Monday 30 September 2013
Sunday 29 September 2013
France called off attack on Syria at last minute
French fighter jets were ready to take-off for an attack in Syria on August 31, but were called off only hours away from launch time, a French weekly magazine has revealed on Sunday.
France's president, Francois Hollande called off the attack after a call with U.S. President Barack Obama, who decided that same day he would seek approval from Congress before carrying out a military response over chemical weapons use in Syria.
According to the report in Nouvel Observateur, Rafale-class aircraft were prepared to launch as officials laid the groundwork for the attack with the French public. "Everything made us think that D-Day had arrived,” a French official is quoted as saying. “This incredible misunderstanding lasted until the end of the afternoon."
France called off attack on Syria at last minute - Middle East Israel News | Haaretz
France's president, Francois Hollande called off the attack after a call with U.S. President Barack Obama, who decided that same day he would seek approval from Congress before carrying out a military response over chemical weapons use in Syria.
According to the report in Nouvel Observateur, Rafale-class aircraft were prepared to launch as officials laid the groundwork for the attack with the French public. "Everything made us think that D-Day had arrived,” a French official is quoted as saying. “This incredible misunderstanding lasted until the end of the afternoon."
France called off attack on Syria at last minute - Middle East Israel News | Haaretz
Four killed in suicide bomb attack in Timbuktu
At least four
people were killed and several wounded in a suicide car-bomb attack in
Timbuktu on Saturday, the first since Mali's presidential election aimed
at ending months of chaos following a Tuareg uprising that led to a
military coup.
The attack also comes a few days after Tuareg separatists pulled out of a ceasefire agreement and peace process with the new Malian government.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/28/us-mali-attack-idUSBRE98R0CN20130928
The attack also comes a few days after Tuareg separatists pulled out of a ceasefire agreement and peace process with the new Malian government.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/28/us-mali-attack-idUSBRE98R0CN20130928
Kenya says 'at war' with al Shabaab, faces security questions
Three Kenyan newspapers reported on Saturday that
a year ago the country's National Intelligence Service (NIS) had warned
of the presence of suspected al Shabaab militants in Nairobi and that
they were planning to carry out "suicide attacks" on the Westgate mall
and on a church in the city.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-kenya-attack-idUSBRE98R08A20130929
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-kenya-attack-idUSBRE98R08A20130929
U.S. concerned about Turkey's choice of Chinese missile system
The United States said on Saturday it had expressed serious concerns to Turkey over its decision to co-produce a long-range air and missile defense system with a Chinese firm under U.S. sanctions.
Turkey, a member of the NATO military alliance, announced this week that it had chosen the FD-2000 missile defense system from China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corp, or CPMIEC, over rival systems from Russian, U.S. and European firms.
CPMIEC is under U.S. sanctions for violations of the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-turkey-china-defence-usa-idUSBRE98S01220130929
Turkey, a member of the NATO military alliance, announced this week that it had chosen the FD-2000 missile defense system from China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corp, or CPMIEC, over rival systems from Russian, U.S. and European firms.
CPMIEC is under U.S. sanctions for violations of the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-turkey-china-defence-usa-idUSBRE98S01220130929
Gunmen kill students as they sleep in Nigerian college
uspected Islamist
militants stormed a college in northeastern Nigeria and shot dead around
40 male students, some of them while they slept early on Sunday,
witnesses said.
Boko Haram, which wants to establish an Islamic state in northern Nigeria, has intensified attacks on civilians in recent weeks in revenge for a military offensive against its insurgency.
Several schools, seen as the focus of Western-style education and culture, have been targeted.
Boko Haram and spin-off Islamist groups like the al Qaeda-linked Ansaru have become the biggest security threat in Africa's second largest economy and top oil exporter.
Western governments are increasingly worried about the threat posed by Islamist groups across Africa, from Mali and Algeria in the Sahara, to Kenya in the east, where Somalia's al-Shabaab fighters killed at least 67 people in an attack on a Nairobi shopping mall a week ago.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-nigeria-violence-idUSBRE98S06120130929
Boko Haram, which wants to establish an Islamic state in northern Nigeria, has intensified attacks on civilians in recent weeks in revenge for a military offensive against its insurgency.
Several schools, seen as the focus of Western-style education and culture, have been targeted.
Boko Haram and spin-off Islamist groups like the al Qaeda-linked Ansaru have become the biggest security threat in Africa's second largest economy and top oil exporter.
Western governments are increasingly worried about the threat posed by Islamist groups across Africa, from Mali and Algeria in the Sahara, to Kenya in the east, where Somalia's al-Shabaab fighters killed at least 67 people in an attack on a Nairobi shopping mall a week ago.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-nigeria-violence-idUSBRE98S06120130929
Deadly suicide bombings hit Iraq - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
At least 26 killed in blast in Shia mosque south of Baghdad, just hours after suicide car bombing kills 11 in Erbil.
Deadly suicide bombings hit Iraq - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Deadly suicide bombings hit Iraq - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Market bombing kill 33 in Pakistan's Peshawar
Twin blasts in
the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar killed 33 people and wounded
70 on Sunday, a week after bombings at a church there killed scores,
police and hospital authorities said.
