WAR 04-18-2015-to-04-24-2015_____THEWINDSofWAR

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417216/weapons-mass-destruction-syria-tom-rogan

How Syria’s Dictator Slaughters His People

Assad, chlorine gas, and the drowning of President Obama’s foreign policy
By Tom Rogan — April 21, 2015

“. . . respiratory failure, pulmonary edema, likely acute pulmonary hypertension, cardiomegaly, pulmonary vascular congestion, acute burns of the upper and especially the proximal lower airways, and death.”

That’s what high-level exposure to chlorine gas does to humans. But the technical language hides bitter truths. Pulmonary edema, for example, is the drowning of lungs in water.

And that’s how Bashar Assad rules the people of Syria. Last week, teary-eyed U.N. delegates were briefed on the aftermath of a March chlorine-gas attack in Syria. The delegates saw a video of suffocated children, and the efforts of Syrian doctors to save them.

The dictator alone possesses the helicopters, chlorine stockpiles, and proven record of deploying the gas.

Of course, the U.N. being the U.N., Assad has nothing to fear from his latest atrocity. His war crimes will again be sanitized in calibrated statements of nothingness. America’s moral and strategic credibility, however, has much more to lose.

Because Assad has once again vanquished America’s word. Last April, I explained how Assad was repeatedly using chemical weapons even after he had promised to surrender those weapons in September 2013. That nothing has changed is unsurprising. After all, as I noted when the WMD compromise between Assad/Putin and President Obama was first struck, “By sucking the United States into an overtly dysfunctional UN framework, Putin has tied American power to the procedural absurdity of the UN.” Playing to western delusions, the Russian leader has co-opted America’s understanding of multilateralism in service of Russian realpolitik. For another example, consider Russia’s manipulation of the U.N.’s negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program to restrain American power.

Witnessing America’s new malleability, Mr. Putin has bent the United States to his will.

But that’s not all. Today, in the Middle East, after abandoning Iraq’s Sunni tribes, allowing Assad to massacre Syria’s Sunni population, and ludicrously claiming the disintegration of Yemen as a success, President Obama’s credibility has also drowned. By placating Iran, President Obama has neglected possible political solutions to dampen the flames of sectarian politics. In doing so, he’s ignoring the underlying truth he himself claims to pursue: that only political moderation can ultimately extinguish the flames of war. Consequentially, the Middle East is collapsing into Sunni versus Shia extremism — a black hole that increasingly threatens America.

There are lessons in this chaos.

Ultimately, this is about President Obama’s doctrine of realism forged from strategic hesitation: He refuses to accept that while America’s allies are attracted by our trade and power, America’s enemies must be compelled by the sharper enforcement of our beliefs.

Defining his foreign-policy legacy, historians will record President Obama’s oratory. But his words, like those at Grant Park on election night 2008 (“a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you”) will be tempered to realities like that at 1 minute 38 seconds.

— Tom Rogan is a writer based in Washington, D.C. He is a panelist on The McLaughlin Group and holds the Tony Blankley chair at the Steamboat Institute.

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htworld/articles/20150420.aspx

Forces: Fortress Crimea

April 20, 2015: Before Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the presence of Russian military forces there was strictly defined by a 1997 treaty with Ukraine 1997. The specified that no more than 25,000 Russian military personnel could be present on the peninsula, and only 2,000 of them could be air force and another 2,000 could be marines. Equipment limits also applied. The Russians could have no more than 24 artillery (guns or howitzers of more than 100mm caliber), no more than 142 armored vehicles and 22 military aircraft. Even naval forces, the main reason for Russian presence in Crimea, were also limited. Russia could only base the specific vessels (including tugs and other unarmed support ships) in Crimea. Even the pro-Russian Yanukovych government (ousted in early 2014) did not change the 1997 treaty extended the naval base lease to 2042. Ukraine was being well compensated for that lease through a Russian gas discount, amounting to about $4 billion a year.

Since the March 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, many things have changed on the peninsula. The first thing Russia has done after this action was to break the abovementioned treaty, lifting all limits on Russian presence in Crimea, and effectively take over the local Ukrainian law enforcement and military forces stationed on the peninsula.

All the Ukrainian military and law enforcement personnel was given three options - join equivalent Russian forces while keeping their rank, retire, or leave Crimea and continue to serve Ukraine. Only about 3,000 of 19,000 of the Ukrainian security personnel took the third option. Many of the soldiers and police in Crimea were ethnic Russians and didn’t mind the change. For the ethnic Ukrainians leaving Crimea would constitute hardship, as it would involve moving their whole families, and losing their real estate in Crimea. Overall, between 70% and 80% of the security personnel took the first option and switched their allegiance to Russia.

At first Russia announced it would return the captured equipment, supplies, and vehicles to Ukraine, and has returned some of it. However that process stopped on 15th April, and some of the unreturned equipment was given to the pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine instead. That did not include any naval vessels and 43 of 72 Ukrainian ships were returned to Ukraine. Even though most Ukrainian security personnel remained the organizations they belonged to were usually disbanded or reorganized. In some cases units were unchanged but assigned to another command and changing their names. All this took a ew months. Then things changed a lot more as Russia began to greatly expand its military presence in the Crimean Peninsula. It was announced that at least 30 more Russian warships will be moved to Crimea by the end of the decade. This includes six Admiral Grigorovich class frigates, a Slava class cruiser, three Kashin class destroyers, two Kilo class submarines, six Buyan class corvettes, and six each of Project 22160 and 21980 patrol boats. Many of these ships are new and some are still under construction.

The Russian airpower in Crimea is also being increased. There are over 24 airfields on the peninsula, built there during the Cold War, and after it has ended only 5 of them were in use - two by Ukraine and three by Russia. Three of the old airfields are being reactivated since the Russian takeover.

Aircraft meant to be based in Crimea, at least 200 of them, include Be-12 and Be-200 flying boats, Ka-27 and Mi-8 helicopters, Su-24 attack and Su-24MP recon jets, Su-27 and Su-30 multirole fighters, Su-25 close air support planes, Orlan-10 UAVs, and last but not least, Tu-22M strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

Russian land forces located in Crimea now include two former Ukrainian marine battalions, an artillery group equipped with MSTA-B towed howitzers, coast defense brigade, and various air defense systems, notably S-300 long range missile launchers and a well-developed supporting radar network. Additions include more personnel and equipment, including Tornado artillery systems, Khrizantema-S guided anti-tank missile carriers, Bastion and Bal anti-ship missile launchers, and additional S-300 anti-aircraft missile launchers and radars.

Within Crimea Russia has also captured many Soviet era training facilities, most notable of them being a combat dolphin training center, and a carrier pilot training facility containing a replica of a Kuznetsov class carrier’s flight deck, including a ski jump ramp, catapult, and braking systems. These are expected to be back in business soon.

Russia's motivation for such a large presence in Crimea is mostly meant to cement its claim to the peninsula, reinforce its naval domination of the Black Sea, and discourage Ukraine and NATO from any future attempts to take it back by force. --Adam Szczepanik

libtoken · Apr 21, 2015

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32383365

Russia sets its sights on Middle East

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent

Russia's decision to go ahead with the sale of the advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile system to Iran has angered its critics in the West and alarmed the Israeli government in equal measure.

For some it has raised additional question-marks over the fate of any putative nuclear deal between Iran and the international community.

But more significantly it may also mark a renewed effort by Moscow to bolster its diplomatic profile in the Middle East.

The decision to sell the S-300 to Iran is not new, the contract goes back to at least the latter part of 2010.

But for a variety of reasons - concern about Iran's nuclear activities and with intense lobbying from Israel and the West - the Russians never went ahead and delivered the system.

It is not yet clear exactly which version of the S-300 will be sold to Iran.

It is no longer the most sophisticated of Russia's air defences, but it is nonetheless a highly capable system and much better than those the Israelis and Western air forces have faced in the region during recent campaigns.

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150421/as--hong_kong-china-drifting_apart-41a90044a9.html

Defiant Hong Kongers resist embrace of mainland China

Apr 21, 2:48 AM (ET)
By JACK CHANG

(AP) In this Sunday, April 12, 2015 photo, a mainland Chinese tourist carries a suitcase...
Full Image

HONG KONG (AP) — All around Chow Tak-yee's neighborhood in the working-class edges of Hong Kong, the 26-year-old can feel the spreading influence of nearby mainland China on the prosperous, open-minded city she's always called home.

The children of mainland families now fill her neighborhood's best schools, and she's had to search for three months to find a classroom spot for her young son. Chow, who works as an accountant, and her electrician husband have to live at her in-laws' cramped apartment, as a red-hot housing market flooded with Chinese investment prices out many young buyers. Sometimes, she can't even find household goods in nearby stores, because Chinese traders buy them all up to sell at a mark-up in the adjacent mainland city of Shenzhen.

For Chow and many in this 7.2-million-person city, it all adds up to the feeling that Hong Kong is being forever changed by the 1.4-billion-strong country just a few miles to the north, where many feel life is cheaper and people are less educated.

"They're interfering with the rules of Hong Kong society," Chow said as her son played by her side during a visit to her childhood home, a two-bedroom apartment in a public housing estate.

(AP) In this Sunday, March 1, 2015 photo, police officers try to control the...
Full Image

Eighteen years after this world financial hub returned from colonial British control to Chinese rule, many say they feel more alienated and less trusting than ever of the central Chinese government and even the people visiting from across the border. That has presented leaders in Beijing with one of their biggest political headaches as they try to project a more unified, confident image abroad.

The complaints range from the small to the sweeping, from the perceived rudeness of Chinese tourists to fears that leaders in Beijing are sabotaging the freedoms and rule of law that have long distinguished Hong Kong from the rest of China. The resentment grew when Beijing issued a policy paper last year making clear the central government's power to decide the city's affairs, and when it endorsed a hard-line approach to pro-democracy activists who blocked streets in Occupy Central protests seeking electoral reforms.

Recently, scuffles have broken out along the northern border during protests over the influx of mainland shoppers, and Hong Kong continues to seethe with anti-mainland tension as the city's government plans to unveil its Beijing-approved electoral reform package as early as Wednesday.

Failure to win the hearts and minds of sophisticated, cosmopolitan Hong Kong bodes ill for Beijing's plans to peacefully reunify with the self-governing island of Taiwan as well as quell divisions at home, said Mark Clifford, head of the Asia Business Council and the former editor-in-chief of the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post.

"There was a perception that Hong Kong would be more like the mainland," Clifford said. "There was a perception that the two places would merge. But after 150 years of British rule, the interesting development is Hong Kong's own sense of identity.

(AP) In this Friday, April 10, 2015 photo, a woman packs goods in front of a shop before...
Full Image

"The policy of the Chinese government and the Hong Kong government of trying to force more integration, integration on every level, but especially economic, has created a backlash among ordinary Hong Kong people."

Warehouse supervisor Ronald Leung, 39, said he had long been apolitical about his home city until he saw firsthand the swarms of traders and outgoing cargo near the Chinese border.

Called "parallel trading" because it happens in a gray area alongside legal trade, such commerce has become an especially visible target of Hong Kongers' anger. Chinese visitors cross into the city, which has no sales tax and a reputation for authentic goods, to buy up baby formula, smartphones, luxury goods, diapers and medicine and then resell them at a profit in the mainland, warping the local economy and causing shortages.

Leung helped form the North District Parallel Imports Concern Group, one of several organizations that have staged rowdy protests targeting mainland shoppers.

Leung said seeing the stifling education system on the mainland during his travels there is another issue that "makes me think about my life" and appreciate Hong Kong.

(AP) In this Sunday, April 12, 2015 photo, a mainland Chinese tourist carries a suitcase...
Full Image

"If Hong Kong students get this kind of brainwashing, it's harmful for Hong Kong's future," Leung said in a mall in the city's Kowloon Bay neighborhood.

When Chinese President Jiang Zemin welcomed the city back to the motherland in 1997, some observers in the West hoped China might absorb some of Hong Kong's liberal democratic traditions.

Chinese officials granted Hong Kong political and personal freedoms and its own governing system, with the idea of slowly assimilating this Western-influenced society into the more repressive, state-controlled mainland over 50 years, after which the territory would officially lose its special status.

Much of the integration is already underway on the ground.

After Chinese officials loosened visa requirements for repeat mainland visitors in 2009, the number of Chinese traveling to Hong Kong jumped from nearly 18 million a year to nearly 50 million last year. Hong Kong's stock exchange also linked up with Shanghai's last year, unleashing mainland investment that has driven Hong Kong share prices to record levels.

(AP) In this Friday, April 10, 2015 photo, traders pack goods as they prepare to take...
Full Image

More people from the mainland speaking Mandarin Chinese, as opposed to the native Cantonese, fill the classrooms of not just elementary schools but of Hong Kong's most prestigious universities, many getting their first taste of freedoms prohibited on the mainland.

After Elaine Wang came to study journalism at Hong Kong University in the middle of last year's street protests, she discovered to her surprise that text messages sent to friends back in China about the demonstrations were being censored. Still, although she said she understood the protesters' grievances, in the end, she didn't think Hong Kongers would be able to resist the mainland's enormous economic and political influence.

"Hong Kong people will just have to figure out a way to work together with the government instead of fighting it," she said.

Many older residents in Hong Kong also have come out against pro-democracy protesters, saying young residents should focus instead on working to build a middle-class life.

Li Yim-miu, a 54-year-old housewife who led a recent rally supporting the mainland shoppers, said she didn't blame them for buying safer, better-quality goods for children back home. She also said Hong Kongers should be praising the mainland government instead.

(AP) In this Sunday, April 12, 2015 photo, a woman who supports shoppers from the...
Full Image

"Look at the Chinese government, don't they do a good job?" she asked. "So why would you criticize them? ... You can use reason in your criticism. You can't use chaos."

Lawyer Jason Ng, who has written two books about his home city, said the tensions come down to the widespread fear among the city's young that they won't be able to buy a home and build a future. Prices for even the cheapest apartments can run about $1,250 a square foot, pricing a 600-square-foot apartment at $750,000. Hong Kong's average monthly salary comes in below $2,000.

With such a bleak outlook, fewer people can accept the other end of Beijing's bargain, of giving up self-determination and freedoms, Ng said. Already, Hong Kong has seen press freedoms shrivel in face of economic and political pressure, with the city's press falling from 18th freest in the world in 2002 to 70th this year in an annual measure by the advocacy group Reporters Without Borders.

"If 80 percent of people are well provided for, and if 20 percent want to do Occupy Central, it would only be a very small minority of people and it wouldn't gather as much momentum," Ng said. "But it's the opposite here. Eighty percent of people are upset because 20 percent control all the wealth."

A Chinese University of Hong Kong poll of city residents found that people's self-identification as Chinese fell from 38 percent in 2010 to 31 percent three years later.

(AP) In this Sunday, March 1, 2015 photo, a local villager, center, gestures at...
Full Image

"Younger people show more dissatisfaction," said Victor Zheng, co-director of the university's Centre of Social and Political Development Studies. "The main reason is downward social mobility."

Jewelry store saleswoman Sakura Tse, 30, said she longs for the days of colonial British rule, when the city's manners and even its architecture were classier. She said she fears the political repression and violent police tactics that she sees on the mainland could become common practice here.

Tse and about 30 others lead the grass-roots group Hong Kongese Priority, which calls for independence from China, a stance she said infuriates her parents.

"They just think it's good enough for you to have food and your life," Tse said. "But I don't think food and life are what I'm looking for. Freedom. For me, freedom is the most important."

Like Tse, Leung of the anti-traders group said he was prepared to fight for his city's autonomy from the rest of China.

"We need to get away from the communists to get our life back," Leung said. "It's not Beijing who will take things away from Hong Kong. It's the Hong Kong people who, little by little, will hand it over to Beijing."

---

Associated Press video journalist Annie Ho, photographer Vincent Yu and reporter Kelvin Chan contributed to this report.

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-southchinasea-philippines-usa-idUSKBN0NC0MN20150421

World | Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:47am EDT
Related: World, China
Philippines accuses China of turning water cannon on its fishing boats
SAN ANTONIO, Philippines

(Reuters) - Filipino activists denounced China's coast guard on Tuesday for turning water cannon on Philippine fishing boats in disputed waters, near where hundreds of Filipino and American Marines landed on a beach in a mock assault.

The presidential palace in Manila said China's coast guard used water cannon on Monday to drive away a group of Filipino fishermen at Scarborough Shoal, damaging some of their wooden boats. Chinese ships rammed a fishing boat in the area a few months back.

China in 2012 took control of Scarborough Shoal, about 130 miles west of a former U.S. naval base northwest of Manila, preventing Filipino fishermen from getting near the rich fishing grounds.

"China has no right to use water cannon on the poor fishermen," Renato Reyes, secretary-general of left-wing activist group Bayan (Nation), said in a statement, while criticizing the government's dependence on the U.S. military to protect the country.

"To stand up to China, we need to develop our economy and our capacity for external defense. We can't do this by hanging on the coat tails of Uncle Sam," Reyes said.

China claims most of the potentially energy-rich South China Sea, with overlapping claims from the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, and denies charges its actions in what it says is its own territory are provocative. The Foreign Ministry has yet to comment on the latest accusations.

Philippine President Benigno Aquino has directed the Foreign Affairs and National Defence departments to come up with a response to the water cannon incident, said presidential spokeswoman Abigail Valte.

Philippine and U.S. Marines resumed their biggest combined military exercise in 15 years on Tuesday, a demonstration of Washington's commitment to its long-time ally as it rebalances to Asia in the face of China's expansion in the South China Sea.

Not far from Scarborough Shoal, about 750 Marines from the Philippines and United States landed on a beach in two waves using amphibious assault vehicles to retake an island in a mock battle during the largest drills in years in the country.

"This is an exercise," Colonel Doroteo Jose Jalandoni told journalists at a naval base in Zambales province. "We are not looking at other things. We just want to improve our skills and proficiency and test the two allies' ability to operate together."

(Reporting by Manny Mogato; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-yemen-security-houthis-idUSKBN0NC0IJ20150421

World | Tue Apr 21, 2015 2:52am EDT
Related: World, United Nations, Saudi Arabia, Yemen
Yemen's Houthi fighters have tough record in ground war
SANAA

(Reuters) - It's a nightly exercise in futility: Yemen's Houthis fire rifles at Saudi F-15 jets thundering overhead. But the guerrillas' Kalashnikovs would be more formidable if and when Saudi Arabia decided to fight a ground war.

Cairo and Riyadh said this month they were discussing a "major military maneuver" in Saudi Arabia, a sign the Saudi-led alliance bombing the Houthis may make good on threats to launch a ground push across the kingdom's southern border into Yemen.

