Clinton: Russia sees Iran threat

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told the BBC that Russia now recognises the threat posed by Iran.

Wrapping up a European tour in Moscow, Mrs Clinton said Russian leaders had in private said they were ready to act if Tehran did not meet its obligations.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday that sanction threats against Iran were counter-productive.

Iran denies Western allegations it is trying to build the bomb under cover of a civilian nuclear energy programme.

Mrs Clinton told the BBC on Wednesday that Russia in the past six months had "moved tremendously" to acknowledge the threat of Iran's programme.

She said Russian officials, in private talks, had recognised the need to act if diplomacy failed.

"We are in total agreement on all of that," Mrs Clinton told the BBC.

"And we are also in agreement that if our diplomatic engagement is not successful then we have to look at other measures to take, including sanctions to try to pressure the Iranians."

As a permanent UN Security Council member, Russia would need to back any fresh sanctions against Iran.

Iran agreed at a meeting in Geneva at the start of this month to allow UN inspectors into a previously undisclosed nuclear site near its holy city of Qom, and to send low-enriched uranium abroad for enrichment to a higher level.

Mrs Clinton acknowledged to the BBC that Tehran had bought itself more time with this move.

But she said Tehran had also made commitments which the Russians and the Chinese now expected them to fulfil.

Putin absent

The US secretary of state could not meet Russia's key decision-maker, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, as he was visiting China.

Later, she headed for Kazan, the capital of the religiously and ethnically diverse region of Tatarstan, east of Moscow.

Her five-day European trip has included stops in Zurich, London and Belfast.

Earlier, Mrs Clinton urged Russia to respect human rights and democracy.

She was pressed by reporters on the failure of the Russian authorities to find the killer of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, and on the imprisonment of ex-tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

"I think we want the government to stand up and say this is wrong," she told Moscow radio station Echo.

US President Barack Obama, who met Mr Medvedev in July, has pledged to reset relations with Russia.

A month ago, following the revelations about Iran's second uranium enrichment facility at Qom, the Russian president said his government might ultimately accept further sanctions as inevitable.

Mr Obama, for his part, has met a key Russian demand to scrap plans to deploy interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic as part of a US missile defence system in Europe.

The US administration insisted it did not expect concessions in return.

But US officials have called on Russia to support, or at least not oppose, the idea of the UN Security Council imposing tougher sanctions on Iran if it fails to live up to its international obligations.

The council wants Iran to end uranium enrichment and has approved three rounds of sanctions - including bans on Iran's arms exports and all trade in nuclear material.

SOURCE : BBC

UK sends 500 more to Afghanistan

They will be sent as long as they have the necessary equipment, if other Nato allies boost their troop numbers and more Afghan soldiers are trained.

He earlier paid tribute to each of the 37 British service personnel killed in Afghanistan since the end of July, among the 221 who have died since 2001.

There are currently about 9,000 UK troops stationed in Afghanistan.

There are also 150 reserve troops in the country which the Ministry of Defence said would be available for further temporary deployments.

'Solemn moment'

Mr Brown devoted two minutes at the start of prime minister's questions to reading out the names of all those who had died in Afghanistan since Parliament rose for the summer recess.

Describing it as a "solemn moment" for Parliament and the country, he said their sacrifices would not be forgotten.

While nothing could "erase the pain" of bereaved families, Mr Brown added that they could be proud of the actions of their loved ones and know that their "influence" would live on.

In a statement later, Mr Brown said he was prepared, in principle, to send an extra 500 troops to Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan - where Nato troops are fighting fierce battles with the Taliban - in response to military advice.

Mr Brown said the troop reinforcements - which would increase overall UK troop numbers to 9,500 - were conditional on three factors.

The prime minister said he needed to be sure the troops had the equipment and training necessary to perform the tasks asked of them.

He said two additional Merlin helicopters would be sent to Helmand in the near future and that more armoured vehicles and other specialist equipment would be provided to counter the threat of roadside bombs.

