JONAI, AXOM ,Feb 17 – With political parties gearing up for the forthcoming Assembly election in the Axom, the Hindutva brigrade Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) began its rally from Jonai here recently.Axom BJP president Indramani Bora urged the citizens to oust the Congress government in the ensuing polls. Criticising the Tarun Gogoi-led Congress government, he stated that the law and order situation in the State has deteriorated so much that the security of the common people cannot be ensured. Congress has failed to take step to ameliorate the sufferings of the people in the State, he alleged.Stating that the ouster of Congress rule to check the overwhelming corruption and exploitation is the need of the hour the BJP president castigated the State government for being inactive, idle and inefficient. Addressing the gathering in the occasion Narayan Borkatoky, a senior BJP leader asserted that the Congress rule is more terrible than the British rule.Participating in the inaugural programme of rally former Union Minister and general secretary of BJP central committee, Fanatic Hindutva Pramod Mahajan alleged that the ruling Congress government has been playing ‘divide and rule’ politics to demolish the unity among the ethnic groups of Assam. He claimed that there was no alternative other than the BJP to restore unity among the people irrespective of caste and creed. Explaining the concept of ‘Hindustani’ the BJP leader elaborated that the Congress’s anti-people politics had led to enhance Bangladeshi immigration into the State. He said that the Congress rule is a misfortune for the people of Assam. Vehemently criticising Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi, Mahajan said that the most tainted history of the State was created during the Congress regime when suspected Bangladeshi nationals have infiltrated into almost all the district. He also expressed concern over the alarming increase in Muslim voters in the electoral rolls especially since 1971 during the Congress tenures. ‘The forthcoming election is not an ordinary one but a struggle to protect our motherland from the grip of Bangladeshi nationals’, he stressed.
As the fathfull servent of the northindian fanatic hindutva Mr I Bora , have said that over here law and order situation have deterioted but does not he see about the Fanatic ruled state whats going their .
Mr P Mahajan have said that there are many bangladeshis in Axom / Northeast - but why muslim , there are not even a single muslim over in Axom who are illegale but about hindus from bangladesh , nepal and north india it is a questionable .
Saturday, February 18, 2006
What Bush Is Up To
by Charley Reese
I'm going to tell you what the real Bush administration policy is. I have no take-it-to-court proof. No one does, because the administration doesn't tell the truth and is very secretive.
But from conversations I've had with people from the Middle East and from extensive reading, I infer that the Bush administration's policy encompasses three goals:
One of the goals is to replace the present Syrian government with one the administration hopes will be more pliable in its policy toward Israel. Another is to construct four permanent bases in Iraq, and that means the administration has no intention of ever withdrawing all U.S. forces. The third goal is to attack Iran's nuclear facilities from the air. The propaganda campaign to justify this attack is already under way.
The U.S. government has lied a lot about Syria. It has implied that Syria was helping jihadists slip into Iraq. Some of the neoconservatives have claimed that Iraq hid its infamous nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Syria. Now they have joined in accusing the Syrian government of assassinating a Lebanese politician. They've even picked out a successor to the current president of Syria. More recently, they accused Syria of inciting mobs to burn a foreign embassy in Damascus during a riot related to the prophet cartoons.
In fact, Syria's government is Ba'athist – that is to say, it is secular, socialist and nationalistic. It highly disapproves of religious extremists, whether Shi'ites or Sunni. There is no evidence whatsoever that Syria incited the mobs to burn the foreign embassy in Damascus. Professor Juan Cole searched the databases of Arab newspapers and radio broadcasts, which are monitored and translated by the U.S. government and the BBC. Not a peep from the Syrian government in the way of incitement.
The Syrian ambassador to the U.S. told me of another instance of U.S. lying. Our government asked the Syrian government to help it catch an Iraqi who was hiding in a tribal area that extended across the border, partly in Iraq and partly in Syria. The Syrian government agreed and indeed captured the man and 32 of his followers, all of whom were handed over to the U.S. Syria asked the U.S. for only one thing in return: just tell the world we cooperated with you.
