Blog @ MoreWhat.com

If the recent rev/con of the United Nations on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for 2010 is any indication the world is no closer to being the nuke-free peaceful utopia envisioned by UN rhetoric or that of US President Barack Hussein Obama. Statements made by Iran and Israel merely extend the never ending debate on Middle East peace that is equally illusive.

The following report from a few days ago inspired this post.

Israel denounces NPT ‘hypocrisy’ as Iran hails accord
by Gavin Rabinowitz Gavin Rabinowitz – Sat May 29, 4:24 pm ET

TORONTO (AFP) – Israel Saturday denounced as “hypocritical” a resolution adopted by the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s 189 nations and said it would refuse to take part in a conference on a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East.

Israel said the resolution adopted at the United Nations on Friday singles out the Jewish state and fails to mention arch-foe Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

One may have to take the announcement above at face value until the 28 page doc from the UN is available. As of this writing the following notice was found at the UN’s website.

8:58 AM 6/2/2010
Parts I and II of the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference are still being finalized and will be posted here (in English only) as soon as they are available. Other language versions will be added when ready.

It always seems that some sources are able to receive these items before the general public. But there are other items that help paint the picture.

UN NPT conference backs steps to disarm
Sat May 29 2010 12:05

A Major Gap

The disarmament action plan also inevitably leaves a major gap, since it doesn’t obligate four nations that are not members of the treaty - India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, all of which have or are suspected of having nuclear arsenals.

On the Middle East, Arab states and Israel’s allies had been at odds over wording in the plan to convene a conference in 2012 to begin a process to turn the region into a zone free of nuclear and other mass-destruction weapons.

This Arab proposal for a WMD-free zone, to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared arsenal of perhaps 80 nuclear warheads, was endorsed by the 1995 NPT conference but never acted on.

Israel has long said a full Arab-Israeli peace must precede such weapons bans. But at this conference the US, Israel’s chief supporter, said it welcomed “practical measures” leading toward the goal of a nuke-free zone, and US diplomats discussed possibilities with Israel.

And what about Iran?

NPT 101: Is Iran violating the nuclear treaty?
By Scott Peterson, Staff writer / May 4, 2010
Istanbul, Turkey

Is Iran violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?The answer isn’t black and white. It depends on whom you ask – and how deftly you define “violation.” But in essence, Iran is following the letter but not always the spirit of the NPT.

Iran claims it is in complete compliance with its NPT obligations, including declaring all its nuclear material and allowing inspectors to monitor its facilities. It advocates against nuclear weapons and notes that despite thousands of hours of inspections in Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the United Nations body that monitors NPT compliance – has found no evidence of a bomb program.

It is not like the IAEA never dropped the ball regarding Iraq, Iran or other investigations they have undertaken. No one really knows the status of Iran’s nuke program but their repeated call for the elimination of Israel raises suspicion about nuclear weapons.

But let’s not get all worked up over Israel’s denouncement of this year’s nuclear theatre courtesy of the United Nations. Just last year there was at least one similar response by another nation under similar circumstances.

Friday, September 25, 2009, 00:47 IST
UN passes NPT resolution, India says no

New Delhi: India refused to abide by the UN Security Council resolution asking all non-NPT nations to sign the pact, saying it cannot accept the “externally prescribed norms or standards” on issues that are contrary to its national interests or infringe on its sovereignty.

India maintained that it cannot join the NPT as a non-weapon country even as it reiterated its commitment to no testing and no-first-use besides non-discriminatory universal non-proliferation.

The details may have changed over the years but generally speaking we are no closer to a nuke-free world than we were decades ago. Nothing anyone has expressed improved the chances of the world becoming peaceful. Perhaps focusing on nukes misses the point although it makes for popular news stories. War and other armed conflict with ‘conventional weapons’ as well as violence in general needs to be addressed in addition to nuclear threats before ‘universal’ peace can be achieved. Something that seems unlikely given the history of humans on this planet.

It would be helpful to keep the nuclear club at its present size. It would be more helpful to keep terrorists from making an IED from nuclear material e.g., a ’suitcase bomb.’ It might be fair to state that government leaders over a long period of time have caused this predicament in the way relationships, strategies and tactics have been arranged. Changing alliances and ‘national interests’ at odds with solutions that benefit all or at least do not unduly burden some while others gain are at the heart of the matter.

Until those trends are resolved the larger problem of a nuke-free world and an end to armed conflict are simply wishful thinking.

If only wishing for a perfect world made it so.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

As much as China and Russia have demonstrated their opposition toward ’sanctions’ against Iran’s nuclear pursuits more impotent reaction appears forthcoming from the security council at the United Nations. As noted below, a ‘fourth round’ of UN sanctions indicates previous provisions have accomplished nothing.

If Iran sends uranium to Turkey and Brazil for further enrichment with the stated medical purposes expressed a minimum of several questions come to mind. What is to stop others from intercepting and/or advancing enrichment to weapons grade? What value can sanctions have if they have not worked to date and Iran’s nuclear pursuit advances unchecked?

Spokespersons from Iran and Turkey have offered political rhetoric on the topic. Western nations have expressed a real concern that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Also in the report below readers are reminded of frequent expressions from Iranian leaders that they intend to eliminate the state of Israel.

And the past and current situation with Iran has done nothing to resolve these issues. But it has allowed Iran to continue unimpeded. It is long past the time for an effective response to Iranian nukes. And all that sending uranium around the planet achieves is higher risk that the material will be used by rogue states or terrorists supported by them.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States and other major world powers have agreed on a draft resolution that could impose a fourth round of United Nations sanctions on Iran.

