Archive for October, 2007
Posted by K.E. White on October 25, 2007
So Syria was building a nuclear site, but perhaps that’s the least of our worries?
From the Associated Press:
Commercial satellite images show construction in Syria that resembles
the early stages of a small North Korean-model nuclear reactor, a
report said Wednesday, speculating that it was the site hit last
month by an Israeli airstrike.
The photos, taken nearly a month before the Sept. 6 strike, show a
tall box-like building near the Euphrates River that the report said
was similar in shape to a North Korean five-megawatt reactor building
in Yongbyon.
It cautioned that the Syrian building was “not far enough along in
its construction to make a definitive comparison.” The photo also
shows a smaller building that the report says appears to be a pump
station, which would be needed to provide water to cool a reactor.
The report was written by David Albright [and Paul Brannan], a former U.N. nuclear inspector and now head of the Washington-based Institute for Science
and International Security, and researcher Paul Brannan.
Albright and Brannan’s full report can be read here.
The report concludes:
The images raise as many questions as they answer. How far along was the reactor construction project when it was bombed? What was the extent of nuclear assistance from North Korea? Which reactor components did Syria obtain from North Korea or elsewhere, and where are they now? Is Syria able to produce any of the key reactor components itself? Could Syria have finished the reactor without on-going North Korean assistance? Did Syria plan to build a plutonium separation plant?
Posted in David Albright, ISIS, Institute for Science and International Security, Nuclear, Syria, nuclear site | Tagged: David Albirght, ISIS, Nuclear, nuclear site, Syria | Leave a Comment »
Posted by K.E. White on October 19, 2007
So Syria is trying to quell allegations that Israel bombed a nuclear facility within its territory. And all this confusion raises a serious question: Can the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) to effectively lead on nonproliferation efforts?
The equation of the Syrian nuclear press-blitz:
Denial + Destroy = Trust?
JTA Break News reports on Syrian plans to destroy the site, before it can be investigated by impartial parties:
Syria reportedly is clearing the remains of the alleged nuclear facility that Israel attacked last month.
Dismantling the site will make it difficult for International Atomic Energy Agency officials to learn what the facility was used for, the Washington Post reported Friday.
This will make it tough for IAEA inspectors, who noted with concern that IAEA-member Syria had not disclosed the site, in a tough spot.
But don’t worry: the United States has cleared up any confusion, via satellite photographs:
U.N. experts have received satellite imagery of the site struck last month by Israeli warplanes and are analyzing it for signs that it might have been a secret nuclear facility, diplomats said Friday.
One of the diplomats indicated that the photos came from U.S intelligence. Two others said the images, which have been studied by experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency since being received on Thursday, do not at first examination appear to substantiate reports that the target was a nuclear installation, but emphasized that the images were still under examination.
The diplomats, who were briefed on the agency’s receipt of the images, spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential. Officials of the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog had no comment.
The Syrian episode seems to reveal some stark limitations on the IAEA. If member nations cannot be trusted to either disclose nuclear activities or conclusively disprove other nations’ nuclear allegations, how can the IAEA effectively curb proliferation?
Posted in IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel, Israeli strike, Nuclear, Syria | Tagged: IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel, Israeli strike, Syria | Leave a Comment »
Posted by K.E. White on October 19, 2007
From AFP:
Twin bombs targeting former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto killed at least 124 people, turning her emotional homecoming parade after eight years in exile into a scene of carnage.
Bhutto was unhurt, narrowly escaping with her life as the blasts ripped through the police escort of the parade in the streets of Karachi, which were thronged with hundreds of thousands of her supporters.
Hospital officials said nearly 400 people were injured in the blasts late Thursday, which involved at least one suicide bomber.
Posted in Bhutto, Pakistan, bombing | Tagged: Bhutto, bombing, Pakistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by K.E. White on October 18, 2007
Celebration turns to carnage as twins blasted went off near a truck carrying former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
From the Associated Press:
KARACHI, Pakistan (AP) — Two explosions went off Thursday night near a truck carrying former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on her celebratory return to Pakistan after eight years in exile. Police and party workers said Bhutto was unhurt, but an official said there were at least 30 people killed and 100 wounded.
