[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

U.S. is studying military strike options on Iran
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
asher



Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 305
Location: Portland, Oregon

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"The Germans today simply don't like war -- regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. And I can understand that," Bush said. "There is a generation of people whose lives were thrown into complete disarray by a horrible war."

Ummm, right, Mr. President.

I guess the Israelis wouldn't know anything about that. Or the Jews in Europe (the ones that are left).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Asher,

The quote is placed in context herein:



Iran leader's threats must be taken seriously: Bush
Sun. 07 May 2006
BERLIN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel should be taken seriously and suggest he could target other countries as well, President Bush told a German newspaper.

The United States and Europe believe Iran is pursuing an atomic bomb and have reported the country to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose possible sanctions.

"When he says that he wants to destroy Israel, the world needs to take it seriously," Bush said in an interview with German weekly Bild am Sonntag.

"This is a serious threat, aimed at an ally of the United States and Germany. What Ahmadinejad also means is that if he is ready to destroy one country, then he would also be ready to destroy others. This is a threat that needs to be dealt with."

Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and referred to the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis, as a myth.

Because Bild could not immediately furnish English quotes, Bush's comments were translated from the German. The paper said the White House planned to release an authorized English version of the interview on Monday.

While reiterating that all options for stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons were on the table, Bush said he believed a diplomatic solution was possible if the international community worked hard and remained united.

"Iran represents a challenge. And I want your readers to know that I want and believe that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush said.

Tehran says its nuclear program is purely for peaceful energy purposes. On Sunday, it said any punitive measures taken by the Security Council risked stoking confrontation and damaging chances for cooperation.

Bush, who held talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel in the White House last week, called the German leader a key partner in the international drive to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"Absolutely, absolutely," Bush said, when asked whether he viewed Germany as a "partner in leadership" -- a term used by his father, President George Bush, during the Cold War.

"We are seeing this on the Iran question. Chancellor Merkel has been strong so far. It is very important that the Iranians know that Germany is working with others to send Tehran a clear message."

Bush also said he understood Germany's decision not to participate in the Iraq war, which severely strained relations between Washington and Merkel's predecessor Gerhard Schroeder.

"The Germans today simply don't like war -- regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. And I can understand that," Bush said. "There is a generation of people whose lives were thrown into complete disarray by a horrible war."

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7098

------------------end-------

Comment:

For some to admit that the IRI is a threat (like Russia as example) today, (and not at some point in the future), is akin to admitting they themselves helped create a monster.

For any nation to have been supplying the world's leading sponsor of terror-arms, and delivery systems, training and technology- is in itself aiding and abetting terrorism, intentionally or not makes no difference in the level of threat the regime represents by its capabilities, not just its intent.

Today that capability beyond the conventional includes deadly biological strains, as well as chemical weapons, delivery systems (as well as covert delivery methods, via terrorist groups). And of course I doubt anyone can be 100% sure the IRI doesn't have a bomb or two , complete and deployable at this point in time, given 18 years, smuggling, and intent to aquire.

Today there is in place, and evolving, a method of interdiction of arms and WMD percursurs and technology called the Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI for short. Over 60 nations in a cooperative effort on land and the high seas to disrupt the flow to rouge nations and terrorists.

This is not treaty-based, nor a function of UN mandate, but an agreement between nations who recognise the threat posed to humanity today, and act in cooperative effort toward a common purpose.

Both Germany and Russia are PSI affiliates.

The cold war is over....this is the post-post-cold-war. Unfortunately some elements in Russia think it's still pre-1989-90's and the strategy of "Cold-war/Hotwar by proxi" in supporting the milataristic expantionist policies of the IRI and other rougue states , and it's not an easy thing for the Russian government to get a grip on as a whole, and mindsets don't change overnight.

When one considers the 20 million folks in Soviet Russia who lost their lives in WW2, I can't blame them for shying away from war...period.

However, unless the dysfunctional approach taken by Russia (and others) to "contain" and "isolate" the IRI changes, and a total arms embargo declared by all, and enforced by all, by chapter7 UN Sec. Council Res. and its legal instrument, these nations risk creating the situation where war between Iran and the US/NATO/Israel coalition is unavoidable, simply by continuing the selling of arms to the IRI.

Granted, Russia's arms sales to Iran are dwarfed by its sales to China, but as it has been said, "The concept all arms merchants fail to grasp is that there won't be any place to spend the profits when no one is left to buy the weapons."

So then, it would seem illogical for the Russian government to sell arms to Iran at the same time it is a member of the Quartet, which is bound by agreement to encorage peace in the Mideast and help resolve the Israeli/Palestinian issue, given the statements of the leaders of the IRI.

It is to say, putting it mildly...self-defeating.

Not to put the icing on the cake, but if the reports of the regime's training of Chechnen terrorists outside Tehran are true, then Russia's not just responsible for creating a monster, but a Frankenstein that would turn on its maker.


My message to Putin would be simply:"We didn't all arive here in the same boat, but we're all in the same boat now with all things considered in the threat the IRI poses to the rest of the world."

-Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2006 9:00 pm    Post subject: Secretary of State Dr. Rice: Taazi Letter Doesn't Resolve Reply with quote

Secretary of State Dr. Rice: Taazi Letter Doesn't Resolve Standoff
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060508/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_18

NEW YORK - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed a letter that Iran's president sent to President Bush on Monday, saying the first direct communication from an Iranian leader in 27 years does not help resolve the standoff over Tehran's disputed nuclear program.


Iran's top nuclear negotiator called the surprise letter a new "diplomatic opening" between the two countries, but Rice said it was not.

"This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," the top U.S. diplomat said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way."

Rice said the letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was 17 or 18 pages long and covered history, philosophy and religion.

Rice's comments were the most detailed response from the United States to the letter, the first from an Iranian head of state to an American president since the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

She would not discuss the contents in detail but made clear that the United States would not change its tack on Iran.

"There's nothing in here that would suggest that we're on any different course than we were before we got the letter," Rice said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 9:07 am    Post subject: US stands tough on Iran Reply with quote

US stands tough on Iran

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
Fri May 12, 3:08 AM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060512/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc_2

The United States will not hold direct contacts with Iran and insists that sanctions must be part of a new carrots-and-sticks offer being drawn up by major powers to curb Iran's nuclear activities, a senior administration official said.

Addressing an influential Middle East policy group on Thursday night, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns promised that Washington will not "quit the diplomatic track easily."

American experts and political figures have increasingly urged the administration to talk directly to Iran in searching for a diplomatic solution.

But Burns rejected that, saying the world must "put responsibility where it lies" -- on Iran, not the United States -- for defying the international community and fanning the nuclear crisis.

He warned Iran and other key players that "we can't be captive to endless discussions in the (U.N.) Security Council and we won't allow ourselves to be."

Burns stressed the need for Washington to maintain a "hard edge" to its policy as the international community seeks to curb Iranian activities that the United States and its allies say are aimed at producing nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian energy program. Tehran denies the charge.

In the latest effort to resolve the crisis, Britain, France and Germany, with backing from the United States, Russia and China, are to unveil in the next 10 days a package of inducements and penalties for Iran, depending on whether it chooses the path of cooperation or resistance, Burns said.

It is still unclear whether Russia and China -- which fear a worsening crisis with oil-producing Iran -- would endorse an offer that includes sanctions, but the United States would insist it includes penalties as well as benefits, he said.

"The package cannot be whole until both halves are joined together," Burns told the annual dinner of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Because of Russian and Chinese opposition, Washington and key European allies have so far failed to secure a U.N. Security Council resolution that would legally oblige Iran to halt all uranium enrichment work or face possible sanctions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060514/photos_pl/2006_05_14t123031_340x450_us_nuclear_iran_bush

U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley holds a briefing at the White House in Washington February 24, 2006. The White House on Sunday dismissed calls for direct talks with Iran to resolve the stand-off over its nuclear program, saying the United Nations was the best forum for those discussions. (Jim Young/Reuters)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

For a long time now, deep down in the back of the minds of some in the Iranian opposition community, many have been wondering if their pain suffered and energy put into the efforts have or will produce results....let alone be recongnized for those efforts.

It is now my pleasure to provide you with undeniable proof:




Remarks to the Washington Institute on Near East Studies


R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
As Prepared
Washington, DC
May 11, 2006

Talking Points:

* Successive U.S. administrations have recognized that Iran's regime poses a
profound threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East and more broadly
across the globe. Over the past six months, however, since the August 2005
inauguration of President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, this threat has intensified
as Iran's approach to the world has become even more radical.
* The international community has so far been united in opposing this threat.
This is not time for business as usual with the Iranian regime. It is time
for a stiff solution although we have not yet given up hope on diplomacy.
* I would like to discuss with you today the initiatives the United States is
taking in close cooperation with the international community -- to
deflect the harmful policies of the Iranian regime: (1) its pursuit of
nuclear weapons, (2) its sponsorship of terrorism, (3) its aggressive and
intimidating policies in the Middle East, and (4) its oppression of the
Iranian people.

Iran Nuclear Proliferation

* There is no real doubt internationally about Iran's pursuit of a nuclear
weapons capability. For 18 years, Iranian leaders pursued a clandestine
enrichment program that they hid from the world, as the International
Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly confirmed. There is simply no basis for
anyone to believe that Iran's nuclear program is solely intended for
peaceful purposes.
* In fact, not one of the countries I've spoken to over the past 14 months
has expressed any doubt about Iran's intentions to build a nuclear weapon.
* The international community stands united in opposing Iran's desire to
acquire nuclear weapons. We also stand united in support of Iran's stated
ambition to use peaceful nuclear energy as long as and this is
important it complies with its safeguarding and nonproliferation
obligations.

History of Negotiations:

* In March 2005, Secretary Rice announced our support for the EU-3's
negotiations with Iran to halt Tehran's nuclear ambitions. This was a
significant departure from our previous stance which kept the United States
apart from the talks.
* The EU-3 offered a proposal that would grant Iran far-reaching economic
incentives, including access to and assistance with peaceful nuclear
reactors. The United States offered its own incentives we agreed to
consider licensing the sale of spare parts for Iran's aging civilian
airliners and dropping our prior objections to Iran's bid to join the World
Trade Organization.
* After Iran unilaterally broke off talks with the EU-3 in the autumn of
2005, we worked for months and succeeded in creating a broad international
coalition to isolate Iran. In October 2005, Secretary Rice traveled to
Moscow to convince Russia of the importance of cohesion on this issue. I
personally made eleven trips to Europe in 2005 to consult with our European
allies and Russia on Iran. In November, President Bush spoke in support of
a Russian proposal through which Russia would supply the fuel for Iran's
peaceful nuclear reactors, as long as no enrichment activity takes place on
Iranian soil. Iran rejected the proposal out of hand again belying its
own claims that it only seeks peaceful nuclear capabilities.
* In response to Iran's confrontational approach, in late January 2006
Secretary Rice successfully persuaded all five permanent Members of the UN
Security Council to vote together at the IAEA to report Iran to the UN
Security Council. On February 4, the Permanent Five, along with a massive
global coalition comprised of countries as diverse as India, Sri Lanka,
Brazil, Egypt, and Yemen, spoke with one voice: these countries, all
represented in the IAEA Board of Governors, adopted a resolution to report
Iran's activities to the UN Security Council.
* Iran clearly miscalculated the strength and depth of international concern
and now finds itself isolated. President Bush and Secretary Rice's
determined and measured diplomacy is responsible for the significant
diplomatic achievement of assembling and leading this broad-based, diverse,
and powerful coalition.
* We have started a new phase of diplomacy -- action by the UN Security
Council. On March 29, the Security Council unanimously adopted a
Presidential Statement calling on Iran to immediately suspend enrichment
activities within 30 days and fully cooperate with the February 4 IAEA
resolution. Instead of complying, President Ahmadi-Nejad provoked the
international community further with his announcement that Iran is
"presently conducting research" on P-2 centrifuges. Any current work by
Iran on P2 centrifuges would be a further rejection of the UN Security
Council's and IAEA Board of Governors' calls on Iran to suspend such
activity. It could also suggest efforts by Iran to mask past undeclared P2
research that the IAEA has been trying to investigate. .
* With actions such as these, Iran continues to miscalculate the intelligence
and resolve of the international community. On April 28, IAEA Director
General ElBaradei submitted his report to the Security Council and the IAE
Board of Governors that confirmed Iran's failure to comply with the March
29 UN Security Council Presidential Statement's and IAEA Board's required
steps.
* Due to Iran's continued defiance, the Security Council is now studying a
Chapter VII resolution -- drafted by the UK, France, and Germany -- that
would require Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and fully cooperate with
the IAEA. Secretary Rice met with her P-5 counterparts in New York this
week to support this effort and discuss the long term strategy to
peacefully address the threats posed by the Iranian regime.
* If after all these steps are taken Iran had not acceded to the wishes of
the international community, then of course we would have to look at
possible sanctions, which a number of countries in Europe and elsewhere are
already beginning to explore. Any sanctions we would consider will be
specifically targeted to hurt the regime, not the great majority of
innocent Iranians.
* The Iranians cannot afford the kind of isolation that the international
community could actually bring about if it chooses to. Iran is very
dependent on its integration into the international economy, both for its
ability to get products or its ability to sell products.
* Going forward, we will do everything we can to maintain the widest possible
international consensus on the steps Iran must take, and continue to keep
Iran isolated on this issue. Iran must realize that its only option to make
a strategic decision and end its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
* While we make it clear that no option is off the table, President Bush and
Secretary Rice strongly support a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the
Iranian nuclear problem.

