Blog @ MoreWhat.com

An earlier post on this blog, ‘IAEA Paper Tiger vs Iranian Nukes‘, expresses a viewpoint on the do-nothings regarding Iran’s nuclear threat. Oh how surprising that today a report referenced below confirms suspicions that the IAEA is one of those do-nothings.

VIENNA — The global threat posed by Iran’s suspect nuclear program is “hyped” because there’s no hard proof that Tehran has an ongoing effort to build an atomic weapon, the head of the U.N. nuclear agency asserts in a magazine interview.

And there is no ‘hard proof’ why? Because the do-nothings have failed to compel Iran to come clean. So what does Elbaradei say?

ELBARADEI: We have not seen concrete evidence that Tehran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program. But somehow, many people are talking about how Iran’s nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped. Yes, there’s concern about Iran’s future intentions and Iran needs to be more transparent with the IAEA and international community. We still have outstanding questions that are relevant to the nature of Tehran’s program, and we still need to verify that there aren’t undeclared activities taking place inside of the country. But the idea that we’ll wake up tomorrow and Iran will have a nuclear weapon is an idea that isn’t supported by the facts as we have seen them so far. It’s urgent, however, to initiate a dialogue between Washington and Tehran to build trust, normalize relations, and allay concerns as proposed by President Obama. To me, that’s the only way forward.

Not ‘we haven’t seen concrete evidence’ because you have not done your job to discover the evidence. Of course you have ‘outstanding’ questions. All the questions are outstanding. Here’s an outstanding question for you. How do you draw conclusions without the evidence you are supposed to collect. What facts have you seen so far? It is hard to see facts when you do not look. No one suggests your tomorrow scenario. Continuous foot dragging will allow Iran to develop and deploy and/or use nuclear weapons. Of course, hard to imagine the UN would defer action to the US. Now they expect an equal do-nothing to uncover evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program through appeasement.

Why don’t we send Bill Clinton to Iran as happened with North Korea. There still must be Americans being held there. Go save someone Bill and broker another back room deal with terrorists. Your administration was good at doing that. Oh, could that be what ushered in 9/11. Gives the impression Americans are slow learners.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(note: the ‘puff piece’ interview of Elbaradei at the link for the pdf file in the excerpt above is pathetic.  The kind of special interest appraisal that generates do-nothings like the UN and the IAEA.)

A few days ago German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated new sanctions against Iran would be considered if no agreement on negotiations was reached by September. Iran continues to claim their nuclear program is for energy purposes while many other countries suggest they are pursuing nuclear weapons. This is not a new story. After previous sanctions, UN resolutions and other lame attempts to persuade Iran to abandon the pursuit of nukes this ineffective strategy has been no more successful than similar tactics against North Korea on the same issue.

Are the world’s most powerful nations as ignorant and inept as their actions in this matter demonstrate? Or is it a simple matter of no one wanting to be the first to take effective action against Iran and North Korea? Will this situation escalate among ‘rogue’ nations of the world until one of them launches a strike against a perceived or stated foe? Or will Israel lose its patience with the so-called international community and its lack of suitable action and take matters into their own hands?

If the US, Russia, China and other nations continue to postpone what is necessary regarding Iran, North Korea and others pursuing nukes the question will not be who has them but when will they be used. If that is allowed to happen the scenario returns to that of the sixties. Before, during and after the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962 the idea of MAD, mutually assured destruction, was considered the concept which avoided WWIII and a nuclear winter or the planet ceasing to exist. It is reasonable to assume those seeking nukes these days are not dissuaded by this concept.

So why are the other nations of the world doing nothing about this?

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

Double-dip recession?

As interest rates rise, as they must, and international commodity and other prices rise as the global economy recovers, real, after-tax, inflation and tax-adjusted disposable incomes will continue to fall. This means real consumption can rise temporarily but will likely fall again, giving the United States a double-dip recession.

Above is the ordinary ’speak’ on the topic of economics and the current situation. Read the rest of the story by following the link. It is not only informative but written in a manner that makes reading bad news entertaining.

