Patriots, Traitors And Empires

Patriots,Traitors And Empires – The Story of Korea’s Struggle For Freedom

By: Stephen Gowans

About this Book: 

Patriots, Traitors and Empires is an account of modern Korean history, written from the point of view of those who fought to free Korea from the domination of foreign empires. It traces the history of Korea’s struggle for freedom from opposition to Japanese colonialism starting in 1905 to North Korea’s current efforts to deter the threat of invasion by the United States or anybody else by having nuclear weapons.

Koreans have been fighting a civil war since 1932, when Kim Il Sung, founder of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, along with other Korean patriots, launched a guerrilla war against Japanese colonial domination. Other Koreans, traitors to the cause of Korea’s freedom, including a future South Korean president, joined the side of Japan’s Empire, becoming officers in the Japanese army or enlisting in the hated colonial police force.

From early in the 20th century when Japan incorporated Korea into its burgeoning empire, Koreans have struggled against foreign domination, first by Japan then by the United States. Some protests were peaceful; others involved riots, insurrection and sustained guerrilla war. After the US engineered political partition of their country in 1945, the Koreans fought a conventional war, from 1950-1953. Three million gave their lives.

Examining the history of the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Gowans shows that it can be accurately qualified a “US puppet state” or even “a stationary US aircraft carrier.” Only when faced with virtually insurmountable military threat did the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) resort to nuclear weapons to ensure its defense.

Patriots, Traitors and Empires, The Story of Korea’s Struggle for Freedom is a much-needed antidote to the jingoist clamor spewing from all quarters whenever Korea is discussed. ~

Book Launch and Overview - May 7th, 2018 (Montreal)

Video Source: The Activist Poet

To get a copy of this important historical book click on the following link: Baraka Books

--------------------------------------------

More By Stephen Gowans:
Official Website
Washington's Long War on Syria

Nuclear Weapons. Who Needs “Red Lines”: Iran or Israel?

 

By: Nabi Sonboli

Source; Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-weapons-who-needs-red-lines-iran-or-israel/

In his September 23, 2012 speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the United States and its allies to define clear red lines for the Iranian nuclear program, emphasizing that Iran will reach the threshold at which it could manufacture a nuclear bomb by mid 2013. A deep scrutiny of the past and of present events and trends tells a different story.

After Iraq’s defeat in the 1990 war in Kuwait, Israeli officials focused on the Iranian nuclear program as the main threat to Israel security. At first they alleged that Iran had bought nuclear weapon components from the former Soviet Republics. Then they put aside that argument and stressed that Iran was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, and would reach that target within a few years and requested that the U.S. and EU to do everything possible to prevent Tehran from achieving that goal. Israel had sufficient influence in the U.S. to see sanctions imposed on the Iranian oil industry in mid the 1990s. But European powers that were tired of following the U.S. and Israeli lead after the end of the Cold War were not prepared to accept these arguments. They improved their relations with Tehran and consequently the attempt to apply U.S. laws regarding Iran extraterritorially failed.

However, the Israeli lobby succeeded in convincing the U.S. of the threat posed by Iraq. Sanctions and military attacks against Iraq continued until that country was invaded by a U.S.-UK arranged coalition in 2003. During the presidency of G.W. Bush, Israel benefited from the support of Neo-conservatives who held high office in his administration. Tel Aviv put aside the peace process and launched military attacks against Lebanon in 2006, Syria in 2007 and Gaza in 2009. Israel also encouraged the U.S. to put increased military and economic pressure on Iran. To satisfy Israel, the Bush administration undermined the “EU3’s” negotiations with Tehran, and constantly emphasized that “all options were on the table”[1]. However, the U.S. administration was hamstrung, because of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, realities weakened the Neoconservatives and brought Realists back to power in Washington. The bipartisan Iraqi Study Group recommended negotiation with Iran to stabilize Iraq.

The Bush administration found a clever method by which to deflect Israeli pressure and Neoconservative rhetoric. After years of emphasizing that “all options were on the table,” the administration had two options- either: (i) to implement their threats or (ii) to take the military option off of the table. The U.S. also gradually began to feel the economic consequences of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at home and was therefore not able to launch another war. President Bush did not change his position but the U.S. intelligence agencies rather acted to remove the urgency of the Iranian threat. In 2007 the U.S. intelligence community published a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that assessed that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The NIE paved the way for the U.S. to negotiate with Tehran in Baghdad and to join in the nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

The U.S. intelligence community’s position on Iran’s nuclear program has not changed. Moreover, the current positions of Iran and the U.S. are compatible with one another. The U.S. emphasizes that Iran be prohibited from acquiring nuclear weapons, while Iran emphasizes its right as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich nuclear fuel. The NPT accommodates both of these sets of interests. Consequently Iran and the U.S. have a common basis for negotiation.

During the Bush administration, the Israeli lobby in the United States succeeded in imposing a red line on U.S. conservative establishment policy that was illegal under international law. And that was to insist that no enrichment take place in Iran. The Obama administration changed this redline to one compliant with international law, whereby Iran not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. The swap agreement [2] that was proposed and then rejected by the U.S. included tacit agreement to the idea that nuclear fuel could continue to be enriched in Iran. In the recent nuclear negotiations with Iran that took place in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow, the EU3+3 have also tacitly accepted that the enrichment of nuclear fuel in Iran can continue; the negotiators have asked that Tehran refrain from enriching nuclear fuel up to the twenty percent purity level—even though such enrichment is legal under the International law.

