Currency Agreement for Japan and China
By EDWARD WONG and NATASHA SINGER
Published: December 26, 2011
BEIJING — China and Japan have agreed to start direct trading of their currencies, officials announced during a visit here on Monday by Japan’s prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda.
Japan will also apply to buy Chinese bonds next year, allowing it to accumulate more renminbi in its foreign-exchange reserves. The moves were among several that emerged from Mr. Noda’s meetings with President Hu Jintao, which focused on how the two nations could work together to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula.
China is the world’s second-largest economy while Japan is the third largest, and the currency agreement is part of a move away from using dollars. Chinese officials have said recently they would like to broaden the global use of the renminbi, also known as the yuan, and want to see more countries move away from relying on dollars as the worldwide currency.
They hold the world’s largest foreign-currency reserves — China has about $3.2 trillion, while Japan holds $1.3 trillion — and any moves to reconstitute the makeup of those holdings could change the global currency map.
“Chinese officials have made it clear that they believe the international economy is too heavily dominated by the dollar,” said Charles A. Kupchan, a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “They believe, as part of China’s rise, that the international system should move to a more balanced structure.”
Because the renminbi is not fully convertible, however, it will not compete soon as a global reserve currency, he said. Still, the agreement “could be a baby step in that direction,” Professor Kupchan said. Experts in global trade said China and Japan had both practical and political motives for the pact. Neither side has announced a timetable, agreeing only that officials will discuss possible measures.
Given the proximity of China and Japan, along with the likelihood that the two countries will serve as each other’s biggest trading partners over the next century, it makes sense for them to trade directly without using dollars, said Jeffrey H. Bergstrand, a professor of finance at Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame.
And the more China loosens its grip on the renminbi, helping to correct what by some measures is a currency undervalued by almost 40 percent against the dollar and 45 percent against the yen, the greater its purchasing power will become, allowing it to import more. This is especially important for Japan, which has been reeling as the dollar has weakened, making American consumers unable to spend as much on Japanese electronics and cars as they used to.
From a practical standpoint, both China and Japan want to reduce the transaction costs of direct bilateral trade and the risks of volatility in exchange rates, said Professor Kupchan.
“With markets looking askance at both the euro and the U.S. dollar, investors in both China and Japan would find it attractive to trade directly,” Professor Kupchan said. On a more political level, he said, the pact also represents an important step in improving bilateral ties between Beijing and Tokyo.
As for the long-term ramifications for the United States, analysts said it was difficult to predict before the pact took effect.
In the shorter term, the agreement is likely to lead to continued weakening of the dollar against the renminbi, Professor Bergstrand said. That should help the United States trade deficit with China, he said, increasing American imports while weakening imports from China. On the other hand, he said, the Sino-Japanese currency agreement is likely to diminish the dominance of the dollar in global trade.
“The Chinese yuan will increasingly play an important role in Asia,” he said. “It does mean that the U.S. dollar will be less important as a currency for transactions in Pacific rim trade.”
Professor Bergstrand compared the role of the dollar on the world stage now to the waning of the British pound 100 years ago as the most prominent currency for international transactions.
For more than a decade, critics have said the government has kept the value of its currency artificially low, giving Chinese exporters an unfair advantage over American counterparts by making Chinese goods cheaper overseas. Washington has pushed for a revaluation. Beginning in June 2010, facing increased inflation, China began to let its currency float gradually up.
Professor Kupchan of Georgetown said the currency pact is more symbolic than significant right now for the United States. “This pact hardly unseats the dollar as the world’s dominant currency,” he said. “But it is a clear sign that China is headed in the direction of internationalizing the renminbi.”
A Personal Quest to Clarify Bin Laden’s Last Days Yields Vex
A Personal Quest to Clarify Bin Laden’s Last Days Yields Vex
Last edited by samuel on Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
China Leader Warns Iran Not to Make Nuclear Arms
China Leader Warns Iran Not to Make Nuclear Arms
By MICHAEL WINES
January 20, 2012
BEIJING — Prime Minister Wen Jiabao wrapped up a six-day Middle East tour this week with stronger-than-usual criticism of Iran’s defiance on its nuclear program, and with multibillion-dollar oil deals that would seem to signal less reliance on Tehran for China’s growing energy needs.
Mr. Wen’s criticism of Iran was well received by his Persian Gulf hosts, who urgently want to contain Iran’s regional power and nuclear program. As the United States raises pressure on China and other Asian oil importers to curtail purchases from Iran, Saudi Arabia — China’s No. 1 supplier — and some other gulf states have offered to expand production to make up for any gaps.
But throughout his visit, Mr. Wen repeated that China’s business deals with Iran — its No. 3 supplier — were separate from diplomatic questions and that sanctions threatened global trade more than any individual nation. Analysts said the deals, arranged long before the visit, were not aimed at reducing Chinese reliance on Iranian oil but at broadening China’s oil supplies.
The arrangements included a plan by China’s Sinopec Group to build a $10 billion, 400,000-barrel-a-day refinery on the Saudis’ Red Sea coast. While Mr. Wen was in Qatar, the China National Petroleum Corporation unveiled plans to build a refinery at Taizhou, on China’s Pacific coast, in a venture with Qatar Petroleum International and Royal Dutch Shell.
Mr. Wen’s comments on Iran were unusually pointed for Chinese diplomacy. In Doha, Qatar’s capital, he said China “adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons.”
He also explicitly warned Iran not to close the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf bottleneck through which roughly a fifth of the crude oil traded worldwide passes, saying that such action would be regarded as aggression against most of the world’s nations. Iran had earlier threatened to shut down the strait should the United States strengthen sanctions against Tehran.
Michal Meidan, a China analyst at the Eurasia Group in London, said that the message from China was clear: “We do not support the Iranian nuclear program — but business is business.”
Western nations suspect that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon, while Iran insists its program is peaceful.
Ms. Meidan said the Taizhou refinery would help China establish itself as a long-term customer for Qatari oil. And the Red Sea refinery, as a job-creating venture for the Saudis, builds good will in that nation.
The United States introduced new restrictions against China during Mr. Wen’s trip. A Chinese oil-importing company, Zhuhai Zhenrong, was barred from United States-based activity with Iran’s central bank based on its finances. Ms. Meidan noted that the sanction was essentially toothless because Zhuhai has no such dealings subject to American sanctions.
By MICHAEL WINES
January 20, 2012
BEIJING — Prime Minister Wen Jiabao wrapped up a six-day Middle East tour this week with stronger-than-usual criticism of Iran’s defiance on its nuclear program, and with multibillion-dollar oil deals that would seem to signal less reliance on Tehran for China’s growing energy needs.
