Signal, No Noise

September 6, 2010

Report: Iran Paying Taliban to Kill U.S. Troops

source

Report: Iran Paying Taliban to Kill U.S. Troops

Published September 05, 2010 | Sunday Times

KABUL — At least five Iranian companies in Afghanistan’s capital are using their offices covertly to finance Taliban militants in provinces near Kabul, according to an investigation by London’s Sunday Times.

Afghan intelligence and Taliban sources have told the newspaper that the firms, set up in the past six months, provide cash for a network of district Taliban treasurers to pay battlefield expenses and bonuses for killing the enemy and destroying their vehicles.

The Iranian companies win contracts to supply materials and logistics to Afghans involved in reconstruction. The money often comes in the form of aid from foreign donors.

Profits are transferred through poorly regulated Afghan banks — including Kabul Bank, which is partly owned by President Hamid Karzai’s brother Mahmood — to Tehran and Dubai.

From these countries, the money returns to Afghanistan through the informal Islamic banking system known as hawala to be dispersed to the Taliban.

“This means the companies involved in funding the insurgency can cover their tracks easily. It makes it harder for us to trace the cashflow,” a senior Afghan intelligence official said.

Iranian companies have been established with the intention of winning contracts funded by foreign aid so that donors’ cash could be channeled into the insurgency, the official said. Western officials believe the network may have been set up by the Al-Quds force, an elite branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

The Iranian embassy in Kabul refused to respond to the allegations. But according to the Taliban treasurer, who has been interviewed by The Sunday Times, Iran is paying bonuses of $1,000 for killing an American soldier and $6,000 for destroying a U.S. military vehicle.

September 1, 2010

Filed under: Asia,Military,Pakistan,South Central Asia,WMD — mungurk @ 10:44

source

Aamir Qureshi / AFP-Getty ImagesThe nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.

Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, widely considered the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, has kept a low profile since his unprecedented 2004 television address accepting sole responsibility for providing nuclear know-how to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. President Pervez Musharraf pardoned Khan the following day, but after a period under house arrest, he remains closely watched by authorities. NEWSWEEK PAKISTAN’S Fasih Ahmed recently conducted an e-mail interview with the nuclear scientist hailed as a hero inside his own country and a threat to global security outside of it. Excerpts:

Pakistan’s nuclear assets are often described as the “Islamic bomb.” Given that no other Muslim-majority country has the bomb, is this description something that you agree with?

The term “Islamic Bomb” was mischievously coined by the Western world to frighten the rest of the world and to portray Muslims, and Pakistan, as terrorists who should not possess an atom bomb. The Western world is united in Muslim-bashing and ridiculing Islam and its golden values.

The U.N. has slapped sanctions on Iran—ostensibly as punishment for the Islamic country’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. How do you see global geopolitics shifting if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons?

In Iran the same mischievous propaganda is at work to befool the rather ignorant—or less knowledgeable—public that it poses a threat and is a fanatic, terrorist country. Have we already forgotten that, despite the repeated statements of no WMD in Iraq that were made by [former U.N. weapons inspector] Hans Blix after IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors made regular visits to that country, Bush and Blair still attacked Iraq? In this process they killed thousands of people, destroyed an ancient civilization, occupied the country, and put stooges in place to play their part in the killing of their own people. Iran, as everyone knows, is a member of the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] regime, that it is open to IAEA inspection of all its sites, to which it is adhering, and that it cannot produce nuclear weapons material or nuclear weapons. This is yet another example of Western hypocrisy.

Most here take pride in the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear state and believe this has served as a deterrent to conventional war with India.

Yes, I fully agree. Our nuclear program has ensured our survival, our security, and our sovereignty … I am proud to have contributed to it together with my patriotic and able colleagues.

Former ISI chief Javed Ashraf Qazi recently told Pakistan’s Dawn News TV channel that CIA agents were caught in 1994–95 trying to buy information on Pakistan’s nuclear program. The refrain that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are unsafe and can fall into the hands of radical Islamic organizations is also often played up in the Western press. How secure is the nuclear arsenal?

