Target Centermass

Category: Europe

  • Of Mohammed Cartoons and Moslem Carnage

    Apparently, while I was incommunicado this past weekend in an obscure and isolated Oklahoma state park, the story of the reaction by the Islamic global community to a dozen generally-inoffensive cartoon representations of the supposed prophet Mohammed exploded. As I’m still trying to play catch up, here’s a link dump on the brouhaha.

    How cartoons sparked violence

    The violent and now deadly protests rippling through Asia and the Middle East over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad reflects a larger schism and lack of understanding between traditional Western cultures and Islam, experts said Monday.

    In the secular world, the debate is about freedom of the press, but to Muslims worldwide, the images are offensive not only because they depict Muhammad as a promoter of terrorism but also because their very existence violates the Islamic tradition forbidding visual depictions of the Prophet.

    As European diplomats urged calm and restraint, the violence that already led to the burning of Danish and Norwegian embassies over the weekend turned fatal Monday. Afghan troops killed four protesters, including two outside the U.S. military base near Bagram, and a teenage boy was trampled in Somalia.

    […]

    The anger, according to experts, stems from long-held and deep beliefs. The Koran, Islam’s sacred book, does not contain an explicit ban on images of Allah or Muhammad. But visual depictions of Muhammad or other prophets such as Moses or Abraham are traditionally eschewed in order to discourage idolatry, or worship of an object as a god.

    “It’s very offensive on many levels and for many reasons, but mainly because it’s an attack on the sense of what is most sacred and which cannot be ridiculed,” said Inamul Haq, adjunct professor of Islam at Benedictine University in Lisle.

    That the cartoons also portray the prophet as a terrorist only increases that anger, the experts said.

    Unfortunately, such portrayals would seem to be an accurate reflection, according to the objective history I’ve read of the man.

    Cleric calls on Mohammed cartoonist to be executed

    Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical Muslim cleric, has said the cartoonist behind caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed that have sparked outrage across the Arab world should be tried and executed under Islamic law.

    The cleric said the cartoonist had insulted Islam and must pay the price, as three people were killed during protests against the cartoons in Afghanistan.

    “The insult has been established now by everybody, Muslim and non-Muslim, and everybody condemns the cartoonist and condemns the cartoon,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “However, in Islam, God said, and the messenger Mohammed said, whoever insults a prophet, he must be punished and executed.

    “This man should be put on trial and if it is proven to be executed.”

    The cleric said Muslims in Britain were not allowed to kill people who insulted Islam because it was against the law of the country.

    “We are not saying ourselves to go there and start to look to him and kill him, we are not talking about that. We are talking about Islamic rules. If anybody insults the prophet, he will have to take a punishment.”

    He said if countries refused to put people on trial for insulting Mohammed they must “face the consequences”.

    Sounds rather blackmailish and unpeaceful to me. Yeah, the guy seems like a worthy student of Mohammed (hat tip LGF).

    No let-up in sight for cartoon fury

    After a weekend that saw Denmark’s embassies torched in Lebanon and Syria, fury over the images continued to spread with protests held across Afghanistan as well as in Indian-held Kashmir, Indonesia, Lebanon, Iran and Thailand.

    French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called for calm as the Arab world seethes over the cartoons which first appeared in a Danish daily and have been reprinted by several publications in Europe, Australia and Malaysia.

    “Let us calm things down. We have had enough hate and intolerance,” he said on French radio. “There is not a religion in the world that condones killing, or the burning of flags.” [Editor’s note: well, there does appear to be one on the killing thing, though I’m not certain of any mention of flag-burning in the Koran]

    […]

    In Kabul about 300 people marched on Denmark’s embassy, where they torched a Danish flag and threw stones at the embassy, shouting “Death to Denmark, death to Norway, death to America, death to Bush.” [Editor’s note: Death to Bush? Did some of his doodles get published?]

    Around 1,000 protestors also gathered in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and burnt the flags of France, Denmark and Norway. Hundreds protested in Kandahar, while more than 5,000 marched in Parwan province near Kabul.

    In Lebanon, one person died and almost 50 people were wounded during rioting in the capital Beirut which saw the Danish consulate set ablaze, police said yesterday.

