Scotland seeks title of green job capital

EDINBURGH, Scotland, Feb. 5 (UPI) -- Scotland's Finance Secretary John Swinney pledged to create at least 16,000 renewable-energy-related jobs in Scotland over the next 10 years.

The new goal is part of the nation's larger efforts to avoid recession and be more energy efficient, Scotland on Sunday reports.

Scotland should have at least one-tenth of the estimated 160,000 renewable energy jobs that will be generated in Britain over the next 10 years, Swinney said.

"We are in the most difficult economic climate for a generation and need to pursue every possible opportunity we have to create wealth," he said. "We are laying the foundations for economic success by investing in a greener deal for Scotland."

The nation generates one-fifth of its electricity demand from renewable sources, and Scotland is home to 25 percent of Europe's wave and tidal energy potential.

Two suns found in distant planetary system

SEOUL, Feb. 6 (UPI) -- South Korean researchers say they've discovered a planetary system that has two suns.

Lee Jae-woo and Kim Seung-ri of the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute and Kim Chun-hwui of Chungbuk National University said the planetary system, which they've named HW Vir has had the two suns since its birth, unlike other planetary systems in which a second sun was drawn by gravitational attraction, South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported Friday.

The report, published in the Astronomical Journal, said the HW Vir planetary system lies about 59 billion light-years from Earth.

Ants chatter to each other in nests

LONDON, Feb. 6 (UPI) -- A British scientist says advanced audio technology shows ants talk together frequently while inside their nests.

Miniature microphones and speakers placed inside nests allowed scientists to play back sounds made by the queen, which called the ants to attention, The Times of London reported Friday.

"When we played the queen sounds they did 'en garde' behavior. They would stand motionless with their antennae held out and their jaws apart for hours -- the moment anyone goes near they will attack," Jeremy Thomas of the University of Oxford told The Times.

Thomas said further analysis may reveal ants have a wider vocabulary than previously suspected. "The most important discovery is that within the ant colony different sounds can provoke different reactions," he said. "I would be very surprised if we didn't get different types of sound."

Egypt returns ancient statue to Iraq

CAIRO, Feb. 6 (UPI) -- An ancient Mesopotamian bronze statue smuggled into Egypt has been returned to Iraqi authorities, Egyptian officials say.

A spokesman for the Egyptian Antiquities Department says the statue was handed over to the Iraqi Embassy in Cairo during a special ceremony, Iraq's Azzazam news service reported Friday.

Spokesman Abdulzahra al-Talaqani said the return of the ancient relic is a signal of the willingness of nations to cooperate with Iraq in the recovery of its stolen heritage.

It isn't clear whether the bronze statue was among the thousands of artifacts that went missing from Iraq shortly after the U.S. invasion.

In addition to items taken from the Iraq Museum, archaeologists say thousands of antiquities have been smuggled out of the country due to illegal digging at scores of ancient sites.

Source: United Press International (UPI).
Link: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/06/Egypt_returns_ancient_statue_to_Iraq/UPI-88101233941292/.

Russia allows transit of US military supplies

By MIKE ECKEL, Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW – Russia granted transit rights Friday to non-lethal U.S. military supplies headed to Afghanistan but only after apparently pressuring a former Soviet state to close an air base leased to the Americans.

The signal from Moscow: Russia is willing to help on Afghanistan, but only on the Kremlin's terms.

Kyrgyzstan announced the closure of the Manas air base but American officials suspect that Russia was behind the decision, having long been irritated by the U.S presence in central Asia.

The Russian decision to let U.S. supplies cross its territory opened another route to those through Pakistan now threatened by militant attacks, but U.S. officials were still left scrambling for alternatives to Manas.

Russia wants to open discussions on thorny policy issues that Washington and Moscow have clashed on in recent years — NATO enlargement, missile defense in Europe, a new strategic arms control treaty. More importantly, Russia's expectation is that Washington must go through Moscow where Central Asia is concerned.

Russia may also be showing Washington that its positions aren't immovable — particularly where Afghanistan is concerned. Russia fears Afghanistan is collapsing into anarchy, leading to instability or Islamic radicals migrating northward through Central Asia.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia had agreed days earlier to allow transit of U.S. non-lethal supplies to Afghanistan.

"We are now waiting for the American partners to provide a specific request with a quantity and description of cargo," Lavrov said Friday in remarks broadcast by Vesti-24 TV. "As soon as they do that we will issue relevant permissions."

He and other officials did not say whether the U.S. will be offered air or land transit corridors. Any new transit routes are unlikely to make up for the loss of Manas, home to tanker planes that refuel warplanes flying over Afghanistan as well as airlifts and medical evacuation operations.

The Kremlin last year signed a framework deal with NATO for transit of non-lethal cargo for coalition forces in Afghanistan and has allowed some alliance members, including Germany, France and Spain, to move supplies across its territory.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Igor Lyakin-Frolov said Germany has been using air and land routes and France so far only has used air transit.

