The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Vice President Omar Suleiman of Egypt says he does not think it is time to lift the 30-year-old emergency law that has been used to suppress and imprison opposition leaders. He does not think President Hosni Mubarak needs to resign before his term ends in September. And he does not think his country is yet ready for democracy.
But, considering it lacks better options, the United States has strongly backed him to play the pivotal role in a still uncertain transition process in Egypt. In doing so, it is relying on the existing government to make changes that it has steadfastly resisted for years, and even now does not seem impatient to carry out.
After two weeks of recalibrated messages and efforts to keep up with a rapidly evolving situation, the Obama administration is still trying to balance support for some of the basic aspirations for change in Egypt with its concern that the pro-democracy movement could be “hijacked,” as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton put it, if change were to come too quickly.
The result has been to feed a perception, on the streets of Cairo and elsewhere, that the United States, for now at least, is putting stability ahead of democratic ideals, and leaving hopes of nurturing peaceful, gradual change in large part in the hands of Egyptian officials — starting with Mr. Suleiman — who have every reason to slow the process.
Faced with questions about Mr. Suleiman’s views, expressed in a series of interviews in recent days, the White House on Monday called them unacceptable.
“The notion that Egypt isn’t ready for democracy I think runs quite counter to what we see happening in Tahrir Square and on the streets in cities throughout the country,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said.
“It’s clear that statements like that are not going to be met with any agreement by the people of Egypt because they don’t address the very legitimate grievances that we’ve seen expressed as a result of these protests,” Mr. Gibbs said.
But it remains unclear how much leverage President Obama has to keep Mr. Suleiman, a Mubarak loyalist, moving toward fundamental change, especially as the authorities begin to reassert control in Egypt.
The United States has certainly had long ties with Mr. Suleiman, 74, who headed Egyptian intelligence from 1993 until he was named vice president last month. For years he has been an important contact for the Central Intelligence Agency and a regular briefer for visiting American officials, who appear to have valued his analysis of Egypt’s relations with neighbors and domestic challenges, as diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks make clear.
The cables describe Mr. Suleiman as Mr. Mubarak’s “consigliere” and having “an extremely sharp analytical mind” and serving as “the de facto national security adviser with direct responsibility for the Israeli-Palestinian account.” One 2009 cable mentions him as a possible successor to Mr. Mubarak, to whom he has long been extremely close.
Mr. Suleiman also frequently assured American officials that the Mubarak government was working to keep terrorism at bay. “Egypt is circled by radicalism,” he told Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a 2009 visit to Cairo.
In 2006, he told the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, that inside Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood posed a serious threat, saying “the principal danger” was “the group’s exploitation of religion to influence and mobilize the public.”
Administration officials say that in recent days, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. — who has a long relationship with Mr. Suleiman from his days on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — has been pressing Mr. Suleiman for a clear road map of democratic reforms, linked to a timetable.
But among the protesters and opposition groups in Egypt, there is deep skepticism that Washington is demanding enough of Mr. Suleiman.
The administration sought amendments to the Egyptian Constitution to legalize political parties, termination of one-party rule, and the end of extralegal efforts to lock up government opponents and regulate the media. But much of the opposition considers the Constitution fatally flawed, and is calling for an entirely new document on which to base a more democratic Egypt.
Similarly, a meeting with opposition groups on Sunday led by Mr. Suleiman was seen by many Egyptian activists as nothing more than political theater that yielded no concrete steps toward reform. In a statement afterward — characterized by opposition figures as propaganda — Mr. Suleiman offered some of what the administration sought, but left himself a lot of wiggle room.
In the statement, he said a committee “will be formed from members of the judicial authority and a number of political figures to study and recommend constitutional amendments” and related laws. The work is supposed to be completed by the first week of March.
But the recommendations do not appear to be binding on the government; in the end, they would have to be approved by a Parliament that took office after an election last year that American officials say was clearly fixed to benefit Mr. Mubarak’s party.
The document promised that “the state of emergency will be lifted based on the security situation and an end to the threats to the security of society.” This is similar to what Mr. Mubarak has said for decades. The state of emergency has never been lifted.
The statement also says that “media and communications will be liberalized and no extralegal constraints will be imposed on them.” But “liberalized” is never defined, nor is it clear that Egypt is willing to allow the free flow of information over the Internet.
The White House took no issue with Mr. Suleiman’s statement; administration officials said it looked like the setting of some clear goals. On Monday, Mr. Obama said Mr. Suleiman’s talks with opposition leaders the day before were making progress.
Andrew McGregor, author of a 2006 military history of Egypt, said mixed messages coming from the Obama administration are not a surprise. “It was predictable that the U.S. response would be confusing at first,” said Mr. McGregor, of the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington research center. “The Obama administration obviously wants to support democracy. But the U.S. has been backing the military regime in Egypt for 30 years.”
Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council, said that the administration was responding to a rapidly changing situation in Egypt.
“The facts on the ground are changing every day,” Mr. Vietor said. “When you have a situation like this, all you can do is articulate your core principles, like universal rights for all people, and free and fair elections.”
Mostrando postagens com marcador Paz e Segurança. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Paz e Segurança. Mostrar todas as postagens
terça-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2011
quarta-feira, 2 de fevereiro de 2011
Il a donc verrouillé encore plus le système en se faisant octroyer, pour la quatrième fois
The Guardian
David Cameron today condemned what he described as "despicable scenes" of violence against protesters in Egypt and said any state sponsorship of it would be "completely and utterly unacceptable".
Speaking outside Downing Street, alongside the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, the prime minister said the transition of power in Egypt must be "accelerated and happen quickly".
Cameron said: "If it turns out that the regime in any way has been sponsoring or tolerating this violence, that would be completely and utterly unacceptable. These are despicable scenes we are seeing and they should not be repeated.
"They underline the need for political reform and for that political reform to be accelerated and to happen quickly. We need to see a clear road map for that reform so that people in Egypt can have confidence that their aspirations for a more democratic future and greater rights is met and that change needs to start happening now and the violence needs to stop."
Ban said: "I am deeply concerned at the continuing violence in Egypt and once again urge restraint to all sides. This is very much an unacceptable situation. Any attacks on peaceful demonstrators is unacceptable and I strongly condemn it."
Earlier, at prime minister's questions, Cameron called on Egypt to draw up a timetable to convince people there will be a "rapid and credible" transition of power that will forge a "stable and more democratic future".
Describing this week's scenes of the protests in Cairo as "incredibly moving", the prime minister also told MPs he took a "very strong view" that political reform – "not repression" – was required following president Hosni Mubarak's decision to stand down.
In a speech broadcast on state television last night, Mubarak sought to quell a week of demonstrations by saying he would not be running for another term of office in the September elections. He promised to work during "the final months" of his term to ensure a "peaceful transfer of power".
But the delayed nature of Mubarak's concession failed to appease protesters, who maintained their presence in Cairo's main square today.
US president Barack Obama also sought to maintain pressure on Mubarak, saying last night: "What is clear is my belief an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now."
Cameron echoed Obama's words and said a timetable was needed to convince people that an orderly transition was under way.
Greater democracy in the Middle East and the Arab world were required to provide the stability required in "the long-term interests of Britain", he told MPs at prime minister's question time.
"President Mubarak says he is going and we respect that," Cameron said. "But what matters is not just the orderly transition but also that it is urgent, it is credible, it starts now. We should be clear we stand with those in this country who want freedom and democracy and rights the world over.
"And the more they can do with a timetable to convince people it's true, the more the country can settle down to a stable and more democratic future."
He said the reforms needed to go beyond simply holding an election.
"Where we need to be clear is that when we talk about democracy, we don't just mean the act of holding an election, we mean the building blocks of democracy," he said.
"I want to see a partnership for open societies where we encourage stronger civil society, stronger rights, stronger rule of law, a proper place for the army in society, proper independent judiciary."
The prime minister reinforced the call for faster progress, telling MPs the transition needed to be "rapid and credible and it needs to start now".
The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said: "Far from indicating support for extremism, the people on the streets of Egypt are actually demanding some very basic things: jobs, freedom of speech and the right to choose by whom they are governed."
He said democracy represented the "best route to stability" in Egypt.
Cameron told the Commons that the "first concern" remained the safety of UK nationals in Egypt. Travel advice for the estimated 30,000 UK nationals around the Red Sea area had not changed because matters there remain "calm and stable".
In Cairo, where there are about 3,000 citizens, and in Alexandria, with an estimated 300, many had been urged to return to the UK. There were still very good commercial flights and a flight commissioned by the UK government had been added, Cameron said.
He told MPs that 1,000 had returned from Egypt in the past 48 hours, and praised the UK's response.
"I think the UK government has acted swiftly," he said. "We had a rapid deployment of 25 special consulate staff to Cairo. The military logistics' team of eight were sent out immediately and we were the first country to set up a team at the Cairo airport, which many other countries have gone on to imitate.
"I don't take any of this for granted, there needs to be absolutely no complacency, but I think our ambassador, Dominic Asquith, and his team have done an excellent job."
David Cameron today condemned what he described as "despicable scenes" of violence against protesters in Egypt and said any state sponsorship of it would be "completely and utterly unacceptable".
Speaking outside Downing Street, alongside the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, the prime minister said the transition of power in Egypt must be "accelerated and happen quickly".
Cameron said: "If it turns out that the regime in any way has been sponsoring or tolerating this violence, that would be completely and utterly unacceptable. These are despicable scenes we are seeing and they should not be repeated.
"They underline the need for political reform and for that political reform to be accelerated and to happen quickly. We need to see a clear road map for that reform so that people in Egypt can have confidence that their aspirations for a more democratic future and greater rights is met and that change needs to start happening now and the violence needs to stop."
Ban said: "I am deeply concerned at the continuing violence in Egypt and once again urge restraint to all sides. This is very much an unacceptable situation. Any attacks on peaceful demonstrators is unacceptable and I strongly condemn it."
Earlier, at prime minister's questions, Cameron called on Egypt to draw up a timetable to convince people there will be a "rapid and credible" transition of power that will forge a "stable and more democratic future".
Describing this week's scenes of the protests in Cairo as "incredibly moving", the prime minister also told MPs he took a "very strong view" that political reform – "not repression" – was required following president Hosni Mubarak's decision to stand down.
In a speech broadcast on state television last night, Mubarak sought to quell a week of demonstrations by saying he would not be running for another term of office in the September elections. He promised to work during "the final months" of his term to ensure a "peaceful transfer of power".
But the delayed nature of Mubarak's concession failed to appease protesters, who maintained their presence in Cairo's main square today.
US president Barack Obama also sought to maintain pressure on Mubarak, saying last night: "What is clear is my belief an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now."
Cameron echoed Obama's words and said a timetable was needed to convince people that an orderly transition was under way.
Greater democracy in the Middle East and the Arab world were required to provide the stability required in "the long-term interests of Britain", he told MPs at prime minister's question time.
"President Mubarak says he is going and we respect that," Cameron said. "But what matters is not just the orderly transition but also that it is urgent, it is credible, it starts now. We should be clear we stand with those in this country who want freedom and democracy and rights the world over.
"And the more they can do with a timetable to convince people it's true, the more the country can settle down to a stable and more democratic future."
He said the reforms needed to go beyond simply holding an election.
"Where we need to be clear is that when we talk about democracy, we don't just mean the act of holding an election, we mean the building blocks of democracy," he said.
"I want to see a partnership for open societies where we encourage stronger civil society, stronger rights, stronger rule of law, a proper place for the army in society, proper independent judiciary."
The prime minister reinforced the call for faster progress, telling MPs the transition needed to be "rapid and credible and it needs to start now".
The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said: "Far from indicating support for extremism, the people on the streets of Egypt are actually demanding some very basic things: jobs, freedom of speech and the right to choose by whom they are governed."
He said democracy represented the "best route to stability" in Egypt.
Cameron told the Commons that the "first concern" remained the safety of UK nationals in Egypt. Travel advice for the estimated 30,000 UK nationals around the Red Sea area had not changed because matters there remain "calm and stable".
In Cairo, where there are about 3,000 citizens, and in Alexandria, with an estimated 300, many had been urged to return to the UK. There were still very good commercial flights and a flight commissioned by the UK government had been added, Cameron said.
He told MPs that 1,000 had returned from Egypt in the past 48 hours, and praised the UK's response.
"I think the UK government has acted swiftly," he said. "We had a rapid deployment of 25 special consulate staff to Cairo. The military logistics' team of eight were sent out immediately and we were the first country to set up a team at the Cairo airport, which many other countries have gone on to imitate.
"I don't take any of this for granted, there needs to be absolutely no complacency, but I think our ambassador, Dominic Asquith, and his team have done an excellent job."
segunda-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2011
Secret papers reveal slow death of Middle East peace process
The Guardian
The biggest leak of confidential documents in the history of the Middle East conflict has revealed that Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to accept Israel's annexation of all but one of the settlements built illegally in occupied East Jerusalem. This unprecedented proposal was one of a string of concessions that will cause shockwaves among Palestinians and in the wider Arab world.
A cache of thousands of pages of confidential Palestinian records covering more than a decade of negotiations with Israel and the US has been obtained by al-Jazeera TV and shared exclusively with the Guardian. The papers provide an extraordinary and vivid insight into the disintegration of the 20-year peace process, which is now regarded as all but dead.
The documents – many of which will be published by the Guardian over the coming days – also reveal:
• The scale of confidential concessions offered by Palestinian negotiators, including on the highly sensitive issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
• How Israeli leaders privately asked for some Arab citizens to be transferred to a new Palestinian state.
• The intimate level of covert co-operation between Israeli security forces and the Palestinian Authority.
• The central role of British intelligence in drawing up a secret plan to crush Hamas in the Palestinian territories.
• How Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders were privately tipped off about Israel's 2008-9 war in Gaza.
As well as the annexation of all East Jerusalem settlements except Har Homa, the Palestine papers show PLO leaders privately suggested swapping part of the flashpoint East Jerusalem Arab neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah for land elsewhere.
Most controversially, they also proposed a joint committee to take over the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in Jerusalem's Old City – the neuralgic issue that helped sink the Camp David talks in 2000 after Yasser Arafat refused to concede sovereignty around the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.
The offers were made in 2008-9, in the wake of George Bush's Annapolis conference, and were privately hailed by the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, as giving Israel "the biggest Yerushalayim [the Hebrew name for Jerusalem] in history" in order to resolve the world's most intractable conflict. Israeli leaders, backed by the US government, said the offers were inadequate.
Intensive efforts to revive talks by the Obama administration foundered last year over Israel's refusal to extend a 10-month partial freeze on settlement construction. Prospects are now uncertain amid increasing speculation that a negotiated two-state solution to the conflict is no longer attainable – and fears of a new war.
Many of the 1,600 leaked documents – drawn up by PA officials and lawyers working for the British-funded PLO negotiations support unit and include extensive verbatim transcripts of private meetings – have been independently authenticated by the Guardian and corroborated by former participants in the talks and intelligence and diplomatic sources. The Guardian's coverage is supplemented by WikiLeaks cables, emanating from the US consulate in Jerusalem and embassy in Tel Aviv. Israeli officials also kept their own records of the talks, which may differ from the confidential Palestinian accounts.
The concession in May 2008 by Palestinian leaders to allow Israel to annex the settlements in East Jerusalem – including Gilo, a focus of controversy after Israel gave the go-ahead for 1,400 new homes – has never been made public.
All settlements built on territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 war are illegal under international law, but the Jerusalem homes are routinely described, and perceived, by Israel as municipal "neighbourhoods". Israeli governments have consistently sought to annex the largest settlements as part of a peace deal – and came close to doing so at Camp David.
Erekat told Israeli leaders in 2008: "This is the first time in Palestinian-Israeli history in which such a suggestion is officially made." No such concession had been made at Camp David.
But the offer was rejected out of hand by Israel because it did not include a big settlement near the city Ma'ale Adumim as well as Har Homa and several others deeper in the West Bank, including Ariel. "We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands," Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians, "and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it".
The overall impression that emerges from the documents, which stretch from 1999 to 2010, is of the weakness and growing desperation of PA leaders as failure to reach agreement or even halt all settlement temporarily undermines their credibility in relation to their Hamas rivals; the papers also reveal the unyielding confidence of Israeli negotiators and the often dismissive attitude of US politicians towards Palestinian representatives.
