President Obama’s Inaugural Address

20 January 2009

President Obama’s Inaugural Address
“Today we gather because we have chosen hope over fear,” president says

(begin transcript by http://www.america.gov )


REMARKS OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
Inaugural Address
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Washington, D.C.

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you’ve bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit, to choose our better history, to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor — who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg, Normandy and Khe Sanh.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions, greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions, that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers … Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass, that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve, that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself, and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow, to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are the guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service, a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job, which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive ... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
(end transcript by http://www.america.gov )

Diskussionen.de

href="http://www.worldwebjournal.com/">www.worldwebjournal.com

Ban Ki-moon calls on Israel and Hamas

Middle East

"Readiness to combat" makes no peace.

Jim Wurst: UN Sets Ground for Future Disarmament Battles

The UN General Assembly committee dealing with nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament issues ran a wait-and-see session in October 2008, with progress perhaps stymied by the upcoming presidential transition in the United States. The session, which ended four days before the U.S. election, debated and voted on 58 resolutions. Under the umbrella of nuclear disarmament, the committee usually considers numerous drafts on specific issues-such as operational status, security assurances, and nuclear-weapon-free zones-and three comprehensive, omnibus drafts each year.

Each session, countries or groups of countries present draft resolutions on a broad range of disarmament issues, including nuclear, biological, chemical, and space issues; conventional arms such as land mines and cluster munitions; as well as on the machinery by which the United Nations debates these issues, such as the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD). After three weeks of debate on the issues and the drafts, each draft is considered with the goal, usually unrealized, of adopting resolutions by consensus. The majority of drafts on nuclear issues usually pass with large majorities.

Three omnibus drafts on nuclear disarmament were introduced in the Disarmament and International Security Committee, also known as the First Committee, by the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), the Nonaligned Movement (NAM), and Japan. There were slight changes in the language of previous years; nearly all of the additional phrases focused on the nuclear-weapon states' responsibility to eliminate their arsenals under the Article VI disarmament provisions of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

The NAC, comprised of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden, continued its annual practice of presenting a draft reaffirming the international community's commitments to the NPT and the decisions taken by its nearly 190 states-parties at its once-every-five-years review conferences. In introducing the draft, Ambassador Leslie Gumbi of South Africa said, "The NAC continues to view these issues of nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation as being inextricably linked, and wishes to stress that both therefore require continuous and irreversible progress."

The text entitled "Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: Accelerating the Implementation of Nuclear Disarmament Commitments" had the most changes of the three omnibus drafts. Paragraphs were added elaborating on the responsibilities of states-parties to the NPT and the preferred outcome for the remainder of the current NPT review process. For the last two years, states-parties have been preparing for the next treaty review conference in 2010 and will hold their final preparatory session in April.

One addition, for example, calls on the nuclear-weapon states to "accelerate the implementation of the practical steps towards nuclear disarmament" agreed to at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference and the 2000 Review Conference. These measures, in particular the 13 practical steps agreed to in 2000 and a 1995 resolution calling for a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, have for the most part stalled. The 13 steps include negotiations on a fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT), which is stuck in the deadlocked CD, and cuts in strategic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons. More broadly, the United States and France have been walking back from the 2000 commitments, calling them out of date and "suggestions" rather than commitments. Another addition called on the 2009 preparatory committee meeting to "identify and address specific aspects where urgent progress is required" to reach a nuclear-weapon-free world.

The resolution spearheaded by Japan and a range of co-sponsors from developed (Canada, Germany, Switzerland) and developing (Chile, Paraguay) countries was entitled "Renewed Determination Towards the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons." It contained a few new elements that highlight the responsibilities of the nuclear-weapon states, in particular the United States and Russia. One calls on the nuclear powers to "undertake reductions...in a transparent manner" and to increase transparency and confidence-building measures. Another addition calls on the United States and Russia to pursue "the conclusion of a legally binding successor" to START, which expires at the end of 2009. As usual, the bulk of the resolution focused on the range of treaty-based commitments by the nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states required for the elimination of nuclear weapons. It was less explicit than the NAC draft in calling for a nuclear-weapon-free world, which is one reason the Japanese text has traditionally gained greater support in the voting.

Although the votes were mostly on track with last year, the NAC resolution did show a bit more progress in swaying abstainers. The 2008 vote was 141 to five, with six abstentions; in 2007 the same five voted no (France, India, Israel, North Korea, and the United States), but 13 had abstained. The movement from abstention to yes this year came from Australia and some NATO countries, including Greece, Hungary, and Poland. There was also a slight shift on the Japan-led draft. In 2007, three countries voted no: India, North Korea, and the United States. This year, those three were joined by Israel. The abstentions shifted from 10 last year to six this year.

The third draft, the NAM comprehensive text on "Nuclear Disarmament," contained every nuclear disarmament initiative endorsed by the group of developing countries. These include no-first-use and de-alerting of nuclear weapons, the creation of an ad hoc committee on disarmament at the CD, the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the negotiation of a "non-discriminatory, multilateral...and verifiable" FMCT, and a halt to qualitative improvements in nuclear weapons. Similar to the other two, this year's version has a couple of additions, each designed to sharpen the focus on the elimination of nuclear weapons. The 2008 vote was 104 to 44 with 21 abstentions, following the pattern of last year. Because the NAM draft goes far beyond generally agreed treaty language, it has the least success in gathering positive votes.

