Argentina asks U.S. court for rehearing in fight with bondholders

By Nate Raymond

NEW YORK | Fri Sep 6, 2013 11:34pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Argentina urged a U.S. appeals court Friday to reconsider an order last month requiring it to pay $1.33 billion in favor of hedge funds that have refused to participate in two debt restructurings that sprang from Argentina's 2002 default.

In a court filing, Argentina asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York for a rehearing either by the three-judge panel that issued the August 23 decision or by a larger group of 14 judges on the court.

"The decision makes grave legal errors that magnify the error of the panel's previous unprecedented holdings," Argentina's lawyers wrote.

The petition for a so-called en banc hearing sets the stage for a final attempt by Argentina to reverse a ruling that has created concerns of a potential new debt crisis in South America's third-largest economy.

The case, which could ultimately find itself at the U.S. Supreme Court, stems from Argentina's $100 billion default on its sovereign debt in 2002.

In two restructurings in 2005 and 2010, creditors holding around 93 percent of Argentina's debt agreed to participate in debt swaps that gave them 25 cents to 29 cents on the dollar.

But bondholders led by the hedge funds NML Capital Ltd, which is a unit of Paul Singer's Elliott Management Corp, and Aurelius Capital Management went to court, seeking payment in full.

The case was filed in New York under the terms of the language in the bond documents.

After years of litigation, the holdout bondholders won a major coup in October 2012, when the 2nd Circuit upheld a ruling from earlier in the year by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa, who found that Argentina violated a clause in the bond documents requiring the equal treatment of creditors.

The court sent the case back to Griesa to determine how the payment mechanism would function and how injunctions he issued would apply to third parties and intermediary banks.

Griesa in November 2012 ordered Argentina to pay $1.33 billion into a court-controlled escrow account for the dissident bondholders. The appellate court last month affirmed that holding.

Argentina has refused to pay the holdouts in full. If it continues to refuse, U.S. courts could enforce injunctions blocking payment overseas to bondholders who participated in past restructurings, setting the stage for a possible new default.

Implementation of the 2nd Circuit's August ruling has been put on hold while the United State's highest court decides whether to hear the case. Argentina's next debt payment at the end of September is for $164 million, according to Friday's brief.

At a hearing Tuesday, Griesa said "the plaintiffs here are still faced with a Republic who will not pay what is required of the Republic."

He added: "Hopefully, when the 2nd Circuit decision becomes final, if the Supreme Court turns that down, that defiant attitude will change."

But in its brief Friday, Argentina's U.S. lawyers said the reaction by the country's officials wasn't defiance but "the reaction any state would have to such a prospect" about the possible impact on its debt being paid.

Argentina's Senate, at the urging of President Cristina Fernandez, voted Wednesday to indefinitely open a bond swap that would offer holdouts the same terms as a prior swap in 2010.

Argentina is meanwhile pursuing an appeal of the earlier 2nd Circuit ruling in October 2012 to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose next term starts in October.

In seeking rehearing at the 2nd Circuit, Argentina's lawyers argued that the three-judge panel had incorrectly interpreted the equal-treatment clause in the bond documents.

It also contended the decision contravened the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which limits when foreign countries can be sued in U.S. courts.

The three-judge panel exceeded its powers, Argentina argued, by finding the limited remedies open to the holdouts under FSIA were inadequate and justified court orders to coerce it to giving holdouts relief intended to force the country to paying damages.

"Courts cannot use their remedial powers to override the intent of Congress," Argentina argued.

Hours before Argentina sought rehearing by the full 2nd Circuit, a group of creditors who participated in the debt swaps and hold more than $1.5 billion in exchange bonds made the same request.

The bondholders, which include Gramercy Financial Group LLC, warned that the injunction if upheld would likely trigger a default on $65 billion worth of exchange bonds, creating "devastating consequences" for the global economy and sovereign debt restructurings.

Hearings en banc by the full appeals court are rare. From 2001 to 2010, the 2nd Circuit granted such petitions just 0.03 percent of the time, according to a study by the Federal Bar Council.

The case is NML Capital Ltd et al v. Republic of Argentina, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-105.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

View the original article here

U.S. moves to ease employers' Obama health-law burden

A Tea Party member reaches for a pamphlet titled ''The Impact of Obamacare'', at a ''Food for Free Minds Tea Party Rally'' in Littleton, New Hampshire in this October 27, 2012 file photo.

Credit: Reuters/Jessica Rinaldi//Files

By Kim Dixon

WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 5, 2013 6:46pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury Department on Thursday issued proposed rules aimed at easing the requirements for companies and insurers when they report employees' health coverage information to comply with President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.

The proposed regulations are a key element of the employer mandate portion of the law. Implementation of the rules had been delayed while the Treasury Department attempted to simplify them to address concerns of employers.

"We will continue to consider ways, consistent with the law, to simply the new information reporting process," said Mark Mazur, assistant treasury secretary for tax policy.

The law, widely known as Obamacare, requires employers with 50 or more workers to offer their full-time employees a minimum level of health insurance coverage or be subject to a fee.

If companies do not offer coverage and have at least one full-time worker receiving government tax credits to buy insurance, employers are assessed a fee of $2,000 per full-time employee, excluding the first 30 workers.

The administration caused a stir in July when it unexpectedly delayed the effective date for the reporting and for the employer mandate itself to 2015 from 2014.

Retailers in particular had complained about the law's detailed reporting requirements. A trade group commended the Obama administration for taking action to lighten the burden of the law. But the group's lobbyist said the administration did not go far enough.

"One thing retailers and other employers hate more than anything else is sending the same information to different agencies," said Neil Trautwein with the National Retail Federation, which represents Wal-Mart, Macy's Inc. and others.

The group wants the Internal Revenue Service to work with the Health and Human Services Administration to simplify the rules further.

Although the employer mandate has been delayed, the separate requirement that all individuals carry health insurance or pay a fee, goes into effect on January 1, 2014.

Thursday's proposal would, among other things, eliminate the need for employers to determine whether particular employees are full-time where adequate coverage is offered to all "potentially full-time employees." It also would let employers report specific costs for health plans only if the cost is above a certain threshold dollar amount.

The proposed rules would also allow, in certain instances, the reporting of healthcare information on W-2 tax forms that employers issue to workers, rather than a separate statement.

When the government delayed the effective dates of the mandate and reporting, they requested that companies voluntarily report starting in 2014.

Cathy Livingston, who worked on the health care rules as an IRS attorney, said it is likely that "a very limited number of entities would voluntarily choose to report."

"Employers and insurers will likely take a pass," said Livingston, now in private practice at Jones Day.

(Additional reporting by Patrick Temple-West; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Eric Beech, Cynthia Osterman and David Gregorio)

View the original article here

Obama's plan on Syria hinges on undecided U.S. lawmakers

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about Syria during a joint news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt at the Prime Minister's office in Stockholm, Sweden September 4, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

By Thomas Ferraro and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 5, 2013 8:07pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The fate of a congressional resolution to authorize President Barack Obama's planned military strikes on Syria hinged on Thursday on scores of undecided U.S. lawmakers, with party loyalty appearing increasingly irrelevant.

Even after congressional hearings featuring Obama's secretaries of state and defense, a half dozen closed-door briefings and phone calls from Obama himself, it was too close to call on whether Congress will authorize military force.

Obama asked Congress to back his plan for limited strikes in response to a chemical weapons attack on civilians that the United States blames on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

First-term Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who had been seen as a possible swing vote, dealt the president a setback when he announced on Thursday he would oppose the resolution to authorize military strikes.

"Given the case that has been presented to me, I believe that a military strike against Syria at this time is the wrong course of action," Manchin said.

