Transcript: NewsHour India-Pakistan Discussion with Michael Krepon & Shuja Nawaz

December 2, 2008

(part of this earlier Proliferation Press post)

Ray Suarez: “Michael Krepon, today India pointed to Pakistan and said it is demanding strong action against those who perpetrated this action. What does that mean? What can Pakistan do at this point?”

Michael Krepon:  “Well the government of India is very mindful of the last crisis in 2001, 2002 after the Parliament was attacked—which was resolved by declarations of intent by then-Pakistani President Musharraf to stop Pakistani soil being used as a basis for carrying out acts of terror, under the cloak of the Kashmiri cause. And this government of [India] is going to have a hard time accepting similar ascertains of intent. So it’s going to want to see President Zardari in Pakistan actually act on his declarations of intent to go after the group that appears to have been associated with these attacks, which has camps on the Pakistani side of the Kashmir divide and has a headquarters outside of Lahore.”

Suarez: “Shuja Nawaz, if the Pakistani government wanted to move against the groups responsible for this, said to responsible for this, do they know where they are? Can they do it?”

Shuja Nawaz: “Oh absolutely. Not only do they know where they are, a lot of these groups have been very active publicly and have been having large meetings which are often attended by well-armed guards carrying many of the weapons that perhaps were used in training and also in operations in Kashmir in the past.”

Suarez: “Well one name that kept popping up among the Indian leadership was Lashkar-e-Taiba. Tell us what that is, and what its history is.”

Nawaz: “Well it’s an extreme right-wing Sunni orthodox group. And it was at one time fostered by the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan as a surrogate to help the Mujahidin in Kashmir. In the recent years, there’s been news that there’s been a break and they’ve broken out of the control of the Inter-Services Intelligence. Indeed many of the members of this group and its offshoots are now seen as franchisees of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and have been seen operating in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Often as part of a sectarian war in the Kurram agency [one of seven agencies that make up the FATA].  They’ve have been included—their names of have been included—in suspects of attacks on the Pakistan army itself. And also on one of embassies in Islamabad not long ago. So this is a group that’s well-known to Pakistanis, and it’s well known to the world.”

Suarez: “The claims of a break from political leaders, from army leaders, from intelligence service leaders in Pakistan, are they taken at face value or taken with skepticism?”

Nawaz: “Well I think if there’s any ambivalence now is the time, as soon as the evidence in presented to Pakistan that this group was in fact involved in this attack, then there should be no reason not to act and to end this ambivalence. Because the leadership of this group is still operating in Pakistan.”

Saurez: “…we heard again and again, that Indians—rank and file Indians on the street—weren’t talking about Lashkar-e-Taiba, they were talking about their own leaders. Does the drift of the Indian leadership, putting the emphasis on Pakistan, putting the emphasis on action in Pakistan seek to take the heat off itself?”

Krepon: “Well India has experience multiple 9-11’s, Ray. In the 1990s there was an attack on the Mumbai stock exchange and other targets: 250 dead, 700 wounded. There was an attack on the mass transport system in Mumbai in 2006. Another horrendous casualty list. So, the people of India have reason to ask their leaders to come together and to do a better job. This is all compounded by the fact there is a national election coming up next year in India. And the current government of India which is led by the Congress Party—Dr. Manmohan Singh –is under a lot of pressure to show he has got some mettle.”

Suarez: “Well does that impending election put parties in the position of playing up the threat from Pakistan rather than playing it down?”

Krepon: “It’s possible, but there are no good options for India. The last crisis, the one that was sparked by the attack on the Indian Parliament, the previous coalition government—which was led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is often called the Hindu Nationalist Party—they mobilized the army. They put hundreds of thousands of troops on the two fighting corridors with Pakistan and kept them there for ten months, and that didn’t work out so well. So I doubt seriously if this coalition government wants to go down that road. The government of India has new plans, and the military has new plans to use smaller segmented forces to seize, punish and hold territory in Pakistan. But that’s not a very good option for Manmohan Singh. There’s a third option that I’m sure he’ll look at, and that is air-strikes against these bases on the Pakistani side of the Kashmir divide. I’ve seen pictures of these bases, people who get briefed by the Indian army leadership in Kashmir show you pictures of these bases. There isn’t much there, there are some nondescript buildings. You can shoot at them, there may or may not be people there. There are no good target sets on the other side of the Kashmir side. So what the Indian government is looking at is diplomatic pressure, leverage. And that’s one of the reasons—as you reported at the top of show—why our Secretary of State is heading for New Delhi.”

Suarez: “…have you seen similar moves toward rising the temperature militarily between these two since the last week?”

Nawaz: “There have been no indications yet. And from Pakistan’s view it makes absolutely no sense to open yet another hot border. Already it has a very hot border facing Afghanistan. And you have to remember, as Michael Krepon was saying, India has a new strategy called ‘Cold Start’—which allows it to essentially shoot first and ask questions latter, by having small groups, battle groups poised at the border so they can move quickly into Pakistan. Today Pakistan has the equivalent of six infantry divisions that are normally part of its strike force against India that have been redeployed to FATA, the federally administered tribal area and the area of Swat in the Northwest Fortier Province. Pakistan can ill-afford to move them away from that area where they are fighting a war within Pakistan, as well as helping the effort of the United States and NATO to stop the Taliban from using that base as a sanctuary. So it really doesn’t help India, nor Pakistan, nor the world for the armies of Pakistan and India to be facing each other.”


Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s Lord Mayor’s Banquet November 12, 2007 Speech

November 13, 2007

Tonight, I want to speak about Britain’s unique place in the new world. And where, as a result, our responsibilities lie; how our national interest can be best advanced; and what we can achieve by working together internationally and by contributing to building the strongest and broadest sense of common

The new context

In the 1820s the then Foreign Secretary George Canning said that he had ‘called the new world into existence to redress the balance of the old’. The order of the nineteenth century saw European empires spanning the globe. After World War Two a new international order was defined by the high stakes of the superpower nuclear stand off. Both these world orders shaped by political weight and military power.

In 1989 the old world order dominated by the Cold War came to an end. But how quickly events have disproved those who celebrated the end of the Cold War as ‘the end of history’. From Bosnia to Darfur, Rwanda to Afghanistan we have seen a level of disorder and uncertainty that no-one predicted. And no one foresaw the scale of the dramatic and seismic shifts in economy, culture and communications that are now truly global.

Our international institutions built for just 50 sheltered economies in what became a bipolar world are not fit for purpose in an interdependent world of 200 states where global flows of commerce, people and ideas defy borders. With such transformative change comes a clear obligation, but also a great opportunity, to write a new chapter — to set down for a new era a better 21st century way of delivering peace and prosperity.

Of course the first duty of Government – our abiding obligation – is and will always be the safety of the British people, the protection of the British national interest. And let me affirm our commitment that we will always be vigilant and resolute, never leave ourselves vulnerable, but will at all times support and strengthen our armed forces, our defences and our security. Yet the timeless values that underpin our policies at home – our belief in the liberty of all, in security and justice for all, in economic opportunity andenvironmental protection shared by all – are also ideals that I believe that it is in our national interest to promote abroad. But we do so in a changing world where six new global forces unique to our generation are demonstrating our growing interdependence and pressing the international community to discover common purpose.