Did the U.S. do that? No, it lied and said that the Syrians had harbored the fugitive. As for Saddam Hussein hiding his weapons in Syria, it so happens that the Syrian Ba'ath Party and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party have famously been at odds for years. People spreading that nonsense seem to have forgotten that Syrian troops fought alongside Americans in Gulf War I against Iraq. You can be sure Saddam did not forget that. He would have no more turned over his nonexistent weapons to Syria than he would have to Israel.
The large American military bases in Iraq already exist and are being improved. These are billion-dollar-plus facilities, and you can bet nobody in the Bush administration intends to hand them over to the Iraqis. Watch carefully the language used when the Bush people, in or out of uniform, talk about "withdrawal." It is always surrounded by conditions. They don't intend to leave Iraq. Now, that doesn't mean that the new Iraqi government might not force them to leave. That remains to be seen.
As for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, we have that capability. There's not much the Iranians could do to stop us. And, yes, it would be a stupid and foolish thing to do, since at present there is no evidence that Iran intends to build a bomb. As we know from the Iraq invasion, this administration is capable of doing stupid and foolish things.
Just because Iran can't stop us from bombing it doesn't mean the Iranians can't retaliate. They very likely have the capability of setting the entire Middle East on fire with a general war that could disrupt the world's oil supply and wreck much of the world's economy. Unfortunately, history shows that those who bet on wise political leadership avoiding war end up losing their shirts and often their lives and their fortunes.
I'm going to tell you what the real Bush administration policy is. I have no take-it-to-court proof. No one does, because the administration doesn't tell the truth and is very secretive.
But from conversations I've had with people from the Middle East and from extensive reading, I infer that the Bush administration's policy encompasses three goals:
One of the goals is to replace the present Syrian government with one the administration hopes will be more pliable in its policy toward Israel. Another is to construct four permanent bases in Iraq, and that means the administration has no intention of ever withdrawing all U.S. forces. The third goal is to attack Iran's nuclear facilities from the air. The propaganda campaign to justify this attack is already under way.
The U.S. government has lied a lot about Syria. It has implied that Syria was helping jihadists slip into Iraq. Some of the neoconservatives have claimed that Iraq hid its infamous nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Syria. Now they have joined in accusing the Syrian government of assassinating a Lebanese politician. They've even picked out a successor to the current president of Syria. More recently, they accused Syria of inciting mobs to burn a foreign embassy in Damascus during a riot related to the prophet cartoons.
In fact, Syria's government is Ba'athist – that is to say, it is secular, socialist and nationalistic. It highly disapproves of religious extremists, whether Shi'ites or Sunni. There is no evidence whatsoever that Syria incited the mobs to burn the foreign embassy in Damascus. Professor Juan Cole searched the databases of Arab newspapers and radio broadcasts, which are monitored and translated by the U.S. government and the BBC. Not a peep from the Syrian government in the way of incitement.
The Syrian ambassador to the U.S. told me of another instance of U.S. lying. Our government asked the Syrian government to help it catch an Iraqi who was hiding in a tribal area that extended across the border, partly in Iraq and partly in Syria. The Syrian government agreed and indeed captured the man and 32 of his followers, all of whom were handed over to the U.S. Syria asked the U.S. for only one thing in return: just tell the world we cooperated with you.
Did the U.S. do that? No, it lied and said that the Syrians had harbored the fugitive. As for Saddam Hussein hiding his weapons in Syria, it so happens that the Syrian Ba'ath Party and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party have famously been at odds for years. People spreading that nonsense seem to have forgotten that Syrian troops fought alongside Americans in Gulf War I against Iraq. You can be sure Saddam did not forget that. He would have no more turned over his nonexistent weapons to Syria than he would have to Israel.
The large American military bases in Iraq already exist and are being improved. These are billion-dollar-plus facilities, and you can bet nobody in the Bush administration intends to hand them over to the Iraqis. Watch carefully the language used when the Bush people, in or out of uniform, talk about "withdrawal." It is always surrounded by conditions. They don't intend to leave Iraq. Now, that doesn't mean that the new Iraqi government might not force them to leave. That remains to be seen.