The United States voted against all three resolutions. In explaining its vote against the NAC draft, the U.S. representative said that although Washington supports the NPT, the keystone to the NAC draft, it could not support some of the elements, so it voted no. The Bush administration has not supported U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and maintains that parts of the 1995 and 2000 NPT commitments have been superseded by events. China abstained on the "Renewed Determination" text while voting in favor of the other two, saying the draft has elements that were "not feasible in current circumstances," without elaborating on which elements were not feasible.

As much as a trend can be read into the debate, it is that the non-nuclear-weapon states are sharpening their argument ahead of the third and final preparatory session for the 2010 NPT Review Conference: that the success of the NPT cannot be separated from real progress in nuclear disarmament.

Last year, the most dynamic resolution was on the operational status of nuclear weapons. The key line "calls for further practical steps to be taken to decrease the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems, with a view to ensuring that all nuclear weapons are removed from high alert status." Co-sponsored by Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden, and Switzerland, the text walks a fine line between calling for meaningful actions and not too greatly offending non-nuclear NATO countries. In its second year, there was little debate because the draft changed little. The vote was about the same as well. There were 134 yes votes and three votes against: France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. China and Russia abstained. In total, 32 countries abstained, largely NATO members and states applying for NATO membership. France, the United Kingdom, and the United States made a joint statement after the vote, saying they "disagree with the basic premise" of the resolution. They said their weapons "are subject to the most rigorous command and control systems" and "the relationship between alert levels and security is complex, and not reducible to such simple formulaic responses."

armscontrol.org PR

Cluster Munitions Convention Leaders Voted 2008 "Arms Control Persons of the Year"

(Washington, D.C.) Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and his ministry's Director-General for Security Policy and the High North Steffen Kongstad garnered the highest number of votes in an online poll to determine the "2008 Arms Control Person of the Year." Nine other individuals and institutions were nominated by the Arms Control Association.
Dissatisfied with the pace of global efforts to control the use of cluster munitions, Støre announced in 2006 that his country would convene an effort to create an international ban on the weapons. The Oslo process led to the negotiation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which 94 countries signed in December 2008. Kongstad led Norway's crossdepartmental effort and was added as an award recipient after many voters wrote in his name.
"The Convention on Cluster Munitions is the most important new humanitarian arms control treaty of the still-young century and Norway's Støre and Kongstad deserve great praise for their leadership," said Jeff Abramson, conventional weapons analyst with the Arms Control Association.
"Working with other countries and a dedicated coalition of civil society leaders and cluster munitions survivors, their actions spurred meaningful progress to bar indiscriminate weapons that have killed or maimed tens of thousands of noncombatants," Abramson added.
Cluster munitions are bombs, rockets and artillery shells that release smaller submunitions over a broad area, often injuring civilians during conflict or afterwards when initially unexploded devices later detonate when disturbed. For more information on cluster munitions and the Convention on Cluster Munitions see http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_12/CCM.
"The purpose of the 'Arms Control Person of the Year' poll is to highlight the positive contributions of key figures around the globe in reducing the threats posed by the world's most dangerous weapons," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
Other top vote-getters were the lead U.S. negotiator dealing with North Korea and a group of four former U.S. officials who have called for progress on moving toward a nuclear weapons free world.
Christopher Hill, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, was nominated "for persistently maintaining a difficult dialogue with North Korea on steps leading to its eventual denuclearization, potentially preventing the resumption of its plutonium production for nuclear weapons."
Former Secretaries of State George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, and former Sen. Sam Nunn were included "for their catalytic January 2007 and 2008 op-eds in The Wall Street Journal calling for renewed U.S. leadership on practical steps 'toward a world free of nuclear weapons.'"
The online poll was open between Dec. 16-28, 2008. For the list of all 2008 nominees, see http://www.armscontrol.org/2008personofyear.

armscontrol.org/pressroom/2008personofyear

Obama in Chicago

Diskussionen.de

Obama in Berlin: "World free of nuclear weapons"

(wwj)

Wikinews: US will remove 'terror' tag on North Korea

Fulfilling a pledge of fairness, United States president George W. Bush announced Thursday that the United States will soon remove North Korea from a list of countries seen as 'sponsoring terrorism' in the world.

The announcement was made as a 'reward' to North Korea for turning over all documents related to its controversial nuclear program. Pyongyang turned over to China documents related to its plutonium core and waste activities.
Pyongyang finally turned over documents and plans of its nuclear enrichment facilities in Yongbyong.
North Korean state television also announced that the state will televise the demolition of the cooling tower of the Yongbyong nuclear facilities on Friday.
Mr. Bush called the North Korean action as a positive step with no illusions. He also said that the act truly pleased him and it's just the first step towards repairing North Korea's relation and status with the world community.
The president added that in response to the act, he will lift the trade sanctions under the Trading With the Enemy Act.
The White House will also inform the U.S. Congress that in 45 days, the State Department will remove North Korea from a list of nations that sponsor terrorism.
The United States reminded North Korea that it still has some requirements to complete in order for the country to be completely removed from its diplomatic and economic isolation.
Pyongyang remains obliged to answer questions such as the degree of its uranium enrichment and proliferation that possibly benefited Syria.
The United Nations sanction sponsored by the United States issued on February 13, 2007 also demanded for a complete accounting of the alleged half a dozen units of nuclear bombs, the real number and its actual location.

