could include slowing the withdrawal pace and changing the timing and sequencing of U.S. base closures.

(AP) U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, left, arrives to a news conference with Afghan...
Full Image

He said Obama also was "rethinking the details" of the U.S. counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan, where there are remnants of al-Qaida as well as signs that the Islamic State militant group is seeking to make inroads here in addition to Iraq and Syria.

Campbell said he is monitoring IS recruiting efforts in Afghanistan, noting that the militant group showed in Iraq that it can, under the right circumstances, spread its influence quickly. But he was adamant that Afghanistan's situation is not like Iraq's and thus not as big a worry.

"We've got a government here that wants us to be here," he said.

In his remarks to reporters, Ghani thanked Obama for being flexible and showing a willingness to consider "the realities on the ground." Using similar phrasing, Carter said that when he returns to Washington he will work up recommendations to Obama, in advance of the March talks, that "reflect reality on the ground."

Carter lauded the progress that Afghanistan has made during the 13 years since U.S. forces invaded and toppled the Taliban rule. Obama's goal, he said, is to "make sure this progress sticks" so that Afghanistan does not again become a launching pad for terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Carter also met in the Afghan capital with Campbell and Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for U.S. operations in Afghanistan and across the Middle East.

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150221/ml-yemen-d51cfa0422.html

Yemen leader says still president after fleeing capital

Feb 21, 3:47 PM (ET)
By AHMED AL-HAJ and BRIAN ROHAN

(AP) Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi speaks during his meeting with...
Full Image

SANAA, Yemen (AP) — The Yemeni leader who resigned the presidency last month and fled to the country's south on Saturday said all actions taken since Shiite rebels stormed the capital, Sanaa, last September are illegitimate, hinting that he will seek to reclaim his power and office.

The move exacerbates worries over a regional breakup and further instability in the volatile country, the Arab world's poorest and home to a powerful al-Qaida affiliate. The rebels, known as Houthis, control Sanaa and several major cities, while the south is largely free from their rule and officials there have rejected the rebel takeover amid talk of a potential secession.

In a statement signed as "president of the republic" from the southern port city of Aden, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi called for a national dialogue there or in the city of Taiz, another area not under Houthi control, and demanded the rebels leave Sanaa.

He said he supports the power transfer plan backed by Gulf countries after Yemen's 2011 Arab Spring uprising, which envisaged him taking office from predecessor Ali Abdullah Saleh until elections. He also called on military and security forces to support him, and demanded the Houthis release members of his former Cabinet who are still under house arrest in Sanaa.

(AP) In this May 22, 2012 file photo, then Yemeni President Abed Rabbu Mansour...
Full Image

An official from Hadi's office, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief journalists, said that Hadi had resigned during an "unnatural situation" while he was under house arrest.

He left Sanaa Saturday after the rebels who had surrounded his home for several weeks released him under international and local pressure, aides close to him said, although the rebels said later in a statement that he had made a furtive escape. Earlier, Hadi's aides said he planned to leave the country for medical treatment.

Witnesses said the Houthis and others in the area later ransacked Hadi's house and people were seen removing automatic rifles from the building. The spokesman for Yemen's embassy in Washington, Mohammed Albasha, said on Twitter that Hadi and his family had arrived safely in Aden, but that his press secretary had been detained.

Jamal Benomar, the U.N. envoy to Yemen, said Friday that rival factions, including the Houthis, had agreed on a new legislative body consisting of former and new lawmakers to serve during the country's upcoming transition period, although those prospects seemed bleak after Hadi's defiant comments.

A coalition of Yemeni parties also voiced objections to the plan, describing it as an insufficient half-solution, and later Saturday the Nasserite block demanded Hadi be returned to power.

(AP) In this Feb. 7, 2012 file photo, Yemen's then Vice President Abed Rabbo...
Full Image

Ahmed Lakaz, spokesman of the Unionist Gathering Party, which is taking part in the dialogue, earlier said the parties told the Houthis that they would not participate in the process until Hadi was freed.

The ongoing political crisis casts doubts on the United States' ability to continue its counter-terrorism operations in Yemen.

However, the U.S. has continued to target al-Qaida's branch in Yemen, known as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, with drone strikes. Tribal sources said Friday that two suspected al-Qaida members were killed in a drone strike in the southern province of Shabwa.

Meanwhile Saturday, Houthis tried to storm a special forces base outside the capital, exchanging fire with troops there who are mostly loyal to Hadi's predecessor Saleh. The fighting killed three people, security officials said.

Saleh's aides say he considers the base key to his survival and would never allow it to fall under Houthi control — unlike most of Sanaa's other military installations, which are already in rebel hands. Those aides spoke on condition of anonymity as Saleh had not authorized them to speak to reporters.

Thousands also marched Saturday in support of Hadi in southern Ibb province, where they urged the Houthis to leave the region and halt their interference in local affairs. The Houthis opened fire, killing one demonstrator and wounding two, said security officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity as they weren't authorized to talk to journalists.

---

Rohan reported from Cairo

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/could-iran-yet-unleash-a-general-armed-assault/89057/

Could Iran Yet Unleash A General Armed Assault Along the Borders of Israel?

By CONRAD BLACK, Special to the Sun | February 21, 2015

The world has been largely anesthetized by the endless, fruitless negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. The regime of Non-Proliferation in nuclear affairs has been dying a slow death with each new nuclear-empowered country (with the exception of South Africa, which developed the capability under the Apartheid white government but abandoned it under the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela).

Stalin redoubled efforts to develop an atomic bomb when advised by President Truman at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945 that the United States had successfully tested such a weapon and would soon use it on Japan if that country did not surrender. The British, even under the relatively pacifistic Labor government of Clement Attlee, felt that Britain must have such a weapon too. When restored to power in Paris in 1958, General de Gaulle wasted no time developing atomic weapons, a threshold Mao Tse-tung crossed with the People’s Republic of China in 1964.

India determined that it required such a weapon to assure its defence against China, and Pakistan developed what it called an “Islamic bomb” to deter India. Israel silently and tacitly developed a nuclear weapon as a necessity to provide a last ditch protection for the Jewish state, while it was still governed and largely populated by survivors of the almost successful attempt to kill every Jew in Europe.

What has made an Iranian nuclear military capability so terrifying is that it has regularly threatened, throughout the theocracy of the Islamic Republic in 1979, to obliterate Israel, and to avenge the Shiite Muslims on the Sunnis who have, the Shiites claim, abused their position and treated Shiite Muslims with condescension, and often barbarously, for centuries. As the Iranians have pursued nuclear weapons, they have also heavily infiltrated Israel’s northern border, from the Mediterranean to the Golan Heights, through their client terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon and in Syria, where it is a central prop of the tottering Assad Regime.

The Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamanei, and Iranian general officers have spoken publicly of amassing a force of 130,000 Iranian-financed Hezbollah militants, trained and armed, near the Golan Heights, where the disengagement line has been relatively calm since it was agreed in 1974. This frontier strike force will include a very large contingent of the Iranian Qods and Bajlis forces, the bully boys of the country who suppress any resistance that arises to the fraudulent elections and other authoritarian acts of the regime in Tehran.

The proportions of Iran’s design are impressive for their scale and extremely worrisome for the danger they pose of a general regional conflict. There has been abundant discussion of Iran’s nuclear program, but until very recently, there was no reason to connect that displeasing prospect with up to 200,000 heavily armed Iranians and their Hezbollah allies on Israel’s northern border. Hezbollah successfully resisted a full-scale Israeli intervention against them in 2006, when the world was cheering Israel on for once.

Iran is not, in fact, a strong country, though it is imbued with a bowdlerized and grandiose historical self-view that romanticizes the empire of the Cyruses and Dariuses, before Alexander the Great laid the Persian Empire low at Gaugamela in 331 B.C. (allegedly killing 500,000 Persians in one day with his arrows, spears and swords). Ancient masters of the Middle East — before the Macedonians defeated them, and the Romans muscled them back beyond the Euphrates, and the rise of the Turks — the Persians appear to be painfully asserting the ancient division of control of the region (before Western intervention) between themselves and the Arabs, led by the Egyptians and the petro-state of the Saudis.

A carve-out for Israel and perhaps its Bedouin (Jordan), Maronite (Lebanon), and Palestinian neighbours will have to be agreed, after considerable further violence and unimaginable threats and blood libels.

One of the most absurd chapters in the thoroughly unsatisfactory history of arms control was the alleged agreement between Turkey’s duplicitous, corrupt, and posturing (then) premier, Recip Tayyip Erdogan, the egregious former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (whom even Khamanei dismissed as a mountebank), and the former president of Brazil, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, which was supposed to have resolved the Iranian nuclear issue in 2010.

Mr. Erdogan naively imagined that he and Iran could both cut a nice figure professing the utmost fraternity with the Arabs, whom both countries have despised and frequently oppressed for thousands of years. But while he romanced Tehran and postured as the champion of the Palestinians, Iran was asserting a stranglehold of influence over the government of Syria, led by Alawites, who only have about 10% of the Syrian population, and bankrolled and supplied Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which induced the effective collapse of the always precarious state of Lebanon.

Turkish regional policy has been completely ineffective, and Mr. Erdogan’s slide has been accelerated by domestic political blunders, including construction of a $350-million mansion for himself and his routine suppression of mass demonstrators, in what is still more or less a democracy. With Turkey’s vapid posturing, the withdrawal of the United States from the region, and Egypt distracted grappling with the 900-pound gorilla of the last 75 years of its history, the Muslim Brotherhood, it has devolved upon the medieval petro-kingdom of Saudi Arabia to put a restraining rod on the backs of the Iranian ayatollahs.

By slicing the price of oil by more than half, the Saudis have imperiled Iran’s ability to finance all its ambitions, which have included installing its own faction in control in Yemen, at the south end of the Red Sea athwart the traffic to and from the Suez Canal, and sponsorship of one of the violent fundamentalist factions in Afghanistan. Iran effectively dominates the Shiite 60 per cent of Iraq, reducing the great American nation-building effort there to a sanguinary fiasco, and is asserting a very direct and malignant influence across the region, from the Mediterranean almost to Pakistan, and from Beirut to Aden.

There have been plenty of informal threats by the Iranians to close the Straits of Hormuz, squeezing the oil revenues of Iraq and the Gulf states, and even (though less overtly) to attack the main Saudi oil refinery on the Persian Gulf, to return the Saudi’s favour for cutting the oil price so drastically by over-production.

The nuclear talks have taken the place of the former solemn Western determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons at all, and confirm that Iran stands on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power, able to attain that status secretly in about three months. The most disturbing scenario is that as it does so, Iran could unleash a general assault along the Lebanese, Syrian, and Gaza borders of Israel. This would make Israeli air intervention against the Iranian nuclear program even more complicated, as close air support would be required to defend its own borders.

