Quote of the Day 18.1.2008

"The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. 'Orthodoxy' is not an evil if the doctrine on which the 'orthodox' stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is 'nationalist,' those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?" - Ludwig von Mises; Interventionism, An Economic Analysis (1940)

Terry The Traitor?

Yuri Andropov: Terry Kelly's boss during the Cold War?

The fat one Terry Kelly has put his foot in it yet again with this gem of a quote:

"I was pro Europe and anti CND about 30 yrs. Ago.

I used to work for the Communist Party approx. 35 yrs. Ago."

Yet earlier in the year, El Tel made this infamous 'boast' to Clairwil:

"Having been involved in corrupt Labour politics for 40 yrs. I'm already rich, I don't need the money I've stolen enough, so I'm retiring, now crawl back under your stone."

I wonder if the Lionel Jospin of Scotland ever passed on any intelligence information to the KGB during the Cold War?

Unprecedented Muslim call for peace with Christians

LONDON (Reuters) - More than 130 Muslim scholars from around the globe called on Thursday for peace and understanding between Islam and Christianity, saying "the very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake".

In an unprecedented letter to Pope Benedict and other Christian leaders, 138 Muslim scholars said finding common ground between the world's biggest faiths was not simply a matter for polite dialogue between religious leaders.

"If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants," the scholars wrote.

"Our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake," they wrote, adding that Islam and Christianity already agreed that love of God and neighbour were the two most important commandments of their faiths.

Relations between Muslims and Christians have been strained as al Qaeda has struck around the world and as the United States and other Western countries intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Such a joint letter is unprecedented in Islam, which has no central authority that speaks on behalf of all worshippers.

The list of signatories includes senior figures throughout the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Europe and North America. They represent Sunni, Shi'ite and Sufi schools of Islam.

Among them were the grand muftis of Egypt, Palestine, Oman, Jordan, Syria, Bosnia and Russia and many imams and scholars. War-torn Iraq was represented by both Shi'ites and Sunnis.

Mustafa Cagrici, the mufti who prayed with Benedict in Istanbul's Blue Mosque last year, was also on the list, as was the popular Egyptian television preacher Amr Khaled.

"MAINSTREAM VOICES DROWNED OUT"

The letter was addressed to the Pope, leaders of Orthodox Christian churches, Anglican leader Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the heads of the world alliances of the Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist and Reformed churches.

Williams said he welcomed it as "indicative of the kind of relationship for which we yearn in all parts of the world".

"The call to respect, peace and goodwill should now be taken up by Christians and Muslims at all levels and in all countries," he said.

A Vatican official in Rome said the Roman Catholic Church would not comment until it had time to read the letter.

Aref Ali Nayed, one of the signatories and a senior adviser to the Cambridge Interfaith Programme at Cambridge University in Britain, said the signatories represented the "99.9 percent of Muslims" who follow mainstream schools and oppose extremism.

"In Islam we have had a problem for some time now where the mainstream voices are drowned out by a minority that choose violence," he said.

Nayed said organisers of the letter had set up an ad hoc network among Muslim leaders that could lead to more cooperation in future.

"These people don't take their signatures lightly," he said. "We are trying to institutionalise this so we don't lose it."

The overture to Christians could be followed by similar letters addressed to Jews or secularists, he added.

Pope Benedict sparked Muslim protests last year with a speech hinting Islam was violent and irrational. It prompted 38 Muslim scholars to write a letter challenging his view of Islam and accepting his call for serious Christian-Muslim dialogue.

Benedict repeatedly expressed regret for the reaction to the speech, but stopped short of a clear apology sought by Muslims.

The new letter argues in theological terms, giving quotes from the Koran and the Bible that show both Christianity and Islam considered love of God as their greatest commandment and love of neighbour as the second greatest.

"The basis for this peace and understanding already exists," it said. "It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the one God and love of the neighbour."

