NEWS,22.10.2012

Iran Policy and the 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis

The unrepentant neo-cons and backbenchers on Mitt Romney's foreign policy team, such as Dan Senor and Cofer Black, always advise their candidate to attack signs of "weakness" coming from President Obama. The Administration's announcement of direct talks between the U.S. and Iran should be welcomed as good news by those who don't wish to see yet another bloodbath in the Middle East but Romney can be counted on to condemn the diplomatic breakthrough as insufficiently hawkish. The news that Obama has chosen dialogue over saber-rattling gives Romney the opportunity to vent his criticism at the sole foreign policy debate that falls on the 50th anniversary of the night when President John F. Kennedy first made public the existence of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy, after being informed that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had deployed intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba, was able to move beyond his knee jerk reaction to bomb and invade the island. Fortunately, over the course of days Kennedy tempered his response by adding statesmanship to his brinkmanship. The idea of bombing Cuba followed by a ground invasion was sidelined in favor of more incremental pressures: seeking multilateral assistance while enforcing a Naval "quarantine" of Soviet vessels to give negotiations more time.As the United States tries to assess the danger of Iran becoming a nuclear power the lessons of JFK's dealing with the Soviets over the change in the nuclear status quo is more relevant than ever.The bluster and war mongering of repeating the mantra "all options are on the table" needlessly heightens tensions and makes war more likely if it is not accompanied by face-saving ways out of the crisis. The U.S.'s adversary du jour, (in this case the fallible clerics who run the Islamic Republic of Iran), typically do not respond well to military threats of air strikes, "red lines," or "axis of evil" rhetoric (thank you David Frum). These kinds of intimidating tactics coming from a nuclear power that can lay waste to Iran, although favored by the neo-cons who brought us the disastrous war in Iraq, if devoid of any links to a pathway out of the confrontation amount to little more than bullying and belligerence. In the case of Iran, the threat of "the use of force" after years of George W. Bush's calamitous policies in the region do nothing to dissuade the Ayatollahs from continuing their nuclear enrichment program.Iran remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has safeguards and allowances for the civilian uses of nuclear power. The best U.S. intelligence analyses conclude that Iran is not building an atomic bomb. If President Kennedy could offer an off-ramp from disaster to Nikita Khrushchev, who was at the time the U.S.'s most bombastic ideological foe who possessed a nuclear arsenal big enough to do serious damage, then a sitting U.S. president today can give Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (a far weaker adversary) a similar face-saving way out of the current "crisis." Through secret backchannels, Kennedy offered Khrushchev sweeteners in the form of offering to remove the U.S.'s Jupiter missiles from Turkey and pledging not to invade the island in exchange for the Soviets agreeing to take their missiles out of Cuba. Any public ultimatum ("red line") against Iran absent of private offers of concessions amounts to nothing more than war mongering. A wiser policy toward Iran more akin to the one Kennedy applied to Cuba during the missile crisis would be to take the military option "off the table," quiet down the noise level from actors in the U.S. and in the region (such as Bibi Netanyahu) who are screaming for a war, and deal with Iran on terms of mutual respect and a realist recognition of shared interests. This dual-track policy appears to be where President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are heading. It is the only policy that can defuse the "crisis." There is no military solution. Let's not forget that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks Iran offered to help the United States track down Al Qaeda and has assisted in stemming the drug traffic out of Afghanistan. And let's also not forget that the Reagan Administration armed the government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the mid-1980s in an attempt (according to Reagan) to open up a "dialogue." And let's not further forget that it was the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency that in August 1953 overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh and installed the Shah Reza Pahlavi. The CIA coup