Paris pushes swift deployment of troops in Darfur

Source: CNN.

June 25, 2007.

PARIS, France (AP) -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed fast international action toward speeding up deployment of troops in Darfur, as key world players met Monday to try to consolidate efforts and resources for the ravaged Sudanese region.

Sudan was not invited to the one-day Paris conference, organized by a new French government that has made the four-year conflict in Darfur a top priority. The meetings come after Sudan agreed -- under international pressure -- to allow the deployment of a joint African Union-United Nations peacekeeping force in the region.

Sarkozy pledged an additional $13.4 million to the existing -- and cash-strapped -- African Union force. "Silence is killing," in Darfur, Sarkozy said in greeting participants to the conference.

"The lack of decision and the lack of action is unacceptable," he added.

He praised Sudan for agreeing to the hybrid force but insisted, "We must be firm toward belligerents who refuse to join the negotiating table."

Stepping up pressure for progress, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said Sunday night that the international community has fallen down on the job in Darfur.

Rice and Sarkozy had their first face-to-face talks since Sarkozy took over last month from Jacques Chirac.

Details about the composition, mandate and timetable of the joint force are expected to top discussions at Monday's meetings.

More than 200,000 people have died in the Darfur region of western Sudan and 2.5 million have become refugees since 2003, when local rebels took up arms against the Sudanese government, accusing it of decades of neglect. Sudan's government is accused of unleashing in response a militia of Arab nomads known as the janjaweed -- a charge Sudan denies.

The U.N. and Western governments had pressed Sudan for months to accept a plan for a large joint force of U.N. and AU peacekeepers to replace the overwhelmed 7,000-strong African force now in Darfur.

Sudan initially accepted the plan in November but then backtracked, before finally agreeing earlier this month. Rice warned Sudan's government not to renege on its agreement.

Bernard Kouchner, French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, insisted Sunday, "This is not a 'peacemaking' meeting, but on the contrary, a meeting to support the international efforts that have been deployed."

Kouchner, a Socialist who co-founded the aid group Doctors Without Borders, said "humanitarian work ... is not enough." He also noted that the world powers must agree to support the U.N. force financially.

"If there are 20,000 forces who are in the hybrid force, whoever they are, they must be paid," he said.

The conference includes Rice, Kouchner, officials from the United Nations including Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, the Arab League and the European Union, as well as 11 European countries, Egypt and China.

Notable absences, other than Sudan, include the African Union and neighboring Chad, which has seen an influx of tens of thousands of people fleeing Darfur and is a key conduit for aid.

China is viewed as a power broker in Sudan because of its heavy investment in the country. China has long opposed harsh measures against Sudan over Darfur.

Beijing has dramatically stepped up efforts to end the violence in Darfur in the wake of mounting criticism that threatened to taint the 2008 Olympic Games, which it is hosting.

China has not received a formal request to send soldiers for the AU-U.N. peacekeeping mission, but officials have said the country is open to contributing troops.

France had long been less vocal than the United States, Britain and others in pushing for peace in the region, but Sarkozy has made Darfur a foreign policy priority since taking office last month.

Australia to transform naval forces

Source: CNN.

June 20, 2007.

CANBERRA, Australia (Reuters) -- Australia will build an A$11 billion ($9 billion) fleet of advanced destroyers and amphibious warships, Prime Minister John Howard said, underscoring the country's plan to remain a key Asian military power.

The purchases would transform Australia's navy into one of the most powerful in the Asia region, with two amphibious carriers able to land more than 2,000 troops, 16 attack and transport helicopters and up to 23 Abrams tanks.

"They will greatly enhance Australia's ability to send forces in strength when required, particularly in our own region, but not restricted to our own region," Howard told a media briefing on Wednesday.

Howard said his government had agreed to buy three Spanish-designed F100 air warfare destroyers at a cost of A$8 billion, to be built in Adelaide by Australian firm ASC, U.S. firm Raytheon and Spanish government-shipyard Navantia.

