Ahmadinejad to be the first Iranian Astronaut

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he is ready to take the risk of becoming the first human being sent into space by Iran, national media reports.

"I'm ready to be the first Iranian to sacrifice myself for our country's scientists," the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying on the sidelines of an exhibition of space achievements in Tehran on Monday.

Iran said it sent a monkey into space, describing the launch as a successful step towards Tehran's plan to send an astronaut into space within the next five to six years. The monkey named "Pishgam", which means pioneer in Farsi, reportedly travelled 120km and safely returned to Earth.

The launch added to Western concerns about Iran's space programme because the same rocket technology could potentially be used to deliver a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile.

In 2010, Iran said it launched an Explorer rocket into space carrying a mouse, a turtle and worms.

Iran's space officials say Iran will launch a bigger rocket carrying a larger animal to obtain greater safety assurances before sending a man into space.

Space tourist Anousheh Ansari was the first Iranian to make a journey into space aboard a Soyuz TMA-9 capsule from Baikonur, Kazakhstan, in 2006. The 40-year-old telecommunications entrepreneur paid a reported $20m for a space station visit.

Russia to host the most Expensive Olympics

The Sochi Winter Olympics will cost Russia over $50 billion, five times more than original estimates, according to an Olympics preparation commission. By 2013, Russia completed 70 percent of the needed facilitates, spending $36.7 billion in total.

The 2014 Sochi Winter Games are turning out to be the most expensive Olympics ever. The Sochi Games are estimated to cost even more than the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, which cost $40 billion, believed to be the most expensive in history.

That total was more than double the cost of the London 2012 Games, which were estimated at $19 billion.
Some explain the expensive price tag over the fact that the city of Sochi did not have most of the needed infrastructure. Jean-Claude Killy, chair of the International Olympic Committee's coordination commission for the Sochi Games, said that 85 percent of the infrastructure had to be built from scratch.

Igor Nikolaev, director of the Strategic Analysis Department at FBK, told Nezavisimaya Gazeta that the lack of infrastructure was one of the reasons for the huge expense: "There was really a lot that needed to be built in order to prepare for the Olympics, including infrastructure.” He added that the huge estimates cannot be taken literally, since they were artificially inflated by the Olympics' private sponsors.

So far, sponsors have spent $24.6 billion, and costs are expected to increase to $33 billion. Many of Russia’s largest companies are Olympic sponsors, and are seeking to have as much of their expenses as possible qualify as Olympic expenditures. However, not all of their work will qualify as such, Nikolaev explained.

"For example, a company building or renovating its corporate hotel, tries to qualify the expenditure as part of the Olympics’ cost. That helps them to strengthen their bargaining position. You can be sure that then they will ask something in return [such as preferential tariffs, tax breaks, etc.],” Nikolai said.

The $50 billion sum is not a final estimate, and total costs could approach $66.7 billion, he said. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak, the head of the Olympic preparatory commission, has proposed that Krasnodar region Governor Aleksandr Tkachev offers tax breaks for companies involved in Olympic construction.

The Olympics preparatory commission, established in mid-January by Russian President Vladimir Putin, is tasked with supervising all work on the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.

United States can Kill US citizens with al-Qaeda Link

The legal basis for using drone strikes to kill US citizens has been disclosed in a leaked Justice Department memo.

US officials can authorise the killing of Americans abroad if they are leaders of al-Qaeda or its allies, according to the document obtained by NBC News.

Lethal force is lawful if they are judged to pose an "imminent threat" and their capture is not feasible, it adds.

US drone strikes against militant suspects in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan are deeply controversial.

Under President Barack Obama the US has expanded its use of drones to kill hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects, arguing that it is acting in self-defence in accordance with international law.

Critics argue the drone strikes amount to execution without trial and cause many civilian casualties.

Legal framework
The undated 16-page Department of Justice white paper published by NBC gives more details of the justification for the use of drones outside recognised war zones.

A US study last year suggested Pakistani civilians were being "terrorised" 24 hours a day by drones
It says sovereignty is not deemed to have been violated if the host nation gives its consent, or is unwilling or unable to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted.

It also sets out a "legal framework" for the use of lethal force against US citizens in foreign countries.

