WAR 04-04-2015-to-04-10-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(156) 03-07-2015-to-03-13-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...13-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(157) 03-14-2015-to-03-20-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...20-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(158) 03-21-2015-to-03-27-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...27-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(159) 03-28-2015-to-04-03-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...03-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
_____

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2015/04/04/30/0200000000AEN20150404001000320F.html

Saenuri urges N. Korea to join Iran's path

2015/04/04 10:29

SEOUL, April 4 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's ruling Saenuri Party said Saturday it greets Iran's latest move to join the denuclearization drive, adding that North Korea should also take similar steps in response to international efforts.

"(The Iran agreement) came as a result of the international cooperation for denuclearization. We hope the move will have a positive impact on talks with North Korea as well," the party said in its statement.

"We hope that North Korea follows the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and joins the denuclearization move on the Korean Peninsula," the party added. "As Iran has set a good example, the North should end its greed for nukes and open its door to save the lives of its people."

The Iran deal, announced earlier this week in Lausanne, Switzerland, calls for limiting Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the U.S. and other countries lifting sanctions that have stifled the Middle Eastern nation's economy. Negotiators plan to put the tentative deal into a final agreement by June 30.

The agreement represents the crystallization of more than a dozen years of efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy also greeted Iran's move, but added that the South Korean government should end its move to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in the country as it may break peace with the North.

"In such situations, the ruling party-led attempt to deploy THAAD contradicts the efforts to make a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula," the opposition said.

THAAD has been the focus of attention in South Korea, as Washington has expressed its willingness to deploy one here. This has sparked concerns and objections from the opposition party, as well as its neighbors including China and Russia.

colin@yna.co.kr

(END)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-04/03/content_19989106.htm

Navy to get 3 new nuclear subs

Updated: 2015-04-03 07:31
By Zhao Lei(China Daily)

Three cutting-edge nuclear-powered attack submarines have been manufactured and will soon be commissioned by the Chinese navy, according to media reports.

China Central Television showed a satellite picture earlier this week of three submarines anchored at an unidentified port, saying the vessels are China's most advanced Type-093G nuclear-powered attack submarines, just completed by a Chinese shipyard and a waiting delivery.

With a teardrop hull, the submarine is longer than its predecessor, the Type-093, and has a vertical launching system, the report said.

Another article carried by the People's Liberation Army navy's website said the Type-093G's wing-shaped cross-section is designed to improve speed and mobility as well as reduce noise, and that the vertical launcher is capable of delivering the country's latest YJ-18 supersonic anti-ship missile.

China established its nuclear-powered submarine force in the early 1970s but had never shown it to the outside world until 2009, when two nuclear submarines took part in a parade marking the 60th anniversary of the PLA navy's founding.

The Type-093G is reported to be an upgraded version of Type-093, China's second-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine, which entered active service several years ago.

Cui Yiliang, editor-in-chief of Modern Ships magazine, said: "Though China was comparatively late in developing advanced nuclear-powered submarines such as the Type-093G, we used a lot of the most cutting-edge technologies and equipment on our submarines, enabling them to compete with their foreign counterparts."

He noted that China has researched the vertical launching system for many years and has installed it on other submarines and surface ships.

"Judging from the vessel's design, the Type-093G should have strong anti-ship and counter-submarine capabilities," said Yin Zhuo, a senior expert with the navy. "It is also likely to be upgraded with the capability of striking land targets with cruise missiles in the near future."

He added that the navy has formed a reliable logistics system for its nuclear submarine fleet.

Liu Jiangping, a naval equipment expert in Beijing who had served in the PLA navy for decades, said the vessel's vertical launching system enables the submarine to launch long-distance strikes from underwater, increasing the vessel's survivability in war.

The strategic force of the PLA navy now has about four nuclear-powered Type-094 ballistic missile submarines, up to six Type-093 nuclear-powered attack submarines and about three old Type-091 nuclear-powered attack submarines, CCTV quoted foreign media reports as saying.

zhaolei@chinadaily.com.cn
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...96e5c0-da1c-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html

White House officials defend Somalia strategy as counterterrorism model
By Greg Jaffe April 3 at 8:35 PM „³

President Obama has cited the battle against al-Shabab militants in Somalia as a model of success for his relatively low-investment, light-footprint approach to counterterrorism.

By some measures, it has paid dividends. U.S. drones have killed several of the Islamist group¡¦s leaders, including two top planners in just the past month, a senior administration official said Friday. African Union troops backed by the United States have forced al-Shabab fighters to flee huge swaths of territory.

But this week¡¦s massacre of 148 people at Garissa University College, the deadliest terrorist attack on Kenyan soil in two decades, demonstrates the limits of the administration¡¦s approach and the difficulty of producing lasting victories over resilient enemies.

Only last fall, Obama was touting his counterterrorism strategy in the region as one that ¡§we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.¡¨

The collapse of the American-backed government in Yemen forced the Pentagon last month to pull its Special Operations forces from the country. The chaos in Yemen and the absence of an effective partner has essentially halted U.S. counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda¡¦s affiliate there.

In Somalia and neighboring Kenya, the record is less clear. Despite this week¡¦s killings, senior administration officials characterized their campaign against al-Shabab as highly effective. The organization, a onetime youth militia that began affiliating with al-Qaeda in the mid-2000s, once controlled virtually all of southern Somalia but has lost more than 75 percent of its territory in recent years.

Its grip on Kismayo, where it controlled the lucrative port, had been broken, robbing it of a key source of revenue. These days, the group¡¦s finances have been drained.

This week¡¦s vicious killings in Kenya, carried out by only a small team of masked gunmen, were cited by White House officials as further evidence of the group¡¦s inevitable demise.

¡§They are desperate,¡¨ said the senior administration official, who was authorized to speak only on the condition of anonymity. ¡§And as much as we hate to think about it, this is what desperate groups do. They try to have smaller teams go out and [conduct] higher-impact operations.¡¨

But analysts who follow al-Shabab¡¦s activities said the recent attacks demonstrate how difficult it is to destroy militant groups in places such as Somalia, where decades of war and famine have created vast, chaotic and largely ungovernable areas. After troops from a coalition of countries acting under the banner of the African Union dislodged al-Shabab from the area it controlled, ill-disciplined militia forces filled the vacuum. Kenya¡¦s participation in the African Union mission has made it a target for reprisal attacks.

¡§There¡¦s no question that there was not an effective plan to win the peace after winning the war,¡¨ said Kenneth Menkhaus, an expert on Somalia and a professor at Davidson College. ¡§Now, who¡¦s to blame for that is another matter.¡¨

Some have criticized the international community for its failure to deliver the money and support the fledgling Somali government needed to function, Menkhaus said. Other experts contended that the government¡¦s corruption and incompetence had caused potential backers in the West to pull their support.

Al-Shabab¡¦s brutal rule gave way to chaos and crime. Clan-based militia forces, which took over territory vacated by al-Shabab, began taking land from villagers. ¡§They made things worse,¡¨ Menkhaus said. ¡§The area became less secure after al-Shabab left. The reality is that there is only so much you can do if the government is pocketing all the money and not following through.¡¨

White House officials have counseled patience, noting that the reconstituted Somali government is not even three years old. ¡§This is still a relatively new project,¡¨ said the senior administration official.

The White House¡¦s approach reflects Obama¡¦s firm belief that outside military forces can¡¦t compel change in troubled parts of the world. ¡§For a society to function long term, the people themselves have to make decisions about how they are going to live together,¡¨ Obama said last August in an interview with the New York Times.

The United States can offer advice, aid and support, ¡§but we can¡¦t do it for them,¡¨ Obama added.

That philosophy has guided Obama¡¦s relatively light-footprint approach in places as diverse as Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia.

Instead of deploying large formations of American ground troops, as he did in Afghanistan during the first years of his presidency, Obama has increasingly relied on small Special Operations teams to advise local troops and conduct targeted raids. In Somalia, the United States maintains a small military coordination cell that advises Somali and African Union forces, which have received about $1 billion in training, equipment and assistance since 2007.

In the early days of the Obama administration, senior officials in the White House and Pentagon debated whether to launch airstrikes against al-Shabab training camps. Some administration officials were skeptical that the group intended to strike U.S. or European targets.

Since 2011, as al-Shabab¡¦s affiliation with al-Qaeda deepened, the president has periodically authorized strikes against senior al-Shabab leaders who U.S. intelligence officials have said are planning attacks on U.S. soil. ¡§There have been a series of them that have definitely degraded [al-Shabab] in Somalia,¡¨ said the senior administration official.

The White House has supplemented the military training and targeted strikes with modest aid programs and efforts to undermine the appeal of extremist groups.

In a country as large and troubled as Somalia, stability and effective governance inevitably will be slow in coming. There are only about 22,000 African Union troops in the country, which has a coastline roughly as long as the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. ¡§People look at a map and they don¡¦t realize the tyranny of distance and size there,¡¨ said the senior administration official. ¡§These rebuilding efforts take time.¡¨

Some critics said that the international community¡¦s insufficient response had allowed al-Shabab to survive. ¡§Al-Shabab is not defeated, it has just changed,¡¨ said J. Peter Pham, director of the Africa Center at the Atlantic Council. Instead of trying to hold territory, like an army or militia, it functions today almost entirely as a regional terrorist group.

¡§Arguably, their terror attacks have gone up as they lost territory,¡¨ Pham said.

White House officials said such an assessment overstates the group¡¦s strength. ¡§This is a group that in its heyday attracted lots of foreigners, to include Westerners,¡¨ said the senior administration official. The group¡¦s ability to rally foreign recruits has been badly damaged, the official said.

¡§We saw the attack in Garissa earlier this week,¡¨ he said. ¡§But we haven¡¦t seen the group . . . become the threat that many people feared. It is still our assessment that al-Shabab doesn¡¦t pose a direct threat to the U.S. and the West.¡¨


Greg Jaffe covers the White House for The Washington Post, where he has been since March 2009.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/04/03/isis-gains-in-damascus-refugee-camp-fighting-hamas-allies/

ISIS Gains in Damascus Refugee Camp, Fighting Hamas’ Allies
More Civilians Fleeing From Camp

by Jason Ditz, April 03, 2015

While there are a lot of conflict reports floating around, ISIS seems to be extending its gains across the Yarmouk Refugee Camp, on the outskirts of the Syrian capital of Damascus.

ISIS began targeting the camp on Wednesday, and quickly secured much of it. They were pushed back a bit on Thursday, though between Thursday evening and Friday they are once again expanding.

The Aknaf Beit al-Maqdis militia, a key ally of Hamas, seems to be the biggest opponent ISIS has in the camp, and they denied reports that some of their fighters had surrendered on Friday evening, vowing to keep contesting the camp.

Civilians continue to flee the camp in growing numbers, though how many were left isn’t clear. Before the war, Yarmouk had 200,000 residents, and is only estimated to be 10%, or less, now.

Yarmouk’s value to ISIS appears to be in its proximity to Damascus, giving them a base to operate out of just a few miles from the central district of the capital city.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...-armed-groups-in-syria-refugee-camp/25258385/

IS militants battle armed groups in Syria refugee camp

By Bassem Mroue, The Associated Press 4:13 p.m. EDT April 3, 2015

BEIRUT — Islamic State militants fought Friday against armed groups inside a refugee camp in the Syrian capital, Damascus, and have made new advances inside the camp, Palestinian officials and activists said.

The militants stormed the Yarmouk camp on Wednesday, marking the Islamic State's deepest foray yet into Damascus. They were expelled Thursday but officials said they re-entered the camp Friday.

One Palestinian official, Khaled Abdul-Majid, said the group is in control of half of the camp. The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also reported new advances by the group inside the camp.

Abdul-Majid and another official, Anwar Raja, said the militants are fighting a Palestinian faction called Aknaf Beit al-Maqdis.

Elsewhere in Syria, other militant groups captured at least eight Lebanese truck drivers near a border crossing point with Jordan, according to Lebanon's state National News Agency and an activist in the southern Syrian province of Daraa.

The men were taken late Thursday near the Nasib border crossing point, hours after it was captured by an array of militant groups, including members of al-Qaida's branch in Syria, the Nusra Front.

The Lebanese agency said the militants are holding 10 drivers, adding that others fled because the area was being subjected to shelling. The Daraa-based activist, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, said Nusra Front members are holding eight Lebanese.

"They confiscated all the goods that were on the trucks, too," the activist said via Skype. He said it is not clear why Nusra is holding the drivers, adding that they might want to exchange them with militants held in Lebanon.

The Observatory said Nusra now controls the Nasib border crossing and decides who is allowed to enter from Jordan.

Nasib is an important route for Damascus to get essentials and for merchants and businessmen as a way to export to the Gulf. A prolonged closure will increase the stranglehold on an economy ravaged by four years of war.

The Nusra Front has been holding more than a dozen Lebanese soldiers and policemen since August, when the group launched a cross border attack into Lebanon. Nusra has killed two of the troops so far.

___

Associated Press writers Albert Aji in Damascus, Syria, and Zeina Karam in Beirut contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/pope-condemns-killing-of-christians-31117604.html

Pope condemns killing of Christians

Published 04/04/2015 | 06:16

Pope Francis, presiding at the traditional Good Friday Colosseum procession, condemned the "complicit silence" about the killing of Christians.

The evening, torch-lit ceremony at the ancient arena recalls the suffering and death of Jesus by crucifixion.

The pope listened silently, often with head bowed and eyes tightly shut, to reflections read aloud about Jesus' suffering.

He then spoke of what lately has been an urgent concern of his papacy -- the present-day martyrdom of Christians in parts of the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.

"We see, even today, our brothers persecuted, beheaded and crucified, for their faith in you, in front of our eyes or often with our complicit silence," he said, as he prayed.

A few hours earlier, Francis had condemned the deadly attack by Islamic militants targeting Christians at a Kenyan university.

Earlier this year he denounced the murder in Libya of 21 Coptic Christians by Islamic State-affiliated militants, saying they were killed simply for being Christian.

And he has lamented how Christians in parts of the Middle East have been forced to flee their ancient communities to escape persecution.

Among those chosen to take turns carrying the lightweight, slender cross in the procession were faithful from Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Egypt and China.

One of the prayers during the procession called for the "fundamental right of religious freedom" to spread throughout the world.

Another asked when the death penalty would be abolished, while there was also an appeal for the end of all torture.

Tens of thousands of tourists, pilgrims and Romans held candles as they joined in the prayers on a warm night.

Francis will celebrate Easter vigil Mass tonight in St Peter's Basilica. On Easter Sunday morning, he will celebrate Mass in St Peter's Square.


Press Association
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/04/c...ignores-chinese-expansion-in-south-china-sea/

Congress Raises Alarm As Obama Ignores Chinese Expansion In South China Sea

Jonah Bennett
Reporter, Daily Caller News Foundation
12:19 PM 04/04/2015

The recent collapse of the government of Yemen and U.S. involvement in negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal have allowed China to aggressively ramp up militarization in the internationally disputed areas of the South China Sea.

Now, lawmakers in Congress are finally starting to ring the alarm bell.

Bloomberg View’s Josh Rogin noted Thursday that congressional leaders are moving away from an exclusive focus on Iran and reminding President Barack Obama of his administration’s prior commitment to the once oft-touted “Pivot to Asia.” During the Senate budget debate last weekend, two amendments were added to encourage the administration to protect navigation in the Pacific, in addition to providing funds for military training exercises with strong allies in the Asia-Pacific region.

The focus of the administration’s strategy has evidently shifted since it was first introduced in 2009 from cooperation on global problems to frowning upon China’s flouting of international law.

Among China’s more aggressive actions is the creation of “a great wall of sand,” as Admiral Harry Harris Jr., commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated in a speech on Wednesday in Australia.

These walls of sand are manmade islets that provide a home to military equipment, like anti-aircraft towers and helipads. In total, China has created 1.5 square miles of landmass on top of coral reefs. (RELATED: Will The US Be Able To Stand Up To The Chinese Navy?)

According to Bonnie S. Glaser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, China’s former policy of laying low on international matters is increasingly being cast aside by Chinese political elites in favor of a bolder approach. Without an adequate response, Glaser argues that “greater Chinese assertiveness would fuel the belief—already emerging in China and elsewhere—that the United States is in inexorable decline.”

The Chinese intend to capitalize on this belief, as they have in the past. When American forces pulled out of Vietnam in the 1970s, China snatched up the Paracel Islands from Saigon.

Currently, China claims 90 percent of the South China Sea based on what’s called the nine-dash line. Around $5 trillion dollars in global trade moves through the region every year, a region which is also thought to be rich with oil and gas reserves.

“Without a comprehensive strategy for addressing the PRC’s broader policy and conduct, longstanding interests of the United States, as well as our allies and partners, stand at considerable risk,” GOP Sen. John McCain and three other senators wrote in a recent letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Secretary of State John Kerry.

Although Iran has taken the spotlight, Congress is intent on making sure that the administration doesn’t forget about China’s creeping movements which threaten U.S. allies and interests in the Asia-Pacific region.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150404/ml-syria-faf1457f0c.html

Civilians flee as militants seize most of Damascus camp

Apr 4, 12:57 PM (ET)
By ZEINA KARAM

(AP) In this Saturday, July 21, 2012 citizen journalist file image, women walk...
Full Image

BEIRUT (AP) — Civilians trapped in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria's capital fled to safer areas Saturday amid intense shelling and clashes between Palestinian armed factions and Islamic militants who took over most of the camp, Syrian activists said.

A Damascus-based Palestinian official, Khaled Abdul-Majid, said the militants controlled about half of the Yarmouk camp, located on the southern edge of the Syrian capital.

Islamic State militants stormed the camp on Wednesday, marking the extremist group's deepest foray yet into the capital. Palestinian officials and Syrian activists said they were working with rivals from the al-Qaida affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front. The two groups have fought bloody battles against each other in other parts of Syria, but appear to be cooperating in the attack on Yarmouk.

The Islamic State group's presence in Yarmouk gives it an important foothold only a few kilometers away from President Bashar Assad's seat of power. It also gives the group a potential sanctuary where U.S.-led coalition forces were unlikely to strike because of the camp's proximity to Damascus.

(AP) This Saturday, July 21, 2012 citizen journalist file image shows Syrians...
Full Image

The United Nations says around 18,000 civilians, including a large number of children, are trapped in Yarmouk. The camp has been under government siege for nearly two years, leading to starvation and illnesses caused by lack of medical aid. The camp has also witnessed several rounds of ferocious and deadly fighting between government forces and militants.

Most of the camp's estimated 160,000 inhabitants fled in late 2012 as clashes erupted between pro- and anti-Assad Palestinian gunmen— many to overcrowded and destitute Palestinian refugee camps in neighboring Lebanon. Only the poorest remained behind.

U.N. aid workers have been sending food parcels into the camp in an effort to alleviate the extreme suffering inside.

After militants advanced into northeastern districts of the camp overnight Saturday, many residents fled the fighting to safer districts in the south, activists said. Islamic State militants took up sniper positions on rooftops, they added.

An activist based in an area just south of Damascus, Hatem al-Dimashqi, said Saturday that rebel groups have launched a counteroffensive aimed at ousting the militants from the camp. He said a number of factions based inside the camp and in surrounding areas, including Yalda, Babila and Beit Saham, formed a joint operations command to coordinate their military action.

Al-Dimashqi, speaking from the edge of Yalda, said mosques in those areas were blaring calls for blood donations as hospitals received wounded civilians from Yarmouk.

He and the Palestinian official, Abdul-Majid, said IS militants beheaded five people, some of them from the anti-Assad group known as Aknaf Beit al-Maqdis which has fought them in the camp.

The coalition has been striking at Islamic State militants and infrastructure in north and eastern Syria, where the group has its strongholds.

In addition to the ground clashes, Syrian forces were shelling the camp. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Syrian government airstrikes on Yarmouk, but said there was no immediate word on casualties.

The Syrian National Coalition opposition group accused the government, which has blockaded the camp from three sides, of allowing militants access into the camp. It called for urgent intervention by the U.N. and Arab League to provide humanitarian corridors to evacuate civilians.

