Tag: U.S.

Is there a Quid Pro Quo – or was it a cave-in?

The Palestinian decision to “withdraw” support for a resolution they were pushing in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva remains unexplained — at least, to the Palestinian people — on Friday night.

The draft resolution would have called for support of the report submitted by South Africa’s Justice Richard Goldstone, who was appointed to head the Human Rights Council’s Fact-Finding Mission on last winter’s Gaza. The resolution would also have referral the Goldstone report to the UN General Assembly for action. Instead, another resolution was adopted to postpone consideration of the report’s findings.

The news was leaked by Israeli media on Thursday evening. On Friday afternoon in Geneva it become official: the Human Rights Council members agreed to “postpone” consideration of the report’s conclusions until next March, 2010.

Even though Friday is the normal Palestinian weekend day off, there was no effort to explain to the Palestinian people why their leadership “withdraw” backing for an immediate vote by the UN Human Rights Council.

Instead, there was confusion and disarray.

Continue reading Is there a Quid Pro Quo – or was it a cave-in?

Alarmed Israeli experts call government's settlement proposals "fraud" with alarming strategic consequences

Alarmed Israeli experts are using unusually strong language in warnings about their government’s authorizations this week for settlement activities in the occupied West Bank and in East Jerusalem — and about the possible consequences.

U.S. and world leaders interested in peace and stability in the Middle East — which President Barack Obama has said is an American strategic interest – should take note. But reaction has been very slow in coming.

Palestinian officials, meanwhile, are busy with internal feuding and possible reconciliation, and are distracted by exhaustion just over half-way through the special month of Ramadan with its total prohibitions (in public, at least) on activities such as eating, drinking (including water), and smoking for some 14 hours a day (from two hours before dawn until sunset). Palestinian officials are also keeping relatively quiet because they do not want to jeopardize President Mahmoud Abbas’s forthcoming visit to the high-level segment of the annual UN General Assembly debate in about ten days’ time, with its planned whirlwind of formal and informal diplomatic meetings with the world’s top leaders, including the head of state of the UN’s host county, U.S. President Barack Obama. In addition, Palestinian officials generally tend to believe that these problems are really not so much theirs, as the responsibility of the international community.

But, Akiva Eldar reports in Haaretz today that “Three days after the U.S. administration criticized the decision of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to authorize the construction of hundreds of new housing units in settlements, the Israel Lands Administration published tenders for the construction of 486 apartments in the neighborhood of Pisgat Ze’ev in East Jerusalem”.

To call the U.S. reaction to the moves that started on Monday — the Labor Day holiday in the States, when all of official Washington was taking time off — “criticism” may be a slight exaggeration. As Akiva Eldar notes in the last sentence of his piece, “a source familiar with the exchanges between Israel and the U.S. on the issue of a settlement freeze told Haaretz that the Obama administration is not interested in a crisis with the government of Netanyahu on settlements“. It might be understandable that nobody wants a “crisis” — but crisis might well be what they will get if this issue is fobbed off once again.

There has been a concentrated surge in Israeli settlement activity in and around East Jerusalem since the end of the three-week massive Israeli military attack on Gaza, Operation Cast Lead, from 27 December to 18 January.

According to Akiva Eldar, “The new construction project is designated for the outer edge of the northeastern municipal boundary of Jerusalem, and will narrow the distance between the homes on the edge of the neighborhood and the nearby Palestinian communities. Bids have been solicited for construction on an overall area of 138 dunams (about 34 acres), which was subdivided into 25 smaller tenders. The Obama administration has made it clear on a number of occasions that it is demanding that Israel freeze settlement construction in the territories, including in East Jerusalem. Two months ago, it was reported that Netanyahu had ordered a delay in the publication of the tenders”.

Eldar also reported that “Daniel Seidemann, the founder of Ir Amim, a non-profit organization that seeks to promote coexistence in Jerusalem, said last night that tenders of such magnitude would not be announced if they did not have the support of the prime minister. Seidemann describes the bid-taking as yet another example of a fraud that leads to creating facts on the ground even though there is talk of a freeze in settlement construction”. Eldar’s story can be read in full here.

Seidemann was the founder and is now the legal adviser of Ir Amim, or *City of Nations” — an organization that is devoted to developing a politically-sustainable future for a Jerusalem that will be equitably shared between its two peoples and three religions.

Jerusalem, one of the most segregated cities in the region, is Israel’s declared capital (a move that was made in 1980 but which is not “recognized” diplomatically by almost every country in the world) and its largest — and poorest — city. East Jerusalem, which did not become part of Israel at the time of its state creation in May 1948, is where almost all of the city’s Palestinian residents (who are overwhelmingly not Israeli citizens) live. However, there are now large areas (“neighborhoods”) of Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem. The Palestinian declaration in 1988 (made in Algiers by Yasser Arafat, then endorsed by the full Palestine National Council) claimed East Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent Palestinian state — a position that the most of the world, including the U.S. Administration. has until now appeared to endorse.

An email advisory about a new report recently released by Ir Imim notes that:
* As of today, about 2,000 settlers live in Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
* In recent months, the settlement process in Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem has accelerated – in the area that is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The plans are meant to establish Jewish residential contiguity in the neighborhoods surrounding the Old City, and place settlers in the heart of the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City, in Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah.
* These settlements are part of a strategic process, coordinated and advanced by various governmental authorities and the Municipality of Jerusalem.
… [And] in the first half of 2009 plans to build 150 additional residential units in East Jerusalem were advanced. These would be able to house about 750 additional settlers in strategic sites in the eastern part of the city. Moreover, plans were advanced to build public Jewish structures like synagogues, mikvot, and community centers in these sensitive areas. The report notes that the majority of the building is carried out by private bodies, and [settler] associations like ‘Elad’ and ‘Ateret Cohenim’. However, it is clear that these activities are part of a strategic plan conceptualized, coordinated, and advanced by various government agencies, as well as by the Municipality of Jerusalem. The latter’s role includes support of the accelerated processes in approving settlement plans; and ‘vigilance’ in demolishing homes in these neighborhoods. In the report’s appendix, other processes likely to influence the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are tracked, especially the expansion of Israeli construction in East Jerusalem and the demolition of Palestinian homes. The appendix notes reports of land acquisitions in Samir Amis — in northern Jerusalem on the other side of the separation fence [n.b., Semiramis is also on the other side of what Israeli military officials call a “border crossing”, the Qalandia checkpoint] — in Beit Hanina, in Jabel Mukaber, in the Muslim quarter, as well as in other areas”.

The text of the Ir Amim report says that there are “three urgent threats to a negotiated agreement in Jerusalem:
1. The accelerated process of Israeli settlement in Palestinian communities in East Jerusalem.
2. Plans for development of E-1, which would prevent future development of a Palestinian capital to the east, and sever its connection with the West Bank.
3. The proposed Jerusalem master plan (Jerusalem 2000), which threatens to reengineer the demographic distribution of Palestinians and Israelis in East
Jerusalem; and to isolate a number of Palestinian communities”.

