WaPo : Bush Begins Beijing Visit as China Rebukes His Rights Speech

Bush Begins Beijing Visit as China Rebukes His Rights Speech

By Michael Abramowitz and Debbi Wilgoren | Washington Post Staff Writers | August 7, 2008

President Bush arrived in Beijing late today to begin his Olympics visit, even as the Chinese government reminded the world that it opposes interference from other countries on human rights issues. The stern warning from the Foreign Ministry came a day after Bush spoke out in Bangkok against China's detention of political dissidents and religious activists.

"We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labor rights not to antagonize China's leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential," Bush said. "We press for openness and justice, not to impose our beliefs but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs . . .

"The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings."

Hours later, China issued a statement saying its relations with the United States "has developed steadily in the last few years" and praising bilateral communication and cooperation between the two countries.

"As for the divergence on human rights and religions, we always advocate that both sides talk from a basis of mutual respect and equality, to enhance understanding and diminish divergence, and enlarge mutual consensus," the statement said, according to a translation provided by the Associated Press.

"We firmly oppose any words or acts that interfere in other countries' internal affairs, using human rights and religion and other issues."

Many human rights groups have criticized Bush for his decision to attend the Games and for what they call his unwillingness to confront Beijing over a crackdown on dissent and new Internet restrictions in the run-up to the Olympics. The advocates have pressed Bush to make a stronger statement while in Beijing about China's human rights practices or to meet with dissidents. But both scenarios appear unlikely. Bush has said he is going to the Olympics to cheer on U.S. athletes and to show his "respect" for the Chinese people.

Sophie Richardson, who monitors Asia for New York-based Human Rights Watch, said in an e-mail that it is "absurd to try to sustain the claim that America's policies are principled while then effectively standing back and saying, 'We will watch from the sidelines while the Chinese do what they do.' " She said it is a "diplomatic travesty" for Bush not to meet with dissidents in Beijing or insist on a nationally broadcast speech on a free press or other issues.

Still, the president's comments, delivered in Thailand several hours before he left for Beijing, included stronger language than he had previously used in the buildup to the Olympics, including a statement that "America stands in firm opposition" to China's policy of detaining those who speak out against its policies. In Beijing, meanwhile, protesters continued to evade Chinese security efforts and take advantage of he Olympics spotlight to make their views known.

Even before Bush's speech, the Chinese government had bristled over Bush's decision to meet in the United States last week with five Chinese human rights activists.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said the president chose to make the comments this morning as part of a larger assessment of U.S. relations with Asia.

"This speech puts together what the president has been saying for 7 1/2 years but does it in a very focused way," she said. Perino said China "is one of the most important relationships that we have in the United States, and the speech is being given on the eve of his trip there. So he thought it was appropriate to talk about it at this point."

Bush divided his time yesterday between South Korea and Thailand, two close U.S. allies in the region. He spent the first part of the day in Seoul, where he held meetings and ate a lunch of American beef filet and Korean short ribs with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who has faced severe political problems after clearing the way for importing U.S. beef, which many South Koreans worry may carry mad cow disease.

A major focus of their talks was continuing efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. The United States recently agreed to take North Korea off its list of state sponsors of terrorism, as part of a deal in which the communist state would disable its main nuclear facility.

At a news conference with Lee, Bush said North Korea will not be removed from the list unless leader Kim Jong Il agrees to a plan to verify that it is disarming. Monday is the first day North Korea could be removed from the list, after a 45-day congressional review period expires, but Pyongyang has yet to come up with a plan acceptable to the United States and its allies, according to U.S. officials.

"We'll see," Bush told reporters. "It's his choice to make as to whether or not he comes off the list."

After a quick trip to rally with troops at the U.S. Army Garrison-Yongsan, Bush flew to Thailand, where he held talks yesterday evening with Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej. Bush also highlighted the cause of Burmese freedom by meeting with Burmese dissidents. First lady Laura Bush toured the Mae La refugee camp Thursday morning on the Thai-Burmese border, and called on Burmese strongman Tan Shwe to begin "dialogues" with opposition figures.

Even some of President Bush's critics regard U.S. policies on Asia as a relative bright spot in his foreign policy legacy: Bush -- now on his ninth trip to Asia -- and his aides have spent much time cultivating better relationships with Japan and India while engaging China on trade, currency exchange rates and security concerns such as North Korea. Polls suggest that the U.S. standing in Asia is higher than in the rest of the world.

"The administration has improved relations with China and strengthened the alliance with Japan at the same time, which is kind of gravity-defying," said Michael Green, a former Bush aide who follows Asian affairs for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

A considerable part of the Bangkok speech was devoted to China, which Bush said he has found fascinating since first visiting his father there in 1975, when George H.W. Bush was serving as the top U.S. diplomat in Beijing.

"We are making it clear to China that being a global economic leader carries with it the duty to act responsibly on matters from energy to the environment to development in Africa," Bush said.

Bush also took credit for a calming of tensions in the Taiwan Strait, after pressing both Beijing and Taipei not to disturb the status quo -- meaning no Chinese military attack and no declaration of independence by Taiwan. Bush's policy has disturbed many of Taiwan's U.S. allies, who have complained that a de facto U.S. arms freeze is hindering Taiwan's efforts to cope with a resurgent Chinese military.

Bush said a "constructive relationship" on such issues has placed "America in a better position to be honest and direct on other issues," including human rights and religious freedom. "Ultimately, only China can decide what course it will follow," he said. "It will be clear for all to see that those who aspire to speak their conscience and worship their god are no threat to the future of China."

Abramowitz reported from Bangkok; Wilgoren reported from Washington.

Reuters : China Locks Down Kashgar After Attacks on Police (Update1)

China Locks Down Kashgar After Attacks on Police (Update1)

By Dune Lawrence | Bloomberg | August 5, 2008

Police locked down Kashgar, cutting Internet access in China's westernmost major city and detaining journalists, after an attack yesterday by members of the Uighur ethnic group killed 16 officers, according to media reports.

Web access was shut today in the city, Agence-France [Presse reported], citing the staff of Yiquan Hotel, across the road from where yesterday's attack occurred. Two reporters working for Japan's Chunichi newspaper and Nippon Television Network were detained by police for two hours and beaten before being released, Kyodo English News said, citing the journalists' employers.

Police detained two suspects after yesterday's attack, describing them as ethnic Uighurs, a predominantly Muslim minority group in Xinjiang province, state-owned Xinhua News Agency said. The authorities, counting Xinjiang's East Turkistan Islamic Movement as China's largest terror threat, have clamped down on the region's security and detained Uighur suspects ahead of the Olympic Games which start in Beijing on Aug. 8.

``The Chinese authorities have a right to protect the life and security of their law enforcement officials,'' Amnesty International said in a statement yesterday after Xinhua reported the incident in Kashgar, known in Chinese as Kashi. ``However, attacks such as these should not be used to justify the promotion or implementation of repressive or abusive security measures.''

Police Said Sorry

Kairat Salief, the Xinjiang government's spokesman, today declined to comment on AFP's report of Kashgar's lockdown or Kyodo's report of the Japanese journalists' beating.

``We cannot comment on ongoing police investigations, but we can promise we'll get to the bottom of this,'' Kairat said in a phone interview from Urumqi, Xinjiang's provincial capital.

Provincial border patrol police and the Kashgar foreign affairs department today apologized to the Japanese reporters, Xinhua said, without naming any of the officials.