It concludes that such killings do not violate the US Constitution as long as:

An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US

Capture is infeasible and the US continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible. The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

The paper adopts a broad definition of "imminent threat", saying it is not necessary to produce evidence that a specific attack is being planned if the target is generally engaged in plotting against the US.

'Remarkable document'
It also asserts that courts should not play a role in reviewing or controlling such decisions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said the white paper was a "pretty remarkable document".

Anwar al-Awlaki was among three Americans killed in drone strikes in Yemen in 2011. Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said in a blog post the paper revealed "both the recklessness of the government's central claim and the deficiencies in the government's defense" of its drone strike policy.

"This sweeping authority is said to exist even if the threat presented isn't imminent in any ordinary sense of that word, even if the target has never been charged with a crime or informed of the allegations against him, and even if the target is not located anywhere near an actual battlefield," Mr Jaffer added.

The ACLU has helped the relatives of three Americans who died in drone strikes sue the Pentagon and CIA. Their lawsuit claims the deaths were unconstitutional.

Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaeda suspect born in the US state of New Mexico, was killed by an unmanned plane in September 2011.

Samir Khan, a naturalised US citizen who produced an online magazine promoting al-Qaeda's ideology, died in the same missile strike.

Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who was born in Colorado, was killed a month later.

The Obama administration has been under growing pressure from politicians in Congress to share more details of its drone strike programme, including secret legal documents.

Last month the UN launched an inquiry into the impact of drone strikes on civilians.

Islamists Threaten to Attack Germany

A German Islamist threatened in an internet video to attack Berlin this summer and kill Chancellor Angela Merkel, Die Welt newspaper reported.

The video threat is being evaluated by the country’s security services, an intelligence spokesman said.

The Islamist Abu Azzam, believed to be a radical Salafist who moved to Egypt last year, added that Germany's Reichstag parliament building would be subject to attacks like those on New York's World Trade Center in 2001.

This event could not be unconnected from the activities of France in Mali and the worldwide support she receives especially from Europe. The Islamists in Mali have threatened to give France a long war through their axis in Europe and elsewhere.

United States to Ease Sanctions on Sudan

The top US diplomat in Sudan revealed today that Washington will soon change sanctions regulations that will allow educational institutional in both countries to deal directly with one another.

Washington imposed economic and trade sanctions on Sudan in 1997 because of the civil wars in the country, accusing it of supporting terrorism. In 2007, it strengthened the embargo citing abuses in Darfur which it labeled as genocide.

In 2010 the US announced it was easing sanctions on agriculture equipment and services which allowed half a dozen companies to get export licenses.

Khartoum has lobbied Washington intensively to lift sanctions but little progress has been made on this front.

In an interview with the independent al-Sahafa newspaper the American charge d'affaires Joseph D. Stafford said that the Obama administration is prepared to hold a comprehensive, frank and transparent dialogue with Khartoum on all issues that prevent normalization of bilateral ties.

Stafford noted that security cooperation between the two sides which strengthened more than a decade ago is continuing describing it as "good".

He denied that the US is biased in favour of any party in Sudan and strongly dismissed accusations by officials in Khartoum that Washington is behind the "New Dawn" charter signed by opposition and rebel groups in Kampala last month.

Stafford said that Washington informed Sudanese rebels that they oppose any attempt to overthrow the regime by force and urged them to seek dialogue with Khartoum.

"We are only biased towards peace in Sudan," the US official said.

He said that his country stopped granting visas to Sudanese and reduced its staff since last September following demonstrations that broke out in Khartoum at the US embassy against a film that insulted the Prophet Mohammad.

Stafford called this a temporary measure that he hopes will soon be reversed.

Nigeria: A Nation of Survival. Defeat of Cote D'Ivoire

                        

Nigeria has always pride itself as nation that dances on the cliff without falling. Over the years, the numerous morass and increase in militant and terrorists activities seem to have overidden this bias.

The defeat of Ivory Coast today shows the country is still on track as master of miracles of the cliff. The Super Eagles before the match has been written off and all pundits favoured Ivory Coast. Nigeria is to meet Mali in the Semi Finals.

In the end, someone will have to tell Emmanuel Eboue that the Claws of the Eagles are devastatingly sharp. They pierce into the eyes of the elephants.