Our message to Tehran remains: recommit to the Paris Agreement, return to full
suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, and negotiate
in good faith the eventual cessation and dismantling of all sensitive nuclear
fuel cycle activities. The spotlight must remain on the Iranian government and
on the requirement that they adhere to their international commitments.

Iran Sponsor of Terrorism and Regional Ambitions

* A second critical U.S. and international concern is that Iran remains the
leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world and has sought to play a
destabilizing role in Iraq and elsewhere.
* Iran provides money, weapons, and training to HAMAS, Hizbullah, and
Palestinian rejectionist groups. These are some of the world's most deadly
terrorist organizations, responsible for the killing of thousands of
innocents, including Americans. Hizbullah has been responsible for more
American deaths than any other terrorist organization apart from al-Qaida.
* In October 2005, Iranian officials traveled to Damascus to meet with
leaders of Hizbullah, and HAMAS, and several other Palestinian rejectionist
groups. As late as December 2005, members of Lebanese Hizbullah received
explosives training in Iran arranged by the Iranian government's
intelligence services. In January 2006, Ahmadi-Nejad again visited Syria
and met with the leaders of Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, HAMAS, and the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP-GC pro-Syrian faction).
Ahmadi-Nejad pledged Iran's support to militant Palestinian factions.
* Iran has also provided assistance, including weapons, training and
explosives, to anti-Coalition Shi'a forces in Iraq.
* We have sanctioned Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, and called for the
regime to abide by the requirements of U.N. Security Council Resolution
1373 to deny safe haven to those who plan, support, or commit terrorist
acts and to affirmatively take steps to prevent terrorist acts by providing
early warning to other states by exchange of information.
* We also continue to urge other governments including the Arab states of
the Middle East to press Iran on its support for and sponsorship of
terrorism, and on its generally threatening behavior towards its neighbors.

State of Iranian Democracy and Human Rights

* As we work to end the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions and
sponsorship of terror, we are standing with the Iranian people in their
aspirations for freedom.
* We see two Irans: the "official Iran" with an appalling human rights
record, led by individuals who have been explicitly implicated in the
murders of their own people, of the dissidents who dared to challenge the
regime. But we see another Iran, the Iran of a great people almost 70
million of them of faith and creativity. of almost 70 million strong.
This is the Iran of the poets and scholars, that has produced a
sophisticated society that should be the envy of the region and one day
certainly will be.
* Unfortunately, the hard-liners in Iran have mounted an all-out defense of
their hold on the regime and its people, culminating in last June's
election of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad as its president. The election itself was
deeply flawed:

Ø A small group of clerics culled more than 1,000 aspiring candidates,
eliminating all the women, to a handful whose loyalty to the regime seemed
assured.

Ø Hard-liners undertook a concerted, last-minute campaign through their
networks of influence in the mosques, the military, and the Revolutionary
Guards mobilize support for Ahmadi-Nejad.

Ø The polling was reportedly rife with manipulation and fraud.

From this inherently flawed process came the improbable ascent of Ahmadi-Nejad.

* Some Iranian citizens may have voted for Ahmadi-Nejad with the sincere hope
that he represented change from the corrupt, old guard of the regime. If
so, they have been sorely disappointed. His repeated denial of the
Holocaust and his threats to "wipe Israel off the map" have earned the
outrage of the international community, and have deeply shamed a country
that until its revolution 27 years ago had a unique history of
tolerance and a large Jewish community.
* In an effort to assert his authority, Iran's president has purged qualified
officials at all levels of Iranian government including in Iran's
overseas diplomatic corps -- and placed his inexperienced but loyal
hardliners throughout the system.
* He issued edicts banning Western music and demanding that Iranian
television broadcast fewer programs about women's issues. He has put
forward a budget that would make Iran more dependent than ever on oil
revenues, and make its economy even less competitive in attracting domestic
or foreign investment.
* The regime's poor human rights record worsened throughout 2005, and Iran
continued to commit serious abuses of human rights. Summary executions,
disappearances, extremist vigilantism, widespread use of torture, solitary
confinement, and other degrading treatment remained problems. Juvenile
offenders were executed, and sentences of stoning continue to be handed
down. Protesters have been arrested and tortured. Journalists and
webloggers continue to be arrested and mistreated for daring to publish
their opinions.
* In February the Iranian regime answered the pleas of Tehran bus drivers for
better working conditions by sending paid thugs to beat them. Journalist
and political activist Akbar Ganji spent nearly six years in prison for his
reporting on the murders of Iranian dissidents and his advocacy of a
secular Iranian republic.
* In the face of these oppressive internal conditions, the people of Iran
regularly give the world reason for great hope about the country's future.
Courageous activists, lawyers and dissidents such as Ahmad Batebi, Hoda
Saber, Taqi Rahmani and Reza Aljani and so many others challenged the
regime's repressive policies and suffered dire consequences for their
efforts to advance democracy.
* In spite of its regime, Iran produces thoughtful and serious men of faith
like Ayatullah Hussein Ali Montazeri, one of the authors of Iran's
constitution, Hojjatoleslam Mohsen Kadivar, Hassan Yousefi Eshkevari, and
many others in the seminaries and pulpits of Iran, who want to see a humane
and enlightened country. We may not agree with everything they say but we
deeply respect their efforts to promote a more tolerant and vibrant
synthesis of faith and democracy.
* Iranians know that their government may punish them for voicing their views
on the Internet or in the newspapers, and yet journalists continue to write
provocative pieces, and thousands of other Iranians post their thoughts to
web-blogs every day. Iranians have found ways to cope with a system that
strives to deprive them of their basic rights and culture and we are
confident that they will also find ways to change that system.

What the US is doing:

* This reality of the two Irans a repressive, mismanaged regime and a
sophisticated citizenry - confronts us every day, and this reality is
central to our Iran policy. While we oppose the regime's aggressive and
irresponsible actions, the United States in cooperation with the
international community is seeking to help Iranians to bring about
peaceful democratic change.
* Congress has been very helpful in this regard. For FY 2006 Congress
authorized $10 million to support the cause of freedom and human rights in
Iran. This year, Secretary Rice requested an additional $75 million to
amplify our effort to reach out to the Iranian people in the following
ways:

Ø We will expand our outreach to young Iranians who have never experienced
democracy by sponsoring new Iranian students to study in the United States.
This initiative - which would be a one-year, graduate level program in a wide
range of fields, with an emphasis on the social sciences, health and
environmental sciences and humanities would be an effort to re-establish the
formerly robust contacts between our people that have eroded since the
revolution. There is no guarantee that the Iranian regime, which recently
rejected our offer of assistance to earthquake victims, would permit such an
ambitious and exciting program but we owe it to the Iranian people and the very
real friendship we want to have with them, to make this sincere offer.

Ø We also plan to augment professional, cultural, sports and youth exchanges
designed to build bridges between our two nations as ping-pong diplomacy did
with China in the 1970s.

Ø While we look forward to the day when Iran's behavior will permit us to have
normal diplomatic relations;, however, we will not let this obstacle prevent us
from reaching out to the Iranian people. We currently reach out to Iranians
through our Persian website -- over 60 percent of visitors come from inside
Iran -- and plan to develop further cutting edge initiatives -- what we call
eDiplomacy -- to promote active connections between Iranians and Americans.
Loosely based on the model of the virtual consulate for Davao, Philippines, the
Iran Virtual Gateway sites -- in effect virtual American Interest Sections for
Iranian cities -- will be a vibrant tools for the State Department to convey
America's respect for Iran's people, history and culture. Content on our Iran
Virtual Gateway sites could include scheduled online chats with officials,
academics, popular artists, actors and musicians, information on educational
opportunities, accurate information about events inside Iran, and online
consular services to ease the process for Iranian visa applicants.

Ø Additionally, we plan to greatly expand our television broadcasting in Farsi
into Iran to penetrate Iran's government dominated media in the short to medium
term. We will seek to develop civic education campaigns that increase
understanding of the rights and responsibilities of citizens in a democracy.

* Finally, the Department has created several new Iran-related positions in
Washington in a new Office of Iranian Affairs within the Bureau for Near
East and North African Affairs (NEA) as well as in the Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor. We will also add several Iran-related positions
abroad, both to support a new Regional Presence Office focused on Iran at
the US Consulate in Dubai, and to enhance our coverage of significant
Iranian diaspora centers in Europe and elsewhere.

Conclusion

* There are Iranian actions that we reject and condemn. But there is much
that is good and noble there. This year we mark the one hundredth
anniversary of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution in Iran. During that
noble and sincere revolt to establish a measure of democracy in Iran, a
young American teacher from Nebraska, a graduate of Princeton named Howard
Baskerville, fought and died along with Iranian students trying to break
the royalist siege of Tabriz. One day I hope to visit the grave of
Baskerville in Tabriz.
* With the help of our international allies, we can all realize our vision of
a free Iran that allows its people to express themselves and reach their
full potential; an Iran that is a stabilizing influence in the Middle East,
instead of a sponsor of terrorists and nuclear proliferators; and an Iran
that is prosperous and at peace with the world.



Released on May 12, 2006

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov for Senior State Department
Official's statements and testimonies
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

I think the following will present the reader with a rare insight into the fellow who's comments are posted in the previous posting, and I've highlighted a few items that I believe may just as aptly been addressed to the Iranian opposition and the student movement for democracy in Iran, and those of you who were born in America , or became citizens due to having fled the 79 revolution, yet left your heart in Iran:



Commencement Address at Northeastern University


R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs

Boston, Massachusetts
May 6, 2006

(excerpt)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the graduating class, I am acutely aware that I am the
only person standing in the way of you and your diploma. So in addition to
reminding you of your great good fortune to have studied in Boston and at
Northeastern, I want to leave you with just one message this afternoon.

Beyond the engineering, history, economics and science you learned in the
classroom here, beyond the friendships you have made, beyond the brilliance of
your teachers, what will you also take away from your university experience
that will be truly precious and lasting?

I believe the one lesson from Northeastern you will take away is this you
know that the real meaning of your education has to be that you shall now use
it for a good purpose, a noble purpose to live a life of service for the
greater good.

You attended a University with a great history: its roots go back to what makes
this city and this country so special; it's tradition of helping others and
giving back to your community. In its beginnings as the Boston YMCA, in the
1890's, prominent Bostonians volunteered their time to provide a place where
students could gather to learn about literature, music, history and other
subjects. Out of their community service and enthusiasm a great university was
built. Thousands of Northeastern alums have left here over the years, as you
will today, having been imbued, whether they consciously realized it or not,
with the university's tradition of service to others to our families and
friends, our communities, our county, the world. It is the core belief that how
we lead our lives should not be just about and for ourselves but about what we
all can do, in the poet Tennyson's words, to "seek a newer world" here on
earth.


In short, a Northeastern education is a call to service. It has given you an
ethical compass with which to navigate your lives beyond this campus. It asks
what you can do as individuals to build a more just and peaceful world to give
to our children.
And it urges you to consider a life of public service. This
was President John F. Kennedy's summons to your parents' generation forty years
ago when he asked them to think not just about themselves but about their
country. Gandhi put it a different way you can be the change you want to see in
the world. Don't wait for someone else to empower you to make a difference.
Have the confidence and the belief that each of you has something unique and
powerful to give in your life.