Nobody ever penetrated Kahuta [the site of Pakistan’s main nuclear facility], nor could they do so. The Americans, contrary to their tall claims, were totally in the dark about the status of our program. Majors—or even generals, for that matter—had no access to sensitive and classified information … [Kahuta] or PAEC [Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission] were never a department store where one could go and pick up a bomb! The American and British intelligence agencies tried to bribe and buy two of our scientists, who refused all sorts of incentives and reported the matter to me.

Can nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands?

This is again a Western myth and one of their phobias. A nuclear weapon—good or dirty—is a highly complicated and sophisticated device. A large number of parts are needed, and expertise is required to assemble such a device. Even scientists and engineers without the relevant experience are not able to do this, let alone to talk of illiterate, untrained terrorists.

We have examples of countries, like South Africa and, to an extent, Libya, that decided to give up on their nuclear ambitions. How realistic is the possibility of a world with no nukes?

It is very convenient to give South Africa and Libya as examples of self-deweaponization. However, let us look at the backgrounds first. In South Africa the “whites” destroyed their nuclear weapons before handing over power to the “blacks.” They could not accept the fact that “black” people should—or could—possess them. The Libyans panicked after the West attacked Iraq and eliminated Saddam Hussein by falsely accusing that country of possessing nuclear weapons.

The U.S. was aware of Pakistan’s nuclear program but turned a blind eye to it during the original Afghan jihad. As soon as the Soviets were defeated, the U.S. Congress barred American military aid to Pakistan. Has the world made an unfair distinction between Pakistan’s and India’s pursuit of a nuclear program?

The Afghan War was a blessing for our nuclear program. It was not that the Western countries actively supported it but that they were too scared and occupied with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and its future consequences to actively oppose it. Neither the Americans nor the British had a clue about the status of our program until 1990. After the Afghan War they slapped sanctions on us to extract concessions from [fomer Pakistani president] Benazir Bhutto’s government, but [former president] Ghulam Ishaq Khan and [former Army chief] Gen. Aslam Beg frustrated their nefarious designs.

There have been reports that the American Joint Special Operations Command wanted to assassinate you. How safe do you feel?

It is all pure humbug. Nobody ever tried to assassinate me. I traveled all over the world at a time when everyone knew that I was the architect of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. The fact is that Allah Almighty had not yet fixed the time and place for my demise. I never was, and never will be, afraid of so-called threats. When our predetermined time comes, Hazrat Izrael [the angel of death] will find us, no matter where we are hiding.

Have the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made the world safer?

No, the world is not a safer place. Nationalists—call them fundamentalists or extremists if you like—have obtained a mobilization point with [the wars], have united, and are determined to negate the plans and designs of the Western countries.

The CIA chief, Leon Panetta, said earlier this year that Pakistan is now the headquarters of Al Qaeda. British leaders have declared Pakistan the exporter of global terrorism. Is this accurate, and, if so, what can Pakistan do to turn the tide?

The CIA chief—like his bosses and those before him—is a liar. There is no headquarters of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan has become very unsafe due to foreign troops in Afghanistan. Our cohesion has been shattered. The spineless political leaders have turned our country—a nuclear and missile power with [180] million people—into a beggar state, a third-rate country. If there had been any pride left in our leaders, they would have responded appropriately and nobody would have dared to say such things in the first place.

Obama Says Iraq Combat Mission Is Over

Filed under: Americas,Iraq,Middle East,Military,North America,USA — mungurk @ 10:31

source
By HELENE COOPER and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: August 31, 2010
(Doug Mills/The New York Times)  President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval Office about the end of combat in Iraq on Tuesday night.

WASHINGTON — President Obama declared an end on Tuesday to the seven-year American combat mission in Iraq, saying that the United States has met its responsibility to that country and that it is now time to turn to pressing problems at home.

In a prime-time address from the Oval Office, Mr. Obama balanced praise for the troops who fought and died in Iraq with his conviction that getting into the conflict had been a mistake in the first place. But he also used the moment to emphasize that he sees his primary job as addressing the weak economy and other domestic issues — and to make clear that he intends to begin disengaging from the war in Afghanistan next summer.

