ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝

Anyone who cares about what happens in Africa will be concerned at the unrest that has swept Kenya since the announcement of the hotly disputed results of the presidential election last weekend. Kenya should by rights be one of the most stable and prosperous nations in sub-Saharan Africa – that it isn’t is testament to decades of inadequate government.

Corruption under former president Daniel arap Moi ran rampant, and under President Kibaki little effective seems to have been done to deal with it. And the capital, Nairobi, has had a reputation for years now as one of the most violent and crime-ridden on the continent.

But amid all the expressions of concern over allegations of widespread vote-rigging by supporters of President Mwai Kibaki, there are a couple of points worth recalling.

First, Kenya has in the past been hailed as one of the still relatively few nations in Africa where an opposition has won power peacefully in an election. President Kibaki himself was the beneficiary, when in 2002 he won a convincing 62 per cent of the vote to defeat the candidate of the governing party, Uhuru Kenyatta. And there have been other African nations where opposition parties have won similar successes – Ghana, Mali, Senegal and Zambia, among others.

But as elsewhere (the Bhuttos in Pakistan, the Nehru-Gandhis in India, for example), dynastic and clan or tribal politics continue to play an important role. The Mr Kenyatta whom President Kibaki beat five years ago was the son of the revered independence leader Jomo Kenyatta. Mr Kibaki’s main opponent this time round was Raila Odinga, son of another famed independence fighter, and the country’s first vice-president, Oginga Odinga.

And here’s the key to what remains a serious issue in African democratic politics. The Kenyattas and Mr Kibaki are members of Kenya’s long dominant Kikuyu tribe. The Odingas are Luo (as, incidentally, was Barack Obama’s father), and have long felt discriminated against at the hands of the Kikuyu.

The problem with democracy is that, at least at election time, it emphasises and formalises divisions and differences. In a non-ideological age, those differences are more likely to be ethnic than policy-based – which is why in neighbouring Uganda, President Yoweri Museveni was reluctant for so long to allow multi-party politics.

So Kenya is now entering stormy waters. There is no doubt that voters are in the mood for change – the results of the parliamentary elections, which saw many government candidates, and several ministers, roundly defeated, showed that beyond doubt – and there is enough evidence from international election monitors to cause real concern about the accuracy of the official result of the presidential poll.

The violence that has claimed more than 100 lives looks dangerously sectarian as well as political. It won’t be easy to calm tempers with President Kibaki already sworn in for a second term as President.

UPDATE: Lots of angry Kenyan blogs from the Global Voices website .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The sad truth about politics on the Indian sub-continent is that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was so utterly predictable. The list of slain leaders is as long as it is depressing – from Benazir’s own father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, executed in 1979; the first two leaders of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, killed in 1975, and General Zia Rahman, killed in 1981; and the Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi, assassinated in 1984, and her son Rajiv, blown up by a suicide bomber in 1991.

The list teaches us two important lessons: one, that dynasties count for a great deal more than democracy in the region; and two, that jihadists are not the only people who murder national leaders. (Mrs Gandhi was shot by her Sikh bodyguards, Rajiv was assassinated by a Tamil suicide bomber.)

And on the subject of dynasties, by the way, the two most powerful leaders in Bangladesh today are Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Mujibur Rahman, and Khaleda Zia, widow of Zia Rahman. Both are currently in detention.

Pakistan now becomes the most dangerous of all current global flash-points. It is a nuclear power; and it harbours jihadists who in the past have played a major role in the disintegration of neighbouring Afghanistan and have offered finance, training and organisational infrastructure to bombers in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

That’s why Western diplomats will be working round the clock over the coming days to come up with a post-Benazir strategy. The plan was to finesse a Musharraf-Bhutto partnership that would keep Pakistan from spiralling into anarchy. That plan is now dead and will be buried with Benazir.

So what next? Well, Nawaz Sharif will now inevitably take centre stage as the most influential political leader not in uniform. Don’t be surprised to see former cricketer Imran Khan raising his profile, either – although there is little sign that he has any significant following in Pakistan.