The Israeli position continues to differ from that of the U.S. and the EU3+3. Tel Aviv emphasizes denying nuclear technology to Iran, but its main target is actually to weaken Iran irrespective of the state of Iran’s nuclear program. Israel’s main problem is not with Iran but with its immediate neighbors. Tel Aviv has lost its control over its neighborhood and cannot influence the situation there. At a minimum, Israel feels besieged by new, unknown forces. By emphasizing the Iranian nuclear issue Israel is pursuing two goals: (i) to create a new (Iranian-Israeli) conflict so that (ii) the world forgets the old (Arab-Israeli) one.

Due to the fact that Arab governments are concerned about the Iranian nuclear program and Iranian regional influence, Israel has somehow been able to create a loose Arab-Israeli alliance against Iran. We should not forget that Arabs did not condemn the Israeli military actions against Lebanon in 2006 and Hamas in 2009. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more concerned about Iran than about Israel. The Syrian conflict and Saudi-Qatari support for extremists there demonstrate this very clearly. The question is, if the extremists succeed in Syria, who will their next targets be? Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or the U.S.? This is why the U.S. and EU are hesitant about intervening in Syria.

What Israel fears most is not Iran but being left to its own devices by the West in an instable region. For the first time, Israel really feels isolated in the region. Because of their internal economic problems, the EU and the U.S. are not capable of defending Israel by going to war. Israel has lost both its supremacy in the region and the commitment of its allies. What Israel is seeking to achieve is to keep the U.S. and EU engaged in the region by maneuvering them into launching another war. For Israel, the costs of the war and the degree of success it achieves are secondary issues. The main objective is a long-term U.S. and EU commitment and involvement in the conflict on Israel’s side.

Israeli security is important for the U.S. and EU but not more important than their own interests. The U.S. knows very well that, if the Israelis attack Iran, the U.S. has no option but join them. If they do so, however, they will not be able to defend their own interests. The U.S. has great military power, but many vulnerable interests as well. The EU’s vulnerabilities are even more pronounced than those of the U.S. Consequently, long-term conflict in the Middle East will be too costly for the U.S. and EU to tolerate.

Iranian behavior during the past decade demonstrates that Tehran is not seeking nuclear weapons. By implementing the Additional Protocol to the NPT from 2003 to 2005 and by subsequently resolving outstanding issues with the IAEA, Iran demonstrated that its nuclear program is peaceful. Iran’s religious leader has issued a fatwa against the acquisition of nuclear weapons as a clear demonstration of Iran’s future intentions. This fatwa has the capacity to prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Muslim countries and to prevent the use of such a weapons by Islamic groups.

After years of intervention, sanctions, political pressure, covert warfare and cyber- attacks, Iran has much more reason to be concerned about the real intentions of Israel, the U.S. and its allies than the latter have to be concerned about those of Iran. A nuclear capacity has simply provided a minor form of reinsurance of Iran’s security; it does not deter any attack on Iran. But those who intend to attack Iran, should think twice or more. Iranians have now understood the importance attached to such a nuclear capacity in U.S. and Israeli military calculations. This shows that a peaceful nuclear capacity can also contribute to peace and stability—it is not even necessary to have nuclear weapons in order to deter rational enemies.

If we compare the behavior of Iranian and Israeli leaders, we can easily conclude that Iranian behavior has been much more rational. Voluntary cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, implementation of the modality agreement, acceptance of the swap proposal, cooperation and negotiation with the U.S. to bring peace and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan are all clear indicators of rational behavior in Tehran. If any of the Western countries had faced the threats and pressures that Iran faces, they would surely have behaved differently. Israel will not be able to achieve sustainable peace by force in the new Middle East. Regional concerns about Iran’s nuclear program can be solved through regional security dialogue. Iran has always supported bilateral and multilateral dialogue with neighboring countries.

U.S. and Israeli options are limited: accept an Iranian nuclear enrichment capacity under the IAEA control or strike and then accept the reconstitution of the same capacity outside of IAEA control. It took many years for the U.S. to change its position from no enrichment to low enrichment. Israel has not yet been able to make up its mind. Someone needs to go to Tel Aviv and help Israelis comprehend that Iran’s nuclear capacity is a reality and that Iran is a rational player. The existence of such a capacity in the hands of a rational player that has been engaged and integrated at the regional and global levels, will be different from its existence in the hands of a player that has been attacked by all means. Sanctions, cyber attacks, isolation, and the terrorization of Iranian nuclear scientists have simply exacerbated the situation and led to a loss of Western influence on Iran.

The Middle East is already unstable enough. Israel has just one option: accept the new realities, change its behaviors and look for sustainable peace. During the last decade the U.S. and its allies were the main losers due to instability in Iraq and Afghanistan. Economic and social instability paved the way for moderate Islamists to come to power, but if the instability continues to grow, they will not be able to solve problems and keep their positions. Extremists are at the gate from North Africa to Central and South Asia. These developments have limited U.S. and Israeli freedom of action in the Middle East, not the Iranian nuclear program.