First, few expected when the adamantine certainties of the Cold War came to an end, we would have to address the constantly changing uncertainties of violence and instability from failed states and rogue states. The spread of terrorism has destroyed the old assumption that states alone could access destructive weapons. As dramatic in a different way is a third force for change: global flows of capital and global sourcing of goods and services have brought the biggest shift of economic power since the industrial revolution – the rapid emergence of India and China as global powers with legitimate global aspirations. The new frontier is that there is no frontier.

The unprecedented impact of climate change transforms the very purpose of government. Once quality of life meant the pursuit of two objectives: economic growth and social cohesion. Now there is a trinity of aims:prosperity, fairness and environmental care. And as energy supplies are under pressure there is a new global competition for natural resources. New global forces at work – from pandemics to worldwide migration – make the task of overcoming the great social evils of hunger, illiteracy, disease, squalor and poverty even more challenging. And if, as Tom Friedman has written, the defining image of the 20th centurywas a wall representing division, the defining image of the 21st is a web championing connections — a world where we can rightly now talk not just of the wealth of nations but the wealth of networks. The web cannot be controlled in the end by any single force or any single leader. And what happens within it cannot be predicted from day to day.

George Orwell was not quite right: the technology revolution he foresaw is not a controlling force enslaving people, but for the most part a liberating force empowering them. In the old order power affected people but could not easily be affected by them. But once powerless people now have the potential to be heard andsee their impact felt in places far away. And because our world is now so connected and sointerdependent it is possible in this century, for the first time in human history, to contemplate and create a global society that empowers people.

Why do I believe this is not only possible but essential? Because we cannot any longer escape the consequences of our interdependence. The old distinction between ‘over there’ and ‘over here’ does not make sense of this interdependent world. For there is no longer an ‘over there’ of terrorism, failed states, poverty, forced migration and environmental degradation and an ‘over here’ that is insulated or immune.Today a nation’s self interest today will be found not in isolation but in cooperation to overcome shared challenges. And so the underlying issue for our country – indeed for every country – is how together in this new interdependent world we renew and strengthen our international rules, institutions and networks.

My approach is hard-headed internationalism: – internationalist because global challenges need global solutions and nations must cooperate across borders – often with hard-headed intervention – to give expression to our shared interests and shared values; – hard-headed because we will not shirk from the difficult long term decisions and because only through reform of our international rules and institutions will we achieve concrete, on-the-ground results.

Building a global society means agreeing that the great interests we share in common are more powerful than the issues that sometimes divide us. It means articulating and acting upon the enduring values that define our common humanity and transcending ideologies of hatred that seek to drive us apart. And critically – and this is the main theme of my remarks this evening – we must bring to life these shared interests and shared values by practical proposals to create the architecture of a new global society.

Britain‘s alliances

Through our membership of the European Union – which gives us and 26 other countries the unique opportunity to work together on economic, environmental and security challenges – and the Commonwealth, and through our commitment to NATO and the UN, we have the capacity to work together with all those who share our vision of the future. And I do not see these as partnerships in competition with each other but mutually reinforcing.

It is no secret that I am a life long admirer of America. I have no truck with anti-Americanism in Britain or elsewhere in Europe and I believe that our ties with America – founded on values we share – constitute our most important bilateral relationship. And it is good for Britain, for Europe and for the wider world that today France and Germany and the European Union are building stronger relationships with America.

The 20th century showed that when Europe and America are distant from one another, instability is greater; when partners for progress the world is stronger. And in the years ahead – notwithstanding the huge shifts in economic influence underway – I believe that Europe and America have the best chance for many decades to achieve historic progress —-

· working ever more closely together on the project of building a global society;

· and helping bring in all continents, including countries today outside the G8 and the UN Security Council, to give new purpose and direction to our international institutions.

And while no longer the mightiest militarily, or the largest economically, the United Kingdom has an important contribution to make. Just as London has become a global hub linking commerce, ideas and people from all over the world, so too our enduring values and our network of alliances, can help secure the changes we need.

A new framework for security and reconstruction

Today, there is still a gaping hole in our ability to address the illegitimate threats and use of force against innocent peoples. It is to the shame of the whole world that the international community failed to act to prevent genocide in Rwanda. We now rightly recognise our responsibility to protect behind borders where there are crimes against humanity.

But if we are to honour that responsibility to protect we urgently need a new framework to assist reconstruction. With the systematic use of earlier Security Council action, proper funding of peacekeepers, targeted sanctions – and their ratcheting up to include the real threat of international criminal court actions – we must now set in place the first internationally agreed procedures to prevent breakdowns of states and societies.

But where breakdowns occur, the UN – and regional bodies such as the EU and African Union – must now also agree to systematically combine traditional emergency aid and peacekeeping with stabilisation, reconstruction and development.

There are many steps the international community can assist with on the ladder from insecurity and conflict to stability and prosperity. So I propose that, in future, Security Council peacekeeping resolutions and UN Envoys should make stablisation, reconstruction and development an equal priority; that the international community should be ready to act with a standby civilian force including police and judiciary who can be deployed to rebuild civic societies; and that to repair damaged economies we sponsor local economic development agencies —- in each area the international community able to offer a practical route map from failure to stability.

New initiatives in non-proliferation

And just as we will continue to be a leading nation in negotiating nuclear arms reductions, so we must be at the forefront of meeting the challenge of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation. And with more sophisticated after-the-fact detection of the source of nuclear materials there must be a determination to hold to account both active providers and potential users.

I propose internationally agreed access to an enrichment bond or nuclear fuel bank to help non-nuclear states acquire the new sources of energy they need. But this offer should be made only as long as these countries renounce nuclear weapons and meet internationally enforced non-proliferation standards.

The greatest immediate challenge to non-proliferation is Iran’s nuclear ambitions, hidden from the world for many years in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran has a choice – confrontation with the international community leading to a tightening of sanctions or, if it changes its approach and ends support for terrorism, a transformed relationship with the world.

Unless positive outcomes flow from Javier Solana’s report and the IAEA, we will lead in seeking tougher sanctions both at the UN and in the European Union, including on oil and gas investment and the financial sector. Iran should be in no doubt about our seriousness of purpose.

Small arms kill every 90 seconds so as we call for an Arms Trade Treaty, Britain is willing to extend export laws to control extra-territorial brokering and trafficking of small arms, and potentially other weapons. And having led the way by taking two types of cluster munitions out of service, we want to work internationally for a ban on the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of those cluster munitions which cause unacceptable harm to civilians.

The renewal of the international institutions

To build not just security but environmental stewardship and prosperity free of global poverty, I want a G8 for the 21st century, a UN for the 21st century, and an IMF and World Bank fit for the 21st century.

