WAR 6/20 - 6/27 ***The***Perfect***Storm***

[Housecarl]

Well now the NY Times is after Obama...this should get interesting...

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21Ackerman.html?_r=1

June 20, 2011
Legal Acrobatics, Illegal War
By BRUCE ACKERMAN

New Haven

IT has now been over three months since the first NATO bombs fell on Libya, yet President Obama has failed to request Congressional approval for military action, as required by the War Powers Act of 1973. The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances.

When Mr. Obama first announced American military involvement in Libya, he notified Congress within 48 hours, as prescribed by the War Powers Act. This initiated a 60-day period, during which he was required to obtain approval from Congress; if he failed to do so, the act gave him at most 30 days to halt all “hostilities.”

Last Sunday was the 90th day of bombing in Libya, but Mr. Obama — armed with dubious legal opinions — is refusing to stop America’s military engagement there. His White House counsel, Robert F. Bauer, has declared that, despite the War Powers Act, the president can continue the Libya campaign indefinitely without legislative support. This conclusion lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years.

Since the 1930s, it has been the job of an elite office in the Justice Department — the Office of Legal Counsel — to serve as the authoritative voice on matters of legal interpretation. The approximately 25 lawyers in this office write legal opinions after hearing arguments from the White House as well as other executive branch departments.

But not this time. After Caroline D. Krass, acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel, told the president that he had to abide by the act’s requirements, the White House counsel decided to pre-empt the Justice Department’s traditional role. As the war powers deadline approached, Mr. Bauer held a series of White House meetings at which he contested the Office of Legal Counsel’s interpretation and invited leading lawyers from the State Department and the Pentagon to join him in preparing competing legal opinions for the president.

This pre-emptive move was not unprecedented. During George W. Bush’s administration, shortly after 9/11, the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, led an ad hoc war council that included State and Defense Department officials. It was in this hyper-politicized setting that John Yoo, representing the Office of Legal Counsel, prepared his notorious “torture memos” for President Bush’s approval.

The players are different this time around, but the dynamic is the same. Mr. Obama is creating a decisive and dangerous precedent for the next commander in chief, who is unlikely to have the Harvard Law Review on his résumé.

From a moral perspective, there is a significant difference between authorizing torture and continuing a bombing campaign that may save thousands of Libyans from slaughter by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. But from a legal viewpoint, Mr. Obama is setting an even worse precedent.

Although Mr. Yoo’s memos made a mockery of the applicable law, they at least had the approval of the Office of Legal Counsel. In contrast, Mr. Obama’s decision to disregard that office’s opinion and embrace the White House counsel’s view is undermining a key legal check on arbitrary presidential power.

This is a Beltway detail of major significance. Unlike the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, the White House counsel is not confirmed by the Senate — which means that the president can appoint whomever he likes. Some presidents have picked leading legal statesmen like Lloyd N. Cutler, who served both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. But others have turned to personal friends to fill the office. In such cases, it is especially difficult for the White House counsel to say no to a top presidential priority on the grounds that the law prohibits it.

Mr. Bauer is not the only administration lawyer to conclude that the billion-dollar bombing campaign in Libya does not amount to “hostilities” under the War Powers Act. The State Department’s legal adviser and former Yale Law School dean, Harold H. Koh, has also taken this position. This is surprising, since Mr. Koh’s legal scholarship over the years has been highly critical of presidential overreach on matters of national security, emphasizing the importance of Congress’s constitutional powers over war and peace.

If the precedent Mr. Obama has created is allowed to stand, future presidents who do not like what the Justice Department is telling them could simply cite the example of Mr. Obama’s war in Libya and instruct the White House counsel to organize a supportive “coalition of the willing” made up of the administration’s top lawyers. Even if just one or two agreed, this would be enough to push ahead and claim that the law was on the president’s side.

Allowing the trivialization of the War Powers Act to stand will open the way for even more blatant acts of presidential war-making in the decades ahead. Congress must confront the increasingly politicized methods White House lawyers are using to circumvent established law and stop them from transforming it into an infinitely malleable instrument of presidential power.

If Congress does not act, the Constitution’s command that the president “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” will become nothing more than an unfulfilled hope on an old piece of parchment.

Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale, is the author of “The Decline and Fall of the American Republic.”

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/83042


June 21, 2011
defining ideas
War Powers and Libya

by Richard A. Epstein (Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow and member of the Property Rights, Freedom, and Prosperity Task Force)
Congress is entitled to restrain the president’s military adventures abroad.

When it comes to U.S. involvement in Libya, the Obama administration has made a mess in dealing with its obligations under the War Powers Resolution (WPR), a law designed to check the president’s ability to commit America to war without the consent of Congress. Before I read the unsigned statement that President Barack Obama sent to Congress under the bland heading, "United States Activities in Libya," I was prepared to give the president and his legal team the benefit of the doubt. But his embarrassingly thin legal analysis calls into question the constitutional competence of those members of his divided legal team who concluded that the president is entitled to go it alone in Libya without further Congressional authorization.
Epstein
Illustration by Barbara Kelley

Here is an excerpt of the statement:

The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of "hostilities" contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision [that provision states that the president can engage in war for 60 days without Congressional authorization]. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of the United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorized the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.

There are two ways to deal with this effort to justify the president’s actions in Libya. The first asks whether the actions comply with the WPR. The second asks whether that resolution (which became a law after Vietnam over the veto of President Richard Nixon) is consistent with the requirements of the Constitution. Let’s take them in order.

The president needs to make peace with Congress, not with foreign nations.

On its own terms, the president’s statement is a constitutional joke. At no time does it give any account of what the critical term "hostilities" means, except to say that whatever its meaning, it constitutes a high threshold that is not met in Libya. The trusty thesaurus offers the word "fighting" as a synonym for "hostilities," which is just what we are doing in Libya today. There is no evidence in the WPR text that the term "hostilities" does not have its ordinary English meaning. The term is first used in connection with the statement that the WPR "will apply to the introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostilities." The word "introduction" suggests that the WPR kicks in when hostilities begin such that Congress preserves its power to have a say before these hostilities escalate into something bigger. The particular context reinforces the ordinary meaning and thus undercuts the president’s claim that small hostilities—which these aren’t—fly below the radar. The president’s statement gets everything exactly backwards.

The president does no better when he tries to bolster his position by noting that the United States is playing second fiddle to the Europeans. That’s because the want of American leadership has no possible relevance to whether the president injected U.S. forces into hostilities. The president needs to make peace with Congress, not with foreign nations. The failure to get Congress to sign off on the war is not cured by running off to NATO.

Yet the president offers not a shred of evidence to support his twisted constitutional logic. Hats off to those in his administration—Eric Holder, Caroline Krass, and Jeh Johnson—who stood up to the president. And shame on those, like Harold Koh, who should know better.

The more serious defense of the president’s position is to deny the constitutionality of the WPR in the first place. Thus the Wall Street Journal rightly ridicules the president for the "worst defense of Presidential power ever offered." But the Journal never bothers to justify its own view that the WPR is unconstitutional. That issue has a very complex history to say the least. A learned string of emails from Charlie Savage of the New York Times has called my attention to another point. The presidential attacks on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act are directed toward section 2 of the Act, which limits the power of the president to initiate hostilities against foreign nations. Oddly enough, it does not seem to cover the need under section 5 of the WPR for the president to obtain authorization from Congress to garner the support of the president after 60 days to continue with the hostilities—which was the precise point of the presidential statement.

In the grand scheme of things, the key institutional point is that every president since Nixon has insisted on challenging section 2 of the WPR. But so what? No sitting president, of either party, wants its wings clipped by Congress. Their conclusion carries no more weight than Congress’s say-so that section 2 of WPR is constitutional.

To move beyond both sets of self-serving statements, it helps to look at the constitutional arguments arrayed on both sides of the Section 2 debate. Start with the constitutional text that assigns to Congress the power "to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on Land and Water." On Obama’s side, the president is the commander-in-chief of the army and navy, and the militia when called into the active service of the United States.

Hats off to those in the Obama administration—Eric Holder, Caroline Krass, and Jeh Johnson—who stood up to the president.

The initial question is whether the power to declare war counts as legislation subject to presidential veto. The power to declare a particular war is not to pass a general law, but rather to change the relationship between the United States and one or more foreign nations. On this view, there was nothing for President Nixon to veto back in 1973. This view, moreover, gains strength because the power to declare war is bracketed with the Congressional power to grant letters of marque and reprisal—commissions from the United States to private individuals to capture property owned by a foreign state or its citizens. These individual letters don’t remotely resemble legislation. So once again, it looks as though the president has no role to play in issuing them to private parties, for they fall outside the control of the president in his role as commander-in-chief.

So if Congress gets to declare war, just how does it do it? An explicit declaration meets the test, but nothing in the Constitution precludes "implied declarations" of war, which could be useful to initiate action without triggering any international treaty obligations tied to a formal declaration of war. The most obvious form of an implied declaration is the appropriation of funds for particular military efforts, as in Vietnam. That action makes no sense for wars Congress never authorized.

Yet must Congress act only on a case-by-case basis? Or can it issue a standing resolution that allows the president to act without a prior explicit authorization of the event? It is this last approach that the WPR implements. Clearly, in some cases, the president has the power to respond to a foreign attack on this nation without waiting for Congress to declare war. But can the president issue a preemptive strike against a possible enemy without Congressional authorization? The United Nations Charter takes a dim view of that practice, but so what? If the ancient law of assault and battery is any guide, no individual has to wait until he has been hit in the face to use force. So too with nations. Exactly how all this plays out depends on context, but the strength of the WPR lies in its effort to add some meat to the bare bones of the constitutional scheme. Thus the WPR looks about right when it states that the President of the United States cannot act unilaterally unless one of three conditions holds: "1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States."

The WPR then sets out a program that requires the president, if he has ventured off on his own, to report to Congress within 60 days (unless he needs an extra 30 days for an orderly withdrawal of troops). Perhaps one can quibble with the details of the WPR, but the only way in which it is unconstitutional is if the president as commander-in-chief may wage a war that Congress has never declared. That bizarre position inflates the constitutional powers of the president to unrecognizable proportions. What can we make of any system of checks and balances if the power not to declare war somehow fails to operate as a limitation on the president’s powers?

The president’s statement on War Powers and Libya is a constitutional joke.

Just that position is taken by my good friend John Yoo, writing in the Wall Street Journal, who attacks the Republicans for "playing politics" with the WPR. Simply cut off funds for the Libyan operation, Yoo claims. But surely that misses the point. The ability to cut appropriations will not stop a president who can use preexisting funds to carry out foreign hostilities covered by the WPR. Nor does the appropriations power stop the president from initiating major aggressive action with a single blow against some other nation. These difficulties are not cured, moreover, by letting Congress retaliate by facing down the president on the debt limit or some other action, as Yoo suggests. Why should Congress have to contaminate a second area of endeavor because it cannot get its voice heard on the first?

The current standoff then is quite unsatisfactory, and the grim news is that the tools for its intelligent resolution are weak at best. Yoo and countless others are right to insist that the courts have no part to play in this struggle between the two branches of government. Impeachment as a political remedy is over the top for these critical situations, even though some form of Congressional censure would seem appropriate notwithstanding its utter lack of defined consequences.

The blunt truth of the matter is that the Constitution provides at most a rudimentary road map for those willing to follow it, but contains few, if any, sanctions for those determined to deviate from it. The WPR resolution is best understood as a Congressional concession to the practical dominance of the president in the area of war. In the present political climate, therefore, it’s especially important to keep pressure on those who seek to displace the WPR. It is thus wrong for the president to toy with the language of the WPR, or for constitutional skeptics like John Yoo to wish away portions of the constitutional structure by assuming the president can operate largely free of Congressional restraint on matters of war. Both positions are wrong. These constitutional niceties change the structure of political discourse. Congress, and popular opinion should keep the heat on.

Richard A. Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. His areas of expertise include constitutional law, intellectual property, and property rights. His most recent books are The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act (Hoover Press, 2009) and Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (Oxford Press, 2008).

Letters to the editor may be sent to definingideas@stanford.edu. Editors reserve the right to reject or publish (and edit) letters.

 

[LC]

Thanks guys. Hey Dutch, did you happen to get any of that wet stuff (whatever that is) that seems to be happening in central west TX? Sure hope you did.

LC

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...troop-presence/2011/06/21/AG3pX3eH_story.html

Iraq violence intensifies as talks continue on U.S. troop presence

By Tim Craig, Tuesday, June 21, 5:41 PM

BAGHDAD — Terrorist attacks, including a bombing Tuesday that killed two dozen people, are intensifying across Iraq as the country’s political blocs step up discussions about whether the coalition government will ask the United States to keep some troops here past the end of the year.

In separate incidents Tuesday that both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups are suspected of carrying out, twin car bombs detonated at a heavily fortified town council building in Diwayana province, an explosion tore through a cafe in southern Iraq, and rockets and car bombs shook different sections of Baghdad.

The violence comes as U.S. officials continue to look for signs that the Iraqi government will reach consensus on whether it wants any American troops to remain past their scheduled Dec. 31 withdrawal date.

On Monday, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani held a meeting of top-ranking Iraqi government leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to try to jump-start discussions on a continued U.S. presence.

But with broad divisions remaining over such a move, Iraqi and U.S. officials think it could be weeks, if not months, before any formal request would be made to the White House.

Complicating the discussion, radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said through a spokesman this week that his Sadrist political bloc will withdraw from Maliki’s governing coalition if any U.S. troops remain.

“We think that the extension of the U.S. in Iraqi is a red line,” Salah Alubadi said. “If this happens, we will present a lawsuit to the federal court.”

Other politicians are skeptical of Sadr’s influence on the process, and there are signs that continued uncertainty about the readiness of police and military forces could prompt Maliki and his rival, Ayad Allawi — a former prime minister who heads the Iraqiya political bloc — to reach an agreement for at least a few thousand troops to remain into 2012. Allawi was traveling and did not attend Talabani’s meeting.

Mayson al-Damaluji, the spokeswoman for Iraqiya, said even some Sadrists who attended Talabani’s meeting expressed concern about Iraq’s long-term security.

“We have national interests like the water sources and the oil fields, and we must ask ourselves: Are we able to protect it?” Damaluji said. “We made that question [Monday] to the prime minister and are waiting for his answer.”

Security concerns come amid mounting frustration about disruption caused by terrorist attacks.

On Tuesday, 25 police officers and Army officials were killed in Diwaniyah, a predominantly Shiite area in south-central Iraq, when two cars were detonated moments apart at a compound that includes both the governor’s home and the provincial government headquarters. It was the second attack in less than a week on a heavily fortified provincial council building.

In both incidents, local officials said they suspect Sunni-dominated al-Qaeda in Iraq or one its affiliates was responsible. But U.S. and Iraqi officials also fear that Shiite extremist groups are stepping up their attacks to destabilize the government amid the talks about a continued U.S. presence.

Also Tuesday, in Musayab in Southern Iraq’s Babel province, at least two people were killed and eight wounded when an explosion tore though a cafe, Iraqi security officials said.

In southern Baghdad, a bomb detonated in a minibus, often used here to transport commuters and shoppers. At least one person was killed and three were injured. An Iraqi army convoy also struck a roadside bomb on Baghdad’s Palestine Street, killing one soldier and injuring three others and two civilians walking nearby, Iraqi security officials said.

Several mortars were fired Tuesday afternoon onto a joint Iraqi-U.S. base in eastern Baghdad, probably from the Shiite-dominated Sadr City neighborhood. It was unclear whether any U.S. troops were injured, but Iraqi security officials said civilians were wounded in a nearby neighborhood when three mortars landed short of the base.

“It is necessary to revise the current security plans,” Tariq al-Hashimi, Iraq’s vice president, said Tuesday in calling for the formation of an committee to examine the problem.

But there were signs Tuesday that Iraqi security officials are making some progress in containing the violence.

In Baghdad, officials arrested four men on allegations that they made 27 assassination attempts on government or security officials in recent months.

Security officials in Ramadi in Anbar province in western Iraq also intercepted two cars packed with explosives Tuesday. The drivers of the vehicles, who were arrested, were apparently attempting to bomb the headquarters of the Anbar Provincial Council, security officials said.


Special correspondents Aziz Alwan and Asaad Majeed in Baghdad and Sa’ad Sarhan in Najaf and Hassan al-Shimmari in Diyala contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.928cdb4d66c77e8a6b10b7286261f0a4.4f1

Iran and Iraq to discuss future of Camp Ashraf
(AFP) – 14 hours ago

TEHRAN — Iran and Iraq will discuss with the Red Cross the future of an outlawed armed Iranian opposition group living in Iraq, visiting Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari said on Tuesday.

"We have proposed the formation of a joint committee between Iran, Iraq and the (International Committee of the) Red Cross to resolve the issue of (People's Mujahedeen of Iran) at Camp Ashraf," Zebari said at a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Salehi.