“We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home,” Mr. Obama said. “Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page.”

Seeking to temper partisan feelings over the war on a day when Republicans pointed out that Mr. Obama had opposed the troop surge generally credited with helping to bring Iraq a measure of stability, the president offered some praise for his predecessor, George W. Bush. Mr. Obama acknowledged their disagreement over Iraq but said that no one could doubt Mr. Bush’s “support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.”

Mr. Obama spoke for about 18 minutes, saying that violence would continue in Iraq and that the United States would continue to play a key role in nurturing a stable democracy there. He celebrated America’s fighting forces as “the steel in our ship of state,” and pledged not to waver in the fight against Al Qaeda.

But he suggested that he sees his role in addressing domestic issues as dominant, saying that it would be difficult to get the economy rolling again but that doing so was “our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.”

With his party facing the prospect of losing control of Congress in this fall’s elections and his own poll numbers depressed in large part because of the lackluster economy and still-high unemployment, he said the nation’s perseverance in Iraq must be matched by determination to address problems at home.

Over the last decade, “we have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas,” he said. “And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy and grit and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad.”

Mr. Obama acknowledged a war fatigue among Americans who have called into question his focus on the Afghanistan war, now approaching its 10th year. He said that American forces in Afghanistan “will be in place for a limited time” to give Afghans the chance to build their government and armed forces.

“But, as was the case in Iraq, we cannot do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves,” the president said. He reiterated that next July he would begin transferring responsibility for security to Afghans, at a pace to be determined by conditions.

“But make no mistake: this transition will begin, because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s,” he said.

This was no iconic end-of-war moment with photos of soldiers kissing nurses in Times Square or victory parades down America’s Main Streets.

Instead, in the days leading to the Tuesday night deadline for the withdrawal of American combat troops, it has appeared as if administration officials and the American military were the only ones marking the end of this country’s combat foray into Iraq. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are all in Baghdad for the official ceremony on Wednesday.

The very sight of Mr. Obama addressing Americans from the Oval Office — from the same desk where Mr. Bush announced the beginning of the conflict — shows the distance traveled since the Iraq war began. On the night of March 20, 2003, when the Army’s Third Infantry Division first rolled over the border from Kuwait into Iraq, Mr. Obama was a state senator in Illinois.

Mr. Bush was at the height of his popularity, and the perception at home and in many places abroad was that America could achieve its national security goals primarily through military power. One of the biggest fears among the American troops in the convoy pouring into Iraq that night — every one of them suited in gas masks and wearing biohazard suits — was that the man they came to topple might unleash a chemical weapons attack.

Seven years and five months later, the biggest fears of American soldiers revolve around the primitive, basic, homemade bombs and old explosives in Afghanistan that were left over from the Soviet invasion. In Iraq, what was perceived as a threat from a powerful dictator, Saddam Hussein, has dissolved into the worry that as United States troops pull out they are leaving behind an unstable and weak government that could be influenced by Iran.

On Tuesday, a senior intelligence official said that Iran continues to supply militant groups in Iraq with weapons, training and equipment.

Wind power helps US Army, hurts Air Force

Filed under: Americas,Electricity,Infrastructure,Military,North America,USA — mungurk @ 10:20

source

Whether it’s good or bad depends on the circumstances

The military is harnessing wind to generate power at the same time that troublesome discoveries about the effects of wind turbines on radar are putting military services in conflict with clean-energy efforts.

The Army’s Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center sees wind power as a key component of future portable power. CERDEC officials wrote on the “Armed With Science” blog at DODLive.mil, that as a follow-up to its Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System effort, “CERDEC Army Power envisions the next generation of photovoltaic systems to use wind power generation as part of a hybrid system for larger-power demand applications. We call it the Reusing Existing Natural Wind and Solar system, or RENEWS.”

RENEWS would combine wind generation and solar power to collect and store energy in a bank of batteries, according to the blog post. The battery banks would have power outlets to allow soldiers and other personnel to plug devices in to use power or charge their own batteries.