Clinton made the announcement in testimony to a Senate committee Tuesday, a day after Iran announced a plan to send some of its enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel.

The Security Council is set to hold consultations on the sanctions draft Tuesday.

Clinton said the plan followed talks among the five permanent Security Council members - the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia, as well as Germany.

She noted the agreement had been reached in cooperation with China and Russia - two nations that have previously resisted imposing more sanctions on Tehran.

On Monday, Iran signed an agreement with Turkey and Brazil to send 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher-enriched nuclear reactor fuel to be used in a medical research reactor in Tehran.

Both Turkey and Brazil are non-permanent members of the Security Council.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast accused Western nations Tuesday of “seeking excuses” to avoid resolving the nuclear dispute with his country.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said talk of sanctions could “spoil the atmosphere” and lead to an “escalation” of statements that might “provoke” Iranian public opinion.

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of working to make a nuclear weapon. Iran says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with top Cabinet members Tuesday to consider a response to the Iranian plan.

Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence because of repeated calls by Iranian leaders for the demise of the Jewish state.

‘…the Hudson Institute scholar argues that the principle cause of continued violence in the Middle East — and the reason so many peace initiatives have failed — is Arab culture itself.’

There’s a quote to attract your attention. It’s a safe bet Lee Smith, author of ‘Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations’ will not be offered a job in the Obama State Department.

The report offered below was a timely find for presentation with the last post featuring another slur of Israel from the United Nations Secretary General. The view from this blog has typically been the reason for elusive Middle East peace is that no one really wants it. It is as if world powers need conflict among less powerful nations to accommodate their perverse competition. A handy excuse to distance themselves from direct confrontation with each other.

Be that as it may the book by Smith provides a tempting addition to anyone’s reading list. It is refreshing to see a story not blaming Israel or the US for Middle East problems. A few more authors from the Middle East couldn’t hurt. But then speaking out in other parts of the world is much more dangerous than it is here. (the US) At least one American tradition (and contitutional concept) seems to remain intact.

So repeat after me, it’s all the Arabs’ fault.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA….

Lee Smith says it has always been hard for Americans to understand exactly why peace in the Middle East is so elusive, and why violence and terrorism are so pervasive and persistent in the Arab world.

He says those questions became even more difficult to answer after the 9/11 attacks by a group of Sunni Arab terrorists that killed 3,000 people on American soil, and after the massive U.S. military deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Smith says American academicians and journalists often cite a list of root causes for Middle East turmoil, in which the U.S., the West and Israel usually play a big part: a history of colonialism and economic exploitation, the creation of Israel and American support for the Jewish state, the politics of oil, Western backing of repressive Arab regimes and the U.S. military presence in the region.

‘Culture of Violence’

Smith concedes these are factors in Arab perceptions of the West. But in his new book, “The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations,” the Hudson Institute scholar argues that the principle cause of continued violence in the Middle East — and the reason so many peace initiatives have failed — is Arab culture itself.

It is a political culture, Smith argues, in which violence has always played a central role. “Of course, it was not America’s hand that blew up mosques in Iraq. It was not the Bush administration that conducted a campaign of terror in Beirut, assassinating Lebanese politicians, journalists and civil society activists,” says Smith. “And the U.S. State Department sentenced no opposition figures, intellectuals, journalists or bloggers to prisons in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere around the Middle East, where they were subject to torture, rape and murder. It was Arabs who did this to other Arabs.”

Smith believes that is the main lesson American policymakers should learn: that Arabs today are divided against themselves.

“A clash of Arab civilizations; clashes between Arab regimes and their own people, the regimes and their domestic rivals and insurgencies, clashes between Arab regimes themselves,” says Smith. Perhaps most importantly, there is the clash between world views, where on the one hand, there is the democratic and progressive trend embodied in the venerable and still extant tradition of Arab liberalism, and on the other hand, the bloody and violent current represented by far too many of the region’s seminal figures.”

Strong Horse

Smith is an Arabic speaker who moved to Cairo after 9/11 determined to find out what motivated the al-Qaeda attackers. He has spent the past nine years crisscrossing the Middle East in search of the answer. Smith took the title of his book, “The Strong Horse,” from a quote by Osama bin Laden, who said, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”

Smith believes Arabs are trying to stabilize and strengthen their societies after centuries of Ottoman control, Western colonization and decades of conflict while also looking for that strong horse to lead them out of their troubled past. Faltering Arab states like Yemen, which faces new threats from young, radicalized Muslim insurgents, also need help maintaining the rule of law and exploring democratic pathways to political reform. Smith argues that the United States can and should continue to play that role.

“There is no evidence that the U.S. is any less strong than it has always been. So I think it becomes clear that even if we want to reduce our regional profile, an issue like the Yemen issue makes it clear that this is not possible,” says Smith. “I think the U.S. can certainly be of assistance. I think that one of the things that a ’strong horse’ does is not just punish his enemies but he rewards and protects his friends.”

Struggle for supremacy

Smith sees a clear distinction between the two world views vying for regional supremacy in the Middle East. On the one hand, there is Iran and its allies in the so-called “resistance” block, including Syria, the Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. And on the other hand, there is the United States and the American-backed Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

Smith says the U.S. and its allies cannot afford to lose to the other camp. “It would be very bad for the U.S. and even worse for our allies in the region, because that would affect the political culture of the region to show that resistance ideology has scored a victory and that moderation and compromise are not as successful as resistance ideology,” says Smith. “So it would be a very bad thing for U.S. interests and U.S. allies in the region.”