Sharif, however, is not much trusted in Western capitals: he is facing serious corruption allegations (as was Benazir Bhutto) and is regarded as too close to the Islamists for the taste of Washington or London. In any case, as things currently stand, he is disbarred from being a candidate in the parliamentary elections, although as we saw with Bhutto, these things can be sorted out quite quickly if regarded as politically expedient.

The immediate priority, surely, will be to reassure the people of Pakistan that their country is not about to disintegrate. The responsibility for offering that reassurance is largely President Musharraf’s, but it won’t be easy, given that so many Pakistanis now want to see the back of him. Western governments can offer support in the short-term, but need to do so as discreetly as they can. And the army needs to keep in the background too.

In India, after the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984, there were real fears that the country would be unable to survive the trauma following her death. Thousands of Sikhs were massacred in revenge attacks in the days after her killing. Yet look at India now, one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Pakistan is not India. It is difficult, I admit, to see anything other than trouble ahead following Bhutto’s death – yet assassinations need not always tip a nation over the edge. Over the coming weeks and months, it won’t be only the people of Pakistan who will be holding their breath and hoping.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I had not intended to write anything here this week, but today's attack in Pakistan leaves me no option. Regular readers will know that I have long feared continued violence, and the murder of Benazir Bhutto was always a real possibility, as she herself was well aware. My guess now is that the parliamentary elections scheduled for early next month will now be postponed; it's also possible that President Musharraf will reimpose the state of emergency he lifted just a week ago.

Here are some comments from bloggers in Pakistan, courtesy of the excellent website :

This is a sad day for Pakistan. Bhutto was not perfect, but at least she was for a democratic process. Democracy once again dies with her.

In the nation whose history is dotted by military coups, assassinations and hangings of public figures, this is surely the bloodiest stain. She titled her autobiography, the Daughter of Destiny - but surely she deserved a fate other than the destiny of her father and Liaqut Ali Khan. It is truly a tragedy and a revelation of the chaos gripping the nation.

At a human level this is a tragedy like no other. Only a few days ago I was mentioning to someone that the single most tragic person in all of Pakistan - maybe all the world - is Nusrat Bhutto. Benazir’s mother. Think about it. Her husband, killed. One son poisoned. Another son assassinated. One daughter dead possibly of drug overdose. Another daughter rises to be Prime Minister twice, but jailed, exiled, and finally gunned down. Today, in shock, I can think only of Benazir Bhutto the human being. Tomorrow, maybe, I will think of politics.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

(This week's newsletter)

It’s that time of year again … when I go into a trance and pretend that I can forecast what’s going to happen in the year ahead. It’s a silly game, I know, but it keeps me amused.

How did I do with last year’s predictions? Well, I feared that violence in Iraq would get worse, which it didn’t. I’m perfectly happy to have been wrong on that one.

I said Somalia would descend into more factional fighting, which it has done, not that anyone has taken much notice. I also said Gordon Brown would take over as prime minister (I claim no prizes for that one), that the SNP would probably emerge as the largest single party in Scotland, which it did, and that there’d be an increase in anti-Scottish sentiment south of the border, which there has been.

I also said that Mr Brown “might be sorely tempted to call a snap election in the autumn, both to establish his own authority and to wrong-foot David Cameron”. Which he was, and much good did it do him …

I noted that June would mark the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War in the Middle East and suggested that Hamas would not want to let that go unnoticed. And guess what, June was when they seized control in Gaza.

Finally, I noted that Romania and Bulgaria were about to join the EU and that Germany was determined to revive the debate over the EU constitution, sorry, reform treaty. Both turned into major stories of 2007.

So, what do my tea leaves tell me about 2008? First the US presidential election, and no, daft I may be, but not daft enough to predict the outcome of that one. Not even the most respected US political pundits are daring to forecast the winner at the moment, although I do intend to be in the US in early February when the picture may become a great deal clearer after a whole series of primaries and caucuses. Ask me again then …

I think the big story of the coming year will be the economy … because both in the US and in this country, it looks as if the decade of growth is coming to an end. So the big question in my mind is whether governments and central bankers can manage the downturn. And I’ll be watching for more bad news from the banks as they discover that the wave of speculative finance they’ve been riding so profitably for the past few years is now crashing down on them.