Islamist violence has been on the rise in Pakistan in recent months, undermining Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's efforts to tame the insurgency by launching peace talks with the Taliban.
The blasts outside a police station hit an area known as Quiswakhani, or the storytellers' bazaar, crowded with shoppers. Police said they thought at least one of the explosions in the city close to the Afghan border had been caused by a car bomb.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Taliban spokesman Shahidullah Shahid condemned the attack.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-pakistan-bomb-blast-idUSBRE98S02420130929
Islamist violence has been on the rise in Pakistan in recent months, undermining Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's efforts to tame the insurgency by launching peace talks with the Taliban.
The blasts outside a police station hit an area known as Quiswakhani, or the storytellers' bazaar, crowded with shoppers. Police said they thought at least one of the explosions in the city close to the Afghan border had been caused by a car bomb.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Taliban spokesman Shahidullah Shahid condemned the attack.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-pakistan-bomb-blast-idUSBRE98S02420130929
Friday 27 September 2013
Obama and Rouhani to work on nuclear solution
Obama and Rouhani to work on nuclear solution - Americas - Al Jazeera English
US president confirms phone call with Iranian counterpart in first such contact between countries' leaders since 1979.
UN unanimously adopts Syria arms resolution
The vote late on Friday was the first resolution passed on the Syrian conflict since it began in March 2011, after Russia and China had previously vetoed three Western-backed resolutions pressuring President Bashar Assad's regime to end the violence.
UN unanimously adopts Syria arms resolution - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Resolution 2118 (2013)
La résolution 2118 prévoit la possibilité pour le Conseil de sécurité de prononcerdes sanctions si Damas ne respecte pas ses engagements. Cependant, il ne s'agit pas de sanctions automatiques. En cas de violation du plan de désarmement, il faudrait donc une deuxième résolution "sous chapitre VII de la charte de l'ONU", qui autorise le recours à la force contre un Etat qui viole ses obligations internationales. Ce qui laisse à Moscou, allié de Damas, une possibilité de blocage.
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/09/27/syrie-les-inspecteurs-achevent-leur-mission-l-onu-peaufine-sa-resolution_3486079_3218.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/09/27/syrie-les-inspecteurs-achevent-leur-mission-l-onu-peaufine-sa-resolution_3486079_3218.html
Wednesday 25 September 2013
Monday 23 September 2013
Nairobi attack: Another stage in globalization of terror?
Al-Shabaab, an Al-Qaida-linked Somali group, targets Kenya and other African countries that ousted it from power in Mogadishu.
The 2002 terror attack in Mombasa that killed three Israelis and 13 Kenyans was carried out before Al-Shabaab came into being, but the planner, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, became in 2009 one of the main commanders of Al-Shabaab until his death two years later. Israel may not for now be a main target of the organization, which is focused on fighting the forces trying to evict it from Somalia, but it is certainly on the list.
Nairobi attack: Another stage in globalization of terror - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz
The 2002 terror attack in Mombasa that killed three Israelis and 13 Kenyans was carried out before Al-Shabaab came into being, but the planner, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, became in 2009 one of the main commanders of Al-Shabaab until his death two years later. Israel may not for now be a main target of the organization, which is focused on fighting the forces trying to evict it from Somalia, but it is certainly on the list.
Nairobi attack: Another stage in globalization of terror - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz
Sudanese president confirms US travel plan
Bashir said he was not worried that US authorities would arrest him, as demanded by human rights groups, because Washington is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). He is slated to speak on Thursday afternoon.
Sudanese president confirms US travel plan - Africa - Al Jazeera English
Twin blasts kill mourners at Baghdad funeral - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
The attack comes a day after a suicide bomber struck a Sunni funeral in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 16 people. A triple bombing targeting Shia Muslim mourners in the Sadr City district killed at least 85 people on Saturday.
Twin blasts kill mourners at Baghdad funeral - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Twin blasts kill mourners at Baghdad funeral - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
'This is not Kenya's war' - Features - Al Jazeera English
Kenyan troops in Somalia are part of a 17,700-strong African Union force that seeks to quash al-Shabaab, bolster a fledgling government in Mogadishu and restore stability to a country that has seen little but war and chaos for more than two decades.
'This is not Kenya's war' - Features - Al Jazeera English
'This is not Kenya's war' - Features - Al Jazeera English
Q&A: Al-Shabab defends Nairobi attack
AJ: This attack is happening at Westgate Mall, which, when the attack started, was full of shoppers. Why is al-Shabab attacking a place that is full of civilians?
SA: The place we attacked is Westgate shopping mall. It is a place where tourists from across the world come to shop, where diplomats gather. It is a place where Kenya's decision-makers go to relax and enjoy themselves. Westgate is a place where there are Jewish and American shops. So we have to attack them.
On civilian deaths, Kenya should first be asked why they bombed innocent Somali civilians in refugee camps, why they bombed innocent people in Gedo and Jubba regions. They should be asked that first before us.
Q&A: Al-Shabab defends Nairobi attack - Features - Al Jazeera English
SA: The place we attacked is Westgate shopping mall. It is a place where tourists from across the world come to shop, where diplomats gather. It is a place where Kenya's decision-makers go to relax and enjoy themselves. Westgate is a place where there are Jewish and American shops. So we have to attack them.
