China, Russia on road to abandoning Iran

China and Russia have agreed to UNSC Resolution 1737. Though watered down, it still sends a strong signal to Iran that its friends are not completely against joining hands with Western "devils."


Wikipedia
Commentary by P R Kumaraswamy for ISN Security Watch (10/01/07)

The unanimous United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1737 clearly puts Iran on the dock. Outwardly, it merely seeks to restrict Iran’s ability to trade in sensitive nuclear materials and to freeze the assets of 22 Iranian officials and institutions linked to its nuclear and missile programs. However, the willingness of friendly countries such as China and Russia to abandon their erstwhile hesitancy and endorse limited sanctions against Iran should be seen as a small but decisive victory for the beleaguered Bush administration.

The vote should also be an eye opener for those who have periodically stressed and hoped that China would adopt an independent policy vis-à-vis the US on Iran. While not ready to join the Western chorus against Tehran, Beijing is also not willing to embrace the ayatollahs’ nuclear ambitions.

For quite some time, it was clear that China was not prepared to accept a nuclear Iran. Its refusal to endorse US demands for punitive sanctions was coupled by its determination that Iran should peacefully resolve its dispute with the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Partly due to its past involvement in missile and nuclear proliferation, Beijing has been extremely weary of another nuclear power in its neighborhood.

Likewise, the vote also underscored the fundamental priority of Chinese foreign policy. Its desire to adopt assertive foreign policy postures on issues such as Taiwan are always accompanied by its deep desire to maintain close political ties with Washington. This shift on Iran was clearly manifested at the IAEA. While it abstained in September 2004, it voted with the majority in February 2006. The shift clearly indicated that China was merely seeking adequate price and compensation for its accommodation of Western concerns over Iran.

Western willingness to settle for a watered-down resolution that lacks any real teeth also underscores Washington’s desire for an international consensus on Iran. Any tougher wording of the resolution could have resulted in China and Russia abstaining if not vetoing such a move. The US would rather have an international consensus against Iran than drive for a tougher resolution that might be seen as a sign of ganging up against Tehran.

Despite the limited nature of sanctions, the resolution pits Iran against the rest of the international community. Even if the real impact is marginal, the vote signals Iran’s isolation. Not many countries even in the West endorsed Bush’s axis of evil theory against Iran. But now even friendlier powers like China and Russia have sided with the US in isolating Iran.

National interests also continue to play a primary role in the Iran issue. Both Russia and China have strong economic interests in Iran. The former is committed to the construction of a nuclear power plant near Bushehr, originally started by the German company Siemens in the 1970s. Literally days before the UNSC vote, Iranian media reported that the Bushehr plant was on schedule.

China sees Iran as a major and stable source of energy supplies. Its galloping economy and the resulting increase in demand for hydrocarbon compel Beijing to look for long-term arrangements. China is committed to developing the Yadavaran oil fields. In October 2004, both countries signed a memorandum of understanding for the supply of 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Iran over the next 25 years. It also includes the supply of 150,000 barrels of oil per day during the same period. The total deal is estimated at over US$120 billion.

In December, just days before the UNSC vote, the two countries signed another agreement for the supply of three million tons of LNG a year. This 25-year contract will begin with the flow of gas in 2011.

Such strong economic interests and investments in Iran prevent China from completely siding with the West. Any Chinese support to the West on Iran would thus have to be courted and compensated adequately.

At the same time, a number of countries in the Middle East are increasingly concerned about Iran and its defiant attitude toward the international community. The recent decision of the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council to seek the help and cooperation of the IAEA in developing nuclear energy and the ongoing debates in Egypt over the revival of nuclear power generation should be seen within this larger context. Iran is not just a threat to the West and its interests in the Middle East, but to an increasing number of Arab states.

