Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

India-Pakistan
Text, Analysis, and Response to the NSG India nuclear waiver
2008-09-06
by Daryl G. Kimball

In an unprecedented move that will undermine the value of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the already beleaguered nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the NSG reluctantly agreed today in Vienna to exempt NPT hold-out India from its guidelines that require comprehensive international safeguards as a condition of nuclear trade.

The decision is a nonproliferation disaster of historic proportions that will produce harm for decades to come. Contrary to the Orwellian claims of the George W. Bush administration, the India-specific exemption from NSG rules and safeguards standards does not "bring India into the nuclear nonproliferation mainstream."

Unlike 179 other countries, India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It continues to produce fissile material and expand its nuclear arsenal. As one of only three states never to have signed the NPT, India has not made a legally binding commitment to pursue nuclear disarmament.

India's political promises on nonproliferation and a voluntary test moratorium are not in any way equivalent to the legal obligations and commitments made by the member states of the NPT. Given India's history of violating its peaceful nuclear use agreements to build nuclear weapons, India's promises provide little confidence, especially if the consequences of noncompliance are not made clear by India's future potential nuclear supplier states.

As a result, the India-specific exemption from NSG guidelines severely erodes the credibility of global efforts to ensure that access to peaceful nuclear trade and technology is available only to those states that meet global nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament standards.

Also, nuclear fuel sales to India for Indian power reactors may marginally help increase India's energy output, but at the same time it will free up India's limited domestic uranium supplies to be used exclusively for bomb-making. This will lead Pakistan to follow suit and help fuel the South Asian arms race.

Making matters worse, the Bush administration resisted efforts by a group of responsible NSG states to incorporate in the NSG waiver language that would unambiguously establish the same restrictions and conditions on nuclear trade that are mandated through U.S. law (the 2006 Henry Hyde Act) and U.S. national policy.

The Arms Control Association and our allies and supporters will work to ensure that the current Congressional requirements and expectations regarding U.S. nuclear trade are fully addressed and that additional measures are taken to ensure that other nuclear suppliers do not undercut the minimal but vital restrictions, requirements, and conditions on nuclear trade mandated by Congress.

The NSG Waiver

The NSG statement on India does not meet ACA's standards or that of a large number of NSG states, nor should it satisfy key U.S. congressional leaders, but it is not the "clean" and "unconditional" waiver India was demanding either.

There were language changes made to the revised U.S. NSG proposal during the Sept. 4-6 discussions.

Because of the negotiations were tough and the real differences not fully resolved, there will likely be serious differences between India and most of the NSG about the interpretation of what the guidelines allow and don't allow and what the consequences of any violation of India's nonproliferation and disarmament commitments would be. This outcome is a failure of the NSG as a whole, the U.S. delegation, and the NSG chair Germany.

The text of the NSG's Sept. 6 statement on India -- along with the national statements issued today by Austria, China, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and others -- indicates that even if the NSG guidelines are not as clear as they should be or fail to include key provisions to reduce the adverse nonproliferation consequences, for all practical purposes:

- NSG states should not and will not likely engage in "full" nuclear trade with India;

- NSG states should and very likely would terminate nuclear trade with India if it resumes testing; and

- India's compliance with it pre-2005 nonproliferation commitments and the implementation of bilateral trade with India will be reviewed on a regular (probably annual) basis by the NSG.

Why? Most states will try to remain consistent with U.S. law, policy, and the U.S. interpretations of its bilateral trade agreement with India. Collectively, these bar the transfer of enrichment, reprocessing, and heavy water technology to Indian national facilities, the Hyde Act also mandates a cutoff of U.S. trade if India resumes testing, and according the State Dept's January 16 responses to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. fuel supply assurances will be invalid if India tests for any reason. See .

Linkage Between India's Commitments and the Waiver

The connection between India's nonproliferation statements and the NSG decision to allow nuclear trade and its possible termination of nuclear trade should have been clear and unambiguous. Yet, Paragraph 3 of the NSG statement undeniably says the "basis" of the India specific waiver includes its July 2005 pledges and the Sept. 5 statement by India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, which include a pledge to maintain India's nuclear test moratorium.

Following the NSG's reluctant approval of the statement on India, several states delivered national statements that clarify their views on how the NSG's policy on India shall be implemented. Among the states that delivered statements were: Austria, China, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland.