If being moderate or extremist is a criterion for being entitled to possess a nuclear capability, then Israel clearly fails, as it currently has a most extreme government. That is why EU and the US should set a red line for Israel and not let it to impose its policies on them. In recent weeks Israeli officials have repeatedly talked about a military strike against Iran and Western countries have mostly remained silent. Extremists in Israel have clearly demonstrated their intention and if they strike Iranian nuclear facilities, Western officials cannot say that they have not been informed. Those who provide all kinds of weapons for Israel have more responsibility. Just as in the case of the ongoing economic war against Iran, innocent people will be the main victims of any military strike. The Iranian nuclear program enjoys strong national support. U.S., Israeli and EU pressures target Iranian nation, nationalism in Iran and will have long-term consequences for the West.

Netanyahu’s request at the UN General Assembly strengthened the well-established belief in the Middle East that Israel and its lobbies determine European and American policies toward the region. With this opinion widespread in the Middle East, Washington and Brussels will not benefit from Arab Spring. It is time for Western countries to stop Israel from intervening in their domestic and foreign policies and for them distinguish between values and interests that they do and do not share with Israel. Netanyahu’s speech in the UNGA demonstrated his arrogant approach toward the West. If Western powers cannot control Israel, it will impose at least another three trillion dollars in costs upon them. During the past decades, Israeli officials have followed one imaginary enemy after another: Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and now Iran are among the list and it will extend to other countries in the Middle East and North Africa. This approach needs to be stopped. The U.S. and EU need to clearly impose the following redlines on Israel:

First: Do not interfere in U.S. and EU politics. Western officials are wise enough to recognize their interests and know how to decide.

Second: Occupation, intervention, violation of Palestinian rights, and the terrorization of scientists are not values and interests that Israel, the U.S. and EU share in common. Tel Aviv must desist from these policies.

Third: A regime which has manufactured nuclear weapons and is not a member of the NPT does not have right to tell an NPT member state what to do.

Fourth: A regime that has repeatedly attacked its neighbors during the past five decades cannot accuse a peaceful nation of having such an intention.

Fifth: Israeli officials should not mislead the international community. It is twenty years that they have been saying that Iran will reach nuclear weapons within a few years. All those years have passed without any nuclear weapon and the next year will also end in the same way.

Sixth: The U.S. and EU are no longer ready to pay the price for Israeli mistakes. Because of past unconditional support, Israel has repeatedly attacked its neighbors and has not learned how to live with them.

Seventh: Preventing war is a global responsibility and the international community will stop Israel from launching another one.

Solving the Iranian nuclear issue has never been complicated. Transparency for recognition is still the best solution. Iran is ready to increase transparency if the other parties to the EU3+3 negotiations negotiate seriously. Iran has not rejected re-implementing the Additional Protocol either. A transparent nuclear program will not endanger anyone’s security. Many countries around the world have such a capacity, including Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, South Africa and Brazil. Iran has no problem with transparency; the problem is that the U.S. and some of its allies have not been able to recognize Iran’s rights, role and interests. The U.S. has tried to exclude Iran from any regional and international mechanism. They have just tactically engaged Iran in some cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Israeli pressure has been an important factor, but we should not neglect other domestic and international elements. Iranophobia is not limited to Israeli extremists. Many people, even some elites, in the West suffer from a distorted image of Iran. Reinforcing closed doors by sanctions, isolation, military threats, and cyber attacks will not lead to transparency and cooperation. All sides need to pave the way for doors to open.

Notes:

[1] i.e. including a possible military attack on Iran

[2] whereby nuclear fuel enriched to twenty-percent purity in Iran would be shipped out of Iran in exchange for enriched nuclear fuel to power the Tehran Research reactor (TRR) supplied from abroad

Loving the bomb: NATO to splurge billions on nuclear weapons overhaul

F-16 fighter jet manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp (REUTERS/Stringer)

Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/us-nato-nuclear-overhaul-969/

The US is planning to spend $4 billion to upgrade NATO’s Western Eruopean nuclear arsenal. The “unnecessary and expensive” initiative is likely to stir new animosity with Russia, a report says.

The alliance is preparing to replace “dumb” free-fall nuclear bombs with new generation of precision-guided nuclear gravity bombs, reveals a report by the European Leaders Network (ELN), a political think tank. The new bombs will also require new delivery aircraft, the Lockheed Martin F-35, each costing $100 million.

The report “Escalation by Default? The Future of NATO Nuclear Weapons in Europe” is authored by Ted Seay, a former arms control advisor to the US mission at the NATO headquarters in Brussels. It points to the fact that the upgrade will target such countries as Russia and Iran, who will be the most unlikely to be overjoyed with the prospect.

“This will increase NATO’s ability to reach targets in Russia with tactical nuclear weapons,” the paper reads. The initiative comes at a time when NATO and Russia are already “locked in a tense stand-off over missile defense.”

“This could alienate Russia in particular and worsen the prospects for further negotiations on non-strategic nuclear weapon reductions in Europe as a whole,” the report states.

A nuclear escalation “by default” would only harm security and safety prospects throughout Europe, and should be avoided, the paper concludes.

Commenting on the research, ELN chief Ian Kearns stressed to The Guardian that Washington’s plans for the upgrade are exorbitant.