    […]

    In Indonesia’s second-largest city of Surabaya, police fired warning shots outside the US consulate to disperse 200 protesters from the hardline Front of the Defenders of Islam, who earlier smashed windows at the Danish consulate.

    […]

    In the Indonesian capital Jakarta, hundreds of people demonstrated outside the Danish embassy, which was closed, calling for an apology from the Danish government over the offending images.

    Widespread. Radical. Islam. Oh yeah, it’s a threat, folks.

    Danish lawyer shot as fury of Muslims sweeps world

    A Danish lawyer was shot and several Muslim demonstrators died as protests against the publication of cartoons showing the Prophet Muhammad continued around the world yesterday.

    The lawyer was wounded in an incident in a Moscow cafe by a man from the Muslim Caucasus region of southern Russia.

    Meanwhile, the prime minister of Chechnya announced that Danish humanitarian organisations would be expelled. [Editor’s note: way to shoot yourself in your foot, idiot]

    Danish troops also came under fire in southern Iraq. Shots were fired at a patrol as it helped children who had been hit by a car near Qurnah. None of the soldiers was injured. [Editor’s note: way to shoot your children in their feet, idiots]

    The worst trouble yesterday came in Afghanistan, where hundreds of demonstrators clashed with police and soldiers. Four people were killed and at least 19 wounded, officials said.

    The worst violence was outside Bagram, the main US base in Afghanistan, although the US has not been involved in the controversy over the publication of the cartoons. Afghan police fired on some 2,000 protesters as they tried to break into the heavily guarded facility.

    Kabir Ahmed, the local government chief, said two of the demonstrators were killed and five wounded, while eight police were hurt. The protesters threw stones at the base and smashed a guard post.

    Some of those in the crowd then shot at the base with assault rifles, prompting the police to return fire, he said. [Editor’s note: way to shoot at people who can shoot you in your foot and elsewhere, idiots]

    […]

    Iran said it was cutting all trade ties with Denmark.

    Danish flags, however, remain in demand. An enterprising shopkeeper in Gaza, Ahmed Abu Dayya, said he had ordered 100 Danish and Norwegian flags when he heard that the cartoons were being reprinted.

    “I knew there would be a demand for the flags because of the angry reaction of people over the offence to the Prophet Muhammad,” he said.

    Angry Muslims have been setting the flags ablaze or tearing them to pieces

    I left the last in as an investment tip — flags are a good investment in Islamic lands, as they seem to be lit as often as cigarettes. Inventory management would be difficult, though; obviously a huge chunk would have to be devoted to the U.S. and Israel, but trying to predict the enemy o’ the day for the always-victimized ain’t easy. Trust me, there was some planning behind coming up with all of these Danish flags to torch.

    Iranian paper launches Holocaust cartoon competition

    Iran’s biggest-selling newspaper has waded into the Muhammad controversy by launching a competition to find the 12 “best” cartoons about the Holocaust.

    Farid Mortazavi, graphics editor for Tehran’s Hamshahri newspaper, said that the deliberately inflammatory contest would test out how committed Europeans were to the concept freedom of expression.

    “The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let’s see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons,” he said.

    Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said that victims of the Holocaust and their families were growing used to insults from Iran. “It’s just very sad,” she told Times Online.

    Iran’s regime is supportive of Holocaust revisionist historians, who maintain that the slaughter of Europe’s Jews during the Second World War was invented or exaggerated to justify the creation of Israel on Palestinian territory.

    As usual for the Moslems, it’s got to be the Jews. Hat tip to John Little at Blogs of War, who points out that, while trying to shift blame and anguish down the Jewish route, the Islamists miss the mark.

    And finally, there’s the usually remarkably-astute Victor Davis Hanson:

    A European Awakening Against Islamic Fascism?

    Over the last four years Americans have played a sort of parlor game wondering when—or if—the Europeans might awake to the danger of Islamic fascism and choose a more muscular role in the war on terrorism.

    But after the acrimony over the invasion of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo, pessimists scoffed that the Atlantic alliance was essentially over. Only the postmortem was in dispute: did the bad chemistry between the Texan George Bush and the Green European leadership who came of age in the street theater of 1968 explain the falling out?

