Argentine Ship to set sail Again– Govt

The government of Ghana is set to release an Argentine ship which was confiscated upon reaching the shores of Ghana following a court’s ruling in October in favour of a financial fund named NML Capital.

Mr Chris Kpodo

In a release signed by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Chris Kpodo, Saturday December 15, the Government of Ghana says it would, in accordance with ruling by the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, unconditionally release the Argentine ARA Libertad and ensure that the ships Commander and crew are able to leave the maritime areas of jurisdiction of Ghana.

Read the full statement below;

The Government of Ghana has noted the unanimous decision by the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea in Hamburg today, 15 December, 2012 to the effect that Ghana shall forthwith and unconditionally release the Argentine frigate ARA Libertad and shall ensure that the ARA Libertad Commander and crew are able to leave the Port of Tema and the maritime areas of jurisdiction of Ghana and the frigate resupplied to that end.

The Government of Ghana has taken careful note of the Tribunal’s Order.

It is pertinent to recall that the arrest of the Argentine vessel arises from a dispute between Argentina and a private foreign company. The Government of Ghana is not a party to that dispute.

The Ghana High Court decision to detain the ARA Libertad placed the Government of Ghana in a very delicate situation on the account of the strong and positive relations we enjoy with Argentina. The Government of Ghana has always maintained that it does not consider itself to be in dispute with Argentina.

Ghana cherishes its democratic credentials with a democratically elected government firmly committed to the rule of law and utmost respect for the separation of powers. It is for this reason that the Government of Ghana was bound to respect the decision of the High Court in Accra to detain the ARA Libertad. Under the terms of Ghana’s Constitution the executive branch of Government must have regard to the independence of the Ghanaian judiciary. Ghana also respects international obligations on the rule of law including the requirements to guarantee the independence of the judiciary.

However, inasmuch as we are firmly committed to the rule of law and our own Constitution, we are also firmly committed to our international obligations. The Government of Ghana will carefully consider the Tribunal’s Order with a view to ensuring that it is given effect, having regard to the requirements of the Constitution and the country’s international obligations.

It is regrettable that this matter has come to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”).

The Government of Ghana reiterates that all possible measures have been taken to preserve the health and safety of the 44 sailors on board the vessel. The Ports and Harbours Authority is providing the Argentine sailors access to all necessary facilities at the Port of Tema. The sailors themselves are not in detention and are free to go from the vessel as they please.
EDITORIAL

Oh No, NPP

At a “keep-fit” rally in Kumasi last Sunday, the NPP announced that it would hold a mass demonstration in Kumasi against the result of the presidential elections and present a petition to the Asantehene.

After all the denials by the NPP that it is essentially an Ashanti-based party within their ranks, the party is now confirming that it is nothing more  than a group of tribal zealots who have managed to deceive some non-Ashanti  provocateurs to join their ranks. The party is confirming that the Baffuor Akoto project, which began with the tribalistic National Liberation Movement and which sought Ashanti colonization of the rest of the land called Ghana is still alive.

The NPP is marching to the Manhyia Palace today to seek the approval of the Asantehene to unleash violence on non-Twi speakers just as they did in the 1950s.

In today's adventure by these Ashanti dogmatists, it would be in the interest of the Asantehene and the Asanteman Council to advice their people to go home and seek any perceived redress through the Constitution.

By its action, the NPP is  virtually saying that it considers the Asantehene as the King of Ghana who should perhaps come to Accra and overturn the results in favour of their Oyoko clansman.

If the Asantehene   gives succor to the NPP demonstrators, it would be an eye-opener to other groups within the country, who would feel justified to defend their ethnic groups against any hegemony.

Perhaps someone should educate the NPP tribalists that the Asantehene is not the Electoral Commissioner to decide who won and who did not win.

The NPP are marching to the Manhyia Palace today to seek the approval of the Asantehene to unleash violence on non-Twi speakers just as they did in the 1950s.

In today's adventure by these Ashanti dogmatists, it would be in the interest of the Asantehene and the Asanteman Council to advice their people to go home and seek any perceived redress through the Constitution.

By their action, the NPP are virtually saying that they consider the Asantehene as the King of Ghana who should perhaps come to Accra and overturn the results in favour of their Oyoko clansman.

If the Asantehene   gives succor to the NPP demonstrators, it would be an eye-opener to other groups within the country, who would feel justified to defend their ethnic groups against any hegemony.

Perhaps someone should educate the NPP tribalists that the Asantehene is not the Electoral Commissioner to decide who won and who did not win.

CPP CHAIRPERSON SPEAKS ON 2012 ELECTIONS

The Convention People’s Party (CPP) congratulates His Excellency John Dramani Mahama on his election as President of Ghana, the Electoral Commission for conducting the 2012 general elections, and all political parties that participated in the process.

We also commend all the people of Ghana who exercised their democratic right to uphold our democracy. It is our sincere hope that all questions of fairness in the process will be resolved quickly so we can maintain a sense of national consensus and cohesion.

Hon. Samia Yaba Nkrumah

Ghana has now seen six successful elections since 1992 and it is our hope that our country remains a place of peace and a beacon of democracy in the region.

We thank all the members and supporters of the CPP and in the words of Maya Angelou, “While one may encounter many defeats, one must not be defeated.” 

Despite this year’s major setback to our political project, we are continuing to uphold the principles of truth, sincerity and integrity in our politics. We are continuing to represent the ordinary Ghanaian who wants social justice and a higher standard of living and freedom from economic hardship.