And to achieve this I want to play my part in helping the European Union move away from its past preoccupation with inward looking institutional reform and I will work with others to propose a comprehensive agenda for a Global Europe – a Europe that is outward looking, open, internationalist, able to effectively respond both through internal reform and external action to the economic, security and environmental imperatives of globalisation.

I said my approach was hard headed because I am conscious of weaknesses in international institutions that need to be addressed, aware that while resolutions matter results matter even more, determined to judge success not by the number of initiatives in conference halls but by practical action for change, and resolute in my determination that we need fewer rather than more international bureaucracies. Indeed, we need a new network of change-makers – often non-governmental organisations – which deliver concrete action on the ground.

Long term but now also interim options must be examined to reform a UN Security Council – whose permanent members do not include Japan, India, Brazil, Germany, or any African country – to make the Council more representative, more credible and more effective.

The G8 has to increasingly broaden to encompass the influential emerging economies now outside but that account for more than a third of the world’s economic output.

And we need a new coalition of democracies and civic societies joining together as allies for progress, with leaders in politics, economics and civil society all pushing forward reform.

International efforts against terrorism are not a short-term struggle where we get by through ad-hoc improvisation: this is a generational challenge. Global terrorist networks demand a global response. And if there are to be no safe havens for terrorists, and no hiding places for those financing and harbouring terrorism, we should work for a concerted global strengthening of law enforcement, financial supervision and policing and intelligence cooperation.

Financial disruption in one country can now affect all countries. The IMF should be transformed with a renewed mandate that goes far beyond crisis management to crisis prevention – not only responsible in the manner of an independent central bank for the independent surveillance of the world economy but becoming its early warning system.

As we move to a post 2012 global climate change agreement, we need a strengthened UN role for environmental protection.

And while we strengthen the World Bank’s focus on poverty reduction, it must also become a bank for the environment. So as its new President Bob Zoellick has argued, it should recognise that the poorest countries are the most vulnerable to climate change – and help them to adapt and to finance low carbon economic growth.

Over the summer in places of turmoil as different as Darfur and Burma – where we will continue to pressure and persuade – the international community has shown how it can come together.

In Afghanistan we will work with the international community to match our military and security effort with new support for political reform and for economic and social development.

And today and together we call on President Musharraf of Pakistan to restore the constitution and implement the necessary conditions to guarantee free and fair elections on schedule in January; release all political prisoners, including members of the judiciary and human rights activists; to pursue energetically reconciliation with the political opposition; honour his commitment to step down as Chief of Army Staff; and relax restrictions on the media.

Nor will we shirk our obligations to the people and new democracy of Iraq and to the international community. As we move next month from our combat role to ‘Overwatch’ in Basra Province, we will support economic development to give the people of Basra a greater stake in the future.

And with the personal leadership of President Bush and the peace initiative involving all 22 states of the Arab League, there is potentially a window of opportunity to achieve – thanks to the political courage of Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas – the creation of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.

For this we need not only a road to Annapolis but a road from Annapolis: the December donors conference in Paris; Tony Blair’s painstaking work for which I thank him; and Britain’s economic road map for reconstruction in the West Bank and Gaza, in support of which the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary will both shortly visit the region.

Whether in the Middle East or across the developing world, indifference to the plight of others is not only wrong, but not in our interests. That is why we continue to do all we can to reach a world trade agreement that will be of most benefit to the poorest.

But the global poverty emergency cannot be solved by one organisation or even a coalition of governments on their own: we now need the concerted efforts of private, public and third sectors working together —— a new public-private alliance founded on promoting trade and growth.

The injustices people inflict on one another are not god-given but man-made and we have it in our power to become the first generation in history to deliver to every child the long overdue basic right to education. And today we also have the science and medicine to be the first generation to eradicate the preventable diseases of TB, polio, diptheria and malaria — and eventually to cure HIV and AIDS.

And with a special UN meeting next year, it is my personal commitment to work with all people of goodwill to achieve these goals.

By history and conviction, we – Britain – are bearers of the indispensable idea of individual dignity and mutual respect. But we act to build a different, better world because we judge that it too is the best defence of our own future. We know that Britain cannot be a safe and prosperous island in a turbulent and divided world. A better world is our best security, our national interest best advanced by shared international endeavour.

So this is our message – to ourselves, our allies, potential adversaries and people who, no matter how distant, are now our neighbours: Our hard-headed internationalism means we will never retreat from our responsibilities. At all times justice in jeopardy, security at risk, suffering that cries out will command our concern.

From the early years of this young century we can already discern what Britain, the first multinational state, has always known: that success requires that people of different races, religions and backgrounds learn to live in harmony with each other.

We have already seen what our values have taught us: that progress depends upon openness, freedom, democracy and fairness. And we are finding that prosperity like peace is indivisible and to be sustained it has to be shared.

And we have learned too that without environmental sustainability, justice and prosperity are both imperilled and that the best route to long-term economic growth lies in action to tackle climate change.

These lessons are not an excuse to relax or rest or be complacent but a summons to act with utmost resolve. For the pressing challenge for Britain and for the international community is to harness these insights in a sustained endeavour to reform and renew our global rules, institutions and networks.

Upon this rests our shared future: a truly global society empowering people everywhere; not yet here, but in this century within our grasp.

(Taken from the Prime Minister’s Website)

David Cameron: Berlin Security Conference speech

November 13, 2007

Speaking at the Berlin Security Conference today, Conservative Party Leader, David Cameron said:

“It is a great honour to have been invited by the Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union to speak here today.

Eighteen years ago, the wall that divided Berlin between those living in freedom and those living under Communism was torn down.

My first visit to Berlin was the year after, as a guest of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

I remember going to see parts of the Wall that remained – Checkpoint Charlie and areas of East Berlin that would have been closed to me just the year previously.

And I believe now, as I did then, that the unification of Germany was one of the greatest political achievements of the twentieth century.

The CDU and the CSU played a vital role in that achievement and I would also like to place on record today my admiration for the magnificent leadership shown by former Chancellor Helmut Kohl in insisting that a unified Germany remained a part of NATO.


Momentous and lasting benefits flowed from that act of leadership.

NATO was not just preserved but enhanced, with enlargement to the east.

And this in turn assisted the process of enlarging the European Union.

But two decades after the fall of the wall, Europeans face challenges and opportunities not only in our own continent, but across the world – as this important and timely conference recognises.

Today, what happens in Asia has become as important to us as what happens nearby.

That is why it is right that NATO is on the front line in Asia as well as in Europe.

And I believe there is no more important commitment than that being shown today by NATO in Afghanistan.

Let us never forget that the Taliban regime backed Al-Qaeda and helped export terrorism around the world.

We all have a responsibility to do all we can to help Afghanistan succeed.

I know that overseas military commitments are not always popular.

But real leadership is about doing what’s right, making the argument and leading public opinion. NATO must deliver the means as well as willing the end.

So I would like to pay tribute to your leadership in the recent decision of the Bundestag to renew Germany’s vital participation in NATO’s operation in Afghanistan.