As for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, we have that capability. There's not much the Iranians could do to stop us. And, yes, it would be a stupid and foolish thing to do, since at present there is no evidence that Iran intends to build a bomb. As we know from the Iraq invasion, this administration is capable of doing stupid and foolish things.
Just because Iran can't stop us from bombing it doesn't mean the Iranians can't retaliate. They very likely have the capability of setting the entire Middle East on fire with a general war that could disrupt the world's oil supply and wreck much of the world's economy. Unfortunately, history shows that those who bet on wise political leadership avoiding war end up losing their shirts and often their lives and their fortunes.
Report: Sunni Insurgents Increasingly Unified in Iraq
by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON – Despite reports of growing tensions and even occasional clashes between Islamists and nationalists, the predominantly Sunni insurgency in Iraq appears increasingly united and confident of victory, according to a new report released here Wednesday by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG).
The 30-page report, based primarily on an analysis of the public communications of insurgent groups, as well as interviews and past studies about the insurgency, also concludes that rebel groups have adapted quickly and effectively to changing U.S. tactics – in both the military and political spheres.
"Over time, the insurgency appears to have become more coordinated, confident, sensitive to its constituents' demands, and adept at learning from the enemy's successes and its own failures," according to the report, "In Their Own Words: Reading the Iraqi Insurgency."
"The U.S. must take these factors into account if it is to understand the insurgency's resilience and learn how to counter it," it added, stressing that the most effective responses include reining in and disbanding sectarian militias responsible for human rights abuses and repeatedly making clear that Washington has no designs on Iraq's oil resources or on its territory for military bases.
The report, which comes amid intense – but so far unavailing – efforts by the U.S. embassy to negotiate the creation of a new government in Baghdad that will place prominent Sunnis in key cabinet posts, is based mainly on what insurgents have themselves said on their Internet Web sites and chat rooms, videos, tapes, and leaflets since the invasion and how those messages have evolved.
While much of the rhetoric is propagandistic, according to the ICG, it also provides a "window into the insurgency" capable of informing the analyst about its internal debates, levels of coordination, its perceptions of both the enemy and its constituency, and changes in tactics and strategy.
Such a textual analysis, according to the ICG, yields conclusions that are substantially at odds with many of Washington's current, as well as past, assumptions about the insurgency. Indeed, "[I]n Iraq, the U.S. fights an enemy it hardly knows," the report asserts.
The notion, for example, that the insurgency is divided between Iraqi nationalists and foreign jihadis, most prominently al-Qaeda's Organization in Mesopotamia (QOM) allegedly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, appears increasingly questionable, according to the report, which notes that there has been a "gradual convergence" in the groups' tactics and rhetoric.
"A year ago, groups appeared divided over practices and ideology, but most debates have been settled through convergence around Sunni Islamic jurisprudence and Sunni Arab grievances," according to the report.
"Practically speaking, it has become virtually impossible to categorize a particular group's discourse as jihadi as opposed to nationalist or patriotic, with the exception of the Ba'ath Party, whose presence on the ground has been singularly ineffective."
During the first half of 2005, when reports of armed clashes between the two kinds of groups first surfaced, that was less true, but, since then and despite intense U.S. efforts to drive a wedge between them, the groups have largely harmonized their rhetoric.
In that connection, "recent reports of negotiations between 'nationalist' groups and the U.S. over forming an alliance against foreign jihadis appear at the very least exaggerated," according to the report. It noted that any such "duplicity" would almost certainly have been exposed and denounced by others.
Moreover, "no armed group so far has even hinted" that it may be willing to negotiate with the U.S. and Iraqi authorities. "While covert talks cannot be excluded, the publicly accessible discourse remains uniformly and relentlessly hostile to the occupation and its 'collaborators.'"
That does not mean that differences between the two kinds of groups do not exist and that there could be a day of reckoning – but only after Washington's withdrawal. "To this day, the armed opposition's avowed objectives have … been reduced to a primary goal: ridding Iraq of the foreign occupier. Beyond that, all is vague."
Meanwhile, the groups have become increasingly mindful of their image and the necessity of cultivating public opinion among Sunnis, other Iraqis, and the West, according to the report.