Elsewhere in Syria, activists said militant groups continued to hold at least eight Lebanese truck drivers hostage near a border crossing point with Jordan.

The men were taken late Thursday near the Nasib crossing, hours after it was captured by an array of militant groups, including members of the Nusra Front.

The Observatory said the men were among 35 truck drivers being held captive by Nusra.

Chaos and looting took hold Thursday as the rebels took over the crossing — the last crossing the Syrian government still controlled along the Jordanian border — ransacking duty free shops and warehouses in the free zone.

"They took every single thing. They stole from the warehouses trucks and trailers, and forklifts," said Rami Ahmad Abu Shehab, a worker in the free zone.

"We were surprised when we entered our offices because they were all destroyed. Everything was broken, the air conditioners, surveillance cameras and computers were stolen," he added. "When you look at it, it's like a gang entered and destroyed everything."

Abdullah Abu Aghalah, a trader in the free zone, said shops in the free zone area lost around $9 million worth of cars.

"We are imploring them to return these cars because so many families depend on them to live. Many employees lost their jobs. All of our investments in the free zone are gone.

---

Associated Press writers Albert Aji in Damascus, Syria, and Sam McNeil and Omar Akour in Amman, contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150404/as--australia-islam_rallies-dbe8894a61.html

Anti-Islam and anti-racism protesters clash around Australia

Apr 4, 4:47 AM (ET)

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Thousands of anti-Islam and anti-racism protesters clashed in angry rallies around Australia on Saturday.

The most violent clash was in Melbourne, Australia's second-largest city, where police struggled to separate 3,000 opposing demonstrators.

The Victoria state ambulance service treated four people, three for minor injuries from assaults in Melbourne, Ambulance Victoria spokesman Paul Bentley said. The fourth was treated for chest pains. None of the injured was taken to a hospital, he said.

Police arrested two men and a woman in the fracas in Melbourne's downtown Federation Square, Victoria Police spokeswoman Belinda Batty said.

Batty said the three were later released. She said all would be charged, but she could not detail those charges.

Reclaim Australia, a community group, organized rallies in 16 cities and towns around Australia against Islamic extremism, the "Islamization" of Australian society, Islamic Sharia law and the Halal-certification of most meats sold in Australia.

The protesters condemned the cost of the certification for a Muslim minority that is less than 3 percent of the Australian population as a "Halal tax" on the nation.

They were shouted down with anti-racism slogans by left-wing groups including No Room for Racism, Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative.

Reclaim Australia protester Rhonda Cashmore said their protest was not about racism.

"Most here are happy to have immigrants who want to come and fit in," she said. "We're protesting against immigrants who don't want to follow our laws."

Rival protester Gerard Morel said he opposed the anti-Islam rally because his grandfather had been victimized by Nazis during World War II.

"What I see is two groups with diametrically opposing ideas," he said. "They're extreme views that are inconsistent with what Australia stands for."
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150404/af--kenya-university_attack-b1ff32ff4e.html

Kenya: Extremists vow more attacks; president responds

Apr 4, 1:11 PM (ET)
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA and TOM ODULA

(AP) A woman cries after she viewed the body of a relative killed in Thursday's attack...
Full Image

GARISSA, Kenya (AP) — Somalia's Islamic extremist group al-Shabab warned Saturday of more attacks in Kenya like the assault on Garissa University College that killed 148 people.

"Kenyan cities will run red with blood," said al-Shabab according to the SITE intelligence monitoring group.

The Islamic militants said the attack on Garissa college was in retaliation for killings carried out by Kenyan troops fighting the rebels in Somalia.

"No amount of precaution or safety measures will be able to guarantee your safety, thwart another attack or prevent another bloodbath," said al-Shabab.

(AP) Women look across as Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) soldiers arrive at a hospital to...
Full Image

Following the extremists' threats, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta vowed to take harsh measures against the Islamic militants.

In a nationally televised address, Kenyatta said his administration "shall respond in the severest ways possible" to the Garissa attack, which occurred Thursday when four gunmen entered a campus and slaughtered students. The military moved in hours later and the gunmen were killed.

"We will fight terrorism to the end," said Kenyatta. "I guarantee that my administration shall respond in the fiercest way possible."

Kenyatta said the country's "security forces are pursuing the remaining accomplices. We will bring all of them to justice ... We are also in active pursuit of the mastermind (of the Garissa attack) and have placed a reward for his capture," said Kenyatta, who declared 3 days of national mourning.

Five people have been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the Garissa attack, a Kenyan official said.

(AP) A woman, center, raises her hands in the air as she and other members of the public...
Full Image

Kenyan security agencies arrested three people trying to cross into Somalia, said Interior Ministry spokesman Mwenda Njoka in a Twitter post. He said the three are associates of Mohamed Mohamud, also known as Dulyadin Gamadhere, a former teacher at a Kenyan Madrassa Islamic school who authorities say coordinated the Garissa attack. Kenyan authorities have put a $220,000 bounty for information leading to Gamadhere's arrest.

Two other suspects were arrested at Garissa college.

A survivor of the killings at Garissa University College was found on Saturday, two days after the attack.

Cynthia Cheroitich, 19, told The Associated Press from her hospital gurney that she hid in a wardrobe and covered herself with clothes, refusing to emerge even when some of her classmates came out of hiding when demanded by the gunmen.

She was rescued shortly before 10 a.m., according to Kenyan officials.

(AP) Map locates areas where Al-Shabab gunmen stormed Garissa University College in Kenya...
Full Image

Cheroitich said she didn't believe that rescuers urging her to come out of her hiding place were there to help, suspecting at first that they were militants.

"How do I know that you are the Kenyan police?" she said she asked them.

Only when Kenyan security forces had one of her teachers appeal to her did she come out, she said.

"I was just praying to my God," Cheroitich, a Christian, said of her ordeal.

Cheroitich appeared tired and thirsty, sipping on yoghurt and a soft drink, but otherwise seemed in good health.

(AP) A university student, one of the survivors walks at the Garissa Hospital, in Garissa...
Full Image

She said she drank body lotion because she was so thirsty and hungry while in hiding.

Authorities displayed the bodies of the alleged attackers before about 2,000 people in a large open area in central Garissa. The bodies lay on the bed of a pickup truck that drove slowly past the crowd, which broke into a run in pursuit. Soldiers monitored the crowd. There was shouting and clouds of dust rose as the vehicle left the area.

Spectator Yusuf Mohamed applauded the display, saying authorities wanted to "win the hearts of the people" and clear any doubts that the attackers had been killed.

Kenyan authorities initially said the attackers had been strapped with explosives that went off like bombs when they were shot, but investigators later said there were no suicide vests. The four bodies shown Saturday had wounds but were intact.

The bodies of many of those killed in Garissa have been transported to the capital, Nairobi, where grieving family members gathered to view the remains.

Thirteen buses left Garissa Saturday afternoon carrying hundreds of students who survived the attack. The buses, under armed escort, took the survivors to their home areas, said officials. Three of the buses arrived in the capital Nairobi at night.

---

Odula contributed to this report from Nairobi.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150403/lt-mexico-violence-f7a00db410.html

Mexico nabs alleged leader of mass-kidnapping gang

Apr 3, 5:25 PM (ET)

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Police have captured the purported head of a criminal gang believed to be responsible for kidnapping more than 100 people in southern Mexico, authorities said Friday.

The group allegedly led by Nicolas Trujillo Urieta, 24, operated in the violence-plagued region of Tierra Caliente and held its victims in makeshift camps, Federal Police said in a statement.

Trujillo was reportedly detained without any shots being fired in the town of Atotonilco el Grande in Hidalgo state.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2015/04/eye-troubles-facing-latin-america

Opinion
An Eye On The Troubles Facing Latin America

Comments (1) | Enrique Pena Nieto, Mexico, Nicolas Maduro, nixon, Obama, Opinion, Protests, social unrest, United States, Venezuela

Marina Peña |

April 3, 2015 | 2:35 p.m. PDT
Contributor

Venezuela’s ongoing economic challenges are ultimately predicted to shrink the economy by 7 percent. (Carlos Díaz / Creative Commons)
Venezuela’s ongoing economic challenges are ultimately predicted to shrink the economy by 7 percent. (Carlos Díaz / Creative Commons)
Over the past several decades, murder rates across the Americas have remained high due to issues ranging from gang violence to civil war. In 2013, the Global Study on Homicide showed that Latin America had the highest murder rates of any region in the world. With 34 of the 50 most violent cities located in Latin American countries, it is evident that many government officials are not doing their part to diminish bloodshed.

Currently, Venezuela and Mexico are suffering from significant social problems that have given rise to sometimes violent anti-government protests. The abuse of power by Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and the misuse of discretionary powers by Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto inhibit the participation of broad societal sectors that could bring about positive developments in their respective countries.

In Venezuela, citizens find themselves in the midst of a recession that will persist throughout the year. Apart from an inflation rate that has climbed to 68 percent, the country is facing major shortages of goods such as milk and car parts. Furthermore, plunging oil prices have devalued the nation’s most important export, crude oil, to $47 a barrel. Venezuela’s ongoing economic challenges are ultimately predicted to shrink the economy by 7 percent and increase the number of crimes that occur in urban centers like Caracas.

READ MORE: Faces Of The Venezuelan Protests: Juan

The socioeconomic issues felt by the Venezuelan people have led to acts of political violence that hinder the country’s possibilities of growth. In February, Caracas Mayor and opposition leader Antonio Ledezma was arrested for allegedly conspiring to overthrow President Maduro’s government; his detention in turn brought about massive protests by advocacy groups. Moreover, Salvatore Lucchese, former police chief of San Diego, Carabobo, was also jailed for refusing to end anti-government protests. Due to the imprisonment of many political activists, the United States issued sanctions against several Venezuelan officials. However, the National Assembly of Venezuela quickly granted President Maduro decree powers, which allow him to continue the practice of incarcerating his opponents.

(Carlos Díaz / Creative Commons)
(Carlos Díaz / Creative Commons)

In the meantime, Mexico is experiencing complications of its own. Though the nation’s GDP is expected to grow by 3.4 percent this year, high taxes and a depreciating currency continue to affect the poor’s chance at economic stabilization.

Yet, Peña Nieto's most crucial issue is the burgeoning drug cartel system that has spawned numerous violent crimes and corrupt practices. At the root of the Mexican drug cartels is a generalized structure where drug lords pay off government officials and police men so that their malevolent ventures can take place. In addition to drug trafficking, some of these activities include money laundering and kidnappings.

READ MORE: The Terror Two Hours South

Recently, 43 students went missing and were presumably murdered at the hands of police and cartel members. After the families of the victims and the general public were informed, major demonstrations quickly ensued over their disappearance. However, despite widespread protests, Peña Nieto refuses to dismantle the underlying structure of the drug cartels.

There have been many suggestions made to improve the situations in Venezuela and Mexico. One of these would be the creation of a proposition system that allows populations to participate more directly in the decision making processes of their governments. By making organized government more representative, the wants and needs of citizens become more of a priority. Besides the active participation of citizens, the development of independent anti-corruption offices could help prevent a significant amount of dishonest activities from occurring altogether. Once widespread corruption is less of an issue, violent acts such as those committed by Mexico’s drug cartels, could be addressed and reduced. Furthermore, a greater respect for the separation of powers is needed in all three branches of government to prevent the abuse of power by executives. Ultimately, national officials need to return to the principles outlined in their respective constitutions so that accountability and transparency can become the norm.

Although fundamental similarities exist between the constitutions of Latin American countries and that of the United States, Americans are accustomed to a different governmental system. In the United States, Congress and the judiciary usually act regardless of the views and wishes of the executive. Going back in history to the Watergate scandal that occurred under Nixon’s administration, the judiciary established itself as a force that was not afraid to act against the president. Moreover, in recent times Congress and President Barack Obama are constantly seen battling it out over social policies such as the Affordable Care Act. Consequently, Americans will remain astonished by the differences in the administration of power that exist between their country and those described above.

Nevertheless, though the advancement of democracy may benefit Latin America, it is not the quick fix to all difficulties. As a leading democratic power, the United States experiences hard-hitting issues of its own, such as police brutality. Thus, social activists and government officials with different ideologies and backgrounds must collaborate to initiate progress.

Contact Contributor Marina Peña here; or follow her on Twitter.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/nuclear_breakout_by_iran_and_north_korea.html

April 4, 2015

Nuclear Breakout by Iran and North Korea

By James Lewis
Comments 45

This from Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post on April 3:

… we are now facing the unfolding disaster that Obama has wrought. … the US has just given the Iranians a green light to behave as if they have already built their nuclear umbrella. … [T]he US and its partners have just removed all significant obstacles from their path to nuclear capabilities. The Iranians know it. Their proxies know it. Their enemies know it.

… The surrounding Arab states led by Saudi Arabia are pursuing nuclear weapons.

Don’t look now, but North Korea is a nuclear power today, with missiles able to strike Japan, and soon Hawaii and California.

The Norks got a free pass, because Bill Clinton’s SecState, Madeleine Albright, faked an agreement with Kim Jong-il in 2000, supposedly to stop uranium enrichment and missile development.

Then the Norks violated it, as everybody knew they would. Today North Korea has nuclear bombs and missiles.

Naturally, the media celebrated Albright’s “accord” with Kim Jong-il, and said nothing about the North Korean breakout.

Obama is playing the same sucker game in collusion with the mullahs, and the biggest betrayal is against us – against Americans who want our nation and the world to survive. Obama is copying Clinton’s kabuki script, kicking that nuclear can down the road, so that ultimately Republicans will have to deal with it. Then the Democrats will scapegoat the Republicans when they try to deal with the fallout. Bill Clinton had eight years to stop al-Qaeda before 9/11/01, but the media blamed George W. Bush.

But the biggest victims of Obama’s surrender are our former allies. America’s nuclear shield protected the world from 1949 on, when Stalin exploded his first bomb. Today, in response to the North Korean threat, Japan is rearming for the first time since World War II. They don’t say if they are building nukes, but the North Koreans won’t take them seriously if they don’t.

Obama just pulled the same stunt with Iran.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt will now feel forced to get their own nuclear weapons – because we’ve left them exposed to Iran’s nuclear jihad. Israel will cooperate with the Saudis and Egyptians because they face the same enemy.

Obama had a six-year window to stop Iran, using the same strategy that worked against Saddam: a trade embargo and a no-fly zone to render his air force useless. Obama and Val Jarrett wasted six years in secret talks with the mullahs, while lying hundreds of times that “Iran will never get nuclear weapons.”

Until the mullahs were past the point of no return.

The current agreement is therefore a pure sucker play. It’s for the media only, since the facts are irreversible.

Obama has sacrificed the safety of our former allies, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the rest. They are arming up as fast as possible.

America’s nuclear umbrella, which kept the peace between the big powers since 1949 – six decades – is now in tatters. Nobody trusts us anymore, and there is no reason they should.

The duplicitous U.S. media will celebrate Obama’s surrender as a great victory.

A new nuclear arms race has already started in the Middle East. It’s anybody’s guess whether ultimately ISIS or al-Qaeda will end up with nukes. The Iranians are just as bad as ISIS, and they are so confident of their path to nuclear weapons that they are sending conventional forces into Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

When you have nukes, you don’t have to use them. All you have to do is threaten. Your home territory has become invulnerable, and you can just knock off any opposition by conventional means. That’s what Iran is now doing in Yemen, right next to Saudi Arabia, and with the ability to throttle the entrance to the Red Sea.

In effect, the United States has given up the effort to prevent nuclear breakout. Armageddon cults like the mullahs now have their weapon of choice.

Obama did not have to do this. He wanted to.

Chances are that he sees this farce as his chance to run for U.N. secretary general. His own glorious future will be bought by the proceeds of surrender.

North Korea is already selling weapons technology to other rogues, including Iran. Iranian officers have been spotted observing nuclear bomb experiments in North Korea. Future rogues no longer have to build their own super-bombs. They can simply import them, which narrows the warning window to months rather than years.

All the nations threatened by Iran and North Korea understand these facts.

Here are some of the consequences.
1.Threatened nations will get their own nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles as soon as possible. Pakistan is thought to be the source for Saudi nukes, and the Saudis may simply provide them to Egypt, which has the manpower to protect the vast deserts of Arabia. The Iranians have just taken over the strategic chokepoint of Yemen, and while Arab powers are attacking, they will need boots on the ground to reconquer that territory.

2.Rogue powers can now attack. Without an American nuclear umbrella, Eastern Europe and the Baltic nations are directly threatened by Putin, who now has nothing to fear. In the Middle East, Iranian troops are already on the march, with the ultimate aim of conquering Mecca and Medina and overthrowing the Saudis, destroying Israel, and killing off the infidels unless they surrender.

3.For three centuries, since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, nation-states have controlled territories and societies, guaranteeing safety for their citizens against foreign attack. Today, territory is no longer the name of the game, since rogue states can launch nukes with ICBMs that can reach anywhere in the world. Bulgarian hackers can make Denial of Service attacks against American websites. Borders and territory may lose much of their meaning.

4.Anti-missile defenses will improve, but it will be years before defensive technology catches up with nuclear offense.

5.The temptation for pre-emptive strikes with cyber weapons or EMPs is therefore rising fast.

6.The biotechnology revolution is making many new powerful and hard-to-trace molecules that can be used in silent warfare. For example, the MAO-A gene, called “the warrior gene,” produces a protein that directly affects aggressiveness. Molecules can be designed to increase or decrease the expression of MAO-A. Hundreds of other molecules could be used.

7.While chemical weapons have been prohibited for decades, as soon as decision-makers are forced to decide between total war and insidious molecular weapons, they may well choose molecules. In Syria, Assad has been using chlorine bombs to suffocate and kill civilians. The taboo against these weapons has already been breached. Less murderous but more insidious molecules are now possible.

8.With the breakdown of privacy protections with Web 3.0, there are degrees of warfare that never existed before.

The future looks much more unstable. It is the price of Obama’s blind pursuit of personal glory.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/04/04/world/iran-nuclear-pact-leaves-questions/#.VSAouU1_nIU

World | ANALYSIS

On Iran’s nuclear pact, the big question is whether Tehran will cheat

Apr 4, 2015
AP

WASHINGTON – The framework nuclear deal sealed by world powers and Iran leaves major questions: Could Iran cheat? Possibly. Will the U.S. or anyone else be able to respond in time? In theory, yes. Are they prepared to use military force? Questionable.

Will a final deal settle global fears about Iran’s intentions? Almost certainly, no.

But the surprisingly detailed fact sheet released by the United States after Thursday’s diplomatic breakthrough in Switzerland provides U.S. President Barack Obama significant ammunition for the fight he will face selling an agreement to skeptical U.S. lawmakers and Middle East allies.

That is, if negotiators can get to that point over the next three months.

As Obama said from the White House, “Their work, our work, is not yet done and success is not guaranteed.” And the parameters for a comprehensive accord by June 30 still include big holes for Washington and its negotiating partners.

The limits are vague on Iran’s research and development of advanced technology that could be used for producing nuclear weapons. Inspectors still might not be able to enter Iranian military sites where nuclear work previously took place. The Americans and Iranians already are bickering over how fast economic sanctions on Iran will be relaxed. And Obama’s assertion that the penalties could always be snapped back into force is undermined by the U.S. fact sheet describing a “dispute resolution process” enshrined in the agreement.

But the biggest issue may be one U.S. officials have emphasized above all others: the “breakout time” Iran will need to surreptitiously produce a nuclear weapon. The framework imposes a combination of restrictions that will leave Iran needing to work for at least a year to accomplish that goal, rather than the current two or three months.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have cited the longer breakout period as proof they’ve secured a “good deal” and say the one-year window is enough time for the U.S. to detect a covert Iranian push toward a bomb and to respond.

That standard will hold only for a decade, however. Over the following five years, it’s unclear how far Iran’s nuclear program will be kept from the bomb. And after the 15-year deal expires completely, there appear to be no constraints left to speak of — something congressional opponents and Iran’s regional rivals Israel and Saudi Arabia point to as evidence of a “bad deal.”