    Or was the return of the old anti-Americanism natural after the end of the Cold War—once American forces were no longer needed for the security of Europe?

    Or again, was Europe’s third way a realistic consideration of its own unassimilated and growing Muslim population, at a time of creeping pacifism, and radically scaled down defense budgets after the fall of the Berlin Wall?

    Yet suddenly in 2006, the Europeans seem to have collectively resuscitated. The Madrid bombings, the murder of Theo van Gogh, the London subway attacks, and the French rioting in October and November seem to have prompted at least some Europeans at last to question their once hallowed sense of multiculturalism in which Muslim minorities were not asked to assimilate at home and Islamic terrorists abroad were seen as mere militants or extremists rather than enemies bent on destroying the West.

    Please go read it in its entirety, as it is rare I find myself so often in disagreement with the man. His whole piece strikes me as too optimistic, supported by bits and pieces scattered over several years in a hope of showing a European strengthening only anecdotally supported. Hanson does, towards the end, seem to recognize the difficulties I have with his point.

    So is Europe now finally at the front or will they retreat Madrid-like in the face of the inevitable second round of terrorist bombings and threats to come?

    Americans are not confident, but we should remember at least one simple fact: Europe is the embryo of the entire Western military tradition. The new European Union encompasses a population greater than the United States and spans a continent larger than our own territory. It has a greater gross domestic product than that of America and could, in theory, field military forces as disciplined and as well equipped as our own.

    It is not the capability but the will power of the Europeans that has been missing in this war so far.

    Yes, overwhelmingly, I still question whether that will power is present, and even if it can be resurrected before it is too late for the continent.

  • Dutch MPs Back Sending Troops to Afghanistan

    Ah, some good news out of the Netherlands.

    An overwhelming majority of the Dutch parliament yesterday supported sending troops on a controversial mission to southern Afghanistan, ending months of political indecision in the Netherlands that had threatened to embarrass Nato and stall peacekeeping efforts.

    One hundred and thirty one of the 150 MPs – many representing the three largest political factions – said they backed the centre-right Dutch government’s proposal to commit up to 1,400 soldiers to the Nato mission.

    Nato officials had expressed concern that a No vote by the Dutch would slow down the roll-out of the operation, which is set to take place during the first six months of the year.

    It could also have embarrassed Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato secretary-general and former Dutch foreign minister, who has identified Afghanistan as Nato’s most important mission.

    “Of course we welcome this decision,” said a Nato spokesman. “We are glad that the Dutch parliament has confirmed the government’s decision to go forward. What we have done in Afghanistan up to now is a success. This decision will help us reinforce the success.”

    The expansion to the south of the country will be spearheaded by 3,300 British troops, as well as 2,200 Canadians, but the Dutch contingent was seen as a key part of the operation, for both symbolic and practical reasons. The breakthrough came as Wouter Bos, leader of PvdA, the Labour opposition, told parliament all but one of his 42-member parliamentary party supported the mission, which also had the support of the Christian Democrats and liberal VVD, the main parties of the centre-right government.

    I was concerned. Perhaps there’s still a touch of life in NATO yet.

  • 100th British Soldier Dies in Iraq

    The casualty-figure coverage and round-number obsession is not limited to merely American troops, as the media and anti-war folks are now using the sad century mark for British deaths in Iraq.

    Two British soldiers have died in southern Iraq this week, bringing the number of the UK force to die during the conflict to 100, a Ministry of Defence statement said.

    On Tuesday morning, an explosion killed a solider in Basra province. Three other soldiers were wounded in the same incident — one seriously.

    Another British soldier died Monday morning after his patrol came under fire in Maysan province.

    The defense ministry did not give the identity of the 100th soldier, nor of the others hurt in Tuesday’s blast, all from the 7th Armoured Brigade, the main British force in Iraq. The three injured soldiers were being treated at a British base.

    Anti-war campaigners in Britain seized on the 100th death to once again demand Britain pull out of Iraq.

    The Stop The War Coalition was due to hold a vigil at parliament Tuesday evening to read out the names of the dead.

