Iran state TV says dispute over Arak nuclear plant 'virtually resolved'

Details

Category: Current Issues

Created on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 00:00

Hits: 3847

Governance: Ibrahim Mahama leads Government Delegation to Tehran?

• VP: plant will produce one fifth of planned plutonium

• Iran says US-registered Tehran plane used by Ghana

Agencies

Iran will redesign its Arak heavy water reactor to greatly limit the amount of plutonium it can make, the country's vice-president said on Saturday, marking a major concession from the Islamic Republic in negotiations with world powers over its contested nuclear programme.

The comments by Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi comes as the talks face an informal 20 July deadline to hammer out a final deal to limit Iran's ability to build nuclear arms in exchange for ending the crippling economic sanctions it faces.

Iran also said on Saturday that a plane which landed in Tehran airport flying the American flag was leased to Ghana's presidential office and carrying a business delegation from the West African nation.

Iranian state television quoted Salehi, who heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying that Iran has proposed to redesign Arak to produce one-fifth of the plutonium initially planned for it. He said that will eliminate concerns the West has that Iran could use the plutonium produced at Arak to build a nuclear weapon. Salehi also said Iran has completed diluting its higher enriched uranium into less volatile forms as part of an interim deal reached last November with world powers.

"The issue of heavy water reactor … has been virtually resolved," state television quoted Salehi as saying. "Iran has offered a proposal to … redesign the heart of the Arak facility and these six countries have agreed to that."

There was no immediate comment from world powers, which include China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the US and Russia.

However, what to do with Arak, a still under-construction 40-megawatt heavy water plant in central Iran, is a key factor in negotiations.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, his country's chief negotiator, suggested in March his country might redesign Arak to allay the west's fears. The West suspects Iran could use its nuclear programme to build nuclear weapons. Iran says its programme is for peaceful purposes, like power generation and medical research.

Authorities in Iran claimed it prevented attempted sabotage at Arak in March, blaming foreign intelligence services for tampering with imported pumps for the facility.

Salehi also told Al-Alam, the Arabic channel of Iranian state television, that a proposal from the six-nation group was to change the heavy water reactor into a light water reactor. He suggested that Iran didn't agree because a heavy water reactor is needed to produce radioisotopes to treat medical patients while light water reactor, like the one Iran has at Bushehr, is used to generate electricity.

Under the landmark November deal, Tehran stopped enrichment of uranium to 20%, which is a possible pathway to nuclear arms, in exchange for the easing of some Western sanctions. It also agreed to dilute half of its 20% enriched uranium into 5% and turn the remaining half into oxide, which is very difficult to be used for bomb-making materials.

Also as part of the deal, Iran has allowed international inspectors from the United Nation's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to visit nuclear facilities including Arak.

On Thursday, the New York Times reported that a plane owned by the Bank of Utah was parked in Mehrabad Airport in Tehran. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Friday sanctions "generally prohibit" US-registered aircraft from flying to Iran.

On Friday night, state news agency quoted Iranian foreign ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham as saying that the plane was transporting the brother of Ghana's president and a mining delegation.

"The plane is on lease to Ghana's presidential office, and its passengers were Ghanaian senior officials led by the president's brother. None of its crew members were American," Afkham was quoted as saying.

The Ghanaian delegation was in Iran to follow up on agreements reached between the two countries two years ago, she said, adding that it departed on Thursday.

In Accra, an aide to President John Mahama denied that the president's brother Ibrahim Mahama – a multi-millionaire and the founder of the country's leading mining contracting firm Engineers and Planners – was part of the visit.

"He was not in Tehran. His company plane was," the aide said, asking not to be named because he was not authorised to speak. "Lots of speculation in there is false," the aide added.

The New York Times said it had reviewed a confidential document which showed that "the plane is held in a trust by the Bank of Utah and on behalf of the mining company, Engineers and Planners, which is based in Accra". It quoted a Bank of Utah executive, Brett King, as saying the company had no idea why the plane was at the airport and it was investigating further.

In Washington, Psaki said on Friday the US Treasury Department would look into the matter to determine if there were any violation of sanctions imposed on Iran.

"The Iranian transactions and sanctions regulations prohibit the exportation of goods, services or technology directly or indirectly from the United States or by a US person to Iran and would generally prohibit US-registered aircraft from flying to Iran," Psaki told reporters at a regular briefing.

But Psaki noted that "there's a lot of nuance and a lot of different questions here".

Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Ghana, Africa'sNo2 gold producer, last April, as part of an effort to expand ties with African countries. His campaign yielded little in terms of trade and votes at the United Nations against sanctions. Mahama is an ally of the US – President Barack Obama visited Ghana in 2009.