The 6,000-ton warships will be equipped with advanced U.S. Aegis radars and may one day carry SM 3 missiles as part of U.S. and Japanese efforts to build a ballistic missile shield in Asia, in order to guard against threats like a nuclear-armed North Korea.

Two 27,000-ton amphibious warships, also Navantia designs, would be built in Victoria state in partnership with Australian defense firm Tenix, with the first to enter service with the Royal Australian Navy by 2012, Howard said.

The Navantia destroyers beat a larger and more costly rival U.S. design, while the amphibious warships were preferred over a smaller French design.

Asia-Pacific focus.

Australia has in recent years increased defense spending above A$20 billion a year amid concerns about growing instability in the Asia-Pacific, with a A$50 billion military buy-up already underway, including advanced F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

The new destroyers, with a range of more than 5,000 nautical miles, could also be equipped with Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles, local media said.

Canberra, its defense budget fattened by strong commodity exports, is also purchasing cruise missiles for fighter aircraft, including recently purchased F-18 Super Hornets.

Several nations, including Thailand and Indonesia, have warned of a possible regional arms race spurred by Australia's buy-up.

But Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia needed a strong defense force and the ability to deploy overseas quickly.

"It's not that we have hostile intent towards anybody," Downer told local television.

Defense Minister Brendan Nelson said the five new ships would ensure Australia would be able to undertake "security stabilization" alongside key ally the United States.

Almost 28,000 U.S. and Australian troops this week began a major exercise across Australia's northern coastline involving an aircraft carrier battle group, tanks and and nuclear submarines. Canberra has around 1,500 troops in and around Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition, as well as a special forces task group in Afghanistan and peacekeepers in East Timor.

N. Korea's frozen $20M on the move

Source: CNN, June 15, 2007.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- Money at the heart of a dispute that caused North Korea to delay its nuclear disarmament was finally making its way Friday to the communist nation after months of delay.

The transfer of funds previously frozen in a Macau bank could lead North Korea to start shutting down its nuclear weapons program. But the North is certain to want to count every last penny of its $25 million before fulfilling a February pledge to stop making atomic bombs.

"The transfer is in progress," South Korea's chief nuclear envoy, Chun Yung-woo, told reporters Friday. "Let's wait and see how long it takes for North Korea to confirm it."

Chun, arriving from Washington where he met his U.S. counterpart over the nuclear standoff, did not provide further details of the transfer. He said resolving the bank dispute constitutes "removing the first obstacle to implementing" the February disarmament deal.

"The future task of denuclearization is much more difficult than the (banking) issue," he said.

The money had been frozen at Macau's Banco Delta Asia since 2005, when the U.S. blacklisted the bank for allegedly helping the Pyongyang regime pass fake US$100 bills and launder money from weapons sales.

The North made the money's release its main condition for disarmament and boycotted international nuclear talks for more than a year, during which it conducted its first-ever bomb test in October.

But to win the North's promise to start dismantling its nuclear program, the U.S. agreed to give its blessing for the money to be freed and said it would happen within 30 days. The transfer has instead taken more than four months as the North insisted that it be sent electronically to another bank, apparently to prove the money is now clean.

Macau's secretary of economy and finance said Thursday the money has been transferred, but it remained unclear if it was the entire amount or whether it had reached its destination.

"Banco Delta Asia transferred more than $20 million out of the bank this afternoon in accordance with the client's instruction," Francis Tam told reporters on the sidelines of a business gathering.

North Korea could seize on any shortage of funds to hold off on disarmament. Since the latest nuclear standoff began in late 2002, Pyongyang has repeatedly displayed its profound lack of trust of the U.S. and blamed any sign of American hostility as a reason to stall arms talks.

The North did not yet comment on the transfer.

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki on Friday pressed Pyongyang to take concrete action regardless of the fund issue.

"We strongly urge North Korea to carry out the measures they have committed to as early as possible regardless of the" bank issue, he said.

Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso expressed skepticism that the money transfer would immediately resolve the deadlock, Kyodo News agency reported.