He also insisted Nato countries must bear their "fair share" of the mission by sending more troops of their own and the Afghan government had to be prepared to substantially increase their own troop presence in Helmand.

'Safer Britain'

Only if he received such guarantees, Mr Brown said, would he be able to "justify" sending more troops.

However, Mr Brown defended the UK's continued presence in Afghanistan, saying a "safer Afghanistan was a safer Britain".

"When the safety of our country is at stake, we cannot and we will not walk away," he said. "We have the right strategy and we will see it through."

Conservative leader David Cameron and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg also paid tribute to those who had lost their lives.

However, they later raised issues with the prime minister about aspects of the Afghan war and support for British soldiers.

Mr Cameron said the military covenant with British troops needed to be "fundamentally re-examined" with more resources provided for helping badly injured troops with their rehabilitation.

He also said it was "totally unacceptable" some troops were not properly prepared for going to Afghanistan, mentioning the case of a Territorial Army soldier he said had told him he was not getting full training or pay.

Mr Brown said he was "determined" to ensure the armed forces received all the support they deserved and said he was confident that troops in Afghanistan were "properly resourced".

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg welcomed the supply of more helicopters but said there must be be a "radical" change of strategy in Afghanistan with more emphasis on political reconciliation.

The UK has the second-largest contingent after the US.

The BBC's defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said: "The prime minister will want assurances from military chiefs that the extra troops will be properly equipped.

"He'll also expect Britain's Nato partners to follow suit by offering more forces themselves."

Nato defence ministers are likely to discuss troop reinforcements at an informal meeting in Slovakia next week.

US President Barack Obama is currently considering a request by General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan, for up to 40,000 more international troops.

British forces have been in Afghanistan since October 2001, with more than two-thirds stationed in Helmand.

Military commanders have said extra troops are needed to build on the progress of this summer's Operation Panther's Claw, in which UK forces helped to expel insurgents from key areas but sustained heavy casualties in the process.

The question of troop numbers in Afghanistan has become highly politicised in recent months.

The ex-head of the Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, has claimed that No 10 turned down a request to send up to 2,000 more troops earlier this year - a suggestion Downing Street has denied.

Former defence secretary John Hutton said on Wednesday that it would have been "helpful" to have sent the extra troops six months ago.


Gordon Brown says the UK will send 500 more forces personnel to Afghanistan - but only if key conditions are met.

Over 40 countries contribute forces to the international mission in Afghanistan. Isaf has full details of current contributing nations.

SOURCE : BBC

Democrats Grow Wary as Health Bill Advances

WASHINGTON — Three of the five Congressional committees working on legislation to reinvent the nation’s health care system delivered bills this week along the lines proposed by President Obama. But instead of celebrating their success, many Democrats were apprehensive, nervous and defensive.

Even as Democratic leaders and the White House insisted that the nation was closer than ever to landmark changes in the health care system, they faced basic questions about whether some of their proposals might do more harm than good.

And while senior Democrats vowed to press ahead to meet Mr. Obama’s deadline of having both chambers pass bills before the summer recess, some in their ranks, nervous about the prospect of raising taxes or proceeding without any Republican support, were pleading to slow down.

Democrats had three reasons for concern. The director of the Congressional Budget Office warned Thursday that the legislative proposals so far would not slow the growth of health spending, a crucial goal for Mr. Obama as he also tries to extend insurance to more than 45 million Americans who lack it.

Second, even with House committees working in marathon sessions this week, it was clear that Democrats could not meet their goal of passing bills before the summer recess without barreling over the concerns of Republicans and ending any hope that such a major issue could be addressed in a bipartisan manner.

Third, a growing minority of Democrats have begun to express reservations about the size, scope and cost of the legislation, the expanded role of the federal government and the need for a raft of new taxes to pay for it all. The comments suggest that party leaders may not yet have the votes to pass the legislation.

Mr. Obama tried Friday to shift the political narrative away from the grim forecasts of the Congressional Budget Office. He said he and Congress had made “unprecedented progress” on health care, with even the American Medical Association endorsing the House bill this week.

