Monday, December 18, 2006

Bush OKs nuke deal with India despite inspection history

Bush OKs nuke deal with India despite inspection history

The bill carves out an exemption in U.S. law to allow civilian nuclear trade with India in exchange for Indian safeguards and inspections at its 14 civilian nuclear plants. Eight military plants, however, would remain off-limits.

"This is an important achievement for the whole world. After 30 years outside the system, India will now operate its civilian nuclear energy program under internationally accepted guidelines and the world is going to be safer as a result," Bush said in a bill-signing ceremony at the White House.

Critics have said the measure undermines efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and technology and could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia by boosting India's atomic arsenal. India still refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The measure passed Congress with bipartisan support, but critics complain the deal undermines efforts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the pact, in effect, shreds the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"This is a sad day in the history of efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and materials around the world," he said. "The bill that President Bush has signed today may well become the death warrant to the international nuclear nonproliferation regime."

India an exception
The White House said India was unique because it had protected its nuclear technology and not been a proliferator. The Bush administration said the pact deepens ties with a democratic Asian power, but was not designed as a counterweight to the rising power of China.

The administration also argued it was a good deal because it would provide international oversight for part of a program that has been secret since India entered the nuclear age in 1974. The deal also could be a boon for American companies that have been barred from selling reactors and material to India.

"India's economy has more than doubled its size since 1991 and it is one of the fastest-growing markets for American exports," Bush said.

In New Delhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday defended the nuclear deal, rejecting strong opposition criticism that it would lead to the dismantling of India's atomic weapons. He said he had some concerns about the legislation, but that they would be dealt with during technical negotiations on an overall U.S.-India cooperation agreement.

"The United States has assured us that the bill would enable it to meet its commitments" made in agreements struck in July 2005 and in March by Bush and Singh.

Singh said India would not accept new conditions and its nuclear weapons program would not be subject to interference of any kind because the agreement with the United States dealt with civil nuclear cooperation.

Earlier, opposition leader L.K. Advani of the Bharatiya Janata Party said India should not accept the U.S. legislation, saying that the deal would prevent India from conducting nuclear tests in the future. India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 and followed it up with a series of nuclear tests in 1998.

"The primary objective is to cap, roll back and ultimately eliminate its (India's) nuclear weapons capability," Advani warned.

Before civil nuclear trade can begin, several hurdles remain. American and Indian officials need to work out a separate technical nuclear cooperation agreement, expected to be finished next year.

The two countries must now obtain an exception for India in the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an assembly of nations that export nuclear material. Indian officials must also negotiate a safeguard agreement with the IAEA.

Senators Clinton, Ensign ask Bush to consider Iraq Oil Trust

Senators Clinton, Ensign ask Bush to consider Iraq Oil Trust

RAW STORYPublished: Monday December 18, 2006

In a commentary published in Monday's Wall Street Journal, Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Ensign (R-NV) ask the Bush Administration to set up an Iraq Oil Trust, so that revenues can be distributed to the country's "ordinary" citizens and to further demonstrate that the United States is not in Iraq just for the sake of oil.

"For the sake of our soldiers and for the future of Iraq, it is time we place greater rights and responsibilities of citizenship in the hands of the Iraqi people," the two Senators write. "This includes a stake in oil revenues, which are central to political reconciliation and an end to the sectarian violence."

Excerpts from commentary:
#
We have urged for three years that the Bush administration pursue an Iraq Oil Trust, modeled on the Alaskan Permanent Fund, guaranteeing that every individual Iraqi would share in the country's oil wealth. Oil revenues would accrue to the national government and a significant percentage of oil revenues would be divided equally among ordinary Iraqis, giving every citizen a stake in the nation's recovery and political reconciliation and instilling a sense of hope for the promise of democratic values.

The implications would be vast.
• The future of Iraq's oil reserves remains at the heart of the political crisis in Iraq, as the regional and sectarian divides in Iraq play out over the division of resources and revenues. As the Iraq Study Group writes, "The politics of oil has the potential to further damage the country's already fragile efforts to create a unified central government." An Iraq Oil Trust would chart an equitable path forward for dividing oil revenues in a way that transcends the divide among Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis.
• As report after report indicates, one of the challenges to building Iraq's oil revenues has been insurgent attacks against oil infrastructure. A distribution of revenues to all Iraqis would mean they would have a greater incentive to keep the oil flowing, help the economy grow, reject the insurgency, and commit to the future of their nation.
• While demonstrating that the U.S. is not in Iraq for oil, an Iraq Oil Trust would also inhibit corruption and the concentration of oil wealth in the hands of a privileged few.
• Finally, an Iraq Oil Trust would demonstrate the values at the heart of democratic governance: Individuals would have the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Indeed, the study group reports, "Iraqis have not been convinced that they must take responsibility for their own future." By trusting ordinary Iraqis, ordinary Iraqis would in turn gain greater trust in the national government while seeing something positive about the future at a time when positive signs have been few and far between.
#

Kucinich: We could exit Iraq in sixty days

Kucinich: We could exit Iraq in sixty days

RAW STORY
Published: Monday December 18, 2006


.

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich detailed the platform on which he plans to once again seek the Democratic nomination for President, in an interview conducted last week with Congressional Quarterly.

Kucinich followed Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa as the second Democratic office holder to announce his run for the presidency. He told CQ that "People aren’t looking for the Democrats to be better managers of the war, they want the Democrats to end the war and to bring our troops home."

To further this point, the Ohio Congressman emphasized that his plan for withdrawing from Iraq in sixty days was feasible. He explained that "if you go back to Oct. 1 when the appropriation of $70 billion began, the money’s in the pipeline right now to bring the troops home. Not only is it in the pipeline to bring the troops home, but to simultaneously provide for the security of the Iraqi people through supporting an effort by the international community and through inviting the international community and helping to sustain it. ... So why would we leave the troops in the field if we have the money to bring them home? Why would we continue the war by supporting another appropriation?"