Google and France reach Agreement over News-Linking

Internet giant Google has agreed to set up a fund worth up to 60-million euros to facilitate adjustment to digital technology by the old media.

After two months of mediation with French news sites, the agreement signed with François Hollande will help French media develop online projects.

Previously, Paris threatened to introduce legislation if Google did not reach a settlement after France announced plans to charge Google for linking to French news content.

The Changing Arab World: Ahmadinejad to visit Egypt

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is set to visit Cairo, making him the first Iranian president to visit Egypt since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad will head Iran's delegation to a summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Cairo, Reuters reports.

Tehran broke off relations with Cairo in 1980 following Egypt's peace agreement with Israel during the time of Anwar Saddat. Ahmadinejad hopes the two states can reestablish full diplomatic ties. Last year the two countries mutually agreed to reopen official embassies following a visit to Iran by Egypt’s Islamist President Mohammed Morsi.

The Arab Spring has rekindled a kind of Arab solidarity long lost after the demise of Gamel Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Arab nations including Turkey are finding a common ground among each other to counter Israel's strength. Israel with the assistance of the US is wielding the divide-and-rule baton well.

Clashes in Senegal: 3 Senagalese and a French Die

­
As France battles Islamists in Mali, another flashpoint seems to rear its ugly head in Senegal. The long-standing but internationally silent religious face-off in Senegal led to the death of four.

Four people, one French and three Senegalese nationals, were killed in Senegal's Southern Casamance region in clashes between suspected separatist rebels and government soldiers late Friday, a military source said.

He added that the death of the French citizen may not be related to the long-running war for independence in the mostly Christian Southern region of Senegal, which is predominantly Muslim.

West Africa is gradually turning into a complete haven of and for militants and islamic fundamentalists. This trend could consume the sub-region if not quickly checked and curbed.

Retirement Calls for US Secret Service Chief

­The Director of the US Secret Service will retire this month, according to a spokesperson for the agency which provides personal protection for the President and VIP officials.

 Mark Sullivan has been with the agency for 30 years and in charge since 2006. Last year the image of the Secret Service was severely tarnished when the President’s protection detail became embroiled in a scandal involving prostitutes in Colombia.

The scandal shook the agency to its base. It left a strong impact on its years of seeming and perceived ''infallibility' in security details and personal defence of the Washington top names.

Becoming Wholly Self-Reliant?: Iran to Launch Three Space Satellites

Iran will launch three satellites to mark the country’s National Space Technology Day, Iranian Space Agency President Hamil Fazeli has announced. Fazeli explained that “due to inherent problems using international satellites,” Iran plans to put more of its own satellites into orbit over the next five years.

The Islamic Republic has also built her own National Internet Service to fully complement the restrictions on the usage of Twitter, Facebook and other Western-backed international social media. The country is advancing speedily steadily in technology and science especially military technology.

Are Sanctions Crippling Iran or Making Iran

Iran has presented its first domestically designed defence fighter-bomber jet with limited stealth capabilities. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stressed that the plane was designed for defense purposes, and will not be used for aggression.

Code-named Qaher-313 ('Conqueror'), the jet is an advanced single-seat single-engine military plane. It is reportedly capable of engaging targets on the ground, as well as achieving air superiority in dogfights.

According to photos published by Fars news agency, the jet boasts impressive technical specifications, with a ‘stealth’ design similar to that of the US F-22 and Russian T-50.

The large wingspan and inclined outward tail fins resembles the F-35, as well as the unusual-looking wings and modern seamless canopy. The jet may have been constructed using composite materials.

Before now, Iran has made numerous giant strides in domestic computer and internet application advancement, agricultural development and complex military capabilities since sanctions were slammed on the country by the US and EU.

 

"Now the speed of Iran's development in science and technology does not depend on circumstances, it depends on our will," Ahmadinejad said on Saturday in remarks carried on state television. "We should set higher targets. We see that it is possible, we have the capabilities."

"This project carries the message of brotherhood, peace, and security and it doesn't pose any threat to anyone. There is no intention to interfere in any other country's affairs," he said.

Iran is commemorating the 34th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed Shah in 10 days of events that began on Thursday.

