Saturday, May 28, 2005
This is the kind of back stabbing one can expect from Bolton.
Britain secretly backs the United States in its plans to oust IAEA chief
12/20/2004 7:16:00 AM GMT
While publicly backing Mohamed El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, in his effort to convince Iran to halt its nuclear program, the British government is secretly supporting U.S plans to remove him.
Trying to discredit him, the U.S. State Department and the CIA were reported last week to have tapped phone conversations between the Iranian officials and ElBaradei.
A spokeswoman for the Vienna-based IAEA said it was not a surprise to her that Dr ElBaradei's phone had been tapped, however she refused to comment further, adding that the tapes had nothing to be used against him.
Publicly Britain, in line with Germany and France; who are closer to the IAEA position, supports an EU initiative to convince Iran to completely halt all its activities related to nuclear enrichment.
However, a well-placed Whitehall source revealed that officials had secretly backed U.S. moves to replace the IAEA chief. Two weeks ago the plan was supported by the foreign office and the Department of Trade and Industry which is responsible for Britain's nuclear regulation.
The U.S. and Britain were angered by ElBaradei’s assessments which denied their allegations that Iraq was seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program.
Britain claims to support the ”Geneva rule” which states that senior UN officials should serve no more than two terms, which would bring Dr ElBaradei's tenure to an end next summer.
The Washington Post reported that the U.S. would like to see Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Minister, as the IAEA new chief, the U.S. campaign is led by John Bolton, the hardline under-secretary of state for arms control.
However, in an interview with The Associated Press this week, Powell said "a number of people had expressed interest" in succeeding ElBaradei in the UN post, but he did not identify them.
Once everyone accepts the two-term rule, Powell said, "then I think you will generate candidates. People will say, 'Look, OK, the job is a possibility, it's open so I will offer myself as a candidate.'"
But Mr. Downer refused to challenge Dr ElBaradei who had been working for the IAEA for 20 years. Downer said he would not stand against ElBaradei and throw his country's weight behind his back.
ElBaradei, 62, is elected by IAEA's 35 board members for a third term. And U.S. backed by Britain, needs to obtain 12 votes against Dr ElBaradei in order to get him out.
In an extraordinary admission, Colin Powel U.S. Secretary of States said that he had earlier asked El Baradei to step aside at the end of his second term. Not only for being soft on Iran which the U.S. seeks to involve in its conflicts, but also for his assessments about the claimed Iraqi nuclear program.
Powell's admission is astonishing, particularly in light of his own horrifically flawed, erroneous, and partly fraudulent assessment of Iraq's weapons program which he delivered to the UN in the weeks leading up to the invasion. Powell's assessment, which was also credited with convincing the American public of the necessity of war, was later proved to be false in almost every respect.
The targeting of ElBaradei, almost simultaneously with calls by some U.S. lawmakers for the toppling of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, demonstrates a willingness by the administration to punish those who opposed its intervention in Iraq, notwithstanding that those who opposed the invasion have been totally vindicated, and the administration's case for war totally discredited.
However, in the interview with The Associated Press this weekPowell was quick to disconnect calls for ElBaradei's removal from the Iraq issue. He said it should not have come as a surprise when the State Department went public with its plan to remove ElBaradei.
Powell and his deputy Richard Boucher on Monday said the sole U.S. reason for trying to remove ElBaradei was an informal agreement among some 14 countries that leaders at the UN and other international bodies should not serve more than two terms.
"We see no reason why this shouldn't be the case with the IAEA," Powell told The Associated Press. "And this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Dr. ElBaradei and I talked about this over the summer."
Meanwhile, China has joined a growing chorus of countries to support ElBaradei in his quest for a third term.
"ElBaradei has done a lot of valuable work in leading the IAEA and safeguarded the function and credibility of the organization’s anti-proliferation efforts", Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters in Beijing.
He added "We are appreciative of his work and we support his seeking of a new term as Director-General of the IAEA.”
There is little question that ElBaradei has done a thorough job, largely reporting and assessing facts which have turned out to be far more accurate than it would appear some would have liked.
At a time of heightened uncertainty in the world it is somewhat unsettling that a person of the capability and integrity of the Egyptian diplomat should be discarded as a measure of pay-back.
Source: Independent.co.uk
12/20/2004 7:16:00 AM GMT
While publicly backing Mohamed El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, in his effort to convince Iran to halt its nuclear program, the British government is secretly supporting U.S plans to remove him.
Trying to discredit him, the U.S. State Department and the CIA were reported last week to have tapped phone conversations between the Iranian officials and ElBaradei.