Mr. Wen’s criticism of Iran was well received by his Persian Gulf hosts, who urgently want to contain Iran’s regional power and nuclear program. As the United States raises pressure on China and other Asian oil importers to curtail purchases from Iran, Saudi Arabia — China’s No. 1 supplier — and some other gulf states have offered to expand production to make up for any gaps.
But throughout his visit, Mr. Wen repeated that China’s business deals with Iran — its No. 3 supplier — were separate from diplomatic questions and that sanctions threatened global trade more than any individual nation. Analysts said the deals, arranged long before the visit, were not aimed at reducing Chinese reliance on Iranian oil but at broadening China’s oil supplies.
The arrangements included a plan by China’s Sinopec Group to build a $10 billion, 400,000-barrel-a-day refinery on the Saudis’ Red Sea coast. While Mr. Wen was in Qatar, the China National Petroleum Corporation unveiled plans to build a refinery at Taizhou, on China’s Pacific coast, in a venture with Qatar Petroleum International and Royal Dutch Shell.
Mr. Wen’s comments on Iran were unusually pointed for Chinese diplomacy. In Doha, Qatar’s capital, he said China “adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons.”
He also explicitly warned Iran not to close the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf bottleneck through which roughly a fifth of the crude oil traded worldwide passes, saying that such action would be regarded as aggression against most of the world’s nations. Iran had earlier threatened to shut down the strait should the United States strengthen sanctions against Tehran.
Michal Meidan, a China analyst at the Eurasia Group in London, said that the message from China was clear: “We do not support the Iranian nuclear program — but business is business.”
Western nations suspect that Iran is working toward building a nuclear weapon, while Iran insists its program is peaceful.
Ms. Meidan said the Taizhou refinery would help China establish itself as a long-term customer for Qatari oil. And the Red Sea refinery, as a job-creating venture for the Saudis, builds good will in that nation.
The United States introduced new restrictions against China during Mr. Wen’s trip. A Chinese oil-importing company, Zhuhai Zhenrong, was barred from United States-based activity with Iran’s central bank based on its finances. Ms. Meidan noted that the sanction was essentially toothless because Zhuhai has no such dealings subject to American sanctions.
European Union Moves Closer to Imposing Tough Sanctions on I
- Work at a natural gas site in Assaluyeh, Iran, has slowed as international sanctions have forced foreign companies to pull out.
- IRAN-articleLarge.jpg (64.29 KiB) Viewed 9066 times
By STEVEN ERLANGERE
January 20, 2012
PARIS — The European Union moved closer to imposing a phased oil embargo on Iran and some form of narrow sanctions against transactions with Iran’s central bank, European and French diplomats said on Friday.
Officials hope to announce a final plan at a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday.
But senior French officials are concerned that these measures, even in combination with sanctions on financial transactions with Iran announced by Washington, will not be strong enough to push the Iranian government into serious, substantive negotiations on its nuclear program, which the West says is aimed at producing weapons.
French officials say that the effort to increase pressure on Tehran is a crucial element in a “dual track” strategy — inflicting pain through sanctions in order to prompt substantive negotiations to halt Iran’s enrichment of uranium, as the United Nations Security Council has demanded. But even accelerated sanctions are hard to put into effect and slow to work, while Iran is changing the game by moving more of its enrichment centrifuges into deep tunnels inside mountains, where they will be much harder to attack militarily.
France is eager to avoid military action against Iran. French officials do not doubt that Israel will do all it can to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but they consider that an Israeli attack on Tehran would be counterproductive, only delaying the Iranian program and strengthening a weakened Islamic leadership.
“We must do everything possible to avoid an Israeli attack on Iran,” said a senior French official, “even if it means a rise in the price of oil and gasoline.” If the sanctions on Iran “are massive, they can have a big impact, with high unemployment and a fall in the rial,” Iran’s currency. In fact, the rial has hit historic lows against the dollar this week.
But with Iran moving its centrifuges deep underground, the official said, “this changes the landscape.”
“This time it really is a race. It’s why we are pushing so hard. We want to act fast.” Still, the official said, France recognizes that the possibility of military action represents another form of pressure on Iran to negotiate.
In his annual speech on French diplomacy on Friday, President Nicolas Sarkozy accused Iran of lying, and he denounced what he called its “senseless race for a nuclear bomb.” He called for “much stronger, much more decisive” sanctions, saying that “time is running out” and “everything must be done to avoid” international military intervention.
Iran says that it is enriching uranium solely for peaceful uses and denies a military intent. But few in the West believe Tehran, which has not cooperated fully with inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and has been pursuing some technologies that have only a military use.
As existing sanctions bite, Tehran is talking both tough and soft, promising to shut the Strait of Hormuz in the case of an oil embargo and at the same time saying that it is ready to resume negotiations with the six-nation group, led by the European Union, which includes the five permanent members of the Security Council — the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China — plus Germany.
Russia and Turkey are already heralding Tehran’s willingness to return to the table. On Thursday, alongside the Iranian foreign minister in Istanbul, Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said that Iran was ready for talks. “The sides have confirmed their willingness,” he said. “Today is the day for negotiations and a solution.”
But French officials say that Tehran has not responded to an October letter from the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, offering a resumption of talks, so long as there are no preconditions and Iran is willing to discuss the main issue, which is its nuclear enrichment program.
During the last talks a year ago, Iran refused to discuss its nuclear program and said that before any negotiations, the Security Council must first lift all sanctions already in place and recognize Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran also said it was no longer interested in swapping a large part of its enriched uranium in return for fuel rods for a research medical reactor in Tehran.
The six-nation group rejects Iran’s position, saying that the treaty contains no such “right” to anything except peaceful nuclear energy, that sanctions will not be removed as a condition for talks and that there is no point in talks unless they are about Iran’s nuclear program and its compliance with United Nations resolutions to freeze enrichment.
The importance of the European Union sanctions, which are still being negotiated, is both economic and political. The European Union buys about 18 percent of Iran’s oil exports, which are its main source of income.
France, Britain and Germany want the sanctions to come into effect within three months, while other countries more dependent on Iranian oil, like Greece, want a longer delay of up to eight months, European officials said. The question is when to phase out existing contracts, and how to replace Iranian oil with that from other countries, like Saudi Arabia, and whether to try to compensate countries that may need to pay more for replacement oil. If the delay is too long, some suggest, Iran will more easily find alternative customers.
The Europeans have agreed in general on sanctions on financial transactions with the Iranian Central Bank, which the United States has already imposed, but are discussing the scope, perhaps narrowing them to transactions supporting proliferation.
But Russia and China have made it clear to other partners that they will not accept any new round of Security Council sanctions on Iran. So further pressure must come from outside the United Nations, from countries willing to act, the French say.