Last night Erekat said the minutes of the meetings were "a bunch of lies and half truths". Qureia told AP that "many parts of the documents were fabricated, as part of the incitement against the … Palestinian leadership".
However Palestinian former negotiator, Diana Buttu, called on Erekat to resign following the revelations. "Saeb must step down and if he doesn't it will only serve to show just how out of touch and unrepresentative the negotiators are," she said.
Palestinian and Israeli officials both point out that any position in negotiations is subject to the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and therefore is invalid without an overarching deal.
The biggest leak of confidential documents in the history of the Middle East conflict has revealed that Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to accept Israel's annexation of all but one of the settlements built illegally in occupied East Jerusalem. This unprecedented proposal was one of a string of concessions that will cause shockwaves among Palestinians and in the wider Arab world.
A cache of thousands of pages of confidential Palestinian records covering more than a decade of negotiations with Israel and the US has been obtained by al-Jazeera TV and shared exclusively with the Guardian. The papers provide an extraordinary and vivid insight into the disintegration of the 20-year peace process, which is now regarded as all but dead.
The documents – many of which will be published by the Guardian over the coming days – also reveal:
• The scale of confidential concessions offered by Palestinian negotiators, including on the highly sensitive issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
• How Israeli leaders privately asked for some Arab citizens to be transferred to a new Palestinian state.
• The intimate level of covert co-operation between Israeli security forces and the Palestinian Authority.
• The central role of British intelligence in drawing up a secret plan to crush Hamas in the Palestinian territories.
• How Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders were privately tipped off about Israel's 2008-9 war in Gaza.
As well as the annexation of all East Jerusalem settlements except Har Homa, the Palestine papers show PLO leaders privately suggested swapping part of the flashpoint East Jerusalem Arab neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah for land elsewhere.
Most controversially, they also proposed a joint committee to take over the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in Jerusalem's Old City – the neuralgic issue that helped sink the Camp David talks in 2000 after Yasser Arafat refused to concede sovereignty around the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.
The offers were made in 2008-9, in the wake of George Bush's Annapolis conference, and were privately hailed by the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, as giving Israel "the biggest Yerushalayim [the Hebrew name for Jerusalem] in history" in order to resolve the world's most intractable conflict. Israeli leaders, backed by the US government, said the offers were inadequate.
Intensive efforts to revive talks by the Obama administration foundered last year over Israel's refusal to extend a 10-month partial freeze on settlement construction. Prospects are now uncertain amid increasing speculation that a negotiated two-state solution to the conflict is no longer attainable – and fears of a new war.
Many of the 1,600 leaked documents – drawn up by PA officials and lawyers working for the British-funded PLO negotiations support unit and include extensive verbatim transcripts of private meetings – have been independently authenticated by the Guardian and corroborated by former participants in the talks and intelligence and diplomatic sources. The Guardian's coverage is supplemented by WikiLeaks cables, emanating from the US consulate in Jerusalem and embassy in Tel Aviv. Israeli officials also kept their own records of the talks, which may differ from the confidential Palestinian accounts.
The concession in May 2008 by Palestinian leaders to allow Israel to annex the settlements in East Jerusalem – including Gilo, a focus of controversy after Israel gave the go-ahead for 1,400 new homes – has never been made public.
All settlements built on territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 war are illegal under international law, but the Jerusalem homes are routinely described, and perceived, by Israel as municipal "neighbourhoods". Israeli governments have consistently sought to annex the largest settlements as part of a peace deal – and came close to doing so at Camp David.
Erekat told Israeli leaders in 2008: "This is the first time in Palestinian-Israeli history in which such a suggestion is officially made." No such concession had been made at Camp David.
But the offer was rejected out of hand by Israel because it did not include a big settlement near the city Ma'ale Adumim as well as Har Homa and several others deeper in the West Bank, including Ariel. "We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands," Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians, "and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it".
The overall impression that emerges from the documents, which stretch from 1999 to 2010, is of the weakness and growing desperation of PA leaders as failure to reach agreement or even halt all settlement temporarily undermines their credibility in relation to their Hamas rivals; the papers also reveal the unyielding confidence of Israeli negotiators and the often dismissive attitude of US politicians towards Palestinian representatives.
Last night Erekat said the minutes of the meetings were "a bunch of lies and half truths". Qureia told AP that "many parts of the documents were fabricated, as part of the incitement against the … Palestinian leadership".
However Palestinian former negotiator, Diana Buttu, called on Erekat to resign following the revelations. "Saeb must step down and if he doesn't it will only serve to show just how out of touch and unrepresentative the negotiators are," she said.
Palestinian and Israeli officials both point out that any position in negotiations is subject to the principle that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and therefore is invalid without an overarching deal.
Israel concluye que el asalto a la flotilla de Gaza fue legal
El País
El asalto al buque Mavi Mármara fue legal y los soldados israelíes mataron a nueve civiles turcos "en legítima defensa" durante el abordaje. Esas son las conclusiones fundamentales del informe emitido ayer por la Comisión Turkel, formada por el Gobierno de Israel para investigar la violenta interceptación de la llamada flotilla de la libertad.
El asalto al buque Mavi Mármara fue legal y los soldados israelíes mataron a nueve civiles turcos "en legítima defensa" durante el abordaje. Esas son las conclusiones fundamentales del informe emitido ayer por la Comisión Turkel, formada por el Gobierno de Israel para investigar la violenta interceptación de la llamada flotilla de la libertad, que el pasado 31 de mayo intentó romper el bloqueo y llegar a Gaza.
Nadie esperaba que la comisión culpara al Gobierno o al Ejército de Israel, pero no se esperaba tampoco una absolución tan rotunda, firmada por sus cinco miembros oficiales, juristas israelíes encabezados por el ex magistrado del Supremo Jacob Turkel, y por dos observadores internacionales, David Trimble, ex primer ministro norirlandés y premio Nobel de la Paz, y Ken Watkin, general del cuerpo jurídico del Ejército canadiense.
El primer ministro turco, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, se declaró "pasmado" al conocer las conclusiones y declaró que el informe de la comisión israelí carecía de "valor o credibilidad". El Gobierno turco, que copatrocinó el viaje de la flotilla, ya investigó por su cuenta el asunto y concluyó que Israel había violado las leyes internacionales.
Según la Comisión Turkel, los soldados israelíes que realizaron el abordaje "actuaron profesionalmente y con gran presencia de ánimo dada la extrema violencia que no habían esperado". La comisión considera que "la profesionalidad de los soldados se hizo evidente por el hecho de que sustituyeran sus armas letales por opciones menos letales, y viceversa, con el fin de dar una respuesta adecuada a la naturaleza de la violencia que en cada momento se dirigía contra ellos".
Los investigadores nombrados por el Gobierno también respaldan al mismo en un hecho fundamental: afirman que el abordaje, realizado en aguas internacionales, fue legítimo porque al intentar romper el bloqueo la flotilla "se había convertido en un objetivo de guerra". En realidad, la comisión culpa directamente a los activistas a bordo del Mavi Mármara de una resistencia "planeada y extremadamente violenta" e indica que unas 100 personas, entre las 600 que viajaban en la nave, no debían ser considerados civiles ni ser tratados como tales, sino como "participantes directos en las hostilidades".
En cuanto al propio bloqueo impuesto sobre Gaza desde hace tres años y medio, la comisión lo considera acorde con la legislación internacional y dice que no existe evidencia de que se vulneren los derechos humanos de los palestinos de la Franja. En el informe, de casi 300 páginas, se afirma que los habitantes de Gaza no padecen hambre sino "falta de estabilidad nutricional" y que su principal problema no es la carencia de comida, sino la carencia de dinero para adquirirla.
El informe de la Comisión Turkel será enviado a Naciones Unidas, para ser añadido a la investigación abierta por la secretaría general de la organización.
El asalto al buque Mavi Mármara fue legal y los soldados israelíes mataron a nueve civiles turcos "en legítima defensa" durante el abordaje. Esas son las conclusiones fundamentales del informe emitido ayer por la Comisión Turkel, formada por el Gobierno de Israel para investigar la violenta interceptación de la llamada flotilla de la libertad.
El asalto al buque Mavi Mármara fue legal y los soldados israelíes mataron a nueve civiles turcos "en legítima defensa" durante el abordaje. Esas son las conclusiones fundamentales del informe emitido ayer por la Comisión Turkel, formada por el Gobierno de Israel para investigar la violenta interceptación de la llamada flotilla de la libertad, que el pasado 31 de mayo intentó romper el bloqueo y llegar a Gaza.
Nadie esperaba que la comisión culpara al Gobierno o al Ejército de Israel, pero no se esperaba tampoco una absolución tan rotunda, firmada por sus cinco miembros oficiales, juristas israelíes encabezados por el ex magistrado del Supremo Jacob Turkel, y por dos observadores internacionales, David Trimble, ex primer ministro norirlandés y premio Nobel de la Paz, y Ken Watkin, general del cuerpo jurídico del Ejército canadiense.
El primer ministro turco, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, se declaró "pasmado" al conocer las conclusiones y declaró que el informe de la comisión israelí carecía de "valor o credibilidad". El Gobierno turco, que copatrocinó el viaje de la flotilla, ya investigó por su cuenta el asunto y concluyó que Israel había violado las leyes internacionales.
Según la Comisión Turkel, los soldados israelíes que realizaron el abordaje "actuaron profesionalmente y con gran presencia de ánimo dada la extrema violencia que no habían esperado". La comisión considera que "la profesionalidad de los soldados se hizo evidente por el hecho de que sustituyeran sus armas letales por opciones menos letales, y viceversa, con el fin de dar una respuesta adecuada a la naturaleza de la violencia que en cada momento se dirigía contra ellos".
Los investigadores nombrados por el Gobierno también respaldan al mismo en un hecho fundamental: afirman que el abordaje, realizado en aguas internacionales, fue legítimo porque al intentar romper el bloqueo la flotilla "se había convertido en un objetivo de guerra". En realidad, la comisión culpa directamente a los activistas a bordo del Mavi Mármara de una resistencia "planeada y extremadamente violenta" e indica que unas 100 personas, entre las 600 que viajaban en la nave, no debían ser considerados civiles ni ser tratados como tales, sino como "participantes directos en las hostilidades".
En cuanto al propio bloqueo impuesto sobre Gaza desde hace tres años y medio, la comisión lo considera acorde con la legislación internacional y dice que no existe evidencia de que se vulneren los derechos humanos de los palestinos de la Franja. En el informe, de casi 300 páginas, se afirma que los habitantes de Gaza no padecen hambre sino "falta de estabilidad nutricional" y que su principal problema no es la carencia de comida, sino la carencia de dinero para adquirirla.
El informe de la Comisión Turkel será enviado a Naciones Unidas, para ser añadido a la investigación abierta por la secretaría general de la organización.
terça-feira, 11 de janeiro de 2011
China confirms stealth fighter jet tests
The Guardian
Hu Jintao confirmed today that China had carried out its first test flight of a stealth fighter jet, the US defence secretary said.
Robert Gates, who is in Beijing for talks to improve military ties, said the Chinese president had told him the jet's trial was not arranged to coincide with his visit.
"I asked President Hu about it directly, and he said that the test had absolutely nothing to do with my visit and had been a pre-planned test," Gates told reporters.
Asked whether he believed that, Gates said: "I take President Hu at his word that the test had nothing to do with my visit."
A Pentagon official told Reuters that Hu and other civilian leaders at the meeting with Gates did not appear to be aware the J-20 flight had happened before the US pressed them about it.
"When Secretary Gates raised the question of the J-20 test in the meeting with President Hu, it was clear that none of the civilians in the room had been informed," the official said.
Hu's confirmation came after accounts and pictures of the J-20 prototype's short flight appeared on Chinese websites. The fighter is believed to have flown for about 15 minutes over an airfield in the south-western city of Chengdu.
There had previously been photographs said to show the aeroplane going through runway tests. Hu's comments were the first official acknowledgement of the project.
Some interpreted the timing as a sign that Beijing had heeded calls for greater transparency about its military programme, while others thought it more likely to be a show of strength.
Reports suggest that China's progress in developing a rival to the US stealth fighter, the F-22, has been faster than expected – although it is thought it will take years before the plane is in service.
The F-22 is the only operational stealth fighter, although the US is developing the F-35 joint strike fighter, and Russia's Sukhoi T-50 is expected to enter service in about 2015.
The Associated Press reported that people who answered phones at government and Communist party offices in Chengdu and at the J-20's developer, the Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group, refused to comment.
China's military modernisation programme and heavy investment in new technology – such as the Dongfeng anti-ship missile – is reducing the military gap with the US and tilting the power balance in the region.
Gates acknowledged on Sunday that China's development of military equipment had outpaced US intelligence estimates and said it "clearly [has] potential to put some of our capabilities at risk".
He is meeting civilian leaders, having agreed minor improvements in military-to-military links during meetings yesterday with the Chinese defence minister, General Liang Guanglie.
Both sides said stronger ties were needed, and Liang made a point of warning the US against selling further arms to Taiwan. Beijing suspended military exchanges last year in protest at such a deal.
The Chinese military's budget has soared to 532bn yuan (£52bn) – although last year's increase of 7.5% was the smallest for more than two decades. Outside experts believe the real level of funding is far higher, although it is still thought to lag well behind that of the US.
"Some countries which have a far better international security situation than China have world-leading levels of military research," the army's official newspaper, the Liberation Army Daily, wrote in an article on Gates's visit today. "In such circumstances, China should not be unjustly excoriated for developing a few modern weapons."
An aircraft that is reported to be the Chinese stealth fighter, in Chengdu, Sichuan province. Photograph: Kyodo/Reuters
Hu Jintao confirmed today that China had carried out its first test flight of a stealth fighter jet, the US defence secretary said.
Robert Gates, who is in Beijing for talks to improve military ties, said the Chinese president had told him the jet's trial was not arranged to coincide with his visit.
"I asked President Hu about it directly, and he said that the test had absolutely nothing to do with my visit and had been a pre-planned test," Gates told reporters.
Asked whether he believed that, Gates said: "I take President Hu at his word that the test had nothing to do with my visit."
A Pentagon official told Reuters that Hu and other civilian leaders at the meeting with Gates did not appear to be aware the J-20 flight had happened before the US pressed them about it.
"When Secretary Gates raised the question of the J-20 test in the meeting with President Hu, it was clear that none of the civilians in the room had been informed," the official said.
Hu's confirmation came after accounts and pictures of the J-20 prototype's short flight appeared on Chinese websites. The fighter is believed to have flown for about 15 minutes over an airfield in the south-western city of Chengdu.
There had previously been photographs said to show the aeroplane going through runway tests. Hu's comments were the first official acknowledgement of the project.
Some interpreted the timing as a sign that Beijing had heeded calls for greater transparency about its military programme, while others thought it more likely to be a show of strength.
Reports suggest that China's progress in developing a rival to the US stealth fighter, the F-22, has been faster than expected – although it is thought it will take years before the plane is in service.
The F-22 is the only operational stealth fighter, although the US is developing the F-35 joint strike fighter, and Russia's Sukhoi T-50 is expected to enter service in about 2015.
The Associated Press reported that people who answered phones at government and Communist party offices in Chengdu and at the J-20's developer, the Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Group, refused to comment.
China's military modernisation programme and heavy investment in new technology – such as the Dongfeng anti-ship missile – is reducing the military gap with the US and tilting the power balance in the region.
Gates acknowledged on Sunday that China's development of military equipment had outpaced US intelligence estimates and said it "clearly [has] potential to put some of our capabilities at risk".
He is meeting civilian leaders, having agreed minor improvements in military-to-military links during meetings yesterday with the Chinese defence minister, General Liang Guanglie.
Both sides said stronger ties were needed, and Liang made a point of warning the US against selling further arms to Taiwan. Beijing suspended military exchanges last year in protest at such a deal.
The Chinese military's budget has soared to 532bn yuan (£52bn) – although last year's increase of 7.5% was the smallest for more than two decades. Outside experts believe the real level of funding is far higher, although it is still thought to lag well behind that of the US.
