The men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol guarding the Southern land border come into constant contact with drug and human smugglers, criminals and migrants. Every so often, they even encounter Mexican military personnel making unauthorized incursions across the border into the United States.

The most recent Mexican military incursion occurred last week on the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation in Arizona. According to reports, the Mexican soldiers crossed the border in a military vehicle and held a Border Patrol agent at gunpoint before escaping back to Mexico.

While the agent who was temporarily detained by the Mexican soldiers was not injured, there is no question that this incident could have ended differently -- especially when the soldiers and agent were armed, and backup was on its way to assist the officer. Nonetheless, this incident raises serious questions about the presence and activities of the Mexican military on the border.

 

A State Department spokesman, responding to the incursion in Arizona, said the incident stemmed from a “momentary misunderstanding.” This statement is difficult to accept when there have been more than 40 incursions on the U.S-Mexico border since October of last year and over 200 similar encounters since 1996. Clearly, Mexican military incursions are far from a rare occurrence.

The Departments of State and Homeland Security, which have downplayed these encounters in the past, have an obligation to forcefully address this incident and the likelihood of future incursions. We must convey to Mexico that we will not tolerate their soldiers crossing into the U.S. without our knowledge or consent. More importantly, we must continue building fencing and other infrastructure in problematic areas of the border, including those prone to incursions.

In fact, the incursion in Arizona would not have occurred if the Department of Homeland Security adhered to the original border fence mandate included in the Secure Fence Act. The law -- until it was amended -- required that double-layered fencing extending 392 miles East of Calexico, California, to Douglas, Arizona, be completed by May 30, 2008. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security supported a revision in the law to allow for the construction of only 370 miles of fence along the entire U.S.-Mexico border – not the 700 miles that was originally required.

If the Mexican military personnel are having difficulty identifying the exact location of the border, then security fencing will certainly make it clear to them. Fencing not only deters dangerous border traffic, but it also serves to delineate the border. The presence of fencing and related infrastructure would effectively limit future incursions and reduce the risk these encounters pose to the safety of Border Patrol agents on duty.

Building this infrastructure is an important step toward creating a secure and enforceable border. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security’s current plan for 370 miles of fencing is a step in that direction. The agency should be commended as it works to reach its goal. However, there continues to be a significant need for reinforced fencing in other border areas. Given the proven success of border fencing in areas like San Diego and Yuma, The Department of Homeland Security should immediately expand fence construction to include the full 700 miles permissible under federal law.

The incursion in Arizona is just one more reason, amongst many others, to implement additional fencing and infrastructure on the border. With the right effort, we can build on the progress we have made so far and construct 700 miles of new fencing by the end of this year.

The good news: DNA testing has confirmed that John Edwards is not the father of Rielle Hunter's baby.

The bad news: The father is Bill Clinton.

Ha ha -- just kidding! It's almost impossible to get pregnant by having the type of sex Bill Clinton prefers.

 

Also, by now, everyone has heard the news that Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, has refused to grant a paternity test.

I wonder if Edwards knew that when he was making his chesty offer to take a paternity test? Edwards gushed to ABC's Bob Woodruff: "I would welcome participating in a paternity test, be happy to participate in one ... happy to take a paternity test and would love to see it happen."

As Edwards knows, our paternity laws were written by Gloria Steinem, so if the mother doesn't want a paternity test, it can't happen. So when Woodruff asked if he was going to actually take the paternity test soon, Edwards quickly noted, "I'm only one side of the test."

With Rielle in on the scam, Edwards could boldly demand a paternity test and then self-righteously defend his mistress's decision to refuse a paternity test. How dare you gainsay this woman's right to her privacy! Because if there's one person who's gone the extra mile to keep Hunter from becoming a public figure, it's John Edwards.

Edwards is closely following the Kennedy model of responding to charges of misconduct. First, admit only as much as can be currently proved. Second, get the other party to block any further investigation. I guess he really is "Kennedy-esque"!

 

In any struggle between the dreamers and the realists, the realists always win.

We’re seeing that played out right now as the supreme realist of our time, Vladimir Putin, not only is running circles around the dreamers of the West, but is also making them look like a bunch of incompetent ninnies.

Putin is playing the role of Vlad the Impaler, and the heads he is displaying atop Red Army bayonets as he marches through Georgia -- a la Gen. Sherman -- are those of the leaders of what used to be called the Free World.Continued

We should have seen it coming, but we were too busy with George Bush’s dreams of a democracy-drenched world -- and Western Europe’s preoccupation with the destruction of all vestiges of its Christian past -- to notice what Vlad has been up to as he goes about creating the latest version of a czarist imperialist Russia itching to expand its borders.

As the always-perceptive Ralph Peters wrote in the New York Post, Putin’s latest venture “not only sized up President Bush humiliatingly well, but precisely anticipated Europe's nonreaction -- while taking a perfect-fit measure of Georgia's mercurial president.”

Putin, he added, “not only knew what he was doing -- he knew exactly what others would do” an example, Peters wrote, of “intelligence work at the hall-of-fame level. (For our part, we had all the intelligence pieces in our hands and failed to assemble the puzzle.)”

Peters recalled the signs that were always there for the CIA to see, had they been able to recognize what was taking place right under their noses -- “the months of meticulous planning and extensive preparations for this invasion [that] were covered by military exercises, disingenuous explanations -- and maskirovka, the art of deception the Red Army had mastered.”

The result? “The Russians convinced us to see what we wanted to see.”