U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley downplayed any heightened expectations from North Korea and branded the latest act as a mere "stepping stone."
Hadley warned that the process remains delicate and there will still be "definite consequences," if North Korea fails to fulfill its end of the bargain.
Meanwhile, Japan expressed 'unease' over the decision of the United States to remove North Korea from the 'terror' list claiming that there is still a need to resolve issues about the kidnapping of Japanese nationals by agents of Pyongyang.

FAS: Cost of "War on Terror" Since 9/11

"With enactment of the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R.
2764/P.L. 110-161) on December 26, 2007, Congress has approved a total of about
$700 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid,
embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the
9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter
terror operations; ..." >> more >> FAS.org

SIPRI YEARBOOK 2008

Armaments, Disarmament and International Security
SIPRI’s annual compendium of data and analysis of developments in security and
conflicts, military spending and armaments and non-proliferation, arms control
and disarmament

As shown in the new edition of the SIPRI Yearbook:
• Armed conflicts are far more complex and intractable than is often thought and the traditional
classification of conflicts is breaking down.
• Military spending, arms production and international arms transfers are all on the rise:
 world military spending totalled $1339 billion in 2007, a real-terms increase of 6% since 2006;
 arms sales by the 100 largest arms-producing companies in 2006 increased by 8% in nominal
terms over 2005;
 international transfers of major conventional weapons were 7% higher over the period 2003–
2007 than in 2002–2006.
• While 8 states possess almost 10 200 operational nuclear weapons, many arms control and nonproliferation
agreements are faltering or making little progress.
• Efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, biological or
chemical—are increasingly focused on individuals and non-state groups, rather than states.
In response to these challenges, there is growing urgency around the globe to bring new life and a
mainstream momentum to arms control. There are new leaders in the UN, France, Germany, Japan,
Russia, the UK and, from January 2009, the USA—who will find it politically possible to take
concrete action on the arms control and disarmament front. Encouraging technological developments
allow greater certainty in the monitoring and verification of arms control agreements.
‘The movement to reinvigorate arms control efforts must stake common ground across the political
divides of right and left, “doves” and “hawks”, nationalists and internationalists, hope and fear,’ said
Gill. A global consensus on arms control and disarmament must include both nuclear and non-nuclear
weapon states and be supported by think tanks and other non-governmental organizations.
‘Voices from across the political spectrum are coming to recognize again the value of arms control in
the face of looming threats to humankind,’ said Gill, ‘Although we face tremendous obstacles, a new
window of opportunity is opening to realize constructive progress on arms control and disarmament. It
is clearly in the interest of citizens and governments alike to take pragmatic and positive steps in the
right direction.’

In SIPRI Yearbook 2008, SIPRI reports that
• There were 14 major armed conflicts in 2007. With the breakdown of the traditional classification
of conflicts, new approaches to conflict resolution are needed. Violent groups should be integrated
into political processes, not marginalized.
• 61 peace operations were conducted in 2007, two more than in 2006 and the highest number
since 1999, and the number of personnel deployed to such operations reached an all-time high of
169 467. With this growth, the crucial pre-mission phase of a peace operation deployment is
becoming more complex.
• World military spending totalled $1339 billion in 2007, corresponding to 2.5% of world GDP and
$202 per capita. This is a real-terms increase of 6% since 2006 and of 45% since 1998. The factors
driving increases in world military spending include aspiration to global or regional power status,
actual or potential conflicts, and the availability of economic resources.
• Global arms production is increasing. Arms sales by the 100 largest arms-producing companies
(the ‘SIPRI Top 100’) amounted to $315 billion in 2006, an increase of 8% in nominal terms over
2005. US companies dominate the Top 100, both numerically and financially, with West European
companies some way behind.
• International transfers of major conventional weapons over the period 2003–2007 were 7%
higher than in 2002–2006. The 5 largest arms suppliers for the period 2003–2007—the USA,
Russia, Germany, France and the UK—accounted for about 80% of the volume of transfers.
• Russia’s new-found self-confidence, supported by revenue from its natural resources, is allowing it
to assert itself more on the international stage. However, Russia appears eager to maintain
cooperative relations with the West and is unlikely to risk challenging it too forcefully.
• The role of export controls in supporting the main multilateral non-proliferation treaties is now
supplemented by the important role that they play in implementing decisions of the UN Security
Council on particular countries (such as Iran or North Korea).
• Experts widely agree that another influenza pandemic is on the horizon, jeopardizing global health
and security.

When will the West answer Medvedev's proposals?

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - While in Berlin, Dmitry Medvedev has made so many proposals to the West, that it would be very rude to turn them down. It will be interesting to see how long the West ponders over them and which it will accept.