    Left-wing Member of Parliament George Galloway, one of those reading out the names, told CNN it was a “melancholy milestone.”

    “We have just sent thousands of new soldiers to Afghanistan, if anything an even more dangerous mission. Events are marching in the direction of the vindication of the anti-war movement.

    I’m afraid Galloway is unsurprisingly confused. Simply put, dangerous does not imply wrong. Had the likes of Galloway held sway in the Great Britain of the ’40s, well, red armbands would be all the rage in London today and reality TV would still suck.

    As to the media attention to casualties at the expense of true war coverage, I’ll again quote Power Line‘s Paul Mirengoff, who blogged the following:

    Have you ever read a history of war that focused almost entirely on casualty figures (with an occasional torture story and grieving parent thrown in), to the exclusion of any real discussion of tactics, operations, and actual battles? I haven’t. But that’s what our self-proclaimed “rough drafters” of history are serving up with respect to Iraq.

  • Dutch Debate Sending Troops to Afghanistan

    The Dutch parliament is set to vote on a commitment of troops to the more volatile southern provinces of Afghanistan and, surprisingly, Kofi Annan is campaigning in favor of the deployment.

    UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is urging the Dutch parliament not to leave Canadian and British soldiers in the lurch in southern Afghanistan. Annan warns international efforts in Afghanistan may fail if the Dutch balk at the deployment of over 1,000 troops.

    “No one can afford to see a destabilized Afghanistan in the region,” said Annan, speaking in The Hague. “We saw what it meant when Afghanistan was destabilized in the hands of the Taliban and terrorists. Do we want to go back to that?”

    Yes, it isn’t very often that I find myself in complete concurrence with dear ol’ Kofi. Let’s cherish this moment.

    Okay, that’s enough cherishing.

    The Dutch government supports the move, but public opposition is growing over the increasing risks to troops in Afghanistan.

    Dutch parliamentarians will vote on the issue on Thursday.

    The Dutch forces would be part of a NATO-led mission. The Afghanistan operation is reviving bitter memories of other peacekeeping missions and stirring fresh debate among the people of the Netherlands.

    It was just over 10 years ago that Dutch peacekeepers faced frustration and horror as they tried to operate in Srebrenica under a restrictive UN mandate. They ended up looking on as Serbs killed thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys.

    This time, the public and politicians are asking a lot of questions.

    I’ve said before that such questions and concerns are understandable in light of earlier Dutch involvement in a NATO misadventure.

    Afghanistan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah even flew to The Hague to plead his nation’s case for Dutch help. Later, upon his arrival in London for an international conference on the future of his country, Abdullah hinted at his frustration.

    “It’s good that these debates are underway,” he said, “but signs of hesitation will not help anybody.”

    I don’t want too hang too much on the Dutch, who most assuredly have their own domest radical Islamist issues, but a vote against military involvement would only serve to strengthen my concerns about the future value of prolonging NATO’s existence.

  • Six Killed in Southwest Iran Bombings

    Today brings us another tale of civilians killed by bombings in Iraq Iran.

    Bombs killed six people and wounded more than 30 others Tuesday in Ahvaz, a southwestern city with a history of violence involving members of Iran’s Arab minority, Iranian state media reported.

    The bombs exploded outside a bank and a state environmental agency building in Ahvaz, the capital of oil-rich Khuzestan province, which borders Iraq, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said.

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled a planned visit to Ahvaz Tuesday, citing a forecast calling for heavy rain, IRNA reported. The report did not say whether the blast had any bearing on the cancellation.

    Ahmadinejad and his entire Cabinet had been expected to meet in Ahvaz as part of a series of visits to provincial capitals to address key local issues.

    State TV said the bombs killed six people and wounded 34 others.

    It should be noted that this is not a new occurrence, though it is interesting that today’s bombings would certainly seem to be tied to Ahmadinejad’s scheduled visit.

    Ahvaz was also the scene of bombings in June and October that the government blamed on Iranian Arab extremists whom it claimed were trained abroad and maintained ties to foreign governments, including Britain.

    The October bombings killed six people and those in June killed at least eight. Britain has denied any connection to the Khuzestan unrest.