As such, countries like China have to weigh their sympathies for Iran against their interests in the wider Arab world. As US officials declared, the limited sanctions are merely the first step toward more severe measures against Iran. So, when a friend like China abandons it, the ayatollahs in Iran get a shrill message: Comply or we will join hands with the “devil.”

Republished by permission of the International Relations and Security Network.

Covert Israel-Syria talks exposed

Failed covert Israeli-Syrian talks do serious damage to the peace process, which is now unlikely to move forward before 2008 US presidential elections.


BBC
Commentary by Dominic Moran in Tel Aviv for ISN Security Watch (18/01/07)


The revelation this week that Israeli and Syrian representatives had apparently reached agreement on a draft peace deal in secret talks, rather than presaging an open diplomatic process, is a major blow to hopes for a return to final status negotiations.

Both governments were swift to renounce any involvement in the formulation of the "non-paper," published in Israel's Ha'aretz daily on Tuesday. The document appears to establish the basis for a final agreement between the two states over the Golan Heights.

According to the newspaper, the draft peace accord was formulated in a series of secret meetings in Europe between September 2004 and July 2006 involving a former director of Israel's Foreign Ministry, Alon Liel, and Syrian-American businessman Ibrahim Suleiman, in the presence of a European mediator.

Liel said the talks foundered when the Syrians demanded they be upgraded to official status and include a senior US official.

The negotiations appear to have been carried out at arm's length by both sides, using officials with no direct ties to the respective leaderships in a bid to ensure deniability in the event of failure.

Interestingly, the unsigned document looks to follow past proposals in advocating a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Golan Heights (Israel reportedly sought a 15-year pullback, Syria five); the establishment of a nature reserve buffer zone along the Golan Heights plateau and eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, with the waters of the lake and Jordan River to remain under complete Israeli control.

Syria's official SANA news agency quoted an unnamed Foreign Ministry official as calling the Ha'aretz report "categorically unfounded and baseless."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told reporters: "I knew of nothing. No one in the government was involved in this matter."

During a visit to Russia last month, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad rubbished suggestions in the Israeli press that his administration had, through intermediaries, made an offer to Israel in an effort to restart negotiations, saying: "There is no such proposal - nothing."

The Syrian leader has repeatedly expressed his desire for full, open peace negotiations over the Golan Heights, identifying the return of the territory as a key government goal, while mixing these calls with ambiguous threats of future military action.

On 25 December, Olmert said talks with Syria would only resume when the al-Assad government decided to "stop supporting Hamas, to stop supporting Hizbollah, to sever its terrible links to Iran."

Syria promised in the draft accord to cut its ties with Hamas and Hizbollah and to distance itself from Iran. Syrian government officials have reportedly told foreign interlocutors seeking the return of kidnapped Israeli servicemen that their influence was greater over Hamas - which has its political bureau in Damascus - than Hizbollah.

US President George W Bush appears implacable in his opposition to the resumption of US-Syrian ties, alleging in his address on Iraq policy last week that the al-Assad government was supporting Iraqi insurgents.

Bush's refusal to countenance the mending of ties with Syria flies in the face of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and has been cited by Olmert as one reason for his government's current opposition to peace talks.

Israeli intelligence services have mirrored confusion among the country's politicians regarding al-Assad's intentions, with the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee hearing three contradictory intelligence assessments of Syrian intentions in late December.

A weekend poll in the Hebrew daily Yediot Ahranoth showed that 67 percent of Israelis want Olmert to respond favorably to the Syrian peace overtures. Confusingly, 66 percent believe that giving up the strategically important Golan Heights is too high a price to pay for peace.

The combination of US and domestic pressure and a seemingly deep personal mistrust of Syrian motivations have made it easier for Olmert to focus his administration's attention on the Palestinian-Israeli peace track. Here, the price of peace is yet to be decided and will only be paid if the opposition Fatah party is able to re-take control of the Palestinian Authority.

