Ms Merkel in Munich slams Iran's nuclear ambitions

Speaking at the Munich security conference ( Under the theme of "Restoring the Trans-Atlantic Relationship," on the future role of the NATO ), the biggest annual gathering of some 250 defence ministers, military commanders and defence industry leaders. Ms. Angela Merkel, (guarded by 4,000 Police) Germany’s new chancellor called for a new debate of Nato’s central strategic concept by 2009 to define new tasks and limits to its capacity. Angela Merkel, upset over Tehran's declared denial of the Holocaust and calls for Israel to be destroyed, made a personal attack on (like her, democratically elected) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

She was applauded by her European and North American audience when saying , 'A president who questions Israel's very existence cannot expect Germany to show even the slightest tolerance.'

There were almost no representatives from the Middle East or Islamic countries among the 300 people at the meeting. A single Iranian delegate, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, defended his country's position, but was rebuked by Ms. Merkel who dismissed his intervention for failing to address the Holocaust.

'We have learned our lesson from history,' she said speaking in the City whose name is redolent of the British appeasement so strongly identified with Chamberlain’s historic flight to the City and a fatal and final meeting with Hitler. "Looking back to German history in the early 1930s, when National Socialism was on the rise, there were many outside Germany who said, 'It's only rhetoric -- don't get excited.There were times when people could have reacted differently and, in my view, Germany is obliged to do something at the early stages.

"We want to -- we must -- prevent Iran from developing its nuclear program."

Ms. Merkel and others also used the conference to try and defuse growing rage in the Islamic world over the publication of caricatures depicting the Prophet Mohammed in several European newspapers.

'I can understand that religious feelings of Muslims have been injured and violated,' she said, adding: 'But it is unacceptable to see this as a legitimization for violence.'

On Thursday Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato’s secretary-general,(see pic) like any ambitious European bureaucrat laid out his agenda for broader (ie bigger size = bigger budgets)and more intense political consultations on issues ranging from the Balkans and Afghanistan to Africa and the Middle East, … he added as an apparent afterthought the joint policy on energy security, not one imagines, normally top of the NATO agenda. He also called for closer links with other like-minded nations such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea, while warning that “NATO is not a global policeman, but we have increasingly global partnerships”.

"In a time of global threats, our alliance relies on the support of other states more than ever," he is quoted in the Bavarian weekly Bayernkurier, which is published by the German state's ruling Christian Social Union.

"Japan and South Korea can also make important contributions to NATO operations in future," he said. "They have shown clear interest in closer cooperation with NATO. I see building ties with these countries as a major security investment."

The Süddeutsche Zeitung, says, NATO officials discussed the expansion proposal at a January meeting . The Munich daily says US ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland, has issued a proposal to establish a permanent joint panel.

This plan is getting none or very lukewarm support from most NATO members. France has already voiced opposition, according to the paper. The Dutch have finally, if reluctantly agreed (after much public hand wringing) to their participation in the ill conceived and militarily doomed Afghan venture on which UK defence Minister John Reid, has happily thrown the lives of UK soldiers and the notoriously unreliable equipment of the UK army and their (as yet) untested in battle Apache helicopters and ageing Chinooks.

Ms Merkel’s speech, was warmly received by the high-level US delegation to the conference, led by Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary and war criminal, but its substance brought very little response.

Instead, Rumsfeld focused almost all his remarks on the terrorist war declared on the US and all its allies, and declined to engage in any debate on the future of the NATO alliance and its role in the world.

'Old NATO' had been limited to the alliance's geographic limits, said Rumsfeld, 'the new NATO ... recognizes challenges which threaten the world are of a global nature.'

It is no secret that the United States would like to see NATO act outside of its traditional remit, playing a role in combating terror attacks, drug and people trafficking and humanitarian assistance following the example of the 1,000 NATO troops deployed to the earthquake-hit areas of Pakistan last year. They also repeatedly point out that the US spend 3.4% of GNP on Defence and most of the EU / NATO countries struggle to spend 2% at best.

