Tick toc, tick toc. That is the sound of Iran’s relentless march toward regional hegemony and nuclear capabilities. As Iran continues to succeed, so others in the vacinity continue to look to it for aid and support – most recently, two U.S. allies, Pakistan and India.

We cannot use the war on terror to get these countries to change course when their national interest is at stake. Diplomats will have to try to find something else to catch their attention. If two of the biggest countries, and staunchest allies of the United States in the war on terror, are looking to Iran for their energy crisis needs, it is only a matter of time until the smaller countries follow suit.

The time is now for a legitimate solution with Iran. As stated earlier, and as applied in the article, using terrorism as a proxy for not going through with the pipeline will not suffice. For India and Pakistan, terrorism and a national energy crisis are one and the same, with terrorists using a political crisis as fuel for their cause. 

It will not help us right now to look for a way to stop the pipeline. What should be done is to generate a plan that will ensure the revenu made by Iran from this pipeline will not be used for attaining nuclear weaponry.

-Kent

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan, India, and Iran came one step closer this week to realizing a $7 billion natural-gas pipeline, a project that is likely to irk US policymakers trying to contain Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Billed as a “peace pipeline” by the three countries, which are currently negotiating terms in Tehran, the project is designed to slake Pakistan’s and India’s soaring thirst for energy and strengthen regional cooperation. Pakistan, for one, says it can’t afford to let the project fail.

But Washington says it can’t afford to let the pipeline succeed, as the revenues would further Iran’s alleged nuclear- weapons program. Analysts say this stance could backfire if it undermines Pakistan’s key strategic function: fighting terrorism.

Key to that fight is sustained economic growth underpinned by ample supplies of natural gas, a resource that Iran has in abundance. “The only option we have is Iran,” says Mukthar Ahmed, an energy adviser to Pakistan’s prime minister. “We’re talking about a serious crisis” if the pipeline project falls through.

As of this month, the project seemed a step closer to reality: feasibility studies were completed in early May, and the three countries hope to sign a construction agreement by the end of June. Iran has the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves after Russia.

Washington has, accordingly, stepped up its diplomatic offensive in recent weeks, from private conversations with leaders in Pakistan and India to robust public statements.

In April, the US Embassy’s charge d’affaires in Pakistan, Peter Bodde, told reporters that “we will continue our opposition [to the pipeline]. At the same time, Pakistan should put more focus on finding means for alternate energy resources, such as from coal or wind or solar energy.”

Members of Congress have also bared their teeth. In March, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested that foreign governments investing in Iran’s energy sector should be targeted with sanctions.

Few analysts say that the US would yank aid from Pakistan at a time when President Pervez Musharraf – seen by the Bush administration as a bulwark against extremism – is facing the worst crisis of his political tenure.

“It’s more likely that Washington would make a lot of noise about scrapping this aid but, if or when the pipeline project goes ahead, would really find some other way of retaliating, perhaps imposing new restrictions on the export of certain types of US technology or weaponry to Islamabad,” Roger Howard, author of ‘Iran Oil: The New Middle East Challenge to America’, writes in an e-mail.

Islamabad insists that it will go ahead. “Our public opinion, our governments, our people want us to pursue our national interests, and we will pursue that,” Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told reporters when asked about US resistance. The pipeline means more to Islamabad than gas; it’s building relations with frosty neighbors.

“This is the one point at which things [between India and Pakistan] are being discussed in a businesslike manner, and that’s good,” says Najmuddin Shaikh, a former foreign secretary of Pakistan.

(Article by David Montero of the Christian Science Monitor)

Thanks for your patience during the Memorial Day weekend.

George W. Bush’s new rhetoric and sanctions against Sudan is an attempt to ignite the world community to the cause of the on going genocide in Darfur. I must commend Bush for being one of the only world leaders to take such a vocal stance against the tragedy happening in Sudan. I think it is great that he is starting the push for ending this event that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions.

Many have already criticized him for not being hard enough in his most recent sanctions. They would be right.

The problem is that this crisis has been raging for over three years now, with few concrete measures being taken because of diplomatic tip-toeing. Bush’s recent sanctions unfortunately do little to counter the works of the policy makers in Sudan. They are, instead, aimed at a handful of people and about 30 companies with suspected links to the violence. So, what this means is that, although Bush has lead the charge in Darfur by donating billions in humanitarian aid, the latest sanctions will amount to little more than a pin prick on the sleeve of the janjaweed militia.

Pundits and advocacy groups are right to criticize Bush for not being hard enough. He could have come down much harder, and will need to if we are to see any change in the situation in Darfur until it is too late. Three years has already been long enough. Not only should Bush be harder, but he needs to pressure other nations and leaders who have put this tragedy on the back burner. It is rediculous that more from other countries besides the United States has not been done to better this situation and he needs to tell them that.