The reaction of all of this by the Bush administration and our Western allies has been to run around like headless chickens. We have been shown exactly how it feels to be rendered impotent in the face of a determined opponent that doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks of him.

API must express its opposition to the approach outlined by the Group of 10 because it falls far short of what is needed.

 

Unfortunately, the proposal appears to be a classic case of one step forward, two steps back -- or in this instance "light on new production/heavy on new taxes". Current world events only reinforce the critical importance of ensuring that our nation develops the full range of its domestic energy resources for economic competitiveness and national security reasons.

 

The proposal’s approach to access to federal oil and natural gas resources is far too limited in its scope. And, it is unfortunately paired with the imposition of at least $30 billion in new taxes on the oil and natural gas industry that would have the effect of limiting needed oil and gas investment. A lesson learned well in the 1970-80 period. These measures create an environment that will virtually assure a future with less, not more, domestic production.

 

While this new proposal would expand access in the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, it unfortunately limits any expansion over current law to the eastern Gulf of Mexico and waters off four Atlantic Coast states in the South. Even in these areas, development in federal waters less than 50 miles offshore would be banned – despite the fact that offshore facilities would need to be 12 or fewer miles from shore to be visible from land. Leasing in the North Atlantic and off the Pacific Coast would be banned and plentiful hydrocarbon resources in Alaska would remain off limits. Significant regulatory burdens on new development would remain in place. The imposition of $30 billion in clearly discriminatory new taxes, to pay for federal investment in alternatives and renewables, ignores the fact that the industry already provides more than 70 percent of all North American investment in research and development in emerging energy technologies.

 

Americans today are calling for Congress to do much more to supply their needs for additional energy. Our companies are supplying more energy – and more kinds of energy – to meet this growing demand. The U.S. Energy Information Administration continues to point out that oil and natural gas will be an essential part of this nation’s energy future for decades to come. Opening all available domestic resources to safe and environmentally responsible development would significantly boost U.S. supplies of oil and natural gas; increase the nation’s energy security; add more well-paying American jobs; help with our balance of payments and economic growth during a time of recessionary fears and bring billions of dollars into the Treasury instead of sending them abroad.

Huge and discriminatory new taxes on the U.S. oil and gas industry make no sense. The only beneficiaries of such an ill-advised approach would be international competitors in the global oil markets, who would benefit as US companies were made less competitive in the quest to find and develop global energy supplies.

 

TV commercials touting a new clean energy strategy and an environmental ballot measure in California have one thing in common: If they succeed, they'll make investors – from "big oil" to the U.S. Capitol – a lot of money.

The ads champion Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens' "Pickens Plan" to move the U.S. from foreign oil dependence to domestically produced wind power and natural gas fuel for automobiles. The plan is touted as a cleaner, more eco-friendly alternative to our current reliance on coal power and gasoline.

The ballot initiative is California's Proposition 10, known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, which would spend $5 billion in California bond money – $10 billion by the time the interest is paid, according to the L.A. Times – to promote natural gas as an cleaner alternative for automobile and truck fuel.

Not surprisingly, the nation's largest provider of natural gas for transportation, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, or CLNE, has a great deal to gain from the adoption of Pickens' fuel strategy and the passage of Proposition 10. In fact, according to the California Secretary of State website, CLNE has contributed $3,247,250 to supporting Proposition 10's passage.

CLNE, however, was formerly known as Pickens Fuel after its primary investor, T. Boone Pickens.

While Pickens touts a plan in the name of environmentalism that will also line his company's pockets, a #dontgo investigation has revealed that another environmental champion and backer of Proposition 10 has also invested in CLNE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.

Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels.

In an L.A. Times editorial, Anthony Rubenstein was highly critical of Proposition 10, calling the measure billed as environmental altruism a "raid on California's general fund" to support "Pickens' self-serving national gas agenda."

"The initiative deceptively reads like it's supporting all alternative-fuel vehicles and renewable energy sources," Rubenstein wrote. "But a closer read finds a laundry list of cash grabs. … Much of the measure's billions could benefit Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology."

Rubenstein also noted that Proposition 10 charges environmentally conscious Californians with the bill for an initiative that may not benefit California at all.

"Even worse, private trucking and delivery companies could buy 5,000 natural gas trucks, collect California taxpayer-funded rebates of $200 million or more and immediately send those fleets out of state," he wrote. "It's like asking California voters to finance a new bridge with taxpayer dollars, without mentioning that the bridge could be in Ohio."

As WND reported, Pickens touting of wind power is also tainted by his opportunity to profit. The Economist reports Pickens' oil company, Mesa Oil, has invested $2 billion to build the world's largest wind farm in Pampa, Texas.

If the "Pickens Plan" calling for more wind power and natural gas fuel is implemented, it will further the billionaire's other ventures as well, including a major land and water investment in the Texas panhandle that would essentially enable Pickens' companies to control a water pipeline the way petroleum companies control oil supplies.

The venture, according to the Terrell Tribune, includes forming a fresh water district in Texas' western panhandle and spending over $100 million to acquire rights-of-way through as many as 12 counties to ship the water to water-needy Texas cities. Part of selling the plan to investors and thirsty municipalites, some of whom have balked at the idea of private water control, is coupling the water pipeline with power lines from Mesa Oil's massive wind farm.

"It is hard to tell if the water scheme is the device being used to seize the land or if the wind turbine scheme is the means by which he will fund the water scheme," wrote William R. Collier Jr. in the #dontgo investigation that uncovered the link between Pickens and Pelosi.