“This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the state of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after an Cabinet meeting Friday. “In a few years,” he said, “the deal would remove the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, enabling Iran to have a massive enrichment capacity that it could use to produce many nuclear bombs within a matter of months.”

These matters and many more will now be weighed by a Congress that has watched impatiently over 18 months of negotiations. Republicans are almost universally opposed to Obama’s diplomatic effort; Democrats are divided. Together they will look at two possible pathways for congressional intervention.

The first will give lawmakers an up-or-down vote on a deal, something Obama may be amenable to despite past opposition. He stated his confidence Thursday in being able to demonstrate that an accord will advance U.S. and world security, and said his aides will engage Congress on how it can “play a constructive oversight role.”

The second potential congressional action is more risky: imposing new sanctions on Iran’s economy. That could end the diplomacy altogether by jeopardizing the basic formula for a final pact: removal of Western sanctions in exchange for stricter nuclear limits.

But Obama has more working in his favor now than he did last year when the negotiations twice missed deadlines. Even then, his administration managed to hold off congressional pressure.

This week’s deal will compel Iran to cut in half the number of centrifuges it has spinning uranium. No bomb-making material can be fed into machines at a deeply buried underground facility that may be impervious to air attack. Advanced centrifuge models will be disconnected. A heavy water plant will not be allowed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, and inspections will increase.

And the long-term arc of Iran’s nuclear activity could well argue for continued diplomacy.

The administration and other supporters of the agreement note that in the years Washington refused to talk to Tehran, demanded that Iran stop all enrichment and sought a total dismantlement of its nuclear facilities, the Iranians expanded from several dozen centrifuges to a capacity of 20,000. They established a secondary site at a fortified underground bunker. They began enriching uranium to levels just below weapons-grade.

Since November 2013, Iran has been operating only 9,000 centrifuges and that number is to drop to just over 6,000. The Iranians are not producing any higher-enriched uranium anymore and are to ship out or neutralize most of their stockpiles. The threat of a plutonium bomb seems settled — at least for now.

The Iranians say they do not seek nuclear arms, with their program focused only on energy, medical and research objectives. Iran will “remain loyal and stand by promises,” President Hassan Rouhani said Friday.

Obama and his top advisers do not believe the Iranians on that front. But they say the agreement makes Iran’s claims at least verifiable and does far more than sanctions or military action to ensure Iran does not assemble an atomic arsenal.

“To be clear, there is no aspect of this agreement that is based on promises or trust,” Kerry said in an opinion piece in the Boston Globe Friday. “Every element is subject to proof.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post...eal-wont-please-India.aspx?COLLCC=2912440656&

Pakistan submarine deal won't please India

2 April 2015 2:43PM

A couple of weeks ago, after a visit to India, I wrote an op-ed for the Indian weekly Open with my impressions of the Indian strategic debate. The biggest take-away was how openly suspicious the Indians are about China and its intentions in the Indian Ocean.

That suspicion got another boost yesterday, with Islamabad announcing that it has approved, in principle, the purchase of eight Chinese submarines for the Pakistani navy.

This is big news for a number of reasons. First, it's a large order for a navy that currently only operates five submarines. Second, it will be the first time China has exported its submarines, which says something about the improvements in its military technology (granted, Pakistan is probably buying on price as well as capability, but this is a navy that has previously bought advanced European submarines, so its not an undiscerning customer).

And third, it represents a fairly blunt Chinese statement about its willingness to cooperate with Pakistan to challenge Indian maritime power. Of course China has sold arms to Pakistan before, and in fact it helped Pakistan develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. China has also sold surface ships to the Pakistan Navy in the past. But in the maritime domain, it is fair to say that this is a step-change in China's involvement with the Pakistan military.

Things are likely to get even more discomfiting for India soon, with Xi Jinping set to visit Pakistan from 10 April, where he will address parliament. The Newspaper Dawn writes:

Sources say that during the visit, over two dozen memoranda of understanding (MOUs) regarding nuclear power, the Gwadar Port, the Pak-China Economic Corridor (PCEC), energy, trade and investment will be signed by Pakistan and China.

It will be interesting to hear what is announced on the Chinese-developed Gwadar Port, which has been cited in India as an example of Beijing's attempt to encircle India with naval bases, and also as a way for China to avoid maritime choke points in the Indian and Pacific oceans by moving Persian Gulf oil and gas over land from Gwadar to China. This theory has been debunked in the past, partly on the grounds that the port is not supported by sufficient road and rail infrastructure, but this might be set to change.

Photo by Flickr user Richard Munden.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/ukraine-and-the-russia-china-axis/

Ukraine and the Russia-China Axis

Current U.S. policy on the Ukraine crisis is driving Russia into China’s embrace.

By James D.J. Brown
April 02, 2015

1.1k Shares
77 Comments

It is easy to make an emotional case for Western assistance to the Ukrainian government in its confrontation with Russia. In principle, the people of Ukraine should have the liberty to determine their own foreign policy orientation and the international community should support their freedom to make this choice. Such a stance is morally unimpeachable. It is also a perilous basis for policymaking. Pursuing ideals in isolation from assessments of what is achievable and without reference to the broader international context risks unleashing a horror of unintended consequences. This being so, foreign policy makers must restrict themselves to the art of the possible and base their decisions on cold-hearted assessments of long-term security interests.

Based on the prioritization of such strategic goals, what should be the West’s Ukraine policy? There are those who believe that, on this occasion, realist and liberal goals coincide, and that security imperatives dictate that the West must act forcefully to end Russia’s intervention in its neighbor’s affairs. The argument here is that Vladimir Putin’s Russia is an aggressive, expansionist state whose actions, in the words of Chancellor Merkel of Germany, call “the whole of the European peaceful order into question.” What is at stake, therefore, is not just the status of one country but the fate of the entire postwar international system. This is because it is assumed that conceding to Russian demands in Ukraine will inevitably encourage it to advance elsewhere. Given the specter of Russian tanks rolling into the Baltic States, it is no surprise that many have come to favor supplying Kiev with “lethal defensive weapons.”

This makes for a compelling narrative, not least because it draws upon historical memories of appeasement and Nazi expansionism. In reality, however, the argument is without foundation. Economically weak and demographically in decline, Russia represents no serious threat to the international status quo. Indeed, holding a privileged position that it no longer merits, Russia has absolutely no incentive to challenge the postwar order. Moscow’s actions in Ukraine are therefore best interpreted, not as self-assured expansionism, but rather as the panicky response of an insecure state to a perceived threat to its fundamental national interests.

Even if Russia’s actions are driven by weakness and not strength, this does not necessarily mean that Western interests would not be best served by taking a forceful stance. What alters this calculation, however, is an assessment of the broader geopolitical implications of this policy. Regarded at a global level, the punishing sanctions regime and exclusion of Russia from Western groupings comes to look like a strategic mistake. This is because it is has had the effect of forcing Moscow to overcome its hesitations and commit fully to close relations with Beijing. Should this relationship evolve into a full-blown Chinese-Russian axis, it will be a development of historic proportions since, while Russia on its own does not seek to challenge the established international order, China certainly does. What is more, despite Russia’s diminished status, it is able to contribute significantly to Chinese international power. Closer bilateral relations can therefore be anticipated to encourage Beijing’s attempts to assert regional hegemony. In this way, by taking an uncompromising stance against its 20th century adversary in Europe, the United States may be inadvertently assisting its 21st century rival in Asia.

Russia as Status Quo Power

It may seem perverse to claim that a country that has recently annexed part of a neighboring state, and is currently engaged in backing a separatist insurgency, is a status quo power. Nonetheless, this is the case.

On a global level, Moscow strives to uphold the current international order since it flatters Russian power and constrains that of those mightier than itself. Above all, the current system gives Russia permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, providing it with cherished equal status to the United States and China. The UN’s core principle of national sovereignty is also generally favored by Moscow because it can be used to place diplomatic obstacles in the path of U.S. foreign policy. An example of this is Russia’s appeal to national sovereignty and its use of veto power to protect Syria’s Assad regime from the threat of Western airstrikes. Evidently Moscow has shown no such respect for the concept of non-interference when it comes to Ukraine. However this does not mean that Russia has abandoned its former stance and become an expansionist power set on challenging the broader status quo.

First, although undoubtedly carried out using aggressive means, Russia’s intervention in Ukraine was actually defensively motivated. The February 2014 revolution in Kiev brought to power a radically pro-Western government that explicitly sought to reorient Ukraine away from Russia’s sphere of influence. This was perceived by Moscow to be an unacceptable threat to national security, especially because it was believed it would eventually lead to Ukrainian NATO membership. Were this to have occurred, the Alliance would have gained the strategically important Crimean peninsula, as well as a 1,200-mile frontier with Russia’s European heartland. To eliminate this danger, Russia permanently seized Crimea and is using the separatist movements in Donetsk and Lugansk to prevent Ukraine’s successful integration with the West.

Given that Russia’s actions are driven by a desperation to avoid strategic losses, and not a desire to make territorial gains, they are unlikely to be widely repeated, even if it is ultimately successful in Ukraine. The Baltic States and the former Warsaw Pact countries of Central Europe have already become part of the Western Alliance and this has been accepted by Moscow as an undesirable but unchangeable fact. The only case in which further aggression could therefore be expected is if another state deemed to be strategically important to Russia and located within its “near abroad” were also to seek to reorient itself towards the West. Were this, for example, to occur in Belarus, it is certain that Moscow would take steps to intervene. Overall then, it must be anticipated that Russia will remain ready to use military force to reverse strategic losses that are perceived to undermine core national security. Absent such threats, however, Russia can be expected to remain a supporter rather than a challenger to the international status quo.

China: A Revisionist Power That Needs Russia

While Russia is not a revisionist power, China unquestionably is. This is not a reflection of anything specific to China’s political system. Rather, it is simply the fact that, as with all rising powers before it, China’s international ambitions are growing in proportion to its economic and military might. Beijing is therefore seeking to make use of its greater clout to expand control over surrounding areas and to remake the international order to reflect its interests. This revisionist agenda is particularly pronounced in East Asia where China judges the status quo to be against it. This is above all due to the heavy presence of U.S. troops in Japan, South Korea, and Guam, as well as America’s regional naval dominance. China’s strategic goal is therefore to push the US out beyond the “first island chain” and thereby to establish its own hegemony within the East and South China Seas. Having achieved this, China will then look to extend its influence further into the Western Pacific. Undoubtedly at some point in this process Beijing will also seek to reintegrate Taiwan.

It would be nice to think that the expansion of China’s international ambitions could be managed peacefully. History, however, teaches that rising states tend to clash with established powers. The likelihood is therefore that the forthcoming decades will be an era of profound tension between China and the United States. These are commonplace observations. What is less often noted, however, is the pivotal role that will fall to Russia within this context of Sino-U.S. confrontation.

It may seem surprising given Russia’s faded international standing, but maintaining good relations with Moscow is a matter of great significance to Beijing. To begin with, this is because, in comparison with the United States, China has few close allies. This is especially true in the Asian region where China has territorial disputes with Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and India. Having friendly ties with at least one neighbor is therefore particularly important, especially since Russia can provide China with diplomatic support in key international institutions.

Even more fundamental is Russia’s strategic significance. By maintaining amicable relations with Russia, China is able to protect its otherwise exposed northern flank. From the 1960s to the 1980s, tense relations across this 2200-mile land border, helped ensure that much of China’s military potential had to remain focused in the northeast. It was only with the improvement in bilateral ties after 1989 and later settling of the countries’ border dispute in 2004 that China was able to concentrate fully on expanding its influence to the south and east. An instructive parallel in this regard is the way in which stable relations with Canada and Mexico have served as the foundation of U.S. international strength, providing Washington with a level of domestic security that has enabled it to focus on projecting power overseas.

Added to this is Russia’s importance as a resource exporter. At present, around 80 percent of China’s energy is imported from the Middle East and West Africa. This represents a major strategic vulnerability since, in the event of conflict, the United States would use its naval superiority to control the Malacca Straits and cut off the supply of these vital resources. Closer ties with Moscow help reduce this problem since Russia, along with Central Asian states, can provide oil and gas supplies via more easily protected overland pipelines.

Driving Russia And China Together

Evidently wise to these considerations, Beijing has been careful to cultivate closer ties with Moscow and Chinese leaders now routinely make Russia the destination of their first overseas visit. Beijing’s attentions in this regard have been generally welcomed in Russia yet, until recently, there had remained reluctance about embracing China fully.

Part of the hesitance is explained by Russian discomfort at the rapid reversal of the countries’ relative positions. It is not uncommon, for instance, to hear it remarked in Moscow that, having once been China’s older brother, Russia now finds itself in the role of younger sister. This loss of pride is also accompanied by economic concerns. Above all, there is the worry that in exporting little more than raw materials to China, Russia is increasingly tying itself into a semi-colonial relationship. When it comes to international politics too, many Russian are anxious that Moscow’s longstanding influence over Central Asia is being eclipsed by that of Beijing. Others fear an eventual Chinese takeover of the Russian Far East. This would come either via uncontrolled migration into the sparsely populated area or by direct annexation of territories that were historically Chinese until the second half of the 19th century.

The implications of this situation for U.S. policy are clear. If Washington wishes to contain China and ensure that it does not succeed in achieving regional hegemony in East Asia, it must finds ways of exploiting Russian fears and of driving a wedge between Moscow and Beijing. This would have the effect of depriving China of its solid rear and, with every increase in uncertainty along the Russian-Chinese border, Chinese maritime ambitions would be scaled back. Such thinking will be criticized by many as a relic of a previous era. However, as noted by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, East Asia is now in a “similar situation” to that of Europe prior to the First World War. This being so, if a rising China is to be stopped from challenging the international status quo, it may be time for a revival of some old-fashioned realpolitik.

Blind to this logic, Washington’s current policy is working directly against long-term U.S. strategic interests. By imposing sanctions on Russia and threating to arm Ukraine, the United States has inadvertently succeeded in getting Russian policymakers to abandon their lingering anxieties and to rush headlong into China’s supportive embrace. Just as damagingly, Washington has lent heavily on allies to follow its policy prescription. Most notably, Japan, having recognized the disastrous implications of a China-Russia alliance for its own interests, had been pursuing a rapprochement with Moscow and was beginning to develop security ties, clearly with a view to drawing Russia away from China. This sensible approach has had to be suspended, however, as Washington pressured Tokyo into joining the sanctions effort.

The effects of U.S. policy have been all too apparent as Russian-Chinese cooperation has accelerated rapidly since March 2014. With regard to overall political relations, during his state visit to Shanghai in May, Putin gushed that bilateral interactions had become the “best in all their many centuries of history.” Striking also was the Russian president’s frequent use of the term “alliance,” albeit not with reference to military ties. In addition to this positive rhetoric, it was during the May trip that Russia and China finally signed their mammoth 30-year, $400 billion gas deal. After more than ten years of inconclusive negotiations, it seems that Western sanctions helped break the impasse by pushing Russia to accept China’s price terms.

In the arms sector too, Russia has shown a new willingness to make concessions. Having previously denied China access to its most advanced weaponry due to concerns over theft of intellectual property, Russia has now agreed to sell Beijing the S-400 air-defense system and Su-35 fighter. These technologies will help China extend its defensive coverage and strike range, thereby strengthening its position with regard to Taiwan and the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute. Further to weapons sales, bilateral naval cooperation has progressed and, following joint exercises in the East China Sea in May 2014, Russia and China agreed to conduct military drills in 2015 in the Mediterranean and Pacific. Last of all, sanctions have had a clear impact on Russian public opinion with attitudes towards China rapidly improving as those towards the West have soured. Indeed, according to an opinion survey conducted by the Levada Center in January 2015, a full 81 percent of Russians now regard the United States negatively whilst 80 percent have positive views of China. Each figure is the highest recorded in the history of the survey.

With the sanctions having gifted China so many benefits, Beijing must be privately cheering on Washington’s Russia policy.

What Is To Be Done?

Unless ways are found to draw Russia away from China again, this alignment is likely to solidify. To prevent this from happening, Washington rapidly needs to alter its stance.

First, there needs to be a change in mindset. Rather than considering Europe and Asia in isolation, as currently seems to be the case, U.S. decision makers need to recognize how their policies towards one region are connected to outcomes in the other. Additionally, there needs to be a shift in the way Russia is seen. At present, many in Washington persist in the Cold War view that Russia is an expansionist power which, given half a chance, would send its tanks rolling on European capitals. Such fears wildly exaggerate Russia’s capabilities and demonstrate a failure to understand the transformation of Russia’s status from a global to a regional power. Moscow’s strategic priority is to aggressively defend its current standing in international politics against what it sees as persistent Western attacks. It does not have ambitions to uproot the global system. This being so, attempting to oppose Russian expansionism is a damaging distraction. If the U.S. is to maintain primacy in the 21st century, it must instead recognize that China is its primary geostrategic rival and subordinate other foreign policy goals to the paramount objective of containing its rise.

None of this is to say that Washington should take no role in the resolution of the Ukraine crisis. Quite the reverse, it is essential that the U.S. help bring the war to a rapid conclusion. Once this has been achieved, relations between Russia and the West can be gradually detoxified and long-term efforts can begin to encourage Moscow to distance itself from Beijing.

The key to ending the conflict is to permanently exclude the possibility of Ukraine’s membership of NATO. It was the Alliance’s reckless decision in April 2008 to declare that both Ukraine and Georgia “will become members” that intensified Russian insecurity, provoking its aggressive response to defend the status quo. It might be a different matter if Ukraine could be successfully integrated into the Western bloc, but this is unrealistic. While Western governments are half-hearted about this possibility, Russia is absolutely determined in its opposition. Since the reorientation of Ukraine towards the West is seen as a fundamental security threat, Moscow will be willing to bear considerable costs to prevent this from happening. Sanctions will therefore have no effect. Arms supplies to the Ukrainian government, meanwhile, will only make things worse by aggravating Russian insecurity and forcing Moscow into further escalation that the West would be reluctant to match.

As distasteful as it may be to give in to Russia’s demands, in the interests of lasting peace Western governments should reassure Moscow that Ukraine will not be admitted to NATO. Unfortunately, since Moscow believes that NATO broke an earlier promise not to expand eastward following the end of the Cold War, a verbal commitment will not be sufficient. Instead, an additional guarantee is required. This can be provided via the creation of a federal structure for post-conflict Ukraine that gives regions veto rights over fundamental foreign policy and security decisions, such as membership of military alliances. As well as satisfying Ukrainian rebels and their Russian backers with regard to NATO, this mechanism would have the benefit of ensuring that Ukraine could never be dragged into any Russian-dominated organization against the will of its Western regions.

With Ukraine thus established as a neutral country, Russia will become a more reasonable neighbor. Its fears assuaged, Moscow will reduce its support for the rebels, permit the closure of the border, and allow the reintegration of the breakaway areas of Donetsk and Lugansk. Since Russia is a status quo power, these concessions will not encourage further aggression. Despite this, to reassure NATO members in Eastern Europe, the Alliance should establish permanent military bases in Poland, reaffirm the commitment to defend the Baltic States, and persuade members to honor their pledge to increase defense spending to 2 percent of GDP. These measures will not please Moscow, but improvements in the security of existing NATO members are not perceived as comparable to the threat posed by expansion of the Alliance into Russia’s nearest “near abroad.”

Having reestablished security in Europe, the United States can return its attention to the priority of containing China. An important part of this will involve selective courting of Russia (such as by offering membership of the Trans-Pacific Partnership) and rekindling the frictions between Moscow and Beijing that have been extinguished in recent months.

Overall, it must be said that this is a highly disagreeable outcome for Ukraine that shatters many of its people’s dreams of Western integration. The alternative, however, is an approach that will only serve to prolong bloody conflict while actively encouraging the formation of a powerful Chinese-Russian axis that will present a formidable challenge to U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific and beyond for decades to come. If this is the result of Washington’s Ukraine policy, it will surely come to be seen as one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes of the 21st century.

