Chinese Officials Questioned Protesters Repeatedly

Source: Radio Free Asia.

HONG KONG—Chinese authorities repeatedly and separately questioned five Americans detained for two days after they staged an Olympic-related protest on Mount Everest before expelling them on Friday, one of the protesters has told Radio Free Asia.

“There were about five questions,” Tibetan-American Tenzin Dorje told RFA’s Tibetan service. “Their main question was whether anyone helped from inside Tibet—who helped us to write in Tibetan and Chinese, and so on. Where did we eat? Where did we go by vehicle?”

On arriving at the base camp, the five—all activists from the U.S.-based Students for a Free Tibet group—unfurled a banner saying, “One World, One Dream, Free Tibet 2008.” They were identified as Tenzin Dorje, the first known exiled Tibetan to return to the region to protest, Kirsten Westby, Mac Sutherlin, Jeff Friesen, and videographer Shannon Service.

Their protest came on the eve of an announcement of the route to be taken by the Olympic torch to Beijing, which will host the 2008 Games. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said the five were detained for “carrying out illegal activities aimed at splitting China” for which they must be expelled from China.

“Finally we were released this morning and transported to the [Nepal] border post at Drum,” Tenzin Dorje said. “When we were first detained, we were taken to an office right at the base camp of Mount Everest…They started interrogating us there. They didn’t ask us questions in a group but took each individual to a separate room and conducted their interrogation there. One police officer asks questions, another takes notes, and two or three stand by with guns ready. We were detained in the same office from 9.30 a.m. to about 10 p.m.”

“Then a group of Public Security officials arrived from Shigatse [in Chinese, Xigaze] and they searched all our belongings—and started another session of interrogation. Later in the night, we were taken to the Shekar [in Chinese, Xiegar] police station. There again they started another session of interrogation. At that time one of our Western friends was threatened with a dark cold cell if he did not give the correct answers. He was threatened with assault if he did not cooperate. But he refused and demanded to talk to U.S. Embassy officials.”

“For the whole night, we were taken from one police station to another, and then the next morning we were at a police station in Shigatse. So yesterday, the whole day, we were detained in Shigatse and again they carried out interrogations. Then later we were placed in a guest house in Shigatse. When we were about to sleep, again we were woken up in the middle of night and interrogated again.”

“I don't know the real reasons for our release. We were just released,” Tenzin Dorje said. “Later we learned that there was pressure from several countries, and there were many contacts with the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.”

“We couldn’t be held for more than 48 hours and had to be either released or charged with some crime to start the legal process,” he said. “We were detained on April 25 a little after 9 a.m. and then [released] today, April 27, at 9 a.m. …We were put in a vehicle around 8 a.m. and rushed—there were about eight or nine vehicles with about 40 police who escorted us to the Drum border post.”

“Starting from our initial detention, they told us the same thing. They said we violated Chinese laws and would be punished for this violation. The main violation, according to them, was writing about independence for Tibet on our banner. They said this had grossly damaged the security of China.”

Chinese troops annexed Tibet in 1948; the region's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, fled the country in 1959. He has accused China of carrying out "cultural genocide" in Tibet. Beijing has said he will play no part in Tibet's future.

China's Sudan Foray Falls Far Short: Mia Farrow

Source: Radio Free Asia.

WASHINGTON—China’s bid to answer critics by using its clout to stop violence in troubled Sudan falls far short of what’s needed to make a difference, actress and UNICEF goodwill ambassador Mia Farrow has said.

Farrow’s March 28 comment in The Wall Street Journal used the term “Genocide Olympics” to call for a boycott of the 2008 Games in Beijing. While Sudan had agreed to allow a small UN peacekeeping force to Darfur, she said, no timeframe had been set, and the proposed 3,000 troops had yet to materialize under an unclear mandate.

“I feel that what Khartoum has agreed to is so minimal as to be nothing,” Farrow told RFA’s Mandarin service.

There is more to read, but it cannot be copied. Please continue reading this article. Thank you.

Radio Free Asia is a private, nonprofit corporation that broadcasts news and information in nine East Asian languages to listeners who do not have access to full and free news media. The purpose of RFA is to provide a forum for a variety of opinions and voices from within these Asian countries. Our Web site adds a global dimension to this objective. RFA is funded by an annual grant from the Broadcasting Board of Governors. If you no longer wish to receive RFA news alerts, send an e-mail to engnews-leave@rfanews.org. To add your name to our mailing list, send an e-mail to engnews-join@rfanews.org.

Liberia loses 'blood diamonds' label

Source: CNN.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Friday to lift a ban on Liberian diamond exports imposed in 2001 when so-called "blood diamonds" were being used to fuel civil wars in west Africa.

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, the current council president, said the vote was "a recognition of the progress made in Liberia" to ensure diamonds are mined legally.

The vote is "a reflection of our confidence in that country, in its leadership," Jones Parry said.

Liberia applied March 27 to join the Kimberley Process, a voluntary 71-nation group created out of the furor over diamond-funded wars in Sierra Leone and Angola.

The group, whose members agree to trade only certified diamonds, has helped conflict diamonds drop to less than 1 percent of those sold worldwide, from about 4 percent previously.

After the vote, Liberia's U.N. Ambassador Nathaniel Barnes said he had just learned that the Kimberley committee was going to accept Liberia's application as a result of the council's action, "so as of now, we are officially a part of the Kimberley Process."

Barnes called the council's decision to lift the ban "a vote of confidence ... (and) support of our very strong political will to do the right thing for Liberia and Liberians."

Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf inherited one of the world's poorest countries when she took office in January 2006. Liberia had been battered by back-to-back civil wars from 1989 to 2003 that left 200,000 people dead and displaced half the country's 3 million people.

Her government has pressed for the lifting of the diamond sanctions imposed in May 2001 to stop former President Charles Taylor from using government revenues from diamonds to fuel civil war in neighboring Sierra Leone.

"We welcome the lifting of the sanctions because it will, to some extent, provide job opportunities for our people," said Sirleaf spokesman Cyrus Badio. "This is something that we are in bad need of. Proceeds from the diamond industry will be used for the benefit of the country."

Barnes said he expects the lifting of diamond sanctions to have an "incredibly positive" impact because it will provide jobs in a country with an 85 percent unemployment rate.

"Anywhere on the globe, that's unacceptable, but it's further exacerbated by the fact that a large portion of these unemployed are ex-combatants," he said. "So by the removal of the sanctions on diamonds, and the appropriate monitoring mechanisms in place, we'll be able to put people to work, which is one of the biggest challenges we have right now."

Historically, Liberia has used very old technology -- sifting surface soil and sand with pans -- to find diamonds, "but we think with new technology there's incredible potential for Liberia," Barnes said.

That will take foreign capital, he said, because "we do not have the resources domestically to do it."

The Security Council said it would review its decision to lift diamond sanctions in 90 days after reviewing a report by a U.N. panel of monitors.

"This is an example of sanctions working and we're pleased that Liberia has turned this corner in its history," said the U.S. Mission's deputy spokesman, Ben Chang.

Liberia is still subject to an arms embargo, a travel ban on certain individuals, and an asset freeze against Taylor and his top officials.

Duncan Hunter—The Class of Reagan

Source: The Patriot Post: Digest. This is a copy of the Perspective section of the Patriot Post Digest. Please visit the PatriotPost to stay informed of all things Conservative, republic, and constitutional. You may also sign up for e-mail deliveries!

“If men of wisdom and knowledge... and true republican simplicity of manners... are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation.” —Samuel Adams

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

The consensus among the chattering class is that this presidential cycle features no clear heir to the Reagan mantle. Yet of the declared candidates, conservatives outnumber the media-dubbed triumvirate of Giuliani, McCain and Romney. Most notable among them is Duncan Hunter, the California representative who hails from The Gipper’s lucky city of San Diego.

Hunter earned his congressional seat in 1980, in a 2-to-1 Democrat-dominated district. He did so with a winning combination of determination, shoe leather, integrity and a clear conservative philosophy as espoused by GOP presidential candidate Ronald Reagan. Certain sectors of the San Diego establishment have never forgiven Hunter for ousting nine-term Demo Rep. Lionel Van Deerlin, now a columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Hunter is a decorated Vietnam veteran who served with the 173rd Airborne Division and the 75th Army Rangers. After returning home, he attended law school and opened offices in San Diego’s Hispanic Barrio Logan, often offering legal services at no charge. Last October, before the Republican congressional losses, Hunter announced his simultaneous retirement from Congress and his presidential candidacy. In other words, he is serious about this campaign.

The National Journal recently assessed political placement of declared presidential candidates based on a gamut of congressional votes. While this obviously applies only to legislators, Hunter achieved the most conservative score—82.5 of a possible 99—edging Sam Brownback. Both are well ahead of the rest of the pack. Indeed, Hunter has a lengthy list of conservative bona fides.

Most notably, in more than two decades on the House Armed Services Committee, where he is the former chairman and current ranking member, Hunter steadfastly advocated a victory strategy in both the Cold War and the global war with Jihadistan. He also did much to blunt the dismantling of the U.S. military by Bill Clinton. As chairman of Armed Services, Hunter oversaw the nation’s $532-billion defense budget in the first years of America’s war on Islamic terrorism.

On the immigration front, he sponsored the controversial Secure Fence Act for improved border control and was personally responsible for 59 miles of border fencing now in place along San Diego County’s border with Mexico.

When it comes to constitutional issues, he does not subscribe to the adulterated “Living Constitution” oft-referenced by the Left. Instead, he is a constitutional constructionist and abides by the letter of the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

Hunter’s presidential bid is centered on three core national-security principles: Effective prosecution of the campaign against jihadi terrorism, strict border and immigration enforcement and a focus on our own economic security in the global economy.

What kind of campaign must the GOP wage to win? Top presidential contenders among the Democrats have over twice the money and nearly twice the donors of the Republicans’ big three. Moreover, if Hillary wins the Demo primary, she will decline federal matching funds—freeing herself of the restrictions attached to those funds.

A Republican ticket will need a lot of bang for the buck, cutting a significant swath into the Democrats’ base—without losses on the right. In his Demo-dominated district, Hunter has proven he can win Democrats’ votes without waffling on conservative principles.

In the contests where he has actively campaigned, Hunter has performed best on that measure.

In the March South Carolina contest, he drew to a statistical tie, at 22 percent each, with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. “We were outspent 10 to 1,” he remarked, going against an “army of consultants.” Running the effort was his son, a Marine captain and OIF veteran. Of this, candidate Hunter quipped, “You know, that’s a pretty good match-up: one Marine versus 550 consultants. We did have the advantage.”

Every characteristic touted as a distinguisher for another candidate is one Hunter also demonstrates. He combines the military service and acumen of McCain with the border-security stances of Tom Tancredo, he’s been a consistent defender of human life and traditional families in law and he has a firm grasp of the principles of constitutional law. He has as much or more experience as a legislator than most of his primary contenders.