He acknowledged a treacherous path ahead, saying, “The last few miles of any race are the hardest to run,” but insisted, “Now is not the time to slow down.” And he vowed: “We are going to get this done. We will reform health care. It will happen this year. I’m absolutely convinced of that.”

On Capitol Hill, the picture is more complex. Representative Jared Polis, a freshman Democrat from Colorado who voted against the bill approved Friday in the Education and Labor Committee, said he worried that the new taxes “could cost jobs in a recession.”

To help finance coverage of the uninsured, the House bill would impose a surtax on high-income people and a payroll tax — as much as 8 percent of wages — on employers who do not provide health insurance to workers.

Mr. Polis said these taxes, combined with the scheduled increase in tax rates resulting from the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts, would have a perverse effect. “Some successful family-owned businesses would be taxed at higher rates than multinational corporations,” he said.

In a letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Polis and 20 other freshman Democrats said they were “extremely concerned that the proposed method of paying for health care reform will negatively impact small businesses, the backbone of the American economy.”

And in the latest sign of lawmakers’ chafing at Mr. Obama’s ambitious timetable, a bipartisan group of six senators, including two members of the Finance Committee, sent a letter to Senate leaders pleading with them to allow more time.

“While we are committed to providing relief for American families as quickly as possible,” they wrote, “we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every individual in the United States.”

The group included three senators, Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska; and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, Republicans of Maine, who met with Mr. Obama at the White House this week and urged him not to rush the bill.

“The legislative process right now is going in the wrong direction,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, who also signed the letter. “I think it’s extremely doable to get this done before the end of the year. But just to try to get it passed in the Senate before we leave for the August recess seems just about impossible. It’s just too big a bill.”

The House education committee approved the bill, 26 to 22, on Friday morning, after an all-night session. Three Democrats crossed party lines and voted no.

The vote came eight hours after the House Ways and Means Committee approved a nearly identical bill, 23 to 18, with 3 Democrats voting no. On Wednesday, the Senate health committee approved a generally similar bill on a party-line vote, 13 to 10.

The House and Senate bills would require insurers to take all applicants and vastly expand coverage, with federal subsidies for millions of people.

But the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, testified on Thursday that doing so would come at a steep cost and that the proposals would not curb the rise in health spending by the federal government, which he called “unsustainable.”

A budget office analysis released Friday said the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years, partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors.

House Democrats who voted no cited various concerns.

“We are not doing enough to reform the health care delivery system, to change the incentives so reimbursement will be based on the value, rather than the volume, of services,” Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin said.

Others worry that a government-run health plan, to be created under the House bill, would underpay doctors and hospitals by using Medicare reimbursement rates. “I have a serious problem with the public plan in this bill because it’s based on Medicare rates,” Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota said. “North Dakota is underpaid by Medicare.”

Mr. Obama said he was confident that Congress and the White House would reach a deal on how to pay for the bill, and lower health care spending over the long term — an optimistic view that not all lawmakers share. But on one of Mr. Obama’s points, there was no dispute: “We’re going to be putting in a lot more hours,” the president said. “There are going to be a lot more sleepless nights.”

FONTE : THE NEW YORK TIME

Democrats Grow Wary as Health Bill Advances

WASHINGTON — Three of the five Congressional committees working on legislation to reinvent the nation’s health care system delivered bills this week along the lines proposed by President Obama. But instead of celebrating their success, many Democrats were apprehensive, nervous and defensive.

Even as Democratic leaders and the White House insisted that the nation was closer than ever to landmark changes in the health care system, they faced basic questions about whether some of their proposals might do more harm than good.

And while senior Democrats vowed to press ahead to meet Mr. Obama’s deadline of having both chambers pass bills before the summer recess, some in their ranks, nervous about the prospect of raising taxes or proceeding without any Republican support, were pleading to slow down.