The full interview, conducted by Marie Horrigan, can be accessed at the CQPolitics.com website. An excerpt is provided below.

#

CQ: This is your second consecutive shot for the presidency. How do you feel 2008 will be different from 2004 for you?

Kucinich: Well, it’s already different in the sense that I was right. I go into the 2008 election as the one person who campaigned continually on opposition to the war, who from inside the Congress challenged the war. And everything I said was right, so people can now look to me and say, “Well, there’s a leader. There’s somebody who had the foresight to challenge the war from the beginning.”

But there’s something else that’s happened. And the other thing that’s different is that the American people have given the Democrats the power of the government. We are now the majority, and we are a co-equal branch of government. The people gave that to us on one issue and one issue alone: Iraq.

So I’m in a singular position of encouraging my party to rise to the occasion, to accept the mantle of responsibility, to confirm the will of the people, and to take steps to bring our troops home. ... People are waiting for Democrats to take this direction so my position is to protect the ability of the Democratic Party to have a Democratic president in 2008, and to take the nation in a new direction that’s consistent with the aspirations of Democrats.

But everything that we care about —health care, education, housing, job creation, the environment — all of those issues are going to be swept aside by war, by the fiscal drain of the war. ... If Democrats go through with their plan to put the war on budget, that means cutting the very programs that we care about.

We shouldn’t be in this kind of Hobbesian choice. We should be having a clear position that accepts the verdict of the people in November. The people said we want the Democrats to take over, the issue is Iraq, we want the Democrats to give us a new direction, that direction obviously is out.

Colin Powell: ‘We Are Losing’




colin3.jpg



From CBS:



The United States is losing the war in Iraq but sending more troops to Baghdad is not the best way to change course, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Face The Nation...



..."I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work," he said, adding that the Iraqi government and security forces must take over.



Read entire article here.


Sunday, December 17, 2006

Columnist suggests Bush could use Lieberman to change Senate's balance

Columnist suggests Bush could use Lieberman to change Senate's balance
RAW STORYPublished: Friday December 15, 2006


While much of Washington kept rapt attention on the health of Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, an article in Salon today speculated that President George W. Bush could tip the Senate to a Republican majority via other means -- namely, appointing Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to be America's next Ambassador to the UN.

Salon political columnist Joe Conason notes that if Lieberman were to leave the Senate, Connecticut's Republican Governor would be able to appoint a Republican to fill his seat. Knowing this, Conason reasons, the White House could use the enticement of the UN posting as a means to encourage Lieberman to exit the US Senate.

Conason acknowledges that Lieberman, having fought so hard to keep his seat, is unlikely to give it up. But he points out that Lieberman was a candidate for the job of UN Ambassador at an earlier time. And, he also suggests that the move could be used to put Lieberman on course to be the Vice Presidential candidate on a ticket with John McCain in 2008.

Conason's column can be accessed by Salon subscribers and anyone viewing one of Salon's advertisements at this link. A short excerpt is provided below.
#
To Bush, however, Lieberman might represent a refreshing change -- if only because the long nomination struggle over Bolton could end at last with a resounding victory instead of an infuriating defeat. Selecting a three-term senator who has made alliances on both sides of the aisle would ensure a smooth confirmation process. Many Democrats have mixed feelings about their old colleague these days, and he feels the same way about many of them. But institutional comity would require them to vote for him. (And how amusing for the Republicans to watch their adversaries vote themselves back into the minority with gritted teeth.)

According to the New York Daily News, Lieberman actually was the president's first choice for the U.N. post. Thomas DeFrank, the paper's Washington bureau chief, reported last December that Bush had offered the job to the Connecticut senator, who thought about it for a week before saying no. If that is true, then he may be at the top of the list of nominees, which is said to include U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky and Jim Leach, R-Iowa, who lost his congressional seat last month.

Saturday, December 16, 2006


news photo

AP

Newt Gingrich: I Still Think We Need To Curb Free Speech...



DoD Posts Counterinsurgency War-Fighting Manual On Web...


news photo


Now You And Everyone, Including Al Qaeda Terrorists And Insurgents, Can Read The Entire 282-Page Manual…

Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war

Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war

By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith

Published: 15 December 2006

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.

Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.

The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.

It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross.

His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened.

Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment.

"What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.

Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.

"Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," said one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years".

One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff."

Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war - Mr Ross's boss - announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year.

Women's Rights Disappearing In Postwar Iraq...

news photo

AP

Women's Rights Disappearing In Postwar Iraq...

Friday, December 15, 2006

friday

US, Iraqis differ on cutting off insurgent TV

Humanitarian agency in Iraq claims attacks by US troops

Canadian mistakenly tortured still on American watch list

Video: U.S. soldiers lead Iraqi children in obscene chant

Rice: No talks on Iraq with Iran, SyriaBush seeks 20k more troops, faces resistance; New memo says Blair lied.

Florida executions halted after botched injection

Florida executions halted after botched injection

POSTED: 4:05 p.m. EST, December 15, 2006
story.diaz.ap.jpg

Angel Diaz was executed Wednesday for the 1979 murder of a Miami strip club manager. Officials needed two doses of drugs to execute him.

Story Highlights

• NEW: A Florida execution was botched when the chemicals went into soft tissue
• Angel Diaz took 34 minutes and two drug cocktails to die
• Witnesses believe he was mouthing a prayer as he slowly died
• Diaz was convicted of the 1979 murder of a Miami strip club manager
Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font

OCALA, Florida (AP) -- The execution of a convicted killer took 34 minutes -- twice as long as normal -- because officials botched the insertion of the needles that delivered the lethal chemicals, a medical examiner said Friday.

Gov. Jeb Bush responded to the findings by halting the signing of more death warrants until a commission he created to examine the state's lethal injection process completes its final report by March 1.

Dr. William Hamilton, who performed the autopsy, said the needles pierced Angel Nieves Diaz's veins and then went into soft tissue in his arms. The lethal chemicals are supposed to go directly into the veins.

