Skip to main content

Home/ Geopolitics Weekly/ Group items tagged non

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Pedro Gonçalves

Nuclear Posture Review - Council on Foreign Relations - 0 views

www.cfr.org/...nuclear_posture_review.html

US NPR

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 12 Apr 10 - Cached
  • this was the third NPR since the end of the Cold War
  • There is not a classified version of the NPR. There was not a classified version of the QDR or the Ballistic Missile Defense Review
  • we seek, as these -- as states like North Korea and Iran seek to increase their reliance on nuclear weapons, we aren't going to increase our reliance on nuclear weapons. We'd like to increase our reliance on supplementary tools of extended deterrence. But so long as nuclear threats remain for which nuclear weapons are relevant, there will be a nuclear component to this umbrella.
  • ...24 more annotations...
  • the NPT review conference, which is going to be one of these agonizing, multilateral events
  • we don't say anything about U.S. forward-deployed systems in Europe, and we don't do that because we don't want to act unilaterally. This is an alliance issue and should be dealt with and we should achieve consensus within the alliance.
  • We have opportunities in NATO over the next year, in looking at the alliance's strategic concept, to talk about U.S. forward-deployed nuclear weapons, and we'll do that. It will begin very soon and continue throughout the year, looking at the Lisbon summit meeting in November.
  • Whether we'll have a multilateral negotiation, the NPR doesn't deal with that. We haven't addressed it as a government. I'll express my personal view on that: I don't think we're going to have a multilateral negotiation. (Chuckles.) When we were talking about INF systems in Europe, that wasn't a multilateral negotiation. I don't see it here. And it's not even clear whether the problem of Russian non-strategic weapons is amenable to arms-control kinds of solutions.
  • Connoisseurs of NPRs will not find the word reliance in this NPR. The last NPR said it was an objective of policy to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, and the services took the message, as did lots of other actors. We've said we're trying to reduce the roles and numbers. But where roles remain, deterrence has to be not only maintained but strengthened in the manner of broadening and diversifying
  • the Russians right now are in their modernization phase. They're well into it and working their way through what their next 30 years of delivery vehicles and weapons is going to look like. We haven't really entered it. We're just now starting to get into that side of the equation.
  • how do you keep the balance -- not from a weapons standpoint, but from a stability standpoint -- with China, Russia and the United States, with China getting at the cutting edge of technology and moving as quickly as they can? Maybe they don't have the number of warheads today, but you still have to pay attention. And how do you take then the Russian side of this equation, which is a drastic demographic reduction, yet looking at kind of the reverse of the Fulda Gap? They're worried about divisions to their south, divisions to their west. Weapons have a very different meaning to them today than they did in the Cold War.
  • The Chinese are trying to understand what their threat is and how they're going to handle deterrence, and we're trying to straddle and make sure that we don't unseat this balance.
  • That's why, for me, it's been so important to think beyond nuclear when you're thinking deterrence. Because I just don't think nuclear is enough, in the broad spectrum of threat that we'll face.
  • the president has come out and said as long as we have a need for our nuclear stockpiles, as long as other nations have them, he is committed to maintaining them. He is committed to revitalizing the infrastructure, the experimental capabilities, the buildings where these people work. Much of the infrastructure I've got, particularly the uranium/plutonium infrastructure, literally dates back to the early 1950s. They were designed in the '40s, built and started operating in 1952. So it's going to take us 10 years to get this up. So it takes a sustained effort, and that's what it's going to take.
  • Obviously, our forward-deployed systems in Europe are -- it's a political-military issue. And I understand that the NPR did not want to prejudice the discussions underway at NATO. But if I can just separate the military for a moment, is there a military mission performed by these aircraft-delivered weapons that cannot be performed by either U.S. strategic forces or U.S. conventional forces? CARTWRIGHT: No. (Scattered laughter.)
  • It doesn't anywhere say we're committed to reducing reliance on. We're committed to reducing the roles and reducing the salience of, internationally
  • On the NATO topic, I wish it were as simple. I would put a question back: what targets do NATO's weapons have? Not nuclear. Any weapon in NATO. An alliance that doesn't have an enemy -- (scattered laughter) -- so the argument about where nuclear weapons might be pointed is only a part of the argument.
  • The theme we carry in the NPR and that we're going to carry forward to Tolline (ph) and beyond is that nuclear sharing is what has been essential to NATO, in terms of the credibility of deterrence and assurance. And the choices NATO makes are interpreted by its members as being reflective of how committed those members are to their Article V obligations. And there are plenty of NATO's members who are worried that NATO would make a choice to abandon nuclear weapons and thus put at risk their ability to do Article V actions. And so when we've said in our policy goal we are interested in strengthening regional deterrence and reassurance of allies, these are two sides of the same coin
  • Where we try and lead NATO -- the president said about NATO, he was there a year ago, to listen and learn and we'll come back to lead. As we come back to lead on this NATO nuclear topic, we're going to bring the messages of burden and risk sharing, because these are essential to the -- uniquely to this alliance. The NPR talks about extended deterrence in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East. Uniquely to the European landscape is this risk and burden-sharing dimension. And it's a different way of think about the capabilities question.
  • as General Cartwright observed, the technical possibilities of breakthrough and breakout capabilities are there, but the ones that Russia and China most worry about are our possible breakout capabilities. And if we're serious about meeting their requirements for strategic stability, we need to do a better job than we have of putting all of this together in a comprehensive role and getting off of defensive mode and saying, oh, don't worry, missile defenses aren't pointed at you, and strategic stability is untroubled by our capabilities, and get on to a more solid foundation.
  • we've tried to engage Russia on missile defense. We have proposals for extensive cooperation in the area of missile defense. The Russians haven't been interested, so far, in engaging on that. And not to mention the difficulties of engaging with them on non-strategic forces.
  • We need to reassure our allies for -- because we're committed to do that, but also because for a nonproliferation reason, we don't want them to develop a -- to feel they have incentives to acquire their own deterrent capabilities.
  • I think this is a balanced report; this is not a revolutionary report. Some were hoping for more on declaratory policy. Some were hoping that we'd go for a no-first-use approach, say that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack. We weren't prepared to go there.
  • We believe there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which nuclear weapons continue to play a role in deterring non-nuclear attack. We're prepared to state that as an objective, but not to say we're ready yet.
  • I think going farther faster would have been unsettling to some of our friends around the world. I think it would be unsettling to domestic audiences as well. And we -- to be frank, the administration had its sights set on gaining two-thirds of the U.S. Senate for ratification of START and the CTBT. And I think this document will move us toward the goals enunciated by the president without kind of upsetting the apple cart and making this difficult to have further progress.
  • it does seem to me that in this document, the U.S. is saying we withhold the right to use nuclear weapons against an Iran that has no nuclear weapons. And in making this particular threat, we're basically just extending the continuity from the Bush administration that keeps all military options on the table and, whether explicitly or implicitly, also had threatened Iran to use nuclear weapons against Iran that did not have nuclear weapons. So I guess the way I would end this question is, is this the right message for the Green movement in Iran, for the Brazils and the Turkeys of the world that this U.S., which says it's reducing the role of nuclear weapons, reserves the right to use this weapon of mass destruction against an Iran that does not yet have nuclear weapons? EINHORN: This negative security assurance was about assuring non-nuclear weapon states, party to the NPT in good standing with the NPT. It was not about threatening -- (chuckles) -- those that are not in good standing. I know -- the Iranians will try to capitalize, there'll be a lot of Iranian propaganda that this whole thing is about an implicit threat to Iran. It's not about an implicit threat to Iran.
  • we made clear in the NPR that countries that are not -- we're not increasing the likelihood of using nuclear weapons against countries that are not eligible to receive this pledge. The countries that are not covered by the pledge are simply not affected by it. It's not as if we've increased the threat to France or Russia or the U.K. or something like that. And neither have we increased the threat to North Korea or Iran. The situation is simply unaffected.
  • Or we're as serious about NPT membership as we are compliance, because the pledge is also not offered to Israel, India and Pakistan. But it seems like those three countries are in much better shape than Iran, even though Iran is partially in compliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement.
Argos Media