Growing Arab Unity against Israel: Iran and Turkey on Syria

A senior Iranian security official pledged full support of Tehran for its close ally, the Syrian regime in Damascus on Saturday.

 “We will give all our support so that Syria remains firm and able to face all the arrogant (Western power) conspiracies,” said the head of the Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, in the wake of Israeli airstrike on Syria.

Iran has been supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad and his regime since the Syrian crisis began nearly two years ago, which has so far claimed more than 60,000 lives.

The Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu on his part says Assad has a pact with Israel that is why the Syrian military which has been killing its own people cannot respond to Israeli airstrikes.

Turkey says it will not sit back and watch Israel attack any Muslim nation. The airstrikes could in the long run bring Iran and Turkey together. Both countries have been on opposite sides since Assad employed heavy firepower on his own people.

Piracy in Africa: The End of a New Beginning

Maritime insecurity in Africa, particularly in connection with acts of piracy, has constituted an important field of study for security researchers in recent years.

It has also frequently made local and global media headlines. Despite this trend, the focus in recent reports is starting to shift away from alarm towards detailing the diminishing threat of piracy around Somalia. Large-scale pirate activities there appear to be on the wane, but in what ways can we reasonably expect 2013 to be different from the past, in East Africa and elsewhere?

So far in 2013 the most notable event has been the increase in piracy incidents off the West African coast, particularly in the Gulf of Guinea. This continues the trend in 2012 noted by the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) where, despite a sizeable drop in the number of attacks in East Africa from 237 in 2011 to 75 in 2012, a total of 58 incidents were recorded in attacks off the West African coast in 2012, compared to 49 in 2011.

Increased naval patrols and capacity and the adoption of lessons and practices suitable to passage through these sea lanes and areas can account for the drop in attacks and might prompt hopes that piracy will eventually pose an insignificant security threat.

However, the attacks off West Africa differ from East African incidents mainly due to one factor - violent criminal acts are now connected with the movement of oil. The most recent attack took place off Côte d'Ivoire on 21 January 2013 when a large oil tanker named ITRI was hijacked, also demonstrating that the problem is not geographically limited to the Gulf of Guinea.

Crews in such cases are often assaulted while illegal oil bunkering occurs - a practice whereby the ship is drained of oil, which is subsequently spirited back to shore and either sold or refined.

This could result in oil spills, particularly around the already ravaged Niger delta. Offshore oil platforms, often seen as a means of avoiding land-based political instability, are now potential targets and frequently beyond immediate aid. Terrorist attacks on vulnerable installations could also occur, further prompting increases in the number of operations in partnership with the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM).

Many of these acts will be reported as being criminal rather than piratical, as they do not all occur in international waters but rather within the sovereign borders of states, which are set at 12 nautical miles offshore, and are thus subject to countries' own laws and legal systems, rather than being subject to international law as is commonly the case off Somalia.

Meanwhile, that of Nigeria is gradually gathering international attention though it is still largely localised. If the menace is not check appropriately, West Africa might degenerate into another Somalia just as the Islamists are allowed fertile grounds.

Israeli Airstrike aims at Weakening Syria's Military Research: A call for Hezbollah

Though Israel has not yet claimed responsibility for an airstrike targeting a military site near Damascus, experts believe that Tel Aviv aimed to further destabilize Syria and undermine its military capabilities.

Initial reports suggested that Israel conducted an airstrike on a convoy carrying sophisticated weapons that was preparing to cross the Syria-Lebanon border. Israeli officials said the vehicles may have contained chemical weapons and Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles intended for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

“This episode boils down to a warning by Israel to Syria and Hezbollah not to engage in the transfer of sensitive weapons,” a regional security source told Reuters.

But the latest reports from Syria suggest that the airstrike hit the Jamraya research center in the suburbs of Damascus, far from the Lebanese border. An anonymous diplomatic source told Reuters that chemical weapons may be stored at the center, and that the vehicles in Hezbollah convoy were unlikely to be carrying such arms.

Israeli officials have not commented on the airstrike, but the assault may have revealed Tel Aviv’s plans, experts believe. After months of sustained rebel assaults on Syrian air defense systems and bases, the Israeli airstrike follows a pattern of other recent attempts to undermine Syria’s military capabilities.

