attechno-Medicine News: Kyrgyzstan President Bakiyev refuses to resign

Kyrgyzstan's President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who was forced to flee the capital Bishkek amid a bloody uprising, has insisted he will not resign.

In a series of interviews, Mr Bakiyev said he was in the south and would not leave. But he accepted he had lost control of the security forces.

The opposition, under ex-foreign minister Roza Otunbayeva, says it has taken full power.

The violent uprising has left 75 people dead and more than 1,000 injured.

Further sustained gunfire was heard after nightfall on Thursday, with Reuters news agency quoting the interior ministry as saying police were battling hundreds of looters.

'Repression and tyranny'

Mr Bakiyev, who came to power in a revolution in the Central Asian state five years ago, fled the bloody clashes in Bishkek on Wednesday reportedly to fly to the city of Osh.

A big role was played by people giving out money, handing out alcohol

President Kurmanbek Bakiyev,
speaking to the BBC

Q&A: Kyrgyzstan unrest

In pictures: Kyrgyzstan revolt

He told BBC Russian he was in southern Kyrgyzstan but would not disclose the exact location.

Mr Bakiyev said he was the legitimate president and condemned the uprising, saying "armed people are strolling the streets of the capital - stealing things, looting and pillaging, killing people. And this new 'interim government'... is completely incapable of imposing order - and they're simply blaming the president for everything."

But he added: "If this so-called 'temporary' government that has appointed itself is prepared to begin negotiation talks, then I'm prepared to listen to them."

In an earlier interview with Russia's Ekho Moskvy radio station he insisted he had "no plans" to leave Kyrgyzstan but admitted: "I don't have any real levers of power."

For more info:

Map of Kyrgysztan with key locations

Bishkek: Opposition claim to have control. Protesters still surround government HQ (aka the White House) which has been ransacked and part of it set on fire. Reports of looting in the city.

Osh: President Bakiyev has a support base in the country's second city and is believed to be in Jalal-Abad.

Naryn: Second day of unrest. New opposition governor installed.

Talas: Uprising began here on 6 April. Interior minister beaten up by protesters on 7 April who stormed police HQ and installed new governor.

Border with Kazakhstan is closed.

"Limited operations" at US military base in Manas.

US and Russian nuclear arsenals

US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, signed a landmark nuclear arms treaty in the Czech capital, Prague on Thursday.

The treaty commits the former Cold War enemies to each reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 - 30% lower than the previous ceiling. Here is a breakdown of their respective arsenals.

USA US Flag
RUSSIA Russia Flag

Intercontinental ballistic missile

Minuteman Topol

Name
No.
Warheads
Name
No.
Warhead

After the Nuclear Posture Review: The Next Steps

Posted by Nikolas K. Gvosdev on 04/07/2010 :: Permalink :: Comments

The Nuclear Posture Review has been released. Now the hard part begins: translating its recommendations into hard policy.

The drafters of the report had to engage in a policy version of "jenga": where the clarification of a policy goal, a modification in position or even an outright change in one area might have negative ramifications in another area. Is moving the U.S. away from decades of strategic ambiguity about when and under what circumstances we might employ nuclear weapons help our non-proliferation efforts (by taking nuclear weapons use off the table in a number of scenarios) or hurt them (because allies and partners might decide that the worth of America's nuclear umbrella has been lessened)? Does de-emphasizing the importance of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy lessen their importance for other countries--or will other states conclude that nuclear weapons are the only way to balance against America's overwhelming conventional (and technological) advantages on the battlefield?

The NPR is only a start. What now matters is what signals are sent, not just from policy statements and speeches, but in terms of budgetary priorities. Will the United States engage in a major overhaul of its conventional capabilities so that America can credibly threaten other states and actors with a devastating conventional equivalent of nuclear force? Will there be increased deployments overseas of U.S. military personnel and equipment (and/or increased sales of sensitive U.S. conventional systems to allies) to bolster security guarantees (and to prevent other states from re-assessing the value of U.S. promises of protection)? This NPR certainly doesn't lead to any sort of "peace dividend"; on the contrary, if the U.S. is going to maintain its current strategic position and network of alliances, then upgrading conventional capabilities, reinforcing the ability to deploy overseas and continuing to devote significant funds to research and develop new technologies capable of making nuclear weapons obsolete are all on the table.

A bigger question is whether the U.S. political and pundit classes will be comfortable with the perception of heightened risk. If one believes that, during the Gulf War of 1991, Saddam Hussein had been deterred from using his unconventional weapons--even when launching ballistic missile strikes--because of the threat delivered to him that the U.S. reserved the right to use nuclear force in retaliation, then having the United States now come out and take use of nuclear weapons off the table in most instances might affect the willingness to deploy U.S. military forces into situations where some sort of WMD might be used to inflict mass casualties. There is also the loss of the reassurance that the U.S. could turn a potential enemy into a slag of radioactive glass and wash its hands of the problem.

But let's face it: the NPR doesn't change the basic calculus that U.S. military internventions ought to be driven by needs of national interest, not whether or not they are "easy" or "cost free." In none of its post-Cold War military actions was the United States going to employ the use even of low-yield nuclear weapons which would have provided no advantages on the battlefield and been extremely corrosive to other core U.S. security goals--such as ensuring that nuclear weapons are never used again, and certainly not seen as "just another weapons system."

The NPR, therefore, must be integrated into an overall recabilibration of U.S. strategy--and I wait to see how its principles will be reflected in the next several defense budgets submitted by the administration.

World powers in UN meeting on Iran nuclear sanctions

Susan Rice at the UN in New York 2009

US envoy to the UN, Susan Rice, says negotiations are progressing swiftly

The UN ambassadors of six world powers are meeting in New York to discuss possible sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear programme.

China and Russia have so far refused to back the new measures put forward by the US and some European delegations.

At a meeting in the Czech Republic with his Russian counterpart, US President Barack Obama called for a "strong" fourth round of sanctions on Iran.

Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev said he would support only "smart" sanctions.

"Unfortunately Tehran is not reacting to an array of constructive compromise proposals. We cannot close our eyes to this," Mr Medvedev said after the US and Russian leaders signed a landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty in the Czech capital, Prague.

Russia, like China, has the power to veto sanctions.

Iran insists its uranium enrichment programme is for peaceful purposes.

For more info

Obama to ratchet up Iran pressure over nuclear plans.

Iranian leaders accuses U.S

Iranian nuclear missile fear raisereport d by UN

SPORTS

Live - Masters day one