But I believe international co-operation should take place between like-minded political parties, as well as countries.

British Conservatives and German Christian Democrats may not agree on everything.

But there is far, far more that unites us than divides us.

For example, the need to tackle climate change.

The need to fight terrorism.

And the need to expand prosperity through the free market.

So I am delighted and proud that last month, Chancellor Merkel and I agreed the establishment of joint working groups between the CDU and the Conservative Party on these three crucial areas of policy.

And particularly delighted that we can announce today that the working group on fighting terrorism will be jointly chaired by our Shadow Security Minister, Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, and the German Deputy Interior Minister Peter Altmaier.


Let me also thank the CDU and CSU for convening this conference.

The world’s centre of gravity is moving from Europe and the Atlantic to Asia and the Pacific.

This shift presents a massive opportunity to both our continents.

It was Japan’s former Foreign Minister, Taro Aso, who spoke about Asia being an ‘arc of freedom and prosperity.’

In terms of total GDP, three of the four richest countries in the world are on the Pacific.

Last year, E.U. trade with India increased by sixteen percent.

And Singapore’s economy ranks second in the world economic freedom index.

But this panel discussion is about threats, not opportunities.


And the threats that this conference is debating are very real.

Global pandemics.

People trafficking.

Nuclear proliferation.

Terrorism motivated by extremist ideology.

And of course the threat when these last two dangers come together and grow within failed states.

That will be my focus today, as perhaps the best example of the way in which modern security risks unite Europe and Asia.

Failed states not only fail to provide security for their own people, they threaten the security of others by serving as a launchpad for terrorism and violence.

And failed states have a global, not just a regional impact.

Failed states in Europe can threaten Asia …

As the presence of Chechen extremists in Afghanistan shows.

And as we have seen all too clearly in recent years, failed states in Asia can threaten Europe.

So political leaders in both continents have a responsibility to develop firm and effective security responses.


For our discussion today, I would like to propose two principles that should guide our security policy-making.

They represent a change, I believe, from the approach of the recent past – certainly in the UK.

My first principle may seem counter-intuitive: that to help protect international security, any state must put its own national security first.

My second principle is that we should replace the doctrine of liberal interventionism, famously propounded by former Prime Minister Tony Blair in a speech in Chicago in 1999…

…with the doctrine of liberal conservatism – conservatism not in its narrow party political meaning, but in the sense of a sceptical attitude towards the ability of states to create utopias.

I believe that these two principles – national security first, and liberal conservatism – together represent the right combination of realism and idealism that we need to deal with the serious dangers of the modern world.


“National security first” may sound like a perverse principle to adopt in an age of complex and globally linked security threats.

Surely it is more important than ever that we put international security first?

I don’t agree.

Every good military commander understands that no campaign will succeed unless you secure your home base first.

The people who let off bombs on London’s public transport system were not agents of Saddam Hussein, they were British citizens.

Two of the three people who allegedly plotted to let off bombs in Frankfurt were German-born, Fritz Gelowicz and Daniel Schneider, driven by an extreme ideology.

Only from a position of security at home can states confidently promote security abroad.

And in the modern world, I believe there are four types of security that any successful state needs to provide: institutional, cultural, economic and physical.

Institutional security is vital because it provides the platform for stability and progress.

But we should not make the mistake of assuming that institutional security is the same thing as democracy.

Of course democracy promotes security because it enables states to make peaceful change.

But there are some institutions that must come first: the rule of law and a strong civil society, with public institutions that people can trust.

I believe one of the greatest sources of German security is your institutional strength: especially your commitment to regional government underpinned by the Constitution of the Federal Republic.

The second form of security that modern states need is cultural security.

A state without a clear and confident national identity creates the space for ethnic conflict and extremism.

Here, we can learn from India’s experience, dealing in challenging circumstances with the need to bind people together in a shared national identity.

And we can see from Japan’s economic success the vital importance of the third form of security that modern states need: economic security.

It has enabled Japan to be a force for progress in Asia and around the world.

Fourth, there is physical security: states without strong defences and secure borders are less able to deter aggression and stop terrorists and those who inspire them.

States that provide these four types of security will be in a stronger position to provide both an example to others and assistance to others.

For us in Britain, this requires action on a number of fronts that have been dangerously neglected in recent years.

Promoting national cohesion and clamping down on people and organisations that undermine it.

Strengthening our border protection – and I believe in this area we have a great deal to learn from Germany’s border police, as I discussed with Minister of the Interior Schauble three weeks ago.

Making sure our armed forces are properly supported with the training and equipment they need.

And modernising our machinery of government to end the division between domestic and foreign security policy, instituting a new national security approach.

These are all actions that we can and must take in the short-term, based on the principle of national security first.


But in the long-term our objective must be to help all states, everywhere, to become strong, self-confident nations that contribute to, rather than undermine, international security.

There is an ideal we must work towards.

States with institutional security – based on the rule of law.

States with cultural security – based on shared values.

States with economic security – based on market economics and free enterprise.

And states with physical security – based on strong borders and strong defence.


The question is, how do we move towards that ideal?

My judgment is that in the face of the new challenges we jointly face in the twenty-first century, the immediate response of some the approach that has become known as liberal interventionism – the idea that we should just get out there into the world and ‘sort it all out’ was the right impulse; was morally correct, but failed to strike the right balance between realism and idealism.

I think the right balance can be found in what I believe in: liberal conservatism.

Liberal – because I believe civil rights, democracy, pluralism and the rule of law are the source of progress and a key component of lasting security.

But conservative too: because I recognize the complexities of human nature, am sceptical of grand utopian schemes to remake the world, and understand that you have to be hard-headed and practical in the pursuit of your values.

Let me illustrate what this would mean in practice.

One example is our proposal for a Partnership for Open Societies in the broader Middle East, helping to support political, economic and social reform in the region. This explicitly recognizes that reform means building the institutions of civil society over time, not believing that democracy alone is a panacea.

Another is our proposal for a new international framework to reward good governance and the rule of law, including permanent representation for Germany, India, Japan, Brazil and an African nation on the UN Security Council, and greater European support for and engagement with organisations like ASEAN.

But just as good governance and the rule of law should be rewarded, so too should their opposites be punished.

Take Iran.

It needs to understand what is expected of it.

An end to aiding and abetting militias in Iraq and beginning to play a positive role in the future of that country, an end to the threats against Israel, and an end to the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

We Europeans have an important role.

We need the Iranians to understand that when it comes to them not getting a nuclear weapon, we mean business.

And if we are to reduce the chances of military action, then we must be ready to apply sanctions which really target Iranian financial institutions and trade.


So I am clear about how the next Conservative government in Britain will respond to the modern security challenges we are discussing today.

First, a clear-eyed recognition of the dangers we face together.

Second, a willing acceptance of our responsibility to play our part in upholding international security.

Third, an equal recognition that we can only play that part if we put national security first and ensure that we are strong at home.

Fourth, that the way to enhance international security is not through liberal interventionist utopias about remaking the whole world, but through the more hard-headed approach of liberal conservatism.