“RENEWS falls into this category of higher power production,” the post continues. “Once fully developed, the system is designed for two-man lift that provides higher levels of power and energy storage for use with communications and surveillance in a forward-based environment, where vehicular and/or utility-grid power is not always available.”

CERDEC is based at Fort Monmouth, N.J. Across the country, in the Mojave Desert, plans to build even more wind turbines have met with resistance from the military, who say the towers interfere with radar.

“Moving turbine blades can be indistinguishable from airplanes on many radar systems, and they can even cause blackout zones in which planes disappear from radar entirely,” wrote Leora Broydo Vestel in the New York Times. “Clusters of wind turbines, which can reach as high as 400 feet, look very similar to storm activity on weather radar, making it harder for air traffic controllers to give accurate weather information to pilots.”

According to Vestel’s article, when a local developer told Navy and Air Force officials that he was planning to install just three turbines, one each at three industrial locations near an area under military control, the armed forces opposed the project.

“The military says that the thousands of existing turbines in the gusty Tehachapi Mountains, to the west of the R-2508 military complex in the Mojave Desert, have already limited its abilities to test airborne radar used for target detection in F/A-18s and other aircraft,” Vestel reported.

Gary Seifert, who has been studying the radar/wind energy clash at the Idaho National Laboratory, an Energy Department research facility, described the situation as a potential train wreck involving “the competing resources for two national needs: energy security and national security.”

August 30, 2010

N. Korea Vows to Use Nuclear Weapons If Attacked

source

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 28 Aug 2010 17:02

HAVANA – North Korea’s ambassador to Cuba said Aug. 28 that, if attacked, his country would respond with nuclear weapons and engage in a “sacred war,” Cuban state media reported.

Kwon Sung Chol, quoted by the Prensa Latina government agency, spoke at an event late Aug. 27 marking 50 years of diplomatic relations between Cuba and North Korea.

If North Korea is attacked by U.S. and South Korean forces, “we will respond with a sacred war based on the strength of our nuclear deterrent forces,” Kwon said.

“Our government will make an effort towards the denuclearization of the peninsula and the establishment of a system of lasting peace based on the principle of the reunification of both Koreas,” Kwon said, according to Prensa Latina.

North Korea on July 24 threatened a “powerful nuclear deterrence” in response to joint U.S.-South Korean naval exercises then taking place.

North Korea was prepared for a “retaliatory sacred war,” North Korea’s National Defense Commission (NDC) said in a statement carried then by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

August 26, 2010

Iran ready to sell arms to Lebanon

Filed under: Iran,Lebanon,Middle East,Military,Terrorism,groups.Hezbollah — mungurk @ 10:04

source

Iran’s defence minister has said his country is prepared to sell weapons to Lebanon should it ask for help to equip its military.

General Ahmad Vahidi on Wednesday said Lebanon “is our friend” and that Iran is ready to offer military aid.

“If there is a demand in this respect, we are ready to help that country and conduct weapons transactions with it,” he was quoted as saying by the official Irna news agency.

Vahidi’s comments come a day after Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, proposed the Lebanese government formally seek military assistance from Iran.

Nasrallah vowed in a televised speech on Tuesday that his Iranian-backed group could help secure the aid for Lebanon’s poorly-equipped army.

‘Friendly assistance’

“I vow that Hezbollah will work fervently and capitalise on its friendship with Iran to ensure it helps arm the Lebanese military in any way it can,” he said.

Nasrallah, whose movement is backed by Iran and Syria, made the call following a US freeze in its military aid to Lebanon in the wake of deadly border clashes between Lebanese and Israeli troops.

A US legislator earlier this month suspended $100m of military aid to Lebanon over concerns the weapons could be used to attack Israel, and that Hezbollah may have influence over the Lebanese army.

In Washington Mark Toner, a US state department spokesman, said the possibility of Iranian arms sales to Lebanon underscore “the importance both to our national security and the security of the region to continue with our security assistance to the Lebanese army”.

Toner said a review of the aid programme to Lebanon was under way and that “we hope to conclude that soon and renew assistance”.