A true Patriot, Hunter proclaims, “America is a great nation because America is a good nation. God still loves this nation. We are still a people of character and strength and kindness. And so with faith in God, with confidence in the goodness of the American people, let’s win this race for the United States presidency.”

A veteran of the 1980 congressional “Class of Reagan,” Duncan Hunter is a standout worthy of serious consideration by conservative voters, not only because of his aforementioned qualifications, but because one has to spend only a minute with him to know what achievement he counts above all others—his 33 years of marriage to his wife, Lynne, and the two sons and four grandchildren that are the product of that marriage. Duncan is a family man above all.

(For a brief bio of Hunter and his current ratings by conservative organizations, as well as bios and ratings for other GOP candidates, link to The Patriot’s candidate profile page.)

Quote of the week
“One thing that [Iraqi war theater commander Gen. David Petraeus] reminded us was, this [war] is a test of wills, and he admonished us... that what we say to the world, to our adversaries and our allies, is listened to by the other side... It must come as a shock to al-Qa’ida leaders to have an aide come into their safe house and tell them that Senator [Harry] Reid has declared that, in fact, they are winning and the war is lost. I think it’s highly irresponsible for the leader of the U.S. Senate to have said that and, just speaking for myself as the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, I think that the leader of the Senate should step down from that position.” —Congressman Duncan Hunter, California Republican, on Wednesday, after Gen. Petraeus’ closed-door congressional briefing sessions.

The Mainstream Media: Islamist Facilitators

Reprinted with permission by FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Author: M. Zuhdi Jasser
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: April 19, 2007

In this riveting, damning exposé by FSM Contributing Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser, the mainstream media is identified as one of the most significant reasons why moderate Muslim voices are utterly silenced in America. You won’t want to take this outrage sitting down!The PBS censorship of Islam vs. Islamists highlights one of the major obstacles to hearing the Moderate Muslim Voice.

By M. Zuhdi Jasser.

Dennis Wagner of the Arizona Republic broke the story on April 10, 2007 about PBS’s censorship of the documentary, Islam vs. Islamists from its America at a Crossroads series which debuted this week. The film’s producers, Frank Gaffney, Alex Alexiev and the veteran filmmaker, Martyn Burke of ABG Films, Inc. have since presented in shocking detail their painful protracted experiences trying to navigate the censors at PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which funded the film with $675,000 of the taxpayers’ monies but now has chosen to shelve it. In just the last week of public debate, there has been a firestorm of outcry from the public who are demanding that oppressive methods of editorial content control by power brokers at PBS be investigated and the real story behind the shelving of Islam vs. Islamists be exposed. PBS’s exploitation of the public dime and the public airwaves for the narrow point of view of the Islamist sympathizers with the exclusion of the anti-Islamist Muslims is just now beginning to be understood.

As one of the subjects of the documentary, I was able to experience first-hand the professionalism and in-depth journalistic standards of veteran filmmaker, Martyn Burke, and his first-class team of consummate professionals. It was refreshing to have a documentary set out objectively to look into the deep-seated internal struggles of anti-Islamist Muslims like myself. Our work at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) here in Phoenix has been riddled with continual blowback and resistance in many forms from the power structure of the activist Muslim community in the Phoenix Valley . The Valley Council of Imams, the local Muslim Voice newspaper, and organizations like CAIR-AZ have provided a laboratory of typical Islamist responses to an American organization of Muslims, like AIFD, who are trying to rescue spiritual Islam from the death grip of Islamists—Islam vs. Islamists. I do this out of love for my faith and its spiritual path to the God of Abraham in order to free it from the corruption of the political imam which has become so ubiquitous.

I have previously discussed the harm of our government’s enabling of Islamists (like CAIR, MPAC, MAS, MSA, or ISNA) in the United States and how the governmental endorsement of Islamists publicly empowers them and allows them to dodge their responsibility of countering Islamism as an ideology. This order of magnitude is greater in impact when it concerns the media’s inability to wage the debate of the “struggle for the soul of Islam”. Stories about Islam and Muslims have been more and more ubiquitous since 9-11 and now are actually commonplace. Yet, the actual debate within the Muslim community has barely begun. Where’s the disconnect? Look no further than the Islamist enablers in the media.

When so many ask across the nation, “where are the moderate voices of Islam?”, one cannot help lately but exclaim that they are being suffocated by misguided political correctness and by Islamist influence within mainstream media and government. The PBS censorship of the documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, highlights one of the best examples to date of the symbiosis of both government complicity and media complicity with the Islamist ideology.

The recent RAND corporation research project highlighting the dire need to Build Moderate Muslim Networks in this new global “long war” against militant Islamism and its ideological siblings will never come to fruition with the current blinded pro-Islamist mainstream media approach. The mainstream media (MSM) is apparently blind to the real ideology of Islamism and they allow Islamists to hide their theocracy behind minority politics. The MSM not only avoids the free flow of ideas within the Muslim community, it effectively allows the Islamists completely to stifle any and all debate which would have allowed Muslims to question those in positions of authority within the Islamic community.

It is time for the MSM to stop protecting Muslims from one another and to stop stifling the debate many anti-Islamist Muslims would like to wage against leading Islamists. If Muslims are going to form a public expression of Islam which is reconciled with western democracies which separate religion and government, this debate against Islamism needs yet to begin, let alone blossom into cultural change for Muslims.