Smith believes a victory for what he calls “the culture of resistance” would enshrine violence and vengeance as the manner in which all grievances, real and imagined, are routinely addressed.

U.S. role

The author acknowledges that after nine years of large-scale U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, and with the nation’s economic difficulties bearing down on them, many Americans feel the temptation to pull the U.S. strong horse out of the region.

But Lee Smith’s new book concludes that diminishing the American presence in the Middle East at this moment could create dangerous new instabilities that could worsen, not improve, the prospects for peace in the region.

Smith believes that would be especially true in the Arab Gulf states, where the U.S. for decades has ensured the security of the world’s largest oil reserves.

“The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations,” by Lee Smith, is published by Knopf Doubleday.

What a surprise this is. Imagine that. The UN Secretary General is condemning Israel. Can anyone point to a UN condemnation of the Palestinians or Hamas or Hezbollah or al-Qaeda etc., etc.?

It is amazing that such a tiny place, Israel, surrounded by a massive geography of unfriendly neighbors is so often characterized as the sole problem for unrest in the Middle East.

Maybe the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, could try something new. How about pointing to the activities of others involved with unrest in the Middle East rather than simply single out Israel?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA….

As a result of the blockade, residents have been unable to rebuild thousands of homes destroyed by Israel during three-week Israeli war on Gaza in 2008 and 2009.

Luis Ramirez

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made a visit to the Gaza Strip and repeated his condemnation of the blockade. Meanwhile, international efforts to get Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations are stepping up.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came the region to press Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations. On Sunday, while visiting the Gaza Strip, he condemned Israel for the blockade it and Egypt have on the enclave.

“I have repeatedly made it quite clear to Israel’s leaders that the Israeli policy of closure is not sustainable and that it is wrong,” Mr. Ban said. “It poses unacceptable suffering of human beings. This policy is also counterproductive. It undercuts moderates and empowers extremists.”

Israel has imposed a blockade since the 2007 violent takeover of the Strip by the militant group Hamas. Israeli officials say their restrictions on cement and other construction materials are meant to prevent Hamas from building bunkers to attack Israel.

As a result of the blockade, residents have been unable to rebuild the thousands of homes that were destroyed during Israel’s war on militants in 2008 and 2009.

While in the region, Ban has criticized Israel’s construction of settlements on lands it occupies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

On Sunday, he appealed for Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a prisoner exchange that would result the in the release of Palestinian prisoners and the liberation by Hamas of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Speaking at a Cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government will not restrict building in East Jerusalem. The move puts Mr. Netanyahu further at odds with the United States, just before he is due to leave for a visit to Washington this week.

The prime minister said that from Israel’s point of view, building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv. He said he has made this clear to the U.S. administration. Mr. Netanyahu said that in upcoming indirect talks with the Palestinians, each side can present its position. He said he will make Israel’s position clear during his visit to the American capital.

Israel has not complied with U.S. calls for it to cancel the approval of 1,600 new housing units in a Jewish settlement of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as the capital of their future state.

The Palestinians have said they will not return to talks until Israel stops all settlement activity.

Special U.S. envoy George Mitchell is returning the region to push along efforts for both sides to start indirect negotiations.

When the words war and crimes are used together it speaks to an underlying problem. As a species we have failed to render armed conflict obselete. And given that two or more sides of an issue engage in the practice from time to time additional problems arise in the aftermath. Someone always wants to justify war by finding someone to accuse of war crimes. As if having rules for war somehow makes it more palletable or civilized.

It is no surprise that the United Nations is central to this story. Neither is it a surprise that it surrounds the Israeli/Palestinian problem or that others can cloak their real intentions as participants in the international organization. So after more than a year since the conflict in question took place there’s a new wrinkle in the situation.

The U.N. General Assembly has adopted a resolution renewing pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to conduct independent and credible investigations into crimes committed by both sides during the 22-day Gaza conflict that erupted in December 2008.

The General Assembly voted to give Israel and the Palestinians five more months in which to conduct investigations of alleged war crimes that are “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.”

The US continues to support Israel and says the Goldstone report is flawed. Other countries line up on familiar sides of the issue as with any other item involving Israel. It’s a logjam that demonstrates absolutely no probability for resolution. Not just about the 22-day conflict in 2008 but everything else involving the Middle East.

There is nothing ‘united’ about these nations. It should be possible for a large group of nations to impose their will on the occasional problem areas from time to time. But not when the large group supports their own interest rather than the world at large and politics trumps all else.

Just another example that the United Nations is one useless organization.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For more information on the topic click here

Given the current political climate you would be hard pressed to find anyone to suggest the government is competent. At least in matters of public policy and foreign affairs few agree with public officials in the US. Boots on the ground and others who serve in the armed forces and are getting it done when allowed are the exception rather than the rule these days.

Is it possible that over the last several years a bipartisan scheme between the executive and legislative branches of the US government is coming to fruition? The political left and right had a minor media frenzy over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meddling in Middle East affairs in 2007 with a trip to Syria and elsewhere. Most reports then suggested President Bush opposed the trip as well those raising legal questions about official roles and capacity.

A post on this blog suggested it was political theatre of a bipartisan nature. Again, bipartisan meaning anything but its standard definition. Typically it is used for covering the political backside of both parties by mutual consent. And the Pelosi trip may have been a classic example. And you can expect both sides had hopes of a political upside for themselves and their opposition taking a hit. Here’s a link to the older post featured on this blog.