The report also states that “Recent months have seen the acceleration of the process of Israeli settlement in Palestinian communities in East Jerusalem. These settlements create a crescent of Jewish population along the ridges surrounding the Old City, and implant Jewish population in the midst of the Muslim and Christian Quarters, as well as in Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah – precisely in the areas of most intense dispute in the Palestinian /Israeli conflict. At the start of 2009 approximately 2000 Israeli settlers were living in Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem – primarily in the historic area. In the first half of 2009, plans are being advanced for the building of an additional 150 housing units that could settle another 750 people in strategic areas of disputed East Jerusalem. In addition, plans were advanced for Jewish community facilities (e.g., synagogues, community centers, ritual baths, etc.) in these areas. Most of this activity is executed by private bodies, such as the Elad and Ateret Cohanim associations. However, it is evident that individual settlements are part of a strategic move, coordinated and facilitated by national governmental units, as well as by the Jerusalem Municipality. The latter’s contribution is manifested in expedition of planning processes and increased ‘vigilance’ regarding housing demolitions in the affected communities. Of special concern are the recently exposed plans for a massive expansion of settlements in Ras Al-Amud and Silwan, as well as the approval of plans for construction in Sheikh Jarrah and attendant evictions … A number of reports have appeared in the Israeli press about land purchases by settler organizations in various Palestinian neighborhoods. Ir Amim understands that there have been undisclosed purchases in Samiramis (north of the Separation Barrier, but within the Jerusalem municipal lines), Beit Hanina, Jabel Mukaber, and the Muslim Quarter of the Old City … According to the Municipality of Jerusalem, in the first six months of 2009, 40 Palestinian structures were demolished, including 15 which were demolished by the owners. This number is roughly representative of the average number of demolitions carried out in half a year in past years (i.e., 42 homes). Over the years 2004 – 2008, an average of 84 Palestinian homes were demolished in Jerusalem yearly. In 2008, 88 homes were demolished. In this half-year period, demolitions occurred in virtually all of the Palestinian neighborhoods of Jerusalem, including 5 in the Old City. It is notable that in the entire year of 2008, only 3 homes were demolished in the Old City”.

The full Ir Amim report in English can be viewed here .

Shaul Arieli, a military aide to then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the time of the Camp David negotiations conducted with the Palestinians under the auspices of former U.S. President Bill Clinton in the year 2000, has just published on his website a dramatic power point presentation of the extensive Israeli preparations to develop the “E-1 envelope” in the West Bank half way between East Jerusalem and Dead Sea, opposite the very large Israeli settlement Maale Adumim, which is just south of the main Road One (1). Arieli’s photographs and explanations show massive Israeli infrastructure development of a new area designated as “Mevasseret Adumim”, on the northern side of the main highway to the Dead Sea, Road One (1), where now there is only the recently-relocated Police Station (moved from the East Jerusalem area of Ras al-Amud earlier this year, despite straight-faced statements of Israeli officials last year to then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the police station move would not take place in the near future).

Arieli, who is now a member of Israel’s Council on Peace and Security, an independent organization of former military and other officials, later developed the maps and the 1:1 land swap proposal that were an important part of the Geneva Initiative — a proposal for a conclusion of Israeli-Palestinian final status negotiations that was launched with Swiss support in December 2003 by “civil society” (critics, however, called them has-been and wanna-be politicians). The 1:1 land swap was a feature of the reported offer (details are only very sketchy) that was apparently made by Israel’s outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas last year.

In his powerpoint presentation, Arieli concludes that “the strategic consequences [of Israeli settlement development in the West Bank] are alarming. Israel continues to invest in the [E-1] plan as if no final status negotiations are taking place, or as if it does not treat the negotiations with the seriousness needed to conclude an agreement. It continues to position itself in the West Bank, including entrenching the settlement enterprise under an apparent work assumption that the conflict would continue … On the one hand, Israel is negotiating over final status … on the other hand, it is investing heavily in creating reality that eliminates the ability to reach such an agreement. Either the government is knowingly wasting the taxpayer’s money, or is purposefully undermining the ability to conclude a final status agreement”.

Arieli’s powerpoint presentation, with its photos and maps, can be viewed here .

***********************

For background on these complicated local issues with international ramifications, here is some information compiled by BTselem, which calls itself “the Israeli information center for Human Rights in the occupied territories”:

ON SETTLEMENTS IN GENERAL

“At the end of 2008, the West Bank (not including East Jerusalem) contained 121 settlements that the Interior Ministry recognized as ‘communities’, even though some of them contain stretches of land on which the built-up area is not contiguous. Twelve other large settlements and small settlement points are located on land annexed by Israel in 1967 and made part of Jerusalem. There are an additional 100 or so unrecognized settlements, referred to in the media as “outposts,” which are usually smaller than the recognized settlements. By the end of 2008, the number of settlers in the West Bank stood at 479,500. This figure is based on two components: according to Israel´s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), in 2008, 285,800 settlers were living in the West Bank, excluding East. In addition, based on growth statistics for the entire population of Jerusalem, the settler population in East Jerusalem at the end of 2008 is estimated at 193,700. According to CBS´s estimate, in 2008, the settler population (excluding East Jerusalem) grew at a much faster rate than the general population: 4.7 percent compared to 1.6 percent respectively [And] In 2007, the population of the settlements (excluding East Jerusalem) grew faster than Israel´s general population: 4.5 percent compared to 1.5 percent”. This information can be examined in full here.

ON EAST JERUSALEM

“Since East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, the government of Israel´s primary goal in Jerusalem has been to create a demographic and geographic situation that will thwart any future attempt to challenge Israeli sovereignty over the city. To achieve this goal, the government has been taking actions to increase the number of Jews, and reduce the number of Palestinians, living in the city. At the end of 2005, the population of Jerusalem stood at 723,700: 482,500 Jews (67 percent) and 241,200 Palestinians (33 percent). About 58 percent of the residents live on land that was annexed in 1967 (45 percent of whom are Jews, and 55 percent Palestinians). With the Palestinians having a higher growth rate than the Jews, Israel has used various methods to achieve its goal:
* Physically isolating East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, in part by building the separation barrier;
* Discriminating in land expropriation, planning, and building, and demolition of houses;
* Revoking residency and social benefits of Palestinians who stay abroad for at least seven years, or who are unable to prove that their center of life is in Jerusalem;
* Unfairly dividing the budget between the two parts of the city, with harmful effects on infrastructure and services in East Jerusalem.
Israel´s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law. East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation”. This can be studied on the BTselem website here.

ON THE LEGAL STATUS OF JERUSALEM

“Between 1948 and June of 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two: West Jerusalem, which covered an area of about 38 square kilometers was under Israeli control, and East Jerusalem, which contained an area of some 6 sq. km [n.b., this refers just to the Old City, which is all there was of East Jerusalem until Israeli unilateral annexation of suburban areas in 1967 created Greater Municipal Jerusalem, an area over which Israel formally extended, at that time, its administration and law], was ruled by Jordan. In June 1967, following the 1967 War, Israel annexed some 70 sq. km to the municipal boundaries of West Jerusalem, and imposed Israeli law there. These annexed territories included not only the part of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian rule, but also an additional 64 square kilometers, most of which had belonged to 28 villages in the West Bank, and part of which belonged to the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala. Following their annexation, the area of West Jerusalem tripled, and Jerusalem became the largest city in Israel. Prior to 1967, therefore, most of the area comprising present-day Jerusalem was not part of the city (West or East), but rather part of the West Bank. The new borders, set by a committee headed by General Rehavam Ze’evi, then assistant to the head of the Operations Branch of the Israel Defense Forces’ General Staff, were approved by Israel’s government”. This information can be viewed on the BTselem website here.

***********************

ON E-1 OR E1 – BETWEEN JERUSALEM AND THE DEAD SEA

For background on the E-1 or E1 issue discussed in Shaul Arieli’s powerpoint presentation, here is some information from a leaked and not-officially-adopted report by the EU Heads of Mission in East Jerusalem and in Ramallah — in 2005, so some of the details are out-of-date:

“E1 (derived from ‘East 1’) is the term applied by the Israeli Ministry of Housing to a planned new neighbourhood within the municipal borders of the large Israeli settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim (30,000+ residents), linking it to the municipal boundary of Jerusalem (a unilateral Israeli line well east of the Green Line). E1, along with a maximalist barrier around Ma’ale Adumim, would complete the encircling of East Jerusalem and cut the West Bank into two parts, and further restrict access into and out of Jerusalem. The economic prospects of the Wset Bank (where GDP is under $1000 a year) are highly dependent on access to East Jerusalem (where GDP is around $3500 a year). [n.b. – In Israel in 2005, the GDP may have been around $18,000 per year, and it is now more like $24,000 per year] Estimates of the contribution made by East Jerusalem to the Palestinian economy as a whole vary between a quarter and a third. From an economic perspective, the viability of a Palestinian state depends to a great extent on the preservation of organic links between East Jerusalem, Ramallah and Bethlehem.