Ground routes through Russia would likely cross into Kazakhstan and then Uzbekistan before entering northern Afghanistan.

The U.S. has reached a preliminary deal with Kazakhstan to use its territory and officials have said they are considering resuming military cooperation with Uzbekistan, which neighbors Afghanistan.

That option is problematic for Washington: Uzbekistan kicked U.S. forces out of a base there after sharp U.S. criticism of the country's human rights record and the government's brutal quashing of a 2005 uprising.

Renewing those ties would also open the United States to new accusations it is working with an authoritarian government that tortures its citizens. Uzbekistan has also in the past faced a low-level insurgency from Islamic radicals, though a government crackdown has quelled much of it.

U.S. officials have repeatedly said talks with Kyrgyzstan on the Manas base are still ongoing. U.S. State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid suggested Friday that Kyrgyz officials may be divided over whether to close the base, a source of income for the impoverished nation.

"They've not told us they reached a final decision," Duguid said.

Kyrgyzstan's parliament delayed a vote on the government's decision until next week, and some Kyrgyz officials have indicated they may be willing to discuss the issue with the United States.

But National Security Council chief Adakhan Madumarov said Friday the decision to close the base was final.

"There is no doubt the bill to revoke the basing agreement will be ratified," he said. "The fate of the air base has been sealed."

In a separate development, Tajikistan's president pledged Friday that his government would allow the transit of non-military supplies to coalition troops based in neighboring Afghanistan.

Still, Tajik routes are unlikely to greatly affect U.S. supplies because the mountainous country is hard to traverse by land and it already allows U.S. overflights.

Obama considering at least 2 Iraq withdrawal plans

By ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The White House is considering at least two troop withdrawal options as it weighs a new Iraq strategy — one that would preserve President Barack Obama's campaign pledge to get all combat brigades out within 16 months and a second that would stretch it to 23 months, two officials said Friday.

A third, in-between option of 19 months is also being weighed, according to the officials, neither of whom would discuss the sensitive topic without being granted anonymity. One of the officials said the main focus appears to be on the 16-month and 23-month options; 23 months would run to the end of 2010.

Under either timeline, the U.S. would hope to leave behind a number of brigades that would be redesigned and reconfigured as multipurpose units to provide training and advising for Iraqi security forces, one official said. These brigades would be considered noncombat outfits and their presence would have to be agreed in advance by the Iraqi government, which under a deal signed late last year insisted that all U.S. forces — not just combat brigades — be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

Obama has said his Iraq policy will include leaving a residual U.S. military force of unspecified composition and size in Iraq and in the region to conduct counter-terrorism missions against al-Qaida in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He has said they will not build permanent bases in Iraq but will continue training and supporting Iraqi security forces "as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."

The concept of the stay-behind training and advising brigades has been well developed, the official said, although the details such as their size and makeup are in an early stage of being sorted out.

At the White House's request, top military officials recently offered an assessment of the risks associated with the 16-, 19- and 23-month withdrawal timetables, without saying which is preferred. Obama's top two defense advisers, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, have not yet provided a formal recommendation to the president on a timetable, an official said.

It is possible that Obama will ask for similar assessments of other withdrawal timetables before deciding on a way ahead.

A senior administration official said Friday, without commenting on the timetables under consideration, that the White House and senior military commanders "are coming to a meeting of the minds" on troop withdrawals and on the need for a diplomatic and political strategy to end U.S. involvement in the war and to ease the strain on troops and their families.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said it likely would be a matter of "weeks, not months" before Obama is ready to announce his decisions on an Iraq strategy.

McClatchy Newspapers was first to report Friday that the White House had received risk assessments associated with 16-, 19- and 23-month drawdown options.

Obama must weigh a number of risks in deciding how fast to pull out the 14 combat brigades that are now in Iraq, including the political risk associated with abandoning his campaign pledge to get out within 16 months.

The calculation is complex and tied to other concerns: relieving stress on war-weary troops and their families; tradeoffs in escalating the war in Afghanistan, and being ready for popup crises elsewhere.

The pace and sequencing of a troop pullout will have implications for preserving recent gains in reducing violence in Iraq. An erosion of security could in turn halt progress toward political reconciliation, raising once again the prospect of widespread sectarian warfare and a new crisis for Obama.

Also at issue is how to ensure proper protection for U.S. civilians, such as State Department members of military-civilian teams supporting Iraqi economic and political rebuilding, as the U.S. military presence shrinks. That civilian work, including the role of international non-governmental groups, will arguably grow in importance as the Iraqis focus less on fighting insurgents and more on building national unity.

The fact that Obama did not immediately order his generals to begin withdrawing — as some might have expected, given his emphasis during the campaign on refocusing the U.S. military on Afghanistan — is evidence that he recognized, even before assuming office Jan. 20, the dangers of a precipitous withdrawal.

During Obama's first meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon last week, he did not mention a 16-month timeline, according to officials who were present.

U.S. military commanders in Iraq — and some senior military leaders in the Pentagon — still wonder whether the Iraqi security forces will be ready this year to handle what remains of the insurgency without substantial U.S. combat assistance. If they are not, and if a U.S. pullout accelerates, what will happen?