"Some countries which have a far better international security situation than China have world-leading levels of military research," the army's official newspaper, the Liberation Army Daily, wrote in an article on Gates's visit today. "In such circumstances, China should not be unjustly excoriated for developing a few modern weapons."
sexta-feira, 7 de janeiro de 2011
Montenegro: "Hoy es mucho más importante cuidar la vida de los porteños que ordenar los piquetes"
Clarín
Según las estadísticas oficiales, durante 2010 hubo 613 cortes de calles en la Ciudad. Los fiscales porteños denuncian a diario que la Policía federal mira para otro lado. La situación, que se agrava cada año, deja como rehenes a los automovilistas. El Gobierno porteño tampoco se involucra en el tema, al menos por ahora. El ministro de Seguridad porteño, Guillermo Montenegro, confirmó que no está en los planes inmediatos de la Policía Metropolitana la conformación de un cuerpo de Infantería para ordenar las protestas sociales.
"Hoy es mucho más importante cuidar la vida de los porteños. En las comunas donde estamos la gente siente que le ha mejorado la calidad de vida. La responsabilidad del control de los piquetes no es de la Policía Metropolitana, que fue hecha para otra cosa. Para lo otro hay fuerzas nacionales que hoy están preparadas", aseguró Montenegro en diálogo con Clarín.com.
-¿No se pueden hacer las dos cosas?
- Se pueden hacer, pero no es el momento. Además preparar un grupo de esas características lleva mucho tiempo, no es para una primera etapa de una Policía comunitaria, si para dentro de dos o tres años. Hay otras fuerzas de ordenar los cortes de calles.
En la entrevista con Clarín.com, el ministro también defendió la participación de la Metropolitana en el desalojo del Parque Indoamericano. "La orden de la jueza incluía más de 200 personas del Gobierno de la Ciudad que tenían que participar de ese procedimiento. No fue un error (mandar a la Metropolitana). El desalojo en sí no fue violento, después empieza un problema puntual que es diferente", explicó.
La investigación judicial por las muertes apuntó tanto a la Metropolitana como a la Federal, aunque todavía hay dudas sobre el origen de los disparos. "Al día siguiente era un feriado pero juntamos a la cúpula de la Policía, ordenamos un sumario y secuestramos las armas, pero no tenemos balas de plomo en las escopetas", reiteró Montenegro.
-¿Lo que pasó en el Indoamericano generó un replanteo sobre la función de la Policía?
- No, no hay un cambio de modelo. Apuntamos a una policía de proximidad. Lo que se modificó es el orden de las comunas a las que apuntamos. Decidimos que la cuarta comuna sea la de Lugano y Soldati. Este año entonces vamos a llegar a la comuna 4 (que abarca Barracas y La Boca) y luego a la 8. Y en junio planeamos terminar las comisarías de esas dos zonas.
Según las estadísticas oficiales, durante 2010 hubo 613 cortes de calles en la Ciudad. Los fiscales porteños denuncian a diario que la Policía federal mira para otro lado. La situación, que se agrava cada año, deja como rehenes a los automovilistas. El Gobierno porteño tampoco se involucra en el tema, al menos por ahora. El ministro de Seguridad porteño, Guillermo Montenegro, confirmó que no está en los planes inmediatos de la Policía Metropolitana la conformación de un cuerpo de Infantería para ordenar las protestas sociales.
"Hoy es mucho más importante cuidar la vida de los porteños. En las comunas donde estamos la gente siente que le ha mejorado la calidad de vida. La responsabilidad del control de los piquetes no es de la Policía Metropolitana, que fue hecha para otra cosa. Para lo otro hay fuerzas nacionales que hoy están preparadas", aseguró Montenegro en diálogo con Clarín.com.
-¿No se pueden hacer las dos cosas?
- Se pueden hacer, pero no es el momento. Además preparar un grupo de esas características lleva mucho tiempo, no es para una primera etapa de una Policía comunitaria, si para dentro de dos o tres años. Hay otras fuerzas de ordenar los cortes de calles.
En la entrevista con Clarín.com, el ministro también defendió la participación de la Metropolitana en el desalojo del Parque Indoamericano. "La orden de la jueza incluía más de 200 personas del Gobierno de la Ciudad que tenían que participar de ese procedimiento. No fue un error (mandar a la Metropolitana). El desalojo en sí no fue violento, después empieza un problema puntual que es diferente", explicó.
La investigación judicial por las muertes apuntó tanto a la Metropolitana como a la Federal, aunque todavía hay dudas sobre el origen de los disparos. "Al día siguiente era un feriado pero juntamos a la cúpula de la Policía, ordenamos un sumario y secuestramos las armas, pero no tenemos balas de plomo en las escopetas", reiteró Montenegro.
-¿Lo que pasó en el Indoamericano generó un replanteo sobre la función de la Policía?
- No, no hay un cambio de modelo. Apuntamos a una policía de proximidad. Lo que se modificó es el orden de las comunas a las que apuntamos. Decidimos que la cuarta comuna sea la de Lugano y Soldati. Este año entonces vamos a llegar a la comuna 4 (que abarca Barracas y La Boca) y luego a la 8. Y en junio planeamos terminar las comisarías de esas dos zonas.
Incrementa China su poderío militar
La Nación
PEKIN.- En una muestra de su creciente poderío militar, China anunció ayer que ha fabricado un prototipo de avión de combate casi invisible a los radares que realizará este mes sus primeros vuelos de prueba.
La noticia sobre la construcción del prototipo (conocido como J-20) se conoció cuando faltan apenas unos días para la visita a China del secretario de Defensa norteamericano, Robert Gates. Además, coincide con el anuncio de que Estados Unidos está reduciendo su gasto militar (ver Pág. 4) y demuestra que "el ejército chino está avanzando rápidamente en la modernización de su fuerza aérea y está incrementando sus esfuerzos por avanzar hacia el océano abierto", según afirmó ayer el diario japonés Asahi Shimbun . De esta manera, China podría amenazar el "equilibrio militar en el este de Asia", añadió el diario.
Por su parte, The New York Times afirmó ayer que, con la nueva aeronave, China está desplegando capacidades que sugieren que podría desafiar a las fuerzas norteamericanas en el Pacífico, a pesar de que ha negado durante años tener alguna intención de equiparar el poder militar de Estados Unidos.
El J-20, cuyas primeras imágenes se pudieron ver ayer en sitios web del país, es incluso más grande que el F-22 Raptor, el avión casi invisible al radar que posee la fuerza aérea de Estados Unidos. Con el reabastecimiento en pleno vuelo, puede llegar hasta la isla norteamericana de Guam.
Por otra parte, varios analistas ratificaron ayer que el momento en el cual China anunció la fabricación del J-20 está lejos de ser una casualidad y se conecta directamente con la inminente visita de Gates. El funcionario norteamericano se entrevistará con las principales autoridades militares del país, en un intento de resucitar las relaciones bilaterales en este campo, interrumpidas hace un año por Pekín en una reacción a la venta de armas estadounidenses a Taiwan.
"Esta es la nueva política de disuasión. Ellos quieren mostrar a Estados Unidos, y a Gates, su músculo", dijo desde Hong Kong Andrei Chang, editor en jefe del semanario especializado Kanwa Defense .
"El significado político de este avión es mayor que el militar", consideró por su parte el analista militar chino Song Xiaojun. "China está pidiendo un mayor respeto", añadió.
El J-20, que estaría operativo para 2017, es una muestra de la agresiva modernización que experimentaron en la última década las alguna vez débiles fuerzas armadas chinas, que está preocupando cada vez más al Pentágono y a países cercanos a China. Tanto es así que el organismo de inteligencia australiano cree que Pekín está escondiendo la extensión de su rearme militar y que el gasto en esta área llegó a 90.000 millones de dólares, el doble de los 45.000 millones anunciados oficialmente.
Además de la aeronave, se cree que China está reacondicionando un portaaviones ucraniano de la era soviética -es la primera vez que Pekín encara un proyecto de este tipo- que estaría listo para entrar en funciones en 2012. A esto se añade la capacidad de disuasión nuclear, estimada por los expertos en unas 160 ojivas, que se han desplegado en lanzadores móviles y submarinos. Se presume que el próximo paso será el uso de misiles de ojivas múltiples. Además, la flota china de 60 submarinos, la más grande de Asia, está siendo reequipada con embarcaciones supersilenciosas y equipadas con misiles balísticos de segunda generación.
"La definición de las capacidades de Pekín está cada vez más clara y cada vez más enfocada en limitar la capacidad norteamericana de proyectar su poder militar en el Pacífico occidental", dijo Abraham M. Denmark, un ex director de la oficina de Gates especializado en China.
El rearme es especialmente preocupante para Taiwan, considerada "una provincia rebelde" por China, y cuyo gobierno autónomo sólo se sostiene gracias al compromiso norteamericano de que será defendido si es atacado por Pekín.
"Los chinos no deben hacer nada en el futuro. Solamente con anuncios ya han arruinado el planeamiento estratégico de la acción norteamericana dentro y alrededor del estrecho de Taiwan", afirmó Lin Chong-ping, un ex funcionario del Ministerio de Defensa taiwanés.
Los chinos justifican su rearme en los supuestos planes norteamericanos de contener el poder militar de Pekín con alianzas con países cercanos como Corea del Sur, Japón y Taiwan. "Algunos creen que Estados Unidos completará el círculo en torno de China de este modo. Tenemos que preocuparnos, es natural", dijo Xu Qinhua, experto de la Universidad Renmin, de China, y asesor del gobierno.
Una ley para cuidar a los mayores
PEKIN.- Ante los numerosos problemas surgidos del creciente envejecimiento de su población, el gobierno de China se plantea la posibilidad de obligar por ley a sus ciudadanos a que visiten a sus padres ancianos. La prensa oficial china informa que la medida intentaría paliar el abandono que sufre el 50% de los 167 millones de chinos de más de 60 años. El proyecto tiene dos objetivos: cubrir las carencias del seguro social (que cubre a pocas personas) y restaurar los valores tradicionales de veneración de las personas mayores. La reforma ofrece la posibilidad de llevar ante los tribunales los casos en que no se respete esta obligación.
PEKIN.- En una muestra de su creciente poderío militar, China anunció ayer que ha fabricado un prototipo de avión de combate casi invisible a los radares que realizará este mes sus primeros vuelos de prueba.
La noticia sobre la construcción del prototipo (conocido como J-20) se conoció cuando faltan apenas unos días para la visita a China del secretario de Defensa norteamericano, Robert Gates. Además, coincide con el anuncio de que Estados Unidos está reduciendo su gasto militar (ver Pág. 4) y demuestra que "el ejército chino está avanzando rápidamente en la modernización de su fuerza aérea y está incrementando sus esfuerzos por avanzar hacia el océano abierto", según afirmó ayer el diario japonés Asahi Shimbun . De esta manera, China podría amenazar el "equilibrio militar en el este de Asia", añadió el diario.
Por su parte, The New York Times afirmó ayer que, con la nueva aeronave, China está desplegando capacidades que sugieren que podría desafiar a las fuerzas norteamericanas en el Pacífico, a pesar de que ha negado durante años tener alguna intención de equiparar el poder militar de Estados Unidos.
El J-20, cuyas primeras imágenes se pudieron ver ayer en sitios web del país, es incluso más grande que el F-22 Raptor, el avión casi invisible al radar que posee la fuerza aérea de Estados Unidos. Con el reabastecimiento en pleno vuelo, puede llegar hasta la isla norteamericana de Guam.
Por otra parte, varios analistas ratificaron ayer que el momento en el cual China anunció la fabricación del J-20 está lejos de ser una casualidad y se conecta directamente con la inminente visita de Gates. El funcionario norteamericano se entrevistará con las principales autoridades militares del país, en un intento de resucitar las relaciones bilaterales en este campo, interrumpidas hace un año por Pekín en una reacción a la venta de armas estadounidenses a Taiwan.
"Esta es la nueva política de disuasión. Ellos quieren mostrar a Estados Unidos, y a Gates, su músculo", dijo desde Hong Kong Andrei Chang, editor en jefe del semanario especializado Kanwa Defense .
"El significado político de este avión es mayor que el militar", consideró por su parte el analista militar chino Song Xiaojun. "China está pidiendo un mayor respeto", añadió.
El J-20, que estaría operativo para 2017, es una muestra de la agresiva modernización que experimentaron en la última década las alguna vez débiles fuerzas armadas chinas, que está preocupando cada vez más al Pentágono y a países cercanos a China. Tanto es así que el organismo de inteligencia australiano cree que Pekín está escondiendo la extensión de su rearme militar y que el gasto en esta área llegó a 90.000 millones de dólares, el doble de los 45.000 millones anunciados oficialmente.
Además de la aeronave, se cree que China está reacondicionando un portaaviones ucraniano de la era soviética -es la primera vez que Pekín encara un proyecto de este tipo- que estaría listo para entrar en funciones en 2012. A esto se añade la capacidad de disuasión nuclear, estimada por los expertos en unas 160 ojivas, que se han desplegado en lanzadores móviles y submarinos. Se presume que el próximo paso será el uso de misiles de ojivas múltiples. Además, la flota china de 60 submarinos, la más grande de Asia, está siendo reequipada con embarcaciones supersilenciosas y equipadas con misiles balísticos de segunda generación.
"La definición de las capacidades de Pekín está cada vez más clara y cada vez más enfocada en limitar la capacidad norteamericana de proyectar su poder militar en el Pacífico occidental", dijo Abraham M. Denmark, un ex director de la oficina de Gates especializado en China.
El rearme es especialmente preocupante para Taiwan, considerada "una provincia rebelde" por China, y cuyo gobierno autónomo sólo se sostiene gracias al compromiso norteamericano de que será defendido si es atacado por Pekín.
"Los chinos no deben hacer nada en el futuro. Solamente con anuncios ya han arruinado el planeamiento estratégico de la acción norteamericana dentro y alrededor del estrecho de Taiwan", afirmó Lin Chong-ping, un ex funcionario del Ministerio de Defensa taiwanés.
Los chinos justifican su rearme en los supuestos planes norteamericanos de contener el poder militar de Pekín con alianzas con países cercanos como Corea del Sur, Japón y Taiwan. "Algunos creen que Estados Unidos completará el círculo en torno de China de este modo. Tenemos que preocuparnos, es natural", dijo Xu Qinhua, experto de la Universidad Renmin, de China, y asesor del gobierno.
Una ley para cuidar a los mayores
PEKIN.- Ante los numerosos problemas surgidos del creciente envejecimiento de su población, el gobierno de China se plantea la posibilidad de obligar por ley a sus ciudadanos a que visiten a sus padres ancianos. La prensa oficial china informa que la medida intentaría paliar el abandono que sufre el 50% de los 167 millones de chinos de más de 60 años. El proyecto tiene dos objetivos: cubrir las carencias del seguro social (que cubre a pocas personas) y restaurar los valores tradicionales de veneración de las personas mayores. La reforma ofrece la posibilidad de llevar ante los tribunales los casos en que no se respete esta obligación.
'Useful' U.S., China meetings on North Korea
The Washington Post
BEIJING - The top two U.S. specialists on North Korea issues met Thursday with their Chinese counterparts for discussions on a new round of six-party talks, as the Obama administration intensifies its efforts to coordinate a relaunch of dialogue with Pyongyang.
Stephen Bosworth, the State Department's special representative for North Korea policy, and Sung Kim, the U.S. ambassador for six-party talks, met with senior Chinese officials for what a U.S. spokesman later called "useful consultations."
Officials did not say whether the American diplomats sought information from China about a meeting last month between Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo and North Korea's reclusive leader, Kim Jong Il.
"Serious negotiations must be at the heart of any strategy for dealing with North Korea," Bosworth said at the start of his week-long trip, which began in Seoul, continued in Beijing and will wrap up in Tokyo.
In China, Bosworth and Kim met with Zhang Zhijun, China's vice foreign minister, and Wu Dawei, its six-party talks representative,
Though all countries involved in the six-party talks - China, Japan, the United States, Russia and both Koreas - have recently expressed an appetite for dialogue, the aid-for-denuclearization process remains a fraught subject, with disagreements about preconditions.
The United States is seeking signs that North Korea is sincere about disarmament. South Korea wants a commitment that the North will cease its provocations. The North, meanwhile, said Wednesday that it is willing to meet "anyone, anytime and anywhere" - an unconditional offer that Seoul swiftly rejected as insincere.