d'état, organized from within the U.S. embassy in Tehran, re-wrote that nation's history denying Iran in the early 1950s what might be called today a "Persian Spring." There has never been an adequate American acknowledgement that the U.S. was responsible for propping up a dictatorship in Iran under the Shah for 25 years, which set the stage for the 1979 revolution that brought the clerics to power in the first place. The recent history of American-Iranian relations, which has been a lengthy series of underhanded and failed policies, must be taken into account. A little humility on the American side could go a long way.In October 1962, President Kennedy's sobering experience during the missile crisis led directly to his American University speech of June 1963 where he called for an end to the demonization and brinkmanship of the Cold War. The crisis also put the Atmospheric Test-Ban Treaty on the front burner of his priorities and Kennedy spent considerable political "capital" in prodding the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. Had Kennedy decided to bomb and invade Cuba it would have been popular with the hardliners around him and with American public opinion. But it is also highly likely that one of the 98 tactical nuclear bombs on the island would have been detonated over the heads of U.S. marines. (There had been good cause for politicians and other residents of Washington to begin readying bunkers and bomb shelters.) On October 22, 1962, in announcing the existence of the missiles President Kennedy chillingly told the world that any detonation of a nuclear device in the Western Hemisphere would be considered "an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union." Yet he understood that Khrushchev would have to brush back the hardliners inside his own government. Imposing a U.S. Navy "quarantine" of Soviet ships heading for Cuba and bringing in the United Nations and allies to help find a way out of the crisis was the least pugnacious of the military options and it bought time for negotiations. Robert F. Kennedy was sent as his brother's emissary to privately talk to the Kremlin-connected journalist, Georgi Bolshakov, and to Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. The U.S. offered to dismantle its Jupiter missiles in Turkey and agreed not to try to topple the Castro regime. In late 1963, Kennedy even sent out feelers to the Cuban government that normalizing U.S. relations might be a possibility if Castro agreed to certain conditions, such as limiting the Soviet military presence. Although these efforts were cut short by Kennedy's assassination they illustrate that he was willing to make substantial concessions and push against the Cold War orthodoxy of the period that took as gospel that the Soviets only respected threats of massive violence.With the ongoing partisan attacks against President Obama when facing challenges in a more complicated world than existed a half century ago, along with his ill-advised escalation of drone attacks that only increase tensions and create new enemies, the last thing this country needs is to blunder itself into another misguided war. What's needed when dealing with Iran and its nuclear program is the cautious pragmatism and willingness to bend and make concessions that characterized President Kennedy's strategy 50 years ago.During the missile crisis the United States and the Soviet Union sidelined regional actors who called for military actions that would be in nobody's interest (including those demanding it). And like the crisis of 1962 the tensions with Iran in 2012 can be lessened with a greater willingness to compromise, the offering of concessions, and a recognition that war will only bring added misery and hardship to the people in that part of the world who have already endured enough. Romney will no doubt go on the offensive against Obama's new Iran initiative decrying it as "weak" and not aligned with his neo-con proclivities. The Right's echo chamber will denounce the timing of the announcement of talks with Iran as an "October Surprise." But we mustn't allow their shrill, politicized whining about sensible diplomatic overtures drown out the crucial need for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Unfortunately, neither candidate today could make the kind of speech that President Kennedy delivered in June 1963 without enduring considerable political fallout. Kennedy said in his American University address: "History teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly towards it... For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal .We shall  do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we must labor on not towards a strategy of annihilation but towards a strategy of peace."