Hamilton refused to say whether he thought Diaz died a painful death.

"I am going to defer answers about pain and suffering until the autopsy is complete," he said. He said the results were preliminary and toxicology tests and other tests may take several weeks.

Diaz, 55, was put to death Wednesday for murdering of the manager of a Miami topless bar during a holdup in 1979. The condemned man not only took 34 minutes to die, but also needed a rare second dose of the lethal chemicals. (Watch officials explain why it took 2 injections and 34 minutes Video)

The medical examiner's findings contradicted the explanation given by prison officials, who said Diaz needed the second dose because liver disease caused him to metabolize the lethal drugs more slowly.

Hamilton said that although there were records that Diaz had hepatitis, his liver appeared normal.

In halting the signing of any more death warrants, the governor said he wants to ensure the process does constitute cruel and unusual punishment, as some death penalty foes argued bitterly after Wednesday's execution.

Executions in Florida normally take no more than about 15 minutes, with the inmate rendered unconscious and motionless within three to five minutes. But Diaz appeared to be moving 24 minutes after the first injection, grimacing, blinking, licking his lips, blowing and appearing to mouth words.

As a result of the chemicals going into Diaz's arms around the elbow, he had an 12-inch chemical burn on his right arm and an 11-inch chemical burn on his left arm, Hamilton said.

Florida Corrections Secretary James McDonough said the execution team did not see any swelling of the arms, which would have been an indication that the chemicals were going into tissues and not veins.

David Elliot, spokesman for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, said experts his group had contacted suspected that liver disease was not the explanation for the problem.

"Florida has certainly deservedly earned a reputation for being a state that conducts botched executions, whether its electrocution or lethal injection," Elliot said. "We just think the Florida death penalty system is broken from start to finish."

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Pentagon: 'Double down' US troopsBut 'general direction' already decided by Bush; 25,000 dead or injured.

25,000 US Troops Dead Or Wounded In Iraq...

25,000 US Troops Dead Or Wounded In Iraq...

Newsweek | Posted December 12, 2006 10:35 PM


25000web2.jpg

AP

From Newsweek:

Three years and nine months after the U.S.-led Coalition began its war against Saddam Hussein, researchers have quietly recorded another grim milestone in the cost of the conflict. American military casualties have now exceeded 25,000. Almost 3,000 U.S. soldiers are dead; 22,000 are injured. Some 245 other Coalition soldiers--mostly Brits--have also died, as well as at least 50,000 Iraqi civilians. Glenn Kutler, a researcher for the non-partisan iCasualties.org, has analyzed the patterns behind the numbers--and says he sees a conflict of gruesome logic and distinct phases.

See full feature here.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Why are Jews at the 'Holocaust denial' conference?

WHO, WHAT, WHY?
The Magazine answers...

Why are Jews attending a conference on the Holocaust in Tehran at which star guests include deniers of the genocide? Clue: they also want an end to the Israeli state.

A handful of Orthodox Jews have attended Iran's controversial conference questioning the Nazi genocide of the Jews - not because they deny the Holocaust but because they object to using it as justification for the existence of Israel.

With their distinctive hats, beards and side locks, these men may, to the untrained eye, look like any other Orthodox believers in Jerusalem or New York. But the Jews who went to Tehran are different.

Some of them belong to Neturei Karta (Guardians of the City), a group of a few thousand people which views Zionism - the movement to establish a Jewish national home or state in what was Palestine - as a "poison" threatening "true Jews".


WHO, WHAT, WHY?
A feature to the BBC News Magazine - aiming to answer some of the questions behind the headlines

A representative, UK-based Rabbi Aharon Cohen, told the conference he prayed "that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East, namely the state known as Israel, be totally and peacefully dissolved".

In its place, Rabbi Cohen said, should be "a regime fully in accordance with the aspirations of the Palestinians when Arab and Jew will be able to live peacefully together as they did for centuries".

Neturei Karta believes the very idea of an Israeli state goes against the Jewish religion.

The book of Jewish law or Talmud, they say, teaches that believers may not use human force to create a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah.


An opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust
Manouchehr Mottaki
Iranian foreign minister, describing the conference

But how does Neturei Karta and other Orthodox Jews such as Austria-based Rabbi Moishe Ayre Friedman justify attending such a controversial conference?

Rabbi Friedman told BBC Radio Four's PM programme that he was not in Tehran to debate whether the Holocaust happened or not, but to look at its lessons.

He says the Holocaust was being used to legitimise the suffering of other peoples and he wanted to break what he called a taboo on discussing it.

The main thing, he argued, was not Jewish suffering in the past but the use of the Holocaust as a "tool of commercial, military and media power".

In what many other Jews would consider the height of naivety, he commended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for wanting "a secured future for innocent Jewish people in Europe and elsewhere".

In his speech to the conference, Neturei Karta's Rabbi Cohen said there was no doubt about the Holocaust and it would be "a terrible affront to the memory of those who perished to belittle the guilt of the crime in any way".

However, he also argued that the genocide had been divine will. "The Zionists, with their secular pompous approach behave in complete opposition to this philosophy and dare to say 'Never Again'.

"They have the audacity to think that they can prevent the Almighty from repeating a Holocaust. This is heresy."

Neturei Karta have been condemned by other Orthodox Jews as an extreme fringe movement while the Tehran conference has been denounced by the Israeli parliament.