    Nezam Molla Hoveizeh, a Khuzestan lawmaker, said Tuesday that the bombers were “dissidents based outside our borders,” IRNA reported. Hoveizeh did not elaborate on the allegation.

    Official Iranian fingers were quickly pointed in the direction of the Brits.

    The explosions follow bitter exchanges between Tehran and London.

    In recent months, Iran has repeatedly accused Britain of provoking unrest in Khuzestan, which borders that part of Iraq where 8,500 British soldiers are based as part of the U.S.-led military coalition.

    At the same time, Britain has opposed Iran’s nuclear activities, supporting moves to refer it to the U.N. Security Council, and has accused Tehran of allowing Iraqi insurgents to receive explosives technology that has been used to attack British soldiers.

    Both countries have denied the claims and counterclaims.

    Frankly, I have no faith whatsoever in the Iranian denials, and I can only hope that, with the looming nuclear crisis, both Britain and the U.S. are hard at work fomenting unrest in Iran.

  • Analysts: Chirac’s Nuclear Warning is Signal to U.S.

    On Thursday, French President Jacques Chirac threateningly signalled a willingness to unleash his nation’s nuclear weaponry against terrorist states, a move some see as a French counter to American power.

    By warning that France could use nuclear weapons against state sponsors of terrorism, President Jacques Chirac is signalling that the United States does not have a monopoly on nuclear deterrence, analysts said.

    French experts also agreed that Chirac’s speech on Thursday did not mark a fundamental policy shift but rather a refinement of current nuclear doctrine. Chirac’s unexpected warning to “rogue” states was intended to show that “one does not leave the monopoly of deterrence to the Americans”, argued Dominique Moisi, of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).

    “It was a Gaullist-inspired speech aimed at giving renewed legitimacy to France’s deterrent arsenal, within the context of Europe,” he said.

    Jean-Pierre Maulny, deputy director of the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS), also saw the message as an assertion of nuclear independence from the United States, but one aimed at France’s European partners. “Jacques Chirac wants to give credibility to the European Union’s strategic autonomy,” Maulny said – despite the fact that, according to one military expert, most European nations wish to remain under the US nuclear umbrella.

    Whatever Chirac’s motivation, and a contrary position the the U.S. would not be a surprising one for the man, the effectiveness of the statement should be considered.

    France and Britain are the only EU nations to have nuclear arsenals. Asked whether Britain would consider using nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism, the British Foreign Office said its policy was not to give advance warning of its intended response to specific threats.

    Meanwhile, Maulny questioned the strategic wisdom of Chirac’s decision to clarify French strategic doctrine in the face of emerging threats.

    “Is this necessary? That’s not certain. Because the doctrine of deterrence is all the more effective when it stays vague. “Under (late presidents) De Gaulle and Mitterrand, the doctrine was simply to say: ‘I have nuclear weapons and I will not hesitate to use them.’”

    In a wide-ranging policy speech, Chirac warned on Thursday that any state that sponsored a terrorist attack – or was considering using weapons of mass destruction – against France, would be laying itself open to a nuclear attack. Although no specific country was mentioned, Chirac was understood to be referring to Iran. The West is currently engaged in an escalating dispute with Tehran over its nuclear programme and is seeking to win guarantees from Iran that it is not developing nuclear arms.

    While I am certainly opposed to publicly stating that any means by which a country may carry out its defense is off the table, it is also rash to essentially brag about a willingness to employ all of those means. Still, for once I cannot be too hard on Chirac; it is better to stumble strongly than wobble weakly.

    Others around the globe have also expressed concern about Chirac’s statement.

    Chirac May Spur Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions, German Lawmaker Says

    French President Jacques Chirac’s threat to use nuclear weapons against states that might resort to using weapons of mass destruction may make it harder to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program, a German lawmaker said.

    “I’m concerned that Iran will use these comments as a pretext to underline its own interests and that it will make negotiations more difficult rather than easier,” Eckart von Klaeden, a foreign policy spokesman in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, said in an interview in Berlin.