China, North Korea's chief ally, has also advocated talks without preconditions. But Beijing has come under increased pressure from U.S. officials in the past month to influence Pyongyang to change its behavior.
In March 2010, North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship, killing 46, an international investigation has found. On Nov. 23, it shelled South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island, killing four and wounding 18.
The conciliatory posture that has followed those actions fits a long-standing pattern of brinkmanship by the North, analysts say.
[See photos of tense incidents between North and South Korea.]
How best to handle North Korea is likely to be a foremost topic of discussion later this month when Chinese President Hu Jintao meets with President Obama in Washington.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi for detailed discussions that included a focus on North Korea.
"No one wants to see additional tensions," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. "We all want to move in a different direction."
He added: "North Korea has to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions. We are prepared to respond to that. We are prepared to have dialogue that is based on a conviction that North Korea is willing to be constructive and to follow through."
BEIJING - The top two U.S. specialists on North Korea issues met Thursday with their Chinese counterparts for discussions on a new round of six-party talks, as the Obama administration intensifies its efforts to coordinate a relaunch of dialogue with Pyongyang.
Stephen Bosworth, the State Department's special representative for North Korea policy, and Sung Kim, the U.S. ambassador for six-party talks, met with senior Chinese officials for what a U.S. spokesman later called "useful consultations."
Officials did not say whether the American diplomats sought information from China about a meeting last month between Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo and North Korea's reclusive leader, Kim Jong Il.
"Serious negotiations must be at the heart of any strategy for dealing with North Korea," Bosworth said at the start of his week-long trip, which began in Seoul, continued in Beijing and will wrap up in Tokyo.
In China, Bosworth and Kim met with Zhang Zhijun, China's vice foreign minister, and Wu Dawei, its six-party talks representative,
Though all countries involved in the six-party talks - China, Japan, the United States, Russia and both Koreas - have recently expressed an appetite for dialogue, the aid-for-denuclearization process remains a fraught subject, with disagreements about preconditions.
The United States is seeking signs that North Korea is sincere about disarmament. South Korea wants a commitment that the North will cease its provocations. The North, meanwhile, said Wednesday that it is willing to meet "anyone, anytime and anywhere" - an unconditional offer that Seoul swiftly rejected as insincere.
China, North Korea's chief ally, has also advocated talks without preconditions. But Beijing has come under increased pressure from U.S. officials in the past month to influence Pyongyang to change its behavior.
In March 2010, North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship, killing 46, an international investigation has found. On Nov. 23, it shelled South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island, killing four and wounding 18.
The conciliatory posture that has followed those actions fits a long-standing pattern of brinkmanship by the North, analysts say.
[See photos of tense incidents between North and South Korea.]
How best to handle North Korea is likely to be a foremost topic of discussion later this month when Chinese President Hu Jintao meets with President Obama in Washington.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi for detailed discussions that included a focus on North Korea.
"No one wants to see additional tensions," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said. "We all want to move in a different direction."
He added: "North Korea has to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions. We are prepared to respond to that. We are prepared to have dialogue that is based on a conviction that North Korea is willing to be constructive and to follow through."
segunda-feira, 3 de janeiro de 2011
Usina nuclear iraniana será conectada à rede elétrica em fevereiro
O Estado de S. Paulo
TEERÃ - A usina nuclear de Bushehr, a primeira construída no Irã, será conectada à rede elétrica nacional no mês de fevereiro, confirmou o ministro interino de Assuntos Exteriores iraniano, Ali Akbar Salehi, nesta segunda-feira, 3.
Salehi, que é também diretor da Organização da Energia Atômica do Irã (OEAI), quis acabar com os rumores que há dias apontam um novo atraso na usina construída com ajuda russa na localidade meridional de Bushehr, no litoral do Golfo Pérsico.
"Como já dissemos em várias ocasiões, o projeto de Bushehr vai de vento em popa. Esperamos que as provas finais sejam concluídas no início de janeiro, uma vez que já alimentamos e selado o núcleo do reator", explicou.
Teerã começou a construir a usina nuclear na década de 1970 com ajuda alemã, mas o projeto foi interrompido pela Revolução Islâmica que em 1979 depôs o último Xá do Irã, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi. A construção da planta foi retomada há 10 anos com a colaboração da Rússia enquanto as obras foram concluídas no meio do ano de 2010 após diversos atrasos.
As autoridades nucleares iranianas anunciaram no dia 21 de agosto o início da alimentação de combustível da planta e que a usina estaria pronta para ser conectada à rede elétrica entre outubro e novembro de 2010. No entanto, em dezembro de 2010 Salehi explicou que o prazo para tal conexão à rede elétrica atrasou, com previsão para o início de 2011.
Alguns jornais especularam a possibilidade do atraso devido ao ataque do vírus Stuxnet que atingiu o país em setembro. Embora o regime iraniano admitisse que alguns sistemas foram afetados, Salehi voltou a reiterar nesta segunda-feira que a central não foi prejudicada. "São só rumores", ressaltou o responsável, citado pela televisão estatal.
Grande parte da comunidade internacional, liderada pelos EUA e Israel, acusa o regime iraniano de ocultar, sob seu programa civil, ambições bélicas com o objetivo de adquirir armas atômicas. Teerã nega.
TEERÃ - A usina nuclear de Bushehr, a primeira construída no Irã, será conectada à rede elétrica nacional no mês de fevereiro, confirmou o ministro interino de Assuntos Exteriores iraniano, Ali Akbar Salehi, nesta segunda-feira, 3.
Salehi, que é também diretor da Organização da Energia Atômica do Irã (OEAI), quis acabar com os rumores que há dias apontam um novo atraso na usina construída com ajuda russa na localidade meridional de Bushehr, no litoral do Golfo Pérsico.
"Como já dissemos em várias ocasiões, o projeto de Bushehr vai de vento em popa. Esperamos que as provas finais sejam concluídas no início de janeiro, uma vez que já alimentamos e selado o núcleo do reator", explicou.
Teerã começou a construir a usina nuclear na década de 1970 com ajuda alemã, mas o projeto foi interrompido pela Revolução Islâmica que em 1979 depôs o último Xá do Irã, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi. A construção da planta foi retomada há 10 anos com a colaboração da Rússia enquanto as obras foram concluídas no meio do ano de 2010 após diversos atrasos.
As autoridades nucleares iranianas anunciaram no dia 21 de agosto o início da alimentação de combustível da planta e que a usina estaria pronta para ser conectada à rede elétrica entre outubro e novembro de 2010. No entanto, em dezembro de 2010 Salehi explicou que o prazo para tal conexão à rede elétrica atrasou, com previsão para o início de 2011.
Alguns jornais especularam a possibilidade do atraso devido ao ataque do vírus Stuxnet que atingiu o país em setembro. Embora o regime iraniano admitisse que alguns sistemas foram afetados, Salehi voltou a reiterar nesta segunda-feira que a central não foi prejudicada. "São só rumores", ressaltou o responsável, citado pela televisão estatal.
Grande parte da comunidade internacional, liderada pelos EUA e Israel, acusa o regime iraniano de ocultar, sob seu programa civil, ambições bélicas com o objetivo de adquirir armas atômicas. Teerã nega.
Selon Nétanyahou, Israël était prêt à poursuivre le gel de la colonisation
Le Monde
Le premier ministre israélien, Benyamin Nétanyahou, a affirmé lundi 3 janvier que la renonciation par les Etats-Unis à leur exigence d'un gel de la colonisation des territoires palestiniens résultait de leur propre analyse et non d'un blocage israélien. "La vérité est que nous y étions prêts, mais contrairement à ce qui a été rapporté, Israël n'a pas refusé de prolonger le moratoire, a déclaré M. Nétanyahou, cité par les médias israéliens (voir les articles de Haaretz et Yediot Aharonot), devant une commission parlementaire. En fin de compte, les Etats-Unis ont décidé de ne pas emprunter cette voie, à juste titre à mon avis."
"J'ai dit à Obama que j'étais prêt à présenter cela au gouvernement et à le faire appliquer, mais j'ai reçu un appel téléphonique surprise des Américains me disant qu'ils ne réclamaient plus qu'Israël prolonge le gel", a-t-il assuré.
Les Etats-Unis ont reconnu le 7 décembre l'échec de leurs efforts pour convaincre Israël de décréter un nouveau moratoire sur la colonisation, exigé par les Palestiniens pour reprendre les négociations de paix. Le porte-parole du département d'Etat, Philip Crowley, avait expliqué que Washington était arrivé à la conclusion que le moratoire, demandé par le président Barack Obama jusque dans l'enceinte solennelle des Nations unies en septembre, "ne créait pas une base ferme pour travailler à notre but commun de parvenir à un accord-cadre" de paix israélo-palestinien.
NOUVELLE APPROCHE AMÉRICAINE
M. Nétanyahou avait accepté avec réticence un plan de la secrétaire d'Etat américaine Hillary Clinton prévoyant un moratoire de trois mois sur la colonisation. Mais il exigeait des garanties écrites sur les contreparties offertes par Washington et les deux parties ne sont pas parvenues à s'entendre sur la formulation.
Mme Clinton a ensuite annoncé une nouvelle approche consistant en un retour aux pourparlers indirects sous médiation américaine, sur les questions de fond d'un accord de paix. Mais cette proposition est restée lettre morte. Les Palestiniens, soutenus par la Ligue arabe, ont signifié le 15 décembre aux Etats-Unis qu'une reprise des négociations était exclue sans arrêt de la colonisation, et sommé Washington de présenter une "offre sérieuse".
Le premier ministre israélien, Benyamin Nétanyahou, a affirmé lundi 3 janvier que la renonciation par les Etats-Unis à leur exigence d'un gel de la colonisation des territoires palestiniens résultait de leur propre analyse et non d'un blocage israélien. "La vérité est que nous y étions prêts, mais contrairement à ce qui a été rapporté, Israël n'a pas refusé de prolonger le moratoire, a déclaré M. Nétanyahou, cité par les médias israéliens (voir les articles de Haaretz et Yediot Aharonot), devant une commission parlementaire. En fin de compte, les Etats-Unis ont décidé de ne pas emprunter cette voie, à juste titre à mon avis."
"J'ai dit à Obama que j'étais prêt à présenter cela au gouvernement et à le faire appliquer, mais j'ai reçu un appel téléphonique surprise des Américains me disant qu'ils ne réclamaient plus qu'Israël prolonge le gel", a-t-il assuré.
Les Etats-Unis ont reconnu le 7 décembre l'échec de leurs efforts pour convaincre Israël de décréter un nouveau moratoire sur la colonisation, exigé par les Palestiniens pour reprendre les négociations de paix. Le porte-parole du département d'Etat, Philip Crowley, avait expliqué que Washington était arrivé à la conclusion que le moratoire, demandé par le président Barack Obama jusque dans l'enceinte solennelle des Nations unies en septembre, "ne créait pas une base ferme pour travailler à notre but commun de parvenir à un accord-cadre" de paix israélo-palestinien.
NOUVELLE APPROCHE AMÉRICAINE
M. Nétanyahou avait accepté avec réticence un plan de la secrétaire d'Etat américaine Hillary Clinton prévoyant un moratoire de trois mois sur la colonisation. Mais il exigeait des garanties écrites sur les contreparties offertes par Washington et les deux parties ne sont pas parvenues à s'entendre sur la formulation.
Mme Clinton a ensuite annoncé une nouvelle approche consistant en un retour aux pourparlers indirects sous médiation américaine, sur les questions de fond d'un accord de paix. Mais cette proposition est restée lettre morte. Les Palestiniens, soutenus par la Ligue arabe, ont signifié le 15 décembre aux Etats-Unis qu'une reprise des négociations était exclue sans arrêt de la colonisation, et sommé Washington de présenter une "offre sérieuse".
Obama busca el fin de la guerra de Afganistán
El País
Si todo sale como el presidente Barack Obama pretende, 2011 será el año en que comience a cerrarse el único frente de guerra que Estados Unidos tiene abierto: la guerra de Afganistán, que acaba de cumplir nueve años y que en 2010 ha costado a los norteamericanos 105.000 millones de dólares (casi 80.000 millones euros).
Si todo sale como el presidente Barack Obama pretende, 2011 será el año en que comience a cerrarse el único frente de guerra que Estados Unidos tiene abierto: la guerra de Afganistán, que acaba de cumplir nueve años y que en 2010 ha costado a los norteamericanos 105.000 millones de dólares (casi 80.000 millones euros). En Afganistán hay destacados 97.000 militares estadounidenses, la cifra más elevada de la guerra más larga del Pentágono. Ese conflicto, además, registró en 2010 el mayor número de soldados aliados muertos: 709, de los que 498 fueron norteamericanos. Desde su inicio en diciembre de 2001, la guerra de Afganistán se ha cobrado ya las vidas de 1.445 militares estadounidenses. A pesar del elevado coste para Washington, en dinero y vidas, la compleja estrategia insurgente que siguen los talibanes y Al Qaeda y su fácil refugio en el país vecino de Pakistán convierten la victoria norteamericana en un objetivo cada vez más esquivo.
A mediados de diciembre, antes del receso navideño, Obama se rodeó de la plana mayor de su Gobierno para anunciar los resultados del informe elaborado por su Administración sobre el conflicto. Según el texto, el Ejército de EE UU ha logrado avances considerables, infligiendo grandes daños a los talibanes en sus bastiones de Helmand y Kandahar. A pesar de reconocer cierta fragilidad en la nueva supremacía norteamericana en el país asiático, Obama dijo: "Hemos acometido avances suficientes para lograr nuestros objetivos militares". Ese argumento le permitió reafirmarse en su compromiso electoral de iniciar el repliegue en julio de 2011, algo que desató el malestar entre los militares, incluido el general al mando de las tropas sobre el terreno, David Petraeus.
El principal problema de EE UU es que la guerra de Afganistán se libra, cada vez más, en Pakistán. En el noroeste de ese país se refugian numerosos rebeldes y miembros de Al Qaeda, aprovechando la falta absoluta de control en la frontera entre ambos países. Desde allí organizan los ataques que asolan Afganistán cada año después del invierno. Es una zona que vive tantos atentados como los bastiones de la insurgencia en Afganistán. El 26 de diciembre, por ejemplo, un atentado suicida mató a 46 personas en la localidad paquistaní de Bajaur, a 10 kilómetros de la frontera. La CIA, desde bases secretas, ayuda al Pentágono y somete la zona a numerosos bombardeos con aviones no tripulados, controlados de forma remota, una práctica autorizada con discreción por los gobernantes paquistaníes, pero profundamente impopular entre la ciudadanía.
Las operaciones de combate le cuestan a EE UU, según diversos análisis del Congreso, 100.000 millones de dólares por año, siete veces el producto interior bruto de Afganistán. El coste, hasta 2010, de esa guerra y la de Irak, combinadas, ha sido de 1,1 billones de dólares. Hasta el verano pasado, la guerra de Irak fue la más impopular de ambas. La misión de Afganistán, una respuesta directa a los atentados de 2001, se beneficiaba del dolor provocado por el ataque de Al Qaeda contra Washington y Nueva York, que causó 2.977 muertes. Sin embargo, una vez ordenado el repliegue de las tropas de combate en Irak, consumado el pasado agosto (en el país árabe permanecen 50.000 soldados con tareas, entre otras, de adiestramiento del Ejército iraquí), queda Afganistán como recordatorio de lo que el antecesor de Obama, George Bush, tildó de guerra contra el terrorismo. Según una encuesta de Opinion Research para CNN, publicada el miércoles pasado, seis de cada 10 norteamericanos se oponen a la guerra y un 53% de la población cree que las cosas le van mal al Ejército de EE UU en su guerra contra los talibanes.
Y eso, a pesar del refuerzo enviado por Obama a Afganistán. Al llegar al Despacho Oval, en 2009, el presidente decidió autorizar el envío de 30.000 soldados adicionales a aquel país, en un rearme similar al ordenado por Bush en el frente iraquí en 2007. De ese modo, Obama decidió sustituir el combate bélico tradicional por una amalgama coordinada de operaciones insurgentes para ganar una difícil guerra, donde el enemigo lo conforman células de Al Qaeda y guerrillas talibanes camufladas entre la población civil.