The United States is also considered to be more willing than France to offer Tehran certain concessions in return for substantive talks, but nothing that would violate the Security Council resolutions, the officials said.
In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that sanctions would continue until Iran showed a commitment to meaningful talks. “We all are seeking clarity about the meaning behind Iran’s public statements that they are willing to engage,” Mrs. Clinton said. “But we have to see a seriousness and a sincerity of purpose coming from them.”
A senior French official said: “We have to hold together, as the representatives of the world through the U.N. Security Council. And we have to be clear about what we are offering.”
Getting clear answers out of Tehran is another matter, the official said. “The inter-mullah process is much more complicated than even the inter-agency process” in the United States, he said.
“I’m convinced that if we fail,” the official said, “if the diplomatic process ends, then we’ll have terrible consequences — either military action versus Iranian sites or a collapse of the nonproliferation regime.”
Philippines seeks to strengthen US defence ties
Philippines seeks to strengthen US defence ties
The Philippines has confirmed that it is discussing ways to "maximise" defence ties with the US amid territorial disputes in the region.
In a statement, the foreign affairs secretary cited the need for more joint military exercises to protect national interests.
The statement was in response to a Washington Post story alleging a possible return of US bases.
Analysts say the move is an attempt to contain the influence of China.
The Philippines accused China last year of intimidation in the disputed waters of the South China Sea, which is home to valuable shipping lanes and which may also hold deposits of fossil fuels.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario, however, did not address the issue of China in his statement.
"It is to our definite advantage to be exploring how to maximise our treaty alliance with the United States in ways that would be mutually acceptable and beneficial," he said.
Officials are currently in Washington discussing defence issues.
The Washington Post on Wednesday reported that officials were possibly in the early stages of negotiating the return of US bases to the country, "the latest in a series of strategic moves aimed at China".
He added that in the event of possible threats to national interest, "in terms of, say, territorial disputes", a "minimum credible defence" was needed in addition to dealing with the issues diplomatically.
In addition to military equipment and training programmes, Mr Del Rosario said that they were open to exploring "other means of acceptable assistance and cooperation from the US", including "a rotating and more frequent presence by them".
The joint military exercises will be subject to the 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement, which covers conditions for US ships and American troops allowed into the country.
The Philippines became a US colony after a brief war early last century. It eventually attained full independence in 1946 but the US maintained a presence on military bases.
These bases , which included the famous Subic Bay naval base in Zambales, were eventually voted out by the Senate in 1991, bringing to an end almost a century of US military presence.
A US official dismissed the suggestion that bases could be re-established.
"The idea that we are looking to establish US bases or permanently station US forces in the Philippines, or anywhere else in South East Asia, as part of a China containment strategy is patently false," AP quoted Defense Department spokeswoman Cmdr Leslie Hull-Ryde as saying.
The Philippines has confirmed that it is discussing ways to "maximise" defence ties with the US amid territorial disputes in the region.
In a statement, the foreign affairs secretary cited the need for more joint military exercises to protect national interests.
The statement was in response to a Washington Post story alleging a possible return of US bases.
Analysts say the move is an attempt to contain the influence of China.
The Philippines accused China last year of intimidation in the disputed waters of the South China Sea, which is home to valuable shipping lanes and which may also hold deposits of fossil fuels.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario, however, did not address the issue of China in his statement.
"It is to our definite advantage to be exploring how to maximise our treaty alliance with the United States in ways that would be mutually acceptable and beneficial," he said.
Officials are currently in Washington discussing defence issues.
The Washington Post on Wednesday reported that officials were possibly in the early stages of negotiating the return of US bases to the country, "the latest in a series of strategic moves aimed at China".
He added that in the event of possible threats to national interest, "in terms of, say, territorial disputes", a "minimum credible defence" was needed in addition to dealing with the issues diplomatically.
In addition to military equipment and training programmes, Mr Del Rosario said that they were open to exploring "other means of acceptable assistance and cooperation from the US", including "a rotating and more frequent presence by them".
The joint military exercises will be subject to the 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement, which covers conditions for US ships and American troops allowed into the country.
The Philippines became a US colony after a brief war early last century. It eventually attained full independence in 1946 but the US maintained a presence on military bases.
These bases , which included the famous Subic Bay naval base in Zambales, were eventually voted out by the Senate in 1991, bringing to an end almost a century of US military presence.
A US official dismissed the suggestion that bases could be re-established.
"The idea that we are looking to establish US bases or permanently station US forces in the Philippines, or anywhere else in South East Asia, as part of a China containment strategy is patently false," AP quoted Defense Department spokeswoman Cmdr Leslie Hull-Ryde as saying.
Re: Philippines seeks to strengthen US defence ties
- TRWas6170809.jpg (42.42 KiB) Viewed 9026 times
7 hours ago
Iran could develop a nuclear bomb in about a year and create the means for delivery in a further two to three years, the US defense chief said Sunday, reiterating President Barack Obama's determination to halt the effort.
"The United States -- and the president's made this clear -- does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the CBS program "60 Minutes."
"That's a red line for us. And it's a red line obviously for the Israelis so we share a common goal here."
Panetta maintained that US officials "will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it" if Washington receives intelligence that Iran is proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon.
Asked if that meant military action, he said: "There are no options that are off the table."
Panetta told the interviewer that "the consensus is that, if they (Iran) decided to do it, it would probably take them about a year to be able to produce a bomb and then possibly another one to two years in order to put it on a deliverable vehicle of some sort in order to deliver that weapon."
In a report issued in November, the International Atomic Energy Agency said intelligence from more than 10 countries and its own sources "indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device."
It detailed 12 suspicious areas such as testing explosives in a steel container at a military base and studies on Shahab-3 ballistic missile warheads that the IAEA said were "highly relevant to a nuclear weapon program."
Iran rejected the dossier as based on forgeries.
The Islamic Republic has come under unprecedented international pressure since the publication of the report, with Washington and the European Union targeting its oil sector and central bank.
In his State of the Union message Tuesday, Obama said a peaceful outcome was still possible with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, but he declined to rule out the military option.
"The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent," Obama said.
"Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal," the president declared, triggering a standing ovation.
U.N. Nuclear Inspectors’ Visit to Iran Is a Failure, West Sa
U.N. Nuclear Inspectors’ Visit to Iran Is a Failure, West Says
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — American and European officials said Friday that a mission by international nuclear inspectors to Tehran this week had failed to address their key concerns, indicating that Iran’s leaders believe they can resist pressure to open up the nation’s nuclear program.
The assessment came as Iran’s supreme leader lashed out at the United States, vowing to retaliate against oil sanctions and threats of military action and warning that any attack “would be 10 times worse for the interests of the United States” than it would be for Iran.