In brief, Medvedev suggested a pause on Kosovo, on NATO's extension (one more step to the East and relations with Russia will be spoilt once and for all), and on new U.S. missile defense elements in Europe. He said that the Russian views should not be tailored to the Western positions, that the UN and the OSCE should not be replaced with other forums, and proposed a universally binding international security agreement on the template of the Helsinki-2 accords.

His proposals will not be accepted as a package, and the West is not likely to give a prompt reply. Moreover, many Europeans are impeded by a blinkered understanding of the recent change of power in Russia. They cannot see that Medvedev is Vladimir Putin's successor, rather than opponent.

The new Russian president's first trip to the West was bound to attract comment, and Medvedev could not but be compared with his predecessor. This is only natural. But these comparisons were made against the background of Putin's speech in Munich on February 10, in which he outlined Russia's grievances. That speech scared the West quite a bit.

Thus, on the eve of his first visit to Berlin, Medvedev was expected to show renewed "liberalism," "restraint," and "gentleness," all the features which Putin had lost by the time he gave his Munich speech (these are all statements from British, German, and American newspapers). It is difficult to say where the West got such "confidential information," not only about the contents of Medvedev's speech but also about his tone.

Nor was it very well informed. Speaking before almost 700 German businessmen, politicians, and public figures, Medvedev set forth in detail the very same ideas Putin had so emotionally voiced in Munich. Indeed, it is difficult to find any differences between the two speeches. In Munich, Putin said "the use of force may be considered legitimate only if a decision is made by the United Nations, and the latter should not be replaced with either NATO, or the European Union (EU)." In Berlin, Medvedev spoke about "attempts to justify NATO's existence by 'globalizing' its mission, which infringes on the UN Security Council's prerogatives, and by inviting new members."

Moreover, Putin said that "NATO's expansion is a serious provocation, which is reducing the level of mutual trust. It is fair for us to ask in plain terms - against whom is this expansion directed?" This sounds much more liberal than Medvedev's warning that if NATO expands any further, "relations with Russia will be spoilt once and for all," and "the price of this will be high."

Putin said that Russia has "the privilege to conduct an independent foreign policy." Medvedev recalled that "our approaches should not be tailored to Western positions," and that we "are seeking truly equitable relations and nothing more than that."

One gets the impression that though many people understand that the era of "Yeltsin's mellowness" has gone for good, they cannot - or will not - accept it. They are trying to subject Russia to some kind of a check-up, to find out who it will make friends with and who it will oppose.

These people seem to think that Winston Churchill's dictum that Britain has neither friends nor enemies, but interests, should not apply to anyone but Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Australia or Canada. They forget that no country has a monopoly on pragmatism.

The business part of the meeting went without a hitch. After all, Germany and Russia enjoy a special relationship going back as far as Peter the Great. For centuries the two countries have had an unwritten agreement under which Germany helps Russia with technologies in exchange for access to its mineral riches. Today, that relationship is as strong as ever. Germany is Europe's biggest consumer of Russian energy, and Russia has always been its most reliable supplier. Today, oil and gas amount to 70% of Russian exports to Germany. Metals and alloys account for another 15%, and timber comes next. Ninety percent of German exports to Russia are machines and equipment, metal ware, chemicals, and electrical equipment.

Asked by a German newspaper what advice he would give to Frau Merkel at the talks with Medvedev, Andreas Schockenhoff, Germany's envoy on German-Russian relations, replied that he would suggest inviting the Russian president to attend the annual security conference in Munich, which is traditionally held in February.

That is a good idea. Medvedev has had his say. Maybe in Munich the Europeans will give him their answer.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Russian president calls for binding European security treaty

BERLIN, June 5 (RIA Novosti) -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called on Thursday for a legally binding European security treaty to be signed at an all-European conference.
"I am convinced that without addressing all of our concerns in a frank and fair way we will be unable to make any headway in building a Greater Europe," he said, speaking in Berlin after talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel during his first European trip since being sworn into office on May 7
He also added that "organizations operating in the Euro-Atlantic region" could also join it.
He said a new security arrangement should be based on "pure" national interests, not skewed by ideological motives.
The president also said that without cuts in military spending it would be impossible to raise sufficient resources to deal with such global challenges as climate change, illegal migration, and global poverty.
He also said that NATO's further eastward expansion would harm the bloc's relations with Russia, but there would be no confrontation.
Medvedev urged NATO to halt its enlargement and missile defense plans in Europe, adding that it was critical to break the vicious circle of unilateral actions.
He also said earlier on Thursday that Russia was alarmed by "narrowing trends of mutual understanding in Euro-Atlantic policies."

Russia and the EU are to start talks on a new wide-reaching strategic partnership agreement at a summit later this month.

