Press digest may 2010 202010

PRESS DIGEST MAY 2010 202010N ATO 17th May NATO has unveiled an operations blueprint for the next decade that expands the defense organization’s mandate to include counter-terrorism, the war in Afghanistan and missile defense. The draft document, released Monday, says NATO for the first time must be ready for counter-insurgencies outside the territory of its 28 member-states. In presenting the plan (in Brussels), NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance “may have to go beyond our borders to defend our borders.” The document also says the alliance should focus on improving relations with Russia, which has supported NATO by opening Russian airspace and ground supply routes from Europe to Afghanistan. The new document also focuses on the threat of cyber-attacks and the perceived threat posed by Iran’s fledgling ballistic missile capability. It says missile defense is most effective as a joint enterprise between the alliance and its partners, including Russia. It also says NATO should continue to maintain a secure and reliable nuclear arsenal, at what it calls the minimum level required by the prevailing security environment. Rasmussen is expected to submit the new strategic concepts document for approval at the alliance’s next summit, set for Lisbon in November. The previous strategic NATO plan focused mainly on the grouping’s peacekeeping role in places like Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. That plan, adopted in 1999, was endorsed nearly two years before the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States. The Afghan war, triggered by those attacks, is the largest mission ever attempted by the alliance, which was founded in 1949 to counter threats from the former Soviet Union./The Voice of America/ http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/NATO-Unveils-Draft-of-New-Mission-Blueprint-93938759.html21st May On 21 May, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Ambassadors of KFOR contributing nations visited KFOR. The visit was intended to send a clear message of the continuing commitment to Kosovo. As the Secretary General said, “we will stay as long as it takes to finish the job.” The delegation met with the Kosovar leadership and discussed the issues facing Kosovo, including the importance of cooperation between the communities and relations with Belgrade. They also held talks with the heads of other international organizations in Kosovo. The Secretary General and many Ambassadors also travelled to the Decani Monastery and held an extensive discussion with Bishop Teodosije. The Secretary General assured him that security for cultural and religious sites remained a priority and would be assured, even as KFOR moves to a smaller, more flexible structure. /NATO Official web site/ http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-ABEF3995-45E64A79/natolive/news_63775.htm?mode=news24th May The news from Afghanistan over the past few days has been disturbing: a Taliban terrorist attack in Kabul; a failed but dramatic attack on a NATO base; and reports of Taliban intimidation in Central Helmand and Kandahar, where Afghan and NATO forces are ramping up operations. None of this can or should be dismissed. But it is important to frame accurately what is happening in 2010. We know that there will continue to be Taliban and other insurgent terrorist attacks. It would be impossible to try and stop or prevent each and every one. The point is that in 2010, preventing each and every attack is not the point. Yes, there is an Afghan and NATO offensive in 2010 — but ours is a political offensive, and it is aimed right at the heart of the Taliban. The aim of this political offensive is, in essence, to change the political conditions in the key strategic areas of Afghanistan, so that the most extreme elements of the insurgency — those that will not under any circumstances give up terrorism and intimidation — are marginalized. Our aim is to ensure that they will not have the political support that they would need to pose a strategic challenge to the Afghan government — after which they will wither on the vine. There are a number of steps being taken to address that political challenge. They are all Afghan–led, but NATO is providing support across the board. First, President Karzai’s peace jirga, which will begin in few days, will pave the way for an internal Afghan peace process. The jirga will set out the conditions by which Afghans who no longer wish to support the Taliban can take on a peaceful, honorable life within the Afghan system. Second, the Kabul Conference, at the end of July, will agree on the foundations for a transition to Afghan lead, politically and militarily. Our aim is to begin that transition process this year. Third, there will be elections in September to give the Afghan Parliament a new mandate. The elections must be well run and they must be inclusive. There is already one very encouraging sign: 20 percent of those who have signed up to run in the elections are women. That is remarkable for Afghanistan, and an example for the region. The political and military operation in Central Helmand and Kandahar reflects this political focus. There will be no D-Day in Kandahar. Our effort there is a combined Afghan and international civil-military campaign to change the political situation, to gradually enhance security, to strengthen governance and to expand the government’s authority in