With Bush’s political numbers ailing, a big stand on Darfur could save the legacy of his presidency.

Also, did anyone hear about the Mexican audience that booed Miss USA at the Miss Universe pagent? It was not personal, but because of the United State’s immigration policies, which are not viewed to kindly south of the boarder. Not that the U.S. hasn’t seen its own moments of childishness (Freedom fries, anyone?), but that is just pathetic. Apparently crowds also began chanting “Mexico, Mexico!” when she rode by during one of the parades.

One question: where is this sprite and vigour when matters of their own country’s problems and integrity are at stake? Shouldn’t that united “Mexico” chant be used to help keep citizens IN the country? Okay, so that was two questions.

 Does anybody find this ironic? Jimmy Carter is known for having one of the most lackluster administrations in all of American history. I know that a statement like this is almost impossible to prove, but let’s face it; in 1980, the Republicans didn’t need an icon like Ronald Reagan. They could have taken back the presidency with Donald Duck, America was so impatient to get rid of Carter. Now, maybe it is not right to paint the former president Carter in such a light. But is it really smart for him to give people the opportunity to compare his presidency with that of others? If I were him, I’d prefer it if others did not compare my record with others. 

Former US president Jimmy Carter unleashed a torrent of criticism against George Bush and Tony Blair over the weekend, in which he accused the Bush presidency of being the “worst in history” and said Mr Blair’s support had been abominable and subservient.

Even for a former politician with a reputation for plain talking, Mr Carter’s blazing criticism took observers by surprise and had the Republican leadership responding in equally harsh measure. The White House spokesman yesterday called Mr Carter “increasingly irrelevant”, adding that his “reckless personal criticism is out there”.

In a newspaper interview, Mr Carter said of the Bush years: “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.” And speaking on BBC Radio 4, Mr Carter criticised Mr Blair, who leaves office next month, for his close relations with Mr Bush, particularly concerning the Iraq war.

“Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient,” Mr Carter said when asked how he would characterise the British prime minister’s relationship with Mr Bush. “I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world.”

He told the BBC that if Mr Blair had opposed the invasion he could have made it tougher for Washington to shrug off critics. “One of the defences of the Bush administration in America and worldwide … has been, ‘OK, we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us’.”

(photo: AP)

read more | digg story

WASHINGTON – One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says.

The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country’s Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.

Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

“It is a hair-raising number,” said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation — a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.

(Article and photo from MSNBC)

 It seems the Middle East has exploded, once again, over night. A glance at todays newspaper highlighted an eyeopening series of events.

Afghanistan saw another market place bombing where it is believed a convoy of U.S. troops was the target. This came only days after three German soldiers and seven civilians were killed by a suicide bomb blast. In Iraq, seven U.S. soldiers were killed in seperate blasts and the Iraqi parliment was still not able to come to terms on a proposed oil law. In retaliation of militant rocket fire into Israel, the Israeli army carried out a series of air raids in the Gaza Strip in which one missle hit a Palestinean house, killing eight civilians. Fighting between a Fatah militant group and the Lebanese army gripped the port city of Tripoli Sunday night. At least thrity nine people were killed and another blast also hit the capital Bierut. Meanwhile, in Iran, the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization announced that the nuclear program was moving ahead, and made it known that Tehran would not succumb to Western pressure to suspend enrichment.

 All of this is just about enough to make my foreign policy loving head spin. It seems that everything is falling apart. Not to mention the fact that the “coalition” Palestinean government is on the brink of a total melt down.

It seems that we are told to wait just a little bit longer, that our policies are working but they just need time to take hold. The problem is, how much longer can we continue to let them go like this until we change course? It might be time to come to terms with the fact that we may need a diplomatic overhaul in our Middle Eastern policies. It should be clear that we must take a different course, the problem is that this will take incredible political muscle and will.

It seems as if we are currently entrenched in a policy under the current administration and it might take the next presidential elections until a different pair of eyes can ponder our current situation in the Gulf region. One idea might be to take a more hands on approach, and this is not to mean militarily. Our current war of words and rhetoric should give way to a more proactive approach of personal discussion between the U.S. and Arab nations, as well as with other countries that have leverage in the region.

There is minimal harm that could come of this, and we need look no further than the recently opened talks with Syria that have already begun to produce fruitful discussion. At the very least this might help us to regain our credibility as a regional player.

When British prime minister Tony Blair steps down next month, his successor is likely to be the man who helped him change the future of the Labour Party over a decade ago, current chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown.

The change has produced a ripple of anxiety that is gripping the Bush administration. Gordon Brown is seem by most insiders as being a man of ambition, intelligence, and sporting a superior work ethic. He is also know to be a man who is difficult to work with. You can bet that if members of his own Labour Party find him difficult to get along with, he is going to give the members of the Bush administration fits.

