up state news

mod_dbrss2 AJAX RSS Reader poweredbysimplepie
UpState News
Home
News
Blog
Contact Us
Search
News Flash
  • 10:10 - 25.04.2009 News >> Latest

     
    Police admit they are ill equipped to deal with the threat of Britain's gangs      

    Read more...
  • 07:19 - 02.12.2009 News >> Latest

     Tiger Woods apologises for 'transgressions'       

    Read more...
  • 07:59 - 30.08.2010 News >> Latest

     Sept. 11 led him to be a cop TECH WHIZ | Now he has designed system that could predict crime locations Read Article    

    Read more...
  • 07:39 - 17.05.2010 News >> Latest

     Israel stops Chomsky entering the West BankJewish American professor is a renowned left-wing political thinker and critic of Israel and US policy in the Middle East Read Article   

    Read more...
  • 07:40 - 19.06.2009 News >> Latest

      Leaders worried by the rise of people power in Iran      Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem, Martin Chulov in Baghdad, Hugh Macleod in Beirut and Ian Black guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 June 2009 22.08 BST Article history
    Arab states – and Israel – are watching intently as Iran's political convulsions continue, seeking clues to how the unfolding crisis will affect the strategic picture in the Middle East, especially the key issue of the Islamic republic's nuclear ambitions.In a region where democratic politics are the exception, there is nervousness about the implications of people power on the streets of Tehran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is deeply unpopular – but mass protests worry all autocrats.Israel Officially and in public, at least, Israeli officials have spoken of their deep concern about Ahmadinejad's apparent re-election. Israel's rightwing government, under the leadership of prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, has made a priority of challenging Iran's nuclear ambitions. On Sunday night, Netanyahu said the world's greatest challenge today was "the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons".In private, Israeli officials appeared to be hoping for an ­Ahmadinejad victory even before the polls opened, despite his vitriolic ­criticism of Israel, his denial of the ­Holocaust and his apparent eagerness for a nuclear weapons programme.Israeli newspapers quoted several senior officials anonymously saying that a win for Ahmadinejad would help Israel because, as they saw it, none of the candidates differed very much on policy and Ahmadinejad's strong language and blunt actions made him easier to criticise internationally. "Considering the circumstances, he is the best thing that ever happened to us," one foreign ministry official was quoted as saying in the popular Ma'ariv newspaper last Friday.Ben Caspit, a Ma'ariv columnist, put it even more bluntly that morning: "If you have friends in Iran, try to convince them to vote for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today … There is no one who will serve Israel's PR interests better than him."Far fewer were the voices who questioned that line of thinking. Among them was Aluf Benn, a Ha'aretz ­columnist who dismissed the support for Ahmadinejad as a "blatant manifestation of the narrow horizons of Israeli strategic thinking".LebanonRecently emerging from their own political upheavals, savvy Lebanese see much of themselves in the people politics unfolding in Tehran."It reminds me of our protests," said Haitham Chamas, an activist who helped organise protests in 2005 that brought a million Lebanese on to the streets calling for democratic reforms and the fall of the government.Just as in Tehran, that opposition was swiftly answered by a huge rally in ­support of the incumbent regime, organised then by Hezbollah, which is allied with Iran and Syria.Chamas and friends have spent the last week talking of little else but what the historic events unfolding in Iran could mean for Lebanon, where Iranian financing of Hezbollah has divided opinion like never before. The…

    Read more...
India lays to rest a Bush-era ghost

 

India lays to rest a Bush-era ghost

 



Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh failed to realize the main objective of his visit  to the United States - the "operationalization" of the US-India civilian nuclear deal. India and the US were more successful in other areas, including on defense cooperation. But the most important outcome from Delhi's perspective is a jettisoning of false hopes and expectations raised in the George W Bush era that do not match the US's declining power and influence. - M K Bhadrakumar

 

 

 
NSA pesuades China on Iran

 

 

China's backing on Iran followed dire predictions


Before Obama's visit, NSC warned leaders of Mideast turmoil

By John Pomfret and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 26, 2009

Two weeks before President Obama visited China, two senior White House officials traveled to Beijing on a "special mission" to try to persuade China to pressure Iran to give up its alleged nuclear weapons program.