Japan noted that the exemption for India was decided on the condition that India continues to observe its commitments, especially its nuclear test moratorium pledge. Japan noted that if India resumed testing, "the logical consequence is to terminate trade." Most of the other statements also made this point.

Germany, and perhaps others, added that it expects India to take further nonproliferation and disarmament measures, including "entry into force of the CTBT and a termination of fissile material production for weapons."

Therefore, if India tests, the NSG would immediately meet in an emergency session (as already allowed for in the NSG guidelines) and the widespread expectation would be for all NSG states to terminate nuclear trade immediately. And despite the Indian government's false representations to its public and parliament, neither the United States nor other responsible nuclear suppliers are going to feel obliged to respect earlier fuel supply guarantees or help find some other country to supply India with nuclear fuel if India tests for any reason or violates its safeguards commitments.

Permanent Safeguards: Paragraph 2.a refers to India's March 2006 "separation plan" which says India will put at least 8 additional nuclear power reactors under safeguards by 2014. The inclusion of this language was resisted by Inda, which has still not formally filed the list of facilities its will actually put under safeguards with the IAEA.

Paragraph 2.b of the NSG statement on India also refers to the maintenance of facility-specific safeguards in accordance with IAEA standards and practices including Gov. 1621, which means that the safeguards agreement puts India's materials and facilities under indefinite safeguards that Indian cannot legally terminate unilaterally. The Government of India has suggested to its parliament that this is not the case.

Enrichment and Reprocessing Transfers: International safeguards cannot prevent the replication or possible use of sensitive fuel cycle technologies transferred to India for "civilian" purposes for use in its military sector. The NSG should have explicitly banned such technology transfers. India Paragraph 3.a in the NSG statement on India maintains that Paragraphs 6 & 7 of the current NSG guidelines will continue to apply. This means that NSG states must continue to exercise "utmost restraint" with respect to transfers of sensitive dual use technologies and enrichment and reprocessing technologies to India or any other state.

In addition, in the course of the NSG meeting, the United States confirmed that participating NSG governments expressed assurances that they did not intend to transfer enrichment or reprocessing technology to India.

Review of the Implementation of the Statement: Paragraph 3.c and 3.e require NSG suppliers to report on their nuclear transfers to India and consult regularly on India's implementation and compliance with India's its nonproliferation commitments and bilateral nuclear cooperation with India.

India and the NSG: In Paragraph 2.f, the NSG statement notes that India has pledged to harmonize its export policies with that of the NSG and that India commits to adhere to all NSG guidelines. But contrary to India's demands, India may not "participate" in future NSG decisions or the development of future guidelines. Instead, India may be consulted by the NSG chair regarding future policies. One of those policy discussions will soon be aimed at establishing clearer limitations on the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology, including a ban on any transfers to non-members of the NPT.
Link


India-Pakistan
Abject surrender
2008-08-14
By Tariq Fatemi

PAKISTAN’S diplomacy has historically been imbued with imagination and initiative. Recently, however, there was an occasion when our effort to engage in a salvage operation was stopped virtually in midstream.

Its origins go back to the July 2005 George Bush-Manmohan Singh joint statement that carried the US commitment to provide civilian nuclear technology to India. Bush had then stated that his administration would not only “adjust US laws and policies”, but also “work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India”.

A year later, the US Congress passed the Henry Hyde US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Act of 2006, which Bush signed into law on Dec 18, 2006. Thereafter on July 27, 2007, India and the US reached a consensus on the text of a nuclear cooperation agreement, prompting Bush to reiterate the US desire to base relations with India on “a strategic vision that transcends even today’s most pressing security concerns”. However, for this agreement to be put into operation, India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) needed to agree on a Safeguards Agreement.

This high-stake game moved recently to Vienna where the IAEA Board of Governors was hustled into approving, by consensus, the draft of the Safeguards Agreement that contained procedural errors as well as critical exceptions and concessions that other IAEA agreements did not contain.

For example, it does not, unlike accepted IAEA format, use the word “in perpetuity” with reference to the safeguards, which can only be taken as indicative of India’s desire to keep open the possibility of reneging on the agreement. It also has a provision that permits India to take “corrective measures to ensure the uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies”.

Since such a disruption can happen only if India resumes nuclear testing, this loophole will stop the IAEA from preventing the diversion of materials from civilian safeguarded reactors to military purposes. Nor does the agreement include a list of facilities to be safeguarded. Instead, India has been permitted to volunteer which of its facilities will be placed under safeguards and when. This has led some to describe it as an “empty shell” agreement.