It would also imperil the relatively peaceable kingdom of Jordan, with its Palestinian majority, which Israel is supporting by selling it natural gas at cut rates from its newly opened off-shore reserves. The wild card of ISIS cuts across all lines, and is approved by Turkey because it opposes Assad, but is opposed by everyone else. The Turks may also try to take advantage of everyone else’s preoccupations to cuff the long-suffering Kurds, who have effectively seceded from Iraq and would like to do the same from Turkey.

Two consecutive American administrations have made a horrible mess of the always volatile Middle East. The vacuum created by American withdrawal and Turkish posturing has increased the possibility of general war in the region, a state of affairs made infinitely more dangerous by the approaching spread of nuclear weapons. The Middle East is now a more flammable tinderbox than ever. Very few of these acute complexities ever surface in the rather puerile debate in Ottawa over ISIS.

CBLetters@gmail.com. From the National Post.

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/0...rtedly-concerned-about-terms-iran-nuke-talks/

Arab governments reportedly concerned about terms of Iran nuke talks

Published February 21, 2015 · The Wall Street Journal

Arab governments are privately expressing their concern to Washington about the emerging terms of a potential deal aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program, according to Arab and U.S. officials involved in the deliberations.

The direction of U.S. diplomacy with Tehran has added fuel to fears in some Arab states of a nuclear-arms race in the region, as well as reviving talk about possibly extending a U.S. nuclear umbrella to Middle East allies to counter any Iranian threat.

The major Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have said that a final agreement could allow Shiite-dominated Iran, their regional rival, to keep the technologies needed to produce nuclear weapons, according to these officials, while removing many of the sanctions that have crippled its economy in recent years.

Arab officials said a deal would likely drive Saudi Arabia, for one, to try to quickly match Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

"At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal," said an Arab official who has discussed Iran with the Obama administration and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks.

The Obama administration initially said its policy was to completely dismantle Tehran's nuclear infrastructure as a means to protect Washington's Mideast allies.

Now, however, U.S. officials say it is no longer plausible to eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, suggesting that any final deal would leave some nuclear capability in place. Iran denies that it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb, but a final deal providing for nuclear enrichment capacity could prompt a competition.

Arab officials have increasingly spoken about a possible nuclear arms race in the Mideast as the negotiations have continued for 18 months, having been extended twice.

U.S. officials have declined to publicly disclose terms of the deal being negotiated with Iran. But they stress that they have closely consulted with Washington’s Arab allies about the diplomatic process.

The Obama administration believes an agreement with Iran will curtail the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Mideast, rather than fuel one.

"Only a good negotiated solution will result in long-term confidence that Iran won't acquire a nuclear weapon," a senior U.S. official said. "Given Iran already has the technical capability, our goal has always been to get to one-year breakout time and cut off the four pathways under a very constrained program."

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150221/af--boko_haram-33747dbeab.html

Nigerian troops retake town as Boko Haram attacks villages

Feb 21, 3:31 PM (ET)
By HARUNA UMAR

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria (AP) — Nigerian troops retook a major border town and killed scores of Boko Haram fighters Saturday, Nigeria's military said, although witnesses also reported the Islamic extremists killed scores in attacks on other villages.

Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Chris Olukolade said troops seized back the garrison town of Baga, on Lake Chad and the border with Cameroon, after a fighter jet bombarded the area and soldiers advanced on booby-trapped roads by dismantling some 1,500 land mines.

"Many of the terrorists died while an unknown but substantial number of them fled with various degrees of injury," Olukolade said.

Many insurgents drowned in trying to escape as soldiers stormed into Baga early Friday, he added.

The victory, which the AP was unable to verify independently, comes amid a major multinational push to halt the spreading Islamic uprising by Nigeria's home-grown extremist group, which has been attacking neighboring Chad, Cameroon and Niger.

In the latest Boko Haram violence involving Niger, a military official said Saturday that seven soldiers were killed in an overnight attack on the island of Karamga in Lake Chad. Col. Salaou Barmou said 14 Boko Haram assailants were also killed in the fighting Friday night.

In a major turnaround after months of gains by Boko Haram, military from Nigeria and Chad have reported retaking at least a dozen towns in recent weeks that had been in extremist hands for months.

Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau this week warned he will disrupt March 28 presidential elections that are shaping up to be the most closely contested vote in the history of Africa's most populous nation and its biggest oil producer. Boko Haram wants to install an Islamic caliphate and says democracy is a corrupt Western concept.

Earlier this week, residents and local officials said suspected Boko Haram fighters killed at least 34 and injured several others in attacks on villages near Konduga and Chibok, the town where in April last year Boko Haram kidnapped nearly 300 schoolgirls in northeastern Borno state. Dozens escaped independently but 219 are still missing.

The gunmen attacked the Tamsu-Shehuri village on Wednesday night where they killed more than 12 people, said a resident.

"Many of them came riding on (motor)bikes and Hilux vans, and all of them were armed with rifles," said Aisami Bashir, a member of a local civilian protection militia. "They opened fire on the village as residents began to flee. Many aged persons who could not run were caught and killed. They broke into homes and looted their belongings — especially their food items."

Twenty-one people were killed in the coordinated attacks, said local government official Suleiman Ali.

In neighboring Adamawa state, the insurgents attacked three villages on the outskirts of the Sambisa Forest and killed at least 40 people on Thursday and Friday, survivors said.

"They ransacked our villages for almost two days," said chief hunter Baba Jibrin.

International concern has increased along with the number of fatalities, estimated at some 10,000 in the past year with about 1.5 million people driven from their homes, according to the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations.

---

Associated Press writers Bashir Adigun in Abuja, Nigeria, Ibrahim Abdulaziz in Yola, Nigeria, and Kailou Maman in Diffa, Niger, contributed to this report.

Housecarl · Feb 21, 2015

Turkey mil planes taking off from Amed Air Base and tanks moving into SYRIA
Started by Lilbitsnanaý, Today 03:31 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...rom-Amed-Air-Base-and-tanks-moving-into-SYRIA
___

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...ho-wins-war/oD5IxhqveGjfPQryW6q3OJ/story.html

A daring plan to rebuild Syria — no matter who wins the war

With the battle still ongoing, a huge team of Syrian planners plots the restoration of Aleppo and beyond

By Thanassis Cambanis
Globe Correspondent
February 21, 2015

BEIRUT—The first year of Syria’s uprising, 2011, largely spared Aleppo, the country’s economic engine, largest city, and home of its most prized heritage sites. Fighting engulfed Aleppo in 2012 and has never let up since, making the city a symbol of the civil war’s grinding destruction. Rebels captured the eastern side of the city while the government held the west. The regime dropped conventional munitions and then barrel bombs on the rebels, who fought back with rockets and mortars. In 2012, the historical Ottoman covered souk was destroyed. In 2013, shelling destroyed the storied minaret of the 11th-century Ummayid Mosque. Apartment blocks were reduced to rubble. More than 3 million residents fled, out of a prewar population of 5 million. Today, residents say the city is virtually uninhabitable; most who remain have nowhere else to go.

In terms of sheer devastation, Syria today is worse off than Germany at the end of World War II. Bashar Assad’s regime and the original nationalist opposition are locked in combat with each other and also with a third axis, the powerful jihadist current led by the Islamic State. And yet, even as the fighting continues, a movement is brewing among planners, activists and bureaucrats—some still in Aleppo, others in Damascus, Turkey, and Lebanon—to prepare, right now, for the reconstruction effort that will come whenever peace finally arrives.

In downtown Beirut, a day’s drive from the worst of the war zone, a team of Syrians is undertaking an experiment without precedent. In a glass tower belonging to the United Nations’ Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, a project called the National Agenda for the Future of Syria has brought together teams of engineers, architects, water experts, conservationists, and development experts to grapple with seemingly impossible technical problems. How many years will it take to remove the unexploded bombs and rubble and then restore basic water, sewerage, and power? How many tons of cement and liters of water will be needed to replace destroyed infrastructure? How many cranes? Where could the 3 million displaced Aleppans be temporarily housed during the years or decades it might take to restore their city? And beneath all these technical questions they face a deeper one, as old as urban warfare itself: How do you bring a destroyed city back to life?

Critics dismiss the ongoing planning effort as a premature boondoggle, keeping technocrats busy creating blueprints that will have to be revised when fighting finally ebbs. But Thierry Grandin, a consultant for the World Monuments Fund who has worked and lived in Aleppo since the 1980s and is currently involved in reconstruction planning, disagrees. “It is good to do the planning now, because on day one we will be ready,” Grandin says. “It might come in a year, it might come in 20, but eventually there will be a day one. Our job is to prepare.”

The team planning the country’s future is a diverse one. Some are employed by the government of Syria, others by the rebels’ rival provisional government. Still others work for the UN, private construction companies, or nongovernmental organizations involved in conservation, like the World Monuments Fund. The Future of Syria project aims to serve as a clearinghouse, and to create a master menu of postwar planning options. As the group’s members outline a path toward renewal, they’re considering everything from corruption and constitutional reform to power grids, antiquities, and health care systems.

View Gallery

Photos: The destruction of Aleppo

Across Syria, more than one-third of the population is displaced.

The task they have before them beggars comprehension. Across Syria, more than one-third of the population is displaced. Aleppo is in tatters, its center completely destroyed. The population exodus has claimed most of the city’s craftsmen, medical personnel, academics, and industrialists.

A modern country has been unmade during four years of conflict, and nowhere is the toll more apparent than in once-alluring Aleppo. But after horrifying conflict, countless places have found a way to return to functionality. What’s new in Syria is the attempt to come up with a neutral plan while the conflict is still in train. And Aleppo, the country’s historic urban jewel, will be the central test.

‘It is good to do the planning now, because on day one we will be ready. It might come in a year, it might come in 20, but eventually there will be a day one. Our job is to prepare.’

Thierry Grandin, consultant for the World Monuments Fund
Quote Icon
To find a similar example of planning during wartime before the outcome was known, you have to go back to World War II. Allied forces spent years preparing for the physical, economic, and political reconstruction of Germany and Japan even before they could be sure who would win. Today, Americans tend mostly to recall the symbolic reconstruction after the war: the Nuremberg trials and the Marshall Plan, a colossal foreign aid program.

But undergirding those triumphs was the vast logistical operation of erecting new cities. It took decades to clear the moonscapes of rubble and to rebuild, in famous targets like Dresden and Hiroshima but in countless other places as well, from Coventry to Nanking. Some places never recovered their vitality.