Elsewhere at the conference US Senator John McCain , Republican Party frontrunner in the US Presidential 2008 celebrity/reality show said, 'Every option must remain on the table (sounds familiar). There is only one thing worse than a military showdown and that is a nuclear-armed Iran.' US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld warned that 'the Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. The world does not want - and must work together to prevent - a nuclear Iran.'

Sergey Ivanov ,Russian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister dismissed even the idea of sanctions on Iran, and doubts their effectiveness. 'I am not sceptical but a bit pessimistic on sanctions,' said Ivanov, Iran's neighbours would probably not heed international sanctions too rigorously he claims.

In further Press discussions, Ivanov said Russia wants Iran's nuclear programme to be resolved under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) alone and had strong concerns about the decision on Saturday by the IAEA to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council, underlining that the world body would only “consider” the issue, not”decide any concrete actions”.

Furthermore, Ivanov insisted that Iran had the 'legal sovereign right to enjoy the fruits of nuclear energy.' (Just as presumably Israel has ?)

Israel yesterday , via Former Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom approved the decision by the international community to move against Iran, despite discomfort about the resolution's indirect reference to Israel's own alleged nuclear program. This refers to a clause inserted by Egypt …” "A solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and to realising the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery." The US has rebuffed any such efforts repeatedly by Egypt ( who have experienced their own share of terrorist attacks in Cairo and tourist resorts recently) to insert such clauses in IAEA documents. Israel reflexively never admits to possessing, making, nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems for them, even though it is widely agreed that it has almost 200 nuclear warheads.

Silvan Shalom said: "This is a historic decision. Until recent years, the world thought that Iran and terror were Israel's problem.

"After 9/11, and the terror attacks in London, Madrid and Russia, they understood that it's the world's problem."

Evidently there is no agreement or overall strategy yet for a response to further declared Iranian intransigence or if they throw further spanners in the works.
Of course the co-ordinated (?) , unpoliced (?), and co-incidental Muslim demonstrators of Paris in November, and now in London, Egypt, Beirut, Damascus, irritated by (if not sponsored by) repeated European re-printing of the offending Danish (and unfunny) cartoons is a handy tool to ensure public solidarity, to “get tough with the Islamofascists” and chimes with the Zionist stance on democratically elected Hamas to run the Palestinian Government.

The cynical observer in London may wonder at the apparent incapacity (or unwillingness) of the Police to intervene, to disrupt illegally congregating marching hordes of people, calling for murder with successful prosecutions of peace activists for reciting the names of the war dead.

Might this withdrawal of the lethal powers ( viz De Menezes murder , massive stop and searches under the many and varied ant Terrorism statutes available) ) of the “Met” possibly have an effect in stoking up the fires of resistance and resentment of the supporters of the BNP ? Surely not.

No doubt Beefy Clarke’s “Timeline” of the 7/7 “suicide bombers” will uncover the previously unknown , cunningly concealed network of Islamofascist networks with hidden harms to our “democratic” society.

Last time the Secret Services / Police got their “secrets” wrong over WMD and Saddam, this time the dastardly Iranians were so clever the hid their secrets from the denizens of the Purple Palace of Vauxhall Bridge and Horse Guards Parade.

Meanwhile the Met’s “finest” are scrutinising video tapes from their “information gatherers” of the London demonstrations …. and carefully listening to people who claim the protests were “hi jacked” by MI5 funded , Luton and Bedford based Al Muhajaroun.

POSTSCRIPT History re run?

'Old NATO' had been limited to the alliance's geographic limits, said Rumsfeld, 'the new NATO ... recognizes challenges which threaten the world are of a global nature.'

Does he foresee the UN going the way of the League of Nations, resistant to bullying Bolton and a more compliant and more easily bullied NATO alliance more compliant with the aims of the PNAC signatories ?