Earlier, when US largesse to India had caused deep concern to American advocates of non-proliferation as well as our national security experts, the last government had chosen to adopt an attitude that revealed both ignorance and apathy.

Admittedly, our demand for a similar facility would have been brushed aside, given the bitter memories of Kargil and allegations of proliferation misdemeanours. Nevertheless, our refusal to immediately react to the Indo-US deal was deeply disappointing to most Pakistanis.

The restoration of a democratic government had renewed hopes that Pakistan would finally wake up to the grave implications of the Indo-US deal and initiate a vigorous diplomatic campaign on two tracks. One, bilaterally with Washington to press for a criteria-based approach, while seeking its assistance in harnessing alternative sources of energy. Two, by sensitising friendly capitals on this issue and seeking their support to delay, if not deny, passage of the Safeguards Agreement.

In mid-July, a half-hearted effort was finally launched by the Foreign Office, when our permanent representative in Vienna, wrote to the Board of Governors (BOG), as well as member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), pointing out the procedural errors as well as substantive concessions contained in the Safeguards Agreement.

By endorsing India’s refusal to place its breeder reactors and thorium-based programme under safeguards, the agreement recognises India’s three-phased nuclear programme, which amounts to gratuitous legitimisation of potential nuclear proliferation that was contrary to IAEA objectives.

The letter also stressed that the IAEA statute does not provide for differentiation between member states on the basis of political consideration, nor did it allow for special treatment for a particular state.

Calling it an India-specific agreement was therefore wrong but any safeguards agreement adopted by the BOG in respect of India should be available as a model for other non-NPT states. The foreign ministry also decided to send a special envoy to China, to obtain its support for our approach.

In response, the Bush administration launched its own campaign to dissuade Pakistan from any effort to thwart the Indo-US game plan. In doing so, it also claimed that the previous government had already given its commitment not to oppose the unprecedented concessions given to India.

Our ambassador in Washington, too, according to well-informed sources, pitched in, recommending that we do nothing to upset the Bush administration’s advice and, instead, terminate all efforts to counter the Indo-US move, at both the IAEA and the NSG, which is to meet to consider the US draft to allow nuclear trade with India. To the Foreign Office’s disappointment, the entire campaign was called off, causing deep dismay at this abject surrender of national interests.

The Indo-US nuclear deal should not be seen merely as a commercial arrangement. Thanks to this deal, India will obtain full access to nuclear technology, while the global ban on civil nuclear cooperation with Pakistan will remain intact. India will also stand admitted to the exclusive club of nuclear weapon states, while Pakistan’s nuclear programme will continue to draw international concern and opprobrium.

Moreover, the manner in which the deal was concluded is reflective of the common desire of New Delhi and Washington to bring about a qualitative change in their bilateral ties, making it truly strategic. This is evident from the manner in which the Bush administration was willing to employ its heavy guns to silence critics, while convincing others that the benefits of a strategic partnership with India far outweighed US commitments (both domestic and international) to non-proliferation.

On the Indian side too, Manmohan Singh was so determined to consummate the ‘deal’ that he was willing to risk a parliamentary vote of non-confidence, in favour of a policy that represents India’s abandonment of the half-a-century old Nehruvian policy of not identifying with any one superpower.

No wonder, the then US Under Secretary of State Nick Burns had asserted: “This is a unique agreement, for a unique country”. But it is our own behaviour that demonstrates the distance travelled since Bhutto refused to buckle under US pressure to abandon the reprocessing plant and Mian Sahib, notwithstanding the combined threats and blandishments of Clinton and Blair, refused to surrender Pakistan’s sovereign right to carry out nuclear tests, in response to those of India.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Obama Figures He'll Come From Behind
2008-08-10
Finally, for John McCain, a week to smile about. "Obama fatigue," a virus that's afflicted the GOP presidential candidate for sometime now, was discovered in a new Pew survey to have spread to 48 percent of the populace.

And recent national polls now place McCain and Barack Obama in a statistical dead heat. Gallup's numbers have Obama 46, McCain 43. RealClearPolitics' national average is about the same, Obama 46.9 to McCain 43.3.