Since then, a litany of divided and devastated cities has been left by other conflicts. Even those that eventually regained a sense of normalcy, like Beirut, Sarajevo, or Grozny, generally survived rather than thrived. Only a few countries—East Timor, Angola, Rwanda—offer what Syrian planners call “glimmers of hope,” as places that suffered terrible man-made disasters and then bounced back.

Of course, Syrian planners cannot help but pay attention to the model closest to home: Beirut, a city almost synonymous with civil war and flawed reconstruction. The planners and technocrats in the UN ESCWA tower overlook a gleamingly restored but vacant downtown from behind a veritable moat of blast barriers and sealed roads. Shell-pocked abandoned buildings stand as evidence of the tangled ownership disputes that have held back reconstruction a full quarter-century after the Lebanese civil war.

“We don’t want to end up like Beirut,” one of the Syrian planners says, referring to the physical problems but also to a postwar process in which militia leaders turned to corrupt reconstruction ventures as a new source of funds and power. He spoke anonymously; the Future of Syria team, which is led by a former Syrian deputy prime minister named Abdallah Al Dardari, doesn’t give on-the-record briefings. Since their top priority is to maintain buy-in from Syrians on all sides, they try to avoid naming names so as not to dissuade people they hope will use their plans when the war ends.

Syria’s national recovery will depend in large part on whether its industrial powerhouse Aleppo can bounce back. Until 2011, Aleppo had been celebrated for millenniums for its beauty and commerce. The citadel overlooking the center is a world heritage site. The old city and its covered market were vibrant, functioning exemplars of Islamic and Ottoman architecture, surrounded by the wide leafy avenues of the modern city. Aleppan traders plied their wares in Turkey, Iraq, the Levant, and all the way south to the Arabian peninsula. The city’s workshops, famed above all for their fine textiles, export millions of dollars’ worth of goods every week even now, and the economy has expanded to include modern industry as well.

Today, however, the city’s water and power supply are under the control of the Islamic State. Entire neighborhoods have collapsed under regime bombing and shelling: government buildings, hospitals, landmark hotels, schools, prisons. Aleppo is split between a regime side with vestiges of basic services, and a mostly depopulated rebel-controlled zone, into which the Islamic State and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front have made inroads over the last year. A river of rubble marks the no-man’s land separating the two sides. The only way to cross is to leave the city, follow a wide arc, and reenter from the far side.

For now, said an architect who works for the rebel government in Aleppo under the pseudonym Tamer el Halaby, today’s business is simply survival, like digging 20 makeshift wells that fulfill minimal water needs. (He prefers not to have his real name published for fear that the government might target relatives on the other side of Aleppo.) Parts of the old city won’t be inhabitable for years, he told me by Skype, because the ground has literally shifted as a result of bombing and shelling.

“It will take a long time and cost a lot of money for this city to work again,” he said.

Close to a thousand Syrians have consulted on the Future of Syria project, which comprises at least two ambitious initiatives rolled into one. The first and more obvious is creating realistic options to fix the country after the war—in some cases literal plans for building infrastructure systems and positioning construction equipment, in other cases guidelines for shaping governance.

At the Future of Syria, hospital administrators, civil engineers, and traffic coordinators each work on their given fields. They’re familiar with global “best practices,” but also with how things work in Syria, so they’re not going to propose pie-in-the-sky ideas. These planners also understand that who wins the construction contracts will depend on who wins the war. If some version of the current regime remains in charge, it will probably direct massive contracts toward patrons in Russia, China, or Iran. The opposition, by contrast, would lean toward firms from the West, Turkey, and the Gulf.

“Who will have the influence in Syria after the conflict? That will dictate who is involved in redevelopment. It all depends on who ends up being in political control,” says Richard J. Cook, a longtime UN official who supervised postconflict construction in Palestinian refugee camps and now works for one of the Middle East’s largest construction conglomerates, Dar Al-Handasah Consultants (Shair and Partners). Along with other companies, Dar Al-Handasah has offered its lessons learned from Lebanon’s reconstruction process to Syrian planners, and plans to compete to work in postwar Syria.

That leads to the second, more subtle, innovation of the Future of Syria project. For its plans to matter, they need to be politically viable no matter who is governing. So the planners have worked hard to persuade experts from all factions to contribute to the 57 different sectoral studies, hoping to come up with feasible rebuilding options that would be considered by a future Syrian authority of any stripe. Today, nearly 200 experts work full time for the project.

At the current level of destruction, the project planners estimate the reconstruction will cost at least $100 billion. Regardless of how it’s financed—loans, foreign aid, bonds—that’s a financial bonanza for whoever controls the reconstruction process. Some would-be peacemakers have suggested that reconstruction plans could even be used as enticements. If opposition militants and regime constituents think they’ll make more money rebuilding than fighting, they might have a Machiavellian incentive to make peace.

Underlying the details—mapping destroyed blocks, surveying the condition of the citadel, studying sewers—are bigger philosophical questions. How can a destroyed city be rebuilt, when the combination of people, economy, and buildings can never be reconstituted? Can you use reconstruction to undo the human damage of sectarianism and conflict? Recently a panel of architects and heritage experts from Sweden, Bosnia, Syria, and Lebanon convened in Beirut to discuss lessons for Syria’s reconstruction—one of the many distinct initiatives parallel to the Future of Syria project.

“You should never rebuild the way it was,” said Arna Mackic, an architect from Mostar. That Bosnian city was divided during the 1990s civil war into Muslim and Catholic sides, destroying the city center and the famous Stari Most bridge over the Neretva River. “The war changes us. You should show that in rebuilding.”

In the case of Mostar, the UN agency UNESCO reconstructed the bridge and built a restored central zone where Muslims and Catholics were supposed to create a harmonious new postwar culture. Instead, Mackik says, the sectarian communities keep to their own enclaves. Bereft of any common symbols, the city took a poll to figure out what kind of statue to erect in the city center. All the local figures were too polarizing. In the end they settled on a gold-colored statue of the martial arts star Bruce Lee.

“It belongs to no one,” Mackic says. “What does Bruce Lee mean to me?”

Despite such pitfalls, one area of potential for the planning process—and eventually for the reconstruction of Aleppo—is that it could offer the city’s people a form of participatory democracy that has so far eluded the Syrian regime and sadly, the opposition as well. People consulted about the shape of their reconstituted neighborhoods or roads will have been offered a slice of citizenship alien to most top-down Syrian leadership.

“You are being democratic without the consequences of all the hullabaloo of formal democratization,” says one of the Syrian planners who has contributed to the Future of Syria project and spoke on condition of anonymity.

What is certain is that putting Syria back together again is likely to be as least as expensive as imploding it. A great deal of money has been invested in Syria’s destruction— by the regime, the local parties to the conflict, and many foreign powers. A great deal of money will be made in the aftermath, in a reconstruction project that stands to dwarf anything seen since after World War II.

How that recovery is designed will help determine whether Syria returns to business as usual, sowing the seeds for a reprise of the same conflict—or whether reconstruction allows the kind of lasting change that the resolution of war itself might not.

Thanassis Cambanis, a fellow at The Century Foundation, is the author of the forthcoming “Once Upon a Revolution: An Egyptian Story.” He is an Ideas columnist and blogs at thanassiscambanis.com.

Related:

• The great deglobalizing

• The Internationalist: In a Beirut mansion, a city’s culture is reborn

• Should America let Syria fight on?

• 2013 | The Internationalist: Is Dubai the future of cities?

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...on-continues-prove-elusive-more-process-peace

Myanmar’s ethnic conflicts
More process than peace
Reconciliation continues to prove elusive
Feb 21st 2015 | YANGON | From the print edition
Comments 7

EVERY year Myanmar celebrates Union Day on February 12th to mark the signing of the Panglong agreement in 1947, which unified the country then known as Burma. President Thein Sein had hoped to use this year’s Union Day to sign a national ceasefire accord with most of the many armed ethnic groups which, for decades, have battled a government until recently in the hands of brutal military rulers. Instead, Myanmar’s army was embroiled in some of the heaviest fighting in years, after rebels from among the Kokang—an ethnic-Han people in northern Shan State on the Chinese border—tried to seize control of Laukkai, the Kokang region’s capital (see article). At least 75 government and rebel troops have been killed, and thousands of civilians have fled.

Elsewhere, low-level fighting continues between the army and the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), which represents the Palaung, an ethnic Mon-Khmer people in northern Shan State. The Arakan Army, based in western Myanmar, fights alongside the Kachin Independence Army in Kachin state in the north. In November the government killed 22 Kachin soldiers in an attack on a training camp, and clashes continued in January. Gun Maw, a Kachin general, said last month at negotiations in Chiang Mai in Thailand that his group is “still far away” from agreeing to a ceasefire.

The Arakan Army, the TNLA and other armies in Shan state are all said to be providing support, including arms, to the Kokang rebels. Other groups, however, have come to the table. On February 12th representatives of four ethnic armies signed a pledge with the government to seek a national ceasefire agreement “without delay” and to work towards building a union “based on democratic and federal principles”.

Myanmar’s rebel groups often have wildly differing interests. Some come from dirt-poor regions and want peace because of hopes of money from the centre. But other groups have become, in effect, vast criminal enterprises, funding themselves through sales of gold, jade, timber and drugs. The intensity of their opposition to a ceasefire can reflect a desire to keep the income from such activities flowing.

The government sees a national ceasefire agreement as a precondition for a political settlement. But the ethnic armies want a political settlement before they will lay down arms for good. As a result, after 200 meetings between government negotiators and most ethnic armies, the two camps remain deeply divided.

Mr Thein Sein still wants a ceasefire agreed and political dialogue well under way by the general election due in November. Quite whether the looming election helps or harms the pursuit of peace is unclear. Some think it gives the government and the ethnic armies more incentive to strike a deal. Any agreement should involve a hefty redistribution from relatively wealthy areas to poor regions. That would prove politically unpopular in the country’s majority-Burman heartland. It is unlikely that the next government will have the clout of this military-dominated one to overcome such resistance. That, says Richard Horsey, a Myanmar analyst, makes this the best time for the ethnic armies to seek a deal.
In graphics: From Burma to Myanmar

For now, however, the current set-up suits rather too many. While ethnic armies enrich themselves in their regions through illegal trade and taxation bordering on extortion, some army officers even collude in it. In any political settlement, Myanmar’s government would have to give up some of its central powers, and the ethnic armies would have to cede much to the centre—presumably folding their militias into the national army or regional police forces. In the absence of a deal, both sides avoid difficult and unpopular decisions.

A longtime Myanmar expert, Bertil Linter, says that government and rebel armies have “fundamentally different ideas” about what kind of country theirs should be. Both sides pay lip-service to the notion of some kind of federal union. But the ethnic armies want maximal devolved power, whereas the central government wants the opposite—after all, holding on tight to the country for fear that things might fall apart was the rationale for the Burmese army’s long dictatorship. At present Myanmar’s peace process offers a whole lot of process, and not enough lasting peace.