“E1 is an old plan which was drawn up by Rabin’s government in 1994 but never implemented. The plan was revived by the housing Ministry in 2003, and preliminary construction in the E1 area began in 2004. Since his resignation from the Cabinet, Netanyahu has tried to make E1 a campaign issue.

“The development plans for E1 include:
§ the erection of at least 3,500 housing units (for approx. 15,000 residents);
§ an economic development zone;
§ construction of the police headquarters for the West Bank that shall be relocated from Ras el-Amud;
§ commercial areas, hotels and ‘special housing’, universities and ‘special projects’, a cemetery and a waste disposal site.
§ About 75% of the plan’s total area is earmarked for a park that will surround all these components.
§ So far only the plans for the economic development zone have received the necessary authorisations for building to commence. The plans related to residential areas and the building of the Police Headquarters have been approved by the Ma’aleh Adumim Municipality but not yet by the Civil Administration’s Planning Council.

“The current built-up area of Ma’aleh Adumim covers only 15% of the planned area. The overall plan for Ma’aleh Adumim, including E1, covers an area of at least 53 square kilometres (larger than Tel Aviv) stretching from Jerusalem to Jericho (comment: Israel’s defence of settlement expansion ‘within existing settlement boundaries’ therefore covers a potentially huge area). In August 2005 Israel published land requisition orders for construction of the barrier around the southern edge of the Adumim bloc, following the route approved by the Israeli cabinet on 20 February 2005 (including most of the municipal area of Ma’aleh Adumim).
The E1 project would cut across the main central traffic route for Palestinians travelling from Bethlehem to Ramallah. This route is actually an alternative to route 60, which until 2001 was the main north-south highway connecting the major Palestinian cities (Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron) on the ridge of mountains in the West Bank. And Palestinians currently have only restricted access to route 60 (either permits are required for certain segments or roads are blocked), especially from/to the Jerusalem area.

“Since 2003, some preparatory work has taken place. In the northern sector of E-1, where residential housing is planned, the top of a hill has been levelled in order to allow construction. In the southern section, where a police station and hotels are planned, an unpaved road has been constructed. But no further work has been carried out for over a year. On 25 August 2005 Israel announced plans to build the new police headquarters for the West Bank in E1, transferring it from its present location in East Jerusalem. Many previous settlements have started with a police station, and we are aware from Israeli NGOs that Israel has plans to convert the existing West Bank police headquarters, in Ras Al-Amud, into further settlement housing”.

This 2005 EU document — which was never officially adopted — can be viewed in full here on the Electronic Intifada website.

***********************

Mitchell due in Israel today – Netanyahu announces big speech coming this week

Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has announced he will make a big speech this week [UPDATE: at the beginning of next week, Netanyahu’s office confirmed this evening.  FURTHER UPDATE: It will be delivered on Sunday at Bar-Ilan University, as Obama’s speech was delivered at Cairo University. And, by the way, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal will also deliver a speech from Damascus in the coming days, which will reportedly come after Netanyahu’s big speech, but which is also supposed to be a response to Obama].  Netanyahu has said he will present Israel’s idea for “peace”.

Maybe it will even be an “initiative”.

Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar has said, as reported earlier here, that the main Israeli objection to the Arab Peace Initiative is its name. 

Yes, really.

Now, after provoking most of the world into a tizzy by [rather recently] refusing to endorse a two-state solution, analysis and multiple leaks to the media suggest that Netanyahu believes he has gotten the American administration to agree to some kind of less-than-state for the Palestinians.  The model mentioned today is Andorra (no longer Hong Kong or Singapore, or even Switzerland).

Netanyahu may want an “initiative” to supersede the 2003 Road Map.

Members of Netanyahu’s new government have spoken against the Road Map, but voices are now being heard extolling the advantages of this document to which former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon affixed some 13 or 14 reservations.

Even though Phase I has not been fulfilled in the six years since the Road Map was launched in 2003, the supposed benefits of Phase II, which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian “State” with provisional — not final — borders, are now coming under renewed examination.

(In addition, Phase II also calls for the Palestinian “State” to take its full place in the United Nations, where it is at presented only represented by an “Observer” mission.)

Over the weekend, interesting reports in the Israeli media suggested that Mitchell might push for an immediate designation of “provisional” borders. which would be in accordance with the Road Map’s Phase II (and should therefore accordingly accompany the creation of a Palestinian state), in order to know where settlement activity would be legal or not.

The notion that agreement on borders would clarify settlement activities originated in the Bush administration during the 2008 Annapolis process of negotiations, and was publicly articulated by former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezzaa Rice. However, she did not mention “provisional” borders — which is something that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has firmly opposed.

Continue reading Mitchell due in Israel today – Netanyahu announces big speech coming this week

Roxana Saberi's reporting

The American public radio network, National Public Radio (NPR) lists links to 22 broadcast stories to which Roxana Saberi contributed as a journalist or which she prepared herself (between May 2003 and August 2007). The list of these stories is noted below (without links), and can be found here, with links.

In addition, NPR says that “In addition, reports from Roxana Saberi have been included in NPR newscasts, which are not transcribed, as recently as January 2009”.

Saberi was apparently arrested on 31 January.

On 10 March, an expression of concern combined with a request for information about her condition was signed by executives of these news organizations: NPR, ABC Television, BBC, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, Public Broadcasting System, and Feature Story News, in which they said that “For the past six years, Ms. Saberi has resided in Iran, where she is an established and respected professional journalist. She has filed for NPR, ABC, BBC and others. Before her arrest, she was pursuing a master’s degree in Iranian studies and international relations and writing a book about Iran … Roxana Saberi is a U.S. citizen, born in New Jersey, raised in North Dakota and educated in Minnesota. She has many friends and colleagues across the nation”… This statement can be read in full here.

Roxana Saberi with her beauty pagent crown - photo on BBC website

Photo of Roxana Saberi 12 years ago, as Miss North Dakota beauty queen in 1997.

On the 18th of April, NPR issued a statement “appealing for Ms. Saberi’s immediate release and return to the United States. NPR President & CEO Vivian Schiller said this morning, ‘We are deeply distressed by this harsh and unwarranted sentence. Ms. Saberi has already endured a three month confinement in Evin Prison, and we are very concerned for her well-being. Through her work for NPR over several years, we know her as an established and respected professional journalist. We appeal to all of those who share our concerns to ask that the Iranian authorities show compassion and allow her to return home to the United States immediately with her parents’.” This statement is posted here.

No one has explained, so far, why Saberi’s Iranian press credentials were revoked in 2006 — the same year she apparently made more than one trip to Israel. This is something worth following up on … It might be possible to report from the U.S. without any press credentials (especially if you are an American citizen), but this is surely not true for most other countries of the world.

Nor has there been any explanation of why Saberi’s case evolved the way it did, by comparison to the Canadian-Iranian photographer Zahra Kazemi, who was beaten — and probably worse — to death in Evin Prison in 2003. Kazemi had been arrested outside Evin Prison while trying to photograph visitors to family members imprisoned inside.

And, yes, an Iranian blogger sentenced to lashes and several years in jail, and suffering from depression, did die in Evin Prison recently — apparently due to an overdose of his own medication — while several other bloggers are still in jail. See our earlier posting here.