Source: The Guardian UK, 19 April 2014

No comments

DW's editor-in-chief: 'Rwanda was a country with deep scars'

Details

Category: DateLines

Created on Tuesday, 08 April 2014 00:00

Hits: 3439

DW's editor-in-chief: 'Rwanda was a country with deep scars'

DW: Alexander Kudascheff, shortly after the genocide, you reported from Rwanda for Deutsche Welle. What were your first impressions at the time?

Alexander Kudascheff: This may sound odd, but as I was entering Rwanda by car, I thought to myself, "What an unbelievably beautiful country." To me Rwanda looked like the Black Forest. I got out of the car to admire the rolling hills and splendid forests, but all of a sudden I found myself staring down the barrel of a gun. Standing in front of me was a child soldier between 9 and 11 years old. I was still a smoker at the time, and I asked myself, "How do I calm the boy – should I give him a cigarette or not?" I started talking to him, and he told me that rebel leader Paul Kagame [now Rwanda's president] had driven through the area a few days ago. And now it was the boy's duty to stand guard. I congratulated him for having been entrusted with such an honorable task, decided not to offer him a cigarette, and continued my journey.

Did you see any more child soldiers?

I came across quite a few. But they weren't wearing uniforms and you couldn't tell whether they belonged to any unit. They were simply running around, and I assumed that some of them had found weapons left behind by fleeing Hutu militias. Rwanda was a heavily armed country at the time and many of the weapons were in the hands of children.

You had a Ugandan driver and were heading toward Kigali, the Rwandan capital. What was your trip like?

We drove from Uganda to Kigali. The only hotel room we could find was one without windows, water, electricity or light. The standard price was one dollar. The driver and I shared the room.

{sidebar id=10 align=right}We drove through the entire country and across the border to Goma in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo [then Zaire]. We wanted to see what had become of the refugees. At the time, most foreign journalists were not in Rwanda but covering what was called the refugee tragedy in Goma. And what interested those in Rwanda was mainly the search for Hutu murderers who had gone into hiding.

I tried to interview Paul Kagame but the only response I ever got was, "Tomorrow, Monsieur, tomorrow."

We went all over the country, and to this day one thing has left a lasting impression on me: that Rwanda is so unbelievably beautiful and that I found the people incredibly likeable, even in the shattered and vulnerable state they were in.

You found the people there to be so likeable – something that many travelers have remarked on. And yet during the genocide, many Rwandans were capable of the most appalling cruelty. How did you deal with this?

We probably only discovered those who were victims. After all, it is also hard to understand how the Germans were capable of sending 6 million people to the gas chambers. I think that at the time I perceived it to be some kind of archaic eruption. And when it was over, people were themselves again.

Rwanda was a country with deep scars. You would drive past piles of skulls and hear people talking about how their relatives died or were massacred. Wherever you were, you noticed that people wanted to talk about what they had experienced. You saw what was going on in these people, this mixture of joy and shame over having survived as well as fear of the future. What lies ahead for us?

During the genocide, however, the eyes of the world were not on Rwanda. In retrospect, as a journalist, too, one has to be ashamed about having paid so little attention to what was happening there. But those in positions of responsibility at the time have even more cause to be ashamed: primarily the UN, which so miserably failed to act. But it also applies to others: to the West, to NATO and especially to Belgium, the former colonial power. The Belgians had longstanding ties to Rwanda, and they have also asked themselves: Where did we go wrong? Why weren't we capable of stopping this genocide or at least impeding it?

Paul Kagame has been Rwanda's president since 2000. He has been trying to promote reconciliation, among other things by banning people from defining themselves along ethnic lines. What do you think about this approach?

I agree with the basic idea not to think in terms of ethnic groups. This way one moves away from racist traditions. But is this something that can be dictated from the top down? The socialist countries tried that over and over but without success, because the minute socialism was gone, all the nationality problems re-emerged.

I would take a nuanced approach to Paul Kagame. On the one hand, his economic policies were quite successful. On the other hand, he is a leader from one of the ethnic groups, and that is not very easy for the other to accept. In an interview I conducted with Kagame five or six years ago, he struck me as someone who was at peace with himself. He seemed to be someone who probably sensed that he also made mistakes, but believed that his policies were essentially correct. Whether this is the case and whether the two ethnic groups have overcome their differences is something that will probably only become clear in the period after Kagame.

When confronted with the genocide in 1994, the international community failed miserably. From this failure, the principle of a responsibility to protect arose. How well is the international community meeting this responsibility today?

It is not living up to this responsibility. Incidentally, parallel to the genocide we also had the conflict in the Balkans where we asked ourselves exactly the same questions. Former NATO Secretary-General Manfred Wörner's famous words following a sniper attack on the market square in Sarajevo - "It is time to act" – have become ingrained in many people's minds.