Legislation would triple U.S. non-military aid to Pakistan - CNN.com - 0 views

edition.cnn.com/...index.html

Pakistan US John Kerry Richard Lugar Obama Mike Mullen

shared by Argos Media on 05 May 09 - Cached
  • s Pakistani forces continue to battle an advancing Taliban, the leading senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee introduced legislation Monday tripling aid to the country.
  • Speaking at a news conference capping his 100th day in office, Obama said the United States has "huge national security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable" and doesn't end up a "nuclear-armed militant state."
  • The $1.5 billion per year would triple U.S. non-military aid levels, currently at $500 million per year. The legislation also would separate military from non-military aid, promising that economic aid "is no longer the poor cousin to military aid."
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • In introducing the legislation on the Senate floor, Kerry, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, warned, "An alarming percentage of the Pakistani population now sees America as a greater threat than al Qaeda. "Until we change that perception there is, frankly, very little chance of ending tolerance for terrorist groups or persuading any Pakistani government to devote the political capital necessary to deny such groups ... the sanctuary that they've been able to receive."
  • The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, introduced by Sens. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Dick Lugar, R-Indiana, authorizes $7.5 billion in non-military aid to Pakistan over the next five years to foster economic growth and development, and another $7.5 billion for the following five years.
  • After making two visits to Pakistan in less than three weeks, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, is "very alarmed by the growing extremist threat in Pakistan and remains frustrated particularly by the political leadership's inability to confront that threat," according to his chief spokesman.
  • Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have called Taliban gains in Pakistan an "existential threat" to the country.
  • The bill takes into account the fluid situation in Pakistan, leaving military aid to be determined on a year-by-year basis. But it requires Obama to certify Pakistani forces are making progress in combating al Qaeda and the Taliban and not interfering with civilian rule in order for aid to continue, a condition both the Obama administration and the Pakistani government have opposed.
  • The bill also calls for strict benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of the aid. In addition to requiring Obama to submit a report to Congress outlining a strategic plan for the aid, the administration is to submit a report every six months detailing how the money is spent and judging its effectiveness. Clinton and Gates are to submit a comprehensive cross-border strategy for the Pakistani-Afghan border, as well as annual reports on the progress of Pakistani Security Forces.
Pedro Gonçalves

'Killer robots' pose threat to peace and should be banned, UN warned | Science | The Gu... - 0 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...killer-robots-ban-un-warning

