Showing posts with label disputes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disputes. Show all posts

Monday, April 7, 2014

Disputes Much of Report...

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Disputes Much of Report...

Friday, November 22, 2013

Uranium enrichment at heart of nuclear disputes








FILE – In this April 8, 2008, file photo released by the Iranian President’s Office, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, center, listens to a technician during his visit of the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility some 200 miles (322 kilometers) south of the capital Tehran, Iran. Seven-nation talks on a deal meant to start a rollback of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief were delayed Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013, as senior envoys from both sides wrestled with a draft they hoped would be acceptable to both Tehran and its six world powers negotiating with it. (AP Photo/Iranian Presidents office, File)





FILE – In this April 8, 2008, file photo released by the Iranian President’s Office, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, center, listens to a technician during his visit of the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility some 200 miles (322 kilometers) south of the capital Tehran, Iran. Seven-nation talks on a deal meant to start a rollback of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief were delayed Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013, as senior envoys from both sides wrestled with a draft they hoped would be acceptable to both Tehran and its six world powers negotiating with it. (AP Photo/Iranian Presidents office, File)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







For more than a decade — through standoffs and outreach — the cornerstone of Iran’s nuclear disputes with the West has been uranium enrichment, which is the central process in turning concentrated uranium into nuclear fuel. Negotiators in Geneva must balance opposing interests: Demands by the U.S. and allies for limits and controls over how far Iran can take its program and Tehran’s insistence to maintain its self-sufficiency over every step of the nuclear process from uranium mines to reactor cores. Enrichment also is at the forefront of criticism by Israel and its backers in the West who fear leaving Iran even with the basic technology to make reactor fuel, which is the pathway for possible weapons-grade material.


___


Q: WHAT IS URANIUM ENRICHMENT?


A: It is the process of turning uranium gas feedstock into nuclear fuel. It’s done with centrifuges that separate and concentrate the uranium. About 3.5 percent enrichment is needed for an energy-producing reactor such as Iran’s Russian-build plant at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast. Higher levels of enrichment, about 20 percent, are needed for research reactors that produce isotopes for cancer treatment and other applications, such as agricultural to enhance fertilizers. Iran has one main research reactor.


___


Q: SO WHY THE WORRY ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS?


A: Because uranium enriched to 20 percent is only several steps away from being boosted to weapons-grade levels at more than 90 percent. Iran says it has no intention of building a bomb. But the West and others worry that Iran could one day start a fast-track weapons program with its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium or stop just short of making weapons and become a de facto nuclear armed state.


___


Q: WHY WON’T IRAN GIVE UP ENRICHMENT?


A: This is what Iran has frequently called its “red line” in the nuclear talks. Iran’s leaders say they will never relinquish control over the entire nuclear cycle as a matter of national pride. Iran portrays itself as an emerging technological giant of the Islamic world. The nuclear energy program is a pillar of Iran’s self-image as center of scientific advances independent of the West. Iran has made some other important strides, including claims of sophisticated drone development, a homegrown auto industry and an aerospace program that officials say has sent rockets to the edge of space with animals aboard.


___


Q: WHERE IS THEIR ROOM FOR COMPROMISE?


A: Iran says it could discuss capping the level of enrichment at 5 percent or lower. Such a promise would also require additional monitoring by the U.N.’s nuclear watchdogs, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which already visits many Iranian nuclear sites. Keeping the enrichment labs at lower capacities would add more time to watch for any breakout attempts at higher levels. It also would freeze the stockpile of 20 percent, currently about 200 kilograms (440 pounds). Iran also could agree to accelerate the transformation of the 20 percent enriched uranium into reactor-ready state, which effectively takes it out of the loop for further enrichment.


___


Q: IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE A BOMB WITH ENRICHMENT AT 5 PERCENT OR LOWER?


A: No. But Israel and others worry that giving Iran the capacity to enrich could open the door to a secret program for higher levels someday. Iran denies this.


___


Q: IS IRAN CORRECT IN CALLING ENRICHMENT A “RIGHT?”