The air campaign has made little headway since it began on March 26, prompted by the Iranian-allied Houthis's military takeover of large parts of Yemen. The Saudis and their allies see the push as an unacceptable extension of Tehran's reach into Riyadh's backyard, but have not committed to an invasion.

The Houthis are confident their experience in mountain warfare in their northern stronghold would give their Arab adversaries pause. A 2009-2010 war against government forces backed by Saudi Arabia left around 200 Saudi soldiers dead.

"The American-Saudi coalition knows a ground invasion will fail, especially with the continuous advance of the army backed up by the (armed Houthis) on different fronts," Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of the Houthi politburo, told Reuters.

Outgunned but insisting they are winning what they describe as a revolution against al Qaeda militants and corrupt lackeys of the West, the Shi'ite fighters have advanced on sandal-shod feet and by pick-up truck in battles across Yemen.

Their foes on the ground are a mix of those army units still loyal to the Saudi-backed government, whose leaders have fled to Riyadh, and local Sunnis, some militant, others not.

A smiling Houthi fighter in a camouflage jacket addressed those opponents via the Houthi TV channel at an army base it seized recently in the central province of Ibb.

"We say to you: the House of Saud, America and Israel haven't been able to help you," he said, as armed comrades decked in tribal robes jostled to show off their guns on camera.

POWERFUL ALLIES

The Yemeni state pounded the Houthi insurgents in six wars that flattened villages in the northern highlands that are home to Yemen's Zaydi Shi'ite sect from 2002 to 2009.

But the military failed to quell the fighters, who burst forth to take over Sanaa and much of the country in September.

Not just country grit, but an alliance with the ex-president and his army loyalists has eased their way.

Ali Abdullah Saleh ruled Yemen for over three decades and his military was once the scourge of the Houthis. But after Arab Spring protests forced him from power in 2012, he made common cause with his former enemies to settle scores with the backers of his successor, Saudi-backed President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Iran and the Houthis deny they have any military or economic relationship, but a senior Iranian official told Reuters in December a "few hundred" elite Iranian military personnel were in Yemen training Houthi fighters, and around a hundred Yemeni militiamen had traveled to Iran over the year.

Abdel-Malek al-Houthi, the group's leader, said on Sunday Yemen would not surrender and vowed resistance "by any means".

Houthi officials say they seek a negotiated solution to the political crisis, but a ground war may play to their strengths.

"The idea of a war in general was not something the Houthis were going to be afraid of, and if this morphed into a ground invasion - given their experience, this would give them another card," said Farea al-Muslimi, a researcher with the Carnegie Middle East Center.

"This isn't a group that came to power by elections, but by force, and its future moves may not be swayed no matter how much pressure is put on it and Yemeni people," he added.

DAGGERS, TANKS

The Houthis' progress has convinced them they can rid the country of hardline Sunni militants who have denounced them as non-Muslims worthy of death and last month bombed two Houthi mosques in Sanaa, killing at least 137 worshippers.

Yemen's branch of al Qaeda is one of the network's most ambitious: it has fought its own insurgency against the Yemeni state for a decade and plotted to blow up U.S.-bound airliners.

"We are confronting Hadi's militias, which include al Qaeda elements, in order to rid the south of al Qaeda's influence," Houthi official al-Boukhaiti said.

The soldiers and militiamen fight together across a tangled front stretching hundreds of miles.

Yet alliances in Yemen have always been fickle. Saleh said in an interview on Sunday that he would "deal positively" with a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire, underscoring doubts on his alliance with the Houthis.

"The role of (Saleh's) army at the front is hazy, and it's clear the Houthis have a real will and unified command structure which the army units lack," a Yemeni politician, who declined to use his name for security reasons, told Reuters.

For Houthi footsoldiers like Mohammed al-Asseri in Sanaa, the bombs of their neighbors and the will of the United Nations are not enough to curb their ambitions. "The Security Council or any state which bombs Yemen or puts it under siege will have to answer to the Yemeni people," he said.

(Reporting by a correspondent in Sanaa who cannot be named for security reasons, Mohammed Ghobari in Cairo and Noah Browning in Dubai; editing by Philippa Fletcher)

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/20/us-saudi-security-alert-idUSKBN0NB0P320150420

World | Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:35am EDT
Related: World, Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia on alert over possible oil or mall attack
RIYADH

(Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has put security forces on alert for a possible militant attack on a shopping mall or energy installation, Interior Ministry spokesman Mansour Turki said on Monday.

"There was information about a possible act targeting a mall or Aramco installations. We passed this information to the security forces to be on alert," he told Reuters.

Turki said he had no further information about the threat. Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter and key strategic ally of the United States, has been a target of jihadist militant groups for years, including al Qaeda and Islamic State.

Riyadh has been carrying out air strikes against Iran-allied Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen since March 26 in a conflict in which nine members of its security forces have been killed by cross-border fire.

This month Saudi police announced they had detained a Saudi citizen suspected of shooting dead two police officers and injuring two others in two separate attacks in Riyadh.

"Saudi Arabia is targeted by terrorism. Usually in such situations (conflicts), there are attempts by terrorist groups to take advantage and carry out attacks," said Turki.

On Saturday, guards at the gates of a central Riyadh shopping mall stopped single men from entering and searched the bags of female shoppers, Reuters reporters said.

In 2006, four al Qaeda militants breached the gates of Saudi Aramco's Abqaiq plant but did not manage to cause significant damage before being killed in a shootout with security guards, Saudi authorities said.

However, a U.S. diplomatic cable from the same year released by WikiLeaks quoted the then-U.S. ambassador as saying he understood that "the attack on Abqaiq had been much closer to succeeding than generally acknowledged".

At the time, Abqaiq processed 70 percent of Saudi crude.

Subsequent U.S. cables documented American assistance to the Saudis in strengthening the security of energy infrastructure, including the establishment of a dedicated, 40,000-strong Facilities Protection Force.

(Reporting by Angus McDowall; Editing by Michael Georgy and Mark Heinrich)

China Connection · Apr 21, 2015

End Times

"And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way [road] of the kings of the east might be prepared." [Revelation 16:12].

In this Vial Judgment, we see that the Euphrates is dried up for the specific purpose of allowing the "Kings of the East" to cross with their 200 million man army. Wow, the Kings of the East. What country is East of Israel that is capable of fielding a 200 million man army? There is only one country: China.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2066.cfm

river euphrates drying up 2014

..........................................................................................

Housecarl

Xi hopes to push for the construction of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

Chinese President Xi Jinping says that he hopes to push for substantial progress on the construction of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor during his first visit to Pakistan as Chinese president on Monday and Tuesday.

In a signed article published in Pakistan media, President Xi says the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is at the intersection of the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. It's also an important part of the "One-Belt, One-Road" initiative.

The two countries should focus on the construction of the Corridor, and use Pakistan's Gwadar Port, alongside cooperation in energy, infrastructure and industry, as pillars that will benefit the Pakistani economy and closer economic ties between the two countries.

President Xi says China pursues peace, development and win-win cooperation. He says that proposals on the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, are to improve connectivity with countries along the route, adding that China is willing to work with South Asian countries to boost regional development.

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...y-mightily-tangled-geostrategic-web/26087023/

Commentary: A Mightily Tangled Geostrategic Web
By Harlan Ullman 3:49 p.m. EDT April 20, 2015

Just when events in the Middle East could not seem to become more complicated, this web of intrigue and danger has grown even more complex and intertwined.

People following these events are well aware of the crises wracking the huge stretch of geography from the eastern Mediterranean and Maghreb through the Middle East and Arabian Gulf to the Bay of Bengal. Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen are embroiled in chaos and conflict.

The question is, what is the US strategy? A new framework must be constructed able to recognize this chaos and begin to develop real-world responses.

The US, Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in disrupting and defeating the mutual threat posed by Da'esh (aka the Islamic State). But despite the framework agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, these three states are on opposite sides in Syria. And the fierce Saudi-Iranian rivalry has spilled over into Yemen where the former opposes and the latter supports the Houthi insurgency.

Turkey is a NATO member and prickly US ally whose president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, vehemently opposes the Bashar al Assad's regime in Syria. Yet Erdogan recently visited Iran, which is pro-Assad, to seek closer ties. And Turkey's issues with the Kurds over independence complicates dealing with Iraq and the Kurdish Republic, which so far has stemmed Da'esh's assault into northern Iraq.

With Saudi airstrikes into Yemen against the Houthis, Pakistan, a close ally and more than occasional Saudi supplicant, has been approached by Riyadh for military assistance, including possible deployment of forces. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif put that request before Parliament, which rejected it unanimously just as Pakistan has reportedly bought eight submarines from China and submitted to the US for approval the purchase of nearly a billion dollars of helicopters, missiles and other combat systems. Meanwhile, Pakistani militants crossed into Iran, killing eight border guards.

Debate over the pending agreement between the US and Iran will grow fiercer as the June 30 deadline approaches. Israel's prime minister will not be silent in trying to administer crib death to the framework agreement as will certain Republican members of Congress. But Congress must be engaged — a matter under discussion.

A column in the Wall Street Journal written by former US secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz raised what will be used by opponents of the framework as mortally wounding questions over verification, strategic stability and deterrence, and Iran's future ability to build a bomb. Their real critique is over the absence of a "strategic doctrine" for the region offered by the Obama administration. There they are correct.

But their questions are far from fatal and do not address nor propose an alternative approach. Interestingly, Kissinger was criticized on similar grounds for the SALT nuclear agreements with the old Soviet Union. Both secretaries observed that the last three presidents were prepared to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The real question is if it came to that, would any chief executive actually have given that order? The answer is almost certainly no, given the non-response to North Korean provocations as well as a 14-year engagement in two costly and unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suggesting another was out of the question.

What is needed? Kissinger and Schultz are correct in calling for a strategy or strategic doctrine. Unfortunately, the White House has not been forthcoming in either constructing a compelling narrative for its actions or a strategic approach to the region, operating instead on an unconnected case-by-case basis. The dilemma and flaw is that a piecemeal approach is almost certainly doomed to fail in dealing with such interconnected issues posed by the threats, dangers and challenges emerging from this huge expanse of territory.

Unlike the Cold War, no single overarching threat exists against which a single strategy can be easily constructed. And regional states acting on their own can easily produce chaos. That is the dilemma.

A new strategic framework must recognize these contradictions. And a good place to start is to construct a new version of the old Nixon Doctrine where the US takes the lead in providing strategic stability and works with regional states to sort out these contradictions. Otherwise this web of intrigue and danger will become only more dangerous.

Ullman is chairman of the Killowen Group, which advises leaders of government and business, and senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council and Business Executives for National Security.

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-yemen-security-usa-navy-idUSKBN0NC24E20150421

World | Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:18pm EDT
Related: World, Yemen

Iranian flotilla a 'factor' in warship deployment off Yemen: Pentagon

WASHINGTON | By David Alexander

(Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday the presence of a large convoy of Iranian cargo ships in the Arabian Sea was one factor in the U.S. decision to deploy additional warships in the waters off war-torn Yemen but was not the primary reason for the move.

Army Colonel Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, also said he did not believe Navy warships patrolling the region had been in direct contact with the Iranian flotilla of nine cargo ships.

Warren dismissed reports the carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and cruiser USS Normandy had been deployed to the region to intercept Iranian ships carrying arms to Iranian-backed Houthi rebels fighting forces loyal to the U.S.-backed Yemeni president.

"Many have asked me whether or not they (the U.S. warships) are there because of the Iranian ship convoy or flotilla that is also in the area," Warren said. "That is certainly one of the factors. That is not the reason they are there."

He said the United States did not know what the Iranian cargo ships were carrying and declined to say whether the U.S. warships would stop and board Iranian vessels if they attempted to enter Yemeni territorial waters.

"I'm not going to telegraph anything," Warren said.

Warren said U.S. warships were in the Gulf of Aden area "because of the deteriorating security situation in Yemen" and the need to ensure freedom of navigation through the zone, which is vital to oil shipping.

Asked how the Houthis could pose a threat to maritime security when they do not have a navy, Warren pointed to Libya, where rising conflict has prompted refugees to pack aboard boats that later capsized in the Mediterranean.

"It's difficult to predict the future so what we need to have are options," Warren said. "We have to preserve and to create options for ourselves should the deteriorating security situation get to a point that ... maritime security is threatened."

The Shi'ite Muslim Houthis sidelined the central government after seizing the capital Sana'a in September and occupying a broad swath of Yemen, which borders oil giant Saudi Arabia.

A Saudi-led coalition has launched an air campaign to try to stop the advance of the Houthis. The Saudis say their aim is to restore President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

The UN Security Council imposed an arms embargo on the Houthi rebels, and the Saudi navy has imposed a naval blockade around Yemen.

(Reporting by David Alexander; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/20/china-middle-east-saudi-arabia-iran-oil-nuclear-deal/

China’s Middle East Tightrope

Beijing is walking a fine line between Saudi Arabia and Iran. But, in this region, even a big checkbook can't buy friends in both places.

By Ilan Goldenberg, Ely Ratner
April 20, 2015

To understand China’s role in the Middle East, consider one recent event, and one recent non-event. In late March, Beijing made headlines by sending warships to rescue hundreds of Chinese and foreign nationals from conflict-torn Yemen. Yet in early April, Chinese President Xi Jinping canceled what was supposed to be his first official trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, reportedly as a result of the fighting in Yemen — underscoring that Beijing would rather get out of the kitchen than stand the heat of Middle Eastern politics. Indeed, it is China’s considerable absence, rather than burgeoning influence, that continues to define its role in this turbulent region.

China has good reasons to care about events in the Middle East: Roughly half of its oil imports come from the Persian Gulf. Moreover, Beijing worries about extremist elements in the region providing training and inspiration to Muslim separatists in western China.

However, in stark contrast to Xi’s ambitious domestic agenda — reforming key sectors of the economy, including banking and agriculture; easing restrictions on China’s outmoded household registration system; and relaxing its infamous one-child policy — he has done little in foreign policy that would merit a memoir like Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices. In fact, despite Xi’s call for a more “proactive” Chinese foreign policy, Beijing has still only contributed to the safe and soft domains of international politics, such as economic development, anti-piracy, global public health, and U.N. peacekeeping.
China doesn’t expend significant blood or treasure abroad combating violent extremism, settling bloody civil wars, or mediating major regional conflicts.
China doesn’t expend significant blood or treasure abroad combating violent extremism, settling bloody civil wars, or mediating major regional conflicts. Beijing has instead remained allergic to confronting tough political and security issues overseas, acutely limiting its geopolitical influence. As a result, China’s persistent appeals for “win-win” cooperation, which may make sense in economic affairs and other dispassionate realms, hold little water where political battles are zero-sum and fought over indivisible and deeply contested stakes.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East, where China’s influence on regional issues is surprisingly marginal, even as its growing energy dependency is compelling deeper partnerships with the likes of Saudi Arabia.

Unwilling to put teeth behind its positions, China has made tentative forays into the Middle East morass that have largely fallen flat. In October 2012, China’s then foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, rolled out a “Four-Point Plan” for Syria that called on all sides to stop fighting, end the crisis, and initiate a political transition. The Associated Press noted that the plan generated little international interest: Most observers found it “vague, and likely aimed at bolstering China’s reputation following criticism of its moves to join Russia in blocking U.N. resolutions aimed at ending Syria’s bloodshed.” Needless to say, this was a failure.

The problem is that Beijing does not want to choose sides in a region that regularly demands it. By contrast, Washington has made considerable commitments in the region: The United States remains the de facto guarantor of external security for Saudi Arabia and the rest of the states in the Gulf Cooperation Council. The dominant American naval presence safeguards the free flow of oil resources out of the Middle East, underwriting the economic prosperity of many of the region’s actors, and Washington remains deeply engaged in the thankless task of trying to mediate between Israelis and Palestinians. And yet, despite America’s significant investment, its partners in the Middle East have criticized the Obama administration for refusing to take even more decisive actions across a range of regional conflicts. The region is very demanding of a superpower: If China wants to play at that level, it’s going to have to take sides.

It is hard to see how a deeply risk-averse China could step into a leadership role in any of the region’s fiery disputes. Beijing’s most difficult balancing act will be trying to maintain good relations with both Riyadh and Tehran amid escalating regional and sectarian competition. Saudi Arabia’s greatest concern about the Iranian nuclear agreement, which may be completed by the end of June, is that the removal of banking and oil sanctions will give Tehran the resources to wreak even more havoc through its proxies in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. The majority of new money pouring into Iran would come from China — Iran’s largest trading partner. Indeed, only days after the Iranian nuclear agreement was reached in early April, Iran’s oil minister, Bijan Zanganeh, was on his way to Beijing. Can China really supplant the United States as the guarantor of the Gulf states’ security when it is bankrolling their most significant threat?

When it comes to another critically important arena in Middle East diplomacy — the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — the Chinese are similarly absent. The other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council play important roles in the peace process. While the United States is the primary mediator, key European states including France and Britain have led the charge in the European Union to offer both significant economic incentives and disincentives to both sides, while the Russians regularly advocate for the Palestinians. China is the only member of the Security Council failing to step up to the plate.

Meanwhile, in Syria and Iraq — where state failure, civil war, and the rise of the Islamic State (IS) have combined to create the region’s most severe crisis — few good options remain. The Arab states have concluded that the most meaningful way for foreign powers to contribute in Syria and Iraq is through a military intervention that targets IS and overthrows President Bashar al-Assad. They argue that only an intervention including a combination of airstrikes, training and arming of opposition forces, and potentially even more direct military options, could at this point save Syria. But China won’t go there either. Instead,
Beijing has sided with Moscow at the Security Council, blocking resolutions that would have increased pressure on Assad.
Beijing has sided with Moscow at the Security Council, blocking resolutions that would have increased pressure on Assad. At the same time, hedging its bets, China has repeatedly hosted Syrian opposition groups in Beijing, and in March 2012 it sent a special envoy to meet them in Damascus.

Notably, China has embarked on more proactive diplomacy in the region. This includes increased high-level visits, including the first by a Chinese foreign minister to Iraq in 23 years, in February 2014; enhanced engagement with regional organizations like the Arab League; and the successful recruitment of nine countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, to sign up as founding members of the new China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. But this doesn’t overcome the fundamental issue that it is nearly impossible to please all sides and still be a major player in the Middle East.

Of course, few would disagree with President Barack Obama’s characterization that the Chinese “have been free riders for the past 30 years and it’s worked really well for them” in the Middle East. In that sense, Beijing may be prudent not to get involved in the region’s seemingly intractable conflicts. Nevertheless, China cannot continue pursuing a risk-averse foreign policy and simultaneously emerge as a leader in the rough-and-tumble arena of Middle East politics. For Xi, it will be an either-or decision.