It is quite possible that the US has not been at risk to this degree since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. At least back then it seems the fate of the world was in large part dependent on how well the former USSR and the US managed the ‘nuclear threat’ of war. Now it is possible nearly everyone has a nuke. Add to that the common ingredient for war, economic turmoil, and the planet is once again ripe for major conflict.

It would behoove US leaders and ordinary citizens to attend to matters of economics with a conservative approach to resolve financial distress at every level. This would not only improve the bottom lines of everyone involved but strengthen our nation and its defense against external threats. Obamacare and the remainder of the liberal agenda are contrary to those ends.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(President Barack Obama meets with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during their bilateral meeting at Winfield House in London, Wednesday, April 1, 2009. White House Photo/Pete Souza)

At two recent congressional hearings, U.S. diplomats, defense and military officials outlined how the Obama administration intends to go about “resetting” the U.S. relationship with Russia. Lawmakers on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs, and Armed Services committees asked some tough questions about key aspects of the U.S-Russian relationship.

If you are not concerned about President Obama and discussions with President Medvedev of Russia you should be. White the ‘beer summit’ of Obama and Biden is surely not the ‘test’ VPOTUS forecasted in months past, negotiations between the Eagle and the Bear may be.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

During the 2008 US Presidential election campaign many noticed the personal history of candidate Barack Obama appeared cloaked in secrecy as little was uncovered about his earlier days growing up or attending college and the candidate was not offering any clarity on the topic. Surprisingly, the NY Times is offering an account of at least one aspect of student Obama’s thinking on nuclear arms. And Jennifer Rubin offers a report expanding on the concerns that President Obama may still hold these youthful idealistic notions. Unfortunately, Mr Obama may be operating without benefit of the practical realities that typically guide world leaders through the dangerous territory of foreign affairs.

The student was Barack Obama, and he was clearly trying to sort out his thoughts. In the conclusion, he denounced “the twisted logic of which we are a part today” and praised student efforts to realize “the possibility of a decent world.” But his article, “Breaking the War Mentality,” which only recently has been rediscovered, said little about how to achieve the utopian dream.

Twenty-six years later, the author, in his new job as president of the United States, has begun pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can establish a nuclear-free world.

With Iran, North Korea and surely others pursuing nuclear weapons arsenals and Russian leaders expressing concern over US missile defense proposals leading up to current arms negotiations the Obama mindset may be of concern to you. Especially if the new President has an obsession with youthful idealism.

Obama Has Gotten It Wrong for Twenty-Five Years

Jennifer Rubin - 07.05.2009 - 8:31 AM

Those who suspect the president is engaged in a bit of dangerous self-delusion and denial about certain unpleasant realities regarding the threats from rogue states won’t be heartened to read that his current non-proliferation fetish stems, at least according to the New York Times, from his college infatuation with the nuclear freeze movement.

The line below from the Rubin piece should feature prominently with any US position on arms negotiations.

And really, what excuse is there for Obama’s ludicrous worldview? Unlike student Obama, President Obama knows how the Cold War ended. And it wasn’t by disarming America.

The impotent ‘international community’ has done nothing to stop rogue states from pursuing an arms race in a time ideally suited for such a collective effort. That alone should raise suspicion about the intentions of those courting the US on disarmament. Other recent reports are offered below.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Russia Still Opposes US Plan for Missile Shield in Eastern Europe

Russia Wants Deeper Cuts in Numbers of Nuclear Warheads

Next Round of US-Russian Arms Talks Set for June 23

Russia Ready to Reduce Nuclear Arms

Russia, US Begin Talks Over New Arms Control Pact

Russia, US Work on New Missile Pact

Are U.S.-Russian Relations Warming?

Clinton, Russian FM Agree to Improve US-Russian Relations

Resurgent Russia Poses Challenge for Obama Administration

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to analyze the issue of nukes, North Korea and their ability to deliver them or cause other world powers to look impotent. As is the case with most international conflict there is plenty of blame to go around. You can criticize the current and former US Presidential administrations for appearing inept or acting that way. But it is equally fair to distribute criticism to all concerned. That would be the handful of countries engaged or not at one time or another in direct talks with North Korea on the issue of nuclear intentions not so different from that of Iran. It also includes the do nothing approach of the United Nations and members all.