Which means even fewer smiles, I suspect, from G Brown. I predict that the opinion polls will continue to make gloomy reading for Labour, that the anti-Brown sniping from his own party ranks will increase, and that the Tories will still find it difficult to believe their luck. As for Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems, I fear they’ll continue to feel the pinch: on one side, a Tory leader who disobligingly describes himself as a liberal; and on the other, a Labour party that isn’t led by Tony Blair.

I think we’ll hear less about Iran and more about Pakistan. President Putin of Russia will become Prime Minister Putin of Russia, and I doubt that anyone will notice the difference. The Olympics in Beijing will be the occasion for much breast-beating about human rights abuses in China, and it wouldn’t surprise me if something goes horribly wrong.

I’m also going to be keeping a close eye on Cuba, which is already in the throes of a transition to a post-Fidel future, and on Venezuela and Bolivia, where there are growing signs of popular dissatisfaction with their populist leftist leaders. And finally, unfinished business in Kosovo: I expect a unilateral declaration of independence in February or March, and then a lot of grumbling and mumbling and gnashing of teeth from Belgrade and Moscow. But I doubt it’ll explode into a major conflagration.

As for what’s left of this year, I do hope you’ll try to catch the programme on Monday, Christmas Eve: it’ll be a bit different from the usual fare, because (i) we’ve already recorded it; (ii) it’s all about one subject; and (iii) no, you’ll have to listen to find out …

I’m going to be taking a break next week, but The World Tonight will be on air as usual (except for Christmas Day and New Year's Eve), so you’ll have no excuse not to keep up with world events. In the meantime, thank you for all your support – and comments -- over the past year.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Michael Howard has a fascinating and detailed report in today’s about the burgeoning local armed patrol groups springing up in Baghdad. They’re bringing a semblance of peace to their neighbourhoods and even arranging to provide local services like rubbish collection.

But I can’t help wondering if there’s a downside too. Sure, they’ve played a major part in reducing the number of sectarian killings in recent months. But they are, in effect, new mini-militias, loyal to their families and neighbours but not to the government or any other central authority.

It’s possible, of course, that their sense of community could put pressure on the government to deliver more in the way of real benefits to the Iraqi people. But it’s also possible that they will over time coalesce into new armed factions, in control of their little slice of urban territory, but answerable to no one outside that territory.

Major General Abdul-Kareem Khalaf of the interior ministry is quoted in The Guardian piece as saying: "It is important that there must never be armed groups outside the framework of the law." Quite so, but these groups already exist, thanks largely to the active encouragement of the US military. So now the challenge will be to develop a proper working relationship between these armed groups and the hitherto far from impressive Maliki government.

I remember Beirut in the 1980s, when it too was controlled by neighbourhood armed groups. It was not a pretty sight.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Jacob Zuma is not yet President of South Africa, but after his election as leader of the ANC, it’s hard to see what now stands in his way (apart, that is, from the outstanding matter of some corruption allegations which may yet result in criminal charges being brought against him).

So from Nelson Mandela to Thabo Mbeki, and from Mbeki to Zuma. It’s quite a political path the country has walked down since those unforgettable days of 1994, when against all expectations, South Africa made the transition to multi-racial democracy without drowning in blood.

Mbeki was nothing like Mandela, and Zuma is nothing like Mbeki. I have had the rare privilege of interviewing all three of them, and it’s hard to imagine three men more different. Mandela: patrician, dignified, forgiving. Mbeki: aloof, intellectual, reserved. Zuma: outgoing, charismatic, larger than life.

So what would South Africa be like if one day Jacob Zuma is President? He is already promising much for those who have yet to see much material benefit from the ending of apartheid. And he certainly seems able to engender the kind of popular enthusiasm that Mbeki has never been very good at.