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150421/eu--poland-defense-027501261c.html

Poland to build missile defense with US

Apr 21, 3:38 PM (ET)

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poland's President Bronislaw Komorowski said Tuesday that the defense minister will travel to the U.S. in May to negotiate cooperation on a state-of-the-art missile defense system that Poland wants to build.

Poland is accelerating efforts to upgrade its defense systems and armed forces, spurred by the conflict between Russian-backed separatists and government forces in neighboring Ukraine. The Defense Ministry said Tuesday it was seeking to obtain eight medium range Patriot missile batteries by 2025, two of them within three years after signing the contract. Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak will also negotiate an offset agreement to guarantee the participation of Poland's defense companies in the building of the system, the ministry said.

Poland's government on Tuesday approved development of an own air defense system, called "Wisla" (Vistula). The system was proposed after earlier U.S. plans to build a "shield" for the region were scaled down by the administration of President Barack Obama.

Komorowski also said that Poland will test Airbus helicopters H225M as it is nearing a large purchase of multi-task choppers for the Air Force.

The ministry explained that the tests to be held in May and June in Poland are to check whether the technical parameters of the helicopter match those declared in the bid. Positive results will allow for the signing of the contract for the purchase of 50 helicopters, the ministry said. Deliveries would start in 2017.

Housecarl · Apr 21, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-iran-nuclear-weapons-obama-lake-0422-20150421-story.html

Eli Lake: Obama kept Iran's short nuclear breakout time a secret

SHARELINES

t▼
Opinion: What does White House now say about Iran enriching nuclear fuel?

t▼
Opinion: How long would it take for Iran to build a nuclear bomb?

t▼
Opinion: White House created sense of urgency for Iran nuclear agreement

April 21, 2015, 5:40 PM

The Obama administration has estimated for years that Iran was at most three months away from enriching enough nuclear fuel for an atomic bomb. But the administration declassified this estimate only at the beginning of the month, just in time for the White House to make the case for its Iran deal to Congress and the public..

Speaking to reporters and editors Monday at Bloomberg's Washington bureau, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said, "Oh quite some time." He added: "They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the … R&D work. If you put that together it's very, very little time to go forward. That's the two to three months."

Brian Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, confirmed to me Monday that the two-to-three-month estimate for fissile material was declassified on April 1.

Here is the puzzling thing: When Obama began his second term in 2013, he sang a different tune. He emphasized that Iran was more than a year away from a nuclear bomb, without mentioning that his intelligence community believed it was only two to three months away from making enough fuel for one, long considered the most challenging task in building a weapon. Today Obama emphasizes that Iran is only two to three months away from acquiring enough fuel for a bomb, creating a sense of urgency for his Iran agreement.

Back in 2013, when Congress was weighing new sanctions on Iran and Obama was pushing for more diplomacy, his interest was in tamping down that sense of urgency. On the eve of a visit to Israel, Obama told Israel's Channel Two, "Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don't want to cut it too close."

On Oct. 5 of that year, Obama contrasted the U.S. view of an Iranian breakout with that of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who at the time said Iran was only six months away from nuclear capability. Obama told The Associated Press, "Our assessment continues to be a year or more away. And in fact, actually, our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of Israeli intelligence services."

Ben Caspit, an Israeli journalist and columnist for Al-Monitor, reported last year that Israel's breakout estimate was also two to three months away.

A year ago, after the nuclear talks started, Secretary of State John Kerry dropped the first hint about the still-classified Iran breakout estimate. He told a Senate panel, "I think it is fair to say, I think it is public knowledge today, that we are operating with a time period for a so-called breakout of about two months."

David Albright, a former weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told me administration officials appeared to be intentionally unspecific in 2013, when the talking points used the 12-months-plus timeline. Albright's group released its own breakout timetable that focused solely on the production of highly enriched uranium, not the weapon itself. It concluded Iran was potentially less than a month away.

When USA Today asked a spokeswoman for the National Security Council about Albright's estimate, she responded that the intelligence community maintained a number of estimates for how long Iran would take to produce enough material for a weapon.

"They have made it very hard for those of us saying, 'Let's just focus on weapons-grade uranium, there is this shorter period of time and not a year,'" Albright told me. "If you just want a nuclear test device to blow up underground, I don't think you need a year."

This view is supported by a leaked document from the International Atomic Energy Agency, first published by The Associated Press in 2009. Albright's group published excerpts from the IAEA assessment that concluded Iran "has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device based upon (highly enriched uranium) as the fission fuel."

Obama's new, more alarmist figure of two to three months provides a key selling point for the framework reached this month in Switzerland. When Obama announced the preliminary agreement on April 2, he said one benefit was that if it were finalized, "even if it violated the deal, for the next decade at least, Iran would be a minimum of a year away from acquiring enough material for a bomb."

Hence the frustration of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "We've been researching their claim that a deal would lengthen the breakout time for Iran from two to three months to a year," he told me of the administration. "We're just trying to confirm any of their numbers, and we can't confirm or make sense of what they are referencing."

Nunes should hurry. The Iranian nuclear deal is scheduled to break out in less than three months.

Eli Lake is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about politics and foreign affairs.

Copyright © 2015, The Morning Call

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/bring-back-the-privateers-12695

Bring Back the Privateers[1]

As violent extremists spread carnage to more and more countries, letters of marque issued by Congress to private companies might offer strategic advantages in flexibility, speed and cost control.

Ian C. Rice [2]Douglas A. Borer [3][4]
May-June 2015 [5]

IF STRATEGY is the art of rethinking the possible, then the time for strategic innovation against what the U.S. military terms violent extremist organizations (VEOs) is now. The American-led air war in Iraq and Syria may have shown some progress against the Islamic State and other VEOs, but the VEOs and their sympathizers have hit back with attacks in France and brutal beheadings of journalists and aid workers. Frustration is growing in Congress as the traditional tools of American power fail to produce decisive results. But what can those on Capitol Hill do?

More than they realize. An overlooked clause of the Constitution empowers them to take the fight to VEOs in a way the president cannot. Invoking this clause would help Congress restore its faded prerogatives in national security while hitting America’s extremist enemies harder—and it would be cheap. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress “shall have Power . . . to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” American legislators should now consider resurrecting this long-forgotten but constitutionally enshrined strategic alternative by issuing letters of marque and reprisal.

Historically, these letters provided the legal authority by which naval warfare could be conducted by private individuals, commonly known as privateers. Even before the Constitution was ratified, many colonial governors (and the infant Continental Congress) issued letters to promote raiding against Britain’s economic assets in North America during the Revolutionary War. This approach was deemed necessary because the young United States lacked a navy of sufficient size to confront its early enemies. The letters expeditiously authorized a much-needed military capability to wage war when other tools weren’t readily available. The situation is similar today, when political choices and fiscal barriers hobble the deployment of uniformed American and coalition ground forces into Iraq and Syria. There are insufficient ground forces to alter the territorial status quo the Islamic State has created. By authorizing private forces with letters of marque, Congress will begin to address the pressing need to engage in ground combat against VEO militants.

ARE LETTERS of marque legal? In 1856, fifty-five governments ratified the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law, which banned states from commissioning privateers. The United States was not a signatory of the declaration. However, as its official naval assets increased, the use of letters faded from America’s strategic consciousness. Despite this historic shift, the United States has signed and ratified no international treaties that supersede Congress’s authority to both modernize and reissue letters.

Congress can again participate in shaping national strategy by issuing letters to any number of the private military corporations (PMCs) that have expressed a willingness to go to war by putting private “boots on the ground.” PMCs were integral force multipliers in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, freeing regular troops for higher-priority tasks. Unfortunately, like the privateers of yore, they have a mixed reputation, in part due to incidents in which they have operated beyond the scope of their contracts. There is also a public perception that they exist solely for profit. However, as VEOs proliferate and spread carnage to more and more countries, letters issued by Congress to private companies (American or international) might offer strategic advantages in flexibility, speed and cost control. Ultimately, they could produce results on the battlefield, with private troops doing the fighting. Bring back the privateers.

WHO WOULD these privateers be? Taking a page from the all-volunteer Rough Riders of the Spanish-American War and the famed Abraham Lincoln Brigade of the Spanish Civil War, PMCs could recruit socially concerned individuals to go fight for a good cause abroad. In doing so, American and European Muslims who are offended by VEOs’ blood-soaked blasphemies would have a productive venue to help defend their faith in Iraq and Syria. In addition to Muslims motivated to fight to preserve the reputation of their faith and restore peace to their coreligionists’ homelands, many veterans of America’s recent wars may be drawn to employment with PMCs out of a sense of duty and a longing to finish the fight begun on September 11, 2001. By late 2014, news outlets reported that the first American and Canadian veterans had arrived as private citizens to fight alongside the Kurds in northern Iraq. Unconventional? Yes. But PMCs and modern privateering are ideas worth embracing if Congress is seeking new options to augment the growing international coalition against the scourge of VEOs like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

How would this work? Each letter would spell out in plain terms the fiscal incentives and limits for the contractor. For instance, any oil seized from VEOs would be theirs to sell. Any territory, oil refineries or other valuable infrastructure PMCs liberate could be transferred back to local authorities after their value was assessed and a payment made for services rendered. There are already clear signs of interested privateers gathering resources to operate in Syria and Iraq. Erik Prince, the founder of the well-known PMC Blackwater, commented last fall that “if the old Blackwater team were still together, I have high confidence that a multi-brigade-size unit of veteran American contractors or a multi-national force could be rapidly assembled and deployed to be that necessary ground combat team” in Iraq and Syria. PMCs such as Prince’s could be issued letters by Congress to fill specific requirements the U.S. military cannot or will not meet immediately. Fueled through the incentive of profit, the PMCs would then make their way to the area of operations through their own logistics and begin to conduct operations as stipulated under the letter.

According to recent news reports, the Islamic State will soon tender its own coinage using precious and semiprecious metals (gold, silver and copper). This news should further entice private-sector entrepreneurs to conduct operations against the war-making capabilities of this particular VEO. Seized Islamic State currency could be used in two ways to empower a letter-bearing PMC. First, if the currency is minted in accordance with international standards, it will have very real value in the global commodities market. Thus, confiscated currency is a reward in itself, and it can be used directly to perpetuate ground operations wherever the coins are used as legal tender. Alternatively, a clever PMC might also have a great deal to gain from successfully seizing minting molds (or fabricating their own) to produce counterfeit coinage. A letter could be issued to allow such a practice. The result would surely bring the terms “wooden” and “plugged” nickel (or dinar) back into vogue, and see the Islamic State’s dream of a non-Western currency systematically eroded. Indeed, these tactics of political-economic warfare might have a greater impact than any smart bomb—they would help delegitimize the Islamic State from within.

In Iraq and Syria, PMCs would be beneficial in providing the “on the ground” auxiliary component to the coalition-led air strikes to reduce the Islamic State’s war-making capabilities. They would do so specifically by reducing its revenue sources (such as oil) along key lines of communication where the Islamic State currently enjoys its freedom of movement. Though other governments may not yet issue letters as a regular policy, they could do so. For instance, the Islamic State’s gains have led the Iraqi government to seek foreign fighters of its own. One U.S. firm is rumored to have been offered up to $1,750 per man per day to conduct combat operations in Iraq. This is a far cry from the days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, where PMCs were restricted to “security operations” but no combat. Other countries could issue their own letters: most notably France and the United Kingdom, which are both close U.S. allies and UN Security Council permanent members.

GROUND COMBAT is only one domain for which letters could be issued to support the conduct of operations against VEOs. Cyberspace is a vast virtual sanctuary from which terrorist organizations plan, mobilize, recruit, advertise and conduct logistics using websites, chat rooms and social-media networks. However, even though cyberspace has served to expand the number and capacity of modern VEOs, it is not an impenetrable or absolutely secure domain. For instance, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, outraged “hacktivists” from the group Anonymous (normally considered anarchists by state authorities) reportedly launched private cyberattacks on the Islamic State. We are not calling for Anonymous to be issued a letter, but there are hundreds of legitimate technology companies (e.g., Google, Cisco and IBM) that have both the skill and the patriotism to take on VEOs in cyberspace. However, these technology titans could only do so prudently if the economic incentives and legal authorities were clearly articulated in a letter. In order to ensure further legal oversight, a two-hundred-year-old mechanism could be revisited: prize courts. Prize courts ensured that privateers were not rewarded beyond the scope of the authority outlined in their letter. The same juridical concept could be applied today.

Have individuals incentivized by profit ever filled their pockets with other people’s Bitcoins or bank balances? Or, worse yet, have they filled their databases with credit-card or bank-account numbers? Of course—hackers do it all the time. Each time a security system is breached at a major retailer or bank, account information is the focus of the attack. The entire fraud-protection industry is built around safeguarding personal and account information with the aim of defeating these profit-seeking criminals.

With cyberspace being an ever-expanding universe with nearly limitless opportunities, issuing letters would empower Congress to tap existing human capital to fight VEOs. Cyberspace is an electronic sea full of pirates armed with virtual raiding vessels that can appear from anywhere at any time. But cyberspace is also inhabited by legitimate counterforces that constantly ameliorate the damage caused by cyberpirates. By issuing letters to carefully selected hackers (or counterhackers), Washington can allow individuals, companies and networks with the skills to traverse cyberspace to attack opponents of the United States without fearing legal retribution. By recruiting talented individuals or groups to actively attack opponent websites, the United States and its allies can pursue a zero-to-low-cost approach to confronting the funding infrastructure of VEOs globally. Once open season is declared on the websites of VEOs, chaos and distrust would spread among the Islamic State’s online sympathizers. Attacking VEO websites for financial gain would help deter their more dedicated supporters, who would be exposed to the perils of being hacked. Doing so would help separate the true believers from the casual activists, thus reducing donations and other avenues of VEO income.

For Congress, fighting VEOs will be just one opportunity for issuing letters once this concept is implemented and its strategic value is realized. Letters could be issued by Congress to support border operations against illegal immigration. Private security companies could be paid for the safe collection and return of persons looking to cross the border illegally. Letters could also be innovatively used to revitalize efforts against international drug trafficking, with modern multinational privateers receiving a bounty on illegal narcotics seized. If Congress wants to participate in the formulation of any number of foreign-policy options, the Constitution strategically empowers it with the authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal.

PERHAPS THE best part about this idea is that it is constitutional.

But why do it? For the last six decades, Congress has systematically ceded its original role in national-security affairs. The result has been what many scholars label “the imperial presidency.” The commander in chief has ordered all combat deployments since World War II without seeking a declaration of war from Congress. However, declaring war and doing nothing should not be the only options available to a legislative body. Issuing letters of marque and reprisal will spur Congress to reinvigorate greater strategic thinking and action in the legislative branch during a critical moment when creativity is needed to address gaps in capabilities to counter VEOs. By doing so, Congress would begin to free itself from decades-old inertia in the conduct of America’s foreign affairs. These letters would help to restore balance to the separation of powers that the Founding Fathers envisioned. They would also force America’s enemies to confront an old and unexpected strategic tool in the national arsenal. It’s privateering time.

Ian C. Rice is a U.S. Army officer and PhD candidate at the University of California, Los Angeles. Douglas A. Borer is an associate professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. The views expressed here are their own and do not represent official U.S. government policy.
Tags
Military [6]Congress [7]Technology [8]
Topics
Economics [9]Security [10]
Regions
United States [11]
Tweet [4]
inShare
Source URL (retrieved on April 22, 2015): http://nationalinterest.org/feature/bring-back-the-privateers-12695

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/bring-back-the-privateers-12695
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/ian-c-rice
[3] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/douglas-borer
[4] http://twitter.com/share
[5] http://nationalinterest.org/issue/may-june-2015
[6] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/military
[7] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/congress
[8] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/technology
[9] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/economics
[10] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security
[11] http://nationalinterest.org/region/americas/north-america/united-states

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/pakistans-nuclear-weapons-program-5-things-you-need-know-12687

Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program: 5 Things You Need to Know[1]

Pakistan’s nuclear program has created a bleak security environment in South Asia.

Akhilesh Pillalamarri [2][3]
April 21, 2015

While the world continues to focus primarily on the threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a potentially much greater nuclear threat has emerged just to its east: Pakistan, the Islamic world’s only nuclear-weapons state.

Pakistan is one of the world’s only eight declared nuclear powers and probably the one that causes the most mischief. Pakistan sponsors and harbors militant groups that carry out attacks in all of its neighbors: India, Afghanistan, Iran, and even China.

Although Pakistan argues that its nuclear weapons are well-guarded, many experts are not so sure [4], pointing out that the Taliban and other militants have frequently struck at supposedly secure military bases with impunity. More worrisome, though, is Pakistan’s history of proliferation, which increases the chance that one day some element or the other in the Pakistani military will provide nuclear materials to an even more dangerous third party—or even to a stable country like Saudi Arabia, which could set off an arms race in the Middle East.

(Recommended: 5 Indian Weapons of War Pakistan Should Fear [5])

Also troubling is the steady radicalization of Pakistani’s military, which could at some point turn into the ideological equivalent of the Taliban [4]. American lawmakers who constantly fret about the irrationality of the Iranian government should take note of the continuous Islamization of Pakistan’s military. Here are five things you need to know about the world’s most dangerous nuclear weapons program.

(Recommended: 5 Pakistani Weapons of War India Should Fear [6])

Why does Pakistan have Nuclear Weapons?

At first glance, it may seem strange that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, as it maintains close relations with China and the United States, neither of which would allow it to be dismembered. Even its rival India does not wish to see it collapse, but that doesn’t stop Pakistan from having nuclear weapons largely for one reason—India.

This is not only because India itself has nuclear weapons (ostensibly because China has them), but also to achieve parity with a rival that is many times larger than it in terms of size, population, and economic prowess.

Ultimately, however, nuclear weapons give Pakistan reassurance that it will never be humiliated the way it was in 1971, when Indian forces decisively defeated Pakistan in a two-front war that lead to the independence of east Pakistan as Bangladesh. If Indian forces were to ever enter Pakistani territory in such force again, it is likely that Pakistan would compensate for its conventional military inferiority by using battlefield nuclear weapons to prevent a repeat of its total defeat in 1971. This plan makes India’s Cold Start [7] military doctrine—a swift incursion into Pakistan that would capture vital territory before Pakistan could retaliate—hard to implement.

(Recommended: 5 Indian Weapons of War China Should Fear [8])

Nuclear weapons also help Pakistan continue to bleed India. Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons are considered its “shield” to guard against retaliation from any punitive strike in response to attacks conducted by terrorists based in Pakistan. This gives Pakistan significant leeway in making mischief [9] in India.