key areas of insurgent influence. It is slower than a military assault. It is not visible in the same way as an attack on an air base or a suicide attack in downtown Kabul. And it will take time. But three months after the launch of our effort in Central Helmand, there are clear indications that this political offensive can work. In an area where there had been no governance except Taliban brutality, local leaders are now meeting freely and regularly to chart their own future. Twenty two new schools are teaching over 3,000 students, of which over 400 are girls — something impossible in that area just a few weeks earlier. Because of better security, more than 20 markets are now open for business. And because people feel safer, road traffic has quadrupled in the past 10 weeks. Of course, the security situation remains difficult. Taliban are hiding among, and attempting to intimidate, the local population. Their weapon of choice — the improvised explosive device (IED) — remains a lethal threat to local residents, government officials and our forces as well. Fortunately, the number of IED strikes in Central Helmand is declining, while the number of IED finds is rising, in part because local people are tipping soldiers off about where they are being planted.No one has any illusions that success in Afghanistan will be easy. We — the Afghan people and the soldiers in the NATO-led mission — have already paid a heavy price, and there are many difficult days ahead. But slowly and surely, the Afghan government will continue to get stronger and more legitimate in the eyes of its people. More and more Afghans will turn away from the Taliban. And Afghanistan will become a place where terrorism can find no home, no safe haven, no launching pad and no inspiration./The New York Times, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary general of NATO/ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/25iht-edrasmussen.html?_r=125th May On 25 May, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton, met with Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. They met both bilaterally and at a meeting of the North Atlantic Council and the EU Political and Security Committee. The main topic of discussion was Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the EU leads Operation Althea supported by NATO assets and capabilities. “All the countries around the table today shared the view that BiH’s future lies in Euro-Atlantic structures,” said the Secretary General in speaking to the press after their meetings. “But I must also say that there was real concern today about the level of ethnic tension and rhetoric in BiH.” He expressed his hope that BiH would soon transfer defence property from the Entity level to the national government, a condition for the Membership Action Plan (MAP) to come into force. NATO extended the MAP to BiH at its Foreign Ministers meeting in Tallinn in April. On EU-NATO cooperation, the Secretary General said High Representative Ashton and he share the view that the two organizations “need to talk more together, and do more together, from planning to procurement to operations.” Cooperation such as in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, in BiH and off the coast of Somalia “needs to be stepped up,” he said, “and we are working on how best to do that.”/NATO Official web site/ http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_63833.htm?mode=news^ NATO – Russia23d May Russia’s top drugs official gave a list of Afghan and Central Asian drug barons to U.S. anti-drugs tsar Gil Kerlikowske on Sunday, but criticised U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan for failing to stem opium output. Russia is the world’s biggest per capita user of heroin — all of it flowing from Afghanistan — and President Dmitry Medvedev has called drug abuse among the country’s youth a threat to national security. “I handed him (Kerlikowske) over a list of nine … people living in Afghanistan or elsewhere in Central Asia and involved in drug trafficking by supplying wholesale batches of narcotics,” Russia’s drug enforcement chief Viktor Ivanov told a news conference. Moscow is willing to prosecute the suspects. Ivanov said he met Kerlikowske, director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, at a Moscow airport during Kerlikowske’s stopover en route to Stockholm — their fourth meeting in less than a year. He said Russia had earlier supplied the names of around 25 other people involved in drug trade, as well as data on 175 drug laboratories operating in Afghanistan. “To destroy these drug laboratories is the most urgent task, because these are already well-established cartels, with a stable hierarchy and structure, funding sources and technological equipment to produce narcotics,” Ivanov said. Ivanov said Russia annually consumed 35 tonnes of heroin alone. If counted with other Afghan-made opiates, Russia’s per capita consumption of opium was the biggest in the world. However, while praising Moscow’s cooperation with Washington in some aspects of the anti-drug fight, Ivanov criticised the U.S.