If Beijing did not help the United States on this issue, the consequences could be severe, the visitors, Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Bader, both senior officials in the National Security Council, informed the Chinese.

The Chinese were told that Israel regards Iran's nuclear program as an "existential issue and that countries that have an existential issue don't listen to other countries," according to a senior administration official. The implication was clear: Israel could bomb Iran, leading to a crisis in the Persian Gulf region and almost inevitably problems over the very oil China needs to fuel its economic juggernaut, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Earlier this week, the White House got its answer. China informed the United States that it would support a toughly worded, U.S.-backed statement criticizing the Islamic republic for flouting U.N. resolutions by constructing a secret uranium-enrichment plant. The statement, obtained by The Washington Post, is part of a draft resolution to be taken up as soon as Thursday by the 35 nations that make up the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

While largely symbolic, it is the first such declaration since 2006 to be backed by both China and Russia. And the statement marks a departure for China, which has long refrained from criticizing Iran's nuclear policies. The issue of how China will handle the Iranian nuclear issue has emerged as an early test of what Obama has described as a relationship that "will shape the 21st century."

Given its backing even from Iran's erstwhile allies, European diplomats on Wednesday predicted easy passage of the resolution, which calls Tehran's construction of an underground enrichment plant near Qom a "breach of its obligations" under U.N. and IAEA guidelines. If approved, the resolution will be referred to the U.N. Security Council, which could decide to enact harsher sanctions against the Islamic republic.

"Our patience is not going to last forever," German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, whose government drafted the resolution, told reporters on the eve of the IAEA session.

But while diplomats and arms-control experts welcomed China's support of the IAEA resolution, some acknowledged that it is not clear whether Russia or China would go further and agree to new sanctions against Iran. Attempts to reach officials at the Chinese Embassy for comment were unsuccessful.

"They're expressing displeasure with Iran, but whether that translates into a U.N. Security Council resolution is another matter," said David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear inspector and president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.

Iran, which insists that it wants to harness nuclear power only to make electricity, this week acknowledged feeling new pressure from Russia over its expanding nuclear network. A top military commander, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Hassan Mansourian, told state-run Press TV that Russia had reneged on supplying promised military technology "due to pressure form the Zionist lobby and the Americans."

The visit to Beijing last month by the senior White House aides was described as part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to isolate Iran. In making their case to China, administration officials warned that a nuclear Iran not only would raise the risk of a regional conflict, higher oil prices and even interrupted supplies, it could also trigger a surge in nuclear proliferation.

The Chinese were told that "this could shake the entire framework of the international nonproliferation regime," said the official who was familiar with the lengthy analysis Ross laid out.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt could start their own nuclear programs, the Chinese were told. "And once Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey go, what's left?" the official said. The implication again was clear: Japan, China's biggest competitor for influence in the region, could go nuclear as well, the official said.

Obama reinforced those messages during his trip to China last week in meetings with President Hu Jintao, the official said. "Both Dennis and the president talked about the consequences of Iran moving toward having highly-enriched-uranium capacity," the official said.

The United States wants China to back sanctions against Iran if Tehran refuses a proposal to send most of its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium abroad for processing into fuel rods for a research reactor in Iran.

China has said it opposes sanctions against Iran; China's state-run energy behemoths have committed to investing $120 billion in Iran's energy sector over the past five years, and few if any of those projects have broken ground. Iran is also China's No. 2 supplier of oil. Earlier this week, Sinopec, one of China's biggest oil companies, signed another memorandum of understanding with the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Co. to invest an additional $6.5 billion to build oil refineries in Iran.

From the start of his administration, Obama has lobbied the Chinese over Iran. The issue dominated his discussions with Hu during their meeting at the U.N. General Assembly in September. Obama referred to the issue with Iran as "a core national interest" of the United States, a conscious use of a term China employs on sensitive issues such as Taiwan and Tibet. "It's their terminology coming back at them, emphasizing how critical" the issue is to the United States, the U.S. official said.

U.S. officials have also attempted to explore ways to help to wean China off Iranian oil, State Department officials have said. Officials from the United Arab Emirates have said they plan to increase oil exports to China. Saudi Arabia is also moving toward closer ties with Beijing that would clearly involve selling more oil to China, officials said.

