Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Russia nixes 'excessive' Iran sanctions w/ comment

Russia has to nix, otherwise it's increasing influence in Central Asia and the Middle East are at risk and more. They know the score. You may have heard there was a 'spat' with Iran over non-payment for nuclear plant work. Bogus. A spat over a measely 13 million dollars, with a country that makes 100's of millions in oil sales a week. Surrre. Russia needed the excuse to pull it's thousands of Russian workers from the plants. Yep. they are gone know. Guess why.
---
Russia nixes 'excessive' Iran sanctions

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer 59 minutes ago

Russia's foreign minister said Wednesday that it will not support "excessive" sanctions against its economic partner Iran, as the U.N. Security Council drew closer to a vote on a new, harsher set of measures intended to push Tehran to freeze its nuclear program.

Ambassadors from the 15 Security Council nations held informal discussions at Britain's U.N. Mission in New York on Tuesday ahead of a meeting Wednesday afternoon to discuss possible changes to the draft resolution.

Germany and the five veto-wielding permanent council nations — the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — agreed on the modest package of new sanctions Thursday to step up pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Wednesday that Moscow "will not support excessive sanctions against Iran," and added that the draft resolution has been softened at Moscow's behest.

The proposed new sanctions in the draft resolution would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in the country's nuclear and missile programs — about a third linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps.

The package also calls for voluntary restrictions on travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, on arms sales to Iran, and on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government.

On Wednesday, Lavrov also denied allegations that Moscow has told Iran it would not deliver nuclear fuel for the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant unless Tehran complies with the U.N. demands.

"There is no link whatsoever between the U.N. resolution ... and the implementation of the Bushehr project," Lavrov told lawmakers in the lower parliament house.

European and U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks said Tuesday that Moscow had bluntly told Tehran it would not ship fuel for Bushehr until Tehran freezes its uranium enrichment program, as demanded by the U.N. Security Council.

Lavrov dismissed the claims as an "unscrupulous trick."

"It's not the first time that we are seeing such an unscrupulous approach aimed at driving a wedge between us and Iran," he said.

Russia has said fuel for Bushehr would not be supplied this month, as had been planned earlier, because of alleged Iranian payment delays that prompted Moscow to indefinitely postpone the Bushehr reactor's launch, which had been set for September. Russian officials also said that the number of workers at Bushehr had dwindled due to the funding shortage.

Iran angrily denied falling behind in payments and accused Russia of caving in to U.S. pressure to take a tougher line on Tehran. Iranian state television on Tuesday described Russia as an "unreliable partner," adding: "It is clear that Russia has stopped construction of this plant under pressure and for political reasons."

Despairing and disregarded - the daily quest to get out of Baghdad

Hundred of thousands of Iraqis have packed and set off to try to join the diaspora in Jordan, Syria, and beyond

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad in Baghdad
Wednesday March 21, 2007
The Guardian


In the cold and filthy yard of Baghdad's Resafa passport office, hundreds of people cram in every day to attempt a Kafka-esque journey through post-Saddam bureaucracy that must be negotiated in order to leave the country.

An elderly Christian man, who had spent several hours waiting with his three daughters, had finally come face to face with an official, who studiously ignored him. "Can you write in the profession section that I was an English teacher?" he asked anxiously.

"There is no profession section in the new passport," replied the officer, without moving his eyes from the forms. "But if I apply for a visa to Australia how would they know that I am a teacher?" asked the man. "There are no professions," replied the officer.

"Don't worry haji," volunteered a young man in the queue by way of consolation, "no one is giving Iraqis visas."

Despite the truth in this black wisecrack, in the past four years hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have packed up their worldly goods, sold what they could not carry and fled to join a growing diaspora spread through neighbouring countries. As the violence has increased so has the desperation behind the thick blast walls that ring the passport office yard.

Each day the officials consider applications from a single Baghdad district; each day they issue just 100 forms. Anyone failing to get one has to wait a month until the neighbourhood comes up again. For those who do get a form, it is the start of a surreal obstacle course.

For a start, there are three different kinds of Iraqi passport. There are Saddam-era passports which the government initially said it would cancel, then decided to endorse, but which no other country, apart from Syria, recognises. Then there are the S series passports issued since the invasion. These are handwritten, easy to forge and no longer recognised by the EU, the UK or the US. Finally there is the Rolls-Royce of Iraqi passports, the G series, with digital numbers, watermarks and all the security features of the world's best.

"I have been working in the passport directorate for 15 years and this G passport is the best," said Abu Ahmad, an energetic official. "It's even better than the Jordanian one. You can carry one in your pocket and walk like a lord to any immigration official around the world."