Your comments:

I don't understand. The western world accuses multiple countries in the Middle East of lacking democracy and free speech, which many of them do. Yet when Iran holds a conference, not to deny the holocaust ever happened, but to investigate whether all we know of the Holocaust was true, we are up in arms. What happened to the concept of free speech we were thinking is the best thing in the world? Does that only apply on all things except when it comes to criticizing Israel? Any criticism of the conference is sheer and utter hypocrisy.
Omar Yassin, St. Paul, MO, USA

Neturei Karta have been given tremendous undue publicity by this obscene conference in Tehran. The truth about Neturei Karta is that they have been virtually ex-communicated by world Jewry, and especially by the much larger ultra-orthodox non and anti-zionist hassidic groups such as the Satmar.
Rysk, Tel Aviv

These people do not represent anyone but themselves, and they certainly do not have the mandate to speak for religious Jews in particular. It is unfortunate that a handful of people give the world a distorted view of the jewish people, of Judaism and of religious Jews.
Michael Spielmann, Bnei Brak, Israel

To say the Holocaust didn't happen is like saying the earth is not round. I understand that these rabbis believe Israel shouldn't exist. Maybe it shouldn't - we all have the right to our opinions. HOWEVER, to attend a conference such as this is akin to treason. Hate is by far the stupidest thing we can do with our time, and these Iranians HATE those jews but they both hate Israel more so lets have a conference? Further proof that we as a species are doomed to self destruct.
D Watson, Rockland County, NY

there might be pros and cons to this. first off if there was an open dialog about the holocaust not many people would doubt it, silence the deniers i say!!! this thing of not discussing it totally is giving credibility to the deniers, who are primarily racist.
susan, vatican

This is the first great story on the topic of Israel that I have come across in my life. It is impossible for me to imagine that war will bring peace, especially when it forces so many to live impovished lives. The fact that Jewish religious leaders are recognizing that coexistence is possible in a peaceful way is the only first step towards peace in the region. Building a wall will never protect Israelis, it will only make them feel safe. But humans are creative, determined and see challenges as obstacles to overcome. A wall will only encourage those who are fanaticised to be more desperate and creative in their attacks on Israel. If there is co-existence allowed; to build a nation where Jews and Arabs can live together cooperatively then peace will come to the banks of the Mediterranean.
Sean Magee, Burnaby BC

Iran and I guess by association Muslims want the world to respect them and their beliefs. How on Earth can something as aborhant as a Holocaust Denial meeting help that? No-one with an ounce of common sense and a rudimentary knowledge of history could possibly deny that the Jews were persecuted by the Nazis. It is true to say that Israel is not exactly a model of restraint but regardless of modern strife, it cannot be used as an excuse to deny a massacre that was perpetrated by the Germans in WW2. Mark Chisholm, Dereham, UK

if Jews and Moslems with extreme views can sit together at a ridiculous conference, why can they not sit together to decide to be tolerant of each others beliefs and live and let live. that this conference was called, is the lowest political game thought in the minds of nasty people with sinister motives.
leon solomon, sun city west,az. usa

Neturei Karta have an interesting argument, however as a member of a non-Jewish group of people who were sterilized and murdered by eugenicists acting in collaboration with the Nazis, I find their presence at the Teheran Conference extremely misguided as this merely gives the Iranian regime's denial of the Holocaust credibility.
Andrew Little, Gloucester

If the Holocaust was "divine will", what does that say of the god these men worship?
Bill terKuile, Monroe, WA USA

I don't understand. The western world accuses multiple countries in the Middle East of lacking democracy and free speech, which many of them do. The West uses the motive that they want to bring "democracy" to other countries as a means for attacking them, and forming new governments (see Iraq). Yet when Iran holds a conference, not to deny the holocaust ever happened, but to investigate whether all we know of the Holocaust was true, we are up in arms. What happened to the concept of free speech we were thinking is the best thing in the world? Does that only apply on ALL THINGS EXCEPT when it comes to criticizing Israel? Any criticism of the conference is sheer and utter hypocrisy.
Omar Yassin, St. Paul, MO, USA

In a democracy any views should be open to debate. The majority then decides on which of these views to progress. I'm not in anyway religious or a supporter of any faith as I consider all churches to be a step back towards herd behaviour. However, Rabbi Cohen's views as outlined in this article don't really sound that outrages to me and I think the fact that he sits down with his arch enemies to debate at such a conference portrays him as a pretty courageous man.
Alex, Athens, Greece

Every nation has its lunatic fringe, who use their PERVERSION of religious belief as justification for the most obscene behaviour. The Jewish nation and people (especially the secular) treat them with the pity one reserves for mentally unstable... All they are doing is further increasing the move to more secularisation... thank goodness. At least something positive is derived from their idiocy
lazerbenabba, London/UK

It's their right to deny, if they wish, the idea that the existence of Israel may prevent another holocaust. However, their punishment for attending this conference is to sit for three days and listen to neo-Nazis defaming the memory of their murdered relatives.
Amos Shapir, Kiryat Ono, Israel

People will continue to kill each other for whatever reason, some are more devious and imaginative than others. The Holocaust is abhorrent but not totally unique, should everyone who is not Jewish pay for this mistake? Who is compensating the genocide that has occurred in Rwanda, the Native Americans and the Albanians in Turkey to name but a few?? The formation of Israel has caused more problems that it has solved but it is there and more steps to working together must be taken. I see these people are working to that goal, good luck to them.
Louise, UK

If Neturei Karta believes that the removal of Israel is the answer to the containing blood shed in the Middle East then let him do it in a more ideally place i.e. at home in Israel or at the U.N. Tehran is not the right place! Iran is not interested in a pace which includes Jews and Arab living next together! They what the total destruction of Israel and all Jews!
John, Salibury, England

I am a Muslim living in Britain and this is my home, why must some Jews insist on having Israel as their home when it belonged to more than just one religion for so long in peace?
Mohammed Quisar Anwar, Manchester UK

I think it should be mandatory for anyone who does not believe that the Holocaust took place to visit Auschwitz. My partner and I visited in November 2005 and it was an experience that left us both without words to describe just how we felt. I returned home with intense feelings of remorse and sorrow and I am not Jewish.
Trish Fuller, UK

This is what blindly applied dogma (religion) can do to a person's mind!
Sam Butler, Anchorage

The holocaust was a reality. The only regret i have is that the Zionist state should have used that as a fundament corner stone to know how the palestians are suffering. you don't suffer to let other people suffer too. If so, then the world would be a messy place to live.
john junisa kamara, Freetown Sierra Leone

I am afraid that once again the BBC display their anti Israeli colours by giving disproportionate column inches to a very small and rarefied group of people. They deserved a line or a foot note. I would have really liked to know more about the conference. Was it about denial or more as I suspect trying to uncover truths about numbers and events? I am an ardent supporter of Israel but do not believe that the stifling of debate on this issue is in their interests. Shame the BBC has self censured itself and focused on the trivia.
Jack Kilms, Turin, Italy

Monday, December 11, 2006

Oil producers shun dollar

Oil producers shun dollar

By Haig Simonian in Zurich and Javier Blas and Carola Hoyos in London

Published: December 10 2006 20:11 | Last updated: December 10 2006 20:11

Oil producing countries have reduced their exposure to the dollar to the lowest level in two years and shifted oil income into euros, yen and sterling, according to new data from the Bank for International Settlements.

