The Latest from Iran (10 August): An End to the Hunger Strike?

1400 GMT: Let's Keep Trying This Foreign Overthrow (and Drugs to Our Schoolchildren) Shtick. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, may have taken some criticism for claiming a US-Saudi $51 billion plot, through the Iranian opposition, for regime change, but that hasn't fazed Minister of Intelligence Heydar Moslehi.

Moslehi said Monday that foreign powers had invested $17 billion in unrest after the 2009 Presidential election. He put this in the context of a long-term campaign, "In the past 25 years, more than 80 centres and institutions for soft war have been founded and around $2 billion has been spent on them annually."

The minister said enemy methods included "fuelling ethnic and religious sensitivities especially in border areas,...(and) efforts to spread delinquency among students through satellite [channels], the Internet, (and) vulgar books", corrupting Iran's education system.

And there was more, Moslehi warned: evidence pointed to large-scale and costly efforts to wage "soft war" in the country by distributing dugs among schoolchildren.

1300 GMT: The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center has issued its latest report, examining the Iranian Government's effort to dismantle the women's rights movement.

1220 GMT: The Human Rights Lawyer. Persian2English has posted the translation of a Voice of America interview with lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei, who has fled Iran and is now in Norway. An extract:

VOA Correspondent: Why did you leave Iran?

Mostafaei: I never wanted to leave Iran. Any time someone wanted to leave Iran, I always objected and told them that there is nowhere better to work than Iran. Unfortunately [the regime] created an atmosphere for me that made me unable to fulfil my duty, but even this was bearable. What made me decide to leave Iran is solely the illegal actions of the interrogator in Branch 2 of the Shahid Moghaddas investigations office [in Evin Prison]. He illegally ordered the arrest of my wife [Fereshteh Halimi] and a bail amount of approximately $6,000. She was thrown into solitary confinement and was not set to be released until I was turned in. They held her captive for fourteen days. [The illegal processes] made be decide to leave the place I belong to and begin the difficult [journey] to another country.

1210 GMT: The Hunger Strike. Student activist Majid Tavakoli, who was said to have lost consciousness while on hunger strike, is reportedly out of critical condition.

0925 GMT: More from VP Rahimi, International Affairs Expert. Ali Akbar Dareini offers this correction to our report yesterday on 1st Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi's diatribe --- he called Australians a "bunch of cattlemen", not shepherds --- and adds this substantial point....

"To fight sanctions, we will remove the dollar and euro from our foreign exchange basket and will replace them with (the Iranian) rial and the currency of any country cooperating with us," Rahimi said. "We consider these currencies (dollar and euro) dirty and won't sell oil in dollar and euro."

The Iranian Government has said recently that it would trade in currencies like the dirham (United Arab Emirates), but it is unclear whether trading partners will be receptive to the idea.

Rahimi also said, "We will increase tariffs by 200 percent. We will hike it so much so that no one will be able to buy foreign goods. We should not buy the products of our enemies. Students can force their parents not to buy foreign goods."

0910 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi may have granted a concession that contributed to the end of the Evin Prison hunger strike; however, according to Rah-e-Sabz, he remains defiant on other fronts.

Doulatabadi reportedly said the news from prisons is "total lies", as Iran's jails are acting completely within the law. Claims such as that of an "honour assault" on Alireza Tajik are "inventions".

Doulatabadi may want to consider the testimony of 17-year-old Ali Niknam, who claims he was abused by Revolutionary Guard intelligence officers after his arrest on 2 November: “The signs of electrical shock were visible on my shoulder, stomach, and kidney area and I suffered from bloody bowels and urine for days after my release.”

0910 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Reports indicate that Japan may consider cutting crude oil imports from Iran, having approved new sanctions in line with June's UN Security Council resolution. Tokyo, following meetings with US officials, has added 40 companies and an individual to a blacklist for freezing of assets.

0900 GMT: The Vice President Talks World Politics (Again). It looks like 1st Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi has decided to step up and become the Government's international affairs spokesman.