Along with more than several countries in Africa, Iran, North Korea and examples from nearly every continent have presented problems international in scope that major powers and the UN have dropped the ball on numerous times. And then a couple of news reports of the last couple of days emphasize the fiasco that is the response to North Korean nukes.

The United States stressed its resolve to defend allies Japan and South Korea Wednesday, as it dismissed North Korea’s latest threats as “saber rattling” and “bluster.”

That is part of a report from the 27th you can read by clicking on the linked text. But the quoted dismissal of saber rattling and bluster is contradicted by the following story from the 28th.

South Korea and the United States have raised their defense alert levels on the Korean peninsula, a day after the North said it was willing to discard the 56-year old armistice that paused the Korean War. Analysts expect more tension in the days ahead.

This is a perfectly fine example of what is wrong with the relationships and operating performance among friendly and not so friendly countries around this frail planet. From time to time when some of the world’s children continuously demonstrate an inability to play well with others (even given the sad state of affairs in world politics) the rest of the children should be able to agree on an effective remedy to the situation.

When the safety of all concerned can be threatened by a few how much intelligence does it require to negotiate an arrangement that will end the stupidity? The tired old excuses that these matters are more complex than the ordinary citizen understands simply don’t hold water. If it is a matter of waiting to see who blinks first let this ordinary citizen be the first to inform you, that already happened. Now get on with it and solve the problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Although the report below is brief the less than subtle omission by one of Ahmadinejad’s challengers to reject the holocaust denial renders him just another thug cut from the same cloth. How difficult is it to draw the conclusion that this is simply more Iranian dinner theatre attempting to portray their country as something other than what it is. Just one more haven for the ‘religion of peace’ focused on Middle East power, nuclear extortion or worse as well as the destruction of Israel and infidels in general.

At the rate Iran delays the inevitable intervention to eliminate their pursuit and use of nuclear weapons the prospect that they will succeed or that Israel will be the one to stop them increases. And somehow through all of this President Obama gives the impression he thinks he has the answer where none has been found to date. It is time the rest of the world reduces the Iranian threat to a minor historical footnote unless we would all rather face the limited options once Iran has a few nukes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One of two reformist candidates in Iran’s upcoming election is lashing out at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his denial of the Holocaust.

Former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karroubi says Mr. Ahmadinejad’s claim that the Holocaust never happened, only serves to antagonize the West. He also says such comments help the rest of the world to stand by Israel.

This is not the first time Mr. Karroubi has criticized the Iranian president for his stance on the Holocaust, during which six million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis.

In April, he called Mr. Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust “harmful” to Iran’s interests.

Mr. Karroubi and fellow reformist presidential candidate, former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi have also accused President Ahmadinejad of mismanaging the country’s oil resources.

Iranians go to the polls June 12.

Mr. Mousavi was prime minister in the 1980s during Iran’s war with Iraq and is seen as the main challenger to President Ahmadinejad.

Although Iran’s nuclear program and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s negative comments about Israel have generated attention abroad, analysts predict the worsening Iranian economy and high inflation will dominate the campaign.

North Korea and Iran know what most of us know. The impotent actions of the United Nations and each member nations’ special interest will never accomplish the original idea of being an effective forum for resolution in international affairs. It is merely for show and another venue for political fantasy. And the recent liberal thrust in US politics by virtue of the loss of conservative common sense, again through political stupidity, brings the failed policies of surrender and appeasement back to life in a similar fashion to that of Neville Chamberlain before WWII.

As is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, North Korea confirms its understanding that absent an international community of nations as there should be in the UN they have no reason to abandon their stated pursuit of a nuclear weapons program.

A North Korean news announcer read a Foreign Ministry statement saying talks aimed at ending the North’s nuclear weapons are “not needed,” and that it will no longer participate.

The statement goes on to say the North will restart its main nuclear facility - which was disabled under a previous agreement - and reprocess stored nuclear fuel rods into material usable for boosting what it calls its “nuclear deterrent.” (read more)

And Iran as well, while using a slightly different approach, has chosen to stall the US surrender monkeys in Washington DC in pursuit of its nuclear ambitions.

The United States Monday said it welcomed a conciliatory Iranian statement about possible new talks with world powers on its nuclear program. But the State Department says it remains skeptical that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful.