Republican Representative Michael Grimm, who initially backed Obama's call last month for military strikes, withdrew his support on Thursday. "Unfortunately, the time to act was then and the moment to show our strength has passed," said Grimm, a Marine combat veteran.

If Obama fails to win congressional support, he would face two undesirable options. One would be to go ahead with military strikes anyway, which could provoke an angry showdown with Congress over their respective powers.

The other would be to do nothing, which White House officials privately acknowledge would damage the credibility of any future Obama ultimatum to other countries.

Twenty-four of the Senate's 100 members oppose or lean toward opposing authorizing military strikes, according to estimates by several news organizations, with an equal number favoring military action and roughly 50 undecided.

Every vote will count in the Senate, where a super-majority of 60 will likely be needed because of possible procedural hurdles for a final vote on approving military action.

A count by the Washington Post listed 103 members of the House of Representatives as undecided, of whom 62 are Democrats. There are 433 members currently sitting in the House.

Party loyalty, which drives most issues in a Congress known for its partisan gridlock, was becoming increasingly irrelevant, particularly among Obama's fellow Democrats. Some Democratic liberals who usually line up behind Obama's policies have expressed reluctance to back an attack on Syria.

'I'M AN ADULT'

"I support the president," said Democratic Representative Bill Pascrell, who remained undecided.

"I want him to succeed. But he isn't asking me to be - nor will I be - a lap dog. So I will make my own decision. I'm an adult," Pascrell said.

Republicans have opposed Obama on a host of issues in Congress - and those aligned with the conservative Tea Party movement appear likely to do so on this matter. But other Republicans who favor strong American engagement internationally are lining up behind the Syria military strike authorization.

Most House Republicans are expected to vote "no," even though their top two leaders, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, have endorsed the military strikes.

While Obama administration officials continued to express confidence about ultimately winning congressional support, it was clear on Thursday that their blitz of briefings was not having the desired impact, especially with many lawmakers reporting opposition to strikes among their constituents.

Manchin said he listened to the concerns of thousands of people in his home state of West Virginia, attended hearings and briefings, and spoke with former and current military leaders.

In a statement, he said that "in good conscience, I cannot support" the resolution authorizing force and that he will work to develop other options. "I believe that we must exhaust all diplomatic options and have a comprehensive plan for international involvement before we act," Manchin added.

Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski told reporters, "I have more questions than I have answers, and I hope to get them over the course of today and tomorrow."

She spoke as she entered the latest closed-door session on Thursday with Obama's national security team, only to emerge two hours later saying she still had "more questions."

"What we heard today made a compelling forensic case that, one, nerve gas was used, and number two, that it was used" by Assad's forces, Mikulski said. "The next step, then, has to be ... what is the way to both deter and degrade his ability to ever do it again? ... Does a military strike do that?"

FIRST HURDLE CLEARED

The Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House both must approve the measure. It cleared its first hurdle on Wednesday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution by a 10-7 vote - with Democrats and Republicans voting on both sides of the issue.

The full Senate is likely to begin voting next Wednesday, a Senate aide said. It will start with a vote on an anticipated legislative roadblock by Republicans, and then move on to a vote on the resolution to authorize the use of force, the aide added.

The timing of a vote in the House remained unclear.

Memories of the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in the minds of members of Congress, leaving many in both parties worried that a military strike could lead to a longer and larger U.S. engagement in Syria.

If Obama is going to win passage of the measure in the House, he must convince fellow Democrats like Representative Zoe Lofgren and Pascrell.

The two liberals have been reliable Obama allies on a crush of issues since Obama entered office, but now voice plenty of questions and concerns about his bid to attack Syria.

Lofgren joined a conference call for House Democrats on Monday given by Obama administration officials. Lofgren complained that the briefing did not provide nearly as much information as she had sought and disliked at least a portion of Secretary of State John Kerry's presentation.

Kerry invoked memories of Nazi Germany when he told the House Democrats that the United States faces "a Munich moment" in deciding whether to wage military strikes against Syria.

"I thought it was a very unfortunate comment. We need facts, not overheated emotional rhetoric," Lofgren said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Susan Heavey and Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Fred Barbash and Will Dunham)

View the original article here

Obama plans 'full-court press' to sway Congress on Syria

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to the media during a news conference at the G20 summit in St.Petersburg September 6, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Sergei Karpukhin

By John Whitesides and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON | Fri Sep 6, 2013 5:33pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will take his case for military action in Syria directly to the American people next week, stepping up his campaign to convince a deeply skeptical Congress to back strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

Obama's address to the nation from the White House on Tuesday will be part of a rejuvenated lobbying effort on Syria as Congress returns to Washington next week. A Democratic congressional aide said the administration is planning "a full-court press" aimed at undecided lawmakers.

Speaking in Russia at the conclusion of the G20 summit, Obama acknowledged on Friday he faces an uphill fight to build public and congressional support for a military response to the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons.

Early vote counts in Congress do not look encouraging for Obama, with scores of lawmakers still undecided about whether to authorize a military strike after the president said last week he would seek their approval. Opinion polls show a war-weary public strongly opposes U.S. action in Syria.

"In terms of the votes and the process in Congress, I knew this was going to be a heavy lift," Obama told reporters in St. Petersburg.

"I understand the skepticism. I think it is very important, therefore, for us to work through, systematically, making the case to every senator and every member of Congress. And that's what we're doing," he said.

Administration officials have given public testimony and daily closed-door briefings on Syria this week to members of Congress, who remain concerned that even limited strikes could draw the United States into a prolonged war and spark broader hostilities in the region.

The briefings will resume on Monday, and the White House hopes support will grow as more members of Congress get classified briefings.

Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi, known for her ability to gather votes in her caucus, told Democrats in a letter on Friday there would be two meetings next week of Democratic members with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough.

"There will be a full-court press from the administration and those undecided Democratic members in particular are going to be getting multiple calls from administration officials, including the president," a Democratic Senate aide said.

"Every undecided vote is going to get a lot of attention from both the leader (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) and from the White House," the aide said.

According to a Washington Post count, only 23 senators have been willing to go on record in favor of military force, while 17 are against. It will likely take 60 of the Senate's 100 members to advance the measure to the House of Representatives.

In the House, where 218 votes will be required to pass the resolution, only 25 members are on record in support of military action so far, according to the Post, with 106 opposed.

Democratic aides who support strikes have dismissed the numbers as meaningless, saying many lawmakers have not attended any classified briefings. Others noted lawmakers often wait until the last minute to decide, in part because they want to see what others are going to do.

SENATE DEBATE NEXT WEEK

The Democratic-led Senate convened for slightly more than four minutes on Friday, ending the month-long summer break, in a procedural move that will help speed consideration next week of the measure authorizing military action against Syria.

A Senate debate will begin next week, with a first full Senate vote possible on Wednesday.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approved on Wednesday an authorization that prohibits the use of U.S. combat troops on the ground in Syria and limits the duration of the action to 60 days, with one possible 30-day extension.

Obama said he is striving to convince lawmakers the response in Syria will be limited "both in time and in scope" but still meaningful enough to degrade Assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons and deter their use.

"What we're describing here would be limited and proportionate and designed to address this problem of chemical weapons use," Obama said. "And that is going to be the case that I try to make, not just to Congress, but to the American people over the coming days."

Obama also has had trouble rallying international support for a military response to the August 21 chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians. The British Parliament voted last week against Britain's participation in the action.

Obama said that most leaders of the G20 countries agreed that Assad was responsible for using poison gas on civilians, although there was disagreement about whether force could be used without going through the United Nations.

He said he did not believe U.N. Security Council support was required.

