Putin to visit Iran for nuclear talks: report

spacewar

By Staff Writers

Moscow (AFP) July 24, 2013

President Vladimir Putin is to visit Iran in August to try to restart talks on Tehran's controversial nuclnegocear drive, a Russian newspaper reported Wednesday.
Putin's visit is planned for mid-August, shortly after Iran's moderate new president Hassan Rowhani takes office on August 3, Kommersant reported, citing sources in the Kremlin and the Iranian foreign ministry.
Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told AFP: "I cannot so far confirm this".
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Araqchi told the ISNA news agency: "I do not confirm the report regarding Putin's visit," which would be his first to Iran since 2007.
Moscow hopes the visit will provide impetus to restart the currently stalled talks on Iran's nuclear programme, Kommersant reported.
It cited a source in the Iranian foreign ministry as saying the trip would take place August 12-13. It said a Kremlin source confirmed the trip, but said it was not yet decided whether it would last one or two days.
Western governments have expressed cautious hopes for a change in tone in talks after the June election of Rowhani, a centrist cleric who has vowed to engage constructively with the international community in a bid to ease the burden of EU and US sanctions on Iran's economy.
Russia is a member of the so-called P5+1 group made up of the five UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany that has for years been engaged in talks with Iran to try to persuade it to curb sensitive nuclear activities.
After the last round in Almaty in April, the talks were put on hold as Iran prepared to choose a successor to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad's eight-year term was marked by a defiant expansion of the Iranian nuclear programme, which fuelled Western suspicions that it masked a drive for a weapons capability.
Both the European Union and the United States slapped tough sanctions on Iran's key oil and banking sectors which have taken a heavy toll on the economy.
During his election campaign, Rowhani hit out at the "sloganising" of the Ahmadinejad regime, which he said had unnecessarily aggravated the sanctions, and promised a more conciliatory approach in a bid to get them eased.
Following Rowhani's election, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on the West to consider relaxing the sanctions, saying Tehran was ready to make a major concession.

Kerry: Peace talks with Taliban need to ’get back on track’ after delay

usnews

Jacquelyn Martin / AP

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry walks through the airport with
Ambassador Ibrahim Fakhroo, Qatari Chief of Protocol after
being greeted on arrival in Doha, Qatar on Saturday.

By Catherine Chomiak, Akbar Shinwari and Daniel Arkin, NBC News

Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday that the U.S. wants to see proposed peace talks with the Taliban “get back on track” after being thrown into doubt this week amid a diplomatic dispute with the Afghan government.

“We need to see if we can get back on track,” Kerry told a news conference in Qatar. “I don’t know whether that’s possible or not.”

Peace talks between U.S. and Taliban representatives were thrown off course Wednesday after irate Afghan President Hamid Karzai  suspended his involvement due to a dispute over a recently opened Taliban office in the Qatari capital of Doha, which had been established in anticipation of the proposed talks.

In a statement, Karzai accused the U.S. of a "contradiction” after a sign that was placed over the Taliban office bore the name of the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” – the country’s title during the Taliban regime of the 1990s.

Amid a diplomatic kerfuffle, the State Department on Wednesday announced that the Qatari government removed the sign board bearing the disputed name.

Related: Kerry calls Afghanistan's Karzai to ease anger over Taliban office

"The Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a statement clarifying that the name of the office is the Political Office of the Afghan Taliban and not the Political Office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and that it had the sign with the incorrect name in front of the door taken down," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. 

Kerry on Saturday warned that the Taliban office may need to be shuttered if peace talks do not resume as planned.

“If there is not a decision … to move forward by the Taliban in short order, then we may have to consider whether or not the office has to be closed,” Kerry said.

The Taliban has offered to deliver the only known American prisoner of war from the 12-year-long conflict in return for five senior operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, Taliban sources told NBC News.

Related: Taliban offers to swap American POW for five Gitmo detainees

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, 27, from Hailey, Idaho, has been held in captivity since 2009 after disappearing from his base in Afghanistan. His exact location is unknown, but he is believed to be held in Pakistan by the Haqqani network.

The negotiation's conditions require the Taliban to sever ties with al Qaeda, put an end to violence and accept the Afghan constitution, in particular protections for women and minorities, Obama administration officials told NBC News.

Cuba y EEUU retoman diálogos migratorios

JUAN O. TAMAYO

Los Estados Unidos y Cuba reactivarán sus diálogos migratorios en julio, en la segunda señal en los últimos días de que el Presidente Barack Obama busca mejorar significativamente las relaciones bilaterales, congeladas por el encarcelamiento de un contratista estadounidense en La Habana en el 2009.
Los diálogos migratorios son vistos como mucho más importantes y con mayor probabilidad de despertar condenas entre los opositores de mejorar las relaciones con La Habana que el anuncio hecho el lunes de una reactivación del diálogo con Cuba para reestablecer el servicio de correo directo.
Los flujos migratorios entre los dos países están en la palestra desde que La Habana levantara las restricciones de viajes al exterior, el 14 de enero, abriendo la posibilidad de que muchos más cubanos abandonen la isla y se dirijan a los Estados Unidos -legal o ilegalmente.
Los diálogos migratorios están programados para el 17 de julio en Washington, con la participación de funcionarios del Departamento de Estado y del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Cuba, según confirmaron fuentes bien informadas a El Nuevo Herald.
Al ser consultado, el Departamento de Estado dijo que no tenía comentarios sobre esta noticia.