History

Pakistan conducted peaceful nuclear research from the time of its independence but began a nuclear weapons program in earnest only after its defeat by India in 1971. India itself conducted a nuclear test in 1974 and rejected proposals [10] for a nuclear free zone in South Asia. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program began in 1972 under Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had always been a proponent of going nuclear. Bhutto famously declared [11]: “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own.”

(Recommended: 5 Chinese Weapons of War India Should Fear [12])

Indeed, it was Pakistan’s poverty that held it back from pursuing a nuclear program in the 1960s, despite reports that India was secretly working on nuclear weapons. To compensate for this, and to accelerate the development of its own program, Pakistan resorted to subterfuge, deceit, and help from generous friends in order to go nuclear.

Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program took off under the leadership of Dr. Abdul Qadeer (A.Q.) Khan, who began trying to enrich uranium at the secret Engineering Research Laboratories (ERL) in 1976. Prior to this, A.Q. Khan worked from 1972-75 at the Physics Dynamic Research Laboratory in Amsterdam where he had access to information on uranium enrichment. Subsequently, he left the Netherlands for Pakistan with secret documents [13] that detailed the construction of a uranium centrifuge. Once back in Pakistan, Khan’s laboratories developed a uranium enrichment plant. Khan was convicted in absentia for theft in 1983; later on, he was linked to the sale [13] of nuclear designs and materials to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya.

In the meantime, a 1983 U.S. State Department report revealed [14] that China had assisted Pakistan with its nuclear program—most probably to keep India in check—and had even supplied Pakistan with complete blueprints for a nuclear bomb. By 1984, Pakistan had the ability [14] to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels. Yet work stalled for a few years in the late 1980s for a variety of reasons: American pressure and Pakistani fear [14] of an Indian or Israeli strike. Throughout this period, Pakistan continued to improve its deliver capabilities. Pakistan finally conducted a nuclear test in 1998, in response to an Indian test that same year.

Current Capabilities

Pakistan currently possesses about 120 nuclear weapons, more than India and Israel. Pakistan does not have a nuclear triad [15], but that is likely to change soon with the news that Pakistan has bought eight diesel-electric submarines from China, which could be equipped with nuclear missiles.

Pakistan currently has extensive land and air based nuclear capabilities. With the development [16] of Pakistan’s newest missile, Shaheen-III, which has a range of 2,750 kilometers, Pakistan is capable of hitting all of India and can also reach Israel. Pakistani F-16 fighters [17] can also drop nuclear bombs deep in Indian territory and can hit major cities like Mumbai and Delhi. Finally, Pakistan is believed to be developing tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons, which are necessary for its strategy to counter India. Pakistan’s Nasr Missile [18] has a range of 60 kilometers.

Pakistan does not have to worry about its second strike capabilities to the extent that some other countries do because of its size, which allows nuclear weapons to be scattered around multiple sites and because it has not adopted a no-first-use nuclear doctrine, meaning Pakistan is perfectly willing to use a nuke first, before retaliation. This hurts [16] India’s nuclear deterrent capabilities, since theoretically Pakistan can hit every Indian nuclear site first (India has a no-first use policy).

Pakistan’s Alleged Nuclear Umbrella

Various reports indicate that Pakistan has joined the United States in offering to use its nuclear weapons to shield allies against nuclear threats. In Pakistan’s case, these countries include the six Arab members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), especially Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is said to have funded Pakistan’s continued expansion of its nuclear stockpile in return [19] for a guarantee that Pakistan would provide Saudi Arabia with a weapon or a nuclear shield in the case of Iran getting a bomb.

Therefore, Pakistan’s nuclear program is not only a cause of instability in South Asia; it also makes the Middle East much more dangerous. There is no guarantee that Saudi Arabia may not try to secretly acquire a nuclear weapon from Pakistan no matter what Iran does. The Wall Street Journal reported [20] that Saudi Arabia all but expects Pakistan’s instant support in the nuclear field whenever needed.

Future

Nuclear rivalry in South Asia has reached an especially dangerous phase as Pakistan can now reach all of India and deploy battlefield nukes. The New York Times is right to note [21] that in nuclear terms, Pakistan is the “biggest concern.” Pakistan’s factional government filled with rogue agencies is a much bigger threat to nuclear nonproliferation than Iran ever will be as there is no guarantee that someone will not provide nuclear material to terrorists or rogue groups despite orders not to do so. At least Iran is tightly controlled and methodical about what it does.

Pakistan’s arsenal of 120 nuclear weapons is rapidly growing [16], and could triple [21] in a decade, giving it more nukes than France, Britain, and China. Yet Pakistan remains a desperately poor country, plagued by instability and extremism. These make it especially dangerous and more likely that its nuclear weapons will at some point be misused. All of this makes it more likely that Pakistan will continue to avoid becoming a normal country, driven by trade and development, and more likely to compensate for these failures through distracting its population with the mostly baseless India threat.

Ultimately, Pakistan’s behavior is unlikely to change because it can continue to support militants against India without fear of major retaliation. The expansion of its nuclear program merely reinforces this and adds to instability in South Asia. The only incentive to change its way would be ideological, and Pakistan continues to head in an even more radical direction while the military remains obsessed with the threat of India over all else. Pakistan’s nuclear program has given security in South Asia a very bleak future.

Akhilesh Pillalamarri is an assistant editor at the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter:@AkhiPill.

Image: Wikimedia/One half 3544 [22]
Tags
Pakistan [23]
Topics
Security [24]
Regions
Asia [25]
Tweet [3]
inShare10
Source URL (retrieved on April 22, 2015): http://nationalinterest.org/feature/pakistans-nuclear-weapons-program-5-things-you-need-know-12687

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/pakistans-nuclear-weapons-program-5-things-you-need-know-12687
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/akhilesh-pillalamarri
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://www.dw.de/is-pakistans-nuclear-stock-safe/a-17143032
[5] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/if-india-pakistan-went-war-5-weapons-pakistan-should-fear-11089
[6] http://nationalinterest.org/feature...sh-5-pakistani-weapons-war-india-should-11140
[7] http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/248971
[8] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/five-indian-weapons-war-china-should-fear-10714
[9] http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/10/asia/pakistan-mumbai-suspect-released/
[10] http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...subcontinent-bringing-stability-to-south-asia
[11] http://www.economist.com/node/10424283
[12] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/five-chinese-weapons-war-india-should-fear-10774
[13] http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/nonproliferation/articles/khan_proliferation/
[14] https://books.google.com/books?id=s...epage&q=pakistani scientist who stole&f=false
[15] http://www.economist.com/node/21560877
[16] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...e-disrupts-nuclear-stability-south-asia-12495
[17] http://nationalinterest.org/feature...kistani-weapons-war-india-should-11140?page=2
[18] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-building-battlefield-nukes-deter-india-12474
[19] http://www.voanews.com/content/paki...ationship-with-saudi-arabia-iran/2710343.html
[20] http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-nuclear-deal-raises-stakes-for-iran-talks-1426117583
[21] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/nuclear-fears-in-south-asia.html?_r=0
[22] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:One_half_3544
[23] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/pakistan
[24] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security
[25] http://nationalinterest.org/region/asia

Lilbitsnana · Apr 22, 2015

I wonder if the TTP share weapon info/development with the Afghanistan taliban?

posted for fair use

Pakistani Taliban claim to have successfully test-fired missile called ‘Omar-1’

Omer Farooq Khan,TNN | Apr 21, 2015, 08.34 PM IST

Pakistani Taliban claim to have successfully test-fired missile called ‘Omar-1’

ISLAMABAD: Just as Pakistan was celebrating the launch of Chinese investments worth $46 billion in the country, the militant organization Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on Monday claimed to have successfully test fired its first indigenously developed missile named as "Omar-1".

To justify its claim, the TTP, which has presence across the country and currently resisting Pakistani troops in the volatile tribal regions on the border with Afghanistan, has issued a statement and posted a video demonstrating the launch of missile.

In the video, different parts of the missile were assembled before its launch. The TTP said that special feature of "Omar-1" is its design.

READ ALSO: Pakistan army battles Taliban for strategic valley

"It can easily be assembled and dissembled in accordance to the situation," said Muhammad Khurassani, the TTP spokesman. Khurassani said the effectiveness of the specially-designed missile would certainly surprise the targeted enemy. "With the grace of God, you'll soon see our enemies on the run," he said.

The spokesman further said that engineering unit of the TTP has the capability to develop modern lethal weapons. "We are training our fighters to get maximum results from the use of technology, including suicide vests, suicide vehicles, hand grenades, anti-jammer devices and so on.

READ ALSO: What does Pakistan Taliban want?

Pakistan claims to have killed around 2000 militants in the military offensive launched against them in the troubled North Waziristan and Khyber tribal regions last year. The operations, that still continue, had caused exodus of more than 1.5 million people.

Since engaging the militants on ground, Pakistan's military failed to have arrested or killed any high profile militant leader.

Read this story in Hindi: पाकिस्तानी तालिबान ने किया उमर-1 मिसाइल का परीक्षण

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...issile-called-Omar-1/articleshow/47001651.cms

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/the_price_of_dhimmitude.html

April 21, 2015
The Price of Dhimmitude
By Raymond Ibrahim
Comments 180

Approximately two months after the Islamic State (IS) published a video depicting its members slaughtering 21 Coptic Christians in Libya, on Sunday, April 19, the Islamic jihadi organization released another video of more Christians in Libya being massacred, this time for not paying jizya -- extortion money demanded of the “People of the Book” according to Koran 9:29.

Two scenes appear in the 29-minute-long video published by al-Furqan, the Islamic State’s media wing. The first scene consists of a group of Christian Ethiopians dressed all in black, on their knees, with their arms tied behind their backs. Masked IS members stand behind the Ethiopians with rifles aimed at their heads. According to the video, this scene takes place in the city of Fezzan. The Christian captives are called “Worshippers of the cross belonging to the hostile Ethiopian Church.”

The second scene shows more Christian Ethiopians dressed in orange uniforms and standing on the shores of Barqa, the same region where 21 Egyptian Christians were earlier decapitated for refusing to convert to Islam.

Other scenes include the narrator referencing the fatwas of medieval jurist Ibn Taymiyya that proclaim all Christians “infidels.” Then Abu Malik ibn Ans al-Nashwan, apparently one of the group’s leaders, appears saying that “The dealings of the Islamic State with Christians under its authority is according to Allah’s Sharia [Islamic law]. Jizya [tribute] is imposed on those who accept, and war on those who resist.”

The final scene is of the Christians in Fezzan being executed by gunfire to the back of their heads and the Christians in Barqa all having their heads carved off.

It is likely that the reason these Christians “resisted” to pay jizya was that they did not have the money – migrant Christian workers in Libya, whether from Egypt or Ethiopia, are about as poor as they get.

And they refused the only other option that could have spared their lives according to Islamic law -- renunciation of the Christian Trinity and conversion to Islam.

The narrator continued by saying that IS had “invited” the Christians of Raqqa, Syria to enter Islam, but they refused. So IS demanded of them payment of jizya and they complied and were permitted to live. Next follows a scene depicting Christians in Raqqa -- according to the video’s claims -- saying how “peaceful” life is under the Islamic State, and that the caliphate does not compel them to do anything except pay jizya.

Whether scripted or not -- and odds are on the former -- these supposedly “content” Christians are hardly representative of the overwhelming majority of Christians in territories annexed by the Islamic State.

In the summer of 2014, IS issued a statement concerning Christian minorities, saying “We offer them three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract -- involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword.” Hours after this ultimatum was proclaimed, the jihadis began painting the letter “n” on Christian homes in Mosul -- in Arabic, Christians are known as “Nasara,” or “Nazarenes” -- signaling them out for the slaughter to come and prompting a mass exodus of Christians from the region. Many older and disabled Iraqi Christians, unable to pay the jizya or join the exodus, opted to convert to Islam.

In one instance, three Islamic State members burst into the home of a Christian family, demanding jizya. When the father of the house pleaded that he did not have the money, the intruders raped his wife and daughter in front of him. The man was reportedly so traumatized that he committed suicide.

The new video of the executed Ethiopians shows other scenes and cities under the Islamic State’s jurisdiction, including pictures of churches in Ninevah and Mosul being destroyed purportedly because Christians there did -- or could -- not pay jizya.

At one point, the same masked narrator appears speaking about the “battle between truth and falsehood” -- a reference to Islam’s dichotomized worldview, which certainly did not originate with “ISIS.” For example, during an interview conducted one decade ago, when asked about the status of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri responded:

Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden -- may Allah protect them from all evil -- are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of jihad, while the struggle between Truth [Islam] and Falsehood [non-Islam] transcends time (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.182).

This statement best encapsulates why the slaughter of Christians and other “infidels” will continue -- regardless of whether we call the jihad “al-Qaeda,” “ISIS,” “Boko Haram,” “Al Shabaab,” or “Lone Wolf.” Jihadi leaders, ideologues, emirs, sultans, caliphs, even the prophet of Islam himself, have come and gone for nearly 1,400 years -- but the jihad rages on.

And, lest Western readers in general, Christians in particular, think this is just happening “over there,” the same narrator, speaking to the West in general, also said -- right before the slaughtered and decapitated bodies of the Ethiopian Christians were shown -- that “you won’t have safety, even in your dreams, until you embrace Islam.”

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.652509

A nuclear Iran is not the only danger hovering over Israel

Iran has been occupying the Israeli military leadership in recent years, but arguably the greater threat lies on the northern border.

By Moshe Arens | Apr. 20, 2015 | 1:54 AM | 2

Iran in possession of a nuclear weapon is an ever-present danger in our minds. Especially in light of the framework agreement signed by the United States and the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany [the P5+1], which provides Iran with legitimacy for its vast nuclear infrastructure and reduces the break-out period for an Iranian nuclear weapon to a minimum.

But it is not the only great danger hovering over Israel. In addition, there are more than 100,000 rockets and missiles in the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon all pointed at Israel, plus thousands of rockets in the hands of Hamas in Gaza. They put all of Israel’s civilian population at risk. Which is the greater danger?

We can get some indication of the severity of the danger facing us by attempting to calculate the expectation, or the expected value, of the physical damage that might be caused by the occurrence of either of the two events: an attack by an Iranian nuclear weapon; or an attack by Hezbollah missiles and rockets. There is no way of assigning objective probabilities to these events, but we can make some intuitive guesses.

A nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranians would have a large-scale, negative geopolitical effect on the Middle East, but the probability that the weapon would actually be used is extremely small. However, the physical damage caused if it were to be used is essentially infinite. With the withdrawal from Sinai, Israel became a point target for a nuclear bomb. The product of the probability and damage incurred is, therefore, incalculable.

The probability of Hezbollah launching its reservoir of missiles and rockets against Israel is substantial. The theories discussed about our ability to deter them from taking such an action are not on very solid ground. Multiplying such a subjective probability by the damage that is likely to be incurred produces a result, which although indefinite, should be of grave concern to all.

Whereas the Iranian nuclear threat has been occupying our civilian and military leadership these past years – and constant efforts have been made to slow down the Iranian nuclear program – excepting civil defense programs conducted by the Israel Defense Forces Home Front, Israel’s answer to the Hezbollah rocket and missile threat has been limited to a reliance on a dubious theory of deterrence. The opportunity to destroy Hamas’ rocket capability in Gaza was missed during Operation Protective Edge last summer.

From year to year, Hezbollah’s rocket and missile threat has grown in numbers, range and accuracy. Despite the efforts that were made over the years to interfere with the supply of weapons to Hezbollah from Iran and Syria, the Shi’ite group’s capabilities to cause severe damage to Israel’s civilian population and infrastructure has continued to grow. It should be clear the hope that Israel will be able to deter Hezbollah from utilizing this capability cannot be considered an adequate strategy for Israel.

This threat to Israel’s civilian population has grown over the years. At first, years ago, short-range rockets endangered civilians in towns and villages in the north. The response was Operation Peace for the Galilee [aka the first Lebanon war, in 1982], which established a security zone in southern Lebanon that put these rockets out of range of Israel’s northern border. After that came successive IDF withdrawals and increased ranges of Hezbollah rockets and missiles, until gradually – and almost imperceptibly – all of Israel came under threat.

Successive Israeli governments “learned” to live with the threat, and deterrence became the prevailing strategy. This strategy failed during the 2006 Second Lebanon War and also against Hamas in Gaza.

The first and essential component of an effective strategy designed to protect Israel’s civilian population against the rocket and missile threat must be an IDF capability to neutralize the Hezbollah arsenal within 24, or at most 48, hours. That capability gives Israel a number of options to free itself of this threat.

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-deal-or-no-deal.html?_r=0

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Columnist

Deal or No Deal?

APRIL 22, 2015
Thomas L. Friedman
Comments

The Obama team’s effort to negotiate a deal with Iran that could prevent the Iranians from developing a nuclear bomb for at least a decade is now entering its critical final stage. I hope that a good, verifiable deal can be finalized, but it will not be easy. If it were, we’d have it by now. Here are the major challenges:

First, you can negotiate a simple arms control agreement with an adversary you don’t trust. We did that with the Kremlin in the Cold War. By simple, I mean with relatively few moving parts, and very clear verification procedures that do not require much good will from the other side — like monitoring Soviet missile sites with our own satellites. You can also negotiate a complicated arms control deal with a country that shares your values: Japan and South Korea regularly submit their nuclear facilities to international inspections.

But what is hard to implement is a complex arms control deal with an adversary you don’t trust — like Iran or North Korea. Each moving part requires some good will from the other side, and, because there are so many moving parts, the opportunities for cheating are manifold. It requires constant vigilance. Are the United States, Russia, China and Europe up for that for a decade? After the Iraq invasion, we took our eye off North Korea, and it diverted nuclear fuel for a bomb. With Iran, the U.S. Energy Department is planning to put a slew of new, on-the-ground monitoring devices into every cranny of Iran’s nuclear complex, which should help. But there also has to be zero-tolerance for cheating — and a very high price if there is.

Second, for us, this is solely an arms control agreement. For Iran, this is “an identity crisis” that it’s being asked to resolve, and it’s still not clear it can do so, says Robert Litwak of the Wilson Center and the author of “Outlier States: American Strategies to Contain, Engage, or Change Regimes.”

America’s engagement with Iran, said Litwak, is like “the Cuban missile crisis meets the Thirty Years’ War.” For us, this is a pure nuclear negotiation, but, for Iran, the nuclear issue “is a proxy for what kind of country it wants to be — an ordinary state or an Islamic revolutionary state. And this divide goes back to the origins of its revolution” in 1979. Most revolutions eventually go through some cultural rebalancing that breaks its fever and turns it toward normalcy and integration, Litwak added: “But Iran has never gone through that process. It tantalized us with reformist presidents who didn’t really hold power and when push came to shove never challenged the fundamentals of the revolutionary deep state that had the monopoly on the use of force” and control of its nuclear program.