On civilian deaths, Kenya should first be asked why they bombed innocent Somali civilians in refugee camps, why they bombed innocent people in Gedo and Jubba regions. They should be asked that first before us.
Q&A: Al-Shabab defends Nairobi attack - Features - Al Jazeera English
Sunday 22 September 2013
Nairobi attack may trigger tighter security at malls worldwide
The
deadly attack on a high-end Nairobi shopping mall on Saturday put the
safety of malls around the world into the spotlight and could trigger
moves to improve security and make it more visible.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/22/us-kenya-attack-mallsecurity-analysis-idUSBRE98L0LP20130922
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/22/us-kenya-attack-mallsecurity-analysis-idUSBRE98L0LP20130922
Syria’s war An unlikely band of brothers
Russian officials viewed the UN’s findings differently. At first they described them as inconclusive. But following talks with Syria, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, condemned the report as “politicised, preconceived and one-sided”. Small wonder that Mr Assad, after presenting Mr Ryabkov with purported new evidence
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21586600-deal-struck-america-and-its-allies-russia-envisages-removal
Thursday 19 September 2013
Tuesday 17 September 2013
Sunday 15 September 2013
Dutch apologise 66 years after atrocities
Under the command of notorious captain Raymond Westerling thousands of people were executed in South Sulawesi between December 1946 and March 1947. Indonesia has claimed as much as 40,000 were killed. Nobody knows the real figure.
Dutch apologise 66 years after atrocities - Al Jazeera Blogs
Saturday 14 September 2013
Syria given week to declare chemical weapons
The agreement was criticised by General Salim Idris of the Free Syrian Army, the main armed opposition group.
"We cannot accept any part of this initiative," he said. "The FSA will work towards toppling Assad and does not care about US-Russia deals. I and my brothers in arms will continue to fight until the regime falls."
He added that the FSA was "frustrated, and feels betrayed by the international community. It has no faith the UN will ever support it".
Syria given week to declare chemical weapons - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Obama welcomes Syria chemical weapons deal
Obama said the accord was made possible "in part" by what he called his credible threat to use force against Syria as punishment for its alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians last month that according to American estimates killed about 1,400 people.
Obama welcomes Syria chemical weapons deal - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Obama welcomes Syria chemical weapons deal
Obama said the accord was made possible "in part" by what he called his credible threat to use force against Syria as punishment for its alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians last month that according to American estimates killed about 1,400 people.
Obama welcomes Syria chemical weapons deal - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Friday 13 September 2013
A Taboo Worth Protecting
Among the many arguments marshaled in
opposition to U.S. intervention in Syria, a prominent one is that the
chemical weapons taboo is not worth saving. Writing in Foreign Affairs
last April, the political scientist John Mueller suggested that the
world should “erase the red line,” since chemical weapons generally
produce far fewer fatalities than conventional weapons. Echoing this
reasoning, the Harvard scholar Stephen Walt asked in The New York Times
last week, “Does it really matter whether Assad is killing his
opponents using 500-pound bombs, mortar shells, cluster munitions,
machine guns, icepicks or sarin gas? Dead is dead, no matter how it is
done.” These arguments are troubling. Like the taboo against nuclear and
biological weapons, the chemical weapons taboo is well worth protecting
-- and inaction in Syria risks eroding it.
It is true that over the past century, conventional weapons have killed far more people than chemical weapons. But if we are keeping score, conventional weapons have also killed far more people than nuclear weapons. Nobody doubts that conventional weapons can and do kill in large numbers -- Hutu extremists in Rwanda demonstrated the lethality of even simple machetes and hoes. But nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are labeled weapons of mass destruction because they have a higher potential to kill or wound very large numbers of people compared with other weapons. If used to full capacity and under the right environmental conditions, chemical weapons are more lethal than virtually all kinds of conventional weapons. In the August 21 attack near Damascus, sarin gas killed nearly 1,400 people in 90 minutes and injured countless others -- the single most devastating assault in the last two and a half years of war.
But the lethality of chemical weapons is not the main reason to distinguish them from conventional ones. They belong in the same category as biological and nuclear weapons because they are primarily weapons of indiscriminate destruction.
Protecting noncombatants from intentional harm is the basis for much of international humanitarian law and nearly all traditions of just war. And nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons make discrimination between civilians and fighters virtually impossible. This is especially true in modern warfare, which is rarely conducted on clearly defined battlefields.
Civilians are likely to be the main victims of chemical attacks. The reason is simple: Chemical weapons have limited military value. They did not determine the outcome of World War I, and they played an indecisive role in the Iran-Iraq War. Troops that are targeted by chemical warfare have the ability to adapt quickly and immunize themselves with protective gear. Syrian rebels have already been seen carrying gas masks. Civilians generally do not have such protection, and so the main reason a country would use chemical weapons is to terrorize civilian populations and thereby divert resources from an insurgency and sap the morale of opposition fighters.