"Even though the fund transfer problem is resolved, North Korea could come up with more demands," Aso said. "There is no guarantee we can resume the six-party talks right away."

Negotiators from China, Japan, Russia, the U.S. and the two Koreas last all met for arms talks in March.

Advertisers not wary of 'Genocide Olympics'

Source: CNN, June 13, 2007.

Despite a possible backlash against China for its investments in Sudan, some media buyers say marketers will still embrace next year's Olympics.

By Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Summer Olympic Games in Beijing are more than a year away. But a growing backlash against China's ties to the government of Sudan could have some major consequences for GE (Charts, Fortune 500) and its NBC Universal entertainment division, which will broadcast the Olympics in the U.S., as well as several high profile corporate sponsors.

Actress and human rights activist Mia Farrow, who also acts as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Goodwill Ambassador, has been referring to next year's games as the "Genocide Olympics," due to the conflict in Dafrur that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

China has invested heavily in Sudan's oil industry and some have argued that the country has not exerted as much influence as it could to stop the violence in Darfur.

Farrow has urged people to contact sponsors of the Olympics to ask them to withhold their corporate support of the games until there is a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Darfur.

China's new cultural revolution

Members of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate sent separate strongly worded letters to Chinese president Hu Jintao last month saying that unless the Chinese government steps up pressure on Sudan to curb the violence in Darfur, China risks tarnishing its image before the Olympics.

The letter from the House warned that the Olympics could be a "disaster" marred by protests.

And Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and Democratic presidential candidate, suggested in a debate with other candidates earlier this month that the U.S. might want to consider boycotting the Olympics if China doesn't do more to stop the bloodshed in Darfur.

A representative for NBC was not immediately available for comment about how a possible boycott or protests could affect the company. GE (Charts, Fortune 500) is also a sponsor of next summer's Olympics.

Coca-Cola (Charts, Fortune 500), one of the top sponsors of the games, said in a statement e-mailed to CNNMoney.com that the company "has been sponsoring the Olympic Games since 1928 and believes that the ideals of the Olympic Movement of building a better world through sport, friendship and fair play are more relevant than ever. Our sponsorship allows these positive messages to reach a broader audience and inspire both athletes and spectators. The Coca-Cola Company does not have a role in the internal policy decisions of sovereign nations such as China and the Sudan."

Coca-Cola added that it recently gave $750,000 to the Red Cross and Red Crescent for humanitarian relief in Darfur and that the company has no direct foreign investment in Sudan and does not conduct business with the country's government.

Representatives for other big sponsors, including Lenovo and Visa and Eastman Kodak (Charts, Fortune 500), were not available for comment.

But a Hong Kong-based spokeswoman for Manulife (Charts), the insurance company that owns John Hancock and is also a Olympic sponsor, said in an e-mail with CNNMoney.com that the company has so far not received any calls or complaints about the company's involvement with the Olympics.

A spokesman for the U.S. subsidiary of Panasonic, another Olympics sponsor, said Panasonic, which is owned by Japanese consumer electronics giant Matsushita (Charts), had no comment about the controversy and referred CNNMoney.com to Ben Seeley, a spokesman for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in Switzerland. Seeley was also not immediately available for comment.

The Olympics are a multi-million dollar marketing opportunity for sponsors, as the games tend to attract large worldwide audiences. And the stakes are particularly high for NBC, which just finished in fourth place in the ratings race for the third consecutive season, and is clearly in sore need of improved ratings.

Warren Buffett and Darfur

At last month's upfront presentation to media buyers and advertisers in New York, NBC spent a sizable chunk of time at the end of the event touting the Summer Games.

Yet, several media buyers said, that so far, the Sudan issue does not appear to be playing a major role in determining whether or not marketers want to buy commercial time during the Olympics.

"It's still a little early but I have not heard any concerns or backlash yet," said Andy Donchin, director of national broadcast with Carat USA, a media buying firm based in New York.