Olmert faced renewed calls on Wednesday from both the political left and right for his immediate resignation after Chief of Staff Dan Halutz quit over the failures of the Israeli-Hizbollah war. Down in the polls, Olmert appears unwilling to risk fresh elections through domestically divisive talks with Syria.

The apparent failure of covert Syrian-Israeli negotiations to foster a breakthrough is a profound blow to regional peace making efforts that dissuades both sides from entering open talks. This is true despite the relatively comprehensive nature of the agreement reached.

While allowing the free-play of ideas vital to successful negotiations, backdoor talks lack the legitimacy of an open diplomatic process and are politically damaging to the progenitors when they fail.

Without a dramatic turnaround in US policy a breakthrough on the Israeli-Syrian peace track now looks unlikely ahead of the November 2008 US presidential elections.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dr Dominic Moran is ISN Security Watch's senior correspondent in the Middle East

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).

Reprinted with permission of the International Relations and Security Network.

The Push Behind the Surge

President George W. Bush's plan to “surge” more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq without any deadline for withdrawal has garnered little support, except from neoconservatives and their increasingly isolated allies in the hawkish wings of the Republican and Democratic parties. Not only are the new Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress lining up in opposition to the surge plan, but a growing number of Republican lawmakers—including some staunch Bush loyalists—are also voicing serious reservations. For the neoconservatives, on the other hand, the only problem with Bush's plan is that it doesn't go far enough, arguing in their own recently released plan for “victory” that troop levels should be boosted by more than a third.

A good example of the opposition Bush is facing is Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), an erstwhile supporter of the war who faces reelection in 2008 and just returned from visiting Iraq. He told the Los Angeles Times last week: “Baghdad needs reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis. It doesn't need more Americans in the crosshairs.”

Even retired Lt. Col. Oliver North, a far-right talk-show host who gained fame as the White House coordinator of what became the Iran-Contra affair 20 years ago, reported that his recent interviews with officers and soldiers in Iraq persuaded him that adding more troops to the 140,000 already deployed there would be a mistake.

But the tepid support for what critics call an “escalation” has not dampened the enthusiasm of the neoconservatives. At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) last week—with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) in attendance—neoconservatives unveiled a new report: “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq.” The AEI report argues that substantially increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq is essential to avoiding a defeat that could lead to “regional conflict, humanitarian catastrophe, and increased global terrorism.”

The two senators, who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq, have been heavily criticized on both the left and right for their support of the surge plan. “McCain and Lieberman talked to many of the same officers and senior NCOs [non-commissioned officers] I covered for FOX News during my most recent trip to Iraq,” North asserted in his syndicated column last Friday. “Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen, or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite. ‘We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops' was a common refrain. They are right.

“A ‘surge' or ‘targeted increase in U.S. troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets,” North wrote.

Like the administration's surge idea, the new neoconservative-supported report, written by AEI scholar Frederick Kagan, whose brother Robert and father Donald are both influential figures in neoconservative circles, calls for a sustained increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that “victory is still an option” if the nation remains committed. Among the AEI plan's proposals: a “surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations” beginning this spring, which would be aimed at securing “the Iraqi population and contain[ing] the rising violence”; lengthening the tours of ground troops and increasing deployments of National Guard forces; making a “dramatic increase in reconstruction aid for Iraq”; and mobilizing military industry “to provide replacement equipment” for troops.

The AEI report warns that the number of additional troops that Bush plans to send to Iraq will be inadequate. “We are going to be very uncomfortable with any force level that is below” five more brigades in Baghdad and two in Al Anbar, said Kagan at the conference. “We are not really prepared to compromise on that.” Kagan had previously called for adding at least 50,000 troops to gain control of Baghdad alone. This position was echoed by other neoconservative-inclined commentators, including the popular blogger Andrew Sullivan, who charged that Bush's surge plan was “anemic.” Writing immediately after Bush's Wednesday address, Sullivan wrote in his Daily Dish blog: “If the president tonight had outlined a serious attempt to grapple with this new situation—a minimum of 50,000 new troops as a game-changer—then I'd eagerly be supporting him. But he hasn't. 21,500 U.S. troops is once again, I fear, just enough troops to lose.”