“The planned upgrade of NATO’s tactical nuclear forces in Europe will be expensive and is unnecessary,” said Kearns. “NATO states are fully secure without this additional capability and should be focused on removing all tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, not on modernizing them.”

NATO currently possesses around 180 B61 free-fall tactical nuclear bombs stored at bases in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Turkey. The report states that they are increasingly regarded as obsolete.

In the meantime, a US interceptor successfully downed a ballistic missile as part of a military test in Hawaii, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency stated.

The Raytheon Co-Built Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Interceptor is a key component in the anti-missile defense (AMD) shields the United States is due to build in Poland, Romania and Turkey. The SM-3 Interceptor is to be deployed to Romania by 2015 and will also be used aboard ships equipped with Lockheed Martin’s Aegis anti-missile combat system.

Russia has been calling for NATO to give legally-binding guarantees that its AMD system would not target Russia, thereby upsetting the global balance of power. NATO and the United States have so far refused to give such guarantees.

‘Israel threatened to take down world in nuclear Armageddon’

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/239682.html

Israel is the only regime that has threatened to obliterate all world countries in a “nuclear Armageddon,” if its existence is put in jeopardy, a political analyst tells Press TV.

In a Friday interview, Mark Glenn, from The Crescent and Cross Solidarity movement, lashed out at Israel for its nuclear stockpile, sayingTel Aviv is the only regime that “has threatened to take the entire world down in a nuclear Armageddon in the instance that her precious experiments in Jewish self-rule in the Middle East ceases to materialize.”

“There is no other country in existence today that has basically told the entire world that if we are going to go down we are going to take the rest of the world down with us,” he added.

Even Israel’s most prominent military professor, Martin Van Creveld, has once alluded to such nuclear ambitions by Israel and confirmed that Tel Aviv has several hundred atomic warheads and rockets targeted at all directions -- mostly at European capitals -- and that Tel Aviv is ready to take the entire world down before the regime itself ceases to exist, Glenn pointed out.

The analyst expressed regret that the nuclear threat from Israel looms over the world, while Tel Aviv continues to use its mainstream media outlets to level allegations against other countries, accusing them of possessing non-civilian nuclear programs.

Israel is widely believed to be the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Tel Aviv began building its first plutonium and uranium processing facility, Dimona, in the Negev desert in 1958.

Former US President Jimmy Carter has stated that Israel has a nuclear arsenal that includes between 200 and 300 warheads. Decades of recurrent reporting and aerial footage have also established the possession of atomic arms by Israel.

Under its official policy of nuclear ambiguity, Tel Aviv neither confirms nor denies the possession of nukes and refuses to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or allow inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Iran has not, will not build nuclear weapon – Israeli military chief

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attends an unveiling ceremony of new nuclear projects in Tehran February 15, 2012. (REUTERS/President.ir/Handout)

Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/iran-no-nuclear-weapon-990/

Iran has not decided to build a nuclear bomb, says IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. Nor does he think Tehran will go “the extra mile" to do so. The military chief’s words cut a sharp contrast with the bellicose rhetoric of PM Netanyahu.

Israeli Defense Forces Lieutenant General Gantz told Ha'aretz daily that Iran was moving “step by step” to a point where the production of a nuclear weapon would be feasible. However, he says Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hasn't yet decided “to go the extra mile" to build a nuclear bomb.

“If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken… I don't think he will want to go the extra mile.”

Gantz said that Khamenei’s decision to build a nuclear weapon could only be based on the belief that Iran is invulnerable to a response, an unlikely scenario given that the country’s nuclear facilities “are not bomb proof,” making their operations “too vulnerable” to retaliation.

And the Iranian leadership is “composed of very rational people,” Gantz said.

In sharp contrast to the increasingly bellicose rhetoric of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Gantz maintains “the international pressure on Iran, in the form of diplomatic and economic sanctions, is beginning to bear fruit.”

Although he said 2012 is a “critical year," it is “not necessarily 'go, no-go’” when it comes to conducting a war.

Netanyahu cut a very different figure during an interview with CNN, demanding that Iran give up all uranium enrichment, even at the levels necessary for peaceful atomic energy – nowhere near those needed for creating a nuclear weapon.

"After you stop all enrichment… you will get these (fuel) rods from another country that can allow you to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he said.

Netanyahu continued that while the sanctions "are certainly taking a bite out of the Iranian economy… they haven't rolled back the Iranian program or even stopped it by one iota," he said.

“Nuclear centrifuges are spinning as we speak,” he continued. “So if the sanctions are going to work, they better work soon."

When asked if his comments were making an Israeli military strike inevitable, Netanyahu replied: "I'm not worried what we look like. I'm worried about stopping this."

This past March, Netanyahu had said a strike on Iran was possible within a matter of months.

And while Western diplomats lauded the talks held between world powers and Iran in Istanbul this month over Tehran's nuclear program, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak denounced the diplomatic efforts as a waste of “precious time.”

Netanyahu also derided the talks, claiming the international community had given Tehran a “freebie” by not demanding the Islamic Republic suspend its uranium enrichment program.

For his part, Gantz said that as "a military man", “the military option is the last chronologically but the first in terms of its credibility. If it's not credible, it has no meaning.”