The result of the election is not in any way a reflection of the calibre of our candidates from Parliamentary to the Presidential level, nor a rejection of our policies. Whilst the election campaign was fought on issues, the voting was not based on issues, but on the polarised nature of our politics and attendant tactical voting.

For the last few decades, those who have been pushing forward the revival of Kwame Nkrumah’s vision for Ghana and Africa have faced many challenges. 

This election year has presented the leadership of the CPP with particular challenges that made it impossible for us to implement the radical reforms we believe are necessary for the Party’s progress. Today, we are free to roll out those plans without delay.

As soon as practicable, we will hold our first post-election  National Executive Council (NEC) meeting to set out our plans and programmes that will include re-strategizing at the local level, Party political education and above all an activist-oriented approach to issues that touch on the lives of all Ghanaians. We are also going to pursue our quest to regain the CPP’s confiscated assets.

Let us strive valiantly in all our endeavours and assure the people of Ghana that we may not have representation in Parliament for the next four years, but will vigorously champion the aspirations of the people of Ghana whom we exist to serve.

We salute all those of you who with great enthusiasm and devotion have dedicated yourselves to the ideals of Nkrumaism, ideals that even in our misfortune remain relevant in the quest to realize fair distribution of opportunities for all. The CPP is founded on a struggle for rights and we are determined to continue. We are not afraid and we shall overcome.

Forward Ever, Backwards Never!

SAMIA YABA NKRUMAH

Chair 

Mahama Ayariga: Stop This Nonsense

By Nana Akua Tweneboah-Koduah

The NDC spirit just came back in time before the first vote was casted. This and other factors largely led the NDC to a historic resounding victory in the 2012 elections. The party is currently in a celebration mood even though it also has to contend with the NPP hooligans who are bent on destroying Ghana’s democratic credentials.

These NPP sore losers are venting their spleen on innocent Ghanaians through killings, beatings and maiming of some NDC supporters following their bitter loss in the polls. 

Hon. Mahama Ayariga

In the midst of all this, President Mahama has however been busy lately. Apart from putting together a Transition Team headed by Vice-President, Paa Kwesi Amissah-Arthur, President Mahama made a stop-over in Nigeria to console Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan on the loss of his brother and also conferred with him on bilateral issues that bother on economic, political and cultural issues for the benefit of their peoples.

Ministers have been asked to prepare their handover notes whilst President Mahama has asked Muslims and Christians to pray fervently for peace during the weekend. Then of course we have some parliamentary candidates who are licking their wounds following their bitter losses in the polls.

With all these activities going on, the least the NDC needs is the kind of attitude exhibited by some party faithful and governmental officials which led to the bleeding of the NDC party on several fronts during the past four years.

During the past four years it became a common feature for some party faithful to go on air to settle personal scores and also lambast the NDC whenever they feel peeved with some people or on some issues. These stupid acts led the NPP to feed on them much to the disadvantage of the NDC.

We are in a new era with a new King on board the NDC Train, therefore, these acts by NDC faithful to settle issues on air must cease immediately. We were all here when we heard about the intended presidential pardon of the former Bawku Central Member of Parliament, Adamu Dramani Sakande who has been battling a cardiac problem following his incarceration for fraud.

If the Member of Parliament-elect for Bawku Central, Mahama Ayariga is not happy about the intended presidential pardon, he should not go and grant interviews to lambast President Mahama on it. That is not the way to go. This is not the time for this kind of nonsense. I mean the NDC does not need this kind of thing at this point in time.

Mahama Ayariga would be better off if he confers with President Mahama and expresses his disappointment on the issue rather than going recalcitrant on Radio.

Hear Ayariga in his own words, “I will support the President if he is setting many prisoners free who have demonstrated that they have changed and willing to become law abiding citizens and would not infringe on the criminal laws of this country. There is a law that runs this country and everybody must respect that law. Otherwise there is no justification for incarcerating those who stole fowls and serving prison terms.”

Gaoled NPP MP Adamu Dramai Sakande

Mr. Ayariga further went on to describe as unfair the intention by President Mahama to grant presidential pardon to the imprisoned former lawmaker adding that similar concessions must be extended to ordinary Ghanaians languishing in jail rather than limit it to the elite in society.

I want to drum home to Ayariga that he must wise up and not open his mouth too wide on issues that may come back to bite him. President Mahama may have a good reason for wanting to grant that presidential pardon, therefore, if he Ayariga does not agree with him he should not go and fight it on Radio stations. These issues tend to embarrass the President and also the NDC since the opposition NPP always feeds on them to portray that there is disunity and disagreements in the NDC. Going forward the leadership of the NDC should never tolerate these acts which always draws back the party.

By the way, Ghanaians are yet to hear a congratulatory message from the Ivorian President Alassane Ouattara to President-Elect John Mahama. Does this confirm the rumour that he was rooting for Akufo-Addo to win?

NPP Apology: Too Little, Too Late

By Margaret Jackson

For many, many years many journalists in Ghana have adopted the NPP as their favourite party, thus heavily tilting stories in favour of the NPP. It started during the reign of JA Kufuor and did not stop when the NPP went into opposition following the 2008 elections.

Journalists

It is a fact that for the past four years that the NPP had been in the political wilderness, it had been paying some key journalists to do their biddings for them. We know them all and they cut across the various media houses. In fact these journalists have not ceased to amaze many Ghanaians with their slanted reportage which had always gone the way of the NPP.