From the print edition: Asia

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.freepressjournal.in/mexican-army-base-attacked-in-protest-over-missing-students/

Mexican army base attacked in protest over missing students
— By pratiksha | Feb 20, 2015 12:53 pm

Mexico City: Some 200 students attacked the Mexican army headquarters in the state of Guerrero to protest over the disappearance of 43 of their classmates in September 2014. The attack took place on the 35th Infantry Battalion in Chilpancingo.

There were no casualties. “We are missing 43,” the students from the Ayotzinapa teachers’ college wrote on the base’s main gate. The students, some wielding sticks and machetes, kept up the assault for only a few minutes before boarding four buses for the trip back to the college in Tixtla, Guerrero.

Families of the 43 missing Ayotzinapa students are seeking an investigation of the army’s role in the violent events of Sept 26 in Iguala, Guerrero. Police had attacked Ayotzinapa students as they travelled through the town on buses.

Six people – including three students – were killed and 43 other students abducted. Federal authorities say the incident was the work of corrupt municipal cops acting on the orders of a mayor who had connections with the Guerreros Unidos drug cartel.

The cops handed over the students to the cartel gunmen, who killed them and burnt their bodies at a dump, according to an official account. The students’ families reject that version of events and are demanding to know why soldiers of the Iguala-based 27th Infantry Battalion, who witnessed the police attack did not intervene.

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.ie/life/no-more-illusions-putins-nuclear-option-30999741.html

'No more illusions'... Putin's nuclear option
T-shirts bigging up Armageddon are hugely popular in Russia as the Kremlin pumps up rabid nationalist feeling. Should we be scared?
Marc Bennetts

Published 22/02/2015 | 02:30

Earlier this month, as fighting raged in eastern Ukraine between pro-Russian rebels and forces loyal to the Western-backed government in Kiev, Dmitry Kiselyov, the pugnacious, middle-aged journalist who heads Russia's main state news agency, gazed defiantly into a TV studio camera. "What is Russia preparing for?" he asked. As if in reply, the director cut to an ominous backdrop image of an intercontinental ballistic missile emerging from an underground launch silo.

'During the era of political romanticism, the Soviet Union pledged never to use nuclear weapons first," Kiselyov told the audience of Vesti Nedeli, his current affairs show, one of the country's most widely watched programmes. "But Russia's current military doctrine does not." He paused briefly for effect. "No more illusions."

There was nothing out of the ordinary about this reminder that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a "threat" to its statehood. Since the start of the crisis in Ukraine, which has massive geostrategic importance for Russia, state-controlled TV has engineered an upsurge in aggressive anti-Western sentiment, with Kiselyov as the Kremlin's top attack dog.

Last spring, as Washington warned of sanctions over Russia's seizure of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, Kiselyov boasted about his country's fearsome nuclear arsenal. "Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the US into radioactive ash," he declared.

Kiselyov's blood-curdling comments will have had the Kremlin's implicit backing, analysts say. "This threat of nuclear war should be taken seriously," said Sergey Markov, a political strategist. "In Russia, we believe that Ukraine has been occupied by the US. And that this occupation is not about democracy, or even money, but that it is the first step in a war against Russia. The US is seeking to undermine our sovereignty, neutralise our nuclear potential, and steal our oil and gas. Under these circumstances, the danger of nuclear confrontation is very real."

Some 5,500 lives have been lost in the almost year-long conflict in Ukraine, where pro-Russian rebels in the east have carved out two self-declared "people's republics". The crisis was sparked by the February 2014 overthrow of Ukraine's pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, in what Kremlin officials say was a coup orchestrated by the US. In addition, President Vladimir Putin has spoken of what he called a "Nato legion" fighting alongside the Ukrainian army.

While there is no proof that Nato forces are in action in Ukraine, US officials have suggested that Washington could supply weapons to Kiev to assist its battered army. The proposal sparked a furious response: Viktor Zavarzin, of Russia's defence committee, warned of the "irrevocable consequences" of such a move.

In turn, the West has accused Russia of providing both troops and weaponry to the rebels, a charge Putin has consistently denied.

A ceasefire thrashed out by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany - the second attempt to bring peace to the devastated region - was set to come into effect this week at one minute past midnight.

Amid these tensions, Kiselyov is not the only one pushing the possibility of nuclear confrontation with the West. Russia's Zvezda TV channel, owned by the defence ministry, has also been preparing its audience for the worst.

"Russia and the US are on the verge of nuclear war," read a headline on its website last week. The article cited an analyst from the Moscow-based Politika think tank, Vyacheslav Nikonov, which said a nuclear exchange between the two former Cold War-era foes was increasingly likely because the US wanted Russia to "disappear" as an independent country. "This is not in our plans," he said.

Russia has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, with 8,400 warheads compared with a US total of 7,500. A day after last week's peace talks in Belarus, Russia's nuclear forces staged large-scale exercises, soon after navy nuclear combat drills in the Arctic. All of which causes concern in the West. Michael Fallon, the UK Defence Secretary, said earlier this month that he was worried Russia had "lowered its threshold" for the use of nuclear weapons, while "integrating nuclear with conventional forces in a rather threatening way."

The prospect of nuclear war is also being talked up by pro-Kremlin movements. In a clip posted online last month, a Kalashnikov-wielding member of the Moscow-based, pro-Kremlin National Liberation Movement (NOD) vows global nuclear devastation in the event of the defeat of Russia's interests in Ukraine.

"If we lose, we will destroy the whole world," intones a young NOD activist named Maria Katasonova. She sweeps a circle with her arm, and the screen is filled with a virtual image of an explosion as the planet is consumed in an atomic inferno.

"Russians will not sit by and watch as their country's sovereignty is threatened by the US," Katasonova told The Sunday Telegraph last week. "If our country is in genuine danger, we really will use nuclear weapons."

Katasonova is a follower of Alexander Dugin, a hardline nationalist thinker who has called for the destruction of the US. Dugin - described as "Putin's brain" by the respected US-based Foreign Affairs journal - is something of a fanatic. He combines political activities with occultism, and often speaks of his belief that the world must be "brought to an end".

So what's going on? Is Moscow really preparing its people for the unthinkable - nuclear confrontation? Or is all this simply North Korean-style bluff and bluster? How many minutes are left until the Kremlin's doomsday clock strikes midnight?

"It is, of course, a disgrace and an embarrassment to my country that such things are being said on national television," said Lev Ponomaryov, a veteran human rights activist and Soviet-era dissident. "But statements about nuclear war are mainly for domestic consumption.''

While Putin denies that regular Russian troops are fighting in Ukraine, he has hailed the hundreds, if not thousands, of apparent volunteers who have travelled to what the rebels call "Novorossiya" - "New Russia". A number of these fighters have become folk heroes back home; in particular, Igor Strelkov, the ultra-conservative enthusiast who spent much of last year commanding rebel forces in Ukraine's Donbass region.

"I think these people frighten the Kremlin even more than they scare me," said Ponomaryov. "The authorities are afraid that they could one day turn their weapons against them, and the government will do anything to keep them on side."

State television's war rhetoric is not confined to the nuclear. In recent days, one Kremlin-run channel has discussed how long it would take for Russian tanks to "reach Berlin", while in east Ukraine, bloody and bruised government soldiers were abused by a notorious rebel commander in front of Russian television cameras.

But state-run media's fever-pitch, anti-Western TV programming is not only pandering to the radicals, it is also creating them. "Nationally televised broadcasts, such as those presented by Dmitry Kiselyov, have scared people, and led to increased hostility in society," said Lev Gudkov, who heads the independent, Moscow-based Levada-Center polling agency.

"We have seen a drastic change in the collective consciousness of the Russian people over the last year or so."

The figures are startling. The number of Russians who believe their country and the US are now mutual enemies has increased tenfold in a year to 42pc, according to an opinion poll. The total professing a negative attitude to the US has almost doubled.

The statistics are backed by everyday incidents, from the racist image of a banana-munching President Barack Obama laser-beamed on to the wall of the US embassy in Moscow, to the t-shirts with slogans hailing Russia's nuclear missiles, on sale across the country.

Although state media broadcasts have clearly had a pernicious influence on society, putting the country on a war-footing and boosting Putin's approval ratings, Peter Pomerantsev, a UK journalist who worked in Russian TV in the 2000s, believes they are mainly intended for a Western audience.

But the Kremlin's masters of reality have uncorked the atomic genie. It is to be hoped they show the same aptitude when it comes to putting it back in the bottle.

© The Telegraph

Indo Review
Follow @Indo_Life

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/new-zealand-considers-role-on-isis/

New Zealand Considers Role on ISIS

Amid opposition, the country contemplates joining the coalition in the Middle East.

By Helen Clark
February 21, 2015

7 Shares
11 Comments

New Zealand’s defense chief, Lieutenant General Tim Keating, is currently in Saudi Arabia for talks on fighting ISIS.

New Zealand is not part of the coalition fighting the group, unlike allies Australia and the United States, and it has made no public decisions to join but, said Keating, “it makes sense that there’s New Zealand Defence Force representation at such a meeting… it will be a good opportunity to receive updates on the situation.” Prime Minister John Key has told reporters that the decision whether or not to send troops would most likely be made Monday.

There is not full support, even among conservatives such as the Nationals partners, for sending troops overseas. Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox said, “Training troops in Iraq and places like that have in the end turned sour on those countries that have done that.” She did agree to humanitarian aid and peacekeeping, however. Key previously ruled out the idea of Kiwi troops in combat roles, restricting them to training.

Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne is also against the training of Iraqi troops, saying, “All they’ve done is create an ongoing festering sore which is now rampant, if you like, right through the Middle Eastern region… I mean it didn’t work in the Crusades and yet these are the modern day versions of that.” He said the idea of New Zealand joining just to be part of the Western club was not a good one. Iraq has formally requested military aid from New Zealand, however, so it is not simply a case of Kiwis following their closest security ally Australia blindly into battle. Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee has issued a statement saying essentially that given the close relationship between Australia and New Zealand it was important to share views on security and defense.

New Zealand recently took up a position on the UN Security Council this year and has been involved in issues in the Middle East. Possibly unusually, it disagreed with Australia’s veto on Palestinian statehood, saying New Zealand would either have agreed or abstained from the vote.

New Zealand is also part of the postwar ANZUS alliance, though its membership essentially went dormant when the U.S. suspended its security guarantee in 1985. The then-government campaigned on an anti-nuclear platform and refused to harbor American ships that were armed with nukes. Per policy the U.S. refused to let New Zealand know if they were or were not nuclear and, as a result, were refused entry to New Zealand’s waters. This mouse-that-roared mindset has continued; New Zealand opposes some of the grand powers of the Security Council’s P5 and campaigned for its place with other small nations. In fact Key called its winning of a seat after a decade a “victory for small states.”