"Given Security Council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required, and that will not come through Security Council action," he said.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said on Friday that Assad had barely dented his stockpile of chemical weapons in last month's attack near Damascus, and that Assad knew Russia would back him in the controversy over chemical weapons.

"We have exhausted the alternatives" to military action, she said at the Center for American Progress think tank in Washington.

Obama declined to say whether he will proceed with military action against Syria if U.S. lawmakers vote against his plan, despite earlier comments from a top aide suggesting he would not use such force without congressional support.

"The president of course has the authority to act, but it's neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him," deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken told National Public Radio on Friday.

Obama rejected criticism that he was playing politics by asking Congress for authorization, and acknowledged that Syria's use of chemical weapons was not a direct threat to the United States.

"I did not put this before Congress, you know, just as a political ploy or as symbolism. I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad's use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States," Obama told reporters.

"In that situation, obviously, I don't worry about Congress; we do what we have to do to keep the American people safe," he said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Patricia Zengerle, Roberta Rampton and Mark Felsenthal; Editing by Karey Van Hall, Jim Loney and Claudia Parsons)

View the original article here

Cost of a U.S. strike against Syria could top Hagel's estimate

Men inspect a site hit by what activists said was shelling by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, in the Duma neighbourhood of Damascus September 4, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Bassam Khabieh

By David Alexander

WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 5, 2013 6:44pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told lawmakers a limited military strike to deter Syria from using chemical weapons would likely cost tens of millions of dollars, but if past experience is a guide, the number could be substantially higher than that.

It is not uncommon for U.S. forces to open an assault by launching scores of Tomahawk missiles costing over $1 million apiece and dropping bombs from radar-evading B-2 planes that fly 18 hours each way from their base at a cost of $60,000 an hour.

"I was surprised when I heard him (Hagel) say tens of millions of dollars. That's low-balling it," said Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

He said the defense secretary might have been thinking of what the Pentagon would have to spend during the remainder of the 2013 fiscal year, which ends on September 30.

Most of the cost of an action against Syria would be for replacing munitions that were used, funds that would not be required until after the 2014 fiscal year begins on October 1.

The Pentagon probably would pay for the munitions with a supplemental war-funding request to Congress, which would not be subject to current budget spending caps, Harrison said.

"If you include the replacement costs of munitions, it (an operation against Syria) could cost half a billion, up to a billion dollars depending on the number of targets they go after," he said.

Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a thousand-mile (1,600-km) range, can loiter on station and change their targets in flight, are expected to be the main weapon if President Barack Obama orders a limited strike to punish Syria over its suspected use of chemical weapons.

The missiles cost $1.2 million to $1.5 million apiece.

The U.S. Navy fired 221 Tomahawks in operations against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, nearly half of them - 110 - in an opening salvo against 22 Libyan military targets, including air defenses, communications and command structures.

If U.S. forces used a similar number of missiles to hit Syrian targets related to chemical weapons use by President Bashar al-Assad's forces, the cost would top $100 million.

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the top U.S. Navy officer, said on Thursday that operations so far haven't required unexpected spending.

U.S. warships in the region were all overseas as part of regular operations. The Navy has four guided missile destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean and the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz with its supporting vessels in the Red Sea.

"The ships ... were all forward deployed, so we haven't surged anybody over for this ... specifically," Greenert told the American Enterprise Institute think tank.

But the Nimitz was scheduled to rotate home after being replaced in the Arabian Sea by the USS Harry S Truman, so if it is held much longer in the region it could result in an unplanned hit to the budget, he said. A supplemental budget request might be needed to pay for an operation, he said.

Greenert said it costs about $25 million a week for a carrier strike group in routine operations. If the carrier was used in military operations, the cost would rise to $40 million a week as a result of longer flight hours for its planes.

While Hagel estimated the cost of a Syrian operation at tens of millions of dollars at a House of Representatives hearing on Wednesday, Pentagon officials have declined to elaborate on his remarks or discuss costs further.

"I'm not going to get into specific numbers because I don't want to suggest that we have a precise picture of the military operation that would be conducted," Pentagon spokesman George Little told a briefing on Thursday.

He also declined to speculate on how the Pentagon would pay for such an operation at a time of tight budgets.

"This is in the national security interests of the United States," Little said. "When something is that important, we'll find a way to pay for it."

(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Eric Walsh)

View the original article here

Obama says values France's strong support for U.S. action on Syria

U.S. President Barack Obama meets with French President Francois Hollande at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia September 6, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

View the original article here

U.S. gives up on U.N. Security Council in Syria crisis, blames Russia

People walk along a damaged street filled with debris in Deir al-Zor September 4, 2013. Picture taken September 4, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Khalil Ashawi

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS | Thu Sep 5, 2013 4:30pm EDT

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States declared on Thursday that it has given up trying to work with the U.N. Security Council on Syria, accusing Russia of holding the council hostage and allowing Moscow's allies in Syria to deploy poison gas against innocent children.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power's remarks left no doubt that Washington would not seek U.N. approval for a military strike on Syria in response to an August 21 chemical attack near Damascus. She said a draft resolution Britain submitted to the five permanent council members last week calling for a response to that attack was effectively dead.

"I was present in the meeting where the UK laid down the resolution, and everything in that meeting, in word and in body language, suggests that that resolution has no prospect of being adopted, by Russia in particular," Power told reporters.

"Our considered view, after months of efforts on chemical weapons and after 2-1/2 years of efforts on Geneva (peace talks), the humanitarian situation is that there is no viable path forward in this Security Council," she said.

After Britain submitted the draft resolution to fellow Security Council veto powers China, France, Russia and the United States, its parliament voted against British participation in planned U.S. military strikes to punish Syria's government for the chemical attack.

Washington, which is seeking U.S. congressional approval for military action, blames the latest poison gas attack on forces loyal to Assad. The United States says that sarin gas attack killed over 1,400 people, many of them children.

Power said the 15-nation council failed to live up to its role as the guardian of international peace and security.

"Unfortunately for the past 2-1/2 years, the system devised in 1945 precisely to deal with threats of this nature did not work as it is supposed to," Power said. "It did not protect peace and security for the hundreds of Syrian children who were gassed to death on August 21."

"The system has protected the prerogatives of Russia, the patron of a regime that would brazenly stage the world's largest chemical weapons attack in a quarter century while chemical weapons inspectors sent by the United Nations were just across town," she said.

SECURITY COUNCIL HELD 'HOSTAGE'

The U.N. chemical investigation team, led by Sweden's Ake Sellstrom, took samples from the site of the August 21 attack in the suburbs of Damascus. The results of their analysis will not be ready for weeks, U.N. diplomats say. The U.N. experts will only say whether toxic chemicals were used, not who deployed them.

Russia, backed by China, has used its veto power three times to block council resolutions condemning Assad's government and threatening it with sanctions. Assad's government, like Russia, blames the rebels for the August 21 attack.

"In the wake of the flagrant shattering of the international norm against chemical weapons use, Russia continues to hold the council hostage and shirk its international responsibilities, including as a party to the chemical weapons convention," Power said.

Power was asked about Russian President Vladimir Putin, who on Wednesday declined to rule out Russian backing for military action against Syria if he was presented with proof of Syrian government involvement in the August 21 attack.

"There is nothing in the pattern of our interactions ... with our Russian colleagues, that would give us any reason to be optimistic," Power said. "Indeed, we have seen nothing in President Putin's comments that suggest that there is an available path forward at the Security Council."

Nevertheless, Power said the U.S. mission briefed U.N. member states on Thursday on Washington's assessments of August 21, "which overwhelmingly point to one stark conclusion - the Assad regime perpetrated a large-scale and indiscriminate attack against its own people using chemical weapons."