The Lebanese army is still seen as under-equipped compared to Hezbollah.

August 22, 2010

The military get mightier

Filed under: Americas,Military,North America,USA — mungurk @ 22:41

source

Friday, 12 January, 2001, 15:17 GMT

The military get mightier

Exoskeleton prototype Darpa

Is this the shape of GIs to come?

By BBC News Online’s Mark Ward

The US military is planning to turn soldiers into supermen by fitting them with powered exoskeletons.

The research arm of the US military is spending $50m to develop new technologies that will improve the speed, strength and endurance of soldiers.

The research programme is aiming to give soldiers better protection against enemy fire, the ability to tote bigger guns, run faster, communicate better and help them avoid friendly fire.

The first trials of the technology are expected within the decade.

Power play

This month, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) is expected to sign contracts to kick off the project to develop powered exoskeletons for its ground troops.

The contract signings follow a year of meetings and assessments run by Darpa to find the most promising technologies.

So far, Darpa, the main research and development organisation for the US Department of Defense, has not said which ideas it favours, but it has set out the broad goals of the programme which calls for technologies that can help troops:

  • carry heavier packs;
  • march faster over longer distances;
  • lift heavier objects and use larger weapons;
  • leap extraordinary heights and/or distances.

Dr Ephrahim Garcia, co-ordinator of the exoskeleton project, said its demands were “formidable” and much of the initial research was speculative to prove concepts rather than develop finished products.

“The controls, the power requirements, the human interface to the machine are all things that we do not know if we can do yet,” he said. “There is a huge challenge here.”

He added that the exoskeletons must be something that troops can wear and use without thinking rather than something they have to operate.

Suited up

The powered suits will help soldiers carry and use larger weapons and to take heavier loads into battle. Currently, soldiers carry a pack that is no more than a third of their body weight and usually take far less into combat.

Field trials have shown that troops typically dump anything too bulky or heavy to carry for long distances.

The exoskeletons will also have to be almost silent to operate and use fuel very efficiently. And soldiers must be able to use them for at least 24 hours before needing to refuel.

Early work sponsored by Darpa has used pneumatic muscles or deformable magnets to power artificial limbs or suits that soldiers could wear. Trials of a Springwalker system helped its developers travel at speeds in excess of 24 km/h (15 mph).

Stuck in the mud

The exoskeletons are expected to include a sensor web that expands a soldier’s field of vision, passes on information about battlefield conditions, using GPS or thermal cameras, helps to co-ordinate groups of other soldiers and lessens the chance of being hit by friendly fire.

Conducting fabrics could be used to swap data between sensors, and wireless networks could pass information between squads or soldiers.

The suits could also act as body armour or have physiological monitoring systems that let officers know the health of the troops under their command.

Field trials of mock-ups of future systems on soldiers running a cross-country course revealed the limitations of some approaches.

Visors on helmets that could double as screens got in the way of rifle sights or made the headgear bulky and unstable. Other sensors or power packs distributed around the body of a soldier got in the way when combatants were crawling and made it harder for them to hide.

Iran president unveils drone bomber

Filed under: Iran,Middle East,Military,WMD — mungurk @ 22:35

source

Iran president unveils drone bomber

(UKPA) – 2 hours ago

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has unveiled Iran’s first domestically-built unmanned bomber aircraft, calling it an “ambassador of death” to the country’s enemies.

The 4m-long drone aircraft can carry up to four cruise missiles and will have a range of 620 miles, according to a state TV report – but not far enough to reach arch-enemy Israel.

“The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship,” Mr Ahmadinejad said at the inauguration ceremony in Tehran.

The goal of the aircraft, named Karrar or striker, was to keep the enemy paralysed in its bases, he said, adding that the aircraft was for deterrence and defensive purposes.

The president championed the country’s military self-sufficiency programme and said it would continue “until the enemies of humanity lose hope of ever attacking the Iranian nation”.

Iran launched an arms development programme during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a US weapons embargo and now produces its own tanks, armoured personnel carries, missiles and even a fighter plane.

It frequently makes announcements about new advances in military technology that cannot be independently verified.