-led coalition of NATO states fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for failing to eradicate opium output there. He said Afghanistan accounted for 95 percent of the world’s heroin output. The country now produces each year twice as much heroin than the entire world produced 10 years ago, he said. In March, NATO rejected Russian calls for it to eradicate opium poppy fields in Afghanistan and urged Moscow to give more assistance against the insurgency. NATO spokesman James Appathurai said at the time that it was impossible to remove the only source of income for Afghan farmers without being able to provide them with an alternative. “Where is the logic here? To destroy a plant is much cheaper than … catching it later on the streets of Berlin, Rome, London, Moscow and so on,” Ivanov said. Opiates flow to Russia across Central Asia’s often porous borders. Up to 2.5 million Russians are drug addicts, and some 90 percent of them use heroin. Each year 30,000 Russian drug users die and 80,000 people try narcotics for the first time. Ivanov said Russia accounted for a fifth of the world’s market of opiates estimated at a total of $65 billion. He said Moscow would host an international forum on June 9-10 sponsored by the Kremlin where Russia would raise its concerns and call for the creation of an anti-drug coalition. (Editing by Alison Williams)/Reuters/ http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE64M0BGNATO – Ukraine5thMay In the margins of the Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence session, Ukraine and Turkey (as the facilitating NATO member) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on “Air Situation Data Exchange” (ASDE) on 5 May. The agreement aims to reduce airspace conflicts in two ways: by minimizing potential cross-border incidents and optimizing responses to renegade situations with civil airplanes. Besides being a crucial contribution to international aviation safety, the MOU also contributes to the standardization of procedures between NATO and Partner countries and enhances mutual confidence and understanding. Until now, three operational ASDE connections have been implemented between Germany and Austria, Hungary and Ukraine, and Turkey and Georgia. This new agreement was signed by Gen. Ivan Svyda, Ukrainian Chief of Defence, Gen. İlker Başbuğ, Turkish Chief of Defence, and Adm. James Stavridis, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Operations. “This is an opportunity for two important nations to exchange air situational data to ensure cooperation, ensure no difficulties, and ensure they are completely transparent in working together,” said Admiral James Stavridis./NATO Official web site/ http://www.nato.int/ims/news/2010/n100505e.html26th May On 26 May 2010, the eighth Senior Level meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Joint Working Group on Defence Reform (JWGDR) was held in Kyiv under the co-chairmanship of the First Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, Mr. Stepan Havrysh and the NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning, Ambassador Jiří Šedivý. The meeting addressed issues related to Ukraine-NATO cooperation in implementing defence and security sector reforms. The contribution of the JWGDR to the implementation of the Annual National Programme of Ukraine (ANP) was addressed. Among other issues the need to establish an effective inter-agency coordination system in implementing defence and security sector reforms in the context of the ANP was highlighted. Participants also discussed the key elements and the process of implementation of the Strategic Defence Review in Ukraine. The implementation of the JWGDR programmes and initiatives was reviewed and support was voiced for continued co-operation in this framework. Participants stressed the benefits of reform, both in terms of more efficient use of scarce resources and further improvement of the capabilities of the Ukrainian defence and security structures. The JWGDR was also briefed on the activities of the NATO Liaison Office in Ukraine in support of the work of the JWGDR, including priorities for its future work. Representatives of NATO nations also exchanged views with their Ukrainian partners on the preparations for the meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission in Defence Ministers’ Session in June 2010. A roundtable under the NATO-Ukraine Partnership Network for Civil Society Expertise Development took place in the margins of the Senior Level meeting. It gathered representatives of non-governmental organizations, Ukrainian and Allied officials, as well as defence and security experts. Their debate focused on priorities for defence and security sector reform in Ukraine and NATO-Ukraine defence cooperation in general. Deputy Minister of Defence of Ukraine, Mr. Grygoriy Pedchenko and Deputy Head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Mr. Volodymyr Porodko opened the roundtable together with NATO Assistant Secretary General Ambassador Šedivý./NATO Official web site/ http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_63924.htm?mode=news^ International SecuritySector Gaza12th May Russian President Dmitri Medvedev urged the all nations to actively work on helping bring peace to the Middle East. The Russian president made the appeal during a two-day visit to Turkey, where the leaders of both countries agreed to expand cooperation. President Medvedev called for greater involvement in the Middle East peace process during a press conference in Ankara with his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gul. Mr. Medvedev said the urgency of the peace process is heightened by the deteriorating situation in Gaza. “Gaza has worsened, it’s close to a humanitarian catastrophe,” he said. He added that the international community “must do everything to try, if it’s not possible to solve the existing problems, then at least make it possible for each state that feels its responsibility for the development of events in the region, to work on these problems more effectively.” Washington recently launched U.S.