Now, in advocating a life devoted to public service, I do not mean to suggest
that all Northeastern grads must run out tomorrow to become Peace Corps
volunteers or cloistered nuns to live lives of abject poverty in devotion to
the public good although all are worthy pursuits. What I do mean to suggest,
however, is this: Whatever you do in life, discover what your greatest talent
is and commit it to something bigger than just yourself. In that sense, try to
challenge the shallow and often cynical obsession with self so prized by our
mass media. Find a way to give something back to your community and country.


Whether you are a future health service provider from the Bouvé College of
Health Sciences, a future captain of industry out to conquer Wall Street from
the Business School, a future engineer solving the world's problems through
technology, a future star in the National Hockey League, or a graduate of the
School of Professional and Continuing Studies who just wants to get a job with
your degree you all leave Northeastern today with something priceless your
education and with a call to service to make a difference.

There is so much good you can do in our country and for our country. We need
little league coaches and church volunteers. We need people devoted to care for
the elderly, to keep our air and water clean, to create a more fair judicial
system all this so that more people can realize the American dream. Beyond our
shores, we need Americans, as citizens of the world's most powerful country, to
represent our government, so that we do our part to make the planet more humane
for all peoples in all countries. In this sense, public service is not just a
job, but is how you can give back to the society that has given you so much.

As you enter or reenter the working world, be assured there is plenty you
can do to make America the country we all want it to be. We still struggle, as
we have for two hundred years, with the battle to overcome racial and religious
discrimination in our society. We still struggle to achieve decent housing for
the poor and adequate care for the elderly. We can and should do much more to
provide basic health care to all citizens and it is good to see the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts taking the lead on that critical issue. There is
plenty you can do to keep America on the path of greatness.

And, if you are even more adventurous, you can help America negotiate its path
into the future in an increasingly complicated and globalized world. Your
generation of students comes of age at a time when America has never before
been so buffeted by the winds of change in the world. We see the bright,
positive side of globalization which is changing our planet for the better
the advance of science to cure disease, of the information age to liberate our
minds and human potential of our creative business community to create good
jobs, the extraordinary opportunity we Americans have to use our awesome
political, economic and military power for good and for peace. But, we also see
and confront every day the dark side of globalization the emergence of new
global threats that race under, over and right through our borders global
climate change; international drug cartels that deliver crack cocaine to every
town in this country; international crime and trafficking in women and
children; vicious and evil terrorist groups that kill at will and the truly
terrible potential that they might join their fury with chemical, biological or
nuclear technology. The truly ominous threats to our society and way of life
now come from beyond our borders. And, simply put, we need good and smart and
successful young people to help defend our country and to advance in a more
positive and even idealistic sense, our vision for the world of democracy,
human rights, liberal economics and peace.
To succeed in this generational
challenge, we will need young people like you to serve on the front lines in
places like the Middle East, Afghanistan, in Africa, and Central America, and
China as diplomats and military officers, as human rights workers, teachers and
journalists, as representatives of our great business community to preserve our
democratic way of life and to promote human decency.

It doesn't seem too long ago but it has been 28 years since I sat at my own
graduation ceremony down Commonwealth Avenue at Boston College and made the
choice that took me away from Boston and the U.S. for a career in the American
Foreign Service our Diplomatic Corps.

Much of what I have seen in my two decades as a diplomat reveals the fragility
and the challenges of the modern world. The terrible poverty, suffering and the
AIDS epidemic in Africa a pandemic of over 40 million people worldwide living
with HIV/AIDS, three million of whom die annually, including 500,000 children.
Natural disasters such as the Asian tsunami, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and
the earthquake in Pakistan which caused enormous suffering and destruction.
But, these global problems reveal, as well, the extraordinary generosity and
compassion of people all around the world who rushed to bring relief aid,
medical care and funds to restore shattered communities. One of the most
encouraging conclusions I draw from my own experience in international politics
is that every disaster brings legions of people who seek to rebuild; every war
people who seek to make peace. In the 1980s I witnessed terrible poverty in
Africa but saw how Save The Children sought to alleviate it. I've seen Catholic
Relief Services help Palestinians living in desperately poor refugee camps in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In the 1990s, I saw our own government help to
liberate Eastern Europe from Communism and end the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.
When faced with the daunting challenges of war and peace, subjugation and
freedom, injustice and justice all over the world, there is in each of us
sometimes a natural tendency to despair to think "what can I possibly do to
make the world a better place." And the answer is you can do quite a lot.

Especially as an American due to our privileged position in the world and our
power.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is an exceptionally important moment for the United
States. Since our Revolution, the major drama of American foreign policy is how
we have vacillated as a country between isolation from the world and engagement
with it. Your generation is going to have to answer the fundamental question
that has bedeviled our leaders from Washington and Jefferson to Teddy Roosevelt
and Woodrow Wilson and down to our own time. What kind of country are we? I
think the answer is obvious to the great majority of Americans we need to be
an active and committed member of the global community and resist those in our
own country who still maintain that we can be either unilateralist or
isolationist. After September 11, 2001, how could we possibly believe that we
can sit on our continent in splendid isolation and choose not to stain our
hands with the hard work of building a peaceful world order? After the war in
Afghanistan and Iraq we know that America needs friends and allies and that we
should use our awesome power as an active and committed force for good in the
world. That is what our government is trying to do. Let's resolve to end that
two-century plus debate for good. Let's continue to exert American faith,
American optimism and American energy in the search for peace internationally
in our time. Instead of isolating ourselves from the world or going it alone,
we need to be constantly and fundamentally engaged as a country, working with
friends and allies to help us along the way.

So, as you leave Northeastern today, think about what you can do here at home
or around the world to answer the call to service which is the responsibility
of every man and woman in our society. Think what you can do in government
service or the non-profit sector to win the war on terrorism, and to bring
peace to the Middle East, and other troubled parts of the globe. Think what you
can do as business leaders to ensure integrity and fairness in the workplace
and to prevent a future Enron crisis. Think what you can do in your private
life to promote tolerance and understanding on our planet. Think what you can
do as teachers, doctors, nurses and civic leaders to strengthen bodies, minds
and communities.


Ladies and gentlemen of the Class of 2006, like every other generation of
Americans before you, you are today called to service and to greatness. You
have role models here today who can show you the way forward. Many of your
grandparents are here. They are rightfully called the Greatest Generation
because they beat the most severe depression in American history and then went
on to defeat Nazi Germany and imperial Japan in the most terrible war of all
time. Your parents launched the great crusade to end racial segregation in
America and to give to African-Americans the rights that surely should have
been theirs all along. They put men and women in space, learned how to
transplant hearts and condense a library full of books into a single, slender
disc in igniting the information age. They and we are finally granting women
equal rights in the workplace and before the law.

Your grandparents and parents have spoken the essential human truth that
everything is possible and that your hopes can be realized if you believe in
yourself and commit yourself to service in the public good. As you set out in
life beyond Northeastern, we all hope that you will retain the will to take
risks, the strength to be courageous, the spirit of optimism that is
particularly American, the importance of being patriotic to support and defend
our great country, and the inspiration that you might dare to do great things
in the world.

The late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a son of Boston, on the night Martin Luther
King died in 1968, addressed a crowd of anguished African-Americans in
Indianapolis by saying, "Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so
many years ago: To tame the savageness of man and to make gentle the life of
the world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that and say a prayer for our country
and our people."


Ladies and gentlemen of the Class of 2006, that is, indeed, a worthy ideal
around which all Northeastern graduates and all Americans can unite.

As you graduate today, we wish for you the very best good fortune, success
and happiness in the years to come. And we look forward to following your
accomplishments as you live and write the history of America and of the world
in the century to come.

Congratulations to you all!



Released on May 12, 2006

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov for Senior State Department
Official's statements and testimonies
************************************************************

----------------

One comment: I'm not sure optimism is soly an American trait...(chuckle)...and I'm sure he didn't mean it in that sense....for indeed, you folks would not have pushed all the right buttons of the international community with a defeatist attitude.

Best,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Item of interest:




U.S. Diplomatic Relations with Libya


Statement by Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
May 15, 2006

I am pleased to announce that the United States is restoring full diplomatic
relations with Libya. We will soon open an embassy in Tripoli. In addition, the
United States intends to remove Libya from the list of designated state
sponsors of terrorism. Libya will also be omitted from the annual certification
of countries not cooperating fully with United States' anti-terrorism efforts.

We are taking these actions in recognition of Libya's continued commitment to
its renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided
to the United States and other members of the international community in
response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September
11, 2001.

Today's announcements are tangible results that flow from the historic
decisions taken by Libya's leadership in 2003 to renounce terrorism and to
abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs. As a direct result of those
decisions we have witnessed the beginning of that country's re-emergence into
the mainstream of the international community. Today marks the opening of a new
era in U.S.-Libya relations that will benefit Americans and Libyans alike.

Just as 2003 marked a turning point for the Libyan people so too could 2006
mark turning points for the peoples of Iran and North Korea. Libya is an
important model as nations around the world press for changes in behavior by
the Iranian and North Korean regimes -- changes that could be vital to
international peace and security. We urge the leadership of Iran and North
Korea to make similar strategic decisions that would benefit their citizens.

For Libya, today's announcements open the door to a broader bilateral
relationship with the United States that will allow us to better discuss other
issues of importance. Those issues include protection of universal human
rights, promotion of freedom of speech and expression, and expansion of
economic and political reform consistent with President Bush's freedom agenda.
2006/493


Released on May 15, 2006

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
************************************************************
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:05 pm    Post subject: A Nuclear Test for Diplomacy Reply with quote

A Nuclear Test for Diplomacy

By Henry A. Kissinger
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A17


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501200_pf.html

The recent letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush needs to be considered on several levels. It can be treated as a ploy to obstruct U.N. Security Council deliberations on Iran's disregard of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This consideration, and the demagogic tone of the letter, merited its rejection by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But the first direct approach by an Iranian leader to a U.S. president in more than 25 years may also have intentions beyond the tactical and propagandistic, and its demagoguery may be a way to get the radical part of the Iranian public used to dialogue with the United States. America's challenge is to define its own strategy and purposes regarding the most fateful issue confronting us today.

The world is faced with the nightmarish prospect that nuclear weapons will become a standard part of national armament and wind up in terrorist hands. The negotiations on Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation mark a watershed. A failed diplomacy would leave us with a choice between the use of force or a world where restraint has been eroded by the inability or unwillingness of countries that have the most to lose to restrain defiant fanatics. One need only imagine what would have happened had any of the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, London, Madrid, Istanbul or Bali involved even the crudest nuclear weapon.

Of the two negotiations, the one on Korea -- a six-party forum of Japan, South Korea, China, the United States, Russia and North Korea -- seems more advanced than the four-party talk on Iran (among France, Germany, Britain and Iran). Last September an apparent agreement in principle was reached in Beijing that North Korea will give up its nuclear program if the other parties provide adequate assurances of security, economic help in the post-nuclear period and a substitute for the power generation allegedly lost by abandoning the nuclear program. But each side has demanded that the other fulfill all its obligations before it undertakes its own; a serious effort to discuss a concurrent schedule has been prevented by North Korea's tactic of stringing out the period between each session, perhaps to gain time for strengthening its nuclear arsenal.

With respect to Iran, there isn't even a formal agreement on what the objective is. Iran has refused to agree to international control over its uranium enrichment program, in the absence of which no control over a weapons program is meaningful.

The public debate often focuses on whether the United States is prepared to engage in bilateral discussions with North Korea or Iran. With respect to Korea, that is a subsidiary issue. The six-power talks provide adequate opportunity for a bilateral exchange of views. What Pyongyang is attempting to achieve -- and what the Bush administration has rightly resisted -- is a separate negotiation with Washington outside the six-party framework, which would prevent other parties in the Beijing process from undertaking joint responsibilities. If bilateral talks replaced the six-party forum, some of America's present partners might choose to place the onus for breaking every deadlock on Washington, in effect isolating the United States.