Morally, I think there is nothing to debate here. Everything has to be done to help those people. We also asked ourselves this question - looking back on our past: Should the Allies have bombed the railway tracks that led to Auschwitz?

If you asked me, as a rational, journalistic observer, for an honest opinion on whether I thought interventions would succeed and make sense in the long run or as nation-building measures, I would have to say, 'No, I don't believe they would.' You can go in for a short time to try to calm the situation, try to stop the volcano of murderous rage. But then you have to get out as quickly as possible, so that those living in this volcano learn to deal with the situation themselves. In the beginning things went well in Afghanistan, also according to the aid workers, but sometime around 2004 or 2005 the situation was reversed.

We have interventions that failed completely, like in Somalia, partly failed ones like in Bosnia and some where the outcome is still unclear, like in Kosovo. We cannot yet say how things will turn out in Central African Republic or in Mali.

Later the international community promoted an investigation of the genocide and the restoration of justice through the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In Germany, too, and even in France, genocidaires are being tried. What do you think about these belated attempts at coming to terms with what happened?

I believe it's good for this world that the people responsible for crimes of this magnitude have no reason to believe they can get away unpunished. That's why, for example, I think a 90-year-old former concentration camp guard at Auschwitz should still be tried. He once forced even 2-year-olds into the gas chamber – so for me his age doesn't count. Therefore, I think the idea behind the international criminal tribunal that the world will not let someone get away with such crimes is correct. Whether the tribunal is successful or not is another matter. After all, many of these criminals moved about freely for years within the international community's reach. Many weren't tried until their position had become weaker. And others were never prosecuted at all.

Dr. Alexander Kudascheff is Deutsche Welle's editor-in-chief. Before January 2014, he headed DW's Berlin studio. As a reporter, Alexander Kudascheff travelled to many regions of the world for DW. In 1994, he reported from Rwanda.

Interview: Dirke Köpp.

Date 07.04.2014

Author Dirke Köpp / gu

Editor Susan Houlton

Source: Deutsche Welle

No comments

CFA Franc currency: A thorn in African Economy

Details

Category: DateLines

Created on Wednesday, 09 April 2014 00:00

Hits: 78199

CFA Franc currency: A thorn in African Economy

By Wendpanga Eric Segueda

At least 12 billion Euros is the amount that the 14 French speaking African countries must put to France’s treasury each year. This amounts to 50% of their foreign reserve, just one tax among others that the countries are forced to pay since the creation of the currency in 1945.

The CFA Franc is currently being used in two large regions. In West Africa, eight countries share the currency: Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo. The corresponding Central Bank of the West African states (BCEAO) is based in Dakar, Senegal.

The Bank of the Central African States (BEAC) is located in Cameroon and incorporates five more countries: Central African Republic, Chad, republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.

Albeit the banknotes and coins for the two CFA regions may be different, it is the same currency. At the time of its creation, CFA meant French Colonies of Africa. During the wave of decolonization starting in 1958, the meaning was changed to French Community of Africa.

Since the decolonization in the region was completed by 1960, the denotation of CFA changed to Financial Community of Africa in West Africa and Financial Cooperation of Africa in Central African. Experts assume that the adjective “French” was dropped to hide the influence of France.

However, this influence is so obvious that the Ivorian monetary expert, Nicolas Agbohou, argues: “France is the sole owner of the CFA”. Although the central banks are located in Africa, France is still effectively present in both of their administrative councils.

Moreover, France also has a veto right. Given that important decisions must be taken unanimously, France uses its power of veto and postcolonial rule to steer the countries.

Unforgotten is France’s decision in 1994 to significantly, devaluate the CFA. The currency consequently lost 50% in value. “The reason is that France wanted to buy the country’s resources for a dirt-cheap price”, Agbohou comments.

Evidently, the CFA countries are not in control of their own cash flows. They cannot autonomously change the currency rate. Souleymane N’Diagne, economist at Bambey University, in Dakar, complains about this lack of liberty.

“If the countries had a self-controlled currency they could choose themselves to keep the exchange rate low and sell cheaply on world markets, or value the currency higher and buy more on the world market”, he says.

The CFA has always been linked to the former French Franc, now it is pegged to the Euro. According to the economist N’Diagne, this linkage is at the disadvantage for the CFA countries. The Euro is a strong currency. 1 Euro corresponds to 655,957 CFA.

“If a currency is valued too highly, prices for exports are overcharged and they are no longer competitive. That is how the concerned countries face trade deficits”, N’Diagne explains.

For almost 70 years now, the economies of the 14 French speaking countries have been suffering from the tricks of their former colonist. But who is to blame in this scandal? France’s exploitative politics towards Africa is no secret.

Well remembered is the statement of France’ former president François Mitterand in 1957: “Without Africa, France will have no history in the 21st century”. Jacques Chirac, his successor, held a similar speech: “Without Africa, France will slide down into the rank of a third world power”.