Read more here: http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2013/06/18/1502843/cuba-y-eeuu-retoman-dialogos-migratorios.html#storylink=cpy

From the U.S. State Department: Postal talks with Cuba

capitolhillcubans

An interesting exchange during today's State Department Daily Press Briefing with Spokesperson Jen Psaki:

QUESTION: All right. And then if there’s nothing else on North Korea, I just want to nail down the postal talks with Cuba.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you expect anything out of this round or is this really not – is this just – in other words, if these two days of talks are a success, there won’t be direct mail service immediately, I presume, but maybe I’m wrong, so could you --

MS. PSAKI: That’s a good question on the timeline. Just to give you a little bit of history here, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 states that, quote, “The United States Postal Service shall take such actions as are necessary to provide direct mail service to and from Cuba.” So this is – as you mentioned, on June 18th and 19th – well, you didn’t mention the dates, but so everybody knows, representatives from the Department of State and the United States Postal Service will meet with representatives from the Government of Cuba for a technical discussion on reestablishing direct transportation of mail. The reason we’re doing this is because it’s, of course, good for the Cuban people. This is something we feel is good for us. But it’s not meant to be a signal of anything or indicate a change in policy.

QUESTION: Are those talks here or in --

MS. PSAKI: In terms of the exact location, I’m not sure if they’re at the Department of State or if they’re just somewhere else in the --

QUESTION: Are those talks exclusively on the mail service?

MS. PSAKI: That is with the United States Postal Service. That’s their purview.

QUESTION: But I’m saying is it mainly about the – is there anything going to come up about Mr. Gross?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to predict. There are issues that are, of course, raised on both sides. As you know, this is an issue that has been raised at the highest levels from the United States, but given these are talks with the Postal Service, I would expect that will be the focus.

QUESTION: Just one more. I mean, is the U.S. Postal Service in any kind of position to make any kind of deals or agreements with Cuba? I mean, this is an organization that is essentially going broke, and I’m just curious. Is --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think that’s combining two different things, in my opinion. This has been – we have had – I read off the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: So they’re simply allowing mail to travel, which is – I would assume provides them with more revenue, with more stamps used.

QUESTION: Considering that – well, all right, exactly. So in other words, this could actually help the Postal Union’s budget if they are able to --

MS. PSAKI: I don’t want to go too far on it, but – I don’t want to go too far, Matt, but it’s more people using their services.

QUESTION: Jen, a clarification on that too. What is the genesis of this? I mean, how did these talks actually come about? Who asked for them?

MS. PSAKI: Well, this is something that the U.S. has felt would be a positive step for the Cuban people. We felt it was in our interests. In terms of who specifically asked for it, I don’t have that level of detail, but it’s just something that we felt it was – it would be positive moving forward.

QUESTION: But basically, the U.S. asked for it?

MS. PSAKI: I would have to check on that for you, but it’s something, again, that we are very supportive of and we are, of course, helping direct here.

QUESTION: Isn’t it a continuation of the talks from 2009 that were on the same subject?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t know if I’d call it a continuation because it’s been a number of years, but yes, it’s on the same subject, and we’re hopeful that we’ll be able to move things forward.

US, Taliban to meet in Qatar for ’key milestone’ toward ending Afghanistan war

worldnews

By Jim Miklaszewski, Courtney Kube and Erin McClam, NBC News

U.S. and Taliban representatives will meet soon for the first time to begin what are expected to be long and complex negotiations for a peaceful settlement to the war in Afghanistan, senior Obama administration officials said Tuesday.

The officials told NBC News that the meeting will take place in the next several days in the Qatari capital of Doha. The Taliban will open an office there for the purpose of negotiating directly with the Afghan government, the officials said.

"This is a key milestone on the way to the complete transition of responsibility for security to Afghans by the end of next year," a senior U.S. administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said via conference call after the announcement was made.

The negotiating conditions require the Taliban to break their ties with al Qaeda, end the violence and accept the Afghan constitution, especially the protections for women and minorities, the officials said.

But because of deep distrust between the Afghan government and the Taliban, the process will be “complex, long and messy,” one official said. The United States "will have a role in direct talks, but this is a negotiation that will have to be led by Afghans," a senior administration official said.

The disclosure came on the same day that international forces, led by the United States, handed control of Afghan national security to local forces — a milestone after almost 12 years of war. Most foreign combat troops will leave the country by the end of 2014.

Obama administration officials also told NBC News that the U.S. is pursuing a prisoner exchange with the Taliban to secure the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, held for several years by the Haqqani network, considered a dangerous element of the Taliban.

NBC News' Elizabeth Chuck contributed to this report.

Pakistan’s new leader makes landmark offer of talks to Taliban

worldnews

Arif Ali/ AFP – Getty Images

Pakistan's incoming Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif addresses his party's newly elected members of parliament in Lahore on May 20, 2013.

By Wajahat S. Khan, Producer, NBC News

ISLAMABAD -- Pakistan's prime minister designate Nawaz Sharif told a packed hall of his party stalwarts that talks with the Taliban -- who have been fighting the state for almost a decade -- are not off the table.
"All options should be tried, and guns and bullets are not a solution to all problems … Why shouldn't we sit and talk and engage in dialogue?" said Sharif, the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) party, a center-right group that traces its roots back to the origin of Pakistan in 1947.
The party, once nurtured by military regimes, has now morphed into a modern, conservative, pro-business faction that secured a majority of the seats in the country’s parliament earlier this month.
Sharif's announcement in Lahore on Monday has created a schism among Pakistan's divided political classes.
For many, this is a war which must be committed to and won.
Days before the May 11 election -- the first, largely peaceful and constitutional transfer of power from one civilian administration to the next -- the country's powerful army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, reminded audiences in a rare public speech that "there can be no doubt that this is our war.”
“The soldier of the Pakistani army cannot fight under conditions of doubt …The army cannot fight this war alone. The Pakistani people must also fight alongside us,” he added.
The military says more than 5,000 people have been killed with over 20,000 wounded in the fight against the Taliban.
Maj. Gen. Asim Saleem Bajwa, director general of Inter-Service Public Relations, said there was “no ambiguity about the military's position.”
“Pakistan will do what it can to protect itself from domestic as well as foreign threats. This is a national effort,” he said.
The Pakistani Taliban would be willing to partake in peace talks, according to their spokesman, Ihsanullah Ihsan. He said they had already been willing to participate in peace talks with the previous government – and that they had wanted to work with Sharif as a guarantor to implement accords, if they were agreed to.
"Before he was not part of the government and that's why we wanted him to become guarantor,” the Taliban spokesman told NBC News. “Now he will have his own government, so let us see what type of polices he formulates about us.”
Senator Pervez Rashid, spokesperson of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) party, did not respond to an interview request.
For his part, Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, whose assassination was claimed by Pakistani Taliban, insists that the war-ravaged country has lost almost a $100 billion in the battle against the Taliban.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that more than 40,000 civilians have died in Pakistan's version of the War on Terror. Sharif's rival during the recent election, the charismatic former cricket star Imran Khan and leader of a neo-nationalist political party called the Movement for Justice, calls it the state's "War of Terror on Pakistan."
Khan has been pushing for talks with the Taliban and has also called for Pakistan to shoot down U.S. drones that operate over the country’s unruly tribal areas.
The recent election secured a federal government for Sharif and a provincial government for Khan in the volatile Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province that borders Afghanistan.
This means that two of Pakistan's major political opponents are now broadly in agreement about talks with the Taliban.
But there are still others who disagree.
"If our elected office holders think that the Taliban are not at war with the state, then with due respect, I don't think the Taliban got that memo," said Asad Khwaja, a host on a liberal radio network, soon after Sharif's announcement became national news.
"We have lost thousands - soldiers, men, women, children - to this menace. I really hope that our leaders understand what they're asserting, for the sake of Pakistan."