What does it mean? Next to nothing. And Obama's team not only knows it, it thrives on it. They think "horse race" in the classic Seabiscuit sense.

Out of the gate, the thoroughbred who leads too early and by too great a margin is more often than not the vulnerable one, the one in danger of losing it all to the horse who strategically holds back, waits, and then thunders in the final furlongs to finish first.

Obama's political guru, David Axelrod, and his Chicago-based firm, AKP&D lay it out on their Web site. "We win tough races. . . . campaigns no one thought could be won," it states. "The governor who came from 20 points behind" . . . (Iowa's Tom Vilsack). "The incumbent mayor who came back from 20 points down in only 20 days" . . . (Deedee Corradini in Salt Lake City) "The congresswoman who won Dan Quayle's old seat in an upset" . . . (Indiana's Jill Long).

Axelrod & Co. can now include in its victory list the skinny unknown from Chicago who in one short year went from a mere 26 percent in the polls to toppling front-runner Hillary Clinton who was a full 22 points ahead of him last August.

"The national numbers mean nothing," said John Kupper, the "K" in AKP&D, last week by phone. "These are not national elections but state by state elections. We have vote goals. We know prior performance models."

In other words, this is now and always has been the sum of political component parts for the Obama operation, not a national popular election but a sophisticated, incremental accumulation of delegates in the primary, and electoral votes come November.
I read this weeks ago - he outsmarted the Clintons. Maybe they were too arrogant?
It isn't that Axelrod's team has had no experience losing. Their most recent defeat came in 2006 and it stung. The candidate, Tammy Duckworth, was a charismatic Iraq war veteran, a pilot who lost both legs when her helicopter was shot down. Though Duckworth and AKP&D had a corner on charisma and a lot of cash, they failed to wrest U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde's former seat from Republican control.

Obama can certainly lose this race. But McCain's going to have to find a better way to win it than by invoking Paris Hilton or by sniping in his most recent ad how "life in the spotlight must be grand but for the rest of us, times are tough."

What's tough for McCain is that despite having had a practice run at the presidency once before, it didn't limber him up, cause him to realize that even the elderly now skillfully navigate the Internet or help him craft a "vision thing."

In the short run, jealous jabs at Obama for having too much face time on the covers of Rolling Stone and GQ may appear to close the gap in national polls. But the aggregation of images - Obama in Germany, Obama with his cute girls and beautiful wife, Obama visiting his grandmother in Hawaii -- is by dribs and drabs helping America feel familiar with him, visualize him on foreign soil, and see him, perhaps, as both human and presidential.

In some ways the tightening numbers work for Obama, not against him. "No cause for panic," said Kupper. No, indeed, Obama is off to splash in the Pacific surf with his family.

It's the horse race play. Or, as the Axelrod game goes, you always play the come from behind, even when you're ahead.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Pelosi Doesn't Understand War on Terror, Hastert Says
2006-10-24
The United States cannot win the global war on terror if U.S. leaders don't understand it -- and Rep. Nancy Pelosi does not understand it, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said on Tuesday.

Hastert -- who holds the job that Pelosi is eager to assume -- was reacting to Pelosi's remarks on the CBS program "60 Minutes." He said her comments should serve as a "bellwether" for the American people.

"Democrat Leader Pelosi would trust the terrorists to give up their objective and play nice in exchange for the United States leaving Iraq. This outlook is foolish, naive and dangerous," Hastert said.

Pelosi told CBS's Leslie Stahl that yes, there are terrorists in Iraq. "But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there. They're there because we're there," she said.

Hastert said the minority leader is wrong. The global war on terror is just that -- global, he said. "It is not fought in just one country. It is not even fought in one hemisphere."

Hastert said that's why Pelosi's comments are "irresponsible."

"Is the Democrat Minority Leader really turning a blind eye towards the countless number of terrorists that we are fighting in the streets and battlefields of Iraq and also in numerous countries around the world? Does she forget the nearly 3,000 victims of September 11th? The 201 victims of the Madrid train bombings? And the 52 victims of the London bomb attacks? These were all innocent victims of the Global War on Terror. And what about the countless others who have been saved because of our efforts?

Hastert said Pelosi could not be further from reality when she say terrorists are in Iraq only because U.S. troops are there: "If the United States had not brought the fight to foreign soil, terrorists wouldn't disappear -- they would deploy to the United States."