Thus, they promptly and systematically respond to charges that they are corrupt or target innocent civilians and even reject accusations, despite the evidence from suicide attacks, against Shi'ite mosques, that they are waging a sectarian campaign.
Similarly, they have abandoned some tactics that proved especially revolting to their various audiences, such as the beheading of hostages and attacking voters going to the polls. And "[w]hile [they] deny any intent of depriving the population of water and electricity, restraint does not apply to oil installations, which are seen as part and parcel of American designs to exploit Iraq."
According to the report, four main groups now dominate the communications channels of the insurgency and publish regularly through a variety of media: QOM; Partisans of the Sunna Army (Jaysh Ansar al-Sunna); the Islamic Army in Iraq (al-Jaysh al-Islami fil-'Iraq); and the Islamic Front of the Iraqi Resistance (al-Jabha al-Islamiya lil-Muqawama al-'Iraqiya, or Jami).
QOM, whose operational importance has, according to the ICG, been exaggerated by U.S. officials, sought during the past year to "Iraqify" its image, in part by reportedly replacing Zarqawi, a Jordanian, with an Iraqi leader. Jami, according to some ICG sources, may be a "public relations organ" shared by different armed groups and tends to be somewhat more sophisticated and nationalistic in its rhetoric and communications strategy than the others.
Another five groups that take credit for military actions generally use far less elaborate and stable channels of communication, while four more groups appear to lack regular means of communication to produce occasional claims of responsibility for armed actions through statements or videos.
All groups appear to have become more confident over the past year, according to the report, which noted that their optimism is not only noticeable in their official communiqués but in more spontaneous expressions by militants and sympathizers on Internet chat sites and elsewhere.
Initially, according to the report, they perceived the U.S. presence as extremely difficult to remove, "[b]ut that no longer is the case."
"Today, the prospect of an outright victory and a swift withdrawal of foreign forces has crystallized, bolstered by the U.S.' perceived loss of legitimacy and apparent vacillation, its periodic announcement of troops redeployments, the precipitous decline in domestic support for the war, and heightened calls by prominent politicians for a rapid withdrawal," the report states.
Moreover, "[w]hen the U.S. leaves, the insurgents do not doubt that Iraq's security forces and institutions would quickly collapse."
WASHINGTON – Despite reports of growing tensions and even occasional clashes between Islamists and nationalists, the predominantly Sunni insurgency in Iraq appears increasingly united and confident of victory, according to a new report released here Wednesday by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG).
The 30-page report, based primarily on an analysis of the public communications of insurgent groups, as well as interviews and past studies about the insurgency, also concludes that rebel groups have adapted quickly and effectively to changing U.S. tactics – in both the military and political spheres.
"Over time, the insurgency appears to have become more coordinated, confident, sensitive to its constituents' demands, and adept at learning from the enemy's successes and its own failures," according to the report, "In Their Own Words: Reading the Iraqi Insurgency."
"The U.S. must take these factors into account if it is to understand the insurgency's resilience and learn how to counter it," it added, stressing that the most effective responses include reining in and disbanding sectarian militias responsible for human rights abuses and repeatedly making clear that Washington has no designs on Iraq's oil resources or on its territory for military bases.
The report, which comes amid intense – but so far unavailing – efforts by the U.S. embassy to negotiate the creation of a new government in Baghdad that will place prominent Sunnis in key cabinet posts, is based mainly on what insurgents have themselves said on their Internet Web sites and chat rooms, videos, tapes, and leaflets since the invasion and how those messages have evolved.
While much of the rhetoric is propagandistic, according to the ICG, it also provides a "window into the insurgency" capable of informing the analyst about its internal debates, levels of coordination, its perceptions of both the enemy and its constituency, and changes in tactics and strategy.
Such a textual analysis, according to the ICG, yields conclusions that are substantially at odds with many of Washington's current, as well as past, assumptions about the insurgency. Indeed, "[I]n Iraq, the U.S. fights an enemy it hardly knows," the report asserts.