Washington also suggested it has shared its intelligence on the use of sarin gas on August 21 with Sellstrom's team.

"As we routinely do, the U.S. is sharing critical information related to this attack with the U.N. and our partners and allies," Power's spokeswoman Erin Pelton.

Earlier this week, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon cast doubt on the legality of any military action against Syria that is not in self-defense or lacks Security Council backing.

Power said that sometimes it is necessary to go outside the Security Council when it is deadlocked. She cited the case of the Kosovo war in 1999.

At that time, Washington relied on NATO authorization for its bombing campaign, which forced Serbian troops and militia to pull out of Kosovo.

The United Nations has received at least 14 reports of possible chemical weapons use in Syria. After months of diplomatic wrangling, Sellstrom's team arrived in Syria on August 18 with a 14-day mandate to look for evidence.

The U.N. team was initially going to look into three incidents, but its priority became the August 21 attack. It plans to return to Syria soon to continue its investigation.

(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Stacey Joyce)

View the original article here

U.S. tightens embassy security in Lebanon and Turkey, warns Americans

1 of 7. An activist holds up a placard, which reads: ''You will be defeated. This is your destiny'', during a sit-in near the U.S. embassy in Awkar, north of Beirut, against potential U.S. strikes on Syria September 6, 2013. U.S. officials ordered non-emergency personnel and their family members out of Lebanon on Friday ''due to threats,'' the U.S. embassy in Beirut said in statement. The picture on the bottom right of the placard shows a scene from the 1983 suicide bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

Credit: Reuters/Mohamed Azakir

By Paul Eckert

WASHINGTON | Fri Sep 6, 2013 7:41pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States tightened security at diplomatic missions in Lebanon and Turkey on Friday because of potential threats, ordering some personnel out of Lebanon and offering to evacuate those in Adana in southeastern Turkey.

The State Department warned U.S. citizens against traveling in Lebanon and southeastern Turkey and urged Americans in the rest of Turkey "to be alert to the potential for violence."

Officials did not offer specifics about the possible threats, which were revealed less than a week before the 12th anniversary of the September 11 attacks amid an intensifying debate over President Barack Obama's plans to strike Syria.

"These are potential threats," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters after the warnings were issued. "Obviously, the tension ... in the region, including in Syria, plays a role in this."

Harf said she was not aware of any specific threats.

"Non-emergency personnel and family members" were ordered to leave Beirut and given permission to leave Adana, near Turkey's border with Syria, but the U.S. missions were not closed and still offered consular services, she said.

"Given the current tensions the region, as well as potential threats to U.S. government facilities and personnel, we are taking these steps out of an abundance of caution to protect our employees and their families, and local employees and visitors to our facilities," Harf said in an earlier statement.

Washington says troops loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad carried out a poison gas attack that killed more than 1,400 people in rebel-held suburbs of Damascus on August 21. Obama has asked the U.S. Congress to back his plan for limited strikes in response to the chemical weapons attack.

In Lebanon, officials ordered non-emergency personnel and their family members out of the country "due to threats," the U.S. Embassy in Beirut said in statement.

NEW U.S. AMBASSADOR IN LEBANON

Meanwhile, the new U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, David Hale, presented his credentials to President Michel Suleiman, the embassy's website said.

Washington was "focused on insulating Lebanon from any aftermath of any response to Syria's chemical attack, and preserving Lebanon's policy of disassociation from the Syria conflict," website said, quoting Hale's remarks to Suleiman.

It said Hale criticized Syrian ally Hezbollah as the one party in Lebanon that "blatantly violates" this disassociation policy through direct participation in the Syrian conflict.

In Turkey, U.S. officials offered voluntary evacuation to reduce its diplomatic presence at the consulate in Adana, Turkey, "because of threats against U.S. government facilities and personnel."

Americans who remain in Lebanon or southeastern Turkey should make their own emergency plans, officials said.

The State Department also renewed its warning to U.S. citizens to "defer all non-essential travel" to Pakistan, where on August 9 it had ordered the departure of non-emergency U.S. staff from the consulate in Lahore. Public and consular services in the city remain unavailable, the department said.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that the United States had intercepted an order from an Iranian official instructing militants in Iraq to attack U.S. interests in Baghdad if the United States launches a military strike in Syria, a close ally of Iran.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was a likely target, according to unidentified American officials quoted by the newspaper.

"We have not taken any action in terms of our posts in Iraq," said Harf. "Clearly we remain concerned and (are) looking at the security throughout the region."

Nearly 20 U.S. embassies and consulates in the Middle East and Africa were closed early last month when the United States said it had picked up unspecified terrorism threats. The U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, shut down for more than two weeks.

In April 1983, Iranian-backed Islamists blew up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. In October of that year, Shi'ite Muslim suicide bombers linked to Tehran blew up the U.S. Marine and French barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and 58 French paratroopers.

On September 11, 2012, an attack on U.S. diplomatic posts in the Libyan city of Benghazi killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Christopher Wilson)

View the original article here

Obama will not use force against Syria without Congress' support: adviser

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during his meeting with French President Francois Hollande at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg September 6, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

By Susan Heavey

WASHINGTON | Fri Sep 6, 2013 10:05am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama does not intend to authorize U.S. military force in Syria if lawmakers vote against his proposal seeking action amid allegations of chemical weapons use by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a top aide said on Friday.

"The president of course has the authority to act, but it's neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him," deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken told National Public Radio.

The comments come as lawmakers weigh whether to pass a resolution authorizing limited strikes against Syria. U.S. officials allege Assad's government used sarin nerve gas in a deadly attack on its civilians on August 21.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, appearing before lawmakers in both the Senate and the House of Representatives this week, has refused to say what he thought Obama would do if Congress did not agree to act on Syria in response to U.S. allegations of chemical weapons use.

Lawmakers are divided over whether and how to respond, and many are still undecided despite efforts by Obama administration officials to build support, including calls from the president.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a modified version of Obama's resolution on Wednesday, and the full Senate is likely to begin voting next Wednesday.

The timing of a vote in the House remained unclear. Both chambers must approve the measure for it to pass.

Worried about getting embroiled in Syria's civil war, many U.S. lawmakers have voiced concerns over using military force without backing from the United Nations or a broader coalition of other countries. Some have also said they want the United States to pursue other diplomatic and humanitarian options.

But Blinken cited the severe sanctions imposed on Assad already, and said that the UN has failed to act on even more basic steps.

"At this point, we have unfortunately exhausted everything," he told NPR's "Morning Edition" program.

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell and Susan Heavey)

View the original article here

Obama: U.S. will probe reported NSA spying on Brazil, Mexico

Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff attends the first working session of the G20 Summit in Constantine Palace in Strelna near St. Petersburg, September 5, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Sergei Karpukhin

By Steve Holland and Anthony Boadle

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia/BRASILIA | Fri Sep 6, 2013 12:58pm EDT

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia/BRASILIA (Reuters) - President Barack Obama promised on Friday to look into a report the United States spied on the leaders of Brazil and Mexico, allegations that have caused tensions in Washington's ties to its two biggest Latin American partners.

Obama met with presidents Dilma Rousseff of Brazil and Enrique Pena Nieto of Mexico during an international summit in Russia and discussed reports that the U.S. National Security Agency snooped on their personal communications and phone calls.

"I assured them that I take these allegations very seriously. I understand their concerns. I understand the concerns of the Mexican and Brazilian people; and that we will work with their teams to resolve what is a source of tension," Obama said at a news conference.

Rousseff, speaking earlier on Friday, indicated she was not fully satisfied with Obama's assurances during their meeting late on Thursday. She said Obama had agreed to provide a fuller explanation for the reported spying by Wednesday, and that she would decide whether or not to go ahead with a planned visit to the White House next month based in part on his response.