A spokeswoman for the Vienna-based IAEA said it was not a surprise to her that Dr ElBaradei's phone had been tapped, however she refused to comment further, adding that the tapes had nothing to be used against him.
Publicly Britain, in line with Germany and France; who are closer to the IAEA position, supports an EU initiative to convince Iran to completely halt all its activities related to nuclear enrichment.
However, a well-placed Whitehall source revealed that officials had secretly backed U.S. moves to replace the IAEA chief. Two weeks ago the plan was supported by the foreign office and the Department of Trade and Industry which is responsible for Britain's nuclear regulation.
The U.S. and Britain were angered by ElBaradei’s assessments which denied their allegations that Iraq was seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program.
Britain claims to support the ”Geneva rule” which states that senior UN officials should serve no more than two terms, which would bring Dr ElBaradei's tenure to an end next summer.
The Washington Post reported that the U.S. would like to see Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Minister, as the IAEA new chief, the U.S. campaign is led by John Bolton, the hardline under-secretary of state for arms control.
However, in an interview with The Associated Press this week, Powell said "a number of people had expressed interest" in succeeding ElBaradei in the UN post, but he did not identify them.
Once everyone accepts the two-term rule, Powell said, "then I think you will generate candidates. People will say, 'Look, OK, the job is a possibility, it's open so I will offer myself as a candidate.'"
But Mr. Downer refused to challenge Dr ElBaradei who had been working for the IAEA for 20 years. Downer said he would not stand against ElBaradei and throw his country's weight behind his back.
ElBaradei, 62, is elected by IAEA's 35 board members for a third term. And U.S. backed by Britain, needs to obtain 12 votes against Dr ElBaradei in order to get him out.
In an extraordinary admission, Colin Powel U.S. Secretary of States said that he had earlier asked El Baradei to step aside at the end of his second term. Not only for being soft on Iran which the U.S. seeks to involve in its conflicts, but also for his assessments about the claimed Iraqi nuclear program.
Powell's admission is astonishing, particularly in light of his own horrifically flawed, erroneous, and partly fraudulent assessment of Iraq's weapons program which he delivered to the UN in the weeks leading up to the invasion. Powell's assessment, which was also credited with convincing the American public of the necessity of war, was later proved to be false in almost every respect.
The targeting of ElBaradei, almost simultaneously with calls by some U.S. lawmakers for the toppling of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, demonstrates a willingness by the administration to punish those who opposed its intervention in Iraq, notwithstanding that those who opposed the invasion have been totally vindicated, and the administration's case for war totally discredited.
However, in the interview with The Associated Press this weekPowell was quick to disconnect calls for ElBaradei's removal from the Iraq issue. He said it should not have come as a surprise when the State Department went public with its plan to remove ElBaradei.
Powell and his deputy Richard Boucher on Monday said the sole U.S. reason for trying to remove ElBaradei was an informal agreement among some 14 countries that leaders at the UN and other international bodies should not serve more than two terms.
"We see no reason why this shouldn't be the case with the IAEA," Powell told The Associated Press. "And this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Dr. ElBaradei and I talked about this over the summer."
Meanwhile, China has joined a growing chorus of countries to support ElBaradei in his quest for a third term.
"ElBaradei has done a lot of valuable work in leading the IAEA and safeguarded the function and credibility of the organization’s anti-proliferation efforts", Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters in Beijing.
He added "We are appreciative of his work and we support his seeking of a new term as Director-General of the IAEA.”
There is little question that ElBaradei has done a thorough job, largely reporting and assessing facts which have turned out to be far more accurate than it would appear some would have liked.
At a time of heightened uncertainty in the world it is somewhat unsettling that a person of the capability and integrity of the Egyptian diplomat should be discarded as a measure of pay-back.
Source: Independent.co.uk
Beethoven's Ninth performed by 5000 voices in Tokyo, Japan. It is hideous to believe First World Countries are incapable of forming a nuclear disarmament treaty. Absolutely ridiculous to think about. Leaders of these nations can't come to COMMON GROUND? Then there are alternative motives and agendas.
The International Community will find many difficult hurdles if they don't start somewhere. The First World countries have to set the tone among JUST themselves and then the rest will follow. It is a huge mistake to include EVERY NATION in these talks. The combined power of the community of First World Nations will provide the 'structure' for everyone to SIGN ON for the future.