China has been fighting the East Turkistan Islamic Movement in Xinjiang since the 1980s, trying to wipe out militants who aim to establish an independent state for Uighurs along the border with Tajikistan.

Kashgar's population of 3.3 million people is 90 percent Uighur, mostly Muslims who speak a different language and bear little resemblance to ethnic-Han Chinese.

Two men yesterday drove a truck into a platoon of border patrol policemen on their morning jog, killing 16 of them and injuring another 16, Xinhua said yesterday. The two also threw home-made grenades and hacked at the officers with machetes, Xinhua said, citing local police.

`Sickening' Assault

A Polish couple who witnessed the assault from the Yiquan Hotel described the scene as ``sickening,'' AFP reported.

Police found nine home-made bombs, a gun, machetes and literature about a ``holy war'' at the scene of the attack, China's Public Security Ministry said today in a statement without giving further details.

Chinese police arrested 82 people in the first six months of 2008 on charges of plotting terror attacks during the Olympics, underscoring the potential threat as China prepares to host its biggest international event.

With 4 billion television viewers projected to tune in to the opening ceremony, where more than 40 heads of state and government leaders may be in attendance, China wants to ensure the games go off safely.

``We can guarantee a safe and peaceful Olympic Games,'' the Beijing Olympics organizing committee spokesman Sun Weide told reporters today.

China's Security Threat

The Asian nation has said that terrorism poses one of the biggest threats to security, and named the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, which Beijing accuses of trying to split Xinjiang from China, as planning attacks. The Bush administration declared the group a terrorist organization in 2002, supporting the Chinese army's crackdown in Xinjiang.

Police in Kashgar have set up road blocks to check passengers, bags and vehicles, according to Xinhua. Armed traffic police have been patrolling buses in Urumqi since early July, Xinhua reported.

The Uighur people -- also spelt Uyghur -- condemn all acts of violence, the AFP reported yesterday, citing Rebiya Kadeer, president of the Washington D.C.-based Uyghur American Association. She urged caution in evaluating the Chinese government's reports of terrorist attacks by the group because the government routinely fails to provide evidence to back such reports, the AFP said.

Journalists' Beatings

Chunichi's newspaper photographer Masami Kawakita, 38, and Nippon Television's reporter Shinji Katsuta, 37, suffered light injuries after they were taken from their hotel by police and beaten, Kyodo said today. Kawakita's equipment was partially destroyed, Kyodo said.

The border police have apologized after they ``clashed'' with the journalists who were trying to film a restricted area under police control, Xinhua said today without providing details.

Police also entered the hotel room of an AFP photographer and forced him to delete photos he had taken of the attack scene, AFP said in a separate report.

To contact the reporter on this story: Dune Lawrence in Beijing at dlawrence6@bloomberg.net

Xinhua : Weapons in Xinjiang attack resemble those of East Turkistan terrorists'

Weapons in Xinjiang attack resemble those of East Turkistan terrorists'

August 5, 2008

URUMQI, Aug. 5 (Xinhua) -- The gun and explosives found at the site of the fatal attack on policemen in Kashi City were similar to those used by East Turkistan terrorists, Xinjiang public security authority said Tuesday.

Police found nine home-made explosive items and a home-made [gun at] the site of the suspected terrorist attack that left at least 16 border policemen dead and 16 others injured on Monday morning in Kashi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region in northwest China.

The explosives and the gun were similar to those found by Xinjiang police at a training base of the "East Turkistan Islamic Movement" in a crackdown in January, 2007, according to the autonomous regional public security bureau.

Two knives and some propaganda posters advocating the "holy war" were also discovered at the site of the attack, just 100 meters away from the Kashi border police division, the bureau said in a statement released on Tuesday.

The statement said the two suspects, who were arrested on the spot, lived in Kashi City.

One of the suspects is a taxi driver and the other a vegetable peddler, and the attack had been premeditated, the bureau said, citing initial investigation results.

One of the attackers drove a truck to ram into a team of more than 70 policemen who were jogging during a regular exercise at about 8:00 a.m.

The driver and the other attacker also threw explosives at the team and the gate of the station.

Road checks have been strengthened across Xinjiang and the local authorities in Kashi have ordered a full security alert in public places including government office buildings, schools and hospitals.

The Spanish government and the United States have expressed their strongest condemnation of the bloody attack.

Tarpley : US-UK Intelligence Readies Turkestan Islamic Party Terror Gambit for Beijing Olympics

US-UK INTELLIGENCE READIES TURKESTAN ISLAMIC PARTY TERROR GAMBIT FOR BEIJING OLYMPICS

By Webster G. Tarpley | August 1, 2008

Washington, August 1, 2008 – Reliable Australian intelligence sources have issued a warning that US-UK intelligence is attempting to mount a false flag terror operation against China, quite possibly featuring a gaggle of patsies calling themselves the “Turkestan Islamic Party,” at the upcoming Beijing Olympics, where the eyes of the world will be concentrated next week. The goal of the operation will be to duplicate or surpass the bloodbaths the Mexico City 1968 and/or Munich 1972 summer games. Commandant Seyfullah of the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP) claims in a video tirade displayed by a US company’s website to represent the Turkish Moslems of Sinkiang province or Chinese Turkestan, where the Anglo-Americans have long sponsored an abortive separatist movement. Patsy leader Seyfullah and his Turkestan Islamic Party have been indirectly mentioned twice over the past two years by Ayman Zawahiri, the veteran British agent who functions as the real leader of “al Qaeda,” in effect sheep-dipping the little known TIP in the vast pool of “al Qaeda” notoriety. If the planned operation actually takes place, the current Chinese leadership will – in the hopes of the plotters -- loose face and forfeit the mandate of heaven, the prerequisites for continued rule. This could then be the prelude to the installation of a new Chinese government far less committed to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and to cooperation with Russia. It might be a first step towards splitting the SCO and turning Beijing against Moscow, which is the current goal of Anglo-American grand strategy.

An article from the Sydney Morning Herald describing the general outlines of the danger is [linked]. The Turkestan Islamic Party claims to have already organized serious terror attacks in Shanghai, on the mainland coast opposite Taiwan, in Kunming in southwest China, and in Guangzhou (Canton in south China, near Hong Kong). Despite ample international attention to the Beijing Olympics by the controlled media, these considerable terror attacks have scarcely been reported, suggesting that some form of information management regime may be in place, as it was before 9/11.

The threatened Olympic terror event may have a second phase, designed to prevent a wave of world sympathy for the Chinese and other victims of whatever happens. An attempt to disrupt the world-wide operations of the internet may ensue, presented as the retaliation or riposte by the Chinese for what has been done to them by the foreign devils. Logic bombs or more sophisticated means could be used to disrupt the world-wide internet, shutting it down in whole or in part for days or weeks. International financial transactions might also become chaotic. Someone might begin dumping US Treasury paper, with the controlled western media blaming the Chinese government, even though the prospect of any direct or immediate Chinese government retaliation is remote. The massive hardships that can be inflicted by computer and cyber-based disruption would be used to whip up resentment and hatred in the west against the Chinese, changing the world strategic climate dramatically. Some patsy group calling itself a Chinese secret society might announce that it had finally become fed up with the arrogance, the interference, and the aggression of the Anglo-Americans, and that it had decided to strike back on its own. This would allow the US and UK to demanded that the Chinese government hand over these malefactors in a humiliating gesture, leading to an escalating diplomatic and strategic crisis. These are but a few crude hypotheses drawn from the immense pool of possibilities. In many of these we see that the scope of terror could suddenly become much larger, due to the immense strategic potential on the Anglo-American and Chinese sides.