Based on these principles, I am confident that we can develop an effective response to the modern dangers that unite us all.” 

(Speech taken from

NYTimes Article: US Warns Against Emergency Rule In Pakistan

November 3, 2007

November 3, 2007

Musharraf Warned Not to Impose Emergency Rule 


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 2 — A senior American commander, Adm. William J. Fallon, warned Pakistan’s president on Friday not to impose emergency rule, saying that doing so would jeopardize American financial support for the military here.

Admiral Fallon met here with the Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and his top generals to discuss a range of issues related to combating terrorism, including the Pakistani Army’s faltering efforts against Islamic militants sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, diplomats said.

The long-planned visit was at an increasingly tense time. As the date approaches for the Supreme Court to rule on whether General Musharraf can continue as president, his aides have been spreading the word that the general is considering imposing emergency rule. The court’s ruling is expected next week. Diplomats said drafts of a provisional constitutional order allowing for emergency rule had been prepared.

Admiral Fallon’s warning underscored a flurry of appeals in the past few days by Western governments for General Musharraf to abandon plans for emergency rule, a Western diplomat said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a statement to reporters on her way to Turkey, said it was “quite obvious that the United States would not be supportive of extra-constitutional means” of government. Ms. Rice called for parliamentary elections to proceed.

Under an arrangement brokered by the United States and Britain, the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan on Oct. 18 for the first time in eight years on the understanding that she would take part in elections expected early next year.

The Bush administration hoped that Ms. Bhutto would bring a democratic face to Pakistan even as it continued under the rule of General Musharraf, who has pledged to give up his military post after being sworn in for another presidential term on Nov. 15.

Ms. Bhutto left Pakistan on Thursday for what she called a few days at her home in Dubai to see her three daughters. She warned before her departure against any kind of extra-constitutional rule, and said she would return for a political rally next week.

Publicly, Pakistani government officials said Friday that emergency rule could be justified because of clashes in the past week between security forces and Islamic militants in the Swat Valley, in the North-West Frontier Province, and because of the increasing number of suicide attacks against military and police installations.

On Thursday, a suicide bomber rammed into an Air Force bus in central Punjab province, killing eight people, including Air Force personnel. Two days earlier, a suicide bomber killed seven people in an attack on a police post less than a mile from General Musharraf’s army residence in the garrison town of Rawalpindi.

“If things do get bad there is a constitutional provision for emergency rule,” said Tariq Azim Khan, the minister of state for information, referring to the security situation.

Mr. Khan also took aim at the United States in statements he made Friday night on Geo TV. “The whole world knows that the United States unnecessarily interferes in Pakistan,” he said. “Nicholas Burns and Condoleezza Rice have no right to interfere in Pakistan’s internal matters.” R. Nicholas Burns is under secretary of state for political affairs.

Although General Musharraf’s supporters would justify emergency rule on the grounds of the shaky security climate, it was clear that the pending Supreme Court ruling on the validity of the president’s re-election was the prime motivation, analysts said.

The threat of emergency rule was an effort to deter the Supreme Court from overturning his election, Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a leading expert on the Pakistani military, said.

The presidential election on Oct. 6 by the national and provincial assemblies was boycotted by opposition parties in an attempt to undermine its legitimacy.

After saying it would delay its decision until Nov. 12, the Supreme Court said Friday it would move it up to next week.

General Musharraf is scheduled to begin his new term on Nov. 15. That is the date when, he has said, he will take off his military uniform and head a caretaker government until parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for early next year.

Although General Musharraf has pledged to resign his military post, Mr. Rizvi said it was far from clear that he would. “He seems determined to stay in power with a preference to keep both hats,” Mr. Rizvi said, referring to the civilian post of president and head of the military. “What he will do we don’t know.”

One consequence of emergency rule, which is one step short of martial law, would be restricting the power of the courts, said Mr. Rizvi, who lectures at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington.

In his meetings with General Musharraf, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the new vice chief of the Pakistani military, and other military leaders, Admiral Fallon urged the Pakistanis to improve counterinsurgency efforts in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan, and in Swat, a more settled region, diplomats said.

The United States has provided Pakistan with about $10 billion in assistance since Sept. 11, 2001, almost all of it in military aid. About half of the military assistance is supposed to be used to fight terrorist groups based here. But frustration is mounting in Washington about the ineffectiveness of the Pakistani Army’s efforts against the spread and intensity of Islamic militancy.

One of Admiral Fallon’s messages was that it would be difficult for the Bush administration to persuade Congress keep up the level of military aid if emergency rule was imposed, a Western diplomat said.

A key center of Ms. Bhutto’s support in Washington comes from senior members of Congress who see her as a tribune for democracy in Pakistan.

Salman Masood and Jane Perlez reported from Islamabad and David Rohde from Peshawar.

Obama’s Iran Approach: New York Times November 2, 2007 Article

November 3, 2007

If Elected …

Obama Envisions New Iran Approach


CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.

Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”

In his Democratic presidential bid, Mr. Obama has vigorously sought to distinguish himself on foreign policy from his rivals, particularly Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, by asserting that he would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions.

The suggestion, which emerged as a flash point in the campaign, has prompted Mrs. Clinton to question whether such an approach would amount to little more than a propaganda victory for the United States’ adversaries and to question the experience of Mr. Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois. Other Democrats, in turn, have criticized Mrs. Clinton for an approach to Iran they call too hawkish, including a vote for a nonbinding resolution describing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran as a terrorist organization.

Mr. Obama’s willingness to conduct talks at the highest level with Iran also differs significantly from the Bush administration’s approach.

The administration has authorized Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to discuss Iraq with Iranian officials. But the White House has also said it will not engage in high-level talks on other issues unless Iran first suspends its program to enrich uranium. Nor has the Bush administration advertised in detail the possible rewards for a change of Iranian behavior.

Through most of the interview, Mr. Obama spoke without referring to notes. At one point near the end of the session, he leaned forward in his chair and looked at a yellow legal pad on the table in front of him, which listed points where he believed he and Mrs. Clinton differ on how to go forward in Iraq.

“You don’t want to look backwards, but obviously our general view about this mission as a whole has been very different,” Mr. Obama said. “She missed the strategic interests that should have dictated whether we went to Iraq in the first place or not.”

Mrs. Clinton has said that after carrying out major troop withdrawals she would leave a residual force in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, battle other terrorist groups, train the Iraqi Army and deter Iranian intervention.

Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month. But he insisted in the interview that the mission of his residual force would be more limited than that posited by Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama said, for example, that the part of the residual force assigned to counterterrorism might be based outside Iraq. He also emphasized that the residual force would not have the mission of deterring Iranian involvement in Iraq.

He said he would commit to training Iraqi security forces only if the Iraqi government engaged in political reconciliation and did not employ the Iraqi Army and the police for sectarian purposes. In any event, he said, American trainers would not be attached with Iraqi units that go in harm’s way.