"My trip to Washington depends on the political conditions to be created by President Obama," Rousseff told reporters before leaving Russia.

Mexico's leader Pena Nieto said Obama made a personal pledge to investigate the alleged spying by the NSA to avoid the issue damaging relations with the U.S.'s largest trade partner in Latin America.

Brazil's TV Globo reported on Sunday that the NSA monitored the emails, text messages and phone calls of Rousseff as president and Pena Nieto when he was a candidate. The report was based on documents leaked by fugitive former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The report angered Rousseff and her government has demanded a fuller explanation, arguing that counterterrorism or cybersecurity concerns did not adequately explain why the NSA would spy on Rousseff's communications with her top aides.

Brazil has been a democratic U.S. ally in South America for decades, and is not a known base for terrorists.

Brasilia has already called off a trip by an advance team to prepare for next month's visit to Washington.

Obama said the tensions over the NSA spying disclosures should not override the wide-ranging relationship the United States has with Brazil, which he called "an incredibly important country" and an "amazing success story."

He said the NSA's job was to gather data not available through public sources, much as intelligence services from other nations do to track threats of terrorism, except that the U.S. agency's capacity to collect information was far bigger.

Obama acknowledged that the U.S. government needed to "step back and review what it is that we're doing" and do a cost-benefit analysis of how useful the information was given legitimate concerns around privacy and civil liberties.

"It's important for us, on the front end, to say, all right, are we actually going to get useful information here. And if not, if it's not that important, should we be more constrained in how we use certain technical capabilities," he said.

Rousseff is due to make a formal state visit to Washington on October 23 to meet U.S. President Barack Obama and discuss a possible $4 billion jet-fighter deal, cooperation on oil and biofuels technology, as well as other commercial agreements.

(Reporting by Steve Holland in St. Petersburg, Anthony Boadle in Brasilia and Liz Diaz in Mexico City; Editing by Brian Winter and Tim Dobbyn)

View the original article here

Analysis: Obama won't say it, but vote on Syria has high stakes for his presidency

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia September 6, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

By Roberta Rampton and Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON | Sat Sep 7, 2013 1:02am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It seems that everyone in Washington is talking about it except President Barack Obama: When Congress votes on the administration's request to use military force in Syria, the future of his presidency could well be on the line.

A defeat, a distinct possibility, would hobble Obama in affairs both foreign and domestic, particularly if fellow Democrats collaborate in it.

Obama plans 'full-court press' to sway Congress on Syria

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to the media during a news conference at the G20 summit in St.Petersburg September 6, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Sergei Karpukhin

By John Whitesides and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON | Fri Sep 6, 2013 5:33pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will take his case for military action in Syria directly to the American people next week, stepping up his campaign to convince a deeply skeptical Congress to back strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces.

Obama's address to the nation from the White House on Tuesday will be part of a rejuvenated lobbying effort on Syria as Congress returns to Washington next week. A Democratic congressional aide said the administration is planning "a full-court press" aimed at undecided lawmakers.

Speaking in Russia at the conclusion of the G20 summit, Obama acknowledged on Friday he faces an uphill fight to build public and congressional support for a military response to the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons.

Early vote counts in Congress do not look encouraging for Obama, with scores of lawmakers still undecided about whether to authorize a military strike after the president said last week he would seek their approval. Opinion polls show a war-weary public strongly opposes U.S. action in Syria.

"In terms of the votes and the process in Congress, I knew this was going to be a heavy lift," Obama told reporters in St. Petersburg.

"I understand the skepticism. I think it is very important, therefore, for us to work through, systematically, making the case to every senator and every member of Congress. And that's what we're doing," he said.

Administration officials have given public testimony and daily closed-door briefings on Syria this week to members of Congress, who remain concerned that even limited strikes could draw the United States into a prolonged war and spark broader hostilities in the region.

The briefings will resume on Monday, and the White House hopes support will grow as more members of Congress get classified briefings.

Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi, known for her ability to gather votes in her caucus, told Democrats in a letter on Friday there would be two meetings next week of Democratic members with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough.

"There will be a full-court press from the administration and those undecided Democratic members in particular are going to be getting multiple calls from administration officials, including the president," a Democratic Senate aide said.

"Every undecided vote is going to get a lot of attention from both the leader (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) and from the White House," the aide said.

According to a Washington Post count, only 23 senators have been willing to go on record in favor of military force, while 17 are against. It will likely take 60 of the Senate's 100 members to advance the measure to the House of Representatives.

In the House, where 218 votes will be required to pass the resolution, only 25 members are on record in support of military action so far, according to the Post, with 106 opposed.

Democratic aides who support strikes have dismissed the numbers as meaningless, saying many lawmakers have not attended any classified briefings. Others noted lawmakers often wait until the last minute to decide, in part because they want to see what others are going to do.

SENATE DEBATE NEXT WEEK

The Democratic-led Senate convened for slightly more than four minutes on Friday, ending the month-long summer break, in a procedural move that will help speed consideration next week of the measure authorizing military action against Syria.

A Senate debate will begin next week, with a first full Senate vote possible on Wednesday.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approved on Wednesday an authorization that prohibits the use of U.S. combat troops on the ground in Syria and limits the duration of the action to 60 days, with one possible 30-day extension.

Obama said he is striving to convince lawmakers the response in Syria will be limited "both in time and in scope" but still meaningful enough to degrade Assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons and deter their use.

"What we're describing here would be limited and proportionate and designed to address this problem of chemical weapons use," Obama said. "And that is going to be the case that I try to make, not just to Congress, but to the American people over the coming days."

Obama also has had trouble rallying international support for a military response to the August 21 chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians. The British Parliament voted last week against Britain's participation in the action.

Obama said that most leaders of the G20 countries agreed that Assad was responsible for using poison gas on civilians, although there was disagreement about whether force could be used without going through the United Nations.

He said he did not believe U.N. Security Council support was required.

"Given Security Council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required, and that will not come through Security Council action," he said.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said on Friday that Assad had barely dented his stockpile of chemical weapons in last month's attack near Damascus, and that Assad knew Russia would back him in the controversy over chemical weapons.

"We have exhausted the alternatives" to military action, she said at the Center for American Progress think tank in Washington.

Obama declined to say whether he will proceed with military action against Syria if U.S. lawmakers vote against his plan, despite earlier comments from a top aide suggesting he would not use such force without congressional support.

"The president of course has the authority to act, but it's neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him," deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken told National Public Radio on Friday.

Obama rejected criticism that he was playing politics by asking Congress for authorization, and acknowledged that Syria's use of chemical weapons was not a direct threat to the United States.

"I did not put this before Congress, you know, just as a political ploy or as symbolism. I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad's use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States," Obama told reporters.

"In that situation, obviously, I don't worry about Congress; we do what we have to do to keep the American people safe," he said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Patricia Zengerle, Roberta Rampton and Mark Felsenthal; Editing by Karey Van Hall, Jim Loney and Claudia Parsons)

View the original article here

U.S. moves to reduce diplomatic personnel in Turkey over threats

WASHINGTON | Fri Sep 6, 2013 8:33am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department on Friday moved to reduce its diplomatic presence at its consulate general in Adana, Turkey, due to security threats, it said in a statement.

"The Consulate General in Adana has been authorized to draw down its non-emergency staff and family members because of threats against U.S. government facilities and personnel," the department said.

It also recommended "that U.S. citizens defer non-essential travel to southeastern Turkey," the statement said.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey)

View the original article here

Obama declines to say if will strike Syria if U.S. Congress votes 'no'

If the President wished to strike Syria without Congressional approval he would have done that before.