Si todo sale como el presidente Barack Obama pretende, 2011 será el año en que comience a cerrarse el único frente de guerra que Estados Unidos tiene abierto: la guerra de Afganistán, que acaba de cumplir nueve años y que en 2010 ha costado a los norteamericanos 105.000 millones de dólares (casi 80.000 millones euros).
Si todo sale como el presidente Barack Obama pretende, 2011 será el año en que comience a cerrarse el único frente de guerra que Estados Unidos tiene abierto: la guerra de Afganistán, que acaba de cumplir nueve años y que en 2010 ha costado a los norteamericanos 105.000 millones de dólares (casi 80.000 millones euros). En Afganistán hay destacados 97.000 militares estadounidenses, la cifra más elevada de la guerra más larga del Pentágono. Ese conflicto, además, registró en 2010 el mayor número de soldados aliados muertos: 709, de los que 498 fueron norteamericanos. Desde su inicio en diciembre de 2001, la guerra de Afganistán se ha cobrado ya las vidas de 1.445 militares estadounidenses. A pesar del elevado coste para Washington, en dinero y vidas, la compleja estrategia insurgente que siguen los talibanes y Al Qaeda y su fácil refugio en el país vecino de Pakistán convierten la victoria norteamericana en un objetivo cada vez más esquivo.
A mediados de diciembre, antes del receso navideño, Obama se rodeó de la plana mayor de su Gobierno para anunciar los resultados del informe elaborado por su Administración sobre el conflicto. Según el texto, el Ejército de EE UU ha logrado avances considerables, infligiendo grandes daños a los talibanes en sus bastiones de Helmand y Kandahar. A pesar de reconocer cierta fragilidad en la nueva supremacía norteamericana en el país asiático, Obama dijo: "Hemos acometido avances suficientes para lograr nuestros objetivos militares". Ese argumento le permitió reafirmarse en su compromiso electoral de iniciar el repliegue en julio de 2011, algo que desató el malestar entre los militares, incluido el general al mando de las tropas sobre el terreno, David Petraeus.
El principal problema de EE UU es que la guerra de Afganistán se libra, cada vez más, en Pakistán. En el noroeste de ese país se refugian numerosos rebeldes y miembros de Al Qaeda, aprovechando la falta absoluta de control en la frontera entre ambos países. Desde allí organizan los ataques que asolan Afganistán cada año después del invierno. Es una zona que vive tantos atentados como los bastiones de la insurgencia en Afganistán. El 26 de diciembre, por ejemplo, un atentado suicida mató a 46 personas en la localidad paquistaní de Bajaur, a 10 kilómetros de la frontera. La CIA, desde bases secretas, ayuda al Pentágono y somete la zona a numerosos bombardeos con aviones no tripulados, controlados de forma remota, una práctica autorizada con discreción por los gobernantes paquistaníes, pero profundamente impopular entre la ciudadanía.
Las operaciones de combate le cuestan a EE UU, según diversos análisis del Congreso, 100.000 millones de dólares por año, siete veces el producto interior bruto de Afganistán. El coste, hasta 2010, de esa guerra y la de Irak, combinadas, ha sido de 1,1 billones de dólares. Hasta el verano pasado, la guerra de Irak fue la más impopular de ambas. La misión de Afganistán, una respuesta directa a los atentados de 2001, se beneficiaba del dolor provocado por el ataque de Al Qaeda contra Washington y Nueva York, que causó 2.977 muertes. Sin embargo, una vez ordenado el repliegue de las tropas de combate en Irak, consumado el pasado agosto (en el país árabe permanecen 50.000 soldados con tareas, entre otras, de adiestramiento del Ejército iraquí), queda Afganistán como recordatorio de lo que el antecesor de Obama, George Bush, tildó de guerra contra el terrorismo. Según una encuesta de Opinion Research para CNN, publicada el miércoles pasado, seis de cada 10 norteamericanos se oponen a la guerra y un 53% de la población cree que las cosas le van mal al Ejército de EE UU en su guerra contra los talibanes.
Y eso, a pesar del refuerzo enviado por Obama a Afganistán. Al llegar al Despacho Oval, en 2009, el presidente decidió autorizar el envío de 30.000 soldados adicionales a aquel país, en un rearme similar al ordenado por Bush en el frente iraquí en 2007. De ese modo, Obama decidió sustituir el combate bélico tradicional por una amalgama coordinada de operaciones insurgentes para ganar una difícil guerra, donde el enemigo lo conforman células de Al Qaeda y guerrillas talibanes camufladas entre la población civil.
quinta-feira, 4 de novembro de 2010
'Trabalhamos sem parar pelo processo de paz no Oriente Médio', diz Hillary
O Estado de S. Paulo
AUCKLAND - A secretária de Estado dos EUA, Hillary Clinton, confirmou nesta quinta-feira, 4, seus planos de encontrar o primeiro-ministro de Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, quando o líder do Estado judeu visitar Washington na próxima semana, informou o jornal Haaretz.
"Eu pretendo encontrar o premiê Netanyahu quando ele estiver nos EUA na semana que vem", disse Hillary em uma conferência de imprensa com John Key, primeiro-ministro da Nova Zelândia. A secretária acrescentou que acredita que o processo de paz no Oriente Médio pode progredir apesar das dificuldades enfrentadas recentemente.
As conversas diretas entre israelenses e a Autoridade Nacional Palestina (ANP) foram retomadas no dia 2 de setembro, mas se estagnaram novamente pouco tempo depois, quando a moratória de 10 meses que Israel declarou sobre a construção de novos assentamentos na Cisjordânia expirou.
Netanyahu tem resistido às pressões dos EUA, dos países árabes e de organismos internacionais para que novas paralisações sejam decretadas. Os palestinos acusam o premiê de destruir as esperanças de paz ao permitir a construção de novas colônias no local reclamado pelos palestinos como o território do seu futuro Estado.
"Estamos trabalhando sem interrupções com nossos colegas israelenses e palestinos para avançar", disse a secretária, acrescentando que ela acredita que Netanyahu e o presidente da ANP, Mahmoud Abbas, estejam compromissados com a resolução do conflito. "Estou bastante envolvida para encontrar uma solução e acredito que estamos aptos a fazê-lo", concluiu.
AUCKLAND - A secretária de Estado dos EUA, Hillary Clinton, confirmou nesta quinta-feira, 4, seus planos de encontrar o primeiro-ministro de Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, quando o líder do Estado judeu visitar Washington na próxima semana, informou o jornal Haaretz.
"Eu pretendo encontrar o premiê Netanyahu quando ele estiver nos EUA na semana que vem", disse Hillary em uma conferência de imprensa com John Key, primeiro-ministro da Nova Zelândia. A secretária acrescentou que acredita que o processo de paz no Oriente Médio pode progredir apesar das dificuldades enfrentadas recentemente.
As conversas diretas entre israelenses e a Autoridade Nacional Palestina (ANP) foram retomadas no dia 2 de setembro, mas se estagnaram novamente pouco tempo depois, quando a moratória de 10 meses que Israel declarou sobre a construção de novos assentamentos na Cisjordânia expirou.
Netanyahu tem resistido às pressões dos EUA, dos países árabes e de organismos internacionais para que novas paralisações sejam decretadas. Os palestinos acusam o premiê de destruir as esperanças de paz ao permitir a construção de novas colônias no local reclamado pelos palestinos como o território do seu futuro Estado.
"Estamos trabalhando sem interrupções com nossos colegas israelenses e palestinos para avançar", disse a secretária, acrescentando que ela acredita que Netanyahu e o presidente da ANP, Mahmoud Abbas, estejam compromissados com a resolução do conflito. "Estou bastante envolvida para encontrar uma solução e acredito que estamos aptos a fazê-lo", concluiu.
Window of opportunity for two-state solution closing, Hague warns Israel
The Guardian
William Hague warned today that the window of opportunity for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was closing and failure by the two parties to reach agreement would be a "serious setback".
Speaking at the end of a two-day visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, after visiting Jerusalem's Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, the foreign secretary urged Israel to renew its freeze on settlement construction to allow direct talks between the two parties to resume.
"There are many important issues, but this is one that has the potential to get direct talks going," he said. The British government wanted Israel to renew the moratorium on building, and he had "made his views clear" to Israeli politicians and officials during his visit, he said.
Hague met the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, as well as the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, during his visit.
"I am very worried that the window of opportunity is closing. There is real urgency to that," he said. The current talks were the third attempt in a decade to reach a comprehensive settlement and a two-state solution.
"If they don't succeed there will be a loss of hope. We must never give up trying, but [to fail] would be a serious setback," Hague said.
Direct negotiations began in early September but stalled shortly afterwards when the 10-month partial freeze on construction in settlements expired. The Palestinians insist they cannot negotiate on the boundaries of a future state while Israel continues to build and expand settlements on Palestinian land. All settlements are illegal under international law.
Commenting on the swift collapse of the talks, Hague said it had been right to try to get momentum going. "The early session of the talks were held in an atmosphere of great sincerity," he said. "The UK wants to see a fresh moratorium because the prize here is enormous, of long-term peace. The price being asked to get back into those talks ... is well worth paying."
He indicated that the UK would prefer a substantial extension to the freeze rather than the 60 days demanded by the US. "We don't want to come back to this issue every few months," he said, but he added that the UK was "not managing that process".
Alternatives to a negotiated settlement of the conflict were "difficult", he said. Asked whether the UK would back a tentative plan by the Palestinians to ask the UN security council to recognise a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 borders, he said: "It can be a false hope to think there is a good plan B or plan C. I would discourage this at this moment."
Hague's first visit as foreign secretary to Israel and the Palestinian territories was in danger of being marred by a row over attempts to obtain warrants in the UK for the arrest of Israeli politicians for alleged war crimes.
A statement issued after Hague's meeting with Netanyahu this morning said Israel welcomed the "clear commitment" by the UK to amend the law on universal jurisdiction under which such warrants were issued.
It added that the next "strategic dialogue" meeting between the two countries, which Israel had postponed in protest, would "take place very soon, in Israel".
Hague described the episode as "a little frustrating", but the difficulties had now been overcome. It had been, he said, "a mistake" on behalf of the Israeli foreign ministry rather than intentional.
Hague also courted controversy by meeting leaders of unarmed protests against the Israeli occupation in West Bank towns and villages in Ramallah on Wednesday. According to the Popular Struggle Co-ordination Committee, the foreign secretary gave "an unequivocal show of support in the face of ongoing Israeli repression".
Today, Hague said there was no contradiction between being a friend of Israel and a friend of the Palestinians.
William Hague warned today that the window of opportunity for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was closing and failure by the two parties to reach agreement would be a "serious setback".
Speaking at the end of a two-day visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, after visiting Jerusalem's Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, the foreign secretary urged Israel to renew its freeze on settlement construction to allow direct talks between the two parties to resume.
"There are many important issues, but this is one that has the potential to get direct talks going," he said. The British government wanted Israel to renew the moratorium on building, and he had "made his views clear" to Israeli politicians and officials during his visit, he said.
Hague met the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, as well as the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, during his visit.
"I am very worried that the window of opportunity is closing. There is real urgency to that," he said. The current talks were the third attempt in a decade to reach a comprehensive settlement and a two-state solution.
"If they don't succeed there will be a loss of hope. We must never give up trying, but [to fail] would be a serious setback," Hague said.
Direct negotiations began in early September but stalled shortly afterwards when the 10-month partial freeze on construction in settlements expired. The Palestinians insist they cannot negotiate on the boundaries of a future state while Israel continues to build and expand settlements on Palestinian land. All settlements are illegal under international law.
Commenting on the swift collapse of the talks, Hague said it had been right to try to get momentum going. "The early session of the talks were held in an atmosphere of great sincerity," he said. "The UK wants to see a fresh moratorium because the prize here is enormous, of long-term peace. The price being asked to get back into those talks ... is well worth paying."
He indicated that the UK would prefer a substantial extension to the freeze rather than the 60 days demanded by the US. "We don't want to come back to this issue every few months," he said, but he added that the UK was "not managing that process".
Alternatives to a negotiated settlement of the conflict were "difficult", he said. Asked whether the UK would back a tentative plan by the Palestinians to ask the UN security council to recognise a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 borders, he said: "It can be a false hope to think there is a good plan B or plan C. I would discourage this at this moment."
Hague's first visit as foreign secretary to Israel and the Palestinian territories was in danger of being marred by a row over attempts to obtain warrants in the UK for the arrest of Israeli politicians for alleged war crimes.
A statement issued after Hague's meeting with Netanyahu this morning said Israel welcomed the "clear commitment" by the UK to amend the law on universal jurisdiction under which such warrants were issued.
It added that the next "strategic dialogue" meeting between the two countries, which Israel had postponed in protest, would "take place very soon, in Israel".
Hague described the episode as "a little frustrating", but the difficulties had now been overcome. It had been, he said, "a mistake" on behalf of the Israeli foreign ministry rather than intentional.
Hague also courted controversy by meeting leaders of unarmed protests against the Israeli occupation in West Bank towns and villages in Ramallah on Wednesday. According to the Popular Struggle Co-ordination Committee, the foreign secretary gave "an unequivocal show of support in the face of ongoing Israeli repression".
Today, Hague said there was no contradiction between being a friend of Israel and a friend of the Palestinians.
quarta-feira, 3 de novembro de 2010
Ante la amenaza de paquetes bomba, Grecia suspende el correo aéreo al exterior
Clarín
Grecia suspendió hoy por 48 horas todos los envíos de correo por vía aérea al exterior tras una ola de ataques con paquetes bomba dirigidos a varias embajadas europeas en Atenas y a líderes políticos europeos.
La policía griega sospecha que se enviaron más paquetes al extranjero y trabaja con las fuerzas de seguridad de otros países para localizarlos. Según expertos citados por medios locales, los paquetes tenían un mecanismo casero y muy sencillo de fabricar.
Las alarmas volvieron a saltar hoy en Atenas por la presencia de paquetes sospechosos en una nueva embajada, esta vez la argentina. Pero la policía examinó el paquete y no encontró explosivos.
Las fuerzas de seguridad griegas sospechan que los proyectados atentados fueron obra de grupos clandestinos de extrema izquierda. El lunes y el martes se detectaron varios paquetes explosivos dirigidos a embajadas extranjeras en la capital griega, algunos de los cuales llegaron a explotar, aunque sin dejar heridos.
También se encontró un envío explosivo que llegó a la oficina de la canciller alemana, Angela Merkel. Otro dirigido al primer ministro italiano, Silvio Berlusconi, fue detectado en un vuelo procedente de Atenas. El paquete se incendió cuando fue examinado por la policía.
La policía griega había detenido el lunes a dos sospechosos por cargar dos paquetes bomba, uno de ellos destinado al presidente de Francia, Nicolas Sarkozy.
El primer ministro griego, Giorgos Papandreu, mostró hoy su rechazo a los incidentes. "Los condenamos en los términos más estrictos y rechazamos de forma implacable a quienes intentan con acciones terroristas y violencia dañar la paz social y la imagen del país en el extranjero", señaló.
Grecia suspendió hoy por 48 horas todos los envíos de correo por vía aérea al exterior tras una ola de ataques con paquetes bomba dirigidos a varias embajadas europeas en Atenas y a líderes políticos europeos.
La policía griega sospecha que se enviaron más paquetes al extranjero y trabaja con las fuerzas de seguridad de otros países para localizarlos. Según expertos citados por medios locales, los paquetes tenían un mecanismo casero y muy sencillo de fabricar.
Las alarmas volvieron a saltar hoy en Atenas por la presencia de paquetes sospechosos en una nueva embajada, esta vez la argentina. Pero la policía examinó el paquete y no encontró explosivos.
Las fuerzas de seguridad griegas sospechan que los proyectados atentados fueron obra de grupos clandestinos de extrema izquierda. El lunes y el martes se detectaron varios paquetes explosivos dirigidos a embajadas extranjeras en la capital griega, algunos de los cuales llegaron a explotar, aunque sin dejar heridos.
También se encontró un envío explosivo que llegó a la oficina de la canciller alemana, Angela Merkel. Otro dirigido al primer ministro italiano, Silvio Berlusconi, fue detectado en un vuelo procedente de Atenas. El paquete se incendió cuando fue examinado por la policía.