Do you know the reason why the President of the Ghana Journalists Association, Mr. Ransford Tetteh who also doubles as the Editor of the Daily Graphic could not condemn the NPP for attacking some members of the media houses but deferred to his deputy? He is one of journalists who work for the NPP.

Therefore, it would have been suicidal for Ransford Tetteh to openly condemn the violence that the NPP supporters unleashed on some media houses and the public following the political beatings that the NPP Flagbearer, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo received at the hands of President Mahama in the just ended 2012 elections.

NPP Chairman, Jake Obetsebi

Some vehicles belonging to some media houses were attacked and destroyed by irate supporters of the NPP, whilst some of their personnel had to run for their dear lives. But strangely enough, these media houses were so much afraid to call a spade a spade. Instead of them telling the whole world which party supporters were behind those attacks, these media houses whose vehicles were destroyed whilst their personnel sought refuge, openly stated that the attacks emanated from some supporters of a certain political party. They were too afraid to mention the NPP for fear of losing their monthly stipend.

Within this week Ghanaians have been given a peek into the mindset and character trait of Akufo-Addo who stood by as his supporters brutalized innocent Ghanaian citizens into submission. Some were so unlucky and met their untimely deaths.

An example is the taxi driver from Teshie/Nungua whose only crime was having stickers of the NDC on his taxi. When some NPP thugs hired his taxi and saw the stickers on his car they hatched a plan and brutally killed him. Is this the kind of country that we want?

Another individual with an NDC Tee Shirt was also stabbed at the Kwame Nkrumah Circle by NPP supporters and had been hospitalized. We also have four jubilating NDC supporters who were ran over and killed at East Legon when the Electoral Commission declared the results in favour of the NDC.

NDC Chairman for Bekwai, Salisu Musa was attacked by NPP hoodlums

In the midst of these senseless attacks on innocent Ghanaians, we are yet to hear from the Ghana Catholic Bishop’s Conference, the Christian Council of Ghana and the National Peace Council of Ghana. It had only been some pockets of Ghanaians who have openly come out to condemn these brutish acts by the NPP supporters.

That is why the NPP leadership only realized on Thursday December 13 that these barbaric acts by their supporters have the potential of creating serious negative effects for the NPP. As a result, the NPP have started issuing apologies which I think it’s too little, too late. 

The harm is done. Those who have been murdered cannot be brought back to life. The lives of those who have been maimed cannot return to normal. And those who have lost their parents, friends and relatives can never erase these brutal acts by the NPP from their minds.

The NPP which rushed to pronounce that they have evidence that they were robbed in the elections are now saying that they have no evidence yet and that they are now trying to piece some evidence together. Please watch this party which badly wants to rule the country at all cost.

The image of the NPP has tanked in the eyes of even die-hard NPP supporters. Many people who have read the mind of Akufo-Addo are saying that this is the man who wants to brutalize Ghanaians to crown him the president of Ghana when everything points to the fact that he lost the election.

We don’t need any apology from the NPP. They should rather feel sorry for themselves. I wonder what kind of planet these people come from. Their only focus in life bothers on two things: Money & Power.

CADRE FRONT CONGRATULATES PRESIDENT MAHAMA

The Cadre front, a movement of the 31^st December revolutionary process has sent a message of congratulations to President Elect John Dramani Mahama on his election.

The message took notice of the resilience and enduring resolve with which the President conducted a campaign against all odds.

The full text of the message is reproduced below;

Your Excellency,

President John Dramani Mahama

The steel like determination and enduring perseverance with which you conducted a campaign against all odds in 39 days, to turn the fortunes of our Great Party, N.D.C around to victory is not only remarkable but commendable.

We, the cadres of the 31^st December revolutionary process are only too aware of the resource and logistical constraints, which you did not permit to limit and hinder your campaign.

You submerged your personal comfort and needs in pursuit of the gains of the greater collective which is our party, N.D.C. touring the length and breath, nook and crannies of our country soliciting and canvassing, with sheer truth and honesty, the votes of our countrymen and women.

As is the reward of the just and righteous, victory crowned your efforts, which you humbly and modestly dedicated to the memory of your mentor and comrade, the Late Prof. John Evans Atta Mills.

In the light of this monumental feat, we wish to congratulate your campaign team, all the executives and members of the N.D.C, the people of Ghana and your good self for our victory and a job well done.

We wish you God’s divine guidance in your new tenure of office.

Congratulations and Aluta continua.

Revolutionary Regards

……………………

Roger Beckly

Chairman.

Totally misleading intelligence of CIA

By Gordon Duff

On Thursday December 13, the European Court of Human Rights in Salzburg found the CIA fully complicit in the kidnapping and torture of Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen now proven to have never had any ties whatsoever with a terror organization.

Former CIA Chief, David Petraeus

The CIA and Macedonian government were found guilty of kidnapping, torturing and sodomizing an innocent German citizen based purely on his ethnicity alone.

This is the first time a court of international standing in a fully open and highly authoritative forum, one binding on NATO member states, has made such a damning determination as part of an official finding.

The ruling was unanimous.

Rendition Kidnapping

The court found that the CIA had “purchased” Masri from corrupt Macedonian officials who had been “tasked” with rounding up Muslims who “had the terrorist look about them.”

Court documents specify CIA actions as torture, kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment, a finding of monumental importance, one that now places all CIA activities under a microscope and clearly establishes the CIA as a criminal organization.