But then, the entire affair seems to be so badly managed. The administration convinced itself that Britain and France would be automatically on board, and the weight of Germany is never considered in such matters due to historical reasons!

In reality, neither Britain nor France is on board. Britain opted out at the earliest opportunity, and France’s public opinion is opposed to the war, with the French President now imposing more conditions on the participation of France – a conviction of Syria by the Weapons Inspectors, something unlikely to happen.

Probably Britain’s abandonment of the President was key in his referring the matter to Congress, an action he may not have taken otherwise. But if he went ahead with the strike, the US would be practically alone.

In the event, the damage to the US in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the world, would be incalculable. It would appear as a brazen aggression in the face of a strong international opposition. The victim would appear as a small country, whose government continues to deny the accusations, and one that has many friends, particularly among the developing nations who believe, like most of the G20 countries, that the guilt of the Syrian regime has not been established!

To that, one may add that much damage to the US, in that direction, is already done. And the more the US administration tries to seek international and domestic support, the greater the damage in the absence of proof of guilt of the Syrian regime.

In the case of Iraq, the “Coalition of the Willing,” a sickening oxymoronic if not illiterate label, was concluded after the invasion. It contained every single country dependent on US taxpayer’s dollar to survive, in addition to a few like Britain, France, Australia and Japan. The participation benefited from the fact that whatever damage to be done is already done, and it is best now to please the victor!

Senator Kerry as the Presidential candidate uncovered this opportunism. In the Second Presidential Debate he said, “[w]hen we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That’s not a grand coalition. We can do better.”
And surely this is what he aims to do now!

The administration is said to be awaiting the meeting of the UN General Assembly on the 26th September, according to statements made by some of President Obama entourage in St. Petersburg. Members of the previous coalition, like Fiji Islands, Macedonia, Albania, Thailand, etc. are probably prepared to dispatch their elite brigades without much painful arm-twisting .

Hopefully Moldova who would send again its 24 soldiers, Tonga bring back its 55 and Iceland its 2, to assist, this time, in the invasion rather than lie back in the heat of Baghdad secure in the Green Zone after the brief photo-ops!

The “coalitionees,” one might say, were handsomely paid by the US taxpayer. The participation was on the basis of door-to-door service, including travel, lodgings, food and entertainment. The latter, however, excluded killing Iraqis. This “premium” level was reserved for the founder of the “Coalition” and trhe “early-bird” member, Britain and France!

Few doubts if it would not be a better repeat performance than the invasion of Iraq, and many cannot find a reason why it would not lead to the same (victorious) end, as well.

Syria, with a population close to that of Iraq before the migration of 4 million Iraqis to neighboring countries, should prepare to suffer between 600,000 and 1,000,000 dead, double or triple the number wounded, a sizable proportion maimed for life and many generations prone to suffer all sorts of cancers from the Uranium used, in “depleted” form, of course!

In the meantime, the administration is yet to prove to the American public whether chemical weapons were used, and who used them. But this of course, is of a secondary if importance, if at all!

View the original article here

U.S. envoy Power argues for military option on Syria

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power speaks to the press following a the United Nations Security Council meeting at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, September 5, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Brendan McDermid

By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON | Fri Sep 6, 2013 5:36pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Samantha Power, in her first major speech as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, argued Friday that a limited military strike was the only option left to respond to a chemical weapons attack in Syria after diplomatic efforts had stalled.

"Some have asked, given our collective war-weariness, why we cannot use non-military tools to achieve the same end? My answer to this question is: we have exhausted the alternatives," Power said at the Center for American Progress.

Power spoke as President Barack Obama struggled to convince Congress to approve a military strike against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people on August 21.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, she said, "has barely put a dent in his enormous stockpile. And the international community has clearly not yet put a dent in his willingness to use them."

Power, a lawyer and human rights advocate who wrote the book "A Problem from Hell" about inaction on genocides, described the chemical weapons attack as an "atrocity" and "murderous behavior." U.S. intelligence agencies have said 1,429 people were killed, including at least 426 children.

She lay blame for diplomatic obstacles on Russia just hours after Obama, attending an international summit, held a news conference in St. Petersburg in which he avoided saying whether he would take military action in Syria if the U.S. Congress voted against it.

"Russia, often backed by China, has blocked every relevant action in the Security Council," Power said.

"In Assad's cost-benefit calculus, he must have weighed the military benefits of using this hideous weapon against the recognition that he could get away with it because Russia would have Syria's back in the Security Council," she said.

About a dozen anti-war protesters gathered outside the building's entrance where Power was speaking.

"If we cannot summon the courage to act when the evidence is clear, and when the action being contemplated is limited, then our ability to lead in the world is compromised," she said.

(Editing by Fred Barbash and Eric Walsh)

View the original article here

Democratic Senator Manchin opposes military strikes against Syria

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WVa) departs after a classified intelligence briefing with members of Congress on the crisis in Syria on Capitol Hill in Washington, September 5, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing

View the original article here

Obama meets Russian activists but avoids criticizing Kremlin

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg September 6, 2013. Obama defied pressure to abandon plans for air strikes against Syria at a summit on Friday which left world leaders divided on the conflict but united behind a call to spur economic growth.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

By Liza Dobkina and Matt Spetalnick

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia | Fri Sep 6, 2013 4:00pm EDT

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - President Barack Obama trod carefully in talks with Russian human rights activists after a G20 summit dominated by the Syrian crisis on Friday, avoiding direct public criticism of Kremlin policies the United States has denounced.

Following a tradition that has irritated President Vladimir Putin, who accuses Washington of meddling in Russia's affairs and backing his foes, Obama made a point of meeting civil society leaders while visiting for a international gathering.

Obama's huddle with activists came at a sensitive time when ties are badly strained over Syria, Russia's sheltering of U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden and the disputes over human rights that mounted after Putin started a third term in 2012.

The United States has accused Russia of curbing freedoms, stifling dissent and discriminating against members of the gay community with a series of laws Putin has signed since he returned to the Kremlin after four years as prime minister.

The meeting in Putin's home town might have been expected to be particularly offensive to the Kremlin after Obama pulled out of a one-on-one summit planned for this week in Moscow, before the Group of Twenty summit in St. Petersburg.

But with journalists present for his opening remarks to nine activists, Obama avoided direct criticism of Russia's human rights record and made no specific mention of the gay rights controversy.

"As important as government is and laws, what makes a country democratic and effective in delivering prosperity, security and hope to people is going to be an active and thriving civil society," he told the diverse group that included advocates of gay rights, business, the environment and other causes.

The words may have been aimed at Putin, whose government has placed new restrictions on protests and who signed legislation last year requiring non-governmental organizations with funding from abroad to register as "foreign agents" - a term loaded with connotations of Cold War espionage and treason.

A senior Obama administration official said the president was keen to underscore his opposition to Russia's new ban on homosexual "propaganda", hoping Putin might take heed as he tries to improve Moscow's international image in the run-up to next February's Winter Olympics in Sochi, southern Russia.

COMPETING INTERESTS

About 20 gay rights activists demonstrated in central St. Petersburg on Friday, far from the summit site, holding signs criticizing Putin and the gay propaganda law, or bearing slogans such as "God loves gays, God loves everybody".

Underscoring the troubles gay people face in Russia, hundreds of helmeted police in body armor separated the demonstrators from dozens of anti-gay activists who shouted insults and chanted prayers.

Gay rights activist Igor Kochetkov suggested it may have been Obama's plan for the meeting that prompted Putin to say recently that he was ready to meet Russian gay rights activists himself - though that has not occurred yet.

But Kochetkov said Obama should not let other interests get in the way of human rights concerns.