After his diatribe against the US, Australia, and "England", reported in yesterday's updates, Rahimi gets literary again, in a meeting told Iran's heads of education that "South Koreans need a slap in the face" for their imposition of sanctions on Tehran.

0710 GMT: The President's Right-Hand Man. More criticism of Ahmadinejad Chief of Staff and brother-in-law Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai....

Ayatolllah Mesbah Yazdi, in a meeting with Revolutionary Guard commanders on Monday, said, "Those who put principles (maktab) of Iran shamelessly before maktab of Islam do not belong to us! We only support those who support Islam and are loyal to the Supreme Leader."

0705 GMT: The New Battle --- Another Larijani v. Ahmadinejad.

Voice of America picks up on our featured story from Monday, the criticism by Iran's head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

One Washington-based analyst, Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute, claims Ayatollah Khamenei is now involved: "The Supreme Leader is giving Ali Larijani the tools to stand up to the president."

0700 GMT: The claimed message from the political prisoners who have ended their hunger strike:

We will continue to insist on our human rights and the basic rights of all prisoners. We pledge to continue to fight until all prisoners who are part of our beloved nation gain access to their full legal rights.

0650 GMT: The Hunger Strike. Kalemeh is carrying the message of an "anonymous loyal support of the Greens" that all but one hunger striker has ended the protest. There are no further details.

Another website made the claim on Sunday. It is unclear whether the same anonymous source is behind both that report and Kalemeh's article.

0545 GMT: We begin today with two features and a disturbing piece of news.

In the features, Jon Lee Anderson of The New Yorker gets a 10-day visit to Iran and meets the public, with their discontent over the election, as well as President Ahmadinejad. And Arash Aramesh of insideIRAN writes about the audio that may point to Revolutionary Guard interference in the June 2009 election.

The news, from RAHANA, is that student activist Majid Tavakoli --- one of 16 or 17 political prisoners in Evin Prison --- has lost consciousness and is now in the prison infirmary.

More updates to follow...

US Politics and Media: Why Glenn Beck Is Good for America (Haddigan)

The history of the United States is one of extremes, a tale of how contending visions of the past should shape the nation’s future. The concept of "America" is a continuous conflict between a respect for traditional explanations of the individual’s responsibilities in a virtuous society and a yearning to unleash modern philosophies of the "Rights of Man".

This battle, since the first settlements in America, has been, largely fought out in the media. Glenn Beck on the Right, and Chris Matthews on the Left, are but the latest manifestations of the eternal struggle for the American Soul.

Recognition of the long history of partisan division in the US over fundamental ideas about politics is needed to calm the disquiet Beck and Matthews provoke in contemporary society. Both might promote an ideology of fear of the "other side", but America has prospered in the past --- and will in the future --- despite dire warnings about their predecessors and successors in the American media. Indeed, you can argue convincingly that the United States benefits from the existence of a partisan media.

The political media have continually forced the populace to evaluate what it means to be "American". Through struggles from the Pilgrims and Puritans through the revolutionaries of the War for Independence to the Civil War, in the conflicts to come in Populism and Progessivism, Fundmentalism (creationism) and Social Gospelism (evolutionism), New Dealism and Reaganism, Cold War conservatism and liberal counter-culture, the American media of the time played a central role in defining the terms on which the often acrimonious debate took place.