The direct terror attack may also be supplemented by large scale provocations, chaos and confusion operations, and mass demonstrations by Falun Gong fanatics, by Tibetans loyal to the feudal latifundist and US-UK intelligence asset who calls himself the Dalai Lama, and/or by democracy and human rights activists assembled by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and various NGOs in the orbit of US-UK and NATO intelligence. But the vigilance of the Chinese regime may be enough to defeat these plans.

A POSSIBLE PHASE CHANGE OF TERRORISM

If any such attack occurs, it would represent the beginning of a whole new phase of false flag terrorism on a world scale. From the mid-1990s until about 2005-2006, patsy organizations like “al Qaeda” in many cases received the blame for false flag terror attacks carried out by the US-UK invisible government networks against their own countries or their own national assets abroad, as in the case of the 9/11 attacks in the US and the 7/7/2005 attacks in London. The goal of these operations was to whip up hysteria in the western countries, and to provide pretexts for direct aggression under neocon auspices against Afghanistan and Iraq. There was also a parallel track of NATO-backed Chechen terrorist attacks against Russia. Henceforth, patsy groups like the TIP are to be used increasingly against “enemy states” like China and Russia, the two targets who have gone to the top of the list, displacing the earlier focus on the far less significant Iran and North Korea. Any attacks by the TIP on Chinese territory will of course represent acts of war by the US-UK against China, and could easily generate incalculable consequences over time. Under the Brzezinski Plan, the US-UK will be messing with the biggest country in the world, and one which comes equipped with ICBMs and H-bombs that can strike US territory.

Pentagon boss Robert Gates, a Brzezinski man going back to the Carter NSC in 1977-79, said this week that irregular warfare and soft power are the wave of the immediate future, and that may be exactly what we are about to get in spectacular form. This speech may well have been a signal that something big and very messy in the irregular warfare department is about to happen at the Olympics. “Al Qaeda,” the CIA’s Islamic Legion, traces its origins back to the Carter-Brzezinski years, just after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in response to Brzezinski’s playing of the Islamic fundamentalism card against them.

A TOTALLY NEW HIT LIST FOR THE PRINCIPALS’ COMMITTEE

The new target list is being dictated by the Principals’ Committee, which currently rules in Washington. Among the Principals are Rice at State, Gates at Defense, Paulson at Treasury, and Admiral Mullen as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, plus some others. This group is now running the US government. Bush and Cheney are little better than figureheads, lame ducks who have virtually ceased to influence government affairs as they fade away. The top neocons are either in jail, like Lord Conrad Black, or running for cover. The playbook for the Principals is the Brzezinski Plan, with its focus on working towards a global showdown with Russia and China. A US-UK attack on Iran is now virtually excluded, but instead large-scale bombing and preparations for a land invasion of northwest Pakistan are proceeding apace. The pretext cited here is the search for Bin Laden and the need to combat the Taliban, but the real goal is to start the breakup of Pakistan into five or six petty states – because Pakistan is a Chinese ally, and all allies and trading partners of China are presently being targeted for regime change, destabilization, and Balkanization, from Sudan to Zimbabwe to Burma to Venezuela to Pakistan. It is time for opponents of false flag terrorism to ditch their maps of the Persian Gulf in favor of much larger world maps, with special attention for the geopolitical features of the Eurasian landmass discussed by Obama backer Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard.

The atmosphere in Washington today is eerily reminiscent of the final years of Iran-contra, when many personalities who had become too openly compromised in these picaresque operations were liquidated. The Iran-contra networks had to be cleaned up, and many heads rolled. The past weeks have brought word that bacteriological warfare expert Dr. Steven Hatfill, the FBI’s former person interest in the October 2001 anthrax attacks, has been taken care of with a $6 million damages award. His former biowar colleague Bruce Ivins was found dead this morning near Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland, in what has been ruled a suicide. The death of Ivins comes in the wake of another purported suicide, that of Deborah Palfrey, the so-called DC Madam. Are these inconvenient persons in fact being suicided to keep them quiet? Tonight there is word that Ayman Zawahiri, the MI-6 man at the top of “al Qaeda” may be either dead or seriously wounded. If Zawahiri is dead or knocked out, this event may be comparable to the execution of Timothy McVeigh on June 11, 2001, which officially closed the era of terrorism under right wing anarchist cover in the US, just before a new phase of false flag operations began three months later, on September 11, 2001.

August 8, 2008, the formal opening ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing summer games, emerges as a possible date for some attempted action in the context described. In a paper which should be read in conjunction with this article, Gillian Norman makes a case for the occult significance of 8-8-8 in the irrationalist numerology which may be considered meaningful by certain rogue network factions. But the events in question could occur at almost any time over the next several weeks.

Those who mobilized in the spring of 2007 to stop Operation Bite, the planned Good Friday US-UK attack on Iran, or who spread the word of the Kennebunkport Warning in late August 2007, are urged mobilize now on a much larger scale to inoculate world publics against which may now be in the offing. The US, Europe, and Japan need good relations with China, the world’s largest country. Peaceful coexistence, not a new round of inter-imperialist rivalry, is required. No band of desperados can be allowed to initiate a Sino-American confrontation under cover of a new false flag provocation.

SMH : Muslim group declares war on Olympics

Muslim group declares war on Olympics

July 27, 2008

A CHINESE terrorist organisation has warned it will create havoc at next month's Olympics and has claimed responsibility for a deadly Shanghai bus bombing in May.

A group monitoring terrorism threats on the internet said Commander Seyfullah of the Turkestan Islamic Party claimed responsibility for several attacks in China less than a fortnight out from the Olympics.

"Through this blessed jihad in Yunnan this time, the Turkestan Islamic Party warns China one more time," Seyfullah said in a video dated July 23, a transcript from a US-based intelligence centre shows.

"Our aim is to target the most critical points related to the Olympics. We will try to attack Chinese central cities severely using the tactics that have never been employed," he said.

The warnings come just a day after Chinese police claimed they cracked a terrorist cell planning to attack Shanghai Stadium where the Australian men's soccer team will open its Olympic campaign on August 7.

Seyfullah claimed responsibility for the May 5 Shanghai bus bombing, which killed three; another Shanghai attack; an attack on police in Wenzhou on July 17 using an explosives-laden tractor; bombing of a Guangzhou plastics factory on July 17, and bombings of three buses in Yunnan province on July 21.

WaPo : Eisenhower Advisers Discussed Using Nuclear Weapons in China

Eisenhower Advisers Discussed Using Nuclear Weapons in China

By Walter Pincus | Washington Post Staff Writer | April 30, 2008

Senior Air Force officers proposed using 10-to-15-kiloton nuclear bombs against targets in Communist China in 1958, in the event that Beijing blockaded the Taiwan Strait, but President Dwight D. Eisenhower ruled out that option, according to a newly declassified Pentagon document.

At a Cabinet meeting in mid-August 1958, as the threat of a Chinese blockade of Taiwan was developing, Air Force Gen. Nathan F. Twining, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained "that at the outset American planes would drop 10- to 15-kiloton bombs on selected fields in the vicinity of Amoy," a coastal city on the Taiwan Strait now called Xiamen, according to the documents.

But "the President simply did not accept the contention that nuclear weapons were as conventional as high explosives," according to the now-declassified Air Force history of the Taiwan crisis.

In releasing the official history, William Burr of George Washington University's National Security Archive said Eisenhower's decision forced Air Force leaders to think more seriously about conventional warfare instead of relying on nuclear arms.

