What West gets wrong about Saudi Arabia

Recent discussion in the wake of Saudi Arabia's refusal to accept a nonpermanent seat on the U.N. Security Council has prompted bewilderment – and renewed questions about the Kingdom’s foreign policy. Yet accusations of irresponsibility are inaccurate and misleading. Indeed, despite the criticisms leveled by commentators including Fareed Zakaria on these very pages, the fundamentals of Saudi foreign policy have not changed in decades, and are based on consistent and clear foundations.

As the “senior player” in the Arab world, as the Kingdom was recently described by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Saudi Arabia works to promote economic stability and political security via a moderating energy policy and careful strategic posture that is aimed at countering and neutralizing the upheaval that has been tearing the Muslim and Arab worlds apart.

This approach has been on display in recent Saudi actions.

When an insurgency sought to overthrow the Bahraini government in 2011, a Saudi-led Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) military contingent stepped in to secure the critical state infrastructure of this tiny nation. In addition, the Kingdom is also heavily engaged in attempting to stabilize Yemen, primarily through economic and security assistance based on the GCC plan that replaced former President Ali Abdullah Saleh with an interim government. This new leadership is now drawing up of a new constitution for elections next year. And in Egypt, Saudi Arabia has stepped in as a crucial player in pushing back against Muslim Brotherhood ideology, including through providing the financial resources needed to strengthen the more moderate but temporary government in Cairo.

All this is in keeping with Saudi Arabia’s role and responsibilities as the cradle of Islam. After all, the Kingdom has a unique standing vis-a-vis the more than 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, a leadership role enhanced by the Kingdom's willingness to expend formidable financial and economic resources in assisting other nations in dire straits to maintain stability.

This approach has in turn generated a growing foreign policy assertiveness that is being transformed from primarily reactive to proactive. The fact is that the Kingdom also has global responsibilities, including trying to combat Islamic extremism. And despite the popular image in the United States that Saudi money is about funding terror, the Kingdom was actually a victim of al Qaeda-backed terrorism on its own soil several years before the tragic events of September 11, 2001. In 1995, for example, al Qaeda struck a National Guard training facility in Riyadh. This was followed by the Riyadh compound bombings in May 2003. The latter attack claimed dozens of lives and prompted the Saudis to launch a massive security upgrade to root out terrorists in their midst and overseas through hard (military and police) and soft (educative and financial) tactics.

But years before these changes, Saudi Arabia had already staked out its diplomatic position on the al Qaeda threat. Following the 1998 terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Saudi Arabia is said to have requested that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden. The former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal, reportedly said back in 2001 that Taliban leader Mullah Omar had initially agreed to grant the request, but changed his mind and was “abusive” about the Kingdom.

Despite the failure to secure bin Laden, the Saudi counter-terrorism effort decimated al Qaeda’s infrastructure in the Kingdom, preventing attacks both at home and abroad in the process including a heavily Saudi-backed infiltration scheme that thwarted an alleged attempt to place bombs on two cargo planes in Yemen that had been destined for the United States.

But Saudi Arabia does not only have a responsibility to push for security from terrorism – as the world’s largest oil exporter, it also has a global responsibility to ensure the well-being of the world’s financial system. Serving as the undisputed leader of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the Saudis have managed oil production in a consistent, sensible manner that has broadly kept global energy markets stable and supplied while minimizing the chance for the sudden supply disruptions seen with countries such as Iran, Iraq and Venezuela.

Despite the frustration in the West with the Kingdom, Saudi Arabia has been the most durable and unwavering ally of the United States in the Middle East since 1945, balancing its roles as a leading Muslim nation and a pivotal U.S. partner. Secretary Kerry made this very point when he said of the Kingdom that it has “the ability to be able to influence a lot of important things we also care about.”

So back to the U.N. Security Council – if Saudi Arabia wants to be a responsible player, why did it turn down a seat? The answer is that as part of its growing efforts to steer a more assertive and independent course, Saudi Arabia has found itself increasingly at odds with the U.S. and others over their handling of Syria. Just this week, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister urged the Security Council to act to “save” Syria, and it is this refusal to act that likely pushed a disillusioned Kingdom to shun the body.

If a more independent Saudi foreign policy is “irresponsible,” then Fareed Zakaria is right. But while he might be willing to pick the country for a Most Irresponsible Foreign Policy award, the facts of the Kingdom actually suggest this is a country whose foreign policy is more stable, secure and responsible than many realize.