“The trainers are going to have to be provided with missions that don’t put them in vulnerable situations,” he said. “Part of what my goal is is that the trainers are not constantly embedded in combat operations.”

Whether such a limited force could effectively influence events in Iraq is an important question. Keeping the part of the force assigned to counterterrorism outside the country raises the issue of whether it could respond in a timely way and without the benefit of the sort of intelligence that is gathered by forces that regularly interact with Iraqi civilians. Nor is it clear how, without keeping some combat forces in the country, the American military might rush to the aid of any trainers if they came under attack.

Mr. Obama acknowledged in the interview that there were “legitimate questions” as to how his concept of a residual force might work, and said he would adjust it if necessary after discussions with senior military leaders.

“As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected,” he said. “In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I’ve laid out, then I will take that into consideration.”

For all Mr. Obama’s efforts to emphasize an approach that calls for minimal military involvement in Iraq, his plan is in one respect more ambitious than Mrs. Clinton’s. While Mr. Obama said he hoped to withdraw all American combat forces within 16 months of taking office, his plan states that American and allied troops should be prepared to return to Iraq and protect civilians if there were genocidal attacks.

“I do not anticipate that happening, because I think we can execute our withdrawal in an effective way,” he said. “What I am saying is that I as president am obviously going to be mindful of the possibility of humanitarian disaster, and if that were to occur, I am not ruling out that we wouldn’t take steps in concert with other nations — even if it was short term — to ensure that a wholesale disaster did not take place.”

Mr. Obama argued that it was “too speculative” to say if the United States would undertake such action unilaterally or only if allied nations chose to participate.

Other aspects of his policy for the Middle East also remain unclear. Mr. Obama declined to say if he would take military action if Iran did not abandon its presumed nuclear weapons program or if he would settle for a strategy of deterring and containing a nuclear-armed Iran.

“My decision making, with respect to military options versus diplomatic options, a containment strategy versus a strike strategy, is going to be informed by how is that going to impact not just Iran,” he said, “but how is that going to impact the stability of the region and how’s that going to impact our long-term security interests.”

Mr. Obama, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visited Iraq in January 2006. Asked if that was his last visit, given how much events on the ground have changed since then, he jumped in before the question was finished, saying, “Given how important this is, why haven’t I gone back?”

“I’ll be honest with you,” he said. “Part of it is that my schedule is such that the trips would be one or two days and would be centered around the Green Zone.”

He added: “I suspect we will be going back. It probably won’t be before Iowa, realistically speaking.” The Iowa caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 3.

(Mrs. Clinton has been to Iraq three times, her aides said.)

Mr. Obama has implored voters to consider his judgment in foreign policy, reminding audiences at political rallies and in television commercials that he spoke out against the Iraq war from the beginning, two years before he was elected to the Senate. That judgment, he said, would be carried over to selecting people to fill his administration.

He said his views were shaped by his foreign policy advisers, including Richard Danzig, who was Navy secretary under President Bill Clinton; Anthony Lake, a national security adviser in the Clinton administration; Susan E. Rice, an assistant secretary of state for African affairs under Mr. Clinton; Scott Gration, a retired Air Force major general; and Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, now retired, a former chief of staff of the Air Force.

Asked whom he would appoint as defense secretary or to important national security positions, Mr. Obama said he would consider “the best person, regardless of party.”

Musharraf’s November 3, 2007 Proclamation of Emergency

November 3, 2007

(taken from the Pakistani newspaper Dawn)


Whereas there is visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, IED explosions, rocket firing and bomb explosions and the banding together of some militant groups have taken such activities to an unprecedented level of violent intensity posing a grave threat to the life and property of the citizens of Pakistan.

Whereas there has also been a spate of attacks on state infrastructure and on law enforcement agencies;

Whereas some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism, thereby weakening the government and the nation’s resolve and diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace;

Whereas there has been increasing interference by some members of the judiciary in government policy, adversely affecting economic growth, in particular;

Whereas constant interference in executive function, including but not limited to the control of terrorist activity, economic policy, price controls, downsizing of corporations and urban planning, has weakened the writ of the government; the police force has been completely demoralized and is fast losing its efficacy to fight terrorism and Intelligence Agencies have been thwarted in their activities and prevented from pursuing terrorists;

Whereas some hard core militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers, who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to be released.

The persons so released have subsequently been involved in heinous terrorist activities, resulting in loss of human life an property. Militants across the country have, thus, been encouraged while law enforcement agencies subdued;

Whereas some judges by overstepping the limits of judicial authority have taken over the executive and legislative functions;

Whereas the Government is committed to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law and holds the superior judiciary in high esteem, it is nonetheless of paramount importance that the honourable Judges confine the scope of their activity to the judicial function and not assume charge of administrations;

Whereas an important constitutional institution, the Supreme Judicial Council, has been made entirely irrelevant and non est by a recent order and judges have, thus, make themselves immune from inquiry into their conduct and put themselves beyond accountability.

Whereas the humiliating treatment meted to government officials by some members of the

judiciary on a routine basis during court proceedings has demoralized the civil bureaucracy and senior government functionaries, to avoid being harassed, prefer inaction;

Whereas the law and order situation in the country as well as the economy have been adversely affected and trichotomy of powers eroded;

Whereas a situation has thus arisen where the government of the country cannot be carried on it (sic) Accordance with the constitution and as the constitution provides no solution for this situation, there is no way out except through emergent and extraordinary measures;

And whereas the situation has been reviewed in meetings with the Prime Minister, governors of all Provinces, and with chairman joint chiefs of staff committee, chiefs of the armed forces, vice chief of army Staff and corps commanders of the Pakistan army;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the deliberations and decisions of the said meetings, I, General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of the Army Staff, proclaim emergency throughout Pakistan.

I hereby order and proclaim that the constitution of the Islamic republic of Pakistan shall remain in abeyance.

This Proclamation shall come into force at once.

Proliferation Article 10/17

October 19, 2007

See No Proliferation

October 17. 2007 Page A18

The silence from the Bush Administration over Israel’s recent bombing of a site in Syria gets louder by the day. U.S. officials continue to look the other way, even as reports multiply that Israel and U.S. intelligence analysts believe the site was a partly constructed nuclear reactor modeled after a North Korean design.

The weekend was full of reports about these intelligence judgments, first in the U.S. media then picked up by the Israeli press. Israel’s former chief of military intelligence, Major General Aharon Zeevi Farkash, called them “logical.” That’s the term of art people use to confirm things in Israel when they want to get around the military censors.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Israel and offered her own non-confirmation confirmation. “We’re very concerned about any evidence of, any indication of, proliferation,” she said, according to the New York Times. “And we’re handling those in appropriate diplomatic channels.” Just what you need when your enemies are caught proliferating nuclear expertise — a little more diplomacy. The world is lucky Israel preferred to act against the threat, in what seems to have been a smaller version of its 1981 attack against Iraq’s Osirak reactor.