    Arab News Editorial: Chirac’s Nuclear Threat

    French President Chirac’s announcement on Thursday that France would consider using nuclear weapons against any country that launches a terrorist attack against it is political bombshell. Not even George Bush has gone as far as saying that, even though he might like to. Chirac’s threat is alarming. Clearly, had Al-Qaeda flown hijacked planes into the Eiffel Tower or the Montparnasse Tower rather than the World Trade Towers, Chirac might have nuked Kabul. Again, not even George Bush considered that — or if he did, he wisely kept quiet about it.

    Chirac’s nuclear policy speech draws fire across Europe

    French president Jacques Chirac drew scorching criticism in Europe today for threatening a nuclear response to state-sponsored terrorism.

    […]

    The speech sparked widespread criticism in the European media.

    “Jacques Chirac is an idiot,” chided Belgian daily De Morgen in an editorial. “He lives in a time where France is no longer a world power, but he’s still acting as if prolonging a Napoleonic dynasty.”

    Spain’s El Pais called the speech “radical and dangerous”.

    Iran denounces Chirac’s warning of nuclear response

    Iran on Saturday denounced as “unacceptable” recent comments by French President Jacques Chirac that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

    Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Chirac’s threats last Thursday reflect the true intentions of nuclear powers, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

    “The French President uncovered the covert intentions of nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to determine political games,” IRNA quoted Asefi as saying.

    Cuban leader expresses concern about Iranian nuclear dispute

    Cuban President Fidel Castro expressed concern Saturday about the nuclear dispute between Iran and countries including the United States and France, urging all countries to refrain from using nuclear weapons.

    The Cuban leader chided France for recent comments by President Jacques Chirac that his country could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack. Castro also accused the United States of searching for an excuse to attack Iran.

    “It is very worrisome that this alliance of countries is proclaiming the right to use nuclear weapons against ‘terrorist’ states,” Castro said in a live appearance on the daily Cuban TV public-affairs program Mesa Redonda, or Round Table.

    “What’s being spread is fear,” he added.

    Oh no, Monsieur Chirac

    Jacques Chirac has a gift for the theatrical, and he displayed his talent to great effect on Thursday when he signalled that France was prepared to use nuclear weapons against any state that backed a terrorist attack against it. The president was speaking to a highly interested party — the crew of Le Vigilant, one of the submarines that carry most of France’s 350 or so nuclear warheads (De Gaulle’s “force de frappe”), and he was also trying to protect costly nuclear modernisation from possible budget cuts. But he clearly knew that his comments would create a global frisson…

    France is one of the world’s five “officially” recognised nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN security council. As such, it is in the forefront of a potentially dangerous confrontation with Iran over its alleged ambitions to acquire atomic weapons. Tehran’s response is that it is entitled, under the non-proliferation treaty, to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, which it insists is all it seeks. France is obliged, under the same treaty, to make progress towards disarmament…

    […]

    But there is a simple point here: how can countries such as Iran and North Korea be persuaded not to seek the bomb if the “official” nuclear powers flaunt their double standards and issue threats? As President Chirac quipped memorably of someone else in a different context: he missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

  • Iran Moving Financial Assets

    Having learned a harsh lesson a quarter of a century ago, Iran is preparing itself financially for possible United Nations sanctions.

    Iran is moving its foreign assets to an undisclosed destination, apparently to shield them from any U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program, the central bank governor was quoted as saying on Friday.

    Iran, threatened with referral to the Security Council for possible punitive measures, has bitter memories of its U.S. assets being frozen shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

    “We transfer foreign reserves to wherever we see as expedient. On this issue, we have started transferring. We are doing that,” Ebrahim Sheibani told the ISNA students’ news agency when asked about the need to shift Iran’s holdings.

    There was no immediate confirmation of the Iranian action, but Sheibani’s remarks indicated how seriously the Islamic republic is taking the threat of U.N. sanctions.

    The West suspects Iran of seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian atomic program. Tehran denies this.

    The United States and the European Union want the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer Iran to the Security Council when the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s governing board holds an emergency meeting on February 2.

    Russia and China, which both have major commercial interests at stake in Iran, have urged caution.

    China’s state-run press on Friday urged Iran to halt nuclear work and return to talks with Britain, France and Germany, but argued against taking Tehran to the Security Council.

