30/09/06 - Quête indienne de sécurité énergétique

India’s quest for energy security
Siddharth Srivastava, WorldSecurityNetwork 29/09/06

"With no signs of a respite in oil prices and given India’s growth, a serious attempt is being made to push for energy sources.

India has scaled up its estimate of power requirement to between 800,000 MW and 950,000 MW by 2030 to achieve the targeted growth of over eight percent. The choices China and India make in the next few years will lead the world on a path based on efficient technologies or growing ecological instability, the US-based World Watch Institute in its State of the World 2006 report has said..."

Voir, See :

State of the World 2006: Special Focus: China and India
WorldWatch 01/06


30/09/06 - La Russie fixe le rythme de la course à l'énergie

Russia sets the pace in energy race
Asia Times 23/09/06

"Speaking at a conference under the rubric "Summit on Energy Security" at West Lafayette, Indiana, this month, the powerful chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, characterized Venezuela, Iran and Russia as "adversarial regimes" that were using energy supplies as "leverage" in foreign policy.

Lugar said: "We are used to thinking in terms of conventional warfare between nations, but energy is becoming a weapon of choice for those who possess it."

Senior Russian figures were quick to dismiss Lugar's admonition as "groundless Russophobia", but the US administration is already opening new battle fronts against Russia in the energy war..."


30/09/06 - Etats-Unis : la révolte des militaires

Iraq, Overstretched Army Bring Bush New Grief
Jim Lobe, IPS 25/09/06

"With the U.S. intelligence community agreed that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have made this country less safe from terrorist threats, President George W. Bush appears now to be facing a growing revolt among top military commanders who say U.S. ground forces are stretched close to the breaking point.

According to Monday's Los Angeles Times, the Army's top officer, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, has called for nearly a 50 percent increase in spending -- to nearly 140 billion dollars -- in 2008 to cope with the situation in Iraq and maintain minimal readiness for possible emergencies.

To convey his seriousness, Schoomaker reportedly withheld the Army's scheduled budget request last month in what the Times called an "unprecedented... protest" against previous rejections by the White House of funding increases.

The news of Schoomaker's action, which is almost certain to intensify the growing debate over what to do in Iraq just seven weeks before the Nov. 7 mid-term Congressional elections, comes just days after the New York Times reported that the Army is considering activating substantially more National Guard troops or reservists.

Such a decision, which would run counter to previous administration pledges to limit overseas deployments for the Guard, would pose serious political risks for the Republicans if it was taken before the elections..."


25/09/06 - Dixit Ahmadinejad, l'Amérique n'attaquera pas l'Iran

Ahmadinejad's Gauntlet
The U.S. and Iran Need Each Other Too Much Not to Find Accommodation
By David Ignatius, WaPo 24/09/06

"The most telling moment in a conversation here last week with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came when he was asked if America would attack Iran. He quickly answered "no," with a slight cock of his head as if he regarded the very idea of war between the two countries as preposterous..."

"...Over the course of a week's time, I had an unusual chance to sit with both President Bush and President Ahmadinejad and hear their thoughts about Iran. The contrasts were striking: Bush is groping for answers to the Iran problem; you sense him struggling for a viable strategy. When I asked what message he wanted to send the Iranian people, Bush seemed eager for more contact: He spoke of Iran's importance, of its great history and culture, of its legitimate rights. He made similar comments in his speech Tuesday to the U.N. General Assembly.

Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, is sitting back and enjoying the attention. He's not groping for anything; he's waiting for the world to come to him. When you boil down his comments, the message is similar to Bush's: Iran wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear impasse; Iran wants dialogue; Iran wants more cultural exchanges. At one point, Ahmadinejad even said that "under fair conditions," he would favor a resumption of diplomatic relations with the United States..."

"...The common strand I take away from this week of Iranian-American conversation is that the two countries agree on one central fact: Iran is a powerful nation that should play an important role in the international system. Bush put it to me this way: "I would say to the Iranian people: We respect your history. We respect your culture. . . . I recognize the importance of your sovereignty." Here was Ahmadinejad's formulation, when I asked how Iran could help stabilize Iraq: "A powerful Iran will benefit the region because Iran is a country with a deep culture and has always been a peaceful country."

That's the challenge: Can America and Iran find a formula that will meet each side's security interests, and thereby allow Iran to return fully to the community of nations after 27 years? Iran can't achieve its ambitions as a rising power without an accommodation with America. America can't achieve its interest in stabilizing the Middle East without help from Iran. The potential for war is there, but so is the bedrock of mutual self-interest. The simple fact is that these two countries need each other."


25/09/06 - Après la diplomatie, les options militaires sur l'Iran

THE END OF THE “SUMMER OF DIPLOMACY”: ASSESSING U.S. MILITARY OPTIONS ON IRAN
SAM GARDINER, COLONEL, USAF (RET.), A CENTURY FOUNDATION REPORT 18/09/06

New Report: Administration Moving Forward on Plans for Bombing Attacks in Iran - Century Foundation press release 18/09/06

"In a new report for The Century Foundation, Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner warns that some in the Bush administration are making the case for air strikes aimed not only at setting back Iran’s nuclear program, but also at toppling the country’s government.  He says that these officials are undeterred by the concerns of military leaders about whether such attacks would be effective.