A senior State Department official said no date has been set for a P-5 Plus 1 meeting with Iran and that despite the latest Iranian comments, he said he did not think one is imminent.

He said if a meeting is held, it would likely be at the so-called “political director” level and involve, on the U.S. side, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns and not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (read more)

Enjoy the brief respite from political stupidity in the US after the US Navy and three Navy Seals once again demonstrated what is possible with strength through power. When threatened, neutralize the threat.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While Queen Elizabeth II continued a British tradition that goes back to 1957 and exercised one of her rare occasions to freely express her own views, a 16 year old tradition was continued at the national TV outlet Channel Four presenting ‘an Alternative Christmas Message featuring someone who is not the most popular man on campus.

As the report below indicates, ‘giving the platform’ to the Iranian President for an alternative Christmas Message has ‘generated controversy in some quarters’ in Britain. Ahmadinejad has openly called for the elimination of Israel. Iran is currently involved in a political conflict with many nations on their pursuit of nuclear options that may include weapons. There is much about this scenario which now gives more credence to the notion there are many parallels and similarities to Ahmadinejad and Hitler. This latest event in Britain is reminiscent of similar circumstances in British history. There are a number of events over the past few years that are reminders of British reaction to world events in the last 100 years. Should we be concerned?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In her traditional Christmas message to the country, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II focused on the concerns many are feeling this year about the deepening economic downturn. Meanwhile, Britain’s Channel 4 Television has broadcast what it calls an alternative Christmas address, delivered by the President of Iran.

Mindful of the prolonged recession many in Britain are predicting, Queen Elizabeth II noted that these are nervous times for many. Unemployment is rising steadily, a number of major retail outlets have already gone out of business and some big banks are only operating now with the help of government assistance.

“Christmas is a time for celebration but this year, it is a more somber occasion for many. Some of those things which could once have been taken for granted suddenly seem less certain and naturally give rise to feelings of insecurity,” she said. “People are touched by events which have their roots far across the world, whether it is the global economy or violence in a distant land, the effects can be keenly felt at home.”

The Queen’s Christmas speech represents one of the rare occasions in the year when she can freely express her own views.

Her annual TV broadcast goes back to 1957.

Meanwhile in a tradition stretching back over the past 16 years, a so-called Alternative Christmas Message was broadcast on British national TV outlet, Channel Four.

This year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given the platform.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad rhetorically asks what Jesus Christ would make of the current world. The Iranian leader concludes he would hoist the banner of justice and oppose what he called warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies around the world.

The message has generated controversy in some quarters here. Britain’s Foreign Office predicts it may cause offense amongst what it calls friendly nations abroad.

The head of Channel Four News says it is enormously important to hear the views of the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East.

The approach of the general election featuring the selection of a new President in the United States has seen an incredible amount of turmoil surrounding the current political season. The war on terror while producing success such as the troop surge in Iraq has fallen on the deaf ears and blind eyes of the Democratic party as they criticize the party occupying the White House in the form of President Bush and also offer no congratulations that the US has suffered no further attacks on American soil during his watch. Struggles in the financial sector are also blamed solely on the President and his party by the members of the political opposition.

These situations are not an entirely American ordeal of course as the leaders of Russia in the form of Vladamir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev are experiencing similar controversy. The report below may suggest a change in tone from the Kremlin although recent events are more reminiscent of the Cold War than not. Two Russian Tu-160 bombers left Venezuela this week after conducting air patrol flights in the region. They may return in November for a joint exercise that hasn’t been seen since the Cold War that Putin claims he doesn’t want to be ‘dragged into with the West.’

Just like in the old days of the Cold War, Russia flexed its muscle in a small way with the Tupolev jets but in a more symbolic but provocative way with its nearly simultaneous testing of a new ICBM. The Bulava carries six warheads and can travel 10,000 km. Not surprisingly the Russian media expressed the missiles ability to penetrate any future missile shield. A statement likely directed against the US plans to install missile shields in Poland or elsewhere to protect allies from the likes of Iran or other ‘rogue’ nations bent on expanding their influence through terrorist actions.