The BBC’s John Leyne in Teheran wrote a story on Friday 15 May, entitled Trying to explain the Saberi case, that, in his view, “For anyone who knows Roxana Saberi, the idea that she was a spy was faintly ridiculous. And working as a journalist without a press card would be the worst possible cover.  The case grabbed headlines around the world. Her father, Reza Saberi, said she became a symbol for press freedom.  But it was also the sight of the fragile-looking former beauty queen, against the might of the Islamic Republic. Who could fail to be moved? … [O]ne former beauty queen, photocopying one piece of paper, can be interpreted as part of a wider plot to undermine the Islamic Republic. As so often in Iran, there are many more strands to the story, much we will never know”.   This story can be read in full here.

A very recent BBC profile of Saberi reveals this: “She graduated from Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota, with degrees in mass communication and French. Ms Saberi also holds a master’s degree in broadcast journalism from Northwestern University in Chicago and another master’s degree in international relations from Cambridge University in the UK. She is currently working on yet another masters degree in Iranian studies. Ms Saberi moved to Iran six years ago and worked as a freelance journalist for various news organisations, including the BBC, before her press credentials were revoked … then came her arrest. The development surprised former BBC Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison, who remembers her as a very careful person. ‘She was a very cautious person and the kind of person who wore a headscarf even at diplomatic functions where there were no restrictions’, she said. ‘She was careful about her reputation, being a young, single woman living in Iran’. She added: ‘She would know as a journalist that she would be under a lot of scrutiny – her phone would be listened to and she would be watched’.” This profile was posted here.

However, according to information just published on NPR in a story by Mike Shuster here, and picked up in our post yesterday here, Saberi travelled to Israel in 2006 — apparently more than once — either “to look for work as a journalist” [this is described in the NPR story as her admission when confronted with evidence by the Iranian prosecutor], or “just for fun, as a tourist” [according to one of her attorneys, Saleh Nikbakht] — both versions are recounted in Mike Shuster’s story here].

LIST OF STORIES POSTED ON NPR WEBSITE

» Middle East: Tehran Enforces Dress Restrictions
Aug-02-2007, Day to Day

» Middle East: Iranians Riot After Gas-Rationing Program Begins
Jun-27-2007, Day to Day

» Middle East: Wary Reaction in Iran to News of Talks with U.S.
May-15-2007, Morning Edition

» News: Iran Calls Release of British Troops a ‘Gift’
Apr-04-2007, Day to Day

» Middle East: Impasse with Britain Stirs Angst in Iran
Apr-01-2007, Weekend Edition – Sunday

» Middle East: Iran Moves on Enrichment Despite Sanctions
Dec-27-2006, Morning Edition

» Religion: Iranians Urged to Dress More Conservatively
Oct-18-2006, Day to Day

»World: Iran Bans Women from Attending Men’s Soccer Games
May-17-2006, Morning Edition

»Middle East: Iran Provides Money to Palestinian Government
Apr-17-2006, Morning Edition
The NPR-provided link leads here, which is a Q + A with Saberi. Because the story deals with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, a transcript is also provided here. According to the transcript, Saberi was asked about the significance of an Iranian pledge, made at the end of a three-day Palestinian conference in Tehran in April 2006, to “provide $50 million to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority”. Saberi’s reply was this: “The significance, I think, is more so that it’s the first time Iran is announcing a specific amount that it’s planning to give to the Palestinian government; although it’s not clear that this money is going to go to Hamas or to the Palestinian Authority. Iran’s Foreign Minister said yesterday at this conference that Iran will be giving the money to the Palestinian government and people. Until now, any time that the United States has accused Iran of giving weaponry or training to Palestinian resistance groups, Iran has always said it gives groups like Hamas only moral and spiritual support. But at the same time, this $50 million is really not that significant, if you consider the amount of money that the Palestinian government needs to function … The head of Hamas, Koled Nasald(ph) [n.b. this must refer to Khaled Mashaal], who was also at this conference over the weekend, has said that this government needs $170 million a month to run. And I spoke to a member of Iran’s Parliament, he’s on the security commission here, and he said that it’s clear that this $50 million that Iran is pledging is not enough, but Iran expects all Muslims of the world to unite and help the Palestinians. And also the foreign minister of Iran had said yesterday that Tehran is calling on other Muslims countries to follow its move. And he also announced that Iran will be setting up a bank account for other countries to contribute“.

»World: Reaction in Iran to Possible U.N. Sanctions
Feb-2-2006, Day to Day

»Middle East: Iran to Press Ahead on Nuclear Technology
Jan-14-2006, Day to Day

»Middle East: Plane Crash in Tehran Kills More than 100
Dec-06-2005, All Things Considered

»Middle East: Iranian Military Plane Crashes into Tehran Building
Dec-06-2005, Morning Edition

»Middle East: Iran’s New Leader Vows to Restart Nuclear Program
Jun-27-2005, Morning Edition

»Arts & Culture: ‘The Lizard’ Raises Eyebrows in Iran
May-13-2004, Morning Edition

»Muslim Clerics Bar Liberals from Iran Elections
Jan-12-2004, Day to Day

»World: Relief Efforts Take Hold in Iran
Dec-31-2003, All Things Considered

»Weapons Inspectors Assess Iran’s Nuke Program
Nov-07-2003, Day to Day

»Fighting Against Discrimination in Iran
Sep-09-2003, Day to Day

»Is Cuba Jamming U.S. Broadcasts to Iran
Jul-31-2003, Day to Day

»World: IAEA Chief to Visit Iran for Nuke Talks
Jul-01-2003

»U.S. and Iran Relations
May-28-2003, Talk of the Nation

This list is posted on NPR’s website here.

In some of the NPR stories, Saberi is identified as Teheran correspondent. In others, she is identified as working for Feature Story News (FSN), whose website is here. Some of the staff of FSN (Saberi was not listed on the FSN website as being on the staff) also work for Fox News and Wall Street Journal Television, and Saberi is said to have also contributed to those media from Iran. On the Free Roxana website, here there is a compilation of some of her reporting (some of what is listed above), and she is identified on one of the 2003 items as “Tehran Correspondent and Bureau Chief for Feature Story News“.

The BBC lists this one story under Roxana Saberi’s name:
Sport – World Football – Iran rejects World Cup ban calls – Last updated: 24 Jan 2006
Mr Ahmadinejad’s comments received international condemnation Disqualifying Iran’s team from the World Cup would create an uproar in Iran, said World Football’s Roxana Saberi in Tehran. This story can be read online here.

There is also another website that was dedicated to obtaining her freedom, which is now being transformed into a website for her own use when she wants, http://www.roxanasaberi.com/, and here we learn that it can now be arranged to contact her for interviews or for speaking requests through Diana Finch, Diana Finch Literary Agency, diana.finch@verizon.net.
UPDATE: THIS www.roxanasaberi.com HAS BEEN UPDATED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS, AND THE BUSINESS ABOUT CONTACTING DIANA FINCH AGENCY FOR SPEAKING REQUESTS HAS BEEN REMOVED, AS HAVE A COUPLE OF QUITE AMAZING PHOTOS OF SABERI …

US will run for UN Human Rights Council in Geneva: Says it's better to be inside than outside

The U.S, State Department said on Friday, in response to a question from a journalist, that “the reason why we have decided to seek election to the Human Rights Council is because after this review – and it was a very thorough review that was undertaken by the Administration – we believe that it’s important to try to promote human rights by being in the council instead of outside. And as Secretary Clinton and President Obama have said, human rights is at the forefront of our foreign policy. And we believe that the only way that we can make the changes that we want to see in the Human Rights Council is to be in that council. And so that was the basis of the decision”.

The next elections will be on 15 May. Those elected will serve a three-year term. The Human Rights Council was established in March 2006, in what was intended to be a big reform effort, to replace the UN Human Rights Commission. But, there is not universal satisfaction at the result.
Continue reading US will run for UN Human Rights Council in Geneva: Says it's better to be inside than outside

Serbian reaction – Final spasm or first tremor?