 

Romney and Obama in last chance debate

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney face off in front of the cameras for a final time this afternoon as opinion polls show their battle for the White House has tightened to a dead heat.With 15 days to go until the November 6 election, the two candidates turn to foreign policy for their third and last debate.The stakes are high. The two candidates are tied at 46% each in the Reuters/Ipsos online daily tracking poll, and the debate will likely be the last time either candidate will be able to directly appeal to millions of voters.Though few voters cite the war in Afghanistan or other national-security topics as a top concern, Obama can point to a number of successes on his watch, from the end of the Iraq war to the killing of Osama bin Laden.Romney will use worries about the prospect of a nuclear Iran and turmoil in Libya to try to amplify concerns about Obama's leadership at home and abroad."Many voters are ready to fire Obama if they see Romney as an acceptable alternative," said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Center at Southern Illinois University."Foreign policy has not been a big driver of this campaign but I think Romney could add some icing to his cake if people say, 'Hey, this guy is on top of world affairs.'"Impact of debates Presidential debates have not always been consequential, but this year they have had an impact.Romney's strong performance in the first debate in Denver on October 3 helped him recover from a series of stumbles and wiped out Obama's advantage in opinion polls.Obama fared better in their second encounter on October 16, but that has not helped him regain the lead.The Obama campaign is now playing defense as it tries to limit Romney's gains in several of the battleground states that will decide the election.Romney could have a hard time winning the White House if he does not carry Ohio, and a new Quinnipiac/CBS poll shows Obama leading by 5 percentage points in the Midwestern state.Last-chance More than 60 million viewers watched each of their previous two debates, but the television audience this time could be smaller as it will air at the same time as high-profile baseball and football games.Much of the exchange, which takes place at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida, will likely focus on the Middle East. Other topics such as trade with China and the debt crisis in Europe could allow the candidates to circle back to the economic concerns that are topmost on voters' minds.Campaigning in Canton, Ohio, Vice President Joe Biden on Monday reminded voters of Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Afghanistan in the next two years and pointed out that Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan have made no such guarantees."They said, quote, it depends. Ladies and gentlemen, like everything with them, it depends," Biden said. "It depends on what day you find these guys."Romney accuses Obama of presiding over a weakening in US influence abroad, but he has to assure voters he is a credible alternative to the president on the world stage. The former Massachusetts governor's July trip to London, Jerusalem and Poland was marked by missteps.Libya attack The two men at their second debate last week clashed bitterly over Libya, a preview of what is to come in today's debate.They argued over Obama's handling of the attack last month on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed.The Obama administration first labeled the incident a spontaneous reaction to a video made in the United States that lampooned the Prophet Mohammad.Later, it said it was a terrorist assault on the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks.This shifting account, and the fact that Obama went on a campaign trip the day after the attack, has given Romney ammunition to use at the Florida debate."The statements were either misleading by intention or they were misleading by accident. Either way, though, he's got to get to the bottom of this," Romney adviser Dan Senor said on NBC's "Today" show.'Leading from behind' Obama and his allies charge that Romney exploited the Benghazi attack for political points while officials were still accounting for the wellbeing of US diplomats.Regarding foreign policy overall, Obama's allies accuse Romney of relying on generalities and platitudes."It is astonishing that Romney has run for president for six years and never once bothered to put forward a plan to end the war in Afghanistan, for example, or to formulate a policy to go after al Qaeda," US Senator John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, wrote in a memo released by the Obama campaign on Monday.Romney has promised to tighten the screws over Iran's nuclear program and accused Obama of "leading from behind" as Syria's civil war expands.He also has faulted Obama for setting up a politically timed exit from the unpopular Afghanistan war, and accused him of failing to support Israel, an important ally in the Middle East.The Republican challenger is likely to bring up a New York Times report from Saturday that said the United States and Iran had agreed in principle to hold bilateral negotiations to halt what Washington and its allies say is a plan by Tehran to develop nuclear weapons.The 90-minute debate, moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS, will be divided into six segments: America's role in the world; the war in Afghanistan; Israel and Iran; the changing Middle East; terrorism; and China's rise.