The same considerations apply even more strongly to bilateral negotiations with Iran at this stage. Until now formal negotiations have been prevented by the memory of the hostage crisis, Iranian support of terrorist groups and the aggressive rhetoric of the Iranian president. Nor does the Iranian president's letter remove these inhibitions. Nevertheless, on a matter so directly involving its security, the United States should not negotiate through proxies, however closely allied. If America is prepared to negotiate with North Korea over proliferation in the six-party forum, and with Iran in Baghdad over Iraqi security, it must be possible to devise a multilateral venue for nuclear talks with Tehran that would permit the United States to participate -- especially in light of what is at stake.

An indefinite continuation of the stalemate would amount to a de facto acquiescence by the international community in letting new entrants into the nuclear club. In Asia, it would spell the near-certain addition of South Korea and Japan; in the Middle East, countries such as Turkey, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia could enter the field. In such a world, all significant industrial countries would consider nuclear weapons an indispensable status symbol. Radical elements throughout the Islamic world and elsewhere would gain strength from the successful defiance of the major nuclear powers.

The management of a nuclear-armed world would be infinitely more complex than maintaining the deterrent balance of two Cold War superpowers. The various nuclear countries would not only have to maintain deterrent balances with their own adversaries, a process that would not necessarily follow the principles and practices evolved over decades among the existing nuclear states. They would also have the ability and incentives to declare themselves as interested parties in general confrontations. Especially Iran, and eventually other countries of similar orientation, would be able to use nuclear arsenals to protect their revolutionary activities around the world.

There is an argument on behalf of acquiescing in proliferation which holds that new nuclear countries have proved responsible in the past. But this is not endorsed by experience. Pakistan proliferated its nuclear technology through the A.Q. Khan project; North Korea has been an active proliferator. In addition, the safeguarding of nuclear material on the territories of emerging nuclear countries is bound to be more porous and less sophisticated.

Diplomacy needs a new impetus. As a first step, the United States and its negotiating partners need to agree on how much time is available for negotiations. There seems to be general agreement that Pyongyang is producing enough plutonium for several weapons a year; there is some disagreement about progress in producing actual operational weapons in the absence of testing. Estimates on how close Tehran is to producing its first nuclear weapon range from two to 10 years. Given the risks and stakes, this gap needs to be narrowed. Any consideration of diplomatic pace must take account of the fact that in 2008 governments in both Russia and the United States will change; this will impose a hiatus on diplomacy while the governments are preoccupied with transition and, in America, restaffing the executive branch.

The next step is to recognize the difference between multiparty negotiations and a preferred strategy of regime change. There are no governments in the world whose replacement by responsible regimes would contribute more to international peace and security than those governing Pyongyang and Tehran. But none of the participants in the existing or foreseeable forums will support a policy explicitly aiming for regime change. Inevitably, a negotiation on nuclear disarmament will involve compensation in security and economic benefits in return for abandonment of nuclear weapons capabilities and is, in that sense, incompatible with regime change.

Focusing on regime change as the road to denuclearization confuses the issue. The United States should oppose nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran regardless of the government that builds them.

The diplomacy appropriate to denuclearization is comparable to the containment policy that helped win the Cold War: no preemptive challenge to the external security of the adversary, but firm resistance to attempts to project its power abroad and reliance on domestic forces to bring about internal change. It was precisely such a nuanced policy that caused President Ronald Reagan to invite Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev to a dialogue within weeks of labeling the Soviet Union as the evil empire.

On Korea, progress requires agreement regarding the political evolution of the Korean Peninsula and of Northeast Asia. The expectation that China is so reluctant to see nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula -- and therefore ultimately in Japan -- that it will sooner or later bring the needed pressure on North Korea has so far been disappointed. This is because China has not only military concerns but also strategic objectives on the Korean Peninsula. It will try to avoid an outcome in Korea that leads to the sudden collapse of an ally, producing a flood of Korean refugees into China as well as turmoil on its borders. For these reasons, a strategic dialogue with Beijing must be an important component of a negotiating strategy that also addresses Pyongyang's desire for security.

Though America is represented in the six-party forum by an exceptional diplomat in Christopher Hill, periodic engagement at a higher level is needed to give the necessary direction to his efforts. The objective should be an understanding regarding security and political evolution in Northeast Asia that requires no changes in sovereignty as part of the process of denuclearization but leaves open the prospect of Korean unification through negotiations or internal evolution.

Parallel considerations apply to the case of Iran. The current negotiating forum is highly dysfunctional. Three European countries in close coordination with the United States are acting partly as America's surrogate. China and Russia do not participate in the negotiations but are involved when their consequences go before the U.N. Security Council -- a procedure enabling Iran to play off the nuclear powers against each other.

A more coherent forum for negotiation would combine the three European nations with the United States, China and Russia as the countries most directly affected and in the best position to act jointly in the Security Council. This could be set up after the passage of the Security Council resolution now under discussion. It would permit elaboration of the one hopeful scheme that has emerged in Iranian diplomacy. Put forward by Russia, it is to move certain enrichment operations out of Iran into Russia, thereby preventing clandestine weaponization. The new, broader forum could be used to establish an international enrichment program applicable to future nuclear technologies to curb the looming specter of unchecked proliferation.

Obviously, nuclear proliferation cannot be prevented simply by multiplying negotiating forums. The experience with existing conferences demonstrates the capacity for procrastination and obfuscation. To be effective, diplomacy must involve a willingness to provide clear penalties for obstruction.

Only after we have created the requisite negotiating framework and explored all aspects of diplomacy should the issue of military measures be addressed. But neither should force be rejected in principle and for all time before we know the circumstances in which this last resort should be considered.

The issue before the nations involved is similar to what the world faced in 1938 and at the beginning of the Cold War: whether to overcome fears and hesitancy about undertaking the difficult path demanded by necessity. The failure of that test in 1938 produced a catastrophic war; the ability to master it in the immediate aftermath of World War II led to victory without war.

The debates surrounding these issues will be conducted in the waning years of an American adm1inistration. On the surface, this may seem to guarantee partisanship. But thoughtful observers in both parties will know that the consequences of the decisions before us will have to be managed in a new administration. The nuclear issue, capable of destroying mankind, may thus, one hopes, bring us together in the end.


Last edited by cyrus on Wed May 17, 2006 6:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's an example of Old School vs. New School ("outside the box") diverging viewpoints:

Comments in Bold

A Nuclear Test for Diplomacy

By Henry A. Kissinger
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A17

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501200_pf.html

The recent letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush needs to be considered on several levels.
(Ok, let's do it.)
It can be treated as a ploy to obstruct U.N. Security Council deliberations on Iran's disregard of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(that's one way of looking at it.)
This consideration, and the demagogic tone of the letter, merited its rejection by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
(that was not the main reason , it was a matter of credibility of the author)

“Those who insulted the Iranian nation and set back Iran’s movement for progress for several years must apologise”, Ahmadinejad said at a rally in the eastern town of Rashtkhar. His comments were aired on state television and carried by the official news agency.

“You must bow down to the greatness of the Iranian nation”, he said, addressing the West.

He added that if the United States continued to seek to use “bullying” tactics then “every nation of the world” would chant “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

“If you do not return to monotheism and worshipping god and refuse to accept justice then you will burn in the fire of the nations’ fury”, Ahmadinejad said.

He once again accused the West of launching a “psychological war” against Iran.

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad declared that Iran had joined the Nuclear Club.

“I officially announce that Iran has joined the world’s nuclear countries”, Ahmadinejad said in a speech that was broadcast on state television.]


Let's examine intent for a moment....we all know the history...


But the first direct approach by an Iranian leader to a U.S. president in more than 25 years may also have intentions beyond the tactical and propagandistic, and its demagoguery may be a way to get the radical part of the Iranian public used to dialogue with the United States.
(an old traditional Muslim declaration of convert or die is indeed going beyond the tactical and propagandistic, and intended to get the radical part of the Iranian public as well as Muslims globaly to join in jihad)America's challenge is to define its own strategy and purposes regarding the most fateful issue confronting us today. (and the US has)

The world is faced with the nightmarish prospect that nuclear weapons will become a standard part of national armament and wind up in terrorist hands.
(scuse me Dr. but where were you when I told Clinton the morning he was elected to President that the " The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons."??? ... but thanks for quoting me anyways.)

The negotiations on Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation mark a watershed. A failed diplomacy would leave us with a choice between the use of force or a world where restraint has been eroded by the inability or unwillingness of countries that have the most to lose to restrain defiant fanatics.

(it only takes one to start a war...one bullet started WW1)

One need only imagine what would have happened had any of the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, London, Madrid, Istanbul or Bali involved even the crudest nuclear weapon.

(there's worse things than nukes in Iran's inventory)

Of the two negotiations, the one on Korea -- a six-party forum of Japan, South Korea, China, the United States, Russia and North Korea -- seems more advanced than the four-party talk on Iran (among France, Germany, Britain and Iran).

( excuse me, but what is the P5+1 ? )

Last September an apparent agreement in principle was reached in Beijing that North Korea will give up its nuclear program if the other parties provide adequate assurances of security, economic help in the post-nuclear period and a substitute for the power generation allegedly lost by abandoning the nuclear program. But each side has demanded that the other fulfill all its obligations before it undertakes its own; a serious effort to discuss a concurrent schedule has been prevented by North Korea's tactic of stringing out the period between each session, perhaps to gain time for strengthening its nuclear arsenal.

( Time's up)

With respect to Iran, there isn't even a formal agreement on what the objective is.

(No one wants to see Iran with a nuclear weapon, and there's your formal agreement.)

Iran has refused to agree to international control over its uranium enrichment program, in the absence of which no control over a weapons program is meaningful.

( That depends on the type of persuasion used, doesn't it?)

The public debate often focuses on whether the United States is prepared to engage in bilateral discussions with North Korea or Iran. With respect to Korea, that is a subsidiary issue. The six-power talks provide adequate opportunity for a bilateral exchange of views. What Pyongyang is attempting to achieve -- and what the Bush administration has rightly resisted -- is a separate negotiation with Washington outside the six-party framework, which would prevent other parties in the Beijing process from undertaking joint responsibilities. If bilateral talks replaced the six-party forum, some of America's present partners might choose to place the onus for breaking every deadlock on Washington, in effect isolating the United States.

(or feel cut out of the process)

The same considerations apply even more strongly to bilateral negotiations with Iran at this stage. Until now formal negotiations have been prevented by the memory of the hostage crisis, Iranian support of terrorist groups and the aggressive rhetoric of the Iranian president.(By law we don't negotiate with terrorist or the sponsors of terror...period)
Nor does the Iranian president's letter remove these inhibitions.
(It confirms the rationale for the law as the letter is seen as the work of a terrorist)

Nevertheless, on a matter so directly involving its security, the United States should not negotiate through proxies, however closely allied. (Those nations are closer to the problem in geographic terms and must also have a say in the matter...so diplomacy in tandem with, is different than "by proxi")

If America is prepared to negotiate with North Korea over proliferation in the six-party forum, and with Iran in Baghdad over Iraqi security, it must be possible to devise a multilateral venue for nuclear talks with Tehran that would permit the United States to participate -- especially in light of what is at stake.

(The Security Council is doing the talking, "Comply or else.")

An indefinite continuation of the stalemate would amount to a de facto acquiescence by the international community in letting new entrants into the nuclear club.

(over a lot of dead bodies)

In Asia, it would spell the near-certain addition of South Korea and Japan; in the Middle East, countries such as Turkey, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia could enter the field. In such a world, all significant industrial countries would consider nuclear weapons an indispensable status symbol.

("Dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future" as one person put it, and nuclear weapons are already a universal "status symbol" with different interpretations on its value.)

Radical elements throughout the Islamic world and elsewhere would gain strength from the successful defiance of the major nuclear powers.

(Or jepordize their security, keyword being "sucessful" and that is not an option, nor soley depending on how that circumstance it approached, diplomaticly.)

The management of a nuclear-armed world would be infinitely more complex than maintaining the deterrent balance of two Cold War superpowers.

(It already is, where've you been for the past decade?)

The various nuclear countries would not only have to maintain deterrent balances with their own adversaries, a process that would not necessarily follow the principles and practices evolved over decades among the existing nuclear states. They would also have the ability and incentives to declare themselves as interested parties in general confrontations. Especially Iran, and eventually other countries of similar orientation, would be able to use nuclear arsenals to protect their revolutionary activities around the world.

(Never get to that point simply because the war started by the IRI, due to stupidity in assesing international will and intent on their part will, (If this is not already their intent) set a grave and tragic example for the rest of nations to abandon nuclear weapons dreams entirely, forevermore.)