The notion, for example, that the insurgency is divided between Iraqi nationalists and foreign jihadis, most prominently al-Qaeda's Organization in Mesopotamia (QOM) allegedly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, appears increasingly questionable, according to the report, which notes that there has been a "gradual convergence" in the groups' tactics and rhetoric.
"A year ago, groups appeared divided over practices and ideology, but most debates have been settled through convergence around Sunni Islamic jurisprudence and Sunni Arab grievances," according to the report.
"Practically speaking, it has become virtually impossible to categorize a particular group's discourse as jihadi as opposed to nationalist or patriotic, with the exception of the Ba'ath Party, whose presence on the ground has been singularly ineffective."
During the first half of 2005, when reports of armed clashes between the two kinds of groups first surfaced, that was less true, but, since then and despite intense U.S. efforts to drive a wedge between them, the groups have largely harmonized their rhetoric.
In that connection, "recent reports of negotiations between 'nationalist' groups and the U.S. over forming an alliance against foreign jihadis appear at the very least exaggerated," according to the report. It noted that any such "duplicity" would almost certainly have been exposed and denounced by others.
Moreover, "no armed group so far has even hinted" that it may be willing to negotiate with the U.S. and Iraqi authorities. "While covert talks cannot be excluded, the publicly accessible discourse remains uniformly and relentlessly hostile to the occupation and its 'collaborators.'"
That does not mean that differences between the two kinds of groups do not exist and that there could be a day of reckoning – but only after Washington's withdrawal. "To this day, the armed opposition's avowed objectives have … been reduced to a primary goal: ridding Iraq of the foreign occupier. Beyond that, all is vague."
Meanwhile, the groups have become increasingly mindful of their image and the necessity of cultivating public opinion among Sunnis, other Iraqis, and the West, according to the report.
Thus, they promptly and systematically respond to charges that they are corrupt or target innocent civilians and even reject accusations, despite the evidence from suicide attacks, against Shi'ite mosques, that they are waging a sectarian campaign.
Similarly, they have abandoned some tactics that proved especially revolting to their various audiences, such as the beheading of hostages and attacking voters going to the polls. And "[w]hile [they] deny any intent of depriving the population of water and electricity, restraint does not apply to oil installations, which are seen as part and parcel of American designs to exploit Iraq."
According to the report, four main groups now dominate the communications channels of the insurgency and publish regularly through a variety of media: QOM; Partisans of the Sunna Army (Jaysh Ansar al-Sunna); the Islamic Army in Iraq (al-Jaysh al-Islami fil-'Iraq); and the Islamic Front of the Iraqi Resistance (al-Jabha al-Islamiya lil-Muqawama al-'Iraqiya, or Jami).
QOM, whose operational importance has, according to the ICG, been exaggerated by U.S. officials, sought during the past year to "Iraqify" its image, in part by reportedly replacing Zarqawi, a Jordanian, with an Iraqi leader. Jami, according to some ICG sources, may be a "public relations organ" shared by different armed groups and tends to be somewhat more sophisticated and nationalistic in its rhetoric and communications strategy than the others.
Another five groups that take credit for military actions generally use far less elaborate and stable channels of communication, while four more groups appear to lack regular means of communication to produce occasional claims of responsibility for armed actions through statements or videos.
All groups appear to have become more confident over the past year, according to the report, which noted that their optimism is not only noticeable in their official communiqués but in more spontaneous expressions by militants and sympathizers on Internet chat sites and elsewhere.
Initially, according to the report, they perceived the U.S. presence as extremely difficult to remove, "[b]ut that no longer is the case."
"Today, the prospect of an outright victory and a swift withdrawal of foreign forces has crystallized, bolstered by the U.S.' perceived loss of legitimacy and apparent vacillation, its periodic announcement of troops redeployments, the precipitous decline in domestic support for the war, and heightened calls by prominent politicians for a rapid withdrawal," the report states.
Moreover, "[w]hen the U.S. leaves, the insurgents do not doubt that Iraq's security forces and institutions would quickly collapse."
Monday, January 30, 2006
Iran-EU Talks Resume, India Shrugs off US Pressures
"The doors for negotiation are open and we can still find a formula to reach a conclusion," said Asefi.