Nuclear Treaty Failure Sets Tone for Summit
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:45 a.m. ET
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The failure of a global nuclear conference leaves it to President Bush and other world leaders to ''think outside the box'' at a September summit and find new ways to stem the spread of nuclear arms, U.N. officials say.
After a month of sharp debate, the conference ended Friday with a whimper: no consensus recommendations for strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the pact that has helped keep the lid on doomsday arms since 1970.
The failure comes at a time of mounting nuclear tensions around the world.
North Korea has pulled out of the treaty and says it is building atom bombs. Iran's nuclear fuel program raises questions about possible weapons plans. Arab states view Israel's nuclear arsenal as increasingly provocative. The conference had futilely debated proposals to address all these issues.
Many delegates also were disturbed over Bush administration talk of modernizing the U.S. nuclear force, and sought U.S. reaffirmation of commitments made to disarmament steps at the nonproliferation conferences of 1995 and 2000.
As the meeting drew toward a close, however, the U.S.-led Western group of nations blocked any mention of those past commitments in the conference's thin final report.
Delegates said they feared that the outcome -- the most complete failure at such nonproliferation conferences in 35 years -- might undermine faith in the treaty, a cornerstone of global arms control.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan agreed, believing the ''inability to strengthen their collective efforts is bound to weaken the treaty,'' his spokesman said. Annan said world leaders should deal with the issues at a global summit scheduled here for September.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the U.N. nuclear agency chief, called the summit ''a golden opportunity.''
''These are fundamental issues that ought to be addressed at the highest policy level because they need an unconventional way of thinking, thinking outside the box,'' he said in an interview from his International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna.
One question needing ''urgent attention'' involves the nuclear fuel cycle, he said. Iran's uranium-enrichment technology can produce both fuel for peaceful nuclear energy and material for bombs -- and Washington contends weapons are what Tehran has in mind.
ElBaradei has proposed a five-year moratorium on establishment of any new fuel-cycle facilities worldwide while plans are developed for better controls, possibly even international control of nuclear fuel production. It's a politically explosive matter, however, since it involves commercial and government nuclear programs of sovereign states.
The failed conference was the latest of the twice-a-decade gatherings of the members of the 188-nation nonproliferation treaty, called to assess the treaty's workings and find ways to improve them.
Under the nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged not to develop them, and five with the weapons -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- undertook to eventually eliminate their arsenals. The nonweapons states, meanwhile, were guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology.
Delegations here had proposed ideas, for example, for limiting access to dual-use technology with bombmaking potential, along with proposals to strengthen inspection of nuclear facilities and to pressure nuclear-armed states to shrink their arsenals more quickly.
On treaty withdrawal, which North Korea managed without consequence under the nonproliferation pact, some delegations supported plans to make the process more difficult and penalty-laden.
But the dozens of proposals were stalled for more than two weeks while delegations squabbled over the agenda. Then, when debate finally started, it proved impossible to win consensus in committees.
Iran objected to any mention of it as a proliferation concern. Egypt balked at toughening treaty withdrawal, since it wants that option open as long as ex-enemy Israel has nuclear bombs. And the United States fought every reference to its 1995 and 2000 commitments.
Those commitments included, for example, activating the nuclear test-ban treaty and negotiating a verifiable treaty to ban production of bomb materials -- both steps the Bush administration opposes, but other weapons states support.
Filed at 3:45 a.m. ET
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The failure of a global nuclear conference leaves it to President Bush and other world leaders to ''think outside the box'' at a September summit and find new ways to stem the spread of nuclear arms, U.N. officials say.
After a month of sharp debate, the conference ended Friday with a whimper: no consensus recommendations for strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the pact that has helped keep the lid on doomsday arms since 1970.
The failure comes at a time of mounting nuclear tensions around the world.
North Korea has pulled out of the treaty and says it is building atom bombs. Iran's nuclear fuel program raises questions about possible weapons plans. Arab states view Israel's nuclear arsenal as increasingly provocative. The conference had futilely debated proposals to address all these issues.
Many delegates also were disturbed over Bush administration talk of modernizing the U.S. nuclear force, and sought U.S. reaffirmation of commitments made to disarmament steps at the nonproliferation conferences of 1995 and 2000.
As the meeting drew toward a close, however, the U.S.-led Western group of nations blocked any mention of those past commitments in the conference's thin final report.
Delegates said they feared that the outcome -- the most complete failure at such nonproliferation conferences in 35 years -- might undermine faith in the treaty, a cornerstone of global arms control.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan agreed, believing the ''inability to strengthen their collective efforts is bound to weaken the treaty,'' his spokesman said. Annan said world leaders should deal with the issues at a global summit scheduled here for September.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the U.N. nuclear agency chief, called the summit ''a golden opportunity.''