Drones Military Automated Weapons

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 30 May 13 - No Cached
  • "Machines lack morality and mortality, and as a result should not have life and death powers over humans,"
  • "States are working towards greater and greater autonomy in weapons, and the potential is there for such technologies to be developed in the next 10 or 20 years,"
  • Unmanned aerial vehicles were intended initially only for surveillance, and their use for offensive purposes was prohibited, yet once strategists realised their perceived advantages as a means of carrying out targeted killings, all objections were swept out of the way.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Drone technology has already moved a step closer to a fully autonomous state in the form of the X-47B, a super-charged UAV developed by the US Navy that can fly itself, and which last week completed the first takeoff from an aircraft carrier. The drone is billed as a non-combat craft, yet its design includes two weapons bays capable of carrying more than 4,000lbs.Britain is developing its own next generation of drone, known as Taranis, that can be sent to tackle targets at long range and can defend itself from enemy aircraft. Like X-47B it has two in-built weapons bays, though is currently unarmed.
  • South Korea has set up sentry robots known as SGR-1 along the Demilitarized Zone with North Korea that can detect people entering the zone through heat and motion sensors; though the sentry is currently configured so that it has to be operated by a human, it is reported to have an automatic mode, which, if deployed, would allow it to fire independently on intruders.
  • the Pentagon is spending about $6bn a year on research and development of unmanned systems, though in a directive adopted last November it said that fully autonomous weapons could only be used "to apply non-lethal, non-kinetic force, such as some forms of electronic attack".
  • The possibility of "out of the loop" weapons raises a plethora of moral and legal issues, Heyns says. Most worryingly, it could lead to increasing distance between those carrying out the attack and their targets: "In addition to being physically removed from the kinetic action, humans would also become more detached from decisions to kill – and their execution."
Alex Jhon

Non Disclosure Agreement Template - 0 views

www.netlawman.co.nz/...fidentiality-nondisclosure.php

confidentiality agreement form nz non disclosure template

shared by Alex Jhon on 11 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Alex Jhon on 11 Jan 12
     
    Net lawman New Zealand provides best quality partnership confidentiality agreements and non-disclosure documents, confidentiality agreement form. Written in plain English and Easy to use
Argos Media

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel troops admit Gaza abuses - 0 views

news.bbc.co.uk/...7952603.stm

Israel Palestine War Crimes Gaza Ehud Barak

shared by Argos Media on 20 Mar 09 - Cached
  • An Israeli military college has printed damning soldiers' accounts of the killing of civilians and vandalism during recent operations in Gaza. One account tells of a sniper killing a mother and children at close range whom troops had told to leave their home. Another speaker at the seminar described what he saw as the "cold blooded murder" of a Palestinian woman.
  • The testimonies were published by the military academy at Oranim College. Graduates of the academy, who had served in Gaza, were speaking to new recruits at a seminar.
  • "[The testimonies] conveyed an atmosphere in which one feels entitled to use unrestricted force against Palestinians," academy director Dany Zamir told public radio.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Correspondents say the testimonies undermine Israel's claims that troops took care to protect non-combatants and accusations that Hamas militants were responsible for putting civilians into harm's way.
  • The Palestinian woman and two of her children were allegedly shot after they misunderstood instructions about which way to walk having been ordered out of their home by troops. "The climate in general... I don't know how to describe it.... the lives of Palestinians, let's say, are much, much less important than the lives of our soldiers," an infantry squad leader is quoted saying.
  • In another cited case, a commander ordered troops to kill an elderly woman walking on a road, even though she was easily identifiable and clearly not a threat. Testimonies, which were given by combat pilots and infantry soldiers, also included allegations of unnecessary destruction of Palestinian property. "We would throw everything out of the windows to make room and order. Everything... Refrigerators, plates, furniture. The order was to throw all of the house's contents outside," a soldier said. One non-commissioned officer related at the seminar that an old woman crossing a main road was shot by soldiers. "I don't know whether she was suspicious, not suspicious, I don't know her story… I do know that my officer sent people to the roof in order to take her out… It was cold-blooded murder," he said.
  • The soldiers' testimonies also reportedly told of an unusually high intervention by military and non-military rabbis, who circulated pamphlets describing the war in religious terminology.
  • "All the articles had one clear message," one soldier said. "We are the people of Israel, we arrived in the country almost by miracle, now we need to fight to uproot the gentiles who interfere with re-conquering the Holy Land." "Many soldiers' feelings were that this was a war of religion," he added.
  • Defence Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio that the findings would be examined seriously. "I still say we have the most moral army in the world. Of course there may be exceptions but I have absolutely no doubt this will be inspected on a case-by-case basis," he said.
Pedro Gonçalves

Obama's Nuclear Plans Face Daunting Obstacles - Council on Foreign Relations - 0 views