While the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who returned to Vienna after a three-day mission in Tehran, said nothing substantive about their trip and were planning to return to Iran later this month, diplomats briefed on the trip said that Iranian officials had not answered the questions raised in an incriminating report issued by the agency in November.
That report cited documents and evidence of experiments with detonators that strongly suggested Iran might have worked on technologies to turn its nuclear fuel into working weapons and warheads. Tehran has insisted its uranium enrichment activities are peaceful and has dismissed the evidence suggesting otherwise as fabricated or taken out of context, and has refused to engage in substantive discussions or inspections.
Members of the I.A.E.A. delegation were told that they could not have access to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an academic who is widely believed to be in charge of important elements of the suspected weaponization program, and that they could not visit a military site where the agency’s report suggested key experiments on weapons technology might have been carried out.
“The agency expressed interest in all the areas of concern,” said a diplomat based in Vienna, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The team asked for access in the future to different types of sites and personnel, and that was denied.”
One senior American official described the session between the agency and Iranian nuclear officials as “foot-dragging at best and a disaster at worst.” But a diplomat at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna said “disaster is too strong a word.” He added: “Iran has refused to address the issue for three years now. To be fair, you have to give them credit for at least discussing it. The dialogue is continuing, and that’s a good sign.”
In Tehran, the speech by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made during Friday Prayer and broadcast live to the nation, came amid deepening American concern about a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites by Israel, whose leaders delivered blunt new warnings on Thursday about what they called the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to its existence.
Israeli leaders have issued mixed signals regarding their intentions, suggesting that they are willing, for a short time at least, to wait and see if increasingly strict sanctions, including a European oil embargo, will force Iran to give in to inspectors’ demands, and to cease the production of at least some of the uranium that outside experts fear could be turned into bomb fuel.
The ayatollah also issued an unusually blunt warning that Iran would support militant groups opposing Israel, an action that some analysts said could be held up by Israel as a casus belli.
Reinforcing the concern, ABC News reported on Friday that Israeli consular officials were warning of possible attacks on Israeli government sites abroad and synagogues and Jewish schools. ABC quoted an internal Israeli document as saying, “We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase.”
Without being specific, Ayatollah Khamenei said that Iran “had its own tools” to respond to threats of war and would use them “if necessary,” the Mehr news agency reported.
Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the sanctions as “painful and crippling,” according to Iranian news agencies, acknowledging the effect of recent measures aimed at cutting off Iran’s Central Bank from the international financial system. But he also said the sanctions would ultimately benefit his country. “They will make us more self-reliant,” he said, according to a translation by Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency.
In recent weeks, senior American and European officials have visited Israel to counsel patience, warning that a military attack could backfire and strengthen what they called Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons.
Two senior Israeli officials, including the head of the Mossad, the intelligence agency believed to be responsible for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, visited Washington over the past week, for what officials described as sometimes contentious meetings. Israeli officials say they are worried that Iran may soon be immune to the threat of airstrikes as its enrichment facilities are moved into deep mountain bunkers.
Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said at a conference in Israel on Thursday that if sanctions failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program, Israel would need to “consider taking action,” according to the newspaper Haaretz.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Friday, echoed the sentiment.
“My view is that right now the most important thing is to keep the international community unified in keeping that pressure on, to try to convince Iran that they shouldn’t develop a nuclear weapon, that they should join the international family of nations and that they should operate by the rules that we all operate by,” he said. “But I have to tell you, if they don’t, we have all options on the table, and we’ll be prepared to respond if we have to.”
In Washington, there was evidence on Friday that a new Senate bill for tougher sanctions, which could effectively sever Iranian banks from a global financial telecommunications network, was having an effect, even before a full Senate vote.
The network, known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift, would face unspecified penalties under the legislation if it failed to sever sanctioned Iranian banks. Swift, based in Belgium, said in a statement on Friday that it “fully understands and appreciates the gravity of the situation,” and was working with banking regulators “to find the right multilateral legal framework which will enable Swift to address the issues.”
Expulsion from Swift could be catastrophic for Iran’s economy by blocking a major conduit for foreign revenue.
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — American and European officials said Friday that a mission by international nuclear inspectors to Tehran this week had failed to address their key concerns, indicating that Iran’s leaders believe they can resist pressure to open up the nation’s nuclear program.
The assessment came as Iran’s supreme leader lashed out at the United States, vowing to retaliate against oil sanctions and threats of military action and warning that any attack “would be 10 times worse for the interests of the United States” than it would be for Iran.
While the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who returned to Vienna after a three-day mission in Tehran, said nothing substantive about their trip and were planning to return to Iran later this month, diplomats briefed on the trip said that Iranian officials had not answered the questions raised in an incriminating report issued by the agency in November.
That report cited documents and evidence of experiments with detonators that strongly suggested Iran might have worked on technologies to turn its nuclear fuel into working weapons and warheads. Tehran has insisted its uranium enrichment activities are peaceful and has dismissed the evidence suggesting otherwise as fabricated or taken out of context, and has refused to engage in substantive discussions or inspections.
Members of the I.A.E.A. delegation were told that they could not have access to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an academic who is widely believed to be in charge of important elements of the suspected weaponization program, and that they could not visit a military site where the agency’s report suggested key experiments on weapons technology might have been carried out.
“The agency expressed interest in all the areas of concern,” said a diplomat based in Vienna, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The team asked for access in the future to different types of sites and personnel, and that was denied.”
One senior American official described the session between the agency and Iranian nuclear officials as “foot-dragging at best and a disaster at worst.” But a diplomat at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna said “disaster is too strong a word.” He added: “Iran has refused to address the issue for three years now. To be fair, you have to give them credit for at least discussing it. The dialogue is continuing, and that’s a good sign.”
In Tehran, the speech by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made during Friday Prayer and broadcast live to the nation, came amid deepening American concern about a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites by Israel, whose leaders delivered blunt new warnings on Thursday about what they called the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to its existence.
Israeli leaders have issued mixed signals regarding their intentions, suggesting that they are willing, for a short time at least, to wait and see if increasingly strict sanctions, including a European oil embargo, will force Iran to give in to inspectors’ demands, and to cease the production of at least some of the uranium that outside experts fear could be turned into bomb fuel.
The ayatollah also issued an unusually blunt warning that Iran would support militant groups opposing Israel, an action that some analysts said could be held up by Israel as a casus belli.
Reinforcing the concern, ABC News reported on Friday that Israeli consular officials were warning of possible attacks on Israeli government sites abroad and synagogues and Jewish schools. ABC quoted an internal Israeli document as saying, “We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase.”