''These are fundamental issues that ought to be addressed at the highest policy level because they need an unconventional way of thinking, thinking outside the box,'' he said in an interview from his International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna.
One question needing ''urgent attention'' involves the nuclear fuel cycle, he said. Iran's uranium-enrichment technology can produce both fuel for peaceful nuclear energy and material for bombs -- and Washington contends weapons are what Tehran has in mind.
ElBaradei has proposed a five-year moratorium on establishment of any new fuel-cycle facilities worldwide while plans are developed for better controls, possibly even international control of nuclear fuel production. It's a politically explosive matter, however, since it involves commercial and government nuclear programs of sovereign states.
The failed conference was the latest of the twice-a-decade gatherings of the members of the 188-nation nonproliferation treaty, called to assess the treaty's workings and find ways to improve them.
Under the nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged not to develop them, and five with the weapons -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- undertook to eventually eliminate their arsenals. The nonweapons states, meanwhile, were guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology.
Delegations here had proposed ideas, for example, for limiting access to dual-use technology with bombmaking potential, along with proposals to strengthen inspection of nuclear facilities and to pressure nuclear-armed states to shrink their arsenals more quickly.
On treaty withdrawal, which North Korea managed without consequence under the nonproliferation pact, some delegations supported plans to make the process more difficult and penalty-laden.
But the dozens of proposals were stalled for more than two weeks while delegations squabbled over the agenda. Then, when debate finally started, it proved impossible to win consensus in committees.
Iran objected to any mention of it as a proliferation concern. Egypt balked at toughening treaty withdrawal, since it wants that option open as long as ex-enemy Israel has nuclear bombs. And the United States fought every reference to its 1995 and 2000 commitments.
Those commitments included, for example, activating the nuclear test-ban treaty and negotiating a verifiable treaty to ban production of bomb materials -- both steps the Bush administration opposes, but other weapons states support.
Bolton's style cited in treaty impasse
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff May 3, 2005
WASHINGTON -- In December 2001, at a conference on biological weapons, John R. Bolton stunned his fellow diplomats by insisting, without warning, that the nations of the world abandon their years-long effort to enforce the global treaty on germ warfare, according to conference participants.
The US demand, made in the final hours of a three-week conference in Geneva by a Bolton deputy, was a defining moment for the newly minted undersecretary of state for arms control. It underscored Bolton's guiding philosophy: that treaties alone do not keep the world safe from weapons of mass destruction.
It also highlighted Bolton's style, which several diplomats at the conference said left a lasting impression. Some diplomats who were present at the conference recounted to the Globe incidents that highlighted Bolton's legendary temper, including an episode in which he shouted at a South African diplomat who had objected to Bolton's stance on the treaty. Others complained that Bolton had promised to share his proposal with US allies in private prior to announcing it to the world, but broke his word.
Bolton, at the center of a heated confirmation battle over his nomination as ambassador to the United Nations, is praised by his supporters for forcing the world to accept uncomfortable truths, in this case, that member countries could never devise an effective system to police the 1972 treaty that bans the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons.
''He makes the argument that if you try to sugarcoat it, the other people are not going to get the message," said a US official who has worked closely with Bolton, speaking on condition of anonymity. But some foreign diplomats, arms control specialists, and some former US officials who worked with Bolton say his actions at the conference show how his confrontational style can undermine his policy stances.
''He had a very strong argument -- unfortunately, those arguments have been lost in the delivery," said Terence Taylor, a former United Nations biological weapons inspector who now works at the International Institute for Strategic Studies based in London. ''If you want your policy to gain international support, it has to be packaged with diplomacy, and I think that is the problem with Mr. Bolton."
The Geneva meeting, which was supposed to close with a statement of cooperation, ended abruptly in chaos and anger shortly after the American position was announced. Allies from the European Union were so furious that a planned meeting with US delegates did not take place.
''Mr. Bolton displayed a confrontational style in a diplomatic meeting, which perhaps made things more difficult to resolve," said Richard Lennane, the political affairs officer with the United Nations Department for disarmament affairs who recalled that he worked to calm the meeting after the clash with the South African diplomat, Peter Goosen. ''It was how he said it, rather than what he said, which caused the problems."
Goosen did not return a message left at his Pretoria office seeking comment.