www.cfr.org/...s_face_daunting_obstacles.html

US Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear Weapons

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 06 Apr 10 - Cached
  • In the case of the CTBT, he needs the consent of countries like India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Brazil, Mexico, and any number of other countries who, historically, have lots of questions and concerns that make ratification less than a sure thing. I would guess it would be a long, long time, even if the United States got these agreements ratified--and in the case of Fissile Material Cutoff treaty, drafted--before they would ever come into force. And some people think never.
  • The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty is supposed to be negotiated in Geneva at the Comprehensive Disarmament Talks. The Pakistanis are refusing to allow the matter to be brought up. And in the case of the Comprehensive Test Ban, you certainly have countries like Egypt that say, "We will approve but only if Israel joins the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-weapon state."
  • Critics of the CTBT claim that the Russians have a more liberal view as to what the ban prohibits. These critics fear that Russia thinks that you can have low-level nuclear tests and still be compliant with the CTBT. Well, the Congressional Commission report that was produced by former Defense secretaries James R. Schlesinger and William J. Perry said that this in fact was a serious enough concern that the five recognized states that have nuclear weapons--the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China--needed to reach an agreement not only on what was allowed but what was clearly prohibited under the treaty
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • In the FMCT you have another oddity. It only bans the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for military weapons. That means that you could still make those materials if you claimed they were for civil purposes.
  • It [the Fissile Material Treaty] only bans states that are non-weapons states from continuing to make materials. The problem is that if you are Iran and you're a non-weapons state, and you see weapons states being able to continue to make nuclear fuel for civil purposes under loose inspection procedures, you've got to raise your voice and say, "I don't even have weapons, why can't I make enriched uranium for civil purposes like the weapons states under the loose inspection procedures that they are obligated to? Why are you picking on me?"
  • There are three concerns raised by critics, and those are the three concerns that Republicans are going to focus on. The first is that the law currently requires the administration to lay out a ten-year plan with budget estimates about how they intend to keep our nuclear weapons reliable, safe, and up to date. The administration has not yet done this, as I understand it. So the Senate is going to ask for that almost certainly. Second, the numbers permitted are lower than what some people wanted them to be. The critics of this agreement are not happy that the numbers went a little bit lower than were forecast initially.
  • what you see in the press is that the number of warheads should be no more than 1,550, but they should be on delivery systems that when deployed are no more than seven hundred. You can have another hundred that are not operationally deployed. But we're told the counting rules for what constitutes a weapon are a little complex. A bomber, for example, carrying many bombs would only count as one weapon
  • both sides can engage in "limited missile defenses." The words "limited missile defenses" would be consistent with this treaty, and if one goes beyond limited missile defenses, [the other] would have the right to leave. So, first question is, "What is a limited defense program consistent with this treaty?"
Argos Media

Reserved Relations with Israel: Obama's New Middle East Diplomacy - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Ne... - 0 views

www.spiegel.de/...0,1518,624053,00.html

US Israel Rose Gottemoeller Joe Biden AIPAC Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Nuclear Weapons Iran Gilad Erdan

shared by Argos Media on 11 May 09 - Cached
  • The members of the leading pro-Israel lobby in the US were visibly moved as they listened to Vice President Joe Biden's speech last Tuesday. It was music to the ears of the 6,500 delegates of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who had gathered in the Washington Convention Center.
  • "With all the change you will hear about, there is one enduring, essential principle that will not change; and that is our commitment to the peace and security of the state of Israel," he told his audience.
  • Gottemoeller is an important figure. The US assistant secretary of state is one of the world's foremost experts on nuclear weapons and is currently leading disarmament talks with Russia and working on strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In her address to the UN, Gottemoeller called on a number of presumed nuclear powers to join the NPT. "Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea … remains a fundamental objective of the United States," she said.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • Something that sounded self-evident was in fact breaking a major taboo in US diplomacy. Washington had never before named Israel as a nuclear power. Every US administration has ignored, at least officially, Israel's nuclear arsenal, which it first produced in the late 1960s and has modernized and expanded ever since.
  • An agreement between the governments of Richard Nixon and Golda Meir obliged the US and Jerusalem to stay silent on the Israeli nuclear program. Every US president since has agreed that this was the best way to protect Israeli security. Israel refuses to this day to release any information on its nuclear weapons and in doing so has eluded any form of international inspections. The country has also avoided any non-proliferation talks. The logic is compelling: If something doesn't officially exist then it can't be counted, inspected or reduced.
  • Now Obama wants to revive it and he is doing so by keeping his distance from Israel. The outing of Israel as a nuclear power was just the pinnacle of a strategy that is aimed at giving America back its capability to act in the Middle East.
  • The White House had already made it clear that it would be making demands on the Israelis. The new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should make sure there is a complete halt to the building of settlements in the West Bank. During his recent visit to Turkey, Obama declared that the US "strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security."
  • Ever since, relations between the US and Israel have become decidedly frosty. Israeli Environment Minister Gilad Erdan even went so far as to say that "Israel does not take orders from Obama." The old friends have never seemed so far apart.
  • On Monday the Times of London quoted Jordan's King Abdullah as saying that the US is planning to promote a peace plan for the Middle East that involves a "57-state solution" in which the entire Muslim world would recognize Israel. According to the newspaper, the king and President Obama had come up with the plan during his visit to Washington in April and details are likely to be thrashed out in the coming month, particularly when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu travels to Washington to hold talks with Obama next Monday.
  • The Times said that Israel may be offered incentives to freeze the building of settlements, including the offer by Arab states to grant visas to Israelis and to allow Israeli airline EL AL to fly through Arab air space.
Argos Media

Arms Race in the Middle East?: 'There Is No Reason to Discuss Israel's Nuclear Weapons'... - 0 views

www.spiegel.de/...0,1518,624030,00.html

Israel Iran US Nuclear Weapons Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Nuclear Proliferation Jeffrey Herf

shared by Argos Media on 11 May 09 - Cached
  • SPIEGEL ONLINE: The head US negotiator for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), Rose Gottemoeller, has called upon Israel to become an NNPT member-state. Was this a smart move? Herf: I don't know what the purpose of such a proposal is. Is it to enhance the legitimacy of Israel's nuclear weapons? Or is it to place them on the negotiating table so that pressure can be brought to bear to bring about Israel's unilateral nuclear disarmament? If that is the purpose, it amounts to appeasement of Iran and reminds me of the Soviet Union's diplomatic efforts to disarm France and Great Britain in the course of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) negotiations in Geneva in the early 1980s. The British and French refused all such efforts and the Israelis will do so as well for exactly the same reason: such weapons are a deterrent of last resort. Moreover, it is Iran, not Israel, that is violating numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions. It is Iran whose nuclear ambitions threaten to make the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty a dead letter.
  • If the Obama administration is engaged in a diplomatic effort of very short duration to give Iran a chance to turn away from its nuclear ambitions, then perhaps there is some merit in doing so
  • If however, the Obama administration thinks that smiles and a new tone will change Iranian behavior, it is pursuing a policy that is both naive and potentially dangerous.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • SPIEGEL ONLINE: American politicians don't normally talk about Israeli nuclear weapons. Should the continue to be taboo? Jeffrey Herf: Of course. There is no reason to discuss Israel's nuclear weapons any more than there is reason to discuss the nuclear weapons of other American allies, such as Britain and France.
Pedro Gonçalves