Asia territorial tensions set to get worse before they get better

China’s more assertive posture in regional territorial disputes took a new turn at the weekend with its decision to implement an Air Defense Identification Zone. At a time when tensions in the region are already high due to a lingering territorial dispute between China and Japan, China’s action has escalated tensions in the East China Sea. Now, with Beijing apparently demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of diplomacy with its neighbors, the region is forced to confront provocative and potentially destabilizing behavior.

On November 23, China’s defense ministry unilaterally announced the establishment of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone. According to the new rules for conduct in this ADIZ, any aircraft flying into China’s ADIZ is required to submit flight plans to Chinese authorities, maintain two-way radio communication, and keep radar transponders turned on. Should a plane refuse to follow these instructions, China’s military will “adopt defensive measures.”

ADIZs are, by themselves, not controversial, acting as early-warning perimeters for self-defense. But while there are no international rules concerning their size or establishment, China’s action is provocative for two reasons. First, it may be attempting to set new rules for aircraft flying above waters considered a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Second, it chose to establish an ADIZ that overlaps considerably with those of both Japan and Taiwan as well as a sliver of South Korea’s. Provocatively, included in China’s ADIZ are territorial disputes it maintains with Japan over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu in Chinese) and with South Korea over Ieodo (Suyan Rock in Chinese).

Under current U.S. and Japanese practice, ADIZ procedures are not applied to foreign aircraft if they do not intend to enter their territorial airspace. China’s move sets the stage for a dangerous situation, however, if a plane flies through a portion of its ADIZ (not intending to enter territorial airspace) and refuses to follow China’s unique protocols. This is particularly worrisome with respect to Japan – under China’s new rules, Chinese planes could be scrambled to confront Japanese planes flying in the overlapped portion of the ADIZ, which could result in an accidental collision. In the worst case scenario, a situation could arise where an order by either country is given to adopt defensive measures against what they see as intruding planes. Think of the 2001 EP-3 incident, when a Chinese fighter collided with a U.S. surveillance plane, resulting in the death of the Chinese pilot. If that happened with a Japanese plane today, Beijing would be pressured to take aggressive action to placate the virulent Chinese nationalism that is sure to erupt.

Representatives from the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan quickly expressed strong concern about China’s attempt to alter the status quo and destabilize the region. And, quick to demonstrate their refusal to be cowed by China, the United States and Japan continued scheduled exercises in the area of the Senkaku Islands. Indeed, to underscore its commitment to the status quo, the United States on Tuesday sent two B-52s directly through China’s ADIZ, refusing to follow China’s new rules.

More from GPS: Why Asia is arguing over its islands

China’s decision to establish the ADIZ demonstrates both recklessness and misunderstanding. It is reckless in that Beijing is attempting to unilaterally change the status quo via intimidation. Such behavior is escalatory and only increases tensions between neighbors and drastically reduces trust with the United States. At the same time, China’s behavior demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both statesmanship and the commitment by the United States and its allies to uphold international norms.

China has a right to seek changes to existing rules that guide state behavior, but not through intimidation. The U.S. and China’s neighbors understand that China is rising and have worked to engage China through various dialogues that strengthen China’s voice in international affairs and benefit China’s global presence. Yet, China should not mistake their engagement for weakness. The United States and its allies stand resolute to defend the rules and norms that have underwritten peace and security for decades, upon which the prosperity of the region was built and continues to grow. Brute attempts at change will always be forcefully resisted.

Unfortunately, this problem will probably get worse before it improves. Although China’s ADIZ does not cover the South China Sea, where it is ensnarled in multiple territorial disputes, China’s Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun said that China will establish additional zones after all necessary preparations are completed. This raises worries over new provocations. Should China decide to extend another expansive ADIZ in the South China Sea, backed by its threat to adopt defensive measures, this would overlap multiple ADIZs, thereby throwing down the gauntlet to all states on its periphery.

A paradox exists in that China’s behavior is both understandable and yet puzzling. China is in many ways blinded by a mixture of victimization and self-confidence that lead it to demand changes, believing its time has come after having suffered so long under the hand of foreign oppressors. At the same time, how it chooses to do so defies logic. At a time when U.S. leadership is working to build strategic trust with China, the Korean leadership is pursuing closer ties with China as part of a trustpolitk campaign and Taiwan’s leadership is maintaining a positive relationship with Beijing, China chooses to act in a way that in one broad stroke erases much of the goodwill that has been built. And at a time when Japanese leadership remains highly critical of China and is strengthening partnerships with countries similarly challenged by China, Beijing’s act further steels Tokyo’s opposition and sends a frightening message to others in the region.