He said that's why President Bush and the Republican-led Congress "have chosen to go on the offensive and take the fight to the terrorists before we have to fight them in American neighborhoods."

Hastest said if Democrats controlled Congress, they would "cut and run from the Global War on Terror, continue to coddle terrorists, create a United States Department of Peace -- and call it a day."

Later on Tuesday, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, echoed Hastert's criticism of Pelosi. Terrorists aren't confined to Afghanistan, Hyde said.

"A failure to recognize this could be disastrous to American security."

Hyde said until the fledgling government of Iraq is stable, terrorists will be able to maximize disorder - and their "plots will move forward unimpeded."

"It is only the U.S. presence in Iraq that prevents chaos from taking complete control of that country. A free and stable Iraq will be a major U.S. victory in the war on terror," Hyde said.
Link


Home Front: Politix
THE OUTING
2006-10-13
You think politics is filthy? You don't know the half of it if you haven't heard of "The List," which you probably haven't because this recent saga of scum isn't apparently worthy of widespread media notice and editorial outrage.

The List is a roster of gay Republican congressional staffers that has circulated around Washington, D.C., since former Rep. Mark Foley's exit. It includes chiefs of staff, press secretaries and communications directors who work for GOP lawmakers such as Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum and Henry Hyde. List recipients include the social-conservative arm of the vast right-wing conspiracy: the Christian Coalition, the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family and so on.

But, lo, members of the religious right are not the ones outing gay GOP staffers or poking into the private lives of people working for Republicans. If they were, The List would be a major issue right now.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Dems Troll for Handicapped Vet Candidates
2006-08-23
When Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL-5th), head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rallied Democratic heavy weights such as Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to support Tammy Duckworth in her congressional primary race, the obvious was so disturbing no one inside or outside the beltway was willing to talk about it.

Emanuel, with help from Democratic Whip, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), recruited Duckworth to run for the congressional seat being vacated by 16-term congressman, Republican Henry Hyde (R-IL-6th). Duckworth is an Iraq War veteran who was severely injured when the helicopter she was co-piloting was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade fired by Iraqi insurgents. The attack resulted in Duckworth losing both her legs. The subject that is taboo amongst the media and politicians is the harsh reality that Duckworth’s service to her country and resulting paraplegia are now being used by Emanuel and Democratic leaders for political gain.

In 2004, Hyde was surprised by Democratic challenger, Christine Cegelis, when she got over 44% of the vote. With Hyde’s seat open and the congressional approval numbers at near historic lows, Cegelis would undoubtedly be competitive with her previous support combined with disgruntled conservatives. However, Emanuel decided to throw Cegelis and her established organization to the curb and recruited Duckworth to run in the Democratic primary. As previously indicated, Emanuel brought in the Democratic power players to back Duckworth over Cegelis in the race, resulting in a 4 point victory for the Iraq war veteran.
Link


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
White House opposes Iran sanctions bill
2006-03-16
WASHINGTON, March 14 (Reuters) - The Bush administration has told lawmakers it opposes legislation to impose sanctions on foreign firms and countries working in Iran, but the lawmakers said on Tuesday they intended to advance the bill anyway. Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a key sponsor of the measure, said she would not bow to the administration's demand for more flexibility in enforcing the sanctions.

The House of Representatives International Relations Committee is to consider the bill on Wednesday, despite the White House's opposition. Backers of the sanctions legislation said it would squeeze Iran's economy, strengthening the response to Tehran's pursuit of nuclear technology which the United States says could be used to make nuclear weapons.

The legislation would require U.S. sanctions on any company or nation investing more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector, and require U.S.-based pension funds to disclose Iran-related investment. The United States has long-standing sanctions barring American companies and individuals from doing business with Iran.

"Despite the fact that the bill affords the necessary flexibility to the president and despite my best efforts and those of Mr. Lantos to make changes to the legislation toward achieving a mutually acceptable agreement, the administration will not support (it)," said Ros-Lehtinen, who crafted the bill with Rep. Tom Lantos of California, top Democrat on the committee.

Because previous sanctions on Iran were waived under the Clinton administration "and due to the gravity of the Iran threat, we do not believe it would be beneficial to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests to weaken the legislation," Ros-Lehtinen said. Rep. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who chairs the committee, will decide whether to support the bill based on "how the amending process develops," his spokesman said.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Dems Find Vets to Help Retake House
2006-02-24

They call themselves the Band of Brothers, about 50 men - and a few women - all Democrats, all opposed to the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, and all military veterans. One more thing: They're all running for Congress this year.