However, the possibility of more protests are something to keep an eye on.

"Politics and controversy are always a concern with the Olympics but at this point, it's sort of below the surface. I haven't heard of any specific advertisers that are worried about it because it's not top of mind yet," said Bill Carroll, a vice president and director of programming with Katz Television Group, a consulting and media buying firm based in New York.

That may change though.

"This is an issue that bears watching. Any time there is a negative dynamic associated with something as positive as the Olympics, it's one of many concerns that a network and advertisers could have," said John Rash, senior vice president and director of broadcast negotiations with Campbell Mithun, a media buying firm based in Minneapolis.

Carroll agreed, adding that if stories about China's association with Sudan becomes even more prevalent in the coming months, some advertisers might not be eager to have ties to an event referred to as the "Genocide Olympics."

NBC: No big comeback

"If China and Darfur becomes a more contentious situation then advertisers may want to avoid getting in the middle of it. Obviously, advertisers respond to their consumers. If there is a negative reaction to being an Olympics sponsor, advertisers will have to consider that," Carroll said.

But one sports marketing expert said some advertisers are still a little wary of becoming involved in the Olympics but not for political reasons.

John Rowady, president of rEvolution, a sports marketing and media company based in Chicago, said some of his firm's clients have expressed reluctance about the Olympics merely because China is a relatively new and untapped market for marketers.

So while some companies may not want to aggressively market in China itself, Rowady doesn't think fears of a backlash will effect domestic spending on advertising associated with the games.

"A lot of people are sitting on the fence to determine what their plans should be for the Olympics. Many companies may skip the Olympics just because they won't feel comfortable marketing in China just yet and not due to politics," he said. *.

Read FORTUNE's Chasing the Dragon blog about China.
Bush announces sanctions against Sudan.

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.

The State Department yields (again) to North Korea

Source: Opinion Journal Online.
April 13, 2007.

Tomorrow is the 60-day deadline for North Korea to come clean about its nuclear program, and it will be fascinating to see how much it admits. On the evidence of the last week, however, don't be surprised if Kim Jong Il concludes that the Bush Administration will accept whatever he declares.

The U.S. has sent precisely that signal by succumbing to the dictator's demands that the U.S. release $25 million gained by North Korea's criminal enterprises. The money comes from 52 North Korean accounts at Banco Delta Asia, a little bank in the Chinese territory of Macau. Macau froze the funds 18 months ago at the behest of the U.S. Treasury.

The U.S. had originally agreed to release half of the money in return for North Korea's February promise to give up its nuclear weapons program. But Treasury initially said it would not release some $12.5 million that was the clear product of such illegal activity as drug trafficking, money laundering, missile proliferation and a huge counterfeiting operation in hundred-dollar U.S. bills. The money was to go into a fund for humanitarian use in North Korea.

In its report on the Macau bank released last month, Treasury cited the "routine use" of couriers to ferry huge sums of currency in and out of the bank, to the tune of $50 million by a single depositor in 2002. It said individuals and entities with ties to North Korea have been linked to "trade in counterfeit U.S. currency, counterfeit cigarettes, and narcotics." That includes companies suspected of laundering "hundreds of millions of dollars in cash" through Banco Delta Asia.

Not surprisingly, North Korea immediately declared that it would refuse any further negotiation until the U.S. turned over the entire $25 million. Also not surprisingly, the State Department argued that the U.S. should do so lest the nuclear talks fall apart. President Bush agreed with State, and Macau lifted its hold on the money this week.

The Bush Administration is selling this dirty-money deal as a requirement of diplomatic realism and a price that must be paid for the larger strategic goal of getting North Korea to cooperate. But it's also true that the U.S. is allowing Kim to get away with his ill-gotten gains. Only weeks after the Treasury laid out a detailed rap sheet, the U.S. says never mind.