Without being specific, Ayatollah Khamenei said that Iran “had its own tools” to respond to threats of war and would use them “if necessary,” the Mehr news agency reported.
Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the sanctions as “painful and crippling,” according to Iranian news agencies, acknowledging the effect of recent measures aimed at cutting off Iran’s Central Bank from the international financial system. But he also said the sanctions would ultimately benefit his country. “They will make us more self-reliant,” he said, according to a translation by Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency.
In recent weeks, senior American and European officials have visited Israel to counsel patience, warning that a military attack could backfire and strengthen what they called Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons.
Two senior Israeli officials, including the head of the Mossad, the intelligence agency believed to be responsible for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, visited Washington over the past week, for what officials described as sometimes contentious meetings. Israeli officials say they are worried that Iran may soon be immune to the threat of airstrikes as its enrichment facilities are moved into deep mountain bunkers.
Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said at a conference in Israel on Thursday that if sanctions failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program, Israel would need to “consider taking action,” according to the newspaper Haaretz.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Friday, echoed the sentiment.
“My view is that right now the most important thing is to keep the international community unified in keeping that pressure on, to try to convince Iran that they shouldn’t develop a nuclear weapon, that they should join the international family of nations and that they should operate by the rules that we all operate by,” he said. “But I have to tell you, if they don’t, we have all options on the table, and we’ll be prepared to respond if we have to.”
In Washington, there was evidence on Friday that a new Senate bill for tougher sanctions, which could effectively sever Iranian banks from a global financial telecommunications network, was having an effect, even before a full Senate vote.
The network, known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift, would face unspecified penalties under the legislation if it failed to sever sanctioned Iranian banks. Swift, based in Belgium, said in a statement on Friday that it “fully understands and appreciates the gravity of the situation,” and was working with banking regulators “to find the right multilateral legal framework which will enable Swift to address the issues.”
Expulsion from Swift could be catastrophic for Iran’s economy by blocking a major conduit for foreign revenue.
- iran-articleLarge.jpg (65.85 KiB) Viewed 8997 times
Re: U.N. Nuclear Inspectors’ Visit to Iran Is a Failure, Wes
US 'Disgusted' by Russia, China Veto of Syria Resolution
10 hrs ago
The United States is "disgusted" by Russia and China's decision to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution today that called for an immediate end to the violence in Syria, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said today.
The Security Council vote today came on one of the bloodiest days of the popular uprising in Syray, as President Bashar al Assad's security forces launched a withering artillery assault on the city of Homs that has reportedly left 200 to 400 dead.
Though they were the only negative votes in a 13 to 2 vote, Russia and China's veto power as permanent members of the Security Council killed the resolution drafted by Arab and European countries.
The vetoes came after a week of intense negotiations to gain Russian support for a resolution it had opposed from the start. The resolution supported an Arab League plan that called for an immediate end to the violence in Syria and a political solution to the crisis. Russia was opposed to the resolution because of concerns that it could leave an opening for a foreign intervention against one of its loyal client states.
The vetoes drew harsh criticism from Security Council members that supported the resolution and who had amended it several times to ease those concerns, rewording language about the transition of power and watering down the possibility of future sanctions against the Assad regime.
"The United States is disgusted that a couple of members of this Council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose," U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said. "For months this Council has been held hostage by a couple of members," she said, referring to Russia and China, who she said had been "delaying and stripping bare any text to force Assad to stop his actions."
Without referring to Russia by name, she said the vetoes were "even more shameful" given that Russia has continued to sell weapons to to Syria. She called the vetoes "unforgivable" and said "any further blood that flows will be on their hands."
In brief remarks to the Council, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Russia actively supports an end to the violence in Syria, but that the resolution did not "accurately reflect the real state of affairs" in Syria and "sent an unbalanced signal to the parties." Churkin was speaking about armed opposition groups that have also been conducting violent attacks against the Assad regime in Syria.
He once again cited Russian concerns about "regime change" by "influential members of the international community who have been undermining the possibility of a settlement in Syria."
French Ambassador Gerard Araud said the vetoes were a "sad day for the UN Security Council … a sad day for democracy and a sad day for Syrians. … Hundreds of Syrians are dying and it is no longer possible to wait. "
Peter Wittig, the German ambassador to the United Nations criticized the vetoes particularly for having come on "one of bloodiest days of the Arab spring" and the 30 th anniversary of the massacre in Hama, Syria ordered by Assad's father that resulted in 20,000 dead.
"This is the real scandal," Wittig said. "Afraid this will spur further violence and make it difficult to reach a political solution."
British Ambassador to the U.N. Mark Lyall said Russia and China should "ask themselves how many more deaths they are prepared to tolerate."
He said the negotiations had "removed every possible excuse" for voting against the resolution. He also said that the United Kingdom and other countries would continue their efforts to stop the violence in Syria.
Li Baodong, China's Ambassador to the UN told Council members that China voted against the resolution because it would "further complicate the situation" in Syria.
He also said that China supported the Russian delegation's last minute calls for a delay on the vote as well as amendments proposed by Russia that were not taken up by the Council.
10 hrs ago
The United States is "disgusted" by Russia and China's decision to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution today that called for an immediate end to the violence in Syria, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said today.
The Security Council vote today came on one of the bloodiest days of the popular uprising in Syray, as President Bashar al Assad's security forces launched a withering artillery assault on the city of Homs that has reportedly left 200 to 400 dead.
Though they were the only negative votes in a 13 to 2 vote, Russia and China's veto power as permanent members of the Security Council killed the resolution drafted by Arab and European countries.
The vetoes came after a week of intense negotiations to gain Russian support for a resolution it had opposed from the start. The resolution supported an Arab League plan that called for an immediate end to the violence in Syria and a political solution to the crisis. Russia was opposed to the resolution because of concerns that it could leave an opening for a foreign intervention against one of its loyal client states.
The vetoes drew harsh criticism from Security Council members that supported the resolution and who had amended it several times to ease those concerns, rewording language about the transition of power and watering down the possibility of future sanctions against the Assad regime.
"The United States is disgusted that a couple of members of this Council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose," U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said. "For months this Council has been held hostage by a couple of members," she said, referring to Russia and China, who she said had been "delaying and stripping bare any text to force Assad to stop his actions."
Without referring to Russia by name, she said the vetoes were "even more shameful" given that Russia has continued to sell weapons to to Syria. She called the vetoes "unforgivable" and said "any further blood that flows will be on their hands."
In brief remarks to the Council, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Russia actively supports an end to the violence in Syria, but that the resolution did not "accurately reflect the real state of affairs" in Syria and "sent an unbalanced signal to the parties." Churkin was speaking about armed opposition groups that have also been conducting violent attacks against the Assad regime in Syria.