Will China mediate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

behindthewall

Kim Kyung-Hoon / Pool via EPA

China's President Xi Jinping, right, shakes hands with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on May 9.

By Ed Flanagan, Producer, NBC News

BEIJING – An official visit to Beijing by Israeli and Palestinian leaders last week has prompted speculation that China may finally be ready to claim its place as a world power by trying to negotiate an end to one of world's most caustic conflicts.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with Chinese President Xi Jinping within days of each other in Beijing – the two Middle Eastern leaders having arrived in the country within hours of each other.
"China's hosting of the two emphasized its active involvement in Mideast affairs and highlighted its role as a responsible power," declared an editorial by China's state news agency, Xinhua.
A more active role in Middle East diplomacy would be a dramatic break from China's long-held policy of non-intervention. With controversial business partners like Sudan, Libya and Iran, China has consistently ducked the political and regional strife of others to focus on natural resource extraction and trade.
To a long line of American leaders who have invested a great deal of political capital in the quest for peace in the region, a Chinese diplomatic shift could be a welcome development.
But some experts like Dan Blumenthal, director of Asian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, wonder how much China is willing to risk entering this particular political game.

Feng Li / Getty Images

Chinese President Xi Jinping, left, gestures to invite Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to a welcoming ceremony held outside the Great Hall of the People on May 6 in Beijing.

"Right now China has the benefit of free-riding on U.S. security [and its] presence, so there is no incentive for them whatsoever to actually pay costs and take risks," Blumenthal said. "China has been fairly extractive in those areas and again for China to become a global power that exercises responsibility, you can't just reap the economic benefits."
Middle East experts in China have noted that the country has a fresh point of view unsullied by years of involvement in the region. It has a carefully crafted position of supporting the Palestinian cause -- dating back to 1965 when the Palestinian Liberation Organization setup an office in Beijing -- but also being a close friend of Israel, as its third-largest trading partner behind the U.S. and the European Union.
"The United States' slant toward Israel has long been regarded as a bias stance by Arabic countries, so this bias towards Israel is not helpful for President Obama when it comes to pushing forward current or future initiatives," said He Wenping, a senior researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). "But China maintains good relations with both Israel and Palestine, so China's stance is viewed as more neutral than the United States."
Just how much political capital Beijing is willing to spend hammering out a deal that has eluded others remains a critical question – one that could be fraught with risk to China's relationship with the Muslim world. Would Beijing be willing to put its neutral position and substantial business partnerships in the region in jeopardy?
To be sure, Xi's meetings with Netanyahu and Abbas were modest at best in ambition. The two Middle Eastern leaders never met face-to-face. And Xi's "four-point plan" effectively parroted calls by the United States for an independent Palestinian state, supplemented with a firm call for the two countries' boundaries to be based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem serving as the new Palestinian state's capital.
"I don't think China has some magical power at hand that can make the Israeli-Palestinian process move more smoothly," said He of CASS. "It is significant that Israel and Palestine both recognized China's role because if they don't want China involved, [Netanyahu and Abbas] would have never come to China. This shows they wish for and they recognize China's role in the process."
Whether their involvement is desired or not, past Chinese diplomatic history suggests that given the options, China in the short-term would likely continue a nominal role rather than put trade relations at risk.
But a silver lining is the affirmation that while China and the U.S. continue to have major political differences on issues ranging from Iran to America's Asia "pivot," there is room for the two powers to cooperate and engage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

John Kerry dice no habrá canje de espías cubanos por Alan Gross

US working to free Americans held in Cuba, Iran: John Kerry

The Times of India

WASHINGTON: Washington is seeking to free two US citizens held in Cuba and Iran, but has rejected a deal with Havana to swap a jailed American for five Cuban spies, top diplomat John Kerry said on Wednesday.

Kerry told US lawmakers that officials were working hard to win the release of contractor Alan Gross held for more than three years in Havana.

Senator Patrick Leahy visited the island recently, met with Gross "and talked to the government," Kerry told the House foreign affairs committee.

"They were and have been attempting to trade Alan Gross for the five spies that are in prison here in the US, and we've refused to do that because there's no equivalency," the secretary of state said.

Gross, 63, was arrested on December 3, 2009 for illegally distributing laptops and communications gear to members of Cuba's small Jewish community. At the time, he was working for a firm contracted to the US State Department.

In March 2011, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison for "acts against the independence or territorial integrity" of Cuba, and relatives fear his health is failing.

Kerry said he hoped the US could appeal to Cuban leaders to treat Gross's case as a "humanitarian" issue.

Kerry also said he had been working through back channels to try to find out more about retired FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared some six years ago while on a trip to Iran.

"On Levinson, I have actually engaged in some back-channel diplomacy in an effort to try to see if we can get something done there," Kerry said.