La policía griega había detenido el lunes a dos sospechosos por cargar dos paquetes bomba, uno de ellos destinado al presidente de Francia, Nicolas Sarkozy.
El primer ministro griego, Giorgos Papandreu, mostró hoy su rechazo a los incidentes. "Los condenamos en los términos más estrictos y rechazamos de forma implacable a quienes intentan con acciones terroristas y violencia dañar la paz social y la imagen del país en el extranjero", señaló.
British Military Expands Links to French Allies
The New York Times
LONDON — Britain and France signed defense agreements on Tuesday that promised cooperation far beyond anything achieved previously in 60 years of NATO cooperation, including the creation of a joint expeditionary force, shared use of aircraft carriers and combined efforts to improve the safety and effectiveness of their nuclear weapons.
The agreements signed in London by Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France were a landmark of another kind for two nations that spent centuries confronting each other on the battlefields of Europe. While neither leader mentioned Agincourt, Trafalgar or Waterloo, or French victories that included the Norman Conquest in 1066, both stirred a brief whiff of the troubled history of Anglo-French relations into the mood of general bonhomie.
The agreements envisaged a new combined force available for deployment at times of international crisis that is expected to involve about 5,000 service members from each nation, with land, sea and air components, and rotating French and British commanders. The pacts also foresee each nation alternating in putting a single aircraft carrier to sea, with the vessels operating as bases for French, British and American aircraft in times of need.
The nuclear agreement was in some ways the most surprising, since it committed the two nations to sharing some of their most carefully kept secrets. Although the two leaders emphasized that France’s “force de frappe” and Britain’s similar, submarine-based ballistic missile force would remain separate and under the sole control of each government, they agreed to establish joint research centers, one in France and one in Britain, to further research on their stockpiles of nuclear warheads.
The cooperation pact was set to last 50 years and could transform the way the countries project force, fight wars and compete for defense contracts with the United States. One goal appeared to be to give the two militaries greater buying power to support the struggling European defense industry.
Mr. Cameron, who has navigated deep hostilities to European integration and deep skepticism toward France in his Conservative Party, emphasized the budgetary benefits, saying the agreements would contribute savings of “millions of pounds” to Britain’s plan to make deep cuts in its $60 billion defense budget.
Previous efforts at military cooperation between the countries have more often faltered than succeeded. In the late 1990s, Tony Blair, then Britain’s prime minister, and Jacques Chirac, then France’s president, promised deeper defense cooperation, but the understanding was undone by differences over the Iraq war. In both countries, there are significant political forces arrayed against anything that smacks of too close a military partnership with the age-old foe.
But after the Cameron government took office in May and began pushing for deep defense savings, it discovered a willing partner in Mr. Sarkozy. Britain and France have the biggest defense budgets in Europe, together accounting for more than half of all military spending in the 27-nation European Union. Both governments took care to say that their new cooperation was not intended to isolate Germany.
The nuclear agreement, carrying faint echoes of Britain’s shared role with the United States in the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb, will have the two governments setting up two joint research centers, one in France and the other in Britain.
The two countries also agreed on a shared program on spare parts, maintenance and training for the crews of the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft, a costly, overbudget project intended to challenge American domination of the market for heavy-lift transports. They promised to work together on a new generation of remotely piloted surveillance aircraft.
Also on the list are shared projects to develop technologies for future nuclear submarines and military satellites, as well as countermeasures for mines and other antisubmarine weapons.
The high notes struck by the leaders at their news conference were striking.
“Today we open a new chapter in a long history of cooperation on defense and security between Britain and France,” Mr. Cameron said. Mr. Sarkozy said the agreements showed “a level of trust and confidence between our two nations which is unequalled in history.”
For all that, the shadows of Nelson and Napoleon, of Henry V and Joan of Arc, seemed to hang over the occasion, with both leaders feeling the need to gesture, at least obliquely, to the less generous attitudes that are common among some of their compatriots.
“I would like to say, contrary to what might otherwise seem to be the case, that the clocks in France and Britain strike the same hours, precisely,” Mr. Sarkozy said.
Mr. Cameron said: “It is about defending our national interest. It is about practical, hard-headed cooperation between two sovereign countries.”
One concern about the new agreements that has attracted criticism among British defense experts centers on the shared use of aircraft carriers.
With both countries planning to have only one “flattop” in their fleets, having them configured for each others’ aircraft has been described by the two governments as extending their ability to deploy air power, as well saving large sums. Last month, Britain decided to have its future carrier, due for deployment in 2020, redesigned with the catapult mechanism and arresting gear necessary to accommodate French and American aircraft.
But British critics have said military operations that require carrier-borne aircraft could be compromised if Britain has to rely on France’s allowing its carrier to be used. The example often cited is the 1982 Falklands war, when France opposed Britain’s reconquest of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic, and Argentina used French-made missiles to sink British ships.
Mr. Sarkozy described the criticism as outdated. “Can you imagine France sitting in our armed chairs and saying, ‘It is none of our business’ ?” he said.
Likewise, Mr. Cameron rejected suggestions that Britain would undermine its close military relationship with Washington. Mr. Cameron said the Obama administration would welcome the new plans. “They’d like us to have the biggest bang for our buck that we possibly can,” he said.
In France, Marine Le Pen, the vice president of the National Front, a far-right party, called Mr. Sarkozy the “gravedigger of General de Gaulle’s policy of independence.” She went on: “It is clear that the objective of this accord is to shift our defense to Anglo-Saxon control, and obviously everyone will understand that behind Great Britain there is, of course, the American big brother.”
In London, Mr. Cameron was chided by right-wing tabloids for trusting the French with Britain’s security, but his plans received a generally warm reception in Parliament. James Arbuthnot, a former Conservative minister who is the chairman of the House of Commons defense committee, told Mr. Cameron on Monday that he had “forgiven the French for taking off the head of my great-great-great-great grandfather at Trafalgar,” a reference to a captain who died in the great naval battle in 1805. Mr. Cameron said that was just as well, since Mr. Arbuthnot was invited to lunch with Mr. Sarkozy on Tuesday. “It might have been a little bit frosty,” he said.
LONDON — Britain and France signed defense agreements on Tuesday that promised cooperation far beyond anything achieved previously in 60 years of NATO cooperation, including the creation of a joint expeditionary force, shared use of aircraft carriers and combined efforts to improve the safety and effectiveness of their nuclear weapons.
The agreements signed in London by Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France were a landmark of another kind for two nations that spent centuries confronting each other on the battlefields of Europe. While neither leader mentioned Agincourt, Trafalgar or Waterloo, or French victories that included the Norman Conquest in 1066, both stirred a brief whiff of the troubled history of Anglo-French relations into the mood of general bonhomie.
The agreements envisaged a new combined force available for deployment at times of international crisis that is expected to involve about 5,000 service members from each nation, with land, sea and air components, and rotating French and British commanders. The pacts also foresee each nation alternating in putting a single aircraft carrier to sea, with the vessels operating as bases for French, British and American aircraft in times of need.
The nuclear agreement was in some ways the most surprising, since it committed the two nations to sharing some of their most carefully kept secrets. Although the two leaders emphasized that France’s “force de frappe” and Britain’s similar, submarine-based ballistic missile force would remain separate and under the sole control of each government, they agreed to establish joint research centers, one in France and one in Britain, to further research on their stockpiles of nuclear warheads.
The cooperation pact was set to last 50 years and could transform the way the countries project force, fight wars and compete for defense contracts with the United States. One goal appeared to be to give the two militaries greater buying power to support the struggling European defense industry.
Mr. Cameron, who has navigated deep hostilities to European integration and deep skepticism toward France in his Conservative Party, emphasized the budgetary benefits, saying the agreements would contribute savings of “millions of pounds” to Britain’s plan to make deep cuts in its $60 billion defense budget.
Previous efforts at military cooperation between the countries have more often faltered than succeeded. In the late 1990s, Tony Blair, then Britain’s prime minister, and Jacques Chirac, then France’s president, promised deeper defense cooperation, but the understanding was undone by differences over the Iraq war. In both countries, there are significant political forces arrayed against anything that smacks of too close a military partnership with the age-old foe.
But after the Cameron government took office in May and began pushing for deep defense savings, it discovered a willing partner in Mr. Sarkozy. Britain and France have the biggest defense budgets in Europe, together accounting for more than half of all military spending in the 27-nation European Union. Both governments took care to say that their new cooperation was not intended to isolate Germany.
The nuclear agreement, carrying faint echoes of Britain’s shared role with the United States in the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb, will have the two governments setting up two joint research centers, one in France and the other in Britain.
The two countries also agreed on a shared program on spare parts, maintenance and training for the crews of the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft, a costly, overbudget project intended to challenge American domination of the market for heavy-lift transports. They promised to work together on a new generation of remotely piloted surveillance aircraft.
Also on the list are shared projects to develop technologies for future nuclear submarines and military satellites, as well as countermeasures for mines and other antisubmarine weapons.
The high notes struck by the leaders at their news conference were striking.
“Today we open a new chapter in a long history of cooperation on defense and security between Britain and France,” Mr. Cameron said. Mr. Sarkozy said the agreements showed “a level of trust and confidence between our two nations which is unequalled in history.”
For all that, the shadows of Nelson and Napoleon, of Henry V and Joan of Arc, seemed to hang over the occasion, with both leaders feeling the need to gesture, at least obliquely, to the less generous attitudes that are common among some of their compatriots.
“I would like to say, contrary to what might otherwise seem to be the case, that the clocks in France and Britain strike the same hours, precisely,” Mr. Sarkozy said.
Mr. Cameron said: “It is about defending our national interest. It is about practical, hard-headed cooperation between two sovereign countries.”
One concern about the new agreements that has attracted criticism among British defense experts centers on the shared use of aircraft carriers.
With both countries planning to have only one “flattop” in their fleets, having them configured for each others’ aircraft has been described by the two governments as extending their ability to deploy air power, as well saving large sums. Last month, Britain decided to have its future carrier, due for deployment in 2020, redesigned with the catapult mechanism and arresting gear necessary to accommodate French and American aircraft.
But British critics have said military operations that require carrier-borne aircraft could be compromised if Britain has to rely on France’s allowing its carrier to be used. The example often cited is the 1982 Falklands war, when France opposed Britain’s reconquest of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic, and Argentina used French-made missiles to sink British ships.
Mr. Sarkozy described the criticism as outdated. “Can you imagine France sitting in our armed chairs and saying, ‘It is none of our business’ ?” he said.
Likewise, Mr. Cameron rejected suggestions that Britain would undermine its close military relationship with Washington. Mr. Cameron said the Obama administration would welcome the new plans. “They’d like us to have the biggest bang for our buck that we possibly can,” he said.
In France, Marine Le Pen, the vice president of the National Front, a far-right party, called Mr. Sarkozy the “gravedigger of General de Gaulle’s policy of independence.” She went on: “It is clear that the objective of this accord is to shift our defense to Anglo-Saxon control, and obviously everyone will understand that behind Great Britain there is, of course, the American big brother.”
In London, Mr. Cameron was chided by right-wing tabloids for trusting the French with Britain’s security, but his plans received a generally warm reception in Parliament. James Arbuthnot, a former Conservative minister who is the chairman of the House of Commons defense committee, told Mr. Cameron on Monday that he had “forgiven the French for taking off the head of my great-great-great-great grandfather at Trafalgar,” a reference to a captain who died in the great naval battle in 1805. Mr. Cameron said that was just as well, since Mr. Arbuthnot was invited to lunch with Mr. Sarkozy on Tuesday. “It might have been a little bit frosty,” he said.
segunda-feira, 1 de novembro de 2010
França e Reino Unido anunciam cooperação inédita em defesa
Folha de São Paulo
França e Reino Unido devem assinar nesta terça-feira acordos de cooperação em matéria de Defesa de uma abrangência sem precedentes, que preveem a criação de uma força militar conjunta e o uso compartilhado de porta-aviões e laboratórios nucleares.
O primeiro-ministro britânico, David Cameron, e o presidente francês, Nicolas Sarkozy, firmarão dois tratados durante uma reunião em Londres, anunciou a Presidência francesa.
O acordo permitirá a simulação do funcionamento do arsenal nuclear dos dois países, a partir de 2014, em uma instalação conjunta na região da Borgonha.
O novo centro de simulação será construído em uma instalação já existente da Comissão de Energia Atômica (CEA), em Valduc (Côte-d'Or), 45 km a noroeste de Dijon, no centro da França. O centro começará a funcionar em 2014, mas com obras previstas até 2022, informou a Presidência francesa.
A unidade permitirá que cientistas franceses e britânicos "projetem os resultados das ogivas e materiais nucleares" a disposição dos dois Exércitos com o objetivo de garantir "a viabilidade, a segurança e a proteção a longo prazo de nossos arsenais nucleares".
O novo laboratório de Valduc será complementado com um centro de pesquisas franco-britânico na localidade de Aldermaston, no Reino Unido.
COOPERAÇÃO
Esta "cooperação sem precedentes" se fará "respeitando totalmente a independência das forças de cada país", destacou Paris.
França e Reino Unido poderão seguir como atores militares de dimensão internacional, mas adaptados a uma era de rigor orçamentário. Londres e Paris "conservarão o direito de deslocar suas forças armadas de forma independente", destacou um responsável britânico, que pediu para não ser identificado.
Os tratados incluirão a criação de "uma força expedicionária conjunta", com entre 3.500 e 5.000 homens, que deverá iniciar seu treinamento no próximo ano. Esta nova força não será permanente e ficará encarregada de operações específicas, sob comando único.
"Anunciaremos o que chamamos de força expedicionária conjunta, e não uma força militar permanente. É uma conjunção de forças armadas dos dois países que treinam e atuam juntas", disse o funcionário britânico.
Os dois países compartilharão ainda seus porta-aviões, a partir de 2020. A manutenção do novo avião de transporte A400M também será dividida.
Ao comunicar nesta segunda-feira os acordos aos deputados, David Cameron tratou de tranquilizar os "eurocéticos" de seu partido conservador, que temem um abandono de prerrogativas em benefício da União Europeia (UE). O premiê garantiu que o acordo com a França é fruto dos mesmos princípios adotados nas discussões sobre o orçamento e as reformas institucionais da UE.
"O princípio é o mesmo. Associação sim, mas sem perder a soberania".
No domingo, o ministro da Defesa, Liam Fox, justificou a aproximação com a necessidade de se fazer uma "economia importante" em época de austeridade orçamentária, mas garantiu que trata-se de algo puramente bilateral, descartando o início de um "exército europeu que não queremos".
França e Reino Unido devem assinar nesta terça-feira acordos de cooperação em matéria de Defesa de uma abrangência sem precedentes, que preveem a criação de uma força militar conjunta e o uso compartilhado de porta-aviões e laboratórios nucleares.
O primeiro-ministro britânico, David Cameron, e o presidente francês, Nicolas Sarkozy, firmarão dois tratados durante uma reunião em Londres, anunciou a Presidência francesa.
O acordo permitirá a simulação do funcionamento do arsenal nuclear dos dois países, a partir de 2014, em uma instalação conjunta na região da Borgonha.
O novo centro de simulação será construído em uma instalação já existente da Comissão de Energia Atômica (CEA), em Valduc (Côte-d'Or), 45 km a noroeste de Dijon, no centro da França. O centro começará a funcionar em 2014, mas com obras previstas até 2022, informou a Presidência francesa.
A unidade permitirá que cientistas franceses e britânicos "projetem os resultados das ogivas e materiais nucleares" a disposição dos dois Exércitos com o objetivo de garantir "a viabilidade, a segurança e a proteção a longo prazo de nossos arsenais nucleares".
O novo laboratório de Valduc será complementado com um centro de pesquisas franco-britânico na localidade de Aldermaston, no Reino Unido.
COOPERAÇÃO
Esta "cooperação sem precedentes" se fará "respeitando totalmente a independência das forças de cada país", destacou Paris.
França e Reino Unido poderão seguir como atores militares de dimensão internacional, mas adaptados a uma era de rigor orçamentário. Londres e Paris "conservarão o direito de deslocar suas forças armadas de forma independente", destacou um responsável britânico, que pediu para não ser identificado.