At last, an outbreak of common sense, decency and sanity in the world. I applaud this message from the Islamic world, but these fine words still needed to be reinforced by fine actions from both Muslims and Christians such as myself in our daily lives.

Quote of the Day 7.9.2007

"What a cheek! If we had listened to Gordon Brown no one would have been able to buy their own council house, unions would run the country and we'd probably be speaking Russian. He is a conviction politician - convicted of robbing people's pensions, stealth taxation and failing to reform the NHS." - David Cameron

RAF jets intercept eight Russian bombers

LONDON (Reuters) - LONDON (Reuters) -The air force scrambled four Tornado warplanes on Thursday to intercept eight Russian long-range bombers, the Ministry of Defence said.

The ministry said the Russian aircraft had not entered British air space.

"In the early hours of this morning four RAF (Royal Air Force) Tornado F3 aircraft from RAF Leeming and RAF Waddington (bases) were launched to intercept eight Russian Bear aircraft which had not entered UK air space," it said in a statement.

The Tupolev Tu-95, codenamed "Bear" by NATO, is Russia's equivalent of the U.S. B-52 bomber and is a Cold War icon.

Russia's defence ministry published a statement earlier on Thursday which said 14 Russian strategic bombers had started long-range routine patrol operations on Wednesday evening over the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Arctic.

Relations between London and Moscow are at their worst since the Cold War. Russia's refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoy, a former KGB bodyguard suspected of murdering emigre Alexander Litvinenko in London last year, led to tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats from both countries.

FRACTIOUS TIES

Ties between Russia and the European Union have also deteriorated of late over issues such as energy policy, Kosovo and Moscow's treatment of European firms operating there.

The Russian statement said six planes had already returned to base and the other eight were still in the air.

"The planes flew only over neutral water and did not approach the air space of a foreign state," the statement said. "Practically all the planes were accompanied by fighters from NATO countries."

Sky News said the Russian bombers were heading towards British air space and did a U-turn when approached by the British fighters. It is at least the second time in recent months Britain has scrambled jets to intercept Russian bombers.

The sorties by Russian bombers appeared to the latest of the regular long-range patrols that President Vladimir Putin announced last month would be resumed after a gap following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Hampered by a shortage of fuel and airworthy planes, Russian bombers have for years been making only occasional patrols. But Putin said that starting on August 17, they would be in the air more or less constantly.

The Russians had better watch their step or else....

Chinese army hackers 'target Whitehall'

The Government is remaining silent over claims that Chinese army computer hackers have broken into computer systems in Whitehall.

They have reportedly targeted the Foreign Office and caused the House of Commons computer to breakdown.

The Foreign Office has refused to discuss the claims, saying only: "We do not comment on security issues."

Andrew MacKinlay, a Labour member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said it seemed clear that the cyber-attacks had the acquiescence, at least, of the Chinese authorities.

He is urging Ministers to take a more robust stance with Beijing over the claims.

Mr MacKinlay insists that the public and Parliament have a right to be told if the UK is becoming the target of a phenomenon known as "patriotic hacking" - when computer experts use their skills to attack the vital networks of perceived enemies of their nation.

He said that his attempts to prise information from the Government about the scale of the problem had been stonewalled by Ministers including former foreign secretary Jack Straw, now Justice Secretary.

Mr MacKinlay said: "I am frustrated. This is clearly an area where the Government have decided not to comment. My questions were clearly unwelcome.

"The security and intelligence services and Foreign Office did not want this to come out into the public domain.

"This is happening against a backdrop where, on a whole range of foreign policy issues, the British Government is very weak. They seek to appease the Chinese. They should be more robust and indignant.

"We do not send out the right signal on this. Beijing know about it and, at the least, they acquiesce in it."

There was clearly a political motive behind the attacks, said Mr MacKinlay, who dismissed the idea that the hackers were simply "computer nerds" acting alone.

The most plausible theories on why the Chinese authorities might choose to foster patriotic hacking were either to test its potential as a weapon for use in future conflicts or simply to send a signal to other great powers that they have the capability to do so, he said.