The bigger issue is the message this sends about the "arms control" process now under way. Under the February deal, Kim is obliged to shut down the nuclear facility at Yongbyon and disclose all of his nuclear programs and weapons. He is also obliged to open all of those to international inspection before the U.S. and other countries give him any more aid or money. But Pyongyang's pattern has long been to admit as little as possible every step of the way, and then insist that the U.S. must make further concessions at every instance. By caving on the $25 million, the U.S. is telling Kim he can keep playing this game.

Japan has the better idea. This week it extended its sanctions for another six months--no imports of North Korean products, no port visits by North Korean ships. Last month it testified at the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs about the North's illegal trade in amphetamines. Under the February nuclear deal, it is refusing aid to the North until Pyongyang provides information on the Japanese citizens it abducted and may still be holding.

Meanwhile, life for the 23 million North Koreans is, if anything, grimmer than ever. There were reports of famine this winter. The authorities are cracking down harder on Koreans who flee to China seeking food or work and are caught and repatriated, according to a new report by Human Rights Watch. The South Korean press reports that Pyongyang has ordered its diplomats stationed abroad to send their children home, apparently to help prevent defections. The return of the $25 million will only help Kim reinforce his control.

Assuming Pyongyang even meets tomorrow's deadline, the U.S. will have to decide how much it can believe the North Korean declaration. The goal should be dismantling North Korea's entire nuclear program, not continuing arms-control negotiation for its own sake.

North Korea disarmament deadline slips

Source: CNN.
April 14, 2007.

BEIJING, China (AP) -- The U.S. envoy to North Korea's nuclear talks said Saturday that a two-month-old disarmament plan lacks "momentum" as North Korea failed to meet a deadline for shutting down its main nuclear reactor and processing facility.

"We don't have a lot of momentum right now. That is for sure," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told reporters before meeting his Chinese counterpart, Wu Dawei.

The disarmament plan, reached in February after nearly four years of arduous negotiations, laid out a timetable for North Korea to dismantle its nuclear programs. The plan was unexpectedly disrupted by a dispute over frozen North Korean funds in a Macau bank that Washington said this past week was finally resolved.

On Friday, Hill did not say what the consequences would be if the North missed the Saturday deadline.

"There is no reason why the DPRK can't get on with the task of denuclearization," said Hill, using the official name of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

"We are not indifferent to missing a deadline. Obviously it is a very important date," he said. "We will work with our other partners on the appropriate response to the current circumstances."

As part of the disarmament agreement, the North was supposed to gain access to $25 million in frozen funds at the Banco Delta Asia bank in the Chinese territory of Macau. The bank was blacklisted by Washington in September 2005 for allegedly helping the North launder money and pass counterfeit $100 bills.

The funds were unblocked this week, but North Korea's Foreign Ministry said Friday it was still confirming the release. The Ministry said the country would carry out its side of the February agreement "when the lifting of the sanction is proved to be a reality."

North Korea alarmed the world in October when it conducted its first-ever underground nuclear test. After a 13-month boycott of nuclear talks, it agreed in February with the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia to give up its nuclear programs in exchange for energy aid and political concessions, along with a U.S. promise to resolve the bank issue.

Macau's Monetary Authority, which has taken control of the bank, has been tightlipped about the process of releasing the frozen funds.

But Hill said Friday that the U.S. considered the problem resolved.

"It's certainly worrisome to all of us to see them approaching this date rather lethargically. ... We understood their concerns about the banking issue and frankly those concerns have been met," he said.

U.S. officials and experts say the process of shutting down a reactor and having U.N. nuclear inspectors verify it would take at least several days -- making it virtually impossible for the North to meet the Saturday deadline.

"It's a technical question, but it does not take that long," Hill said. "We're not talking months or anything like that. There should be no reason to go slow in this process."

He would not say how long the other countries would wait for North Korea to act on its promises.

"I don't want to put a date or an hour, but another month is not in my constitution," he said.

The only immediate cost the impoverished North would suffer for not shutting the reactor by the deadline would be an initial 50,000 ton shipment of heavy fuel oil promised as a reward. That shipment was part of 1 million tons of oil it would get for dismantling its nuclear program.