-mediated peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, but signs of trouble already have emerged. On Monday, Israel said it does not intend to end construction of Jewish housing in east Jerusalem. The Palestinians accused Israel of undermining trust and urged President Barack Obama to intervene. After meeting with the Russian leader, Turkish President Abdullah Gul said their two countries have similar foreign policy goals in the region – a hint that Moscow is becoming a more active mediator in the region, much like Turkey has in recent years. “We were pleased to note common vision on regional and international issues,” Mr. Gul said. “We have agreed to work together to solve regional problems through dialogue.” The Turkish president said he gives “high importance to cooperation with Russia at the United Nations Security Council,” and cited the example of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mr. Medvedev said Iran must adopt a constructive approach as the United States and its allies push for new U.N. sanctions against Tehran, in response to its nuclear program. Iran maintains that its atomic program is for peaceful purposes. Turkey and Russia agreed Wednesday on a $20 billion project in which Moscow will build and own a controlling stake in Turkey’s first nuclear power plant, as the two Cold War-era rivals try to build a strategic partnership/The Voice of America/ http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Russia-Urges-Nations-to-Take-Active-Role-in-the-Middle-East-93610219.htmlAfghanistan5th May Top Taliban leaders could be offered exile outside Afghanistan if they agree to stop fighting the government of Hamid Karzai, a long-expected peace plan by the Afghan government will propose later this month. The far-reaching proposals, seen by the Guardian, also call for “deradicalisation” classes for insurgents and thousands of new manual jobs created for foot soldiers who renounce violence. The long-delayed Afghan Peace and Reintegration Programme has emerged just as Karzai prepares to go to Washington for talks with Barack Obama, where the issue is likely to be top of the agenda. The plan will then be presented later in the month to a gathering of representatives from across Afghanistan called the National Consultative Peace Jirga. Once agreed upon, the government will be able to start spending around $160m (£100m) pledged by the international community to lure fighters away from the conflict. The document refers to such fighters as “angry brothers”, reflecting the belief that a substantial portion of insurgents are not motivated by strong ideological beliefs. Little is said in the report about the Taliban leaders managing the war against Karzai’s government. However, it does say insurgent leaders could face “potential exile in a third country”. Saudi Arabia has been used in the past for such purposes, and there has been widespread speculation that exile could be offered to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of the Hizb-e-Islami armed group, which in March sent a peace delegation to Kabul for talks with Karzai. Western powers are likely to be pleased by the level of detail about the new High Level Peace Council, which will take over from a notoriously chaotic predecessor body accused of reintegrating fighters who subsequently took up arms again. However, diplomats are worried that the government lacks the capacity to implement a programme that calls for complex activities in around 4,000 villages most affected by the insurgency. One diplomat said: “For the international community money is not a problem, they will pay whatever it takes. One gets a sense that there are people on the military side who will do most of the work and then give it some sort of an Afghan face.” The High Council and its executive body will be in charge of processing fighters who want to live peacefully. They will initially be put in “demobilisation centres” for a “cooling off” period of 90 days where their needs can be assessed and their personal security assured. If they agree to lay down their arms and cut ties with al-Qaida they will be entitled to an amnesty against prosecution for any crimes they may have committed. They will also be issued with a biometric “reintegration card”. They will then be offered a “menu” of options designed to keep them peacefully occupied, including vocational training in such trades as carpet-weaving and tailoring. There will also be the option to go through “deradicalisation” training, of the sort pioneered by Saudi Arabia. However, the report acknowledges the complexity of such programmes, the lack of “adequate experience” in Afghanistan and the likely need to send “highly radicalised” people to other countries for treatment. Major new institutions will also be set up to manage enormous job-creation schemes. An Engineering and Construction Corps will focus on labour-intensive work, such as the construction of Afghanistan’s national highway system and other large-scale infrastructure projects. It also envisages teams of ex-Taliban fighters being rapidly deployed to respond to emergencies such as floods and landslides. By far the most controversial option is the