"The main thing that disappointed me was that Obama said he cannot look at Russian-American relations solely through the prism of human rights ... that there are also economic and military issues," he said after the meeting.

Putin may have been pleased by the decision of at least three prominent activists who are Kremlin critics to turn down the meeting with Obama, even though they said they did so because the White House repeatedly changed the date and time.

One activist who declined the invitation because of the rescheduling, Svetlana Gannushkina, wrote a message to Obama voicing opposition to military action against Syria.

"I have great respect for the degree of responsibility the U.S. leadership shows for the fate of the world in the name of its people," she wrote, but added that "military operations leading to the death of new victims among the civilian population are not the best expression of this responsibility."

(Writing by Steve Gutterman; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

View the original article here

U.S. says evacuates non-emergency staff from Beirut embassy

BEIRUT | Fri Sep 6, 2013 8:21am EDT

"The Department of State drew down non-emergency personnel and family members from Embassy Beirut due to threats to U.S. Mission facilities and personnel," a statement on the Beirut embassy's website said.

View the original article here

Specter of North Korea lurks in U.S. debate on Syria's chemical weapons

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (front) is pictured during his inspection of the defence detachment on Jangjae Islet and the Hero Defence Detachment on Mu Islet in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang September 3, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/KCNA

By Paul Eckert

WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 5, 2013 5:27pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Obama administration officials making the case for a U.S. military response to Syria's alleged gassing of its citizens are invoking another American foe long suspected of stockpiling chemical weapons: North Korea.

The specter of North Korea hovered over U.S. congressional debate this week as President Barack Obama's top security aides sought authorization for what they said would be the limited use of force in Syria, arguing that failure to act would embolden Pyongyang and others.

"North Korea is hoping for ambivalence from the Congress," Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel cited North Korea as a country that he said could be emboldened if global norms against use of chemical weapons are weakened by U.S. inaction in response to the August 21 attack that killed more than 1,400 people in the suburbs of Damascus.

The focus of U.S. diplomacy with North Korea has been its expanding nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. But Hagel told U.S. lawmakers that Washington and Seoul were also concerned about chemical weapons.

"I just returned from Asia, where I had a very serious and long conversation with South Korea's defense minister about the threat that North Korea's stockpile of chemical weapons presents to them," Hagel told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He described the North Korean stockpile as "massive."

Like much about secretive North Korea, relatively little is known about the current state of the country's chemical weapons industry.

North Korea is one of five countries that have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. Pyongyang denies having chemical weapons, and North Korea's relatively new leader Kim Jong-un, has made no public mention of such a capability.

"No reliable information is available concerning recent chemical weapons activity within (North Korea)," wrote Joseph Bermudez, publisher and editor of the KPA Journal, a specialist publication on the North Korean military, in a new monograph.

'POLICY OF AMBIGUITY'

South Korean estimates form the basis of most public assessments of North Korea's chemical weapons stockpiles. The 2010 Defense White Paper by the South Korean Ministry of National Defense estimates that North Korea has between 2,500 and 5,000 metric tons of chemical weapons agents.

The stockpiles include the nerve gas sarin, which the United States accuses Syria's government of using last month, as well as mustard gas, phosgene and hydrogen cyanide, the paper said.

In a 2009 threat assessment to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lieutenant General Michael Maples, then director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said "North Korea's chemical warfare capabilities probably includes the ability to produce bulk quantities of nerve, blister, choking and blood agents."

Bermudez says there have been repeated reports since the 1990s of North Korea supplying chemical weapons-related agents or technology to Egypt, Iran, Libya and Syria, mostly in the form of chemical warheads for Scud missiles.

Japan's Sankei Shimbun newspaper reported last month that in April, Turkish authorities stopped the Libya-flagged ship El Entisar that was carrying gas masks bound for Syria. A cargo of 14,000 protective suits from North Korea was seized in 2009 by Greece on a ship believed to be bound for Syria, Bermuda wrote.

But Bermudez cautions that "these reports, while numerous, remain to be confirmed."

Many analysts suggest North Korea's steep economic decline in the past two decades has taken a toll on the chemical sector that produces precursor ingredients for weapons.

Karl Dewey, a weapons analyst at IHS Jane's in London, says it's "hard to tell, but that's in keeping with the North Korean policy of ambiguity."

North Korea's "military-first" policy prioritizes warfare capabilities over the civilian economy, so amid economic hardship "production may have ceased or slowed, but it won't have diminished their stockpile altogether," Dewey said.

In April, the U.S. Army moved its 23rd Chemical Battalion with nuclear, biological, and chemical reconnaissance and decontamination capabilities back to South Korea, more than eight years after it was withdrawn, the service said on its website.

(Editing by Warren Strobel and Stacey Joyce)

View the original article here

U.S. evacuates Beirut embassy over security concerns

WASHINGTON | Fri Sep 6, 2013 8:32am EDT

The U.S. State Department urges "U.S. citizens to avoid all travel to Lebanon because of current safety and security concerns," the statement also said.

View the original article here

Reflecting Democrats' divide, pro-Obama group silent on Syria

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (not pictured) at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg September 5, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

By Gabriel Debenedetti

WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 5, 2013 6:42pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As President Barack Obama's team faces one of its toughest lobbying challenges in urging Congress to approve U.S. military action in Syria, the advocacy group dedicated to promoting the president's agenda is staying quiet.

In recent months, Organizing for Action - the non-profit group that grew out of Obama's 2012 re-election campaign - aggressively defended the president's healthcare overhaul, his call for new immigration policies and his unsuccessful push for new gun-control laws.

But in the debate over whether to intervene in Syria - which has given many congressional Democrats the uncomfortable choice of supporting a military strike they don't want or rejecting a plea for action from the Democratic president - OFA has remained on the sidelines.

That's by design, OFA executive director Jon Carson said on Thursday, adding that the group does not intend to send supportive emails or lobby on the issue.

"OFA supports President Obama and the agenda that Americans voted for on November 6, but we don't always actively organize around every issue, and the debate in Congress over the Syria vote is not one that OFA is planning on organizing around," Carson said.

OFA did not respond to questions about whether its silence on Syria demonstrated that its focus is Obama's domestic agenda.

Syria "doesn't fall within the OFA focus," said John Morgan, a Florida-based lawyer who donated $50,000 to the group in the first quarter of 2013. "This is not the president's agenda. It has fallen to him spontaneously."

RISK OF ALIENATING SUPPORTERS

A donor to the group who asked not to be identified said that OFA's stance on Syria reflected the "no-win" nature of many foreign policy issues.

"Obama's goal in getting elected, and our goal in electing him, wasn't dealing with this nightmare in Syria," the donor said.

Because there is a divide on Syria within Obama's Democratic Party on the issue, the group risks "alienating half its members" if it weighs in, the donor added.

Obama's team had hoped to be promoting proposals to revamp the nation's immigration laws and other measures now. But those goals have been sidetracked by the debate over whether the United States should retaliate against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because of his alleged use of chemical weapons last month in an attack near Damascus that the White House says killed more than 1,400 people.

On Thursday, Obama canceled a California trip planned for next week so that he could stay in Washington and focus on Syria after he returns from the G-20 economic summit in Russia late Friday.

Since its launch in January, OFA has sent out e-mails and hosted events nationwide to promote the administration's plans on healthcare, immigration, climate change, gun control and education. Obama's positions on each of those issues have broad support among Democrats.

Some critics have questioned the group's effectiveness, noting that its ads promoting gun control in light of the massacre of 26 children and adults at a Connecticut school did not seem to help Obama in a failed effort to get gun legislation through Congress.

OFA is still widely viewed as a potentially formidable advocacy group, largely because it raised more than $13 million during its first six months, mainly from Democratic donors.