When I met Abu Ahmad in a Baghdad hotel room, he was wearing jeans and carrying two mobile phones and a fat file of documents: ID cards, passports and pictures of half a dozen people. He explained that it took Iraqis six weeks to get a passport through official channels but less than a week through him. At a price, of course.

As Baghdad's civil war has escalated, business has boomed. Many have found themselves unable to reach the passport office where their names are registered. Ahmad, a Sunni, has made a lucrative business out of helping fellow Sunnis unwilling to venture into passport offices controlled by the Shia ministry of the interior.

"We help our brothers," he explained, breaking off repeatedly to take calls about passports. "By God, others charge $600 but I only take $500."

Despite his enthusiasm, few Iraqis who get their hands on even a G series passport expect to be treated like a lord as they arrive in a foreign country - they consider themselves lucky if they are allowed to enter at all.

At Amman airport recently, a dozen Iraqi families were sitting between their huge bags, some on the metal benches, some sleeping with their children on the floor. They had been denied entry and were waiting to be sent back. Other Iraqis approaching immigration avoided looking at them - it's a bad omen to exchange glances with the unfortunates.

Once an Iraqi gets his or her passport, their life becomes a succession of queues. They queue outside western embassies for visas, asylum, reunion, waving letters from relatives and university certificates. They queue outside the UNHCR for a document identifying them as refugees and granting them protection from deportations. They queue for everything.

In Damascus last month, about 20 men and women queued outside a small room at the entrance of Abraham's church in Jaramana. The church has become a centre for helping Iraqis. Food is distributed and temporary accommodation is sometimes available. But that day, no one knew why they were queuing. "They said it's for asylum seekers," said an old woman holding her family passports. "I heard it's for Australia, only the people who had relatives there," insisted another woman. "Just queue," said one young man, "do you have anything else to do?"

The nun later told me the church guard had not had any work to do so she had asked him to register the names of Iraqis in case more aid came.

In an alleyway behind the church I met Mona, a woman in her 30s. She was an engineer in the Dora refinery in Baghdad. She had left Iraq a couple of months earlier after Sunni insurgents threatened her, accusing her of collaborating with the Americans.

"Yes, Americans did come to the refinery, but what do I do? Tell them not to come?" She pulled her mobile out and showed me pictures of a desktop computer in an office. "See, I had such a nice computer in my office. They made me leave all this. I had $600 [£306] a month, now I'm here eating my savings and waiting. But even if I beg in the streets I am not going back to Iraq."

Not all Iraqis who have escaped did so with the help of a passport. A few weeks ago I met 23-year-old Imad and five of his friends in his flat in the eastern outskirts of Beirut. There was a table and two chairs, a TV and a DVD player; three mattresses were spread out in an alcove. "We gather here every Saturday night," he told me. "Someone cooks Iraqi food, others prepare a water pipe."

One man, Samir, played a DVD of Iraqi songs. Puffing the smoke of the water pipe and drinking cheap whisky mixed with mango juice they told me their stories. They were all Shias, mostly from Sadr City, and all in Lebanon illegally.

Immad had fled in 2004, travelling to Syria first and then crossing to Lebanon illegally. "The Lebanese won't give us visas, and it only costs $100 to cross," he said "I get $300 a month working here, and every three months I manage to send $100 to my family in Iraq."

Over the whisky, the talk is all about how to get into the EU: routes and prices are discussed, and phone numbers of smugglers are exchanged. "All I want is to reach Europe," Samir told me as he walked down the hill from the flat that night. "I don't care where, anywhere, I am not going back to Baghdad."

Most Afghan civilians turning against NATO, towards Taliban: survey

What? They don't appreciate our 'help'?
---
Related

Poor Iraq. First the lies and now, even worse: more help
---

Afghans rejecting Canadian troops for Taliban, survey finds
Globe and Mail, Canada - 19 Mar 2007
LONDON — Afghan civilians are increasingly turning against Canadian troops and their country's government and toward support of the Taliban, according to a ...
Taliban Support Rising In Afghanistan: Study
Online - International News Network, Pakistan - 17 hours ago
LONDON: Canadian troops are facing another challenge in Afghanistan as Taliban support among civilians has rocketed to nearly 27 per cent, ctv.ca reported. ...
Not welcome
Macleans.ca, Canada - 19 Mar 2007
Maclean's 50 member Scott Taylor, who travelled with the Senlis Council in Kandahar earlier this year, says it's time for a comprehensive re-assessment of ...
Most Afghan civilians turning against NATO, towards Taliban: survey
Winnipeg Free Press, Canada - 19 Mar 2007
TORONTO (CP) — A new survey conducted this month in Afghanistan suggests civilians there are turning against Canadian and other NATO troops as well as their ...