Islamists fear nothing more than credible and genuine debate against the core political ideology of Islamism from pious anti-Islamist Muslims. With an ideological counter from anti-Islamist Muslims- the Islamist emperor “has no clothes”. At every level, they are using America ’s naïveté about Islam in order to continue their theft of Islam for the political agenda of Islamism. The Islamists know that anti-Islamist Muslims rob them of their minority trump card of Islamophobia and force them to come to terms with the anti-freedom, and anti-liberty and anti-pluralistic ideology of Islamism. Anti-Islamist, pro-Islamic Muslims expose the real motives of Islamists—which is the exploitation of the spiritual path of Islam for political and governmental power and coercion.

The MSM would prefer to facilitate the current Islamist organizations and Islamist imams. Why? It could be a fear of litigation, minority victim politics, or simple ignorance regarding the goals of Islamism. As in the case with PBS, it could also be the internal influence and infiltration of Islamists within the media and government who will go to great lengths to suffocate the opinions of anti-Islamists, especially anti-Islamist Muslims.

The PBS/CPB censorship of Islam vs. Islamists exemplifies the dire need to begin to educate many in the MSM of the ideological realities of the Islamists. They may protect Islamists blindly out of ignorance, fear, infiltration, or minority politics. But, at the end of the day, if the MSM editors understood the type of society the protected Islamists would create if they became a majority, their support would vanish. Feminists, social liberals, and those that would separate religion from government would be entirely ignored under Islamist control. Just ask the feminists what type of equality they have in many Islamist controlled mosques around the country.

It is interesting that even in the recent April 18 New York Times, Virginia Heffernan appropriately critiques the vacuous nature of Robert McNeil’s documentary, “The Muslim Americans”. McNeil’s documentary which did conveniently make the cut of the Crossroads series, turned out to be a puff-piece for political correctness with no insight into Islamist ideologies and its danger to America . The question remains whether epiphanies like Heffernan’s in the Times about McNeil’s piece will translate into systemic changes in the approach of the MSM toward Islamists.

When will there be a change from coddling and enabling Islamists toward critical engagement of their deep ideological inconsistencies with Americanism? Thus far, investigative journalism, hard-hitting analysis, and identification of the clear and present danger of the Islamist ideological threat remains at best, a large blind spot and at worst an intentional omission.

Islamists sneak in their political agenda free of criticism from the MSM because they do it in the name of a religion. When moderate Muslims call them on their false representation of all Muslims and the disservice they do to the spiritual faith of Islam, the MSM so far chooses to shelve and ignore our efforts to be heard.

So the next time anyone asks, “where are the moderate voices of Islam?”, tell them that the main reason they are voices in the wilderness is that the mainstream media chooses to leave them in the wilderness and prevent them from seeing the light of day. In the PBS documentary it is only Muslims interviewed throughout the film—how could that be anti-Muslim? Simply put, PBS claims that the veteran filmmaker Martyn Burke was one-sided, but it appears that PBS and often the MSM is one-sided protecting Islamist leadership from their most effective detractors—anti-Islamist Muslim moderates.

Borrowing on the old cliché of a tree falling in a forest, if Muslims speak out against Islamists but remain unheard (in the PBS forest), did they speak out at all? Without regular opportunities in the media and government for anti-Islamist Muslims to speak out, America will never know that they ever did. Without being heard the moderate voices will be as if they never existed. Without hearing the moderate voice, it is so much the easier for Islamists to continue toward their goal of political domination and demagoguery of the Muslim community and, ultimately, of America itself.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander and the Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix , Arizona . He can be reached at Zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org.

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to COY7m@aol.com.

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

S. Korea: Aid to North conditional on disarmament moves

Source: CNN, April 23, 2007.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- South Korea's top official on North Korea stressed Monday that delivery of promised rice aid to Pyongyang depends on whether the communist nation lives up to its commitment to start dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

At talks between the two Koreas that ended Sunday, the South agreed to send 400,000 tons of rice to the North despite its failure to meet a deadline more than two weeks ago to shut down its main nuclear reactor. The text of the agreement contains no preconditions for the aid delivery that is to begin in late May.

However, Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung said Monday that South Korea has "strongly delivered" its position that delivery of rice aid depends on whether North Korea implements the February accord reached at international arms talks.

Under the accord, North Korea was to shut down its Yongbyon reactor by April 14 and allow U.N. inspectors to verify and seal the facility in exchange for energy assistance.

"The rice issue is not just a humanitarian issue, but a very symbolic and essential task for peace ... so I believe it is very important that measures under the [February] agreement are implemented," Lee told MBC radio.

The two Koreas also agreed Sunday to conduct test runs of trains on rebuilt tracks across their shared border on May 17. A planned test run was called off last year because the North Korean military refused to guarantee the safety of travelers during the test.

"This is one of the tasks that has to be solved through dialogue with the [North Korean] military," Lee said. "If [the test run] is canceled again this time, it will bring difficulties to fundamental South-North relations."

South Korea remains technically at war with the North since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty.

However, in the past decade, Seoul has tried to reconcile with its former wartime foe -- lavishing aid on the North and sometimes playing a middleman between Pyongyang and Washington at nuclear arms negotiations.

North Korea has refused to move on disarmament because of a delay in getting funds frozen in a Macau bank after it was blacklisted by the United States for allegedly assisting the North with money laundering and counterfeiting.

The US$25 million (euro18.6 million) has been freed for withdrawal, but for unknown reasons the North has not yet moved to remove the money.