Well written, these phrases, from the NYTimes: “the feelings of anger, sorrow and betrayal over the loss of Kosovo cut across all segments of Serbian society. The world is waiting to see whether the riots on Thursday were the final spasm of anger in Serbia or the first tremor in a new Balkan earthquake. The deep-seated disappointment of even the most staunchly pro-Western Serbs suggests that there will be no easy reconciliation in the wake of the declaration of independence by Kosovo’s overwhelming ethnic Albanian majority … ‘If you were here on Sunday’, Ms. Petkovic told a foreign reporter over the weekend, referring to the day of Kosovo’s independence declaration a week earlier, ‘I would be spitting on America, cursing Europeans, saying, “You are stealing our territory, just because you are bigger and you can do it”.’ The depth of her sadness and anger surprised even her, she said …

“Supporters of Kosovo’s independence argue that Mr. Milosevic’s brutal subjugation of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo forsook Serbia’s moral and legal claim to rule the territory. But experts here say policy makers in Washington and Brussels may have seriously underestimated the Serbian bond to Kosovo. They say they can only hope its severing will not lead Serbia into a new era of isolation that would be destabilizing for the entire region. ‘They were probably hinging too much on these polls that Serbia would wake up the next day and say, “Let’s get on with life”,’ said Ivan Vejvoda, executive director of the Balkan Trust for Democracy, a nonprofit grant-making organization in Serbia …

“The independence of Kosovo is by far the hardest blow in the series of secessions from the former Yugoslavia that began in 1991. After years of watching the country being whittled down — in 2006 Montenegro peacefully ended its union with Serbia — there was an expectation among reform -minded Serbs that, having rid themselves of Mr. Milosevic and embraced democracy, their case would be heard differently. ‘Now we’ve been doing things the right way, and it’s still not good enough, and Serb national interests are crushed’, said Ljiljana Smajlovic, editor in chief of the prominent Serbian newspaper Politika. Ms. Smajlovic said she expected the nationalists to become more powerful as a result, leading to years of recrimination ‘deeply harmful for the democratic process’ …

“The United States failed to gain the necessary support in the Security Council for a resolution in favor of the independence of Kosovo, and the lack of United Nations endorsement is consistently cited by the Serbian government and people on the street as proof that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was illegitimate. Ms. Petkovic said she could not help noting the response of the United States to the embassy attack. ‘The first reaction of American authorities was that they will put the protest in the United Nations Security Council’, she said with a wry smile”. The full NYTimes story is here.

Nick Burns on Kosovo's Independence

It’s probably fair to say that fewer states have recognized Kosovo today, a day after its Declaration of Independence, than had been expected or hoped.  Many are probably holding off until the results of an open UN Security Council meeting that is to start today.

Today, Nick Burns took questions from journalists in various parts of the world via a State-Department-organized teleconference press briefing.

Among other things, he said that the vast majority of the members of the EU and of NATO will be recognizing Kosovo’s independence today.

His remarks are breath-taking, and are worth quoting in their near-entirety here:

———————————————————————————-

Teleconference Briefing on Kosovo
Washington, DC
February 18, 2008

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Okay, on the record. Thanks. Hello, everyone. This is Nick Burns.

This is obviously a historic day for the people of Kosovo and, as you know, Secretary Rice has just issued her statement of congratulations, of recognition. So the United States is today formally recognizing Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state. We are also going to be establishing diplomatic relations. President Bush is sending a letter to the President of Kosovo, President Sejdiu, that we’re responding affirmatively to the proposal made by Kosovo that we do establish diplomatic relations.

I’d just make a couple of major points, then we’ll go right to questions. The first is this. This culminates a decade of U.S. policy to support the people of Kosovo and to support the idea of stability and peace and justice in Kosovo. And the Bush Administration has worked very hard over the last three years to try to prepare for this day. We were among the leaders with the European allies in trying to make sure there was a United Nations process to look into the status of Kosovo. That resulted in President Ahtisaari, Martti Ahtisaari’s report to the Secretary General of the UN a year ago. We’ve worked very hard since then to be part of the international negotiations to see if it was possible to have an agreement between Serbia and Kosovo. That was not the case. And we’ve worked closely with the European countries for today’s decision.

We have recognized Kosovo. Many other states have as well. Just in the last two hours, I’ve been on the phone with my European counterparts, and after a long meeting in Brussels of the EU foreign ministers, you’ve now seen many of the EU countries come forward to recognize Kosovo. We’ve also seen early recognitions by Turkey, and by Afghanistan, and by Australia. And we’ve seen a very strong and supportive comment by the Organization of the Islamic Conference which is meeting in Dakar in Senegal. So think a very good early start for this country.

I also wanted to say that we will be working with the government to try to help it politically as well as economically. There will be a donors conference in a couple of months time in Europe. The United States is already one of the largest donors to Kosovo. In fact, in 2008 we’ll be conveying around $335 million[1] in U.S. aid to Kosovo. That’s a sizeable amount, and we’re encouraging other countries to do as much.

…

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, first of all, we made – Andrea, we made the basic assumption over the last several years, and this is a long-term policy over two administrations, the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration, that given what happened in the breakup of Yugoslavia, particularly in Kosovo in 1998, the attempted ethnic cleansing of more than 1 million Kosovar Albanian Muslims, the brutal war that Milosevic fought with them, and of course, the NATO intervention in 1999 and nine years of United Nations rule since then, this is an extraordinarily complex situation but it’s rather unique. So we don’t see the independence of Kosovo as some kind of precedent that would – that should encourage in any way, shape or form other groups to break away from nation-states in Europe. But we do think that this is the final death knell, if you will, of Yugoslavia. And Yugoslavia broke up over the period of 1991 all the way now to 2008, and this is the just resolution of that problem.

In terms of volatility and violence, we made the assumption over the last several years, certainly in this Administration over the last three years since we began working very intensively on the final status issue for Kosovo, that not acting and not deciding the final status of Kosovo will be much more likely to lead to violence than action. That’s an assumption we made. That’s an assumption that the European Union made. I think it underlies the report of Martti Ahtisaari, the envoy of the United Nations whose plan provides the basis for the new independent state. They will undergo a period of supervised independence now. The European Union will be introducing a civilian mission to take the place of the United Nations office that has been there for nine years. NATO is going to stay and, in fact, NATO met this morning and reaffirmed its decision to stay in Kosovo. The EU made its decision two days ago.

And so I think that we should see a period of stability. And the goal is to help this country now get on its feet, become fully independent, but to help the entire region of the Balkans be more calm and stable. As Secretary Rice said in her statement, we’re now looking for Serbia, which is obviously going to be extremely unhappy about what the international community is doing today, we’re looking for Serbia, however, to take its place in the European Union in the future and in a better relationship with NATO and as a friend of the U.S. I would just say that this is the right decision for us and it’s the right decision if the international community wants to minimize the chance of violence in the future. Had we not acted, there would have been a tremendous amount of pressure for independence. I think that probably would have encouraged the kind of violence and instability that we are now hoping to prevent.

QUESTION: And what do you say to Putin and to Russia in general?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, you know, we, of course, have worked very closely with Russia for the last decade, but you have to remember that Russia left Kosovo. Russia did not stay in Kosovo along with the rest of the international community. We did stay. We kept our troops in KFOR. We had our political and economic support for Kosovo. We worked with the Russians over the last year. When Ahtisaari came out with his report in the spring of 2007, we had wanted to have an affirmative vote at the Security Council to affirm that plan and to put it into place. Russia did not agree.

So we then agreed to 130 days of negotiations where Russia, the United States and the EU each provided a diplomat, and they shuttled back and forth between Belgrade and Pristina for four months. And we tried to engineer a solution to the problem, but it was not possible. And just as the Ahtisaari plan had said, it wasn’t possible to have a solution between Belgrade and Pristina. Those negotiations, I think, prove that.