Ms. Rice went on to say that “The issues of proliferation do not affect the Palestinian-Israeli peace efforts we are making,” adding that “This is the time to be extremely careful.” In other words, even if North Korea is spreading nuclear weapons, she doesn’t want to say so in public because it might offend a country — Syria — that is refusing even to take part in the regional Palestinian-Israeli peace conference next month. That’s certainly being “careful.”

Or perhaps she fears offending North Korea, which the Bush Administration has agreed to trust for finally pledging to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and disavowing proliferation. In return for that promise, the U.S. is shipping fuel oil to Pyongyang and is taking steps to remove North Korea from its list of terror states. It would certainly be inconvenient, not to say politically embarrassing, if North Korea were found to be helping Syria get a bomb amid all of this diplomacy.

All the more so given that only last year, after North Korea exploded a nuclear device, President Bush explicitly warned North Korea against such proliferation. “America’s position is clear,” he said at the time. “The transfer of nuclear weapons or material will be considered a grave threat to the United States.” More than once, Mr. Bush added that, “We will hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences.”

Even granting some leeway in defining the words “fully accountable,” they cannot mean winking at the spread of nuclear know-how to a U.S. enemy in the most dangerous corner of the world. With its continuing silence about what happened in Syria, the Bush Administration is undermining its own security credibility. More important, the see-no-evil pose is showing North Korea that it can cheat even on an agreement whose ink is barely dry — and without “consequences.”

Nuclear Article

October 19, 2007

Nuclear hypocrisy — Salon 10/19/2007

To avoid war, Bush should engage in direct negotiations with Iran — and restore America’s commitment to its own disarmament.

By Joe Conason

Trying to understand what is on George W. Bush’s mind when he opens his mouth is often a fruitless exercise, but his latest statement concerning Iran, nuclear weapons and World War III was troubling as well as opaque. Just what did the president mean when he uttered those apocalyptic remarks on Wednesday?

“We’ve got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel,” he blathered. “So I’ve told people that, if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

Sorry, but the Iranian leadership and many other unsavory figures around the world cannot be prevented from “having the knowledge” needed to build a nuclear weapon, since, as Matthew Yglesias has noted, the scientific and engineering information is commonly available.

What the Iranians don’t have yet is the industrial capacity to make enough weapons-grade enriched uranium for that purpose and then to transform that material into a bomb. What they do have, unfortunately, is the means to achieve that end eventually — and thanks in part to the irresponsible policies of the Bush administration, they also have both a motive and an excuse.

It is true that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ugly speeches about the Jewish state and the Holocaust leave little doubt about his attitudes. Moreover, there is no question that the Islamic Republic rejects Israel’s legitimacy and has sought to undermine the Middle East peace process through every means at its disposal, including terrorism.

Yet despite the American media’s constant repetition of Ahmadinejad’s rhetorical attacks, the destruction of Israel is almost certainly not the real reason that Tehran’s theocrats want to develop nuclear reactors that could someday be used for sinister purposes. Neither the Iranian president nor the mullahs who actually control the Islamic Republic can possibly imagine that their state would survive for long if they launched a first strike against Israel — or even looked as if they were preparing to do so.

Within Iran, the debate over nuclear development centers on ensuring the security of the regime against external enemies, notably including the United States, that are suspected of plotting its destruction.

No doubt that perception, which only strengthens the regime’s hard-liners, was reinforced by Bush’s explanation of his Iran policy during that Wednesday press conference. “The whole strategy is that, you know, at some point in time leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, ‘This isn’t worth it,’ and to me it’s worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government,” said the president. “My intent is to continue to rally the world, to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you in the hopes that at some point somebody else shows up and says it’s not worth the isolation.”

Let us leave aside for a moment the Bush administration’s abject failure in rallying the world for any purpose, let alone regime change or even nuclear sanity in Iran. Six years of neoconservative “toughness” has done nothing to discourage the Iranian regime, and instead has encouraged a harder line by the mullahs — who have enjoyed a vast improvement in their regional power because of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. But the problems with Bush’s approach go even deeper, because he has consistently provided the Iranians with excuses to do precisely what we and our allies want to stop them from doing.

Even before 9/11, the president and his policymakers set out to undermine the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), the same treaty whose strictures they cite in seeking to impose sanctions (or worse) on Iran. What almost nobody in the United States ever mentions — but the Iranians and other hostile regimes know very well — is that the Bush administration blatantly violates the NPT every day. The treaty’s sixth article says in plain terms that the United States and other signatories that possess nuclear weapons are obligated to disarmament, in exchange for all the other signatories agreeing not to develop those weapons in the future.

The Bush administration’s strategic doctrine rejects the obligations of the NPT and urges the construction of a new and more powerful nuclear arsenal, including “tactical” weapons that could be used against regional adversaries such as … Iran. Moreover, the administration seeks to provide nuclear assistance to India, a nuclear state that never signed the NPT, which is also a treaty violation. And then there’s Israel, another nonsignatory nation, whose stockpile of hundreds of nuclear weapons is simply not a subject that American diplomats are willing to discuss.

All these large and small hypocrisies undermine our moral case against Iran’s nuclear program, especially when there is still no proof that the Iranians have a bomb-making program at this stage — and when our own intelligence estimates suggest that any such capacity is probably still eight to 10 years away. The flaws in the American argument against Iran are amplified by Bush’s continuing rejection of direct negotiations.

None of this means that we shouldn’t try to stop Iran and other hostile states from acquiring nuclear weapons, which would indeed destabilize the region and, like those in Pakistan and elsewhere, make the world a more dangerous place. But if the world somehow evades World War III or war with Iran until the day Bush and his belligerent Vice President Dick Cheney leave office, we can only hope that their successors abandon the policies that have failed — and replace them with initiatives that just might make us safer.

What would we do if we were interested in “avoiding World War III”? We could start by engaging Iran in direct negotiations to bring the regime into the global and regional system, so that hard-liners like Ahmadinejad will have fewer excuses for pursuing their nuclear mania. And we might at last abandon the neoconservative fantasies of nuclear dominance, by restoring the American commitment to eventual nuclear disarmament as the only path away from worldwide proliferation.

Communist Party Resolution on the US India Nuclear Deal

October 17, 2007

23 August 2007 The Central Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) met in New Delhi on August 22 and 23, 2007 to consider the political situation arising out of the UPA government’s decision to conclude the bilateral agreement on nuclear cooperation with the United States.  The Central Committee has adopted the  following resolution unanimously:


The Central Committee of the CPI(M) fully endorsed the stand taken by the Polit Bureau that the bilateral agreement negotiated with the United States administration will bind India into a strategic alliance with the United States with long term consequences.

The Central Committee also considers the nuclear deal, as it exists, subject to the provisions of the Hyde Act which are binding on the US administration.

The Central Committee noted the various objections and apprehensions voiced by scientists, public figures and intelligentsia on the nuclear deal.  Above all, it is a fact that the majority of the members of Parliament are opposed to the agreement.