The committee "will discuss the requests of the members of this group who live in Camp Ashraf, particularly those who seek to return to Iran without any pressure or difficulty," Zebari said.

The People's Mujahedeen set up Camp Ashraf in the 1980s -- when now-executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime was at war with Iran -- as a base from which to operate against Tehran.

The group, which describes itself as both left-wing and Islamic, opposed the Shah of Iran and now seeks to oust the clerical regime that took power in Tehran in the 1979 revolution.

"We have asked international organisations and European parliaments to encourage the (group's) members to leave Iraq, and to facilitate (the movement of) those members who seek to go those countries," Zebari said.

He insisted the Iraqi government is adamant that the base be shut down by the end of the year.

The camp has become a mounting problem for Iraqi authorities since US forces handed over security for the camp in January 2009, and amid pressure from Tehran to hand over the members of the militant group.

Meanwhile, Salehi said Iran's First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi will travel to Iraq to sign agreements as the two neighbours seek to increase their trade volume.

Six agreements have been prepared to be signed between the two sides during Rahimi's visit, Salehi told the press conference.

The joint Iran-Iraq economic commission will be chaired by Rahimi and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on July 6, with an aim of boosting bilateral investments and trade volumes, Salehi said.

Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

For links in text please see source article....

Posted for fair use....
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2011/06/suicide_assault_team_attacks_i.php

Suicide assault team attacks Iraqi provincial headquarters
By Bill Roggio
June 21, 2011 9:37 AM

An al Qaeda in Iraq suicide assault team targeted the provincial headquarters in Diwaniyah today, killing 25 Iraqis and wounding 35 more. The complex attack was carried out by one suicide bomber driving a car and another on foot. They detonated their explosives at a police checkpoint outside of the governor's compound in the southern Iraqi province, according to Reuters.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has already carried out four other suicide attacks in Iraq in June. The last attack, on June 14, also targeted a provincial center, but in Baqubah in Diyala province in the northeast. A suicide assault team was killed by Iraqi and US troops after the assault team had stormed the compound and taken hostages. Nine people, most of them members of the al Qaeda team, were killed. The Islamic State of Iraq, al Qaeda's front group, claimed credit for the attack.

The day before, on June 13, a suicide bomber killed three policemen and a civilian in an attack outside a police headquarters in Basrah.

Two of the attacks this month took place in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's home town. On June 6, a suicide bomber killed 12 Iraqis, including four Army officers and five soldiers, in an attack on the Presidential Palaces compound in Tikrit. On June 4, a suicide bomber killed four people, including two policemen, in an attack on a university hospital in the city. Also, 17 people were killed and more than 50 were wounded in a bombing outside a mosque in Tikrit that is visited by government officials.

 

[Housecarl]

For links in texts and graphics please see source article...

Posted for fair use....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576400083811644642.html

BUSINESS
JUNE 22, 2011.

Saudi Suggests 'Squeezing' Iran Over Nuclear Ambitions

By JAY SOLOMON
Comments
A leading member of Saudi Arabia's royal family warned that Riyadh could seek to supplant Iran's oil exports if the country doesn't constrain its nuclear program, a move that could hobble Tehran's finances.

In closed-door remarks earlier this month, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal also strongly implied that Riyadh would be forced to follow suit if Tehran pushed ahead to develop nuclear weapons and said Saudi Arabia is preparing to employ all of its economic, diplomatic and security assets to confront Tehran's regional ambitions.

"Iran is very vulnerable in the oil sector, and it is there that more could be done to squeeze the current government," Prince Turki, a former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. and U.K., told a private gathering of American and British servicemen at RAF Molesworth airbase outside London.

The Arab Spring uprisings are intensifying the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, who face off across the Persian Gulf and jostle for influence with neighbors from Syria to Yemen. It's a Cold War, fueled by oil and ideology, between Shiite Islamists who rule Iran and the Sunni Saudi royal family, each of whom consider themselves leaders of the world's Muslim populations.

The prince, the onetime head of the Saudi intelligence agency, currently has no formal government position. Saudi officials reached in the Middle East on Tuesday stressed that the 66-year-old royal was speaking only in his private capacity.

U.S. and Arab diplomats said Saudi Arabia's monarchy often uses Prince Turki to float ideas concerning the country's future policies. Saudi Arabia has pursued an increasingly aggressive foreign policy over the past year—sometimes at odds with the U.S. and driven by concerns about Iran and the recent political turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East.

Iran's "meddling and destabilizing efforts in countries with Shiite majorities, such as Iraq and Bahrain, as well as those countries with significant Shiite communities…must come to an end," Prince Turki said, according to a copy of his speech obtained by The Wall Street Journal. "Saudi Arabia will oppose any and all of Iran's actions in other countries because it is Saudi Arabia's position that Iran has no right to meddle in other nations' internal affairs."

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah sent troops into Bahrain and Yemen over the past 18 months to help support allies there against what Riyadh has described as Iranian-backed political rebellions. Saudi officials have criticized the Obama administration's public support for democratic movements in Egypt and Bahrain, arguing that they served to strengthen Tehran's regional hand. "A lot of people in the kingdom are talking along these lines," said a senior Arab official briefed on Prince Turki's speech.

Throughout its history, Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer of oil, has been reticent to use its energy reserves as a strategic weapon. But in recent weeks, Riyadh has pressured members of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, to increase production as a way to tamp down global oil prices, a move Iran has strongly opposed.

On the same day Prince Turki spoke to the troops in the U.K., OPEC officials in Vienna split into two blocs—one led by Riyadh and the other Tehran—and failed to reach an agreement on the pricing issue. Saudi Arabia subsequently plans to increase in June its output by as much as 1 million barrels a day outside of OPEC as a way to suppress international prices, some Gulf officials have said. They added that the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait will likely increase production too.

Prince Turki said in his speech that Saudi Arabia could easily offset any reduction of Iranian oil exports, due to sanctions or other measures tied to international fears about Iran's nuclear program. He said a reduction of Iran's oil revenues could cripple Tehran, which generates half its overall revenues from oil sales.

"To put this into perspective, Saudi Arabia has so much [spare] production capacity—nearly 4 million barrels [per] day—that we could almost instantly replace all of Iran's oil production," the prince said.

U.S. officials on Tuesday said they hadn't been notified by Saudi Arabia of any changes in its production plans. But senor Obama administration officials have lobbied Riyadh over the past two years to explore ways to pressure Iran through the energy markets. The White House has specifically asked Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to guarantee China greater energy supplies in exchange for Beijing cutting off its energy investments in Iran.

Saudi Arabia has repeatedly said it doesn't seek nuclear weapons and supports the establishment of a United Nations-administered nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, which would include Iran and Israel. But Prince Turki suggested this could change if Iran continues to work toward the point where it could produce nuclear bombs.

Tehran says it is developing a nuclear program solely for peaceful purposes. But in recent weeks, Iranian officials have said the government is preparing to triple production of nuclear fuel to levels closer to the enrichment rate used for weapons. The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has also reported that it has found accumulating evidence that Iran's scientific experiments are part of a bomb-development program.

"It is in our interest that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, for their doing so would compel Saudi Arabia, whose foreign relations are now so fully measured and well assessed, to pursue policies that could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences," Prince Turki said.

The Saudi royal also singled out Iraq as a battleground where Riyadh will increasingly challenge Iranian influence.

Saudi Arabia has withheld sending an ambassador to Baghdad due to charges that Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki's Shiite-majority government is too close to Iran. Indeed, Iraq sided with Iran in the recent dispute over OPEC energy prices. And Prince Turki alleged that Iranian military officers were directly involved in formulating Iraqi security policy, a charge Baghdad has regularly denied.

"There are people and groups in Iraq that are, as much as they deny it, completely beholden to Iran, and that is not only unacceptable, but it is bad for the future of an ethnically and religiously diverse country," the prince said.

—Summer Said in Riyadh and Russell Gold in Dallas contributed to this article.
Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use....
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...unch-signals-missile-push/UPI-99551308591084/


Iran satellite launch signals missile push
Published: June 20, 2011 at 1:31 PM

BEIRUT, Lebanon, June 20 (UPI) -- The real importance of Iran's recent launch of its Rasad-1 satellite, the second it's put into orbit in two years, is the Safir booster rocket used to loft the 34-pound, data-gathering craft into space. That technology produces intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Iran's state television reported that the June 16 launch thrust Rasad, which means "Observation" in Farsi, went into orbit 163 miles above the Earth.

The satellite had been scheduled for launch in August 2010 and there was no explanation for the delay at a time when U.N. experts are reported to have concluded Iran has accelerated its efforts to develop long-range missiles.

These include the Shehab-3b and Sejjil-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles capable to hitting the Persian Gulf Arab states and Israel, by passing tough sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council in June 2010 over Iran's contentious nuclear program.

Tehran is reported to have increased the military budget by more than 40 percent, from $7 billion to $10 billion a year, apparently to fund the construction of more ballistic missiles. This was possible because of rising oil prices.

Rasad-1 was built at the Malek Ashtar University, founded and run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the elite military organization that's in charge of Iran's ballistic missile program and the strategic missile command.

This underlines the military aspect of the Rasad launch and indeed Iran's entire space program, which is seen by the West and by Israel as an integral part of the drive to develop a long-range ballistic missile capability.

According to Western specialists, the multistage Safir-2 used in the Rasad launch is much smaller than a weapon capable of carrying conventional or nuclear warheads.

But the 72-foot, 26-ton Safir is a version of the Shehab-3 intermediate-range missile that currently forms the backbone of Iran's operational missile force.

The Rasad launch presumably took place at the Semnan launch site in the Great Salt Desert south of Tehran. It was there on Feb. 3, 2009, Iran sent aloft its first indigenously launched satellite, a research and communications craft called Omid-1 atop a Safir rocket.

The Islamic Republic thus joined the fewer than a dozen other countries capable of launching satellites into space.

"Tehran now has established its status as having the most advanced space, missile and nuclear programs in the Muslim Middle East, confirming its technical superiority over its Arab rivals," Jane's Intelligence Digest reported at the time.

The successful launch "confirms that the Iranians have overcome the technological obstacles to launching a multistage missile, a process than can increase flight range considerably," Jane's said.

In 2010, Iran announced plans to start sending research animals into space in 2011, initially using modified Shehab ballistic missiles as the booster rockets.

On Feb. 3 that year, Tehran announced it sent a rocket carrying a mouse, two turtles and a dozen worms into space aboard a 10-foot Kavoshgar-3 research rocket.

At that time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has made the space program one of his government's priorities, unveiled a capsule for a monkey, along with four prototype Iranian-built satellites Tehran plan to launch before March 2012.

Hamid Fazeli, director of Iran's Space Organization, which oversaw the Rasad launch, said a 625-pound capsule carrying a monkey would be launched aboard a Kavoshgar-5 rocket between July 23 and Aug. 23 this year to an altitude of 74 miles.

Communications Minister Reza Taqipour says these launches will be followed by orbital missions as a prelude to an Islamic manned space program, by around 2021.

Many of the technological building blocks involved in the booster rockets like the Safir-2 are the same as those needed to develop long-range ballistic missiles.

This was the pattern of early U.S. and Russian development in the 1950s and 1960s of the Atlas, Titan and R-7 ballistic missiles.

One U.S. analysis of the recent advances in Iran's missile technology said a successful Safir-2 mission "could raise concerns in the U.S. Congress among Republicans who claim U.S. President Barack Obama acted wrongly by reducing Missile Defense Agency facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic against Iranian Safir-type missiles that could eventually have the capability to strike the United States directly."

In 2010, Iran unveiled plans for a four-engine, liquid-fuel Simorgh rocket to carry a 220-pound satellite into orbit at an altitude of 310 miles.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/06/22/52/0301000000AEN20110622000400315F.HTML

2011/06/22 02:19 KST
(2nd LD) US, Japan vow closer ties with S. Korea to foil NK provocations By Lee Chi-dong

WASHINGTON, June 21 (Yonhap) -- The United States and Japan announced Tuesday a common strategic goal to head off additional provocations by North Korea and persuade the communist nation to abandon its nuclear weapons programs.

After high-level talks among their defense chiefs and top diplomats, the two sides also said they will bolster a trilateral alliance with South Korea and expressed hope for an inter-Korean dialogue.

"On North Korea, we remain committed to deterring further provocative behaviors by North Korea, supporting a North-South dialogue and promoting the complete and peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a press conference on the results of the Security Consultative Committee, meeting for the first time since 2007.

The other participants are Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Japan's Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto and Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa.

Gates said, "We had an excellent discussion today, and we focused on the most critical challenges facing the Asia-Pacific region. Those include the denuclearization of North Korea, supporting continued progress in Afghanistan and maritime security."

The so-called two-plus-two meeting was apparently to show off a robust alliance between the two regional powers amid quake damages in Japan and heightened military tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

A joint statement issued earlier provided details.

The strategic objective of the alliance is to "deter provocations by North Korea; achieve the complete, and verifiable denuclearization of North Korea, including its uranium enrichment program, through irreversible steps and, through the Six Party process, resolve issues related to proliferation, ballistic missiles, illicit activities, and humanitarian concerns, including the matter of (past) abductions by North Korea," the document read.

The two nations will also "strengthen trilateral security and defense cooperation with both Australia and the Republic of Korea," it added.

The statement also called for China's "responsible and constructive role" in regional stability and prosperity and urged the rising superpower to improve openness and transparency with respect to its military modernization.

China is the host of the six-way talks, launched in 2003 to dismantle Pyongyang's nuclear programs in return for political and economic incentives. The negotiations have been stalled for more than two years.

Beijing is Pyongyang's last-remaining major ally and largest benefactor. North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, traveled to China last month and had summit talks with President Hu Jintao. The North then unveiled a plan to develop joint economic zones with China along their river border, raising worries in the international community that the deal would undercut U.N sanctions imposed on Pyongyang for its nuclear and missile tests.

On their bilateral alliance, the U.S. and Japan formally acknowledged that they won't be able to relocate a U.S. air base on Okinawa by the 2014 deadline.

The relocation of the Futenma base would be completed at the "earliest possible date" after 2014, the statement said.

Meanwhile, Clinton is scheduled to hold talks here with South Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan on Friday.

lcd@yna.co.kr
leechidong@gmail.com
(END)

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20110620.aspx

F-16s Threaten Konigsberg

June 20, 2011: In a move certain to agitate Russian nationalists, Poland has signed an agreement allowing the U.S. Air Force to base warplanes and transports in Poland. Thus, within two years, the U.S. plans to have F-16s and C-130s stationed in Poland. This is seen by Poland as a further protection from Russian pressure and threats. For over two centuries, Russia has regularly threatened, and often seized parts of, Poland. Russia is not happy with anything that might prevent more such moves in the future. Since the United States is a nuclear power, Russia will be constrained from moving on Poland as long as American troops are stationed there. But the Russians will definitely not like it, and this pleases the Poles a great deal.

This is a complicated part of the world. For example, Poland borders a small part of Russia; Kaliningrad. This is the former German city of Konigsberg (founded by German invaders in the 13th century). Konigsberg was taken by Russia in 1945, and ceded to them (and renamed Kaliningrad) as part of the many political changes resulting from the end of World War II. All the Germans were expelled from Konigsberg, and the area was resettled by Russians. This was part of the destruction of Prussia, the easternmost German province, and long the jumping off point for German invasions to the east. When the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, Russia hung on to Kaliningrad, even though it was now surrounded by non-Russian territory.

To many Russians, the Germans have been replaced (or reinforced) by the Americans, and are seen as the source of yet another invasion from the west. This invaders have been coming for over a thousand years, and those memories die hard in Russia.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

Thanks guys. Hey Dutch, did you happen to get any of that wet stuff (whatever that is) that seems to be happening in central west TX? Sure hope you did.

LC

YUPPERS! We received about an inch+ yesterday evening. And was it ever nice to see water standing on the driveway.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Analysis - Lebanon's Hezbollah may fight Israel to relieve Syria

Credit: Reuters/ Mohamed Azakir
By Mariam Karouny
BEIRUT | Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:48pm BST
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/...c=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=401​

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Hezbollah militant group is preparing for a possible war with Israel to relieve perceived Western pressure to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, its guardian ally, sources close to the movement say.

The radical Shi'ite group, which has a powerful militia armed by Damascus and Iran, is watching the unrest in neighbouring Syria with alarm and is determined to prevent the West from exploiting popular protests to bring down Assad.

Hezbollah supported pro-democracy movements that toppled Western-backed leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, but officials say it will not stand idly by as international pressure mounts on Assad to yield to protesters.

It is committed to do whatever it takes politically to help deflect what it sees as a foreign campaign against Damascus, but it is also readying for a possible war with Israel if Assad is weakened.

"Hezbollah will never intervene in Syria. This is an internal issue for President Bashar to tackle. But when it sees the West gearing up to bring him down, it will not just watch," a Lebanese official close to the group's thinking told Reuters.