So we gave Russia every chance, both in the Security Council last spring and summer, in the negotiations which we co-sponsored with the Russians, but now we have to move ahead. And we are the countries recognizing today – the members of the EU, the United States, Turkey, countries that have played the biggest role in Kosovo. So we know we’re making the right decision. And we’ll have a disagreement with the Russians, but we’re the ones that have been on the ground and we’re the ones that have the responsibility to help Kosovo now get on its feet.

…

QUESTION: The Secretary said in her statement that the U.S. will work with international partners to help implement the Ahtisaari plan.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: What kind of – what exactly are you going to do?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: The Ahtisaari plan is, in essence, the basis for the statehood of Kosovo. As I said in reply to Andrea’s question, it provides for a period of supervised independence. What that means is that there will be two institutions that will be on the ground in Kosovo playing a major role trying to guide them forward and help them resolve the challenges ahead. The first is the European Union, which will have a civilian mission on the ground relatively shortly. The second is NATO, which has the KFOR mission that’s been there since June of 1999, following the prosecution of the Kosovar war. And so those two institutions will be there to help guide the new Kosovar Government.

But also very importantly, the Ahtisaari plan calls for a set of assurances for the security and safety of the Kosovar Serb population. You know, roughly 92 to 94 percent of the population are Kosovar Albanian Muslims, which also give you an idea of the overwhelming pressure for independence. But there’s a significant Serb minority community. That community has the right to stay in Kosovo, to be citizens of Kosovo, to live peacefully. You know, there’s been violence over the last – well, many, many years, over the last generation, between the major groups. And the Ahtisaari plan asks the Government of Kosovo, the new government, to put in place laws and procedures to safeguard the rights of that community. In fact, I called the President of Kosovo just about a half an hour ago to congratulate him and I’m waiting to speak to Prime Minister Thaci, and I know that they are in session right now beginning to implement – put in place some of the laws that the Ahtisaari plan calls for.

So I think all of us believe that one of the most important features of this new government will be reaching out to the Serbs, encouraging them to stay in Kosovo – those that live there – and providing them the rights and physical security to stay. That’s also the job of KFOR, of the NATO forces, to protect the Serb monasteries and churches that are a big part of Serb culture in Kosovo and have been there for, as you know, hundreds of years, and to provide physical protection should there be any kind of threats or attacks on the minority population. And we take that obligation very seriously.

So the Ahtisaari plan is the bedrock of this, and we will see – we have seen both from President Sejdiu and Prime Minister Thaci – we’ve seen and heard very strong assurances that they intend to implement that plan fully and to protect the rights of the Kosovar Serbs. And if you look at the statement of independence made yesterday by Prime Minister Thaci and the Kosovo Assembly, he spoke part of his address in Serbo-Croatian. He told the Serbs that they would be protected and that the majority population wanted them to stay. So it’s that kind of thing that we’re looking for from the new government.

QUESTION: But do you plan to maintain troops on the ground?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: NATO has decided to maintain the presence of the KFOR troops. We have nearly 17,000 NATO troops in Kosovo. They’ve been there since June 1999, since the war ended. Among – of those 17,000, roughly 1,600 – 1,600 – are American troops.

QUESTION: Okay.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: And we will all stay. NATO met this morning, and you’ll look for a public statement that the North Atlantic Council issued saying that we’re going to stay. But that decision was made, actually, last autumn by the NATO foreign ministers that we would stay should Kosovo status change. And it’s certainly changed today.

QUESTION: Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: And we’ve not put a time limit, by the way, on how long NATO would stay. And the United States, of course, has reassured all the allies and the Kosovar Government that we intend to keep our troops there as long as the mission is there.

…

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: We see no reason that it should. We’ve worked very closely with the Russians. You remember back in 1999 when we worked with the Russians; the Russians were part of this international effort for many years until they left Kosovo several years ago. But we have worked particularly closely with Russia over the last year, as I mentioned in response to Andrea’s question. We were ready to recognize Kosovo – the United States – a year ago when the Ahtisaari plan was unveiled, but it was the express wish of Russia that we not have a Security Council decision last spring and summer to recognize Kosovo, that we first give the chance – the opportunity for additional negotiations. And we joined the Russians and the European Union in four months of negotiations. We have been in touch with the Russians, you know, on a weekly basis. We have been part of the so-called Contact Group together for many, many years – Russian and American diplomats. Secretary Rice has had innumerable conversations with Minister Lavrov. In fact, they just spoke this morning by phone – Secretary Rice, I think when she was traveling from Kenya to Tanzania. So the Russians aren’t going to be surprised by our position.

And I should also say this is the position of the great majority of the European Union countries who are recognizing today, along with significant countries in the Muslim world and in the Far East. So I think we are – we’re going to be in the vanguard of countries recognizing Kosovo. And certainly among those countries that have done the most for Kosovo, that have had their troops on the ground, that have given economic assistance, that have been involved since ’98, ’99 in preventing the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovar population, this is no surprise to the Russians that this day has come.

I would also tell you, as you already know, that the resolution that we passed in June 1999, UN Security Council Resolution 1244, it foresaw a period of time when Kosovo’s final status would have to be decided. And that resolution was very specific: It essentially required Serbia to withdraw its military, its paramilitary and its police forces from Kosovo; it suspended Belgrade’s governance over Kosovo; it placed Kosovo under UN administration. It’s been under UN administration for nine years.

So for countries to say somehow this is a shock or that this is not the correct move, correct step politically or legally, that we just fundamentally disagree with that point. So I do not expect any kind of crisis with Russia over this. We expect the Russians to be supportive of stability in the region, and I think that all of us are going to be requesting that people remain calm and that the Kosovar authorities be allowed to establish this government and to move forward.

…

QUESTION: Great. I just wondered how long you think NATO forces may have to stay in Kosovo. I mean, are you thinking it could be years more? And I think you said a minute ago, you expect stability there. Are you saying that you don’t expect violence now?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, on the first question, we have – NATO has not put a time limit on the deployment of the KFOR force. And we’ll just – we’ll have to take this step by step. The reason for the NATO troops, of course, is to help the new state – the presence of NATO troops is to help the new state through a period of forming itself and getting on its feet, but also to protect the minority populations, specifically the Kosovar Serbs, and to help in training of a police force that can in the future take over the job of security and stability inside the borders of the country itself. So we haven’t put a time limit on it.

In terms of violence, we have specifically called on the people of Kosovo to remain calm. The NATO leaders have, the EU leaders have, the new President and Prime Minister have. And we fully expect that law and order will be maintained. The United Nations police force and the NATO military force are there to maintain law and order, and they have pledged to do so. It has been a relatively quiet first 24 hours and it’s our strong hope that that will be sustained.
…

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, first of all, there have been some small demonstrations in Belgrade. There were yesterday and again today. But we’re very grateful to the Serb police and the Serb Government for maintaining law and order, and for maintaining the security around our Embassy and those of the other European countries.

Secondly, on Serbia, we have made a major effort to reach out to the Serb Government over the last several years. And we’ve made the point to the Serbs that we understand completely that we have a disagreement with them, that they’re going to be – they’re not going to at all support the actions taken by the European Union countries, some of the Asian countries and the United States today; but that we fully expect that Serbia’s future should be in Europe and that some future association by Serbia – of Serbia with the European Union, excuse me, is necessary, that we want Serbia’s relationship with NATO to grow. We see Serbia as part of Europe, and we know that the Balkans is the last part of Europe that has not received the benefits of the end of the Cold War, economic or political.

Yugoslavia had to break up, and it did, and this is the last vestige of the former Yugoslavia – the fact that Kosovo has now become free and independent. Now, we hope the Serb people, the Kosovars, the Bosnians, the Montenegrins, the Croatians, Albanians and Macedonians, all of them can look towards a future in Europe, and that’s with the EU and NATO. And that’s our message.

