It’d have more of a ring if his name were “Tinneur,” but nothing to be done about that.
Anyway, I recently ran across “this link”:http://www.parlament.ch/e/organe-mitglieder/delegationen/geschaeftspruefungsdelegation/fall-tinner/Pages/default.aspx which includes all of the public Swiss government documents related to the Tinner matter. Take a look.
On a related note, I’ve occasionally imagined that AQK’s haggling might have gone something like this:
The Wonk was “kind enough”:http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4383/libyas-scud-b-force to cite “a piece”:http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1549 I wrote way back when regarding Libya’s Scud-B missiles, so I was inspired to blog this small item.
As you likely know, Libya has destroyed its CW munitions, but not all of its agent. Yet there are still OPCW reports and “documents”:http://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-expresses-concerns-over-chemical-weapons-stockpiles-in-libya/ which refer to Libya’s “chemical weapons.”
My understanding is that the OPCW uses the terms “chemical “weapons” and “chemical agents” interchangeably. That makes sense, given the definitions in “Article II”:http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria/ of the CWC:
bq.. 1. “Chemical Weapons” means the following, together or separately:
a. Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
b. Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
c. Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
p. Stay dry.
The IAEA recently posted “a letter”:http://iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2011/infcirc823.pdf from Iran’s Mission to the IAEA which criticized IAEA DG Amano’s May “report”:http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-29.pdf to the BoG.
Para 9 of the letter includes this line:
bq. …the DG’s report which marked [sic] as “Restricted Distribution” is disseminated on the ISIS website upon its distribution exactly on the date of its issuance.
Making friends, ISIS is…
A reader (yes, that one) points out that, in the interview I blogged about “here,”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/2111/how-was-i-supposed-to-know Musharraf made a good point about deterrence with a low number (for us, anyway) of nuclear weapons:
bq. MUSHARRAF: What difference does it make if we are 94 or whether it’s
54 or 94 or 150 or — what does that mean?
Former President of Pakistan, “Pervez Musharraf,”:http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/index.php?lang=en&opc=2&sel=4&pId=10 on “CNN last month:”:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/21/sitroom.02.html
bq.. BLITZER: How many nuclear bombs does Pakistan have?
MUSHARRAF: I don’t know.
BLITZER: About?
MUSHARRAF: No idea.
BLITZER: A hundred?
MUSHARRAF: Well, I don’t know. I don’t know.
BLITZER: But you knew when you were the president.
MUSHARRAF: Oh, no…
BLITZER: You wouldn’t even know that as president of Pakistan?
MUSHARRAF: No, not at all. They don’t give me that figure. I mean, why am I concerned whether it is 98 or 89 or something? I am not concerned about the figures.
BLITZER: Let me…
MUSHARRAF: What difference does it make if we are 94 or whether it’s
54 or 94 or 150 or — what does that mean?
p. To be fair, I’m not sure there are that many leaders of states with nuclear weapons who know exactly how many they have.
KCNA had some “kind words”:http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201011/news10/20101110-03ee.html for my ACA successor Peter Crail’s Nonproliferation and Disarmament “Report Card.”::http://www.armscontrol.org/reports/2009to2010ReportCard
They described the report card as
bq. nothing but a despicable plot to weaken the DPRK’s nuclear deterrence for self-defence and isolate it in the international arena as it was part of the U.S. nuclear policy.
I’m not sure I understand…that’s hardly nothing.
The NYT “has it.”:http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/UNSCR_Iran_18_May_2010_to_UNSC.pdf
[Insert brilliant analysis.]
Presumably, some of you have read Chomsky. The Onion “has him down pretty well:”:http://www.theonion.com/articles/exhausted-noam-chomsky-just-going-to-try-and-enjoy,17404/
After stopping at a roadside McDonald’s, Chomsky was unable to enjoy the Big Mac he purchased, due to the popular restaurant chain’s participation in selling “a bill of goods” to the American people, who consume the unhealthy fast food and thereby bolster the capitalist system rather than buying from local farmers in order to equalize the distribution of wealth and eat more nutritiously.
Chomsky also found the burger to be too salty.
When I wrote “this post,”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/2102/acronym-institute-on-the-revcon I was unaware that Carol Naughton was also “blogging for”:http://acronyminstitute.wordpress.com/ the Acronym Institute about the RevCon. Credit where it’s due and all that…
I’d be remiss if I forgot to mention “it”:http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/ as a truly outstanding resource for the RevCon.