James D.J. Brown is Assistant Professor in Political Science at Temple University, Japan Campus. His main areas of expertise are Russian-Japanese relations and international energy politics. His research has previously been published in the journals of International Politics, Politics, Asia Policy, and Post-Soviet Affairs. He is also a frequent media contributor on issues related to international relations in North-East Asia.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well isn't this just "special"......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nypost.com/2015/04/04/translated-version-of-iran-deal-doesnt-say-what-obama-claims-it-does/

Iran’s Persian statement on ‘deal’ contradicts Obama’s claims

By Amir Taheri
April 4, 2015 | 4:35pm

“Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline,” The New York Times headline claimed on Friday. That found an echo in the Washington Post headline of the same day: “Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework deal with world powers.”

But the first thing to know about the highly hyped “historic achievement” that President Obama is trying to sell is that there has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that led to international concern about Iran’s secret nuclear activities and led to six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and 13 years of diplomatic seesaw.

All we have is a number of contradictory statements by various participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland, which together amount to a diplomatic dog’s dinner.


Modal Trigger

Obama receives an update from John Kerry in Iran inside the Situation Room on April 1st.
Photo: Reuters

First, we have a joint statement in English in 291 words by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the European Union foreign policy point-woman Federica Mogherini, who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.


Modal Trigger

John Kerry and his team watch from Lausanne, Switzerland as President Obama makes his state address on the status of the Iran nuclear program talks on April 2nd.
Photo: Reuters

Next we have the official Iranian text, in Persian, which runs into 512 words. The text put out by the French comes with 231 words. The prize for “spinner-in-chief” goes to US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a text in 1,318 words and acts as if we have a done deal.

It is not only in their length that the texts differ.

They amount to different, at times starkly contradictory, narratives.

The Mogherini and French texts are vague enough to be ultimately meaningless, even as spin.

The Persian text carefully avoids words that might give the impression that anything has been agreed by the Iranian side or that the Islamic Republic has offered any concessions.

The Iranian text is labelled as a press statement only. The American text, however, pretends to enumerate “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” and claims key points have been “decided.” What remains to be done is work out “implementation details.”

When referring to what Iran is supposed to do, the Iranian text uses a device of Persian grammar known as “nakarah,” a form of verbs in which the authorship of a deed remains open to speculation.

For example: “ It then happened that . . .” or “that is to be done.”

But when it comes to things the US and allies are supposed to do, the grammatical form used is “maerfah” which means the precise identification of the author.

This is an example of the first form: “The nuclear facilities at Fordow shall be developed into a center for nuclear research and advanced Physics.” It is not clear who is going to do those things, over what length of time, and whether that would be subject to any international supervision.


Modal Trigger

From left, Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations Wu Hailong, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarifat, Russian Deputy Political Director Alexey Karpov, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrive for nuclear talks at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne.
Photo: Reuters

An example of the second form: “The United Nations shall abrogate its previous resolutions while the United States and the European Union will immediately lift sanctions [imposed on] financial, banking, insurance, investment and all services related to oil, gas, petrochemicals and car industry.”

The Iranian text opens by insisting that it has absolutely no “legal aspect” and is intended only as “a guideline for drafting future accords.”

The American text claims that Iran has agreed to do this or that, for example reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500.

The Iranian text, however, says that Iran “shall be able to . . .” or “qader khahad boud” in Farsi to do such a thing. The same is true about enrichment in Fordow. The Americans say Iran has agreed to stop enrichment there for 15 years. The Iranian text, however, refers to this as something that Iran “will be able to do,” if it so wished.

Sometimes the two texts are diametrically opposed.

The American statement claims that Iran has agreed not to use advanced centrifuges, each of which could do the work of 10 old ones. The Iranian text, however, insists that “on the basis of solutions found, work on advanced centrifuges shall continue on the basis of a 10-year plan.”

The American text claims that Iran has agreed to dismantle the core of the heavy water plutonium plant in Arak. The Iranian text says the opposite. The plant shall remain and be updated and modernized.

In the past two days Kerry and Obama and their apologists have been all over the place claiming that the Iranian nuclear project and its military-industrial offshoots would be put under a kind of international tutelage for 10, 15 or even 25 years.

However, the Persian, Italian and French texts contain no such figures.

The US talks of sanctions “ relief” while Iran claims the sanctions would be “immediately terminated.”

The American text claims Tehran has agreed to take measures to reassure the international community on military aspects of its nuclear project, an oblique reference to Iran’s development, with help from North Korea, of missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. There is absolutely no echo of that in the Iranian and other non-American texts.

In his jubilatory remarks in the Rose Garden Thursday, Obama tried to sell the Americans a bill of goods.

He made three outrageous claims.

The first was that when he became president Iran had “ thousands of centrifuges” which would now be cut down to around 6,000. In fact, in 2008, Iran had only 800 centrifuges. It was on Obama’s watch and because of his perceived weakness that Iran speeded up its nuclear program.

The second claim was that thanks to the scheme he is peddling “all of Iran’s paths” to developing a nuclear arsenal would be blocked. And, yet, in the same remarks he admitted that even if the claimed deal is fully implemented, Iran would still be able to build a bomb in just a year, presumably jumping over the “blocked paths.”

Obama’s worst claim was that the only alternative to his attempts at surrendering to the obnoxious Khomeinist regime would be US involvement in “another ground war in the Middle East.”

He ignores the fact that forcing Iran through diplomatic action, sanctions and proximity pressures to abide by six UN resolutions could also be regarded as an alternative. In other words, preemptive surrender is not the only alternative to war.

Obama is playing a bizarre game that could endanger regional peace and threaten the national security of the US and its allies. He insisted that Kerry secure “something, anything” before April 14 to forestall the US Congress’ planned moves on Iran.

He also wanted to stick it to Netanyahu, settle scores with Republicans, and please his faction within the Democratic Party; in other words, taking strategic risks with national security and international peace in the pursuit of dubious partisan gains.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/04/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-pm-idUSKBN0MV0KH20150404

World | Sat Apr 4, 2015 1:09pm EDT
Related: World, Iraq

Iraqi PM: Armies have no chance against IS if it keeps recruiting foreigners

BERLIN

(Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi told a German magazine that armies in the region around Iraq had no chance of defeating Islamic State (IS) if the militants continued to recruit ideologically indoctrinated foreign fighters.

In an interview with Der Spiegel published on Saturday, Abadi said that around 57 percent of IS fighters were Iraqis but they did not cause any problems as they simply ran away when Iraqi troops entered towns.

"It is the 43 percent who are foreign fighters who have been indoctrinated ideologically who have their backs up against the wall. If Daesh continues to recruit so many from other countries, then no army in our region can stand up to it."

Daesh is an Arabic name for Islamic State.

Abadi said government security authorities needed to take action to protect young people from IS "in the same way they trace child pornography networks around the world".

Abadi said Germany could play a key role in supporting the fight against IS as it had weapons that Iraq requires, particularly anti-explosive devices. He said Berlin should help given that hundreds of Germans were fighting for IS.

German security services say about 600 German residents have joined militant groups in Syria and Iraq.

Abadi said cooperation with Germany's foreign intelligence service was very good and Iraq was providing it with the phone numbers that Germans fighting for IS use to call Germany.

Abadi said the liberation of the city of Tikrit from IS on April 1 was encouraging but he added that IS was still a major threat: "They keep on recruiting people, they have huge financial resources and, honestly, a uniformed army alone cannot face it on its own."


(Reporting by Michelle Martin; Editing by Stephen Powell)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/04/us-nigeria-violence-delta-idUSKBN0MV0M720150404

World | Sat Apr 4, 2015 6:58pm EDT
Related: World, Africa

Gunmen kill nine, gas pipeline hit in Nigeria's oil-rich delta

PORT HARCOURT, Nigeria | By Emmanuel Okolie

(Reuters) - Nigeria's delta region was hit by violence on Friday, as gunmen killed nine people and, separately, militants blew up a gas pipeline, in a sign of returning unrest to the oil producing area days after a relatively peaceful presidential election.

Opposition presidential candidate Muhammadu Buhari beat incumbent Goodluck Jonathan in a landslide victory last weekend, producing some resentment in Jonathan's home region.

On Friday evening, in the town of Obrikom and the nearby village of Obor in Rivers state, gunmen went on a shooting spree, the police said.

"Some unknown armed men invaded the Obrikom and Obor communities ... killing nine, injuring two persons," Rivers state police spokesman Ahmed Mohammad said on Saturday.

The house of a parliamentary opposition candidate, Vincent Ogbagu of Buhari's All Progressives Congress, was set on fire.

Rivers, the home of oil and gas in Africa's biggest crude producer, was expected to be a flashpoint for election-related violence, particularly due to tensions between Governor Chibuike Amaechi and the presidency after he defected to the APC.

Gunfire and explosions hit an opposition rally in February, wounding several people, and other non-fatal bomb blasts rocked the state ahead of the polls.

On election day, at least two people were killed, including a member of the military, but tensions were deflated after Jonathan's early acceptance of defeat and call for calm.

In Delta state, militants from the Urhobo ethnic minority group blew up a gas pipeline in the early hours of Friday to draw attention to their exclusion from lucrative pipeline protection contracts with the state oil company, an official said.

"The Urhobo militants who carried out the attack have claimed responsibility," said Isa Ado, spokesman for the Pulo Shield taskforce, made up of members of various Nigerian security forces.

Reuters was not able to immediately contact the Urhobo group for comment.

Some former militants of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, which wrought havoc in the oil-producing creeks in the early 2000s, threatened to take up arms again should Jonathan lose but there was no immediate backlash after the president accepted defeat.

His People's Democratic Party swept the vote in Rivers and neighboring Bayelsa and Delta states.

The APC said the election had barely taken place in much of Rivers state and was a sham. The electoral commission sent a team to investigate but ultimately kept the results.

Observers said the Rivers vote was marred by ill-equipped polling units, unprepared electoral officers and some violence.


(Additional reporting by Tife Owolabi in Yenagoa, Writing by Julia Payne; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eurasiareview.com/04042015-an-honest-conversation-about-pakistans-nukes-oped/

An Honest Conversation About Pakistan’s Nukes – OpEd

April 4, 2015
By Eurasia Review
By Muhammad Umar*

It was quite refreshing to hear the man who “conceived and articulated” Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, talk so freely and honestly about the current status of the program and its possible future.

The man I am referring to is of course the now retired, Lieutenant-General Khalid Kidwai. Speaking to an audience of over 800 nuclear experts from around the world at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace 2015 International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington DC, two weeks ago, the General made very clear that Pakistan’s nuclear program was aimed at ensuring security and stability in the region, and was entirely in response to India’s 1974 nuclear detonation.

Unlike India, Pakistan was compelled to develop its nuclear weapons program out of concerns for the future security of the country.

General Kidwai spoke without hesitation, he said, the complexities of the current global environment have created a “conflict ridden world,” and there seems to be a revival of the cold war in this new multipolar world.

In South Asia, he said, there is a need for strong socio-economic development for peace to exist. General Kidwai referred to this as “the obvious,” to which he said, South Asia remains oblivious to.

Before we can talk of peace, there is a need to focus on improving the economy, education, health, and other social sectors; these he said were the prerequisites for an enabling environment, which would aid in starting the peace process in South Asia.

In not so many words, the General pointed out the fact that each time Pakistan has made an attempt at normalizing ties with India, the Indians have responded by violating the ceasefire agreement on the line of control in Kashmir. The General raised a couple of very important questions, how can we unshackle ourselves from the past? If we are not able to enjoy extended periods of peace, how can we develop our economies? He aptly responded to the questions he posed, he said it is “common sense” that conflicts need to be resolved, and leaders in the region need to “rise to the highest levels of statesmanship,” and recognize “the obvious.”

“There is no running away from the stark reality – conflict management, leading to conflict resolution” is required, he said. “It is not revisionism. It is common sense. It is common interest. It is self interest.”

The General warned that if leaders in South Asia do not wake up to this reality now, then we will continue living like we have for the past 68 years, for another 68 years, “condemning our 1.5 billion people in perpetuity to hunger, filth and squalor.”

This is the time, the General reiterated; both India and Pakistan have democratically elected leaderships with a strong mandate for peace. Pakistan and India have made war “as an instrument of policy near-redundant.”

General Kidwai referred to President Clinton’s “vision thing”, and urged leaderships in India and Pakistan to clench this opportunity for a chance at lasting peace and stability in the region. “This just might be the historic opportunity of a lifetime waiting for the two leaderships to grasp.” He said, “No zero-sum games. No one-upmanship. History and circumstances beckon.”

There is no space for conflicts, no matter how limited, in a “nuclearized South Asia.” Leaders in India and Pakistan need to show guts, vision, like that of Nixon and Chou En Lai, and Anwar Saadat and Menachim Begin.

India behaved “naively,” thinking that there was space for a limited conflict, and they proved it by introducing the Cold Start Doctrine, which meant rapid mobilization of Indian troops into Pakistani territory. Along with the introduction of the Cold Start Doctrine, India had developed the Parhaar missile, a tactical nuclear weapon with a range of 150km, meant to provide cover for an invading Indian army. As a response Pakistan was forced to develop short-range battlefield ready nuclear weapons, also “dubbed tactical nuclear weapons.”

“This was Pakistan’s defensive deterrence response to an offensive Indian doctrine.” The General was honest and blunt; he made his intentions for creating an enabling peaceful environment clear. General Kidwai said India’s attempt to do “one better on the escalatory rung,” the Indian’s called for “massive retaliation” against Pakistan, “without thinking through the consequences in a nuclear parity situation.” He said, it is time India gets real.

Referring to his 15 years spent as the Director-General, Special Plans Division, the General said he worked very hard with the help of his colleagues “to prevent war, deter aggression, and thereby for peace, howsoever uneasy to prevail.”

The General highlighted the current military stalemate between India and Pakistan, and urged friends in the West to help Pakistan and India achieve peace. The General said that the West should take an even-handed non-discriminatory approach to South Asia, and that one-sided and discriminatory overtures risk aggravating the delicate strategic balance in the region, indicating that American support for India into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and their exemption from the same group “are proving to be counter-productive, and will never be acceptable to Pakistan, and will in no way contribute to peace and stability” in South Asia.

Before concluding, General Kidwai once again, whole-heartedly called on leaderships in India, Pakistan, and the West to promote peace in South Asia, warning friends in the West that they should “desist from taking short sighted measures today that would be regretted later.”

General Kidwai ended his frank conversation by assuring the international community that even in this troubling environment, Pakistan’s nuclear assets were well guarded and safe. He said, you have all your national technical means of verifying this to be true, “but you might also take my solemn word for it.”

It was such a pleasure to hear General Khalid Kidwai speak so openly and freely about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. The General was genuine in calling for peace in South Asia, and did not hesitate to discuss any part of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.

The political leaderships in India and Pakistan must realize that it is to engage in a sincere peaceful dialogue. Being the larger of the two nations, the responsibility essentially falls on the Indian leadership to engage Pakistan in dialogue and work towards resolving all outstanding disputes, in hopes of achieving lasting peace.

*The writer is an Assistant Professor at the National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad. He tweets @umarwrites.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/2015/04/u-s-iran-...dimension-for-mideast-and-central-asia-sisci/

U.S.-Iran nuke deal creates new political dimension for Mideast and Central Asia: Sisci

Author: Francesco Sisci
April 4, 2015
1 Comment

Chatham House Rules

America’s nuclear deal with Iran creates a new political dimension in the Middle East and Central Asia. It’s important for the moment to focus on the general security picture for the region, leaving aside the existential concerns raised by Israel about the disruptive potential of lifting sanctions against a nation which is ultimately ruled by a clerical aristocracy whose reliability in following such an accord is uncertain.

Without a nuclear deal, Iran would likely to lean on Russia for its security and nuclear know-how. The U.S., on a collision course with Russia over Ukraine, was hardly in a position to let this happen . That would again massively involve Russia in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs after being pushed out in the 1990s with the fall of the Soviet Union.

In a vaguer, less immediately dangerous fashion, was the danger of having China’s continued involvement in Tehran, juggling Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel. All this would have been part of a very cautious power play by Beijing where the trump card is the promise of a grand Silk Road bonding all Eurasia.

In both these dealings, Russia and China dealt with all the countries in the region. The U.S. didn’t. Though the U.S. is the most powerful, this put Washington at a great disadvantage with respect to these other powers. The reason why Israel complains so much about the American rapprochement and is muted about Russia and China may also be complicated.

Russia’s full involvement with Iran is yet to occur, and China’s ties are very complex. It’s possible that Beijing is warmer to Jerusalem and the Saudis than to Tehran. And while Israel may be warming up to Moscow and Beijing, ties are not very hot, or not as hot as with the U.S. So we have a situation where geopolitical tensions are increasing on one hand, and decreasing on the other.

Besides these broad geopolitical concerns, the U.S. pushed its deal with Iran because America feels it can use Iran’s support against the Islamic State raging across Iraq and Syria. The other reason is that nobody, including Israel, managed to provide a convincing alternative to the U.S.-Iran nuke deal. At the end of the day, the crux of the matter hinges on nuclear capability, rather than the weapon itself. It’s the spectre of a little reliable anti-Jewish clergy in Tehran with their finger on the trigger of a bomb.

The big question is: What now? The possibility of Israel sabotaging the deal seems far fetched. But the ambitions of the Saudis, and perhaps Turkey, to go nuclear may have grown.

One possible avenue is for Israel to initiate rounds of confidential consultations with the Americans and Chinese on Iran. This would focus on Iran’s political evolution and development in the region. The U.S. would have the extra advantage of engaging China on a very practical project. Beijing, for its part, would be eager to proceed, because of its plan for the “One Belt, One Way,” Silk Road project. Joint Chinese and U.S. involvement could help assuage Israel’s legitimate existential fears, and help pressure Iran from another side.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldk...athema-to-republicans-israel-and-north-korea/

Forbes Asia 4/03/2015 @ 1:20AM 6,173 views

Iran Nuclear Deal: Bad News To Republicans, Israel, North Korea

Donald Kirk, Contributor

Israel and Republicans in the U.S. Congress now share common cause with North Korea on one critical topic: they hate the nuclear deal that negotiators from the U.S. and five other countries have struck with Iran.

While Israeli leaders and commentators denounce the agreement and Republicans vow to fight it in the U.S. Congress, North Korea has already stated that it will never give up its nuclear weapons. Six-party talks with North Korea, hosted by China, screeched to a halt nearly seven years ago and aren’t likely to resume as long as North Korea really has nothing to talk about.

That doesn’t mean, though, that North Korean leaders will not be watching closely to see how the deal works out even if they’re not going to follow Iran’s example.

North Korea and Iran are not about to break off close ties forged in cooperation not only on nuclear technology but on missiles and other weaponry. Iran has sent teams of advisers to North Korea to witness and assist on long-range missile development while North Korea has exported short and mid-range missiles to Iran along with both experts and laborers to work on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The huge difference, of course, is that Iran professes to be dedicated only to producing nuclear energy for industrial purposes while North Korea is interested only in making warheads.

Energy-poor North Korea, relying on China for all its oil, lost its chance to obtain twin nuclear energy reactors, promised under the 1994 agreed framework with the U.S., when revealed eight years later to be developing highly enriched uranium after having shut down its plutonium program under terms of the agreement. Construction of the twin energy reactors soon stopped, and North Korea resumed building warheads with plutonium and possibly uranium.

Skeptics of the Iranian pledge to downsize its number of centrifuges and stop enriching most of its uranium while agreeing to on-site inspections point out that Korea is now fabricating centrifuges with technology acquired from Iran and from A.Q. Khan when he was running Pakistan’s nuclear program. North Korea is believed to be gearing up for a fourth nuclear test — this one with a device powered by uranium.

The deal with Iran, though, is sure to give pause to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions for a number of reasons.

One is that China, North Korea’s only ally whether North Korean leaders like it or not, is fairly well committed to opposing their nuclear ambition and can slow the flow of oil, as well as food, any time.

Another is the nuclear deal with Iran calls for an end to sanctions if Iran really complies with the terms. North Korea may not be ready to give up its nukes but might be amenable to an agreement to stop producing them in return for relaxation of sanctions imposed by the UN after its nuclear and missile tests.