Emilio Ichikawa » CUBA: Mediación y cambios indiscernibles

Emilio Ichikawa 

 

Emilio Ichikawa

El 22 de abril del año 2000 el Departamento de Justicia de EEUU ordena que el niño Elián González sea sacado a la fuerza de la casa de sus tíos en la Pequeña Habana. Fracasaba así una negociación cuyo último punto lo marcó una conversación telefónica entre el abogado Aaron Podhurst y la Secretaria de Justicia del gobierno del Presidente Bill Clinton: Janet Reno. Cuando llegaron los federales a llevarse a Elián, aún permanecían dos de los mediadores dentro de la casa de los González: los empresarios cubanos Carlos Saladrigas y Carlos de la Cruz. Es decir, dos de las personas que atendieron a Yoani Sánchez durante su reciente visita a Miami.

¿Qué querían ambos empresarios cuando decidieron mediar en la solución del caso Elián? 

Pues seguramente lo que entendieron como mejor para los cubanos, en especial para la “imagen” de la comunidad cubana en la opinión pública norteamericana, que es siempre el epicentro del tema. Una solución pacífica al conflicto, con ganancias y concesiones de las partes: Elián no se quedaría en EEUU, pero la transferencia (o “transición”) del niño al padre Juan Miguel González se produciría en un ambiente familiar, sin que entrañara demasiada exposición mediática y con ella la posibilidad de interpretación del resultado en términos de victoria o derrota, que fue lo que finalmente sucedió. La Batalla por Elián se impuso a la Campaña por Elián.

Más de una década después los mediadores Carlos Saladrigas y Carlos de la Cruz están de vuelta. Todo parece indicar que buscan casi lo mismo, pero en el terreno económico o político: un cambio gradual y pacífico en la isla; que entonces tendría que ver más con las llamadas transiciones chilena y española a la democracia, y no tanto con los “desmerengamientos” en la Europa del Este, ni con las revoluciones de colores, ni con las primaveras árabes.

Relacionado con esto ha aparecido una hipótesis interesante; tal vez alimentada por la formación religiosa de los empresarios, por la cercanía de algunos Caballeros de la Orden de Malta y miembros de La Obra al Cuba Study Group; pero sobre todo avalada por el hecho histórico de la participación de estas fuerzas en la transición desde los regímenes de Franco y Pinochet a la democracia. Lo concretamente postulado es que Saladrigas y De la Cruz serían los portadores de una recomendación del Club Bilderberg. Cosa que por demás empuja la pertenencia de José María Aznar (con quien se verán próximamente en Rosario Yoani Sánchez y Carlos Alberto Montaner) a El Club. Con la guinda de que tanto Fidel Castro, pero sobre todo Hugo Chávez, han sido críticos del Poder mundial. En cualquier caso, resulta más entretenido.

------------------------
-IMÁGENES: Escenas de Miami durante la Campaña por Elián: latinamericanstudies.org

US, Iran secretly discussed swap of al Qaeda detainees for Iranian dissidents

Suleiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law

By Robert Windrem
Senior investigative producer, NBC News

The arrest of Suleiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law, has led to a fresh examination of a little-known chapter in George W. Bush’s “War on Terror’ -- secret talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in 2002 and 2003 aimed at working out an exchange of al Qaeda leaders detained in Iran for Iranian dissidents under U.S. control in Iraq.

The proposed deal fell apart when Washington balked at sending the Iranian dissidents -- members of the People's Mujahedin of Iran, best known by the acronym MEK -- to what they believed would be certain death at the hands of Iranian authorities, current and former U.S. and Iranian officials told NBC News.

Ghaith, who is being held in a New York jail cell after spending a decade in Iran among the al Qaeda group, pleaded not guilty last week to charges of conspiring to kill Americans.

Ghaith has provided an account of his travels to U.S. law enforcement officials, included in a 22-page statement that has yet to be released. He was arrested in Turkey after leaving Iran, transferred to U.S. custody in Jordan and then flown to New York, according to U.S. officials, who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity.

The U.S. has never had a clear idea of the conditions under which members of al Qaeda’s “management council” were held in Iran, but one former U.S. official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said last week that they were hidden "in the blackest of the black boxes" inside Iran's intelligence apparatus. Iranian officials have told NBC News the al Qaeda officials were "in jail" in the Islamic Republic.

While U.S. officials believe the al Qaeda leaders were initially allowed to contact other members of the terrorist organization as they continued to plot attacks against the U.S. and its allies, Alireza Miryousefi, spokesman at the Iranian mission to the United Nations, said that was never the case.

“Our position about al Qaeda is clear," he said Thursday. "Iran has never permitted al Qaeda to have any activity or operation from or inside Iran.” 

The al Qaeda leaders detained after fleeing Afghanistan as the Taliban regime collapsed at the end of 2001 also had family members and bodyguards with them, bringing the total number in the group into the hundreds.

Among the terror group’s leaders taken into custody were Ghaith, Saif al Adel, al Qaeda’s military leader, Saad bin Laden, the deceased son of the late al Qaeda leader, and liaisons with other Sunni terrorist groups, including Chechen rebels in Russia.

U.S. and Iranian officials say that the group -- armed "with a ton of cash," as one U.S. official put it -- bribed their way across the Iran-Afghanistan border and hoped that Iran would treat them as "the enemy of my enemy," as another former U.S. official said.  But they were rounded up not long after their arrival.

The former U.S. officials say the CIA did not learn of the group's presence in Iran until the middle of 2002, at which point the U.S. used back-channel communications to arrange secret talks with representatives of Iran. This was months after President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union address, described Iran as part of an "axis of evil" – along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Kim Jong Il's North Korea – presenting a "grave and growing danger" to the U.S.

The talks have been reported before, though previous accounts received little media attention.