President Barack Hussein Obama’s World Apology Tour and other appeasement strategies suggest US State Dept outreach to Syria is coincidence and has no connection to the earlier Pelosi trip reported as annoying President Bush in 2007. But you have to wonder if it was one of those seeds planted with hopes of a later harvest. Pelosi’s trip may have thwarted some development that was brewing and hurtful to both parties and a scheme may have avoided that plus provided options for the future both parties wanted. Yet no public announcement of such an agreement was an acceptable political strategy for either party.

It’s still appeasement.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s the brief report on the US kissin’ up to Syria.

US Official, Syrian President Meet in Bid for Improved Ties
VOA News
17 February 2010

One of the highest-ranking U.S. officials to visit Syria in years held talks with Syria’s president Wednesday, one day after Washington nominated its first ambassador to the country since 2005.

The U.S. Under Secretary of State, William Burns, said he and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad spoke candidly while meeting in Damascus. Burns said they discussed both areas of disagreement and common ground.

On Tuesday, the White House named long-time U.S. diplomat Robert Ford to serve as ambassador to Syria. Ford, who is fluent in Arabic, now serves as the U.S. deputy ambassador in Iraq.

Burns called the appointment a “clear sign” of America’s readiness to improve relations and to pursue a comprehensive peace between Arabs and Israelis.

The United States said in June that it planned to reinstate its ambassador to Syria, as part of the Obama administration’s efforts to improve relations with Syria and advance the Middle East peace process.

Ford’s nomination will have to be approved by the U.S. Senate.

The United States withdrew its last ambassador to Syria after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. Many countries have blamed Syria for the assassination, but Damascus has denied involvement.

The U.S. has long accused Syria of supporting Islamic militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which the U.S. considers terrorist organizations. Washington also has voiced concern about Syria’s human rights record and its role in neighboring Lebanon.

As President Obama campaigns on behalf of liberal candidates in current elections and has school children singing his praises thanks to questionable encouragement from their teachers one has to wonder how voters view his performance thus far. Indeed, Obama’s honeymoon with the American people lasted less than six months. So Mr Obama, how are all those government interventions working for you? You know, government motors, government healthcare, government pay czars and your nanny state agenda?

VPOTUS Joe Biden was tapped to shore up Barack Obama’s lack of foreign affairs experience during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Apparently most people dismissed any concerns about Obama’s lack of experience in other areas. A community organizer-in-chief was what the majority of American voters selected. The new President tapped his former rival for President as his Secretary of State. So how is Hillary Clinton doing in the minds of voters?

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 27 percent of voters think Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be doing a better job as president, while 49 percent say she would be performing about the same. That’s about 70 percent that say a hypothetical ‘President Hillary’ would be doing as well or better than President Barack Obama.

Obama’s honeymoon is over and according to the poll above about half the voters think Hillary or Barack would be doing about the same as president. Barack Obama has done nothing to inspire confidence resulting in the honeymoon being over and half the voters think Hillary would be doing about the same. So how’s Hillary doing as Secretary of State? Forget that most of the year she was promoting human rights as her central focus. What about the Middle East?

Secretary Clinton came to Marrakech for the sixth Forum for the Future, which joins civil society groups and the private sector with foreign ministers from the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations and the Middle East to talk about democracy and resolving conflict in the region.

What was the result of these discussions?

Palestinian leaders are voicing frustration after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Israel for making what she said are unprecedented concessions in efforts to restart peace negotiations. Israeli leaders are keeping up their calls for the Palestinians to drop all preconditions.

Palestinian leaders on Sunday stuck to their demands that Israel stop all settlement activity before any resumption of peace talks that have been stalled since December.

Clinton praises Israel for doing their part and the Palestinians register a complaint.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Arab foreign ministers in Morocco to discuss Israel’s offer to limit the expansion of Jewish settlements. Clinton says Israel should reciprocate positive Palestinian moves to improve security.

Clinton reverses her earlier praise of Israel in response to Palestinian objections.

Well then, how’s it going on the issue of Iran and their pursuit of nuclear weapons?

Iranian officials say they want technical experts to review the U.N.-backed plan for sending Iran’s uranium abroad for enrichment.

All the rhetoric from various nations including the US over Iran’s nuclear program has produced zero results except that Iran is still stalling and being allowed to get away with it. And the answer from the US……

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says there will be no changes to an international offer to end the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program by having its low-grade uranium processed and enriched abroad.

That’s reassuring.(NOT) Given the impotent international response to date and Clinton’s caving on statements made about the Middle East peace process more of the same is anticipated.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While the recent decision by the Nobel committee to award the 2009 peace prize to President Obama focused more attention on the US leader no more will be said about it in this post. US diplomatic strategy, success or failure, foreign policy and the role of the US State Dept and White House will be. All the talk about rebuilding America’s image, hope and change, a nuclear free world and ends to conflict needs a reality check. How are things going so far?

Not necessarily in order of importance what is on most peoples’ minds these days in terms of international relations or foreign affairs? From the US perspective the countries of note would include Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran. Of course the perennial favorites not yet mentioned would be any country in the Middle East. Israel and its neighbors are still without solutions. Russia and China are still vying for top dog honors with the US on the world stage. Upstarts Iran and North Korea at the very least want a seat at the cool kids table. So nothing much has changed.

Here’s a brief recap of events in US diplomatic strategy with a ‘new’ President and Secretary of State.