Alex Neill, head of the Asia Security Programme at the Royal United Services Institute, said cyber-attacks by the Chinese had been taking place for at least four years.

He said that they reflected a new PLA doctrine of "pressure point warfare" - attacking specific nodes to leave an adversary paralysed.

If these Chinese commie scum want a cyber-war, we should be prepared to play them at their own game and see how they like being hacked. The same applies to Russia.

A History Lesson On The Similarities Between Nazism In Germany & Stalinism In The Soviet Union

Were there any real similarities between Nazism in Germany and Stalinism in the Soviet Union?

The six-year long Second World War of 1939 to 1945 is the most devastating conflict to date in human history with the estimated loss of over 50 million lives. The most destructive theatre of the war was in Eastern Europe, mainly between two ruthless dictators who sought to assert their aims and ideology on not just each other, but on the wider world as a whole. Despite the mutual hostility between Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and Iosif Koba Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, there appears to be much common ground between these two, both obvious and otherwise.

The most obvious similarity between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is the concept of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is highly centralised system of government that places the welfare and ideology of the state above all else. The state and the governing political party become one entity with one powerful individual figure symbolising this union, who is the focal point of that society. This leader has a huge cult following among his people as a result. A totalitarian regime also has ready access to a huge state apparatus to build and maintain its power and prestige such as a mass-media propaganda machine and a huge police force both visible and almost invisible that is given a free hand to operate above the law in the formal sense of the word. Totalitarian regimes are also highly militarised societies able to command massive armed forces. These armed forces are created through economic policies designed to put these states on a war footing. Based on this criterion, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are clearly totalitarian societies. Both Hitler and Stalin at the height of their social and political prowess enjoyed virtually unlimited power and adoration at home. Both political leaders virtually destroyed all social, political and military opposition that threatened their power and prestige from other political parties to even their own closet colleagues. Both the Nazis and Communists utilised then-modern forms of mass-media communications that they were able to control such as newspapers, radio, cinema and even television in their largely successful attempts to control and manipulate the hearts and minds of the public. These two governments also had far more in common in other areas than most people realise.

Both regimes totally disregarded the rights of the individual in the pursuit of their agenda. The Nazis were preoccupied with the purity and growth of the volk (the race). Individuals were considered merely cogs in a machine or bricks in a building. Only their obedience and fanatic loyalty mattered. In the Soviet Union under Stalin, individuals were not only seen as being both insignificant, but also as something to be feared. Stalin himself is said to have claimed that “the death of one person is a tragedy; the death of thousands is a statistic”. Anyone who did not comply or fit in with the needs of the race or of the state were either imprisoned and made to labour for the Cause, or just terminated.

Perhaps the most astonishing similarity between Nazism and Stalinism is their relationship with big business. Both Nazism and Stalinism have their roots in left-wing socialist ideology; the Stalinist system emerged from left-wing so-called social-democratic ideology, while Nazism emerged from the Italian Fascism of Benito Mussolini, himself a former Socialist. Both movements also claimed quite openly that they were ‘socialist’ organisations. Stalinism of course was an informal, artificial name given to describe Communist rule during Stalin’s era, while the word Nazi is an acronym of the Party group’s official name, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. The early Nazi movement did have some strong left-wing policies that for a time co-existed with what is traditionally viewed as being policies of the extreme-right. The early Nazis were anti-big business and their original twenty-five-point programme clearly stated that they would act against capitalist business interests. Two of the most ardently left-wing members of the Nazi leadership throughout the 1920s through to just prior to the Nazi ‘revolution’ were the Strasser brothers, Otto and Gregor. The Strassers were violently opposed to the interests of big business and had many supporters within one of their many party professional organisations that the Nazis had set up to broaden their support and the SA. Hitler himself according to some obscure army documents had been a former Communist himself during the 1918 Spartacus Uprising as he had been elected to serve as a member on the local Bavarian army soldiers’ council during the brief tenure of the Retarepublik. Many of the left-wing elements and policies within Nazism gradually began to be deemphasised once Hitler was released from prison after his part in the Munich Beer Hall Putsch. With Hitler’s professed aim to achieve power through legal and democratic means, he decided to broaden the appeal of the Nazis by portraying them in a more respectable right-wing political light, by amending, reinterpreting and even ignoring parts of the party’s twenty-five point programme and wearing business suits. This was done to secure the support of right-wing captains of industry and acquire their finance and goodwill to achieve his aims of acquiring political power.