Because of our somewhat quaint notion that the past was more civil and polite than the present, aided by the self-perpetuating but false myth of the generation who came to (im)maturity in the 1960s that they revolutionised society, we fail to appreciate that a partisan media is not a modern phenomenon. Our ancestors, as long as visual images have existed, have displayed a sense of impropriety in criticising opponents that would make some today blush. See, for instance, scatological woodcut images (most people of the time couldn’t read) that were used as propaganda to defame the Pope during the early Protestant Reformation of the 1500s in Europe. You may hate Glenn Beck, or Chris Matthews, but these (extremely) sacrilegious cartoons and accompanying doggerel verses will put into perspective the limits that our modern society places on acceptable political discourse. (http://www.uoregon.edu/~dluebke/Reformations441/ReformationSatires.html)

America’s history of partisan conflict, and the role of the media, is more a rollicking and rambunctuous series of colourful disputes and incidents than a threat to American democracy (although Alexander Hamilton may have disagreed, since he was fatally wounded in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 after Burr took umbrage at Hamilton’s criticisms of him in the press). The government have attempted to tame the freedom of expression of both the press and the people, most notably in the Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918 and the Smith Act of 1940, but have failed to sustain a constitutional case for the argument that "crying fire", in the political theatre at least, is a "clear and present danger" to the nation’s security.

For a short period in its early years, the US did display a remarkable commitment to the idea that "disinterested" politicians could represent the country as a whole. George Washington succeeded in portraying this image, and following presidents laboured to sustain the illusion that the Chief Executive was a neutral approach who umpired the inevitable conflicts in American society (a myth that still held enough emotional sway for Eisenhower to use it in the 1950s).

But American politics changed in 1832 with the election of Andrew Jackson after a populist appeal to the masses, and it became the public-image, spin-dominated spectacle we know today with the election of William Henry Harrison in 1840.

(Of particular interest in the Harrison campaign was the Whigs' profligate distribution of whisky to persuade, or confound, voters to support the original log-cabin candidate. The whisky was handed out in bottles from the E. C. Booz distillery, leading to "booze" becoming a common term for alcohol in America.)

One reason for the overall civility of contemporary political debate, despite what some might regard as the extremist rabble-rousing of Beck and Matthews, is the changing definition of the word tolerance in Britain and in America. When the two countries (at different times) announced the establishment of religious tolerance as a guiding principle of popular democracy, they saw the word as meaning an individual had "to put up with" different religious opinions, even though they may regard them as evil or degenerate. It meant no individual could harm another, or aggress against them, because of their religion.

It did not mean, however, that the individual had to understand, empathize, or respect the tenets of a different faith. Behind the original conception of the tolerance of religion, and freedom of political expression, lay the understanding that both were a battleground where conflicting ideas should be, befitting their essential importance to mankind, fought out with vigour and conviction. Politics and religion, it was assumed, were so crucial to an individual’s definition of their identity that they would be debated with passion, not discussed lifelessly in a soulless debating chamber.

Beck and Matthews display some of that vitality, and as a result they and their like energise the American political debate. They force Americans to question the views they believe in by presenting a no-holds-barred alternative. And with their reliance on examining current events in the light of the nation’s history they allows each person to decide what it means to be an "American".

Beck and Matthews are not a threat to American democracy. They are, in fact, part of the reason why the United States retains a more than passing and rhetorical interest in the role of the individual in a just society.

US-Iran: Strikes, Sanctions and Scapegoats (Sick)

Gary Sick, a former official in the Carter and Reagan Administrations and a leading analyst of contemporary US-Iran relations, assesses the current state of play:

For the pundits, there are only two questions about U.S.-Iran relations that are of any importance: (1) Will Israel and/or the United States attack Iran? and (2) will the new sanctions have enough bite to persuade Iran to change its nuclear policy? Despite all the printers ink spilled on these two issues, the answers are an easy no and no.

Neither the United States nor Israel will take the military option off the table, thereby giving the pundits (and the crowd that is dying to repeat Iraq) latitude to keep the distant prospect of military action on the front pages, where it has been for years. As a lede, it sells columns and newspapers, so it will not go away. But as analysis it is either blinded by the momentary hype or else is simple wish fulfillment.