'Fit' Fidel Castro appears in public

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro has reappeared in public, meeting at a Havana hotel with a Venezuelan politician - quashing swirling rumours that the former leader was on his death bed.Castro - who led Communist Cuba for almost five decades before illness sidelined him - "is very well", Venezuela's former vice president Elias Jaua said on Sunday after meeting the bearded revolutionary icon.The 86 year-old Castro "is very well, very lucid", Jaua, a loyal supporter of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, whose government keeps the cash-strapped Cuban regime afloat with cut-rate oil and aid - told reporters.After the five-hour meeting on Saturday, Castro accompanied Jaua back to the posh Hotel Nacional, where the visitor was staying, and then posed wearing a straw farmer's hat for pictures with hotel staff."We are going to have Fidel with us for a long time," said hotel manager Antonio Martinez, who posed with Castro for a picture, in which Jaua also flashes a broad smile.Martinez said the former Cuban president was accompanied by his wife Dalia Soto del Valle during the visit to the hotel.Jaua, who is currently a candidate for Miranda state governor for Venezuela's ruling party, said he spoke with Castro about agriculture, history and international politics.Castro, who rose to power after the 1959 revolution, ceded the presidency to his younger brother Raul, 81, in July 2006 for health reasons.Castro had not been seen in public since 28 March, when Pope Benedict XVI paid a landmark visit to Cuba, and again briefly the following week on 5 April with Chilean student leader Camila Vallejo. Serious intestinal surgeryThat fuelled rumours his health had worsened, that he was dead or on his death bed - particularly since Castro also had not published one of his usually frequent editorials in official state media since 19 June.In the past five years since falling ill after serious intestinal surgery, Castro has penned about 400 editorials as well as books about the revolution, and welcomed a few international leaders in private events.Last week, he sent a letter of congratulations to medical school graduates which was picked up in state media, but he did not appear in public at the time.With rumours about Castro's health rife abroad, one of his sons, photographer Alex Castro, said last week at an exhibit in Guantanamo of pictures he took of his father after 2010 that Castro "was in good shape, doing his daily activities, exercising, reading and taking care of himself".The re-election of Chavez, 58, in Venezuela this month likely brought huge sighs of relief in Havana. For now, it can continue to count on Caracas' critical economic support, as Cuba presses its quest for its own oil to fund the Americas' only Communist regime in the future.Meanwhile, President Raul Castro, sporting his general's uniform, was out early on Sunday at a polling station to cast his ballot in one-party municipal elections, state TV showed. Fidel Castro cast his vote by absentee ballot, as those with physical ailments are allowed to do.

NEWS,28.09.2012

Netanyahu speech dampens war speculation

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's UN speech about Iranian nuclear advances has dampened speculation in Israel that he could order a war this year.Analysing Thursday's address in which Netanyahu literally drew a "red line" on a cartoon bomb to show how close Iran was to building nuclear weaponry, commentators saw his deadline for any military action falling in early or mid-2013, well after US elections in November and a possible snap Israeli poll."The 'decisive year' of 2012 will pass without decisiveness," wrote Ofer Shelah of Maariv newspaper on Friday.Without explicitly saying so, Netanyahu implied Israel would attack Iran's uranium enrichment facilities if they were allowed to process potential weapons-grade material beyond his red line.Maariv and another mass-circulation Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, said spring (northern hemisphere) 2013 now looked like Netanyahu's target date, given his prediction that by then Iran may have amassed enough 20%-enriched uranium for a first bomb, if purified further.But the front pages of the liberal Haaretz and pro-government Israel Hayom newspapers cited mid-2013 - Netanyahu's outside estimate for when the Iranians would be ready to embark on the last stage of building such a weapon, which could take only "a few months, possibly a few weeks".Reluctant to eleborateIran, which denies it is seeking nuclear arms, said Netanyahu's speech made "baseless and absurd allegations" and that the Islamic Republic "reserves its full right to retaliate with full force against any attack". Israel is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal.Israeli diplomats were reluctant to elaborate on Netanyahu's speech, saying its main aim was to illustrate the threat from Tehran.Asked on Israel's Army Radio whether Netanyahu had signalled he would strike in the spring if US and European Union sanctions fail to curb Iran's nuclear work, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said: "No, no, I would not go that far.""The prime minister clarified a message to the international community [that] if they want to prevent the next war, they must prevent a nuclear Iran," Lieberman added.Netanyahu's increasingly hawkish words on Iran in recent weeks and months strained relations with US President Barack Obama, who has resisted the calls to set Tehran an ultimatum while fending off charges by his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, that he is soft on Israel's security.Netanyahu praised Obama's resolve in his UN address, which the prime minister described as advancing their "common goal" - a strong signal that Israel would not blindside Washington with a unilateral attack on Iran.Netanyahu's political worriesIsrael Hayom pundit Dan Margalit said the speech constituted "an almost explicit acknowledgment that he [Netanyahu] is declaring a truce in the public argument between him and the president. At least, until after the [US] election".Netanyahu has political worries too, given deadlock in his coalition government over the 2013 budget which, if not ratified by December, could trigger an early Israeli election next year.In a broadcast editorial, Army Radio depicted war with Iran as no longer an imminent dilemma troubling the prime minister.Instead, the station said, Netanyahu would have to decide "whether he is going to elections sooner, in January, February, or maybe March, or whether he will be able to pass the budget, take care of the Iranian issue and then go to elections in October [2013] as scheduled".US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said this month that Washington would have "about a year" to stop Iran should it decide to cross the threshold of producing nuclear weaponry - a more expansive timeline than that put forward by Israel.That could spell fresh clashes between the allies over Tehran's continued 20% uranium enrichment, a process the Iranians say they need for medical isotopes but that also brings the fissile material much closer to weapons grade.An Israeli official briefed on the government's Iran strategy cautioned against interpreting dates Netanyahu gave at the United Nations as deadlines, saying the preparations had already been made for military strikes."When he says Iran will have a bomb by this-or-that point in time, that in no way means the war option must wait until then," the official said. "There are other considerations to the timing - operational and strategic."