But his former financial adviser is already in jail after having been convicted of corruption. Zuma himself has been at the centre of corruption allegations for some years now – he denies all wrong-doing and insists that the allegations are politically-motivated. In 2005, he was also charged with rape, and acquitted, but not before admitting having had unprotected sex with a woman he knew to be HIV-positive. (He was head of the National AIDS Council at the time.)

For now, he and Mbeki insist that they will work together. But the contest for the party leadership was sometimes an ugly business, and there are doubts about how long their dual stewardship will survive. On last night’s programme. the general secretary of the trade union movement COSATU, Zwelinzima Vavi, who was among Zuma’s staunchest supporters, told me there’s no question of any “revenge”. You can hear my interview with him and the rest of our coverage of Zuma’s election here.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I thought you might be interested to know how the various "old" and "new" media can sometimes interact, to the advantage of both. Last week, while I was in Cairo to record a debate for the ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝ World Service about new media in the Arab world, I read online an article by of the Financial Times, in which he suggested that "this is the era of the small state." Sitting in my Cairo hotel room with my laptop, I wrote a response on this blog, which you can read here. It was picked up by another blog, , and provoked a number of interesting replies. Tonight, on The World Tonight, we're broadcasting a debate on the subject between Gideon Rachman and Mark Leonard of the . From newspaper to blog, from blog to blog, then from blog to radio, and finally, back to blog again. I think the word is synergy ...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

(This week's newsletter)

Don’t you love it when politics gets all cosy? Like in Argentina, for example, where President Nestor Kirchner has just handed over the baton (literally) to President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Yes, she’s his wife. And yes, she was elected.

Or in the US, where President Bush I was followed by President Clinton I, who was followed by President Bush II (son), who may soon be followed by President Clinton II (wife).

My favourite, though, isn’t exactly “keep it in the family”, although it’s not far off. President Putin of Russia said this week that he thinks first deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev would make an excellent President. To which Mr Medvedev replied that he thinks Mr Putin would make an equally excellent Prime Minister. See what I mean by cosy?

But I’m not sure we should accept these Kremlin games of “happy families” at face value. Can you really imagine strongman President Putin suddenly becoming meek and obedient Prime Minister Putin, playing the loyal subordinate to a new President?

No, nor can I. In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, people who studied Kremlin power games were known as Kremlinologists. I think we now need a few Putinologists to guide us through what look likely to be some exceptionally interesting times up to and beyond the Russian presidential election in March.

On the subject of which: why do you think Mr Putin has turned against the British Council? The authorities have ordered all the British Council’s regional offices to shut down before the end of the year. Officially, it’s something to do with the council’s tax status and the fact that it charges Russians for language lessons. But as the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov openly admitted in a ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝ interview this week, it’s really the latest move in the ongoing battle over the murder of the former Russian intelligence official Alexander Litvinenko in London a year ago.

President Putin attaches a lot of importance to looking strong. (Remember those photos of him in the summer, bare-chested and virile-looking as he went fishing?) That’s why he occasionally switches off the gas supplies to uppity neighbours (Belorus and Ukraine). It’s also why in the summer Russian bombers started flying Cold War-style sorties close to NATO and US areas.

It’s also, I suspect, why he’s taking action against the British Council. As I’ve written here before, the Russian bear may have been asleep – and a bit out of form – for a few years, but it’s wide awake now and feeling fighting fit.

We need to keep this in perspective. I don’t for one moment believe that the Kremlin wants to go to war, of either the hot or cold variety. But it doesn’t like being taken for granted. So it won’t, for example, sign up to independence for Kosovo, which is a major headache for the US and the EU.

It’s also making ominous noises about restarting the arms race unless it can do a deal with Washington over the anti-missile defence installations which the US wants to build in Poland and the Czech Republic. And in its current mood, don’t even think about getting Moscow’s approval for a new UN sanctions package for Iran. Amazing, isn’t it, how a few billions from oil and gas sales can do such wonders for your self-confidence.