Israeli officials have frequently expressed fears that Syrian President Bashar Assad will lose control of the country’s chemical weapons stockpiles. But Dr. Ali Mohamad, editor-in-chief of the Syria Tribune news website, believes the fears of chemical weapons was a pretext to destroy Syria's military research centers and ensure that Damascus is unable to produce arms for its military or regional allies.

Syrians know that “this is not at all about chemical weapons,” Dr. Mohamad told RT. “It’s about stopping the Syrian scientists’ military research projects.”

“It finally makes sense because the rebels or as they like to call themselves the revolutionaries, they have been attacking air defense bases near Damascus for the past seven months,” Dr. Mohamad said. “They’ve managed to attack the S-200 base and over four other surface-to-air missile bases.

Now this followed by an airstrike from Israel. So it all adds up, it makes sense. It only shows that Israel has a great interest in the instability in Syria and that it is being helped by groups of armed rebels in Syria.”

“Military research centers are responsible for developing weapons, in particular land-to-land long range missiles,” and Israel wants to stop this research process, Dr. Mohamed explained. “Of course Israel will claim that this is connected to a chemical weapons arsenal, but this is of course not true because nobody stores chemical weapons in a research center.”

“Let’s remember that the Syrian official who was responsible for all military research projects has been assassinated in Damascus by the rebels,” he said. “Let’s also remember that the person who orchestrated the Syrian long-range missile project colonel Dawoud Rajiha was also assassinated in Damascus.

This is about stopping the Syrian scientific military research projects and is about breaking the link that will help [Israel] overcome the Lebanese resistance and the Palestinian resistance.”

Syria will likely retaliate, but not in the form of a direct attack on Israel. Instead, Damascus will seek to arm Hezbollah, the Lebanese resistance, Dr. Mohamed said.

Hezbollah also stated that the attack targeted a Syrian research center and was an attempt to cripple Syrian military capabilities. It declared its full solidarity for Syria’s “leadership, army and people” in a statement.

Russia condemns Israel's attack on Syria

The Russian Foreign Ministry has issued a statement expressing deep concern over Israel’s airstrike on Syria saying that it violates the UN Charter.

The Ministry website says; if this information is confirmed that would mean that we have to deal with unprovoked attacks on the territory of a sovereign state which is inadmissible, whatever objectives are declared as a justification.

Russia has again called upon the international community to stop the violence in Syria, prevent foreign intervention in the conflict, and assist the start of a nationwide dialogue based on the Geneva agreements.

Syrian military command had reported that Israeli aircraft bombed a research facility near the country’s capital Damascus on Wednesday killing two people and wounding five. The statement called the attack a “blatant act of aggression” and blasted Israel for supporting Syrian terrorists.

So far, the Israel has refused to comment, but unnamed sources in the US have told news agencies that the Israeli Air Force did strike a truck convoy on the Syria-Lebanon border that supposedly carried anti-aircraft weapons. Lebanese media has reported a number of air raids conducted by Israel war planes over its territory but said nothing about any strikes.

If confirmed, the air strike will be Israel’s first attack on a Syrian target since 2007 when the Israeli Air Force destroyed what they thought to be an almost complete nuclear reactor in the East of the country, near the border with Iraq. Syria denied the site was a nuclear facility.

Wednesday’s alleged attack would also be Israel’s first direct intervention into the almost-two-year Syrian crisis caused by the standoff between President Bashar Assad and an armed opposition supported by radical Islamists.

Russia has repeatedly called upon the international community to help stop the violence by forcing the opposing sides to negotiation table. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says it was the opposition that rejected talks in Syria adding that the crisis would end when the opposition abandons its obsession with ousting Assad, and if this does not happen the fighting will continue and more people will die.

At the same time, Lavrov pointed out that the Russian point of view was that preserving or deposing President Assad’s regime was not a priority. What really mattered, he said, is an immediate stop to the bloodshed and the stabilization of the situation in Syria.

Syria seems to be the last bastion of the Cold War struggle in terms of open support by Russia both in the media and at the UN and fragrant opposition by the US and other Western powers. The second unresolved Cold War dilemma is the Koreas.