Masri, a German citizen, was, according to court findings, kidnapped by Macedonian officials in December 2003 at Skopje Airport, taken to a hotel, and held for 23 days.

His requests to contact the German embassy were refused and he was subjected to repeated mock executions.

The CIA then sent Masri to Afghanistan where he was held in a secret interrogation center outside Kabul. There he was imprisoned underground, held for four months, repeatedly sodomized, starved, beaten and threatened with summary execution.

German Failures

After four months of torture, all confirmed in court findings, the US ordered Masri’s release, claiming “mistaken identity” and flew him back to Germany, where he was delivered to airport officials, hooded and chained from head to foot.

German officials, however, did not attempt to verify Masri’s claim nor did they lodge any protest with the United States over the illegal kidnapping and abuse of one of their citizens.

German judges, though unanimous in their findings of CIA and Macedonian guilt, failed to acknowledge their own nation’s passive complicity in failing to afford sovereign protections to their own citizens.

That blame fell to Macedonia.

US Senate Investigates

It was 2004, the height of the “Global War on Terror.” The CIA “rendition program” worked with criminal gangs, corrupt officials and drug cartels, building a worldwide “gulag archipelago,” resembling the old Soviet prison camp system as described by Solzenhitzen.

For the past three years, the United States Senate has been investigating CIA torture. A 6,000-page report outlining literally thousands of cases of not just torture but deaths and “disappearances” is ready likely to be released as it limits its scope to crimes committed under the Bush administration and the report is controlled by members of the Democratic Party.

US Senate

The report will indicate that no substantive intelligence was gathered through CIA rendition and that stories of “lives saved” are purely fictional and that, in fact, poor or totally misleading intelligence may well have cost hundreds of American lives.

Republicans are expected to make every effort to suppress the findings that clearly demonstrate not only that their backing of “enhanced interrogation” was always criminal in nature but that the abuses of human rights were also a massive intelligence failure.

The CIA operates secret prisons around the world, no one knows where they are, who is imprisoned, only that those held are invariably found to have been seized based on “mistaken identity” and those who survive to be released, then report brutal torture.

EU Court Backs Masri

According to the court, Masri’s claims are “established beyond any reasonable doubt” and that Macedonian authorities are deemed “responsible for his torture and ill-treatment both in the country itself and after his transfer to the US authorities in the context of an extra-judicial “rendition.”

From the court record:

“Masri’s treatment at Skopje airport at the hands of the CIA rendition team - being severely beaten, sodomised, shackled and hooded, and subjected to total sensory deprivation - had been carried out in the presence of state officials of [Macedonia] and within its jurisdiction.”

“Its government was consequently responsible for those acts performed by foreign officials. It had failed to submit any arguments explaining or justifying the degree of force used or the necessity of the invasive and potentially debasing measures. Those measures had been used with premeditation, the aim being to cause Mr. Masri severe pain or suffering in order to obtain information. In the court’s view, such treatment had amounted to torture, in violation of Article 3 [of the European human rights convention].”

In a report in the Guardian, James Goldston, Executive Director of the Open Justice Society Initiative, is quoted:

“The grand chamber of the European court of human rights unanimously found that Mr. Masri was subjected to forced disappearance, unlawful detention, extraordinary rendition outside any judicial process, and inhuman and degrading treatment.”

Goldston, commenting on the court’s ruling described it as:

“…an authoritative condemnation of some of the most objectionable tactics employed in the post-9/11 war on terror.”

ACLU (American Civil Liberties Spokesman) Jamil Dakwar told the Guardian that the ruling was “a huge victory for justice and the rule of law.”

Ben Emmerson, described the ruling as “a key milestone in the long struggle to secure accountability of public officials implicated in human rights violations committed by the Bush administration CIA in its policy of secret detention, rendition and torture.”

Bringing the US to Justice

In 2002, the US abandoned the International Criminal Court at The Hague listing as their primary reason that no American should be subjected to “international justice.”

America made it very clear, as UN Ambassador Bolton’s position, that the US was “above the law,” and operating with full and unaccountable authority was very much the driving force behind this court finding and others we can only hope will be brought before tribunals in the future.

Within the last two weeks, the government of Afghanistan has officially demanded that the United States relinquish custody of all prisoners held within their borders and has rescinded any powers of arrest and detention by any American agency or military organization operating inside Afghanistan.

Thus far, the United States has refused to comply, consequently denying Afghanistan sovereign status.

Afghanistan, as of now, is a war of occupation and no longer has a veil of “military assistance” as legal pretext.

The United Nations has begun investigating “black sites” such as the one Masri was held at. From Wikipedia:

“There is little or no stated legal authority for the operation of black sites by the United States or the other countries believed to be involved. In fact, the specifics of the network of black sites remain controversial. The United Nations has begun to intervene in this aspect of black sites.”

Wikipedia further states:

“An estimated 50 prisons have been used to hold detainees in 28 countries, in addition to at least 25 more prisons in Afghanistan and 20 in Iraq. It is estimated that the US has also used 17 ships as floating prisons since 2001, bringing the total estimated number of prisons operated by the US and/or its allies to house alleged terrorist suspects since 2001 to more than 100.

Were Solzenhitzen alive today, what would his reaction be? How has America met and even exceeded the worst depredations of what President Reagan so often described as the “axis of evil.”

What is brought to mind is a line from the American comic strip, Pogo:

“We have met the enemy and they is us…”

Iran dialogue or US diplomatic detour?