In an attempt to resolve the impasse, South Korea's chief negotiator to nuclear talks, Chun Yung-woo, left for Washington on Monday to discuss the issue with his U.S. counterparts.

"We can't keep putting off discussions on denuclearization that are more important because of the [bank] issue," Chun said before departure, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.

Chun said they had "a general understanding of North Korea's demands" regarding its money, without elaborating, according to the report.

The nuclear talks also involve China, Japan and Russia.

Hey idiot. The money which in my opinion should never have been freed up, has been available for over a month now. It is another stall tactic, or don't you diplomats have the good sense to know when you are being taken for ride? For crying out loud.

Nuclear pact not reached; S. Korea still to give North food

Source: , April 21, 2007.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- South Korea agreed Sunday to send 400,000 tons of rice to impoverished North Korea despite the communist government's failure to meet a deadline to shut down its nuclear reactor.

The agreement was reached early Sunday after five days of economic aid talks in the North Korean capital. It was seen as a setback in South Korea's attempt to use food aid as leverage to pressure the North to honor its pledge to shut down the reactor under the Feb. 13 nuclear disarmament deal with the United States and its regional partners.

The first batch of rice will be sent in late May, the agreement said. The South will ship 350,000 tons, and the remaining 50,000 tons be driven over land, across the world's most heavily fortified border. There were no conditions attached to the aid delivery, according to the agreement.

The Koreas also agreed Sunday to test a railway service to run on rebuilt rail tracks across their shared border. The North promised its military would guarantee the safety of travelers during the rail tests on May 17.

Last year, the North unilaterally called off a similar planned test run, citing objections from its military.

The two sides also agreed that South Korea would send raw materials for making clothes, shoes and soap to the North. In exchange, the South would have the right to develop mineral resources in the North.

Seoul, a key aid donor to the North, has sent more than 2 million tons of rice since the mid-1990s, when natural disasters and mismanagement devastated North Korea's economy and led to a famine estimated to have killed some 2 million people.

Following the February accord, Seoul decided to resume the aid shipments that it had suspended after the North conducted missile and nuclear tests last year.

But fearing it could be criticized for lavishing aid on North Korea before it takes steps to disarm, the South had sought to delay actual shipments until the North made progress on the nuclear deal.

North Korea failed to meet an April 14 deadline to shut the Yongbyon nuclear facility amid a prolonged financial dispute with the United States.

North Korea boycotted international nuclear talks for more than a year because Washington blacklisted a Macau bank where the communist country held $25 million. The United States accused Banco Delta Asia of helping the North to launder money and pass counterfeit $100 bills. Authorities in Macau froze the North's accounts.

The United States and Banco Delta Asia said earlier this month that the North's money had been unfrozen. But for unknown reasons, North Korea has yet to withdraw the money.

The two Koreas are still technically at war, as the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce, not a peace treaty. But their relations have warmed significantly since the first and only summit of their leaders in 2000.

Have I got a problem with S. Korea over this. How are we supposed to carry out any type of plan if all the players will fold at the first sign of failure? Ridiculuos. I expect more of you, S. Korea. After all, we saved your butts!

Senator proposes Korean flag swap with US warship

Source: CNN, April 19, 2007.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A senator sees it as a fair trade: a Korean battle flag captured in the 19th century for the USS Pueblo, taken in 1968.

Republican Sen. Wayne Allard reintroduced a resolution Wednesday demanding that North Korea return the Pueblo, and he sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggesting she look into his proposed exchange.

"Since the USS Pueblo bears the name of the town of Pueblo, Colorado, many in our state want to see the vessel returned to its proper home," Allard wrote. "North Korea continues to hint at the possible return of the captured U.S. Navy ship, and I ask that you take action at this opportune time."

The Pueblo is the only active-duty U.S. warship in the hands of a foreign power. It was taken Jan. 23, 1968, after being sent defenseless on an intelligence-gathering mission off the North Korean coast.

Allard said Colorado veterans of the Korean and Vietnam wars suggested exchanging the flag. It was captured from Korean Gen. Uh Je-yeon in an 1871 battle after American ships attempting to open Korea to trade invaded Kanghwa Island, outside Seoul. The flag is on display at the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland.

The Pueblo "belongs to the United States Navy, and we should pursue all possible options to return her to a rightful resting place," Allard said.

Navy records show the Pueblo was in international waters when it was captured, although the North Koreans insist it was inside the Korean coastal zone. One person was killed in an explosion during the attack, and 10 of the 82 surviving crewmen were wounded. All 82 were held 11 months before being sent to South Korea on Christmas Eve.

The North Koreans display the ship as a trophy and a monument to the rocky relationship between the two nations.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential candidate, and other U.S. officials were given a tour of the Pueblo during a visit this month to collect the remains of American servicemen killed in the Korean War. (His reaction)

They were told that North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, had decreed that the ship should be used for "an anti-American education."

Members of President George W. Bush's administration who accompanied Richardson on his trip did not board the ship with Richardson and nongovernmental members of his entourage.

Rolls-Royce withdrawing from Sudan

Source: CNN, April 19, 2007.

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Britain's Rolls-Royce Plc will withdraw from doing business in Sudan, it said on Thursday, citing concerns about the crisis in Darfur.

"We have decided to discontinue our business there. ... We will progressively withdraw from support activities," said a spokesman for Rolls-Royce, which makes equipment used to pump oil by companies such as Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company.