There is a hard core in Tehran for whom nuclear weapons are not only a hedge against foreign invasion but also a deliberate thumb in the eye of the world meant to block the very integration that would open Iran to influences from America and the West — an opening they fear would dilute whatever revolutionary fervor is left in its youths, many of whom are fed up with Iran’s isolation. That is why Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was telling the truth when he recently said that he has not made up his mind about this deal. He’s having an identity crisis. He wants sanctions relief without integration. After all, if Iran is a normal state, who needs a medieval cleric to be the “supreme leader?”

The challenge for Obama is whether he can do a deal with an Iran that, as Litwak puts it, “doesn’t change character but just changes behavior.” Obama’s bet — and it is not crazy — is that if you can get the right verification procedures in place and deprive Iran from making a bomb for a decade (that alone is worth a deal, given the alternatives) then you increase the odds of Iran’s own people changing Iran’s character from within. But then so much rides on implementing a fail-proof verification regime and “snapback” sanctions if Iran cheats.

I think President Obama believes that nothing has stymied U.S. Mideast policy more in the last 36 years than the U.S.-Iran cold war, and if that can be prudently eased it would equal a Nixon-to-China move that opens up a lot of possibilities. Again, that’s not crazy. It’s just not easy given the forces in Iran who have an interest in being isolated from the West.

Finally, you have the regional challenge. Iran, with about 80 million people, is simply a more powerful and dynamic state today than most of the Sunni Arab states to its west, half of which have collapsed. Iran, even if it had good intentions, almost can’t help but project its power westward given the vacuum and frailty there. When Nixon opened to China, and helped unleash its economic prowess, China was largely surrounded by strong or economically powerful states to balance it. But an Iran enriched by billions in sanctions relief would be even more powerful vis-à-vis its weak Arab neighbors. Our Gulf Arab allies are deeply worried about this and are looking to the U.S. for both protection and more sophisticated arms. I get that. But unless we can find a way to truly ease tensions between Shiite Persians and Sunni Arabs, we will find ourselves unleashing Iran to the max while arming the Arabs to the teeth. Maintaining that balance will not be easy.

These are not reasons to reject the deal. They are reasons to finish it right.

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/schedules/tuesday-21-april-2015

John Batchelor Show

Tuesday 21 April 2015
Air Date: April 21, 2015

Hour Two
Tuesday 21 April 2015 / Hour 2, Block A: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus; author: Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War, & The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag after Stalin; in re: “Russia has adopted this approach and it is a mix of very well-known conventional warfare and new, more sophisticated propaganda and disinformation campaigns including Russian efforts to influence public opinion through financial links with political parties within Nato and engagement in NGOs.”
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (1 of 4)
Gen Valery Gerasimov: Nonnuclear NATO [sites] have become objects of [attention]. Yatsienuk: "Ukraine is just Moscow's first goal in Russia's war against the West." A passel of insane quotations on "global war." – Dmitri Simes and Graeme Allison. Anders Fogh Rasmussen: "Russians have launched a hybrid war against Europe" In 1913 we observed that we could be heading toward a hot war. We sounded like alarmists. A year later, suddenly very eminent people are saying this. See their article. . . . The top mil security elite of Russia: split between "pragmatists" hoping for some sort of cooperation with the West, and so-called hotheads ,who aim for war. We don't hear or see anyone saying, "Pull back." Other than Kissinger and Scowcroft, not many wise men around. It'll take a new perception in DC of what's gong on in Ukraine. Thousands of NATO troops, plus tanks and APCs, are on the move next to Russian borders – this is a provocation. 1. The growing humanitarian disaster in Eastern Ukraine – millions at risk of disease, freezing, starving. The American "right to protect"?? 2. The sudden rash of political assassinations in Kiev

Tuesday 21 April 2015 / Hour2, Block B: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus, and author; in re: Meeting the challenge of an angry but weakened Russia today requires a subtle combination of firmness and restraint. Where vital American interests are engaged, w e have to be able and willing to fight: to kill and to die. Effective deterrence requires three C’s: clarity about red lines that cannot be crossed (for example, attacking a NATO ally); capability to respond in ways that will make the cost of aggression greatly exceed any benefits an aggressor could hope to achieve; and credibility about our determination to fulfill our commitment. At the same time, we should recognize that if American and Russian forces find themselves firing upon each other, this would violate one of the principal constraints both sides respected assiduously during four decades of the Cold War—risking escalation to a war both would lose. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-america-stumbling-war-12662?page=8 (2 of 4)
Rasmussen's overarching claims. These are arguments for bigger budgets. [Typist says: recall that a moment ago NATO couldn't explain its raison d'etre; now it's jetting in to a fight and arguing for more money.] "And don't forget cyberweapons," says Rasmussen. I underestimated the number and power of those in the West who actually want a war with Russia. Why does he want to expand Article V, or cyberattack? Add another tripwire? . . The war Party n DC and Brussels says we're already at war. Note partnership accord of 1990s; but leading NATO figures say that Russia is an enemy. The European war Party is very worried about the divide in European opinion on war with Russia. Enemies of Minsk II.

Tuesday 21 April 2015 / Hour 2, Block C: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus, and author; in re: 'We're not interested in a fair fight' – US army commander urges NATO to confront Russia — RT News ; US forces in southern Afghanistan Operations Director General Frederick 'Ben' Hodges. ; US 'Crucial' to Latvia as Russian Troops Build on Border: Defense Chief ; NBC News: Hodges says inability to monitor eastern Ukraine is concerning (VIDEO) (3 of 4)
There are 250 US troops – paratroopers – on the ground in Lviv, Ukraine, "to train local troops" calling itself the National Guard., The Ukrainians being trained boast of their neo-Nazi policies. Also 200 Canadians. Right Sector (quasi-Nazi) has its own battalion; along with other overt fascists. Canadians say, "We can tell one [fascist] battalion member from another." No they can't. Why are we doing this at all? Short of nuclear war, if Russia wants to fight us in Ukraine, there's no way US and NATO can defeat Russia, and they know it. WarPartiers say, We can at least kill a lot of Russians so Putin will capitulate? What?? No one who knows anything about Russia, Russian people, Russian political system, believes this. Benjamin Hodges (inter al.) is doing this as a provocation. . . . What if a few snipers kill several Americans? A journo shot dead on Thursday; also a politician (Oleg Kalashnikov) – both had spoken of he Kremlin without condemnation. At the same time a rash of "suicides" along the main river – clearly, a death squad in Ukraine – apparently among US/NATO allies. Now people are dying of bullets. Looks like Pinochet's Chile. This is an enormous story that has not at all been reported in the US. Europe knows what a series of political assassinations means. Strange evidence of an official website publishing the home addresses the of these people subsequently murdered. Not pro-Russian but critical of the regime in Kiev: criticized it for being undemocratic, for refusing to give humanitarian aid to Donbass. Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

Tuesday 21 April 2015 / Hour 2, Block D: Stephen F. Cohen, NYU & Princeton professor Emeritus, and author; (4 of 4)
Gen Hodges makes major, provocative, threatening remarks. Vl Putin answering questions online fromall of Russia: annually does this, answers several hundred questions (submitted in advance). Transcript: Putin made it clear that Russia will not capitulate under what he regards a s an early US-led assault on Russia's sovereignty and right. However, what h really wants is a rapprochement with the West – wants to repair and improve relations. Also, he’ll personally repair every pothole in the country (garbage, potholes, school teachers) For half the Q&A, Putin sounded like the mayor of New York. Putin's popularity is at 80%. During the Cold War, we voided war by agreeing to maintain parity; Hodges is demanding superiority and "we don't want a fair fight."

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcas...cohen-nyu-princeton-professor-emeritus-author
http://traffic.libsyn.com/batchelorshow/JBS_2015_04_21BB.mp3

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150422/ml--iraq-sunni_tribe_splits-857e86598a.html

Iraqi tribesmen fight their own after breaking with IS group

Apr 22, 6:08 AM (ET)
By BRAM JANSSEN and SAMEER N. YACOUB

(AP) In this Monday, April 20, 2015 photo, a Sunni fighter wearing an Iraqi army uniform...
Full Image

MAKHMOUR, Iraq (AP) — When Islamic State militants swept across northern Iraq last summer, the Sunni al-Lehib tribe welcomed them as revolutionaries fighting the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. But less than a year later, the tribe is bitterly split between those who joined the extremist group and those resisting its brutal rule.

The tribe hails from a village just south of Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, which was captured by the IS last year. Like many Sunnis in northern Iraq, they initially welcomed the Islamic State group as liberators.

"We were happy when Daesh came," tribal leader Nazhan Sakhar said, using an acronym for the extremist group. "We thought they were going to Baghdad to establish a government. But then they started killing our own people. It turned out they were the same as al-Qaida."

Now he leads a group of around 300 fighters who have reluctantly allied with Iraqi troops and Kurdish forces to fight the IS group — and fellow tribesmen who still support the extremists.

(AP) In this Monday, April 20, 2015 photo, a Sunni fighter stands guard on the frontline...
Full Image

Iraq's Sunnis have complained of discrimination and abuse since the U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein's Sunni-led dictatorship and replaced it with an elected government dominated by the country's Shiite majority. That discontent fueled the rise of the Sunni IS group and paved the way for its takeover of much of northern and western Iraq last year.

The government is now trying to rally Sunni support, which will be key to defeating the IS group. But for many Sunnis that poses a dilemma, forcing them to choose between extremists who reserve their worst brutality for suspected traitors, and what many see as a sectarian government with a history of broken promises.

Sakhar once fought with the Sahwas, or Awakening Councils, which were made up of Sunni tribesmen and former insurgents who allied themselves with the U.S. military starting in 2006 to help roll back al-Qaida in Iraq, a precursor of the IS group. But the Shiite-led government never warmed to the Sahwas, and as U.S. troops withdrew support for the fighters dwindled.

Sakhar said this time around he is getting some help, with each fighter receiving his first monthly paycheck from Baghdad, of around $600.

But they have struggled to arm themselves. "We received weapons from (Kurdish) peshmerga forces, but it wasn't enough. Then we bought the rest of the weapons with our own personal money," he said. He said he has spent $150,000 on weapons, including a heavy machine gun, five lighter machine guns, a pickup truck and two rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

(AP) In this Monday, April 20, 2015 photo, a Sunni fighter stands on the frontline, just...
Full Image

Sakhar says his men will need more arms to drive the IS group out of Mosul and surrounding areas. He also said that with more weapons he could triple the size of his fighting force to 1,000 men, but that many tribesmen are holding back for now for fear they won't be able to defend themselves.

His decision to ally with Iraqi troops brings grave risks. The Islamic State group has massacred the men, women and children of Sunni tribes who rise up against it. Sakhar says he is second on an Islamic State hit list and has survived numerous assassination attempts, including one last week. He points out the bullet-hole in his car.

He also laments the fact that he is now battling against his former neighbors and fellow tribesmen.

"We are sure that a lot of the people who are fighting with Daesh now come from our tribe," he said. "I am sad for this situation, but they chose the wrong path."

---

Yacoub reported from Baghdad. Associated Press writer Salar Salim in Irbil, Iraq contributed to this report.

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150422/ml--egypt-arab_force-22961d52d0.html

Chiefs of Arab armies in Cairo discuss forming joint force

Apr 22, 5:03 AM (ET)

CAIRO (AP) — Army commanders of Arab states have gathered in Cairo to discuss the formation of a joint force to be used to intervene in regional crises and combat terrorism.

Arab League Chief Nabil Elaraby opened Wednesday's meeting by saying that the force is not meant to be an "army against any country" but a "partnership" among Arab nations.

The creation of such a force has been a longtime goal that has eluded Arab nations in the 65 years since they signed a rarely used joint defense pact.

The issue came up again last month when Saudi Arabia and its allies, mostly Gulf Arab states, launched an airstrikes campaign in Yemen against Iran-backed Shiite rebels who seized much of the country and forced its U.S.- and Gulf-backed president to flee abroad.

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150422/as--hong_kong-democracy-1898e1c0f2.html

Hong Kong unveils Beijing-backed election reform plan

Apr 22, 6:14 AM (ET)
By KELVIN CHAN

(AP) Pro-democracy lawmakers talk to reporters following a walkout from the legislative...
Full Image

HONG KONG (AP) — Hong Kong's government unveiled election reform proposals Wednesday, setting the stage for another round of confrontation with pro-democracy activists and lawmakers opposed to Beijing-mandated restrictions on candidates for the city's top job.

The long-expected reform package made some tweaks but gave little ground to pro-democracy leaders, whose rejection of the government's initial proposal last year sparked protests that saw key streets in the city occupied for nearly three months and violent clashes with riot police. Nearly 1,000 people were arrested during what was called the Occupy Central protest movement that marked the city's most tumultuous period since China took control of the territory from Britain in 1997.

The reform package, which needs the city's legislature's approval before it breaks for summer in July, could fail to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority, or 47 out of 70 seats, to pass. With pro-democracy lawmakers controlling 27 seats, the government is hoping it can persuade four members to switch sides.

Outlining the reform package's details to lawmakers, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam said that under the government's proposals, the city's 5 million eligible voters could choose from up to three candidates in 2017.

(AP) A pro-democracy protester, center, holds a placard reading "overrule" in front of...
Full Image

But she said the power to select candidates would remain in the hands of a 1,200-member group of tycoons and other elites viewed as sympathetic to the mainland Chinese government. Lam said the reforms would allow for up to 10 nominees to be shortlisted by the panel, which would then winnow the number down to three candidates through a secret ballot.

That's in line with a blueprint Beijing issued on August 31 limiting the number of candidates and ruling out open nominations for them. Pro-democracy leaders have blasted the restrictions as "fake democracy."

The opposition lawmakers, most wearing yellow Xs on black shirts and some holding yellow umbrellas — a symbol of the protest movement — walked out of the legislature chamber after Lam's speech.

There were some minor scuffles outside the legislature as pro-democracy protesters faced off against pro-Beijing demonstrators waving red Chinese flags.

Speaking beforehand, the city's deeply unpopular current leader, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, said the government would not give any ground to pro-democracy groups' demands.

(AP) From left, Hong Kong Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam,...
Full Image

"At the moment, we don't see any room for compromise," he said, warning lawmakers this could be the last chance in a while to change the system so they should seize it while they can.

"Launching political reform is not easy," said Leung, who was hand-picked for the job by the elite panel. "If it's vetoed this time, I believe it will be a number of years before we can launch it again."

The struggle for Hong Kong's political future has divided the city and highlighted widening differences with its mainland masters.

A British colony for more than 150 years, Hong Kongers feel their city is a world apart from mainland China thanks to its rule of law and guaranteed Western-style civil liberties such as freedom of speech. Beijing promised to let Hong Kong retain control of much of its own affairs under the principle of "one country, two systems" and pledged to let residents eventually elect their own leader. But the insistence on screening candidates underscores fears about the tightening grip of China's communist leaders.

Joshua Wong, the teenage student leader who became the protest movement's most famous face, dismissed the reform package.

(AP) Yellow crosses are placed after pro-democracy lawmakers walked out of the...
Full Image

"Those minor adjustments raised by the government are totally useless," said the 18-year-old Wong. "We hope to have the freedom to choose rather than just get the right to elect some of the candidates."

He said that he and other members of his Scholarism group would protest on Saturday in neighborhoods where Lam and other government officials are expected to canvas for support from residents.

In a poll last month by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 47 percent of 1,009 respondents said they would reject reforms that exclude candidates holding "different political views" from the Chinese government while 40 percent said they would approve it. The survey had a 3.1 percent margin of error.

The reform package lowers the threshold somewhat for people to win nomination by reducing the number of votes needed to get on the shortlist, but that's still not enough to give an outsider a chance, said Michael Davis, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong.

"What the democrats want is to present a democrat to the voters and that's not possible under this system," said Davis, adding that he expects the package will be vetoed by pro-democracy lawmakers.

"I don't see much incentive for them to do otherwise," he said.

---

Follow Kelvin Chan at twitter.com/chanman

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150422/af-ethiopia-islamic-state-killings-66ae9b68ad.html

Thousands of Ethiopians march against Islamic extremism

Apr 22, 6:22 AM (ET)
By ELIAS MESERET

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (AP) — More than 100,000 Ethiopians on Wednesday protested the killing of Ethiopian Christians in Libya and their own government's failure to raise living standards of the poor, with poverty fueling the flow of migrants through dangerous areas.

The government-supported march at Addis Ababa's Meskel Square turned violent as stone-throwing protesters clashed with the police, who arrested at least 100 people.

The protesters said "We want revenge for our sons blood," referring to Ethiopians seen being beheaded or shot in a video released on Sunday by the extremist group Islamic State. The Ethiopian victims are widely believed to have been captured in Libya while trying to reach Europe.

Ahaza Kassaye, the mother of one of the victims identified as Eyasu Yikunoamlak, told The Associated Press during the protest Wednesday that she was overwhelmed by the massive turnout.

"I'm happy now. I'm very happy. I was just mourning the death of my son with family members and my neighbors. I never expected this to happen," she said.

Ahaza, who had to seek shelter in a cafe when the protest turned violent, said she hoped the government would react to the killings by closing all illegal border crossings and arresting suspected human traffickers.

Even as the Islamic State killings have roiled many here, some young people in Addis Ababa said they they would still attempt the perilous journey to Europe, often via Sudan and then Libya, if they had enough money to cover the smugglers' fees.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn said that, while poverty was the root cause of the migrations, smugglers were to blame for encouraging poor people to pursue what he called "the death journey."

Ethiopian lawmakers on Tuesday were debating a possible response to the Islamic State killings, but it remains unclear if military action is an option. The government has announced three days of nation-wide mourning over the killings.

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150422/lt--colombia-presidential_jeers-3fe5bacad7.html

Colombia leader lashes back at critics of his peace effort

Apr 21, 10:04 PM (ET)
By JOSHUA GOODMAN

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — President Juan Manuel Santos lashed out on Tuesday at opponents he accuses of fueling a wave of booing that has greeted him in the days since a deadly attack by leftist guerrillas dealt a major setback to negotiations with Colombia's biggest rebel movement.

To shouts of "liar" and "get out," Santos was loudly jeered by dozens of spectators at a 10-kilometer run Sunday in Bogota to benefit soldiers wounded in combat. The frenzied scene repeated itself when he visited Medellin the next day.