TEHRAN, January 29, 2006 – Iran will resume on Monday, January 30, talks with Britain, France and Germany on its nuclear program, as India shrugged off on Sunday, January 29, US pressures to vote against Iran at the upcoming meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Official media said the Iranian delegation would be headed by senior nuclear negotiator Javad Vaidi, but gave no details on the agenda for the discussions, which will come just days before the IAEA emergency meeting, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).
"The doors for negotiation are open and we can still find a formula to reach a conclusion," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.
The EU-3 and the United States are pushing IAEA members to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, claiming Tehran is using a nuclear energy drive as a cover for weapons development.
Asefi dismissed the IAEA meeting, scheduled for February 2, as "politicized" and said "dealing with Iran's case outside the IAEA will not solve anything".
Pressures on Iran were heightened earlier this month when the country announced it was suspending a voluntary moratorium and resuming sensitive nuclear research work.
Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is for strictly peaceful purposes, and says it is cooperating with a now three-year-old IAEA investigation.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Saturday, January 28, that diplomacy was still possible even as other leaders made clear that bringing Iran before the Security Council for possible sanctions was still very much on the cards.
Asefi said talks with Russia on a potential compromise needed more time.
"It can be a useful plan if seen as a package. The plan needs more work on it," added the spokesman.
Moscow's idea to enrich uranium outside Iran is seen as a possible solution to the standoff and has received cautious and conditional support from the US and the EU.
Moscow is proposing that sensitive nuclear fuel work -- which could potentially be diverted to produce nuclear weapons – be conducted outside the Islamic republic as a way of preventing Iran from acquiring bomb-making technology but also guaranteeing its access to nuclear energy.
Iran has repeatedly said it would never abandon its drive to enrich uranium on its own soil.
But in a bid to allay increased international tension, Tehran has signaled a leaning towards accepting the compromise solution.
Defiant India
In a related development, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted Sunday that his country will not be pressured into voting against Iran in this week's IAEA meeting.
"We will do what is right for the country. India's national interest is the prime concern whether it is domestic or foreign policy," Singh told reporters in New Delhi.
"We will not come under pressure. We will do the right thing for the country. Our prime concern is to protect and safeguard India's enlightened national interest," he added.
US Ambassador in New Delhi David Mulford warned last week that a historic deal to provide India with American nuclear technology might fall through unless it votes against Iran at the IAEA meeting.
Mulford said a prospective deal for the United States to transfer civilian nuclear technology to India would "die" in the US Congress if India voted against a resolution on Iran.
During the IAEA meeting in Vienna in September, India voted with the United States, Britain, France and Germany to chide Iran for its nuclear program.
The US is also pressuring Russia and China, both veto-wielding Security Council members, to back the referral of the Iranian file to the Security Council.
Experts say Russia and China face important strategic setbacks if the Iran nuclear issue is referred to the Security Council, and will fight behind the scenes to prevent this.
Courtesy:-www.islamonline.net
"The doors for negotiation are open and we can still find a formula to reach a conclusion," said Asefi.
TEHRAN, January 29, 2006 – Iran will resume on Monday, January 30, talks with Britain, France and Germany on its nuclear program, as India shrugged off on Sunday, January 29, US pressures to vote against Iran at the upcoming meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Official media said the Iranian delegation would be headed by senior nuclear negotiator Javad Vaidi, but gave no details on the agenda for the discussions, which will come just days before the IAEA emergency meeting, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).
"The doors for negotiation are open and we can still find a formula to reach a conclusion," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.
The EU-3 and the United States are pushing IAEA members to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, claiming Tehran is using a nuclear energy drive as a cover for weapons development.
Asefi dismissed the IAEA meeting, scheduled for February 2, as "politicized" and said "dealing with Iran's case outside the IAEA will not solve anything".
Pressures on Iran were heightened earlier this month when the country announced it was suspending a voluntary moratorium and resuming sensitive nuclear research work.
Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is for strictly peaceful purposes, and says it is cooperating with a now three-year-old IAEA investigation.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Saturday, January 28, that diplomacy was still possible even as other leaders made clear that bringing Iran before the Security Council for possible sanctions was still very much on the cards.