Collier further speculated Pelosi's investment partnership with Pickens will profit them both.

"No matter what the case may be, Nancy Pelosi will personally profit from whatever [Pickens] does as an investor."

Collier points out Pelosi is one of the richest members of Congress and that her wealth comes primarily from investments, real estate and "now, of course, stocks in CLNE."

Likewise, Collier pointed to potential benefits for Pickens to have Pelosi's support, not only for the legislation CLNE wants passed, but also for her help with touting his "Pickens Plan."

"While the stock was initially offered at $14 and is now valued below that amount, the low of $10 in early July of this year is bouncing back," wrote Collier, "especially in light of ads by Pickens and growing consensus that the Pickens plan will gain support, especially if Pelosi is firmly behind it."

The US has delivered aid but no military support Photo: REUTERS

 

Russia’s invasion across an internationally recognised border, its thrashing of the Georgian military, and its smug satisfaction in humbling one of its former fiefdoms represents only the visible damage. 

As bad as the bloodying of Georgia is, the broader consequences are worse. The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action. This pattern is the very definition of a paper tiger. Sending Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice to Tbilisi is touching, but hardly reassuring; dispatching humanitarian assistance is nothing more than we would have done if Georgia had been hit by a natural rather than a man-made disaster.

The European Union took the lead in diplomacy, with results approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich: a ceasefire that failed to mention Georgia’s territorial integrity, and that all but gave Russia permission to continue its military operations as a “peacekeeping” force anywhere in Georgia. More troubling, over the long term, was that the EU saw its task as being mediator – its favourite role in the world – between Georgia and Russia, rather than an advocate for the victim of aggression.

Even this dismal performance was enough to relegate Nato to an entirely backstage role, while Russian tanks and planes slammed into a “faraway country”, as Chamberlain once observed so thoughtfully. In New York, paralysed by the prospect of a Russian veto, the UN Security Council, that Temple of the High-Minded, was as useless as it was during the Cold War. In fairness to Russia, it at least still seems to understand how to exercise power in the Council, which some other Permanent Members often appear to have forgotten.

The West, collectively, failed in this crisis. Georgia wasted its dime making that famous 3am telephone call to the White House, the one Hillary Clinton referred to in a campaign ad questioning Barack Obama’s fitness for the Presidency. Moreover, the blood on the Bear’s claws did not go unobserved in other states that were once part of the Soviet Union. Russia demonstrated unambiguously that it could have marched directly to Tbilisi and installed a puppet government before any Western leader was able to turn away from the Olympic Games. It could, presumably, do the same to them.

Fear was one reaction Russia wanted to provoke, and fear it has achieved, not just in the “Near Abroad” but in the capitals of Western Europe as well. But its main objective was hegemony, a hegemony it demonstrated by pledging to reconstruct Tskhinvali, the capital of its once and no-longer-future possession, South Ossetia. The contrast is stark: a real demonstration of using sticks and carrots, the kind that American and European diplomats only talk about. Moreover, Russia is now within an eyelash of dominating the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the only route out of the Caspian Sea region not now controlled by either Russia or Iran. Losing this would be dramatically unhelpful if we hope for continued reductions in global petroleum prices, and energy independence from unfriendly, or potentially unfriendly, states.

It profits us little to blame Georgia for “provoking” the Russian attack. Nor is it becoming of the United States to have anonymous officials from its State Department telling reporters, as they did earlier this week, that they had warned Georgia not to provoke Russia. This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquess of Queensbury rules in South Ossetia, where ethnic violence has been a fact of life since the break-up of the Soviet Union on December 31, 1991 – and, indeed, long before. Instead, we are facing the much larger issue of how Russia plans to behave in international affairs for decades to come. Whether Mikhail Saakashvili “provoked” the Russians on August 8, or September 8, or whenever, this rape was well-planned and clearly coming, given Georgia’s manifest unwillingness to be “Finlandized” – the Cold War term for effectively losing your foreign-policy independence.

So, as an earlier Vladimir liked to say, “What is to be done?” There are three key focal points for restoring our credibility here in America: drawing a clear line for Russia; getting Europe’s attention; and checking our own intestinal fortitude. Whether history reflects Russia’s Olympic invasion as the first step toward recreating its empire depends – critically – on whether the Bush Administration can resurrect its once-strong will in its waning days, and on what US voters will do in the election in November. Europe also has a vital role – by which I mean the real Europe, its nation states, not the bureaucracies and endless councils in Brussels.

First, Russia has made it clear that it will not accept a vacuum between its borders and the boundary line of Nato membership. Since the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union collapsed, this has been a central question affecting successive Nato membership decisions, with the fear that nations in the “gap” between Nato and Russia would actually be more at risk of Russian aggression than if they joined Nato. The potential for instability and confrontation was evident.

Europe’s rejection this spring of President Bush’s proposal to start Ukraine and Georgia towards Nato membership was the real provocation to Russia, because it exposed Western weakness and timidity. As long as that perception exists in Moscow, the risk to other former Soviet territories – and in precarious regions such as the Middle East – will remain.

Obviously, not all former Soviet states are as critical to Nato as Ukraine, because of its size and strategic location, or Georgia, because of its importance to our access to the Caspian Basin’s oil and natural gas reserves. Moreover, not all of them meet fundamental Nato prerequisites. But we must now review our relationship with all of them. This, in effect, Nato failed to do after the Orange and Rose Revolutions, leaving us in our present untenable position.