State TV later showed video footage of the plane taking off from a launching pad and reported that the craft travelled at speeds of 560mph and could alternatively be armed with two 250lb bombs or a 450lb guided bomb.

Iran has been producing its own light, unmanned surveillance aircraft since the late 1980s.

The ceremony came a day after Iran began to fuel its first nuclear power reactor, with the help of Russia, amid international concerns over the possibility of a military dimension to its nuclear programme. Iran insists it is only interested in generating electricity.

August 17, 2010

Ex-Israeli Soldier’s Photos Condemned

Filed under: Israel,Middle East,Palestine,Prisoner Policy — mungurk @ 09:22

source

Ex-Israeli Soldier’s Photos Condemned

By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: August 16, 2010

TEL AVIV — An Israeli woman who completed her military service last year posted photographs of herself from the army posing with blindfolded and bound Palestinian prisoners under the title “The Army … The Most Beautiful Time of My Life,” producing enraged commentary on the Internet and condemnation from the military.

The woman, Eden Abergil, from the southern city of Ashdod, is seen in the pictures, posted on her Facebook page, smiling next to the prisoners.

A few friends on her page praised the pictures, including one who wrote, “You look so sexy like that.” Ms. Abergil’s reply, using the shorthand of the medium, was, “Yeah I know lol honey. What a day it was. Look how he completes my picture. I wonder if he’s got Facebook!”

After an Israeli Web site posted the selections from the page, angry commentary ensued. The Israeli military issued a statement saying: “This was shameful behavior by the soldier. In light of the fact that she was discharged last year, all of the details have been turned over to the commanders for further attention.”

Generally, acts done while in military service can be prosecuted, but a spokesman said that since Ms. Abergil had been discharged last year, legal action remained unclear. The Public Committee Against Torture, an Israeli group, said that abusive behavior by soldiers was the norm at West Bank checkpoints and at detention centers.

Several bloggers who asked Ms. Abergil for comment were turned away. She also changed her Facebook settings to block outsiders.

June 13, 2010

Filed under: Asia,China,East Asia,Military,North Korea — mungurk @ 00:36

source

North Korean border guard ‘shoots three Chinese dead’

Page last updated at 10:33 GMT, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 11:33 UK

China-North Korea bridge The four were allegedly shot close to the countries’ borderChina says a North Korean border guard shot and killed three people near the countries’ border last week.

A fourth person was reportedly injured in the incident near the north-eastern border town of Dandong.

China has made a formal complaint to North Korea, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry said.

The two countries are considered to be close allies and Beijing rarely makes any public criticism of its isolated neighbour.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regular news conference in Beijing that the four residents of Dandong, in Liaoning province, had been shot “on suspicion of crossing the border for trade activities”.

“China attaches great importance to that and has immediately raised a solemn representation with the DPRK,” he said, using North Korea’s full name (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea).

Close allyMr Qin said the case was being investigated, but gave no further details. Pyongyang has not commented on the accusations.

Illegal traders regularly cross the border between North Korea and China, taking black market goods into the impoverished country.

China is North Korea’s main trading partner and the country perceived to have the most influence on the state.

MapTensions on the Korean peninsula have been high since the sinking of a South Korean warship in March with the loss of 46 lives.

An international investigation blamed North Korea for the sinking, but China has resisted pressure to condemn its ally. Instead, it has urged both the Koreas to show restraint.

Last month, the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, was reported to have visited China to seek economic and political support.

China is crucial to North Korea’s fight for economic survival, providing Pyongyang with food, fuel and much-needed investment.

Beijing is also a participant in the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear programme. The talks have been going on since 2003 without much progress.

In 2009, North Korea detained two US journalists on the border with China, accusing them of entering North Korea illegally.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who said they were detained on the Chinese side, were sentenced to 12 years’ hard labour but were freed in August after four months in captivity, as part of a diplomatic mission spearheaded by former US President Bill Clinton.

A US man, Robert Park, was also arrested in December last year, after walking into North Korea across a frozen river. He was released in February.

Older Posts »
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes

Powered by WordPress