Not that North Korea will be ready to resume six-party talks right away — or even in the near future. It does mean, however, that at some stage the North might agree to return to the table with a view to some sign of concessions — an understanding that the U.S. and South Korea demand in advance so the talks won’t be totally useless.

Experts in Washington seem just about unanimous in agreeing, no way will the Iran deal have an impact on North Korea.

Scott Snyder at the Council on Foreign Relations told South Korea’s Yonhap News that “North Korea is in a different situation from Iran, because it has shown no interest in coming back to talks on minimally acceptable terms to the administration.” Alan Romberg at the Stimson Center was quoted as saying “Iran has obviously shown a willingness to curtail its still-nascent program and forgo nuclear weapons” but “North Korea has not — so there really are no parallels.”

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, however, may be in a somewhat different mood after making his first trip outside the country next month — to see Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Russia has formed close ties with both Iran and North Korea — the former as a foil to U.S. aims in the middle east, the latter to counter Chinese influence in North Korea and the U.S. alliance with South Korea.

Putin could suggest to Kim the advantages of putting on a show of conciliation. North Korea, like Iran, could be the recipient of Soviet arms and aircraft needed to replace its fleet of aging MiGs, gifts from the Soviet Union.

That might not be good news for the U.S., South Korea — or China — but could be persuasive when it comes to persuading North Korea to scale down its nuclear ambitions. Would North Korea really want to remain the odd man out when offered all that — and maybe, some day, relaxation of onerous sanctions?

To read more of my commentaries on Asia news, click on www.donaldkirk.com, and the details of my books are available here.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150404/ml--iran-nuclear-c027f29542.html

FM: Iran could resume nuclear activities if West withdraws

Apr 4, 7:36 PM (ET)
By NASSER KARIMI

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's foreign minister said Saturday that Tehran would be able to return to its nuclear activities if the West withdraws from a pact that is to be finalized in June.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator, said on a talk show on state-run TV that Iran has the power to take "corresponding action" and "will be able to return" its nuclear program to the same level if the other side fails to honor the agreement.

"All parties to the agreement can stop their actions (fulfillment of their commitments) in case of violation of the agreement by the other party," Zarif said.

Zarif said the framework nuclear deal announced by Iran and six world powers Thursday in Switzerland was not binding until a final agreement is worked out by a June 30 deadline. The framework agreement, if finalized, would cut significantly into Iran's bomb-capable nuclear technology while giving Tehran quick access to bank accounts, oil markets and other financial assets blocked by international sanctions.

Zarif said the deal, if finalized, would nullify all U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iran's nuclear program and lead to the lifting of U.S. and European Union sanctions.

Zarif's remarks appear aimed at reassuring hardliners in Iran who strongly oppose the framework agreement as a good deal for the West and disaster for Iran.

Despite criticism by hardliners, the deal has been overwhelmingly backed by Iran's establishment, including President Hassan Rouhani who pledged in a speech to the nation on Friday that Iran will abide by its commitments under the nuclear deal.

Zarif said Iran is "committed" to implementing its part of any final agreement providing Western countries fulfill their promises.

He said Iran wants to have a "moderate, constructive and proud presence" in the world.

Zarif received a hero's welcome upon his return to Tehran on Friday. Crowds of cheering supporters surrounded Zarif's vehicle and chanted slogans supporting him and Rouhani.

In the TV interview, Zarif said he "objected" to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry using the word "suspension" rather than "termination" regarding sanctions against Iran in the statement on the framework deal announced Thursday in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Zarif attributed Kerry's action as being aimed at addressing rifts between the Obama administration and Congress over the deal. Republicans are almost universally opposed to President Barack Obama's diplomatic effort; Democrats remain divided.

Zarif said the agreement showed that the West cannot halt Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes such as power generation and cancer treatment. Western countries suspect that Iran's nuclear program has a military dimension.

Without naming any country, Zarif assured Iran's neighbors such as Saudi Arabia which are concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions that Tehran is not after regional domination.

"We are not after a nuclear bomb. We are also not after hegemony in the region, too," Zarif said. "Security of our neighbors is our security, too."

Saudi Arabia has expressed concern about growing Iranian influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon which have large Shiite Muslim populations. A Saudi-led military coalition is now carrying out airstrikes in Yemen against Shiite Houthi rebels who are supported by Iran.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150404/af--burkina_faso-kidnapping-b969061a0c.html

Romanian security officer kidnapped from Burkina Faso mine

Apr 4, 3:51 PM (ET)
By BRAHIMA OUEDRAOGO

OUAGADOUGOU, Burkina Faso (AP) — A Romanian security officer working at a mine in northeast Burkina Faso was kidnapped by unidentified gunmen on Saturday, a senior military official said.

Five assailants attacked a convoy transporting the Romanian while it was out on patrol near the manganese mine run by Pan African Minerals in the town of Tambao, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media. He said the Romanian also has French citizenship, though this could not be immediately confirmed.

A gendarmerie officer and a driver were wounded in the attack, the official said.

The mining site is located near the borders with Mali and Niger, and it was not immediately clear where the assailants came from.

"We have a bit of information and we are already on the ground. We are coordinating with Niger and Mali," the official said.

Romania's foreign ministry said it has set up a crisis cell to deal with the kidnapping. The team has met "to analyze all available in formation and adopt specific measures" the ministry said.

Northern Mali, the area bordering northeast Burkina Faso, fell to separatist rebels and then al-Qaida-linked Islamic extremists in 2012. A French-led military intervention in 2013 scattered the extremists but did not drive them out entirely, and separatists are also still present in the region, which remains insecure despite the presence of U.N. peacekeepers.

Prior to the military intervention, the Islamic militants carried out a number of kidnappings targeting foreigners. Burkina Faso beefed up security at its border with Mali at the time and no such kidnappings were reported on its soil.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/05/us-kenya-security-idUSKBN0MW03H20150405

World | Sun Apr 5, 2015 3:31am EDT
Related: World, Africa
After Islamist attack, armed guards shield Kenyan churches
GARISSA, Kenya | By Edith Honan

(Reuters) - After al Shabaab gunmen massacred nearly 150 people at a Kenyan university on Thursday, singling out Christians for point-blank executions, churches in Kenya are turning to armed guards to protect their Easter Sunday congregations.

Four masked gunmen from the Somali Islamist group went on a shooting rampage, hunting down students to kill and take hostage during a day-long siege at a university in Garissa, some 200km (120 miles) from the Somali border.

Kenya's Christians, who make up 83 percent of the population of 44 million, have been horrified by survivors' tales of how the militants sought out Christian students to kill while sparing some Muslims.

Militants on Saturday threatened to stage more attacks and turn Kenyan cities "red with blood". Police said they are providing extra security at shopping malls and public buildings in the capital Nairobi and in the eastern coastal region.

Kenyan priests, who have been targeted by Islamists in the past, say they fear Christian churches may bear the brunt of possible fresh attacks on Easter Sunday.

"We are very concerned about the security of our churches and worshippers, especially this Easter period, and also because it is clear that these attackers are targeting Christians," Willybard Lagho, a Mombasa-based catholic priest and chairman of the Coast Interfaith Council of Clerics (CICC), told Reuters.

He said Christian churches in the Indian Ocean port city of Mombasa will be hiring armed policemen and private security guards for mass on Easter Sunday.

In Nairobi's Holy Family Basilica cathedral, nestled between the City Hall and Kenya's parliament, two uniformed police officers toting AK-47 rifles manned the entrance gate. One of the policemen said more plain clothes officers were inside.

At the same entrance, three private security guards frisked churchgoers with hand-held metal detectors, while a fourth guard used a mirror to check for explosives underneath cars.

"Everyone is anxious and you never know what will happen next, but we believe the biggest protector is God and we are praying," said Samuel Wanje, 27, a youth member at the church.

In Garissa, the scene of Thursday's massacre and where masked gunmen in 2012 killed more than a dozen people in simultaneous gun and grenade raids on two churches, six armed soldiers were shielding the town's main Christian church and about 100 worshippers ahead of Sunday mass.

HEIGHTENED SECURITY

Kenya has imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew in four crime-ridden counties along its porous 700km border with Somalia, while helicopters were deployed along its palm-fringed coastal region popular with Western tourists.

Robert Kitur, the coastal region police chief, told Reuters extra uniformed and plain-clothes police officers have been deployed in the area, where Islamists have carried out attacks in the past.

"It is a delicate period but we have put the best possible surveillance," he said. "What happened in Garissa must never be seen in Mombasa or anywhere else in the region and country."

The al Qaeda-aligned al Shabaab said the Garissa assault was punishment to Kenya for sending troops into Somalia to fight the group alongside other African Union peacekeepers.

Late on Saturday, 613 students and 50 staff from Garissa University College arrived by bus in Nairobi, where they were welcomed by sobbing parents and relatives. Parents of missing children were at the city's mortuary, trying to identify the dead.

It was the most deadly attack on Kenyan soil since al Qaeda in 1998 bombed the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, killing more than 200 people and wounding thousands of others.

The attack has put further strain on the historically cordial relations between Kenya's Christian and Muslim communities, which have deteriorated in recent years due to frequent Islamist attacks on Christian priests and churches.

President Uhuru Kenyatta on Saturday said Muslims need to do more to root out radicalisation, saying those who planned and financed the bloody attack on Garissa were "deeply embedded" within Kenya's Muslim community.

Kenyatta has been under pressure to stop grenade and gun attacks. Al Shabaab has killed more than 400 people on Kenyan soil since he came to power, including 67 during a raid on Nairobi's upmarket Westgate shopping mall in 2013.

In Nairobi most upscale hotels have installed thick metal gates and airport-style X-ray machines since the Westgate attack, and extra security checks are performed on vehicles entering restaurants, malls and other sites popular with Westerners.

"All the mall owners, who take security very seriously, revised their security measures before Easter. But after the Garissa attack, they increased it again," said Peter Bach, global managing director of security firm Diplomatic Protective Services.

(Additional reporting by Drazen Jorgic in Nairobi and Joseph Akwiri in Mombasa; Writing by Drazen Jorgic; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...a4065e-9414-4f57-8347-21c52ff6a194_story.html

Middle East
For Saudi Arabia, struggles in Yemen have deep roots

By Brian Murphy April 5 at 3:18 AM Follow @BrianFMurphy

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — In the two weeks since Saudi Arabia launched a bombing campaign in Yemen, the kingdom has barely slowed the advance of Shiite rebels who appear to be digging in for a long fight.

But so far, Saudi commanders have projected no outward signs of concern that the campaign is falling short.

“We should not be impatient for the results,” Brig. Gen. Ahmad Asseri, the spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition, cautioned on Friday.

Saudi Arabia’s determination is rooted in something deeper than overcoming insecurity on its borders and the fear that rival Iran could take advantage of it through perceived links to the insurgents. Saudi Arabia’s leaders — backed by its powerful Islamic religious establishment — also have taken on a special role as guardian of both its southern neighbor and the wider Arabian Peninsula.

“This is a blessing . . . but it also places a responsibility on all of us,” King Salman told a gathering of the nation’s political and armed forces elite at his Riyadh palace last week.

This was more than just a rallying call by the monarch, a former defense minister who took the throne in January. It also reflected entrenched Saudi views on Yemen, shaped over decades of intervention, insurrection, tribal politics and intrigue. It also reflected a growing military assertiveness by Saudi authorities, who have received a crucial stamp of approval from the influential Sunni religious leadership that gives the royal family legitimacy to rule over the land of Islam’s holiest sites.

In Saudi calculations, the potential costs of the Yemen intervention — even the risks of further deepening regional tensions with Iran — are overshadowed by the historical imperative of keeping Yemen under Saudi wings, experts say.

“Saudi Arabia sees itself as the big brother of Yemen,” said Ali al-Ahmed, director of the Washington-based Institute of Gulf Affairs, which is often critical of Saudi policies. “That — more than Iran, more than trying to reinstate Yemen’s Saudi-friendly president — is at the heart of the decision to launch attacks. If Saudi leaders are not calling the shots in Yemen, they get very nervous.”

And probably at no time since the founding of the modern Saudi state more than 80 years ago has the kingdom been less in control of affairs in Yemen.

Yemen has splintered into a patchwork of fiefdoms dominated by forces hostile to Western-allied Saudi Arabia but which are also fighting each other. These include a powerful branch of al-Qaeda, groups claiming loyalty to the Islamic State and the Shiite rebels known as Houthis, who control the capital, Sanaa, and seek to gain full hold over the second-largest city, Aden.

The immediate goal of the Saudi-led attacks is to restore Yemen’s president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who escaped to Saudi Arabia after rebels closed in on his compound in Aden last week. But Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Arab partners also have made clear that longer-term objectives are in motion.

That was reinforced last Sunday with a decision by the Arab League to form a joint rapid-reaction military force to respond to regional crises. The move was both a potent message to Shiite power Iran and a sign of greater regional cooperation against threats such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

View Graphic

The stirrings of expanded Arab military resolve already have been on display. Nations including the United Arab Emirates and Jordan have joined U.S.-led airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In February, Egyptian warplanes targeted suspected Islamic State cells in Libya.

Nor has Saudi Arabia been idle. The kingdom has been a critical financier for Syrian rebels seeking to topple the Iranian-backed government of Bashar al-Assad.

Yemen, however, presents a new slate, experts say. It could become a test ground for a sustained Saudi-directed offensive that reaches beyond the current Houthi showdown and takes aim at al-Qaeda and others — possibly even eclipsing the Pentagon’s strategy of drone strikes by bringing in greater firepower and ground forces.

“We are seeing the beginnings of the ‘Salman Doctrine,’ ” said Theodore Karasik, a Dubai-based defense analyst specializing in gulf affairs. “It says that Saudi Arabia must take a stand to protect the gulf rulers and the status quo of allied states around the Arab world.”

The coalition spokesman Asseri strongly suggested Thursday that the rebels are not the only aim of the intervention, calling the Houthis and al-Qaeda “both faces of the same coin.”

“One of the goals of the mission is attacking all terror groups,” he said.

There was a preview of Saudi Arabia’s stronger regional military role under Salman’s predecessor, King Abdullah, who answered a call for help from neighboring Bahrain in 2011 by sending in troops to aid the tiny country’s Sunni monarchy, which was facing Shiite-led protests. Yemen is a much bigger stage, with more at stake.

“The Saudis look at Yemen as the soft underbelly of their country,” said Labib Kamhawi, a political analyst based in Amman, Jordan.

In the 1960s, Saudi forces came to the aid of a ruling Shiite dynasty in North Yemen after it was deposed in a coup backed by the pan-Arab nationalist government of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. The Saudi fight on the royalist side, ironically, was on behalf of Shiite clans, including some that now back the Houthi cause.

But shifting fortunes and alliances of convenience have been a hallmark of Saudi relations in Yemen. Riyadh eventually reworked its strategy and became a financial and military pipeline for the Egypt-allied government in North Yemen, which then split from Marxist-leaning South Yemen.

Meanwhile, the austere Saudi brand of Islam, known as Wahhabism, gained a greater foothold in Yemen through Saudi-funded mosques and groups. These served as sources of intelligence-gathering and recruitment for local fighters against the Houthi rebels, who remained mostly confined to northern enclaves before a series of stunning gains last year. Saudi money also sought to buy loyalty among both Sunni and Shiite tribal sheiks in Yemen and on the Saudi side of the border, a line that in many places is still not clearly defined.Saudi Arabia became further vested in Yemen through development projects spearheaded by wealthy merchant families with Yemeni ancestral roots.

In 2007, King Abdullah was widely quoted as calling Yemen’s security “inseparable” from that of the kingdom. Two years later, a wanted Saudi-born man who trained with Yemen’s al-Qaeda branch tried to kill Saudi Arabia’s then-deputy interior minister, Mohammed bin Nayef, in a suicide attack. Prince Muhammad was slightly injured and vowed to further increase crackdowns on militants, particularly those linked to al-Qaeda in Yemen.

That was before the Arab Spring again reset the political equations in Yemen.

In 2011, Saudi Arabia threw President Ali Abdullah Saleh a lifeline, allowing him to take refuge and receive medical treatment after he was badly burned in a bombing by Arab Spring-inspired demonstrators at the besieged presidential compound.

Saleh now appears to have cast his lot with the Shiite rebels in a bid for a political resurrection.

This would mean another player, and another layer of complications, even if Saudi Arabia does manage to get the exiled Hadi back in power. The ultimate outcome will likely leave various factions jockeying for influence and undercutting Saudi Arabia’s traditional top position, said Hashem Ahelbarra, an Al Jazeera correspondent who has closely covered Yemen.

“Yemen,” he said, “is never going to be the same again.”

Hugh Naylor in Beirut contributed to this report.

Houthi rebels get boost from country’s ousted dictator

CIA scales back presence in Yemen, home of al-Qaeda affiliate

Yemen rebels use increasingly brutal tactics against demonstrators
Brian Murphy joined the Post after more than 20 years as a foreign correspondent and bureau chief for the Associated Press in Europe and the Middle East. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has written three books.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-...an-defectors-building-army-topple-kim-jong-un

Post Magazine
April 5, 2015

North Korean defectors building an army to topple Kim Jong-un

A coalition of North Korean defectors tell Julian Ryall how they are arming and educating their countrymen in preparation for an uprising they hope will end the Kim dynasty

Comments 5

The weapons are being smuggled over the border.

Communication links with the outside world are in place.

The networks of sympathisers, informants and members of the military and regional authorities, who have become disillusioned with the North Korean regime, know what is coming.

All it will take, insists Choi Min-hyuk, is the first spark to ignite an insurrection that he and hundreds of other defectors have been planning for a decade.

And once that flame catches, Choi tells Post Magazine, it will signal the end of a barbaric regime that has caused untold death and despair for the people of North Korea under three generations of the Kim family.

“When I was young, I tried to be loyal to the party and the only ideology we had, juche, which, they tell us, means ‘self-reliance’,” says Choi, who uses a pseudonym to protect himself, his family members in North Korea and his network of revolutionaries.

“I tried to make that my life and, for a while, I was able to do so, but slowly I understood that nothing anyone does in North Korea is of their own free will.”

One tipping point was the five-year imprisonment of his father, for daring to speak about freedom and human rights. Choi’s father had been overheard suggesting that North Korea was a slave state of China, and, previously, of the Soviet Union. Even after he had completed his sentence, the family was discriminated against and isolated.

Further realisation of the reality of the regime came from listening to overseas radio broadcasts, a crime in North Korea that could have cost Choi his life.

“From the moment a North Korean is born, they are taught to be thankful to their leaders and they are taught that they are kind and generous and the best,” he says. “For all North Koreans, [leaders are] our idols. If someone is critical of any of the Kims, they can be killed. The people in the North get no other information and they only hear what the party tells them.

“But I was awakened. I realised it was not true. I was 24 when I realised that it is all a lie. And then my life became even harder. I was thirsty for new things.

“I remember talking with friends and saying it was like we were on an aeroplane that was crashing and that we needed to get out, we needed to escape before it hit the ground.”

After both his parents died in the famine of the mid-1990s, caused by chronic economic mismanagement and the regime’s insistence on provisioning the army first, Choi decided to defect. After three failed escape attempts, in which he was forced to turn back due to heavy security at the Chinese border, he finally succeeded, and arrived in South Korea in February 2008.

Since then, Choi has been instrumental in bringing together like-minded defectors and supporters to build a coalition with one aim: to topple Kim Jong-un, the current dictator of North Korea, and free their compatriots.

And there is an added sense of urgency to their mission.

The United Nations Commission of Inquiry into North Korea’s human rights abuses in February last year reported multiple cases of murder, torture, rape used an instrument of torture, abductions, enslavement and starvation by the regime. This triggered a response from Pyongyang that has horrified activists.

T A coalition of North Korean defectors tell Julian Ryall how they are arming and educating their countrymen in preparation for an uprising they hope will end the Kim dynasty.

