Archive for the foreign policy Category

Chávez also wants a nuclear program

Posted in counterterrorism, foreign policy with tags , , , , on September 16, 2009 by admin

Of course, he insists it’s a peaceful nuclear program, the same that Iran says, country with which Chávez signed recently an agreement to begin a “peaceful nuclear program”. But at the same time, he adds that he has bought several “little rockets from Russia”. It’s very doubtful those rockets were bought for “peaceful purposes” too…

Advertisements

Syria could be operating more “nuclear sites

Posted in foreign policy with tags , , , , on September 15, 2009 by admin

Syria may be operating more nuclear sites, apart from the reactor at Deir Azour which was bombed by Israel on September 6, 2007 in what came to be known as Operation Orchard, former U.S. envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Gregory Schulte told Channel 10 Thursday evening.”

More here.

What was Mr Blair’s role in Megrahi’s release?

Posted in arrested terrorists, counterterrorism, foreign policy with tags , , , , , , on September 15, 2009 by admin

The Independent had an article some days ago about this that is interesting reading:

MPs are set to demand the minutes of an extraordinary cloak-and-dagger summit in London between British, American and Libyan spies held three days before Mr Blair announced that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was surrendering his weapons of mass destruction programme.

At the time of the secret meeting in December 2003 at the private Travellers Club in Pall Mall, London – for decades the favourite haunt of spies – Libyan officials were pressing for negotiations on the status of Megrahi, who was nearly three years into his life sentence at a Scottish jail.

 Was Mehgrahi’s release mentioned on that particular meeting? Perhaps 2003 seems somewhat far away but it would help us to understand the actual role of the three parties here.

Before:
Lybian Govt paid doctors to secure Megrahi’s release
Who really freed Megrahi?
UK Ministers release letters about Lockerbie deal.
Lockerbie bomber on show at Gadhafi’s 40th anniversary celebrations.
Lybia’s Gadhaffi: the forgotten story of his links to terror.
Brown denies deal for Megrahi.
Jack Straw’s letter on Megrahi’s release
Scotland denies any oil deal in Mehgrahi case.
US offered money to stop Mehgrahi’s release.
Lockerbie bomber’s release: an oil deal.
On Lockerbie bomber’s release: an oil deal?
Gadhaffi’s son asks why so angry about Lockerbie bomber’s release.
More details on Lockerbie bomber’s health asked.
Victims from Lockerbie bomber against Gadhafi’s visit to NJ.

German general fully support airstrike

Posted in counterterrorism, foreign policy with tags , , , , , , , on September 10, 2009 by admin

German general backs officer in Afghan airstrike

Germany’s top military commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday he stood “fully behind” the German commander who called in a U.S. airstrike on fuel trucks hijacked by Taliban that killed civilians as well as insurgents.

Brig. Gen. Joerg Vollmer insisted in a phone interview with The Associated Press that Germany’s relations remain good with its NATO allies, including the United States, even after the U.S. military criticized the German officer who requested the attack in northern Kunduz province.

An Afghan official appointed by President Hamid Karzai to examine Friday’s attack said his best estimate of the death toll was 82, including at least 45 armed militants. (Problem here: how to discover who are terrorists and who are civilians, when no terrorist wears an identification?).

The top NATO and U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has pledged a full investigation.

…Insurgents have stepped up attacks in Kunduz, a province dominated by Pashtuns — the largest Afghan ethnic group from which the Taliban garner their support and recruits. Some analysts say that insurgents have been able to operate with relative freedom because of the German military’s policy to make the security of its own troops its top priority.

Vollmer hinted that operations like Friday’s airstrike — the first German-led action in seven years to cause significant militant deaths — could become more frequent in future.

Vollmer blamed the tense security situation in Kunduz on the lack of Afghan police, the influx of former refugees returning from Pakistan and Iran, and efforts by militant groups to protect lucrative smuggling and extortion rackets from government interference.

To send more troops or not to send them: that is the Afghan question

Posted in counterterrorism, foreign policy with tags , , , , , , on September 9, 2009 by admin

That is the central question the NYT wants to answer in this article:

In deploying 68,000 American troops there by year’s end, President Obama has called Afghanistan “a war of necessity” to prevent the Taliban from recreating for Al Qaeda the sanctuary that the terrorist group had in the 1990s.
….In interviews, most counterterrorism experts said they believed the troops were needed to drive out Taliban fighters from territory they have steadily reclaimed in recent years. But critics on both the right and the left say that if the real goal is to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States, there may be alternatives to a large ground force in Afghanistan. They say Al Qaeda can be held at bay using intensive intelligence, Predator drones, cruise missiles, raids by Special Operations commandos, and even payments to warlords to deny haven to Al Qaeda.
…But most specialists on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, both inside and outside the government, say the threat of terrorism cannot be confronted from a comfortable distance, such as by airstrikes or proxy forces alone. While it may take years to transform Afghanistan into a place that is hostile to Al Qaeda, they say, it may be the only way to keep the United States safe in the long term. Many agree with the classified strategy for a troop buildup that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, has presented to Mr. Obama and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent days. 

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

FARC wants UNASUR/ALBA to recognise them as a “belligerent force”

Posted in foreign policy, ideology with tags , , , , on September 9, 2009 by admin

VHeadline.com –

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) has written a letter to the Union of South American States (UNASUR), asking to be recognized as a belligerent force and not a terrorist organization.

In an open letter published on the Venezuelan state radio station, Mundial, the FARC starts by saying it is a “political-military organization covered by the universal right that legitimizes armed rebellion against tyrannical ignominious regimes.” The letter maintains that Colombia suffers the most cruel and prolonged internal conflict in South American history, something that President Alvaro Uribe denies since his government receives most US military aid in the region and 6.5% of the GDP goes to the war effort.

Something which would be entirely apporpriate for Chávez who has funded Farc for years, as Interpol has denounced.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Mohammed El Baradei critisized about report regarding Iranian nuclear program (U)

Posted in foreign policy with tags , , , on September 8, 2009 by admin

Times Online publishes an article about the report. After you read it, the expression “Iranian nuclear program may contain military dimensions” acquires a new dimension:

France and Israel have led the charge against Dr ElBaradei, saying that his latest report on Iran’s nuclear programme omitted evidence that the agency had been given about an alleged covert weaponisation plan.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry said that the report did not reflect all that the agency knew about Iran’s “efforts to continue to pursue its military programme”.
France went farther, alleging the existence of an unpublished annexe that addresses the evidence that Iran may be building an atom bomb.
Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, said that France had attended a technical briefing that covered the material, so was surprised to find it missing from the report.
“In the annexes there are specifically elements which enable us to ask about the reality of an atomic bomb,” he said “There are issues of warheads, of transport.

So, they actually knew it actually has military dimensions. But plainly, they don’t want anyone to know.

Just for the record: Iran has just now named Interpol wanted terrorist Vahidi to be Minister of Defence. And yet, IAEA is hiding information about its nuclear military peaceful plans. Indecent. Dangerous. And absolutely irresponsable. IAEA is a watchdog, but clearly it’s not fulfilling its duty. And remember Hizbullah and Hamas are just Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Gaza.

(U) “In a speech at The Brookings Institution, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said investigations by his office show Iran is using Venezuela’s established banking network to skirt international sanctions and acquire the materials needed for its nuclear program. At the same time, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wants to build a “nuclear village” in Venezuela with Iran’s help, according to Morgenthau, who said such a development would be a “destabilizing force” in Latin America“.