In the Soviet Union, the devastating effects of two wars and two revolutions had led to Lenin implementing the New Economic Policy (NEP) that allowed a limited capitalist economy to operate in order to help the country recover and rebuild its already poor infrastructure. Lenin in particular granted concessions to foreign business interests to improve the nation’s finances on such things as asbestos mining. Once Lenin died and Stalin won the initial leadership struggle with Leon Trotsky during the mid-twenties, he ended the NEP and implemented Five Year Plans for industry and agriculture. Although Stalin ended the NEP, he was still nevertheless eager to encourage greater levels of foreign capital investment into the Soviet Union. In addition, on the eve of the Great Depression in America, numerous American corporations from IBM to AT&T had business interests in the Soviet Union. There was even investment from the British company Metro-Vickers in Soviet power stations. The most notable company though to invest in the Soviet Union was the Ford Motor Company who Stalin cut a lucrative five-year deal with to build a production factory near the Ural Mountains. The alliance between the Soviet Union and foreign business interests were mutually beneficial for different reasons.

American corporations viewed the Soviet Union as an untapped economic market that they could exploit to enhance their profit margins, particularly during the time of economic depression back at home. This attitude is very similar to that most businesses have of Communist China today. Stalin however saw foreign investment in more pragmatic terms. Stalin encouraged foreign investment to help further industrialise the Soviet Union, which was entirely consistent with the aims of his Five Year Plans for industry. Stalin could also use the industrial facilities built by businesses such as Ford to build essentials such as tractors (which Stalin himself consider to be of greater use to him than ten ‘good’ foreign Communists) and more importantly, military vehicles that Stalin needed to improve the country’s defences. Labour was also cheap for the Americans investors as wages were either low or non-existent through the use of slave labour from the Gulags. Once Stalin had what he wanted, he terminated his agreements with these American businesses and used the facilities that they had built to serve the interests of the state. Much of the information about foreign investment in the Soviet Union before the Second World War was largely kept secret by Soviet authorities. Once the Nazis had come to power in Germany, national and foreign businesses also did business with the Nazis such as the Coca-Cola Company and again IBM. The majority of these businesses were encouraged to invest in Germany by the Nazis (as was the case with the Soviet Union) to improve Germany’s economic situation and build up its armed forces. In other words, foreign business investment in both Nazi Germany and the Stalinist USSR was virtually identical, with identical aims – to improve those nations’ economies and serve as another pillar of military armament in highly militarised societies.

There were of course stark contrasts between Nazism and Stalinism that historians have been quick to point out. These historians argue that although Nazism and Stalinism did share certain traits, any similarities were purely coincidental and brought about through differing means. In some regards, this is true. Although both were highly militarised societies, Nazi totalitarianism sought control through means of an offensive war, whereas Stalinism’s greater concern was defending the Soviet Union from foreign aggression and the Soviet Union’s military machinery served a greater defensive purpose than that of Hitler’s war machine. In addition, whereas the Nazis increased their hegemony over Germany and the territories, they occupied or held sway over; Stalinism displayed a less pervasive control over its subjects. The early catastrophes, the fight for survival and expulsion of the Nazi menace from Soviet territory did lead to greater freedom of action between 1941 and 1945. People were given greater leeway to show initiative and Stalin did not interfere as much in military matters as he had done during the early months of the so-call Great Patriotic War, whereas in complete contrast Hitler sought to micromanage every last detail and his orders were to be carried out without question. Once the war ended though, Stalin then began to reassert the control and fear he used over his people during the 1930s.