China’s leadership appears to see its neighbors as conspiring to stop China’s rise. The U.S. rebalance to the region and Japan’s changing security policies are interpreted as provocative actions directed against Beijing. As such, China believes it must counterbalance these efforts. What Beijing fails to see is that efforts like those by the United States and Japan are in fact reactions against Chinese behavior. China’s more assertive posture in recent years has spooked the region, and its unilateral efforts to change international norms are viewed as part of this revanchism.

The reality is that China is not the victim, but very much part of the problem.

Iran deal risks creating another North Korea

In the early hours of Sunday morning, in Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, and foreign ministers from Russia, China, and Europe signed a deal to suspend aspects of Iranian nuclear work in exchange for some sanctions relief. “With this first step, we have created the time and the space in order to be able to pursue a comprehensive agreement…to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon," Kerry told assembled diplomats and journalists.
President Barack Obama was triumphant. “Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure – a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.”
He should not be so certain. Rather than prevent Iran’s nuclear breakout, historians may mark the Geneva deal as the step that most legitimized Iran’s path to nuclear weapons capability.
Willing to deal is not synonymous with sincere desire to reach a comprehensive settlement. Key to successful reconciliation is truth, and there are many reasons to doubt Iranian intentions, none of which did the Geneva negotiators address. Iranian authorities say they seek nuclear technology to ensure domestic energy security, but as the Bipartisan Policy Center showed, Tehran could achieve that aim for a fraction of the cost and for decades, if not centuries, longer if it chose to invest instead in its pipeline and refinery infrastructure.
Neither Obama nor Kerry have demanded Tehran clarify past deception. If Iran’s nuclear program has always been peaceful as Tehran claims, then it would have had no need to hide enrichment plants and other facilities from inspectors. It is all well and good to compliment Iran on allowing inspections of key plants once discovered, but a sincere Tehran would not offer transparency only when intelligence services discover subterfuge.
Iran also walked away from previous offers – and even agreements – that would see it guaranteed reactor fuel should it agree that critical reprocessing might occur abroad.  Unfortunately, the current deal rewards Iran for its past defiance and loosens what diplomats once considered the minimum safeguards.
Fear over Iranian intentions is genuine. While Iranian officials say that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa banning nuclear weapons, the collection of his fatwas on his official websites does not include it. Iranian officials and diplomats citing it have been inconsistent as to its date of issue and contents. Meanwhile, various Iranian officials have threatened to use nuclear weapons, curious statements from a regime that claims they do not seek to develop them.
Indeed, on December 14, 2001, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the father of Iran’s post-revolutionary nuclear program, reportedly declared: “The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while the same against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable.” Just over three years later, Iran Emrooz quoted Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Kharrazi, secretary general of Iranian Hezbollah, as saying, “We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that. We shouldn't be afraid of anyone. The U.S. is not more than a barking dog." On May 29, 2005, Hojjat ol-Islam Gholam Reza Hasani, the Supreme Leader's personal representative in the West Azerbaijan province, reportedly declared possession of nuclear weapons to be one of Iran's top goals. “An atom bomb…must be produced as well,” he said. While some academics have suggested that Iranian leaders never said they hoped to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth,” official translations and banners suggest otherwise.
Past National Intelligence Estimates have further concluded that Iran has researched and experimented with nuclear weapons components, a charge that Iranian officials have always denied. While subsequent estimates suggested that Tehran stopped such work, an Islamic Republic sincere in putting past suspicions behind it would come clean.
More from GPS: Iran deal opponents' concerns misplaced?
True, the deal signed is better than that scuttled by French officials earlier this month. Diplomats have now placed restrictions on Iranian engineers using the pause to install new centrifuges. And negotiators have addressed concern regarding the potential of Iran extracting plutonium from the Arak heavy water plant.
Does it hurt to try with the current deal? Unfortunately, still, the answer is yes.
While Iran has agreed to suspend some enrichment, every concession Tehran has granted is reversible. The legitimacy of six unanimous or near unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolutions demanding Iran cease enrichment as a result of its non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s safeguards agreement can never be restored. The billions of dollars in sanctions relief Iran receives might very well pump new life into Tehran’s nuclear program. After all, when the European Union nearly tripled trade with Iran between 2000 and 2005, the Iranian government responded by spending the preponderance of its hard currency windfall on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
Perhaps, diplomats hope that, with some pressure relieved, Iranian officials will now negotiate sincerely during the next six months to resolve its nuclear file permanently. If so, they will be disappointed. By rewarding Iran for decades of defiance, negotiators have now set a precedent by which, whenever Tehran needs cash, it can restart enrichment and then demand billions in payment for temporary suspensions. In effect, Iran has replicated North Korea’s strategy: blackmail for cash and technology.
Second term presidents always seek legacies. President Clinton pushed hard at Camp David II to end the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat walked away, and violence increased exponentially. Likewise, President George W. Bush sought a comprehensive settlement with North Korea. His administration removed North Korea from its list of terror sponsors and lifted some sanctions. In response, Pyongyang redoubled its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and accelerated terrorism against South Korea.
Unfortunately, the Iranian nuclear deal appears to fall into the same pattern. Not every country must be met halfway, and not every compromise is wise. The difference between appeasement and compromise is often determined only in historical hindsight. When historians consider the Geneva deal, they likely will categorize it as the former.