"This is a battle for existence for the group and it is time to return the favour (of Syria's support). It will do that by fending off some of the international pressure," he added.

The militant group, established nearly 30 years ago to confront Israel's occupation of south Lebanon, fought an inconclusive 34-day war with Israel in 2006.

Hezbollah and Syria have both denied that the group has sent fighters to support a military crackdown on the wave of protests against Assad's rule.

Hezbollah believes the West is working to reshape the Middle East by replacing Assad with a ruler friendly to Israel and hostile to itself.

"The region now is at war, a war between what is good and what is backed by Washington... Syria is the good," said a Lebanon-based Arab official close to Syria.

He said the United States, which lost an ally when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in February, "wants to shift the crisis" by supporting protests against its adversary.

"For us this will be confronted in the best possible way," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

SYRIA NOT ALONE

Analysts rule out the possibility of a full-scale regional war involving Syria, Iran and Lebanon on one side against Israel backed by the United States. A war pitting Hezbollah against Israel was more likely, they said.

"There might be limited wars here or there but nobody has the interest (in a regional war)," said Lebanese analyst Oussama Safa. "The region is of course heading towards radical change... How it will be arranged and where it will leads is not clear."

Hezbollah inflicted serious damage and casualties by firing missiles deep into Israel during the 2006 conflict, and was able to sustain weeks of rocket attacks despite a major Israeli military incursion into Lebanon.

Western intelligence sources say the movement's arsenal has been more than replenished since the fighting ended, with European-led U.N. peacekeepers in southern Lebanon powerless to prevent supplies entering mostly from Syria.

Syria, which borders Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan, has regional influence because of its alliance with Iran and its continued role in Lebanon, despite ending a 29-year military presence there in 2005. It also has an influence in Iraq.

"If the situation in Syria collapses it will have repercussions that will go beyond Syria," the Arab official said. "None of Syria's allies would accept the fall of Syria even if it led to turning the table upside down -- war (with Israel) could be one of the options."

The Lebanese official said: "All options are open including opening the fronts in Golan (Heights) and in south Lebanon."

Palestinian protests last month on the Lebanese and Syrian frontlines with Israel were "a message that Syria will not be left alone facing an Israeli-American campaign," he said.

Israel and Syria are technically at war, but their frontier had been calm since the war in 1973, when Israel repelled a Syrian assault to recapture the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

FIRST STEP TAKEN

For Syria's allies in Lebanon, the first step to support Damascus has already been taken. After months of delay, Prime Minister Najib Mikati formed a new Lebanese government last week dominated by pro-Syrian parties, including Hezbollah.

That followed five months of political vacuum after Hezbollah and its allies toppled Western-backed Saad al-Hariri's coalition in a dispute over a U.N.-backed tribunal investigating the killing in 2005 of statesman Rafik al-Hariri, Saad's father.

The tribunal is expected to accuse members of the Shi'ite group in the killing, and some Lebanese had believed that the delay in forming a government was deliberate, to avoid the crisis a new government might face when indictments are issued.

"Our people thought at first the vacuum would be in our interest but after the events in Syria we have noticed that the vacuum is harmful," said the Lebanese official.

The still confidential indictment was amended last month after the prosecutor said "new evidence emerged" but Syria and its allies suspect it will now target Syrian officials. Both Syria and Hezbollah deny any role in killing Hariri.

The official said the new government might halt the state's cooperation with and contribution to funding the court, as well as withdrawing Lebanese judges from the tribunal.

"The government in its new form will not allow Lebanon to be used against Syria, or those who are promoting the American agenda on the expense of Syria," he said.

Tension in Lebanon increased in the first weeks of the uprising against Assad when Syria accused Hariri supporters of funding and arming protesters, a charge they denied.

"As Syria stood by Lebanon's side during the July war in 2006 (between Hezbollah and Israel), Lebanon will be on its side to face this war that is no less dangerous," the official said.

So far, Syria's allies believe that Assad has things under control and that the unrest, in which rights groups say 1,300 people have been killed, has not posed a threat on his rule.

While Hezbollah's fate is not linked exclusively to Assad's future, his departure would make life more difficult for the group, which depends on Syria's borders for arms supply.

"Syria is like the lung for Hezbollah...it is its backup front where it gets its weapon and other stuff," said another Lebanese official who declined to be named.

Formed under the guidance of Iran's religious establishment, Hezbollah had a thorny start with late President Hafez al-Assad, but later emerged as a powerful Syrian ally. Relations improved further after Bashar succeeded his father in 2000.

"Hezbollah is extremely tense and they are concerned about the developments in Syria," said Hilal Khashan, a political analyst at the American University in Beirut.

"The storm is building up now and after it everything will change...In all cases, no matter what happens in Syria, developments there will not be in favour for Hezbollah."

While he dismissed the possibility of a regional war, Augustus Richard Norton, author of a book on Hezbollah, said an Israeli Lebanese war may be possible, adding he believed Israel was likely to strike first.

"It is not too challenging to imagine a scenario for a Israel-Lebanon war to erupt, especially given the Obama administration's diffident and permissive approach to Israel.

"...It is far more likely that Israel will pursue a war with the goal of crippling Hezbollah and punishing Lebanon than that a war will be intentionally provoked by Hezbollah," he said.

TARNISHED IMAGE

In the meantime Hezbollah, which has praised other Arab uprisings and enjoys strong support among ordinary Arabs over its confrontations with Israel, has seen its image tarnished because of its support for Assad.

"The events in Syria have not impacted Hezbollah in a significant strategic sense, but have certainly put the party in an uncomfortable position," said Elias Muhanna, a Middle East scholar at Harvard.

"The fact that (Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan) Nasrallah has supported the regime's war against the opposition in Syria while attacking similar regime actions in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen has been pointed out by many as a blatant double standard."

Hezbollah argues there is no contradiction in its position, saying Assad has popular support and is committed to reform.

"When the regime is against Israel and is committed to reforms then Hezbollah decision is to be by the side of the people and the leadership through urging them for dialogue and partnership," the Lebanese official said.

"That is why the group is in harmony with itself when it comes to Syria. It has its standards clear," he added.

"For the resistance and Iran, the partnership with Syria is a principal and crucial issue, there is no compromise. Each time Syria is targeted there will be a response."





=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Hezbollah’s Miscalculation in Syria

Helping President Assad with his crackdown has put the terrorist group in an awkward position domestically and internationally.

June 22, 2011 - 12:00 am - by Judith Levy
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hezbollahs-miscalculation-in-syria/​

There has been much speculation of late as to the likelihood that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will launch a war against Israel as a diversionary tactic to deflect attention from his brutal crushing of the Syrian popular uprising. A corollary concern is Hezbollah, which is allied with Assad and which uses Syria as a conduit for Iranian arms.

Hezbollah, too, has the capability to divert attention, both domestic and international, from its assorted crises by picking a fight with Israel. And there is little question that the walls are starting to close in on Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has thrown in its lot with Assad against the Syrian people, supplying gunmen to execute Syrian soldiers who refuse to take part in the killing of Syrian citizens. By siding so unequivocally with the Alawite dictator over his captive, predominantly Sunni population, and in a dispute that has nothing to do with Israel no less, Hezbollah has exploded its carefully constructed image as the standard-bearer for the Muslim common man against the Zionist enemy. Outraged Syrians are now being filmed burning posters of Hezbollah’s chief, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah.

Hezbollah’s image has been looking a little frayed for some time. It is an open secret that Hezbollah members were instrumental in the assassination of popular former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. This revelation confirmed that when necessary, the group will take the gravest of measures to secure its position, even measures that are in direct opposition to the will of the Lebanese people. The discomfiture this exposure caused Hezbollah threatens to be revived now that once-quashed rumors are reappearing that Assad ordered the hit.

And as if all that weren’t enough, Hezbollah is now dealing with an internal crisis: several senior members have been arrested on suspicion of spying for Israel.

So is a diversionary aggression against Israel by Hezbollah in the cards, then?

No, it probably isn’t.

IDF Major General Giora Eiland, former head of the Israeli National Security Council and now senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said yesterday in Jerusalem that the squeeze Hezbollah is currently experiencing makes the likelihood of their starting a war lower, not higher. The Syrian crisis, Eiland believes, is “even more helpful” in this regard.


Eiland argues that Hezbollah had little choice but to throw its weight behind Assad, since its own position will become highly untenable in the event that Assad falls. He sketched out three possible outcomes to the Syrian crisis: democracy; a Syria controlled by “very religious Sunnis, like the Muslim Brotherhood”; or a Syria that would splinter along ethnic lines. None of those outcomes augurs well for Hezbollah, so the logic is against its increasing its vulnerability by tempting the wrath of the Israelis right now.

In the case of the first outcome, democracy, Hezbollah’s advocates inside Syria would be hard-pressed to win over the Syrian people in an election after Hezbollah’s performance during the uprising. The second outcome is also threatening, as an extremist Sunni regime might well believe it has a score to settle with the hostile Shia militia next door that took up arms against Syrian citizens. The third is dangerous by virtue of its sheer unpredictability.

Two other points argue against a reflexive move towards war by Hezbollah. First, unless Iran itself fills the vacuum in Syria following Assad’s departure, Hezbollah is going to have a tough time getting its hands on the large supplies of Iranian matériel that are stored inside Syria on its behalf. And second, there is little doubt that Sheikh Nasrallah vividly remembers that as a consequence of Hezbollah’s precipitate triggering of war with Israel in 2006, Iran slashed its budget by 50%. Nasrallah is not going to lift a finger against Israel without a green light from Teheran, and Teheran is waiting to see how Syria shakes out.

Continued vigilance is obviously required, but the odds are against Hezbollah starting any serious mischief with Israel in the immediate future.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Lebanon Protests Israeli-Cypriot Energy Agreement

Written by Charles Kennedy
Tuesday, 21 June 2011 23:31
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...rotests-Israeli-Cypriot-Energy-Agreement.html​

Lebanon’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Adnan Mansour has sent an official letter of protest to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressing Lebanon's objection to a bilateral Israeli-Cypriot agreement delineating an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between the country’s joint maritime Mediterranean frontiers.

Mansour wrote that the agreement bilateral between Israel and Cyprus "violates Lebanon's sovereign and economic rights and jeopardizes peace and security in the region," Beirut’s NOW Lebanon new agency reported.

Despite the 1982 United Nations Conv3ntion of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) providing maritime convention providing nations with a 200-mile Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extending 200 miles offshore for exploiting maritime reserves, the issue is contested in such constrained waters as the eastern Mediterranean, where competing claims overlap, as between Greece and Turkey, Israel and the Palestinian Authority and Israel and Egypt.

Nor are such conflicting maritime claims limited to the eastern Mediterranean, as further east, conflicting claims to the potential hydrocarbon riches of the South China Sea have involved China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei in overlapping sovereignty claims to various rocky islet groupings.

In December 2010 Cyprus and Israel signed an agreement that defines their maritime borders and allows the two nations to proceed in searching for energy sources in the eastern Mediterranean. As Cyprus is a member of the European Union, the dispute with Lebanon has the potential to involve the EU in the disagreement.





=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Israeli leaders test nuclear bunker in defense drill

Dan Williams
Reuters
8:25 a.m. EDT, June 22, 2011
http://www.courant.com/news/nation-...l-nuclear-btre75l2jy-20110622,0,5584224.story​

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli leaders holed up in a new underground nuclear bunker on Wednesday as part of annual maneuvers to prepare for a possible missile war with Iran, Syria and their Lebanese and Palestinian guerrilla allies.

Officials said it was the first time the security cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had tested the "National Management Center" carved out beneath the government complex in Jerusalem over the past decade.

The bunker includes living quarters as well as command facilities. It can be accessed through the western foothills leading to the coastal metropolis of Tel Aviv.

"This is the proper place from which to run the State of Israel in wartime," Homefront Defense Minister Matan Vilnai told Army Radio in an interview.

Israel instituted increasingly sweeping civil defense drills after the 2006 Lebanon war in which Hezbollah fighters fired thousands of short-range rockets at its northern towns.

There have been similar salvoes from Hamas and other Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip to the south, and Israeli officials say a future war could involve non-conventional missile strikes by Syria and Iran.

Wednesday's exercise, dubbed "Turning Point 5," envisaged heavy shelling and thousands of dead and wounded on several Israeli fronts. Police and medics practiced mass-casualty incidents and air raid sirens were scheduled to sound twice.

"It is certainly an extreme scenario (although) we assume that our enemies would not dare to operate this way, given our deterrent power," Vilnai said.

Reputed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, Israel bombed an Iraqi reactor in 1981 under what it called a policy of denying foes the means to threaten its destruction.

Israel launched a similar sortie against Syria in 2007 but its veiled threats to tackle Iran's remote and fortified uranium enrichment sites have often been dismissed as bluster given the tactical challenges involved. World powers say they prefer a negotiated resolution with Iran, which denies seeking the bomb.

Disclosures of the Jerusalem bunker's existence prompted some Israelis to question whether their country, which has also been developing an elaborate ballistic missile shield, was taking a more passive approach to potential nuclear threats.

Officials say that providing Israeli leaders with a secret haven from which to respond to attacks would in itself discourage, or at least contain, any future war.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Syria’s Moallem denies Hezbollah, Iran helping Assad

June 22, 2011 03:09 PM The Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Po...zbollah-Iran-helping-Assad.ashx#axzz1Q1KNX2Wj​

BEIRUT: Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Moallem Wednesday denied that Hezbollah and Iran were helping the Syrian regime in its three-month-old crackdown on protesters.

“We categorically deny any Iranian or Hezbollah interference in Syria,” Moallem told a packed news conference broadcast live on Syrian TV Wednesday.

“Yes, there is political support to Syria in an effort to overcome the crisis and there is support for the reforms pledged by Assad,” he said, but he insisted there was “no military support.”

Moallem, throwing his support behind Syrian President Bashar Assad, also denied there had been any Syrian meddling in Najib Mikati’s Cabinet lineup.

“Syria did not play any role in the Lebanese government formation. It is 100 percent Lebanese,” Moallem said, adding that Assad “had no time to interfere in Lebanese affairs.”

Moallem, however, refused to comment on Friday’s armed clashes in Tripoli, north Lebanon, between the pre-dominantly Alawite neighborhood of Jabal Mohsen and the mainly Sunni district of Bab al-Tabbaneh.

“I will not comment on this issue, just like I reject any foreign interference in our affairs,” he said.

Syria has come under increasing international pressure and sanctions over its brutal crackdown on a growing protest movement. The opposition estimates some 1,400 people have been killed.

The Future Movement-led March 14 coalition has accused Syria of the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and at least a dozen other Lebanese politicians.


Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Po...zbollah-Iran-helping-Assad.ashx#ixzz1Q1KSGIPJ
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)




=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=








..

Syria warns against outside interference

By Roueida Mabardi | AFP – 2 hours 50 minutes ago.. .
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-warns-against-outside-interference-130501647.html​

Syria strongly rejected on Tuesday any foreign intervention over its deadly crackdown on a pro-democracy revolt and singled out its former colonial ruler France, which is pressing the UN Security Council to act.

"We can reach consensus despite opposing points of view," Foreign Minister Walid Muallem told a Damascus news conference. "No one outside (Syria) can impose on us their point of view."

And while not directly accusing neighbouring Turkey of meddling, Muallem hinted that Ankara, which has called for democratic reforms in Syria and is hosting thousands of fugitives from the government's crackdown, should "reconsider its position."

"We say to those in Europe who are criticising us that they should stop interfering in Syrian affairs and sowing trouble in order to apply plans contrary to Syrian national interests."

Muallem said that sanctions against Syria adopted by the 27-nation bloc were tantamount to economic warfare.

Since the mid-March outbreak of disturbances in Syria, "not a single European leader has come to Syria to discuss what is going on," he said. Instead, "they have begun imposing a series of sanctions that today are hitting the livelihood of Syrians, which is equivalent to war."

Muallem accused France of pursuing a "colonialist agenda under the guise of human rights" and said French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe had colonial "illusions."

France, which ruled Syria for two decades under a League of Nations mandate following World War I, is spearheading attempts to get the United Nations to speak out against Damascus's crackdown.

More than 1,300 civilians have been killed and some 10,000 people arrested, according to Syrian rights groups, in the crackdown that has seen troops dispatched to crush revolt in cities across the country.

"Mr Juppe is still living under the illusions of the French colonial era. He has no influence in Syrian affairs," the foreign minister said, adding that Juppe imagined he had the right to "confer legitimacy on this or that leader."

Western governments have been circulating a draft Security Council resolution condemning President Bashar al-Assad's crackdown but Russia has warned it would veto any such move.

On Monday, Juppe said Assad had reached "a point of no return."

"Some believe there's still time for him to change his ways and commit to a (reform) process," he said. "For my part, I doubt it. I think that the point of no return has been reached."