option for former insurgents to join the Afghan army or police force. Western embassies and Nato have for months been impatient for the government to produce a reintegration strategy, which is an important part of the counterinsurgency plan being pursued by Stanley McChrystal, the US commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan./The Guardian/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/05/afghanistan-taliban-leaders-offered-exile-peace-plan7th MayIntent on filling a vacuum after the US withdraws from Afghanistan, India and Pakistan are engaged in what analysts warn is a dangerously escalating “proxy war”. That’s bad news for Britain and Nato – because, paradoxically, the two old foes’ intensifying machinations could delay or fatally undermine the western pull-out on which all current calculations are based. Barack Obama’s announcement last autumn that he would begin a military draw-down in Afghanistan in mid-2011 caused dismay in Delhi. It exacerbated existing worries that Obama is not interested in India or its concerns and does not afford it sufficient strategic importance. MK Bhadrakumar, a former ambassador, summed up Indian thinking in the Asia Times. He said policymakers were “deeply disturbed” the US wanted to end the war in Afghanistan with the Taliban’s reintegration and reconciliation. “They want the fighting to go on and on until the Taliban are bled white and vanquished from the face of the earth”. India’s objections to peace talks arise directly from its conviction that key Afghan Taliban groups are the creatures of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency. In its view, such connections mirror Pakistani security establishment links to the Punjab-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, blamed for the 2008 Mumbai atrocities and for a long history of attacks in Indian Kashmir. Speaking after a Pakistani man was found guilty this week over the Mumbai attack, India’s home minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, said he knew where ultimate responsibility lay: “The judgment itself is a message to Pakistan that they should not export terrorism to India.” India is also pushing back against perceived Pakistani efforts to weaken Delhi’s influence in Afghanistan, where it has invested $1.3bn in aid projects since 2001. Bomb attacks on its embassy and Kabul hotels housing Indian nationals are traced back to Pakistan. “India fears that Pakistan is preparing the ground for pro-Pakistan elements from the Taliban to negotiate with Kabul in an attempt to force India out of Afghanistan after American forces start withdrawal,” said Pakistani author Ahmed Rashid. Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, is due to hold peace talks with Taliban elements later this month, and India is busy making its views known. In talks with prime minister Manmohan Singh in Delhi last week, Karzai reportedly gave assurances that the reintegration process would be tackled with “prudence and caution” and would be “inclusive and transparent”. India’s worries that Pakistan, by inserting itself in the centre of the peace process, will either fix it or wreck it, depending on its self-interest at the time, may be shared in Washington. But the US is now determined to keep both Pakistan’s military and Karzai sweet, after the criminations of the last 12 months over battlefield setbacks. With an offensive looming in Kandahar, the immediate US focus is on beating back the Taliban in the south, keeping Pakistan’s tribal belt under pressure, strengthening the Afghan government’s future negotiating position, and ensuring that “Afghanisation” will work sufficiently well to allow the troops to leave./The Guardian/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/06/india-pakistan-afghanistan-exit^ Iranian Nuclear Program18th MayBrazil and Turkey brokered a deal with Iran that would see it trading enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. Observers in Germany see a diplomatic coup for the rising powers, but warn that it could just be another ploy on the part of Iran. Brazilian President Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday announced a surprise agreement with Iran that would see Tehran shipping around half of its nuclear fuel to Turkey. In exchange for 1,200 kilograms (2,650 pounds) of low-enriched uranium it would send to Turkey, Tehran would be entitled to get about 120 kilograms (265 pounds) of unranium enriched to 20 percent from France and Russia — fuel it needs to operate a research reactor that produces isotopes for cancer patients. That level of enrichment is also far greater than the 3.5 percent enrichment possible in Iran’s own production facilities. The move is seen as a bold one for Brazil and Turkey, two aspiring powers that have gained significant international stature in recent years. The deal also comes at an inopportune time for US President Barack Obama. The United States wants to push for more sanctions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council, and the deal comes just weeks before Washington is expected to move on the issue. Despite the deal brokered on uranium swaps, though, Iran insists that it will continue with its efforts to develop its own uranium enriched to 20 percent. The country has long claimed it needs enriched uranium for its civilian nuclear program, but most Western countries believe the regime in Tehran is trying to collect the material it needs to build a