There is an argument on behalf of acquiescing in proliferation which holds that new nuclear countries have proved responsible in the past. But this is not endorsed by experience. (Yeah, we haven't committed collective suicide yet.)
Pakistan proliferated its nuclear technology through the A.Q. Khan project; North Korea has been an active proliferator. In addition, the safeguarding of nuclear material on the territories of emerging nuclear countries is bound to be more porous and less sophisticated. (Make that the given state of affairs today, despite the best efforts and sucesses of the Nunn-Lugar process, and PSI)
Diplomacy needs a new impetus.

(Reduce Iran from active participant to observer status in the UN and that should provide impetus for diplomacy, if not then remove them altogether from the UN and every embassy of member states, under General Assembly rules and common majority 2/3 consensus)

As a first step, the United States and its negotiating partners need to agree on how much time is available for negotiations. (Yesterday would have been good)
There seems to be general agreement that Pyongyang is producing enough plutonium for several weapons a year; there is some disagreement about progress in producing actual operational weapons in the absence of testing.

(Why do you think they sold a couple to Iran, eh? For s.h.i.t.s and giggles I suppose....NK/IRI relations go back years.)

Estimates on how close Tehran is to producing its first nuclear weapon range from two to 10 years. ( Everything is for sale )

Given the risks and stakes, this gap needs to be narrowed. (including the gap in your understanding, apparently. Not to be crude about it, but facts are facts.)
Any consideration of diplomatic pace must take account of the fact that in 2008 governments in both Russia and the United States will change; this will impose a hiatus on diplomacy while the governments are preoccupied with transition and, in America, restaffing the executive branch.
(The proverbial cowpie will hit the fan long before then)

The next step is to recognize the difference between multiparty negotiations and a preferred strategy of regime change. (yesterday would be ok too)
There are no governments in the world whose replacement by responsible regimes would contribute more to international peace and security than those governing Pyongyang and Tehran. (Whew! Finally something to agree upon!)
But none of the participants in the existing or foreseeable forums will support a policy explicitly aiming for regime change. (publicly is different from privately as you well know Dr.)
Inevitably, a negotiation on nuclear disarmament will involve compensation in security and economic benefits in return for abandonment of nuclear weapons capabilities and is, in that sense, incompatible with regime change. (proliferation cannot be solved without ridding the world of governments with harmful intent)

Focusing on regime change as the road to denuclearization confuses the issue.

(It clarifies the issue as the ultimate solution to it.)

The United States should oppose nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran regardless of the government that builds them.

(No need for nukes if new governments adhering to UN charter and Dec. of Human rights exist in the wake of regimes no present in power. I stress here the biggest "what if?" is what we might have accomplished as the Human species had we chosen to live in peace, instead of fear after WW2.)

The diplomacy appropriate to denuclearization is comparable to the containment policy that helped win the Cold War:

(Containment has its limits, and those limits have been reached and surpassed by cold hard cash)

no preemptive challenge to the external security of the adversary, but firm resistance to attempts to project its power abroad and reliance on domestic forces to bring about internal change.

(both at once would be more effective, and the external may help forment the internal as the Iranian people grow to appreciate the threat the regime poses to them through blind policy and ideolic intent to create hell on Earth.)

It was precisely such a nuanced policy that caused President Ronald Reagan to invite Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev to a dialogue within weeks of labeling the Soviet Union as the evil empire.

( "We start bombing in five minutes." was a hell of an inducement to accept Reagan's invitation....joke or not)

On Korea, progress requires agreement regarding the political evolution of the Korean Peninsula and of Northeast Asia. The expectation that China is so reluctant to see nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula -- and therefore ultimately in Japan -- that it will sooner or later bring the needed pressure on North Korea has so far been disappointed. This is because China has not only military concerns but also strategic objectives on the Korean Peninsula. It will try to avoid an outcome in Korea that leads to the sudden collapse of an ally, producing a flood of Korean refugees into China as well as turmoil on its borders. For these reasons, a strategic dialogue with Beijing must be an important component of a negotiating strategy that also addresses Pyongyang's desire for security.

( Military to military contact and invitation to Chinese leaders to witness US military manuvers off Guam have been offered recently, among other efforts, yet you fail to mention those facts Dr. )

Though America is represented in the six-party forum by an exceptional diplomat in Christopher Hill, periodic engagement at a higher level is needed to give the necessary direction to his efforts.
(It's been at the Presidential level, so how much of a higher level do you want? again you fail to note this fact)
The objective should be an understanding regarding security and political evolution in Northeast Asia that requires no changes in sovereignty as part of the process of denuclearization but leaves open the prospect of Korean unification through negotiations or internal evolution.
(6 party consensus in offering to connect S. Korea's electrical grid to the North as part of incentive package is reunification at the physical infrastructure level, the political does take evolution, and little Kim was shocked at how capitalistic the Chinese are by nessessity, yet maintaining a socialist structure and still having achieved decent relations with the US, and other pacific nations, including Australia.
Wasn't always that way , as recently as 5 years ago things were pretty tense, but have makedly improved since.)


Parallel considerations apply to the case of Iran. The current negotiating forum is highly dysfunctional.

(While being highly effective in bringing consensus of nations to bear on the problem, despite some nation's dysfunctional relationships with Iran, you mean....)

Three European countries in close coordination with the United States are acting partly as America's surrogate. (Read partnership, we arn't the only ones with something at stake here...)

China and Russia do not participate in the negotiations but are involved when their consequences go before the U.N. Security Council (again, what is the P5+1 diplomatic process?)

-- a procedure enabling Iran to play off the nuclear powers against each other.

(Nope, not now that the jig is up for the mullahs and monkey boy)

A more coherent forum for negotiation would combine the three European nations with the United States, China and Russia as the countries most directly affected and in the best position to act jointly in the Security Council.

( Oh, you mean the P5+1 , add Arab states with concern as well then, India, Pakistan, all the "-stans" in fact, and Turkey, Israel, even the African Union, as also effected, this is why it is an international dialouge directed at the IRI, not a bilateral one.)

This could be set up after the passage of the Security Council resolution now under discussion. ( It's a symbiotic and simultaneous action of common intent of like minded nations to resolve common problems caused by one nation's leadership.)
It would permit elaboration of the one hopeful scheme that has emerged in Iranian diplomacy. Put forward by Russia, it is to move certain enrichment operations out of Iran into Russia, thereby preventing clandestine weaponization.

(But not intent to aquire)

The new, broader forum could be used to establish an international enrichment program applicable to future nuclear technologies to curb the looming specter of unchecked proliferation. (as has been discussed among the nuclear supplier's group.)

Obviously, nuclear proliferation cannot be prevented simply by multiplying negotiating forums. The experience with existing conferences demonstrates the capacity for procrastination and obfuscation. (agreed)To be effective, diplomacy must involve a willingness to provide clear penalties for obstruction.

(How about a regime change enema as a method for unblocking the constipation of nations?)

Only after we have created the requisite negotiating framework and explored all aspects of diplomacy should the issue of military measures be addressed.

( Not "...addressed", employed. Failing to address potential and imminent threats is not conducive to peace and security of the global village.)

But neither should force be rejected in principle and for all time before we know the circumstances in which this last resort should be considered.

( Diplomacy without teeth is a toothless beggar.)

The issue before the nations involved is similar to what the world faced in 1938 and at the beginning of the Cold War: whether to overcome fears and hesitancy about undertaking the difficult path demanded by necessity. The failure of that test in 1938 produced a catastrophic war; the ability to master it in the immediate aftermath of World War II led to victory without war.

( That's what I call: "on the job training". But "mastery", well that is debatable, as the number of brush wars sponsored by proxi in the cold war did not alleviate fear, but added to it.)

The debates surrounding these issues will be conducted in the waning years of an American adm1inistration. ( I'm debating them with you right now....batter up!)

On the surface, this may seem to guarantee partisanship. ( I happen to be partisan to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, I don't know about anyone else....but it works for me.)
But thoughtful observers in both parties will know that the consequences of the decisions before us will have to be managed in a new administration.

(Predicting the future again, eh? GW Bush is on record as not wishing to leave problems for future presidents to contend with.)

The nuclear issue, capable of destroying mankind, may thus, one hopes, bring us together in the end.

(Dead or alive, but the future's not written in stone.)


Last edited by Oppenheimer on Fri May 19, 2006 5:41 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 10:21 am    Post subject: Rice Rejects Kissinger Call for Talks with Iran Reply with quote

Rice Rejects Kissinger Call for Talks with Iran

May 19, 2006
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Monsters and Critics.com

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1165086.php/Rice_rejects_Kissinger_call_for_talks_with_Iran

Washington -- US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday rejected a call by a predecessor - Henry Kissinger - for Washington to negotiate with Iran. Rice pointed to diplomatic efforts by the European trio of France, Britain and Germany to persuade Iran to rein in its nuclear activities. The US has backed that diplomacy.

'There are many ways that we can communicate our concerns, and we do so,' Rice said after talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al- Faisal.

Kissinger in a newspaper article this week called for the US, Russia and China to join the European trio at the table with Iran.

Rice said she appreciated his advice, but made plain that the US administration is sticking by its refusal to talk with Iran despite a flurry of calls in the US to change its stance.

The US broke diplomatic relations with Iran after the 1979 Islamic revolution and the storming of the US embassy in Tehran, where Iranian students held US diplomats hostage for more than a year. Swiss diplomats have served as intermediaries since then.

Al-Faisal expressed concern about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, a goal Iran denies it is pursuing.

'What we have anxiety about is the stability and security of our region, and definitely the spread of atomic weapons or the threat of spread of atomic weapons in the region is a threat to the countries of the region,' the Saudi minister said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
May 19, 2006

(except)
Yes, James.

QUESTION: On Iran, are you aware or is the Department aware of published
reports stating that the Iranian parliament this week passed a measure that
would require non-Muslims to wear badges that identify them as such?

MR. MCCORMACK: I have seen the news reports. These have, I think, recycled over
time. There is -- as I understand it, there is a -- some law currently in the
parliament, the exact nature of which is unclear, so I'm not going to try to
delve into giving a definitive comment or a detailed comment about something
about which I don't have all the facts.

That said, if you did have such an occurrence, whether it was in Iran or
elsewhere, it would certainly be despicable.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up for a second on it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Go ahead.

QUESTION: You said that it's been something that, to your understanding, has
been recycled over time. How long has the Department been following it or did
you just become aware of these reports today for the first time?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I've seen various news -- similar news reports and I can't
give you the exact dates, you know months ago, and they seem to be coming up
again, based on the progression of -- well, I guess, for lack of a better term
-- law through the Iranian parliament. The exact nature of that law is a little
bit unclear and the exact motivations behind that are a little unclear. So I
can't offer, like I said, a detailed comment about it.

QUESTION: Two more questions, if I might. What is the -- what kinds of means
does the Department have at its disposal for verifying the passage of laws in
the Iranian parliament?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, certainly we have access to open source material and we
also talk frequently with other countries who have diplomatic representation in
Iran.

QUESTION: And is there an effort underway right now to ascertain more about
this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: And why would it be despicable, if it were true?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think it has clear echoes, James, of Germany in the --
under Hitler, so I think that that's pretty clear. But again, you know, I don't
want to delve too deeply into that because we don't have the facts.

----------end excerpt--------

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/ for all daily press briefings
************************************************************
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 10:15 pm    Post subject: Fugitive Pleads with US to 'Liberate' Iran Reply with quote

Amir Abbas Fakhravar Pleads with US to 'Liberate' Iran

May 21, 2006
Times Online
Sarah Baxter, Washington
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2189887,00.html

For almost eight months, Amir Abbas Fakhravar was held in solitary confinement in a soundproof cell in Iran. His bare, constantly lit surroundings were all a creamy white — the walls, the floor, his clothes and the door, with a slit through which white rice would be delivered in a white bowl by guards wearing slippers to muffle their footfall.

Amnesty International calls his case the first known example of “white torture” in Iran and it nearly drove Fakhravar mad. He was stuck in a terrifying, real-life version of the George Lucas film, THX 1138, about a dystopia where dissidents are imprisoned in a white room.

“I was living with my childhood memories, but I couldn’t remember my mother’s face,” Fakhravar said. “I’d see the deformed faces of my family in my nightmares.”