New National Security Council official: Iran can be stopped - Israel News, Ynetnews - 0 views

www.ynetnews.com/...0,7340,L-3740796,00.html

Israel Zionism American Jewish Committee Eran Lerman

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 03 Jul 09 - Cached
  • The first-degree threat presented to Israel is Iran's progress towards positioning itself as an alternative power to America in this region, estimates Dr. Eran Lerman, who took office Thursday as deputy chief of the National Security Council.  "It isn't just the nuclear issue, but the whole gamut that compels Iran to present itself as the heir of the USSR and a counterforce against the West," Lerman explained to Ynet.
  • "Iran is like a huge, outspread octopus. But what has been going on within the country recently, the serious hit Hizbullah took in the Lebanese elections, as well as the change embodied by US President Barack Obama – who is allowing Muslim figures ostentatiously to have photo ops with him, all this is an indication that Iran's power quest, which nuclear capability is meant to bolster, is not unavoidable or a sure success. It can be fought and slowed," Lerman claimed.
  • For the last nine years, Dr. Lerman has served as the director of the American Jewish Committee's Middle East office. The AJC is one of the oldest Jewish organizations in the United States, established 103 years ago.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • "Israel is not on a collision path with the United States," said Lerman in the interview. "The US is still the US; the American people are still pro-Israel, and the foundations of the connection with Israel are strong. It is true that the US has undergone political changes that affect their perceptions and priorities, but, in its deepest essence, nothing has changed in the relationship with Israel."
  • "Now there is a little friction, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing - as long as these frictions don't penetrate the discussion on defense aid and other subjects at the heart of the relationship. It is still early to know where this disagreement will lead, but I believe it is about to be solved."
  • Alongside relations with the US administration, Israel has another relationship that is no less important, though often times perceived as trivial and taken for granted – the relationship with American Jewry. The American Jewish community is a very advanced one, very urban, very affluent, and intensely connected to Israel.  Though Israel invests in its relations with the Diaspora, Lerman did not withhold criticism from the upper echelons. "Israel has a problem reflected in its lack of awareness on all sorts topics," explained Lerman. "For instance, the issue of conversion and the relationship with the non-Orthodox denominations of Judaism. In these fields, the Israeli government's continuing perspective is reveals a lack of sensitivity to the deep structure of the Jewish community in North America."
  • "The despicable treatment of non-Orthodox denominations is a very sore point. If the State of Israel grows darker in its religious interpretations and the Jewish character sharpens into one that American Jewry is uncomfortable with, there is potential for immense alienation," continued Lerman, noting that this is a particularly poignant source of contention given that most American Jews identify with these same non-Orthodox denominations.
  • Lerman is mainly concerned that North American Jews will stop sending their children to Jewish schools out of financial considerations. "These schools are not entitled to federal aid and are reliant on the purchasing power and donations from the Jewish community, as well as good will because there is nothing stopping a family from sending its children to public school for free," explained Lerman.  "This is a critical struggle because it is about Jewish continuity. The chance that this will stop is more worrisome than mixed marriages, which at least have the potential to expand the Jewish community."
Alex Jhon

No Smoking Policy - 0 views

www.netlawman.co.nz/...no-smoking-policy.php

no smoking policy policies non

shared by Alex Jhon on 21 Jun 11 - No Cached
  • Alex Jhon on 21 Jun 11
     
    Net Lawman provides best quality non smoking policy written in plain English. Health and safety legislation compliant. Buy now.
Muslim Academy

Muslim American Society - 0 views

muslim-academy.com/muslim-american-society

Muslim American Society

shared by Muslim Academy on 17 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Muslim Academy on 17 Dec 12
     
    The Muslim American Society (MAS) is an Islamic reform and revival movement founded in 1993. The efforts of Ahmed Elkadi and Mohammed Mahdi Akefi were quite remarkable. This organization sees jihad as a holy legal right in the defense and spreading of Islam. The Muslim American Society freedom foundation is an affiliate of this great nonprofit organization, and is being championed by its executive director, Mahdi Bray. On many occasions, the Muslim American Society has participated in diplomatic dialogues with the U.S. college of Bishops and the U.S. government. MAS describes itself as, "religious, charitable, social, educational, non-for-profit, Islamic and cultural organization." Its secretary general describes this organization as members of the great Muslim Brotherhood. The sole mission of the Muslim American Society is to promote Islam as a supreme way of life. Islam is essential in building and encouraging a moral and virtuous society, to provide veritable Islamic alternatives to the prevailing problems of the society, to promote family values in line with the teachings of Islam and to promote the humane values of equality, brotherhood, mercy, justice, peace and compassion. Also, to encourage coordination, unity, and cooperation among Muslims and Muslim organizations.
Pedro Gonçalves

Westminster rejects Alex Salmond claim on Scotland's EU membership | Politics | guardia... - 0 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...salmond-scotland-eu-membership