10 arguments against the US radar

Infos from www.nezakladnam.cz

1. There is no substantial difference between a radar base and a missile base. They are two integral parts of the same system and they can’t be separated either technically or politically. The whole system can be used both in defense and in offense.
2. If our country plays host to this extraordinarily powerful and technically advanced U.S. radar base, we will become a tool of the unilateral U.S. foreign policy, which is aimed at military hegemony and the so-called war against terrorism. This war has thusfar succeeded only in increasing terrorism, destroying Iraq, destabilizing the region and giving rise to the prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
3. Our membership in NATO places no obligation on us to accept the radar base. The construction of the radar base is a unilateral action of the United States.
4. The base will not make us more secure. On the contrary, it will place us in greater danger. At the present time, the Czech Republic has no enemies among states. And missiles and radars are not effective in combatting terrorism.
5. Just as in the case of a missile base, the Czech Republic would have no say in what happens at a U.S. radar base on our soil or what would truly be installed there. The base would be completely under the control of U.S. Air Command in Europe.
6. Such a base whether with radar or missiles will increase international tension, particularly in relation to Russia, and intensify an international arms race, which could spark a serious conflict.
7. Such a base is a potential target for attack. In the event of a conflict between states which own medium-range ballistic missiles, a radar base would be a first priority target.
8. The construction of more bases threatens to spark new cycles of armament around the world. In developing countries, this results in the deepening of poverty for already desperate populations. In Europe, it could mean the end of state ensurance of social security.
9. The effects of such a high-power radar system on nearby residents are not known. The only similar systems are located in remote and unpopulated areas.
10. Effective defense against the threats of terrorism and war requires a decrease in international tension. New bases, which increase tension, will certainly not help in this regard.

Barack Obama effectively clinches Democratic nomination

Barack Obama has reportedly achieved enough Democratic Party delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination to become the Presidential candidate to face Republican Senator John McCain in the November 2008 United States elections. Obama will be the first black candidate ever to stand for the United States presidency with the backing of a major political party.

While Obama needed another 40 primary delegates coming into Tuesday's final two primaries to secure the nomination with the required 2,118 total, he was considered to be likely to achieve this through the primaries in Montana and South Dakota. However, due to the superdelegates that have gone in favor of Obama, he has achieved the needed count ahead of today's primaries. According to two anonymous Clinton campaign officials, the New York Senator believed that Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, had done enough to win the Democratic nomination.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has denied reports that she will concede the Democratic Party of the United States primary campaign to Barack Obama during a speech tonight in New York City.

The Associated Press first reported that two campaign officials stated she would announce her concession tonight. In a statement to the press, Clinton's campaign commented in two sentences: "The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening."

Interviewed on CNN today, Clinton's campaign manager Terry McAuliffe called reports of concession "100 percent incorrect," but stated on NBC's Today that once Obama reached the crucial delegate count of 2,118, Clinton would congratulate him and "call him the nominee". She also told NBC that, "until someone has that magic number, we're going to continue to fight for literally those 17.5 million people."

On Monday, former President Bill Clinton was quoted as saying that "this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind. I thought I was out of politics, till Hillary decided to run. But it has been one of the greatest honors of my life to be able to go around and campaign for her for president." President Clinton's aides later downplayed the statement.

The decision not to terminate Clinton's campaign officially was observed to give her a bargaining and leverage tool with Obama on various matters, up to and including the possibility of Clinton being Obama's vice presidential candidate. Speaking on conditions of anonymity, a Clinton campaign official stated that all Clinton campaign staff would be paid through June 15.

Called the "comeback kid" for her ability to come from behind to win states when the primary campaign showed Obama beginning to take both delegate and popularity leads, Clinton had campaigned late into Monday night for the chance of still taking a final come-from-behind victory in the final two primary elections. But today, Obama took the nomination ahead of the time frame analysts had predicted.

The Barack Obama campaign website has reported that there are 31.5 more delegates required before Obama receives the nomination.

A news report released by the Boston Globe has claimed that the Clinton Campaign is indicating that "she [Clinton] will gracefully exit the stage and won't take her fight to the convention." Sources close to Clinton hinted that if asked, she would be willing to serve as Obama's running mate. +wikinews+

Human rights group alleges U.S. prison ships

The British branch of human rights organization Reprieve has accused the United States government of using naval military ships to detain in secret and interrogate alleged terror suspects. The United States swiftly denied the allegations. Clive Stafford Smith, founder and director of Reprieve, said, "the U.S. administration chooses ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers."

According to Reprieve, prisoners such as the Australian David Hicks, and the American John Walker Lindh were imprisoned on naval ships stationed off the coasts of both Somalia and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Reprieve also noted that "prisoners have been interrogated under torturous conditions before being rendered to other, often undisclosed locations."

According to the United States Navy, some ships have been used for short term prisoner housing, but denied they were prisons. "We do not operate detention facilities on board Navy ships. Department of Defense detention facilities are in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay." said Navy Commander Jeffrey D. Gordon from the Pentagon. Gordon did acknowledge that it was a matter of public record that some individuals had been put onto the ships in question "for a few days", in what he labelled the 'initial days of detention'.

Among the United States ships named by Reprieve as having served as prison ships were the USS Peleliu and the USS Bataan, both of which are amphibious assault ships. Also named was the USS Ashland, a dock landing ship. Reprieve stated that its assessment was based on evidence from sources in the U.S. military, the Council of Europe and from testimony received from former detainees at the the U.S. prison camps in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

On Monday, Reprieve said it would publish details of its research later this year, in a full report on the alleged activities of the U.S. military. The organization went on to claim that the United States was imprisoning as many as 26,000 foreign detainees in secret prison facilities, including land-based prisons. Gordon was quoted as calling Reprieve's comments "inaccurate and misleading." +wikinews+

Artic Robbery

Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia, and the United States met there on May 27-29 to discuss a legal division of the Arctic.