"The reason for this is the increasing political and humanitarian concerns in Sudan. ... We are not in Darfur, but we are in the country," the spokesman said.

The move comes amid fresh pressure on Sudan to accept an enhanced peacekeeping force in Darfur to supplement an African Union mission that has been unable to stem years of violence.

On Wednesday, President George W. Bush warned Sudan's president he had one last chance to take steps to stop violence in Darfur or else the United States would impose sanctions and consider other punitive options.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the United States and the United Kingdom were set to begin discussions with partners on the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution on Sudan.

But U.N. ambassadors from Russia, China and South Africa told reporters in New York on Wednesday they did not believe the time for sanctions was right after Sudan agreed this week to let in some 3,000 extra peacekeepers.

Khartoum has balked at a proposed force of more than 20,000 African Union and U.N. troops and police to supplement 7,000-some African Union peacekeepers in Darfur.

At least 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been driven from their homes since 2003 when rebels took up arms against the government charging neglect.

The government responded with airstrikes and by arming militias to put down the rebellion. Those militias have been accused of abuses the United States has called genocide.

The Rolls-Royce spokesman said the company's operations in Sudan represented "a small percentage" of its marine business, which had sales of 1.3 billion pounds ($2.6 billion) last year accounting for 18 percent of Rolls-Royce's overall business.

He said there would be no need for Rolls to revise its financial guidance as a result of the withdrawal from Sudan.

Rolls-Royce, which was long famous for making luxury cars, now produces aircraft and ship engines as well as equipment used in the oil sector.

3000 more 'troops' is a joke. The 'troops' they have there now are not permitted to interfere with anyone raping, torturing, murdering or enslaving the citizens there now. What is 3000 more watchers going to do? This is disgusting.

KUDO's TO YOU, ROLlS-ROYCE!.

End Darfur violence or face sanctions, Bush tells Sudan

Source: CNN.
April 18, 2007.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush warned Sudan's president on Wednesday that he has one last chance to stop violence in Darfur or else the United States will impose sanctions and consider other punitive options.

Bush said he has decided to give U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon more time to pursue diplomacy with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir but made clear in a speech at the U.S. Holocaust Museum that his patience is limited.


"President Bashir should take the last chance by responding to the secretary general's efforts and to meet the just demands of the international community," Bush said.

Bush raised the possibility of an international no-fly zone aimed at preventing Sudan's military aircraft from flying over Darfur. He accused the Sudanese of painting military planes white to disguise them as United Nations or African Union aircraft.

"I'm also looking at what steps the international community could take to deny Sudan's government the ability to fly its military aircraft over Darfur, and if we don't begin to see signs of good-faith commitments, we will hear calls for even sterner measures. The situation doesn't have to come to that," Bush said.

Bush has been frustrated at the international community's failure to stop what he calls genocide in Darfur, where more than 200,000 400,000 people have been killed since 2003.

Warren Buffett and Darfur (it isn't good)

Sudan divestment movement targets Berkshire Hathaway's China oil holdings, reports Fortune's Marc Gunther.

By Marc Gunther, Fortune senior writer
April 18 2007

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Could Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway be helping to support genocide in Darfur?

The Sudan divestment movement, which has persuaded dozens of universities and state governments to sell holdings of companies doing business in Sudan, says Berkshire (Charts, Fortune 500) should do the same. Buffett is resisting. The legendary investor will tangle with his critics over the issue on May 5 at the company's annual meeting in Omaha.

It should be a fascinating debate. Berkshire has become a target of the divestment campaign because it owns 2.3 billion shares of PetroChina Co. (Charts),

China and Sudan are engaged in a marriage of convenience. For its part, China gets oil - Beijing purchased more than half of Sudan's oil exports in 2005. China's growing demand for energy has led the Chinese to cultivate close relationships with many oil-rich African nations.

In return, Sudan gets money, weapons and political backing from China. Because about 70 to 80 percent of Sudan's oil revenue is funneled into its military, China's oil assets in Sudan are "an undeniable and well-documented enabler of Khartoum's genocidal policy in Darfur," according to the Sudan Divestment Task Force.

As a member of the United Nations Security Council, China has also blocked efforts by the U.S. and Britain to apply stricter sanctions against Sudan. Between 200,000 and 400,000 people have been killed in Darfur, and millions more have been thrown out of their homes.

China's appetite for African oil grows.

Divestment activists say "targeted divestment" - aimed at companies like CNPC that have a business relationship with the government and have not taken a stand against the genocide - can help influence Sudan. The logic of this argument persuaded universities including Harvard, Yale and Stanford, the states of California, Illinois, New Hampshire and Iowa, and numerous religious institutions, to adopt divestment policies. (To see the state of the divestment movement, visit the Sudan Divestment Task Force's excellent Web site.) So-called socially responsible mutual funds also have sold their holdings in PetroChina. The Calvert family of funds went further, creating an online report aimed at helping people stop the violence in Darfur.

Harvard's decision to divest PetroChina is particularly significant because its $30 billion endowment fund rarely takes such action. Explaining its decision, The Harvard Corporation said:

"Although Harvard maintains a strong presumption against the divestment of stock for reasons unrelated to investment purposes, we believe that the case for divestment in this instance is persuasive."

Harvard said oil production is essential to the government's capacity to fund military operations. The university also looked at PetroChina, and its parent company, CNPC, and found considerable overlap. You can read the Harvard Corporation's statement here.