Mali and the Burnt Manuscripts : A blow to History, Culture and Civilisation

Despite the claim by archivist that precious manuscripts have been safely moved earlier from Timbuktu to Bamako, some precious artifacts and manuscripts must also have been lost due to the destructive activities of the islamists in Mali.

A building housing over 60 thousand manuscripts from the ancient Muslim world and Greece was set aflame, raising fears of further damage to the country's cultural heritage after months of destruction by Islamists.

Timbuktu mayor Halley Ousmane, who is in Bamako, confirmed the fire at the Ahmed Baba Centre for Documentation and Research, which housed between 60,000 and 100,000 manuscripts, according to Mali's culture ministry.

"I spoke to my media officer this morning. What has happened in Timbuktu is dramatic," he said.

Ousmane said he had also been informed that Islamists had "burnt alive" a resident who had cried out "Vive la France".

The Ahmed Baba institute was set up in 1973. A new building was opened in 2009 following a bilateral agreement with South Africa to promote the conservation, research and promotion of the manuscripts as African heritage.

Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti on Monday indicated Rome was scrapping plans to provide logistical support for French-led forces in Mali due to a failure among the main parties to reach a political deal ahead of elections next month.

"I asked the leaders of the three parties of the majority to give their views but we did not receive the support we had hoped for," Monti, who is himself running as leader of the coalition of centrist parties, said in an interview with La7 television.

Defence Minister Giampaolo Di Paola last week said Italy would send a refuelling plane and two transport planes to carry troops and equipment in the conflict against Islamist-led rebels in Mali.

While expressing Italy's "strong support" for the operation, however, Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi said that "internal political conditions" meant Rome could not offer concrete backing at the moment.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Monday that London was "keen" to contribute more in addition to two transport planes and a surveillance aircraft which have already been provided.

The manuscripts are very crucial to West Africa as well as African civilisation and history. Most of them represent the earliest objective and undiluted accounts and experiences of travellers; most especially Arab traders and Islamic missionaries.

France has so far done the best. The French troops have successfully taken over Kidal, the last stronghold of the Islamists. Reports have it that some of the main leaders of the Islamists have escaped into neighbouring countries especially Nigeria.

U.S Military Trains Coup Plotters

Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has admitted bluntly the failure of U.S. military training to instill respect for human rights in a Malian army now accused of massacring Arabs and Tuaregs as it fights its way north into rebel-held territory. "We didn't spend probably the requisite time focusing on values, ethics, and a military ethos," Ham acknowledged, saying that most U.S. training for the Malians focused on tactics, strategy, and "technical matters."

Since 1985, the United States has sponsored approximately 156 Malian military officers and non-commissioned officers at U.S. professional military schools and given them training focused on professionalizing the military forces. Over the past three years, this funding has reached at least roughly $400,000 annually, and it is possible U.S. intelligence agencies have also funneled in support as well. Sadly, Mali is hardly an isolated case of U.S. military assistance programmes operating with dangerously little oversight and lacking a compelling central rationale.

Though good examples of successful U.S. military training programmes exist but lots of headline cases have gone badly wrong over the years -- from training Indonesian troops that carried out atrocities in East Timor to the billions poured into the Egyptian military to the scores of tainted graduates from the School of the Americas that ran riot in Central America during the 1980s.

In looking at the patterns of U.S. military assistance, the question is not who gets American military aid, but who doesn't. In 2012, the United States delivered bilateral security assistance to 134 countries -- meaning that every country on Earth had about a 75 percent chance of receiving U.S. military aid. Once you weed out places like North Korea and Vatican City, you are pretty much assured of receiving military aid no matter how large or small your country, no matter how democratic or despotic your regime, no matter how lofty or minimal your GDP.

There has been almost zero discussion of how to better focus U.S. military assistance around clear objectives and direct it to countries where it can make a lasting difference. And these aren't insignificant sums when taken together. The administration requested $9.8 billion in security assistance funding for fiscal year 2013.

Much of this military assistance -- through programmes like Foreign Military Financing; International Military Education and Training; Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programmes; International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; Peacekeeping Operations; and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund -- is supposed to be overseen by the State Department with the Defense Department doing the heavy lifting of actually delivering aid and training.