By Ismail Salami

It is very unfortunate to note that the United States has constantly sought to depict the Islamic Republic in the light of a tenacious nation resilient to any logic and dialogue whatsoever.

US President Barack Obama

Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has emphasized  the Islamic Republic’s readiness to hold negotiations on the country’s nuclear energy program in a win-win situation.

“We have repeatedly expressed our readiness and announced that we are ready for talks in a win-win situation.”

He added that Iran has never lost the “opportunity for diplomacy.”

Iranian officials are pessimistic about any upcoming dialogue with the US as they almost unanimously believe that Washington is not consistent in its policies and that it should first show some good will instead of resorting to an unacceptable bullying attitude. Spokesman for Iranian Majlis Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy Hossein Naqavi Hosseini slams the contradictions between what Washington says and what it does and urges the US to show some goodwill if it ever seeks to hold talks with the Islamic Republic.

“The Americans are not honest in their words....there is no consistency in their words and actions.”

A historical look at Tehran-Washington relations testifies to the antagonistic nature of Washington in dealing with Iran.

According to Tim Guldimann, former Swiss ambassador to Tehran, Iran issued a proposal to the United States in May 2003 and called for negotiations on a number of issues.

Based on the proposal, the US should accept a dialogue “in mutual respect” and agree that Iran put the following aims on the agenda:

1) Halt US hostile behavior and rectifications of status of Iran in the US: (interference in internal or external relations, “axis of evil”, terrorism list.)

2) Abolishment of all sanctions: commercial sanctions, frozen assets, judgments (FSIA), impediments in international trade and financial institutions.

3) Iraq: democratic and fully representative government in Iraq, support of Iranian claims for Iraqi reparations, respect for Iranian national interests in Iraq and religious links to Najaf/Karbala.

4) Full access to peaceful nuclear technology, biotechnology and chemical technology.

5) Recognition of Iran’s legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity.

6) Terrorism: pursuit of anti-Iranian terrorists, above all the MKO and support for repatriation of their members in Iraq, decisive actions against anti-Iranian terrorists, above all MKO and affiliated organizations in the US.

However, the Bush administration rejected the proposal and exerted additional pressure on the Islamic Republic.

In August 2005, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom presented their proposal for a long-term agreement which was dismissed by Iran simply because it did not recognize Iran’s right to enrichment.

In 2010, Brazil and Turkey conducted a diplomatic initiative to broker the TRR (Tehran Research Reactor) fuel swap with Iran. It was agreed that the Islamic Republic of Iran deposit 1200 kg LEU in Turkey. In an April 20 letter to the leaders of the two countries, US President Obama said, “For us, Iran’s agreement to transfer 1,200 kilograms of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile. I want to underscore that this element is of fundamental importance for the United States.”

Flag of Iran

The fruit of the initiative was the May 17 Tehran Declaration agreed among Lula da Silva, Erdogan, and Ahmadinejad. While the trio recalled “the right of all State Parties, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy (as well as nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities) for peaceful purposes without discrimination”, they agreed:

1) The nuclear fuel exchange is instrumental in initiating cooperation in different areas, especially with regard to peaceful nuclear cooperation including nuclear power plant and research reactors construction.

2) Based on this point the nuclear fuel exchange is a starting point to begin cooperation and a positive constructive move forward among nations. Such a move should lead to positive interaction and cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities replacing and avoiding all kinds of confrontation through refraining from measures, actions and rhetorical statements that would jeopardize Iran's rights and obligations under the NPT.

3) Based on the above, in order to facilitate the nuclear cooperation mentioned above, the Islamic Republic of Iran agrees to deposit 1200 kg LEU in Turkey. While in Turkey this LEU will continue to be the property of Iran. Iran and the IAEA may station observers to monitor the safekeeping of the LEU in Turkey.

4) Iran will notify the IAEA in writing through official channels of its agreement with the above within seven days following the date of this declaration. Upon the positive response of the Vienna Group (US, Russia, France and the IAEA) further details of the exchange will be elaborated through a written agreement and proper arrangement between Iran and the Vienna Group that specifically committed themselves to deliver 120 kg of fuel needed for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR).

However, France, Russia, and the United States rejected the Tehran Declaration for reasons only known to themselves and easily comprehensible to others.

In 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made an unprecedented move and sent an 18-page letter to George W. Bush, the then US president, an act which was interpreted by some as an invitation to dialogue with the United States.

While the letter - thought to be the first from an Iranian president to a US leader since Iran's 1979 revolution- addressed the paradoxical nature of Washington’s policies all across the world and addressed crucial issues such as the fake claim that Iraq possessed WMDs as a pretext to launch an invasion of the country, and billions of dollars spent from the common purse to inflict pain and misery upon the people of Iraq and America, it could have been used by the United States as a first step towards resolving an old-time gaping problem between the two countries.

Instead, Washington officials made a strategic mistake, ponderously ignored the letter and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed the letter as "offering nothing new" and the White House said there would be no formal written reply.

The letter was favorably received by many media channels. The Peninsula, a Qatari news site, saw it as "a taboo-breaking initiative … an opening-even if only slim-for the longtime foes to engage in a dialogue." Arab News of Saudi Arabia hailed it as "remarkable and encouraging … an unexpected diplomatic opening." Germany's Der Spiegel calls it "a deft move for Ahmadinejad's image in the Middle East."

After all, the letter was a good sign that Iran was interested in talks but on equal terms and in an ambience of mutual respect, a condition the US has spitefully declined.