That question may be most important in northern Iraq, where the insurgency is still viable in the Tigris River city of Mosul and where ethnic tensions between Arabs and Kurds are high around the city of Kirkuk.

Maj. Gen. Robert Caslen, the senior U.S. commander in northern Iraq, told the AP it is too early to know how long U.S. forces will be required there, noting that conditions are fluid.

"The north provides a unique set of issues that requires the services of each and every (U.S. military) unit to its fullest extent," Caslen said. "And as long as the AQI (al-Qaida in Iraq) insurgency remains buried in places like Mosul" and until ethnic disputes are resolved in places like Kirkuk, "we will continue to be needed in this area in order to maintain the same level of risk."

Rise of the moderates

Out of the rubble of Gaza, global Jewish dissent could be emerging as a more potent force

Antony Lerman

Each and every Jew who protested as a Jew against the Gaza war had a personal Jewish imperative for doing so. Some simply expressed dismay; most demanded action to end the carnage. To say that we failed is neither an expression of despair nor a statement that dissent wasn't worthwhile. Realism suggests that it was inevitable.

Let's be clear: diaspora and Israeli Jewish support for the war was extensive - and extremely dispiriting. It raises the question: critical Jewish voices may have increased, but can we ever trigger decisive change in mainstream Jewish opinion? An unsentimental look at developments may give reason for hope.

First, there's been activity in many countries and support for Jewish peace groups has increased. European Jews for a Just Peace, a 10-country federation of such organizations, reports numerous initiatives in Europe. Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and other UK groups demonstrated, lobbied, placed newspaper ads and joined demonstrations. IJV groups in Canada and Australia issued statements. Jewish and Israeli protesters in Toronto, Montreal and Boston occupied Israeli consulates. US peace groups have been increasingly active. Together with activity by Israeli groups, this amounts to an undercurrent of protest that is rattling establishment Jewish leadership.

Second, some groups of Jews have taken significant stands. On 11 January, the Observer made front-page news of a letter from rabbis, academics and prominent community figures at the centre of UK Jewish life, calling for a ceasefire. In Germany, a letter from 35 supporters of the group Jewish Voice for a Just Peace, demanding an end to "the murder in Gaza", was published on 17 January in the Süddeutsche Zeitung - a major newspaper in a country where expressing public criticism of Israel is difficult for anyone, let alone a group of Jews.

But most significant was the strong anti-war stand taken by J Street, the new American liberal "pro-peace, pro-Israel" lobby, which is effectively challenging the influential, rightwing Israel lobby Aipac. Heavily criticized by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, a prominent US peace camp leader, for being "profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment", J Street stuck to its guns and attracted increased support. It then warmly welcomed President Obama's appointment of George Mitchell as Middle East envoy, positioning itself to have clout in Washington. The positive consequences for further legitimizing Jewish dissent in the US and beyond could be crucial.

Third, there are signs of underlying disquiet in the middle ground of normally solid pro-Israel Jewish opinion. On 2 January, Anshel Pfeffer wrote in Ha'aretz: "Extremely disturbed and hurt by the level of civilian deaths and destruction ... [these Jews] say, there must, there has to be another way of doing this. And they live with those doubts, often unexpressed, even among families and close friends, because the worst thing they find is that others around them don't seem to discern between the different nuances, and can't find in themselves compassion for the dead and wounded on the other side." Pfeffer is not alone in sensing this mood, which suggests Israel is perilously close to the line beyond which even some of its strongest supporters cannot go.

Two encouraging conclusions can be drawn. First, although it seems most Jews shrink from the truth and embrace the Orwellian "war is peace" propaganda, doubts are growing. For Jewish dissenters who seek an appropriate language to persuade mainstream Jewish opinion that Israel is going in the wrong direction, the effort may produce results.

Second, dissenting peace groups can be stubbornly independent and make a virtue out of minor differences. But effective coordination during the Gaza war proved empowering. It's surely worthwhile attempting to create a critical mass, united around key objectives, and expressed in language that can connect with mainstream Jewish opinion.

Israel is heavily dependent on what Jews think. Its leaders turn to their support whenever they face an internal crisis or need cover for some new military adventure. But it's now not too far-fetched to think Jewish opinion could turn decisively against Israel's current path. This would shake the government and help change Middle East realities. So, out of the rubble of Gaza and the political failure it represents, Jewish dissent may emerge a more potent force.

A final cautionary note: Jewish opposition to the Gaza war was not qualitatively different from anyone else's. And it's not more important than the horrendous experience of the people of Gaza. But were that opposition to be translated into a rolling tide of Jewish opinion, it may have a moderating influence on Israel. This would benefit Palestinians, who deserve an immediate end to siege and occupation, and Jews, who deserve an immediate end to the antisemitism, highlighted in these pages by Jonathan Freedland, which Israel's war has provoked. And ultimately lead to an Israel living in peace with its neighbors.