    “Negotiations remain the best option, as sanctions will muddy the waters,” the China Daily said in an editorial. “The crux of the matter is encouraging Iran to come back to negotiations with the European Union.”

    The EU trio scrapped the talks last week after Iran removed IAEA seals on uranium enrichment equipment and resumed a suspended nuclear research program. U.S. and EU officials say there can be no more talks unless Tehran reverses these steps.

    “The international consensus is unmistakable and important,” said the China Daily, which generally echoes official thinking. “Iran should respond to the diplomatic efforts of the international community.”

    Europe cuts off donations and pushes for referral to the UNSC. China urges more, certainly pointless negotiations. Iran begins a financial three-card monte.

    Follow the money.

    ISNA asked Sheibani whether the money was being moved to Asian accounts, as reported in the London-based Asharq al-Awsat, which said on Thursday that Iran’s Supreme National Security Council had ordered foreign holdings to be sent to Asia.

    Sheibani did not say where the funds were going. He told reporters earlier this week that Iran stood ready to repatriate the money it held abroad should this prove necessary.

    It is far from clear how placing assets in Asia or anywhere abroad would protect them from being frozen as few governments or major banks would be willing to flout U.N. sanctions openly. [emphasis added]

    Sure, go ahead and get this matter to the UNSC. That is a mere formality already doomed to worthlessness in the matter. As I’ve stated in the past, this matter will almost certainly only end in flames.

  • UN Retreats as Ivory Coast Faces New Civil War Threat

    Tumultuous Ivory Coast looks to be spinning its way back to internal strife and bloodshed.

    Ivory Coast, once one of the wealthiest countries in Africa, was close to its second civil war in five years yesterday as gangs of armed thugs loyal to President Gbagbo ran amok across the southern half of the country.

    A 300-strong contingent of Bangladeshi UN troops was forced to withdraw after an attack on their base at Guiglo, 300 miles west of Abidjan, the commercial capital. At least four people died when the peacekeepers opened fire to defend themselves.

    Another contingent of 70 international peacekeepers was evacuated from the town of Douéké. Peacekeepers at the UN headquarters in Abidjan fired in the air and used teargas to keep the thugs at bay. Businesses across the city closed as Mr Gbagbo’s supporters blocked roads with burning tyres and stopped vehicles.

    President Obasanjo of Nigeria will fly to Ivory Coast today to try to defuse the troubles. The UN and France, the former colonial power, called for calm.

    Late last night Mr Gbagbo responded by calling on his supporters to end the protests and return to work.

    The rebels, who control the northern half of the country, had given warning of renewed war if Mr Gbagbo reneges on a UN-brokered peace agreement negotiated last year. They have been fighting for real powersharing with the southern elite and equal distribution of the country’s wealth.

    The violence erupted on Monday when international mediators demanded that the mandate of the country’s parliament, a rubber-stamp body packed with Mr Gbagbo’s supporters, be wound up pending elections.

    The ruling party, the Ivorian Popular Front (FPI), said that it was quitting immediately the transitional Government and the UN-backed peace process.

    “If the FPI succeeds in making a putsch against the peace process, that means war,” Sidiki Konate, a spokesman for the northern New Forces rebel movement, said. Mr Gbagbo unleashed the ruling party’s Young Patriots, a favourite tactic of a man who has clung to power since the end of the 2002-03 civil war divided his country, and who has resisted all attempts to persuade him to share power.

    Gangs of Young Patriots have spread out across Abidjan and other main population centres controlled by government forces. The few foreigners left in Abidjan, once the jewel in France’s colonial crown, are hiding in the basements of their houses or in the homes and offices of Ivorian friends.

    The last time that machete-wielding gangs hit the streets, they beat and raped any white foreigners they found.

    “There are virtually no whites left. The only foreigners left in Abidjan who are not in the well-protected UN compounds are Lebanese who are busy picking up what business the expatriates left behind,” a regional analyst said.

    […]

    In France, which has 4,000 troops operating alongside the 7,000-strong UN peacekeeping force, General Henri Bentegeat, the chief of the Armed Forces, said that the time had come for the UN Security Council to make good its threat of imposing sanctions on Ivory Coast.