Secretary Rice called President Tadic yesterday and she had, I think, a good conversation with him. They obviously did not agree on this question, but she reaffirmed the strong interest that we have in a good relationship with Serbia. And we’ll continue that in the days ahead and the weeks ahead.

Finally, I would just say in terms of NATO and the European Union, the vast majority of members of both organizations are recognizing Kosovo today and have already taken that step. Some members have not. We appreciate that they have a disagreement. I would expect that the majority of them will find their way towards recognition in a short period of time, but I don’t want to speak for them. And there may be one or two countries that decide that, for whatever, reason, maybe domestic reasons, they can’t take that step right now. We respect that difference. But I think what’s important is the great majority of countries are recognizing today.

…

QUESTION: You talked about helping Kosovo to get on its feet. Can you tell us what ideas you have in that respect? Because they obviously have some economic concerns in Kosovo, a lot of concerns about trafficking of people, and you clearly don’t want to see a Muslim-dominated state in Europe with such problems, especially among the young population. So you do have any ideas in that respect?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, first of all, Kosovo is going to be a vastly majority Muslim state, given the fact that 92 to 94 percent of their population is Muslim. And we think it is a very positive step that this Muslim state, Muslim majority state, has been created today. It’s a stable – we think it’s going to be a stable state.

The people of Kosovo – and I’ve been there many times over the last several years – have been remarkably patient. They’ve been living for nine years not knowing what the future of their country was going to be. And with the exception of an outbreak in violence which was quite serious in March of 2004, nearly four years ago now, there has been relative peace and stability in Kosovo, and we think that should be maintained. What we need to do is reach out politically to recognize them, establish diplomatic relations. And we’re encouraging as many states as possible to do that.

And secondly, the country is going to need a lot of economic assistance. So I mentioned before that there’ll be a donors conference hosted by one of the European countries in several months. We gave – the United States extended $77 million in assistance to Kosovo last year in 2007. We’re going to put forward roughly $334 million[2] in assistance in 2008. And we specifically would like to see the involvement of the World Bank and of the other European development banks to help the people of Kosovo create a modern economy.

We certainly would like to see debt relief for Kosovo because that will be an immediate way to help them. And we would like, obviously, to see as much regional trade and investment as is possible in that region.

And so I think it’s going to be a very tall order. There are many challenges ahead. But it’s clearly the right decision, and I think the European Union will be – will bear the greatest share of responsibility, given the fact that this is a European country. But the United States, given our long involvement, is going to be one of the leaders in this effort as well.

…

QUESTION: Yeah, Nick, I have another question. You said that Secretary Rice called President Tadic yesterday.

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Yes.

QUESTION: Did he commit not to break the relations with U.S. after the recognition?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I don’t believe – I don’t believe that was discussed. You know, we have actually a very active relationship with Serbia. The United States is one of the largest – I think we’re the largest investor in Serbia. If we’re not the largest – it changes month to month – we’re the second largest. A lot of American corporate involvement.

We have a much closer relationship with Serbia, obviously, than we did in the latter part of the 1990s when we twice had to – well, the first time in Bosnia and the second in Kosovo, use force against first the Bosnian Serbs and the Serb Army. We have the beginnings of a military relationship. We have encouraged Serbia to come into a closer partnership with NATO. And so I would expect our diplomatic relationship to continue. I just talked to the Serb Ambassador Friday. He came to see me. We had a long conversation. I expect I’ll talk to him today or tomorrow. And I wouldn’t expect our diplomatic relationship to be downgraded in any way. And our Ambassador, Cameron Munter, in Belgrade has been very active over the last couple of days.

So I don’t think it came up in the conversation between Tadic and Secretary Rice, but I don’t expect a major change in that regard.
…

QUESTION: Yes, sir. Halil Mula with RTV-21. First of all, I would like to thank you, Ambassador Burns, for all your input and help toward Kosovo. Second would be, what do you expect from today’s meeting at the Security Council that is being called? What are they going to participate – President of Kosovo – of Serbia, I’m sorry, Tadic?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, you know, there was a meeting of the Security Council yesterday. There’ll be a second meeting today. We expect President Tadic to come. I imagine that Russia and Serbia will say that the action – the declaration of independence is illegal under international law. That’s what Russia essentially said yesterday. And of course, we fundamentally disagree with that.

And I would just – this is important for those of you writing about this aspect of it. Resolution 1244, which was passed in June ’99, is the basis of the Kosovo situation itself. It envisaged a final status process for Kosovo, but it did not determine what the outcome would be. And as I said before, it ordered the removal of the Serb Army and the Serb Government and it ordered the United Nations to take over the province, and that’s been the status of the province for the last nine years.

There is nothing in Resolution 1244 that would prevent or make illegal a declaration of independence. There is nothing in 1244 that would prevent the establishment of a new state. In fact, 1244 and its major effort essentially says there has to be a UN-led presence to decide the future status of Kosovo, and that’s what we’ve seen over the last two years with President Martti Ahtisaari, the former president of Finland, leading that. He recommended to the United Nations— the United Nations envoy, that there be – that independence come to Kosovo and that it be supervised independence. He recommended the EU go in. He recommended that NATO stay.

So what we will say today is that we have respected 1244, that we have made this decision, as have many other countries, because it’s in the best interest of the stability of Kosovo; but there’s nothing in 1244, nothing at all from a legal point of view, that would indicate that what the Kosovar Government has done is illegal or somehow contrary to 1244. So, frankly, I think the United States, the European countries, the Arab and Muslim countries that are recognizing Kosovo today stand on very solid legal ground. We have been the ones on the ground in Kosovo for the last nine years. We have been the ones who have contributed our soldiers. And I think we’re doing absolutely the right thing for stability in Kosovo and peace, which, of course, is one of the most important objectives of the United Nations.

[1] Total projected U.S. assistance to Kosovo for 2008 is $335 million.

———————————————————————————–

The transcript of this tele-conference with journalists was sent by email,

First China, now U.S. may shoot down its own space satellite

China shot down one of its own “old” space satellites in January 2007 — apparently with hopes of influencing debate at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, where China has been fighting for years to see work begin on a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS).

The U.S. has refused, so far.

Russia has continued supporting China, to the amazement of many diplomats (particularly European), and Russia and China are pursuing their efforts to open discussions on the situation in space.

The two countries apparently fear that the “Star Wars” idea first launched by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan is somehow still behind both the U.S. efforts to deploy an international “Missile Defense Shield”, and the American refusal to discuss this in a disarmament forum.

As condemnation of China’s actions last year coalesced around outrage at the creation of space debris and pollution, China confirmed to Geneva’s Conference on Disarmament that it had indeed conducted an anti-satellite test in outer space, and said that a ground-based medium-range missile was used to destroy an ageing Chinese weather satellite. At the time Germany’s Arms Control and Disarmament deputy commissioner Ambassador Rudiger Ludeking, speaking on behalf of the European Union, told the Conference on Disarmament that the EU “is very concerned about the recent test of an anti-satellite weapon. Such a test is inconsistent with international efforts to avert an arms race in outer space.”

One of the amazing things about last year’s Chinese “test” is that was the first time that a ground-based missile was successfully launched to destroy an orbiting satellite, as Asia Times reported at the time.