This has already started with rumors that Brown’s first 100 days in office will be in favor of sharp British troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan. These rumors have been denied by both Brown and Blair representatives, calling them “baseless”. Baseless though these positions may be, it is known that Blair and Brown have not seen eye to eye on the issue of Iraq, among other things.

 The Bush worry is that Brown will not be as strong an ally as Tony Blair was. The two leaders worked together in the War on Terror much the same way as Roosevelt and Churchill handled the second World War. Other government officals have echoed this claim. Congressman Mark Kirk said, “The American view is that he’s a much weaker political leader than Blair. There’s the fear in Washington that he won’t be as strong an ally.”

A source in Brown’s inner circle countered, “These fears are unfounded. Gordon is a committed Atlanticist who wants to strengthen and deepen our ties with America around our shared values…”

What is interesting is that many in Washington have the notion that Brown would not be as strong politically because he does not share Blair’s same steadfast convictions regarding the campaigns in the Middle East. While this not be seen as politically stable to American government officials, it would surely help his chances of surviving in Britain.

I think Bush and Brown will make a solid attempt to keep relations cordial with eachother, as they should, but it should not be seen as a surprise if Brown does not go along with many of Bush’s policies, as he likely will not.

Brown, for his part, has his own battles to fight domestically. Economically he must proove that his policies can bring long term stability to many disenfranchised Brits. Adminastratively, he is criticised for many of the same things Bush has taken heat for. According to The Economist,

“The main charge against Mr. Brown is that he consults only a tiny group of likeminded people who depend on him for position and patronage. Although they are capable and loyal, they rarely challenge each others’ views or his. Lord Turnbull recently argued that Mr. Brown is suspicious, reluctant to delegate, overcontrolling and contemptuous of competing ideas, especially those of cabinet ministers who he has decided owe their loyalty to Mr. Blair.”

Such is a style of government that Bush has been derided for, especially in Europe, and Brown knows if he wants to have a legacy greater than that of Mr. Blair’s he will have to proove to his countrymen that he is neither Tony Blair, nor George Bush.

Meanwhile, American diplomats are hunkering down and preparing for a struggle.

(photo: APF/Pool file photo)

As long as there are rich nations and poor nations there will be immigration. We cannot stop it, nor would we want to. The United States’ national economy relies on the labor of hard working immigrants more than we know. Also, our national culture would be severly lacking were it not for immigrant families. In the era of terrorism, as security becomes the big political juggernaut of the day, it is clear that we must have an immigration policy that is based on pragmatism, instead of idealism. Neither extreme of the political spectrum have the idea. Both are based on idealism. We cannot shut out all immigrants, nor can we allow a blanket legislation to provide amnesty to all peoples illegally in the United States. What we require is a law that ensures that those who are willing to work to become citizens of the United States are allowed to do so, and are not being punished for trying to enter the right way. Why would someone put in the time to immigrate the correct way when they can enter illegally and be given blanket amnesty? I think we need to start a great debate on which sorts of laws will allow for the most pragmatic immigration policy. Let’s start with this article…

-Kent

______________________________ 

WASHINGTON – Key senators and the White House reached agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.

The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.

The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush’s Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he expects Bush to endorse the agreement.

The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush’s top non-war priorities.

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called “point system” that would for the first time prioritize immigrants’ education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

The draft bill “gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here” illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

A spokesman for Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., one of his party’s key players in the talks, confirmed that the group had reached agreement.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a “Z visa” and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called “triggers” had been activated.

Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.

Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end “chain migration” that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it’s an unfair system that rips families apart.

Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

(photo: washingtontimes.com)

read more | digg story

Well, it is official. World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz has said he will resign at the end of June after, “acting ethically and in good faith in what I believe were the bests interests of the institution…”

I think this is a good thing. It is definately in the best interest of the Bank as it attempts to move forward after this incident. Any further hubub about the Wolfowitz situation and I think their institution would have really taken a hit in terms of clientel losses. It has already taken a huge blow as far as its image is concerned.

Like always, as one goes out, another must enter. In this spirit, who will be the next president of the World Bank? Who should it be?  Remember, it is by tradition that the  World Bank president is American, not by rule. Could it be a European? Will it be another member of Bush’s administration? If so, current or past member?

(photo: Getty Images)

MUNSAN, South Korea (CNN) — In the latest sign of reconciliation between the two Koreas, a pair of passenger trains crossed in opposite directions between North and South on Thursday — the first to make the journey through the heavily militarized frontier in more than half a century.

The trains, crossing from opposite sides of the divided peninsula, carried Korean passengers on a test run over tracks not traversed since the early 1950s, when war broke out and the rails were cut by U.S. and U.N. forces.