EU Scotland UK

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 02 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • The UK government statement stressed that, unlike the Scottish government, it had obtained formal advice from its law officers and that Scotland would have to negotiate the terms of its EU membership with the UK and all other 26 member states.It said: "This government has confirmed it does hold legal advice on this issue. Based on the overwhelming weight of international precedent, it is the government's view that the remainder of the UK would continue to exercise the UK's existing international rights and obligations and Scotland would form a new state."The most likely scenario is that the rest of the UK would be recognised as the continuing state and an independent Scotland would have to apply to join the EU as a new state, involving negotiation with the rest of the UK and other member states, the outcome of which cannot be predicted."Referring to statements by European commission president, José Manuel Barroso, and his deputy, Viviane Reding, that a newly independent country would be seen as a new applicant, it added: "Recent pronouncements from the commission support that view."
  • Spain's foreign minister, José Manuel García-Margallo, said an independent Scotland would have to "join the queue" for EU membership.
  • almond retaliated by quoting from an expert on the EU's borders, Graham Avery, a former strategy director at the commission who was made one of a number of honorary directors general of the European commission after he retired.In a submission to the Commons foreign affairs select committee, Avery supported Salmond's position that it was inconceivable that an independent Scotland would be expected to leave the EU and then reapply. Salmond said his opinion "rather puts the lie to the scaremongering campaign of Labour and their unionist colleagues in the Conservative party".
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • "For practical and political reasons, they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission," Avery told the committee. "Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence. The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries."But Avery, now at St Antony's College, Oxford University, directly contradicted Salmond's assertions that an independent Scotland would not be expected to join the euro instead of sterling, and that it would not need to sign up to the Schengen agreement rules on security and immigration.Avery said independence would give Scotland a louder and stronger voice in the EU, but new member states "are required to accept [the euro and Schengen] on principle". While Scotland's position was still not clear, Avery warned: "In accession negotiations with non-member countries, the EU has always strongly resisted other changes or opt-outs from the basic treaties."
Pedro Gonçalves

BBC News - Obama to announce new nuclear defence strategy - 0 views

news.bbc.co.uk/...8604217.stm

US Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear Weapons

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 06 Apr 10 - Cached
  • rule out a nuclear response to attacks on the US involving biological, chemical or conventional weapons. Nor would the US use nuclear arms on non-nuclear states that comply with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
  • Mr Obama said he would make exceptions for states deemed in violation of the treaty, naming Iran and North Korea.
  • A White House statement on Monday said the new nuclear policy offered "an alternative to developing new nuclear weapons, which we reject".
Pedro Gonçalves

BBC News - Obama's ambitious nuclear security summit - 0 views

news.bbc.co.uk/...8613810.stm

US Nuclear Proliferation

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 12 Apr 10 - Cached
  • Fresh from his success in signing a new strategic arms reduction treaty with the Russians in Prague, US President Barack Obama is hosting a nuclear security summit in Washington DC.With some 47 countries in attendance it will be one of the largest gatherings of its kind in the US capital since the late 1940s. This will be the third element in a nuclear season that began with this month's unveiling of the Obama administration's nuclear strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review. This identified nuclear proliferation - the spread of nuclear weapons and the danger that they might fall into the hands of terrorist groups - as now the key nuclear threat to America's security. That was step one. Step two was the meeting between Mr Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, in Prague that got the strategic arms reduction process back on track. Step three will be this week's Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. All three events are aimed at strengthening Mr Obama's hand as he heads into step four: the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) scheduled for next month in New York.
  • The threat here is not only from governments with a desire to own nuclear bombs or nuclear-tipped missiles. A far more pressing concern comes from the potential nuclear ambitions of non-state actors or terrorist groups. Their goal may be to obtain a small nuclear device but equally they may just want to get hold of radioactive material to build a so-called "dirty bomb". This uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material over a wide-area.
  • So the goal of this summit is to batten down the hatches on nuclear materials - especially the fissile materials that might be used in bomb-making, plutonium and highly-enriched uranium - but also the more widespread sources of radioactive substances that could be used for a "dirty bomb". President Obama's goal is to obtain agreement upon a plan to secure all such vulnerable nuclear material within four years. Much will depend upon the detail.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • The presence of Israel, India and Pakistan at this summit is fascinating. All three are believed to have nuclear weapons and none of them have signed the NPT. Israel's arsenal clearly has wider ramifications in the Middle East. India and Pakistan's nuclear rivalry is seen by experts as a serious concern given the huge conventional military imbalance between them. And Pakistan is also a major worry in terms of the security of its nuclear installations and materials. Having all three on board is an attempt by the Obama administration to extend the circle of nuclear security in new directions.
Argos Media

BBC NEWS | Americas | US finds new Afghan supply route - 0 views

news.bbc.co.uk/...7901071.stm

US Afghanistan Kyrgyzstan Manas Air Base

shared by Argos Media on 03 Apr 09 - Cached
  • The US will be able to take non-military supplies bound for Afghanistan through Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, a US commander has said.
  • The US had previously announced it intended to transport supplies to Uzbekistan through Russia and Kazakhstan.
  • "Tajikistan has given permission to use its railways and roads for the transit of non-military cargoes to Afghanistan," Harnitchek told Tajik state media. "We plan to transport 50 to 200 containers every week from Uzbekistan to Tajikistan and further to Afghanistan."
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • The US recently invested millions of dollars in a bridge connecting Tajikistan and Afghanistan, which will almost certainly be used to transport the supplies.
  • The announcement follows a decision by Kyrgyzstan to close a US air base - the only US military base in Central Asia.
  • It comes after Kyrgyzstan accused the US of not paying enough to rent the air base at Manas, near the capital city of Bishkek.
  • The licence to close the base was signed into law this week by Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. The Kyrgyz foreign ministry said on Friday that it had officially issued an eviction notice giving the US 180 days to vacate the area.
  • Analysts have suggested that Kyrgyzstan's leaders will not carry out their threat to evict the US, but are using the law as a bargaining chip to get more rent money from Washington. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates sought to play down the Kyrgyz spat on Thursday, saying the US was open to negotiation on the rent. "We are prepared to look at the fees and see if there is justification for a somewhat larger payment," he told a news conference.
Pedro Gonçalves