Not since 1946 have so many vets from one party come together in a political campaign, they claim. Their wildest dream is to give the Democratic Party the extra edge it needs - by boosting its weak image on defense and patriotism - to end Republican control of the House.

They also know it's a long shot: Many are running against incumbents in safe Republican districts. Many also face competitive primaries against Democratic opponents with more political experience and access to money.

Among the Democratic vet candidates, 10 have served in either Afghanistan or the current Iraq war, or both. Only one - Maj. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who is competing for the seat of retiring Republican Henry Hyde - was recruited by the national Democratic Party. Political handicappers give her the best shot at making it to Washington of all the Democratic vets running. Handicappers also mention Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania - an Iraq vet trying to unseat a first-term Republican, Mike Fitzpatrick, in a Democratic-leaning district - as having potential, though fundraising has been slow.

The only other Democratic Iraq war vet with a national political profile, Paul Hackett of Ohio, dropped out of his US Senate race Feb. 14 under pressure from party leaders. They wanted to avoid a costly primary and instead steered Mr. Hackett back to a second try at the House seat he almost won last year. His surprise near-victory in a special election for a presumed safe Republican seat earned him national notice - and may have inspired other Democratic war vets to jump into politics.

Mike Lyon, who launched the Band of Brothers political action committee in December, has found the going tough. He's raised only $40,000 so far. "If resources continue to flow the same way, not many [will win] - I'm being frank," says Mr. Lyon, who is based in Richmond, Va. "But if we can go out and build awareness about their campaigns and provide resources to level the playing field for the November general [election], then I think a lot of these guys will be competitive. We're still getting the lay of the land."

Analysts agree that the novice candidates have their work cut out for them. They have to develop a full congressional agenda, campaigning ability, and networking skills that show they're ready for prime time. Being a Johnny-one-note against the war isn't enough, say political observers. "They're running for Congress, not commander in chief," says Amy Walter, a specialist in House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "Obviously, Iraq's an important issue, but at the same time, they need be able to talk about healthcare, the economy, gas prices."

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which recruits and helps candidates the party believes can win, has not made a special effort to recruit Iraq war vets, says spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg. "What we have done is to recruit the best possible candidate in every district," she says.

But as the election year unfolds - including Republican-dominated scandals and low presidential popularity - analysts don't rule out the potential for a national wave that could make some usually safe seats competitive. GOP control of the House remains slim, with 230 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 independent, and two vacancies.

"The Democrats' best chance of winning a majority is to expand the playing field beyond the three dozen or so [seats] that have been in play in recent years," says Rhodes Cook, an independent political analyst. Candidates with the Iraq credential could end up being "a twofer for the Democrats. Not only do they have the goodwill of the recent Iraq war vet, but [they] also help offset a party weakness, which is being kind of light on defense."

The Republicans have one Iraq war vet running for Congress, Van Taylor of Texas, who is trying to knock off Rep. Chet Edwards (D). Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee, says 38 Republicans with military experience are running for Congress. When asked if any of the Democratic vets pose a threat to any Republicans, his answer is simple: "Zero."

Still, "being a vet is a good résumé item to have," says Mr. Forti. "It brings a certain level of approval."
Link


International-UN-NGOs
US handling of UN reform angers developing nations
2006-02-19
US Ambassador John Bolton’s drive to crack down on UN fraud and abuse is triggering a backlash from developing nations who fear Washington is trying to wrest control from UN members. The simmering conflict between Washington and the developing nations that make up a majority of UN members boiled to the surface this week when two US congressmen said nonaligned states had “worked feverishly in New York to block the efforts ... to clean up the institution”.
Afraid the grease is going away? Don't worry, it won't get to the point where you have to pay for your own lunches...
“We and our colleagues in the House of Representatives have followed, and will continue to follow, your actions very closely, and we intend to hold you accountable for them,” Republican Henry Hyde of Illinois and Democrat Tom Lantos of California wrote South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo in a letter circulated at the United Nations on Friday. Kumalo, the current chairman of the Group of 77, a bloc of 132 developing nations and China, said the group had been “very, very upset” by the letter but had decided at a hastily called emergency meeting not to respond to it.
Sigh. I can remember when South Africa was a first world nation. Now it's "developing." We won't dwell on what it's developing.
“They are just one of 191 parliaments,” Kumalo said. “They were upset. We were upset. You can play that game endlessly. The mistake being made by Washington is to assume management reform matters only to Washington. It matters to all of us.”
"It just matters to some of us for different reasons."
Link


International-UN-NGOs
Annan prepares for privatisation of UN
2006-02-13
Pressure from US forces Secretary General to put reforms in place
The United Nations has drawn up plans to privatise the bulk of its staff at its New York headquarters or have their work done more cheaply overseas. The move is in response to mounting demands for reform from the United States, its biggest paymaster.