A similar discussion is underway today as the Pentagon, under direction from Congress, examines U.S. nuclear strategy as part of the debate over whether to develop a new generation of weapons in the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.

By mid-August 1958, Air Force commanders had deployed five Strategic Air Command B-47 bombers that "went on alert to conduct nuclear raids against the mainland [China] airfields," the history says. At that time, the commanders assumed "presidential approval [that] any communist assault upon the offshore islands would trigger immediate nuclear retaliation."

When informed that Eisenhower had insisted that first strikes be made with high explosives, Gen. Laurence S. Kuter, the Pacific Air Forces commander, described "this idea of limited response as disastrous . . . and warned that the United States should either be ready to use its most effective weapons -- in his opinion nuclear bombs -- or stay out of the conflict," according to the history.

On Aug. 23, the Chinese began to fire tens of thousands of artillery shells from the mainland to Big and Little Quemoy, offshore islands held by the Taiwanese. Eisenhower approved the deployment of U.S. naval forces to escort ships resupplying Quemoy, the dispatch of an air strike force to the region and a commitment to help provide Taiwan's air defense.

By early October, the Chinese government had announced a cease-fire, and after a few months the crisis dissipated.

Kuter, the history says, later "complained that the military had failed to convince civilian authorities that American forces had to be free to use nuclear bombs at the outset of any conflict." Air Force headquarters in Washington, however, accepted that political considerations "might require that initial strikes be made with conventional ordnance."

The Air Force declined to comment on the document yesterday.

B. Raman: Beijing Olympics & Jihadi Terrorism

BEIJING OLYMPICS & JIHADI TERRORISM

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO. 384 | B. RAMAN | March 22, 2008

Among those presently undergoing imprisonment in the US for their role in the explosions in the New York World Trade Centre in February, 1993, is Ramzi Yousef, a Kuwaiti resident of Pakistani origin. Before his arrest in Pakistan and conviction in the US, he had planned a series of explosions on board a number of planes. He plotted this from a hide-out in Manila. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, a principal architect of the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the US, was also involved in this conspiracy.

2. However, the plot was thwarted by the Filipino police after an accidental fire in the Manila apartment of Ramzi Yousef alerted them to it. Ramzi Yousef ran away to Pakistan, where he was arrested by the Pakistani authorities and handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the US. The investigation brought out that Ramzi and KSM were plotting to blow up the planes with the help of liquid explosives smuggled into the aircraft.

3. While Ramzi was facing a trial in the US for his involvement in the explosions of February, 1993, in the New York World Trade Centre, the US Justice Department had persuaded Greg Scapra, a jail-mate, to develop friendship with Ramzi and sound him as to how to make liquid explosives. It was reported that Ramzi not only told him orally, but also gave him hand-written notes, explaining how to smuggle liquids into aircraft, how to mix them on board aircraft to make explosives and how to detonate them. This was in 1996.

4. In the London blasts of July, 2005, the suicide bombers, three of them of Pakistani origin, had reportedly fabricated the explosive material by mixing in the bathtub of the apartment of one of them women's cosmetic items.

5. In August, 2007, the London Police discovered a plot by a group of terrorist suspects of Pakistani origin to simultaneously blow up a number of US-bound planes by taking into the aircraft liquids such as cosmetics of day-to-day use, mixing them in the toilet after the aircraft had taken off and using the explosive material thus fabricated to blow up the aircraft. Rashid Rauf, a British resident of Mirpuri (Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir) origin, who was arrested by the Pakistani authorities, was reported to have given the initial information about this plot, which led to its discovery by the London Police and the arrests that followed.

6. Rashid Rauf is related by marriage to Maulana Masood Azhar, the Amir of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM). He was arrested in Bahawalpur, the home town of Azhar. The police recovered from his house a peroxide-based liquid. Rashid reportedly contended during the interrogation that the peroxide-based liquid was used by him to disinfect injuries. He denied that it was meant for possible use as an explosive material. For mysterious reasons, Rashid Rauf was not handed over to the British for interrogation. He was kept in detention in Pakistan. He escaped from custody on December 15, 2007, while he was being taken back to jail after a court hearing. He has not so far been traced.

7. Thus, since 1993 jihadi terrorists of Pakistan as well as foreign terrorists based in Pakistan have been planning to use liquid explosives made from day-to-day material on board planes to blow them up. After the discovery of the London plot of August, 2007, physical security agencies all over the world initially banned the passengers from carrying any liquids on board the flights. Subsequently, they modified this to allow passengers to carry only liquids such as alcohol and cosmetics bought in the duty-free shops, which have to be carried in transparent bags provided by the shops.

8. Initially, they allowed the passengers to carry bottles of soft drinks and mineral water, but not cans, but the security staff made the passengers drink some portion of the drink inside the bottle in order to check for effects on the passenger if they had mixed the drink with a liquid capable of being used as an explosive. Subsequently, they apprehended that liquid explosives, because of their heavier density ,would go down the bottle and that drinking from the top would not have any ill-effect on the passenger. They, therefore, totally banned passengers from carrying soft drinks and mineral water bottles on board the flights.

9. In the light of this, one was surprised to note that the two terrorist suspects detained by the Chinese authorities on March 7, 2008, for allegedly trying to blow up a plane going from Urumqi in Xinjiang to Beijing (a third person escaped) had carried the explosive liquid onboard the aircraft in soft drink cans. If true, the fact that the airport security at Urumchi allowed these cans to be carried---- when all over the world there is a ban on such cans and bottles being carried--- speaks poorly of the physical security at some Chinese airports,

10. The 'News" of Pakistan has reported online on March 21, 2008, that the two suspects arrested---- a woman and a man--- travelled with Pakistani passports. The woman has been described as an Uighur living in Pakistan and trained in a Pakistani jihadi camp and the man as a Central Asian (Uzbeck?). The third person, who escaped, has been described as a Pakistani, who had masterminded the plot. No further details are given. Could it be Rashid Rauf, who was knowledgeable on the smuggling and use of liquid explosives?

11. Even the meagre facts available so far about the thwarted plot speak of deficiencies in the physical security set-up in China. It is such deficiencies, which the jihadi terrorists wanting to disrupt the Olympics will exploit. As the Olympics approach, there is a need for a review of the physical security measures in the light of the lessons from the Urumqi incident.

12. As of now, there are two possibilities which have to be factored into by the Chinese authorities in their physical security plan. Firstly, a terrorist strike by pro-Al Qaeda Uighurs either at Beijing or in Xinjiang or elsewhere. Secondly, a Munich, 1972 like terrorist strike by Al Qaeda or pro-Al Qaeda organisations in Beijing itself. Apart from the usual physical security measures, the Danish teams will need special protection. If there is an attempted repeat of Munich, it will most probably be directed against the Danish participants because of the continuing anger of the Muslims against the publication of cartoons in the Danish media showing a depiction of the Holy Prophet. (21-3-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)

NYT : Justice Dept. Announces Arrests in 2 Chinese Espionage Cases

Justice Dept. Announces Arrests in 2 Chinese Espionage Cases

By NEIL A. LEWIS | February 12, 2008

WASHINGTON — Federal officials arrested a Defense Department official in Virginia on Monday and charged him with passing to agents of China classified defense documents about Taiwan’s arms purchases.

About the same time, officials arrested a former Boeing engineer in California on charges of economic espionage, specifically stealing trade secrets from Boeing about the space shuttle and other projects on behalf of the Chinese government. There was no direct connection between the arrests, but Justice Department officials announced them together, which seemed to underline what officials described as continuing Chinese efforts to obtain commercial and military secrets.