I remember someone telling me shortly after the end of the Cold War that one of the new realities of the post-Soviet world was that you could get nothing done in the international arena without the approval of Washington. Moscow’s ambition now, I suspect, is that we should start thinking the same about them.

It’ll be interesting to see how President-to-be Medvedev decides to play his cards.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

(this piece also appears on thewebsite.)

It’s never easy writing about media freedom. Even in countries where there is no official censorship, all reporters know there will always be some restraints on what they can say: editors need to be persuaded, owners need to be kept happy, the law has to be obeyed.

Where there is official censorship – where, for example, it is a crime to “bring the government into disrepute” or to publish material which “insults the dignity of the head of state” – the problems are all the greater. No freedom is absolute, yet some media are a great deal freer than others.

In the Arab world, in general, the media have been heavily politicised. Governments have tended to control the main media outlets – the main daily newspaper, the main TV and radio networks – and where independent media have been allowed, they have often been owned by opposition parties or by businesspeople with clear links to political organisations. (The establishment of the Qatar-based al-Jazeera TV news station was a rare special case.)

But then, one day, along came the internet. And it was as if someone had blown open a few million doors. Now, everyone can write – weblogs, or blogs, were born, giving everyone with access to the internet exactly the same opportunity to write and publish as the most powerful media tycoon.

That, at least, is the theory. There are now 70 million blogs in existence; 120,000 new ones spring up every day. True, most of them are read only by their authors, but some have immense influence – and in the Arab world, some are now much more popular than the traditional print and broadcast media.

But being online doesn’t mean being free of government restrictions. In Egypt, bloggers can claim some successes: after they posted video images of police torturing detainees in custody, police officers were put on trial and jailed. But one blogger has himself been jailed for insulting Islam, defaming President Hosni Mubarak, and "spreading information disruptive of the public order." Others face harassment and live in fear of arrest.

So are the “new media” – blogs, websites, chatrooms – now becoming the only truly independent media in the Arab world? That was the question at the centre of a ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝ debate I chaired in Cairo last week – and the response from the audience, despite the restrictions still in place, was overwhelmingly Yes. (Mind you, I had the impression that most of the audience were themselves keen bloggers, so they may not have been an entirely representative sample.)

Many contributors to our debate said they trust what they read on blogs much more than what they read in the newspapers or hear reported on the official broadcast media. To which the response from the “old media” journalists was: but who checks what the bloggers write? Who edits it? If you don’t even know the blogger, how do you know they are trustworthy?

An American former dotcom entrepreneur wrote of the blogging phenomenon: "It's seductive in the sense that it convinces people to think they have more to say and are more interesting than they really are." On the other hand, if they’re boring and have nothing to say, no one will read them.

If there is little trust in the established media, it is hardly surprising that many people, especially young people, will turn to new media. But the consensus at our debate in Cairo seemed to be that, for the time being at least, there is a need for both old and new. After all, some of us straddle the divide: many of us “old media” journalists now also write “new media” blogs.

(The Cairo Free to Speak debate will be broadcast on ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝ World Service on Tuesday 18 December at 1306 GMT and 1806 GMT.)

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What does a person’s car of choice tell you about that person? Here’s a list, compiled by the Associated Press, of what some of the main US presidential candidates drive: make of it what you will.

Hillary Clinton: Ford Hybrid
John Edwards: Ford Escape Hybrid; 2004 Chrysler Pacifica midsize SUV; 1994 GMC truck
Barack Obama: Chrysler 300C sport luxury sedan
Rudy Giuliani: “I don’t drive; I navigate.”
Mike Huckabee: 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe; 1995 Chevrolet Silverado pickup
Mitt Romney: 2005 Ford Mustang convertible; 1962 Rambler American

Funny, isn’t it: not a Japanese vehicle among them …

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

(From this week's newsletter)

Here’s a little test for you. Question 1: Do you think the US intelligence agencies got it right about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction? Question 2: Do you think the US intelligence agencies have got it right now about Iran having suspended its nuclear weapons programme four years ago?