European ministers on Monday agreed to beef up sanctions on Assad as they cast doubt on a new offer of change, some demanding he "reform or step aside."

European Union foreign ministers also angrily demanded action at the United Nations and strongly criticised Russian opposition.

Turning to Turkey, which has spoken out against the crackdown in Syria despite more than a decade of close ties, Muallem said, "We are keen on maintaining good relations with Turkey ... We don't want to wipe away years of efforts to establish privileged ties. I wish (Turkey) would reconsider its position."

Turkish President Abdullah Gul has said that Assad should have been more "clear-cut" in promises of reform that he made in a speech on Monday.

"One must read between the lines in his speech. He should say loud and strong in a clear-cut manner: ... 'We are passing to a pluralist system, we will organise democratic elections that conform to international standards,'" Anatolia news agency quoted Gul as saying.

"As soon as the Syrian president says that he will lead the transition in his country, we will see that things will change," Gul added.

However, pro-democracy activists have rejected Assad's overtures and vowed that the "revolution" will carry on, while the US State Department called for "action, not words."

Muallem ridiculed US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking why she "took 10 years to work out a law on health reform in the United States but does not wait a few weeks for us" to be able to institute the reforms promised by Assad.

Muallem reiterated the president's call for dialogue.

"I say to those Syrians demanding change, come participate in the national dialogue and test the seriousness and will of the Syrian leadership."

At the same time, he urged them not to "incite demonstrations and violence, which is useless and which only serves the enemies of Syria."

He denied Western allegations that Syria had received any assistance from Iran or Lebanese militant group Hezbollah in putting down the protests.

He charged that Al-Qaeda militants might have been behind what he called the "murder of security agents and the mutilation of their bodies."






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Iranian intelligence service supports Maher al-Assad oppression

22 June 2011, Wednesday
MUHLÝS KAÇAR, ANKARA
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-248...rvice-supports-maher-al-assad-oppression.html

Syrian soldiers have deployed near the Turkish border as part of the Syrian government’s efforts to crush popular unrest. ​

The Syrian regime has been trying to bear the brunt of rising tension within the country and escalating international criticism thanks mainly to the crucial support it is receiving from Iran. The Syrian security forces have intensified their crackdown on protesters, causing “savagery,” as the prime minister of Turkey suggested in a televised interview he gave prior to the June 12 elections.

A series of articles published by national and international media have uncovered Iran's close cooperation with Syria in oppressing Syrians demanding change for a better democracy and freedom in their country. Referring to a senior Israeli source, the Ha'aretz daily reported on Wednesday that Iran has rushed to Syria's side by sending members from Iran's Revolutionary Guard and the Al-Quds force, commanded by Gen. Qassem Suleimani, to contain the revolts that have gripped the country for three months now.

The same source also said Iran’s role is not just limited to supplying equipment to the Syrian army, including sniper rifles and communications systems to disrupt the Internet in the country. Another report that was published in Turkish media recently shows the mastermind behind operations against opposition groups, Maher al-Assad -- who is the commander of the Syrian army’s most elite division, the Republican Guard, and the brother of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad -- is being logistically supported by the Iranian intelligence organization SAVAMA.

According to an action strategy report published in the Sabah daily on Monday, Maher al-Assad is executing protesters within Syria through his loyal forces, which are referred to as the Shabiha by the public. Outside of Syria, Maher al-Assad tracks members of the opposition via the Syrian intelligence service. Referring to the intelligence reports, the Sabah article states that, in order to crack down on dissidents in the country, Maher al-Assad is receiving help from the Iranian intelligence service SAVAMA. It is also reported that Maher al-Assad recruited ex-Revolutionary Guards from Iran for $5,000 a month.

Together with SAVAMA, the Syrian Intelligence Service Mukhabarat is conducting joint operations against members of the opposition living in other countries, such as Turkey, the article says.

Going into detail on these joint operations, which took place in Turkey between May and June, the Sabah article names Jamaal and Nuri, two members of the Mukhabarat, who were involved in organizing demonstrations in Gaziantep and Ankara. Demonstrations that were held in Antalya were organized by Abbaz, a SAVAMA member. These men reportedly entered Turkey in April and have since been keeping a close eye on the members of the Syrian opposition who live in Hatay, Adana, Kilis, Gaziantep and Ýstanbul.

The article reports that the three men identified around 3,000 anti-Assad Syrians in Turkey.

Professor Veysel Ayhan, an expert from the Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies (ORSAM), told Today’s Zaman that Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are of strategic importance to Iran, where the latter provides strategic support in operational terms to the three countries.

“What the US has done in those countries in terms of sharing intelligence information and conducting joint operations with the local governments is now being mimicked by Iran in the countries where it has political influence,” Ayhan said. The point here is that both Iran and Syria have common interests in conducting such operations inside and outside of Syria, Ayhan added.

According to Ayhan, when analyzing the cooperation between Syria and Iran, it should not just be boiled down to being joint operations between Maher al-Assad and SAVAMA because Iran and Syria have been cooperating on all levels, especially politically, militarily and economically since the Iran-Iraq war, in which Syria sided with Iran.

“We should look at the broader Iranian influence on institutions in all those countries,” Ayhan noted. On Wednesday, the Sabah daily also published the details of another report which had been submitted to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan and on which he based his remarks in a televised interview that was aired just before the June 12 general elections in which he described the Maher al-Assad-led security forces’ actions in Syria against the opposition as “savagery.” According to the report, the Syrian army had detained some members of the opposition and executed them. However, the group affected the most by the Shabiha armed forces appears to be women, with several claims reporting the murder and rape of women. There are cases where houses have been set on fire in villages and towns that the Syrian army has passed through, the report also details.





=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Saudis Set To Bankrupt Iran With Flood Of Oil

Jun. 22 2011 - 11:24 am
By CHRISTOPHER HELMAN
http://blogs.forbes.com/christopherhelman/2011/06/22/saudis-set-to-bankrupt-iran-with-flood-of-oil/​

Today the Wall Street Journal has a fascinating piece describing a speech given this month by Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal. The prince, speaking to a group of U.S. and British servicemen at an airbase near London, explained that Saudi Arabia was so concerned about Iran¡¯s continued march toward attaining nuclear weapons that it was considering opening its oil spigots and swamping the world with oil in the interest of gutting Tehran¡¯s government revenue. The prince insisted that the Saudis still have sufficient spare production capacity that, if need be, ¡°we could almost instantly replace all of Iran¡¯s oil production¡± of roughly 4 million bpd.

Assume for the sake of argument that he¡¯s right and that the Saudis could manage upwards of 14 million bpd. It means that in a worst case scenario Iran¡¯s nuclear ambitions could be potentially reined in by a naval blockade of its oil tankers without invoking massive oil shortages (and economy crushing oil prices) worldwide. Bankrupting the mullahs wouldn¡¯t be a surefire solution¨CIran would of course view any such blockade as an act of war. Better then for the Saudis to cut Tehran¡¯s revenue gradually, by keeping the markets flush with crude. For more on the likelihood of the Saudis showing its power over OPEC by enacting a ¡°QE3¡å in the form of oil, see my dispatch from last week.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Iran warns to block all moves intended to affect oil prices

22.06.2011 17:40
http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/1895403.html​

Tehran would strongly confront any possible move by the oil producing countries to affect market prices, Iran's caretaker oil minister Mohammad Aliabadi said alluding to Saudi Arabia's West-backed surplus production which faced the strong protest of the OPEC members in the last ministerial meeting of the cartel in Vienna, Fars News AGency reported.

"Iran will stop any move designed to play with oil prices through production hike," said Aliabadi whose country holds presidency of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Aliabadi further described maintenance of the current production level by the OPEC members as the bloc's only weapon to control the prices, and reiterated, "We do not allow anyone to play with our national interests."

Saudi Arabia sought hard to convince the member states to demand a boost in production during OPEC's ministerial meeting in the Austrian capital, Vienna on June 8, but it failed.

Following the ministerial meeting, Aliabadi, who presided over the OPEC meeting, told FNA that Iran managed to thwart the efforts made by Saudi Arabia to increase the OPEC oil output during the 150th meeting of the oil exporting bloc.

The Iranian caretaker oil minister said that Saudi Arabia has a history in supporting oil output rise, adding that "apparently, two or three weeks ahead of the OPEC meeting, (US President) Mr. (Barack) Obama" asked oil industry insiders to help lower oil prices.

Aliabadi pointed out that some countries act against their own national interests and seek to sacrifice other states' as well, but the Islamic Republic would defend its interests.

The Iranian official explained that such moves made the latest OPEC meeting difficult for those members who sought a spike in oil production.

"It was very bad and difficult for them (Saudi Arabia), they who wanted to come and not just add 1.5 million barrels but to increase (oil production) by 2.85 million barrels" per day, Aliabadi stated.

The OPEC president further noted that for the first time many countries stood up to Saudi's measure except for the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait that later refrained from entering talks.

He also said that Iran, Venezuela and Algeria and some other countries opposed the Saudi move which was under the Western influence.

"I finally proposed to postpone a motion… by some three months and announce that a final decision will be made in three months as the OPEC has not reached a decision," Aliabadi said, adding that after the interval the bloc could meet and decide based on market reactions.

He added that Saudi Arabia and its allies opposed the ruling and urged a rise in the OPEC output, threatening to unilaterally increase their quota.

It showed they had set their minds on an increase beforehand, regardless of the OPEC meeting's outcome, Aliabadi concluded.

After ministers were unable to reach consensus to raise crude production, OPEC has decided to maintain output levels, with the option of meeting within the next three months to discuss a production hike.

On Wednesday, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal warned that Riyadh could seek to supplant Iran's oil exports if the country doesn't constrain its nuclear program, a move that could hobble Tehran's finances, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Iran, OPEC's second largest crude exporter, currently holds the presidency of the cartel, a position it is holding for the first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Iran officially took over the presidency of OPEC for the first time in 36 years on January 2011 and the country's former Oil Minister Massoud Mir-Kazzemi was elected as president of the organization.

Aliabadi has recently been appointed as Iran's caretaker oil minister and he represented the Islamic Republic of Iran at the ministerial meeting of the OPEC in Vienna on June 8.

In May President Ahmadinejad relieved the oil minister from his post after the government started merger of a number of ministries, including the oil and energy ministries and Aliabadi, who is a former head of Iran's Physical Education Organization, was appointed as the country's caretaker oil minister in a decree issued by Ahmadinejad.





=

 

[BREWER]

War on the Southern Border Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, US Army (Ret)

Posted for fair use and discussion.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

War on the Southern Border
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, US Army (Ret)

Chessboard Series Update

“The Collapse of Mexico and Its Civil War Comes to America” is being reported by an article in Newsmax Magazine this week. We at Stand Up America raised the threat level of Mexico and the Southern Border to the second biggest threat to the United States last month. Financial collapse in 2011 is the number one major threat. The threat from our Southern Border is greater now than the Middle East (except for Iran and proxies) and the continued war against radical Islam. With the reported death of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, it is apparent that we have to be posturing for increased attacks on innocent civilians, our overseas bases and worldwide US assets.

While vigilance, border security and defensive measures are necessary and essential, these measures are only part of the national strategy that we need now to protect America from the Southern Border of Mexico to Venezuela. We need superb human intelligence to be able to mount Special Operations and Joint Force Strike against these enemy threats from black and white global Lily Pads. We must be offensive minded and preempt any planned cartel narco-terrorists and jihadist operations. Our National Security team must be adaptive and creative in national strategy planning and execution.

The bloody battle between ruthless Mexican drug cartels threatens to turn America's southern neighbor into a failed nation-state that is spilling deeply into U.S. territory, threatening American citizens and our way of life. The raging drug wars have claimed nearly 40,000 lives since 2006 in a nightmare of beheadings, mass graves, kidnappings, and endemic corruption at the highest levels of Mexican society, as cartels rake in $12 billion a year. Newsmaxmagazine's eye-opening special report, "The Collapse of Mexico — Its Civil War Comes to America," delves into the people and politics along the treacherous border. Newsmax spent two months conducting more than 20 interviews during visits to border areas in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, and found that despite the administration's reassurances, Mexico's drug cartels have penetrated deep into our nation's heartland, striking fear in ordinary Americans. Frightening fact: Even the Government Accountability Office concedes that the United States can prevent or interrupt illegal entry along only 129 miles of our 1,954-mile southern border.

"The Collapse of Mexico" report:

* One couple's deadly confrontation with Mexican smugglers
* Obama's empty boast about border security
* Cartels threaten the "rapid and sudden collapse" of Mexico
* Troubling number: 1 in 5 border crossers has criminal record
* Lawlessness is "new normal" along the border
* The most worrisome sign of Mexico's chaos
* Cartels' savagery toward migrants
* Border fence lands U.S. residents in "Mexico"
* Cartels use high-tech surveillance gear in U.S.
* Government's ominous warning to visitors on federal lands
* Apprehensions of illegals have plunged in last 10 years
* Terrorists seep through border — 409 caught from Pakistan
* WikiLeaks reveals: Mexico re-sells U.S. arms to cartels
* Slain rancher's widow's message to Janet Napolitano
* 9-11 Commission's "worst-case scenario" on the southern border
* Drug lord Joaquin Guzman: world's most powerful trafficker
* The deadliest town in Mexico
* Five states hardest hit by illegal immigration
* Border Patrol's bogus claim of "acceptable control"
* Judith Miller: Super rich imperil Mexico's growth
* Illegal aliens cost Americans $113 billion a year
* Cartels' links to Hezbollah operatives
* Sheriff: Obama's "near betrayal" of local law enforcement
* Mexicans' cruel choice: "silver or lead"
* Americans fear the cartels — 70 miles from Mexican border

Article continues below....

 

[BREWER]

Article continues....

War on the Southern Border Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, US Army (Ret)

Our leadership in Washington, DC despite the Osama slaying appears to still be on a rudderless course when it comes to National Security especially along our Southern Border. According to some already leaked documents, Venezuelan General Hugo Carvajal and other members of the armed forces have been in direct contact with and lending financial support to the late FARC leader Antonio Mar¡n, aka "Tirofijo" ("Sure Shot") and "Manuel Marulanda." FARC continues to enjoy ideological support from the governments of Ecuador and Venezuela. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa have both argued that the FARC should not be considered a terrorist organization.

While supporting the insurgents next door , Venezuelan military and terror alliances are spanning the globe and expanding at a worrying rate in relation to US interests in the region. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Russian President Dimitry Medvedev jointly announced that they had reached an agreement for Russia to build two 1200-megawatt nuclear reactors in Venezuela. Also part of the deal was the latest installment of $6.6 billion of conventional weapons purchases since 2005: ninety-two T-72 and T-90 tanks that will replace the aging French MX-30s, ten Ilyushin Il-76 MD- 90 planes, two Il-78MK refueling aircraft, as well as five S-300 missile systems. Iran had also sought the S-300 but Medvedev banned the sale for fear of violating U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, concerning sanctions on Iran. The S-300 missiles and their attendant Smerch multiple rocket launchers are considered far more powerful than the Tor M-1 missile systems that both Venezuela and Iran have previously purchased in the past five years. Caracas has also confirmed plans to purchase up to 10 Mi-28NE attack helicopters on top of the 10 Mi-35M helicopters purchased in the past half- decade. That is an awful lot of weaponry for a country that has not fought a war since its independence from Spain in 1821.

While Chavez has said that he is arming his citizen militias, known as Bolivarian Circles, rumor has it that the weapons may also be going to agents and fighters from the Colombian FARC, the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah and Cuban security and intelligence services, whose numbers, according to many think tanks and U.S. security sources, have swelled in Venezuela. Interpol has confirmed evidence that Venezuela has funneled well over $300 million to the FARC and has built an ammunition plant to supply AK-103s, the FARC weapon of choice. That is only one piece of the puzzle; the other is Iran, where Venezuelan money has also been flowing.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly call each other "brothers" and last year signed 11 memoranda of understanding for, among other initiatives, joint oil and gas exploration, as well as the construction of tanker ships and petrochemical plants. Chavez's assistance to the Islamic Republic in circumventing U.N. sanctions has got the attention of the new Republican leadership of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Connie Mack (both R-FL) have said they intend to launch a money-laundering investigation into the Venezuelan state oil company Petr¢leos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). In July 2010, the EU ordered the seizure of all the assets of the Venezuelan International Development Bank, an affiliate of the Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI), one of 34 Iranian entities implicated in the development of nuclear or ballistic technology and sanctioned by the Treasury Department. In the meantime, Tehran and Caracas have announced that PDVSA will be investing $780 million in the South Pars gas field in southern Iran.

Uranium, sought by both Iran and Russia, is a key aspect of the two countries' strategic relationship: Iran is reportedly helping Venezuela find and refine its estimated 50,000 tons of uranium reserves. So, on one side Venezuela is funding and arming the FARC; on the other it is purchasing nuclear reactors and weapons from the Russians; on yet another, it is sending money to Iran and helping it find and enrich uranium. And then there is Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanon-based proxy.