At a news conference, Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security, said: “While there are entities from over a hundred different countries trying to get access to our secrets or our controlled technology, there are a number of countries that have proven themselves particularly determined and methodical in their espionage efforts. The People’s Republic of China is one of those countries.”

Mr. Wainstein said, regarding China, “in the last six months, we have filed charges in a half-dozen cases involving efforts to acquire different types of technology, ranging from battlefield night-vision equipment to accelerometers used in the development of smart bombs and missiles.”

In the Virginia case, the authorities charged Gregg W. Bergersen, 51, of Alexandria with conspiracy to disclose national defense information to people not entitled to receive it. According to the document filed by prosecutors with the federal court in Alexandria, Mr. Bergersen received payments for providing information about the projected sales of weapons and military equipment to Taiwan.

The court documents said he was befriended by Tai Shen Kuo of New Orleans, a naturalized American citizen who was working for the People’s Republic of China. Mr. Kuo used an associate, Yu Xin Kang, to communicate with a Chinese government official. Both Mr. Kuo and Ms. Kang, also arrested Monday, face life in prison on separate espionage charges and Mr. Bergersen faces a 10-year sentence if convicted.

Mr. Bergersen was a weapons systems analyst at the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which is part of the Defense Department and coordinates weapons sales abroad.

He met with Mr. Kuo several times, according to the court filings, and his conversations were apparently monitored by counterintelligence agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The former Boeing engineer arrested Monday, Dongfan Chung, known as Greg, was indicted last week.

NYT : Iran Receives Nuclear Fuel in Blow to U.S.

Iran Receives Nuclear Fuel in Blow to U.S.

By HELENE COOPER | December 18, 2007

WASHINGTON — The United States lost a years-long battle when Russia delivered nuclear fuel on Monday for an Iranian power plant that is at the center of an international dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran, for its part, rejected the idea that the delivery might mean it no longer needed to do its own uranium enrichment to make fuel, citing work on a second power plant.

In announcing that it has delivered the first fuel shipment to the power plant at Bushehr in southern Iran, Russian officials said that the fuel would be under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency while it is in Iran, and that the Iranian government had given guarantees that the fuel would be only be used for the power plant.

The Bush administration, for its part, took pains not to publicly criticize the Russian move, and said that the fuel delivery means Iran should suspend its nuclear enrichment program. “If the Iranians accept that uranium for a civilian nuclear power plant, then there’s no need for them to learn how to enrich,” President Bush told reporters on Monday.

“There is no doubt that Russia and the rest of the world want to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” a White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said. “And today’s announcement provides one more avenue for the Iranians to make a strategic choice to suspend enrichment.”

But Iran said that it needed to enrich uranium for another new nuclear power plant in the south of the country. That announcement came through the Fars news service.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s Atomic Organization, said that Iran needs to produce fuel for a second plant under construction. “We are building a 360-megawatt indigenous power plant in Darkhovin,” Mr. Aghazadeh said.

“The fuel for this plant needs to be produced by Natanz enrichment plant,” he added, according to the news agency.

Darkhovin is a city in the southern province of Khusestan, north of Bushehr, which is better known for its oil fields.

Bushehr and Darkhovin were both projects planned before the 1979 revolution, and abandoned later. It was not clear how much construction had been made at Darkhovin.

Privately, administration officials said that they had been hoping, with dwindling confidence, that Russia would continue to stall on delivering the fuel, in part to send a message to Iran that the United States and its European, Chinese and Russian allies were hanging tough in their attempts to punish Iran for refusing to suspend enrichment. “We for many years tried to stop it, and for the last year we’ve known there was no way to stop it, and that it was coming, and we held our breath on the timing,” a senior administration official said.

From the American standpoint, the timing of the Russian fuel’s delivery couldn’t have been worse, coming just two weeks after the release of a United States intelligence estimate that concluded that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The National Intelligence Estimate also concluded that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, undercutting a central tenet of the Bush administration’s basis for maintaining international pressure against Iran.

While administration officials maintain that the intelligence estimate does not mean that the United States and its allies should ease up the pressure against Iran, the practical consequence of the report has been to embolden Iran that China and Russia, two of the countries with perhaps the smallest appetite for tough sanctions, will not agree to a new round of tough sanctions at the United Nations. Russia’s decision to deliver fuel to Bushehr further emboldens Iran, several administration officials and European diplomats said privately.

Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran and Michael Schwirtz from Moscow.

London Review of Books : It’s the Oil

It’s the Oil

by Jim Holt | October 18, 2007

Iraq is ‘unwinnable’, a ‘quagmire’, a ‘fiasco’: so goes the received opinion. But there is good reason to think that, from the Bush-Cheney perspective, it is none of these things. Indeed, the US may be ‘stuck’ precisely where Bush et al want it to be, which is why there is no ‘exit strategy’.

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.

Who will get Iraq’s oil? One of the Bush administration’s ‘benchmarks’ for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues. The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest – including all yet to be discovered oil – under foreign corporate control for 30 years. ‘The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy,’ the analyst Antonia Juhasz wrote in the New York Times in March, after the draft law was leaked. ‘They could even ride out Iraq’s current “instability” by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country.’ As negotiations over the oil law stalled in September, the provincial government in Kurdistan simply signed a separate deal with the Dallas-based Hunt Oil Company, headed by a close political ally of President Bush.

How will the US maintain hegemony over Iraqi oil? By establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. Five self-sufficient ‘super-bases’ are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press, whose dwindling corps of correspondents in Iraq cannot move around freely because of the dangerous conditions. (It takes a brave reporter to leave the Green Zone without a military escort.) In February last year, the Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks described one such facility, the Balad Air Base, forty miles north of Baghdad. A piece of (well-fortified) American suburbia in the middle of the Iraqi desert, Balad has fast-food joints, a miniature golf course, a football field, a cinema and distinct neighbourhoods – among them, ‘KBR-land’, named after the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the construction work at the base. Although few of the 20,000 American troops stationed there have ever had any contact with an Iraqi, the runway at the base is one of the world’s busiest. ‘We are behind only Heathrow right now,’ an air force commander told Ricks.

The Defense Department was initially coy about these bases. In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said: ‘I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting.’ But this summer the Bush administration began to talk openly about stationing American troops in Iraq for years, even decades, to come. Several visitors to the White House have told the New York Times that the president himself has become fond of referring to the ‘Korea model’. When the House of Representatives voted to bar funding for ‘permanent bases’ in Iraq, the new term of choice became ‘enduring bases’, as if three or four decades wasn’t effectively an eternity.

But will the US be able to maintain an indefinite military presence in Iraq? It will plausibly claim a rationale to stay there for as long as civil conflict simmers, or until every groupuscule that conveniently brands itself as ‘al-Qaida’ is exterminated. The civil war may gradually lose intensity as Shias, Sunnis and Kurds withdraw into separate enclaves, reducing the surface area for sectarian friction, and as warlords consolidate local authority. De facto partition will be the result. But this partition can never become de jure. (An independent Kurdistan in the north might upset Turkey, an independent Shia region in the east might become a satellite of Iran, and an independent Sunni region in the west might harbour al-Qaida.) Presiding over this Balkanised Iraq will be a weak federal government in Baghdad, propped up and overseen by the Pentagon-scale US embassy that has just been constructed – a green zone within the Green Zone. As for the number of US troops permanently stationed in Iraq, the defence secretary, Robert Gates, told Congress at the end of September that ‘in his head’ he saw the long-term force as consisting of five combat brigades, a quarter of the current number, which, with support personnel, would mean 35,000 troops at the very minimum, probably accompanied by an equal number of mercenary contractors. (He may have been erring on the side of modesty, since the five super-bases can accommodate between ten and twenty thousand troops each.) These forces will occasionally leave their bases to tamp down civil skirmishes, at a declining cost in casualties. As a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times in June, the long-term bases ‘are all places we could fly in and out of without putting Americans on every street corner’. But their main day-to-day function will be to protect the oil infrastructure.