News From KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK - 0 views

www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

North Korea South Korea Lee Myung-bak Proliferation Security Initiative US

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 28 May 09 - Cached
  • The so-called PSI is a mechanism for a war of aggression built by the U.S. against the DPRK
  • Second, The DPRK will take such a practical counter-action as in the wartime now that the south Korean authorities declared a war in wanton violation of its dignity and sovereignty by fully participating in the PSI.
  • First, The DPRK will deal a decisive and merciless retaliatory blow, no matter from which place, at any attempt to stop, check and inspect its vessels, regarding it as a violation of its inviolable sovereignty and territory and a grave provocation to it.
  • ...24 more annotations...
  • Now that the south Korean puppets were so ridiculous as to join in the said racket and dare declare a war against compatriots through their full participation in the PSI, the DPRK is compelled to take a decisive measure
  • It is nothing strange and quite natural for a nuclear weapons state to conduct a nuclear test.
  • The DPRK, therefore, has already seriously warned the south Korean authorities against the above-said moves and repeatedly clarified its stand that it would strongly counter those moves of the Lee group, in particular, regarding them as a declaration of a war as it is pursuant to its American master's policy.
  • The Lee Myung Bak group of south Korea keen on the moves for confrontation and war against the DPRK in league with foreign forces
  • The so-called PSI is a mechanism for a war of aggression built by the U.S. against the DPRK
  • The DPRK, therefore, has already seriously warned the south Korean authorities against the above-said moves and repeatedly clarified its stand that it would strongly counter those moves of the Lee group, in particular, regarding them as a declaration of a war as it is pursuant to its American master's policy.
  • It is nothing strange and quite natural for a nuclear weapons state to conduct a nuclear test.
  • The anti-DPRK racket kicked up by the U.S. and its followers under that pretext is not truly aimed at the nuclear non-proliferation but prompted by their black-hearted intention to stifle the DPRK.
  • The anti-DPRK racket kicked up by the U.S. and its followers under that pretext is not truly aimed at the nuclear non-proliferation but prompted by their black-hearted intention to stifle the DPRK.
  • Now that the south Korean puppets were so ridiculous as to join in the said racket and dare declare a war against compatriots through their full participation in the PSI, the DPRK is compelled to take a decisive measure
  • First, The DPRK will deal a decisive and merciless retaliatory blow, no matter from which place, at any attempt to stop, check and inspect its vessels, regarding it as a violation of its inviolable sovereignty and territory and a grave provocation to it.
  • Second, The DPRK will take such a practical counter-action as in the wartime now that the south Korean authorities declared a war in wanton violation of its dignity and sovereignty by fully participating in the PSI.
  • he Lee Myung Bak group of traitors' reckless moves to "fully participate" in the U.S.-led PSI is now inching close an extreme phase where a war may break out any moment.
  • The present rulers of the U.S. including Obama egged the south Korean puppets on to participate in the PSI
  • This is a wanton violation and clear negation of not only international law but the Korean Armistice Agreement which bans "any form of blockade" against the other belligerent party.
  • The Lee group has unhesitatingly taken the step of "fully participating" in the PSI, blindly yielding to its master as it is steeped in sycophancy and submission to the marrow of its bones
  • Our revolutionary armed forces, as they have already declared, will regard the Lee Myung Bak group of traitors' "full participation" in the PSI as a declaration of war against the DPRK.
  • they will regard any hostile actions against the DPRK, including checkup and inspection of its peaceful vessels, as an unpardonable encroachment on the DPRK's sovereignty and counter them with prompt and strong military strikes.
  • The Korean People's Army will not be bound to the Armistice Agreement any longer since the present ruling quarters of the United States, keen on the moves to stifle the DPRK, plugged the south Korean puppets into the PSI at last, denying not only international law but the AA itself and discarding even its responsibility as a signatory to the agreement.
  • In case the AA loses its binding force, the Korean Peninsula is bound to immediately return to a state of war from a legal point of view and so our revolutionary armed forces will go over to corresponding military actions.
  • we will not guarantee the legal status of the five islands under the south side's control (Paekryong, Taechong, Sochong, Yonphyong and U islands) in our side's territorial waters northwest of the extension of the Military Demarcation Line in the West Sea of Korea and safe sailing of warships of the U.S. imperialist aggression forces and the south Korean puppet navy and civilian ships operating in the waters around there.
  • It is illogical for the DPRK to unilaterally meet the requirements of fair international law and the bilateral agreement since the U.S. imperialists and the Lee Myung Bak group of traitors have reneged on them. Nothing is graver mistake than to calculate that the American-style Jungle law can work on the DPRK.
  • the DPRK has tremendous military muscle and its own method of strike able to conquer any targets in its vicinity at one stroke or hit the U.S. on the raw, if necessary.
  • Those who provoke the DPRK once will not be able to escape its unimaginable and merciless punishment.
Pedro Gonçalves

Israel threatens to overthrow Abbas over Palestinian statehood bid | World news | guard... - 0 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...li-minister-threatens-abbas-un