The release of the AEI report represents the latest effort by neoconservatives to win back momentum lost during the past two years as the war they vociferously championed has gone steadily downhill. Their declining influence was underscored by the Bush administration's decision early last year to agree to allow Secretary of State and Bush family confidant James Baker, an early opponent of the war, to produce a new plan that could extricate the United States from Iraq. Baker's Iraq Study Group (ISG), which he co-chaired with former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), concluded in a long-awaited final report released in December that there was “no magic bullet” that could solve the debacle in Iraq. It argued that the United States needed to approach Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, as part of a “diplomatic offensive” aimed at easing tension in the region. And although it called for a short-term increase in the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the increase would be largely devoted to training Iraqi soldiers, with the goal of bringing U.S. troops home by early 2008. (For more on the ISG, see Leon Hadar, “The Baker-Hamilton Recommendations: Too Little, Too Late?” Right Web analysis, December 12, 2006.)

The Baker-Hamilton report seemed to provide impetus for the neoconservatives, spurring AEI to create a study group of its own to counter the ideas of the ISG. The AEI shadow study, the Iraq Planning Group, was led by Frederick Kagan and retired Gen. Jack Keane and included about a dozen other AEI scholars (most notably Michael Rubin, Thomas Donnelly, Danielle Pletka, Gary Schmitt, and Reuel Marc Gerecht). Other participants included several retired army officers as well as Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Responding to the tremendous attention garnered by Baker's ISG, the AEI group hurriedly put out in mid-December an early version of Kagan's “Choosing Victory” report, a 52-page bullet-pointed PDF, “easily translatable into the Pentagon's indigenous language of Power Point,” as Spencer Ackerman of the American Prospect derisively commented. The authors were then given the opportunity to present their plan to Bush and five other national security higher-ups.

The neoconservative media machine quickly got into gear to champion the AEI plan. “Alone among proposals for Iraq, the new Keane-Kagan strategy has a chance to succeed,” declared the Weekly Standard, which, like the AEI fellows involved in the Iraq Planning Group, pushed for going to war in Iraq.

However, despite the neoconservatives' efforts to build support for a surge, it seems clear that the public, unlike during the buildup to the war in Iraq, is disinclined to rally behind the effort. According to recent public opinion polls, nearly three out of four U.S. respondents now say they disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, while confidence in his overall leadership has fallen to record lows. Despite having ostentatiously devoted most of the past month devising a new strategy for Iraq, a CBS poll last week found that the public does not believe Bush has a “clear plan” for dealing with the situation there.

The same poll showed that the war in Iraq is also considered far and away the most important priority that people want the new Democrat-led Congress to take up, a finding that no doubt encouraged the two Democratic leaders, House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), to announce in a letter to Bush released last Friday that they will oppose any increase in U.S. troops in Iraq.

“Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain,” wrote the two leaders, citing recent testimony to that effect by senior U.S. military officers, including the outgoing commanders of U.S. forces in Iraq and the Middle East.

“After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq,” they added in what a number of political analysts described as a surprisingly strong stand, given traditional Democratic fears of being depicted as weak on defense.

“This is a great statement,” said Jim Cason, an analyst at the anti-war group the Friends Committee on National Legislation, in an interview with the Inter Press Service. He noted, however, that short of denying funds for the war, Congress has few tools with which to stop Bush from going ahead with a deployment.

One such tool, however, could be Bush's anticipated request for $100 billion, in addition to the $75 billion already approved by last year's Republican-led Congress, to fund U.S. military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2007.