He once again cited Russian concerns about "regime change" by "influential members of the international community who have been undermining the possibility of a settlement in Syria."
French Ambassador Gerard Araud said the vetoes were a "sad day for the UN Security Council … a sad day for democracy and a sad day for Syrians. … Hundreds of Syrians are dying and it is no longer possible to wait. "
Peter Wittig, the German ambassador to the United Nations criticized the vetoes particularly for having come on "one of bloodiest days of the Arab spring" and the 30 th anniversary of the massacre in Hama, Syria ordered by Assad's father that resulted in 20,000 dead.
"This is the real scandal," Wittig said. "Afraid this will spur further violence and make it difficult to reach a political solution."
British Ambassador to the U.N. Mark Lyall said Russia and China should "ask themselves how many more deaths they are prepared to tolerate."
He said the negotiations had "removed every possible excuse" for voting against the resolution. He also said that the United Kingdom and other countries would continue their efforts to stop the violence in Syria.
Li Baodong, China's Ambassador to the UN told Council members that China voted against the resolution because it would "further complicate the situation" in Syria.
He also said that China supported the Russian delegation's last minute calls for a delay on the vote as well as amendments proposed by Russia that were not taken up by the Council.
China defends Syria veto, doubts West's intentions
China defends Syria veto, doubts West's intentions
By Chris Buckley | – 3 hrs ago
BEIJING (Reuters) - China's state-run media on Monday defended the government's rejection of a U.N. resolution pressing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to abandon power, saying Western intervention in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq showed the error of forced regime change.
The People's Daily, the top newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party, set out in a commentary the clearest defence of the decision to join Russia at the weekend in vetoing a draft U.N. resolution that would have backed an Arab plan urging Assad to quit after months of worsening bloodshed.
The newspaper suggested that Chinese distrust of Western intervention lay behind the veto, which drew condemnation from Western governments with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling it a "travesty."
"The situation in Syria continues to deteriorate and numbers of civilian casualties keep rising," the newspaper, which echoes government thinking, said in the commentary.
"Vetoing the draft Security Council resolution does not mean we are giving free rein to letting this heart-rending state of affairs continue."
The author of the commentary used the pen name "Zhong Sheng," which can mean "voice of China" and is often used to give the government's position on foreign policy.
The conflicting Chinese and Western positions on Syria exposed a more general rift about how China should use its rising influence and whether it should foresake its long-standing, albeit unevenly applied, principle of non-interference in other countries' domestic conflicts.
Russia and China's veto came a day after activists say that Syrian forces bombarded a district of the city of Homs, killing more than 200 people in the worst bloodshed of the 11-month Syrian uprising.
All 13 other members of the Security Council voted for the resolution, which also called for a withdrawal of Syrian troops from towns and the beginning of a transition to democracy.
But China, not its Western critics, acted "responsibly" for the sake of the Syrian people, the People's Daily said in the commentary.
"Currently, the situation in Syria is extremely complex. Simplistically supporting one side and suppressing the other might seem a helpful way of turning things around, but in fact it would be sowing fresh seeds of disaster," said the paper.
China's siding with Russia over Syria could add to irritants with the United States. Vice President Xi Jinping is due to visit there next week, burnishing his credentials as the Communist Party's likely next top leader.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said she was "disgusted" by Russia and China's vetoes.
"Any further bloodshed that flows will be on their hands," she said.
"LEGITIMISING INTERVENTION"
China and the United States have also sparred over Iran, which faces tightened Western sanctions over its nuclear ambitions.
The People's Daily laid bare broader Chinese concerns about U.S.-backed action in the Arab world and beyond. China is one of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members that hold the power to veto resolutions.
In March, China abstained from a Security Council vote that authorised Western military intervention in Libya.
The resolution became the basis for a NATO air campaign that led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, despite misgivings from Beijing and Moscow about the expanded campaign, which they said went beyond the resolution.
"I think that, whatever the (Syria) resolution may have said on paper, both China and Russia worried that it could have laid the way for legitimising another armed intervention," said Guo Xian'gang, a senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, a government-run think tank in Beijing.
"Previously, on the Libya issue, China did not exercise a veto, and as a result the Western powers used armed force beyond the U.N. mandate," Guo, an expert on the Middle East, told Reuters.
"If the Libya model was applied to Syria, then it could be applied again and again, so China and Russia were more resolute this time," he said, also citing jitters about Western intentions towards Iran.
The people's Daily cited Libya as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Libya offers a negative case study. NATO abused the Security Council resolution about establishing a no-fly zone, and directly provided firepower assistance to one side," said the People's Daily.
"The calamities of Iraq and Afghanistan should be ample to wipe clear the world's eyes. Forceful prevention of a humanitarian disaster sounds filled with a sense of justice and responsibility," the paper said.
"But are not the unstoppable attacks and explosions over a decade after regime change a humanitarian disaster?" it said.
Other Chinese newspapers also rejected Western criticism of China's veto, including the military's Liberation Army Daily and the Global Times, a popular tabloid with an unabashedly nationalist view on international affairs.
"This vote by China was above all a vote on trends on the Middle East," the Global Times said in an editorial.
"The Chinese people are starting to believe that Western opinion is habitually hostile to China and there's no use at all in trying to curry favour."
By Chris Buckley | – 3 hrs ago
BEIJING (Reuters) - China's state-run media on Monday defended the government's rejection of a U.N. resolution pressing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to abandon power, saying Western intervention in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq showed the error of forced regime change.
The People's Daily, the top newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party, set out in a commentary the clearest defence of the decision to join Russia at the weekend in vetoing a draft U.N. resolution that would have backed an Arab plan urging Assad to quit after months of worsening bloodshed.
The newspaper suggested that Chinese distrust of Western intervention lay behind the veto, which drew condemnation from Western governments with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling it a "travesty."
"The situation in Syria continues to deteriorate and numbers of civilian casualties keep rising," the newspaper, which echoes government thinking, said in the commentary.
"Vetoing the draft Security Council resolution does not mean we are giving free rein to letting this heart-rending state of affairs continue."
The author of the commentary used the pen name "Zhong Sheng," which can mean "voice of China" and is often used to give the government's position on foreign policy.
The conflicting Chinese and Western positions on Syria exposed a more general rift about how China should use its rising influence and whether it should foresake its long-standing, albeit unevenly applied, principle of non-interference in other countries' domestic conflicts.
Russia and China's veto came a day after activists say that Syrian forces bombarded a district of the city of Homs, killing more than 200 people in the worst bloodshed of the 11-month Syrian uprising.
All 13 other members of the Security Council voted for the resolution, which also called for a withdrawal of Syrian troops from towns and the beginning of a transition to democracy.