Territory extension without permission from the United Nations is not legal. And without legitimacy.

Russian Announcement of Intention to Send More Military Forces into Abkhazia

Press Statement Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC May 31, 2008

The United States is dismayed by Russia's Defense Ministry announcement on May 31 that it intends to send more military forces, including railroad construction troops, into the Georgian region of Abkhazia without the consent of the Georgian Government. This announcement is particularly difficult to understand in light of Georgia's forthcoming statement at the UN Security Council on May 30 that it was suspending UAV flights over Abkhazia, as well as the constructive efforts by President Saakashvili and others to invigorate the Abkhazia peace process. We have expressed our concerns to the Russian government and are in touch with the Georgian government about this latest announcement of a Russian military buildup.

SECRETARY-GENERAL WELCOMES ADOPTION OF CONVENTION ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS

The following statement concerning the adoption of the Convention on cluster munitions was issued today by the Spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

The Secretary-General is delighted that the strong calls to address the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions have been answered with the adoption today of this new Convention. He welcomes this successful outcome of the Dublin Diplomatic Conference and congratulates everyone who contributed to the process.

A broad-based coalition of States, international organizations and civil society has brought about a new international standard that will enhance the protection of civilians, strengthen human rights and improve prospects for development.

The United Nations will provide its full support and is ready to assist in the implementation of the responsibilities under this Convention. The Secretary-General has accepted depositary functions under the Convention, which he urges all States to sign and ratify without delay, and he looks forward to its rapid entry into force.

Secretary Rice and Palestinian President Abbas

Joint Press Availability with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Ramallah
May 4, 2008

View >> Video

PRESIDENT ABBAS: In the name of God the Merciful and the Compassionate, I welcome Dr. Rice and I thank her for her commitment to exert all efforts and utmost efforts to make the year 2008 the year of peace and for her relentless efforts and persistence to transform the vision of President Bush from a vision into a clear, political and peace track.

Today we talked in depth with Dr. Rice about all issues, the final status issues, Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, water and prisoners. And we reiterated that the Roadmap and the Arab Peace Initiative and the vision of President Bush and all international resolutions form the basis for the solution of these cases in order to end occupation -- Israeli occupation that started in 1967, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, an independent state, and Jerusalem as its capital alongside the State of Israel.

We reiterated today to Dr. Rice the need for Israel to abide by and the need to freeze all settlement activities including natural growth activities and to remove all illegal settlement posts. And this is what the Quartet has called for as well as the opening of Jerusalem based institutions and to return to the situation as it was before the 20th of September 2000 and the release of the prisoners, the lifting of the checkpoints. And all of these are issues that are part of the first phase of the Roadmap.

And in this occasion we salute the decision by the Quartet that was issued two days ago about settlements and settlement posts -- outposts, as well as Dr. Rice’s statements on this issue. In our turn, we reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law and the one weapon and one authority, and we thank the U.S., the EU and the Arab countries for all their support in this field.

And I mention this because yesterday we saw that the Palestinian security forces were deployed in Jenin and after Annapolis, and after that we hope to redeploy our forces in all other areas in the West Bank. And we reiterate for everyone that the weapon will only be a unified weapon, and there will be no legitimate weapon and arms except under the authority. And anyone who violates this will be held accountable and will be pursued. And we will not allow anyone to obstruct the security forces, the Palestinian security forces from undertaking their duties and tasks.

As on the Gaza Strip, we reiterate and we support the efforts exerted by Egypt for a truce. And we have called for that several times and repeatedly in order to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and lift the siege, and in order to provide the people with the basic needs as well as water and electricity.

On this occasion we reiterate the need to stress that Gaza and the West Bank are one unified entity. And, therefore, we call up on Hamas to withdraw back from its coup and to accept immediately -- and we are ready for that, to accept the calling for immediate Presidential and legislative elections and, therefore, we repeat our -- what we mentioned earlier, that we are ready to go for early Presidential and legislative elections.

We confirm our commitment to the Peace process and our continuous efforts and negotiations, particularly with the Israeli side. Tomorrow I will meet with Prime Minister Olmert as well as Abu Alaa will be meeting with the Secretary of State, Israeli Minister Tzipi Livni and to discuss negotiations as well as discuss daily issues, which are also important, that we need to follow up on.

I point out to the London conference also, and I thank all the countries that have reaffirmed their commitment to support the Palestinian National Authority. And we noticed that the fruits of this support has started to be felt on the grounds at the security level or at the economic level as well. And we look forward positively and with hope to the Investment Conference in Bethlehem that will be held soon this month.