Bolton declined through a spokeswoman to comment. Nominees rarely speak to the press during their confirmation process.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that Bolton's no-nonsense style is exactly what the United States needs to overhaul the United Nations.
But his critics said Bolton's style at the Geneva conference angered allies at a difficult moment for US foreign policy. Emotions were still raw from the US rejection of the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto protocol. The United States had also rejected in July 2001 a draft agreement -- hammered out over six years by 144 countries -- for a system of international inspectors to enforce the biological weapons treaty. That rejection set the stage for the crucial conference beginning in November in Geneva, where Europeans hoped to come up with a compromise deal.
Bolton was a leading voice for rejecting the proposed enforcement system in part because he felt that international inspections could expose the trade secrets of US pharmaceutical companies, as well as biodefense secrets. Bolton also said the inspections regime would not work because germ warfare programs are too difficult to detect.
Bolton argued for the use of sanctions and other nonbinding national agreements as a way to achieve compliance instead of inspections.
Some at the White House were trying to find a way to placate European allies who were upset about the impasse.
Avis Bohlen, then assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Arms Control under Bolton, traveled around European capitals in September 2001, two months before the Geneva conference, discussing the possibility of a compromise, but when she returned, Bolton told her he did not want any legally binding enforcement regimen, she said.
''I think he had no great respect for the world of people who negotiated on biological weapons," Bohlen said. ''It was a close-knit world unto itself, and he didn't think that they mattered."
Bolton instead focused on writing a hard-hitting speech for the conference that would highlight the failures of the treaty. It accused Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Sudan of pursuing biological weapons, prompting angry denials from the accused countries that were present.
Even after Bolton's opening speech, European allies held out hope that the United States would ultimately accept a system to enforce the treaty. Jean Lint, the representative of the European Union, met with Bolton in the cafeteria at the conference hall in Geneva, and they agreed to share proposals before presenting them to the entire conference, according to a European negotiator who was present but declined to be identified.
But the night before the conference was to end, Bolton got clearance from the National Security Council to demand that the enforcement committee be dissolved, according to Bohlen.
''I think it was pretty clear that he wanted to torpedo the meeting," Bohlen said. ''I don't think the National Security Council realized what an uproar it would cause."
In the final hours of the conference, Donald Mahley, the US representative to the enforcement committee who was speaking for Bolton, stood up and demanded that the committee be dissolved, although he added that the United States supported other forms of cooperation.
''It was dropped like a thunderbolt," said Taylor, the former weapons inspector.
The US official said Bolton meant to send a message that the United States would tolerate no more talk of inspections and enforcement. Bolton said at the time that he had sent out signals warning the Europeans that they should not have been surprised.
But newspapers quoted European diplomats calling Bolton a ''cheater."
The US official said that many at the White House were unhappy about the bad publicity, but that Bolton showed no disappointment. ''Did he evince great remorse and tear his hair out? Of course not. Did he exalt in the sense that, 'By God, we showed these guys?' No. He simply went about his business."
WASHINGTON -- In December 2001, at a conference on biological weapons, John R. Bolton stunned his fellow diplomats by insisting, without warning, that the nations of the world abandon their years-long effort to enforce the global treaty on germ warfare, according to conference participants.
The US demand, made in the final hours of a three-week conference in Geneva by a Bolton deputy, was a defining moment for the newly minted undersecretary of state for arms control. It underscored Bolton's guiding philosophy: that treaties alone do not keep the world safe from weapons of mass destruction.
It also highlighted Bolton's style, which several diplomats at the conference said left a lasting impression. Some diplomats who were present at the conference recounted to the Globe incidents that highlighted Bolton's legendary temper, including an episode in which he shouted at a South African diplomat who had objected to Bolton's stance on the treaty. Others complained that Bolton had promised to share his proposal with US allies in private prior to announcing it to the world, but broke his word.
Bolton, at the center of a heated confirmation battle over his nomination as ambassador to the United Nations, is praised by his supporters for forcing the world to accept uncomfortable truths, in this case, that member countries could never devise an effective system to police the 1972 treaty that bans the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons.
''He makes the argument that if you try to sugarcoat it, the other people are not going to get the message," said a US official who has worked closely with Bolton, speaking on condition of anonymity. But some foreign diplomats, arms control specialists, and some former US officials who worked with Bolton say his actions at the conference show how his confrontational style can undermine his policy stances.
''He had a very strong argument -- unfortunately, those arguments have been lost in the delivery," said Terence Taylor, a former United Nations biological weapons inspector who now works at the International Institute for Strategic Studies based in London. ''If you want your policy to gain international support, it has to be packaged with diplomacy, and I think that is the problem with Mr. Bolton."