Democrats had three reasons for concern. The director of the Congressional Budget Office warned Thursday that the legislative proposals so far would not slow the growth of health spending, a crucial goal for Mr. Obama as he also tries to extend insurance to more than 45 million Americans who lack it.

Second, even with House committees working in marathon sessions this week, it was clear that Democrats could not meet their goal of passing bills before the summer recess without barreling over the concerns of Republicans and ending any hope that such a major issue could be addressed in a bipartisan manner.

Third, a growing minority of Democrats have begun to express reservations about the size, scope and cost of the legislation, the expanded role of the federal government and the need for a raft of new taxes to pay for it all. The comments suggest that party leaders may not yet have the votes to pass the legislation.

Mr. Obama tried Friday to shift the political narrative away from the grim forecasts of the Congressional Budget Office. He said he and Congress had made “unprecedented progress” on health care, with even the American Medical Association endorsing the House bill this week.

He acknowledged a treacherous path ahead, saying, “The last few miles of any race are the hardest to run,” but insisted, “Now is not the time to slow down.” And he vowed: “We are going to get this done. We will reform health care. It will happen this year. I’m absolutely convinced of that.”

On Capitol Hill, the picture is more complex. Representative Jared Polis, a freshman Democrat from Colorado who voted against the bill approved Friday in the Education and Labor Committee, said he worried that the new taxes “could cost jobs in a recession.”

To help finance coverage of the uninsured, the House bill would impose a surtax on high-income people and a payroll tax — as much as 8 percent of wages — on employers who do not provide health insurance to workers.

Mr. Polis said these taxes, combined with the scheduled increase in tax rates resulting from the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts, would have a perverse effect. “Some successful family-owned businesses would be taxed at higher rates than multinational corporations,” he said.

In a letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Polis and 20 other freshman Democrats said they were “extremely concerned that the proposed method of paying for health care reform will negatively impact small businesses, the backbone of the American economy.”

And in the latest sign of lawmakers’ chafing at Mr. Obama’s ambitious timetable, a bipartisan group of six senators, including two members of the Finance Committee, sent a letter to Senate leaders pleading with them to allow more time.

“While we are committed to providing relief for American families as quickly as possible,” they wrote, “we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every individual in the United States.”

The group included three senators, Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska; and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, Republicans of Maine, who met with Mr. Obama at the White House this week and urged him not to rush the bill.

“The legislative process right now is going in the wrong direction,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, who also signed the letter. “I think it’s extremely doable to get this done before the end of the year. But just to try to get it passed in the Senate before we leave for the August recess seems just about impossible. It’s just too big a bill.”

The House education committee approved the bill, 26 to 22, on Friday morning, after an all-night session. Three Democrats crossed party lines and voted no.

The vote came eight hours after the House Ways and Means Committee approved a nearly identical bill, 23 to 18, with 3 Democrats voting no. On Wednesday, the Senate health committee approved a generally similar bill on a party-line vote, 13 to 10.

The House and Senate bills would require insurers to take all applicants and vastly expand coverage, with federal subsidies for millions of people.

But the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, testified on Thursday that doing so would come at a steep cost and that the proposals would not curb the rise in health spending by the federal government, which he called “unsustainable.”

A budget office analysis released Friday said the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years, partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors.

House Democrats who voted no cited various concerns.

“We are not doing enough to reform the health care delivery system, to change the incentives so reimbursement will be based on the value, rather than the volume, of services,” Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin said.

Others worry that a government-run health plan, to be created under the House bill, would underpay doctors and hospitals by using Medicare reimbursement rates. “I have a serious problem with the public plan in this bill because it’s based on Medicare rates,” Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota said. “North Dakota is underpaid by Medicare.”

Mr. Obama said he was confident that Congress and the White House would reach a deal on how to pay for the bill, and lower health care spending over the long term — an optimistic view that not all lawmakers share. But on one of Mr. Obama’s points, there was no dispute: “We’re going to be putting in a lot more hours,” the president said. “There are going to be a lot more sleepless nights.”

FONTE : THE NEW YORK TIME