An Associated Press photographer at the scene said he saw between 50 and 60 dead or badly wounded people. He said some of the bodies were ripped apart.
The Times of India reports:
Militants linked to Al-Qaida, angered by Bhutto’s support for the United States war on terrorism, had threatened to assassinate her.
Bhutto returned to lead her Pakistan People’s Party into national elections meant to return the country to civilian rule.
Soon after arriving Bhutto, boarded the truck designed to withstand a blast in case of attack. Dressed in a green kameez, a loose tunic, her head covered by a white scarf, Bhutto had stood in plain view on top of the vehicle, ignoring police advice to stay behind its bullet proof glass, as it edged through crowds waving the red, black and green tricolour of her Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). Some 20,000 security personnel were deployed to provide protection.
This grisly episode illustrates such how treacherous any political progress in Pakistan can be.
Posted in Bhutto, Pakistan, bombing | Tagged: Bhutto, bombing, Pakistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by K.E. White on October 18, 2007
Why were Putin and Ahmadinejad smiling so much?
Could it have been owing to a break through on Iran’s nuclear program?
The Associated Press reports on this nuclear speculation:
Russian President Vladimir Putin made an unspecified proposal about Iran’s nuclear program at a private meeting with the country’s supreme leader during a brief trip to Tehran, Iran’s state news agency said Wednesday.
Russian officials could not immediately be reached to verify the report and the Iranian news agency provided no details on what Putin had proposed.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all government matters, said Iran will give Putin’s proposal serious thought before giving a response, the news agency said.
“We will ponder your words and proposal,” IRNA quoted Khamenei as saying.
But before getting excited, remember that Russia has tried this before. CNN.com reports on a 2005 Putin proposal that Iran shot down:
Moscow had offered to enrich uranium in Russia for nuclear fuel and have it sent to Iran. The offer was backed by the United States and by Britain, France, and Germany, which have tried to negotiate a solution to the Iranian issue.
Posted in Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran, Nuclear, Putin, nuclear proposal | Tagged: Iran, Nuclear, Putin, nuclear proposal, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, | Leave a Comment »
Posted by K.E. White on October 18, 2007
While Iran and North Korea nuclear ambitions dominate Western headlines, Israel’s undeclared-but-known nuclear weapons (aka ‘nuclear ambiguity) is a substantial hurdle to stemming Middle East nuclear proliferation.
EU and aspiring EU members have backed off in their support for proclaiming a nuclear free zone in the Middle East.
The reason? No, not Iran—but Israel.
Whether one considers Israel’s nuclear forces justified or not, any long-term nonproliferation effort demand that Israel’s (along with India and Pakistan) nuclear status be declared and incorporated into international agreements on nuclear technology (i.e. the IAEA and NPT).
From the Associated Press:
European nations at past general conferences of the International Atomic Energy Agency have voted in favor of establishing a zone free of such arms. But at last month’s session, 25 of the 27 EU nations abstained as did other countries hoping to join the union. In all, 47 nations abstained.
…
This year, Israel and the United States opposed two paragraphs — one calling all nations in the Middle East “not to develop, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons,” the other urging nuclear weapons states to “refrain from any action” hindering the establishment of a Mideast zone free of nuclear weapons. Both passages were clearly aimed at Israel, which is thought to have nuclear weapons.
The vote prompted the Egyptian foreign minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit to send letters of protest to abstaining European nations.
Arabnews.com describes the irritation experienced by Middle Eastern owing to the West’s tacit endorsement of Israel’s nuclear weapons—complicating nonproliferation efforts in this critical region.
However, the Egyptian and Syrian ambassadors yesterday signaled that their patience was wearing thin. “The fact that many UN and IAEA resolutions with regard to Israel’s nuclear capabilities are not carried out increases the frustration of the Arab peoples and threatens an arms race that could also threaten the peace and security of the region and the world,” said Othman.