“They have offered to open the camps to UN inspectors,” says a campaigner, who is part of Choi’s coalition and will only be identified as Mr Lee. “Which would be a disaster. The regime will have no qualms about killing tens of thousands of inmates just to make it appear that these are not political prison camps. They will turn them into ‘model farms’ or something else harmless.”

In October, South Korean newspaper the Chosun Ilbo reported that 50,000 prisoners held at the Yodok prison camp, which covers nearly 390 sq km and is 115km northeast of Pyongyang, had been moved.

“The regime is transferring the inmates during the night so that their movements cannot be detected by satellites,” the newspaper quoted a source as saying.

“The regime will probably send farmers to the camp to do labour there [when the envoys visit].”

Prisoners sent to the “total control zone” at Yodok, after being convicted of crimes against the regime or denounced as politically unreliable, are never released and, analysts say, it is possible that they are being executed rather than dispersed to other camps.

“Look back at what the Kim regime has done in the past just to survive; this is not conjecture,” Lee says, reinforcing his words by punching a fist into his other hand. “It is a fact that makes us tremble with fear.”

Choi has more reason than many for wanting to provoke a rebellion and liberate the prison network: his surviving relatives are incarcerated in one of the labour camps, with no prospect of ever being released.

“I miss my family,” he says, simply. “When I think about North Korea, I’m too sad. And even though we are here in the South, us defectors are constantly nervous, especially those who speak out against the North Korean regime, because they have agents here and you can become a target.

“And then there is the deep rage we all feel. Fury about the oppression we went through that is still going on just a few kilometres from here. That rage is sometimes almost uncontrollable. I think, for me, that is the worst thing.

“I have nightmares all the time. I can’t eat often.

I’m traumatised …” International sanctions have failed to force Kim to change his ways, say the activists, and his regime is spending more resources on building nuclear and chemical stockpiles, as well as the long-range missiles to deliver them, in order to deter other nations from using force to bring the regime down.

In northeast China, near the North Korean frontier, a defector with the common Korean surname of Kim is overseeing the bribing of border guards and the transfer of small arms to Choi’s network of contacts in the North.

Formerly a senior military official who had been granted the right to live among the elite in Pyongyang, 47-year-old Kim refuses to reveal how he escaped the North, because it could help to identify him and the family he left behind.

Kim uses his knowledge of weapons, military tactics and the North Korean armed forces to plot the downfall of his previous employers.

Given the precariousness of his role in China, Kim is very guarded but will concede that the group’s efforts play to the vices of the North Koreans, as well as attempting to meet the desperate needs of the common people. And, he says, it is quite possible that the Chinese authorities know his name. Another of the group’s 30 leaders, each with different areas of responsibility, admits that one of his team was caught recently and has disappeared.

“For the regime to collapse, there must be a catalyst,” Kim tells Post Magazine. “When that happens, people who know how evil the regime is will want to join the opposition and we have to be ready for that.”

So far, the organisation has procured guns – primarily pistols and submachine guns – as well as hand grenades on the Chinese black market and paid border guards to look the other way as they are sent into North Korea, says Kim.

And while that is a fraction of what the North Korean regime will have to use against the revolutionaries, Kim points to the chaos caused by the numerically inferior French resistance in second world war.

The initial objective will be to seize the armouries that are located in every town and village, where weapons are stored for frequent community military drills, and share those armaments among the local people. Choi sidesteps a question about the number of casualties the defectors are anticipating.

“We have to get the military on our side, along with the police and the internal security agencies,” he says. “We have found our targets in those organisations and we are busy making friends with them.”

Another activist agrees that revealing some of their plans is a risky tactic, but, he believes, the plot already has momentum and widespread support.

“First, it is a warning to the regime and second, it is because we want the international community to be ready for this coming situation,” he says. “Up until now, the international community has listened attentively to reports of the regime’s crimes, but now we really need to eradicate the root of all the evil.

“And that is why we need to take action. Already, we are too late. Countless people have already died and more are dying every day.

“For us, North Koreans are not insignificant ‘other people’; for us, it is a matter of our families being killed or being saved.”

Choi’s priority is spreading anti-regime propaganda within North Korea, at the same time as providing funds.

“A good way of encouraging these people to rise up is by telling them the truth about the regime,” he says.

“Since Kim Jong-un rose to power, there has been no respect for him or his authority. His regime can’t feed the people or even the army any more, so there is a lot of anger and discontentment.

“We are already sending money and, by informing and feeding them, we can win their hearts,” he says, citing the example of the public demonstrations that led to the collapse of the regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania in 1989.

And when that happens in North Korea, every one of the defectors interviewed for this article (Post Magazine spoke to five in total) says they will go “home”, to offer their support and skills to the society that emerges.

Choi says his teams constantly go back and forth to the North – “the border is effectively open to us” – and, along with the armouries, they have identified the initial targets for the revolution.

The plans they outline are intricate and inventive but, they insist, the details are not to be reported. Doing so would give the regime a head start and threaten the safety of their cells in the North, they say. They do agree to reveal, however, that members of their teams are in every significant town in North Korea. They have forged ties with the military – “the army is changing and can be bought now,” he claims – as well as the regional bureaucracies and the secret police.

“The army used to be loyal to the regime because they had to be, but not any more, because they cannot feed them,” says Choi. “So the soldiers and the officers think only about their families. We need to get control of the army. Us defectors all have contacts and friends in the military, and they are thinking the same way as us.

“It’s the same situation in the internal security agencies and the police; they are all angry because the regime does not feed them. And that is what they are telling our contacts inside North Korea. We need to get these people on our side as well, so we are helping them by sending money.”

Other members of the group are agitating workers, many of whose relatives have defected, raising awareness of the vastly better lives they are leading abroad.

Local government officials are assisting in moving the revolutionaries around the country, providing information and even occasionally intervening to protect Choi’s colleagues.

The targets for their initial, coordinated uprisings have been selected and early operations will include the use of drones, large amounts of propaganda and arson attacks.

“The most important thing to create the conditions needed for an uprising is to destroy the regime’s idols,” says Choi. “Every city and town has a research centre dedicated to studying the philosophy of the Kim family.

But really they serve to brainwash the people. Soon, each of these places, along with statues of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, will be destroyed by people who are enraged at the regime.

“To see these places burning to the ground will make the people understand that Kim is not immortal and the people’s idols will have been smashed.

“The regime terrorises its people; if they are free of that fear, then an uprising will be easy, it will be spontaneous.

“All it needs is that first symbolic spark.”

Where love does not exist

Kwon Hyo-jin is a North Korean defector who was imprisoned for seven years in Chongori prison, or Kyo-hwa-so (Reeducation camp No12). Exclusively for defectors, the labour camp is notorious for being the nation's toughest, where beatings and torture are part of everyday life.

After his release, in 2009, Kwon crossed the Tumen River into China, and travelled to South Korea. Drawing on his experiences, Kwon created illustrations depicting the human rights violations that had occured inside the camp. His work has been displayed in an exhibition called "Where Love Does Not Exist" in Seoul (2011), compiled into a book and presented to a UN Commission of Inquiry on human rights in North Korea. Here are some of his works, with their translated captions.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.stripes.com/news/is-north-korea-eyeing-negotiating-table-1.338519

Is North Korea eyeing negotiating table?
Experts question whether economically strapped country is willing to talk nukes
By Erik Slavin
Stars and Stripes
Published: April 4, 2015

SEOUL, South Korea — Famine and economic depression haven’t been enough in the last seven years to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table over its weapons program — not as long as its military has enough resources to keep the Kim dynasty in power.

North Korea sees any threat to “songun” — the reclusive communist country’s military-first system — as making the nation vulnerable to invasion. To outside observers, destabilization of the powerful military threatens the Kim family regime’s hold on power.

In 2000 and subsequent years, North Korea agreed to landmark talks with South Korea and four other allied nations, but only following years of disastrous food shortages and economic deprivation that United Nations reports say killed hundreds of thousands of people. In exchange, Pyongyang had international bank accounts unfrozen, gained foreign cash and received more humanitarian aid.

Explaining North Korea’s reasoning for entering those negotiations remains open to debate, but many analysts believe the regime feared losing its military’s support. The military is believed to have gotten the lion’s share of both the outside aid and the national budget, though that may not have been enough in such a poverty-wracked country.

“Military spending has always been prioritized, even during periods of mass starvation,” according to a 2014 U.N. report on North Korea. “Nevertheless, the State still failed to feed the ordinary soldiers of its disproportionately large army.”

Nukes mean life

Today, North Korea faces the prospect of another significant food shortage and a purported loss of income from China, its largest trading partner and closest among precious few allies.

But are things so bad right now that Pyongyang will be willing to discuss its nuclear weapons program?

“North Korea says its nuclear program means its life,” said Kang Sung Kyu, professor of North Korea Studies at Korea University in Sejong-shi.

Kang is skeptical that North Korea is serious about negotiations, or that any agreements would stand — a valid concern, given how previous deals have fallen apart as Pyongyang repeatedly reneged on key points in the past.

It’s also unclear what role China might play in North Korea’s decision-making.

North Korea knows China is concerned that a unified Korea would mean U.S. troops closer to its border, and Pyongyang uses that concern to determine its own actions, Kang said.

Nevertheless, China certainly has influence over Pyongyang. It purchases 84 percent of North Korea’s exports, with coal and iron ore accounting for about half of that, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Observatory of Economic Complexity.

Although some reports indicate that China’s imports of North Korean coal and natural resources are falling, it’s unclear if that could create enough economic hardship for North Korea to return to the negotiating table.

Even if China’s coal purchases are shrinking, an estimated 20,000 North Koreans working overseas are bringing the regime hard currency, Kang said. The regime has also profited for years from institutional currency counterfeiting and drug production, according to U.S. government reports.

Paik Haksoon, a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute, even doubts the accuracy of reports of China cutting its North Korean resource purchases. He also cites increased economic activity in three Chinese provinces near North Korea’s northern border — a border in name only for Chinese businessmen willing to cut Pyongyang into their profits.

China has joined Japan and the United States in criticizing North Korea’s nuclear program, but it is willing to let denuclearization drag out for years in negotiations, according to Paik.

“China has been using the denuclealization of North Korea as a mechanism to control the North,” he said.

New 6-party talks

Paik and Kang remain skeptical that talks at this point would accomplish much; Pyongyang agreed to abandon its nuclear program in 2007 after much negotiation, only to resume testing two years later.

However, it does appear that China and the other members of the “six-party talks,” a group of countries that negotiated several now-tattered accords in the 2000s, are ready to talk to North Korea once again.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry recently posted a photo of Russia’s deputy foreign minister and China’s representative for Korean affairs with the following caption: “The two sides exchanged views on the situation on the Korean Peninsula, and on the restarting of the six-party talks.”

China has not provided details on what those views entail.

South Korea, Japan, the U.S., China and Russia have reached “a certain degree of consensus” on how to restart the talks that fell apart in 2008, said Hwang Joon-kook, South Korea’s ambassador to the talks — again without providing details, according to Reuters.

Meanwhile, North Korea has been firing offshore ballistic missiles while threatening America with “final doom” in its news releases. In addition to the direct threat of attack, U.S. officials worry that Pyongyang could be willing to sell weapons and missiles to other enemies of America, including terrorists.

Still, The Washington Post and others have reported that U.S. and North Korean officials had been having “talks about talks.” That would mark something of a turnaround for President Barack Obama’s policy of “strategic patience,” which has fundamentally meant no engagement with North Korea.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Bill Richardson believes there is value in talking with North Korea, he told Foreign Policy recently during an interview.

There are some areas of compromise available on human rights and family exchanges because North Korea wants access to aid and technology, he said.

Richardson, who has visited the country several times, nevertheless reflected skepticism of any quick breakthroughs.

“Their idea of a concession was they’re not going to budge, but what they will budge on is they will give you enough time to come to their conclusion, eventually.” Richardson said. “Time for them is not of the essence.”

Stars and Stripes reporter Yookyong Chang contributed to this report.

slavin.erik@stripes.com Twitter: @eslavin_stripes
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/04/116_176532.html

Posted : 2015-04-05 15:35
Updated : 2015-04-05 17:44
Seoul walks fine line in Middle East after Iran deal
음성듣기
Regional rivalry complicates South Korea's diplomacy

By Kang Hyun-kyung

Rosy predictions of a second Middle East boom have swept across Korea following the announcement last week of a tentative deal between world powers and Iran to curb the Middle Eastern nation's nuclear ambitions in return for relief from sanctions.

The Korea International Trade Association (KITA) was quick to release a report detailing the possible ramifications of the nuclear deal on the Korean economy, Friday, hours after the deal made international headlines.

If the six world powers ― namely the United States, China, Britain, France, Russia and Germany ― and Iran are able to finalize the agreement by the June 30 deadline, KITA said this will give the green light to Korean companies seeking to expand their overseas businesses.

However, some experts remain cautious about the implications of the Iranian nuclear deal on Middle East diplomacy, saying that Korea may have to brace against the consequences of the shift in the diplomatic environment.

The source of their concern is the Saudi Arabian-Iran rivalry.

"It is obvious that countries such as Saudi Arabia, for example, won't be happy if Korea steps up efforts to mend fences with Iran to help Korean companies win lucrative deals there," said Lee Kwon-hyung, head of the Middle East and Africa Team at the state-run Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP).

Lee predicted that the regional rivalry could complicate Korea's Middle East policies.

It is inevitable that Korea will walk a fine line between the two rivals in the Middle East if it attempts to maximize its vital economic interests there, said the economist.

Following her recent trips to the four Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, including Saudi Arabia, President Park Geun-hye pledged to strengthen Korea's relations with the region.

During a summit in early March, Park and Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud agreed to expand bilateral relations in the non-oil sector to help the economy of the Middle Eastern country diversify.

The Saudi government showed interest in Park's economic vision for a "creative economy," as the country strives to have strong startups to prompt innovation in the oil-dominant economy.

Saudi Arabia voiced concerns about the implications of the Iranian deal to the Middle East. Some foreign policy watchers speculated that the Saudi-led military campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen was a reflection of Saudi Arabia's anxiety about the Iranian nuclear deal.

The Saudi government "publicly welcomed" the tentative deal. But inside the country, discontent and worries are brewing over Iran's possible expansionist ambition. Proxy wars are underway between the two sides in some Middle Eastern countries such as Syria.

The political framework of the Iranian nuclear deal, meanwhile, raised hopes in South Korea because the export-led economy sees immense business opportunities in Iran in the years ahead.

"If Iran and the West finalize the agreement as scheduled and sanctions imposed on the Iranian economy are removed, we can confidently say that there will be a Middle East boom in a genuine sense," Iran expert Shin Jae-hyun said.

Shin, a former Korean ambassador for energy and resources cooperation under the Lee Myung-bak government who has travelled to Iran 28 times, predicted that the Iranian government will want to invest heavily in construction, petrochemicals and the automotive industry. This will create huge opportunities for Korean companies, he said.

KIEP economist Lee said that Iran is the biggest market in the Middle East with its 80 million population and relatively strong purchasing power compared with other countries in the region.

"The Iranian nuclear deal, if finalized, will mean that the outward-looking Korean economy will have a bigger overseas market and find immense opportunities in the country," he said.

hkang@koreatimes.co.kr,
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/opinio...cle_88a71724-16f4-5088-a50a-4a548df4870e.html

AUSTIN BAY: Evaluating the pan-Arab 'joint army'

4 hours ago • Austin Bay

A pan-Arab military coalition has begun waging war in Yemen, ostensibly on behalf of deposed Yemeni President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Is this Arab League-approved "joint army" a credible combat force?

That depends on who emerges as the joint army's central actor and commander.

So far, Saudi Arabia has served as the coalition's most prominent public advocate and actor. The Saudis contend Iran backs the Houthi insurgents who overthrew Hadi. Strong evidence supports their contention.

Yemen's war involves sectarian sympathies. Ayatollah-led Iran, the world's great Shia Muslim power, supports the Shia Houthi movement. Saudi Arabia's Wahabi-sect leaders have concluded that Iran intends to use a Houthi-infested Yemen to harass and destabilize their Sunni kingdom.

In concept, Iran's Yemen proxies would attack the Saudis in somewhat the same way Tehran uses its Lebanon-based Hezbollah proxies to harass and distract Israel. The Arabian Peninsula, rife with tribal factions, gives the Iranians numerous volatile human targets to rile and exploit. Fracturing these often delicate tribal political arrangements would be a major step toward achieving a beloved Iranian goal: toppling the Saud family regime.

Israel, a nation state rather than tribal confederation, presents Iran's ayatollahs with a much harder and more ferocious target. Nation states vary in strength, but the Israeli nation state is a high-technology, highly trained warrior nation state. Iran needs nuclear weapons to destroy the Israeli nation state. Unfortunately, ayatollah Iran's nuclear weapons quest, thanks to feckless western governments, including the current one in Washington, appears to be on the verge of succeeding.

The sectarian analysis of Iranian ambitions stresses Shia regional hegemony as Tehran's goal. It's there, but don't buy it as a sufficient answer. A "golden age" myth of Aryan divine and ethnic right to rule, circa Persian Empire 500 BC, seduces Tehran's ayatollahs. Yes, Aryan. Iran is "Aryanistan." If you didn't know that, well, now you do. Arabs are Semitic peoples. So are Jews. If you didn't know this ethnic dimension is in play, well, it is.

Now to the pan-Arab military force.

Money talks, and the Saudis have the bankroll. The Saudis also have an air force (flying U.S.-made jets) capable of conducting a credible air campaign. On March 26, the coalition's Operation Resolute Storm began with air strikes against various Houthi targets. The question is how long can they keep it up before logistic and maintenance deficiencies emerge? They can hire private contractors to provide these services.

Ground operations will determine Yemen's winner, and Egypt's large and comparatively capable army is the pan-Arab coalition's decisive force.

Bankrolls matter, but the quality of generals, captains, sergeants and privates matters as well. At times their quality matters more than cash.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi adds credibility to the coalition. Al-Sisi has the military skills. He also understands the ideological component. He has shaped his own country's fight as one against militant Islam, whether Sunni or Shiite. If al-Sisi has the final decision in the pan-Arab army's operations against Iranian proxies and — potentially — Iran itself, there is a very good chance it will prevail. If the Arab force fails? The Israelis won't.

Austin Bay, whose column is distributed by Creators Syndicate, has had two commercial war games published and served for four years as a consultant in wargaming at the Pentagon. He holds the rank of Colonel (Armor), retired, in the U.S. Army Reserve. The opinions are the writer's.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/05-Apr-2015/saudi-aggression-and-the-mercenary-state-i

Saudi aggression and the mercenary state — I
Saudi Arabia has always been a bossy key player in Pakistani politics. Along with administering large sums of money for the army and the clerics, they have been instrumental in toppling unwanted governments and bringing favourites to power

Lal Khan
April 05, 2015
Be First To Comment

What has been shocking for Pakistan’s ruling elite, the state’s bosses and media and intelligentsia barons has been the negative response of the masses at large to becoming an accomplice in the Saudi monarchy’s brutal aggression against Yemen. Some in the media have even dared to reveal the vicious character of the despotic Saudi regime and its atrocious treatment of more than 2.5 million Pakistani immigrant workers, banished into slavery and drudgery by these tyrannical monarchs. The hesitation, lack of confidence and hypocrisy of the rulers is pathetic. An official press report said, “Pakistan called upon the United Nations, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the international community to play a constructive role in finding a political solution to the crisis in Yemen. An official statement from the PM House had said the meeting concluded that Pakistan remains firmly committed to supporting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Pakistan. It was also emphasised in the meeting that Pakistan is committed to playing a meaningful role in resolving the deteriorating situation in the Middle East.”

What a laughable, pathetic and spineless response! In reality, what is said about consulting parliament and informing the people is a brazen, cynical, stinking farce. These rulers are mere puppets that are informed about military operations and other crucial foreign policy decisions by the top bosses of the state and their imperialist masters actually calling the shots, mostly after they have already been executed.