Os tratados incluirão a criação de "uma força expedicionária conjunta", com entre 3.500 e 5.000 homens, que deverá iniciar seu treinamento no próximo ano. Esta nova força não será permanente e ficará encarregada de operações específicas, sob comando único.
"Anunciaremos o que chamamos de força expedicionária conjunta, e não uma força militar permanente. É uma conjunção de forças armadas dos dois países que treinam e atuam juntas", disse o funcionário britânico.
Os dois países compartilharão ainda seus porta-aviões, a partir de 2020. A manutenção do novo avião de transporte A400M também será dividida.
Ao comunicar nesta segunda-feira os acordos aos deputados, David Cameron tratou de tranquilizar os "eurocéticos" de seu partido conservador, que temem um abandono de prerrogativas em benefício da União Europeia (UE). O premiê garantiu que o acordo com a França é fruto dos mesmos princípios adotados nas discussões sobre o orçamento e as reformas institucionais da UE.
"O princípio é o mesmo. Associação sim, mas sem perder a soberania".
No domingo, o ministro da Defesa, Liam Fox, justificou a aproximação com a necessidade de se fazer uma "economia importante" em época de austeridade orçamentária, mas garantiu que trata-se de algo puramente bilateral, descartando o início de um "exército europeu que não queremos".
La visite de Medvedev dans les îles Kouriles provoque la colère du Japon
Le Monde
La visite du président Dmitri Medvedev aux îles Kouriles, dont le Japon revendique une partie, jette un froid sur les relations diplomatiques entre les deux pays. Le chef de la diplomatie russe, Sergueï Lavrov, a jugé "inacceptable" le mécontentement du Japon après la visite lundi du président russe dans les îles, et annoncé que l'ambassadeur japonais à Moscou allait être convoqué. Le Japon a estimé de son côté que l'initiative de M. Medvedev "heurtait les sentiments de la population japonaise".
Moscou et Tokyo se disputent depuis plusieurs dizaines d'années quatre îles de l'archipel des Kouriles (Habomai, Shikotan, Etorofu et Kunashiri dans leur dénomination japonaise). Ces îles avaient été annexées par les Soviétiques le 18 août 1945, trois jours après l'annonce de la capitulation du Japon. Depuis, aucun président russe ne s'était rendu en visite officielle sur ces îles. En septembre, le président russe Dmitri Medvedev avait annoncé son intention de visiter ce territoire, malgré l'opposition virulente et manifeste de Tokyo.
"UN DIRIGEANT FORT"
"En allant là-bas, Medvedev a montré qu'il était un dirigeant fort et que la Russie n'est pas un pays dont le dirigeant se fait dicter par l'étranger où il peut et où il ne peut pas aller", a déclaré à l'AFP Valéri Kistanov, chef du centre d'études japonaises à l'Académie des sciences de Russie. Selon lui, la virulente réaction de Tokyo est essentiellement liée à la volonté du parti au pouvoir de redorer son image sur la scène politique japonaise. Le Parti démocrate du Japon, récemment arrivé au pouvoir, "est en effet souvent critiqué pour son manque d'expérience en politique étrangère et en diplomatie", indique-t-il.
Ce déplacement controversé intervient alors que le président russe est attendu au Japon pour le sommet de la Coopération économique Asie-Pacifique (APEC) le 12 novembre. Mais selon les analystes, ce refroidissement politique a peu de risque d'influer sur les relations économiques entre les deux pays. En effet, même si le Japon est le deuxième partenaire commercial de la Russie en Asie après la Chine, avec des échanges de 30 milliards de dollars en 2008, contre 4 milliards en 2005, Tokyo est bien plus dépendant de la Russie et de ses ressources naturelles que l'inverse.
LA RUSSIE TOURNÉE VERS LA CHINE
"La Russie est le plus grand fournisseur de ressources naturelles en Asie", indique Roland Nash, analyste de la banque d'investissement Renaissance Capital. "L'importance de la relation est sûrement beaucoup plus grande pour le Japon que pour la Russie", estime l'analyste. Selon lui, si la Russie développe ses échanges avec le Japon, la Chine reste néanmoins son objectif premier sur le marché asiatique, où elle entend globalement renforcer sa présence.
Ce différend empêche depuis 65 ans la signature d'un traité de paix entre les deux pays. Lors de la présidence de Boris Eltsine, Moscou avait songé à restituer ces territoires au Japon, mais l'opposition des nationalistes et des communistes avait anéanti ce projet. L'ex-président russe et actuel premier ministre Vladimir Poutine avait proposé en 2004 de restituer sous condition deux des quatre îles, mais Tokyo a jugé la proposition inacceptable. Après l'arrivée au Kremlin de Dmitri Medvedev, les Japonais ont exprimé leur espoir de voir un compromis émerger, mais aucune avancée n'est intervenue.
La visite du président Dmitri Medvedev aux îles Kouriles, dont le Japon revendique une partie, jette un froid sur les relations diplomatiques entre les deux pays. Le chef de la diplomatie russe, Sergueï Lavrov, a jugé "inacceptable" le mécontentement du Japon après la visite lundi du président russe dans les îles, et annoncé que l'ambassadeur japonais à Moscou allait être convoqué. Le Japon a estimé de son côté que l'initiative de M. Medvedev "heurtait les sentiments de la population japonaise".
Moscou et Tokyo se disputent depuis plusieurs dizaines d'années quatre îles de l'archipel des Kouriles (Habomai, Shikotan, Etorofu et Kunashiri dans leur dénomination japonaise). Ces îles avaient été annexées par les Soviétiques le 18 août 1945, trois jours après l'annonce de la capitulation du Japon. Depuis, aucun président russe ne s'était rendu en visite officielle sur ces îles. En septembre, le président russe Dmitri Medvedev avait annoncé son intention de visiter ce territoire, malgré l'opposition virulente et manifeste de Tokyo.
"UN DIRIGEANT FORT"
"En allant là-bas, Medvedev a montré qu'il était un dirigeant fort et que la Russie n'est pas un pays dont le dirigeant se fait dicter par l'étranger où il peut et où il ne peut pas aller", a déclaré à l'AFP Valéri Kistanov, chef du centre d'études japonaises à l'Académie des sciences de Russie. Selon lui, la virulente réaction de Tokyo est essentiellement liée à la volonté du parti au pouvoir de redorer son image sur la scène politique japonaise. Le Parti démocrate du Japon, récemment arrivé au pouvoir, "est en effet souvent critiqué pour son manque d'expérience en politique étrangère et en diplomatie", indique-t-il.
Ce déplacement controversé intervient alors que le président russe est attendu au Japon pour le sommet de la Coopération économique Asie-Pacifique (APEC) le 12 novembre. Mais selon les analystes, ce refroidissement politique a peu de risque d'influer sur les relations économiques entre les deux pays. En effet, même si le Japon est le deuxième partenaire commercial de la Russie en Asie après la Chine, avec des échanges de 30 milliards de dollars en 2008, contre 4 milliards en 2005, Tokyo est bien plus dépendant de la Russie et de ses ressources naturelles que l'inverse.
LA RUSSIE TOURNÉE VERS LA CHINE
"La Russie est le plus grand fournisseur de ressources naturelles en Asie", indique Roland Nash, analyste de la banque d'investissement Renaissance Capital. "L'importance de la relation est sûrement beaucoup plus grande pour le Japon que pour la Russie", estime l'analyste. Selon lui, si la Russie développe ses échanges avec le Japon, la Chine reste néanmoins son objectif premier sur le marché asiatique, où elle entend globalement renforcer sa présence.
Ce différend empêche depuis 65 ans la signature d'un traité de paix entre les deux pays. Lors de la présidence de Boris Eltsine, Moscou avait songé à restituer ces territoires au Japon, mais l'opposition des nationalistes et des communistes avait anéanti ce projet. L'ex-président russe et actuel premier ministre Vladimir Poutine avait proposé en 2004 de restituer sous condition deux des quatre îles, mais Tokyo a jugé la proposition inacceptable. Après l'arrivée au Kremlin de Dmitri Medvedev, les Japonais ont exprimé leur espoir de voir un compromis émerger, mais aucune avancée n'est intervenue.
sexta-feira, 29 de outubro de 2010
Irã aceita negociar programa nuclear com União Europeia em novembro
O Estado de S. Paulo
BRUXELAS - O governo do Irã respondeu positivamente à proposta da União Europeia (UE) de realizar uma rodada de encontros no mês de novembro com o objetivo de retomar o diálogo sobre seu programa nuclear, informou nesta sexta-feira, 29, a chefe de diplomacia do bloco, Catherine Ashton.
"Recebi uma carta do doutor Said Jalili (principal negociador nuclear iraniano) na qual ele agradece o contato e se diz disposto a iniciar discussões depois do dia 10 de novembro", explicou Catherine em sua chegada à cúpula de chefes de Estado e governo dos 27 membros da UE realizada nesta sexta em Bruxelas.
Há uma semana, a chefe de diplomacia havia proposto a Teerã retomar o diálogo com três dias de reuniões a partir do dia 15 de novembro. Apesar das pressões, o Irã resistia em dar seu parecer, embora se disse pronto para retomar as negociações.
Segundo Catherine, Jalili quer chegar a um acordo sobre datas. Para isso, a UE entrará em contato com as autoridades iranianas para tentar firmar as condições "o mais rápido possível". "Acho que é um movimento muito significativo", assegurou a chefe da diplomacia sobre a disposição de Teerã em negociar.
Desde que assumiu o cargo, em dezembro de 2009, Catherine manifestou disposição para retomar o diálogo sobre o discutido programa nuclear iraniano. Além da UE, neste âmbito ela atua em nome do Grupo 5+1 (EUA, Rússia, China, Reino Unido, França e Alemanha), responsável pela negociação com Teerã sobre o programa nuclear.
As potências ocidentais acusam o Irã de esconder, sob seu programa nuclear civil, outro de natureza clandestina e aplicações bélicas, cujo objetivo seria a aquisição de armas atômicas. Teerã nega tais alegações.
As tensões sobre o programa nuclear iraniano se acirraram no final do ano passado após o Irã rejeitar uma proposta de troca de urânio feita por EUA, Rússia e Reino Unido. Meses depois, o país começou a enriquecer urânio a 20%.
Um acordo mediado por Brasil e Turquia para troca de urânio chegou a ser assinado com o Irã em maio. O acordo, porém, foi rejeitado pelo Grupo de Viena - composto por Rússia, França, EUA e AIEA (Agência Internacional de Energia Atômica) - e o Conselho de Segurança da ONU optou por impor uma quarta rodada de sanções ao país.
BRUXELAS - O governo do Irã respondeu positivamente à proposta da União Europeia (UE) de realizar uma rodada de encontros no mês de novembro com o objetivo de retomar o diálogo sobre seu programa nuclear, informou nesta sexta-feira, 29, a chefe de diplomacia do bloco, Catherine Ashton.
"Recebi uma carta do doutor Said Jalili (principal negociador nuclear iraniano) na qual ele agradece o contato e se diz disposto a iniciar discussões depois do dia 10 de novembro", explicou Catherine em sua chegada à cúpula de chefes de Estado e governo dos 27 membros da UE realizada nesta sexta em Bruxelas.
Há uma semana, a chefe de diplomacia havia proposto a Teerã retomar o diálogo com três dias de reuniões a partir do dia 15 de novembro. Apesar das pressões, o Irã resistia em dar seu parecer, embora se disse pronto para retomar as negociações.
Segundo Catherine, Jalili quer chegar a um acordo sobre datas. Para isso, a UE entrará em contato com as autoridades iranianas para tentar firmar as condições "o mais rápido possível". "Acho que é um movimento muito significativo", assegurou a chefe da diplomacia sobre a disposição de Teerã em negociar.
Desde que assumiu o cargo, em dezembro de 2009, Catherine manifestou disposição para retomar o diálogo sobre o discutido programa nuclear iraniano. Além da UE, neste âmbito ela atua em nome do Grupo 5+1 (EUA, Rússia, China, Reino Unido, França e Alemanha), responsável pela negociação com Teerã sobre o programa nuclear.
As potências ocidentais acusam o Irã de esconder, sob seu programa nuclear civil, outro de natureza clandestina e aplicações bélicas, cujo objetivo seria a aquisição de armas atômicas. Teerã nega tais alegações.
As tensões sobre o programa nuclear iraniano se acirraram no final do ano passado após o Irã rejeitar uma proposta de troca de urânio feita por EUA, Rússia e Reino Unido. Meses depois, o país começou a enriquecer urânio a 20%.
Um acordo mediado por Brasil e Turquia para troca de urânio chegou a ser assinado com o Irã em maio. O acordo, porém, foi rejeitado pelo Grupo de Viena - composto por Rússia, França, EUA e AIEA (Agência Internacional de Energia Atômica) - e o Conselho de Segurança da ONU optou por impor uma quarta rodada de sanções ao país.
Pacotes vindos do Iêmen representam "ameaça terrorista real" aos EUA, diz Obama
Folha de São Paulo
Autoridades de segurança no Reino Unido e nos Emirados Árabes Unidos interceptaram dois pacotes suspeitos enviados do Iêmen para os Estados Unidos, em uma "ameaça terrorista real", disse o presidente Barack Obama nesta sexta-feira. Os pacotes tinham como destino "dois lugares judaicos em Chicago", segundo Obama.
As suspeitas recaíram sobre a Al Qaeda na Península Árabe, que assumiu a responsabilidade por um atentado frustrado contra um avião americano no Natal de 2009.
"Sabemos que a Al Qaeda na península arábica continua planejando ataques contra nossa terra e nosso povo. Os agentes de combate ao terrorismo no nosso país estão levando o assunto muito a sério e estão tomando as medidas necessárias."
"Exames iniciais naqueles pacotes determinaram que eles aparentemente contêm material explosivo", disse Obama, em discurso televisionado na tarde desta sexta-feira, chamando o incidente de "uma ameaça terrorista real contra nosso país".
A Casa Branca disse que "ambos os pacotes saíram do Iêmen" e Obama foi avisado sobre a ameaça ainda na noite de quinta-feira.
A Casa Branca disse ainda que a Arábia Saudita ajudou a revelar que a ameaça vinha do Iêmen, enquanto o Reino Unido, os Emirados Árabes Unidos e "outros amigos e parceiros" também forneceram informações.
"Os EUA são gratos ao Reino da Arábia Saudita por sua ajuda em levantar informações que ajudaram a revelar a iminência da ameaça emergindo do Iêmen", disse o conselheiro de segurança de Obama, John Brennan.
Falando há quatro dias das eleições parlamentares nos EUA, marcadas para terça-feira, Obama disse que um alto auxiliar falou com o presidente do Iêmen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, e ele prometeu cooperar totalmente com as investigações.
PACOTES
Os dois pacotes suspeitos vindos do Iêmen foram encontrados no Reino Unido e nos Emirados Árabes Unidos, após uma informação ter levado autoridades a inspecionar aviões de carga nos dois lados do Atlântico.
Um dos pacotes foi encontrado em um avião de carga da empresa United Parcel Service (UPI), no aeroporto de East Midlands, cerca de 260 km a norte de Londres, no Reino Unido. Ele continha um cartucho de tinta para impressora modificado, segundo a CNN, e foi enviado de Sanaa, no Iêmen para Chicago, nos EUA, em voo com escala no Reino Unido.
O outro pacote foi descoberto em uma instalação da FedEx Corp em Dubai. Uma fonte oficial disse nos Emirados Árabes Unidos disse que "um material explosivo foi encontrado no pacote originário do Iêmen" e que o pacote era semelhante ao encontrado no Reino Unido.
Uma autoridade americana e alguns analistas especularam que os pacotes podem ter sido apenas um teste para os procedimentos de checagem de carga, e da reação das autoridades de segurança nos EUA.
O Departamento americano de Segurança Interna disse que vai endurecer as medidas de segurança na aviação.
AVIÃO ESCOLTADO
Um avião comercial de passageiros da companhia Emirates, proveniente de Sanaa, no Iêmen, com escala em Dubai, nos Emirados Árabes Unidos, foi escoltado na tarde desta sexta-feira por jatos militares canadenses e americanos até o aeroporto John F. Kennedy, em Nova York.
"Isso é apenas porque há uma carga vinda do Iêmen no voo", disse o porta-voz do FBI, Richard Kolko, "Não há nenhuma ameaça associada com essa carga ou esse voo."