Moreover, chemical weapons are most effective when used in
cities, where buildings trap gases and prevent wind and rain from
quickly dissipating the poisons. Chemical agents may be deployed through
delivery systems that produce no high explosive impact. As a result,
civilians may not immediately sense the danger of a chemical attack as
they might in a conventional bombardment. Standard civil defense
protocols for conventional bombardments encourage civilians to seek
shelter in basements. This response is particularly devastating in a
chemical attack because many agents are heavier than air. People rushing
into basements for refuge would in fact be congregating in areas where
the gases would do the greatest harm.
Many chemical weapons, like nuclear and biological weapons, are also
weapons of prolonged destruction. They have the potential to kill and
maim not only large numbers of their immediate victims but others
removed by space and time from the initial attack. The persistency of
weaponized chemical agents -- the length of time they remain effective
after dissemination -- ranges from minutes to weeks. Sarin, the agent
used in the most recent Syrian attack, stays lethal for 30 minutes to 24
hours depending on atmospheric conditions. Other chemicals, including
VX, which is mainly weaponized as a liquid and evaporates slowly, can
last up to a month.
The Geneva Conventions protect those who enter the battlefield to care for the wounded. Yet first responders to a chemical attack cannot always detect the presence of lethal toxins when they lack the proper equipment. Without protective suits, they may be exposed to deadly agents on the bodies and clothes of the immediate victims. Unless they follow protocols for the treatment of contaminated surfaces, the responders risk spreading the contamination to medical treatment areas well outside of the conflict zone. In the most recent attacks, the Center of Violations Documentation, a network of local Syrian groups that has reported on incidents of violence and protest since the early days of the uprising, found that a number of paramedics died or became ill as a result of exposure while they were giving aid to the wounded.
Furthermore, through environmental pollution and genetic mutations, chemical weapons inflict suffering and death for decades and across generations. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes that spina bifida, “a defect in the developing fetus that results in incomplete closing of the spine, is associated with veterans’ exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides during qualifying service in Vietnam or Korea.” In Halabja, a Kurdish town subjected to an Iraqi chemical attack in 1988, some of the buildings and much of the land remain contaminated. Doctors have found that the chemical attacks contributed to higher rates of miscarriages, birth defects, cancer, and severe respiratory ailments.
Many skeptics of the chemical weapons taboo note that since not all chemical weapons are the same, international responses should be calibrated to the specific context in which they are used. It is true that there is significant variation in how chemical agents are disseminated, how they inflict harm, the speed with which they act, and the longevity of their effects. But the chemical weapons ban does not and should not distinguish between types of chemical agents for two reasons. First, a simple rule is always more enforceable and effective than a complicated and qualified one. Opening up the ban by trying to identify specific exceptions and qualifications runs the risk of dramatically weakening the global prohibition. And second, while some chemical agents do incapacitate rather than kill, historically these have not been the agents stockpiled by militaries for use in war. For insurgents and terrorists seeking to level the playing field with more powerful adversaries, the incentive is to acquire chemical agents of maximum lethality.
The international laws and norms that protect civilians from being targeted have contributed to an overall decline in the frequency and intensity of war over the past several decades. The international community should thus be trying to widen the circle of bans on types of weapons -- including the most pernicious conventional weapons -- not narrow it.
Those who oppose a U.S. strike against Syria should not conclude that the ban against chemical weapons is not worth enforcing. The conversation should begin from the assumption that it is a vital norm, and then move to a discussion of how best to uphold it. A strike is one option, but there are others, such as coordinating a global diplomatic effort through the United Nations Security Council to push Syria, as one of the few holdouts, to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention immediately. As a party to the CWC, Syria would have to agree to inspections and ultimately to the destruction of its stockpiles. To do nothing or dismiss the significance of the chemical attacks on August 21 would be the wrong move, weakening a taboo that has served the world well.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139913/sohail-h-hashmi-and-jon-western/a-taboo-worth-protecting?cid=soc-facebook-in-snapshots-a_taboo_worth_protecting-091213
It is true that over the past century, conventional weapons have killed far more people than chemical weapons. But if we are keeping score, conventional weapons have also killed far more people than nuclear weapons. Nobody doubts that conventional weapons can and do kill in large numbers -- Hutu extremists in Rwanda demonstrated the lethality of even simple machetes and hoes. But nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are labeled weapons of mass destruction because they have a higher potential to kill or wound very large numbers of people compared with other weapons. If used to full capacity and under the right environmental conditions, chemical weapons are more lethal than virtually all kinds of conventional weapons. In the August 21 attack near Damascus, sarin gas killed nearly 1,400 people in 90 minutes and injured countless others -- the single most devastating assault in the last two and a half years of war.
But the lethality of chemical weapons is not the main reason to distinguish them from conventional ones. They belong in the same category as biological and nuclear weapons because they are primarily weapons of indiscriminate destruction.
Protecting noncombatants from intentional harm is the basis for much of international humanitarian law and nearly all traditions of just war. And nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons make discrimination between civilians and fighters virtually impossible. This is especially true in modern warfare, which is rarely conducted on clearly defined battlefields.
Civilians are likely to be the main victims of chemical attacks. The reason is simple: Chemical weapons have limited military value. They did not determine the outcome of World War I, and they played an indecisive role in the Iran-Iraq War. Troops that are targeted by chemical warfare have the ability to adapt quickly and immunize themselves with protective gear. Syrian rebels have already been seen carrying gas masks. Civilians generally do not have such protection, and so the main reason a country would use chemical weapons is to terrorize civilian populations and thereby divert resources from an insurgency and sap the morale of opposition fighters.