Iran deal risks creating another North Korea

In the early hours of Sunday morning, in Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, and foreign ministers from Russia, China, and Europe signed a deal to suspend aspects of Iranian nuclear work in exchange for some sanctions relief. “With this first step, we have created the time and the space in order to be able to pursue a comprehensive agreement…to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon," Kerry told assembled diplomats and journalists.
President Barack Obama was triumphant. “Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure – a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.”
He should not be so certain. Rather than prevent Iran’s nuclear breakout, historians may mark the Geneva deal as the step that most legitimized Iran’s path to nuclear weapons capability.
Willing to deal is not synonymous with sincere desire to reach a comprehensive settlement. Key to successful reconciliation is truth, and there are many reasons to doubt Iranian intentions, none of which did the Geneva negotiators address. Iranian authorities say they seek nuclear technology to ensure domestic energy security, but as the Bipartisan Policy Center showed, Tehran could achieve that aim for a fraction of the cost and for decades, if not centuries, longer if it chose to invest instead in its pipeline and refinery infrastructure.
Neither Obama nor Kerry have demanded Tehran clarify past deception. If Iran’s nuclear program has always been peaceful as Tehran claims, then it would have had no need to hide enrichment plants and other facilities from inspectors. It is all well and good to compliment Iran on allowing inspections of key plants once discovered, but a sincere Tehran would not offer transparency only when intelligence services discover subterfuge.
Iran also walked away from previous offers – and even agreements – that would see it guaranteed reactor fuel should it agree that critical reprocessing might occur abroad.  Unfortunately, the current deal rewards Iran for its past defiance and loosens what diplomats once considered the minimum safeguards.
Fear over Iranian intentions is genuine. While Iranian officials say that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa banning nuclear weapons, the collection of his fatwas on his official websites does not include it. Iranian officials and diplomats citing it have been inconsistent as to its date of issue and contents. Meanwhile, various Iranian officials have threatened to use nuclear weapons, curious statements from a regime that claims they do not seek to develop them.
Indeed, on December 14, 2001, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the father of Iran’s post-revolutionary nuclear program, reportedly declared: “The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while the same against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable.” Just over three years later, Iran Emrooz quoted Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Kharrazi, secretary general of Iranian Hezbollah, as saying, “We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that. We shouldn't be afraid of anyone. The U.S. is not more than a barking dog." On May 29, 2005, Hojjat ol-Islam Gholam Reza Hasani, the Supreme Leader's personal representative in the West Azerbaijan province, reportedly declared possession of nuclear weapons to be one of Iran's top goals. “An atom bomb…must be produced as well,” he said. While some academics have suggested that Iranian leaders never said they hoped to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth,” official translations and banners suggest otherwise.
Past National Intelligence Estimates have further concluded that Iran has researched and experimented with nuclear weapons components, a charge that Iranian officials have always denied. While subsequent estimates suggested that Tehran stopped such work, an Islamic Republic sincere in putting past suspicions behind it would come clean.
More from GPS: Iran deal opponents' concerns misplaced?
True, the deal signed is better than that scuttled by French officials earlier this month. Diplomats have now placed restrictions on Iranian engineers using the pause to install new centrifuges. And negotiators have addressed concern regarding the potential of Iran extracting plutonium from the Arak heavy water plant.
Does it hurt to try with the current deal? Unfortunately, still, the answer is yes.
While Iran has agreed to suspend some enrichment, every concession Tehran has granted is reversible. The legitimacy of six unanimous or near unanimous U.N. Security Council Resolutions demanding Iran cease enrichment as a result of its non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s safeguards agreement can never be restored. The billions of dollars in sanctions relief Iran receives might very well pump new life into Tehran’s nuclear program. After all, when the European Union nearly tripled trade with Iran between 2000 and 2005, the Iranian government responded by spending the preponderance of its hard currency windfall on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
Perhaps, diplomats hope that, with some pressure relieved, Iranian officials will now negotiate sincerely during the next six months to resolve its nuclear file permanently. If so, they will be disappointed. By rewarding Iran for decades of defiance, negotiators have now set a precedent by which, whenever Tehran needs cash, it can restart enrichment and then demand billions in payment for temporary suspensions. In effect, Iran has replicated North Korea’s strategy: blackmail for cash and technology.
Second term presidents always seek legacies. President Clinton pushed hard at Camp David II to end the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat walked away, and violence increased exponentially. Likewise, President George W. Bush sought a comprehensive settlement with North Korea. His administration removed North Korea from its list of terror sponsors and lifted some sanctions. In response, Pyongyang redoubled its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and accelerated terrorism against South Korea.
Unfortunately, the Iranian nuclear deal appears to fall into the same pattern. Not every country must be met halfway, and not every compromise is wise. The difference between appeasement and compromise is often determined only in historical hindsight. When historians consider the Geneva deal, they likely will categorize it as the former.