Autoridades americanas e britânicas inspecionaram aviões de carga e caminhões da empresa após o pacote ter sido encontrado, e os dois países entraram em estado de alerta.
Nos EUA, aviões da UPS foram inspecionados em Nova York, New Jersey e Filadélfia. Um caminhão da empresa foi inspecionado no Brooklyn.
MEDIDAS PREVENTIVAS
Ainda em resposta às duas suspeitas de bomba encontradas entre ontem e hoje, o governo do Reino Unido decidiu suspender todos os voos de carga diretos entre os dois países.
A ministra do Interior, Theresa May, disse que "a segurança do Reino Unido continua sendo a prioridade número um".
A suspensão se soma a uma decisão, em vigor há mais de um ano, de suspender os voos da companhia Yemenia Airlines.
Já a FedEx, maior empresa aérea de carga do mundo, embargou todas as cargas provenientes do Iêmen, segundo o porta-voz da empresa, Maury Lane. A UPS também decidiu suspender os serviços provenientes do Iemên.
ATENTADO NO NATAL
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, de origem nigeriana, foi acusado de tentar explodir uma aeronave americana com uma bomba na noite de Natal do ano passado.
Ele embarcou em um voo da Northwest Airlines que fazia a rota Amsterdã-Detroit e, perto do fim do trajeto, tentou acionar uma bomba que estava em sua cueca, afirmaram procuradores.
Segundo eles, o dispositivo não detonou completamente e ele foi rendido por passageiros e tripulantes e o fogo foi controlado.
Ele foi acusado pela tentativa de usar uma bomba de destruição em massa, tentativa de assassinato e outros quatro crimes. Se condenado, poderá passar o resto da vida na prisão.
O nigeriano cooperou com investigadores americanos por vários meses e disse a eles ter recebido o dispositivo e treinamento de militantes da rede terrorista Al Qaeda no Iêmen.
Desde então, a Al Qaeda na Península Árabe e um de seus líderes, o clérigo americano Anwar al Awlaki, tornaram-se alvos prioritários dos EUA. Os EUA aumentaram a ajuda militar ao governo iemenita, que tenta derrotar o braço insurgente da Al Qaeda em seu território.
ALERTAS DE TERROR
Após uma série de alertas de terrorismo na primeira semana de outubro --que na sua maioria mostraram-se alarmes falsos--, a União Europeia (UE) e os EUA decidiram nesta quinta-feira buscar fórmulas mais adequadas para comunicar a existência de ameaças terroristas, com o objetivo de informar os cidadãos sem um "alarmismo desnecessário".
Autoridades de segurança no Reino Unido e nos Emirados Árabes Unidos interceptaram dois pacotes suspeitos enviados do Iêmen para os Estados Unidos, em uma "ameaça terrorista real", disse o presidente Barack Obama nesta sexta-feira. Os pacotes tinham como destino "dois lugares judaicos em Chicago", segundo Obama.
As suspeitas recaíram sobre a Al Qaeda na Península Árabe, que assumiu a responsabilidade por um atentado frustrado contra um avião americano no Natal de 2009.
"Sabemos que a Al Qaeda na península arábica continua planejando ataques contra nossa terra e nosso povo. Os agentes de combate ao terrorismo no nosso país estão levando o assunto muito a sério e estão tomando as medidas necessárias."
"Exames iniciais naqueles pacotes determinaram que eles aparentemente contêm material explosivo", disse Obama, em discurso televisionado na tarde desta sexta-feira, chamando o incidente de "uma ameaça terrorista real contra nosso país".
A Casa Branca disse que "ambos os pacotes saíram do Iêmen" e Obama foi avisado sobre a ameaça ainda na noite de quinta-feira.
A Casa Branca disse ainda que a Arábia Saudita ajudou a revelar que a ameaça vinha do Iêmen, enquanto o Reino Unido, os Emirados Árabes Unidos e "outros amigos e parceiros" também forneceram informações.
"Os EUA são gratos ao Reino da Arábia Saudita por sua ajuda em levantar informações que ajudaram a revelar a iminência da ameaça emergindo do Iêmen", disse o conselheiro de segurança de Obama, John Brennan.
Falando há quatro dias das eleições parlamentares nos EUA, marcadas para terça-feira, Obama disse que um alto auxiliar falou com o presidente do Iêmen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, e ele prometeu cooperar totalmente com as investigações.
PACOTES
Os dois pacotes suspeitos vindos do Iêmen foram encontrados no Reino Unido e nos Emirados Árabes Unidos, após uma informação ter levado autoridades a inspecionar aviões de carga nos dois lados do Atlântico.
Um dos pacotes foi encontrado em um avião de carga da empresa United Parcel Service (UPI), no aeroporto de East Midlands, cerca de 260 km a norte de Londres, no Reino Unido. Ele continha um cartucho de tinta para impressora modificado, segundo a CNN, e foi enviado de Sanaa, no Iêmen para Chicago, nos EUA, em voo com escala no Reino Unido.
O outro pacote foi descoberto em uma instalação da FedEx Corp em Dubai. Uma fonte oficial disse nos Emirados Árabes Unidos disse que "um material explosivo foi encontrado no pacote originário do Iêmen" e que o pacote era semelhante ao encontrado no Reino Unido.
Uma autoridade americana e alguns analistas especularam que os pacotes podem ter sido apenas um teste para os procedimentos de checagem de carga, e da reação das autoridades de segurança nos EUA.
O Departamento americano de Segurança Interna disse que vai endurecer as medidas de segurança na aviação.
AVIÃO ESCOLTADO
Um avião comercial de passageiros da companhia Emirates, proveniente de Sanaa, no Iêmen, com escala em Dubai, nos Emirados Árabes Unidos, foi escoltado na tarde desta sexta-feira por jatos militares canadenses e americanos até o aeroporto John F. Kennedy, em Nova York.
"Isso é apenas porque há uma carga vinda do Iêmen no voo", disse o porta-voz do FBI, Richard Kolko, "Não há nenhuma ameaça associada com essa carga ou esse voo."
Autoridades americanas e britânicas inspecionaram aviões de carga e caminhões da empresa após o pacote ter sido encontrado, e os dois países entraram em estado de alerta.
Nos EUA, aviões da UPS foram inspecionados em Nova York, New Jersey e Filadélfia. Um caminhão da empresa foi inspecionado no Brooklyn.
MEDIDAS PREVENTIVAS
Ainda em resposta às duas suspeitas de bomba encontradas entre ontem e hoje, o governo do Reino Unido decidiu suspender todos os voos de carga diretos entre os dois países.
A ministra do Interior, Theresa May, disse que "a segurança do Reino Unido continua sendo a prioridade número um".
A suspensão se soma a uma decisão, em vigor há mais de um ano, de suspender os voos da companhia Yemenia Airlines.
Já a FedEx, maior empresa aérea de carga do mundo, embargou todas as cargas provenientes do Iêmen, segundo o porta-voz da empresa, Maury Lane. A UPS também decidiu suspender os serviços provenientes do Iemên.
ATENTADO NO NATAL
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, de origem nigeriana, foi acusado de tentar explodir uma aeronave americana com uma bomba na noite de Natal do ano passado.
Ele embarcou em um voo da Northwest Airlines que fazia a rota Amsterdã-Detroit e, perto do fim do trajeto, tentou acionar uma bomba que estava em sua cueca, afirmaram procuradores.
Segundo eles, o dispositivo não detonou completamente e ele foi rendido por passageiros e tripulantes e o fogo foi controlado.
Ele foi acusado pela tentativa de usar uma bomba de destruição em massa, tentativa de assassinato e outros quatro crimes. Se condenado, poderá passar o resto da vida na prisão.
O nigeriano cooperou com investigadores americanos por vários meses e disse a eles ter recebido o dispositivo e treinamento de militantes da rede terrorista Al Qaeda no Iêmen.
Desde então, a Al Qaeda na Península Árabe e um de seus líderes, o clérigo americano Anwar al Awlaki, tornaram-se alvos prioritários dos EUA. Os EUA aumentaram a ajuda militar ao governo iemenita, que tenta derrotar o braço insurgente da Al Qaeda em seu território.
ALERTAS DE TERROR
Após uma série de alertas de terrorismo na primeira semana de outubro --que na sua maioria mostraram-se alarmes falsos--, a União Europeia (UE) e os EUA decidiram nesta quinta-feira buscar fórmulas mais adequadas para comunicar a existência de ameaças terroristas, com o objetivo de informar os cidadãos sem um "alarmismo desnecessário".
Bush había ordenado derribar los aviones secuestrados el 11-S
Clarín
Nueve años después del crítico momento en que extremistas islámicos secuestraron los aviones comerciales el 11 de septiembre de 2001 para estrellarlos contra el World Trade Center de Nueva York y otros sitios clave de Estados Unidos, el ex presidente George W. Bush reveló que había dado la orden de interceptar y abatir las aeronaves capturadas, repletas de pasajeros.
Lo hizo en su libro “Decision Points” (algo así como “Momentos de decisión”), donde relata detalles de su vida como presidente estadounidense y su paso por el alcoholismo, adicción que confesó públicamente. El texto autobiográfico saldrá a la venta el 9 de noviembre, pero el sitio Drudge Report adelantó ayer algunos pasajes.
Allí, el ex mandatario cuenta que en un primer momento creyó que aquel fatídico 11-S se había cumplido su orden y que habían sido cazas estadounidenses los que habían derribado el aparato de United Airlines que se estrelló en Pennsylvania.
Después de ser secuestrado, el Boeing 757-222 de United se acercaba a Washington, donde –se presume– los extremistas buscaban golpear el Congreso, en sintonía con los ataques al Pentágono y las Torres Gemelas de Nueva York, poco antes. Según los investigadores, algunos pasajeros lograron entrar a la cabina del piloto y enfrentar a los secuestradores , pero no pudieron evitar que el avión cayera en las cercanías de Shanksville, lo que causó la muerte de las 44 personas a bordo.
En su libro, Bush admite que ordenó a cazas militares derribar los cuatro aviones comerciales secuestrados. Todos volaban con su carga de pasajeros, entre los que se hallaban grupos extremistas que tomaron el control de las cabinas. El gobierno estadounidense acusó desde el primer momento a la red terrorista Al Qaeda. Dos de las aeronaves fueron estrelladas contra las Torres, lo que provocó que ambas se derrumbaran en cuestión de horas. El tercer avión sobrevoló Virginia hasta terminar impactando en un sector del Pentágono.
Los atentados dejaron unos 3.000 muertos. Era la primera vez que se usaban aviones comerciales como armas. Esto generó una reacción de temor generalizado en todo el mundo y llevó a la mayoría de los países a alterar las políticas de seguridad aérea.
Bush no sólo reveló en su biografía esta decisión política, sino también algunas cuestiones personales. Gran parte del libro gira alrededor de la lucha del ex presidente republicano contra el alcohol, y su triunfo sobre esa adicción gracias a su “reconversión” al cristianismo. De hecho, la publicación comienza con una pregunta sencilla, aunque determinante: “¿Puede usted recordar el último día en el que no bebió un trago?”.
Pese a lo extenso del libro, Bush no se refiere a su sucesor, el demócrata Barack Obama, y aparecen “muy pocos disparos contra sus críticos”, según Drudge Report . Hay capítulos dedicados al desastre causado por el huracán Katrina y a la crisis financiera. Y se destaca una anécdota sobre su relación con el entonces príncipe Abdullah, hoy rey de Arabia Saudita.
El ex presidente relata que Abdullah llegó “muy enojado” a su rancho en Texas a causa del apoyo de Washington a Israel. Cuando estaba a punto de irse de Crawford, el príncipe vio a un pavo en el camino. Al parecer, Abdullah tomó la presencia del ave como una “buena señal” y permaneció en el rancho, donde profundizó su amistad con el entonces presidente de EE.UU., cuenta Bush.
En otro capítulo se refiere al debate nacional sobre el uso de células madre para curar enfermedades, y en particular comenta la carta que le envió Nancy Reagan, en la que le expresaba los sufrimientos del ex presidente Ronald Reagan, afectado por el mal de Alzheimer. Pese a eso, Bush se opuso a cualquier investigación médica que utilice células madre, aún si servían para tratar el Alzheimer. “Sentí la responsabilidad de expresar mis convicciones en favor de la vida y llevar al país hacia lo que el papa Juan Pablo II llamó la cultura de la vida”, escribió.
Nueve años después del crítico momento en que extremistas islámicos secuestraron los aviones comerciales el 11 de septiembre de 2001 para estrellarlos contra el World Trade Center de Nueva York y otros sitios clave de Estados Unidos, el ex presidente George W. Bush reveló que había dado la orden de interceptar y abatir las aeronaves capturadas, repletas de pasajeros.
Lo hizo en su libro “Decision Points” (algo así como “Momentos de decisión”), donde relata detalles de su vida como presidente estadounidense y su paso por el alcoholismo, adicción que confesó públicamente. El texto autobiográfico saldrá a la venta el 9 de noviembre, pero el sitio Drudge Report adelantó ayer algunos pasajes.
Allí, el ex mandatario cuenta que en un primer momento creyó que aquel fatídico 11-S se había cumplido su orden y que habían sido cazas estadounidenses los que habían derribado el aparato de United Airlines que se estrelló en Pennsylvania.
Después de ser secuestrado, el Boeing 757-222 de United se acercaba a Washington, donde –se presume– los extremistas buscaban golpear el Congreso, en sintonía con los ataques al Pentágono y las Torres Gemelas de Nueva York, poco antes. Según los investigadores, algunos pasajeros lograron entrar a la cabina del piloto y enfrentar a los secuestradores , pero no pudieron evitar que el avión cayera en las cercanías de Shanksville, lo que causó la muerte de las 44 personas a bordo.
En su libro, Bush admite que ordenó a cazas militares derribar los cuatro aviones comerciales secuestrados. Todos volaban con su carga de pasajeros, entre los que se hallaban grupos extremistas que tomaron el control de las cabinas. El gobierno estadounidense acusó desde el primer momento a la red terrorista Al Qaeda. Dos de las aeronaves fueron estrelladas contra las Torres, lo que provocó que ambas se derrumbaran en cuestión de horas. El tercer avión sobrevoló Virginia hasta terminar impactando en un sector del Pentágono.
Los atentados dejaron unos 3.000 muertos. Era la primera vez que se usaban aviones comerciales como armas. Esto generó una reacción de temor generalizado en todo el mundo y llevó a la mayoría de los países a alterar las políticas de seguridad aérea.
Bush no sólo reveló en su biografía esta decisión política, sino también algunas cuestiones personales. Gran parte del libro gira alrededor de la lucha del ex presidente republicano contra el alcohol, y su triunfo sobre esa adicción gracias a su “reconversión” al cristianismo. De hecho, la publicación comienza con una pregunta sencilla, aunque determinante: “¿Puede usted recordar el último día en el que no bebió un trago?”.
Pese a lo extenso del libro, Bush no se refiere a su sucesor, el demócrata Barack Obama, y aparecen “muy pocos disparos contra sus críticos”, según Drudge Report . Hay capítulos dedicados al desastre causado por el huracán Katrina y a la crisis financiera. Y se destaca una anécdota sobre su relación con el entonces príncipe Abdullah, hoy rey de Arabia Saudita.
El ex presidente relata que Abdullah llegó “muy enojado” a su rancho en Texas a causa del apoyo de Washington a Israel. Cuando estaba a punto de irse de Crawford, el príncipe vio a un pavo en el camino. Al parecer, Abdullah tomó la presencia del ave como una “buena señal” y permaneció en el rancho, donde profundizó su amistad con el entonces presidente de EE.UU., cuenta Bush.
En otro capítulo se refiere al debate nacional sobre el uso de células madre para curar enfermedades, y en particular comenta la carta que le envió Nancy Reagan, en la que le expresaba los sufrimientos del ex presidente Ronald Reagan, afectado por el mal de Alzheimer. Pese a eso, Bush se opuso a cualquier investigación médica que utilice células madre, aún si servían para tratar el Alzheimer. “Sentí la responsabilidad de expresar mis convicciones en favor de la vida y llevar al país hacia lo que el papa Juan Pablo II llamó la cultura de la vida”, escribió.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)