This is the ‘mess’ that Bush-Cheney is going to hand on to the next administration. What if that administration is a Democratic one? Will it dismantle the bases and withdraw US forces entirely? That seems unlikely, considering the many beneficiaries of the continued occupation of Iraq and the exploitation of its oil resources. The three principal Democratic candidates – Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards – have already hedged their bets, refusing to promise that, if elected, they would remove American forces from Iraq before 2013, the end of their first term.

Among the winners: oil-services companies like Halliburton; the oil companies themselves (the profits will be unimaginable, and even Democrats can be bought); US voters, who will be guaranteed price stability at the gas pump (which sometimes seems to be all they care about); Europe and Japan, which will both benefit from Western control of such a large part of the world’s oil reserves, and whose leaders will therefore wink at the permanent occupation; and, oddly enough, Osama bin Laden, who will never again have to worry about US troops profaning the holy places of Mecca and Medina, since the stability of the House of Saud will no longer be paramount among American concerns. Among the losers is Russia, which will no longer be able to lord its own energy resources over Europe. Another big loser is Opec, and especially Saudi Arabia, whose power to keep oil prices high by enforcing production quotas will be seriously compromised.

Then there is the case of Iran, which is more complicated. In the short term, Iran has done quite well out of the Iraq war. Iraq’s ruling Shia coalition is now dominated by a faction friendly to Tehran, and the US has willy-nilly armed and trained the most pro-Iranian elements in the Iraqi military. As for Iran’s nuclear programme, neither air strikes nor negotiations seem likely to derail it at the moment. But the Iranian regime is precarious. Unpopular mullahs hold onto power by financing internal security services and buying off elites with oil money, which accounts for 70 per cent of government revenues. If the price of oil were suddenly to drop to, say, $40 a barrel (from a current price just north of $80), the repressive regime in Tehran would lose its steady income. And that is an outcome the US could easily achieve by opening the Iraqi oil spigot for as long as necessary (perhaps taking down Venezuela’s oil-cocky Hugo Chávez into the bargain).

And think of the United States vis-à-vis China. As a consequence of our trade deficit, around a trillion dollars’ worth of US denominated debt (including $400 billion in US Treasury bonds) is held by China. This gives Beijing enormous leverage over Washington: by offloading big chunks of US debt, China could bring the American economy to its knees. China’s own economy is, according to official figures, expanding at something like 10 per cent a year. Even if the actual figure is closer to 4 or 5 per cent, as some believe, China’s increasing heft poses a threat to US interests. (One fact: China is acquiring new submarines five times faster than the US.) And the main constraint on China’s growth is its access to energy – which, with the US in control of the biggest share of world oil, would largely be at Washington’s sufferance. Thus is the Chinese threat neutralised.

Many people are still perplexed by exactly what moved Bush-Cheney to invade and occupy Iraq. In the 27 September issue of the New York Review of Books, Thomas Powers, one of the most astute watchers of the intelligence world, admitted to a degree of bafflement. ‘What’s particularly odd,’ he wrote, ‘is that there seems to be no sophisticated, professional, insiders’ version of the thinking that drove events.’ Alan Greenspan, in his just published memoir, is clearer on the matter. ‘I am saddened,’ he writes, ‘that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.’

Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney’s 2001 energy task force? One can’t know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of ‘executive privilege’. One can’t say for certain that oil supplied the prime motive. But the hypothesis is quite powerful when it comes to explaining what has actually happened in Iraq. The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration’s cavalier attitude towards ‘nation-building’ has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades – a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics – dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final ‘surge’ that has hastened internal migration – could scarcely have been more effective. The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.

Still, there is reason to be sceptical of the picture I have drawn: it implies that a secret and highly ambitious plan turned out just the way its devisers foresaw, and that almost never happens.

Jim Holt writes for the New York Times Magazine and the New Yorker.

NYT : U.S. Concerned as Iraq Awards Power Contracts to Iran and China

U.S. Concerned as Iraq Awards Power Contracts to Iran and China

By JAMES GLANZ | October 18, 2007

BAGHDAD, Oct. 17 — Iraq has agreed to award $1.1 billion in contracts to Iranian and Chinese companies to build a pair of enormous power plants, the Iraqi electricity minister said Tuesday. Word of the project prompted serious concerns among American military officials, who fear that Iranian commercial investments can mask military activities at a time of heightened tension with Iran.

The Iraqi electricity minister, Karim Wahid, said that the Iranian project would be built in Sadr City, a Shiite enclave in Baghdad that is controlled by followers of the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr. He added that Iran had also agreed to provide cheap electricity from its own grid to southern Iraq, and to build a large power plant essentially free of charge in an area between the two southern Shiite holy cities of Karbala and Najaf.

The expansion of ties between Iraq and Iran comes as the United States and Iran clash on nuclear issues and about what American officials have repeatedly said is Iranian support for armed groups in Iraq. American officials have charged that Iranians, through the international military wing known as the Quds Force, are particularly active in support of elite elements of the Mahdi Army, a militia largely controlled by Mr. Sadr.

An American military official in Baghdad said that while he had no specific knowledge of the power plant contracts, any expansion of Iranian interests was a concern for the military here.

“We are of course carefully watching Iran’s overall presence here in Iraq,” the military official said. “As you know, it’s not always as it appears. Their Quds Force routinely uses the cover of a business to mask their real purpose as an intelligence operative.”

“This is a free marketplace, so there’s not much we can do about it,” the official said.

At the same time, it is possible to view Iranian and Chinese investment as giving those countries a stake in Iraqi stability. The power plants could also boost a troubled reconstruction effort in Iraq. An American Embassy spokesman said, “We welcome any efforts to help develop Iraq’s energy infrastructure.”

“These proposals reflect the ongoing business opportunities that are arising in Iraq that American firms should be competing for,” said the spokesman, who asked not to be named because of standard protocol at the embassy.

It was unclear whether any American firms had tried to win the work, although Mr. Wahid said the projects had been submitted for bids. The embassy spokesman said, “We are unaware of any violations of principles of open and fair bidding.”

The agreements between Iraq and Iran come after the American-led reconstruction effort, which relied heavily on large American contractors, has spent nearly $5 billion of United States taxpayer money on Iraq’s electricity grid. Aside from a few isolated bright spots, there was little clear impact in a nation where in many places electricity is still available only for a few hours each day. Because the power plants are in largely Shiite-controlled areas, it is possible they may not face the same sectarian violence that crippled so many American rebuilding projects.

Mr. Wahid did not say how much the plant between Karbala and Najaf would cost, but at standard international prices a plant of the scale he described would be worth roughly $200 million to $300 million.

The outlines of all three agreements were confirmed by Thamir Ghadban, an expert on energy who is also director of the committee of advisers to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. But Mr. Ghadban said that the granting of the huge projects to rivals of the United States was not an indication that American companies were being excluded from consideration now that Iraqi oil revenues, which provide the basis for the Iraqi government’s budget, are largely paying for the reconstruction of the grid.