Iraq violence: Eighteen killed after being abducted Iraqis

The bodies of 18 people have been found near the Iraqi capital Baghdad, hours after they were abducted from their homes, police say.

The corpses - with gunshots in the head - were found near the town of Tarmiya. At least one army officer was among those killed.

Execution-style killings have been on the rise in Iraq, correspondents say, alongside a wave of bomb attacks.

Sectarian violence has surged across the country in recent months.

At least one tribal chief and a police officer were also among those killed on Friday.

The UN says 979 people - including 158 police and 127 military personnel - were killed in violent attacks in October. More than 6,500 civilians have died since January, the highest annual toll since 2008.

The United Nations has called on Iraq's political leaders to co-operate to end the bloodshed, which has escalated since an army raid on a Sunni Arab anti-government protest camp in April 2013.

The protesters had called for the resignation of Shia Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who they accused of targeting the minority Sunni community.

Iraq has also seen a spill-over of violence from the conflict in Syria, where jihadist rebels linked to the Islamic State of Iraq, a Sunni militant umbrella group that includes al-Qaeda, have risen to prominence.

Thailand PM Yingluck Shinawatra rules out early election

She told the BBC the situation in Thailand was not calm enough for polls.

She also said she would not authorise the use of force against protesters occupying government ministries.

She was speaking after demonstrators forced their way into the army headquarters in Bangkok and held a demonstration there.

Ms Yingluck has been prime minister since 2011, when her Pheu Thai party won a general election.


PM Yingluck Shinawatra: "We need to protect democracy"
In an interview with the BBC's Jonathan Head on Friday, she said that if she called a new election, she was not sure the protesters would be satisfied.

"I love this country. I devote myself to this country. I need only one thing for the country: we need to protect democracy," she said.

She said the situation in Thailand was "very sensitive" and repeated her call for negotiations to resolve the crisis.

On Thursday, Ms Yingluck called for an end to the demonstrations after surviving a no-confidence vote.

However protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban has rejected her appeal.

"We will not let them work anymore," the former senior opposition lawmaker said in a speech late on Thursday.

Anti-government protesters with Thai national flags sit at the Royal Thai Army compound in Bangkok, Thailand, 29 November 2013
Protesters went inside the army HQ compound, sitting on the lawn
Anti-government protesters give roses, through razor wire, to the security personnel guarding the Defence Ministry as protesters gather outside it in Bangkok on 28 November 2013
In the last week protesters have marched on different government buildings
An anti-government protester sleeps among others sitting on the road outside the national police headquarters where they are protesting in Bangkok on 28 November 2013
On Thursday, they protested at the national police headquarters, shutting it down
Anti-government protesters gather in front of the Democracy Monument during a rally in Bangkok, Thailand, 29 November 2013
The government has asked the protesters to hold talks - but has been rejected
On Friday at least 1,000 protesters forced their way into the army headquarters compound, but did not enter any buildings.

The BBC's Jonah Fisher, who was at the scene, said protesters were massed on a lawn listening to speeches from leaders on a stage they had erected.

They urged the army to come out in support of the demonstrators. "We want to know which side the army stands on," Reuters news agency quoted one protester as saying.

Our correspondent described the atmosphere as good natured and said the authorities appeared keen to avoid confrontation. The protesters later left peacefully.

Yale Put On Lockdown Amid Reports Of Gunman

Police say a call that sparked fears of a gunman on the Yale University campus appears to have been a hoax.

Students had been urged to "shelter in place" following the security scare, but the lockdown has now been lifted.

New Haven Police Chief Dean Esserman told a news conference the campus was safe.

SWAT teams had been scrambled to the university, while students received a text message saying: "Confirmed report of person with gun on/near Old Campus. Shelter in place. This is not a test."
Police got an anonymous phone call from a phone booth at around 10am local time reporting a person on campus with a gun.