To his credit, Buffett has responded publicly (his response is available for download here, as a PDF file) to the divestment campaign and he has welcomed debate at the annual meeting - although he is under no obligation to do so. This is in contrast to Fidelity Investments, which remains a target of a divestment drive.

In Buffett's response, he argues, first, that PetroChina itself has no holdings in Sudan and that it does not control CNPC. "Subsidiaries have no ability to control the policies of their parent," he says.

He goes on to say that CNPC cannot "withdraw" its assets from Sudan since its assets consist of oil in the ground and the fixed infrastructure to transport and refine it. Should China sell those assets to the Sudanese government, the government would still be able to sell its oil on the world market. "Proponents of the Chinese government's divesting should then ask the most important question in economics, 'And then what?'" Buffett writes.

It's a fair question. Here are two possible answers. The first is that Sudan would try to buy out the Chinese, although the Khartoum government is already in deep debt. A second possibility is that other major investors in Sudan's oil, the state-owned oil companies of Malaysia and India, would step in. Either way, severing the economic ties between China and Sudan would have a significant benefit. As the Sudan Divestment Task Forces writes in response to Berkshire's response:

"The sale of CNPC's Sudan assets would remove China's economic incentive to enable Sudan's ongoing genocide. Even short of forcing divestiture of its Sudan assets, pressure on CNPC is likely to change China's approach towards Sudan diplomacy, especially given how highly China prizes its Sudan oil assets."

In truth, China is unlikely to divest, even under pressure from Berkshire. But the Chinese have shown lately that they may be vulnerable to pressure. A high-ranking Chinese official recently traveled to Darfur and urged the Sudanese government to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force. He appears to have done so after Hollywood activists - notably Mia Farrow - threatened to link the 2008 Beijing Olympics to the genocide. Film director Steven Spielberg, who is an artistic advisor to the Olympics, also condemned the genocide in a letter to President Hu Jintao of China. (See correction.)

So Buffett could, at a minimum, engage in discussions with PetroChina. He could ask that PetroChina and CNPC to use their influence to ask Sudan to allow in peacekeepers. He could speak to the Indians and the Malaysians and ask them to work with him. If all of that fails, he could then sell the stock - noisily.

Warren Buffett is, after all, much more than one of the world's great investors. He is a decent, generous man of unquestioned integrity. When he speaks, much of the world listens. He now has a platform to speak on behalf of victims of genocide. Why not take it?

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Spielberg was making a movie about the Olympics. CNNMoney.com regrets the error. Return to story.

Sudan accepts U.N. attack copters, 3,000 troops in Darfur

Source: CNN, April 16, 2007.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Sudan on Monday accepted the deployment of U.N. attack helicopters and 3,000 peacekeepers in Darfur, the first time it has allowed a significant injection of U.N. forces to help African troops struggling to bring peace to the region.

Sudanese Foreign Minister spokesman Ali Sadiq said Khartoum has accepted the so-called "second package" that outlines the deployment -- including the attack helicopters. The Sudanese government, however, had resisted a U.N. force in the past and frequently reversed its position.

"The heavy support package has been fully accepted by the Sudanese government, there is no more discussion," Sadiq told The Associated Press.

He said it was now up to the United Nations to decide when to deploy some 3,000 troops and the gunships to reinforce the African Union mission.

The United States had held off on imposing sanctions against Sudan to allow time for the government to decide to accept the U.N. plan, under which a joint force of U.N. and African Union peacekeepers would be deployed in Darfur.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador informed Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a letter that the government had approved the U.N. plan.

"It is the sincere hope of the Sudan that implementation of the heavy support package would proceed expeditiously," said Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem.

The current force of 7,000 AU peacekeepers has been unable to stop the fighting in a region the size of France or Texas. About 2.5 million people have been driven from their homes in Darfur and are living in poorly protected camps in the province and eastern Chad.

Until now, Sudan has said it will accept only a small number of U.N. security forces and equipment to support the AU mission. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has said the deployment of U.N. troops would violate Sudan's sovereignty. Many believe he fears the U.N. force would arrest Sudanese officials suspected of war crimes in Darfur.

More than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million have been displaced in the four-year conflict in Darfur, which began when rebels from ethnic African tribes rose up against the central government. The government is accused of responding by unleashing the janjaweed militias of Arab nomads -- blamed for indiscriminate killing. The government denies the charges.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, in Sudan as part of an international push to pressure the government over Darfur, on Monday reiterated accusations that the government in Khartoum was actively supporting the janjaweed militia.

"The government of Sudan must disarm the janjaweed, the Arab militias that we all know could not exist without the Sudanese government's active support," Negroponte said.

He also said Sudan was hindering international efforts to help the refugees.

"The denial of visas, the harassment of aid workers and other measures have created the impression that the government of Sudan is engaged in a deliberate campaign of intimidation," he said.

The United Nations and Sudan agreed in November on a three-stage plan to strengthen the undermanned and under-equipped AU peacekeeping force in Darfur. It was to culminate in the deployment of a joint AU-U.N. force with 17,000 troops and 3,000 police officers.

The first phase, a light support package including U.N. police advisers, civilian staff and additional resources and technical support, has already been sent to Darfur.

The U.N., AU and Sudan agreed on a second phase last Monday -- including more than 3,000 U.N. troops, police, and other personnel as well as substantial aviation and logistics equipment. But Sudan rejected a proposal to include six attack helicopters.

Sudan's approval of the helicopter component will now allow the heavy support package to be deployed.