By its actions in Georgia, Russia has made clear that its long-range objective is to fill that “gap” if we do not. That, as Western leaders like to say, is “unacceptable”. Accordingly, we should have a foreign-minister-level meeting of Nato to reverse the spring capitulation at Bucharest, and to decide that Georgia and Ukraine will be Nato’s next members. By drawing the line clearly, we are not provoking Russia, but doing just the opposite: letting them know that aggressive behaviour will result in costs that they will not want to bear, thus stabilising a critical seam between Russia and the West. In effect, we have already done this successfully with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Second, the United States needs some straight talk with our friends in Europe, which ideally should have taken place long before the assault on Georgia. To be sure, American inaction gave French President Sarkozy and the EU the chance to seize the diplomatic initiative. However, Russia did not invade Georgia with diplomats or roubles, but with tanks. This is a security threat, and the proper forum for discussing security threats on the border of a Nato member – yes, Europe, this means Turkey – is Nato.

Saying this may cause angst in Europe’s capitals, but now is the time to find out if Nato can withstand a potential renewed confrontation with Moscow, or whether Europe will cause Nato to wilt. Far better to discover this sooner rather than later, when the stakes may be considerably higher. If there were ever a moment since the fall of the Berlin Wall when Europe should be worried, this is it. If Europeans are not willing to engage through Nato, that tells us everything we need to know about the true state of health of what is, after all, supposedly a “North Atlantic” alliance.

Finally, the most important step will take place right here in the United States. With a Presidential election on November 4, Americans have an opportunity to take our own national pulse, given the widely differing reactions to Russia’s blitzkrieg from Senator McCain and (at least initially) Senator Obama. First reactions, before the campaigns’ pollsters and consultants get involved, are always the best indicators of a candidate’s real views. McCain at once grasped the larger, geostrategic significance of Russia’s attack, and the need for a strong response, whereas Obama at first sounded as timorous and tentative as the Bush Administration. Ironically, Obama later moved closer to McCain’s more robust approach, followed only belatedly by Bush.

In any event, let us have a full general election debate over the implications of Russia’s march through Georgia. Even before this incident, McCain had suggested expelling Russia from the G8; others have proposed blocking Russia’s application to join the World Trade Organisation or imposing economic sanctions as long as Russian troops remain in Georgia. Obama has assiduously avoided specifics in foreign policy – other than withdrawing speedily from Iraq – but that luxury should no longer be available to him. We need to know if Obama’s reprise of George McGovern’s 1972 campaign theme, “Come home, America”, is really what our voters want, or if we remain willing to persevere in difficult circumstances, as McCain has consistently advocated. Querulous Europe should hope, for its own sake, that America makes the latter choice.

John R Bolton is the former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, he is the author of the recently published “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations”

Russia will pull out troops from the conflict zone in Georgia once additional security arrangements are put in place, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said today. 

A ceasefire agreement signed by Russia and Georgia states that Moscow's troops will continue to implement additional security measures on a temporary basis pending the arrival of an international peacekeeping mechanism.

"The (Russian) president issued an order to the relevant authorities to start the adoption of extra security measures envisaged in the six-point plan," Lavrov said.

"As these security measures are implemented, the withdrawal of forces sent to carry out this reinforcement operation will be carried out." 

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili have now both signed the French-brokered peace deal, but Lavrov said the document signed by the Georgian leader was missing a key introductory part.

"The document signed by the Georgian president differs from the one which was agreed," he said. "It totally omits the introductory part saying that these principles are supported by Russia and France and calling on all sides to sign them."

He said Russia was discussing the matter with Georgia and that it would be settled through diplomatic channels.

Lavrov said Russia had started consultations at the United Nations on international efforts to end the conflict.

"Additional numbers of monitors should observe the security zone. We will carry out our obligations under the deal, depending on how other parties carry them out," he said.

Meanwhile, the head of the International Commitee of the Red Cross (ICRC) will visit Georgia and Russia to assess the humanitarian impact of recent fighting.

ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger will arrive in Georgia's capitali, Tbilisi, tomorrow for talks with President Mikheil Saakashvili.

Kellenberger is expected to meet senior Russian officials, including Lavrov, in Moscow on Tuesday. He will also meet officials in Vladikavkaz in Russia, and in South Ossetia.

Mr Medvedev signed the document after a copy was faxed to Moscow bearing the signature of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. 

Although the agreement was negotiated yesterday however, Russian forces continued to move into deeper positions inside Georgia and destroyed vital civilian infrastructure.

Russia denied it had attacked a railway bridge on the main line west ofTbilisi, but television footage shot by the Reuters news agency clearly showed its twisted remains. The bridge was a major transport link between the capital and the country’s Black Sea coast.

Under the terms of the ceasefire, Russia will be able to maintain patrols in a five-mile buffer zone in Georgian territory outside the enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Troops manoeuvred around the Gori and pushed deeper towards another town - Akhalgori - with a column of around 1,000 men, possibly South Ossetian irregulars.

Another detachment remained just 25 miles from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, near the village of Igoeti, where they showed no signs of moving.

The developments came as tensions between Russia and the West moved to their strongest pitch since the end of the Cold War.

Russia threatened a nuclear strike against Poland after a landmark deal to site American global anti-missile shields in the country.

General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said any new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack with his forces targeting "the allies of countries having nuclear weapons".

He told Russia's Interfax news agency: "By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority."

Russia's nuclear rhetoric marks an intense new phase in the war of words over Georgia. The Caucasus conflict has spiralled into a Cold War style confrontation between Moscow and Washington in less than a week.