A: Iran is a signer of the U.N.’s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which governs the spread of atomic technology. But the document does not specifically spell out any “rights” for enrichment. Iran, however, sees its support of the treaty as granting it the “right” of enrichment. The U.S. and allies have balked at Iran’s previous demands to acknowledge the “right” of the enrichment. Instead, the West appears to support the position that Iran can continue some level of enrichment, but only under strict U.N. monitoring.


___


Q: WHEN DID IRAN START ENRICHMENT?


A: It was announced in 2006, but enrichment was part of the nuclear disputes between Iran and the West for more than a decade. In late 2003, Iran agreed to suspend its work on installing centrifuges and related facilities as part of nuclear talks with European envoys. The negotiations faltered and Iran moved ahead with its enrichment plans.


___


Q: WHERE ARE IRAN’S ENRICHMENT SITES?


A: Iran has two main uranium enrichment facilities. The oldest and largest — in Natanz, about 260 kilometers (160 miles) southeast of Tehran — is largely built underground and is surrounded by anti-aircraft batteries. Uranium enrichment began in 2006. Another site is known as Fordo, which is built into a mountainside south of Tehran. Its construction was kept secret by Iran until it was disclosed in September 2009 in a pre-emptive move before its existence was revealed by Western intelligence agencies. The area is heavily protected by the Revolutionary Guard. U.N. nuclear inspectors have visited both sides and have installed round-the-clock monitoring systems.


___


Q: HOW MANY OTHER COUNTRIES ENRICH URANIUM?


A: More than a dozen countries have enrichment programs, but several of those do not have nuclear weapons.


Associated Press




Top Headlines



Uranium enrichment at heart of nuclear disputes

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Disputes lead Obama to back out of Russian summit







Russian President Vladimir Putin listens during a meeting at the Novo-Ogaryovo residence outside Moscow on Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2013. The White House announced Wednesday that President Barack Obama has canceled plans to meet with Putin in Moscow next month. The rare diplomatic snub is retribution for Russia’s decision to grant temporary asylum to National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden. It also reflects growing U.S. frustration with Russia on several other issues, including missile defense and human rights. (AP Photo/RIA Novosti, Alexei Nikolsky, Presidential Press Service)





Russian President Vladimir Putin listens during a meeting at the Novo-Ogaryovo residence outside Moscow on Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2013. The White House announced Wednesday that President Barack Obama has canceled plans to meet with Putin in Moscow next month. The rare diplomatic snub is retribution for Russia’s decision to grant temporary asylum to National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden. It also reflects growing U.S. frustration with Russia on several other issues, including missile defense and human rights. (AP Photo/RIA Novosti, Alexei Nikolsky, Presidential Press Service)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







(AP) — The common ground between the U.S. and Russia — and Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin — has been shrinking steadily in spite of the much-touted “reset” of relations between the old Cold War foes. And it just got even smaller.


The latest blow to improving relations came Wednesday when Obama, annoyed with Putin’s decision to grant temporary asylum to National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, canceled a face-to-face summit with the Russian leader. While U.S. and Russian foreign and defense ministers will sit down in Washington later this week, Obama won’t be going to Moscow next month.


The Snowden decision was only the final straw in disputes that the White House cited for a lack of “recent progress.” The U.S. and Russia have been at odds over the Syrian civil war, Russia’s domestic crackdown on civil rights, a U.S. missile defense plan for Europe, trade, global security, human rights, even adoptions of Russian children by Americans.


“We looked at the utility of the summit in light of a number of issues and a number of challenges that we’ve encountered and decided that it did not make sense to have that bilateral summit in Moscow in September,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters returning with Obama Wednesday on Air Force One from a trip to California.


Noting that the U.S. and Russia cooperate on other matters, including the supply of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Carney said the relationship “should not be viewed entirely in a black-and-white fashion.” He added, “Even when we’ve made progress in some areas in our relations with Russia we have continued to encounter disagreement in other areas, and I expect that will be the case going forward.”


The Kremlin responded quickly to the canceled summit, voicing its own disappointment and blaming it on Washington’s inability to develop relations with Moscow on an “equal basis.” Putin’s foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, added that the decision was “clearly linked” to the Snowden case, a situation that he said wasn’t of Russia’s making.