However, it is unlikely the U.S. or other countries would take any punitive action, as Washington also failed to resolve the bank issue within 30 days as promised.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, was still awaiting an invitation from North Korea for a preliminary visit, a diplomat familiar with the issue said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

After a visit by two senior IAEA officials to establish procedures for an inspection tour, the agency's board would meet to approve the first return of inspectors since December 2002, when North Korea kicked them out and quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The process could take weeks.

All eyes on North Korea nuke action

Source: CNN.

(CNN) -- The United States will assess on Saturday whether North Korea has taken action to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, now that the communist nation has gained access to unfrozen funds, said U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

"It's now up to them, and we have to see," said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. envoy involved in nuclear talks with North Korea. "If they don't fulfill their obligations here, we'll know that very soon, and we'll have to deal with that accordingly."

Under a deal announced on February, North Korea said it would disarm its nuclear facilities in return for energy, financial and humanitarian aid. The agreement followed six-party talks involving the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

A major sticking point was the $25 million in North Korean funds, claimed by the United States to contain money from illegal activities, that had been frozen at the Banco Delta Asia in Macau since late 2005.

North Korea said it would close the nuclear reactor 30 days after the money was released, which occurred on Wednesday. (Full story)

"The problem in giving the money back to these accounts is, the North Koreans have not started the process of denuclearization," Hill said. (why the release of funds is so significant)

"We've made it clear to them that we're going to be watching carefully," Hill said. "They are really on notice."

The process of shutting down the reactor and reprocessing facility should be completed in a matter of weeks, Hill said.

Asked about whether North Korea may seek a 30-day extension, Hill said, "I just don't think it's very helpful to talk about extensions of any time at this point." The focus, he said, needs to be on starting the process of shutting down the reactor.

Concerns about keeping the money from going to "nefarious people for nefarious purposes" have been communicated to North Korea, and Pyongyang has pledged to work to keep that from happening, Hill said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said North Korea is willing to let its monitors verify the shutdown of the Yongbyon facility.

The release of North Korea's frozen funds coincided with a four-day trip by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a presidential contender, to bring the remains of U.S. soldiers from the Korean War home. He left North Korea Wednesday with the remains of six U.S. soldiers, according to the communist nation's official news agency, KCNA. (Details)

"I am optimistic North Korea will shut down their reactor and return to six-party talks ... after our discussions," Richardson said. "Now the ball is in North Korea's court to take the next important steps."

The United States halted oil shipments to Pyongyang after North Korea admitted in October 2002 that it was developing a nuclear-weapons program in violation of the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea.

Such oil shipments would resume under the February agreement.

The Corporate Puplic Broadcasting Saga Continues

Below you find the transcript of Glenn Beck Show, CNN Headline News, 11 April 2007. The struggle to confront CPB and force them to release the film that Frank Gaffney and others have created so that we the people may view it and decide for ourselves. I have learned oh so much more. You should really read this transcript. Don't forget to read to this also: Producer: PBS dropped 'Islam vs. Islamists' on political grounds. Have a nice day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Welcome to the "Real Story."

Last fall, I aired a special on radical Islam. It was called "Exposed: The Extremist Agenda." Got to tell you, that got so many people I mean just out of their minds and nuts. I found out quickly about the extraordinarily powerful and influential groups in this country that want to make sure that you only see one side of Islam. And, believe me, I heard from every single one of those groups.

For the first time in my life, I really started to understand how political correctness and personal agendas are silencing the voices of moderate Muslims and those in the media who want to speak out about a perversion of a religion. That`s why I was so glad when I originally heard that PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service, had spent millions of taxpayer dollars to finance an 11-part documentary series called "America at a Crossroads," to, quote, "explore the challenges confronting the post-9/11 world."

Well, one of the 11 parts, the most interesting, at least to me, was one called "Islam versus Islamists." This is just another word for extremist. This episode focused on how moderate Muslims everywhere, from the U.S. to the U.K. to France , are clashing with Muslim fundamentalists.