The stand off between the two cold War powers was underlined by Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, who dismissed US claims that the silo is a deterrent against 'rogue states' like Iran as "a fairy tale".

He told reporters at the Black Sea resort of Sochi: "The deployment of new missile defence facilities in Europe is aimed against the Russian Federation."

President George W. Bush in a brief but pointed statement earlier in the day said: "The Cold War is over… Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."

Mr Bush, who is demanding an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia now that that a ceasefire deal has been signed, added: "Only Russia can decide whether it will now put itself back on the path of responsible nations or continue to pursue a policy that promises only confrontation and isolation,"

Russia threatened Poland with a nuclear strike yesterday as the ripples of the Caucasus conflict spread through Europe and pitched West against East along new borders. 

In a chilling echo of the Cold War, Russia gave warning that Poland was “exposing itself to a strike — 100 per cent” after signing a deal with the US to set up a missile shield on Polish soil.

The threat, the strongest since the fall of the Soviet Union, came as President Saakashvili of Georgia was forced to accept defeat as he signed a truce giving the Russian Army the right to patrol Georgian soil.

General Anatoli Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of the general staff in Moscow, said that Russian military doctrine sanctioned the use of nuclear weapons “against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them”, as Poland had done in signing the deal.

At a tense press conference with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, President Medvedev of Russia attacked the timing of the deal, saying that it exposed the “fairytale” that the shield was a defence against rogue states. “The deployment of new antimissile forces has as its aim the Russian Federation,” he said.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, had flown to Tbilisi, while Mrs Merkel flew to Sochi to press for an end to the conflict that began last week.

It was a day of intense diplomacy, high tension and raw emotion. Dr Rice was visibly uncomfortable sharing a podium with a reluctant Mr Saakashvili, who gambled and lost when he sent his troops to put down pro-Russian separatists in South Ossetia, provoking a full-scale Russian invasion. Mr Saakashvili came close to tears as he vowed that he would “never, ever surrender” in the show-down with Russia. He accused his Western allies of inviting Moscow’s aggression by denying Georgia a foot on the road to Nato membership last April. “We told the world this is about starting an invasion,” he said. “We screamed to the world: stop it.”

Dr Rice’s visit was a show of support for Georgia’s pro-Western Government after President Bush vowed not to cast aside his ally in the face of Russian “bullying and intimidation”.

She condemned Moscow for not honouring its verbal promise to halt military operations and called on Mr Medvedev to effect an immediate withdrawal. “This must take place and take place now,” she said. “This is not an agreement about the future of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is about getting Russian troops out.”

She said that Russia’s actions called into question what role it really planned to play in international politics.

Earlier in the day, Reuters reported that a Russian military convoy had advanced to within 30 miles of Tbilisi from the Russian-occupied town of Gori inside Georgia proper.

President Bush said in his weekly radio address that Russia’s invasion of Georgia was “completely unacceptable to the free nations of the world”.

15 August

16:10 Russian soldiers kidnapped 4 member of Namgalauri family from village Ghogheti of Kareli district. Kidnapers moved towards Znauri.

15:30 Russian helicopters are overflying Bordjomi-Tsemi forests and dropping fire setting engines. There are already from 12 to 15 fire locations. Russian military confirmed of flying helicopters over this territory without further comments.

13:00 One Turkish and two Reuter’s journalists (one of them were Georgian citizen) were detained by Russian soldiers in Poti.

10:30 Near village Sagolasheni, Gori district, vehicle of freelance journalist Margarita Akhvlediani was stopped by South Ossetian separatists. Vehicle was shot. Journalist was robbed of her car, camera and other belongings.

09:30 21 Military Tracks full of Russian military began movement from Senaki towards Poti port.

09:20 71st regiment of 42nd division of 58th Army of Russia moved from Tskhinvalu to Ergneti heading towards Gori.

09:00 Human Rights Watch researchers have uncovered evidence that Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs (banned by 107 nations) in populated areas in Georgia during the air attacks from 6th of August, killing at least 11 civilians and injuring dozens, Human Rights Watch said today.

08:00 Russian troops consisting of 14 armored vehicle and 4 tracks left Senaki and moved in the direction of the second largest town of Georgia Kutaisi. Currently they are at Abashis Tskali river, 40 kms west from Kutaisi and 10 kms west from Samtredia - the main railway and highway crossroad in western Georgia.

Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barack Obama being elected president of the United States.

The line came on the main news of Vesti FM, a state radio station that — like the Government and much of Russia's media — has reverted to the old habits of Soviet years, in which a sinister American hand was held to lie behind every conflict, especially those embarrassing to Moscow. Modern Russia may be plugged into the internet and the global marketplace but in the battle for world opinion the Kremlin is replaying the old black-and-white movie.

The Obama angle is getting wide play. It was aired on Wednesday by Sergei Markov, a senior political scientist who is close to Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister and power behind President Medvedev.

“George Bush's Administration is promoting interests of candidate John McCain,” said Dr Markov. “Defeated by Barak Obama on all fronts, McCain has one last card to play yet - the creation of a virtual Cold War with Russia . . . Bush himself did not want a war in South Ossetia but his Republican Party did not leave him any choice.” The Americans were now engineering an armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Dr Markov added.

The Establishment and its media supporters are dusting off favourites from the Cold War shelf. Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign Minister, accused Washington of playing dangerous games. The West was guilty of “adventurism”, supporting aggression against peace-loving Russian forces who are engaged on a humanitarian mission to protect human life. Yesterday's headline in Commersant, a generally admired newspaper, announced with old-style sarcasm the imminent American “Military Humanitarian Landing” in Georgia.