While Snowden might have been the immediate catalyst for canceling the summit, the seeds of renewed U.S.-Russia discord were planted more than a year ago when Putin regained the Russian presidency. On returning to power, he adopted a deeply nationalistic and more openly confrontational stance toward the United States than had his chosen successor, Dmitry Medvedev, whose 2008-12 tenure roughly overlapped Obama’s first term in the White House.


Where Medvedev abstained in a U.N. Security Council vote that authorized NATO airstrikes in Libya, Putin has refused repeated entreaties from Washington to allow the world body to impose even minimal sanctions on President Bashar Assad’s Syria. At the same time, Putin’s government has continued to supply its ally Assad with weapons. And it has not delivered on pledges to coax Assad into sending representatives to talks with the opposition aimed at finding a political solution to the 2-year-old Syrian conflict.


Obama sought to cultivate Medvedev as a friend of the United States, making significant changes to Bush administration plans for European missile defense to try to ease Russian concerns about that project, signing a new arms control treaty and famously sending then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, where she proclaimed a “reset” in U.S.-Russia relations.


Putin, however, seems to want none of the coziness that a “reset” would bring and has actively sought to undo previous agreements on cooperation. Under Putin, Russia has stepped up its negative rhetoric on missile defense, ended two decades of democracy and civil society training by the U.S. Agency for International Development and banned adoptions of Russian children by Americans.


Andrew Kuchins, a political scientist and expert on Russian politics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he thinks the reset has been on hold for a while.


“We hit the peak at the end of 2010, and then things started going downhill gradually in 2011,” Kuchins said. “Then, when the announcement was made that Putin was coming back as president in the fall of 2011, the downfall of the reset got a little steeper. “


But he said he does not think that Putin wants to trash the U.S.-Russia relationship and doesn’t think relations are as bad as they were after the Georgia war in the fall of 2008 and 2009. In 2008, Georgia and Russia fought a brief war after Georgia launched an intense artillery barrage on the capital of South Ossetia, and Mikhail Saakashvili, the president of the former Soviet republic, forged a deeper relationship with the U.S.


“That was a pretty dangerous moment for the relationship,” Kuchins said. “Right now, I don’t see such a dangerous moment in the relationship, but we have some fundamental disagreements on nuclear security, missile defense, Syria. I don’t think the Russians are taking positions just to counter us, undermine us. But they have some fundamental differences. They have a different way of looking at some things.”


Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and now president of The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, said some positive steps have come from the reset, including Russia’s willingness to help the U.S. transport military materiel in and out of Afghanistan.


“There still is cooperation on areas like Iran, where Russia voted four times in the U.N. Security Council to impose new sanctions,” Daalder said. “There is cooperation on North Korea — Russia has voted for new sanctions. And those are material, positive steps in the relationship that have been the result of the reset.”


But he said that a reset also suggests a future relationship and that despite meetings Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and former National Security Adviser Tom Donilon have had with Russian officials, there has been little progress on Syria, nuclear arms reduction and missile defense issues.


In April, Obama asked Donilon to hand-deliver a letter to Putin, proposing new ways to cooperate. Ushakov, Putin’s foreign affairs adviser, said Obama’s letter was “quite constructive” and contained specific proposals regarding arms control and economic cooperation.


But Daalder said Russia’s responses to the letter have been “either nonexistent or negative.”


Putin and Obama last met in June, on the sidelines of the summit of the Group of Eight industrial nations.


Putin said then that he believed the U.S. and Russia had an “opportunity to move forward on most sensitive directions.”


Obama said then that the two nations were poised to increase trade and investment and had pledged to continue to work together to counter potential threats of proliferation and to enhance nuclear security.


“I think this is an example of the kind of constructive, cooperative relationship that moves us out of a Cold War mindset,” Obama said.


That was just seven weeks ago.


On Tuesday, a day before he canceled his meeting with Putin, Obama said on NBC’s “The Tonight Show” that there have been times when the Russians “slip back into Cold War thinking and a Cold War mentality.”


___


AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this report.


Associated Press




Politics Headlines



Disputes lead Obama to back out of Russian summit