In a passage in his memoir, "At the Center of the Storm," then-CIA Director George Tenet, wrote, "In mid-2002 we learned that portions of al Qaeda’s leadership structure had relocated to Iran. This became much more problematic, leading to overtures to Iran and eventually face-to-face discussions with Iranian officials in December 2002 and early 2003. Ultimately, the al Qaeda leaders in Iran were placed under some form of house arrest, although the Iranians refused to deport them to their countries of origin, as we had requested." 

Tenet didn't detail what went on during the discussions, but in another passage said that at the same time the U.S. was meeting with Iranian officials, the CIA learned that the al Qaeda group was not only communicating with Saudi-based leaders of the terrorist group on operational matters, but also trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

Keep reading on openchannel >>

La recomendacion del Senador Leahy a Obama: EE UU tiene que dar para recibir en el caso Gross

diariodecuba

Un prominente senador estadounidense que acaba de realizar una visita a Cuba dijo este domingo que es necesario que Washington y La Habana den y reciban algo para obtener la liberación del contratista norteamericano Alan Gross, condenado en la Isla a 15 años de cárcel, informa la AFP.

Patrick Leahy, que dirige la comisión de Justicia del Senado, se reunió con Raúl Castro y pudo ven a Gross durante su visita la semana pasada a la Isla.

En declaraciones al programa State of the Union, de la cadena CNN, Leahy dijo que la presión de Estados Unidos no funcionará con Cuba. Gross "no será liberado por los cubanos por la presión de Estados Unidos", señaló.

"Hay formas de que sea liberado, pero requerirán alguna forma de toma y daca de ambas partes y una negociación silenciosa", dijo.

Si cada parte deja de mirar a la otra con mentalidad de la Guerra Fría, "creo que podemos encontrar soluciones, no solo al tema de Alan Gross, sino a una serie de otros temas", agregó el senador.

Como ejemplo, Leahy consideró que "no tiene sentido" mantener a La Habana en la lista de estados que fomentan el terrorismo. Argumentó que en la Isla se están desarrollando las conversaciones de paz entre el Gobierno colombiano y las narcoterroristas Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC).

Para Leahy, el embargo de Estados Unidos a Cuba es otro de los temas que puede ser revisado.

Gross, de 63 años, fue detenido en diciembre de 2009 y acusado de distribuir equipos prohibidos de comunicación en la Isla como parte de un programa de la Agencia de Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional destinado a promover la democracia en Cuba.

El Gobierno de Raúl Castro lo condenó por "actos contra la independencia y la integridad territorial" del Estado.

A cambio de Gross, La Habana busca que Estados Unidos libere a sus cinco agentes condenados en ese país por espionaje.

Video de Raúl Castro con el Senador estadounidense Patrick Leahy

From North Korea to Cuba: How to Embolden Tyrants

capitolhillcubans

Last week, it was revealed that senior U.S. administration officials traveled to North Korea in 2012 to hold secret talks with the new regime of Kim Jung Un.

Apparently, they thought young Kim was a "reformer" and wanted to engage him in negotiations.

The result?

Long-range missile launches and North Korea's third nuclear test.  Not to mention unchanged brutality and repression.

Now, we have a U.S. Congressional delegation in Cuba -- led by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) -- looking to do the same with Raul Castro.

Of course, a Congressional delegation is different from an Administration delegation, for it's not necessarily empowered with negotiation authority (per se).

But the result is the same.

It emboldens the criminal behavior of these tyrants.

Want to "pressure" the Castro regime to release American hostage Alan Gross?

Then just cut off the non-essential travel spigot.

Yes, some "people-to-people" travelers would have to miss their salsa lessons and mojito binges -- but it would be worth it.

Obama Administration Offers Direct Talks with Iran

frontpagemag

By Arnold Ahlert

On Saturday, the Obama administration’s efforts to maintain the fantasy that diplomatic efforts will get Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons was again on display for all the world to see, courtesy of Vice President Joe Biden. During a speech at the Munich Security Conference, Biden contended that the United States “would be prepared to meet bilaterally with the Iranian leadership.” ”There has to be an agenda that they are prepared to speak to,” Biden added. “We are not just prepared to do it for the exercise.” The Iranians, meanwhile, are hailing the new approach the Obama administration is taking with Tehran and are no doubt looking forward to the extra time it will afford them to continue on the trajectory of their nuclear weapons program.

One is forced to ponder what outcome Biden could possibly be envisioning that would rise above the level of a futile “exercise,” given Tehran’s continual intransigence and the Obama administration’s indulgence of the regime’s games. The latest failure to move the needle occurred as recently as January, when nuclear inspectors from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were denied access to the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran. Parchin is where it has long been suspected that the Iranians are working on a nuclear trigger for a bomb. IAEA deputy inspector Herman Nackaerts expressed his frustration at the time: “We had two days of intensive discussions. Differences remain so we could not finalize the structured approach to resolve the outstanding issues regarding possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program,” he said at the time. The two side are scheduled to meet again on February 12.

So what has changed? Nothing on the part of the Iranians. Yet Biden insisted that Iran still had time to change course and resolve the issue through diplomacy. ”The ball is in the government of Iran’s court,” said Biden. “It is well past time for Iran to adopt a serious good-faith approach to negotiations. Abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives.”

Watered-down sanctions and poor oversight are already incentive enough for Iran to stay the course. For instance, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko revealed that an audit of U.S. defense spending in Afghanistan shows that the Pentagon may have spent a “significant amount” of money for fuel purchased from Iran, due to a “lack of oversight” on the billions of dollars of taxpayer funds used to support the Afghan military. ”The fact that the United States has paid for the acquisition and delivery of imported fuel for the Afghan National Security Forces — nearly $1.1 billion for the Afghan National Army alone between fiscal years 2007 and 2012 — raises concerns that U.S. funds could have been used to pay for imports of fuel potentially in violation of U.S. economic sanctions against Iran,” said Sopko.

No doubt this is due to a certain level of bureaucratic sloppiness that is endemic to the kind of ever-expanding government this administration champions. And while that may be somewhat understandable, this administration’s ongoing diplomatic approach seems destined to do little more than give Tehran the time it needs to finally cross the nuclear weapon threshold.