“If this uncertainty does not appear to worry the proponents of air strikes in Iran it is in no small part because the real U.S. policy objective is not merely to eliminate the nuclear program, but to overthrow the regime,” he writes. “It is hard to believe, after the misguided talk prior to Iraq of how American troops would be greeted with flowers and welcomed as liberators, but those inside and close to the administration who are arguing for an air strike against Iran actually sound as if they believe the regime in Tehran can be eliminated by air attacks.”..."


25/09/06 - Irak : les services de renseignement US accusent l'invasion et l'occupation US

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
NYT 24/09/06

"A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe..."


Lire également, Read also :

Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report
Guardian 25/09/06

Study of Iraq War and Terror Stirs Strong Political Response
NYT 25/09/06

Negroponte Highlights U.S. Successes
WaPo 25/09/06


25/09/06 - Pervez Musharraf distend ses liens avec Washington

U.S.-Pakistan relationship getting shaky
The State AP 22/09/06

"Threats of U.S. military action inside Pakistan to counter al-Qaida militants have highlighted the shaky relationship between these two key players in the war on terror and could escalate anti-American sentiments in this Islamic nation.

President Bush said this week that he would "absolutely" order military operations inside Pakistan if Osama bin Laden or other top terrorists were found to be hiding here.

Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, also said the United States had threatened to bomb his Islamic nation "back to the Stone Age" if he didn't switch his support from Afghanistan's pro-al-Qaida Taliban regime to the American-led war on terror following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"These comments only expose how tenuous and fragile Pakistan's relationship is with the United States," Pakistani analyst and retired army Gen. Talat Masood said Friday. "They prove a lot more has to be done to establish a relationship on a much more solid foundation."..."


Musharraf: US threatened to bomb Pakistan
Independant 22/09/06

"The President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, reveals in an interview to be aired at the weekend that, soon after the terror attacks of 11 September 2001, the United States threatened to bomb his country "back into the Stone Age" if he didn't offer its co-operation in fighting terrorism and the Taliban.

The revelation was made by General Musharraf during his visit to New York for the annual General Assembly of the United Nations. It comes after a week in which the US has been criticised by a number of foreign leaders for trying to impose its will on other nations.

Talking to a correspondent of the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes to be shown on Sunday evening, General Musharraf claims that the warning was delivered to his own director of intelligence by the US Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. ''The intelligence director told me that [Armitage] said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age','' General Musharraf said, according to excerpts of the interview released by CBS last night..."

"...Shortly after 9/11, Pakistan indeed ended its support of the Taliban and became a frontline ally of America in the ''war on terror''. However, General Musharraf makes no secret of his distaste for the strong-arm tactics he faced from Mr Armitage. ''I think it was a very rude remark,'' he says in the interview. ''One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation, and that's what I did.''..."


US: threat to bomb Pakistan was a 'misunderstanding'
Times 22/09/06

"America tried to smooth over differences with Pakistan today, after General Pervez Musharraf accused the Bush Administration of threatening to bomb his country if it did not co-operate in the war on terrorism..."

"...Today the White House said that it was not US policy to make such threats and ascribed General Musharraf's allegation to a possible misunderstanding. President Bush said he was "taken aback" when he read the claim in this morning's newspapers.

Speaking while Mr Bush met General Musharraf for an hour in Washington, the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, tried to check the fall-out from the Pakistani President's remark, but acknowledged that Islamabad had been presented with a stark choice.

"US policy was not to issue bombing threats. US policy was to say to President Musharraf: ’We need you to make a choice,’" said Mr Snow..."


Musharraf's comments rattle Pakistanis
AP 22/09/06

"...Musharraf said he reacted responsibly. "One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation and that is what I did."

But he added: "I thought it was a very rude remark."

Armitage has said he never threatened to bomb Pakistan but that he delivered a tough message to the Muslim nation that it was either "with us or against us."

"These comments only expose how tenuous and fragile Pakistan's relationship is with the United States," Pakistani analyst and retired army Gen. Talat Masood said Friday. "They prove a lot more has to be done to establish a relationship on a much more solid foundation."..."


Lire également, Read also :

US spy agency CIA paid Pakistan for al-Qaeda suspects: Musharraf
AFP 25/09/06

"The US Central Intelligence Agency paid Pakistan millions of dollars for handing over more than 350 suspected al-Qaeda terrorists to the United States, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has reportedly said.

The assertions come in the military ruler's upcoming memoir "In the Line of Fire," serialized in The Times newspaper.

Musharraf does not reveal how much Pakistan was paid for the 369 Al-Qaeda suspects he ordered should be handed over to the United States, the newspaper said, noting, however, that such payments are banned by the US government.

The newspaper does not, however, print or quote the excerpts which make the allegations.

In response a US Department of Justice official was quoted as saying: "We didn't know about this. It should not happen. These bounty payments are for private individuals who help to trace terrorists on the FBI's most wanted list, not foreign governments."