Asefi said talks with Russia on a potential compromise needed more time.
"It can be a useful plan if seen as a package. The plan needs more work on it," added the spokesman.
Moscow's idea to enrich uranium outside Iran is seen as a possible solution to the standoff and has received cautious and conditional support from the US and the EU.
Moscow is proposing that sensitive nuclear fuel work -- which could potentially be diverted to produce nuclear weapons – be conducted outside the Islamic republic as a way of preventing Iran from acquiring bomb-making technology but also guaranteeing its access to nuclear energy.
Iran has repeatedly said it would never abandon its drive to enrich uranium on its own soil.
But in a bid to allay increased international tension, Tehran has signaled a leaning towards accepting the compromise solution.
Defiant India
In a related development, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted Sunday that his country will not be pressured into voting against Iran in this week's IAEA meeting.
"We will do what is right for the country. India's national interest is the prime concern whether it is domestic or foreign policy," Singh told reporters in New Delhi.
"We will not come under pressure. We will do the right thing for the country. Our prime concern is to protect and safeguard India's enlightened national interest," he added.
US Ambassador in New Delhi David Mulford warned last week that a historic deal to provide India with American nuclear technology might fall through unless it votes against Iran at the IAEA meeting.
Mulford said a prospective deal for the United States to transfer civilian nuclear technology to India would "die" in the US Congress if India voted against a resolution on Iran.
During the IAEA meeting in Vienna in September, India voted with the United States, Britain, France and Germany to chide Iran for its nuclear program.
The US is also pressuring Russia and China, both veto-wielding Security Council members, to back the referral of the Iranian file to the Security Council.
Experts say Russia and China face important strategic setbacks if the Iran nuclear issue is referred to the Security Council, and will fight behind the scenes to prevent this.
Courtesy:-www.islamonline.net
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Foreign Students scared to leave their homes
Foreign students scared to leave their homes
An African student was stabbed to death and another seriously wounded in St Petersburg over the Christmas weekend, raising fears that hate crimes are spreading across Russia. A Cameroonian student was killed just hours after another two Africans were slashed with a knife on the same street. All three victims were members of St Petersburg's Water Transport University, where many foreigners study and live together in dormitories. Many are now terrified to go out onto the streets of St Petersburg.
"We don't know who the next victim will be," said Toni Dukimo, an African student who was a friend of the murdered victim. "Maybe it will be me, when I am going home tonight."
Russian police, who have been criticised for a muted response to a spate of similar attacks, were reluctant to describe the stabbing as racially motivated. "It could be hooliganism, a settling of scores, extremism," said Sergei Zaitsev, a local police spokesman. But human rights groups in Russia say the murder has all the hallmarks of a rise in racially motivated attacks by skinhead groups over the past few years which has been "practically ignored" by authorities and police.
Andrew Suberu, deputy head of African Unity, a support group for African students in St Petersburg, said skinheads were definitely involved.
"According to my information, the attackers looked like skinheads. Now such attacks are a usual story in St Petersburg," he said.
According to the Moscow Bureau of Human Rights (MBHR), 59 people have been killed in racist attacks in Russia in the past two years. In October, an 18-year-old Peruvian student was murdered in a southern university town popular with British students. Enrique Urtado was set upon by a gang of 20 youths who beat him and his friends with metal poles and wooden stakes.
Researchers have warned that Voronezh, a depressed city with high unemployment rates 300 miles south of Moscow, had become the country's main skinhead recruiting ground, labelling the city a "crucible of race hatred". Russia is estimated to be home to more than 50,000 skinheads, with 10,000 in Moscow and 5,000 in St Petersburg alone.
Critics argue the lethargic attitude of the police in chasing and prosecuting racist attacks has encouraged neo-Nazi groups to flourish. Using names such as "Blood and Honour", "Moscow Hammer Skin" and "Skin Legion" some observers fear their numbers could rise to over 100,000 within a few years.