Still no progress in Palestinian/Israeli peace talks

NECN/ABC) - President Barack Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, left the region Sunday after failing again to get Israelis and Palestinians back to the bargaining table. The breakdown of peace talks is taking a toll on Obama’s prestige among Palestinians.

President Obama’s Middle East peace envoy on another trip to the region - more meetings - more handshakes with Israelis and Palestinians - but still no progress, no movement in the peace process.

Not a surprise to see a headline expressing failure in Middle East diplomacy no matter who is involved.

What about Iran?

Putin Says Iran Sanctions Talk Premature

By VOA News
14 October 2009

Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin says it is premature to discuss sanctions against Iran for its controversial nuclear program.

And the view from the US Secretary of State…..

“I believe if sanctions become necessary, we will have support from Russia,” Clinton told ABC television in an interview on Wednesday.

This is merely a continuation of the impotent international community’s response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program that was essentially confirmed again with yet another lie exposed with admission of the previously hidden enrichment facility already known to the Obama Administration. And no one will visit the plant until later this month. Like that will solve anything.

Which makes this next sham almost laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Obama to Preside at UN Security Council

By Margaret Besheer
The United Nations

The United States has taken over the rotating presidency of the 15-member United Nations Security Council for the month of September. U.S. President Barack Obama and other top U.S. political figures will be at the world body this month to highlight issues of importance to the United States.

Another rhetorical masterpiece expressing the desire for a nuclear free world without the substance to support such a notion. The exclamation point is provided by the appeasement strategy reminiscent of a similar process that helped usher in WWII.

And what was the defining achievement by press accounts for the SoS Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Hillary Clinton Helps Turkey, Armenia Open Border - ABC News

Clinton uses diplomatic muscle in Turkey-Armenia row | Politics …

Turkey, Armenia Agree to Ties; Clinton’s Skill Tested (Update1 …

The Daily Star - Politics - Clinton hails Turkey, Armenia steps …

Clinton Helps Save Historic Turkey, Armenia Accord - International …

A more accurate appraisal of Clinton’s participation may be the following…..

Clinton to Attend Turkey-Armenia Normalization Deal Signing

By David Gollust
State Department

The State Department said Thursday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will fly to Zurich to attend Saturday’s signing of accords to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia.

A simple visit to the US State Dept website would bear this out. At least in terms of demonstrating that this State Dept is essentially no different from any other feeble attempt by heads of state to display their conviction to foreign relations or determination to improve conditions in the world. A visit to the website while producing this post featured the following items:

Positive Future for U.S.-Russian Relations

Finding Common Ground With Russia

Secretary Clinton Travels to Europe

U.S. Supports Peace in Northern Ireland

U.S. Supports Emergence of Afghan Government

U.S.-U.K. Advancing Shared Values

U.S.-Ireland Working Together

and travel puff pieces?

So much for the hope and change of a new administration in the US and statements expressed to suggest foreign policy would be successful.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest reports on nuclear safeguards in Iran and Syria to Member States. The report outlines developments since the Director General´s report of 5 June 2009.

Circulation of the reports is restricted; they cannot be released to the public unless the IAEA Board decides otherwise.

General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest report on nuclear safeguards in Iran to the Agency´s Board of Governors, the 35-member policymaking body. The Board next convenes in Vienna on 7 September.

So here’s a recent Arab response on Iran’s nuclear program.

Israeli nuclear weapons and Western hypocrisy
By Yusuf Fernandez (Source: thepeoplevoice.org)

Once again, Arab states have announced that this year they will submit a resolution at September’s general assembly of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to force Israel to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and open up its secretive military nuclear program to international inspections.

The article also suggests ‘Israel’s rejection to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the main obstacle to global nuclear disarmament.’ After stating that Israel has nukes with a 2000 km range and able to reach any Arab capital the article changes direction with ‘Israel is one of the few states in the world that have refused to sign the NPT and is reportedly the only state in the Middle East having nuclear weapons.’

Reportedly the only state in the Middle East having nukes, indeed. ‘Iran has repeatedly assured that its nuclear program is peaceful…’ Repeatedly ‘assured’ is the key here.

You may recall that Saddam Hussein commented after being apprehended from a hole in the ground that he did nothing to convince the world Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction for fear of looking weak to ‘his’ neighbors in the region. Had he not chosen that strategy he may have avoided another confrontation with the US military accompanied by the inevitable outcome. As if Desert Storm in 1991 was not proof enough he could not win a war against the US after invading Kuwait.

Like Iraq’s former ‘leader’ Saddam Hussein, Iran’s leadership behaves in a similar manner allowing statements calling for the destruction of Israel to stand refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist and yet claim their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful. They now promote the notion of ‘Western hypocrisy’ while they express the desire to destroy Israel and at the same time define their nuclear program as ‘peaceful’.

If you are curious to know who is Yusef Fernandez the following is from Frontpage magazine. ‘Yusuf Fernandez, the spokesman for the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities…‘

Some additional information may be found useful as well.

In 1967 the first law allowing the Muslims to organize themselves, after a parenthesis of centuries, was promulgated in Spain, leading to the establishment in 1968 of the first local Muslim Association in Spain in Melilla, and in 1971, the first national association, the Association of Muslims in Spain (AME), which has its headquarters in Madrid. Under the Spanish Constitution the Statutory Law of Religious Freedom is promulgated, now in force, and the Union of Islamic Communities in Spain was constituted (UCIDE), as well as the Spanish Federation of Islamic Religious Entities (FEERI), which together constitute the Islamic Commission of Spain (CIE), which is a member of the Muslim Council of Cooperation in Europe (MCCE)[1]in Brussels, which is a consultative body to the European Union.