Fakhravar, a 30-year-old writer and leader of the dissident Iranian student movement, who has been repeatedly jailed, emerged in Washington last week after spending 10 months on the run inside Iran. His sister was told by Revolutionary Guards that there were orders to shoot him on sight.

He surfaced at the end of last month in Dubai, where 24 hours later he was met by the leading American neoconservative, Richard Perle. Fakhravar was whisked to America last weekend and has already met congressmen and Bush officials. He said he was in Washington to spread one message only: “Regime change,” he said, breaking from Farsi into English to deliver it.

In Iran, Bush is regarded as a liberator, Fakhravar said. “People are afraid to express what is in their hearts, but in small, private gatherings, they see him as a saviour.”

Fakhravar believes dialogue with Iran is useless. “The regime wants to have a nuclear bomb so it can wipe out a country it doesn’t like,” he said. “We don’t understand why the rest of the world doesn’t understand this.”

He hopes to warn President George Bush and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, in person not to be lured into talks with the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he says is lying about its plans for peaceful nuclear energy.

“If it is a matter of national pride to have it, why did they keep the programme secret for 18 years?” Fakhravar asked.

The dissident’s plain-speaking comes as the Washington establishment is divided over whether to negotiate directly with Iran.

Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, called last week for new channels to be opened with Iran. “Focusing on regime change as the road to de-nuclearisation confuses the issue,” he wrote in The Washington Post. President Ronald Reagan invited his Soviet counterpart, Leonid Brezhnev, to a “dialogue” after denouncing the USSR as an evil empire, the architect of realpolitik noted.

Some neoconservatives, including William Kristol of the Weekly Standard magazine, are rethinking their blanket hostility to talks and wondering if there is a hawkish way to speak directly to Tehran. They fear that relying on Europe is merely allowing Iran more time to develop the bomb.

Ehud Olmert, the new Israeli prime minister, arrives in Washington tomorrow for his first summit with Bush. “Olmert will try to get Bush’s approval for an Israeli military strike on Iran in the event that the West backs down,” a well-informed Israeli source said. If diplomacy fails, however, the view inside the Pentagon is that American airstrikes would be quicker and more effective than anything the Israelis could muster.

Additional reporting: Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22527



Symposium: Iran: To Strike or Not to Strike?

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 19, 2006

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's18-page letter to President Bush has confirmed, among other things, one highly disturbing reality: Iran will continue chasing its nuclear program -- and to dismiss the West?s warnings to desist from such behavior. More toubling still: just recently, a top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, threatened that Israel would be Iran's first target in response to any U.S. attack. This threat is especially worrisome in light of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's expressed yearning for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
The U.S., Britain and France are circulating a Security Council resolution that would make mandatory Iran halting uranium enrichment. They are pushing for the resolution being adopted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which would make it enforceable by sanctions or military action. But Russia and China are not co-operating.

Meanwhile, President Bush has stated that a military option -- potentially a unilateral America military strike -- is possible if Tehran refuses to stop enriching uranium and continues to disallow international inspection of its nuclear program.

How much longer can the U.S. and Israel sit and wait? How much time can we spare once the Mullahs have nuclear weapons in their hands?

To discuss these questions with us today, we are joined by:

James Woolsey, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1993-1995).

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, the co-author with Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely on their book Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror. He is a retired Air Force Fighter Pilot who has been a Fox News Military Analyst for the last four and a half years and continues to appear regularly on Fox. He just returned from his second visit to Iraq in December, 2005.and
Kenneth R. Timmerman, the author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum, New York), and Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran.

FP: James Woolsey, Tom McInerney and Ken Timmerman, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Mr. Woolsey, let?s crystallize the key issues: does Iran have nuclear weapons? What is the danger? What must we do about it?

Woolsey: Few would suggest that Iran has nuclear weapons yet, but it seems to be making progress on operating a cascade of gas centrifuges and claims it has enriched uranium up to fuel grade.

How soon it could have a weapon depends very heavily on the progress of this enrichment process (unless, say, the North Koreans helped them end-run it and sold Iran enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium for a bomb).

With a few centrifuges it would take them years to enrich enough uranium for a bomb, but with many thousands they could do the job in weeks. Our knowledge about this is spotty, as is our understanding of the quality of the centrifuges, which can also affect the pace substantially. Once they have enough fissile material for a bomb, a simple device of the sort of design of our Hiroshima bomb is, unfortunately, not hard to put together. A warhead for a missile would take more work.

This is all of course extremely dangerous, given especially the genocidal fanaticism of the Iranian regime. I would seriously doubt that either Russia or China would agree to any effective sanctions in light of their commercial interests in Iran.

I would advocate, prior to any use of force, that we try to assemble a group of nations that would take tough actions to try to effect a regime change: e.g. a blockade against Iran's imports of refined petroleum products (they do not refine most of the petroleum they use).

I will defer to Tom McInerney regarding the design and effect of an air campaign. I would only add that I agree with John McCain that the use of force in this case is the worst option except for one: letting this regime have nuclear weapons.
One more point - if we use force we must take out the instruments used by the regime to terrorize the Iraqi people ? e.g. the Basiji, the Revolutionary Guards, etc. It would be a very bad idea just to strike at the regime's known nuclear facilities and to leave the regime intact.
FP: Thank you Mr. Woolsey.

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney?

McInerney: One of the nice things about following Jim Woolsey is that I agree with all he has said. We all want to solve this diplomatically but my reading is that Iran thinks the U.S. is pinned down and does not have the will. Russia and China are our enemies in this endeavor and will ensure that any UNSC action fails, including Chapter 7, so I think we have to form a coalition of the willing composed of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, Australia, EU 3 plus other willing NATO countries.

Now not all will join but we must tell them that we want a diplomatic settlement and need their support. If diplomacy fails then they must be prepared to help in the military option. We must find out if they will accept Iranian nuclear hegemony in the region. My sources say they will not. So we must get them involved.

My military option is primarily led by a stealth force of 64 AC composed B2s, F 22s and F 117s and 400 non-stealth aircraft, plus 500 cruise missiles hitting 1500 aim points with precision weapons. The targets would be the Nuclear Development facilities, Air Defense forces, Air Forces, Naval Forces, Shahab 3 missile forces and Command and Control nodes over a 36?48 hour time frame.

I would then let pre-planned covert forces assist the Iranian people in taking their country back with precision air support as required. This is the model used in Afghanistan and we must be training it now. It will take time but Iran is ripe to have this implemented. We have at most one year until we must take action in my opinion.

I believe Israel must be kept out of this. They will only complicate a complicated problem.

FP: Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, your plan for taking out the Mullahs? nuclear capability and then helping Iranians dislodge their ruling tyrants sounds great -- and it would be wonderful if it could really happen that way. But are we sure it is all that easy? What happens exactly if things don?t go as planned? What are the negative possibilities here? (i.e. Iran?s counter-strikes etc.)
Mr. Timmerman?
Timmerman: I am not used to being in such good company, and thank Jim Woolsey for lucidly and succinctly stating the case of what we know and don?t know about Iran?s nuclear weapons program, and Tom McInerney for laying out one of several military strike packages should our political leaders fail to seize one of several better alternatives now available.

I would emphasize the following.

The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran?s nuclear program, leaked several months ago to the press and reaffirmed recently by John Negroponte, creates a false sense of security by claiming that Iran is five and possibly ten years away from weapons capability. In fact, there are huge gaps in our intelligence.

If Iran used the 2,500 centrifuges they have acknowledged importing from the A.Q. Khan network in the 1990s, they could already have enough nuclear weapons material for 20-25 bombs. To believe that they do not have that weapons material, you must believe their official story: that they spent in excess of $600 million on the black market to purchase that equipment, risked international condemnation, and then kept the centrifuges in crates in a warehouse for eight years without ever touching them.

Moreover, I have received a number of credible reports, from former Iranian intelligence officers and other Iranians whose contacts within the regime have proven to be accurate over many years, that indicate the regime has a parallel, clandestine uranium enrichment program outside of the facilities they have been forced to declare to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

If this information turns out to be true, then all bets are off. As Jim mentioned, Iran could build a Hiroshima-type weapon rapidly; high school seniors in the U.S. have replicated it, and Iran has invested heavily in science and math education (more than we have).

But we have a secret weapon, and that is the people of Iran. There are strong indications of a broad-based rejection of the regime and pro-American sentiments among the Iranian people. New defectors arrive almost daily in the West. The most recent is Amir Abas Fakrevar, a student leader who has joined the High Council of the Iranian Referendum Movement. He managed to escape Iran in late April 2006.

However, we need to understand the history of the Islamic Revolution, and avoid several traps.

Trap number one: we must not fall for the allure of false democratic movements, such as the Mujehedin-e Khalq. This Islamist-Marxist cult hides behind a number of fronts, including the National Council of Resistance and a host of U.S.-based ?Iranian-American community? groups, and pretends to support democratic ideals. But make no mistake. The Mujahedin murdered Americans in the 1970s, took part in the Khomeinist revolution, helped the regime seize the U.S. embassy and take U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979, and remains committed to an Islamist state in Iran. Additionally, the MEK has aroused widespread hatred in Iran because it sided with Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

We have many good options for supporting the legitimate and admirable aspirations of the Iranian people to bring freedom to their country, but the MEK is not one of them. On the contrary, support for the MEK would alienate the overwhelming majority of Iranian patriots, who today look to America for leadership, encouragement, and material assistance in overthrowing the clerical dictatorship.

Trap number two: we must not fall for so-called ?reformists,? who tell the State Department (and others) that ?moderates? exist within the clerical leadership who will walk away from the bearded boy president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

If you remember nothing else about the ?moderates? within Iran?s ruling clergy, remember this: Rafsanjani, often called the mullah we can ?do business with,? is the father of Iran?s nuclear weapons program.

Woolsey: As we try, one hopes, over the next year or so to bring about a regime change without needing to go to war, we should keep Iran's imperial nature in mind. A bare majority of Persians rule restive minorities of Arabs, Azeris, Kurds, Baluch, and others. Just as we need to exploit the resistance to the regime among young people, reformers, and women, we also need to pay attention to its geographic and ethnic fissures - a large share of Iran's oil, e g, is in the restive Arab-populated south.

We can't do this successfully if stability is our paramount goal and we refuse to exploit these divisions in its name. It should not be difficult to see that Iran is today ruled with an iron hand by genocidal fanatics with a vigorous nuclear weapons program and, for some of them, explicit enthusiasm for mass death and even for the end of the world.

What case can anyone make for regarding the continued existence of this regime as anything but an unprecedented tragedy waiting to happen?

MacInerney: In general, I think we are in violent agreement except for one or two issues.

Primarily we have to enable the Iranian people to retake their country. This is not easy -- as we are finding out in Iraq -- but we have had three successful elections there and now the steps for formation of a new government.

None of it is easy but just because it is difficult doesn?t mean it should not be done. The change in this region will be very challenging but not insurmountable.

We should exploit the divergent population of 51% Persian, 34% Azerbaijanis and Kurds, and 2% Arabs plus others. Virtually all the oil is located in the southwest region close to the Persian Gulf and very vulnerable to being isolated and to covert action. Seventy percent of the population is under 30 and the jobless rate hovers near 20 percent. This is a perfect combination for a covert campaign.

I believe an independent assessment needs to be done on the value added of the MEK and the NCRI to this campaign. The Iranian Government fears them as a threat and I am interested in their role today, not 25 years ago. In any case, let?s get a re-evaluation of their value added or value diminished role. We must seriously fund and work toward this campaign starting immediately to include a Government in Exile and a Coalition of the willing in the region using their inputs for a solution.

Timmerman: Both Jim and Tom are right to point to Iran?s ethnic diversity, a fact that is not appreciated or understood by many. Real vulnerabilities exist. Persians dominate Iran?s historic heartland, but ethnic minorities populate the periphery. Indeed, nearly every international border of Iran is dominated by non-Persian minorities.

But we must be careful how we exploit these potential internal lines of fracture. I have always counselled my friends in the Balouchi, Kurdish, Azeri, and Turkomen communities not to opt for separatist agendas, and I would counsel the U.S. government to avoid this as well. Why? Because the specter of ethnic separatism in Iran drives Persians nuts. If our goal is to help the Iranian people to liberate themselves from clerical dictatorship, it would be counter-productive to drive the Persian majority into the arms of the regime. But that is what we would do by fuelling separatist wars. We would make the regime the de facto champion of Iranian nationalism ? definitely not our goal.