He complained that Israel was the only country in the Middle East “to have nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities which are not under international control.” It was, therefore, a legitimate concern “to ask Israel to join the other countries in the NPT” (the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), Othman said.
Posted in Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Egypt, IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel, Nuclear Weapons | Tagged: Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Egypt, IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel, Nuclear Weapons | 1 Comment »
Posted by K.E. White on October 18, 2007
I’m watching WETA-carried BBC News World coverage of Bhutto arriving at Karachi airport. Elated supporters cheer while waiting for Bhutto.
Bhutto’s return is being called the beginning of Pakistani parliamentary elections, by BBC News reporter Barabara Plett. But it’s unclear if she even be able to run for Prime Minister.
And let’s not forget the need for open and fair elections.
BBC World’s coverage seems to be lacking in one respect: Between Bhutto advisor Rehmen Chishti and BBC reporter Barbara Plett, where are the questions about the past failure of paraliamentary politics in Pakistan?
Husain Haqqani’s Between Mosque and Military portrays Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto as weak, bickering leaders—unable to effectively govern the nation.
Instead BBC’s news-anchor keeps hammering Bhutto and Chishti about the constitutionality of the deal Bhutto and Musharraf made to guarantee the former prime minister’s return. The anchor continuously reprimands the deal as undermining the rule of law in Pakistan.
The line of critique, while not unfounded, misses the point: In a country like Pakistan, where constitutional manipulation has been a Musharraf norm, it would be virtually impossible for any political progress to occur without constitutional revision.
Here are two clips on Bhutto’s return.
From AFP:
Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto returned home to Pakistan after eight years in exile, defying warnings of an assassination by Al-Qaeda and vowing to restore democracy in her homeland.
Before her plane left Dubai, carrying her back from exile for the second time in a long political career, at least a quarter-million people thronged the streets of Pakistan’s biggest city Karachi to welcome her home.
She headed back to Pakistan after military president Pervez Musharraf agreed to drop corruption charges against her, hoping her immense popularity can help him cling to power in the face of mounting popular anger over his rule.
From the Telegraph:
The power-sharing agreement between Ms Bhutto and Gen Musharraf is reported to be based on an “understanding” but so far the only tangible facet of the deal has been a presidential ordinance scrapping corruption charges against the former prime minister and Mr Zardari.
Pakistan‘s supreme court is yet to rule on whether the ordinance is legal. The judiciary has also yet to rule on whether Gen Musharraf’s re-election as president while serving as army chief earlier this month was constitutional.
Most Pakistanis believe that the “marriage” between the general and the “Daughter of the East” will not last long.
Posted in Benazir Bhutto, Musharraf, Pakistan | Tagged: Bhutto, Musharraf, Pakistan | 1 Comment »
Posted by K.E. White on October 17, 2007
US India Nuclear Deal: Dead or not? Here are two conflicting news accounts.
The International Herald Tribune has this post-script on the US India nuclear deal:
His coalition partners don’t want him to force an early election. Polls are due in 2009, and which politician wants to give up political power for the sake of nuclear power?
One important ally, Muthuvel Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu State, went ahead and congratulated the prime minister for “gladdening the hearts of people” by patching up with the leftist parties.
“Frankly, the deal is not important,” he told the NDTV news channel. “The government is important.”
Unless Singh has staged a tactical retreat to take the Marxists by surprise in a later offensive, the so-called 123 agreement with the United States is now dead.
But wait, The Business Standards has this:
Congress spokesperson Shakil Ahmed today denied that the Indo-US nuclear deal was on hold, but stopped short of saying that the deal was on track and gave no time frame for its operationalisation.
When asked repeatedly asked about the deal’s future, Ahmed said: “The deal is not on hold. It has not been put in cold storage. Your (media’s) assessment is wrong.”
He also pointed out that the Prime Minister had never said that the deal was dead or on hold.
Perhaps Singh is waiting to bring the deal back during a less heated time. But exactly when that time will be (after 2009 elections?), seems unclear.
And will India find support for the deal with the new American president?