The Geneva Conventions protect those who enter the battlefield to care for the wounded. Yet first responders to a chemical attack cannot always detect the presence of lethal toxins when they lack the proper equipment. Without protective suits, they may be exposed to deadly agents on the bodies and clothes of the immediate victims. Unless they follow protocols for the treatment of contaminated surfaces, the responders risk spreading the contamination to medical treatment areas well outside of the conflict zone. In the most recent attacks, the Center of Violations Documentation, a network of local Syrian groups that has reported on incidents of violence and protest since the early days of the uprising, found that a number of paramedics died or became ill as a result of exposure while they were giving aid to the wounded.
Furthermore, through environmental pollution and genetic mutations, chemical weapons inflict suffering and death for decades and across generations. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes that spina bifida, “a defect in the developing fetus that results in incomplete closing of the spine, is associated with veterans’ exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides during qualifying service in Vietnam or Korea.” In Halabja, a Kurdish town subjected to an Iraqi chemical attack in 1988, some of the buildings and much of the land remain contaminated. Doctors have found that the chemical attacks contributed to higher rates of miscarriages, birth defects, cancer, and severe respiratory ailments.
Many skeptics of the chemical weapons taboo note that since not all chemical weapons are the same, international responses should be calibrated to the specific context in which they are used. It is true that there is significant variation in how chemical agents are disseminated, how they inflict harm, the speed with which they act, and the longevity of their effects. But the chemical weapons ban does not and should not distinguish between types of chemical agents for two reasons. First, a simple rule is always more enforceable and effective than a complicated and qualified one. Opening up the ban by trying to identify specific exceptions and qualifications runs the risk of dramatically weakening the global prohibition. And second, while some chemical agents do incapacitate rather than kill, historically these have not been the agents stockpiled by militaries for use in war. For insurgents and terrorists seeking to level the playing field with more powerful adversaries, the incentive is to acquire chemical agents of maximum lethality.
The international laws and norms that protect civilians from being targeted have contributed to an overall decline in the frequency and intensity of war over the past several decades. The international community should thus be trying to widen the circle of bans on types of weapons -- including the most pernicious conventional weapons -- not narrow it.
Those who oppose a U.S. strike against Syria should not conclude that the ban against chemical weapons is not worth enforcing. The conversation should begin from the assumption that it is a vital norm, and then move to a discussion of how best to uphold it. A strike is one option, but there are others, such as coordinating a global diplomatic effort through the United Nations Security Council to push Syria, as one of the few holdouts, to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention immediately. As a party to the CWC, Syria would have to agree to inspections and ultimately to the destruction of its stockpiles. To do nothing or dismiss the significance of the chemical attacks on August 21 would be the wrong move, weakening a taboo that has served the world well.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139913/sohail-h-hashmi-and-jon-western/a-taboo-worth-protecting?cid=soc-facebook-in-snapshots-a_taboo_worth_protecting-091213
Thursday 12 September 2013
Tuesday 10 September 2013
Interactive: Fighting words - Interactive - Al Jazeera English
Amazing videos, Clinton and Bush (both) seem similar than I could think ten years ago, and Obama so like mr. Poutine
Interactive: Fighting words - Interactive - Al Jazeera English
Interactive: Fighting words - Interactive - Al Jazeera English
Monday 9 September 2013
Syria welcomes Russia's proposal to relinquish control of chemical weapons
Russia's foreign minister had suggested Assad surrender chemical arsenal to international control, a move Moscow believes can avert a U.S. strike against Syria.
http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.546035Sunday 8 September 2013
Brasil terá sala com nome do país na sede da OMC
A nova etapa da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC) marca também a
reinauguração da Sala Brasil na sede da entidade. Apenas alguns países
têm uma sala com seu nome. A sala é mobiliada com réplicas dos móveis
originais, da década de 1950, e os custos foram arcados pela
Confederação Nacional da Indústria (CNI). Em 1957, a Sala Brasil foi
organizada pela CNI e outras entidades empresariais, mas ficou
desativada nos últimos anos.
http://www.em.com.br/app/noticia/economia/2013/09/08/internas_economia,446732/brasil-tera-sala-com-nome-do-pais-na-sede-da-omc.shtml
http://www.em.com.br/app/noticia/economia/2013/09/08/internas_economia,446732/brasil-tera-sala-com-nome-do-pais-na-sede-da-omc.shtml
Saturday 7 September 2013
Thursday 5 September 2013
Files found by chance shed light on one of Israel's first judicial scandals - Week's End Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz
Why was Gad Frumkin, an obvious shoo-in for Israel’s first Supreme Court, denied that privilege in the state’s earliest days? The history of that first appointments scandal has just become a little bit clearer.
Files found by chance shed light on one of Israel's first judicial scandals - Week's End Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz
Files found by chance shed light on one of Israel's first judicial scandals - Week's End Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz
G20 leaders remain divided over Syria action - Europe - Al Jazeera English
"War cannot solve the problem in Syria," Chinese delegation spokesman Qin Gang told reporters at the G20.