Santos addressed his critics directly Tuesday, urging them to listen to other voices instead of just trying to drown out his. He said he is open to criticism but won't be deterred by those opposing his peace efforts, among them his predecessor as president, Alvaro Uribe.

"You can follow me all around the country and try to sabotage every event I attend, but I won't be detained in my pursuit of peace for Colombia," Santos said at the opening of Bogota's book fair, where he was greeted with warm applause and a feared attempt by protesters to disrupt his appearance did not materialize.

Santos was re-elected last year promising to secure a peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and end 50 years of fighting. Polls say recent advances, such as an agreement to jointly remove land mines, had convinced a majority Colombians for the first time that an accord was within reach.

But Colombians' patience with the FARC has always been tenuous, with many recalling the previous attempt at peace more than a decade ago when the rebels took advantage of a Switzerland-size demilitarized zone ceded by the government to rearm and launch attacks.

Anger boiled over last week after a rebel unit killed 11 soldiers in an attack on an army platoon sleeping in a rural hamlet. Outraged Colombians saw it as a clear violation of a unilateral truce declared by the FARC in December to facilitate talks. Rebel leaders blamed the government for not joining in the truce and continuing to pursue rebels on the battlefield.

Santos warned the FARC not to be deaf to Colombians' anger, but he also said the only way forward is to pursue peace to prevent more blood from being spilled.

---

Joshua Goodman on Twitter: https://twitter.com/apjoshgoodman

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/22/us-asia-africa-idUSKBN0ND09820150422

Markets | Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:23am EDT
Related: World, Africa
Asian, African nations challenge 'obsolete' world order
JAKARTA | By Eveline Danubrata and Charlotte Greenfield

(Reuters) - Leaders of Asian and African nations called on Wednesday for a new global order that is open to emerging economic powers and leaves the "obsolete ideas" of Bretton Woods institutions in the past.

Their calls came at the opening of a meeting of Asian and African nations in Jakarta to mark the 60th anniversary of a conference that made a developing-world stand against colonialism and led to the Cold War era's non-aligned movement.

Among the leaders listening were Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who were expected to meet on the sidelines of the conference, the latest sign of a thaw in relations between the Asian rivals.

Sino-Japanese ties have chilled in recent years due to feuds over the two neighbors' wartime past, as well as territorial rows and regional rivalry. Bilateral talks in Jakarta on Wednesday could promote a cautious rapprochement that began when Abe and Xi met at a summit in Beijing late last year.

Abe, in an apparent reference to China's growing military assertiveness, told the conference that the use of force by the "mightier" should never go unchecked.

The Japanese prime minister also said Japan had pledged, "with feelings of deep remorse over the past war", to adhere to principles such as refraining from acts of aggression and settling international disputed by peaceful means.

It was not immediately clear if the remarks would satisfy China's desire for Japan to acknowledge its wartime past, but a Japanese official told Reuters Abe and Xi would meet.

Xi had earlier told the conference that "a new type of international relations" was needed to encourage cooperation between Asian and African nations, and said the developed world had an obligation to support the rest with no political strings attached, the Xinhua news agency said.

NEW WORLD ORDER

Indonesian President Joko Widodo, the conference host, said those who still insisted that global economic problems could only be solved through the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and Asian Development Bank were clinging to "obsolete ideas".

"There needs to be change," he said. "It's imperative that we build a new international economic order that is open to new emerging economic powers."

The IMF and World Bank were at the center of the post-World War Two monetary order created by the United States and Europe at the Bretton Woods Conference in New Hampshire in 1944.

Widodo made no mention of the China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) that is seen as a competitor to the Western-dominated World Bank and Asian Development Bank, but Indonesia is one of nearly 60 countries that have offered to be founding members of the AIIB.

The United States and Japan have not thrown their support behind the bank, which is viewed as a threat to U.S. efforts to extend its influence in the Asia-Pacific region and balance China's growing financial clout.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe told the conference that Asian and African countries "should no longer be consigned to the role of exporters of primary goods and importers of finished goods".

He called it a "role that has historically been assigned to us by the colonial powers and starting from the days of colonialism".

Indonesia invited heads of state and government from 109 Asian and African countries, but according to a conference official, 21 leaders turned up, which commentators have said shows the group is no longer relevant.

The world order has changed dramatically since nearly 30 heads of state gathered in 1955 in the Indonesian town of Bandung to discuss security and economic development away from global powers embroiled in the Cold War.

Together they accounted for less than a quarter of global economic output at that time, but today they contribute to more than half of the world economy. Many of the Bandung countries, such as China and India, are now themselves at top tables like the Group of 20 and wield significant economic power.

Widodo said the group may be meeting in a changed world but still needed to stand together against the domination of "a certain group of countries" to avoid unfairness and global imbalances.

(Writing by John Chalmers; Additional reporting by Kanupriya Kapoor and Nicholas Owen; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Alex Richardson)

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/22/southkorea-defence-exports-idUSL4N0XE03G20150422

Economy | Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:53am EDT
Related: Stocks, Markets, Industrials
South Korea seeks bigger role in global arms bazaar
SEOUL, April 22 | By Joyce Lee and Tony Munroe

(Reuters) - When South Korean president Park Geun-hye stopped off in Peru this week, her diplomatic tasks included drumming up interest in her country's home-grown light fighter jets.

While Park did not come away with a new contract, state-run Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) is in the running for a contract to supply Peru with 24 of its FA-50 fighter jets, worth as much as $2 billion.

Park's efforts are part of a broader push to turn the South Korean defence industry into an export powerhouse.

With South Korea's arms makers experiencing sluggish domestic growth, its defence exports have gone from $144 million in 2002 to $3.6 billion last year, with an average annual gain of 31 percent over the past five years.

The industry, developed mostly with American technology during a decades-long standoff with North Korea, is hoping to sustain that growth by selling beyond its main export markets in Southeast Asia into Latin America, Europe and the United States.

"They've got a strong combination of technology, skills, reasonable costs, an export-driven economy, and a domestic defence market that's large enough to justify home-grown products," said Richard Aboulafia, vice president at the Virginia-based Teal Group.

Although it is a close ally of the United States, South Korea lacks the diplomatic baggage that hinders some players in the global arms trade, such as China, Israel and Russia. Regional rival Japan only relaxed its ban on weapons exports last year.

"There are no negative geopolitical strings attached," said Tim Huxley, executive director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in Asia.

South Korea was the 13th biggest exporter of major arms in 2014, up from 30th eight years ago, according to IHS A&D Balance of Trade 2015.

The global weapons market is fiercely competitive though and requires government backing for securing deals. Unlike Israeli equipment, South Korea's has not been extensively combat-tested, Huxley said. It also lacks the technological cutting edge of the latest U.S. and European equipment.

KAI'S SKY-HIGH AMBITIONS

KAI's T-50 plane will be offered by its development partner Lockheed Martin for the U.S. military's programme, called T-X, to replace 350 old T-38 trainer jets, a deal that could be worth $10 billion.

The U.S. Air Force is expected to announce its requirements later this year, and a win for KAI would be the country's biggest military export deal by far and open more markets for the plane.

"The T-50 has a rather good chance of winning T-X," said Teal's Aboulafia, noting that most rival planes are brand new designs. "The T-50 may be the only surviving off-the-shelf candidate."

Still, the competition will be stiff - other prospective bidders include BAE Systems Plc, Northrop Grumman , and a partnership of Boeing and Saab.

A win would cap other recent overseas deals for Korea which include Poland's 83.1 billion won ($77 million) order in November for Samsung Techwin's K-9 self-propelled Howitzers and a $420 million order last year from the Philippines for 12 KAI fighter jets.

KAI, formed in 1999 by combining the defence arms of Samsung, Hyundai and Daewoo, is headed by Ha Sung-yong, an energetic marketer who accompanied Park in Peru.

Its shares have rise threefold since its trading debut in June 2011, giving it a market value of $5.25 billion. It is aiming to export 1,000 T-50 jets and 300 helicopters by 2030 and 2025, respectively.

Currently South Korea's arms production is mainly for domestic use, with just 12.8 percent of output exported in 2013, according to the Korea Institute for Industrial Economics & Trade, which expects that share to grow to 18-20 percent this year. By comparison, the country exported 48 percent of its auto output and 44 percent of shipbuilding.

"It is a buyer's market," Huxley said. "The main reason for it not working out very well might be just sheer competition."

(Editing by Rachel Armstrong)

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/22/us-southchinasea-china-philippines-idUSKBN0ND0XA20150422

World | Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:36am EDT
Related: World, China
China defends vessels' actions against Philippines in South China Sea
BEIJING

(Reuters) - China on Wednesday defended the actions of its vessels in the disputed South China Sea after the Philippines accused China's coast guard of using water cannon on Philippine fishing boats and urged Manila to increase its "education" of its fishermen.

Filipino fishermen said that China's coast guard boarded their fishing boats and threw away fish catch and fishing gear last week after spraying them with water in a disputed shoal in the South China Sea.

The presidential palace in Manila said China's coast guard used water cannon on Monday to drive away a group of Filipino fishermen at Scarborough Shoal, damaging some of their wooden boats. Chinese ships rammed a fishing boat in the area a few months ago.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei did not directly confirm whether water cannon was used. He said that "official Chinese vessels in waters near the Huangyan island carried out their duties and managed the relevant waters according to law", using the Chinese name for Scarborough Shoal.

"Recently, many Philippine fishing boats disobeyed China's administration and gathered illegally in Huangyan Island waters, violating China's sovereignty and maritime rights and interests," Hong said.

"We demand that the Philippine side increase its education and control of its fishermen, and cease all behavior that violates China's sovereignty and rights and interests."

Philippine and U.S. Marines took part in their biggest combined military exercise in 15 years this week, a demonstration of Washington's commitment to its longtime ally as it rebalances to Asia.

China claims most of the potentially energy-rich South China Sea, with overlapping claims from the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, and denies charges its actions in what it says is its own territory are provocative.

Gilbert Baoya, a 58-year-old fisherman from Pangasinan province in the Philippines, told Reuters that armed men from China's coast guard cut his boat's ropes, which were tied to the shoal.

"We were terrified," he said. "We couldn't do anything."

China's coast guard used bull horns to drive the fishermen away, telling them to stop fishing, said Efren Montehermido, a 20-year-old fisherman who showed Reuters a mobile phone video of the water cannon incident on April 13.

Montehermido said fishermen like him had to sneak into the shoal at night and leave in the morning.

"We are like thieves in our own homes," he said.

(Reporting by Michael Martina in BEIJING and Manuel Mogato in MANILA, Writing by Sui-Lee Wee; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...s-hussein-special-repor-idUSKBN0ND0EJ20150422

World | Wed Apr 22, 2015 3:03am EDT
Related: World, Special Reports
Special Report: How Denmark's unexpected killer slipped through the net
COPENHAGEN | By Alexander Tange and Alister Doyle

(Reuters) - On Valentine's Day, two weeks after his release from prison, Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein walked up to a Copenhagen cafe hosting a debate on freedom of speech and sprayed it with bullets.

As a manhunt began, the 22-year-old went to ground. Nine hours later he launched a second assault, this time on a synagogue. Police eventually shot him dead, ending a rampage that left Danish filmmaker Finn Noergaard and security guard Dan Uzan dead, and six people wounded.

The attacks on Feb. 14 and 15 shocked Danes, who prize their country's openness and sense of security. The country was further confounded when it emerged that prison officials had warned Denmark's domestic intelligence agency that Hussein was at risk of being radicalized. If Denmark's prison system – famed for its focus on rehabilitation and education over punishment – could not prevent a young man from turning into an Islamist killer, then perhaps it was not the model that many Danes believe it was. Parliament demanded an inquiry into the attacks and how both the prison system and the municipality had handled Hussein's case.

In interviews with dozens of people, including a former cellmate and a source familiar with the as-yet unpublished official investigation, Reuters has learned new details about Hussein and his final months. His story seems to show how quickly people can be radicalized and how easily they can slip through the net, even a net as supportive and ostensibly secure as Denmark's.

Those who knew Hussein both inside prison and out say the son of Palestinian immigrants was a violent and troubled 22-year-old, but not a long-term convert to radical Islam. For most of his life he was a rebel without any obvious cause. He drank alcohol, listened to Katy Perry and did not appear very religious.

Something changed in his final six months in prison, according to the source familiar with the official investigation. In September, according to the source, Hussein started talking about traveling to Syria. Two months later another young inmate who spent time with Hussein was found supporting extremist group Islamic State on social media using a hidden cell phone. Hussein was increasingly religiously observant, according to the source, and attacked another inmate just weeks before his release.

Such rapid transformations are becoming more common, according to Matthew Levitt, a counter-terrorism and radicalization expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Levitt, who last month served as a prosecution witness at the trial of Boston marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, said that the rise of Islamic State means "the pace of radicalization has gone into hyper-drive. It is no longer a matter of months but of weeks or even days." Islamic State's use of social media and the Internet, he said, allows people to quickly learn its extremist doctrines without needing long exposure to its supporters – in prison or elsewhere.

Much is still unknown. Police have arrested five other men. Lawyers say they face a range of charges including suspicion of procuring the weapons and bulletproof vest used by Hussein, and hiding evidence between the two shootings. At the same time, the Danish police have said that there is no indication Hussein was part of a cell or had traveled to Syria or Iraq. Police declined to comment for this story.

CRIME AND EDUCATION

Hussein was born in Denmark on Sept. 11, 1992, the elder of two sons. Little is known about his Palestinian-born parents, who have both kept low profiles since the shootings. Danish media have reported that his mother was a biochemist.

Lise Egholm, the head of Hussein's primary school, said the boy did not get along with other children and that Hussein's mother grew frustrated by her son's behavior in primary school.

She said that the family moved to Jordan in 2006 when Hussein was 14. They lived in the north of the country for three years. It is unclear whether Hussein's father was with them. After the family returned to Denmark in 2009, Hussein's parents divorced.

At 17, Hussein was arrested for burglary. Over the next few years he was in and out of institutions and prison, with convictions for theft and possession of knives. He became an active Thai boxer for a while and told a court in 2013 that he spent time at a gym.

The young man seemed to waver between a life of crime and an apparent desire for education, work and stability.

"He came across as a sullen, scary and Terminator-ish type," said Lotte Akiko Nielsen, who taught him English one-to-one at a school in 2012. But once, when she praised his work, he smiled and seemed genuinely surprised, she said. Another time, when a conversation about Nelson Mandela and freedom fighters moved on to the Middle East, he grew enraged.

"Out came a lot of anger. Something had been pent up," she said. "He was angered by the treatment of people in Palestine, and the injustice he'd seen and heard of in Jordan."

Nielsen remembers receiving a phone call from Hussein's mother in 2012. She had been asked to tell the teacher that her son had been sentenced to prison. "He has a good head, but he gets into trouble from time to time," she told Nielsen.

Hussein's lawyer told Nielsen it was unlikely the young man would get out of prison in time to sit his exams. But after the exams, as teachers began marking, Hussein ran into the school with a crumpled hand-written synopsis and asked to take his exam belatedly. The school said yes, and Hussein, who talked about prison systems in his oral exam, earned a 12, the top mark, Nielsen said.

Social workers met the young man regularly on behalf of prison officials in 2011 and 2012, and recommended social help for him. Hussein turned it down.

In early 2013, just six months off finishing a two-year higher preparatory examination that would have enabled him to apply for university, he was arrested for stabbing a stranger on a train.

Explaining the stabbing in court, Hussein said he wrongly thought the victim had previously attacked him. He also said he was high and felt angst and paranoia. A court psychiatrist decided he did not need a mental health assessment because "the suspect is found mentally enlightened and no necessity for the suspect to be mentally examined prior to the case ruling is found."

Sociologist Aydin Soei, who first met Hussein in 2011 when the youth was a member of Brothas, a local gang, speculates that he may have felt lost because he had been thrown out of the gang just before the stabbing. According to Soei, the gang reckoned Hussein was out of control and did not follow gang rules.

"When he no longer has an identity with a gang that provides an alternative to society, he could be even more susceptible to seek an identity with a radical interpretation of Islam," Soei said.

KATY PERRY AND A KORAN

In Vestre prison Hussein met Alexander, 20, who was serving time for burglary.

Speaking in a Copenhagen cafe last month during a day release from jail, Alexander said Hussein seemed like a regular, if troubled, young man. He talked about drinking beer, smoking marijuana and girls, Alexander said. He loved Katy Perry's song "Black Widow", and would crank up the volume on the radio when it came on.

A prison source confirmed that Alexander and Hussein knew each other in Vestre but officials declined comment, in line with Danish law.

Alexander, who asked that only his first name be used for fear of reprisals from supporters of Hussein, said the young man did not appear overly observant of his Muslim faith. At one point Hussein got a copy of the Koran from the library but did not follow up on a plan to read it with Alexander.

"We were supposed to read it together, but we never got around to it before I was released," Alexander said.

The one time Hussein did engage on religion was during a discussion about Sunnis and Shi'ites, the two main schools of Islam. "He told me that Shi'ites are responsible for everything wrong with the world,” Alexander said. "That Sunnis are the good ones. That's the only time he ever raised a finger with religion.

"He didn't get aggressive, but rather resentful. He turned very serious on this topic, and I felt that this wasn't something we should discuss. He just had his opinion," Alexander said.

In January, according to local residents, Hussein moved into a red-brick apartment block in Norrebro, a suburb of Copenhagen. The glass in the main entrance door to the block is cracked and blue paint is flaking on the staircase. But graffiti is rare and the area boasts soccer fields, basketball courts, and climbing frames for children.

In the days before he attacked the cafe and synagogue, Hussein contacted the municipality for help finding permanent housing and a job. He was, it seemed, planning for the future.

Hussein's father told Danish media he was "as shocked as everyone else," when he heard the news from the police, though he has declined to comment further.

Former prison mate Alexander was also stunned. "Omar was a good man, and I saw him as a friend. I respected him, and I was shocked and disappointed when I found out ... He never talked about shooting innocent people. He never talked about killing cops. We joked about it, as you do in prison. But what happened, I could never have imagined. I still can't believe he did it."

NESTS OF RADICALIZATION?

When Islamist gunmen attacked the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in Paris in January, Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula quickly claimed responsibility for the assault.

There were no such claims after Copenhagen, and police still have no comment on Hussein's motives.

The April edition of Dabiq, a magazine produced by Sunni militant group Islamic State, carried a story honoring Hussein, but did not take responsibility for his actions. The magazine called him Abu Ramadan Al-Muhajir, and linked him to a Facebook page with that name and a picture of a bare-fanged white wolf as its profile photo.