The rationale on paper for such assistance is straightforward and usually receives uncritical congressional support. U.S. military aid helps train security forces, finance the purchase of military equipment, bolster the ability of law enforcement to tackle the illegal narcotics trade, and shape cooperation on non-proliferation issues.

But more than anything, the Pentagon has always insisted that spreading military assistance so broadly is all about building relationships with fellow militaries -- a cost effective way of establishing contacts who will pick up the phone in a ministry of defence when needed. For many, U.S. dollars propped up an autocratic military in Egypt, other argue that it was the senior flag relationships between the Pentagon and Cairo that kept the military from opening fire on democratic protesters during the Arab Spring.

But U.S. military aid looks much better on paper than in practice, in large part because it is often delivered as if on autopilot without a reasoned discussion of its merits. The State Department largely offers rubber-stamp approvals, and the Foreign Service currently lacks personnel with the expertise needed to engage in a rigorous debate with the Pentagon about who deserves aid and why.

As Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center has argued, the State Department's "internal capacity to plan, budget, and manage these programmes needs to be seriously strengthened." This, combined with the general tendency of Congress to treat military spending requests as something just short of a papal writ, has meant that U.S. security assistance programmes receive very little oversight.

Equally troubling, military and economic assistance are treated as quite different creatures. For economic assistance, the United States has increasingly insisted that aid recipients at least demonstrate some marginal commitment to democracy and open markets. Not so on the military side, where concerns about corruption, the rule of law, and human rights are treated as something we are too polite to ask about.

Indeed, we probably would offer military training to everyone if it were not for the minor restrictions imposed by Senate Democrats like the Leahy Law, which prohibits U.S. military assistance to known thugs and war criminals that violate human rights with impunity. Yes, having military-to-military contacts through U.S. military training and aid is often useful and can build important relations and lasting trust.

But it is equally true that the list of U.S.-trained officers that have led coups against their sitting governments is a lengthy one in countries ranging from Honduras to Haiti to the Gambia. Contrary to what Ham's remark suggested, a few months spent studying tactics and logistics in Kansas or Georgia rarely seems to slow down a power-hungry colonel when he is hell bent on toppling the elected government that just threatened to cut his budget.

Underwriting security assistance to countries with autocratic leadership or nations that are of little strategic significance doesn't make much sense. U.S. military aid and training should be concentrated in a far fewer countries rather than being sprinkled all around the globe like fairy dust in hopes that good relations result.

Nations should be chosen to receive such military aid and training based on their commitment to reform -- both within the military and within the broader structures of democratic governance, free markets, and respect for human rights. Such aid should be a reward for high-performing countries, not a party favour dispensed at the door.

General Ham sounded genuinely surprised that American-trained officers were up to nefarious deeds. Apparently Ham is not much of a history buff -- a U.S. trained captain led a coup against the government of Mali just last March.

Courtesy: Foreign Policy Analysis

Is Brazil the New China in Africa?

Africa continues to be the home of all powers in the world; emerging or established. After the coming and exploitation of Europe, the United States followed. China is still currently doing hers and now Brazil. African leaders never showed any sign of moving beyond the continent's inverstments beyond its frontiers so as to be a relevant player in the world. All they make her do is accept others to exploit her.

Brazil's role as a trade partner with Africa is increasing, but the political links between the continent and Brazil may prove more important. In December, senior representatives of the Chinese and Brazilian foreign ministries met in Beijing for what was billed the 'second China-Brazil consultation on African affairs'.

They claimed to have expanded their consensus on Africa issues. It is understandably tempting to draw parallels between China and Brazil's economic and political engagement in Africa, and both have generated much speculations. But how similar are the two emerging powers' interactions with the continent?

While Brazil is often held up as the 'new China', the two countries have very different motivations for their presence in Africa. Unlike China, Brazil is relatively self-sufficient in terms of natural resources, and as a result Brasilia has not pushed the Chinese model of large-scale resource-backed infrastructure deals.

As far as Brazil's exports are concerned, Africa has nowhere near the strategic importance of markets in China, the US, or even Argentina. As such, it seems that Brazil's relationship with Africa has thus far been predominantly political rather than commercial.

Since the first term of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-10), the Brazilian government has strengthened its diplomatic ties across Africa.