The revelation in the latest BIS quarterly review, published on Monday, confirms market speculation about a move out of dollars and could put new pressure on the ailing US currency.

Market liquidity is traditionally low in December, and many traders have locked in profits, potentially reinforcing volatility.

Russia and the members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the oil cartel, cut their dollar holdings from 67 per cent in the first quarter to 65 per cent in the second.

Meanwhile, they increased their holdings of euros from 20 to 22 per cent, the BIS said. The speed of the shift may help to explain the weakness of the dollar, which recently fell to a 20-month low against the euro and a 14-year low against sterling.

The BIS, the central bank for the developed world’s central banks, is customarily cautious in its language. However, it noted: “While the data are not comprehensive, they do appear to indicate a modest shift over the quarter in the US dollar share of reporting banks’ liabilities to oil exporting countries.”

The review shows that Qatar and Iran, whose foreign exchange policy has sparked widespread market speculation, cut their dollar holdings by $2.4bn and $4bn respectively.

Such shifts may be modest compared with the total assets held, but they provide a crucial indication on future thinking.

Currency switches are likely to be progressive, subtle and discreet, as untoward attention could hit the dollar, lowering the value of depositors’ remaining dollar-denominated assets.

The last time oil-exporting countries cut their exposure to the dollar – in late 2003 – it pushed the euro to an all-time high against the dollar. Eighteen months ago, the exposure to the dollar of oil producing countries was above 70 per cent.

BIS data is the best guide financial markets have to the currency investment trends of oil producers, which otherwise do not provide figures. The rise in oil prices since 2002 means oil producing countries have amassed a current account surplus of about $500bn, according to the IMF. This is 2½ times the current account surplus of China.

Overall, Opec’s dollar deposits fell by $5.3bn, while euro and yen-denominated deposits rose $2.8bn and $3.8bn, respectively. Placements of dollars by Russians rose by $5bn, but most of their $16bn additional deposits were denominated in euros.

The dollar has suffered weakness because of concerns about global imbalances and the future course of the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy.

Additional reporting by Peter Garnham in London

Taliban and Allies Tighten Grip in North of Pakistan

Taliban and Allies Tighten Grip in North of Pakistan
By CARLOTTA GALL and ISMAIL KHAN

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Islamic militants are using a recent peace deal with the government to consolidate their hold in northern Pakistan, vastly expanding their training of suicide bombers and other recruits and fortifying alliances with Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, diplomats and intelligence officials from several nations say. The result, they say, is virtually a Taliban mini-state.

The militants, the officials say, are openly flouting the terms of the September accord in North Waziristan, under which they agreed to end cross-border help for the Taliban insurgency that revived in Afghanistan with new force this year.

The area is becoming a magnet for an influx of foreign fighters, who not only challenge government authority in the area, but are even wresting control from local tribes and spreading their influence to neighboring areas, according to several American and NATO officials and Pakistani and Afghan intelligence officials.

This year more than 100 local leaders, government sympathizers or accused “American spies” have been killed, several of them in beheadings, as the militants have used a reign of terror to impose what President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan calls a creeping “Talibanization.” Last year, at least 100 others were also killed.

While the tribes once offered refuge to the militants when they retreated to the area in 2002 after the American invasion of Afghanistan, that welcome is waning as the killings have generated new tensions and added to the region’s volatility.

“They are taking territory,” said one Western ambassador in Pakistan. “They are becoming much more aggressive in Pakistan.”

“It is the lesson from Afghanistan in the ’90s,” he added. “Ungoverned spaces are a problem. The whole tribal area is a problem.”

The links among the various groups date to the 1980s, when Arabs, Pakistanis and other Muslims joined Afghans in their fight to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, using a network of training camps and religious schools set up by the Pakistani intelligence agency and financed by the C.I.A. and Saudi Arabia.

The training continued with Pakistani and Qaeda support through the 1990s, and then moved into Afghanistan under the Taliban. It was during this time that Pakistanis became drawn into militancy in big numbers, fighting alongside the Taliban and hundreds of foreign fighters against the northern tribes of Afghanistan. Today the history of the region has come full circle.
Since retreating from Afghanistan in 2002 under American military attacks, the Taliban and foreign fighters have again been using the tribal areas to organize themselves — now training their sights on the 40,000 American and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

After failing to gain control of the areas in military campaigns, the government cut peace deals in South Waziristan in 2004 and 2005, and then in North Waziristan on Sept. 5. Since the September accord, NATO officials say cross-border attacks by Pakistani and Afghan Taliban and their foreign allies have increased.

In recent weeks, Pakistani intelligence officials said the number of foreign fighters in the tribal areas was far higher than the official estimate of 500, perhaps as high as 2,000 today.
These fighters include Afghans and seasoned Taliban leaders, Uzbek and other Central Asian militants, and what intelligence officials estimate to be 80 to 90 Arab terrorist operatives and fugitives, possibly including the Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri.

The tightening web of alliances among these groups in a remote, mountainous area increasingly beyond state authority is potentially disastrous for efforts to combat terrorism as far away as Europe and the United States, intelligence officials warn.