Poverty "driving people into arms of Taliban"
Kuwait News Agency, Kuwait - 19 Mar 2007
LONDON, March 19 (KUNA) -- More than a quarter of men in southern and eastern Afghanistan support the Taliban, according to research released here Monday. ...

Losing Afghan hearts, minds
Toronto Star, Canada - 20 Mar 2007
Canada and other Western countries are losing the battle for hearts and minds in Afghanistan while the Taliban is seizing the advantage, says a survey from ...

Poor Iraq. First the lies and now, even worse: more help

After years of deceit, we are expected to believe things are getting better. What this country really needs is to be left alone

Simon Jenkins
Wednesday March 21, 2007
The Guardian


We are bid to celebrate the fourth birthday of a lie. In 2003, they lied about Iraq's weapons arsenal. They lied about Saddam Hussein's "imminent threat" to Britain. Some of them lied that he was involved in 9/11. Today, steeped in the psychology of denial, they lie that things are really fine, are getting better, are better than before, are on the turn. There might have been mistakes, but there was no Great Mistake.

What of those who pretended not to lie, who slunk to the back of the room, said it was not their department, "trusted Tony", did what they were told, kept their heads down? This was the Downing Street set that covered their lies by jeering at critics and boasting they were so clever they could "write their own narrative". They hired Hutton and Butler to "handle the truth", which they carefully "did not kill but did not strive, officiously to keep alive".

Britons should not celebrate the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Celebration is for those lucky Iraqis entitled to feel genuinely better for four years of freedom from Saddam, the salutary boon to the otherwise calamitous affliction visited on their country. The important anniversary is not that of the past but of the future. Can March 2008 see five years of western intervention finally reversed and a silver lining appear on the black cloud of Mesopotamia?

The "surge" programme initiated last month by General Petraeus in Baghdad is the first intelligent thing the Americans have done in four years. By swamping neighbourhoods, monitoring entry, patrolling streets and giving personal protection to residents and tradesmen, troops are able to restore some order to portions of the city. Petraeus is replacing vigilantes, militias and corrupt police with his own soldiers. He cannot reverse the ethnic cleansing that is fast partitioning Baghdad into Sunni and Shia quarters, but he can stabilise what has occurred. He can fortify the ghettos.

After four years of disorder there can be little hope that such security might last. On Day 1 it might have reassured and stabilised Baghdad. On Day 1,460 it is too late. Iraq is gripped by the most rudimentary street-based gang warfare, in which security lies not in soldiers but in families, guns, walls, streets, barricades and only faces you can recognise. To call this a "civil war" is pointless, a misnomer. It is Guelphs and Ghibellines out of the Corleone mafia.

The Americans cannot possibly find tens of thousands of troops needed to police every block in Baghdad for months, let alone years. That Petraeus had to bring Kurdish peshmergas down from the north to support his surge speaks volumes of the uselessness of the Iraqi army and police. Embedded journalists visiting bases in Sadr City and elsewhere report that militias are simply waiting for the Americans to leave. It makes a change for Americans to be protecting Iraqis, after two years of pretending to train the Iraqi army. But the most the surge can do is give some Iraqi neighbourhoods a breathing space and Washington a few nice pictures. The Iraq police, that fine flower of Pentagon nation-building, is beyond parody as a plausible force of law and order.

Turning the armed gangs into some sort of disciplined corps over the next year holds the key to civil security in Iraq. For the 2 million Iraqis in internal and external exile to return to active economic life requires them to feel safe in their homes and streets. Foreigners cannot guarantee that, nor can any national army or police. They are not trusted. The coming year must see parleys between local commanders, sheikhs and religious leaders, neighbourhood alliances, deals and treaties. Such crude life-and-death negotiations will be the only shreds of civil autonomy left to the Iraqis after four years of occupation, all that is left to them with which to rebuild their civic institutions.

The greatest fallacy of the coming year is that America or Britain might have any role to play in making March 2008 happier than 2007. While American search-and-destroy patrols roam Anbar province, al-Qaida cells will continue to recruit insurgents from abroad and foment sectarian hatred. While American tanks crash down streets and shoot up villages, they brutalise all they touch. The arrogance that only by staying can we ensure that "things get better" or that "civil war is averted" is now beyond obscenity. There may be an embassy to protect or an airport to defend. But the presence of foreign troops on Iraq's streets and Iraq's soil is a humiliation and a provocation alike. They are in occupation but not in power.