Streets close to the campus have been blockaded, and the FBI is looking at footage of the area around the phone booth to identify the caller.

Police spokesman David Harman had said: "We don't have a suspect. There's nothing tangible."

New Haven Police Department Lieutenant Jeff Hoffman said there had been no shootings and no injuries. Room-to-room searches conducted by Yale's police department found nothing untoward.

Several New Haven schools had also been placed on lockdown, as had a nearby community college.

Yale has been on November recess since Saturday, meaning many students have left to celebrate Thanksgiving.

US Slams China Over Defence Zone Declaration

The United States has slammed as "unnecessarily inflammatory" China's declaration of an air defence identification zone over much of the East China Sea, a move that has fuelled tensions with Japan.

"This announcement from the Chinese government was unnecessarily inflammatory," White House deputy spokesman Josh Earnest said.

"There are regional disputes in that part of the world and those disputes should be resolved diplomatically.

"There should be in this case plenty of overlapping common ground to reach a resolution that doesn't involve inflammatory, escalating rhetoric."

Beijing said Saturday it had established an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) that requires all aircraft flying over an area of the East China Sea to obey its orders.

The zone covers the Tokyo-controlled Senkakus, where ships and aircraft from the two countries already shadow each other in a potentially dangerous confrontation.

Ties between the Asian powers have been strained for months by the row over the islands, which are believed to be surrounded by energy-rich waters.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told parliament he was deeply concerned "as it is a profoundly dangerous act that may cause unintended consequences".

Syria: Foreign Secretary Welcomes Peace Talks

The Foreign Secretary has said a commitment by the Syrian government and opposition groups to peace talks next year is a "welcome" step forward.

The two sides have agreed to meet in Geneva in January in an attempt to end the civil war that has ravaged the country for almost three years, killing more than 100,000 people.

Sky's Middle East Correspondent Sam Kiley said the starting point for the talks was not a ceasefire but the establishment of "rules and regulations for a political transition".

A Free Syrian Army fighter throws a homemade bomb towards forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al Assad in the old city of Aleppo
A Free Syrian Army fighter throws a homemade bomb towards Syrian forces
Britain and other countries have said President Bashar al Assad cannot be allowed to continue in power if a "roadmap" for Syria's political future, agreed at a summit in Geneva last year, is to be implemented.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would lend its "extended and sustained" support to the opposition National Coalition, which he described as "the heart and lead" of forces fighting the Assad regime.

"A negotiated political transition in Syria is the only way to end the conflict and alleviate Syria's humanitarian crisis," he said.

Damaged buildings in Deir al-Zor, eastern Syria
Many towns and cities, including Deir al-Zor, have been left in ruins
"The Syrian regime is now in the spotlight. They need to take immediate steps to alleviate humanitarian suffering across the country and stop their brutal tactics, which include besieging and attacking civilian areas.

"In the coming weeks they need to demonstrate that they will go to the Geneva II talks prepared to negotiate a political transition and end the violence."

The UN said the talks, which are due to take place on January 22, would seek to establish "a transitional governing body with full executive powers, including over military and security entities".

Arab and western foreign ministers hold the 'London 11' Friends of Syria meeting
Mr Hague and foreign ministers at a recent Friends of Syria meeting
It called on both sides to go into the meeting with a "serious intention" to end fighting in Syria, which it said had "sent tremors through the region and forced unacceptable burdens" on the country's neighbours.

Kiley said the attitude among diplomats was one of "cautious optimism" after previous attempts at negotiations failed.

He said one of the stumbling blocks had been "pre-conditions set by groups of rebels, who said they wanted Mr Assad to agree to end his rule prior to the talks".

"It would appear now that elements, at least, of the rebels have agreed to unconditional talks," he said.

In a letter to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Syria's foreign ministry said that ending support for "armed terrorist groups" in Syria is "crucial for any political solution to the crisis to succeed".

Khaled Saleh, a spokesman for the Syrian National Coalition, added: "We want to have a successful conference and we are not interested in a conference that is going to waste time.

"We are not interested in a conference that is going to justify killing more Syrians."

Typhoon Haiyan: HMS Illustrious In Philippines

The Royal Navy ship is carrying supplies including 12,500 blankets, 20,000 candles, 30,000 bags of rice and 9,800 tins of sardines.

Thousands of tins of vegetables, shelter kits, jerry cans and water carriers are also on board.

The supplies have been provided by the Government's Department for International Development (DFID).