In a sudden turn of events, however, things seem to be taking a new spin and the US has made some gestures to the effect that it wishes a direct talk with the Islamic Republic. A recent report indicates that US President Barack Obama is planning to propose to Iran that it negotiate directly with the Americans about its nuclear program. According to the report, Obama’s move was made without any coordination or consultation with Israel and that Washington will allow a period of four to five months for negotiations with Tehran. If the talks fail, the report says, they may then resort to the military option.

Be that as it may, so far, the Islamic Republic has taken constructive steps towards talks with Washington in order to allay international concerns and resolve any ambiguities surrounding its nuclear program and each time Washington has embarked on a crooked diplomatic detour and has demonstrated a strong penchant for political approach-avoidance.

Does it not mean that Iran’s nuclear issue is not an issue at all but part of their pretext to persevere in its path of political pungency?

Confessions of a Strategic Communicator

Tales from inside the Pentagon's message machine.

By Rosa Brooks

I must have sinned egregiously during a past life, because when I arrived at the Pentagon in spring 2009, I was handed responsibility for the can of worms known as "strategic communication." I was a newly minted political appointee in the Office of the Secretary of Defense's policy shop and no one, including myself, knew quite what I was supposed be doing with my time. But my résumé included a four-year stint as an opinion columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

This apparently qualified me as a "communications" expert, so strategic communication policy was deemed an appropriate addition to my murky portfolio.

US Pentagon

It should go without saying that in and of itself, writing an opinion column reflects no qualifications beyond the having of opinions.

I started my job at the Pentagon with plenty of opinions -- many half-baked -- but a mind blissfully free of expertise relating to "communications," strategic or otherwise. Opinionated ignorance is the hallmark of a happy political appointee, however, so I plunged resolutely into my new assignment.

For the better part of the 27 months that followed, I spent much of my time trying to figure out whether strategic communication was an idea whose time had come, or a non-idea whose time should come to a rapid end. (Readers with an interest but with limited attention spans can even look at the highly unofficial illustrated history of DOD strategic communication I put together in late 2009.)

If you believe what you read in the media, the Pentagon recently opted for the second view. "The Pentagon is banishing the term ‘strategic communication,'" trumpeted USA Today on Tuesday, "putting an end to an initiative that had promised to streamline the military's messaging but instead led to bureaucratic bloat and confusion." This, the paper reports, is the upshot of "a memo obtained by USA TODAY."

But reports of strategic communication's demise are greatly exaggerated. The memo obtained by USA Today -- also obtained by yours truly, and available here -- isn't really about the demise of strategic communication at "the Pentagon," which is, after all, an awfully big building.

On the contrary: this latest memo is just another shot fired in the ongoing skirmish between those who believe that strategic communication is merely an unnecessary euphemism for "communications" -- meaning, basically, press statements and talking points -- and thus should be controlled by public affairs offices, and those who believe strategic communication is a confusing term, but one that has nonetheless come to stand for something complex and important, something that has more to do with "strategy" than with "communications." I'm in the latter camp.

But let's look at that memo. It's been agitating a corner of the blogosphere since Tuesday, mainly because its contents and import have been misrepresented (or just misunderstood) by the media. The memo is from Pentagon press spokesman and Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs George Little to the commanding generals of the various combatant commands. It explains Little's decision to stop using the term "strategic communication," which he believes causes "confusion." According to Little, "the more accurate terminology, which will be used in future Joint Publications, is communications synchronization." The memo also complains that "over the last six years we learned that [strategic communication] actually added a layer of staffing and planning that blurred the roles and functions of traditional staff elements, and resulted in confusion and inefficiency. As a result, this year we stood down those staff elements."

"So what?" you ask. Quite right. What we have here isn't a DOD-wide policy change -- it's just a badly drafted memo explaining that OSD's Public Affairs shop is changing its terminology and internal structure because it finds strategic communication confusing.

Why Little felt the need to inform combatant commanders of his confusion is unclear, but his memo doesn't change anything for anyone at the Pentagon aside from his own staff. It's not a directive or instruction from the secretary of defense; it's not a policy document; and it's not doctrine or military planning guidance -- although Little seems to assume he'll be the guy writing joint doctrine in the future.

That's not terribly likely, as Little's memo is also a product of bureaucratic original sin: according to Pentagon insiders, the memo wasn't coordinated or cleared with the Joint Staff or the Policy office before going out. That's a big no-no, and likely to generate powerful new antibodies.


Neglecting to clear memos with other offices before leaking them to the press is standard practice for bureaucratic power grabs, of course, and Little's memo certainly counts as such. The Public Affairs office, he asserts, is "continuing our leadership role in communication and reminding those in the communication business that most things previously termed [strategic communication] are in fact Public Affairs responsibilities."
This passive-aggressive bureaucratese illustrates one of the reasons sane government employees try to keep strategic communication out of their portfolios: it's one of those things that people can't stop fighting over.


For the last decade, strategic communication has been the subject of rancorous interagency and intra-agency bickering. Public diplomacy experts at the State Department think "strategic communication" is what they already do, and want DOD out of the picture altogether. Meanwhile, the DOD Public Affairs office has traditionally insisted that strategic communication is what they already do, and they want the policy people to stop mixing their peanut butter in Public Affairs' chocolate. Pentagon policy and strategy experts meanwhile maintain that strategic communication has only a glancing relationship to traditional "communications" and is mostly an issue of planning operations to achieve "information effects." And the White House -- which apparently hasn't seen Little's memo -- insists on referring to top Obama advisor Ben Rhodes as the deputy national security advisor for strategic communications.