Now, in a scenario that could be as much a retort to the Chinese “test” last year as the basis for a thrilling disaster movie, U.S. President George W. Bush has apparently given the order to try to shoot down a faltering U.S. satellite that will fall to earth in the coming weeks. The intention, U.S. officials say, is to help avoid a serious accident. But, it also appears that the U.S. cannot resist the chance to try to meet — if not beat — what the Chinese accomplished by their “test” last year

CNN has just reported that “The U.S. military may try within days to shoot down a failed satellite using a missile launched from a Navy ship, officials announced Thursday. Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon that the window to accomplish the mission could begin in three to four days, and remain open for seven to eight. While much space trash and debris have safely crashed to Earth after burning up in the atmosphere on re-entry, authorities said what makes this 5,000-pound satellite different is the approximately 1,000 pounds of frozen toxic hydrazine propellant it carries. Without any intervention, officials believe the satellite would come down on its own in early March. If it came down in one piece, nearly half the spacecraft would survive re-entry and the hydrazine — heated to a gas — could spread a toxic cloud roughly the size of two football fields, Cartwright said. Hydrazine is similar to chlorine or ammonia in that it affects the lungs and breathing tissue, the general said. The option of striking the satellite with a missile launched from an Aegis cruiser was decided upon by President Bush after consultation with several government and military officials and aerospace experts, said Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey. ‘After further review of this option and, in particular, consideration of the question of saving or reducing injury to human life, the president, on the recommendation of his national and homeland teams, directed the Department of Defense to carry out the intercept’, Jeffrey said. The goal is to hit the satellite just before it enters Earth’s atmosphere and blast it apart so that the hydrazine tank explodes. The smaller debris would be more likely to burn up in the atmosphere. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said there’s nothing the military can do to make the outcome worse. ‘If we miss, nothing changes. If we shoot and barely touch it, the satellite is just barely in orbit’ and would still burn up somewhat in the atmosphere, Griffin said. ‘If we shoot and get a direct hit, that’s a clean kill and we’re in good shape’, he added. Experts said that with three-quarters of Earth covered in water, there’s a 25 percent chance the satellite’s remnants will hit land — and a 1 percent chance they will hit a populated area…” This CNN story is posted here.

Another really interesting part about all this is that CNN reported earlier that “A U.S. official confirmed that the spy satellite is designated by the military as US 193. It was launched in December 2006 but almost immediately lost power and cannot be controlled. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor but the satellite’s central computer failed shortly after launch. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified as secret … The satellite includes some small engines that contain a toxic chemical called hydrazine — which is rocket fuel. But Renuart said they are not large booster engines with substantial amounts of fuel. Video images of the satellite captured by John Locker, a British amateur satellite watcher, show it to be about 13 feet to 16.5 feet across. He believes it weighs a maximum of 10,000 pounds. Locker calculated its size with data on its altitude and location provided by other amateur satellite watchers, using the International Space Station as a yardstick. Satellite watchers — a worldwide network of hobbyists who track satellites for fun — have been plotting the satellite’s degradation for a year. They estimate it is now at an altitude of about 173 miles, and Locker believes it is dropping about 1,640 feet a day. Where it lands will be difficult to predict until the satellite falls to about 59 miles above the Earth and enters the atmosphere. It will then begin to burn up, with flares visible from the ground, said Ted Molczan, a Canadian satellite tracker. From that point on, he said, it will take about 30 minutes to fall”. This CNN story is posted here.

So, this satellite — an advanced spy satellite with a “sophisticated and secret imaging sensor” — was launched just weeks before the Chinese “test”. Hmmm, could there have been any link between these events?

The U.S. is taking a risk — but greatly increasing the entertainment value — by announcing its plans in advance. What if the U.S. fails (where China succeeded)??? And, even if the U.S. does manage the “kill”, what about all the space debris for which China was so roundly berated?

AP is reporting that “The military will have to choose a time and a location that will avoid to the greatest degree any damage to other satellites in the sky. Also, there is the possibility that large pieces could remain, and either stay in orbit where they can collide with other satellites or possibly fall to Earth … [O]fficials familiar with the situation say about half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft is expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and will scatter debris — some of it potentially hazardous — over several hundred miles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.” This headline AP story is posted here.

For comparison purposes, the earlier CNN report says that “In January 2007, China used a land-based missile to destroy a 2,200-pound satellite that was orbiting 528 miles above Earth. But the impact left more than 150,000 pieces of debris floating above Earth, NASA estimates. The space agency characterizes nearly 2,600 pieces as ‘large’, meaning greater than 4 inches across, which pose a potential threat to satellites and spacecraft. China is responsible for 42 percent of all satellite debris in orbit as of January 1, most of it from that Fengyun-C meteorological satellite. NASA has called it the worst satellite breakup in history”. This CNN story is posted here.

Iran's Khatami calls for logic, restraint and negotiations

The Christian Science Monitor’s Scott Peterson has reported, in a just-published article, that “Mr. Khatami – the reformist cleric who was twice elected in landslide victories – has just told him that ” ‘The solution is for both sides to resort to logic, refrain from provocative rhetoric, and put the emphasis on negotiations … We have no choice but to overcome misunderstandings that mostly stem from the meddling of the US [in the Middle East] and its wrong policies in Iran’, said Khatami. ‘We can find common interests in the region and the world. And we can also avoid actions that would be damaging to both sides’. Failure could mean ‘things will get worse, a huge crisis will be created, and then it is not only Iran that would suffer’, warns Khatami. ‘Our crisis-stricken region would also suffer greatly, and the US itself ‘ … US fears of Iran’s nuclear program are a “pretext” that can be resolved through inspections and accepting Iran’s ‘right’ to nuclear technology’, says Khatami. ‘ Iran does not have the bomb and does not want the bomb’.” Scott Peter’s report on Khatami’s remarks is published here.

Does UNSG BAN know something we don't?

In an interview published today in the Italian newspaper La Stampa, in which he was asked whether he was concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, UNSG BAN Ki-Moon said: “Yes, I’m very worried about Iran’s nuclear progress.”

Reuters news agency is reporting from Rome that BAN also said “he had met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad briefly during the recent U.N. General Assembly, and was prepared to meet him privately if necessary. ‘I have said with great urgency on many occasions that the differences can be resolved through peace, through dialogue; a war or military action is not desirable in any way’, Ban said”.  The Reuters report on BAN’s interview in La Stampa is posted here.

Yesterday, in advance of further discussion next week in Europe of a possible third round of sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council, the U.S. went ahead and imposed its own new sanctions.

[The new U.S. sanctions, according to the NY Times today, “designated the Quds force of the Revolutionary Guard and four state-owned Iranian banks {Bank Melli, Bank Mellat, Bank Saderat and Bank Kargoshaee} as supporters of terrorism, and the Guard itself as an illegal exporter of ballistic missiles … But it also reflected some caution by an administration that has also accused the Quds force of aiding Shiite militia attacks on American soldiers in Iraq, and has even detained some Quds force members there, but has resisted calls for retaliatory strikes inside Iran … The administration clearly hopes to enlist allies around the world in its new, tougher stance — in part because the United States, having maintained its own stiff sanctions against Iran since the Islamic revolution in 1979, does not have much leverage left itself. The administration hopes its influence can turn Iran into a political and economic pariah from which more foreign institutions will shy away … The United States is not accusing the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps of being a terrorist organization, a step advocated by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York … But Thursday’s announcement is still an ambitious attempt to squeeze the upper echelons of the Iranian government, including the Ministry of Defense.  It is the first time that the United States has tried to use the terrorist label and the sanctions associated with it to isolate or punish another country’s military…”
The NYTimes report on the new U.S. unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran is here.]

The Associated Press reported from Tehran on 11 October that Iran claimed to have given required answers (at least some) about Iran’s nuclear program to a visiting team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): ” ‘In these long talks, the Iranian side presented an additional explanation about its P-1 and P-2 centrifuges to remove remaining ambiguities and questions’, the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Iran’s deputy nuclear negotiator Javad Vaeedi as saying … IAEA Deputy Director-General Olli Heinonen headed the U.N. delegation that met with Vaeedi’s team…” The AP added that IAEA inspectors were “allowed to revisit a heavy-water reactor under construction outside Arak in central Iran that has been off-limits since April”, and that “IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei praised Iran’s cooperation with the agency in September as a significant step, but urged Tehran to answer all questions — including reported experiments that link enrichment and missile technology — before the end of the year”.
The AP report from Tehran in mid-October is posted here.