So my message has always been to the ethnic movements: put the focus on freedom from the clerics, not on separatist agendas. Find common cause with other freedom-fighters. In the free, democratic Iran of tomorrow you will find freedom for your own community ? as Iranians first.

I vigorously oppose any support for the MEK on similar grounds. This is a group that attempted to invade Iran militarily in April 1988 with the help of Saddam Hussein?s army, and was repulsed by 16-year old kids and grandfathers armed, literally, with pitchforks. The overwhelming majority of Iranians consider them as traitors. And because they made common cause with Khomeini during the Revolution and for the first two years of the Islamic regime, many Iranians do not see a significant difference between the MEK and the current regime. They are two sides of the same coin. The only reason the MEK is in the opposition is because they lost a power struggle. When considering Rajavi (the MEK cult leader), remember Trotsky.

The MEK has for years claimed to head a ?coalition? that formed a ?parliament-in-exile.? In fact, the 500-or so front groups that belong to this ?coalition? are just MEK fronts ?and some of them just individuals - not independent groups. Ultimately, they elevated the leader?s wife to become ?president-elect.?

President-elect? Hullo? Of what? By whom?

This is a group that was formed by the KGB in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the international liberation movement against the United States and its allies. In recent years, they have become adept at playing to the globo-Left, as well as to some, on the right, who are seeking ready-made solutions to the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran.

We should not fear the complex mosaic that is Persian society and politics. Our best option in my view is for President Bush to appoint a personal emissary, with the rank of Ambassador, to the Iranian freedom movement, who will convene the equivalent of a loya jirga of several hundred prominent Iranian leaders. The majority of those able to attend such a meeting will of necessity come from the diaspora; some will come secretly from the inside.

We are seeing the beginnings of a broad coalition coalescing around the Iran Referendum Movement, but it is not yet there. They need quiet, sympathetic assistance; and, from time to time, someone with authority to read the riot act.

The real key is harnessing the tremendous diversity of the pro-freedom movement and getting them to set aside personality and partisan bickering. The model should be something akin to the Continental Congress; not the Bolshevist avante-garde. We don?t need to replace today?s clerical murderers in Iran with another group of headsmen.

Woolsey: Iran (and the closely-tied fate of Iraq) constitutes a test case for the post-cold war world. The substantial growth in democracy and the rule of law that has marked the last 60 years may be reversed, catastrophically, if we accept a reverse evolution - imperial behavior in their regions by oil-rich autocratic states, worst of all those, such as Iran, whose imperialism is fired by fanaticism.

As Tom Friedman demonstrates in the recent issue of Foreign Policy, the price of oil and the path of freedom now move in opposite directions. It is not accidental, as Russians are fond of saying, that we see Russia, Venezuela, and Iran moving more deeply into dictatorship and, in heavy-handed ways, also moving to assert regional dominance at the expense of democracy and liberty. Every time we pull up to the gasoline pump we help pay for the tyrants' side in this growing 21st-century struggle between despotism funded by oil exports and the rest of us. Yes, we must block Iran's nuclear weapons program. But we will only be able to deal effectively with Iran and those who travel with it on the road of dictatorship and oppression if we move away from oil dependence. It's long past time for prompt, fundamental steps to this end - a subject for another day.

MacInerney: Again I believe we are all in general agreement on what needs to be done and basically how to do it. The skills of Changing a Regime from within have been lost by our CIA, State and Defense Departments thanks to the Church Committee and all following Administrations.

We must regain these skills and work with a Coalition of the Willing covertly to implement this Regime Change. Ken is exactly right in that the US has a relatively high degree of popularity in Iran that must not be squandered. The absolute dislike and hatred for the present regime is widespread and fuels the popularity of the US.

Our positive actions in Afghanistan and Iraq to bring democracy and freedom to these countries has not been lost on the Iranians despite Western media attempts to play it otherwise.

The Iranian people are not rising up in the streets to protest our involvement with their neighbors but harbor a deep hope that they will soon join them in the same freedoms and enlightenment.

Russia and China will remain major impediments to these freedoms as Jim points out. Again not an easy challenge but better that the nuclear alternative that awaits inaction.

Ken is right that their ability to build nuclear weapons is much closer that Mr Negroponte's pronouncements of 5-10 years.

Decision time is now.

FP: Ken Timmerman, last word goes to you sir.

Timmerman: I think President Bush should take the opportunity presented by the 18-pages of drivel from Ahmadinejad to send a reply ? not to the bearded boy president, whom I leave to Tom McInerney and the U.S. Air Force ? but to the people of Iran.

The President should reaffirm his commitment to helping them to achieve their freedom, and then pledge material assistance.

He should announce that he is appointing a high-level emissary to the Free People of Iran. Why not Dick Cheney? That will get the regime?s attention.

Cheney (or whoever) should then convene a loya jirga of Iranian opposition leaders who are committed to freedom, pluralism, secularism, and the rule of law. The Iran Referendum Movement has already made good progress in this direction, bringing former political adversaries together into 38 committees around the world. From these committees, 250 delegates were selected for a general convention that met in Brussels in December 2005. This convention elected a 15-member High Council, which in turn appointed a 7-member executive board. That is democracy in action, and is a good start.

The President should also pledge that he will ask Congress to commit the necessary resources - $300 million minimum, $500 million would be better ? to carry out the plan developed by the loya jirga. We need to get money and equipment into Iran to help the freedom fighters wage political warfare.

People object that we don?t have the time to focus on regime change from within. But remember: Ceaucescu fell in just two days.

We have a moral obligation to at least give it a try, because the only other options are appeasement or war, either one of which could very quickly spiral out of our control.
FP: James Woolsey, Tom McInerney and Ken Timmerman, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.

--
Kenneth R. Timmerman
President, Middle East Data Project, Inc.
Author: Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
Contributing editor: Newsmax.com
Tel: 301-946-2918
Reply to: timmerman.road@verizon.net
Website: www.KenTimmerman.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun May 28, 2006 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A global perspective by Tony Blair[/color]

A long, but good read...for those skimming, I've highlighted his remarks concerning Iran.

-Oppie

------------------------

Third foreign policy speech - Georgetown USA - 26 May


http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page9549.asp

This is the third of my speeches on the challenges facing the international community. In the first, I argued that the global terrorism that menaces us, can only be defeated through pulling it up by its roots. We have to attack not just its methods but its ideas, its presumed and false sense of grievance against the West, its attempt to persuade us that it is we and not they who are responsible for its violence. In doing so, we should stand up for our own values, asserting that they are not Western but global values, whose spread is the surest guarantee of our future security. In the second speech, I argued that such values would only succeed, however, if they were seen to be fairly and even-handedly implemented; that this required a unifying agenda for global action, which was about more than the immediate security threat but was also about justice and opportunity for all.

In this speech, I contend that now is the moment for reconciliation in the international community around such an agenda and I outline some of the key policy priorities and reforms of the global institutions to make such an agenda happen.

Underlying all these arguments, is a world view. We all agree that the characteristic of the modern world is interdependence. We haven't yet thought through its consequences.

In Government, I realised this first at the time of the Asian financial crisis shortly after taking office. Within weeks, all of us who had been initially holding back, waiting for the market to correct itself, wondering how a market meltdown in Thailand could possibly destabilise our own economies, were coming together, agreeing packages to prevent contagion, supporting Brazil and others who looked like they might be the next to go. In the process every conventional doctrine about markets was amended to prevent catastrophe.

A year later, Kosovo happened and the spectre of ethnic cleansing returned to Europe. We put pressure on Milosevic. We threatened diplomatic action. We eventually took military action by air strikes. But it was only when, with considerable courage President Clinton indicated - and it was only an indication - he might be prepared to use ground force, that suddenly Milosevic collapsed and the crisis was resolved.

What these two events taught me was that the rule book of international politics has been torn up. Interdependence - the fact of a crisis somewhere becoming a crisis everywhere - makes a mockery of traditional views of national interest. You can't have a coherent view of national interest today without a coherent view of the international community. Nations, even ones as large and powerful as the USA, are affected profoundly by world events; and not affected, in time or at the margins but at breakneck speed and fundamentally. Why is immigration the No.1 domestic policy issue in much of Europe and in the US today? What are the solutions? The answer is that globalisation is making mass migration a reality; and only global development will make it a manageable reality.

Which is the issue that has rocketed up the agenda of most political leaders in a way barely foreseen even 3 years back? Energy policy. China and India need energy to grow. The damage to the environment of carbon emissions is now accepted. It doesn't much matter whether the issue is approached through energy security or climate change, the fact is we need a framework, internationally agreed, through which the developing nations can grow, the wealthy countries maintain their standard of living and the environment be protected from disaster. And this is not a long-term issue - though its consequences are long-term. It is here and now.

The point is that in respect of any of these challenges, certain things stand out. They affect us all. They can only be effectively tackled together. And they require a pre-emptive and not simply reactive response.

Here is where it becomes very difficult. In the old days - I mean a few decades back - countries could wait, assess over time, even opt out - at least until everything was clear. We could act when we knew. Now we have to act on the basis of precaution.

What is more such action will often require intervention, far beyond our own boundaries. The terrorism we are fighting in Britain, wasn't born in Britain, though on 7th July last year it was British born terrorists that committed murder. The roots are in schools and training camps and indoctrination thousands of miles away, as well as in the towns and cities of modern Britain. The migration we experience is from Eastern Europe, and the poverty-stricken states of Africa and the solution to it lies there at its source not in the nation feeling its consequence.

What this means is that we have to act, not react; we have to do so on the basis of prediction not certainty; and such action will often, usually indeed, be outside of our own territory. And what all that means is: that this can't be done easily unless it is done on an agreed basis of principle, of values that are shared and fair. Common action only works when founded on common values.

Therefore, to meet effectively the challenge that faces us, we must fashion an international community that both embodies, and acts in pursuit of global values: liberty, democracy, tolerance, justice. These are the values we believe in. These are the values universally accepted across all nations, faiths and races, though not by all elements within them. These are values that can inspire and unify. So, how, at this moment in time, in an international community that has been riven, do we achieve such unity around such values?

Let us go back to the immediate issue: Iraq. We can argue forever about the merits of removing Saddam. Our opponents will say: you made terrorism worse and point to what is happening there. I believe differently. I believe this global terrorism will exploit any situation to further its cause. But I don't believe that its cause is truly to be found in any decision we have taken. I believe it's cause is an ideology, a world-view, derived from religious fanaticism and that had we taken no decisions at all to enrage it, would still have found provocation in our very existence. They disagree with our way of life, our values and in particular in our tolerance. They hate us but probably they hate those Muslims who believe in tolerance, even more, as apostates betraying the true faith.

They have come to Iraq because they see it as the battleground. The battle they are fighting is nothing to do with the liberation of Iraq, but its subjugation to their extremism.

I don't want to reopen past arguments. I want to advocate a new concord to displace the old contention.

It is three years since Saddam fell. It has been three years of strife and bloodshed. But it has also seen something remarkable. Despite it all, despite terror, sectarian violence, kidnapping and the exhibition of every ugly aspect of human nature, a democratic political process has grown. Last week, a new Government was formed. This Monday I visited it in Baghdad, I sat and talked with the leaders, chosen by the people, Sunni, Shia, Kurds, non-aligned, and heard from them not the jarring messages of warring factions but one simple, clear and united discourse. They want Iraq to be democratic. They want its people to be free. They want to tolerate difference and celebrate diversity. They want the rule of law not violence to determine their fate.

They were quite different from the Interim Government of 2004 or the Iraqi Transitional Government after the elections of January 2005.

This is a child of democracy struggling to be born. They and we, the international community, are the midwives.

You may not agree with original decision.

You may believe mistakes have been made.

You may even think how can it be worth the sacrifice.

But surely we must all accept this is a genuine attempt to run the race of liberty.

These are not stooges. Or placemen.

They believe in their country.

They believe in its capacity to be democratic.

They are fighting a struggle against the odds but they are fighting it.

And in their struggle is a symbol of a wider struggle.

Listen to what the new Prime Minister says and the new Government's programme.

Tell me where their vision differs from ours except that ours is based in experience and theirs in hope.

I came back from Iraq not less daunted by the responsibility on our shoulders to help them succeed. But I did come back inspired by their determination that they do indeed succeed.