While no one expects the Democrats to oppose the budget request as a whole, the critical issue is whether they will attach conditions to the defense appropriation. Cason said Democrats should at least impose conditions requiring Bush to adopt key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and set a timetable for withdrawal. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) announced a day before the president's announcement his intention to introduce legislation that would force the administration to get congressional approval for any additional troop deployments and funding.

Even before his Wednesday address, Bush had all but rejected the ISG's most important recommendations, including the call to withdraw virtually all U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 15 months and to engage Syria and Iran as part of a regional effort to stabilize Iraq. But the ISG's recommendations have been largely endorsed by the Democratic leadership and by moderate—and even some right-wing—Republicans, pointing to the possibility of a relatively strong bipartisan majority in Congress opposed to escalating the war.

“To be successful, the opposition has to include some Republicans, and it's clear that more Republicans are challenging the president's Iraq war strategy,” according to Cason, who noted that some Republican aides have reported a substantial rise in anti-war mail from constituents since the Democrats' victory in the November elections.

Aside from constituent pressure, Republican lawmakers are also likely to be impressed by a recent poll of U.S. military personnel conducted by the Military Times that found only about one in three officers and enlisted service members approve of Bush's handling of the war and that nearly three in four said they believe the armed forces are stretched too thin to be effective.

Despite the growing opposition, the neoconservatives remain undaunted, with some extreme elements of the political faction urging more dramatic action than a mere troop surge. In a January 9 “Memo to the President,” the hardline Center for Security Policy commended Bush for heeding the advice of those who reflect the president's “laudable determination to prevail.” The memo then argued that any modifications to the plan in Iraq also must have as a goal taking on Iran and the threat of “Islamofascism”: “Your new strategy must make clear that it is being designed to counter Islamofascist Iran both in terms of its subversion in Iraq and with a view to working with the Iranian people to bring down a government that they hate as much as we do.”

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a Right Web contributing writer. Michael Flynn is the director of the Right Web project at the International Relations Center (rightweb.irc-online.org).

IRC Recommended Citation:
Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn, "The Push behind the Surge," Right Web Analysis (Silver City, NM: International Relations Center, January 11, 2007).

Reprinted with permission from the International Relations Center and Creative Commons.

http://www.irc-online.org/content/3898

Heads Up!! Great Program to Air on Fox News

[the following excerpted from the linked Fox News Web Page under Fair Use]

Hezbollah Inside America: FOX News Tells All in Documentary
Thursday, January 18, 2007
By David Asman


Does any terrorist organization pose a greater threat to Americans than Al Qaeda?
The shocking answer to that question unfolds this Saturday, January 20th, at 8 p.m. EST, as FOX News Channel presents a breakthrough documentary, “Smokescreen: Hezbollah Inside America.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244002,00.html

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS PUSHES BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO ENGAGE IRAN

Joshua Kucera 1/16/07

The new Democratic-controlled Congress is exploring ways to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while at the same time exerting pressure on the Bush administration to open a diplomatic dialogue with Tehran.

In its first meeting since Democrats took control of the US House of Representatives, the International Relations Committee held a hearing January 11 called "Next Steps in the Iran Crisis." The new chairman of the committee, Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California, characterized the Iran nuclear issue as "among the most weighty foreign-policy problems we face." He went on to assert that the Bush administration’s unwillingness to engage directly with Iran has only allowed Tehran more time to develop weapons of mass destruction.
"I am frankly baffled by the debate over whether or not we should engage in dialogue with Iran. Dialogue does not mean defeat. I am passionately committed to dialogue with those with whom we disagree," Lantos said.

Lantos’ position was supported by one of the witnesses who testified at the hearing, Thomas Pickering, a former undersecretary of state for political affairs in the Clinton administration. Pickering told the committee that the United States should provide a comprehensive package of incentives and disincentives for Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program, rather than the piecemeal approach the Bush administration has so far attempted.