 

 

 
India chooses not to politicise Mumbai attacks.

 

Mumbai attacks remain unpoliticised

 

A year on it's still unclear what motivated the attacks, but unlike the US after 9/11, India has not sought political capital

 

One year after the Mumbai attacks, journalists, diplomats and security experts have set in place a narrative of Indian incompetence and apathy. We are told that attempts to hold Pakistan responsible for the murderous events, or bring those of its citizens implicated in them to justice, have all been infinitely delayed if not entirely stymied not least because of Pakistan's importance in the Afghan war. As if this were not bad enough, these pundits complain that not enough has been done to improve security in cities such as Mumbai, and even worse, that the Indian public has itself become apathetic about the issue.

However true or false this narrative, more interesting is the question of why the attacks seem to have had no political consequences in India, despite the efforts made by certain opposition parties to drum up American-style hysteria about the government's failure in guaranteeing the nation's security. Both in the provincial elections that were occurring while two of Mumbai's greatest hotels were under siege, and in the federal elections held shortly afterwards, terrorism proved to be of little concern for voters, including the middle and upper classes whose favourite haunts had been targeted in Mumbai, and who are otherwise so vocal about security matters.

Instead of attributing this lack of interest to an epidemic of apathy that has infected India's government and people alike, we should recognise the truth of an argument made by Ashis Nandy, one of the country's most eminent intellectuals, a number of years ago, to the effect that terrorism has rarely been a political issue for Indians.

While they have suffered from its effects so often the citizens of this great democracy appear to have realised that terrorist strikes such as those in Mumbai last year were not political acts of any serious kind, but a set of provocations and murderous gambles whose aims remain unclear even in the account of the surviving gunman now in custody. For even as Ajmal Kasab offered his captors a stereotyped tale of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e Taiba's arrangements to strike at its old enemy for the umpteenth time, he also revealed that he had joined the outfit a short time before only so that he might have access to arms in order to embark upon a career of robbery in his own country.

Whether it was intended as a provocation to India, a message to the US, or simply a self-serving global spectacle, the attack on Mumbai accomplished many things, none of them, however, being political in the sense of supporting a particular interest or pushing an agenda in any meaningful way. And it is because no such aim is clearly identifiable that the event remains the subject of speculation and rumour.

In refusing to politicise the attacks, then, Indians have displayed a maturity that contrasts with America's response not only to the devastating strike that was 9/11, but to far lesser threats as well. For 9/11, too, was not a political act in any international sense, given the insignificant abilities and resources of its perpetrators, but instead was politicised only by the US reaction that followed it. Is this contrast due to the fact that as an emerging power, India uses such attacks to bolster its military role in the region, while as a gradually declining one the US scrambles to take advantage of such incidents so as to renew its global dominance, if only by engaging in high-risk gambles?

Whatever the case, both India's enmity with Pakistan in the international arena, and the mutual enmity of Hindus and Muslims in the domestic one, are based on a politics of intimacy in which each is seen as being all too familiar with the other. Because of its very closeness, such a relationship can result in the kind of violence born from the feeling of a fraternity betrayed, as much as it can lead to the amity of a brotherhood restored. And if Indian society tolerates the violence of those seen as enemies, it does so in the same proportion as it tolerates violence against them, recognising in this way that justice might exist on both sides. This tolerance suggests that violence is not always viewed as political, and can even be ignored when no clear interest or agenda is involved. The aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, I believe, tell us that it is possible to set limits to what counts as politics, and in doing so to deal with terrorism in a less paranoid and more productive way than is seen in the west today.

 

 

 

 
Climate change will lead to ( more ) civil wars in Africa.

 

 

Climate change will lead to civil wars in Africa.

Child soldier in Congo; Climate change will lead to civil wars in Africa, says research
Civil wars in Congo have killed 5.4 million people in 10 years. Climate change could make future conflict more likely, say scientists Photo: AFP/GETTY

 

A rise of as little as 1C could make civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa more than 50 per cent more likely, according to the study.

Marshall Burke, a University of California economist and the study's lead author, said: "Our study finds that climate change could increase the risk of African civil war by over 50 percent in 2030 relative to 1990, with huge potential costs to human livelihoods."