They and Western diplomats say it also portends an even bloodier year for Afghanistan in 2007, with the winter expected to serve as what one official described as a “breeding season” to multiply ranks.

“I expect next year to be quite bloody,” the United States ambassador in Afghanistan, Ronald Neumann, said in a recent interview. “My sense is the Taliban wants to come back and fight. I don’t expect the Taliban to win, but everyone needs to understand that we are in for a fight.”
Foreign Influence

One of the clearest measures of the dangers of this local cross-fertilization is the suicide bombings. Diplomats with knowledge of the area’s Pashtun tribes say they have little doubt the tactic emerged from the influence of Al Qaeda, since such attacks were unknown in Pakistan or Afghanistan before 2001.

This year suicide attacks have become a regular feature of the Afghan war and have also appeared for the first time in Pakistan, including two in this frontier province in recent weeks, indicating a growing threat to Pakistan’s security.

In recent weeks, Afghan officials say they have uncovered alarming signs of large-scale indoctrination and preparation of suicide bombers in the tribal areas, and the Pakistani minister of the interior, Aftab Khan Sherpao, publicly acknowledged for the first time that training of suicide bombers was occurring in the tribal areas.

The Afghan intelligence service said last week in a statement that it had captured an Afghan suicide bomber wearing a vest filled with explosives. The man reportedly said he had been given the task by the head of a religious school in the Pakistani tribal region of Bajaur, and that 500 to 600 students there were being prepared to fight jihad and be suicide bombers.

The bomber said that the former head of Pakistani intelligence, Gen. Hamid Gul, was financing and supporting the project, according to the statement, though the claim is impossible to verify. Pakistani intelligence agencies have long nurtured militants in the tribal areas to pressure the rival government in Afghanistan, though the government claims to have ceased its support.
So numerous are the recruits that a tribal leader in southern Afghanistan, who did not want to be named because of the threat of suicide bombers, relayed an account of how one would-be suicide bomber was sent home and told to wait his turn because there were many in line ahead of him.

American military officials say they believe much of the training in Waziristan is taking place under the aegis of men like Jalaluddin Haqqani, once one of the most formidable commanders of the anti-Soviet mujahedeen forces who joined the Taliban in the 1990s.

He has had a close relationship with Arab fighters since the 1980s, when Waziristan was his rear base for fighting the Soviet occupation. Arab fighters had joined him there in the struggle, among them Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Haqqani later became the Taliban’s minister of tribal affairs and was the main protector for the foreign fighters on their exodus from Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002. He and his son, Sirajuddin Haqqani, remain the most important local partners for Al Qaeda in Waziristan.
Mr. Haqqani bases himself in North Waziristan and has a host of other Taliban and foreign commanders, in particular Uzbeks, who are loyal to him, United States military officials say.
Money continues to flow in from religious supporters at home and in the Persian Gulf, as well as from a range of illicit activities like a lucrative opium trade, smuggling and even kidnapping, said diplomats, United Nations analysts and local journalists.

“There are clearly very substantial training facilities that are still operating in Waziristan, both north and south, and other parts of FATA and Baluchistan,” said a diplomat in Kabul, referring to the region by the acronym for its formal name, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
“Even more worrying is the continued presence of the Taliban and Haqqani leadership networks,” the diplomat said, dismayed at what he characterized as Pakistani passivity in breaking up the networks.

“They haven’t been addressed at all on the Pakistani side,” he added. “They haven’t been pursued.”

The diplomat also singled out Saddique Noor, a Pakistani militant commander in his mid-40s who he said was training suicide bombers in Waziristan and sending them into Afghanistan. Mr. Noor fought in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban in the 1990s and is a determined opponent of the American and NATO presence in Afghanistan.

Another commander, Beitullah Mehsud, about 40 and also from the region, is now probably the strongest Pakistani Taliban commander and may also be dispatching suicide bombers. He also fought in Afghanistan under the Taliban and claims to have 15,000 fighters under him now.
Both men are loyal to Mr. Haqqani, whom Western diplomats consider one of the most dangerous Taliban commanders because of his links to Al Qaeda and his strong local standing.
The other, for the same reason, is Mullah Dadullah, a ruthless Taliban commander from southern Afghanistan, who has emerged as the main figure in the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban.

The one-legged Dadullah — he lost a leg in fighting — has a flamboyant if cruel reputation. He narrowly escaped capture in northern Afghanistan in 2001, often gives boastful interviews to news agencies, and is known to have personally ordered the killings of aid workers. His latest announcement, made in a phone call to Reuters, was that the Taliban had infiltrated suicide bombers into every Afghan city.

He is widely thought to be based in or around the southern Pakistani town of Quetta but is reported to be constantly on the move. He visited various areas of southern Afghanistan this year and has traveled to Waziristan repeatedly, in particular as the tribes of North Waziristan negotiated their Sept. 5 peace deal with the government, which he sanctioned, according to local reporters and intelligence officials.

Push for Order
The increasingly urgent question for Pakistani, Afghan, American and NATO officials is what can be done to bring the region under control. The Pakistani government’s latest attempt was the Sept. 5 peace accord in North Waziristan.

Under the deal, both the government and militants agreed to cease attacks, and the militants agreed to end cross-border help for the Afghan insurgency, the killings of tribal leaders and accused government sympathizers, and to cease the “Talibanization” of the area.

Taliban commanders sanctioned the deals, arguing that the militants should concentrate their efforts on the foreign armies in Afghanistan and not waste their energies on clashing with the Pakistani military, journalists working in Waziristan say.

Critics say that the agreement is fatally flawed since it lacks any means of enforcement, and that it has actually empowered the militants. In a report to be released on Dec. 11, the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based research organization, brands it as a policy of appeasement.
The government has taken down checkpoints, released detainees, returned confiscated weapons and vehicles and issued an amnesty. But the militants have increased their activities, benefiting from the truce with the Pakistani military, the groups said.

“From the start the agreement was not good because there are too many concessions and no clauses that are binding,” said Brig. Mahmood Shah, who served as secretary of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas until 2005. “This agreement is not going to work, and if it is working, it is working against the government interest.”