It is not just extremist racism on the peripheries of society that is worrying observers. A leading racism monitoring website in Russia surveyed opinion in the first half of 2005 and found up to 60 per cent of Russians held some type of xenophobic viewpoint. Among the least-liked ethnic minorities were Chechens, Azeris and Armenians. Much of the neo-Nazi literature circulating among extremist groups in Russia has concentrated on insisting Russia is a purely white country.
Political parties have also increasingly resorted to tough immigration policies and xenophobic rhetoric to win votes. The MBHR recently published a report monitoring xenophobia during the Moscow local elections and found "a number of political parties adhering to xenophobic slogans in their election campaigns". Slogans such as "Russia for Russians" and "Russian faces in the Russian capital" were increasingly popular, they said.
In June this year, public figures from St Petersburg wrote an open letter to President Vladimir Putin warning him of the rise of neo-Nazism in Russia. "You certainly know that in the last years along with traditional anti-Semitism and xenophobia another kind of racism is thriving in Russia," they wrote. "The racism of Nazi nature is the ideological basis for crimes sweeping over our country."
The Independent
An African student was stabbed to death and another seriously wounded in St Petersburg over the Christmas weekend, raising fears that hate crimes are spreading across Russia. A Cameroonian student was killed just hours after another two Africans were slashed with a knife on the same street. All three victims were members of St Petersburg's Water Transport University, where many foreigners study and live together in dormitories. Many are now terrified to go out onto the streets of St Petersburg.
"We don't know who the next victim will be," said Toni Dukimo, an African student who was a friend of the murdered victim. "Maybe it will be me, when I am going home tonight."
Russian police, who have been criticised for a muted response to a spate of similar attacks, were reluctant to describe the stabbing as racially motivated. "It could be hooliganism, a settling of scores, extremism," said Sergei Zaitsev, a local police spokesman. But human rights groups in Russia say the murder has all the hallmarks of a rise in racially motivated attacks by skinhead groups over the past few years which has been "practically ignored" by authorities and police.
Andrew Suberu, deputy head of African Unity, a support group for African students in St Petersburg, said skinheads were definitely involved.
"According to my information, the attackers looked like skinheads. Now such attacks are a usual story in St Petersburg," he said.
According to the Moscow Bureau of Human Rights (MBHR), 59 people have been killed in racist attacks in Russia in the past two years. In October, an 18-year-old Peruvian student was murdered in a southern university town popular with British students. Enrique Urtado was set upon by a gang of 20 youths who beat him and his friends with metal poles and wooden stakes.
Researchers have warned that Voronezh, a depressed city with high unemployment rates 300 miles south of Moscow, had become the country's main skinhead recruiting ground, labelling the city a "crucible of race hatred". Russia is estimated to be home to more than 50,000 skinheads, with 10,000 in Moscow and 5,000 in St Petersburg alone.
Critics argue the lethargic attitude of the police in chasing and prosecuting racist attacks has encouraged neo-Nazi groups to flourish. Using names such as "Blood and Honour", "Moscow Hammer Skin" and "Skin Legion" some observers fear their numbers could rise to over 100,000 within a few years.
It is not just extremist racism on the peripheries of society that is worrying observers. A leading racism monitoring website in Russia surveyed opinion in the first half of 2005 and found up to 60 per cent of Russians held some type of xenophobic viewpoint. Among the least-liked ethnic minorities were Chechens, Azeris and Armenians. Much of the neo-Nazi literature circulating among extremist groups in Russia has concentrated on insisting Russia is a purely white country.
Political parties have also increasingly resorted to tough immigration policies and xenophobic rhetoric to win votes. The MBHR recently published a report monitoring xenophobia during the Moscow local elections and found "a number of political parties adhering to xenophobic slogans in their election campaigns". Slogans such as "Russia for Russians" and "Russian faces in the Russian capital" were increasingly popular, they said.
In June this year, public figures from St Petersburg wrote an open letter to President Vladimir Putin warning him of the rise of neo-Nazism in Russia. "You certainly know that in the last years along with traditional anti-Semitism and xenophobia another kind of racism is thriving in Russia," they wrote. "The racism of Nazi nature is the ideological basis for crimes sweeping over our country."
The Independent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)