He said that while Israel did face “the potential for an existential threat,” any decisions “must be made carefully, out of historic responsibility but without hysteria."

Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is purely for power generation and medical application. On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said he was hopeful that the upcoming nuclear talks in Baghdad would put them on track for a long-term settlement.

"I see that we are at the beginning of the end of what I call the 'manufactured Iran file'," Salehi said

,

US nukes threaten international peace

Iran's Permanent Representative to the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Kazem Gharibabadi

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/197564.html

An Iranian official says the deployment of US nuclear weapons in Europe threatens the security and safety of host countries and endangers international peace.

The deployment of US nuclear weapons in the territory of some European countries violates the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), Iran's Permanent Representative to the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Kazem Gharibabadi said.

He made the remarks at the “4th Annual International Conference Nuclear Dilemmas: Present and Future” at The Hague.

Gharibabadi advised the Western countries to focus on real threats that endanger international peace and security, such as Israel's nuclear weapons, instead of creating false ones.

“It is surprising that in the sensitive region of Middle East, while Israel is not a party to any international disarmament or arms control treaties and has an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear ones, it is immune to any criticism,” the Iranian official said.

Israel, widely believed to be the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East with over 200 undeclared nuclear warheads, pursues the policy of "deliberate ambiguity" on its nuclear program.

Tel Aviv has rejected global demands to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and does not allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to observe its controversial nuclear program.

“How can the countries that advocate disarmament and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons close their eyes to this obvious threat?” Gharibabadi pointed out.

He stressed the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities and said, “No evidence of the existence of a program to build nuclear weapons has been found in Iran.”

The US and its allies accuse Iran of developing a military nuclear program. In June 2009, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions against Iran's financial and military sectors under Western pressure.

Iranian officials have repeatedly refuted the allegations, arguing that as a signatory to the NPT and a member of the IAEA, Tehran has the right to use peaceful nuclear technology.

NATO concerned about Pakistan nukes

An image of Khushab nuclear complex, located about 140 miles south of Islamabad

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/181707.html

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has expressed serious concerns about the security of Pakistani nuclear facilities amid growing militancy in the country.

Rasmussen said on Tuesday that NATO has the right to be concerned about the security of the violence-hit country.

"I feel confident that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe and well protected," said Rasmussen. "But of course it is a matter of concern and we follow the situation closely."

The security of Pakistan's nuclear facilities has been questioned by the Western military alliance following a recent militant attack on a naval base in southern port city of Karachi.

The militants set off several high intensity explosives and destroyed two surveillance aircraft in Karachi on Sunday night. Fighting continued into Monday morning.

Despite an offensive by the Pakistani government against pro-Taliban militants, they have spread their influence in various regions, killing people and security forces every day.

Western leaders fear Pakistan's nuclear weapons can fall into the hands of militants.

Senior officials in Islamabad have repeatedly dismissed such concerns, saying Pakistani nukes are in safe hands.

Analysts say the US and its Western allies are preparing the grounds for widespread military presence in Pakistan.

They also believe the US is looking for an excuse to expand its military operations in the troubled southern and central Asian regions to secure bases near Russia and China.

This comes as India and Pakistan have been locked in intense rivalry since they gained independence from Britain in 1947.

India and Pakistan have occasionally tested conventional and unconventional weapons over the past years.

New Delhi conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, followed by five more in 1998. Islamabad conducted its sixth nuclear tests in 1998.

Both neighbors have refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other international treaties that restrict the development or testing of nuclear weapons.

US legislative bid against limiting nukes

The floor of the US House of Representatives

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/179557.html

US lawmakers have approved a defense bill that limits President Barack Obama's authority in slashing nuclear arsenal and blocks the implementation of a US-Russia arms control treaty.

Despite objections by the Defense Department and Democratic Congressmen, the Republic-controlled Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives approved a series of amendments that would limit Obama's authority to reduce the US arsenal of nuclear weapons, AP reported on Thursday.

By a 35-26 vote, the panel passed an amendment that would make the allocation of money for disabling nuclear weapons conditional on the submission of an administration report to congress on the measure.

The other amendment passed by the panel also denies the US president the authority to modify the target list or move nuclear weapons out of Europe until Congress is officially informed.

Last year, the United States and Russia signed an agreement that would reduce the number of deployable nuclear weapons of both countries by one-third.

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) will cut the number of deployable long-range warheads to 1,550 each, down from the current ceiling of more than 2,000.

Russia may review START treaty with US

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/164160.html

Russian officials say Moscow will reconsider its strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty with Washington in case the US government builds up its missile system.

“If the US increases the size and quality of missile defense individually or together with NATO partners and the situation changes; a question will [then] arise: Should Russia comply with the treaty or take measures in response?” a Press TV correspondent quoted Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying in a news conference on Monday.

The senior Russian diplomat noted that the new Russian-US Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) makes the link between strategic defensive and offensive armaments legally binding.

The landmark nuclear arms pact between the two sides came into effect during a meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and State Secretary Hillary Clinton in Munich, Germany, on February 5.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had signed the ratification of the new START agreement on January 28.

The new nuclear disarmament pact between Moscow and Washington was passed in Russia's lower house, the State Duma, on January 25. The treaty won the final approval from the upper house, Federation Council, the next day.