Thus it was completely unsurprising that Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi was pleased with Biden’s offer. ”As I have said yesterday, I am optimistic, I feel this new administration is really this time seeking to at least divert from its previous traditional approach vis-a-vis my country,” Salehi told the German Council on Foreign Relations. Salehi, who also attended the Munich conference, went further. “I think it is about time both sides really get into engagement because confrontation certainly is not the way,” he added.

Such a statement is a typical rewriting of history. Negotiations between some combination of the P5+1 countries (United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany) and Iran have been ongoing for a decade. In all that time, not a single proposal has gained acceptance from all the parities involved. Such orchestrated futility is the essence of what a diplomatic approach has produced. Yet once again the P5+1 is offering Iran another chance to engage in negotiations on February 24, possibly in Kazakhstan. While Salehi called this “good news,” the Iranians have yet to accept. Even if they do, Salehi has offered a hint as to where they are likely to go. ”And another thing: this issue of the nuclear file is becoming boring,” he said during the same interview.

In London, Hossein Mousavian, one of Iran’s former nuclear negotiators, also hinted at the likely futility another round of multilateral negotiations would produce, claiming that they are meaningless without “parallel dialogue” between the Obama administration and Iran. “I believe they should start immediately. They should put all issues on the table. They should start with issues of common interest like Afghanistan in order to create a positive momentum,” he said.

Senator John McCain, who also spoke in Munich, proved once again that willful blindness with regard to Iran is a bipartisan problem. He favors direct talks with Tehran as well, even as he cautioned that optimism may be unwarranted. ”I think we should learn the lessons of history and that is that no matter what the talks are, if you still have the fundamental problem–and the fundamental problem is Iranians’ commitment to acquisition of a nuclear weapon–it doesn’t matter to a significant degree,” he said. ”We’ve seen this movie before. And obviously, I think any venue we would support, but to have grounds for optimism I think would be a mistake.”

After more than ten years of fruitless negotiations, one might be forgiven for wondering when anyone involved in this ongoing fiasco will “learn the lessons of history.”

That would be anyone on the Western side of the equation. Iran is learning that the Obama administration is seemingly determined to find some sort of accommodation with the fanatical mullahs , and nothing says this better than the president’s attempt, and likely success, in getting Chuck Hagel appointed Secretary of Defense. In 2007, Hagel voted against designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. In 2008 Hagel, like Biden, also favored direct negotiations with Iran, despite noting that “they support terrorists, they support Hezbollah. They’ve got their tentacles wrapped around every problem in the middle East. They’re anti-Israel, anti-United States. Those are realities. Those are facts.” In his Senate hearing last week, Hagel “explained” his reasoning in a jaw dropping moment when he noted that the U.S. had never “designated a part of a legitimate government [Iran]” as a terrorist organization. Realizing his mistake he corrected himself. Iran’s government is “recognizable,” he said.

So is Hagel’s cluelessness. It is all the more amplified by another gaffe during which he said he supported the Obama’s administration policy of “containment” with regard to Iran, even though the administration has repeatedly ruled that out as an option. In fact, Iran would probably like nothing more than to be at the stage of “containment” after securing a nuclear weapon.

So what policy should the United States be pursuing with regard to Iran? Writing for PJ Media, Middle East expert Andrew McCarthy explains that focusing solely on nukes is “delusional.” “Exportation of their Islamist revolution, hatred of America and, within that sweep, the destruction of Israel have been the operating premises of Khomeinist Iran since 1979,” he writes. “The facilitation of terrorism–a barbaric way to pursue national interests–has been the regime’s principal means of operation. The mullahs have killed or aided and abetted in the killing of thousands of Americans, and every day they try to kill more. The regime is an incorrigible enemy of the United States. There should be nothing they can do at this point, after over 30 years of this, to convince us otherwise.”

Apparently the Obama administration remains unconvinced. Though ten years of pursuing diplomacy have produced no tangle results, this administration still believes it is capable of getting an apocalyptic regime to alter its divine objective: hastening the second coming of the Twelfth or Hidden Imam whose re-emergence must be preceded by a period of chaos. And as the U.S. continues down the road of appeasement, expect fanatical Iran to respond accordingly.

Pakistan says it is ready for peace talks with Taleban militants

theinnoplex

ISLAMABAD (AP) - Pakistan's interior minister says the government is ready to hold peace talks with Taleban militants who have been waging a bloody insurgency that has killed thousands of people in his country.

Mr Rehman Malik's comments on Monday are the latest sign of growing momentum for negotiations with the Pakistani Taleban. His comments follow statements by senior leaders of the militant group who also have indicated that they are ready to sit down at the negotiating table.

The government appears to have dropped an earlier demand that the Taleban lay down their weapons and denounce violence prior to talks, a position rejected by the militants. 

US-Afghanistan: First time tragedy, second time farce

foreignpolicy

By Kori Schake

It is striking how closely the Obama administration is following the Iraq withdrawal playbook in Afghanistan. There are numerous and important differences between Iraq and Afghanistan, but President Obama is making the exact same policy choices to "wind down" the war in Afghanistan that he made in Iraq. And in both cases, it amounts to writing off the war.

The Obama administration hasn't had a strategy in either war, it has had a military strategy. In both cases, that military strategy produced military gains; in both cases those military gains were ephemeral because advances were in no way supported by political or economic lines of operations to consolidate and capitalize on our military success. The State Department's grand plans for the transition to civilian activity in Iraq are in ashes. If there was a "civilian surge" in Afghanistan, it was completely ineffectual.

In both cases President Obama had a political strategy grounded in the belief that leaders in those countries would not make the politically difficult choices needed unless faced with the imminent end of our support. Thus the timeline-driven exit in both cases. In Iraq, it resulted in a mad scramble for political control: the stalemate over Parliamentary elections, Prime Minister Maliki using the apparatus of the state to punish political adversaries. That mad scramble has been underway in Afghanistan and the region since President Obama announced in December 2009 our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and most evident in the hedging choices of the government of Pakistan, without whose collaboration our strategy could not succeed.