After taking office, Lula quickly doubled the budget of the Itamaraty (Brazil's foreign ministry), leading to a concerted expansion of embassies in developing countries in general, especially in Africa. Brazil now has 37 embassies on the continent - more than the UK, a former colonial power. Between them, Lula and his foreign minister Celso Amorim visited Africa 80 times between 2003 and 2008.

Furthermore, Brasilia often invokes its historical, social, linguistic, and cultural links with Africa as a means to position itself as a 'natural' partner. Lula often spoke of an "historic debt" that Brazil owes to Africa, a reference to the historical exchanges between Africa and Brasil in terms of culture, traditions and people (Brazil is home to more people of African descent than any other country outside Africa).

Although domestic rather than foreign policy appears to be the priority of the current President, Dilma Rousseff, she has continued to chart a similar course. Notably, she has talked of a shared experience of colonialism and last year spoke of building a relationship with Africa entirely free of the "colonial practices that devastated my continent and the African continent, free of all the colonial hells that we lived".

There are clear links between these two parts of the world, but promoting them is also a diplomatic exercise. Such overtures towards Africa fit Brazil's more general policy of presenting an image of being a benign and neutral leader among developing countries.

This strategy is cogently designed with the objective of giving Brazil more projection in multilateral forums such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and of achieving the government's long-standing ambition to securing a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Alongside the political push, trade between the two regions has grown in total value over the last ten years, covering a wide range of sectors including oil and gas, fertilisers, beef, agricultural produce, minerals and automobiles. However, data from 2010 shows that Africa still only accounts for 5.3% of Brazil's total trade, a percentage that has decreased steadily since 2007, while trade with Asia has increased.

Nevertheless, while Brazil's strategy is political in emphasis, Brazilian businesses have often been central to the government's outreach programme. Lula and Rousseff have both fiercely advocated the formation of 'national champions': Brazilian conglomerates that expand the country's clout abroad and that aim to become worldwide market leaders.

To this end, the Brazilian state, via the Brazilian Development Bank(BNDES), often supports its private companies' African investments, taking advantage of its financial strength as a means to demonstrate Brazil's increasing global prominence. In Africa, Brazil's major construction and extractive firms - such as Petrobras, Vale and Odebrecht - have led the way in terms of investment and sales volume.

And while Brazilian investment in Africa remains a fraction of China's, investment value grew from $69 billion to $214 billion between 2001 and 2009. There have been particularly large investments in Lusophone Africa, often facilitated by credit offered to Brazilian companies by the BNDES: in Angola, BNDES credit has reached $3.2 billion. Notably, while Chinese policy banks such as the

China Exim Bank typically provide finance direct to African governments, the BNDES supports the expansions of Brasilian firms rather than foreign administrations. Further, Brazilian firms have often had to negotiate conflicting pressures from Brasilia: to promote Brasil abroad, but also to prioritise domestic investment and job creation in a time of diminished growth.

This is in contrast to Chinese policy whereby in the past decade, Chinese state-owned enterprises have often been charged with a mandate to aggressively expand at all costs in Africa. Brazil's expansion has been more cautious.

Brazilian investment in Africa is likely to continue in coming years. But as more investors inevitably make decisions in Africa on the basis of private interest and commercial returns, Brasilia may find it difficult to protect its national brand.

Private actors with differing agendas are becoming ever more visible, and there is a risk that this will undermine Brazil's political project of portraying itself as a partner which always prioritises mutual benefit in a spirit of co-operation and equality.

Massacre in Syria

The Syrian crisis is getting out of hand on a daily basis and the world watches on just as it was during the Rwandan genocide. Massacres continued everyday and the latest is that of the killing of about 71 people in Aleppo.

The bodies were found littering the street of Aleppo. Syria risks becoming a kind of Somalia in the Middle East. The bickering of World Powers with Russia and China on one hand supporting an end to the crisis by Syrians themselves and the United States, Britain, France and Turkey on the other urging the former two to do more to restrain Assad's assaults.

The UN special enjoy, Lakhdar Brahimi continues to lament with no action on the ground to salvage the situation. In as much as Western intervention is an anathema, Russia should do more to prevail on Assad to end the massacre with the best being his stepping down for good.