The Center for Terror Analysis within the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) said in a threat assessment in March that Hussein may have been "motivated by current militant Islamist propaganda issued by IS (Islamic State) and other terror organizations." PET declined to comment on Hussein for this story. Soon after the attacks, the agency said that the prison service had told it Hussein was at risk of radicalization. But PET said it had no reason to believe that Hussein was planning an attack.

In all, prison authorities have reported 60 prisoners to PET between the end of 2012 and the middle of March 2015, the Danish Justice minister said in a statement last month. PET estimates that around 115 Danish citizens have traveled to Syria, mostly to fight for Islamic State.

The official investigation found not only that Hussein had started talking about traveling to Syria but that he would grow angry when he saw people wearing skimpy clothing on television. Sixteen days before he was released he assaulted another inmate for no apparent reason, according to the source familiar with the investigation.

Wasseem Hussain, Vestre's imam, told Reuters that the Danish prison system is built in a way that should curb radicalization. "We're not storing people in vast numbers, where they can do what they want." Wasseem said that guards are encouraged to be friendly rather than intimidating, and prison offers education and help in applying for jobs.

Four days before the shootings, Hussein returned to prison to pick up his belongings. Two days later he missed a scheduled meeting to help find him housing. On Feb. 14 he attacked.

Danish and international media have speculated that Hussein may have come under the sway of Sam Mansour, a Danish-Moroccan serving time in Vestre for inspiring terrorist acts. But Lissi Kristensen, a priest working in Copenhagen prisons including Vestre, said contact between inmates is closely monitored by staff to prevent young men from interacting with known radicals. A lawyer for Mansour and the source close to the investigation said that Mansour had never met Hussein.

(Additional reporting by Sabina Zawadzki; Edited by Simon Robinson)

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/22/us-iran-nuclear-talks-idUSKBN0ND0R520150422

World | Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:47am EDT
Related: World
Timing of sanctions relief a major issue as Iran talks resume
VIENNA | By Parisa Hafezi

(Reuters) - The timing and scope of sanctions relief are major sticking points in talks between Iran and the six major world powers kicking off in Vienna on Wednesday as negotiators try to agree on curbing Tehran's nuclear activities.

After a tentative deal between Iran and the six powers was reached in Switzerland on April 2, different interpretations have emerged over what was agreed in the framework and both sides have given different versions of the timing within that.

"Lifting sanctions will be one of the main topics in this round of talks … If the other party shows political good will, we can reach a final agreement," Iran's deputy foreign minister Abbas Araqchi told Iranian state TV on Wednesday.

Talks begin with a bilateral meeting between European Union political director Helga Schmid and Araqchi at about 8 a.m. EDT, the EU said. Talks between Iran and the six powers, including U.S. under secretary Wendy Sherman, will follow this week.

Iran insists it would only accept a final deal over its contested nuclear program if world powers simultaneously lifted all sanctions imposed on it.

The United States has made it clear that sanctions on Iran would have to be phased out gradually under the final pact.

Iran's foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said on Iranian state television on Wednesday that U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, "discussed Iran's nuclear issue by phone last night".

Iran and the powers are trying to end more than 12 years of diplomatic wrangling over the country's disputed nuclear program, which Tehran says is peaceful but Western powers fear is aimed at developing an atomic bomb.

U.S. President Barack Obama was forced to give Congress a say in any future accord - including the right of lawmakers to veto the lifting of sanctions imposed by the United States.

Araqchi said on state television on Wednesday that the U.S. administration was "responsible to ensure that its commitments, particularly sanctions-related ones, are fulfilled".

Many other issues have to be hammered out before the end-of-June deadline for the final deal to be done.

(Additional reporting by Shadia Nasralla and by Adrian Croft in Brussels; Editing by Louise Ireland)

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/north-koreas-unstoppable-nuclear-weapons-program-12686

North Korea's Unstoppable Nuclear-Weapons Program

"The reality is that even without any more tests, North Korea could still produce enough material to build one hundred nuclear weapons..."

Joel Wit
April 22, 2015

In the past month, a disagreement has broken out into the open between the United States and its ally, the Republic of Korea, over the seriousness of the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program. This dispute, centering on whether Pyongyang can mount nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles—the United States says yes, and South Korea says no—reflects first and foremost the two sides jockeying for position over whether Seoul should introduce an advanced U.S. missile-defense system known as Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). While THAAD is intended to deal with the threat from Pyongyang, Beijing opposes its deployment, given concerns that the system is really aimed at its own missile forces. But the dispute also reflects a bigger problem—namely, South Korea’s unwillingness to come to grips with the reality that the nuclear-weapons threat from the North is poised for significant expansion.

That expansion will benefit from accomplishments achieved between 2009 and 2014, banner years for Pyongyang’s nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs. Aside from the obvious manifestations—two tests of nuclear devices and three of long-range rockets—North Korea has conducted a host of other activities intended to lay the foundation for the future growth of its nuclear deterrent. For example, in 2011, Pyongyang unveiled a new modern plant able to produce highly enriched uranium that can be used to expand its nuclear-weapons stockpile. More recently, that plant has doubled in size, possibly meaning it can produce twice as much of this material. On the missile front, aside from modernizing its main launch facility to test larger rockets, the North is also gearing up to eventually deploy a road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile able to reach the west coast of the United States.

What do these developments mean for North Korea’s nuclear future? We have been looking at this prospect at the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and have concluded that the threat is going to grow, perhaps quite dramatically, by 2020. Of course, predicting the future of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs is difficult, given inherent uncertainties in prognosticating about the most secret programs in an already secretive country. But there is also more evidence about these programs today than at any time in the past, in part because of the availability of commercial satellite and on-the-ground photography able to spot new developments, but also because as these programs move towards fielding operational weapons through visible activities, such as testing, it is easier to observe their progress.

Given these uncertainties, any prudent analysis has to construct different scenarios ranging from a “worst case” outcome for the North Koreans—little or no growth—to a “worst case” outcome for its neighbors and the international community—a great deal of growth—with a middle scenario that essentially reflects their current program and where it is heading. We did that working with David Albright, a well-known nuclear nonproliferation expert and head of the Institute for Science and International Studies, starting with a baseline of ten to sixteen nuclear weapons in Pyongyang’s stockpile, based on our understanding of how much fissile material the North had produced by the end of 2014. And the projections were not just for numbers of bombs, but also looked at Pyongyang’s ability to build smaller, lighter weapons (allowing the North to place them on top of missiles) with greater yields (that would cause more damage). (See Graph)

The outcome is sobering. Whichever scenario takes place, the North Korean nuclear threat will grow at an alarming rate, although just how alarming remains unclear. Even in a worst-case scenario for the North Koreans—they do not conduct any more nuclear tests, their ability to produce nuclear material for more bombs remains limited and their efforts to acquire foreign technology are unsuccessful—Pyongyang’s stockpile grows 100 percent, from ten to twenty weapons. In the worst-case scenario for the rest of us, North Korea steps up its yearly nuclear-test program, operates plants at full capacity to produce bomb-making material and is successful in acquiring foreign technology. The result is a stockpile numbering one hundred nuclear weapons by 2020, as well as significant progress in miniaturizing warheads to place on missiles and in increasing the explosive yields of those weapons. In the third, most likely “mid-range estimate”—based on Pyongyang continuing its infrequent nuclear tests, a more reasonable rate of fissile-material production and limited success in foreign cooperation—North Korea could still produce fifty nuclear weapons.

While it may seem surprising, Pyongyang could have more difficulty building new advanced missiles to carry these weapons than nuclear bombs, where the basic designs and production infrastructure are largely in place. North Korea’s current inventory of almost 1,000 ballistic missiles able to reach most targets in Northeast Asia, while largely based on decades-old Soviet technology, are well tested and reliable. Pyongyang clearly has ambitions to build weapons beyond its current systems. The North is developing new mobile missiles that can reach the United States, as well as key American military bases on Okinawa and Guam. It even appears to be exploring basing ballistic and cruise missiles on submarines and surface ships, a move that may seem surprising, but has been explored (often successfully) by other nuclear powers, including smaller nuclear countries like Israel and Pakistan. Overall, Pyongyang’s objectives are clear—build missiles that are better equipped to survive attacks intended to destroy them and with longer ranges able to threaten new important targets.

Particularly important will be North Korea’s ability to overcome technological and engineering hurdles that even more advanced countries would find challenging. In this context, since the North is not self-sufficient in missile production, the level of external assistance—through illicit acquisitions or working with foreign governments—could be a critical factor in determining how much progress Pyongyang is able to make in technologies such as high-performance liquid-fuel engines, solid-fuel rocket motors, high-speed heat shields and reentry vehicles, guidance electronics, sophisticated machine tools and high-strength, lightweight materials. Whether the North will be successful in acquiring what it needs is an open question. But like other emerging nuclear powers, it may have a far-less-demanding definition of “success” in the development of new missiles than countries like the United States, where extensive tests are conducted before weapons become operational to ensure a high degree of reliability. For North Korea and others, the benefits of “sending a political signal” are sometimes just as important.

In view of these uncertainties, our study once again postulates three scenarios for the future based on different assumptions. In the first scenario, characterized by no new long-range rocket tests, as well as a failure to acquire technology overseas, Pyongyang’s development of new delivery systems slows, resulting in a force that remains essentially the same as today, with some marginal improvements, such as deploying existing short-range ballistic or cruise missiles at sea, probably on surface ships—an option that has also been at least explored by every country from the United States in the 1950s to Iran more recently—that would give it an additional capability for attacking targets in Northeast Asia.

In the second scenario, which is essentially a continuation of Pyongyang’s current development and deployment pathway, including the launching of a long-range rocket every three years, the result is a greater threat to targets in the region and the emergence of a more credible intercontinental threat by 2020. In the theater, greater numbers of sea-based systems would be deployed, and it is quite possible a new road-mobile intermediate ballistic missile called the Musudan—currently under development—able to reach U.S. bases in Okinawa and Guam would become operational. On the intercontinental front, even with very limited testing, the new KN-08 ICBM, also road-mobile, could be available on an emergency basis as it moves towards becoming an operational weapon. Pyongyang might also consider deploying an existing long-range missile based on the Unha space launch vehicle—the Taepodong—in hardened missile silos.

The last scenario assumes that North Korea accelerates the development and deployment of new systems, resulting in a more rapidly emerging regional and intercontinental threat. In the theater, the Musudan IRBM would achieve an earlier initial operating capability and deployments of missiles would increase. Pyongyang might also deploy its first operational ballistic-missile submarine armed with variants of land-based weapons, such as the Musudan IRBM. On the intercontinental level, the KN-08 ICBM would reach an initial operational capability with growing numbers deployed by 2020, though numbers would still probably be limited by the availability of critical components, particularly engines.

Of course, having a large number of missiles and nuclear warheads does not mean those warheads can be placed on those missiles, which brings us back to the current controversy. True, one suspects that the differing estimates by the United States and South Korea as to whether Pyongyang can place warheads on missiles is influenced by the politics of missile defense on the Korean Peninsula on both sides. That can not be proved, of course, but it’s clear the Koreans do not want to be rushed into THAAD deployments, probably because of Chinese sensitivities, while the United States wants to move forward.

However, even before the current THAAD debate heated up, political sensitivities appear to have been influencing public statements on this issue. For example, in late 2013, the U.S. commander in Korea stated that it was his personal opinion that North Korea probably could put a nuclear warhead on its missiles. Following that remark, the South Korean minister of national defense said that Pyongyang had achieved a significant level of miniaturization. But the South Koreans hedged their bets by also saying the North had not yet actually tested a missile with a warhead, neglecting to mention that only the Chinese have ever actually conducted such a test. As one American expert has pointed out, “Do we really want to insist that North Korea arm a missile with a live warhead and conduct a demonstration?” South Korea’s statements may be based on a technical assessment, but just as likely, Seoul does not want to alarm its public or admit how much progress the North has really made.

Our study’s bottom line on this key issue is quite simple. North Korea has been developing a warhead for a missile for thirty years, beginning in the late 1980s. We know this because U.S. intelligence observed conventional high-explosive tests intended for that purpose at its main nuclear facility. Pyongyang’s effort has also been helped by Pakistan—with assistance provided by A.Q. Khan during the 1990s. And data from its three nuclear tests since 2006 has almost certainly proved invaluable. In short, Pyongyang’s scientists would have to be totally incompetent if they had not succeeded by now at least in developing a warhead for medium-range missiles able to attack targets in Northeast Asia. My own personal experience having met periodically with them from 1996 until 2011 is just the opposite—they are highly competent and innovative. (Putting warheads on top of intercontinental ballistic missiles able to reach the United States is a greater technical challenge that—at least as of today—may be out of reach for the North.)

Just as disturbing as the likely growth of Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile forces is the reality that even without another nuclear or long-range rocket launch, the North will be a potent nuclear power five years from now. The barometer for most of the public and many observers of Pyongyang’s WMD programs has been whether it is testing or not. The alarm is sounded when the North detonates a nuclear test or launches a big rocket. When it does not, the threat appears to be low. The reality is that even without any more tests, North Korea could still produce enough material to build one hundred nuclear weapons—once again the worst-case scenario—and its current inventory of a thousand missiles is more than enough to launch them. However, one important consequence of no more testing is that the development of a real missile threat to the United States will be curtailed and limited almost entirely to striking Northeast Asian targets.

Even that prospect presents game-changing implications for the United States, its allies and the international community. Just a few examples; South Korea is currently fixated on preparing its own plan for a reunification “bonanza” (President Park’s words), but it is inconceivable that a North Korea armed with tens of nuclear weapons will want to reunite on any terms other than its own. On the military front, Washington’s joint plan with Seoul to defend South Korea in case of a war on the peninsula will have to be drastically revised to take into account the possibility that Pyongyang might actually use or threaten to use nuclear weapons to protect itself or to advance its war aims. On another front, a growing North Korean nuclear and missile threat could severely stress Washington’s ability to manage its alliances with South Korea and Japan—the main targets of that threat—and particularly to maintain the credibility of its pledge to defend them against all threats. Finally, the challenge to the international nonproliferation regime will become more severe as a Pyongyang, with a surplus of weapons, technology and know-how, may be more likely to look for customers abroad in order to earn hard currency. If it does, a key question will be: what could the international community do to punish a nuclear-armed North Korea? Its hard to come up with good options.

Overall, the prospect is grim, particularly since neither the United States, nor its allies, nor even China—the North’s closest friend—seem to know what to do about the growing threat except to hold innumerable diplomatic meetings and issue countless public statements calling for a resumption of the Six Party nuclear talks. Unfortunately, North Korea essentially ignores these statements.

Joel Wit is a Visiting Scholar at the U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS and a Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University Weatherhead Institute for East Asian Studies.

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...mark-leonard/europes-shattered-dream-of-order

Europe's Shattered Dream of Order
How Putin Is Disrupting the  Atlantic Alliance
By Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard
From our May/June 2015 Issue

Audio of article (Sale item)
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/fa/audio/stream/140819

Until recently, most Europeans believed that their post–Cold War security order held universal appeal and could be a model for the rest of the world. This conviction was hardly surprising, since Europe has often played a central role in global affairs. For much of the last three centuries, European order was world order—a product of the interests, ambitions, and rivalries of the continent’s empires. And even during the Cold War, when the new superpowers stood on opposite sides of the continent, the central struggle was between two European ideologies, democratic capitalism and communism, and over control of the European lands in between.

Still, it was not until 1989 that a distinctly European model of international conduct emerged, one that represented a radical departure from the assumptions and practices that still held elsewhere. In June 1989, communist authoritarians in China crushed that country’s nascent pro-democracy movement; that same year, communist authoritarians in Europe gave way without a fight as the Berlin Wall fell. For Europe’s leading intellectuals, this moment signified more than the conclusion of the Cold War; it marked the beginning of a new kind of peace. “What came to an end in 1989,” the British diplomat Robert Cooper wrote some years later, “was not just the Cold War or even, in a formal sense, the Second World War” but “the political systems of three centuries: the balance of power and the imperial urge.” .....

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/2015/04/xis-pakistan-visit-plants-first-step-in-silk-road-march/

Xi’s Pakistan visit plants first step in Silk Road march

Author: Asia Unhedged April 21, 2015 1 Comment
Asia Unhedged

Asia Unhedged thinks the opening strategy on a chessboard is sometimes key.

Chinese President Xi Jinping inked deals for $46 billion in energy and infrastructure projects in Pakistan Monday as part of a much-awaited state visit. A $1.65 billion Chinese-backed dam project in northern Pakistan also serves as the maiden investment by Beijing’s $40 billion Silk Road investment fund that will finance a vast economic corridor that stretches from China to Central Asia and Europe.

Pakistan’s geographic position makes it critical in China’s plans to access the Indian Ocean and push overland towards Europe. From the Pakistani side, China is already the country’s biggest trading partner.

Bloomberg reports the two nations are “planning $45 billion in projects along a 3,000-kilometer (1,850 miles) corridor stretching from Xinjiang in western China to Gwadar on the Arabian Sea. The investments – $28 billion of which were announced this week – would boost Pakistan’s economic growth and provide another route for China to import oil from the Middle East.”

Xi’s visit carries a host of other geopolitical implications. China’s billions in development cash nearly equals the aid the U.S. has poured into Pakistan over the last decade to back its Afghanistan operations. Beijing is building on close ties with Pakistan during the Cold War when it nurtured Islamabad as an ally against then Soviet-leaning India. In a move closely watched by New Delhi, China is discussing the sale of eight Chinese-built submarines that would double Pakistan’s undersea military capability. Pakistan also signed an “All-Weather” military partnership with China Monday that makes informal defense ties between the two countries official.

Massive Chinese aid to Pakistan likewise carries a security trade-off. China’s antsy about Muslim separatists in Xinjiang teaming with Pakistan’s militants. Xi praised the Pakistani military’s efforts to crackdown on Muslim militants near the Afghan border and wants it to contain any Islamist spillover in China’s restive Central Asian provinces. He’s likely to get more Pakistani cooperation on this point.

Pakistan will also serve as a training ground for Chinese banks and companies in Beijing’s first concerted Silk Road project. China Development Bank and the Industrial Bank of China will lend funds to Chinese companies involved in the local infrastructure projects.

Chinese companies building the energy and infrastructure projects include the Three Gorges Corp., China Power International Development, Huaneng Group, ICBC Corp. and Zonergy Corp.