The Business has learned that Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, has commissioned a study into the outsourcing of the department for General Assembly and Conference ­Management, the main UN ­decision-making body whose officials issue about 200 documents a day in six languages.

The move comes as the UN grapples with the oil-for-food scandal in which officials have been accused of taking bribes from Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Annan will report by the end of February on management reforms to the General Assembly. According to an internal UN document previewing Annan’s report obtained by The Business, he will include “proposals to outsource or off-shore select administrative processes” – suggesting its New York headquarters may shed staff.

Annan is reviewing the study conducted for the UN by US consulting firms Epstein & Fass Associates and Faulkner & Associates. Their preliminary study, which The Business has seen, makes no firm recommendations. But it examines three privatisation possibilities, from the most conservative to the most radical:

* Maintain the status quo of in-house operations, but save money and create efficiency through greater use of technology and eliminating more than 200 jobs through attrition by 2009;

* Retain a core of in-house functions while outsourcing some operations, along the lines of a similar exercise by the World Bank and IMF;

* Spin off the General Assembly department entirely as a for-profit, private company or an independent unit with some control by the secretariat.

The study gives frank assessments of the risks with privatisation, especially guarding privileged information and interrupting projects if new contractors are hired. It concedes privatisation may not save money. “Outsourcing does not guarantee reduced cost”, which “depends on market factors, and also… on how outsourcing is managed”, it says.

The Bush administration has made an overhaul of management a centrepiece of its UN reform programme. John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, once said that if the New York headquarters lost 10 of its 38 floors, “it wouldn’t make a bit of difference”. He is leading an effort to move the UN towards the efficiency of a private company, including transforming the deputy secretary general into a chief operating officer and demanding that tasks are done by merit, not geography.

Christopher Burnham, a former Bush State Department chief financial officer, was named UN undersecretary general in charge of management last June and declared the UN needed to “refocus on those areas where we have a competitive advantage”.

Rick Grenell, spokesman for the US mission, told The Business the Bush administration had no position on outsourcing. “Our position is that the UN needs to function better,” Grenell said. “We need to look at all ways to make that better. No one is talking about cutting jobs or turning out lights. Talking about outsourcing is way ahead of the game.”

But there has been growing pressure from Washington on the UN to cut costs. The US pays 22% of the UN’s general budget. France pays 6.4%, the UK 5.5%, China 1.53% and Russia 1.2%. All five can wield a veto on war-making decisions. Congressman Henry Hyde’s proposed UN Reform Act of 2005 would withhold 50% of US dues unless at least 32 of 39 proposed reforms are adopted – a clear indication of pressure intended to break the deadlock.

Some staff fear privatisation would cause a cultural shift at the organisation where international civil servants have been chosen through competitive exams for more than 60 years.
I'm a thinking I have a better idea...
Kofi should have listened to The Donald ...
Link


International-UN-NGOs
Mr. Sevan, I Presume
2005-12-28
EFL Caludia Rosett, WSJ

At the United Nations, as a year of many scandals draws to a close, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been trying to stuff some big unanswered questions down the memory hole--with mixed results. No, I'm not talking only about the files Mr. Annan's former chief of staff shredded during the Oil for Food investigation, or the discounted duty-free Mercedes allegedly shipped to Ghana in late 1998 by the secretary-general's son, Kojo Annan, under false use of his father's name and diplomatic perquisites. Hanging over all this is another mystery that despite the magnitude of the question seems of strangely small concern to the secretary-general: What has become of the former head of the U.N. Oil for Food program, Benon Sevan?