Al-Bashir has backed off from the final stage, saying he would only allow a larger AU force, with technical and logistical support from the United Nations.

Report: Sudan agrees to U.N., AU troops

Source: CNN, April 15, 2007.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Sudan has signed a joint agreement with the United Nations and the African Union that defines their respective roles in Darfur, the official Saudi news agency reported.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir phoned Saudi King Abdullah and told him the Sudanese government had signed the agreement, the SPA news agency reported Sunday.

It quoted the king as saying the agreement "will support Sudan's unity, security, stability and peace." No additional details were provided.

In New York, U.N. deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe said she could not immediately confirm the Saudi report.

Abdullah, along with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Arab League chief Amr Moussa, met al-Bashir at an Arab summit in Riyadh last month to discuss the introduction of U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur.

The news came as Libya announced it will host representatives from the U.S. and several European and African countries in late April to discuss the crisis in Darfur.

The conference will be held in Tripoli on April 28th and will include officials from the U.S., the European Union, the African Union, Sudan, Chad and Eritrea, said Ali al-Teraiki, the AU representative in Libya's foreign ministry.

More than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.2 million forced to flee their homes in the four-year conflict in Darfur, which began when rebels from ethnic African tribes rose up against the central government. The government is accused of responding by unleashing the Janjaweed militias of Arab nomads -- blamed for indiscriminate killing. The government denies the charges.

The United Nations and Sudan agreed in November on a three-stage plan to strengthen the undermanned and underequipped AU peacekeeping force of 7,000 in Darfur. It was to culminate in the deployment of a joint AU-U.N. force with 17,000 troops and 3,000 police officers.

The first phase, a light support package including U.N. police advisers, civilian staff and additional resources and technical support, has already been sent to Darfur.

The U.N., AU and Sudan agreed on a second phase last Monday -- including more than 3,000 U.N. troops, police and other personnel as well as substantial aviation and logistics equipment. But Sudan rejected a proposal to include six attack helicopters.

Al-Bashir has backed off from the final stage, saying he would only allow a larger AU force, with technical and logistical support from the United Nations. He maintains that deployment of U.N. troops would violate Sudan's sovereignty.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Khartoum Sunday as part of the international push to persuade the government to accept the larger third-phase force. His visit comes as the United States is holding off on imposing sanctions against Sudan so negotiations can take place on the proposal.

On Monday, Ban is to host a meeting at U.N. headquarters attended by AU negotiators to try to get a political agreement on Darfur.

Excuse me, but this is not news. We already know that al-Bashir will not allow UN Peacekeepers into the country. We already know that al-Bashir is using the janjaweed to murder civillians in Darfur. So what is new? They had another dead-end meeting? They've been stringing everyone along since we screamed loud enough for you to hear us! Do Not Write Another Article Until You Have Some News.

African Union peacekeeper killed in Darfur

Source: CNN, April 15, 2007.

NYALA, Sudan (AP) -- Unidentified gunmen killed a Ghanaian military officer in the African Union's peacekeeping force in the Darfur region and hijacked his car within yards of the AU mission's headquarters, the AU said Sunday.

The officer was traveling alone in his vehicle when he was ambushed in the town of El Fasher late Saturday, AU spokesman Noureddine Mezni said.

The ambush took place hours after U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte visited the peacekeeper headquarters during his trip to push Sudan's government to let U.N. troops reinforce the AU mission. He was in the capital, Khartoum, on Sunday to meet with Sudanese officials.

The dead officer was the seventh peacekeeper slain this month, raising to 18 the number of AU soldiers killed since the mission deployed in 2004 to try to stop a brutal conflict between ethnic Africans and Arabs. An AU officer also has been a hostage since December.

"If this growing hostility continues, truly the mission will be compromised and we will have to take the necessary measures," Mezni told The Associated Press.

Mezni and other AU officials said they did not know the identity of the gunmen, who struck on the outskirts of El Fasher, a government-controlled town in North Darfur. The 7,000-soldier AU mission has had its headquarters there since deploying to Darfur in 2004.

Mezni said more than 90 vehicles have been hijacked from the AU since the beginning of the mission.

"The AU will not let itself be dragged into the conflict," he said. "This cannot happen. ... We came here to protect civilians. If this is becoming impossible, we will take appropriate measures."

Last week, one soldier from Rwanda's contingent in the AU mission was slain during a patrol in North Darfur and an AU car was stolen during the assault, which took place in a zone controlled by the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement, the AU said. Two other Rwandans were wounded.

Earlier this month, five Senegalese peacekeepers were killed in an ambush a day after the deputy commander of the AU force narrowly escaped being shot down in his helicopter as he flew to a meeting with rebels.

More than 200,000 [sic] [400,000 is more accurate] people have been killed in Darfur since 2003, when local rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated Sudanese government, accusing it of decades of discrimination against Darfur's ethnic Africans.

The International Criminal Court says the government retaliated by arming militias of Arab nomads known as the janjaweed, and has listed 51 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes against a Sudanese Cabinet minister and a suspected janjaweed chief.

Some rebels also have been accused of abuses. There are almost daily reports of vehicles being hijacked, aid workers assaulted and refugees harassed throughout Darfur, an arid region nearly the size of Texas where many areas are off-limits to the weakly armed AU peacekeepers.

The Sudanese government blocked a plan by the United Nations to replace them with a 22,000-strong U.N. force. But Sudan and the United Nations are now edging toward a compromise that would allow some 3,000 U.N. soldiers to deploy in Darfur as reinforcement to the AU force.