Afrasiab Khattak, a local politician and spokesman for the Awami National Party in Peshawar, also criticized the agreement. The militants rather than the traditional tribal leaders have the power now, he said.

“They have imposed a new elite in Waziristan,” he said. “More than 200 tribal chiefs have been killed, and not a single culprit brought to justice.”

Still, Javed Iqbal, the newly appointed Pakistani secretary of the tribal areas, defended the North Waziristan accord as an effort to return to the traditional way of running the tribal areas, through the tribal chiefs. That system, employed by the British and Pakistani rulers alike, was eroded during the military campaigns of the last few years.

“We have tried the coercive tactic, we did not achieve much,” he said in an interview in Peshawar. “So what do you do? Engage.”

He said the government had let down the tribal elders in Waziristan who had wanted dialogue with the government, but were murdered one after another by the militants. But the big turnout of some 500 to 600 tribal elders at a meeting in Miramshah in North Waziristan in November was encouraging, he said, and showed that the tribes wanted to engage. “We are back in business,” he said.

Loss of Control
Some Pakistani officials admit they have made a serious mistake in allowing the militants so much leeway, but only if they will not be quoted publicly.

Afghan and Pakistani Taliban leadership networks run training camps in various parts of the 500-mile length of the tribal areas, from Baluchistan in the south to the hub of North and South Waziristan, and farther north to Bajaur, said a Western diplomat in Kabul.

A diplomat who visited Wana, the capital of South Waziristan, said the government had almost no control over either of the Waziristans.

“They are absolutely not running the show in North Waziristan, and it runs the risk of becoming like South Waziristan,” he said. “In South Waziristan the government does not even pretend to have a remit that runs outside of its compounds.”

The fundamentalists’ influence is seeping outward, with propaganda being spread on private radio stations, and through a widening network of religious schools and the distribution of CDs and DVDs. It can now be felt in neighboring tribal departments and the settled areas of the North-West Frontier Province. In recent months, Pakistani newspapers have reported incidents of music and barber shops being closed, television sets burned and girls’ schools threatened.
The militants are more powerful than the military and the local tribal police, kill with impunity and shield criminals and fugitives. Local journalists say people blame the militants for a rising tide of kidnappings, killings, robberies and even rapes.

The brutality of some foreign militants has led to rising discontent among their Pakistani hosts, many of whom are also armed and militant, making the region increasingly volatile and uncontrollable.

“Initially, it was sympathy,” one Pakistani intelligence official said. “Then came the money, but it was soon followed by fear. Now, fear is overriding the other two factors, sympathy and money.”

For now, however, the Taliban commanders and the Pakistani militants under them remain unswervingly loyal to jihad in Afghanistan and, despite the tensions, still enjoy local support for the cause, officials and local journalists say.

The failed government military campaigns of recent years, which are seen as dictated by the United States, have further radicalized the local population, many in the region say.

As a potential indicator of local support, the families of two suicide bombers sent to Afghanistan from Waziristan gained renown in the community, according to a local journalist.

“The people support the militants because they are from their own tribe, they are family,” said the journalist, who asked not to be named out of fear of the militants.

Morale is high among the resurgent Taliban after their revival in Afghanistan this year, one Pakistani security official said. That will lead to still more recruitment and better organization and planning in the year ahead.

Fighting traditionally dies down in winter because of the inhospitable conditions in the mountains.

But the new fighting season in the spring will be even bloodier, a Western diplomat in Kabul said. “We have to assume that things will be bad again,” he said, “because none of the underlying causes are being addressed.”

David Rohde contributed reporting to this story from Kabul, Afghani

Kofi Annan to US: Serve, don't dominate the world

Kofi Annan to US: Serve, don't dominate the world

12/11/2006 @ 11:59 am

Filed by RAW STORY

In his last address on American soil before his tenure as Secretary-General ends on December 31st this year, Kofi Annan offers a stern criticism of President George W. Bush and the current approach to US foreign policy in remarks to be delivered at 12:30 Central Time. The embargoed remarks were provided to RAW STORY, and will be delivered from the President Harry S. Truman Library in Missouri today.

In the speech, Annan warns that "no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. We all share responsibility for each other's security, and only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves." He describes it as important that "The US has given the world an example of a democracy in which everyone, including the most powerful, is subject to legal restraint. Its current moment of world supremacy gives it a priceless opportunity to entrench the same principles at the global level."

In the address's conclusion, he offers constructive criticism of the current American approach, noting that "More than ever today Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functionning global system through which the world's peoples can face global challenges together. And in order to function, the system still cries out for far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition."

At 12:30 Eastern Time, the video can be accessed at the Truman Library's website. An excerpt of the speech is offered below. The full text will be made available when its delivery begins.

#

As President Truman said, "the responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world." He showed what can be achieved when the US assumes that responsibility. And still today, none of our global institutions can accomplish much when the US remains aloof. But when it is fully engaged, the sky's the limit.

These five lessons can be summed up as five principles, which I believe are essential for the future conduct of international relations: collective responsibility, global solidarity, the rule of law, mutual accountability, and multilateralism. Let me leave them with you, in solemn trust, as I hand over to a new Secretary-General in three weeks' time.

My friends, we have achieved much since 1945, when the United Nations was established. But much remains to be done to put those five principles into practice.

Standing here, I am reminded of Winston Churchill's last visit to the White House, just before Truman left office in 1953. Churchill recalled their only previous meeting, at the Potsdam conference in 1945. "I must confess, sir," he said boldly, "I held you in very low regard then. I loathed your taking the place of Franklin Roosevelt." Then he paused for a moment, and continued: "I misjudged you badly. Since that time, you more than any other man, have saved Western civilization."

My friends, our challenge today is not to save Western civilization -- or Eastern, for that matter. All civilization is at stake, and we can save it only if all peoples join together in the task.