Whether or not Iraq is now progressively "partitioned" is largely a matter of terms. It has not been a unitary state for 10 years and is certainly not so today. It is a nation of a thousand neighbourhoods, each with degrees of anarchic sovereignty. The 2005 constitution, recently refashioned, divided up Iraq's oil wealth on reasonably fair terms.

Different legal codes are likely to be introduced for Kurdish, Sunni and Shia regions, with women repressed in the south. But even then some vague confederacy may survive the Iraqi craving for nationhood.

Economies recover, the more quickly the sooner they are left in peace. The hoodlums and gangsters now rich on American aid will harness the oil exports and eventually find a vested interest in protecting infrastructure and utilities. Religious segregation will enable the ghettos to feel more secure. Business will emerge from the bottom up, and doctors, teachers and merchants will start to move back from Amman and Damascus, once they hear that their old homes are safe and the Mahdists and Badrists are confined to barracks. Economic activity will return to the streets, as it has done to Beirut.

The one thing that would speed this day is for everyone just to leave Iraq alone. Last week, the opposite happened. A nightmare convocation of 13 nations, including Americans, Britons, Russians, French, Syrians, Iranians, Chinese, Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians, piled into Baghdad to congratulate each other on their courage in descending amid the carnage and declare their eagerness to help Iraq. They talked trade, security, borders, aid, oil, refugees and working groups galore. They patted each other on the back and went home. Poor Iraq, I thought. First the lies and now, even worse, they must suffer more help.

simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk

Video: Final Countdown for Baghdad's Children

Editor's note: Yesterday's articles are in the overflow blog at: http://mparent7777-3.blogspot.com

More coming up here.
---
Baghdad's last refuge for orphaned and traumatised children is in danger of closing later this month when it finally runs out of funds. The man who runs it says he will take the children, many of them orphaned by the violence, into his own home rather than see them on the streets. His co-worker has already been murdered by a death squad.


In the second in a series of three films about the ordinary lives of people in Baghdad, GuardianFilms and ITN look at what has happened to the city's most vulnerable children.
Full Iraq coverage

VIDEO

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

When Less Is Best: RORY STEWART - Afghanistan

Editor's note: I am posting at a NEW site: http://mparent7777-3.blogspot.com/
(also see new articles below). The new site is strictly for overflow. The software at my 2 present sites won't let me post for the next couple of hours. I maybe back posting at the site you are now looking at later today.
---
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
GUEST COLUMNIST

When Less Is Best

By RORY STEWART
Published: March 20, 2007

The United States needs to be honest about what it wants from Afghanistan and what it can achieve.


Why are we in Afghanistan? Vice President Cheney talks terror, Britain focuses on narcotics. The European Union talks ‘state-building,’ others gender. On a different day, the positions seem interchangeable. Five years ago, we had a clear goal. Now we seem to be pursuing a bundle of objectives, from counterinsurgency to democratization and development, which are presented as uniform but which are in fact logically distinct and sometimes contradictory.

Finance officers in Kabul and shepherds in Kandahar want to know what we did with the $10 billion we spent in the last four years. So do any number of commentators on Afghan TV and radio. And when Helmand villagers see soldiers from countries thousands of miles away carrying guns and claiming to be only building schools, they don’t believe them.

I have noticed that many Afghans now simply assume we are engaged in a grand conspiracy. Nothing else in their minds can explain the surreal gap between our language and performance. The United States needs to be honest about what it wants from Afghanistan and what it can achieve.

--MORE--

Iran’s Operative in the White House: NICHOLAS KRISTOF - Dick Cheney

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Iran’s Operative in the White House

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 20, 2007

Is Dick Cheney an Iranian mole?

f an 18-year-old American soldier were caught slipping obscure military paperwork to Iranian spies, he would be arrested, pilloried in the news media and tossed into prison for years.

But in fact there’s an American who has provided services of incalculably greater value to Iran in recent years. So you have to wonder: Is Dick Cheney an Iranian mole?

Consider that the Bush administration’s first major military intervention was to overthrow Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, Iran’s bitter foe to the east. Then the administration toppled Iran’s even worse enemy to the west, the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

You really think that’s just a coincidence? That of all 193 nations in the world, we just happen to topple the two neighboring regimes that Iran despises?

Moreover, consider how our invasion of Iraq went down. The U.S. dismantled Iraq’s army, broke the Baath Party and helped install a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad. If Iran’s ayatollahs had written the script, they couldn’t have done better — so maybe they did write the script …

We fought Iraq, and Iran won. And that’s just another coincidence?

--MORE--