This should be a moment of reconciliation not only in Iraq but in the international community. The war split the world. The struggle of Iraqis for democracy should unite it.

There was a moving moment when I was talking to the new Prime Minister in his office in Baghdad that he told me, with a smile, used to be the dining room of one of Saddam's sons. We were on our own with the interpreter. He leant across to me and said: "if we can change Iraq we can change this region and the world".

The terrorism that afflicts them is the same that afflicts us. Its roots are out there in the Middle East, in the brutal combination of secular dictatorship and religious extremism. Yet in every country of the region there are people, probably the majority, who are desperate for change. In Kuwait, as I boarded the plane for Iraq, they told me how they were planning elections for the first time with women voting. Across the Gulf states, in the Lebanon, in the steps, however difficult, Egypt is taking, in signs of change in nations as different as Jordan or Algeria, there are possibilities for progress.

These are the true voices of Muslim and Arab people, or more true than the voices of hate, with their poisonous propaganda that seeks to divide.

They need our support. In Iraq, of course, people want to gain full control of their own destiny. The MNF should leave as soon as the Government wishes us. As the Prime Minister said we need an objective timetable. By that he means one that is conditions-based ie as Iraqi capability is built up. But don't be in any doubt. No-one, but no-one I spoke to, from whatever quarter, wanted us to leave precipitately. An arbitrary timetable ie without conditions being right, would be seen for what it would be: weakness.

Here is where we have to change radically our mindset. At present, when we are shown pictures of carnage in Iraq, much of our own opinion sees that as a failure, as a reason for leaving. Surely it is a reason for persevering and succeeding. What is the purpose of the terrorism in Iraq? It is to destroy the prospect of democratic progress. In doing so, they hope to deal us a mortal blow. They know victory for them in Iraq is defeat not just for Iraqi democracy but for democratic values everywhere.

So they kill our soldiers even though our forces - with incredible heroism and dedication - are and have been in Iraq for three years with full United Nations support and are there now with the free consent of Iraq's first ever fully democratic Government. They kill ordinary Iraqis for wanting to join the police or build the country or just for being of one religious persuasion not another. Theirs is a strategy drenched in the blood of the innocent.

Should their determination to do evil eclipse our desire to do good? By all means debate the tactics and strategy of how we succeed. But I ask: how can we possibly, in the face of such a struggle, so critical to our own values, not see it through and do so with renewed vigour and confidence? If Iraqis can show their faith in democracy by voting for it, shouldn't we show ours by supporting them in it?

By "we" I don't mean the countries of the MNF, I mean the entire international community.

Doing so would signal a dramatic step of reconciliation.

There are two "ifs".

"If" the international community could see the struggle for security in Iraq as part of the wider global struggle against terrorism. And "if", we would commit the same energy, engagement and raw political emotion to the rest of the agenda which preoccupies the world at large.

Throughout the past years, ever since I saw 9/11 change the world, I have believed that the greatest danger is that global politics divides into "hard" and "soft". The "hard" get after the terrorists. The "soft" campaign against poverty. The divide is dangerous because interdependence makes all these issues just that: interdependent.

The answer to terrorism is the universal application of global values. The answer to poverty is the same. Without progress - in democracy and in prosperity - security is at risk. Without security, progress falters.

That is why the struggle for global values has to be applied not selectively, but to a global agenda.

The agenda is there. It is largely agreed. But it needs passion as well as policy.

We must act on global poverty, most of all in Africa. We have a plan that last year's G8 agreed. Each aspect is important: aid, cancelling debt, education, tackling disease, especially HIV/Aids, governance, conflict resolution.

We must act on climate change. The G8 +5 process, whose next meeting is in Mexico in October, offers a way forward, building on Kyoto, which can involve America, China and India.

We must deliver an ambitious world trade round, for the poorest nations but also for ourselves.

In each of these areas, there are powerful reflections of nation's interests but also vital tests of commitment to global values. If we believe in justice, how can we let 30,000 children a day die preventably? If we believe in our responsibility to the generations that come after us, how can we be, knowingly, indifferent to the degradation of the planet we live on?

How can we have a global trading system based on unfair trade?

Indeed, even in respect of that part of the agenda that naturally preoccupies my country and yours, there is a breadth we must address.

Earlier I described the fledgling movement toward democracy across the Middle East. As I said, I believe success in Iraq has an importance far beyond the borders of Iraq.

But I would put it higher than this. I now think that we need a far more concentrated and concerted strategy across the whole region. The United States rightly began this with its Broader Middle East Initiative. However, the more I examine this issue, the more convinced I am, that to protect our future, we need to help them to theirs. For example, I don't believe we will be secure unless Iran changes. I emphasise I am not saying, we should impose change. I am simply saying the greater freedom and democracy which, I have no doubt, most Iranians want, is something we need. There is a choice being played out in the region: to be partners with the wider world; or to be defined in opposition to it. If Iran leads the latter camp, the results will be felt by us all. The most effective way of avoiding that is to encourage and support all nations and people in the region who share our belief that freedom is the best route to peace and prosperity. This cannot and should not be the responsibility of the United States alone. The EU, in particular, needs to be fully engaged. But country by country, in every way we can, with every means we can properly deploy, the international community should be the champions of those who want change there. And wherever those who strive for that freedom are in danger, we should be at their side.
They would be hugely empowered and encouraged if we were able to offer hope on Israel and Palestine. At so many levels, this is critical: for ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, of course, who suffer the depredations of the conflict. But far wider than that, this is a dispute which casts a shadow over all attempts at reconciliation. Under its cover, global terrorism recruits. Because of its darkness, moderate Muslim opinion is put on the defensive. And shut out is any enlightened sensible view of what we in the West really stand for and believe in.

The frustrating thing is that whatever people say, everyone knows the following: the state of Israel is here to stay; the Palestinian people aren't going to disappear; and the only possible solution is two states, side by side. In fact, when President Bush became the first US President openly to articulate this, everyone more or less accepted it. The problem we have had in Northern Ireland is that there has never been agreement on the basic nature of the final outcome, one part wanting Union with the UK, the other with the Republic of Ireland. Nonetheless we have achieved extraordinary progress, by relentless working at it through every stop and start. In the case of Israel and Palestine, we do now have agreement as to the basic nature of the settlement: two states. Yes, there are innumerable difficult aspects, not least Jerusalem and of course a negotiation about territory; but the constitutional outcome is essentially agreed.

There is only one way through. Clear acceptance by Hamas that the two-state solution is the only one; a renunciation of all violence; and then a move back into the Road Map, with a speeded up pathway to final status negotiations. It will require heavy engagement by the US and the Quartet. But there is not a better time than now, to break out of what is otherwise a continuing descent into despair.

The scale of this agenda is enormous. It means that today's leaders of nations must analyse, cope with, deal with, a vast array of international problems as well as the myriad of challenges thrown up by each of our systems of healthcare, pensions, welfare, law and order. Except that, these problems are no longer simply international. They intrude into domestic politics. There is globalisation in politics, too.

All of the issues raised today, require immense focus, commitment and drive to get things done. Increasingly, there is a hopeless mismatch between the global challenges we face and the global institutions to confront them. After the Second World War, people realised that there needed to be a new international institutional architecture. In this new era, in the early 21st century, we need to renew it.

I want to make some tentative suggestions for change.

First, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has done an extraordinary job in often near impossible circumstances. He has also proposed reforms of the UN that should certainly be done.

But a Security Council which has France as a permanent member but not Germany, Britain but not Japan, China but not India to say nothing of the absence of proper representation from Latin America or Africa, cannot be legitimate in the modern world. I used to think this problem was intractable. The competing interests are so strong. But I am now sure we need reform. If necessary let us agree some form of interim change that can be a bridge to a future settlement. But we need to get it done.

We should give the UNSG new powers: over the appointments in the Secretariat - it is absurd they have to be voted on, one by one, in the General Assembly; and over how the resources of the UN are spent. We should streamline radically the humanitarian and development operations so that the UN can act effectively as one agency in country: single UN offices, with one leader, one country plan and one budget. There is even a case for establishing one humanitarian agency that allows for better prediction of an impending crisis; for swifter action to remedy it; and sees the different aspects, from short-term relief to longer term development as linked not distinct.

We should also strengthen the UNSG's powers to propose action to the Security Council for the resolution of long-standing disputes; and encourage him in doing so.

Second, the World Bank and IMF. These institutions together play an important role in global stability and prosperity. There is a case, as has been argued before, for merger. But in any event, there is certainly a powerful case for reform.

The IMF, and the international monetary and financial committee chaired by Britain's Gordon Brown, is developing plans for change. To fulfil its role in ensuring the stability of the international monetary and financial system, the IMF must focus on surveillance, both of individual countries and the wider system, that is independent of political influence. It also must become more representative of emerging economic powers and give greater voice to developing countries. The World Bank must remain focussed on fighting world poverty.

Finally, reform, including to appointments and administration, is needed to make the Executive Board more effective.

Third, there is a strong argument for establishing a multilateral system for "safe enrichment" for nuclear energy.

The IAEA would oversee an international bank of uranium to ensure a reliable fuel supply for countries utilising nuclear power without the need for everyone to own their own fuel cycle.

Fourth, the G8 now regularly meets as the G8 +5. That should be the norm.

Finally, we need a UN Environment Organisation, commensurate with the importance the issue now has on the international agenda.

I do not, for a second, under-estimate the hazardous task of achieving these changes. But I am sure it is time to make them.

I want to take one example as a test case: Sudan. There are hundreds of thousands who have died. The dispute between different groups has every dimension of strife in it: ethnic, religious, territorial. If it gets even worse, the knock-on consequences will stretch across the middle belt of Africa and beyond. And we have watched it, with intermittent bursts of activity, for the past two years. The seeds of it were, of course, sown years before that.

This is not a condemnation of world leaders. On the contrary, most of us have devoted what time we can and are doing so now. But in reality, we can't do it all. What it needs is an empowered international actor; the capacity to intervene militarily; and a properly orchestrated humanitarian response. And we needed all of it, from the beginning.

Leaders should do more. But it's the system itself that is at fault, not because of indolence but because of time. Occasionally I look at our international institutions and think as I do about our welfare state: the structures of 1946 trying to meet the challenges of 2006.

What's the obstacle? It is that in creating more effective multilateral institutions, individual nations yield up some of their own independence. This is a hard thing to swallow. Let me be blunt. Powerful nations want more effective multilateral institutions - when they think those institutions will do their will. What they fear is effective multilateral institutions that do their own will.

But the danger of leaving things as they are, is ad hoc coalitions for action that stir massive controversy about legitimacy; or paralysis in the face of crisis.

No amount of institutional change will ever work unless the most powerful make it work. The EU doesn't move forward unless its leading countries agree. That is the reality of power; size; economic, military, political weight.

But if there is a common basis for working - agreed aims and purposes - then no matter how powerful, countries gain from being able to sub-contract problems that on their own they cannot solve. Their national self-interest becomes delivered through effective communal action.

Today, after all the turmoil and disagreement of the past few years, there is a real opportunity to bring us together. We all of us face the common security threat of global terrorism; we all of us depend on a healthy global financial system; all of us, at least in time, will feel the consequences of the poverty of millions living in a world of plenty; we all of us know that secure and clean energy is a common priority. All of us have an interest in stability and a fear of chaos. That's the impact of interdependence.

Above all, though in too many countries and in too many ways, global values are not followed, there is no dissent about their desirability. From the moment the Afgans came out and voted in their first ever election, the myth that democracy was a Western concept, was exploded. The Governments of the world do not all believe in freedom. But the people of the world do.

In my nine years as Prime Minister I have not become more cynical about idealism. I have simply become more persuaded that the distinction between a foreign policy driven by values and one driven by interests, is obviously wrong. Globalisation begets interdependence. Interdependence begets the necessity of a common value system to make it work. In other words, the idealism becomes the real politik. None of that will eliminate the setbacks, fallings short, inconsistencies and hypocrisies that come with practical decision-making in a harsh world. But it does mean that the best of the human spirit, that which, throughout the ages, has pushed the progress of humanity along, is also the best hope for the world's future. Our values are our guide.

To make it so, however, we have to be prepared to think sooner and act quicker in defence of those values - progressive pre-emption, if you will. There is an agenda for it, waiting to be gathered and capable of uniting a world once divided. There wouldn't be a better moment for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 5 of 27

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group