“There is no preference to the Iranians,” Mr. Ghadban said, citing the most obvious potential point of sensitivity for the United States. “There is no opposition or stance from the Iraqi government to bar American or Western companies. It is the other way around,” Mr. Ghadban said, indicating that he urged American contractors to bid for work in Iraq.

Of the two new projects Iraq has agreed to finance, Mr. Wahid said, the largest is a $940 million power plant in Wasit to be built by a Chinese company, which he said was named Shanghai Heavy Industry. That project would pump some 1,300 megawatts of electricity into the Iraqi grid. For comparison, all of the plants currently connected to Iraq’s grid produce a total of roughly 5,000 megawatts.

He said that Iraq had already spent $12 million leveling the ground in preparation for the Chinese plant. The Sadr City project, which will include a small refinery, will cost $150 million and be built by an Iranian company, Sunir, Mr. Wahid said. That plant is expected to produce about 160 megawatts of electricity.

The Iraqi Electricity Ministry, which Mr. Wahid heads, is one of the few in the central government that has received praise for successfully spending much of the money allocated to it in the Iraqi budget for reconstruction projects. Because of security problems, a shortage of officials who are skilled at writing and executing contracts, and endemic corruption, many of the ministries have either left their rebuilding money unspent or poured it into projects that have had a marginal impact on the quality of life for Iraqi citizens.

Asked how he had managed to make progress within the bureaucratic morass of much of the Iraqi government, Mr. Wahid said he had simply learned to go it alone. Aside from financing, his main need from the central government was guarantees that Iraqi security forces would protect his workers and the electricity infrastructure.

“Do not annoy me,” Mr. Wahid said was his main message to the government. “Let me do my work.”

Whether officials outside his government will be entirely pleased with the deals is a separate question. An international energy expert involved in Iraq’s electricity sector said he understood that the Sadr City project had originally been an Iranian initiative and that the Electricity Ministry had shown little interest at first.

The expert also said that the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity, which investigates corruption, had already signaled that it would be investigating the project. Officials at the commission could not be reached for comment on Wednesday evening.

Mr. Wahid said the new power plants were part of a sweeping plan to increase electricity production on the grid, whose output has been creeping upward in recent weeks. He said that the ministry was in discussions on building another large power plant, one that would produce 600 megawatts, within the city of Karbala.

And the minister said that the first installment of another initiative he had long discussed, bringing diesel-powered generators into selected Baghdad neighborhoods, was close to having an impact.

Some 14 of the generators, each expected to produce 1.75 megawatts, should be arriving in the capital within weeks, Mr. Wahid said.

Alissa J. Rubin and Ahmad Fadam contributed reporting from Baghdad.

WaPo : Iraqis to Pay China $100 Million for Weapons for Police

Iraqis to Pay China $100 Million for Weapons for Police

Experts Fear More Will Go to Insurgents

By Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson | Washington Post Staff Writers | October 4, 2007

Iraq has ordered $100 million worth of light military equipment from China for its police force, contending that the United States was unable to provide the materiel and is too slow to deliver arms shipments, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said yesterday.

The China deal, not previously made public, has alarmed military analysts who note that Iraq's security forces already are unable to account for more than 190,000 weapons supplied by the United States, many of which are believed to be in the hands of Shiite and Sunni militias, insurgents and other forces seeking to destabilize Iraq and target U.S. troops.

"The problem is that the Iraqi government doesn't have -- as yet -- a clear plan for making sure that weapons are distributed, that they are properly monitored and repeatedly checked," said Rachel Stohl of the Center for Defense Information, an independent think tank. "The end-use monitoring will be left in the hands of a government and military in Iraq that is not yet ready for it. And there's not a way for the U.S. to mandate them to do it if they're not U.S. weapons."

News of Iraq's arms deal came as Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top U.S. commander for day-to-day operations in Iraq, told editors and reporters at The Washington Post yesterday that he expects a U.S. troop presence will be required in the country for a minimum of "at least three to five more years" and will involve 25,000 to 50,000 troops, depending on security conditions.

Detailed planning is underway for the U.S. military to begin scaling back its primary mission from one of fighting a counterinsurgency to an advisory and training role, which will involve pulling U.S. troops out of Iraqi cities and closing some U.S. bases, Odierno said. Odierno and Talabani, who met separately with Post editors and reporters, said they expect their governments to finalize a long-term bilateral security pact in 2008.

The capabilities of Iraqi security forces are pivotal to the U.S. exit strategy in Iraq, with the creation of a viable police force critical to reconciliation. Talabani said only one in five Iraqi police officers is armed and called for faster weapons delivery from the United States to beef up Iraq's fledgling army.

Iraq's police force is noted for infiltration by militias and insurgents out to use national resources for their own ends, said William D. Hartung, director of the New America Foundation Arms and Security Initiative. "Besides, aside from possibly wanting newer models, there are piles of arms and weapons floating around in Iraq," he said.

The Chinese arms deal sheds light on the larger dispute between the United States and Iraq over rebuilding Iraq's armed forces and police. Iraqi officials have long complained about the supply of weapons and equipment for their personnel, noting that Iraqi security forces often patrol in pickup trucks without body armor along the same routes as U.S. troops wearing flak jackets and riding in armored vehicles.

"There is general frustration in the Iraqi government at the rate in which Iraqi armed forces are being equipped and armed," Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie told reporters this summer. "This is a collaborative effort between the Iraqi government and the government of the United States, and the process is not moving quickly enough to improve the fighting capacity of Iraqi armed forces. A way must be found to improve this process."

Talabani yesterday expressed frustration with the delays. "The capacity of the factories here are not enough to provide us quickly with all that we need, even for the army. One of our demands is to accelerate the delivery of the arms to the Iraqi army."

Iraq has become one of the largest buyers of U.S.-made weapons. Gen. David H. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that Baghdad has signed deals to buy $1.6 billion in U.S. arms, with another $1.8 billion in possible weapons purchases.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the United States is "working closely" to help Iraq obtain "appropriate and necessary" military equipment. But U.S. officials concede delivery problems.

"We haven't converted toaster factories to produce carbines and we're working hard just to supply our own troops," said an administration official involved with Iraq policy. "Our factories are working for our own troops. So it's true we don't have the ability to provide these rifles and other equipment they're looking for."

In 2004 and 2005, the United States bought 185,000 AK-47s from an Eastern European country -- after Iraqis rejected U.S.-made M-16 assault rifles -- as part of a $2.8 billion program to deliver military equipment to Iraq. But a recent Government Accountability Office report found that 110,000 of them were unaccounted for, with about 30 percent of all arms distributed to Iraqi forces by the United States since 2004 missing.

Nevertheless, Odierno said, recent improvements in Iraq's security since the U.S. troop buildup have exceeded his expectations, with attacks down in September to the lowest level since January 2006 and U.S. troop casualties declining since June. A major factor has been U.S. operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq, whose sanctuaries have been reduced by 60 to 70 percent since January, he said. He warned, however, that the group can regenerate.

Another factor has been the unexpected willingness of Sunni tribes to cooperate with U.S. and Iraqi forces, he said. But Odierno said he remains concerned over recent statements from Iraq's Shiite ruling faction demanding that the U.S. military stop recruiting Sunni tribesmen to Iraq's police force.

"That's uncomfortable to them, and I think that's part of why it's so important. This is about reconciliation," Odierno said. "We have to continue to move forward."