Uber-neocon John Bolton had it right. If any such attack were to occur, it would have been at the end of the Bush administration when there was nothing left to lose. Bolton thought it was so inevitable that he predicted it unequivocally in a Wall Street Journal column in 2008. Dick Cheney apparently agreed, judging from his subsequent statements of regret. So it is fair to say that George W. Bush, after looking the potential consequences, resisted the advice of his neocon advisers, his previously dominant vice president, and the reported direct request from the government of Israel — and rejected a strike. What is the likelihood that Barack Obama, with the same catastrophic scenario before him, will approve? Forget it.

Sanctions do not persuade dictatorial regimes to abandon projects that they think are central to their security and survival or even their self-image. Just look at Saddam Hussein. The international sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1980s make the current Iran sanctions appear anemic in comparison. Every item that went in and out of Iraq was subject to approval by a UN committee dominated by a vindictive United States. Yet, although Iraq had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, Saddam could not bring himself to let his own people and his enemies know that. Instead he was prepared to gamble that the United States would not attack him.

One of the reasons for this bad bet was that he and his cronies were doing so well under the sanctions that there was no immediate necessity to come clean. They, after all, controlled the smuggling routes. And their henchmen managed the thriving and enormously lucrative black market. As for concern with their own people, a rotund Tariq Aziz, sitting with a fine Scotch and a Cuban cigar, informed a worried UN representative that it would be good for the Iraqi people to lose some weight. An Iraqi friend of mine told me at the time that the sanctions had made criminals of the entire Iraqi middle class, which had to resort to illegal behavior in order to survive. The biggest – and most successful – of this new criminal class was the privileged group immediately around Saddam Hussein.

Which brings us to Iran. The sanctions are more effective than many anticipated. They have built a web of financial restrictions and limitations around the already weak Iranian economy that is certain to cause significant problems for the leadership. Iran’s critical energy sector is particularly vulnerable. It is in a pincer. Because of cheap energy prices inside the country, artificially propped up by massive subsidies, energy demand is soaring. This siphons off a lot of Iran’s oil production, which would otherwise be sold on the world market for hard currency.

At the same time, because Iran’s oil fields are old and complex, they require modern technology to maintain production. That technology – and the capital investment that can only be provided by the major international oil companies – has been absent for many years. It was driven away partly by the sanctions, ironically assisted by Iran’s own short-sighted negotiating tactics that offered only the most meager profit margins to outside investors. As a result, Iran’s oil production is in decline at the same time that more and more of it is being soaked up by domestic consumption. In a period of relatively low oil prices, this means that Iran’s hard currency earnings are drying up at an alarming rate.

This unenviable economic situation is compounded by what has to be described as perhaps the least competent economic management team of any major country in the world. Ayatollah Khamene`i, the Supreme Leader, seems totally preoccupied with bolstering his own shaky political legitimacy by pandering to the Revolutionary Guards who surround and protect him. The result is corruption on a scale beyond anything the shah’s regime could have imagined.

President Ahmadinejad, also a creature of the Revolutionary Guards, is free to indulge his taste for outlandish and irresponsible rhetoric. His words keep the international and domestic spotlight glued to him; but the effect drives away prospective investors and facilitates the U.S. drive to enlist international support for sanctions against Iran. An American Jewish leader once joked with me that he suspected Ahmadinejad was a Mossad agent: no one, he observed, had been more helpful in promoting donations to Israel and Israeli causes. At the same time, under his leadership Iran has inflation and unemployment that are both in double digits.

But to be fair, Ahmadinejad is the first politician in modern Iranian history willing to address the “third rail” of Iranian politics – the immensely costly subsidies on food and energy. His initial efforts to reduce the amount of subsidized gasoline that Iranians could use met with outbursts of indignation, including torching filling stations. But these rules now seem to be grudgingly accepted and have eased slightly Iran’s energy dilemma. He is now addressing the low tax rates assessed against merchants. This has also resulted in outrage, including closing the bazaars in Iran and other major cities. But his campaign seems to be making progress.