The 2010 Defense White Paper, the first in ten years, suggests that military force will most likely be used in response to direct treats to New Zealand, Australia, the Pacific Islands, or as part of the Five Power Defence Arrangements or under the aegis of a UN effort, most likely a regional one. Within that scope, ISIS is out. However, the paper follows up with:

“It is also likely that ad hoc coalitions prepared to use force in response to security concerns will arise in the future, and that New Zealand might be asked to contribute. The Government would consider a range of factors in determining the possible scale and nature of any such contribution.”

Within that, fighting ISIS, or at least training others to fight it, sounds more likely. New Zealand has gone to both Afghanistan and Iraq, though protested the invasion in 2003. There are currently a handful of New Zealand defense personnel around the globe, in Sinai, South Sudan, the Middle East and South Korea, all in non-combat roles. New Zealand is also currently hosting NATO Military Committee Chairman General Knud Bartels, who will leave on February 21.

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-iran-nuclear-talks-idUSKBN0LQ08420150222

Kerry and Iran's Zarif to try to narrow gaps in nuclear talks

By Lesley Wroughton
GENEVA Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:18am EST

(Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif will try to narrow gaps in another round of nuclear talks in Geneva on Sunday as they press to meet a March 31 deadline for a political framework agreement.

Before Kerry's arrival in Geneva, Zarif told Iranian state media that mid-level bilateral talks had produced "good discussions but no agreements", and some differences remained.

"The fundamental gap, in my view, is psychological. Some Western countries, the United States in particular, see sanctions as an asset, a lever to exert pressure on Iran. As long as this thinking persists it will be very hard, difficult to reach a settlement."

Joining the talks for the first time are U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Iran's nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi, as well as a close aide and the brother of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Hossein Fereydoon.

Zarif said this reflected a need "for higher level people with all-embracing command over all issues", while Fereydoon was involved for better "coordination with the president".

Kerry said on Saturday the presence of Moniz reflected the highly technical nature of the current talks and in no way meant "that something is about to be decided".

"There is still a distance to travel," Kerry said in London where he met British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond.

The negotiations between Iran and "P5+1" powers - the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China - have reached a sensitive stage with gaps remaining, mainly over Iranian uranium enrichment and the pace of removing sanctions.

Kerry said U.S. President Barack Obama was not inclined to extend the talks again. The parties already missed a November 2014 target date.

Obama believed it was "imperative to be able to come to a fundamental political outline and agreement within the time space that we have left," Kerry said.

"If that can't be done, it would be an indication that fundamental choices are not being made that are essential to doing that," Kerry added, also emphasizing that Obama was prepared to halt the talks if he thought they were not being productive.

Zarif said Rouhani would not accept a small, short-term agreement, nor a broad accord that left room for interpretation.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been increasingly critical of U.S. policy, said it was "astonishing" that the talks, which could end by allowing Iran "to develop the nuclear capabilities that threaten our existence", were proceeding.

Any agreement would be "dangerous for Israel, the region and the entire world," Netanyahu said in public remarks to his cabinet on Sunday.

A recent U.N. report said that Iran had refrained from expanding tests of more efficient models of a machine used to refine uranium under a nuclear agreement with the six world powers. Development of advanced centrifuges is feared to lead to material potentially suitable for manufacture of nuclear bombs.

Iran says it does not intend to develop atomic bombs.

(Reporting by Lesley Wroughton, additional reporting by Merhdad Balali in Dubai and Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem; Editing by Angus MacSwan and Stephen Powell)

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-hongkong-radicals-insight-idUSKBN0LQ0UO20150222

Hong Kong 'radicals' up ante in democracy push against China

By James Pomfret and Clare Baldwin
HONG KONG Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:11pm EST

(Reuters) - Nearly three months after police cleared away the last of Hong Kong's pro-democracy street protests, lingering anger is stoking a new front of radical activism that has turned shopping malls and university campuses into a fresh battleground.

While still relatively few in number, a cluster of outspoken groups have staged small but disruptive protests in recent weeks targeting mainland Chinese visitors - tapping a seam of grassroots resentment to call for greater Hong Kong nationalism and even independence from China.

More than 100 such activists descended on the New Town Plaza, a mega-mall a short train ride from the border, on a recent Sunday to harass the day-trippers who stream across daily to shop, eat and sight-see.

The mainlanders - 40.7 million of which visited the city of 7 million last year - spur the local economy, but also exasperate locals by clogging streets and emptying store shelves of cosmetics, baby formula and other essentials.

"Away with the locusts and barbarians," read one banner as protesters roved through the bustling mall tailed by police.

"Go back to China," protesters shouted at visitors, including an elderly Chinese woman who fled with her trolleyload of shopping. "We don't want you!"

Shops were closed and police pepper-sprayed some activists amid chaotic scenes and made several arrests.

A pro-Beijing newspaper, Wen Wei Po, thundered that the "radicals", some of whom waved a British colonial flag, were "inciting the foul culture of Hong Kong independence".

The financial hub reverted from British to Chinese rule in 1997, under a "one country, two systems" formula that gives it substantial autonomy and freedoms, with universal suffrage promised as an "ultimate goal".

The idea of Hong Kong independence is anathema to Beijing, which fears any separatist or sweeping democratic demands spilling into China to undermine its rule.

"MAO ZEDONG HARBOR"

The student-led "umbrella movement" that saw hundreds of thousands of people blockade major roads for 79 days last year in a push for full democracy, was one of the most overt challenges to the Communist Party's grip on power since the Tiananmen Square protests that were bloodily suppressed in 1989.

The movement, named after the umbrellas used by protesters at early "Occupy Central" demonstrations to shield themselves from police pepper spray and batons, has given voice to a breed of younger activists taking increasingly provocative actions.

China's Party mouthpiece, the People's Daily, called on mainlanders to stand up to the "demonization" against Chinese shoppers, rather than to "remain passive and be silent".

"We should rename Victoria Harbor, Mao Zedong Harbor," wrote one user on Weibo, China's popular social media service that has bristled at the treatment of Chinese shoppers.

As activists push back against Beijing's growing attempts to tighten control of Hong Kong on national security grounds -- some say the widening social divisions and groundswell of anti-China sentiment could weigh on its longer term prospects.

"If we don't rectify the situation in 10 years...it will be the end of Hong Kong politically and economically," said Elsie Leung, a former Hong Kong Justice Secretary and an advisor to China's leaders.

Tensions have also sharpened on university campuses between Hong Kong students, many of whom participated in the protests, and their mainland counterparts, who now make up a sizeable portion of student bodies.

Elections for the student union at the elite University of Hong Kong turned into a slanging match, when a Chinese student was accused of being a Beijing spy and subjected to personal attacks. [ID:nL1N0VL09L]

A student at City University, Timson Kwok, gave up his student union campaign during last year's demonstrations, telling Next magazine in an interview that two people who hinted they were working on behalf of Beijing, had offered him money and power to help "de-radicalize" the Hong Kong Federation of Students, a major force in the protests.

Kwok and City University declined to comment. China's Hong Kong Liaison Office did not respond to a request for comment.

LAST CHANCE FOR A DIRECT VOTE?

Hong Kong is now moving towards a crucial legislative vote in late June or early July on a new electoral package for a 2017 leadership election that could allow a direct vote, but only for candidates pre-screened by a pro-Beijing committee.

Democratic lawmakers who hold a one-third veto bloc in the 70-seat legislative have vowed to vote the package down.

Sources with ties to Chinese officials dealing with Hong Kong affairs say China remains unpersuaded of the case for granting greater democratic latitude.

"Even if there's a 0.1 percent risk, Beijing won't want to take that risk of having someone elected who is against the Central Government," said one source.

A veto of the reform package would return Hong Kong to the status quo, with no direct vote for its leader.

"Unless we can resolve this conflict between Beijing and Hong Kong ... not only will we not get universal suffrage," said Ronny Tong, a moderate democratic lawmaker. "But I fear that there will be an unhappy ending to one country, two systems."

Meanwhile, on the streets, activists say the umbrella movement is far from over.

"More people will call for independence," said Tony Lam, a 32-year-old at the New Town Plaza protest in a wheelchair. "Only Hong Kong people can save Hong Kong ... That's why I keep coming out."

(Additional reporting by Lizzie Ko; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-yemen-security-hadi-idUSKBN0LQ0K720150222

Yemen's Hadi seeks to resume duties as president

By Mohammed Mukhashaf
ADEN Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:17pm EST

(Reuters), - Yemen's president sought to resume his duties as head of state on Sunday, holding his first public engagement with state officials since he fled house arrest in Sanaa by the Houthi group that dominates the northern half of the country.

Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi convened governors of several southern provinces and military commanders at the presidential retreat in the economic hub of Aden, in a meeting which was broadcast on the city's local television channel.

Hadi submitted his resignation last month after Shi'ite Muslim Houthi fighters seized the presidential palace and held him under house arrest in the capital Sanaa in a power struggle that followed months of tension over a constitutional dispute.

But parliament never met to approve the resignation for it to go into effect as stipulated by Yemeni laws.

On Saturday Hadi appeared to rescind his resignation after he escaped from Sanaa, saying in a statement he was still president. Aden is firmly outside the control of the Houthis.

Hadi's escape and resumption of his duties could complicate talks between major political parties in Sanaa on a new transitional administration.

His flight to Aden followed an agreement between Yemen's rival factions on Friday, brokered by the United Nations, to set up a transitional council that keeps the parliament in place and gives a voice to some other groups.

U.N. envoy to Yemen, Jamal Benomar, who is overseeing the talks, said Hadi reassured him in a telephone call on Sunday that he still supported dialogue to end the crisis but demanded they be moved to a neutral location outside the capital.

Hadi also re-affirmed his commitment to a 2011 Gulf-sponsored power transfer deal that allowed veteran President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down following months of Arab Spring protests, according to sources at the meeting.

He also attacked the Houthis, who seized Sanaa in September and completed their takeover of the government last month.

"What is going on is a struggle for authority of the first order and not due to concern for the interests of the people," one source quoted Hadi as telling the meeting.

He called for the release of Prime Minister Khaled Bahah and other government officials, who have also been kept under house arrest.

The Houthis have said their advance on Sanaa was intended to save Yemen from corruption and from being divided by a draft constitution calling for devolving power to local authorities.

The Houthis detained a nephew of Hadi who was serving the president's security, his doctor and press secretary after he fled Sanaa, according to sources close to Hadi.