The Pakistani's leader's claims come after he said last week that former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage had threatened to bomb Pakistan if it did not back the United States in the so-called "war on terror" in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, described by Musharraf as "what has to be the most undiplomatic statement ever made."

"Our relationships with international leaders is not something we are prepared to talk about," a CIA official told The Times.

Musharraf also writes that he was so angered by American demands in the wake of the September 11 attacks, which he calls "ludicrous," that he "war-gamed the United States as an adversary."

"There would be a violent and angry reaction if we didn't support the United States," an excerpt from his book reads.

"The question was: if we do not join them, can we confront them and withstand the onslaught? The answer was no."

He said that two days after the attacks, the US Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain brought to him a set of seven demands including "blanket overflight and landing rights" and "use of Pakistan's naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders."

Musharraf said Pakistan gave no "blanket permission" for anything.

The military leader also says that he decided to make the revelations to counter claims that Pakistan had not done enough to combat Al-Qaeda in the war on terror."


25/09/06 - Les néocons accusent le Pakistan de rendre les armes au Waziristan

Pakistan Surrenders
The Taliban control the border with Afghanistan.
by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross & Bill Roggio, Weekly Standard 02/10/06

"INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS woke up on September 5 to unsettling news. The government of Pakistan, they learned, had entered into a peace agreement with the Taliban insurgency that essentially cedes authority in North Waziristan, the mountainous tribal region bordering Afghanistan, to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Just ten days later, the blow was compounded when the government of Pakistan released a large number of jihadists from prison. Together, these events may constitute the most significant development in the global war on terror in the past year--yet the media have taken little notice.

For four years, the Pakistani military engaged in a campaign to assert governmental control over Waziristan. The cost to Pakistan has been considerable; some intelligence sources believe this fighting has exacted a higher death toll on the Pakistani military than U.S. forces have sustained in Iraq. It is in this context that Pakistan gave up on South Waziristan last spring, abandoning its effort to control that area. Thereafter, sharia law was declared in South Waziristan, and the Taliban began to rule openly..."


US endorses Waziristan peace deal
Dawn 16/09/06

"The United States believes that the agreement the government recently signed with pro-Taliban tribal chiefs in Waziristan has the ‘potential to work’.

In a policy speech at the School of Advanced International Studies here, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher endorsed the deal as an effort to get tribal support to defeat terrorism..."


25/09/06 - La résurgence des Talibans en Afghanistan

The Resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan
Dr. Harsh V. Pant, PINR 25/09/06

"Although Iraq has been the focus of U.S. foreign policy, the situation in Afghanistan, the original target of Washington's war on terrorism, continues to deteriorate. Some five years after the United States went to war to defeat the Taliban and three years after it declared an end to combat operations, the resurgence of the Taliban is haunting the U.S. military and its allies, and hopes for the emergence of a democratic Afghanistan are faltering. While the political institutions in the form of a constitution, a popularly-elected president, and a national parliament have been in place for some time now, their efficacy is increasingly being challenged by the rising violence and creeping fundamentalism. The present phase in violence is the most intense since the defeat of the Taliban in 2001..."


25/09/06 - La Russie refuge financier de la Corée du Nord ?

North Korea's financial enabler
American Foreign Policy Council 29/08/06

"American specialists believe North Korea has transferred a considerable part of its bank accounts to Russia as a means of skirting U.S. sanctions, Kommersant reports. According to the International Crisis Group’s Peter Beck, Russia has become Pyongyang’s “last financial refuge.” “The new American accusations against Russia form an almost ominous picture,” Kommersant writes. “Russian firms help North Korea develop missile technology, Pyongyang sells it to other problem countries, and the proceeds from those sales are deposited in North Korean accounts in Russian banks. It is only a small step... to the accusation of violating nonproliferation rules.” The newspaper notes that Russian experts “are doubtful of the American claims.” "


25/09/06 - Usages sémantiques et guerre contre le terrorisme

Doublespeak and the War on Terrorism
Cato Institute 06/09/06

"Five years have passed since the catastrophic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Those attacks ushered in the war on terror. Since some high-ranking government officials and pundits are now referring to the war on terror as the “Long War” or “World War III,” because its duration is not clear, now is an appropriate time to take a few steps back and examine the disturbing new vocabulary that has emerged from this conflict.

One of the central insights of George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four concerned the manipulative use of language, which he called “newspeak” and “doublethink,” and which we now call “doublespeak” and “Orwellian.” Orwell was alarmed by government propaganda and the seemingly rampant use of euphemisms and halftruths— and he conveyed his discomfort with such tactics to generations of readers by using vivid examples in his novel. Despite our general awareness of the tactic, government officials routinely use doublespeak to expand, or at least maintain, their power.

The purpose of this paper is not to criticize any particular policy initiative. Reasonable people can honestly disagree about what needs to be done to combat the terrorists who are bent on killing Americans. However, a conscientious discussion of our policy options must begin with a clear understanding of what our government is actually doing and what it is really proposing to do next. The aim here is to enhance the understanding of both policymakers and the interested lay public by exposing doublespeak..."