The new START treaty, signed by Russian President Medvedev and US President Barack Obama in the Czech capital of Prague in April last year, replaced START 1, which expired in December 2009.

In December, 2010, the US Senate attached non-binding amendments to Washington's historic nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Moscow.

The additions recommit the United Sates to deploy a missile system to Europe, modernize its nuclear arsenal and seek talks with Russia on curbing tactical nuclear weapons.

Lavrov criticized the amendments, saying the Senate decision was “an arbitrary interpretation of the principles of international law."

The new arms reduction pact would limit Washington and Moscow to a maximum of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads each.

Obama, Zardari discuss economy, terrorism

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/160198.html


Zardari was invited to attend this memorial for Obama's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke who died unexpectedly in December leaving a void in Obama's afghan strategy.

But there was no hiding months of disagreement between Obama and Pakistan over the course of Obama's war against militants and American frustration over Pakistan's continued refusal to join the fight. After us vice president Biden met top Pakistani leaders in Islamabad the other day telling them they must commit the Pakistani army to launch a major offensive against militants, Obama reportedly stepped up the pressure on Zardari…at the same time trying to repair the deep distrust and frustration between Washington and Islamabad.

The white house only allowed a few still photographers into the meeting, no questions or comments. Reportedly, Zardari told Obama that Pakistan already one of the largest recipients of us aid, needs even more American money if the rocky relationship is to improve. In a later meeting with secretary of state Clinton the Americans pushed for Pakistan to reform its economy and collect more taxes so it can help pay for its own security and payments Pakistan has not received from the US for helping it in its war in Afghanistan.

Moeed Yusuf is a Pakistani scholar who describes the meeting as a blunder that will further alienate Pakistan public opinion from the Americans…

Yusuf says the continuing civilian deaths in the Americans drone attacks and anti American sentiment are hurting Obama's chances of persuading Pakistanis civilian leadership to confront Pakistan's army chiefs about a more aggressive campaign in North Waziristan. The meeting with Zardari he says failed to satisfy the US administration…

The white house says the Obama-Zardari meeting was informal and short and that when Obama travels to Pakistan in the near future there will be a chance for more talk on military cooperation and counterterrorism - but say some analysts the meeting will be seen in Pakistan as more capitulation to the Americans…

According to white house sources, the Obama-Zardari while said to be cordial, meeting did not resolve the differences, the friction between the two countries.

Pakistan govt. admits presence of US marines

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/160043.html


The Pakistani government has admitted before a closed-door meeting of the parliamentary committee on defense that there are US marines in the country.

In November last year, the US media reported that Pakistan military permitted the US soldiers to be stationed in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan province which borders both Afghanistan and Iran.

In the past, the US even indicated it wanted to expand the drone attacks to the south western parts of Pakistan, where the Americans claim Taliban's top leadership operate under the name of Quetta Shora or Council.

Nothing was made public about the parliamentary committee's proceedings during which the government made this disclosure.

But some members of the committee agreed to share the details.

Senator Khurshid Ahmed, who is the leader of Pakistan's main Islamic parties-the Jamaat-e-Islami, is the one who brought up this issue in the Parliament.

He says Pakistan should expel the US marines because they are a threat to both the country and the region at large.

Another member of the committee and the leader of the Awami National Party, the coalition partner of the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party, was cautious in his reaction to the revelation.

Experts say the presence of US marines can further whip up anti-American sentiments in the country, as the tempers are already high among the public over the killing of civilians in the tribal areas by the American drone strikes.

Despite our repeated attempts, no one from the Pakistani government was willing to talk about the issue, as making a public statement on the presence of US marines in the country would trigger a serious public backlash.

Pope to Pakistan: Repeal blasphemy law

Pope Benedict XVI

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/159588.html


Pope Benedict XVI has called on Pakistan to overturn the country's anti-blasphemy law and do much more to protect religious minorities from violent attacks.

In his annual New Year address to diplomats in the Vatican City on Monday, the pope said the death penalty for blasphemy charges was a pretext for violence against minorities, the Associated Press reported.

"I once more encourage the leaders of that country to take the necessary steps to abrogate that law, all the more so because it is clear that it serves as a pretext for acts of violence against religious minorities," he said.

In December, a draft bill which was aimed at amending the law was discussed in the lower house of parliament. The bill sought to abolish the death penalty for blasphemy charges.

The proposal triggered rallies in all major Pakistani cities, including Lahore, Karachi, Bahwalpur, Multan and Rawalpindi where thousands of demonstrators took to streets in protest to the bill.

Benedict's speech came just days after senior Pakistani politician Salman Taseer, who opposed the legislation, was assassinated by his own bodyguard.

More than 50,000 people took to the streets in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi on Sunday to protest the proposed amendment to the country's blasphemy law.

The demonstrators warned that any move seeking to soften the current blasphemy law would unleash a wave of nationwide protests.

Pakistan premier makes 11 compromises

Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani (L) with main opposition leader Nawaz Sharif

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/159392.html


Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has accepted eleven key demands by the country's main opposition party in an attempt to end political turmoil.

This comes after a week of political ups and downs in the country, with government briefly losing its majority in parliament.

Gilani has responded positively to points made by Pakistan's main opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party leader and former premier Nawaz Sharif during a phone conversation.