Russian military aircraft have deployed controversial and indiscriminately deadly cluster bombs on civilian areas of Georgia according to an international rights group. 

Human Rights Watch, which is based in New York, said today that it has obtained evidence proving that the weapons, which were banned by more than 100 countries in May, have killed at least 11 people so far during the conflict in the Caucasus.

Cluster bomb systems scatter small “bomblets” across a wide area and can prove deadly to civilians - particularly children - who pick up munitions which have failed to detonate on impact. The bombs effectively leave behind a trail of landmines.

Human Rights Watch said Russian aircraft dropped RBK-250 cluster bombs, each containing 30 PTAB 2.5M submunitions or bomblets, on the town of Ruisi in the Kareli district of Georgia on August 12, 2008 killing three civilians and wounding five others.

The organisation claims that on the same day a cluster strike in the centre of Gori killed at least eight civilians and injured dozens. The Dutch journalist Stan Storimans was among the dead.

It would be the first known use of cluster bombs since Israeli planes used the weapons against Hezbollah in Lebanon two years ago.

At a summit in Ireland earlier this year an agreement was reached to ban the use of the weapon by 107 countries. Russia, along with the US, China, Israel, India and Pakistan, refused to attend the convention, which expanded the limits imposed by the Arms Trade Treaty and landmine ban.

Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of Russia’s General Staff, denied today that the weapons had been used in Georgia: “We never use cluster bombs. There is no need to do so.”

Human Rights Watch researchers said they had carried out numerous interviews and examined photos of craters and video footage of the August 12 attack on Gori.

They claim to have seen a photograph of nose cone of an RBK-250 bomb in Gori and video of more than two dozen simultaneous explosions at the time of the attack. Craters in Gori were also consistent with a cluster strike.

Doctors at the two main hospitals in Tbilisi have described injuries to civilians hurt in the attack on Gori that they believed were consistent with cluster bombs.

Keti Javakhishvili, 25, suffered massive trauma to her liver, stomach, and intestines, as well as hemorrhagic shock. Two other victims sustained fragment wounds to their legs and abdominal regions. All the wounds were consistent with those caused by submunitions from cluster bombs.

Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch said: “Cluster bombs are indiscriminate killers that most nations have agreed to outlaw.

“Russia’s use of this weapon is not only deadly to civilians, but also an insult to international efforts to avoid a global humanitarian disaster of the kind caused by landmines.”

Speaking at a joint news conference with the U.S. Secretary of State on August 15 in Tbilisi, President Saakashvili lashed out at “most of the European countries” for their “muted and quiet” reaction to what he called was Russia’s preparation of Georgia’s invasion in recent months.

In an emotional speech He said those troops attacking Georgia were “barbarians of 21st century.” “All these could have been prevented; we were screaming, shouting to the world that Russia was going to do it,” he said.

Below are extracts from his opening remarks at the news conference:


As we speak now, significant part Georgian territories remain under foreign military occupation.

You might have heard reports that some Russian APCs were dislocated to move closely to the capital and are on halfway between Gori and Tbilisi.

Before focusing on today’s ceasefire agreement, I still would like to draw your attention to the events that preceded the whole invasion and occupation.

Well, when in April in Bucharest Georgia was denied the membership action plan by some members of NATO, I warned western media that it [denial to grant MAP] was asking for trouble. Not only they denied us membership action plan, but they specifically told the world that they are denying Georgia membership action plan because of existing territorial conflicts in Georgia, basically inviting the trouble.

And I told the world this is the worst thing one could say to the Russians that there will be no NATO until there are conflicts and more there are conflicts less there will be offered the NATO.

And immediately after April, immediately after Bucharest – and I can tell you now that Russians perceived Bucharest – and I mentioned it and then some of the western commentators made fun of me, saying this hot-headed Saakashvili tells this rubbish again.

I told them Russia perceives it as new Munich. Bucharest was perceived by them as new Munich. And what happened was that immediately they started build-up of the infrastructure in Abkhazia, immediately they started to bring in railway troops to build railway in depopulated, ethnically cleansed areas of Abkhazia, cynically claiming that they were doing this for humanitarian purposes.

And I shouted to the world that this is for bringing tanks. They built tanks bases all over Abkhazia and in South Ossetia in place of Java.

They started to bring in lots of military specialists, reconnaissance, they brought in paratroopers.

Again we screamed to the world Stop It.

There were some statements from Washington, but I have to tell you, most of the European countries, with some remarkable exceptions, there was pretty muted and quiet reaction and Russians were carefully watching this reaction, they were doing step by step, first some infrastructure, then some additional troops, then some legal acts, then again infrastructure, again some intrusion and wait watching carefully what Europeans have to say, watching carefully what would be a counter-reaction of the international community.

And it really did not follow.

Madam Secretary, whereas we were standing here last time, few weeks ago there was intrusion of Russian planes into the Georgian airspace, just exactly in the lines of South Ossetia.

And you remember as well as I do that then we downplayed, I downplayed it myself – I said, well, they are here just to salute Secretary Rice.

But that time they said: Yes, this is us, we flew there, implying that it was intent to bomb against Georgians and again they watched European reaction – no European countries said anything about it.

So, who invited the trouble here, who invited this arrogance here, who invited these innocent deaths here, not only those people, who perpetrate them, are responsible but also those people, who failed to stop that. Who is now trying to look forth for an excuse saying “you know Georgians might have started it.”