But the real story is, you`re probably never, ever going to see this documentary. PBS says they`re delaying the release because the film, quote, "is a mess." They say it has no structure. It wasn`t ready in time. It`s weak. It`s incoherent. Bladdy, bladdy, bladdy, bladdy. I got two pages from PBS explaining.

To be honest with you, after reading their explanation, if I hadn`t have gone through the "Exposed" experience on the program, I probably would have been inclined to believe them. Unfortunately, I`ve seen how these things work from inside the newsroom.

What you have to understand -- and you`ll only get this from standing in a newsroom -- is there are two completely different schools of thought on who`s responsible for radical Islam. There are those that believe from the West and poverty causes the problem and, in some cases, we deserve everything we get, while others, like me, tend to blame the madrassas, the culture of hate, the extremists themselves who are only interested in a political agenda.

That clash of ideas is real, and it is happening in newsroom all over the globe. And I bet you that PBS is no different. But unlike the others who will take this material on, PBS has another problem. It`s called government money.

When you`re a taxpayer program, when you are funded by you and me, there`s another level of political correctness that you have got to worry about or else you run the risk of alienating enough people, and you put yourself out of business. That`s why I think the real story is simple: PBS is frightened.

They are scared of the groups that will inevitably threaten them with the boycotts, lawsuits. More importantly, they are scared of a lobbying campaign in Congress that could threaten their very funding. When your budget is at stake, it is only natural to stay away from controversy. But let me ask you this: Where is the controversy?

Why is it OK for me to show what the media calls a firebrand radical cleric that is spewing hate against the West, but it somehow or another is controversial for me to show a Muslim denouncing that same cleric? Why can we run Osama bin Laden`s latest propaganda video on the 6:00 news, but everybody`s got to walk on egg shells if we want to put on a Muslim who says that`s not what the Koran says, the Koran preaches peace?

There are two sides to every story, and PBS has one, but my gut and my honestly limited experience tell me that the truth lies closer to the filmmakers. Of course, there is an easy way to settle this. We called PBS. Let me see the film. PBS, I`ll watch it with an open mind. Let me look at it. If it is incoherent or just really unbalanced -- honestly, I hope you`re right. I`ll get that message out for you. I hope the film is a mess, because that means it`s being pulled for a plot, not politics.

Unfortunately, knowing what I know, I sincerely doubt that`s the case, and PBS ain`t going to show it to me. Martyn Burke is the film`s producer. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is from American Islamic Forum on Democracy. He is one of the moderate voices featured in this documentary and a new contributor to this program.

Martyn, let me start with you. You believe your film is being tampered with in ways that undermine journalistic independence. What does that mean exactly?

MARTYN BURKE, PRODUCER, "ISLAM VS. ISLAMISTS": Yes, well, I`ll give you one example. We were doing an investigative report on how the Nation of Islam, the so-called black Muslims, in Chicago were being funded by the Saudi Arabian fundamentalists through the Saudi embassy in Washington , D.C. And PBS, through WETA, the flagship station in Washington, appointed an adviser to oversee our efforts, and that adviser was from the Nation of Islam.

BECK: My gosh.

BURKE: I have never, ever heard of an investigative unit having to report to a person from the very place they are investigating. That was the first thing. And, of course, we protested that. We said, "This is just not journalism as we understand it in America."

BECK: OK. So everybody knows, let me just give a quick highlight of who you are. You`re the guy who did the documentary on the "Pirates of Silicon Valley." I mean, you`re not some jokester. You`re not me doing a special. And you had real, credible journalists on this project with you.

BURKE: Yes. Well, if I can even take that a step further, we hired a team which included a Pulitzer Prize nominee from last year for his coverage of Islam in Europe . We had a woman and her team from Toronto , Canada , from "The Toronto Star," who were profiled in the "New York Times" as being one of the top journalistic teams in this field.