The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, later told the leaders at the summit that any military action must have the Security Council's backing.
"Let us remember: every day that we lose is a day when scores of innocent civilians die," his office quoted him as saying. "There is no military solution."
Pope Francis added his voice to the calls for a peaceful solution, warning against the "futile pursuit of a military solution".
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly ruled out her country's participation in any US-led military strike against Assad's regime, while the British parliament has also rejected the idea.
EU president Herman van Rompuy said while the Damascus chemical attack was “a crime against humanity” there was "no military solution to the Syrian conflict".
However, France has said it was ready to support US intervention.
G20 leaders remain divided over Syria action - Europe - Al Jazeera English
The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, later told the leaders at the summit that any military action must have the Security Council's backing.
"Let us remember: every day that we lose is a day when scores of innocent civilians die," his office quoted him as saying. "There is no military solution."
Pope Francis added his voice to the calls for a peaceful solution, warning against the "futile pursuit of a military solution".
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly ruled out her country's participation in any US-led military strike against Assad's regime, while the British parliament has also rejected the idea.
EU president Herman van Rompuy said while the Damascus chemical attack was “a crime against humanity” there was "no military solution to the Syrian conflict".
However, France has said it was ready to support US intervention.
G20 leaders remain divided over Syria action - Europe - Al Jazeera English
Drones Over Damascus
What Their Absence From the Syria Debate Means About Their Usefulness
For the past four years, Americans have been preoccupied with drone technology as a cheap, low-risk, and discriminate way to eliminate emerging global threats without getting entangled in protracted conflicts. The U.S. government has even dramatically changed its military force structure to make armed drones a lynchpin of U.S. power projection. Yet these weapons have been virtually useless in the last two conflicts that the United States has faced, first in Libya and now in Syria. Why is that?
Broadly speaking, the United States has used armed drone strikes overseas in two ways: during war and to prevent war. Battlefield use of weaponized drones is not new (it dates back to World War I), and is fairly ubiquitous. A spring 2013 report by the U.S. Air Force estimated that unmanned aircraft fired about a quarter of all missiles used in coalition air strikes in Afghanistan in the early part of this year. Drones have proved remarkably effective at providing reconnaissance to U.S. troops on the ground, protecting them from enemy attacks, and reducing civilian casualties. When used within a war, in other words, drones are a great way to give U.S. soldiers an edge.
Armed drones have a preventive role to play, as well. They can keep terrorist threats at bay, and thus reduce the chance that Washington will need to send troops to battle insurgents in faraway places. Since 2009, U.S. counterterrorism efforts have involved hundreds of remote-controlled strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles. These were meant to prevent attacks on the United States and its allies by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other groups. In these cases, the argument goes, discriminate targeting to prevent such attacks beats invading countries after them.
Prevention has thus become a watchword of U.S. policy, but its logic has rarely been applied to belligerent states. The international community had plenty of warning that the Syrian government might use chemical weapons, and now Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has apparently employed sarin gas to kill thousands of civilians. Photographs of rows of children left dead and videos of civilians running in fear have shocked the world. The last time the gas was used -- in Japan by Aum Shinrikyo, a terrorist group, to kill 13 people on the Tokyo subway -- pales in comparison with the recent slaughter in Syria. Could the United States have deployed its drone fleet to destroy Syrian arsenals or to kill those planning to make use of them before this happened?
The answer is no. Armed drones have serious limitations, and the situation in Syria lays them bare. They are only useful where the United States has unfettered access to airspace, a well-defined target, and a clear objective. In Syria, the United States lacks all three.
First, the airspace. So far, armed drones have been used either over countries that do not control their own airspace (Somalia, Mali, Afghanistan) or where the government has given the United States some degree of permission (Yemen, Pakistan). Those circumstances are rare. When the foe can actually defend itself, the use of armed drones is extraordinarily difficult and could constitute an act of war -- one that could easily draw the United States into the heart of a conflict.
Drones are slow and noisy; they fly at a low altitude; and they require time to hover over a potential target before being used. They are basically sitting ducks. Syria has an air force and air defenses that could easily pick American drones out of the sky. The only real way for the United States to use them would be to first destroy Syrian planes and anti-aircraft batteries. But that would be no different from a full-scale intervention and would negate the tactical advantage of remote strikes. In other words, the conditions under which armed drones are effective as preventive weapons are limited. And the more drones are used for prevention and during war, the more state belligerents will take note of that fact, and will make sure that those conditions are never met on their own territory. Second, the target. Using armed drones against the Syrian government’s enormous chemical weapons stockpiles would have risked causing the very release of deadly agents that the United States was trying to avoid. Drones are precise but not perfect. Like cruise missiles, their effectiveness mainly depends upon the quality of their targeting information. Worse, an imperfect attack could inadvertently give the Assad government political cover to use the weapons with impunity. Assad could blame the release of chemical weapons on a misfired U.S. drone strike. Since U.S. drones are deeply despised in the Middle East, that argument could enjoy wide hearing.