These are needed reforms that would be recommended by any responsible economic overseer, including the International Monetary Fund. Ahmadinejad attempts to balance his daring assaults on the entrenched economic interests by his belligerent rhetoric, always casting himself as the champion of the little guy. In that he resembles his populist predecessors, from Juan Peron to Huey Long to Hugo Chavez. Ahmadinejad takes on America and Israel the way Governor Long took on Standard Oil. But like other populists, Ahmadinejad is the prisoner of his own eccentric view of the world and his loyalty to lieutenants who may or may not be worthy of his faith in them.

The key question about Iran today is not whether it will be attacked or collapse under sanctions. It is whether Iran is capable under its present leadership to take a sober decision about how to deal with the outside world. The Revolutionary Guards have established a dominant position in Iran’s military, its economy, and its politics. Iran increasingly comes to resemble the corporatist states of southern and eastern Europe in the 1920s and ‘30s that we call fascist. Iran is conducting an interior battle with its own demons, from the millenarians on the far right who choose to believe that Khamene`i is the personal representative of God on earth, to the pragmatic conservatives who simply want a more responsible leadership, to the reformists of the Green movement whose objective is to put the “republic” back into the Islamic Republic by giving the people a greater voice.

This is a yeasty and unpredictable mix. No one knows what is going to happen next.

And this is the reality that the Obama administration must deal with. The danger is not that the administration will back the wrong horse in Iran. The real danger is that the Obama administration will be so preoccupied with domestic American politics and its constant demand to look tough when dealing with Iran that it will inadvertently rescue this cruel but hapless regime from its own ineptitude by providing a convenient scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in Iran.

US v. Britain: History, Education, and "Big Ideas" in Politics (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan writes for EA:

For me, one of the fascinations of US politics is the nation’s continual fight over the same issues using the same arguments. Contemporary disputes are fought on the ground of precedent and tradition, example and intent dating back 50, 100, 150, and, ultimately, the 221 years since the ratification of the Constitution. No other country pays as much attention to the relevance of historical events to current affairs than the United States.

And, contrary to some opinion in Europe, America’s reliance on the past as a guide to the future is not a smokescreen for hiding the country’s overriding preoccupation with material interests. The United States, unlike European nations, still believes that political differences rest on contrasting fundamental assumptions about the philosophical justifications for the ways an individual is governed. Thomas Paine wrote, as America sought independence from Britain, that "government is a necessary evil". That sentiment may have died out in Europe, bit it animates debate in the US.

Take, for instance, the contentious subject of education. In America, discussion nearly always reverts to the principle of who has the right --- the federal government or parents --- to provide for the instruction of the young. An argument is brewing right now over the proposed introduction in each state of a standardised curriculum designed by Washington.

Opponents of the reform question the measure on many fronts, but the foundation of their disquiet with the policy is the claimed opportunity for the federal government to "indoctrinate" pupils against the wishes of local communities. Parents, it is argued, have the right to decide what their children learn in school, with the tradition in the US that schools are paid for by local property taxes and controlled by locally-elected school boards. One of the Tea Party’s policies for returning America to its vision of a limited government is to eliminate the Federal Department of Education, leaving education completely in the hands of local elected officials.

The right of the State Government in deciding how the young receive their instruction underlies all debates on the issue. The recent "Textbook Wars" in Texas, where state administrators acrimoniously debated in an open forum the correct teaching material, was a bewildering spectacle for many in Europe.

In Britain, the choice of what is taught in classrooms is left to an unelected bureaucracy in the Government and, except for a few brave souls, any deviation from that assumption is regarded as heretical delusion. The State takes almost complete control of the curriculum and the standards that assess student achievement. No mainstream party, or political persuasion, opposes on principle the right of the Government to dictate how and what students are taught. This leads in Britain to incredulity that greets the news that Creationism is taught in some classes in America and included in the curriculum because parents want it there.

Last week I discovered that a judge in Virginia is allowing the state’s legal challenge to Obama’s healthcare legislation because it raises constitutional concerns about the legitimate scope of the Commerce Clause (unless you are forced to do so, never --- trust me --- try to understand the Commerce Clause). One newsletter in my in-box proclaimed Virginia as having no case, citing numerous constitutional experts; another argued that the state had an ironclad argument, quoting (you guessed it) several experts on the dreaded Commerce Clause.