Excuse me, 1,200 tanks came into Georgia within few hours. There is no way you can mobilize those tanks in such a fast period unless you are ready.

There were all these movements on the ground, all around the place. You know, when it’s all started I wanted the world to know, I was going for holidays, my defense minister was going for a holidays. When the things started I had to rush back, cut my holidays short. When the tensions raised I had to summon back our defense minister, most of our officials were gone, most of decision makers I tried to reach were gone for vacations. It was brilliantly selected timing for this intervention.

Unfortunately, today we are looking evil directly in the eye. And today this evil is very strong, very nasty and very dangerous for everybody, not only for us.

That is what we learnt, but together this can be and will be only the first chapter. Let us write the next chapter together and write this historic new chapter of the world for the world.

We want them out. I want the world to know – never ever will Georgia reconcile with occupation of even one square kilometer of its sovereign territory, never ever.

There is a strong force led by former KGB worriers, those tanks that were taken out of Afghanistan, of eastern Europe, now are rolling back again into other countries.

Georgia was the first one to take their hit, but they are on the roll, they are arrogant, they will not stop.

But I can tell you – never ever my small nation of Georgia that has already gone through seventy years of subjugation by these barbarians, of 20th century then and 21st century now in exactly the similar circumstances – in 1921 Russia claimed that Georgia attacked one of its minorities, entered Georgia from the east and occupied Georgia for seventy years and we were in seventy years of communism, slavery and humiliation.

I grew up with the idea that it should never happen again. I wept when Berlin wall came down.

I thought that former KGB people were gone for good. On that one I was wrong.

But on one I was never wrong and I will never be wrong and I will be strong on it together with my people – you saw huge rally in downtown Tbilisi two days ago – never ever we will surrender, never ever we will give up our freedom and independence, never ever we will give any piece of our territory and freedom will go to every part of Georgia, to every ethnic group, to every community in Georgia and we will definitely get rid of these invaders for good. I am totally convinced on that one.

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said on August 15, there was no change in position about Georgia and Ukraine’s NATO membership, as it was agreed at the alliance’s summit in Bucharest in April.

“We have left the timing open and we have said they could be made members if they want this and that position remains,” She said at a joint news conference with President Medvedev after talks in Sochi.

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said on August 15, there was no change in position about Georgia and Ukraine’s NATO membership, as it was agreed at the alliance’s summit in Bucharest in April.

“We have left the timing open and we have said they could be made members if they want this and that position remains,” She said at a joint news conference with President Medvedev after talks in Sochi.

Tony Halpin in Tbilisi

 

President Saakashvili was forced to accept defeat yesterday as he signed a peace agreement that gives the Russian Army the right to patrol on Georgian soil.

In a critical amendment to the ceasefire drawn up by President Sarkozy of France, the Kremlin forced Mr Saakashvili to accept that Russian troops could control a buffer zone of Georgian territory up to 10km beyond the border of the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

Mr Saakashvili was humiliated further when the final text of the agreement, delivered personally by Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, removed a reference to Russian recognition of Georgia’s territorial integrity. It referred only to independence and sovereignty, a day after Ser-gei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said that the world could forget about Georgia’s territorial integrity.

After signing the peace agreement, an emotional Mr Saakashvili said defiantly: “A significant part of Georgian territory remains under foreign military occupation. Never, ever will Georgia reconcile itself with the occupation of even one square kilometre of its territory.”

The US and the European Union appear to have compelled him to accept just that, at least temporarily, in a deal that, in effect, legitimises Russian occupation of Georgia. The West had been insisting that the two sides withdraw their forces to the positions they occupied on August 6, before Georgian troops entered South Ossetia. Now, at Moscow’s insistence, Georgia has been forced to accept that Russian “peacekeepers” in South Ossetia have the right to patrol outside the breakaway region. The details were included in a letter signed by President Sarkozy that clarified Russia’s security powers.

Dr Rice said that the clarifications were meant to protect Georgian interests. US officials argued that the wording of the original document was too vague over the extent of Russia’s freedom to roam on Georgian soil in “peacekeeping” operations. “With the signing of this accord, all Russian troops, and any paramilitary and irregular troops that entered with them, must leave immediately,” she said.

However, the revised document states that Russian peacekeepers who were in South Ossetia before the war started could stay and extend their patrols temporarily for up to 10km (6.2 miles) into Georgia.

 

Officials say that these additional powers would expire as soon as a team of international monitors arrived to observe the ceasefire. However, President Medvedev reinforced Russia’s diplomatic supremacy in a meeting with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, at his residence in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, close to Georgia’s other breakaway region of Abkhazia.

He rejected her insistence that Georgia’s territorial integrity was a “basic point” for any peace settlement in the Caucasus. In a clear signal that the Kremlin is preparing to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence, he reclaimed Russia’s right to be the sole arbiter of the region’s future shape. “If someone continues to attack our citizens, our peacekeepers, then of course we will answer just as we did,” Mr Medvedev said.

“Russia, as guarantor of security in the Caucasus and the region, will make the decision which unambiguously supports the will of these two Caucasus peoples.”

Mr Saakashvili was locked in five hours of talks with Dr Rice at his presidential palace in Tbilisi. In a sign that he was finding the deal hard to accept, their joint press conference was delayed for more than 90 minutes.

Mr Saakashvili railed against the West for failing to pay attention to the emerging Russian threat and for not extending support to Georgia’s application for Nato membership in April.