On the other hand, African leaders are behaving like cowards and betraying each other for the interests of France. Just to name a few examples: The first elected president of Togo, Sylvanus Olympio, decided in 1963 to get out of the CFA Franc and issue the country its own currency.

Some days after he started printing this currency, he was assassinated. He was killed by Etienne Gnassingbe Eyadéma, who supposedly received money from France.

In 1962, the former Malian president, Modibo Keita, was victim of a coup perpetrated by Moussa Traoré, former French Foreign Legionary.

Like Olympio, Keita wanted to withdraw from the CFA Currency. Guinean president Sékou Touré was the only Anti-CFA African President who survived.

In 1960, he disposed of the currency and created the Franc Guinéen. France tried to eliminate him, but to no avail. Subsequently, France destroyed everything in the country which represented the so-called benefits from French colonization.

The slavery exerted by the CFA currency has lasted enough. This, at least, is the signal that the French speaking West African countries seem to give.

In 2003, the West African CFA counties announced the creation of a common currency, in cooperation with the other countries of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

In his function as outgoing chairman of ECOWAS, Ivorian leader Alssane Ouattara confirmed at the end of March that the single currency will become a reality by 2020. Let’s hope that that the region’s leaders will resolve their differences and create a sovereign currency in the interests of the countries.

Source : Wendpanga Eric Segueda

No comments

Lord chief justice proposes opening up courts to MPs with guided tours

Details

Category: Law & Justice

Created on Monday, 07 April 2014 00:00

Hits: 3729

Lord chief justice proposes opening up courts to MPs with guided tours

Lord Thomas is clearly a reformer in a hurry as he outlines a range of recommendations to streamline policy and process

Joshua Rozenberg

Seventy is a "salutary" retirement age, the lord chief justice told the Commons justice committee on Tuesday. And with only three-and-a-half years left to serve, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd is clearly a reformer in a hurry.

With relentless energy, he demolished some of his predecessors' cherished principles. Lord Taylor (chief justice 1992-96), for example, had been wrong to predict that a substantial number of women and ethnic-minority lawyers would "trickle up" and become judges in the 1990s. Lord Judge (chief justice 2008-13) had been wrong to regard his power to make written representations to parliament as a "nuclear option".

Thomas, by contrast, wanted to provide MPs with more information about how judges worked. Indeed, he was even laying on guided tours of the law courts for them. The chief justice wanted to know what MPs would like him to include in his annual reports, and at what point in the year they should be published. As far as he was concerned, there was no point in writing reports that were not going to be read. The judges were happy to provide drafting advice on uncontroversial bills. He also wanted good relations with parliament and ministers; but both sides had to understand that policy was a matter for politicians, while the lawfulness of that policy was a matter for the judges.

Explaining how he was hoping to increase the number of women and minorities on the bench, Thomas disclosed that the judges had set up their own diversity committee. The telling detail he omitted to MPs was that he himself was chairing it, with Lady Justice Hallett playing a prominent role. And there was more. Lawyers working in the courts service should be offered the opportunity to sit judicially in preliminary hearings, he said. City law firms needed to provide a more diverse pool of potential judges. Law firms should allow solicitors to sit part-time without damaging their careers. Candidates should be offered advice on completing application forms and presenting themselves for interview. Work-shadowing should be more focussed. Mentoring should be increased. The ideas just kept coming.

Turning to the agreement with the government announced last week on reforming the courts and tribunals, he had some pretty revealing things to say about IT systems.

"When you go to the courts you will see there are some systems that operate without a mouse. And that's not because they are modern. They were in place before the mouse came along. And we don't have proper document storage or filing facilities."

How could the courts afford new computers? By reducing the number of court buildings in urban areas. "There is huge room for consolidation," he said. In parts of his native Wales, he implied, there might be too many places of worship because "this was my chapel and that was your chapel". But, unless a defendant was dangerous, there was no reason why he or she should not be tried by a court sitting in a council chamber or some other local building. Constructing a new "palais de justice" was not a good idea if it involved closing surrounding magistrates' courts.

Fraud trials were causing problems, as he had argued a month ago. The first problem was disclosure: these days, most cases involved huge numbers of emails that all needed to be shown to the other side. "Should we modify the system?" he asked.

As far as juries were concerned, he did not want to see fraud charges tried by a judge sitting alone. "But whether we should have a smaller jury, a more specialised jury – these are things that need to be looked at."

Another problem with fraud trials was that "we probably have not got the prosecution and defence of them right either". None of the MPs asked him what he meant by this intriguing statement, and he would not be drawn on it later. But we can be sure the great reformer is not going to let matters rest.

Source: The Guardian UK, 03 April 2014

No comments