So what does it all mean? When it comes to strategic communication, is there a there there? Or is George Little right to despise the term "strategic communication," take the view that strategic communication is "in fact" just public affairs, and propose replacing it with the term "communications synchronization"?
Little's claim that the term "strategic communication" causes confusion is fair enough. (Trust me: it confused me for more than two years.) Indeed, I've often felt that there's a special place in hell reserved for the person who first foisted the term "strategic communication" on the Defense Department. The term itself was a corporate import, and a pernicious one.
In the corporate world, the term "strategic communication" has been used for several decades to describe the coordinated use of activities designed to make the corporate entity "look good," such as marketing, advertising, public relations, community relations, and so on. It carries overtones of manipulation: after all, marketers needn't care if their product is "good" (or healthy, or durable, or safe, or whatever) -- their goal is just to make sure people buy the product, regardless of its actual value.


During the early years of the Bush administration, the term "strategic communication" was similarly used to cover a multitude of sins. These ranged from the foolish but relatively innocuous conviction that lots of "messaging" was all it took to counter violent extremism, to rather more sinister efforts, such as paying to clandestinely plant feel-good "news" stories in the Iraqi press. To many, the term "strategic communication" became tightly linked to other regrettable Bush administration neologisms, such as the "global war on terror" (GWOT) and the "war of ideas."
In the last years of the Bush administration, internal Pentagon reformers sought to jettison the more egregiously stupid GWOT strategic communication initiatives. Just as important, they sought to rethink the concept of strategic communication altogether. If strategic communication just meant messaging -- or "public affairs on steroids" -- it was indeed a completely unnecessary concept. If there was a there there, it had to lie somewhere else.
By 2009, DOD consensus had begun to emerge around a more nuanced understanding of what strategic communication might mean. Ideally, the term could serve as a reminder that everything is a form of communication -- that our actions (and omissions) can speak as loudly as our words, and that wise officials, military and civilian alike, must consider the "information effects" of all that they say and do -- from press statements to changes in force posture.


This understanding of strategic communication -- which is reflected in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and other key DOD documents -- has very little to do with traditional press and public affairs activities. In this view, "strategic communication" refers to the thoughtful integration of issues of stakeholder perception and response into policymaking, planning, and operations at every level. Public affairs, information operations, and traditional public diplomacy are tools that can support and enhance strategic communication, but they aren't the same as strategic communication. Strategic communication, in this view, is less about what we have to say than it is about considering how others may interpret our words and actions.


What strategic communication boils down to, in some ways, is a simple plea: learn, engage and listen; try to understand how people outside the United States view U.S. actors; think in advance about how what we do and say will be perceived, and plan activities accordingly. Invest in developing the linguistic and cultural knowledge necessary to do this. Recognize that sometimes we're going to make people angry, but try not to piss people off by accident.
Of course, this still begs the question: why call all this "strategic communication"?

There's really no good reason: it's just an accident of history. In my first months at the Pentagon, I tried hard to get rid of the term, which carries negative connotations for many. In the end, more experienced voices persuaded me to give up this quest: the term may be confusing, but it's been in use for over a decade within DOD by now. There have been studies and reports on strategic communication -- some quite smart -- and DOD has promulgated an official definition of strategic communication, discussed it in congressionally mandated reports and memoranda from the secretary, and integrated it into military planning guidance. It's not a great term, but by the end of 2009 I concluded that DOD was stuck with it. Rather than squabbling about terminological changes, I felt we should focus on integrating the insights the term strategic communication had come to reflect into policymaking and planning.


Now, OSD's Public Affairs office is proposing that the term strategic communication be replaced with "communications synchronization." It's George Little's prerogative to use whatever phrasing he wants to describe the work of his office, but I think the proposed new term is even worse than the old. "Communications synchronization"? To me, the term has a rather fascistic ring. Though I'm sure this was not the intent, it suggests a rigid determination to make all utterances hew to a narrow party line. Mostly, though, it just misses the point, which is that strategic communication isn't about "communications." Little's memo could have been written in 2002 or 2006. It hearkens back to the days when DOD leadership imagined that disciplined use of the right "messaging" would "win the war of ideas," and ignores a decade of accumulated wisdom.


In fact, the memo isn't even a good example of "communication synchronization": it's badly out of sync with the rest of the Defense Department, which for the most part has -- slowly but surely -- begun to integrate the concept of strategic communication into day-to-day planning and operations.


The good news? Combatant commanders are likely to give the memo the treatment it deserves, and place it right in the circular file.

Israeli regime receives first sanction

By Jim W. Dean

The ripple effects of the historic UN vote to begin the restoration of Palestinian statehood continue to swirl around the world.

How much of it is acting and how much sincere remains to be seen. But we must all applaud the effort and get ready to defend those that will be attacked by the Israeli lobbies when they feel it is safe to strike back.

Not all of us will go over to the offense at the same time. Not all will understand fully why the political earth is moving under their feet, but they can feel it for sure. I am a good example. I have been really focusing on how best to follow up the UN vote with some serious sanctions movement. But the light just came for me today, that the sanctions started as the UN votes were being counted.

The classic military tactic for taking a bridge is to attack both ends at once, a la the Nimegen Bridge in the great movie, The Bridge Too Far. The Likudist bridge will need a sanctions attack from the outside and Israelis on the inside taking the other end.