nuclear bomb. “Iran said today that it would continue its 20 percent enrichment, which is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s deputy spokesman, Christoph Steegmans, noted on Monday that Iran must adhere to agreements made with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He said the decisive point would be whether Iran abandoned its own efforts to enrich uranium. European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said Iran has done nothing to eliminate the suspicion that it is secretly working to develop a nuclear weapon. A French Foreign Ministry spokesperson also argued the deal would do nothing to address the primary problems in Iran: the uranium enrichment program at Natanz and the heavy-water reactor being built at Arak. The Obama administration wants to push through a fourth package of sanctions against Iran in the Security Council. Washington has Europe’s backing, but the sanctions are notably opposed by Turkey, Brazil, Russia, China and other members of the Security Council. A deal similar to Monday’s brokered in October by the United States, Russia and France would have provided the nuclear fuel Tehran needs to treat its cancer patients while at the same time depriving it of the amount of enriched uranium it would need to produce a bomb./Der Spiegel/ http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,695368,00.html22nd May Israel, which initially tolerated President Obama’s effort to thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions through sanctions, has grown increasingly impatient in recent weeks with the approach and concerned that whatever is agreed to now at the U.N. Security Council will only allow Iran more time to advance its program. A fourth round of potential sanctions unveiled by the Obama administration on Tuesday did little to allay Israel’s fears that the world doesn’t seem able to stop Iran from continuing to enrich uranium or develop what Israel believes is a covert nuclear weapons program. Israeli officials and commentators say that nothing short of sanctions on Iran’s energy sector will work. And with no sign of that in the offing, the prospect of Israeli military action — which Israeli officials have always said remains an option if sanctions fail — looms larger. “We are frustrated with the fact that Iran does not feel the pressure of the world, does not care about the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N., because we feel that time is running out,” Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said in an interview. /The Washington post/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052102658.html27th May Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is rejecting Iranian criticism of his country’s support for new sanctions against Tehran’s nuclear program. Asked at a Moscow news conference about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s criticism of Russia the previous day, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said his country takes those statements as emotional. Lavrov said if the translation of the criticism is correct, Mr. Ahmadinejad advises Russia to “do this and do that” regarding the Iranian nuclear program. The foreign minister also rejected the Iranian president’s suggestion Russia is on America’s leash. Lavrov says all decisions, including those related to Iran’s nuclear program, are based on Russia’s national interest and its responsibility as a large country that is engaged in numerous international efforts to regulate various problems, which include the Iranian program. Speaking in Iran Wednesday, President Ahmadinejad condemned Russia’s support for new international sanctions backed by the United States that would target Iranian financial institution and countries, which provide Iran with nuclear technology. Mr. Ahmadinejad says Iran does not like to see its neighbor lend support at a sensitive time to those who have shown animosity to his country for 30 years. He says this is not acceptable to the Iranian nation and urges Russia to take corrective action. Sergei Lavrov said Russia welcomes a recent agreement between Iran, Brazil and Turkey to send part of Tehran’s enriched uranium stockpile abroad for processing. He said much of that agreement recalls the International Atomic Energy Agency’s proposal to Iran last October. He notes, however, there is no guarantee Iran will comply with the latest proposal. Lavrov says much depends on how the Iranian side will approach its responsibilities. If it strictly complies, then Russia will actively support realization of schemes proposed by Brazil and Turkey. The United States opposes the deal because it does not completely freeze Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, which could allow the country to develop a nuclear bomb. Russian Academy of Sciences Oriental and Mid-East Studies Director Vitaliy Naumkin says Russian support for sanctions should not be seen as loss of patience with Iran. Naumkin says Russia continues to work with Tehran, though it is a difficult partner and one that has problems with the international community. But Russia, he says, is trying to somehow serve as an intermediary between the West and Tehran./The Voice of America/ http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Russia-Rejects-Iranian-Criticism-of-Moscow-as-Emotional-95016749.html25th May It took months of hard negotiating, but finally the administration got Russia to agree to a resolution