Spain unveils price of banking rescue

Spain unveils on Friday the full cost of rescuing its stricken banks, seen by investors as one of the final steps before a looming sovereign bailout.An independent audit, to be released after markets close, will serve as the basis for the release of up to €100bn from a eurozone rescue loan agreed in June.It comes a day after Spain announced a tight-fisted budget for 2013, which squeezes out €39bn in austerity measures, sparing only retirement pensions, to rein in the public deficit.Broad, savage cuts including in education and health have sparked fierce protests, leading to clashes outside parliament this week between police and anti-austerity demonstrators.Analysts say Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy is hoping the budget and banking audit will satisfy the conditions of any sovereign bailout, saving it the political humiliation of bowing to outside demands."The suspicion is that Rajoy is hoping these new measures will be enough to prevent the imposition of even tougher terms when Spain applies for its bailout," said a report by London-based foreign exchange firm Moneycorp."Whatever his citizens might have thought, investors were impressed by the prime minister's policy. They saw it as a step closer to the bailout which, they still believe, will solve the problems of Spain and the eurozone."The banking audit, led by US financial consultants Oliver Wyman, examines each of Spain's 14 major banking groups making up 90 percent of the struggling financial system.A huge swathe of the system is bogged down with bad loans from a 2008 property market collapse. Only a few, such as Santander, the eurozone's biggest in terms of market value, have solid balance sheets.The audit will also help to determine the price of toxic assets held by the banks, government sources said.A first group of banks, which have already been nationalised and whose capital requirements are expected to be confirmed by the audit, are to receive rescue money from November.Among them is state-rescued lender Bankia, the country's fourth biggest bank, whose request for more than €23bn in capital forced Madrid into the arms of its eurozone partners.Whatever the price tag placed on the rescue, Rajoy's right-leaning Popular Party government has stressed that not all the cash need come from the rescue loan; some may be able to find private financing.But signs are mounting that Madrid, despite all its manoeuvring, may end up picking up the tab for the financial sector rescue, boosting its overall debt level and heightening the urgency of a sovereign bailout.The rescue loan is to be funnelled through Spains's state-backed Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB).But Spain's government had hoped that a new European Stability Mechanism would eventually be empowered by Brussels to inject the loan directly, keeping the debt off Madrid's books.A June summit of European leaders had in fact agreed to set up a European banking union with a single supervisor by the year's end, allowing the ESM to take such action.On Tuesday, however, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland laid down a series of new conditions, and said the ESM should only act on new problem loans, not "legacy assets" such as those being dealt with in Spain.If Spain does formally request a broader sovereign bailout, it would become eligible to benefit from a bond-buying programme for troubled states that was outlined by the European Central Bank on September 6.Such a programme would curb Spain's borrowing costs but to qualify Madrid would have to formally apply for help from the ESM and submit to its conditions.As Spain's borrowing costs remain high, with the yield on 10-year bonds only just below six percent on Friday morning, the odds on a sovereign bailout seemed to be shortening daily.Political tensions are rising between Madrid and the northeastern Spanish region of Catalonia, an economically powerful state that has called snap elections on November 25 in a drive for more independence.The debt-struck region's parliament Thursday voted for referendum on Catalonia's "collective future". Spain's central government has vowed to thwart any attempt to hold a poll on Catalan independence. Investors fear these tensions could make it harder for Madrid to rein in deficits in the regions, which account for half of Spanish expenditure with responsibilities for health and education.The regions' debt situation is perilous, forcing many to apply for help from an €18bn central government liquidity fund. Castilla-La Mancha asked for €848m on Thursday, adding to earlier requests from Catalonia, Valencia, Andalusia and Murcia that already amount to a total of about €15bn.