In both cases President Obama doubted the efficacy of a surge of troops: on Iraq he insisted the surge couldn't work, on Afghanistan he set a time limit and reportedly told military commanders this was all they were getting. If they couldn't produce a victory in that time, he would wind down our involvement.

In both cases, President Obama publicly declaring our withdrawal created a political dynamic in which leaders had strong incentives to make us look pushed out; otherwise they would look abandoned, weakening them domestically. Thus Maliki's resistance to immunity for American soldiers; thus Karzai's cavalcade of anti-American statements and actions. Their resistance feeds into the president's belief that they are undeserving of our sacrifices, and best left to their own fates instead of coached and set up to be successful. President Karzai said after meeting President Obama that "numbers [of American troops] aren't going to make a difference in Afghanistan." Expect President Obama to give that theory a test.

In both cases, our exit bore no connection to achievement of our objectives. In Iraq the timeline was supposed to allow for a stable political transition. Manipulation by Maliki of the outcome of spring 2010 Parliamentary elections seized up politics in Iraq for a year and a half while our drawdown proceeded apace and Generals Odierno and Austin disavowed any connection between our withdrawal and political fracture. In Afghanistan, the Obama administration has trumpeted building security forces that can undertake the crucial work Americans have been doing. The December 2012 Pentagon report on Afghan security forces concluded that only 1 of 23 Afghan brigades can operate without our support. If achieving our objectives mattered to President Obama, that information should prompt a serious review of our timeline -- and extend it. Instead, he has accelerated our disengagement.

In both cases, the military advised more troops, more time, and broader objectives than the president accepted. It is the job of military leaders to provide the president their best military advice -- but warfare is a political undertaking, and the military cannot be expected to decide how much national effort to put toward the wars we are fighting. It is above their pay grade. We elect presidents to do that, and only they truly have the span of authority to make the trade offs between defending our country and other important endeavors. But that means blame for the outcome also belongs with the president and not the military leaders.

In both cases, President Obama instituted an end to military operations more than a year before the withdrawal of our military forces. In Iraq it was the August 2009 "end of combat operations;" on Friday, President Obama announced U.S. forces in Afghanistan would this spring limit themselves to supporting Afghan operations; by 2014 they will be limited to training Afghan forces. This effectively ends the practice of counterinsurgency. We will no longer protect Afghans, be dispersed throughout the country, or operate alongside Afghan military units. We're shrinking back onto a couple of large military bases that will protect us against attack ... and also against having an accurate intelligence picture to fuel those counterterrorist operations.

In both cases, President Obama has carried out the policies in slow motion, allowing months of news coverage about pending changes and options considered, such that when policies are implemented, they don't seem like news. Opponents have a harder time mobilizing support when there isn't an actual policy to counter, and by the time there is a policy, the public feels like they've heard this all before. It's the frog boiling strategy: make it happen slowly enough that we'll hardly notice.

Executing the Iraq playbook in Afghanistan will replicate the squandered Iraq gains in the war President Obama argued needed to be fought because he was "convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan" as it was not in Iraq. Does President Obama genuinely expect a different outcome? Does he no longer believe the dire stakes that prompted his Afghanistan surge are at issue? Does he believe achieving our objectives is not worth the price? Does he believe America can buffer itself against a chaotic and dangerous world? Does he believe the wars he has prosecuted as commander in chief are unwinnable? If so, why has he allowed them to exact the terrible toll of lives lost?

New WOLA Colombia report: "Consolidating 'Consolidation'"

Just the Facts

By Adam Isacson
 Colombia's government is negotiating peace with the country's largest and oldest guerrilla group, the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). If the talks succeed—a strong possibility—Colombia faces a big question: what will be different in the vast territories where the guerrillas have been in control, or operated freely, for decades?

In these areas, violence, drug trafficking, and warlordism have long been the norm, and the government’s presence has been virtually nonexistent. If the government does not establish itself in these jungles, mountains, plains, coasts, and borderlands, the FARC's negotiated end will make little difference; illegality and violence will continue to fill the vacuum. Colombia must follow a successful negotiation with getting the government into the country's ungoverned zones. And not just military occupiers: a real, civilian state whose members provide basic services, operate without impunity, and thus enjoy the population's support.

Will Colombia be able to fill the vacuum and end the cycle of violence? As WOLA’s new report Consolidating “Consolidation” describes, the record of the National Territorial Consolidation Plan—a five-year-old program with that very goal—should worry us that it might not.

Backed by at least half a billion dollars in U.S. assistance, this ambitious program seeks to bring the government into several areas of the country with histories of illegal armed groups, violence, drug trafficking, and statelessness. (It is often called the “La Macarena” program, after the southern Colombian zone where the most advanced pilot project has taken place.) Today, while “Consolidation” has brought security improvements and more soldiers and police to a few territories, the governance vacuum remains far from filled.

In the Consolidation zones, armed groups remain very active, especially outside of town centers. Soldiers are by far the most commonly seen government representatives, and the civilian parts of the government—such as health services, education, agriculture, road-builders, land-titlers, judges, and prosecutors—are lagging very far behind.

In Consolidating “Consolidation,” WOLA sought to identify the reasons why the Consolidation program's military-to-civilian transfer has stalled. Senior Associate for Regional Security Policy Adam Isacson found that while the U.S. and Colombian governments underestimated the difficulty of achieving security and the cost of “state-building,” much of the blame lies with civilian government agencies themselves, most of which have been very reluctant to set up a presence in Consolidation zones.

But we found something even more serious: the entire Consolidation model is losing momentum quickly and may have begun to deteriorate. Based on dozens of interviews and a very close read of available evidence, Consolidating “Consolidation” portrays a program lacking interest and backing at high levels of government. What was once a showcase program stagnated during a year and a half-long “rethinking,” followed by several months of infighting that culminated in the sudden exit of the program's director. Meanwhile, in places like Afghanistan, the United States is edging away from similar missions, which it calls “Stability Operations,” that sought to provide basic services to citizens in ungoverned areas. Instead, U.S. forces are relying more on Special Forces operations and drone strikes.