Nawaz Sharif was granted amnesty under pressure from the Saudi monarchs and spent his years in exile after Musharraf’s coup in 1999 in Saudi Arabia, where he was a guest of the royal family (which was also his business partner) and lived in obscene luxury. The Saudi royals paved the way for his return to the country and road to power. On his coming to power in 2013, he was doled out a gift of $ 1.5 billion by the Saudi government. Despite his frequent visits and business deals with China, Turkey and Qatar, and his bondage with US masters, he is still more indebted to the Saudi monarchy. Saudi Arabia regularly provides free oil for Pakistan’s military and other ‘gifts’ on a regular basis. With tanks, fighter planes and naval ships running on Saudi oil, it is not an option for the Pakistani ruling class to deny their master’s orders. Pakistan’s mullahs and religious parties also regularly get huge donations and Wahabi indoctrination to run their madrassas (seminaries) and terrorist outfits. Saudi Arabia was the first country in the whole world to recognise the Taliban government in Afghanistan back in 1996.

Saudi Arabia has always been a bossy key player in Pakistani politics. Along with administering large sums of money for the army and the clerics, they have been instrumental in toppling unwanted governments and bringing favourites to power. All this was being done in cooperation with the US imperialist masters. But, since then, fissures have been developing in US-Saudi relations and it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Pakistani ruling class to serve two masters at the same time.

For the working masses this patronage by Saudi monarchs for the right wing parties and ruling class of Pakistan was always presented in the garb of the holy land’s benefaction for their religious brethren. But those working in this ‘holy land’ always know the disgusting attitude towards them, as Saudi rulers consider them slaves and untouchables. They can never get the nationality of this holy land and always need a Saudi citizen’s guarantee to work or do any kind of business. The Saudi regime’s contemptuous attitude towards Pakistanis is laid bare by the fact that no Pakistani under the age of 40 is allowed to perform umrah, which is also a form of pilgrimage to the holy Kaaba in all months of the year except the month of hajj. Even Indian Muslims and those from all countries of the world are not subjected to this prohibition. However, every Pakistani ruler goes for umrah when their rule is threatened, less to pay homage to the holy sites and more to get blessings from the mighty Al Saud King who pulls the strings of the Pakistani state and power brokers. Millions of Pakistanis, mainly from the petit bourgeoisie, visit Mecca and Medina for hajj every year, which is a big source of income for this reactionary Saudi regime.

On the other hand, the Saudi army, which is the fourth most costly in the world, has never been to war. When the Saudis moved to crush the revolution in Bahrain in 2011, they relied heavily on Pakistani soldiers and mercenaries. The Saudis allegedly called recently for the Pakistani army to deploy 30,000 troops on the border of Saudi Arabia with Iraq and Syria to defend the House of Saud against an impending attack by the Islamic State (IS). It is clear that the kingdom does not trust its own forces, which could just as well turn their expensive arms against the House of Saud itself. This shows the intrinsic weakness of this despotic regime and fears of the ruling elite.

Saudi Arabian fighter aircraft have been ferociously bombing targets across Yemen, killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians, including children, but it is clear that this figure will dramatically rise, as the targets of the attack are moving into the populated areas in Sanaa and the northern Houthi villages. Refugee camps, factories and congested civilian areas are being bombed. The infrastructure, whole towns and cities are being destroyed and turned into ruins. Along with the Arab states’ ‘holy’ alliance, Israel is also bombing Houthis in Yemen. This shows the decline of this system, where events are now exposing the farce of diplomacy and state-sponsored ideologies of hating Israel and hollow slogans for Palestinian freedom. It shows the class unity of repressive regimes and why workers from all religious and national backgrounds should come together and fight against this cruel system.

Yemen, which is the poorest Arab country, has yet again become a target for savage attacks by the Saudi regime. The burgeoning domestic crisis has given birth to a waning hegemony in the region and the rising desperation of the reactionary Saud family, with its aggravating internal feuds with the present clique that has come to power with the advent of King Salman to the throne. His 30-year-old son, Mohammad, who has been appointed the new defence minister, is a bully gone berserk. In reality, they are trying to protect the Saudi ruling class and its imperialist designs in the Middle East. The Saudis could not accept the disintegration of Yemen and it falling into the hands of Iranian-backed forces on its southern borders. Since the Iraq war, Iran and now to some extent Qatar have developed into the biggest threat to the supremacy of Saudi Arabia in the region. Turkey is also growing its influence by supporting IS in Iraq and Syria and other proxies in the region.


(To be concluded)


The writer is the editor of Asian Marxist Review and international secretary of Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign. He can be reached at ptudc@hotmail.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150405/iran_nuclear-analysis-1950fe90f9.html

Analysis: Nuclear agreement risks projecting US weakness

Apr 5, 2:41 PM (ET)
By DAN PERRY

(AP) In this file photo taken Saturday, Aug. 30, 2014, Iranian President Hassan...
Full Image

CAIRO (AP) — On a basic level, the framework deal between world powers and Tehran will be judged by whether it prevents an Iranian bomb, but that will take years to figure out.

A more immediate issue is the projection of Western power. Supporters of the framework deal can argue that the U.S. and world powers extracted significant concessions from Iran, breaking a decade-long impasse and proving that diplomacy backed by tough sanctions can bring about positive change even in the Middle East.

But if, as critics contend, the agreement ends up projecting U.S. weakness instead, that could embolden rogue states and extremists alike, and make the region's vast array of challenges -- from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Syrian civil war to the fighting in Libya and Yemen -- even more impervious to Western intervention.

The United States wants to rein in Syria's President Bashar Assad as his ruinous civil war grinds into year five. It would like to encourage more liberal domestic policies in Egypt and push Iraq's leaders to govern more inclusively. Despite years of setbacks, the U.S. would still like to see a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

(AP) In this file photo taken Friday April 3, 2015, Iranian President Hassan...
Full Image

But if leaders in those places read the fine print of the agreement the U.S. and other world powers hope to reach with Iran by June 30 and conclude that they were duped or have flinched, these leaders will be less likely to give in to pressure in the future, rendering the Iran agreement a lonely foreign policy achievement clouded by the region's chaos.

The implications may first be seen in Iran itself. If the agreement leads to acceptance of Iran's theocracy, hard-liners could feel less pressure to curb their support of regional militant groups and crack down even harder on dissent at home. They would be flush with cash from the lifting of sanctions and emboldened in their confidence that the West will turn a blind eye.

Alternatively, the deal could mark a major victory for President Hassan Rouhani, a relative moderate, and a broader rapprochement could bring about a Persian glasnost of sorts that leads to democratic reform.

Whichever direction Iran goes will have wide-ranging implications for the rest of the region. Iran backs powerful Shiite proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. It also has supported the Palestinian Hamas, the Sunni Islamists who rule Gaza. Sunni powers like Egypt and Saudi Arabia fear and distrust Iran and have warned of a regional arms race if it becomes a threshold nuclear weapons state. Saudi-led warplanes are bombing the Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen, who are supported by Iran, though both Tehran and the rebels deny it arms them.

The implications of a weak United States, meanwhile, are not just regional but global, affecting events from Russia to China and North Korea — as well as the prospects for global accords on climate change or even significant trade deals.

(AP) In this Monday, June 10, 2013, photo, Iranian President-elect Hassan Rouhani,...
Full Image

Many of these questions will only be answered by the final agreement, assuming there is one. For now, both sides are presenting the framework accord as a major accomplishment.

On one hand, Iran accepted limits on its enrichment levels and centrifuge numbers to prevent the accumulation of weapons-grade material for a decade or more. "Breakout time" to a bomb would be extended from mere months to a year or more.

But on the other, its right to enrich uranium would be enshrined, its facilities would remain in place, the sanctions would be lifted and a sort of legitimacy bestowed.

Critics in Israel and elsewhere cannot understand why world powers, who could afford to play for time, did not squeeze Iran by presenting it with a mind-clearing choice between having a nuclear program and having an economy. They never believed Iran's claims that — with oil in generous supply — it was investing such effort for nuclear energy and research. They expect Iran's energies to now focus on fooling the inspectors and developing a bomb.

That won't be easy. Under the framework deal the U.N. nuclear agency would have substantially more authority than it has had in the past. The fact sheet issued by the U.S. says Iran has agreed to grant inspectors more intrusive access to both declared and undeclared facilities — access that may not be "anytime, anywhere," but goes far beyond anything that was in place when weapons were developed by India, Pakistan, North Korea — and Israel.

(AP) In this file photo taken Thursday, April 2, 2015, from left, EU High...
Full Image

Supporters of the deal argue that any risks that may remain are preferable to war. Implied is the admission that a global consensus on tougher sanctions to force Iran to its knees was unattainable -- Russia, China and even India could not necessarily be corralled. That would leave armed force, never taken off the table, as the only remaining option.

Some also note that viewing Iran as an implacable regional menace is simplistic. Iran backs groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which the West views as terrorist organizations, but it is also training and supporting Shiite militias battling the Islamic State group in Iraq, where Washington and Tehran have found themselves on the same side of the conflict.

Washington's bridled ambitions are understandable given its recent failures in the region. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are still at war more than a decade after the U.S.-led invasions. The Islamic State group, an al-Qaida breakaway, controls a third of both Syria and Iraq. A NATO intervention helped topple dictator Moammar Gadhafi, but Libya today is a failed state in the grip of rival militias and jihadi groups. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in shambles.

One senses, beyond the specifics of the Iran deal, an implied admission by the global powers: there is a limit to countries' ability to interfere with one another, however interdependent the world may be.

Ironically, it is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the most outspoken opponent of the Iran deal — who might have reason to appreciate this kind of humility. Recently re-elected and at odds with the White House, Netanyahu faces a global clamor to end the West Bank settlement project and enable the creation of a Palestinian state. If the United States and other powers got serious about enforcing their will on other countries, Israel could be no less a candidate than Iran.

---

George Jahn contributed to this report from Lausanne, Switzerland. Follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/georgejahn

---

Dan Perry is AP's Middle East editor leading text coverage in the region. Follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/perry_dan
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150405/af--kenya-university_attack-eb70c1ec73.html

Gunman in Kenyan massacre was government official's son

Apr 5, 2:29 PM (ET)
By TOM ODULA and CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

(AP) Christians sing during the service at the Our Lady of Consolation Church, which was...
Full Image

GARISSA, Kenya (AP) — One of the gunmen who slaughtered 148 people at a college in Kenya was identified Sunday as the law-school-educated son of a Kenyan government official, underscoring the inroads Islamic extremists have made in recruiting young people to carry out attacks against their own country.

Abdirahim Mohammed Abdullahi, who was killed by security forces Thursday along with the three other militants who stormed Garissa University College, was the son of a government chief in Mandera County, which borders Somalia, Interior Ministry spokesman Mwenda Njoka told The Associated Press.

The chief had reported his son missing last year and feared he had gone to Somalia, Njoka said.

Somalia's al-Shabab militant group claimed responsibility for the bloodbath, saying it was retribution for Kenya's sending of troops to Somalia to fight the extremists. The attackers separated Christian students from Muslim ones and massacred the Christians.

(AP) A nun prays during the service at the Our Lady of Consolation Church, which was...
Full Image

The news that one of the gunmen was Kenyan highlights the challenges faced by the government in preventing terrorist attacks. The danger comes not only from neighboring Somalia but also from within Kenya.

Kenyans make up the largest number of foreign fighters in al-Shabab, according to experts. Hundreds of Kenyan youths have trained with al-Shabab and then returned to Kenya, posing a major security threat, according to former police chief Mathew Iteere.

Kenya's government has said another source of instability is the country's refugee camps, with more than 423,000 Somali refugees.

Abdullahi graduated from the University of Nairobi with a law degree in 2013 and was seen as a "brilliant upcoming lawyer," according to Njoka.

Njoka said it is important for parents to inform authorities if their children disappear or seem to be embracing extremism.

(AP) Christian women and children are scanned with a metal detector and have their bags...
Full Image

Meanwhile, questions have been raised about the security response to the Garissa attack.

Police waited seven hours before sending a special tactical unit into the college to fight the gunmen, Kenya's Daily Nation newspaper reported Sunday.

When the specially trained police finally went in, it took them only 30 minutes to kill the four attackers and stop the siege, the paper said.

Army barracks are just 500 meters (540 yards) from the college, and military officers said they could handle the attack, said a police officer who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media. Only after three soldiers were killed did the army call in the police tactical unit, he said.

Before the massacre, northeastern Kenya had seen other deadly attacks by al-Shabab against Christians.

(AP) Christian women and children are scanned with a metal detector and have their bags...
Full Image

Several hundred grieving Christians marked Easter Sunday at a Catholic church in Garissa, where Bishop Joseph Alessandro drew a parallel between the ordeal of Jesus Christ and that of the stricken town.

"We join the sufferings of the relatives and the victims with the sufferings of Jesus," he told the congregation at Our Lady of Consolation Church. "The victims will rise again with Christ."

As for al-Shabab's followers, Alessandro said, "You don't know who they are. They could be your neighbors."

Security forces patrolled the perimeter of the church, the site of a grenade attack by militants three years ago that wounded worshipers.

"We just keep on praying that God can help us, to comfort us in this difficult time," said Dominick Odhiambo, a worshipper who said he planned to abandon his job as a plumber in Garissa and leave for his hometown because he was afraid.

---

Odula contributed to this report from Nairobi, Kenya.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-request-help-yemen-puts-pakistani-pm-bind-010125530.html

Saudi request for help in Yemen puts Pakistani PM in a bind

Reuters
By Katharine Houreld
30 minutes ago

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan's parliament begins debating a Saudi plea for military help in Yemen on Monday, a request that pits Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's staunch Saudi allies against a war-weary Pakistani public.

Since Saudi Arabia, the Gulf's main Sunni Muslim power, asked Sunni-majority Pakistan to join a Saudi-led military coalition that began conducting air strikes last month against largely Shi'ite Houthi forces in Yemen, Sharif has hedged his bets.

He has said repeatedly he will defend any threat to Saudi Arabia's "territorial integrity" without defining what action such a threat might provoke.

"They're looking to satisfy Saudi expectations at a minimal level," said Arif Rafiq, a Washington-based adjunct scholar with the Middle East Institute. "They're unlikely to be part of any meaningful action inside Yemen. Maybe they will reinforce the (Saudi) border."

Sharif owes the Saudis. Endemic tax dodging means Pakistan needs regular injections of foreign cash to avoid economic meltdown. Last year, the Saudis gave Pakistan $1.5 billion. Saudi Arabia also sheltered Sharif after he was overthrown in a 1999 military coup.

But joining the Saudi-led coalition could inflame a sectarian conflict at home where around a fifth of the population is Shi'ite and attacks on Shi'ites are increasing, further destabilizing the nuclear-armed nation of 180 million people.

Pakistani intervention would probably also anger Shi'ite power Iran, which shares a long and porous border in a region roiling with its own separatist insurgency. Pakistan's other main borders are with arch enemy India and Afghanistan, where Pakistan troops are already conducting anti-Taliban operations. The Iranian foreign minister will visit Pakistan this week.

NOT SAUDI'S HANDMAIDEN

Pakistani public opinion is also largely against intervention in any Saudi-led action in Yemen.

"It must be remembered that Pakistan is not Saudi Arabia's handmaiden, doing its bidding at the flick of a wrist," said a Friday editorial in English daily The Express Tribune.

Many analysts say the military, which has ruled Pakistan for over half its existence since independence, has the final call. So far, the generals have been silent.

Pakistan has nearly 1.5 million active soldiers and reserves, but around a third of those are tied up with operations along the Afghan border. The bulk of the remaining forces face off with nuclear-armed India. Others are executing the government's new counter-terrorism plan.

Even though Saudi Arabia is a "special friend" of both the government and the military, Pakistani intervention in Yemen might be unwise, said retired Major General Mahmud Ali Durrani, a former national security adviser.

"If it was to defend Saudi Arabia against aggression, in spite of our commitments, I think we would stretch to sending troops," he said. "To send our troops to a third country - I think that would be foolhardy.

"Either way, it is an absolutely terrible choice to be made for Pakistan."

(Editing by Nick Macfie and Ian Geoghegan)

View Comments (5)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/04/06/egypt-violence-idINKBN0MW08C20150406

World | Mon Apr 6, 2015 7:58am IST
Related: World
Militants attack church and police in Egypt, one policeman dead
CAIRO/ISMAILIA | By Ahmed Tolba and Yousri Mohamed

(Reuters) - Islamist militants hit Egypt's two largest cities on Sunday with a bombing in Cairo and an attack on a church in Alexandria, leaving one policeman dead and seven people wounded, security sources said.

In a separate incident, the leader of a militant group that has targeted police and soldiers around the capital was killed in a firefight with security forces early on Sunday, the interior ministry said.

Egypt is facing an insurgency based in North Sinai that has killed hundreds of soldiers and police since the army toppled Islamist president Mohamed Mursi in 2013 following mass protests against his rule.

Most militant attacks have taken place in the Sinai Peninsula, a remote but strategic region bordering Gaza, Israel and the Suez Canal. Smaller-scale bombings have become increasingly common in Cairo and other cities.

A bomb explosion on a bridge leading to the upscale Cairo district of Zamalek, which hosts many embassies, killed one policeman, the interior ministry said. Two more officers and a civilian were injured.

The force of the bomb, which the sources said was planted in or near a car, left a shallow crater and pools of blood on the 15 May Bridge.

In Alexandria, militants in a micro bus shot at the Church of the Angel Rafael, wounding one police officer and three civilians before fleeing, security sources said.

On Saturday, two bombs exploded near a police station in the residential Imbaba district across the Nile River from Zamalek, causing no casualties.

Sunday's bombing was claimed on Twitter by Ajnad Misr, a militant group that emerged in January 2014 and has targeted security forces in and around Cairo.

"God has enabled our brave soldiers to plant an IED where the criminal (security) services were gathered on the bridge," Ajnad Misr's media wing said.

In a separate incident, the founder and leader of Ajnad Misr was killed by security forces, security sources said.

Hammam Mohamed Ahmed Attia of Ajnad Misr was shot dead during a clash around 1 a.m. (2300 GMT) at an apartment in Giza, a suburb of the capital, the security sources said.

The interior ministry said in a statement that under his leadership, the group had launched 26 attacks on police and soldiers.

Security sources say the group is guided by a conservative Salafist Islamist ideology but it is not believed to have ties to al Qaeda or the Egyptian affiliate of Islamic State, Sinai Province.

Sinai Province has claimed responsibility for much of the violence wracking the Sinai, while Ajnad has focused more on the greater Cairo area.

In North Sinai, a soldier was found dead with a gunshot wound to the head, apparently executed after militant attacks on Thursday that security sources said killed 17 soldiers and three civilians. The army was not immediately available for comment.

(Reporting by Ahmed Tolba in Cairo and Yousri Mohamed in Ismailia; Additional reporting by Omar Fahmy; Writing By Shadi Bushra; Editing by Yara Bayoumy, Tom Heneghan and Marguerita Choy)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/05/libya-security-oil-idUSL6N0X203E20150405

Industries | Sun Apr 5, 2015 1:02pm EDT
Related: Energy, Industrials
UPDATE 3-As war grows, Libya's official government in new bid for oil cash

(Adds details from NOC official, oil production)

(Reuters) - Libya's Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni has said his government would run its own oil sales and deposit revenues abroad in a bid to divert proceeds away from a rival self-declared administration in Tripoli.

Crude revenues are at the heart of a battle for control of the North African OPEC producer that has pitted the two rival governments against each other in a growing conflict, four years after the civil war ousted strongman Muammar Gaddafi.

On Sunday, a suicide bomber struck at a checkpoint near the Tripoli-allied town of Misrata, killing at least six people and wounding 40 more, according to a local news agency.

Thinni, based in the eastern city of Al-Bayda, announced late on Saturday he had authorised his internationally recognised government's oil corporation to open a separate bank account in the United Arab Emirates for oil revenues and to seek independent oil sales.

Until now oil sales and revenues have gone through Libya's central bank and National Oil Corporation in Tripoli, where a rival administration took over last summer. The Tripoli-based NOC has tried to stay out of the conflict between the rival governments.