A member of the Houthi group's Ansarullah politburo, Ali al-Qahoum, was quoted by the local news website al-Akhbar on Saturday as saying that it no longer mattered if Hadi remained in Sanaa or departed.

Western countries are worried that unrest in Yemen could create opportunities for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to plot more attacks against international targets.

(Additional reporting by Mohammed Ghobari in Sanaa and Ahmed Tolba in Cairo, Writing by Sami Aboudi, Editing by William Maclean and William Hardy)

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-israel-palestinians-mayor-idUSKBN0LQ0SG20150222

Israel's Jerusalem mayor wrestles Palestinian attacker in street

JERUSALEM Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:06pm EST

(Reuters) - Israel's mayor of Jerusalem and his security guard wrestled a Palestinian attacker to the ground near city hall on Sunday after an ultra-Orthodox Jew was stabbed with a knife at a busy intersection.

Security camera footage showed mayor Nir Barkat, in a white shirt, walk towards the suspect together with his bodyguard and lunge at him, pinning him down on a pedestrian crossing before others took charge and detained the man.

Before Barkat intervened, the distant but distinct black-and-white footage showed a man waving his arm in a stabbing motion and making contact with one individual and attempting to stab others as they waited to cross the road. When they realized what had happened, the pedestrians ran clear.

The stab victim was rushed to hospital but was not seriously hurt, medical officials said. Police said the suspect, an 18-year-old Palestinian, did not have authorization to reside in Israel.

"My bodyguard took out his weapon and when he aimed at the terrorist, the terrorist dropped his knife and we immediately tackled him on the ground to make sure that he cannot continue with the terror attack," Barkat told reporters shortly afterwards.

Barkat, 55, served as an officer in the paratroopers' brigade. A former high-tech entrepreneur, he was elected as Israel's mayor of Jerusalem in 2008.

Jerusalem has been the scene of many attacks in recent years. Most recently, late last year tensions rose again over access to a holy site in an Israeli-annexed part of the city where al-Aqsa mosque now stands and Biblical Jewish temples once stood.

Eleven Israelis have been killed, including four rabbis and a policeman stabbed and shot by Palestinians in a Jerusalem synagogue. Twelve Palestinians have also been killed, including several of those who carried out the attacks.

Israel annexed East Jerusalem, in whose walled Old City the compound is located, as part of its capital. This status is not recognized abroad. Many world powers support the Palestinians' goal of setting up their own future capital in East Jerusalem.

(Writing by Ori Lewis; Editing by Stephen Powell)

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-nigeria-violence-france-idUSKBN0LQ0RM20150222

France to press for U.N. support for Africa force to fight Boko Haram

By Abdoulaye Massalaki
NIAMEY Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:35pm EST

(Reuters) - France will support a bid by the African Union to win the backing of the U.N. Security Council for its five-nation force fighting Islamist militant group Boko Haram, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Sunday.

Fabius spoke on a tour of Chad, Cameroon and Niger, countries that have launched operations against the militants who have killed thousands in a six-year war for an Islamic state in northern Nigeria.

"France's support for the integrated African reaction force is total. France will support a request of the African Union and other concerned countries for a resolution to be voted by the Security Council," Fabius said in the capital of Niger.

The African Union authorized the force combining Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Benin last month at a summit in Ethiopia. A Security Council resolution could give it a U.N. mandate, say senior African officials.

The force was set up in part because of a perception that Nigeria was failing to defeat the militants, who have launched a string of cross border attacks in the Lake Chad area in recent weeks, as well as killing hundreds in Nigeria.

"It is indispensable that Nigeria engages fully in the struggle against Boko Haram. Clearly, the last few actions of the Nigerian government are encouraging," Fabius told a news conference.

Nigerian forces backed by air strikes seized the northeastern border town of Baga from Boko Haram on Saturday, the military said.

Baga is at Nigeria's border with Chad, Niger and Cameroon and was the headquarters of a multinational force comprising troops from all four countries. Its recapture was an important victory, one of several in the past two weeks.

Niger will analyze parts of a missile that fell on the border town of Abadam on Tuesday killing 37 people to determine which country is responsible, said Foreign Minister Bazoum Mohamed, adding that France would help in the task. Abadam lies on the border with Nigeria.

(Writing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg; Editing by Stephen Powell)

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-egypt-sisi-idUSKBN0LQ0S020150222

Sisi tries to reassure Egyptians despite host of challenges

By Ahmed Tolba
CAIRO Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:42pm EST

(Reuters) - President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi sought to reassure Egyptians on Sunday that he is in control and steering the country on the right path in the face of Islamist militancy in neighboring Libya and the Sinai and economic challenges.

Sisi's speech was broadcast on prime time television and was interspersed with clips of him greeting leaders of wealthy Gulf Arab states, Western powers and Egyptian army officers.

His comments came after Islamic State militants beheaded up to 21 Egyptian Christians in neighboring Libya -- bloodshed that provoked Egyptian airstrikes -- and one of the worst attacks on security forces in the Sinai in months.

"The strike hit 13 targets that had been studied accurately," said Sisi, adding that the Egyptian army was not an aggressor and the attack was necessary.

Sisi said Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, part of the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, had offered military support to Cairo following the killing of Egyptians in Libya.

The former army chief dedicated a major portion of his speech to financial patrons United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who backed his toppling of Islamist president Mohamed Mursi in 2013 after mass protests against him.

Sisi said ties with those countries were still strong despite attempts by unnamed parties to divide the allies, a reference to a leaked audio recording that purported to show him and senior aides being derisive of rich Gulf donors.

"This support was the main reason why Egypt was able to persevere against all of the challenges and difficulties," said Sisi.

Aside from militants over the border in Libya, Sisi faces an insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula, where Islamic State's Egypt wing claimed responsibility for a series of attacks that killed over 30 members of the security forces in January.

"The army and police are exerting big efforts to regain complete control of the Sinai," said Sisi.

(Writing by Yara Bayoumy; Editing by Michael Georgy)

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ori...sarmament-zarif-kerry-negotiations-peace.html

Would Iran deal set new nuclear proliferation standard?

Author: Seyed Hossein Mousavian
Posted: February 22, 2015

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, arrived in Geneva Feb. 21 to hold bilateral meetings with US Secretary of State John Kerry and US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. Hossein Fereydoun, President Hassan Rouhani’s senior adviser, is also accompanying the Iranian negotiation team to facilitate consultations and coordination. This is the highest level of talks between Iran and the United States since the 1979 revolution. The nuclear talks between Iran and the world powers are at a most critical moment — and in their final phase — and the chance for a final deal is likely more than 50%.

Recently, Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state and national security adviser whose knowledge of national security matters is often viewed as paramount in certain Washington circles, has attempted to cast unwarranted criticism on efforts to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear dispute. “The impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it,” Kissinger said of the ongoing diplomatic efforts. “And if the other countries in the region conclude that America has approved the development of an enrichment capability within one year of a nuclear weapon, and if they then insist on building the same capability, we will live in a proliferated world in which everybody — even if that agreement is maintained — will be very close to the trigger point.”

Kissinger’s assessment reflects a beleaguered understanding of the current status of the nuclear negotiations and the history of Iran’s nuclear program, as well as the realities of the current international system in regard to nuclear proliferation.

The key to understanding the nuclear proliferation issue is to have a firm grasp of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that has as its goal reducing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, as well as nuclear weapons disarmament on behalf of the nuclear weapons powers.

Over the years, many nations signatory to the treaty, on both sides of the nuclear weapons divide, have been in technical violation of their obligations under the NPT. There have been at least five states — Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, South Korea and Taiwan — that have engaged in clandestine nuclear programs without notifying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The nuclear weapons states, too, have oftentimes been negligent in their obligation to dismantle their nuclear weapons and in many cases have actually upgraded their warheads and increased their number. In the case of Iran, there has also arguably been a significant double standard.

Kissinger most likely knows there are already several non-nuclear weapons states that possess enrichment capability, including Japan, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Germany and the Netherlands. It goes without saying that these countries are never described as proliferators.

For decades, the status quo Western position on the Iranian nuclear program has been that there should not be any sort of Iranian nuclear program. The United States in particular had sought to deny Iran’s NPT rights by declaring for years that there could be no nuclear power plants in Iran, Iran could have no access to the international fuel market and Iran would be sanctioned from attaining any nuclear technology.

Iran was expected to abide by all its obligations under the NPT without receiving any of its rights under the treaty. Only after it came to light in 2002 that Iran had developed a nuclear enrichment program — strictly within the limits of the NPT — and had thus established “facts on the ground,” did the intractable and international law-defying Western position shift from the no nuclear program in Iran stance.

Iran’s nuclear program and any potential nuclear deal with Iran is not a story about some sort of unprecedented proliferation being permitted, but rather it is a tale of a state standing firmly in defense of its NPT rights, and indeed going beyond them to secure these rights.

Contrary to what Kissinger may want others to believe, the would-be nuclear deal under negotiation would reaffirm Iran’s commitment to the NPT by providing unprecedented inspection and transparency of Iran’s nuclear program. The world powers negotiating with Iran are now convinced that Tehran has even gone above and beyond its obligations under the treaty. Far from harming international security or setting any new standards, this approach in fact ensures Iran will not become a nuclear proliferator. Short of a devastating war for all sides, this is the only way of ensuring this.

Kissinger has proven himself to be less than analytically astute on Iran. For instance, in September 2014, after Iran had played a decisive and positive role in supporting the removal of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and stemming the Islamic State's (IS) onslaught in that country, Kissinger branded Iran as a “bigger problem” for the United States than the brutally expansionist IS.

“Nonsense. As a scholar of history and a Harvard Ph.D., Kissinger should know better. He once said that the United States had more common interests with the Islamic Republic than with many of its friends. That view is much more sensible than beating drums about some imaginary threat of a new Persian empire and a [Shiite] belt,” John Limbert, former deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran, responded to Kissinger’s remarks.

In his arguments against a nuclear agreement with Iran, Kissinger is seemingly attempting to manufacture a broader dispute over the possession of a nuclear-fuel cycle. In arguing for denying Iran enrichment at the 5% level under the guise of it negatively affecting nuclear proliferation, the impression is given that this is simply a ruse to maintain a small cartel of nuclear-fuel providers and deny the vast majority of the rest of the world this capability. If this is the case, this would be a gross violation of international law and a truly unsustainable policy in an increasingly multipolar world. Perhaps this is the reason that several US allies such as Brazil and Turkey, as well as the 120 states of the Non-Aligned Movement, have explicitly backed Iran in the crisis that has been created over its nuclear program.

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/collision-course-the-looming-us-china-showdown-over-taiwan-12293

Collision Course: The Looming U.S.-China Showdown Over Taiwan

Chinese coercion against democratic Taiwan would challenge the basic principles of the liberal regional order, as well as U.S. reliability.