Mr. Sevan has not been called to account under any regime of law. Having been retained in New York by Mr. Annan after Oil for Food ended as a $1-a-year "special adviser" to assist in the inquiry into the program, Mr. Sevan skipped town in mid-2005, shortly before Mr. Volcker weighed in with his allegations on Aug. 8 of this year. Since then the U.N. has said that Mr. Sevan, despite the allegations against him, is entitled to collect his U.N. pension--which a spokesman for Mr. Annan confirmed to me again this week is "untouchable." The U.N. will not give out any information on Mr. Sevan's current location.

But to such sketchy accounts, investigators for Rep. Henry Hyde's International Relations Committee are now prepared to add some illuminating details--starting with their encounter with Mr. Sevan himself, less than three months ago, in Cyprus. As it happens, they were not expecting to find Mr. Sevan in person. They went to Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, trying to track down details of the case, including the fate of Mr. Sevan's deceased aunt, Bertouji Zeytountsian. By Mr. Sevan's account to Mr. Volcker, this aunt, while living in Nicosia as a retired government worker on a pension, had sent him funds totaling some $160,000 during the last four years in which he was running Oil for Food, 1999-2003. The day after the U.N. investigation into Oil for Food was announced, in March, 2004, Zeytountsian fell down an elevator shaft in her Cyprus apartment building. A few months later, she died.

Mr. Hyde's investigators decided while in Nicosia to have a look at the elevator shaft. On Oct. 14, a Cypriot police official showed them the way to the building. There, printed plainly on a mailbox at the entrance to the apartment block, was the name not of Mr. Sevan's aunt, but of Benon Sevan himself. After shooting the picture shown nearby, the investigators went up to the eighth-floor apartment where the aunt had lived. They knocked, and the door opened.

There stood Benon Sevan. As one of the investigators describes it, Mr. Sevan came to the door "in shorts, no shirt, and sandals, smoking a cigar." Apparently everyone was surprised to come thus face-to-face. Mr. Sevan was polite but did not invite them in. They chatted across the threshold. He told the congressional investigators to address all questions to his lawyers, saying, "My conscience is clear."

The investigators turned to go, and, as one of them recounts, as they headed for the stairs, Mr. Sevan told them, "You can take the elevator. It's fixed now."

The U.N., however, remains broken.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office opened an investigation into Mr. Sevan earlier this spring, and confirmed to me Tuesday that the investigation is continuing, but the New York prosecutor has no jurisdiction in Cyprus and cannot in any event bring charges against Mr. Sevan unless Mr. Annan lifts his diplomatic immunity--which it seems Mr. Annan has not done. A spokeswoman for the Cypriot mission to the U.N. says that "the issue" of Mr. Sevan is "on the desk of the attorney general in Cyprus, who is studying the case."

That leaves Henry Hyde's investigators, one of whom tells me the attorney general of Cyprus, Petros Clerides, assured them during a meeting in Nicosia, in October, just before they came face-to-face with Mr. Sevan, that if given the evidence, Cyprus "would prosecute." But since then, says this investigator, Cypriot authorities have been "uncooperative." It seems that Mr. Volcker's committee will deliver the evidence only if asked, and there is no sign yet that Cyprus is asking. Mr. Hyde's investigators say they are "going to follow up" and "will be in touch with the Cypriot ambassador."

Perhaps when Mr. Annan gets done tracking down that missing Mercedes, he could lend them a hand.
Link


Down Under
Aussie Wheat Bribes Funded Bombers
2005-12-08
KICKBACKS paid by Australia's monopoly wheat exporter to the regime of Saddam Hussein were put into a bank account used to finance a $US10million ($13 million) slush fund for families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
We knew about the payouts but we didn't know the source.
US Government and CIA documents reveal a trail of blood money flowing from companies now known to have taken bribes into bank accounts in Jordan, which were then used by the Iraqi Government to pay money for deadly bombings or to buy weapons.

According to a US inquiry into the corrupt UN oil-for-food program, companies such as Jordanian firm Alia, which received hundreds of millions of dollars from Australian wheat exporter AWB, paid money into "front" accounts held under false names. These accounts were then emptied each evening into Iraqi Government accounts at the same bank and used for its international transactions.

Alia, which AWB says it thought was a trucking company, provided 15 per cent of the kickbacks uncovered by the investigation into rorting of the oil-for-food program. "According to information provided to this committee, Saddam paid $US25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers through the Iraqi ambassador to Jordan," Republican congressman Henry Hyde, chairman of the US House of Representatives committee on international relations, told an oil-for-food hearing in November last year.
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More