%s1 / %s2
 
NEDERLANDS  |  ENGLISH
  • economy
  • iran
  • e-voting
  • 9/11
  • media
  • top stories
  • read
  • news archive
  • by deepjournal
7 February 2007  |     mail this article   |     print   |    |  Associated Press
British Groups Say Not to Attack Iran
By THOMAS WAGNER
Foreign policy experts warned Prime Minister Tony Blair on Monday that military action against Iran could worsen violence across the Middle East and urged him to persuade the United States to hold talks with Tehran.

The report [link] from a coalition of think tanks, unions and aid groups is the latest of several high-profile appeals to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran's nuclear program, arguing that military action could be highly dangerous and counterproductive.

``There are circumstances in which military action might have to be taken, but they are more circumscribed than simply saying we have a hunch that this country has got a nuclear program, therefore let's zap it just in case,'' Sir Richard Dalton, Britain's ambassador to Iran in 2002-06, said at a news conference for the document's release.

President Bush and other Western leaders have said there are no plans to attack Iran, but Washington also warns that military action remains an option as the U.N. Security Council presses Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and allay suspicions it is developing atomic bombs.

Bush recently raised the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf to its highest level since 2003 by ordering a second aircraft carrier strike group to the region. He also has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian agents in Iraq plotting attacks on American forces.

Iran denies it is trying to develop atomic weapons in violation of treaty promises, saying it is working on uranium enrichment only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that would generate electricity.

Enrichment, however, can also produce material for atomic bombs. Last week, a think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said Iran could be two to three years from having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, although other experts have estimated longer time frames.

Dalton and Alex Bigham, Iran analyst at the left-leaning think tank Foreign Policy Center, said the nuclear weapons programs of India, Pakistan and North Korea show diplomacy is not guaranteed to keep Iran from obtaining atomic arms. But they also said Libya's renunciation of weapons of mass destruction shows diplomacy should always be tried.

Monday's paper, ``Time to Talk,'' said a military strike on Iran could further destabilize neighboring Iraq, undermine hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace and strengthen hard-liners in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government.

An attack on oil-rich Iran also could drive up fuel prices, harming economies around the world, it said.

``The possible consequences of military action could be so serious that governments have a responsibility to ensure that all diplomatic options have been exhausted,'' the report said. ``At present, this is not the case.''

Blair's government should ``seek direct negotiations between Iran and the U.S.'' and press for a compromise on the demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment as a precondition for talks, said the paper compiled by 17 groups, including the Amicus and GMB trade unions, Oxfam aid group, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Foreign Policy Center.

The report did not reach a conclusion on whether Iran intends to build nuclear weapons, but acknowledged that ``many members of the international community are deeply concerned'' about Tehran's intentions.

Its release came a day after a letter was published in the Sunday Times newspaper from three former high-ranking U.S. military officers who urged Washington to open talks ``without preconditions'' with the Iranian government.

The letter warned that an attack in Iran ``would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions.''

It was signed by retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command; retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, senior military fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington; and retired Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan, former director of the Center for Defense Information.

____________________________________________________________________________

DeepJournal
Sign up for the free mailing list.
6 February 2010  |  
WHO plays dubious role in Swine flu pandemic
On June 11, 2009 Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the WHO, declared the Swine Flu a pandemic. The declaration of phase six means that emergency procedures are put into motion which bypass established systems designed to safeguard the public health. The result of this is described in part six of this DeepJournal series on the Swine Flu. Conclusion: the vaccine is being tested while being administered to the public. The definition of what a pandemic is, is therefore of great import.
1 February 2010  |  
Government flu advisors not independent
Ab Osterhaus is playing an important role in the affair surrounding the Swine Flu. Through his influence and conflicts of interest, he personifies a system that is now being subjected to investigation from all directions. Soon the investigators will undoubtedly stumble upon SAGE, the strategic advisory group of vaccine and immunity experts for the World Health Organization, or WHO. Osterhaus turns up here as well - he is an expert with SAGE.
31 January 2010  |  
Influence of industry on 'fake pandemic' investigated
Also beyond The Netherlands the question is being raised over whether the large-scale acquisition of vaccines made sense. The Council of Europe began an investigation into this question last Tuesday. 'A number of members of the Council of Europe have expressed exceptionally harsh criticism of the World Health Organization and are asking themselves out loud whether drug manufacturers had too much influence in this decision'.
26 December 2009  |  
How Dutch Minister Klink decided on vaccines with additives - 2
The Netherlands has an ongoing contract with Solvay Pharmaceuticals for the making of vaccines without additives. Then Dutch Health Minister Klink severs - with all of its accompanying financial consequences - the contract with Solvay. He signs new, secretive contracts with GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, companies that make vaccines with additives - the so-called adjuvants. In The Netherlands everyone is receiving the same vaccine containing adjuvants - whether they are young or old, pregnant or not. What happened that caused Klink to make this decision?
19 December 2009  |  
How Dutch Minister Klink decided on vaccines with additives - 1
In the international battle against Swine Flu different countries use different vaccines to protect their citizens. In the Netherlands vaccines containing additives are being used. Even women 13 weeks pregnant are receiving this vaccine. In arriving at his decision, Dutch Health Minister Klink sought advice from the Health Council of The Netherlands. But he didn't get this advice. And yet he still went ahead and made a decision. Who advised him on this?
Contact - About - Donate - RSS Feeds - Copyright © 2006 DeepJournal, All rights reserved