The apparent change in tone from Mr Putin was not likely in response to European Union members limp challenge to Russia’s thumping of nearby Georgia. After ruling out sanctions, the EU held a meeting and then condemned Russia for the move. Do you suppose they are somewhat timid due to Russia’s control over so much of their oil supply?

Almost mirroring US financial sector woes Russian President Medvedev blamed the move on Georgia as risking the orderly flow of business in the financial markets of Russia. More turmoil and upheaval in Russia may be faced by the ‘privileged class‘ with ties to the West, international finance centers and of all things NATO complicating their agenda. It may be difficult to tell if the Georgian conflict and repercussions from it were responsible for the need to prop up their markets with this week’s 20 billion cash infusion or if Russia was simply experiencing the same problems the rest of the world was.

Perhaps after some time to digest current events and take the world’s temperature, Putin took a different approach to public affairs in the report below. Just like the financial woes in the US and elsewhere, politicians may be making too much of it too soon. If in six months we’re hearing no more of it the proof that most of the talk was purely political will be obvious. Just as obvious as the players doing nothing to prevent future problems and that they were just being politicians.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Putin Rejects Cold War, Backs Economic Integration

By VOA News
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin says his nation is seeking full integration into the world economy and will not be dragged into another Cold War era with the West.

Mr. Putin was speaking to Russian officials and business leaders in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Russia is becoming “increasingly authoritarian” and “aggressive.” At an event hosted by the German Marshall fund, Rice delivered her strongest comments to date about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and other recent actions.

She said the U.S. goal is to make clear to Russia’s leaders that their choices are putting Russia, in her words, “on a one-way path to self-imposed isolation and international irrelevance.”

She said that for Russia to reach its full potential, it must be fully integrated into the international political and economic order. She said Russia is in the “precarious position of being half in and half out.”

In Moscow, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said Thursday that relations with the United States remain a priority for Russia. He said it would be politically short-sighted to squander the achievements and potential in relations by reviving stereotypes of the past.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP and Reuters.

Musharraf Allies Say Talks Could Lead to Resignation, Legal Immunity

By Barry Newhouse
Islamabad
Newhouse report - Download (MP3)
Newhouse report - Listen (MP3)

Allies of Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf say there are ongoing talks with his political opponents about allowing Mr. Musharraf to resign without facing impeachment charges. But VOA’s Barry Newhouse reports from Islamabad that the president’s spokesman continues to deny that Mr. Musharraf plans to step down.

Days before Pakistan’s coalition government says it will reveal several impeachment charges against Mr. Musharraf, some of the president’s allies say there are ongoing talks between the two sides that could allow Mr. Musharraf to quietly resign without facing impeachment or criminal charges.

A spokesman for the president, Rashid Qureshi, is denying that the president plans to step down or is seeking a deal for legal immunity.

But Senator Mushahid Hussein, a senior leader of the president’s Pakistan Muslim League Q party, confirms in an interview with VOA that there are talks under way for some sort of compromise agreement. He says “the next few days will be decisive” in the standoff.

“I don’t speak for the president but I can certainly say there are backchannels between the presidency and the government which are trying to reach an amicable settlement - so that the country can move on,” said Hussein.

Political analysts say a drawn out impeachment struggle against the man who has ruled Pakistan for nearly nine years would dredge up old controversies and consume the government’s attention when the country faces other serious economic and security problems.

But the coalition government, which spent months haggling over its policy toward the unpopular president, last week made unseating Mr. Musharraf its primary goal.

Since then, a series of lopsided no-confidence votes in the country’s four provincial assemblies that included some defections from traditionally pro-Musharraf parties have eroded the president’s political support.

With the two sides discussing terms under which Mr. Musharraf could resign, some Pakistani officials say U.S. diplomats have lobbied for a dignified exit for Mr. Musharraf. The U.S. embassy insisted the issue is an internal matter for the Pakistani people to decide.

Senator Mushahid Hussein called one possible option for Mr. Musharraf, the “Richard Nixon formula,” in reference to the U.S. president who resigned before his likely impeachment in 1974.