The single biggest difference though between Nazism and Stalinism was the way in which they treated minority elements within their societies that rejected or did not fit in with their ideologies. Without wanting to go into the intentionalist or functionalist arguments about Nazi policy towards the Jews, Nazism did lead to the most infamous and horrific acts of genocide in human history, because of the prejudice openly displayed and encouraged by the Nazi leadership. Stalin on the other hand did not devise a policy of industrialised genocide against a minority group that we yet know about. Stalin’s preferred method with dealing with minorities and scapegoats was deportation to Siberia, as occurred for both the Tartars and Chechens. While there were still widespread deaths caused by starvation and mass murder, these atrocities never approached genocide in the same sense as that which occurred under Hitler despite the fact that more people did die under Stalin than with the more understandable reviled Hitler. In spite of the apparent differences between the two, the facts show that both regimes legalised criminality and inhumanity on the same mass scale.

Nazism and Stalinism are, as both Hannah Arendt and the author and Daily Express columnist, Frederick Forsyth described, as both being “offspring of socialism” with the same “unfailing characteristics” by which the two “have identified themselves”. Both ideologies had their roots in left-wing political thought and both developed along similar lines of evolution almost exactly simultaneously. Although both might have acted for differing reasons, the methods they employed were almost identical to one another and the result itself was virtually the same. Tens of millions died during a short period under the ideological leaders of these two sibling ideologies. Both exploited right-wing capitalist elements to improve their internal infrastructure and military capabilities. Both ruled through the fear generated by a massive and often secretive police force and the adulation of a single ideal and identity personified by a single individual or icon, apart from possibly some differing motives and methods in dealing with large groups of undesirable elements that did not fit in with what was sanctioned to be the community. Stalinism was National Socialism and Nazism was merely a German equivalent of Stalinism.

Russia suspends participation in key arms pact

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia suspended its participation in a key pact limiting military forces in Europe on Saturday, amid deteriorating relations with the West on a range of fronts.

The Kremlin said in a statement President Vladimir Putin had signed a decree suspending Russia's role in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, due to questions of "national security".

The pact was adopted in 1990 to limit the number of tanks, heavy artillery and combat aircraft deployed and stored between the Atlantic and Russia's Ural mountains.

Russia has accused the West of failing to ratify an amended version signed in 1999 to take into account the new post-Cold War situation. Talks last month with NATO states ended without progress.

A NATO spokesman said on Saturday of the Russian suspension: "If this is confirmed the Secretary General very much regrets this decision. The allies consider this treaty to be an important cornerstone of European security."

The differences over the pact are part of broader tensions between Russia and the West.

Relations are strained by disagreements over U.S. plans for a missile shield in eastern Europe, proposed independence for Serbia's Kosovo province and Moscow's energy policies.

A source of friction over the CFE treaty is NATO's insistence on preserving "flanking arrangements" which ban large concentrations of forces and materiel near some borders.

Russia objects to that provision because it limits Russian troop movements within Russian territory, even though Moscow says its border areas have become more unstable since the Soviet Union broke up in 1991.

Russia also wants cuts in NATO troop levels in outlying regions to reflect the accession to the alliance of eastern European states bordering Russia since 1990.

NATO states have said treaty changes depend on Russia withdrawing troops from the former Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia, but Russia rejects any link between the two issues.

MI6 need to assassinate that fascist warmonger Putin before he is able to hold the world hostage.

Quote of the Day 10.7.2007

"Capitalism does not work" - Councillor Terry "Moonbat" Kelly

I'll think that Cllr Kelly will find that it is the complete opposite; Capitalism works, socialism doesn't. It's just unfortunate that the fall of Stalinism in 1989-91 bypassed Scotland.