Reports that Venezuela has provided Hezbollah operatives with Venezuelan national identity cards are so rife, they were raised in the July 27, 2010, Senate hearing for the recently nominated U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, Larry Palmer. When Palmer answered that he believed the reports, Chavez refused to accept him as ambassador in Venezuela. Meanwhile, Iran Air, the self-proclaimed "airline of the Islamic Republic of Iran," operates a Tehran-Caracas flight commonly referred to as "Aeroterror" by intelligence officials for allegedly facilitating the access of terrorist suspects to South America. The Venezuelan government shields passenger lists from Interpol on that flight.

Iran, meanwhile, has developed significant relationships elsewhere in Latin America - most prominently with Chavez's allies and fellow Bolivarian Revolutionaries: Bolivian President Evo Morales, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega.

In December 2008 the EDBI offered to deposit $120 million in the Ecuadorean Central Bank to fund bilateral trade, and Iran and Ecuador have signed a $30 million deal to conduct joint mining projects in Ecuador through the Chemical-Geotechnical-metallurgical Research Center in Ecuador. Even as that deal carefully avoids mentioning uranium, the IAEA's March 2009 plans to help Ecuador explore its vast uranium reserves were largely intended to highlight and preclude Iranian involvement. In February 2010 the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force, a multilateral organization that combats money laundering and terrorist financing, placed Ecuador on a list of countries that failed to comply with its regulations.

Middle Eastern terrorism, however, is not new to Latin America and has been on the US Army's radar for many years. Latin America's Tri-Border Area (TBA), bounded by Puerto Iguazu, Argentina; Ciudad del Este, Paraguay; and Foz do Iguacu, Brazil, has long been an ideal breeding ground for terrorist groups. The TBA, South America's busiest contraband and smuggling center, is home to a large, active Arab and Muslim community consisting of a Shi'a majority, a Sunni minority, and a small population of Christians who emigrated from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinian territories about 50 years ago. Most of these Arab immigrants are involved in commerce in Ciudad del Este but live in Foz do Iguacu on the Brazilian side of the Iguacu River.

In 2005, six million Muslims were estimated to inhabit Latin American cities. However, ungoverned areas, primarily in the Amazon regions of Suriname, Guyana, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil, present easily exploitable terrain over which to move people and material. The Free Trade Zones of Iquique, Chile; Maicao, Colombia; and Colon, Panama, can generate undetected financial and logistical support for terrorist groups. Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru offer cocaine as a lucrative source of income. In addition, Cuba and Venezuela have cooperative agreements with Syria, Libya, and Iran.

Today, one of the masterminds of Argetnian attacks, the Iranian citizen and Shia Muslim teacher, Mohsen Rabbani, remains not only at large, but extremely active in recruiting young Brazilians, according to reports in Brazilian magazine Veja. "Now based in Iran, he continues to play a significant role in the spread of extremism in Latin America," prosecutor Alberto Nisman, head of the special unit of the Argentine prosecutors charged with investigating the attacks, said to VEJA. The enticement of Brazilians for courses abroad has been monitored for four years by the Federal Police and the ABIN, the government's secret service.

One hundred eighty kilometers away from Recife, in rural Pernambuco, the city of Belo Jardim remains the most active center for the recruitment of extremists in Latin America. Along with the recruits in Belo Jardim, youth from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico also travel to Iran for religious instruction under Rabbani.

The Federal Police has information that Rabbani has been to Brazil several times in recent years. In one of those visits, almost three years ago, he boarded the Iran Air flight from Tehran to Caracas, Venezuela and then from there, entered Brazil illegally.


Even ahead of the IISS dossier's publication, the most shocking revelations into the global interconnectedness of Latin American governments and Middle Eastern terrorist groups have come from Walid Makled, Venezuela's latter-day Pablo Escobar, who was arrested on August 19, 2010 in C£cuta, a town on the Venezuelan-Colombian border. A Venezuelan of Syrian descent known variously as "El Turco" ("The Turk") or "El Arabe" ("The Arab"), he is allegedly responsible for smuggling 10 tons of cocaine a month into the US and Europe - a full 10% of the world's supply and 60% of Europe's supply. His massive infrastructure and distribution network make this entirely plausible, as well as entirely implausible the Venezuelan government did not know. Makled owned Venezuela's biggest airline, Aeropostal, huge warehouses in Venezuela's biggest port, Puerto Cabello, and bought enormous quantities of urea (used in cocaine processing) from a government-owned chemical company.

Indeed since his arrest and incarceration in the Colombian prison La Picota, Makled has given numerous interviews to various media outlets, in which he has claimed that he paid more than a million dollars a month to various high-ranking Venezuelan government officials who were his partners in trafficking FARC cocaine - amongst the named: Venezuelan Minister of the Interior and also Minister of Justice, Tarek El Aissami, the General-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Unified Command, General Henry Rangel Silva, and the Director of Military Intelligence, General Hugo Carvajal.

Although the US had issued an arrest warrant and subjected him to sanctions under the Kingpin Act, Makled is being extradited to Venezuela, not the US. While the US dithered on Colombia's offer of extradition to the US, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez requested Makled's extradition to Venezuela, where he is (in the ultimate ironic twist) wanted for cocaine trafficking and at least two murders.

When asked on camera by a Univision television reporter whether he had any relation to the FARC, he answered: "That is what I would say to the American prosecutor." Asked directly whether he knew of Hezbollah operations in Venezuela, he answered: "In Venezuela? Of course! That which I understand is that they work in Venezuela. [Hezbollah] make money and all of that money they send to the Middle East."[5]

Makled's extradition to Venezuela rather than the US is thus a terrible loss for both the United States's Global War on Terror (GWOT) and the world's intelligence communities: in Venezuela's heavily politicized judicial system Makled will never receive a fair trial and any testimony he might give will certainly be concealed.

The problem now is that Latin American support for terrorism has growing state support-and this should worry everyone in Washington DC and understand the current threat and vulnerabilities to the America people.. America…We must act NOW for the welfare and security of our precious nation.


FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Paul E. Vallely, Major General (USA/Ret.) is an author, military strategist and Chairman of Stand Up America and Save Our Democracy Projects.

 

[BREWER]

deleted

 

[Housecarl]

South China Sea
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?385639-South-China-Sea
Started by northern watch‎, Today 02:25 PM

____________

Posted for fair use......
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/frank-ching/2011/06/22/307135/Sea-dispute.htm

Sea dispute continues to escalate

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
By Frank Ching

Tensions over the South China Sea territorial disputes continue to escalate with the holding of military exercises by virtually all parties concerned.

China conducted three days of military exercises in the resources-rich area, simulating efforts to capture islands.

China's military capacity will rapidly increase. Beijing has already announced its intention to substantially add to its maritime surveillance force, including ships and aircraft.

Contesting China's territorial claims are Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei, none of which are a match for Beijing militarily, individually or jointly.

These small nations, which realize that they are no match for China, have been calling on the United States to remain in the region to provide some balance.

The Americans have been conducting an annual combined exercise with the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Exercises with Vietnam are also planned.

While the disputed islands are small and largely uninhabited, there are believed to be vast deposits of oil and natural gas under the seabed.

Both Vietnam and the Philippines have accused China of harassing their survey vessels while they were undertaking exploratory work, charges Beijing has denied.

But China has called on other claimants to stop any exploration for oil without its permission.

The United States, while ostensibly an ally of the Philippines, has announced that it takes no position on sovereignty over the various islands, rocks and reefs in the South China Sea and has offered to help mediate the dispute, an offer rejected out of hand by China.

The claims and counterclaims stem from the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans.

In May 2009, China, while rebutting a joint submission by Malaysia and Vietnam, asserted: “China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof.” The map showed a U-shaped dotted line extending from China and enclosing virtually the entire South China Sea while hugging the coastline of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines.

This April, China again wrote to the commission to rebut a Philippine claim. After repeating its assertion of sovereignty, it added: “China's sovereignty and related rights and jurisdiction in the South China Sea are supported by abundant historical and legal evidence.”

However, no evidence was produced. The problem with such a sweeping claim is that it seems to deny any rights to other coastal states, which certainly cannot be the intention of the U.N. convention.

Of the two main island groups involved, China controls the Paracel Islands outright, having ousted a South Vietnamese garrison there in 1974, in the waning days of the Saigon administration. At the time, China was North Vietnam's ally and Hanoi did not voice support for South Vietnam against China.

Since possession is nine-tenths of the law, China's position there seems strong. Such is not the case, however, with the Spratly islands, where Beijing controls only a handful of tiny islands, with others being held by Taiwan, Vietnam and Malaysia.

Recently Singapore, which is not a claimant, called on China to clarify its claims “as the current ambiguity as to their extent has caused serious concerns in the international maritime community.” This is a constructive move and China should have no objection to clarifying its claims, since Beijing has said that it wants the situation to be resolved peacefully.

China has voiced the hope that “relevant countries will work with China to implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,” signed by China and ASEAN in 2002. That is an excellent sentiment. The problem is that China has refused to take the next step, which is to agree on modalities with ASEAN for settling the rival claims.

Instead, China insists that it will only negotiate bilaterally with Southeast Asian countries, giving Beijing a huge advantage because of its size.

There is something that all the claimants should be willing to do.

Since all are signatories of UNCLOS, they should declare their willingness to be bound by the dispute resolution mechanism set up under the convention, namely the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

If any country refuses to accept the tribunal's jurisdiction, then it will be clear that it is either insincere about hoping for a peaceful resolution or is not confident about the strength of its legal position, or both.

Frank Ching can be reached at Frank.ching@gmail.com

Follow him on Twitter: @FrankChing1

Copyright © 1999 – 2011 The China Post.

 

[Housecarl]

There are several offerings from the South Asia Analysis Group on the growing South China Sea crisis....

Posted for fair use....
http://southasiaanalysis.org/\papers46\paper4560.html

Paper no. 4560

21-June-2011

Chinese Restraint Has Its Limits, Vietnam Cautioned

By B. Raman

Through articles in the Chinese Communist Party controlled media that appeared on June 20 and 21, 2011, the Chinese authorities have clearly warned of the likely consequences of what they see as the increasingly assertive policy of the Government of Vietnam in the South China Sea.

2. A confrontational mood has been developing in the wake of a live-ammunition exercise held by the Vietnamese Navy in the disputed area. The exercise took place on June 13, 2011, for six hours around the Hon Ong Island about 40 kilometres off Quang Nam province in central Vietnam. The island is about 250 kilometres away from the Xisha (Paracel) Islands and 1,000 kilometres away from the Nansha (Spratly) Islands. Vietnam announced the exercise after accusing China of hindering the operation of a Vietnamese oil and gas exploration boat for the second time in two weeks.

3. On June 14, Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung issued a decree about a potential military call-up. The decree explained who would be exempt from military draft if a war broke out. The decree was signed by the Prime Minister at the request of the Ministry of Defence.

4. The same day, the Chinese Foreign Ministry clarified that China would not resort to the use of force in the South China Sea. Hong Lei, its spokesperson, said: "We will not resort to the use of force or the threat of force. We hope relevant countries will do more for peace and stability in the region."

5. But, on June 15, China sent one of its largest maritime surveillance ships, the Haixun 31, to Singapore through the South China Sea. The Chinese media reported that Haixun-31 intended to monitor shipping and "protect maritime security" on its way to Singapore.

6. Haixun 31, from the Chinese Maritime Safety Administration, under the Ministry of Transport, sailed from Zhuhai in the Guangdong province. The 3,000-ton, helicopter-equipped ship will monitor shipping, carry out surveying duties, inspect oil wells and "protect maritime security", Xinhua said. It also said that the ship will inspect foreign vessels anchored or operating in Chinese waters.

7. On June 17, the Government-controlled “China Daily” published details of the Chinese Government’s plans to strengthen its maritime surveillance capability. According to these details, by 2020, a total of 15,000 personnel, compared with 9,000 now, will serve in the China Maritime Surveillance (CMS) Force under the State Oceanic Administration. The CMS air arm will be increased to 16 planes and the patrol fleet will have 350 vessels by 2015 and 520 by 2020. Currently, it has nine aircraft, more than 260 surveillance vessels and 280 law enforcement vehicles.

8. The same day, the “People's Daily” said that maritime defense forces recently staged three days and nights of exercises in the South China Sea, without specifying exactly when or where. The drills involved a total of 14 patrol boats, landing craft and submarine hunting boats, along with two military aircraft. The aim was to refine antisubmarine, resupply and island defense capabilities.

9. On June 20, the “People’s Daily” carried the first warning to Vietnam in an article titled “Vietnam should wake up to Danger !” by its columnist Li Hongmei. It said:“China proposes to settle disputes through peaceful negotiations, but never fears challenges from outside. Moreover, China will never move an inch on its core interest of sovereignty and territorial integrity and will always stand up for that at any cost. Therefore, it is highly advisable for Vietnam to rein in its overreaching ambition over the South China Sea, and dim its hope pinned on the U.S., for the simple reason that once the U.S. feels its own interests threatened, it will readily sacrifice the interests of the Asian countries on the periphery of South China Sea.”

10. On June 21, the Party-owned “Global Times” carried the second warning to Vietnam in the following words: “Depending on how the situation develops, China has to be ready for two plans: negotiate with Vietnam for a peaceful solution, or answer the provocation with political, economic or even military counterstrikes. We have to be clear about the possibility of the second option, so as to let Vietnam remain sober about the South China Sea issue….Vietnam has been trapped in an unrealistic belief that as long as the US balances out the South China Sea issue, it can openly challenge China's sovereignty, and walk away with huge gains….Since a limited military conflict with China over the South China Sea in 1988, Vietnam has been increasingly aggressive in grabbing islands as its own, ignoring China's traditional policy of "shelving disputes and developing jointly." It is pushing the limits of China's national interest and dignity. China has to send a clear message that it will take whatever measures necessary to protect its interests in the South China Sea. If Vietnam continues to provoke China in this region, China will first deal with it with maritime police forces, and if necessary, strike back with naval forces….If Vietnam wants to start a war, China has the confidence to destroy invading Vietnam battleships, despite possible objections from the international community. The US may add some uncertainty in the South China Sea. China will handle this carefully, and is not likely to engage in a direct confrontation with the US.”

11. Despite the escalating war of words, there is no evidence so far that the two countries are actually preparing themselves for a military confrontation. Further developments need to be closely monitored.

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

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://southasiaanalysis.org/\papers46\paper4561.html


Paper no. 4561

22-June-2011

Spratly Islands A New Geostrategic Game?

By Bhaskar Roy

The recent sharpened hostility between China on the one hand and Vietnam and the Philippines on the other, over the South Sea Islands of the Spratly group needs to be dissected more deeply to there is more than a squabble over territory.

Of course, territory is at the core no doubt. There is reported to be huge oil and gas deposits in the sea bed of these islets, reefs and coves, and energy or the lack of it has become vital to all concerned especially for China. China’s economic engine is becoming more dependent on imported energy, and recent Chinese moves suggest safeguarding its energy sources near and far has become an unstated “core issue”. As defined by the Chinese officially, core issues are those that must be protected and secured by any means including military.

China claims the entire Spratly group and the South China Sea as its sovereign territory, but the evidence proferred by it from time to time remains less than convincing. The other part claimants are Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. Their claims are small and well within their coastal waters. Taiwan, which is also in occupation of some reefs, holds a position same as that of China as per the old Guomingdang (Kuomingtang) doctrine that the two will unite some day when China gives up communism. China initiated the Code of Conduct Declaration (COD) in 2002 with the other claimants that issues will be resolved peacefully and till then there should be joint development of resources. The COD would never work. The Chinese conducted themselves on the principle, “what is mine is mine, what is yours is also mine but we are willing to share yours”.

China has sanctioned foreign oil companies that worked with Vietnam and the Philippines on oil and gas exploration surveys. Last year, a Chinese submarine planted a Chinese flag on the bed of the South China Sea. Most recently, Chinese maritime surveillance vessels, a fleet that is set to expand exponentially, have been cutting cables of Vietnamese and Philippine survey ships.

Tension escalated with the Vietnam navy conducting a 9-hour live fire exercise along its coast (June 13) which it described as routine. It brought strong reactions from China.

China’s PLA mouthpiece, the Liberation Army Daily (LAD) warned (June 14) Vietnam’s live-fire military exercise will intensify tensions in the region. An op-ed article by highly politically connected Li Hongmei in the Party mouthpiece the People’s Daily (June 15) commented, “China needs military foresight and it is advisable to make some preparation for action”. Li Hongmei, who is the editor of the on-line edition of the People’s Daily, is apparently the voice of a section of the Chinese leadership which is prone to take a hardline. China also despatched its largest maritime surveillance ship to the South China Sea on its way to Singapore. The English language China Daily (June 17) disclosed that in view of the escalating tension in the South China Sea, the China maritime surveillance (CMS) force will be expanded to 16 aircraft and 520 vessels by 2020 from the current nine aircraft and “more than” 260 surveillance vessels.