A two-mile wide demilitarized border separates the neighbors and travel to and from the reclusive communist North is extremely limited.

But on Thursday, passengers boarded a train at Kumgangsan Station in eastern North Korea and crossed the border to Jejin Station.

Separately, passengers at South Korea’s Munsan Station on the opposite side of the divide were sent off amid fireworks and white balloons as their train journeyed north to Kaeson Station, The Associated Press reported.

Each train carried 100 South Koreans and 50 North Koreans, according to South Korea’s state-run Yonhap news agency. The trains later returned to their homelands.

The short trips, which lasted just an hour and covered less than 20 miles of track, were hailed as a glimpse of possible future moves towards reconciliation between the two countries, which have never officially signed a peace treaty.

“It is not simply a test run. It means reconnecting the severed bloodline of our people. It means that the heart of the Korean peninsula is beating again,” said South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung, AP reported.

North Korean Senior Cabinet Councilor Kwon Ho Ung said the two sides should not be “derailed from the track or hesitate” in moving towards unification, but warned of “challenges from divisive forces at home and abroad who don’t like reconciliation and unification of our people,” AP reported.

(Story from CNN; photo: Getty Images)

Let’s face it. It’s hard to deal with Russia. It always has been. From the bolsheviks, to the cold war, to Yeltsin, and now President Vladimir Putin. We follow different paths, and we have different interests. In the post-cold war era, this has never been as obvious as it is at this current time.

Since George W. Bush commented early in his presidency that he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul, their friendliness and kind words have quickly expired. Now the two countries have become engaged in rhetorical shouting matches and trans-national insult exchanges.

There is no doubt that, after years of economic humiliation following the end of the cold war, Russia has become the bear it used to be. Some have even ventured that they are returning to their old, aggressive ways as a geopolitical force. Its bulging gas exports have created an economic boom, the likes of which the Russian people have never seen. One could say, however, that with this new found wealth and power, the Russian government, and Mr. Putin in particular, have developped somewhat of a big head. Most of Eastern, and much of Western, Europe depends on Russia for their oil and natural gas imports, and Russia is trying to take full advantage of it. Recent diplomatic scuffles with the Ukraine and Estonia (see last post) are proof that the Kremlin is not shy about being hawkish in order to regain their power.

Unsurprisingly, the United States is none too thrilled with Russia’s power grab. Certainly, Putin’s suppression of social and political criticism has not won many Western friends, including those of the Bush administration. Putin’s KGB style lockdown of critical news associations and boistrous political opponents is scarily similar to the tactics used under the old Soviet regime. The international pressures to be more democratic, lead by the United States, seem to be having little, if any, effect; Putin’s approval rating is over 70%, and compared to Bush’s paltry 28% approval rating, it is no wonder Putin has the political leverage to scoff at the American president’s comments.

Tensions have also been strained because of the planned missle defense system the United States has planned for Eastern Europe that Russia says is a threat to its interests and security. The United States has said that the missile system is for the defense of Eastern and Central Europe – including Russia – and Secretary of Defense Condoleezza Rice has said that there is no way Russia can veto it. The U.S. has also been vocal in its disaccord with Russia over what it sees as the proliferation and distrabution of weapons of mass destruction – most notably to foe Iran.

It is true that Russia has a cordial and business like relationship with the Iranian regime, and is in the forefront of countries providing materials to supply Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. is, of course, adament that a nuclear Iran is not an option and has become frustrated that its attempts at U.N. sanctioning have not recieved the support of Russia and China.

What the United States must do is use this cordial Russian/Iranian relationship to its advantage. No amount of pressure or criticism from the U.S. will stop the Iranians from what they see as their “given right”, therefore the U.S. should get the Russians to do it for them. Russia has already offered to process Iran’s uranium in Russian – to which the Iranians refused. The U.S. must proove to Russia that it is in their best interest to either deny Iran the ability to process uranium, or to have it done in Russia. This would give Russia more control in the conflict (which Putin is not likely to turn down) and keep the materials in Russia to be handled by Russians. Furthermore, the U.S. would be assured that Iran would be using the nuclear technology for energy purposes only, and not weaponry.

What is important to remember is that if this idea comes from the United States, or seems to be fabricated by them when the Iranians receive it, it is a no go. It is for this purpose that the U.S. must show the Russians how much their interest is at stake, and then let Putin and co. do the bidding. They should, also, not be allowed to take no for an answer.

We are reaching the point where the United States must realize that its diplomatic leverage is down, and must humbly accept the fact that Russia can, and must, be a key component to its diplomatic showdown with Iran. The Russians have a newfound sense of purpose and are hungry for power, why not use this to our advantage?