But China, not its Western critics, acted "responsibly" for the sake of the Syrian people, the People's Daily said in the commentary.
"Currently, the situation in Syria is extremely complex. Simplistically supporting one side and suppressing the other might seem a helpful way of turning things around, but in fact it would be sowing fresh seeds of disaster," said the paper.
China's siding with Russia over Syria could add to irritants with the United States. Vice President Xi Jinping is due to visit there next week, burnishing his credentials as the Communist Party's likely next top leader.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said she was "disgusted" by Russia and China's vetoes.
"Any further bloodshed that flows will be on their hands," she said.
"LEGITIMISING INTERVENTION"
China and the United States have also sparred over Iran, which faces tightened Western sanctions over its nuclear ambitions.
The People's Daily laid bare broader Chinese concerns about U.S.-backed action in the Arab world and beyond. China is one of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members that hold the power to veto resolutions.
In March, China abstained from a Security Council vote that authorised Western military intervention in Libya.
The resolution became the basis for a NATO air campaign that led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, despite misgivings from Beijing and Moscow about the expanded campaign, which they said went beyond the resolution.
"I think that, whatever the (Syria) resolution may have said on paper, both China and Russia worried that it could have laid the way for legitimising another armed intervention," said Guo Xian'gang, a senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, a government-run think tank in Beijing.
"Previously, on the Libya issue, China did not exercise a veto, and as a result the Western powers used armed force beyond the U.N. mandate," Guo, an expert on the Middle East, told Reuters.
"If the Libya model was applied to Syria, then it could be applied again and again, so China and Russia were more resolute this time," he said, also citing jitters about Western intentions towards Iran.
The people's Daily cited Libya as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Libya offers a negative case study. NATO abused the Security Council resolution about establishing a no-fly zone, and directly provided firepower assistance to one side," said the People's Daily.
"The calamities of Iraq and Afghanistan should be ample to wipe clear the world's eyes. Forceful prevention of a humanitarian disaster sounds filled with a sense of justice and responsibility," the paper said.
"But are not the unstoppable attacks and explosions over a decade after regime change a humanitarian disaster?" it said.
Other Chinese newspapers also rejected Western criticism of China's veto, including the military's Liberation Army Daily and the Global Times, a popular tabloid with an unabashedly nationalist view on international affairs.
"This vote by China was above all a vote on trends on the Middle East," the Global Times said in an editorial.
"The Chinese people are starting to believe that Western opinion is habitually hostile to China and there's no use at all in trying to curry favour."
US President asks China to follow 'same rules' in trade
- _58507351_58502829.jpg (12.94 KiB) Viewed 8952 times
15 February 2012 Last updated at 02:27 GMT
China's currency policy has come under fire as its trade surplus with the US has been growing. Its trade surplus with the US rose to $295bn (£188bn) last year, up from $273bn in 2010, according to the US Census Bureau.
Beijing's exports to the US have far exceeded its imports from the world's biggest economy.
US President Barack Obama has reiterated that China needs to follow fair trade practices as it plays an increasingly important global role.
Beijing has been accused of keeping the value of its currency artificially low in a bid to help its exporters.
US lawmakers have argued that such practices have hurt US growth and resulted in job losses.
Mr Obama raised the issue as he welcomed China's Vice-President Xi Jinping to the White House.
"We want to work with China to make sure that everybody is working by the same rules of the road when it comes to the world economic system," Mr Obama said .
"That includes ensuring that there is a balanced trading flow, not only between the United States and China, but around the world."
Broader issues
Policymakers and businesses in the US have alleged that an undervalued yuan gives an unfair advantage to Chinese manufacturers as it makes their goods relatively cheaper and helps boost foreign sales.
Analysts said that while the appreciation of the yuan will help allay some of those concerns, Beijing needed to work on other areas in order to rebalance its trade.
They said that China needed to open up its markets further for the US and other global manufacturers.
"Without market access the yuan appreciation cannot have the desired affect," Patrick Chovanec of the Tsinghua University in Beijing told the BBC.
"If you have yuan appreciation that changes the prices of Chinese goods, but it doesn't matter if American goods can't get on the shelves in China," he explained.
'Uneven playing field'
US manufacturers have been seeking greater access to China in a bid to tap into the fast-growing consumer market in the country.
However, Beijing's policies have so far limited such access.
"There is an uneven playing field for regulations in China. Foreign companies cannot participate in a whole range of industries," said Mr Chovanec.
"In some other areas they are forced to form joint ventures with Chinese companies and are forced to handover critical technology to Chinese partners."
Mr Chovanec said such policies were hindering manufacturers from entering the Chinese market and impacting bi-lateral trade.
'Work together'
Growth in the US economy has slowed in recent years plagued by a high rate of unemployment and a sluggish housing market among other factors.
On the other hand, China has seen robust expansion in recent years powered by the boom in its manufacturing and export sector.
Despite their contrasting fortunes, the two economies are heavily reliant on each other.
The US continues to be one of the biggest markets for Chinese goods. Slowing consumption there is bound to hurt China's economy.
Meanwhile, China has become a critical market for US manufacturers, led by the country's carmakers, looking to offset a slowing domestic demand.
At the same time, China continues to be the largest foreign holder of US government debt.
US Vice President Joe Biden said while the two nations had different opinions on various issues, they needed to work closely to address those concerns.
"We are not always going to see eye to eye," Mr Biden said.
"We are not always going to see things exactly the same, but we have very important economic and political concerns that warrant that we work together."
A Personal Quest to Clarify Bin Laden’s Last Days Yields Vex
- An image taken in November 2011 inside the compound in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was killed.
- 08PAKISTAN2-articleInline.jpg (19.6 KiB) Viewed 8900 times
- The house in Abbotabad, Pakistan, last November, several months after Osama bin Laden was killed there by commandos from the United States.
- 08PAKISTAN1-articleInline.jpg (15.04 KiB) Viewed 8900 times
By DECLAN WALSH
Published: March 7, 2012
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan — In his quest for the truth about his country’s most notorious guest, Shaukat Qadir started where it all ended: the room where Osama bin Laden was killed.
Last August, Mr. Qadir, a retired Pakistani Army brigadier, retraced the steps of the American commandos who stormed through the corridors of Bin Laden’s hide-out on May 2.
Climbing the stairs to the second floor, Mr. Qadir passed a body outline that marked the spot where Bin Laden’s 22-year-old son, Khalid, was shot dead. Then he turned to a small room with a low ceiling, an empty wardrobe and a tight cluster of bullets holes in one wall, he said. Above that, on the ceiling, was a fading splash of blood that, his Pakistani intelligence escort told him, belonged to Bin Laden.