The Geneva meeting, which was supposed to close with a statement of cooperation, ended abruptly in chaos and anger shortly after the American position was announced. Allies from the European Union were so furious that a planned meeting with US delegates did not take place.
''Mr. Bolton displayed a confrontational style in a diplomatic meeting, which perhaps made things more difficult to resolve," said Richard Lennane, the political affairs officer with the United Nations Department for disarmament affairs who recalled that he worked to calm the meeting after the clash with the South African diplomat, Peter Goosen. ''It was how he said it, rather than what he said, which caused the problems."
Goosen did not return a message left at his Pretoria office seeking comment.
Bolton declined through a spokeswoman to comment. Nominees rarely speak to the press during their confirmation process.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that Bolton's no-nonsense style is exactly what the United States needs to overhaul the United Nations.
But his critics said Bolton's style at the Geneva conference angered allies at a difficult moment for US foreign policy. Emotions were still raw from the US rejection of the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto protocol. The United States had also rejected in July 2001 a draft agreement -- hammered out over six years by 144 countries -- for a system of international inspectors to enforce the biological weapons treaty. That rejection set the stage for the crucial conference beginning in November in Geneva, where Europeans hoped to come up with a compromise deal.
Bolton was a leading voice for rejecting the proposed enforcement system in part because he felt that international inspections could expose the trade secrets of US pharmaceutical companies, as well as biodefense secrets. Bolton also said the inspections regime would not work because germ warfare programs are too difficult to detect.
Bolton argued for the use of sanctions and other nonbinding national agreements as a way to achieve compliance instead of inspections.
Some at the White House were trying to find a way to placate European allies who were upset about the impasse.
Avis Bohlen, then assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Arms Control under Bolton, traveled around European capitals in September 2001, two months before the Geneva conference, discussing the possibility of a compromise, but when she returned, Bolton told her he did not want any legally binding enforcement regimen, she said.
''I think he had no great respect for the world of people who negotiated on biological weapons," Bohlen said. ''It was a close-knit world unto itself, and he didn't think that they mattered."
Bolton instead focused on writing a hard-hitting speech for the conference that would highlight the failures of the treaty. It accused Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Sudan of pursuing biological weapons, prompting angry denials from the accused countries that were present.
Even after Bolton's opening speech, European allies held out hope that the United States would ultimately accept a system to enforce the treaty. Jean Lint, the representative of the European Union, met with Bolton in the cafeteria at the conference hall in Geneva, and they agreed to share proposals before presenting them to the entire conference, according to a European negotiator who was present but declined to be identified.
But the night before the conference was to end, Bolton got clearance from the National Security Council to demand that the enforcement committee be dissolved, according to Bohlen.
''I think it was pretty clear that he wanted to torpedo the meeting," Bohlen said. ''I don't think the National Security Council realized what an uproar it would cause."
In the final hours of the conference, Donald Mahley, the US representative to the enforcement committee who was speaking for Bolton, stood up and demanded that the committee be dissolved, although he added that the United States supported other forms of cooperation.
''It was dropped like a thunderbolt," said Taylor, the former weapons inspector.
The US official said Bolton meant to send a message that the United States would tolerate no more talk of inspections and enforcement. Bolton said at the time that he had sent out signals warning the Europeans that they should not have been surprised.
But newspapers quoted European diplomats calling Bolton a ''cheater."
The US official said that many at the White House were unhappy about the bad publicity, but that Bolton showed no disappointment. ''Did he evince great remorse and tear his hair out? Of course not. Did he exalt in the sense that, 'By God, we showed these guys?' No. He simply went about his business."
Morning Papers - concluding
The weather in Antarctica (Crystal Ice Chime) is:
Antarctica
Conditions
Temp
Scott Base
Overcast
-20.0°
Updated Sunday 29 May 8:59AM
The weather at Glacier Bay National Park (Crystal Wind Chime) is:
63 °F / 17 °C
Overcast
Humidity:
48%
Dew Point:
43 °F / 6 °C
Wind:
6 mph / 9 km/h from the SSW
Pressure:
29.94 in / 1014 hPa
Visibility:
10.0 miles / 16.1 kilometers
UV:
1 out of 16
Clouds (AGL):
Overcast
end
Antarctica
Conditions
Temp
Scott Base
Overcast
-20.0°
Updated Sunday 29 May 8:59AM
The weather at Glacier Bay National Park (Crystal Wind Chime) is:
63 °F / 17 °C
Overcast
Humidity:
48%
Dew Point:
43 °F / 6 °C
Wind:
6 mph / 9 km/h from the SSW
Pressure:
29.94 in / 1014 hPa
Visibility:
10.0 miles / 16.1 kilometers
UV:
1 out of 16
Clouds (AGL):
Overcast
end
Gitmo. This is no way for the USA to treat anyone. There is no humanity in this situation. I don't know what they've done that would warrant this kind of sustained inhumanity. They aren't animals in a pen. And our military are suppose to be 'keepers' forever or abusers for ANCIENT information. These people have been incarcerated for years. There is nothing left for them to tell us that is relevant.