The incentives, Pickering said, should include help with, and strong oversight of Iran’s civilian nuclear power program, regional security guarantees, and the possibility of removing sanctions. Potential punishment for non-cooperation would involve a series of escalating international sanctions, culminating in a ban on trade in oil and gas with Iran. Pickering admitted his approach might not work, but insisted it was likely the best available option. "The alternative, the use of force, is so deficient in promise, that it would seem best to try diplomacy first, and while there is still time," he told the committee.

A Democratic member of the committee, Brad Sherman of California, said the United States should consider making geopolitical concessions to Russia in return for stronger Russian support on the Iranian nuclear issue.

"We can beg or lecture, but that hasn’t worked. Bargaining probably would, because Russia cares enormously about issues in its own region – Chechnya, Abkhazia, the route of Caspian oil pipelines, the pipeline situation with Belarus and Ukraine, and the treatment of Russian-speaking people in Moldova, Latvia and Estonia," Sherman said. "The national security of the United States depends on our ability to gain Russian support on the Iran issue, in return for reasonable accommodations on issues in Russia’s region."

Sherman, who is also the chair of the subcommittee on international terrorism and nonproliferation, cited several obstacles hampering closer US-Russian cooperation on Iran. "The State Department is strongly prejudiced against linking Russian policy on Iran with our policy on issues in Russia’s region. They have a bureau on Moldova, they have a bureau on Abkhazia, and those bureaucrats will scream loudly if their pet issue is sacrificed for a greater national security concern," Sherman said.

"Secondly, there are those in the administration with such a high estimate of our national power that they believe we can achieve all objectives simultaneously and not prioritize. And finally, many foreign policy experts grew up in the Soviet era, strategizing how to encircle and weaken Russia, and, unfortunately, old habits die hard," he added.

The top Republican on the committee, Ileana Ros Lehtinen of Florida, opposed any effort to engage Iran, saying that it would legitimize the "extremist regime" in Tehran, "embolden our enemies" and allow Iran more time to develop nuclear weapons. She said she favored a stronger international sanctions regime.

She was backed up by James Woolsey, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who instead proposed a more aggressive effort to non-violently overthrow the government in Tehran. In addition, the programming of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Iranian services should be significantly enhanced, Woolsey said.

"Our current broadcasting does not inform Iranians about what is happening in Iran, as RFE and RL did about matters in the [Soviet] bloc. Privately-financed Farsi broadcasts from the United States follow the RFE/RL model to some extent, but exist on a shoestring," he said. Negotiations would not work with Iran because of the "theocratic-totalitarian nature of the current regime," Woolsey added.

Both Democrats and Republicans on the committee voiced support for sanctioning the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) because of its dealings with Iran. CNOOC and Iran in December announced a $16-billion deal to develop Iran’s Northern Pars gas field. The deal appears to violate a US law that imposes sanctions against companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran’s oil and gas industry.

Both Lantos and Ros Lehtinen said they intended to force the Bush administration to enforce the Iran Freedom Support Act, which they said has so far not been a high priority for the administration. "The first test case [of the Act] will come when and if China’s state oil company begins to implement the outrageous $16-billion Memorandum of Understanding it recently signed," Lantos said. "I can assure you that this committee will hold the administration’s feet to the fire, demanding biting sanctions."

Ros Lehtinen echoed Lantos’ threat. "If the Chinese company is found to be in violation of the Iran Freedom Support Act, my colleagues in Congress and I will seek to ensure that this Chinese entity is penalized to the fullest extent of the law," she said.

Ros Lehtinen said she was also concerned about the recent announcement that SKS Ventures of Malaysia had also signed a deal worth $16 billion to develop gas fields in the south of Iran, near the Persian Gulf.


Editor’s Note: Joshua Kucera is a Washington, DC,-based freelance writer who specializes in security issues in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East.
Posted January 16, 2007 © Eurasianet

Copyright (c) 2003 Open Society Institute. Reprinted with the permission of the Open Society Institute, 400 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019 USA, wwwEurasiaNet.org. or www.soros.org.