And thank you again. We welcome you again, and we thank you Dr. Rice. And we welcome you here in Ramallah.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thank you for welcoming me yet again to Ramallah for our very important discussions about how to move the Annapolis process forward on all three tracks, first of all, the improvement of life for Palestinians and their daily lives. I had a very good discussion this morning with Prime Minister Fayyad and with Defense Minister Barak about the efforts that are being made in places like Jenin. And I congratulate you on the deployment of Palestinian security forces there. For the people of Jenin to be able to experience a secure environment and for the people of Jenin who recognize that the authority of the Palestinian -- you and the Palestinian Government of Prime Minister Fayyad are indeed in Jenin and providing them that security. We hope, of course, to continue to improve the opportunities around the West Bank for people to have economic opportunity in a secure environment.

We also talked about the Roadmap obligations. And I think that the work that General Fraser is doing, which is very systematic in helping us not just to track whether Roadmap obligations are being met but whether or not there is a real effect on the lives of people from, for instance, movement and access improvements that are being made. And so we’re trying not just at quantity but also quality of improvements. And I've had a chance to talk with you and your team about that, but I expect to be in constant discussion with the Israelis and with you about Roadmap obligations.

We’ve also had an opportunity to talk about the situation in the negotiations. I'll meet later on with your chief negotiator, Abu Alaa, and Prime Minister Tzipi Livni in Israel. The last time that we had a chance to meet, I was impressed with the seriousness, with the depth of their discussions. I think it is a good thing that they are not in front of the cameras every day to say what was said, because any negotiation that is going to be held in good faith is, by its very nature, going to be something that is confidential so that sides can -- the sides can share their views and their ideas in an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality.

But I think it’s also important that it be understood that these are the first really serious discussions on all of the core issues that have taken place between the parties for almost seven years. This is very painstaking work. It is labor intensive work. But it is necessary work, because the President -- President Bush believes very strongly that the time has come for the establishment of a Palestinian state, subject of course to Roadmap implementation. But that is why we’re working so hard on the Roadmap simultaneously with the negotiations. And we continue to believe that it is an achievable goal to have an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis by the end of the year and by the end of President Bush’s term.

So thank you again, Mr. President, for having me here. I want to say that the meetings in London were very good meetings. You have the support of the international community. That is very clear. And you have the support of the American administration and, indeed, the American people. Thank you.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, I'm from Palestinian TV. I arrived two hours ago from Jenin and the checkpoints are unbearable. From Jenin to Ramallah there are thousands of vehicles waiting at checkpoints, and it is very tragic on the route from Jenin to Ramallah. And this has been very difficult to come here. The Presidency -- the term of President Bush is coming to an end, and until now we do not see that the peace agreement is being realized. And the settlement activities is one of the most important things that we need to see frozen. What do you think about that?

President Abbas, do you think that peace agreement is possible for the year 2008? And is there really any progress made on negotiations?

SECRETARY RICE: On checkpoints, I think I mentioned that one of the things that we’re looking at is how to look at the qualitative impact of certain improvements to movement and access not just the quantitative decision to remove this or remove that. And I do know that there are efforts particularly given the focus on Jenin for (inaudible) security forces and for economic progress there to look in an integrative fashion at issues of checkpoints and movement and access, and I believe that General Fraser will be raising those issues, as well as Tony Blair when he here, as to how to improve movement and access in Jenin, which is a project in the sense that we’d like to improve the general situation in Jenin but is no means the last place that movement and access and economic progress has to be made.

As to settlements, the United States continues to hold with you that settlement activity is contrary to Roadmap obligations and continues to raise with the Israelis the importance of creating an atmosphere that is conducive to negotiations of the final status agreement. And that means doing nothing, certainly, that would suggest that there is any prejudice of the final terms for final status negotiation. And the United States will consider nothing that is done to have prejudiced the final status negotiations. The best way to handle all of this, of course, is to get an agreement because we need to have a Palestinian state and Israeli state. We need to know what belongs in each of them. And then the parties, the two states, can pick up state-to-state relations, which is what we’re all aiming for by the end of the year.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: We are racing with time in our negotiations. It’s like marathon negotiations. We know that the time is very short, but the negotiations that we are conducting are almost on a daily basis, almost on an hourly basis whether with the Israeli side or, as you've noticed, mostly with the American administration because everybody is showing a serious commitment towards that.

If we did not have hope that we would achieve something for our people and for the region, we would not have exerted any efforts, because then the efforts would be wasted. But we have hope and we hope that we will achieve what we aspire to as soon as possible during this year.

QUESTION: Yes, a question for both of you, please. For Secretary Rice, did you raise the qualitative nature of roadblocks in any of your discussions with Prime Minister Olmert and Defense Minister Barak?

And to President Abbas, do you think the United States is doing enough on the roadblock issue and also on the wider issue of settlements to lean on the Israelis to abide by their obligations?

SECRETARY RICE: Ann, I raised the issue of qualitative improvements not just quantitative metrics with both, and I have had since a discussion of it with Defense Minister Barak because, of course, a lot of this falls in his area of responsibility.

And as to the question of what we will be able to do to address these qualitative issues, I think that this agreement, that we’d go back and take a look at ways to really have a clear sense of what the qualitative effect is, that is the significance of any improvement and movement – on movement and access -- for the lives of Palestinian people. So yes, I raised it in both of the earlier (inaudible) discussions with Defense Minister Barak.

QUESTION: (Off-mike)

SECRETARY RICE: He’s agreed to -- it was the first time that I had raised this issue, and so it will be now a discussion as to how to carry out that concern or how to address that concern.