You Americans did so much, in the last century, to build an effective multilateral system, with the United Nations at its heart. Do you need it less today, and does it need you less, than 60 years ago?

Surely not. More than ever today Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functionning global system through which the world's peoples can face global challenges together. And in order to function, the system still cries out for far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition.

I hope and pray that the American leaders of today, and tomorrow, will provide it.

Sen. Smith on Iraq: “…that is dereliction, that is immoral”

Sen. Smith on Iraq: “…that is dereliction, that is immoral”

gordonsmith.jpg Republican Gordon Smith ripped Bush over Iraq on the floor of the Senate Thursday:

Sen. Smith: And I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes for supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal"

On THIS WEEK, Smith dug a bit deeper to clarify his remarks:

Video-WMP Video-QT

SMITH: I said it — you can use any adjective you want, George, but I have long believed, in a military context, when you do the same thing over and over again without a clear strategy for victory at the expense of your young people in arms, that is dereliction, that is deeply immoral.

Transcript via ABC below the fold:


(Read the rest of this story…)

Meanwhile, at the OTHER war…

Meanwhile, at the OTHER war…
By: Nicole Belle @ 3:38 PM - PST


Yahoo News :
The Taliban gunmen who murdered two teachers in easternAfghanistan early Saturday were only following their rules: Teachers receive a warning, then a beating, and if they continue to teach must be killed.

The new list of 30 rules, decided on during a high Taliban meeting in September or October and since circulated over the Internet, span from the organizational - no jihad equipment may be used for personal means - to the health conscious - militants are not supposed to smoke.
They also contain a grave warning for aid workers and educators.

Rule No. 24 forbids anyone to work as a teacher "under the current puppet regime, because this strengthens the system of the infidels." One rule later, No. 25, says teachers who ignore Taliban warnings will be killed. Read on…

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Experts puzzle over halt of bird flu

Experts puzzle over halt of bird flu
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer2 hours, 5 minutes ago

Earlier this year, bird flu panic was in full swing: The French feared for their foie gras, the Swiss locked their chickens indoors, and Americans enlisted prison inmates in Alaska to help spot infected wild birds.

The H5N1 virus — previously confined to Southeast Asia — was striking birds in places as diverse as Germany, Egypt, and Nigeria, and a flu pandemic seemed inevitable.

Then the virus went quiet. Except for a steady stream of human cases in Indonesia, the current flu epicenter, the past year's worries about a catastrophic global outbreak largely disappeared.
What happened?

Part of the explanation may be seasonal. Bird flu tends to be most active in the colder months, as the virus survives longer at low temperatures.

"Many of us are holding our breath to see what happens in the winter," said Dr. Malik Peiris, a microbiology professor at Hong Kong University. "H5N1 spread very rapidly last year," Peiris said. "So the question is, was that a one-off incident?"

Some experts suspect poultry vaccination has, paradoxically, complicated detection. Vaccination reduces the amount of virus circulating, but low levels of the virus may still be causing outbreaks — without the obvious signs of dying birds.

"It's now harder to spot what's happening with the flu in animals and humans," said Dr. Angus Nicoll, influenza director at the European Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
While the pandemic has not materialized, experts say it's too early to relax.

"We have a visible risk in front of us," said Dr. Keiji Fukuda, coordinator of the World Health Organization's global influenza program. But although the virus could mutate into a pandemic strain, Fukuda points out that it might go the other direction instead, becoming less dangerous for humans.

H5N1 has primarily stalked Asia. This year, however, it crossed the continental divide, infecting people in Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Djibouti, and Azerbaijan.

But despite the deaths of 154 people, and hundreds of millions of birds worldwide dying or being slaughtered, the virus still has not learned how to infect humans easily.

Flu viruses constantly evolve, so the mere appearance of mutations is not enough to raise alarm. The key is to identify which mutations are the most worrisome.

"We don't really know how many changes this virus has got to make to adapt to humans, if it can at all," said Dr. Richard Webby, a bird flu expert at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Tennessee.

The most obvious sign that a pandemic may be under way will almost certainly come from the field: a sudden spike in cases suggesting human-to-human transmission. The last pandemic struck in 1968 — when bird flu combined with a human strain and went on to kill 1 million people worldwide.

In May, on Sumatra island in Indonesia, a cluster of eight cases was identified, six of whom died. The World Health Organization immediately dispatched a team to investigate.

The U.N. agency was concerned enough by the reports to put pharmaceuticals company Roche Holding AG on standby in case its global antiviral stockpile, promised to WHO for any operation to quash an emerging pandemic, needed to be rushed to Indonesia.

Luckily, the Sumatra cluster was confined to a single family. Though human-to-human transmission occurred — as it has in a handful of other cases — the virus did not adapt enough to become easily infectious.

This highlighted many of the problems that continue to plague public health officials, namely, patchy surveillance systems and limited virus information.

Even in China, where H5N1 has circulated the longest, surveillance is not ideal.

"Monitoring the 14 billion birds in China, especially when most of them are in back yards, is an enormous challenge," said Dr. Henk Bekedam, WHO's top official in China. Of the 21 human cases China has logged so far, 20 were in areas without reported H5N1 outbreaks in birds.
"We need to start looking harder for where the virus is hiding," Bekedam said.

To better understand the virus' activity, it would help to have more virus samples from every H5N1-affected country. But public health authorities are at the mercy of governments and academics. Scientists may hoard viruses while waiting for academic papers to be published first. And developing countries may be wary of sharing virus samples if the vaccines that might be developed from them might ultimately be unaffordable.

That leaves public health officials with an incomplete viral picture.
"It shouldn't just be WHO as a lonely voice in the desert, calling for more viruses (to be shared)," said Dr. Jeff Gilbert, a bird flu expert with the Food and Agriculture Organization in Vietnam. All countries, need to understand that sharing will help them better prepare for a flu pandemic, he said.

Though scientists are bracing themselves for increased bird flu activity in the winter, there are no predictions about where it might appear next. The WHO's Fukuda said it would not be a surprise to see it appear in new countries