“As a former soldier, I was struck by how badly the house was defended,” Mr. Qadir said in an interview. “No proper security measures, nothing high-tech — in fact, nothing like you would expect.”
Mr. Qadir’s quixotic investigation began as a personal attempt to truth-check the competing accounts of Bin Laden’s last years in Pakistan. But his work has already come under scrutiny and criticism, mostly on the grounds that his heavy reliance on Pakistani military and intelligence sources leaves him open to official manipulation.
At the least, though, the end product — a novella-length report, still officially unpublished — offers tantalizing possibilities about Bin Laden’s circumstances and the suspicions that drove relations between Pakistan and the United States to the brink.
For instance, Mr. Qadir claims that Bin Laden’s fifth and youngest wife, Amal Ahmed al-Sadah, told Pakistani interrogators that her husband underwent a kidney transplant operation in 2002 — a claim that, if proven, could help explain how the ailing Saudi militant was able to survive with a known kidney ailment, but raises questions about who was helping him. He also heard of poisonous mistrust between Bin Laden’s wives. In the cramped Abbottabad house, he was told, tensions erupted between Ms. Sadah, described as “the favored wife,” and Khairiah Saber, an older woman who occupied a separate floor. In interrogation, Ms. Sadah accused her rival of having betrayed their husband to American intelligence.
Bin Laden’s youngest wife also told interrogators that her husband shaved his beard and disguised himself as an ailing Pashtun elder as he leapfrogged between safe houses across northwestern Pakistan, eventually regrowing the beard after finally settling in the Abbottabad house in 2005.
In one sense, Mr. Qadir’s work is an interesting entry in a decade-long parlor game among spies, soldiers and journalists, all guessing the whereabouts and condition of the world’s most wanted fugitive.
Despite Bin Laden’s death, many of the toughest questions remain. Who helped him stay on the run? How did the C.I.A. track him down? And, perhaps most important, did Pakistan’s generals know he was living a stone’s throw from their leading military academy?
Pakistan’s government says the answers will come from an official commission of inquiry, led by a Supreme Court judge, that has been working since May. Yet few believe the Abbottabad Commission, as it is known, will succeed. And at times, the Pakistani government has seemed more interested in moving on than seeking answers: on the night of Feb. 25, the local authorities in Abbottabad sent bulldozers to demolish Bin Laden’s house after nightfall, erasing a painful symbol of an embarrassing episode for the military.
Publication of the commission’s findings, originally scheduled for December, has been repeatedly postponed, and critics of the government smell political pressure to tone down its findings.
Among those who have testified is Mr. Qadir, a 64-year-old former infantry commander. Suspicious of official explanations of Bin Laden’s life and death, Mr. Qadir set out to find his own truth. He embarked on a sleuthing expedition that would last eight months and has left him $10,000 out of pocket. He traveled into the tribal belt and Afghanistan to interview old tribal contacts, and into the hushed headquarters of Pakistani military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, in Islamabad, where officials provided briefings.
His army background was crucial: Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s top commander, approved two visits to Bin Laden’s house; personal connections led to an interview with the ISI brigadier who had interrogated Bin Laden’s three wives.
A former Obama administration official who read the report agreed with some of Mr. Qadir’s findings, like a claim that Bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, suffered serious disagreements that led to Bin Laden’s being pushed to the sidelines. “This divide grew with time, and remained a source of tension until the day Bin Laden died,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “His role had been diminished.”
The official was puzzled by the account about Bin Laden’s wives, saying that previous American intelligence reports had indicated that the first wife, Ms. Saber, was the closest to Bin Laden. The C.I.A. has since interrogated both women in Pakistan; Ms. Saber proved to be “defiant, difficult and refused to engage,” the American official said.
Several of the conclusions that Mr. Qadir draws in his report are highly contentious, like a belief that Qaeda operatives betrayed their leader to earn America’s reward money. “They wanted Bin Laden gone, and they wanted a share of the $25 million,” he said. Peter Bergen, a terrorism analyst and author of a forthcoming book on Bin Laden’s last years, called that a “ridiculous” notion.
Mr. Qadir’s report was “larded with strange conspiracies,” Mr. Bergen said, adding that it was indicative of a broader culture of conspiracy theories in Pakistan. “When I was in Abbottabad in July, plenty of people told me Bin Laden didn’t live there. What do you say to that? It’s so untethered from rational discourse,” he said.
Mr. Qadir, for his part, concedes that his conclusions are based on conjecture, and admits that his ISI briefers may have concealed crucial facts. “I’d be a bloody fool if I didn’t see that,” he said. “I don’t say this is the entire truth. But it’s the closest you will get at this point in time.”
Other Pakistani soldiers have also theorized about Bin Laden. Last fall Ziauddin Butt, a former ISI chief, reportedly told a conference that while he was in power, Pakistan’s former military leader, Pervez Musharraf, had been covertly sheltering Bin Laden. Contacted by telephone, Mr. Butt said he had been misquoted but declined to elaborate. Another account that is popular on military message boards claims that Bin Laden was betrayed by a retired Pakistan spy, who has since fled abroad.
One question in particular has stayed at the heart of the mutual distrust between Pakistan and the United States: was the ISI incompetent in failing to spot Bin Laden under its nose, or complicit in his protection?
Muhammad Hanif, a popular Pakistani novelist, recently suggested that the answer was both; Mr. Bergen, the analyst, said it was neither. “Bin Laden was a hyper-paranoid guy who went to extreme lengths to hide himself. Don’t forget that it took the U.S. government 10 years to find him, with huge resources at its disposal. And we had the will to look,” he said.
Several American and Western officials, speaking in Washington and Pakistan on the condition of anonymity, said that the C.I.A. had scanned millions of documents taken from computer disks found in Bin Laden’s house yet found no evidence of official Pakistani support. But for some analysts, that proves nothing.
“There is no smoking gun, but there is also no evidence that firmly rules out complicity,” said Bruce Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer and Obama adviser.
The official verdict will come from the Abbottabad Commission, which on Wednesday heard testimony from the interior minister, Rehman Malik.
But many are skeptical about what will emerge, with at least one commission member having apparently already made up his mind.
Just a few weeks into the commission’s deliberations last July, Nadeem Ahmed, a former general on the panel, told Australian journalists that he had firmly believed “that no intelligence organization in Pakistan would do such a stupid thing” as harbor Bin Laden.
Suggestions to the contrary were the product of an American news media conspiracy, he added. “There is a deliberate design to undermine the security establishment,” he said.
With such high military and political stakes, many Pakistanis believe that the truth will remain as elusive as Bin Laden once was. “You have to ask the right questions to get the right answers,” Mr. Qadir said. “I doubt this report will explain anything to anyone’s satisfaction.”