Russia charges Berezovsky with coup plot

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian prosecutors have charged emigre tycoon Boris Berezovsky on suspicion of plotting to seize power, his lawyer said on Monday.

The multi-millionaire, who lives in Britain where he has been granted refugee status, said he was confident Britain would never extradite him to Russia.

"He has been charged with conspiring to seize power in a violent coup," Andrei Borovkov, Berezovsky's lawyer told journalists.

The charge was brought by Russia's FSB secret service, said the lawyer, and related to an interview the tycoon gave to the Guardian in which he was quoted as saying force was needed to bring about a change of power in Russia.

The move is likely to aggravate a diplomatic row between Britain and Russia, which has for years been pressing for Berezovsky's extradition to stand trial on corruption charges.

"I am confident that I do not violate not only Russian but British laws as well, therefore I simply cannot be worried that the British authorities may decide to extradite me," Berezovsky told independent Ekho Moskvy radio station.

Berezovsky is also at the centre of a row over the murder in London last year of Russian ex-agent Alexander Litvinenko who died after being poisoned with radioactive polonium.

A spokesman for the FSB, a successor organisation to the Soviet KGB secret service, declined to confirm charges had been brought against the tycoon.

Berezovsky accuses the Kremlin of killing Litvinenko, an associate. Russian officials dismiss the allegation as nonsense and complain Berezovsky is using the case, from his base in London, to discredit Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"REGIME CHANGE"

In the Guardian interview, Berezovsky said: "We need to use force to change this regime ... It isn't possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure."

Asked if he was fomenting a revolution, he said: "You are absolutely correct."
Berezovsky subsequently issued a statement of clarification in which he said he was not advocating a violent uprising.

Another Berezovsky associate, Alex Goldfarb, said the criminal case against the tycoon was designed "to distract attention from the fact that the Russian government stands suspected at least in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko".

"Boris Berezovsky has indeed said the Putin regime is undemocratic and cannot be changed through normal democratic processes, and he says he is helping forces in Russia aiming at regime change in a bloodless revolution similar to what happened in Ukraine and Georgia," he told Reuters by telephone.

Russian authorities are highly sensitive about any interference from abroad in the run-up to next year's presidential election, when Putin is to step down after serving a maximum two terms.

In a separate case, Berezovsky is being tried in absentia on embezzlement charges. The tycoon faces up to 10 years in jail if convicted of embezzling 214 million roubles (4.14 million pounds) from the Russian flag carrier, Aeroflot.

At the first court hearing in Moscow on Monday, Berezovsky's lawyers announced they would not take part in the Aeroflot case. The court was adjourned until July 12, and Berezovsky will be given a state-appointed lawyer.

Putin is a Stalinist Cunt!

U.S. expects N.Korea reactor shut in weeks

TOKYO (Reuters) - The United States expects North Korea to shut down the reactor at the heart of its atomic arms development within about three weeks, top U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill said on Saturday.

Progress on disabling Pyongyang's nuclear programme may be expedited by the transfer to a North Korean account of $25 million (12.5 million pounds) in cash that had been frozen in Macau at Washington's behest. Russian news agencies quoted Finance Ministry officials as saying on Saturday the transaction had been completed.

Hill, who made a brief trip to the isolated East Asian state this week, also said the next round of six-party talks on scrapping Pyongyang's nuclear programme would take place after the shutdown began, most likely in the early part of July.

Shutdown of the Yongbyon reactor would take place after North Korea had reached agreement with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on monitoring the operation, Hill told reporters in Tokyo.

"Well, we expect Yongbyon to be shut down after there is an agreement between the DPRK and the IAEA on how to monitor this shutdown," Hill said after talks with his Japanese counterpart, Kenichiro Sasae.

"We do expect this to take place soon, and within probably three weeks, I don't want to be pinned down on precisely the day."

UNFROZEN FUNDS

North Korea said on Saturday it would begin implementing the nuclear disarmament deal it agreed with top regional powers on February 13 as soon as it recovered funds long frozen in Macau.