“Unfortunately, today we are looking evil directly in the eye. And today this evil is very dangerous for everybody – not only for us,” he said. “Let us write the next chapter together.”

Mr Saakashvili said Nato’s rejection of Georgia had encouraged the Kremlin to begin a military build-up, believing that the West lacked the will to respond. He said: “We told the world this is about starting an invasion. We screamed to the world, ‘stop it’.”

Mr Sarkozy said that Georgia’s signature on the ceasefire accord cleared the way for a resolution to end the conflict at the United Nations Security Council “and the definition of an international mechanism which will be charged with overseeing the implementation of the agreement on the ground”, although one Western diplomat predicted that Russian “hard bargaining” over references to Georgia’s territorial integrity would prevent the signing of a resolution this weekend.

Mr Sarkozy also said that the ceasefire created conditions for the immediate withdrawal of Russian forces to the positions they held before the conflict broke out. Russia demonstrated its determination to move its forces around at will when a military convoy advanced to within 55km of Tbilisi yesterday while Dr Rice was visiting.

Seventeen armoured personnel carriers and about 200 soldiers moved along the main highway from the city of Gori, which remains occupied by Russian forces despite pledges to leave, before stopping in the village of Igoeti. Their mission was unclear, though they were joined for a time by three Russian combat helicopters.

Back to the U.S.S.R.
We can and must sanction Soviet-style aggression.

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

As Russia continues to exhibit behavior reminiscent of the old Soviet Union — most immediately by apparently lying about its adherence to a European Union-brokered ceasefire in the state it has most recently invaded, democratic Georgia — Americans must formulate and implement appropriate responses. The object should be both to demonstrate solidarity with the victims of Russian aggression and to ensure that there are real costs to Moscow for reverting to form.

The following are among the steps that should be taken to add teeth to the symbolic gestures of humanitarian assistance and Secretary of State Rice’s visit to Tbilisi:

Reestablish the G-7: John McCain has long called for the removal of Russia from the so-called Group of Eight leading industrial nations. He’s long been right, but never more so than now when it is indisputably the case that Russia is neither a leading industrial nation nor a member in good standing of the world’s most powerful democracies. The Kremlin’s attack on freedom-loving Georgia is just the latest reminder that the Putin-Medvedev regime does not qualify for, and should no longer enjoy, the benefits of that elite group.

Georgia in NATO, Russia out. Germany’s past objections to Georgia’s entry into NATO — assuredly a product of the dangerous dependence on Russian energy flows cultivated in recent years by that country (among others in Europe) — must no longer stand. The West should sponsor under NATO’s patronage an alliance of freedom-loving nations from the Baltic to the Black Sea, shoring up its eastern flank and discouraging further Soviet-style aggression in the region.

While NATO is at it, the Kremlin should lose its privileged place at the table in Brussels. To do otherwise under present circumstances would be to mutate beyond recognition history’s most successful bulwark against totalitarian predations.

Forget about the WTO: Too many countries that do not play by the free trade rules of the World Trade Organization — including, notably mercantilist China and monopolist Saudi Arabia — have been allowed in, to the detriment of both the WTO and the liberal trading environment it is supposed to sponsor. Russia, with its thoroughly corrupt, oligarchic, and politicized business sector is a lousy candidate and should not have been considered eligible even before Moscow’s violence against Georgia. It should be out of the question now.

Keep Gazprom out of Alaska: Russia’s flagship energy-related state-owned enterprise (SOE), Gazprom, reportedly has designs on deposits in our 49th state. The company and its owners in the Kremlin should be told, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

Divest from Russian SOEs: There are things that the private sector can do to help as well — like punishing Russia’s publicly traded state-owned enterprises in our markets. American investors need to be able to identify and liquidate their holdings in all Russian entities listed on the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. Ditto Kremlin-controlled enterprises and companies with access to U.S. exchanges via American depository receipts (ADRs) — devices that allow companies that list elsewhere to trade on our capital markets. Running down the value of stocks of SOEs like Gazprom and Lukoil, that amount to corporate power-projection instruments for the Kremlin, would significantly increase the costs to Moscow of its efforts to snuff democratic governments allied with the United States.

To this end, the SEC’s Office of Global Security Risk should ensure that investors understand that there are material risks associated with doing business with Russian state-owned enterprises. While Russia is not on the official U.S. list of state-sponsors of terrorism, its stocks should be regarded like those of countries who are, given the Kremlin’s conduct under Vladimir Putin. Lest we forget: such conduct includes, besides Russia’s rape of Georgia: equipping Iran with nuclear weapons-relevant reactors and advanced weapons to protect them from our airstrikes; arming our hemisphere’s most rabid anti-American, Hugo Chavez; helping prop up nuclear proliferator North Korea; and making simulated bombing runs on U.S. territory and naval groups.

The American people, if given a choice, will surely decline to invest hard-earned retirement funds and other savings in totalitarian systems dedicated to undermining their values and destroying their democratic way of life — a dedication Russia vividly displays in Georgia today. Should our government exhibit a similar determination to oppose such behavior in the aforementioned ways, the effect may not only be to prevent the snuffing of Georgian democracy. It could prevent similar Soviet-style behavior now in the offing in Ukraine and elsewhere in the formerly enslaved regions the Kremlin calls its “near-abroad.” A measure of Western determination now may even serve to discourage what seems otherwise certain to eventuate: a far more serious future threat elsewhere in the world from what remains Vladimir Putin’s Russia.