This alone should make the government pause  and not proceed further with the next steps to be taken to operationalise the deal.  It is incumbent on the government, which commands a majority in Parliament only with the support of the Left parties, to heed the voices of opposition.  It should examine the objections and clear the implications of the Hyde Act.

The Central Committee does not want the current crisis to affect the government. However, this is contingent upon the government not proceeding further with the agreement.  The Central Committee, therefore, authorises the Polit Bureau to take whatever necessary measures to see that the agreement is not operationalised.

The Central Committee decided to take the issue of the Indo-US strategic relations, of which the nuclear agreement is a part, to the people through a mass campaign alongwith the Left parties.  The way the tie-up with the United States is affecting the various policies  which affect the people’s livelihood, economic sovereignty and independent foreign policy will be highlighted in this campaign.

The CPI(M) and the Left parties will conduct this joint campaign from September 4 to 8 all over the country coinciding with the two jathas which are taking place in the same period against the joint naval exercises.

Further, the Central Committee decided that the Party must conduct its own independent campaign till the 15th of September.

GNEP-Related Press Release: Inernational Nuclear Recycling Alliance Wins Developmental Contract

October 4, 2007



–>October 2, 2007

International Nuclear Recycling Alliance awarded GNEP contract

Bethesda, Md., October 1, 2007 — The International Nuclear Recycling Alliance (INRA) – led by AREVA and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and including Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited; Washington Group International; BWX Technologies, Inc.; and Battelle — has just signed a contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) to evaluate closing the nuclear fuel cycle in the U.S., through the development of a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor. The contract was awarded within the framework of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).GNEP seeks to close the nuclear fuel cycle by recycling used fuel in ways that both minimize proliferation risks and reduce the volume and toxicity of final waste residues. Closing the fuel cycle would conserve uranium resources and enhance energy security.

Under the terms of the contract, INRA will provide three major studies:

· Technology development roadmaps analyzing the technology needed to achieve GNEP goals;

· Business plans showing methods for the development and commercialization of advanced GNEP technologies and facilities;

· Conceptual design studies for the nuclear fuel recycling center and the advanced recycling reactor.

INRA companies will be responsible for the following activities in realizing the contract for the DOE:

AREVA, supported by Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited, will perform conceptual design studies and develop a technology roadmap for the nuclear fuel recycling center.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. will perform conceptual design studies and develop a technology roadmap for the advanced recycling reactor, based on a loop-type reactor;

Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited, in addition to supporting AREVA’s work on the nuclear fuel recycling center, will perform specific studies of safety design principles and safeguards.

Battelle will be the lead for both the analysis for and preparation of the technology roadmap and DOE reporting.

BWX Technologies, Inc. will be the lead for safeguards and security, as well as licensing support.

Washington Group International will provide architect and engineering services.

AREVA, Inc. President Michael McMurphy said, “Our approach applies innovative technologies and truly unmatched operating experience from INRA best-in-class companies. Combined, we will offer DOE comprehensive, credible industry information on cost, schedule, and business planning for developing and deploying a closed fuel cycle in the United States.”

The nuclear fuel recycling center would have two functions: the treatment of used fuel to separate it into recyclable, energy-producing components and final waste materials, and the manufacture of nuclear fuel from the recyclable components of the used fuel. The advanced recycling reactor will be fueled with materials recovered from used reactor fuel. The reactor will transform some of these radioactive materials into a more easily manageable waste form while producing energy.


AREVA, Inc. the leading nuclear energy products and services supplier in the United States, generated nearly $2 billion in revenue in 2006. The company has more than 5,000 employees, working at 40 locations in 20 states across the U.S., all committed to serving the nation and paving the way for the future of the electricity market. AREVA Inc. combines homegrown leadership and access to world-class nuclear fuel cycle technology to provide customers a proven track record of performance. The world’s leading nuclear fuel cycle company, AREVA is at the industry forefront in developing, deploying, and operating both treatment / recycling facilities and sodium-cooled reactors. In the United States and in more than 100 countries around the world, AREVA is engaged in the 21st century’s greatest challenges: making energy available to all, protecting the planet and acting responsibly toward future generations.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Inc. (MHI), headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, is one of the world’s leading heavy machinery manufacturers with consolidated sales of 3,068 billion yen in fiscal 2006 (year ended March 31, 2007). MHI’s diverse lineup of products and services encompasses shipbuilding, power plants, chemical plants, environmental equipment, steel structures, industrial and general machinery, aircraft space rocketry and air-conditioning systems.

Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited (JNFL) is Japan’s pioneer company in the field of commercial used nuclear fuel reprocessing, uranium enrichment, nuclear waste storage and disposal, and Mixed-Oxide fuel fabrication. In Rokkasho-mura, Aomori Prefecture, the test operation of the world’s newest commercial reprocessing plant, for which JNFL applied state-of-the-art reprocessing technology and implemented IAEA’s full scope safeguards capability, is successfully in progress. The mission of JNFL is to establish nuclear fuel cycle technologies for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Battelle is the world’s largest non-profit independent research and development organization, with 20,000 employees in more than 120 locations worldwide, including five national laboratories that Battelle manages or co-manages for the U.S. Department of Energy. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, Battelle conducts $3.8 billion in R&D annually through contract research, laboratory management, and technology commercialization. As a non-profit charitable trust with an eye toward the future, Battelle actively supports and promotes science and math education.

BWX Technologies, Inc. has five decades of experience owning and operating nuclear and national security production facilities both commercially and for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to fabricate, process, use and store highly enriched uranium. As the prime contractor or a member of a partnership team, BWXT currently manages and operates 10 National Nuclear Security Administration and DOE sites. Over the course of its activities, BWXT has acquired an extensive portfolio of providing both proprietary and contracted safeguards and security programs in manufacturing, production, research, and deactivation and decommissioning. The transfer and repackaging of spent fuel BWXT performs at its Lynchburg Technology Center is a routine function performed at commercial nuclear facilities and helps to demonstrate that this material can be safely and securely prepared and staged for recycling at a treatment center. BWXT, a subsidiary of McDermott International, Inc., is headquartered in Lynchburg, Va., and employs more than 11,000 people.

A primary contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies since 1942, Washington Group International is a global leader in engineering, procurement, construction, pre-operational testing, start-up and safe and efficient operation of complex nuclear and non-nuclear facilities. Headquartered in Boise, Idaho, with more than $3 billion in annual revenue, the company has approximately 25,000 people at work around the world providing solutions in power, environmental management, defense, oil and gas processing, mining, industrial facilities, transportation, and water resources.


Julien Duperray
Tel : 01 34 96 12 15 – Fax : 01 34 96 16 54
E-mail :

AREVA Inc. :
Laurence Pernot
Nancy Lang
Tel.: 301- 841-1600

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Hideo Ikuno
Tel.: +81-3-6716-5277

Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited
Suzuki Kazufumi
Tel.: +81-175-71-2130

Katy Delaney
Tel.: 410-306-8638

BWX Technologies, Inc.
Regina Carter
Tel. : 434-522-5188

Washington Group International
Jerry Holloway
Tel.: 208-386-5255