“A variation of that could be seen in Pakistan where perhaps there would be a quiet resignation, there would not be any impeachment and Mr. Musharraf would fade quietly into the night to his newly built residence on the outskirts of Islamabad,” he said. “And there would not be any kind of charges or prosecution afterward. People don’t want to see it as any kind of a blood feud - that’s not in the national interest.”

So far, members of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N party have insisted that the president stand trial for alleged crimes he has committed while in office even if he resigns. The stance of the Pakistan People’s Party on the issue has been unclear.

from MoreWhat.com:

Musharraf was more often than not playin’ ball with the US. As in most cases in the history of our foreign policy, we get the good with the bad. A question about Musharraf might include the obvious how much did he really do to quell terrorism or assist with rounding the bad guys. Did he keep the peace in his country and were Bhutto’s supporters largely made up of wealthy, educated liberals that ignored the less wealthy as much as Musharraf. But the more important questions deal with tensions between Pakistan and India and what may happen to American interests if someone really replaces Musharraf. Be careful what you wish for is a statement that comes to mind.

Stanford Matthews

The United States says North Korea has yet to make a final disclosure of its nuclear activities despite an assertion by Pyongyang Friday that it produced such a report in November. North Korea was supposed to have declared all its nuclear holdings and programs by December 31 under the six-party disarmament accord. VOA’s David Gollust reports from the State Department.Officials here are contesting North Korea’s claim that it has already fulfilled its obligation to report its nuclear programs, but they also stress that the dispute does not mean a rupture in compliance with the six-party agreement.

North Korea’s state news agency KCNA Friday quoted a government spokesman as saying Pyongyang drew up a list of its nuclear programs in November in fulfillment of its obligations and notified the United States.

In a talk with reporters here, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said U.S. and North Korean officials have held talks on what the declaration might contain, but that nothing that could be described as a final document has been submitted to China, host country of the six-party process:

“We have talked with them about their declaration and continue to encourage them to provide a full and complete declaration,” he said. “They’ve not yet provided what they have said is their final declaration to the chair of the six-party talks, the Chinese. And we are still waiting for that. We are still encouraging them, to provide that full and complete declaration as are other members of the six-party talks. We don’t yet have that.”

McCormack said all participants in the process want a North Korean declaration as soon as possible but that getting a complete statement is more important than the timetable.

He suggested that the North Korean media statement Friday was part of a normal ebb and flow in a complicated diplomatic process, and he noted that Pyongyang is fulfilling other obligations under the deal including disabling its Yongbyon reactor complex.

Under the first phase of the agreement, North Korea is permanently disabling the Yongbyon facility, where plutonium for its nuclear weapons was produced, in exchange for one million tons of fuel oil or equivalent aid and diplomatic benefits.

U.S. officials believe North Korea had a parallel uranium-based bomb project, and McCormack said that should be accounted for in the declaration. Friday’s North Korean statement said any concerns about uranium enrichment should have been allayed by recent visits by U.S. experts to the country’s nuclear facilities.

The issue of the North Korea declaration is expected to dominate the agenda for the chief U.S. delegate to the nuclear talks, who is beginning a round of consultations with other participants in the six-party talks.

Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill is due to visit Japan, South Korea, China and Russia in the week-long mission. There are no current plans for him to visit North Korea.
By David Gollust
State Department
04 January 2008

North Korea Silent on Missed Nuclear Declaration Deadline
North Korea has not commented publicly on its failure to meet an end-of-year deadline to provide full details of its nuclear programs.

Instead, North Korean state media are carrying editorials Tuesday calling on the United States to end what they say is a policy of hostility toward Pyongyang.

In other news, South Korea’s president-elect Lee Myung-bak, who has pledged to take a tougher stance toward North Korea, has invited Pyongyang to send representatives to his February 25 inauguration.

Pyongyang failed to meet a December 31 deadline to dismantle its main nuclear complex and provide a full declaration of its nuclear activities.

The deadline was set in an agreement reached with five other countries, including the United States, Japan and South Korea, whose governments expressed their regret over the delay.

Disablement activities are underway at the Yongbyon nuclear complex, but negotiations over the contents of the declaration continue.

U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Monday that what is more important than the timing of the declaration is that it is accurate and complete. Casey said he expects consultations later this week on the issue.

Washington noted that good progress had been made towards meeting the disablement deadline and acknowledged that recent delays were due to U.S. safety concerns.