Typhoon Haiyan - said to be the strongest ever to make landfall with winds of up to 170mph - hit the Philippines on November 7, killing thousands and leaving many more without food and shelter.

HMS Illustrious is replacing HMS Daring, which has been distributing aid in remote communities for the past week.

Seven helicopters are on board to help get the aid quickly into remote areas.

The ship was off the east coast of Africa on counter-piracy operations when it was diverted to help the relief effort.

It is expected to stay in the Philippines until early December.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said: "The crew of HMS Daring have done a fantastic job in the Philippines and I am pleased that HMS Illustrious will be able to continue this good work by providing substantially increased helicopter capability, ensuring relief reaches all those stricken by Typhoon Haiyan."

The UK public has now donated more than £60m through the Disasters Emergency Committee Appeal and the Government has given more than £55m.

The death toll from the disaster has risen above 5,000, according to the Philippine government, with around four million people displaced and more than 1,600 still missing.

Afghanistan: Karzai Defiant Over US Deal Delay

Afghanistan's President has refused to sign a security deal which could see all US troops leave the country next year.

There are still 47,000 American forces in the country and there have been discussions about keeping a small residual force of about 8,000 troops there after it winds down operations in 2014.

But Hamid Karzai has told National Security Advisor Susan Rice in Kabul the US must put an immediate end to military raids on Afghan homes and demonstrate its commitment to peace talks before he would sign a bilateral security pact.

Following the meeting a White House spokesman quotes Ms Rice as saying: "Without a prompt signature, the US would have no choice but to initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no US or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan."

On Sunday an assembly of Afghan elders endorsed the security pact, but Mr Karzai suggested he might not sign it until after national elections next spring.

US troops have been in Afghanistan since leading multinational forces in ousting the Taliban regime in late 2001.

Officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, have said the bilateral security deal must be signed by the end of 2013 to begin preparations for a post-2014 presence.

Ms Rice told the Afghan president it was "not viable" to defer signing the deal until after the election.

The delay "would not provide the United States and NATO allies the clarity necessary to plan for a potential post-2014 military presence".

The Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) includes a provision allowing raids in exceptional circumstances - when an American life is directly under threat - but it would not take effect  until 2015.

Microsoft limits Xbox Live users' curse words

As Xbox players battled each other, uploading videos showcasing conquests and recording trash talking over the past couple of days, some players noticed that they lost their Xbox Live account privileges.

What gives?

Apparently, Microsoft has cracked down on the use of expletives in its Upload Studio videos.

"Excessive profanity and other Code of Conduct violations will be enforced upon. On Xbox One, we have a more sophisticated system of enforcement," a Microsoft spokesperson told CNET. "As a result, if someone misbehaves on the service, we may only suspend some of their privileges on Xbox Live such as access to certain apps or use of certain features."

"To be clear, the Xbox Live Policy & Enforcement team does not monitor direct peer-to-peer communications like Skype chats and calls," the spokesperson continued. "We take Code of Conduct moderation via Upload Studio very seriously. The team reviews every clip that is uploaded to the service to help maintain a clean, safe and fun environment for all users."

Xbox forums lit up over the weekend as some users lost control of their accounts and were unable to use Skype and other applications via their consoles. There was some confusion as to why user privileges were being yanked and the length of time the suspensions would last.

Rather than being upset at having to limit profanity, most players appeared to be more peeved at how Microsoft handled the situation -- by pulling privileges without explaining why.

"I get the message 'Choose something else to play' simply because I assume MS was not happy about a video I uploaded," a user who goes by rbevanx wrote. "I think I should have just had a warning and not to do it again (don't even know what I did wrong in the first place)."

Another user who goes by Rockettpunk wrote, "MS really does need to: a) be much clearer on their terms as to how strict they will be. b) implement a strike system or at least message people."

Iran talks reverberate through web of Mideast alliances

BEIRUT — The interim accord hammered out between Iran and global powers focuses narrowly on Tehran's nuclear ambitions but the reaction across the Middle East points to a broader significance: the prospect of a geopolitical shift with repercussions across the region.

The process is still embryonic and may go nowhere. But the Middle East is already abuzz with speculation about a thaw between Washington and Tehran emerging from the Geneva talks. Some analysts say it may turn out to be a "hinge" moment that — however gradually — alters the political landscape of the highly volatile region.

"This is already being seen as a kind of game-changer," said Paul Salem, an analyst at the Middle East Institute, a Washington-based think tank. "This is not just about how much uranium is being enriched or when. It's about a new alignment and its potential impacts in Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in all the regional arrangements."

Condemnation from Israel and angry silence from Saudi Arabia — both key U.S. allies and avowed enemies of Tehran — highlight a profound disquiet about much more than the letter of the preliminary six-month nuclear accord.