tightening sanctions on Iran. The United States had to drop tougher measures it wanted to impose, of course, to win approval. Nevertheless, senior Russian officials were making the kinds of strong statements about Iran’s nuclear program that they had long refused to make. Iran “must cease enrichment,” declared Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations. One senior European official told the New York Times, “We consider this a very important decision by the Russians.” Yes, it was quite a breakthrough — by the administration of George W. Bush. In fact, this 2007 triumph came after another, similar breakthrough in 2006, when months of negotiations with Moscow had produced the first watered-down resolution. And both were followed in 2008 by yet another breakthrough, when the Bush administration got Moscow to agree to a third resolution, another marginal tightening of sanctions, after more negotiations and more diluting. Given that history, few accomplishments have been more oversold than the Obama administration’s “success” in getting Russia to agree, for the fourth time in five years, to another vacuous U.N. Security Council resolution. It is being trumpeted as a triumph of the administration’s “reset” of the U.S.-Russian relationship, the main point of which was to get the Russians on board regarding Iran. All we’ve heard in recent months is how the Russians finally want to work with us on Iran and genuinely see the Iranian bomb as a threat — all because Obama has repaired relations with Russia that were allegedly destroyed by Bush. /The Washington Post/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052403073.html^ Nuclear Disarmament 5th May Representatives from nuclear powers China and Russia are among those scheduled to address the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference at the United Nations . The United States has been engaged in negotiations with both countries on a plan to possibly impose another round of U.N. sanctions on Iran to pressure the country to stop enriching uranium. Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has canceled a news conference he had planned to hold at the U.N. on Tuesday, a day after he told conference delegates that U.S. production of nuclear weapons had encouraged other nations to produce weapons. He instead plans to hold an invitation-only meeting with selected media at his New York hotel. Earlier Tuesday, Iran called for independent verification of a U.S. disclosure concerning the size of its nuclear arsenal. Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast also questioned if the U.S. is “justified” in having stockpiled more than 5,000 nuclear warheads. His comments were in response to the Pentagon’s announcement Monday that the U.S. has 5,133 nuclear warheads, which represents an 86-percent decline since the late 1960’s. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a strong condemnation of Iran, saying the country will do whatever it can to divert attention away from its own record to evade accountability, and that Iran’s nuclear ambitions put the world at risk. Speaking at the conference, Clinton called for introducing automatic penalties for noncompliance with the treaty, rather than relying on diplomacy to impose penalties. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is designed to check the spread of atomic weapons worldwide. However, the United States accuses Iran of secretly working to produce a nuclear weapon. The U.S. and its allies are seeking a fourth set of U.N. sanctions to pressure Iran to stop enriching uranium. Iran says its enrichment program is for peaceful purposes. The 189 signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gather every five years to discuss compliance and strengthening the treaty, which aims to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. The conference in New York ends May 28./The Voice of America/ http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/China-Russia-Address-Nuclear-Non-Proliferation-Conference-92785064.html28th May The 189 states parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty overcame differences and agreed to a final outcome document Friday, capping off a month-long review conference. The document lays out steps toward the long-term goal of nuclear disarmament, but does not set any deadlines or benchmarks for that goal. The 28-page final document lays out action plans for all three of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT) three pillars – non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It calls on the five original nuclear weapons states – the U.S., France, Britain, China and Russia – to speed up “concrete progress” on their disarmament and move towards an overall reduction of their nuclear arsenals. They are also urged to lessen the role and importance of nuclear weapons in their military and security policies, and further enhance transparency and increase mutual confidence. The document also calls for a conference to be held in 2012 on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons – an idea endorsed at the 1995 review conference, but never implemented. Egyptian Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz, who spoke on behalf of the 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement, welcomed that move. “We have moved forward and achieved progress in adopting an action plan to push towards the implementation of this resolution, to establish a zone