Under the terms of an agreement between the United States, China, Japan, Russia, and North and South Korea, Pyongyang is to disable its major nuclear facilities and declare all its nuclear programs in exchange for energy assistance.
By VOA News
01 January 2008

If nothing else, a post about France and Sarkozy provides an excuse to post a pic and video link about Carla Bruni. But this particular video is relevant since Sarkozy and Bruni are apparently an item. Seems the French might not be real crazy about this arrangement. Hence, for this and other reasons, the post title is ‘Bon Chance, Sarkozy’.

France Stubs Out Smoking

By VOA News
29 December 2007
The French cafe society culture of long conversations over wine and coffee while relaxing in the ever-present haze of cigarette smoke is about to be transformed.

The smoky cafe will be only a memory when France bans smoking in bars, discotheques, restaurants, casinos and cafes on January 1.

Cafe and restaurant owners are concerned there will be little conversation with less wine, coffee and food purchased when customers are not allowed to smoke.

In November, thousands of cafe and restaurant owners marched in Paris to protest the upcoming ban, but the French government is moving ahead with implementing the new law.

Smoking restrictions began earlier this year in workplaces, schools, airports, hospitals and other public sites.

Officials say France has at least 65,000 smoke-related deaths each year.
That France is engaging the politically correct smoke free stance is not a surprise. Surely everyone can climb on board the no smoking band wagon. This is not entirely unlike the global warming mentality that selects causes for which the supporters can feel better about themselves. It’s easy to select only those causes requiring no self-sacrifice or discipline and look upon those on the other side with disdain. Have these same crusaders eliminated any questionable lifestyle choices of their own? Do you see Al Gore giving up his private jet or palatial estate? Has the health problem of obesity received as much attention or willing crusaders as smoking or drinking or other popular targets? The reality of stigmas for personal choice is another reason this post expresses bon chance, Sarkozy.

But the more serious reasons for wishing Sarkozy good luck is related to another hot topic, nuclear power and the threat of a viable energy source being used for weapons.

Sarkozy: France Supports Egypt’s Nuclear-Power Plans

By VOA News
29 December 2007
French President Nicolas Sarkozy says France is willing to help Egypt develop nuclear power plants.

In an interview published Saturday in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, Mr. Sarkozy said France will cooperate and work together with Egypt if the Cairo government wants to develop civilians uses for nuclear technology.

Earlier this year, authorities in Cairo announced that Egypt intends to build several nuclear reactors to meet its future energy needs.

The French president has been vacationing in Egypt in advance of an official state visit he will begin on Sunday in Cairo.
France generates 75 or 80% of its electrical power capacity from nuclear plants. This may be one area where France is a leg up on other countries in limiting less desirable effects of other power generating sources. Offering to help Egypt develop similar nuclear power capabilities as many countries align to oppose Iran’s arguments over nuclear issues could just be bad timing. Like the outspoken little maniac from Iran won’t use this in his arguments. Again comes the bon chance Sarkozy.

France opposed the US on many items in recent years. Some critics of those opposing the US suggested certain financial arrangements with Iraq in recent years may have been the real reason for the opposition.

Thursday, 13 February, 2003, 17:31 GMT
France’s economic ties to Iraq
By John Laurenson

During the late 1970s, French companies started work on the Tamuz One nuclear reactor near Baghdad - designed to produce plutonium - and on a second reactor, Tamuz Two.

During the Iran-Iraq war, France was soon supplying Iraq with top level military hardware of its own.

All told, France sold some $25bn-worth of weaponry to Iraq before the UN embargo was imposed after the Gulf War.

But above all, the French are interested in Iraqi oil.

Nicolas Sarkis, of Arab Oil and Gas magazine, says France’s state-controlled TotalFinaElf is poised to win contracts to drill the largest unexploited oil reserves in the world.

Before and after Sarkozy’s election in France reports suggested he was interested in improving the relationship with the US. Some may have cheered no more Chirac, no more freedom fries, no more hassles or some promise of good feelings between France and the US. Like most optimistic forecasts or expectations it will probably require bon chance for the new leader of France even with the cherry reports of his early success.