Programs continue in Consolidation zones in Colombia, thanks in great part to US$227 million in USAID contracts awarded since 2010. But Consolidation, which once promised to bring a functioning government to areas that never had one, may be on its way to becoming a politically driven handout program attached to an open-ended military occupation.

If Consolidation fades away, the report warns, it is not clear what will replace it in Colombia's neglected territories. As Colombia faces the possibility of peace in zones of historic guerrilla control, it is crucial that a plan be in place to prevent a re-emergence of violence. If the peace talks succeed, for a brief period Colombia will have a window of opportunity to bring the government to areas that have long generated violence, bringing their citizens into national civic and economic life for the first time.

The National Territorial Consolidation Plan could offer a way to do this, but only if it returns to its initial vision of a phased, coordinated entry of civilian government. If this scheme, or something like it, is to succeed, it will require political will from the highest levels to ensure that the civilians take over as quickly as security conditions allow. And it will require a renewed—but far more civilian-centered—commitment from the United States.

Castro Apologist Seeks Obama Support For Cuban Five

Chris Simmons

Letter to Obama: Alan Gross not a "hostage"

Courtesy:  Tracey Eaton – Along the Malecon

Below is the text of an open letter from Canadian journalist Steven Kimber to President Barack Obama. He is writing a book called, "What Lies Across the Water: The Real Story of the Cuban Five."

Honorable Barack Obama

President of the United States of America

The White House

Washington DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

This is my first ever letter to an American president. That’s not just because I’m not an American citizen. I’m also a journalist, and journalists are not in the habit of writing letters to heads of governments.

But having spent the past three years researching the case of the Cuban Five, I believe I have an obligation to write to you.

The fact is American journalism hasn’t done a very good job of explaining to the American public the case of the five Cuban intelligence agents who have been incarcerated in the U.S. since 1998. As a result, your administration has mostly managed to avoid dealing with the issue at all or, when forced to comment, responding with the tired, rote rhetoric of the Cold War era.

But the case of the Cuban Five has recently been brought back into the public spotlight because of Alan Gross, the USAID subcontractor currently serving a 15-year jail term in Cuba for bringing satellite communication equipment into that country.

The media reporting of his case has been equally problematic, mostly parroting your own State Department line that Gross is a “humanitarian” who was arrested while trying to help Havana’s tiny Jewish community communicate with the outside world, and is now being held “hostage” by Havana.

You know that’s not true. So, of course, should the media. After all, it was Desmond Butler, a foreign affairs reporter for the Associated Press—a news agency subscribed to by most American media and unlikely ever to be mistaken for a tool of the Cuban regime—who documented the facts of the case.

Alan Gross was “paid a half-million dollars” by USAID, your government’s “democracy promoting” agency, to smuggle sophisticated communications equipment into Cuba. That technology included Internet satellite phones capable of avoiding detection and spy-quality SIM cards “most frequently” used by the Defense Department and the CIA.

The goal of all of this was not to assist Cuba’s Jewish community communicate, as your government has insisted (the Jewish community already had Internet connectivity) but to promote regime change—to overthrow the government of Cuba.

Gross’s own reports make clear he knew he was engaged in “very risky business” and that discovery of what he was up to “will be catastrophic.”

That said, Alan Gross’s family and friends, not surprisingly, want him freed.

Just as the Cubans want the Five—who are considered national heroes in their homeland—freed.

Your government’s unblinking response has been that there is simply “no equivalence.” The Cubans were trained intelligence agents convicted of trying to steal military secrets and conspiracy to murder four innocent civilians killed in the shootdown of two unarmed Brothers to the Rescue aircraft in 1996. By contrast, the American argument goes, Alan Gross was just a humanitarian do-gooder.

We now know Alan Gross was much more than that.

Story continues here:  http://alongthemalecon.blogspot.com/2013/01/letter-to-obama-alan-gross-not-hostage.html

Detained American, Internet freedom on agenda as Google boss visits North Korea

Kim Kwang Hyon / AP

Former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson is interviewed by journalists after arriving at Pyongyang International Airport in North Korea on Monday.

By NBC News staff and wire reports

Google Executive Chairman Eric E. Schmidt and former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson arrived in North Korea on Monday to begin a controversial private mission that includes an effort to secure the release of an imprisoned American tourist.

The prisoner, Kenneth Bae, is a 44-year-old Korean-American who was detained last month. He was in a group of five tourists who visited the northeast city of Rajin, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said last month, citing a report by the Kookmin Ilbo newspaper. Bae entered North Korea on Nov. 3.

North Korea: Detained tourist 'admitted his crime'

Richardson, a former ambassador to the United Nations, has made numerous trips to North Korea. Before Monday's trip, he said: "We are going to ask about the American who's been detained -- a humanitarian private visit."

David Guttenfelder / AP

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, center, arrives at Pyongyang International Airport in North Korea for a controversial visit on Monday.

"We'll meet with North Korean political leaders," Richardson told The Associated Press. "We'll meet with North Korean economic leaders, military. We'll visit some universities. We don't control the visit. They will let us know what the schedule is when we get there."

The former governor also said the delegation would try to "lay the groundwork for him coming home," the AP reported. "We're going to try to inquire about the status. ... I heard from his son who lives in Washington state, who asked me to bring him back. I doubt we can do it on this trip."

US cool to Schmidt's trip to North Korea

Schmidt did not respond to requests for comment. But Richardson gave at least a hint about Schmidt's purpose for the trip to the country where the Internet, like most other things, is strictly regulated.

"This is not a Google trip, but I'm sure he's interested in some of the economic issues there, the social media aspect," Richardson told the AP. "So this is why we are teamed up on this." He did not elaborate on what he meant by the "social media aspect."

The trip comes a month after North Korea launched a rocket to put a satellite into space. The reclusive state continues work on its nuclear testing facilities, according to satellite imagery, potentially paving the way for a third nuclear bomb test.

Keep reading on NBC >>