free from nuclear weapons as well as other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East,” he said. Delegates negotiated the document until the final moments Friday. There were concerns that Iran could be a spoiler to any consensus. The Islamic Republic is the only NPT signatory to be found by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be in non-compliance with its nuclear safeguard obligations. It is currently facing a possible fourth round of U.N. sanctions for its suspect nuclear program. But ultimately, Iran did not stand in the way of the document’s adoption, although it did list several things it felt were flawed about it. North Korea, which announced its withdrawal from the treaty in 2003, was singled out in the final document and urged to return to the Treaty and adhere to its IAEA safeguards agreement. Pyongyang came in for a rebuke from the U.S. delegate, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Ellen Tauscher. “North Korea should understand that it will never achieve security or acceptance by the international community without the complete and verified abandonment of its nuclear weapons programs. North Korea’s behavior, particularly its failure to implement its commitments under the Six Party Talks, to include its return to the NPT and IAEA safeguards at an early date, calls into question the utility of negotiations with North Korea,” she said. The only three nuclear states not to be signatories to the NPT – India, Pakistan and Israel – were urged in the final document to join the treaty and place their nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Israel, has never publicly acknowledged it has nuclear weapons, but is widely believed to – a point of contention among its Middle Eastern neighbors. Most states said that while the action plans did not meet all their expectations, they were generally satisfied with the final outcome. At the 2005 review conference – these meetings are held every five years – the conference ended in failure when parties could not agree on a final document. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the outcome in a statement, saying the strong spirit of compromise and cooperation had delivered a significant agreement to build a safer and more secure world./The Voice of America/ http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/NPT-Conference-Ends-With-Consensus-on-Final-Document-95158409.htmlEU foreign policy14th May Iran agreed to meet with the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, to discuss Tehran’s nuclear programme. Ashton is a relatively untested EU official who will, if the talks take place, face experienced Iranian nuclear negotiators. Yet the record shows that in recent months the EU’s top diplomat has emerged as a sharp critic of Iran’s nuclear policy. The talks hence offer an opportunity for Lady Ashton to silence the political foes who claim she does not have the bona fides to represent the EU to the world. Granted, Ashton began her tenure as head of EU foreign policy offering only vague statements on the Iranian nuclear issue. During a European parliamentary hearing in January she said that she was “in close contact with all the relevant actors, including the [P-5+1]” (that is, UN security council members France, Britain, the United States, China, Russia, plus Germany) and that she remained committed to the “twin-track” approach regarding Iran. Visiting US secretary of state Hilary Clinton in Washington later that month, Ashton announced that the EU supported US and P-5+1 efforts, and that she stood ready to “consider what else” needed to be done. Ashton did not specify what path she intended to follow if the status quo over Iran’s nuclear issue remained. Since leaving the US, however, she has adopted a different tone. At the Munich security conference, which was attended by Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Ashton asked that Tehran be more transparent and responsive to the International Atomic Energy Agency and she charged that Iran had not adequately responded to the engagement efforts by Barack Obama. She also criticised Iran for continuing clandestine work on its nuclear program outside its safeguard obligations during Javier Solana’s time at the helm of EU foreign policy. Ashton can hardly be accused of timidity, given the foreign minister’s presence at the conference. The following day, 7 February, Ashton went on the attack again as Iran announced that the country would enrich uranium up to 20%. Ashton bluntly stated that the Iranian declaration “add[s] to the deficit of confidence in the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. This has already been aggravated by Iran’s unwillingness to engage in meaningful talks.” Ashton then took her condemnation of Iran’s nuclear activities on the road, broadcasting her criticisms in the Middle East. In Cairo, during remarks to the Arab League, Ashton said that the EU “remain[s] deeply concerned about … Iranian unwillingness to engage in serious talks on the nuclear question,” noting that a nuclear Iran may set off a ripple effect in the region. “Our position is based on the firm belief that an Iran with nuclear weapons risks triggering a proliferation cascade throughout the Middle East. This is the last thing that this region needs. A nuclear weapons-free Middle East remains a European goal.”/The Guardian/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/14/iran-nuclear-policy-eu-lady-ashton