Posted in America, India, U.S. India Nuclear Deal, White House | Tagged: India, Nuclear Deal, U.S. India Nuclear Deal, United States | 1 Comment »
Posted by K.E. White on October 17, 2007
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh makes nuclear buzz with his meeting with leaders of Brazil and South Africa, for the second India-Brazil-South Africa Summit (IBSA).
From NDTV:
In his bilateral talks with [Thabo] Mbeki [Luis Inacio] Lula, the Prime Minister will try to garner support of South Africa and Brazil for the India-US nuclear deal.
It is a diplomatic exercise that is also aimed at getting across the message back home that India may have put its safeguards negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on hold but plans to keep its NSG diplomacy on track.
What’s the IBSA?
It’s a formal meeting of the leaders of India, Brazil and South Africa—leading nations of Asia, South America and Africa. The summits emerged out of earlier meetings between the nations’ foreign ministers.
AllAfrica.com gives this summit rundown:
The Summit of Heads of State and Government will be preceded by an IBSA Ministerial Working Breakfast hosted by Minister Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma with her counterparts from India and Brazil, Foreign Ministers Shri Pranab Mukherjee and Dr Celso Luiz Nunes Amorim at the Union Buildings in Pretoria.
It is expected that a number of trilateral agreements will be signed following the meeting of Heads of State and Government focusing on shipping, ICT and energy India-Brazil-SA have very vibrant democracies, common views on major global issues and are substantial players in their respective sub-regional economies.
Collectively India, Brazil and South Africa have a population of over 1.3 billion people and a combined market of almost U.S. $2 trillion.
For interested readers, here’s the first IBSA summit’s joint communiqué and the 2005 closing statement from a 2005 IBSA Dialogue Forum.
And The Citizen shows the soccer-connection between South Africa (2010 World Cup host) and Brazil:
Ahead of serious political, economic and social discussions between the leaders, Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva congratulated President Thabo Mbeki on winning the rights to hold the World Cup in South Africa.
“I (also) want to congratulate you because South Africa has decided to hire a Brazilian coach who has a long track record… winning the world cup in the past,” Lula da Silva said.
Posted in Brazil, IBSA, India, India Brazil South Africa Summit, Luis Inacio Lula, Manmohan Singh, Nuclear, South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, U.S. India Nuclear Deal | Tagged: Brazil, IBSA Summit, India, Luis Inacio Lula, Manmohan Singh, South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, U.S. India Nuclear Deal | 2 Comments »
Posted by K.E. White on October 15, 2007
Should government negotiate with terrorists? In particular, should government cave into terrorists demands to rescue a kidnapped citizen?
Der Speigel probes the kidnapping of Rudolf Blechschimdt in Afghanistan, and the mixed results of German team that negotiated the release:
Blechschmidt was released in the middle of last week, but his freedom came at a high price. A German crisis team has agreed to a hostage exchange deal for the first time since 1975, when the “2nd of June Movement,” a left-wing terrorist group, managed to secure the freedom of seven imprisoned activists in exchange for the then-chairman of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Peter Lorenz. Blechschmidt and five of his Afghan employees who had also been kidnapped were released in exchange for five of the gang’s accomplices, plus several hundred thousand dollars in ransom.
A convoy accompanying the liberated engineer arrived at the German embassy in Kabul at about 7 p.m. local time last Wednesday. A German military doctor hooked Blechschmidt up to an IV to treat him for dehydration. By evening, Blechschmidt was eating pasta with German Ambassador Hans-Ulrich Seidt, and the next day he flew home to Germany.
A Success and a Setback
The release marks the end of an almost three-month ordeal for Blechschmidt, a civil engineer, but for the German government it represents both a success and a setback. The crisis team was able to save a German citizen’s life; but by paying for it in money and prisoners it undermined the policy German Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) frequently cites as a political mantra: “The German government will not let itself be blackmailed.” Indeed, the word has surely gotten around, among other would-be kidnappers in Afghanistan, that Berlin does in fact let itself be blackmailed, at least in extreme situations.
The hostage crisis in Afghanistan has also dashed the German government’s hopes that its crisis management team could this time act as mediator rather than as an ATM for kidnappers — with an unlimited line of credit.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