On top of the opposition wish list are probes into corruption scandals and the creation of an independent election body. He also says the government must implement a series of court verdicts against ruling party officials for corruption.

PML-N governs the Punjab Province and has given Gilani 45 days to meet its demands.

Sharif had given the Islamabad government an ultimatum to agree to key reforms or face collapse.

"If the government says no to our demands, then I think it will be a very weak government," Sharif said in early January.

"But we need a strong government, and I think for this, we may need the fresh mandate from the people," he said.

Earlier, Gilani reversed a controversial fuel price hike under pressures from the opposition and his key ally -- Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) party.

The MQM, the dominant political force in the southern port city of Karachi, shortly joined the opposition to protest the hikes, but later rejoined the ruling coalition.

Gilani now controls a slender majority in the lower house of parliament.

The developments also come after the governor of Punjab Province was killed in a shooting in the capital Islamabad on Tuesday.

Experts say Salman Taseer's death is expected to further add to instability in the South Asian country.

Taseer was a high-profile member of the ruling party and a close ally of President Asif Ali Zardari.

Pakistan has a history of military takeovers and political unrest since it secured independence from Britain in 1947.

Pakistanis hold rally over blasphemy law

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/159359.html


Thousands have taken to the streets of the southern Pakistani city of Karachi to protest proposed amendments to the country's blasphemy law.

More than 40,000 demonstrators blocked the main road and shut down all markets in the port city of Karachi.

It is one of several protests in the past few weeks, triggered by lodging of a bill by former information minister to abolish the death penalty for blasphemy.

Former Information Minister Sherry Rehman from the ruling Pakistan People's Party sparked public fury after introducing a motion seeking to abolish the death penalty for blasphemy.

Proponents of the move in government say some political groups were misusing this law against minorities.

Strikes and protests went ahead despite officials saying the government had no intention to amend the controversial law. Experts say the strikes had more to do with politics than religion.

Sunday's demonstration follows the Tuesday assassination of Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer by his bodyguard. Officials said he was killed because of his opposition to blasphemy law.

Taseer's death is expected to further fuel instability in the country.

The developments come at a time when the Islamabad government is trying to tackle growing militancy and the economic crisis in the country.

Sharif gives Pakistan govt. ultimatum

PML-N Chief Mian Mohammed Nawaz Sharif

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/158623.html


Pakistan's main opposition Leader Nawaz Sharif has given the Islamabad government three days to agree to key reforms or face collapse.

Pakistan's Muslim League-N chief has threatened to join other opposition parties.

"We are putting forward an interim agenda and demand the government accept or reject it within 72 hours," Sharif said after a meeting of senior members of his party.

The former prime minister has demanded a reverse in recent fuel price hike and a cut in government expenditures.

He also says the government must implement a series of court verdicts against ruling party officials for corruption.

"If the government says no to our demands, then I think it will be a very weak government."

"But we need a strong government, and I think for this, we may need the fresh mandate from the people," he said.

Sharif had earlier said that he would not push for a no-confidence vote against Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Political tensions are running high in Pakistan as calls for Gilani's resignation gain momentum.

Gilani has come under fire for his handling of security in the country.

The developments come days after a key party in Pakistan, Muttahida Qaumi Movement, withdrew from the ruling coalition to join the opposition -- a move that could leave the government short of the majority support in the parliament.

MQM, the dominant political force in the southern port city of Karachi, said the decision was due to the government's poor performance, in particular over corruption issues and the economy.

The recent developments have triggered a political crisis in the south Asian country which has been run by Pakistan People's Party since 2008.

Amid the lingering political crisis, the government in Islamabad is struggling with a growing militancy and economic crisis in the country.

In a separate development, the governor of Punjab Province was killed in a shooting in the capital Islamabad on Tuesday.

Salman Taseer's death is expected to further add to instability in the South Asian country.

Taseer was a high-profile member of the ruling party and a close ally of President Asif Ali Zardari.

Pakistan's PM condemns governor killing

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/158614.html


Pakistan's prime minister has strongly condemned the assassination of Punjab governor and ordered an immediate probe into the killing.

"The prime minister has ordered for a high level inquiry into the incident and [to] submit the report at the earliest. The culprits involved in the assassination, he said, would be brought to justice," Premier Yousuf Raza Gilani's office said in a statement on Tuesday.

This comes after the powerful governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, Salman Taseer, was killed in a shooting in the capital of Islamabad on Tuesday. Five other people were also wounded as other security personnel responded to the attack.

Taseer was a high-profile member of the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and a close ally of President Asif Ali Zardari.

Gilani announced a three-day national mourning period and has called supporters of his PPP to remain calm.

Zardari has announced that the PPP workers will observe two weeks of mourning.

"PPP co-chairman [Zardari] has announced that all party events are cancelled and for the next two weeks, the party will observe mourning," AFP quoted Fauzia Wahab, central Information Secretary of the PPP as saying.

"The party has rendered so many martyrdoms and there is one more," she said.

According to the interior ministry, he was killed because of his opposition to controversial blasphemy laws.

The Islamabad government says some political groups were misusing this law against minorities.

Experts say the uproar over the law has more to do with politics than religion.

The developments come at a time when the Islamabad government is trying to tackle the growing militancy, political instability and economic crisis in the country.