____

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/2015/04/chinas-stealth-de-leveraging/

China’s stealth de-leveraging

Author: Asia Unhedged April 22, 2015 1 Comment

Asia Unhedged

That faint, hissing sound you hear is the air coming out of China’s debt bubble. Western analysts remain obsessed with the size of China’s debt problem, for example, this Bloomberg News story this morning:

(Bloomberg) — China has a $28 trillion problem. That’s the country’s total government, corporate and household debt load as
of mid-2014, according to McKinsey & Co. It’s equal to 282 percent of the country’s total annual economic output.
President Xi Jinping’s government aims to wind down that burden to more manageable levels by recapitalizing banks,
overhauling local finances and removing implicit guarantees for corporate borrowing that once helped struggling companies. Those
like Baoding Tianwei Group Co., a power-equipment maker that Tuesday became China’s first state-owned enterprise to default
on domestic debt.
Now hold that thought, and consider this: China’s also trying to prop up a $10.4 trillion economy that’s decelerating
and probably will continue to do so through 2016, or so says the International Monetary Fund. The economy expanded 7 percent —
the leadership’s growth target for this year — in the first quarter, the weakest since 2009 and a far cry from the 10
percent average China managed from 1980 through 2012. Against this backdrop, a barrage of recent policy moves out
of China in recent days comes into sharper focus. It also helps explain why various parts of the government don’t always seem to
be working from the same playbook.

What the beancounters forget is that a big rise in debt caused the subprime crash in the United States, by issuing trillions of dollars of subprime mortgages against little or no equity, while the big rise in debt protected China against the global recession that began in 2008. Chinese home loans have about 2 RMB in equity for every RMB in debt, according to Hong-Kong based investment bank Reorient Group.

China is gradually deleveraging, though, through the following mechanisms:

1) Equity is slowly replacing debt as the soaring stock market cheapens the cost of equity capital, including at the small-and-medium enterprise level through the Shenzhen and Qianhai stock exchange;

2) Debt is shifting out of the usurious shadow banking market (where loan rates for small businesses can reach 20%) to banks, and to securitized debt markets (Alibaba, China’s e-commerce giant, has listed an asset-backed security based on small business loans on the Shenzhen stock change;

3) The commercial banks are recapitalizing (including $110 billion of preferred debt issuance in 2014);

4) The government is starting to swap high-yield and sometimes dodgy Local Government Financing Vehicles (LGTV’s), the equivalent of US municipalities’ economic development bonds, for provincial bonds backed by tax revenues–at much lower interest rates;

5) The overall level of interest rates is coming down from the highest in world (4% real short-term yields vs. negative yields in most of the industrial world.

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://atimes.com/2015/04/eurasia-as-we-and-the-u-s-knew-it-is-dead/

Eurasia as we (and the U.S.) knew it is dead

Author: Pepe Escobar April 18, 2015 5 Comments

Asia Times News & Features, Empire of Chaos, Pepe Escobar
By Pepe Escobar

Move over, Cold War 2.0. The real story, now and for the foreseeable future, in its myriad declinations, and of course, ruling out too many bumps in the road, is a new, integrated Eurasia forging ahead.

China’s immensely ambitious New Silk Road project will keep intersecting with the Russia-led Eurasia Economic Union (EEC). And that will be the day when the EU wakes up and finds a booming trade/commerce axis stretching from St. Petersburg to Shanghai. It’s always pertinent to remember that Vladimir Putin sold a similar, and even more encompassing, vision in Germany a few years ago – stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

It will take time – and troubled times. But Eurasia’s radical face lift is inexorable. This implies an exceptionalist dream – the U.S. as Eurasia hegemon, something that still looked feasible at the turn of the millennium – fast dissolving right before anyone’s eyes.

Russia pivots East, China pivots West

A few sound minds in the U.S. remain essential as they fully deconstruct the negatives, pointing to the dangers of Cold War 2.0. The Carnegie Moscow Center’s Dmitri Trenin, meanwhile, is more concerned with the positives, proposing a road map for Eurasian convergence.

The Russia-China strategic partnership – from energy trade to defense and infrastructure development – will only solidify, as Russia pivots East and China pivots West. Geopolitically, this does not mean a Moscow subordinated to Beijing, but a rising symbiotic relationship, painstakingly developed in multiple stages.

The BRICs – that dirty word in Washington – already have way more global appeal, and as much influence as the outdated G-7. The BRIC New Development Bank, ready to start before the end of 2015, is a key alternative to G7-controlled mechanisms and the IMF.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is bound to include India and Pakistan at their upcoming summer summit in Russia, and Iran’s inclusion, post-sanctions as an official member, would be virtually a done deal by 2016. The SCO is finally blossoming as the key development, political/economic cooperation and security forum across Asia.

Putin’s “greater Europe” from Lisbon to Vladivostok – which would mean the EU + EEC – may be on hold while China turbo-charges the its New Silk Road in both its overland and maritime routes. Meanwhile, the Kremlin will concentrate on a parallel strategy – to use East Asian capital and technology to develop Siberia and the Russian Far East. The yuan is bound to become a reserve currency across Eurasia in the very near future, as the ruble and the yuan are about to rule for good in bilateral trade.

The German factor

“Greater Europe” from Lisbon to Vladivostok inevitably depends on a solution to the German puzzle. German industrialists clearly see the marvels of Russia providing Germany – much more than the EU as a whole – with a privileged geopolitical and strategic channel to Asia-Pacific. However, the same does not apply as yet to German politicos. Chancellor Angela Merkel, whatever her rhetoric, keeps toeing the Washington line.

The Russian Pipelineistan strategy was already in place – via Nord Stream and South Stream – when interminable EU U-turns led Moscow to cancel South Stream and launch Turk Stream (which will, in the end, increase energy costs for the EU). The EU, in exchange, would have virtually free access to Russia’s wealth of resources, and internal market. The Ukraine disaster means the end of all these elaborate plans.

Germany is already the defacto EU conductor for this economic express train. As an export powerhouse, its only way to go is not West or South, but East. Thus, the portentous spectacle of an orchestra of salivating industrialists when Xi Jinping went to Germany in the spring of 2104. Xi proposed no less than a high-speed rail line linking the New Silk Road from Shanghai to Duisburg and Berlin.

A key point which shouldn’t be lost on Germans: a vital branch of the New Silk Road is the Trans-Siberian high-speed rail remix. So one of the yellow BRIC roads to Beijing and Shanghai boasts Moscow as a strategic pit stop.

That Empire of Chaos …

Beijing’s Go West strategy overland is blissfully free of hyperpower meddling – from the Trans-Siberian remix to the rail/road routes across the Central Asian “stans” all the way to Iran and Turkey. Moreover, Russia sees it as a symbiosis, considering a win-win as Central Asian stans jump simultaneously aboard the EEU and what Beijing dubs the Silk Road Economic Belt.

On other fronts, meanwhile, Beijing is very careful to not antagonize the U.S., the reigning hyperpower. See for instance this quite frank but also quite diplomatic interview to the Financial Times by Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang.

One key aspect of the Russia-China strategic partnership is that both identify Washington’s massively incoherent foreign policy as a prime breeder of chaos – exactly as I argue in my book Empire of Chaos.

In what applies specifically to China and Russia, it’s essentially chaos as in divide and rule. Beijing sees Washington trying to destabilize China’s periphery (Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang), and actively interfering in the South China Sea disputes. Moscow sees Washington obsessed with the infinite expansion of NATO and taking no prisoners in preventing Russia’s efforts at Eurasian integration.

Thus, the certified death of Russia’s previous geopolitical strategy. No more trying to feel included in an elite Western club such as the G-8. No more strategic partnership with NATO.

Always expert at planning well in advance, Beijing also sees how Washington’s relentless demonization of not only Putin, but Russia as a whole (as in submit or else), constitute a trial run on what might be applied against China in the near future.

Meet the imponderables

All bets are off on how the fateful U.S.-China-Russia triangle will evolve. Arguably, it may take the following pattern: The Americans talk loud and carry an array of sticks; the Russians are not shy to talk back while silently preparing strategically for a long, difficult haul; the Chinese follow a modified “Little Helmsman” Deng Xiaoping doctrine – talk very diplomatically while no longer keeping a low profile.

Beijing’s already savvy to what Moscow has been whispering: Exceptionalist Washington – in decline or not – will never treat Beijing as an equal or respect Chinese national interests.

In the great Imponderables chapter, bets are still accepted on whether Moscow will use this serious, triple threat crisis – sanctions, oil price war, ruble devaluation – to radically apply structural game changers and launch a new strategy of economic development. Putin’s recent Q&A, although crammed with intriguing answers, still isn’t clear on this.

Other great imponderable is whether Xi, armed with soft power, charisma and lots of cash, will be able to steer, simultaneously, the tweaking of the economic model and a Go West avalanche that does not end up alienating China’s multiple potential partners in building the New Silk roads.

A final, super-imponderable is whether (or when, if ever) Brussels will decide to undertake a mutually agreed symbiosis with Russia. This, vs. its current posture of total antagonism that extends beyond geopolitical issues. Germany, under Merkel, seems to have made the choice to remain submitted to NATO, and thus, a strategic midget.

So what we have here is the makings of a Greater Asia from Shanghai to St. Petersburg – including, crucially, Tehran – instead of a Total Eurasia that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Total Eurasia may be broken, at least for now. But Greater Asia is a go. There will be a tsunami of efforts by the usual suspects, to also break it up.

All this will be fascinating to watch. How will Moscow and Beijing stare down the West – politically, commercially and ideologically – without risking a war? How will they cope with so much pressure? How will they sell their strategy to great swathes of the Global South, across multiple Asian latitudes?

One battle, though, is already won. Bye, bye Zbigniew Brzezinski. Your grand chessboard hegemonic dream is over.

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20150421.aspx

Infantry: Israel Teaches Tunnel Tactics

April 21, 2015: Given the extent to which anti-Israel Islamic terror groups have adopted the use of tunnels to get into Israel and shelter their forces when attacked by Israel, the Israeli Army has decided to give all their combat troops training in detecting, destroying and fighting in tunnels. To facilitate the training of over 100,000 active duty and reserve troops the army is spending several million dollars to build ten tunnel training facilities. In addition to realistic sections of tunnel, where troops can also use their weapons, there is also a highly detailed computer simulator for planning and carrying out a combat operation against an enemy tunnel.

Israel has known of Hamas use of tunnels for over a decade. Until recently most of the tunnels were for smuggling people and goods from Egypt to Gaza. But in 2014 Israel became aware that Hamas was building many more tunnels into Israel as part of a major terror and kidnapping operation.

Thus in mid-2014 Israel made it clear that one of the primary objectives of the 50 Day War with Hamas was to find and destroy all the tunnels Hamas had dug into Israel over the last few years. This could only be accomplished if Israeli troops were inside Gaza and able to search for the places where the tunnels start. Over the years Hamas has learned how to dig tunnels that were virtually undetectable on the Israeli side. This meant going deep enough to avoid detection by ground penetrating radar or acoustic sensors. This makes it more expensive and time consuming to build tunnels but Hamas diverted much foreign aid (cash and building materials) to the tunnel effort and continues to do so.

Before the ground invasion Israel had been searching for the Hamas tunnels but had only found four of them after two years of searching. In early 2014 Israeli troops found one that was 1,800 meters long and extended 300 meters into Israel. Hamas dismissed this find as a tunnel that had been abandoned because of a partial collapse. But the Israelis said the tunnel had been worked on recently and equipment, like generators, was found in it. The tunnel was lined with reinforcing concrete and was 9-20 meters (30-63 feet) underground. Three of these tunnels were near the town of Khan Younis and apparently part of a plan to kidnap Israelis for use in trades (for prisoner or whatever) with Israel. Israeli intelligence knew Hamas leaders were discussing a much larger tunnel program, involving dozens of tunnels. Most tunnels had no exits in Israel and those were created just before the terrorists were to use them for a nighttime raid into Israel to kill and kidnap. Available tunnel monitoring equipment was slow and often ineffective if there was no one actively working on the tunnel below or if there was no exit (yet) on the Israeli side. Hamas had been building and “stockpiling” these tunnels for at least two years and most of the completed ones could only be detected inside Gaza, where their entrances were. These were also hidden, at least from aerial observation. Israeli intelligence had discovered some of these entrances by detecting the Hamas activity around the entrances (entering and leaving, removing dirt). Hamas tried to hide this activity and Israel knew this meant they probably succeeded in some cases. Thus before the Israeli troops went into Gaza recently, commanders had lots of information of where to look. Israeli combat engineers had been trained to destroy the tunnels, which was not easy because Hamas had booby-trapped some of them. Israel suspected there are over fifty of these tunnels and troops remained inside Gaza during August 2014 until all of the tunnels into Israel were found. This effort also included collecting information on how they are built and how they could be detected from the ground or air. If Israel knows where a tunnel is, before they destroy it they can run some tests with their sensors and that knowledge will make it more difficult for Hamas to build new tunnels. Israel eventually found 31 tunnels from Gaza to Israel and improved their detection capabilities.

Since the war ended in August 2014 Hamas has gone back to building more tunnels. Hezbollah in Lebanon was inspired by the Hamas use of tunnels and is now digging them under the Lebanese border into Israel. So Israel is taking the threat seriously and training most combat troops to deal with it is part of the response.

Housecarl · Apr 22, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150422/af--south_africa-immigrant_attacks-696a6d2ff1.html

South Africa: No reports of immigrant violence overnight

Apr 22, 9:21 AM (ET)
By LYNSEY CHUTEL

(AP) Hundreds of candles are lit during a silent vigil outside the Constitutional Court...
Full Image

JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Police and soldiers raided a hostel considered a hotspot for anti-immigrant attacks as South Africa continued a crackdown on the violence, police said Wednesday.

Police, accompanied by the South African military, arrested 11 men on Tuesday night in a bid to snuff out any further unrest, said police spokesman Lt. Kay Makhubela.

The residents of the dilapidated block in downtown Johannesburg were believed to have looted foreign-owned shops in recent weeks, Makhubela said. Police met no resistance as they seized stolen goods and bags of marijuana, the spokesman said.

No new incidents of violence targeting foreigners were reported overnight in Johannesburg or in the coastal city of Durban, where the attacks began, police said.

(AP) Zimbabweans worship, during an anti immigrant attack prayer session at the Trinity...
Full Image

At the University of Witwatersrand, about 2,000 students demonstrated against the violence, according to student organizers. Elsewhere in Johannesburg, hundreds of people held a candlelit vigil on Tuesday evening and called for an end to the violence.

Despite the relative calm, as many as 7,000 immigrants are still living in refugee camps after fleeing their homes, said Kate Ribet, spokeswoman for the aid group Doctors Without Borders. The number of people in these camps fluctuates because many immigrants have opted to leave South Africa, she said.

More than 2,000 Mozambicans have returned home from South Africa, said Mouzinho Saide, Mozambique's deputy health minister.

Hundreds of immigrants have also taken buses back to Malawi and Zimbabwe.

At a border post between South Africa and Zimbabwe, another 400 immigrants were receiving trauma counseling before returning home, Zimbabwe's Consul General, Batiraishe Mukonoweshuro, told The Herald newspaper.

---

Associated Press writers Farai Mutsaka in Harare, Zimbabwe and Emmanuel Camillo in Maputo, Mozambique contributed to this report.

vestige · Apr 22, 2015

Bumpworthy

mzkitty · Apr 22, 2015

52m
Editor's note: The Wall Street Journal report on North Korean nuclear capabilities notes that an analysis by Chinese experts were relayed in a meeting with US specialists. The paper reports that the Chinese believe that North Korea may already have 20 warheads. - Tom
End of note

Housecarl · Apr 23, 2015

mzkitty said:
52m
Editor's note: The Wall Street Journal report on North Korean nuclear capabilities notes that an analysis by Chinese experts were relayed in a meeting with US specialists. The paper reports that the Chinese believe that North Korea may already have 20 warheads. - Tom
End of note

___

China warns NK may already have an arsenal of 20 NUKE warheads; could double by next year
Started by Heliobas Discipleý, Yesterday 09:23 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...of-20-NUKE-warheads-could-double-by-next-year

Future Directions in the DPRK’s Nuclear Weapons Program: Three Scenarios for 2020
Author : 38 North Published: February 26th, 2015
http://38north.org/2015/02/dalbright022615/

The WMD Challenges Posed by a Collapse of North Korea Author : Robert J. Peters Published: April 14th, 2015
http://38north.org/2015/04/rpeters041415/

Where’s That North Korean ICBM Everyone Was Talking About?
Author : John Schilling Published: March 12th, 2015
http://38north.org/2015/03/jschilling031215/

Housecarl · Apr 23, 2015

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150423/ml--syria-417734dc88.html

Rebels launch new offensive in northwestern Syria

Apr 23, 6:07 AM (ET)
By RYAN LUCAS

BEIRUT (AP) — Several hard-line Syrian rebel groups pushed a new offensive against government forces in northwestern Syria on Thursday, less than a month after seizing control of the provincial capital there.

The conservative Islamic factions, including the al-Qaida-affiliated Nusra Front, are coordinating a multi-pronged campaign whose main target appears to be the town of Jisr al-Shughour in Idlib province. Opposition fighters are also attacking government checkpoints in a sprawling agricultural plain south of the town as well as nearby military facilities.

The operation keeps the pressure on beleaguered government forces in the area just weeks after the rebels captured Idlib city, the provincial capital. Forces loyal to President Bashar Assad maintain control of Jisr al-Shughour as well as towns and military facilities in the province, but their hold looks increasingly shaky.

The opposition groups taking part in the new operation posted a statement online late Wednesday announcing the start of the offensive, which they call "Battle of Victory." They appealed to residents to stay inside "until God grants us and you victory and liberation."

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Thursday the rebels have taken five checkpoints since the offensive began, including two near Jisr al-Shugour, in fighting that has killed at least eight rebels and an unknown number of government troops. Observatory director Rami Abdurrahman said heavy fighting raged outside of the town as well as in the Sahel al-Ghab plain to the south, and that government warplanes are bombing suspected rebel positions.

A Twitter account tied to the Nusra Front in the area posted videos online showing what it said were fighters firing heavy machine guns at government forces during the clashes. They also posted photos of tanks and artillery purportedly shelling Syrian military positions.

The material could not be immediately verified, but it appeared genuine and corresponded to other Associated Press reporting.

Syria's state news agency said Thursday that the army prevented "terrorist groups" from sneaking into military camps in Idlib, and killed "scores of terrorists" in the countryside around Jisr al-Shughour. The government refers to those fighting to topple Assad as terrorists.

---

Associated Press writer Sarah El Deeb in Beirut contributed to this report.

WAR 04-18-2015-to-04-24-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

Veteran Member

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

TB Fanatic

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

Deceased

I give up.

On TB every waking moment

On TB every waking moment

WAR 04-18-2015-to-04-24-2015_____THEWINDSofWAR