So the IAEA reports to this point have solved nothing as indicated in numerous reports in the ‘media’.

Yossi Melman / The IAEA report on Iran lacks the bottom line

‘IAEA hiding incriminating evidence’

UN nuclear watchdog denies hiding Iran information

UN reports increase in Iranian uranium programme

IAEA to report Iran atom slowdown ahead of talks

Iran, Syria have not carried out sufficient cooperation in …

Iran is continuing nuclear activity, says United Nations watchdog

Iran Claims Report ‘Vindicated’ Nuclear Program

Iran dismisses nuclear assessment

Iran is stonewalling the UN nuclear watchdog agency about “possible military dimensions” to its suspect nuclear programme, officials have said.

The UN is urging the regime to clarify the mysterious role of a foreign explosives expert and shed light on other issues.

A senior Iranian envoy angrily denounced the assessment as “fabrication,” insisting his country has gone out of its way to be transparent and co-operative.

In its latest report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it has pressed the Islamic Republic to clarify its uranium enrichment activities and reassure the world that it is not trying to build an atomic weapon.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful and geared solely toward generating electricity. The United States and key allies contend the country is covertly trying to build an atomic weapon.

These stories support comments suggesting the ‘international community’ response to the nuclear ambitions of Iran, North Korea and others is impotent. They do nothing about the problem outside of promoting resolutions at the equally impotent United Nations. This criticism includes the IAEA.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Exactly the kind of talk that supports the notion Arab countries and Muslims worldwide have an agenda for the destruction of Israel.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is in the United States for talks, says Arab nations would recognize Israel only after a just and comprehensive Mideast peace deal is reached.

Nothing like putting the cart in front of the horse. Does Mubarak say anything with this other than they want a deal that places Israel in more jeopardy from the foes that surround them? A tiny country, Israel, surrounded by a massive geography populated by Muslims has been a target of these neighbors since 1948 when the current chapter in the saga began.

As early as 2010 or 11 things may change in Egypt removing them from the occasional moderate position they express. That is not how all of this sounds.

The talks in Washington are centered on the Middle East peace process and the Arab world’s relationship with Iran under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, all issues Mr. Mubarak has taken an active interest in.

But underneath lies the question of what comes next for Egypt, or more specifically, who. In power since 1981, Mr. Mubarak has given little indication of what the transition might look like. He has no vice president. He has not said if he will run for re-election in 2011, and many wonder if that would even be advisable, as he would be nearly 90 at the end of that term.

It is an issue that concerns not just Egyptians. Professor Said Sadek is a political scientist at the American University in Cairo, who worries any instability or political vacuum could be exploited by hardline groups and politicians across the region that oppose U.S. influence in the region.

“How do you guarantee the transition of power in Egypt, so that we don’t have an unpredictable situation in Egypt that would get you the Muslim Brotherhood here in alliance with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Beirut and [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad in Tehran - voila, the American strategic policy in the area would collapse,” said Sadek.

As with any conflict all sides have made mistakes. But that certainly does not justify calling for the destruction of Israel. While calling for the death of infidels, the destruction of Israel and at the same time claiming they are mistreated, Muslims need a reality check.

Stop the terrorism and calls for more of it and someone might begin to take you seriously. Constant violence, calling for it and promoting it does not suggest a religion of peace.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Read a book. It’s possible this blog has never recommended reading a particular book other than Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. But a recent visit to tsowell.com served up a reminder of a wise choice from many of Thomas Sowell’s suggested reading list. It is not new or the latest bestseller but that is certainly not a reason to discount it. In these times of social and political unrest not to mention terrorism and Jihad the book by Bernard Lewis entitled ‘ What Went Wrong’ is not only relevant but extremely well written and compelling. If you do not care to take this blog’s word for it, being on Sowell’s reading list should suffice.

Like any treatment of the topic discussed by Lewis it is not without its detractors. In the interest of fairness one search engine result that provides the dissenting viewpoint is linked here so you can have one recommendation accompanied by one random review by someone not impressed with the work or the author. It would not be surprising if this dissenting viewpoint is held by someone not fond of criticism toward someone or something they personally value, right or wrong.

A description of the book from Sowell’s site is presented here and hopefully Mr Sowell will not object.

A small book presenting a top scholar’s very readable account of the history that led the Islamic world from its pinnacles of achievement in the past to its present pathology and poisonous and dangerous hatreds.

How about a guess? Terrorists, Jihadis, Muslims and Islam will be offended. The rest of us will not. Give it a read and make up your own mind. Hopefully you have already accepted the earlier recommendation on Levin’s book and read that by now. It would not hurt to follow the link to Sowell’s lists, etc., to find other good reading material.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

How does the following report reconcile one statement indicating Netanyahu ‘concedes little’ and making the speech was due to ‘American pressure’? They claim he was under duress and felt compelled to make a speech. Based on the second report below it would appear nothing has changed. Egypt still balks at the idea of recognizing the Jewish state. Is that supposed to be a big surprise?

Israeli PM concedes little in speech

The fact that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu felt it necessary to make a speech at all about a Palestinian state shows that American pressure works.

2nd report…..
CAIRO, June 15 (Reuters) - Egypt said on Monday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision for achieving peace with the Palestinians was flawed and fell short of Arab and international demands for an independent Palestinian state.

Netanyahu endorsed — with tough conditions — the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state in a policy speech on Sunday. He said Palestinians must recognise Israel as a Jewish state and forego the right of return for refugees.