Denny Roy
February 21, 2015

A new crisis in relations between China and Taiwan is likely in the coming months, one that will pose more acute difficulties than in the past for Taiwan’s benefactor, the United States. China is relatively stronger than Taiwan, less inhibited from behaving assertively, and more insistent on attaining its objectives—which include ruling Taiwan. The people of Taiwan, however, are showing signs of evolving toward permanent opposition to political unification with China. Reaffirming U.S. willingness to protect Taiwan from forced unification would put at risk America’s relationship with the world’s second most important country. Abandoning Taiwan to involuntary absorption, however, would signal to the region the end of Pax Americana.

The rapid increase in Cross-Strait economic ties following Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou’s election in 2008 initially had a pacifying effect on China-Taiwan relations because it gave Beijing confidence in a natural, peaceful progression toward unification. It now appears possible, however, that the pacification returns from economic integration might diminish rather than grow over time. On the Taiwanese side, deeper economic dependence on China is leading to proportionately stronger opposition from the Taiwan public towards China. On the Chinese side, stronger economic ties increase the disparity between economic ties on the one hand, and demands for political integration on the other. This raises the temperature of simmering Chinese frustration.

For several years, some Chinese analysts have worried that Taiwan intended to take advantage of the generous economic terms offered by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) while putting off political negotiations indefinitely. Their skepticism was justified. Economic integration and increased movement of people across the Strait will not necessarily lead to political integration. Taiwanese people may not prioritize an improved material standard of living over maintaining their civil liberties. Even if the sole concern is economic benefit, Taiwan arguably has an interest in delaying unification so as to wait for a point in time where China takes an economic loss and Taiwan profits disproportionately from their bilateral trade. Chinese magnanimity would likely decline after unification.

The likelihood of Taiwan voluntarily choosing unification with China is waning. Opinion polls show that Taiwan’s sense of a separate national identity from mainland China is increasing. While a great majority have long favored the status quo of de facto independence over immediate unification, a majority now oppose even eventual unification.

With the Chinese government already disappointed in the lack of movement towards resolving Taiwan-PRC political issues, progress toward cross-Strait economic integration stalled in the spring of 2014. As Taipei and Beijing moved toward enacting a Cross-Strait Trade in Services Agreement, a series of protests by students and other activists known as the Sunflower Movement not only blocked the agreement but ensured that future economic negotiations with China would be slower.

Taiwan will hold presidential and legislative elections in 2016. In this newly charged atmosphere, even candidates from Ma’s relatively China-friendly Kuomintang Party will need to commit to moving cautiously in making future economic agreements with China. That means slower progress on an area that Chinese see as only preliminary to their real objective: political negotiations. The opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), fresh off gains in the municipal-level elections of November 2014, has a good chance of capturing the presidency in May 2016. Beijing would see such a government as “separatist,” instantly intensifying Chinese fears that Taiwan is slipping away and that dramatic PRC counteraction is necessary.

Because of the “rise” of China narrative, the Chinese increasingly expect wins in their disagreements with other governments. The Chinese leadership under Xi Jinping now appears less constrained than before by the need to appear accommodating. It’s not that Beijing has decided to be more aggressive. Rather, Chinese leaders have decided that China has reached a level of global influence where the gains from asserting Chinese preferences outweigh the costs. Triumphalism has pushed to the sidelines the Deng Xiaoping Doctrine that advocated keeping a low profile and avoiding friction with adversaries. A result of this is impatience in China’s cross-Strait policy. Many Chinese elites are unsatisfied with the results of the soft policy of trust-building and increased economic ties as means of greasing the tracks for eventual political union. The perception in China of a lack of progress toward unification could be a particular problem for Xi, who has promised that Taiwan’s de facto independence cannot continue “from generation to generation.” Failing to deliver on Taiwan could create a vulnerability for Xi that his enemies would be quick to exploit. This could impel Xi to demand that Taipei open political negotiations, leading to a quick rebuff and humiliation for Xi.

A new Taiwan Strait crisis would create a daunting dilemma for Washington. The cost to the United States of a policy of defending Taiwan has increased. But the cost of a decision not to defend Taiwan has risen as well.

China under Xi Jinping exhibits improved military strength combined with a tougher stance on territorial issues. Low-casualty American intervention in a Taiwan Strait war is probably no longer possible. The Chinese also believe they enjoy an asymmetry of commitment. Some PRC elites, especially People’s Liberation Army (PLA) officers, openly question whether the cash-strapped and war-weary United States would go to war with China over Taiwan, while pointing out that China would view such a war as a sacred crusade to preserve national territory.

Neither Taiwan’s own efforts nor U.S. security assistance has kept pace with China’s military buildup. Taiwan’s military budget is only about $10 billion annually, compared to China’s estimated $200 billion. As early as a decade ago, the U.S. Department of Defense’s annual report to Congress on China’s military began saying that a successful PLA invasion of Taiwan is risky but possible.

As difficult as defending Taiwan from Chinese attack would be, shrinking from Taiwan’s defense would seriously endanger America’s agenda in the Asia-Pacific region. A U.S.-China showdown over Taiwan would be an early and possibly decisive battle in the grand contest over the rules of international affairs in the Asia-Pacific region. For decades, the United States has supported a liberal regional order premised on the principles of expanding free trade, promoting democracy, respecting civil liberties, holding national leaders responsible for egregious governance failures, bringing state behavior into compliance with modern international law, and resolving political disputes through peaceful negotiation rather than coercion.

By contrast, China extolls non-intervention in other countries’ domestic affairs; what dictators do in their own houses is no one else’s business. At the same time, however, Beijing takes an extraordinarily expansive view of its own proprietary interests. In its sweeping and vague claims to disputed territory in the South China Sea, Chinese authorities take the position that historical rights supersede modern international law, which the Chinese see as largely written by upstart Western governments with little or no Chinese input. China is the claimant that has most frequently relied on the threat and use of force in asserting its claims, essentially a might-makes-right approach that exploits China’s ability to send out greater numbers of armed vessels than its adversaries. The Chinese also demanded veto power over U.S.-South Korea naval exercises in the Yellow Sea after two lethal North Korean attacks on South Korea in 2010. In 2004, South Koreans were outraged to discover a Chinese government web site implying Chinese ownership over the northern part of the Korean Peninsula. In 2012-13, government-connected Chinese academics and retired officials questioned Japanese sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands, including Okinawa.

A PRC attempt to force unification upon Taiwan would constitute a challenge by the backward-looking China-centered regional order against the modern regional order based on liberal principles. According to modern international norms, Taiwan’s residents should hold the right to determine the island’s sovereignty status. The clear majority of Taiwanese say that they do not want to be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government. This regime never ruled Taiwan, which the Republic of China government has presided over since the end of World War II (during which Taiwan was occupied by Japan). The premise of Beijing’s approach, however, is that since the island is part of “China,” the CCP owns it regardless of the wishes of Taiwan’s inhabitants. The Chinese often raise the objection that Americans are hypocritical in criticizing China’s Taiwan policy because the U.S. Civil War was similarly a use of force by the central government to prevent separatism. That, however, was a 19th century approach that is not legitimate in the 21st century. When similar questions arise today in the West, such as in Scotland or Quebec, they are settled by voting rather than fighting.

Several considerations should help resolve this U.S. dilemma. First, conceding Taiwan to a Chinese sphere of influence would not buy peace with China. Rather, the Chinese would interpret such an American action as the beginning of a withdrawal of the United States from the Asia-Pacific region, and would expect American resistance in other areas of U.S.-China disagreement to diminish accordingly.

Second, China’s rise to great power status is still uncertain. With an economy still only about half the size of the American economy, China faces immense challenges, including a rapidly aging society, the danger of getting stuck in the “middle income trap,” severe environmental pollution, and the need for fundamental and painful economic reforms. Since China’s continued and rapid rise in relative power is neither assured nor limitless, there is no reason for Taiwan to capitulate early.

Third, the military conquest of Taiwan is an extremely unattractive option for China. Beyond the considerable risk that the operation would fail to put Chinese troops in control of the key Taiwanese cities, a war would be immensely costly to China. War would disrupt the Chinese economy and could cause domestic social and political turmoil. An attack on Taiwan would also partly destroy the island, lowering its value and necessitating large outlays for reconstruction. Most significantly, the Taiwanese people would be angry and difficult to rule for generations afterward.

Fourth, for the medium term, the U.S. military will remain more capable than the PLA. If the Chinese believe the United States would fight for Taiwan even at the risk of losing a couple of U.S. warships, the prospect of a war might deter the Chinese leadership from opting for a military attack on Taiwan amidst a political crisis. The regime has robust tools for managing public opinion; nationalist pressure is unlikely to force leaders into a policy they believe would be disastrous.

Finally, the Obama administration began with a relatively accommodating stance toward China, only to see the Chinese respond with accelerated efforts to undermine U.S. global and regional leadership and bully governments friendly to the United States. Some analysts argue that a tougher U.S. policy toward China is warranted. If so, continuing and even upgrading U.S. support for Taiwan is an appropriate response.

PRC coercion against democratic Taiwan would challenge the basic principles of the liberal regional order as well as U.S. reliability. America’s strategic leadership in the region is more in question than at any time since the Vietnam conflict, and arguably since the end of the WWII. If the United States intends to continue making the investment necessary to maintain the normative, institutional and security arrangements that uphold peace and prosperity for most of the Asia-Pacific region, Taiwan should be considered a crucial place to make a stand, not a liability to be abandoned in a strategic retreat to more defensible ground. If the Taiwanese people choose to resist pressure to unify with China, Washington should support them with robust arms sales that suit a sensible and efficient strategy for defending the island.

Denny Roy is a Senior Fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu. He specializes in Asia-Pacific security issues. His latest book is Return of the Dragon: Rising China and Regional Security (Columbia University Press, 2013).

Housecarl · Feb 22, 2015

Argentina likely to buy 20 Chinese-made FC-1 Xiaolong fighter aircraft
Started by JohnGaltfla‎, 02-15-2015 01:48 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...0-Chinese-made-FC-1-Xiaolong-fighter-aircraft
___

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...hina-could-jointly-develop-fighters/23602417/

Argentina, China Could Jointly Develop Fighters

By Wendell Minnick 2:21 p.m. EST February 22, 2015

TAIPEI — London's successful blocking of the Gripen fighter sale to Argentina appears to have done little to stop Buenos Aires' determination to replace its aging attack and fighter fleet. Nor has it halted its threats to use force to "liberate" the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands from British control.

In October, Argentina's Defense Minister Agustin Rossi announced plans to procure 14 Saab Gripen fighters to replace its single-engine Dassault Mirage III/5, which saw combat during the 1982 Falklands War.