Pyongyang committed itself to closing down Yongbyon, the source of its weapons-grade plutonium, in the February deal with the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, in exchange for energy aid.

Progress was stalled by a row over the release of some $25 million of Pyongyang's funds blocked in Macau.

Interfax news agency reported a Finance Ministry official as saying on Saturday that the full amount had been transferred into a North Korean account at Khabarovsk-based Dalkombank in Russia.

An IAEA delegation is due in North Korea on Tuesday to help draw up plans for the reactor shutdown.

Hill said that in North Korea he had raised the issue of Japanese citizens kidnapped decades ago by Pyongyang, a highly emotive issue that prompted Tokyo refuse to provide aid under the February 13 accord until it saw progress.

The U.S. diplomat said he had received no new answers on the fate of the abductees, seized to help train North Korean spies, but added: "I think any time you can meet DPRK officials and raise the abduction issue, it's good."

Easing Tokyo's stance on Pyongyang could be tough for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ahead of an election expected in July.

A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman quoted by state media said that, during Hill's visit, both sides had agreed to consider resuming the six-party talks in the first half of July.

Hill said he did not know if the next round of six-way talks would take place after the Yongbyon shutdown was under way or only once it was fully completed.

"I think we would expect it to happen soon after the shutdown begins," he said, but cautioned that closing the nuclear facility was just the start of the process.

"Shutting down the reactor does not solve all our problems," he said. "There is a lot of work to do, I think."

Lugovoy: UK involved in spy killing

A former Russian spy accused of murdering the defector Alexander Litvinenko has sensationally claimed MI6 was involved in his murder.

Andrei Lugovoy said he had evidence the British security services had a hand in the murder of ex-spy Litvinenko, who died last November after being poisoned with polonium-210.

British intelligence agents also tried to recruit him to get information about President Putin - and both Litvinenko and Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky were on its pay, he claimed.

But the allegations were immediately dismissed by Mr Berezovsky, who described them as further proof Lugovoy was acting according to Kremlin instructions.

Alex Goldfarb, a close friend of Litvinenko, agreed, saying Lugovoy's statement illustrated once again that the Russian government was behind the spy's death.

The startling allegations made at a press conference in Russia are the latest twist in an investigation that has been so full of mystery and political intrigue that it would be more fitting for the plot of a James Bond film.

Lugovoy claimed: "Even if (British special services) hadn't done it (killed Litvinenko) itself, it was done under its control or connivance."

In the translation by Russia Today television channel, he later added British agents had "asked me to collect compromising information on President Putin".

When asked if he could back up the claims, Lugovoy said: "I have evidence", but went no further.

Papers calling for his extradition were delivered to Russia on Monday after the Crown Prosecution Service's announcement that Lugovoy was being charged with Litvinenko's murder. The Russians have already said he will not be extradited.

Ex-spy on Litvinenko murder charge

An ex-KGB agent is to be charged in connection with the murder of poisoned former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

A warrant has been issued for the arrest of Moscow-based Andrei Lugovoy, although there is no extradition treaty with Russia.

Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald said the case was "clearly in the public interest".

Sir Ken described the murder as an "extraordinarily grave crime".

He said: "I have today concluded that the evidence sent to us by the police is sufficient to charge Andrei Lugovoy with the murder of Mr Litvinenko by deliberate poisoning.

"I have further concluded that a prosecution of this case would clearly be in the public interest.

"I have instructed CPS lawyers to take immediate steps to seek the early extradition of Andrei Lugovoy from Russia to the United Kingdom, so that he may be charged with murder - and be brought swiftly before a court in London to be prosecuted for this extraordinarily grave crime."

The full CPS charge is that Lugovoy murdered Mr Litvinenko on November 23, 2006.

Mr Litvinenko died in hospital in London after being poisoned with the radioactive agent Polonium-210. The former KGB officer was a fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin's Kremlin regime and had been granted political asylum in the UK.