Other reports express the Palestinians were disappointed, there is ‘fallout’ after the speech and that opposition party leader Tzipi Livni is on the same page with Netanyahu. Considering what is available to read about this topic it appears Israel is conceding nothing, maintaining their previous positions and any new items are so vague as to be a no risk offer. And the question of a Palestinian state is rendered useless since they will not likely be disarmed.

The world has moved no closer to peace in the Middle East. So what’s new? Is it possible that President Obama’s two state solution is DOA?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

From the White House website and the out of place blog three items are featured. Health care reform is touted as ‘the key to our fiscal future.’ The 2000th transportation construction job located in Michigan is described so cutely as the road to recovery. And ‘a broad array of ways’ the public can participate in government extends the fantasy of transparency and accountability, etc.

And a list along side these items outlines legislation passed this year. The measure on credit card rules demonstrates the not so creative use of words to give the impression new laws are significant. Accountability (there’s that word again), responsibility and disclosure are combined with credit or card to give the cute acronym CARD for this law. Another weapons procurement law, another title suggesting a way to save homes of those at risk of foreclosure, something on fraud and recovery, serving America, managing public lands, extending some small business programs, PORKULUS, DTV and SCHIPS finish out the list with a bill characterized as securing fair pay.

You can conclude that all these things guarantee the spending of more taxpayer dollars. What you cannot conclude is whether or not they will do any good. Every time Congress passes a law and the President signs it money will be spent. But exactly what good it does or the fact that no one in Washington (or really at any other level of government) will do anything to present facts and figures with supporting data to prove the end results or lack of same stands as evidence nothing changes in the executive and legislative branches at the federal level and all talk of transparency and accountability is ludicrous.

Put this in comparison with the biggest issues this past week. North Korea has expanded on its course to collide with the rest of the world on nuclear threats and its reckless actions while the best the White House can do is say it supports the UN resolution that is simply one more impotent act in a series of them from the international community including current leadership of the United States.

Iran is reported to have held elections in which the little Hitler has been kept in power while the opposition is making claims of election fraud. Has anyone offered a helping hand to those making the allegations in an effort to place pressure on Iran to show proof of a valid election? If the world’s rogue state’s can refuse to recognize Israel why can’t the same be said of Iran based on this week’s elections?

A Treasury Dept task force ‘defends’ taking over the automobile industry There is some quiet noise being made about Gitmo and Uighur detainees and China’s opposition to relocating them from members of Congress. Obama plans to push another government takeover in the form of health care reform. The House of Representatives passes a State Dept funding plan to clean up other people’s messes and waste more taxpayer money. But let’s keep accepting the White House PR that progress is being made and things are going to get better. Cuz there from the government and here to help. Right.

It might be fair to say that Russia an China, being two other significant players on the world scene, are doing just as poorly as the US leadership in turning things around and getting serious about what really matters. But this blog is not that concerned about how well other countries are living up to their responsibilities. The US needs its leadership to return to principles that have kept us going all these years. Tearing down what has been and ‘rebuilding the fundamental ways’ this country functions as Obama has suggested is not a recipe for success.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For the liberals who love to label anyone expressing a strong disfavor toward ‘foreigners’ as xenophobic try on this report. Obviously this blog did not produce this report but of course extends its profound gratitude to Voice of America for presenting it. There are some who believe that Jews and others who support them are overreacting to threats from their Arab ‘neighbors’ who surround them as well as to the actions that go beyond threat level. This should be yet one more wake up call to those same liberals and another example of the mounting evidence demonstrating Muslim hate.

And the current US President is going to cozy up to the world’s Muslims yet again. Do you suppose he will start by bowing this time too? How embarrassing. And it is ironic the POLS mentioned in this story are Democrats, liberals, whatever.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(from left) Reps. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Joe Crowley (D-NY) with poster showing excerpt from Saudi school book

Lawmakers in the U.S. Congress say Saudi Arabia has failed to remove offensive material from textbooks used in the kingdom’s schools, including language promoting hatred of and violence against Jews. Three House Democrats used a news conference coinciding with U.S. President Barack Obama’s stop in Saudi Arabia to draw attention to the problem and urge the president to press Saudi leaders on the issue.

Congress has complained for years about hate-promoting language in textbooks used in Saudi Arabia’s schools, and about books used in other countries in the Arab world, notably Egypt, as well as in schools in the Palestinian territories.

Where Saudi Arabia is concerned, the issue has been raised repeatedly by the U.S State Department in its annual religious freedom report, and by the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

In a news conference, lawmakers said that despite assurances from various Saudi officials over the years that offensive and inaccurate material would be removed from textbooks, it appears little has been done.

Representative Anthony Weiner, a Democrat from New York, displayed a 10th grade textbook, smuggled out of Saudi Arabia and translated by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Gulf Affairs, and he read one extract. “This is to be taught to children age 15: “The Prophet said, “the hour [of judgment] will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. . . “O Muslim! O Servant of God! There is a Jew Behind Me. Come and kill him.” This is the language that is being taught to students as young as age 15,” he said.

A report prepared by Congressman Weiner’s office, with assistance from the Institute for Gulf Affairs, examined seven textbooks in circulation in Saudi Arabian public schools and used in the 6th through 12th grades in 2008 and 2009.

Among portions translated for the report are those inciting hatred of Jews and Zionism, encouraging jihad against Jews and Christians, endorsing punishment for homosexuality, demeaning women, and affirming the right of parents to force children into marriages against their will.