Taseer's death is expected to further add to instability in the country.

Pakistani governor killed in Islamabad

Salman Taseer, the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province was shot dead in Islamabad

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/158588.html


The governor of Pakistan's powerful province of Punjab, Salman Taseer, has been killed by his own bodyguard in the capital Islamabad, police sources say.

Taseer, a senior member of the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and a close associate of President Asif Ali Zardari, was killed by his own guard in the capital Islamabad on Tuesday, AP quoted police official Mohammad Iftikhar as saying.

The governor was leaving his vehicle when a man from his security squad fired two shots at him.

Taseer then fell, while other police officials fired on the attacker, another police official, Hasan Iqbal told AP.

He was taken to hospital where he died from his injuries.

"Yes he has died," said a spokesman for the governor.

The attack took place near Kohsar market, popular with wealthy Pakistanis and expatriates and close to the governor's Islamabad home.

Five other people were also wounded as other security personnel responded to the attack.

He was killed because of his high-profile opposition to controversial blasphemy laws, said interior minister Rehman Malik.

The assassin, who was a member of Taseer's own security team, "confessed that he killed the governor himself because he had called the blasphemy law a black law," said the interior minister.

"He has confessed his crime and surrendered his gun to police after the attack," he added.

Taseer has recently spoken out against the country's blasphemy law.

Pakistan deep in political turmoil

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/157777.html


The Pakistani president faces political turmoil as he steps up efforts to prevent his ruling coalition from collapse after two major allies left the government.

President Asif Ali Zardari's ruling party is attempting to keep his coalition government intact as senior leaders are pressuring two opposing partners to rejoin the cabinet in meeting.

Zardari met with Faisal Sabzwari, a Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) leader, only days after the party withdrew from the government.

The MQM has decided in favor of the resignation of two of its ministers from the cabinet.

The Jamiat Ulema Islam party (JUI) also left the cabinet earlier this month.

The JUI's spokesman Hafiz Hussein Ahmad stressed that the party would only return to the government if the president dismisses Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik, a senior Pakistan People's Party (PPP) lawmaker, held crisis meetings with MQM and JUI leaders late Tuesday, urging them to support an increasingly unpopular government, AP reported.

Political analysts say the government will lose the majority in parliament if the two parties join the opposition.

The MQM, with 25 seats in the 342-member national assembly, represents the Urdu-speaking majority in Karachi and shares power in Sindh province and the central government

France to build reactors for India

France's nuclear giant Areva will construct two nuclear reactors in India by 2020

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/157705.html


An Indian state-run nuclear company and a French firm have signed a 9.2-billion-dollar deal for the construction of two nuclear reactors in India by 2020.

Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) and France's nuclear group Areva inked a series of contracts for building two 1,650-megawatt reactors in India.

The development comes two years after Areva reached an agreement with India on the supply of six European pressurized reactors (EPRs).

"India has little experience in the field of civilian nuclear power, which entails a large amount of technical preparation and lengthy negotiations," an Areva engineer said.

India's Environment Minister Jairam Ranesh says that the project will be implemented on a 1,000-hectare site at Jaitapur, south of Mumbai and fulfils all the conditions to "reconcile the objectives of economic growth, fuel-mix diversification, global diplomacy and environmental protection."

Until 2008, there was an embargo on sales of civilian nuclear technology to India, but it is now the third country to purchase from Areva, after Finland and China.

India currently satisfies 70 percent of its energy needs from coal.

Report: US allots billions to nukes

The White House has allocated 84.5 billion dollars for modernizing America's nuclear arsenal over the next decade

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/157529.html


The United States has allocated billions of dollars to its nuclear weapons complex, despite agreeing to the New START treaty which demands a reduction of nuclear warheads.

According to Newsweek, US President Barack Obama's administration has earmarked 84.5 billion dollar for modernizing America's nuclear arsenal over the next decade.

That is an increase of at least 20 percent compared to money spent on nuclear laboratories during Obama's predecessor George W. Bush's tenure.

The new development comes months after Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) to reduce the number of their active nuclear warheads.

The pact inked on April 8, 2010, would limit Washington and Moscow to a maximum of 1,550 deployed warheads each, about 30% down from the current level of 2,200.

The ratification of the New START in US Congress was seen as a huge win for Obama.

Many said that the endorsement of the deal would finally enable Washington to slash its way toward its so-called "nuclear free world" motto.

However, the recent move by the White House to spend tens of billions of dollars to rejuvenate its nuclear warheads questions Washington's decade-long slogans for a nuke-free world.

This is while previous US actions have also indicated Washington's inconsistency with its much-publicized world denuclearization plan.

The United States is the first country in the world to develop nuclear weapons and is the only one to have used them.

More than 210,000 people were killed in Japan's Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, when the US bombers dropped atomic bombs on the cities.

Before and during the Cold War the US conducted over 1000 nuclear tests and developed long range delivery systems.

Figures show that the Pentagon has also built over 67,500 nuclear missiles from 1951 to the present day, and some 4,680 nuclear bombers from 1945 until now.

In addition to deploying weapons on its own soil, America has also stationed nukes in 27 foreign countries and territories, including Japan, Taiwan, Germany and Turkey.

Arms control advocates believe that these facts question the very basic idea that the US is after a world free of nuclear weapons.