Small changes to temperature will affect crop growth, and most of sub-Saharan Africa’s poor rely on agriculture for their livelihood.

Edward Miguel, professor of economics at UC Berkeley, said: "When temperatures rise, the livelihoods of many in Africa suffer greatly, and the disadvantaged become more likely to take up arms."

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), is the first hard evidence linking global warming to fighting. It is based on data from 20 global warming models and a historical examination of the links between climate and conflict in sub-Saharan Africa.

The researchers found that, between 1980 and 2002, civil wars were much more likely in warmer years. In years that were one degree above average, the risk of conflict rose by nearly 50 per cent.

The study’s co-author, earth scientist David Lobell, said: "On average, the models suggest that temperatures over the African continent will increase by a little over one degree Celsius by 2030.

"Given the strong historical relationship between temperature rise and conflict, this expected future rise in temperature is enough to cause big increases in the likelihood of conflict.”

The study suggested that a one-degree rise could translate to a 55 per cent risk increase by 2030, which in turn would lead to 390,000 deaths in combat, assuming future wars are as deadly as recent ones.

The researchers have urged governments in Africa and worldwide to hasten and expand policies to help the continent adapt to the effects of climate change.

Mr Burke said: "Our findings provide strong impetus to ramp up investments in African adaptation to climate change by such steps as developing crop varieties less sensitive to extreme heat and promoting insurance plans to help protect farmers from adverse effects of the hotter climate.

"If the sub-Saharan climate continues to warm and little is done to help its countries better adapt to high temperatures, the human costs are likely to be staggering."

Millions of people have died in Africa in civil wars in the last decade, including more than 5.4 million in the Democratic Republic of Congo alone.

 
Blair "signed-on" for Iraq invasion in'02

 

Iraq war deal ‘signed in blood’ by Blair in 2002

Tony Blair and George Bush might have “signed in blood” the agreement to topple Saddam Hussein a year before the war, the Iraq inquiry is told.

 

 

 

 
at White House, couple slips through security.

 

Off guest list, but on South Lawn

spacer

THE RELIABLE SOURCE 

White House orders a "full review" after couple slips through security, mingles with guests at state dinner.

 

 

 

 

 
NYT Mag: After Cheney

 

Joe Biden at the Capitol Building.
Antonio Bolfo for The New York Times

After Cheney

Sounding board, sage on foreign policy and twister of senatorial arms: Joe Biden could be the second most powerful vice president in history.

 

 

 
Mark Halperin's idea of funny

 

 Our sophisticated pundit class

Something About Mary
 
Google finally removes "racist" Michelle Obama pic.

 

 

Michelle Obama 'racist' picture that is topping Google Images removed

Hot Girls website apologises over 'monkey' picture that had been appearing at the top of Google Images searches

A blog hosting an offensive image of Michelle Obama with monkey features has removed it and posted an apology.

The image, which has been appearing at the top of search results when the words "Michelle Obama" are put into Google Images, was posted on a blog called Hot Girls, which is hosted by the Google-owned blog service, Blogger.

Hot Girls' owner has today removed the image, which appears to have originally been put up with a blog post on 21 October, and displayed an apology in Chinese with a very loose English translation.

Google had refused to remove the offensive image from its picture search listings, despite complaints that it is racist, instead opting to run an ad next to it explaining its policy on how search engine results work.

A spokesman for Google said that the Hot Girls blog and image may still temporarily appear when some users make Google Images searches but that it was coming out of the search engine's indexing system.

Earlier today Google's ad explaining why it kept the image in search listings was being sporadically replaced by other ads.

A spokesman for Google UK said the company was looking into why that was happening for some users and that it was not a "deliberate" action to remove the explanation.

"We would generally keep it [the explanation] up for as long as the blog [hosting the content] was up," he added.

Google warned, however, that the image of the US first lady could easily reappear in its listings if another blog posted it.

It is not the first time that Google has taken out explanation ads against search queries. In 2004 when searches for the word "Jew" returned antisemitic website results Google responded with a similar approach.

 

 

 

 
<< Start < Prev 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 Next > End >>

Results 3880 - 3888 of 6771
Links
DownState News
Latest News

© 2010 Up State News - created by JiaWebDesign web design and development