    […]

    The FPI has called for the departure of the UN peacekeepers and the French troops whom they accuse of supporting the rebels in order to take control of Ivory Coast’s cocoa industry — the world’s biggest.

    Despite the presence of the United Nations and the French, it seems that a true quagmire and civil war can be managed.

    If interested, check out the original story for a timeline of Ivory Coast’s spiral into madness.

  • Crisis as Iran Reopens Nuclear Research Plant

    Iran has taken the next step in its game of nuclear brinksmanship.

    Iran yesterday precipitated a fresh crisis over its nuclear programme by removing UN seals at a facility in the town of Natanz and announcing that it would begin research involving nuclear enrichment – which can produce weapons grade material.

    To counter, Russia has announced that it is “very disappointed” and “expressed deep concern” on the development. Great Britain, France and Germany, the Euro powers that have been in negotiation with Iran in hopes of halting the radical nation’s nuclear ambitions, announced that they “may meet on Thursday to discuss” the issue. The United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency bravely rushed forth with a “predictably lame response” (for once not my phrasing for anything the agency has managed for years and years). Apparently, there was even a “global outcry” today, though I seemed to have missed it.

    With a tad bit more effort, the civilized world could have come across looking even more limp-wristed and weak … maybe.

    It is time, actually well past time, to admit that the Euro diplomacy path was a gambit doomed to fail. The U.S. was forced to allow it, as the Bush administration had been painted into a corner with all the false and politically-driven accusations of unilateral action and rush to war surrounding the Iraqi theater. From the beginning, there was a key fault with the negotiations — one side didn’t actually want them to succeed.

    Negotiation in the classic diplomatic sense assumes parties more anxious to agree than to disagree.

    —Dean Acheson

    The Euro-Iranian talks have been along the lines of the negotiations preceeding the Munich Agreement, as one side sought “peace in our time” while the other merely sought to buy time.

    The danger to the survival of Israel is evident, especially given the fanaticism of the current Iranian president and his backing hard-line religious leaders. What may be less evident but no less true is the danger the West would face by a nuke-capable and quite radical Iran stepping forth as leaders of the Islamist world.

    Unless science suddenly helps the European powers regrow a spine, the time has come for the only nations actually willing and capable of facing the threat to step up to the plate. I’m speaking specifically about the U.S. and Israel. Bloody action by one of the two may quickly be needed, though such wouldn’t be easy. Unfortunately, current global politics would prevent an overtly-combined action by the two. As the Islamist threat matures and becomes more evident, at least to those not completely and pathetically blinded, that sad political reality may change or become a less-pressing consideration when compared to the survival of our civilization.

  • U.S. Freezes Assets of Two Iran Nuclear Firms

    Bravo.

    The US government has frozen the assets of two Iranian companies linked to the Islamic republic’s nuclear drive, officials said.

    The Treasury Department said the duo — Novin Energy Co and Mesbah Energy Co — were guilty of fostering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

    Its action came a day after Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans on Jan 9 to resume research and development into its ‘peaceful nuclear energy programme’.

    The US and EU have demanded that Iran refrain from all nuclear enrichment activities.

    It’s just a start, but there’s no point in waiting for oft-teased progress from Euro-Iranian negotiations and certainly no need to wait for the United Nations Security Council to actually stir in further inaction.

    UPDATE: Iran Declares Its Nuclear Plan Nonnegotiable

    Iran vowed Wednesday to proceed with a plan to restart nuclear research next week, though the government has yet to explain to the United Nations’ nuclear monitoring agency what activities it intends to carry out.

    Ali Larijani, the senior official in charge of nuclear issues, was quoted on Iranian state television on Wednesday as saying the decision to resume nuclear research was “nonnegotiable.”

    Responding to criticism that the decision would violate Iran’s formal agreement with Europe to suspend all uranium conversion and enrichment activities, he said: “Research has its own definition. It is not related to industrial production. Hence, it was never part of the negotiations.”

    Late Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took a similar hard line. “We will not take a step back on our path,” he was quoted by state television as saying.

    If I were suddenly to find myself on the ground in Iran, I’d be keeping my head up and my eyes on the sky. Hey, I’m just pondering the possibilities.