Perhaps the United States might instead have tried to target chemical weapons delivery systems or tried to kill the people who were loading or moving them. But intelligence has been insufficient for such delicate operations. And even if U.S. officials got it right, a remote drone attack would have risked giving the rebels access to remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons or delivery systems. As the United States knows, some of those group are connected to al Qaeda. In such a mess of a situation, and especially in the presence of Syria’s large arsenal, there is no alternative to putting humans on the ground to secure dangerous, volatile weapons. Drones –- or cruise missiles, for that matter -- cannot do it.
Third, the objective. The United States wants to punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people and to prevent them from being used again. Drone attacks are ill suited for this purpose. They are unlikely either to inflict sufficient pain or to deter other tyrants from following Assad’s lead. A broader objective is to reinforce the global norm against the use of chemical weapons, and such a lofty goal can only be accomplished with a robust international response.
In a politically complex environment -- one in which the United States is not at war and the targets are unclear -- armed drones are really not all that useful. They might seem like a cool new tool to many observers and policymakers, but the horrible predicament in Syria reveals the sharp limitations of the technology -- and the serious problem of relying upon it so heavily in the U.S. force structure. Rather than looking for a quick technological fix, U.S. policymakers should invest more in good analysis and robust human assets on the ground, so as to sort friend from foe. The United States can take the pilot out of the aircraft, but it cannot remove human judgment, risk, and willpower from war -- especially if it plans to keep intervening in murky conflicts in the Middle East.
Foreign Affairs Report: Syria in Crisis: p/p
!--break--
For the past four years, Americans have been preoccupied with drone technology as a cheap, low-risk, and discriminate way to eliminate emerging global threats without getting entangled in protracted conflicts. The U.S. government has even dramatically changed its military force structure to make armed drones a lynchpin of U.S. power projection. Yet these weapons have been virtually useless in the last two conflicts that the United States has faced, first in Libya and now in Syria. Why is that?
Broadly speaking, the United States has used armed drone strikes overseas in two ways: during war and to prevent war. Battlefield use of weaponized drones is not new (it dates back to World War I), and is fairly ubiquitous. A spring 2013 report by the U.S. Air Force estimated that unmanned aircraft fired about a quarter of all missiles used in coalition air strikes in Afghanistan in the early part of this year. Drones have proved remarkably effective at providing reconnaissance to U.S. troops on the ground, protecting them from enemy attacks, and reducing civilian casualties. When used within a war, in other words, drones are a great way to give U.S. soldiers an edge.
Armed drones have a preventive role to play, as well. They can keep terrorist threats at bay, and thus reduce the chance that Washington will need to send troops to battle insurgents in faraway places. Since 2009, U.S. counterterrorism efforts have involved hundreds of remote-controlled strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles. These were meant to prevent attacks on the United States and its allies by al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other groups. In these cases, the argument goes, discriminate targeting to prevent such attacks beats invading countries after them.
Prevention has thus become a watchword of U.S. policy, but its logic has rarely been applied to belligerent states. The international community had plenty of warning that the Syrian government might use chemical weapons, and now Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has apparently employed sarin gas to kill thousands of civilians. Photographs of rows of children left dead and videos of civilians running in fear have shocked the world. The last time the gas was used -- in Japan by Aum Shinrikyo, a terrorist group, to kill 13 people on the Tokyo subway -- pales in comparison with the recent slaughter in Syria. Could the United States have deployed its drone fleet to destroy Syrian arsenals or to kill those planning to make use of them before this happened?
The answer is no. Armed drones have serious limitations, and the situation in Syria lays them bare. They are only useful where the United States has unfettered access to airspace, a well-defined target, and a clear objective. In Syria, the United States lacks all three.
First, the airspace. So far, armed drones have been used either over countries that do not control their own airspace (Somalia, Mali, Afghanistan) or where the government has given the United States some degree of permission (Yemen, Pakistan). Those circumstances are rare. When the foe can actually defend itself, the use of armed drones is extraordinarily difficult and could constitute an act of war -- one that could easily draw the United States into the heart of a conflict.
Perhaps the United States might instead have tried to target chemical weapons delivery systems or tried to kill the people who were loading or moving them. But intelligence has been insufficient for such delicate operations. And even if U.S. officials got it right, a remote drone attack would have risked giving the rebels access to remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons or delivery systems. As the United States knows, some of those group are connected to al Qaeda. In such a mess of a situation, and especially in the presence of Syria’s large arsenal, there is no alternative to putting humans on the ground to secure dangerous, volatile weapons. Drones –- or cruise missiles, for that matter -- cannot do it.
Third, the objective. The United States wants to punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people and to prevent them from being used again. Drone attacks are ill suited for this purpose. They are unlikely either to inflict sufficient pain or to deter other tyrants from following Assad’s lead. A broader objective is to reinforce the global norm against the use of chemical weapons, and such a lofty goal can only be accomplished with a robust international response.
In a politically complex environment -- one in which the United States is not at war and the targets are unclear -- armed drones are really not all that useful. They might seem like a cool new tool to many observers and policymakers, but the horrible predicament in Syria reveals the sharp limitations of the technology -- and the serious problem of relying upon it so heavily in the U.S. force structure. Rather than looking for a quick technological fix, U.S. policymakers should invest more in good analysis and robust human assets on the ground, so as to sort friend from foe. The United States can take the pilot out of the aircraft, but it cannot remove human judgment, risk, and willpower from war -- especially if it plans to keep intervening in murky conflicts in the Middle East.