This does not mean China is ready to increase hostility to a point of serious military clashes with Vietnam and the Philippines. At most, if Vietnam continues with its brinkmanship, there could be minor clashes on the seas. Neither Vietnam nor the Philippines possess military strength to match any where what China has, though Hanoi is bolstering its capability enough to hurt China if the PLA navy invaded Vietnamese waters. The Philippines’ President Benigno Aquino told visiting Chinese Defence Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie in May that though his country was no match to China militarily but if China continues to provoke they would be forced to take steps to protect themselves. It was also reiterated that the Philippines has a defence treaty with the USA. The US ambassador to Manila openly declared earlier this month that the US was with the Philippines on all issues including the South China Sea.

China is watching with concern American strategic penetration in the region. A US destroyer would head to Vietnam’s Da Nang port in July to conduct a search and rescue drill. The Japan-based aircraft carrier USS George Washington has left its base for deployment through the region which will certainly include the South China Sea. There are, of course, pre-scheduled engagements that have nothing to do with the recent escalation of tensions in the South China Sea. But Beijing will see it in a much larger context of containment of China.

From the time US President George W. Bush entered into the Iraq war in 2000 and the Afghan war following the “9/11” terrorist attack on the US, China had a free ride in the region. Without an American cover, the smaller neighbours of China had no option but to succumb to China’s comprehensive might. America had retracted from the Asia-Pacific region.

China’s assertiveness emerged from the following: (i) US withdrawal from this region, (ii) the 2008 global economic meltdown which convinced China that US power was in decline and China was rising to replace it – something demonstrated with impunity, (iii) Japan was a collapsing power centre in Asia, and the European Union (EU) could be bullied into submission on trade issues, and (iv) China’s military power demonstrations in 2008 and 2009 convinced it that it was impregnable and could deny area access to the US Navy in its maritime environment especially around Taiwan.

After a long hiatus from the Asia-Pacific region, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brought the US back to the region from mid-2009. Mid-2010 was a watershed in this strategic review, in the face of China’s force projection. There is a wide swath of issues starting from China’s clash with Japan on the disputed Diaoyu (Japanese Senkaku ) islands in Japan’s possession, protection of North Korea in Pyongyang’s military attacks against South Korea in 2010, and China’s moves to legitimise South China Sea as its sovereign territory.

China tried to persuade the US in 2010 to accept its sovereignty over the South China Sea, but Clinton made it clear that it was in US’s national interest to keep the sea lanes of the South China Sea free for international navigation.

The South China Sea is a critical navigational waterway in this region which is used from the west of the Indian Ocean to East Asia. If China controls this sea space it will dictate maritime traffic, both civilian and military, across what a Chinese strategic theory predicted in 2004-2005, from the Western Line (Middle East and Eastern Africa) to the Eastern Line (Asia-Pacific region). This is the critical mass of China’s geostrategic pursuit for control. This is a severe challenge for all concerned, and cannot be allowed.

This is a matter that a whole stream of countries across half the globe at least must be alert to. An international debate on this issue has become urgent.

(The author is an eminent China analyst with many years of experience. He can be reached at grouchohart@yahoo.com)

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://southasiaanalysis.org/\papers46\paper4562.html

Paper no. 4562

22-June-2011

China-Vietnam Row on Spratlys in South China Sea - Lessons for India

By D. S. Rajan

One can see that the intensity of the ongoing competition between China and Vietnam in claiming sovereignty over two disputed South China Sea island chains, the Paracels (Xisha in Chinese, Hoangsa in Vietnamese) and Spratlys (Nansha in Chinese, Truongsa in Vietnamese) is growing day by day. Beijing claims a vast sea area stretching from Hainan, its southern most province as belonging to it historically, whereas Hanoi argues that the two chains are Vietnamese territory since 17th century. As per known data, China has presence now in 9 locations in Spratlys, while Vietnam has in 29. Other regional powers are also involved in the dispute - the Philippines says that the two chains are its territories on the basis of their geographical proximity to it; Malaysia and Brunei view that the territories fall under their respective Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) as defined by the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea.

For all the claimants, the strategic importance of the South China Sea region has increased as current estimates confirm vast reserves of natural resources there – about 25 million metric tones of crude oil and approximately 25 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. The region is also home to important shipping lanes.

As Chinese analysts see, to defend its strategic interests in South China Sea, China may have to deal with, what they consider as, two ‘unfavourable’ factors – firstly, China has actual control over only a small number of disputed islands and lacks channels that give connection to the ocean and secondly, the country has ‘no formidable’ Navy to protect its maritime interests. For them, the remedy may lie in China’s ability to transform itself ‘from a continental power to maritime power’ (Gong Jianhua, China Daily, 8 June 2011). Given such assessment, China may think that more time is needed to turn its naval power conditions in its favour and prefer to wait before taking any assertive action on the islands issue; Finding a final solution to the issue may thus take a long time. In the meanwhile, South China Sea is expected to continue as a regional flash point.

China-Vietnam clashes over Paracels and Spratlys are not new. In 1974, the two fought in Paracels and China then captured territories there. Since China launched a war against Vietnam in 1979 to “teach Vietnam a lesson”, occasional conflicts between them have taken place, notable among them having been the fighting in 1988 over Johnson Reef in Spratlys, which resulted in loss of Vietnamese Navy personnel. The nineties saw no major confrontation between the two nations, with China in that period opting more for a political approach towards the islands issue; the then Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng proposed in 1990 that the territorial issue may be put aside, to enable the two sides to indulge in ‘common development’ and two years later, China passed its “Law on Territorial Waters and Adjacent Areas” which reiterated its claim over Paracels and Spratlys. Beijing’s signing of “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in South China Sea” in 2002 was a major Chinese diplomatic move with respect to South China Sea issue. However minor clashes still occurred; in April and July 2007, Chinese patrol boats captured some Vietnamese fishermen and boats operating close to Spratlys.

The latest incident in Spratlys took place on 26 May 2011, when a Chinese fishing boat, escorted by two Chinese patrol vessels, rammed into and disabled the cables of a Vietnamese seismic survey ship owned by ‘Petro Vietnam’. Hanoi called the act constituting a ‘deliberate’ Chinese violation of Vietnam’s territorial sovereignty and diplomatically protested to Beijing. China, on its part, alleged that the Vietnamese ship was illegally exploring in the area of its jurisdiction and explained that the ship’s cable was cut in the ‘turmoil’ that resulted from the chasing of Chinese vessels by Vietnamese ships. Following the incident, anti-China demonstrations took place in Hanoi, albeit with the tacit permission by the Vietnamese authorities.

The holding of “Live Fire Drills” by both Vietnam and China involving their respective civilian coastal security units and also military forces, in the period immediately following the 26 May 2011 incident, was the most serious incident to happen since 1988. It raised the possibilities of escalation of the conflict into a war-like situation. The venue for Vietnam’s drills (13 June 2011), which took place with Hanoi’s prior-publicity for the first time, was Hon Ong Island, 40 kms off its central coast, 250 kms away from Paracels and 1000 kms away from Spratlys. Hanoi described the drills as ‘routine annual training activity”. The drills were close to land territory and no anti- ship missiles were fired. Thus, Vietnam appeared to have acted with some degree of caution, possibly with intention not to jeopardize the otherwise positive climate prevailing in its political ties with China.

China chose to respond quickly and rather aggressively. It sent the country’s maritime surveillance forces, responsible for ‘defending islands and meeting any crises’ to the vicinity of Spratlys for conducting a 3- day long “live fire drills.” Taking part in the excercise, which began on 17 June 2011, were 14 Chinese patrol boats, landing craft, submarine-hunting boats and two Chinese fighter aircraft, along with ‘naval forces’. (Chinese TV broadcast, 17 June 2011). Further demonstrating its resolve to protect the country’s maritime interests, China, through a statement of the Defence Ministry (Beijing, 9 June 2011), disclosed that the country’s Navy would hold ‘training drills’ in late June 2011 in the waters of West Pacific.

No doubt, both held drills, but China’s exercise, by its scale and timing, definitely appears to be a bigger show of strength against Vietnam. Beijing, at the same time, in an effort taken prior to its exercise with the apparent aim of preventing a loss of image internationally, made an official statement containing seemingly benign inputs (Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Beijing, 14 June 2011). It blamed Vietnam for provocation, but at the same time pledged that China “will not resort to use or threat of force” in South China Sea disputes. Stating that China was willing to hold direct negotiations with other nations making territorial claims within the framework of the Code of Conduct agreed in 2002, it indirectly warned the US by urging “nations not directly involved in the maritime disputes to respect all efforts towards solving the issue peacefully”. A Liberation Army Daily commentary (14 June 2011) was more forthright in opposing ‘internationalization’ of the issue and asking for China-Vietnam ‘direct negotiations’.

The following four compelling reasons can be traced with respect to China’s show of force against Vietnam this year - (i) 70% increase in Vietnam’s Defence Budget, presented in January 2011, reaching up to US$ 2.6 billion, (ii) signs of Hanoi’s preparedness for a war with China , as evidenced in its Decree issued on 13 June 2011 specifying the category of citizens that would be exempt from military service at times of war, (iii) challenge posed by Vietnam’s renewed activism in exploring oil and gas in the disputed area, as a follow up to Petro Vietnam’s signing last year of contracts with international oil firms like ExxonMobil and BP and (iv) increase in the level of attempts by Vietnam and the US to ‘internationalize’ the South China Sea issue.

On the last mentioned, notable are the statements of US Secretary of State Clinton, made in July 2010, that Washington considers South China Sea as strategically important and supports ‘freedom of navigation’ there, and her offer of US mediation to resolve the issue through a ‘multilateral approach’. On its part, Vietnam (through foreign ministry statement of 14 June 2011) wanted ‘international involvement’ to keep peace in South China Sea, signaling its welcome to the US involvement. Also, the “US- Vietnam Political, Security and Defence Dialogue” (Washington, 17 June 2011) saw both nations coordinating their positions on South China Sea issue; they described the area as one of “common interest to international community”.

China-Vietnam political and economic ties witnessed a visible improvement in recent years. The two sides have been able to solve the boundary issue through signing a land border treaty in 2008 and increase the two-way trade to US$ 27 billion in 2010. During the visit to China of a special envoy of Vietnam Communist Party General Secretary Nguen Phu Truong in February 2011, a decision was taken on exchanges of official visits by Truong and his Chinese Communist Party counterpart Hu Jintao. China’s Vice-Chairman of Central Military Commission, Guo Boxiung, has visited Vietnam and the defence ministers of China and Vietnam have vowed for speeding up military exchanges during their interaction at this year’s Shangrila Dialogue (Singapore, early June 2011). As late as 10 June 2011, senior political advisers of the two nations discussed matters on bilateral cooperation at Beijing.

Question arises – why then China clashed with Vietnam now? The answer is simple – Beijing utilized the clash to reassert its claims over Spratlys. In broader terms, the ‘reassertion’ at this juncture is very much linked to China’s current ‘core interests’ concept, which disallows compromise and even permits use of force while addressing all sovereignty related issues including the South China Sea. In fact, the concept has now come to override every other Chinese diplomatic principle governing territorial issues. (It does not matter whether or not Beijing has ever formally defined the South China Sea as an area of “core interest”; a debate still exists on this count).

What lesson India can learn from the latest China-Vietnam clash? Firstly, India should realize that the ‘core interests’ concept which China uses against Vietnam, can also influence Beijing’s policy behaviour with respect to the Sino-Indian border issue( though not so far included by China in the ‘core interests’ list). Next, India should take note of the contradiction between China’s “not to use force” declaration with respect to settlement of South China Sea disputes and its ground level actions of confronting Vietnamese boats and carrying out a Navy-involved exercise to warn Vietnam. The contradiction was also visible in the case of China’s approach towards Japan on Senkakus issue. Not long time back, Beijing bullied Tokyo on the issue. Can China, which in theory stands for a peaceful dialogue on the Sino-Indian boundary issue, indulge in limited, but offensive border actions against India in practice at any point of time from now? New Delhi should ponder over this question especially with reference to the “Chinese intrusions” into Indian border being frequently noticed.

Next, China is applying the ‘diplomatic’ formula of “shelving the disputes and seeking common development” to its stand on territorial issues with Vietnam. This line may turn into an aggressive one, as and when China becomes a ‘maritime’ power, leaving no necessity for ‘shelving.’ In the case of India also, Beijing is in favor of ‘shelving’ the ‘difficult’ border issue and improving ties in other areas. Will China gain assertiveness on territorial issues with India once its defence modernization programme is complete, say by the middle of the century as being projected? India should deeply examine this aspect too.

As next point, the US factor has emerged as an irritant in China’s dealing with the islands issue with Vietnam. There is a parallel case with respect to India with Chinese opinions doubting Washington-New Delhi collusion to strategically ‘encircle’ China. New Delhi should therefore handle the US-China-India triangular relations with finesse.

Last, but not least, New Delhi should look closely at the implications of China’s aim to become a “maritime power” for the situation in the Indian Ocean, a region of strategic importance to India.

(The writer, D.S.Rajan, is Director, Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, India. Email:director.c3s@gmail.com)

 

[Housecarl]

As for this article all I can say is "wishful thinking"...HC

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/167...a-oil-energy-war-armed-joint-naval-patrol.htm

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 12:03 PM EDT
China-Vietnam: Breakthrough in South China Sea face-off

Vietnam and China have seen a breakthrough in their escalating tensions over the South China Sea.

At one point the imbroglio threatened to break out into armed conflict.

But the two Communist nations just finished a two-day joint navy patrol in the Gulf of Tonkin, including a port call to China.

The face-off started late last month, when Chinese ships cut the cords on PetroVietnam's survey ships, which was surveying the South China Sea for oil. In a subsequent attack on June 9, a Chinese vessel cut cords on another PetroVietnam ship, in what Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Phuong Nga said was a "premeditated" offensive.

Both countries believe that the other's presence in the South China Sea is an impediment to their national sovereignty.

Why are they after a small piece of water space?

Some Chinese sources estimate the South China Sea holds over 200 billion barrels of oil, roughly 80 percent of Saudi Arabia's total oil reserves, but others say that's an extreme exaggeration.

The sea is also believed to be rich in natural gasses and is one of the most busy shipping routes in the world.

Talks are still underway, but analysts believe that the recent naval patrol represents a gesture -- on the part of both Beijing and Hanoi -- to ease tensions and avoid what could be a costly armed conflict.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.military-technologies.net/2011/06/22/china-says-no-cyber-warfare-with-u-s/

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/China+says+cyber+warfare+with/4988579/story.html#ixzz1Q2DVg1cC

China says no cyber warfare with U.S.


By Don Durfee, ReutersJune 22, 2011 4:01 PM



U.S. Air Force personnel work in the Air Force Space Command Network Operations & Security Center at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado in this July 20, 2010 file photo. The Pentagon is about to roll out an expanded effort to safeguard its contractors from hackers and is building a virtual firing range in cyberspace to test new technologies, according to officials familiar with the plans, as a recent wave of cyber attacks boosts concerns about U.S. vulnerability to digital warfare.
Photograph by: Rick Wilking/Files, Reuters

BEIJING - There is no cyber warfare taking place between China and the United States, a senior Chinese official said on Wednesday, after weeks of friction over accusations that China may have launched a string of Internet hacking attacks.

The two countries might suffer from cyber attacks, but they were in no way directed by either government, Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai told a small group of foreign reporters ahead of a meeting with U.S. officials in Hawaii this weekend.

"I want to clear something up: there are no contradictions between China and the United States" on the issue of hacking, Cui said.

"Though hackers attack the U.S. Internet and China's Internet, I believe they do not represent any country," he added.

Both countries were in fact already discussing the problem of hacking during their regular strategic consultations, Cui said.

"The international community ought to come up with some rules to prevent this misuse of advanced technology," he added.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner declined to comment on Cui's cyber-war comments, but said the inaugural U.S.-China Asia-Pacific Consultations in Honolulu had a general regional focus and no particular cyber warfare agenda.

"My understanding is that it is about the Asia-Pacific region, writ large," he said in Washington. Kurt Campbell, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, would be Cui's counterpart in the talks, he said.

The accusations against China have centred on an intrusion into the security networks of Lockheed Martin Corp. and other U.S. military contractors, as well as efforts to gain access to the Google email accounts of U.S. officials and Chinese human rights advocates.

'A MOST PRESSING MATTER'

China has vociferously denied having anything to do with hacking attacks, saying it too is a major victim.

"Internet security is an issue for all countries, and it is a most pressing matter," Cui said.

"Of course, every country has different abilities when it comes to this problem," he added.

"The United States is the most advanced country in the world when it comes to this technology, and we hope they can step up communication and co-operation on this with other countries. We also hope this advanced technology is not used for destructive purposes."

The Internet has become a major bone of contention between Washington and Beijing.