He said the U.S. military is shifting more of its resources to targeting Shiite militias, including what Odierno called "surrogates" who are trained, armed and funded by Iran, as well as "special groups" affiliated with the Mahdi Army of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

"We are starting to see at low levels a split between those [Shiite militias] who have some relationship with Iran . . . and those who do not," Odierno said. He said the significance of the "fissures" is not yet clear.

Staff writer Dafna Linzer contributed to this report.

Reuters : Push-up bra ads banned as meeting nears

Push-up bra ads banned as meeting nears

September 28, 2007

BEIJING (Reuters) - Days after banning "sexually provocative sounds" on television, China has now stopped networks showing "saucy" adverts for push-up bras and figure-hugging underwear ahead of a major Communist Party meeting next month.

Other targets of the crackdown are "low-brow and base" commercials for sex toys and those featuring famous people or experts attesting to the efficacy of medicines, the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television said on its Web site (www.sarft.gov.cn) Friday.

"Every television advertisement management bureau and television station must strengthen their political consciousness and responsibility toward society," Tian Jin, deputy head of the regulator, was quoted as saying.

The order is the latest in a raft of measures which have included axing reality shows featuring sex changes and plastic surgery and banning talent contests during prime-time.

The media watchdog's edicts have reached fever pitch in recent weeks, ahead of a meeting of the 17th Party congress, a sensitive five-yearly meeting at which key national leaders are appointed and policy set for the next few years.

It earlier urged the country's increasingly freewheeling broadcasters to forgo vulgarity and bad taste in the pursuit of ratings in favor of providing "inspiring" content for the masses imbued with "socialist" values.

"Create a positive atmosphere for public opinion," the regulator cited state television head Zhao Huayong as telling his staff in preparation for the congress.

"Strictly adhere to propaganda requirements; do not rush to report, do not report impulsively, and make sure there are no mistakes from reports on any large events," Zhao added.

© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved

Reuters : China bans "sexual sounds" on airwaves

China bans "sexual sounds" on airwaves

September 26, 2007

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has banned "sexually provocative sounds" on television and pulled the plug on a show reconstructing infamous crimes by women ahead of a major Communist Party meeting next month.

The order, issued by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, is the latest in a raft of measures which have included axing reality shows featuring sex changes and plastic surgery and banning talent contests during prime-time.

"Sexually suggestive advertisements and scenes showing how women are influenced into a life of crime are detrimental to society," it said in a statement posted on its Web site on Wednesday, referring to its decision to axe "Red Question Mark," a crime documentary.

"Commercials containing sexually provocative sounds or tantalizing language as well as vulgar advertisements for breast enhancement and female underwear are banned, effective immediately," said the SARFT notice.

The watchdog also ordered an end to programs with titles including the names of "sex-related drugs, products or medical institutions."

A total of 1,466 advertisements worth 2 billion yuan ($246 million) in revenues had been stripped from China's airways since August, SARFT said, citing department statistics.

Since launching a campaign to purify China's state-controlled airways earlier in the year, the media watchdog's edicts have gained fever pitch in recent weeks, ahead of a meeting of the 17th Party congress, a sensitive five-yearly meeting at which key government leaders are appointed and national policy set for the next few years.

It earlier urged the country's increasingly freewheeling broadcasters to forgo vulgarity and bad taste in the pursuit of ratings in favor of providing "inspiring" content for the masses imbued with "socialist" values.

© Reuters 2007 All rights reserved

NYT : Lead, Follow or Move Aside

Lead, Follow or Move Aside

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN | September 26, 2007

China today is entering a really delicate phase on the climate-energy issue — the phase I like to call “The Wal-Mart environmental moment.” I wish the same could be said of America and President Bush.

The “Wal-Mart environmental moment” starts with the C.E.O. adopting a green branding strategy as a purely defensive, public relations, marketing move. Then an accident happens — someone in the shipping department takes it seriously and comes up with a new way to package the latest product and saves $100,000. This gets the attention of the C.E.O., who turns to his P.R. adviser and says, “Well, isn’t that interesting? Get me a sustainability expert. Let’s do this some more.”

The company then hires a sustainability officer, and he starts showing how green design, manufacturing and materials can save money in other areas. Then the really smart C.E.O.’s realize they have to become their own C.E.O. — chief energy officer — and they start demanding that energy efficiency become core to everything the company does, from how its employees travel to how its products are manufactured.

That is the transition that Lee Scott, Wal-Mart’s C.E.O., has presided over in the past few years.

Last July, Mr. Scott was visiting a Wal-Mart in Las Vegas on a day when the temperature was more than 100 degrees. He happened to notice that a Wal-Mart staple — inexpensive Styrofoam coolers — were not being promoted by the store’s associates. As Andrew Ruben, Wal-Mart’s vice president for sustainability, told me: “Lee walked into the store and said, ‘It’s 105 degrees. Why aren’t we selling any coolers?’ The associates said, ‘We don’t want to sell Styrofoam coolers because of their impact on the environment.’ So Lee called us afterwards and said: ‘We’re going to have to figure this out.’ By that he meant innovation of a different kind of cooler” that doesn’t come from petroleum-based Styrofoam, which is not biodegradable and usually not recycled.

Wal-Mart on Monday also announced a partnership with the Carbon Disclosure Project (C.D.P.) to measure the amount of energy used to create products throughout its supply chain — many of which come from China.

Said C.D.P. Chief Executive Paul Dickinson: “Wal-Mart will encourage its suppliers to measure and manage their greenhouse gas emissions, and ultimately reduce the total carbon footprint of Wal-Mart’s indirect emissions. We look forward to other global corporations following Wal-Mart’s lead.”

China’s leadership is not where Lee Scott is yet. Chinese officials still put their highest priority on growing G.D.P. — their bottom line. But for the first time, the costs of this breakneck growth are becoming so obvious on China’s air, glaciers and rivers that the leadership asked for briefings on global warming. Many Chinese mayors are looking to get clean-technology industries — like wind turbines and solar — started in their cities.

At such a key time, if the U.S. government adopted a real carbon-reducing strategy, as California and Wal-Mart have, rather than the obfuscations of the Bush team, it would have a huge impact on China and only trigger more innovation in America.

Mr. Bush will be convening his climate photo op — oops, I mean “conference” — in Washington tomorrow, which will include Chinese and Indian officials. But, as Rob Watson, the C.E.O. of EcoTech International, which works on environmental issues in China put it: “The Chinese are not going to take anything we say seriously if we don’t set an example ourselves.”

David Moskovitz, who directs the Regulatory Assistance Project, a nonprofit that helps promote green policies in China, was even more blunt: “The most frequent and difficult question we get in China with every policy initiative we put forward is: ‘If it is so good, why aren’t you doing it?’ It’s hard to answer — and somewhat embarrassing. So we point to good examples that some American states, or cities, or companies are implementing — but not to the federal government. We can’t point to America.”

Too bad. “It was America which put environmentalism on the world’s agenda in the 1970s and ’80s,” recalled Glenn Prickett, a senior vice president for Conservation International. “But since then, somehow, the wealthiest and most powerful country on the planet has gone to the back of the line.”

Leadership is about “follow me” not “after you.” Getting our national climate regulations in order is necessary, but it will not be sufficient to move China. We have to show them what Wal-Mart is showing its competitors — that green is not just right for the world, it is better, more profitable, more healthy, more innovative, more efficient, more successful. If Wal-Mart can lead, and California can lead, why can’t America?