I also learned that conservatives are questioning the "equal protection", under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, of so-called "Anchor Babies". These are children who are granted citizenship in the United States because they are born here, even if the parents are illegal immigrants. Some websites agreed with the contention that not all babies born in the United States are entitled to equal protection of the laws; inevitably, some opposed this view. But both, side justified their opposing opinions with the extensive use of quotations from individuals involved in the decision to ratify the 14th Amendment in 1868.

I found out that some Tea Party organizations are calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment. This change to the Constitution (1913) allowed citizens to directly elect senators to Congress, replacing the tradition of state legislatures deciding who represented voters’ interests in the upper house in Washington. More a philosophical dispute over the power of the majority in a democracy than a strictly constitutional matter, this debate was accompanied by discussion of the intent of the authors of the Federalist Papers, written in the late 18th century, against the "progressive" impulse that led to the passing of the Amendment.

And then I was informed by Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, that my help was needed to stop Democrats from using the forthcoming session of Congress to pass controversial liberal legislation. Gingrich did not refer the reader to recent examples; instead, he directed attention to the Federalists passing the Judiciary Act in 1800 to handicap the incoming administration of Thomas Jefferson.

The United States still, and almost unconsciously, centres political debates around ideas, big Ideas about democracy that involve the "rights" of the people and the "responsibility" of the individual and that rely on explanations of the nation’s past to supply their context. I received more political discussion based on historical concerns this morning than I would get from watching the BBC for a year.

When I explain to friends in Britain that I study American history they generally reply along the lines of "Why? They don’t have any history." And when I was studying in the US, the usual response of American friends was, "Why? When you have so much more history to appreciate over there."

In Britain, history is an antiquarian pursuit that does not affect contemporary affairs. We have old buildings, a Queen, some quaint social traditions, a venerable if ineffective State religion, and more old buildings.

Last year, the Conservative member of Parliament David Davies resigned his seat in protest at the Labour Government’s encroachments on Britain’s traditional liberties, including the right of habeas corpus, the cornerstone of legal rights of British (and American) citizens. For his principled and legitimate stand, he became a laughingstock in the British media, criticised for wasting the time and money of his constituents who faced the "ordeal" of having to stage another election for the now vacant seat. (Davies stood for election again on the principles over which he resigned. He won, but with the result raising barely a murmur in news reports.)

The parlous condition of politics as a philosophy in Britain is indicated by the fact that the last two books of worth, "The Case for Conservatism" by Quentin Hogg, and George Orwell’s "1984", were published in 1947 and 1948 respectively. Ironically, 1948 also saw the publication of Richard Weaver’s "Ideas Have Consequences" in the US. It was a book that helped to introduce to intellectuals in America the importance of ideas in political change, at the same time that Britain, unknowingly, ended its proud contribution to the tradition of political theory.

In America, history and political philosophy are still a vibrant part of political discussion vital to how --- for those who are interested --- an individual chooses a position on the validity of universal healthcare, welfare, electoral reform, taxation, and all the issues that appear again and again as the subject of political contention.

Whether that is an admirable trait in America’s enduring attempt to determine how to construct a virtuous society is debatable. Race and religion, for instance, still influence American politics in ways that many find perplexing. And the role of a partisan media in provoking dissension, especially to those who see the "neutral" standards of the BBC as the correct way to present the news, also disturbs many.

But for good or ill, history, or more accurately the individual American’s conceptions of the past, determines the content of contemporary US politics in ways that other countries have discarded. As a result, that American politics possesses a depth of philosophical argument about the role of the government in our lives that Europeans, for all their dismissals of the shallowness of opinion in the US, would do well to learn from.