We had investigative reporters from Scandinavia who had won every award in their field. This was a first-rate team, which we had to -- which we, my partners, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev , had to convince them and they had to convince us. This was a rigorous interpretation of the facts.

BECK: All right. Zuhdi, what was it that was in this that America is just not going to see?

DR. M. ZUHDI JASSER, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY: It was basically about, I believe, the struggle of moderates and why -- you know, when you ask, where the moderate voices? Martyn basically interviewed some of the imams, interviewed some of the leading Muslim propagandists locally that have tried to suffocate our voice at the American Islamic Forum that don`t want me to get out the fact that I love the spirituality of my faith and I want to raise my kids Muslim, but I don`t want them to hijack my faith for their political motives and their political agenda.

BECK: Let me further this with you, because you are, in many ways, to Muslims, you are a credible voice, where PBS came back to me today and said, "Irshad Manji is on." And I love Irshad Manji. She`s been on this program. But I will tell you that, because of her lifestyle, a lot of Muslims say, "Well, she`s not really a Muslim," et cetera, et cetera.

You are a guy who lives every word of the Koran in all of its ways, correct?

JASSER: Yes. I mean, you could call me a social conservative even. And, you know, I love the spirituality, but my choice to live socially conservative is mine alone. It should not be governments`. It should not be the imams`. And they`ve stolen our pulpits for their political agenda. And when we get a story, a documentary that shows how the only pulpit I have to speak from is the media, they want to suffocate that and not let the world hear about it.

BECK: Martyn, your film was called irresponsible because it`s alarmist and unfair. How much danger do you think -- you`ve been in this business for a while -- how much danger do you think there is when there`s this kind of political correctness and pressure going on to get another side out of a story? How much trouble are we in?

BURKE: Glenn, first of all, the comments on our film became increasingly hysterical from the PBS people after we decided we were not going to be apologists for the Islamists who are silencing the moderate Muslims around the world.

And by silencing, I mean, we traipsed around Paris with a guy that had police protection 24 hours a day. We spent time with a member of parliament over in Denmark who is under police guard because he is a member of parliament. The Islamists do not want their own to participate in democracy.

And, by the way, a very important thing that you mentioned. They will call people like Zuhdi not real Muslims, because he believes in a Western way of life, because he believes in democracy and separation of church and state.

And, by the way, that`s exactly what PBS is doing to them. They sort of have told us, in so many words, that people like Zuhdi have become Westernized so they can`t really be Muslims. This small group -- and I want to emphasize, it`s a small group within WETA and PBS -- have decided they speak for the Muslims.

BECK: OK. Let me ask you this, because there was -- when we did "The Extremist Agenda," I mean, I`m not kidding you, people were on the phone trying to get the special pulled all the way until it aired. There are people who vehemently disagree. Do you believe it was out of fear or these people just say, "It`s not that big of a problem"?

What`s their motivation for this, do you believe?

BURKE: I think there are two different reasons. One is, I committed the unforgivable sin in their eyes of being partnered with two conservatives, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev . And shortly after they took over the series, they flew to Toronto , Canada , where I was for a while and met me and said, "Fire your partners."

I said, "Wait a minute. I did a film on the Hollywood 10, on blacklisting in Hollywood , and I am not about to fire my partners for their political beliefs." And they uttered a statement that I never thought I would hear in America . They said, "Don`t you check into the political beliefs of the people you work with?"

BECK: Oh, my gosh.

BURKE: For the record, I just want to say, I couldn`t have cared less about the politics of the people we put on the air in this show, or I say on the air advisedly, because I have socialists, I have people who are conservatives on the air. It did not matter what their politics were.

BECK: OK.

BURKE: They were the moderate Muslims who had a right to speak out.

BECK: Martyn, Zuhdi, I would love to spend more time on this subject. I`d like to invite you to the radio program tomorrow. Let`s try to work that out, and thanks.

That is "The Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to read more about this or if you`ve found a real story of your own, please tell us about it. Go to Glenn Beck and click on "The Real Story" button. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)