Antagonism between Iran and the U.S. has been a major factor in the region's web of alliances for more than three decades.

Saudi officials view their kingdom and its allies as being engaged in a colossal struggle for regional influence between Islam's two great branches.

The Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf kingdoms accuse Shiite Iran of meddling from Syria to Lebanon to Bahrain. Riyadh plainly would prefer to see Iran consigned indefinitely to membership in an "axis of evil" than engaged in direct and seemingly amiable negotiations with the U.S. secretary of State at a five-star Geneva hotel.

"It is clear that the traditional Arab allies of the U.S. in the region, the Saudis specifically but also the Jordanians, are shocked by this American transformation," said Fahed Khitan, an Amman, Jordan-based political analyst. "The Saudis and the Israelis are, perhaps for the first time, in a camp together."

While Saudi officials have kept their ire private so far, Israeli authorities have publicly denounced the preliminary nuclear accord with Iran as a "bad deal" and "historic mistake," in the words of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

From Israel's perspective, Iran is a challenge on many fronts, including in Lebanon, which shares a tense border with Israel that is patrolled by United Nations peacekeepers. Iran's Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, has a powerful military force and tens of thousands of rockets that it can use to target Israel.

In Israel, there has been media speculation that Netanyahu would derail the latest U.S.-backed initiative for peace between Israel and the Palestinians in retaliation for the Iran nuclear accord.

Any change in U.S.-Iran relations will be gradual, diplomats say. U.S. officials have been at pains to emphasize their sensitivity to their allies' misgivings. Upon announcing the terms of the nuclear deal, Secretary of State John F. Kerry went out of his way to stress that the accord did not necessarily augur a broader reconciliation.

"It is fair to say that Iran's choices have created a very significant barrier, and huge security concerns for our friends in the region, for Israel, for gulf states and others," Kerry told reporters in Geneva. "Obviously, one would hope that Iran will make choices ... to rejoin the community of nations in full. The first step is to resolve the nuclear issue."

U.S. officials have been careful in discussing wider regional implications. They've stressed that even while opening up this new diplomatic channel, they have kept the conversation focused narrowly on the nuclear issue — both in the public multinational negotiations and a series of secret bilateral talks between U.S. and Iranian diplomats. Other thorny issues such as Iran's support for Hezbollah were not discussed, according to a senior administration official who asked not to be identified when speaking about the negotiations.

Still, Kerry publicly shot down the idea still embraced in some circles — including among Obama administration critics in Congress — that piling on more economic sanctions will lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic.

"Some might say we should simply continue to increase pressure — just turn up the screws, continue to put sanctions on, and somehow that's going to push Iran toward capitulation or collapse," Kerry said, adding: "Not by any interpretation that we have from all the experts."

Though often described in the West as isolated, Iran has in fact cultivated a regional sphere of influence extending from Lebanon to Syria and Iraq. To the east, Iran has also sought to foster ties with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in contrast to its hostile relationship with the Taliban.

It is close to the Shiite-dominated government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki that emerged after the U.S.-led invasion ousted Saddam Hussein, long Tehran's nemesis. Despite criticism of what many see as Maliki's autocratic style of leadership, the Obama administration has signaled its intent to increase military aid to Baghdad to help Maliki counter Sunni militants.

The difficult case of Syria — where Iran and Saudi Arabia are major players in a proxy war — may give some indication of whether a broader reconciliation between the West and Iran is on the horizon.

Tehran has supplied large amounts of financial and military aid to help keep Syrian President Bashar Assad in power, drawing sharp criticism from Washington. Saudi Arabia and its allies, including the United States, have backed rebels fighting to oust Assad.

On Monday, United Nations officials said it was not yet clear whether Iran would be invited to U.N.-backed Syrian peace negotiations scheduled for Jan. 22. But a senior Obama administration official cast doubt on Iran's participation.

The parties at the table in the upcoming Syria talks must agree to support the transfer of power from Assad's government to a transitional executive authority, language the U.S. interprets as a call for Assad to step down. The U.S. is not expecting Iran to agree to those terms, the official said.

Iran seems unlikely to abandon Assad and let Syria slip from its orbit. But as Western goals shift to stabilizing Syria from a threat of Al Qaeda-linked Sunni militants, some observers say Tehran could help to shape a new transitional government.

"If the West can talk to Iran about such a hugely sensitive issue such as Iran's own nuclear program, then I'm sure they can talk about what a transition might look like in Syria," said Salem. "Whether the talks will work or not is another matter. But I can certainly see them talking."