NEWS,18.03.2012.

US: North Korean satellite launch would be "deal-breaker"

North Korea's announcement Friday of plans to launch an observation satellite in April brought condemnation from the United States, South Korea, Japan and the United Nations due to concerns that the launch could be used to test ballistic missile technology. US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Washington now had 'grave concerns' about the February 29 agreement in which North Korea agreed to a moratorium on its nuclear and long-range missile programmes and international nuclear inspections, in exchange for 240,000 metric tons of food aid from the United States. 'We made clear unequivocally that we considered that any satellite launch would be a deal-breaker,' she said Friday. The Kwangmyongsong-3, borne by the Unha-3 carrier rocket, was to be launched between April 12-16 to mark the centenary of the birth of North Korea's founder, Kim Il Sung, who was born on April 15. Nuland said that a launch would be 'highly provocative' and in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874, which banned launches using ballistic missile technology. The February 29 agreement had raised hopes that the six-party talks on Pyongyang's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes - including North and South Korea, the United States, Japan, China and Russia - could be resumed. Nuland said that US officials consulted Friday with other participants, and all were 'caught by some surprise' by North Korea's satellite announcement. 'Now, the question is for all of the six-party members to make clear that this is not the way to go forward if (the North Koreans) want to work with us,' she said. Nuland said that a North Korean launch would create 'tensions,' making 'implementation of any kind of a nutritional agreement quite difficult.' The South Korean Foreign Ministry expressed 'grave concern' over the planned launch, which it said would be a 'clear violation' of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874, which bans 'any launch using ballistic missile technology.' Seoul said it would 'closely cooperate' with the other members of the six-party talks 'so that North Korea ceases such a provocative action.' In Tokyo, chief cabinet secretary Osamu Fujimura said: 'Japan will strongly urge North Korea not to go ahead with the launch.' The possible satellite launch 'undermines the efforts to settle various issues, which have been made through talks' with North Korea, Fujimura said. A spokesman for the North Korean Committee for Space Technology was quoted by Pyongyang's official news agency KCNA as saying the move would 'offer an important occasion of putting the country's technology of space use for peaceful purposes on a higher stage.' The 'polar-orbiting, Earth-observation satellite will be blasted off southward' from the Sohae Satellite Launching Station in the eastern province of North Pyongan, which lies on the Chinese border and Yellow Sea, the spokesman said. Pyongyang denied any military aspect to the launch. 'The DPRK will strictly abide by relevant international regulations and usage concerning the launch of scientific and technological satellites for peaceful purposes,' the spokesman said. Previous launches of multi-stage rockets by North Korea in 1998 and 2009, which Pyongyang said aimed to put satellites into orbit, were condemned by the US, South Korea and Japan as potential tests of military ballistic technology. The deal, under which Pyongyang was also to stop the enrichment of uranium at a major nuclear facility and permit visits by nuclear inspectors, had raised hopes of a possible resumption of six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons programme, which have been stalled since late 2008. The talks reached an agreement in 2005 in which North Korea was to dismantle its nuclear programme, but the reclusive communist state has since carried out two nuclear tests in addition to the long-range missile launches. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1874 in June 2009 in response to the tests. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged Pyongyang 'to reconsider its decision in line with its recent undertaking to refrain from long-range missile launches.' He sai a launch would be a violation of the UN resolutions.