Israel Palestine Avigdor Lieberman Palestinian Authority

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 14 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Israel should topple the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, if he presses ahead with a request for recognition of the state of Palestine by the United Nations general assembly in two weeks' time, the hardline foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has urged.In a draft paper distributed to the media, Lieberman argued that overthrowing the Palestinian leadership was Israel's only viable option, faced with the certainty of an overwhelming vote in support of the Palestinian bid."A reality in which the United Nations recognises a Palestinian state according to a unilateral process will destroy all Israeli deterrence and completely harm its credibility," the paper said.
  • Lieberman's extreme stance comes as the Israeli cabinet is considering a range of punitive measures it could take in response to the vote, expected on 29 November. These include the full or partial annulment of the 1993 Oslo Accords, financial penalties and an acceleration of settlement expansion.The minister of strategic affairs, Moshe Yaalon, warned the Palestinians would pay a "heavy price" if they submitted a resolution seeking "non-member state" status at the UN general assembly. It would be a "flagrant breach" of the Oslo Accords, which provided for a limited measure of self rule for the Palestinians, he told army radio.Another government minister, Gilad Erdan, called for the immediate annexation of all Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
  • The Israeli foreign ministry sent a diplomatic cable on Sunday to all Israeli representatives across the globe warning that the Palestinian resolution was a "clear violation of the fundamental principle of negotiations".It continued: "The adoption of the resolution will give Israel the right to re-evaluate previous agreements with the [Palestine Liberation Organisation] and consider cancelling them partially or completely, and would make progress in the peace process more difficult in the future."
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • According to a government source, the Israeli cabinet has discussed a number of possible measures, but has taken no concrete decisions. Among a "toolbox" of actions under consideration are:• full or partial annulment of the Oslo Accords, under which the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established• withholding tax revenues Israel collects on behalf of the PA• cancellation of permits for thousands of Palestinian labourers to work in Israel• withdrawal of travel privileges for senior PA officials• acceleration of building programmes in West Bank settlements• unilateral annexation of the main Jewish settlement blocks.
  • Lieberman's draft paper proposed Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state on provisional borders encompassing around 40% of the West Bank in exchange for the Palestinian leadership dropping its approach to the United Nations.
  • The UnS is also expected to impose punitive measures in response to a vote in favour of Palestinian statehood at the general assembly. The US Congress froze $200m (£126m) of aid to the Palestinians in response to their bid for full membership of the UN last September. Despite the decision later being overturned, the money has still not been released.
Pedro Gonçalves

Mahmoud Abbas outrages Palestinian refugees by waiving his right to return | World news... - 0 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...-abbas-palestinian-territories

Palestine Israel Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 05 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is facing widespread condemnation and anger in the Palestinian territories and abroad after he publicly waived his right to return to live in the town from which his family was forced to flee in 1948, a repudiation of huge significance for Palestinian refugees
  • After his image was burned in refugee camps in Gaza, Abbas rejected accusations that he had conceded one of the most emotional and visceral issues on the Palestinian agenda, the demand by millions of refugees to return to their former homes in what is now Israel.He insisted that comments made in an interview with an Israeli television channel were selectively quoted and the remarks were his personal stance, rather than a change of policy.Abbas told Channel 2 he accepted he had no right to live in Safed, the town of his birth, from which his family was forced to flee in 1948 when Abbas was 13."I visited Safed before once, he said. "But I want to see Safed. It's my right to see it, but not to live there."
  • The "right of return" is one of the most intractable issues in talks between the Israelis and Palestinians for a resolution to their decades-old conflict. The Palestinians have historically demanded that all those who fled or were expelled from their homes in the period around the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, and their descendants, must be allowed to return to their former homes.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Referring to the internationally-recognised pre-1967 border, he went on: "Palestine now for me is '67 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is now and forever ... This is Palestine for me. I am a refugee, but I am living in Ramallah. I believe that the West Bank and Gaza is Palestine and the other parts are Israel."
  • About 5 million Palestinians are registered as refugees in the Palestinian territories and abroad.Israel rejects their demand, saying that such a move would spell the end of the Jewish state.
  • Most international diplomats and observers believe that a settlement to the conflict is likely to involve a symbolic number of Palestinian refugees being given the right to return.
  • In the interview, Abbas also said that, while he was president, there would be "no third armed intifada [uprising against Israel]. Never."He said: "We don't want to use terror. We don't want to use force. We don't want to use weapons. We want to use diplomacy. We want to use politics. We want to use negotiations. We want to use peaceful resistance. That's it." He has said that Palestinian negotiators are willing to resume talks with Israel following the submission of a request, expected later this month, to the UN general assembly for recognition as a "non-member state".
Pedro Gonçalves

Generations are divided on feelings about Muslims after London attack | Matthew Goodwin... - 0 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...itude-muslims-complex-positive

UK Immigration EU Europe

shared by Pedro Gonçalves on 26 May 13 - No Cached
  • the number of citizens who think that conflict between groups is "largely inevitable" has risen by seven points to 40%, or that agreement with the suggestion that there will be a serious clash between British Muslims and white Britons has also risen, by nine points to 59%.
  • the percentage of respondents who view Muslims as compatible jumped by almost 10 points to 33%. Clearly, the numbers remain low, and point to wider challenges facing government and our local communities
  • Whereas expectations of a future clash between Muslims and non-Muslims are especially pronounced among citizens aged 60 and above (at 70%), among 18- to 24-year-olds this figure tumbles to 48%.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Whereas only 21% of the older group view Muslims as compatible with British life, the figure among young Britons is almost twice as high, at 38%. Whereas almost half of the over-sixties view British Muslims as posing a serious threat to democracy, the equivalent figure among more recent generations is just 19%.
1 - 20 of 71 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page