Representative Shelley Berkeley, a Democrat from Nevada, says Saudi Arabia, which wants to be seen as a leader in the Arab world, must take the lead in eliminating intolerant, hateful material from its textbooks.

“Until they change their textbooks and help educate the younger generation of Saudis that are in their elementary schools and in their secondary schools, and take these hateful teachings out of the textbooks and substitute what we would consider appropriate, tolerant language in teaching for these kids, I am afraid we are just going to see a perpetuation of what we see now, cycle after cycle of hatred and intolerance,” she said.

Congressman Weiner says the Saudi government must decide which side of the debate over tolerance it wants to be on. “Do they want to be on the side where President Obama and the American people are, where we want to reduce the tensions and stop passing hate from generation to generation, or do they want to continue their age-old ways of exporting the worst type of hate, which unfortunately leads to terrorism, misunderstanding and distrust all over the world,” he said.

In its report this past April, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom named Saudi Arabia a Country of Particular Concern, saying promises and Saudi commitments to the U.S., including pledges to reform textbooks, remain unfulfilled.

The report issued by Congressman Weiner’s office quoted a pledge in 2006 by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki Al-Faisal, that the government had removed intolerance from old textbooks, and implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan.

Saying patience in Congress with Saudi Arabia has worn out, Weiner said President Obama has an opportunity to prod Saudi Arabia to take action once and for all on the issue.

It is probably too early to draw a conclusion on President Obama’s reported ‘go ahead’ order on the Navy Seals mission to end the hostage situation involving Somali ‘pirates’ (thugs, terrorists, extortionists) and a now famous Captain Phillips of the ship Maersk Alabama. With one 16 year old perp in custody and Phillips still being held hostage, under imminent threat of death, the Navy team took out the remaining three thugs effectively freeing the captain from his captors.

If reports are accurate and President Obama twice gave the order to proceed then he should receive credit for doing the right thing. But that is what he is supposed to do, the right thing. While doing the right thing is subject to debate even in this case the outcome could have been a problem. What if the plan went forward and disaster was the result? That is the difficulty in doing the right thing under these circumstances. There would have been no shortage of criticism. So it was not an easy call contrary to what popular opinion might be but it was the right thing to do. And on that note this blog offers its first positive response to the new President.

Be it known that it is for this event and this event only that the positive response is offered. For between the Presidential agenda and the main stream media, what of it still remains viable, the phony treatment of current events distort reality. A report from AP this weekend emphasizes this assertion.

Obama Hopes to Use Dealmaking Skills Honed Abroad
Sunday, April 12, 2009 8:33 AM
WASHINGTON –

Let’s make a deal.

President Barack Obama honed his dealmaking skills on his maiden international trip, to Europe and the Middle East.

The trip helped burnish his image abroad. But can he translate that into getting his legislative priorities through Congress, where partisan lines continue to harden?

Analysts say the generally positive reception to his first venture on the international stage can’t hurt. But foreign-policy successes don’t necessarily mean achievements at home.

What analysts say any of that? Where are they? Why does the AP report not refer to them by name and offer supporting resources or evidence? Could it be the author is making it up? Like Obama suggested of those who presented less than flattering information on him during the 2008 campaign. ‘They’re just making it up.’

Analysts say. Sources say. Unnamed sources say. High level sources close to the President say. Under the promise of anonymity so and so said. This is not convincing. Right out of the gate on this one the AP is helping support the notion that the MSM is a fraud.

In the very next paragraph after such a pathetic beginning with the AP report the following was concluded. Obama helped negotiate a compromise among world powers to battle the global recession, helped break a deadlock over NATO’s next secretary-general and helped coordinate NATO’s strategy for Afghanistan. Where do they get this stuff? The G20 was a flop. Go read the statements of Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and others at the G20. You will, if you haven’t already, see a different outcome from this particular international political show. Economic pledges of a trillion dollars do not a success make. No ‘fighting’ troops to Afghanistan from the EU is not an accomplishment. There is nothing about the G20, the UN, NATO or Obama that suggest the glowing report offered by the AP.

He agreed to restart languishing nuclear arms control talks with Russia, laid down a marker on terms for a Palestinian state, delivered a strong pitch for allowing Turkey to join the European Union and sought to heal a rift between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Appeasement, surrender, appeasement, appeasement in that order on the last misguided excerpt from the report by AP. For a more realistic view on the nonsense that is President Obama’s agenda and his crews’ efforts thus far is another promotion from this blog to read yet another piece from George Will.

Rice really thinks there is a community out there. To believe that is to believe, as liberals do, that harmony is humanity’s natural condition, so discord is a remediable defect in arrangements.

Regarding North Korea’s missile launch, Rice was very stern. She said the U.N. Security Council would “meet,” and there would be “consultation with our partners,” who “all need to come together” and “add to” the 2006 U.N. resolution that North Korea had just disregarded, the one that demanded a halt to future missile-related activity, including launches. The Security Council met. It could not even bring itself to say North Korea’s launch had violated the resolution against launches.

The column by Will must be read in its entirety as the lone excerpt provided here doe not do it justice. Plus it is good to refer to other sources from this blog that have, shall we say, ’street cred’ in making the case or point suggested here. With more talent like George Will in the MSM they might have a better chance for survival as well as being taken seriously.

It would be wonderful if this blog could expand this one time positive response to the President’s action on the Phillips’ rescue to his entire agenda. But there is currently no evidence the remainder of his plans will be an exercise in doing the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com