Analysts say Thinni's government will struggle to convince international traders it is legally entitled to claim ownership of Libyan crude.

"The purpose of opening a bank account in the United Arab Emirates is the collection ... of oil revenues," Al-Mabrook Bou Seif, head of Thinni's NOC in eastern Libya, told Reuters.

He said any revenues from sales would be transferred from there to a central bank branch in Al-Bayda. He said several foreign partners had been contacted but gave no details.

Officials from the Tripoli-based state firm, also known as NOC, were not immediately available to comment on the plan.

Thinni's government also plans to open representative offices of its NOC in the United States, Britain and Germany, and carry out swaps of Libyan crude for refined products and fuel to provide basic supplies.

COMPLICATIONS

Oil experts say it will be difficult for Thinni to assert more control on the sector as this would likely require adjusting contracts with Libya's clients. Thousands of maps, documents and contracts are at the NOC headquarters in Tripoli.

Libya now produces around 600,000 barrels of crude per day, less than half the 1.6 million bpd it produced before the fall of Gaddafi. Several oil ports and major fields have been closed by fighting but the two biggest oil ports, Ras Lanuf and Es Sider with a combined capacity of 600,000 bpd, may open soon.

Seeking separate oil transactions, though, may exacerbate the conflict with the Tripoli administration.

On Sunday, war planes allied to Thinni's government carried out airstrikes on the outskirts of Tripoli, an air force spokesman said. There were no immediate reports of damage or casualties.

Introducing a new payment mechanism would also mean breaking up the central bank system, the only source of hard currency for importers and one of the last institutions left untouched by the rival governments' power struggle. It still pays public salaries across the country. (Reporting by Firas Bosalum; Writing by Patrick Markey; Editing by Tom Heneghan)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://in.newshub.org/why-saudi-ar...yemen-puts-pm-nawaz-sharif-bind-14965763.html

Why Saudi Arabia's request to Pakistan for help in Yemen puts PM Nawaz Sharif in bind

6 April, 2015 3:10 AM

Pakistan's parliament begins debating a Saudi plea for military help in Yemen on Monday, a request that pits Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's staunch Saudi allies against a war-weary Pakistani public.

Since Saudi Arabia, the Gulf's main Sunni Muslim power, asked Sunni-majority Pakistan to join a Saudi-led military coalition that began conducting air strikes last month against largely Shi'ite Houthi forces in Yemen, Sharif has hedged his bets. He has said repeatedly he will defend any threat to Saudi Arabia's "territorial integrity" without defining what action such a threat might provoke.

"They're looking to satisfy Saudi expectations at a minimal level," said Arif Rafiq, a Washington-based adjunct scholar with the Middle East Institute. "They're unlikely to be part of any meaningful action inside Yemen. Maybe they will reinforce the (Saudi) border."

Sharif owes the Saudis. Endemic tax dodging means Pakistan needs regular injections of foreign cash to avoid economic meltdown. Last year, the Saudis gave Pakistan $1.5 billion. Saudi Arabia also sheltered Sharif after he was overthrown in a 1999 military coup. But joining the Saudi-led coalition could inflame a sectarian conflict at home where around a fifth of the population is Shi'ite and attacks on Shi'ites are increasing, further destabilising the nuclear-armed nation of 180 million people.

Pakistani intervention would probably also anger Shi'ite power Iran, which shares a long and porous border in a region roiling with its own separatist insurgency. Pakistan's other main borders are with arch enemy India and Afghanistan, where Pakistan troops are already conducting anti-Taliban operations. The Iranian foreign minister will visit Pakistan this week.

Pakistani public opinion is also largely against intervention in any Saudi-led action in Yemen. "It must be remembered that Pakistan is not Saudi Arabia's handmaiden, doing its bidding at the flick of a wrist," said a Friday editorial in English daily The Express Tribune.

Many analysts say the military, which has ruled Pakistan for over half its existence since independence, has the final call. So far, the generals have been silent.

Pakistan has nearly 1.5 million active soldiers and reserves, but around a third of those are tied up with operations along the Afghan border. The bulk of the remaining forces face off with nuclear-armed India. Others are executing the government's new counter-terrorism plan.

Even though Saudi Arabia is a "special friend" of both the government and the military, Pakistani intervention in Yemen might be unwise, said retired Major General Mahmud Ali Durrani, a former national security adviser. "If it was to defend Saudi Arabia against aggression, in spite of our commitments, I think we would stretch to sending troops," he said. "To send our troops to a third country - I think that would be foolhardy.

"Either way, it is an absolutely terrible choice to be made for Pakistan."
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/smackdown-the-houthis-will-crush-saudi-arabia-yemen-12546

Smackdown: The Houthis Will Crush Saudi Arabia in Yemen[1]
Barak Barfi [2]
Tweet [3]

For the better part of its independent history Yemen has been plagued by conflict and turmoil. Since the September 11 Attacks, al-Qaeda’s robust presence there has alarmed Washington policymakers. Today, however, a more conventional conflict threatens its stability and that of the larger Middle East. It has become the epicenter of the Iranian-Saudi Arabian proxy war that has gripped the region. The Yemeni theater is one that the Saudis cannot afford to lose. But unless the Saudis conjure up a heretofore absent genie, the Iranian juggernaut will likely prevail.

The Saudis are backing embattled President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. In January, a rebel group known as the Houthis overthrew [4] him. Drawing on their common Shia roots, the Iranians have come to their aid, setting up the latest Iranian-Saudi showdown.

From Lebanon to Syria via the Palestinians, Iranians proxies have defeated groups backed by the Saudis. The preferred Saudi strategy of showering surrogates with cash has been no match for the Iranians, who prize combat prowess. Iranian proxies are seasoned in guerrilla warfare. Groups such as Hizballah, which have fought Israel to a standstill, have much to offer the Houthis.

What will likely determine the outcome of this battle is the Iranian dedication to the cause. They are latecomers to Yemen—they only started aiding the Houthis in recent years—and do not have the same strategic interests there as the Saudis. Syria is a much more important asset in the Iranian constellation, because it provides a land-based lifeline to Hizballah, and it prevents the regional isolation that the mullahs dread most. Because Syria is taxing Iran’s capabilities, Tehran might not believe that squandering resources in Yemen is wise.

Yet, in past conflicts with the Houthis, the Saudis fared poorly. In 2009-2010, the Saudis launched [5] an air campaign against them that resulted in more than a hundred casualties and dozens of prisoners of war. This time, to shore up their military shortcomings, the Saudis assembled a ten-nation coalition, with Egypt as its head. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has pledged to send [6] ground troops to aid the Saudi air campaign. Though Egypt has the most powerful Arab military force, that is a low bar in a region where an Arab-led army has not defeated a non-Arab army since the 9th century.

The last campaign fought by Egyptian forces in Yemen ended disastrously. Supporting [7] the republicans in a civil war against the royalists they had overthrown, the Egyptians suffered 26,000 casualties from 1962 to 1970. At its peak, there were between 60,000-85,000 Egyptian troops in Yemen. The Egyptian military, trained to fight the Israelis in open deserts, not tribesmen in mountainous highlands, was ill-prepared for the Yemeni theater. They could not control large parts of the country. Describing the Egyptian ineptitude during a May 1967 visit, Le Monde [8] correspondent Eric Rouleau [8] wrote, “ambushes, harassments, surprise attacks by irregulars, the tribal guerrillas, get the better of a modern army manifestly incapable of confronting the ‘elusive phantoms.’” As a result, the Egyptians frequently resorted to poison gas. In explaining why Egypt was defeated by a ragtag insurgency armed with recoilless rifles, Ken Pollack [9] wrote that “Egypt’s generals apparently never figured out how to defeat a guerilla force.”

Since then, the Egyptians have not gotten much better at fighting insurgencies. They have been unable to quell a Sinai insurrection [10], whose cadres are much less experienced than the Houthis who fought six wars against the Yemeni government from 2004-2010. Slow moving Egyptian armor will likely be no match for the nimble Houthis’ ample experience with hit and run tactics against the Yemeni military.

To ensure that the Egyptians will not bear the brunt of the burden, President Sisi has called for a 40,000-man army to be drawn [11] from various Arab states. But past attempts to create such a force have never come to fruition. An ambitious plan spearheaded by Egypt and Syria floundered in its attempt to create an Arab force to protect the Persian Gulf principalities in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. It was left to the United States to be the sheriff of the Persian Gulf. And when the Arabs have deployed peacekeeping forces in places like Lebanon, they have been little more than spectators to ongoing fighting.

The Saudis claim their goal is to restore the legitimate government to power. But their dilemma is that this fictitious government exists only in the minds of the international community. When the Houthis overthrew President Hadi, his government withered away. Real power lies with former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was forced to step down in 2012. He controls the military that sat on the sidelines as the Houthis defeated his enemies.

Though some units such as Brigade 111 [12] have declared for President Hadi, most remain loyal to Saleh. But it is not only the military that will likely decide this contest. The tribes will play an important role. Tribal alliances proved crucial to the successful Houthi march from the northern province of Saada to the capital of Sana’a. In the province of Amran, they cut a deal with the Banu Suraym tribe. Before entering Sana’a, they allied with the clans surrounding the city such as Bani Matar and Khawlan.

The Saudi quandary is that their chief tribal allies have gone into hibernation. The Ahmar family, the most influential clan in Yemen, was soundly defeated by the Houthis last year. The Saudis, who have long kept a number of Yemen’s tribes on their payroll, are hoping their cash will save them. But like the Egyptians in the 1960s, they may learn that purchased loyalty is fleeting. During the civil war, the Egyptians complained that tribesmen were republican by day, only to change into royalist clothes at night.

The Saudi coalition has had some early success. Airstrikes have halted [13] the Houthi advance against the southern port city of Aden, where Hadi sought refuge. But it is doubtful that the Saudis can dislodge the Houthis from Sana’a and its environs, where their brand of Shiism preponderates. And if the Saudi coalition gets bogged down in a country that turned into an Egyptian graveyard, the Iranians will rejoice at their latest conquest over their rivals.

Barak Barfi [14] is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

Image: [15] Flickr/Al Jazeera English
Topics
Security [16]
Regions
Middle East [17]
Tweet [3]
inShare
Source URL (retrieved on April 6, 2015): http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/smackdown-the-houthis-will-crush-saudi-arabia-yemen-12546

Links:
[1] http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/smackdown-the-houthis-will-crush-saudi-arabia-yemen-12546
[2] http://www.nationalinterest.org/profile/barak-barfi
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...sanaa-weeks-house-arrest-150221090018174.html
[5] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2009/11/20091151323886933.html
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-houthis-yemen.html?_r=0
[7] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/redux-how-yemen-buries-foreign-powers-12512
[8] http://www.lemonde.fr/archives/arti...-rouge_2627114_1819218.html?xtmc=yemen&xtcr=2
[9] http://books.google.com/books/about/Arabs_at_War.html?id=tFRP5WvTDWkC
[10] http://time.com/3612225/william-henderson-sinai-egypt/
[11] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...ate-joint-military-force-150329103508213.html
[12] http://www.alarabiya.net/ar/saudi-t...لحزم-اللواء-111-يعلن-دعمه-للشرعية-باليمن.html
[13] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/yemen-leader-loyalists-drive-houthis-aden-150403132431234.html
[14] http://newamerica.net/user/492
[15] https://www.flickr.com/photos/aljazeeraenglish/4126177346/sizes/o/
[16] http://www.nationalinterest.org/topic/security
[17] http://www.nationalinterest.org/region/middle-east
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nation.com.pk/columns/06-Apr-2015/the-yemen-conflict

The Yemen conflict
April 06, 2015
Gen (r) Mirza Aslam Beg

Yemen has remained a ‘Crisis Zone’ of the Middle Eastern Region for the last half a century. In 1962, Gamal Abdul Nasir of Egypt having swept across Middle East invaded Yemen, putting the fear of God, into the hearts of the monarchs from Baghdad to Sana’a. He engineered a revolt in Sana’a using the Houthi tribesmen, and overthrew the monarch. Luckily for Yemen and other monarchies, Egypt faced defeat at the hands of the Israelis, in the 1967 six days’ war. Something very similar is now happening in Yemen, with Iran having gained influence from Damascus to Baghdad to Sana’a, is supporting the Houthis, in Yemen. These Houthis engineered a successful revolt against President Hadi, and continue to thrust forward capturing a swathe of territory, including the presidential palace in Sana’a and the strategic port of Bab-el-Mandeb, despite the intensive aerial bombing by the Arab Coalition. The Yemen conflict thus, is posing a serious security threat to Saudi Arabia. The causes that have brought about this crisis are not difficult to identify.

The past is haunting both, the Saudis and the Yemenis, who had been at odds with each other for over a hundred years. The present day regional geo-politics has added new dimension to the past. The Arab Spring is a cause, which swept the region toppling monarchies and helped Iran to “deftly maneuver among the wreckage of the Arab Spring, in an effort to construct a Shiite axis, extending from Tehran to Sana’a,” something very similar to Gamal Nasir’s ambitions, to spread the Arab revolution from Cairo to Sana’a. So far, Iran is jubilant about their successes, but in fact, their over reach in Syria, Iraq and now in Yemen, may turn into a long protracted war, which could wear down Iranian forces.

There lies the American conspiracy, to sharpen the Shia-Sunni divide. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 80’s, many sectarian riots, were contrived in Pakistan, which created several militant groups such as Sipah-e-Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Mohammed. In 2003, when Iraq was invaded, bloody sectarian riots again erupted, both in Iraq and Pakistan. For the last three decades, Iran has been demonized as a great threat to the Sunni countries in the region, who, out of fear have purchased military hardware from the US worth over two hundred billion US dollars. Resultantly, Saudi Arabia and GCC militarily intervened in Bahrain in 2009, to crush the Shia upspring there. Now the Shia and Sunni countries are pitched against each other in Syria and Iraq against the ISIS, and now in Yemen. The venom of sectarian hatred thus has seeped into the deep recesses of minds, that the Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, in his recent Khutba, has decreed total war against the Shias, which is rather unfortunate.

The US is now stoking the sectarian divide at both ends. It has lifted the ban on military aid to Egypt, and is rushing military hardware to the Arab Coalition. At the other end, a big favour has been done to Iran, on the Nuclear Deal Framework, which would lead to lifting of sanctions and embargoes, and will energize the Iranian economy to support their military adventures beyond their borders. The sectarian divide thus, is threatening the security of the Muslim world.

Being a close neighbor and friend of both, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has a responsibility in that it must take a dispassionate look at the crisis in Yemen, to identify the real threat to Saudi Arabia. Fortunately for us both, the 1991 Gulf war and the Yemen crisis provide clear indicators to determine a viable course of action. In 1991, US deployed large forces in Saudi Arabia, against the impeding threat from Iraq. Over 15,000 Pakistani troops, including an armoured brigade were already stationed there. The Pakistan government wanted our troops to be placed under the command of the Saudis, to provide defense against Saddam’s forces. I disagreed with the decision, because I firmly believed that the Americans were there not to defend Saudi Arabia, but to destroy Saddam’s forces. Saddam was thus bated to invade and annex Kuwait, and as his forces moved out towards Kuwait, into the open desert, American airpower destroyed them, piece by piece. With the mission accomplished, the war ended and Saudi Arabia sent our troops packing to Pakistan.

During the war, I visited my troops in Saudi Arabia and also called upon General Showarteoff, in his command headquarters – a massive underground complex built by Pakistani engineers. I had an interesting discussion with him. He remarked: “The Pentagon seems to have shifted the goal post for me.” “What do you mean by that?” I asked him. He replied, “You will see it happen.” And it did happen, as we saw Saddam’s forces decimated in the desert. That was Desert Storm and now it is Decisive Storm.

It is a precarious situation for the Saudis because Houthis’ success in Yemen poses a serious threat to Saudi Arabia’s national security in several ways. The defense of a long border of over 1700 kilometers is a well-nigh impossible task against intrusions, into the border region, which is mostly inhabited by the Shias. These are the areas where the main oil wells are located. Hence a state of panic prevails in Saudi Arabia, who also knows the reality that the Houthis are hardened fighters and with the tactical support of Iran, Arab forces find it extremely difficult to stand up to them. Hence, the option of aerial bombing, which has also failed to create the desired effect. Yemen is swarming with militants of all sorts. There are the Mujahideen from the Afghanistan war of 80s whom former president Saleh employed to defeat South Yemen rebels in 1991-1994, and united the country. The UN report says there are over 25,000 Mujahideen from 80 countries, who are supporting ISIS in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen. In fact, Yemen is another Libya in the making; perhaps even worse than that.

At the moment, the threat to Saudi Arabia is real and it is mainly from within. The Saudi Wahabi dissidents, numbering over 10,000 are the second largest component of ISIS in Syria/Iraq. Their only mission is to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. The southern region of Saudi Arabia is also vulnerable to Yemeni militants. There is no military threat to Saudi Arabia as such, nor is there any threat to the House of God.

In this situation, how can Pakistan help Saudi Arabia, is the moot question. Pakistan should help actualize King Salman’s initiative: “Hold peace talks under the auspices of GCC, to restore Yemen’s territorial integrity and remove security threats to neighboring countries.” Therefore, Pakistan needs to launch a very aggressive diplomacy to achieve these objectives and has already joined Turkey to provide logistic support to Saudi Arabia. Logistic Support, in its wider sense means, that both Pakistan and Turkey could help Saudi Arabia ensure territorial and internal security. The option to launch ground action into Yemen is fraught with danger, because to fight a protracted asymmetric war is beyond the capability of the coalition armed forces. Let Iranians burn their fingers in Yemen, Syria and Iraq, if Gamal Nasir’s adventures they choose to forget.

The writer is a former chief of army staff.

friendsfoundation@live.co.uk
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
North Korea fired two short-range missiles into the East Sea
Started by Lilbitsnana‎, 03-01-2015 04:48 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ed-two-short-range-missiles-into-the-East-Sea

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...may-be-preparing-missile-launch/#.VSIr4PB5spo

Asia Pacific
North Korea declares no-sail zone, may be preparing missile launch

Apr 6, 2015
Article history
Reuters, Kyodo

SEOUL – North Korea has declared a no-sail and no-fly zone off its east coast in the Sea of Japan, South Korean media reported Monday, suggesting more missile launches are possible before the U.S. defense chief visits Seoul this week.

Pyongyang fired four short-range missiles off its west coast Friday in what South Korea called a bid to stoke tension during its annual joint military drills with the United States.

The two Koreas are locked in a tense standoff, trading harsh rhetoric recently over the arrest by Pyongyang of two South Korean nationals it accused of espionage.

It was not clear if the latest warning for ships to stay clear of an area off the Korean Peninsula’s east coast was a direct indication of an imminent missile launch.

“There are no signs of peculiar movements,” South Korean Defense Ministry deputy spokesman Na Seung-yong told a briefing. Na said a no-sail warning had not been sent to Seoul or the International Maritime Organization.

North Korea has reported to the IMO before previous long-range missile launches, which it said were rockets to launch satellites. The North is under U.N. sanctions banning it from developing ballistic missile technologies.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is due to start a three-day visit to South Korea on Thursday.

South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency quoted unidentified government officials as saying the no-sail warning has been in effect since April 1 and could indicate that a launch of a midrange Rodong missile was “possible,” according to an official quoted by Yonghap.

North Korea last test-fired its midrange Rodong missile, which has a design range of 1,300 km, in March 2014, while the leaders of South Korea, Japan and the United States were meeting to discuss the threat from the North.

Pyongyang did not issue a no-sail warning before that launch.

North Korea frequently test fires short-range missiles into the sea, often in what are seen as a response to the U.S.-South Korean drills, which it denounces as preparations for war.

Last month, North Korea tested two short-range missiles off its eastern coast without designating a no-sail zone, drawing protest from Japan.

North Korea, which has threatened to carry out a fourth nuclear test, could be close to being able to put a nuclear warhead on a missile, some experts say, with the midrange Rodong the most likely to be used.

Its leader, Kim Jong Un, visited one of its navy units, supervising torpedo attack drills, state media said Saturday.
 
Top