China This Week: Rain-triggered Floods; South China Sea Issues; PLA Air Defense Drills; Sino-Latin America Ties

Floods Kill 1,072, 619 missing: Rain-triggered floods have left 1,072 people dead and 619 others missing this year in China.

The floods affected 140 million people in 28 provinces and regions and caused direct economic losses estimated at almost 210 billion yuan (almost $70 billion), said Shu Qingpeng, deputy director of the Office of State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters.

The flooding also destroyed more than 1.1 million homes and damaged 9.72 million hectares of farmland. China's large rivers, including the Yangtze, the Yellow and the Songhua, were all swollen to danger levels after heavy rains inundated more than 160 cities across the country.

China Opposes Vietnam, US on South China Sea: China firmly opposes any remarks and actions that violate its sovereignty over the Xisha Islands and adjacent waters in the South China Sea, said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu on Friday.

Jiang made the comment after Vietnamese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Nguyen Phuong Nga said, according to media reports, that Chinese vessels' seismic exploration activities near Xisha Islands had violated Vietnam's sovereignty.

"China has indisputable sovereignty over Xisha Islands and adjacent waters," Jiang reiterated in a news release.

Defense Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng said China had "indisputable sovereignty" over islands in the South China Sea and the surrounding waters, one week after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked of US "national interests" in the area.

Geng said at a press conference that China would push for the resolution of differences regarding the South China Sea with "relevant countries" through dialogue and negotiations and that Beijing objected to having the issue internationalised.

China would respect the liberty of ships and aircraft from "relevant countries" traversing the South China Sea in accordance with international laws, Geng added.

China held military drills in waters alongside US-South Korean exercises, leading to speculation that China had staged them intentionally to send a message to the US.

But Geng denied there was any connection, "The increased exposure of Chinese military exercises aims to showcase a more open, pragmatic and transparent Chinese military. I hope our friends in the media correctly analyze and understand the exercises and do not speculate or over-interpret them."

12,000 Take Part in Air Defence Drills: Chinese air defence forces on Thursday battled rain during a five-day military exercise.

More than 12,000 Chinese military personnel, along with seven types of military aircraft, took part "Vanguard 2010", which started on Tuesday in seven cities across Henan and Shandong Provinces.

Reports said the annual drill, consisting of two phases to run from Tuesday to Saturday, would feature emergency evacuations, war planning, reconnaissance, early warning activities, ground-to-air attacks, and evacuations of command posts during its first phase which ends on Thursday.

Its second phase includes testing Chinese air defense troops' abilities in fighting air units in a "complicated electromagnetic environment".

China to enhance army's capabilities: China's armed forces will continue to enhance their capabilities and military readiness to safeguard sovereignty, security, and development of the nation, Defense Minister Liang Guanglie said.

Liang made the remarks while addressing a reception held in Beijing to mark the 83rd anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

Liang said the army should strengthen military training, adopt more high-technology weapons and equipment, improve military logistics, and increase combat capabilities by using information technology.

Meanwhile, a spokesman said China's defense expenditure has been maintained at a "reasonable and appropriate level".

China's annual defense expenditure has been around 1.4 percent of its GDP in recent years while the share of some major world powers is between 2 and 4 percent, according to Geng Yansheng.

China Hopes US to Contribute to Military Exchange: China called on the United States to "handle carefully" sensitive issues such as arms sale to Taiwan and contribute to the development of military-to-military relations between the two countries.

Senior Colonel Geng Yansheng, spokesman of China's Ministry of National Defense, urged the US to create "favorable environment and conditions" to promote military-to-military relations between the countries.

In January, China cut off some military exchanges with the US following the Pentagon's decision to sell a $6.4-billion arms package to Taiwan.

Chinese FM’s visit to Austria, Latin America: Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said his visit to Austria, Mexico, Cuba and Costa Rica was a great success, claiming consensus with leaders and foreign ministers on the international financial crisis and reforms, climate change, and the UN Millennium Development Goals.