Foreign Affairs Report: Syria in Crisis: p/p
!--break--
Don't attack Syria, world leaders tell Obama at G20 summit
Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to use the meeting in a seafront tsarist palace to talk Obama out of military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad over a chemical weapons attack which Washington blames on government forces.
"Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on the oil price - it will cause a hike in the oil price," Chinese Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao told a briefing.
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, though, speaking with the BBC at St. Petersburg, said that Britain has increasing evidence that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons. The evidence against Assad was "growing all the time," he said.
"We have just been looking at some samples taken from Damascus in the Porton Down laboratory in Britain which further shows the use of chemical weapons in that Damascus suburb," he said, referring to the alleged chemical weapons attack of August 21.
France, which is preparing to join U.S. military action, rallied behind Obama.
"We are convinced that if there is no punishment for Mr. Assad, there will be no negotiation," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said before leaving for St. Petersburg.
Don't attack Syria, world leaders tell Obama at G20 summit - Middle East Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz
Wednesday 4 September 2013
Egypt interim president defends military coup - order!
Adly Mansour says country sticking to military-backed transition plan and that his top priority is to restore security.
Egypt interim president defends military coup - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Egypt interim president defends military coup - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Germany tries 92-year-old for Nazi war crime - Europe - Al Jazeera English
A 92-year-old former member of the Nazi Waffen SS has gone on trial in Germany for the murder of a resistance fighter in 1944.
Germany tries 92-year-old for Nazi war crime - Europe - Al Jazeera English
Germany tries 92-year-old for Nazi war crime - Europe - Al Jazeera English
Putin demands 'convincing' Syria evidence - Europe - Al Jazeera English
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has warned the US against taking one-sided action in Syria, but has also said that Russia "doesn't exclude" the possibility of supporting a UN resolution authorising military strikes.
He said that such an endorsement would require "convincing" evidence that President Bashar al-Assad's government used chemical weapons against citizens.
He also said the currently available evidence does not fulfil this criteria.
Putin demands 'convincing' Syria evidence - Europe - Al Jazeera English
Obama: World cannot be silent on Syria - Europe - Al Jazeera English
The US president was speaking during a visit to Sweden ahead of the forthcoming G20 meeting in St Petersburg, Russia.
"I discussed our assessment and [Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt] and we are in an agreement that in the face of such barbarism the international community cannot be silent," he said.
He added that he hoped his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, would change direction on a military intervention in Syria. Russia is Syria's biggest international ally.
"I'm always hopeful ... Ultimately, we can end deaths much more rapidly if Russia takes a different approach to these problems," he said.
Obama: World cannot be silent on Syria - Europe - Al Jazeera English
Monday 2 September 2013
As Obama blinks on Syria, Israel, Saudis make common cause
Israel and Saudi Arabia are pressing their mutual friend to hit Syria's Assad hard. And both do so with an eye fixed on their common adversary - Iran.
As Obama blinks on Syria, Israel, Saudis make common cause - Middle East Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz
France calls for coalition to act against Syria, as Assad warns of 'repercussions'
France aims to build a coalition of countries to back military action against the Syrian government in response to a chemical weapons attack in Damascus, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said on Monday.
"This act cannot be left without a response," Ayrault said after presenting an intelligence report on Syria to lawmakers. "It's not for France to act alone. The president is continuing his work of persuasion to bring together a coalition without delay."
"France is determined to penalize the use of chemical weapons by [President Bashar] Assad's regime and to dissuade with a forceful and firm response," Ayrault said. "The objective is neither to topple the regime or liberate the country." he said, adding that only a political solution in Syria was possible.
France calls for coalition to act against Syria, as Assad warns of 'repercussions' - Middle East Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz
"This act cannot be left without a response," Ayrault said after presenting an intelligence report on Syria to lawmakers. "It's not for France to act alone. The president is continuing his work of persuasion to bring together a coalition without delay."
"France is determined to penalize the use of chemical weapons by [President Bashar] Assad's regime and to dissuade with a forceful and firm response," Ayrault said. "The objective is neither to topple the regime or liberate the country." he said, adding that only a political solution in Syria was possible.
France calls for coalition to act against Syria, as Assad warns of 'repercussions' - Middle East Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz
Sunday 1 September 2013
Connecting Syria's allies and enemies - Interactive - Al Jazeera English
An interactive look at the political and military positions for and against military intervention in Syria.
Connecting Syria's allies and enemies - Interactive - Al Jazeera English
Connecting Syria's allies and enemies - Interactive - Al Jazeera English
Assad: Syria capable of confronting attack
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has said that his country is capable of confronting any external attack, a day after his US counterpart Barack Obama called for military action against him.
The statement came a day after Obama stepped back from his threat to launch an attack unilaterally, instead saying he would consult the US Congress before any such action.
"Syria ... is capable of confronting any external aggression," Syrian state television quoted Assad as saying on Sunday at a meeting with Iranian officials.
"The American threats of launching an attack against Syria will not discourage Syria away from its principles ... or its fight against terrorism supported by some regional and Western countries, first and foremost the United States of America."
Assad: Syria capable of confronting attack - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)