JUST SHUT IT DOWN ! NOW !!!!!!!!!
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
London
Shut it down. Just shut it down.
I am talking about the war-on-terrorism P.O.W. camp at Guantánamo Bay. Just shut it down and then plow it under. It has become worse than an embarrassment. I am convinced that more Americans are dying and will die if we keep the Gitmo prison open than if we shut it down. So, please, Mr. President, just shut it down.
If you want to appreciate how corrosive Guantánamo has become for America's standing abroad, don't read the Arab press. Don't read the Pakistani press. Don't read the Afghan press. Hop over here to London or go online and just read the British press! See what our closest allies are saying about Gitmo. And when you get done with that, read the Australian press and the Canadian press and the German press.
It is all a variation on the theme of a May 8 article in The Observer of London that begins, "An American soldier has revealed shocking new details of abuse and sexual torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay in the first high-profile whistle-blowing account to emerge from inside the top-secret base." Google the words "Guantánamo Bay and Australia" and what comes up is an Australian ABC radio report that begins: "New claims have emerged that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are being tortured by their American captors, and the claims say that Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib are among the victims."
Just another day of the world talking about Guantánamo Bay.
Why care? It's not because I am queasy about the war on terrorism. It is because I want to win the war on terrorism. And it is now obvious from reports in my own paper and others that the abuse at Guantánamo and within the whole U.S. military prison system dealing with terrorism is out of control. Tell me, how is it that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody so far? Heart attacks? This is not just deeply immoral, it is strategically dangerous.
I can explain it best by analogy. For several years now I have argued that Israel needed to get out of the West Bank and Gaza, and behind a wall, as fast as possible. Not because the Palestinians are right and Israel wrong. It's because Israel today is surrounded by three large trends. The first is a huge population explosion happening all across the Arab world. The second is an explosion of the worst interpersonal violence between Israelis and Palestinians in the history of the conflict, which has only recently been defused by a cease-fire. And the third is an explosion of Arabic language multimedia outlets - from the Internet to Al Jazeera.
What was happening around Israel at the height of the intifada was that the Arab multimedia explosion was taking the images of that intifada explosion and feeding them to the Arab population explosion, melding in the minds of a new generation of Arabs and Muslims that their enemies were J.I.A. - "Jews, Israel and America." That is an enormously toxic trend, and I hope Israel's withdrawal from Gaza will help deprive it of oxygen.
I believe the stories emerging from Guantánamo are having a similar toxic effect on us - inflaming sentiments against the U.S. all over the world and providing recruitment energy on the Internet for those who would do us ill.
Husain Haqqani, a thoughtful Pakistani scholar now teaching at Boston University, remarked to me: "When people like myself say American values must be emulated and America is a bastion of freedom, we get Guantánamo Bay thrown in our faces. When we talk about the America of Jefferson and Hamilton, people back home say to us: 'That is not the America we are dealing with. We are dealing with the America of imprisonment without trial.' "
Guantánamo Bay is becoming the anti-Statue of Liberty. If we have a case to be made against any of the 500 or so inmates still in Guantánamo, then it is high time we put them on trial, convict as many possible (which will not be easy because of bungled interrogations) and then simply let the rest go home or to a third country. Sure, a few may come back to haunt us. But at least they won't be able to take advantage of Guantánamo as an engine of recruitment to enlist thousands more. I would rather have a few more bad guys roaming the world than a whole new generation.
"This is not about being for or against the war," said Michael Posner, the executive director of Human Rights First, which is closely following this issue. "It is about doing it right. If we are going to transform the Middle East, we have to be law-abiding and uphold the values we want them to embrace - otherwise it is not going to work."
London
Shut it down. Just shut it down.