2007 was France’s Year of Nicolas Sarkozy

By Lisa Bryant
Paris
22 December 2007

Bryant report - Download MP3 (1.2MB)
Listen to Bryant report

The year 2007 in France can easily be called the year of Nicolas Sarkozy. Since Mr. Sarkozy’s election as president, he appears to be everywhere, and as Lisa Bryant reports for VOA from Paris, he is living up to some of the high expectations.

It’s May 6, 2007, and Nicolas Sarkozy, candidate for the ruling conservative Union for a Popular Movement Party has won the French presidential elections, beating out his Socialist rival Segolene Royale with 53 percent of the votes. During his campaign Mr. Sarkozy promised not just change in France, but a real “rupture” or break from the country’s past. He reiterated this vow during a triumphant speech shortly after the results were announced.

Speaking before cheering supporters, France’s new leader said the country had given him everything. Now, it was time for him to give back to France.

The past seven months have indeed brought changes and a new tone to French politics. Mr. Sarkozy appointed an extremely diverse cabinet, including not only a number of women and ethnic minorities, but also members of the leftist opposition, including French Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Steven Ekovich specializes in French politics at the American University of Paris.

“Right now, he’s exploiting his image as a young, dynamic president,” he said. “And we’ll see how quickly the French get tired of this energy. But we have quite a dramatic difference with the previous president who seemed to have no energy at all.”

When it comes to domestic policy, says Frederic Micheau, an analyst at the IFOP polling agency in Paris, the French president has largely delivered.

Micheau says Mr. Sarkozy has made good on campaign promises to help realize a new, simplified European Union treaty, simplify immigration laws, and reform the universities and special pension privileges for some French workers.

Not all the changes are popular. The pension reform plans brought hundreds of thousands of striking workers to the streets in November and students upset about the proposed university reforms blocked several dozen French universities. Critics have also blasted new immigration restrictions passed by Mr. Sarkozy’s center-right government.

President Bush poses with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Kennebunkport, Maine, 11 Aug 2007

President Bush poses with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Kennebunkport, Maine, 11 Aug 2007
In fact, Stephane Le Foll, a Socialist deputy in the European Parliament and Cabinet director for Socialist party chairman Francois Holland has nothing good to say about Mr. Sarkozy’s performance to date.

Overall, Le Foll gives Mr. Sarkozy a negative year-end report card. He says the economy is doing badly, and likely to be worse next year. And, he says, the president’s social policies aren’t any better.

Mr. Sarkozy’s foreign policy has also generated criticism. He has established warmer ties with the United States than under his predecessor Jacques Chirac, but analyst Micheau says he has not respected his campaign promises to make human rights issues an integral part of his foreign policy, notably in his dealings with Russia and China, which he visited this year.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, left, greets Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at his arrival at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 12 Dec. 2007
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, left, greets Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at his arrival at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 12 Dec. 2007
And the December visit to France of Moammar Gadhafi of Libya, once considered a terrorist nation, generated outcry particularly when Mr. Gadhafi contradicted Mr. Sarkozy and said the French president had not brought up human rights concerns during their talks.

Socialist politician Le Foll says Mr. Gadhafi’s visit deteriorated the image not only of Mr. Sarkozy, but also of France. He also criticizes the way the French president monopolizes the media and public space.

And Mr. Sarkozy’s energy seems unending, visiting French fishermen one day and flying off to Chad the next, to bring back Europeans facing kidnapping charges. Although he tried to keep his rocky relationship with his wife Cecilia private, the announcement of their divorce in October splashed across front pages of the French newspapers. His new relationship with Italian singer Carla Bruni is similarly grabbing media attention.

Mr. Sarkozy’s popularity has also plummeted from a peak of nearly 80 percent in August to between 50 and 55 percent today. Most analysts believe his honeymoon with the French people is over. Micheau of IFOP is among them.

But Micheau said President Sarkozy’s highest popularity ratings almost reached those of French wartime hero, Charles de Gaulle, so it was inevitable that they should drop.

Micheau says Mr. Sarkozy’s best plan of action for 2008 is to continue making good on his promises of 2007.

(note for this post: if bonne chance is correct and bon chance not precisely so, that explains the use here of bon chance)