This month, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Washington was seriously concerned about cyber attacks and was prepared to use force against those it considered an act of war.

The latest friction over hacking could bring Internet policy back to the foreground of U.S.-China relations, reprising tension from last year when the Obama administration took up Google's complaints about hacking and censorship from China.

Google partly pulled out of China after that dispute. Since then, it has lost more share to rival Baidu Inc. in China's Internet market.

China, with more than 450 million Internet users, exercises tight control and censorship over the Web at home, and has strengthened its grip in recent months.

In February, overseas Chinese websites, inspired by anti-authoritarian uprisings across the Arab world, called for protests across China, raising Beijing's alarm about dissent and prompting tightened restrictions over the Internet.

China already blocks major foreign social websites such as Facebook and Twitter.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, named by President Barack Obama as the next U.S. ambassador to China, said last week that the United States was looking into ways to craft trade countermeasures that treat curbs on Internet commerce as non-tariff barriers to trade.
© Copyright (c) Reuters

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use....
http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?ID=201106220050&Type=aTOD

Talk of the Day -- China to launch 1st aircraft carrier July 1?
2011/06/22 23:32:43

Two local newspapers cited the Hong Kong Commercial Daily as reporting Wednesday that China had tentatively decided to have its first aircraft carrier conduct a trial voyage on July 1.

The report came amid escalating tensions in the South China Sea due to conflicting sovereignty claims among countries in the surrounding area.

Six countries -- Taiwan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei -- claim all or part of the 3.5 million-square-kilometer sea area, including the Spratly, Paracel and Pratas islands, the Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal.

The following are excerpts from the local media coverage of the topic:

United Daily News:

The Hong Kong Commercial Daily cited Chinese military sources as saying Tuesday that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has finalized preparations for the launch of its first aircraft carrier.

The aircraft carrier -- the Varyag -- the Russian name of the vessel that was purchased from Ukraine -- may set sail on July 1 to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Communist Party of China, the sources said, adding that the move is also expected to counterbalance the tensions in the South China Sea.

"This is the newest timetable. But many factors, such as weather and international situations could affect the launch date," said an unidentified Chinese military official.

According to the official, senior Chinese leaders had already completed a shipboard inspection and the carrier was fully ready for its maiden voyage.

PLA sources further said the recent tensions in the South China Sea had prompted Chinese authorities to advance the Varyag's launch date.

Meanwhile, Su Hao, a profession at China Foreign Affairs University, said in Washington, D.C. on June 20 that even though Taiwan claims sovereignty to the South China Sea and relations across the Taiwan Strait had improved greatly in recent years, China was not likely to allow Taiwan to take part in any negotiations on the South China Sea issue because those talks would involve sensitive sovereignty issues.

Taiwan now controls two island groups -- Dongsha and Taiping islands -- in the South China Sea. (June 22, 2011).

China Times:

China has not yet decided on the name of its first aircraft carrier. PLA sources said the Chinese leadership had not ruled out the possibility of publicly soliciting a name.

The launch of the Varyag will mark the formation of China's first aircraft carrier battle group.

Previous reports said the carrier would start its maiden voyage early next year. The recent rifts with Vietnam and the Philippines over South China Sea sovereignty might have led to china's decision to advance the carrier's launch date, military observers said.

The warplanes to be deployed aboard the Varyag will be China-made carrier-based J-15 fighters, the sources added.(June 22, 2011). (By Sofia Wu) enditem/pc

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/ss_military0768_06_22.asp

Wednesday, June 22, 2011
INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING

U.S. Air Force advised to conduct simulations for strike against nuclear Iran

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has been urged to prepare for war with Iran.

The Rand Corp. asserted that the Air Force must increase exercises and testing of weapons as part of preparations for any order to attack Iran. In a report for the Air Force, Rand warned that the prospect of a U.S. air strike could turn real once Iran was deemed to have assembled a nuclear weapons arsenal.

"Timelines for military tasks will depend on what happens in Iran's nuclear program," the report, titled "Iran's Nuclear Future: Critical U.S. Policy Choices prepared for the U.S. Air Force," said.

Also In This Edition


NORTHEAST ASIA:

Beijing battling protest fires on all fronts


Mideast / S. Asia:

Syrian mutiny, loss of town shows cracks in regime


AFRICA/EUROPE:

Sudan rejects UN call for Abyei pullout


The report urged such U.S. preparations as exercises and war simulations. Rand said the Air Force should train to fight under nuclear threat as well as targeting Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, responsible for strategic weapons programs.

"Design exercises and war games to support different policy choices," Rand said. "Exercise objectives for bombers could aim not only to demonstrate to Iran that investment in nuclear capabilities could possibly be destroyed but also to influence the internal Iranian debate over nuclear weaponization."

The simulations would be based on the escalation of conflict between Iran and the United States. Rand said the wargames would test the air force's ability to deter Iran with and without U.S. nuclear weapons.

"Provide ways to manage escalation in conflict with Iran," the report said. "Investigate concepts of operations to manage escalation in U.S.-Iran conflict, e.g., reinforce political communication that signals limited U.S. objectives; focus on immediate threat by directly targeting Iran's regime-supporting paramilitary forces; and withhold targeting of Iran's political leadership."

Rand said Iran could be expected to act rationally and would demonstrate caution in any conflict with the United States. The report said Teheran, despite its anti-Israel rhetoric, regards Washington as the chief threat and could resist U.S. military pressure.

"The Iranian government is aware of the United States' overwhelming nuclear capability, including the U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles and sea-launched ballistic missiles," the report said. Greater psychological effect on Iranian political and military decisionmakers could possibly be achieved by U.S. movements and exercises of its nuclear-capable bombers and dual-capable fighter aircraft in the region to signal to Iran the potential costs of nuclear weaponization."

The U.S. military was expected to face Iran's conventional forces as well as IRGC. The report envisioned such Iranian responses as massive missile strikes on Gulf Cooperation Council states and Israel as well as blocking the Strait of Hormuz, the passage for 30 percent of crude oil exports.

"In addition, more advanced missiles, such as the Shihab-3 and Sejil, may provide it with the opportunity to target parts of Europe and Russia," the report said.

 

[Be Well]

Yay! Rain in TX, hope more comes your way.

So many flash points. About the border - TPTB don't want the border closed, 0h0m0 signed the "Dream" (Nightmare!) Act via Executive order I think last night, Gunrunner insanity is finally seeing the light of day - TPTB want mayhem and violence. When people are determined to have violence, they will get it, one way or another.

 

[LC]

Thank the Lord for rain.

Bumppitty

LC

 

[Housecarl]

For links in text please see source article....

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110622_3221.php

Senate Bill Echoes House Questions about Obama's Nuclear Strategy

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

By Elaine M. Grossman

Global Security Newswire


WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee last week issued new legislation that echoes questions about President Obama's nuclear weapons strategy initially raised last month in the House (see GSN, May 27).

(Jun. 22) - A U.S. B-61 nuclear gravity bomb. A bill approved last week by the Senate Armed Services Committee would require the president to report to lawmakers on certain potential changes to the U.S. nuclear arsenal or targeting strategy (Sandia National Laboratories/Federation of American Scientists).

The fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill approved unanimously by the panel calls for a presidential report "describing any new nuclear employment strategy if and when such a strategy is issued," according to a Senate committee release.

The demand apparently stems from lawmaker concerns that a new round of strategic arms control reductions below current treaty ceilings could require a change in nuclear targeting approach in which Washington focuses strikes on population centers, rather than on an adversary's military installations.

The thinking is that some sort of alternative targeting scheme might be required if much deeper cuts are taken in the stockpile because fewer weapons would be available for hitting enemy assets.

The Obama administration has said the Defense Department is studying the prospects for additional reductions below caps set by a recently enacted U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control deal, but has not yet determined whether that would require any such changes in strategy.

The Senate bill also requires the White House to submit to Congress a "net assessment" to support any new proposal "to reduce the nuclear weapons stockpile below the numbers in the New START treaty or to reduce the number of hedge weapons in the stockpile," the panel said last week. It offered no additional detail on what the assessment must entail.

The hedge force consists of backup warheads that could be put on alert in a crisis, in case a resurgent threat develops or a major technical problem is discovered in fielded weapons.

The bipartisan legislation, dubbed S. 981, additionally directs the Defense secretary to provide an "accounting report" that tallies both deployed and nondeployed weapons in the U.S. arsenal, the committee stated in its Friday release.

The bill text and committee report have not yet been made public but could be released by the end of this week, according to Senate aides. Lawmakers reportedly are hopeful the defense spending authorization package will go to the Senate floor for debate and a vote prior to the summer recess, which begins on August 8. The next budget year begins on October 1.

The Senate committee measure appears aimed at staking out a more moderate approach to nuclear weapons strategy, modernization and arms control issues than House fiscal 2012 legislation that prompted a White House veto threat. While House lawmakers erected some potentially serious obstacles to further nuclear cutbacks or targeting-strategy changes, the Senate merely called for reports.

It is unclear, however, whether the new Senate legislation will nonetheless trigger a similar standoff with the president. A White House spokeswoman on Monday directed a reporter to the Office of Management and Budget's May 24 statement in reaction to the House defense authorization bill, but offered no comment about the Senate version.

The House legislation, known as H.R. 1540, includes so-called "New START Implementation" provisions that would restrict the administration's ability to cut deployed or nondeployed nuclear weapons below levels set by the accord, unless required by a treaty or authorized by Congress.

New START, which entered into force in February, caps U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 on each side, down from a ceiling of 2,200 imposed by an earlier treaty. It limits fielded strategic nuclear delivery systems at 700, with an additional 100 platforms allowed in reserve.

Under certain conditions, the House measure could also prohibit the executive branch from eliminating weapons from the hedge force until the mid-2020s, when a new plutonium facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a uranium facility at Oak Ridge, Tenn., are scheduled to be built and operating.

In terms of the Pentagon's nuclear targeting approach, the House bill would actually prevent the president from adopting a "countervalue" strategy -- a shift that Republicans have charged would introduce an "immoral" rise in civilian casualties during a nuclear war. This passage in the legislation would also require the president to certify that any new strategy uses all three legs of the nuclear triad: ICBMs, bomber aircraft, and submarine-based ballistic missiles.

To save money and reduce the role that nuclear weapons play in U.S. national security, some defense experts have recommended eliminating one or more legs of the triad -- an option that more hawkish lawmakers typically reject (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2009).

Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Representative Michael Turner (R-Ohio) spearheaded the New START Implementation measures, saying they would help ensure the Obama administration remains accountable for nuclear modernization and arms control pledges it made last year during the treaty ratification process (see GSN, May 10).

In a bid to draw enough Republican votes in favor of the treaty to meet a required two-thirds majority, the White House said it would request more than $85 billion over the next decade to build new nuclear research and production facilities and overhaul aging warheads (see GSN, Nov. 15, 2010). The Senate ratified New START last December in a 71-26 vote, which included the support of 13 GOP lawmakers (see GSN, Dec. 22, 2010).

The White House budget office last month said that Obama's staff might recommend that he veto defense authorization legislation if it includes the House version's "onerous conditions on the administration's ability to implement the treaty, as well as to retire, dismantle or eliminate nondeployed nuclear weapons."

The House action, if ultimately embraced by a conference committee of lawmakers from both chambers, could also impede the government's capacity "to support the long-term safety, security and reliability of our nuclear deterrent," according to the budget office release.

"I don't know yet whether a [Statement of Administration Policy] will be released" in response to the new Senate committee legislation, as well, OMB spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in an e-mailed response to questions. "The administration has not yet taken a position" on it, she said.

Defense authorization bills typically lay out policy and programmatic direction for the Pentagon, while appropriations bills are required before money can be spent during a given fiscal year. Once reconciled by conference committees, the authorization and appropriations legislation is to be sent to the White House for presidential signature or veto.

 

[Housecarl]

For links in text please see source article....

Posted for fair use....
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110622_3591.php

Russia Peeved by U.S. Aegis Ship in Georgia
Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Russia on Tuesday voiced objection to the presence of a U.S. warship equipped with ballistic missile defense technology in neighboring Georgia, saying the matter undermined the diplomatic "reset" between the two former Cold War opponents, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, June 21).

The USS Monterey docked at a Georgian port in order to take part in three-day training event with local coast guards. The Aegis-equipped naval cruiser is deployed to Europe as part of of the Obama administration's "phased adaptive approach" to European missile defense. Russia has questioned why the warship is in the Black Sea if missile attacks are feared from the Middle East, further south.

"Such maneuvers are in contradiction with the current level of Russian-American relations," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in released remarks. "We expect a more constructive approach from Washington.

The United States has routinely sent naval ships to Georgia, a friendly non-NATO state, since the former Soviet republic's summer war with Russia three years ago.

Moscow has longstanding worries that U.S. and NATO antimissile initiatives are aimed against its nuclear weapons (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, June 21).

The Obama administration's phased adaptive approach envisions over the next decade fielding increasingly advanced sea- and land-based missile interceptors around Europe. The U.S. program would be wrapped into a broader NATO effort to safeguard Europe from missile strikes.

Warships from a number of European states could be involved in the antimissile scheme, Aviation Week reported.

Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands all possess vessels with the MK41 system that can fire the Standard Missile 3 interceptor that is to form the backbone of NATO's defense against a missile attack. Research is ongoing on what types of alterations would be required to make the United Kingdom's six Type 45 destroyers suitable to field the MK41 launcher and SM-3 interceptor, said Ed Miyashiro, vice president for Raytheon Missile Systems.

NATO is studying employing as many as 10 of Spain's Aegis-armed vessels in addition to the Horizon ships operated by France and Italy. Altogether, there are roughly 38 ships that could be used in the short term in the alliance's missile defense system, according to the Raytheon official.

The United States and France are also said to be considering jointly financing and developing the next-generation Standard Missile-3 Block 2B, which is seen as having the ability to eliminate ICBMs (Amy Butler, Aviation Week, June 21).

Meanwhile, defense firm Astrium Space Transportation has announced it will submit a plan in the next few weeks to the French Defense Ministry for a demonstration test of an advanced antimissile technology that could eliminate threats in outer space, Space News reported on Tuesday.

Company Chief Executive Officer Alain Charmeau said the plan, which was not sought by the French government, would describe a technology that was premised on the company's manufacturing of ballistic missiles and missile threat detection satellites that are presently in space.

Charmeau said the total cost of the demonstration program, including Earth-based tests and a live trial with a target and an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, would be between $280 million and $420 million (Peter de Selding, Space News, June 21).

 

[Housecarl]

For links in text please see source article....

Posted for fair use....
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/63726


Russians Say U.S. Naval Visit to Black Sea "Threat to Our Security." Are They Right?
June 22, 2011 - 4:11pm, by Joshua Kucera

* The Bug Pit
* Georgia
* Russia
* U.S.

Russia has strongly objected to the visit of a U.S. naval cruiser to Batumi, Georgia, arguing that it is a provocation because the U.S. ship is part of the missile defense system to which Russia is strongly opposed.

On the surface, the visit of the ship, the USS Monterey, has nothing to do with the missile defense controversy. It is in the Black Sea for joint U.S.-Ukraine exercises including "counter-piracy operations; non-combatant evacuation operations, as well as board, search and seizure trainings." Other countries taking part are Azerbaijan, Algeria, Belgium, Denmark, Georgia, Germany, Macedonia, Moldova, Sweden, Turkey and the UK. The U.S. Embassy says the visit is a normal training mission:

The USS MONTEREY is operating in the Black Sea to conduct joint maritime training with several countries adjoining the Black Sea. U.S. ships have regularly deployed in the Black Sea region for many years and represent the continuing U.S. commitment to Black Sea regional stability and maritime security.

But that hides a more insidious intent, Russia argues. The Monterey is equipped with the Aegis radar system, and as such would be part of the European missile defense shield that the U.S. wants to build around Russia. And so the visit, Russia says, is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Via RIA Novosti:

"The Russian Foreign Ministry earlier expressed concern that along with negotiations on cooperation in the global air defense system, [the U.S.] is conducting simultaneous 'reconnaissance' operations near the borders of our country," the ministry said.

Russia has been deeply concerned over U.S. plans to deploy a European air defense system near the Russian borders, saying it threatened its national security. Washington said it needed the system as a shield against possible threats from Iran or North Korea.

"And now this American warship has demonstratively entered the Georgian port of Batumi," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

The earlier expression of concern that the statement refers to a previous statement, when the Monterey first entered the Black Sea: "The Russian side has repeatedly stressed that we will not let pass unnoticed the appearance of elements of US strategic infrastructure in the immediate proximity to our borders and will see such steps as a threat to our security."

In addition, visiting Georgia is a reckless move in and of itself, Moscow says:

"Whatever the explanations are, it is clear that the Georgian authorities will see the incident as encouragement for their ambitions for revenge against the Russian allies of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is unlikely to help stability in the region," the ministry said.