I am talking about the war-on-terrorism P.O.W. camp at Guantánamo Bay. Just shut it down and then plow it under. It has become worse than an embarrassment. I am convinced that more Americans are dying and will die if we keep the Gitmo prison open than if we shut it down. So, please, Mr. President, just shut it down.
If you want to appreciate how corrosive Guantánamo has become for America's standing abroad, don't read the Arab press. Don't read the Pakistani press. Don't read the Afghan press. Hop over here to London or go online and just read the British press! See what our closest allies are saying about Gitmo. And when you get done with that, read the Australian press and the Canadian press and the German press.
It is all a variation on the theme of a May 8 article in The Observer of London that begins, "An American soldier has revealed shocking new details of abuse and sexual torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay in the first high-profile whistle-blowing account to emerge from inside the top-secret base." Google the words "Guantánamo Bay and Australia" and what comes up is an Australian ABC radio report that begins: "New claims have emerged that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are being tortured by their American captors, and the claims say that Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib are among the victims."
Just another day of the world talking about Guantánamo Bay.
Why care? It's not because I am queasy about the war on terrorism. It is because I want to win the war on terrorism. And it is now obvious from reports in my own paper and others that the abuse at Guantánamo and within the whole U.S. military prison system dealing with terrorism is out of control. Tell me, how is it that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody so far? Heart attacks? This is not just deeply immoral, it is strategically dangerous.
I can explain it best by analogy. For several years now I have argued that Israel needed to get out of the West Bank and Gaza, and behind a wall, as fast as possible. Not because the Palestinians are right and Israel wrong. It's because Israel today is surrounded by three large trends. The first is a huge population explosion happening all across the Arab world. The second is an explosion of the worst interpersonal violence between Israelis and Palestinians in the history of the conflict, which has only recently been defused by a cease-fire. And the third is an explosion of Arabic language multimedia outlets - from the Internet to Al Jazeera.
What was happening around Israel at the height of the intifada was that the Arab multimedia explosion was taking the images of that intifada explosion and feeding them to the Arab population explosion, melding in the minds of a new generation of Arabs and Muslims that their enemies were J.I.A. - "Jews, Israel and America." That is an enormously toxic trend, and I hope Israel's withdrawal from Gaza will help deprive it of oxygen.
I believe the stories emerging from Guantánamo are having a similar toxic effect on us - inflaming sentiments against the U.S. all over the world and providing recruitment energy on the Internet for those who would do us ill.
Husain Haqqani, a thoughtful Pakistani scholar now teaching at Boston University, remarked to me: "When people like myself say American values must be emulated and America is a bastion of freedom, we get Guantánamo Bay thrown in our faces. When we talk about the America of Jefferson and Hamilton, people back home say to us: 'That is not the America we are dealing with. We are dealing with the America of imprisonment without trial.' "
Guantánamo Bay is becoming the anti-Statue of Liberty. If we have a case to be made against any of the 500 or so inmates still in Guantánamo, then it is high time we put them on trial, convict as many possible (which will not be easy because of bungled interrogations) and then simply let the rest go home or to a third country. Sure, a few may come back to haunt us. But at least they won't be able to take advantage of Guantánamo as an engine of recruitment to enlist thousands more. I would rather have a few more bad guys roaming the world than a whole new generation.
"This is not about being for or against the war," said Michael Posner, the executive director of Human Rights First, which is closely following this issue. "It is about doing it right. If we are going to transform the Middle East, we have to be law-abiding and uphold the values we want them to embrace - otherwise it is not going to work."
HONKY TONK WOMAN
23/07/1969 5 weeks at #1
17 weeks on chart
I met a gin-soaked, bar-room queen in Memphis
She tried to take me upstairs for a ride
She had to heave me right across her shoulder
'Cause I just can't seem to drink you off my mind
It's the Honky Tonk Women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues
I laid a divorcée in New York City
I had to put up some kind of a fight
The lady then she covered me with roses
She blew my nose and then she blew my mind
It's the Honky Tonk Women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues
It's the Honky Tonk Women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues
Yeah, it's the Honky Tonk Women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues
17 weeks on chart
I met a gin-soaked, bar-room queen in Memphis
She tried to take me upstairs for a ride
She had to heave me right across her shoulder
'Cause I just can't seem to drink you off my mind
It's the Honky Tonk Women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues
I laid a divorcée in New York City
I had to put up some kind of a fight
The lady then she covered me with roses
She blew my nose and then she blew my mind
It's the Honky Tonk Women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues
It's the Honky Tonk Women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues
Yeah, it's the Honky Tonk Women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)