My guess is you answered No to Question 1. (It’s not too difficult, as the agencies themselves have admitted they got it wrong.) But what did you answer to Question 2?

First, a reminder of what the new US National Intelligence Estimate said on Monday: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.”

Compare that with what was being said two years ago: “[We] assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure.”

Were they right then, or are they right now? If you accept that they got it wrong about Iraq, are you more likely to accept that they’re right about Iran? I don’t know about you, but this kind of stuff makes my head hurt.

So, always anxious to be of service, I have been trying to discover why the spooks and spies have changed their minds. Here’s what the reported yesterday: “American intelligence agencies reversed their view about the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program after they obtained notes last summer from the deliberations of Iranian military officials involved in the weapons development program …

“The notes included conversations and deliberations in which some of the military officials complained bitterly about what they termed a decision by their superiors in late 2003 to shut down a complex engineering effort to design nuclear weapons, including a warhead that could fit atop Iranian missiles.”

Which immediately raises another question: Where might they have obtained these all-important notes? Well, there’s an intriguing theory (and it is, as far as I know, no more than that) that a man named may have something to do with it. He’s a retired general in the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards, a former deputy defence minister who was cold-shouldered after President Ahmadinejad came to power and who disappeared (defected?) in Turkey last February.

The Michigan-based Middle East analyst describes him as “someone who knows where all the bodies are buried with regard to Iranian covert operations” – and recalls that at the time of Asghari’s disappearance, a Turkish newspaper reported that “Turkish intelligence and police had discovered that Asghari was opposed to the Iranian government and that he holds information regarding its nuclear plan.”

All of which may, or may not, help you make up your mind. My point is simply this: intelligence estimates are, as their name suggests, estimates. They are only as good as their source material and the analysis of that material. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are not. Unfortunately, we often don’t find out which is which until long after the decisions based on the estimates have been made. But given what you’ve just read, if you had to make a decision now about how to approach Iran, what would you decide?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Is small beautiful when it comes to the size of states? Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times has an interesting piece , in which he argues: “If the formation of new countries can be achieved peacefully, it is usually a cause for celebration. This is the age of the small state.”

The context is Kosovo, and its expected impending unilateral declaration of independence. (See my previous blogs about Kosovo here and here.) Many pundits are predicting a crisis in the Balkans, as it, well, Balkanises.

Rachman argues that many of the world’s happiest and most successful states are (relatively) small, by which he means with populations of less than 10 million. Just because Kosovo would be small, he suggests, doesn’t automatically mean it’d be a disaster.

But is size really a deciding – or even a significant – factor? For every successful small state (Finland, Switzerland, Ireland), I can name an unsuccessful one (East Timor, Eritrea, Equitorial Guinea). I think I’d be tempted to leave size out of it and look elsewhere when trying to work out what makes some nations work well and others not.

I seem to recall it was a French philosopher who once defined a nation as “a group of people united by a hatred of their neighbours and a mistaken view of their history.” Cynical, perhaps, but it helps to move the focus away from the size of a nation to who lives in it and what is contained beneath its soil.

Is homogeneity a useful attribute? (In which case, what about the US?) Are natural resources essential? (You might think it’s obvious, but what about Singapore? Yes, I know it’s got a harbour, but what else?) Equitorial Guinea has plenty of oil, but meets pretty much all the requirements of a classic failed state.

And anyway, note Rachman’s all-important qualifier: “if small countries can be formed peacefully …” Would an independent Kosovo be born in peace? Would it be born at all, had it not been for NATO warplanes in action over Serbia in 1999? I agree, it would be nice to be able to imagine a peaceful, prosperous, independent Kosovo, born with the good wishes and hosannas of all its neighbours, but I fear it ain’t going to happen like that.

So what would you say makes for a successful and peaceful nation?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I won't make a habit of urging you to read US National Intelligence Estimates, but is pretty interesting stuff. You know that Iranian nuclear weapons programme that Washington has been so worried about? Turns out it was stopped four years ago. Go to the bit headed "Key Judgments" and judge for yourself.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?