Reconnaissance and a "threat to security," or a routine training mission? I asked Russian naval expert Dmitry Gorenburg, and he said that while Russia may be overreacting, the U.S. also is "making a statement" by sending a missile defense ship:

The reason for the controversy is because the Russian side believes that they were promised that the US would not send Aegis cruisers to the Black Sea unless there was some kind of imminent threat. Obviously that wasn't the case here, so they think this is another case of promises broken, something they're very sensitive about because of their perceptions of how NATO enlargement went down.

The Monterey has been officially designated as phase one of the European missile defense shield. It is normally stationed in the Med as a missile defense ship. So it wasn't irrational for Russia to connect its arrival in the Black Sea with missile defense issues.

On the one hand, the purpose of the visit has nothing to do with missile defense. On the other hand, it's obvious to everyone that by sending an Aegis cruiser to Batumi the US is making a statement. Not so much about missile defense, but about the US feeling that it has the right to send its warships anywhere it wants to without regard for the sensitivities of countries such as Russia. And Russian officials never miss the opportunity to turn a molehill into a mountain when it comes to that kind of symbolism.

I won't presume to guess what this might mean for the U.S.-Russia reset, but it's not good.

UPDATE: Gorenburg has expanded on his remarks on his own blog, which is well worth reading.

---
For links in text please see source article....

Posted for fair use....
http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/uss-monterey-and-the-us-presence-in-the-black-sea/

Russian Politics and Law, May 2011 Table of Contents
USS Monterey and the US presence in the Black Sea

June 22, 2011 by Dmitry Gorenburg

Josh Kucera from The Bug Pit asked me for my views on recent Russian criticisms of the USS Monterey Aegis-equipped cruiser participating in the Sea Breeze 2011 naval exercises in the Black Sea.

The purpose of the exercise is to conduct training in counter-piracy operations, non-combatant evacuation operations, boarding, and search and seizure. As Josh points out, none of this has anything to do with missile defense. Yet Russian objections focus on this issue. Josh quotes two Russian statements on the ship visit, the first from a Georgian newspaper and the second as reported by RIA-Novosti.

1. “The Russian side has repeatedly stressed that we will not let pass unnoticed the appearance of elements of US strategic infrastructure in the immediate proximity to our borders and will see such steps as a threat to our security.”
2. “The Russian Foreign Ministry earlier expressed concern that along with negotiations on cooperation in the global air defense system, [the U.S.] is conducting simultaneous ‘reconnaissance’ operations near the borders of our country.”

In addition to these objections related to missile defense, the foreign ministry also objected to the Monterey’s visit to Batumi, Georgia after the exercise:

And now this American warship has demonstratively entered the Georgian port of Batumi… Whatever the explanations are, it is clear that the Georgian authorities will see the incident as encouragement for their ambitions for revenge against the Russian allies of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which is unlikely to help stability in the region.

As I see it, the reason for the controversy is because the Russian side believes that they were promised that the U.S. would not send Aegis cruisers to the Black Sea unless there was some kind of imminent threat. Obviously that wasn’t the case here, so they think this is another case of promises broken, something they’re very sensitive about because of their perceptions of how NATO enlargement went down.

The Monterey has been officially designated as part of phase one of the European missile defense shield. It is normally stationed in the Mediterranean as a missile defense ship. So it wasn’t irrational for Russia to connect its arrival in the Black Sea with missile defense issues.

On the one hand, the purpose of the visit has nothing to do with missile defense. On the other hand, it’s obvious to everyone that by sending an Aegis cruiser to Batumi the US is making a statement. Not so much about missile defense, but about the US feeling that it has the right to send its warships anywhere it wants to without regard for the sensitivities of countries such as Russia. And Russian officials never miss the opportunity to turn a molehill into a mountain when it comes to that kind of symbolism.

At the same time, it seems to me that as far as the US is concerned, its navy is just following a long-stated policy that its ships will go anywhere they’re invited, without regard for what other states in the area think. So from that point of view they’re just following through. And they’re right that the ship’s purpose in the Black Sea has nothing to do with missile defense.

I think the US policy is consistent — after all, Moscow has objected to the presence of US warships in the Black Sea on several previous occasions. It’s just that sending an AEGIS cruiser has allowed Moscow to give its criticisms another form. Rather than just focusing on US ships visiting Georgia, it can now use the missile defense angle…

While Josh thinks this may have a negative effect on efforts to reset US-Russian relations, I’m not so sure. One should always be careful to distinguish Russian rhetoric from practical cooperation. While I think cooperation on missile defense is a dead end, there is every possibility of continuing cooperation on other issues that affect the security of both states. I would be surprised if any number of negative statements such as the ones put out by Moscow on the Monterey visit would affect that.

Posted in Security issues | Tagged Black Sea, georgia, missile defense, Sea Breeze, USS Monterey | 1 Comment
One Response

1.
on June 22, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Reply Dale Herspring

In t his case you are right. As a retired US Navy 0-6, I can tell you this is not a new policy. The US Navy has argued for my 40 + year association that it has the right to send its ships anywhere it wishes, unless Washington says no.

This is something the Russians are well aware of. They know our policy. I have been there when it was explained to them. This is a complaint for the record. It has nothing to do with missile defense as you note. Moscow always complains about USN ships in that area. It is time Moscow got used to it.

dale...

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/06/137_89394.html

06-22-2011 16:41
S. Korea does not need nuclear weapons ― yet
By Robert E. Kelly

In teaching international security in Korea, I am regularly asked if Korea should have or will have nuclear weapons. North Korea has them obviously, so, not surprisingly, South Koreans are increasingly thinking they should have them too. While it seems straight-forward to say the North has them, therefore the South should have them too, I think this is inaccurate ― and not because America doesn’t want the South to nuclearize.

Koreans bristle at this, as many states in the world do, because they feel that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) constitutes nuclear discrimination. The haves (including the U.S.) get to keep their nuclear weapons, while the have-nots stay de-nuclear on the vague promise that the haves will build down to zero. Needless to say, the NPT haves have done little on this, leading to regular cries of hypocrisy (although President Barak Obama seems to genuinely want “global zero”). So last decade, India openly rejected this logic and went nuclear despite the nuclear haves’ resistance. Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea followed.

But the South’s potential possession of nuclear weapons would not actually serve local security from the North. Pyongyang’s nuclear use would immediately trigger the South’s invasion of the North. It is impossible to imagine the South absorbing a nuclear strike without this finally forcing Seoul’s hand to invade the North and end the long inter-Korean stalemate.

A nuclear strike would be so devastating that no other possible retaliation ― airstrikes, port-mining, more sanctions, closing Gaeseong ― would be seriously countenanced. While the initial casus belli would be to suppress the North’s nuclear capabilities and force regime change, in reality, the invasion would quickly to turn into a war of national unification ― a second Korean war to finally close the rift. Every analyst I’ve ever heard or read thinks that the South would win such a war ― even without U.S., Japanese, or U.N. help. It would be a harder slog alone of course, but victory is still quite likely.

In the wake of its victory, the South would have to rebuild the North, including cleaning up blast zones in the North from the U.S. or the South’s own nuclear strikes a short time earlier. As such, the South is unlikely to ever launch in the first place. There is no point in creating mass devastation one must fix a short time later. More formally stated, a second-strike by the South is irrelevant, because a first-strike by the North would change Seoul’s preferences toward from defense and deterrence to irredentism. The North’s first-strike would end the South’s hesitation and confusion regarding the communist state, and push it openly toward intra-Korean “imperialism,” i.e., irredentism and unity.

Note the difference between the two Koreas, and the U.S. and the USSR. Neither the U.S. nor the USSR had any compunction about nuking each other’s homeland, because neither expected to bear the clean-up costs. The same might be argued for the Indo-Pakistani nuclear competition today. But Korea is different. The South would not nuke the North in response to a first-strike and then just walk away. The North’s first-strike ― given the special “divided nation” status of the peninsula ― would push the South into the long-awaited, much-speculated-upon Second Korean War. And this time there would be a clear winner who would then have to pay for all the reconstruction. So it would be better in a unified Korea to have, say, just five blast-zones in the South, rather than yet five more in the North.

The only possible alternative is the South’s nuclear use on the North if the South was actually losing the unification war. If the North launched a first-strike that devastated multiple Southern cities and threw the military into disarray, then the South might consider a “counter-force” nuclear strike on the North Korean People’s Army in order to slow it down and buy the Southern military time to reorganize and win the war. NATO considered similar counter-force strikes in WWIII scenarios.

If the Red Army was rolling through Western Europe on the way to victory, NATO reserved the right to “first-use” against military assets to stem the Soviet tide. But even these strikes would be very limited in Korea ― likely low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons. The idea of nuking Northern cities ― “counter-value” city-busting ― is likely off the table due to the massive reconstruction costs that Seoul would have to carry for such strikes a short time later. And global opinion would likely regard strategic counter-value strikes in the North as a war crime.

Beyond the North, the South’s nuclear weapons might be construed against China, Russia, and Japan ― the first two of whom are nuclear. Charles de Gaulle famously said French missiles pointed “360 degrees.” And the initial aim of the French nuclear program was as much Germany as the Soviet Union. After three German invasions in 70 years, the French military wanted the ultimate guarantee of French sovereignty that nuclear weapons would give. South Korea might think the same way regarding Japan, the former colonizer (a surprising number of Koreans still think Japan has imperial designs on Korea). And of course, the South lives next the Chinese goliath. Should the U.S. alliance with South Korea dissolve under the weight of American indebtedness, the South might seek nuclear weapons to hedge China. Finally, the South might nuclearize solely for prestige purposes as India did.

But extra-peninsular deterrence is rarely discussed in the Korean media, where most of the nuclear focus is on the North. Yet the South is so unlikely to nuke the North because the former would carry the clean-up costs, that the latter would read Southern nuclearization as a hollow gesture. Worse, the North would likely spin Southern nuclearization as “aggression” and yet another reason for the Korean division. Post-unification however ― and especially if the U.S. slowly retrenches from Asia ― the South’s nuclearization is far more likely.

Robert E. Kelly is an assistant professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Pusan National University. More of his work may be found at his website, AsianSecurityBlog.wordpress.com. The views expressed in the above article are the author’s own and do not reflect the editorial policy of The Korea Times.

 

[Housecarl]

For images and links in text please see source article....

Posted for fair use....
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-satellite-images

New concerns emerge over North Korea's nuclear program (Satellite Images)
David Case [2]June 22, 2011 06:32
Satellite images show fresh construction at the Yongbyon nuke site.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il has fresh questions to answer about his nuclear program, according to the Institute for Science and International Security, a respected Washington, DC think tank.

ISIS has published satellite photos of the Yongbyon nuclear site, showing buildings that have been constructed or renovated since April 2009. That is the date when Kim evicted weapons inspectors and American experts who were overseeing the disabling of North Korea's nuclear weapons program in accordance with a 2007 agreement.

Given the timing and the location, the construction at Yongbyon "raises suspicions" that the buildings could support the country's gas centrifuge program or other aspects of uranium enrichment, according to Paul Brannan, a senior research analyst at ISIS and an expert in interpreting satellite imagery of nuclear programs.

Specifically, the construction could provide evidence that the hermit nation is seeking to expand its nuclear program.

Mastering gas centrifuge technology is the key step for any country developing nuclear arsenals. "We call it the long poll in the tent," Brannan said. "It's the most important part of making a nuclear weapon."

In late 2010, North Korea shocked non-proliferation experts by revealing the existence of a building at Yongbyon containing 2,000 gas centrifuges. These were shown to Dr. Siegfried Hecker of Stanford University. His North Korean hosts told him that they were producing low enriched uranium as fuel for a new light water nuclear reactor to generate electricity.

However the same centrifuges could produce highly enriched uranium, one of two materials that can be used in nuclear bombs. Highly enriched uranium is the material of choice for countries clandestinely evading their obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The other option for a nuclear weapon, plutonium, can be detected from far via sensors that detect krypton-85, a signature isotope emitted as a byproduct of production. The international community has placed such sensors along North Korea's borders. In contrast, it's very difficult to remotely detect production of highly enriched uranium.

So while it's not clear what kind of activities are taking place in the newly constructed and refurbished buildings at Yongbyon, ISIS contends the international community should request more information.

"It's an unsafeguarded program. It's an unsafeguarded plant. It wasn't declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," which oversees non-proliferation compliance, said Brannan. "North Korea really should communicate what the purpose of these buildings are," he said.

It's unclear whether North Korea is capable of effectively delivering a nuclear weapon. It is believed to have enough material stockpiled to make several bombs. Kim Jong-il has been accused of using the nuke program to practice "extortion diplomacy," in which he demands goods from rich nations in return for limiting his weapons aspirations.

Dr. Hecker, the Stanford expert, indicated that ISIS's analysis of the new buildings at Yongbyon was "generally on the mark." In an email to GlobalPost, he wrote, "The photos demonstrate that there is lots of activity at the Yongbyon nuclear facilities."

He added, “since the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has withdrawn from all diplomatic efforts and from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I would not expect them to volunteer any information about Yongbyon construction. Since all of these activities are contrary to United Nations Security Council resolutions, they would not be inclined to do so, unless diplomacy was restarted and [North Korea] believed it could gain something from specific disclosures."

Scroll down for a sampling of the satellite images of Yongbyon that ISIS used in its analysis.

This image shows an overview of North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear site. The image shows about two miles from top to bottom. In the past, the 5 MW reactor and reprocessing plant were used to produce plutonium for bombs, but they were disabled in accordance with a 2007 international agreement. These days, a new light-water reactor is being constructed at the site of the 5 MW reactor. (All images courtesy of ISIS.)



This is a closer image of Yongbyon's Fuel Fabrication Facility, on March 8, 2011. North Korea alleges that the centrifuges in this facility are producing fuel for the new light-water reactor, but experts fear they could also be used to make highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.



These final images detail the construction in one area of the site, between April 2009, when Kim Jong-il ejected international inspectors, and March of this year.

More images are available on ISIS's web site [3].

Follow author David Case on Twitter @DavidCaseReport.

 

[LC]

This thread 'bout got lost.

 

[BREWER]

Posted for fair use and discussion.
http://www.debka.com/article/21053/

Three Russian designers of Iran's nuclear plant die in plane crash:
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 23, 2011, 12:00 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Iran nuclear Russia Bushehr Stuxnet
Three Russian scients who built Bushehr

The three Russian nuclear scientists who planned, designed, built and put into operation Iran's first nuclear reactor at Bushehr this year, died Tuesday night, June 20, when a Rusaero flight from Moscow to Petrozavodsk in northwest Russia crashed.

debkafile's sources reveal that they were among the 44 passengers who were killed.
Their loss is a severe blow to Russia's atomic reactor industry as well as its nuclear program as a whole, since the three, Sergey Ryzhov, Gennady Banuyk and Nikolay Trunov, specialized in running installations in tandem and synchronizing various systems.

The Russian company OKB Gidropress, Moscow, which employed them as chief planners of nuclear plants, is proud of having sold reactors to five countries including Iran.
The authorities have ordered an investigation to find out why all three senior nuclear scientists were aboard the same airliner in violation of Russian security regulations which prohibit more than one high-ranking politician, military figure or executive of a sensitive industry taking the same flight.

The cause of the Tu-134's crash is also being probed - although it has a notoriously high accident rate and should not have been used by the three scientists. The eight passengers who survived, who are in critical condition, are to be quizzed to find out what happened aboard the plane before it crashed.

The first assumption was that the disaster occurred due to human error. The three pilots missed the runway while landing at Petrozavodsk's Nikolay Trunov airport because of heavy fog. It caught fire next to a highway.

This was the worst Russian aviation disaster since April 10, 2010, when a plane carrying the Polish president, his wife and many other Polish dignitaries crashed in similar circumstances near the city of Smolensk killing 97 people.

Our sources report that Iran chose to buy its first reactor from OKB Gidropress because the Russian firm bills itself as designers, builders, planners and operators of nuclear plants, specializing in adapting them to existing nuclear systems. For Tehran this capability was critical because the Bushehr reactor is composed of systems made in different countries, particularly Germany, and experts were needed for synchronizing them into a smoothly functioning plant.

debkafile's intelligence sources quote Iranian and Western intelligence officials as offering the opinion that the Bushehr reactor's mixed components made it vulnerable to the Stuxnet malworm's invasion of its control system two years ago. The three Russian scientists spent February and March 2011 at Bushehr after the Russian Nuclear Energy Commission insisted that the nuclear fuel rods be removed until they were sure the plant would not explode. The rods have since been reloaded and the reactor went online last month.

Wednesday, June 22, the OKB Gidropress Company Web site ran a black-bordered obituary mourning the deaths of Sergey Ryzhov, 52, Director General designer at OKB Gidropress, Gennady Banuyk, 65, Deputy Director and Chief Designer and Nikolay Trunov, 52, Chief Designer-Head of Division.