PRESIDENT ABBAS: We are convinced that the American administration is very serious in its efforts. And the evidence to that is that the American administration has given us three generals to discuss security issues only, in addition to the other senior officials that are engaged in this process under the auspices of the Secretary of State and President Bush. And if this indicates anything, it indicates seriousness, complete seriousness because the U.S. wants to see a resolution by the end of this year. And these efforts that are being exerted are only indications and real indications of this commitment.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you’ve said in the past that until now there was not one single letter written in an agreement that you're trying to reach with the Israelis. Six months have elapsed and, until now, we have nothing in writing. Do you believe that in the next six months a chapter will be returned in this agreement? I do not know how you view this. Are you worried? Are you anxious about the lack of progress in this area?

Madame Secretary, you just came out of a meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Barak concerning the checkpoints that, according to the Palestinians, are very irritating. I know part of this question was asked, but I didn’t get an answer from you. Is there any promise from the Israeli side to lift any checkpoint, especially the key checkpoints that are basically suffocating the Palestinian life?

And concerning the expansion of the joint settlements, do you have any promise from the Israelis about they would agree to their Roadmap obligations when it comes to settlement activities? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: It is my intention to continue to raise Roadmap obligations until the parties have met them. And there are Roadmap obligations on the Palestinian side as well that I've raised to see if we can move those along. But I understand that the settlements are a problem. That's why in American policy it has been called out as particularly problematic for the atmosphere of the trust that is needed to move forward on a whole host of issues. So, yes, I've spent a good deal of time on that issue.

And in terms of checkpoints and any specific checkpoint, this is why I've raised the question or we’re raising the question of really looking at the qualitative impact. Could you have a better result by some particular easing at a particular checkpoint? How much really do roadblocks relating to easing? And of course, then taking into account the variable security dimension of this for the Israelis.

So I think it is fair to say that there are real security issues involved here. And so with the combination of improved Palestinian security forces, and I think we will see in Jenin, it’s not without a lot of work on everybody’s part, first and foremost the Palestinian government under President Abbas but also international help, American assistance, the training that the Jordanians have provided by improving Palestinian security forces, by improving movement and access in ways that actually then relate to economic commercial activity, can you really make a major dent, a major impact on how the West Bank operates. That’s really what we are doing.

Look, we are trying to come back from a six-and-a-half almost seven year period from the time the day the Intifada began to now to try to not just improve life on the West Bank but to begin to return it to something that approximates a normal life for the Palestinian people. And it takes some time to deal with the effects of the Intifada, but a lot of it has to do with responsible actions by the Palestinian government and the Palestinian Authority which are really now place. And because of that, I think you are going to see improvements on the West Bank. The Israelis will also really have to do their part.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: We said that was true, that I said not one single letter has been written yet. But all the core issues are being discussed and negotiated in depth and in very clear details. I don’t think that we -- if we find a solution, if we come to an agreement, we will not need six months to write it. If we are thinking about drafting an agreement, then we will have completed 90 percent of the negotiations and, thus, the drafting of the agreement will not be difficult. The most important thing is to reach the agreement in order to draft the agreement itself.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, we’ve heard a lot about the issues that you are raising with the Israelis in terms of their commitments when it comes to the Roadmap obligations from the settlements, to roadblocks, etc. What are you raising with the Palestinians? Because it does make it sound like the Palestinians are doing their end of the bargain and that the pressure is mostly on the Israelis? Is that a correct assessment?

SECRETARY RICE: No. In fact, I've said before there is work to do on both sides. We talked, for instance, about -- if you remember in the Roadmap there are certain obligations about the consolidation of security forces and their proper training and their proper direction. There are some issues that have to be dealt with in terms of the proper staffing of the command and planning elements that will help the Palestinian security forces to be really capable. There are some lists that I've heard Palestinians have asked for certain kinds of equipment, but then there are certain lists that have not been passed over.

I mean, this is pretty nitty-gritty work to be quite fair. And there are obligations that need to be met on both sides. And I've found both Prime Minister Fayyad and Defense Minister Barak very willing to look at where there may be bottlenecks in the two bureaucracies to getting some things done. They may sometimes sound like minor issues when we actually go through the lists, but I can assure you that these bottlenecks or the roadblocks make it difficult to keep moving forward. And so there are obligations that we’ve discussed on both sides.

QUESTION: Actually, I still have a question for President Abbas on -- you say that -- you said before that an agreement can be reached perhaps in the next few months before the end of the year. But short of actually reaching the agreement, what else can be qualified as a success if you don’t actually reach this agreement?

PRESIDENT ABBAS: We want to reach an agreement. We want to achieve success. We need full agreement. This is the intention of all the relevant and concerned parties whether on the Palestinian side or the Israeli side or the American side and the Europeans. The intent is to reach an agreement for all the core issues, and this is what we want. If we cannot achieve that, then we should think of the steps that we should take. We do not want from now to think about failure. We do not want to set up ourselves for failure. We let us focus on success. And if we fail, then we go back to our leadership, to the people and see what next steps could be taken.

2008/T14-5
Released on May 4, 2008