Israeli security can only come from the regime change for which Gush Shalom's Uri Avnery has struggled for forty years now. We have to work together to accomplish this with minimum destruction and bloodshed.

Israeli WMDs and the budget follies

The quickly passed UN resolution calling for Israel to open up its nuclear facilities for inspection was rejected as expected by Israel. Netanyahu's settlement expansion announcement, although probably an election pandering bluff to the settler and extremist core of the Likud party, was what we call in America an 'air deal'. It has no funding, and none on the horizon. Donations, anyone?

We must not forget that we are having new Israeli elections soon because their former cabinet could not pass a budget. They have no money for major construction projects, and I don't think Obama is entertaining a request.

The EU heads adjourned recently, also failing to approve a new budget. The problem seemed to be the Santa Claus factor. Countries wanted funding for stimulation projects, but also to have others pay for them.

And back here in the US, the media is on a big 'fiscal cliff' scare with both political sides maneuvering to blame the other for next year's economy problems. Taking responsibility for nothing is now the most popular Congressional sport.

Settlement backlash

For extra public diversion insurance, the Mayan calender end of the world prediction has gotten widespread news coverage from corporate media. It's a journalistic embarrassment when there are so many important problems that were cheated out of that public air time.

The good news was that even the threat of Bibi's settlement building triggered an international backlash. One country after another brought in the Israeli ambassadors to put their disapproval on record. The Likuds of course have told them to go fly a kite. The militant Israelis are burning up trump cards faster than they are making them.

The comments on my sanctions articles definitely struck a chord. People saw the irony of the most sanction-deserving country in the world having appointed itself as the head sanctioneer. They saw the gross hypocrisy in Israel accusing Iran of a nuclear weapons program that it does not have, while Israel's own remained off the table for discussion.

This is now being understood as nothing more than a way to keep the outside money (US and Diaspora) flowing in to fund the occupation and keep the regular Israelis controlled by the fear that all the Arabs and Muslims have to be dominated or it is all over for the Zios. The US shares the blame for this.

We had a shot across the bow with the UN resolution vote that the 'no talkie' days may be over. People understand in all countries that their political establishment must be openly challenged for their remaining silent on such a critical issue.

Losing fear of the bully

What I see that gives me more cause for hope, something I have been monitoring very carefully for years now, is a definite and widespread decrease of the fear which empowered the various Israeli lobbies. It was this fear that pressured our respective political structures to serve Israeli interests in return for re-election support and political power, something they have a long history of delivering on.

The crash and burn of the Romney campaign, despite the best efforts of the the hard core Zionist lobby folks trying to bring Obama to heel, did not work. The purge of our military of 'questionable' officers continues, with only the tip of the iceberg of it seen publicly.

If the real story ever comes out, it will be an unpleasant one. Treason is never a popular topic. When it is widespread, it condemns the whole system that allowed it. The term Obama used in his directive was to 'mitigate the insider threats'. This was code for no public trials.

There may also be some big surprises in store when the first official Benghazi attack report is made public, about who really was involved in that. And by that I don't mean their proxies on the ground, but those pulling their strings. No one will buy the tent dwelling al-Qeada dead-enders in Yemen. That is just swill.

Sanctions are having unintended consequences

There is some good news on the Senate new sanctions bill. Obama is not waiting for the expected watering down when the House and Senate combine their two bills. He is acting now. The previous exemptions for twenty of Iran's major oil buyers have all been renewed, with their previous reductions.

Although some say the sanctions have hurt Iran's currency value, the government has continued to expand replacement of the lost oil exports with gas and electricity to 'sanction proof' neighboring countries. And Iran may soon be in the drone exporting business with their newly acquired technology, compliments of its being over-used and exposed by someone not paying attention to the first one being lost.

Turkey quickly stated that it would continue its Iranian gas purchases as it was in their national interests, and they know that no action will be taken against them for it. If they want to pay with gold, they will do so, no matter what a bunch of Israeli senators in America say.

Losing the public relations war

The West is losing the public relations battle over the suffering of the Iranian people. Germany's Merkel was very public in her announcement for her government to remove medicine export problems that have been tangled up in the banking sanctions.

Secretary Clinton's statements have just been crude, with shades of Madeleine Albright's horrific comments on the 500,000 Iraqi children having died from sanctions... for their parents to take their complaints to Saddam.

As citizens in the West are all suffering from the poor government judgments, excesses and financial corruption for which they are being given the bill, there is growing awareness that the Iran threat is just a scam.

They are beginning to see the Iranian people being made to suffer as an excuse to justify Western military expansion into the region. I sense an opening here for Westerners to see themselves joined with the Iranians in that those in the West are just being 'sanctioned' in a different way. They can't afford the medical care they need either.

I would recommend that Iran begin hosting exchange groups with comparable citizens groups from these various countries to share their common exploitation by the criminal cabals behind all the war threat hype. It is a common bond that links all of the rank and file citizens everywhere, being used and abused by their elites.

Gordon Duff just had a great article here on Press TV about how billions and billions of future trading profits are being made by political insiders who use increasing tensions and the decreasing of them to move the markets and make their bets pay off.

So yes, the sanctions on Israel have begun, starting with the Palestinian UN vote. Fear of the Israeli lobby is now going to be withheld. Holocaust manipulation is no longer going to be swallowed.

People are going to refuse to be second class citizens in their own countries while they watch the Israeli lobbyists wine and dine with our government officials, and worst of all, even draft legislation to be passed into laws, which we must follow, but not them.