Sir Ken said Mr Litvinenko died of "acute radiation injury" after ingesting a lethal dose of Polonium.

R.I.P. Boris Yeltsin, February 1, 1931 – April 23, 2007

I have just read the news via Wikipedia that the former President of Russia Boris Yeltsin has died today from heart failure. Whatever his personal and political faults, Mr. Yeltsin understood how dangerous as well morally and economically bankrupt Soviet Stalinist-Marxism was on individual and collective lives not just within the Soviet Union, but on the international arena as well because the Evil Empire was a patron of countless evil and equally despotic regimes such as Cuba and North Korea to name but only two. Mr. Yeltsin completed what Ronald Reagan, the Blessed Margaret Thatcher and Yeltsin's old friend-turn-bitter rival Mikhail Gorbachev started by dissolving the U.S.S.R. and it's lingering threat to world stability.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Mr. Yeltsin's life is that he even lived as long as the seventy-six years that he enjoyed due to his infamous drink and health problems.

The most fitting epitaph for this paradox of a man should come from Mr. Gorbachev, who has stated that "I offer my deepest condolences to the family of a man on whose shoulders rested many great deeds for the good of the country and serious mistakes -- a tragic fate". The tragic fate that Mr. Gorbachev speaks of is that Mr. Yeltsin has replaced the tyranny of the Communist Party with the tyranny of the Russian Federation's current president, the Neo-Stalinist Vladimir Putin.

Russian police arrest 170 anti-Kremlin protesters

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian police detained at least 170 people, including chess champion Garry Kasparov, on Saturday as they snuffed out an attempt by opponents of President Vladimir Putin to protest near the Kremlin.

Activists had planned to gather at a city centre square about one km (half a mile) from the Kremlin to protest at what they say is Putin's trampling of democratic freedoms and demand a fair vote to choose a new president in 2008.

Teams of riot police, acting on a ruling from the city authorities banning the protest, pounced on protesters as they appeared in small groups near the square and swiftly loaded them into buses, Reuters witnesses said.

"The authorities are afraid of their own citizens and they do not want citizens to influence what is happening in the country," Mikhail Kasyanov, a leader of the Other Russia opposition coalition that organised the protest, told Reuters.

"On the eve of the elections ... of course the authorities are terribly scared of this and today's excessive actions by the police (are proof of that)," said Kasyanov, a former prime minister under Putin.

An aide to Kasparov, also an Other Russia leader, confirmed the former chess grandmaster was among those detained. A police source said he was likely to be charged with incitement to violence.

Later, small groups of protesters gathered at another square a few kilometres away waving Russian flags and roses and shouting "Russia without Putin." Police dispersed them and a Reuters reporter saw several being led away to police vans.

The protesters have marginal influence in Russia. The vast majority of voters back Putin, who has overseen rising incomes and political stability. But Kremlin loyalists say the protesters are dangerous extremists plotting a revolution.

The protest came a day after Russian multi-millionaire Boris Berezovsky said in a newspaper interview from his London base that he was fomenting revolution in Russia. The protest organisers distanced themselves from Berezovsky.

"Thanks to the well-co-ordinated actions of the riot police and Moscow police, we were able to prevent an illegal gathering being carried out," said Moscow police chief spokesman Viktor Biryukov.

"Police acted in a proportionate way ... and strictly in accordance with the law. As of 1:30 p.m. (0930 GMT), about 170 people have been held, these were the most aggressive participants in the unauthorised actions."

Four Reuters journalists -- two photographers and two camera crew -- were detained as they covered the clashes. All four were later released without charge.

Police said they had mobilised 9,000 officers around the centre of Moscow on Saturday to keep order.

There was a massive security presence around the square, in the shadow of a statue to poet Alexander Pushkin, where the protesters had planned to congregate.

At least a thousand police could be seen in the square and on the streets leading into it. A water cannon truck and several police trucks were stationed on the street leading from the square to the Kremlin.