However, London quickly killed the deal. When that was nixed, Argentine's President Cristina Kirchner traveled to Beijing, Feb. 2-5, and announced Argentina and China were creating a working group to facilitate the transfer of a variety of military equipment, including fighters. To further sweeten the pot, China takes Argentina's position on the Falkland Islands and has compared the dispute to China's sovereignty claims over disputed islands in the East and South China Seas.

Two types of Chinese fighters are candidates: The FC-1/JF-17 and the J-10, both built by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC).

The JF-17 is the Pakistan-built variant of the FC-1. Both fighters have their advantages and disadvantages, said Doug Barrie, the senior air analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. The Chengdu FC-1 represents the cheaper and less-capable combat aircraft, he said. Argentina could purchase significantly more FC-1s, "although in capability terms this would not represent as great an increment in overall performance compared to the J-10," he said.

The Argentinean Air Force could face difficulties acclimating to non-Western equipment, but "we should understand that such a sale will have a special political importance for the Chinese. It brings prestige and opens doors to new combat aircraft sales to the region," said Vasily Kashin, a China military specialist at Moscow's Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. "They will likely provide good financing conditions and will probably pay special attention to subsequent maintenance and training work."

Logistics and follow-on support is still a question, and China's reputation with past fighter exports is dubious, said Roger Cliff, nonresident senior fellow, Asia Security Initiative, Atlantic Council. He said Argentina might have no choice in the matter since London will no doubt block any Western fighter sale. Russia could also be a contender, but also has a poor history in fighter support, Cliff said.

However, China's JF-17 fighter program in Pakistan has proven a reasonably successful test bed for joint fighter production programs. The Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and CAC developed the JF-17 and CAC's FC-1 in a joint program begun in 1995. Like Argentina, the Pakistan JF-17 replaced its Mirage III/5 fighters.

Richard Fisher, a senior fellow with the US-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, said that in 2013 CAC was in discussions with the Argentine aerospace company Fabrica Argentina de Aviones to co-build the FC-1 in a similar fashion as the CAC/PAC deal. Fabrica did not respond to requests for information on the issue.

China has been working hard to placate Buenos Aires. In 2011, Fabrica and the Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC) signed a co-production deal for the CZ-11 single-engine light multi-purpose helicopter.

Future cooperation could cover co-production with China's Norinco for 100 eight-wheeled VN1 eight-wheeled armored personnel carriers, and joint development with China's Shipbuilding Corp. for five corvettes modeled after the P18 (to be dubbed the Malvinas-class after the Falklands dispute).

These agreements could complicate London's ability to protect the Falklands from another invasion.

Fisher said that with aerial refueling, which will be available from Argentina's new Embraer KC390s, "the FC-1 is able to carry two CM400AKG-derived hypersonic anti-ship missiles out to a reasonable strike range." With the element of surprise and a minimum of 20 fighters, "there is the potential they could launch up to 40 of these missiles at the likely single aircraft carrier that Britain would send to defend the Falklands from a second attack."

London does not have an aircraft carrier that can operate fixed-wing aircraft. The famed AV-8 Harrier jump jetss that made their name during the Falklands War were retired in 2010. However, two 70,000-ton Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are under construction, with the first to be completed in 2017 with an air wing operational in 2020, Cliff said. The carriers will be equipped with short take-off and vertical landing F-35B joint strike fighters. "So the UK might be especially vulnerable at the moment, but that situation will not last long."

Fisher said the issue is more complicated today than it was during the war.

The other new element is that Argentina and China are now partners in space cooperation. China is building a strategic Southern Hemisphere tracking and control facility, and Argentina could get access to China's growing surveillance satellite network.

The scenarios Fisher paints are dark. "What if Venezuela gave Argentine aircraft base access to mount an early strike against a British task force? This could become a realistic option with Chinese ISR. This Chinese-Argentine military relationship is just beginning to blossom. Anti-ship ballistic missiles, over-the-horizon radar, and submarines could quickly join the list of possible Chinese exports.

"Look, there does not have to be a second war," Fisher continued. "If China sells Argentina enough weapons, a future British government could opt for a lengthy face-saving Hong Kong-like transfer. But in Latin America, such a 'surrender' would be viewed as much a Chinese as an Argentine victory."

The political and economic consequences for Argentina of making another grab for the Falklands would be severe, and even threatening to do so would not be in the country's interest. But that does not mean it could not happen, "as people in the country are still passionate about the issue", Cliff said.

"Argentina made things pretty dicey for the UK back in 1982 and probably could do so again, especially if they prepared carefully for it."

Email: wminnick@defensenews.com

Housecarl · Feb 23, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-yemen-aden-20150223-story.html#page=1

Yemen port city of Aden seethes with separatist fervor

By Patrick J. McDonnell and Nabih Bulos contact the reporter
February 22, 2015 | Reporting from Aden, Yemen

A replica Big Ben still looks down on the harbor. Queen Victoria casts a dour gaze from her bronzed throne in a patch of green fronting the port.

But this one-time jewel of the British Empire has fallen onto hard times — and now seethes with sedition as Yemen lurches toward civil war and possible disintegration.

The return this weekend of ousted President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi, a southerner, after weeks of house arrest in the capital, Sana, has done little to quell separatist furor here in the south.

Blue-tinged flags of an erstwhile new independent nation are ubiquitous. Gaggles of pro-independence protesters march on the streets. Separatist slogans line the walls. Talk of rebellion is rampant.

"If there is no secession, then this area will become the biggest conflict in the Middle East — bigger than Iraq or Syria," warned Mohammad Nasser Hattab, who heads a "popular committee" militia that has commandeered a police station across from the tattered park where a stolid and plump Victoria still observes the horizon.

"The situation has gotten to the point that it is us or them on this land," said Nasser, amid nods of agreement from fellow militiamen with Kalashnikovs and checkered head scarves gathered on the second floor of a dingy police precinct office in the port-side Tawahi district, known as Steamer Point during British rule.

This fractured nation of 26 million, the poorest in the Arab world, has many hot spots in the aftermath of the fall of the capital, Sana, to the northern-based Houthi faction, a mostly Shiite Muslim group in a largely Sunni Muslim nation. The Houthis overran the capital in September and consolidated control in recent weeks, placing Hadi and others in his administration under house arrest and dissolving parliament.

The emergence of the Houthis, an ally of Iran, threatens to turn Yemen into yet another geopolitical battleground with profound implications for U.S. policy. The nation has until now been relatively free of the sectarian-fueled violence that has ravaged Iraq and Syria.

Fostering stability here has been a major goal of the Obama administration, which has touted Yemen as a success of its counter-terrorism strategy. The nation is home to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, regarded as among the most potent of the global terrorist network's branches. U.S. drone strikes continue to hit Al Qaeda targets in Yemen, despite the Houthi takeover.

The port of Aden, still bustling but much depleted since its colonial-era days as one of the world's busiest harbors, was the site of a signature Al Qaeda attack: The 2000 strike on the U.S. destroyer Cole that left 17 U.S. service members dead and 39 wounded.

The Houthis have vowed to destroy Al Qaeda, a Sunni group that has repeatedly targeted them. But others argue that the Houthi advance has become an Al Qaeda recruiting bonanza, drawing in Sunni youth and tribesmen.

"Many tribes had abandoned Al Qaeda, but the arrival of the Houthis in Sana pushed the tribes back to Al Qaeda," Aden Gov. Abdul Aziz bin Habtoor said in an interview here.

To the east of Sana, Sunni Arab tribes, some allied with Al Qaeda, are arming against a possible Houthi thrust into resource-rich Marib province, source of much of the nation's oil and gas and its major energy infrastructure. Sunni tribal leaders, reportedly receiving aid from Saudi Arabia, Yemen's wary northern neighbor, have vowed to resist.

Meanwhile, the central government in Sana appears to have lost much of its control over the south.

Northern and southern Yemen were two countries until merging in 1990, but tensions between the two distinct regions never completely dissipated. Now, the nation's political turmoil has given a renewed boost to the secessionist agenda.

The Houthis have relatively little support in the south. There is widespread disdain for what southerners call a Houthi power grab — though the Houthis insist that their goal is a democratic, united state in which all regions are represented.

Hadi, a former general, as well as a former vice president under longtime strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh, fled from house arrest and arrived in Aden on Saturday.

Many here were outraged that Hadi did not embrace secession upon his return. Instead, he pledged to work toward a political settlement to maintain a unified Yemen — the goal of United Nations-brokered talks.

"The situation is very dangerous now," said Mohsen Mohammed bin Farid, who heads a coalition seeking to create "South Arabia" among eight southern provinces. "The people of the south were hoping that Hadi would be with us, be with independence."

Although Hadi has many supporters here, street protesters greeted his statement of unity with the chant: "Hadi, you are contemptible, the blood of the sons of the south is not cheap."

So-called popular committee militiamen, on the payroll of political factions and tribes, have set up checkpoints and usurped the security services in parts of the south, including Aden. They bristle with indignation at the idea of Houthi-led rule.

"They [the Houthis] do not represent a Yemeni point of view," said Nasser, the popular committee commander near the port, in an apparent reference to the Houthis' links to Iran. "They are influenced by external dictates."

The future role of Hadi, backed by the United States and its Persian Gulf allies, remains a question mark. Hadi appears to have rescinded his resignation from the presidency — tendered Jan. 22 while he was under house arrest — and signaled that he favors continued dialogue among all of Yemen's factions to keep the nation intact. His allies insist that most southerners prefer to remain part of Yemen.

"The great majority of people in the south support the idea of unity and adhere to the concept of a federal state," said Bin Habtoor, the Aden governor, who spoke Sunday after meeting with the president here.

But Hadi insists that all appointments and government actions made since Sept. 21, when the Houthis overran Sana, are null and void. The governor also said talks should be moved from Houthi-controlled Sana to Aden.

"The Houthi forcibly seized power with the gun and he must relinquish power whether he wants to or not," said Bin Habtoor.

In Sana, however, the Houthis have showed no sign of pulling back. With regional, sectarian and tribal tensions rising, the prospect for compromise appears to be narrowing.

"What we see in Yemen is a potential humanitarian crisis, the prospect of economic collapse, and possible areas of conflict," Jamal Benomar, the U.N. special envoy for Yemen, said in an interview in Sana. "The prospect for fragmentation is clearly there. We are saying that there is no other way but for all the political parties to come together and make a deal sometime soon."

Bulos is a special correspondent. Special correspondent Zaid al-Alayaa in Aden contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times

WAR 02-21-2015-to-02-27-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

WAR 02-21-2015-to-02-27-2015_____THEWINDSofWAR