Yang said annual trade with Latin America has reached nearly $150 billion, and China has become the region's second biggest trade partner.

Venezuela and China discussed ten agreements involving cooperation in energy, mining, food and gas sectors. China agreed to back Venezuela's 17 development projects by providing $4 billion in credit loans via the China Development Bank (CDB).

China's policy toward Pacific Islands countries: China will continue to provide assistance to help the Pacific Island countries build capacity to tackle global financial crisis and climate change, and support the sustainable development, said Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai.

Cui made the remarks at the the 22nd Pacific Islands Forum's Dialogue Meeting, which was held in the Vanuatu capital of Port Vila on Friday.

China, Iran pledge to carry out cooperation projects: China and Iran on Friday pledged to pursue cooperation projects after a meeting between Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang and visiting Iranian Oil Minister Masoud Mirkazemi.



The Chinese Foreign Ministry release did not specify the cooperation projects nor where they would be implemented.

Iran is one of the major crude oil suppliers to China and a crucial trade partner in west Asia and north Africa.

It was in the fundamental interests of both countries to cement friendly and cooperative ties, Li said. China would like to work with Iran to cement political trust, maintain communication and coordination on international and regional issues so as to safeguard regional and world peace, stability and prosperity, he added.



China Opposes EU sanctions on Iran: China opposed unilateral sanctions levied on Iran by the European Union, said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu.

"We hope the relevant parties will adhere to diplomatic means on the issue," said Jiang in response to a question. China maintains that the Iran nuclear issue should be resolved through dialogue and negotiations, she added.

China to Participate in Drill in Kazakhstan: More than 1,000 army and air force officers and soldiers from China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) will take part in an anti-terror exercise in Kazakhstan this autumn.

The "Peace Mission 2010" exercise will be the seventh of its kind held under the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

China reaffirms friendship with DPRK: Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue said on Friday that China is committed to consolidating ties with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea .

In a meeting with Yang Hyong Sop, Vice President of the Presidium of North Korea's Supreme People's Assembly, Hu said Chinese leaders attach great importance to the bilateral relationship. It is China's steadfast policy to continuously consolidate and enhance good neighbourliness and friendly cooperation with the DPRK.

China to Launch Fifth Orbiter: China will launch a fifth orbiter into space, as part of its satellite navigation and positioning network, Beidou, in the next few days.



The network will eventually consist of 35 satellites. China started building its own satellite navigation system in 2000 to end its dependence upon the U.S. GPS system. Beidou is designed to provide navigation, time and short message services in the Asia and Pacific region in 2010 and will be capable of providing global navigation services by 2020.

New Plan Targets Pollution: China plans to introduce ambitious new targets for the reduction of major pollutants in the upcoming 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-15).

Two new pollution indicators, nitrogen oxide --- mainly discharged from power plants and vehicles --- and ammonia nitrogen, a major measure of water quality, will be added to the emission control list for the next five years, said Gao Dongsheng, deputy director of the department of energy conservation and resources utilization within the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

Population Control in Beijing: In a move to reduce a burgeoning population, the Beijing People's Congress has advocated a restriction of low-wage workers in the capital through closures of small businesses.

The Congress recommended population control measures be part of the city's 2011-15 development plan, with an adjustment of industries through the introduction of more skilled workers and a reduction in the overall demand for laborers.

Beijing's population reached 19.72 million at the end of 2009. Among this figure, 7.26 million people were migrant workers who had been living in the city for more than six months. If unregistered migrant workers and people on short visits to the capital are also taken into consideration, the floating population in Beijing could have exceeded 10 million, the municipal officials said in the report.

China's first amphibious plane starts test flight: The first China-made amphibious plane, Seagull 300, begins its test flight on Thursday.

The plane can take off from and land on a 600-metre-long and 50-metre-wide runway either on the land or on the water.

The four-to-six-passenger plane costs more than 4 million yuan ($600,000) and can be used for business, passenger, cargo, medical aid, or sightseeing flights.