(Editing by David Lindsey and Cynthia Osterman)

View the original article here

Eleven G20 nations urge strong international response in Syria: White House

ST. PETERSBURG | Fri Sep 6, 2013 11:01am EDT

ST. PETERSBURG (Reuters) - Eleven G20 nations condemned the August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria on Friday and called for a strong international response, according to a statement issued by the White House.

"The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime," said the statement, released as the G20 summit was ending.

It was signed by the leaders and representatives of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, Britain and the United States.

The statement stopped short of calling for a military response.

"We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world's rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable," it said.

(Reporting by Steve Holland; editing by Jackie Frank)

View the original article here

Senator says DVD of Syrian chemical attack 'horrendous'

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (C), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, speaks to reporters after departing a full-Senate briefing by Director of the National Security Agency General Keith Alexander (not pictured), at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, June 13, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

WASHINGTON | Thu Sep 5, 2013 6:29pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday said a DVD prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency showing YouTube videos of victims of a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria was "horrendous."

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, said she had asked the CIA to prepare a DVD for lawmakers that showed evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people.

The DVD, which the senator described as "largely victims," is another tool that could be used to persuade lawmakers to give President Barack Obama congressional approval to carry out a limited military strike against Syria.

"I saw it this morning and it was horrendous," Feinstein told reporters after members of her panel were briefed by Obama's national security team. "I have no doubt chemical weapons have been used," she said.

The DVD, which was compiled by CIA's "open source center," was about a dozen YouTube videos of some of the people who either died or were being treated as a result of the chemical weapons attack, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

It was unclear how much of the YouTube footage had already been widely disseminated. U.S. and international television networks have shown some video coverage of the victims of what appeared to have been a chemical weapons attack.

Feinstein, who said she had seen enough evidence to support a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force, said she was having more of the DVDs made to give members of Congress.

"We are going to hand one out to each member of the Senate and possibly members of the House," so that they can go through it and make a determination if chemical agents were used, she told reporters.

Many lawmakers have not yet decided whether to approve Obama's proposal for a military strike against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, blamed by Washington for the August 21 chemical weapons attack.

A U.S. intelligence report released last week said 1,429 people were killed, including at least 426 children.

Senators at Thursday's briefing expressed concerns that a U.S. military strike would not stop the Syrian government from using chemical weapons again and said they were wary of becoming entangled in a civil war.

"To me the evidence that Assad engaged in the barbaric use of chemical weapons is clear. What the effects of a military strike will be is not clear," Democratic Senator Ron Wyden told reporters after the meeting.

The nearly three-hour Senate Intelligence Committee meeting was the latest congressional briefing with administration officials. Another briefing for senators and members of the House of Representatives is scheduled for Friday.

(Reporting by Rachelle Younglai and Tabassum Zakaria; Editing by Eric Walsh)

View the original article here

Obama says most G20 leaders agree Assad behind chemical attack

Italy's Prime Minister Enrico Letta (L), U.S. President Barack Obama (C) and British Prime Minister David Cameron (R) talk at the second working session of the G20 Summit in the Constantine Palace in Strelna, St. Petersburg, September 6, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Alexei Danichev/RIA Novosti/Pool

By Steve Holland and Matt Spetalnick

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia | Fri Sep 6, 2013 3:21pm EDT

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday that most leaders of the G20 countries agree that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for using poison gas against civilians as the U.S. leader tried to rally support at home and abroad for a military strike.

"I was elected to end wars, not start them," Obama said at a news conference in Russia. "I've spent the last four and a half years doing everything I can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the American people.

"But what I also know is that there are times where we have to make hard choices if we're going to stand up for the things that we care about. And I believe that this is one of those times."

At a meeting of the Group of 20 leading economies, the American president won some support but no consensus for limited U.S. strikes on Syria in response to a chemical attack last month outside Damascus that he said killed 1,400 people, 400 of them children.

Obama also faces an uphill battle at home, where he planned to discuss Syria in an address to the American public on Tuesday.

He said G20 leaders agreed that chemical weapons were used in Syria and that the international ban on chemical weapons needs to be maintained. Ten G20 countries plus Spain supported a "strong international response," the White House said later.

However, Obama said there was disagreement about whether force could be used in Syria without going through the United Nations. The United States has been unable to win U.N. Security Council approval for military action against Syria because of the opposition of veto-wielding Russia.

A number of countries believed that any military force needed to be decided at U.N. Security Council, a view he said he does not share.

"Given Security Council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use then an international response is required, and that will not come through Security Council action," he said.

The decision to strike Syria, especially after long and costly U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is unpopular in the United States as well. Obama planned to give an address on Syria on Tuesday as Congress considers his request for limited military action against Assad's government.

"I do consider it part of my job to help make the case and to explain to the American people exactly why I think this is the right thing to do," he said.

Obama said the United States has frequently had reservations about getting involved in conflicts far from its shores, including whether to help Britain at the start of World War Two.

The U.S. decision to intervene in the Kosovo conflict in 1999 was initially unpopular but was ultimately "the right thing to do," Obama said.

Obama argued that even though strife in Syria is far away, it has a potential to affect Americans in the long run.

"I think that the security of the world and my particular task looking out for the national security of the United States requires that when there's a breach this brazen of a norm this important and the international community is paralyzed and frozen and doesn't act, then that norm begins to unravel," Obama said.

"And if that norm unravels, then other norms and prohibitions start unraveling. And that makes for a more dangerous world. And that, then, requires even more difficult choices and more difficult responses in the future."

Obama declined to say whether he would go it alone with a military action if Congress fails to give him the green light.

(Corrects to show countries backing strong response Friday not all G20 members)

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton and Mark Felsenthal; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

View the original article here

U.S. clears Smithfield's acquisition by China's Shuanghui

n">(Reuters) - The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment has cleared the way for Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd's proposed $4.7 billion acquisition of Smithfield Foods Inc, the companies said on Friday.

The deal, which would be the biggest purchase of a U.S. company by a Chinese firm, still needs shareholder approval at a special meeting scheduled for September 24.

Shuanghui and Smithfield expect the transaction, valued at $7.1 billion including debt, to close shortly after that meeting.

Experts in Washington and on Wall Street had expected the deal to get the nod from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency executive branch panel that examines foreign investment for potential threats to national security.

They also do not expect a move by a major investor to block the deal.

Activist hedge fund Starboard Value LP, which has a 5.7 percent stake in Smithfield, is searching for an alternative buyer for Smithfield and has said it would vote against the merger.

Shuanghui's bid, which aims to satisfy China's growing appetite for pork, stirred concern about food safety and domestic pork supplies among some U.S. politicians and faced review by a committee of several government agencies overseen by the Treasury Department.

As international interest in American companies has risen dramatically in recent years, CFIUS reviews have increased in number. Since 2007, CFIUS reviews of deals involving Chinese firms have tripled. Reviews of Japanese firms have increased sevenfold.

Although Congress cannot approve or block deals, lawmakers can force companies to abandon their merger plans. They did so in 2005 when China's CNOOC Ltd made an unsuccessful bid to buy U.S.-based Unocal for $18 billion.

Some experts compared the Shuanghui-Smithfield combination, which would marry two of the world's largest pork producers, to the 2012 takeover of AMC Theaters by China's Dalian Wanda Group for $2.6 billion. That transaction was allowed to proceed when the CFIUS determined the deal posed no threat to national security.

Shares in Smithfield rose 1.7 percent to $34.49 in extended trading.

(Reporting by Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles, P.J. Huffstutter in Chicago and Aditi Shrivastava in Bangalore; Editing by Ken Wills)

View the original article here